The War on Drugs

[{CLR} Naillik]

Hey guys, quick hello!
I'm doing a research project for a school assignment, gotta choose a controversial issue and make an argument for one side. Seeing as how irresponsible drug use/unfair laws have affected me over the years (cocaine-addicted brother, friends arrested for simple marijuana possession), I decided to do it on The War on Drugs.

Now I'm looking for other peoples views on it, and seein as the Lair is usually pretty good with discussin things like this, I thought what better place.

Now I'm pro-legalization of "soft drugs", such as the psychedelics (marijuana, psilocybin, etc.) that have no harmful sideaffects and pro-legalization/regulation of "hard drugs" (various highly addictive stimulants/depressants) here are some points I thought about:

1. Regulation: If you control and regulate the use of drugs, then you can prevent addictions from spinning out of control. You can also provide a measurable recreational dosage so the user doesn't die from not knowing the potency/quantity of what they are using. Unknown dosages are the main cause for overdose in most drugs. If you have a carefully controlled, affordable way to buy clean recreational drugs, you could easily cut down on the number of deaths due to impurities and overdose, and addiction rates would drop a ton. Of course, there would be a limit to the number of purchases you could make on a specific drug, to catch addicts and give them help.

2. Cost: So far in 2009 alone, over $4 Billion has been spent on the War on Drugs. By the end of the year it will be over $40 Billion. Over 150,000 people have been arrested for drug law offences this year, with 75,000 of those for simple cannabis possession. By the end of the year it's predicted that there will be 2 million people charged and arrested. This is in the USA alone. Incarceration is also another issue. 13,000 people every year are imprisoned for drug law violations.

3. Freedom: If someone wants to do harm to themselves, it's their choice. The government has absolutely no right to prevent that. It is the users decision to use (ir)responsibly and no one elses.

4. Taxing: If drugs were regulated and controlled by the government, they could issue a tax on them like the ones on alcohol and tobacco... That's alot of money to be made, that could pay for things like health care and education.

5. Propaganda: Do you appreciate being lied to by the government? Appreciate them lying to the next generation? Or would you rather have an unbiased education about the positive and negative affects of all drugs and make your own choice from there?
According to the government, marijuana is the leading cause of murder, assault, theft, piracy, terrorism, suicide, volcanoes.... you get the picture. The actual recorded deaths from cannabis? ZERO.
Properly educate the youth, you end up with even less deaths and addictions due to irresponsible use. It's hard to be irresponsible when you know full well that just one try of something could destroy you.

Strongly recommend you guys watch The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (http://vodpod.com/watch/1139389-the-business-behind-getting-high). It's a pro-legalization argument for marijuana use and raises more points than I could ever type out.

These are just a few points I thought up. I'm not in any way advocating illegal drug use, just voicing my opinion on how it could help western society with it's current problems.

Your thoughts?

[linemanstud]

You make some great points there Naillik. I agree with the legalization of some of the more common and fairly harmless drugs such as marijuana but only due to the fact that the government can make a killing off of taxing it. By my estimates, about 65% of the kids that I went to high school with used pot. While i never agreed with their use of it, I did feel bad when they got in trouble for it. My theory is that most of the kids used it BECAUSE it was illegal. Alcohol is WAY easier for a high school student to get their hands on, yet it was not the number 1 most used drug at our school. If you legalize it, the number of users will spike and then probably go down. The great thing about being able to tax marijuana is that they could theoretically tax some of it twice. They tax the sales of it, and then tax whatever import of it there is. Bottom line, it would get us a lot of much needed cash.

[{CLR} Naillik]

You make some great points there Naillik. I agree with the legalization of some of the more common and fairly harmless drugs such as marijuana but only due to the fact that the government can make a killing off of taxing it. By my estimates, about 65% of the kids that I went to high school with used pot. While i never agreed with their use of it, I did feel bad when they got in trouble for it. My theory is that most of the kids used it BECAUSE it was illegal. Alcohol is WAY easier for a high school student to get their hands on, yet it was not the number 1 most used drug at our school. If you legalize it, the number of users will spike and then probably go down. The great thing about being able to tax marijuana is that they could theoretically tax some of it twice. They tax the sales of it, and then tax whatever import of it there is. Bottom line, it would get us a lot of much needed cash.

I agree with all that except the bold bit.
I'm not sure about your high school, but for alcohol you have to have a cool with it older sibling. Pot, just ask around any school in my city - you'll get some.
Other hand - alcohol is killer for younger people to get by themselves. They have to be ID'd, go into a store... A guy with some spare weed doesn't care... He wants some extra cash. That's not even touching the hard drug dealers.

[BenKenobi]

I consider myself conservative but I'm definitely for the legalization of drugs. It's not that I want to use them or ever plan to. This isn't a right wing vs. left wing issue: it's just common sense.

I go to a private school and pot as well as a plethora of other drugs are available to anyone if they ask around. It's actually a Catholic school - if its this available here, it must be around every corner in a Public school.

The mere fact that any high school student can get their hands on it is the evidence that the War on Drugs failed. Not only does it waste money for the government, having it illegal provides a reason for kids to do it. I have friends who do it just to be bad, because thats the 'cool' thing to do.

Government could also make a couple bil or so (pocket change anymore for them) by taxing it just like they do for cigs.

[linemanstud]

In the town that I grew up in, people tend to stick around after high school rather than going away to college. In high school all you had to do was make friends with the older kids and you would always have a connection for alcohol. Not only that, but there were a lot of parents that would buy for their kids to have parties as long as they made sure no one drove.

[warlock2411]

I say bust the damn hippies. Dont legalize one bit of it. I dont think bad about someone who uses drugs.. but if you can bust em, do so. The legalization of Drugs would only make this Left winged nation 10 times stupider than it already is.. which would put us down there with Haiti.

[Reconsnipe1]

I had 3 or 4 kids at my school that got busted for possesion of drugs, not sure what. I personally agree with Nail who i am glad that he is back on the lair.:D If someone chooses to use drugs that is there choice and the government should have no say in it.

[{CLR} Naillik]

I say bust the damn hippies. Dont legalize one bit of it. I dont think bad about someone who uses drugs.. but if you can bust em, do so. The legalization of Drugs would only make this Left winged nation 10 times stupider than it already is.. which would put us down there with Haiti.

But the thing is - The Drug War affects more than just the US.
Hell, the DEA comes to Canada to arrest people and imprison them across the border.

[RyeWhiskey]

So you want to legalize your 'fun' drugs of choice but not the harder drugs that aren't as 'fun'. That's basically what I'm gathering from your 'pro-drug' speech advocating for the legalization of illegal substances.

Just having the right to do what you want doesn't make it a right. The right to do drugs, which does affect others, is not a right. Contrary to what pro-drug users might want you to think, drugs use even with 'fun drugs' does affect others, not just the user.

[{CLR} Naillik]

So you want to legalize your 'fun' drugs of choice but not the harder drugs that aren't as 'fun'. That's basically what I'm gathering from your 'pro-drug' speech advocating for the legalization of illegal substances.

Just having the right to do what you want doesn't make it a right. The right to do drugs, which does affect others, is not a right. Contrary to what pro-drug users might want you to think, drugs use even with 'fun drugs' does affect others, not just the user.



Um. no. I'm saying they should all be legalized and regulated. I'm not saying there are "fun" drugs and unfun drugs. Hell from what I've seen, they're all fun for a while. The only way any drug use affects others is in the case of addiction. Sure, it will probably change an individuals view on the person who chooses to use, but that would happen if they ate 2 cheeseburgers instead of 1.

Also, care to explain the italics part? I'm not seeing how.

btw, the bold part makes no sense at all :lol:

[Skud]

But the thing is - The Drug War affects more than just the US.
Hell, the DEA comes to Canada to arrest people and imprison them across the border.

And the millions/billions of dollars that the US is sending in aid to Columbia, Mexico, Afghanistan, etc (not for condoms :D). Also we'd save tens of billions a year by not having these guys in jail (of course they might end up in jail for other things)....Of course, if the government can tell us that we have to wear a seatbelt when driving...

I really don't see the difference between someone smoking weed and someone doing shots of Jack Daniels...except one's damaging their lungs and mind, and one's damaging their liver and mind.

Anyway, here's an article on the matter with some decent points, followed by an article full of stats to peruse at one's leisure.

http://culture11.com/article/36438

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/38

[JohnyRico]

3. Freedom: If someone wants to do harm to themselves, it's their choice. The government has absolutely no right to prevent that. It is the users decision to use (ir)responsibly and no one elses.


First, you need to separate rights from privileges. The government actually does have quite a prescedent (-1 for spelling) on regulating your privileges in the ineterst of public safety. That's why your car has seat belts that you legally have to wear. Rights are set forth and recreational drug use is not one of them.

You might also address that many people believe that legalization of pot would increase the chances of it becoming a "gateway drug". I'm not saying that it would or that there would even be the increased risk of people saying that that one is kind of fun and so maybe I should try meth just to see. Give and inch, take a mile.

[{CLR} Naillik]

First, you need to separate rights from privileges. The government actually does have quite a prescedent (-1 for spelling) on regulating your privileges in the ineterst of public safety. That's why your car has seat belts that you legally have to wear. Rights are set forth and recreational drug use is not one of them.

You might also address that many people believe that legalization of pot would increase the chances of it becoming a "gateway drug".
I'm not saying that it would or that there would even be the increased risk of people saying that that one is kind of fun and so maybe I should try meth just to see. Give and inch, take a mile.

People are allowed to slash their wrists, pay people to strangle them, skydive, etc. with no reprecussions. Don't see how it's different with substance use.

Organized crime would plummet - it just wouldn't be profitable anymore, the main source of income would be eliminated almost entirely. No more million dollar drug lords, no more shooting someone over a drug - you can get it at a store, not worth killing someone over.
There wouldn't be hundreds of millions flowing into drug lords pockets
It'd either be going to a CEO or the government. Neither are that great but it's a hell of alot better than in the hands of a drug lord.


Legalization of pot would probably bring the overall use down - it did in Holland. Even hard drug use dropped by a good 6% when they legalized pot.

[MR_MADHATTER]

Legalization is a slippery slope. If you legalize one vice, why not legalize all of them. Drug use dosn't just hurt the user. Drunk people on the road are bad enough. What about someone who is using a halcinogenic behind the wheel. Where do you draw the line? How will this effect medical insurance? Is pot a harmless drug?

[Dead...Again]

Legalization is a slippery slope. If you legalize one vice, why not legalize all of them. Drug use dosn't just hurt the user. Drunk people on the road are bad enough. What about someone who is using a halcinogenic behind the wheel. Where do you draw the line? How will this effect medical insurance? Is pot a harmless drug?
By that logic, alcohol should be illegal as well. Any drug can be abused, and people under the influence of any drugs (including alcohol) should not be driving. There are already laws that handle this situation, and they apply to both alcohol and other drugs. Why should the "illegal" drugs be treated any differently than alcohol?

The government should not be able to tell us what we can or cannot imbibe. We are already on a slippery slope. It started with drugs, now they are trying to ban cigarettes, transfat, salt, etc.

As to the argument that drugs affect people other than the user, is there any affect that is not also caused by alcohol abuse? I don't think so.

If drugs were legalized and regulated:
a. the government would save a lot of money currently wasted in the ridiculous war on drugs.
b. the government would make money from taxing these drugs.
c. it would be safer for people to obtain the drugs if they want to use them. Also, the drugs would be known to be safe; people would not have to worry about "hot shots".
d. the violence associated with the war on drugs, both by the police and the drug dealers, would be virtually eliminated.
e. a portion of the money currently wasted can be spent on social programs to aid addicts in kicking the habit
f. we won't be incarcerating people for non-violent drug crimes.
g. it would be harder for kids to get drugs. It is currently easier for teens to get marijuana and hard drugs than it is to get alcohol.

BTW, did anyone see the news of the Michael Phelps bong picture? He has been forced to "apologize" for smoking weed... Ridiculous. I saw one quote I thought was funny: "I wonder how many gold medals he would have won if he didn't smoke pot."

Oh, I thought this was worth reading:
Why is Marijuana illegal? (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html?%3F)

[Dead...Again]

Oh yeah, another thing I forgot to mention.

Another big casualty in the so called War on Drugs in hemp. Hemp has a lot of uses, like making clothing, rope, and paper. Because hemp so closely resembles marijuana (the two are basically two strains of the same plant), it can't be grown either.

[linemanstud]

Why should the "illegal" drugs be treated any differently than alcohol?

The government should not be able to tell us what we can or cannot imbibe. We are already on a slippery slope. It started with drugs, now they are trying to ban cigarettes, transfat, salt, etc.

As to the argument that drugs affect people other than the user, is there any affect that is not also caused by alcohol abuse? I don't think so.


I agree with all of this. In reality, many drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol is. I especially like what you put at the end of the second paragraph here. The government is trying to get rid of anything that might be harmful to our health. I say that people should be allowed to treat their body how they want, and then suffer the consequences for their actions. If they are too dumb to listen to the warnings then hey, its darwinism at work. That is something that needs to make a comeback...darwinism. Rather than letting the stupid people hurt themselves and possibly learn from their stupidity, we tell them that they can't do things that might hurt them. This then allows them to reproduce and raise children who are as good at thinking critically about their actions as they were. It is a vicious cycle.

[Hammy]

Now I'm looking for other peoples views on it, and seein as the Lair is usually pretty good with discussin things like this, I thought what better place.

Now I'm pro-legalization of "soft drugs", such as the psychedelics (marijuana, psilocybin, etc.) that have no harmful sideaffects and pro-legalization/regulation of "hard drugs" (various highly addictive stimulants/depressants) here are some points I thought about:

Uh- failure. All drugs have side effects, it's actually a question of time and the cascade of your own physiology that will determine when that will be. Serious brain development issues, health of your nervous system, and the overall impact it has on aortic (heart) tissue are three relevant examples found as recently as last year by scientists across the Globe. The last one I read was out of the UK and it studied the psychological impact of cannibas. No hints here, go read that one- it is pretty good.

1. Regulation: If you control and regulate the use of drugs, then you can prevent addictions from spinning out of control.

The tobacco industry is a great example of why that is wrong. They improved the content of the tobacco plan to include more than 300% more nicotine than it did prior to their engineering.


You can also provide a measurable recreational dosage so the user doesn't die from not knowing the potency/quantity of what they are using. Unknown dosages are the main cause for overdose in most drugs.

If you ignore the fact that genetics and chemistry are the major factors in drug use, and that there is no "height, weight, metabolic" measurement for prescription - then yes, it could be right. But drug overdoses occur for a variety of reasons such as blood sugar levels, heart problems, and allergic reactions that occur when two or more agents are inadvertantly combined. Alcohol + Drug is a popular example.



If you have a carefully controlled, affordable way to buy clean recreational drugs, you could easily cut down on the number of deaths due to impurities and overdose, and addiction rates would drop a ton. Of course, there would be a limit to the number of purchases you could make on a specific drug, to catch addicts and give them help. Provide a limit in freedom and you create a market for criminals.

2. Cost: So far in 2009 alone, over $4 Billion has been spent on the War on Drugs. By the end of the year it will be over $40 Billion. Over 150,000 people have been arrested for drug law offences this year, with 75,000 of those for simple cannabis possession. By the end of the year it's predicted that there will be 2 million people charged and arrested. This is in the USA alone. Incarceration is also another issue. 13,000 people every year are imprisoned for drug law violations. That sounds like a local number. There were at least 100,000 cites, arrests, and seizures in California alone.


3. Freedom: If someone wants to do harm to themselves, it's their choice. The government has absolutely no right to prevent that. It is the users decision to use (ir)responsibly and no one elses.
I agree with you, but that means that things such as emminent domain laws that allow the liberals to consume land and repurpose it for low income housing, and etc, becomes jeapordized. This is a conservative point of view that is unpopular with social liberals because it's existence would limit their voice on personal freedoms (gun control, land ownership, income distribution, and etc.)


4. Taxing: If drugs were regulated and controlled by the government, they could issue a tax on them like the ones on alcohol and tobacco... That's alot of money to be made, that could pay for things like health care and education.
True. But what percent would be re-spent on drug rehab and treatment? So take the number funded last year by the state from the supposed, multiply that by 1.5, and then subtract it from that Tax benefit for a supposed number. It's not very positive.


5. Propaganda: Do you appreciate being lied to by the government? Appreciate them lying to the next generation? Or would you rather have an unbiased education about the positive and negative affects of all drugs and make your own choice from there?
According to the government, marijuana is the leading cause of murder, assault, theft, piracy, terrorism, suicide, volcanoes.... you get the picture. The actual recorded deaths from cannabis? ZERO.
Properly educate the youth, you end up with even less deaths and addictions due to irresponsible use. It's hard to be irresponsible when you know full well that just one try of something could destroy you.
This is an opinion delivered via question, aka bias. I cant really answer it, and I didnt even read the content seriously. Not being insulting, but this is not really a question but a statement of belief delivered rhetorically.


Strongly recommend you guys watch The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (http://vodpod.com/watch/1139389-the-business-behind-getting-high). It's a pro-legalization argument for marijuana use and raises more points than I could ever type out.
There could be many conversations around legalization that I would like to have, but there is really only one kind of legalization that people in this discussion would want, and that is unprescribed. My opinion is that it should be a prescription based availability. Legitimate people get legitimate medicinal treatment from a doctor- the criminals go under the fence or around it. If it were no differently prescribed than Birth Control pills, then everyone could have it, and no one could argue- right?

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to provide feedback. Question: If Phelps is no different than societies completely accepting point of view of Cannibas, then why would it be a leading story, why would the US Olympic Committee issue an apology, and why would he issue an apology? Seems like an awful lot of work for an issue that supposedly everyone agrees on- if I am following the assertion that the entire world already agrees that Cannibas should be legal, but there is a minority that is stopping it from happening. That seems like flawed logic to me, because the majority has not voted in favor or demanded favor in the regards of Cannibas.

~Hammy

[Dead...Again]

Question: If Phelps is no different than societies completely accepting point of view of Cannibas, then why would it be a leading story, why would the US Olympic Committee issue an apology, and why would he issue an apology? Seems like an awful lot of work for an issue that supposedly everyone agrees on- if I am following the assertion that the entire world already agrees that Cannibas should be legal, but there is a minority that is stopping it from happening. That seems like flawed logic to me, because the majority has not voted in favor or demanded favor in the regards of Cannibas.

I never said that the majority of people in the world think it should be legalized, although I think the percentage in the US is approaching that.

The main reason Phelps had to apologize is that he risks losing his endorsements. The brands he endorses probably do not want to get involved in the marijuana discussion. I'll quote a blog I read:
Phelps is enjoying his paydays now through endorsement contracts with a host of companies that are potentially skittish about being associated with marijuana in even the most minor way. For Phelps to take on a controversial cause now would be to trade away his earnings.

Of course, I would really have loved to see his response be something like this:
A Letter I?d Like To See (But Won?t) (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/01/a-letter-id-like-to-see-but-wont/)

[Hammy]

I never said that the majority of people in the world think it should be legalized, although I think the percentage in the US is approaching that.



Well that is good, because I wasnt referring to you when I said anything in that thread. Just one man's point as it pertains to Nailiks' project.:D

[{CLR} Naillik]

Danke for the opinions! :D

Keep em comin, lovin this :) :2thumbs:

[MR_MADHATTER]

You have only convinced me that alcohol should be illeagal too.

[Dead...Again]

Well that is good, because I wasnt referring to you when I said anything in that thread. Just one man's point as it pertains to Nailiks' project.:D
Glad we cleared that up. :D

[Skud]

You have only convinced me that alcohol should be illeagal too.

Here you go!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhwYbVEWlc4

sorry, this one's not quite as good as my first mistake post...but the other had cussing and I know that's not cool... :(

[Hammy]

Glad we cleared that up. :D
:group: Group Hug!



In Regards to this:
You have only convinced me that alcohol should be illeagal too.

:slap:

[Dead...Again]

:lol2::10:

[Skud]

:lol2::10:

I pasted the wrong one...this one's got profanity in it, sorry all!

[MR_MADHATTER]

I'm just saying....Alcohol is bad, drugs are bad, mmmmmkay!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnU2f-rrvcg

[Skud]

I'm just saying....Alcohol is bad, drugs are bad, mmmmmkay!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnU2f-rrvcg

I know what you're saying. :D

[Pumpkin_Jack]

You have only convinced me that alcohol should be illeagal too.
Alchohol technicaly isnt like the other drugs, alchohol is actualy good for your body in small amounts. Also I think that you shouldnt be allowed to make a certain proof of alchohol, beer is week not very strong, takes 4+ to get legaly drunk(on average).

So you want to legalize your 'fun' drugs of choice but not the harder drugs that aren't as 'fun'.
Just having the right to do what you want doesn't make it a right. The right to do drugs, which does affect others, is not a right. Contrary to what pro-drug users might want you to think, drugs use even with 'fun drugs' does affect others, not just the user.
Very true rye very true... i totaly agree with this comment, just because you can use drugs, doesnt mean u should. I dont know how many of you have ever heard of a robo trip, but that is when u OD on over the counter drugs(usualy liquids and asprin), and you can do that all you want it isnt illegal but you know how many people do it, very few, this is because it can make people around you not like you while ur on the trip and because it is bad for you just like marijuana is.

But the thing is - The Drug War affects more than just the US.
Hell, the DEA comes to Canada to arrest people and imprison them across the border.
In canada pot is already legal for medical use as it is for special cases in the US... but the fact of the matter is... pot kills brain cells, can cause cancer, the tiny particcals of pot line ur trachea and bronchioles and can cause clots and other problems, this i know to be a fact because a kid in my school died of this at the age of 17.

I had 3 or 4 kids at my school that got busted for possesion of drugs, not sure what. I personally agree with Nail who i am glad that he is back on the lair.:D If someone chooses to use drugs that is there choice and the government should have no say in it.
Recon im interested to hear ur opinion on suicides, if a person wants to die, and that is their choice the government should have no say in it!? you see where im going with this... drugs even soft core ones like pot and hemp, cause long term effects that can kill you, the healthyest(sry for spelling) way to intake pot is to make a tea outta it that was you dont damage your lungs, but how many people have u heard of making pot tea? people try to hurt themselves until they are like 25, just go on youtube and type in anything like 'idiot jumps off roof' and you'll see my point. People do drugs to get the high and then do more to prevent the crash, people start drugs to be cool or avoid their problems, this is why drugs shouldn't be legalized.

I say bust the damn hippies. Dont legalize one bit of it. I dont think bad about someone who uses drugs.. but if you can bust em, do so. The legalization of Drugs would only make this Left winged nation 10 times stupider than it already is.. which would put us down there with Haiti.
maybe not haiti but we would see a very bad drop in american education and standards. more like puerto rico
In the town that I grew up in, people tend to stick around after high school rather than going away to college. In high school all you had to do was make friends with the older kids and you would always have a connection for alcohol. Not only that, but there were a lot of parents that would buy for their kids to have parties as long as they made sure no one drove.
Same here people who were druggies stayed here because they got nowhere to go cant afford or get into college, and then little kids are looking up to these pot heads as role models, and the cycle repeats. this cycle stinks.
The mere fact that any high school student can get their hands on it is the evidence that the War on Drugs failed. Not only does it waste money for the government, having it illegal provides a reason for kids to do it. I have friends who do it just to be bad, because thats the 'cool' thing to do.
the war on drugs hasnt failed its only workign slowly, you dont see kids using lsd and crack as much anymore and they will slowly beat weed to, it will just take longer.



Origonal thoughts: Drugs are bad. Marijuana shouldnt be legalized because then you will have poeple lacing it with the non legal drugs, plus we have already seen the effects of marijuana on people go around the streets of a city pick a bar and sit there for a hour or 2 see how many bums walk in emptying their pockets on beer. I would like to see beer and cigarettes and cigars made illegal but that isnt going to happen to much money is made there. Marijuana will not be made legal and the drugs that are legal wont change. Thus is life.

[mapes]

Alchohol technicaly isnt like the other drugs, alchohol is actualy good for your body in small amounts. Also I think that you shouldnt be allowed to make a certain proof of alchohol, beer is week not very strong, takes 4+ to get legaly drunk(on average).

Agreed some alcohol is beneficial in limited dosages (mostly red wine not beer) . However there are ways to smoke anything that do not contribute to lung disease. Go and look up what a vaporizer is. I don't smoke but, My hippy brother does. He also runs a million dollar company that employs 15 workers with vaca pay and medical benefits




Very true rye very true... i totaly agree with this comment, just because you can use drugs, doesnt mean u should. I dont know how many of you have ever heard of a robo trip, but that is when u OD on over the counter drugs(usualy liquids and asprin), and you can do that all you want it isnt illegal but you know how many people do it, very few, this is because it can make people around you not like you while ur on the trip and because it is bad for you just like marijuana is.

People not liking junkies is something completely different. I do have many many friends who smoke and are arguably productive tax paying members of society and are quite likable


In canada pot is already legal for medical use as it is for special cases in the US... but the fact of the matter is... pot kills brain cells, can cause cancer, the tiny particcals of pot line ur trachea and bronchioles and can cause clots and other problems, this i know to be a fact because a kid in my school died of this at the age of 17.

Look at a vaporizer....it solves the lung and trachea problems. Alcohol also kills brain cells. So I don't see what the diff is. Alcohol can be just as damaging when taken to excess hence why AA exsists


Recon im interested to hear ur opinion on suicides, if a person wants to die, and that is their choice the government should have no say in it!? you see where im going with this... drugs even soft core ones like pot and hemp, cause long term effects that can kill you, the healthyest(sry for spelling) way to intake pot is to make a tea outta it that was you dont damage your lungs, but how many people have u heard of making pot tea? people try to hurt themselves until they are like 25, just go on youtube and type in anything like 'idiot jumps off roof' and you'll see my point. People do drugs to get the high and then do more to prevent the crash, people start drugs to be cool or avoid their problems, this is why drugs shouldn't be legalized.


I have no problems with folks that are terminally ill or in great pain wishing to end their suffering. Alcohol can even be worse in the long run than pot on the body. As for people hurting themselves....they are adults....part of being an adult is taking responibility for your actions. Or look at it this way...you can not legislate away stupidity or an even better quote...Theres no protecting people from they're selves...



maybe not haiti but we would see a very bad drop in american education and standards. more like puerto rico

Currently this is unfounded. The law forbids minors from consuming achohol and any legalization of pot should do the same. This is an enforcement issue of teens not an issue of pot legalization

Same here people who were druggies stayed here because they got nowhere to go cant afford or get into college, and then little kids are looking up to these pot heads as role models, and the cycle repeats. this cycle stinks.

Don't you understand....There will always be those people. A law won't change people into worthwhile individuals....

the war on drugs hasnt failed its only workign slowly, you dont see kids using lsd and crack as much anymore and they will slowly beat weed to, it will just take longer.

BS....The lastest turf war near Laredo TX is proof of the war on drugs not working. The murders and deaths halted because one drug cartel won the turf battle.



Origonal thoughts: Drugs are bad. Marijuana shouldnt be legalized because then you will have poeple lacing it with the non legal drugs,

Not if it's sold in the corner store and regulated and taxed by the government. Actually by forcing under ground you have a higher chance of that happening now.


plus we have already seen the effects of marijuana on people go around the streets of a city pick a bar and sit there for a hour or 2 see how many bums walk in emptying their pockets on beer.

Those aren't pot heads those are

A. Bums...remember ...those people who won't go anywhere in life....get used to it we will allways have em around no matter whats legal.

B. Alcoholics... Some people no matter you do have addictive natures. No law passed will keep these people safe from themselves

I would like to see beer and cigarettes and cigars made illegal but that isnt going to happen to much money is made there. Marijuana will not be made legal and the drugs that are legal wont change. Thus is life.

I say a hearty ....well you may guess what I'd say. Thank you no nanny state for me. I'm an adult...I make my own decisions and accept the risks with those decisions

You would have us all living like Mormons which to me is a fate worse than death. What next....your going to outlaw Caffeine? What about fast food/junk food? Obesity is a horrible problem here. Heart disease is the number one killer of women here in the US lets outlaw chocolate.

I don't want you to protect me from me... Thats stupid

[Dead...Again]

I say a hearty ....well you may guess what I'd say. Thank you no nanny state for me. I'm an adult...I make my own decisions and accept the risks with those decisions

You would have us all living like Mormons which to me is a fate worse than death. What next....your going to outlaw Caffeine? What about fast food/junk food? Obesity is a horrible problem here. Heart disease is the number one killer of women here in the US lets outlaw chocolate.

I don't want you to protect me from me... Thats stupid
+1 I agree wholeheartedly. As an adult, I should be able to do with my body as I wish.

[Hammy]

+1 I agree wholeheartedly. As an adult, I should be able to do with my body as I wish.

But then again, as an adult you should know better, which is an entirely different issue that these protectionist like to combine with this kind of situation.

The "protection" and the "education to protect" are seperate and dont work well togeather.

If you dont know better, too bad. We should just suspend healthcare for drug abusers then so that I dont have to pay into the tax pool that they pull from. Because you should be able to do what you want with your body, as you are an adult and you should know what is best for you. Even if that means you reduce your IQ down to 95 (reference to Jay of the Jay and Silent Bob fame)

[mapes]

But then again, as an adult you should know better, which is an entirely different issue that these protectionist like to combine with this kind of situation.

We all play the risk game. We try to mitigate risk in everything we do. Nothing in excess is the key here. I see no problem going to a bi monthly game of mine and getting a buzz on. As long as I don't drive afterward. Once or twice a month getting a buzz is hardly a health hazard.


The "protection" and the "education to protect" are seperate and dont work well togeather.

I agree

If you dont know better, too bad. We should just suspend healthcare for drug abusers then so that I dont have to pay into the tax pool that they pull from. Because you should be able to do what you want with your body, as you are an adult and you should know what is best for you. Even if that means you reduce your IQ down to 95 (reference to Jay of the Jay and Silent Bob fame)

Your kidding right.... these people are raping medicaid....give me a break. Have you ever tried to use Medicaid?

[MR_MADHATTER]

[quote=Pumpkin_Jack;113425]Alchohol technicaly isnt like the other drugs, alchohol is actualy good for your body in small amounts. Also I think that you shouldnt be allowed to make a certain proof of alchohol, beer is week not very strong, takes 4+ to get legaly drunk(on average).


Not true. It's the enzymes in wine that aid digestion that are good for you, not the alcohol. If you got rid of the alcohol, wine would be better for you. Alcohol, strictly speaking is a toxin any way you slice it.

http://www.drdaveanddee.com/wine1.html

[Pumpkin_Jack]

America is in a hole all actions have concequences, and there realy aint a solution to the Drug problem in the US, its there and we have to deal, btw i aint saying that i dont like to drink, im just saying it aint good for you.

[mapes]

America is in a hole all actions have concequences, and there realy aint a solution to the Drug problem in the US, its there and we have to deal, btw i aint saying that i dont like to drink, im just saying it aint good for you.

But you just said it was good for you??? jk

There is sometype of problem thats for sure. Generally I am for legalization of some softer drugs. It's a hard call though. Some countries have had success doing this. Some have had utter disasters so there's no clear case study really.

[Gimmie2]

Generally I am for legalization of some softer drugs. It's a hard call though.

Totally agree with you mapes, ive known too many people who have had their lives ruined by pot to think that it is a totally harmless drug, but look at tobacco, and then look at distilled alcohol, and if the government would take its head out of the sand and realize that what is already legal is much worse than a bunch of kids smoking pot at a party.

[RyeWhiskey]

Ahh, here's thought. Are the worst ones in your mind, say Alcohol and tobacco worse because they are legal? See here's the thing, humans are pretty much self-defeating so that is why there are a few legal ones. See we need our vices.

So, on that thought I might ponder how the other drugs would actually become 'worse' in some of your minds if they were legal. This meaning if they became legal we would see a rise in use and more pronounced problems on a larger scale than the common legal drugs.

[Gimmie2]

rye im not saying to legalize everything, just some of the less harmful drugs, nothing like LSD, heroin, or speed. IMO we should crack down harder on the sale of hard drugs, but we could legalize pot on a temporary or trial basis and then have the govt tax it just like they already do with tobacco and alcohol.

[Hammy]

Your kidding right.... these people are raping medicaid....give me a break. Have you ever tried to use Medicaid?

Clarifying: All I am saying is that the "price" for doing whatever you want, because we are a capitalist society, is that you get no additional benefits if you want to be a junky- willing usage of drugs.

I dont want medicare or whatever even touching these people. You opt out the moment you "legally" start playing Amsterdam on US soil is my POV.

[Dead...Again]

Clarifying: All I am saying is that the "price" for doing whatever you want, because we are a capitalist society, is that you get no additional benefits if you want to be a junky- willing usage of drugs.

I dont want medicare or whatever even touching these people. You opt out the moment you "legally" start playing Amsterdam on US soil is my POV.
How would this be any different than people who abuse alcohol and kill their livers or eat too much and become extremely obese? Because it is currently illegal? Anything can be detrimental to your body if abused/overused/eaten, whether it be alcohol, tobacco, heroin, or red meat.

[RyeWhiskey]

So basically the point you 'pro-druggies' are saying is like I pointed out earlier. You want to legalize your so-called 'fun drugs' but not the ones that in your mind you say are the 'harder' drugs.?? Where the .... is the logic behind that reasoning? I bet the guy on say Heroin would say, heck let's just legalize this one as well. The idea behind that train of thought is odd.

What I'm saying is that in the 'pro-druggies' world when their drug of choice is legalized, you would see the effects more widely than you do now. That would be because the drugs would be 'legal'. There would be nothing stopping people from doing how much and how often they want of said drug.

Like I mentioned in the earlier response, you would see alcohol and tobacco being the 'worst' drugs go away. The reason they are the focal points now is because they ARE legal. Legalize the others and see what happens.

To say one illegal drug should be legalized and not another illegal drug legalized is like the pot calling the kettle black. It's all the point-of-view of the druggie which drug is good.

Wouldn't it be neat if more people were tripping on Acid, smoking pot out in public! I sure would like to walk into a restroom and see people shooting up in the mall, ALL the time. It would be nice world. Fortunately the majority of people have sense and aren't apt to legalize illegal drugs.

[Hammy]

So basically the point you 'pro-druggies' are saying is like I pointed out earlier. You want to legalize your so-called 'fun drugs' but not the ones that in your mind you say are the 'harder' drugs.?? Where the .... is the logic behind that reasoning? I bet the guy on say Heroin would say, heck let's just legalize this one as well. The idea behind that train of thought is odd.

What I'm saying is that in the 'pro-druggies' world when their drug of choice is legalized, you would see the effects more widely than you do now. That would be because the drugs would be 'legal'. There would be nothing stopping people from doing how much and how often they want of said drug.

Like I mentioned in the earlier response, you would see alcohol and tobacco being the 'worst' drugs go away. The reason they are the focal points now is because they ARE legal. Legalize the others and see what happens.

To say one illegal drug should be legalized and not another illegal drug legalized is like the pot calling the kettle black. It's all the point-of-view of the druggie which drug is good.

Wouldn't it be neat if more people were tripping on Acid, smoking pot out in public! I sure would like to walk into a restroom and see people shooting up in the mall, ALL the time. It would be nice world. Fortunately the majority of people have sense and aren't apt to legalize illegal drugs.

and imagine the fun that would create for the poor children who were lucky enough to be born into that environment! Child abuse and child abandonment rates with all drugs beyond pot and alcohol are drastically high.

That is one ugly truth you all dont realize. I cant tell you how many pedophiles we have captured who carry the domestic violence and pedophile tag along with meth/heroine etc.

[mapes]

There would be nothing stopping people from doing how much and how often they want of said drug.

I see no problem with pot but, just cause something is legal doesn't mean you can flaunt all of the laws.

Driving under the influence would still be illegal
Drunk in public laws would apply to pot smokers as well
Minors are prohibited

these things do not change...

[mapes]

That is one ugly truth you all dont realize. I cant tell you how many pedophiles we have captured who carry the domestic violence and pedophile tag along with meth/heroine etc.


I agree with you Hammy those drugs seem to make society bear alot of ills. But, pot is not such a drug.

[Hammy]

I agree with you Hammy those drugs seem to make society bear alot of ills. But, pot is not such a drug.

Read my first paragraph. "beyond pot and alcohol"

[Duke{CLR}]

Here is a question. What if I was on a layover and I had smoked pop would there be a way to tell how long ago I had smoked it or the amount I had smoked like they do with the BAC tests they can give us?

[Hammy]

Here is a question. What if I was on a layover and I had smoked pop would there be a way to tell how long ago I had smoked it or the amount I had smoked like they do with the BAC tests they can give us?

No.
The only thing they can do is pull blood and figure out the amount of THC in your bloodstream.

The other test involves a hair folicle test that will determine duration within 7 days, but when determined, is cast for accuracy at last 30 net.

[Duke{CLR}]

No.
The only thing they can do is pull blood and figure out the amount of THC in your bloodstream.

The other test involves a hair folicle test that will determine duration within 7 days, but when determined, is cast for accuracy at last 30 net.

Well maybe that's not so bad. I may not be able to drink within 12 hours of taking off but I could do a few bong hits. :2thumbs:

[mapes]

Read my first paragraph. "beyond pot and alcohol"


Erm I meant to reiterate what you said.....I mistyped forgive me.. So yes I still agree with you.

[Dead...Again]

No.
The only thing they can do is pull blood and figure out the amount of THC in your bloodstream.

The other test involves a hair folicle test that will determine duration within 7 days, but when determined, is cast for accuracy at last 30 net.
Right now there is no incentive to create one, but if marijuana was legalized I bet a more accurate test would come out in a hurry. Right now, you are screwed if you smoked up to 2-3 weeks before the test.

[Dead...Again]

So basically the point you 'pro-druggies' are saying is like I pointed out earlier. You want to legalize your so-called 'fun drugs' but not the ones that in your mind you say are the 'harder' drugs.?? Where the .... is the logic behind that reasoning? I bet the guy on say Heroin would say, heck let's just legalize this one as well. The idea behind that train of thought is odd.

What I'm saying is that in the 'pro-druggies' world when their drug of choice is legalized, you would see the effects more widely than you do now. That would be because the drugs would be 'legal'. There would be nothing stopping people from doing how much and how often they want of said drug.

Like I mentioned in the earlier response, you would see alcohol and tobacco being the 'worst' drugs go away. The reason they are the focal points now is because they ARE legal. Legalize the others and see what happens.

To say one illegal drug should be legalized and not another illegal drug legalized is like the pot calling the kettle black. It's all the point-of-view of the druggie which drug is good.

Wouldn't it be neat if more people were tripping on Acid, smoking pot out in public! I sure would like to walk into a restroom and see people shooting up in the mall, ALL the time. It would be nice world. Fortunately the majority of people have sense and aren't apt to legalize illegal drugs.
I think you are wrong here. Most studies have shown that when drugs are decriminalized or legalized that the usage doesn't really increase. In fact, a lot of countries have decriminalized marijuana possession, and I have yet to see a single study that showed use skyrocket, as you seem to suggest. I believe in Holland use actually went down.

You seem to think it will suddenly be the wild west if drugs were legalized. Can you just drink and smoke anywhere you want to? No. You can't smoke hardly anywhere anymore, and you can't just walk down the street with an open beer in most places. Why do you think there would be less restrictions on the currently illegal drugs than there are on the currently legal ones. If anything, I would expect a lot of restrictions at first...

[Dead...Again]

I thought this was pretty interesting:
Marking 100 Years of Failed Drug Prohibition
The Opium Exclusion Act of 1909 (http://counterpunch.org/gieringer02062009.html)

[Hammy]

I think you are wrong here. Most studies have shown that when drugs are decriminalized or legalized that the usage doesn't really increase. In fact, a lot of countries have decriminalized marijuana possession, and I have yet to see a single study that showed use skyrocket, as you seem to suggest. I believe in Holland use actually went down.

You seem to think it will suddenly be the wild west if drugs were legalized. Can you just drink and smoke anywhere you want to? No. You can't smoke hardly anywhere anymore, and you can't just walk down the street with an open beer in most places. Why do you think there would be less restrictions on the currently illegal drugs than there are on the currently legal ones. If anything, I would expect a lot of restrictions at first...

I'm not going to be able to agree with you. The Netherlands are a Constitutional Monarchy, and their economic and sociopolitical environments are completely different than ours.

The problem with most studies show is not that they arent true, but sociological studies cannot be conducted in a lab, and therefore cannot accumulate enough variables to create an accuracty. The best they can do is deliver an educated guess with a best case zero positive, a best case zero negative and the extreme case positives and negatives.

What that scientific BS means is the mean above zero for positives and negatives, and the extreme consequences on the scale for both positive and negative results.

Everything in between will not be discovered until it becomes part of the sociological ecosystem. Therefore, without lack of control, once it is out of the box- it stays out of the box. Meaning- we will not be able to roll it back if the consequences are mortal to our way of life once we legalize it. In that situation, I would rather not take chances with what is left of my view of the United States way of life.

Hammy

[RyeWhiskey]

Fortunately I think you are wrong Again. Like I stated, you might think that alcohol and tobacoo are worse than your pot lsd, crack cocaine and heroin, but then again pot isn't legal or other illegal drugs. Make them legal, and alcohol and tobacco would be lower on the totem pole of problems with our society. So how many 'legal' drugs is a good number? Which one's would you propose using this odd logic. Laughable Ideology, to make more drugs legal.

[Dead...Again]

I don't think alcohol and tobacco are worse than all illegal drugs. I do think they are worse than marijuana. However, how bad these substances are for your body/mental health/etc. are irrelevant in my mind. Alcohol and tobacco have both been proven to be bad for you if abused.

I look at this from a libertarian standpoint: I don't think the government should have the right telling me or any other adult what they can or cannot do as long as we are not harming anyone else. I personally have no desire to do cocaine or heroin, but to each his own. If what I do affects other people (i.e. driving under the influence), then the government has the right to step in.

In addition to this, it has become obvious to me that the war on drugs is not only failing, it is making matters worse. A lot of law enforcement and former law enforcement officers are seeing the same thing. Check out this site if you get a chance: LEAP (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)

[Dead...Again]

I saw this today on a blog I read occasionally and thought it relevent:
Marijuana legalization suffers from “bad facts.” That is, it’s not popular and aside from the medical benefits for cancer patients and AIDS patients — I agree it’s not beneficial. It doesn’t lend itself to higher arguments about liberty. No one can take arguments from patchouli-smelling hippies seriously.

But take the actual substance out of the argument. It’s about three of our most cherished rights handed down by either God or our nature as free individuals — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Second-hand smoking can arguably be said to intrude on the rights of others, and proper eminent domain — though in my mind questionable — is certainly Constitutional. Further, the alcohol prohibitionists at least had enough respect for the Constitution to properly pass an amendment against alcohol. Drug prohibitionists show no such respect.

But like smoking in private or drinking responsibly, it only affects the body of the person doing it. If a person doesn’t have a right to control his body, he can’t be said to have to have a proper right to his own life. Likewise, such prohibitions impact a person’s liberty and pursuit of happiness. There is no caveat to that last which says the right to pursue happiness, so long as everyone agrees it’s beneficial to society.

If a man won’t assert his own rights, he shouldn’t be surprised when the state follows suit and violates them. This doesn’t matter whether it’s something that on the surface is trivial like smoking pot, or something incredibly important, like asserting your 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment rights.

Freedom — even the freedom to do that which is stupid (or “dumb” as Mr. Robberson puts it) — is something we have to stand up for, even in the face of popular sentiment or overwrought emotional appeals, such as the initial post that started this thread.

Freedom means the freedom to choose to do the noble thing — ignoring immoral laws — and the wrong thing — like smoking pot in your own home – so long as your choice doesn’t violate the rights of others. Otherwise, it’s not freedom.

In the words of the great Christian apologist G.K. Chesterton:

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool … but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”
Source: Trey Garrison (http://www.treygarrison.com/2009/02/its-just-a-joint-sure-but-its-so-much-more/)

[RyeWhiskey]

Yada yada. If you think that pot should be legal than why stop there. Make Heroin, Cocaine, driving over the speed-limit, wearing seatbelts, pissin' in public (Technically that doesn' hurt anybody either), and a host of other things that you believe are your 'god given' rights.

There are certain rights that are outlined in the Constitution and none of them are absolute. The right to smoke pot, or do other illegal drugs is not I'm afraid, one of those inalienable rights. The reason the war on drugs is failing is because libertarians oppose a stict border posture, and that we are not doing enough to close off the borders, thereby stemming the drug flow.

Money is to be made there, and unfortunately the need and greed for money conquers all. People with no sense of morality have let the seed of decay in the form of drugs to invade our country. That is why the war on drugs has failed, it isn't the type of drug used. Corruption and human greed have made it fail. I can't remember that stats, but it's like 80 percent or so of the drugs come through Mexico from the other south American countries. Stop that and the drugs wont' be a problem, well not as bad anyways.

I understand what you are saying, and can see your point Again, I'm just saying that some things are not 'inalienable'.

Take suicide, technically you can commit suicide right. Yes, but then again, it's the states function to prevent people from trying to take their own lives. Hence, it's not a right, though some think it is. Suicide is actually a form of homicide when you break the criminal code down per definition.

[mapes]

Yada yada. If you think that pot should be legal than why stop there. Make Heroin, Cocaine, driving over the speed-limit, wearing seatbelts, pissin' in public (Technically that doesn' hurt anybody either), and a host of other things that you believe are your 'god given' rights.

Stop being pedantic. What were are talking about is the legalization of something thats not considered harmful or at what I consider non harmful to society. I'd argue pot is not anymore a burden to society than alcohol is. I'm not promoting legalization of drugs that have an extremely high rate of addiction and also put a tremendous burden on society (i.e. crack, heroin and meth for example). As for Constitution rights Alcohol is not one either so whats your point? I'm going to ignore your public urination argument because wtf does that have to do with anything were discussing.




There are certain rights that are outlined in the Constitution and none of them are absolute. The right to smoke pot, or do other illegal drugs is not I'm afraid, one of those inalienable rights. The reason the war on drugs is failing is because libertarians oppose a stict border posture, and that we are not doing enough to close off the borders, thereby stemming the drug flow.


Alcohol and tobacco are neither "constitutional rights" yet they are legal. The reason the stupid war on drugs is failing has nothing to do with border posture but, has everything to do with the fact that people want to buy drugs. Aslong as there is money to made by selling drugs people will do so.


Money is to be made there, and unfortunately the need and greed for money conquers all. People with no sense of morality have let the seed of decay in the form of drugs to invade our country. That is why the war on drugs has failed, it isn't the type of drug used. Corruption and human greed have made it fail. I can't remember that stats, but it's like 80 percent or so of the drugs come through Mexico from the other south American countries. Stop that and the drugs wont' be a problem, well not as bad anyways.


Wow we agree on the same premise. Now how do we stop people from wanting to buy drugs?


Take suicide, technically you can commit suicide right. Yes, but then again, it's the states function to prevent people from trying to take their own lives. Hence, it's not a right, though some think it is. Suicide is actually a form of homicide when you break the criminal code down per definition.

Yes you are right but, technically the states responsibilities are not to stop people from committing suicide but, to enforce the law fairly. If a state has an anti suicide law then it will try to enforce it. The point I'm making is we pass laws because we believe those laws will create a just/fair society. The state just enforces those laws.

[RyeWhiskey]

You could quote actual words and take up more room :D. Or just summarize a thought.

So you say you want to legalize something that isn't 'harmful'. That being pot. Basically, what 'you' consider to be non-problematic. In who's eyes, yours? Others who also want the same thing legalized. Whine and moan, and whine and moan about legalizing pot, reading articles that have been cremed to be pro-pot and downplay it's harmfulness doesn't mean it isn't harmful.

Legislation makes the laws, the executors enforce it. The law makes it illegal. The point I'm trying to make is it seems we are using the 'Constitution' game plan to say it should be OK to legalize since well, a minority want it. That just makes no sense. Using that type of reasoning if you will to say hey I'm only talking about pot now, not the other drugs is just well not right. The pot from today is nowhere near what it was in the sixties, it is a hundredfold more potent, so how is that good? How is that your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. By defintion, explain those to me then, in your eyes.

Laws are made, ones like the one for it (marijuana) in the good of society and public safety and those things that are deemed deviant.

So, like I stated and will state again. Why stop at 'pot'. Keep going, what else should we legalize, and should we always just change laws because people whine about said law?. Where is the stopping point?

And I disagree on the borders, stop the flow of drugs in and guess what, there aren't any drugs to buy, except well from the meth labs here and the potters that grow the plant. Those get caught eventually.

[mapes]

Stop with the constitution ok... pot, heroin, alcohol or tobacco are not constitutional rights. This is not a constitutional legal argument.

Actually I base some of my opinion on personal interaction with people who smoke in moderation. Just like others I know who drink alcohol. As these folks and there is a ton of em I know don't seem to be ruled by pot. i.e They're actions are not a junkies actions looking for the next fix and willing to sell they're souls for it. As is the case with the harder meth, opiate and coca based drugs. Thats not to say it's not harmful. Is not smoking legal? Thats harmful. People die in plane crashes yet air travel is legal and acceptable. People die in car crashes thats certainly harmful. The point of law is not to protect us from harm. It's to make rules for the best of a community.


I wouldn't legalize the harder drugs because how it changes people. I have seen what it does to people and they become err not nice suffice to say.


BTW laws are passed by the people. If the people believe that pot is non harmful and police efforts shouldn't be wasted on it, prisons maybe should house people with violent crimes rather than people who smoke or grow pot for medical uses etc..than legislation will be passed on it. As it was in here in my town (for medical).

The thing to note here is it's people who elect reps who make laws. It's not a matter of whining or a matter of deviants...It's called a discussion on what is for the best.

So, like I stated and will state again. Why stop at 'pot'. Keep going, what else should we legalize, and should we always just change laws because people whine about said law?. Where is the stopping point?

Why stop at pot? Because pot is not a burden on society. That's why it should be legalized. Why legalize harder drugs? Because they place an unacceptable burden on society. Thats why. Why should I keep going?

[mapes]

BTW the border drug issue. Heres my point. As long as people want to spend money on drugs they're will be people to who want to make money selling drug. We agree on that. You state toughing up the borders would fix the problem. Nope drugs will still get through and the price will go up making the market more attractive. So drug cartels will start using stuff like this


United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) - Fact File (http://www.southcom.mil/AppsSC/factFiles.php?id=83)

[Dead...Again]

I'm going to make one more comment on this topic, and then I think I am done.

Rye, from reading your posts, I get the impression that you think the illegal drugs should all remain illegal because you don't approve of them. If this is indeed the case, what gives you the right to determine which drugs another person should be able to imbibe? Should I be able to tell you that you can no longer drink the rye whiskey that (I assume) you enjoy enough to name yourself after? After all, drinking alcohol is bad for your liver. Also, if you drive after drinking it, you could wreck and hurt or kill someone...

Lets face it. Other than the fact that pot is currently illegal and alcohol isn't, any reasoning you can use for why you think pot should remain illegal could also be used against alcohol, tobacco, or both.

[Hammy]

I get the impression from Dead's comments that on this particular topic, he would like the drugs legalized but that he does not want government restrictions or government control excercised on this area.

It is quite reasonable for me to say that from this point, it is not unusual for these liberalization agenda's to include the absence of regulation in the request.

This is odd to me, because when the same conversations revolve around healthcare, conservation, and other areas of so called community benefit, government responsibility and oversight is nearly mandated.

So for Drugs - something that can hurt or kill you- we want no government just freedom, but for Conservation efforts, something that cant hurt you via clean water and etc., we want complete oversight.

Complete liberal madness in my opinion. Absolutely flawed logic.

[Dead...Again]

I get the impression from Dead's comments that on this particular topic, he would like the drugs legalized but that he does not want government restrictions or government control excercised on this area.

It is quite reasonable for me to say that from this point, it is not unusual for these liberalization agenda's to include the absence of regulation in the request.

This is odd to me, because when the same conversations revolve around healthcare, conservation, and other areas of so called community benefit, government responsibility and oversight is nearly mandated.

So for Drugs - something that can hurt or kill you- we want no government just freedom, but for Conservation efforts, something that cant hurt you via clean water and etc., we want complete oversight.

Complete liberal madness in my opinion. Absolutely flawed logic.
That is not true at all Hammy. I think that drugs can be legalized, regulated, and taxed much like alcohol and tobacco are. For most drugs, this would probably require you to purchase it from a pharmacy, but that wouldn't be much different from having to go to a liquor store. I have no problem with regulation or preventing kids from getting access.

[RyeWhiskey]

Wrong, I believe they should 'remain' illegal because well they are illegal and are a detriment. What I'm getting from reading your posts is that they 'should' be legal, because of your views on regarding them as non-harmful. You can't pick one and decide that is the one that is the least harmful. That is the impression I'm getting from reading the above posts, is that since you want the least harmful one of the already illegal drugs legalized then it should be legal, it's your right! I wanna do what I wanna do now, or I am going to throw a stomping foot tantrum. Oh, and I don't drink whiskey or anything with alcohol for that matter. Ryewhiskey is a catch bluegrass song, and I listen to mainly rural/bluegrass music from the early 1900's/late 1800's. Individual jab deflected.

I had to add one more item. Legalizing pot use would do nothing to stem the harder drugs and the crime associated with it's use. So the basically you want the 'war on drugs' to stay there, just to not include pot. Most crime is associated in one form or another with drugs/alcohol. So technically alcohol should be banned also. The problem with that is it makes to much money, and it is too easily brewed. If you legalize pot you will still have crimes with victims then associated with the current problem of substance abuse = crimes. Take away the problem and you wouldn't have that crime.

Vis' a Vis.

[Dead...Again]

So alcohol should be illegal also? Well, that explains things.

As to my beliefs, I don't think drugs should be made legal because I don't think they are harmful. I don't believe the government has the right to tell me "you can't do that because it is bad for you." At one time, it was considered unconstitutional for the federal government to step in on issues like this without amending the constitution. That is why they used an amendment to prohibit alcohol. That is also why the initial anti-marijuana laws were thrown out. Over the years, the constitution has been watered down by politicians and judges.

Now we are on a slippery slope that started with opium and marijuana and moved on to the other "hard" drugs. Now we tell people that they have to wear a seatbelt or a helmet when on a motorcycle. What else will the gov't decide is bad for us? Transfat? Salt? Caffeine? All of these things can be bad for your health. Should they be banned as well? Where do we stop?


On a side note, I like bluegrass as well. In fact, I just got back from a weekend of pickin' and grinnin' in Nashville. :)

[RyeWhiskey]

I'm not sure Again, one day it might well be child-abuse to let you kids drink from a hose that isn't a say, drinking water hose. The thing I'm talking about is the relation of crime to substance abuse, hence the mention of alcohol. Seat-belt laws are partially quick revenue, part safety where as substance-abuse generally equals crimes which are more often than not, some sort of violent crime.

[Pumpkin_Jack]

Drugs are illegal for a reason... the only reason alchohol and tobacco are not illegal is because of the amount of revenue that the states and nation get on the sale of them... their is no way you are going to convince a group of 50+ year old legislation to pass a law legalizing pot, but the tobacco companies can bribe them, and some of them smoke themselves. You can say whatever you want we all know some of our legislation is being persuaded by something other than the good of the community.

[Dead...Again]

The vast majority of violent crime associated with illegal drugs are a result of the fact that they are illegal. They are perpetrated by drug dealers and gangs. Some people do commit crimes because they cannot afford the drugs that they are using. This is largely caused by the fact that the drugs are illegal as well. The cost of most drugs would decrease drastically if they were legalized (even if they were taxed).

If drugs were legalized and regulated, the crime associated with dealing drugs would be eliminated, because people could go to a local pharmacy, etc. to buy the drugs. THere would be no more turf wars, etc. In addition, the decreased price of drugs would mean that users would be less likely to need to steal, etc. in order to be able to purchase the drugs.

The fact that these drugs are illegal is in no way keeping people from doing them. For teens, it is easier to get most drugs than it is alcohol. The system we are using just makes a bunch of people who want to get high on something besides alcohol into criminals. It introduces some of them to an element of society that they would otherwise have no need to be associated with.

If you look at prohibition, you will see a mirror of what is happening now. When alcohol was prohibited, it became a huge criminal enterprise and the amount of violent crime increased drastically.

Pumpkin just touched upon a good point. How much money do you think the tobacco and alcohol companies spend every year to keep all other drugs (but especially marijuana) illegal? Also think about this: we are in a huge recession right now. If (some of) these drugs were legalized and regulated, not only would we save the vast amounts of money spent on the war on drugs, we would be able to tax it. The taxes would more than pay for social services to help people with addiction, etc related to drug use. Also, people won't have to resort to sharing needles, etc.

Well, that was a bit of a rambling post... :)

[Hammy]

The vast majority of violent crime associated with illegal drugs are a result of the fact that they are illegal. They are perpetrated by drug dealers and gangs. Some people do commit crimes because they cannot afford the drugs that they are using. This is largely caused by the fact that the drugs are illegal as well. The cost of most drugs would decrease drastically if they were legalized (even if they were taxed).

Cars arent illegal, yet people steal them everyday. Violent crimes occur because, you guessed it, they want your car. Just like you say they commit crimes because they want drugs, people commit crimes because they want your car.

Now what?


If drugs were legalized and regulated, the crime associated with dealing drugs would be eliminated, because people could go to a local pharmacy, etc. to buy the drugs. THere would be no more turf wars, etc. In addition, the decreased price of drugs would mean that users would be less likely to need to steal, etc. in order to be able to purchase the drugs.

Except that unlike Tobacco and Alcohol, there would have to be a pharmacological inspection for weight to grams for safe consumption. That consultation is the gating point for why the liberals havent been successful, they do not want to "check in" for the fear of invasion of privacy- whereas with all other types of drugs similar to the ones we are talking about you do get those from your doctor, who weighs you, takes your heart rate, determines your blood pressure, does some endocrinology to see what else is in your blood- how your body absorbs certain things- then they do a calculation and determine your intake.

Find me anyone who would be happy with that. If we are talking about Marijuana and these so called "no one has ever died smoking" then you're going to need to stop right there. There are plenty of cases where someone was entirely too stoned to be driving, riding a bike, even operating a chainsaw. While there are examples with alcohol that you will happily throw back into the conversation, my point here is not that marijuana would be worse than anything legal at this point- but that there is credible evidence of brain, nervous system, heart, lung, nerve, and trauma to the body due to prolonged exposure to THC.

Another contribution is the amount of mercury they find in today's marijuana. The plant extracts everything from the soil- so if I dump battery acid into the soil, it ends up in the flower and stem. Due to the fact that the best marijuana is grown on volcanic soil, also high in mercury, then combined with all kinds of chemicals to increase the high, improve the growth, shorten the maturity lifecycle, you end up with the same thing people are complaining about with big tobacco.


If you look at prohibition, you will see a mirror of what is happening now. When alcohol was prohibited, it became a huge criminal enterprise and the amount of violent crime increased drastically.

You gotta do your homework on this one. Prohibition was passed by a minority interest group that placed pressure on the government ways that were unprecedented and are since illegal. No one wanted Prohibition, and the topic was passed without large public majority approval, but due to the power of politicians being able to ignore the constituancy, they passed it into practice.

Pumpkin just touched upon a good point. How much money do you think the tobacco and alcohol companies spend every year to keep all other drugs (but especially marijuana) illegal?

How much money do you think any business spends to keep their competitors at a disadvantage? Not really sure that this is a point of matter here.

Also think about this: we are in a huge recession right now. If (some of) these drugs were legalized and regulated, not only would we save the vast amounts of money spent on the war on drugs, we would be able to tax it. The taxes would more than pay for social services to help people with addiction, etc related to drug use. Also, people won't have to resort to sharing needles, etc.

Sweet! lets allow prostitution, slavery, and abolish workplace safety standards in the name of better production volumes for the US! Taxes are tied to productivity, and when net production is at lows, taxes across the board are low. What makes you think illegal drug dealing will end when you make it illegal? Do you really think the drug dealers will want to go legitimate and pay business taxes, adhere to public safety policies, pay min wage for employees, and keep records in case they get audited?

I think its all a pipe-dream when I read these things. Tax revenue from legalizing drugs will not appear, it will only burden the government as they absorb the cost of circumventing the resistence that will be provided by drug dealers. You want to see more agents on the street? More paperwork costs? More head count increases for employees to process these areas?

It is a FACT positioned by someone that I heard Bubba the Love Sponge who is an employee of the IRS that is IN FAVOR of legalization, that it would take 10 years to establish the first net positive in post legalization of marijuana because the costs of opening a new oversight would be so great- and by then the Recession will be over. Besides, drugs are a luxury, not a necessity- how can you be asking for government assistance and spending your money on drugs? If people really are worried about the economy, they need to stop buying drugs (things that diminish their capacity to be productive) and make investments in US Businesses.

[Pumpkin_Jack]

Pumpkin just touched upon a good point. How much money do you think the tobacco and alcohol companies spend every year to keep all other drugs (but especially marijuana) illegal?
your twisting my words:pissed: im saying that tobacco and alchohol companies pay big money to keep their products legal not make others illegal :|



Hammy you are wrong about one thing legallizing majijuanna and other drugs will make jobs, in hospitals, morge's, and pharmacy's :D

[Dead...Again]

your twisting my words:pissed: im saying that tobacco and alchohol companies pay big money to keep their products legal not make others illegal :|

You don't think a part of the tobacco and alcohol lobby doesn't go to keeping marijuana illegal?

Well, I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed by this debate. It has been fun, though. :)

[Dead...Again]

I'm sure most of you are thinking something along the lines of "Oh no here goes Dead...Again again..." :) Well, I hadn't planned on coming back to this topic, but I came across this on YouTube, and I thought some of you might be interested in watching it. I am not trying to restart the debate, I just wanted to make it available to everyone.

Economics Roundtable: Legalizing Drugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9dFVa19o)

Well, there you go. Have fun with it. :D

[Hammy]

I'm sure most of you are thinking something along the lines of "Oh no here goes Dead...Again again..." :) Well, I hadn't planned on coming back to this topic, but I came across this on YouTube, and I thought some of you might be interested in watching it. I am not trying to restart the debate, I just wanted to make it available to everyone.


Well, there you go. Have fun with it. :D

I shut it off when he asserted that crime would go down.
Basically, if you are an addict and you are broke, you will do anything in your power to obtain that drug.

You will rape, kill, kidnap, steal, and harm until you get high.

From an economists point of view, Im sure that from the spreadsheet, teetotalling columns and etc, it all is about net gains versus net losses, but out here in the real world, where we go out and arrest these pedophiles who have pictures of kids in their underpants taped up all over the place next to the meth and goods table (goods = cocaine, heroin, and etc)-- well we tend to have that certain objectionable disposition that we base on something call REALITY

I dont know why this gentleman has taken up this agenda, but it should be known to all of you that I say that these laws are not made to protect the drug addicts, they are meant to protect people from the drug addicts the best we can.

If I had my way, I would flood the marketplace with the strongest version of the drugs and just wipe these people out. They people are the true harbingers of death and I am just absolutely disgusted by the fact that this Harvard wind bag is running his mouth saying drugs should be economically beneficial to my country.

[Hammy]

This Mar 7th -13th issue of The Economist tackles this issue- It's a cover page and it dedicates several pages to the vary things we are discussing, but goes even deeper and highlights some of the politics and reasons behind the failures and wins.

:2thumbs: Interesting

[BigTwinky]

Not sure if legalizing drugs would save the government funds on the war on drugs.

When the topic comes up, its usually about the "lesser" drugs like pot. I have not heard any discussions about making cocaine, heroin and other hard / chemical drugs legal.

The money for the war on drugs would just be put to use on cracking down (lol, what a term) on the hard drugs.

And they would have to up the funds to get kids to stay off drugs in the same way to do to get kids off of alchohol and off of cigarettes.

So if anything, I think money would be diverted, not saved.

Dead...Again, on most of your points, I do agree with you though.

Basically, if you are an addict and you are broke, you will do anything in your power to obtain that drug.

You will rape, kill, kidnap, steal, and harm until you get high

From my first hand experience with drugs, drug rehab, working with addicts and prevention, I find Hammy's statement true when talking about any type of hard drug. I have never come accross a person addicted marijuana to the point of raping, killing, kidnapping.

I'm sure people do steal to get their pot. I'll generalise and say that most kids who steal for pot money would also steal for lunch money, money to buy a new video game or to pay for their WoW subscription. I know of people who held up stores for heroin cash, but none for cash to buy pot.

Thoughs on random other things discussed in this thread:

Drugs are illegal for a reason... the only reason alchohol and tobacco are not illegal is because of the amount of revenue that the states and nation get on the sale of them...

Not just from the sale, but I?m sure there are payoffs, bribes, money for political parties and a whole bunch of other payouts. But yeah, mainly, money is the reason why alchohol and tobacco are legal. I feel that adding marijuana to that list would be in line with the effects of alcholol and tobacco on people.

Cars arent illegal, yet people steal them everyday. Violent crimes occur because, you guessed it, they want your car. Just like you say they commit crimes because they want drugs, people commit crimes because they want your car.

Now what?

Not sure if it?s the right term, but I?m thinking car theft is more of a petty crime, small time stuff, when compared to drugs. I don?t know of any south American carlords that deal with car theft and selling of parts. There are people who do it, but its more small time crime rings when compared to what the druglords operate with.

Any crime can be violent, car theft, theft for drugs, bank robbing, shop lifting? Committing a car theft is either someone wanting a car for a joy ride or to bring to a chop shop to sell parts. Cars also serve a purpose in society (albeit there are way too many cars these days, but that?s another discussion thread :D ), while alchohol, tobacco and marijuana and other hard drugs don?t. I?m feeling the comparison being apples to oranges.

Another contribution is the amount of mercury they find in today's marijuana. The plant extracts everything from the soil- so if I dump battery acid into the soil, it ends up in the flower and stem. Due to the fact that the best marijuana is grown on volcanic soil, also high in mercury, then combined with all kinds of chemicals to increase the high, improve the growth, shorten the maturity lifecycle, you end up with the same thing people are complaining about with big tobacco.

Great point Hammy, I never really thought of that. I have read discussions about how legalizing marijuana would have the drugs grown and regulated by the government, inspectors and all that jazz, so I?d assume the dumping of Mercury and other chemicals and drug lands would be illegal. But yeah, great point about today?s drugs and knowing where they come from.

You gotta do your homework on this one. Prohibition was passed by a minority interest group that placed pressure on the government ways that were unprecedented and are since illegal. No one wanted Prohibition, and the topic was passed without large public majority approval, but due to the power of politicians being able to ignore the constituancy, they passed it into practice.

I?m not sure I understand the relation between who passed the law compared to the law being in effect. What if the law was passed by a majority group? No difference, it would have been a law that was enforced and people would be jailed / fined regardless. Whether people wanted it or not, Prohibition happened and the consequences and traffic of alchohol lead to a pretty violent era of organized crime. I still think it?s a very valid comparison to today?s drug era.

[Pumpkin_Jack]

All im saying is I 100% support Hammy's arguement and dead...again, please just shut-it your repeating the same thing over and over again.... cant you come up with a better arguement

[mapes]

I understand these are heated topics but, could we please keep it civil....

[BigTwinky]

All im saying is I 100% support Hammy's arguement and dead...again, please just shut-it your repeating the same thing over and over again.... cant you come up with a better arguement

Pumpkin_Jack, saying things like "shut-it" is totally inapropriate in a debate thread. If you are unable to act like an adult, don't post debates with them.

Have respect for those you are debating / discussing with, else this entire forum will be shut down as it was last time. .:rulz:

Rule #1 on Cain's Lair
1) Please do not verbally abuse or insult other community members and do not use
profanity or racial/religious/ethnic slurs in the forums. Please do not start
threads, or make posts that will initiate arguments, insult people, or create
ill will. We are all here to have fun, not to be insulted.

[Hammy]

I understand these are heated topics but, could we please keep it civil....

Mapes-

I like pie.

Pumpkin Jack-

thanks for the support, but I appreciate the differences in my life - its the little things such as the contrast between two opinions (or if you want to get sensitive, the shades of the world) that make it worth living this life.

BT-

Car theft is grand larceny and a felony.

Prohibition was never correct- it was passed by a minority- that was the point. The book I am reading on american History "What Hath God Wrought" discusses temperance of alcohol and etc. The entire topic of prohibition, in later books of this Oxford History of America, will discuss how this minority took control and pushed prohibition through. Thats all.

And BT- I think you would really really enjoy the balanced 15 pages of The Economist I just point out to you. I read it on the plane to San Diego and finished it on the way back. First time I have read that magazine with complete interest from end to end in a long time. Lots of things I agree and disagree with.

[Dead...Again]

And BT- I think you would really really enjoy the balanced 15 pages of The Economist I just point out to you. I read it on the plane to San Diego and finished it on the way back. First time I have read that magazine with complete interest from end to end in a long time. Lots of things I agree and disagree with.
Part of that is on their website.

Failed states and failed policies: How to stop the drug wars (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193)

Drug education: In America, lessons learned (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234144)

Dealing with drugs: On the trail of the traffickers (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234157)

Levels of prohibition: A toker's guide (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234134)

Were there more articles than this in the print edition? If so, I will definitely have to check it out.

Oh, and Pumpkin, why don't you actually make an argument before you tell me to shut-it.

[BigTwinky]

Prohibition was never correct- it was passed by a minority- that was the point. The book I am reading on american History "What Hath God Wrought" discusses temperance of alcohol and etc. The entire topic of prohibition, in later books of this Oxford History of America, will discuss how this minority took control and pushed prohibition through. Thats all.

And BT- I think you would really really enjoy the balanced 15 pages of The Economist I just point out to you. I read it on the plane to San Diego and finished it on the way back. First time I have read that magazine with complete interest from end to end in a long time. Lots of things I agree and disagree with.


I don't mean to say that it was or wasn't correct. Its the fact that it did happen, and when something becomes law, it must be enforced, and we saw the consequences of it.

If it was a majority / widely accepted thing, I feel the consequences, the crime lords and so on would of happened anyways.

Your points seem to be about the reasons behind prohibition, who got it going, why it was put in, who agreed with it and who didn't.... I'm thinking more of the impact prohibition had.

Do you think there would of been a different impact if it was pushed through by a majority or some more standard way?


I'll have a look at that document. I tend to shy away from many long discussion papers in english, as they can easily lose my interest when they go on financial tangents. But I'll give it a shot :)

[Hammy]

any responsible competitor will do anything they can within the legal framework to not only limit their competition but limit their effectiveness.

that includes tobacco vs. alcohol vs drugs

[Dead...Again]

any responsible competitor will do anything they can within the legal framework to not only limit their competition but limit their effectiveness.

that includes tobacco vs. alcohol vs drugs
now think about what affect this has on us getting reliable information about the true detriments various illegal drugs have. The "legal" drug industry has a big interest in keeping the illegal drugs illegal... I'm not saying that the drugs that are currently illegal aren't harmful. But think about this: why is there such a resistance to making marijuana available for medicinal uses?

[Skud]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/cafferty.legal.drugs/index.html

[Duke{CLR}]

You will never convince me that legalizing heroin, crack and many hard drugs will end up costing less then the war on drugs and the money wouldn't be save unless they were all made legal. These hard drugs destroy lives very quickly and legalizing them just doesn't pass the common sense test.

Would you want your doctor, lawyer or airline pilot using crack?

[Hammy]

One thing I dont like about the thought and ideology process today, is that many of the conversations operate on the side of what is easiest.

In this conversation, I boil it down to effort- with cost association being one of effort itself. I'm also in disbelief as to the lack of credibility in citation that exists today.

We are reading the internet as if it were fact, without organizing sources or investigating authorship. I could put up a website tomorrow and establish a degree of credibility eventually that would have NOTHING to do with the actual content but EVERYTHING to do with the acceptibility standards of popular opinion.

It is a fact that all drugs have side-effects; But on the other hand, it is a fact that everyone who is pro-legalization of drugs will utilize Alcohol and Tobacco to combat this objection.

In truth, it is the only way to carry the conversation for many, because they lack the identifiers that are credible to make their point strong and acceptable.

Let's run the effort test here:

Objection: Everything has a side-effect.
And the point here is? This is a Con, not a pro, and it undermines your point - which is to get these drugs legalized. If everything has a side-effect, I sure as hell am not going to admit any additional drugs to legalization stature. The ones that are already legal, in that frame of mind, are already a stretch.

Next objection: No one has ever done anything bad under the influence of THC.
Under close scrutiny, the value systems of those who assert this are often flawed. I read a paper recently called substitution theory, where people substitute values with ideas and they disregard the effects the substitution has on the family or social setting. Basically, its a nice way of saying compromise-

Getting high is benefitial for me because I get more work done.

And then we look into the apartment or home, and we find all their plants have died, the house is filthy, the kids are pretty much unmanaged, and etc.

Next Objection: That isnt me. I am the exception to that rule.

In all cases of drug use and subsequent addiction, including nicotine and THC, the so-called "control" agents- people who "dont have a problem" are also the same people who can "quit anytime" and etc.

The test? "Okay so quit right now, today for a year." and of course the convenience objection occurs, and the "not right now," "why should I when I dont have a problem" and etc.

For anyone still following me here, Dependency or symptomatic withdrawals are in fact a side-effect. So when you tell me that THC doesnt have a side-effect, to pick on that one in particular, there is one you cannot ignore. And for anyone who "quits" and "didnt feel anything" I call BS. 100%, proven clinically, BS. Smoke MJ everyday for a year and then quit like that is not possible due to common physiology.


The theme here? Convenience and efforts.
Cost and concerns.
Value versus substitution.
Etc.

I think I'm probably done with this topic at this point because I understand that most people who use drugs view themselves as the exception to the rule.
Well let me blow your hair back with another statement-

Serial killers also believe that they are the exception to the rule of sanity.
Theifs never believe that they are going to be caught.
Domestic Violence is always the exception justified by deserved retribution.

While not necessarily a direct comparision, act for act, they are following the same path of logic. "Not me," "I've got the right to do this," and "they did to to me" or "everyone else does it too."

[Dead...Again]

All drugs have side-effects. I will not dispute that fact. The fact of the matter is, though, that the majority of illegal drugs have lesser side-effects or harmful effects than tobacco and alcohol.

However, the effects of war on drugs have gotten to the point that they are worse than the effects of the drugs they are trying to protect us from. A helluva a lot more people die from the violence associated with the drug trade than die from drug use. Also, we are clogging up our jails with people who decided they wanted to get high on something besides alcohol. That is ridiculous. Not to mention all of the people killed in police raids, whether they be cops, innocents, drug dealers, or drug users.

If drugs were legalized and regulated, not only would we not be spending billions trying to fight this insane "war," we could tax the sale of these commodities. We could then spend money where it would count the most: in prevention programs and programs to help addicts and their families. These programs would cost much less than the war on drugs.

It is obvious that our current method in preventing people from doing drugs isn't working. Isn't it about time we tried something different?

[Dead...Again]

You will never convince me that legalizing heroin, crack and many hard drugs will end up costing less then the war on drugs and the money wouldn't be save unless they were all made legal. These hard drugs destroy lives very quickly and legalizing them just doesn't pass the common sense test.

Would you want your doctor, lawyer or airline pilot using crack?
Who says they aren't already? The fact that they are illegal isn't preventing anyone from getting the drugs that they want. If anything, regulating them will make it more difficult for some (especially kids) to get access to them.

Obviously they shouldn't be getting high on the job (or drunk for that matter), but legalizing these drugs will not change that.

[Duke{CLR}]

So you don't think being addicted to a substance effects the way a job is done? I know airline pilots are subjected to drug testing and breathalyzers but I can't say much for other professions but I would steer clear of a lawyer or doctor who was smoking crack.

If they did become legalized I wonder what we could call that industry. We have "big oil" and "big tobacco" maybe we could call it big doobie.

[Dead...Again]

So you don't think being addicted to a substance effects the way a job is done? I know airline pilots are subjected to drug testing and breathalyzers but I can't say much for other professions but I would steer clear of a lawyer or doctor who was smoking crack.

If they did become legalized I wonder what we could call that industry. We have "big oil" and "big tobacco" maybe we could call it big doobie.
LOLz at Big Doobie...

Legalizing drugs does not mean that all drug testing will be eliminated. Companies or industries could still drug test their employees. They test for alcohol now, and it is legal.

I wouldn't want to go to a doctor who was a crack-head either, but I don't think it is that uncommon for doctors and nurses to use their connections to illegally procure prescription drugs now. They really don't need to get illegal ones. I knew a woman who was a nurse who stole drugs from the clinic she worked at. I don't think they ever caught her.

[Duke{CLR}]

So it would be legal for only certain people? I'm allowed to drink alcohol but I have strict time limits. Can they make a test like for crack or heroin?

[mapes]

So it would be legal for only certain people? I'm allowed to drink alcohol but I have strict time limits. Can they make a test like for crack or heroin?

There are tests for opiates...

[Duke{CLR}]

There are tests for opiates...

Do these test tell how long it's been or if there are any traces in my body? I guess for now that would rule the crack hits on my layovers but with modern technology maybe a better test could be made to ensure that I had eight hours since my last rock. :2thumbs::D:roll:

[BigTwinky]

I understand and support the arguments for legalizing marijuana. but I don't think those arguments should also be applied to harder drugs.

These have much more impact on the human mind and body that they should never be legal, they should be totally outlawed. Regulating them will not solve the issue of them being horrible sustances, worse than alcohol and tobacco.

When it comes to marijuana, I feel that there is alot of crap being delt on the streets and that this is the majority of the drug trade revenue as it hits a much bigger population.

I would think that smoking marijuana would be as acceptable on the job as drinking a beer. Making it legal doesn't mean that anyone can do it anywhere. You can't smoke tobacco in a bar, so you can't smoke marijuana. You can't drink while driving, well, same for marijuana.

There is not 1 person that I know that smokes marijuana that has seen further issues due to the smoking it. Off the top of my head, I know people from all walks of life, from corporate VPs, students, manual laborers, mothers, fathers, brothers,... they are all occasional smokers. They don't smoke everyday. Its more of a social thing. Same as people who I know that drink alcohol only do so occasionally, as a social thing.

Their houses are clean, their plants aren't dead and their kids, for those who have them, are great kids. So I'm not sure where the stereotype of pot smokers are horrible members of society comes from.

It comes down to usage I think.

I have never read an argument other than "not introducing a new legal drug into society" that lead me to believe that legalising marijuana would be bad for the general population. Sure it might be bad for addicts, just as other drugs, gambling, driving fast, sex and alcohol are bad for addicts.

As arguments are made that marijuana should not be legalized, the same arguments can be said for tobacco and alcohol. But because these are legal, and made legal in a time when people didn't fully understand the consequences, it is OK to have them legal now.

Just ban them all then, problem solved. Screw the financial implications for the government, the health of the population is way more important.

But wait, I can see it coming....then because of the few addicts, I won't be able to have my beer on the weekend after working in the yard? WTH...thats not fair. Why is the government making me pay for something that is only an issue with a minority (similar arguments made when we have discussed gun control and banning automatic weapons).

Then the same applies to pot smokers. Why must I suffer for the minority of people who are addicted?

[Duke{CLR}]

I know many people in high school who screwed up their lives due the use of marijuana. I still hang out with a few of these guys and although they wont admit it it has taken a toll on them. The guys in school who smoked pot tended to be the guys who would over do it and do other drugs. It was part of the drug culture and with one exception they never achieved much. The guy who did, my best friend, only did so after a really hard road. The others that I still know just complain about what they don't have and continually blame others for their problems while at the same time smoking a joint.

That all being said I don't seem to get too upset about the idea of legalizing it. If they did I would want to be sure that anyone on public assistance be tested. It also may be easier to keep from kids. I don't think it would stop the trafficking of the other drugs. I also think that you would have a a bunch of people who would grow it themselves which would avoid the tax decrease and the supposed revenue.

I say put it on the ballot and let the people in each state decide. If you choose to use just don't come to me looking to support your lazy @$$. :2thumbs:

[Hammy]

I understand and support the arguments for legalizing marijuana. but I don't think those arguments should also be applied to harder drugs.

These have much more impact on the human mind and body that they should never be legal, they should be totally outlawed. Regulating them will not solve the issue of them being horrible sustances, worse than alcohol and tobacco.

When it comes to marijuana, I feel that there is alot of crap being delt on the streets and that this is the majority of the drug trade revenue as it hits a much bigger population.

I would think that smoking marijuana would be as acceptable on the job as drinking a beer. Making it legal doesn't mean that anyone can do it anywhere. You can't smoke tobacco in a bar, so you can't smoke marijuana. You can't drink while driving, well, same for marijuana.

There is not 1 person that I know that smokes marijuana that has seen further issues due to the smoking it. Off the top of my head, I know people from all walks of life, from corporate VPs, students, manual laborers, mothers, fathers, brothers,... they are all occasional smokers. They don't smoke everyday. Its more of a social thing. Same as people who I know that drink alcohol only do so occasionally, as a social thing.

Their houses are clean, their plants aren't dead and their kids, for those who have them, are great kids. So I'm not sure where the stereotype of pot smokers are horrible members of society comes from.

It comes down to usage I think.

I have never read an argument other than "not introducing a new legal drug into society" that lead me to believe that legalising marijuana would be bad for the general population. Sure it might be bad for addicts, just as other drugs, gambling, driving fast, sex and alcohol are bad for addicts.

As arguments are made that marijuana should not be legalized, the same arguments can be said for tobacco and alcohol. But because these are legal, and made legal in a time when people didn't fully understand the consequences, it is OK to have them legal now.

Just ban them all then, problem solved. Screw the financial implications for the government, the health of the population is way more important.

But wait, I can see it coming....then because of the few addicts, I won't be able to have my beer on the weekend after working in the yard? WTH...thats not fair. Why is the government making me pay for something that is only an issue with a minority (similar arguments made when we have discussed gun control and banning automatic weapons).

Then the same applies to pot smokers. Why must I suffer for the minority of people who are addicted?

LOL- I can tell you live in Canada by a few statements

beer at work?
beer on the premises? :D
I wish!

In the US, because many idiots, most Christmas Parties I go to no longer have open bars sponsored by the company hosting it thanks to DUI tragedies and convictions.

[Dead...Again]

I know many people in high school who screwed up their lives due the use of marijuana. I still hang out with a few of these guys and although they wont admit it it has taken a toll on them. The guys in school who smoked pot tended to be the guys who would over do it and do other drugs. It was part of the drug culture and with one exception they never achieved much. The guy who did, my best friend, only did so after a really hard road. The others that I still know just complain about what they don't have and continually blame others for their problems while at the same time smoking a joint.

That all being said I don't seem to get too upset about the idea of legalizing it. If they did I would want to be sure that anyone on public assistance be tested. It also may be easier to keep from kids. I don't think it would stop the trafficking of the other drugs. I also think that you would have a a bunch of people who would grow it themselves which would avoid the tax decrease and the supposed revenue.

I say put it on the ballot and let the people in each state decide. If you choose to use just don't come to me looking to support your lazy @$$. :2thumbs:

I would agree to that! :)

I think the majority of people who ruin their lives (and the lives of others) by abusing drugs or alcohol are going to go down that path regardless. Making these substances illegal is not going to prevent it. The only real difference would be what they choose as their "poison" and whether they are willing to break the law to get their fix. I think most adults will tend to go with the legal route because it is the easiest. If pot were legal, some people who drink will probably start smoking in addition to or instead of drinking. The same could be said for other drugs. Some people who are would-be alcoholics might instead become addicted to crack or heroin. Would this be worse? Maybe. Their lives will be ruined just the same...

For kids, the "poison" is more likely to be illegal drugs, since those are easier to obtain. It is a heck of a lot easier for teenagers to get pot and, depending on where they live, the harder drugs than it is for them to get alcohol, especially if they live in the inner city. They can go down to the corner and pick up a rock of crack easier than getting a beer.

[Duke{CLR}]

I think many of the people go down that road because they aren't mature enough when they are exposed to it.

[BigTwinky]

For kids, the "poison" is more likely to be illegal drugs, since those are easier to obtain. It is a heck of a lot easier for teenagers to get pot and, depending on where they live, the harder drugs than it is for them to get alcohol, especially if they live in the inner city. They can go down to the corner and pick up a rock of crack easier than getting a beer.

I think the same thing too.


LOL- I can tell you live in Canada by a few statements

beer at work?
beer on the premises?

While its totally acceptable and often done to have a beer at lunch when going out to eat with your work buddies, drinking beer on the job is not acceptable in anyway. Neither is someone sitting at his desk drinking a beer on lunch time. It?s a social thing that people do?nice summer day, take a longer lunch, sit on the terrace / patio and have an outdoor lunch under the sun, have a few drinks, go back to work. :)

We aren't as beer evolved as some European cities were you can buy beer at McDonalds.

I would actually be funny to see people smoke up and come back to work. I guess while people have 1 drink and are fine to go back to work, others will have 1 toke and go back to work slightly happy and relaxed. Would help in dealing with work related stress.

Obviously, someone getting high before giving a big presentation will make an ass of himself, just as someone who gets drunk will make an ass of himself.

[Minerva]

We aren't as beer evolved as some European cities were you can buy beer at McDonalds.



And wine.