After reading (and rereading) the debate in the "SWAT kills dogs" thread,I thought I would make a thread to discuss the pros and cons of legalizing drugs.
Now,even though I no longer use any drugs (with the exceptions of alcohol,caffiene & tobacco,and the occasional aspirin),I am 100% for the legalization of drugs,my reasons,for the most part ,can be found here.

http://www.bmstahoe.com/Drugs/

So,I'm very interested to know what the rest of you think,what are your oppinions concerning the merits/pitfalls of legalizing drugs?

Drugs are legal.

Why just today I bough me some acetylsalicylic acid and acetaminophen from my local Pharmacy!

Gwar! wrote:Drugs are legal.

Why just today I bough me some acetylsalicylic acid and acetaminophen from my local Pharmacy!

I stand corrected by Gwar (there's a shock) .

So let us focus on "Should ilegal drugs be made legal"?

FITZZ wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Drugs are legal.

Why just today I bough me some acetylsalicylic acid and acetaminophen from my local Pharmacy!

I stand corrected by Gwar (there's a shock) .

So let us focus on "Should ilegal drugs be made legal"?

But that isn't the thread title!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I have no opinion either way.

That good enough?

Gwar! wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Drugs are legal.

Why just today I bough me some acetylsalicylic acid and acetaminophen from my local Pharmacy!

I stand corrected by Gwar (there's a shock) .

So let us focus on "Should ilegal drugs be made legal"?

But that isn't the thread title!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I have no opinion either way.

That good enough?

Yes,your lack of opinion,while stunning,is good enough.
And I have now changed the thread title to better reflect my exact meaning.
Now,back to your bridge my friend...your goats getting cold.

I don't say this because I want to buy heroin or cocain or anything like that (beer and cigs is just fine for me) but I think it would greatly reduce crime, and social problems if they were legalized. Jails no longer stuffed over stupid posession charges, cops no longer planting evidence, dealers no longer having turf wars over who distributes where that affect innocent passersby. Organized crime would take a big financial hit if people could go buy a pack of joints just like a pack of cigarettes... less violence, less useless jail time we all pay for, and less attraction to it. It's not as if everyone would become a junkie just because heroin gets legalized any more than everyone becomes a smoker just because marlboros are legal.

On top of it all, the government could tax the hell out of drugs, and people still wouldn't complain if they could get their quarter ounce of pot for 20 bucks instead of 40ish (and it only costs a couple of bucks to produce it) It grows just like tobacco, no more expensive just let it go and set up factories to package it and sell it at a ridiculous tax rate. The only reason marijuana deals are expensive is because of the risk the dealers have to take. The only reason they are abused is because they are expensive and illegal, therefore 'lifestyle' defining.

French people allow their kids to drink wine, let them drink in public (provided they aren't incapacitated or unruly, which is an entirely different crime). France has an extremely low problem with alcoholism compared to more restrictive countries. Once it's no big deal any more, it sort of loses its 'cool' attraction to the pimp who thinks he's the gak because he brought the coke. It be like me walking into a party acting like I'm the gak because I brought chips or something. Nobody would really care, they could have got their own.

Finally, if the government is in control of it, they can regulate for quality, no more poisonous chemicals cut in with the meth and the H, no more dirty coke or low-grade pot full of brown buds and seeds and stems, no more stricknine laden acid. The FDA could have standards that would have to be met that would ensure healthier junkies.

It's like guns IMO. Make them illegal and people will still have them. Make them legal and the powers that be can tax them and track them.

Now... being a public nuissance by being 'overserved' by druggggss could be treated the same way as someone who gets too drunk and creates a nuissance. I see no difference really. If you can handle your booze, you can drink, if you can handle your crack, you can have a toke, etc. If you become a disturbance, yeah there are laws against that. People would probably become a lot more responsible with their drug intake and tolerance level.

Yep, I agree with that, my thoughts exactly

aka_tizz wrote:Yep, I agree with that, my thoughts exactly

Same here.

If it were me I'd legalise weed and let the hard drugs stay illegal..

What would all those criminals do without illegal drugs to make money from? Mafia protection?

I would probably have some sort of licensure system in place for hard drugs, like there is for firearms.

What i believe? No. keep them illegal. Weed leads to worse and more hard drugs. We need to be strict with drugs. it doesnt matter if it doesnt have sideeffect it can still mess you up in other ways.

garret wrote:What i believe? No. keep them illegal. Weed leads to worse and more hard drugs. We need to be strict with drugs. it doesnt matter if it doesnt have sideeffect it can still mess you up in other ways.

The problem with this argument is that the main reason why weed is seen as a gateway drug is because oftentimes, it has to be procured from sources that sell harder and more potent drugs, and amounts of these drugs can get mixed into the weed, either by accident or on purpose. So when the person gets high off of the pot they bought, there's a chance that they're inhaling some crack or LSD or something other than just weed as well.

Marijuana itself is not that bad at all - the biggest risk it has is that it tends to have far more tar and carcinogens than tobacco. It's one of the few illegal drugs that is not actually addictive, and if you tried to smoke the amount it would take for you to overdose from the drug, you'd be dead of suffocation long before you OD'd. I don't drink/smoke/do drugs, but I honestly think that the legality of marijuana should be changed, since it's a potentially large source of income if taxed and quality control would ensure cleaner pot on the market. Alcohol is a far larger threat than marijuana will ever be, and that's been legal since it was created (with the exception of the Prohibition, and look at how well that turned out.) Keep the harder stuff like crack and all illegal, but there's really no reason to continue to outlaw weed save for the fact that old prejudices die hard and slow.

previous poster:
(What i believe? No. keep them illegal. Weed leads to worse and more hard drugs. We need to be strict with drugs. it doesnt matter if it doesnt have sideeffect it can still mess you up in other ways.)

(sorry my html is non-existant)



weed leads to hard drugs? ohhhhkay... no. When did you crawl out of that Nancy Reagan public service announcement or After-School-Special someone stuffed in your head?

Weed leads to sitting around on your couch laughing at scoobie doo cartoons when you should be doing something constructive. "hard drugs" lead to strangers you talk to in the bathroom of a club just cuz they have drugs... and people who don't know each other just leeching off each other around in a circle paranoid that someone took a bigger hit than them.

If it was legal the paranoia would go away.

I cannot say I am proud of it but neither am I ashamed of it but I speak from experience. Try some weed and see if your first instinct is to go get heroin. Your first instinct will be to go get the TV remote or the game controller and some nachos. Speaking from experience, I will reiterate. It's a great way to waste your time and accomplish nothing, but it didn't ruin my life or make me take anything else. (I did that anyway out of curiosity, but not because smoking pot led me there). I got bored with it and not stick to beer and cigs but in those days, all it was was a way to waste time. It didn't 'Gateway Drug' me into anything. Just wasted some time and money until I realized it was kind of dumb.

The personality type that is willing to try various mind alternating substances is capable of trying whichever one comes up. You could say it starts with underage cigarette smokers, or beer->weed->coke-crack->heroin->acid or whatever but the truth is (at least from what I have seen) if you don't give a gak then you just don't give a gak, and you'll try something you are told is "BAD FOR YOU!!!" anyways, because you just don't respect the people telling you that nonsense. The reason marijuanna is called a 'gateway drug' by the afterschool special type TV propeganda is that it is the easiest illegal substance to procure. So that's the one that future crackheads probably did first, just because its around everywhere.

If drugs are illegal, then so should be starbucks, cigarettes, booze, turtlenecks, man-purses, McDonalds, and everything else that is potentially bad for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The only time I've ever heard ANYONE care this intensely about the government getting more tax money is when it comes to legalizing weed. Hmmm.....

Guitardian wrote:Weed leads to sitting around on your couch laughing at scoobie doo cartoons

Scooby Doo, funny? That actually sounds rather frightening. I'll have to support weed's continued prohibition.

Someone has to support an industry that's target demographic is ten year olds.


gak.

I don' think it needs to be legalized but if they do tax the feth out of it. Like I'm talking 30-40%. Hippies want to walk around stoned all day let them pay out the ass for it.

Also, if it did become legal I'd hope workplaces would treat it like alcohol. You show up stoned or get stoned at work you are out the damned door.

I would legalise weed, but really only because I smoke it quite a lot, and being able to nip to the corner shop for a twenty-bag would make my life a hell of a lot easier.

I could give a gak about whether or not it would help our social situation or bring in more tax revenue for the government. Really.

Bothered.

I envision a future where a bunch of stoners sitting on their couches watching protests on TV about marijuana tax going up and toking up while saying "yeah! totally dude! they're taxing our weed unfairly!", and... not doing anything about anyways. hee hee hee

Would beat hearing all my friends who smoke cigarettes bitching every time there is a tax hike and then not even trying to quit.

I mean, don't like what you have to pay for cigs stop doing it. That's akin to shoving your hand into a band saw, losing a few fingers, bitching it hurts and then repeating said action.

INTRODUCTION
There are no panaceas in the world, but the legalization of drugs would do more than any single act or policy to eliminate many of today's socio-political afflictions. Removing legal penalties from the production, sale and use of "controlled substances" would alleviate at least a dozen of our biggest social or political problems.

With proposals for legalization finally in the public eye, there is a need for some sort of catalog that lists the benefits of legalization. For advocates, this list is an inventory of facts and arguments. For opponents, this list is a painful account of the problems that opponents may be perpetuating. The list is intended both as a resource for participants in the legalization debate and as a starting point for wishful participants who lack facts.

Are we ready to stop wringing our hands and start solving problems?

1. Legalizing drugs would make our streets and homes safer.

As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel states in Heroin: The Shocking Story," April 1988 --- estimates vary widely for the proportion of violent/property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint or measure of central tendency. In an October 1987 survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs responding blamed drugs for 1/5 of murders and rapes, 1/4 of car thefts, 2/5 of robberies and assaults and 1/2 of the nation's burglaries and thefts." The numbers are much greater today at the end of the century. History repeats itself and we are re-learning the devastation of 1920's Prohibition today. Drugs are products, like alcohol in the '20s, that people want and will ignore the authorities to obtain. Nothing will stop the desire for any product that people want.

The theoretical and statistical correlations between drugs and crime are well established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.

The reasons are not difficult to understand. When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." Statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged in direct relation to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine are not available. The obvious point is that black markets for any desirable illegal products cannot be stopped.

For heroin, the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World Report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a 500% markup.

The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:

Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.
Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. Drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known drugstore retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of Rite Aid pharmacies shoot it out with Thrift Drugs for a corner storefront? When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. As one letter-writer to the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, "law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary."

2. End prison overcrowding.

Prison overcrowding is a serious and persistent problem. Studies show that the prison environment has become increasingly violent and faceless which exacerbates an already dangerous and dehumanizing environment. Prison is intended to punish "real" criminals for their crimes, however, as you will see, the overcrowding is due mostly to drug offenders.

According to the 1988 Statistical Abstract of the United States, between 1979 and 1985 the number of people in federal and state prisons and local jails grew by 57.8 %, nine times faster than the general population. Governments at all levels keep building more prisons (spending our money), but the number of new prisoners keeps outpacing the capacity to hold them. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' 1985 Statistical Report, as of September 30, 1985, federal institutions held 35,959 prisoners --- 41% over the rated prison capacity of 25,638. State prisons were 114% of capacity in 1986.

Of 31,346 sentenced prisoners in federal institutions, drug law violators were the largest single category, 9487. A total of 4613 were in prison but not yet sentenced under various charges. Since 1985, the courts have released drug-related criminals to the street as quickly as possible to free prison space for real criminals. We get a vicious cycle of repeated drug offenses followed by release to alleviate overcrowding. Burglaries and theft would decrease by 50% if drugs were legalized because the price would decrease.

Legalizing drugs would immediately relieve the strain and burden on the prison system, since drug offenders would no longer be incarcerated. Also, since drug users would no longer commit violent/property crimes to pay artificially high prices for their habits, there would be fewer future drug-related criminals to incarcerate. Instead of building more prisons, we could pocket the savings and still be safer.

Removing the 9487 drug inmates would leave 26,472. Of those, 7200 were in for assault, burglary, larceny-theft, or robbery. If the proportion of such crimes that is related to drugs is 40 percent, without drug laws another 2900 persons would never have made it to federal prison. The inmates who remained would be left in a less cruel, degrading environment. If we repealed the drug laws, we could eventually bring the prison population down comfortably below the prison's rated capacity.

3. Drug legalization would free up police resources to fight non-drug related crimes against people and property.

The considerable police efforts now expended against drug activity and drug-related crime (1/3 to 1/2 of resources) could be redirected toward protecting innocent people from those who would still commit crime in the absence of drug laws. The police could protect us more effectively, since police could focus resources on catching rapists, murderers and the remaining perpetrators of crimes against people and property.

4. Unclog the court system.

If you are accused of a crime today, your Constitutional Right to an expeditious, fair trial is impeded by our clogged court system. Guilty or innocent, you must live with the anxiety of impending trial for a much longer period of time. The process is even more sluggish for civil proceedings.

There simply aren't enough judges to handle the skyrocketing caseload. Since drug legalization would significantly dimish crime by the eliminatation of drug and drug-related crimes, the legislation would remove tens of thousands of cases from the court dockets across the continent, enabling the remaining cases to move sooner and faster. Prosecutors would have more time to handle each case; judges could return to real law and render more thoughtful and realistic opinions.

Improved efficiency at the lower levels would have a ripple effect on higher courts. Better decisions in the lower courts would yield fewer grounds for appeals, reducing the caseloads of Appeals Courts; and in any event there would be fewer cases to review in the first place.

5. Reduce corruption of officials.

Drug-related police corruption manifests itself in two major forms. Police offer drug dealers protection in the police's precinct for a share of the profits (or demand a share under threat of exposure), and police seize a dealer's merchandise to sell themselves.

Seven current or former Philadelphia police officers were indicted May 31 on charges of falsifying records of money and drugs confiscated from dealers. During a house search, one suspect turned over $20,000 he had made from marijuana sales, but the officers gave him a receipt for $1870. Another dealer, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer, "told the grand jury he was charged with possession of five pounds of marijuana, although 11 pounds were found in his house."

In Miami, 59 officers have been fired or suspended since 1985 for suspicion of wrongdoing. The police chief and investigators expect the number eventually to approach 100. As The Palm Beach Post reported, "That would mean about 1 in 100 officers on the thousand man force will have been tainted by one form of scandal or another."

Most of the 59 police officers have been accused of trafficking, possessing or using illegal drugs. In the biggest single case, 17 officers allegedly participated in a ring that stole $15 million worth of cocaine from dealers "... and even traffic violators."

What distinguishes the Miami scandal is that "Police are alleged to be drug traffickers themselves, not just protectors of criminals who are engaged in illegal activities," said The Post. According to James Frye, a criminologist at American University in Washington, the gravity of the situation in Miami today is comparable to Prohibition-era Chicago in the 1920s and '30s.

The Prohibition comparison is very applicable. Also, the problem is not limited to Miami and Philadelphia. The astronomical profits from the illegal drug trade are a powerful inducement for law enforcement agents to illegally obtain a share of the huge profits. These huge profits would disappear if RiteAid or Walgreens could legally sell marijuana, cocaine, and heroin for the same price as a designer antibiotic.

Legalizing drugs would eliminate the dollar incentive to corruption and enable police to clean up their image. The elimination of drug-related corruption cases would further reduce the strain on the courts, freeing judges and investigators to handle other cases more thoroughly and expeditiously.

6. Legalization would save tax money.

Efforts to interdict the drug traffic alone cost $6.2 billion in 1986, according to Wharton Econometrics of Bala Cynwyd, Pa. If we add the cost of trying and incarcerating users, traffickers, and those who commit crime to pay for their drugs, the tab runs well above $10 billion annually. Don't forget --- these are mid-1980 dollars. The cost has grown by a factor of 10 times or more in the 1990s. The crisis in inmate housing would disappear, saving taxpayers the expense of building more prisons in the future.

Savings would be redirected toward better police protection and speedier judicial service. Or savings could be refunded to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut. Or the federal portion of the costs could pay down the budget deficit, national debt, and Social Security/Medicare costs. Or use the savings to renovate old schools or build new schools where children could be taught not to use drugs. For a change, it's a happy problem to ponder. But it takes legalization to make it possible.

7. Legalized drugs would cripple organized crime.

The Mafia (heroin), Jamaican gangs (crack), and the Medellin Cartel (cocaine) stand to lose billions in drug profits from legalization. On a per-capita basis, members of organized crime, particularly at the top, stand to lose the most from legalizing the drug trade.

The underworld became big business in the United States when alcohol was prohibited. Few others would risk setting up the illegal distribution networks, bribing officials or killing a policeman or competitor once in a while. When alcohol was re-legalized, reputable manufacturers resumed production. The risk and the high profits disappeared from the alcohol trade. Even if organized crime wanted to keep control over alcohol, the gangsters could not have targeted every manufacturer and every beer store. Customers preferred good alcohol over rot-gut and poison. The profits from illegal alcohol were minuscule compared to the dollars generated from today's illegal drugs. These dollars are the underworld's last great source of illegal income--dwarfing anything to be made from gambling, prostitution and any other vice.

Legalizing drugs would eliminate this huge income source from under organized crime. Smugglers and pushers would have to go legitimate or go out of business. There simply wouldn't be enough other criminal endeavors to employ them all. Drug users would buy from reputable manufacturers at a much lower price. A user's habit could be supported with honest work because high drug prices would be eliminated. Drugs that kill and blind people would disappear. Users of legal drugs would have the right to their day in court, if a drug manufacturer is negligent. No such rights exist today.

If we are concerned about the influence of organized crime on government, industry and our own personal safety, we could strike no single more damaging blow against today's gangsters than to legalize drugs.

8. Legal drugs would be safer. Legalization is a consumer protection issue.

Because "controlled substances" are illegal, the drug trade today lacks many of the consumer safety features common to other markets: instruction sheets, warning labels, product quality control, manufacturer accountability. Forcing products underground makes those products, including drugs, more dangerous than if the products were manufactured by reputable firms.

Nobody denies that currently illegal drugs can be dangerous. But so can aspirin, countless other over-the-counter drugs and common household items; yet the proven hazards of matches, modeling glue and lawn mowers are not used as reasons to make them all illegal.

Practically anything can kill if used in certain ways. Like heroin, salt can make you sick or dead if you take enough of it. The point is to learn what the threshold is, and to keep below it. That many things can kill is not a reason to prohibit them all--it is a reason to learn how to handle these products and provide the desired safety instructions. The same goes for drugs. Today, there are instructions for the use of virtually every product, and recourse through the courts for damages caused by any product including drugs.

Today's drug consumer literally doesn't know what he's buying. The stuff is so valuable that sellers have an incentive to "cut" (dilute) the product with foreign substances that look like the real thing. Most street heroin is only 3 to 6 percent pure; street cocaine, 10 to 15 percent. Since purity varies greatly, consumers can never be really sure how much to take to produce the desired effects. If one is accustomed to 3 percent heroin and takes a 5 percent dose, suddenly you've nearly doubled your intake. Reputable drug manufacturers offering drugs on the open market are driven by different incentives than pushers. They rely on name-brand recognition to build market share, and on customer loyalty to maintain it. There would be a powerful incentive to provide a product of uniform quality: killing customers or losing them to competitors is not a proven way to success. Today, dealers can make so much from a single sale that there is no incentive to cultivate a clientele. In fact, police make it imperative to make the sale fast and move on --- hell with the customers.

Pushers don't provide labels or instructions, let alone mailing addresses. The illegal nature of the business makes such things unnecessary or dangerous to the enterprise. After legalization, pharmaceutical companies could safely try to win each other's customers, and guard against liability suits with better information and more reliable products.

Even pure heroin on the open market would be safer than today's impure drugs. As long as customers know what they're getting and what it does, they can adjust their dosages to obtain the intended effect safely. INFORMATION is the best protection against the potential hazards of drugs or any other product. Legalizing drugs would promote consumer health and safety.

9. Legalization would slow the spread of AIDS and other diseases.

As D.R. Blackmon notes ("Moral Deaths," June 1988), drug prohibition has helped propagate AIDS among intravenous drug users.

Because intravenous drug users inject heroin and other narcotics with hypodermic needles, access to needles is restricted. The shortage of needles causes users to share needles. If one IV user has infected blood and some enters the needle as it is pulled out, the next user may shoot the infectious agent directly into his own bloodstream.

Before the AIDS epidemic, this process was already known to spread other diseases, principally hepatitis B. Legalizing drugs would eliminate the motivation to restrict the sale of hypodermic needles. With needles cheap and freely available, the drug users would have little need to share them and risk acquiring someone else's virus.

Despite the pain and mess involved, injection became popular because, as The Washington Times put it, "that's the way to get the biggest, longest high for the money." Inexpensive, legal heroin, on the other hand, would enable customers to get the same effect (using a greater amount) from more hygienic methods such as smoking or swallowing--cutting further into the use of needles and further slowing the spread of AIDS.

10. Legalization would halt the erosion of other civil liberties.

Hundreds of government agencies and corporations have used the alleged cost of illegal drugs as an excuse to test their employees for drug usage. Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Walker (he was defeated) embarked on a crusade to withhold federal money from any company or government agency that didn't guarantee a "drug-free workplace". This is a Don Quixote crusade.

The federal government has pressured foreign countries to grant access to bank records so it can check for "laundered" drug money. Because drug dealers handle lots of cash, domestic banks are now required to report cash deposits over $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for evidence of illicit profit.

The drugs and drug profits that led to the abrogation of civil liberties would disappear with drug legalization. Before drugs became big business, investors could put their money in secure banks abroad without fear of harassment. Mom and pop stores could deposit their cash receipts undaunted that they may appear like criminals.

Nobody tests urine for levels of sugar or caffeine as a requirement for employment or grounds for dismissal. However, if caffeine were declared illegal it would certainly become a lot riskier to use, and hence a possible target for testing "for the sake of our employees". Legalizing today's illegal drugs, which weren't illegal before 1913, would make them safer and deflate the drive to test for drug use.

11. Legalization would stabilize foreign countries and make them safer for residents and travelers.

The connection between drug traffickers and guerrilla groups is fairly well documented (see "One More Reason," August 1987). South American revolutionaries have developed a symbiotic relationship with coca growers and smugglers: the guerrillas protect the growers and smugglers in exchange for cash to finance their subversive activities. In Peru, competing guerrilla groups, the Shining Path and the Tupac Amaru, fight for the lucrative right to represent coca farmers and drug traffickers.

Traffickers themselves are well prepared to defend their crops against intruding government forces. A Peruvian military helicopter was destroyed with bazooka fire in March, 1987, and 23 police officers were killed. The following June, drug dealers attacked a camp of national guardsmen in Venezuela, killing 13.

In Colombia, scores of police officers, more than 20 judges, two newspaper editors, the attorney general and the justice minister have been killed in that country's war against cocaine traffickers. Two supreme court justices, including the court president, have resigned following death threats. The Palace of Justice was sacked in 1985 as guerrillas destroyed the records of dozens of drug dealers.

"This looks like Beirut," said the mayor of Medellin, Colombia, after a bomb ripped apart a city block where the reputed head of the Medellin Cartel lives. It "is a warning of where the madness of the violence that afflicts us can bring us."

Legalizing the international drug trade would effect organized crime and subversion abroad much as it would in the United States. A major source for guerrilla funding would disappear. So would the motive for kidnapping or assassinating officials and private individuals. As in the United States, ordinary Colombians and Peruvians once again could walk the streets and travel the roads without fear of drug-related violence. Countries would no longer be paralyzed by smugglers.

12. Legalization would repair U.S. relations with other countries and curtail anti-American sentiment around the world.

When Honduran authorities spirited away alleged drug lord Juan Matta Ballesteros and had him extradited to the United States in April, Hondurans rioted in the streets and demonstrated for days at the U.S. embassy in Tegucigulpa.
The action violated Honduras's constitution, which prohibits extradition. Regardless of what Matta may have done, many Hondurans viewed the episode as a flagrant violation of their little country's laws, just to satisfy the wishes of the Colossus of the North.

When the U.S. government, in July 1986, sent Army troops and helicopters to raid cocaine factories in Bolivia, Bolivians were outraged. The constitution "has been trampled," said the president of Bolivia's House of Representatives. The country's constitution requires congressional approval for any foreign military presence.
One thousand coca growers marched through the capital, La Paz, chanting "Death to the United States" and "Up with Coca" last May in protest over a U.S.-sponsored bill to prohibit most coca production. In late June, 5000 angry farmers overran a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration jungle base, demanding the 40 American soldiers and drug agents leave immediately.
U.S. pressure on foreign governments to fight their domestic drug industries has clearly reinforced the image of America as an imperialist bully, blithely indifferent to the concerns of other peoples. To Bolivian coca farmers, the U.S. government is not a beacon of freedom, but a threat to their livelihoods. To many Hondurans it seems that their government will ignore its own constitution on request from Uncle Sam. Leftists exploit such episodes to fan nationalistic sentiment to promote their agendas.

Legalizing the drug trade would remove some of the reasons to hate America and deprive local politicians of the chance to exploit their citizens. The U.S. would have a new opportunity to repair its reputation in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

I believe and our Constitution specifies that the federal government must provide for the common defense. I believe the US should vigorously and overwhelmingly defend itself overseas for any and all military infractions against the US, but this drug war cannot be won. People will do what they want to do whether they live in the US or the USSR.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
That,by and large is the content of the link I posted.
I know it's a great deal to read,but would urge you all to read it.
I belive some excelent points are made.

Amen.

Holy wall of text Batman.

Don't suppose anyone feels like summarising that?

Weed leads to sitting around on your couch laughing at scoobie doo cartoons when you should be doing something constructive. "hard drugs" lead to strangers you talk to in the bathroom of a club just cuz they have drugs... and people who don't know each other just leeching off each other around in a circle paranoid that someone took a bigger hit than them.

Yeah, exactly what it does for me. Its ironic since shaggy looks like a total flakking pothead.

------------------------

Anyways, yes, it should be legal. Weed should be 'course.

Honestly, if we legalized them and commercialized them, it would make huge bucks for the government, and everybody would be happy.

There would be an age limit (18 or older I'm guessing) and it wouldn't be bad anymore.

Kids wouldn't get involved anymore since it would be harder to get a hold of, it would be an industry.

It would reduce crime, make things like those poor corgi's never get shot, and take so many people of out jail for stupidass crimes like weed possession.

We live in a free country, we should be able to feth up our lives to the fullest if we wish. That is not what weed does, as I am an avid user, and honestly, it has never gotten me into trouble (unless I go outside....)

Pot isn't bad. It's just as bad as cig's, which really don't start affecting you 'till your quite old.

Alcohol has worse affects on you than weed, and that's legal. And you saw what happened when he illegalized that during the prohibition years in the 1920's. That is what is happening right now.

I have a feeling it will be legalized eventually with all of this medical weed being handed out nowadays. I'll just chill and lol at scooby doo 'till then. Oh, and plasticrack.

Alcohol may have worst long term effects (and that's debatable since even doctors say that a glass of wine (ONE glass, not an entire bottle) is good for you but I still challenge anyone to tell me it's immediate effects are worst than weed.

I can go a drink a single pint of Guiness, get into my car and drive like a always do. If I was to smoke an entire joint I'd be fethed up, driving fethed up, talking fethed up and acting fethed up and would get into an accident.

Like I said, legalized marijuana should cost an arm and a leg. Take the average street value of it, double it and then tax it on top of that.

That would surely just encourage people to sell weed illegally, cheaper.

Not necessarily. Cigarettes double in price when PresBO took office and I've not heard or seen any more reports of cigarettes being smuggled in and sold cheaper on the black market.

That and if you honestly think that the administration wouldn't take advantage of the potheads in the country to make money off them by milking legalized weed as high as they can means you have way more faith in the system than I do.

I honestly wish they'd increase the liquor tax. 9.5% in Mn should honestly double. Might cut down on the problems associated with alcohol.

The Dreadnote wrote:Don't suppose anyone feels like summarising that?

That about sums it up!

I say do it. Oh also, have a Detox clinic in each major city. Just so that we can actually help the people.

Shadowbrand wrote:I say do it. Oh also, have a Detox clinic in each major city. Just so that we can actually help the people.

Sure,centers to help people kick the habit would be (IMO) a good thing,sort of like A.A. but without the "dogma".
Legalization in no way means "lets turn the country into a bunch of addicts",it just seems a much more valid way of dealing with alot of problems.
Because,lets be honest,the "reefer madness" mindset & "The WAR on drugs" isn't working.

Yeah.

Kids do it because adults don't like it, and they like to get them mad.

They want to rebel, so they do it.

Honestly, if we handle it like Europe does I've heard (basically they don't give a gak, I may be terribly wrong, euro's feel free to clarify) it wouldn't be a problem.

Alcohol leads to wife-beating, shootings, etc.

Weed leads to 5 years off your life span if you do it A LOT, and makes you watch some cartoons and laugh your ass off.

Weed being illegal is causing more problem's than it is worth.

Make weed legal. McDonald's illegal.

Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

So no not all the euro countries see eye to eye about drugs. But i am glad i live in The Netherlands. I smoked weed when i was younger found out it was a waste of money and time and quit.

It would be best to legalise but that will never happen

Khornholio wrote:Make weed legal. McDonald's illegal.

Cheetos would be able to buy Belgium if they did!

Alcohol is legal, therefore alcoholic (some) alcoholics become a problem. Plenty of people who drink do so responsibly and are not a problem. Wouldn't the same go for any other mind altering drug? Some people will abuse it, and others will just take it for what it is and be responsible about their use.

I think illegal drugs should be legalised, but only certain kinds, and only under certain conditions.

1. Weed: May be smoked openly for a legitimate medical condition, may be smoked recreationly in ones own home or in a liscensed establishment.
2. Acid: May be used medicinaly for depression or PTSD, recreationaly only in a liscensed establishment.

I only list these two, because these are the only ones that i ahve seen the effects of personally, tho I ahve not done either.

Alcohol: Let minors drink it. What, for hundreds of years it was okay, and now its not. I call bullcrap.

Fateweaver wrote:Not necessarily. Cigarettes double in price when PresBO took office and I've not heard or seen any more reports of cigarettes being smuggled in and sold cheaper on the black market.

Funny, they're the same price here as they were before. You sure that wasn't a local thing?


ITT people attempt to justify the legality of soft drugs such as weed and then segway it into unrealistic and poorly thought out textwalls about legalizing heroin and cocaine full of legitimately dangerous logical holes and an absolute lack of historical perspective.

ITT people get fooled by big numbers without wondering about the underlying implications of them.

Not sure. They went from on average 2.75/pack for Camels to 5.25/pack within 2 months of O taking office. I don't seem to recall any local legislation passing such a thing though.

Not sure. They went from on average 2.75/pack for Camels to 5.25/pack within 2 months of O taking office. I don't seem to recall any local legislation passing such a thing though.

There likely was, it's ludicrously unrealistic to expect a president to make your cigarettes twice as expensive within 2 months of taking office. Tax laws take some time to be put into effect on a national level and they have to be voted on. You probably just missed a local vote for a vice-hike.

Anything concerning cigs I don't normally pay too much attention too. I'll have to look into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, April 1st of 2k9 was the Federal tax hike from 39 cents per pack to 1 dollar per pack. The state probably passed something to raise them higher. Some states did increase tax to help pay for other things.

As noted though. If they legalize weed then tax the hell out of it. I think MM is taxed to hell and back so do it for legalized, non-medical.

Obama did indeed pass a tax increase on cigarettes. It was used to fund an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I believe the tax increase was 62 cents.

There's also been some noise about an increase to the Minnesota state tax on cigarettes; somewhere in the neighborhood of a dollar. I don't know if that ever passed though.

Marijuana would be an excellent source of revenue for either the states, or the federal government.

Mhm.

All I've heard from anti-weed people are "Its bad!"

And when we smack them with hard logic, comparing it to alcohol or cig's, they just continue with "But its bad"

gaks.

I'm in favour of dope and ecstasy being legalised and regulated. Harder, addictive drugs should remain illegal, though.

Fateweaver wrote:I don' think it needs to be legalized but if they do tax the feth out of it. Like I'm talking 30-40%.

How do you tax something if it's illegal? By definition they're doing it outside of government sight, so how would you tax it.

It's a bit like a bank robber putting his earnings from a heist on his tax return.

Karon wrote:
And when we smack them with hard logic, comparing it to alcohol or cig's, they just continue with "But its bad"

Your position, no matter how well grounded in evidence, is nothing more than "But its not bad".

Qualitative judgments are necessarily subjective. Don't pretend as though this is a matter of logic, it isn't.

If both alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all equally bad, then it would make sense to treat them in the same manner; by regulating and taxing all in step with their individual nuances.

Legalize and regulate pot, that's my opinion.

Wrexasaur wrote:If both alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all equally bad, then it would make sense to treat them in the same manner; by regulating and taxing all in step with their individual nuances.

Legalize and regulate pot, that's my opinion.

I agree with you, and that does make sense. However, measuring badness isn't really possible, and many people would dispute the notion that pot is on equal footing with alcohol and tobacco (or claim that they are, and that they should all be banned).

That's the issue with qualitative arguments. There's really no way to settle them as quality isn't purely governed by medical data.

Completely relevant.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/early-marijuana-use-increases-psychosis-risk,17391/

sebster wrote:I'm in favour of dope and ecstasy being legalised and regulated. Harder, addictive drugs should remain illegal, though.

Fateweaver wrote:I don' think it needs to be legalized but if they do tax the feth out of it. Like I'm talking 30-40%.

How do you tax something if it's illegal? By definition they're doing it outside of government sight, so how would you tax it.

It's a bit like a bank robber putting his earnings from a heist on his tax return.

You misread my line. Look again. I said they don't need to legalize it but if they do (left out the legalize because I thought it was obvious what I was implying) tax the feth out of it.

Reading comprehension a little off seb?

dogma wrote:I agree with you, and that does make sense. However, measuring badness isn't really possible, and many people would dispute the notion that pot is on equal footing with alcohol and tobacco (or claim that they are, and that they should all be banned).

That's the issue with qualitative arguments. There's really no way to settle them as quality isn't purely governed by medical data.

Measuring abstractly (based on majority opinion), with data that may not be well settled, is not a particularly ineffective way to go about it.

Good and evil are nonexistent. Good or bad, is just a manipulative way of asking positive, or negative; all of which don't completely address the issue.

Just my opinion, but lots of that same opinion will have an impact on the issue of legalizing marijuana. It isn't airtight, it just makes sense.

Fateweaver wrote:
You misread my line. Look again. I said they don't need to legalize it but if they do (left out the legalize because I thought it was obvious what I was implying) tax the feth out of it.

Reading comprehension a little off seb?

Actually, you need to put a comma after the word 'legalized' in order for that sentence to have a solid case for that meaning. I knew what you meant, but its understandable that someone might not as it wasn't clear. It would also also have helped to add a 'should'.

If I think it appropriate to punctuate properly I will but I figured it was fairly obvious what I meant.

Guess it's easier to comprehend your own posts than for a stranger to comprehend them.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Measuring abstractly (based on majority opinion), with data that may not be well settled, is not a particularly ineffective way to go about it.

That is the theoretical basis of democracy, but it doesn't arrive at the actual quality of a thing. All it tells us is what people believe about a thing, which may also describe its nature. That's what I was trying to illustrate. This is a qualitative argument, and so not subject to 'logic' in the sense it was referred to.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Good and evil are nonexistent. Good or bad, is just a manipulative way of asking positive, or negative; all of which don't completely address the issue.

Just my opinion, but lots of that same opinion will have an impact on the issue of legalizing marijuana. It isn't airtight, it just makes sense.

Well yeah, because its really all about the voters, which places the matter squarely in the subjective arena.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:If I think it appropriate to punctuate properly I will but I figured it was fairly obvious what I meant.

Guess it's easier to comprehend your own posts than for a stranger to comprehend them.

Well, that's also understandable as most uses of the word 'but' include a pause, but that's really just because it is commonly used as a conjunction.

dogma wrote:That is the theoretical basis of democracy, but it doesn't arrive at the actual quality of a thing. All it tells us is what people believe about a thing, which may also describe its nature. That's what I was trying to illustrate. This is a qualitative argument, and so not subject to 'logic' in the sense it was referred to.

I didn't use the word logical, I referred to it as sensible.

Well yeah, because its really all about the voters, which places the matter squarely in the subjective arena.

Even being a subjective issue, that may have an impact (and pretty much does so) on research into the problem. More pressure, more research, more opinion from a reputable set of institutions. Does pot make you crazy? I don't think so... but what do doctors think?

You are likely to know more about all of this than I do, just adding my two cents.

I would love if the federal government legalized drugs...with conditionals.

First off...the Federal government would need to decide what drugs to legalize. We have had many, many years of study and practice in terms of what people have used and what effects these drugs have. Legalize the drugs that are not potentially life threatening after every use. Obviously, limits must be placed on how much these drugs can be taken, and severe penalties must ensue for those who overabuse, much like alcohol.

Second...regulation of these drugs are paramount. Licenses would probably be great for those who grow the stuff domestically and for those who sell it. Anyone caught selling the stuff without a license or growing it without a permit would get jail time. The importation and dissemination of these drugs without said license would also impose harsh penalties as well.

Third...saturate the market with these drugs. Make sure prices are so low it undercuts the international drug trade and illegal growing. This can be difficult, as reckless imposition of fees for licenses and permits could drive up the prices. Government regulation is paramount to making this work.

Lastly...a zone of drug use. Just call it a red light district. Major metropolitan areas should have regions like Amsterdam has where just about anything goes. The heaviest concentration of these drugs should be in these regions. Under heavy supervision and protection, peace should be kept and stability ensured.

Now all of this is probably whimsical and impossible to implement, but the two biggest challenges would be to undercut illegal drugs and to make these drugs safe (definitons of illegal and safe are left to your own respective opinion).

Wrexasaur wrote:
I didn't use the word logical, I referred to it as sensible.

I was referring to Karon's post.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Even being a subjective issue, that may have an impact (and pretty much does so) on research into the problem. More pressure, more research, more opinion from a reputable set of institutions. Does pot make you crazy? I don't think so... but what do doctors think?

You are likely to know more about all of this than I do, just adding my two cents.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not really into drug politics, I'm commenting more on the reasoning going on here (not jsut you, but the whole of the thread). Personally, I would like most drugs to be legalized, and controlled by state monopolies; though I doubt I'll ever see it happen.

FITZZ wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Drugs are legal.

Why just today I bough me some acetylsalicylic acid and acetaminophen from my local Pharmacy!

I stand corrected by Gwar (there's a shock) .

So let us focus on "Should ilegal drugs be made legal"?

Define yourself. Which illegal drugs? All of the them, some of them? which?

Because some of them are legitimately dangerous, like meth.

Frazzled wrote:
Define yourself. Which illegal drugs? All of the them, some of them? which?

Only the ones Frazzled likes. Lots and lot of them. All of it Overnight Expressed straight to Frazzled's door!

I would say all of them. If someone O.D.s they knew what they were getting into before they shoved the needle in. But then again I believe in natural selection culling the gene pool for the sake of progress too.

Karon wrote:

Alcohol leads to wife-beating, shootings, etc.

Actually, no it doesnt.



...as far as Weed being legalised.

I see no reason for the prohibition on Weed to NOT be lifted the same as it was with Alchohol.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of Mary-Jane can plainly see that "Weed=Bad" is a crazy notion. Furthermore, if you can say "Weed=Bad" with a beer in your hand, you're basically ignorant of the facts.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Define yourself. Which illegal drugs? All of the them, some of them? which?

Only the ones Frazzled likes. Lots and lot of them. All of it Overnight Expressed straight to Frazzled's door!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:I would say all of them. If someone O.D.s they knew what they were getting into before they shoved the needle in. But then again I believe in natural selection culling the gene pool for the sake of progress too.

Sniffing glue?
LSD?
Crystalmeth (made by Americans for Americans HURR!)?
Weed?
Crack?
black tar heroin?
licking frogs?

But yea I actually agree with Guitardian on most. Make sure current laws incorporate the effects of drugs (driving under influence, public intoxication) then increase the penalties 250%. Put a 200% on foreign iports until we develop our domestic market. Then make it legal. Then tax it. Win Win!

Guitardian wrote:I would say all of them. If someone O.D.s they knew what they were getting into before they shoved the needle in. But then again I believe in natural selection culling the gene pool for the sake of progress too.

Total lack of historical perspective. Cocaine was legal once, and it wasn't pretty. Meth and heroin are far worse. The illegality of drugs don't make them more desirable, just more difficult to attain. These substances are often times incredibly destructive to the societies they are prevalent in and to legalize them is inviting more problems than you seem to want to think. Issues of self reliance and self control go right out the window when you're discussing substances that drastically change the chemical nature of the human brain.

Also for reference:

THATS NOT HOW NATURAL SELECTION WORKS GOD fething DAMNIT.

Make sure current laws incorporate the effects of drugs (driving under influence, public intoxication) then increase the penalties 250%. Put a 200% on foreign iports until we develop our domestic market. Then make it legal. Then tax it. Win Win!

Yes, because creating an environment of addictive substances that are entirely government controlled and heavily taxed is such a good idea. You're an awful macro economist fraz, the legalization of hard drugs would destroy the low income sections of american society and would drag the middle down quickly.

Do what with drugs.... errr, dunno. [pufffff] errr, may be... what was the question?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yes, because creating an environment of addictive substances that are entirely government controlled and heavily taxed is such a good idea. You're an awful macro economist fraz, the legalization of hard drugs would destroy the low income sections of american society and would drag the middle down quickly.

I do believe you reflexively attack posters at this point.

here, respond to this one.
Frazzled alternate universe B

Heck no. Drugs are evil. Put 'em all in prison and throw away the key. Don't forget to shoot their dogs when you raid their houses.

or Frazzled alternate universe C:

Heck no, things should stay the same. I don't see what the problem is, they are bad for you.

Not getting the macro economic theory argument, but lets go there. The drug war creates an artificial shortage on a price inelastic good, without the desire to actually extinguish the behavior. As such the price of the good rises, generating supranormal profits for the manufacturers. A classical economist would also note the market does not have full knowledge by all parties, and transportation difficulties.

I vote D.

Round up all drug smugglers/dealers (yes even pot dealers/growers), line them all up side by side, make them dig a trench 6 feet deep by 3 feet wide, and then mow them down with M16's and AK-47's.

Problem solved, mostly.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, because creating an environment of addictive substances that are entirely government controlled and heavily taxed is such a good idea. You're an awful macro economist fraz, the legalization of hard drugs would destroy the low income sections of american society and would drag the middle down quickly.

Regardless, while there is a lot of support for the legalization of mary jane, there isn't much for the legalization of the white rider.

Fateweaver wrote:I vote D.

Round up all drug smugglers/dealers (yes even pot dealers/growers), line them all up side by side, make them dig a trench 6 feet deep by 3 feet wide, and then mow them down with M16's and AK-47's.

Problem solved, mostly.

So speaks the voice of reason One way of sorting it all out

Frazzled wrote:
Not getting the macro economic theory argument, but lets go there. The drug war creates an artificial shortage on a price inelastic good, without the desire to actually extinguish the behavior. As such the price of the good rises, generating supranormal profits for the manufacturers. A classical economist would also note the market does not have full knowledge by all parties, and transportation difficulties.

See, if this thinking were applied to illegal immigration, the problem would be solved today.

Anyway, its not a price inelastic good in most cases. The primary volume of illegal substances are not universally addictive. I know many a young royal who would refuse the rider if the price exceeded his expectation.

Interstingly, Fazz has also made the case for reducing immigration controls.

dogma wrote:Anyway, its not a price inelastic good in most cases. The primary volume of illegal substances are not universally addictive. I know many a young royal who would refuse the rider if the price exceeded his expectation..

Wouldn't this be an argument against the claims of its inherent destructiveness as well?

Yes.

Anyone see the interview w/ Gary Johnson and Stephen Colbert last night?

He really brought up everything I said, how alcohol was worse, how weed really isn't bad, how it reduces use of it in countries where it is legal(or places) and how it relates directly to the prohibition era of the US.

Really good interview, though colbert pretty much just feths with him the whole time (its his job, afterall)

One thing tht gets overlooked in nearly every debate about this: marijuana is NOT harmless. It makes you:
1) Stupid. If you doubt this, hang out with some stoners for a while and try talking about something more advanced than Sesame Street.
2) Emotionally unstable. You experience severe mood swings when not under its influence. You become more agressive when not smoking, etc.
I'm speaking from experience. I smoked a lot of weed when I was in high school and towards the end of university. Suffice to say I avoid it like the plague these days. It is NOT a harmless substance by any means. The only 'perk' it has is not being addictive.

Almost any substance will have harmful effects if overused. I know many people who smoke weed and not one of them could be considered stupid or emotionally unstable.

There is of course the exception of my cousin, who used to smoke weed heavily, and is now crazy. No causal link proven.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

"It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder."

What is the root of a mental disorder, refer to textbooks 1-5, for a varied set of opinions on the matter.

http://behavioural-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/marijuana_triggers_mental_illness

The researchers were clear that it's not that marijuana causes psychosis. Rather, marijuana triggers mental illness if the individual already has a predisposition to that illness. So if your family has a history of schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses, smoking pot now could predispose you to struggle with mental illness later in life.

In other words, just like many concepts derived in the field of psychology, there is little more than complete bs to stand on.

Driving cars causes mental disorders, but only does so if mental disorders were already likely to occur... but the car caused it, obviously. Of that there can be no question.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:One thing tht gets overlooked in nearly every debate about this: marijuana is NOT harmless. It makes you:
1) Stupid. If you doubt this, hang out with some stoners for a while and try talking about something more advanced than Sesame Street.
2) Emotionally unstable. You experience severe mood swings when not under its influence. You become more agressive when not smoking, etc.
I'm speaking from experience. I smoked a lot of weed when I was in high school and towards the end of university. Suffice to say I avoid it like the plague these days. It is NOT a harmless substance by any means. The only 'perk' it has is not being addictive.

I haven't seen the aggression, but there is growing evidence that it links to several mental disorders,. However, it should also be noted that alcohol has a very strong impact on the development of the brain, and that your brain will continue developing into your mid-20s. Should it also be banned?

While there are drugs that are sufficiently harmful to society that they should be banned, there is also a point where the harm of a drug is insufficient to justify banning it. Wherever that line is, I have a hard time placing marijuana on one side and alcohol on the other.

sebster wrote:I haven't seen the aggression, but there is growing evidence that it links to several mental disorders.

Link it please, no offense or anything, but 99% of what I have seen is next to meaningless.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

The more links about it, the less can be misunderstood, so add them up.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:One thing tht gets overlooked in nearly every debate about this: marijuana is NOT harmless. It makes you:
1) Stupid. If you doubt this, hang out with some stoners for a while and try talking about something more advanced than Sesame Street.
2) Emotionally unstable. You experience severe mood swings when not under its influence. You become more agressive when not smoking, etc.
I'm speaking from experience. I smoked a lot of weed when I was in high school and towards the end of university. Suffice to say I avoid it like the plague these days. It is NOT a harmless substance by any means. The only 'perk' it has is not being addictive.

You know what you just said can be applied to alcohol too.

Apart from the non addictive part.

Hell, if anything we should BAN Alcohol and legalize Pot!

Orky-Kowboy wrote:One thing tht gets overlooked in nearly every debate about this: marijuana is NOT harmless. It makes you:
1) Stupid. If you doubt this, hang out with some stoners for a while and try talking about something more advanced than Sesame Street.
2) Emotionally unstable. You experience severe mood swings when not under its influence. You become more agressive when not smoking, etc.
I'm speaking from experience. I smoked a lot of weed when I was in high school and towards the end of university. Suffice to say I avoid it like the plague these days. It is NOT a harmless substance by any means. The only 'perk' it has is not being addictive.

Agreed.

Marjuana is also dangerous if you have any sort of heart condition or are on any sort of heart medication, can be grown with poisonous pesticides and not properly treated, and can cause drug induced psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia in people with a predisposition.
Hash can be cut with all sorts of things, too.

Da Boss wrote:Marjuana is also dangerous if you have any sort of heart condition or are on any sort of heart medication, can be grown with poisonous pesticides and not properly treated, and can cause drug induced psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia in people with a predisposition.
Hash can be cut with all sorts of things, too.

On the plus side, it makes listening to Can bearable.

I think if someone's properly informed and aware of the potential risks for themselves, that's fine, puff away in the privacy of your own home. It's the misinformation that gets spread (that it's harmless) that really bugs me.

Da Boss wrote:I think if someone's properly informed and aware of the potential risks for themselves, that's fine, puff away in the privacy of your own home. It's the misinformation that gets spread (that it's harmless) that really bugs me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:I think if someone's properly informed and aware of the potential risks for themselves, that's fine, puff away in the privacy of your own home. It's the misinformation that gets spread (that it's harmless) that really bugs me.

Exactly.

Albatross wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Marjuana is also dangerous if you have any sort of heart condition or are on any sort of heart medication, can be grown with poisonous pesticides and not properly treated, and can cause drug induced psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia in people with a predisposition.
Hash can be cut with all sorts of things, too.

On the plus side, it makes listening to Can bearable.

yes yes it can can. I have noticed back in my stoner days I liked an awful lot of music that nobody around me really 'got'... noise, buzz, sloppy crazy crackly recordings and walls of sound. Weed is good for that. Also, when actually playing the guitar and recording a track, I would find myself losing myself in the headphones and completely rocking as I go along, thinking it was genius. I would sober up and listen back and just think 'what the heck is that garbled nonsense?' but at the time it was the sublime. My latter years (the 'beer years') are a lot more organized, oddly enough, because I'm not communing with buddha or whatever while I'm playing I'm just rokkin some attitude... but I don't regret the experimental years with weed. It did let me explore a lot and learn, and never did me any harm. Nowadays I just think of drugs as learning experiences, and once you have learned each lesson, you move on, and leave it in the past, and always come back to beer and cigarettes. I don't regret any drug I have ever taken. I learned from all of them, and left them behind. It is possible for a legalized culture to encourage that kind of mode of thinking and we may well end up with less addicts.

Fateweaver wrote:Alcohol may have worst long term effects (and that's debatable since even doctors say that a glass of wine (ONE glass, not an entire bottle) is good for you but I still challenge anyone to tell me it's immediate effects are worst than weed.

I can go a drink a single pint of Guiness, get into my car and drive like a always do. If I was to smoke an entire joint I'd be fethed up, driving fethed up, talking fethed up and acting fethed up and would get into an accident.

Like I said, legalized marijuana should cost an arm and a leg. Take the average street value of it, double it and then tax it on top of that.

Then people will just supply it illegally untaxed.

umm... NO

The only reason pot is expensive is because of risk. It grows just like tobacco. Think a pack of joints versus a pack of cigs x2 cost because of tax, and that's still an awful lot cheaper for potheads than 3 joints for $20. Win-Win.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:...marijuana is NOT harmless. It makes you:
1) Stupid.
2) Emotionally unstable.
I'm speaking from experience...The only 'perk' it has is not being addictive.

Okay then. lets substitute MJ for "Porn"...Oh, wait...

Orky-Kowboy wrote:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html..."It has been suggested that marijuana ...

This same piece you cite goes on regarding "suggested" detriments. But please hop on past
studies on the impact on alzheimer's and the impact of Acetylcholinesterase, which is also known to accelerate the loss of function in alzheimer's patients. And there are pretty recent studies suggesting the cancer risk are much less:

Despite the heavy use, "in no category was there any increased risk, nor was there any suggestion that smoking more led to a higher odds ratio," he continued. "There was no dose-response—not even a suggestion of a dose response—and in all types of cancer except one, oral cancer, the odds ratios were less than one."

The confidence intervals around the odds ratios were wide however, and the odds ratios did not show a dose response.

In contrast, tobacco smoking was associated with increased risk for all cancers, and there was a "powerful" dose-response relationship. People who smoked more than two packs of cigarettes per day had a 21-fold risk for cancer, as opposed to a less than onefold risk for marijuana, Dr. Tashkin said.

But who am I to argue with Harvard *Law* about *medicine*? What could a Doctor's research possibly know?
Or possibly the question of a return on investment:
Research suggesting CA alone could return $1.2 BILLION on legalization and taxation - with a potential of 18 billion in related income. Let's assume that the $200 million in enforcement costs get rolled back into public rehab programs - the return on investment can still be measured in hundreds of millions.

Legalize it, tax it 50% more than tobacco (data here) from $1.56/pack to say $2.50 and it presents a return to the community.

But of course alcohol is so much safer! We've become accustomed to alcohol fueled rages. A pot fueled rage results in an empty fridge and yet another trip to the store for Funyuns and Sunny D.

If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

Kilkrazy wrote:
If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

Yes, however will we bust up the great moonshine cartels?

Kilkrazy wrote:
If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

You mean...like the current black market for pot?
Or the illegal market for Cigarettes and Alcohol?

Oldgrue wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

You mean...like the current black market for pot?
Or the illegal market for Cigarettes and Alcohol?

Hey without taxes on booze we'd never have had NASCAR.

Frazzled wrote:
Hey without taxes on booze we'd never have had NASCAR.

What Terrors of American Culture (tm) could we have with legal pot?? ALL the more reason!

Oldgrue wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Hey without taxes on booze we'd never have had NASCAR.

What Terrors of American Culture (tm) could we have with legal pot?? ALL the more reason!

Professional potato chip eating competitions?

"now eating for the Funyun team..."

It could work!!

Irony: If pot is illegal, and booze is legal....why are potheads funny, but alcoholics tragic?

Oldgrue wrote:"now eating for the Funyun team..."

It could work!!

Irony: If pot is illegal, and booze is legal....why are potheads funny, but alcoholics tragic?

No way, potheads lack the motivation for competition.

I second the stupid part.

I know alcoholics and stoners. Alcoholics when sober don't appear to have suffered IQ deficiencies due to their drinking.

Stoners sound and talk like their IQ dropped into the negative range even when they aren't high.

I can also drink one beer and not hold conversations with inanimate objects (one of the perks of working at Wally world was watching stoners baked off their asses talking to the potato chips). If I was to smoke 1 joint or 1 bowl I'd be conversing with things that don't move.

How again does alcohol make you stupid compared to pot?

I know alcoholics and stoners. Alcoholics when sober don't appear to have suffered IQ deficiencies due to their drinking.

Which is funny, because alcohol kills significantly more braincells than marijuana. It's significantly worse over the long term for you physically and mentally. What you're likely seeing is the difference between the average pothead and the average guy. Until both are legalized you're unlikely to see casual use cases that will satisfy your personal opinions with marijuana.

I can also drink one beer and not hold conversations with inanimate objects (one of the perks of working at Wally world was watching stoners baked off their asses talking to the potato chips). If I was to smoke 1 joint or 1 bowl I'd be conversing with things that don't move.

One beer is what? 2% alchohol? Try it after drinking a few shots of whisky. If you're going to compare at least compare actually usefully comparable amounts of the substances. One beer is little different than taking a single drag off of a joint.

How again does alcohol make you stupid compared to pot?

Use wikipedia or something. Find it out for yourself.

Fateweaver wrote:If I was to smoke 1 joint or 1 bowl I'd be conversing with things that don't move.

I'm sorry you feel you're susceptible to it.
However, I've seen drunks talk to lamps. Therefore, let's leave our anecdotes out of this.
You're safer to drive high.

Thus, when subjects experienced a social marijuana
“high,” they accumulated significantly more speedometer
errors on the simulator than under control conditions, but
there were no significant differences in accelerator, brake,
signal, steering, and total errors. The same subjects intoxicated
from alcohol accumulated significantly more accelerator,
brake, signal, speedometer, and total errors. Furthermore,
impairment in simulated driving performance
apparently is not a function of increased marijuana dosage or
inexperience with the drug.

I'm all for villifying an ugly weed. I think we should call a spade a spade though.

Edit: wait! I failed to touch on the 'stupid'.
As a purely non scientific example: http://www.darwinawards.com The involvement of alcohol markedly outstrips the involvement of 'drugs'

Oldgrue wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

You mean...like the current black market for pot?
Or the illegal market for Cigarettes and Alcohol?

Pretty much.

There's no point in legalising something in such a way as to make it illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:I second the stupid part.

I know alcoholics and stoners. Alcoholics when sober don't appear to have suffered IQ deficiencies due to their drinking.

...

Clearly you've never met someone with Korsakow's syndrome.

Kilkrazy wrote:
There's no point in legalising something in such a way as to make it illegal.

Wait what?
So if we make it legal to use and possess, yet tax its sale and distribution... that's bad?

I don't see any statistics, or studies.

All I see is "I ONCE SAW THIS GUY, HE WASN'T AS DUMB AS THIS ONE POTHEAD"

The point of legalising something is to bring all of the distribution within government oversight in order to generate optimal tax revenues, maintain a level of quality, and avoid the social problems associated with making lots of citizens into criminals.

If you set the tax rate so high as to create a clear incentive to make an illegal, untaxed market, then you blow all these objectives.

I would call that bad.

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of legalising something is to bring all of the distribution within government oversight in order to generate optimal tax revenues, maintain a level of quality, and avoid the social problems associated with making lots of citizens into criminals.

If you set the tax rate so high as to create a clear incentive to make an illegal, untaxed market, then you blow all these objectives.

I would call that bad.

It certainly would be if thats what they did. No proposal I have ever seen has looked like that though, so it's a moot point.

Originally I responded to Fateweaver's proposal of a tax rate of 30 to 40%. After that I responded to people's responses to my my response.

Not to mention even taxed highly if the cost of a joint or pack of joints or whatever is cheaper than it's street equivalent the theory is that the sale of marijuana outside the legal channels will drop.

After all, most people if they can get something cheaper will take the cheaper option so long as it satisfies them the same.

Kilkrazy wrote:Originally I responded to Fateweaver's proposal of a tax rate of 30 to 40%. After that I responded to people's responses to my my response.

A tax rate percentage is entirely dependent on a base cost. Something I don't remember seeing.

It's all relative.

If you can buy 20 joints for $10 on the black market or for $14 on the legal market, someone is going to reckon it's worth the risk of a tax evasion charge to supply the black market.

If the 20 joints are $10 on the black market and $10.20 on the legal market. very few people would bother to take the risk to make 20 cents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just look at the actual existing markets in drink and cigarettes to see how it works.

If you can buy 20 joints for $10 on the black market or for $14 on the legal market, someone is going to reckon it's worth the risk of a tax evasion charge to supply the black market.

Yep. But then you essentially just admitted that the market forces themselves would relegate most dealers and distributers to joblessness.

I fail to se your point.

If the 20 joints are $10 on the black market and $10.20 on the legal market. very few people would bother to take the risk to make 20 cents.

Cool beans. No plan I've seen stated end market counter prices so you're arguing imaginary things.

Just look at the actual existing markets in drink and cigarettes to see how it works.

The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Shuma wrote: The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Homebrew booze and snouts? No there isn't a big market, but I get the impression KK was talking about cheap foreign booze/tabs sold on the black market. That is massive here, 'specially cigs.

Albatross wrote:

Shuma wrote: The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Homebrew booze and snouts? No there isn't a big market, but I get the impression KK was talking about cheap foreign booze/tabs sold on the black market. That is massive here, 'specially cigs.

Sounds like a regional thing there, it's quite tiny here. America isn't nearly so fragmented in that regard as europe though, so thats likely the direct cause. A benefit of a singular government I suppose.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Shuma wrote: The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Homebrew booze and snouts? No there isn't a big market, but I get the impression KK was talking about cheap foreign booze/tabs sold on the black market. That is massive here, 'specially cigs.

Sounds like a regional thing there, it's quite tiny here. America isn't nearly so fragmented in that regard as europe though, so thats likely the direct cause. A benefit of a singular government I suppose.

Yeah, it's largely down to the fact that booze/cigs are way cheaper on the continent than they are here. Most of my mates who smoke buy dodgy cigs - I haven't bought a pack from an actual shop in years and years. I once worked for a nightclub that bought it's spirits exclusively on the black market. True story.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If you can buy 20 joints for $10 on the black market or for $14 on the legal market, someone is going to reckon it's worth the risk of a tax evasion charge to supply the black market.

Yep. But then you essentially just admitted that the market forces themselves would relegate most dealers and distributers to joblessness.

I fail to se your point.

If the 20 joints are $10 on the black market and $10.20 on the legal market. very few people would bother to take the risk to make 20 cents.

Cool beans. No plan I've seen stated end market counter prices so you're arguing imaginary things.

Just look at the actual existing markets in drink and cigarettes to see how it works.

The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

It's not imaginary in Europe. Historically smuggling booze has been big business, and there are still booze and cigarette smugglers in various areas -- e.g. Kent and Naples. Rationing also caused wide-spread low-level black market crime.

It depends on the tax level. People don't bother with stuff which has low tax on or which is widely and cheaply available. That's basic economics.

My point is that government needs to judge the right level of taxation to maximise the revenue, and minimise the social ill-effects of crime.

Surely you would not say that the level of tax has no relation to the propensity of people to avoid the tax?

Wrexasaur wrote:

sebster wrote:I haven't seen the aggression, but there is growing evidence that it links to several mental disorders.

Link it please, no offense or anything, but 99% of what I have seen is next to meaningless.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

The more links about it, the less can be misunderstood, so add them up.

Yeah, I know there is ongoing debate on the issue. I don’t really know where the science is at, but I do know that a correlation between marijuana and psychosis matches with my the experiences I’ve had with friends.

For me, those experiences plus the on-going debate leads me to think it’s quite likely there’s something there. Note that I don’t think it is enough to justify making the drug illegal, though.

Da Boss wrote:Marjuana is also dangerous if you have any sort of heart condition or are on any sort of heart medication, can be grown with poisonous pesticides and not properly treated, and can cause drug induced psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia in people with a predisposition.
Hash can be cut with all sorts of things, too.

The dangers of unknown production methods and the possibility of containing other drugs are an argument to legalise and regulate.

If people are using it and suffering from pesticides or other drugs being added, then what’s needed is to bring in quality control from a regulatory body. That’s only possible if the drug is legal.

Guitardian wrote:umm... NO

The only reason pot is expensive is because of risk. It grows just like tobacco. Think a pack of joints versus a pack of cigs x2 cost because of tax, and that's still an awful lot cheaper for potheads than 3 joints for $20. Win-Win.

Nah, the cost of production isn’t that big a factor. Alcohol is only expensive because the market is geared to what we’re willing to pay - get a pint in the pub and maybe 10% of the cost is actually in the production of the beer. But we’re willing to pay $10 for a pint, so the industry builds up around providing beer at that price.

If marijuana were made legal you’d see the same thing, there’d be a minority growing their own pot, like you get a minority brewing their own beer, but mostly you’ll see people falling into the same demographics as beer, cost focus, quality focus, prestige focus…

It depends on the tax level. People don't bother with stuff which has low tax on or which is widely and cheaply available. That's basic economics.

Actually tax level is irrelevant when there is no base cost to discuss. This is the same argument as before. You're discussing how heavy the ship can be without running aground when we don't even know what the ship is.

My point is that government needs to judge the right level of taxation to maximise the revenue, and minimise the social ill-effects of crime.

Surely you would not say that the level of tax has no relation to the propensity of people to avoid the tax?

I would. The end consumer doesn't actually care where his money goes. The consumer only realistically cares about the price. Whether that price is delegated by taxation or profiteering is meaningless in his decision to go outside the normal means of procurement. No one tries to "avoid" the tax. They try and avoid the price increase that tax theoretically dictates, but that is no different than avoiding an expensive product that is expensive for any other means. With substances that are illegal outside of normal avenues the consumer is typically willing to pay extra for the legality and safety the comes in lie with such. Europes problem in this regard is its own, and as fragmented as europe is it's unlikely to change.

Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

Kilkrazy wrote:Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

What exactly are you arguing here? I agree that overtaxation to the point of creating black markets is bad. But so is building a ladder to the sun and trying to climb to venus. We know. It's obvious. These are very clear and obvious points.

sebster wrote:Yeah, I know there is ongoing debate on the issue. I don’t really know where the science is at, but I do know that a correlation between marijuana and psychosis matches with my the experiences I’ve had with friends.

For me, those experiences plus the on-going debate leads me to think it’s quite likely there’s something there. Note that I don’t think it is enough to justify making the drug illegal, though.

I have known many people that have smoked pot on a regular basis; the ones that were crazy, started that way.

There may be a correlation, as any drug could act as a trigger to deeper issues. I just don't see any reason why the same people that had issues with marijuana, wouldn't have much the same issues with any other drug; using them as self-medication.

I would like to note that prescribing marijuana to treat mental disorders, sounds quite dubious.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

What exactly are you arguing here? I agree that overtaxation to the point of creating black markets is bad. But so is building a ladder to the sun and trying to climb to venus. We know. It's obvious. These are very clear and obvious points.

Since you agree with me there is no argument.

Wrexasaur wrote:I have known many people that have smoked pot on a regular basis; the ones that were crazy, started that way.

There may be a correlation, as any drug could act as a trigger to deeper issues. I just don't see any reason why the same people that had issues with marijuana, wouldn't have much the same issues with any other drug; using them as self-medication.

I would like to note that prescribing marijuana to treat mental disorders, sounds quite dubious.

Fair enough, different personal experiences different resultant beliefs. I don't think marijuana is enough to cause extreme medical problems by itself, I smoked it for a reasonable time and apart from that one time I blacked out and woke up covered blood I turned out sane enough. I also think it is very hard to seperate cause and effect (people with issues are more likely to use marijuana and other drugs), but I can't dismiss the idea that dope may exacerbate mental issues, because of the experiences of a few friends.

But again, I'd like to point I don't believe that means it needs to remain banned. There are legal drugs which can increase problems of other drugs - alcohol can be used to self-medicate depression and make it a lot worse, for instance.

Here's a thought. Let us asume for the momenbt that drugs are legal. Who gets to sell them? Who gets to make the most money off suffering adicts?

Kilkrazy wrote:
If you set the tax rate so high as to create a clear incentive to make an illegal, untaxed market, then you blow all these objectives.

I agree, but in the creation of black market we won't have a price margin akin to the $10/$10.20 example. The volume required to make the 2% difference profitable doesn't tend to function in a black market format - at least here in the states.

I'm convinced that an ongoing vice that can't be removed through prohibition needs to be legalized to contribute to society. 'Victimless' crimes need to be taxed and regulated rather than left an enforcement issue. Taxation helps remove the allure of the forbidden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alexwars1 wrote:Here's a thought. Let us asume for the momenbt that drugs are legal. Who gets to sell them? Who gets to make the most money off suffering adicts?

Sales should be relegated to licensed and regulated retailers. Comparable to a liquor license with its own regulation.
The same people profit from suffering addicts with legalized drugs as currently illegal ones - rehabilitation centers.

No, they shouldn't.

Kilkrazy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

What exactly are you arguing here? I agree that overtaxation to the point of creating black markets is bad. But so is building a ladder to the sun and trying to climb to venus. We know. It's obvious. These are very clear and obvious points.

Since you agree with me there is no argument.

Very well then.

I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't consider carl sagan stupid

[link]http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm[link]


pot doesn't make you stupid

alexwars1 wrote:Here's a thought. Let us asume for the momenbt that drugs are legal. Who gets to sell them? Who gets to make the most money off suffering adicts?

Companies registered in production and retail would produce and sell them, same as for all other legal vices.

The profit from their sale would go to those companies, and to government.

Thinking about dope in terms of suffering addicts is basically a nonsense.

sebster wrote:
Companies registered in production and retail would produce and sell them, same as for all other legal vices.

In some parts of the world there are state monopolies on the sale of liquor.

dogma wrote:In some parts of the world there are state monopolies on the sale of liquor.

Huh, that makes sense but it never occurred to me that places would set up like that.

pot doesn't make people stupid, just stupid-ER

sebster wrote:
Huh, that makes sense but it never occurred to me that places would set up like that.

Yeah, its an awesome source of revenue. Surprisingly, there are even a few US states that operate this way, so do all the Scandinavian countries, though obviously the systems are a bit different. The biggest variable being whether or not the government operates retail establishments, or only holds a wholesale monopoly.

I say pot should be legal i mean is it that much worse than smoking??? or drinking?????

As a Libertarian this idea does make sense, but, I can hear it now. Some of these same people who wanted it will then complain because they weren't prevented from losing their job, getting injured because of the effects of the drugs or getting addicted. If you want them legal, deal with the repercussions too. Can't have it be a perfectly secure world, more freedom equals more chaos in people's everyday life.

I did hear about this being attempted in Switzerland with Heroin, the Swiss people voted to have it's leagaliztion repealled because junkies would shoot up in public parks in front of kids and leave their syringes everywhere. If the Swiss are anything, they are pround of having a clean country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also legalizing Pot would immediately create a slippery slope of other drugs and activities getting legalized. Where does it stop?

Yeah. That's what ticks me off about smokers. Cigs are legal and so most, not all, of them think they should get more work breaks, be allowed to smoke wherever and then bitch when non-smokers tell them their habit is unhealthy for all of those around them.

You want to smoke at work you A) take it outside, B) not demand more breaks than others (not my fault your nicotine habit is that bad) and C) don't blow the gak into my face even if I am standing 5 feet from you and we are outside. D) Don't throw the damned butts onto the ground. They are more unsightly than McD's or BK wrappers.

Stormrider wrote:
Also legalizing Pot would immediately create a slippery slope of other drugs and activities getting legalized. Where does it stop?

Uh, what? Alcohol is legal, does that mean the slippery slope exists? No, it doesn't. Stop spouting nonsense.

That's what'll happen with drugs and jobs.

Mary Jane could be legalized but employers will still make it a firing offense and a refusal to hire offense. So now pot will be legal but you'll have MORE employers losing help as more will be failing the random drug tests. More will fail the initial pre-screen so it'll be harder to find help who aren't stoners and stoned before coming to work. Then you'll have those people expecting to be able to light up at work on "smoke break". If they don't get their way then the employers will feel pressured to let employees get stoned during break creating more hazardous conditions.

Fateweaver wrote:
More will fail the initial pre-screen so it'll be harder to find help who aren't stoners and stoned before coming to work.

Failing a drug test does not indicate that a user will be unable to report to work sober.

Fateweaver wrote:
Then you'll have those people expecting to be able to light up at work on "smoke break". If they don't get their way then the employers will feel pressured to let employees get stoned during break creating more hazardous conditions.

Why? No employee that I know of is allowed to drink at work, why would they be allowed to smoke pot?

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
Also legalizing Pot would immediately create a slippery slope of other drugs and activities getting legalized. Where does it stop?

Uh, what? Alcohol is legal, does that mean the slippery slope exists? No, it doesn't. Stop spouting nonsense.

Ok 1. How long has alcohol been legal to buy, sell, trade, tax and consume? I'll answer that, since man figured out how to brew alcohol. Yes, cannibus has been smoked a long time too, but it was (right or wrong) made illegal in the 1930's by Roosevelt. 2. The slope does exist since this thread does exist, doesn't it? Makes you think, doesn't it? 3. What I mean is that where does it stop? Cocaine? Heroin? LSD? GHB? Ecstacy? All of which are far worse than Cannibus, but all have their advocates.


Personally, this idea should be implemented on a state by state basis, not a national decree.

dogma wrote:

Why? No employee that I know of is allowed to drink at work, why would they be allowed to smoke pot?

Because to many people, the fine line between cigarettes and pot does not exist. ANd hopefully they wouldn't be allwoed to smoke pot, but they might expect to.

The pre-screen IS designed to make sure people aren't going to have drugs in their system when showing up to work. It is not a preventative measure nor a "pick on stoners" policy. It's a "you can't pass the drug test so we don't trust you to be sober when coming to work" test.

It's assumed if you fail the pre-screen that you'll end up, at some point and time, showing up to work stoned and if that happens the employer is fethed if that person should get hurt as the employers insurance won't cover medical costs leaving the employer to pay out of pocket expenses. One of the jobs I worked at didn't do prescreens or randoms and working 3rd shift the lead for that crew would get stoned during breaks along with a few others. There was nobody that was going to say anything and with no worry of randoms they could get away with it. So IME those that fail the drug test would show up to work stoned on a weekly, if not daily, basis thereby proving that failing the prescreen means always coming to work high.

It might not seem fair to some but I think more employers should do the pre-screen, even McD's and Taco Bell.

If stoners are being so pushy about legalizing what makes people think they won't push to make it legal to toke up at work?

Stormrider wrote:
Ok 1. How long has alcohol been legal to buy, sell, trade, tax and consume? I'll answer that, since man figured out how to brew alcohol.

Nope, wrong. Prohibition son.

Stormrider wrote:
Yes, cannibus has been smoked a long time too, but it was (right or wrong) made illegal in the 1930's by Roosevelt.

So it was legal to smoke pot before the 30's, I fail to see how that fact supports your position.

Stormrider wrote:
2. The slope does exist since this thread does exist, doesn't it? Makes you think, doesn't it?

It makes me think about how poor the reasoning skills of the average person are.

This thread is a discussion about the legalization of drugs, slippery slope arguments are based on the inevitability of one thing in the aftermath of another thing. If something is being discussed it is not inevitable.

Slippery slopes do not exist, and the people that are taken in by the argument are fools.

Stormrider wrote:
3. What I mean is that where does it stop? Cocaine? Heroin? LSD? GHB? Ecstacy? All of which are far worse than Cannibus, but all have their advocates.

Wherever the populace wants it to stop. You can stop asking rhetorical questions now. Its a terrible, terrible habit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nightwatch wrote:
Because to many people, the fine line between cigarettes and pot does not exist. ANd hopefully they wouldn't be allwoed to smoke pot, but they might expect to.

So what? Fire them if they show up high, or get high at work. Easy solution.

Fateweaver wrote:

It might not seem fair to some but I think more employers should do the pre-screen, even McD's and Taco Bell.

Especially Taco Bell.

Fateweaver wrote:The pre-screen IS designed to make sure people aren't going to have drugs in their system when showing up to work. It is not a preventative measure nor a "pick on stoners" policy. It's a "you can't pass the drug test so we don't trust you to be sober when coming to work" test.

If you smoke weed within a month of a drug test, you have a significant chance of failing said test.

Fateweaver wrote:
It's assumed if you fail the pre-screen that you'll end up, at some point and time, showing up to work stoned and if that happens the employer is fethed if that person should get hurt as the employers insurance won't cover medical costs leaving the employer to pay out of pocket expenses.

I can get blind drunk the day before my interview, and perform with exemplary skill.

Fateweaver wrote:
If stoners are being so pushy about legalizing what makes people think they won't push to make it legal to toke up at work?

I don't smoke pot. I still think it should be legal.

dogma wrote:

So what? Fire them if they show up high, or get high at work. Easy solution.

That's what happens already. However, most people prefer to only go through the hiring process once whenever you need an employee, rather than several times.

I sincerely doubt that the legalization of pot would significantly increase the incidence of workers coming in stoned.

But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

I might be wrong but I might also be right. I know a LOT of stoners who don't even think weed should be considered a drug, that it's no more harmful than normal cigarettes (subjective as mary jane does slow your reflexes more than Camels and as much as alcohol) and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

Again, nobody can prove the above scenario will exist but nobody can disprove it either.

Fateweaver wrote:But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

Yes, that is a risk, but a minor one at best. Especially when considered in the light of revenue that could be derived from pot.

Fateweaver wrote:
...and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

So what? Why does what people might say have any bearing on policy?

dogma wrote:

So what? Why does what people might say have any bearing on policy?

People are saying that we should legalize pot.

This thread got very silly all of a sudden.

Right now alcohol is illegal, but being drunk at work is an offence that can get you fired. Arguing that somehow if marijuana was made legal the same situation couldn’t apply is ridiculous.

Second up, right now we have some drugs that are legal and some drugs that are illegal. Given the almost entirely harmless nature of some drugs, such as caffeine, and the extremely harmful nature of other drugs such as heroin, and the wide range of drugs in between, society will always have to make a judgement on what harmful drugs should be allowed for the sake of personal choice, and what drugs must be banned. The only sensible approach to that question is to consider each drug in and of itself, arguing a certain drug must be illegal or else future generations might legalise something else is simply nonsense.

I can't say for sure. I'm not exactly keen on drug use but it certainly seems like the laws against them are far more trouble than they're worth. I don't consider myself well educated enough to take a hard stance on it but from where I stand now I'm willing to give a "Probably".

You know what? Legalize them all, I changed my mind. Let everyone decide for themselves, but there better be no bitching for the consequences.

Nightwatch wrote:
People are saying that we should legalize pot.

What people might say is not the same as what people are saying.

Get your tenses straight, or don't pretend you speak the language.

Fateweaver wrote:But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

I might be wrong but I might also be right. I know a LOT of stoners who don't even think weed should be considered a drug, that it's no more harmful than normal cigarettes (subjective as mary jane does slow your reflexes more than Camels and as much as alcohol) and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

Again, nobody can prove the above scenario will exist but nobody can disprove it either.

I think Fateweaver may be Glenn Beck.

dogma wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:
People are saying that we should legalize pot.

What people might say is not the same as what people are saying.

Get your tenses straight, or don't pretend you speak the language.

Very nice. I was trying to draw a connection to "if that actually happened".
And if we listen to what people are saying, why wouldn't we listen to what people say in the future? I realize you believe that no one will actually have the stupidity required to ask to smoke pot at work, but regardless of your beliefs, some people are that stupid. Which means they will say it.
And if they say it, why wouldn't they be listened to? We listen to people these days. Perhaps we don't agree, but we listen to people. Perhaps we shouldn't, and use common sense instead.

Albatross wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

I might be wrong but I might also be right. I know a LOT of stoners who don't even think weed should be considered a drug, that it's no more harmful than normal cigarettes (subjective as mary jane does slow your reflexes more than Camels and as much as alcohol) and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

Again, nobody can prove the above scenario will exist but nobody can disprove it either.

I think Fateweaver may be Glenn Beck.

...I always thought he was Joseph McCarthy reincarnated.

Nightwatch wrote:
Very nice. I was trying to draw a connection to "if that actually happened".

Still the wrong tense.

Nightwatch wrote:
And if we listen to what people are saying, why wouldn't we listen to what people say in the future?

Because its a different instance, stop equivocating.

Nightwatch wrote:
I realize you believe that no one will actually have the stupidity required to ask to smoke pot at work, but regardless of your beliefs, some people are that stupid.

Some of them post in this forum.

Nightwatch wrote:
Which means they will say it.
And if they say it, why wouldn't they be listened to? We listen to people these days. Perhaps we don't agree, but we listen to people. Perhaps we shouldn't, and use common sense instead.

In this context 'listening' denotes positive, political action. There is no guarantee that a given statement will produce political action. You have, again, illustrated a lack of functional literacy.

Also, common sense does not exist.

Stormrider wrote:You know what? Legalize them all, I changed my mind. Let everyone decide for themselves, but there better be no bitching for the consequences.

What’s wrong with a middle ground?

Albatross wrote:I think Fateweaver may be Glenn Beck.

Possibly, but it’s hard to tell if he’s crying when he posts.

sebster wrote:
What’s wrong with a middle ground?

It's hard?

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
What’s wrong with a middle ground?

It's hard?

Exactly, in the US there really is no middle ground for people to stand on concerning Social issues. It's either one way or the other concerning things like abortion, the death penalty etc...

That actually doesn't jive with most polling/census data.

Stormrider wrote:
Exactly, in the US there really is no middle ground for people to stand on concerning Social issues. It's either one way or the other concerning things like abortion, the death penalty etc...

That's false, there are many varied positions on the majority of social issues. The trouble is that explaining a nuanced position takes time, and often goes unheard by those who are listening. Its rare to find someone who will listen to what another person says, and remember it in detail, rather than as pro or con position.