Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Shuma

It works because it's true.

Now... wheres my bong?

That would work except designer drugs like heroin can have have lifelong addictions and severely damage the productivity as well as the general psyche of the person addicted to them.

My feeling is that people who want to do this will do this regardless.

When you make drugs legal, you can then engage the addicts much more effectively and less antagonistically. If heroin was handled as a perscription medication, essentially, with people being on record as to their purchases, etc. then you can track them, offer assistance, etc. etc.

Since I feel that people who want drugs will get them, all I'm suggesting we'd gain is that a fairly small percentage of people who want help, but are afraid of legal repercussion, would no longer have that fear. In addition, another small percentage of people might be coaxed into getting help by outreach.

That's a neat plan, but would result in the same underground tax evading drug system we have now in regards to cocaine and heroin. In fact it would be far worse considering you just abolished all forms of containment and control.

Far from it... Birth control pills are legal. They're also controlled. You need a prescription.

In many ways illegalization abolishes containment and control. There's no "control" to "none allowed ever ever." It can actually be harder to contain something when you're so antagonistic to it, that it's traffic evolves to avoid you.

If you engage with the drug producer and user, you can contain and control very effectively. Given that the first world is typified by freedom, civil rights generally, heavy handed enforcement is not a good fit for that system. If your mentality is one of permissiveness and personal freedom, it's generally more effective to engage with people in that context.

An underground system could certainly arise if taxation was severe enough, but it would have to compete not only in terms of price point, but in terms of legal status. I think the VAST majority of people would pay $400 an ounce for legal weed, even if there was $200 illegal weed to be had. Risk avoidance is worth a lot to people, even addicts.

Still, you're right, it may turn out that a grey market would exist and undermine the system I propose, as taxes would need to be too onerous relative to the base cost of the item. Most drugs are comparatively trivial to manufacture, weed being especially so. There's no reason that top quality weed couldn't cost $5 a pound. It is, quite literally, a weed. It may as well be grass clippings.

Mr. Burning wrote:Legalizing it like tobacco and alcohol is regulated for consumption is just odd. Argue all you want that tobacco and Alcohol are more harmful. Medical professionals and governments agree that tobcacco and Alcohol ARE harmful which is why they won't consider making pot a mainstream product.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Tobacco and alcohol are harmful == We shouldn't legalise pot.

(I'd say make it a mainstream product but it kind of already is.)

Legalize it. It would save lives.

Here in Vancouver though it is pretty much legal in the sense that 99% of people couldn't care less as long as they don't breathe any second hand smoke.

Oops, double post.

Shadowbrand wrote:I really agree with this. Did you know more people die from food in a year then smoking pot?

And yes, it would give more jobs and having it treated like cigs is a grand idea.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You have to eat food to survive, and the deaths from food are generally related to something wrong with the food. Regardless, it is a horrible analogy because you're comparing a body function to recreational drug use.

MorbidlyObeseMonkey wrote:Legalize it. It would save lives.

Here in Vancouver though it is pretty much legal in the sense that 99% of people couldn't care less as long as they don't breathe any second hand smoke.

How is pot going to save lives? The fact is anything that you burn and inhale is potentially carcinogenic. My understanding is that medicinal use of weed is palliative in nature, in fact, it is quite good at that in certain situations.

I'm not necessarily against legalizing pot, but some of the arguments I hear in favor of legalization or decriminalization aren't very good.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

IG_urban wrote:not to mention almost everything made from wood and petroleum can be made from hemp, from textiles, plastics, building materials, to foods, medicines, lotions, salves, etc. The plant will grow ANYWHERE (I mean, not sticky kush or anything like that), but the hemp plants can thrive anywhere.

a couple of the capital reasons why it is illegal today are DuPont plastics and Henry Anslinger.....

very similar to the restrictions on importing the stevia plant at the moment....which I theorize has to do with big Corn companies...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll add I used to be a huge pot head, but I have been completely off of it for 2 years now. I still think it's A ok. I do not like a lot it's patrons...but, hey, I don't like a lot of people, either.


by the way, I live in Seattle, the world's largest marijuana-related festival is here in a month or so...HEMPFEST....I think it surpassed Cannibus Cup 2 years ago....

it's quite ridiculous. Too many juggalos for me down there.... ( I say down there because I am blocks from the waterfront....I am NOT looking forward to this...)

No......why would DuPont have gone after the hemp industry when it was already in decline because of cotton and sisal? And I suppose the reasoning behind "big corn" trying to lobby against stevia is because of high fructose corn syrup, but that doesn't follow, as people wishing for an alternative to HFCS have any number of sweeteners available, so why would they go after stevia?

Legalise all drugs, and let people take what they want, but if you choose to take drugs then you don't get access to any sort of free healthcare?

Jihadnik wrote:Legalise all drugs, and let people take what they want, but if you choose to take drugs then you don't get access to any sort of free healthcare?

So if someone breaks their leg from a fall on an icy sidewalk they can't get health coverage because they smoke a joint or snort a line now and then? I could see adding some kind of surcharge to a user, but I think a harm reduction strategy would be cheaper over the long run than outright prohibition as far as health care costs go, so I don't think it is necessary.

Yeah, that makes more sense to me too...I forgot to put one of those little smiley faces next to my remark to indicate it was a joke!

And now that I think about it I don't think I'd be lining up for a blood test to determine my eligibility either!

Shadowbrand wrote:I really agree with this. Did you know more people are kept alive from eating food in a year then smoking pot?

Fixed it for you.

Hang on a second...you're from the States Grignard, You guys don't even have free healthcare anyway do you!

If you do slip over on an icy sidewalk your pretty much up the creek anyway, wasted or not right?

In that case, might as well slip over on that icy sidewalk while you're going out to buy some wacky tobacky!

Jihadnik wrote:Hang on a second...you're from the States Grignard, You guys don't even have free healthcare anyway do you!

If you do slip over on an icy sidewalk your pretty much up the creek anyway, wasted or not right?

In that case, might as well slip over on that icy sidewalk while you're going out to buy some wacky tobacky!

Well, yes, but that is another matter entirely. It works the same though with private insurance I believe. My personal belief is that harm reduction would lead to lower long term costs than outright prohibition.

I'm completely on board with legalizing pot, but those saying to legalize all drugs...really? Have you seen or experianced first hand the effects of meth addiction? Heroin? I have and they are worlds apart in the potential they have to ruin lives.

I dont see issues with legalizing the stuff.

As an RN working in an ER i have seen people come in for alcohol poisoning, meth, crack, coke, acid, heroin, etc overdoses. However i have never seen anyone come in for something weed related....

ShivanAngel wrote:I dont see issues with legalizing the stuff.

As an RN working in an ER i have seen people come in for alcohol poisoning, meth, crack, coke, acid, heroin, etc overdoses. However i have never seen anyone come in for something weed related....

Unemployment?

I too am an RN and have seen plenty of weed related problems. Ever heard of wet or yellowjackets? It is weed dipped in formaldahyde and/or LSD. That stuff is awful. Also, weed laced with coke is big too... instant heart attack.

I am for medically controlling it but not legalizing it per say. Weed by itself may not be totally harmless but it is what get put in weed to make it stronger that causes the problems.

Generalstoner wrote:I too am an RN and have seen plenty of weed related problems. Ever heard of wet or yellowjackets? It is weed dipped in formaldahyde and/or LSD. That stuff is awful. Also, weed laced with coke is big too... instant heart attack.

I am for medically controlling it but not legalizing it per say. Weed by itself may not be totally harmless but it is what get put in weed to make it stronger that causes the problems.

Meh i consider those problems generated by the other product. I guess i should edit it to say i have never seen anyone admitted for weed by itself.

What is the difference between the prohibition of alchohol back in the 20's or whenever and the "prohibition" of marijuana now?

Not making a statement. Actually wondering if there IS any significant difference.

Legalise it....and I'm in law enforcement.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Generalstoner wrote:I too am an RN and have seen plenty of weed related problems. Ever heard of wet or yellowjackets? It is weed dipped in formaldahyde and/or LSD. That stuff is awful. Also, weed laced with coke is big too... instant heart attack.

I am for medically controlling it but not legalizing it per say. Weed by itself may not be totally harmless but it is what get put in weed to make it stronger that causes the problems.

Meh i consider those problems generated by the other product. I guess i should edit it to say i have never seen anyone admitted for weed by itself.

Yeah, people do the same thing with just cigarettes.

wow this got more well thought out statements and posts than i expected. thanks guys for the entertaining morning.

Generalstoner wrote:I too am an RN and have seen plenty of weed related problems. Ever heard of wet or yellowjackets? It is weed dipped in formaldahyde and/or LSD. That stuff is awful. Also, weed laced with coke is big too... instant heart attack.

I am for medically controlling it but not legalizing it per say. Weed by itself may not be totally harmless but it is what get put in weed to make it stronger that causes the problems.

I've seen people put crack in their coffee....srsly.

I suppose we should illegalise caffeine/coffee?

Your comparing apples and oranges.

Generalstoner wrote:Your comparing apples and oranges.

He's really not. You're taking problems caused by marijuana additives, and ascribing those problems to marijuana itself. That makes about as much sense as claiming that coke makes people into alcoholics because it is often mixed with Jack Daniels, or that alcohol is really bad because its often combined with anti-inflammatory medication.

Deadshane1: I've seen people put crack in their coffee....srsly.

I think I just puked in my mouth a little. That crap, when smoked, smells like burning plastic. I hate to imagine what it tastes like.

A note on prohibition; I'm pretty sure the origins of the prohibition on herb was racially driven, during the prohibition on alcohol.

The original law was actually a tax code, but to get the tax stamp you had to admit to selling it. And yeah it was Dupont, Hearst, and Mellon that backed the law, Hearst because of his Timber and newspaper holdings and Mellon/Dupont because of Nylon.

As for the film known as "Reefer Madness", the actual crime depicted, and the one that gets the 'dealers' into trouble is the murder of a girl so she wouldn't tell the police about their parties.

helgrenze wrote:The original law was actually a tax code, but to get the tax stamp you had to admit to selling it. And yeah it was Dupont, Hearst, and Mellon that backed the law, Hearst because of his Timber and newspaper holdings and Mellon/Dupont because of Nylon.

As for the film known as "Reefer Madness", the actual crime depicted, and the one that gets the 'dealers' into trouble is the murder of a girl so she wouldn't tell the police about their parties.

The tax law is one thing, but is there any proof at all those industrialists were involved?

Shadowbrand, everyone who is not dying of starvation eats. And they eat every day, or they start to die. A small percentage of those people (I'm not sure but I imagine around or less than 1%, though I could be wrong, could even be up to 5% if use is much more common than I know about) use weed, and an even smaller proportion of those use it as regularly as once a day. You're looking at total number of deaths from two populations that are orders of magnitude apart in size, and that simply does not provide useful data. Read a book on basic stats and sampling and get back to me.

Or continue to spout nonsense, whatevah.

Grignard wrote:How is pot going to save lives?

Weed itself doesn't save lives, the legalization of it saves lives. There are thousands of gang related deaths every year and the main way most gangs make money is through dealing drugs. Making weed legal would reduce the profits made by gangs, because people would be buying from pharmacists. Also, it would mean that ordinary, kind people who sold weed but haven't harmed anyone would be out of prison and be replaced people who actually deserve to be locked up.

MorbidlyObeseMonkey wrote:

Grignard wrote:How is pot going to save lives?

Weed itself doesn't save lives, the legalization of it saves lives. There are thousands of gang related deaths every year and the main way most gangs make money is through dealing drugs. Making weed legal would reduce the profits made by gangs, because people would be buying from pharmacists. Also, it would mean that ordinary, kind people who sold weed but haven't harmed anyone would be out of prison and be replaced people who actually deserve to be locked up.

It could also be argued that legalization will bring in professional standards and an approval process to marijuana that is absent in underground sales. That dank roach Keith sold you behind the Wendy's won't be soaked in formaldehyde anymore.