I've decided that drugs should be legalised
Offline I always assumed that "legalize drugs" arguments came from people who wanted to do their hobby legally.
It was people who were fighting the rights of drug users.
I didn't particularly see a reason why they shouldn't have their way, but I didn't see it as tragic that they didn't.
As I've come to learn about gang culture (mainly from Ross Kemp documentaries) I've come from a different angle.
Gangsters ruin communities and lives with their gun crime.
Their gun crime is funded by the money they make on black markets.
And while you can lock up individual gangsters, so long as there is a market/opportunity, there will be people who try and fill it.
That is, you can pluck out individual weeds but so long as the soil is fertile there will always be fresh ones growing in their place.
I want to starve them off their income.
I want to see these MoFos put out of business.
Governments put a lot into trying to destroy the business.
The army is continually fighting drug barons in places like Colombia and Afghanistan, but this isn't solving the problem.
The drugs are still getting through, the market is thriving, criminals and drug lords are getting rich and powerful at the expense of the people they tread all over on the way.
America tried to ban alcohol a similar way back in the 1920s and failed in a similar way.
I think that a more cost effective approach is required.
Here's what I propose:
1) Softer drugs be regulated
"Softer" drugs such as cannabis and speed be regulated the same way alcohol and cigarettes currently are.
They would be sold with appropriate restrictions in place.
2) Harder drugs be nationalized
"Harder" drugs such as heroin and crack would be nationalized - only government clinics would be able to sell it.
(I'm writing from England where the government runs the NHS)
They would sell the drugs, but in environments where they could advise the users if necessary and offer them treatments to break addictions.
The hoped-for consequences
Dealers in soft drugs would either need to legitimize their business or go bust.
Dealers in hard drugs would lose business altogether.
The legal distributors would be able to undercut the prices of the black market, who would still have the pressure of the police coming after them.
This would make the drugs market less of an opportunity for gangs, and less money would be coming in to fund warfare between rival factions.
What's more, the economy would no longer lose out on the money that drug users currently spend on black market goods.
Possible drawbacks
There is the drawback that it would make drugs more socially acceptable so usage would increase.
We already see enough problems with people abusing alcohol without adding more narcotics into the mix.
That said, if we believe in freedom then getting the law involved isn't the answer.
We should be more interested in encouraging people to make rational decisions for themselves.
Alcoholism, gambling, drug addiction, obesity, these are all down to bad lifestyle decisions, decisions that people need to make for themselves.
Finding ways to improve people's own judgement on doing what's good for them is where the answer lies.
So am I preaching basic common sense here or is there a glaring error in my reasoning?
- Login to post comments
lmao, why doesn't the goverment put you on a diet. The thing is Drugs are bad. I hope you agree with this statment. If you agree that there should be less people on drugs, then the question is what can we do to reduce the number of people that use drugs? If the answer is to legalise them hey I will go with that, but I don't think it is the answer. Just because the government can't force you to be a better person isn't in my opinion a reason to legalise. However combine that with the fact that you would be cuting gang money down a lot and you have a strong case.
But look at it this way people who are hooked to heavy drugs often will do anything to get money for the drugs. This affects other people through muging or whatever method the drugie uses etc. Therefore we want less people on the drugs, So the government does have th responsiblity to help people make better desions as it doesn't just affect the person on the drugs. Whether legalisation would help or hurt is a different matter and I think I have made myself clear on witch side I stand.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
It is impossible to agree with this statement and be honest. Many drugs are not only not bad, they are good and good for you.
It is the answer. The government has tried fighting it, and merely spent more than 50 years in a losing battle. Escalation on the governments side merely results in escalation of the black market side. Even invading other countries doesn't work, someone else steps up to the plate.
Not much of an issue if it's being provided in regulated health centres. The majority of the cost problems with drugs stem from their illigitimacy. The more the government and police push, the more the drugs cost since the risk goes up.
As have I.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I think you no I was refering to drugs that are illegal as that is what this is about. I see your point about the cost problems, Its simalar to prostitution. It is only dangerous because it's illegal much like banking would be if banking were Illegal. I have to admit i'm more open to the idea than I as at the begining of the thread. But I still would prefer a policy more open to drugs without going to legalisation. What I would be interested to hear is how you guys who support legalisaton would want it run. What measures you would want in place etc.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
And my response was also referring to drugs that are illegal. For an example, marijuana has been shown to reduce symptoms of cancer, arthritis, and schizophrenia. It also has beneficial effects on those with sleeping and eating disorders. This drug is illegal despite being more healthy than tobacco or alcohol, which are both legal.
Decriminalization may be what you're looking for. At that stage, you don't go to jail for having drugs, but they get confiscated and you get a fine. I prefer this for drugs such as cocaine and heroin, which have no redemable qualities.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not entirely on-topic, but prostitution and drugs are two very, very different things. Where I live it is, of course, sort of legal- but it appears like most women who end up in this trade were still, at some point, forced, and a recent survey suggested that the vast majority would get out of the trade if they could. I remember our mayor saying "80%", but a precise percentage was hard to get, it still seems to be very, very hard for social workers to get a fix on where the personal problems are; furthermore, many women may be legal as prostitutes, but they are often still illegal aliens which means that they are about as much outside the law as they were before.
And I am not saying that this is a reason to simply prohibit the practice again (that would solve nothing) , but this is not as simple as legalizing (soft)drugs, I fear.
Btw: I think softdrugs should simply be legal everywhere- but harddrugs like heroine, crack, crystal meth and what other poisons have you, should never be allowed. Although the use should be decriminalized.
Here is an article you might find interesting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/police-chief-calls-for-heroin-to-be-available-on-the-nhs-436974.html
"Studies on heroin prescription in the Netherlands and Switzerland found significant reductions in illicit drug use among those receiving the treatment. Both the Swiss and Dutch reported a drop in the crimes committed by their addicts."
"Mr Jones said that he knew of one region where many years ago doctors had prescribed heroin to try to deal with problem addicts. "There are junkies who are alive today who would have been dead now," he said. "Their lives are stable, yes, their addiction is being maintained, but far better they are being maintained than them trying to get their fix off the street from crime. Heroin is an incredible stimulator of crime and I think we are foolish if we don't acknowledge that.""
Tapey, I'm not really sure what to say to you at this point (other than you're nice and I like talking with you) . You have acknowledged that current drug policy has been disastrous but are scared of changing it. Your reluctance regarding legalization seems to stem more from emotion than logic. Would you agree with this?
I would be interested in starting with and expanding on methadone clinics already in place for long-term heroin users. They could be converted to deal with prescription drug, meth, and cocaine based addictions too. This type of expansion of services would need to go slowly as the oversight of the programs would need to be there and shifting focus of the clinics would be substantial. Plus, I wouldn't want faith-based clinics to be able to expand.
Pot should just be legalized and be on par with alcohol and tobacco in terms of regulation and taxes.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Tbh I don't think you should go to jail for having drugs unless it's dealer amounts or smugaling the stuff. Producing it should always be illegal. That is what I am talking about When I say a more open policy to drugs. Coviscation for soft drugs and a fine for heavy drugs. However if you say no coniscation no fine I'm against it. There should always be some punishment even if it is small for having the stuff.
Btw I didn't know that about weed. Dam goverment propoganda machine
I would say my instictual response is just a flat no never ever ever legalised so you are partly right, but when I actually think about it it's quite far from that. Besides I like to think I have some ground to stand on
I can agree with prescribing heavy drugs aslong as it in conjuntion with a program to ween people off them. With manditory rehabilitation programs once a week or something like that. I'm not so keen on giving people drugs and not trying to help them get off them.
P.S. I don't know wether that would work or If cold turkey is better option. I'm assuming weening is less trumatic on for body but has a higher relaps rate.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I would not exactly call marihuana "healthy", to be honest. I know that there are people who benefit from it (at least they claim they do and I have no reason to doubt them) but it also seems to impede the ability to learn and may increase the chance of getting a depression. Also, cigarettes with marihuana (or hash) in them seem to contain much more tar, which dramatically increases the risk of getting cancer.
Which is not, per say, a reason to criminalize it though, I don't think it's worse then alcohol or tobacco, if used in moderation. I steer clear of the stuff but mostly because I find it a major party pooper- a bunch of stoners is just not fun company to be with even when you are one of those stoners yourself
What ground do you have to stand on? Current policy is a fiasco and does not keep people off drugs. The collateral damage from current policy has been significant. Legalization has not brought about the collapse of civilization in the Netherlands. I'm sorry, but I don't see your ground, just emotion.
You're not seeing a big part of the issue here. Addiction is a coping mechanism for a good number of people and this is not going to change. Walk into a methadone clinic (or whatever similar type of institution you have in your country) and look at the people who have been using heroin for decades. Do you really think they're going to stop? Some undoubtedly can be transitioned into less destructive drugs, but a good portion will remain addicts until the day they die. The issue becomes how do we best manage our addict populations?
I would not assume anything regarding relapse rates.
Find a study if you want to know which method works better statistically as there are a lot of issues that could be debated within this subtopic. The last time I looked at success rates in getting clean it was 10%. And I think that was for heroin and meth, but my memory is a little fuzzy here so don't quote me. I've never known anyone who got clean on the first try, no matter the method used. It takes many tries and fails over a long period of time (generally years) for an addict to get clean.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
My main problem with legalisation is I think it would make it more socailly acceptable, I don't want more people on drugs and I don't think you do either. Im very aware that current policy is hopeless that is why in my previous post i clarified where I stand, I don't know if you read it. basically fines for having heavy drugs and just conviscation for soft ones.
Legalisation in the Netherlands is only for weed not for heavy drugs but I have read that they have lower amouts of heavy drug users because of this, I don't know how accurate that is though. I can understand how it is possible though.
Hmm I would hope they would give up the stuff but I can see that many would not or cannot. But that isn't a reason not to try, However so long as it is very carefully monitered for abuse and free programs to help them quit are offered.
Just a quick question, I assume you think current policy has failed at geting people off drugs (whitch it has) so you want a new policy on drugs. Legalisation. How is having legal drugs going to help people get off drugs? Or is it simply a admission of defeat and rather focus of undercuting gangs in drug money etc.? I have my own Idea's on how it might help but I want to see how other people think it could help.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I think the reverse would happen. Currently drugs of all kinds are found in the "rebel" category of social acceptability. In other words, anyone with an attitude against any kind of authority is that much more likely to encounter and use drugs. Making it legal would remove it from that category without adding it to another. The net result in my prediction is that drugs would enter the same social status as welfare. Which is to say that they would be frowned upon in general.
Me either, though I simply said it was "healthier" than Alcohol and Tobacco, specifically.
And studies back them up.
This is true. It can also cause problems with short term memory. There is thought that it might similarly effect long term memory, but no long term studies have yet been done.
This is true but for two problems that no government or health agency considers(because they are complete and utter idiots).
1: Most times joints are not smoked as often as cigarettes. For one thing, it's too expensive. And for another, its hard to find a dealer that could supply such a habit without getting busted by the cops.
I have known a couple people in my life that spent every waking moment trying to get high, but a couple people out of millions isn't a social or criminal problem.
2: Most joints are not smoked by one person, whereas most cigarettes are. Most times when a joint is smoked by a single person, it is butted out 1/3 of the way down, or 1/2 or so.
Depends on the stoner. I get quite philosophical when stoned, and go through a number of interesting subjects when I have someone to talk to.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
And less people use them than say people who drink alcahol. Alcahol is socially acceptable. I will agree that for a while it will be frowned upon but over time i think it would get like smoking. Frowned upon but still a crap load of people who do it. But how would it reduce the number of drug users? That has to be the goal or what is the point?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
You might be surprised. It is socially acceptable(the government might not like it, but the people want it) to smoke weed in the vast majority of Canada(personal experience). It is also acceptable in a few states south of the border. I also suggest you read this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/marijuana_revisited
A brief search could not return to me a rate of drinkers for Canada. I don't have time to look further right now. If I think about it later, I'll look. But I won't be surprised to find that there aren't that many more drinkers than tokers.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I didn't mention something I meant to.
With cigarettes currently going the way of the dodo(less smokers every year than the previous year), weed would get bunched into the same scenario. You can do it, but it costs you. And you can't do it inside, or in a car with a child, or within 9 metres of a business or other public place, etc.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I believe a major reason for that is the price hikes (at least in south africa) If you did the same with weed I would suggest that it would go back to illegal deallers. People have known for 50 years that smoking causes cancer so I highly doubt it has much to do with health.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Nah, the price hikes are irrelevant here(at least, in the most populated 2 provinces it is). There's a massive underground smuggling ring that gets bigger every time the government increases taxes. I pay between $10-15 CAN per carton of cigarettes. Price just isn't a factor in the most populated parts of Canada dropping their smokers rates. The big factors are not allowing people to smoke in bars/restaurants, in any public building, in any sheltered area, and movements towards banning it privately too. I didn't list all of the anti-smoking actions taking place, because it would take too long.
Though your point does have merit, which I proved with the smuggling ring that's out there. Pricing would be a concern, but as long as it was kept cheaper than the black market, kept safer and more pure, then there'd be no issue.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I agree with Vastet on the socially acceptable issue. The general attitude I see towards drunks is "That poor sod. What a shame." not "Whoo-hoo I want to be a drunk! " I think you would get something similar towards hard drugs. Keeping hard drugs illegal helps keep a certain aura of mystery around them. I would also note that the smoke and mirrors used to justify current policy feed into this. Part of the reason I was an addict for awhile is because pot is not that big a deal and so I assumed I had been given bad information regarding heroin, meth, and cocaine as well. I am not the only person whose naivete combined with societal lies has contributed to an addiction problem. If you stop lying about the consequences and allow addicts to come out of hiding then I do think younger people will get a truer picture of what these drugs often do to people.
Not all addicts are in the same place in life. Having drugs legal will help people get off of drugs if you can move them from self-medication to medication under the supervision of a medical professional. A good number of addicts are in their current situation due to their need (or perceived need) to self-medicate. Some people are so messed up, or have been in the lifestyle for so long, they're never going to get clean. So, yes, for these addicts I have given up. I would rather focus on how to keep them from harming others and on minimizing the damage they do to themselves.
I do realize that you do not approve of current policy - which I think has been disastrous. That's part of why I said I'm not sure exactly what to say to you. You seem to agree that the way things are now is not working and is causing a lot of problems, but don't really want to change things either. Maybe you just need some time to think over the issues raised here and organize your thoughts. People have been taught to fear drugs and addicts for some good reasons. But leaving this discussion to the knee-jerk reactions of fear has caused more harm than good.
I'm not sure exactly how legal hard drugs are in all the countries mentioned in this opinion piece and the article, but legalization is being tried and it seems to have been more positive than negative. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090220/OPINION01/902200316
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-md.drugs08feb08,0,2785876.story
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
"While Reuter notes there are drawbacks as well - including high costs and low rates of participation - he says public health officials and city leaders should at least discuss the concept."
I am in support of this, people in goverment disscussing this as it is the way forward to a better policy. To be honest I think the low particpation would not be a problem if legalisation was to happen but I think the cost would still be. All I'm against is blaket legalisation. I am for a middle ground and as far as I can see those to articales support middle ground not blanket legalisation.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I think you can get prescriptions for pills that act like speed and there are plenty of pills that act like cocaine...
your quest on is your ant sir
I'm thinking that legalizing pot isn't working very well for California. At least not where it's being grown.
I'm not aware of any benefits to society for encouraging or promoting drug use. What are the benefits to an individual? Maybe I've just been in the wrong places at the wrong times but all I've seen, with my own two eyes, has been bad. What is the upside of drug use? Please don't give me the cigarettes and booze arguments. We all know we're talking about cocaine, smack, crank, meth, pot etc...
I'd support China's solution to drug use and trafficking. That would eventually result in much less people being locked up in prisons and such. Perhaps as an alternative we could offer the afflicted one way tickets to Amsterdam. Legalizing drugs is a very bad idea.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
The problem with state laws is that they are not national. Marijuana is illegal nationally in the US, and the FBI won't give a rats ass what state you're in. So it's not truly legal.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Cannabis and cancer link
A group at a Cancer Research Center interviewed men with testicular cancer and found that a regular cannabis smoker conferred a 70% increase in risk even after accounting for other lifestyle factors.
The group discovered a link between cannabis use and aggressive non-seminoma-type testicular cancers.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Anti-carcinogens in marijuana, and marijuana as treatment for cancer.
I can play that game too.
More
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So it causes cancer and can be used as a treatment for cancer....... thats odd, much like this
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
We have drugs to treat cancer, weed does not.
Schizophrenia and Cannabis Video Report
If illegal drugs are to be decriminalized, then I believe any and all actions of self defense against drug users should be completely and unquestionably justified if it is known the individual is on drugs.
Quid pro quo right?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
The legalization isn't working because it's still illegal federally so it is still an illegal commodity. Legalization doesn't mean encouraging or promoting the use of a substance, but rather an acknowledgement that the government cannot stop a person from doing what they choose with their body. The current drug policy means that the US jails more citizens than any other country. It means children end up in foster care because their parents smoke weed. It means that addicts spend their time hiding from and being completely disconnected from society as they have nothing left to lose. It means that criminal organizations profit heavily from behavior that the state is not going to be able to eradicate as Americans are too wealthy and have the resources to become addicts if they want. Do you really think that addicts deserve death if caught?
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
How would that be any different from current law? If someone is trying to harm you then you have a right to self-defense and to bring assault charges. What chemical(s) may be in their body does not change this.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Ignore the facts all you like, it doesn't change them.
Funny how weed is also a treatment for schizophrenia too...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What facts?
Any sources?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Hey all. I'm new here and this thread caught my attention.
If the Federal government claims that marijuana has no medical applications, then why did they secretly file this patent?
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants - US Patent 6630507 Abstract
I'm new here, but this one caught my interest.
I am biased I will admit that. I do drugs(as does everyone, although that's more a semantics argument than one meaningful to the discussion). I believe they should be legal. All of them, none of this silly hard/soft.
My basic belief is this, the government should not be able to tell an individual what they can and cannot do with their own body if they are not harming others. To me asserting that an adult is not the Ultimate Master of their own bodies is a ridiculous argument. Are some drugs dangerous? Yes, of course they are, but why can't I as an adult shoot pure heroin straight into my veins in my own home as much as I want.
I could see maybe an argument about driving while intoxicated and testing, and that whole jazz, but that argument never meant much to me as for everyone who used this argument they had an emotional reason primarily against drug legalization, not a logical one. People act like if drugs become legal that the world will turn into anarchy, but I don't think so at all. To put it simply because I'm getting long winded and this is about my 4th rewrite of this part, those so inclined to do them will still do them, as they did before. Those not inclined will not do them, as they did before. The main thing that would change is that a whole element of personal danger would disappear as purity skyrocketed.
Would usage and addiction go up? Maybe in a year or so it'd spike then go down. Once businesses get set up around it, people would have safe access to these drugs and might want to see what all the hub-bub is about and some will get addicted. But people need to make their own decisions and mistakes.
The facts I posted, and you've ignored twice.
Yep. All over the internet.
Missed this part..
Yeah, cause drug addicts go around attacking the populace for fun, all the time, everywhere. Ridiculous. All actions of self defense should be justified period. Regardless of drug use or lack thereof. Nothing should be unquestionably justified. That will lead only to a 1984 type state. Or witch burning. Or both.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org - Is a biased bunch of turds for what ever reason. My guess they are pot heads and maybe even dealers.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/cancer_brochure.pdf
"new studies are being published in peer-reviewed journals that
demonstrate cannabis has medical value in treating patients with serious
illnesses such as AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy,
and chronic pain."
Pot heads do not use this plant for medication. They do not have AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, or chronic pain. Pot heads use it to get fucked up and this is exactly what they will get - fucked up.
We already have drugs for all of these diseases AND the cannabinoids cited in this pdf are specific derivatives of the cannabis plant. What these pro-pot people are insinuating is that getting fucked up is beneficial and that’s pure bullshit.
It's like saying eating baked beans out of a 2 year old swollen rusty can is good for you because botox is used to treat muscle spasms and for cosmetic treatment.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Merely one of thousands of sources. Insufficient.
Irrelevant. There are at least thousands, possibly millions of people who smoke weed for treatment purposes, and it has nothing to do with "getting fucked up". I've known a few dozen of them myself. Hell, I've never gotten fucked up on weed anyway. It isn't nearly strong enough. Alcohol, on the other hand....
Don't always work. Weed does when they don't.
So what?
No, they're posting the truth, and you just don't like it. Your mind is made up, and you're as ignorant as a christian. I know both sides. I know the studies you linked to are as real as the ones I did. You really need to do some more research. A lot more.
Ridiculous.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Pot is just not that strong. If you want o get fucked up you need LSD, shrooms, heroin, speed, etc. Pot's just going to get you stoned - a mild high. You are right that the medicinal use argument has clouded much of the issue. It does help with the side effects of cancer treatment and AIDS drugs, but most people don't have such conditions. Plenty of people do use it to relax (much like alcohol use only without the side effects of that known depressant) and instead of psychiatric meds like Prozac and all those good things. It is a useful aid in calming the mind when taking stock of where you are and where you want to go in the future when analyzing where you are in life. Unfortunately, given its current status it is very difficult for serious researchers to determine when use might be appropriate and when it is harmful abuse.
I certainly don't expect to change your mind on this issue, but did think you might find these links interesting. I would note that just because someone is a pothead does not mean they are a babbling idiot 24/7. You just don't know that people you respect smoke as it is illegal and socially censured, thus people keep their use quiet unless they have nothing to lose.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
I agree 100%. I would like them all to be legal for adults to use. I don't even use illegal drugs, and I never have. I just don't like our huge prison population thanks to drug laws and I don't like tens of billions of dollars a year spent on the war on drugs. And all that waste of our society's resources doesn't even prevent people from getting high. If I felt like getting high today I could be smoking weed by this evening. If drugs were legal I would still only be getting high if I choose too, but our prisons would have a lot less people in them.
I also agree that I am the undisputed master of my body, but that won't persuade people that drug laws are wrong. If you want to make people rethink drug laws focus on pot. Once they give in on that we then then focus on whatever is perceived as the next least harmful recreational drug.
There is nothing people dread more than personal responsibility. Letting others think for themselves and deal with the consequences goes against everything drug banners stand for. They want a legislator to deside for you what kinds of chemicals you can voluntarily put into your own body. They can't trust you to think or make decisions for yourself on this matter, so some vote-hungry elected official will decide that for you.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
THC is a legitimate drug with medical applications. We sell THC pills called marinol. If THC pills are FDA approved as a safe and legitimate medicine, I suppose that THC found in other sources is also a legitimate medicine (smoking isn't safe though, use a vaporizer). Marinol sells for $830 for 30 pills. People who need marinol might need more than one pill a day. It would be a lot cheaper (a tiny fraction of that price, less than 1% of that price) for these people to just grow weed and use a vaporizer to get THC into their blood. Just to cut down on costs I think that these people should be allowed to grow and use marijuana if they need it.
The problem is that the makers of marinol have to synthetically produce the THC. It would be cheap and easy to extract THC from marijuana, but they can't legally own marijuana so instead they spend a lot more money artificially deriving the same chemical.
As far as I am concerned this puts an end to any debate over whether or not THC is a legitimate medical drug. It just is. The FDA says that it is. You can buy it at pharmacies. It is just a fraction of the price to grow marijuana and extract the THC with a vaporizer yourself.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Damn, I almost didn't see that coming
The vast majority of the people in jails and prisons on drug related charges aren't there for smoking a few bowls and eating lots of Cheetos. They're there because of the crimes they committed to support their habit. I don't think government should be making it easier for people to harm themselves and the people around them. Go off into the arctic tundra and do all the drugs you want, but if you're living in a society then the society should, and does, have some say on activity that is harmful to others living in it.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Actually no. Most prisoners are in jail for possession or trafficing rather than robbery or stealing to support a habit.
According to the US Justice Department, in 1995, 23% of state prisoners and 60% of federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses. These people violated no laws other than drug laws. They did not steal anything or kill anyone. Their only crime is using or helping others use drugs. The problem with the war on drugs is that it fills our prisons with people who only broke drug laws and nothing else. Junkies that steal and rob would still be sent to prison even if drugs were legal. Stealing to support a habit and drugs being legal or illegal have nothing to do with one another.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
That's not true in Canada, and we have much less stringent drug laws than the States. Yet another person who hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't agree with you so I have no idea what I'm talking about? Healthy debate and good come back
My opinions concerning illegal drug use come from working with a segment of that population on a nearly daily basis. I make no claims regarding what criminals are doing time for all over the world. Where I live and work it takes much more than simply having a small amount of drugs to do prison time. I understand that many people are able to manage their drug use so that it doesn't become the sole reason for their being. That doesn't change the fact that drugs are generally very bad and do tremendous damage to many of the people that lack the ability to be truly casual users.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
No, you made a false claim about prison statistics and that proves that you don't know what you are talking about. The fact that you disagree with us is a separate matter than your making obviously false claims. If you spent a few minutes researching this online before writing down lies we wouldn't be acting this way. Please understand that your obvious lie is why you seem to not know what you are talking about.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Crimes committed to support drug use include trafficking and possession of amounts determined to be for more than casual personal use. Although many criminals are thieves I don't recall making any claims regarding property crimes.
Saying that people incarcerated for nothing other than drug laws shows you have a less than complete understanding of how "the system" works. Very few people actually serve time for all the crimes they've committed. They plea down to lesser charges and aren't even charged with other crimes because it's just to expensive to prove. All to often what a person is actually doing time for comes down to wheeling and dealing and a city's financial resources to try cases. Drug cases are generally much easier and therefore less expensive to prove. The expense of trying cases is always a consideration in what people are actually charged with, prosecuted and punished for.
It's my understanding that one of the first things you learn in a statistics class is that they can be bent and manipulated into supporting nearly any hypothesis. I went to the website for the US Justice Department and found nothing to lead me to believe that guests of the many states out there are there solely for casual, recreational use of cannabis. Sorry, but my reality does not match yours.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
If you're going to make naked and unsupported assertions in the face of my actual facts and sources, yeah. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your opinions are irrelevant, and I could care less about them. I'll slap you down every time you want to post bullshit.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Most trafficers do not sample their own supply. It's bad for business. Unless you're referring to much more addictive drugs than marijuana. Cocaine and Heroin, you may have a point. Weed, you have nothing.
The reverse is true.
Because jails are full of weed smokers. There's no room for common criminals anymore.
The expense of putting weed smokers in prison is absolutely disgusting in Canada, and the States just have it ten times worse. Probably more than ten times worse, actually.
Which you're trying to do. I'm not going to let you.
Your reality is anything but.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Unless you're referring to the lowest level dealers, they still don't use their supply. Dealing is a nerve-wracking business that requires constant attention to an insane number of tiny details. You can't stay in business and be sampling the product. Low level dealers are often addicts themselves, so they do use.
Subdi, you live in an interesting area. Please keep in mind that what you've seen does not hold true for all areas. I personally have known of a number of people over the years who have spent weeks+ in jail just for possession. This is long enough to get fired, lose housing, and have other such things happen that further marginalize a user and make it more likely they will use more. Enforcement does vary greatly.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Umm can you seriously go to jail for smoking weed in canada? That just seems stupid. Surely they would just give you a fine? If they even bother with that. Seriously if you can go to jail for smoking weed what is the max sentance if you know?
I really can't belive that, I mean I smoked some weed with some cops not so far back. Maybe cops are just more layed back here.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Well, it kind of depends on the cop, and how much weed you have, and what province you're in. However, this is a recent change. Like, 2004 or so. There are still people in prison for possession who got busted before the laws went into semi-limbo. However, if the cop catches you with more than one baggy, regardless of how much you have, then it's automatically trafficing. Which is why there are a lot of people in jail who don't belong there. Two kinds of weed should be kept in two seperate containers. But that guarantees trafficing charges.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Your mastery of bullshit is truly greater than mine. (Lips don't match sound track as in a good kung fu movie)
Consider me slapped down. lmao
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Yet more of the same. Pathetic. Grow up and learn how to debate. And learn, for that matter.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.