Argentina court ruling decriminalizes pot

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Why? We already pay a lot more for them to be a negative drain on society by arresting, trying, and incarcerating them, I would totally support rerouting the money already being spent on drug prohibition to drug rehabilitation / prevention so that we can possibly turn those that are a negative drain on society into a positive contributing member of society. * I would be apposed of the system we have now trying to take more of our tax money to fund a rehab program, but if they diverted funds from the DEA's budget to fund a rehab program I'd be 100% behind it.

Just think of it in reverse trickle down effect.

I don't think you're going to get very far telling society that it has to pay for peoples bad habits.  If society has no business preventing people from doing drugs (as I've been told - I don't necessarily agree with that) then society absolutely has no business taking money from some people to buy drugs for others.

I do agree though, that if we were to fully legalize drugs, society would need to pay for drugs for people with serious addictions and/or fund rehab programs for them.  The supposed benefits of legalization are that it reduces the crime necessary for addicts and junkies to obtain drugs.  I don't see that coming to pass unless drugs are provided for free for all who want them.  And free drugs for all opens up an entirely new can of worms.

You'd right if that's what you've seen in real life, but my experiences have been the opposite. I think this may be a regional thing, I grew up and live in a big inner city, you might be in a more rural setting where alcohol is easier to get than drugs but even my friends in upstate NY say there is massive drug use among teenagers up there.  So were going to be in disagreement but we both may be right based on where we live. NY state is apparently one of the big places drugs get produced and imported to so that defiantly affected my experiences.

It doesn't surprise me that your experiences are different from mine.  It probably is a regional thing.  And possibly a very local thing.  As well as simple random chance.  Such is life.

But from many of your posts it seems like you thing most drug users are non functional. I would beg to differ, its just that the functional drug users don't make it know about themselves. You couldn't tell by looking at them and they wouldn't talk about it with you unless you were a drug users as well and they knew that (Im assuming your not a user which is one of the reason people wouldn't come out and tell you) its kind of a secret social group that you don't get invited to unless your already a member.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/15/IN273583.DTL

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Functional Drug Users

Not sure how you got that idea from what I posted.  I am well aware that there are lots of functional drug users out there.  Thing is, there lots of dysfunctional drug users out there, too.  That's part of the reason I think drug laws should be focused more on public usage, rather than mere possession.  Any change in the drug laws ought to move us in a direction that allows for the possibility that some folks are able to do drugs without being a problem for society while still addressing the other drug users who are a problem.

[Gewehr98]

I don't think you're going to get very far telling society that it has to pay for peoples bad habits.

Quoted for absolute truth.

As an acquaintance once told his ex-girlfriend, "I'm not here to subsidize your mistakes." 

[MicroBalrog]

The supposed benefits of legalization are that it reduces the crime necessary for addicts and junkies to obtain drugs.  I don't see that coming to pass unless drugs are provided for free for all who want them.

How many people commit crimes to get beer and tobacco?

You don't need to make drugs free to reduce crime. Dropping the costs, and making the transport, production, and selling of drugs legal would eliminate many problems.

Do you see liquor store owners fighting over turf? No? I wonder why that is.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How many people commit crimes to get beer and tobacco?

You don't need to make drugs free to reduce crime. Dropping the costs, and making the transport, production, and selling of drugs legal would eliminate many problems.

Do you see liquor store owners fighting over turf? No? I wonder why that is.

People steal for liquor.  In impoverished areas people occasional kill for liquor (rather, they kill for money to buy liquor).  Beggars frequently harass people for money for liquor.  Lots of fights and brawls disorderliness due to liquor.  I suspect that the incidence of these problems is proportional to the number of people using liquor, and as well as their relative level of impoverishment.

There are no more liquor turf wars because those wars were fought and won by the G-men and ATF goons.  Now they have a monopoly and hand out territories as they will.

I've seen people get grouchy for lack of tobacco, but not much worse (at least, not much worse from everyone else's perspective). 

There are liquor and tobacco smugglers out there, too, despite both being legal.

[Gewehr98]

Wanna see the head-sized (now patched) hole in the hallway wall where my two unemployed basement-dwelling, WarCrack addicts fought over the last cigarette in the pack?

[MicroBalrog]

People steal for liquor.  In impoverished areas people occasional kill for liquor (rather, they kill for money to buy liquor).

The term "occasionally" is important here.

Down here, liquor costs three to four dollars for a bottle of the cheap stuff. The worst thing people do for three dollars is accost passers-by and ask them for "bus ticket money".

There are liquor and tobacco smugglers out there, too, despite both being legal.

Yes. Are you implying the problem is caused by the chemical nature of these substances, rather than by excise taxes?

Are you implying the size of the problem is anywhere near the gangster violence of the 20's?

[Seenterman]

I don't think you're going to get very far telling society that it has to pay for peoples bad habits.  If society has no business preventing people from doing drugs (as I've been told - I don't necessarily agree with that) then society absolutely has no business taking money from some people to buy drugs for others.

We already pay for people's bad habits just not in the way your thinking of. Who do you think pays to house the millions convicted on drug related charges? Putting people in prison is not free, and rehab would cost much much less than these over blown prison sentences.  So I'm guessing your stance it you'd pay to incarcerate a crackhead for ten years but would be apposed to paying less for him to go to rehab? *

I do agree though, that if we were to fully legalize drugs, society would need to pay for drugs for people with serious addictions and/or fund rehab programs for them.  The supposed benefits of legalization are that it reduces the crime necessary for addicts and junkies to obtain drugs.  I don't see that coming to pass unless drugs are provided for free for all who want them.  And free drugs for all opens up an entirely new can of worms.

Who the heck said anything about giving drugs away for free? That is not what rehab is, or anything remotely connected to what anyone's said on here.   


* As long as no new taxes were imposed. If I we could reroute money away from drug prohibition to drug prevention and treatment and still save some of our tax dollars whats the harm?

We can continue fighting drugs by blowing billions on prohibition, drug law enforcement, court time, and prison time or legalize it reroute some of that money to rehab clinics and roll the majority back to the tax payer. At least in my perfect world this is how it would go.

[Firethorn]

You'd right if that's what you've seen in real life, but my experiences have been the opposite. I think this may be a regional thing, I grew up and live in a big inner city, you might be in a more rural setting where alcohol is easier to get than drugs but even my friends in upstate NY say there is massive drug use among teenagers up there.  So were going to be in disagreement but we both may be right based on where we live. NY state is apparently one of the big places drugs get produced and imported to so that defiantly affected my experiences.

Minot, North Dakota high school students rated Marijuanna as easier to get than alcohol or tobacco, and over 50% of the seniors admitted to at least trying it.

On the treatment side - there's a reason I mention taxing the now legal drugs - consider it a type of group insurance bought with each dose to help you get off of it if you so chose.

I do agree though, that if we were to fully legalize drugs, society would need to pay for drugs for people with serious addictions and/or fund rehab programs for them.  The supposed benefits of legalization are that it reduces the crime necessary for addicts and junkies to obtain drugs.  I don't see that coming to pass unless drugs are provided for free for all who want them.  And free drugs for all opens up an entirely new can of worms.

Require a doctor's note of diagnosed addiction for the free stuff then.  That'd kill repeat business, putting the dealers out of it.

And I personally think that problems WILL drop - it did when prohibition ended, after all.

Any change in the drug laws ought to move us in a direction that allows for the possibility that some folks are able to do drugs without being a problem for society while still addressing the other drug users who are a problem.

I agree with this.

[HankB]

Minot, North Dakota high school students rated Marijuanna as easier to get than alcohol or tobacco, and over 50% of the seniors admitted to at least trying it.

Hemp - sometimes knows as Dakota Ditchweed - grows wild all over the Dakotas. IIRC, it was originally planted as raw material for rope, but seeds blew all over. I guess it's considered low grade dope, but you don't find beer and tobacco growing all over the place up there, so naturally it's "easier to get."

[Firethorn]

Hemp - sometimes knows as Dakota Ditchweed - grows wild all over the Dakotas. IIRC, it was originally planted as raw material for rope, but seeds blew all over. I guess it's considered low grade dope, but you don't find beer and tobacco growing all over the place up there, so naturally it's "easier to get."

They weren't talking about ditchweed.  We get hydroponic stuff in from Canada, some supplies come from all the way down to Mexico.  I think it's normally staged through Minnesota.

[grey54956]

Look, here's my take on it.  This would make things so much easier to enforce/regulate.

If a substance grows naturally, or is the product of natural processes, and is then consumed by eating, smoking, brewing into tea, or otherwise consumed in this natural state, then it should be legal.  This should include food, wine, beer, pot, opium, mushrooms, coca leaves, banana peels, bacon, and pure cane sugar (sugar, not other white granular substances).  The American people should be able to buy and use these without gov't intervention as long as they do not directly endanger anyone else by their resulting behavior. 

The people should be able to grow their own 'herbs', make their own beer and wine, for their own consumption without gov't regulation.

Production, transport, storage of these items for profitable sale should be regualted much like food is today.  You may need to meet certain codes for safe handling, storage, and packaging, but that's it.  Substances that are created by physical distillation of the aforementioned substances, like hard liquor, may have some regulation, like hard liquor does today.

Substances that are artificially synthesized, chemically created or modified, or otherwise man-made should be controlled like pharmaceuticals.  By prescription only, with FDA regulation, efficacy and safety testing.

There.  Nobody needs Crack if they can go out to their garden, or take a walk down to the local smoke outlet, and smoke a little weed.