Post by: Tecumseh on January 10, 2008, 07:27:39 AM
So, my question is, should we legalize marijuana and regulate it? Perhaps make it an 18+over thing? Or 21+over?
Just wanted to get your thoughts.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 10, 2008, 07:29:58 AM
Post by: Sindawe on January 10, 2008, 07:32:44 AM
Quote
So, my question is, should we legalize marijuana and regulate it? Perhaps make it an 18+over thing? Or 21+over?
18+ for legal use, treated in the same fashion as we do ethanol with licenses sale from regulated businesses, ban on sale to minors and operating motor vehicles while impaired.
Post by: zahc on January 10, 2008, 07:38:06 AM
Quote
I myself think it should be as it is, in my opinion, less harmful than alcohol.
I myself think it should be as it is, in my opinion, not one of the powers of the federal government to regulate what I put in my body. I don't really care if it is more or less harmful than anything else.
Post by: Nick1911 on January 10, 2008, 07:45:25 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 10, 2008, 07:49:49 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 10, 2008, 07:57:03 AM
Post by: Firethorn on January 10, 2008, 08:00:48 AM
Legalize it, regulate it for safety/purity/effectiveness, forbid sale to minors(<18), etc...
Tax it(reasonably) to make the .gov happy at all the new funds.
If we legalized Marijuana, Cocaine, Opium, and LSD* I'm firmly of the belief that we'd see Meth usage drop like a rock.
*To get all the major drug groups
Post by: Physics on January 10, 2008, 08:04:29 AM
YES I think pot should be at least decriminalized.
Post by: Bogie on January 10, 2008, 08:05:55 AM
Legalize it all, and sell it in liquor stores (they're already used to the age thing). When I was in high school, it was easier to get pot than it was to get beer.
Take black market money out of it, and most "drug crimes" will go away. You'll -still- (notice the operative word here - it's already going on, and will -continue-) have people performing stupid human tricks, but at least we will eliminate the "let's shoot up Joe's house, because he's moving in on our territory" bit. I've NEVER heard of a modern regulated bar or liquor store owner starting a gang war.
Post by: Mabs2 on January 10, 2008, 08:14:15 AM
I concur - The penalties for possession are FAR greater than any damage that will be done by the substance. Pot won't ruin your life. Getting caught with pot will.
Legalize it all, and sell it in liquor stores (they're already used to the age thing). When I was in high school, it was easier to get pot than it was to get beer.
Take black market money out of it, and most "drug crimes" will go away. You'll -still- (notice the operative word here - it's already going on, and will -continue-) have people performing stupid human tricks, but at least we will eliminate the "let's shoot up Joe's house, because he's moving in on our territory" bit. I've NEVER heard of a modern regulated bar or liquor store owner starting a gang war.
Legalize it all, and sell it in liquor stores (they're already used to the age thing). When I was in high school, it was easier to get pot than it was to get beer.
Take black market money out of it, and most "drug crimes" will go away. You'll -still- (notice the operative word here - it's already going on, and will -continue-) have people performing stupid human tricks, but at least we will eliminate the "let's shoot up Joe's house, because he's moving in on our territory" bit. I've NEVER heard of a modern regulated bar or liquor store owner starting a gang war.
I agree. Gangs mostly seem to fight over territory...and most of what they want that territory for is selling drugs. Not saying they'll stop fighting, but they'll at least have one less reason to fight for. No one will want drugs from gangsters if they can get clean and safe drugs from the gobmint, even if it's a few dollars more. And if so many other drugs are available, and Meth is still illegal, then it'd be too much risk and maybe people would decide to go for the lesser, legal drugs.
Post by: Firethorn on January 10, 2008, 08:39:43 AM
I agree. Gangs mostly seem to fight over territory...and most of what they want that territory for is selling drugs.
I'd also legalize prostitution. By legalizing these two 'classes', you'd reduce the amount of money most gangs could get from a 'territory' to below minimum wage for the number of gang members they'd need to secure it.
If your criminal enterprise can't produce enough to keep you in bling, it's generally not going to be enough money to justify the risks of jail, prison, and death. So I see that drying up substantially.
Quote
Not saying they'll stop fighting, but they'll at least have one less reason to fight for.
Maybe they'll go back to fist fights rather than gunfights? That'd be a bonus.
Quote
No one will want drugs from gangsters if they can get clean and safe drugs from the gobmint, even if it's a few dollars more.
Not the government! They'd be commercial, like Bayer heroin. I love picking on Bayer because they hold the patent(expired) for heroin.
Quote
And if so many other drugs are available, and Meth is still illegal, then it'd be too much risk and maybe people would decide to go for the lesser, legal drugs.
I'd legalize Meth as well.
It's just that it's dangerous enough I don't see commercial companies getting into producing it, and there are better alternatives.
Plus, with our experience with prohibition, people tended to switch to harder drugs(liquers) over softer forms like wine & beer because liquers were more compact and easier to ship for the dosage level. Legalize the stuff and I see people sticking with cocaine over crack, much less something dangerous like Meth. Those that can't will kill themselves one way or another relatively quickly(and hopefully alone, by stroke rather than car crash).
As an ancillerary, jails/prisons will be free of recreational drugs. None. Want to keep your hits coming? Don't get arrested. Being High wouldn't be an excuse for any crime.
Post by: cordex on January 10, 2008, 08:41:45 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 10, 2008, 08:43:19 AM
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 08:44:20 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 08:44:37 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 10, 2008, 08:46:49 AM
Manedwolf, you realize that Reefer Madness is fiction, right?
Yes, the dilated-pupils potheads at my university whose rooms smelled like incense and who invariably dropped out after a semester, and who talked...really...slow... They were fiction.
Right.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 08:52:10 AM
Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
Because drunks on the public dole are better, right?
I think it should be a capital offense and those dealing in it should be sent to Saudi Arabia for trial and punishment.
Only if we give the same treatment to those or use booze and tobacco. Those who sell booze and tobacco without a govt tax stamp should be shot.
I don't smoke or do drugs. I seldom drink. If all three disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss them.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 08:54:29 AM
Yes, the dilated-pupils potheads at my university whose rooms smelled like incense and who invariably dropped out after a semester, and who talked...really...slow... They were fiction.
Right.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.
Right.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.
Then there are the folks that don't.
Or...
There are the folks that drink themselves into oblivion, drop out, and don't go anywhere.
Or...
The folks at the office (every office it seems) who take a 15min smoke break every hour. How's that helping productivity?
Stereotypes are fun, yay!
Chris
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 08:55:06 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 08:57:11 AM
Booze and tobacco are legal. Marijuana is illegal. What part of "illegal" do you not understand?
What's your point? Booze was illegal once before. Marijuana has been legal in the past. Tobacco may well end up becoming illegal in the future.
What part of "arbitrary" do you not understand?
Drug laws are racist, many were enacted to keep the black man from rapin' white wimmen.
Chris
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 08:59:33 AM
People committing illegal acts need to be prosecuted.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 09:10:42 AM
Chris
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 09:19:50 AM
No, it shouldnt be legal. Violators ought to be executed and dealers sent to Saudi Arabia for appropriate punishment.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 09:26:13 AM
Chris
Post by: seeker_two on January 10, 2008, 09:27:30 AM
I don't care about the legalities of pot, I won't be using it. That said, I see the harm from the crusade against it as far greater than the damage from it.
Agreed....but I'd be more willing to support legalization if drug/alcohol testing for welfare was mandatory and child abuse/neglect were capital crimes........
Post by: BrokenPaw on January 10, 2008, 10:05:44 AM
Drug laws are racist, many were enacted to keep the black man from rapin' white wimmen.
In all fairness, the black men ought not be rapin' the white wimmen. Or anyone else, for that matter. Nor should men of any other shade of brown (or beige, or pink) be rapin' wimmen. Or men. Or...or anything else, really.How about we just prohibit the whole rape thing directly, and stop beating around the bush, so to speak.
With regard to the original topic: Legalize them all, and make each and every intoxicating substance count as premeditation and an aggravating circumstance for any crime committed under the influence.
Drive home with BAC == 0.02? Fine. Kill someone with your car while at 0.02? 0.01? Murder one. Done. Make people rethink what they do while using drugs, rather than pretending to be able to make them not use drugs.
Also, for the purposes of debate, it is safe to assume that Rabbi is not going to listen to reason on this: For Rabbi, all drugs are completely, unequivocally, inescapably evil, unless they're the ones he happens to like. And he happens to like Tobacco and Alcohol. His argument is that the other drugs are illegal, QED. The fact that, were they legalized, they would no longer be illegal, carries no weight with him, because: all drugs are completely, unequivocally, inescapably evil, unless they're the ones he happens to like.
-BP
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 10:10:08 AM
Surely you can aknowledge that.
Legalization will lead to increased usage. There can be no debate over that.
If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 10:23:55 AM
In all fairness, the black men ought not be rapin' the white wimmen. Or anyone else, for that matter. Nor should men of any other shade of brown (or beige, or pink) be rapin' wimmen. Or men. Or...or anything else, really.
No argument from me. I was paraphrasing the motivation behind early drug laws.
Not all drugs are equal.
Surely you can aknowledge that.
Neither are all forms of booze equal in potency.Surely you can aknowledge that.
Quote
Legalization will lead to increased usage. There can be no debate over that.
What's your point? Consumption of alcohol increased after Prohibition was lifted. It appears smoking is down as regulations get tighter. It only makes sense that if drugs were legalized consumption would increase. Quote
If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?
If alcohol and tobacco abuse is such a problem, we should ban them as well. Oh yeah, we tried that (well, we did with the booze).Chris
Post by: BrokenPaw on January 10, 2008, 10:26:49 AM
So if all drugs are drugs, and they are not all equal, then we can plot the magnitude of their effects along a continuum, with, perhaps, Tobacco at one end, and (I really don't know which is the most effective, so please bear with the example) PCP at the other end. Everything else falls somewhere in the middle. So what? So if someone is stupid enough to smoke himself into emphysema or lung cancer, does it matter that tobacco was lower on the scale than PCP, or even below our notional "this is ok, this is not" threshold? If someone is dumb enough to take PCP, he's dumb enough to do any of a number of other self-destructive things.
My point is not that drugs are good. My point is that declaring and enforcing prohibition on them has far greater economic and social detriment than the drugs those policies are supposedly trying (and failing) to protect "us" from.
In the interest of full disclosure: I smoked cigarettes for about a month in college, until I realized it was stupid. I drink occasionally, in moderation. I have never in my life done an illegal drug of any sort. I have a sneaking suspicion that my job wouldn't allow me to smoke pot, even if it were made legal, and even if I wanted to. So I'm not a pothead lobbying for legalization because I'm trying to justify my habit.
I have no dog in the fight, except the one labeled "too much government control over individual freedoms".
-BP
Post by: Joe Demko on January 10, 2008, 10:46:22 AM
Quote
People committing illegal acts need to be prosecuted.
All illegal acts or just the ones you find personally distasteful?
Post by: Finch on January 10, 2008, 11:03:19 AM
Quote
People committing illegal acts need to be prosecuted.
All illegal acts or just the ones you find personally distasteful?
I have no dog in the fight, except the one labeled "too much government control over individual freedoms".
Ding Ding.
Post by: Physics on January 10, 2008, 11:22:25 AM
Quote
Yes, the dilated-pupils potheads at my university whose rooms smelled like incense and who invariably dropped out after a semester, and who talked...really...slow... They were fiction.
Right.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.
Right.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.
This is what I'm talking about. Nothing like stereotyping right? All potheads are retarded... hmmm... well, I may not be as socially brilliant as some posters in here, but I know for damn sure that smoking weed didn't keep me from getting a physics degree. Wait a minute, I smoke weed, and yet can take Jackson's Electrodynamics??? HUH?!?!
Sorry, but I don't buy your stereotype, because I myself prove it wrong. I guess I should ask, can you pass a 600 level physics class?
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 11:23:30 AM
Quote
No, it shouldnt be legal.
Why?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 11:41:15 AM
Quote
Legalization will lead to increased usage. There can be no debate over that.
What's your point? Consumption of alcohol increased after Prohibition was lifted. It appears smoking is down as regulations get tighter. It only makes sense that if drugs were legalized consumption would increase. Quote
If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?
If alcohol and tobacco abuse is such a problem, we should ban them as well. Oh yeah, we tried that (well, we did with the booze).Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 11:49:55 AM
Chris
Post by: BrokenPaw on January 10, 2008, 11:53:39 AM
In order to, you know, have a discussion about why we support a particular view, we have to bring in subjects that are related. You know, like you did when you pointed out that some people already have a problem abusing alcohol, even though it's legal. This thread isn't about alcohol, yet you used a reference to alcohol to make a point. And then mtnbkr responded to your point, and then you dismissed what he said as irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You can't have it both ways.
-BP
Post by: Scout26 on January 10, 2008, 11:56:02 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 12:01:57 PM
If this thread were to be purely about legalizing marijuana, then the only valid posts in it would be "Yes, it should be legalized" and "No, it should not."
In order to, you know, have a discussion about why we support a particular view, we have to bring in subjects that are related. You know, like you did when you pointed out that some people already have a problem abusing alcohol, even though it's legal. This thread isn't about alcohol, yet you used a reference to alcohol to make a point. And then mtnbkr responded to your point, and then you dismissed what he said as irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You can't have it both ways.
-BP
Of course I can.In order to, you know, have a discussion about why we support a particular view, we have to bring in subjects that are related. You know, like you did when you pointed out that some people already have a problem abusing alcohol, even though it's legal. This thread isn't about alcohol, yet you used a reference to alcohol to make a point. And then mtnbkr responded to your point, and then you dismissed what he said as irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You can't have it both ways.
-BP
But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that. People just want to draw irrelevant parallels to alcohol and Prohibition. Those are completely off-topic.
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.
Post by: Ron on January 10, 2008, 12:04:09 PM
Post by: Mabs2 on January 10, 2008, 12:07:29 PM
Quote
No one will want drugs from gangsters if they can get clean and safe drugs from the gobmint, even if it's a few dollars more.
Not the government! They'd be commercial, like Bayer heroin. I love picking on Bayer because they hold the patent(expired) for heroin.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 12:09:31 PM
Of course I can.
But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that. People just want to draw irrelevant parallels to alcohol and Prohibition. Those are completely off-topic.
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.
But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that. People just want to draw irrelevant parallels to alcohol and Prohibition. Those are completely off-topic.
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.
Nobody refutes the illegality of marijuana because it's the point of the discussion.
"Should Marijuana be legal".
The issue isn't really narcotics use per se, but personal freedom and responsibility. The comparisons to other, legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco come into play because they are drugs that can be abused to the detriment of the individual and society, yet they are tolerated. There is no argument for the use of narcotics from the standpoint of the country at large, just as there is no such argument for the use of ANY recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. The three are fully intertwined.
Chris
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 10, 2008, 12:09:49 PM
The only "drug" I have with any regularity is labeled Bud Light. None of that other stuff appeals to me in the least. However, I have a problem with the "war on drugs" for the simple reason that it puts more emphasis on the product and less on the act. If it were about actually curbing the negative outcomes of drug use, the crime would be an issue of the effect it had, not the actual possession. The product has become so demonized that it cannot be seperated from simple bad behavior.
In other words, you punish the behavior and not the product just like alchohol. So what if you want to stay at home and puff yourself silly. I have no problem with that just like I have no problem with someone sitting on their back porch and getting sotted on their choice of booze. What I have a problem with is when they become a danger to others (example: driving under the influence). But sit on your back porch and get blasted by booze, all you might get is a neighbor yelling at you to stop peeing in the rose bushes. Sit on your back porch and get silly on dope and you may have the SWAT team breathing down your neck.
Brad
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 12:11:32 PM
In small amounts MJ is already basically decriminalized, it is not unlike getting a traffic ticket getting caught with small amounts.
It depends on who's doing the catching (police and judicial combined) and who's getting caught. A middle class white kid caught with a joint in suburbia is going to get treated differently than an urban youth with the same.
Chris
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 12:12:07 PM
Quote
But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that.
There's nothing to refute, it's a statement of fact - within most jurisdictions, marijuana is illegal.It's not a statement of value that can be responded to or refuted.
Quote
People just want to draw irrelevant parallels to alcohol and Prohibition. Those are completely off-topic.
No, they aren't - both are mind- and body-altering chemicals with some negative effects on the individual and on society. If alcohol is illegal - why isn't marijuana? Is marijuana worse? Worse for the individual or worse for society? Should alcohol be criminalized?
Why is there a differing standard between marijuana and alcohol and how can it be justified?
Can you answer any of that, or will you just fall back on "it's illegal so it should stay illegal" - does the status quo never require justification?
Quote
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country,
Marijuana isn't a narcotic, buddy.But here's the compelling argument: as an adult, if I choose to smoke and don't drive or otherwise bring potential or actual harm on another, what right is it of yours to decide that's a jail-able offense?
Post by: BrokenPaw on January 10, 2008, 12:12:48 PM
Quote
But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that.
Well, of course not. That's an established fact. Under most circumstances, in the US, Marijuana is illegal. I concede to you that point. Well done.But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether it should be legal or not.
Your argument cannot simply be "it should be illegal because it currently is illegal". Or I've been giving you far too much credit, this whole time.
By that standard, alcohol (there I go again, bringing irrelevancies into the discussion) should have, once prohibited, remained illegal. Yet its illegality was rescinded. Just as marijuana's could be.
-BP
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 12:17:40 PM
Quote
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country,
Marijuana isn't a narcotic, buddy.But here's the compelling argument: as an adult, if I choose to smoke and don't drive or otherwise bring potential or actual harm on another, what right is it of yours to decide that's a jail-able offense?
That isn't an argument why increased drug use would be good for this country. Go back to square one and start over.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 10, 2008, 12:20:14 PM
That isn't an argument why increased drug use would be good for this country. Go back to square one and start over.
An activity doesn't have to be good for the country to be legal. I could list many many things that are bad for the country, yet still legal and even encouraged in many cases. Your premise is flawed.
Why not tell us why one type of drug abuse is good for the country while another is not.
Chris
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 12:21:06 PM
Quote
That isn't an argument why increased drug use would be good for this country. Go back to square one and start over.
That isn't an argument why increased drug use "would be bad for this country." Go back to yada yada yada. See, this is a fun game!But it's an awfully interesting standard you've got there.
A government which is not limited by the rights of the people and protecting them from harm, but an active government whose role is to decide what is "good" for the people, whether they can handle freedom or not.
Weren't you cracking wise about "papieren bitte" just a few days ago?
Post by: Firethorn on January 10, 2008, 12:25:44 PM
Legalization will lead to increased usage. There can be no debate over that.
Actually, there can be.
Quote
The per capita rate for the Prohibition years is computed to be 1.63 proof gallons. This is 11.64% higher than the Pre-Prohibition rate (Tillitt, 1932: 35). Based on these figures one observer concluded: "And so the drinking which was, in theory, to have been decreased to the vanishing point by Prohibition has, in fact, increased" (Tillitt, 1932: 36).
Another point
Quote
C. Decriminalization in Australian Territories Did Not Increase Use
Two of Australia's eight territories -- South Australia and Australian Capital Territory -- removed criminal penalties in 1987 and 1992, respectively, for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Offenders face only a small fine or a "caution." An Australian government-funded survey published in 1996 found no substantial difference in reported usage rates.
Two of Australia's eight territories -- South Australia and Australian Capital Territory -- removed criminal penalties in 1987 and 1992, respectively, for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Offenders face only a small fine or a "caution." An Australian government-funded survey published in 1996 found no substantial difference in reported usage rates.
Quote
If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?
Because problems like violent crime increased during prohibition and dropped off when it ended?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 10, 2008, 12:37:39 PM
It doesn't matter whether they were illegal or not. Right now they are not illegal. MJ is illegal.
People committing illegal acts need to be prosecuted.
People committing illegal acts need to be prosecuted.
Unless the illegal act is border-hopping.
Post by: Finch on January 10, 2008, 12:42:20 PM
Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is and should be a states rights issue. But the heavy handed "I know what's best for you" Federal Government has decided otherwise.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 10, 2008, 12:52:33 PM
The reality is that the price of freedom is personal responsibility, but there are plenty of people that fail the latter. Therefore, counteracting the negative effects of the such on the rest of us inevitably requires some restriction on overall freedom. Ergo, the above separation.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 01:13:34 PM
Quote
That isn't an argument why increased drug use would be good for this country. Go back to square one and start over.
That isn't an argument why increased drug use "would be bad for this country." Go back to yada yada yada. See, this is a fun game!But it's an awfully interesting standard you've got there.
A government which is not limited by the rights of the people and protecting them from harm, but an active government whose role is to decide what is "good" for the people, whether they can handle freedom or not.
Weren't you cracking wise about "papieren bitte" just a few days ago?
How is increased drug use going to benefit this country?
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 01:34:01 PM
How is increased marijuana use going to harm this country?
And a less-simple question:
Should all things that have the potential to "harm this country" be illegal?
And a simple question again:
Does alcohol use harm this country?
Another simple question:
Should alcohol use be illegal?
One last less-simple question:
If alcohol is harmful and should not be illegal, why should marijuana be illegal?
Post by: Firethorn on January 10, 2008, 01:36:41 PM
I have no dog in the fight, except the one labeled "too much government control over individual freedoms".
I'll chime in that I'm another virtual teetolar by personal choice, and less government control is the reason I want it legalized.
I think that the last time I had an alcoholic beverage was a year ago, I've never smoked or done anything illegal. I'm not about to start just because it's legal.
Quote from: The Rabbi
You're talking about government rights and papieren and won't answer a simple question:
How is increased drug use going to benefit this country?
How is increased drug use going to benefit this country?
We've argued this before; we're not arguing that increased drug use(assuming it happens) is of benefit to the country. We're arguing that the ancillery effects of prohibition are worse than allowing the drug usage.
Benefits of legalization:
1. Decreased crime
1a. Gang warfare would decrease as there would be less profit motive in holding territory
1b. Drops in drug prices would allow addicts to get their fix with less stealing
1c. With drug use legal, they're more likely to be able to keep a job
2. Decreased police power, as well as the need for it
2a. drastically reduced need for undercover cops
2b. Justification for seizing large sums of cash and other assets on the hazy basis that it might be drug money is gone; Especially when there's not enough evidence to charge the person it's seized from
2c. 'Law Enforcement' Officers might go back more towards 'Peace Officers', IE the Good Guys, as they now should be only going after crimes that involve victims
2d. Drastically reduced need for SWAT type teams originally assembled to raid heavily fortified drug houses
3. Decreased accidental poisonings from drugs without proper quality controls;
3a. The drugs would be cut with safe substances at a consistent rate
3b. People more likely to confess usage if they have to hit the hospital, so better treatment
4. Chance to reduce deficits
4a. Massive Police costs transformed into Tax Revenues
4b. Funding for addiction treatment centers cheaper than prisons
Post by: French G. on January 10, 2008, 01:41:07 PM
If only we would abide by the constitution.
This is and should be a states rights issue. But the heavy handed "I know what's best for you" Federal Government has decided otherwise.
Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is and should be a states rights issue. But the heavy handed "I know what's best for you" Federal Government has decided otherwise.
Quite right, MJ grown in a backyard isn't exactly interstate commerce, but then again everything is interstate commerce these days.
The power for the government to tell you that you cannot lawfully trade in or use marijuana is the power for them to tell you the same about guns or whatever other freedom you covet.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 10, 2008, 01:43:42 PM
Post by: Warren on January 10, 2008, 02:21:15 PM
I say keep it illegal as long as the folks who want it to stay illegal pay for all the costs of it's prohibition. So you guys buy the prisons, pay the cops and prosecutors etc all on your own (eith no asset forfeiture to offset your costs). Then we will see how committed to your position you really are.
Move it into the torts system, if someone is smoking pot or using whatever, and you think you are being damaged sue them. If you can prove your case they pay you. If not, you pay them. That way you prohibitionists can have your little control freak hobby while leaving the rest of us out of it.
Personally I don't give a crap about pot, but I would love to see hemp legalized.
Post by: roo_ster on January 10, 2008, 03:08:07 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2008, 03:10:14 PM
You won't answer a simple question:
How is increased marijuana use going to harm this country?
And a less-simple question:
Should all things that have the potential to "harm this country" be illegal?
And a simple question again:
Does alcohol use harm this country?
Another simple question:
Should alcohol use be illegal?
One last less-simple question:
If alcohol is harmful and should not be illegal, why should marijuana be illegal?
You're refusing to answer the question and segueing into irrelevancies. Your time is up. Thanks for playing.
How is increased marijuana use going to harm this country?
And a less-simple question:
Should all things that have the potential to "harm this country" be illegal?
And a simple question again:
Does alcohol use harm this country?
Another simple question:
Should alcohol use be illegal?
One last less-simple question:
If alcohol is harmful and should not be illegal, why should marijuana be illegal?
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 03:26:11 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on January 10, 2008, 04:11:08 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 10, 2008, 04:24:41 PM
Quote
Yes, the dilated-pupils potheads at my university whose rooms smelled like incense and who invariably dropped out after a semester, and who talked...really...slow... They were fiction.
Right.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.
Right.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.
This is what I'm talking about. Nothing like stereotyping right? All potheads are retarded... hmmm... well, I may not be as socially brilliant as some posters in here, but I know for damn sure that smoking weed didn't keep me from getting a physics degree. Wait a minute, I smoke weed, and yet can take Jackson's Electrodynamics??? HUH?!?!
Sorry, but I don't buy your stereotype, because I myself prove it wrong. I guess I should ask, can you pass a 600 level physics class?
In my university experience so far, the trend has been kids drinking themselves out of college moreso than smoking themselves out.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 10, 2008, 04:36:02 PM
Quote
This is what I'm talking about. Nothing like stereotyping right? All potheads are retarded... hmmm... well, I may not be as socially brilliant as some posters in here, but I know for damn sure that smoking weed didn't keep me from getting a physics degree. Wait a minute, I smoke weed, and yet can take Jackson's Electrodynamics??? HUH?!?!
Sorry, but I don't buy your stereotype, because I myself prove it wrong. I guess I should ask, can you pass a 600 level physics class?
Sorry, but I don't buy your stereotype, because I myself prove it wrong. I guess I should ask, can you pass a 600 level physics class?
Wow! Just think how far you could've gone had you not been a stoner - maybe a PhD or three!
Yes, I can pass a 600 level physics class - the degree on my office wall says so. I also have a TS/SCI security clearance, and a Lifestyle polygraph that wouldn't have been possible had I decided I needed to alter my brain chemistry through drugs. I understand the brownies are good, though...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 10, 2008, 04:51:49 PM
How about legallizing tobacco ?? Heck, it's practically outlawed these days.....
I agree. In some places tobacco seems to be more illegal than weed.I find it interesting that in the places where pot is generally tolerated, tobacco generally isn't.
Post by: Warren on January 10, 2008, 04:54:19 PM
Marijuana should be treated just like alcohol; control it, legalize it and tax it. Our country spends billions trying to enforce weed laws when they could be earning billions in tax revenue.
I do not want the gov getting more money, therefore I must disagree with you. edit: On that particular aspect.
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 05:05:13 PM
If so, how does that differ (legal and security clearance issues aside - given that we're talking about legalizing it) from using marijuana?
Post by: Nitrogen on January 10, 2008, 05:09:05 PM
I still detest stoned people, though.
Post by: wooderson on January 10, 2008, 05:40:53 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 10, 2008, 06:16:37 PM
The only thing that should be legal is near beer and grape Nehi.
Don't you know that Grape Nehi erodes family values, and impregnates innocent, homeless, orphan nuns?
Post by: roo_ster on January 10, 2008, 06:56:36 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 10, 2008, 07:57:32 PM
Post by: InfidelSerf on January 10, 2008, 08:54:58 PM
Quote
I myself think it should be, as it is, in my opinion, less harmful than alcohol.
Amazing how the absence of one comma could lead others to think that your still partaking.As for the legalization.
I have always viewed substances and their ingestion as this.
If it is naturally occurring and can be consumed using basic chemistry. i.e. heat, pressure, time. (Beer is made with natural ingredients using basic chemistry)
Then it should be legal and "under influence" should be regulated.
If it involves more advanced chemistry (cocaine, LSD, MDMA, heroine) then it should be controlled and regulated much like pharmaceuticals.
If production of any substance is for resale and not just for personal consumption, then the typical quality controls should be regulated.
I don't believe it is the governments role to tell me what I can and can not put in my body. Especially when infanticide/abortion is legal.
I can agree with regulations on it's use in actions that would have a direct impact on others. For example making it illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence. Of course with current laws against drinking and driving there is a bit of a conundrum, since as long as they have allowable limits on BAC. The government is NOT making drinking and driving illegal, they are making drinking too much illegal. Kind of gives the masses mixed signals if you ask me.
Another factor to consider, especially in relation to the medical cannibus controversy, is this.
All pharmaceutical drugs go through clinical trials prior to being green lit for sale. Correct?
One of the core aspects of the trials, are the descriptions of the effects the test patient is feeling from a drug.
This relies on the individuals own comprehension of their own body and how it makes them "feel".
However in the case of medical cannibus the government tells you that you don't have any knowledge or understanding of how your body feels.
There is a reason placebo's work. The power of mind of matter is very strong and largely a mystery.
So even though chemically they may be able to "prove" that medical cannibus is not supposed to have a net positive effect.
It may very well just be a powerful placebo.
Which doctors use and administer all the time.
Post by: De Selby on January 10, 2008, 09:30:52 PM
But there is no way imaginable that it's worse or even as bad as alcohol. Take a look at the folks who drink every day all day, and the damage they do to themselves and others, compared to potheads. Neither narcotic produces good things, but drunks are out there running people down and abusing their families in record numbers, whereas marijuana abusers generally are not.
Policing it is a waste of money that could be far better spent trying to get people to put down the bottle.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 10, 2008, 09:48:40 PM
As a matter of fact, I don't, even though the shelf in the kitchen has all sorts of stuff. I have an alcoholic stepson, and lost an older brother to a drunk driver many years ago. If alcohol disappeared from this planet, it wouldn't affect me at all, and I have never smoked a day in my life, so tobacco's demise is no skin off my nose, either. (Since that was the next thing you were going to ask...)
I live a sheltered life, eh?
Post by: gunsmith on January 10, 2008, 10:54:43 PM
Like alcohol and tobacco is.
Legalize everything! Put the real thing back in coke, let crack heads buy safe
cocaine cola and chew coke gum , like those people that chew nicotine gum.
The war on drugs is really the war on civil rights and capitalism.
Of course I don't advocate anyone ingest that garbage, but its your life.
Post by: gunsmith on January 10, 2008, 11:04:57 PM
the ill effects. One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.
Post by: Physics on January 10, 2008, 11:24:07 PM
Wow! Just think how far you could've gone had you not been a stoner - maybe a PhD or three!
Yes, I can pass a 600 level physics class - the degree on my office wall says so. I also have a TS/SCI security clearance, and a Lifestyle polygraph that wouldn't have been possible had I decided I needed to alter my brain chemistry through drugs. I understand the brownies are good, though...
The security clearance issue does REALLY bum me out. I really wanted to go into weapon design for the military. I still do if I could swing it, but from what I understand, any past use at all disqualifies you. Unfortunately, I was screwed on the polygraph at 15, before I ever knew what I wanted to be. It seems silly to me that they won't give you a clearance because of pot, but I guess "Reefer Madness" type thinking is still somewhat prevalent. Yes, I can pass a 600 level physics class - the degree on my office wall says so. I also have a TS/SCI security clearance, and a Lifestyle polygraph that wouldn't have been possible had I decided I needed to alter my brain chemistry through drugs. I understand the brownies are good, though...
I'm guessing the issue is because they think potheads would just give away secrets for weed. Seems strange considering you never hear mention of an alcohol-abstinence requirement for government service, and I consider drunks to be far more dishonest than any pot smoker. To be quite honest, it really bugs me that people judge me because I smoke. I am still honest, speak my mind, and do everything I can to be a good citizen of my community. I honestly just don't see what the big deal is, it's just weed! I mean come on, how is it even as bad as alcohol, much less worse.
On a side note, I didn't particularly like the brownies, they were waaaayyyy too strong.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 01:21:42 AM
I also want to add that MJ destroyed my life and it has taken years to overcome
the ill effects. One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.
the ill effects. One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.
There we go. If for no other reason, legalization would lead to more Democrats getting elected.
Anyone want to advocate it now? Huh?
Post by: mtnbkr on January 11, 2008, 03:04:39 AM
It probably helps that I have led a squeaky clean life in addition to having perfect credit and have never tried to hide anything from the investigators.
It might be a different story if you're still smoking or it was an activity you were involved in until very recently.
Chris
Post by: cordex on January 11, 2008, 05:30:46 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 05:46:58 AM
I also want to add that MJ destroyed my life and it has taken years to overcome
the ill effects. One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.
the ill effects. One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.
There we go. If for no other reason, legalization would lead to more Democrats getting elected.
Anyone want to advocate it now? Huh?
Post by: MechAg94 on January 11, 2008, 05:57:05 AM
I just think it would be interesting if they decided to make it legal for pharmaceutical companies to use the active ingredient in MJ for prescription drugs. What would they end up doing with it? Maybe in the future your aspirin would come with thc instead of caffeine.
If it was accepted as beneficial, it would likely change the public perception a bit and open the door for acceptance of full legalization down the road. Not an "I want it now" approach, but it might help. My own stance on legalization is more to the issue that we ought to consider a different approach than we are taking now, whatever that may be.
Post by: stevelyn on January 11, 2008, 06:03:24 AM
Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.
OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 06:06:55 AM
Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.
OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.
You guys do realize that the biggest recipient of the government dollar is...
children.
I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do? Feed the kids? Let them starve? Hmm...
These issues are much more complicated than we imagine. As for the whole thing, it seems "Reefer Madness" is still around. Marijuana was first criminalized in Arizona so they could deport the cheap Mexican labor left over from the Bracero program and Operation wetback.
Post by: cordex on January 11, 2008, 06:12:42 AM
You guys do realize that the biggest recipient of the government dollar is...
[...]
children.
I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do? Feed the kids? Let them starve? Hmm...
Through miracles and resources under his control, or through bloated, festering, inefficient government agencies rife with corruption utilizing confiscated money taken at gunpoint?[...]
children.
I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do? Feed the kids? Let them starve? Hmm...
Hmm....
Because only the government can feed the needy, and even if someone else could do it, only the government could do it well. Right?
Post by: Firethorn on January 11, 2008, 06:25:52 AM
There we go. If for no other reason, legalization would lead to more Democrats getting elected.
Anyone want to advocate it now? Huh?
Anyone want to advocate it now? Huh?
The way I read it, if MJ had been legal he wouldn't have lost his clearance for admitting to using it and wouldn't have voted D for 20, costing them quite a few votes.
On the other hand, it seems democrats are more likely to actually use the stuff, so if it's legal, how many will bother to haul themselves over to the polling places while potted?
Quote
I just think it would be interesting if they decided to make it legal for pharmaceutical companies to use the active ingredient in MJ for prescription drugs.
Already been done, just look up 'Marinol'. Problems with the pill form is reduced effectiveness at 100X the cost. The smoked form, from some semi-official studies* and a number of personal attestments is more effective at suppressing nausea than the pill. The common side effect of increased hunger dovetails rather well with chemotherapy side effects - one of which is hunger supression. In some cases smoked MJ has been the only effective drug for both suppressing nausea so the person can eat and increasing their appetite so they actually want to.
Quote
Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.
Or at least funded through taxes on the drugs themselves. You can run a number of treatment centers rather easily that way. Remember: They're cheaper than prison.
*Because they came up with the wrong answer.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 06:52:06 AM
Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.
OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 11, 2008, 06:52:22 AM
Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.
Ah, but that's the rub, isn't it? Druggies will inevitably be a burden on society. You cannot remove all safety nets because there are plenty of non-users who will scream their lungs out about "fairness", "compassion", "humane treatment", etc. It is politically impossible to push something through when the socialists and the religious join on a certain issue. And complete legalization is bound to increase the number of druggies, at least in the first decade or so.
Also, consider the effects on criminality. Now you have more druggies trying to get their fix. Yes, the drugs are available and probably far cheaper, but when they quit their jobs over drugs, who will pay for their living and habit? So, criminality increases. The common citizen will feel the pinch. You simultaneously have to remove all restrictions on gun carry (a good thing) but will end up with a society where druggies and armed citizens shoot it out in the streets far more often than now. That will mean that a bunch of laws about justifiable homicide will have to be changed as well, the bottom line being much higher mortality among druggies (probably a good thing) but also among civilians (a bad thing). Then again you hit the above argument about bleeding hearts, and you end up back at square one.
That's why a compromise is probably better - the division between soft and hard drugs. Soft drugs legalization will empty a lot of space in our legal system and prisons as well, when a bunch of local yokels do not get thrown in jail over a bag of grass.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 06:56:38 AM
Anyway, the society was falling apart. Generals were too stoned to make good decisions. Even the Imperial court was affected.
When Mao came to power he eradicated it. Every addict was offered state of the art treatment the first time. The second time they were thrown in jail. Dealers were summarily executed.
It worked.
We need to try that here.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 11, 2008, 06:57:06 AM
Those who abuse will be burdens on society one way or another. Drug addicts lose the ability to work, thus their ability to earn money. But they dont lose their penchant for drugs. Where will they turn? Hmmm. Let's think about that one.
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
How is this different than any other addictive substance (other than tobacco)? Alcoholics lose the ability to work if their addiction interferes with their jobs (it wouldn't even get that far if booze was illegal). Same goes for those abuse prescription drugs. While the drugs themselves are legal and controlled, they are still subject to abuse and deviant behavior in the search for the next "high".
What does "good for this country" have to do with individual rights?
Chris
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 06:58:48 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on January 11, 2008, 07:02:21 AM
I finished reading a book on the Opium Wars not too long ago. China had a terrible drug problem in the 19th century, largely fostered by the British for complex economic reasons. Interestingly the arguments between them sounded like today.
Anyway, the society was falling apart. Generals were too stoned to make good decisions. Even the Imperial court was affected.
When Mao came to power he eradicated it. Every addict was offered state of the art treatment the first time. The second time they were thrown in jail. Dealers were summarily executed.
It worked.
We need to try that here.
Anyway, the society was falling apart. Generals were too stoned to make good decisions. Even the Imperial court was affected.
When Mao came to power he eradicated it. Every addict was offered state of the art treatment the first time. The second time they were thrown in jail. Dealers were summarily executed.
It worked.
We need to try that here.
Certainly. We can start with alcohol. Drunks barely function in society, if at all. Alcohol related auto accidents are epidemic. Alcohol is the root of many evils on college campuses and economically depressed areas.
All I want is some consistency. During the course of my life, I've known probably 5 serious drunks for every serious user of illicit drugs (maybe more, those are just the ones that don't try to hide it). The only real difference is that society accepted the drunk and even gave them pass with a wink and a nod. It doesn't matter which drug you use, if it affects your professional and personal life, you should rethink your involvement with it. If it doesn't interfere with work and home life, what does the manner of consumption matter?
Chris
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 11, 2008, 07:18:56 AM
All I want is some consistency.
Consistency only makes sense when the level of impairment and the social costs are comparable. Many more people drink than use drugs, and for the most part, they are not a social problem. Only a few hardest cases, true alcoholics, can compare to what hard drugs do in short order. The distribution is very different among druggies - hard drug users are overwhelmingly impaired and a much larger social burden; most cannot function normally in society at all.
Consistency in treatment of a pea-shooter and a howitzer does not make practical sense.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 11, 2008, 07:20:03 AM
So your solution is to make things worse? What kind of sense does that make?
You are making an assumption that things will be worse. Plenty of people, if pot were legal, will use it no less responsibly than they currently use booze. The folks that would abuse pot are likely already abusing it or other drugs (including booze). There is a middle ground between abstinence and abuse.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on January 11, 2008, 07:22:53 AM
Consistency only makes sense when the level of impairment and the social costs are comparable. Many more people drink than use drugs, and for the most part, they are not a social problem. Only a few hardest cases, true alcoholics, can compare to what hard drugs do in short order. The distribution is very different among druggies - hard drug users are overwhelmingly impaired and a much larger social burden; most cannot function normally in society at all.
Consistency in treatment of a pea-shooter and a howitzer does not make practical sense.
Consistency in treatment of a pea-shooter and a howitzer does not make practical sense.
I would submit that the reason for this is the fact that only the hardcore put forth the effort to get those drugs. The "light" or "social" users would control their use just as they do with booze.
Chris
Post by: Nick1911 on January 11, 2008, 08:08:21 AM
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
For the sake of argument, we'll say it won't be good for this country. What's your point?
Post by: macadore on January 11, 2008, 08:11:39 AM
Wooderson, how the hell did I know you'd ask that question next?
As a matter of fact, I don't, even though the shelf in the kitchen has all sorts of stuff. I have an alcoholic stepson, and lost an older brother to a drunk driver many years ago. If alcohol disappeared from this planet, it wouldn't affect me at all, and I have never smoked a day in my life, so tobacco's demise is no skin off my nose, either. (Since that was the next thing you were going to ask...)
I live a sheltered life, eh?
As a matter of fact, I don't, even though the shelf in the kitchen has all sorts of stuff. I have an alcoholic stepson, and lost an older brother to a drunk driver many years ago. If alcohol disappeared from this planet, it wouldn't affect me at all, and I have never smoked a day in my life, so tobacco's demise is no skin off my nose, either. (Since that was the next thing you were going to ask...)
I live a sheltered life, eh?
Do you have any children?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 08:32:50 AM
You guys do realize that the biggest recipient of the government dollar is...
[...]
children.
I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do? Feed the kids? Let them starve? Hmm...
Through miracles and resources under his control, or through bloated, festering, inefficient government agencies rife with corruption utilizing confiscated money taken at gunpoint?[...]
children.
I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do? Feed the kids? Let them starve? Hmm...
Hmm....
Because only the government can feed the needy, and even if someone else could do it, only the government could do it well. Right?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 08:36:56 AM
Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.
OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
You are assuming that if you use it once, you will become a pot-crazed addict that will be a burden on society. Is alcohol the same to you?
How many people drank occassionally in college? In the military? Are they suddenly a burden to society? Cannot marijuana be used recreationally?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 08:38:51 AM
I finished reading a book on the Opium Wars not too long ago. China had a terrible drug problem in the 19th century, largely fostered by the British for complex economic reasons. Interestingly the arguments between them sounded like today.
Anyway, the society was falling apart. Generals were too stoned to make good decisions. Even the Imperial court was affected.
When Mao came to power he eradicated it. Every addict was offered state of the art treatment the first time. The second time they were thrown in jail. Dealers were summarily executed.
It worked.
We need to try that here.
Anyway, the society was falling apart. Generals were too stoned to make good decisions. Even the Imperial court was affected.
When Mao came to power he eradicated it. Every addict was offered state of the art treatment the first time. The second time they were thrown in jail. Dealers were summarily executed.
It worked.
We need to try that here.
Certainly. We can start with alcohol. Drunks barely function in society, if at all. Alcohol related auto accidents are epidemic. Alcohol is the root of many evils on college campuses and economically depressed areas.
All I want is some consistency. During the course of my life, I've known probably 5 serious drunks for every serious user of illicit drugs (maybe more, those are just the ones that don't try to hide it). The only real difference is that society accepted the drunk and even gave them pass with a wink and a nod. It doesn't matter which drug you use, if it affects your professional and personal life, you should rethink your involvement with it. If it doesn't interfere with work and home life, what does the manner of consumption matter?
Chris
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 08:39:43 AM
All I want is some consistency.
Consistency only makes sense when the level of impairment and the social costs are comparable. Many more people drink than use drugs, and for the most part, they are not a social problem. Only a few hardest cases, true alcoholics, can compare to what hard drugs do in short order. The distribution is very different among druggies - hard drug users are overwhelmingly impaired and a much larger social burden; most cannot function normally in society at all.
Consistency in treatment of a pea-shooter and a howitzer does not make practical sense.
True, but this discussion was supposed to be about marijuana. Not other drugs.
Post by: Firethorn on January 11, 2008, 09:29:14 AM
Ah, but that's the rub, isn't it? Druggies will inevitably be a burden on society. You cannot remove all safety nets because there are plenty of non-users who will scream their lungs out about "fairness", "compassion", "humane treatment", etc. It is politically impossible to push something through when the socialists and the religious join on a certain issue. And complete legalization is bound to increase the number of druggies, at least in the first decade or so.
There's a difference between 'druggies' and 'drug users'. Actually, thinking about it, I'd say there's four classes:
Non-Users - Can be a drain on society, but odds are low
Users - Still not a problem
Functional Addicts - As long as they can get their drug they're functional. Almost like a diabetic and insulin.
Nonfunctional addicts - a definite drain on society, and they want their drugs, but can't support themselves and their habit.
Going by historical data, the nonfunctional addict, IE 'druggie' rate has remained pretty much constant through prohibition and the WoD. So it's actually fairly unlikely that legalization would result in an explosion of druggies - especially for something like MJ.
Quote
Also, consider the effects on criminality. Now you have more druggies trying to get their fix. Yes, the drugs are available and probably far cheaper, but when they quit their jobs over drugs, who will pay for their living and habit? So, criminality increases. The common citizen will feel the pinch.
They get caught and thrown in a drug-free jail to detox. Just like drunks who commit crimes to get their fix. Don't want to detox the hard way? Either keep your job(or any job) and do it legally or check yourself into a treatment clinic.
Quote
You simultaneously have to remove all restrictions on gun carry (a good thing) but will end up with a society where druggies and armed citizens shoot it out in the streets far more often than now. That will mean that a bunch of laws about justifiable homicide will have to be changed as well, the bottom line being much higher mortality among druggies (probably a good thing) but also among civilians (a bad thing). Then again you hit the above argument about bleeding hearts, and you end up back at square one.
Other areas have legalized drugs and found that the rate doesn't increase? Amsterdam is an exemption because it was a ghettoization of drug legality - users and addicts migrated there, artificially raising the concentration.
Quote
That's why a compromise is probably better - the division between soft and hard drugs. Soft drugs legalization will empty a lot of space in our legal system and prisons as well, when a bunch of local yokels do not get thrown in jail over a bag of grass.
How do you define 'soft' vs 'hard'? Alcohol, by most definitions, would end up in the hard category, while tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs out there. While I support full legalization of all the stuff, I wouldn't mind a gradual legalization process.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 09:35:01 AM
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
For the sake of argument, we'll say it won't be good for this country. What's your point?
Geez, the arguments here get freakier as time goes by.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 09:36:00 AM
[/quote]
Don't forget the most popular of American drugs... caffeine. We should ban it so America can rise to greatness once again. Right Rabbi?
[/quote]
Yes, see how many neighborhoods have been blighted by Starbucks.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 11, 2008, 09:42:01 AM
You guys do realize that the biggest recipient of the government dollar is...
[...]
children.
I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do? Feed the kids? Let them starve? Hmm...
Through miracles and resources under his control, or through bloated, festering, inefficient government agencies rife with corruption utilizing confiscated money taken at gunpoint?[...]
children.
I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do? Feed the kids? Let them starve? Hmm...
Hmm....
Because only the government can feed the needy, and even if someone else could do it, only the government could do it well. Right?
And when you say Govt dollar, you really need to be realistic and say Govt quarter.
Post by: Glock Glockler on January 11, 2008, 09:55:05 AM
I dont think anyone here is supporting drug misuse or abuse, but nice attempt at a straw-man.
The burden of proof is on you to convince me why locking people up for using drug X is good for the country.
The act of using drugs does not produce any victim; no ones rights are infringed upon, so why send them to jail?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 10:18:03 AM
Post by: Werewolf on January 11, 2008, 10:22:53 AM
Quote
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.
Assuming (and this is a really pie in the sky assumption) that we can avoid having to support with public money those that can't handle it, I imagine that legalizing marijuana would result in a medium to long term CLEANSING of the GENE pool.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 10:27:15 AM
Quote
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.
Assuming (and this is a really pie in the sky assumption) that we can avoid having to support with public money those that can't handle it, I imagine that legalizing marijuana would result in a medium to long term CLEANSING of the GENE pool.
Just like alcohol...
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 10:29:28 AM
Rabbi: Are you a collectivist? Who cares what is better for America? Why not ban guns? If nobody had guns then their would be no crime, right?
Who cares?Anyone who lives, works, or votes here. If you don't do any of those things then it shouldn't matter to you.
Are you a narcissist? Do you think only you and your freedoms and comfort matter?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 10:30:23 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 10:33:53 AM
Rabbi: Are sugar filled sweets good for the country? What about Transfat? Not to mention High-fructose corn syrup? Should we ban it? There is no precedent in history for it.
Are you honestly using a slippery-slope fallacy to make your argument? You aren't getting far with that one.Post by: longrifleman on January 11, 2008, 10:35:18 AM
Quote
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
The original question wasn't "increasing drug use", it was legalizing use. Two different things, althought the attempt to twist the debate is fairly clever.
Any social policy will have trade-offs that will probably allow some bad effects, and drug prohibition is certainally one of them. The infringement on personal freedom because of the drug war is one of those bad effects that many people seem to accept. At one time, I did myself.
Now it is time to examine the policy and see if it has achieved it's goals.
Pretty much any drug you want is available in any good sized city and most podunk wide spots in the road too.
Failure.
Increased costs, to reduce use, due to interdicition efforts ?
Failure.
Reduce use by draconian enforcement, ie make examples of users/dealers?
Probable failure. Enforcement probably does reduce use somewhat. So the actual potential success is the difference in use between the current rate and the increased rate after legalization. For that we are spending literally billions of dollars and attacking the foundations of the individual rights this country is supposed to be about.
Eliminate harm to the individuals that use them?
Failure. Actually, double failure. In addition to the harm of the drugs themselves, we give the users criminal records that will follow them the rest of their lives. Instead of drugs being one of those stupid things most people would grow out of, we use them to ruin their lives forever. How exactly is that suppose to help people again?
Give the state an excuse to exercise more power and control over the pesants?
Success.
Post by: BrokenPaw on January 11, 2008, 11:00:06 AM
Rabbi: Are sugar filled sweets good for the country? What about Transfat? Not to mention High-fructose corn syrup? Should we ban it? There is no precedent in history for it.
Are you honestly using a slippery-slope fallacy to make your argument? You aren't getting far with that one.You fail.
-BP
Post by: mtnbkr on January 11, 2008, 11:14:39 AM
Are you a narcissist? Do you think only you and your freedoms and comfort matter?
I know you weren't addressing me, but I'll respond anyway...
Nope. Considering I do not use, nor desire to use mood alterning drugs, my argument in favor of legalization stems from my belief that it is none of the govt's business what substances I use as long as I do not become a burden to society or a criminal.
Chris
Post by: Werewolf on January 11, 2008, 11:38:17 AM
Quote
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.
Assuming (and this is a really pie in the sky assumption) that we can avoid having to support with public money those that can't handle it, I imagine that legalizing marijuana would result in a medium to long term CLEANSING of the GENE pool.
Just like alcohol...
Exactly! And you can add Tobacco to that also - but I anticipated that if I had mentioned A&T Rabbi would have come back with his stipulation that alcohol and tobacco not be mentioned...
Post by: wooderson on January 11, 2008, 11:53:41 AM
Quote
Drug addicts lose the ability to work, thus their ability to earn money. But they dont lose their penchant for drugs.
I can't tell if you're intellectually dishonest, or if you really think that marijuana and crystal meth have the same personal and social effects.
Quote
I finished reading a book on the Opium Wars not too long ago. China had a terrible drug problem in the 19th century, largely fostered by the British for complex economic reasons. Interestingly the arguments between them sounded like today.
Anyway, the society was falling apart. Generals were too stoned to make good decisions.
Anyway, the society was falling apart. Generals were too stoned to make good decisions.
You realize that marijuana and opium are different substances, right?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 11:57:42 AM
Rabbi: Are sugar filled sweets good for the country? What about Transfat? Not to mention High-fructose corn syrup? Should we ban it? There is no precedent in history for it.
Are you honestly using a slippery-slope fallacy to make your argument? You aren't getting far with that one.You fail.
-BP
And you havent answered the objection that your point is simply a slippery slope fallacy.
Nor have you answered why increasing drug usage is good for the country or good policy.
And there can be no debate that drug use will increase with legalization, otherwise you are positing that laws have zero effect on human behavior.
Post by: Strings on January 11, 2008, 12:14:37 PM
I don't think anyone will argue that "use" won't increase a bit: there is a segment of society that doesn't use simply because it's illegal. But you're equating "use" with "abuse", and that's two different animals...
Yes, all abusers are users, but not all users are abusers (and that's for ANY substance that alters the mind in any way).
To use your logic, all guns SHOULD be banned, because gun owners are violent killers.
Yes, everyone who has committed a violent crime with a gun is a "gun owner", but not every gun owner has committed a violent crime.
You raise hell about others making a slippery slope argument, but do the same yourself. Pot, meet Kettle
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 12:16:40 PM
Post by: wooderson on January 11, 2008, 12:18:21 PM
Post by: Firethorn on January 11, 2008, 01:02:28 PM
And there can be no debate that drug use will increase with legalization, otherwise you are positing that laws have zero effect on human behavior.
I suggest you look back to my previous post, where I point out that it can be debated. There are a number of sources where drugs have been legalized and drug use hasen't increased.
Of course, I provided sources, but didn't see a response from you.
Out of every X number of responsible users of whatever, a certain number will end up abusing it. This is just a certainty. So if you increase the number of users you will end up increasing the number of abusers as well.
Actually, discounting the feds current 'any use is abuse' policy, about the same percentage of the population abuse drugs no matter the legality. And it's the abusers, not the users that we have to worry about. So no, increasing the number of users won't automatically increase the numbers of abusers.
As others have pointed out, our WoD hasn't managed to remove availability. Heck, over 50% of high school studends in NORTH DAKOTA have admitted to at least trying MJ, actually a higher rate than admitted to smoking or drinking.
So keeping it illegal isn't reducing usage, it's not increasing safety, it's not working. It's a gripping hand thing - by trying to ban it, it slips through the government's control. Legalize it and the feds would actually be able to control and regulate it more - and turn millions of dollars of law enforcement costs into millions of dollars of revenue.
As I mentioned, I'm not a user either. I don't drink, smoke, or do anything illegal. About all I take is the occasional allergy/cold tablet and pepto for an upset stomach.
Post by: Glock Glockler on January 11, 2008, 01:11:21 PM
Well, right now we lock them up, good thing the taxpayer doesn't have to support them while they're in jail and not working. This really is the best thing though, everyone knows that if once someone smokes pot they are incapable of employment., it's probably also a myth that many high-powered lawyers, stock brokers, and other people making serious bank never use cocaine.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 01:30:49 PM
And there can be no debate that drug use will increase with legalization, otherwise you are positing that laws have zero effect on human behavior.
I suggest you look back to my previous post, where I point out that it can be debated. There are a number of sources where drugs have been legalized and drug use hasen't increased.
Of course, I provided sources, but didn't see a response from you.
Out of every X number of responsible users of whatever, a certain number will end up abusing it. This is just a certainty. So if you increase the number of users you will end up increasing the number of abusers as well.
Actually, discounting the feds current 'any use is abuse' policy, about the same percentage of the population abuse drugs no matter the legality. And it's the abusers, not the users that we have to worry about. So no, increasing the number of users won't automatically increase the numbers of abusers.
As others have pointed out, our WoD hasn't managed to remove availability. Heck, over 50% of high school studends in NORTH DAKOTA have admitted to at least trying MJ, actually a higher rate than admitted to smoking or drinking.
So keeping it illegal isn't reducing usage, it's not increasing safety, it's not working. It's a gripping hand thing - by trying to ban it, it slips through the government's control. Legalize it and the feds would actually be able to control and regulate it more - and turn millions of dollars of law enforcement costs into millions of dollars of revenue.
As I mentioned, I'm not a user either. I don't drink, smoke, or do anything illegal. About all I take is the occasional allergy/cold tablet and pepto for an upset stomach.
OK. That's certainly an opinion.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2008, 01:32:53 PM
Drug addicts lose the ability to work, thus their ability to earn money. But they dont lose their penchant for drugs. Where will they turn?
Well, right now we lock them up, good thing the taxpayer doesn't have to support them while they're in jail and not working. This really is the best thing though, everyone knows that if once someone smokes pot they are incapable of employment., it's probably also a myth that many high-powered lawyers, stock brokers, and other people making serious bank never use cocaine.
You're assuming its the same people. It won't be.Well, right now we lock them up, good thing the taxpayer doesn't have to support them while they're in jail and not working. This really is the best thing though, everyone knows that if once someone smokes pot they are incapable of employment., it's probably also a myth that many high-powered lawyers, stock brokers, and other people making serious bank never use cocaine.
But your solution is to make the problem worse? How is that a good idea?
Post by: wooderson on January 11, 2008, 02:17:29 PM
Post by: Glock Glockler on January 11, 2008, 03:06:51 PM
So you think everyone will run out and become drug addicts as soon as they're legally allowed to do so, isn't that something of an assumption on your part?
Post by: wooderson on January 11, 2008, 03:24:04 PM
Post by: Firethorn on January 11, 2008, 03:50:00 PM
So your point is that laws have no effect on human behavior.
OK. That's certainly an opinion.
OK. That's certainly an opinion.
Nice strawman. My point is that laws banning drugs don't change the rate of abuse, and there are studies showing that.
Prohibition, for example, had people switching to harder liqueurs rather than wines and beers, with a resulting increase in problems. Due to the illegality, there were also problems with quality control - moonshine was often contaminated with lead or methanol due to improper distilling.
So banning a drug tends to lead to riskier usage of it, not necessarily a decrease in usage.
You still haven't answered my point though about the probable increase in the safety of said drugs due to government regulation.
Post by: Matt King on January 11, 2008, 04:00:51 PM
Out of every X number of responsible users of whatever, a certain number will end up abusing it. This is just a certainty. So if you increase the number of users you will end up increasing the number of abusers as well.
Same argument could be made against guns. Are you in favor of prohibiting guns, just because some people misuse them?
Post by: Tuco on January 11, 2008, 04:24:59 PM
"How is increased drug use good for (society)?"
There has been no evidence presented that use will increase with legalization.
We have seen evidence (Austrailia; US Alcohol prohibition) of the converse, that use will DECREASE with legalization.
In my experience, (vast, I assure you) people are drawn into the drug culture IN PART because of an anti-establishment "rebel" streak. Take that aspect out of it, and I put forth that there will be fewer new users.
Legalization will free up a ton of coin that is being used to chase potheads through the fields and meadows. I see regular DEA helicopter patrols flying (green 'copters, btw) patterns over the river flats looking for the magic garden. A Huey needs a lot of petrol to fly.
Therefore, legalization will not increase consumption of street reefer (in long term, 5 years, say) and will in the long run be good for society and the economy.
Continue among yourselves, I've got to get back to work.
Post by: roo_ster on January 11, 2008, 07:08:52 PM
I hope to get hopelessly hooked and spend my days like the Brad Pitt character, Floyd, in the movie "True Romance."
Or, maybe not, since making it legal will not increase its availability to me to any significant degree & I haven't taken up the habit.
I guess the only way I'd use MJ on a regular basis is if I were taking chemo for cancer or some such. My WWII veteran, Purple Heart-earning grandfather smoked his first wacky tobaccy that way at the tender age of 63, after a diagnosis of colon cancer. (God bless the MJ-smoking neighbor who squared him away.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2008, 07:57:46 PM
Out of every X number of responsible users of whatever, a certain number will end up abusing it. This is just a certainty. So if you increase the number of users you will end up increasing the number of abusers as well.
Same argument could be made against guns.
Not really. Think about it. You'll figure it out.
Post by: stevelyn on January 12, 2008, 05:31:14 AM
Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.
Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.
OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?
You are assuming that if you use it once, you will become a pot-crazed addict that will be a burden on society. Is alcohol the same to you?
How many people drank occassionally in college? In the military? Are they suddenly a burden to society? Cannot marijuana be used recreationally?
Tecumseh, I'm agreeing with you. I don't see legalization causing an increase in drug usage in society. Those with the propensity to do so, already do and will. Those who don't, don't use them now and won't start because of a change in the legal status of some drugs.
I'm just saying if you make bad life choices and fall into a cycle of drug abuse and addiction that the Darwin factor should be in effect and we shouldn't bother rescuing someone from what they've brought on themselves.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 12, 2008, 06:12:56 AM
Druggies will not just keel over in the ditch and decompose quietly into useful compost for the libertarian garden-of-eden. No, their numbers will increase and they will be a burden on society through criminality, accidents, and loss of productivity, even if somehow you manage to keep them from unionizing and electing their own candidates.
Just take a walk down the city street and count the stupid, weak, irresponsible people you can identify. If hard drugs become easily accessible, how many of them will succumb? Of course the number of druggies will increase.
The bottom line is that life is hard and people need an outlet or escape. Self-respect and discipline keep reasonable people on track, no matter if drugs are easily available or not. But many if not most people lack both the self-respect and discipline, so they will easily succumb to chemical escapism. You do not believe that this is so? Read up on the opium problem in China, as Rabbi suggested.
Post by: InfidelSerf on January 12, 2008, 03:29:48 PM
Quote
If hard drugs become easily accessible,
what do you mean IF??The problem is not the accessibility of the drugs, the problem is the same one I have for feeding my addiction to motorcycles, or computers,
or GUNS! It's a lack of money that is the only problem I ever face.
I'm highly addicted to the adrenaline rush I get from a good 70mph roll-on, or a 2nd gear standing wheelie.
It's my own will power and character that prevents me from "jacking" some other person's bike to go get that rush on.
I'm also very much addicted to squeezing a trigger sending $10 then $20, then $30 worth of lead down range.
But it's my own will power and character that prevents me from breaking into a neighbors house to steal enough money to by the next box of WWB to support my habit.
Quote
Just take a walk down the city street and count the stupid, weak, irresponsible people you can identify.
Plenty, and they all have different reasons for being week and irresponsible. Toss them the keys to a new Ferrari and see how long before its another entry on http://www.wreckedexotics.com/
Quote
The bottom line is that life is hard and people need an outlet or escape.
AMEN brother.Most of the time I choose a beer and a little boobtube veg time.
Or when I can afford it a trip to the local range to give me an excuse to spend another hour or so cleaning.
Or when I eventually have the funds to complete her budget, I'll be twisting my wrist and having a blast.
I guess I don't see drugs as the evil just as I don't see guns or cars as the evil.
The "evil" only takes place between two human ears.
Those of us on this forum right now that have ever "partook" or ever thought about trying cannibus. Would never in the furthest reaches of our minds consider knocking off a quickie mart to go buy a bag just because we didn't have $20 in our pocket.
We might be human, and allow our better judgment to subside and it could cost us a job, who knows. But we all engage in that strange and irreverent practice known as common sense.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 12, 2008, 03:57:28 PM
We have a faulty premise in one of the ongoing objections to the legalization of mary janes.
"How is increased drug use good for (society)?"
There has been no evidence presented that use will increase with legalization.
We have seen evidence (Austrailia; US Alcohol prohibition) of the converse, that use will DECREASE with legalization.
In my experience, (vast, I assure you) people are drawn into the drug culture IN PART because of an anti-establishment "rebel" streak. Take that aspect out of it, and I put forth that there will be fewer new users.
Legalization will free up a ton of coin that is being used to chase potheads through the fields and meadows. I see regular DEA helicopter patrols flying (green 'copters, btw) patterns over the river flats looking for the magic garden. A Huey needs a lot of petrol to fly.
Therefore, legalization will not increase consumption of street reefer (in long term, 5 years, say) and will in the long run be good for society and the economy.
Continue among yourselves, I've got to get back to work.
Positing that legalization with easier access to safe and easily identifiable drugs will decrease use flies in the face of economic theory. Sorry not to bow to your "vast" experience.
"How is increased drug use good for (society)?"
There has been no evidence presented that use will increase with legalization.
We have seen evidence (Austrailia; US Alcohol prohibition) of the converse, that use will DECREASE with legalization.
In my experience, (vast, I assure you) people are drawn into the drug culture IN PART because of an anti-establishment "rebel" streak. Take that aspect out of it, and I put forth that there will be fewer new users.
Legalization will free up a ton of coin that is being used to chase potheads through the fields and meadows. I see regular DEA helicopter patrols flying (green 'copters, btw) patterns over the river flats looking for the magic garden. A Huey needs a lot of petrol to fly.
Therefore, legalization will not increase consumption of street reefer (in long term, 5 years, say) and will in the long run be good for society and the economy.
Continue among yourselves, I've got to get back to work.
Post by: De Selby on January 12, 2008, 04:20:21 PM
The better question to ask is "What could we do with the money we now spend on enforcing marijuana prohibition?"
Money that is now used for marijuana prohibition can be used to take care of more serious drug and alcohol problems. If you do that, then accepting the increased costs of marijuana being legalized is a pretty good bargain.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 12, 2008, 04:32:56 PM
The real issue isn't how much more use there will be of marijuana once it's legal; of course there will be more, and we already have a good idea of what the costs of increased marijuana use will be. It's a well understood drug with well understood effects on behavior.
The better question to ask is "What could we do with the money we now spend on enforcing marijuana prohibition?"
Money that is now used for marijuana prohibition can be used to take care of more serious drug and alcohol problems. If you do that, then accepting the increased costs of marijuana being legalized is a pretty good bargain.
The better question to ask is "What could we do with the money we now spend on enforcing marijuana prohibition?"
Money that is now used for marijuana prohibition can be used to take care of more serious drug and alcohol problems. If you do that, then accepting the increased costs of marijuana being legalized is a pretty good bargain.
At last, a reasonable response.
Post by: Firethorn on January 12, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
Druggies will not just keel over in the ditch and decompose quietly into useful compost for the libertarian garden-of-eden. No, their numbers will increase and they will be a burden on society through criminality, accidents, and loss of productivity, even if somehow you manage to keep them from unionizing and electing their own candidates.
Studies of other countries and our own history shows that they don't significantly increase in numbers, and we already have problems with criminality, accidents and productivity loss from their legal and illegal use. Alcohol and tobacco already suck a lot of productivity, cause accidents(vehicular and fire), and people steal and commit crimes to get them.
Quote
Just take a walk down the city street and count the stupid, weak, irresponsible people you can identify. If hard drugs become easily accessible, how many of them will succumb? Of course the number of druggies will increase.
I'd ask: How many would already fail a piss test? Probably many or most of them. More than 50% of High School Seniors in NORTH DAKOTA admitted to at least trying MJ. It was actually higher than the rate for alcohol and tobacco.
Quote
The bottom line is that life is hard and people need an outlet or escape. Self-respect and discipline keep reasonable people on track, no matter if drugs are easily available or not. But many if not most people lack both the self-respect and discipline, so they will easily succumb to chemical escapism. You do not believe that this is so? Read up on the opium problem in China, as Rabbi suggested.
I'd suggest reading up on Europe's experiences on legalization/decriminalization as a counterpoint.
Quote
Positing that legalization with easier access to safe and easily identifiable drugs will decrease use flies in the face of economic theory. Sorry not to bow to your "vast" experience.
He was talking abut psychological reasons, not economic ones. Economically speaking, the black market seems perfectly capable of supplying drugs at affordable prices already. The question becomes one of how elastic recreational drugs are in response to price changes.
We're arguing that it's actually very inelastic - users are willing to spend huge amounts of money/effort to get their drugs, yet usage wouldn't necessarily jump outrageously if it becomes cheaper. Users will keep using despite price variations, and non-users won't start using just because it's cheaper.
I'm not arguing that drug use isn't bad - just that our 'solution' is worse than the problem, especially given that it isn't working at stopping drug use. I'm watching COPS at the moment, and they're busting people with drugs left and right.
edit- The Rabbi, that's pretty much what I've been arguing. Legalize it, tax it, and use the funds saved from law enforcement and the additional tax revenues to fund treatment centers. Unspoken - but you could also run anti-drug campaigns to change the culture away from drug use.
Oh yeah - they just busted a guy with a rifle stuffed down his pants. That's interesting.
Post by: brer on January 12, 2008, 05:13:33 PM
The War on drugs, being fought as we know it in its current form since the early eighties. Currently still being won by people on drugs.
Look up the definition of insanity sometime. Something about doing the same thing time after time and expecting different results.
Time to give the war on drugs a rest and lets get our civil liberties back.
Post by: wooderson on January 12, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
Quote
Positing that legalization with easier access to safe and easily identifiable drugs will decrease use flies in the face of economic theory.
When it's a battle between theory and reality... I usually trust reality.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 12, 2008, 05:49:57 PM
Quote
Positing that legalization with easier access to safe and easily identifiable drugs will decrease use flies in the face of economic theory.
When it's a battle between theory and reality... I usually trust reality.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 12, 2008, 09:13:21 PM
I will remove if someone takes offense.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 13, 2008, 07:24:04 AM
Post by: zahc on January 13, 2008, 07:52:45 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 08:02:23 AM
If machine guns were made legal again, machine gun ownership would skyrocket!
If almost anything which is currently highly taxed and/or regulated and/or forbidden were suddenly to become cheap and available its use would skyrocket. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Post by: zahc on January 13, 2008, 08:10:16 AM
Post by: gunsmith on January 13, 2008, 01:47:12 PM
We should have a steroid enhanced league of ball players and a clean one.
Drug Olympics and a clean one.
Cigarettes are simply a "delivery system" for nicotine.
A popular one, I'm willing to bet crack heads will put down the pipe
if we had coke ciggs and gum.
I've known people who functioned just fine with heroin addictions, but they had plenty of money.
I wouldn't start taking drugs if it became legal, just profit from all the extra people taking cabs to avoid dui charges.
Post by: armchair warrior on January 14, 2008, 06:14:09 PM
kill children and kittens.
(see other thread on making tobacco illegal)
Post by: seeker_two on January 17, 2008, 03:14:18 AM
...looking at how welfare has affected elections, would you feel comfortable in leaving the fate of this nation to a block of voters who will vote for the candidate/party who provides the greatest amount of government-subsidized drugs to the public?.......
....kinda like we did with Medicare Part D?......
Post by: Firethorn on January 17, 2008, 06:57:58 AM
...looking at how welfare has affected elections, would you feel comfortable in leaving the fate of this nation to a block of voters who will vote for the candidate/party who provides the greatest amount of government-subsidized drugs to the public?.......
....kinda like we did with Medicare Part D?......
....kinda like we did with Medicare Part D?......
As you mention, it's already happened. Medical drugs are far more expensive than the recreational ones would be if legalized. I've seen figures where a bottle of heroin would be cheaper than a bottle of aspirin. A given amount of MJ would keep a junkie satisified longer than an identical amount of tobacco.
On the oddball side, 'greated amount' could end up being a self correcting problem...
Still, it's not like welfare types aren't already using illegal drugs, much less the legal ones like alcohol and tobacco, so it might work out.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 18, 2008, 05:13:22 PM
Post by: RichK on January 19, 2008, 12:40:52 AM
I don't care about the legalities of pot, I won't be using it. That said, I see the harm from the crusade against it as far greater than the damage from it.
Exactly the point. In 15 years in EMS, I have had to fight with a number of drunks. The only problem with the potheads is telling them " no, we are not stopping at 7-11 for munchies."
The so-called 'War on Drugs' has precipitated a lot of other extremely questionable laws, such as forfeiture laws.
"We can't arrest Joe Bob for any crime, but we can arrest his money. He has to prove he got it legally."
Or his car, house, etc.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 19, 2008, 07:31:21 AM
I don't care about the legalities of pot, I won't be using it. That said, I see the harm from the crusade against it as far greater than the damage from it.
Exactly the point. In 15 years in EMS, I have had to fight with a number of drunks. The only problem with the potheads is telling them " no, we are not stopping at 7-11 for munchies."
The so-called 'War on Drugs' has precipitated a lot of other extremely questionable laws, such as forfeiture laws.
"We can't arrest Joe Bob for any crime, but we can arrest his money. He has to prove he got it legally."
Or his car, house, etc.
Post by: Firethorn on January 19, 2008, 06:01:58 PM
Do you have any links to these studies that show drugs would be cheaper? It would help me out for a paper I plan to write and I would like to have more ammo to fight the fascists that feel we should not have freedom to put what we want in our bodies.
I'd try google, I don't have any handy.
Still, consider:
Rather than having to grow pot in basements and out of the way places, you'd be able to grow it on farms and in greenhouses - increased productivity at lower cost.
Rather than having to use 'go fast' boats to sneak drugs past the border patrol, not to mention risky mid-sea transfers and such, you'd simply load the stuff up onto a cargo freighter. Cheaper, safer, and more predictable transport.
Rather than produce your drugs using kitchen tools, you use professional industrial chemical equipment. - cheaper and safer in large quantities.
Rather than having to worry about governments dumping herbicides on the crops, they can sell them to various US companies.
No need to keep writing off cars, houses, boats, etc as cost of doing business.
A storefront makes for stability and better sales potential with less labor than hanging out in a park at night.
Post by: Paddy on January 19, 2008, 06:27:14 PM
Post by: LAK on January 20, 2008, 10:59:38 PM
Passing laws, regulatory agencies and making people criminal targets for this kind of thing simply creates another corrupt army of public servants and feeds the corrupt interface between the criminal cartels in and outside the gov empire.
---------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: ilbob on January 21, 2008, 09:15:46 AM
I don't care about the legalities of pot, I won't be using it. That said, I see the harm from the crusade against it as far greater than the damage from it.
Amen.