Carlos Santana to Obama...

[SteamWake]

"Wish you would legalize pot"...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090403/D97AUPQG1.html

Your thoughts?

[Arclight]

"Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education,..."

Brilliant! The income from the pot can pay for the increased number of teachers needed to school the under-achieving teenagers now turned pothead, and pay for their medical bills when they get a long-disease. :yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

Yaaaaaahhhhhh maaaannnn, that would be so stoked! Keewwweel, fatties for all. Yaaaaahhhhh ddduuudddeee. :shifty:

I think Obama has other things to do other than listening to Santana and legalizing pot. Pelosi might listen. She will listen to anything off the wall:doh:

[August]

I'm not a smoker but considering the enormous costs of marijuana prohibition i'd say it's not a bad idea at all.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not a smoker but considering the enormous costs of marijuana prohibition i'd say it's not a bad idea at all.

Thinking like this only leads to other things prohibited and cost incurred to go away because of said thoughts. Laws are laws, prohibiting anything will incur costs. And, as Arclight said, lung disease and medical would far outweigh the cost of prohibition IMO.

[August]

Thinking like this only leads to other things prohibited and cost incurred to go away because of said thoughts. Laws are laws, prohibiting anything will incur costs. And, as Arclight said, lung disease and medical would far outweigh the cost of prohibition IMO.

Really? More than the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating millions of people for years, even decades? More than the cost of funding criminal organizations and the violence they cause?

Cigarette smoking causes far more lung disease and related medical expenses but it's legal. Alcohol causes far more disease and related costs to society but it's legal. Sorry I just don't buy the idea that the government has a right to protect people from themselves, especially when there is no rhyme or reason to it.

[Sailor Steve]

"Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education,..."

Brilliant! The income from the pot can pay for the increased number of teachers needed to school the under-achieving teenagers now turned pothead, and pay for their medical bills when they get a long-disease. :yeah:
Um, it would still be illegal for teenagers, who currently prepare themselves for lung diseased futures by smoking cigarettes illegally and other medical bills by drinking illegally.

Legalizing the devil weed would remove a major money source from criminal gangs and be a major new source of tax revenues.

If you really believe your hype why aren't you advocating the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco?

[Bort]

I'm not a smoker but considering the enormous costs of marijuana prohibition i'd say it's not a bad idea at all.

I agree with you completely. I'd probably never make use of legal marijuana but the money that we're spending catching criminals and locking them up could easily be better allocated so as to benefit society, education, etc.

[AVGWarhawk]

Really? More than the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating millions of people for years, even decades? More than the cost of funding criminal organizations and the violence they cause?

Cigarette smoking causes far more lung disease and related medical expenses but it's legal. Alcohol causes far more disease and related costs to society but it's legal. Sorry I just don't buy the idea that the government has a right to protect people from themselves, especially when there is no rhyme or reason to it.


Incarceration of millions for pot infractions for years or decades does not happen. Most of it is street level justice. Throw the crap away in the gutter and move along. Just the larger dealers who sell more than pot get the years of incarceration. Pot is only part of the larger drug problem. This will not stop the money spent on the larger drug problem that pot is only a part of.

Adding pot smoking on top of cigarette smokers does not help the lung disease problem. It only enhances it. Two wrongs do not make a right. Alcohol has nothing to do wth this conversation.

[AVGWarhawk]

Um, it would still be illegal for teenagers, who currently prepare themselves for lung diseased futures by smoking cigarettes illegally and other medical bills by drinking illegally.

Legalizing the devil weed would remove a major money source from criminal gangs and be a major new source of tax revenues.

If you really believe your hype why aren't you advocating the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco?

Steve, I will answer the same as I did with August . Pot is only part of the larger drug problem. The push for other drugs will become greater and enforcment cost will remain the same. All of this would be great if pot was the only drug around. It is not. It is just one of many that is sold.

Alcohol and tobacco are not part of the conversations but slowly tobacco is being outlawed. You can not smoke anywhere, period. Second hand smoke....so, do we put up with second hand pot smoke now? Can't have it both ways. :D

[rev. beetle]

i do not know the right answer but the last i checked it has been some what legal in europe for decades and i do not see a large increase in health care or useage if you take away the thrill of doing something against the law all the fun is gone for most people:hmmm:

[Arclight]

Um, it would still be illegal for teenagers, who currently prepare themselves for lung diseased futures by smoking cigarettes illegally and other medical bills by drinking illegally.Why add medical cost from marijuana to that?
Legalizing the devil weed would remove a major money source from criminal gangs and be a major new source of tax revenues.The money goes from criminal gangs to the owners of the coffeeshops. A big shop where I used to live got closed down because the business was becoming "mob-like". Yeah, much better.

Like stated before, the gained tax-revenue would be hard needed, not only for increased strain on developing brains (schooling) and medical bills, but also for drafting new laws and legislations, not to mention the increased strain on law enforcement that needs to control the shops and enforce these laws.
If you really believe your hype why aren't you advocating the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco?I am, tobacco at least. Alcohol... meh, as long as someone is able to show restraint and keep it "healthy" (glas of wine at dinner, beer or 2 watching the game).

i do not know the right answer but the last i checked it has been some what legal in europe for decades and i do not see a large increase in health care or useage if you take away the thrill of doing something against the law all the fun is gone for most people:hmmm: Wouldn't know about increase in health care, but usage doesn't seem to be effected by it. Particularly people who are or were "down on thier luck" (like me) are regular users. They don't need the thrill of doing something illegal, they need to forget. Although that thrill may account for some teenagers trying it out.

To clarify; I live in Holland, it's been legal here longer then I can remember. I tryed it when I was 17, became a habit few months before I turned 18. Used quite a lot untill I was 21 (my rough patch in life), by that I mean I rolled one when I felt like it: 5 to 10 joints per day. Then my brain kicked in (or money ran out) and I reduced it to 1 to 5 a day. Since I was out of the situation causing my need, the habit reduced further to 1 or 2 a day, only after I had done the things that needed to get done that day (light the first and possibly only between 6 and 7pm). At 24, I quit all together. Not because I thought it was evil, not because my health was fading but because I didn't need it anymore. I just ran out one day and didn't feel like I had to go to the shop and get more.

The point is: people use weed for the wrong reasons. Yes, it's fun to try out, but a sustained habit doesn't have that motivation. It's usually to forget about something, not have to deal with it. Everyone knows what happens if you don't deal with stuff; it catches up to you and bites you on the ass. My life is still a mess, not that it's caused by weed but it didn't help. If I hadn't turned to weed, I could have solved problems faster and earlier.

It is a drug. Although not fysically addictive like alcohol, tobacco and cocaine, heroine and all that other crap (you don't go in withdrawal from quitting; withdrawal from alcohol and "hard" drugs can literally kill you). If it is legalized, it should be treated for what it is, and only made available to people who aren't prone to misuse, which would mean something like: you could only buy it if you had a special pass, made available to you after a psychological evaluation by a trained and certified psychologist. Not a realistic possibility, so IMHO it should not be legalized.

[FIREWALL]

@ Arclight >" a beer or two watching the game "


Ya Right ! Don't forget to leave milk and cookies out for Santa.

And be sure to put your tooth under the pillow for the Tooth Fairey.

:har: :har: :har: :har: :har:

[UnderseaLcpl]

As muchas I agree with Mr.Santana that pot should be legalized, that's about the worst argument I ever heard for it. We could afford a better governor!?!?!? Yeah, tell me about it, the price of governors has just been killing me lately:88) And don't even get me started on how throwing money at the education system isn't going to make it any better.

August has already pointed out one of the best arguments for legalizing marijuana; the massive burden it places on the legal system.
Call me crazy, but it seems like a waste to spend tens of billions of dollars every year to incarcerate victimless criminals and pay the DEA to not keep marijuana out of the country.

In fact, I extend such arguments to include all drugs, not just mj. And the harms of prohibiting drug trade extend far beyond the legal burden. Hundreds of billions of dollars every year are lost in the form of trade and taxation that could benefit from drugs. Drug cartels wage secret wars against each other with many casualties to control the illegal trade. People steal and assault others to get money for the expensive drugs they crave, because forcing this black market underground forces prices up.
Public servants die enforcing this ridiculous policy.

Imo, the private sector provides the most effective form of drug regulation anyways. Most employers require drug screenings, and one's career is a pretty strong incentive to stay away from drugs. That's regulation without infringement upon personal freedoms and it doesn't cost billions of taxpayer dollars. For those who continue to choose to use drugs, a few simple laws against use of drugs in inapproporiate venues and perhaps some licensing requirements for retailers should ensure that only the chronic(no pun intended) abusers are penalized or jailed.

Of course, there will be people who slip through the cracks and destroy their lives. Is it tragic? Yes. Should we care? Yes. Should we force everyone to care and simultaneously waste billions of dollars? No.
I seriously doubt that the strung-out losers who ruin their lives with drugs are worth the fortune that has been spent on ineffectively trying to prevent them from making destructive choices. Why not get some use out of them before they poison themselves to death? You can't stop them from doing it, and as statistics on school drug use show, you can't stop them from being exposed to and trying drugs. Prohibition is both impossible and extremely expensive.

The only rational argument I can see for prohibition of drugs is the fact that it incurs taxpayer costs in healthcare, as AVG says. Of course, the state has no damn business paying for healthcare in the first place, especially in the U.S., where it has no constitutional authority to do so.
And even without drug-related costs, medicare and medicaid alone make up about half of all federal expenditure.
In my younger years I tried to argue the case for drug prohibition in NFL(National Forensic League) debates and also in Student Congress. The case is almost impossible to make. The harms of drug prohibition are far too many and far too well-documented to make an effective case.

[Arclight]

@ Arclight >" a beer or two watching the game "


Ya Right ! Don't forget to leave milk and cookies out for Santa.

And be sure to put your tooth under the pillow for the Tooth Fairey.

:har: :har: :har: :har: :har::rotfl:
Okay, I don't drink much, I admit it. The point is restraint, if it becomes an addiction, you're doing something wrong. :yep:

[FIREWALL]

:rotfl:
Okay, I don't drink much, I admit it. The point is restraint, if it becomes an addiction, you're doing something wrong. :yep:



:up::up::up::up::up:

[Arclight]

...

August has already pointed out one of the best arguments for legalizing marijuana; the massive burden it places on the legal system.
Call me crazy, but it seems like a waste to spend tens of billions of dollars every year to incarcerate victimless criminals and pay the DEA to not keep marijuana out of the country. That money would go right back in; Weed needs to be grown. You're gonna let everyone plant their own personal crop in their backyard? I doubt it. Trade and cultivation all need to be controlled and new laws drafted and enforced.

In fact, I extend such arguments to include all drugs, not just mj. And the harms of prohibiting drug trade extend far beyond the legal burden. Hundreds of billions of dollars every year are lost in the form of trade and taxation that could benefit from drugs. Drug cartels wage secret wars against each other with many casualties to control the illegal trade. People steal and assault others to get money for the expensive drugs they crave, because forcing this black market underground forces prices up.
Public servants die enforcing this ridiculous policy.I doubt people would stop fighting and killing, even fighting wars over this stuff just because it's legalized. Too much money is involved.

Imo, the private sector provides the most effective form of drug regulation anyways. Most employers require drug screenings, and one's career is a pretty strong incentive to stay away from drugs. That's regulation without infringement upon personal freedoms and it doesn't cost billions of taxpayer dollars. For those who continue to choose to use drugs, a few simple laws against use of drugs in inapproporiate venues and perhaps some licensing requirements for retailers should ensure that only the chronic(no pun intended) abusers are penalized or jailed.Good point, but where do you draw the line between recreational and chronic use? And wouldn't this put the strain back on the legal system and once again absorb enormous funds?

Of course, there will be people who slip through the cracks and destroy their lives. Is it tragic? Yes. Should we care? Yes. Should we force everyone to care and simultaneously waste billions of dollars? No. Yes, we should (not nescesarily force people but spend some cash); this is a society, not a free-for-all.

I seriously doubt that the strung-out losers who ruin their lives with drugs are worth the fortune that has been spent on ineffectively trying to prevent them from making destructive choices. Why not get some use out of them before they poison themselves to death? You can't stop them from doing it, and as statistics on school drug use show, you can't stop them from being exposed to and trying drugs. Prohibition is both impossible and extremely expensive. Making it easier for people who were going to destroy themselfs anyway to do so is kinda immoral. More to the point: if one of those "strung-out losers" was your kid, would you respond the same way? I think you'ld be on your soap-box demanding to get it prohibited. There's more to life then money.

[August]

Alcohol and tobacco are not part of the conversations

What makes alcohol and tobacco not part of the conversation? They're recreational drugs aren't they?

The way i see it the only difference between marijuana and alcohol, besides their legality, is that alcohol is the most dangerous of the two,... by far.

[August]

The only rational argument I can see for prohibition of drugs is the fact that it incurs taxpayer costs in healthcare, as AVG says.

The increased cost argument is only valid if there is some consistency between relative cost and legality. The health care cost of Alcohol is far more expensive to society than pot would ever be.

[AVGWarhawk]

The increased cost argument is only valid if there is some consistency between relative cost and legality. The health care cost of Alcohol is far more expensive to society than pot would ever be.

Perhaps not if it is widely available as alcohol is. Also, there is no driving under the influence. We are now introducing clouded minds behind the wheel. Reaction time compromised just as alcohol does. A designated non-smoker for the road:88) :06: I also pointed out a post back that smoking pot will not happen in bars. Maryland is smoke free in restaurants and bars. You can not smoke in most places. Some states are passing laws concerning smoking in your car if a child is present. Most don't but a lot do smoke in the car with their kids sucking it up. I can just see Joe citizen toking his fatty while doing 85 down Route 95 and his kid in the back seat. :88) It is just a bad idea all the way around. When does the cost outweigh the justification of tax revenue? When the potential for disaster physically by using the substance, being around a user or being in the way of clouded individual looking to find nirvana behind the wheel of his 68 camaro at 105 mph..... this is when cost is justified to control a dangerous substance. It is just a bad idea on so many levels.

[AVGWarhawk]

What makes alcohol and tobacco not part of the conversation? They're recreational drugs aren't they?

The way i see it the only difference between marijuana and alcohol, besides their legality, is that alcohol is the most dangerous of the two,... by far.


It is only dangerous because it is legal, available on every corner, event and every commercial for football game. Pot would end up being the same thing. Alcohol is a depressent. Pot is a depressent. Mind is clouded and the central nervous system is put to sleep. Not much of a difference except you do not take a leak as much. However, you have unexplain cravings for 6 McDonald's hamburgers also known as the munchies. :D

[UnderseaLcpl]

That money would go right back in; Weed needs to be grown. You're gonna let everyone plant their own personal crop in thier backyard? I doubt it. Trade and cultivation all need to be controlled and new laws drafted and enforced. I didn't say people could grow drugs in their own backyards. I'm not against the idea, but I did say that there should be licensing requirements in approprate venues and laws against public use.

I doubt people would stop fighting and killing, even fighting wars over this stuff just because it's legalized. Too much money is involved. Just like people fight and kill over alchohol? I'm sure it happens, but not enough to generate any concern. There is no fear of foreign countries fighting drug wars either because we could legally produce and sell the stuff right here without the risk and cost of smuggling. Well, that's not entirely true, they'd probably still have drug wars over illegal drug markets in other countries, but that's not our problem or fault, is it?

Good point, but where do you draw the line between recreational and chronic use? And wouldn't this put the strain back on the legal system and once again absorb enormous funds?
We're thinking in different boxes, here. Private industry draws its' own line, custom-tailored to each business based on employee requirements. Chronic users should face no penalties unless they harm someone else or put others' safety at risk while under the influence.
It should be like curent alcohol legislation. It doesn't really work, but it costs billions less and it isn't tyrannical. The only people jailed would be those guilty of violating others' freedoms or putting others at risk(as per drunk driving)
Does the legal system absorb enormous funds for alcohol abuse penalties? Comparitevely speaking, no. Are most people responsible alcohol users? Yes.


Yes, we should (not nescesarily force people but spend some cash), this is a society, not a free-for-all.

I didn't say it should be a free-for-all. It should be a free-for-one. Personal accountability for one's own actions, drug use included. Obviously, violating the personal freedoms of someone else should be penalized by the state. I implied as much.
And having the state spend some cash is the same as forcing people to adopt a particular view. Your tax dollars support programs you may or may not agree with. Try not paying them. Police will show up at your house. If you refuse to pay, they will subdue you and take you to prison. If you resist, they might kill you.
It is true that we are a society, but such a society can be easily maintained without forcing millions to pay billions in order to clumsily and ineffectively attempt to prevent drug users(or would-be drug users) from destroying their lives. Besides, the harms are inherent in the system; Unemployed or underemployed people destroy their lives anyways, whether it is through drug use or jail time for drug use. It can't be prevented, it can only be made less vexacious to the rest of the nation.

Making it easier for people who were going to destroy themselves anyway is kinda immoral.
That, my friend, is the road to hell. It's easy to say that people should or should not do this or that, but it is much, much, harder to control the people or positions that are given that authority.
People make self-destructive decisions all the time. Sometimes it is teen pregnancy, or perhaps it is spending too much money on clothes instead of health insurance. Perhaps they owe thousands in student loans and pursue a worthless degree. Can you regulate those decisions? Who fulfills those regulatory obligations? How do they do it?
This decision to use drugs is no different. Millions do it despite the efforts of people like yourself to impose your will upon such behavior and it creates greater harms because you cede the whole industry to the criminal black market.



More to the point: if one of those "strung-out losers" was your kid, would you respond the same way? I think you'ld be on your soap-box demanding to get it prohibited. There's more to life than money.

I am not a parent, and I am told that being a parent is a wholly unique experience, so I am not in a position to say. However, based upon my current views, I can say that I would do everything in my power to help my child. I do not believe that forcing you to pay for my child's hypothetical poor decisions would be a part of that.

I agree that there is more to life than money. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. What has the state done to curtail drug use besides builidng a hugely expensive power monopoly that creates only violence and illegal drug empires? Has drug use not increased since the inception of the "War on Drugs"? Has the state not accquired more regulatory power? Has it not gained more funding?
To the state, money is life. Your money is its' life. It is like the witch doctor of modern socio-economics. It promises whatever you want to hear, and does little, if anything, when it isnt making the problem worse.

Money and power are the most valuable commodities of state. I invite you to show me one example, just one example, of state power that didn't invite state abuse and private abuse of state power anywhere in the world and I'll retract everything I said.

[August]

It is only dangerous because it is legal, available on every corner, event and every commercial for football game.

That's just not true. When alcohol was illegal it was just as available as it is now, but there were far more associated problems. You had all the normal costs associated with alcohol. The health issues, domestic problems and societal woes etc, but you also had the added problems of people going blind or even dying from drinking bathtub gin because the state can't regulate what it prohibits.

That's because prohibition turns the entire trade, including quality control, over to gangsters. Al Capone and his ilk went from two bit pimps to running vast criminal empires with millions of dollars in assets nearly overnight because of prohibition and we see the same thing happening today with the drug cartels and both extend their criminal tendrils into many facets of society, corrupting and converting everything from trade unions to politicians to professional sports.

I'm sorry but I reject the concept that some Dutch smoke shop owner with a tendency toward thuggery could ever compare to the St' Valentines Massacre or the many other bloody gangland wars our country had to endure during the era of Prohibition.

Not only does prohibition make criminals rich and powerful it creates an enormous and costly government bureaucracy who are supposed to fight it but whose true objective is not to actually win their war against drugs but to maintain a antagonistic but symbiotic relationship with the criminals so as to continually justify their existence and expense.

Pot would end up being the same thing. Alcohol is a depressent. Pot is a depressent. Mind is clouded and the central nervous system is put to sleep. Not much of a difference except you do not take a leak as much. However, you have unexplain cravings for 6 McDonald's hamburgers also known as the munchies. :D

And if alcohol and pot are both depressants then they effect the user in completely opposite ways. Everyone is familiar with the anger and violence caused by alcohol. Some people get really mean when they get drunk. Fights, murders, assaults and rapes, all violent crimes commonly involving alcohol, but it is quite rare to hear of those crimes associated with pot smoking and even then alcohol abuse is usually involved as well.

[SteamWake]

Good job boys, reasonable intellegint debate with no flames ! :salute:

[rev. beetle]

i think it comes down to when the people that are elected to office
start listening to the people and not the lobbist that gives them money
to do what they want reguardless if it is good for the country as a whole
ie. the insurance companys is the usa

[Arclight]

@UnderseaLcpl

You make a strong argument. :salute:

You said whe're thinking in different boxes, and that is without a doubt true. I'm looking at it as a Dutch person; I know the situation when it's legalized, and I don't see the benefit of it apart from increased tax revenue. I'm guessing you're looking at it from the point of view where it's illegal, and you suffer directly from it since a lot of your taxes are wasted on a seemingly pointless exercise.

I'd like to explain the situation in Holland:

Sale is permitted to people of age 18 and older. However, growing it is illegal. Basically, all the supply for the shops is illegal; whether it's grown here illigally or smuggled into the country. It's legal to grow 3 to 5 plants for personal consumption, depending on which city you live in.

Transport is also illegal; you can buy it in the shops and you can smoke it there, but you can't take it with you. However, there's a "gedoog-beleid" (tolerance-policy). If you get stopped by police and you have weed on you, there's no problem unless you're carrying more then 5gr. This is the limit set to shops which they can sell to any one person per day, and anyone found to carry more then that is considered in "possesion with the intent to sell" (dealing). Smoking a joint on the street will likely get you into trouble, in the form of a fine and your weed confiscated.



In short: It's legal to smoke the stuff in the privacy of your home or in a coffeeshop, and you can grow a little for your own use. Anything beyond that is still illegal, so most of the industry still lies underground. Thanks to the legalization of sale, the authorities have a better grasp of it and there is a taxable income.

That's why I think legalization doesn't solve anything. Apart from exposing part of the food chain to give police a point to start their investigations, and generating revenue for the government, it just isn't really different from the policies in other countries. If it was implemented differently, starting with the cultivation of the plants being made legal to bring more of the industry to light rather then still forcing it underground, I might be of a different oppinion.

That, and the fact that making a psychoactive drug more readily available just doen't seem like a good idea. Even people using it responsively can develop psychocoligical conditions, particularly if they are susceptable to them (family history of schizophrenia, for example). Not to say they wouldn't have developed the condition without the drug, but it can certainly speed up or trigger the process.



All I have to go on are my personal experiences; I don't have a grasp of the money involved, or how something like the "war on drugs" would effect all this. Holland has a rather unique stance on all this and my experiences are limited to it.

Money and power are the most valuable commodities of state. I invite you to show me one example, just one example, of state power that didn't invite state abuse and private abuse of state power anywhere in the world and I'll retract everything I said.No fair, that's impossible. :DL

Money and power corrupt, I think people stopped questioning that long ago.

[Arclight]

...

And if alcohol and pot are both depressants then they effect the user in completely opposite ways. Everyone is familiar with the anger and violence caused by alcohol. Some people get really mean when they get drunk. Fights, murders, assaults and rapes, all violent crimes commonly involving alcohol, but it is quite rare to hear of those crimes associated with pot smoking and even then alcohol abuse is usually involved as well.The anger and violence caused by alcohol are basically a hoax; people fooling themselfs. I think they call it "alcohol expectations"; if someone believes alcohol makes you more violent they will become more violent if they believe they drank alcohol, even if all they really drank is water.

However, alcohol can lower bloodsugar. IIRC insulin production is cranked up under infuence, lowering the bloodsugar and making people cranky, but that doesn't account for the violence.

[August]

The anger and violence caused by alcohol are basically a hoax; people fooling themselfs. I think they call it "alcohol expectations"; if someone believes alcohol makes you more violent they will become more violent if they believe they drank alcohol, even if all they really drank is water.

However, alcohol can lower bloodsugar. IIRC insulin production is cranked up under infuence, lowering the bloodsugar and making people cranky, but that doesn't account for the violence.


Whatever the chemistry the effect is pretty plain to anyone who has been outside of a bar at closing time.

Interesting theory though. I've never heard of "alcohol expectations".

[NeonSamurai]

The anger and violence caused by alcohol are basically a hoax; people fooling themselfs. I think they call it "alcohol expectations"; if someone believes alcohol makes you more violent they will become more violent if they believe they drank alcohol, even if all they really drank is water.

However, alcohol can lower bloodsugar. IIRC insulin production is cranked up under infuence, lowering the bloodsugar and making people cranky, but that doesn't account for the violence.

Alcohol significantly lowers social inhibitions, this is why people are far more likely to have sex with a stranger when drunk, and also far more likely to get into a fight as lacking inhibitions the slightest little thing can get blown way out of proportion (same goes for love and sexual desire and other strong emotions). So no its not a hoax, though your other comment about expectations is also true to a degree.

[Stealth Hunter]

Pot for recreational use? Hell no. Medical use, however, I'd have no problem with.

[AVGWarhawk]

Whatever the chemistry the effect is pretty plain to anyone who has been outside of a bar at closing time.

Interesting theory though. I've never heard of "alcohol expectations".


Those fights usually happen because you looked at my girlfriend the wrong way. Misconstrued drunken comments and thoughts mared in a drunken haze often leave a person to think he is Superman. I know more happy drunks than I do angry drunks. If parties were nothing but angry drunks looking to kick eveyones butt, why have a party? Sure, pot and alcohol work in different ways but they both lead to the same end. Depressed nervous system, delusions of grandure and cognative reasoning are compromised.

[Sailor Steve]

A lot of interesting ideas. Rather than quote so many, I'll just add a few more of my own. First, though, I'd especially like to thank Arclight for the observations from one who lives where it's legal. I didn't know about all the illegal parts though.


I've known a lot of pot-smokers in my day, and I won't even try to argue that it's not bad for you. Yes, it does depress the nervous system, sometimes permanently. But we do a lot of other things that are bad for us, and if you try to make greasy hamburgers illegal we really are gonna have a fight!

Yes, smoking is bad for you, and I don't expect to see pot 'bars' spring up everywhere. But again, making something illegal in places where it affects others and making it illegal entirely are two different things, and there are few laws I think are more evil than ones that make you safe from yourself. On top of that, I've never met a user of Mary Jane who was a chain smoker. One joint a day is usually enough to keep him happy. And, other notions aside, many 'potheads' are intelligent, creative, productive members of society.

As for growing it in your backyard, that's where we really differ. Trying to legislate away growing something in the ground? That's where most of comes from now. Another bad thing to do is try to pass laws you can't enforce. I wonder how many people currently grow pot in their homes?

Violence? As I said, I've known many people who smoked weed, and the effect is very different from that produced by rampant alcohol consumption. The ones I've known all become quite mellow when high. They tend to avoid people altogether, and don't like to fight while in that condition. I've never known anyone who got high and then proceeded to beat his wife.

And then there's the driving problem. Drunks either become belligerent or inattentive. Pot-smokers tend to become paranoid. Their biggest traffic problem is driving to slow, looking around all the time to see if they're going to get caught. Do they have less accidents because of it? I don't know.

What I do know is that this is a behavior which is much more benign than drinking, and it's against the law for no other reason that it offends some people's moral standards.

[AVGWarhawk]

What I do know is that this is a behavior which is much more benign than drinking, and it's against the law for no other reason that it offends some people's moral standards.

For some, yes, moral standards. Others because if we let one drug go to legal status, others are soon to follow. I do think that labeling every drunk as violent is a bit presumputious. I know more happy than violent and even these violent ones only get violent when what they feel was a wrong at the time of the drunkeness.

I had a college housemate that smoked all the time. He called it "wake and bake" as this is the first thing he did when he got up for class. He could not function without it. Addictive. Same as alcohol. I had a coworker who like to drink his lunch behind the dumpster. To me, making it legal for tax revenue does not make sense and only adds to the problems facing society concerning alcohol and drugs.

[Sailor Steve]

I didn't mean to imply that every drunk is violent. Sorry if I gave that impression. My point was I've never know a smoker to be that way.

[AVGWarhawk]

I didn't mean to imply that every drunk is violent. Sorry if I gave that impression. My point was I've never know a smoker to be that way.

Some in the thread are painting a picture as such for drunks. If all were violent, bars would not last long with the broken furniture and lawsuits. You might get one or two on a given Friday or Saturday night. My bro-in-law owns a bar. Very little trouble at all however he catchs drug dealers in the bathroom all the time.

I kind of laugh Steve because the American Indian was very peaceful, smoke peace pipe. All is just mellow and well, we are chasing the wild wolf in our minds after firing up the peace pipe but.....white man arrives with fire water.......nothing but trouble.

[Digital_Trucker]

I didn't mean to imply that every drunk is violent. Sorry if I gave that impression. My point was I've never know a smoker to be that way.

Unless, of course, two of them are fighting over the last bag of Fritos at the 7-11:haha:

[UnderseaLcpl]

To me, making it legal for tax revenue does not make sense and only adds to the problems facing society concerning alcohol and drugs.
And to me, making it illegal does not make sense and only adds to the problems facing society concerning massive public debt, prison overcrowding, recidivism, violence, and having a nanny state.


I totally share you and Arclights' convictions about the harms of drugs, but the proof that such things cause more harm by being prohibited is all around us.

[Platapus]

I have to admit, this is an issue I am undecided on. Both sides make very good and valid arguments.

I am very happy that this has been a respectful and intelligent discussion with no ad hominem attacks. :salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

And to me, making it illegal does not make sense and only adds to the problems facing society concerning massive public debt, prison overcrowding, recidivism, violence, and having a nanny state.


I totally share you and Arclights' convictions about the harms of drugs, but the proof that such things cause more harm by being prohibited is all around us.

A few posts back I stated that most who are caught with it get street level justice meaning the cops takes or has the perp throw it in the sewer never to be seen again. Perp goes on his way but name is kept for records and use down the road if needed. The cops usually take the person with pounds of it in the trunk or home with associated large amounts of cash (which is now the states to use and said vehicles in the driveway which is also now the states to use or sell), weapons and other drugs of choice. You get to the big guy and you get a lot of drugs off the street.

All of this does not matter, as I also stated before, pot is just one of the many drugs sold illegally. I do not think legalizing it would even put a dent in what is spent to combat cocaine, crack, heroin and anything else people mix up from the chemicals under the sink.

I am of agreement that the nanny state on pot is perhaps a bit much. If anyone wants to fry their brain or blow their liver apart with excessive alcohol use then who are they to stop it? I guess they think they are the who! Transfats.....gone. Pot, nope. There will be many more the nanny state will impose on society. It is just a matter of time. I do not see pot being legalized or even discussed in Washington.

[Agiel7]

I'd support legalization. Won't be much reason for people killing each other when someone can just buy the stuff from a liquor store.

That said, the problem with drugs doesn't stem from lack of enforcement or regulation, its because of the short-comings of our country's anti-drug informational programs; to say that they are collosal failures of epic proportions is a massive understatement. I remember a cartoon back in my grade-school days where drug dealers were portrayed as giant, menacing blobs (probably due to political correctness, but thats another issue) and that the potheads who represent "peer pressure" are miscreants with malevolent intents. These shock tactics, if anything, are making the problem worse when you consider who the people who are offering you drugs are. I've had plenty of friends in high-school who smoked pot (I live in SoCal mind you) and not once did they offer me a toke. And, if you ever asked for one from them, they didn't give you one because they wanted you to die at 21 from the shrapnel of a re-fried bean can that you put in the microwave during a stoned haze, they're giving you one because they want you to have a good time.

[UnderseaLcpl]

A few posts back I stated that most who are caught with it get street level justice meaning the cops takes or has the perp throw it in the sewer never to be seen again. Perp goes on his way but name is kept for records and use down the road if needed.
It seems that there is some credence to your argument. This nifty "drug-war clock" http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm shows a vast discrepancy in the number of arrests and incarcerations in this year. However, it also states that 25% of all current inmates were incarcerated on drug charges.

All of this does not matter, as I also stated before, pot is just one of the many drugs sold illegally. I do not think legalizing it would even put a dent in what is spent to combat cocaine, crack, heroin and anything else people mix up from the chemicals under the sink.
That is why I advocate the legalization of all drugs. However, even the legalization of marijuana alone would eliminate about half of all drug violations, so says the drug clock and U.S. statistics on criminal justice by offense. I think it is a step in the right direction, and is worth bringing to the attention of legislators and the public.


@Agiel 17-

Man, don't even get me started on some of the drug prevention programs I went through in school. Some of the same stuff. Four white guys doing a pitiful rap about how drugs are "uncool" is not the way to go. I hope they've developed better methods recently.

[Frame57]

I cannot reference stats, nor do I care to. However, I grew up with friends who were real Potheads. Many of them never amounted to jack squat in life and are the most un-motivated people I know. I am sure the same could be said about alchoholics. There seems to be an effect that is peculiar to Pot that takes the wind out someones sails for what ever reason. Just what this Country needs is more lazy bums who want to get high all the time.

[AVGWarhawk]

It seems that there is some credence to your argument. This nifty "drug-war clock" http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm shows a vast discrepancy in the number of arrests and incarcerations in this year. However, it also states that 25% of all current inmates were incarcerated on drug charges.


That is why I advocate the legalization of all drugs. However, even the legalization of marijuana alone would eliminate about half of all drug violations, so says the drug clock and U.S. statistics on criminal justice by offense. I think it is a step in the right direction, and is worth bringing to the attention of legislators and the public.


@Agiel 17-

Man, don't even get me started on some of the drug prevention programs I went through in school. Some of the same stuff. Four white guys doing a pitiful rap about how drugs are "uncool" is not the way to go. I hope they've developed better methods recently.


I'm willing to bet the 25% are those that were caught with X amount and concidered as dealers. A small baggy is just a users. Recreational users as it were. Cops do not have the time to fart around with him/her. Bag taken or dumped in the sewer. Street level justice complete. Perp never sees the jail cell. Cops look for the dealers. It would be interesting if all illegal drugs were legalized. The market to sell is gone along with the associated nonsense. Speaking for myself, if all were legal I certainly would not be at 7-11 looking to make a purchase. No interest at all. Hell, I might have a scotch and water every three months. We have to admit though, some take the path of drug use and never get off the path nor become anything remotely close to productive. Of all the drugs, crack cocaine is probably the worst. I suspect drug usage would not go up by much because people like myself have no interest. Continued non-interest would stay the same in most cases. It would be strange though, arrive to a party, a keg, hard liquor and a big bowl of weed with bong included. Lines in the back room if interested.

[NeonSamurai]

A lot of people though get convicted of being dealers who really were not due to low requirements, like 5 or 10 grams. A lot of my pot head friends use to buy in bulk to save money and time (so they wouldn't have to be buying it all the time). Now occasionally they might sell a bit of it to a friend but they typically wouldn't make anything from the sale (just a favor so to speak).

One simple fact is people are going to do drugs, legal or not. Kids are going to be tempted to it as they are to everything that is prohibited to them (like sex, alcohol, and smoking) and also perceived as cool (but being cool is often tied to doing prohibited things).

Personally my suggestion would be just higher tolerance towards weed from law enforcement (which compared to smoking and alcohol is about the same). Allow people to grow a bit in their back yard, ignore small quantities, and encourage people not to smoke it publicly. That is more or less Canada's attitude (it depends on each city though). Law enforcement here mainly seems to be concerned with harder drugs, large dealers, and grow ops. In my youth in Montreal, the Police usually wouldn't even bother dumping what they found, often they would just give it back (unless it was a big quantity like half a pound or something).

[Arclight]

Another "problem" I'd like to bring to light is the increased potency. "nederwiet" (marijuana grown in Holland) contains 2 to 3, even 4 times as much THC. Average for import has been 5%, for localy grown it's currently 17,5% (although it peeked in 2004 at 20%). There has been some discusion whether or not this stuff should be clasified as a hard-drug.

I don't know if this is the same everywhere, but the Dutch government makes a distinction between hard- and softdrugs, based on the risk (how likely it is to screw someone up, basically); you can use weed for years and then quit without to much side-effects. Try heroïne a couple of times and you're hooked for life, unless you're of a particular strong mind.



Legalizing heroïne and crack? :-?

I can understand the benefit in that it frees up money that would go in battling it, but seriously... :nope:

It's just an entirely different ballpark; it gets you addicted in a heartbeat and is almost impossible to kick. On top of that, it's so destructive it's impossible to function. I don't see how you can possibly legalize something that is by definition evil (the act of legalizing it would in itself be evil as well).

Some definitions:


Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

[Sailor Steve]

I cannot reference stats, nor do I care to. However, I grew up with friends who were real Potheads. Many of them never amounted to jack squat in life and are the most un-motivated people I know. I am sure the same could be said about alchoholics. There seems to be an effect that is peculiar to Pot that takes the wind out someones sails for what ever reason. Just what this Country needs is more lazy bums who want to get high all the time.
So you knew some potheads who are lazy bums. Have you ever met one who went on to excel at college? I have. Some of the most creative, intelligent people of our time have used weed, some of them in large quantities, and they are still quite productive, possible in spite of it, possibly because of it. Not the same with alcoholics, who tend to get drunk more and more often and ruin their careers, or else stop drinking to solve the problem.

Legalize? Criminalize? If the user isn't hurting you, then you have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

Either you have freedom, or you don't. I seem to be right back where I started.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Arclight and AVGWarhawk-

You are both very correct in assuming that allowing the use of hard drugs would cause the self-destruction of many people. Arclight is correct in saying that it could be considered morally wrong.

However, where you might say, "Why should we let them?" I say "Who are we to say they cannot?".
I can't speak for the Dutch in my argument, or any nation other than the U.S. but this nation was founded upon the principle of liberty more than any other. Having the freedom to succeed includes having the freedom to fail. No one is at fault for someone else's decisions. The ultimate responsibility must lie with oneself.
I've already stated my argument that drug users continue their behaviors in spite of the state's efforts, and that those efforts drag the rest of us down further, but I will say again that in our efforts do what is morally right, we are doing more harm than good.

Drug education is a good thing, and I do support it, but only at the lower levels of the political spectrum. Educating people to make informed choices is a good idea, but the state has repeatedly demonstrated its' inability to effectively employ such a program. I would support voter-approved state subsidies for successful non-profit anti-drug programs, but that's about it.

When it comes down to it, the fact of the matter is that one cannot, and should not, force their own views down the throats of others, whether for good or ill. At some point, we must all assume responsibility for our own lives. As long as drug users are being informed of the consequences of their decisions, and are deterred from violating the rights of others, there is no reason to be overly concerned about the effects of drug use.

One final argument I will elaborate on is that private industry, in its' many forms, is a more effective form of regulation against drug use than anything the state can conjure.
Whereas the state says, you must abstain from substance abuse or we will jail you(or rehabilitate you, or whatever), at the expense of others, private industry says, you must abstain from substance abuse if you want to work here. Therein lies the key, and the key is incentive.
People who choose to abstain from drug use in order to be gainfully employed are the ones we should be saving. People who refuse to do so are the ones who will cause problems no matter what.
And best of all, it doesn't cost us a single penny of money that consumers do not choose to spend, unlike taxes. Private industry foots the bill and does it efficiently in order to remain competitive, and everyone wins.
As such, I think there ultimately more moral correctness in the legalization of drugs, because everybody wins except those who choose to lose.

[August]

Legalize? Criminalize? If the user isn't hurting you, then you have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

Either you have freedom, or you don't.

Well I for one agree with you 100% Steve.

[Frame57]

So you knew some potheads who are lazy bums. Have you ever met one who went on to excel at college? I have. Some of the most creative, intelligent people of our time have used weed, some of them in large quantities, and they are still quite productive, possible in spite of it, possibly because of it. Not the same with alcoholics, who tend to get drunk more and more often and ruin their careers, or else stop drinking to solve the problem.

Legalize? Criminalize? If the user isn't hurting you, then you have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

Either you have freedom, or you don't. I seem to be right back where I started.Really? name one

[Frame57]

Ok, here is a test. Try to answer honestly please. Let's say you are dying and are in need of swift heart valve surgery. One surgeon does not smoke pot. The other smokes a quarter ounce a day. Who would you allow to operate on you?

[NeonSamurai]

Hmm is that like the test where you got 2 doctors and one of them doesn't drink and the other drinks 5 ounces of 40% rum (or whatever) a day, and which would you prefer operates on you?

Anyhow I've known moderate users who have gone on to great things, and lots of musicians and other artists are drug users too (legal and/or illegal). I've also known plenty of chronic users of weed who are utterly moronic, but then they weren't very smart to begin with so not such a huge change. I've also seen people destroy themselves with alcohol, the legal drug. It is absolutely a drug, heavy users will even suffer from nasty withdrawal if they stop suddenly.

[Aramike]

This is a good discussion.Legalize? Criminalize? If the user isn't hurting you, then you have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do.Okay, so let's allow people to drive drunk, so long as they aren't hurting anyone...

Why don't we allow that?

Because, there's a clear and grave potential for someone to actually be hurt.

Look, truthfully I have no opinion on the pot argument. Both sides make agreeable and sensible points. But there is no way on earth someone can convince me that legalizing hard drugs such as crack would be a good idea. Forget people who are locked up for drug crimes for a moment. The number of people who are imprisoned for crimes related to simply the PURSUIT of drugs is staggering.

Legalizing crack isn't going to change the fact that the crackhead is broke and will do anything to get his fix.

[August]

Ok, here is a test. Try to answer honestly please. Let's say you are dying and are in need of swift heart valve surgery. One surgeon does not smoke pot. The other smokes a quarter ounce a day. Who would you allow to operate on you?


I'd pick the surgeon who has the better record of success for that type of procedure of course. It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's wrong to pick ones surgeons, pilots, artists, craftsmen, employees or whatever, by any criteria besides their job performance.

Let me ask you a question in return:

You need that heart valve surgery. One surgeon occasionally smokes pot when he's off duty and not on call, the other drinks a quart of Jack Daniels a day that he keeps in his desk drawer. Which one do you allow to operate on you?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Okay, so let's allow people to drive drunk, so long as they aren't hurting anyone...

Why don't we allow that?

Because it would be a horrible idea, just like allowing people on drugs to drive, which is already illegal. The key here is the legalization of responsible use. That is, not harming or endagering anyone but yourself without their consent. That, I gather, is what Steve meant.
Imo, good drug legislation would penalize only transgressors of that maxim.

Legalizing crack isn't going to change the fact that the crackhead is broke and will do anything to get his fix.

Perhaps it won't do anything for broke crackheads that will do anything to get their fix, but that's the idea. By legalizing responsible use, we eliminate the burden that pursuit/persecution of responsible users places on the tax base by focusing only on those that are a danger to society.
Furthermore, drugs would be cheaper and more available, so those inclined to abuse them would steal less and die faster, if you want to get really heartless.

[Rockstar]

Imo, good drug legislation would penalize only transgressors of that maxim.

How well does that work now?


Under the influence is the term I think still used which I think boils down to being influenced by something other than common sense and responsibilty. How do you remain responsible and sober when you under the INFLUENCE of a narcotic or alcohol?

Ever care for children concieved when the now mother and father were under the influence? Im sure the answer for many here would be revert to Darwinism eugenics to kill the fetus/child and punish the former mother and father. But who is really punished?

[Sailor Steve]

Really? name one
Catherine Craven, late wife of a good friend of mine. Pathologist, specialized in Pediatrics. Leading expert in the field of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Wrote several papers on the subject. Testified in front of Congress. Alcohol problems nearly wrecked her career. Pot use didn't. She stopped smoking while in med school, but she still did have a history of prior use, so by your lights her brain should be fried.
http://en.scientificcommons.org/20208328
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/4/683

And then there's me. I tried a whole lot of different drugs right after I got out back in 1970. I do consider myself lazy, but I was accused of that long before I knew what a joint was, and I don't like to blame my failures or lack of responsibility on anything other than my own innate abhorrence of work. And I don't think anybody who knows me is going to argue that I'm stupid, or that I don't still possess the best memory for facts and details of anyone they know. In fact I'm cursed with explicit memories of a great many stupid things I did long before I was a teenager.

Yes, it can be argued that teens who smoke weed can do damage to their still-forming brain tissue. But that's also true of smoking tobacco and especially alcohol use. And it is illegal to give those things to teens. No reason other drugs can't fall into the same category.

[NeonSamurai]

One problem though is some of these drugs can't possibly be used in a responsible and safe manner. Aside from being highly addictive (and some possessing lethal withdrawal symptoms if not medicated against the symptoms). Many of them cause psychosis and can further trigger all kinds of results including homicidal rage, paranoia, and other delusions. As a result people on these drugs become highly erratic and dangerous to the population.

So I'm not sure these kinds of drugs should be made legal (many of those people taking those kinds of drugs are actually self medicating a mental illness and really need proper medical care). Nor should the highly dangerous/addictive drugs like Crack.

[Sailor Steve]

As far as I know all the really dangerous drugs have to be manufactured. I agree that targetting the private labs that make the stuff and keeping them illegal is a good idea, since in those cases there is no such thing as "responsible use". But in the case of something that can be grown anywhere I'm all for ending prohibition.

[NeonSamurai]

That brings up the interesting question then of the Coca plant, which is a natural plant and not super harmful, vs cocaine which is extracted from the leaf (and further crack cocaine). By legalizing one, you make the other more easy to manufacture due to the availability.

But you are correct that a lot of them are made in a lab.

Otherwise I don't see much issue with legalizing plants

[Aramike]

Perhaps it won't do anything for broke crackheads that will do anything to get their fix, but that's the idea. By legalizing responsible use, we eliminate the burden that pursuit/persecution of responsible users places on the tax base by focusing only on those that are a danger to society.
Furthermore, drugs would be cheaper and more available, so those inclined to abuse them would steal less and die faster, if you want to get really heartless.There's no such thing as "responsible use" of crack cocaine. The very nature of the drug is its highly addictive and rationale-changing influence.

There are no "part time" crackheads.

[AVGWarhawk]

There's no such thing as "responsible use" of crack cocaine. The very nature of the drug is its highly addictive and rationale-changing influence.

There are no "part time" crackheads.

Agreed! 150% Aramike. Crack is a killer and the most addictive.

[Tchocky]

Well, nicotine is more addictive than crack. Variable evidence on the subject but most studies tend to put nicotine at the top.

[Aramike]

Well, nicotine is more addictive than crack. Variable evidence on the subject but most studies tend to put nicotine at the top.Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

[UnderseaLcpl]

There's no such thing as "responsible use" of crack cocaine. The very nature of the drug is its highly addictive and rationale-changing influence.

There are no "part time" crackheads.


That's fine, too. It's still their own fault for using it. My definition of responsible use does not exclude crack users dying of a heart attack, as long as they don't bother people when they do it.

But perhaps legalizing everything but crack cocaine could be an alternative. Maybe potential crack users would settle for the more readily available and cheaper legal drugs?

[AVGWarhawk]

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

It is not a narcotic but Tchocky is correct. Nicotine is more addictive than crack cocaine from what I have read and heard.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's fine, too. It's still their own fault for using it. My definition of responsible use does not exclude crack users dying of a heart attack, as long as they don't bother people when they do it.

But perhaps legalizing everything but crack cocaine could be an alternative. Maybe potential crack users would settle for the more readily available and cheaper legal drugs?


Crack is like $2.00 for a few rocks and as I understand it the high lasts a long time. Can't get much cheaper than that for the high they receive from it.

[antikristuseke]

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

I am a smoker and even I think your statement is wrong. Nicotine is an alkaloid which is highly addictive and acts as a stimulant in mammals.

[Aramike]

It is not a narcotic but Tchocky is correct. Nicotine is more addictive than crack cocaine from what I have read and heard.I don't dispute that.

However, it is not a drug that induces a near complete loss of mental faculty such as crack. Furthermore, the physical withdrawal symptoms of nicotine are extremely short-lived, unlike most drugs medically/legally considered narcotics.Crack is like $2.00 for a few rocks and as I understand it the high lasts a long time. Can't get much cheaper than that for the high they receive from it. Exactly. I am a smoker and even I think your statement is wrong. Nicotine is an alkaloid which is highly addictive and acts as a stimulant in mammals.Erm, narcotics, medically speaking, are drugs that numb the senses. Nicotine is NOT a narcotic.

Besides, whats your point? That nicotine is as bad as crack? :doh:

[Aramike]

That's fine, too. It's still their own fault for using it. My definition of responsible use does not exclude crack users dying of a heart attack, as long as they don't bother people when they do it. I have no problem with people sustaining medical problems due to drug use. What I *DO* have a problem with is people getting health care on the public dime for these inevitable medical problems because their crack habit leaves them broke. I *DO* have a problem with endangering all of our safety by making crack available to people who'd literally do ANYTHING for it.

Furthermore, it is a FACT that legalizing an activity causes more of that activity to occur.

Certain types of drugs are so inherently dangerous that legalizing them in the name of "liberty" puts all of us at risk.

Also, I don't have a problem with the so-called War on Drugs ... just with how its being fought.

[antikristuseke]

Besides, whats your point? That nicotine is as bad as crack? :doh:

No, was a misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were trying to say that nicotine is not a drug at all. My bad.

[Aramike]

No, was a misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were trying to say that nicotine is not a drug at all. My bad.Gotcha! :ping:

[Tchocky]

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.
Neither is crack cocaine.

[Aramike]

Neither is crack cocaine.Sure it is. It's a local anesthethic, although you are right - it isn't medically considered a narcotic.

But, it IS legally considered one.

Nicotine isn't considered a narcotic at all.

[Frame57]

I'd pick the surgeon who has the better record of success for that type of procedure of course. It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's wrong to pick ones surgeons, pilots, artists, craftsmen, employees or whatever, by any criteria besides their job performance.

Let me ask you a question in return:

You need that heart valve surgery. One surgeon occasionally smokes pot when he's off duty and not on call, the other drinks a quart of Jack Daniels a day that he keeps in his desk drawer. Which one do you allow to operate on you?Seeing as you do not want to play, I will still answer yours. This becomes the lesser of two evils. You baited it by giving the pot head an occaisional toke and the other is a drunkard. Obviously I would go with the occaisional pothead.

[Frame57]

I'd pick the surgeon who has the better record of success for that type of procedure of course. It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's wrong to pick ones surgeons, pilots, artists, craftsmen, employees or whatever, by any criteria besides their job performance.

Let me ask you a question in return:

You need that heart valve surgery. One surgeon occasionally smokes pot when he's off duty and not on call, the other drinks a quart of Jack Daniels a day that he keeps in his desk drawer. Which one do you allow to operate on you?

Catherine Craven, late wife of a good friend of mine. Pathologist, specialized in Pediatrics. Leading expert in the field of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Wrote several papers on the subject. Testified in front of Congress. Alcohol problems nearly wrecked her career. Pot use didn't. She stopped smoking while in med school, but she still did have a history of prior use, so by your lights her brain should be fried.
http://en.scientificcommons.org/20208328
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/4/683

And then there's me. I tried a whole lot of different drugs right after I got out back in 1970. I do consider myself lazy, but I was accused of that long before I knew what a joint was, and I don't like to blame my failures or lack of responsibility on anything other than my own innate abhorrence of work. And I don't think anybody who knows me is going to argue that I'm stupid, or that I don't still possess the best memory for facts and details of anyone they know. In fact I'm cursed with explicit memories of a great many stupid things I did long before I was a teenager.

Yes, it can be argued that teens who smoke weed can do damage to their still-forming brain tissue. But that's also true of smoking tobacco and especially alcohol use. And it is illegal to give those things to teens. No reason other drugs can't fall into the same category.Well, this does explain things Steve.....:D Do you get the munchies still?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I have no problem with people sustaining medical problems due to drug use. What I *DO* have a problem with is people getting health care on the public dime for these inevitable medical problems because their crack habit leaves them broke. I *DO* have a problem with endangering all of our safety by making crack available to people who'd literally do ANYTHING for it.
I have the same objections, which is why I advocate the phased abolishment of Federal Healthcare and support the encouragement of private gun ownership. As with most things, I favor a de-centralized, libertarian approach.
However, if we were to look at potential healthcare costs for drug users in a legalized drug system, with the same healthcare system we have now, I suspect that the funding that could be taken from the Drug War would more than make up the difference. Using a very rough estimate from the DEA annual Budget (approx. 2.5 billion, I used wikipedia, I was in a hurry and that was one of the lowest figures) and statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics citing 9.4 million illicit drug users in the workforce
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm (and 14 billion in additional costs, rounded to 11.5 billion as a conservative estimate of shared costs)
and the average amount of dollars spent on U.S. Healthcare per person (about $7,000. I used wiki again, short on time:damn:) I have concluded that about 7 billion would need to be spent annually if every single one of them required government healthcare for drug related problems. While imprecise, this is the estimate I came up with that was most in favor of your argument about healthcare costs.
I have thus far been unable to find statistics about the average cost drug users incur upon the healthcare system, but then again, I'm assuming that all drug users need the national average in healthcare cost. We can agree that this is a conservative estimate in your favor, yes? The cost to the workforce alone would be around 9 billion, not including other groups, but then we also aren't factoring in private insurance, which covers more than half of the nation.

Furthermore, it is a FACT that legalizing an activity causes more of that activity to occur.
Is it? I have graphs concerning Prohibition period if you want to see them. I also have a wealth of data on gun-control and murder rates that might be applied. I'm sure you have some supporting your case as well. Present them and I'll present my counter-arguments. My prohibition graphs concern average alcohol consumption per person, arrests for public intoxication per capita, and some of the later drug surveys. Admittedly, none of these are perfect because of typical statistical innacuracies, but neither are yours.
Certain types of drugs are so inherently dangerous that legalizing them in the name of "liberty" puts all of us at risk.
That is true, but risk is part of what makes a free society free, is it not? Honestly I'm a little astonished that you would put forth such an argument. For all the harms that drug abuse has caused, surely you must see that the harms of the state are, will be, and have been, much greater. I have already posited the point that private industry is a much more effective, efficient, and beneficial regulator.
What would you have us do?

Also, I don't have a problem with the so-called War on Drugs ... just with how its being fought. Pursuant to my last question, how would it be fought more effectively? It is easy to postulate as to how it might be done, but it is nigh impossible to deny that the state is not the answer, or to formulate an effective state remedy.
I am curious to see how you would like to see such a war persecuted.

[kiwi_2005]

Take a look at amsterdam are they all gone insane with lustful desires & on the brink of killing each other cause of cannibis? Nope didn't think so either.

[Arclight]

http://home.deds.nl/~quip/amstercrime.html

Perhaps not insane, but it isn't exactly the most pleasant place at night...

[antikristuseke]

Does not sound at all diferent to anywhere else I have been.

[Arclight]

By Dutch standards it's pretty bad. :haha:

Nice article "tackling drug related crime (http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.tackling.html)", even if it's in favor of legalization. :D

*edit; some interesting observations (http://www.rjgeib.com/biography/europe/netherlands/amsterdam.html).


"It seems, even where they are legal or tolerated, that drugs breed violence. It is poignant that my brother, who has had bitter and damaging problems with drugs and alcohol, is most adamantly against the legalization of drugs. Sometimes I think back in the States we should legalize drugs and let all the fools who are going to kill themselves do it and be done with it. It is like that laboratory rat that can give itself drugs by hitting a bar in front of him and proceeds to do so continuously until it dies. Essentially, addicts are no different. There are no free lunches or miracle cures in this world and the transient pleasure from drugs is usually paid for in one way or another. I have no pity for today's lotus eaters who are so blithe to embark upon their Faustian agreement (pleasure for your soul). I am so tired of the argument that chemical dependency is a "medical disease" which discounts so much personally responsibility. People know the stuff is dangerous in the beginning but eiither refuse to believe it or gravitate towards it for exactly that reason. It is sad that people are so prone to abuse the extraordinary freedom they have here. And it is precisely because so many of my generation have been so damaged by drugs and alcohol that I have so little pity for them."


"All throughout Europe, I have been struck by a smug boredom, a gentle and flaccid comfortableness. There is a lack of primal energy. People talk more where in the U.S. people move. We could learn a lot from the Europeans about how to sit down, relax, and enjoy a good dinner and lively conversation. I think the French, especially, enjoy "clever" dialogue. The emphasis in the States is on efficiency, convenience, success, get it done, bottom line effectiveness. And then with the dronish work-obsessive Japanese, we have come full circle."

[August]

Seeing as you do not want to play, I will still answer yours. This becomes the lesser of two evils. You baited it by giving the pot head an occaisional toke and the other is a drunkard. Obviously I would go with the occaisional pothead.

And you didn't bait yours with a quarter ounce a day smoker vs the straight arrow? ;)

My point was that the only valid measure of a persons ability on the job is their performance on the job, not what they may or may not do in their off duty time. Now it's quite likely that both the heavy pot smoker and the heavy drinker are not going to have good track records, regardless of the legality of their favorite drug, but again it's their job performance that counts.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, this does explain things Steve.....:D Do you get the munchies still?
I think I can show that my potato chip/dorito addiction predates any other problems I might have.

Or does salt-and-grain consumption lead to harder drugs? I demand an investigation! And reparations from Laura Scudder!

[Frame57]

August mine was basically A. A pothead and B. Not a pothead. No real distinction, either you are or you are not. I am not making a case here over booze and pot. Because it just boils down to the lesser of two evils. I just would not rust anyone who needs a crutch of any sort. My question could certainly apply with alchohol as well. Last summer I has emergency surgery for a ruptured gall bladder and I did not have time to check the surgeons credentials. Nor did I have the time to see if he was a pothead or not. But hypothetically if I had a choice of doctors and knew one was a substance abuser I would make the obvious choice.

[Frame57]

I think I can show that my potato chip/dorito addiction predates any other problems I might have.

Or does salt-and-grain consumption lead to harder drugs? I demand an investigation! And reparations from Laura Scudder!MMmmmm! Nachos....:woot:

[August]

August mine was basically A. A pothead and B. Not a pothead. No real distinction, either you are or you are not. I am not making a case here over booze and pot. Because it just boils down to the lesser of two evils. I just would not rust anyone who needs a crutch of any sort. My question could certainly apply with alchohol as well. Last summer I has emergency surgery for a ruptured gall bladder and I did not have time to check the surgeons credentials. Nor did I have the time to see if he was a pothead or not. But hypothetically if I had a choice of doctors and knew one was a substance abuser I would make the obvious choice.

Perhaps there lies the crux of our disagreement. I don't see the occasional toker to be an "abuser" any more than the person who has the occasional drink to be a drunk.

[Sailor Steve]

Frame, that's your choice, and I can't say I don't agree with you. But that's also my choice. Whether said surgeon is or isn't using dope in his off-hours is cause for concern, but he may be doing it whether it's legal or not. And if he perfomed heart surgery on your mother and brain surgery on your daughter, and the day before your scheduled gall-bladder removal you found out about his nocturnal habit? At that stage it wouldn't change my mind. He might actually claim it as the reason for his steady hands.

But the question is should it be legal, not should we judge the user on his use. One is a general societal question and the other is a matter of personal judgement.

[Frame57]

Occaisonal is fine. It just seems to me that because pot is illegal and thereby harder to obtain than going to store and buying a fifth of booze on occaision, that the pot smoker would tend to be a bit more of a habitual user rather than an occaisional one. Why risk the legal repurcussions for an occaisional buzz?

[Aramike]

ACK! I had a big reply written to Undersea last night, and it timed out.

I'll catch up with that again later tonight.

[UnderseaLcpl]

ACK! I had a big reply written to Undersea last night, and it timed out.

I'll catch up with that again later tonight.

Don't you hate it when that happens? I'd like to see your points, but if it is a lot of trouble to re-type them, that's ok. I have a habit of questioning my own arguments, so I'd just call it "unresolved"