Carlos Santana to Obama...

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Arclight

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

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

...

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.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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?

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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]

Originally Posted by August

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 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. 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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Arclight

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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.

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 !

[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.

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.

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

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by August

...

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]

Originally Posted by Arclight

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]

Originally Posted by Arclight

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.