Re: Legalization of Drugs

[SilverPrince offline]

NOTE TO THE MODS/ADMINS: I'm not sure if talking about drugs is suitable for open forum or if it belongs in BKO. I will state that this topic is for discussing the political issues regarding legalizing drugs, not discussion of their use. If I have placed this in the wrong board, feel free to move it. Thank you.

Legalize ALL illegal drugs, and the debt goes away, from all the income we'll get from cannabis/hemp alone (if you're going to argue this point, i highly recommend making a new thread).

Well, here we are.

Marijuana, I understand. Legalize it. Tax it. Marijuana has fewer harmful effects than cigarettes, and most prescription drugs. Society as a whole tends to think marijuana is bad because it is against the law. In reality, marijuana is hardly as dangerous as it is made out to be. All it does is calm people down.

When's the last time you've heard of a crime being committed because the people were high? "A local Wal-Mart was robbed yesterday night by two teenage males who claimed, quote 'We have the munchies, dude.'" No. That doesn't happen. People under the influence of marijuana tend to stay at home and make astonished remarks on the color of the wallpaper, the size of their hands, or the philosophical importance of whatever happens to be in arm's reach. Marijuana won't ruin your lungs or your liver or your nose, it won't turn you make you twitchy and emaciated. It's barely even addictive, if at all. The only long term problem with usage of marijuana that I've heard is that it causes chronic* lack of ambition.

*No pun intended.

THAT BEING SAID, marijuana is where I draw the line. Cocaine/Crack? Not OK. Meth? There is nothing good about meth. Heroin? Heroin killed pretty much anyone who was anyone in the 90s, as well as Kurt Cobain. Let's not go back to that.

Tobacco is just addicting. It won't affect your mental state otherwise. Alcohol, while making it incredibly dangerous to operate machinery, won't cause hallucinations, paranoia, or the feeling of bugs crawling under your skin. I see no reason for the United States to legalize and sanction the use of any form of cocaine, heroin, meth or other amphetamines, LSD, or any currently illegal drug except marijuana, which I explained above. The United States will survive financially without cashing in from speedballing.

[xiaozanghou offline]

The only long term problem with usage of marijuana that I've heard is that it causes chronic* lack of ambition.

Marijuana usage can also induce chronic anxiety attacks or trigger dormant mental illnesses in people susceptible to it.

Even then, I agree with everything that's been posted, and would add that alcohol and tobacco are already more dangerous drugs than marijuana. However, if marijuana is to be legalized, people need to be educated about it the same way we're educated about drinking and smoking tobacco.

[Overcaffeinated Sloth offline]

Agreed. It changes brain chemistry quite a bit, and can be much more dangerous in people with preexisting medical problems. For example, those getting the prescriptions. Even if it were legalized, there would be massive suits filed against the growers and distributors if there were any kinds of side-effects or too severe a deviation in a batch, and a ton of people got sick.

Besides, there's the problem of liability. If you have one authorized use like that, it's going to be constantly exploited. People will be claiming that they need it when they don't, then taking the excess. And that means managing security for all growers, to make sure it's kept contained. Not to mention that you'll have other groups attempting to grow and sell it legally, and the fact that it's being done by the government would likely be seen as precedent. AND it would be a rather easy system to exploit, just like selling any other prescription drug. Besides, that's also assuming that the patient for whom the prescription is for will be the one taking it. Ever hear about kids going through their parent's medicine cabinet? Imagine what'd happen if you put mary-jane in there. And then when you have to think about the health and security risks involcing all the people who distribute the drugs... *headdesk*

Besides, there are serious, other alternatives. I'd rather the money and effort go into our dilapidated school systems.

And to err on the side of caution: While this is talking about the legalized kind of drug, it's still a public forum, it's still marijuana, and I think it'd be best if any lurkers or ghosts didn't see this as the first thread is GD. >.> Any objections?

[. offline]

Technically speaking you should have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm other people.

[Rho offline]

I can't stand drugs or alcohol myself. But keeping marijuana illegal is pretty much pointless and it just leads to more arrests and more police attention that could be given to crimes that are actually serious.

Just legalize marijuana for gods sake. The Netherlands has done it.

[knifey offline]

I believe that all drugs should be legalized simply on the fact that the heroin distribution clinics that have been opened in European countries have significantly reduced the amount of crime related to heroin. Heroin addicts aren't robbing people to get their next fix, joining the mob, or paying afghan (possibly terrorists) smugglers for opium plants, which is a primary ingredient in heroin.

even though he's not much more than a puppet.

I'm going to be honest. I really don't like it when people refer to politicians as puppets. It strikes me as a naive, immature view on the political system, and a simplification that people use just because they don't like current policies. Yes, the political system is rife with lobbying. Yes, there are special interests that try - and succeed - to get their desires to become enshrined in law and/or policy. But by no means are these special interests in control. At least, not in control of the President, or the majority of Congress. If they were, I find it unlikely that the health care reform bill would have been passed.

I really don't like Barrack because he contradicts himself. I believe it was during a press conference when he said the war on drugs was a complete failure, and he says he supports decriminalization of cannabis, but then he says he doesn't think that legalizing cannabis (let's not forget all the paper plastic, food and medicine and blah blah blah that can be made from cannabis/hemp) is a good idea. Decriminalization doesn't address the crime related to drug prohibition, and certainly doesn't rack in money that can be forwarded toward drug treatment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTrrqEd ... ature=fvwp

I find it ironic that Barrack completely paraphrased the actual question that was asked on change.gov.

The fact is, there will always be drug addicts, and in my opinion, we're better off having the addicts pay licensed professionals (or maybe they can go to a drug distribution clinic similar to the heroin distribution clinics), money which can be taxed, instead of the addicts being forced to sneak around town, and hanging out with criminals to get the drug that a lot of criminals are getting large profits off of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMMFWPl6ue4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKKvjBQbtA

[Lani offline]

When's the last time you've heard of a crime being committed because the people were high? "A local Wal-Mart was robbed yesterday night by two teenage males who claimed, quote 'We have the munchies, dude.'" No. That doesn't happen. People under the influence of marijuana tend to stay at home and make astonished remarks on the color of the wallpaper, the size of their hands, or the philosophical importance of whatever happens to be in arm's reach.

I seriously lol'd

[...] heroin distribution clinics that have been opened in European countries have significantly reduced the amount of crime related to heroin. Heroin addicts aren't robbing people to get their next fix, joining the mob, or paying afghan (possibly terrorists) smugglers for opium plants, which is a primary ingredient in heroin. [...]

The thing about illegal things is that it makes them all the more tempting. idk what it is with humans, but if something is off-limits, it MUST be done. Like see that button over there that says "DO NOT PRESS"? Suddenly you will want to press it. And say you're getting a tour from your aunt of her massive house and she points to a door that looks just like any other door in the house and says "UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY YOU OPEN THIS DOOR", the door suddenly is the most obvious one in the entire house? And all you want to do is have a peek inside? Otherwise it's just some other door. So yeah.

[SilverPrince offline]

As I said above, I support legalizing marijuana because it has far fewer negative health effects, and is generally considered to be less dangerous (see chart) than other, "harder" drugs, not to mention its legitimate medicinal purposes.

Heroin is a bit different. Unlike marijuana, heroin is addicting. It is easy to become dependent on the drug. Also, tolerance to heroin is rapidly developed; you need more and more to attain the same high. Anything that causes serious withdrawals, like opiates, should be highly regulated. As in, not freely available. Heroin is legally available in certain circumstances in the U.S., but it's beyond difficult to get it.

Free heroin clinics might work in Switzerland. But I can guarantee you, that just is not possible in the current U.S. political environment. There is no way in Hell any elected officials would commit political suicide to propose a national system of taxpayer-funded heroin clinics.

I'm not terribly keen on the idea of making something illegal just because people break the law to get it. Seems like it legitimizes the actions of heroin addicts in murdering, stealing, or extorting. Those actions affected policy in a way that is positive to them. I, personally, don't find that to be OK.

[knifey offline]

The thing about illegal things is that it makes them all the more tempting. idk what it is with humans, but if something is off-limits, it MUST be done. Like see that button over there that says "DO NOT PRESS"? Suddenly you will want to press it. And say you're getting a tour from your aunt of her massive house and she points to a door that looks just like any other door in the house and says "UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY YOU OPEN THIS DOOR", the door suddenly is the most obvious one in the entire house? And all you want to do is have a peek inside? Otherwise it's just some other door. So yeah.

It reminds me of the first story in the bible where god (mr. unlimited power) couldn't stop two people eating from a single fruit tree.

Free heroin clinics might work in Switzerland. But I can guarantee you, that just is not possible in the current U.S. political environment. There is no way in Hell any elected officials would commit political suicide to propose a national system of taxpayer-funded heroin clinics.

I believe Ron Paul and everyone who's a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition are in favor of legalizing all drugs.

I'd rather have my taxmoney go toward a heroin distribution clinic instead of the money going toward cops who chase criminals selling drugs, especially when it's obvious that the no matter how many drug busts law enforcement has made over the past four decades, the black market hasn't shown any signs of being put out of business, since targeting the supply doesn't reduce the demand.

I'm not terribly keen on the idea of making something illegal just because people break the law to get it. Seems like it legitimizes the actions of heroin addicts in murdering, stealing, or extorting. Those actions affected policy in a way that is positive to them. I, personally, don't find that to be OK.

The following has been stolen from this post at bleachasylum

"In heroin addicts, therapy without maintenance (with either heroin, methadone, or suboxone) has a less than 10% success rate. It costs the government more to make these people continually go to therapy (or throw them in jail) than it does to just give them drugs and let them live their lives.

There are programs where methadone is given to heroin addicts, and that program has been in existence since 1993 [In Poland] (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/tre...erviews/Poland). Methadone is stronger than heroin..."

Drug prohibition has been going on for forty years, and the black market still remains even after all the drug busts law enforcement makes. If illegal drugs were to be made legal, and sold/distributed at a price cheaper than what the black market sells the drug at, then the dealers who sell the drugs, while obstructing law enforcement, would be put out of business.

[TheLQ offline]

Here's my views: Leagilze it to clean out the gene pool

I'm serious. Do we really want drug addicts reproducing and spreading the need to their 5 accidental brain damaged children? No!!! They are simply passing on what they know (crime) to the next generation, which is bad.

However if it was legal, then it could be bought in very large quantities, and people would die from it. The problem solves itself: Your customers can't spread, can't pass on, and can't buy more because they are, well, dead. Legalization would be in the history books for the biggest and quickest rise and fall of a single industry. And then once we've gotten rid of most of the addicts, perhaps make it illegal it so it doesn't spread to the next generation as quickly, since its now illegal and only a small group of people actually have it anymore.

Think about it, do we really want those kind of people around? Gangs are a threat to many cities. Race wars are indirectly fueled by the drug trade (money, then greed, then jealousy, then Nazism, then racism). The underground city of whites, blacks, and Hispanics is rejected by everybody, including their families, but spreads and takes over cities in a bad way. We can solve all of these problems by a little Darwinism, that for once does not apply to a race.

Harsh? Yes? Gets the job done? Yes

[knifey offline]

However if it was legal, then it could be bought in very large quantities, and people would die from it. The problem solves itself: Your customers can't spread, can't pass on, and can't buy more because they are, well, dead. Legalization would be in the history books for the biggest and quickest rise and fall of a single industry. And then once we've gotten rid of most of the addicts, perhaps make it illegal it so it doesn't spread to the next generation as quickly, since its now illegal and only a small group of people actually have it anymore.

The harder drugs aren't likely to be sold in a large quantity. The heroin distribution clinics in Europe only gives out what the addict needs. They don't give enough to the addict in order for him/her to overdose, and the heroin distribution clinics are the only way for a citizen to obtain heroin for personal use.

EDIT: I'm not *trying* to say that once drugs are legalized that they're going to be treated as they are in Europe, I'm just trying to bring to light that I don't think that the harder drugs will be sold freely like alcohol, or tobacc<S>ers</S>o

Think about it, do we really want those kind of people around? Gangs are a threat to many cities. Race wars are indirectly fueled by the drug trade (money, then greed, then jealousy, then Nazism, then racism). The underground city of whites, blacks, and Hispanics is rejected by everybody, including their families, but spreads and takes over cities in a bad way. We can solve all of these problems by a little Darwinism, that for once does not apply to a race.

If drugs were legalized, the drug lords/gangs would be out of business not because the customers are overdosing and dying, but because the people buying the drugs are getting the same product that's cheaper (assuming it's not handled like the clinics in Europe where the heroin is free, but the addict needs to go through a regulated system) and better in quality.

[Mewberries151]

The thing about illegal things is that it makes them all the more tempting. idk what it is with humans, but if something is off-limits, it MUST be done. Like see that button over there that says "DO NOT PRESS"? Suddenly you will want to press it. And say you're getting a tour from your aunt of her massive house and she points to a door that looks just like any other door in the house and says "UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY YOU OPEN THIS DOOR", the door suddenly is the most obvious one in the entire house? And all you want to do is have a peek inside? Otherwise it's just some other door. So yeah.

It reminds me of the first story in the bible where god (mr. unlimited power) couldn't stop two people eating from a single fruit tree.

Who says he wanted to stop them? I'm no Bible authority, but I don't recall God actively trying to stop anyone. I just recall there being a choice involved as to whether humankind disobeyed God or obeyed him and we chose to disobey.

But I digress...

Drug prohibition has been going on for forty years, and the black market still remains even after all the drug busts law enforcement makes. If illegal drugs were to be made legal, and sold/distributed at a price cheaper than what the black market sells the drug at, then the dealers who sell the drugs, while obstructing law enforcement, would be put out of business.

That is...until they come up with the next big "thing", drug-wise.

You have alcohol prohibition, people brew their own (granted with varying degrees of risk) or buy it on the downlow from a speak-easy or other various source.

You have drug prohibition, people will make their own drugs (Breaking Bad anyone?), or buy it from a known source illegally.

Heck, today you still have people brewing their own alcohol (beer usually) as a hobby.

I don't know that you can so easily trust people to just...buy from the legal sources once it's made legal. Whose to say they won't try to make their own on the cheap?

I mean, honestly. It's one thing if people want to grow their own marijuana. But legalize cocaine or Meth and whatnot, and you're going to have people trying to make their own because, "Lol, why buy it, when I can make it? (even if it'll kill me to try)" ...They're already doing it now when it is illegal.

You can't count on people to do the common sense thing. Especially not in a country as large as the US. Switzerland is one thing, but I think SilverPrince is right that it wouldn't work here. We're a very enterprising population of people. >_>

[knifey offline]

I don't know that you can so easily trust people to just...buy from the legal sources once it's made legal. Whose to say they won't try to make their own on the cheap?

Like how some companies grow tobacco with radioactive pesticides?

I mean, honestly. It's one thing if people want to grow their own marijuana. But legalize cocaine or Meth and whatnot, and you're going to have people trying to make their own because, "Lol, why buy it, when I can make it? (even if it'll kill me to try)" ...They're already doing it now when it is illegal.

You can't count on people to do the common sense thing. Especially not in a country as large as the US. Switzerland is one thing, but I think SilverPrince is right that it wouldn't work here. We're a very enterprising population of people. >_>

When I say "legalize hard drugs" I'm not talking about treating hard drugs as though they were cigarettes or beer. A system of regulation placed by the government (perhaps one similar to prescription drugs?) seems more appealing to me than an addict meeting a criminal, potentially falling into a life of crime, and hurting others, to feed his/her addiction.

According to LEAP, illegal drugs today are cheaper, more potent, and much easier to obtain than they were 39 years ago, at the beginning of the war of drugs. Right now, drug lords, and terrorists, are able to obtain a large sum of money by selling the U.S.A.'s illegal drugs to the people of U.S.A., and other countries that follow similar drug laws.

Drug lords and drug dealers who illegally sell drugs don't want drugs to become legal, regulated or not, because then drug lord's customers would be able to obtain cleaner, and cheaper (if not free, for the sake of treating an addict) drugs from licensed citizens. Dealers have admitted that if drugs were legal, they'd be put out of business because they wouldn't be able to compete with a government regulated business.

Making drugs completely forbidden in a country gives criminals the opportunity to profit from selling illegal drugs.

[Rho offline]

Also, I think they might as well lower the legal drinking age to 18. It'd make sense for you to legally be able to buy and use substances when you become a legal adult. 21 is pretty random and it's ironic how we're tied with other countries for the highest drinking age in the world, yet we're a free country. Heh. Meanwhile, in France, 5 year olds can get drunk. Gotta love Europe.


Back to Marijuana, they couldn't really avoid the issue of overdosing, but same goes for any drug. Legalizing weed would result in a lot of profit and police forces being able to focus their attention on more serious issues. As others have said, it's not bad for you in small amounts, not nearly as much as cocaine or meth.

Just make it so you have to be 18 to use the stuff, sell it with tobacco. Much money will be made. This could potentially really help the economy. People would be thrilled to have Weed be legal, they'd buy it.

The only way it would be illegal would be if a minor was caught with it, just like tobacco.

Really, our police forces could be focusing their attention on stuff much more serious than people having a drug that in the long run is almost harmless in small amounts. For gods sake, America, just legalize it. The Dutch know what they're doing. I haven't heard of anything bad happening there with the legalization of marijuana.

[JesusFreak offline]

Legalize pot? Meh, maybe.

Legalize anything else? HALIBUT no.

[knifey offline]

Legalize pot? Meh, maybe.

Legalize anything else? HALIBUT no.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good to see that you've backed up your opinion with hard facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJN48U84eho 4:45

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 940836.pdf

For the record, prohibition doesn't make all illegal drugs disappear, and once all drugs became illegal in U.S.A. a black market was created to supply the demand, which increased crime rate.

But if you think it's better for addicts to get their drugs from a criminal, and pay for it, instead of going to a distribution center and getting the drug for free from a licensed professional where the addict can start therapy with maintenance, then please show me what good has come from drug prohibition.

Oh yea. Now our military industrial complex can make killings by sending soldiers (gee how much tax money is spent on them) down to the Mexican border, where more people, desperate for money, who have fallen into drug dealing, will die.

Nevermind the fact that Amsterdam has a lower drug consumption rate than San Fransisco.

Just search "drug prohibition benefits" on youtube.

[JesusFreak offline]

Legalize pot? Meh, maybe.

Legalize anything else? HALIBUT no.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good to see that you've backed up your opinion with hard facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJN48U84eho 4:45

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 940836.pdf

For the record, prohibition doesn't make all illegal drugs disappear, and once all drugs became illegal in U.S.A. a black market was created to supply the demand, which increased crime rate.

But if you think it's better for addicts to get their drugs from a criminal, and pay for it, instead of going to a distribution center and getting the drug for free from a licensed professional where the addict can start therapy with maintenance, then please show me what good has come from drug prohibition.

Oh yea. Now our military industrial complex can make killings by sending soldiers (gee how much tax money is spent on them) down to the Mexican border, where more people, desperate for money, who have fallen into drug dealing, will die.

Nevermind the fact that Amsterdam has a lower drug consumption rate than San Fransisco.

Just search "drug prohibition benefits" on youtube.

Good to see you've backed yours up with....a youtube video and several unsupported anecdotes.

"ZOMG YOU GAIZ A DUDE ONS TEH INTERNET WHO SEZ HE HAS A PHD USED GRAFFS. LET'S DO WHAT HE SEZ"

Where did I talk about the merits of the various drugs in any of my posts?

They're illegal for a reason, is I'll say.

EDIT: Oyah, uh, doesn't San Fran have more people than Amsterdam? I don't remember, and never thought I would have to care so I forgot.

[knifey offline]

Good to see you've backed yours up with....a youtube video and several unsupported anecdotes.

It's clear no matter what kind of research, facts, or evidence I use to support my opinion, you're going to assume it's bs, despite the fact you've done nothing to prove that my links are false, and replied with a statement similar to "not everything on the internet is true."

"ZOMG YOU GAIZ A DUDE ONS TEH INTERNET WHO SEZ HE HAS A PHD USED GRAFFS. LET'S DO WHAT HE SEZ"

So instead of finding evidence that disproves the document (that has citations) or finding positive results from drug prohibition to disprove my anecdotes, you post in all caps, explicitly stating it's bs.

Do I have to interview doctors, police officers and political officials all in person to prove drug prohibition's futility true, despite the fact that they're easily found on the internet?

Where did I talk about the merits of the various drugs in any of my posts? :wag:

Where did I ask you about the "merits of various drugs"?

They're illegal for a reason, is I'll say.

Drugs aren't the only dangerous objects people use irresponsibly. There are a lot of dangerous legal objects being irresponsibly used in U.S.A. right now.

EDIT: Oyah, uh, doesn't San Fran have more people than Amsterdam? I don't remember, and never thought I would have to care so I forgot.

I'd post a link that shows what their populations are, but I assume that you don't believe things you see on the internet.

According to people at LEAP, drugs should be legal because "[Drug] policies have failed, and continue to fail, to effectively address the problems of drug abuse, especially the problems of juvenile drug use, the problems of addiction, and the problems of crime caused by the existence of a criminal black market in drugs. "

Law enforcement spends billions of tax dollars every year trying to shut down drug lords, drug dealers have admitted that they'd be shut down if drugs were to become legal, children have admitted that it's easier to get a hold of illegal drugs than it is to get a hold of alcohol, or regulated medicine, and addicts getting clean drugs from a regulated environment is much safer than the addict committing felonies to get their next fix.

Wasn't the alcohol black market out of business once prohibition was repealed?

Of course, I assume you're going to say something along the lines of the people at LEAP being delusional, or full of bs.

[JesusFreak offline]

Good to see you've backed yours up with....a youtube video and several unsupported anecdotes.

It's clear no matter what kind of research, facts, or evidence I use to support my opinion, you're going to assume it's bs, despite the fact you've done nothing to prove that my links are false, and replied with a statement similar to "not everything on the internet is true."

If you would give me a book I could get at the local library, or a transcript of a speech, or SOMETHING like that, I'll consider it.

"ZOMG YOU GAIZ A DUDE ONS TEH INTERNET WHO SEZ HE HAS A PHD USED GRAFFS. LET'S DO WHAT HE SEZ"

So instead of finding evidence that disproves the document (that has citations) or finding positive results from drug prohibition to disprove my anecdotes, you post in all caps, explicitly stating it's bs.

Yes. Yes I am. Excuse me if I don't treat a pdf file from some corner of the 'net the holy grail.

Do I have to interview doctors, police officers and political officials all in person to prove drug prohibition's futility true, despite the fact that they're easily found on the internet?

No, an actual book I can look up would do.

Where did I talk about the merits of the various drugs in any of my posts?

Where did I ask you about the "merits of various drugs"?

For the record, prohibition doesn't make all illegal drugs disappear, and once all drugs became illegal in U.S.A. a black market was created to supply the demand, which increased crime rate.

You were implying meth is just as safe as pot, for example.

They're illegal for a reason, is I'll say.

Drugs aren't the only dangerous objects people use irresponsibly. There are a lot of dangerous legal objects being irresponsibly used in U.S.A. right now. [\quote]

That doesn't mean we should allow them, just because we allow people to do stupid crap.

EDIT: Oyah, uh, doesn't San Fran have more people than Amsterdam? I don't remember, and never thought I would have to care so I forgot.

I'd post a link that shows what their populations are, but I assume that you don't believe things you see on the internet.

On a hot-button political issue, no. On the population of a city, maybe.

According to people at LEAP, drugs should be legal because "[Drug] policies have failed, and continue to fail, to effectively address the problems of drug abuse, especially the problems of juvenile drug use, the problems of addiction, and the problems of crime caused by the existence of a criminal black market in drugs. "

I will agree we need a better policy on drugs, but saying "we can't stop them any way" is like saying "We can't find this murderer guy after a month. To heck with it, burn the file and let's go get some beer".

Law enforcement spends billions of tax dollars every year trying to shut down drug lords, drug dealers have admitted that they'd be shut down if drugs were to become legal, children have admitted that it's easier to get a hold of illegal drugs than it is to get a hold of alcohol, or regulated medicine, and addicts getting clean drugs from a regulated environment is much safer than the addict committing felonies to get their next fix.

Once again, we do need a better drug policy.

Wasn't the alcohol black market out of business once prohibition was repealed?

Prohibition was a stupid idea because liquor and alcohol were American institutions. If they would of allowed weaker liquor,, or better regulation, it would of succeeded. I personally believe this could possibly work with Marijuana.

Of course, I assume you're going to say something along the lines of the people at LEAP being delusional, or full of bs.

No u.

[SilverPrince offline]

No, an actual book I can look up would do.

Lemme just butt in here and inform you that, as you can see at the bottom of every page on the PDF, there are the words "American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5." The article, which has been peer reviewed, is from page 836 to page 842 of said journal. You may be able to find it in libraries, I'm not sure. But you can go to the American Journal of Public Health's website and search for the article, which means that that PDF isn't some kind of forgery.

That PDF is a credible, published work that just happens to be in digital form. Denying that it is credible merely because it's on the Internet is bullcrap. If you want to discredit it, do so by its merits and not by its medium.

[knifey offline]

If you would give me a book I could get at the local library, or a transcript of a speech, or SOMETHING like that, I'll consider it.

I don't know what books are and aren't available at your library, so I hope you're not going to say that these books contain false information if they're not in your local library

DRUG WAR CRIMES: The Consequences of Prohibition by Jeffrey A. Miron

Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It
A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs
Judge James P. Gray

Yes. Yes I am. Excuse me if I don't treat a pdf file from some corner of the 'net the holy grail.

I found it from this website. Although considering the other responses you've given me in your post, I'm guessing I'm wasting my time here.

For the record, prohibition doesn't make all illegal drugs disappear, and once all drugs became illegal in U.S.A. a black market was created to supply the demand, which increased crime rate.

You were implying meth is just as safe as pot, for example.

All I said was prohibition doesn't work, a black market was created when drugs were made illegal, and the black market increased crime rates. How does that allude to saying meth is just as safe as cannabis?

On a hot-button political issue, no. On the population of a city, maybe.

I'm sure google will suffice.

That doesn't mean we should allow them, just because we allow people to do stupid crap.

I will agree we need a better policy on drugs, but saying "we can't stop them any way" is like saying "We can't find this murderer guy after a month. To heck with it, burn the file and let's go get some beer".

When I say "legalize hard drugs" I'm not talking about treating hard drugs as though they were cigarettes or beer. A system of regulation placed by the government (perhaps one similar to prescription drugs?) seems more appealing to me than an addict meeting a criminal, potentially falling into a life of crime, and hurting others, to feed his/her addiction.

An addict that goes to a regulated drug distribution clinic can start therapy with maintenance, instead of repeatedly associating with criminals. Again, when I say "legalize" I'm not saying that we should let hard drugs be just as readily available as beer or cigarettes, since a system of regulation requires the substance to be legal no matter how regulated the substance is.

If you were going to say that drugs other than cannabis/hemp should remain illegal, why didn't you refute my response to Mew that no one else responded to?

[JesusFreak offline]

Due to problems with my computer, I am unable to format quotes.

I shall address each point with a number.


1. Excellent. I'll look it up, in addition to it's sources.

2. Oh yay, a political lobby. If you're going to reply that they know what they're saying because they're doctors, doctors have endorsed stupidity before, both politically and commercially.

3. I read that wrong, and I apologize.

4. It did. Population of Amsterdam: 762,057. The population of San Francisco: 808,976. Not a big difference.

5. I misunderstood you then, and I apologize. As for quoting the wrong post, I blame my inherent laziness, the stress of dual-enrolling in college, and the liberal media. Oh yes, and video games. I understand that's still fashionable to do.

One quibble: Who would be running these clinics? The government? I don't see that working out well. If these clinics were like a regular clinic (privately owned, I believe.), then cool.


As for SilverPrince, who I dearly hope is Lyoko422, There is a reason that the internet isn't seen as a reliable medium for things political. Anyone can post any dang thing. That's its blessing, and its curse. I'm so blasted tired of playing the "It's on the internet" game.

[SilverPrince offline]

As for SilverPrince, who I dearly hope is Lyoko422, There is a reason that the internet isn't seen as a reliable medium for things political. Anyone can post any dang thing. That's its blessing, and its curse. I'm so blasted tired of playing the "It's on the internet" game.

I am indeed the artist formerly known as Lyoko422. And while I understand your point, I would say not to completely disregard something as false until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, I always say. I mean, it seemed pretty legit from the get-go. But I'm off topic.

I would argue, except the fact that I don't have much to argue. Knifey, you might possibly have actually changed my opinions on legalization of non-marijuana drugs. Take pride. Internet arguments don't actually often change people's thoughts. Of course, there's still that irrational, non-fact-based OTHER DRUGS ARE BAD voice in my conscience that's holding me back. But I won't waste time trying to argue by that.

I will, however, still stand by my point that the current political reality will prevent most of these changes anyway.

[knifey offline]

One quibble: Who would be running these clinics? The government? I don't see that working out well. If these clinics were like a regular clinic (privately owned, I believe.), then cool.

That's where my lack of knowledge comes to play, because I've never understood what medical areas are and aren't run by the government, so I can't give an answer. I assume the it could be run by a hospital, or a free medical treatment clinic. As for the clinics in Europe, I believe their sources of income is from taxes, but they're run by doctors.

Considering that the the drug czar's job description involves opposing all legalization movements, and that there are so many politicians that act "tough on drugs" instead of being "smart about drugs" I have little faith that the current drug policies will be changed, since our government continually sends troops to Mexico's border, and isn't addressing the problems of the black market.

[JesusFreak offline]

As for SilverPrince, who I dearly hope is Lyoko422, There is a reason that the internet isn't seen as a reliable medium for things political. Anyone can post any dang thing. That's its blessing, and its curse. I'm so blasted tired of playing the "It's on the internet" game.

I am indeed the artist formerly known as Lyoko422. And while I understand your point, I would say not to completely disregard something as false until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, I always say. I mean, it seemed pretty legit from the get-go. But I'm off topic.

I would argue, except the fact that I don't have much to argue. Knifey, you might possibly have actually changed my opinions on legalization of non-marijuana drugs. Take pride. Internet arguments don't actually often change people's thoughts. Of course, there's still that irrational, non-fact-based OTHER DRUGS ARE BAD voice in my conscience that's holding me back. But I won't waste time trying to argue by that.

I will, however, still stand by my point that the current political reality will prevent most of these changes anyway.

Ohey, I was right. How've you been, man?

Stuff that looks legit and actually is can be two different things. At this point, I've personally decided (depending on the topic) to say heck with it and disbelieve most websites. There are a select few I will use, like factcheck.org and politifact, and snopes, and things like that, but yeah.