Legalization of drugs

[white rice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I also fail to see why we should make other damaging substances legal just because one such as alchohol already is. I guess the bottom line for me is that I see no direct benefit in making drugs legal. If it is legal for medicinal purposes (such as in the case of Marijuana) then that is the important thing. As a means to get high, I find it a reckless abuse of a substance that simply has a damaging affect upon our society sociologically.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The greatest health hazard to marijuana is its effects on your lungs. But you can ingest marijuana and feel the same effects as smoking it. The catch is that ingesting marijuana is more expensive and since it is illegal, black market demands shoot up the prices driving many people to get high with less weed by smoking it.

Now if people want to smoke weed or drink inside the safety of their homes, then that's their right. The big issue is whether professionals will do their job stoned or impaired. It's the same concern as whether one is intoxicated or not isn't it? Rush Limbaugh tweaked up with medical painkillers. It won't be the first or last instance, and the abused drug's legality isn't the main issue when it comes to addiction or negligence.

If you compare the health effects of alcohol with the neurotransmitter in cannibus, THC, alcohol will appear more hazardous on almost all cases. Damage to the liver, long term effects on the brain, physical dependence, and heart damage are all side effects stemming from constant alcohol consumption. Whereas the side effects of THC is largely short term and less likely for the average person to develop a physical addiction (mental addiction is a different matter).

Another concern is whether marijuana legalization will open some floodgates of closet potheads. Like most vices, it is a personal preference and the decision has already been made even before considering whether it is legal or not. Cultural tendencies has created a negative aversion to marijuana and the opposition is generally filling in the gaps concerning its dangers with no conclusive proof.

Marijuana is not some wonderdrug. But it is not the cause for society's ills. Marijuana use could possibly be a result of it. Because of that, people are going to do it if they desire to whether it's legal or not.

The direct benefit to decriminalization is saving taxpayer money and opening up police resources towards finding serious drug dealers. Marijuana can be sold by reputable dealers at reasonable prices with a greater degree of quality control as compared to a shady drug dealer. The underground network of drug dealers with harder substances will also take a hit since most people don't try illicit drugs outside of marijuana, but those who do try to go through the same dealer, hence the gateway drug perception.

The Netherlands has been decriminalized for awhile now. It didn't open up a Pandora's Box. Rather, their government admitted that it was already open.

[Paavo]

First, alcohol is one thing. Marijuana is one thing. Even some soothing pills are another, but Heroine and crack?
"Hey, I'll take an E now and work tomorrow, I'll be normal!" ... have you ever tried these drugs? You can't compare alcohol with Excstasy, they're nothing alike. Being high/drunk isn't that simple, Exctasy and LSD makes you "weird" in the head for a few days...and most likely do permanent damage. If not physically, on a mental level. I would never hire someone that told me "I take the occational partypill hehehe".

As for getting high on THC, I used to smoke alot, on a daily basis...heck, I had an addiction. *hears people go "BUT YOU CANT GET HOOKED ON IT!"* ...mhm.
If you smoke daily (or at least twice a week) you're mind gets all mushy. Not in a week, but try a couple of months of daily puffin'. People get "slow".
Now of course, daily drinking isn't alot better, but as long as you're not hung over, you're the same person you were before you had that sixpack.

About legalization, I don't know. It's a tricky one, but I'd never agree with legalizing hard drugs. Just to at least protect the kids that don't get the stuff because they're not selling them in a store across the street of the school.

EDIT: White rice posted while I was posting.. (so?)..nothing. O_o

[white rice]

THC is still a drug. You can get hooked on it for whatever reasons, but you could get off it easier than drugs like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine. I believe the biggest withdrawal symptom from THC is sleep problems.

It stays in your bloodstream longer, but that's safer than it burning off and setting you up for a crash. The same reason why it's easy to test is also why it's not as addicting.

[Utah]

Legalize all...

Marijuana - No one should be in prison for this crap. Simply make an age limit and fine those in violation the same as cigarette usage. You won't stop young kids that is for sure, just as you can't prevent them from drinking alcohol. Make it state controlled and sold, tax it as high as you wish. Once it is legalized I'm pretty darned sure someone will come up with an effective way to prove the last time you smoked it and make it safe for employers to hire someone who smoked it last night and is fine the next day, the same way alcohol is.

LSD / Shrooms - I put these and other drugs like them in their own category because they are different than Heroin, Meth, and similiar drugs. You can not be physically adicted to either, but mentally you sure in the hell can. Contrary to what someone posted above, they do not effect you for a few days. LSD lasts about 12 hours and only a few hours have anything to do with hallucinations, and those hours come within a 1/2 hour of taking it.

The rest of illegal drugs - Legal with only a doctor authorizing the usage. The usage should also be connected to treatment in a hospital or treatment center with the intention of helping that person get off of the drug itself. Implementation is the hard part, I suppose.

THe only reason I'm for legalizing is because we might as well be able to tax it, and make it somewhat safe for those attempting to use it. We then could understand and help those that are using the drugs more than we can now. The real problem is how insurance companies and employers would see it and the risks of hiring (as they are today) people who are on drugs.

Personally, there is nothing good that comes from the current illegal drug usage, but ultimately being able to help those that feel the need is the most important in my opinion. Why not use the tax money from the product to help recoveries and to help pay for sending poor users to some sort of school so they can fit better into society and provide for their families and possibly, just possibly, understand life isn't so bleak and having a good job and providing for your family is of interest.

[G. Adams]

I agree. You only need to step into my Uni dorms, predominantly well off, and you can smell the counter argument to the belief that its most poor people who do drugs.

I have noticed though that the poor people I knew who do drugs mostly stuck to cannabis and maybe and e now and then, but the rich kids at uni at happy to do line ups of coke or whatever comes their way.

[jhfenton]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
To be honest, I have yet to come into contact with an attorney, doctor, or person of any similar profession that either does or condones drugs. I work with one paralegal who admitted to having done marijuana, but whom no longer does because it affected her memory. I highly doubt you will find very many attorneys who are hyped up on heroine, or very many doctors doing cocaine that are also successful in their business practices. You may say there are one or two unique exceptions, but until I see any for myself (let alone a considerable amount) I am going to remain of the opinion that “recreational” drug use and drug addiction are not good business traits to have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You may not have encountered any that you know of, but they are out there. Attorneys and doctors have some of the highest rates of alcohol and drug abuse of any profession. As part of our continuing legal education in Ohio, attorneys have to take a class on substance abuse every two years. (It bugs me because I don't drink or smoke or ingest non-prescription pharmaceuticals.) They throw the prevalence statistics at us in almost every class.

[jhfenton]

I am in favor of decriminalizing currently illegal drugs. I don't believe in criminalizing conduct that is directly harmful only to yourself.

Since I also don't believe that we should have a national welfare system, then whether or not the government should be subsidizing someone's drug use is a moot point.

[Anarchist Patriot]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen this topic around here. I'm wondering what everyone's take on this issue is?

Personally, I see our laughable "war on drugs" as not only unwinnable (didn't ANYONE learn anything from Americs'a prohibition experiment with alcohol?) and poorly thought out with no consideration of human nature or history. Just as Prohibition nurtured the mobs back then, drug prohibition is nurturing the more violent drug gangs today. The answer to drug-related crime seems clear. Legalize it, period. It takes away the easy money, profit motive away from the gangs and individual dealers, AND would support a new American industry, which can be regulated and taxed.
What's the difference between drugs and alcohol here? You can either suck down a couple of pints of Southern Comfort and get commode hugging drunk, or smoke a few joints and giggle all night with a mouthful of chips and playing Pink Floyd over and over. Either way, ain't nobody's buisness but yours, right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Of course its nobody's business. But in the paternalistic society we live in, we have George Bush Sr. holding a bag of crack that he says was bought outside the White House (in a set-up drug deal, nobody in their right mind would sell crack outside the White House), and saying its "poison" while at that same time his son, George W, who later became president himself was doing lines of coke with his buddies over at Yale. Dubya later called this a "Youthful Indescression". Bush Sr. called for the death penalty for dealers. I wonder if Dubya's supplier would ever get busted. But it just goes to show that the drug war is a lot of hypocrocy.

Is it any wonder why we have Bill Benet, the former drug czar and america's greatest moralist talking of responsibility while he himself has a gambling problem or why El Rushbo Limbaugh is treated for unlawfully obtained perscription medicine?

Crack carries a stiffer penalty than normal cocaine. Anyone care to guess why? Maybe its because crack addicts are thought to be poor. Coke is a rich man's drug.

I believe that the US Government does indeed know its fighting a war it cannot win. But they choose to fight because there is a lot of money to be made. In the State of Lousiana, there is a law which states that you can have your car confiscated for suspected drug dealing. No trial, no evidence, just suspicion.

The war on drugs is a billion dollar industry. It employs police, prosecutors, judges and corrections officers. In the name of this war, cars, boats and even houses are confiscated. Thousands are imprisoned.

Will it ever end? I don't think so because those who have the power will not want to give up their power.

[Plaything48]

Firstly to the people who said they have yet to come across individuals of high class who have done drugs, you should check out recent news in Britain. I only managed to watch a few minutes of sky news, so someone can correct me if Im wrong, but quite a few of those in our government have done drugs and openly admitted to it (I even have a feeling Blair did it), but this has all come from the recent downgrading of cannabis to a class C drug. This means being caught with the drug will only get you a fine or a warning, however supplying will still lead to an arrest. For those not in Britain, do you think this is a smart move?

[G. Adams]

Well Boris Johnson, Conservative MP for (some generic safe seat) and editor of the Spectator I think, said on Room 101 that he doesn't know an MP who hasn't smoked cannabis, and if they say otherwise they are lying. Hell Tim Yeoh, another Conservative MP, said he smoked it, it was pretty good, and is better for you than alcohol at least.

This is what I love about British politics. It's always the Tories who have illigit kids around the country, smoke dope and get caught with prostitutes. Fucking hyppocrites, but keeps me amused, at least when they arn't in power.

[Leopard]

decriminalize all drugs, including so called 'prescription' drugs

enforce public road useage laws

In the workplace, it is the employers right to do as he pleases: if he wants to test and fire people based on the results, fine - just let perspective employees know that in the terms of their employment contract beforehand. Having a job is NOT a right, it is a privledge. If you don't like it, work for someone else or start your own business.

It is absolutely NONE of my business if my neighbor wants to smoke a joint, shoot up heroin, or induce alcohol poisoning... BUT if he wants to come on to my property, he better obey my rules. My property includes my home, my car, my business, etc...

Welfare/national healthcare: get rid of it - it is a seperate issue from drugs entirely, but if you give government the power to redistribute other peoples money, then of course they will do so as it pleases them (government).

michael

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
decriminalize all drugs, including so called 'prescription' drugs

enforce public road useage laws

In the workplace, it is the employers right to do as he pleases: if he wants to test and fire people based on the results, fine - just let perspective employees know that in the terms of their employment contract beforehand. Having a job is NOT a right, it is a privledge. If you don't like it, work for someone else or start your own business.

It is absolutely NONE of my business if my neighbor wants to smoke a joint, shoot up heroin, or induce alcohol poisoning... BUT if he wants to come on to my property, he better obey my rules. My property includes my home, my car, my business, etc...

Welfare/national healthcare: get rid of it - it is a seperate issue from drugs entirely, but if you give government the power to redistribute other peoples money, then of course they will do so as it pleases them (government).

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[TooOlde]

The war on drugs is, and has been a total failure. Anytime that the force of law has been used as a tool to force morality upon society it has been an utter failure.
I am not pro drug use, but I am very anti drug war. Most of the messeges that I have read here cover the subject quite well, so I won't attempt to beat a dead dog.
Econ 101; prohibition = market, figure it out.

[grumples_42]

Hi All-

This debate is raging in Canada and The Druggies are winning. This is to me very funny. Tobacco is regulated and has health standards and is NOW more Illegal than POT which has no health standards at all.

l am also of 3 minds in this debate. l have worked with druggies and it is scarey. Working "under influence" is a firing offense and rightly so. DWI under SECOND HAND POT and wiping out a similar driven vehicle IMHO should be considered in "Public Interest". The road to Whistler BC Ski Area does a very good job of reducing the current number of Druggies who DID afford to own and drive very fast cars. That is my 1 st view.

The 2nd view is more elemental. By ENCOURAGING Drug Use among middle and high schoolers, having ADD and other disruptive types "floating" during school day,the pressure on teachers to even bother to teach them is greatly lessoned. Rather then having distruptive "students",and bothering those who want to learn,this use of "Happy Drug" can serve the purposes of keeping classess filled (why drop out) and keeping "At school Grants" at a level that will take pressure off school taxes to be increased. The "zombies" will show up,very few will "Graduate" which lessess the need for Society to provide the jobs for this estimated 20%. As Employees they are useless anyway. Without the needed BASIC Diploma,Employers need not bother with them. The Drug Culture of the 60's was among the "Educated". This is no longer true as Crime Statistics show.

My 3rd view pertains to "Sport". The hue and cry over the use of steroids has changed how Amateur and Professional Sports views the use of any Drugs. The Olympics has banned just about anything to do with even prescribed drugs. Baseball has discouraged the use of steroids as will the NFL. This means that the less will be taken and even those that are chosen will be monitored. The High School Star who is "squeaky" will have more of chance to grab the Big Money spots. High Schools will be less inclined to Drug Test knowing that Colleges etc. WILL.

MY FINAL POINT is just a musing. Global Careers are just that. Global Employers have no need to accept less than TOP CLASS. The current wailing about North American Student Loans has no effect on Global Employers who only hire among the top 10% of any class. My home Province of British Columbia is well known as a prime source of POT. The employers l deal with HIRE from other Provinces using the 10% rule. In The BC Forest Industry,Graduates from Alberta and New Brunswick are the most considered for the few openings in entry level management.

In The IT Field,Asia has the most and best graduates. Grumps

[PeterAngelo]

In the excavtions of the oldest societies we always find alcoholic beverages.

Life in a mortal body is almost always painful in some way. There are moments of extacy (usually sex or good food), but pain, stress, worry, and the rest of the nightmare are more common.

We are chemical entities and the chemicals on Earth are meant to work with us.

Governments know that making an essential human activity illegal is a control mechanism - nothing more.

If all those alcoholic old farts making the laws believed in anything but money and power, alcohol would be the first drug to ban. It is the worst of them all.

I have never had a problem getting any drug I want, and neither does anyone else.

Dealers now compete and make home deliveries.

Prices are way down. Coke used to cost $150.00 a gram in 1975. Today that buys an 8ball.

Governments are organized-crime gangs - nothing more - or less.

Treat them as such and you can win.

Join them and it is a guarantee.

Like old Paul O'Neal said when he shot an arrow into king bushie, "I'm rich and old, what can they do to me?

The government of the USA is the ultimate mob. Unlike the Mafia you don't have to cut your hand - just be a cop, get a law degree, or work for the government.

In a police state - be a cop.

They get all the good drugs anyway.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen this topic around here. I'm wondering what everyone's take on this issue is?

Personally, I see our laughable "war on drugs" as not only unwinnable (didn't ANYONE learn anything from Americs'a prohibition experiment with alcohol?) and poorly thought out with no consideration of human nature or history. Just as Prohibition nurtured the mobs back then, drug prohibition is nurturing the more violent drug gangs today. The answer to drug-related crime seems clear. Legalize it, period. It takes away the easy money, profit motive away from the gangs and individual dealers, AND would support a new American industry, which can be regulated and taxed.
What's the difference between drugs and alcohol here? You can either suck down a couple of pints of Southern Comfort and get commode hugging drunk, or smoke a few joints and giggle all night with a mouthful of chips and playing Pink Floyd over and over. Either way, ain't nobody's buisness but yours, right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Unwinnable? It has been lost, and we are the losers. We have more of our citizens in prison per capita than any other country, largely thanks to our 'war on drugs'; we are not secure in our homes nor is our property secure from confiscation, thanks to our war on drugs; and we do not distinguish dangerous drugs from those that get lumped with them, thanks to our war on drugs. We have the ludicrous situation in which our anti-marijuana laws outlaw an industry, hemp, that offers many lower-cost options in paper-making, clothing fabrics, and other areas. In fact, before our anti-drug laws, hemp WAS a major industry in the U.S.; and some argue that the anti-marijuana laws were actually an attempt to outlaw hemp as an alternative to forest products and cotton. Whatever the real motivations, lumping marijuana with opiates, cocaine, and other drugs is ludicrous, as many people realize. "This is your brain on drugs" is a lie that many see through, and unfortunately this delegitimizes accurate warnings about the effects of truly-dangerous drugs, such as cocaine. Among the worst effects of the anti-drug laws has been to create a lucrative source of income for organized crime. For example, in the 1970s, marijuana was a major cash crop in many rural counties in California, grown openly by citizens who could not bring in like incomes to their counties based on any other crop. But the feds insisted on a war on such growers, turning some of those counties into occupied territory. The end result? Pot growers tend to be criminals who use violence to protect their crops -- as some find out in being maimed or killed while hiking through state park lands. In sum, our war on drugs has been lost by we, the people. I don't know what would work to restict usage of truly dangerous drugs; but I do know that our war on drugs has done much more damage to our society, and our econmy, than legalized drugs could ever do, no matter how dangerous they might be.

[PeterAngelo]

Anyone who abuses heroin will die. That is enough of a deterrent. Some people want to die. We should let them.

The only real problem with drugs (besides abuse) is running out.
There are heroin addicts of twenty years or more who are professionals and perform very well. They ususally stop when the law gets involved for some reason. It isn't the drugs that are the problem.

Doctors are the greatest users of all. They have access and the knowledge of the drugs use. That is well known.

Drugs are as much a part of human nature as air, water, and food.

We all self medicate all the time - no matter what the law says.

Our government is not legitimate - that explains everything.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
Anyone who abuses heroin will die. That is enough of a deterrent. Some people want to die. We should let them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Anyone who drinks water will die. True, heroin is more dangerous and likely to kill a person earlier; but all who use heroin will not die of the effects of the drug, pharmacologically, socially, or personally. It's still a nasty drug that does lead to strong addiction; but the natural effects are to make a person passive. Of course, when access to the drug is made difficult and expensive, then WITHDRAWAL from the drug, and fear of withdrawal, often make a person rather predatory. All this does suggest decriminalization (not legalization) and provision of maintenance programs, along side rehabilitation programs for those who want off the drug.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
The only real problem with drugs (besides abuse) is running out. There are heroin addicts of twenty years or more who are professionals and perform very well. They ususally stop when the law gets involved for some reason. It isn't the drugs that are the problem. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, the opiates ARE problematical; but as you note, the big issue is when one wants the drug and has access problems.

[NORMLperson]

I invite those who participate actively in this topic to look at my topic titled "War on Drugs" and take my poll. Thank you.