[Combat-wombat]

I have always been a believer in legalizing drugs. One benefit is nowadays, when someone smokes pot, they're not smoking just pot. They're smoking pot, and a ton of other chemicals that the dealers mix in. Same with many other drugs. If they were commercialized, say ACME makes a brand of marijuana, you know what you're smoking, which isn't all that bad. Since the the beginning of civilazation, humans have come up with ways of intoxicating themselves. Whether it's with a cactus or a toad or some other plant, it has been done for thousands of years. I don't think the government should have the power to stop us from doing that.

By making drugs illegal, the government has increased crime, made drugs more profitable, and has more importantly taken away our freedom. We have the freedom to choose the paths that we take in life, and the responsibility to accept the consecuences of those paths. This is not the government's job. When the government criminalizes drugs, they are basically saying that you are too stupid to use them. They are saying that you can't be trusted with them, because you might screw up. Again, that is not the government's responsibility. The governemnt is acting like Big Brother in the "War on Drugs", by making something illegal "for your own good".

In addition, the war on drugs has done more specific damage. It has cost taxpayers billions of dollars on a system that does not work. Right now I could walk down the street and buy some marijuana if I wanted to. Obviously, that twenty billion dollars we spend each year isn't working. It takes up prison space, and each prisoner costs about $100 a day in OUR tax money. It diverts law enforcement away from REAL crimes like assault, rape, and murder. It causes many gang fights and street crime.

The war on drugs also supports terror. Outside a small town called Three Rivers, CA, there is a windy road that leads to a place called "Mineral King". It is a beautiful area which is perfect for hiking. It is there, as well as in many great forests in California, where marijuana crops are hidden. They are grown by Palestinian terrorsits to support their campaign. Hikers have been shot by the guards armed with full-auto AKs, thankfully no one has been killed, but it is only a matter of time until that happens.

The "War on Drugs" does much more bad than good.

[gunsmith]

so is nicotine,caffiene,alcohol
the only drug I imbibe in myself is caffiene.
I will take prescribed drugs if they are prescribed.
My take is "fine! put the real thing back in coke"
Just don't make the mistake of thinking that pot,E,
or any other drug is harmless.
They ARE dangerous,theyCAN RUIN YOUR LIFE! ,ADDICTION IS A VERY DIFFICULT DISEASE TO TRY & LIVE WITH! ...
As long as you remember these things,do not take any drugs
then you'll be ok!!
But,I agree...A lazy junkie would rather get his fix for 5$
then rob an old lady for the same fix that cost a hundred $$
because it's illegal.

[Combat-wombat]

Remember, I am not saying that I personally think drugs are good. I have never touched any drug except caffine. However, I think SOME drugs are okay when used in moderation, when someone is not at a young age. No, I am not talking about meth or heroin, I mean alcohol or marijuana. WHEN USED IN MODERATION AT THE RIGHT AGE. Remember, I have never touched the stuff.

[TheeBadOne]

But,I agree...A lazy junkie would rather get his fix for 5$
Where is the junkie going to get his $5 from? He still wouldn't be able to hold a job. Welfare for junkies programs? :confused:

[444]

"He still wouldn't be able to hold a job."

Not true. Many junkies hold jobs. Many junkies are also junkies for many years and few people even know it. The pretty much accepted meaning of "junkie" is a heroin addict. I have come in contact with quite a few of them and in my experience most of them have a job.

[Jim March]

I'm with ya. With one minor exception: there's a very small number of drugs that increase the user's odds of violently attacking people to such a degree, the drug should be banned on that basis.

PCP is by far the worst of these. On that basis, I believe it should remain banned.

Methamphetimes, probably not, although it's close to that cutoff line.

Anyways. You shouldn't be allowed to take a drug that is likely to make you a lethal threat to people around you. Fortunately, that is NOT a common side-effect of even the most potent drugs. Once enough stuff like pot, coke, etc are legalized, I would hope that the demand for crap like PCP would dry up and hence the ban on PCP and equivelent would be enforceable.

[Jeeper]

I would support legalization if they could come up with quicker tests to see if someone is on them. THe idea is that you need a test like a DUI for the other drugs. I could care less what you do to your body but when you are on the road that is a different story. Blood tests take a long time.

[Lone_Gunman]

No matter how philosophically correct the argument for drug legalisation may be, it will never occur here.

Libertarian Party would be wise to realize this, and move on.

[mercedesrules]

All drugs should be sold over-the-counter. To ban certain drugs because of what they might cause someone to do in the future is pre-emptive law and thus, to me, unjust.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre might cause injury, but we don't ask that government tear out our vocal cords or duct-tape our mouths at the ticket counter.

If someone takes PCP and minds his own business, ignore him. If he threatens your life, kill him.

Any prohibition will cause all of the negative consequences of the current one. So, all prohibitions are a bad idea.

We don't like it when gun-grabbers say that most guns are O.K. but that some guns are so deadly that they must be banned.

MR

[Carlos Cabeza]

The WoD supports an entire INDUSTRY, it will never go away without taking thousands of jobs with it. This is why it will continue to be a lucrative attraction to traffickers and distributors.
It feeds on itself, growing and growing until there will be no place left to house all of the offenders. More intrusive laws will have to be created to "feel good" for the billions spent to justify the WoD.
Thus ensuring its continued longevity.

[Oracle]

Mercedesrules voiced my opinions on the subject.

All I know is, I'd rather bounce in a bar that serves marijuana than in a bar that serves alcohol.

[mjydrafter]

They're smoking pot, and a ton of other chemicals that the dealers mix in.

This statement is untrue unless you are talking about fertilizer (with cannibis). It is absolutely very true of the "powder drugs" out there, may not be what they are being sold as. This is the problem with black market drugs. Say you have a lapse in judgement and decide tommorow you are going to try some heroin. So you go to the local drug dealer and pick it up. Ok, you follow the dealers directions and inject yourself. this is the easy part assuming the dealer doesn't give you the wrong directions and give you an overdose (why would he, he wants repeat customers?). The problem arrises the second time. Say your dealer is on vacation, so you find an alternate dealer. The alternate dealer, since your a new customer, gives you some un-cut product (wanting repeat business, so you'll call him rather than the 1st guy). and you follow the first dealers directions (the way you were taught). BINGO we have an overdose, because the purity levels differ so greatly, because there is no regulation.

Cannibis is the safest of the black market drugs because it is in it's bulky natural state. If they added chemicals and what not, it would cost them more to produce, and they would most likely kill thier clientele. The increased THC levels are only attributibal to breeding. There are no additional chemicals added (unless you are talking about fertilizer, in which case chicken, bat, or cow manure, and fish guts are the stuff they add. While not very apeitising none of them are deadly-even when smoked). And I haven't seen ANY evidence that ANYONE on this planet has died from smoking cannibis in the history of the world.

We spend 400 billion dollars a year on the WOD. That is the average annual US budget deficeit. It is blatantly obvious to any 3rd grader that we really need to figure something else out. Our 70 year old WOD is not working and will never work (what prohibition ever has). If even a small tax was placed on regulated drugs they would A. be safe, B. be extremely cheap, C. and instead of costing us tax payers 400 billion dollars a year we would be making money. Not only that but consider that we a supposedly a free country, why do we have the highest prison population in the world. People complain because rapists and murderers get out of prison after 5 years, but because of mandatory minimums, People in prison for non-violent drug possestion charges are taking up our valuable prison space. And because of the mandatory minimums the judges/authorities are unable to release these usually well behaved (again) non-violent inmates. This is a political war and all of the non-violent drug related inmates are political prisoners.

I am not suggesting firing all the DEA guys and what not. But lets utilize them in the war on terrorism or on collecting the many violent criminals out there.

Drugs are a capitalist venture. They generate more money than anything else, and most of that money is being shipped out of this country and being spent on GOD knows what (terrorism according to the commercials, right?) The american public is packing it's money into a rat hole two-maybe three-fold times. Somebodies buying the drugs here, somebodies getting paid to catch the people buying drugs, And you and I are paying the prison bill to house them.

And before you guys chime in with the "I don't want to pay for drug rehibilitation...", we are already paying for it. We pay it in our astronomical insurance rates. We pay when the Govt has to clean up a meth lab, we pay when the violent criminals slip through judical system because its bogged down with drug offenders, we pay, we pay, ad nauseum.

Sorry for the long rant, but I can't figure out why the American public hasn't figured any of this out. It seems really simple to me.

[AVP]

I have never taken a drug stronger than a little alcohol and I never will, but I agree, all drugs should be sold over the counter. But it will never happen. There are simply too many people in positions of power that are making outrageous amounts of money from illegal drugs (and the WoD).

[mjydrafter]

Where is the junkie going to get his $5 from? He still wouldn't be able to hold a job. Welfare for junkies programs?

I'll buy them for him if I don't have to pay for this rediculous prohibition (because I feel the reduction in my taxes would more than cover his $5 habit). Also I would even guess we are already paying for it with the real welfare program in some cases. What's the difference, at least this way it would be truthful and he could admit his problem (without incriminating himself) and maybe help himself or not. Either way I don't care what he does at home as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights. It is his business, not yours, and definetly not mine.


Above, just for the sake of argument.
I don't really want to pay for a junkies habit, I have enough of my own (legal).

As an aside I don't use illegal drugs, or encourage thier use, but if this is a free country, it's a free country wether it's safe or not.

[spacemanspiff]

i have a tough time accepting the premise that if drugs were legalized, crime related to drugs and drug dealing would decline. addicts would still need money to buy their drugs, and would still rob/steal/mug to get the money or goods to pawn.
i have no doubt that the WoD is failing, its obvious that local law enforcement gets drug busts on their own without the DEA.

but lets say this: legalize drugs, and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, would be out of work. from the growers to the manufacturers to the couriers to the peddlers to the DEA agents. perhaps illicit drugs do more for the economy than we realize?

[mjydrafter]

i have a tough time accepting the premise that if drugs were legalized, crime related to drugs and drug dealing would decline. addicts would still need money to buy their drugs, and would still rob/steal/mug to get the money or goods to pawn.

The Cartels have said that they can lose 95% of thier product and still be profitable.

I repeat: they can lose 95% of thier product and still be profitable.

Give me an example of any other business that operates on that kind of margin.

Take the money out of the drugs. Drugs are amazingly cheap to produce. The costs come directly from thier prohibition and the risks (to freedom) that are taken to smuggle them around. Most of the innercity gang warfare is attributed to turf warfare. I'm sure there are stick ups- for fix money, but I don't think they are as common as they are made out to be. And they don't even come close to the number of deaths from the turf wars.

Edited to correct my hillbilly grammar.

[mjydrafter]

perhaps illicit drugs do more for the economy than we realize?

Not picking on you Spiff, but AMEN brother.

You are more correct than you know and it's not in a good way me-thinks.

[444]

"but lets say this: legalize drugs, and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, would be out of work. from the growers to the manufacturers to the couriers to the peddlers to the DEA agents. perhaps illicit drugs do more for the economy than we realize?"

Hundreds of Thousands might be a bit extreme. Don't forget the then legitimate business would create many new jobs. An interesting sideline; if marijuna were legalized, this would provide the means for the common man to make money from home. In some of the areas of this country that are blighted by business and industry moving to other areas/countries could again become productive. Of course this will never happen, and if it did you know the government would somehow prevent the "little guy" from profiting from it. I know that users of marijuana could simply grow it themselves, but we could also grow our own tomatos and make our own wine and beer; but the majority of Americans buy this stuff at a retail business.

[TallPine]

perhaps illicit drugs do more for the economy than we realize?

You really are a "space" case :)

Perhaps we should make food illegal too, just to boost the economy.

:neener:

[TheeBadOne]

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre might cause injury, but we don't ask that government tear out our vocal cords or duct-tape our mouths at the ticket counter.
No, but you would be criminally charged out, as you should be.

[Jim March]

Ummm...actually, it IS possible to get adulterated pot on the street.

It's not unheard of for an illegal pot farm to get sprayed with pesticide, and the "farmers" quickly harvest it before it dies. People end up smoking weed killer :scrutiny:.

Some people actually like lacing other drugs into a joint, to increase the "kick". PCP is among the most common when this admittedly uncommon practice occurs; meth isn't unheard of. Whether or not you could ever get ahold of such a "spiced up" dose of pot by accident is uncertain; depends on your source.

Neither is all that common. BUT with the "dosages" varying all over the map by grower and seed breed, it's damned difficult to control how much THC you're actually taking in. With legalization comes known dosages, just like how you can tell the potency of tobacco products or the "proof" of various alky drinks.

I'm another that's never done an illegal drug ever. Don't drink or smoke either. It's not because it's illegal, it's because it's *dumb*.

That said, if I had the opportunity to do LSD under the guidance of someone trained under Leary's methods, in a safe and calm environment, and with a known medical-grade dosage, I'd jump at the chance.

[spacemanspiff]

Perhaps we should make food illegal too, just to boost the economy.
well gee, why stop there? water, air, gravity, make those illegal too! charge high taxes to use them!
:neener:

do you really think the gov't would allow private citizens to grow the products?

[Skunkabilly]

In the 60s, people took LSD to make the world seem weird...now those people take Prozac to make the world seem normal!

Drugs are bad...if you do drugs, then you're bad...mmkay? :D

[Combat-wombat]

mjydrafter, I recently heard that it is a common practice to put formaldehyde into marijuana.
I think we should commercialize drugs that are natural, like, say marijuana or whatever (except opium). Meth or PCP or any unnatural stuff should be decriminalized, but not commercialized.

[LawDog]

mjydrafter, do an Internet search using the terms 'formaldehyde', 'marijuana' and 'wet'.

What the street calls 'wet' or 'fry' we call the "Flight Deck Special", because the last three people who came into our facility after smoking the stuff got an express ticket to the 'flight deck' out at the State Hospital.

LawDog

[444]

People have been adding chemicals to marijuna for many years. There were people putting formaldehyde in dope when I was in high school over 20 years ago.


What exactly constitues being bad and what are the consequenses of being bad ? Is all bad the same ? If not, what are the differences in the various levels of bad ?

Prozac isn't perscribed to make the world seem normal by the way.

"Fry" is a word I have always heard associted with LSD. As in, do you want to fry ? Or do you want to trip ?

[mjydrafter]

First off I'mm not discounting any of the additions that have been added to this thread, that said, Formaldahyde is added after the fact or (I'm making a guess), it would kill the plant.

I am not saying people don't add things to thier joints to add "kick", I'm just saying from a business standpoint, it makes no logical sense to increase the overall investment. I am told on good authority that conisures don't want that and won't accept anything that appears adulterated. These are the guys that pay more for an ounce of pot than an investor pays for an ounce of gold. (yes that's $4-500 an ounce and more). Secondly if the cannibis grown today is so damn powerful why would they want to add anything to ruin that (in the conisure grades). I can't personally attest to the purity of the semi-legal cannibis that is sold and not abused in Holland. But, I'de bet my eyeteeth that none of what you buy over there in the cafes is adulterated.

We speak of govt. propaganda, and that is (IMHO) the only thing that keeps the un-informed American public so gung hoe for this 70 year old war that is killing and imprisoning OUR neighbors. Their is no aspect of it (WOD) that isn't unconstitutional, it robs us of our freedoms, and IT IS NOT WORKING. YOU AND I ARE STILL PICKING UP THE TAB.

[TheeBadOne]

I'm sure the anti's love this thread. "Look, all the gun owners want all drugs legalized...":banghead:

[444]

I probably ought to ignore the obvious logic involved and change my point of view to make the anti's happy.

[mjydrafter]

I'm not going to go into the whole LSD thing. I can say that it is pharmacologically very safe. Again you will be hard pressed to locate one death caused by it.

Oddly LSD is one of the safest drugs to buy on the black market, because if you don't get LSD you get "nothing". This comes directly from DEA testing of confiscated LSD.

I'm sure the anti's love this thread.

Lieberals usually agree with legalization.

[LawDog]

I have long harboured the opinion that for the anti's to maintain their stance they absolutely have to be hitting the bong on a regular basis.

:D

I would venture to guess that gun-owners opinions vis a vis legalized drugs probably doesn't raise much of a blip on the anti's radar.

LawDog

[LawDog]

Again you will be hard pressed to locate one death caused by it.

That really depends on your definition of 'caused by'.

If you mean 'caused by' as in direct LSD toxicity, you may be correct.

If you mean 'caused by' as in the hallucinations caused by LSD making Artie Schmuck think I-35 @ 5:15PM is a place to dance and sing, umm. Yeah.

LawDog

[mjydrafter]

If you mean 'caused by' as in direct LSD toxicity, you may be correct.

Yes, according to hoyle toxicity.

I'm curious if your moniker means you're in law inforcement? If so I would be interested to hear your opinion on this subject.

[Combat-wombat]

Hey, liberals arer more open to drugs than conservatives, in most cases

[LawDog]

Yeppers, I'm in Law Enforcement.

My take on the subject?

Heh. You obviously weren't over at TFL.

My take on the drug issue is that as long as the United States is a Gov't (read: tax-payer-funded) Welfare State, we have no business legalizing drugs.

As long as United States society and system fosters a "I don't have to take responsibility for anything" mindset, then we have no business legalizing drugs.

As long as the United States engenders in our young people the idea that "Nothing is your fault, it's all something elses' fault", then we have no business legalizing drugs.

That, however, is neither here nor there.

If the people of the State of Texas wish me to stop enforcing drug laws, they will vote to eliminate those laws, and they will vote into office people who will change those laws.

They have not done so at this time, so I will continue to enforce those laws until such time as the People of the State of Texas change their minds.

LawDog

[Felonious Monk]

I am a conservative on most issues; but this one is beyond madness.

The only people who add things, or use laced marijuana, are gang-bangers and stupid people (but, I repeat myself).

How can you make ILLEGAL a plant that grows wild?
Anything natural should be OTC, regulated like alcohol and tobacco, for adults only.

Non-violent criminals whose only offense are related to these substances should be released, and apologized to.

The ONDCP campaign of lies about marijuana making you pregnant, and showing Juan Valdez' family being gunned down because you bought a joint that was grown in a suburban basement grow room is shameful.

[mjydrafter]

I agree with you Lawdog, on most of your points. But, you didn't tell me what your opinion is. I know what your job requires of you, but I'm curious if you agree that what you are doing is "right" in abstract constitutional terms.

What if, like in Holland where it is technically illegal to sell cannibis, your boss said to you, "lawdog, we are going to start overlooking any type of drug possesion or small scale selling, unless it's coupled with other crimes. It'll basically be alot like the AWB'94." You won't arrest people for simple possesion or selling to adults. Basically everthing stays the same, but it's officially overlooked.

What if that became the official stance? I realize you would still do your job, but I'm fishing for an opinion.;)

I have a feeling it's already like that, unofficially, sort of. Not nesscarily in your jurisdiction, but overall in general, to a certain extent. (hows that for broad and general)

:D

[TallPine]

I have come full circle on this issue.

I have had the misfortune to work with (and for) "druggies" and I have nothing but utter disgust for them and their habits. They are not only unreliable but also quite intolerant of anyone who doesn't join in with their habits.

For a long time, I thought that only the hippies, potheads, and junkies and their kind would support legalizing dope.

Then I started realizing the great harm that the WoD was creating and I thought "It would be better if we had never prohibited it, but we can't undo it now - it would cause too many problems"

Now I have come to the conclusion that we are only continuing the harm cycle and the only way to fix it is to end prohibition (once again, sadly).

I don't think it could or can happen all at once. But a really good first start would be to decriminalize marijuana and see what happens. After the world doesn't come to an end, maybe people could see their way to decriminalize "harder" drugs ...
(I can't believe I actually agree with Canada's PM Chretin on anything -yuk!)

At any rate, I think the feral govt should get out of it and let the states legislate (or not) as they see fit.

One big hurdle I can see is the pharmacuetical industry - if say, cocaine, becomes legal, how do you possibly require a prescription for antibiotics or anything else?

Of course, statistically, usage will go up. That is a given because more people will admit to doing something legal than something illegal. I am not so sure that actual usage would go up. Look what has happened to smoking in the last few decades.

[mjydrafter]

One big hurdle I can see is the pharmacuetical industry

Nail hit squarely on head.

With the exception of monsanto's genetically altered potatoes, I believe that it would be impossible to patent cannibis-therefore the anti-drug movement is bolstered by the great lobbiing of officials by pharmaceutical company representitives. If they can't patent/sell it, they'll be damned if you can make your own medicine in the backyard.

We are overlooking an important aspect of this disscussion IMHO, medical cannibis. I haven't really been able to find anyone that's against it, but that's a pretty limited study. Are the Prozac's, and other prescription drug companies blocking legalization for fear of competition?

[Sir Galahad]

Cannibis is NOT effective for treating anxiety/panic disorders, depression, or other things that require prescription drugs such as Remeron, Paxil, Xanex, or, yes, Prozac. For one thing, people that take Remeron, for example, can take the tablet at night and are not affected motor-skill or coordination wise. You cannot say that for cannibis. In some cases, cannibis may actually heighten a panic or anxiety attack and/or increase depression. Futher, marijuana is NOT proven to be effective in treating panic attacks. One thing: If a person suffering from anxiety disorders suffers a panic attack in public, he can take a Xanex and return to calm pretty shortly. That cannot be done with pot. Prescription drugs for anxiety/panic disorder allow a person to lead a fairly normal life with an otherwise crippling problem. The pharmeceutical companies do not need to get involved in the "drug war" to sell this medication. It sells itself. People that suffer from panic disorders/depression know that. If you suffered from panic disorder, you'd know that. Further, many people suffering from panic disorders and/or depression are former substance abusers, so advocating a drug such as marijuana to treat it is not wise and doesn't work. It can create a dependance on it, not unlike addiction. And even then, it will not work as the prescription drug would.

I support legalization of cannibis. But it is NOT a "wonder drug", so let's not delve into quackery to sell the use of medical marijuana.

[gunsmith]

] yelling "theatre!" in a crowded fire


Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre might cause injury, but we don't ask that government tear out our vocal cords or duct-tape our mouths at the ticket counter.

[TheeBadOne]

LawDog, incredibly relevant post.

[bjengs]

TheeBadOne saidI'm sure the anti's love this thread. Who cares what they think?

LawDog saidAs long as [x, y, or z reason] we have no business legalizing drugs...if the people of the State of Texas wish me to stop enforcing drug laws, they will vote to eliminate those laws, and they will vote into office people who will change those laws.This presupposed that the State/FedGov is God and itself should be in the business of declaring rights. Does the 2nd Amendment create a right or preserve a God-given one?

Also, if the people of the State of Texas vote for a law that says all of the Law Enforcement Officers should round up all of the citizens' firearms, would you comply? This is a question of morality vs legality, and while I realize that you are an executor of the law, it does bring to mind the infamous Nuremberg Principle.

(Not to be construed as a personal attack, because it wasn't in the slightest.)

[bjengs]

RE: legalization due to the specific medical merits of a particular drug, do we say ownership of guns should be permitted because of its statistical likelihood to deter attacks, or because we have a natural and God-given right to life, which includes the right defend it in the manner of our choosing?

RE: the infrastructural implications of legalization (then there would be huge drug riots etc.), if there were some "practical" reason not to rescind all of the gun-related legislature of the last 100 years, would you still fight for your God-given rights to keep and bear arms?

[mjydrafter]

I support legalization of cannibis. But it is NOT a "wonder drug", so let's not delve into quackery to sell the use of medical marijuana.

No that wasn't quite what I meant, but I'll digress because you obviously know more about this than I do. I just thought it might be relavant to this disscussion. Prozac was just a top 'o the head thing. I am pretty sure cannibis does have some medicinally relavant properties, however and I'll leave it at that.

Since you shot that one down so fast, lets talk about hemp!

[Intune]

I don’t want to see drugs legalized, I want to see them decriminalized. I don’t want the government anywhere near them except, perhaps, on the rehab end. They can’t even dispense water effectively. I don’t want to see taxes popping up on drugs like they do for alcohol & cigarettes. Price (profit) is one of the primary problems of the WOD. I want the cost of a $10 rock of crack cocaine to be 1 cent. Dispel the ALLURE! I don’t care if someone grows an acre of coca bushes with an acre of poppies & pot next to it. So what? I want the stuff to be so cheap that someone who is truly addicted can pick up a soda bottle from the side of the road and get the deposit for his next fix. He never has to knock a 75 yo grandmother to the pavement for her purse. I want to be able to point out the derelict passed out in the alley and tell my kids that substance abuse may take them there. Right now I have to point at the teenager driving the $95k Benz, wearing the $2k Italian loafers, weighed down with gold & platinum bling-bling, $8k cash in his wallet, surrounded by sycophants that hang on his every word and tell my kids “don’t grow up to be like that” as we go to fill out their application at Arbys.

What harm has the person with all the dope growing in the back yard done to me and mine or you and yours? Hmm? You may not approve of the fact that he likes to do opium on Saturday nights and listen to Monk & Dizzy but where exactly is the harm? Never exceeded the Docs dosage on that percodan or mepergan? Or took them after the pain was gone? Drug abuser!! Sooo what? Did it harm us? Now, if the guy eating the Docs script or the guy smoking his own production get out into the public where they must INTERACT with fellow citizens, then we expect them to conduct themselves in a civil and lawful manner.
We are NOT our brothers keeper, no matter how much we love and care about them.

[SDC]

On a philosophical level, I agree that they should be legal; your body is your body, and what you choose to do with it should be entirely your business. On a practical level, I think there are a few too many problems with this approach to make sense. For example, we have a huge problem with drivers who choose to indulge in already-legal alcohol, how many more would we see if MORE drugs were made legal? If someone wants to sit at home and mainline rhino tranquilizers, I really don't have any problem with that, but if they get into a car just afterwards, it's not only their problem, it suddenly becomes MY problem (and the problem of every other driver on the road). Likewise, if someone ODs on their drug of choice and flat-out DIES as a result, no problem; if they suffer some sort of debilitating damage as a result, and have to be maintained in a facility so someone can change their diapers for them, it again becomes MY problem, and the problem of every other taxpayer out there.

[mjydrafter]

if they suffer some sort of debilitating damage as a result, and have to be maintained in a facility so someone can change their diapers for them, it again becomes MY problem, and the problem of every other taxpayer out there.

Not at all trying to be antagonistic, but what leads you to believe we are not paying for this type of thing now? Regardless of the legal status.

For example, we have a huge problem with drivers who choose to indulge in already-legal alcohol, how many more would we see if MORE drugs were made legal?

The problem I see with this is that the punishment is not nearly severe enough. The punishments for driving under the influence of anything should be much more severe than what we have now. Cause a death under the influence, do not pass go, you get the most severe punishment that we can come up with.

[444]

And once again, we already have tons of drug impaired drivers out on the road; everything from perscription pain medications, to heroin. I was talking to a woman yesterday. She told me she was on oxycontin by perscription. She was perscribed this extremly powerful narcotic for chronic back pain. Further questioning revealed that she had no actual diagnosed injury or disease, just pain. Think she isn't driving ? But this is OK, because it is legal with a perscription, the governement gets a cut, the doctor gets a cut, the pharmacy gets a cut, the drug company gets a cut so it's OK. But if someone smokes a joint ?


OH MY GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.oxyabusekills.com/
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2001/oxycontin.htm

"5mg of OXY has as much active ingredient (oxycodone) as ONE Percocet, so an 80mg Oxy = 16 Percocets in strength. "

2001 sales for Oxycontin were up to 1.5 BILLION...$1,485,970,400 from 1.05 billion in 2000.

[bad_dad_brad]

What Intune said. De-criminalize.

Look what the prohibition of alcohol did. Essentially built the basis of what is organized crime today. Can you imagine, prohibition was actually a constitutional ammendment, requiring a subsequent amendment to recend it. Amazing.

But it sure isn't as simple as that. The system gains a lot by making drugs illegal. The distributer is not the only profit maker. The number one reason people are in jail or prison in the U.S. is illegal drug related. The system, to exist, must justify and perpetuate it's existence. Lawyers, police, shrinks, prison systems, doctors, and government toadies all profit.

Funny isn't it? This is a pretty conservative web site, but most folks responding to this thread are in favor of de-criminalizing drugs. I guess that makes us all pretty much Libertarians.

I have an excellent book on the subject of victimless crimes - something like "It's my life and Leave Me Alone". Of course, I can't find it.

To quote Travis "I need to get organazized."

[Glock Glockler]

perhaps illicit drugs do more for the economy than we realize?

1 - So what? Would you support slavery if it was actually an economic boost? It's my body G_D Damn it!

2 - It's impact on the economy is negative, and we'd be soooooo much the better economically if we ditched it.

Consider a situation involving our subject: Joe Pothead. He's an average guy with a wife, 2.5 kids, a dog, and house with a white picket fence. His drug of choice after a hard days work is a joint or two, as opposed to a few beers that most Americans indulge in.

Right now he's holding down a job, supporting his family, and paying taxes.

Now suppose we lock him up. He's no longer hodling down a job, which means on a minute level we'll actually be paying more for whatever good or service he produced. Assuming a constant demand, there wil be less supply to meet that demand, which means that the price will increase. Economic minus.

Now that he's not supporting and raising his family, who is? Will they get on welfare? What impact will that have on his children, that he's in jail? Now, I know some will say that he's a bad father because he smokes up, but in what situation do you think his is better off in: daddy is in the den smoking a join, or daddy is in jail trying to fight off gang-rape for being in the den smoking pot? Economic minus

He's also not contributing to the cost of govt by paying taxes, and he's just become a burden on the state. Do you have any idea how much it costs to incarcerate someone? The figures I've read go anywhere from $250K-$500K, and then another $75K/yr after that. Economic minus.

Then we factor into the equation that many truely bad people are being let out of prison to make room for non-violent drug offenders. What is the cost of that? We'll certainly need more police and prisons, but what is the real cost when some animal that should be locked up commits a horrific crime? Can you even quantify in financial terms the damge done to you if one of your loved ones was brutally murdered?

The WoD is garbage, both in economic damge and restrictions to our civil liberties.

Imagine if people were only locked up because they commited a crime that infringed upon the rights of another. Where violent criminals were locked up for a long time and cops spent their time going after truely bad people instead of just going for the easy cash by busting potheads.

Imagine if our guns were no longer blamed for the violence that drug prohibition creates. When the rate of violent crime drios through the basement, the antis will be sorely lacking in ammunition and credibility. Gun control will go the way of the dodo and we will begin retaking ground. Hello $15 Glock 20 Full-cap. Hello select-fire Sig 550 with the evil bayonet-lug and flash suppressor.

Imagine the economic boost we'd experience because we have a reduced tax burden. We'd need fewer jails, fewer police, and we'd unclog the court system so the state could not focus it's resources in bad people and it would'nt be under so much pressure to go for a plea bargain.

One could probably go on at length about the problems that the WoD creates. If you are interested, I suggest you go to your local library and do some research on the subject, you'll be surprised by what you find. I used to be a raging drug warrior until I started to look into the subject, and found out what I didn't know about it.

[TheeBadOne]

But this is OK, because it is legal with a perscription
No, it is not. Ever read the labels of some of those bottles.
"Do not drive" etc. There is no exemption to DUI for "perscription drugs". DUI is DUI with alcohol, weed, or Dr. Feel Good's pills.

[bjengs]

Glock Glocker, Genius, saidImagine if our guns were no longer blamed for the violence that drug prohibition creates. When the rate of violent crime drios through the basement, the antis will be sorely lacking in ammunition and credibility. Gun control will go the way of the dodo and we will begin retaking ground. Hello $15 Glock 20 Full-cap. Hello select-fire Sig 550 with the evil bayonet-lug and flash suppressor. Glock, that's an awesome point! Keep hammering that home to the pro-gun crowd and we may actually get somewhere.

To think that ending the WoD might actually be a ticket to ending the War on Guns...

[444]

TheeBadOne

You missed the point; the argument was that if we legalize drugs we would now have drug impaired drivers out on the road in addition to alcohol impaired drivers. We already have this problem now.

Let me ask you this though as a practical matter, when was the last time you heard of someone being busted for DUI for being on perscription drugs ? When was the last time you saw someone tested for perscription drugs after being involved in an accident ? I have worked as a paramedic since 1983 and have responded to THOUSANDS of motor vehicle accidents. I think I went on four yesterday. I have NEVER seen it once. In fact, I have been on accidents where it was quite clear that the person involved was intoxicated. That person explained that they were on perscription medications and the matter went no further. One, not too long ago involved a woman who drove her car through a convienience store. When I got there the car was 10 feet inside the store and she was sitting in the car smoking the tires because she thought the gas pedal was the brake pedal. And this was who knows how long after it happened ? The store was full of smoke fromt the burnt rubber.
:what:

But she had some back pain and was on perscription medications = accident, not DUI

[.45Ruger]

The "War on Drugs" has become the single biggest joke on the taxpayers and citizens of this country. We spend Billions of $ a year to fight something that is not going a way. Over a million people are in jail because of drug related crimes, costing more billions to support them. More property has been siezed and sold by the authorities in fighting this war than ever and I'm starting to think the powers that be keep this war going so they can see more $ from siezures. Lastly so much violent crime is related to the drug trade as to be absolutly rediculous. From criminals killing each other for turf and in rip offs to the crackhead that breaks in to your house looking for anything to steal to sell for a hit. I have no doubt if drugs were legalized and controlled the effect would be about the same as after the end of prohibition. With the big money gone the criminals kind of fade away and the violence decreases dramaticall, and the governments war against the people would end.

[answerguy]

Too bad we can't have a national referendum on this subject. It'd be interesting to se the results. Also interesting is that a large number of liberals agree with us on decriminalizing drugs. Or as I like to call it the war on 'some ' drugs.

[faustulus]

Libertarian Party would be wise to realize this, and move on.
Good philosophy lets apply it to the right to keep and bear arms.

Some of you are being inconsistant. You will argue day and night that a gun is a tool and shouldn't be blamed for the actions of a man. How is it you cannot apply this logic to drugs. We should hold the person accountable for his actions. If he is addicted and steals, then we try him for theft, if he is high and kills we try him for murder. If we are to take the position that drugs may be abused by some and therefore poise a threat to others and should be banned we must also apply this logic to guns. Otherwise we are inconsitant in our arguements.

[fallingblock]

:)

[erikm]

I'd welcome the decriminalization of illegal drugs. But I can also see where the people who complain about pushing (especially at kids), actions while under the influence and bad dope are coming from.

How about the following: Legalize the manufacture, possession and sale of illegal drugs. Split drugs into catagories based on addiction, physiological/mental damage, etc.
Require clear labeling on packages, stating content and the fact that the contents is a drug in large print. Think of tabacco labeling.
Advertising for drugs must comply with the same rules as those for tabacco. In addition, aiming advertising at children is verboten.
No selling to children. Minors may use with parental/guardian consent and supervision only.
The user is legally liable for his actions while under the influence. If the user is a minor, his parents/guardian are also legally liable. ('Lock yourself up before shooting up'). This should also apply to prescription drugs.
Manufacturers should (not must) get an independent quality assurance certification stating it produces its product to standards. The standards would include things like psychoactive levels. ('Cheech Weed produces certified high quality medium strength cannabis!').
Manufacturers are liable for additives and impure product.

Loosening drug laws will also have other side benefits. For instance, hemp looks like cannabis but is useless for smoking but is still banned because it has a negligeble THC content. However it has a wide range of industrial uses, including as a fast growing wood pulp plant. Other more offbeat 'benefits' might be an increase of the sales of padded rooms and auto-unlocking B&D gear for PCP users :D.

Commentary is welcome

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[Marko Kloos]

How about the following:

Legalize the manufacture, possession and sale of illegal drugs. Split drugs into catagories based on addiction, physiological/mental damage, etc.

Require clear labeling on packages, stating content and the fact that the contents is a drug in large print. Think of tabacco labeling.

Advertising for drugs must comply with the same rules as those for tabacco. In addition, aiming advertising at children is verboten.

No selling to children. Minors may use with parental/guardian consent and supervision only.

The user is legally liable for his actions while under the influence. If the user is a minor, his parents/guardian are also legally liable. ('Lock yourself up before shooting up'). This should also apply to prescription drugs.

Manufacturers should (not must) get an independent quality assurance certification stating it produces its product to standards. The standards would include things like psychoactive levels. ('Cheech Weed produces certified high quality medium strength cannabis!').

Manufacturers are liable for additives and impure product.


You mean, treat drugs like we do alcohol? What a revolutionary idea! You reefer-loving libertarian, you!

:D


On the same note, alcohol kills more people every year than all illegal drugs combined, by far. Yet not even the most hardcore drug warriors would propose a renewal of the Prohibition, because that would look like...folly. ("Freshen that up for you, Senator?")

[Glock Glockler]

For instance, hemp looks like cannabis but is useless for smoking but is still banned because it has a negligeble THC content.

Incorrect. Hemp grows in big, tall stalks(up to 15 feet high) where as "cannabis" grows more like bushes. I don't have any pictures on hand but the two are not mistakable.

Why is hemp still banned? Good question. Perhaps it's because of the original reason it was banned: it would be competition against the lumber industry, or maybe the oil from the seeds would allow us a renewable way to power your car.

It also might be because the politicians are so afraid of the effects of legalizing it. They have so tied marijuana and hemp together, that if all of a sudden we start gettig all these greats benefits from hemp legalization, people might start to ask "Hey, this hemp stuff is pretty useful, maybe marijuana will have some benefits as well".

[keithernTN]

De-criminalize


The people that will rob and steal or be junkies and abuse drugs will do so whether or not they are legal or illegal. The people that drive under the influence of an intoxicant will do so whether legal or illegal. Some people are are not raised right, they do not take resposibility for themselves so society must deal with these people accordingly. That is how people are and how society is. That is the reason we have laws and penalties for the people that disregard the safety of others in society. If you are not harming others with your actions it is no ones business to tell you not to.

Alcohol and prescription drugs are abused much more than any of the illegal drugs available.

[TallPine]

[hemp] would be competition against the lumber industry, or maybe the oil from the seeds would allow us a renewable way to power your car.

Or perhaps it might give some independent American farmers a chance to make a decent living again ...

[erikm]

Glockler: Yes, I know about the size difference. I was looking at it like a pack of sheeple or the US government. Look at my location. :D

An aunt of mine had some plants in her garden one time. Since the plants were 5-6 foot tall at the time I doubt they were weed. The plant standing next to the hemp was (unknown to her) a nightshade. That one she summarily dug up when she was told what it was, but the hemp apparently stayed. She had infant kids at the time.

In my country growth, possession and use of weed is AFAIK technically illegal but somewhat tolerated by the legal system. So long as you aren't being a public nuisance, don't tap the neighbor's power line or openly sell it on the street, you're more or less safe. AFAIK since the courts have more important cases to try, the worst that can happen to a small grower is that the plants and lamps are confiscated and he gets a fine. Of course, this doesn't mean everyone tolerates weed.

Hemp is legal to grow commercially if you can show you have a buyer for the crop. I don't know if the farmers have extra security, but I doubt it.

lendringser: I wasn't thinking of alcohol laws since they don't work that way in my country. Here, you can buy beer at 16 and drive at 18 (scooters can be had at 16) instead of the other way around. I think this is more sensible because beginner drivers are more likely to be aware of the effects of alcohol. There also is no motor vehicle driver's ed in school and no learner's permit system. What is given in school is bicycle safety. Given that everyone has one and they're the primary way of kids getting to secondary school, this makes sense.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[t-money]

Great arguements, no doubt. I got to thinking about this whole issue as that I'm in my mid-30's, and most of my 'life decisions' have been made (e.g. Do I do drugs, Do I go to college, etc). I got to thinking about the issue in terms of my 3 year old son and what legalization would mean to him as he got older. I guess, bottom line, I would rather have them legal (if God forbid, that he decides to try them), then having him buy them from some bottom feeder scumbag with all of the acoutraments that go along with drug dealers, etc.
Unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale as a younger kid, and although I never did more than smoke pot, I had a couple of oppurtunites to look at those people who deal drugs squarely in the eye, and I was at least smart enough to be scared by them. So do I think they ought to legalize drugs? Yea. Although one point that I haven't seen addressed is the whole 'nature abhors a vaccuum' principal. I doubt the people dealing drugs are going to become model citizens, but at least a major tooth in the things they can make money will be taken away from them.

What do you think would become of a drug dealer if they took away his/her primary means of high dollar income?

more food for thought. . .

[TallPine]

What do you think would become of a drug dealer if they took away his/her primary means of high dollar income?

I suppose that he or she would just have to go into politics

[Jack T.]

<flame suit on>

I don't think drugs should be legalized unless it directly benefits humanity. Asprin, penicillin (sp?), blood pressure medicine, etc are FDA approved and have been used for years with little to no negative impact on culture or economy. I see "recreational drugs" as nothing more than a crutch, and that includes alcohol and nicotine.

While I agree that the WoD is pretty much a joke, that does not mean that we should ignore the problem.

<flame suit removed>

Every time I see these arguments, it makes me think of that line in "Up in Smoke". The goofy cop is asked about drug trafficking and he says drugs are horrible because "the trafficking of narcotics in this country may be the last vestige of free enterprise"

[t-money]

Hey Jack,
With all due respect, because I really see your point of view, and certainly, I'm right there with you, but from a reality point of view, can we really 'win' the war on drugs? How? Without making the US more of a police state than it already is. And still, it's going to happen.

[TallPine]

I don't think drugs should be legalized unless it directly benefits humanity.

And just who gets to decide this ???????

Suppose, we decide that red shoes don't benefit humanity - therefore, red shoes are now illegal.

[bjengs]

A lot of people have decided the same thing about firearms. Yet most of us believe that firearms shouldn't be owned because of a Constitutional amendment or because of their perceived utility, but because it is our God-given ("natural" for the atheists) right to protect our lives as we deem necessary.

Essentially the same argument goes for drugs. Whether they are "medical," "recreational," or "illicit" really depends on the user, and those labels are hyped up by the tyrants. Kind of like the words "assault weapon" and "cop-killer bullets."

[Jack T.]

If you can show me how heroin/PCP/acid/LSD benifit humanity as a whole, I'll reconsider my argument.

[H Romberg]

Asking whether or not something benefits humanity before deigning to allow others to possess it presumes that the state should be in the position to regulate what people possess. I disagree.

The burden of proof should lie with the state. The state should have to conclusively demonstrate two things prior to being granted the power to regulate possession of any given thing. First, it should have to demonstrate that the regulation is authorized by the Constitution. Second (and most importantly), it should have to demonstrate that the outcomes of the regulation proposed will cause less harm to the citizenry than does the problem it is intended to solve. IMHO, the WOD fails both tests.

Unfortunately, the folks writing the laws don't care much what we think about the subject, because we continue to buy their products/government no matter how much of our freedom it costs. :(

[Master Blaster]

OK JackT

Herion is an opium derivative, many other opium derivatives are used a pain killers in perscription medicines. Herion was invented as a pain killer but had too many side effects to be used as one for long.

PCP is an animal tranquilizer, and is still used as such.

LSD no current known legal use.


Anyways. You shouldn't be allowed to take a drug that is likely to make you a lethal threat to people around you.

another poster made this remark, all I can say is alcohol makes lots of folks a threat to people around them.


When I was in college many years ago (20)

Saturday night partiing:

You had the jocks who drank beer lots and lots, and then they got into a fight, or started one, broke stuff, and puked, then they passed out, and complained about their hangover the next afternoon when they finally came to.


You had your intellectual pot smokers, who smoked a joint laughed at stupid stuff, made clumsy passes at girls, then ordered two pizzas, and went to bed, wiithout destroying anything or beating anyone up.

Thats what I witnessed myself.

[MicroBalrog]

I generally agree with legalizing drugs, but:

NO drugs creating a chemical addiction, needless even to explain why.

[Combat-wombat]

Jack-Heroin/PCP/LSD does not benefit society. But that does not change the fact that banning it doesn't benefit society, either. In fact, banning it creates more crime, takes up prison space, costs money, etc. Heroin/PCP/LSD are the drugs I think should be decriminalized, but not commercialized. True, all of those drugs can screw up your life, but somehow, even though we spend $20,000,000,000+ per year on fighting them, people still end up using them. The WoD just does not work.

[MicroBalrog]

Yeah, but: A person taking a powerful chemically -addictive drug ALWAYS ends up addicted, a slave of the dealer. Would you allow people to voluntarily become slaves?

[mjydrafter]

I will add one other thing to this thread. Most of the illegal drugs that we have, and thier potency, are directly related to prohibition. Don't take my word for it, though. I will sight one of many examples that I have found. Way back when (I'm guessing early 1800's?). People were drinking coca leaf tea. I have read that it was similar to a cup of coffee or a cup of green tea in it's "speedy" effects. Some wonderful individual came to the notion that this scurge should not plague man (coffee was considered contraband at one time as well) so "they" decided to prohibit coca leaf tea. Well who wants to smuggle big bags of contraband leaves around so people can have thier buzz. Enter some enterprizing chemist and boom, he extracts the active ingrediant in the coca leaf tea and the world now has cocaine. Less bulky, obviously isn't a leaf so through the inspectors you go.
Now you have something that's just become more dangerous and easier to smuggle. They don't stop using the boats they were using for the leaves, so they are bringing in ten fold the amount of "product", and hence making tenfold the amount of $$.
Exactly the same thing with opium-to heroin. Why make yourself smuggle bulky, fragrant, not easy to conceal opium around in boatload quantities when you can add a couple of chemical processes (fractinal distillation) and bang you can put 5 million dollars worth of heroin in a breifcase.

Hemp is grown in many different ways in order to yeild the fiber type that is wanted. If you want a silk type quality as many as 300 plants per sq ft is desireable (this will be the tall spindly stuff that was mentioned earlier). If you just want rope, go drive around the midwestern US and you'll see decendants of that type of hemp. Cannibis and hemp are decendants of the same very complex family of plants. Thier resemblance ends with the 5-7 fingered leaf. Hemp seeds are an excellent source of protien(do some research into famine in Austrailia) and yeild a deisel quality oil that could replace our dependance on foriegn sources of energy (even if it didn't replace but reduced, wouldn't it at least be worth looking into?). How much do you suppose the big oil companies pay to make this fact seem like a bong inspired dream? Think of revitalizing the American farm, ending our dependance on un- renewable, foreign, polluting, costly energy sources. I'm not sure where the technology is at on this but I'de guess back in the '50's or '60's because that's when the DEA was able to stop all testing (medical, industrial) on all things "*marijuana". *This is not even a historically real word, it sounds foreign and evil though, no? Also look at how hemp was again made legal during WWII, because of it's superiority to anything synthetic for making rope (I believe this is still true to this day).

Do some research on H. Anslinger and his good pal W. R. Hearst, if you want some insight into why the leftist news media we have now isn't maybe as bad we think. These 2 stumblebums are 2 key players into the reason we are having this discussion. (hint put "Yellow Journalism" into your search engine).

Edited for some seriously deslexic grammar.

[mjydrafter]

Yeah, but: A person taking a powerful chemically -addictive drug ALWAYS ends up addicted, a slave of the dealer. Would you allow people to voluntarily become slaves?

Not trying to be antagonistic, but freedom does include freedom to become a slave, right?

[MicroBalrog]

So: would you support a restoration of slavery - if it was on a voluntary basis only?

And remember, the decision to become a chemical addict is usually non-revokable.

[mjydrafter]

Not dodging your question, but is alcoholism the same slavery of which you speak?

[Glock Glockler]

A person taking a powerful chemically -addictive drug ALWAYS ends up addicted, a slave of the dealer

So I reckon you would like to ban nicotine, or how many smokers do you know that can up and quit right now?

"I don't think drugs should be legalized unless it directly benefits humanity. "

Ahhh, I get it, the whole "it's for the greater good line". Who will decide if it benefits humanity and by what criteria?

Do Jews benefit humanity? Some would argue "no", so should we line up to start stuffing them into overs?

[mjydrafter]

So: would you support a restoration of slavery - if it was on a voluntary basis only?

Some would argue that we are slaves to petro chemicals, as well. This seems sort of voluntary.

[mjydrafter]

Allright this is really the last thing I'm going to add. But it seems to me that if we, as Americans, could actually decide if we wanted to be a truely capitalist soceity or the socialist society that we are becoming, it would go a long way to making us the great nation that we may once have been. Assuming we make the "right" descision of course.

[bjengs]

I can't believe some of what I'm reading. How can you say you trust the populace at large with firearms, which are objects which are designed to direct their force outward on targets other than the operator; yet you say you don't think people should be allowed to do with themselves as they please?

[Ebbtide]

If a person suffering from anxiety disorders suffers a panic attack in public, he can take a Xanax and return to calm pretty shortly. That cannot be done with pot.

As a former 15 year daily pot user I can say that is not the case. Once the body develops a tolerance to the THC the effects you speak of is are non-existent. Same applies to Heroin and Alcohol, there are daily users everywhere and you would not know.

Xanax on the other hand is very addictive and in all but the smallest ways is a Valium, just take two 1.0 mg (the blus ones)and you'll know why. But as stated above, over time a person will learn to function perfectly well while under the influence.

Now I do agree drugs are dangerous and a big waste of money, but to each his own.

ehenz

[Marko Kloos]

If you can show me how heroin/PCP/acid/LSD benifit humanity as a whole, I'll reconsider my argument.

Drugs don't benefit humanity except as recreational outlets. There are many things that don't have social utility, yet we don't strive to make everything illegal that doesn't "benefit humanity".

The problem with your viewpoint is that you're tackling it from the wrong end. Rather than ask, "How do drugs benefit humanity?", you have to ask, "How does the drug war benefit humanity?"

The War on Drugs, as the government's answer to a perceived drug problem, has had the polar opposite effect of what was intended. Like Prohibition, it has served as a price protection system for drug dealers. Like Prohibition, it has given rise to a new wave of organized crime. Like Prohibition, it turned a simple plant product into a commodity with huge profit margins, virtually guaranteeing an exploding black market. Like Prohibition, the War on Drugs has caused the worst infringements on our civil liberties ever seen since the founding of the Republic.

Drugs may not have social utility, but the drug war causes much more damage to our society than all the illegal drugs in the world ever could. It has caused the incineration of the Bill of Rights, and it has given birth to gun control laws, because the same politicians who instituted the drug prohibition were now looking for equally populist ways to fight the crime caused by that prohibition. The drug war costs billions of dollars every year, and its excesses like asset forfeiture destroy what's left of our civil rights every year.

It is an insanity that has to stop, but it will go on into the foreseeable future. It will go on because a coalition of self-righteous Puritans and tight-lipped church ladies keeps up the charade at the ballot box every couple of years, and it will go on because too many paychecks come out of the War on Some Drugs.

That's a big price to pay, just so some people can say that "they're doing something about the problem", a problem that they themselves created. Anyone who is for the War on Drugs is causing the "drug problem". Make the stuff legal, tax the hell out of it, and the same thing will happen as it did with alcohol in 1933: the "problem" will go away.

[Sergeant Bob]

A person taking a powerful chemically -addictive drug ALWAYS ends up addicted, a slave of the dealer

I don't think that statement is completely accurate.:rolleyes: Even if it were, the laws against using powerful chemically addictive drugs don't stop people from becoming addicted. Do they keep them from becoming more addicted? If drugs were legalized or decriminalized would people who won't use drugs now suddenly become addicts?

[Intune]

You guys are amazing… in a good way! I have argued these points ‘till I’m blue in the face and it always seems to come down to “well, they just shouldn’t be legal.” It’s the nanny state but worse. It’s the nanny state that puts you away if you don’t do what nanny says you should do because you MIGHT cause harm to yourself or you MIGHT cause harm to someone else. Shades of Orwell’s 1984! Kudos to whoever it was that presented the analogy of guns being potentially dangerous. It is remarkable to me that someone who vociferously defends the 2nd gets apoplexy when decriminalization of drugs is mentioned. The WOD and Illegal Immigrants are the principal dangers to our country, in my estimation. When will we, as a society, wise up, speak up and buck up, making OUR thoughts, desires and beliefs known and followed by our elected officials? I am weary and the blade has yet to be drawn, much less blooded.

[tyme]

Prisons are slave labor camps, and part of the economy:
http://www.prisonactivist.org/crisis/evans-goldberg.html

There was a recent article that I *thought* was about the percentage of GDP represented by the drug trade and something else (probably either illegal gambling or prostitution, but neither of those sounds right).

If anyone knows what I'm talking about and has the link, please post or pm it. Thanks.

[Freedspeak]

Actually most drugs arn't that expensive in a free market. I met someone who worked for a company that manufactureed pharmicuticle heroin/morphine and the government said they had to raise their price from $7 to $10 per oz.

Compare that with steet price.

If a person could get his daily fix for $2-$5 a day he could work a min. wage job, and be a productive member of society.

Another point is the Gov't. could tax drugs like alcohol and collect taxes. (don't like the concept of taxes myself).

Then for the total anti-drug group, you could look atbit from a Darwinian viewpiont, let thwem have at it and shortly they will eliminate themselves!

Personally I'm a Libertarian, your choice, you live with the results/consequenses of your actions!

[Jim March]

There ARE positive uses for LSD. Leary and company began some serious research into the subject before the gubbmint jumped on him :rolleyes:.

It's like this: typical Western-psychiatric-practice hypnosis can be used to help a person "re-program their subconcious". The hypnotist does NOT do it, he/she only acts as a guide. The subject of hypnosis doesn't lose free will, that's a common misconception.

LSD, when used *properly*, throws open the subconcious at a far "deeper level" than hypnosis. WAY deeper. Which is why a well-trained guide is critical. I know what I'm talking about here - I've played with plain ol' self hypnosis on my own and poked pretty deep in my own head, deep enough to get some damned freaky "special effects" going on.

LSD also triggers "creative centers" in the brain at the same time as it opens up "self programming".

The downside is this: if the trip "spirals out of control" into negative emotions, those negative emotional states are "implanted" way deep into your brain. Some recreational users report "flashbacks" years after a bad trip; what's going on is NOT a leftover supply of the actual drug in your fatty cells getting re-assimilated, it's a deeply implanted "mental imbalance" created during the bad trip, re-asserting itself at random.

This didn't happen to Leary's patients, or the people who tripped under the guidance of students of Leary.

Instead, Leary's methods were used to do more or less anything that could be done with standard psychoanalysis and/or hypnosis, but faster, more effectively and with better long-term results.

Now, as much as I'd like to see Leary's work continue, and enough of his students are still around to resume the work, I would NEVER ever touch LSD outside the guidelines Leary laid down, for reasons Leary himself was very clear on: LSD can "implant" mental states, including severe mental illness.

Total psychotic breakdown after a single very bad trip have been reported.

But the problem is managable: at the original Woodstock, hundreds of morons dropped serious LSD dosages, and a good percentage started to flip out. They set up a "freakout tent" and one of Leary's students worked damn near non-stop bringing people back down. And was 100% successful, at least short term...long term, it's possible some pretty bad mental states got "implanted" before he got to 'em although theory said that as long as they achieved mental equilibrium while under the influence, long term problems were minimal.

Tripping properly under theraputic guidance and conditions from the start, things never got to that point.

So yes, I'm absolutely convinced there's a LOT of societal benefit to LSD, the full extent of which is unknown.

But "promising" doesn't even begin.

[atek3]

While I agree with most of what you are saying Jim... I think the one 'confirmed' bummer about LSD is that a person predisposed towards schizophrenia who ingests LSD will likely become a full-blown nut immediately (rather than later).

atek3

Edited to add, but really why ARE we talking about LSD and legalization on a gun board :confused:

[Oleg Volk]

My experience with drug users has been that theie behavior is indistinguishable from the rest of the population, by and large. In short, the prohibitionists are lying and threatening to murder or imprison those who dispute their party line.

[Chris Rhines]

The best reason to legalize drugs is that you own your body, same as me. As such, what you put into your body is none of the government's business.

- Chris

[fjolnirsson]

Early on in this thread, TallPine related his story of a total reversal in his viewpoint relating to drugs.
My story is much the same.
There are 8 years between myself and my older sister. As a result, I was very young when she started her drug habit, and was able to witness it firsthand. I watched as she started with pot, then cocaine, and finally settled (mainly) on meth. As I observed her behavior and that of her friends, I became a die hard anti-drug fanatic. I have thrown away countless friendships over drug use. I believed that drugs were "evil", and anyone who used them was bad.
A few years ago, I became interested in guns. As I turned into more of a "gun nut", I discovered that I wasn't "allowed" by the government to own certain weapons. I became interested in 2nd amendment rights.
And freedom in general.
Then I found out that my minister(one of the most socially upstanding men I have ever known) was a pot smoker, which I never would have suspected in a million years.
I began looking into the history of drug prohibition in America. What did I find?
Our drug laws have their beginnings in the same racist legislation which started our gun laws.
One of the earliest known drug laws was in San Franscisco, when there was a large influx of Chinese immigrants. See, opium was a common pastime in China.
The white leaders of the city, and the general populace became alarmed that Caucasian women might be seduced by Chinese men in the opium dens, and laws were subsequently passed which made opium illegal in Chinatown.
Drug laws are about the same thing as gun laws.
CONTROL.
For the record, I still have never used any drug other than alcohol and caffeine, and once nicotine. I most likely never will. I am of the "two beers after yardwork" drinking variety. I will discourage drug use by my soon to be born daughter.
I live three doors down from a known drug dealer. I despise him. Not because he sells drugs, but because he is a piece of $$$$. He sells to small children(5,6 years old). The local police won't touch him, I don't know why. He threatens people in the street, and assaulted his bed ridden father before he died.
You can't judge all by the actions of some.
My sister is 36 years old, and lives at home with my parents, her 3 teenage children and her druggie husband. She hasn't had a job in 15 years. Since the birth of her first child.
You can't judge all by the actions of some.
We need to stop this drain on the public pocketbook.
We need to stop the assault on all of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
End of rant.
Sorry it was so long.

If we do what is right and decriminalize drugs, a lot of the anti gun arguements will go bye bye.

[J-Man]

Sorry Chris, you only think you own your own body. The government does....

[longeyes]

Mind-altering drugs, depressive or stimulant, have this in common with smothering government: they are both forms of mind control. The object is clarity; the vehicle is reason; the benefit is self-control.

Of course, a good dark beer now and then won't kill ya.

[telomerase]

Of course, a good dark beer now and then won't kill ya.

According to a large study last year, moderate alcohol consumption greatly increases cardiac health (even apart from the polyphenols in red wine; any alcohol is good). Unfortunately I can't get myself to use enough alcohol for optimum health; after teetotaling for 40 years the stuff just tastes like V-2 fuel.

I've never used any drug myself except for caffeine. But the truth is that most of them don't really matter; the rich and powerful use even the "worst" of them and still manage to keep their radio shows...

Except for TV, of course. Anyone addicted to TV is a goner. Funny how the DEA never does anything about that...

[longeyes]

I'd love to see America unplugged--tv--for about ten years. Now that would be a show worth watching.

[longeyes]

There's a theory that the human brain evolved symbiotically with mind-altering plants.

Then there's the theory that the gods gave man wine to make mortality beareable.

For me, in the end, it comes down to: Are you directly harming others by your action? If not, others should butt out. Of course, these days people seem to be "harmed" by a cross-eyed look and have a sympathetic attorney at the ready.

[ThreadKiller]

I'd love to see America unplugged--tv--for about ten years. Now that would be a show worth watching.

Ditto!

[Yowza]

I've only recently come to see the incredible hypocrisy of the WOD, although I suppose it should have been apparent to me many years ago. See, my father used to smoke pot all the time (long time ago now). It had no discernable effect on him being a good father, as far as I could tell. He didn't do so good in college when he went right after high school although he did manage to eke out a business degree at a major university well known for it's business program. When I was in elementary school, he decided to go back to school to become a nurse. My mom was already an RN at the time.

During this time, I know he smoked pot quite a bit and he drank all the time too, but he aced every class he took while holding down a full time job and he was a great father, to boot. We used to go fishing and camping all the time and I generally had a great childhood.

To get on to the point of the story, marijauna never once caused him any problems that I saw. His drinking, on the other hand, got him in trouble several times. He even lost his nursing license because of it. He was unable to work as a nurse for six months but fortunately the hospital kept him on in a non healthcare provider position although he obviously took a hefty paycut.

He hasn't smoked pot in many years, but just a couple of years ago, he had to go back to rehab due to drinking again. On top of that, he has a cigarette addiction which he has quit and started up again more times than I can remember. But those drugs are of course perfectly legal.

Makes no sense to me, even without all the other arguments to back it up. So what is the argument for marijuana being illegal? I mean really. Nothing that doesn't just amount to plain old irrational fear and loathing.

Rick

[The Plainsman]

I almost didn't post this because just about every point of view has appeared in this thread. However, I felt the need to throw my $.02 worth anyway. :p

Several of you have hit on the key to this whole issue - profit. Maybe call it "economics" or "capitalism" or whatever - it all boils down to profit. With profit, drug purveyors will thrive. Without profit, they will go away.

As has been mentioned here numerous times, Prohibition didn't work for obvious reasons, but it did succeed in bankrolling organized crime, which up to that point, wasn't very organized. The same thing is true of drugs, regardless of type or effects.

For those who would argue that legalizing drugs would result in availabilty to anyone, I say to you - the drugs are already available to everyone. Just ask the average junior high student.

Legalized drugs would result in lots of DUI on drugs. Already are.

Next time you read about a SWAT drug raid - either a good raid or one that's gone bad (wrong address) - consider what would have happened if drugs were legal. Nothing. The raid wouldn't have happened - at all. No one gets shot - by accident or on purpose - good guy or bad.

The next time you read about someone's property being conficated because their grandson was caught with drugs in their grandmother's living room, think - would this have happened if drugs were legal? No.

Drugs could be sold/distributed exactly the same way as liquor. Licensed businesses would appear, selling pure/clean drugs of various kinds, for prices within reach of most users. The manufacturers would be licensed and regulated and the product would be taxed. There would be age restrictions to buy drugs, just like liquor.

If you legally bought drugs and illegally gave them to illegal (under-aged) users, you would be liable just like you are with liquor. If you misused the drug and drove under the influence, the same thing would happen as now happens - you get arrested for DUI - BUT you are NOT charged for illegal drug possession - unless you're under-aged.

The drug sellers, distributors, and manufacturers of illegal drugs, will dry up and blow away, without profit. They may be able to continue operation with losing 95% of their product, but take away 95% of their profit and see what happens.

For what it's worth, I'm a 63 year old, conservative, Republican, who has spent most of his life deadset opposed to legalization of drugs. But even I can learn. As someone once said, one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. It ain't gonna happen. ;) So there!!

[Michigander]

Don't forget about "legal" prescription drugs too. People can become just as addicted and just as much of a waste, or even dead, with scripts too.


As for marijuana: I have decided a while back that everyone I meet smokes marijuana, unless I learn otherwise (after being astounded too many times that someone smoked marijuana when I never would have suspected it).

My "drug of choice" is beer. :D

[robctwo]

One of the really insidious results of the WOD is that we have adopted the mom & pop retail distribution system of recreational drugs. This means that the people doing the marketing and making the sales decisions are users themselves. We have 15 year olds deciding if it makes sense to sell to 13 year olds (yes, they get the $). I'm glad to see more people discussing the reality of our society, not what somewone would like it to look like.

I grew up in the 60's. We were fighting some type of WOD then. My entire adult life has been spent watching fellow citizens turned into felons because of drug laws. Courts have bent over backwards to gut the Constitution to facilitate law enforcement. It would be great to try something else for a while.

If you wonder about winning the WOD, just ask anyone in law enforcement if they are willing to bet their retirement on wiping out drug use even if we gave them everything they wanted, including the US Constitution.

[ksnecktieman]

I agree with making all drugs legal. My main reason is to remove the drug dealers from the street corner by the grade school. Legalizing will reduce the price, and dealers will not have the astronomical profit margins to induce them to hook the next generation. "It is for the children".
It will reduce crime because it will be affordable.
It will stop turf wars between rival dealers, because it is not financially reasonable to fight without profit.
It will reduce taxes, by reducing our prison population.

[Firethorn]

I support controling criminal activities by taking away the profit wherever possible.

If you legalize drugs so that they're sold OTC, then the dealers are out of business. They can't match the price, purity, availability, or legality of the drug store. This would have a ripple effect. The 'Pusher' strategy of free samples esp. to kids would be impractical and illegal, as after they get them addicted, they can go to any drug store to get their fix instead of to the pusher.

The effects would be felt worldwide. Suddenly Central/South America isn't having to try to fight drug barons who have larger budgets than the government. The people there wouldn't have to choose between growing drug crops that are profitable, but liable to being destroyed by the government, or food crops. One problem was that the US was spraying chemicals to kill 'drug crops' but the problem was that the drug crop would grow there again the next year, but food crops wouldn't for the next five!:uhoh:

Sure, you'll have more users. Slap a reasonable tax on it to fund treatment centers for the true abusive users. If somebody's work is negativly affected, they can work that out between them and their employer. I remember reading reports that the percentage of true 'abusers' remains constant with and without prohibition. Abuser is defined in this case as somebody whose functionality is severly impaired by the unrestrained usage of a drug.

[mercedesrules]

(Firethorn) Slap a reasonable tax on it to fund treatment centers for the true abusive users.
So, you're for socialized medicine?

MR

[Yowza]

I can't answer for Firethorn of course, but if I had a choice between semi-socialized medicine (which we already have) and ending the WOD then I'd pick ending the WOD in a heartbeat.

Rick

[ThreadKiller]

Drugs are for losers IMHO. But having said that, go ahead and legalize them. The WOD is a losing proposition at best.

Control sales and tax them as we do alcohol sales. Use some of the proceeds to provide care for those who will inevitably destroy their minds through "recreational" use of whatever drug they choose. No lawsuits and no preferential treatment for those who make the choice to impair themselves.

Set up educational programs to inform young folk about the long term dangers of drug use and hope some of it sticks. Impress upon them the fact that this is THEIR choice. Don't expect society to pick up the pieces of their brain at the end of their once coherent life.

Don't see the need for the stuff myself but diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. :)

Tim

[DTLoken]

Where is the junkie going to get his $5 from? He still wouldn't be able to hold a job. Welfare for junkies programs?

Paying for drugs for a total junkie would be cheaper than the riddiculously (And failing) WoD. Also if drugs were sold legally the prices would go down largely so you wouldn't have many people not being able to afford them. Short of homeless people I don't have people coming up and begging me for cigarettes or alcohol.

What percentage of drugs do we stop from entering the US? Lets put the figure at well below 10%.

We spend billions every year to "stop" less than 10% of what comes in, the 90% that makes it through is enough for MASSIVE profits even over the cost of the lost drugs.

Compare the current WoD to Prohibition in the 20s. If we legalize (But regulate to an extent, to ensure purity, and also tax them a bit) drugs as I see it, we'd see crime go down, we'd MAKE money (Instead of hemmoraging billions every year on a worthless effort) and drug using people would be happy. It would be great for the economy, look at what alcohol and tobacco does for it.

Also some of that money could go to education on the matter, such as giving the real dangers of various drugs, instead of stupid bull???? things like "omg marijuana makes you run over little kids on bicycles".

[Selfdfenz]

I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs but that's unimportant.

If illegal narcotics are legalized I wonder that the following will not come to be the way of things in the US or at least I wonder about:

1. If your aren't currently tested for drugs in the workplace prepare to be.
Drugs may be legal but using them won't be tolerated by many employers and will create liability. More employers will want to know who is and isn't a user. You won't be paid more for your non-user status, it will just be an invasion of your privacy you must endure to keep your job.

2. Ditto for your kids in school. How will the parents with non-narcotized kids be comfortable having their kids at risk with the verifiably zonked ones? I sure wouldn't be. Will there be yet more flight from public education as parents try to find safer schools? I would.

3. Will there come to be an underclass of unemployable or underemployed?
Will they be on social services? How about the children they can't take care of or are unfit to care for? Will I have to pay? Seems there is already plenty of that but why wouldn't there be more in a culture where drugs are cheap (free) safe and really available?

4. Will auto and health insurance go up? Will legalization sneak up on my checkbook in ways I could never have guessed? Oops Stupid question:D

5. Will the DEA and massively ineffective govenmnet agencies that were charged with keeping narcotics at bay be relaced but equally massive and ineffective organs of government charged with managing some of the side effects of legalization? Distribution? Taxation? Social services? Drug testing?
Programs to keep people from using drugs like the highly successful ones they currently run to keep people from smoking and drinking?

6. If Companies can't discriminate against users in hiring, will they send more of their jobs off-shore where there are Companies that still can, like China?

7. Will our military be able to get enough non-users to fill their ranks and if not will they start drafting people? And if they do why wouldn't you toke up and avoid that little honor all together even if you didn't really desire to use drugs recreationally? Kind of like a temporary 4F in a can.

8. If all the illegal narcotics became legal overnight, why would we expect criminals to abdicate that ground totally? Would't there be at least a chance criminal enterprise would come up with newer and more intoxicating synthetics to recapture some of that market share?

9. We assume that if drugs are legal the profit will disappear? I'm not convinced the felon importers might not be able to undershoot our base $ especially given theirs will always be tax free?

10. When drugs are legal I guess what...the drug questions will magically come off of the gun buyers yellow sheet? More likely we'll all have to pee in a cup if we plan to buy a firearm, maybe even if we plan on keeping the ones we have. Would Schuuuuumer and Difi make the claim we, as gun owners need to be tested to KABA? If I were their particular kind of skunk possibly so, eventually? If they did and the lab guy is stoned the day he runs your test and gets it wrong do you have to turn in you collection?

I really could care less what experiences pro or con any foreign country has had with legalization. I plan to keep living in the US and driving here and raising a family here. From a perfectly selfish POV I can't see how legalization and lots more stoned people on the elevator improves the outlook for any of those personal points of interest.

Given my personal belief that far too many people in this country are a bit rudderless and have a leaning toward excess, I have to believe we will see an expansion in the number of human culls in our midst post-legalization. But then again, those that undergo elective mental enfeeblement via legal drugs just might be that group of Americans that are willing to happily clean bathrooms and mow yards for small change that are currently claimed not to exist in this country.

S-

[Michigander]

1, 2, 3, 4, & 6: already was, is and will be the case.

5: Probably. But maybe they won't be performing no-knocks.

7: Our military already has its share of users. That won't change.

8: Perhaps, but it probably wouldn't be too cost effective, especially when the big pharmacuticals will patent any new drugs that come along. If the street dealers patent them, well then, they would be business men and not criminals.

9: The felon importers would just become importers.

10: Probably going to happen even though drugs will never be legalized.

[Selfdfenz]

1, 2, 3, 4, & 6: already was, is and will be the case.

Not with me yet, nor my child nor my job so far etc.

5: Probably. But maybe they won't be performing no-knocks.

Sure they will, just for other reasons. Gotta make sure those tax stamps are in place.

7: Our military already has its share of users. That won't change.

Not the point I made, which I did very clearly.

8: Perhaps, but it probably wouldn't be too cost effective, especially when the big pharmacuticals will patent any new drugs that come along. If the street dealers patent them, well then, they would be business men and not criminals.

Well, no. Ex is cheap to make and cheap to import. I may be wrong but I believe meth is realitively cheap to make. Dangerous process but cheap. Already cost effective. Why give up the profit.

No legit drug company will touch illicit drugs with a 10'pole even IF they became legal. They get sued enough already and make much more money with other things. Never happen.

9: The felon importers would just become importers.
Perfect world then Uh? Just like OPEC.

10: Probably going to happen even though drugs will never be legalized.
Let's hope not:D
S-

[ksnecktieman]

self defenz? I am not and never have been a user, and I have no plans to be. If someone is willing to break the law, he can buy a few hundred dollars worth of legal components and produce ten thousand dollars worth of meth in one day. That is a pretty wild profit margin. The reason that margin is there is because it is illegal. The man that makes it can take one tenth of his production to the nearest grade school and give it away. Say he gives away one hundred doses of it. If he only captures one out of ten of the school children he gives it to he has a market for the rest of it. Production is less than ten percent of cost. The free samples he gave out is less than ten percent of product. THAT is good business.
The manufacturer/dealer will fight to keep other sellers from his customers.
These children (using the term loosely, ten to 17 year olds) have no income to buy with. They WILL steal and sell dope to support their habit. When they get older they will still be hooked, and they will still steal, and sell dope, and manufacture dope to support their own habit.

MY SOLUTION,, Manufacture these drugs legally, liddy, or bayer, or if needed, the federal government itself. Sell them for double the cost of mass producing them.

THE RESULTS,,,,
No one will bother making drugs at home because it is too expensive.
There is no windfall profit to be realized by hooking kids, so there will be no dealers handing out samples at schools.
The drug enforcement agencies can be closed down, saving billions of dollars. (If you have trouble comprehending billions consider,, 270 million americans at four dollars each is 1.08 billion.)
The major companies today do not hire drug users. That will not change. They do not keep anyone that comes to work drunk either, is there a difference?
The massive prison populations we have at present will be reduced.
Driving under the influence of drugs should be punished the same as driving under the influence of alcohol.

Yes, there will be deaths from overdoses,,, there already are anyway. Yes, there will be health problems from drugs,,,, there already are anyway. Yes, there will be people fit for nothing but sweeping floors because of drugs,,, there are anyway. Yes, there will be drugs in the military,,, etc.

I do not see the down side of legalizing drugs. Do you see a flaw in my logic? Does anyone have a logical rebuttal?

:confused:

[Selfdfenz]

ksnecktieman

First thanks for the response and the non-dismissive mode in which you delivered it.

I think you make the same points, based on reason, most in favor of legalization make.

Unfortunatly ignored is:

1. the fact that drugs are addictive and they will remain so, legal or not ( I thought given the recent cigarette holocost, addictive is bad, guess not)

2. the constillation of unintended consequences should not be ignored but are by many in the pro camp and I postulated some in my post a few lines up in brief. If there is one single point I think the pros are just a little conveniently dismissive of, it's this point>>unintended consequences<<.

3. the governemnt is fighting the WOD and I'll admit badly, but rather than focusing on the real target...the government...I can't help but think what I see is the logical and moral high ground (that more narcotics are not good for this society or any other) should not be abdicated, even if the drugs were distributed for free, right along with addiction treatment (which I think we both know someone will have to pay for, and who that someone will be...taxpayers, one way or the other)

4. many think the large pharmas will hop on the production bandwagon, I would like to see independent resources stating that, rather than speculation...which Companies have made such statments and where can I access them?

5. government production...Lordy....the pros decry no-knok raids and privacy intrusions but are comfortable to have Uncle Sam be their National pusher....where's that logic? I can't even begin to address how wrong headed and totally scary that concept is to me personally. Having the govenment distribute addictive substances would give a select set of pols one heck of lot of control over what might come to be a sizable segment of society. The "Ultimate Dependents".....

6. What exactly will the Nation do 20-30-50 years down the road if the supposed economic benefits of legalization are not realized? The excesses by the Gov in the WOD don't correct but rather stay with us?
What if the impact on society goes in directions no one could have predicted (my feeling is they will be and are being ignored in the initial run-up to legalization) and we decide it was a bad experiment and an ill considered attempt to fix the "illegalization problem"?
Again, how we gonna put that Genie back in the bottle? We can't even fix social security.........

I did not come up with the concept, but the phrase " First, do no harm" comes to mind. Without apology, I'm in the camp that feels the harm cased by legalization will be greater, and different, than that we experience daily in the case where narcotics are illegal and from the excess of the so-called WODs. I find most all of the arguments by the pro camp to the contrary way less than re-assuring.

Sorry if I did not hit your points line-by-line but I am open minded enough to say this...... Narcotics may be legalized. Good chance I think, sadly.

If that happens, I think it's a poor option for our Country. If narcotics are legalized it will not improve the quality of life in this Nation, or statistically, the quality of the human beings in it as the percentage that opt to become users increases. Call me old fashioned, but I think the more sober a society is, the more likely it is to make sound decisions and evolve in a positive direction. Not unlike the individual.
I don't think we will see the government retract and suddenly become less intrusive, but rather stay the same or get worse. (see my post a line or two up). Can't say I feel more comfortable with the Federal Government pushing,controlling, manufacturing drugs than the goober down the street or in Colombia, less actually.

If narcotics are legalized, I pray I am totally wrong about all of the above.

Take care,
S-

Periodically on THR we see the proverbial when the SHTF scenarios. Tin foil hat mode on....wonder what would happen in a major SHTF in this nation with 5-10-50 times the number of junkies we have now.....?......and the drug stores are all close...?...might make a good movie uh?.

[Yowza]

1. the fact that drugs are addictive and they will remain so, legal or not ( I thought given the recent cigarette holocost, addictive is bad, guess not)

Irrelevant. Personal responsibility is the key here.


it's this point>>unintended consequences<<.

Most of the postulated unintended consequences from your previous post seem to be predicated on the fact that a very large percentage of the population would be drug abusers overnight if drugs were made legal. Why do you assume this? Would you start sniffing coke just because it's legal? How many people in your personal life do you think would?


even if the drugs were distributed for free, right along with addiction treatment

Call me heartless, but I do not advocate this under any circumstances. If people want to throw their lives away, it's not my problem.

many think the large pharmas will hop on the production bandwagon, I would like to see independent resources stating that, rather than speculation...which Companies have made such statments and where can I access them?

First of all, why on earth would you think that any pharma company would come out and state that they would distribute something currently illegal? That would be a good PR move, right? Second of all, why on earth would you think any pharma company would pass up the chance to make tons of money on something that is perfectly legal? That would be a good business decision, right?


government production...Lordy....the pros decry no-knok raids and privacy intrusions but are comfortable to have Uncle Sam be their National pusher....where's that logic?

I don't know who was pushing this idea, but as for me, I don't want the government involved on one side or the other. If they want to tax it at a reasonable rate, I could live with that. Deciding on reasonable I'm sure would be a problem, though.

What exactly will the Nation do 20-30-50 years down the road if the supposed economic benefits of legalization are not realized?

There's an awful lot of speculation in that question. I think 20-50 year planning is best undertaken on issues that we can actually project that far out, like social security and medicare.

I'm in the camp that feels the harm cased by legalization will be greater

Government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves, PERIOD. Do you want to give up your guns because you MIGHT accidentally shoot yourself?

Rick

[ksnecktieman]

Maybe I should state my basic premise for my beliefs.

I do not think we can win the war on drugs as long as we allow people to get rich by selling them.

As long as astronomical profits are attainable we will have drugs introduced to our children at an innocent age where they can not make an informed decision.

Remove the profit, and the problem will fade. I do not think it will ever go away completely, but it will be reduced to acceptable levels.

[mercedesrules]

(Yowza) I can't answer for Firethorn of course, but if I had a choice between semi-socialized medicine (which we already have) and ending the WOD then I'd pick ending the WOD in a heartbeat.

Rick
For the sake of clarity, Rick, I am against both the war on drugs and taxation.

All I meant is that it is immoral to make strangers (even other drug users) pay to treat drug addicts (or any other sick persons).

MR

[444]

I get the distinct feeling when reading this thread that a lot of people have no idea what so ever of just how many people are walking around, working, driving, raising kids, educating kids.................................... stoned. I think that some of these people believe that drug usage is rare or something that only happens on TV.



Please allow me to tell a brief war story.
As many of you know, I work as a paramedic and have since the early 80s. Once upon a time, I had someone from Georgia ride along with me for a shift (why I don't remember). After the first 6-8 calls she said to me, "I don't mean to question how you do your job, but why don't you tell the nurses at the ER that the patient is on drugs or is drunk, or both". My answer, "It would be more worthy of mention if they wern't." "When we finish this shift, I doubt that we will transport anybody to the hosptial that isn't stoned, drunk, or both."
At the end of the shift, and maybe 20 calls later we did eventually have one patient that wasn't impaired.

One thing that makes my job unusual is that I get into aspects of people's lives that a lot of other people never see. It isn't because I make it a point to do so, but we spend all day and night going into strange people's homes, cars, bars, clubs, places of business.........................................
I can assure you that the odds are, you have no idea what is going on in society.

[Firethorn]

I didn't realize that my 'socialized' treatment centers would spark such controversy.

I suggested a 'sin' tax to fund treatment centers along the idea that gasoline taxes help fund the road system. While I don't support complete socialization of medical practices, I figured the tax would help more people accept it. Maybe it's a product of the public schools. I'm mostly a libertarian. On the other hand, incrementalism is an accepted practice. You can eliminate/reduce the tax if the treatment centers are underutilized/find private funding. If they want, they can even use some of the funding for 'don't do drugs' ads. Of course, I hate some of those commercials that exagerate/lie about bad effects. I especially dislike the ones that talk about the criminal aspect, as that suggests to the teenager part of my mind that I can do drugs to defy authority!

Even with the sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol, the black market for untaxed products is limited. The lower the tax rate/regulation, the less of a black market. As long as the taxes aren't 'prohibition' level, it would vastly limit the illegal market. I'm not so stupid as to suggest that it would eliminate it, but it would limit it.

My idea of funding treatment centers for the hopelessly addicted is based on the idea that the people ending up in them would most likely end up in prison otherwise. And it probably would be cheaper. If you must have the government involved, at least target the taxes to fund the effort as closely as possible.

The problem with the black market for cigarettes is that the sin tax is too high. Still, the market is limited, as the legal option is not that much more expensive. It's usually corrupt businesses that do it.

[Don Gwinn]

I was shocked today. We were talking about crystal meth at Easter dinner and my law-and-order Republican grandfather said from nowhere: "They're just going to have to do the same thing they done with booze. We'll have to make it all legal and tax the hell out of it."

Now, you can trust me on this. The fact that Grandpa Rutherford is talking that way means that legalization is more entrenched and spreading faster than I ever thought.

[MeekandMild]

Er, guys,

Would it be too much to ask when you legalize all this crap, would you also make it legal to refuse medical care to people who have bad trips but who have no money to pay for their emergency room visits, et cetera? Now the rule is if you're having a bad trip just go down to the local hospital and sign in. The difference between hospital at $700 per day and Holiday Inn at $50 bucks per day is if you stiff the Holiday Inn and don't pay your bill they put you in jail.

Or at least, make the tax money on the drugs go to pay for medical care and not to line some politician's pocket?

thanks,

Meek

[mercedesrules]

(444) I get the distinct feeling when reading this thread that a lot of people have no idea what so ever of just how many people are walking around, working, driving, raising kids, educating kids.................................... stoned.
That's a good argument...for legalizing drugs! People that are high are usually indistinguishable from everyone else! That's why they test them; their behavior is fine.
I work as a paramedic ...etc.
You'll excuse me, but this is the socialism problem again. When the consequences of bad behavior are subsidized, more will occur.
(Firethorn) I'm mostly a libertarian. (but...etc)
The reason you are so conflicted, FT, is that sin taxes are decidedly un-libertarian. Libertarians aren't concerned with limiting drug use. They are concerned with individual liberty and personal responsibility. Mess with drugs? Fix your own addiction. Just as if it was bungee-jumping.

The point about it being cheaper than prison is utilitarian. If drugs weren't illegal, users wouldn't end up in prison. Who goes to prison for stealing to afford cigarettes?

The state should not be involved in what we ingest.

MR

[goon]

I'm for legalizing drugs too.
If you want to get stoned in your basement, that is your business, not mine.
Now if you get stoned in your basement, then get in your car and hurt someone, you should get the death penalty. Same with drunk driving.
It does sound harsh but there is no excuse for putting other people at risk like that.
I am all for all the liberty I can get, but I also believe in absolute responsibilty.

[mercedesrules]

(MeekandMild) Would it be too much to ask when you legalize all this crap, would you also make it legal to refuse medical care to people who have bad trips but who have no money to pay for their emergency room visits, et cetera?
No. ;)

All markets should be free...to give or refuse service for any reason, whatsoever.

MR

[MeekandMild]

The state should not be involved in what we ingest. Then the state and its citizens shouldn't have to pay your hospital bills.

No. ;) All markets should be free...to give or refuse service for any reason, whatsoever. That sounds like a good Bob Kerry answer. So make up your mind, which is it? No or yes? :D

[Firethorn]

It's true.

We shouldn't be forced to pay for other's health care, no matter if it's for drugs or cancer. We have plenty of private health care services to provide for that.

On the other hand, some hardcore abusers will end up commiting crimes to feed their habit, no matter what. They do it now, and will do it in the future. We don't know yet whether ending the WOD will increase or decrease their numbers. I'm betting the numbers will remain stable or decrease, and the other effects would be positive overall.

The prison system is expensive enough that I think some research into seeing if treatment centers might be a better idea, at least for non-violent offenders. I'd support them for ALL drug abuse, even alcohol and tobacco. Research has shown tobacco to be one of the most addictive drugs out there.

It's a purely pragmatic move on my part. I view ending the WOD as a more important goal than re-privatizing medical care.

One thing that we have to avoid is ghettoizing drug use. If we have a 'test' city, town, or state. We would have the problem that most of the users would move there, upsetting the balance. This would result in the politicals being able to point fingers and say 'it doesn't work!'

[mjydrafter]

Wow, some excellent new posts in this old thread. I know I said I wouldn't post anymore on this subject, but... really it's been like a year...:D

I would be curious; lets say for arguments sake, that we decide to go the route of freedom and allow peaceable citizens to put into thier own bodies whatever they choose.

We would also review every case of forfieture, and every case of imprisonment due to the prohibition of certian substances in cases where the only crime was possesion. (this would have a cost, but the overall savings would be greater in the long run, when we had room in our prisons for actual criminals, and the courts weren't clogged with prohibition cases.)

Now, we also put our law enforcement resources towards problems like actual crime, ie; murder, theft, fraud, and that one thing everyone is talking about...real honest to goodness terrorism (not some stretch of logic that some local law enforcement/prosecutor came up with to make a name for themselves).

Lets add in industrial hemp production for fun. Hemp seeds produce oil in quantities second only to soybeans, in a much easier to grow plant (it's a weed!). We have our farmers producing the best source of biomass material around, and/or a renewable source of energy (seed oil).

Think about these things and the "trickle down" effect they would have. I would bet we could have some of our lost freedoms back and end most of the redistribution of wealth that goes on every year about this time. I think the amount of money we would save would be staggering.

[mercedesrules]

(M&M) That sounds like a good Bob Kerry answer. So make up your mind, which is it? No or yes?
Haha! I was joking about your phrasing of the question. You asked, "Would it be too much to ask when you legalize all this crap, would you also make it legal to refuse medical care to people who have bad trips but who have no money to pay for their emergency room visits, et cetera?

I answered, "No, (it would not be too much to ask.") ;)

MR

[mercedesrules]

(Firethorn) On the other hand, some hardcore abusers will end up commiting crimes to feed their habit, no matter what.
Not very often when drugs are the price of celery.

MR

[Firethorn]

Not very often when drugs are the price of celery.

Studies have shown that the 'abuse' rate, where people use drugs to the point that they can't support themselves, is pretty much constant. It almost doesn't matter if it's free, the rest of life costs money. You're going to have some trouble where some people are so whacked out that they can't hold a job, so can't afford their drug. These people are around today. While them drying out because they don't have the cash/credit to buy them is a nice thought, at least a percentage of them will turn to crime to try to feed their habit.

Yes, the percentage would be low, but it'd still be there.

[mercedesrules]

(Firethorn) Yes, the percentage would be low, but it'd still be there.
Agreed. As they say, "Utopia is not an option".

MR

[MeekandMild]

Haha! I was joking about your phrasing of the question. Says one publik skule gradurate to another... :D

You know, I never did find out what was the difference in a preposition and a participle. All I know was Jesus recruited 12 participles and Lincoln acted under the preposition that all men were created equal.

[Ky Larry]

As Chris Rock said,"Any time crack cocaine is cheaper than asthma medicine, you have lost the war on drugs."

Insanity- Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We keep arresting and jailing people for drugs but there are more drugs on the streets than ever before and they are cheaper and higher quality. We've lost the war on drugs. It is a failure. It doesn't work. It's time to try something different.

[Yowza]

While them drying out because they don't have the cash/credit to buy them is a nice thought, at least a percentage of them will turn to crime to try to feed their habit.

And the police forces will have plenty of resources to capture them and the prisons will have plenty of room to hold them. Or they'll get capped by some law-abiding gun owner and we'll all cheer.

Rick

[lycanthrope]

I can assure you that the odds are, you have no idea what is going on in society. (Originally posted by 444.)

I hear that loud and clear.

I am an administrator/psychotherapist for a local agency. It's my job to provide in-home services to families. I see families from all age groups, ethnicity, social class and otherwise. Most have substance abuse issues of some sort. That doesn't mean I'm always attacking the use. If the abuse/use isn't causing major problems in their system, we don't bother touching it. We simply don't have time. I'm more worried about any behavior that is going to get someone hurt right now.

We don't have the resources to wage a war on drugs. I wish we did, because we really can't afford to let it go. I'm not saying the current war is effective.....because it's not, but we need to reduce the number of people on drugs.

Locally, in a small town in PA, around 70% of high school seniors have used marijuana. 1-3% of SIX GRADERS have huffed inhalants. I've been doing this work for 10 years and I can guarantee you. It is definately getting more widespread. (Heroin is on the upsring here now that it is smokeable and doesn't carry the penalties that crack does......because the penalties go by weight and horse is light.)

Most don't have immediate problems.

Neither do 3 out of 4 cigarette smokers, but the 1 in 4 that do have taxed our health care system (2 major killers are heart disease and lung cancer. Both kill slow and are costly. Why do you think the gov't supports cigarette reduction? 'Cause they care about your health!?). Marijuana has several times over the carcinogens........ Just because you played Russian roullette and survived doesn't mean the game is harmless........

I know the WOD costs money, but........... let me remind you:

YOU pay the money for police to break up the domestic violence that can be linked to some forms of drug abuse (unless you want to give women the freedom to get beat by their cracked out boyfriends)

YOU pay for the extra security in school because of the mental health disorders linked to usage during pregnancy and childrearing.

YOU pay in lost funding for your school because the small percentage who are true "stoners" lost 10 points on their IQ due to smoking weed 3x a week for the past year.

YOU pay for several underfunded agencies to work with these kids and adults for YEARS so they don't go postal......(or should I let them in your kids school? Don't blame me.......my program is nearly 90% effective, but I may lose it because everyone thinks that working with "bad" kids/families doesn't effect them.....)

YOU pay for the health care of the poor who get cancer for smoking 5 blunts a day (yeah, I have 15 year old kids doing 5 FREAKING blunts...A DAY. Before you say this isn't fair, how many of you can afford to pay for your loved one who has cancer?)

YOU pay the increased taxes and insurance costs because 444 is cleaning up clumsy stoned people (Or.....Do we let them drop dead on the sidewalk in front of your 5 year old?)

No one will ever really know the math..........

Until then, I'll do my best to dig some of these people out.....somehow.

In the meantime, stay hot because that one guy in 1000 who is on PCP may be looking at your door.....or your daughter. If making it legal would increase it to 2 in 1000 would you do it?

Peace......

Lyc

[Firethorn]

lycanthrope, your post never really contradicted our viewpoint, but there are some points.

1. An amount of the problem is adulteration of drugs. This would be pretty much eliminated if the FDA at least had a standardization of purity for the drugs. A practical consideration, if you think.

2. We're predicting that the amount of usage would remain stable. Economic loss from the WOD would be eliminated. The funding could be redirected to treatment, as well as converting funds that are making drug lords rich to tax revenues. As in we'd have the money to fund the treatment centers.

3. Sure, cigarettes are harmfull. So isn't alot of stuff, including being fat. I have to say that I believe that we have to allow people to harm themselves. Part of the 'pursuit of happiness' thing. If knocking 10 points of IQ off is their thing, so be it.

4. Part of the idea is that the people would be less likely to use dangerous drugs like PCP if the other (safer) are cheaper and more available. We can start with the 'soft' drugs first, then work our way to the more dangerous, keeping an eye on the effects.

5. I don't think that any one of us hasn't supported throwing the book at criminals, whatever reason they're commiting crimes for. Whether it be for drugs, because of drugs, money, or just for the hell of it. After all, the prisons would be significantly more empty after this.

[lycanthrope]

Firethorn,

Contradiction was never my intention. I'm for people doing what they want....as long as they don't effect me in a negative way. I simply have personal experience with observing how these problems do effect me.

As for the prediction that the usage would remain stable....I think that would depend on cultural factors and it sure isn't staying stable now.......

And....I just can't see how any regulated company/gov't could produce drugs cheaper than Joe Smith down the street. Some drugs like meth are dangerous and would require dangerous materials precautions and secure sites so as not to blow up city blocks. Even a high scale Marijuana farmer has overhead and insurance costs for his employees. Heck, I could get a dime bag full of seeds right now and grow my own for eternity......why go to Wal Mart for it? It's still gonna cost more than cigarettes for the same reason that the gov't is upping the cost of the coffin nails.....health care.

[444]

"I can assure you that the odds are, you have no idea what is going on in society."

A little off topic, but I get a big kick out of the nightly TV "news". They show a breaking news story of a drug lab bust, or an indoor marijuana farm, or a shooting, or some guy that snapped and held his whole family hostage or whatever. And they interview some moron who says, " I can't believe something like this happened in our neighborhood".
Guess what ?
They have no idea what is going on in society.
This stuff only happens on TV. It is something they think exists for the sole purpose of making movies more exciting.
Wrong. It is happening in your neighborhood. It is happening with half the cars you pass going to work. It is happening in your kids schools. Members of your church are involved. Members of your gun club are involved.
Paranoid ?
Truth is stanger than fiction and I have seen far too much of this with my own eyes to consider myself paranoid. I also have seen enough of it to know that anyone who thinks this is paranoid has their head buried in the sand.

[444]

I just got an E-Mail from my mother. One of those things that is similar to something you get everday. This one is a list of trivia about life in the US in the year 1904; 100 years ago. I don't know if these things are real, I never investigated it. But, here are two of the trivia "facts" listed:

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available
over the counter at corner drugstores. According to
one pharmacist, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives
buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and
bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health."

There were only about 230 reported murders in the
entire U.S.

:confused:

[mercedesrules]

(Lycanthrope) I am an administrator/psychotherapist for a local agency.
Is your employer public or private?

MR

[fjolnirsson]

The following is from a site recommended by my academy instructor(a sergeant with the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Narcotics team) for learning about drugs.

A small portion of the "timeline of Heroin"

1874 Heroin is first synthesized from Morphine by chemist C.R. Alder Wright at St. Mary's Hospital in London. Its potential was not recognized.

1897 Heroin is synthesized by Felix Hoffman at Bayer Pharmaceutical. Bayer immediately recognized its potential and began marketing it heavily for the treatment of a variety of respiratory ailments.

1898 One year after beginning sales, Bayer exports heroin to 23 countries.

Early 1900s Doctors and pharmacists begin noticing that patients are consuming large amounts of heroin containing cough remedies.

1906 Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, regulating the labelling of products containing Alcohol, Opiates, Cocaine, and Cannabis, among others. The law went into effect Jan 1, 1907

1911 British Pharmaceutical Codex notes that heroin is as addictive as morphine.

1913 Bayer ceases producing heroin.

Dec 17, 1914 The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act is passed, regulating and imposing a tax upon the sale of Opium, Heroin and Cocaine for the first time. The Act took effect Mar 1, 1915.

1924 The Heroin Act passes, making manufacture and possession of heroin illegal in the U.S.


Interesting, yes?

More info can be had at The Vaults of Erowid
(Edited to add:Some of the info on this site is spotty, but I'd say about 95% is spot on. The timeline above is, IIRC, totally correct.)

http://www.erowid.org

[lycanthrope]

Is your employer public or private?

Private, non profit.

[mercedesrules]

Is your employer public or private?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private, non profit.
Then, why did you say this:
YOU pay for several underfunded agencies to work with these kids and adults for YEARS so they don't go postal......(or should I let them in your kids school? Don't blame me.......my program is nearly 90% effective, but I may lose it because everyone thinks that working with "bad" kids/families doesn't effect them.....)
Who pays your salary? Is it charity, tax-funded or the patient paying? The reason it is important to me is that when people make an argument that I should be for the war on drugs because drug use is costing me money, I consider it a problem of socialism - not drugs.

Take away the taxpayer subsidy of most risks and it then becomes a matter of personal responsibility - like skiing, bungee-jumping or sky-diving.

MR

[lycanthrope]

Funding comes from United way and County revenue since most referral are going to come from Children and Youth Services and Probation.

County and state funds are picking up the bill. Your taxes......

[outfieldjack]

Remember, I am not saying that I personally think drugs are good. I have never touched any drug except caffine. However, I think SOME drugs are okay when used in moderation, when someone is not at a young age. No, I am not talking about meth or heroin, I mean alcohol or marijuana. WHEN USED IN MODERATION AT THE RIGHT AGE. Remember, I have never touched the stuff.

How can you say something is "ok" to do when you have never used it yourself?

[mercedesrules]

(Lycanthrope) Funding comes from United way and County revenue since most referral are going to come from Children and Youth Services and Probation.

County and state funds are picking up the bill. Your taxes......
In that case, I'll delicately tiptoe away from the personal aspect concerning you and your job to merely state that IMO, no tax money should go to medical care - especially for conditions the patient causes for himself.

In a free market, if there is a demand for drug treatment, it will be supplied.

MR

[lycanthrope]

The everyone who is obese or has heart disease because they didn't exercise, smokes, or accidentally shoots themself is out of luck.........

Good idea. Hard to regulate.

[mercedesrules]

(Lycanthrope) Hard to regulate.

(MR)...no tax money should go to medical care...

MR

[lycanthrope]

If any of us could afford medical care, that would be perfect.

But mdeical care has become so bloated and technically oriented that I don't think it's possible.

[atek3]

who do you think "affords" medical care right now? the magical pixy fairy who sprinkles down MRI´s and quadruple bypass surgeries?

It has become so 'bloated' precisely because people don´t pay for the little stuff, insurance companies and the government are trying to foot all the bills, 'manage the costs' etc. Instead if we let the average consumer pay out of pocket for 'normal' expenses (which would be much less without the government/insurance bureaucrats added overhead) and had catastrophic insurance coverage for the really serious expenses health care would be higher quality and cheaper.


Some of the info on this site is spotty, but I'd say about 95% is spot on

Whoa whoa, erowid.org, I don´t know. New England Journal of Medicine did an unbiased study in which they proved Erowid is just partisian misinformation which has killed people, see here for details:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1473/a08.html
or here http://www.nationalfamilies.org/update/dau-082101.html

Whereas erowid is a bunch of propaganda, here are some better pages
http://www.freevibe.com
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/

atek3

[dustind]

lycanthrope: If there would be no profit in producing meth after ending the WOsD, why would people risk blowing up their house to produce it?

I doubt there would be much of a risk if you could openly buy what you needed to produce meth the right way. Businesses currently make more volatile stuff than meth without trouble.

Then there is the benefit of known dosages and safer drugs that use safer ingredients.

[Yowza]

Locally, in a small town in PA, around 70% of high school seniors have used marijuana.

While I agree that drug abuse is most likely more widespread than a lot of people would believe, I don't think that the above quote can be taken as an indication of that. "Have used" does not equal abuse. Hell, I've smoked marijuana and cigarettes before, but I can count the number of times on my fingers. I used to drink alchohol from time to time but I haven't had so much as a beer in at least a year.

High school and college students experiment. It's part of growing up. Reminds me of that South Park episode where the counselor starts doing drugs. "It's not that people use drugs that's the problem, it's that they forget to stop. There's a time and place for everything and it's called college." Or something like that.

And I agree with atek3 wholeheartedly on the medical care issues. There always seems to be a lot of circular reasoning when it comes to things like that. Medical costs are too high so we need more government assistance and cost control. Crime is too high so we need more gun-control laws. Etc., etc.

Rick

[lycanthrope]

I doubt there would be much of a risk if you could openly buy what you needed to produce meth the right way. Businesses currently make more volatile stuff than meth without trouble.

Currently, I can get all the products to produce meth at my local grocery market and hardware store. Wal-Mart is already selling it so how will it be undercut?

Then there is the benefit of known dosages and safer drugs that use safer ingredients

Everybody knows the legal blood/alcohol limit for driving, but it's one of our biggest problems. Knowing the safe limit means nothing to problem users.

I'mnot saying a LOT of people can't do drugs without problem. I'm saying we can't afford the pecentage who do, because we can't even afford the percentage who smoke cigarrettes or drive drunk.

[Firethorn]

outfieldjack: How can you say something is "ok" to do when you have never used it yourself?

I don't consider drugs 'ok'. It's just like some vegetarians have no problems with others eating meat. I consider it to be a personal choice. I don't think it's for me, but banning it is more damaging than allowing it.


Lycanthrope: As far as being undercut, consider the difference between home production and MASS production.

As for home meth production being cheaper, consider that you're paying RETAIL for impure supplies. The business manufacturer will be making larger quantities using better precurser chemicals purchased at bulk rates with commercial chemical equipment and not have to worry about FDA busts. They'll be able to make it VERY cheap.

A major part is that while Walmart/the hardware store carry stuff that can be adapted to do the job, that you can flip through a chemical lab catalog and find items that might cost 10-1000x more, but can do it more consistently, faster, and safely. Right now buying those products is too expensive for a lab that's liable to get shut down by the cops (total loss of equipment) because they can't produce for long enough. Buying that equipment tends to send up red flags, and trying to get better precursers send up fireworks. You get some chemical/medical drug engineers on it, they'll put the gang's out of the drug business.

Consider home beer brewing. Once you start considering your time spent for the venture as labor, can you make beer as cheap as the major breweries? Nope. Most people do it for the unique beers they can make. You can compete with the 'deluxe' market in price.

Or, more on topic: Reloading! If you consider your time as labor, can you make ammo cheaper per box than winchester whitebox? For the 9MM crowd? Can you beat the price of Russian 7.62x39?

edit: Is it just me, or is the forum dropping a couple of words in my post?

[fjolnirsson]

Whoa whoa, erowid.org, I don´t know. New England Journal of Medicine did an unbiased study in which they proved Erowid is just partisian misinformation which has killed people, see here for details:

Atek,
Hmm. Well, I'm just going by my experiences through people II know who have used and medical reports, etc. So far, it's been a good source. As with everything, it must be taken with several grains of salt. I definitely don't claim to be the world's greatest authority on anything.
But thank you for the info. It's always good to have alternate resources.
I will check those out.

[MeekandMild]

I definitely don't claim to be the world's greatest authorityy on anything. That's a first for THR ;) I thought everybody here was a retired rocket scientist. :neener:

Seriously for a minute, Knowing the safe limit means nothing to problem users. This is the reason I would oppose legalization unless there were a rule allowing them to suffer the logical consequences of their misconduct without sticking the taxpayers. OTOH, if the No Pay - No Bailout rule were in effect, the problem users would weed themselves out in a few months and there would be no problem.

This sounds very cruel, but I would think that if you look back throughout all of history nations seem to fall just a few years after they start protecting their citizens from consequences of maladaptive pleasurable behaviors.

[Firethorn]

I agree about having to avoid protecting people from their own excesses.

For safety's sake though, especially over the hump of legalization. I'd support funding dryout centers with a tax on the drugs. The best ones are not pleasant though. Of course, you look at the welfare rolls right now, we can afford to keep a number of people in minimal lifestyles. I'm talking quaker technology level type places. Good old manual labor. Or you don't eat.

;)

[444]

".....unless there were a rule allowing them to suffer the logical consequences of their misconduct without sticking the taxpayers."

I hear you. And I agree with you. But I don't think it would work out from a practical standpoint. You see, I would be the one that goes to someones home and then tell who ever else was there that he was ODed and I wasn't going to do anything about it. How long do you think it would take before someone stuck a pistol to my head and nicely informed me that I was going to do something about it ? What happens if I am wrong and the person is actually has another problem that I could have treated ? What happens when someone is dumped in front of the door of an ER ? Do they just have someone transport the person to the morgue ? Or do they leave them there until they are actually dead before taking them to the morgue ? What happens when someone gets high and freaks out ? Do the police come and take them to some kind of dungeon ?
Of course this is all assuming that the lawyers decide to go along with this which they wouldn't.
I guess it is nice to dream, but I have a better chance of hitting the Powerball than anything even remotely like this ever happening and I dont' even have a ticket.

[lycanthrope]

Amen.

When I get the crisis call about some teenage girl who just OD'ed on accessible drugs do I just get to let her go? I mean, I have to tell the parents it's her choice.....(even 14 year olds can refuse mental health treatment today)...right?

What if I find out later she did it because she was raped by the neighbor a few months ago and no one knew........

This job is hard enough without that.

[444]

Not only that, but what about suicide gestures ?
Someone breaks up with their SO and takes something as a suicide gesture. Now they might take perscription medications or OTC medications. They aren't junkies, this is a mental problem. So if instead they use heroin (having never used before) do we just tell them, too bad ?
What if you don't know what they took ? How do you decide whether to work them or not ?

[Mil Novecientos Once]

Big, fat, corporate and greedy USA won't allow it. The legalization of some drugs will affect its economy, remember that there are billions of dollars in drug money going back and forth between countries.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1996-01-01_2.pdf


http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1998-01-01_1.pdf

[atek3]

fjolnirsson, sarcasm man. Sarcasm.

atek3

[fjolnirsson]

fjolnirsson, sarcasm man. Sarcasm.

DOH!
Got it.;)

[MeekandMild]

Not only that, but what about suicide gestures ? Someone breaks up with their SO and takes something as a suicide gesture. Don't try that in Holland, Europe's testing ground for drug lagalization, which coincidentally is Europe's testing ground for "physician assisted suicide".

[444]

I don't work in Holland, so the issue still exists for me.

[mercedesrules]

I guess we have to have the damned war on drugs to make emergency workers' jobs easier.

MR

[444]

:rolleyes:

Actually you would do better to get rid of the "personal injury" lawyers.

[dustind]

This is the reason I would oppose legalization unless there were a rule allowing them to suffer the logical consequences of their misconduct without sticking the taxpayers. Even if we did not get that part through we would save more than we spent on all the .gov bailout several times over. It would be cheaper for the .gov to buy everyone all the drugs they want, and put them in four star treatment centers than to fight the war on drugs. Plus there are all the other benefits.

444: The problems you mentioned have pretty simple answers. If people can buy treatment, the hospital is generous, or their insurance covers them, they get help, otherwise not. People putting a gun to your head would be dealt with the same way they are now, by the police. Hospitals refusing service is not new, it does happen. The police know how to handle people that freak out. None of your problems are deal breakers, they can be worked out no matter how legalization happened.

[lycanthrope]

Dustind,

Um....when the police have people that freak out...they call me. They have very few options when a crime is not committed. When a person puts a gun to their head the police call your local county delegate. No person can be hospitalized against their will without a 302 comittment which can only be authorized by a delegate. At least in my state.

As far as ER care.....it is not refused.......ever. What 444 and I are saying (pardon my inclusion 444) is that we deal in emergency situations.......which often happen to be VERY pricey.

Four star treatment cannot be afforded. It is why health care in general cannot be afforded. Too many four star tests for two star problems.........

[444]

See the problem with a lot of this stuff is that it is easy to talk about from the comfort of your home. Like any problem, the back seat drivers and the Monday morning quarterbacks have all the answers. But, like any "solution" someone is going to be at the tip of the spear. In this case, it is me. So, I am looking at this from a different perspective than most people who have never done anything like this, and will never do anything like this, and who derive most of their entertainment from criticizing the people who actually do it from their Lazy Boy.

[Chewie]

OK first a couple general observations about drug use. I don't CARE what you choose to alter your reality with. What is LEGAL can do as much damage to you as any illegal drug when abused. My only concern is what happens to other people when you get high on your drug of choice. In those cases it should be the same as the laws for being drunk are now.
As to the cost of medical care. I work for a not for profit hospital. We do aim at making about 2% - 3% profit because with no margin you can't stay ahead of capital purchases etc. In other words you won't have the cash to buy new equipment, upgrade facilities etc. What that means is out of a $10,000 hosptial bill we clear about $250. OUTRAGOUS isn't it. I'm involved with the equipment and purchasing. Ever have somebody look down your throat or up your rear with a flexible scope. Those little beasties are around $25,000 each. We'll be putting in a new 5 room Endoscopy system, these scopes I'm talking about, and the all up cost of the scopes, computer interfaces etc is about $600,000 !!! A new MRI suite can run a couple million. Since John Q public wants only the best, or here come the lawyers, we have to buy the latest greatest frequently. All this equipment breaks some and repairs are equally expensive.
People who aren't involved in medical care have no idea about the cost. Look at it this way. If you're in an ICU room the bed your in is about $11,000 dollars. The monitors you're hooked up to run around $20,000 to $30,000 depending on options. The 17 inch flat pannel display for the bedside monitor cost $3500 because its MEDICAL grade. We HAVE to use medical grade equipment in patient rooms. Believe me we aren't making piles of money.
Sorry about the rant but it's a pet peave of mine.

P.S. Ever have one of the new drug emitting stents put in for a blocked artery. One company has the patent and they cost $10,000 each. That's still cheaper than open heart surgery. Medicare will pay for one sometimes 2 stents. We have put in 3 for good results and had to eat the cost.

[longrifleman]

444, I have a few questions.

As I understand it you are dealing with all the bad effects of drug use now.That's how you know what the problems are. I don't envy you your job at all, for what that's worth.

It is already illegal for people to use these chemicals. They do it anyway.

If they were legal more people might use some of them. Experience other places says usage would go up slightly for the most powerful and more for the milder ones. There would be some increased health costs to this. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

The problem I see is the already huge costs associated with the illegal trade. The folks who want to keep drugs illegal seem to have a hard time accepting the reality of their system.

What is the long term health costs of running large numbers of people through prison where AIDS and other diseases are a constant threat?

What is the long tern costs of putting large numbers of people in prison and reducing their chances of earning a decent living in the future, guaranteeing that the welfare system will be picking up the costs?

What would be the reduced costs for law enforcement if they weren't spending so much time trying to stop something that history has proven they are unable to stop? Not my opinion: when was the last time drug usage in this country went down and stayed down? We've spent billions and what do we have to show for it?

What is it worth for the government to admit that you and I own our own bodies, that we are not their property? The philosophy that justifies the government controlling us "for our own good" is based on that assumption, even if few realise it and no govt. offical will admit it.

That's enough for now. My fingers hurt-I need drugs!



ibuprofin




:neener:

[444]

I am not sure what question you want me to answer. Obviously I can't answer questions to the costs of any of this: I am at the bottom tier of the ladder.
I think you have a misconception. I have no problem at all with making drugs legal. I do have a problem with the pie in the sky idea that we are not going to treat these people for the medical problems they are going to suffer. Again, as I said before, in theory I don't have a problem with making people live with the product of their decisions and actions but it isn't reality. These people (or the people with them) will call 911 and I will respond. I will be the guy standing there telling them tough sh**. I don't think it would work out too good for me over the long term. Pardon me if I tend to get a little excited about this, but I see this as being a classic case of arm chair quarterbacking. It is very easy to discuss what ought to be done or what you would do; when you arn't the one having to do it. From a moral viewpoint, I don't know if I would want to stand there and let someone (anyone) die if there was something I could do about it. Take a heroin overdose or narcotic overdose as an example. I have seen a few. Maybe 100 +/-. It isn't all that unusual. When someone overdoses on a narcotic, they no longer breathe adequately or maybe stop breathing all together. This obviously kills them in short order. We carry a drug that can completely block the effects of narcotics. It is called Narcan (Naloxone Hydrochloride). I can breathe for this person, start an IV, and give this person 2cc (2MG) of this drug and within seconds or a minute he will be breathing fine and be fully alert as if he had never taken the drug. Knowing that I have this drug in the bag in my hand, am I going to tell the family or who ever, too bad, I hope you made funeral arragements ? I can answer that question very simply: No, I am not. Anymore than I am going to tell someone that I am not going to put the fire out in their house because their kids were playing with matches. No more than I am going to tell someone that I am not going to treat their cardiac related chest pain because they chose not to keep themselves healthy. No more than I am going to tell someone who's child is floating face down in a pool that they should have paid more attention to their kids. No more than I am going to tell someone trapped in a vehicle after an accident because they were on their cell phone.

[longrifleman]

Everyone else feel free to answer the questions and show me the error of my ways.

[yy]

444

how'd you feel if we fix it so you have the *right* to refuse to help if you cite personal responsibility?

(I'm going to ignore the abuses this *could* allow for this hypothetical question)

[444]

Pretty much anything bad that happens could have been prevented; especially if looking in hindsight.
The problem is that as a society, we insist of finding someone to blame. The fact that the problem exists isn't the issue, who we can blame for it is an issue.
If we decided to stop helping people because they are to blame for the problem, we could pretty much just stop helping everyone. Not just drug users.
This is one of those cases where we give government the power to do something and once the horse is out of the gate, there is no calling it back. You give them that power to suit your desires, however you have also given them permission to use that power as THEY see fit, not as you see fit. But once they have that power it is too late to change your mind.

[atek3]

Narcan should really be sold behind the counter at Walgreens, in an 'epi-pen' style one use injector for 5 dollars. No ID or prescription required, just a 'hello I'd like a Narca-pen'. In the box would be a set of instructions. This 'innovation' alone would probably cut fatal heroin OD's by about 50% (the other 50% being from people alone with no one to save them. In addition to cutting the fatalities, it would cut the medical expenses, no longer would highly trained paramedics have to drive a very expensive ambulance to stop a highly treatable problem.

atek3

[444]

I was going to say that, but I didn't want to branch off into the whole arena of allowing the peasants to buy any medication they want in the corner drug store. After all, if you can buy heroin, why not lanoxin ? A minor point, but the Epi-Pen gives the Epi IM. With the Narcan in an overdose you would want to give it IV, so instead of an auto injector you would just want a pre-loaded syringe. The junkies can easily handle it, they give themselves drugs IV all the time.

Of course then we could fund a whole range of government sponsered commercials about always shooting up in pairs and always having your Narcan with you .......................................


A minor point, but the Epi-Pen gives the Epi IM. With the Narcan in an overdose you would want to give it IV, so instead of an auto injector you would just want a pre-loaded syringe. The junkies can easily handle it, they give themselves drugs IV all the time.

[wolfman97]

Narcan should really be sold behind the counter at Walgreens, in an 'epi-pen' style one use injector for 5 dollars. No ID or prescription required, just a 'hello I'd like a Narca-pen'. In the box would be a set of instructions. This 'innovation' alone would probably cut fatal heroin OD's by about 50% (the other 50% being from people alone with no one to save them. In addition to cutting the fatalities, it would cut the medical expenses, no longer would highly trained paramedics have to drive a very expensive ambulance to stop a highly treatable problem.

I agree, but let's note the actual number of "overdose" deaths we are talking about.

Tobacco kills about 400,000 people per year in the US.
Alcohol kills about 100,000
Prescription drugs kill about 100,000
All the illegal drugs combined kill about 10,000
Cocaine kills about 2,500
Heroin kills about 2,000
Tylenol kills about 2,000
Marijuana - no recorded deaths in US history

As it turns out, most of the heroin "overdose" deaths aren't really overdoses at all. They are most likely due to impurities in black market heroin and mixing drugs -- most commonly with alcohol. For an interesting discussion of the subject see the chapter titled "The Heroin Overdose Mystery" from the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

[wolfman97]

Whoa whoa, erowid.org, I don´t know. New England Journal of Medicine did an unbiased study in which they proved Erowid is just partisian misinformation which has killed people, see here for details:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1473/a08.html
or here http://www.nationalfamilies.org/update/dau-082101.html

Whereas erowid is a bunch of propaganda, here are some better pages
http://www.freevibe.com
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/


Ooooh, puuleeez. First, let's deal with erowid.org Erowid is a conglomeration of all kinds of information and opinions on the subject, some good, some less than good. It is devoted to the idea of presenting a wide variety of opinions and letting people make up their own minds. It is as good (or bad) as the page you are presently viewing (which is true for most of the Internet).

As for the two you mentioned, you couldn't have picked worse sources. Given the choice between them and Erowid -- and fully recognizing the limitations of erowid -- Erowid has more good information than those two.

But, if you really want a better source, try http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer Among other things, it contains the full text of nearly every major study of the drug laws in the last 100 years -- including the US Government studies that freevibe and the ONDCP refuse to acknowledge. I could do a detail analysis of both sites, but let me sum it up by saying that there probably isn't a page on either one that isn't absolutely filled with falsehoods and inaccuracies.

Lying about the drug problem has been official US Government policy since at least the 1930s. For one interesting comment on this, see the statements of Dr. David Musto, historian, on the four-hour History Channel special "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way." At one point, he described a conversation with Harry Anslinger in which Anslinger told how he came to the conclusion that blatant, lying propaganda was the only way he would ever achieve any semblance of prohibition.

[wolfman97]

I guess we have to have the damned war on drugs to make emergency workers' jobs easier.

No, actually, it makes ER worker's jobs much, much more difficult. Most of the problems we currently have with these drugs simply didn't exist before they were made illegal. Drug-related crime was essentially unknown, addicts lived pretty much normal lives like everyone else (like tobacco addicts today), and overdoses were rare.

For a good short history of the subject, along with quotes from what the major medical associations said about the laws, see the first several chapters of the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

[wolfman97]

Don't try that in Holland, Europe's testing ground for drug lagalization, which coincidentally is Europe's testing ground for "physician assisted suicide".

Actually, most of the countries in Europe are now seeing the benefit of the Dutch approach to drugs and most of them are moving in that direction. Switzerland, for example, has had great success with heroin maintenance clinics.

[wolfman97]

We don't have the resources to wage a war on drugs. I wish we did, because we really can't afford to let it go. I'm not saying the current war is effective.....because it's not, but we need to reduce the number of people on drugs.

There isn't a society in the history of the earth (except perhaps one) that did not use recreational drugs. The problem (as we could quickly discover from looking at alcohol) is abusers, not users. We really don't care if umpteen million people have a glass of wine with dinner. We do care if they destroy their lives with it or injure others.

The number of people who will destroy their lives with it is comparatively small and, even if you take away one drug from them, they just shift to another. That ought to tell us something about the problem.

Locally, in a small town in PA, around 70% of high school seniors have used marijuana. 1-3% of SIX GRADERS have huffed inhalants.

Did you ever wonder where kids got the idea to sniff glue for fun? Think about it. Glue is such a boring "drug" that it isn't even proper to call it a drug. Adults don't do it just because it is so boring. You would get a better high if you held your breath until you passed out. So where on earth did kids get they idea that they ought to be sniffing glue?

As it turns out, there was no recorded recreational glue sniffing of any significance in the US until 1959. Then, by 1960, they were arresting kids by the thousands for sniffing glue -- even though there was no law against sniffing glue. So what happened in 1959 that triggered the problem we still have today?

In 1959, a newspaper took a few isolated incidents and turned them into a major scary headline warning kids not to sniff glue. Of course, it had never occurred to kids that they should sniff glue but, obviously, parental authority was telling them that glue sniffing was exciting, dangerous, and Mama didn't want them to do it. Naturally, wild horses couldn't stop them at that point. In all the years since, no one has thought to tell kids the truth -- sniffing inhalants is so incredibly boring that only stupid kids who didn't know anything about drugs would do it -- so we still have the problem today.

If you are interested, you can read all about it in the chapter titled "How to Launch a Nationwide Drug Menace" in the Consumers Union Report, already linked above.

Historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among US children is hysterical anti-drug campaigns.

I've been doing this work for 10 years and I can guarantee you. It is definately getting more widespread. (Heroin is on the upsring here now that it is smokeable and doesn't carry the penalties that crack does......because the penalties go by weight and horse is light.)

Historically, drug use goes through all kinds of regional shifts in usage. Overall, the rate of addiction to heroin and other similar drugs is about the same as it was in the early 1900s when all of these drugs could be bought freely over the counter -- even by children -- and heroin was even included in some baby colic remedies.

Most don't have immediate problems.

Neither do 3 out of 4 cigarette smokers, but the 1 in 4 that do have taxed our health care system (2 major killers are heart disease and lung cancer. Both kill slow and are costly. Why do you think the gov't supports cigarette reduction? 'Cause they care about your health!?). Marijuana has several times over the carcinogens........ Just because you played Russian roullette and survived doesn't mean the game is harmless........

Aside from the fact that tobacco contains nicotine (a highly deadly substance) and marijuana contains THC (an incredibly non-deadly substance) the smoke from the two plants is very much the same.

I know the WOD costs money, but........... let me remind you:

YOU pay the money for police to break up the domestic violence that can be linked to some forms of drug abuse (unless you want to give women the freedom to get beat by their cracked out boyfriends)

Then you have made a great argument for the prohibition of alcohol, but not the other drugs. Alcohol accounts for about half of all domestic violence. None of the illegal drugs is even close, and none ever have been close, regardless of the laws on any of the drugs.

Are you campaigning for the prohibition of alcohol?

YOU pay for the extra security in school because of the mental health disorders linked to usage during pregnancy and childrearing.

Again, alcohol is the leader in problems related to pregnancy and childrearing. All of the illegal drugs combined don't even come close, and never did.

YOU pay in lost funding for your school because the small percentage who are true "stoners" lost 10 points on their IQ due to smoking weed 3x a week for the past year.

There is simply no evidence that this is a significant problem at all due to drug use. There is even less evidence that the War on Some Drugs is a productive approach to whatever problem does exist.

YOU pay for the health care of the poor who get cancer for smoking 5 blunts a day (yeah, I have 15 year old kids doing 5 FREAKING blunts...A DAY. Before you say this isn't fair, how many of you can afford to pay for your loved one who has cancer?)

You have made a great argument for the prohibition of tobacco. There isn't much evidence that there are any serious number of cancer cases from marijuana. Do you think that making tobacco illegal would be a good idea? Why not?

YOU pay the increased taxes and insurance costs because 444 is cleaning up clumsy stoned people (Or.....Do we let them drop dead on the sidewalk in front of your 5 year old?)

Those problems increased dramatically when the drugs were made illegal. See the short history of the subject in the first several chapters of the Consumers Union Report, linked above.

No one will ever really know the math..........

Actually, there are lots of people who have done the math. They have all concluded that prohibition makes the problems worse, and more expensive, just like prohibition of alcohol did. You don't have to take my word for that. You can read the full text of most of those major studies over the last 100 years at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm

Until then, I'll do my best to dig some of these people out.....somehow.

In the meantime, stay hot because that one guy in 1000 who is on PCP may be looking at your door.....or your daughter. If making it legal would increase it to 2 in 1000 would you do it?

Again, you must be thinking of alcohol. According to the US Dept. of Justice, alcohol is the only drug with any real connection to drug-induced violent crime. You can read their report yourself at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/govpubs/psycviol.htm

[wolfman97]

The following is from a site recommended by my academy instructor(a sergeant with the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Narcotics team) for learning about drugs.

A small portion of the "timeline of Heroin"

1874 Heroin is first synthesized from Morphine by chemist C.R. Alder Wright at St. Mary's Hospital in London. Its potential was not recognized.

1897 Heroin is synthesized by Felix Hoffman at Bayer Pharmaceutical. Bayer immediately recognized its potential and began marketing it heavily for the treatment of a variety of respiratory ailments.

1898 One year after beginning sales, Bayer exports heroin to 23 countries.

Early 1900s Doctors and pharmacists begin noticing that patients are consuming large amounts of heroin containing cough remedies.

1906 Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, regulating the labelling of products containing Alcohol, Opiates, Cocaine, and Cannabis, among others. The law went into effect Jan 1, 1907

1911 British Pharmaceutical Codex notes that heroin is as addictive as morphine.

1913 Bayer ceases producing heroin.

Dec 17, 1914 The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act is passed, regulating and imposing a tax upon the sale of Opium, Heroin and Cocaine for the first time. The Act took effect Mar 1, 1915.

1924 The Heroin Act passes, making manufacture and possession of heroin illegal in the U.S.


Interesting, yes?

More info can be had at The Vaults of Erowid
(Edited to add:Some of the info on this site is spotty, but I'd say about 95% is spot on. The timeline above is, IIRC, totally correct.)

http://www.erowid.org

Yes, that is generally correct. It should also be mentioned that, by most estimates, addiction rates peaked about 1900 -- primarily because people didn't know what they were taking because there were no labeling laws. Addiction rates started to drop about 1906 when the PFDA went into effect and dropped steadily until 1914 when the Harrison Act was passed.

As for the Harrison Act, the results are described in an editorial from the Illinois Medical Journal of 1926:

The Harrison Narcotic law should never have been placed upon the Statute books of the United States. It is to be granted that the well-meaning blunderers who put it there had in mind only the idea of making it impossible for addicts to secure their supply of "dope" and to prevent unprincipled people from making fortunes, and fattening upon the infirmities of their fellow men.

As is the case with most prohibitive laws, however, this one fell far short of the mark. So far, in fact, that instead of stopping the traffic, those who deal in dope now make double their money from the poor unfortunates upon whom they prey. . . .

The doctor who needs narcotics used in reason to cure and allay human misery finds himself in a pit of trouble. The lawbreaker is in clover. . . . It is costing the United States more to support bootleggers of both narcotics and alcoholics than there is good coming from the farcical laws now on the statute books.

As to the Harrison Narcotic law, it is as with prohibition [of alcohol] legislation. People are beginning to ask, "Who did that, anyway?" 14

From: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu8.html

[wolfman97]

So what is the argument for marijuana being illegal?

Marijuana was originally outlawed at the state level in the US because:

1) All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy.

2) They feared that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana. (Read that again just to make sure you got it right -- it is typed correctly.

Of course, those reasons are patently ridiculous and, in fact, the Federal Government now claims exactly the opposite of the second reason. So the reasons have changed over the years.

In 1951, the rationale for the marijuana laws changed to the modern "gateway" theory. Harry Anslinger was up before Congress asking for more money and men to enfocce the marijuana laws. Unfortunately for Mr. Anslinger, just before he testified, the head of the Federal addiction research program testified that they knew for certain that all of the reasons that had been given to outlaw marijuana in 1937 (Marihuana Tax Act) were completely wrong. It didn't do any of the things that had been alleged. (It should be noted that, during the 1937 MTA hearings the American Medical Association testified that they knew of no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and, therefore, there was no reason for the law.)

Anslinger had the rug pulled out from under him. In response, he made up the myth that marijuana is the "certain steppingstone" to heroin. There was no evidence at all to support that idea and, in fact, Anslinger himself had explicitly stated during the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act that there was no such connection at all. You can read his entire testimony at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

That has been the rationale for the laws ever since, even though there has never been a shred of evidence to support it. Indeed, the only connection that any study has ever found between marijuana and heroin is the fact that they are both in the same black market and, therefore, someone who is exposed to one is likely to be exposed to the other. Therefore, rather than saying that marijuana is a "gateway drug" it would be more proper to say that we have a "gateway drug policy." It is the laws themselves which create the association.

You can read about all of this in the short history of the marijuana laws at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

[wolfman97]

I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs but that's unimportant.

Have you read any of the major research on the subject? I have never met anyone who supported prohibition who had read any of the major research. Start with Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer

If illegal narcotics are legalized I wonder that the following will not come to be the way of things in the US or at least I wonder about:

1. If your aren't currently tested for drugs in the workplace prepare to be.
Drugs may be legal but using them won't be tolerated by many employers and will create liability. More employers will want to know who is and isn't a user. You won't be paid more for your non-user status, it will just be an invasion of your privacy you must endure to keep your job.

We have that problem already, and drug testing is promoted by the people in favor of prohibition. If you are against invasions of privacy then you ought to recognize their real source.

As for liability -- drug testing does nothing to change a company's liability for anything.

2. Ditto for your kids in school. How will the parents with non-narcotized kids be comfortable having their kids at risk with the verifiably zonked ones? I sure wouldn't be. Will there be yet more flight from public education as parents try to find safer schools? I would.

There is no real evidence that drug prohibition reduces drug use among kids. In fact, historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among US kids is anti-drug campaigns. For example, we had the worst teen drinking epidemic in our history during alcohol prohibition. Read the Consumers Union Report, linked above, for more examples.

3. Will there come to be an underclass of unemployable or underemployed?
Will they be on social services? How about the children they can't take care of or are unfit to care for? Will I have to pay? Seems there is already plenty of that but why wouldn't there be more in a culture where drugs are cheap (free) safe and really available?

There is no evidence that there will be. These things weren't a major problem until drugs were prohibited (see the CU Report, linked above). Countries in Europe are discovering that about 80 percent of their fomerly crime-committing addicts regain useful, productive lives when they pursue a different drug policy.

4. Will auto and health insurance go up? Will legalization sneak up on my checkbook in ways I could never have guessed? Oops Stupid question

There is every reason to believe that rates will go down. By the US Government's own estimate, legalization would save at least 37 billion dollars for the Federal Government alone. See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/savings.htm

5. Will the DEA and massively ineffective govenmnet agencies that were charged with keeping narcotics at bay be relaced but equally massive and ineffective organs of government charged with managing some of the side effects of legalization? Distribution? Taxation? Social services? Drug testing?
Programs to keep people from using drugs like the highly successful ones they currently run to keep people from smoking and drinking?

For a good answer to that, see our experience with repealing alcohol prohibition.

6. If Companies can't discriminate against users in hiring, will they send more of their jobs off-shore where there are Companies that still can, like China?

It is kinda dumb to assume they would. Alcohol is the major problem with work issues. All the illegal drugs combined don't even come close.

7. Will our military be able to get enough non-users to fill their ranks and if not will they start drafting people? And if they do why wouldn't you toke up and avoid that little honor all together even if you didn't really desire to use drugs recreationally? Kind of like a temporary 4F in a can.

Once again, alcohol is the major problem for the US military. Always has been, always will be.

8. If all the illegal narcotics became legal overnight, why would we expect criminals to abdicate that ground totally? Would't there be at least a chance criminal enterprise would come up with newer and more intoxicating synthetics to recapture some of that market share?

See the experience with repealing alcohol prohibition. There is still something of an illegal black market for alcohol but it isn't anything compared to what it was during Prohibition.

9. We assume that if drugs are legal the profit will disappear? I'm not convinced the felon importers might not be able to undershoot our base $ especially given theirs will always be tax free?

See our experience with alcohol prohibition.

10. When drugs are legal I guess what...the drug questions will magically come off of the gun buyers yellow sheet? More likely we'll all have to pee in a cup if we plan to buy a firearm, maybe even if we plan on keeping the ones we have. Would Schuuuuumer and Difi make the claim we, as gun owners need to be tested to KABA? If I were their particular kind of skunk possibly so, eventually? If they did and the lab guy is stoned the day he runs your test and gets it wrong do you have to turn in you collection?

I have a theory that idiots are always idiots and it doesn't matter what you do, you will still have to argue with idiots like Schumer.

But, in case you are interested in this particular topic, you should read the history of the drug laws. What you will discover is that major calls for gun laws almost always follow a period of intense drug prohibition. Like, for instance, the National Firearms Act was passed as a result of the problems of alcohol prohibition. It even used the same legal scam to get around the Constitution that was first developed with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. If you want to protect your right to own guns, you should vigorously oppose the War On Some Drugs.

I really could care less what experiences pro or con any foreign country has had with legalization. I plan to keep living in the US and driving here and raising a family here. From a perfectly selfish POV I can't see how legalization and lots more stoned people on the elevator improves the outlook for any of those personal points of interest.

You should care because some of them have found far better ways to address the problem.

Given my personal belief that far too many people in this country are a bit rudderless and have a leaning toward excess, I have to believe we will see an expansion in the number of human culls in our midst post-legalization. But then again, those that undergo elective mental enfeeblement via legal drugs just might be that group of Americans that are willing to happily clean bathrooms and mow yards for small change that are currently claimed not to exist in this country.

It is easy to tell that you have never read any of the major research on the topic. I suggest you start with the links I have already provided, particularly the Consumers Union Report. You will find things you didn't know on every page.

[wolfman97]

While I agree with most of what you are saying Jim... I think the one 'confirmed' bummer about LSD is that a person predisposed towards schizophrenia who ingests LSD will likely become a full-blown nut immediately (rather than later).

That is full-blown mythology with no basis in fact. The Consumers Union Report, linked above, has a good section on the hazards of LSD.

Edited to add, but really why ARE we talking about LSD and legalization on a gun board

A general belief in freedom is one thing that comes to mind. Another is that most of the gun prohibition laws throughout history have come as a result of the bad effects of drug prohibition. See the National Firearms Act, as one good example. And, it should be mentioned that the "assault weapons" ban came after an intense period of drug prohibition and Miami Vice featuring machine guns as the glamorous tools of gangsters. Do you think that if the general public didn't associate these weapons with drug dealers that there would b any serious calls for banning "assault weapons"? After all, they are only involved in about one percent of crimes so it is obviously a media problem, rather than a factual problem.

[atek3]

i think wolfman missed the sarcasm part :)

atek3

[lycanthrope]

Missing it is easy to do. Especially when the thread is a couple years old.

[wolfman97]

Sorry if I missed it. Lots of people say that stuff for real -- and really believe it.

I am glad to see that so many gun owners are getting the news about the folly of the drug war. I wonder if this is just a phenomenon of the internet or if it would hold true of all gun owners. How do you all see it? Are the gun owners around you, wherever you are, showing the same kind of majority support for ending the drug war?

[atek3]

internet phenomenon.
90% of gun nuts I meet are foaming at the mouth prohibitionists.
They sound so stupid, like VPC people talking about 'cop killing 50 caliber assault bullets' when they have no CLUE *** they are talking about.

atek3

[wolfman97]

So why do you think there would there be such a big difference of opinion between the internet and non-internet folks?

I have looked around the net and found that most places, even gun owner forums where you would expect a conservative crowd, have a clear majority of people in support of legalization or decrim. It would be nice to figure out why the internet group has a different set of opinions.

Is it education? Is it availability of resources (web sites) on the subject? Is it just that the internet attracts a different crowd?

If you have any theories, goofy or not, I would be interested.

[fjolnirsson]

I am glad to see that so many gun owners are getting the news about the folly of the drug war. I wonder if this is just a phenomenon of the internet or if it would hold true of all gun owners. How do you all see it? Are the gun owners around you, wherever you are, showing the same kind of majority support for ending the drug war?

Personally, I see it as being part of the same problem, that of people who lack control of themselves, people who fear what they might do with freedom. These people, be they politicians or voters, seek to impose restrictions on others according to their own fears and "moral" code.
What I see on gun boards is a lot of folks who have had certain freedoms taken from them, looking around and realizing that it all boils down to control. Once a person begins looking logically at things, the anti-gun crowd has a lot of arguements against guns which sound exactly like the anti-drug crowd.

[atek3]

factoid, libertarians are pro-legalization. A lot of libertarians are nerds. Nerds use the internet. Inference, you'll find lots of people on the internet that support legalization :)

atek3

i'm a nerd.

[MeekandMild]

Actually, most of the countries in Europe are now seeing the benefit of the Dutch approach to drugs They sure are! Lots of Eurotrash moving to Holland and the other countries benefit with every druggie who leaves. :D


The trouble with this thread (and the entire subject) is that most of us are right, sort of like the blind men and the elephant.

"The elephant is like a great tree trunk."
"The elephant is a giant wall."
"The elephant is a huge leaf."
"The elephant is like a snake."
"The elephant is like a rope."

[wolfman97]

They sure are! Lots of Eurotrash moving to Holland and the other countries benefit with every druggie who leaves.

Ok, so you aren't familiar with what is happening in Europe.

The trouble with this thread (and the entire subject) is that most of us are right, sort of like the blind men and the elephant.

"The elephant is like a great tree trunk."
"The elephant is a giant wall."
"The elephant is a huge leaf."
"The elephant is like a snake."
"The elephant is like a rope."

Meaning, I guess, that you have never read the major research on the subject and don't think anyone else has, either.

[gyp_c2]

I don't recall who said it and it doesn't really matter, the POINT does however...The insurance companies are NOT trying to pay for health care! They never have!!! The way they afford to stay in business is by gambling they can get you to pay much more for premiums than you'll ever use BEFORE you die on claims!
Now, if the government could shift just 50% of what they/we pay to try to stop it, (the war on drugs) there would be no shortage of funding for health care. Then folks, we could tell the INSURANCE companies to stuff it and use our money for something besides insurance, like A HOUSE, food, color tv etc...doesn't matter, the premium savings alone would be enough that people could actually afford to retire with enough money to pay for their own care AND stay retired instead of going back for their 3-4th career...sheesh,. It's come to the point that everyone just accepts insurance as a necessity instead of looking at alternatives. Since it's all tied together, there's no reason to pay insurance to a private company instead of paying to a general fund according to what you can afford instead of what the insurance company thinks you can afford. You see, we were supposed to be paying for this with social security etc...Instead, the insurance companies have pretty much taken over and now control what you have to buy FROM THEM, and how much you have to pay...Then they decide how much the Dr can expect to get paid from Them WITH OUR PREMIUM MONEY and then the Dr has to make it up off the back end...which is guess who? Now what the hell is wrong with this picture?
WE, the ones that are paying for everything, have to pay the prices set by someone else that pays for nothing yet tells the vendor that supplies the services that WE have to have, how much THEY will pay OUT OF OUR MONEY that they got from us in the first place!!!...I'm out...I should never have started in this thread in the first place!http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ruinkai/blackscary.gif
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/scorchio/saburn.gif

[wolfman97]

Actually, it would probably take less than 50 percent. Treatment (health care) is at least seven times as cost-effective as drug enforcement (Rand Corporation study) so they could probably take about 15 percent of the budget and do a better job.

[tyme]

In this case, I believe RAND's general conclusion that treatment is cheaper than enforcement; In general, though, I find RAND's credibility a bit questionable, and I don't know if I believe the 7x cheaper figure. Didn't RAND also release a study finding that smoking decreased healthcare costs because many smokers died quickly of cancer?

[atek3]

Didn't RAND also release a study finding that smoking decreased healthcare costs because many smokers died quickly of cancer?

I think that was actually phillip morris, and the main cost savings wasn't decreased health care costs but decreased state pension pay outs. Smoker works hard their whole life (paying into pension), then rapidly dies at an earlier age (health care costs not too bad, too young to collect pension).

atek3