[seeker_two]

I know we've been around the block with this discussion, but there is something I 've been wanting to know...

Are there any drugs that should remain illegal--even if the tide turns to legalizing drugs & ending the WOD?

Just curious....

[Chris Rhines]

No.

No property should ever be illegal. Only actions.

- Chris

[Marko Kloos]

Most people who propose an end to the War On Drugs, myself included, do so because they argue one or more of these premises:

A. The War on Drugs does nothing to reduce the availabilty of the drugs that it targets, because it guarantees dealer profits by keeping prices artificially high.

B. The War on Drugs actually causes crime, because it serves as a price control for the drug lords. The junkies need to commit a lot of property crime and muggings to get their money for the drugs.

C. The prosecution of the War on Drugs causes far greater harm to society than all illegal drugs ever could, because it demolishes the civil liberties of both drug users and non-users alike.

Keeping any drug illegal will continue this set of premises, albeit for a smaller market. It would make no logical sense.

[TheeBadOne]

SSDD
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=485306

[lycanthrope]

BUT:

The War on Drugs isn't about ethics. Alcohol is just as dangerous and is legalized because it was too far entrenched in our society when the Government tried to eradicate it.

The War on Drugs is about....(drum roll please)

Medical Dollars and health care crises.

Let me explain......

The number one medical related killer in America is heart disease......number two....lung cancer. Neither are cheap to treat as they are long term and need intensive treatment. Both are primarily vaused by smoking in this country. Health care is taxed to perform as it is and when the baby boomer generation starts to get older and really uses the medical services the fecal matter is gonna hit the circulating air device because we gen x and y people can't support that many people without much bigger taxation. The government knows this and is why the anti smoking campaigns are funded well at this point in time.

Now......say we legalize marijuana......you know...the stuff that 60% of our high school kids have already tried. The illegal drug that is LEAST likely to cause a physical addiction (mentally addictive though and clinical research has shown is makes people apathetic). Make access easier to everyone.

Marijuana contains 5x the carcinogens of cigarettes. (Uh oh.) Same problem as above, but only worse. Making it easier for the low income and junkies to buy only hurts worse because their entire medical care is government funded. Don't even get me started on the cost of methadone treatments and the direct correlation between drug usage and crime (which costs us money too......).

The War on Drugs is a bargain in comparison for our tax dollars.

[Standing Wolf]

The War on Drugs isn't about ethics.

It should be, since it's first and last an ethical issue.

[NukemJim]

Marijuana contains 5x the carcinogens of cigarettes

But you avoid most of those if you do not smoke the drug. I work with oncology patients, many of them use it to help with side effects of treatment. Many have lung CA. Marijuana is frequently ingested orally in foods ( the traditional "brownie") and even rectally in the form of home made suppositories.

My understanding is that the primary reason for smoking marijuana is to reduce the amount required. This is required due to it's high (sorry could not resist :D ) street price. If it were legalized the price would drop drasticly.

Similarly during prohibition there were many cases of Methanol Alcohol poisining. They effectively stopped post prohibition ( some moonshiners exempted ).

Actually the drugs I would want to control much more tightly than they are today are antibiotics. They are abused in far greator numbers than any illeagle drug and I would be willing to argue that they kill even more due to the the abused antibiotics loosing their effectiveness and patients dying from infections that formally were treated with those antibiotics

NukemJim.

[rock jock]

The WOD should be stopped, but only at the federal level. The Constitution allows individual states to make their own decisions. And I agree with lycanthrope, we first need to stop all federal aid for health care associated with the effects of using.

[Coronach]

Marijuana contains 5x the carcinogens of cigarettes.Which might be relevent if one smoked pot in the same manner and rate as one smokes cigarettes. However, I don't think that is quite the way its done (any, uh, experts want to chime in? One of the two categories above has never been smoked by me. The other was smoked experimentally. I'll leave you to guess which is which :D ).

Kinda like the fact that half-and-half is crazy-high in fat, and skim milk is not. However, if I put cream in my coffee and skim milk on my wheaties, is the base fat content really an issue? (without adjusting for serving size)

Mike

[Glock Glockler]

The War on Drugs is a bargain in comparison for our tax dollars.

1 - I disagree. Do you know of anyone that is not using marijuana because of it's illegality? Everyone I know that wants to smoke it already does, so what are you really preventing?

2 - If you simply cut off the govt healthcare dole and force people to pay for their own healthcare the problem takes care of itself. If someone gets cancer or heart disease from taking whatever drug, so be it, but everyone else will not be made to pay for it.

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that marijuana, if legal, would be used instead of crack.

Heroin is a tranquilizer, and an addict is only dangerous insofar as the need for funds to acquire it.

Casual use of cocaine isn't all that big a danger, but there are enough idiots out there who'd like to stay high that it's a candidate for true "abuse".

About the only really inherently dangerous drugs are the chem-lab things like PCP and suchlike, and the methamphetamines--speed. As with LSD, these things can truly ruin your mind and body.

Regardless, the total annual tax-dollar cost of the present system is some $100 billion in city, county, state and federal expenditures. Then, add in the medical costs of drug-related muggings and shootings; and the extra insurance-premium costs of robberies and burglaries. For that money, we could have some effective anti-drug education programs, as well as hospitals, halfway houses, and other programs in both the private and public sectors. A lot fewer prisoners would need cells and all those costs.

If you take the thrill of the illicit, the lure of the forbidden away from drugs, you'd return to the days when drugs were just no big deal at all. Once the politicians got all excited about drugs, they attracted millions who tried various stuff just to see what was the big deal.

Sorta like when we discovered "The Environment". Folks went around loving and cherishing the environment, and what did we get? Giardia, that's what.

Art

[lycanthrope]

I don't know if I qualify as an expert, but I've been treating addictions in kids and their families for several years. I'm have a Master's degree and I am licensed to perform psychotherapy. I do know I get to see and hear what the general public does not on a first hand basis. (any of you have 6th graders? You know that in almost every school, even in rural areas, that at least one of your child's classmates are huffing? SIXTH FREAKING GRADE! If you're in a city, you have worse to worry about.)

First, there are only a VERY small population of users who just jump into crack, cocaine or heroin. Almost all of them start with marijuana. Granted, not everyone who smoked Mary Jane in college turns out to be an addict, but then not everyone who drinks socially turns out to be a raging drunk who commits DUI's and helps to skyrocket highway fatalities (yet, the cost of such is very high on society).

Marijuanas effects are very different than crack. Most users have a drug of choice at any one time period. Cocaine addicts are much more likely to turn to crack since it's effects are on the same vein and the drug is cheaper (since it's basically cocaine cut with a household product).

Smoke 3 joints per week for a year and you WILL take 10 points off your IQ scale. You won't know it, but it will show up in testing. Whether it is permanent is debateable as of yet, but there are pot smoking burn outs and what do they cost us in terms of productivity.

Marijuana today is also almost 10x more potent with THC What was no big deal then, can be a big deal now.

If you legalized it today the users who already use would use the same amount or more as it would be more active in social settings such as bars. Many people will drink socially, but not alone. Bring marijuana into the social scene and it's range will increase. Several people will try it just to see what the fuss is about. They won't smoke it like cigarettes, but if you even smoke a FEW cigs a week you up your cancer risk.

I DO know several people with good moral standards that follow the law. If it was legal they would try it.

Several drugs are more addictive to teens than they are for adults. Even cigarettes are 3x more addictive to teens due to differences in physiology. With more accesibility to drugs in the home, you may see more addictions. No big deal perhaps if junior has some friends over and sneaks a shot of vodka from the liquor cabinet, but a snort of dad's crack and he could be intantly addicted.

Heroin's danger is in it's addictive qualities and once you're an addict you can actually DIE if you don't get it when you detox. Heroin is huge right now since the newest batches ARE NOT injected. The new heron is pure enough to be smoked and it is relatively cheap in comarison to cocaine. Oxy-Contin is also in the same category and the addictive properties can be the same. Several heroin addicts will chew an Oxy for a fix. These people aren't the shot up junkies as portrayed in the '70's.

Glock what if you got terminal cancer today? A day in intensive care costs $1000. With lung cancer your stay could be several months. You have that kinda cash to pay yourself? The lower classes can't afford good insurance. And.....you can't prove where cancer comes from. So you can't make that distinction. We are all prediposed to cancer at some level. Drugs that you smoke just make it worse.

Not to overly argue and educate about drugs, but very few, if any (save for perhaps alcohol), can be shown to have beneficial effects even when used even in small amounts. Healthcare problems are huge in the workforce right now. Many companines are making employees chip in heavily. In Western PA, health insurance costs for companies have went up at least 50% over the past 5 years.

I'm also not saying the WOD is managed correctly, but drugs should be illegal.

Why isn't this topic more centered on cigarettes and the ban's in public places? Nicotine is a drug as well, but states and the government know they can't handle the overall cost of it in health care dollars.

[NewShooter78]

I'm also not saying the WOD is managed correctly, but drugs should be illegal.

Making drugs illegal is a moral choice the gov't makes for you. I don't want the gov't making moral choices for me. I smoked pot a lot in college. I have since left those days behind me. Why? Because I grew up. Alcohol is a legal drug and it is in many ways worse than marijuana. The gov't banned it and we got the Mafia. The modern prohibition on drugs has given us South American cartels, neighborhood drug lords, and a crap load of tax expenditures that could be used elsewhere.

[Chris Rhines]

Not to overly argue and educate about drugs, but very few, if any (save for perhaps alcohol), can be shown to have beneficial effects even when used even in small amounts. So your opinion is that the government should restrict the private possession or use of things that cannot be shown to have benefical effects?

I wouldn't want to live in your world...

- Chris

[SkunkApe]

Two things:

1) Its a pretty-well known statistic that smokers, as a group, use less health care resources than nonsmokers. Why? Simple. Smokers usually drop dead of a heart-attack at a fairly young age, or get cancer, again at a fairly young age, linger a year or then die. Non-smokers, on the other hand, live to ripe old ages before passing on, thus incurring many more years of medical costs from thirty years of prescription drugs, hip replacements, nursing homes, etc. etc. The sooner you die, the less health care resources you consume. Its as easy as that. For what its worth, anyway.

2) The "marijuana has five times the carcinogens of cigarettes argument" is pure Reefer Madness propoganda. As has already been pointed out, a cigarette smoker will consume far more than five times the number of cigs as a pot smoker consumes joints. Even in these times of high taxation, an average cigarette smoker will smoke one or two packs a day. Thats twenty to forty cigarettes a day. Even in my college days, I never knew anyone who smoked more than one or two joints a day. I'd guess the average marijuana smoker consumes less than one joint per week. Of the three drugs of which I have some personal knowledge, I'd rank them in this order from most harmful to least harmful:

Cigarettes
Alcohol
Marijuana


That said, who cares which is worse for you? Its your body, its none of my business how you kill it.

[cordex]

First, there are only a VERY small population of users who just jump into crack, cocaine or heroin. Almost all of them start with marijuana.
Bullfeces.
Almost all of them start with alcohol and/or cigarettes. But since those drugs are tolerated in our society, it "isn't such a big deal". MJ is simply many people's first experiment with the Truly Forbidden.
Not to overly argue and educate about drugs, but very few, if any (save for perhaps alcohol), can be shown to have beneficial effects even when used even in small amounts.
Alcohol wasn't medically proven to have beneficial effects for hundreds of years of use on a nearly global scale. Suspected, perhaps, but not proven. Only recently with the onset of mass-communication have doctors been able to observe samples large enough to indicate that it might have some beneficial effects when used in small quantities.
Doctors have no such pool of subjects they can observe with controlled substances. Generally, they won't see the once a month pot smoker/eater in their office ... or won't recognize them as one when they do.

And, as Chris said, a society based on allowing only arbitrarily designated "beneficial" things is not a society I want to live in.

FWIW, I don't drink alcohol or use any illegal drug, nor do I encourage others to do so. But I don't see it as my place to hire thugs with guns to make sure other people don't get to poison themselves if they choose.

[Glock Glockler]

Glock what if you got terminal cancer today? A day in intensive care costs $1000. With lung cancer your stay could be several months. You have that kinda cash to pay yourself? The lower classes can't afford good insurance.

1 - The cost of medical care has been exponentially inflated due to govt involvement, get them out of it and watch the price drop tremendously.

2 - So what? I fail to see how my medical situation requires your being forced at gunpoint to pay for it. If poor people cannot afford medical care maybe they should stop destroying their bodies. You see, the problem takes care of itself. Most of the people that are the biggest smokers and drinkers that I know are poor, they have money for that but they cannot put any money away to invest of for their retirement, then they beg the govt to rob my to pay for their healthcare or retirement. No thanks, but I prefer a system where people are accountable for their own actions.

I'm also not saying the WOD is managed correctly, but drugs should be illegal.

Where do you get off telling me what I am allowed and not allowed to put into my own body? I let you in on a little secret, you don't own me, pal. I do. Society or the community or whatever collective you want to invent does not own me. I am my own man and I am free, not the property of someone else who can decide what I can do with myself.

[lycanthrope]

Easy people. I am NOT advocating to make the government all powerful. I am NOT saying that the government should infringe upon us anymore than it already does.

All I'm saying is that drugs will cause more cost to society in terms of health care and public monies than to legalize them. Period.

I do not have time to footnote all my training or experience. Cordex you are correct that people start with alcohol and cigarrettes, but the first illicit drug they try is THC. That often, not always, leads to heavier drugs (for goodness sake I went to college for 8 years....do you think I'm not talking from some actual experiences?).

Skunkape, getting cancer at a young age still costs health care dollars and what you don't see are the lost years of lost wages in the tax system which are funding medicare of our grandparents. Marijuana usage is lower than cigarette usage, but a higher percentage of cigarette users are more likely to use it which doesn't cause the healthcare problem but does make it somewhat worse.

Locally, the high school drop out rate is around 30%. Consult "MSN Home Advisor" to get a relative/generic idea of how your school is doing. What % of those dropout are using and what percent does the apathy caused by regular marijuana usage and full blow drug addiction contribute? I can't disclose those numbers here, but from experience I'll tell you, it's big. Not that parental supervision isn't critical, but how many of them are high/drunk? How many are born each year addicted or brain damaged? I'm Clinical Director for my agency so I see the numbers for our emergency shelter, group homes, alternative education school and in-home counseling programs. I've worked in-home personally in my community for 6 years. I serve the projects and your neighbors with the BMW's. Did you know that if your 15 year old talks to a counselor about his/her drug use in confidence that we can't tell YOU (the parent) without their permission? I'm not for that rule, but I can guarantee you don't have an accurate picture of what's happening at the high school level. What's the cost fo just one drop out on society!? The government spends huge amount of dollars fighting teen smoking because they get addicted EASILY. Availability plays huge on that.

The government does make "ethical" decisions for us. "Ethical" or "Moral" is dependent on culture and society at large. We hope when we elect them they represent us well, often they do not. However, some things make some sense.

You can argue any of these, and I won't defend them all but.... We have speed limits to help keep insurance premiums down and highways safe. They aren't valid in all areas, but overall they are more helpful than bad. Can some drivers drive 100+ mph on the freeway safely? Sure. Should we infringe upon their right by saying no one should? Heck, let's blow it wide open. Do you run red lights at 2 am just because no one is around? Do you want that to be law and a judgement call for everyone driving home from the bars? Why not open up drivers license to 12 year olds? They can use a weapon to kill deer in most states. Let's let your neighbor have a meth lab in his basement while we're at it. (you and the rest of your block had better care and start living out of the blast radius).

Some moderation is in order so the impulsive sides of Homo Erectus do not cause more havoc than is necessary without infringing freedoms. We may have grown up in college, but I can assure you from what I see on a daily basis.......a lot do not. Somewhere, someone has to draw a line and I hope your representative is fighting hard for you and your ideals. We DO live in a society where decisions are made for us at some level.....don't get me started on the concept of the electoral college......or the AW ban.

I'm sorry people. I wasn't worried about this stuff in college. I wasn't worried until I went into the school and projects and saw the nice neigbor's kid all strung out and nobody knows the better. Are you ok with your kids friend doing drugs? When's the last time you drug tested him?

We all have our right to opinion and I seem to be the only one voicing this particular vantage point so I'm pretty much done on this thread...... else I'll be typing for the rest of the year. In the meantime, I'll be working hard to keep your kid from being addicted.

[Moparmike]

Lycanthorpe, you make _some_ good points about children. However, it is absolutely freaking amazing what a little parenting will do. Letting one's children be raised by their friends and the television will do worlds of damage to a child.

BTW, this opinion is coming from a 20yr old, without children. Take it for what it is worth.

Agent Schmuckatelli Jr. of the DEA isnt here, is he?...:D

I am a 20yr old male, in a fraternity and in college. I have had 7, count them 7 beers since I went to Cancun in March '03 (and got completely hosed on tequilla:banghead: ) and I lead a very stressful and responsible life. I feel about once every 6 weeks, I want to drink a 12-pack over the course of a night and just forget the stress for a night. Just set it aside. Sometimes I do. Lately I havent had the time. No matter what they tell you, it is quite difficult to do that without some sort of chemical distraction. I know my limits, I dont drink and drive (or derive:uhoh: ), and dont get into fights. I have tried pot, and when I was very stressed out, I hadnt felt that good in months. The feeling of stress reduction lasted for a couple of days (and in that same few days I got some of it taken care of). I am here to tell you as a witness that occasional use of MJ is no more dangerous than my once-every-2-months cigar I have at a party.

I cant stand the idiots who make those commercials. I saw one a few months ago about the teen who got pregnant because she smoked a joint.:cuss: I didnt believe my ears. Smoking pot gets a girl pregnant about as well as shooting my Mauser does. Another one depicted a homicidal rage. Riiiggghhht.... And it causes hemroids, warts, in-opprotune car repairs, monitors to explode, democrats to spontaneously combust, women to find Star Trek sexy, gold into straw, etc. etc. ad nausem. It absolutely sickens me.

[lycanthrope]

Mopar,

Well spoken. I'm drinking an MGD right now. I'm not drunk or driving or handling a firearm. I'm no stranger to mary jane in college, but in order to succeed in higher education you need to have focus and not be impulsive all the time (although, it is very normal and healthy to do so on an occasoinal basis as you describe).

It's the people without education and who do not have the proper parenting that worry me. They are susceptible to over usage and addiction. If everyone in America had good parents I may be all for legalization of marijuana because it could be a non issue.

I'd love to see a tax break for soon to be parents who take government funded parenting classes. Might save us all a bunch of problems.

[Glock Glockler]

I'd love to see a tax break for soon to be parents who take government funded parenting classes. Might save us all a bunch of problems.

An armed invasion of the US mainland by a determined and professional army hellbent on murdering every last American would cause less damage.

[TheLastBoyScout]

Just from watching the stoners around me at school, I have no moral or physical reasons not to smoke weed.

The only thing stopping me is the fact that its a really bad thing to have on your record when you try to join the .mil .

[NewShooter78]

Not attacking you personally, but Should we infringe upon their right by saying no one should? Heck, let's blow it wide open. Do you run red lights at 2 am just because no one is around? Do you want that to be law and a judgement call for everyone driving home from the bars?

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[Orthonym]

I don't care what people do as long as they behave themselves in public.

[tyme]

"Driving is a privilege, not a right."

Why?

[Glock Glockler]

No one is guaranteed a license to drive on a public/govt road, so you cannot claim it as a right. On private roads, however, that is another story.

[c_yeager]

With regards to drug use among children, it is illegal for children to buy sell or use drugs. It is also illegal for them to buy sell or use alchohol tobacco or cigarettes. If the WOD was ended today it would continue to be the same (for children). Does the legallity make any difference at all?

On an interesting side note, when i was in highschool (not TOO long ago) it was FAR easier to aquire Marijuana than either beer or tobacco. The thing is that since its illegal to sell Marijuna to ANYONE then why the hell not sell it to kids? In order to get beer we had to have an adult buy it from a legitmate retailor. Or go to the effort of getting fake id's (much harder these days) etc. To buy grass you just had to talk to the guy in your homeroom.

[Mikul]

The problem to me, and certainly many others, is that the government pays such a huge percentage of health care costs that anything you or I do is now able to be regulated because it costs the government more money. It isn't that there is a moral issue, but an economic one.

This is a huge gaping canyon of worms that you're opening (ewww, the image gives me the willies). Why not make candles illegal? They cause over 11,600 fires per year which are expensive to put out and really, who needs them in this day and age? I could make ad infinitum of similar examples, but I don't think that I need to.

There is a logical and moral problem with preventing people from doing what they see fit because it hurts "the group." First, there is no such thing as a group. They're merely a collection of individuals. Just because someone decides to arbitrarily treat a large number of individuals the same, does not mean that everyone in that group IS the same. Next, since everyone in a group is not the same, it is wrong to treat them as if they are. This is the very basis of anti-discrimination laws. Sure, most women lose their sanity for a day or two each month, therefore since we can't count on the sanity of women, and we don't want the insane to vote, so we shouldn't let women vote. This is no different than not allowing anyone to use drugs because some of them, even MOST of them, will abuse their use.

I think this was an incomplete thought, but I hope you're not equating 8 years of college with actual experience.for goodness sake I went to college for 8 years....do you think I'm not talking from some actual experiences?.

[tyme]

How convincing.
"Driving on public roads isn't a right because you need a license." :rolleyes:

[Doctor Wu]

The WoD is a complete failure.
Legalize it and let the abusers kill themselves off. There will be more room for the rest of us productive citizens. ;)

[Combat-wombat]

No property should ever be illegal. Only actions.
Very well stated.

[c_yeager]

Ive always wondered about this idea that the government foots the bill for all of the US's health care. I mean i have never had the opportunity to have the government pay for MY doctors visits. Neither has any of my family. I realize that there are plenty of people on the various public medical programs. But, do you honestly think that those people would somehow get OFF those programs if there were no illegal drugs available?

[Orthonym]

As far as I know, it's still perfectly legal to saddle up, or hitch up, and ride or drive your horse on the public roads with no licence from anybody. Ask the Amish. The excuse for the driver's licence was (IIRC) that motorcars were such a new, weird dangerous thing that the general run of humans could not be trusted with them without having first been vetted by the State.

There's a fly in that ointment; automobiles came along at about the same time that the Progressives:cuss: were getting up on their high horses and minding their neighbors' business. I'm thinking about people like Woodrow Wilson and his ilk here. (Lord help me, I HATE schoolteachers in govt! Heinrich Himmler started out as a schoolteacher, dontcha know!)