1
   

Legalizing Drugs

 
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 09:11 am
Hey Red;

i read your profile; whatever you are "on", legal or "il",
i want some!
(should i talk 2 the guy on 6th st.?)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 02:18 pm
fbaezer wrote:

It was said, in the 80s, that the problem of producing mariguana in Mexico for sale to the big US market could be easily solved by not only legalizing the production, but also by nationalizing it.
We would create a State giant "Motamex", full of inept and corrupt or corruptible bureaucrats. In a couple of years, Motamex would pass from a formidable exporter to a deficitary white elephant. The price of pot would soar, due to inefficient production and excessive costs, and the consumption would diminish accordingly. In 5 years, production would be almost negligible, prices would be at the stars, and Motamex would have to be shut down. Drug problem solved. Smile


Unfortunately, making drugs expensive does not solve the drug problem. What it does is to make a "steal money to get the drugs" problem pop up alongside the drug problem.

In case you don't know -- marijuana -- which has the inherent value of grass clippings (it is a weed!) -- now sells for between $300 and $400 per ounce. You could buy gold at that price just a few years back.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 05:40 pm
Still an amusing argument.

And you can't smoke gold.

But since everybody seems to be coming out on the same side of this argument, let it be known that I am not only for the continued prohibition of the sale, purchase, and use of what are currently schedule one drugs, but also for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco. And all drug crimes should be punishable by death. And all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half hour. And underwear shall be worn on the outside, so we can check. (Okay, credit to Woody Allen for those last two...)
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 05:54 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
In case you don't know -- marijuana -- which has the inherent value of grass clippings (it is a weed!) -- now sells for between $300 and $400 per ounce. You could buy gold at that price just a few years back.


Ummmmmm....I don't know who you're getting those numbers from but they're way off. Who pays 300 clams for an ounce of that? That's ludicrous.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 07:16 pm
wenchilina wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
In case you don't know -- marijuana -- which has the inherent value of grass clippings (it is a weed!) -- now sells for between $300 and $400 per ounce. You could buy gold at that price just a few years back.


Ummmmmm....I don't know who you're getting those numbers from but they're way off. Who pays 300 clams for an ounce of that? That's ludicrous.


Actually, the last quote I heard was $200 for a half ounce.

Not that I would be interested in buying any for myself.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 08:17 pm
wenchilina wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
In case you don't know -- marijuana -- which has the inherent value of grass clippings (it is a weed!) -- now sells for between $300 and $400 per ounce. You could buy gold at that price just a few years back.


Ummmmmm....I don't know who you're getting those numbers from but they're way off. Who pays 300 clams for an ounce of that? That's ludicrous.



Frank is right. That's how much it's selling for these days.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 08:31 pm
I've never seen the justification for criminalizing them. It's just the damndest thing, in my view, that government would reach into an individual's life and regulate it.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 08:49 pm
I hear that loud and clear Tartarin ;-)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 09:01 pm
Quote:
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN ILLEGAL DRUGS AND WEAPONS TRAFFIC
http://www.adaction.org/pubs/govtdrugs226.html



Quote:
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, as is by now well-known by anyone who has cared to be informed, has long been deeply involved in the international trafficking of the addictive drugs heroin and (since the early 1980s, if not earlier) cocaine, the enormous profits from which have financed, and continue to finance, both U.S. covert operations and the U.S. military (via payments to Pentagon contractors).
http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html



Quote:
Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair take the revelations of the links between the Central Intelligence Agency, the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Los Angeles crack market that journalist Gary Webb exposed in 1996--revelations that are the basis of Webb's book Dark Alliance--and use them as a springboard for a tale of the U.S. government's involvement with the illegal drug trade that extends much further back than Webb's tale.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859841392/102-2988631-9364118?vi=reviews



Quote:
For those who believe that the US government is sincerely fighting against drugs in Colombia and other Latin American lands, the story of Col. James Hiett, 48, and his wife Laurie, 36, reveals the sad truth of US drug prohibition.
http://www.narconews.com/nmonth0400.html



Quote:
Unsolved murders. Inner-city ghettos cleaned out by SWAT teams contracted by the US Housing Department. Mysterious plane flights that don't show up on radar. They were all tied together at the CIA drugs symposium on June 10 in Eugene, Oregon.
Speakers included ex-DEA agent Cele Castillio, ex-HUD Secretary General Catherine Austin Fitts, ex-documentary maker Daniel Hopsicker, ex-LAPD officer Mike Rupert, and ex-Federal Aviation Administration air-carrier inspector Robert Stitch.
The proliferation of "ex's" in the list of speakers was evidence itself of what this group of speakers had gathered to uncover. Without exception and in the course of their regular duties, each had unwittingly discovered that the CIA smuggles crack, cocaine and other illegal substances into the US to fund covert operations south of the border. Each of them had chosen to speak out about the CIA, and had been thrown out of their professions, bankrupted and relentlessly persecuted in ways that could only be possible either by remarkable coincidence or if they were speaking the truth.
Also at the conference was tireless Berkeley Professor Peter Dale Scott, who has been documenting CIA drug smuggling since the 70's, Dedon Kamathi, lecturer and African rights organizer and Kris Millegan, researcher and event organizer. Among the audience, I could feel the oily presence of spooks shape shifted into inquisitive onlookers and fake activists. I could also feel the paranoia of the speakers, who sometimes winced in anticipation of a gunshot when I moved in too quickly for a picture.
"I'll probably be dead within a year," said Castillo, who showed us pictures of brutalized Salvadorans, tortured and killed to prevent them from giving testimony about CIA/DEA and government involvement in drug trafficking. Castillo took many of the pictures himself when he worked as lead DEA investigator in El Salvador.
Together, the group is probably the most experienced, professional team of investigators and researchers ever brought together on this topic. No wonder the US government doesn't want anything to do with them. Their combined stories sketched out a tale of deception that reaches from state police to the presidency, and deep into the historical roots of secret agencies and governments.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/cgi/article.cgi?num=1580



Quote:
Marijuana mail-order
by Bianca Sind (29 Jul, 2003)
Three Canadian companies offer buds for sale over the Internet.One sign of Canada's growing acceptance of cannabis is the increasing number of marijuana delivery services springing up across the country. These businesses offer nationwide access to fine buds through the magic of mail-order.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3041.html
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 09:02 pm
Git off that hoss, Montana, and lets's share some of this weed!
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 09:04 pm
That's good stuff, right Frank Smile

I have posted this exact response to at least a dozen threads over the last 4 years of Abuzz and A2K. In 100 years they will look back on the barbarians of this era for imprisioning people for drug use. Drugs are not a crime, they are a disease.

The hard, hard drugs should be subsidized to drive out all economic gain and the worldwide drug barons. To get the drugs, addicts must go to state run distribution centers and be in a constant rehabilitation program - working towards cleaning themselves up.

This program would easily be paid for by the criminal population going down, immediately. Users would no longer have to steal to get enough money to pay for their habits, so social costs would go down, big time. And, the users would be able to hold job, and still pay for their drugs; therefore, paying taxes and their own way.

Socially, economically, morally and politically - it is a no brainer!

Wrote a term paper on this in Economics at the University in the summer of '74 - got an A on the paper, a C in the class.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 12:24 am
Tartarin wrote:
Git off that hoss, Montana, and lets's share some of this weed!


Puff, puff :-D ;-)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 07:09 am
The trouble is, Bill, that the enforcers are taking huge benefits from the drug trade -- unless you are one who refuses to believe the gov would such a thing. As long as an economic tie exists between Defense/CIA and the drug trade, we "can't afford" to legalize and kill that market.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 07:13 am
Tartarin wrote:
The trouble is, Bill, that the enforcers are taking huge benefits from the drug trade -- unless you are one who refuses to believe the gov would such a thing. As long as an economic tie exists between Defense/CIA and the drug trade, we "can't afford" to legalize and kill that market.


Is it all hearsay ?? I mean, I just have a bit of a difficulty in imagining CIA/Defense having tie ups with drugs ....

Police, yes - I can imagine that, but Defense ? CIA ?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 07:18 am
Gautam -- Go back a page here and take a look at the links -- see what you think is credible. I've seen, read, enough over the years to be largely convinced.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 07:19 am
I looked at the links Tartarin. The trouble with the web is that you can find anything what you want to.

I am sure that the mainstream media would have reported, even if just a hint, if there was any truth to these accusitions !!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:02 am
Not in this country, Gautam. What has been documented is the way some of our leading banks have been used for money laundering, in many cases as partners in the operation. It really is a mess. In Britain there would surely have been challenges in the independent mainstream media. Here there have only been hints.
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:02 am
Can someone please define what keeps being repeated...'hard' drugs...

I realize what you're getting at....it's irony on a steaming platter.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:12 am
Gautam -- I should have added that you may not be familiar with Alexander Cockburn and the link to his book -- though he's a British ex-pat (born in Ireland, one of several well-known brothers, son of well-known parents, etc.etc.) who's a well-regarded mainstream/left journalist in the US. In case you don't know the guy, here's a link to a quick bio: http://www.creators.com/opinion_Shell.cfm?pg=biography.html&columnsname=aco

Honest, we ain't talking conspiracy theories here.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:30 am
wenchi.....;

i think its's safe 2 say that the term "hard drugs" is an ill defined term meant 2 refer 2 those which r "dangerous"; that is known 2 be addictive, or have a proven history of demonstrated harmful effects, but obviously include some "traditionally" banned substances, for which the "proofs" r not convincing (the prime example "weed").

this whole subject is merely a symptom of an insidious sickness within society, that of "vested interest"; huge amounts of wealth and power, the tip of the governing "aristocracy", not only profit from the "loot" of crime, but are deeply embroiled in the management, and protection of the various forms of "illegal" activity. to be personally successful amongst this power structure without direct participation, 1 must look the other way whenever anything questionable surfaces. only those without access to this "elite" are free 2 operate in an ethical manner, and those do so on such a small scale that it merely ripples the pond, having no effect whatever on the "shark feeding frenzie" taking place below!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Legalizing Drugs
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 01:49:21