should marijuana be legalized??

Quote:

It's not that alcohol is good because it has been widely used for thousands of years, it's that it is firmly established because it has been widely used for thousands of years.

I'd argue that it's not alcohol use/abuse that's been established for millennia (or longer), but rather something fundamental in the human psyche that leads a certain -- and not inconsiderable -- portion of the population to seek escape in some psychoactive chemical or other.

For cultures of Western Europe and of the steppe (perhaps -- I dunno enough about the recreational practices about people east of the Urals to say), this was largely alcohol (plus caffeine, when it was found out, and nicotine, when it was found out, and pretty much anything that came out of early drug labs). For other people, it was marijuana or something else. Regardless, everyone on the planet (or a certain percentage thereof) is driven to play with their brains.

You're willing to make an allowance for alcohol based on cultural precedent. I appeal to a deeper familial precedent -- that of the human species. To try to advance the species without allowances for inherited traits is madness: all you do is develop a society that is at odds with the animal natures of the people it encompasses, protects, and influences.

0 Replies

An excellent exposition, Dog. You didn't mention datura and belladonna, though. I believe datura is restricted to the "New World." I have smoked and eaten the seeds of the jimson weed (it is said that leaves and stalk are poisonous, and i hadn't any interest in proving the contention), as an experiment. The effect was rather unpleasant. However, a friend and i used to keep a little cup of the seeds in a truck in which we travelled around picking up "antiques" to be refinished and sold. We would swallow a few pinches of seeds when we became weary, and the effect was similar to a few slugs of strong, black coffee. I don't, however, recommend it.

I am most impressed that someone at some time nearly everywhere in the world attempted the use of plants which are known to be poisonous. An interesting but unaswerable question is how anyone determined the safe dosage of plants which can be lethal in other dosages. People are very smart about such things though--both the potato and tomato were early recognized as being in the same family as deadly nightshade, and tomatoes were long used as an ornamental plant in Europe, but not eaten. The city of Reynoldsburg, Ohio calls itself the "home of the tomato," because a local citizen determined that the fruit of the tomato plant was not poisonous, and to prove the piont stood on the courthouse steps eating one tomato after the other. Large crowds showed up to watch his death agonies, but were disappointed. Tobacco and the capsicum-bearing plants (chili peppers, if you will), are in the same family.

0 Replies

I never played with the nightshades (except the edibles and tobacky, of course).

0 Replies

150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no meaningful drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out??

The real problem is economic. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid and evil laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.
Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and other Jeckyl/Hyde
formulas.
Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish
within two years.

0 Replies

Now here's an issue that crosses the aisle, goes outside, and catches a crosstown bus.

0 Replies

Catching said bus before realizing that it didn't want to go across town . . .

0 Replies

I've basically got something like two or three or four noticable issues with the Republican party, i.e.

The "war on drugs"
"Right-to-life(TM)"
"New World Order(TM)" ideas and the idea of creating a super-state out of Canada, the US, and Mexico with no respect for the US constitution.
Paranoia over "gay marriage" and similar non issues (the ones who want to be married are not the ones I'd worry about)....

By way of contrast, I have issues with pretty much everything the demokkkrats do or try to do or spend much time thinking about doing.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Does this mean that i need to become a pathological liar in order to seek employement with the DEA?

Only if you want to advance in rank to talk about policy issues. You either have to remain stupid and ignorant - despite the best efforts of people like myself to educate you - or you have to deliberately mislead the public with false associations. If you can stay in the DEA and not address the public you at least should know that you are enforcing a clearly immoral and abusive policy and not really accomplishing anything for public safety. You can take heart in the fact that some of the people you are punishing are comparably as immoral and abusive as the people in charge of the DEA and those legisliars who promulgate new mandates for them. You can gnash your teeth while prosecutors plea bargain for more addicts with many of those scumbags you catch.

0 Replies

Frankly, rimchamp, i think you are delusional and verging on the loony. Do us both a favor, and don't address any more of your posts to me, and i will promise you to do the same.

0 Replies

The DEA is basically another out of control govt. agency, like the dept of education. It needs to be abolished.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I've basically got something like two or three or four noticable issues with the Republican party, i.e.

The "war on drugs"

"Right-to-life(TM)"

"New World Order(TM)" ideas and the idea of creating a super-state out of Canada, the US, and Mexico with no respect for the US constitution.

Paranoia over "gay marriage" and similar non issues (the ones who want to be married are not the ones I'd worry about)....

By way of contrast, I have issues with pretty much everything the demokkkrats do or try to do or spend much time thinking about doing.

The number of those in prison more than doubled under Klinton. The drug war is NOT a GOP issue. NAFTA was also a Klinton "success" along with welfare reform that increased number of people in job market, left many children inadequately supervised at home, and depressed wages for working people. Democrats have their control issues like gun control and imposing environmental standards on private businesses while government does most of the pollution. There is so little difference in budgetary priorities for the two major parties it should come as no surprise that both sets of whores have the same clients. The two parties are a tag-team combo for undermining "other peoples' rights".

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Frankly, rimchamp, i think you are delusional and verging on the loony. Do us both a favor, and don't address any more of your posts to me, and i will promise you to do the same.

Since when is telling the truth "loony"? Where in any of my posts have I lied? Where in any of my posts have you refuted any of my arguments with truthful arguments? Are you affiliated with a media outlet by chance? None of them is willing to discuss drug problems with me in a public forum either. What do these guys have to hide?

But seriously: if you haven't addressed any of my issues I really shouldn't bother with you any more.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The DEA is basically another out of control govt. agency, like the dept of education. It needs to be abolished.

Hear, hear!

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

So what.

So what if it's been firmly established, it's the hypocrisy that is so obvious which makes it hard to justify the prohibition of marijuana.

I explained why treating marijuana differently from alcohol was not hypocritical in this post. I encourage you to read it. If you have any specific questions afterwards, I will attempt to address them.

0 Replies

rimchamp77 wrote:

But seriously: if you haven't addressed any of my issues I really shouldn't bother with you any more.

I didn't enter this thread because of you, but because i saw the Joe and Thomas were posting--intelligent and interesting members with well-known senses of perspective and proportion. Therefore, by all means, don't bother with me any more. As i pointed out, i'll address no posts to you if you address none to me.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no meaningful drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out??

The real problem is economic. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid and evil laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and other Jeckyl/Hyde
formulas.

Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish
within two years.

I agree with this expose upto the point which I have bolded. Firstly, what has lead you to believe LSD is any more harmful than heroin? Secondly, why restrict peoples freedoms at all? The answer is to hold people responsible for their actions regardless of what substances they chose to imbibe first. It is the 'special considerations' (It wasn't my fault 'cause I was high!) that need to be eliminated.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
150 Years ago, there were no d

A rational set of drug laws would:

Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and other Jeckyl/Hyde
formulas.

Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

D

If you use any kind of standard for criminalization that relates specifically to the drugs [not users - like "potential for abuse" that puts the standards dependent on nearly everyone making intelligent, nondestructive choices] there is no way that you could adopt a standard that would keep alcohol and cigarettes legal - and exclude cocaine, opium, amphetamines or much of any serious drug. That's why the law is crafted in that manner. Any standard that would criminalize marijuana would of course shut down sales of over 80% of pharmaceutical drugs widely used by consumers.

The DEA uses statistical correlations exclusively. In order to do a legitimate scientific study for harm you would have to use a standardized product with quality control. You would have to use the drug in a reasonably responsible manner in a similar fashion to what new drugs are used when testing for FDA approval. This process would necessarily exclude all street drugs in their present form [notice that I didn't mention crack or ice or black tar heroin as those were adapted by criminals to cater to the most susceptible customers]. Heroin could be tested because it was developed and patented by Bayer. It was not recommended to be used in the potencies used on the street and as recently as 50 years ago could be purchased in much lower dosages in other countries like Australia.

Once you get all these "dangerous drugs" legalized there is nothing to prevent some moron from adapting his cocaine to smokeable form and getting wasted big time as there is nothing to prevent someone from going on a bender. Someone could even develop a smokeable form and you might be surprised at how well that form would test [if we decided to test it; I doubt that anyone would suggest that a fifth of Vodka is inherently safe - unless it is used sparingly or diluted... again a user related problem]. While some unscrupulous seller might want to resurrect these "dangerous drugs" in their street form to promote addiction they won't find that large a market and they won't have anywhere near the profit incentive. Besides, as a legal seller, he would be subjected to the same liability problems facing bar owners and cigarette companies. But of course, personal responsibility is NOT a concern for prohibitionists as it isn't for "tort reform" advocates.

Is there anyone in this forum who believes that - once all drugs become legally available - that we will no longer have any legal recourse for those who get drug impaired and cause damages to others? Police must have stories about drunks who tell them "I bought this bottle legally; you can't arrest me for driving while using". I haven't heard them. And the last I heard, there wasn't a huge market for moonshine whiskey and bathtub gin - but I'm sure that, given more choices for opium, most people will prefer high potency injected or smoked variety; after all, after alcohol was legalized nobody drank beer or wine over the hard liquor that was the rage during prohibition.

The problem is, that after decades of lies, lies, lies about "dangerous drugs" legalization will produce an outcry for real drug education to prevent reoccurrences of problems using newly legalized drugs. If you replace the dangerous drugs mythology that justified the drug war scam and actually taught kids about real drug-related problems, the use of all drugs would slow down. Of course, we have a whole generation of baby boomers who are largely drug dependent for health reasons and they will continue to consume drugs in large quantities as they age. We are not only the largest market for illegal drugs; we also lead the world in legal drug use. But that's what's to be expected when all people hear about drugs is based on inflated expectations of what drugs do for and to your body.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The real problem is economic.[...]

A rational set of drug laws would:

Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and other Jeckyl/Hyde
formulas.

Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

It's a good starting point for sure. Since you say the problem is economic, what do you think about the following economic solution?

Legalize all drug sales to grown-ups.
Prohibit the drugging of children, since they are too young to consent to a drug deal. In fact, I would extend your prohibition to the government's kid-drugging schemes, such as the one under which it force-feeds them ritalin against ADD.
Having legalized all drugs, tax each of them according to the public health hazard it turns out to pose. Each tax would be set to make the tax on each drug cover the complete public health costs this drug causes. If you're right and I'm wrong about the dangers of heroin and LSD, the tax will turn out to be prohibitively high.
Some drug dealers, no doubt, will try to sell drugs on the black market without paying their taxes. Round them up and throw them in jail for tax evasion -- just as the Feds did with Al Capone

Deal?

0 Replies

Granted we'd be way the hell better off to simply legalize it all than to do what we're doing now, I still don't like the idea of legalizing PCP for sure, or LSD which may or may not be a bit more of a questionmark at this juncture, I'm not sure.

I was living in Prince Georges County Md when it was the PCP capital of the world and PCP was the basic common denominator for 90% of all the really horrific crimes which simply did not figure logically. PCP simply causes psychotic behavior in humans, end of story. A couple of cops who used to work out in the same gym I used at the time told me that they were seeing a steady stream of kids whose brains were totally fried, no idea of who they were, where they came from, which direction was up or down, and there was no likielihood of any of them recovering.

LSD can flash back on somebody five years after the fact while he's driving down I95 at 75 miles per hour. I don't feel any great need to be sharing I95 with that guy. Or maybe they have doses now to a point where that doesn't happen any more, like I say, I don't know.

If the vote is between present policy and legalizing it all, I'd vote to legalize it all at the drop of a hat but, like I say, the ideal solution keeps the lid on the Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
The real problem is economic.[...]

A rational set of drug laws would:

Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and other Jeckyl/Hyde
formulas.

Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

It's a good starting point for sure. Since you say the problem is economic, what do you think about the following economic solution?
Legalize all drug sales to grown-ups.

Prohibit the drugging of children, since they are too young to consent to a drug deal. In fact, I would extend your prohibition to the government's kid-drugging schemes, such as the one under which it force-feeds them ritalin against ADD.

Having legalized all drugs, tax each of them according to the public health hazard it turns out to pose. Each tax would be set to make the tax on each drug cover the complete public health costs this drug causes. If you're right and I'm wrong about the dangers of heroin and LSD, the tax will turn out to be prohibitively high.

Some drug dealers, no doubt, will try to sell drugs on the black market without paying their taxes. Round them up and throw them in jail for tax evasion -- just as the Feds did with Al Capone

Deal?

Sure. I could certainly live with that easier than the insane "war on drugs". Like I say, the idea of keeping some of it banned is simply a personal preference as an ideal solution.

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know