should marijuana be legalized??

patiodog wrote:

Quote:
Street dealers don't stand behind their products because if they stand around they go to jail - whether the product delivers as advertised or is inherently defective. There is no incentive to produce a better product for consumer at a reasonable price or to cater their product to consumer niches.

As has been notable, this is absurd. Clearly drug dealers are immune to governmental regulation as to the quality of their product, but all you have to do is look at the explosion in variety and potency of marijuana as tougher laws forced users further underground in the late 1970s and 1980s, and again with the advent of hydroponic operations. .

All but a tiny percentage of those in prison for dealing are addicts. Yes, suppliers are acutely aware of what will make them money and catering to the most dysfunctional is the way to go. Why do you suppose bar owners let out howls of protest against ordinances banning smoking in bars. Their best customers are alcoholics and problem drinkers and 80 plus percent of them are smokers. Very few users get their illegal drugs directly from suppliers; they get them from other addicts who sell to pay for their addiction. Those who make the big money from drugs seldom go to prison.

Again, this claim that the potency of marijuana is "exploding" in potency doesn't have any stats reliable or distorted to back it up. I had some pretty potent weed 30 years ago so it was certainly available then. But having valid figures or studies has never deterred the DEA from making any scary statements in the past.

It's all very simple for them: only give statements that support your cause. Statistical correlations are easy to skew; you can make valid cases for banning bread, private cars, milk or any other product. Let's face it: "potential for abuse" can spur criminalization of just about everything and that's all the DEA is working on. The only class of drugs that is included wholesale is hallucinogens and they cause relatively little social upheaval outside of the user and already have several exemptions based on religion.

Again I stand by my statement that the drug war is immoral for one reaon: you can't make a public case for continuation without lying. Or maybe I should put it this way: nobody has made a case for public consumption - without lying. I have to respect those in this forum who are openly for banning alcohol and tobacco and any other widely used problematic pharmaceutical. But nobody in authority has your integrity and courage. And if you run for office and make such statements your views will be misrepresented as "extreme" or just ignored by the same lapdog media who will not openly defend this policy either against my claims.

0 Replies

rimchamp77 wrote:

It's all very simple for them: only give statements that support your cause.

And you're different?

rimchamp77 wrote:

I have to respect those in this forum who are openly for banning alcohol and tobacco and any other widely used problematic pharmaceutical.

I didn't notice anyone advocating a ban on alcohol and tobacco.

0 Replies

I am willing to advocate the prohibition of alcohol, but i want a grace period to get my still up and running safely, first.

0 Replies

Actually, when marijuana prohibition began - with the transparent scam known as the Marihuana Tax Act [1937] - it was vigorously opposed by the American Medical Association. It seems that marijuana was widely used by physicians and none of the marijuana medications was smoked marijuana. It took 33 years for someone with money to challenge the catch-22 of that legislation. It seemed that you needed a tax stamp to get marijuana, but in order to get a tax stamp you needed the marijuana and if you showed up with marijuana you were arrested and thrown in jail.

Since Nixon wanted to punish those in the anti war movement whose drug of choice suddenly became legal he concocted the Controlled Substances Act that included marijuana, cocaine, opium, and a whole buncha hallucinogens that included LSD - the drug of choice for the person who bankrolled the successful challenge to the original scam. The only standard mentioned throughout the text of the law is "potential for abuse" - with no specific guidelines for determination. In other words we were to follow the scam artists' mantra: trust us to do what is right for you.

Anyway, when marijuana was illegal about 98% of marijuana available was smoked - although [inconvenient truth] I enjoyed marijuana brownies a couple of times. It's been 30 years, but I suspect that edible marijuana in this country is next to nonexistent. I would also suspect that once marijuana prohibition ended, it would prove no large task to resurrect many of the nonsmokeable marijuana medications. I am very certain that over half of the people using medicinal marijuana would switch over to inhalers, nebulizers or even vaporizors to minimize lung damage from smoking. When marijuana resumed legal sales, there would be a significantly larger number of choices and all such choices would be standardized products with listed potencies much like alcohol is sold today.

Anyone who marketed marijuana would necessarily disclose dangers similar to what is on alcoholic beverages like "pregnant women should avoid using this product". I will admit that I haven't checked out how opium products or cocaine products were packaged prior to criminalization. I have heard of original original coca cola but I really don't know if the reasons for changing the formula {it's too addictive} were valid or hyperbole. I doubt that scientific testing was involved because it hasn't been used by the DEA since the new scam was passed by Nixon - freeing prohibitionists from actually being limited by standards. I will try to do some research and post here any findings.

0 Replies

Opium production soars

Allow restricted legalization and the problem above just goes away. Criminalizing drugs creates far more serious problems than it solves.

(I know it ain't grass, but the same thing applies)

0 Replies

As someone with a history degree it is embarrassing to admit that I learned something new in my research into the history of drug prohibition. Contrary to assertions by drug policy reformers, prohibition was a response to abusive drug addiction problems; not the other way around. It occurred simultaneously in Europe and the United States when soldiers returning from war became addicted to morphine used to treat their injuries. Morphine was called the "scourge of war" and was banned long before the turn of the century in Europe and here. In fact, heroin and later methadone were developed as alternatives to these "drug scourges"..

Today we are acutely aware of Post Traumatic Stress syndrome or PTS. It is a disorder unique to the battlefield and is a natural result of the horrific nature of war and results in a soldier becoming socially disconnected. Those soldiers with more solid support networks have easier times reconnecting. If only the term "support our troops" involved diversion of resources to reconnecting soldiers. Even in lab rats it has been shown that socially integrated rats have far fewer problems with abusive drug addictions than isolated rats. Criminalizing drug use is the equivalent of throwing water on gasoline fires; ask your fire marshal about that.

It's not surprising that the incidences of abusive drug addictions and corresponding crime occur disproportionately in socially marginalized communities - and households. And the drug war just makes the problem worse. Those who do not know their historykeep messing up?

0 Replies

Quote:

Contrary to assertions by drug policy reformers, prohibition was a response to abusive drug addiction problems; not the other way around.

I'm not sure who contends that drug abuse results from prohibition. Rather, prohibition merely fails to remedy abuse.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Quote:
Contrary to assertions by drug policy reformers, prohibition was a response to abusive drug addiction problems; not the other way around.

I'm not sure who contends that drug abuse results from prohibition. Rather, prohibition merely fails to remedy abuse.

And [prohibition] leads to an array of other serious societal problems, many of which are far more serious than the original problem.

The war we have created (on drugs) is doing us more harm than the drugs themselves.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

The war we have created (on drugs) is doing us more harm than the drugs themselves.

How do you know that?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The war we have created (on drugs) is doing us more harm than the drugs themselves.

How do you know that?

The illegality of drugs is obviously driving up their cost and creating a black market with violent and expensive results. We spend billions fighting drug cartels and the covert structures they have grown. Meanwhile they make billions selling cheaply grown organic chemicals.

How 'bout we save billions, kill the cartels without firing a shot, help the people who are addicted, and quite trying to run people's lives for them.

Of all the problems we have in our society, this one is the easiest one to correct.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
The war we have created (on drugs) is doing us more harm than the drugs themselves.

How do you know that?

How 'bout we save billions, kill the cartels without firing a shot, help the people who are addicted, and quite trying to run people's lives for them.

Of all the problems we have in our society, this one is the easiest one to correct.

But what do we do about all the police and prison guards who will be thrown out of work? We have highly trained drug task forces that will have no use when urban commando operations to root out drug dealers are not in demand? Do you have any idea how much money it will cost to retrain them? Besides, if we release an extra million or so prisoners our economy won't be able to fully employ them. It will drive down wage levels.

An even bigger problem with legalization is that we would be a magnet for drug dealers from countries that didn't legalize. All sorts of criminals would gravitate here for cheap drugs to sell in their own countries. And let's face it our prisons have already produced highly trained criminals of our own - who would need to be retrained in other less lucrative fields. Are taxpayers going to willingly bankroll the training of dislocated criminals?

0 Replies

rimchamp77 wrote:

Are taxpayers going to willingly bankroll the training of dislocated criminals?

Taxpayers are already bankrolling the creation of criminals under the guise of imposing a state selected morality on people's private choices. If Taxpayers will pay for that, then they'll pay for anything (and we're paying for all kinds of governmental crap).

After we fix the drug problem (the easy thing to fix), then we should focus on the tax problem (also not so difficult... flat tax, duh) and then the corruption in the political process (in the US) (much trickier than the other problems), and then maybe things will start to get back on track.

But we can't even get the first problem fixed... let's just leave it the way it is. I can't wait for the next election when we'll all get to choose between "bad" and "awful" again...

0 Replies

It would be interesting to carry out random drug tests on all these politicians who are fighting the legalisation of cannabis just to see how many of them have a "morrocan connection" in their blood streams. Cool

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

The illegality of drugs is obviously driving up their cost and creating a black market with violent and expensive results.

That's true. And I would just add that the illegality of murder drives up the costs of contract killings too. You're not suggesting that, just because an illegal activity costs more than it would if it were legalized, that's a good argument for legalization, are you?

rosborne979 wrote:

We spend billions fighting drug cartels and the covert structures they have grown. Meanwhile they make billions selling cheaply grown organic chemicals.

That could be an argument for more stringent drug laws, not less stringent ones.

rosborne979 wrote:

How 'bout we save billions, kill the cartels without firing a shot, help the people who are addicted, and quite trying to run people's lives for them.

And what are the societal costs of drug legalization? How do they compare to the costs of the drug prohibition we currently have?

rosborne979 wrote:

Of all the problems we have in our society, this one is the easiest one to correct.

Well, it may be the easiest one to screw up entirely, I'll grant you that.

0 Replies

I like it Erik 30 - random blood tests on MPs - (after all, isn't leading your country more important than leading your national cycling team?)

Although my bet is we'd find a slightly more expensive drug in their veins -
something you can't grow in your greenhouse...

Anyway, testing them for Psychiatric Disorders might be more appropriate!

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2244893#2244893
(cartoon from the Guardian)

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

And what are the societal costs of drug legalization? How do they compare to the costs of the drug prohibition we currently have?

I don't know. I would expect them to be comparable to the cost of not criminalizing them in the first place, as the situation was before World War I. I would also expect them to be comparable to the legalization of alcohol 1933.

But more important, given that your expectations differ from mine, is that I'm willing to find out. Let's legalize Marijuana and see what happens. If I'm right and the effects are benign, we move on to LSD. If the effect is still benign, we ratch it up to legalizing heroin. On the other hand, if you are right and the net effect of legalizing marijuana is harmful, we make it illegal again and try re-criminalizing alcohol next. Deal?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The illegality of drugs is obviously driving up their cost and creating a black market with violent and expensive results.

That's true. And I would just add that the illegality of murder drives up the costs of contract killings too. You're not suggesting that, just because an illegal activity costs more than it would if it were legalized, that's a good argument for legalization, are you?

I wasn't generalizing my argument to all illegal activities, just drugs.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't see a difference between telling people what drug they can use in their own home, and telling people they can't kill someone? Why are you even making an analogy like that.

I can see several good reasons for a restricted legalization of drugs:

We would win the "war" on drugs immediately, save billions of dollars, and lives, and eliminate a major portion of the current criminal sub-culture. Once controlled we can actually begin to help the people who really want help. And most importantly, we can give people the freedom to make their own choices in their lives, even if we don't like their choices.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
And what are the societal costs of drug legalization? How do they compare to the costs of the drug prohibition we currently have?

I don't know. I would expect them to be comparable to the cost of not criminalizing them in the first place, as the situation was before World War I. I would also expect them to be comparable to the legalization of alcohol 1933.

But more important, given that your expectations differ from mine, is that I'm willing to find out. Let's legalize Marijuana and see what happens. If I'm right and the effects are benign, we move on to LSD. If the effect is still benign, we ratch it up to legalizing heroin. On the other hand, if you are right and the net effect of legalizing marijuana is harmful, we make it illegal again and try re-criminalizing alcohol next. Deal?

That sounds fair - but isn't. The problem is that the stats are being kept by people with a vested interest in bilking taxpayers and crime victims. Nearly all in prison for "dealing" are addicts for example. And the problem with current addicts won't just "vanish overnight". And while the amount of crime will plummet, the number of people committing those crimes won't. We have to address the inequities of our economic system and that means to stop bailing out the sponsors of our political leaders. Free markets for labor and protectionism for the wealthy is what drives wages down.

Secondly, we need to start educating people about drugs. Admit that the drug war had NO standards, was racially motivated at the outset, and that - with no standards - there are inherent problems with over reliance on drugs as an "exercise, rest, and stress reduction alternative". Tell kids how pharmaceuticals deliberately mislead them and create new "diseases" to sell more of their drugs. That's why pharmaceuticals bankroll upwards of half the costs of the dangerous drugs mythology outside schools on the web and in the airwaves. This just won't happen because leaders of both parties are whores to pharmaceutical money.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
And what are the societal costs of drug legalization? How do they compare to the costs of the drug prohibition we currently have?

I don't know. I would expect them to be comparable to the cost of not criminalizing them in the first place, as the situation was before World War I. I would also expect them to be comparable to the legalization of alcohol 1933.

And you base that on what?

Thomas wrote:

But more important, given that your expectations differ from mine, is that I'm willing to find out. Let's legalize Marijuana and see what happens. If I'm right and the effects are benign, we move on to LSD. If the effect is still benign, we ratch it up to legalizing heroin. On the other hand, if you are right and the net effect of legalizing marijuana is harmful, we make it illegal again and try re-criminalizing alcohol next. Deal?

No deal. Once an illegal substance has been legalized, there really is no turning back. That has been my point all along. The time to ban tobacco was 400 years ago, the time to ban alcohol was about 5,000 years ago. We've long passed the point at which the usage of those substances could be eradicated.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
And what are the societal costs of drug legalization? How do they compare to the costs of the drug prohibition we currently have?

I don't know. I would expect them to be comparable to the cost of not criminalizing them in the first place, as the situation was before World War I. I would also expect them to be comparable to the legalization of alcohol 1933.

And you base that on what?

On the observation that learning from precedences usually works, even though it doesn't always work.

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
But more important, given that your expectations differ from mine, is that I'm willing to find out. Let's legalize Marijuana and see what happens. If I'm right and the effects are benign, we move on to LSD. If the effect is still benign, we ratch it up to legalizing heroin. On the other hand, if you are right and the net effect of legalizing marijuana is harmful, we make it illegal again and try re-criminalizing alcohol next. Deal?

No deal. Once an illegal substance has been legalized, there really is no turning back. That has been my point all along. The time to ban tobacco was 400 years ago, the time to ban alcohol was about 5,000 years ago. We've long passed the point at which the usage of those substances could be eradicated.

If you apply the same result to opium and hemp, what was the right time to criminalize those?

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know