should marijuana be legalized??

Thomas wrote:

I am too ill-informed about the medical studies that demonstrated those medical uses, so cannot comment on them. As for the troupe in Washington, you may know there is an interesting medical Marijuana case coming up in the Supreme Court. Don't even get me started on the stifling of states rights by the federal government under the magically super-stretched commerce clause of your constitution. I don't want to trigger an allergic reaction in Joe here, who has had to hear lots of related sermons from me for quite some time now ...

I will not get you started- my word on that.

Munich you say? I have only seen pictures; so, I hope it resembles those pictures. My application for graduate studies will be sent to the University of Leipzig, among other universities.

0 Replies

hey!i think marijuana should be legalised.i have a mate who uses marijuana to help with their deprssion!so be4 any1 goes around sayin its stupid to get addicted just think of why ppl are addicted!

0 Replies

Joe may be skeptical of the idea that Nobel Prizes indicate intellectual quality. Nevertheless, I can't resist pointing out that Gary Becker has a new paper out on the War on Drugs. It is forthcoming in the Journal of Political Economy, its title is The Economic Theory of Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs, and a draft of it is available on the web (as a PDF file). I didn't read the paper yet, but I'm looking forward to doing so over the weekend. Gary Becker has never bored me in any of his papers.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Joe may be skeptical of the idea that Nobel Prizes indicate intellectual quality.

I think Thomas Schelling was a very good choice.

0 Replies

Weed should definately be legal, but not controlled by the government. Here's my explanation.
I first want to start off by discribing what I mean by "trippy" or to "trip".
When something is trippy, it's like discovering something new. When im "trippin" I'm just THINKING alot.
Now, lets look at booze. When your drunk your mannerisms resemble that closer to a child than an adult. The magnifying glass is very close to the picture lets put it. So the simple shiny oohs and ahhs that are put out there, are satisfactory. The drunks are thinking less, yet they still work, which feeds their need for the bottle, so the remainder of the cheque shouldnt flow too restictivelly once they're drunk. A great way to make money off a man is get him drunk, keep him drunk and keep making money.
Now lets look at chronic. When you're "trippin" or THINKING alot, I think it'd be fair to say the magnifying glass is pulled back farther from the picture. We notice the flaws in the overall design. We gain understanding and demand change. The change often involves the removal of the rich capitalist from position of influence. However , I find it is only those who smoke chronic that really understand this. Hinduism, non-material, non-possesion type cultures, humble, good people. Smoke alot of grass. Unfortunately since The Man knows Pot will reveal his evil plan, he does all he can within his power (which often exceeds anyone elses) to thwart it's potential. They know our version of green is way better than theirs. But their too greedy, and as is always the case, money overrules logic.

0 Replies

That's about right I think.

Keep it illegal I say.It's cheaper that way.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That's about right I think.

Keep it illegal I say.It's cheaper that way.

Cheaper when illegal? I doubt it.

I suspect that if it were legal we would soon see very cheap, very strong weed.

What was the relative cost (compared to cost of living) of alcohol during prohibition?

0 Replies

I don't know ros but dope is dead cheap here and if the Gov't got their hands on it they are sure to milk it.

They downgraded it recently from Class B to Class C.Any lower and it's legal.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I don't know ros but dope is dead cheap here and if the Gov't got their hands on it they are sure to milk it.

They downgraded it recently from Class B to Class C.Any lower and it's legal.

I think it's fairly expensive here, at least it was years ago and the price seemed to be going up, not down.

Also, hemp is easier to grow than tobacco, and if the tobacco you bought for $5 was weed, I think you could stay baked 24x7 for a long time (not that that's necessarily good or anything).

0 Replies

ros-

I wouldn't wish to be floaty 24/7 and I'm not sure I wish to be "baked" at all.

But "floaty" for the last 3 hours of the day here costs about $6-7 a week.To most people that is of no consequence.The next step down from Class C is licensing for authorised sellers similar to tobacco and alcohol.That's when the tax would go on it.

I think the price would go up to at least treble.
But as you say-it is easy to grow so I suppose that would limit the taxation possibilities.

I've heard stories that Churchill's cigars contained dope and that he was "half-baked" 24/7.

0 Replies

I actually prefer the legalization of all drugs, and not to keep the price down. For one thing, I tend to support personal freedom (including the freedom to damage yourself with drugs). But most importantly, I feel that the economics of illegalization is driving much of the economic stife in US cities and third world countries. And that the WAR on drugs is actually a MUCH greater harm on everyone than it is a benefit.

Making something illegal *creates* criminals. Even though they choose their own path, some people will *always* choose that path, so you create criminals. And to make matters worse, those criminals start to accumulate wealth by selling artificially expensive drugs.

There's an easy way to win this war and take it off the table. Legalize it. Nobody can make billions selling opium and cocain (and then buying weapons) if the price of the crop crashes by 10,000%.

0 Replies

ros-

Your argument is a very attractive one.The fact that Governments don't take it suggest they have a good reason but I'm not sure what it is.It may be a valid reason and,I suppose,it may be not.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Your argument is a very attractive one.The fact that Governments don't take it suggest they have a good reason but I'm not sure what it is.

I'm not sure either. But I suspect that it's a combination of corruption and pandering, driven by a desire to promote a "rightious" image (to garner votes), rather than to make the more difficult argument for accepting the bad (people with a lack of self-discipline can harm themselves) along with the good (economic control and freedom of choice).

All I know is that they could win this war instantly with a simple signature. Decriminalization is a withering economic attack at the very heart of the drug cartel's.

Restricted legalization of alcohol and tobacco are functional but necessary evils which free societies must endure, and the majority of "entertainment" drugs easily fit the same caterogy as alcohol and tobacco. The only reason they are treated differently now is because they are entrenched.

Sheesh, I sound like I'm running for office or something... Vote for me and I will fight to get that paper signed and end the drug wars now. Smile

I'll get off the soapbox now.

0 Replies

One basic problem to this legalization debate is the false assumption that there are standards for criminalization. There are none. The decision to criminalize is based on the decision of high level political appointees [aka Drug Czars]. The standard "potential for abuse" is a standard regarding users and not the drugs. If the standard were strictly applied it would shut down the pharmaceutical industry.

The most accurate description of the War on Drugs is that it is a scam and a hoax. There never has nor will there ever be any legitimate scientific studies showing any drug to be inherently harmful. That's why these scam artists will never face critics like myself in a public discussion on drug issues - much less a debate on drug policy. Scam artists do not like scrutiny.

The fact that there are no identifiable standards for drugs is deliberate - not an oversight. I can't envision any drug standards that would NOT include alcohol and tobacco as banned drugs. And even the Drug Czar admits that recriminalization of alcohol is almost as "not open for discussion" as his presence in a debate with someone like myself who will repeatedly expose him as the scam artist and pathological liar that he is. The opposition to criminalization of alcohol and tobacco is insurmountable. The reason that heroin - less addictive than cigarettes and less toxic than either with almost no side effects in a low dose - is criminalized is because of the class and political power of those being incarcerated for use. Anyone who says differently is lying.

I love how the "debate" in this forum is based on the "banning the sale of harmful drugs versus rise in crime". The problem is that there is no such thing as a dangerous drug. All widely used drugs - legal and illegal- have been shown to be very beneficial or therapeutic when used responsibly.

When criminals are given the market by criminalization they cater the product to the most dysfunctional people and they don't have any incentives for disclosure or quality control. Upwards of 80% of the criminalized products are either smokeable or injectable. Meth was sold legally in pill form and fentanyl in pill form. Marijuana was widely available in tinctures, confectionaries, and baked goods when it was legal. Opiates were also widely available in other forms including laudanum. Of course when we had alcohol prohibition wine and beer - the two most popular alcoholic drinks - became almost nonexistent under criminal control.

The debate about "hard drugs" and "soft drugs" is also bogus. Whatever happened to the large volume of people addicted to rotgut whiskey during alcohol prohibition? Whatever happened to rotgut whiskey? It disappeared in a regulated market with quality control and seller accountability. Don't be shocked when crack and smoked meth do the same with a regulated market.

Do we continue pretending that we have standards for banning drugs? Do we actually set standards. When we set identifiable standards we will either legalize marijuana, heroin, cocaine and most banned drugs - or we will criminalize alcohol and tobacco. Should banning drugs be about safety or political expediency? Right now it is a matter of political expediency. Anyone who says different is clearly lying. And just because one believes something to be true won't make it true. It just changes the one who lies from a liar to a delusional person.

0 Replies

Grass?
Your grannie could enjoy it (and probably does).

Far easier to buy on the street, and proven to be a deadly danger, both to physical and mental health -
- is Alcohol.

For a slow, sedated suicide, you can't beat it.

0 Replies

ENDYMION wrote:

Grass?
Your grannie could enjoy it (and probably does).

Far easier to buy on the street, and proven to be a deadly danger, both to physical and mental health -
- is Alcohol.

For a slow, sedated suicide, you can't beat it.

I gather you are sympathetic to the small minority of people who favor recriminalization of alcohol? I continue to find a goodly number - even though they recognize this to be a disaster.

Surprised you didn't mention the gateway drug. Cigarette addiction contributes to all sorts of health problems. It also leads to other addictions. The correlation between smokers and addicts is over 90%. Two thirds of periodic users of illegal drugs do not become addicted. Those in higher income brackets steal from their friends and family and are not in prison. When caught, they are referred to treatment - if they don't enter voluntarily or if they don't beat their addiction on their own [that's how "dangerous" these drugs are: people beat the addictions on their own quite often].

Only those with little hope or incentive resort to lives of crime. They tend to be people who are isolated by society. Criminalization deepens that isolation and removes them from resources. The drugs don't do this. I explain that at EDIT: MODERATOR: LINK REMOVED - which is not included in my book because of course along with the phrase "dangerous drugs mythology", even though both are described in some detail.

Even if we legalize all drugs many of the same people will become criminals. They won't commit anywhere as many crimes and they won't have the resources for high powered weaponry or ability to corrupt law enforcement people because there will be less money from the black market. They will also have access to more health resources - including addiction treatment. Without the social stigma the success rate of treatments will increase.

The biggest benefit from legalization is that books like mine will be available to school districts to teach people useful information about what drugs do - and more importantly, what they don't do. Pharmaceutical profits won't drop initially because the population is aging and drug dependencies are still very high in older people. The younger people will be less susceptible to the "quick fix" mantra of drug ads and may even adopt some of the many healthy alternatives listed in my book.

But that's so much pie in the sky. Scam artists are too well entrenched and the public has had decades of lies to comfort them. And the drug war isn't the only scam around either. There are other abusive and immoral social policies besides the drug war. And some even cost more than the 70 plus billions that the drug war scam does.

0 Replies

rimchamp77 wrote:

I gather you are sympathetic to the small minority of people who favor recriminalization of alcohol?

Hell no.

If they did that I'd have to drive all the way up to the highlands of Scotland to buy this beauty on the black market - and no one and nothing would be able to stop me.

I suppose I was thinking how weed is often in the news these days, getting vetted.
I think it gets a bad press.
I've used it, to get by in rough times, and if you could get it on pescription, I bet there would be a whole load of folks who could come off the drink through it.
But the big companies wouldn't like that would they?
The booze industry is big buisness- like tobacco.

Anyway,
Cheers

0 Replies

e.

I suppose I was thinking how weed is often in the news these days, getting vetted.
I think it gets a bad press.
I've used it, to get by in rough times, and if you could get it on pescription, I bet there would be a whole load of folks who could come off the drink through it.
But the big companies wouldn't like that would they?
The booze industry is big buisness- like tobacco.

Anyway,
Cheers[/quote]

Actually upwards of half the funding for the dangerous drugs mythology on so called "anti drug" websites like PDFA and the "anti drug" are from pharmaceutical companies. If you think about what an honest discussion about how drugs work would do to pharmaceutical sales it makes sense. Drugs are not the panacea for what ails you. Kids are not taught that in schools. Instead they get the dangerous drugs mythology that focuses on banned drugs. Only those drugs cause problems - except in "rare situations". In my book I mention "side effects": anyone who used a shot or two of whiskey as an anesthetic for dental surgery in the nineteenth century might read that a side effect might be intoxication.

0 Replies

Weed is the only drug I consider safe enough for generallized legal adult consumption.

I have seen in my own life how other drugs really fu*#k up some people. My ex-wife was a heroin addict, as is a cousin, now in rehab, my sister was hooked on crank and I have taken more than one friend to rehab for coke or crack and alcohol is just "War Juice" to most folks who ingest it.

You can take my coke, crank or horse, just leave me alone with my coffee!

Even weed can wreck a life, but nowhere near as much as the aforementioned drugs.

I would legalize weed, and have mandaory drug rehab and hospitalization for those caught with the other drugs.

as to LSD, its ability to provide insight changed my life, but Christ I have seen it screw up some of my friends almost beyond repair and I would only give it to those who I trust are stable and who would gain from the insight the trip yields. Today I see it used as a casual drug instead of a unique experience used for personal growth and insight. It is abused in this way and should not be done. its bad juju when used so casually, especially by kids under 18. they don't have the life's experience and maturity to fall back on to provide the context for what the trip brings out in a person.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Weed is the only drug I consider safe enough for generallized legal adult consumption.

That's probably because weed is so hard for criminals to "cater their product to the most dysfunctional in society". It can't be injected and the carcinogenous smoke can't be absorbed anywhere near as easily as cigarette smoke can. It's not very addictive-despite its appeal to smokers who already have a severe addiction problem [addictions, like allergies, are cumulative in nature].

Heroin was developed almost concurrently with aspirin by a chemist from Bayer as a pain reliever. It worked better and with fewer complications when used as prescribed. For safety analogy it was a sports car compared to a minivan. Obviously the sports car has better maneuverability and better balance and driven in similar manners is safer to operate than a minivan. The question is: why do sports car owners pay higher premiums for liability insurance? Heroin is abused by more people precisely because it is far safer than aspirin or alcohol or most other drugs. Few other drugs can be safely injected even in low doses, yet for heroin users a majority don't die or even become addicts.

Most heroin users will level off their dosages just like drinkers do with alcohol. Of course, during prohibition wine and beer became virtually nonexistent in the criminal underworld. The risk was just as much as for hard liquor but the profits were much less. It just wasn't worth it to provide less addictive alternatives. And yes, the more potent the concentration of drug the more potential for addiction. You're more likely to become addicted to espresso than regular coffee.

Of course you don't want the street versions available after legalization - but guess what: bathtub gin disappeared after repeal along with a whole host of moonshine whiskeys.

Until the DEA comes up with a legitimate study showing any drug used in specified dosages that are not comparable to 190 proof alcohol, being inherently harmful their reputation as total scam artists will remain intact. The Controlled Substances Act has no basis in standards and this is deliberately done to avoid prohibition of alcohol, tobacco and any other profitable commercial drug enterprise. Their mantra is: "trust the Drug Czar to protect you from the really harmful drugs" - without any proof or identifiable standards criminalization is very selective and political. Anyone who says different is lying. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it so. This just means that you are delusional rather than pathological. Those at the top are pathological; they hide from confrontation with truth to prove this.

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know