LEGALIZING DRUGS

As long as there are "Christians" and "right thinking people" for politicians to pander to drugs will never be legal. It's easy to lock up some hippie smoking dope and appear to be upholding law and order, much easier than actually arresting real criminals and chance getting shot.

There's lots of money to be made from fighting an anti drug war.

The criminal justice/corrections industry is huge and very powerful. What a shame!

I guess the latest thing is going after terror cells. The "cell" recently busted in Miami had members so poor that the government plant had to buy them boots.

According to Leno:

Willie Nelson was arrested for procession of marijuana earlier this week. Nice to see we're cracking down on crime in this country!

Police officers said Willie's bus reeked of pot. That's when you know it's bad, when the pot smoke overwhelms the diesel smell of your tour bus.

A giant bus with Willie Nelson on the side. That's probable cause right there isn't it?

How does on "process" marijuana--don't you just leave it to dry?

The thread started about Nelson's citation (he was not actually detained) is much more interesting than this one.

Oh no! Willie should have been detained -- he is a dangerous pothead.

I just heard on the news that drug dealers will finance the purchase of your home if you agree to grow pot at home. Who do I call?

You should probably call a lawyer. The cooperation of the Ontario Provinicial Police and the Hydro has succeeded in rounding up a lot of would-be pot millionaires, and shutting down grow operations. Of course, there's never a lack of suckers, so they continue to hunt down the grow ops.

You might get away with it for a while, but if you do it indoors, you will inevitably attract attention, and you'll trash your house in the process. Good luck, and don't call me when you get busted, because i won't drop by during visiting hours.

If I were you I'd call a good lawyer, for when you're busted and busted real good.

In the event of the authorities monitoring this thread, I was only joking about possibly contacting drug dealers. I am kind of high on life.

It makes perfect sense.

We spend 15 billion a year on anti-drug laws.
We would make 5 billion+if the Marijuana alcohol equilization act was passed

The feds spend about $17 B a year. I wager the states and local govts. spend much, much, more.

I can see that Mr. Friedman never took a Pathology course.

Miller, sure some of the drugs are very damaging. However, sending someone to prison ruins their life. If they survive prison, it is difficult to get employment. Moreover, drugs being illegal, they are very expensive, forcing people to rob and even kill to get the money to pay for them.

It would be better to spend the money going to the criminal-justice system on rehabbing addicts. I wager the cost would be much less, and the users could continue in gainful employment.

For some reason, I think you know this.

Wow…the legalisation of drugs isn't an easy topic to cover, because of the sheer number of drugs and their differing effects. This should more properly be debate on a single drug, and whether or not it should be legalised :

People for the legalisation of illicit drugs need to understand there is more at stake than ?'it doesn't negatively effect the individual taking it'

What if a specific drug effects different people differently (ie one it has little to no obvious effect on <medium> and another it has an obvious effect on <medium>), with no way to tell until you've taken the drug?

A number of drugs actually exhibit such behaviours .

A so called ?'soft drug' like Marijiuana has it's down side. Here is a link to a very reputable science magazine : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol;jsessionid=OPNJHHGAPKJM

That's their drugs and alcohol page. Most people's doubts about research will arise from ?'but their research is paid for by the government, so they support the govt line'. If you look at the New Scientist link, you will see that they are publishing pro & con articles on drugs.

Not included in the page, because it is too old (It was published about two years ago if I remember right) was a link stating that there is that a UK research team had found chemical in the brain required for people to think rationally (sorry, can't remember the name, was a while back). Schizophrenics naturally have a lower level of this chemical. People who are ?'prone to schizophrenia' have a lower than ?'normal' level of this chemical. Smoking marijuana lowers the level of this chemical and triggers Schizophrenia.

Here is another link to the effects, which I found after a very quick search, but don't quote me on it's reputableness : http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/topics/customer-files/Learn-About-Alcohol-Tobacco-and-Other-Drugs.pdf

Marijuana - At my last workplace, I knew a guy who smoked marijuana every day of his life (he was early thirties when last I saw him). He could talk about everything and everything with a greater knowledge than most people (well read with good memory retention). So the issue of marijuana is obviously not simple. I've also personally met numerous kids, and their parents. In the case of two particular brothers, the eldest didn't start having mental health issues until he touched marijuana. His youngest brother was fine - until about a year and a half later he too started taking marijuana. I've run into their friends who describe them as having ?'psychotic episodes'. Both the parents are normal.

LSD is known to cause ?'flash backs' in some people, years after the drug was last taken.

Heroin - anyone who knows anything about heroin, knows that for some people, it's almost impossible to give up, and so children are born addicted to heroin.

Cocaine - I have a good friend who took it over a long period of time (about 6-8 months a few years back). Over time she started becoming more testy, her stress levels rose through the roof, and she was snapping at everyone. This wasn't because of her job - as soon as she stopped she started becoming normal again, and she admitted that she never knew just how bad she had become.

The same friend of mine who used cocaine, has regularly used ecstacy at dance parties. I don't see any medium term effects on her from this drug.

For drugs in general - their dangers :
Because of the lack of drug driving tests, surveys in Queensland Australia revealed as many as one in three young adults (the group most susceptible to drugs) have driven at least once whilst under the influence of an illicit drug.

Studies have shown (again, older studies published on NewScientist) that there are genes in the body that cause people greater pleasure when they drink alcohol or take drugs. In other words, these people get addicted easier, and the research backs it. It also helps explains why some people can be addicted from almost the first hit, and others can use casually for a short while, then walk away.

The mix of genetics (this is opinion only) seems to be the cause for the major differences in effects of drugs on people. This opinion is probably backed by the fact that doctors/psychiatrists proscribe medicines until they find one that works "because everybody is different' (ie. What works for one person with the same illness as another, may not work for the other)

Other effects of certain drugs include a reduction in motivation to work. This costs the country in terms of GDP, yet the same amount of tax per person is needed. So when you have millions of unmotivated people, the more productive ones (ie the ones not on drugs that diminish work performance) are in effect paying extra to support those on said drugs.

When you legalise a drug, can there be any doubt (look at place that has fully legalised Cannabis - Alaska if I remember right, in the US) that more people become addicted to the drug? And if a higher percentage are addicted to the work performance degrading drug, then a the ?'more productive' members of society are paying even more to uphold the ?'less productive' members (I use those terms loosely, for they will not always be accurate - it is a generalisation)

Futher, the more addicts of hard drugs, the more support workers are needed to support the addicts (the more drop in points, supply centres, detox centres for when they want to quit, the more methodone centres, the more social workers/police to cater for the associated domestic violence/mental health issues, the more workers to support the workers <this>, the more family counsellors for parents who don't know how to deal with their addicted children, the more divorces from the involved stress of addicted children, the more addicts driving around in cars (leading to more accidents, maiming injuries, deaths etc, and not just of the drivers)

Uh, I'd better stop, there's too much to write on this subject.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/3/23

This is interesting.

I think you make a lot of good points. Thanks also for the link.

v, with all due respect, I think we all know that drugs affect people differently. But this doesn't impact the argument that decriminalization makes sense.

The USA has spent a trillion dollars in its criminalization of drugs, and it is losing the war. This is especially so now that Mexico has become a major supplier.

It makes no sense to impose a prison sentence on someone because he or she is sick (addicted to drugs). Are they not suffering enough with the addiction? Years ago, we decriminalized alcohol, and no one would argue that we should return to prohibition. Moreover, many more people die of alcohol and tobacco use than all the other drugs combined.

Drugs should be legal at the age of 18, along with alcohol. Anything you want to do to yourself is your own fault.

Intoxicating another with drugs should be a huge offense. Huge fine, huge prison sentence. Giving them to a minor likewise. Public intoxication should be slightly less of an offense, but still very large. Any crimes you commit while intoxicated are judged as if you were not, if not worse.

Besides, marijuana can be less deadly than tobacco. But we've been using tobacco for years, so its okay.

Anyone see any problems in that?

Small problem - drugs (and alochol) don't necessarily just effect just the person taking them. That should be obvious from all the health workers needed to care for them, social workers, mental health staff etc etc etc. This 'support' is paid for by other people. It effects that taxpayer, the families, the friends, people killed by drug drivers, people assaulted by people on amphetamines, the police who deal with violent drug effected people, the ambulance officers who deal with the injuries etc etc etc.



You are making an economic case of decriminalising drugs here. You may have missed it, but I was saying that I believe (it is my opinion only) that the actual cost, in mental health, traffic injury & death, drug addiction support & detox, family counselling, and loss of productivity would actually be many times greater than the money spent on current enforcement.

My opinion is that it would be better to use Sweden's methods, who have the lowest drug addiction rate in the western world.

You are misrepresenting the situation here. People have a choice whether or not they take drugs. No one forces them to do this. Taking responsibility for ones own actions is a cornerstone of society. They are not victims of crime, they are (originally) willing partakers in committing an offence. If you have any dealings with hardcore drug addicts you will find the one thing they all have in common, is they admit no responsibility for their own actions. The ones that detox, one and all, say that it wasn't until they admitted they had a problem that they could overcome the problem. Your view is encouraging a basic lie that all drug addicts tell themselves.

Addiction is certainly a mental and physiological issue. Their self responsibility and choices, are not.


Quite right. That would be because they are legal, popular and socially acceptable drugs, would it not?

PS. In none of this am I saying hard drugs doesn't have a terrible and negative effect on the addicts themselves, only that, in the end, every member of our society must accept responsibility for their own actions (for no-one/nothing else ever makes even one decision for an individual).

aidan, you say that intoxicating another should be a huge offense. Does this also apply to alcohol? There is a problem in that someone using, say, pot, is likely at some point to sell a little of his or her stash to a friend. Would you propose that the seller be locked away for this? I wouldn't.

v, what exactly is your position on imposing criminal sentencing for having "illegal" drugs? BTW, virtually all we do has an impact on others. So what? Also, addiction is not always a voluntary thing. In many cases, such as with our former Supreme Ct. Chief Justice, it begins with taking pain medicine. Should he have been thrown in jail?