# When recreational drugs are legal...



## Bill Mattocks

In Michigan, several drugs have not yet been outlawed (or were legal at the time of the crime below) including 'Spice', a form of synthetic marijuana.  Many have argued for the legalization of drugs on the basis that crimes will decrease.  I disagree.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ed-family-slaughter-witness-article-1.1084339



> A 19-year-old Michigan man charged with trying to bludgeon his entire family to death in a bid to steal money for drugs is accused of methodically divvying up his victims with a friend.
> 
> Tucker Cipriano and Mitchell (Roderick) Young, 20, plotted who would kill whom from Ciprianos family, a witness said in court on Wednesday.



...



> Zinderman was offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony against his friends.
> 
> On the night of the attack, Zinderman admits, he helped Cipriano rob the family twice  *to find money to purchase Spice, or synthetic marijuana.*
> 
> But he says he wasnt part of the murderous attack hours later.
> 
> The motive behind the plan was money, Zinderman said. Cipriano and Young wanted to get *cash and valuables to sell to fund their drug habits*  and Zinderman said he was supposed to get one-third of the cut.



http://spinalcolumnonline.com/lethal-and-legal-concerns-about-spice-raised-in-w-oakland/



> A relatively new drug is enticing teens to spice up their lives and try a new high. The street drug Spice produces powerful and mind-altering effects and is considered by some to be more detrimental to those using it than marijuana. The distribution and use of this synthetic cannabis is making many wonder how can this drug legally be sold in convenience stores in Michigan as an incense, especially when it is considered so destructive and addictive? In addition, some are asking where the public outcry is.
> 
> According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), Spice describes a diverse family of herbal mixtures that are also marketed as K2, fake marijuana, Yucatan Fire, Skunk, Moon Rocks, and others. Each product contains dried, shredded plant material and chemical additives that are responsible for psychoactive effects and mimic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana.
> 
> Spice has emerged as a popular, legal alternative to marijuana among teenagers and college students alike. According to the NIDAs Monitoring the Future survey conducted for the first time in 2011, 11.4 percent of high school seniors in the U.S. reported using Spice in the past year. It ranks as the second most frequently used illegal drug among this same demographic, the institute reported.
> 
> Moreover, poison control center calls were flooded with calls related to Spice and K2 in 2011, doubling from the previous year. To illustrate that point, just a week ago, three teens were hospitalized with kidney failure and a dozen others experienced vomiting and back pain in Wyoming in an outbreak linked to blueberry Spice.



...



> A number of states have passed bans on Spice and its derivatives, and many others are considering legislation prohibiting the sale or possession of Spice. In Michigan, however, the drug is still legal due to manufacturers finding loopholes in legislation.



I think the notion that if drugs are legal, then addicts won't commit crimes to get them is absurd.  They'll do anything to get their drugs, including killing their own families.  The fact that the drugs are legal or illegal means nothing - they want them, they'll kill to get them.  Legalizing drugs doesn't solve problems.


----------



## MA-Caver

Synthetic marijuana has now been linked to the "zombie attack" in Florida. 
It's like the acid (LSD) they are manufacturing today... just a bunch of chemicals that'll mess up the already messed up brain. 

I predict that at least (real) marijuana will end up being legalized. There's nothing better that a domineering... excuse me, aspiring government wants than having a population placid and too baked to care or do anything about the "change" they're wanting to effect upon said population. 

We're in a downward spiral... 25 years from now none of this will really matter. 

Hopefully I'll be dead by then.


----------



## granfire

I don't think you can go by that.
Cocaine and LSD were legal at one point until the damage they were doing became obvious. 
Spice was never meant to be smoked. I actually have no idea what it was meant to be. but it is very dangerous. Weed isn't.

For comparrison, you should probably pull up drunk driving and multiple DUIs...including the cases that cause fatal wrecks....

or smokers who start wild fires by tossing butts out their car windows....

I don't think Spice will be legal for long.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> I don't think you can go by that.
> Cocaine and LSD were legal at one point until the damage they were doing became obvious.
> Spice was never meant to be smoked. I actually have no idea what it was meant to be. but it is very dangerous. Weed isn't.
> 
> For comparrison, you should probably pull up drunk driving and multiple DUIs...including the cases that cause fatal wrecks....
> 
> or smokers who start wild fires by tossing butts out their car windows....
> 
> I don't think Spice will be legal for long.



I think you're missing the point.  It's not what people DO under the influence of Spice and similar drugs.  The point is that they will kill to buy drugs - legal or illegal.  So legalizing it doesn't change the criminal activities people will engage in to get it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Well we know that when they made Alcohol illegal there was no increase in crime, and no decrease when they legalized it again.

Right Buggsy?

Buggsy?

Well, that's a lousy Valentines Day surprise.


----------



## ballen0351

MA-Caver said:


> Synthetic marijuana has now been linked to the "zombie attack" in Florida.
> It's like the acid (LSD) they are manufacturing today... just a bunch of chemicals that'll mess up the already messed up brain.
> 
> Hopefully I'll be dead by then.



Lab tests detected only marijuana in the system of a Florida man shot while chewing another man's face, the medical examiner said Tuesday, ruling out other street drugs including the components typically found in the stimulants known as bath salts.


----------



## granfire

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you're missing the point.  It's not what people DO under the influence of Spice and similar drugs.  The point is that they will kill to buy drugs - legal or illegal.  So legalizing it doesn't change the criminal activities people will engage in to get it.



well true, but just because it is so new that the laws have not caught up with it yet does not make the case to keep weed illegal....

and there is enough going on when an alcoholic needs his fix. Alas, it's relatively cheap to get - since it is legal - and available in regular stores.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> well true, but just because it is so new that the laws have not caught up with it yet does not make the case to keep weed illegal....
> 
> and there is enough going on when an alcoholic needs his fix. Alas, it's relatively cheap to get - since it is legal - and available in regular stores.



Yes, actually it does.  Pretend I didn't say 'Spice'.  Pretend I said 'booze'.  The point is that when addicts need their fix, they commit crimes to get it.  It does not matter if the drug is legal or illegal.  If pot is legal, addicts will commit crimes to get it.  Period.  So yes, it does make the case to keep weed illegal, if the argument is that legalizing it will stop the crime associated with it.  It demonstrably won't.


----------



## crushing

Bill Mattocks said:


> In Michigan, several drugs have not yet been outlawed (or were legal at the time of the crime below) including 'Spice', a form of synthetic marijuana. Many have argued for the legalization of drugs on the basis that crimes will decrease. I disagree.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ed-family-slaughter-witness-article-1.1084339




I can't help but wonder if they were they using the legal and likely dangerous so-called 'synthetic marijuana' because natural marijuana is illegal.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> I can't help but wonder if they were they using the legal and likely dangerous so-called 'synthetic marijuana' because natural marijuana is illegal.



I cant help but wonder why people drink nail polish remover or hair spray when beer is legal


----------



## Makalakumu

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, actually it does.  Pretend I didn't say 'Spice'.  Pretend I said 'booze'.  The point is that when addicts need their fix, they commit crimes to get it.  It does not matter if the drug is legal or illegal.  If pot is legal, addicts will commit crimes to get it.  Period.  So yes, it does make the case to keep weed illegal, if the argument is that legalizing it will stop the crime associated with it.  It demonstrably won't.



The argument is that it will reduce crime associated with it.  We still have crime that involves alcohol, but it is nowhere near what it was when it was prohibited.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> The argument is that it will reduce crime associated with it.  We still have crime that involves alcohol, but it is nowhere near what it was when it was prohibited.



The level of addiction and withdraw symptoms making people seek out the drugs and do anyhting they can to get it including murder, and robbery are much stronger for say Heroin then for Beer also.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Makalakumu said:


> The argument is that it will reduce crime associated with it.  We still have crime that involves alcohol, but it is nowhere near what it was when it was prohibited.



No, the argument has been that if drugs are legalized, people won't have to steal and commit other crimes to get the money to pay for it.  Spice apparently costs about $35 in Michigan and is legal.  And kids murder their parents to get the money to buy it.  I think the argument that people won't break the law to obtain drugs if they are legal is invalid.

And 'reduce crime' is interesting.  So you're saying it's OK that this kid murdered his parents - because if Spice was illegal, we'd have more murders?  Not seeing the logic there.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> The level of addiction and withdraw symptoms making people seek out the drugs and do anyhting they can to get it including murder, and robbery are much stronger for say Heroin then for Beer also.



Dude, we have detox centers all over the place.  We have battered women shelters that take care of families who have been driven off the cliff by booze.  Different drugs different problems.  

When they are illegal, however, we have the same problems.  Criminal gangs dominate the market, they kill rivals, they use the money to corrupt everyone including the police, the government gets involved with the business to fund stuff they can't get people to vote for, the price goes way up, addicts rape steal and murder to get fixes, etc.  It's a **** storm and it's way way way worse than if it was simply legalized.

Consequently, all kinds of governments are finally realizing this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4791099...uguay-aims-legalize-oversee-marijuana-market/



> President Jose Mujica's leftist government will send a bill to Congress shortly on this as part of a package of measures to fight crime in the South American country.
> 
> 
> The government will also urge that marijuana sales  be legalized worldwide, Defense Minister Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro  said, adding the measure could discourage the use of so-called hard  drugs.
> 
> 
> Marijuana consumption is already legal in Uruguay.



I guess some taxpayers got tired of paying for all of the public employees associated with "drug wars" and crap...


----------



## Makalakumu

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, the argument has been that if drugs are legalized, people won't have to steal and commit other crimes to get the money to pay for it.  Spice apparently costs about $35 in Michigan and is legal.  And kids murder their parents to get the money to buy it.  I think the argument that people won't break the law to obtain drugs if they are legal is invalid.



People will still steal and kill to get all kinds of things.  Should we ban them all?  



Bill Mattocks said:


> And 'reduce crime' is interesting.  So you're saying it's OK that this kid murdered his parents - because if Spice was illegal, we'd have more murders?  Not seeing the logic there.



If spice was illegal, it would be like any other illegal drug, more people would get killed for it.  If it were legal, it would be like other legal drugs, some people get killed for it, but you'd have detox centers, you'd have battered women's shelters, you'd have all kinds of interventions in place that would help alleviate some of the problems.  Crime is not totally going to go away, but it gets reduced.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Makalakumu said:


> People will still steal and kill to get all kinds of things.  Should we ban them all?



If they're drugs like Spice, yes.



> If spice was illegal, it would be like any other illegal drug, more people would get killed for it.  If it were legal, it would be like other legal drugs, some people get killed for it, but you'd have detox centers, you'd have battered women's shelters, you'd have all kinds of interventions in place that would help alleviate some of the problems.  Crime is not totally going to go away, but it gets reduced.



OK, so you explain to the surviving kids that it's OK that their brother killed their parents and tried to kill them, because it's less than it might have been.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Dude, we have detox centers all over the place.  We have battered women shelters that take care of families who have been driven off the cliff by booze.  Different drugs different problems.


Dude we have drug treatment programs everywhere.  We have methodone clinics all over the place.  We have court order drug diversion classes and court ordered treatment.  I spent alot of mine time when I was in the Drug game helping addicts find treatment centers.  Problem was normally there were no beds available and months long waiting lists. We spend billions on drug treatment programs.  So Dude how is making it legal going to make people stop using?  If the fear of Jail is not stong enough to make you want to quit?



> When they are illegal, however, we have the same problems.  Criminal gangs dominate the market, they kill rivals, they use the money to corrupt everyone including the police, the government gets involved with the business to fund stuff they can't get people to vote for, the price goes way up, addicts rape steal and murder to get fixes, etc.  It's a **** storm and it's way way way worse than if it was simply legalized.


Criminal gangs will still dominate the market.  You can buy all kinds of legal things cheaper on the black market.  Prescription drugs are legal yet they are the new number one choice for drug dealers because courts dont send you to jail for selling pills vs selling crack and you make more money.  When I was buying pills Id pay as much as $60 per pill for a good Oxy or perc.  The big thing now gangs are getting into are cigarettes.  They go buy trailer loads down south like GA or NC drive them up to NY or Mass and make a ton of money selling the cigarettes because of the high taxes that NY charges.  They are making Millions.  So when we make drugs legal and tax the crap out of them in effect raising the price you dont think gangs still wont be selling black market dope cheaper?  


> Consequently, all kinds of governments are finally realizing this.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4791099...uguay-aims-legalize-oversee-marijuana-market/
> 
> 
> 
> I guess some taxpayers got tired of paying for all of the public employees associated with "drug wars" and crap...


When I worked dope we were the only self sufficent unit in the department.  We actually made money for the city thru drug and asset forefiture.  It was nothing for us to find 60 to 70 grand hidden in closets, 8 to 9 grand in peoples pockets, Nice paid off BMW's ect nice Tvs ect.  all that money we kept and used.


----------



## Makalakumu

I don't understand why we can't look at the prohibition of alcohol as a case study for all drugs, but anyway, let's drag this topic into new waters...

How many civil rights are you willing to sacrifice in order to combat illegal drugs? What powers should the government have to enforce these laws?


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> I don't understand why we can't look at the prohibition of alcohol as a case study for all drugs, but anyway, let's drag this topic into new waters...


Alcohol is different then Crack no matter how hard you want to try and spin it.



> How many civil rights are you willing to sacrifice in order to combat illegal drugs? What powers should the government have to enforce these laws?



What civil rights are being violated?


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> What civil rights are being violated?



Apparently not enough. People are still usung illegal drugs and people are getting killed. Therefore I propose that we put mandate dope detectors in everyone's home and if anyone smokes a joint, the police will be immediately notified. We also need long prison sentances for anyone involved in said situations. That will teach people not to associate with undesirables. Also, we need to execute drug dealers on the spot like the Communists. 

It's for the children donchaknow.


----------



## zDom

It is no use discussing this with Bill.

He is of the old school who swallowed the government propaganda regarding marijuana hook, line, sinker and may have even got some of the pole in there.

The line of thinking is that because the gov't classified pot as a drug, any behavior associated with drugs automatically applies to marijuana.

Pot = drug = bad. Period. There is no breaking those associations with those who lock onto that mindset.

The facts are that it is easier to produce useable marijuana in your backyard than it is to brew beer, distill whiskey, make wine or even grow and cure tobacco leaves.

It really is no more difficult to produce in your backyard than growing tomatoes. Plant, water, wait, pluck some and drop it on your kitchen counter.

No test tubes, no magic formulas.

Imagine the crazy things people would do for a nice, red tomato if the government could throw you in jail if they caught you growing them in your backyard.

Yeah, Bill. Growing a pot plant next to our tomatoes and jalapenos would bring the apocalypse and turn all our daughters into slavering whores.

It amazes me how otherwise rational, intelligent people turn to mindless regurgitators of ******** when it comes to marijuana.

Ah well, I'll go home and pop a beer and maybe even do a shot since alcohol is legal and therefore good.

Pot is illegal and illegal = bad, right Bill?

Except so is oral sex in some states and ... bah.. nevermind.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Apparently not enough. People are still usung illegal drugs and people are getting killed. Therefore I propose that we put mandate dope detectors in everyone's home and if anyone smokes a joint, the police will be immediately notified. We also need long prison sentances for anyone involved in said situations. That will teach people not to associate with undesirables. Also, we need to execute drug dealers on the spot like the Communists.
> 
> It's for the children donchaknow.


Well I like that better then the make it all legal who cares if a few faces get ate off.  At least you can buy crack to help with the pain


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> It is no use discussing this with Bill.
> 
> He is of the old school who swallowed the government propaganda regarding marijuana hook, line, sinker and may have even got some of the pole in there.
> 
> The line of thinking is that because the gov't classified pot as a drug, any behavior associated with drugs automatically applies to marijuana.
> 
> Pot = drug = bad. Period. There is no breaking those associations with those who lock onto that mindset.
> 
> The facts are that it is easier to produce useable marijuana in your backyard than it is to brew beer, distill whiskey, make wine or even grow and cure tobacco leaves.
> 
> It really is no more difficult to produce in your backyard than growing tomatoes. Plant, water, wait, pluck some and drop it on your kitchen counter.
> 
> No test tubes, no magic formulas.
> 
> Imagine the crazy things people would do for a nice, red tomato if the government could throw you in jail if they caught you growing them in your backyard.
> 
> Yeah, Bill. Growing a pot plant next to our tomatoes and jalapenos would bring the apocalypse and turn all our daughters into slavering whores.
> 
> It amazes me how otherwise rational, intelligent people turn to mindless regurgitators of ******** when it comes to marijuana.
> 
> Ah well, I'll go home and pop a beer and maybe even do a shot since alcohol is legal and therefore good.
> 
> Pot is illegal and illegal = bad, right Bill?
> 
> Except so is oral sex in some states and ... bah.. nevermind.



Why stop at pot Cocaine comes from a plant so does Heroin.   Meth is made from legal products you can already buy.  Just because something it easy has nothing to do with legal or not.  I can very easily walk next door and kill my neighbor no test tubes or magic formulas needed.  Its a silly argument.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> Why stop at pot Cocaine comes from a plant so does Heroin.   Meth is made from legal products you can already buy.  Just because something it easy has nothing to do with legal or not.  I can very easily walk next door and kill my neighbor no test tubes or magic formulas needed.  Its a silly argument.




My point is, if you could get coca plants to grow in your backyard, you are still a long way from cocaine. And meth is a manufactured chemical. Pot is simply a garden produce.

It has been miscategorized by the government and for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> Apparently not enough. People are still usung illegal drugs and people are getting killed. Therefore I propose that we put mandate dope detectors in everyone's home and if anyone smokes a joint, the police will be immediately notified. We also need long prison sentances for anyone involved in said situations. That will teach people not to associate with undesirables. *Also, we need to execute drug dealers on the spot like the Communists.
> *
> It's for the children donchaknow.



Actually a lot of non communist countries execute drug runners and dealers so I don't see what communism has to do with this.

ZDom, marijuana is difficult if not impossible to grow here without the correct equipment, you need heat to grow the stuff and to grow it indoors. You have to have a lot of heat lamps and a lot of space. Often here we have people brought in by people traffickers often from China and Vietnam who are then imprisoned in houses just to look after the plants. It's often connected to organised crime so while the drug may be 'harmless', what goes with it isn't at all.

Whether it should be made legal or not is the subject of intelligent discussion not the deriding of one person's post just because you don't agree, there's good reasons for making drug use illegal, I'm sure there's some good reasons why some drugs could be made legal but it needs to be thought over and researched carefully not just, apparently flippantly, calling people stupid because they believe it should be illegal, perhaps they may have seen or experienced things that give them good reasons to want recreational drugs to be illegal.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> Why stop at pot Cocaine comes from a plant so does Heroin.   Meth is made from legal products you can already buy.  Just because something it easy has nothing to do with legal or not.  I can very easily walk next door and kill my neighbor no test tubes or magic formulas needed.  Its a silly argument.



And there are many reasons to stop at pot. Focus on cocaine, heroin, on the designer drugs that make people crazy like spice and bath salts &#8212; and meth.

Redraw the line on who is criminal and who is just wanting to do some gardening as an alternative to Xanax and alcohol.


----------



## pgsmith

> No, the argument has been that if drugs are legalized, people won't have to steal and commit other crimes to get the money to pay for it.


I believe that is an incorrect statement. I've never heard anyone express this belief, and I've been involved in many debates on whether drugs should be legalized. It has been my experience that the driving force behind legalizing drugs has nothing to do with addicts and crime, but rather with drug gangs and wealth. The current 'war on drugs', much like prohibition of the '20's, has resulted in very rich criminals. With large amounts of money for troops and weapons, and large amounts of money to be made, open warfare for control of the revenue has become the norm. The criminals in control live an amazing life of luxury, and many many people die horrible and grisly deaths every day because of it. The market is there. It shoudl be pretty obvious by now that the market for these htings is not going to go away. 

Your addict in the street is still going to be committing crimes, just the way your alcoholic in the street does. However, legalization would result in a lot more tax money to try and help that addict. It would also result in a lot of farm jobs for those who are now criminals. The number of criminals currently getting rich off of drug smuggling would drop tremendously once they were required to become businessmen rather than skirting around the law, just as it did when prohibition was repealed.

There are a great many reasons to end the 'war on drugs' that Reagan started. Unfortunately, I don't expect it will ever happen because too many people are much more willing to do what they're told rather than think things through for themselves. Thus, we'll always have need of a nanny state to tell us what's good for us and what's bad.

  Just my opinion.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> And there are many reasons to stop at pot. Focus on cocaine, heroin, on the designer drugs that make people crazy like spice and bath salts &#8212; and meth.


Funny thing is the fla  zombie case he only had marijuana in his system not meth or bath salts.


> Redraw the line on who is criminal and who is just wanting to do some gardening as an alternative to Xanax and alcohol.


Plenty of criminal marijuana dealers sellers transporters user.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Well I like that better then the make it all legal who cares if a few faces get ate off.  At least you can buy crack to help with the pain



Might as well roll some weed up in the Constitution and smoke that.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Might as well roll some weed up in the Constitution and smoke that.



I'm still waiting for you to tell me what rights were violating  you came up with a weed detector.  I have never purposely and knowingly violated anyone rights.  I've lost a few cases after lawyers have spent months looking at every little thing I've done and found something I did wrong and that's why cases go to court.  I've never seen anyone purposely violate someones rights either.  So what civil rights do you see being violated?


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> Actually a lot of non communist countries execute drug runners and dealers so I don't see what communism has to do with it.



I know. It's kind of a dig if you know what I mean.

The idea that the government can control what you put in your body is communist. The whole idea of people who oppose communism supporting communism is worth pointing out.


----------



## crushing

This thread got me interested in other crimes or deaths that may have happened under the influence of other legal nonprescription drugs and found some interesting articles.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-03/news/27080105_1_caffeine-red-bull-powder
http://articles.nydailynews.com/200...2_1_red-bull-long-qt-syndrome-caffeine-intake
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/caffeine-insanity-a-facto_n_731798.html


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> I know. It's kind of a dig if you know what I mean.
> 
> The idea that the government can control what you put in your body is communist. The whole idea of people who oppose communism supporting communism is worth pointing out.



A big generalisation there, there's plenty of governments who aren't communist who tell people what they should be doing, our Conservative governments have always done that, they think they know best. Religious governments also like to do that, as well as dictators. In fact just about all politicians like to think they know what good for the populace, better than the people know.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I think we can discuss this and disagree without the personal shots.  Bill's entitled to his opinion. I disagree with him however I will stand by his right to have it and present it.  Goes for everyone here.

So knock off the shots.  

The absence of the word "please" should indicate the lack of this being a request.

Thank you.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> I know. It's kind of a dig if you know what I mean.
> 
> The idea that the government can control what you put in your body is communist. The whole idea of people who oppose communism supporting communism is worth pointing out.


Has nothing to do with what u put in your body I could careless if you want to destroy yourself.  The problem is what your body does to others once you ingest the drug.


----------



## celtic_crippler

When Drugs are Illegal.... complete with actual data and citations!!! Exerpts from "The War on Drugs: A Failed Social Policy" by Susan P. Robbins, PhD, LMSW-ACP
Entire article here: http://www.susanrobbins.com/cv/warondrugs.html

"Even though a vast amount of money has been spent to reduce drug use and keep illicit drugs out of this country, the war on drugs has done neither, despite claims to the contrary. In fact, the data indicate that the availability of illicit drugs has not only increased in the last two decades, but the drugs themselves are cheaper and purer than they were twenty years ago (Department of Health and Human Services, 1999; Lindesmith Center, 2000; National Institute of 
Drug Abuse, 1999; Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1999). In addition, there has been an increase in drug overdose deaths as well as an increase in 
emergency room drug episodes (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1996).

Not surprisingly, marijuana has consistently been the most commonly used illicit drug, accounting for at least four fifths of all current drug use, and with the 
majority of marijuana users using no other illicit drugs (National Institute of Drug Abuse, 1998. 1999, 2000). Earlier data such as these prompted Baum (1996, 
p. 126) to observe that: &#8220;Were marijuana legal, the country's problem with illegal drugs would shrink to the tiny number of heroin and cocaine users, obviating a federal drug enforcement budget the size of the DEA's.&#8221; Drug war rhetoric notwithstanding, the failure to significantly and consistently reduce either casual or steady drug use despite our ever-increasing expenditures led Sweet, a federal judge and former prosecutor, to conclude that &#8220;Our present prohibition policy has failed, flatly and without serious question&#8221; (Sweet in the National Review, 1996 p. 11).

However, current drug policy funding ensures that those who are most in need of treatment are least likely to receive it, despite the fact that treatment upon 
request has been Federal law since 1988 (see the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988). According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (2000a), 57% of Americans who need drug treatment receive none. Although some have debated the efficacy of treatment (see Bender & Leone, 1998), an important study by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center found that each dollar invested in drug abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7 in societal costs (such as drug related emergency room visits and crime committed to support a drug habit).

The abysmal failure in achieving the stated goals of reducing supply and demand is only part of the picture, however. The ever-escalating war on drugs 
has had a profoundly negative impact on society as a whole in a variety of ways. The prison population grew from 200,000 in 1970 to 1.7 million in 1997, with over 60 percent of federal prisoners being jailed for non-violent drug offenses, many of them first offenses. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). According to Friedman (1998) and Walker (1998), drug prohibition is the major source of the tremendous growth in our prison population. 
This has led to a disproportionate imprisonment of minorities, especially Black men, with one out of three either in prison or on some form of supervised release. Current drug policy has been racist in its effect, even if that was not its stated intent and the federal sentencing guidelines that impose differential penalties for crack and powder cocaine have been cited as &#8220;the most blatant aspect of bias in the system&#8221;(Austin, et al., 2001; Walker, 1998).

Not only does drug prohibition lead to increased crime, but it leads to corruption in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and interdiction efforts as well. McNamara (1996), points to grave instances of corruption in the police force, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Coast Guard. He points out that the violence and corruption stem from the competition for illegal profits rather than drug use itself and notes that &#8220;the drug war is as lethal as it is corrupting&#8221; (p. 9).

Of major significance is the fact that drug prohibition compounds the harm to the individual user. Friedman (1998) notes that in addition to making drugs dangerously adulterated and more expensive than if they were legally produced, users are forced to associate with criminals to purchase drugs, they are at constant risk of infection from unclean needles (which is responsible for the unnecessary spread of disease), and many must admit to criminally using drugs in 
order to qualify for treatment.

As the November Coalition notes, &#8220;In thirty years of 'The War On Drugs,' our government hasn't even managed to accomplish even a small reduction in drug dealing and abuse, yet we have spent almost a trillion dollars. ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!&#8221; In order to address the very real problems associated with drugs, especially that of acute and chronic drug abuse, we must refocus our efforts and seriously examine a wider and more rational choice of policy options if we are to achieve a more effective allocation of taxpayer dollars. Clearly, it is time to rethink drug policy."

Ya think?!?!?!


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Has nothing to do with what u put in your body I could careless if you want to destroy yourself.  The problem is what your body does to others once you ingest the drug.



It has everything to do with what I put in my body. Why couldn't we deal with the effects like we do with drunk driving, for example? Why do you feel the need to control others bodies?


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> A big generalisation there, there's plenty of governments who aren't communist who tell people what they should be doing, our Conservative governments have always done that, they think they know best. Religious governments also like to do that, as well as dictators. In fact just about all politicians like to think they know what good for the populace, better than the people know.



I understand what you are saying, I made a tongue in cheek comment. In the end though, the label doesn't matter. The bottom line is that people who don't own our bodies are trying to control them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Makalakumu said:


> It has everything to do with what I put in my body. Why couldn't we deal with the effects like we do with drunk driving, for example? Why do you feel the need to control others bodies?



*I don't care* what you put in your body.  If you choose to *drink gasoline and set yourself on fire*, I'm fine with that.

As long as your behavior does not put others at risk or is detrimental to society.

Or, for that matter, behavior that we just do not like.  So long as it does not infringe on your constitutional rights, society can ban anything it likes, just because it doesn't like it.  Or make legal anything it likes, just because it does like it.  Example there would be tobacco and alcohol.  Society thinks they're swell, so they're legal (tobacco is kind of on the way out).  Other drugs, society doesn't like.

You don't agree with what society likes and dislikes.  Join the crowd.  I don't agree with a lot of what society likes and dislikes either.  Too bad, get over it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Makalakumu said:


> The bottom line is that people who don't own our bodies are trying to control them.



That's a side-effect.  No one cares about your body.


----------



## Makalakumu

Bill Mattocks said:


> *I don't care* what you put in your body.  If you choose to *drink gasoline and set yourself on fire*, I'm fine with that.
> 
> As long as your behavior does not put others at risk or is detrimental to society.
> 
> Or, for that matter, behavior that we just do not like.  So long as it does not infringe on your constitutional rights, society can ban anything it likes, just because it doesn't like it.  Or make legal anything it likes, just because it does like it.  Example there would be tobacco and alcohol.  Society thinks they're swell, so they're legal (tobacco is kind of on the way out).  Other drugs, society doesn't like.
> 
> You don't agree with what society likes and dislikes.  Join the crowd.  I don't agree with a lot of what society likes and dislikes either.  Too bad, get over it.



How can you be for personal freedom and against it at the same time? Does the contradiction matter?


----------



## Makalakumu

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's a side-effect.  No one cares about your body.



That is the issue we're debating. It's not a side effect. If I'm respecting your property and not usung force against anyone, then why do you care? If you don't care, then why do you support prohibition?


----------



## Tez3

Bill Mattocks said:


> *I don't care* what you put in your body. If you choose to *drink gasoline and set yourself on fire*, I'm fine with that.
> 
> As long as your behavior does not put others at risk or is detrimental to society.
> 
> Or, for that matter, behavior that we just do not like. So long as it does not infringe on your constitutional rights, society can ban anything it likes, just because it doesn't like it. Or make legal anything it likes, just because it does like it. Example there would be tobacco and alcohol. Society thinks they're swell, so they're legal (tobacco is kind of on the way out). Other drugs, society doesn't like.
> 
> You don't agree with what society likes and dislikes. Join the crowd. I don't agree with a lot of what society likes and dislikes either. Too bad, get over it.



I think those who are saying they don't want others 'controlling' their bodies are those who don't have to cope with the aftermath of drug taking and drinking. I don't care what people take either just like Bill, he's right though that when your drug/drink habit impinges on others then it becomes society's business. Smoke, pop, inject and drink as much as you like but put me and mine at risk then I promise you will pay and so says society. 


Dealing with the effects of drink driving...I'm assuming that the breathalyser and fines etc is meant here but what about the other effects of drink/drugged driving? The deaths, the scars, the maiming caused by a drunk or drugged driver? To see the aftermath of the devastation caused by drugs and drink is to sometimes despair at the folly of the human race.You get into a car while drugged up and aim that car down the road and damn right I will control your body - right into a cell. You have a right to take what you want,you do not have a  right to endanger others, it's as simply as that. Take your 'pleasure' in private and I don't believe anyone has the right to tell you what to do, commit crimes, if you put people at risk, harm people or behave in such an anti social way that you are a danger then no you don't have the right to do what you want. If you can't accept that as a price you pay for being part of a society then you should go live as a hermit or among people who don't care if you harm them. To live in a civilised society we have to make compromises, as Bill says we all have things we don't like or we do like and others don't but we can't blunder through selfishly demanding that what we want is the only thing that matters, not if we want to live in society and most of us want and need to, we are a social species.

Take what you like just don't involve anyone else in what you do.


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> That is the issue we're debating. It's not a side effect. If I'm respecting your property and not usung force against anyone, then why do you care? If you don't care, then why do you support prohibition?




You may not be doing harm but there's plenty who are, is the price of your freedom to ingest whatever you like to be at the cost of others lives?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Makalakumu said:


> How can you be for personal freedom and against it at the same time? Does the contradiction matter?



It's not a contradiction.  Absolute personal freedom means I get to do whatever I want.  Living in society means there are limits on what I can do.  There is a balance between the two.  Some societies tilt more one way, some another.  Ours offers pretty much the maximum in personal freedom, but still makes concessions to the needs of society.  And I'm good with that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Makalakumu said:


> That is the issue we're debating. It's not a side effect.



Yes, it's a side-effect.



> If I'm respecting your property and not usung force against anyone, then why do you care?



Because I do not care about you personally or what you do.  I do care about what affects my society and me.  If you get stoned all the time and steal to support your habit, you represent a threat to my safety and the safety of the rest of society.  If drugs make you violent, you are a threat.  I don't care what's in your body, I care about what you do when it's in your body or what you do to put it in your body.



> If you don't care, then why do you support prohibition?



I don't understand the question.  I do not support prohibition (of alcohol).  I do support prohibition of drugs.  Contradiction?  Yes.  So sue me.  I get to have opinions, even contradictory ones.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

It's the eternal cry of the doper - they always think society is against them.  It's not personal, all you crackheads and pot smokers.  Nobody gives two figs about you, including if you live or die.  All we care about is the damage you wreak on our society.  Personal?  No.  I don't care if people pour Drano down their throats.  I only care what they do once they've done that, or what they do in order to get their drug of choice.  I don't care about any drug addict's personal choices about their body.  If I did, I'd take objection to their Meth Mouth and their garish tattoos and their unsanitary piercings and their poor personal hygiene and their general lack of intelligence.  But I don't, because I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM.  I only care about how they harm the rest of us.

Dear drug addict - it's not about you, you prima dona.  It isn't personal and never was.  Get over yourself; you're not important enough for me to care what you do to get high.


----------



## K-man

Gee! You close your eyes for 5 minutes and a thread goes ballistic.       I just wiped out everything I wrote because I've said it all before and thought, I am not convincing anyone so why bother.  We are in the trenches with our hard hats on and nobody's going nowhere soon.    Keep up the good work chaps.     :snipe:


----------



## Tgace

Id type my opinion but I figure that it would be a waste if time since it mirrors Bill, Tez and K-mans.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> You may not be doing harm but there's plenty who are, is the price of your freedom to ingest whatever you like to be at the cost of others lives?



Is someone hurt every time someone takes a drink, smokes a joint, or takes a pill?


----------



## Makalakumu

Bill Mattocks said:


> Living in society means there are limits on what I can do.



If one respects property rights and doesn't use force to get what they want, what more can you ask of them?  What more do they owe society?


----------



## Makalakumu

Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not support prohibition (of alcohol).  I do support prohibition of drugs.  Contradiction?  Yes.  So sue me.  I get to have opinions, even contradictory ones.



This contradiction matters, because it means that you have no control over your own body.  This is a recipe for chaos and disaster.  Society can allow or ban whatever it wants based on the strength of propaganda.  It can force you to buy health care, it can force you to kill overseas, it can force you to die simply by procuring enough strength to make it so.  If you are happy with this kind of society, that's your choice.  Don't complain when it's whims turn against you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Makalakumu said:


> This contradiction matters, because it means that you have no control over your own body.



Incorrect.  I don't smoke, don't drink, and don't take recreational drugs.  At all.  None.  My drug of choice is coffee.


----------



## Makalakumu

Bill Mattocks said:


> Incorrect.  I don't smoke, don't drink, and don't take recreational drugs.  At all.  None.  My drug of choice is coffee.



Society could ban coffee. They could ban anything because you don't have control over body, the government controls it. Taken further, if you don't have control over your own body, you don't have any basis for property rights either. Anything could be taken ffrom you at any time simply because people want it. Without self-ownership, the might makes right...that is the philosophy you espouse with the acceptance of your contradiction.


----------



## pgsmith

I am a firm believer in legalizing recreational drugs. However, the whole "you shouldn't control my body!" argument is ridiculous, extreme, and totally outside of today's reality. The only possible way for anyone to have total control of what they do with and put into their bodies is to go live by yourself on a deserted island. Living within the laws of society is a fact of life in our crowded world. To rail against it is simply whining, and does nobody's cause any good!



> Dealing with the effects of drink driving...I'm assuming that the breathalyser and fines etc is meant here but what about the other effects of drink/drugged driving? The deaths, the scars, the maiming caused by a drunk or drugged driver? To see the aftermath of the devastation caused by drugs and drink is to sometimes despair at the folly of the human race.


That is an emotional response driven by the media. Driving impaired in *any* way is an incredibly stupid thing to do, whether it is from being drunk, drugged, angry, or distracted. Only one third of the traffic fatalities in the U.S. involve drinking or drugs in any way. That means that 2/3 of the deaths, scars, and maiming are caused by idiots who shouldn't be driving a car, but nobody complains bitterly about the idiots. 

The things that bother me more than the chance that traffic fatalities will go up is the toll from our "war on drugs". I grew up across the border from Juarez, Mexico. It was a fun place to go and visit, although you could never forget that you were in Mexico. Today, Juarez is one of those cities in the center of the drug war violence, and nobody goes there if they have any choice. _Over 10,000 people _have been murdered because of the amount of illegal money involved. 10,000 people, in the city of Juarez alone! That is due almost entirely to the stepped up efforts of the U.S. to stop the drug trade. An effort that has resulted in no less drugs than before the war started, just a lot more deaths. The problem is that at this point, it is impossible to go back to where things were before all of the effort was expended in the 'war on drugs'. The criminals have become too rich and powerful. The only way left to stop the flow of blood is to legalize recreational drug use and start collecting taxes on it. Because of the efforts of the government to rally the people behind the 'war on drugs' for so many years, the option to legailze has been effectively removed from the table. So, I'm afraid that the violence will continue to escalate, and the costs to combat the criminals and their violence will continue to escalate. I prefer not to think too hard about where the cycle will end up, since I've discovered that I'm pretty much powerless to do anything about it.

P.S. Caffeine is a psychotropic recreational drug.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11148

"Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is president of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York City. He was President Lyndon B. Johnson&#8217;s top aide for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969 and Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Carter Administration."

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu

pgsmith said:


> I am a firm believer in legalizing recreational drugs. However, the whole "you shouldn't control my body!" argument is ridiculous, extreme, and totally outside of today's reality. The only possible way for anyone to have total control of what they do with and put into their bodies is to go live by yourself on a deserted island. Living within the laws of society is a fact of life in our crowded world. To rail against it is simply whining, and does nobody's cause any good!.



All arguments for decriminalization are rooted in self ownership. It's not silly at all.


----------



## Big Don

Makalakumu said:


> It has everything to do with what I put in my body. Why couldn't we deal with the effects like we do with drunk driving, for example? Why do you feel the need to control others bodies?



CA courts routinely ban people convicted of DUI from consuming alcohol, with multiple tests per week


----------



## Buka

Crazy, violent people are crazy and violent regardless of what's legal and what's not. I grew up (almost) in the sixties, became a cop in the eighties and worked with juvenile offenders in between. People that kill will kill regardless of what laws are legislated. 

If I had it my way, I'd pump marijuana smoke into every prison in the country. (After procuring the cookie concession in the prisons of course.) Then pump a ton of it into a session of congress. The youtube hits would be off the charts.


----------



## Sukerkin

I'm too tired to make a cogent response to this now, it being 3:30 in the morning .  I would just say that, for the most part, not all but most, there's a lot of emoting and shouting going on and not an awful lot of listening and understanding.  

Even in my sleepy state I am surprised at the tangents and extremes posters are serving up in response to each other and pretending it's a rational discussion.  Come along my forum comrades, you won't serve any purpose other than making each other angry carrying on so.


----------



## Steve

Sooooo....  can we just cut and paste posts from the previous iterations of this exact same thread? 

It is demonstrably true that prohibition creates crime. 

It is also true that "recreational drugs" of all kinds create problems for people who abuse them.

It is also true that crazy people do crazy things.  One of the interesting things I've seen in my dealings with all manner of people who are insane is that they often self medicate... to the point that doctors have a very difficult time determining whether they are insane because they take all manner of drugs or whether they take all manner of drugs because they are insane.  Back in the 80s, Congress changed the definition of disability to allow for drug addiction and alcoholism, if severe enough, to be considered a disabling condition.  As a result, we had a ton of drug addicts and alcoholics receiving Social Security disability and SSI.  Then, in the mid 90s, the definition was changed, and every single person on the books had to receive a new determination (and there were millions of them). The question at hand was essentially, if you didn't take drugs would you still be disabled?  Millions were cut, but millions more were not.  

Point is that recreational drugs are, by any measure, bad for you if abused.  This includes ALL recreational drugs, including the ones that are legal, such as alcohol.  And if abused, they will all lead to very bad things.  Again, this includes alcohol.

Now, we've tried banning alcohol and it didn't go so well for us.  It led to violence and the criminalization of a whole bunch of otherwise law abiding citizens.  So, that's kind of my bar.  When I think about whether something should be legal, I think about what sort of damage it would do to society.  How difficult is it to abuse? How addictive is it? Is use of the substance likely to lead to more violence... or at least, more violence than use of alcohol?  

I'd say there are some that are clearly harmful.  In this category are drugs like crack, cocaine, heroin and the "legal" equivalents such as Oxycontin and the vast array of prescription drugs killing people all the time.

In the category of not more harmful than alcohol, I'd put weed. 

So, it's really case by case.  Ultimately, the questions we should be asking is would legalization lead to MORE crime or LESS? Is the drug more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco?  Is the drug likely to become addictive and if so, is addiction likely to lead to loss of job (because addiction of itself is okay...  many are addicted to caffeine or cigarettes or chocolate and manage to live long, productive lives)?  

Some clearly are, and other are clearly not.


----------



## Steve

Wow...  I just read through the balance of the thread, and things did get a little heated.  I would like to make clear that I understand for our LEO friends here that recreational drugs of all kinds, legal or not, creates work for you.  Sometimes, very unpleasant work.  

Legalization won't eliminate all of that work.  But, I firmly believe that in some cases, legalization will result in regulation.  Alcohol is labeled.  You know how strong it is.  You know what's in it.  You know that it won't make you go blind.  You know that you can purchase it from a store that is on the up and up, and you won't have to go to a back alley.  You can make choices about what you'd like to drink... the quality of it.  Most people drink responsibly.  They have a beer or two.  They drink a few fingers of scotch to relax after a long day.  They don't drive under the influence. 

And the truth is, the same is absolutely true of weed.  Its use is pervasive.  To pretend that millions of responsible, law abiding people don't smoke weed is simple denial.  We all break laws.  Whether its to jaywalk, stretch the speed limit or whatever.  To millions, smoking a bowl is that. It's a largely unenforced law that doesn't really mean anything.  And yet, it creates an entire economy of violence and depravity that would be dramatically reduced just as we saw happen when prohibition was repealed.


----------



## WC_lun

Drugs, including alcohol will be abused, no matter if legal or illegal.  Prohibition can be a handy reference, as is most history.  The question as I see it, is which would be more beneficial....or least detrimental to society, legal or illegal.  As it stands now, money on illicet drugs make thier way to drug lords that use that money in combination with violence to increase thier hold on the illegal market, to make more money.  If drugs were legal, particularly for marijuana, that money could be funnelled to both farmers (growers) and the government, through taxes.  However, would legalizing drugs effect how many people in our society abuse them, making them a drain on society?  I honestly don't know the answer to that.  I know alcohol is the single biggest problem drug in the US, and it is legal.  I do not know whether that supports the case for lealization or to keep drugs criminalized.


----------



## granfire

WC_lun said:


> Drugs, including alcohol will be abused, no matter if legal or illegal.  Prohibition can be a handy reference, as is most history.  The question as I see it, is which would be more beneficial....or least detrimental to society, legal or illegal.  As it stands now, money on illicet drugs make thier way to drug lords that use that money in combination with violence to increase thier hold on the illegal market, to make more money.  If drugs were legal, particularly for marijuana, that money could be funnelled to both farmers (growers) and the government, through taxes.  However, would legalizing drugs effect how many people in our society abuse them, making them a drain on society?  I honestly don't know the answer to that.  I know alcohol is the single biggest problem drug in the US, and it is legal.  I do not know whether that supports the case for lealization or to keep drugs criminalized.



Well, a large part of the alcohol problem also stems from the insane legal age limit.
In other nations kids get it out of their systems matter of factly without the great 'ZOMG it's illegal for me to drink it I gotta have it' 

Redirect the under age drinking thing and the numbers look differently I am sure.


----------



## WC_lun

granfire said:


> Well, a large part of the alcohol problem also stems from the insane legal age limit.
> In other nations kids get it out of their systems matter of factly without the great 'ZOMG it's illegal for me to drink it I gotta have it'
> 
> Redirect the under age drinking thing and the numbers look differently I am sure.




Perhaps.  I have always thought it strange that here in the US a person is deemed old enough to make decisions on voting and giving thier life in service of country, but not old enough to make decisions on alcohol use.  I wonder if there is any hard data on the differences of use when the age limit was 18 and now when it is 21?


----------



## Makalakumu

WC_lun said:


> Perhaps.  I have always thought it strange that here in the US a person is deemed old enough to make decisions on voting and giving thier life in service of country, but not old enough to make decisions on alcohol use.  I wonder if there is any hard data on the differences of use when the age limit was 18 and now when it is 21?



There is data on the developmental difference between an 18 and 21 year old. There is no difference.


----------



## granfire

WC_lun said:


> Perhaps.  I have always thought it strange that here in the US a person is deemed old enough to make decisions on voting and giving thier life in service of country, but not old enough to make decisions on alcohol use.  I wonder if there is any hard data on the differences of use when the age limit was 18 and now when it is 21?



It blows my mind more that a preteen can go to the big house....do they give him a smoke, drink and a hooker for the bus ride, too?

I think honestly the studies need to be more researched, because I have the sneaky suspicion that they were made to support the odd 21 limit. After all, when that came about neuro research was still in it's infancy!


----------



## K-man

Sukerkin said:


> I'm too tired to make a cogent response to this now, it being 3:30 in the morning .  I would just say that, for the most part, not all but most, there's a lot of emoting and shouting going on and not an awful lot of listening and understanding.
> 
> Even in my sleepy state I am surprised at the tangents and extremes posters are serving up in response to each other and pretending it's a rational discussion.  Come along my forum comrades, you won't serve any purpose other than making each other angry carrying on so.


The sad part is, we can't even joke about it.  I'm amazed that so many of you guys are into drugs.     :s499:


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> Is someone hurt every time someone takes a drink, smokes a joint, or takes a pill?




Sigh, you don't actually take onboard what people are saying, we don't care what you do, we just care when you endanger others, if you don't we still don't care. 

One hundred people could take a specific recreational drug, 80 might be fine with it, living in the land of peace and love, 20 may not they may kill, rape, bite peoples faces off, should the 80 have their freedom to take that drug at the price of allowing the 20 to do damge? No, of course not, yeah it's tough on the 80 but hey if they don't like it they can go off somewhere and live on their own. They want to stay part of society then they compromise, just like the rest of us do.

It's fine having principles and espousing that one is free to do anything one likes until it's your family member that is killed/maimed by the drunk/drugged driver. It's fine having academic argumetns like this with high minded declarations of what I do to my body is nobodies business but the reality is that it all ends in tears with some poor sod of a police officer or paramedic picking up the pieces along with a family. If drugs weren't a problem nobody would be having this discussion, governments and police forces all around the world wouldn't have to bother either but the truth is it is a problem.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Wow... I just read through the balance of the thread, and things did get a little heated. I would like to make clear that I understand for our LEO friends here that recreational drugs of all kinds, legal or not, creates work for you. Sometimes, very unpleasant work.
> 
> Legalization won't eliminate all of that work. But, I firmly believe that in some cases, legalization will result in regulation. Alcohol is labeled. You know how strong it is. You know what's in it. You know that it won't make you go blind. You know that you can purchase it from a store that is on the up and up, and you won't have to go to a back alley. You can make choices about what you'd like to drink... the quality of it. Most people drink responsibly. They have a beer or two. They drink a few fingers of scotch to relax after a long day. They don't drive under the influence.
> 
> And the truth is, the same is absolutely true of weed. Its use is pervasive. To pretend that millions of responsible, law abiding people don't smoke weed is simple denial. We all break laws. Whether its to jaywalk, stretch the speed limit or whatever. To millions, smoking a bowl is that. It's a largely unenforced law that doesn't really mean anything. And yet, it creates an entire economy of violence and depravity that would be dramatically reduced just as we saw happen when prohibition was repealed.




I've always wondered why 'jaywalking' is a crime in America? It's not here, we don't even use the expression, crossing the road you can use a crossing or not, up to you. 

Anyway, to legalise drugs or not? Depends on the country, the laws and the way voters feel, it should be well discussed and researched but what I simply cannot understand is those who use drugs thinking that because they do without obvious consequences that drugs are harmless, no one can deny that drugs and what comes with it is causing problems in our towns and cities, the side effects of drug gangs and dealing, those who steal, maim and kill either for drugs or when on drugs. To simple deny there's a problem will mean never getting even started in finding a solution to suit the majority of people.

People are taking drugs and presenting no problems to society (may well be a different story within famlies etc) but is that a good enough reason to think there's not a problem in general? I'd like to see proper discussion rather than the selfish ones we usually get, discussion that look to the good of socity not just an individual. Nothing should be either legalised or made illegal because it suits a small amount of people and damages the majority.


----------



## ballen0351

Heres a few reasons why it matters to me what you put in your body.  This is what I deal with daily.  In fact the first clip was taken where I work.  This fine citizen by the way is now dead he got high and walked into traffic a few months after this was filmed






Heres another:





Heres one on Heroin:





Meth:
[video=metacafe;109486/faces_of_meth/]http://www.metacafe.com/watch/109486/faces_of_meth/[/video]

These were mostly non-violent clips but these people do get very violent.
So your false argument that its my body and I dont bother anyone else is just a Lie.  These people bother the rest of the people that live in these neighborhoods, the kids that get to see naked men rolling around on the ground,  The Heroin Zombies that are all over baltimore and Washington DC, So yes they are destroying their oen bodies but they are also destroying the communities that others need to live in.


----------



## ballen0351

So if you can show me how making it legal will stop that then ld back it. You cant so Im against it.  Good thing is the drug user is his own worst enemy because if it ever came up for a vote clips like that would be everywhere, more reports of face eaters and zombie killers would surface and nobody would vote for it to be legal.  

So Yes its your body smoke whatever you want but it does effect others and thats why its illegal.


----------



## ballen0351

Also for the ones that dont know the first 2 are people who just smoked a Dipper which is a cigarette thats dipped in liquid PCP.  Very popular here costs about $20 per cigarette.


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> So if you can show me how making it legal will stop that then ld back it. You cant so Im against it. Good thing is the drug user is his own worst enemy because if it ever came up for a vote clips like that would be everywhere, more reports of face eaters and zombie killers would surface and nobody would vote for it to be legal.
> 
> So Yes its your body smoke whatever you want but it does effect others and thats why its illegal.



The come backs you will get back to these are the 'me me' ones, that the person smokes quietly in his own house and never causes a problem so why should he be banned for what others do. You are never going to convince them of the dangers to the rest of us because it's always 'someone else', only until the day comes and it's them and theirs that are hurt will they look to see the other side of the argument.

It's good to have the least amount of laws you can have and still be a civilised society but until, as you say, you can stop things like the ones you've highlighted happening how can recreational drugs be legalised? Sometimes we have to have laws that some dislike just to safeguard people. I'm all for getting rid of laws and letting people live as they wish but there's always that 'but' there's always those from whom the civilised majority need safeguarding however it seems unfair to some. I agree with you, show us how legalising these drugs will help stop crime, gangs, deaths and injuries etc and I'll be in the line to legalise these drugs. I don't want a restricted by law society anymore than anyone else but I also want to live in as safe a society as possible, I don't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time or worrying that my kids are in danger, even in a civilised place there's still enough dangers that if you thought about them you'd go nuts so one less thing to worry about is good.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Absolutely fascinating... it's more important for you people to be "right" than to accept the fact that the War on Drugs is failed policy. Even though tons of evidence has been presented and is out there for you to look at, you igore it all because of some self righteous need to be "right". Not one of you addressed one single fact. Instead you continue to preach from your soapbox regurgitating the rhetoric you've been spoon fed your whole life. 

Forget finding a solution, you're not interested in helping these people. You just want to lock them up and forget about them. Guess what. It ain't working. And the policy you support creates more victims than the addicts themselves. But you'll never accept that because to do so would be admitting you are wrong. 

Continue ignoring the facts and continue to be part of the problem.


----------



## ballen0351

The only one regurgitating anything is you.  Your posting crap from some doc you don't even know.  I am giving you the cold hard facts and reality you choose to ignore the facts and refuse to answer the questions asked of you.  I do care about these people that's why I do the job I do because I do care.  I put the dealer from the first clip away for 14 years for selling PCP which led to the death of the man in the video


----------



## Tez3

celtic_crippler said:


> Absolutely fascinating... it's more important for you people to be "right" than to accept the fact that the War on Drugs is failed policy. Even though tons of evidence has been presented and is out there for you to look at, you igore it all because of some self righteous need to be "right". Not one of you addressed one single fact. Instead you continue to preach from your soapbox regurgitating the rhetoric you've been spoon fed your whole life.
> 
> Forget finding a solution, you're not interested in helping these people. You just want to lock them up and forget about them. Guess what. It ain't working. And the policy you support creates more victims than the addicts themselves. But you'll never accept that because to do so would be admitting you are wrong.
> 
> Continue ignoring the facts and continue to be part of the problem.



Okay so suppose we assume you are correct, what's your solution to solve the problem of those who deal drugs, take drugs and harm people? simply legalising drugs doesn't make the problem go away. You are very quick to pour scorn on people but offer no solutions. All you are doing is being argumentative you have no ideas original or otherwise on how to deal with the fall out of drug taking, you have no ideas on how to make life better for anyone just derision for others.

Don't you think Ballen has better things to do and would much rather do than deal with those on drugs and the dealers etc? Don't you think that he'd like less laws just the same as the rest of us? Come up with a way to actually sort the problem out, *anyone can say something isn't working*, the trick is to come up with what will work.


----------



## WC_lun

They are not wrong on what they are saying the results of drug abuse are.  They deal with it every day.  We do pay a price for illegal drugs, both from the violence by the sellers and the problems caused by the users.  People on both sides of the issue are using emtion to fuel thier arguements. What are the facts?  How does keeping drugs illegal safeguard society?  How does legalizing do the same?  Both sides have costs in money and lives.  Which is the greater costs?


----------



## K-man

celtic_crippler said:


> Absolutely fascinating... it's more important for you people to be "right" than to accept the fact that the War on Drugs is failed policy. Even though tons of evidence has been presented and is out there for you to look at, you igore it all because of some self righteous need to be "right". Not one of you addressed one single fact. Instead you continue to preach from your soapbox regurgitating the rhetoric you've been spoon fed your whole life.
> 
> Forget finding a solution, you're not interested in helping these people. You just want to lock them up and forget about them. Guess what. It ain't working. And the policy you support creates more victims than the addicts themselves. But you'll never accept that because to do so would be admitting you are wrong.
> 
> Continue ignoring the facts and continue to be part of the problem.


Perhaps we might understand your position better if you told us what you personally use.  The way I see it is that those who have hands on experience with drug abuse wouldn't go near drugs and don't want there family and friends exposed to the problem.   Those who use drugs 'know' that they aren't a problem and would like the law changed. 

Just in case you missed the link posted by *Tgace*, here it is again:

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11148

I'd love to read your response.        :asian:


----------



## Steve

It seems some of you have a different approach and are asking the question, "Will legalization of X or Y drug make things better?"  The answer in some cases is yes, I believe, but in many cases the answer is clearly no.  Legalizing heroin, crack, PCP, meth or drugs in that category will clearly not make things better, and it may actually lead to an increase in illicit use and addiction of these drugs.  

But lets look at the actual statistics.  

In 2010, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), about 22.6 million Americans age 12 and older are "past month" illicit drug users (about 8.9% of the entire 12+ age population).  That's just stuff that's illegal and doesn't include alcohol or tobacco even though those are both illegal for minors.   Of those, 17.4 million smoked weed.  And of the 17.4 million, it was the ONLY illicit drug used by over 60%

What's number 2?  Psychotherapeutics at 7 million.  That's 7 million people 12 or older who are "past month" users of LEGAL prescription drugs used for recreational, non-medical purposes.    

After that, it drops off considerably.  Number 3 is 1.5 million who used some form of cocaine to include crack.  Point here is that marijuana use is currently pervasive.  Use figures for marijuana, in spite of its status as "illicit," are staggering.  It also demonstrates very clearly that the real health issue for America isn't the supposedly dangerous illicit drugs like crack or meth.  It's the illicit use of "legal" drugs like sedatives, pain relievers, tranquilizers and stimulants. 

 While 17.4 million Americans are "past month" users of weed, the entire total use of all other drugs was about 9 million, and 7 million of those users were abuse of prescription meds.

Another interesting statistic.  Although the rate of current illicit drug use was higher among unemployed persons in 2010 compared with those who were either employed full time, employed part time, or "other" (which includes retired persons, disabled persons, homemakers, students, and other persons not in the labor force), most of these users were employed. Of the 20.2 million current illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2010, 13.3 million (65.9 percent) were employed either full or part time.

Interesting study for anyone interested: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm

And just to stem off any inevitable accusations, I haven't smoked weed since 1989.  The only illicit drug use I've taken part in was to keep some vicodin in the cupboard for my back one time that I got legally from my doctor, but didn't "properly dispose" of after I began to feel better.  I enjoy an alcoholic beverage regularly, but seldom drink more than 2.  

Ballen, to address your question of coming up with something that will work, one thing would be to stop clogging up our justice system with non-violent hippies who like to smoke pot so that we can more effectively deal with the violent and destructive members of society.  Legalizing weed would eliminate the criminal element from that demographic, and as I showed above, that is a huge amount of people.  While we're at it, we need to think about how we manage prescription medication and make it more difficult to get.  This will also necessarily involve holding doctors more accountable for the prescriptions they write and removing the "free market" element from medicine which involves incentives to doctors for "prescribing" brand name medications and handing out samples like candy in order to get paid vacations and expensive gifts directly from the pharmaceutical distributors.

But the absolute easiest thing that we can do would be to legalize weed, and right there you will have brought the lion's share of illicit drug use out into the open so that it can be regulated for consistency and strength, taxed and sold out in the open to responsible adults who wish to enjoy it.  Then, as a society, we can deal with the much smaller group of violent and dangerous people who are hooked on stronger drugs like heroin and meth.  

Let's be clear, though.  Weed isn't illegal because it's dangerous to society.  It's illegal because there is a lot of money at stake.  It's political and financial, not social.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> The only one regurgitating anything is you.  Your posting crap from some doc you don't even know.  I am giving you the cold hard facts and reality you choose to ignore the facts and refuse to answer the questions asked of you.  I do care about these people that's why I do the job I do because I do care.  I put the dealer from the first clip away for 14 years for selling PCP which led to the death of the man in the video


Just to be clear, what you're presenting aren't facts.  They're anecdotal accounts that represent a statistically very, very small percentage of people who are actively using illicit drugs. I in no way mean to trivialize the work that you do.  It's important and I am sure that few people here, if any, can describe the damage that illicit use of drugs can do to a person, family or community.  But even though the videos are undoubtedly true, the conclusions you draw from them aren't "facts."  They're based on your own anecdotal experience.   Again, to be clear, because I worry that this might be misunderstood.  You are undoubtedly an expert on what happens when drugs are abused.  You are also closer than probably anyone here to the day to day issues that surround them.

The question isn't whether use of PCP, Meth, Heroin or Crack is damaging.  Clearly, it is.  They are dangerous, addictive drugs.  The issue is that we couple marijuana use in with these dangerous drugs, which really wastes a lot of time and energy.  We may as well declare caffeine a dangerous drug and skew the statistics even more.  The people you are dealing with represent a small but significant and destructive portion of our population.  The people you're referring to don't even represent a fraction of the people who actively use illicit drugs.  The lion's share use either marijuana or are abusing prescription meds.  If we're really intent on helping society, pick the low hanging fruit so that we can then focus on the relatively small number of people who are like the ones in the videos you posted.


----------



## ballen0351

They most certainly are facts its not a huge representation of all users but PCP here that's happens several times a day and that's just what I know about I understand the small sample size in the point your making.   I never said all drug users act that way but its a direct response to "its my body I'm not hurting anyone so legalize drugs". 
The problem with marijuana is that it is harmful it does cause permanent issues mostly mentally and not to the severity of other drugs but it is harmful and as it gets more and more powerful with designer strains we don't know the effects it will have.  Marijuana thc content is creeping up to 40 and 50% potency which is so much greater then the 5 to 7% it was 15 to 20 years ago. We just don't know what is going to happen I would at least like to see more tests before I even considered making it legal.  



Steve said:


> Just to be clear, what you're presenting aren't facts.  They're anecdotal accounts that represent a statistically very, very small percentage of people who are actively using illicit drugs. I in no way mean to trivialize the work that you do.  It's important and I am sure that few people here, if any, can describe the damage that illicit use of drugs can do to a person, family or community.  But even though the videos are undoubtedly true, the conclusions you draw from them aren't "facts."  They're based on your own anecdotal experience.   Again, to be clear, because I worry that this might be misunderstood.  You are undoubtedly an expert on what happens when drugs are abused.  You are also closer than probably anyone here to the day to day issues that surround them.
> 
> The question isn't whether use of PCP, Meth, Heroin or Crack is damaging.  Clearly, it is.  They are dangerous, addictive drugs.  The issue is that we couple marijuana use in with these dangerous drugs, which really wastes a lot of time and energy.  We may as well declare caffeine a dangerous drug and skew the statistics even more.  The people you are dealing with represent a small but significant and destructive portion of our population.  The people you're referring to don't even represent a fraction of the people who actively use illicit drugs.  The lion's share use either marijuana or are abusing prescription meds.  If we're really intent on helping society, pick the low hanging fruit so that we can then focus on the relatively small number of people who are like the ones in the videos you posted.


----------



## billc

I have found myself wavering in the legalize/not legalize argument, and the points Ballen and the other Law officers make a good case for not legalizing these drugs.  From the front line perspective on the fight against illegal drugs, what needs to be done or improved in fighting illegal drugs?  With the Mexican drug cartels killing without hesitation or fear from American law enforcement, what does American law enforcement need to do to stop them?


----------



## Tgace

Our criminal-justice methods have decreased the violence associated with drug crimes, and the United States remains a far safer place to live than countries with less commitment to law enforcement. According to the Unified Crime Reports, only 5 percent of all US murders are committed because of drug trafficking and manufacturing, whereas approximately 25 percent are because the murderer was under the influence. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

For my UK friends, do you recall this?

"Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well. And British authorities found that heroin addicts have a very good chance of dying prematurely. On the crime front, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics squad 100 percent to combat the crime caused by the "legal" addicts."

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

And in regards to the whole "imagine the tax benefits" argument. How much tax money do we bring in from Alcohol in the US? But how much does alcohol cost us in societal ills? I doubt that we will see any net financial gain.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> And in regards to the whole "imagine the tax benefits" argument. How much tax money do we bring in from Alcohol in the US? But how much does alcohol cost us in societal ills? I doubt that we will see any net financial gain.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



how much would a prohibition on alcohol cost us?  theres no question that the war on pot is costing us a fortune.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> They most certainly are facts its not a huge representation of all users but PCP here that's happens several times a day and that's just what I know about I understand the small sample size in the point your making.   I never said all drug users act that way but its a direct response to "its my body I'm not hurting anyone so legalize drugs".
> The problem with marijuana is that it is harmful it does cause permanent issues mostly mentally and not to the severity of other drugs but it is harmful and as it gets more and more powerful with designer strains we don't know the effects it will have.  Marijuana thc content is creeping up to 40 and 50% potency which is so much greater then the 5 to 7% it was 15 to 20 years ago. We just don't know what is going to happen I would at least like to see more tests before I even considered making it legal.



If it's legal, strength would be regulated.  But no one us suggesting that pot is healthy.  It's a recreational drug.  alcohol isn't health food, either.  

And the vid s are fact, but your conclusions are anecdotal opinions b based on a snapshot and experience that is out of sync with the actual amount of use.  (and thats a fact,).    Ionce again, if e are taking about illicit drug use, we are largely dealing with pot and abuse of pharmaceuticals.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

Tgace said:


> And in regards to the whole "imagine the tax benefits" argument. How much tax money do we bring in from Alcohol in the US? But how much does alcohol cost us in societal ills? I doubt that we will see any net financial gain.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Well, some areas have the tobacco tax flow into the healthcare system. 
And the systems suffer monumental losses as more and more people quit smoking....

The taxes on Alcohol are really high. Much higher than in most countries (I think the Scandinavian countries are pretty much the only ones in the western hemisphere who beat the US in taxes in that area) and while abuse of alcohol always makes the news, many more people settle for a couple of drinks in the evening with no ill effects. So the revenue would surpass the cost.
Of course there is the exaggerated enforcement of the alcohol laws that eat up some of the profits....


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Well, some areas have the tobacco tax flow into the healthcare system.
> And the systems suffer monumental losses as more and more people quit smoking....
> 
> The taxes on Alcohol are really high. Much higher than in most countries (I think the Scandinavian countries are pretty much the only ones in the western hemisphere who beat the US in taxes in that area) and while abuse of alcohol always makes the news, many more people settle for a couple of drinks in the evening with no ill effects. So the revenue would surpass the cost.
> Of course there is the exaggerated enforcement of the alcohol laws that eat up some of the profits....



What are exaggerated enforcement?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> What are exaggerated enforcement?



the kind that you get when you criminalize benign things.

Please don't tell me there is not a good amount of resourced dedicated to combat 'under age drinking'.
Especially when it targets groups that otherwise can legally drive a ton of steel on public roads with 4 or 7 people as passengers....while on the way to die in a war or the voting booth, you know, people who are otherwise considered 'adult' 

or the ATF officer hanging out at the liquor store...


----------



## Makalakumu

For those of you who support the continued criminalization of drugs, how do we win the drug war?  What does that look like?


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> how much would a prohibition on alcohol cost us?  theres no question that the war on pot is costing us a fortune.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



People keep on tossing that out...the cost of the "war on pot". From a LT. in the army fighting that war, I can tell you that our battles against the stoner opponents in my area of operations are not costing us anymore than our campaigns against stop sign runners, shoplifters or public urination offenders. 

The tallying up of my hourly income, court costs and every cent to include the paper we print to book you is simply another silly attempt by the pot heads to frame the debate as some sort of money saving affair. Id wager my war on drugs tank that our expenses wouldn't change one iota if weed was legalazised at 0000 Zulu.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

First to address a few questions posed to me specifically&#8230; 

I do not use anything other than alcohol. And since so many of you like to pop off about your personal experience and why it makes you &#8220;right&#8221;, let me enlighten you to the fact that I am a nurse. I&#8217;ve seen and treated addicts. But you don&#8217;t see me citing that as a basis for why I support the legalization of drugs. I also was in law enforcement in my youth and shared some of the same limited views that some of you presently have. It wasn&#8217;t until I got into healthcare and received more education and experience that my views changed. I suppose having an open mind helped in that regard. Contrary to others, I&#8217;ve been using logic, reason, and fact to support my position and not how I &#8220;feel&#8221; about the issue. 

You&#8217;d think that after 4+ decades of trying to put out a fire with gasoline that somebody would have figured out that not only does it not work, but it makes the problem even worse. 

Sure, the fire department has plenty of work and employs a lot more firemen. And those selling gasoline are making a killing; however, not only is the fire not extinguished but the damage is worse than it was than when you started. 

It is blind ignorance and tantamount to insanity to continue a failed policy. I&#8217;ve never disputed the harm excessive drug use has on a person and/or their family. I&#8217;ve only disputed the method in which the problem is addressed. 

Alcohol is legal and regulated; however, alcoholics still exist. They existed when it was illegal and they exist when it&#8217;s legal. The difference is that when it was illegal, there were more victims than just the addicts. 

The facts are out there to prove the War on Drugs is a failure. Many of these facts are the results of studies done by our own government! Yet, people ignore these facts so that they can feel good about themselves and feel morally superior. Well, while you crusade, people like Brian Terry become victims due to a failed policy. Do you feel good about that? 

Even when presented with these facts, supporters of the War on Drugs cite nothing but personal experience and limited personal perspective. Somehow thinking that they are the center of the universe and that their own unique and limited point of view should be the basis for how the rest of the world addresses the problem, in effect, adding fuel to the fire. 

They can&#8217;t actually cite any real evidence that the War on Drugs is working, because there is none. In fact, the very government that perpetuates the War on Drugs has evidence and has conducted studies that say otherwise.  So instead, these supporters rely on how they feel about it. I&#8217;ve long held that emotion is the enemy of reason&#8230; 

There&#8217;s no denying that addiction is a problem, but addicts are overlooked along with their problems so that the self righteous can feel morally superior. Meanwhile, the addicts receive no help and those like the family of Brian Terry continue to suffer because of the collateral damage caused by a pointless, useless, and ineffective &#8220;War on Drugs&#8221;. 

There is no easy fix, but making drugs illegal and treating addicts as criminals instead of having an illness has not and does not work. I know that treating it as a healthcare issue instead of a criminal issue is a more valid approach and more accurately addresses the problem. Many have claimed to want to reduce drug use but are unwilling to change their support for the War on Drugs, even though it is an obvious failure and harmed more people in the process. It makes absolutely no sense.  

Even though &#8220;Prohibition&#8221; against alcohol proved many of my points many decades ago, for some reason many of you can not seem to see the correlation in regards to the &#8220;War on Drugs&#8221;.  Countries that have legalized drugs, regulated drugs, and offer rehab for addicts have shown drastic decreases in crime, disease, and overall use thereby limiting and reducing the number of &#8220;victims&#8221;. 

I appreciate the idealists of the world, but the world does not exist in terms of black and white. In many circumstances, we can only hope to limit and reduce the damage. I understand that it&#8217;s human nature to want to control our environment, but without understanding that this is impossible we almost always cause more harm than good. 

FACTS: (And these aren&#8217;t from &#8220;some doc I don&#8217;t know&#8221;&#8230; many are the result of studies conducted by our own government as well as legitimate health care professionals)


Over $40 billion in tax payer money is spent annually yet drug use has not declined
The availability of illicit drugs has more than doubled in the last few decades
Illicit drugs are more potent and cheaper than they were 20 years ago
The government receives no tax revenue from the sell of illicit drugs
Gangs chief source of income comes from the sell of illicit drugs
Since the inception of the &#8220;War on Drugs&#8221;, the instances of drug overdose and ER drug episodes has steadily risen
Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug, yet has few adverse side effects. No one has ever overdosed from using marijuana and the long term health issues from its use are fewer than that of alcohol.
Over 57% of addicts who want treatment receive none and are instead jailed.
Each $1 invested in treatment saves $7 in societal costs
Treatment is 10 times more effective at reducing use than imprisonment
Over 60% of federal prisoners are incarcerated over NON-VIOLENT drug offenses. The US has more prisoners per capita than any other nation. Yet we claim to be the most &#8220;free&#8221;.
More than 47,500 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico over the last 5 years.
60% of the societal costs involved in illicit drug use are related to the associated black market crime related to the illegality of illicit drugs; only 30% of societal costs are related to the actual ingestion of illicit drugs.
A Harvard study showed that the legalization of illicit drugs would inject over $76 billion annually into the US economy. Subtract the $40 billion spent annually on the War on Drugs and that&#8217;s a net increase of over $100 billion
Studies show that treatment would be 23 times more effective than the current War on Drugs
Only 10-15% of heroin and about 30% of cocaine shipments are intercepted by law enforcement. Over 75% would have to be intercepted to have any real impact on trafficker&#8217;s profits.
According to the FBI in 2005, despite spending over $7 billion to arrest and prosecute over 800,000 people for marijuana offenses, 85% of all high school seniors reported that marijuana was &#8220;easy to obtain.&#8221;
The Global Commission on Drug Policy recently released a report stating that the 4 decades long War on Drugs campaign has not only failed, but made the problem worse
 
And there&#8217;s much, much more out there&#8230; Those were just some highlights!!! 

You asked for answers. The Global Commission on Drug Policy suggests the following: 


End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do not harm to others;
Encourage the experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens;
Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment, abut also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada;
Apply human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers;
Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law enforcement approach (despite the evidence) should focus their repression actions on violent organized crime and drug traffickers, in order to reduce the harms associated with the illicit drug market;
Offer a wide and easily accessible range of options for treatment and care for drug dependence, including substitution and heroin-assisted treatment, with special attention to those most at risk, including those in prisons and other custodial settings;
The United Nations system must provide leadership in the reform of global drug policy. This means promoting an effective approach based on evidence, supporting countries to develop drug policies that suit their context and meet their needs, and ensuring coherence among various UN agencies, policies and conventions.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> People keep on tossing that out...the cost of the "war on pot". From a LT. in the army fighting that war, I can tell you that our battles against the stoner opponents in my area of operations are not costing us anymore than our campaigns against stop sign runners, shoplifters or public urination offenders.
> 
> The tallying up of my hourly income, court costs and every cent to include the paper we print to book you is simply another silly attempt by the pot heads to frame the debate as some sort of money saving affair. Id wager my war on drugs tank that our expenses wouldn't change one iota if weed was legalazised at 0000 Zulu.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



The FBI begs to differ... feh


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> People keep on tossing that out...the cost of the "war on pot". From a LT. in the army fighting that war, I can tell you that our battles against the stoner opponents in my area of operations are not costing us anymore than our campaigns against stop sign runners, shoplifters or public urination offenders.
> 
> The tallying up of my hourly income, court costs and every cent to include the paper we print to book you is simply another silly attempt by the pot heads to frame the debate as some sort of money saving affair. Id wager my war on drugs tank that our expenses wouldn't change one iota if weed was legalazised at 0000 Zulu.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Your post brings up something I've thought about a lot and I apologize in advance because it's one of those things that is going to be considered offensive by a lot of posters. 

How can we listen to anything a cop has to say when it comes to the drug war when so many cop jobs are tied to it's existance?

There is a vested interest to believe all of the hype and keep the status quo because paychecks depend on it. The same can be said of teachers and soldiers and a whole bunch of other taxpayer funded employees. I don't think the average LEO is so cynical that they consciously support the drug war as a jobs program, but the conflict of interest certainly seems to grease the wheels toward a certain ideological conclusion.


----------



## Tgace

Of 130 sworn officers in my PD, 5 of them are assigned to narcotics. Aside from the feds/DEA, most departments will go on business as usuall if pot were legalized overnight. We would be just as busy locking up all the robbers, rapists, domestic violence suspects as we always were. With all the legalized dope I'd wager we would be busier than ever.

How can we believe anything we hear from drug users and people with a television conception of law enforcement? Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic either.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> Of 130 sworn officers, 5 of them are assigned to narcotics. Aside from the feds/DEA, most departments will go on business as usuall if pot were legalized overnight. We would be just as busy locking up all the robbers, rapists, domestic violence suspects as we always were. With all the legalized dope I'd wager we would be busier than ever.
> 
> Perhaps people with a television conception of law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic either.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Forget how many are employed in the narcotics unit, that is irrelevent. How much money does your entire department recieve in federal dollers from the "War on Drugs?" That would be a more appropriate answer to his question.


----------



## Tgace

celtic_crippler said:


> Forget how many are employed in the narcotics unit, that is irrelevent. How much money does your entire department recieve in federal dollers from the "War on Drugs?" That would be a more appropriate answer to his question.



Hardly any...we get some asset forfeiture money but that cant be spent on positions, wages or benefits, only equipment and training. I drive a Ford minivan with all the assest we bring in. Lol.

Federal grant money to my PD strictly for dope? Nada. We have one detective on the DEA task force and they provide him with 6 hrs a week OT. Most federal funds are designed to fund gear and OT on initiatives like DWI checkpoints. 99% of it is directed at terrorism these days.

Of course what metro pds like NYC or State/County coppers are getting I don't know.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

I did some digging... and found this: 

John Lovell, a lobbyist for the police unions in California, recently bid to steer some $2.2 million dollars into a Marijuana Suppression Program. In 2009 and 2010. California police unions sought a $7,537,389 chunk of Federal money for police to conduct a Campaign Against Marijuana Planting program. 

 The total amount awarded was $550,000, to be split between Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama counties, which make up the Northern California Marijuana Eradication Team (NorCal-MET). Broken down in the agenda worksheet, the sheriffs office is expecting to spend $20,000 on flight operations, $94,895 for the full-time deputys salary and benefits, $16,788 for the administration assistant salary and benefits and $29,983 to cover up to 666.29 hours of overtime.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> Hardly any...we get some asset forfeiture money but that cant be spent on positions, wages or benefits, only equipment and training. I drive a Ford minivan with all the assest we bring in. Lol.
> 
> Federal grant money to my PD strictly for dope? Nada. We have one detective on the DEA task force and they provide him with 6 hrs a week OT. Most federal funds are designed to fund gear and OT on initiatives like DWI checkpoints. 99% of it is directed at terrorism these days.
> 
> Of course what metro pds like NYC or State/County coppers are getting I don't know.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Sounds like you need a lobbyist. You're missing out on big time federal money. LOL


----------



## Tgace

Nice for them....did they actually get it? 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> Nice for them....did they actually get it?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you don't actually read my posts. Go back and read post #100


----------



## Tgace

celtic_crippler said:


> Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you don't actually read my posts. Go back and read post #100



Come on...as if you have been reading all of ours Lol!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Come on...as if you have been reading all of ours Lol!
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



jesus christ.  is it any wonder the discussion goes nowhere?

 Fwiw, I've read every post so far. 
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

granfire said:


> the kind that you get when you criminalize benign things.
> 
> Please don't tell me there is not a good amount of resourced dedicated to combat 'under age drinking'.
> Especially when it targets groups that otherwise can legally drive a ton of steel on public roads with 4 or 7 people as passengers....while on the way to die in a war or the voting booth, you know, people who are otherwise considered 'adult'
> 
> or the ATF officer hanging out at the liquor store...



It would actually be a state liquor authority officer. The ATF is a sledgehammer for a teen drinker fly. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> jesus christ.  is it any wonder the discussion goes nowhere?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



When I'm checking in on my cell I'm not about to read every link posted as "evidence" and sometimes I'm simply responding to one post up instead of leafing through 5 missed pages on my phone during my coffee break. Sorry.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Of 130 sworn officers in my PD, 5 of them are assigned to narcotics. Aside from the feds/DEA, most departments will go on business as usuall if pot were legalized overnight. We would be just as busy locking up all the robbers, rapists, domestic violence suspects as we always were. With all the legalized dope I'd wager we would be busier than ever.
> 
> How can we believe anything we hear from drug users and people with a television conception of law enforcement? Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic either.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Well look, it's essentially the same argument against public sector unions. People can vote themselves policies that benefit them at the cost of another group. Happens all of the time. I don't think the influence of this conflict of interest on ideology is something that can be overlooked.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> Come on...as if you have been reading all of ours Lol!
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



I read yours. They're full of "I, I, I"... "Me, Me, Me"... and "My, My, My". All of your points are based on your limited personal views with no citations of sources other than your limited perspective and experience. I would love you to address my previous bullet points and actually cite a legitmate source for your data.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> When I'm checking in on my cell I'm not about to read every link posted as "evidence". Sorry.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Not a judgement as much as it's an observation.   If w are all"taLking" then no ones listening.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> Well look, it's essentially the same argument against public sector unions. People can vote themselves policies that benefit them at the cost of another group. Happens all of the time. I don't think the influence of this conflict of interest on ideology is something that can be overlooked.



And you are comparing this to a discussion on a martial arts forum? Seriously?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> Well look, it's essentially the same argument against public sector unions. People can vote themselves policies that benefit them at the cost of another group. Happens all of the time. I don't think the influence of this conflict of interest on ideology is something that can be overlooked.



And what percentage of the voting population do you think we LEO's take up? Do you seriosly think we are big enough to stop legalization if it was truly the will of the people?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> And you are comparing this to a discussion on a martial arts forum? Seriously?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



FYI... this thread isn't about martial arts. Bob apparently assumed that martial artists were capable of and willing to discuss other things. Are you capable of replying to a post with anything other than the equivilant of "yo momma"? I only ask because such quips aren't conducive to moving the thread along in a productive manner.


----------



## Tgace

Tgace said:


> http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11148
> 
> "Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is president of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York City. He was President Lyndon B. Johnson&#8217;s top aide for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969 and Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Carter Administration."
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



What...you didn't read this? Lol!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> And what percentage of the voting population do you think we LEO's take up? Do you seriosly think we are big enough to stop legalization if it was truly the will of the people?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



A 40 billion dollar industry is nothing to sneeze at. I'm sure the economic ramifications spread it's wings over a large part of the public. Combine this with the prison industry which also hugely benefits from the drug war and now you have a legitimate special interest group.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> What...you didn't read this? Lol!
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Interesting

I went beyond the article you cited from a biased on-line newsletter and went directly to the source the article cited, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 

According to it, marijuana use has increased by about 6,600 new users a day.

That being said, their survey (which relies on the ones surveyed to be honest in their responses) only reflects 8.9% of the population. Thats a very small sample. But lets take a look at what it actually reported anyway shall we? 

It states that the number of illicit drug users age 12 and older actually increased from 2008 to 2010.

It states that the number of marijuana users age 12 and older increased from 14.4 million in 2007 to 17.4 million in 2010. 

It states that the rate of current use of illicit drugs among young adults aged 18 to 25 increased from 19.6% in 2008 to 21.2%  in 2009 and 21.5% in 2010. 

It states that among those aged 50 to 59, the rate of past month illicit drug use increased from 2.7% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2010.

Um how is this supposed to support your argument that the War on Drugs is actually working again? 

Would you care to address any of my bullet points now? ROFLMAO


----------



## celtic_crippler

Really? From the same source... 



> The estimates of drug use prevalence from the National Survey on Drug Use and
> Health (NSDUH) are designed to describe the target population of the survey&#8212;the
> civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 or older living in the United
> States. This population includes almost 98 percent of the total U.S. population
> aged 12 or older. However, it excludes some small subpopulations that may have
> very different drug use patterns. For example, the survey excludes active
> military personnel, who have been shown to have significantly lower rates of
> illicit drug use. The survey also excludes two groups that have been shown to
> have higher rates of illicit drug use: persons living in institutional group
> quarters, such as prisons and residential drug use treatment centers, and
> homeless persons not living in a shelter. Readers are reminded to consider the
> exclusion of these subpopulations when interpreting results.


----------



## Steve

celtic_crippler said:


> Really? From the same source...



I posted a link to the actual report earlier as well.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## celtic_crippler

Steve said:


> I posted a link to the actual report earlier as well.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



Yeah... it's pretty bad when your source actually supports that of the opposing viewpoint. ROFLMAO :bangahead:


----------



## ballen0351

celtic_crippler said:


> According to it, marijuana use has increased by about 6,600 new users a day.


Your proud of that?  That great logic well we have 6,600 new users a day so lets just make it all legal.
If its so good  "get a better lobbist" to fight to make it legal.


> That being said, their survey (which relies on the ones surveyed to be honest in their responses) only reflects 8.9% of the population. Thats a very small sample. But lets take a look at what it actually reported anyway shall we?
> 
> It states that the number of illicit drug users age 12 and older actually increased from 2008 to 2010.
> 
> It states that the number of marijuana users age 12 and older increased from 14.4 million in 2007 to 17.4 million in 2010.


How much higher will the numbers go if its no longer illegal?    


> It states that the rate of current use of illicit drugs among young adults aged 18 to 25 increased from 19.6% in 2008 to 21.2%  in 2009 and 21.5% in 2010.
> 
> It states that among those aged 50 to 59, the rate of past month illicit drug use increased from 2.7% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2010.
> 
> Um how is this supposed to support your argument that the War on Drugs is actually working again?
> 
> Would you care to address any of my bullet points now? ROFLMAO



there are several factors which can lead to the rise in drug use.  #1 the legalization of "medical" marijuana in many west coast states which has created a much greater availibility of the product.  Most of the Marijuana we have now in this state is sent thru the mail, UPS, and FEX EX from the west coast.  #2 the economy has gone down and unemployment has gone up and there is a feeling of "giving up" from the young adults that cant find work that also applies to the other age group of fired older workers 50+ that now cant find jobs.  #3 since 2001 Law enforcement prioritys have shifted from Gang violence and Drug enforcemnt to terror operations.  Most of our grant money come directly from Homeland Security and is to be used to combat terror.  It useless crap that we dont need but we keep getting money for stuff.  Every year we get free boats, Chemical suits, radiation detectors, cameras, ect and when I say free I of course mean the tax payers paid for it.  Our "intellegence" unit is 3 times the size of our Narcotics unit and has the same amount of people as our violent crimestask force which I am now a member of.  When I was in Narcotics our entire budget was from drug seizures we were the only revenue positive unit in the department.  The federal drug asset seizure laws allow local departments so seize drug money and use it to fund other drug fighting programas.  When we starting keeping track of amounts of money and assets seized my LT who just retired a few months ago had a total lifetime seizure from his cases of over 1.9 million when we figured it out he worked 18 years and before retirement and his adverage salary for his 18 years was $63,000 per year so he made the city money (now we didnt figure in benefits to the salary because basically we were to lazy and didnt care).  So since 2001 not only has drug use gone up so has gang violence because its no longer the prority it once was.  

I just think its interesting if we used the same logic for other crimes people would be outraged but because people want to smoke pot they can twist the numbers however they want.  
Your upset that the drug use number are up yet at same time are upset that we have record high number of people in jail for drug crimes.  Well if drug use is on the rise it would also show more people would be caught right?   More users = higher jail numbers

If we said Domestic assaults between spouces were up 20% over the last five year the War on domestic violence is a failure we need to just make it legal.  After all its my wife why is it any of your concern if I want to smack her around a bit.  She stays with me so she doesnt care.  I only beat her at home so it does not bother anyone else and look at the super high numbers of guys in jail for beating his wife and they are still married so obviously the wives dont care so why should you.  It was legal after all for years remember the "rule of thumb"  Ive even got case law to back it up 1868 case, _State v. Rhodes_, where a husband was found innocent because, the judge said, "the defendent had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb," 
Its the same argument different crime and it sounds insane


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Your post brings up something I've thought about a lot and I apologize in advance because it's one of those things that is going to be considered offensive by a lot of posters.
> 
> How can we listen to anything a cop has to say when it comes to the drug war when so many cop jobs are tied to it's existance?
> 
> There is a vested interest to believe all of the hype and keep the status quo because paychecks depend on it. The same can be said of teachers and soldiers and a whole bunch of other taxpayer funded employees. I don't think the average LEO is so cynical that they consciously support the drug war as a jobs program, but the conflict of interest certainly seems to grease the wheels toward a certain ideological conclusion.



Its a valid question you ask.  The same could be said about why ask a Docs opinion on health care reform after all they profit more from higher costs, or Why ask a General about ending the Wars because its how he makes or breaks his future promotions.

Prior to Law Enforcment I had a Legalize Everything outlook.  I had the same arguments and belief as you that its my body I should be able to do what I want.  My outlook changed once I get deeply involved in the "war on Drugs"  It had nothing to do with Job security because You could end all drug laws tomorrow Ill still have a job there are plenty of other crimes on the books Im not worried about that.
I changed my opinon because unlike a Doc sitting in an office or a Nurse who only deals with the user in a controlled environment.  They are not the ones that had to deal with the rest of the incident.  When I bring a naked PCP user into the ER Ive already foght him and got him under control.  When EMS brings the woman who OD on Heroin into the Er Im still at her house trying to find a clean diaper to change the baby while I wait for Social Serivce to come give the kid a place to stay.  When the Nurse turns the lights off on the Operating Room after the 19 year old that just dide from an OD Im the one knocking on his mothers door to tell her her son is dead.  Im the one that stands in 100 deg weather on a crime scene 20 feet from a dead body for hours waiting for the Homicide guys to finsh with the crime scene on a drug deal gone wrong.

So you can say I do have a personal ME ME ME I I I reason to not want to see more drugs on the street and Ill admit it fully but it has NOTHING to do with job security.  But just because I have a personal agenda for my reasons does not make my reason invalid.


----------



## Carol

I think its a fair point to make, Ballen.   It's part of the overall picture.


----------



## Makalakumu

I can accept that reasoning, but at the same time, I know there are entire federal agencies who depend on the drug war for their survival. It surely is a factor there.

At any rate, I think the US could actually win the war on drugs. We could reduce the numbers of users to the point where only a few degenerates and crazies would dare try it. The main obstacle is the Constitution. The kinds of police state crack downs that could be effective would shred the Bill of Rights.

That said, this puts police in a tough position. They are forced to fight a limited war that can never truly be successful, like Vietnam. So maybe we can think of a different solution. Maybe decriminalization and legalization could be part of that solution. 

I would rather have drugs be legal than live in a police state with very few civil rights. I don't want the government to have the kind of power it would take to actually win the drug war.


----------



## ballen0351

And by the way please don't take my above post as a knock on docs or nurse there job is way harder then mine in my opinion they are miracle workers some of the amazing things I've seen them do.  My best friend at work was shot 4 times and is only alive today because of the amazing work nurses did at shock trauma


----------



## ballen0351

I keep hearing about this police state what rights are being violated. I know the 4th amendment like the back of my hand and everything I do I try to do it right.  I've known for a fact I've let dope walk away because I couldn't think of a legal way to get it out of his pocket 



Makalakumu said:


> I can accept that reasoning, but at the same time, I know there are entire federal agencies who depend on the drug war for their survival. It surely is a factor there.
> 
> At any rate, I think the US could actually win the war on drugs. We could reduce the numbers of users to the point where only a few degenerates and crazies would dare try it. The main obstacle is the Constitution. The kinds of police state crack downs that could be effective would shred the Bill of Rights.
> 
> That said, this puts police in a tough position. They are forced to fight a limited war that can never truly be successful, like Vietnam. So maybe we can think of a different solution. Maybe decriminalization and legalization could be part of that solution.
> 
> I would rather have drugs be legal than live in a police state with very few civil rights. I don't want the government to have the kind of power it would take to actually win the drug war.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> I keep hearing about this police state what rights are being violated. I know the 4th amendment like the back of my hand and everything I do I try to do it right.  I've known for a fact I've let dope walk away because I couldn't think of a legal way to get it out of his pocket



That is exactly my point. Your hands are tied. In order to actually win the drug war we need to shred the Bill of Rights. It wouldn't be America any more. LEOs like yourself are forced to fight a limited war and that's why all of the stats show that it's failing. Drugs are a domestic Vietnam!

So, with American traditions of individual liberty in mind, how do we solve the problem of drug abuse and preserve the basic tenets upon which our country was founded?

Law enforcement is not going to do this.


----------



## Tgace

If you think that the term "war on drugs" is anything more than a metaphor for an increased enforcement effort vs. an actual war than you don't know how law enforcement works, or you are willfully trying to use the term to frame the issue as a win/loose proposition.

Do you think there would be no theft if we declared a "war on shoplifting"? Rape? DWI? All the "war on drugs" term really means is that the US, as well as the governments in source nations, decided to apply military and military aid to attack cartels, fields, and production facilities within the source countries.

Its not as if drug use and drug trafficking was legal before this "war on drugs" was declared.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Carol

ballen0351 said:


> there are several factors which can lead to the rise in drug use.  #1 the legalization of "medical" marijuana in many west coast states which has created a much greater availibility of the product.  Most of the Marijuana we have now in this state is sent thru the mail, UPS, and FEX EX from the west coast.  #2 the economy has gone down and unemployment has gone up and there is a feeling of "giving up" from the young adults that cant find work that also applies to the other age group of fired older workers 50+ that now cant find jobs.  #3 since 2001 Law enforcement prioritys have shifted from Gang violence and Drug enforcemnt to terror operations.



A few questions for you if you don't mind me asking.  I have heard from a few sources that underage drinking has gone down due to stiffer penalties levied to establishments that let under-21s access alcohol.  Is marijuana replacing alcohol in this age group, do you think?

If marijuana were legalized across the board...would the money coming in from taxation of its use be better than what is currently coming in from it's use?

If marijuana users could to a town smoke shop or ABC store for their smokes, would that reduce the "gateway" effect?  Im The local smoke shop isn't going to be a dealer that can profit in getting someone hooked on hard drugs.  I think some idjits out their will always be pushing the envelope with their "high" no matter what, and these idjits will find a way to get the nasty stuff...but would legalization provide less temptations for the casual user?  

I don't have a dog in the hunt here.  I loathe street drugs (including marijuana) and have zero interest in using...but the libertarian side of me speaks out from time to time.   A medical marijuana bill was going through legislature. It failed, but nonetheless its been a hot topic up here in the hinterlands


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> That is exactly my point. Your hands are tied. In order to actually win the drug war we need to shred the Bill of Rights. It wouldn't be America any more. LEOs like yourself are forced to fight a limited war and that's why all of the stats show that it's failing. Drugs are a domestic Vietnam!
> 
> So, with American traditions of individual liberty in mind, how do we solve the problem of drug abuse and preserve the basic tenets upon which our country was founded?
> 
> Law enforcement is not going to do this.



The thing is that's not just a drug problem that's law enforcement in general.  I know a guy right now who has shot and killed 5 people in the last 3 years everyone knows it but knowing it and proving it are totally different.  The thing about him is the only way we will finally get him in prison will be on drug charges.  We have had witnesses tell us they saw him kill and they refuse to testify because they are afraid of the rest of his family.  He's failed polygraphs on 3 of the suspected murders.  We just can't get the solid evidence on him.  What we can do is find other crimes to put him away for


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> That is exactly my point. Your hands are tied. In order to actually win the drug war we need to shred the Bill of Rights. It wouldn't be America any more. LEOs like yourself are forced to fight a limited war and that's why all of the stats show that it's failing. Drugs are a domestic Vietnam!
> 
> So, with American traditions of individual liberty in mind, how do we solve the problem of drug abuse and preserve the basic tenets upon which our country was founded?
> 
> Law enforcement is not going to do this.



Ballen beat me to it. How do we solve murders,rapes and robberies without "shredding the bill of rights"? Drug possession and sales/trafficking is simply another crime in a list of crimes we investigate. Don't stretch this "war" metaphor too far.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Denial can be an ugly thing... 

Ever consider that there might be less rapes, murders, etc if so many resources weren't wasted on the War on Drugs? 

...probably not. 

You guys continue to ignore the facts. Even when you're smacked in the face with them. Even when your own sources back the opposing viewpoint. You keep dodging the facts in a vain attempt to try and salvage some sense of a victory for yourself. 

You just can't accept the fact that you are wrong. It's sad. Sad for you and sad for all those people who suffer because of it.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Ballen beat me to it. How do we solve murders,rapes and robberies without "shredding the bill of rights"? Drug possession and sales/trafficking is simply another crime in a list of crimes we investigate. Don't stretch this "war" metaphor too far.



I didn't invent the "war" metaphor. That is the property of the US government. They labeled this as a "war on drugs" just as they labeled our current actions in Afghanistan a "war on terror." Both of these share similar characteristics and are related, btw. I'm comparing the the propaganda to Vietnam because I think the concepts are related.

In all cases, because we are a "moral" country and because we believe in individual freedom, we are bound to "lose" because we won't go far enough to actually win.  

So, what does losing look like? It looks like letting the guy you know has a bag of weed go. It looks like letting the guy you know set the IEDs go because you can't "prove" it. It looks like Vietnam. It looks like another ******** government policy where every problem is a nail and your only tool is a hammer.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Ballen beat me to it. How do we solve murders,rapes and robberies without "shredding the bill of rights"? Drug possession and sales/trafficking is simply another crime in a list of crimes we investigate. Don't stretch this "war" metaphor too far.



Also, in Hawaii, marijuana grows everywhere.  The Hawaiians call it Pakalolo.  It is way more common then rapes and murders, way harder to fight...


----------



## celtic_crippler

In case you missed it...



celtic_crippler said:


> First to address a few questions posed to me specifically
> 
> I do not use anything other than alcohol. And since so many of you like to pop off about your personal experience and why it makes you right, let me enlighten you to the fact that I am a nurse. Ive seen and treated addicts. But you dont see me citing that as a basis for why I support the legalization of drugs. I also was in law enforcement in my youth and shared some of the same limited views that some of you presently have. It wasnt until I got into healthcare and received more education and experience that my views changed. I suppose having an open mind helped in that regard. Contrary to others, Ive been using logic, reason, and fact to support my position and not how I feel about the issue.
> 
> Youd think that after 4+ decades of trying to put out a fire with gasoline that somebody would have figured out that not only does it not work, but it makes the problem even worse.
> 
> Sure, the fire department has plenty of work and employs a lot more firemen. And those selling gasoline are making a killing; however, not only is the fire not extinguished but the damage is worse than it was than when you started.
> 
> It is blind ignorance and tantamount to insanity to continue a failed policy. Ive never disputed the harm excessive drug use has on a person and/or their family. Ive only disputed the method in which the problem is addressed.
> 
> Alcohol is legal and regulated; however, alcoholics still exist. They existed when it was illegal and they exist when its legal. The difference is that when it was illegal, there were more victims than just the addicts.
> 
> The facts are out there to prove the War on Drugs is a failure. Many of these facts are the results of studies done by our own government! Yet, people ignore these facts so that they can feel good about themselves and feel morally superior. Well, while you crusade, people like Brian Terry become victims due to a failed policy. Do you feel good about that?
> 
> Even when presented with these facts, supporters of the War on Drugs cite nothing but personal experience and limited personal perspective. Somehow thinking that they are the center of the universe and that their own unique and limited point of view should be the basis for how the rest of the world addresses the problem, in effect, adding fuel to the fire.
> 
> They cant actually cite any real evidence that the War on Drugs is working, because there is none. In fact, the very government that perpetuates the War on Drugs has evidence and has conducted studies that say otherwise.  So instead, these supporters rely on how they feel about it. Ive long held that emotion is the enemy of reason
> 
> Theres no denying that addiction is a problem, but addicts are overlooked along with their problems so that the self righteous can feel morally superior. Meanwhile, the addicts receive no help and those like the family of Brian Terry continue to suffer because of the collateral damage caused by a pointless, useless, and ineffective War on Drugs.
> 
> There is no easy fix, but making drugs illegal and treating addicts as criminals instead of having an illness has not and does not work. I know that treating it as a healthcare issue instead of a criminal issue is a more valid approach and more accurately addresses the problem. Many have claimed to want to reduce drug use but are unwilling to change their support for the War on Drugs, even though it is an obvious failure and harmed more people in the process. It makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Even though Prohibition against alcohol proved many of my points many decades ago, for some reason many of you can not seem to see the correlation in regards to the War on Drugs.  Countries that have legalized drugs, regulated drugs, and offer rehab for addicts have shown drastic decreases in crime, disease, and overall use thereby limiting and reducing the number of victims.
> 
> I appreciate the idealists of the world, but the world does not exist in terms of black and white. In many circumstances, we can only hope to limit and reduce the damage. I understand that its human nature to want to control our environment, but without understanding that this is impossible we almost always cause more harm than good.
> 
> FACTS: (And these arent from some doc I dont know many are the result of studies conducted by our own government as well as legitimate health care professionals)
> 
> 
> Over $40 billion in tax payer money is spent annually yet drug use has not declined
> The availability of illicit drugs has more than doubled in the last few decades
> Illicit drugs are more potent and cheaper than they were 20 years ago
> The government receives no tax revenue from the sell of illicit drugs
> Gangs chief source of income comes from the sell of illicit drugs
> Since the inception of the War on Drugs, the instances of drug overdose and ER drug episodes has steadily risen
> Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug, yet has few adverse side effects. No one has ever overdosed from using marijuana and the long term health issues from its use are fewer than that of alcohol.
> Over 57% of addicts who want treatment receive none and are instead jailed.
> Each $1 invested in treatment saves $7 in societal costs
> Treatment is 10 times more effective at reducing use than imprisonment
> Over 60% of federal prisoners are incarcerated over NON-VIOLENT drug offenses. The US has more prisoners per capita than any other nation. Yet we claim to be the most free.
> More than 47,500 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico over the last 5 years.
> 60% of the societal costs involved in illicit drug use are related to the associated black market crime related to the illegality of illicit drugs; only 30% of societal costs are related to the actual ingestion of illicit drugs.
> A Harvard study showed that the legalization of illicit drugs would inject over $76 billion annually into the US economy. Subtract the $40 billion spent annually on the War on Drugs and thats a net increase of over $100 billion
> Studies show that treatment would be 23 times more effective than the current War on Drugs
> Only 10-15% of heroin and about 30% of cocaine shipments are intercepted by law enforcement. Over 75% would have to be intercepted to have any real impact on traffickers profits.
> According to the FBI in 2005, despite spending over $7 billion to arrest and prosecute over 800,000 people for marijuana offenses, 85% of all high school seniors reported that marijuana was easy to obtain.
> The Global Commission on Drug Policy recently released a report stating that the 4 decades long War on Drugs campaign has not only failed, but made the problem worse
> 
> And theres much, much more out there Those were just some highlights!!!
> 
> You asked for answers. The Global Commission on Drug Policy suggests the following:
> 
> 
> End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do not harm to others;
> Encourage the experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens;
> Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment, abut also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada;
> Apply human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers;
> Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law enforcement approach (despite the evidence) should focus their repression actions on violent organized crime and drug traffickers, in order to reduce the harms associated with the illicit drug market;
> Offer a wide and easily accessible range of options for treatment and care for drug dependence, including substitution and heroin-assisted treatment, with special attention to those most at risk, including those in prisons and other custodial settings;
> The United Nations system must provide leadership in the reform of global drug policy. This means promoting an effective approach based on evidence, supporting countries to develop drug policies that suit their context and meet their needs, and ensuring coherence among various UN agencies, policies and conventions.


----------



## Tgace

We let people go because we don't have probable cause. Its not like we wont catch them latter doing something else. Hell we let murders go too because we don't have sufficient evidence.

Again. Drugs were illegal before this "war on drugs" was declared.

All the "war on drugs" term changed was the feds going after suppliers in their source countries via military aid (monetary) and sometimes direct military action (wiping out fields, going after cartel members etc.).


----------



## ballen0351

celtic_crippler said:


> Denial can be an ugly thing...
> 
> Ever consider that there might be less rapes, murders, etc if so many resources weren't wasted on the War on Drugs?
> 
> .



Thats one of the stupidest things ive ever seen.  You claim to be former Law Enforcement but I highly doubt that claim because you show zero working knowledge of how law enforcement works.


----------



## Tgace

MYTH: Alcohol and illicit drugs are no different; thus, it is hypocritical for society to allow alcohol use while outlawing other drugs.

FACT: Alcohol and illicit drugs have a major difference. Most people use alcohol as a beverage and don&#8217;t drink to become intoxicated; whereas, with drugs, intoxication is the sole purpose. That is why marijuana smokers seek the higher THC content in marijuana and why crack is so popular among cocaine users. A more factual analogy would be to compare drug use with drunkenness. In addition, illicit drugs are far more addicting than alcohol. Also, approximately one-half of our citizens use alcohol, whereas only approximately eight percent use illicit drugs. In fact, there are almost as many people addicted to alcohol as use illicit drugs. The paradox is, while society is strengthening and demanding stricter enforcement of alcohol laws, there are those who want to decriminalize and even abolish drug laws.


----------



## celtic_crippler

ballen0351 said:


> And by the way please don't take my above post as a knock on docs or nurse there job is way harder then mine in my opinion they are miracle workers some of the amazing things I've seen them do.  My best friend at work was shot 4 times and is only alive today because of the amazing work nurses did at shock trauma



Too late, you already said it. You've also shown that you're a self centered, self righteous, selfish zealot who is incapable of entertaining a thought outside of their own narrow, limited point of view. It's all about "you" and nobody elses experience or suffering matters if it conflicts with your tiny little world. This shouldn't come as a surprise, since you have admitted to as much in post #121.


----------



## Steve

Just to address the gateway thing, for about two thirds of the 17.4 million people who reported to smoke weed within the "past month", weed was their only illicit drug use.  

While its clear that some people who smoke weed also do other illegal drugs, a much better argument could be made that alcohol is a true gateway as almost 100% of illegal drug users also drink alcohol.  But that's legal....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

ballen0351 said:


> Thats one of the stupidest things ive ever seen.



Look in the mirror.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> MYTH: Alcohol and illicit drugs are no different; thus, it is hypocritical for society to allow alcohol use while outlawing other drugs.
> 
> FACT: Alcohol and illicit drugs have a major difference. Most people use alcohol as a beverage and don&#8217;t drink to become intoxicated; whereas, with drugs, intoxication is the sole purpose. That is why marijuana smokers seek the higher THC content in marijuana and why crack is so popular among cocaine users. A more factual analogy would be to compare drug use with drunkenness. In addition, illicit drugs are far more addicting than alcohol. Also, approximately one-half of our citizens use alcohol, whereas only approximately eight percent use illicit drugs. In fact, there are almost as many people addicted to alcohol as use illicit drugs. The paradox is, while society is strengthening and demanding stricter enforcement of alcohol laws, there are those who want to decriminalize and even abolish drug laws.



Cite youre source. Anybody that thinks alcohol isn't a drug is misinformed. Big surprise there... you posting this nonsense.


----------



## Tgace

MYTH: Elimination of drugs would reduce crime and free prison space for more serious violent offenders.

FACT: Removal of laws would reduce incidents for those specific violations, but the behavior would not change. Lowering the age of consent to 12 would reduce the number of child molestation crimes, but it would not change the fact that predators were molesting young children ages 12 to 18. The advocates fail to recognize what drug experts are well aware of:  that a high percentage of drug dealers were criminals first.

Ninety-three percent of all state prison inmates are violent and/or serious repeat offenders. Only 1.4 percent are first-time, non-violent drug offenders. Keep in mind that non-violent only describes the act for which individuals are incarcerated and not their past history or previous behavior.  If an organized crime hit-man were convicted for income tax evasion, then he would be considered a non-violent inmate.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> MYTH: Alcohol and illicit drugs are no different; thus, it is hypocritical for society to allow alcohol use while outlawing other drugs.
> 
> FACT: Alcohol and illicit drugs have a major difference. Most people use alcohol as a beverage and don&#8217;t drink to become intoxicated; whereas, with drugs, intoxication is the sole purpose. That is why marijuana smokers seek the higher THC content in marijuana and why crack is so popular among cocaine users. A more factual analogy would be to compare drug use with drunkenness. In addition, illicit drugs are far more addicting than alcohol. Also, approximately one-half of our citizens use alcohol, whereas only approximately eight percent use illicit drugs. In fact, there are almost as many people addicted to alcohol as use illicit drugs. The paradox is, while society is strengthening and demanding stricter enforcement of alcohol laws, there are those who want to decriminalize and even abolish drug laws.



Are you kidding?  I'd like to see the source for this fact.  I will stand corrected if you can produce a reasonable source, but this sounds like more wishful thinking to me.  With the number of alcohol related incidents including suicides, homicides, domestic violence, fights, accidental deaths, DUIs and you name it involving alcohol along with the booming business being done at bars across the country, I have a hard time believing this to be true.

Also, just thinking back to my high school days, it wasn't about getting completely baked.  Just as you'd drink a beer or two and feel a nice buzz, it was great to share a bowl with a few guys and rock chemistry class.  A mild fuzziness made mr. Diesner a lot easier to take.  Just saying.  Of course that was over 20 years ago now.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

If a frog had wings... 

The War on Drugs is a failure. Denying that fact doesn't change anything and only perpetuates the problem. It seems some aren't interested in addressing the problem though... only in making themselves seem morally superior. Any time you guys would like to address the facts I've posted and dispute them with fact would be great. Oh wait... you can't... because they're facts and prove you're wrong.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Steve said:


> Are you kidding?  I'd like to see the source for this fact.  I will stand corrected if you can produce a reasonable source, but this sounds like more wishful thinking to me.  With the number of alcohol related incidents including suicides, homicides, domestic violence, fights, accidental deaths, DUIs and you name it involving alcohol along with the booming business being done at bars across the country, I have a hard time believing this to be true.
> 
> Also, just thinking back to my high school days, it wasn't about getting completely baked.  Just as you'd drink a beer or two and feel a nice buzz, it was great to share a bowl with a few guys and rock chemistry class.  A mild fuzziness made mr. Diesner a lot easier to take.  Just saying.  Of course that was over 20 years ago now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



FYI... alcohol is the only drug where going through withdrawal from discontinuing its use can actually kill you. But don't try using actual facts on this crowd... SMH


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> MYTH: Elimination of drugs would reduce crime and free prison space for more serious violent offenders.
> 
> FACT: Removal of laws would reduce incidents for those specific violations, but the behavior would not change. Lowering the age of consent to 12 would reduce the number of child molestation crimes, but it would not change the fact that predators were molesting young children ages 12 to 18. The advocates fail to recognize what drug experts are well aware of:  that a high percentage of drug dealers were criminals first.
> 
> Ninety-three percent of all state prison inmates are violent and/or serious repeat offenders. Only 1.4 percent are first-time, &#8220;non-violent&#8221; drug offenders. Keep in mind that &#8220;non-violent&#8221; only describes the act for which individuals are incarcerated and not their past history or previous behavior.  If an organized crime &#8220;hit-man&#8221; were convicted for income tax evasion, then he would be considered a non-violent inmate.


I guess this works if you consider smoking weed and pedophilia to be equivalent.  I don't.  Once again, the number of people smoking weed is about twice the number of all other illicit drugs put together... 8 times if you remove prescription drug misuse.  If we decriminalize pot, it's going to significantly impact the situation.  Now, will heroin addicts still smoke weed?  Probably, just as they still drink alcohol.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Carol said:


> A few questions for you if you don't mind me asking.


Dont mind at all thats why we are here to share ideas and learn from each other


> I have heard from a few sources that underage drinking has gone down due to stiffer penalties levied to establishments that let under-21s access alcohol.


Most underage drinking enforcement actions do target the establishments vs going after the underage person itself.  Most of the times if an underage person is sited its either because the officer just comes across it in his or her normal duties like a traffic stop and they have beer on the back seat or if they do spot ID checks in bars looking for fake Ids.


> Is marijuana replacing alcohol in this age group, do you think?


I wouldnt say its replacing it but it is more popular then it was in the past.  My opinion on why is because its becoming more main stream. I was down to the Ocean a few weeks ago and its senior week time where all the high school grad flock to the beach after graduation.  I was walking down the boardwalk and every novelity T shirt store had 50 different shirts with some refrence to Marijuana on it. When I was a kid and went to the beach we had the same t-shirts but they would all have Budwiser on it not Purple Haze Its just what kids do.



> If marijuana were legalized across the board...would the money coming in from taxation of its use be better than what is currently coming in from it's use?


Sure taxing marijuana would produce a large influx of tax money at first until the govt just kept taxing it and taxing it like they always do until people just started to grow there own.  Its alot easier to grow a few pot plants in a closet then it is to say grow your own tobacco or micro-brew your own beer.



> If marijuana users could to a town smoke shop or ABC store for their smokes, would that reduce the "gateway" effect?  Im The local smoke shop isn't going to be a dealer that can profit in getting someone hooked on hard drugs.  I think some idjits out their will always be pushing the envelope with their "high" no matter what, and these idjits will find a way to get the nasty stuff...but would legalization provide less temptations for the casual user?


I dont think the casual user would have the gateway effect even if it was legal or illegal.  If your predisposed to addiction and you try drugs your going to be an addict.  The problem comes when you dont know your predisposed and you try marijuana and think thats nice let me move on to crack.  Some people will be crack heads no matter what I dont think Marijuana can make someone turn into a crack head that does not want to be a crack head I just think it makes the transition easier for the crack head.  Im not sure if that makes any sense im approaching 40 hours without sleep so im about to crash.  I just wanted to answer your questions first since you asked so nicely:bangahead:
I don't have a dog in the hunt here.  I loathe street drugs (including marijuana) and have zero interest in using...but the libertarian side of me speaks out from time to time.   A medical marijuana bill was going through legislature. It failed, but nonetheless its been a hot topic up here in the hinterlands [/QUOTE]


----------



## ballen0351

celtic_crippler said:


> Too late, you already said it. You've also shown that you're a self centered, self righteous, selfish zealot who is incapable of entertaining a thought outside of their own narrow, limited point of view. It's all about "you" and nobody elses experience or suffering matters if it conflicts with your tiny little world. This shouldn't come as a surprise, since you have admitted to as much in post #121.


I love you too


----------



## Steve

celtic_crippler said:


> If a frog had wings...
> 
> The War on Drugs is a failure. Denying that fact doesn't change anything and only perpetuates the problem. It seems some aren't interested in addressing the problem though... only in making themselves seem morally superior. Any time you guys would like to address the facts I've posted and dispute them with fact would be great. Oh wait... you can't... because they're facts and prove you're wrong.



While I agree with you p, I honestly don't see it as a desire to appear morally superior.  I do disagree with a few of the guys here, but I respect their opinion.  I think that weed is headed for legalization, and I honestly believe that once done people will wonder what the big deal was.  Same as when DADT was lifted and we saw openly gay soldiers.  Same as we will see when gays start really getting married.  It's a bunch of hand wringing promoted by lobbies and politics and money.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> Are you kidding?  I'd like to see the source for this fact.  I will stand corrected if you can produce a reasonable source, but this sounds like more wishful thinking to me.  With the number of alcohol related incidents including suicides, homicides, domestic violence, fights, accidental deaths, DUIs and you name it involving alcohol along with the booming business being done at bars across the country, I have a hard time believing this to be true.
> 
> Also, just thinking back to my high school days, it wasn't about getting completely baked.  Just as you'd drink a beer or two and feel a nice buzz, it was great to share a bowl with a few guys and rock chemistry class.  A mild fuzziness made mr. Diesner a lot easier to take.  Just saying.  Of course that was over 20 years ago now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I don't know what fact you are referring to.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-americans-use-illegal-drugs-3/



> More than 22 million Americans age 12 and older - nearly 9% of the U.S. population - use illegal drugs, according to the government&#8217;s 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
> 
> The overall rate of drug use is only slightly higher than the 2009 study but nearly a percentage point above the 2008 survey.


----------



## celtic_crippler

I actually spent some time researching this and not just popping off opinion on a smart phone when I should have been doing my job. So, any time you'd like to address and try to disprove one of these facts or address the actual logic used.... feel free. It may actually prove productive. 



celtic_crippler said:


> First to address a few questions posed to me specifically
> 
> I do not use anything other than alcohol. And since so many of you like to pop off about your personal experience and why it makes you right, let me enlighten you to the fact that I am a nurse. Ive seen and treated addicts. But you dont see me citing that as a basis for why I support the legalization of drugs. I also was in law enforcement in my youth and shared some of the same limited views that some of you presently have. It wasnt until I got into healthcare and received more education and experience that my views changed. I suppose having an open mind helped in that regard. Contrary to others, Ive been using logic, reason, and fact to support my position and not how I feel about the issue.
> 
> Youd think that after 4+ decades of trying to put out a fire with gasoline that somebody would have figured out that not only does it not work, but it makes the problem even worse.
> 
> Sure, the fire department has plenty of work and employs a lot more firemen. And those selling gasoline are making a killing; however, not only is the fire not extinguished but the damage is worse than it was than when you started.
> 
> It is blind ignorance and tantamount to insanity to continue a failed policy. Ive never disputed the harm excessive drug use has on a person and/or their family. Ive only disputed the method in which the problem is addressed.
> 
> Alcohol is legal and regulated; however, alcoholics still exist. They existed when it was illegal and they exist when its legal. The difference is that when it was illegal, there were more victims than just the addicts.
> 
> The facts are out there to prove the War on Drugs is a failure. Many of these facts are the results of studies done by our own government! Yet, people ignore these facts so that they can feel good about themselves and feel morally superior. Well, while you crusade, people like Brian Terry become victims due to a failed policy. Do you feel good about that?
> 
> Even when presented with these facts, supporters of the War on Drugs cite nothing but personal experience and limited personal perspective. Somehow thinking that they are the center of the universe and that their own unique and limited point of view should be the basis for how the rest of the world addresses the problem, in effect, adding fuel to the fire.
> 
> They cant actually cite any real evidence that the War on Drugs is working, because there is none. In fact, the very government that perpetuates the War on Drugs has evidence and has conducted studies that say otherwise.  So instead, these supporters rely on how they feel about it. Ive long held that emotion is the enemy of reason
> 
> Theres no denying that addiction is a problem, but addicts are overlooked along with their problems so that the self righteous can feel morally superior. Meanwhile, the addicts receive no help and those like the family of Brian Terry continue to suffer because of the collateral damage caused by a pointless, useless, and ineffective War on Drugs.
> 
> There is no easy fix, but making drugs illegal and treating addicts as criminals instead of having an illness has not and does not work. I know that treating it as a healthcare issue instead of a criminal issue is a more valid approach and more accurately addresses the problem. Many have claimed to want to reduce drug use but are unwilling to change their support for the War on Drugs, even though it is an obvious failure and harmed more people in the process. It makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Even though Prohibition against alcohol proved many of my points many decades ago, for some reason many of you can not seem to see the correlation in regards to the War on Drugs.  Countries that have legalized drugs, regulated drugs, and offer rehab for addicts have shown drastic decreases in crime, disease, and overall use thereby limiting and reducing the number of victims.
> 
> I appreciate the idealists of the world, but the world does not exist in terms of black and white. In many circumstances, we can only hope to limit and reduce the damage. I understand that its human nature to want to control our environment, but without understanding that this is impossible we almost always cause more harm than good.
> 
> FACTS: (And these arent from some doc I dont know many are the result of studies conducted by our own government as well as legitimate health care professionals)
> 
> 
> Over $40 billion in tax payer money is spent annually yet drug use has not declined
> The availability of illicit drugs has more than doubled in the last few decades
> Illicit drugs are more potent and cheaper than they were 20 years ago
> The government receives no tax revenue from the sell of illicit drugs
> Gangs chief source of income comes from the sell of illicit drugs
> Since the inception of the War on Drugs, the instances of drug overdose and ER drug episodes has steadily risen
> Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug, yet has few adverse side effects. No one has ever overdosed from using marijuana and the long term health issues from its use are fewer than that of alcohol.
> Over 57% of addicts who want treatment receive none and are instead jailed.
> Each $1 invested in treatment saves $7 in societal costs
> Treatment is 10 times more effective at reducing use than imprisonment
> Over 60% of federal prisoners are incarcerated over NON-VIOLENT drug offenses. The US has more prisoners per capita than any other nation. Yet we claim to be the most free.
> More than 47,500 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico over the last 5 years.
> 60% of the societal costs involved in illicit drug use are related to the associated black market crime related to the illegality of illicit drugs; only 30% of societal costs are related to the actual ingestion of illicit drugs.
> A Harvard study showed that the legalization of illicit drugs would inject over $76 billion annually into the US economy. Subtract the $40 billion spent annually on the War on Drugs and thats a net increase of over $100 billion
> Studies show that treatment would be 23 times more effective than the current War on Drugs
> Only 10-15% of heroin and about 30% of cocaine shipments are intercepted by law enforcement. Over 75% would have to be intercepted to have any real impact on traffickers profits.
> According to the FBI in 2005, despite spending over $7 billion to arrest and prosecute over 800,000 people for marijuana offenses, 85% of all high school seniors reported that marijuana was easy to obtain.
> The Global Commission on Drug Policy recently released a report stating that the 4 decades long War on Drugs campaign has not only failed, but made the problem worse
> 
> And theres much, much more out there Those were just some highlights!!!
> 
> You asked for answers. The Global Commission on Drug Policy suggests the following:
> 
> 
> End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do not harm to others;
> Encourage the experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens;
> Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment, abut also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada;
> Apply human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers;
> Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law enforcement approach (despite the evidence) should focus their repression actions on violent organized crime and drug traffickers, in order to reduce the harms associated with the illicit drug market;
> Offer a wide and easily accessible range of options for treatment and care for drug dependence, including substitution and heroin-assisted treatment, with special attention to those most at risk, including those in prisons and other custodial settings;
> The United Nations system must provide leadership in the reform of global drug policy. This means promoting an effective approach based on evidence, supporting countries to develop drug policies that suit their context and meet their needs, and ensuring coherence among various UN agencies, policies and conventions.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> I don't know what fact you are referring to.
> 
> http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-americans-use-illegal-drugs-3/



The fact you posted and I quoted in my response.  The link you provided doesn't support your "fact."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> I guess this works if you consider smoking weed and pedophilia to be equivalent.  I don't.  Once again, the number of people smoking weed is about twice the number of all other illicit drugs put together... 8 times if you remove prescription drug misuse.  If we decriminalize pot, it's going to significantly impact the situation.  Now, will heroin addicts still smoke weed?  Probably, just as they still drink alcohol.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



If all we are talking about is weed legalization I would have to agree with you. But, anecdotal examples aside, getting caught with user level marijuana RARELY results in prison time anyway. Hell many crack/heroin dealers get probation and early release. The idea that our jails are full of kids caught with joints is laughable (not that anyone here has said as such...but Ive seen it).


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tgace said:


> I don't know what fact you are referring to.
> 
> http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-americans-use-illegal-drugs-3/



You continue to cite sources that prove drug use continues to increase under the current policy!!!! WTF, dude? 

From your cited source: "Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants and some prescription drugs used for non-medical purposes were counted in the survey. Marijuana was the most commonly used drug, with more than 17 million users in 2010,* 3 million more *than in the 2007 survey."

This is your evidence that the War on Drugs is working?!?!?! Just... WTF?


----------



## Tgace

You are going to have to explain what you are talking about...Im not copying. What claim in particular are you looking for support for?


----------



## Tgace

Here in NY simple possession is already decriminalized...it's a "violation", the penal law equivalent to a traffic ticket. I'm not even obligated by law to enforce a violation. I have let kids grind up their joints and go home on numerous occasions (situation/attitude depending). It's typically enforced when you are dumb enough to be smoking in your car or walking around with a bag in your pocket. Personally...if you are smart enough to keep it to the privacy of your home I could care less if you light up.

Our governor is looking to downgrade getting caught with/or smoking in public view from a misdemeanor to a violation. That wouldn't bother me either. Apparently (unconfirmed) some NYPD cops were getting people to empty their pockets and then charging them with the misdemeanor "public possession" instead of the violation. If true...well I wouldn't condone that...other cops MMV.

Dealers though? Its one thing partaking of an illegal substance, its another matter illegally profiting off of it.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Also, just thinking back to my high school days, it wasn't about getting completely baked.  Just as you'd drink a beer or two and feel a nice buzz, it was great to share a bowl with a few guys and rock chemistry class.  A mild fuzziness made mr. Diesner a lot easier to take.  Just saying.  Of course that was over 20 years ago now.


I think if you go on some Marijuana review website  that review different strains and see some of the major factors used to rate the High include catagories like "Couch Lock"  "numbness factor" and "brain haze" You will see marijuana from today is much different then 20 years go and people are buying these hybrid strains of high grade marijuana just to get "baked"


----------



## celtic_crippler

ballen0351 said:


> I think if you go on some Marijuana review website  that review different strains and see some of the major factors used to rate the High include catagories like "Couch Lock"  "numbness factor" and "brain haze" You will see marijuana from today is much different then 20 years go and people are buying these hybrid strains of high grade marijuana just to get "baked"



I cited the fact that drugs have become cheaper and more potent since the inception of the War on Drugs. How does this fact lead you to believe the policy is actually working?


----------



## Tgace

Tgace said:


> Here in NY simple possession is already decriminalized...it's a "violation", the penal law equivalent to a traffic ticket. I'm not even obligated by law to enforce a violation. I have let kids grind up their joints and go home on numerous occasions (situation/attitude depending). It's typically enforced when you are dumb enough to be smoking in your car or walking around with a bag in your pocket. Personally...if you are smart enough to keep it to the privacy of your home I could care less if you light up.
> 
> Our governor is looking to downgrade getting caught with/or smoking in public view from a misdemeanor to a violation. That wouldn't bother me either. Apparently (unconfirmed) some NYPD cops were getting people to empty their pockets and then charging them with the misdemeanor "public possession" instead of the violation. If true...well I wouldn't condone that...other cops MMV.
> 
> Dealers though? Its one thing partaking of an illegal substance, its another matter illegally profiting off of it.




That being said..the only way to successfully investigate dealers is through confidential informants, who are typically users who have been arrested. If you make possession of Coke, Heroin, Meth etc legal but then expect us LEO's to concentrate on arresting the dealers...well you don't know how that's done.

And this isn't an issue of police procedure as much as it is an issue of criminal procedure and DA restrictions.


----------



## celtic_crippler

A really simple analogy:

Let's say you have a goal to lose 20lbs. 

You come up with a diet plan hoping to lose 20lbs. 

After 4 months on this new diet plan, you actually gain 20lbs. 

Do you continue with that diet plan or do you re-evaluate it and change it?


----------



## ballen0351

celtic_crippler said:


> I cited the fact that drugs have become cheaper and more potent since the inception of the War on Drugs. How does this fact lead you to believe the policy is actually working?



Your "Facts" are wrong Marijuana prices for high grade designer strands are selling for as much and sometimes more then Crack. I personally have paid more for a 1/2oz of designer Marijuana $450 then I have for a 1oz bottle of PCP $375.  There are documented cases of High Grade Marijuana traded Kilo for Kilo for powder cocaine.  So they are not cheaper.  If your talking about mexican Cartel Ditch weed then yes it is cheaper and more potent. Im not sure what your point is.  Your claiming the existance of crime as proof of a failed law.  Well if thats the case then all laws fail because the only reason there is a crime is because its against the law.


----------



## ballen0351

celtic_crippler said:


> A really simple analogy:
> 
> Let's say you have a goal to lose 20lbs.
> 
> You come up with a diet plan hoping to lose 20lbs.
> 
> After 4 months on this new diet plan, you actually gain 20lbs.
> 
> Do you continue with that diet plan or do you re-evaluate it and change it?


You dont want to chage it tho you just want to say well that was hard oh well I give up on diets they fail.

Im not against changing the laws to enforce them better I already gave my suggestions as to ways to bring down drug use.


----------



## Tgace

"Designer Weed" from Ca is going between 3-4K a lb in my part of the state.


----------



## celtic_crippler

ballen0351 said:


> Your "Facts" are wrong Marijuana prices for high grade designer strands are selling for as much and sometimes more then Crack. I personally have paid more for a 1/2oz of designer Marijuana $450 then I have for a 1oz bottle of PCP $375.  There are documented cases of High Grade Marijuana traded Kilo for Kilo for powder cocaine.  So they are not cheaper.  If your talking about mexican Cartel Ditch weed then yes it is cheaper and more potent. Im not sure what your point is.  Your claiming the existance of crime as proof of a failed law.  Well if thats the case then all laws fail because the only reason there is a crime is because its against the law.



They're not "my" facts. Unlike you, I'm not making things up or basing my points on personal opinion. This seems to be an alien concept for you. BTW.... "your" is indicative of ownership. I belive you intended to use the contraction for "you are" which is "you're". 

The War on Drugs purpose was to diminish drug use. Fact. It has not done so. Fact. Just because you wish it were otherwise does not change anything. You can wish the sky were pink if you liked, it does not change the fact that it is blue nor does your support of a failed policy change the fact that it is indeed a failed policy. Or is that concept also too hard for you to wrap your head around?


----------



## ballen0351

celtic_crippler said:


> They're not "my" facts. Unlike you, I'm not making things up or basing my points on personal opinion. This seems to be an alien concept for you. BTW.


If I have purchased marijuana at a higher price then I have PCP then that's is not a personal opinion that's a fact.  I have an actual working knowledge of the topic and have been deemed an expert in many drug related topics by courts so my personal opinion in the courts view hold more weight then some cool little factoid you found on the internet 
Also thank you for the English  lesson I didn't know my thoughts on a martial arts forum were being graded I will try harder to pass your test next time.


> The War on Drugs purpose was to diminish drug use. Fact. It has not done so. Fact. Just because you wish it were otherwise does not change anything. You can wish the sky were pink if you liked, it does not change the fact that it is blue nor does your support of a failed policy change the fact that it is indeed a failed policy. Or is that concept also too hard for you to wrap your head around?



Everything we do in law enforcement has the goal to diminish that activity.  We have aggressive driving campaigns, DUI tatgeted enforcement speed enforcement and guess what we still have all thoea things so should we just give up on police work in general?    There is no way to tell how successful the war on drug is because we don't know what the numbers would have been without it how high the drug use number would be.  I'll just keep plugging along doing my job until they change the laws and I'm happy knowing some of the very bad people I've put away for a very long time so in my little part of the drug war my war I'm winning.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Gents, tone down the heat level a bit please? Some of the comments have been a bit borderline. Debate's fine and all, but stick to the issues.

Thank you.*


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I think if you go on some Marijuana review website  that review different strains and see some of the major factors used to rate the High include catagories like "Couch Lock"  "numbness factor" and "brain haze" You will see marijuana from today is much different then 20 years go and people are buying these hybrid strains of high grade marijuana just to get "baked"



And if it were legal, the strength/potency would be regulated.  Round and round the merry go round we go.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> And if it were legal, the strength/potency would be regulated.  Round and round the merry go round we go.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


How do you stop progress people are going to keep pushing the envelope its what we do.  We always look to push things how fast can I get me car to go, ect  are we going to ban people from growing 
he weed themselves?  We don't know the effects of say 70% thc content would do to the human body do we address it now or wait and see 
And hope it doesn't make bath salt look like something you actually take a bath with


----------



## elder999

Datura, alchohol, fly agaric, ayahuasca, Benadryl, valium, nutmeg, Hawaiian baby woodrose, heavenly blue morning glory, hell- hand disenfectant?

Recreational drugs are legal.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> How do you stop progress people are going to keep pushing the envelope its what we do.  We always look to push things how fast can I get me car to go, ect  are we going to ban people from growing
> he weed themselves?  We don't know the effects of say 70% thc content would do to the human body do we address it now or wait and see
> And hope it doesn't make bath salt look like something you actually take a bath with



The sky.  Look.  In spite of all the evidence  to the contrary, i believe that this time it's really going to fall!

Ultimately, if you are determined to believe that the 17.4 million people who smoke weed are dangerous, or at least more dangerous than the 100 million or so who drink alcohol and AS dangerous as the fraction who abuse meth, coke, or heroin, or the second most significant block under weed, which is the illicit use and abuse of legal, prescription medication, we will never convince you otherwise.  Reefer madness is upon us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## celtic_crippler

ballen0351 said:


> If I have purchased marijuana at a higher price then I have PCP then that's is not a personal opinion that's a fact.



You can't wrap your head around the basics, I'm not even going to attempt to teach you anything about economics. And here again, you prove that you simply can not reason outside of your own limited little world. It's all about you and your persceptions, facts be damned. (You know, those little tid bits of info I keep posting from other sources that you continue to ignore) 



ballen0351 said:


> I have an actual working knowledge of the topic and have been deemed an expert in many drug related topics by courts so my personal opinion in the courts view hold more weight then some cool little factoid you found on the internet



We could already tell you were part of the problem and not the solution. But thanks for confirming that it's on a grand scale. You obviously are the be-all-end-all expert on the subject, right? And know more than the experts that make up the Global Commission on Drug Policy, Harvard University, The National Research Council Committee on the Data and Research for Policy on Illegal Drugs, over 500 Economist including nobel prize winner Milton Friedmen, as well as data supplied by the FBI, the US Defense Department, and any other number of government and privately funded think tanks and data collection agencies ad nauseum... Yeah, I'll defer to you on this subject and not them. ROFLMAO... you really have a seriously inflated view of yourself. 



ballen0351 said:


> Also thank you for the English  lesson I didn't know my thoughts on a martial arts forum were being graded I will try harder to pass your test next time.



That's the spirit! Never give up! Never surrender! :-D




ballen0351 said:


> Everything we do in law enforcement has the goal to diminish that activity.



You've failed. Use has increased... a lot. So now what? More of the same? The gasoline isn't doing much to put out the fire. Perhaps you should try something different? Don't suppose that ever occured to you? 



ballen0351 said:


> We have aggressive driving campaigns, DUI tatgeted enforcement speed enforcement and guess what we still have all thoea things so should we just give up on police work in general?



There's another part of the flaw in your thinking; policing isn't always the right answer to a problem. Data shows, and it has also been proven, that a healthcare apporach, that treatment is much more effective at diminishing drug use than policing. Therefore, if your true goal were really to reduce drug use in this country, then you'd support that approach. But it seems your agenda has nothing to do with actually reducing drug use based on your posts so far. 



ballen0351 said:


> There is no way to tell how successful the war on drug is because we don't know what the numbers would have been without it how high the drug use number would be.  I'll just keep plugging along doing my job until they change the laws and I'm happy knowing some of the very bad people I've put away for a very long time so in my little part of the drug war my war I'm winning.



All those non-violent offenders... glad you're spending valuable resources putting them away. And the rapist, murderers, child molesters, etc. are also glad you're not wasting time on them. 

Yeah, you're winning all right... and so is society as drug use continues to escalate, as innocent people are killed as collateral damage in your little war. Yup... big win there.


----------



## ballen0351

It must be so hard for being the smartest guy you know huh I can't imagine how hard it must be to need to live among us mere mortals.  You live in a fantasy and believe all we need to do is legalize dope and all crime will end.  Thankfully the rest of the country does not believe this.  So I'll just keep doing my job the best I can and make a difference in peoples lives while you keep reading about what I do on the internet.  Its Sunday I'm off to church then to eat some crabs so you have a great day try to stay out of the heat its a hot one on the east coast today.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve I don't believe 17 million pot heads are dangerous if they kept smoking today's weed my concern is the more powerful stuff in the future.  I see no reason to make drugs legal it serves no purpose.  You bring up alcohol well I see no purpose for it either and would not care if they banned it as well.  Since every pro-pot argument always ends with how bad  alcohol is for you so ban it too it tears people and families apart.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> The sky. Look. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, i believe that this time it's really going to fall!
> 
> Ultimately, if you are determined to believe that the 17.4 million people who smoke weed are dangerous, or at least more dangerous than the 100 million or so who drink alcohol and AS dangerous as the fraction who abuse meth, coke, or heroin, or the second most significant block under weed, which is the illicit use and abuse of legal, prescription medication, we will never convince you otherwise. Reefer madness is upon us.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I think it depends on what you mean by dangerous. Dangerous as in rampaging criminals or dangerous as in driving under the influence of something, or perhaps performing surgery while 'high', perhaps an air traffic controller who's high? I think much of the discussion is taking a sweeping view of drugs as in they are either harmless or they are totally evil, we probably need to come in closer and decide what is a danger and what isn't? 
http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20...marijuana-pot-driving-under-the-influence.htm

I am hugely against drinking and driving, drunk drivers I'm afraid make me quite murderous for a lot of reasons. However whether drug laws are changed or not, I really want to see driving under the influence of anything be illegal whether it's 'recreational' drugs, prescribed drugs or alcohol.

From what I've read we seem to deal with drug offences a bit differently here so I can't comment on the 'war on drugs' aspect of the discussion.


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> I think it depends on what you mean by dangerous. Dangerous as in rampaging criminals or dangerous as in driving under the influence of something, or perhaps performing surgery while 'high', perhaps an air traffic controller who's high? I think much of the discussion is taking a sweeping view of drugs as in they are either harmless or they are totally evil, we probably need to come in closer and decide what is a danger and what isn't?
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20...marijuana-pot-driving-under-the-influence.htm
> 
> I am hugely against drinking and driving, drunk drivers I'm afraid make me quite murderous for a lot of reasons. However whether drug laws are changed or not, I really want to see driving under the influence of anything be illegal whether it's 'recreational' drugs, prescribed drugs or alcohol.
> 
> From what I've read we seem to deal with drug offences a bit differently here so I can't comment on the 'war on drugs' aspect of the discussion.



I would hope even the pro-drug crowd are not considering making drugged driving legal.  I think everyone agrees that's a bad idea.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Datura, alchohol, fly agaric, ayahuasca, Benadryl, valium, nutmeg, Hawaiian baby woodrose, heavenly blue morning glory, hell- hand disenfectant?
> 
> Recreational drugs are legal.



You know this whole discussion is irrational when you can go to the booze dealer and buy 190 proof Everclear and you can't go to a weed dealer and buy a bag. Everclear will kill you deader then a hammer, for christ sakes...but somehow society can handle that freedom. Why is it different for other substances?


----------



## celtic_crippler

ballen0351 said:


> It must be so hard for being the smartest guy you know huh I can't imagine how hard it must be to need to live among us mere mortals.  You live in a fantasy and believe all we need to do is legalize dope and all crime will end.  Thankfully the rest of the country does not believe this.  So I'll just keep doing my job the best I can and make a difference in peoples lives while you keep reading about what I do on the internet.  Its Sunday I'm off to church then to eat some crabs so you have a great day try to stay out of the heat its a hot one on the east coast today.



Way to duck, dodge, and ignore the facts... again. Typical of someone in denial... 

Ya know... something just occured to me... I believe I can see why you feel you have no choice but to maintain the mindset that you do. Your job defines you, to question that would be to question your worth as a person and to question what you contribute to society as a whole. Don't know how I missed that before... guess I was too wrapped up in beating you over the head with facts. You know, supporting treatment over policing really wouldn't diminish your self-worth. It would probably make you feel better if you gave it a try. You know, offering a helping hand instead of hand cuffs. Maybe your priest could help counsel you on this while you're at worship... wouldn't hurt to ask them for guidance. 




Makalakumu said:


> You know this whole discussion is irrational when you can go to the booze dealer and buy 190 proof Everclear and you can't go to a weed dealer and buy a bag. Everclear will kill you deader then a hammer, for christ sakes...but somehow society can handle that freedom. Why is it different for other substances?



Using logic in an attempt to reason with the irrational is a doomed endeavor. This too has just occured to me.


----------



## Tez3

Surely the rules of MT mean that one should attack the message not the messenger. Celtic Crippler, your points may have merit, they may not but anything you write is nullified by the abuse you seem to like to throw around, it's pointless, if you are correct in your views why do you feel the need to call people names and be quite so obnoxious? Surely your opinion is worth the dignity of writing in such a way that you point your point across without calling people stupid or irrational. The only thing I see that is irrational is your posts, any good points you have to make are swallowed up in the abuse you like handing out. Others are posting opposing views on here without the hysterical name calling you do, is it too much to ask that you post your opinion without actually attacking posters? It makes hard reading when one has to wade through the name calling, the bluster and the sheer hatred you appear to have for certain posters, anything you might want to convince people of just goes down the drain.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Surely the rules of MT mean that one should attack the message not the messenger. Celtic Crippler, your points may have merit, they may not but anything you write is nullified by the abuse you seem to like to throw around, it's pointless, if you are correct in your views why do you feel the need to call people names and be quite so obnoxious? Surely your opinion is worth the dignity of writing in such a way that you point your point across without calling people stupid or irrational. The only thing I see that is irrational is your posts, any good points you have to make are swallowed up in the abuse you like handing out. Others are posting opposing views on here without the hysterical name calling you do, is it too much to ask that you post your opinion without actually attacking posters? It makes hard reading when one has to wade through the name calling, the bluster and the sheer hatred you appear to have for certain posters, anything you might want to convince people of just goes down the drain.



I agree but it's not fair go call only celtic out.  There has been a fair amount of slinging on both sides.

It's a good reminder for all involved.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> You know this whole discussion is irrational when you can go to the booze dealer and buy *190 proof Everclear* and you can't go to a weed dealer and buy a bag. Everclear will kill you deader then a hammer, for christ sakes...but somehow society can handle that freedom. Why is it different for other substances?



Not legal here, you can try and import it but HM customs will confiscate it as a hazardous substance


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I agree but it's not fair go call only celtic out. There has been a fair amount of slinging on both sides.
> 
> It's a good reminder for all involved.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



However he's the only one that calls people names and in his last post has a go at the poster not the post. You don't do it and you are disagreeing with posters here so why does he need to feel to actually attack posters?


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tez3 said:


> Surely the rules of MT mean that one should attack the message not the messenger. Celtic Crippler, your points may have merit, they may not but anything you write is nullified by the abuse you seem to like to throw around, it's pointless, if you are correct in your views why do you feel the need to call people names and be quite so obnoxious? Surely your opinion is worth the dignity of writing in such a way that you point your point across without calling people stupid or irrational. The only thing I see that is irrational is your posts, any good points you have to make are swallowed up in the abuse you like handing out. Others are posting opposing views on here without the hysterical name calling you do, is it too much to ask that you post your opinion without actually attacking posters? It makes hard reading when one has to wade through the name calling, the bluster and the sheer hatred you appear to have for certain posters, anything you might want to convince people of just goes down the drain.



What "names" have I called "people"? 

I've made observations based on what some "people" have posted. I haven't called anybody a "dirtbag" or "asshat" or anything along those lines. 

My most recent observation is a legitamate one, regardless of whether you find it offensvie or not. Based on his posts, he obviously defines his world by his job and that has had a profound influence on his perspective and immovable stance on the issue. It's blatently obvious within every post made. What's offensive about me pointing that out? 

Feel free to address my sources and facts, in fact I encourage you to do so. But when your only basis of opinion is ...well... your opinion, and it's based on nothing but your limited perspective, then expect to have that addressed instead.

I've also posted my opinion, but unlike others, I've also posted tons and tons of sources to back it up. It's got nothing to do with how I "feel" about it. My point of view is instead based on reason. I don't "feel" people should be doing meth. It's got to be about the most God-awful thing a human being could put in their body. And the small amount of people that gain access to treatment and do successfully complete rehab for it, are never the same. However, reason requires me to look at the facts and accept that the War on Drugs is an absolute failure and has harmed more people than it has helped. And, as long as we continue down that failed path more people will continue to suffer than just the addicts. And, addicts will conintue to NOT get the treatment they need to hopefully regain some semblance of a life. Yeah, it pisses me off when people are forced to suffer needlessly... especially when the only reason is due to another's ego. So please forgive me for being a little passionate about it.


----------



## ballen0351

For the record my job falls WAY down the list on how I define my world.  My children are first and foremost my wife a close second.  My other family members, coaching my kids sports, teaching kids at my church karate, training my dogs for retriever and dock diving competitions  my former marine corp buddy's and current friends, my aquariums of which I own 6 from 30 gal up to 275 gals, my jeeps and my new boat.  All of which I enjoy much much more then my job which is in fact just a job that I count the days until I can retire (11 years 3 months and 4 days. Left) unless I opt out early using my military time but then I don't get medical benefits for 4 years.


----------



## WC_lun

Is it really so difficult to see this issue from the other person's point of view?  Ballen is an LEO.  He sees the worst part of the abuse of drugs.  Is it so hard to understand that he doesn't want anything that might increase that?  People like CC see the waste and failure of current policy.  Is it difficult to see his viewpoint that we need to change what isn't working?  This isn't a simple cut and dry issue.  To be on one side of the issue or the other doesn't mean anyone is stupid, lazy, or even incorrect.  Maybe try actually reading and understanding the concerns of people from the other point of view.


----------



## K-man

O





celtic_crippler said:


> A really simple analogy:
> 
> Let's say you have a goal to lose 20lbs.
> 
> You come up with a diet plan hoping to lose 20lbs.
> 
> After 4 months on this new diet plan, you actually gain 20lbs.
> 
> Do you continue with that diet plan or do you re-evaluate it and change it?


Yes, you re-evaluate and change.   What you don't do is triple the food intake!

:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

Eventually we're going to come to the conclusion that if we want to preserve individual liberty, we can't control people. We can only influence them.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Eventually we're going to come to the conclusion that if we want to preserve individual liberty, we can't control people. We can only influence them.



We are not controlling anyone if we were there would be zero drug use.  If the govt could control the people there would be zero crime.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Is it really so difficult to see this issue from the other person's point of view?  Ballen is an LEO.  He sees the worst part of the abuse of drugs.  Is it so hard to understand that he doesn't want anything that might increase that?  People like CC see the waste and failure of current policy.  Is it difficult to see his viewpoint that we need to change what isn't working?  This isn't a simple cut and dry issue.  To be on one side of the issue or the other doesn't mean anyone is stupid, lazy, or even incorrect.  Maybe try actually reading and understanding the concerns of people from the other point of view.


I see the waist in police work its not just limited to drug work.  I understand the point they are making and prior to police work I agreed with them all.  That was before I was smacked in the face with the reality of drug use.  I understand every point steve and the crip  are making I just disagree.  In a black and white clinical setting drug use has no effect on anyone other then the user but in reality things are not black and white and I've been working in the grey for a long time and my reality is different then there's.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> I see the waist in police work its not just limited to drug work.  I understand the point they are making and prior to police work I agreed with them all.  That was before I was smacked in the face with the reality of drug use.  I understand every point steve and the crip  are making I just disagree.  In a black and white clinical setting drug use has no effect on anyone other then the user but in reality things are not black and white and I've been working in the grey for a long time and my reality is different then there's.




But..but...but...this link to a study says. 

In regards to this conversation, where can it possibly go from here?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I see the waist in police work its not just limited to drug work.  I understand the point they are making and prior to police work I agreed with them all.  That was before I was smacked in the face with the reality of drug use.  I understand every point steve and the crip  are making I just disagree.  In a black and white clinical setting drug use has no effect on anyone other then the user but in reality things are not black and white and I've been working in the grey for a long time and my reality is different then there's.



I've never said that there is no effect on others.  Frankly, guys, I'm concerned that no one has actually taken the time to understand the points I've made.  I'm concerned because whenever I see someone like Ballen or tgace try to restate them, they are nothing like what I've actually written.  

Once again, if everyone is talking, then no one is listening.  



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

And I apologize for my drive-by attitude on this thread, but this whole debate gets tiring in its merry-go-round reappearance on the net. Instead of re-typing hours worth of stuff I already typed why not read this thread from 2005 I posted on?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?19357-The-Legalization-of-Marijuana/page19


http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...Legalization-of-Marijuana&p=353126#post353126



> The problem then is why do we all have to pay to pick up the pieces (i.e. social programs for drug rehab, medical expenses, etc.) for those people when their "doing what they want with their bodies" lands them in physical trouble??
> 
> Perhaps the solution isnt jail, but there should be some type of penalty when your "freedom" places a burden on the rest of society who isnt taking the drug....


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> And I apologize for my drive-by attitude on this thread, but this whole debate gets tiring in its merry-go-round reappearance on the net. Instead of re-typing hours worth of stuff I already typed why not read this thread from 2005 I posted on?
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?19357-The-Legalization-of-Marijuana/page19



Honestly, I don't mind being disagreed with.  I just get concerned when people are disagreeing with a straw an and ascribing those to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> I think those who are saying they don't want others 'controlling' their bodies are those who don't have to cope with the aftermath of drug taking and drinking. I don't care what people take either just like Bill, he's right though that when your drug/drink habit impinges on others then it becomes society's business.



Kind of like everyone getting so damned fat that the country falls into a healthcare crisis that necessitates forcing me to pay for a product I don't want and may never, ever need (health insurance) because I invest hours and hours of my time each week and money in preventative health measures?

I kind of feel that is impinging on me big time.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> If we said Domestic assaults between spouces were up 20% over the last five year the War on domestic violence is a failure we need to just make it legal.  After all its my wife why is it any of your concern if I want to smack her around a bit.  She stays with me so she doesnt care.  I only beat her at home so it does not bother anyone else and look at the super high numbers of guys in jail for beating his wife and they are still married so obviously the wives dont care so why should you.  It was legal after all for years remember the "rule of thumb"  Ive even got case law to back it up 1868 case, _State v. Rhodes_, where a husband was found innocent because, the judge said, "the defendent had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb,"
> Its the same argument different crime and it sounds insane




Ballen, why do you have to throw up straw men and refuse to stay on topic? It is NOT an apt analogy or example. 

Domestic violence is clearly causing direct harm to another citizen. 

We all want law enforcement to protect us.

The question is: Do we need law enforcement telling us what we can eat and drink in our pursuit of happiness?


----------



## Steve

law enforcement isn't primarily around to prevent crime or protect citizens.  It's to to react to crime and keep peace.  Cops dont show up in the nick of time like superheros.  They arrive after the fact and handle the fallout.  



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> law enforcement isn't primarily around to prevent crime or protect citizens.  It's to to react to crime and keep peace.  Cops dont show up in the nick of time like superheros.  They arrive after the fact and handle the fallout.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2




While this likely true in the bulk of situations, I have arrived numerous times at crimes in progress and caught the bad guys. And in other cases, while "after the fact", I have chased down, fought with, or apprehended the crook after fleeing the scene...that whole meme of "you are just report takers" smacks many of us LEO's as yet another attempt to belittle what we do. How long till the "fishermen have a more dangerous job than you" meme arrives? Sure, they are statistically more likely to die, but if we are comparing a fishermans death to the death of a person serving their community than I don't know how to even have a conversation on the subject.


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> MYTH: Alcohol and illicit drugs are no different; thus, it is hypocritical for society to allow alcohol use while outlawing other drugs.
> 
> FACT: Alcohol and illicit drugs have a major difference. Most people use alcohol as a beverage and dont drink to become intoxicated; whereas, with drugs, intoxication is the sole purpose. That is why marijuana smokers seek the higher THC content in marijuana and why crack is so popular among cocaine users. A more factual analogy would be to compare drug use with drunkenness. In addition, illicit drugs are far more addicting than alcohol. Also, approximately one-half of our citizens use alcohol, whereas only approximately eight percent use illicit drugs. In fact, there are almost as many people addicted to alcohol as use illicit drugs. The paradox is, while society is strengthening and demanding stricter enforcement of alcohol laws, there are those who want to decriminalize and even abolish drug laws.




That explains why O'Doul's outsells other products by so much /end sarcasm


So you think that everybody who smokes pot does it to get blasted like Jeff Spicoli?


Did it ever occur to you that there are people who might want to ingest a very small portion based on taste and to "relax"?  Anyone I know right now who indulges in pot smoking does it exactly and exclusively in this manner.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> The question is: Do we need law enforcement telling us what we can eat and drink in our pursuit of happiness?


Law enforcement does not tell you anything we do not make laws and we never outlawed anything.  
We are only give a task from law makers and told to carry it out.


----------



## Tgace

Perhaps we need to be clear..are we talking ONLY about marijuana legalization here or legalization of ALL drugs. Some of you are not very clear (while other have been).


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> I have let kids grind up their joints and go home on numerous occasions (situation/attitude depending). It's typically enforced when you are dumb enough to be smoking in your car or walking around with a bag in your pocket. Personally...if you are smart enough to keep it to the privacy of your home I could care less if you light up.
> 
> Dealers though? Its one thing partaking of an illegal substance, its another matter illegally profiting off of it.



There's the rub, Trace.

What happens when you catch someone growing a plant in their backyard?


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> Perhaps we need to be clear..are we talking ONLY about marijuana legalization here or legalization of ALL drugs. Some of you are not very clear (while other have been).




I agree they are two different issues completely.


On one hand, I kind of feel that that personal freedom should include the right to hold and ingest any drug, food, drink or poison that an individual wants to ingest.

But being a realist, I don't think it is feasible. Nor do I think it is wise.


Legalization of marijuana is something that needs to happen. Continued prosecution is hypocritical, a misappropriation of resources best used elsewhere.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> There's the rub, Trace.
> 
> What happens when you catch someone growing a plant in their backyard?



I rip it out and sometimes charge them and sometimes I don't it depends


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> I agree they are two different issues completely.
> 
> 
> On one hand, I kind of feel that that personal freedom should include the right to hold and ingest any drug, food, drink or poison that an individual wants to ingest.
> 
> But being a realist, I don't think it is feasible. Nor do I think it is wise.
> 
> 
> Legalization of marijuana is something that needs to happen. Continued prosecution is hypocritical, a misappropriation of resources best used elsewhere.



The title of this thread makes this point un-clear....


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> Law enforcement does not tell you anything we do not make laws and we never outlawed anything.
> We are only give a task from law makers and told to carry it out.



I stand corrected.

amend to lawmakers/society.


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> amend to lawmakers/society.



You may think it pedantic...but it's a fact. 

For example. When a child is killed because of texting and driving there is a HUGE public outcry for a new law (usually named after the decesaed). The politicians craft it and then WE (LEO's) are made to enforce it. Then we get to bear the "don't you have any real criminals to hasstle" crap while we enforce the law that YOU (the metaphorical "you") demanded in the first place.

Then 50-75 years down the road, the laws that were demanded by the population THEN then get twisted into some sort of LE/Gvt conspiracy to hold down the "little man" NOW.....


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> amend to lawmakers/society.


Are you not part of society?  So your neighbors are telling you what you can and can't do.  You don't like it get enough neighbors to side with you and guess what I'll no longer need to enforce that law


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> While this likely true in the bulk of situations, I have arrived numerous times at crimes in progress and caught the bad guys. And in other cases, while "after the fact", I have chased down, fought with, or apprehended the crook after fleeing the scene...that whole meme of "you are just report takers" smacks many of us LEO's as yet another attempt to belittle what we do. How long till the "fishermen have a more dangerous job than you" meme arrives? Sure, they are statistically more likely to die, but if we are comparing a fishermans death to the death of a person serving their community than I don't know how to even have a conversation on the subject.



I never said you were report takers.  Apologies if I touched a nerve, but you agreed with my statement before you went off on a tangent.  I have a lot of respect for what the police actually do.  

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Perhaps we need to be clear..are we talking ONLY about marijuana legalization here or legalization of ALL drugs. Some of you are not very clear (while other have been).



I think we need to lift the prohibition on weed and consider carefully any other drug.  Some need to remain legal, and others should remain illegal.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> I never said you were report takers.  Apologies if I touched a nerve, but you agreed with my statement before you went off on a tangent.  I have a lot of respect for what the police actually do.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



Sorry Steve..no ill will to you in particular. Just getting my punch in before someone else eventually takes a swing with the classic memes.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> Some need to remain legal, and others should remain illegal.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2




Good luck coming to a common standatd on THAT.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I think we need to lift the prohibition on weed and consider carefully any other drug.  Some need to remain legal, and others should remain illegal.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


Who's standard do we use to decide on each drug?


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> Funny thing is the fla  zombie case he only had marijuana in his system not meth or bath salts.



It was a synthetic chemical meant to mimic marijuana.



ballen0351 said:


> Plenty of criminal marijuana dealers sellers transporters user.



License distributors (like Cali); prosecute illegal dealers and transporters.

I just got back from California. I saw places willing to issue prescriptions everywhere. I never smelled it or saw anyone selling.


----------



## Tez3

At the moment I'd quite like to live in a country where marijuana can be grown outside in a garden! The only drugs you're going to grow here are from anything that lives in cold water. 

There's a lot of debate going on here about whether to make khat illegal, I don't know if you have much use of that in the States? At the moment it's a legal 'recreational' drug here.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> Who's standard do we use to decide on each drug?



By whose standard did we decide to make alcohol legal? To never prosecute caffeine or nicotine?


The line of what is accepted and what is not accepted has been redrawn before. 

I think we are seeing more and more of a national consensus that it should be redrawn this time to put marijuana in with caffeine, alcohol and nicotine: ain't good for ya, but not worth tossing people in jail over.

I see no consensus on the horizon for any other illegal recreational drugs.


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> At the moment I'd quite like to live in a country where marijuana can be grown outside in a garden! The only drugs you're going to grow here are from anything that lives in cold water.
> 
> There's a lot of debate going on here about whether to make khat illegal, I don't know if you have much use of that in the States? At the moment it's a legal 'recreational' drug here.



Where do you grow your tomatoes? Do some people love tomatoes enough to buy little greenhouses or heat lamps for their basement?

I've always wondered why folk crowd up to live on such a dismal island


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> It was a synthetic chemical meant to mimic marijuana.
> 
> .



You might want to look again he had Zero synthetic substances in his system not even alcohol it was good old fashion" harmless" marijuana not a synthetic chemical.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Good luck coming to a common standatd on THAT.



I've already shared what I believe are some of the considerations, but everyone was swirling around at the time and I think the post was largely glossed over.  

We have a couple of easy standards that "society" has agreed to in both tobacco and alcohol.  We've seen the effects that prohibition had both when ratified and also when repealed.  And we have a pretty good idea how addictive and destructive various drugs are.  In my opinion, if we're speaking from a strictly practical position, it's easy to determine which recreational drugs are legitimately too dangerous and which aren't.  

For what it's worth, I think weed is less harmful in every way than alcohol.  

So, to be clear.  That's the legalization discussion, and now I'd like to address the other discussion, which is the dangers to our society that illicit drug use represents.  If we're talking about the "war on drugs" I personally believe that it's in our best interest to get the somewhat innocuous drugs, like weed, out of the picture.  We've got a huge problem in the illicit use of prescription medications, which are legal but are abused at an alarming (to me, at least) rate.  THAT is problem number one, in my book: legal drugs being abused.  

I understand the dangers of meth, heroin, crack and whatever else.  But, I mentioned the low hanging fruit.  We have 4 times as many people abusing prescription meds than we have using all of the other illegal drugs combined.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

So is there any notional polls on legalization of marijuana? If you go to pro marijuana sites they have polls with up to 52% in support of legal wees other polls I see show low 40s% for legal weed.  So if we take an average more then half of society still thinks it should be illegal


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So is there any notional polls on legalization of marijuana? If you go to pro marijuana sites they have polls with up to 52% in support of legal wees other polls I see show low 40s% for legal weed.  So if we take an average more then half of society still thinks it should be illegal



Which is why we continue to have discussions.  My hope is that those of you who don't agree that weed should be legal will see the light!  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

zDom said:


> Where do you grow your tomatoes? Do some people love tomatoes enough to buy little greenhouses or heat lamps for their basement?
> 
> I've always wondered why folk crowd up to live on such a dismal island



Tomatoes will grow outside, but marijuana needs heat. We've only got bad weather at the moment because you lot have sent the jet stream off course, it's too far south for this time of year!

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drug-law/

this is how our laws define dangerous drugs and the offences etc.


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol-drugs/drugs/drug-strategy/ government strategy on drugs, I don't suggest you read the Welsh version though! It's title isn't as catchy as the 'war on drugs', they've called it _''Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery: supporting people to live a drug-free life'._ It may be less catchy but perhaps a little more realistic and certainly less aggressive.


----------



## zDom

Steve said:


> Which is why we continue to have discussions.  My hope is that those of you who don't agree that weed should be legal will see the light!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




To return to my original comment: good luck with that hope.

It is all a moot point for me, anyway: my GF has swallowed the propaganda so deeply that even if it was legalized,
I wouldn't be allowed to partake:

"It's bad for you." End of story, as far as she is concerned.

Nevermind any and all data that would indicate that alcohol is worse; she grew up in a community where

booze = normal

while

pot = drugs -> drugs = bad for you.


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> To return to my original comment: good luck with that hope.
> 
> It is all a moot point for me, anyway: my GF has swallowed the propaganda so deeply that even if it was legalized,
> I wouldn't be allowed to partake:
> 
> "It's bad for you." End of story, as far as she is concerned.
> 
> Nevermind any and all data that would indicate that alcohol is worse; she grew up in a community where
> 
> booze = normal
> 
> while
> 
> pot = drugs -> drugs = bad for you.



But it is bad for you..as is cigarette smoking. Inhaling burning plant matter into your lungs is bad juju. Alcohol, in moderation is actually being shown to have beneficial health effects. Don't confuse "booze" with alcoholism or drinking so heavily that you damage your internal organs. The majority of people don't drink to get hammered.

Historically Beer was a safer alternative as beverage than the local water supplies and provided carbohydrates as nutrition. It's not called "liquid bread" for nothing. 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-beer-saved-the-world/


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> But it is bad for you..as is cigarette smoking. Inhaling burning plant matter into your lungs is bad juju. Alcohol, in moderation is actually being shown to have beneficial health effects. Don't confuse "booze" with alcoholism or drinking so heavily that you damage your internal organs. The majority of people don't drink to get hammered.
> 
> Historically Beer was a safer alternative as beverage than the local water supplies and provided carbohydrates as nutrition. It's not called "liquid bread" for nothing.
> 
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-beer-saved-the-world/




If I could grow it in my backyard like tomatoes, it would be economically feasible to bake it into brownies.

Scarcity caused by the war on drugs makes it costly enough that people feel that if they don't smoke it, they won't get the relaxing effect.


In other drug war news, some health professionals are beginning to state that the dangers of obesity outweigh the ill effects of some diet drugs.

So how do you all feel about amphetamines being prescribed to reduce obesity?


----------



## Carol

zDom said:


> In other drug war news, some health professionals are beginning to state that the dangers of obesity outweigh the ill effects of some diet drugs.
> 
> So how do you all feel about amphetamines being prescribed to reduce obesity?




I cannot see how these two lines fit together.

Who are the health professionals?  
What kind of statement did they make...was this a casual comment or a publication in a peer-reviewed journal?  
What drugs, and which ill effects are in question?  
How does this tie in to amphetamine prescriptions?


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> But it is bad for you..as is cigarette smoking. Inhaling burning plant matter into your lungs is bad juju. Alcohol, in moderation is actually being shown to have beneficial health effects. Don't confuse "booze" with alcoholism or drinking so heavily that you damage your internal organs. The majority of people don't drink to get hammered.
> 
> Historically Beer was a safer alternative as beverage than the local water supplies and provided carbohydrates as nutrition. It's not called "liquid bread" for nothing.
> 
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-beer-saved-the-world/



There are studies that show that pot is good for you, too. Particularly if it's ingested by means other than smoking.

or, one could take that as more support for legalizing weed.  Or, one could conclude that there is a justification for any thing.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> To return to my original comment: good luck with that hope.
> 
> It is all a moot point for me, anyway: my GF has swallowed the propaganda so deeply that even if it was legalized,
> I wouldn't be allowed to partake:
> 
> "It's bad for you." End of story, as far as she is concerned.
> 
> Nevermind any and all data that would indicate that alcohol is worse; she grew up in a community where
> 
> booze = normal
> 
> while
> 
> pot = drugs -> drugs = bad for you.



Why would you want to?  I guess that's one thing I will never understand why someone would even want to.  Is your life so stressful you can't relax and have a good time without some drug or alcohol in your system


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Why would you want to?  I guess that's one thing I will never understand why someone would even want to.  Is your life so stressful you can't relax and have a good time without some drug or alcohol in your system



Thats a completely different discussion, dad.

Why do people climb mountains or go skiing or eat candy or drink energy drinks?  There are a billion ways to kill oneself slowly.  
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Thats a completely different discussion, dad.
> 
> Why do people climb mountains or go skiing or eat candy or drink energy drinks?  There are a billion ways to kill oneself slowly.
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


I understand that its just a question I've never been able to figure out he said he would do it if legal I was just trying to understand why.  Every drug addict I've met has wished they never started I think its strange so many people are chomping at the bit to try it.


----------



## Steve

To try what?  A beer?   

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> To try what?  A beer?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



Sure I thought we were discussing marijuana but OK beer. .  Anything really that's sole purpose is to alter your mind.  I drank when I was younger because I was young and thought I was supposed to I was a marine and all other marines drank so I did too.  I never really like the taste or feeling and I haven't drank in a long time.  Even when I was under cover at bars I buy beer to blend in hold it for a while walk off to the bathroom pour it out  go buy another.  Or set it down somewhere walk away and buy another so people thought I was drinking but I wasn't.


----------



## Steve

K





ballen0351 said:


> Sure I thought we were discussing marijuana but OK beer. .  Anything really that's sole purpose is to alter your mind.  I drank when I was younger because I was young and thought I was supposed to I was a marine and all other marines drank so I did too.  I never really like the taste or feeling and I haven't drank in a long time.  Even when I was under cover at bars I buy beer to blend in hold it for a while walk off to the bathroom pour it out  go buy another.  Or set it down somewhere walk away and buy another so people thought I was drinking but I wasn't.



You mentioned alcohol.  My wife doesn't drink.  I do.  She doesnt like the taste.  I do.  I can't understand why she likes soda.  She doesn't know how I can sip on a glass of single malt neat.  Different strokes for different folks.  

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but the subject at hand isn't whether or not you like alcohol (or weed our anything else).  It's the pros and cons of legalization.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> You mentioned alcohol.  My wife doesn't drink.  I do.  She doesnt like the taste.  I do.  I can't understand why she likes soda.  Different strokes got different folks.
> 
> You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but the subject at hand isn't whether or not you like alcohol (or weed our anything else).
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


I was asking zdom a simple question he said he wanted to try marijuana but his GF said no I simply asked why he would want to smoke marijuana if he doesn't already then why start.  I didn't realize that was such a big deal to you to ask someone else a simple question I'm sorry.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I was asking zdom a simple question he said he wanted to try marijuana but his GF said no I simply asked why he would want to smoke marijuana if he doesn't already then why start.  I didn't realize that was such a big deal to you to ask someone else a simple question I'm sorry.



Sorry, i didn't realize it was a question just for zdom.  figured that since it wasn't a PM, it was a question to the group.  You asked a question, and then said it was something you'd never understand.  I was just pointing out two things.  One, you probably do things you know are unhealthy.  And two, it uktimately doesn't matter if you understand.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Sorry, i didn't realize it was a question just for zdom.  figured that since it wasn't a PM, it was a question to the group.  You asked a question, and then said it was something you'd never understand.  I was just pointing out two things.  One, you probably do things you know are unhealthy.  And two, it uktimately doesn't matter if you understand.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I quoted his post about his desire to try it when I asked the question sorry for the confusion thought it may be useful to see why he wants it legal if I knew why he wanted to try it.  Maybe if it was compelling enough he might change my mind.  I'm on the fence with marijuana anyway I'm more toward the keep it illegal side but I wouldn't be angry if it were made legal. We just changed our laws here to allow officers to issue a citation for under 10 grams wherebefore you had to be arrested booked and taken before a judicial officer.  I like that it will save more of my time.  Down  side for pot smokers is where before the officer mighthave just tossed a joint and let you go because the time involved in the paperwork for a joint wasn't worth it well now I can issue you a citation get the credit for an arrest for my nightly stat sheet and it takes 30 man as opposed to 4 hours the old way.


----------



## Carol

I think there are folks out there experienced enough with marijuana to know they might enjoy a toke or a brownie once in awhile instead of a glass or two of wine once in awhile....but dont partake dur to respect for the law wnd its consequences.  I don't think it's so much about not being able to have fun without it, I think it's simply a matter of enjoying a drink or smoke and desiring the freedom to do so without risking arrest.

I went out hiking a few months ago.  I was so exhausted when I got back to the car, I grabbed dinner from a drive-thru, took a shower, and passed out.  Last month I was so invigorated I poured myself a glass of wine and cooked a meal of bison and fiddlehead greens in the cabin's fireplace.  Did I need to have it?  No, but I was sure enjoying the freedom to do so.


----------



## ballen0351

Guess I'm too much of a control freak to want to take a mind altering substance.  I like to be in total control just in case something happens I want to be ready to protect my wife and kids.   I do see your point but the hiking and bison sound much  better to me then a pot brownie


----------



## Tgace

Then there is the issue of public image...many of the "pot heads" out there are not the best poster children for the legalization campaign. The whole "pot culture" is likely what's keeping that other half of our population from considering the issue.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Pardon me while I attempt to frame a thought. 

Its one thing to illegalize a widely used and popular item like alcohol..the prohibition. Which if I recall correctly had no penalty for personal use or possession, only manufacture and sale.

Its another matter to legalize a product that has been illegal for many years and, while used by many people, is not as socially prevalent as alcohol. 

Don't really know where I'm going with this, but I think it may be relavent regarding why so many people still remain anti-pot as they sip their beer. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> I was asking zdom a simple question he said he wanted to try marijuana but his GF said no I simply asked why he would want to smoke marijuana if he doesn't already then why start. I didn't realize that was such a big deal to you to ask someone else a simple question I'm sorry.



Trying it is on my bucket list, but I don't' expect to have that experience for several more years.  I'm too young and active to have to pretend to have a back injury.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> I was asking zdom a simple question he said he wanted to try marijuana but his GF said no I simply asked why he would want to smoke marijuana if he doesn't already then why start.  I didn't realize that was such a big deal to you to ask someone else a simple question I'm sorry.




Oh, I tried it. A LOT. When I was young I tried a lot of things.

And then I grew up and having a good job and a great girlfriend became a higher priority.

But every once in awhile I miss marijuana.

Here's a good example of when: at concerts. Sure, I can have $14 beers instead &#8212; but then I end up missing a good part of the show going to the restroom, using the restroom, returning to my seat.

And somebody in the group has to abstain completely.

I tried a lot of things and watched friends slide down into the pit of addiction to some of the things I tried. Apparently I am not the type who easily become addicted. Based on those observations and watching how various indulgences changed people I know:

I can back continued efforts against cocaine, crack, LDS/acid, methamphetamines, prescription drugs, magic mushrooms. In a truly free society, we should leave it up to the individual once they are of an age of being responsible for themselves. There are no truly free societies nor any place to establish one.

I don't need marijuana, nor alcohol. But I do enjoy being under the influence of either one of those drugs on an occasional basis. I wouldn't make either a lifestyle.

And I don't see how, if it were permitted, me growing a couple of plants in my backyard would affect anyone else on the planet or why it should be anyone else's business.

Some people don't understand why I like to eat hot peppers &#8212;  and that's fine. But I don't appreciate people grouping together and deciding to jail me for what I can produce and consume in the privacy of my own home.

It is a bit scary to see how unreasonable people can get in defense of their views when their view includes supporting the enforcement of their preference over my right to the pursuit of happiness that in no direct way infringes on their freedoms &#8212; and with the full weight of the law behind them.

And sad.


----------



## Jenna

I think it is a naive question maybe and but can someone advise me on why artificial (maybe potentially harmful) highs are sought in the first place?? For anyone that does or had done any kind of illicit drug is it ok to ask what made you start?  Thank you.


----------



## pgsmith

> Sure I thought we were discussing marijuana but OK beer. . Anything really that's sole purpose is to alter your mind. I drank when I was younger because I was young and thought I was supposed to I was a marine and all other marines drank so I did too. I never really like the taste or feeling and I haven't drank in a long time. Even when I was under cover at bars I buy beer to blend in hold it for a while walk off to the bathroom pour it out go buy another. Or set it down somewhere walk away and buy another so people thought I was drinking but I wasn't


  That's a good thought, but unless you never eat chocolate or drink coffee or other caffeinated beverages, you too are partaking of mind altering drugs. Caffeine is the most widely used psychoactive drug in the world. I know many people that don't like drinking because of the reasons you state. Personally, I hate running and the way it makes me feel. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to feel like that. I don't begrudge the runners their desire to do so though.


----------



## Makalakumu

Jenna said:


> I think it is a naive question maybe and but can someone advise me on why artificial (maybe potentially harmful) highs are sought in the first place?? For anyone that does or had done any kind of illicit drug is it ok to ask what made you start?  Thank you.



Here's a little reading if you are interested in a long answer to this question.

http://www.amazon.com/Intoxication-Universal-Drive-Mind-Altering-Substances/dp/1594770697



> A scientific and cultural exploration of the pursuit of altered states of consciousness in both humans and animals
> 
> &#8226; Contains myriad studies and examples from the author's 20 years of research
> 
> &#8226; By the foremost authority on the social and psychological effects of drug use
> 
> History  shows that people have always used intoxicants. In every age, in every  part of the world, people have pursued intoxication with plants,  alcohol, and other mind-altering substances. In fact, this behavior has  so much force and persistence that it functions much like our drives for  food, sleep, and sex. This "fourth drive," says psychopharmacologist  Ronald K. Siegel, is a natural part of our biology, creating the  irrepressible demand for intoxicating substances.
> 
> In _Intoxication_  Siegel draws upon his 20 years of groundbreaking research to provide  countless examples of the intoxication urge in humans, animals, and even  insects. The detailed observations of his so-called _psychonauts_--study  participants trained to explicitly describe their drug experiences--as  well as numerous studies with animals have helped him to identify the  behavior patterns induced by different intoxicants. Presenting his  conclusions on the biological as well as cultural reasons for the  pursuit of intoxication and showing that personality and guidance often  define the outcome of a drug experience, Siegel offers a broad  understanding of the intoxication phenomenon as well as recommendations  for curbing the negative aspects of drug use in Western culture by  designing safe intoxicants.



After reading this book, I became convinced that all of these laws amounted to a tyranny over the mind.  We need to exercise liberty when it comes to our consciousness in order to discover the best way to scratch these natural itches.  I'm drinking coffee right now, for example.  It's a product of the free market in psychoactive substances.


----------



## Tgace

By and large though, coffee, alcohol, and yes..even weed. Wont drive you into the downward spiral ("chasing the dragon") and HARD physical addiction that drugs like Heroin/Opium will. You WILL get addicted and you will drop everything in your life from your family to your children to get the next fix and many times you will OD. The cost on society drugs like THAT will impose is not something I will ever embrace the legalization of. Marijuana? Eh..I wont be protesting in the streets if it becomes legal.


----------



## elder999

Tgace said:


> By and large though, coffee, alcohol, and yes..even weed. Wont drive you into the downward spiral ("chasing the dragon") and HARD physical addiction that drugs like Heroin/Opium will. You WILL get addicted and you will drop everything in your life from your family to your children to get the next fix and many times you will OD. The cost on society drugs like THAT will impose is not something I will ever embrace the legalization of. Marijuana? Eh..I wont be protesting in the streets if it becomes legal.



On the other hand, there are functional heroin addicts, and likely functional addicts that are addicted to other drugs as well. I think it boils down to availability of supply, and lifestyle. Ray Charles was addicted to heroin for the better part of 25 years, during which time he produced some of his biggest hits-while he was arrested several times for possession, he never had to rob anyone to support his habit.....except, of course, his family of his time with them....


----------



## Tgace

elder999 said:


> On the other hand, there are functional heroin addicts, and likely functional addicts that are addicted to other drugs as well. I think it boils down to availability of supply, and lifestyle. Ray Charles was addicted to heroin for the better part of 25 years, during which time he produced some of his biggest hits-while he was arrested several times for possession, he never had to rob anyone to support his habit.....except, of course, his family of his time with them....



Of course he never had to rob anybody....he had cash. If we are going to debate heroin legalization based on Ray Charles.....I give you a big LOL!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Tgace said:


> Of course he never had to rob anybody....he had cash. If we are going to debate heroin legalization based on Ray Charles.....I give you a big LOL!
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




No, I don't have a dog in the legalization hunt one way or the other-however, it does contradict:



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Wont drive you into the downward spiral ("chasing the dragon") and HARD physical addiction that drugs like Heroin/Opium will. You WILL get addicted and you will drop everything in your life from your family to your children to get the next fix and many times you will OD.



Many others in his situation did have cash, didn't rob anyone, and did wind up pretty dead as a result of their addictions.

If heroin were legal, though, less people would be robbing to get it, I'd wager.......


----------



## ballen0351

pgsmith said:


> That's a good thought, but unless you never eat chocolate or drink coffee or other caffeinated beverages, you too are partaking of mind altering drugs. Caffeine is the most widely used psychoactive drug in the world. I know many people that don't like drinking because of the reasons you state. Personally, I hate running and the way it makes me feel. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to feel like that. I don't begrudge the runners their desire to do so though.


I figured the coffee or caffeine would come up and I don't drink coffee or soda either the most caffeine I drink comes from tea and I usually water my tea WAY down like 1 tea bag per gallon of water.  I mainly drink water or fruit juice or Gatorade that's pretty much it and no chocolate either.  
I will say comparing caffeine to THC is like comparing THC to cocaine


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> If heroin were legal, though, less people would be robbing to get it, I'd wager.......


What makes you think that?


----------



## Tez3

zDom said:


> Oh, I tried it. A LOT. When I was young I tried a lot of things.
> 
> And then I grew up and having a good job and a great girlfriend became a higher priority.
> 
> But every once in awhile I miss marijuana.
> 
> Here's a good example of when: at concerts. Sure, I can have $14 beers instead  but then I end up missing a good part of the show going to the restroom, using the restroom, returning to my seat.
> 
> And somebody in the group has to abstain completely.
> 
> I tried a lot of things and watched friends slide down into the pit of addiction to some of the things I tried. Apparently I am not the type who easily become addicted. Based on those observations and watching how various indulgences changed people I know:
> 
> I can back continued efforts against cocaine, crack, LDS/acid, methamphetamines, prescription drugs, magic mushrooms. In a truly free society, we should leave it up to the individual once they are of an age of being responsible for themselves. There are no truly free societies nor any place to establish one.
> 
> I don't need marijuana, nor alcohol. But I do enjoy being under the influence of either one of those drugs on an occasional basis. I wouldn't make either a lifestyle.
> 
> And I don't see how, if it were permitted, me growing a couple of plants in my backyard would affect anyone else on the planet or why it should be anyone else's business.
> 
> Some people don't understand why I like to eat hot peppers  and that's fine. But I don't appreciate people grouping together and deciding to jail me for what I can produce and consume in the privacy of my own home.
> 
> It is a bit scary to see how unreasonable people can get in defense of their views when their view includes supporting the enforcement of their preference over my right to the pursuit of happiness that in no direct way infringes on their freedoms  and with the full weight of the law behind them.
> 
> And sad.



When you say someone has to abstain completly when it's alcohol does that mean you and/or your friends drive vehicles while under the influence of marijuana?


----------



## Tgace

http://www.michaelshouse.com/heroin-addiction/heroin-addiction-statistics/



> After first time use, it takes only a few days of regular injection and a few weeks of regular smoking to develop a physical addiction to the drug. Once heroin addiction is a factor, the average addict will spend about $150 to $200 a day to maintain their habit while many will spend even more. In less than a year, few can be described as functional heroin addicts, that is, people who have a steady heroin addiction but still hold down a job or stay in school while paying rent and keeping up with other responsibilities. Instead, most heroin addicts are solely focused on maintaining their addiction and little else after the first year.





> There are over 1.2 million occasional heroin users in the United  States and over 200,000 people who could be classified as addicted to  the drug.
> 
> The average heroin addiction ingests between 150mg and 250mg of the drug per day.
> 
> Heroin overdoses have caused more deaths than traffic accidents in the past several years.
> 
> There are believed to be at least 700,000 people in the United  States who need heroin addiction treatment but are not receiving it.
> 
> According to a report from the United States Department of Health and Human Services,  from the years spanning 1992 -2002, the number of people injecting  heroin declined, but the percentage of individuals smoking the drug  increased by over 12%.
> 
> IN 2002 a study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 53% of past year users of heroin had a dependence on the drug.


----------



## Tgace

If I were to intentionally make myself drunk every day for the next week, I wont become an alcoholic.

If I were to take hits of Heroin every day for the next week I will be physically addicted to it. Thats a big difference when discussing what sorts of drugs should should be legal.


----------



## ballen0351

So far in my time as a police officer I've seen 2 police officers get hooked on heroin loose their families jobs houses.  One was a friend of mine we went to the police academy together.  They both got hooked the same way.  They got hurt on the job nothing too bad but they were given oxycontin for a few months.  They both got hooked on the oxy.  They started buying it on the street and then discovered heroin was cheaper then pills.  I'm happy to report after 8 years of being hooked my friend is finally clean and getting his life back.  The other officer last I hear she was a prostitute in Baltimore.
I've also met 2 lawyers and a doc they were hooked and no longer worked in their professions any longer.  Both started with prescription drugs.  I put a lot of blame on drug use going up on how easy it is to get a pain killer prescription from a doc.  Seems every time I twist an ankle or cut myself on something they offer me a supply of some prescription.


----------



## billc

I can't help with that one Jenna, never started, thankfully.  I saw too many people in high school set back by drug use, and too many adults waste their lives using drugs and alcohol, legal or not.  What are your thoughts?


----------



## Carol

ballen0351 said:


> Guess I'm too much of a control freak to want to take a mind altering substance.  I like to be in total control just in case something happens I want to be ready to protect my wife and kids.   I do see your point but the hiking and bison sound much  better to me then a pot brownie



Mmm...sounds much better to me as well.

That's why I don't allow MJ users in my cabin, if ya catch my drift.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> So far in my time as a police officer I've seen 2 police officers get hooked on heroin loose their families jobs houses.  One was a friend of mine we went to the police academy together.  They both got hooked the same way.  They got hurt on the job nothing too bad but they were given oxycontin for a few months.  They both got hooked on the oxy.  They started buying it on the street and then discovered heroin was cheaper then pills.  I'm happy to report after 8 years of being hooked my friend is finally clean and getting his life back.  The other officer last I hear she was a prostitute in Baltimore.
> I've also met 2 lawyers and a doc they were hooked and no longer worked in their professions any longer.  Both started with prescription drugs.  I put a lot of blame on drug use going up on how easy it is to get a pain killer prescription from a doc.  Seems every time I twist an ankle or cut myself on something they offer me a supply of some prescription.



Yuuuup...the synthetic opioid is the gateway to straight heroin. When one 80mg pill costs $80+ and you are physically addicted, it becomes a matter of simple math.

I agree with what Steve said upthread, prescription pills are a huge problem. The heroin dealers best friend has become the doctor....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## pgsmith

> If I were to intentionally make myself drunk every day for the next week, I wont become an alcoholic.


  And you are basing this upon what exactly, just your opinion? I know a couple of people that became alcoholics exactly that way.

  There are a great many people that abuse drugs, both legal and illegal. There are also a great many people addicted to various substances and actions, both legal and illegal. I'm sure that will continue no matter what is or isn't illegal.

  However, to say "ooooo it's bad so it shouldn't be legal!" does not address the very real and current issues of prison overcrowding, ever escalating drug smuggler violence, and the ever increasing costs of dealing with these issues. In all of the rhetoric going back and forth, nobody has bothered to make a suggestion as to how we should deal with these problems that are very quickly going to get too large to handle if something isn't done soon. My solution was to legalize recreational drugs, and use the tax money for enforcement and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the government has spent so much money and effort in psychological warfare trying to win their war on drugs, that the people will never allow them to do that. I've not heard a single alternate suggestion from those that are adamant about legalization being a bad idea.

  Sticking our heads in the sand, while politically easiest, is a bad way to develop government policy.


----------



## Tgace

Chemical dependence is only one factor of alcoholism and by itself requires long term bouts of intoxication. A few days of enough heroin and you will be addicted.

SOME people can become alcoholics after one bout of drinking. ANYONE can be turned into a heroin addict if they ingest enough over a realtively short period.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

One of the big issues with the illegality of drugs is that it drives the price up.  This money is tempting for a lot of people...including our own government.  Many times in the past, it's been caught red handed shipping it in.  Recently, court cases in the US have arrested drug kingpins testifying that they are shipping the drugs in for the CIA.  All around the world, intelligence organizations have their fingers in the pots of various narco-states and bleed off the profits to fund special projects.  The end result looks like US Marines who are forced to guard poppy fields in Afghanistan.

A huge level of government corruption could be combated simply by making drugs legal and finding other solutions to help people who get addicted.


----------



## Tgace

All very easy to say from your livingroom. Will never work.

Lets just sell a drug that will become physically addictive as a medical certainty? That sounds like a good idea? Really? Great Britain tried it....dismal failure.

Maybe decriminalizing simple possession...maybe...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> All very easy to say from your livingroom. Will never work.
> 
> Lets just sell a drug that will become physically addictive as a medical certainty? That sounds like a good idea? Really? Great Britain tried it....dismal failure.
> 
> Maybe decriminalizing simple possession...maybe...
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



I like what Ron Paul has to say about this. "If heroin is legalized, are you going to do it? The answer is No. You already know it's a terrible drug with terrible consequences."

That's how liberty fights drug use.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> One of the big issues with the illegality of drugs is that it drives the price up.  This money is tempting for a lot of people...including our own government.  Many times in the past, it's been caught red handed shipping it in.  Recently, court cases in the US have arrested drug kingpins testifying that they are shipping the drugs in for the CIA.  All around the world, intelligence organizations have their fingers in the pots of various narco-states and bleed off the profits to fund special projects.  The end result looks like US Marines who are forced to guard poppy fields in Afghanistan.
> 
> A huge level of government corruption could be combated simply by making drugs legal and finding other solutions to help people who get addicted.



So making it legal will stop govt corruption?  LOL


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> I like what Ron Paul has to say about this. "If heroin is legalized, are you going to do it? The answer is No. You already know it's a terrible drug with terrible consequences."
> 
> That's how liberty fights drug use.



That's great except there are already millions that do it and its illegal so how's he explain that one?


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> So making it legal will stop govt corruption?  LOL



The price goes down and the government has to stop arming the terrorists.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> That's great except there are already millions that do it and its illegal so how's he explain that one?



They are going to do it any way or they will find a legal way to **** up there life. Dr. Paul is a medical doctor and addiction is a disease. Imagine if we treated other diseases by chopping off the infected parts? That's all law enforcement can ever do when it comes to addiction.


----------



## Buka

I'm a simpleton. I think "good guys" and "bad guys". Among both of those categories I know cops, lawyers, priests,karate guys, elected officials, some of my friends, kids, carpenters, teachers and my in-laws. I'm guessing most of the folks on this forum are good guys, and if they were all sitting together on a nice patio smoking cigars, would get along pretty damn well. Even while discussing this subject.

IMO, even among drug users and law makers, there's good guys and bad guys. I don't think too broad a brush can be used to give everyone a fair shake.

I going to have a glass of wine now. I hope I get trashed and giggle.


----------



## Jenna

billcihak said:


> I can't help with that one Jenna, never started, thankfully.  I saw too many people in high school set back by drug use, and too many adults waste their lives using drugs and alcohol, legal or not.  What are your thoughts?


It seems from the link Makalakumu posted that we are all searching out ways to alter our brains?  I am not.. you are not.. other people on here are not.. Maybe it is cool to be all cool about substances?? It is how it is here in this part of town..

I think substances provide people with the delusion of happiness when they feel unable to acquire happiness without chemical intervention.. It is what happened to my dad.. that was alcohol though.. 

Can I ask Bill, in fraught or difficult times of your life why did you not do as many of your friends did and blaze up or whatever?

Thank you


----------



## celtic_crippler

Makalakumu said:


> One of the big issues with the illegality of drugs is that it drives the price up.  This money is tempting for a lot of people...including our own government.  Many times in the past, it's been caught red handed shipping it in.  Recently, court cases in the US have arrested drug kingpins testifying that they are shipping the drugs in for the CIA.  All around the world, intelligence organizations have their fingers in the pots of various narco-states and bleed off the profits to fund special projects.  The end result looks like US Marines who are forced to guard poppy fields in Afghanistan.
> 
> A huge level of government corruption could be combated simply by making drugs legal and finding other solutions to help people who get addicted.



Why do you continue to bother posting data and links with this crowd? Nobody reads them, addresses them, or posts anything in support of their positions... You'd have better luck debating with a brick wall.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> The price goes down and the government has to stop arming the terrorists.



How's the price going to go down I thought the plan was to tax the crap out of it like they do beer and cigarettes.  We will still need to pay the terrorist for the dope only now it will be legal payments and legitimise these terror groups.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So far in my time as a police officer I've seen 2 police officers get hooked on heroin loose their families jobs houses.  One was a friend of mine we went to the police academy together.  They both got hooked the same way.  They got hurt on the job nothing too bad but they were given oxycontin for a few months.  They both got hooked on the oxy.  They started buying it on the street and then discovered heroin was cheaper then pills.  I'm happy to report after 8 years of being hooked my friend is finally clean and getting his life back.  The other officer last I hear she was a prostitute in Baltimore.
> I've also met 2 lawyers and a doc they were hooked and no longer worked in their professions any longer.  Both started with prescription drugs.  I put a lot of blame on drug use going up on how easy it is to get a pain killer prescription from a doc.  Seems every time I twist an ankle or cut myself on something they offer me a supply of some prescription.


So, then, would you say that Oxycontin is a gateway drug?  If so, I'd agree. I've said repeatedly in this thread so far that the real danger to society are prescription drugs, whether we're talking about uppers, downers or opiate based pain meds.


----------



## WC_lun

Take marijuna as an example.  If it were legal, the cost to grow it and transport it would be much lower because it would not have to be done in secrecy and the risk would be much lower.  Even with taxes, the product would hit the market at a lower price because production cost would be much lower.  As pointed out, the money spent on the drug would not be going to criminals if growers were licensed, much as alcohol manufacturers.  Enforcement cost would shrink somewhat because we would not be prosecuting as many drug cases.  Increased availability would bring some of its own problems though, especially if harder drugs were decriminialized.  So a good junk of that extra money would...or should go to combat addiction.


----------



## Tgace

So we ARE discussing legalizing all illicit drugs here? Not only marijuana?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> How's the price going to go down I thought the plan was to tax the crap out of it like they do beer and cigarettes.  We will still need to pay the terrorist for the dope only now it will be legal payments and legitimise these terror groups.


That's not true.  If you don't think that the tobacco companies have a plan, you're nuts.  Cigarettes are falling far out of vogue. While there are still plenty of smokers, the number is dwindling.  Legalizing weed would save many legit businesses.  The result of legalizing weed would, I predict, go very much like the beer and wine trades.  Some people will grow their own, there will be a local, craft industry such as for beer, and then the major tobacco companies will put out the equivalents of Bud, Coors and what have you.  

Legalizing would legitimately and completely remove the criminal element just as it removed the organized crime, bootleggers and bathtub distillers from the alcohol industry in by repealing prohibition.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> So we ARE discussing legalizing all illicit drugs here? Not only marijuana?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


I know that there are some people talking about other drugs, so I'm trying to clearly speak to weed.  I don't know if I'm on board with legalizing EVERY drug, and I certainly don't think we should make drugs like cocaine, meth or heroin legal.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> That's not true.  If you don't think that the tobacco companies have a plan, you're nuts.  Cigarettes are falling far out of vogue. While there are still plenty of smokers, the number is dwindling.  Legalizing weed would save many legit businesses.  The result of legalizing weed would, I predict, go very much like the beer and wine trades.  Some people will grow their own, there will be a local, craft industry such as for beer, and then the major tobacco companies will put out the equivalents of Bud, Coors and what have you.
> 
> Legalizing would legitimately and completely remove the criminal element just as it removed the organized crime, bootleggers and bathtub distillers from the alcohol industry in by repealing prohibition.



The problem with weed as a recreational drug is the second hand high you can get even if you don't smoke it...I won't get drunk if you are drinking next to me. I won't loose my job if they continue to drug test and my roommate is an alcoholic but I'm not. 

If my room mate lights up near me however...

A real problem being faced in legal weed states is the lack of DUI law involving it.

Issues that would need addressing.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> So, then, would you say that Oxycontin is a gateway drug?  If so, I'd agree. I've said repeatedly in this thread so far that the real danger to society are prescription drugs, whether we're talking about uppers, downers or opiate based pain meds.



I agree 1000% oxycontin has hooked more people on heroin then any other drug out there. That's one prescription that needs to be pulled and banned its too addictive.
I also agree that prescriptions are a real danger. I blame doctor's that don't know how to tell people no you don't need meds for every boo boo  its going to hurt suck it up.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> That's not true.  If you don't think that the tobacco companies have a plan, you're nuts.  Cigarettes are falling far out of vogue. While there are still plenty of smokers, the number is dwindling.  Legalizing weed would save many legit businesses.  The result of legalizing weed would, I predict, go very much like the beer and wine trades.  Some people will grow their own, there will be a local, craft industry such as for beer, and then the major tobacco companies will put out the equivalents of Bud, Coors and what have you.
> 
> Legalizing would legitimately and completely remove the criminal element just as it removed the organized crime, bootleggers and bathtub distillers from the alcohol industry in by repealing prohibition.



I wasn't talking about marijuana.  I was talking about the ron Paul quote about heroin that was posted.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> That's not true.  If you don't think that the tobacco companies have a plan, you're nuts.  Cigarettes are falling far out of vogue. While there are still plenty of smokers, the number is dwindling.  Legalizing weed would save many legit businesses.  The result of legalizing weed would, I predict, go very much like the beer and wine trades.  Some people will grow their own, there will be a local, craft industry such as for beer, and then the major tobacco companies will put out the equivalents of Bud, Coors and what have you.
> 
> Legalizing would legitimately and completely remove the criminal element just as it removed the organized crime, bootleggers and bathtub distillers from the alcohol industry in by repealing prohibition.



Because smoking weed is better for your lungs than tobacco?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Because smoking weed is better for your lungs than tobacco?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


They're both bad for you.  Although there are other ways to ingest marijuana than smoking it.  Vaporizer is becoming the preferred method.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> They're both bad for you.  Although there are other ways to ingest marijuana than smoking it.  Vaporizer is becoming the preferred method.



You can also chew tobacco, but far and away its smoking that's the preferred method. Its always been the preferred method of pot consumption and id bet cash money that is how it will remain. 

Not really an argument against legalization, but I don't buy the butterflies and sunshine version of a legal pot society either. There will be a cost.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/04/man-spared-jail-ian-brazier-muslim-woman-veil-shopping-centre-solihull-farhana-chughtai_n_1648794.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk-ws-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D116144


His defence was that the drugs made him angry. It's certainly saved him a custodial sentence.
_"He said: "He had been taking cannabis and it had made him angry."_


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Because smoking weed is better for your lungs than tobacco?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Yes, actually.  You don't actually have to smoke much marijuana now days.  The quality is such that it only takes a hit or two to feel the effects.  It's nothing like smoking a cigarette.


----------



## Makalakumu

Jenna said:


> It seems from the link Makalakumu posted that we are all searching out ways to alter our brains?  I am not.. you are not.. other people on here are not...



There are healthy ways of altering your brain chemistry and unhealthy ways.  Some involve chemicals that have huge risks and some don't involve chemicals at all.  For example, after meditation, yoga, or martial arts, I tend to feel content and happy.  I come home, I'm calm, and I truly put aside the stress of the day.  There are no chemicals involve in that at all.  

Do you ever use caffeine?  How about herbal tea?  Chamomile?


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> How's the price going to go down I thought the plan was to tax the crap out of it like they do beer and cigarettes.  We will still need to pay the terrorist for the dope only now it will be legal payments and legitimize these terror groups.



The tax won't be anything close to how much being forced onto the black market runs up the price.  Illegality causes substances to rise 10 to 50 times in price, depending on how easy it is to produce.  Also, I think you're missing the point that the government is balls deep in the drug trade.  Whether it's terrorist groups or violent Mexican drug gangs, or American street gangs, the government ships in the drugs and uses the high price to fund all kinds of illegal activity.  Another example is "Fast and Furious" it looks like this ties back to drugs as well.  So, now we have the government shipping the drugs in AND arming drug gangs that do it's bidding.  Legalization tremendously drops the price and puts a stop to that.

Legalization also puts a stop to this corruption...

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture



> *(asset forfeiture - corruption of law enforcement)*  "During the past decade, law enforcement agencies increasingly have  turned to asset seizures and drug enforcement grants to compensate for  budgetary shortfalls, at the expense of other criminal justice goals. We  believe the strange shape of the criminal justice system todaythe law  enforcement agenda that targets assets rather than crime,[SUP]20[/SUP] the 80 percent of seizures that are unaccompanied by any criminal prosecution,[SUP]21[/SUP] the plea bargains that favor drug kingpins and penalize the mules without assets to trade,[SUP]22[/SUP] the reverse stings that target drug buyers rather than drug sellers,[SUP]23[/SUP] the overkill in agencies involved even in minor arrests,[SUP]24[/SUP] the massive shift towards federal jurisdiction over local law enforcement[SUP]25[/SUP]is largely the unplanned by-product of this economic incentive structure."
> 
> Source:
> Blumenson,  E. & and Nilsen, E., "Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden  Economic Agenda," University of Chicago Law Review, 65: 35-114 (1998,  Winter).
> http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=suffolk_f...



And



> *(2002 - asset forfeiture - amounts by sheriffs' offices and officers)*  "Fifty-two percent of all sheriffs' offices received money, property,  or goods from a drug asset forfeiture program during 2002 (table 32).  These sheriffs' offices employed 76% of all sworn personnel. More than 8  in 10 of the sheriffs' offices serving populations of 500,000 or more  had drug asset forfeiture receipts.
> 
> "During 2002 the overall median amount received from drug asset  forfeiture programs by sheriffs' offices was $10,000. By population  category, the median amount received ranged from about $1 million among  sheriffs' offices serving a population of 1 million or more to $5,000  among those serving fewer than 10,000 residents.
> "Overall, sheriffs' offices received an estimated $178 million in  money, goods, and property from drug asset forfeitures during 2002.  Including both sheriffs' offices with receipts and those without, this  was the equivalent of $992 per sworn officer employed. Sheriffs' offices  with 1,000 or more officers received the most  nearly $1,700 per  officer (figure 11). Next highest were agencies with 250 to 999 officers  which received about $1,100 per officer and those with under 25  officers which received about $1,000 per officer. Sheriffs' offices with  25 to 49 officers received the least  $449 per officer."
> Source:
> Hickman,  Matthew J. and Reaves, Brian A., "Sheriffs' Offices 2003" (Washington,  DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May. 2006), NCJ 211361. p. 16.
> http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/so03.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(2002 - asset forfeiture - amounts by local police departments and officers)*  "Local police departments received an estimated $298 million in money,  goods, and property from drug asset forfeitures during 2002. Including  both departments with receipts and those without, this was the  equivalent of $642 per sworn officer employed. Departments with 100 to  249 officers received the most  $990 per officer (figure 11). Next  highest were departments with 250 to 999 officers with $928 per officer.  Departments with fewer than 50 officers received the least  about $400  per officer."
> Source:
> Hickman,  Matthew J. and Reaves, Brian A., "Local Police Departments 2003"  (Washington, DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May. 2006), NCJ  210118, P. 16.
> http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd03.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(2002 - asset forfeiture - percentage of local police departments engaging in forfeiture)*  "Thirty-six percent of all local police departments received money,  property, or goods from a drug asset forfeiture program during 2002  (table 32). These departments employed 78% of all local police officers.  At least 80% of the departments in each population category of 25,000  or more had drug asset forfeiture receipts."
> Source:
> Hickman,  Matthew J.. and Reaves, Brian A., "Local Police Departments 2003"  (Washington, DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May. 2006), NCJ  210118, p. 16.
> http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd03.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(1991 - profitability of forfeiture to government)*  "There can be few components of law enforcement programmes which  actually cost nothing. The asset forfeiture provision of the federal law  for crop suppression (relating mainly to cannabis in the State of  Kentucky), proved to be such a case, costing the United States  Government $13.7 million, but yielding a return of $53 million in 1991,  or almost $4 in assets seized for every $1 invested by the Drug  Enforcement Administration."
> Source:
> United  Nations International Drug Control Program, "Technical Series Report  #6: Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit  Trafficking" (New York, NY: UNDCP, 1998), p. 38.
> http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1998-01-01_1.pdf



This whole article is worth reading, the sources in it are revealing because they detail just how corrupt Law Enforcement has become because of the drug war.  And it's another example of why I think a lot of people in the government have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal.


----------



## Jenna

Makalakumu said:


> There are healthy ways of altering your brain chemistry and unhealthy ways.  Some involve chemicals that have huge risks and some don't involve chemicals at all.  For example, after meditation, yoga, or martial arts, I tend to feel content and happy.  I come home, I'm calm, and I truly put aside the stress of the day.  There are no chemicals involve in that at all.
> 
> Do you ever use caffeine?  How about herbal tea?  Chamomile?


Yes funny I drink coca leaf tea.. it is mitigation that I drink it not for chemical interactions and but because it taste nice?  I eat chocolate for the same reasons.. You make good points and make me think..


----------



## Makalakumu

One of the biggest problems with relying on law enforcement to fix addiction is that it never actually gets to the root of the problem of addiction.  This, I fear, is actually going to be much much harder then locking people up and actually is probably the reason why people support the latter beyond all reason.

There are lots of chemicals out there that people use and they have very few side effects.  These chemicals have varying effects on the brain, but typically, as we move into chemicals that affect the brain more and more, the chances that they have been made illegal rise.  Also, correspondingly, the negative effects on the person rise.

What this tells me is that their is something going on in the brain that makes a decision that basically puts the benefits of mind alteration before the negative effects.  Some change has occurred that I don't think science has pinned down yet.  

Or has it?

We know that when children are raised with irrationality and violence changes to the brain can occur that actually predict drug addiction.  What if milder forms of irrationality and violence in child rearing predicted a lower level of chemical use?  In other threads, I've pointed out that this has actually been studied and this relationship is being supported as we speak.

Therefore, I think a real solution to chemical abuse is within our grasp.  If parents raised their children peacefully, without violence - including spanking, and with reason, by taking the time to explain what is happening to the child and why and attempting to recognize the child's individual take on things, we could actually markedly reduce chemical abuse.  This means that we need to have a revolution in parenting.  We need more parent education and we need to do everything that we can to build reasonable, peaceful, and strong families.  

That is a better solution then the corruption, the reduction in human rights, and the over all costs of the drug war.  So, I say stop the madness and focus on the real issue.  Stop hitting your kids and start reasoning with them, show love through your adherence to virtue, and the problems of chemical abuse will wither away.


----------



## Makalakumu

Here's another solution that preserves individual liberty and fights chemical abuse.

As it stands now, the US has turned it's LEOs into the health police.  Like every other industrialized country where the costs of health care are collectivized (in the US we do this through a leviathan of regulations and middle men) the government makes laws against behaviors that cost it more money.  Drug use, cigarettes, alcohol, and now junk food are undergoing varying stages of government control...aka illegality.  Imagine a world where a policeman can arrest you for having too many sodas?  That's where all of this is heading, btw.

Now imagine that the government gets tired of being the Nanny or it simply collapses under the weight of trying to do to much.  Which is exactly what the end result of this failed policy will be, btw.

People will be forced to pay for their decisions up front.  People will be charged for making poor health decisions by paying for their effects.  I can see new kind of insurance system springing up to deal with this.  I can see policies that require people to exercise regularly, limit weight gain, and curtail dangerous chemicals.  These policies would be cheap and relatively risk free for the company offering them.  Other policies would spring up that would be more liberal and because they allowed more risky behavior, they would be more expensive.  For example, if you wanted to smoke tobacco or have no weight restrictions, you are really going to charged.  If you wanted to consume alcoholic beverages, you'll pay more.  If you want to smoke pot, you'll pay more up front for potential problems later.  And some behaviors will never be insured.  No company in their right mind is every going to give a policy that allows you to smoke crystal meth, for example.  

The end result is that the behaviors that are the riskiest, will be the most expensive.  We'll actually have good data on this.  There will be a simple way of seeing exactly how bad something is for you because you'll be able to look up how much this behavior will cost you.  And I'm pretty sure that it will cost you more to be fat, more to smoke cigarettes, and more to drink alcohol, then it will to use other chemicals like marijuana.  

With technology, we could accomplish testing for all of these substances.  If you've proven yourself to be honest by occasional testing by company approved doctors, you won't need a lot of intervention, but if you need to be more closely monitored (which will be more expensive) you can use computers, cell phones, and cheap instruments to find out if someone is keeping their word.  If you intentionally defraud the business, you're insurance is cancelled and that information could be shared with other insurance companies so everyone would know that you just ruined your reputation.  

In this way, the free market actually encourages people to be more honest, more responsible, more virtuous.  It's not like the system that we have now where if you can get away with it, you just do it, because you're shielded from the costs.  

So you see, there is no need to sacrifice individual liberty in order to fight chemical abuse.  We don't need to turn cops into health nazis.  We don't need to create chemical abuse gulags.  We could actually have a more virtuous and honest society by respecting individual liberty.  This, IMO, is what our Founding Fathers wanted for us when they wrote our Constitution.  This is how a red blooded liberty loving *American *should tackle this problem.


----------



## pgsmith

> If parents raised their children peacefully, without violence - including spanking, and with reason, by taking the time to explain what is happening to the child and why and attempting to recognize the child's individual take on things, we could actually markedly reduce chemical abuse. This means that we need to have a revolution in parenting. We need more parent education and we need to do everything that we can to build reasonable, peaceful, and strong families



  Isn't utopia a wonderful idea? Unfortunately, it has proven to be unworkable countless times throughout human history. Your platitudes have absolutely no basis in reality. Wishes are terrific, but they don't actually _do_ anything, or solve any of the myriad problems in our society.

  P.S. How many children do you have?


----------



## Tez3

The police force in any country reflects that country, as has been said before the police don't make the laws, they are paid to enforce the laws the politicians make on behalf of the citizens. No point in blaming the police, they don't particularly want to be chasing people down for personal use of relatively harmless drugs but it's what the country wants. How do we know it's what the country wants? because they voted in the politicians that brought these laws in! You want marijuana legalised? vote in the politicians that will do it for you, don't blame the police. 
On the other hand it doesn't matter to the police whether some drugs, all drugs or no drugs are legalised because they are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after people have used substances including alcohol. They are the ones that have to tell relatives their loved one's dead because they were hit by a driver under the influence of a drug or drink, they are the ones who have to get the bodies out of the vehicles, the ones who have to deal with the bodies and families of those who OD. They also deal with the violence that erupts because of people taking things they can't handle, they deal with all the nasty things associated with drugs and alcohol, never ever the 'nice' things that people say substances like marijuana can give you, no for them it's the blood, snot, vomit, deaths and the battered, the bereaved, the helpless and the lost. Legalise everthing and they will still have to deal with all this.


----------



## Makalakumu

pgsmith said:


> Isn't utopia a wonderful idea? Unfortunately, it has proven to be unworkable countless times throughout human history. Your platitudes have absolutely no basis in reality. Wishes are terrific, but they don't actually _do_ anything, or solve any of the myriad problems in our society.
> 
> P.S. How many children do you have?



Two.

Would you care to identify the unworkable platitudes that you think I'm putting forward?

You know, there were plenty of people with fresh ideas in the past and sometimes they actually created something cool...like the Constitution.


----------



## Makalakumu

After you watch this video, you will never look at the world the same way again.

Series References: http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.acestudy.org
http://www.freedomainradio.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRaNwIdrKuc&feature=relmfu

An interview with Dr. Felitti, the director of the Adverse Childhood  Experiences project. The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.

http://acestudy.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIDvdzjzSto&feature=relmfu

Why people become violent.

Series References: http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.freedomainradio.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S16EHfKRLfc&feature=relmfu

The scientific evidence underlying the near-universal resistance to  reason and evidence. If you want to change the world, you first must  understand the unconscious barriers to thinking.

References: http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse4

It's all related to substance abuse.  Peaceful parenting would help.  Parent education would help.  If that's a platitude that is unworkable, well, it's working well for me as a parent.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> Legalise everthing and they will still have to deal with all this.



Perhaps if we legalize drugs, we could double LEO pay.  It's a damn tough job no matter how you slice it.


----------



## Tez3

So how come the children of nice, liberal ( in the American and British sense) well brought up, loving, polite non spanking parents take drugs and drink, why do they become alcoholics and drug addicts? The people who take drugs and drink aren't all the children of abusive parents. What about the children who do have abusive parents and grow up to be kind, loving people non drug taking teetotal people? 

Too much intellectualisation and not enough common snese I'm afraid.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> So how come the children of nice, liberal ( in the American and British sense) well brought up, loving, polite non spanking parents take drugs and drink, why do they become alcoholics and drug addicts? The people who take drugs and drink aren't all the children of abusive parents. What about the children who do have abusive parents and grow up to be kind, loving people non drug taking teetotal people?
> 
> Too much intellectualisation and not enough common snese I'm afraid.



Statistics show that children who are abused have higher rates of substance abuse.  Statistics show that children raised in strong families, by loving parents, and without violence, have lower rates of substance abuse.  There is a direct correlation between child abuse and drug abuse.

Therefore, encouraging better parenting skills and supporting families will lower the rates of substance abuse.  This isn't intellectualization, IMO, it's common sense.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> The police force in any country reflects that country, as has been said before the police don't make the laws, they are paid to enforce the laws the politicians make on behalf of the citizens. No point in blaming the police, they don't particularly want to be chasing people down for personal use of relatively harmless drugs but it's what the country wants. How do we know it's what the country wants? because they voted in the politicians that brought these laws in! You want marijuana legalised? vote in the politicians that will do it for you, don't blame the police.
> On the other hand it doesn't matter to the police whether some drugs, all drugs or no drugs are legalised because they are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after people have used substances including alcohol. They are the ones that have to tell relatives their loved one's dead because they were hit by a driver under the influence of a drug or drink, they are the ones who have to get the bodies out of the vehicles, the ones who have to deal with the bodies and families of those who OD. They also deal with the violence that erupts because of people taking things they can't handle, they deal with all the nasty things associated with drugs and alcohol, never ever the 'nice' things that people say substances like marijuana can give you, no for them it's the blood, snot, vomit, deaths and the battered, the bereaved, the helpless and the lost. Legalise everthing and they will still have to deal with all this.


I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone blames the police.  We just happen to have some LEO on this forum who are arguing strongly their position, and have used their experience as LEO to argue that they know best what policies should be implemented.  

I understand that the police "pick up the pieces" and some of our friends here on the boards have direct experience with some very bad situations that involve drugs, alcohol and some pretty strong chemical addictions.

But, in a discussion about policy, as you and also ballen have pointed out, the police are the tool of enforcement and not the policymakers.  In a discussion about whether some or all drugs should be legal or illegal, their opinions carry no more or less weight than anyone else's.  They have specialized experience, and that has to be respected.  But the idea that they are cops, have seen one side of the issue and so must be right is an innappropriate appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. 

Because they have seen the fallout of criminal abuse of drugs doesn't mean they understand the larger issues any better (or worse) than anyone else.  It's a different subject.  A different side of the issue in which they admittedly have no specific expertise.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Makalakumu said:


> Statistics show that children who are abused have higher rates of substance abuse.  Statistics show that children raised in strong families, by loving parents, and without violence, have lower rates of substance abuse.  There is a direct correlation between child abuse and drug abuse.
> 
> Therefore, encouraging better parenting skills and supporting families will lower the rates of substance abuse.  This isn't intellectualization, IMO, it's common sense.



I don't know the statistics, but I can tell you that in my family of 4 boys, we had a strong family, raised by loving parents, without violence, all with IQs hovering around 150 and one of my brothers is a recovering meth addict (clean now for about 20 years) and another is a recovering alcoholic who drank about a case of beer every day.  He's been sober since he had a heart attack before the age of 40.

I was addicted to cigarettes for 14 years before I could kick that habit and am thoroughly addicted to caffeine.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> Statistics show that children who are abused have higher rates of substance abuse. Statistics show that children raised in strong families, by loving parents, and without violence, have lower rates of substance abuse. There is a direct correlation between child abuse and drug abuse.
> 
> Therefore, encouraging better parenting skills and supporting families will lower the rates of substance abuse. This isn't intellectualization, IMO, it's common sense.



It's stating the obvious in many ways, better parenting skills should be encouraged for it's own sake not necessarily because it *may* lower substance abuse rates.
There's many reasons people start taking substances whether it's cigarettes, alcohol or drugs, there's the theory of addictive personalities, that it could also be inherited as well as other thoughts on why people take drugs and alcohol, not least because they like taking them! There's peer pressure, curiosity and taking things to help with the pressure of exams and/or student life as well as work, there's a lot of reasons people start taking, drinking or smoking things.  

It's simplistic to say better parenting would stop addictions, better parenting would stop a lot of things however peoples ideas of good parenting differ, look how many arguments we've seen on here about whether to smack children or not! Look at the so called tiger mums prevalent among Chinese families. Hot housing children in private schools etc. It's a far broader subject than just saying we need better parenting.

Steve I wasn't saying so much that people were blaming the police more that whatever society decides the police seem to end up picking up the pieces or enforcing unpopular laws.


----------



## Makalakumu

If you read what you've quoted, I've said that it would help *lower *the rates.  There is no magic bullet.  Society is going to have to shift in lots of ways in order to really tackle substance abuse...and even then, I doubt it will totally go away.


----------



## Makalakumu

Steve said:


> I don't know the statistics, but I can tell you that in my family of 4 boys, we had a strong family, raised by loving parents, without violence, all with IQs hovering around 150 and one of my brothers is a recovering meth addict (clean now for about 20 years) and another is a recovering alcoholic who drank about a case of beer every day.  He's been sober since he had a heart attack before the age of 40.
> 
> I was addicted to cigarettes for 14 years before I could kick that habit and am thoroughly addicted to caffeine.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Just as with anything, there are always exceptions, but the ACE studies are clear.  Child abuse and substance abuse are statistically linked.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> Just as with anything, there are always exceptions, but the ACE studies are clear.  Child abuse and substance abuse are statistically linked.



But there's no evidence that a significant number of addicts are addicts due to abuse.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> But there's no evidence that a significant number of addicts are addicts due to abuse.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



A significant amount of addicts report significant levels of child abuse.  Therefore, childhood abuse becomes a predictor for addictive behavior.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> A significant amount of addicts report significant levels of child abuse.  Therefore, childhood abuse becomes a predictor for addictive behavior.



OK....but that doesn't prove that the majority of current addicts were abused children. Or that if you solved the abuse issue (good luck) that it would significantly change the number of addicts. It may be a factor in addiction but it hasn't been proven to be THE factor.

I still scratch my head over how exactly we are going to solve one difficult problem (addiction) through attacking an even MORE difficult problem (child abuse). What sort of magic do you have to solve that?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## zDom

To answer a question posed regarding driving under the influence, keeping in mind I am speaking about 
a past tense that was *very far in the past*,

I have driven under the influence of alcohol and driven intoxicated.

I have driven under the influence of pot and driven very, very stoned on pot.

I realize today the error of my ways and that these were bad decisions that could have
had very serious consequences and am grateful I did not harm myself or others through those actions.

That said, my experiences indicated:

A drunk tends to be overconfident about their ability to drive and when driving generally go too fast.

A pot-blasted person tends to be terrified to drive and when driving generally go too slow.

As a passenger coming home from a concert, I would much rather ride with a driver that smoked pot two hours ago
as opposed to a person who has consumed any alcohol.

I would not dispute the need to keep illegal driving under the influence of marijuana. I would expect to see better compliance among marijuana users than with those who regularly consume alcohol.

That said, I have ridden with drivers under the influence of either or both of those drugs (THC and/or alcohol) who drive better
under the influence that most of the morons on the road are able to completely straight... not to mention how much worse
they drive when they have a phone held up to their ear. But that is a completely different topic for discussion


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> OK....but that doesn't prove that the majority of current addicts were abused children. Or that if you solved the abuse issue (good luck) that it would significantly change the number of addicts. It may be a factor in addiction but it hasn't been proven to be THE factor.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Agreed, but I still hold that if we could reduce the level of child abuse in society, we could reduce the amounts of addicts...and a whole bunch of other problems.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> Agreed, but I still hold that if we could reduce the level of child abuse in society, we could reduce the amounts of addicts...and a whole bunch of other problems.



Well....yeah. And that problem as about as easy to solve as the drug problem.

Which is....well....a problem.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Looking through to find something that will either agree or disagree with the premise that child abuse leads to drug abuse what I've found is that drug and alcohol abusers are more likely to also abuse their children. There seems to be several indicators for children who are likely to take drugs with child abuse being only one of many.
http://www.acde.org/health/riskfact.htm
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse.cfm
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/aa990331.htm

Going through the sites it seems that the substance use of parents is more likely to affect children. Of course this is child abuse but it does seem that we should be looking at the substance abuse of adults to find a solution to both the child abuse and the use of substances by those children. Very chicken and egg of course but it does come back always to the substance abuse ie drugs and alcohol.


----------



## WC_lun

I think that child abuse and drug/alcohol abuse are sometimes connected, but I do not believe they are caused by one another.  Perhaps they are symptoms of the same root problem(s).  Or maybe people who are prone to having issues will exhibit those issues in any number of ways.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> Looking through to find something that will either agree or disagree with the premise that child abuse leads to drug abuse what I've found is that drug and alcohol abusers are more likely to also abuse their children. There seems to be several indicators for children who are likely to take drugs with child abuse being only one of many.
> http://www.acde.org/health/riskfact.htm
> http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse.cfm
> http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/aa990331.htm
> 
> Going through the sites it seems that the substance use of parents is more likely to affect children. Of course this is child abuse but it does seem that we should be looking at the substance abuse of adults to find a solution to both the child abuse and the use of substances by those children. Very chicken and egg of course but it does come back always to the substance abuse ie drugs and alcohol.



That's a good point as well.  It is a very complicated chicken or egg scenario.  

For the first six years of my career, I worked at a school for teenagers who had some very troubled pasts.  Most were adjudicated in some way, the majority abused chemicals and most were abused by their parents in some way.  The physical abuse of children that I've seen and reported on was unreal.  I remember one of our teen mothers telling me a story about how she would put vodka in her child's bottle in order to get her child to sleep through the night because that's what her mother did to her!  Stories like that make me cringe and I think even a little parent education could go a long way.

I remember a child coming to school with cigarette burns on her track marks.  Dad found out that daughter was mainlining heroin and decided to hold her down put a pack a cigarettes out on her.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> The police force in any country reflects that country, as has been said before the police don't make the laws, they are paid to enforce the laws the politicians make on behalf of the citizens. No point in blaming the police, they don't particularly want to be chasing people down for personal use of relatively harmless drugs but it's what the country wants.



You don't have to be a cop if you don't want to.  If you think that the laws of society are unjust, you don't have to be a person that enforces them.  There is a choice involved here.  A LEO may not be able to determine policy, but they can choose whether or not they want to become part of the machinery of enforcement.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> You don't have to be a cop if you don't want to.  If you think that the laws of society are unjust, you don't have to be a person that enforces them.  There is a choice involved here.  A LEO may not be able to determine policy, but they can choose whether or not they want to become part of the machinery of enforcement.



Talk about chicken/egg. 

What about the segment of society that does want us to enforce the law? What about their expectations of us LEO's? Sorry Sir....Maka doesnt like this law? LoL! 

Do you honestly think there will ever be a society that is in 100% agreement over every law?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Talk about chicken/egg.
> 
> What about the segment of society that does want us to enforce the law? What about their expectations of us LEO's? Sorry Sir....Maka doesnt like this law? LoL!
> 
> Do you honestly think there will ever be a society that is in 100% agreement over every law?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



We'll never have universal agreements on laws.  That's why, as a general rule, I try to do what the people with guns and uniforms say I should do.  :rules:


----------



## Buka

Make no mistake about it, being a cop - is a job. Period. And like every other job, there's some that do it better/different than others. While some young folk might originally aspire to the job as some sort of moral compass, that all goes out the window with varying amounts of time on duty.

As for drugs, there's different levels of use. It's not really a moral question, it's a legal one. But in the same vein, cops can/will deal with a drug incident in varying ways depending on the people and the particulars. Putting a good kid into the system because he had (maybe) an error in judgement and I happened onto the scene - is a very big deal. (at least it was to me)

Tough judgement calls sometimes.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> To answer a question posed regarding driving under the influence, keeping in mind I am speaking about
> a past tense that was *very far in the past*,
> 
> I have driven under the influence of alcohol and driven intoxicated.
> 
> I have driven under the influence of pot and driven very, very stoned on pot.
> 
> I realize today the error of my ways and that these were bad decisions that could have
> had very serious consequences and am grateful I did not harm myself or others through those actions.
> 
> That said, my experiences indicated:
> 
> A drunk tends to be overconfident about their ability to drive and when driving generally go too fast.
> 
> A pot-blasted person tends to be terrified to drive and when driving generally go too slow.
> 
> As a passenger coming home from a concert, I would much rather ride with a driver that smoked pot two hours ago
> as opposed to a person who has consumed any alcohol.
> 
> I would not dispute the need to keep illegal driving under the influence of marijuana. I would expect to see better compliance among marijuana users than with those who regularly consume alcohol.
> 
> That said, I have ridden with drivers under the influence of either or both of those drugs (THC and/or alcohol) who drive better
> under the influence that most of the morons on the road are able to completely straight... not to mention how much worse
> they drive when they have a phone held up to their ear. But that is a completely different topic for discussion



LONDON (AP) &#8211; People who use marijuana before driving are nearly twice as likely to cause a car crash as those not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, according to a Canadian analysis of previous studies.

Marijuana is the most widely  used illegal drug worldwide and rates of its use in drivers are increasing. A 2007 study in Scotland found 15 percent of 537 drivers aged 17 to 39 had used marijuana within 12 hours.

Some experts said education campaigns about the dangers of doing drugs before driving wouldn't work.

People "will also need to be persuaded that they are at risk of their cannabis use being detected," wrote Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland in an accompanying editorial.

Hall said more research was needed to prove whether roadside drug testing, as introduced in parts of Australia and the U.S., actually prevents more drug-related car accidents.

The study was published Friday in the journal, BMJ.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


----------



## Tez3

Something close to home for the MMA people here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-drug-dealer-blamed-sons-ecstasy-death.html


----------



## celtic_crippler

&#8220;If the U.S. allowed adults the right to put into their bodies what they wanted, violence would plummet.&#8221; ~ Dr. Ivan Eland. 

Dr. Eland has an MBA in Economics and a PhD in Public Policy. Dr. Eland spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He was Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office and served as Evaluator-in-Charge for the Government Accountability Office. He&#8217;s testified on military and financial aspects of NATO expansion, on CIA oversight, and on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He is the author of 45 in-depth studies on national security issues and contributor to numerous other volumes on the subject. 

The Council on Foreign Relations has studies proving that the War on Drugs has only resulted in escalated violence. This violence impacts the lives of people who don&#8217;t use drugs or have anything to do with illicit drug use what-so-ever. 

FACT: 60% of those incarcerated in federal prisons are there for non-violent drug offenses. 

But you still support this failed policy, and the violence on innocents, because you feel it&#8217;s necessary to lock up a few addicts? Is that right? 

Again, these are not MY facts&#8230; but the results of study after study after study conducted by and funded by your own government and universities. 

Everyone says they ultimately want the violence and drug use to be diminished, but some continue to support a failed policy that has shown both of these areas to have increased since the inception of said failed policy. And when confronted with facts showing other methods to be more effective, ignore those facts in favor of continuing said failed policy.


----------



## Tez3

I'm thinking whether I can be bothered pointing out that alcohol is legal and the drinking of it to the point of intoxication is causing horrendous problems here. Not just the violence it's the rapes, the medical costs, the drunk driving, the anti social behaviour etc. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPFuPbm8Akk&feature=related


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I'm thinking whether I can be bothered pointing out that alcohol is legal and the drinking of it to the point of intoxication is causing horrendous problems here. Not just the violence it's the rapes, the medical costs, the drunk driving, the anti social behaviour etc.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPFuPbm8Akk&amp;feature=related



The question then is whether the British people and government are entertaining any thoughts of prohibition and banning alcohol.  Are they?  I'm guessing not.

If not, why not?  What are the approaches you are considering as a country to address the issue?  Why not prohibition?  Surely, if it's "working" for other addictive drugs that impair judgement, then it would work for alcohol, too.  Right?  Just ban it and everything will be right as rain.  Of course, if it's illegal, then only criminals would drink... 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> The question then is whether the British people and government are entertaining any thoughts of prohibition and banning alcohol.  Are they?  I'm guessing not.
> 
> If not, why not?  What are the approaches you are considering as a country to address the issue?  Why not prohibition?  Surely, if it's "working" for other addictive drugs that impair judgement, then it would work for alcohol, too.  Right?  Just ban it and everything will be right as rain.  Of course, if it's illegal, then only criminals would drink...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




There is a difference between taking a popular and legal substance (Alcohol) and illegalizing it and taking a substance that has been illegal for as long as most of us remember and legalizing it.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> The question then is whether the British people and government are entertaining any thoughts of prohibition and banning alcohol. Are they? I'm guessing not.
> 
> If not, why not? What are the approaches you are considering as a country to address the issue? Why not prohibition? Surely, if it's "working" for other addictive drugs that impair judgement, then it would work for alcohol, too. Right? Just ban it and everything will be right as rain. Of course, if it's illegal, then only criminals would drink...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



There is a drinking culture in the UK especially in Scotland and Ireland that I don't think there is anywhere else. The idea of going out to get absolutely bladdered has been around for a very long time, Scotland has the highest rate of alcoholism in the UK and possibly the world. Hard drinking has long been the 'sign of being a man', in the military the Sgts' mess is known as a place of hard drinkers, weekend long drinking sessions are common even now. Women over the past few years are catching up with the men especially with the introduction of alcopops. 
There will never be prohibition of alcohol here, the government makes far too much money out of it. Tax on alcohol is huge, it contributed nearly _£15 billion _to the govenment revenue. In fact the government allowed 24 hour licensing to enable more sales of alcohol and the binge drinking got worse, the streets are now full of drinkers vomiting, having sex and peeing as well as defecating, there's fights and the police end up having to sort it all out. Far from banning alcohol it's in the government's interest to encourage people to drink hence their inaction and only paying lipservice to any attempts to educate people on sensible drinking.
So you have the opposite of prohibition, it's in a government's interests to legalise harmful substances if there's money to be made from taxing them and bugger the consequences, as you can see.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> LONDON (AP)  People who use marijuana before driving are nearly twice as likely to cause a car crash as those not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, according to a Canadian analysis of previous studies.
> 
> Marijuana is the most widely  used illegal drug worldwide and rates of its use in drivers are increasing. A 2007 study in Scotland found 15 percent of 537 drivers aged 17 to 39 had used marijuana within 12 hours.
> 
> Some experts said education campaigns about the dangers of doing drugs before driving wouldn't work.
> 
> People "will also need to be persuaded that they are at risk of their cannabis use being detected," wrote Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland in an accompanying editorial.
> 
> Hall said more research was needed to prove whether roadside drug testing, as introduced in parts of Australia and the U.S., actually prevents more drug-related car accidents.
> 
> The study was published Friday in the journal, BMJ.
> 
> Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



I don't doubt it. But I would like to see the statistics as compared with alcohol's. Especially the fatalities.

But what was the point that you were trying to reinforce? That THC use impairs the ability to drive?

_"I would not dispute the need to keep illegal driving under the influence of marijuana."_ - Me in the post you quoted and responded to.


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> There is a difference between taking a popular and legal substance (Alcohol) and illegalizing it and taking a substance that has been illegal for as long as most of us remember and legalizing it.



What is the difference?

Why would it matter?


----------



## Tgace

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths6.htm

*If they say... 
*The lessons of Prohibition can be used to analyze the present policies, 
prohibition in illicit drugs. 

*Then you say... *

Whereas there was not a moral consensus for Prohibition U.S. citizens 
overwhelmingly are in favor of the the continued illegalization of illicit 
drugs. [Robert E. Peterson, "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs;" Drug Awareness 
Information Newsletter, July 1988]. 

During Prohibition, only the sale, and not the use, of alcohol was illegal. 
Today, both sale and use of illicit drugs are illegal. Consequently, present 
drug policies can target users whereas Prohibition laws could not. [David L. 
Teasley, "Drug legalization and the 'lessons' of Prohibition," Contemporary Drug 
Problems, Spring 1992]. 

During Prohibition, there was much tension between federal and state alcohol 
policy. Today, 48 states have signed the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and 
the federal and state governments work in concert. [David Teasley, citation 
above]. 

During Prohibition, criminal sanctions were not extreme - a first-time 
bootlegger could receive a $1,000 fine or six months in prison. Today, fines for 
first-time cocaine or heroin trafficking are up to $1 million and prison 
sentences go as high as 20 years. [David Teasley, citation above). 

During Prohibition, the U.S. was a "dry" country in a "wet" international 
community. Today, almost all countries are in agreement that drugs should be 
illegal, as witnessed by the fact that 80 countries signed the 1988 Convention 
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. [David 
Teasley, citation above]. 

The political administration responsible for enforcing Prohibition was small, 
underfunded, and unprofessional. In contrast, the current drug control program 
is run by over a dozen agencies coordinated by the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. [David Teasley, citation above]. 

*If they say...* 

Prohibition caused more harm than good. 

*Then you say... *

During Prohibition, alcohol use declined significantly [David Teasley, 
citation above]. 

During Prohibition, incidence of cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 35%. 
[Charles Krauthammer, "Legalize? No, Deglamorize," The Washington Post, May 20, 
1988]. 

During Prohibition, the suicide rate decreased 50%. [Robert Stutman, "Reasons 
Not to Legalize Drugs," Drug Awareness Information Newsletter]. 

During Prohibition, the incidence of alcohol-related arrests also declined by 
50% [Robert L. DuPont, "The Case Against Legalizing Drugs," Drug Awareness 
Information Newsletter]. 

Contrary to popular opinion, the crime rate did not markedly increase during 
prohibition. What did increase was the homicide rate (not the same as the 
overall crime rate) among African-Americans. And African-Americans had little to 
do with alcohol trafficking. [David Teasley, citation above]. 

Mark Kleiman admits that the U.S. experience with Prohibition is one of the 
strongest arguments in favor of the continued illegalization of illicit drugs. 
[Letter from John C. Lawn to Joseph E. DiGenova, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, June 3, 1988].


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> There is a difference between taking a popular and legal substance (Alcohol) and illegalizing it and taking a substance that has been illegal for as long as most of us remember and legalizing it.



Marijuana waSnt always illegal and in spite of being banned, it remains popular.  

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

http://www.itfsdp.org/pdfs/wfp.pdf



> Most of the arguments in favor of drug legalization focus on marijuana. However, marijuana is far more powerful today than it was years ago and it serves as an entry point for the use of other illegal drugs. This is known as the "gateway effect." Despite arguments from the drug culture to the contrary, marijuana is addictive. This addiction has been well described in the scientific literature and it consists of both a physical dependence (tolerance and subsequent withdrawal) and a psychological habituation. [FN1]
> 
> According to a US report released in June of 2008, the levels of THC - the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana - have reached the highest ever amounts since scientific analysis of the drug began in the late 1970s. The average amount of THC has now reached average levels of 9.6 percent (the highest level in one of the samples was 37.2 percent). This compares to the average of just under 4 percent reported in 1983. Additionally, higher potency marijuana may be contributing to a substantial increase in the number of American teenagers in treatment for marijuana dependence. According to the U.S. 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), among Americans age 12 and older there are 14.8 million current (past-month; 6.0 percent) users of marijuana and 4.2 million Americans (1.7 percent) classified with dependency or abuse of marijuana. Additionally, the latest information from the U.S. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS, 2006), reports that 16.1% of drug treatment admissions were for marijuana as the primary drug of abuse. This compares to 6% in 1992. A similar trend is taking place in the Netherlands, where new data indicate that the number of people seeking assistance for cannabis there has risen, from 1,951 in 1994 to 6,544 in 2006 - a 235 percent increase. [FN2] In 2006, the average THC concentration in Dutch marihuana was 16% which is even higher than that in the US. [FN3]
> 
> Marijuana is an addictive drug. It poses significant health consequences to its users, including those who may be using it for "medical" purposes. In the U.S., marijuana is the number one drug that young people are in treatment for. [FN4]
> 
> The use of marijuana in early adolescence is particularly dangerous. Adults who used marijuana early were five times more likely to become dependent on any drug and eight times more likely to use cocaine and fifteen times more likely to use heroin later in life." [FN5]


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> Marijuana want always illegal and in spite of being banned, it remains popular.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



For all intents and purposes it has ALWAYS been illegal for anybody living today.


----------



## Tgace

*THE TOUGH PRACTICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGALIZATION 

*In their 1993 report the INCB asked these tough practical questions regarding implementation of drug legalization: 

17(a) What drugs would be legalized (cannabis, cocaine, crack (the free-base form of cocaine), heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy? According to what criteria would they be legalized and who would determine those criteria? 

(b) What potency levels would be permitted (5 per cent, 10 per cent or 14 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of cannabis; Burmese No. 3 grade, Mexican black tar or China white heroin)? 

( c) Since legalization would entail the removal of prescription requirements for psychoactive pharmaceuticals, what would be done to control the adverse consequences of their non-medical use? How would the marketing of such new drugs be dealt with? Would they be permitted without even a qualifying period and evaluation? What would happen with designer drugs? 

(d) Would production and manufacture be limited? If so, how would be limits be enforced (e.g. limited to home production for personal use or to cottage industries or to major enterprises)? 

(e) What market restrictions would there be? Would the private sector or the public sector or both be involved? How would price, purity and potency levels be established and regulated? Would advertising be permitted? If so, what drug would be advertised and by whom? 

(f) Where would such drugs be sold (e.g. over the counter, through the mail, vending machines or restaurants)? Would the sale of such drugs be limited to dependent abusers? If so, how many and from which cities or countries? What about experimenters and those not yet granted dependent status? 

(g) Would there be age limits for the use of legalized drugs and, if so, for which ones (e.g. access to cannabis at age 16, to cocaine at age 18 and to heroin at age 21)? Would there be restrictions on use because of impairment of function (e.g. restrictions on use by transport, defence, nuclear power and other workers)? 

(h) For any restrictions found necessary or desirable, what agency would enforce the law, what penalties and sanctions would be established for violations and how would the risks of corruption and continued illicit traffic be dealt with? INCB Report 1993 

The legalizers have yet to effectively answer these questions.


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> What is the difference?
> 
> Why would it matter?



One makes criminals out of people doing a once legal (recently)activity...the other rewards people who have been breaking the law all along.


----------



## rickster

"Spice"?

Like in;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)

"Recreational Drugs"
is this like;
"Recreational Drinking"?



Drug Abuse: Gives you Drain Bamage


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> One makes criminals out of people doing a once legal (recently)activity...the other rewards people who have been breaking the law all along.



That's a fallacy.  The length of time it was banned shouldn't matter when we're basically talking about repealing prohibition.  The philosophy behind it and the facts about it's use are what matters, IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths6.htm



This is an interesting source arguing for the prohibition of drugs, but notice how almost all of the citations are coming from organizations that favor the prohibition of drugs.  It's definitely a biased opinion....aka revisionist history.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> That's a fallacy.  The length of time it was banned shouldn't matter when we're basically talking about repealing prohibition.  The philosophy behind it and the facts about it's use are what matters, IMO.



This is nothing like prohibition. And prohibition as a meme is tossed out with a TV/Movie understanding of the era.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> This is an interesting source arguing for the prohibition of drugs, but notice how almost all of the citations are coming from organizations that favor the prohibition of drugs.  It's definitely a biased opinion....aka revisionist history.



LOL..and all the other people here (and their sources) are not??? LOL! 

How about you address the facts presented?

The "Tough Questions" still stand.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> There is a drinking culture in the UK especially in Scotland and Ireland that I don't think there is anywhere else.



In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin describes the Irish as being one of the lowest forms of humans in existence.  According to Darwin, the Irish were more degenerate then the Chinese, lazier then the blacks, and stupider then the French.

Now, imagine if the overarching Imperial government of the time decided to ban alcohol for the good of the stupid, lazy, degenerate Irish?  It would be an obvious case of hypocrisy right?  How could Englishmen, who definitely love their pints, tell a group of neighbors that they can't enjoy them?

In the United States, we had something similar to that happen.  In African American culture, marijuana use has always been more prevalent.  From reconstruction to modern times, black people enjoyed "the fruits of hemp" readily.  When the US decided to prohibit marijuana sales and use, it's use had fallen out fashion with many whites, never mind the fact that our Founding Fathers grew it and smoked up.  

The end result was that a hated minority was unfairly targeted and it was hypocritical.  So much so that when the anti-marijuana propaganda started to appear, the image of a negro smoking a joint and raping white women was used to terrify the public.  Never mind the fact that lots of white people smoked marijuana just a generation before.  

I think we need to understand that racial politics played a huge role in marijuana prohibition and alcohol legalization.  We need to realize that racial divisions were used by the government as a wedge to achieve a desired goal, which actually was designed to put the hemp industry out of business.  It's a historical example of racial politics and government corruption, IMO.


----------



## Tgace

Im sensing a theme here Maka.

Don't like cops using their personal experience in this "conversation"..disqualify their opinion as biased.

Don't like a source..disqualify it as biased. And forgive this (I dont intend it as a personal attack)..but doing a post search on you and I see you use MANY sources by biased people (namely your 911 stuff).

Either this is a "conversation" or it's a peer reviewed panel where everyones opinions and sources have to be vetted.

I don't have the time for the latter.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> LOL..and all the other people here (and their sources) are not??? LOL!
> 
> How about you address the facts presented?
> 
> The "Tough Questions" still stand.



Yes, the sources that already address the "tough questions" are better and more unbiased.  Many of these sources are actually coming from the government, who officially support a policy of prohibition.  All of those "tough questions" are contradicted by the government's own studies.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Im sensing a theme here Maka.
> 
> Don't like cops using their personal experience in this "conversation"..disqualify their opinion as biased.
> 
> Don't like a source..disqualify it as biased. And forgive this (I dont intend it as a personal attack)..but doing a post search on you and I see you use MANY sources by biased people (namely your 911 stuff).
> 
> Either this is a "conversation" or it's a peer reviewed panel where everyones opinions and sources have to be vetted.
> 
> I don't have the time for the latter.



I'm just pointing out some problems in the sources.  That's all.  That should be part of a good conversation, should it not?

Yeah, and 9/11.  Don't get me started.  Terrorism, drugs, drug wars, terror wars, and government corruption, it's all related.  My bias after 9/11 is that I pretty much believe the opposite of what the government tells me unless I can go out and experience it myself.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> For all intents and purposes it has ALWAYS been illegal for anybody living today.



And yet weed remains extremely popular.  the point remains that any strategies with the aim of reducing the abuse and misuse of alcohol are directly applicable to most other controlled substances, particularly weed.  That the idea of prohibition of alcohol seems silly to most everyone is pretty telling.  cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> And yet weed remains extremely popular. the point remains that any strategies with the aim of reducing the abuse and misuse of alcohol are directly applicable to most other controlled substances, particularly weed. That the idea of prohibition of alcohol seems silly to most everyone is pretty telling. cognitive dissonance at its finest.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



However the reasons for not banning alcohol are economic, no government that derives so much money from taxing alcohol is going to ban it. Perhaps if you saw the mess, violence and sheer disgustingness of our streets at night you would change your mind about banning alcohol or at very least making illegal to drink so much people are mindless! You certainly wouldn't want the carnage on your town's/city's streets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5WjqoLfQjo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2wmvdxzJpU&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBVQRYjWEFk&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTHfSKJpseo&feature=relmfu   there's plenty more in this series from all round the UK and it's not as though we keep it to ourselves http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dents-Saloufest-returns-round-debauchery.html













  yes that's her knickers round her ankles.


----------



## zDom

Not only are those sources providing canned answers ("If they say X, you say Y" :eyeroll: to argue against legalization biased, they have a vested interest in keeping those substances illegal. And that's what this is really about: money. It is what the criminalization of pot has _*always*_ been about.

I could flood this thread with the side effects of legal drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies which have serious health consequences for their users or of alcohol or of nicotine, but none of it matters, does it? Booze is legal; pot is not.

How does 100 years of pot being illegal in this country trump THOUSANDS of years of mankind being able to eat any plant they decide to cultivate? Or hundreds of years of Native Americans using it as part of their religion? It doesn't matter, does it? White man "owns" this land now and has decided marijuana is illegal and if it's illegal it MUST be BAD.

It was stated early in this thread that opponents will never be convinced. I think we have seen that demonstrated over the last 20+ pages. I predicted regurgitated argument and that's what we see.

Opponents feel justified in their recreational drugs of choice being legal (or your choice to not indulge in any) and will cling to any argument that enables them to remain self righteousness.

But it is a travesty in a nation that brags about being the bastion of freedom to continue to take a hardline against pot users. It remains a clear case of tyranny of the majority. Cling to a sense of moral superiority, but I want you to remember this discussion every time you hear the final lines of the Star Spangled Banner and cheer to some politician's rhetoric about living in the land of the free.

Meanwhile I will continue to comply with the law of the land, but I will also continue to feel morally and intellectually superior to those of you who simply will not acknowledge that today's drug laws are arbitrary, obsolete, unjust and hypocritical.

Tonight I will drink margaritas and smoke a bowl of pipe tobacco. I already slammed down a pot of coffee.


----------



## Tez3

I think most of us have said we don't care what you ingest, if you are peaceful and don't harm anyone, there's no problem, BUT what of those who aren't peaceful and do harm others? 
So, exactly what are we supposed to legalise? All drugs? Who do we allow to use, everyone or just adults? As shown by what is happening here, if people can't handle, and btw it's a lot of people not just a few, alcohol how are we to believe that by legalising all drugs we won't end up with an even worse situation? Tell us how legalising everything makes things better oh superior one.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> I think most of us have said we don't care what you ingest, if you are peaceful and don't harm anyone, there's no problem, BUT what of those who aren't peaceful and do harm others?
> So, exactly what are we supposed to legalise? All drugs? Who do we allow to use, everyone or just adults? As shown by what is happening here, if people can't handle, and btw it's a lot of people not just a few, alcohol how are we to believe that by legalising all drugs we won't end up with an even worse situation? Tell us how legalising everything makes things better oh superior one.



Well, if you drink and become belligerent you go to jail. Same as when you cause a ruckus stone somber.


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> I think most of us have said we don't care what you ingest, if you are peaceful and don't harm anyone, there's no problem, BUT what of those who aren't peaceful and do harm others?



I think any reasonable person agrees those people should be put in jail/prison to preserve the safety of others &#8212; regardless of what (sugar, Cheetos, Heavy Metal Music, oxycontin, tequila) they ingested beforehand.




Tez3 said:


> So, exactly what are we supposed to legalise? All drugs? Who do we allow to use, everyone or just adults?



These are indeed some great questions that are worth discussing by people willing to discuss them.




Tez3 said:


> As shown by what is happening here, if people can't handle ... alcohol how are we to believe that by legalising all drugs we won't end up with an even worse situation?




Better, worse ... I dunno. Depends on your views. But those who FOUNDED the country I live believed certain "truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

So whether or not it makes it better or worse, it would certainly be consistent with the principles upon which this country was founded.

Currently the pursuit of happiness in the U.S. of A is curtailed by other factors: money, nanny state, whatever. 



Tez3 said:


> Tell us how legalising everything makes things better oh superior one.



Whether or not I am actually superior or not is certainly open to debate  But I certainly feel superior in that I can, and have been, persuaded by reasonable argument on more than one occasion to amend beliefs rather than clinging to things that I have heard or read on the Internet, remembered and cited or repeated when pressed to justify my belief.


----------



## Tgace

Tgace said:


> *THE TOUGH PRACTICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGALIZATION
> 
> *In their 1993 report the INCB asked these tough practical questions regarding implementation of drug legalization:
> 
> 17(a) What drugs would be legalized (cannabis, cocaine, crack (the free-base form of cocaine), heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy? According to what criteria would they be legalized and who would determine those criteria?
> 
> (b) What potency levels would be permitted (5 per cent, 10 per cent or 14 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of cannabis; Burmese No. 3 grade, Mexican black tar or China white heroin)?
> 
> ( c) Since legalization would entail the removal of prescription requirements for psychoactive pharmaceuticals, what would be done to control the adverse consequences of their non-medical use? How would the marketing of such new drugs be dealt with? Would they be permitted without even a qualifying period and evaluation? What would happen with designer drugs?
> 
> (d) Would production and manufacture be limited? If so, how would be limits be enforced (e.g. limited to home production for personal use or to cottage industries or to major enterprises)?
> 
> (e) What market restrictions would there be? Would the private sector or the public sector or both be involved? How would price, purity and potency levels be established and regulated? Would advertising be permitted? If so, what drug would be advertised and by whom?
> 
> (f) Where would such drugs be sold (e.g. over the counter, through the mail, vending machines or restaurants)? Would the sale of such drugs be limited to dependent abusers? If so, how many and from which cities or countries? What about experimenters and those not yet granted dependent status?
> 
> (g) Would there be age limits for the use of legalized drugs and, if so, for which ones (e.g. access to cannabis at age 16, to cocaine at age 18 and to heroin at age 21)? Would there be restrictions on use because of impairment of function (e.g. restrictions on use by transport, defence, nuclear power and other workers)?
> 
> (h) For any restrictions found necessary or desirable, what agency would enforce the law, what penalties and sanctions would be established for violations and how would the risks of corruption and continued illicit traffic be dealt with? INCB Report 1993
> 
> The legalizers have yet to effectively answer these questions.



Nobody on the legalization team has touched this I see.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Nobody on the legalization team has touched this I see.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



I've seen answers to those questions from organizations that are really into it, but overall, I favor very few government regulations. I think the free market would eventually arrive at the safest, most profitable product if the government doesn't protect the industry from liability or lie about the products. I can see fear of private litigation preventing any wide distribution of hard drugs.  You can go after any producer now that it's legal. Strong pot and other hallucinogens probably wouldn't be sold widely at all...except maybe for religious ceremony. Perhaps best of all would be that without regulation or protection people could go after Big Pharma for their dangerous products. 

Anyway, that's the best I can do while waiting for the pasta for dinner to finish.


----------



## Tez3

I think wanting to legalise drugs sounds like one of those things you 'discuss' at middle class dinner parties where everyone has had a few glasses of wine and is feeling nostalgic for their student days, the realities of legalising drugs doesn't come into play just the bit about playing at being rebels, 'oh look at us we are so down with it'....

We have legal alcohol and we as a society are paying dearly for that, the government taxes it to the tune of £15Billion a year yet it costs billions in medical care, time of work, policing, cleaning the streets and court time not to mention the ruined lives of those touched by it. I don't think anyone not from here can imagine what our streets are like in the towns and cities, you think that people will behave 'nicely' if they take legal drugs, they don't, it's hell frankly. 

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/teenage-drinking-culture-full.pdf

I think you may be on the way to having the same problem with alcohol according to some who are replying to this http://brett-tesol.hubpages.com/hub/Why-are-we-drinking-so-much, adding legal drugs into the mix and I think you will be asking for trouble.


Your country wasn't founded in the first place by people who wanted complete freedom for everyone, the original settlers weren't exactly free thinkers were they? http://voices.yahoo.com/puritan-laws-early-america-6866776.html. When you gained independance do you think they had a drug taking culture in mind when they talked about freedom? Wasn't it true that the ideals of such things as the pursuit of happiness weren't to be considered as selfish rights but that of the good of society and that the rights given by your declaration of independance were only given to free white men? Sure the 'right's are now given to everyone but it was a long and bloody process wasn't it to get there.

The 'me' society where only the rights of the individual matter, what we call the I'm alright Jack' syndrome is something that leads to the death of decent societies -the ones that care about everyone and try to do the best for everyone, all these people see is their own selfish wants and needs. 'I want....' remind me again which of your presidents said 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.....'. The me mes won't have it, it's all about 'my rights', well if you want total freedom go off and live on your own, you can't have the benefits of society without paying the price.

Look at the aggressive ad campaigns for products now, the bombarding of children to get their parents to buy products, are you saying you'd like that for the hard drugs? Is it to be okay to have parents being stoned while looking after children? Yes there's parents who are now but at least with the laws now you can do something/ It's going to be fine for people to take whatever they want whenever they want? fine, you can manage it and not put people at risk but do you think everyone can?

To legalise all drugs is to open Pandora's box, you may not get it shut again with it's contents safely inside. Discussion on freedoms are fine but the truth is much uglier outside the dinner table's little bubble or indeed this thread's bubble. 

This is just one part of price paid by decent people dealing with the *freedom* to drink http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reaches-shocking-climax-Black-Eye-Friday.html

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Booze-problems-strain-hospitals/story-14421345-detail/story.html

How do you balance their right to drink themselves to 'happiness' with our right not to have to deal with this?


----------



## Makalakumu

What will happen if the do-gooders prohibit booze in the UK? What would it take to actually enforce those laws? Do you want to live in that society?

The same definately applies to drugs like marijuana. No one wants to live in a society where that drug can actually be illegal.


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> What will happen if the do-gooders prohibit booze in the UK? What would it take to actually enforce those laws? Do you want to live in that society?
> 
> The same definately applies to drugs like marijuana. No one wants to live in a society where that drug can actually be illegal.



What do gooders? We don't have anyone that wants to ban alcohol. You either have your head in the clouds or your head up your ****. 
I want the right to walk down a street here without having vomit, faeces and urine all over the pavement, I want to walk down a street without having to avoid fights, to not have anything in the street vandalised, to not have to step over comatose bodies sprawled everwhere. I want to be able to have emergency medical care in A&E without having to wait for drunks to be treated, to not have to help nursing staff who are being assaulted. I don't want to read about anymore girls that are claiming rape because they had sex with a stranger and they don't remember. 

You know what, I don't care if marijuana is ever made legal, I really don't give a stuff, I'm sick of the selfishness of people demanding their 'rights', I'm sick to death of people demanding their rights to destroy themselves while causing maximum worry, bother and danger to others, I'm fed up of people whinging and whining about 'their rights' frankly, if you can't do anything better than take drugs and binge drink I don't actually think you're worth that much to society so why should society actually care about you and your rights. 

If you chose to live in society then abide by the rules, if you don't like it, sling your hook. If the people want drugs banned, then banned they should be. All this 'I have the right to take drugs if I want' yeah sure you have and we as society have the right to say 'sod you' and chuck you in prison. There is no such things as 'rights' in this world, it's a fallacy. 

I don't care whether marijuana is legalised or not, I want what's best for the young, the old and the vulnerable in our society, I want people to be safe, happy and healthy. I want the best for the most people possible. I'm tired of all this greed and the 'me' generation. If you want to fill your head with drugged dreams fine but don't tell the rest of us that because we want to protect the innocent and the vulnerable that we are some sort of lower species. 

I also think from the way you keep on about either legalising drugs or banning you have no ideas of any middle way such as Portugal has found, it's all very over dramatic. Compromise, compromise compromise, we all have to do it to be able to live in a decent society.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tez3 said:
			
		

> I'm thinking whether I can be bothered pointing out that alcohol is legal and the drinking of it to the point of intoxication is causing horrendous problems here. Not just the violence it's the rapes, the medical costs, the drunk driving, the anti social behavior etc.


 
What you can&#8217;t seem to understand is that these problems occur regardless. 

Rapes occur regardless. As a matter of fact, if the police didn&#8217;t waste resources on pursing non-violent drug offenders they would have more resources to dedicate to the investigation and prosecution of rapists. 

If alcohol was again illegal, people would still use it and still drive drunk. Antisocial behavior is a reflection of mental illness, as is addiction. 

You keep attacking the symptoms instead of the disease. Doing so does nothing to remedy the illness. Do you think throwing diabetics in prison would curtail eating? They&#8217;d find a way to smuggle a doughnut into the prison just like they smuggle drugs into the prisons. 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> There is a difference between taking a popular and legal substance (Alcohol) and illegalizing it and taking a substance that has been illegal for as long as most of us remember and legalizing it.


 
What does that even mean? 

Do I understand you correctly? You&#8217;re saying that because something has been illegal/legal for as long as you can remember that this is your justification for it remaining illegal/legal? 

If that&#8217;s the case, I guess it was a good thing a lot of people didn&#8217;t feel that way about slavery. 



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> There is a drinking culture in the UK especially in Scotland and Ireland that I don't think there is anywhere else. The idea of going out to get absolutely bladdered has been around for a very long time, Scotland has the highest rate of alcoholism in the UK and possibly the world. Hard drinking has long been the 'sign of being a man', in the military the Sgts' mess is known as a place of hard drinkers, weekend long drinking sessions are common even now. Women over the past few years are catching up with the men especially with the introduction of alcopops.
> There will never be prohibition of alcohol here, the government makes far too much money out of it. Tax on alcohol is huge, it contributed nearly _£15 billion _to the govenment revenue. In fact the government allowed 24 hour licensing to enable more sales of alcohol and the binge drinking got worse, the streets are now full of drinkers vomiting, having sex and peeing as well as defecating, there's fights and the police end up having to sort it all out. Far from banning alcohol it's in the government's interest to encourage people to drink hence their inaction and only paying lipservice to any attempts to educate people on sensible drinking.
> So you have the opposite of prohibition, it's in a government's interests to legalise harmful substances if there's money to be made from taxing them and bugger the consequences, as you can see.


 
Here&#8217;s another study for you published in February 2011&#8230; 

According to the World Health Organization, the world drank the equivalent of 6.1 liters of pure alcohol per person in 2005. You actually aren&#8217;t far from the mark as the most consumption occurred in Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. However, Moldovans are the most bibulous followed by the Czechs in second place. 

Interestingly enough, home-brewed liquor accounts for almost 30% of the world&#8217;s drinking, so do you honestly think that making it illegal would have any real impact on the problem of alcoholism? According to history, and data available from the period known as &#8220;Prohibition&#8221; here in the US, the answer is a resounding NO. 

If you&#8217;d like to actually see a pretty, color-coded map of the world&#8217;s alcohol consumption, here is a link for you: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/global_alcohol_consumption



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Whereas there was not a moral consensus for Prohibition U.S. citizens
> overwhelmingly are in favor of the the continued illegalization of illicit
> drugs. [Robert E. Peterson, "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs;" Drug Awareness
> Information Newsletter, July 1988].


 
Wrong.

Per history: The contemporary prohibitionist labeled their crusade as the &#8220;Noble Experiment&#8221;, and viewed the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment as a victory for &#8220;public morals and health&#8221;. 

And while many US citizens may have supported continued illegalization in 1988, that is no longer the case today.  &#8230;most likely because they realized that &#8220;Refer Madness&#8221; was absolute nonsensical propaganda.  LOL 

More recent data for you: A gallop poll conducted in 2011 showed over 50% of Americans favored the legalization of marijuana and an article in US News from May of this year shows that 74% of Americans favor states legislating the use of marijuana over federal involvement. 

I was going to continue addressing your post but it seems that most of your sources come from circa 1988 and pretty much all of my RECENT sources previously posted throughout this thread have disproved everything in your post all ready, so&#8230;. 

Perhaps the knowledge that your sources are over 20 years old and mine are more recent will give you cause to rethink your position. 

I would add that during Prohibition alcohol consumption went down by about half and remained low until the 1940s&#8230; But before you begin jumping up and down in glee, I must also remind you that during that time violent crime drastically increased as a result of Prohibition. 

Prohibition resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations (including the modern American Mafia). It also generated rampant government corruption among politicians and within police forces. 

So, again I point out that treating the problem as a criminal issue only leads to making things worse overall&#8230; for everyone, not only the addicts. 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> How about you address the facts presented?


 
Your turn. LOL


----------



## celtic_crippler

Here's the redux version... again. Apparently some people missed it because they claim their posts that followed it have not been addressed. 



> FACTS: (And these aren&#8217;t from &#8220;some doc I don&#8217;t know&#8221;&#8230; many are the result of studies conducted by our own government as well as legitimate health care professionals)
> 
> 
> 
> Over $40 billion in tax payer money is spent annually yet drug use has not declined
> The availability of illicit drugs has more than doubled in the last few decades
> Illicit drugs are more potent and cheaper than they were 20 years ago
> The government receives no tax revenue from the sell of illicit drugs
> Gangs chief source of income comes from the sell of illicit drugs
> Since the inception of the &#8220;War on Drugs&#8221;, the instances of drug overdose and ER drug episodes has steadily risen
> Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug, yet has few adverse side effects. No one has ever overdosed from using marijuana and the long term health issues from its use are fewer than that of alcohol.
> Over 57% of addicts who want treatment receive none and are instead jailed.
> Each $1 invested in treatment saves $7 in societal costs
> Treatment is 10 times more effective at reducing use than imprisonment
> Over 60% of federal prisoners are incarcerated over NON-VIOLENT drug offenses. The US has more prisoners per capita than any other nation. Yet we claim to be the most &#8220;free&#8221;.
> More than 47,500 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico over the last 5 years.
> 60% of the societal costs involved in illicit drug use are related to the associated black market crime related to the illegality of illicit drugs; only 30% of societal costs are related to the actual ingestion of illicit drugs.
> A Harvard study showed that the legalization of illicit drugs would inject over $76 billion annually into the US economy. Subtract the $40 billion spent annually on the War on Drugs and that&#8217;s a net increase of over $100 billion
> Studies show that treatment would be 23 times more effective than the current War on Drugs
> Only 10-15% of heroin and about 30% of cocaine shipments are intercepted by law enforcement. Over 75% would have to be intercepted to have any real impact on trafficker&#8217;s profits.
> According to the FBI in 2005, despite spending over $7 billion to arrest and prosecute over 800,000 people for marijuana offenses, 85% of all high school seniors reported that marijuana was &#8220;easy to obtain.&#8221;
> The Global Commission on Drug Policy recently released a report stating that the 4 decades long War on Drugs campaign has not only failed, but made the problem worse
> 
> 
> And there&#8217;s much, much more out there&#8230; Those were just some highlights!!!
> 
> You asked for answers. The Global Commission on Drug Policy suggests the following:
> 
> 
> 
> End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do not harm to others;
> Encourage the experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens;
> Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment, abut also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada;
> Apply human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers;
> Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law enforcement approach (despite the evidence) should focus their repression actions on violent organized crime and drug traffickers, in order to reduce the harms associated with the illicit drug market;
> Offer a wide and easily accessible range of options for treatment and care for drug dependence, including substitution and heroin-assisted treatment, with special attention to those most at risk, including those in prisons and other custodial settings;
> The United Nations system must provide leadership in the reform of global drug policy. This means promoting an effective approach based on evidence, supporting countries to develop drug policies that suit their context and meet their needs, and ensuring coherence among various UN agencies, policies and conventions.


----------



## Tez3

celtic_crippler said:


> What you can&#8217;t seem to understand is that these problems occur regardless.
> 
> Rapes occur regardless. As a matter of fact, if the police didn&#8217;t waste resources on pursing non-violent drug offenders they would have more resources to dedicate to the investigation and prosecution of rapists.
> 
> If alcohol was again illegal, people would still use it and still drive drunk. Antisocial behavior is a reflection of mental illness, as is addiction.
> 
> You keep attacking the symptoms instead of the disease. Doing so does nothing to remedy the illness. Do you think throwing diabetics in prison would curtail eating? They&#8217;d find a way to smuggle a doughnut into the prison just like they smuggle drugs into the prisons.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that even mean?
> 
> Do I understand you correctly? You&#8217;re saying that because something has been illegal/legal for as long as you can remember that this is your justification for it remaining illegal/legal?
> 
> If that&#8217;s the case, I guess it was a good thing a lot of people didn&#8217;t feel that way about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Here&#8217;s another study for you published in February 2011&#8230;
> 
> According to the World Health Organization, the world drank the equivalent of 6.1 liters of pure alcohol per person in 2005. You actually aren&#8217;t far from the mark as the most consumption occurred in Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. However, Moldovans are the most bibulous followed by the Czechs in second place.
> 
> Interestingly enough, home-brewed liquor accounts for almost 30% of the world&#8217;s drinking, so do you honestly think that making it illegal would have any real impact on the problem of alcoholism? According to history, and data available from the period known as &#8220;Prohibition&#8221; here in the US, the answer is a resounding NO.
> 
> If you&#8217;d like to actually see a pretty, color-coded map of the world&#8217;s alcohol consumption, here is a link for you: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/global_alcohol_consumption
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Per history: The contemporary prohibitionist labeled their crusade as the &#8220;Noble Experiment&#8221;, and viewed the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment as a victory for &#8220;public morals and health&#8221;.
> 
> And while many US citizens may have supported continued illegalization in 1988, that is no longer the case today. &#8230;most likely because they realized that &#8220;Refer Madness&#8221; was absolute nonsensical propaganda. LOL
> 
> More recent data for you: A gallop poll conducted in 2011 showed over 50% of Americans favored the legalization of marijuana and an article in US News from May of this year shows that 74% of Americans favor states legislating the use of marijuana over federal involvement.
> 
> I was going to continue addressing your post but it seems that most of your sources come from circa 1988 and pretty much all of my RECENT sources previously posted throughout this thread have disproved everything in your post all ready, so&#8230;.
> 
> Perhaps the knowledge that your sources are over 20 years old and mine are more recent will give you cause to rethink your position.
> 
> I would add that during Prohibition alcohol consumption went down by about half and remained low until the 1940s&#8230; But before you begin jumping up and down in glee, I must also remind you that during that time violent crime drastically increased as a result of Prohibition.
> 
> Prohibition resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations (including the modern American Mafia). It also generated rampant government corruption among politicians and within police forces.
> 
> So, again I point out that treating the problem as a criminal issue only leads to making things worse overall&#8230; for everyone, not only the addicts.
> 
> 
> 
> Your turn. LOL




Well I suppose I can't be surprised that you don't understand the situation as it pertains to alcohol here. Yes, rapes happen here with and without alcohol but what doesn't happen without alcohol (or drugs) is girls not remembering who they had sex with and whether they said yes or no to it then complaining to the police they've been raped because they found semen in their knickers. 

Interesting however that you think eating is the cause of diabetes! Insulting diabetics or what. And that anti social behaviour is a symptom of mental illness.

Actually I've asked several times what people's solutions are to deal with addictions, etc etc but all anyone can say is 'legalise drugs', so no solutions there then.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> What do gooders? We don't have anyone that wants to ban alcohol. You either have your head in the clouds or your head up your ****.



I think you missed my point.  Let me see if I can make myself clearer and pull my head out of my ****...LOL.



Tez3 said:


> There is no such things as 'rights' in this world, it's a fallacy.



One of the biggest cultural differences between America and many other European countries is that our country was founded on the principle of natural rights.  Our Constitution isn't the guarantor of our rights, it simply recognizes their existence.  The Bill of Rights lists some of the most important aspects of Individual Freedom that our Founding Fathers wanted to highlight.  They wanted to make a distinction between the society they had in their minds and the society from which they came in Europe.  

As an American, I say that my rights exist and I want a government that does not infringe upon those rights.



Tez3 said:


> Compromise, compromise compromise, we all have to do it to be able to live in a decent society.



The drug war cannot be won without lots of compromise.  Individual rights have to give way so the State can effectively fight the use of these substances, otherwise we're simply fighting a losing battle.  All across the world, police have been given increasingly more power to fight banned substances and, from an American point of view, basic civil rights have been eroded.  

Imagine if society really wanted to ban marijuana.  Couldn't they attach drug sensors to a swarm of millions of these things and have them swarm throughout the city?  How many civil rights on our Bill of Rights would be violated by this?  How many basic civil rights are you willing to give up in order to keep these substances illegal?


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> Actually I've asked several times what people's solutions are to deal with addictions, etc etc but all anyone can say is 'legalise drugs', so no solutions there then.



I've posted at least three solutions in this thread.

1.  Better education for parents.
2.  Free market insurance.
3.  Suing for dangerous products.

Agree or disagree, that's fine.  What needs to be recognized is that the drug war is a failed solution.  We need to try something new.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Tez3 said:


> Well I suppose I can't be surprised that you don't understand the situation as it pertains to alcohol here. Yes, rapes happen here with and without alcohol but what doesn't happen without alcohol (or drugs) is girls not remembering who they had sex with and whether they said yes or no to it then complaining to the police they've been raped because they found semen in their knickers.
> 
> Interesting however that you think eating is the cause of diabetes! Insulting diabetics or what. And that anti social behaviour is a symptom of mental illness.
> 
> Actually I've asked several times what people's solutions are to deal with addictions, etc etc but all anyone can say is 'legalise drugs', so no solutions there then.



First off, Type 2 Diabetes Melitis results from being overweight. But this isn't the first time you've popped off without knowing what you were talking about. 

Secondly, I've posted the Global Commission on Drug Policy's suggestions repeatedly and it consists of more advice than "just legalize it". I've also posted other evidence as to why addicts should be treated and not thown in a jail cell. So many of you are so blinded by how you feel about the matter that you are incapable of seeing any logic... or are just refusing to read the posts containing numerous unbiased facts. Either way, there's no reasoning with you. 



> Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.
> 
> What do we do if someone doubts the truth of this proposition? What if someone comes forward and says, &#8220;I&#8217;m sorry, but that&#8217;s not how I choose to think about water.&#8221;?
> 
> All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
> 
> If a person doesn&#8217;t share those values, the conversation is over. We must appeal to the value of understanding the world, value of evidence, the value of logical consistency.
> 
> If someone doesn&#8217;t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves someone should value it? If someone doesn&#8217;t value logic, what logical argument could you invoke to show that they should value logic?
> 
> -Sam Harris: author, intellectual, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason



Thanks for the reminder Dr. Harris. 

I've wasted enough time and effort on this thread.  

Y'all have fun ignoring the facts. I'm out.


----------



## Tez3

celtic_crippler said:


> First off, Type 2 Diabetes Melitis results from being overweight. But this isn't the first time you've popped off without knowing what you were talking about.
> 
> Secondly, I've posted the Global Commission on Drug Policy's suggestions repeatedly and it consists of more advice than "just legalize it". I've also posted other evidence as to why addicts should be treated and not thown in a jail cell. So many of you are so blinded by how you feel about the matter that you are incapable of seeing any logic... or are just refusing to read the posts containing numerous unbiased facts. Either way, there's no reasoning with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reminder Dr. Harris.
> 
> I've wasted enough time and effort on this thread.
> 
> Y'all have fun ignoring the facts. I'm out.



Bye, 'popped off' dear me I'm not dead yet. Diabetes you said with no qualifier, making a nice sweeping generalisation...again. When in doubt make broad strokes swiping everyone as being dumber than you. Two 'Ls' in diabetes mellitus actually if you are going to be precise.

You don't actually know how we feel about anything you just don't like it when people disagree with your superior reasoning, you then choose to attack rather than actually listen to other peoples thoughts and experiences, because they aren't yours, they have no value to you. 
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## pgsmith

Tgace said:
			
		

> Nobody on the legalization team has touched this I see.


  That is way beyond my pay grade. I am assuming that these issues would be dealt with by whatever committees are appointed to deal with it, except for the fact that it won't happen. However, I've yet to hear any sort of response from anyone that wants to maintain the status quo on what to do about the ever increasing spiral of violence that is directly caused by the U.S. "war on drugs". There have been all sorts of arguments about whether it is better to let people take drugs, or the effects of drugs on people or why we shoudl or shouldn't keep all currently illegal drugs as being illegal. However, nobody seems to want to even *think* about what to possibly do about the tremendous violence caused by the huge amounts of money in the illegal drug trade. 

  So, what's your answer to stemming the ever rising tide of violence if we maintain the status quo?


----------



## K-man

celtic_crippler said:


> First off, Type 2 Diabetes Melitis results from being overweight. But this isn't the first time you've popped off without knowing what you were talking about.


First off, Type 2 Diabetes is not just from being overweight.  If that was the case most Americans would suffer from type 2 diabetes.  35.7% of American adults were classed as obese in 2010. Overall, more than 60% of adults are overweight or obese. About 11% are diabetic.   So I would say *Tes* was 100% right in what she said.



> *Cause of Type 2 Diabetes*
> 
> While there is no single cause of type 2 diabetes, there are well-established risk factors. Some of these can be changed and some cannot.
> You are at a higher risk of getting type 2 diabetes if you:
> 
> 
> have a family history of diabetes
> are older (over 55 years of age ) - the risk increases as we age
> are over 45 years of age and are overweight
> are over 45 years of age and have high blood pressure
> are over 35 years of age and are from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background
> are over 35 years of age and are from Pacific Island, Indian subcontinent or Chinese cultural background
> are a woman who has given birth to a child over 4.5 kgs (9 lbs), or had gestational diabetes when pregnant, or had a condition known as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.


Now back to the topic. 

Sure there is a problem in controlling the use of illicit substances but I fail to see how legalising antisocial behaviour will cause anything but grief.  Any civilised society in the world has rules which impinge on  each individual's freedom. You can't just say that because the Constitution allows certain freedoms  that you can do anything you want. I find it hard to comprehend that non illicit drug users would want to relax the laws relating to those substances.    :asian:


----------



## Tgace

pgsmith said:


> So, what's your answer to stemming the ever rising tide of violence if we maintain the status quo?



I am unconvinced that the cost to society in increased drug fueled crime/violence and death due to overdose and DWI would be better than this supposed "tide". The "lets just legalize it and see how it goes" solution is a non starter for me.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> I am unconvinced that the cost to society in increased drug fueled crime/violence and death due to overdose and DWI would be better than this supposed "tide". The "lets just legalize it and see how it goes" solution is a non starter for me.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




And if we legalise it and it all goes just how we thought (and feared) it would, how to we get it back even to what it is now?


----------



## Makalakumu

A good experiment would be to start with marijuana and keep everything else illegal.  Watch what happens with society and record the data.  If the world doesn't end, perhaps other aspects of the drug war could be put to rest?  I certainly don't think we should legalize everything right away.  In fact, I can totally support a rational progress toward decriminalization.  Ideally, it would probably take a generation to complete.


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> A good experiment would be to start with marijuana and keep everything else illegal. Watch what happens with society and record the data. If the world doesn't end, perhaps other aspects of the drug war could be put to rest? I certainly don't think we should legalize everything right away. In fact, I can totally support a rational progress toward decriminalization. Ideally, it would probably take a generation to complete.



Well, as I've been pointing out, alcohol is legal here, the rules on licensing were relaxed and it's one hell of a mess. Do you honestly think it's going to be any different with drugs, make them legal and you will have aggressive advertising and marketing, the suppliers will have to do that to make money. People who become addicts will still commit crimes to get the money to buy drugs, they will still drive while intoxicated. For someone who waves your much vaunted freedom around it seems you are wanting to move more and more into Aldous Huxley's Brave New World,  http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html

It may be your 'right' to take drugs but is a drugged up nation something we should encourage? Certainly get everyone on marijuana, makes the government's job easier surely! And you are the one with the conspiracy theories...you missed this one!

If you allow all recreational drugs then you have to allow steroids, blood doping and all the other drugs athletes and sports people use to cheat. Sport won't be worth watching.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Well, as I've been pointing out, alcohol is legal here, the rules on licensing were relaxed and it's one hell of a mess. Do you honestly think it's going to be any different with drugs, make them legal and you will have aggressive advertising and marketing, the suppliers will have to do that to make money. People who become addicts will still commit crimes to get the money to buy drugs, they will still drive while intoxicated. For someone who waves your much vaunted freedom around it seems you are wanting to move more and more into Aldous Huxley's Brave New World,  http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html
> 
> It may be your 'right' to take drugs but is a drugged up nation something we should encourage? Certainly get everyone on marijuana, makes the government's job easier surely! And you are the one with the conspiracy theories...you missed this one!
> 
> If you allow all recreational drugs then you have to allow steroids, blood doping and all the other drugs athletes and sports people use to cheat. Sport won't be worth watching.



this is getting painful.  legalizing marijuana is not the same as mandating that everyone use marijuana. 

And the last paragraphs is a classic slippery slope.  

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> this is getting painful.  legalizing marijuana is not the same as mandating that everyone use marijuana.
> 
> And the last paragraphs is a classic slippery slope.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



She's not talking about "mandating" as much as she's touching on the subject of the inevitable drive for profit...which means advertising and trying to get as many people as possible to purchase your product.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

If you wanted to try anything you could do what has virtually been done here and decriminalise the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. That means the little guy can use at home without fear of prosecution but you can still go for the traffickers. If the little guy drives under the influence or causes other trouble he gets busted for his behavior, not the drug.


----------



## Makalakumu

K-man said:


> If you wanted to try anything you could do what has virtually been done here and decriminalise the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. That means the little guy can use at home without fear of prosecution but you can still go for the traffickers. If the little guy drives under the influence or causes other trouble he gets busted for his behavior, not the drug.



This is probably a logical first step. Eventually, though, some method of distribution will have to get legalized. Maybe start with the seeds. Grow your own, but don't sell it.


----------



## Tez3

K-man said:


> If you wanted to try anything you could do what has virtually been done here and decriminalise the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. That means the little guy can use at home without fear of prosecution but you can still go for the traffickers. If the little guy drives under the influence or causes other trouble he gets busted for his behavior, not the drug.




That's what is done here, you get warnings for carrying small amounts for personal use in public, what you do in private is up to you.

Tgrace is correct I'm not mandating the use of it but making it an 'open' and free market will mean that people will be looking to sell it to make profits and that means more aggressive marketing.
 I just found it amusing that Mala with his penchant for conspiracies is wanting the legal use of drugs and isn't seeing it as a government plot to keep the people down which you know it could well be lol, a whole country on marijuana letting the government get away with everything! I don't know how he missed that one!


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> this is getting painful. legalizing marijuana is not the same as mandating that everyone use marijuana.
> 
> And the last paragraphs is a classic slippery slope.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2




You missed the irony I'm afraid. The last paragraph isn't a slippery slope either, athletes will demand, in any country that allows you to take any drug to want, to be able to take any drug they want, fairs fair after all.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> That's what is done here, you get warnings for carrying small amounts for personal use in public, what you do in private is up to you.
> 
> Tgrace is correct I'm not mandating the use of it but making it an 'open' and free market will mean that people will be looking to sell it to make profits and that means more aggressive marketing.
> I just found it amusing that Mala with his penchant for conspiracies is wanting the legal use of drugs and isn't seeing it as a government plot to keep the people down which you know it could well be lol, a whole country on marijuana letting the government get away with everything! I don't know how he missed that one!



I'm hoping Congress gets high and stops being douchebags. It'll be positive side effect of legalization.

Dude, do you thinks the drone strikes are pissing people off?

Yeah man.

We better stop that ****, it's mean.

Fo shizzle my nizzle.


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> I'm hoping Congress gets high and stops being douchebags. It'll be positive side effect of legalization.
> 
> Dude, do you thinks the drone strikes are pissing people off?
> 
> Yeah man.
> 
> We better stop that ****, it's mean.
> 
> Fo shizzle my nizzle.



How do you know they aren't high anyway?


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> How do you know they aren't high anyway?



Maybe high on the blood of sacrificed children and puppies?


----------



## Tez3

Makalakumu said:


> Maybe high on the blood of sacrificed children and puppies?



More likely cocaine, the drug of choice for the rich and famous. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4318898.stm


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> How do you know they aren't high anyway?



Because they are vicious *******s indicating they are alcoholics.

My recollection of getting high was I spent a good deal of time on introspection, feeling a keen empathy for how I might have hurt others and resolving to be a better person.


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> ... and resolving to be a better person.



Did breaking the law ever enter into your "introspection"?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Did breaking the law ever enter into your "introspection"?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Before we get too judgemental here, think about how many laws you break during the course of a single day. If you go one mile over the speed limit, you are breaking the law.  Does this mean you aren't a good person or aren't committed to being a better person?


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> Before we get too judgemental here, think about how many laws you break during the course of a single day. If you go one mile over the speed limit, you are breaking the law.



Comparing actively seeking out an illegal substance from a dealer in illegal substances to traffic infractions? Really? 

A drug transaction is kind of like blowing a stop sign? Really?

Argue that making drugs illegal only fuels violence...but then go and contribute to that very system? Really?

Try harder.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Read up on a legal term called "mens rea".

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Speeding has the potential kill another person. Smoking a joint on your couch isn't hurting anyone.  Speeding is potentially more serious of a problem to society.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Comparing actively seeking out an illegal substance from a dealer in illegal substances to traffic infractions? Really?
> 
> A drug transaction is kind of like blowing a stop sign? Really?
> 
> Argue that making drugs illegal only fuels violence...but then go and contribute to that very system? Really?
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Agreed.  A very simple and concise rationale for decriminalizing weed.  Im surprised it's coming from you, though, Tgace.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> Speeding has the potential kill another person. Smoking a joint on your couch isn't hurting anyone.  Speeding is potentially more serious of a problem to society.



And if I catch you I stop you and ticket you. If you are speeding significantly enough I may even arrest you for reckless endangerment. If you know its wrong don't bemoan the results when you are caught....or try to rationalize it with "its not like I murdered someone"....or "we all break the law".

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> Agreed.  A very simple and concise rationale for decriminalizing weed.  Im surprised it's coming from you, though, Tgace.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Or a good explination of why I arrest weed smokers. I know its illegal and so do you. If its legal tomorrow than fine....but today spare me the crying about "why me".

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> Or a good explination of why I arrest weed smokers. I know its illegal and so do you. If its legal tomorrow than fine....but today spare me the crying about "why me".
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Isn't this a "just following orders" mentality? If a law is unjust or useless, the single best form of civil disobedience is when cops ignore it.


----------



## WC_lun

As a LEO his job is to enforce the law.  He doesn't choose which laws to enforce.  Would you really want law enforcement personel deciding which laws to enforce and which laws not to?  What if it was a law you thought should be enforced and they didn't. That would be a recipe for disaster and why we have the courts.  To tell a LEO that he should ignore laws because "you" don't like them is not fair to guys on the job.  If you want civil disobedience then smoke pot and get arrested in a very public way.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> AND a good explination of why I arrest weed smokers. I know its illegal and so do you. If its legal tomorrow than fine....but today spare me the crying about "why me".
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Fixed that for you. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

WC_lun said:


> As a LEO his job is to enforce the law.  He doesn't choose which laws to enforce.  Would you really want law enforcement personel deciding which laws to enforce and which laws not to?  What if it was a law you thought should be enforced and they didn't. That would be a recipe for disaster and why we have the courts.  To tell a LEO that he should ignore laws because "you" don't like them is not fair to guys on the job.  If you want civil disobedience then smoke pot and get arrested in a very public way.



I bet the SS would agree with that! Oh crap did I just Godwin this thread?

Seriously, though, there has to be a point where a good man can cease to call themselves good if they keep following orders.

For example, how can a cop bust a guy for coke or smack when the very government that made it illegal ships it in, sells it to run "special projects" and has our soldiers guarding their suppliers? Give me a break. This is a serious moral contradiction. Maybe not Nazi level, but serious enough that I think it should make any "good" man pause and think.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> I bet the SS would agree with that! Oh crap did I just Godwin this thread?
> 
> Seriously, though, there has to be a point where a good man can cease to call themselves good if they keep following orders.
> 
> For example, how can a cop bust a guy for coke or smack when the very government that made it illegal ships it in, sells it to run "special projects" and has our soldiers guarding their suppliers? Give me a break. This is a serious moral contradiction. Maybe not Nazi level, but serious enough that I think it should make any "good" man pause and think.



It's not "following orders", it's enforcing the laws legally imposed by our elected government and dare I add supported by at least half of the population.

Its always convienent to whip out the jackboot canard because its your pet issue. 

I have plenty of discretion in violation level weed possession cases sometimes I use it but I have no issues with arresting people who play the drug user game knowing full well the consequences. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

WC_lun said:


> What if it was a law you thought should be enforced and they didn't.



Why then we "wouldn't be doing our jobs" of course. 

Same old same old in this job. Everyone wants a cop to write all the damn people blowing the stop sign on their corner...till their wife, son, sister and cousin all get tickets.

For every Maka and Steve out there I can give you 10 complaints sitting on my desk regarding marijuana use and sale....all from people and neighborhood groups clambering that I DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun

You are seriously comparing LEO's to nazis because they are enforcing drug laws?  Really?! Hyperbole much? Illicit drug possession and use is illegal.  Therefore if a person posseses or uses drugs they knowingly run the risk of arrest.  Even if your accusations of the government supplying those drugs are true, it does not change that the user knows that it is illegal.  It is called personal responsibility.  To ask LEOs to not uphold the law is to remove that personal responsibility by frankly giving LEO too much power.  They enforce the laws as written. They do not, and should not, decide which laws to enforce. If you don't like the laws then change them, but don't blame LEOs for doing thier job...a nessecary and usually thankless job.


----------



## Makalakumu

The moral contradiction I posted above would seem to undermine the reasoning behind the arrest of any drug user or dealer. How can the government ship it in and protect the producers AND arrest people for using the product?


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> The moral contradiction I posted above would seem to undermine the reasoning behind the arrest of any drug user or dealer. How can the government ship it in and protect the producers AND arrest people for using the product?



New York State is not...and I enforce HER laws.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun

So Makalakumu, your solution is to have law enforcement starting to pick and choose which laws to enforce?  To me, that doesn't seem to make much sense.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> New York State is not...and I enforce HER laws.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Is it really a states rights issue? You know the Fed drives these policies...


----------



## Makalakumu

WC_lun said:


> So Makalakumu, your solution is to have law enforcement starting to pick and choose which laws to enforce?  To me, that doesn't seem to make much sense.



I can't even begin to tell a LEO what they should do. I know I'd probably be a terrible cop. this is simply something to think about. I think that it eventually circles around to the principles we say we believe in. The fewer contradictions, the better, IMO.

On the whole, I prefer far fewer laws and more freedom.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> Is it really a states rights issue? You know the Fed drives these policies...



I don't charge federal law..

And since its a state by state issue with legalization.....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Why then we "wouldn't be doing our jobs" of course.
> 
> Same old same old in this job. Everyone wants a cop to write all the damn people blowing the stop sign on their corner...till their wife, son, sister and cousin all get tickets.
> 
> For every Maka and Steve out there I can give you 10 complaints sitting on my desk regarding marijuana use and sale....all from people and neighborhood groups clambering that I DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Okay.  Once again, wait a minute. I've never complained about you doing your job.  I have pointed out, as you have also acknowledged, that enforcement of the laws regarding weed is arbitrary and inconsistent from cop to cop and department to department. 

I see crime prevention as being a simple function of leadership within the department, number of police on the street, funding of that department, regional emphasis and a collection of sensible laws.  Monkey with any one of those and things can go a little bit South.

So, when I see five State Patrol within a 10 mile stretch of Washington Hwy, I don't have a problem with it. 

I hope this doesn't come off as sounding defensive. While I think that the LAW regarding weed is counterproductive, I have no issue at all with cops or law enforcement in general.  I'm not anti-cop in any way.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> I don't charge federal law..
> 
> And since its a state by state issue with legalization.....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Not exactly true.  This is why the DEA will occasionally get a hard on and raid medicinal marijuana stores and suppliers in areas where it's been legalized on a local/State level.  

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/11/breaking_dea_raiding_medical-m.php


----------



## zDom

Random thoughts in response to the comments since my last post:

No, I never felt guilty about breaking the law by possessing or using pot at that age. 

But I had a lot of growing up to do. I also didn't feel guilty about driving like a maniac.


Regarding enforcement, here are the two encounters I had with The Law:

It was the early 1980s, right before Nancy Reagan's "Just Say NO."

My friend and I were on our way to Disneyland with six joints rolled up but hadn't smoked any yet. I was driving too fast on a curve when a vehicle coming the other way "straightened the curve" by crossing the centerline by about two feet (it was the 1980s, so it was a HUGE square grill facing my poor little Pinto).

I jerked the wheel to the right, hit the gravel shoulder and was heading toward a fence and trees, so I jerked the wheel back to the left &#8212; and saw a SUV coming. As I was almost at right angles to the roadway, I turned a bit more left to try to enter a side street in the hopes that the SUV would go behind me ... but he also swerved to HIS right.

My Pinto hit the rear driver side door with my passenger side headlamp, denting his door and totaling my Pinto.

With fluids leaking out of the Pinto, we jumped out in a panic.

The other driver was cussing me, I was apologizing, and the cops showed up.

He looked over the scene while my friend assured me had gathered all the joints up.

So the cop walks over and says, "So how much marijuana do you have?"

"Marijuana I don't have any marijuana sir!" I white-lied. (I didn't have any... it was my friend's ...)

"Oh really?" he said and opened his hand in front of me to show me the one joint my friend did NOT gather up in his haste to evacuate the vehicle.

"Um.. ah... OK. Yes," I said. "We did have a joint.. But that was not a factor in this accident! Look at my eyes: we haven't smoked ANY yet!"

He nodded (it was the truth; we hadn't smoked any yet so we didn't have stoned eyes or any smell on us) ....

and HANDED ME THE JOINT.

I thought it was a trap so I made a big show of breaking it in half and tossing it over a fence. In hindsight, I should have said "Thank you, sir" and put it in my pocket 


The second encounter was when I took dad's station wagon with three of my buddies up into new subdivision (streets and curbs, no homes yet) to park and smoke pot.

We were very high when we spotted headlights coming into the subdivision. Because we were young and high, we thought it would be a good idea to jump in the vehicle and drive away.

So I ran around the back of the car, jumped behind the wheel and remembered I had left the keys on the roof over the passenger seat.

So we all jumped out like a Chinese fire drill to find the keys ... and about that time, the headlights and spotlight hit us.

In hindsight, they must have paused to wipe laughter tears from their eyes and put on their Cop Faces.

"Whatcha doin' out here?" they asked.

"Oh, nothin' ... hanging out..talking..." we answered.

"Can I see your license and registration" they asked.

At that moment I realized that the car's registration was in the glovebox ... where we had tossed the sandwich bag with marijuana after rolling up the joint.

Being young, stupid and high and not realizing that NOT producing registration would be a much bigger problem that being caught with a bag of weed, I handed him my license and said, "I don't think I have the registration with me, sir..."

My friend said, "Sure you do: its probably in the glovebox!"

So I opened the passenger door, reached in the glovebox while the officer shined the light in the box over my shoulder, and slid the envelope with the registration out from under the bag of weed and handed it to him, pretending the bag of weed was invisible.

He looked it over, handed it back and said:

"OK, well you guys need to go somewhere else. There is no reason to be out here. When we see someone parked up here in the dark we can only think they might selling stolen cars or.. smoking dope or something."

We promised, in earnest, to never return there or to any other place like it ever, ever again.




So...what kind of message was law enforcement sending me?



And now, after all these years, my heart tells me:

Running a stop sign is WORSE that smoking weed. Blowing through stop signs KILLS PEOPLE, directly.

Speeding is WORSE that smoking weed. Speeding KILLS people, directly.

And that some laws are SILLY and aren't worth enforcing &#8212; and need to be changed. Legislators are NOT doing their jobs and amending the laws of their communities to reflect the principles upon which this country was founded and/or the will of the people when that will does not conflict with the principles of the Constitution.


It isn't the government's business what kind of sex acts my significant other and I enjoy together, for example. Some of them are against the law but people know today those laws contradict the principles of the pursuit of happiness and liberty and today those laws aren't enforced &#8212; and rightfully so as it isn't anybody else's business and does not directly affect anyone else's sphere of freedom (Locke's phrase, wasn't it?).

So tell me, those of you who are in law enforcement: since you are so dedicated to following the letter of the law, if you spot someone admits getting a blow job and that is illegal in your state, are you going to cite them? Haul them in? Why do you not pull over each and every driver who exceeds the speed limit?

I suspect for whatever reason you pick and choose which laws you choose to enforce based on your inner convictions.



Now before you whip out the cross and nails and castigate me for actions roughly 30 years ago, let me state that

I respect LEOs with deep respect and admiration.

And I realize that a lot of the people I had associated with because of my involvement with marijuana were criminals &#8212; not BECAUSE of marijuana, but were criminals in other ways &#8212; but I was hanging with them because of pot. I am so glad to be away from that drug culture and those people.

But I also met and associated with GOOD people who smoke marijuana on a daily basis who did a great job of raising their kids, doing their jobs, who were in every way assets to their community. They aren't criminals and shouldn't be classified as such by our laws or our attitudes.

I probably won't ever get to smoke pot again because my girlfriend doesn't like it and I like her much more than I like pot. But I will continue to speak in favor of liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the hopes that embrace the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for.

I wouldn't expect you Brits to understand. But that's who we Americans are supposed to be and am disturbed that any of my countrymen would be so willing to sacrifice those freedoms for what they believe to be a greater good.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Not exactly true.  This is why the DEA will occasionally get a hard on and raid medicinal marijuana stores and suppliers in areas where it's been legalized on a local/State level.
> 
> http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/11/breaking_dea_raiding_medical-m.php



More to it then just getting a hard on.  Most of the time this happens because the clinic is shipping marijuana to states that its still illegal in and they start an investigation in that state and DEA has nationwide jurisdiction so they follow it to the source which ends up being legit clinics out west that violate the laws.  We daily intercept packages in the mail or fed ex that have multiple pounds of marijuana shipped from California.  They have officers station at the fed ex distribution centers full time.


----------



## zDom

When I was in 7th grade I wanted to be a judge.

I didn't take me long to realize that there is very little justice in the justice system, that it is really all about who knows who and money.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> Okay.  Once again, wait a minute. I've never complained about you doing your job.  I have pointed out, as you have also acknowledged, that enforcement of the laws regarding weed is arbitrary and inconsistent from cop to cop and department to department.
> 
> I see crime prevention as being a simple function of leadership within the department, number of police on the street, funding of that department, regional emphasis and a collection of sensible laws.  Monkey with any one of those and things can go a little bit South.
> 
> So, when I see five State Patrol within a 10 mile stretch of Washington Hwy, I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> I hope this doesn't come off as sounding defensive. While I think that the LAW regarding weed is counterproductive, I have no issue at all with cops or law enforcement in general.  I'm not anti-cop in any way.  Quite the opposite.



I only used your name as an example of one of the pro-legal people on this thread Steve. My point was that I have MANY people calling my desk to complain about their neighbors weed use or sale. They apparently support prohibition and expect me to do something about their problem....

I don't get the impression that you (or Maka) are anti-LE.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> When I was in 7th grade I wanted to be a judge.
> 
> I didn't take me long to realize that there is very little justice in the justice system, that it is really all about who knows who and money.


So right so why do any of us bother?  The sky is falling.


----------



## Tgace

On the cop stories...like I said upthread. In some states like mine simple possession is a violation level offense. I can arrest you but I have to release you after booking and the offense is adjudicated with a fine. If you are caught again within a specific timeframe the penalty increases...

That being said, by NY state law I am not mandated to act on a violation. Just like I don't have to pull you over and ticket you for most traffic infractions. Its what allows us to release you with a warning.

Would you like to stop that practice? 

Perhaps the cop didn't want to be bothered with the paperwork...perhaps the PD was short on manpower and he didn't want to be off the road processing a joint arrest.

Don't confuse a cops actions in those situations with a "message" of what we think is more or less important. And don't let discretion used on one instance become an expectation for the same thing on the next. Try telling the cop who stops you for speeding that you want a verbal warning instead of a summons. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

How do we deal with these cases then...the drugs are legal in this country.

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-e...ed-teenager-at-rockness-police-fear-1-2348158

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...deaths-of-two-teens-linked-to-mephedrone.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-GBL-wake-friend-killed-taking-substance.html

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/03/22/legal-high-that-kills/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-users-feel-like-Masters-of-the-Universe.html

There's a lot more like this. No one should want laws that are unnecessary but just because one person can take drugs and not be a danger to others doesn't mean to say that everyone can, there needs to be safeguards in place to preotect people from any violence, driving under the influence and the face biting zombie people, until there is something that can protect us from those who cannot take drugs 'safely' I'm afraid you will have laws to make drugs illegal. Many of those in the articles I've put here could actually have bought marijuana, it's easy enough to buy but in most cases they don't want that, it's too 'tame' they want a huge party buzz. When I googled these, at the top there were ads for these drugs which are easy to buy.

this is an interesting article and asks some serious questions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...student-drug-users-become-reckless?CMP=twt_gu 

http://drugprevent.org.uk/ppp/category/research/crime-violence-prison/  "*The flawed proposition of drug legalisation"*


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> More to it then just getting a hard on.  Most of the time this happens because the clinic is shipping marijuana to states that its still illegal in and they start an investigation in that state and DEA has nationwide jurisdiction so they follow it to the source which ends up being legit clinics out west that violate the laws.  We daily intercept packages in the mail or fed ex that have multiple pounds of marijuana shipped from California.  They have officers station at the fed ex distribution centers full time.


The point remaining that there are times when the State/Local and Federal laws are at odds with each other.  You're picking nits.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> How do we deal with these cases then...the drugs are legal in this country.
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-e...ed-teenager-at-rockness-police-fear-1-2348158
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...deaths-of-two-teens-linked-to-mephedrone.html
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-GBL-wake-friend-killed-taking-substance.html
> 
> http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/03/22/legal-high-that-kills/
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-users-feel-like-Masters-of-the-Universe.html
> 
> There's a lot more like this. No one should want laws that are unnecessary but just because one person can take drugs and not be a danger to others doesn't mean to say that everyone can, there needs to be safeguards in place to preotect people from any violence, driving under the influence and the face biting zombie people, until there is something that can protect us from those who cannot take drugs 'safely' I'm afraid you will have laws to make drugs illegal. Many of those in the articles I've put here could actually have bought marijuana, it's easy enough to buy but in most cases they don't want that, it's too 'tame' they want a huge party buzz. When I googled these, at the top there were ads for these drugs which are easy to buy.
> 
> this is an interesting article and asks some serious questions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...student-drug-users-become-reckless?CMP=twt_gu
> 
> http://drugprevent.org.uk/ppp/category/research/crime-violence-prison/  "*The flawed proposition of drug legalisation"*


Frankly, the subject is convoluted enough speaking strictly to US law and the politics and sensitivities involved in America.  Trying to tackle the issue of prohibition and legalization in the UK at the same time is more than I can even think about addressing.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> So right so why do any of us bother?  The sky is falling.



I'll ignore the jab and express my thankfulness that some people are willing to work within a flawed system to do the most good they can under the circumstances.


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> How do we deal with these cases then...the drugs are legal in this country.
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-e...ed-teenager-at-rockness-police-fear-1-2348158
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...deaths-of-two-teens-linked-to-mephedrone.html
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-GBL-wake-friend-killed-taking-substance.html
> 
> http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/03/22/legal-high-that-kills/
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-users-feel-like-Masters-of-the-Universe.html
> 
> There's a lot more like this. No one should want laws that are unnecessary but just because one person can take drugs and not be a danger to others doesn't mean to say that everyone can, there needs to be safeguards in place to preotect people from any violence, driving under the influence and the face biting zombie people, until there is something that can protect us from those who cannot take drugs 'safely' I'm afraid you will have laws to make drugs illegal. Many of those in the articles I've put here could actually have bought marijuana, it's easy enough to buy but in most cases they don't want that, it's too 'tame' they want a huge party buzz. When I googled these, at the top there were ads for these drugs which are easy to buy.
> 
> this is an interesting article and asks some serious questions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...student-drug-users-become-reckless?CMP=twt_gu
> 
> http://drugprevent.org.uk/ppp/category/research/crime-violence-prison/  "*The flawed proposition of drug legalisation"*




This doesn't convince me that pot should remain illegal but rather demonstrates that crazy idiots will find poisons to unchain their inner crazy faster than anyone can pass legislation to make that latest poison illegal.

You can't legislate out of existence everything that morons use to amplify their moronic behavior.

By the way: how many of those legal drugs can be grown in your backyard?


Just to clarify what I am for and against, Tez:

I believe in moderation in (just about) all things and that an excess of anything is bad.

I believe that what I can grow in my backyard can add to my enjoyment of life. I believe that chemists and politicians have stolen our freedom to do so to increase their profit.



You are stuck on the idea, Tez, that POT = DRUG and then keep shoveling out examples of how DRUG = BAD hence POT = BAD.



Moreover, you are stuck on the idea that because somebody likes pot, they must love drugs.


For what its worth, I distrust chemists and their potions and will only ingest even medicinal drugs grudgingly to alleviate a condition.

You want to stop the problems with drugs? Go after the chemists. Jail or execute the crazies &#8212; whether they are on drugs or not.


What I want is for pot to stop being maligned as a "drug" when it is just a leafy salad vegetable that is pleasant to consume.

Nevermind that druggies smoke pot before they get their hands on something else. They also binge drink. They inhale magic markers. Do we make nutmeg and banana peels illegal, too? Because people consume THOSE to get high, too, so I've heard.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Frankly, the subject is convoluted enough speaking strictly to US law and the politics and sensitivities involved in America. Trying to tackle the issue of prohibition and legalization in the UK at the same time is more than I can even think about addressing.



Who's discussing prohibition in the UK? I'm not. I'm pointing out what happens with a population when drugs are legal.

Zdom, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm asking how we deal with people who cannot handle taking drugs and become a problem and/or endanger others. I'm not 'stuck on' any idea you are seeing things that aren't there besides that this thread can't decide what drugs should be legalised and what shouldn't. I've said time and time again I don't give a monkey's what people ingest, smoke or shove up their ****, I really don't care if they want to destroy themselves, turn their brains to mush or just sit and contemplate their naval, entirely up to them but I do care that they shouldn't be in a position to harm others. That is my only concern. I don't care about drugs or druggies tbh, each to their own with the proviso that they do no harm.


----------



## K-man

zDom said:


> What I want is for pot to stop being maligned as a "drug" when it is just a leafy salad vegetable that is pleasant to consume.


And I would like to see the ban on opium poppies lifted because they are just pretty flowers we can grow in our gardens.


----------



## Tez3

In case you thought I was being gratitiously crude in my last post http://voices.yahoo.com/beer-alcohol-enemas-drinkers-deathwish-2489511.html?cat=5


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> In case you thought I was being gratitiously crude in my last post http://voices.yahoo.com/beer-alcohol-enemas-drinkers-deathwish-2489511.html?cat=5


I wonder if anyone who spoke in favour of such a practice could be accused of speaking through the same orifice?


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Who's discussing prohibition in the UK? I'm not.


Yes you are.  Every example you provide is UK based.  Every law you discuss is a law in the UK.  And when someone attempts to engage you in discussion, you dismiss them by telling them that they don't understand the situation in the UK.  You've done that to me at least twice through the course of this thread already.  





> I'm pointing out what happens with a population when drugs are legal {in the UK}.


Fixed that for you.

You're welcome to discuss whatever you want.  I'm just not up for it.  As I said before, the legalization of drugs/weed and prohibition within the USA is a big enough topic for me.  I don't have it in me to track the subject of prohibition throughout the UK as well.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Yes you are. Every example you provide is UK based. Every law you discuss is a law in the UK. And when someone attempts to engage you in discussion, you dismiss them by telling them that they don't understand the situation in the UK. You've done that to me at least twice through the course of this thread already. Fixed that for you.
> 
> You're welcome to discuss whatever you want. I'm just not up for it. As I said before, the legalization of drugs/weed and prohibition within the USA is a big enough topic for me. I don't have it in me to track the subject of prohibition throughout the UK as well.



Ya hay, Steves on his high horse again about what I post! Love dear, boy, love it. If I post something about America I get told to back off because I have no right to post anything as it's not my country, if I post something about my country it's 'irelevant' because it's not America, good going that. And all the while you're thinking I'm saying something I'm not....... same old, same old.

Btw why do you have a law for crossing the road?


----------



## Carol

Tez3 said:


> Btw why do you have a law for crossing the road?



Well, there once was this chicken...


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Ya hay, Steves on his high horse again about what I post! Love dear, boy, love it. If I post something about America I get told to back off because I have no right to post anything as it's not my country, if I post something about my country it's 'irelevant' because it's not America, good going that. And all the while you're thinking I'm saying something I'm not....... same old, same old.
> 
> Btw why do you have a law for crossing the road?



I'm too dumb, i guess.  Carry on.  You're just too subtle for me. 
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> Btw why do you have a law for crossing the road?



Because people were getting run over too much and it was too hard for drivers to be cautious when people could cross wherever they wanted.  So now there is a law makes it easier for drivers to know where the people will be.


----------



## Makalakumu

In the meantime, here's what one of our leading DEA administrators has to say about the dangers of marijuana.






Colorado Congressman Jared Polis questions a Chief Administrator of the DEA about some simple comparisons between marijuana and other drugs and she literally cannot give any more ridiculous answers.  What is obvious to me is how political these answers are.  The answers aren't based in any sort of evidence at all, otherwise she would have been able to rattle off some kind of rationale.  IMO, what we are seeing here is simply the inertia of bureaucracy.  She's trying to keep her job by conforming to policy and speaking words that are politically neutral and there is no real debate that is happening on these issues.  It doesn't even matter if a State government decides something different, there is no debating the bureaucrats! 

To my LEO friends, this is what the people who push the policy that you enforce have to say.  I realize that you have to do your job in order to get paid and that this is probably no different from Michelle Leonhart speaking above from the DEA perspective, but just know that the people who push these policies are completely unwilling to debate the facts.  They don't care about the reality of experience between the substances.  They are political hacks who are part of a machine that grinds people into conformity...beyond all reason.


----------



## Makalakumu




----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> I'm too dumb, i guess. Carry on. You're just too subtle for me.
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



Steve, I post things I know about because the exchange of information especially on this type of thing is important. We have deregulated alcohol just about as much as you can plus taxed it so it's expensive yet we still have the most horrendous binge drinking and the effect on people is terrible, you can't walk down our streets at night. If that's the way you guys want to go or if it's a warning to you then that exchange of information has helped. As for the drugs that aren't illegal here you also get them over there and they are killing people in the States too, when people in both countries are taking legal drugs and are still destroying themselves and others and I post that up how is that dismissing anyone? If I post up only that these drugs are killing people in the States I will be accused of pointing out something that happens in your country and someone will say 'well look at your own country, it's not perfect'. I've been on here too long and I know that will happen. If I post up about drinking or drug taking in your country or if I post up about your laws of which I know nothing btw, I will be told I'm 'attacking' your country. I get told and I even know who by and how vitiolic they can be, that it's none of my business and I should stick to what I know. I do stick to what I know and now you are saying all I post about is the UK, so is this a form of censorship on here, you can only talk about something that hhappens in your country? Drugs one way or another, are a problem in all countries, there isn't a country in this world that doesn't have a drug problem, there are people who want to legalise drugs and those that don't in every country. 
As a footnote it's interesting that zDom say what I was writing in a completely different way from you, he just thought I was stuck on marijuana which I'm not actually. Nor am I fixated on prohibition in the UK as you seem to think. I don't know, quite honestly, whether legalising drugs would be good or not, I tend to think not  but am open to argument unlike some.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> In the meantime, here's what one of our leading DEA administrators has to say about the dangers of marijuana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado Congressman Jared Polis questions a Chief Administrator of the DEA about some simple comparisons between marijuana and other drugs and she literally cannot give any more ridiculous answers.  What is obvious to me is how political these answers are.  The answers aren't based in any sort of evidence at all, otherwise she would have been able to rattle off some kind of rationale.  IMO, what we are seeing here is simply the inertia of bureaucracy.  She's trying to keep her job by conforming to policy and speaking words that are politically neutral and there is no real debate that is happening on these issues.  It doesn't even matter if a State government decides something different, there is no debating the bureaucrats!
> 
> To my LEO friends, this is what the people who push the policy that you enforce have to say.  I realize that you have to do your job in order to get paid and that this is probably no different from Michelle Leonhart speaking above from the DEA perspective, but just know that the people who push these policies are completely unwilling to debate the facts.  They don't care about the reality of experience between the substances.  They are political hacks who are part of a machine that grinds people into conformity...beyond all reason.



Thats all fine and good but you seem to forget the DEA didnt make Marijuana Illegal.  Its not the DEAs job to tell others why it shoudl stay that way.  They are not law makers.  The people decided to make Marijuana illegal and as of now the people still want it illegal.  They show this by voting for people that keep it illegal.  
2ndly I could careless what the DEA director says I dont work for them.  When I worded NArcotics out drug tip line had several calls a day on it about Marijuana smell coming from this apartment or that apartment.  Stoned people Pissing in stairwells, Stoned drivers, ect.  So just because you think it does not bother others Im here to tell you it does. You can blame the police or the DEA or the Govt but in reality its your very neighbors that are still against it.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> You can blame the police or the DEA or the Govt but in reality its your very neighbors that are still against it.



I've been trying to say the same thing but nobody seems to hear it....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> I've been trying to say the same thing but nobody seems to hear it....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




It is true.... but not a convenient truth for some. 

Those that 'handle' their drugs and cause no problems never seem to believe that others can't handle them and do cause grief and damage.
Seems even the rich and famous can't always 'handle' taking drugs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...g-lie-dead-for-a-week-in-Chelsea-mansion.html


----------



## K-man

We have just flown into an isolated Western Australian city called Geralton and I picked up the local paper at the airport. I can't get a copy on the Internet unfortunately and the article is too long for me to copy in full.  Suffice to say, it is quoting a local doctor in a nearby town called Meekatharra. She is most concerned about the effect of drugs and alcohol in the local population.

The front page article begins:



> A 'fly in fly out' general practitioner in Meekatharra says the town is in danger of 'complete social demise' due to alcohol and drug abuse.  Teresa Tierney has written to the shire council saying the situation has deteriorated over the four years she has been working in the town. "The situation reached a crisis point a long time ago, but people are either afraid to speak out or have become so complacent that they do not see the problem any more", she said.


The article goes on:


> She said people presented at the hospital every day with injuries related to domestic and sexual violence, sexually transmitted diseases and the 'disease burdon' of alcohol and drug abuse.


I can just imagine the situation if it were even easier to obtain the drugs.


----------



## Tez3

K-man said:


> We have just flown into an isolated Western Australian city called Geralton and I picked up the local paper at the airport. I can't get a copy on the Internet unfortunately and the article is too long for me to copy in full. Suffice to say, it is quoting a local doctor in a nearby town called Meekatharra. She is most concerned about the effect of drugs and alcohol in the local population.
> 
> The front page article begins:
> 
> 
> The article goes on:
> I can just imagine the situation if it were even easier to obtain the drugs.



That's my fear which is why I posted up about our drinking culture.  I've been watching Portugal's policies for a while now and I think it could be the compromise we need, the decriminalisation of personal drug use instead sending addicts to rehab but still retaining the laws and sentencing for the drug pushers and dealers. 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

I think however those who are pro legalisaiton will still deem it against their principles. The other thing of course is that the USA is a far bigger place than Portugal to try and make this work on such a huge scale.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Steve, I post things I know about because the exchange of information especially on this type of thing is important. We have deregulated alcohol just about as much as you can plus taxed it so it's expensive yet we still have the most horrendous binge drinking and the effect on people is terrible, you can't walk down our streets at night. If that's the way you guys want to go or if it's a warning to you then that exchange of information has helped. As for the drugs that aren't illegal here you also get them over there and they are killing people in the States too, when people in both countries are taking legal drugs and are still destroying themselves and others and I post that up how is that dismissing anyone? If I post up only that these drugs are killing people in the States I will be accused of pointing out something that happens in your country and someone will say 'well look at your own country, it's not perfect'. I've been on here too long and I know that will happen. If I post up about drinking or drug taking in your country or if I post up about your laws of which I know nothing btw, I will be told I'm 'attacking' your country. I get told and I even know who by and how vitiolic they can be, that it's none of my business and I should stick to what I know. I do stick to what I know and now you are saying all I post about is the UK, so is this a form of censorship on here, you can only talk about something that hhappens in your country? Drugs one way or another, are a problem in all countries, there isn't a country in this world that doesn't have a drug problem, there are people who want to legalise drugs and those that don't in every country.
> As a footnote it's interesting that zDom say what I was writing in a completely different way from you, he just thought I was stuck on marijuana which I'm not actually. Nor am I fixated on prohibition in the UK as you seem to think. I don't know, quite honestly, whether legalising drugs would be good or not, I tend to think not  but am open to argument unlike some.


Okay.  I'll try one more time.  

But I'll ask you the same question I asked you earlier (and I don't think ever got answered).  Alcohol is creating problems for you guys.  Do you believe that a prohibition on alcohol would help? 

For the record, telling me again that you'll never ban alcohol is beside the point.  I get that the UK won't ban alcohol.  It's the same here.  We will also not ban alcohol.  We tried it and it didn't work.  The logical train I'm trying to take you down is to get away from the emotional reaction, "Drugs are bad, M'kay?"  

There is a fixation in this thread, but it's on the idea that the only possible, rational response to something dangerous is to ban it completely.  The kneejerk reaction to ban some substances has amply demonstrated that it's not an effective way to control use, manage addiction and mitigate social problems.  

Now, it's also possible that your approach to dangerous substances, in the case of alcohol, is ALSO not working well.  

The point is that it's not either wide open use OR complete prohibition.  There are other possibilities.

ALSO, it is possible that your problems, like ours, are centered less around the actual substance and more around a culture that encourages and promotes the behavior.  I've noticed that the use of illicit drugs in the UK is pretty damned high.  Alcohol is not your only problem.  You have like 10% of your population regularly using illegal drugs, and between 3 and 5% are actively using class A drugs, like heroin, cocaine or meth. 

Like the USA, it's pretty clear that prohibiting use of a substance doesn't keep anyone who wants to use it from getting it.


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> Zdom, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm asking how we deal with people who cannot handle taking drugs and become a problem and/or endanger others. I'm not 'stuck on' any idea you are seeing things that aren't there besides that this thread can't decide what drugs should be legalised and what shouldn't. ... I don't care about drugs or druggies tbh, each to their own with the proviso that they do no harm.



Sorry I misunderstood, Tez.

That is indeed a good question to look into -- regardless of whether drugs are legal or illegal.






ballen0351 said:


> Thats all fine and good but you seem to forget the DEA didnt make Marijuana Illegal.  Its not the DEAs job to tell others why it shoudl stay that way.  They are not law makers.  The people decided to make Marijuana illegal and as of now the people still want it illegal.  They show this by voting for people that keep it illegal.



Well, yeah, kind of. Law makers made it illegal based on misinformation and, like many laws are made, to receive money from lobbyist who represented interests that would profit from it being illegal.

And as far as  "the people" still wanting it to be illegal, that is the result misinformation pumped out by gov't propaganda since the 1930s. A lot of those people REALLY BELIEVE pot is like heroin.

And its down to about half of "the people" wanting to keep it illegal. (I won't go into the cautions our forefathers issued regarding the tyranny of the majority  )

But even in states where "the people" have decided they no longer want it to be illegal, there is still federal action against them and a federal bias toward enforcement regardless of state and local laws.






ballen0351 said:


> 2ndly I could careless what the DEA director says I dont work for them.  When I worded NArcotics out drug tip line had several calls a day on it about Marijuana smell coming from this apartment or that apartment.  Stoned people Pissing in stairwells, Stoned drivers, ect.  So just because you think it does not bother others Im here to tell you it does. You can blame the police or the DEA or the Govt but in reality its your very neighbors that are still against it.



Stoned people pissing in stairwells are *******s who would be *******s even without being stoned.


I blame the DEA and gov't for continuing to spread lies that keep my neighbors against it. And those neighbors who ARE against it are mostly old people who are dying off. There is too much information readily available for younger people to swallow the ********.

 Missouri's last vote on pot was pretty close.

And look at this: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/ind..._Legalization_and_Regulation_Initiative_(2012)

Turns out there are quite a few good ol' boys in Missouri who are closet smoke.

It may fail again...but every year, a few more of the old, misinformed die off. Watch the feds launch a massive campaign to help put this down.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> You can blame the police or the DEA or the Govt but in reality its your very neighbors that are still against it.



In Hawaii, you cam grow up to 7 plants for medical purposes. Oops, I hurt my back. In CO and CA its even easier to get a card and you have pot shops that sell product legally. Not everyone's neighbors are against it. The fed is still driving policy. 

They also drive policy through the withholding of funds, so other states are reluctant to jump on the band wagon. Why cant individual communities decide?


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> I've been trying to say the same thing but nobody seems to hear it....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


20 years ago, my neighbors were staunchly against homosexuality.  in the rural neighborhood I live in, there was a huge amount of gay bashing, hazing, bullying, as well as just brutal, cruel bigotry.  That is no longer the case, and it's because people are becoming more educated.  

Knowing is half the battle, right, GI Joe?  Most people have zero understanding that the reason weed is illegal has nothing to do with whether it is dangerous.  It's 100% about money and politics.  It's about dupont and weyerhauser.  It's about the big pharmaceutical companies that could lose billions if their anti-anxiety, antidepressants and opium based painkillers were replaced with a cheap, easily renewed product that literally grows out of the ground.  It's about synthetics like nylon or textiles like cotton which would suffer when people realize that hemp creates stronger rope than nylon, and fabric that is softer, more durable and naturally anti-microbial than cotton.  

I said this way back in the first few pages of this thread.  This is political.


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> And those neighbors who ARE against it are mostly old people who are dying off.



I'm calling BS on this man...what are you basing that data on? I actually take and record these calls...you? Y'all are quick to call "anecdotal" on LEO experience around here, but then pass out dittys like this without being called on it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Okay. I'll try one more time.
> 
> But I'll ask you the same question I asked you earlier (and I don't think ever got answered). Alcohol is creating problems for you guys. Do you believe that a prohibition on alcohol would help?
> 
> For the record, telling me again that you'll never ban alcohol is beside the point. I get that the UK won't ban alcohol. It's the same here. We will also not ban alcohol. We tried it and it didn't work. The logical train I'm trying to take you down is to get away from the emotional reaction, "Drugs are bad, M'kay?"
> 
> There is a fixation in this thread, but it's on the idea that the only possible, rational response to something dangerous is to ban it completely. The kneejerk reaction to ban some substances has amply demonstrated that it's not an effective way to control use, manage addiction and mitigate social problems.
> 
> Now, it's also possible that your approach to dangerous substances, in the case of alcohol, is ALSO not working well.
> 
> The point is that it's not either wide open use OR complete prohibition. There are other possibilities.
> 
> ALSO, it is possible that your problems, like ours, are centered less around the actual substance and more around a culture that encourages and promotes the behavior. I've noticed that the use of illicit drugs in the UK is pretty damned high. Alcohol is not your only problem. You have like 10% of your population regularly using illegal drugs, and between 3 and 5% are actively using class A drugs, like heroin, cocaine or meth.
> 
> Like the USA, it's pretty clear that prohibiting use of a substance doesn't keep anyone who wants to use it from getting it.



I did answer actually I told you that we have cultural problem with alcohol that is decades if not centuries old, prohibition wouldn't help nor will it happen. However our problem was managable if not ideal before the government allowed pubs and clubs to sell alcohol 24/7 since they did that the problem has become nightmarish. One can control without banning, I don't know why you guys are for an all or nothing solution, as I've said I like Portugal's solution which seems to be bringing in good results. It would work with alcohol too along with education, shorter drinking hours, the banning of happy hours and two for one offers in the clubs. I'd like to see the arrests for anti social behaviour having proper sentencing too not just a slap on the wrist. In fact I'd like to see it stop being called 'anti social behaviour' and it being called what it is criminal damage, endangering the public, outraging public decency etc. Whatever fits what the drunks are doing. If people want to get drunk fine but if they can't control themselves when drunk they can't use that as an excuse and should pay the consquences when they fight, vandalise etc. If drug taking is legalised I'd like to see the same clause put on them, if when stoned they break the law they are done for it, if they don't break the law then no one bothers them, fair?

I've said several times I'm not about banning things I'm about ensuring the safety of the general public, if you take drugs and aren't a threat to society fine,  I've actually said that a few times now.


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> I'm calling BS on this man...what are you basing that data on? I actually take and record these calls...you? Y'all are quick to call "anecdotal" on LEO experience around here, but then pass out dittys like this without being called on it.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



I'd imagine a great many are parents of young children concerned about those childrens safety? Whether the drug users are a danger or not may be moot but the concerns of people aren't. Often neighbours see behaviour from those taking drugs that concerns them sometimes even for the drug taker themselves. You don't have to be old to worry about things.

I'd also take issue that only young people know about drugs, those 'old people' would have been around in the sixties! I think zDom thinks his generation invented sex drugs and rock and roll! don't forget the Rolling Stones are in their sixties now! Jagger is 69!


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I did answer actually I told you that we have cultural problem with alcohol that is decades if not centuries old, prohibition wouldn't help nor will it happen. However our problem was managable if not ideal before the government allowed pubs and clubs to sell alcohol 24/7 since they did that the problem has become nightmarish. One can control without banning, I don't know why you guys are for an all or nothing solution, as I've said I like Portugal's solution which seems to be bringing in good results. It would work with alcohol too along with education, shorter drinking hours, the banning of happy hours and two for one offers in the clubs. I'd like to see the arrests for anti social behaviour having proper sentencing too not just a slap on the wrist. In fact I'd like to see it stop being called 'anti social behaviour' and it being called what it is criminal damage, endangering the public, outraging public decency etc. Whatever fits what the drunks are doing. If people want to get drunk fine but if they can't control themselves when drunk they can't use that as an excuse and should pay the consquences when they fight, vandalise etc. If drug taking is legalised I'd like to see the same clause put on them, if when stoned they break the law they are done for it, if they don't break the law then no one bothers them, fair?
> 
> I've said several times I'm not about banning things I'm about ensuring the safety of the general public, if you take drugs and aren't a threat to society fine,  I've actually said that a few times now.


So, then, you actually agree with me and believe that lifting the prohibition on weed is sensible?  Well, if you would just say so.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I'd imagine a great many are parents of young children concerned about those childrens safety? Whether the drug users are a danger or not may be moot but the concerns of people aren't. Often neighbours see behaviour from those taking drugs that concerns them sometimes even for the drug taker themselves. You don't have to be old to worry about things.
> 
> I'd also take issue that only young people know about drugs, those 'old people' would have been around in the sixties! I think zDom thinks his generation invented sex drugs and rock and roll! don't forget the Rolling Stones are in their sixties now! Jagger is 69!


Interestingly enough, as a parent of three kids, two who are in high school, I can tell you that I am as worried about alcohol, which is legal, as I am about weed or anything else, which are technically illegal.  Kids shouldn't be doing any of it, IMO.  The two biggest threats to teenagers in my area are alcohol and prescription opiates.  There is use of weed on a somewhat large scale, but the two categories of substances that lead to kids being killed or having their entire lives derailed in my area are alcohol and illicit use of painkillers.    

And to address your points about the anti-social behavior, we have to do a better job of changing the culture that glorifies the abuse.  Girls Gone Wild videos and the promotion of drunken revelry isn't a good thing.  We have kids who get off to college and die from alcohol poisoning because they were convinced that in order to get into the sorority, fraternity or whatever other club, they had to drink insane amounts of alcohol.  It's not good.  

But, and this is the point that I and others have been making all along, banning the substance doesn't work.  It's tilting with windmills.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> So, then, you actually agree with me and believe that lifting the prohibition on weed is sensible? Well, if you would just say so.



No, what I've actually said several times is I simply don't know. Many people who have more facts and experience than I say that we shouldn't, nothing said on here has persuaded me that we should legalise it, there's convincing arguments from the police officers here that we should keep it as illegal. However we aren't just talking about weed on this thread are we? If the thread was just about that we could discuss it but others want all drugs legalised and are lambasting those of us with strong reservations, one person left the thread chuntering that we are all stupid or words to that effect. I do have very strong reservations about legalising all drugs.
 Sort out what this thread is about and we can have a proper discussion about specifics. Others have said this before me, are we discussing the probably fairly harmless (or at least harmful only to users?) weed or are we talking all drugs?


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> No, what I've actually said several times is I simply don't know. Many people who have more facts and experience than I say that we shouldn't, nothing said on here has persuaded me that we should legalise it, there's convincing arguments from the police officers here that we should keep it as illegal. However we aren't just talking about weed on this thread are we? If the thread was just about that we could discuss it but others want all drugs legalised and are lambasting those of us with strong reservations, one person left the thread chuntering that we are all stupid or words to that effect. I do have very strong reservations about legalising all drugs.
> Sort out what this thread is about and we can have a proper discussion about specifics. Others have said this before me, are we discussing the probably fairly harmless (or at least harmful only to users?) weed or are we talking all drugs?


But you just...  didn't you just outline a laundry list of things you believed would help with the alcohol problems you have in the UK?   

You said, "_we have cultural problem with alcohol that is decades if not centuries old, prohibition wouldn't help nor will it happen. "  
_Then you said, "_One can control without banning, I don't know why you guys are for an all or nothing solution."
_Then you said, "_education, shorter drinking hours, the banning of happy hours and two for one offers in the clubs. I'd like to see the arrests for anti social behaviour having proper sentencing too not just a slap on the wrist. In fact I'd like to see it stop being called 'anti social behaviour' and it being called what it is criminal damage, endangering the public, outraging public decency etc. Whatever fits what the drunks are doing. If people want to get drunk fine but if they can't control themselves when drunk they can't use that as an excuse and should pay the consquences when they fight, vandalise etc."_


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> But you just... didn't you just outline a laundry list of things you believed would help with the alcohol problems you have in the UK?
> 
> You said, "_we have cultural problem with alcohol that is decades if not centuries old, prohibition wouldn't help nor will it happen. "
> _Then you said, "_One can control without banning, I don't know why you guys are for an all or nothing solution."
> _Then you said, "_education, shorter drinking hours, the banning of happy hours and two for one offers in the clubs. I'd like to see the arrests for anti social behaviour having proper sentencing too not just a slap on the wrist. In fact I'd like to see it stop being called 'anti social behaviour' and it being called what it is criminal damage, endangering the public, outraging public decency etc. Whatever fits what the drunks are doing. If people want to get drunk fine but if they can't control themselves when drunk they can't use that as an excuse and should pay the consquences when they fight, vandalise etc."_




You've totally lost me now, I have no idea what you are talking about. I said I don't know whether weed should be legalised, that was the question you asked me so I answered. I don't have any answers about weed. 
The part you put up quoting me is about alcohol not weed. Are you messing me around? 

The drugs you should be worried about with your children are the things like miouw miouw and the other stuff kids are taking these days, they can buy this stuff off the internet or even in shops.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> You've totally lost me now, I have no idea what you are talking about. I said I don't know whether weed should be legalised, that was the question you asked me so I answered.


That's actually not the question I asked you.  I asked you this: "Alcohol is creating problems for you guys. Do you believe that a prohibition on alcohol would help?"  


> I don't have any answers about weed.


You've made that clear.  I didn't ask you about weed.  I asked you about alcohol, because that's what you are talking about.  I said, in the post you quoted above, "D_idn't you just outline a laundry list of things you believed would help with the alcohol problems you have in the UK?"_


> The part you put up quoting me is about alcohol not weed. Are you messing me around?


Not on purpose.  I'm trying to get you to answer a pretty straightforward question.  I agree with you that alcohol creates problems.  What then to do about it.  Do you think prohibition would help?  

You've given me the impression that you do not.  As I said before, you outlined a list of items that you thought would help, most of which I would completely agree with.





> The drugs you should be worried about with your children are the things like miouw miouw and the other stuff kids are taking these days, they can buy this stuff off the internet or even in shops.


Please don't use the term "should" with regards to how I parent my kids.  I'm easy going about a lot of things, but people telling me what I 'should' do with my children is a trigger for me.  Unless, of course, you also live in South King County, Washington, know my kids personally, know their friends, have first or even second hand knowledge of what they are doing and with whom, and know what sorts of things are happening with teenagers in general in the Covington, WA area.  

Presuming that you are none of those things, let's keep the discussion general in nature and larger in scope.  Shall we?


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> So, then, you actually agree with me and believe that lifting the prohibition on weed is sensible? Well, if you would just say so.



Steve, sometimes I think we don't talk the same language, where do you get that by saying _should_, I am telling you how to bring up your kids? We should all be worried about these cheap 'party' drugs, it's nothing to do with the way you bring your children up! It's a generalised term not a specific one designed to annoy you, we should all be worried about a lot of things ie global warming, AIDs, world poverty, terrorism none of which has anything to do with your parenting skills. It's an expression, ie _'you should watch those stairs as there's no light' _and_ 'you should watch out for those drugs'. _You said you were worried about specific drugs and I answered that you should be worried about these other ones instead.

This is where you asked me about weed so I answered. I've answered every question you've put I can't see what else I can do.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> Well, yeah, kind of. Law makers made it illegal based on misinformation and, like many laws are made, to receive money from lobbyist who represented interests that would profit from it being illegal.
> 
> And as far as  "the people" still wanting it to be illegal, that is the result misinformation pumped out by gov't propaganda since the 1930s. A lot of those people REALLY BELIEVE pot is like heroin.


Pot is like Heroin they are both drugs and they are both illegal.  No matter how hard you rub your little bong and wish upon the magic Bubba Kush fairy thats reality.  



> And its down to about half of "the people" wanting to keep it illegal. (I won't go into the cautions our forefathers issued regarding the tyranny of the majority  )


So then its only about Half the people that want it legal (I wont go into the cautions our forefathers issued regarding the tyranny of the majority:bangahead:



> But even in states where "the people" have decided they no longer want it to be illegal, there is still federal action against them and a federal bias toward enforcement regardless of state and local laws.


Because as we just saw in the AZ immigration case the Feds trump the states and they are allowed to enforce federal drug laws in states that want it legal.







> Stoned people pissing in stairwells are *******s who would be *******s even without being stoned.


I understand that but the people calling in demanding the police do something about it dont care.  They want the drugs out of their neighborhood.




> I blame the DEA and gov't for continuing to spread lies that keep my neighbors against it. And those neighbors who ARE against it are mostly old people who are dying off. There is too much information readily available for younger people to swallow the ********.


Funny Im young and Im against it. I know lots of young people that are against it.  Your girlfriends against it I guess she just an old person.  I blame stoners 
for saying stupid stuff like People high on pot never fight, speed, are better drivers then drunks, sit on their couch and dont bother anyone, Dont kill people, its not addictive, look how much worse beer is, pro-pot people are young and hip and anti-weed people are just Old and dont know how to have fun, if weed was legal all other drugs would go away because peole would stop smoking crack they would stick to weed, Blah blah blah.  


> Missouri's last vote on pot was pretty close.


So what your saying is more were against it then for it?  OK


> And look at this: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/ind..._Legalization_and_Regulation_Initiative_(2012)
> 
> Turns out there are quite a few good ol' boys in Missouri who are closet smoke.
> 
> It may fail again...but every year, a few more of the old, misinformed die off. Watch the feds launch a massive campaign to help put this down.


Ok Rosie and fire cant bent steel either.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Steve, sometimes I think we don't talk the same language, where do you get that by saying _should_, I am telling you how to bring up your kids? We should all be worried about these cheap 'party' drugs, it's nothing to do with the way you bring your children up! It's a generalised term not a specific one designed to annoy you, we should all be worried about a lot of things ie global warming, AIDs, world poverty, terrorism none of which has anything to do with your parenting skills. It's an expression, ie _'you should watch those stairs as there's no light' _and_ 'you should watch out for those drugs'. _You said you were worried about specific drugs and I answered that you should be worried about these other ones instead.
> 
> This is where you asked me about weed so I answered. I've answered every question you've put I can't see what else I can do.


_*Do you think that prohibiting alcohol in the UK would help with the alcohol related issues the UK is dealing with?*_  That's the question I've asked you more than once, and you have still not answered.

Here, same question, but in multiple choice format:

Making alcohol illegal in the UK would:

A:  have a positive effect
B:  have a negative effect
C:  have no noticeable effect
D:  None of the above (please elaborate)

Regarding the other thing, it's as much me as it is you.  I know that when someone presumes to tell me how I should be raising my kids, I get a little uptight.  For example, when you said, "_The drugs *you should* be worried about with *your children* are the things like...."  _That's a known trigger for me.  It angers me because I take the welfare of *my children *very, very seriously, whereas I'm pretty sure you've never even met them.  Once again, I'm trying to acknowledge that this is a trigger for me, and I'm asking as politely as I can for you to drop it, keep the discussion general in nature and to please not presume to tell me specifically what I should or shouldn't do with regards to the children I am raising.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> _*Do you think that prohibiting alcohol in the UK would help with the alcohol related issues the UK is dealing with?*_  That's the question I've asked you more than once, and you have still not answered.
> 
> Here, same question, but in multiple choice format:
> 
> Making alcohol illegal in the UK would:
> 
> A:  have a positive effect
> B:  have a negative effect
> C:  have no noticeable effect
> D:  None of the above (please elaborate)
> 
> Regarding the other thing, it's as much me as it is you.  I know that when someone presumes to tell me how I should be raising my kids, I get a little uptight.  For example, when you said, "_The drugs *you should* be worried about with *your children* are the things like...."  _That's a known trigger for me.  It angers me because I take the welfare of *my children *very, very seriously, whereas I'm pretty sure you've never even met them.  Once again, I'm trying to acknowledge that this is a trigger for me, and I'm asking as politely as I can for you to drop it, keep the discussion general in nature and to please not presume to tell me specifically what I should or shouldn't do with regards to the children I am raising.



Im not from the UK but Ill take a shot at it.  I think in the short term it would be chaos.  It would take a few generations for the law to become successful. Then I think the effects on the UK would be positive.  I think thats where the US went wrong they caved in too soon.  You cant take something thats been legal for a persons entire life and say ok starting tomorrow your done and not expect backlash.  Now you deal with it as that gerneration ages and newer generations come up and its been illegal someones entire life they would feel differently.  Take cell phones for example  People lived 1000s of years without them when they came along during our life time I could take them or leave them.  BUT the younger 20 something gereration thats had them for there entire life cant imagine being with out one.  I believe the opposite effect would happen with outlawing something.  Now you will never get 100% of people to follow the rules but same can be said for all laws.  But look at drug use in the US by your own numbers 17 million pot smokers in the US vs 300 million people thats a very small % of people using marijuana.  Now make it legal like Beer and then see how high the % goes.  Both in my opinon are not good for soceity.  Regardless of "Its my body my choice"  would you really want your kid smoking pot?  I dont I dont want them drinking either.  Do you believe people smoking pot like cigarettes is good for society? I dont.   You may and thats your choice we just disagree.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Im not from the UK but Ill take a shot at it.  I think in the short term it would be chaos.  It would take a few generations for the law to become successful. Then I think the effects on the UK would be positive.  I think thats where the US went wrong they caved in too soon.  You cant take something thats been legal for a persons entire life and say ok starting tomorrow your done and not expect backlash.  Now you deal with it as that gerneration ages and newer generations come up and its been illegal someones entire life they would feel differently.  Take cell phones for example  People lived 1000s of years without them when they came along during our life time I could take them or leave them.  BUT the younger 20 something gereration thats had them for there entire life cant imagine being with out one.  I believe the opposite effect would happen with outlawing something.  Now you will never get 100% of people to follow the rules but same can be said for all laws.  But look at drug use in the US by your own numbers 17 million pot smokers in the US vs 300 million people thats a very small % of people using marijuana.  Now make it legal like Beer and then see how high the % goes.  Both in my opinon are not good for soceity.  Regardless of "Its my body my choice"  would you really want your kid smoking pot?  I dont I dont want them drinking either.  Do you believe people smoking pot like cigarettes is good for society? I dont.   You may and thats your choice we just disagree.


Fair enough.  Are you aware that many narcotics were formally banned at right around the same time period as alcohol was?  It wasn't until the Uniform State Narcotics Act and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics came about that MJ was regulated in every State.   Marijuana was pretty much uniformly banned in the late 20's/early 30's.  It's been several generations.  Do you honestly believe that things are going well?  If anything, the resolve on the part of government to ban these substances has strengthened.  The amount of money funneled into attempting to enforce the ban has increased exponentially.  It's been generations since marijuana was legal, and yet you acknowledge that it is used by 17 million people in spite of being illegal several generations later.   

You ask a good question.  Do I believe that people smoking pot like cigarettes is good for society?  I'd say no, but I wouldn't say drinking alcohol with the frequency of smoking cigarettes is good, either.  It's not illegal to smoke a cigarette and drive or smoke while at work.  

Do I think that responsible adults choosing to enjoy the effects of cannabis is bad for society?  no.  Do I think that anyone abusing anything is good for society?  of course not.  

It strikes me as odd that you seem to have a problem with the 'it's my body, my choice' but still allege to be a conservative.  That's a weird disconnect for me.  I think that adults should, in general, be allowed to kill themselves in pretty much any way they choose.  Whether they want to go sky diving, fishing (statistically, the most dangerous sport in the USA, BTW), mountain climbing, or learn martial arts.  If they want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive in a car without a seatbelt or smoke weed or drink booze.  I'm pretty much okay with it provided that the risks are clear and all reasonable precautions have been taken. 

Would I want my kid smoking pot? Of course not.  Do you want your kid drinking Jack Daniels?  No?  Me neither.  Frankly, that's a silly question to ask.


----------



## Tgace

Id be fine with it too if all the costs of killing yourself wasn't reflected in my insurance premiums, medical expenses and the dead innocents you crash into while you do whatever you want with your body.

That argument (im only hurting myself) only goes so far...its only really accurate if you are living in a cabin in the wood's. Try telling a few parents their kid is dead from an OD....impacts them pretty hard. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

I don't have a problem with "my body my choice". If it were that simple I say use anything you want you die that's on you I don't care.  The problem is you may smoke weed and be fine and not bother anyone but not everyone is as responsible as you.  I can show you countless emails to our tip line about how marijuana smokers users and dealers are bothering other people so your body your choice is effecting other's.  Your freedom to be you is not greater then my freedom to be free from you.  Now you may say why punish everyone for the behavior of a few but that's just the way it is.  Can some people have a beer or two and drive OK?  Sure but everyone can't so its illegal.  Millions of people drive drunk every weekend with no problems so we are clearly punishing all for the behavior of a few.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> .
> 
> Would I want my kid smoking pot? Of course not.  Do you want your kid drinking Jack Daniels?  No?  Me neither.  Frankly, that's a silly question to ask.


I don't think its silly if you wouldn't want your kids doing it why would you vote to allow mine to do it?


----------



## Tgace

PS- I know you are talking mostly about weed Steve, but the "my body" argument kinda segues to everything else no?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Id be fine with it too if all the costs of killing yourself wasn't reflected in my insurance premiums, medical expenses and the dead innocents you crash into while you do whatever you want with your body.
> 
> That argument (im only hurting myself) only goes so far...its only really accurate if you are living in a cabin in the wood's. Try telling a few parents their kid is dead from an OD....impacts them pretty hard.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



So, government intrusion is okay when... What?  What's The distinguishing factor here?  Because I'm seeing some pretty overt cherry picking going on.

I understand the point you're making, and have no problems with it if you're consistent about it.  Not a traditional conservative position either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I don't have a problem with "my body my choice". If it were that simple I say use anything you want you die that's on you I don't care.  The problem is you may smoke weed and be fine and not bother anyone but not everyone is as responsible as you.  I can show you countless emails to our tip line about how marijuana smokers users and dealers are bothering other people so your body your choice is effecting other's.  Your freedom to be you is not greater then my freedom to be free from you.  Now you may say why punish everyone for the behavior of a few but that's just the way it is.  Can some people have a beer or two and drive OK?  Sure but everyone can't so its illegal.  Millions of people drive drunk every weekend with no problems so we are clearly punishing all for the behavior of a few.



Dealers wouldn't be dealers if the drug were legal.  They would be bartenders and/or convenient stores.  


And I'm all for punishing anyone who crosses the line.  I never drive drunk and would gladly see anyone and everyone who does so punished for it.  No excuse.  And the same would be true for weed. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I don't think its silly if you wouldn't want your kids doing it why would you vote to allow mine to do it?



Are your kids over 21?  If not, then I wouldn't.  Who's talking about allowing minors to buy weed?  They can't even legally smoke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> PS- I know you are talking mostly about weed Steve, but the "my body" argument kinda segues to everything else no?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



It does, but the point remains that the line is arbitrary, and the conservative position is less government, not more. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> So, government intrusion is okay when... What?  What's The distinguishing factor here?  Because I'm seeing some pretty overt cherry picking going on.
> 
> I understand the point you're making, and have no problems with it if you're consistent about it.  Not a traditional conservative position either.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



The distinguishing factor is when enough of society is impacted by a behavior and enough politicians are convinced to craft law to deal with it. 

I don't believe the Constitution protects an individual right to ingest or possess any substance they wish...especially one that influences behavior. 

While not banned, alcohol is controlled, it was once prohibited to sell or manufacture and theoretically could be prohibted again...legally. I fail to see this as a "rights" issue. 

While I don't think weed is the equivalent of heroin, I'm less than enthusiastic about putting yet another behavior altering drug into the sale market.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> It does, but the point remains that the line is arbitrary, and the conservative position is less government, not more.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Are you trying to pigeonhole me as a "conservative" or something?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Are your kids over 21?  If not, then I wouldn't.  Who's talking about allowing minors to buy weed?  They can't even legally smoke.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



My kids will always be my kids even when they are 50.  I wasnt talking about minors I wouldnt want my kids at any age to use Marijuana.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> It does, but the point remains that the line is arbitrary, and the conservative position is less government, not more.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Less Govt dose not = NO Govt.  Im in favor of Responsible laws and to me this one is responsible


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Less Govt dose not = NO Govt.  Im in favor of Responsible laws and to me this one is responsible



Can you still say this even after reading about all of the negative consequences of prohibition that have been unearthed in this thread? Do you still think that legalization would be worse than what we have now?


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Do you still think that legalization would be worse than what we have now?



I dont think things are as doom and gloom the sky is falling as you do.  But then again I have zero desire to smoke a fatty.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think things are as doom and gloom the sky is falling as you do.  But then again I have zero desire to smoke a fatty.



It has nothing to do with sparking up blunts, brah. It's a matter of cost vs. benefit. I wish the Feds would stop leaning on the states that basically have pot legalized. We could actually have a good social experiment!


----------



## Makalakumu

It's also a matter of civil and states rights. The slow erosion of the Bill of Rights that is prompted by the Drug War is something we'll regret more than a couple more hippies and rappers sparking blunts.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> It has nothing to do with sparking up blunts, brah. It's a matter of cost vs. benefit. I wish the Feds would stop leaning on the states that basically have pot legalized. We could actually have a good social experiment!



The feds lean on states where its legal because the people with the weed THERE can sell it for 3-4K a pound HERE where its illegal. Which has been a problem since various state's went the legalization route.

I cant make a case against a CA "medical marijuana" (pffft...) grower. The feds can.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> It's also a matter of civil and states rights. The slow erosion of the Bill of Rights that is prompted by the Drug War is something we'll regret more than a couple more hippies and rappers sparking blunts.



I never read the right to smoke a bowl in the bill of rights.  Where can I find that one?


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> I never read the right to smoke a bowl in the bill of rights.  Where can I find that one?



The 9th and 10th Amendment.


----------



## Tgace

Makalakumu said:


> The 9th and 10th Amendment.



It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution. 

Pretty much the same for the tenth.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

But we are getting into the weeds with Constitutional law...the individual States have their own laws regarding drug use and possession and most of the time its the state that prosecutes drug cases unless you are dealing with interstate/international trafficking or criminal enterprises/organized crime...where the feds step in.

The Feds get their enforcement authority....as they almost always do...through taxation and interstate commerce; and subsequent case law. And the handy "general welfare" clause of course. 

The federal "war on drugs" assists the several states...

However since drugs are trafficked by means of INTERstate trafficking ...then Article I Section 8 Clause 3 applies...

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

I know of no USSC cases that state an individual States laws banning drugs violates the US Constitution.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:


> It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.
> 
> Pretty much the same for the tenth.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Not when we are talking about actions that only take place within the state. The Feds have raided dispenseries indiscriminately in the past. It didn't matter if they actually WERE shipping pot over state lines.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> My kids will always be my kids even when they are 50.  I wasnt talking about minors I wouldnt want my kids at any age to use Marijuana.



I wouldn't want my kids to abuse anything, but I wouldn't have a problem if they were responsible adults and chose to smoke a doobie or eat a brownie.  I wouldn't want them to abuse alcohol, but don't have an issue with the, drinking a beer or two as responsible adults.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Are you trying to pigeonhole me as a "conservative" or something?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



I'm trying to point out that you're being philosophically and ideologically inconsistent.  The label is just a shorthand.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> _*Do you think that prohibiting alcohol in the UK would help with the alcohol related issues the UK is dealing with?*_ That's the question I've asked you more than once, and you have still not answered.
> 
> Here, same question, but in multiple choice format:
> 
> Making alcohol illegal in the UK would:
> 
> A: have a positive effect
> B: have a negative effect
> C: have no noticeable effect
> D: None of the above (please elaborate)
> 
> Regarding the other thing, it's as much me as it is you. I know that when someone presumes to tell me how I should be raising my kids, I get a little uptight. For example, when you said, "_The drugs *you should* be worried about with *your children* are the things like...." _That's a known trigger for me. It angers me because I take the welfare of *my children *very, very seriously, whereas I'm pretty sure you've never even met them. Once again, I'm trying to acknowledge that this is a trigger for me, and I'm asking as politely as I can for you to drop it, keep the discussion general in nature and to please not presume to tell me specifically what I should or shouldn't do with regards to the children I am raising.





Steve, you are going over the top to the point that you are getting offensive to be honest, I'm not telling you anything about your children, you mentioned them,* you brought them into the conversation ,*.* I just pointed out that the drugs you mentioned aren't the ones that are popular these days*. You really aren't reading what I'm saying here.

Why would we ban alcohol here? It plainly didn't work when you lot banned it so why would we even think about it here? Do I think it would work , of course not. I would have thought my previous answers where I gave you my opinion on what I think would work would have given you my opinion instead of you badgering me about things you think I haven't said and things you think I have.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Steve, you are going over the top to the point that you are getting offensive to be honest, I'm not telling you anything about your children, you mentioned them,* I didn't say anything about them*.* I just pointed out that the drugs you mentioned aren't the ones that are popular these days*. You really aren't reading what I'm saying here.


You are offended that I am offended?  Yeah.  Okay.  I tried to be very specific.  I know what you were trying to say.  But that's not what you said.  And once again, even though I quoted you and highlighted, boldest and italicized the exact phrase that bugged me, you're still refusing to own your own words.  Okay.  Sure.  It must be that I'm just not reading what you're saying.  


> Why would we ban alcohol here? It plainly didn't work when you lot banned it so why would we even think about it here? Do I think it would work , of course not. I would have thought my previous answers where I gave you my opinion on what I think would work would have given you my opinion instead of you badgering me about things you think I haven't said and things you think I have.


Great.  So, prohibition doesn't work.  We agree.  Was that so hard?  So then, is it any wonder that 1/3rd of your country has tried illegal drugs, and almost 1 out of every 10 people is a regular user?  We both agree that banning alcohol wouldn't be at all constructive.  Would it work?  Of course not, you said.  Right?  then why do you (and we) persist in a failing prohibition?  It's he definition of insanity... Or at least cognitive dissonance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

I guess it comes down to perspective.  You may know 5 or 10 responsible pot smokers and think oh Joe smokes and he's a good guy so its not bad.  Where I have delt with 100s of irresponsible pot smokers and I don't deal with the good ones.  So to me it is a problem to you its not.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> I'm trying to point out that you're being philosophically and ideologically inconsistent.  The label is just a shorthand.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



How do you know what my ideology or philosophy is? 

Because some of my beliefs may parallel what you consider "conservative" philosophy I now have to lock step with all the rest of what you believe to be conservative thought? Come on Steve.

All law is about restrictions on behavior or allowances of possession. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> How do you know what my ideology or philosophy is?
> 
> Because some of my beliefs may parallel what you consider "conservative" philosophy I now have to lock step with all the rest of what you believe to be conservative thought? Come on Steve.
> 
> All law is about restrictions on behavior or allowances of possession.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


In this thread, you have stated your position on both drugs and alcohol.  These positions seem to be at odds, philosophically.


----------



## Tez3

Steve for the last time I said nothing about your children, you brought them into the conversation, if you're touchy don't mention them. And for the last time all I said was that the drugs you should be worried about aren't the ones you mentioned, you have taken offence at nothing. I know what I meant please don't try to be clever and make something out of my words that aren't there. You are making a mountian out of a molehill over the words I use, you seem to have a mental block when it comes to what I say, you seem to be postivie it's what you mean not what I mean. One one hand you tell me not to keep mentioning the UK on the other you are telling us what our problems are with drugs and alcohol, one thing or the other mate, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You said you couldn't talk about the UK and there you are talking about it roflmao!

Anyway I'm off to annoy even more Americans now in the run up to and during the Olympics, I'm harrassing them at airports just to make them feel at home with airport security.


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> While I don't think weed is the equivalent of heroin, I'm less than enthusiastic about putting yet another behavior altering drug into the sale market.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Unless, of course, it is a legally manufactured potion (such as Aility, Adderall, Ambirn, Antabuse, Aircept, Anafranil, Benperiodol, BuSpar, Benzodiazephiens, Celexa, Clorzaril, Concerta, Cymbalta, Depakote, Effexor, Elavil, Eskalith, Gabitril, Geodon, Haldol, Imipramine, INderal, Keeprya, Klonopin, ad nauseum on through to Xanax, Zoloft, Zyprexa, Zelepron, Zolpidem and Zopiclone) that a pharmaceutical company can make money off of, right?

Ever look at the list of adverse effects on some of these?

Let's take Xanax, for example.

According to Wikipedia:

"Possible side effects include:


Disinhibition[SUP][35][/SUP]


Change in libido[SUP][36][/SUP]


Jaundice (very rare)[SUP][37][/SUP]


Hallucinations (rare)[SUP][38][/SUP]


Dry mouth (infrequent)[SUP][39][/SUP]


Ataxia, slurred speech[SUP][40][/SUP]


Suicidal ideation (rare)[SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]


Urinary retention (infrequent)[SUP][42][/SUP]


Skin rash, respiratory depression, constipation[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP]


Anterograde amnesia[SUP][45][/SUP] and concentration problems


Drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, fatigue, unsteadiness and impaired coordination, vertigo[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]Paradoxical reactions[/h]Although unusual, the following paradoxical reactions have been shown to occur:


Aggression[SUP][46][/SUP]


Rage, hostility[SUP][35][/SUP]


Twitches and tremor[SUP][47][/SUP]


Mania, agitation, hyperactivity and restlessness[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
with alprazolam can lead to profound sedating effects."



(Hey but lets jail people for marijuana because pot is a DRUG (read, "illegal drug", because the above are the REAL drugs in the sense that they are manufactured from chemicals in a laboratory) and HEROIN is a drug so they are EQUAL IN BADNESS!!!

Really, Ballen?  You really believe that? If somebody was able to influence politicians to list mother's milk as a drug, would it then be just as bad as heroin and pot? )


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Steve for the last time I said nothing about your children, you brought them into the conversation, if you're touchy don't mention them.


Did you write the following sentence?  "_The drugs *you should* be worried about with *your children* are the things like...."
_
If so, could you please stop saying that you said nothing about my children?  Can we at least put that one to rest?





> And for the last time all I said was that the drugs you should be worried about aren't the ones you mentioned, you have taken offence at nothing.


And once again, it's odd to me that you seem to know what drugs are actually floating around my kids' high school here in good old Covington, Washington.  Once again, you are presuming to tell me what I _should_ be worried about.  





> I know what I meant please don't try to be clever and make something out of my words that aren't there.


Thing about me is that I take you at your word.  If you write it, I presume you mean it, and frankly, I can't help it if I take more care in reading your words than you do in writing them.  I'm literally quoting you to yourself and you continue to insist that's not what you wrote.





> You are making a mountian out of a molehill over the words I use, you seem to have a mental block when it comes to what I say, you seem to be postivie it's what you mean not what I mean. One one hand you tell me not to keep mentioning the UK on the other you are telling us what our problems are with drugs and alcohol, one thing or the other mate, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You said you couldn't talk about the UK and there you are talking about it roflmao!


Yeah.  You're right here.  Since you seem determined to discuss the UK, I thought I'd try and respond to the content of your posts.  My bad.  You're right.  But I felt like I had to acknowledge that you and I do actually agree that prohibition wouldn't work.  That's pretty significant.  If we agree that prohibition is untenable for alcohol, then there's something to be learned from that.  No?


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> So what your saying is more were against it then for it?  OK



That would only indicate that more VOTERS were against it than for it as of the last time it went before our states voters 

Remember, older Americans vote in disproportionately high numbers while I would venture to guess that a lot of those in favor
of the initiative passing were too stoned to leave the house and vote


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> I guess it comes down to perspective.  You may know 5 or 10 responsible pot smokers and think oh Joe smokes and he's a good guy so its not bad.  Where I have delt with 100s of irresponsible pot smokers and I don't deal with the good ones.  So to me it is a problem to you its not.



My point is:

Those people would be problems even without pot. They aren't problems because of pot; they are scofflaw *******s who are going to create more work for you no matter what sort of mind-alterning drug they get ahold of.

If you could magic away all the illegal drugs and heck, alcohol too for that matter, they would be swallowing handfuls of Xanax and sniffing model airplane glue.


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> Unless, of course, it is a legally manufactured potion (such as Aility, Adderall, Ambirn, Antabuse, Aircept, Anafranil, Benperiodol, BuSpar, Benzodiazephiens, Celexa, Clorzaril, Concerta, Cymbalta, Depakote, Effexor, Elavil, Eskalith, Gabitril, Geodon, Haldol, Imipramine, INderal, Keeprya, Klonopin, ad nauseum on through to Xanax, Zoloft, Zyprexa, Zelepron, Zolpidem and Zopiclone) that a pharmaceutical company can make money off of, right?



Right. These are controled by prescription and not *sold as "*recreational" intoxicants...as weed would be. If you are caught with a (controlled) substance not perscribed to you, you are subject to arrest. If you are caught with an uncontrolled pill thats not your perscription you can be charged with a state health law violation (in my state).


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Did you write the following sentence? "_The drugs *you should* be worried about with *your children* are the things like...."
> _
> If so, could you please stop saying that you said nothing about my children? Can we at least put that one to rest?And once again, it's odd to me that you seem to know what drugs are actually floating around my kids' high school here in good old Covington, Washington. Once again, you are presuming to tell me what I _should_ be worried about. Thing about me is that I take you at your word. If you write it, I presume you mean it, and frankly, I can't help it if I take more care in reading your words than you do in writing them. I'm literally quoting you to yourself and you continue to insist that's not what you wrote.Yeah. You're right here. Since you seem determined to discuss the UK, I thought I'd try and respond to the content of your posts. My bad. You're right. But I felt like I had to acknowledge that you and I do actually agree that prohibition wouldn't work. That's pretty significant. If we agree that prohibition is untenable for alcohol, then there's something to be learned from that. No?



Steve, get a grip man the emphasis is yours not mine. You are changing the sense of the sentence by bolding words I didn't to make it mean something I didn't. Stop with the hysteria and the strange stuff about prohibition, it's getting worrying.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Steve, get a grip man the emphasis is yours not mine. You are changing the sense of the sentence by bolding words I didn't to make it mean something I didn't. Stop with the hysteria and the strange stuff about prohibition, it's getting worrying.


The emphasis was mine, to point out to you that you did indeed say what you are now insisting you didn't.  Honestly, I admitted to you that it's a trigger.  When people presume to use the words "you should" and "your children" to me in the same sentence, my temperature begins to rise.  I have said as much more than once.  That you continue to push that button, knowing this, is troubling to me.    

And don't you understand how prohibition is relevant to the subject at hand, considering that we are specifically discussing the prohibition of recreational drugs?  It worries you that I'm trying to post on topic?  Now you're accusing me of hysteria?  Tez, come on.  Just own your words.  Be responsible for what you have written.  You have agreed that prohibition would never work.  I agree.  So, the next question is, why is anyone surprised that it isn't working for weed?


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> Right. These are controled by prescription and not *sold as "*recreational" intoxicants...as weed would be. If you are caught with a (controlled) substance not perscribed to you, you are subject to arrest. If you are caught with an uncontrolled pill thats not your perscription you can be charged with a state health law violation (in my state).




And the new designer drugs that are driving people ******* crazy are *sold as *"bath salts."

But we know that is ********, don't we? 

Somebody once speculated that I was "self medicating" with marijuana. Maybe it wasn't about recreation for me but to alleviate anxiety.

I could have been prescribed Xanax or any number of anti-anxiety concoctions mixed up in test tubes by pharmaceutical companies but I rejected them. I learned to work out anxiety through martial arts. Hard workout is good medicine for the mind as well as the body.

And marijuana is being approved in a growing number of states for its medicinal properties, not as a recreational drug. And many of those who get prescriptions for that list of legal drugs controlled by prescription have learned how to game the system so they can legally obtain them for recreational use. 

And you don't have to explain legal / illegal. I have been a journalist for 15 years, a college graduate (cum laude) and halfway to a master's degree.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> That would only indicate that more VOTERS were against it than for it as of the last time it went before our states voters
> 
> Remember, older Americans vote in disproportionately high numbers while I would venture to guess that a lot of those in favor
> of the initiative passing were too stoned to leave the house and vote



So when a state votes to legalize it the feds need to respect that and leave the state alone but when a state votes no they are just old and out of touch?


----------



## rickster

ballen0351 said:


> Pot is like Heroin they are both drugs and they are both illegal.  No matter how hard you rub your little bong and wish upon the magic Bubba Kush fairy thats reality.



Pot is not lke heroin. Heroin is highly addictive


----------



## K-man

zDom said:


> Unless, of course, it is a legally manufactured potion (such as Aility, Adderall, Ambirn, Antabuse, Aircept, Anafranil, Benperiodol, BuSpar, Benzodiazephiens, Celexa, Clorzaril, Concerta, Cymbalta, Depakote, Effexor, Elavil, Eskalith, Gabitril, Geodon, Haldol, Imipramine, INderal, Keeprya, Klonopin, ad nauseum on through to Xanax, Zoloft, Zyprexa, Zelepron, Zolpidem and Zopiclone) that a pharmaceutical company can make money off of, right?
> 
> Ever look at the list of adverse effects on some of these?
> 
> Let's take Xanax, for example.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "Possible side effects include:
> 
> 
> Disinhibition[SUP][35][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Change in libido[SUP][36][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Jaundice (very rare)[SUP][37][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Hallucinations (rare)[SUP][38][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Dry mouth (infrequent)[SUP][39][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Ataxia, slurred speech[SUP][40][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Suicidal ideation (rare)[SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Urinary retention (infrequent)[SUP][42][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Skin rash, respiratory depression, constipation[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Anterograde amnesia[SUP][45][/SUP] and concentration problems
> 
> 
> Drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, fatigue, unsteadiness and impaired coordination, vertigo[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP]
> *[edit]Paradoxical reactions*
> 
> Although unusual, the following paradoxical reactions have been shown to occur:
> 
> 
> Aggression[SUP][46][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Rage, hostility[SUP][35][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Twitches and tremor[SUP][47][/SUP]
> 
> 
> Mania, agitation, hyperactivity and restlessness[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
> with alprazolam can lead to profound sedating effects."
> 
> 
> 
> (Hey but lets jail people for marijuana because pot is a DRUG (read, "illegal drug", because the above are the REAL drugs in the sense that they are manufactured from chemicals in a laboratory) and HEROIN is a drug so they are EQUAL IN BADNESS!!!
> 
> Really, Ballen?  You really believe that? If somebody was able to influence politicians to list mother's milk as a drug, would it then be just as bad as heroin and pot? )


Now let's look at the facts about Xanax.  Firstly it is A benzodiazepine.  It is a 'legal' (on prescription) drug which is subject to abuse.  It should be only prescribed short term because it is addictive. Every drug has side effects. The secret is to balance the potential benefits against the potential risks.

So let's look at two scenarios. 

I need to go across the country quickly because a close family member is only likely to live another 24 hours. I need to fly but I have a phobia about flying. The doctor prescribes me a small supply of Xanax and off I go.  I don't worry about the flying any more, I probably will feel a bit sleepy and I will get to see my dying relative. Short term, it's highly unlikely I will experience any other side effects.

Scenario 2.

Xanax is now legally available to anyone from the local supermarket.  In fact they have a special price so you buy two packets and get one free.  Nothing like a bit of free stuff to get you properly hooked! So now I can be off my face as much as I like and when I'm feeling ok I can drive my car, yeah? I can have a tolerance to benzos, like alcohol, but the difference is that Xanax stays in the system a bit longer. About 2 to 3 days normally (which is a lot better than Valium which can stick around for a week or more). So I feel ok but my reaction time is shot. Can't wait to be on the road with everyone able to legally use any drug they like, when they like.

Now you will probably say Xanax is different to pot but if we are going to legalise one, we legalise all, or how do you differentiate?       :asian:


----------



## Tgace

zDom said:


> And marijuana is being approved in a growing number of states for its medicinal properties, not as a recreational drug.



Lol! Right...excuse me if I don't buy into the "it would only be for medical reason's" farce. 

It may be the convenient rationalization to get a state to legalize but in practice its a "tell the doc you get headaches" sham to get your buzz on.

I respect your "its like alcohol...treat it like alcohol" argument more than I do the medical marijuana smokescreen. Its at least an honest argument.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

rickster said:


> Pot is not lke heroin. Heroin is highly addictive



So is Marijuana, tobacco, Beer, cocaine, and over the counter nasal spray

Before you come back with No its not I can stop smoking any time I want heres a place for you to get some help:
http://marijuana-anonymous.org/


----------



## ballen0351

Here is one story of many on the Marijuana anonymous page:

My Last 60 Days of Using  What was it like? Well, what can I say? Using, using, and more using! It's difficult to remember exact dates,  but I can give you a rough estimate of where I was, my frame of mind, and my daily routine.
I had moved back to my place of true memory, North Hollywood, two months before. The week I moved up here  (sometime in early September) I was immediately offered a job with an organization I had been affiliated with  for the last thirteen years. It was a very laid-back job that I figured I could do &#8220;under the influence.&#8221;  The job was a step up from what I had done in the past&#8212;it was actually a position of authority!&#8212;and  it scared me. I promised myself I would limit my usage to weekends, although I hadn't been able to do that for  years prior to this &#8220;wanna be&#8221; commitment. I wasn't even able to keep my promise for one day.
The job seemed perfect for a drug user. I was my own boss for the first four hours of the day and my employer  trusted me. This gave me the opportunity to smoke at will. The second four hours of the day consisted of planning  and supervising programs for junior high school-aged children. The kids knew me as a slightly amusing person with  red eyes the whole time they were involved with this organization (there is an unusually high return rate for  these children every year). Anyway, my opportunities for using drugs were endless.
My routine was this: I would wake up at about 9 in the morning and mosey on in to my kitchen, where I would  reach for one of my bongs, fill it with ice-water, and then make it back to my bedroom dresser where my dope was  stashed. And this was all before I could get out my first yawn of the morning!
For the last five years or so, that first high of the day had always been the best one. I would pack two fat  loads in an extra-large bowl. Each bowl provided about five huge &#8220;cough-master&#8221; hits. After about ten  or twelve lungs full, I'd either stumble into the shower, or over to work (depending on how stoned I had managed  to get).
I'd start jonesing at about 10:30. Luckily, I was the transportation coordinator and could take a van out  whenever I wanted. I'd speed off to &#8220;do errands&#8221; (get high) and return just in time to watch the  kids for three hours. I never had any activities planned. I'd just go on auto-pilot, hoping that I could remember  what I'd been told to do in the past. I normally &#8220;maintained&#8221; around the kids for most or all of the  three hours, only jonesing when troubles arose (they did every day).
After work there were no holds barred. My friends and I would smoke until it was all gone, or we had no more  money, or we passed out (that never happened). Then I would come home around 1:00 a.m. and smoke the last of my  daily stash before hitting the sack.
In the middle of November, I lost my job because of a drug test. My excessive tardiness and mysterious days off  for &#8220;illness&#8221; probably also had something to do with it. By then I was paranoid, delusional, and  suicidal. I was stealing to buy drugs. I should mention that though pot was always the mainstay of my drug habit,  I also used a slew of other drugs (notably crack, speed, and alcohol) to keep me going.
The weekends were when I played Russian roulette. Whether it was the people, the drugs, the scams, or the  situations I got myself into&#8230;my life was in danger. My pot habit alone cost me $40-60 a day. I had  borrowed, stolen, sold, pawned, and weaseled as much money as I possibly could on a daily, weekly, monthly,  and yearly basis. ANYTHING FOR DRUGS!!!
My mind was lost, and after only 23 days of sobriety, it still is. I have no confidence, little faith, a  heartful of resentment, and a fistful of rage. I fear death but still I embrace it. I seek love, but only end  up sabotaging my relationships. Will it ever end? My heart is heavy. I am a child with no inkling about how to  live. I come to these rooms as a last resort. I can only live second to second. I'm quite sure I have another  life-long binge in me, but I truly doubt I have another recovery in me.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: I now have a little over 4 months of sobriety. Things are beginning to look up for me, slowly but  surely. In the distance, a new life awaits. It's pretty blurry right now, but it is becoming slightly clearer and  more focused with each passing day. I know that it will take a lot of work and determination to get there, but at  least now I have the willingness to keep trying.
---Gannon B.
April, 1996


----------



## zDom

Tgace said:


> Lol! Right...excuse me if I don't buy into the "it would only be for medical reason's" farce.
> 
> It may be the convenient rationalization to get a state to legalize but in practice its a "tell the doc you get headaches" sham to get your buzz on.
> 
> I respect your "its like alcohol...treat it like alcohol" argument more than I do the medical marijuana smokescreen. Its at least an honest argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




I agree that the medical marijuana thing has become silly.

I walked up and down Venice Beach past a dozen shops advertising that for $40 or so they would examine you and write a prescription.

(On the other hand, I saw nobody smoking... anywhere.)

But I have spoken with plenty of people who have real conditions and genuinely find it relieves their pain, helps with nausea/.



I also agree that Xanax probably wouldn't be as bad if it were used as a short-term aid.

But there seem to be plenty of people who take a daily dose and have for very long periods of time.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> Here is one story of many on the Marijuana anonymous page:
> 
> My Last 60 Days of Using  What was it like?
> ---Gannon B.
> 
> April, 1996



Yep, this person definitely had a problem. 

If he/she stopped cold turkey I bet he/she had a heck of mental meltdown dealing with his psychological withdrawals.

Good thing his/her addictive personality latched on to pot instead of prescription medications, heroin, cocaine, meth or PCP ... or booze. That level of addiction and abuse could have killed him or her with physical withdrawal symptoms.

He or she was ingesting an incredible amount of marijuana (even compared to some of the big potheads I knew back in the day). The same sort of behavior applied even to alcohol could have been fatal.

I'm glad he/she found help.


----------



## Steve

zDom said:


> I agree that the medical marijuana thing has become silly.
> 
> I walked up and down Venice Beach past a dozen shops advertising that for $40 or so they would examine you and write a prescription.
> 
> (On the other hand, I saw nobody smoking... anywhere.)
> 
> But I have spoken with plenty of people who have real conditions and genuinely find it relieves their pain, helps with nausea/.
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree that Xanax probably wouldn't be as bad if it were used as a short-term aid.
> 
> But there seem to be plenty of people who take a daily dose and have for very long periods of time.


It's important to distinguish between the opportunistic people offering a venue for casual use of marijuana, and the actual, legitimate health benefits of cannabis for some people.

Marijuana can reduce nausea and loss of appetite for people who are undergoing chemotherapy and can actually counteract many of the side effects of the drugs used to fight cancer.  It has also been shown to slow or stop the growth of certain types of cancer.

It's also helpful as an anti-anxiety/antidepressant.  In lieu of xanax, prozac or other drugs that have a laundry list of side effects, many people see marked improvement just from cannabis.  

Marijuana is proven to be beneficial for people who have glaucoma, actually reducing the amount of pressure in their eyes and slowing, or in some cases stopping, the progression of the disease.

It's also good for chronic pain and muscle spasms.  This is where the 'bad back' thing comes in.  

And before people start trotting out examples where it doesn't work, no drugs work.  One of the side effects of every anti-depressant on the market today is suicidal thoughts.  Many of us here have thrown out our backs.  I have a herniated disc and when it gets inflamed, it triggers muscle spasms in my lower back and in the piriformis muscle, which just clenches down on my sciatic nerve.  The sciatica is typically so bad that I get burning down to my knee and numbness from there to the ankle.  I would LOVE to have the option of cannabis over the highly addictive, mind altering opiates I'm prescribed.  

To sum up.  Are there a lot of people taking advantage of medical marijuana legality to gain access to a recreational drug?  Sure.  Does that mean cannabis has no legitimate medicinal value?  Not one bit.  Apples to apples with drugs commonly prescribed for the same conditions, cannabis often has milder side effects and fewer adverse reactions, and is for some people more effective.


----------



## Tez3

The man who invented 'legal highs'  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...e-drugs-lord-whos-strictly-legal-7939583.html


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> It's important to distinguish between the opportunistic people offering a venue for casual use of marijuana, and the actual, legitimate health benefits of cannabis for some people.
> 
> Marijuana can reduce nausea and loss of appetite for people who are undergoing chemotherapy and can actually counteract many of the side effects of the drugs used to fight cancer.  It has also been shown to slow or stop the growth of certain types of cancer.
> 
> It's also helpful as an anti-anxiety/antidepressant.  In lieu of xanax, prozac or other drugs that have a laundry list of side effects, many people see marked improvement just from cannabis.
> 
> Marijuana is proven to be beneficial for people who have glaucoma, actually reducing the amount of pressure in their eyes and slowing, or in some cases stopping, the progression of the disease.
> 
> It's also good for chronic pain and muscle spasms.  This is where the 'bad back' thing comes in.
> 
> And before people start trotting out examples where it doesn't work, no drugs work.  One of the side effects of every anti-depressant on the market today is suicidal thoughts.  Many of us here have thrown out our backs.  I have a herniated disc and when it gets inflamed, it triggers muscle spasms in my lower back and in the piriformis muscle, which just clenches down on my sciatic nerve.  The sciatica is typically so bad that I get burning down to my knee and numbness from there to the ankle.  I would LOVE to have the option of cannabis over the highly addictive, mind altering opiates I'm prescribed.
> 
> To sum up.  Are there a lot of people taking advantage of medical marijuana legality to gain access to a recreational drug?  Sure.  Does that mean cannabis has no legitimate medicinal value?  Not one bit.  Apples to apples with drugs commonly prescribed for the same conditions, cannabis often has milder side effects and fewer adverse reactions, and is for some people more effective.


Stretching the truth to breaking point.

Cancer trials using THC were conducted in mice but not humans.



> Although a medical substitute of THC, known as Marinol, has been used as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients and other similar treatments, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity.
> 
> Continue reading at NowPublic.com: THC (marijuana) helps cure cancer says Harvard study | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study#ixzz20Y5QwgRy





> Advocates of medicinal marijuana cite evidence that hemp products can lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with glaucoma. However, these products are less effective than medicines prescribed by an eye doctor.
> The high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect on IOP in the short term requires constant inhalation, as much as every three hours.
> The number of significant side effects generated by long-term oral use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke make marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma, a chronic disease requiring proven and effective treatment.





> [h=3]Abstract[/h]The plant Cannabis sativa has a long history of medical use in the treatment of pain and spasms, the promotion of sleep, and the suppression of nausea and vomiting. However, in the early 70s cannabis was classified in the Narcotic Acts in countries all over the world as having no therapeutic benefit; therefore, it cannot be prescribed by physicians or dispensed by pharmacists. In the light of this contradictory situation an increasing number of patients practices a self-prescription with cannabis products for relieving a variety of symptoms. An anonymous standardized survey of the medical use of cannabis and cannabis products of patients in Germany, Austria and Switzerland was conducted by the Association for Cannabis as Medicine (Cologne, Germany). During about one year 170 subjects participated in this survey; questionnaires of 128 patients could be included into the evaluation. 68% of these participants were males, 32% females, with a total mean age of 37.5 (+/- 9.6) years. The most frequently mentioned indications for medicinal cannabis use were depression (12.0%), multiple sclerosis (10.8%), HIV-infection (9.0%), migraine (6.6%), asthma (6.0%), back pain (5.4%), hepatitis C (4. 8%), sleeping disorders (4.8%), epilepsy (3.6%), spasticity (3.6%), headache (3.6%), alcoholism (3.0%), glaucoma (3.0%), nausea (3.0%), disk prolapse (2.4%), and spinal cord injury (2.4%). The majority of patients used natural cannabis products such as marihuana, hashish and an alcoholic tincture; in just 5 cases dronabinol (Marinol) was taken by prescription. About half of the 128 participants of the survey (52.4%) had used cannabis as a recreational drug before the onset of their illness. To date 14.3% took cannabis orally, 49.2% by inhalation and in 36.5% of cases both application modes were used. 72.2% of the patients stated the symptoms of their illness to have 'much improved' after cannabis ingestion, 23.4% stated to have 'slightly improved', 4.8% experienced 'no change' and 1.6% described that their symptoms got 'worse'. Being asked for the satisfaction with their therapeutic use of cannabis 60.8% stated to be 'very satisfied', 24.0% 'satisfied', 11.2% 'partly satisfied' and 4.0% were 'not satisfied'. 70.8% experienced no side effects, 26.4% described 'moderate' and 3.3% 'strong' side effects. 84.1% of patients have not felt any need for dose escalation during the last 3 months, 11.0% had to increase their cannabis dose 'moderately' and 4.8% 'strongly' in order to maintain the therapeutic effects. Thus, this survey demonstrates a successful use of cannabis products for the treatment of a multitude of various illnesses and symptoms. This use was usually accompanied only by slight and in general acceptable side effects. Because the patient group responding to this survey is presumably highly selected, no conclusions can be drawn about the quantity of wanted and unwanted effects of the medicinal use of the hemp plant for particular indications.
> Copyright 1999 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg


Marijuana may have health benefits but it has not been demonstrated to be better than what is already available and there is little scientific research to back your claims.

When you talk of side effects, everyone will have side effects if they use cannabis for pain or spasm. Less than 5% will have side effects with conventional medication.  Any drug for anything that had the side effects of marijuana would never even get to clinical trials.

And, as for the 'highly addictive, mind altering opiates', that is also not true unless you are on high doses regularly, in which case it can be appropriately managed. 'Mind altering' at normal dose is not really the case either.

If you want to have illicit drugs legalised fine, but don't use pseudo science to justify it. The thread started out proposing that *all* illicit drugs be given open slather and using legalising of marijuana as the lever to get the other things on the market is rubbish.       :asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Stretching the truth to breaking point.
> 
> Cancer trials using THC were conducted in mice but not humans.


Show me where I stretched the truth.  Cancer trials using THC were conducted in mice but not humans... and?

I said, "Marijuana can reduce nausea and loss of appetite for people who are undergoing chemotherapy and can actually counteract many of the side effects of the drugs used to fight cancer. It has also been shown to slow or stop the growth of certain types of cancer."  Which part isn't true or is stretching the truth?  Sounds to me like you're the one stretching.  





> Marijuana may have health benefits but it has not been demonstrated to be better than what is already available and there is little scientific research to back your claims.


And yet, for many people, it is a viable alternative.  Once again, you're not contradicting anything I've posted.  It does reduce nausea for many people.  It does reduce muscle spasms for many people.  It does everything I posted.  





> When you talk of side effects, everyone will have side effects if they use cannabis for pain or spasm. Less than 5% will have side effects with conventional medication.  Any drug for anything that had the side effects of marijuana would never even get to clinical trials.


Are you seriously, honestly suggesting that Marijuana has more severe side effects than Oxicontin?  WHAT?  





> And, as for the 'highly addictive, mind altering opiates', that is also not true unless you are on high doses regularly, in which case it can be appropriately managed. 'Mind altering' at normal dose is not really the case either.


Dude, I take 2 vicodin and I can't drive.  Percocet, morphine or oxicontin all make me nauseous to the point of throwing up and send me right round the bend.  I can't believe that you would suggest that any of these opiate based painkillers have fewer side effects than marijuana.  That's funny.


----------



## Buka

My lifelong buddy is battling cancer. While our state does not have a medical marijuana program, his doctor suggested he use it to help with the chemo. Three of us, life long friends who grew up in the sixties, are now _in_ our sixties. We spent many a year on the dojo together, and two of us were cops together (now retired).

All three of us share the same birthday month. My buddy has invited us to what will probably be his last birthday. I'm bringing the eggplant parmigiana, he's providing the desert (he's a retired chef) our other friend is grilling sea bass. We're going to watch a movie double feature, _Woodstock,_ and _Doctor Strangelove_. We're going to partake in some big fat doobies. (I haven't done that in decades.) Maybe it will be a journey into the abyss and we will all suffer from the darkness of melancholy and reefer madness, maybe we'll laugh, fart and eat too much. Maybe it will be a fun social experiment.  

I can't fricken wait.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Show me where I stretched the truth.  Cancer trials using THC were conducted in mice but not humans... and?
> 
> I said, "Marijuana can reduce nausea and loss of appetite for people who are undergoing chemotherapy and can actually counteract many of the side effects of the drugs used to fight cancer. It has also been shown to slow or stop the growth of certain types of cancer."  Which part isn't true or is stretching the truth?  Sounds to me like you're the one stretching.  And yet, for many people, it is a viable alternative.  Once again, you're not contradicting anything I've posted.  It does reduce nausea for many people.  It does reduce muscle spasms for many people.  It does everything I posted.  Are you seriously, honestly suggesting that Marijuana has more severe side effects than Oxicontin?  WHAT?  Dude, I take 2 vicodin and I can't drive.  Percocet, morphine or oxicontin all make me nauseous to the point of throwing up and send me right round the bend.  I can't believe that you would suggest that any of these opiate based painkillers have fewer side effects than marijuana.  That's funny.


"It has also been shown to slow or stop the growth of certain types of cancer."        I would have thought that was stretching the truth.     

Most of what you have written is anecdotal. Show me the clinical trials that back your claims.

WRT OxyContin. If you are taking two OxyContin you should not be driving.  The normal dose is one tablet.  Two tablets would only be prescribed for the worst pain.  As  marijuana has destroyed the life of one of my relations and caused enormous problems in the lives of two of my children, you are never going to convince me that marijuana is a harmless drug.

Then you say I am stretching the truth?  I just quoted medical research.    :asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> "It has also been shown to slow or stop the growth of certain types of cancer."        I would have thought that was stretching the truth.
> 
> Most of what you have written is anecdotal. Show me the clinical trials that back your claims.
> 
> WRT OxyContin. If you are taking two OxyContin you should not be driving.  The normal dose is one tablet.  Two tablets would only be prescribed for the worst pain.  As  marijuana has destroyed the life of one of my relations and caused enormous problems in the lives of two of my children, you are never going to convince me that marijuana is a harmless drug.
> 
> Then you say I am stretching the truth?  I just quoted medical research.    :asian:



You said I was scratching when I mentioned mind altering opiate based painkillers.  Would you say they are not mind altering?  If that's so, why shouldn't I drive when taking them?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> You said I was scratching when I mentioned mind altering opiate based painkillers.  Would you say they are not mind altering?  If that's so, why shouldn't I drive when taking them?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Prescription opiate abuse typically occurs when people try to defeat the pills time release properties...crushing, chewing, injecting, etc. When taken as prescribed an Oxy usually won't make you "fly". Its the bodies acclimation to the drug that demands more for the same effect that is the start of trouble.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Prescription opiate abuse typically occurs when people try to defeat the pills time release properties...crushing, chewing, injecting, etc. When taken as prescribed an Oxy usually won't make you "fly". Its the bodies acclimation to the drug that demands more for the same effect that is the start of trouble.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Are you guys kidding?  I took OxyContin one time and it was an awful experience.  Morphine made me so nauseous I threw up.  Vicodin is milder, but still makes me very loopy.  Having chronic back issues, I've been prescribed a lot of opiate based pain killers.  It's awesome how you guys are telling me I'm wrong about the drugs I've personally ingested as prescribed.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> Are you guys kidding?  I took OxyContin one time and it was an awful experience.  Morphine made me so nauseous I threw up.  Vicodin is milder, but still makes me very loopy.  Having chronic back issues, I've been prescribed a lot of opiate based pain killers.  It's awesome how you guys are telling me I'm wrong about the drugs I've personally ingested as prescribed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Eh...Ive been on oxy, hydro...never even made me sleepy....must have been on higher mg doses than me. The ibuprofen in hydrocodone is known to cause stomach troubles. Not saying that continued use is not without it's hazards...it obviously is. But taking them for your root canal isn't usually gonna make you "stoned" or an addict. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

People with chronic pain..like yourself..need to be exceedingly careful. Pain management with meds basically  IS doctor controlled addiction and subsequent tapering off. You will build a tolerance and addiction to opiates over time. Its like medical math.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

All great advice, and I can assure you that addiction won't be an issue.  I hate the way they make me feel, and take them only when necessary.  

 The point remains that opiates will get you "stoned." they are, in fact, an extremely popular way to get stoned.  . You shouldn't drive when you take them and they are addictive.  You're attempting to paint drugs that represent a significant threat as harmless.  I am completely lost.  You're a cop and you seem to be arguing that marijuana is a worse danger than opiates.  I don't Get it.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

Where have I ever argued weed as being "dangerous"? Ive explicitly said on this thread that I would loose no sleep if it were legal tomorrow. All I said is I don't agree with putting yet another recreational drug on the market and am personally against legalizing it. Same with spice, bath salts, extasy,etc. Settle for a beer, some coffee and a cigarette like the rest of us. Alcohol is trouble enough as it is...I personally don't want another drug added to the mix. I think legalization will just cause more headaches than benefits and create more users.

If I'm outvoted and its made legal so be it....

Opiod meds are controlled substances. I catch you with them outside a bottle with your name on it and I'm charging you with a misdemeanor or a felony. If your dosage or individual reaction to them effects your driving and I will DUI you.

The argument is that Oxy/hydro are prescribed medications and when taken as directed fairly safe and...taken as prescribed...not typically intoxicating depending on dosage and frequently of consumption (chronic cases excepted). Their recreational use is unlawful and not the substances original intent. In order to "get stoned" ... I'm not talking about possible side effect drowsiness, or reactions to alcohol or other meds. I mean stumbling, on the nod stoned...on most diverted meds you need to crush, chew, snort, or shoot them...or take a large dose. 

The problem will these pills is the ease with which doctors prescribe them...and their lack of monitoring patients on them IMO. That and an antiquated prescription system that lets people doctor shop for pills.

Weeds purpose is strictly for a buzz...all "medical use" smokescreen aside. So one is a controlled substance with a potential for abuse and the other is a recreational drug intentionally consumed to get an intoxicating effect. That's all I'm saying...I don't know what other peoples points are.

A brief fact...most US Oxy is now unpopular with abusers....the new "op" blend defeats crushing and chewing attempts, which defeat the pills time release formulation and deliver all the opiod at once.

Opana is the new pill of choice...or Canadian Oxy which doesn't have the "op" additive. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Are you guys kidding? I took OxyContin one time and it was an awful experience. Morphine made me so nauseous I threw up. Vicodin is milder, but still makes me very loopy. Having chronic back issues, I've been prescribed a lot of opiate based pain killers. It's awesome how you guys are telling me I'm wrong about the drugs I've personally ingested as prescribed.


No one is telling you you are wrong about the drugs you have taken. Different people have different responses but when any of those drugs are dispensed you would normally be given a fair amount of information on potential problems, including drowsiness.  OxyContin is one of the stronger analgesics available and until a tolerance develops there is a high likelihood that you will have a great deal of sedation. No one should be driving or operating machinery until they can tolerate the side effects.  Vicodin we don't have in Australia but I assume it has properties more like codeine. It does have less sedation than OxyContin but is not as strong in its analgesia. 

Driving is advised against with many medications, not because they are mind altering but because they cause sedation. Driving when tired is as bad or worse than driving at the alcohol limits.



> A study by researchers in Australia showed that being awake for 18 hours produced an impairment equal to a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .05, and .10 after 24 hours; .08 is considered legally drunk.
> Other research indicates commercial drivers and people with undiagnosed sleep disorders such as sleep apnea and acute insomnia are also at greater risk for fall asleep crashes.



Which brings us back to marijuana. Are you saying that marijuana has the same or greater pain relieving properties without making you 'loopy'?


----------



## Makalakumu

Thought this perspective was interesting.  Perhaps weed is very different from alcohol.

http://www.10thplanetwatch.com/2008/06/eddie-bravo-marijuana-martial-arts-master/



> *You didn&#8217;t start training stoned until 2003, five years after you began smoking weed. Why was that?*
> I was afraid of training jiu-jitsu stoned because I was usually the smallest guy in the gym. I thought the weed would make me relax while I trained. I would walk into the gym and drink a Red Bull because at that point I thought I needed to be extra wiry and aggressive and alert.
> 
> I thought I couldn&#8217;t roll stoned. I thought it would be impossible. At first I didn&#8217;t think I could do _anything _stoned.  I didn&#8217;t think I could drive stoned. I didn&#8217;t think I could anything stoned except stay at home at night and order food and watch TV and write down these crazy ideas I was coming up with.
> 
> Then I met one of the top American jiu-jitsu players and I had a talk with him at the World Championships in Brazil, and he told me that he trains jiu-jitsu stoned all the time and it makes him flow better. He said he felt like a ninja when rolled stoned, but I didn&#8217;t believe him.
> 
> Eventually, I did start rolling stoned when I opened up my own school. My classes are at 8:30 p.m. Up until then I had only been a day trainer; I had never waked and baked so it was really easy for me to avoid mixing my weed and my training. I would only smoke weed at night, and I trained during the day. Since day one of teaching I&#8217;ve taught every night class totally baked. That guy was right, you do flow better stoned.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Which brings us back to marijuana. Are you saying that marijuana has the same or greater pain relieving properties without making you 'loopy'?


The pain I have is largely a result of muscle spasms.  Typically, I'm prescribed vicodin and flexeril.  As I've said earlier, I haven't smoked weed in over 20 years, but it's said to help specifically with muscle spasms.  If the pain I experience is a result of muscle spasms, particularly in the periformis muscle, I'd much rather give weed a shot before taking more muscle relaxants and an opiate based pain killer.  Just saying, the option would be nice.


----------



## rickster

Steve said:


> Marijuana can reduce nausea and loss of appetite for people who are undergoing chemotherapy and can actually counteract many of the side effects of the drugs used to fight cancer.  It has also been shown to slow or stop the growth of certain types of cancer.
> .



Marijuana has loss of appetite?


----------



## Steve

rickster said:


> Marijuana has loss of appetite?


LOL.  No.  The opposite.  People who are undergoing chemotherapy, or are taking medications for things such as AIDS, can have a loss of appetite.  Weed has been reported to help with this.


----------



## rickster

Steve said:


> LOL.  No.  The opposite.  People who are undergoing chemotherapy, or are taking medications for things such as AIDS, can have a loss of appetite.  Weed has been reported to help with this.



Ah, just checking to see if I read it right......


----------



## ballen0351

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Unable to rein in hundreds of medical pot shops that blossomed around the nation's second-biggest metropolis, the Los Angeles City Council banned them Tuesday until the state's highest court weighs in.
The 14-0 vote drew an angry, profanity-laced response from some medical marijuana advocates who attended the council meeting.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was prepared to sign the ordinance, according to his spokeswoman, Vicki Curry. The storefront ban would then go into effect after 30 days.
In the interim, letters will be sent to as many as 900 dispensaries advising them of the ban.
The city has fumbled with its medical marijuana laws for years, trying to provide safe and affordable access to the drug for legitimate patients while addressing worries by neighborhood groups that streets were being overrun by dispensaries and pot users.
"Relief is on the way," said Councilman Jose Huizar, who introduced the so-called "gentle ban."


----------



## Makalakumu

More government control of the free market. Let's shut down 900 businesses in the middle of a recession.


----------



## zDom

I'm sure other communities will appreciate the tax revenue from those businesses.

If tax is not collected for those transactions, it should be.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> I'm sure other communities will appreciate the tax revenue from those businesses.
> 
> If tax is not collected for those transactions, it should be.



I'm not sure why the link for the article didn't post as well but the story also said like 90 other California cities have similar laws and several counties in California have banned it as well.  So it seems not all is rainbows and candy canes in the world of legal marijuana


----------



## Steve

A lot of the issues with "legal marijuana" stem from it not being actually "legal."  It's in a limbo land in between controlled and illegal.  It's not quite a prescription drug, or you could get it from a pharmacy and not a "dispensary."  It's not quite illegal... it's just in a place where there is a demand and people are looking for a way to bend and stretch the situation.  I'm not surprised that "medical" marijuana is causing issues.  It's a farce, like DADT... a half assed attempt to appease both sides.


----------



## Makalakumu

Steve said:


> A lot of the issues with "legal marijuana" stem from it not being actually "legal."  It's in a limbo land in between controlled and illegal.  It's not quite a prescription drug, or you could get it from a pharmacy and not a "dispensary."  It's not quite illegal... it's just in a place where there is a demand and people are looking for a way to bend and stretch the situation.  I'm not surprised that "medical" marijuana is causing issues.  It's a farce, like DADT... a half assed attempt to appease both sides.



That's a huge problem with medical pot.  It's not honestly dealing with the fact that a demand to use this stuff exists by a large cross section of people.  So, all kinds of excuses get invented to smoke a joint.  I would much rather people deal with the fact that people want to use pot for medical reason and for recreational reasons.


----------



## granfire

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA.....

The fear mongering backfires.....


----------



## ballen0351

Another Harmless pot head:
PORTLAND, Ore. - A man who was shot dead by police is believed to have been involved in an armed robbery at a medical marijuana grow, a shooting where shots were fired at a car and an incident involving menacing with a gun. 
The officer-involved shooting happened Saturday afternoon in North Portland after police tracked down a suspect vehicle they believed had been involved in the crimes.The armed robbery happened July 23 at a home at Southeast 104th and Division. Police say three suspects stole some marijuana plants at gunpoint and one of them fired off a shot at the house as they were leaving.
The man who lives at the home told KATU News that he grows 10 marijuana plants for one patient. He said he caught the three suspects, confronted them and that's when the shot was fired.

http://www.kval.com/news/local/Port...-was-involved-in-a-crime-spree-164214656.html


----------



## rickster

ballen0351 said:


> Another Harmless pot head:
> PORTLAND, Ore. - A man who was shot dead by police is believed to have been involved in an armed robbery at a medical marijuana grow, a shooting where shots were fired at a car and an incident involving menacing with a gun.
> The officer-involved shooting happened Saturday afternoon in North Portland after police tracked down a suspect vehicle they believed had been involved in the crimes.The armed robbery happened July 23 at a home at Southeast 104th and Division. Police say three suspects stole some marijuana plants at gunpoint and one of them fired off a shot at the house as they were leaving.
> The man who lives at the home told KATU News that he grows 10 marijuana plants for one patient. He said he caught the three suspects, confronted them and that's when the shot was fired.
> 
> http://www.kval.com/news/local/Port...-was-involved-in-a-crime-spree-164214656.html



The robbers may have not been hardcore users, but people ooking to cash in

Hardcore potheads sit around getting high watching tube


----------



## Makalakumu

rickster said:


> The robbers may have not been hardcore users, but people ooking to cash in
> 
> Hardcore potheads sit around getting high watching tube



The irony is that they were probably stealing in order to support a different illegal habit. Both of which are alleviated by legalization.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> The irony is that they were probably stealing in order to support a different illegal habit. Both of which are alleviated by legalization.



Funny I didnt see that part in the story


----------



## Tgace

The habit of wanting dope but wanting to pay for it....


----------



## Tez3

Making something legal doesn't make the paying for it any easier. If addicts don't have the money to buy it from legal dealers they will still commit crimes to get it. Fairly obviously really. Addicts with money and/or a wage will always get what they want legal or not.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Making something legal doesn't make the paying for it any easier. If addicts don't have the money to buy it from legal dealers they will still commit crimes to get it. Fairly obviously really. Addicts with money and/or a wage will always get what they want legal or not.


True in theory, but in spite of their high price, we don't see as many people doing this over tobacco or alcohol.  It happens, but much less frequently than we see for illicit drugs.


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> Making something legal doesn't make the paying for it any easier. If addicts don't have the money to buy it from legal dealers they will still commit crimes to get it. Fairly obviously really. Addicts with money and/or a wage will always get what they want legal or not.



Thats the point the pro-drug folks seem to forget when they claim making drug legal will lower crime. If I need to take you DVD player to buy my pot now making it legal wont all of a sudden make me have money to go buy it Im still going to need to take your DVD player.  At least with Drugs being illegal we can order people into rehab and try to get them help.  Once they are legal you loose that power and now the same poor "harmless" drug users are still in jail only now its for theft and robbery and not possession of CDS


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> True in theory, but in spite of their high price, we don't see as many people doing this over tobacco or alcohol.  It happens, but much less frequently than we see for illicit drugs.



So once legal the price for marijuana will drop to tobacco levels?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So once legal the price for marijuana will drop to tobacco levels?


$5 to $10 per pack?  Actually, that could easily happen.  If the strength is regulated and "generic" packs of 10 or 20 marijuana "cigarettes" are sold in stores, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that happens. 

Historically, what happens in situations like this is that the manufacturers and distributors try to identify a sweet spot in the price point and then tailor the product to meet that price.  So, if $10 per pack ends up being the sweet spot for a pack, they'll in some way figure out how to market it at that price.  Could be by making it a little less strong, by reducing the number of "cigarettes" per pack or by making them smaller.  

But that's all speculation... sort of a "how I'd do it" thing.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> True in theory, but in spite of their high price, we don't see as many people doing this over tobacco or alcohol. It happens, but much less frequently than we see for illicit drugs.



At the risk of incurring your wrath yet again I'd point out we have a lot of alcohol and tobacco crime here due to our proximity to countries where these are cheaper. We do have off licences being broken into quite often for the booze as well. The smuggling and illegal selling of cigarettes and alcohol is a rather old Custom of ours here. (there's a pun in there for the Brits ) Cigarettes are also the currency in prisons for which some will do a lot of things one can't consider legal.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> At the risk of incurring your wrath yet again I'd point out we have a lot of alcohol and tobacco crime here due to our proximity to countries where these are cheaper. We do have off licences being broken into quite often for the booze as well. The smuggling and illegal selling of cigarettes and alcohol is a rather old Custom of ours here. (there's a pun in there for the Brits ) Cigarettes are also the currency in prisons for which some will do a lot of things one can't consider legal.


Grrr...  yarrr!!!!  Rawrrrrr!   

There is a black market for booze and cigarettes in the States as well, but most people purchase them legally through convenient retailers.


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> Grrr...  yarrr!!!!  Rawrrrrr!
> 
> There is a black market for booze and cigarettes in the States as well, but most people purchase them legally through convenient retailers.



LOL, the borders are not so conveniently close either...


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> It seems some of you have a different approach and are asking the question, "Will legalization of X or Y drug make things better?"  The answer in some cases is yes, I believe, but in many cases the answer is clearly no.  Legalizing heroin, crack, PCP, meth or drugs in that category will clearly not make things better, and it may actually lead to an increase in illicit use and addiction of these drugs.
> 
> But lets look at the actual statistics.
> 
> In 2010, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), about 22.6 million Americans age 12 and older are "past month" illicit drug users (about 8.9% of the entire 12+ age population).  That's just stuff that's illegal and doesn't include alcohol or tobacco even though those are both illegal for minors.   Of those, 17.4 million smoked weed.  And of the 17.4 million, it was the ONLY illicit drug used by over 60%
> 
> What's number 2?  Psychotherapeutics at 7 million.  That's 7 million people 12 or older who are "past month" users of LEGAL prescription drugs used for recreational, non-medical purposes.
> 
> After that, it drops off considerably.  Number 3 is 1.5 million who used some form of cocaine to include crack.  Point here is that marijuana use is currently pervasive.  Use figures for marijuana, in spite of its status as "illicit," are staggering.  It also demonstrates very clearly that the real health issue for America isn't the supposedly dangerous illicit drugs like crack or meth.  It's the illicit use of "legal" drugs like sedatives, pain relievers, tranquilizers and stimulants.
> 
> While 17.4 million Americans are "past month" users of weed, the entire total use of all other drugs was about 9 million, and 7 million of those users were abuse of prescription meds.
> 
> Another interesting statistic.  Although the rate of current illicit drug use was higher among unemployed persons in 2010 compared with those who were either employed full time, employed part time, or "other" (which includes retired persons, disabled persons, homemakers, students, and other persons not in the labor force), most of these users were employed. Of the 20.2 million current illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2010, 13.3 million (65.9 percent) were employed either full or part time.
> 
> Interesting study for anyone interested: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm
> 
> And just to stem off any inevitable accusations, I haven't smoked weed since 1989.  The only illicit drug use I've taken part in was to keep some vicodin in the cupboard for my back one time that I got legally from my doctor, but didn't "properly dispose" of after I began to feel better.  I enjoy an alcoholic beverage regularly, but seldom drink more than 2.
> 
> Ballen, to address your question of coming up with something that will work, one thing would be to stop clogging up our justice system with non-violent hippies who like to smoke pot so that we can more effectively deal with the violent and destructive members of society.  Legalizing weed would eliminate the criminal element from that demographic, and as I showed above, that is a huge amount of people.  While we're at it, we need to think about how we manage prescription medication and make it more difficult to get.  This will also necessarily involve holding doctors more accountable for the prescriptions they write and removing the "free market" element from medicine which involves incentives to doctors for "prescribing" brand name medications and handing out samples like candy in order to get paid vacations and expensive gifts directly from the pharmaceutical distributors.
> 
> But the absolute easiest thing that we can do would be to legalize weed, and right there you will have brought the lion's share of illicit drug use out into the open so that it can be regulated for consistency and strength, taxed and sold out in the open to responsible adults who wish to enjoy it.  Then, as a society, we can deal with the much smaller group of violent and dangerous people who are hooked on stronger drugs like heroin and meth.
> 
> Let's be clear, though.  Weed isn't illegal because it's dangerous to society.  It's illegal because there is a lot of money at stake.  It's political and financial, not social.


This post from 2012 holds up pretty well.  Only thing I didn’t account for was the almost direct line from OxyContin to heroin as a cheaper alternative.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Grrr...  yarrr!!!!  Rawrrrrr!
> 
> There is a black market for booze and cigarettes in the States as well, but most people purchase them legally through convenient retailers.


There certainly appears to be a market for marijuana sold illegally in the states.
There is also a market for 'self brewed' alcohol here. It is largely for selling higher alcohol volume (moonshine) and avoiding the federal excise tax of $13.50/gallon and the typical state tax of about 7%-15%. I have two good friends who are ATF and they say produced alcohol is living large in the south and east states.
I assume there are black markets for branded alcohol and cigarettes as well but that would seem to be more of a buy (or steal) and sell venture not a produce and sell venture to me.


----------



## granfire

dvcochran said:


> There certainly appears to be a market for marijuana sold illegally in the states.
> There is also a market for 'self brewed' alcohol here. It is largely for selling higher alcohol volume (moonshine) and avoiding the federal excise tax of $13.50/gallon and the typical state tax of about 7%-15%. I have two good friends who are ATF and they say produced alcohol is living large in the south and east states.
> I assume there are black markets for branded alcohol and cigarettes as well but that would seem to be more of a buy (or steal) and sell venture not a produce and sell venture to me.


they should give them amnesty for the time being...so we can claim we use it to sanitize stuff, for which store bought booze is utterly useless! 
I think a lot of the make shine to stick it to the union...


----------



## Buka

I just went through most of this thread. Didn't remember it at first.

I wouldn't touch this thread again with a ten foot blunt.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I just went through most of this thread. Didn't remember it at first.
> 
> I wouldn't touch this thread again with a ten foot blunt.


I don't recommend it.  I was just bragging about how spot on I was 8 years ago. 

Now... where are those gun control threads...?


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> I don't recommend it.  I was just bragging about how spot on I was 8 years ago.
> 
> Now... where are those gun control threads...?


I think they got shoved into the basement upon closing


----------

