# Another Decriminalise Drugs Thread



## Sukerkin (Sep 28, 2013)

I know we've been around this track (no pun intended for a change) a few times but I have to say I agree with this fellow on the matter of the bad consequences of keeping recreational drugs illegal:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24320717


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

So when drugs are legal what will all these gangs move to so they can earn income?  If they can't sell drugs they are not just going to say oh well guess I'll go work flipping burgers.  They will look for the next easy money outlet which could become violence like robbery and burglary.  
In a way would you rather drug dealer stay in certain areas of the city dealing with certain types of people and for the most part regular people are left unaffected by what's going on OR would you rather them stop selling drugs and look for another criminal enterprise ?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 28, 2013)

There's something to consider there, yeah, but it can't be a reason for keeping drugs like MJ illegal.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> There's something to consider there, yeah, but it can't be a reason for keeping drugs like MJ illegal.


I dont think the article was picking one drug over the other it was speaking of drugs as a whole


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Kinda what I was saying:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23331602

 "Criminals will not stop their crimes, change course and become honest tax-paying citizens if drugs were legalised. International drug control is working; fewer than 6% of people globally use drugs regularly and legalisation is not the answer."


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 28, 2013)

That thought did occur to me too, aye.  But I counterbalance that with the statistic that is generally touted that ninety percent of the crime in this country is drug related and carried out by ten percent of the criminal population.

I think maybe not only are we looking at this through eyes that were born in different countries but also by eyes that are influenced by our different professions.  I know that you have to directly deal with the consequences of the drug trade in your line of work and I would not dream of gainsaying your experience.  It is just that equally the fellow putting this forwards is a rather senior police officer in his own right, just one in Britain where, altho' the trade is rife, the sheer volume of drug related deaths through violence to each other is lesser.  The drug related crime here is more theft and burglary by addicts to fund the habit.

So if by making it non-criminal and making access easier but controlled for addicts, the crime they commit will lessen and that will outweigh the increase in crime from former drug traffickers seeking to maintain their income, for there are a lot fewer dealers than there are users.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> That thought did occur to me too, aye.  But I counterbalance that with the statistic that is generally touted that ninety percent of the crime in this country is drug related and carried out by ten percent of the criminal population.
> 
> I think maybe not only are we looking at this through eyes that were born in different countries but also by eyes that are influenced by our different professions.  I know that you have to directly deal with the consequences of the drug trade in your line of work and I would not dream of gainsaying your experience.  It is just that equally the fellow putting this forwards is a rather senior police officer in his own right, just one in Britain where, altho' the trade is rife, the sheer volume of drug related deaths through violence to each other is lesser.  The drug related crime here is more theft and burglary by addicts to fund the habit.
> 
> So if by making it non-criminal and making access easier but controlled for addicts, the crime they commit will lessen and that will outweigh the increase in crime from former drug traffickers seeking to maintain their income, for there are a lot fewer dealers than there are users.


problem is addicts that currently commit crimes to afford drugs will still need to commit crimes to buy their drugs only now the cash goes to a Pfizer pharmaceuticals instead or the dude on the corner.  So that end of drug related crime wont change.  At least I dont see why it would if I need to steal your TV today to buy some crack, why would making it legal, regulated, taxed cause me to no longer need to steal your TV?  The only reduction in crime rates would be for drug crime itself like possession or dealing drugs.  All the related crime will remain.  Only now we added the gang element looking for a new source of income to make up for the loss of drug funds


----------



## arnisador (Sep 28, 2013)

What did the Mafia do when gambling started to become legal in many places? What did bootleggers do post-Prohibition?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> What did the Mafia do when gambling started to become legal in many places?


  Stay in places where its still illegal, Run illegal Gaming operations in places where it was legal, murder, extortion, and drug running to name a few


> What did bootleggers do post-Prohibition?


Move on to other crimes like bank robbery, train robbery, Nascar( I honestly have no idea bootlegging was well before my time)


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So when drugs are legal what will all these gangs move to so they can earn income?  If they can't sell drugs they are not just going to say oh well guess I'll go work flipping burgers.  They will look for the next easy money outlet which could become violence like robbery and burglary.
> In a way would you rather drug dealer stay in certain areas of the city dealing with certain types of people and for the most part regular people are left unaffected by what's going on OR would you rather them stop selling drugs and look for another criminal enterprise ?



Legalize drugs, gambling, prostitution....pretty much all vice. And when the bad guys switch to violence, legalize self defense and firearms. That will end that right quick.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Legalize drugs, gambling, prostitution....pretty much all vice. And when the bad guys switch to violence, legalize self defense and firearms. That will end that right quick.


we had that once it was called the wild west


----------



## arnisador (Sep 28, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> we had that once it was called the wild west



...which was a polite society because it was an armed society. Oh wait, no, you seem to be going a different way on that now...


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> ...which was a polite society because it was an armed society. Oh wait, no, you seem to be going a different way on that now...


huh?  you lost me


----------



## arnisador (Sep 28, 2013)

Your reference to the Wild West did not seem very approving.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Your reference to the Wild West did not seem very approving.


Approving?  I wasn't there how can I approve or not?  Just said we had that type of society before


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> problem is addicts that currently commit crimes to afford drugs will still need to commit crimes to buy their drugs only now the cash goes to a Pfizer pharmaceuticals instead or the dude on the corner.  So that end of drug related crime wont change.  At least I dont see why it would if I need to steal your TV today to buy some crack, why would making it legal, regulated, taxed cause me to no longer need to steal your TV?  The only reduction in crime rates would be for drug crime itself like possession or dealing drugs.  All the related crime will remain.  Only now we added the gang element looking for a new source of income to make up for the loss of drug funds


The idea that forcing gangs to look for other sources of income is a bad thing is pretty backwards.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> The idea that forcing gangs to look for other sources of income is a bad thing is pretty backwards.


Unless that new form of income becomes violent robberies and home invasions.  If you think they will just throw up their hands and go legit your fooling yourself


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2013)

Honestly, I don't have the energy for this one again.  I've not heard one rational argument in favor of the prohibition.  It's all circular logic.  drugs are bad because gangs deal drugs and gangs deal drugs because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they're bad, and they're bad because gangs deal them, and gangs deal them because they're illegal.  Blah, blah, blah...  

And then there's the other striking resemblances to the pro-gun arguments.  Isn't theft already illegal?  If a drug addict is stealing, that's already against the law.  Obviously, more laws is doing no good.  

Isn't anyone getting tired of this merry go round?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> Isn't anyone getting tired of this merry go round?


you do know this forum is voluntary right?


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Unless that new form of income becomes violent robberies and home invasions.  If you think they will just throw up their hands and go legit your fooling yourself


What a cop out (no pun iintended).  Is home invasion and violent robbery illegal?  As a cop, can you arrest them?  Aren't gangs ALREADY killing people?  I don't know about you, but I think that gangs are already committing violent crimes.  As a cop, surely you've seen some in your time.  Come on, ballen.  This is an idiotic rationale.  The idea that we keep drugs illegal so gangs won't do WORSE crimes than deal drugs and kill people over them...  give me a break.


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> you do know this forum is voluntary right?


LOL.  Are you asking me to leave so no one will point out the idiocy of some of your arguments?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> I've not heard one rational argument in favor of the prohibition.


And Ive heard none for legalization


> It's all circular logic.  drugs are bad because gangs deal drugs and gangs deal drugs because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they're bad, and they're bad because gangs deal them, and gangs deal them because they're illegal.  Blah, blah, blah...


drugs are not bad because of gangs drugs are bad because they are dangerous and addictive.  Gangs are just a bonus


> And then there's the other striking resemblances to the pro-gun arguments.  Isn't theft already illegal?  If a drug addict is stealing, that's already against the law.  Obviously, more laws is doing no good.


difference between gun control and drug control is you have a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun.  No such right exists to own Crack


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> LOL.  Are you asking me to leave so no one will point out the idiocy of some of your arguments?


Im not asking you to leave your crying abut being forced to discuss this topic Im just pointing out your not forced to do anythng


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> What a cop out (no pun iintended).  Is home invasion and violent robbery illegal?  As a cop, can you arrest them?  Aren't gangs ALREADY killing people?


 
sure but for the most part they only kill other people involved in the same trade.  There are always exceptions but usually if your murdered there is some connection to it or the suspect.  true random acts are kinda rare


> I don't know about you, but I think that gangs are already committing violent crimes.  As a cop, surely you've seen some in your time.  Come on, ballen.  This is an idiotic rationale.  The idea that we keep drugs illegal so gangs won't do WORSE crimes than deal drugs and kill people over them...  give me a break.


didnt say it was the only reason but it needs to be considered.  right now drug dealers stay in and operate in certain places at certain times and dont really bother normal people.  that why normal people always think drugs are "victimless" since it doesn't effect the average joes every day life.  When you remve a steady income stream from undereducated, unemployed, criminals, they will find other ways to earn that income.  just one more thing to consider when we talk about making drugs legal


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2013)

Can we just post some links to the several previous threads?


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> difference between gun control and drug control is you have a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun.  No such right exists to own Crack


Just want to address this quickly.  If the bottom line for the entire pro-gun position is that it is a Constitutionally protected right, can you guys just quit pretending that there is any other rational reason to allow unfettered access to weapons?  The rest, when pointed out to you, serves only to illustrate your hypocrisy.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2013)

Yawn...really....this again?

Tell all the people on my answering machine complaining about the drug User/dealer on their street that they want me to "do something about" to stop calling me then. I'm sure your arguments will make them feel so much better.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> Can we just post some links to the several previous threads?


Why?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 28, 2013)

Steve said:


> Just want to address this quickly.  If the bottom line for the entire pro-gun position is that it is a Constitutionally protected right, can you guys just quit pretending that there is any other rational reason to allow unfettered access to weapons?  The rest, when pointed out to you, serves only to illustrate your hypocrisy.


dude Ive always said that but there can be more then 1 reason for an argument but in my opinion it always comes back to the 2nd amendment.  Same goes for drugs if you had a constitutional right to smoke crack Id say the same thing.  Ive also said I dont think the Feds have a right to ban drugs it should be a state choice since there is no mention of drugs in the constitution it should fall to the states to decide


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2013)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/poad.cfm

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2013)

From the op:



> "What I am saying is that drugs should be controlled. They should not, of course, be freely available."



Uhhhh...yeah. That will end the drug trade. If a kid wants to try heroin for the first time it wont be "freely available". OK. How is that supposed to work? 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 29, 2013)

If all drugs were legal, no one would use heroin because better, cheaper, and safer alternatives would develop.  This is what the free market does.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If all drugs were legal, no one would use heroin because better, cheaper, and safer alternatives would develop.  This is what the free market does.


Sure because nobody does anything thats legal thats dangerous to their health


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 29, 2013)

A little more informed input from the BBC, putting some viewpoints from both sides:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23374228

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23331602


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 29, 2013)

There are arguments on both sides of this issue for sure.

But consider that with laws and enforcement, we still have a lot of drug users.  Many eventually become addicted.  When that happens, they become a burden to their families and/or the health care system.  Once addicted, they tend to commit crimes to support their habit.  

What part of that is acceptable, and will be cured by decriminalizing drugs?


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> There are arguments on both sides of this issue for sure.
> 
> But consider that with laws and enforcement, we still have a lot of drug users.  Many eventually become addicted.  When that happens, they become a burden to their families and/or the health care system.  Once addicted, they tend to commit crimes to support their habit.
> 
> What part of that is acceptable, and will be cured by decriminalizing drugs?



I think that if you flip this around, and look at it through the lens of prohibition, it makes more sense.  Drugs are illegal, and yet we cannot keep them from being used.   What we are doing doesn't work.  It just makes criminals rich.  

During prohibition, people were being killed or going blind drinking unregulated, homemade liquor.  People were being killed in the streets.  Bootlegging became organized and money was flowing into the coffers of the dealers.  And if you wanted a drink, you could still get it.  You just had to go to a speakeasy or deal with a dealer.

Doesn't any of that seem familiar to anyone besides me?  The parallels are direct and predictable.

Tgace/Ballen, how serious is the bootlegging problem in your areas?  How many people have died or gone blind from drinking incorrectly distiller liquor?  When's the last time we had large gangs of armed criminals killing people in the streets over alcohol?  Doesn't happen.

Now, does this mean that alcohol is without its own problems?  Of course not.  People still drink too much sometimes.  People still become alcoholics, and some of the most desperate surely still commit crimes in order to get money for booze.

The key here isn't whether all drug related crimes will end.  It won't.  What lifting the prohibition will do is allow lawful citizens to manufacture and sell safer, regulated versions to people who are using them anyway.

It will also get many of the drug users out of our jails and justice system.  

And also, bear in mind that legal doesn't mean everyone will immediately become crack addled, druggies.  We can also look to alcohol for a great example of how shifting our social stance and applying social pressure is far more effective than banning.  Thirty years ago, driving under the influence was tolerated and largely ignored.  It has always been illegal, but the key to reducing the number of DUI deaths dramatically has everything to do with education and social pressure.  



Marijuana is the most widely used, illegal drug, and it's use is pervasive.  The second worst are already legal, prescription pain killers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think that if you flip this around, and look at it through the lens of prohibition, it makes more sense.  Drugs are illegal, and yet we cannot keep them from being used.   What we are doing doesn't work.  It just makes criminals rich.
> 
> During prohibition, people were being killed or going blind drinking unregulated, homemade liquor.  People were being killed in the streets.  Bootlegging became organized and money was flowing into the coffers of the dealers.  And if you wanted a drink, you could still get it.  You just had to go to a speakeasy or deal with a dealer.
> 
> ...



Comparing heroin to booze is apples to bulldozers. Not everyone who drinks socially will become an alcoholic. Anyone who routinely uses smack WILL become physically dependent. When you go into DTs when you don't get your fix and you are short on money...put it together.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/heroin-timeline.html 



> 1898 The Bayer Company introduces heroin as a substitute for morphine.
> 
> Early 1900's The philanthropic Saint James Society in the U.S. mounts a campaign to supply free samples of heroin through the mail to morphine addicts who are trying give up their habits.
> 
> ...



People who ignore history
.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Comparing heroin to booze is apples to bulldozers. Not everyone who drinks socially will become an alcoholic. Anyone who routinely uses smack WILL become physically dependent. When you go into DTs when you don't get your fix and you are short on money...put it together.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Legalizing something isn't the same thing as endorsing something.  Heroin will never be a good idea, but what we are doing now isn't keeping people from becoming addicts.  Is it?

You're arguing a straw man, here.

Edit to add:  the irony that you invent a straw man to argue, and while ignoring the apples to apples lessons we learned from prohibition, you suggest I'm failing to learn from history,  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 29, 2013)

So We need to make it legal because people still do it even when its illegal is the real straw man. 
 More people steal everyday then use drugs.  Stealing is illegal yet its done millions of times a day.  Guess we should make that legal as well since the "war on theft" is a failure.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> The key here isn't whether all drug related crimes will end.  It won't.  What lifting the prohibition will do is allow lawful citizens to manufacture and sell safer, regulated versions to people who are using them anyway.


You can do that now.  People are always coming up with new synthetic drugs.  They are legal for years until they are shown to be deadly.  Things like K2, spice, and other synthetic drugs are legal.  So if you want to manufacture and process a safe legal drug there is nothing stopping you from doing it.  


> It will also get many of the drug users out of our jails and justice system.


Most drug users are in jail for other crimes not for simple possession of drugs.  Most are in jail after many many arrests for things like theft which you already admit won't stop just because drugs are legal.



> And also, bear in mind that legal doesn't mean everyone will immediately become crack addled, druggies.  We can also look to alcohol for a great example of how shifting our social stance and applying social pressure is far more effective than banning.  Thirty years ago, driving under the influence was tolerated and largely ignored.  It has always been illegal, but the key to reducing the number of DUI deaths dramatically has everything to do with education and social pressure.


Actually it had more to do with targeted enforcemnt and much harsher punishment.  There is no social stigma to DUI.  Every drunk I've ever arrests has said "why are you messing with me go find a real criminal". Or "your to scared to get a drug deal in the hood so your messing with us harmless drunks". Or mostly "I'm not even drunk". In fact it's still so prevalent they keep lowering the limit because people just don't get it.  In the last 10 years its gone from .12 to .10 to .08 and now we are thinking of dropping it again to .06.  




> Marijuana is the most widely used, illegal drug, and it's use is pervasive.  The second worst are already legal, prescription pain killers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


speaking of pain killers after we make drugs do we make all drugs legal to buy for everyone?  Cancer drugs legal, anitbiotics legal, high blood pressure legal, anti depressants?  If not then why?  Why should we limit some and not others?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure because nobody does anything thats legal thats dangerous to their health



They usually only do that when the government controls the market...which is the simple truth of prohibition. The government is attempting to control the market. It doesn't work.

Anyway, so what if people still want to use heroin. The services to support such a dangerous habit would spring up and get cheaper and cheaper. They may even start turning people on to safer alternatives by educating them and providing access.

This is what makes government prohibition so stupid and anti-human. It's destructive because the solution to social problems is violence instead of creativity and rationality.


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So We need to make it legal because people still do it even when its illegal is the real straw man.
> More people steal everyday then use drugs.  Stealing is illegal yet its done millions of times a day.  Guess we should make that legal as well since the "war on theft" is a failure.


we can see clearly that making drugs illegal creates an entire economy that is dangerous, violent and completely unnecessary.  You can't seriously compare the violence of the cartels and Mexican gangs, as well as the local violence, the money wasted prosecuting and jailing users and everything else associated with the war on drugs to theft.

The closest you can get would be organized retail crime, a costly but far less violent phenomenon.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> we can see clearly that making drugs illegal creates an entire economy that is dangerous, violent and completely unnecessary.  You can't seriously compare the violence of the cartels and Mexican gangs, as well as the local violence, the money wasted prosecuting and jailing users and everything else associated with the war on drugs to theft.
> 
> The closest you can get would be organized retail crime, a costly but far less violent phenomenon.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



The cartels are not burglarizing homes or holding up gas stations in my neighborhood to get money for smack....users are.

You apparently never fought with a shoplifter either....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The cartels are not burglarizing homes or holding up gas stations in my neighborhood to get money for smack....users are.
> 
> You apparently never fought with a shoplifter either....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Round and round the circular logic goes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Legalizing something isn't the same thing as endorsing something.  Heroin will never be a good idea, but what we are doing now isn't keeping people from becoming addicts.  Is it?
> 
> You're arguing a straw man, here.
> 
> ...



And you ignore the fact that opiates assure physical dependence....perhaps not psychological addiction, but assured....get sick if you don't continue to use it dependence. Yeah, lets have that available for recreational consumption....sounds great.

And legalizing substances that result in behaviors you see in PCP users and bath salt psychotics is downright stupid....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Round and round the circular logic goes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Back at ya.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Round and round the circular logic goes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



You didn't answer my question about other drugs like antibiotics, cancer drugs, pain killers ect.  If we make drugs legal for all do we make all drugs legal for all.  If not why?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

I would consider decriminalization of small possession quantities...as in a ticket if you get caught instead of jail (where I am that's pretty much what users get anyway...nobody goes to prison for a rock if crack). But no way would I support decriminalization of sale or possession of distribution quantities or commercial sale of anything more potent than marijuana.

Marijuana...personally I wouldn't vote for it but I wouldn't protest if I were outvoted.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You didn't answer my question about other drugs like antibiotics, cancer drugs, pain killers ect.  If we make drugs legal for all do we make all drugs legal for all.  If not why?



Legal doesn't mean unregulated, unfettered access for everyone.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Marijuana...personally I wouldn't vote for it but I wouldn't protest if I were outvoted.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



On that front, I'd say we are less than a decade before seeing it legal in most, if not all of the 50 states.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Legal doesn't mean unregulated, unfettered access for everyone.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



So what does it mean? So if a kid wanted a bundle of smack he wouldn't be able to get it? There would be no more dealers? 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> Legal doesn't mean unregulated, unfettered access for everyone.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



So you would need a prescription for crack from your doc?  Or marijuana?  I'm not talking about kids or anything I mean why should I be allowed to buy crack at tge corner drug store and not amoxicillin or insulin


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

Steve said:


> On that front, I'd say we are less than a decade before seeing it legal in most, if not all of the 50 states.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I dont know about "legal"...I could see decriminalization.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Drasken (Sep 29, 2013)

This is an interesting subject on both sides. And both sides have some decent points.
However, my opinion is that some drugs should indeed be legal. Marijuana and mushrooms being the biggest and possibly only ones that are in that list.
They are non addictive, you can't overdose on them and several studies have shown many benefits to their use while disproving the demonization and BS about their dangers.
And while I can agree that opiates are a horrible substance to be addicted to, I have to disagree that alcohol is not comparable. I know people, who have taken opiate painkillers through prescription. I have known idiots who did so recreationally and did not become addicted due to the infrequency of use ( and note that I do not agree with their choices ). I have also known people who drank socially and became alcoholics. And withdrawals from alcohol CAN kill you once you are physically addicted.

So yeah, alcohol is a horrible drug. It has destroyed many lives, and to say it is not comparable to other horrible drugs is just stupid. Alcoholism is a real problem here.

Also, keep in mind that several successful people have been caught with Pot. So really, explain how a non addictive substance with no risk of overdose or chemical dependance is illegal and has many users behind bars. Yet a substance that you can easily overdose on, has risk of chemical dependance through extended use, and has nowhere near the health benefits of the former illegal substance is legal and perfectly acceptable?


I'm not saying "let's go buy Meth at the corner store." But you must admit that our current system needs a change.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And you ignore the fact that opiates assure physical dependence....perhaps not psychological addiction, but assured....get sick if you don't continue to use it dependence. Yeah, lets have that available for recreational consumption....sounds great.
> 
> And legalizing substances that result in behaviors you see in PCP users and bath salt psychotics is downright stupid....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



No one will use them if they become legal. When the government stops trying to control what people put into their bodies, the free market will create cleaner, safer and cheaper drugs. It will also create services for terrible and dangerous habits. It will also create alternatives that drug users will use instead of the crap you see now.

The problem here is that you seem to be convinced in this one instance the free market won't deliver what it has delivered in every single instance in the past where it is allowed to flourish. Your denial is akin to dropping your keys and expecting them to fall upward. It's anti-rational and completely unjustified.

This kind of sociological delusion is the biggest barrier that mankind has toward progress, IMHO.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2013)

Dont confuse physical dependence with addiction. I can drink a beer every day and not become physically dependent on alcohol. I can also drink to extreme intoxication on rare occasion and not become dependent or addicted. It has to do with frequency and volume. Drinking alcohol is not always about intoxication. I rarely drink enough to even notice a "buzz".

The entire point of taking opiates is to feel the effect. If I take a hit of heroin daily I will HAVE to...without exception...increase my dosage as time passes to get the intox effect I am using it for in the first place. Heroin is highly addictive because it enters the brain so rapidly.  It particularly affects those regions of the brain responsible for producing physical dependence.

Nobody is saying that Alcoholism is not a problem...or even recreational use that results in DWI deaths...and Alcohol DOES cause more aggressive behavior and fights than opiate use does. Certainly. I have fought far more drunks than I have people high on opiates. But the mechanisms in the body due to the simple purpose for taking the substances are quite different.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> No one will use them if they become legal.  When the government stops trying to control what people put into their bodies, the free market will create cleaner, safer and cheaper drugs. It will also create services for terrible and dangerous habits. It will also create alternatives that drug users will use instead of the crap you see now.


Wait so everyone know they are deadly, addictive, dangerous, but they only use them because they are illegal?  So we make them legal and everyone will just stop huh?  
The free market can already create cleaner safer cheaper drugs if they want to.  Find a clean non-addictive drug to get people off Heroin and you will be a billionaire. They have tried Methadone, Suboxine, ect.



> The problem here is that you seem to be convinced in this one instance the free market won't deliver what it has delivered in every single instance in the past where it is allowed to flourish. Your denial is akin to dropping your keys and expecting them to fall upward. It's anti-rational and completely unjustified.


Your problem is your deny that the free market can right now with out a change to the law create new drugs Phizer does it every day


> This kind of sociological delusion is the biggest barrier that mankind has toward progress, IMHO.


Yes the biggest barrier to mankind is a lack of legal Crack


----------



## Drasken (Sep 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Dont confuse physical dependence with addiction. I can drink a beer every day and not become physically dependent on alcohol. I can also drink to extreme intoxication on rare occasion and not become dependent or addicted. It has to do with frequency and volume. Drinking alcohol is not always about intoxication. I rarely drink enough to even notice a "buzz".
> 
> The entire point of taking opiates is to feel the effect. If I take a hit of heroin daily I will HAVE to...without exception...increase my dosage as time passes to get the intox effect I am using it for in the first place. Heroin is highly addictive because it enters the brain so rapidly.  It particularly affects those regions of the brain responsible for producing physical dependence.
> 
> Nobody is saying that Alcoholism is not a problem...or even recreational use that results in DWI deaths...and Alcohol DOES cause more aggressive behavior and fights than opiate use does. Certainly. I have fought far more drunks than I have people high on opiates. But the mechanisms in the body due to the simple purpose for taking the substances are quite different.



Oh, I'm not arguing that it isn't easier to get addicted to opiates. But anyone who has witnessed detox from alcohol will tell you that it is worse than a detox from any opiate. While the opiate is horrible, alcohol withdrawal can kill you from the stress of the withdrawal itself as well. I know of a couple people that harmed themselves as well from hallucenating while detoxing from alcohol.

And since we have doctors across the country pushing pain pills we can't do much about opiate addiction. I have a friend with major back issues. To the point that he is losing ability to use his legs at times. The doctor won't write a prescription for him to get a wheelchair which he would need to be able to use it at work, because they say he would become dependant on the chair. But they keep trying to push for him to take strong opiate painkillers, which he is strongly opposed to. And this isn't one doctor, he has been to several.

Even still, my major point is that when we allow dangerous and highly addictive substances legally and not safe and beneficial substances, there is something seriously wrong. Look at tobacco. It is harmful and incredibly addictive. But it is legal, and controlled to keep it out of the hands of children. So yes, I see what you are saying and agree with many of your points. But logically you hopefully see the merits in other points of view as well right?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 29, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Your problem is your deny that the free market can right now with out a change to the law create new drugs Phizer does it every day



I'm going to interpret this entrance because there are a couple of interesting little tidbits here. First of all, large drug companies like Merck cannot work with controlled substances without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops.  It's a total bureaucratic mess.  Secondly, we both know they would NEVER be able to work with these substances for recreational purposes. This is the barrier the government creates that hinders the free market in this instance.

Now, imagine that all of these laws are rescinded and that all of the government barriers are taken down. There is a 500 billion dollar global market in opium alone. Major drug companies are going to have a huge interest in jumping into this now legal market. This really does change everything because at least half a dozen multinational drug companies with the best r&d markets on the planet will compete to process these substances and work on safe alternatives. 

All that needs to happen is for the government to get out of the way and this problem suddenly has a viable solution...and the citizens get a healthy tax break!


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm going to interpret this entrance because there are a couple of interesting little tidbits here. First of all, large drug companies like Merck cannot work with controlled substances without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops.  It's a total bureaucratic mess.  Secondly, we both know they would NEVER be able to work with these substances for recreational purposes. This is the barrier the government creates that hinders the free market in this instance.
> 
> Now, imagine that all of these laws are rescinded and that all of the government barriers are taken down. There is a 500 billion dollar global market in opium alone. Major drug companies are going to have a huge interest in jumping into this now legal market. This really does change everything because at least half a dozen multinational drug companies with the best r&d markets on the planet will compete to process these substances and work on safe alternatives.
> 
> All that needs to happen is for the government to get out of the way and this problem suddenly has a viable solution...and the citizens get a healthy tax break!


And again if there was a profit to be made in finding safe alternatives to getting people off dope Big Pharma would be all over it.  There is nothing stopping them researching new safe alternatives to addictive pain meds.

Speaking of prescriptions what about them should they be put out to the free market as well.  Or should I still need prescriptions for antibiotics, heart burn meds, insulin, perks, oxycontin  ect?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And again if there was a profit to be made in finding safe alternatives to getting people off dope Big Pharma would be all over it.  There is nothing stopping them researching new safe alternatives to addictive pain meds.
> 
> Speaking of prescriptions what about them should they be put out to the free market as well.  Or should I still need prescriptions for antibiotics, heart burn meds, insulin, perks, oxycontin  ect?



You missed the point. Big Pharma can't work on recreational drugs because it's illegal. Even the research they can do on pain relief is severely limited. In a free market, for example, marijuana products would represent a huge market share in the pain relief category of drugs because it is provable better than alternatives now and much less dangerous.  However, because it's a Schedule 1 drug, much of that research gets blocked.  At every step the government makes the problem worse and prevents a real solution from occurring. 

In the end, I think the real issue is one about control. Getting intoxicated is something that people like and other people don't like, but that isn't really the problem. The side effects, like sickness, addiction, mental illness, are the problem. However, the idea that you (as a member of society) have the right to dictate to another member of society, how they can manage their consciousness, gets in the way of seeing this. 

If the silly control freaks would simply try to run their own disaster lives, smart people could start figuring out how to manage the side effects of intoxication using reason and evidence. That's the real problem.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> You missed the point. Big Pharma can't work on recreational drugs because it's illegal.


Sure they can people invent new recreational drugs all the time.  K2, Spice, and numerious synthetic Marijuanas are legal.  They slowly get banned after that are shown to be dangerous.  The reason Big Pharma doesn't bother is because recreational drug use is not popular.  Most grown ups dont want or need recreational drugs to hide from the real world.


> Even the research they can do on pain relief is severely limited. In a free market, for example, marijuana products would represent a huge market share in the pain relief category of drugs because it is provable better than alternatives now and much less dangerous.  However, because it's a Schedule 1 drug, much of that research gets blocked.  At every step the government makes the problem worse and prevents a real solution from occurring.


There are Marijuana based products right now that give all the benefits of the drug without the "high"  yet nobody seems to like that idea I cant imagine why



> In the end, I think the real issue is one about control. Getting intoxicated is something that people like and other people don't like, but that isn't really the problem. The side effects, like sickness, addiction, mental illness, are the problem. However, the idea that you (as a member of society) have the right to dictate to another member of society, how they can manage their consciousness, gets in the way of seeing this.


Until in your high or drunken state you stumble out into society and start effecting others.  Why do you think there are so many cops in the bar district areas on a fri and sat night?  Because people cant behave when they are intoxicated or under the influence.


> If the silly control freaks would simply try to run their own disaster lives, smart people could start figuring out how to manage the side effects of intoxication using reason and evidence. That's the real problem.


Maybe if there people trying to run and hide from the real world by using dope would take care of the real problems in their real world disaster of a life they wouldn't need to hide behind dope to cope.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

You still didnt answer the question about prescription drugs like Antibiotics, Insulin, Heart burn, depression meds.  Should they be available over the counter like Marijuana and crack?


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

During prohibition, enterprising young criminals were often using industrial alcohol, attempting to make industrial wood alcohol safe to drink.  Often, they were mistaken.  The product on the market was unsafe, unregulated and resulted in many unnecessary deaths. 

The Cato Institute has an interesting study on prohibition that points to several conclusions which relate directly to this conversation.  http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf



> Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangeroussubstances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.



First, that when you ban substances, people will turn to other, often more dangerous substitutes in its stead.  During prohibition, when alcohol was banned, people didn't just start drinking poison, they turned to other easily obtainable drugs, like opium. 

The forbidden fruit syndrome was also part of it.  During prohibition, alcohol consumption dropped initially, but quickly rose above the pre-prohibition consumption levels.  During prohibition rates for consumption AND alcoholism rose.  Alcoholism, to over 3x its pre-prohibition levels.

The lost tax dollars to government were combined with dramatic increase in the cost of enforcement of the new laws:  





> The resources devoted to enforcement of Prohibition increased along with consumption. Heightened enforcementdid not curtail consumption. The annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4 million to $13.4 milion
> during the 1920s, while Coast Guard spending on Prohibition averaged over $13 million per year.[8] To those amounts
> should be added the expenditures of state and local governments.





> Prohibition had pervasive (and perverse) effects on every aspect of alcohol production, distribution, and consumption. Changing the rules from those of the free market to those of Prohibition broke the link that prohibitionists had assumed between consumption and social evil. The rule changes also caused unintended consequences to enter the equation.



The article mentions something called the Iron Law of Prohibition, which basically asserts that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes."  In other words, if we end the prohibition, drugs would become less potent and safer.  





> When drugsor alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be
> adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances, and will not be produced and consumed under normal market
> constraints.



Statistically, production of beer was almost a lost art, and the crappy beer we Americans drank for decades was a direct result.  Why?  Because beer wasn't strong enough.  During prohibition, almost all production of alcohol focused on distilled liquors and fortified wines.  



> Patterns of consumption changed during Prohibition. It could be argued that Prohibition increased the demand foralcohol among three groups. It heightened the attractiveness of alcohol to the young by making it a glamour productassociated with excitement and intrigue. The high prices and profits during Prohibition enticed sellers to try to markettheir products to nondrinkers--undoubtedly, with some success. Finally, many old-stock Americans and recentimmigrants were unwilling to be told that they could not drink. According to Lee, "Men were drinking defiantly, witha sense of high purpose, a kind of dedicated drinking that you don't see much of today."[19]Prohibition may actually have increased drinking and intemperance by increasing the availability of alcohol. One NewJersey businessman claimed that there were 10 times more places one could get a drink during Prohibition than therehad been before.[20] It is not surprising that, given their hidden locations and small size, speakeasies outnumberedsaloons. Lee found that there were twice as many speak easies in Rochester, New York, as saloons closed byProhibition. That was more or less true throughout the country.
> Another setback for prohibitionists was their loss of control over the location of drinking establishments. UntilProhibition, prohibitionists had used local ordinances, taxes, licensing laws and regulations, and local-option laws toprevent or discourage the sale of alcohol in the center city, near churches and schools, on Sundays and election days,and in their neighborhoods. Prohibition eliminated those political tools and led to the establishment of speak easies inbusiness districts, middle-class neighborhoods, and other locations that were formerly dry, or gave the ap pearance ofbeing dry.



It's a long read, but worth the time if you really want to understand why, in spite of all of the money, time and energy we spend, we are losing the "war on drugs."


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You still didnt answer the question about prescription drugs like Antibiotics, Insulin, Heart burn, depression meds.  Should they be available over the counter like Marijuana and crack?


ballen, what purpose does a doctor serve?  What about the pharmacist?  What is their function with regard to these drugs?  Do you see that role changing?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> ballen, what purpose does a doctor serve?  What about the pharmacist?  What is their function with regard to these drugs?  Do you see that role changing?


So Oxycontin I should need a prescription from a doc.  But for Crack I should just be able to go to the corner liquor/recreational drug shop ?


That's my question I'm asking why should we limit access to prescription drugs and not limit access to others?


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

You're ignoring my questions, ballen.  If you answer my questions honestly, you're question will also be answered.

Also, bear in mind the previous post, in which I shared a lot of information about what I believe would happen to "crack" if legal, safe, regulated alternatives are made available.  When's the last time you responded to hallucinations and violent behavior induced by impure, improperly manufactured liquor?

Edit:  And once again, I don't know about Mala, but I've pointed out several times that legal doesn't mean unfettered, unrestricted access.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> You're ignoring my questions, ballen.  If you answer my questions honestly, you're question will also be answered.


What questions about docs?  Docs have a purpose now but when all things are legal what's the point of going I get an illness why not just go by my own penicillin and skip the doc visit.  I feel heart burn I should just go buy the purple pill skip the doc.  After all drugs are drugs.  Who gets to decide what's legal and what's not.  Apparently not the Govt since we already have that system in place and you don't like the choices they made.


> Also, bear in mind the previous post, in which I shared a lot of information about what I believe would happen to "crack" if legal, safe, regulated alternatives are made available.  When's the last time you responded to hallucinations and violent behavior induced by impure, improperly manufactured liquor?


Even pure regulated PCP will cause gallucinations , pure regulated Herion will still cause zombie like behavior and nodding off,  regulated alcohol is safe, regulated crack is still not safe


> Edit:  And once again, I don't know about Mala, but I've pointed out several times that legal doesn't mean unfettered, unrestricted access.


So who are you to decide who gets access to what?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Edit:  And once again, I don't know about Mala, but I've pointed out several times that legal doesn't mean unfettered, unrestricted access.



But you haven't explained what it does mean.

So only addicts will get legal dope?

What about a person who wants to try an opiate? Are you saying he won't be able to buy it at the gas station? If he can't get unfettered access who will he get it from?



Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Maybe if there people trying to run and hide from the real world by using dope would take care of the real problems in their real world disaster of a life they wouldn't need to hide behind dope to cope.



And on this we agree.  Lots of people who seek the effects of hard drugs need help managing some kind of trauma they experienced. It's too bad they get jail instead...or death from the side effects.

I still think there is a collapsing of concepts here. Some people just don't like the idea of getting intoxicated, but IMO this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's the side effects. The market could manage this for recreational drug users, but it's not allowed to because of government regulation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You still didnt answer the question about prescription drugs like Antibiotics, Insulin, Heart burn, depression meds.  Should they be available over the counter like Marijuana and crack?



Perhaps. If they should be managed in the private sector many things that are now controlled would no longer be controlled because it's not worth it.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> But you haven't explained what it does mean.
> 
> So only addicts will get legal dope?
> 
> ...


What it means, Tgace, is that we (as in, the country in general, and Congress in particular) will have to have a conversation and establish some rules.  Are you asking for me to draft the bill?

What would it mean to you?  What would you consider reasonable?  Do you think people over 21?  Should it be restricted to specific establishments?  Prescribed?  Not sold within 2 or 10 or 20 miles of a school?  There is a lot to discuss, if we can first get past the idea that the prohibition is working.  It's not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Perhaps. If they should be managed in the private sector many things that are now controlled would no longer be controlled because it's not worth it.



So you are not going to answer the question?


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So you are not going to answer the question?


I'm pretty sure that "Perhaps," is an answer.  Maybe just not the one you want.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> What it means, Tgace, is that we (as in, the country in general, and Congress in particular) will have to have a conversation and establish some rules.  Are you asking for me to draft the bill?



We already have and made the rules we have in place.  So your OK with congress making rules on drugs as long as it's the rules you want?


> What would it mean to you?  What would you consider reasonable?  Do you think people over 21?  Should it be restricted to specific establishments?  Prescribed?  Not sold within 2 or 10 or 20 miles of a school?  There is a lot to discuss, if we can first get past the idea that the prohibition is working.  It's not.


Prohibition not working which is debateable. Isn't a reason to change the rules.  You could say we are loosing the war on murder or auto theft or rape let's make then legal to since prohibition isn't working


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm pretty sure that "Perhaps," is an answer.  Maybe just not the one you want.



Perhaps isn't in answer its a non answer to avioid showing hipocrisy


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Prohibition not working which is debateable. Isn't a reason to change the rules.  You could say we are loosing the war on murder or auto theft or rape let's make then legal to since prohibition isn't working



Again, this seems to be acceptable logic to the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists in the gun threads--why not here?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Again, this seems to be acceptable logic to the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists in the gun threads--why not here?



Because of the pesky Constitution that says I have the right to keep and bear Arms.  No such amendment about my right to keep and bear Crack

Besides gun crime is already banned.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> We already have and made the rules we have in place.  So your OK with congress making rules on drugs as long as it's the rules you want?


Of course.  You've said the same thing yourself. We're a country governed under the rule of law, and we have lawful means for changing them.  Laws are passed and repealed all the time. 





> Prohibition not working which is debateable. Isn't a reason to change the rules.  You could say we are loosing the war on murder or auto theft or rape let's make then legal to since prohibition isn't working


First, success is subjective based upon whatever criteria you're using to measure success.  So, in that, I agree that it's debatable.  But, I think that most people would agree that it was a failure.  It was costly, both in terms of lives and of money.  It did not reduce the consumption of alcohol; rather, it resulted in a raise.  Homicide rates went up as a direct result of prohibition.  Organized crime was strengthened.  And the populations of our prisons grew.  

In addition, the companies that made their living by lawfully manufacturing and distributing alcohol were left high and dry (no pun intended) and the tax dollars generated through these sales was gone.  

It was such a disaster that, within a few short years, Congress passed another constitutional amendment repealing it.

All of that to say that one would be hard pressed to articulate a very persuasive argument on the side of prohibition being successful. 

The rest, where you bring up everything but the kitchen sink, is a red herring.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Because of the pesky Constitution that says I have the right to keep and bear Arms.  No such amendment about my right to keep and bear Crack
> 
> Besides gun crime is already banned.


Let's consider, however, that Prohibition also involved two constitutional amendments.  The 18th, enacted in 1920, and the 21st enacted in 1933.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Let's consider, however, that Prohibition also involved two constitutional amendments.  The 18th, enacted in 1920, and the 21st enacted in 1933.


So pass another one to legalize crack.  


Again I asked you why should we restrict access to things like antibiotics and not marijuana or cocaine?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Of course.  You've said the same thing yourself. We're a country governed under the rule of law, and we have lawful means for changing them.  Laws are passed and repealed all the time. First, success is subjective based upon whatever criteria you're using to measure success.  So, in that, I agree that it's debatable.  But, I think that most people would agree that it was a failure.  It was costly, both in terms of lives and of money.  It did not reduce the consumption of alcohol; rather, it resulted in a raise.  Homicide rates went up as a direct result of prohibition.  Organized crime was strengthened.  And the populations of our prisons grew.
> 
> In addition, the companies that made their living by lawfully manufacturing and distributing alcohol were left high and dry (no pun intended) and the tax dollars generated through these sales was gone.
> 
> ...


You also talking about banning a substance used by billions for 1000s of years that was legal one day and then banned the next.  Not really apples to apples with regard to say crack cocaine used by a few hundred thousand since the late 1980s and has always been banned.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So pass another one to legalize crack.
> 
> 
> Again I asked you why should we restrict access to things like antibiotics and not marijuana or cocaine?


Ballen, you're posting fast and reacting.  Please take a few minutes to read that article from the Cato Institute.  It's got a lot of great information in it, and even if you disagree, it will give you some insight into my opinions and the things I'm saying.  

Regarding your question, I never said we should restrict access to antibiotics, nor did I say we should NOT restrict access to marijuana or cocaine.  I did say that this is an important discussion to have AFTER we have both agreed that legalization is the right thing to do and prohibition isn't working.  I'm presuming that you aren't conceding this, though.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, you're posting fast and reacting.  Please take a few minutes to read that article from the Cato Institute.  It's got a lot of great information in it, and even if you disagree, it will give you some insight into my opinions and the things I'm saying.


I've read it doesn't apply.  Alcohol vs modern drugs are apples to oranges


> Regarding your question, I never said we should restrict access to antibiotics, nor did I say we should NOT restrict access to marijuana or cocaine.  I did say that this is an important discussion to have AFTER we have both agreed that legalization is the right thing to do and prohibition isn't working.  I'm presuming that you aren't conceding this, though.


So another we need to pass the law to see what's in it kinda thing huh.  Got it.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've read it doesn't apply.  Alcohol vs modern drugs are apples to oranges
> 
> So another we need to pass the law to see what's in it kinda thing huh.  Got it.


Okay.  I guess that's it then.  Agree to disagree.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Okay.  I guess that's it then.  Agree to disagree.



I've never heard one good reason why we should open access of deadly highly addictive drugs to millions of people.  There are people out there that don't do drugs because they are illegal.  To them its not worth the risk.  People that currently use then despite the law would use then either way.  So the law does work in keeping most people off drugs.


----------



## Drasken (Sep 30, 2013)

Lol I can see your argument about antibiotics, etc. vs crack or heroin. However, throwing pot in the mix there is kind of odd. You can OD on medicines and certainly you can OD on hard drugs. So yeah, getting a doctor and pharmacist to watch over it is a good idea. But for marijuana you physically cannot overdose. ( Actually you can, but it is a complicated process of forming a superconcentrate of THC since it takes literally your body weight in a short amount of time to be lethal. Might be why nobody ever dies from this drug. )

I honestly don't support legalization of the harder drugs. I've seen what meth, crack and heroin do to people and their family. But I can also agree that what our system is doing now is most definitely not working. The number of people in jail for drug related, non violent crimes is ridiculous. And the terms given is equally so. Maybe it's time we stop focusing on stupid Crap and fix policies that have a signifigant portion of our population behind bars. And realize that legalization of things like marijuana would let cops focus on the real crimes. And free up agencies like the DEA to deal with the drugs that are actually dangerous.

Also, I saw spice mentioned. Spice, and bath salts were never meant for human use. They were developed as a research chemical for mice to study effects on the brain. They are synthetic analogs, and are definitely not safe or in any way comparable to the real drugs. They can't use the real thing without a LOT of red tape. Why do you think it has taken so long for scientists to have the info that marijuana has various health benefits with no real risks? Or that hallucinogenic mushrooms actually cause growth in brain cells and have shown to be effective in the treatment of PTSD and many other psychological conditions?

So, my point is that we should at very least look at this and reevaluate things. I don't think we should have meth factories. But that doesn't mean I don't support legalizing pot and taxing it. At least it deserves a second look.

Edit: I have also seen what alcohol can do. I also know what happened when it was illegal.
Honestly, I think what people do is their own business as long as it is hurting Nobody else. But the points on both sides here have merit. The best course of action is likely in the middle somewhere.


----------



## granfire (Sep 30, 2013)

The drug laws are so strict, you can't even grow _HEMP_ in this country!
In some places you can't even use it to bed your barn animal's stall with it!

You can OD on Tylenol....


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

DEA doesn't go after pot dealers.  To even get the DEA to look at a pot case you better be bringing in Tons.  
People in jaulnfor drug related offenses have been arrested many many many times.  How many chances should people get?  You don't like the law tough its the law just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can ignore it.  I don't like paying taxes but I do it.  You don't need drugs to live so there is no excuse for not following the rules
Also as to cops focusing on real crimes just what is a real crime? I lock up a DUI I get told that. I lock up a crack head I get told that,  I lock up a shop lifter I get told that,  I stop someone for speeding I get told that.  I'd lile to know what a real crime is


----------



## Balrog (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Honestly, I don't have the energy for this one again.  I've not heard one rational argument in favor of the prohibition.


Really?  I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.

The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are.  Instead, we stand around wringing our hands and whining about how the poor fellow has a disease, and then try to put him through rehab, etc.  It has become a game that costs the taxpayers buckets of money.

How about we lock their sorry butts up in jail where they belong?  First offense, 10 years.  Second offense, 20.  Third offense, life.  And do away with parole, good time, etc.  People look upon prison sentences these days as a paid vacation, or a trip to graduate school for crime.  If criminals knew that they would actually, you know....DO hard time for their offenses, I think we would see a decrease in crime.

Make the punishment mean something.  Otherwise, as I said, it just becomes a game.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2013)

Balrog said:


> Really?  I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.
> 
> The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are.  Instead, we stand around wringing our hands and whining about how the poor fellow has a disease, and then try to put him through rehab, etc.  It has become a game that costs the taxpayers buckets of money.
> 
> ...



So, you have a problem with people putting things THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF in their body and you want to destroy someone's life for that. This is completely sadistic, IMO. Is this the kind of control you want to exert over everyone in your life?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again I asked you why should we restrict access to things like antibiotics and not marijuana or cocaine?



Your use of antibiotics can make them less effective on me as micro-organisms develop resistance. But your enjoyment of meth does not lessen my enjoyment of it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Your use of antibiotics can make them less effective on me as micro-organisms develop resistance. But your enjoyment of meth does not lessen my enjoyment of it.


So?  Drugs are drugs you shouldnt have a right to tell me what to put in my body after all.  What about other prescription meds?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

Balrog said:


> The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are.



The average MJ user is not a major threat to society. If you know 3 people who went to college, you probably know a (former?) drug user. 



> How about we lock their sorry butts up in jail where they belong?  First offense, 10 years.  Second offense, 20.  Third offense, life.  And do away with parole, good time, etc.


 
Expensive proposition to teach people that you're in charge of what they do with and to their own bodies.

Look, this should settle the issue once and for all:

[h=1]Miley Cyrus admits marijuana use: &#8216;Weed is the best drug on earth&#8217; [/h][h=2]The 20-year-old starlet talks about her recreational drug use and why 'weed is much better' than other substances.[/h]


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Your use of antibiotics can make them less effective on me





ballen0351 said:


> So?  Drugs are drugs you shouldnt have a right to tell me what to put in my body after all.



Your rights are at issue where they start affecting mine--and this is a clear public health issue.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

Balrog said:


> Really?  I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.
> 
> The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are.  Instead, we stand around wringing our hands and whining about how the poor fellow has a disease, and then try to put him through rehab, etc.  It has become a game that costs the taxpayers buckets of money.
> 
> ...


Leave it to the Texan to suggest building more prisons.  Discounting the cost to build the prisons, assuming we had the room, it costs the taxpayers between $25k and $35k per year (depending upon which report you read) to incarcerate a prisoner.

Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but according to the CDC, as of 2010, more than 1 out of every 5 American citizen age 18 to 25 used an illicit drug "within the last month."  (21.6%)

Almost 17% of teens ages 16 to 18 used "within the last month."  And over 13% of 26 to 34 year olds.  

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus12.pdf#058

Let's think this through for a moment.  To keep things simple, let's just stick with the 18 to 25 year olds, but remember that there are people older than this who also use illicit drugs.  This is important, because I want to make sure you understand that putting over 20% of the population ages 18 to 25 in jail for 10 years will have a pretty dramatic effect on the economy.  Sure, unemployment will go down because we will be reducing the working population significantly. But we'll also have fewer people working and paying taxes, to pay for your pretty serious proposition.

So, according to the US Census (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf), there were 30,672,088 Americans age 18 to 24 in 2010.  If we prosecute and incarcerate 20%, that means we'll have 6,134,418 inmates...  wow!  Time $30k/year and we're looking at $184,032,540,000 per year.  That's just for the 18 to 24 year olds and that's JUST for the illicit drug use. 

To put your idea into perspective, according to the BJS, on December 31, 2010, state and federal correctional authorities had jurisdiction over 1,612,395 prisoners.  http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2230

So, what you're talking about doing is increasing the number of inmates in State or Federal custody by somewhere around 700% and that's JUST for the 18 to 24 year olds who are doing drugs.  

Can we all agree that this is unreasonable?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've never heard one good reason why we should open access of deadly highly addictive drugs to millions of people.  There are people out there that don't do drugs because they are illegal.  To them its not worth the risk.  People that currently use then despite the law would use then either way.  So the law does work in keeping most people off drugs.



But it could never work with guns. Sigh.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

Balrog said:


> Really?  I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.


Regarding this, I'd like to invite you to read the article I posted by the Cato Institute.  It's pretty good, and as I said before, whether you agree or not at the end, it will at least give you some insight into an alternative perspective.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> But it could never work with guns. Sigh.



Guns are not addictive.  Guns are Constitutionally protected.  And just like guns I'm not calling for more laws against drugs.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Leave it to the Texan to suggest building more prisons.  Discounting the cost to build the prisons, assuming we had the room, it costs the taxpayers between $25k and $35k per year (depending upon which report you read) to incarcerate a prisoner.
> 
> Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but according to the CDC, as of 2010, more than 1 out of every 5 American citizen age 18 to 25 used an illicit drug "within the last month."  (21.6%)
> 
> ...


So because 20% of Americans can't follow the rules we need to change them?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> DEA doesn't go after pot dealers.  To even get the DEA to look at a pot case you better be bringing in Tons.
> People in jaulnfor drug related offenses have been arrested many many many times.  How many chances should people get?  You don't like the law tough its the law just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can ignore it.  I don't like paying taxes but I do it.  You don't need drugs to live so there is no excuse for not following the rules
> Also as to cops focusing on real crimes just what is a real crime? I lock up a DUI I get told that. I lock up a crack head I get told that,  I lock up a shop lifter I get told that,  I stop someone for speeding I get told that.  I'd lile to know what a real crime is



Non-LE just don't get that....the feds could care less about weed unless we are talking tractor trailer loads.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So because 20% of Americans can't follow the rules we need to change them?


Ballen, with respect, I think you and I are done.  There's nothing more for us to discuss.  I think we just disagree and neither of us is going to bend.  Nothing wrong with that.  Right?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Your rights are at issue where they start affecting mine--and this is a clear public health issue.



So is people getting naked with baseball bats smashing bus stops.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, with respect, I think you and I are done.  There's nothing more for us to discuss.  I think we just disagree and neither of us is going to bend.  Nothing wrong with that.  Right?



I just don't get the logic.  We need to change the laws because 20% of Americans have used drugs.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Guns are not addictive.  Guns are Constitutionally protected.  And just like guns I'm not calling for more laws against drugs.



Guns have legitimate and useful purposes in society and provide a balance of political power...a weed that gives you a buzz or a powder that can kill you simply because you want to get high has no correlation.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I just don't get the logic.  We need to change the laws because 20% of Americans have used drugs.


Ballen, I'd like to help, but I'm sure of two things.  First, I will never be able to explain to you in a way that you will understand.  And two, even if I could, you would still disagree.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, I'd like to help, but I'm sure of two things.  First, I will never be able to explain to you in a way that you will understand.  And two, even if I could, you would still disagree.



I don't really need your help.  The numbers are on my side.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Guns have legitimate and useful purposes in society and provide a balance of political power...a weed that gives you a buzz or a powder that can kill you simply because you want to get high has no correlation.


Tgace, there are many things we do for no good reason.  As Americans, there are a lot of ways we can voluntarily kill ourselves for fun, whether it's skydiving, rock climbing, riding a motor cycle or eating a good 1 lbs fatty burger with bacon and extra cheese every day.  Our entire way of life is predicated upon the idea that we are free to do things to ourselves and for ourselves, just for fun, even if it's not a very good idea to do so.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Tgace, there are many things we do for no good reason.  As Americans, there are a lot of ways we can voluntarily kill ourselves for fun, whether it's skydiving, rock climbing, riding a motor cycle or eating a good 1 lbs fatty burger with bacon and extra cheese every day.  Our entire way of life is predicated upon the idea that we are free to do things to ourselves and for ourselves, just for fun, even if it's not a very good idea to do so.



None of them will make me rob a store to fund them..or drive my daughter into prostitution to buy a burger. Or result in death rates as high...seeing that OD is outpacing car accident deaths:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/drug-deaths-exceed-traffic-deaths/story?id=14554903


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I just don't get the logic.  We need to change the laws because 20% of Americans have used drugs.



Not all laws are good and appropriate. We've changed many. The numbers--and that is just for the last _month_, I think, with more like 25% in a given year, and a majority over lifetime--suggest that it's worth taking another look at, yeah.

Some laws should be changed.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Guns have legitimate and useful purposes in society[...]...a weed that gives you a buzz[...]has no correlation.



There are numerous medical indications for that weed--in addition to the personal freedom issue.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> None of them will make me rob a store to fund them..or drive my daughter into prostitution to buy a burger. Or result in death rates as high...seeing that OD is outpacing car accident deaths:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/drug-deaths-exceed-traffic-deaths/story?id=14554903


All the more reason to acknowledge that what we're doing isn't working, in spite of our (your) best efforts to enforce these laws.  

The bottom line is that all of the bad things you guys assert will happen are already happening, and based upon our experience with the 13 year long experiment with prohibition, there is evidence to suggest that many of these things are preventable and are occurring precisely because of the prohibition.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't really need your help.  The numbers are on my side.


I've posted many numbers that would suggest otherwise.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> All the more reason to acknowledge that what we're doing isn't working, in spite of our (your) best efforts to enforce these laws.
> 
> The bottom line is that all of the bad things you guys assert will happen are already happening, and based upon our experience with the 13 year long experiment with prohibition, there is evidence to suggest that many of these things are preventable and are occurring precisely because of the prohibition.


So making it legal will make crack heads stop robbing gas station?  If not then its just not a valid argument


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> There are numerous medical indications for that weed--in addition to the personal freedom issue.



Crack, heroin, PCP, LSD, this isn't a weed only conversation


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> I've posted many numbers that would suggest otherwise.



Got any numbers on what % of Americans favor legal crack?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Not all laws are good and appropriate. We've changed many. The numbers--and that is just for the last _month_, I think, with more like 25% in a given year, and a majority over lifetime--suggest that it's worth taking another look at, yeah.
> 
> Some laws should be changed.


You want your kids to have the right to try crack if they want?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You want your kids to have the right to try crack if they want?



I'm for legalizing MJ and for emphasizing treatment over prison for nonviolent drug offenses.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So making it legal will make crack heads stop robbing gas station?  If not then its just not a valid argument


Nothing more to add on this, ballen.  If you would read my earlier posts, you'll find I've already addressed this.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm for legalizing MJ and for emphasizing treatment over prison for nonviolent drug offenses.



So your not going to answer the question.  Its easy see watch:
You:  Ballen are you OK with your kids having legal access to crack if they want to try it?

Me:  No


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

A substance like heroin that is highly physically addictive and is known to cause immediate death (vs something like cancer in smokers) has no place in our society.


----------



## Drasken (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Crack, heroin, PCP, LSD, this isn't a weed only conversation



Of course it isn't. And I understand that. But it's lumped in there. And penalties for it are actually pretty severe in many places. Hell I know of one guy that got 4 months in jail plus a year probation for a small amount of weed. It was a first offense as well. So yeah most cops don't care, but the penalties are still retartedly harsh.

As far as hard drugs, I don't like them but I could honestly care less. If you are hurting nobody then do whatever you want. It's stupid, but it's your life. I have seen what comes of it, and it's not an easy thing to watch. So no I don't support harder drugs, but honestly people that aregoing to do it already are.
Saying that legalization would increase use is kind of stupid. However it could reduce overdose deaths. Give access to better care and rehab programs, quality control to stop people taking things that aren't what they were told it was and reducing things like meth labs.

As for real crimes. If you are stealing from or otherwise harming someone, real crime. Possession of a joint? Not worth arresting someone.

And yes, it is the law. But it's horribly stupid. And honestly should be changed.

Edit: And before anyone brushes it off or just assumes. No I don't want laws changed so "I can do whatever I want." Because I don't and have no intention of doing any drugs other than a cigarette habit that I'm trying to quit. So this is an opinion of someone with no sneaky motive involved.

And I'm sorry, our lawmakers are getting caught doing drugs and other crimes that they claim are so bad and serious and get no jail time. But a college kid's life gets ruined for the same stuff? Yeah, that's fair.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Nothing more to add on this, ballen.  If you would read my earlier posts, you'll find I've already addressed this.


We both agree that drugs are a root cause to most crimes.  We differ on the way to address the problem.  You appear to want more legal access to all adults to the very thing causing the crime.  
I do not.  
I just don't think you have enough first hand knowledge to the pain and suffering having a herion addict causes to a family.  If you asked any parent of a drug addict if they want to make drugs legal how many do you think will say yes?
To say drug laws don't work is just not true or at least not provable.  There is no way to tell how many lives drug laws have saved either through someone not trying drugs in the first place or someone getting arrested for drugs and ordered into treatment and getting clean


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> We both agree that drugs are a root cause to most crimes.  We differ on the way to address the problem.  You appear to want more legal access to all adults to the very thing causing the crime.
> I do not.
> I just don't think you have enough first hand knowledge to the pain and suffering having a herion addict causes to a family.  If you asked any parent of a drug addict if they want to make drugs legal how many do you think will say yes?
> To say drug laws don't work is just not true or at least not provable.  There is no way to tell how many lives drug laws have saved either through someone not trying drugs in the first place or someone getting arrested for drugs and ordered into treatment and getting clean



I've lost count of how many parents have BEGGED me to arrest their child....


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Of course it isn't. And I understand that. But it's lumped in there. And penalties for it are actually pretty severe in many places. Hell I know of one guy that got 4 .  I in jail plus a year probation for a small amount of weed. It was a first offens as well. So yeah most cops don't care, but the penalties are still retartedly harsh.


And your friend is the exception not the rule.  For everyone of him I can give you 10 that have been locked up over 10 times for cocaine and never been to jail more then a day or two.  That just doesnt  happen that offer.  I arrested a guy 8 months ago with 6 pounds of weed.  We had his trial the other day he got 10 days to be served on weekends 


> As far as hard drugs, I don't like them but I could honestly care less. If you are hurting nobody then do whatever you want. It's stupid, but it's your life. I have seen what comes of it, and it's not an easy thing to watch. So no I don't support harder drugs, but honestly people that aregoing to do it already are.
> Saying that legalization would increase use is kind of stupid.


Huh?  So more access and easier access won't cause more people to try it?  More people try it everyday when its already illegal and unregulated and can kill you yet you believe making it legal won't get more people to try it?  


> However it could reduce overdose deaths. Give access to better care and rehab program bys, quality control to stop people taking things that aren't what they were told it was and reducing things like meth labs.


Better care?  How?  At least now the threat of arrest is  a good motivator to keep soneone clean.  Make it legal and you loose that motivation.  Also being arrestes gets people into programs  I cant tell you how many moms and wives have begged me to arrest a family member to get them help.


> As for real crimes. If you are stealing from or otherwise harming someone, real crime. Possession of a joint? Not worth arresting someone.
> 
> And yes, it is the law. But it's horribly stupid. And honestly should be changed.


oh ok so only the laws YOU like need to need enforced.  You should write a list and send it to your legislature since I don't make any laws I only enforce the ones I'm given


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> We both agree that drugs are a root cause to most crimes.  We differ on the way to address the problem.  You appear to want more legal access to all adults to the very thing causing the crime.
> I do not.
> I just don't think you have enough first hand knowledge to the pain and suffering having a herion addict causes to a family.  If you asked any parent of a drug addict if they want to make drugs legal how many do you think will say yes?
> To say drug laws don't work is just not true or at least not provable.  There is no way to tell how many lives drug laws have saved either through someone not trying drugs in the first place or someone getting arrested for drugs and ordered into treatment and getting clean



Ballen, I actually have a lot of experience, first hand, with drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness and homelessness.  Different from yours, but still first hand, professional experience.

I respect your opinions.  I just disagree with you.  As I said before, we need to just agree to disagree.

I'm done writing books on this trying to articulate my position.  

If something new comes up, I will add my two cents, but ultimately, what more is there for us to say ?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, I actually have a lot of experience, first hand, with drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness and homelessness.  Different from yours, but still first hand, professional experience.
> 
> I respect your opinions.  I just disagree with you.  As I said before, we need to just agree to disagree.
> 
> ...


Again nobody forced you to reply.  Feel free to exit at anytime


----------



## Drasken (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And your friend is the exception not the rule.  For everyone of him I can give you 10 that have been locked up over 10 times for cocaine and never been to jail more then a day or two.  That just doesnt  happen that offer.  I arrested a guy 8 months ago with 6 pounds of weed.  We had his trial the other day he got 10 days to be served on weekends
> 
> Huh?  So more access and easier access won't cause more people to try it?  More people try it everyday when its already illegal and unregulated and can kill you yet you believe making it legal won't get more people to try it?
> 
> ...



Once again I don't support legalization of all drugs. My father was a meth head and we couldn't get the cops to do anything. Andthe guy I know that was arrested for weed isn't a friend, I only know him through a rehab program that my friend is in for alcohol abuse. I was there to support my friend when this other guy was introduced. 

Also, when our law makers are guilty of the same crimes that a college kid gets his Life ruined over... Yet get no penalties? That's hypocrisy.
As for only supporting the laws I agree with. Well. I remember discussions of cops that would not enforce gun control laws if they were passed. You seemed all for that.

Try and twist it all you like. The system is broken. It needs reevaluation and some changes. I actually agree with arni on this, treatment, not jail for nonviolent drug offenses. Jail doesn't help these people. And when they get out, they can't find work. End up in the system and go to lives of crime to pay their bills or just ride the welfare system and get right back on drugs.
But yeah, your way works best right? 
Give me a break.

I'm not saying "Crack for everybody!" But I AM saying, there has to be a better way of doing things. The only drug I advocate legalizing is marijuana. There is no reason not to. Research and scientific evidence points to benifits of said drug and safety of said drug. So THAT one I support, yes. The others? Not so much no

As for legalization meaning more people trying it? Really? Everyone I knew in college fell into one of two groups. Those who did drugs DESPITE it being illegal. And those that had no interest. None of the people I knew said "man if only meth were legal I'd be smoking it every day."
As a cop I know you have seen stuff that nobody wants too. I respect that and thank all police for putting themselves in danger to keep dangerous people off the streets. But while I agree with much of what you say, can you honestly claim to have never thought "There has got to be a better way to deal with SOME of these cases"?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

The "benefits of weed" pap is a crock. I respect the "its less harmfull to trip on than booze" argument more than I do the "inhale smoke its good for you" ********.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

Its a good thing cigarettes and alcohol are controlled, otherwise children could get them.....

....oh....wait....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Drasken (Sep 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The "benefits of weed" pap is a crock. I respect the "its less harmfull to trip on than booze" argument more than I do the "inhale smoke its good for you" ********.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



The smoking of weed isn't exactly great but less harmful than tobacco. In fact studies show almost no threat of cancer, on the contrary it seems to slow cancer cell growth due to the compounds found in the plant. However the eating of it shows signifigant benefits with no adverse effects.
The only thing studies have shown negatively is the correlation ( not causation ) of schizophrenic episodes in patients already suffering from the condition. However these studies are also inconclusive and there have been studies that show a calming of schizophrenic episodes as well thus more study is needed. Which will take forever due to the legal status of the subject in question.
Even before it was made illegal, it was shown to pose no danger. And yet we have demonized it.

Sorry, I'm a biology major that focuses on pharmaceutical studies. I know my medicines and such, so I have a great interest in this topic and what it could mean for treatments of various conditions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Once again I don't support legalization of all drugs. My father wI didn't th head and we couldn't get the cops to do anything. Andthe guy I know that was arrested for weed isn't a friend, I only know him through a rehab program that my friend is in for alcohol abuse. s there to support my friend when this other guy was introduced.


So in reality you have no idea that it was his first arrest or it was a little weed.  He may have changed the facts slightly so he didn't seem l.  e a crack head


> Also, when our law makers are guilty of the same crimes that a college kid gets his Life ruined over... Yet get.  o penalties? That's hypocrisy.


And again i dont i only enforce the laws Im not a judge.  That however is life not just drug crimes but all crimes.  If you have money you can afford better representation to defend you.


> As for only supporting the laws I agree with. Well. I remember discussions of cops that would not enforce gun control laws if they were passed. You seemed all for that.


I swore to uphold the Constitution as the highest law. Legally i cant enforce an unconstitutional gun law .  I do regularlly enfoce laws I dont agree with.  Its part of the job as long as they dont violate a higher law


> Try and twist it all you like. The system is broken. It needs reevaluation and some changes. I actually agree with arni on this, treatment, not jail for nonviolent drug offenses. Jail doesn't help these people. And when they get out, they can't find work. End up in the system and go to lives of crime to pay their bills or just ride the welfare system and get right back on drugs.


I agree as well thats why keeping drugs illegal makes it easier to order treatment.  Thats how the courts are moving towards.  Drug treatment vs incarceration.  The question becomes how many times do we try treatment before they earned punishment.  Sometimes Jail is the kick in the butt needed to get someone to hit rock bottom and get clean.


> But yeah, your way works best right?
> Give me a break.


Its not my way.  I didnt write the laws remember


> I'm not saying "Crack for everybody!" But I AM saying, there has to be a better way of doing things. The only drug I advocate legalizing is marijuana. There is no reason not to. Research and scientific evidence points to benifits of said drug and safety of said drug. So THAT one I support, yes. The others? Not so much no


Just as much research shows Marijuana isnt good for you.  But why do you get to pick and choose what shoukd be changed?


> As for legalization meaning more people trying it? Really? Everyone I knew in college fell into one of two groups. Those who did drugs DESPITE it being illegal. And those that had no interest. None of the people I knew said "man if only meth were legal I'd be smoking it every day."


I know people right now that have said I'm only clean because I don't want to go back to jail.  Make it legal and they won't go to jail.  I also know people that don't smoke weed because its illegal and if it were legal they would smoke.  Making it legal is basically saying its not so bad.  Gives the wrong impression to kids.  I do find it amusing we spend millions to talk people out of smoking and you want to allow people to smoke new stuff.  You said yourself you want to quit.


> As a cop I know you have seen stuff that nobody wants too. I respect that and thank all police for putting themselves in danger to keep dangerous people off the streets. But while I agree with much of what you say, can you honestly claim to have never thought "There has got to be a better way to deal with SOME of these cases"?


Sure longer jail time for dealers,  3 strike your out for users.  You get arrested and are sentenced to rehab arrested rentenced to rehab arrested and sent to rehab  
After that you get arrested again its jail time.  Sentence gets longer and longer after each arrest.  At some point you will get tired of going to jail and fix yourself.


----------



## Drasken (Sep 30, 2013)

I agree that after so many times being sent to treatment it's obvious you aren't getting clean. And honestly if you are getting caught several times then you are obviously doing something wrong.
Cops can't just bust into your house without a reason, and us you have to be doing something else to get caught several times.

As for the research that shows pot is bad.... Well I've yet to see a reputable source make that claim and back it up with proof. A LOT of said studies used fake research analogs for their studies. The difference in real THC vs. Research chemicals is enormous. In fact the research chemicals in fake weed have been attributed to strokes and deaths. Something that has never been reported in any case of THC

I think we agree on many points here, and are arguing over approach mostly. And it is likely due to differing experiences in the same basic realm. But where I have seen several people who harm nobody and work productive jobs and smoke weed. You also have to deal with the smack heads that use weed to "even themselves out" and commit real crimes such as theft, assault, etc. Which is probably the reason you ended up there in the first place.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I agree that after so many times being sent to treatment it's obvious you aren't getting clean. And honestly if you are getting caught several times then you are obviously doing something wrong.
> Cops can't just bust into your house without a reason, and us you have to be doing something else to get caught several times.
> 
> As for the research that shows pot is bad.... Well I've yet to see a reputable source make that claim and back it up with proof. A LOT of said studies used fake research analogs for their studies. The difference in real THC vs. Research chemicals is enormous. In fact the research chemicals in fake weed have been attributed to strokes and deaths. Something that has never been reported in any case of THC
> ...



Again you keep focusing on weed.  Under 10grams here doesn't even carry jail time here.  This isn't a make legal weed thread it's about all drugs.


----------



## Drasken (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again you keep focusing on weed.  Under 10grams here doesn't even carry jail time here.  This isn't a make legal weed thread it's about all drugs.



Lol I only focus on weed being legalized as my argument yes. I don't think all drugs being legal is necissarilly a great idea. However I have pointed out things that are both good AND bad about the arguments on both sides.
The point is I advocate legalizing weed, which our country is moving toward anyway. I don't think meth is a good idea, and I have argued the points of other drugs in previous replies.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again nobody forced you to reply.  Feel free to exit at anytime



I meant with you.  If it's okay with you, I will continue to participate in the discussion with others.

Again, this isn't meant as disrespect.  I understand your points.  I respect your opinion. Even though it's clear you don't understand or respect mine.  It's okay.  We can agree to disagree.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> I meant with you.  If it's okay with you, I will continue to participate in the discussion with others.
> 
> Again, this isn't meant as disrespect.  I understand your points.  I respect your opinion. Even though it's clear you don't understand or respect mine.  It's okay.  We can agree to disagree.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I don't disrespect your opinion.  I shared your opinion about 10 years ago.  I no longer do.


----------



## Carol (Sep 30, 2013)

Smoking is a horrible drug delivery method.  I think legalization of MJ would also bring out the power of the free market to create safer forms.  With nicotine we saw the development of chewing gum, skin patches, and "e-cigarettes".


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

Carol said:


> Smoking is a horrible drug delivery method.  I think legalization of MJ would also bring out the power of the free market to create safer forms.  With nicotine we saw the development of chewing gum, skin patches, and "e-cigarettes".
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



True....but those are methods to quit smoking (besides e-cig) aren't they?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Carol (Sep 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> True....but those are methods to quit smoking (besides e-cig) aren't they?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



That is their primary use, and primary demand in the market.  They are also have minor secondary uses as a treatment for certain medical conditions (although this is unusual).  It still gets the drug in the body in a way that doesn't involve smoking.  Than and I'm guessing nicotine brownies aren't too appealing...LOL

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't disrespect your opinion.  I shared your opinion about 10 years ago.  I no longer do.



I'm not sure if you meant that as condescending, but it certainly reads that way.  And, honestly, it still sounds disrespectful. But whatever.  You are free to take the last word if you want. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm not sure if you meant that as condescending, but it certainly reads that way.  And, honestly, it still sounds disrespectful. But whatever.  You are free to take the last word if you want.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Not at all.  I was saying it as 10 or maybe 12 years ago I agreed with you that drugs should be legal.  Not for some of the same reason you did.  I was more along the its your body do what you want.  But I no longer feel that way.  I ment no disrespect just saying I once agreed with you.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2013)

There was an SNL skit this weekend on e-meth (in honor of Breaking Bad).


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> There was an SNL skit this weekend on e-meth (in honor of Breaking Bad).



ive never watched either show


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> ive never watched either show



Hollywood inaccuracies make it difficult for me to find many mil/le themed entertainments I can watch without frustration.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------

