Recreational Drug Use Legalization
I am sure you guys have had some extensive discussions about this subject, but I have not had it with any of you. It seems to me that there is a number of people who support the wholesale legalization of drugs, of single, multiple, or various categories. I was just wondering if anyone who supports this as a policy we should adopt would care to share there thoughts on why this would be a good thing and what if any caveats you may have on such a policy. Further, does anyone besides me think this is not a good thing, other then as I stated earlier I would support the decriminalization and taxation of Pot use. Have at it...
I support the decrimilization of pot, and think that anyone simply in possession for personal use, of anything else, should not be jailed unless they have committed some other crime as well
I support the decrimilization of pot, and think that anyone simply in possession for personal use, of anything else, should not be jailed unless they have committed some other crime as well
I could agree with that. There would have to be some limit on how much you could have on your person vs. how much you have in your house. For example I could see someone having 1/2 ounce on their person and more at home. I don't think they should be penalized for it.
I think drug users should not go to prison for using drugs. Doesn't matter if they are doing heroin or pot. Don't lock them up unless they are committing another crime.
I think pot is pretty benign, and should be legal but regulated, like booze and tobacco.
I'm not sure about dealers of "hard drugs." Heroin, crystal meth, etc. are very harmful to society, and the people who deal that shit are a problem.
Green is just awesome. That should be handed out at birthday parties, New Year's and Independence Day :blush:
Oh those fireworks would be fuckin' bossssss :rollanim:
I'm not sure about dealers of "hard drugs." Heroin, crystal meth, etc. are very harmful to society, and the people who deal that shit are a problem.
If it were legal, wouldn't that mitigate the problem with the dealers? Who would buy off the local street gang when they could stop and pick up a package at Target?
[I] think this is not a good thing, other then as I stated earlier I would support the decriminalization and taxation of Pot use. Have at it...
Why do you think pot is different from other illegal drugs?
I think drug users should not go to prison for using drugs. Doesn't matter if they are doing heroin or pot. Don't lock them up unless they are committing another crime.
I think pot is pretty benign, and should be legal but regulated, like booze and tobacco.
I'm not sure about dealers of "hard drugs." Heroin, crystal meth, etc. are very harmful to society, and the people who deal that shit are a problem.
Yea, I agree, well about the pot thing. And here is the rub, since I work in health care I see first hand the damage other more serious drugs do to people, family, society at large. I could never agree to legalize the more hard core stuff and I still think they should be penalized and go to jail or some prison camp or something made just for drug offenders. The hard core drugs have a significant toll on our society.
Which brings us to "The War on Drugs". The only way to stem the tide is to decrease demand. But since that obviously has not worked worth a damm, than what?
Why do you think pot is different from other illegal drugs?
Because I see it as no less destructive than alcohol, which is already legal, and because I think it has a medical use component that is largely ignored by the government blinded by it illegal status.
If it were legal, wouldn't that mitigate the problem with the dealers? Who would buy off the local street gang when they could stop and pick up a package at Target?
Hard drugs are bad for 3 reasons.
1. The users: a.) They are obviously ruining their health and future, destroying their family, etc. b.) And they often resort to crime to support their habits.
2. The dealers: They bring violence into the drug trade.
If you legalize hard drugs, you will eliminate the dealer violence, but the user issues will still be there.
it's not legal because it's too hard to regulate production and tax it. moneymoneymoneymoney
There is a sliding scale of rationality and drug use. Someone can smoke a pound a week of pot and still make rational choices about their life, about which actions to take and their consequences.
In my industry, I've seen too many people who are tragically f'd up on the harder stuff, and not one of them is capable of making rational choices in the other areas of their life. They cannot comprehend the idea of choosing between buying food for their kids and shooting their arm full of shit. There is no choice. They can't make the choice.
Anything which, when regularly used as intended, obliterates the rational participation of people in civil society, that thing should not be tolerated.
It seems to me that there is a number of people who support the wholesale legalization of drugs, of single, multiple, or various categories.
Really? all drugs? I don't know of anyone who supports this, even among various stoner friends. But I don't hang out with tweakers or junkies.
Just potheads. :)
Really? all drugs? I don't know of anyone who supports this, even among various stoner friends. But I don't hang out with tweakers or junkies.
Just potheads. :)
Yea, I am talking about comments I hear on this forum. The WOD this, people in prison for drug related crime, etc. I was just putting a feeler out to hear what people thought about it.
maybe you should make a poll
Really? all drugs? I don't know of anyone who supports this...
Radar hasn't chimed in yet. I'm just sayin'.
Another angle:
The government outlaws the chemicals needed to make chemically pure forms of illegal drugs, and the labs resond by finding newer, dirtier ways to cook even more dangerous, less stable concoctions; and the user doesn't even know what he/she is ingesting/injecting/smoking. At least, if we let them keep cooking the good stuff, it would be less dangerous to the people who are going to do it anyway.
Before a good law could be made, there has to be a distinction between "soft" and "hard" drugs. I support the legalization of all drugs but think that the "hard" drugs should be regulated much more heavily than "soft" drugs.
"Soft drugs"
[list][*] Marijuana
[*]Shrooms
[*]LSD
[*]Ecstasy
[*]Alochol
[*]Tobacco
[/list]
"Hard" Drugs
[list][*]Cocaine
[*]Crack
[*]Opiates
[*]PCP
[*]Meth
[*]etc
[/list]
I would like to see all the soft drugs have the same rules and regulations. They should be legal for everyone above 18 but if someone breaks the law while under the influence of one of these drugs, the penalty for the crime should be increased. These drugs, while potentially harmful, will not kill people (besides alcohol) and only present a risk to society or other individuals when one loses control.
The economic regulations will have to be a little different with the traditional illegal drugs compared to alcohol and cigarettes because of business interests but that will be easy to solve if any solution is necessary.
The hard drugs should be either prescribed or heavily regulated over the counter (I haven't thought about this too much yet). These drugs are dangerous to not only the user, but the people around them but this is the best solution in my opinion because if we have no regulation or totally illegalize it, it will be abused much more often. We can not prevent hard drug use, but we can lower the numbers with education and regulation.
I believe all drugs should be legalized because it is in the same boat as alcohol and sex. Prohibition failed and teaching safe sex will cause many less pregnancies and STDs as opposed to abstinence. As I said earlier, you can not stop drug use or sexual activity, but you can lower the numbers by education and regulation and more importantly, teach kids to do these more responsibly.
Other reasons is that it will lower the amount of people in jail, it will stop the black market on drug trade and the crime that comes with it, allow faster and more effective rehabilitation, safer and more pure drug use since some drugs like ecstasy are safe when pure but very dangerous when cut with heroin or meth, brings some money to the state in forms of taxes, better research on drugs, and can have better control solving problems when it comes to drug use.
What exactly is the logical dividing line between hard and soft drugs?
LSD is a pretty fucking hard drug. And I should know. Too much of that will fry your brains just like those iconic eggs.
Even if we stipulate that better laws can be made, and use logic to determine what those should be . . . the moralists would never agree to it.
moralists? who is that exactly? Christians? Conservatives? I'm a big C Christian who is pretty conservative, but if you can show me a reasonable drug policy that will improve society, then I'm all for it.
I'm with PH. Level 1 widely available, level 2 drugs only available by prescription. Prohibition has failed us and we need to figure out a way to admit it without scaring the blue-hairs.
LSD and Ecstasy are hardly safe drugs. Same for shrooms, maybe to a less extent depending on the person using them.
it's not legal because it's too hard to regulate production and tax it. moneymoneymoneymoney
Ding ding ding... It's kinda hard to tax someone who picks the seeds out of what they're smoking and throws them in a planter somewhere... No, beer is much easier to tax.
I'm with PH. Level 1 widely available, level 2 drugs only available by prescription. Prohibition has failed us and we need to figure out a way to admit it without scaring the blue-hairs.
How do you decide goes in which list and how do you regulate? If it is legal you know it's going to be regulated or someone gets sued. You can end up with some nasty quality variations in list 1 as it stands.
MDMA
Health Hazards
For some people, MDMA can be addictive. A survey of young adult and adolescent MDMA users found that 43 percent of those who reported ecstasy use met the accepted diagnostic criteria for dependence, as evidenced by continued use despite knowledge of physical or psychological harm, withdrawal effects, and tolerance (or diminished response), and 34 percent met the criteria for drug abuse. Almost 60 percent of people who use MDMA report withdrawal symptoms, including fatigue, loss of appetite, depressed feelings, and trouble concentrating.
Cognitive Effects
Chronic users of MDMA perform more poorly than nonusers on certain types of cognitive or memory tasks. Some of these effects may be due to the use of other drugs in combination with MDMA, among other factors.
Physical Effects
In high doses, MDMA can interfere with the body’s ability to regulate temperature. On rare but unpredictable occasions, this can lead to a sharp increase in body temperature (hyperthermia), resulting in liver, kidney, and cardiovascular system failure, and death.
Because MDMA can interfere with its own metabolism (breakdown within the body), potentially harmful levels can be reached by repeated drug use within short intervals.
Users of MDMA face many of the same risks as users of other stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines. These include increases in heart rate and blood pressure, a special risk for people with circulatory problems or heart disease, and other symptoms such as muscle tension, involuntary teeth clenching, nausea, blurred vision, faintness, and chills or sweating.
Psychological Effects
These can include confusion, depression, sleep problems, drug craving, and severe anxiety. These problems can occur during and sometimes days or weeks after taking MDMA.
Neurotoxicity
Research in animals links MDMA exposure to long-term damage to neurons that are involved in mood, thinking, and judgment. A study in nonhuman primates showed that exposure to MDMA for only 4 days caused damage to serotonin nerve terminals that was evident 6 to 7 years later. While similar neurotoxicity has not been definitively shown in humans, the wealth of animal research indicating MDMA's damaging properties suggests that MDMA is not a safe drug for human consumption.
Hidden Risk: Drug Purity
Other drugs chemically similar to MDMA, such as MDA (methylenedioxyamphetamine, the parent drug of MDMA) and PMA (paramethoxyamphetamine, associated with fatalities in the U.S. and Australia) are sometimes sold as ecstasy. These drugs can be neurotoxic or create additional health risks to the user. Also, ecstasy tablets may contain other substances in addition to MDMA, such as ephedrine (a stimulant); dextromethorphan (DXM, a cough suppressant that has PCP-like effects at high doses); ketamine (an anesthetic used mostly by veterinarians that also has PCP-like effects); caffeine; cocaine; and methamphetamine. While the combination of MDMA with one or more of these drugs may be inherently dangerous, users might also combine them with substances such as marijuana and alcohol, putting themselves at further physical risk.
Extent of Use
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)*
In 2004, an estimated 450,000 people in the U.S. age 12 and older used MDMA in the past 30 days. Ecstasy use dropped significantly among persons 18 to 25—from 14.8 percent in 2003 to 13.8 percent in 2004 for lifetime use, and from 3.7 percent to 3.1 percent for past year use. Other 2004 NSDUH results show significant reductions in lifetime and past year use among 18- to 20-year-olds, reductions in past month use for 14- or 15-year-olds, and past year and past month reductions in use among females.
Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG)**
In many of the areas monitored by CEWG members, MDMA, once used primarily at dance clubs, raves, and college scenes, is being used in a number of other social settings. In addition, some members reported increased use of MDMA among African-American and Hispanic populations.
Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey ***
Lifetime**** use dropped significantly among 12th-graders in 2005, from 7.5 percent in 2004 to 5.4 percent. The perceived risk in occasional MDMA use declined significantly among 8th-graders in 2005, and perceived availability decreased among 12th-graders.
LSD
Health Hazards
The effects of LSD are unpredictable. They depend on the amount taken; the user's personality, mood, and expectations; and the surroundings in which the drug is used. Usually, the user feels the first effects of the drug 30 to 90 minutes after taking it. The physical effects include dilated pupils, higher body temperature, increased heart rate and blood pressure, sweating, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, dry mouth, and tremors.
Sensations and feelings change much more dramatically than the physical signs. The user may feel several different emotions at once or swing rapidly from one emotion to another. If taken in a large enough dose, the drug produces delusions and visual hallucinations. The user’s sense of time and self changes. Sensations may seem to "cross over," giving the user the feeling of hearing colors and seeing sounds. These changes can be frightening and can cause panic.
Users refer to their experience with LSD as a "trip" and to acute adverse reactions as a "bad trip." These experiences are long; typically they begin to clear after about 12 hours.
Some LSD users experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of losing control, fear of insanity and death, and despair while using LSD. Some fatal accidents have occurred during states of LSD intoxication.
Many LSD users experience flashbacks, recurrence of certain aspects of a person's experience, without the user having taken the drug again. A flashback occurs suddenly, often without warning, and may occur within a few days or more than a year after LSD use. Flashbacks usually occur in people who use hallucinogens chronically or have an underlying personality problem; however, otherwise healthy people who use LSD occasionally may also have flashbacks. Bad trips and flashbacks are only part of the risks of LSD use. LSD users may manifest relatively long-lasting psychoses, such as schizophrenia or severe depression. It is difficult to determine the extent and mechanism of the LSD involvement in these illnesses.
Most users of LSD voluntarily decrease or stop its use over time. LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior, as do cocaine, amphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine. However, like many of the addictive drugs, LSD produces tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take progressively higher doses to achieve the state of intoxication that they had previously achieved. This is an extremely dangerous practice, given the unpredictability of the drug.
Extent of Use
Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey*
Lifetime** use dropped significantly among 12th-graders from 2004 to 2005, while annual and 30-day use remained stable. (Also see the InfoFacts on High School and Youth Trends.) Perceived availability of the drug fell among 12th-graders for this same period.
Quality variations are never as much a problem with legal drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies.
It doesn't matter how harmful the effects are. People need to be invested in their own choices. We can put up a guardrail but we simply can't hand-hold every single person's brain through their experience with altering their consciousness. Life is full of dangers and in some ways we are thankful for that, because if it weren't we would become complacent and fat and stupid.
More on LSD long term effects:
More on LSD
LSD users quickly develop a high degree of tolerance for the drug’s effects: After repeated use, they need increasingly larg e r doses to produce similar effects .
LSD use also produces tolerance for other hallucinogenic drugs
such as psilocybin and mescaline, but not to drugs such as marijuana,
amphetamines, and PCP, which do not act directly on the
serotonin receptors affected by LSD. Tolerance for LSD is shortlived—
it is lost if the user stops taking the drug for several days.
T h e re is no evidence that LSD produces physical withdrawal
symptoms when chronic use is stopped. Two long-term eff e c t s —
persistent psychosis and hallucinogen persisting perc e p t i o n
disorder (HPPD), more commonly re f e r red to as “flashbacks”—
have been associated with use of LSD. The causes of these
e ffects, which in some users occur after a single experience
with the drug, are not known. P s y c h o s i s . The effects of
LSD can be described as drug induced psychosis—distortion
or disorganization of a person’s capacity to recognize re a l i t y ,
think rationally, or communicate with others. Some LSD users
experience devastating psychological effects that persist after
the trip has ended, producing a long-lasting psychotic-like state.
LSD-induced persistent psychosis may include dramatic mood
swings from mania to pro found depression, vivid visual disturb -
ances, and hallucinations. These effects may last for years and
can affect people who have no history or other symptoms of
psychological disorder. Hallucinogen Persisting
Perception Disorder. Some former LSD users report experiences
known colloquially as “flashbacks” and called “HPPD”
by physicians. These episodes are spontaneous, repeated,
sometimes continuous recurrences of some of the sensory
distortions originally produced by LSD. The experience may
include hallucinations, but it most commonly consists of visual disturbances such as seeing false motion on the edges of the field of vision, bright or colored flashes,
and halos or trails attached to moving objects. This condition is
typically persistent and in some cases remains unchanged for years after individuals have
stopped using the drug. Because HPPD symptoms may be mistaken for those of other
neurological disorders such as stroke or brain tumors, sufferers
may consult a variety of clinicians b e f o re the disorder is accurately
diagnosed. There is no established treatment for HPPD,
although some antidepressant drugs may reduce the symptoms.
Psychotherapy may help patients adjust to the confusion associated
with visual distraction and to minimize the fear, expressed
by some, that they are suffering brain damage or psychiatric disorder.
Quality variations are never as much a problem with legal drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies.
It doesn't matter how harmful the effects are. People need to be invested in their own choices. We can put up a guardrail but we simply can't hand-hold every single person's brain through their experience with altering their consciousness. Life is full of dangers and in some ways we are thankful for that, because if it weren't we would become complacent and fat and stupid.
No doubt about that. But should we be responsible for the long term health care of these choices? Sure we do it with lots of other self inflicted disease, but should we draw the line for recreational drug users who screw themselves up and end up costing society in billions in direct and indirect costs?
The costs of police, courts, jails, prisons is higher than the costs of health care.
Putting people in jail is worse for them than the drugs we seek to protect them from.
I don't consider prison or jail a place to protect people. It is punishment for breaking the law as it is written. Lord knows you aren't going to rehab hanging out with other loser criminals for a few years end on end.
Health care costs are only one of many elements where the cost of drug use is counted.
Well, legalize any substance that puts the person into the state of psychosis. Nice, and then ask them to make some decisions about life like, don't drive or do anything stupid or irrational that just might put some one else's life in danger.
I don't see the logic, or adult decision making about the society I live in there at all.
No they should not be legalized. Period.
it's not legal because it's too hard to regulate production and tax it. moneymoneymoneymoney
Ding ding ding... It's kinda hard to tax someone who picks the seeds out of what they're smoking and throws them in a planter somewhere... No, beer is much easier to tax.
I don't believe it for a second. Nobody grows their own tobacco. It's much easier to buy a carton of cigarettes than to grow your own, dry the leaves and roll them. Probably cheaper too, even with the taxes on tobacco.
You legalize pot, and it will be dirt cheap. The only cost will be the taxes. Nobody will grow their own. Too much trouble.
glatt,
have you ever seen a tobacco plant? you smoke the leaves. you'd need a half acre under constant rotation to support one habit.
you can grow 6 plants in buckets in your basement and keep yourself high and sell some to your buddies, too.
Okay field trip to LJ's basement
Quality variations are never as much a problem with legal drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies.
It doesn't matter how harmful the effects are. People need to be invested in their own choices. We can put up a guardrail but we simply can't hand-hold every single person's brain through their experience with altering their consciousness. Life is full of dangers and in some ways we are thankful for that, because if it weren't we would become complacent and fat and stupid.
I'm completely cool with that reasoning as I think people should take responsibility for their own choices but what happens when the more tender hearted among us feel that with let these poor people down? Create a new program to support them? Afterall, if we hadn't legalized it and basically forced the chemicals into their bodies they would certainly have continued upon their cherubic lives.:rolleyes:
Sometimes I'm more worried about the people that are on prescribed medication.
All this talk of "how'r we gonna pay for this..." is entirely irrelevant because the people are doing the drugs anyway, today, and getting paid for as it is, today.
Nowhere legalization has been tried, has there been a spike in new addicts.
you can get paid for doing drugs?
Something we almost never talk about in this is how our drug laws create an easy source of funds for terrorist groups and help destabilize countries like Colombia and Afghanistan.
Like a lot of issues there are decent arguments for and against decriminalization. I happen to think the best arguments are for, but even if you think that it's fifty/fifty choosing liberty over state violence should make it an easy choice. I suspect there are a lot of conservatives out there who are not comfortable with this much government action and the casual application of force against citizens. We really need to think about this stuff in nanny state terms. Do we trust people or not?
I'm glad that folks are mostly on board with keeping pot heads out of prison. If you took the pot out of international drug smuggling, you would at least reduce the total number of people engaged in these violence creating activities. Poorly conceived drug laws are just another way that we reduce respect for the rule of law and in governing authority generally.
What's coming to the forefront now is the fact that our drug laws have turned the US into a
prison society. Incarcerating non-violent drug users is insanely expensive. The only two reasons to incarcerate a person are to protect the person or society. Prison is not safe, and most of these individuals are not a threat to society.
If any administration created 2.3 million government jobs, the average taxpayer would be outraged. Each prisoner is the equivalent of a $30,000-per-year bureaucrat. If the government hired one file clerk for every 100 citizens, we would be complaining about waste in government. For some reason, no one has considered the crushing expense and human waste.
1 in 100 adults now in prison
2,319,258 Americans behind bars in 2008, most of any nation
When marijuana is decriminalized and becomes regulated ie. registered growers, wholesalers and retailers, there will still be bootleg operators just as people make their own booze in home stils. I don't think arguing that people will be able to grown their own is a good enough argument to be against it on it's own.
LSD is not a soft drug. Nor are shrooms. Have you ever seen some of the crazy shit people can do on that stuff PH? Anyway, I don't think any of the 'created' drugs should be freely available personally.
If any administration created 2.3 million government jobs, the average taxpayer would be outraged. Each prisoner is the equivalent of a $30,000-per-year bureaucrat. If the government hired one file clerk for every 100 citizens, we would be complaining about waste in government. For some reason, no one has considered the crushing expense and human waste.
Absolutely brilliant.
From what I see, I think pot sgould be legalised and contolled inthe same vein as tobaco and booze.
regarding penalties for the rest? instead of prison, why not an automatic ticket to the frontline. That would certainly bloody well deter me!
There are people that shouldn't be allow to do caffeine. There will always be a few, that will lose self control of rational behavior, on anything legal. Why penalize millions of people to try and protect a handful that really can't be protected in the first place?
Fuck it, legalize em all, open up a park...with a morgue in the back.
Handful?
Compared to the millions we are supporting in jail, needlessly.... handful.
Nowhere legalization has been tried, has there been a spike in new addicts.
I don't believe there would be a spike in new addicts. I'm talking about our society where it seems people look for every opportunity to place the blame for their own dumbass decisions on the government. Bought a house you can't afford? the gummint better do something.
Didn't save anything for your future? the gummint should do more.
You're hooked on meth? the gummint should take care of you.
legalize it all for all I care, but when someone steps out of line to their choice to use - then we should be prepared to crush them. if we're in a society where driving after one beer can give you a legal DUI, then what is it after a couple lines?
Of all the drugs, maybe only the opiates are worse than alcohol, on affecting your ability to drive. Alcohol affects your motor skills, balance, slows your judgement... it's like a perfect storm of effects on somebody trying to drive. Somebody does a few lines, there's a decent chance they drive *better*.
What exactly is the logical dividing line between hard and soft drugs?
I divided them based on addiction (besides alcohol) and death rates. My list is just based off my research and personal experience so I'm not saying that my list should be concrete.
I would consider acid a soft drug because it is non-addicting and you can not overdose on it. There are obviously pretty big health risks that come with it but with proper education it can be a lot safer so people know how to avoid and take care of bad trips and avoid taking a hit a week or anything insane like that.
Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?
For MDMA (ecstasy), I believe most of the negative effects come from impurities, which would be avoided if legalized, and besides that, the three leading causes of death with ecstasy are Hyponatremia (drinking too much water), Hyperthermia (body overheating), and overdose, all which are preventable (keep in mind this is coming from someone that has never taken it). And for addiction, I haven't seen any hard proof that it is addicting because of the real lack of pure ecstasy. This is obviously a drug that would need to be taken with extreme caution and it really is hard to tell without any definite studies.
For shrooms, it is very similar to lsd.
Aliantha, I personally have not taken either shrooms or lsd but I know many people that have done them responsibly and they were well in control of themselves. I would still say alochol makes people do much stupider things than either shrooms or lsd.
Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.
For state intervention, what I would like to see is that there is drug education to high school freshman that goes in depth and talks about the realities of drug use and then I will stick with my ideas on regulation and availability. I also think that rehab and hospital treatment should be around the same as it is now.
Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option.
Cite, please? All I've read about is that people with
prior convictions now have the option of joining the military, whereas they didn't before.
All I know is that I know someone who got caught with cocaine possession got the choice of joining the army to avoid jail time. I think we are talking about the same thing.
PH, I guess your experiences have been much different to mine then.
Speaking as someone who did a bit of a stint back in the bad old days, I can assure you that all drugs cause you to lose a certain amount of 'control'. Different drugs, different behaviours, but all alter your perception of reality in some way. If you're not seeing 'reality' you're not in control IMO.
I
Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.
Who said anything about training them? ;) They can take the places of our expensively trained real soldiers, drawing the fire.... so then the real soldiers can go in, do what they have to and come home again. on two legs, not in a bag.
Cite, please? All I've read about is that people with prior convictions now have the option of joining the military, whereas they didn't before.
Even back in the 50's and 60's, Judges would quite often offer a kid in trouble, a chance to join the military, as a plea bargain to avoid conviction.
Even back in the 50's and 60's, Judges would quite often offer a kid in trouble, a chance to join the military, as a plea bargain to avoid conviction.
Today, the army is professional. A recruit must have a high school degree and cannot have any felony convictions. How is the army reducing standards to maintain their recruitment quotas? Sometimes, those two requirements get ignored.
Even back in the 50's and 60's, Judges would quite often offer a kid in trouble, a chance to join the military, as a plea bargain to avoid conviction.
Ah, that makes more sense, since it's technically a substitute for the conviction (meaning they aren't really "guilty") as opposed to a substitute for the sentencing.
I haven't followed this thread and haven't read the whole thing, so forgive me if I repeat ideas that someone else has posted.
I believe that prohibition of drugs or alcohol has a negative effect overall. That said I do believe that certain substances ought to be 'controlled', by which I mean only purchasable from those with a licence to sell. My rationale for this is: most of the serious dangers involved in drug use comes from the unreliability of the substance used and the lack of reliable information about its use and possible effects of different dosages and how they may interact with other substances; with the substances legal but in a controlled form, where the dosage and contents are measurable and guaranteed, there would be far fewer fatalities amongst heroine users, for example and certainly 'ecstacy' would be a far safer drug than it currently is given that MDMA seems to have been swapped in many cases with dangerous doses of ketomine and a chemical soup of other ingredients. Take drugs out of the criminal arena and bring them within legal controls, in the same way that alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are, and the levels of danger will reduce. Add a change in attitude towards addiction (look at how cigarette addicts are treated as compared to heroine addicts) and we may see less criminalising of people who are not naturally criminal in tendency.
In addition, the bottom would drop out of the criminal drug market if those drugs were available at a reasonable price (even with high taxation rates seen in alcohol and tobacco, their impact on prices is, I believe much less than the impact of 'black market' economics).
On an idealogical level I do not think that we should legislate what adults are and are not allowed to consume. This is my prime reason for believing that all and any drugs should be legal, but subject to whatever health warnings and controls are necessary in order for those adults to make a reasoned and informed choice on their consumption. I find it slightly strange that societies who have a horror of 'big government' or 'nanny states' also have very strict legislation as to what adults can and cannot choose to consume.
eta
Specifically on cannabis: I have never been able to understand how the state can legislate against the cultivation and use of a herb. Might as well ban nettles, or parsley. Hell ban apples, they can be fermented to produce a mind altering substance.
regarding penalties for the rest? instead of prison, why not an automatic ticket to the frontline. That would certainly bloody well deter me!
It would never work. I don't want some bloody ass drug head with well trained troops in a highly dynamic combat environment that will not follow orders. And you just pass the problem of these people to the Military. The addiction is to strong.
I divided them based on addiction (besides alcohol) and death rates.
Death rates alone do not tell the story.
I would consider acid a soft drug because it is non-addicting and you can not overdose on it.
That would be an incorrect assumption.
There are obviously pretty big health risks that come with it but with proper education it can be a lot safer so people know how to avoid and take care of bad trips and avoid taking a hit a week or anything insane like that.
Your assumption is that drug users seekers are rational people who can control their urges and desires. Another false assumption.
Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?
There are whole textbooks written on the subject. The effects of LSD drug abuse are highly documented.
For MDMA (ecstasy), I believe most of the negative effects come from impurities, which would be avoided if legalized, and besides that, the three leading causes of death with ecstasy are Hyponatremia (drinking too much water), Hyperthermia (body overheating), and overdose, all which are preventable (keep in mind this is coming from someone that has never taken it). And for addiction, I haven't seen any hard proof that it is addicting because of the real lack of pure ecstasy. This is obviously a drug that would need to be taken with extreme caution and it really is hard to tell without any definite studies.
The studies are very well documented as are the deaths and effects of long term use of MDMA. This is not a new thing here guys. You talk like this is some new fangled thing that people are just playing with on the side. And granted there may be people like that. IMHO the the health risks well out weigh any minor benifit of getting you jollies for a night of bliss.
For shrooms, it is very similar to lsd.
Correct, same negative effects.
I would still say alochol makes people do much stupider things than either shrooms or lsd.
Less stupid? An individual is certainly in much less control under the influence of shrooms or LSD, alcohol is at least something that you can graduate.
Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option.
Completely and utterly incorrect. That option went out in the 70's.
It would never work. I don't want some bloody ass drug head with well trained troops in a highly dynamic combat environment that will not follow orders. And you just pass the problem of these people to the Military. The addiction is to strong.
Cannon fodder, sweetie. Clearing landmines the easy way. They don't need to follow orders, just drop 'em off and leave 'em to it! ;)
Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?
I'm sure there are plenty, since LSD is probably the most heavily documented drug of all.
But I'm not basing that statement on studies--I'm basing it on personal knowledge from contact with people who have overdone this particular drug.
That would be an incorrect assumption.
??
"LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior as do cocaine, amphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine."
http://www.drug-addiction.com/what_is_lsd.htm
"I must emphasize that there is no danger of death or injury from overdose of LSD, which must have about the highest therapeutic index of any drug known (the ratio of fatal dose to effective dose is unknown since no human being has ever died from an overdose of LSD, but must be very high, as individuals have mistakenly ingested hundreds of doses at a sitting; this is a way of saying that the drug is not at all toxic)."
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml
Your assumption is that drug users seekers are rational people who can control their urges and desires. Another false assumption.
When did I ever make an absolute statement? There are rational and irrational drug users, what makes this issue any different than alcohol?
Less stupid? An individual is certainly in much less control under the influence of shrooms or LSD, alcohol is at least something that you can graduate.
From the many friends that I've known that has taken acid and shrooms, no one has done anything really stupid, though none of them took large doses and most of them are in fairly good control when under the influence of other drugs as well.
Researchers might say LSD is not addictive, but I disagree. You may not have 'withdrawal symptoms' when you decide to stop taking it, but it is definitely a drug that's hard to refuse once you've had a 'good trip'. What I mean of course is that it's a drug that's habit forming even if it's not addictive. Similar to marijuana for example although I think LSD is more harmful because for one thing, it's a chemical and you really never know what you're going to get. For another, some people make some very very very bad decisions when they're on a trip.
I almost killed myself twice while shrooming. Once chasing a frisbee off a cliff at the Sleeping Giant Mountain and another time doing something VERY STUPID at a concert. It involved lots of electricity and my body as a conductor. The fatality rate is not just from the drug itself, but also what one's perception of while "intoxicated."
Researchers might say LSD is not addictive, but I disagree. You may not have 'withdrawal symptoms' when you decide to stop taking it, but it is definitely a drug that's hard to refuse once you've had a 'good trip'.
So it's as addictive as bacon?
Well you know, once you have one rasher, it's hard to stop. ;)
So it's as addictive as bacon?
Much worse. Although I do have a mild bacon addition, only if very crispy.;)
When I'm very crispy, I'll eat just about anything. :lol:
Nice editorial piece on this
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1719872,00.html
The drug war has ravaged law enforcement too. In cities where police agencies commit the most resources to arresting their way out of their drug problems, the arrest rates for violent crime — murder, rape, aggravated assault — have declined. In Baltimore, where we set The Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90% to half that. Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug arrests off the nearest corner.
What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain.
"What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. "
The author sounds like he is looking for sympathy for poor choices people make of their own free will. I have little of it. At least in this opening sentance he admits that drug use destroys the life of the user and that the substances are dangerous. Statements like, "a venal war on our underclass" and "demonizing our most desperate citizens" only try to garner sympathy for losers who choose to throw their lives away, steal, lie, cheat, in some cases injur and murder others, and kill themselves slowly through drug use. Poor fellas.
only try to garner sympathy for losers who choose to throw their lives away, steal, lie, cheat, in some cases injur and murder others, and kill themselves slowly through drug use. Poor fellas.
The point is, the war on drugs has not changed this one iota. It's still happening despite the distraction of the police away from what they should be doing.
re: merc:
Yeah, cause the war on drugs actually is working?
You may have no sympathy for anyone, but that doesn't mean that the fact that this "war" isn't working isn't true.
Man, you live in a black and white world and know how all things should be, don't you? Maybe HLJ would let you borrow his user name.
re: merc:
Yeah, cause the war on drugs actually is working?
You may have no sympathy for anyone, but that doesn't mean that the fact that this "war" isn't working isn't true.
Man, you live in a black and white world and know how all things should be, don't you? Maybe HLJ would let you borrow his user name.
You take it wrong. I never said the war on drugs was working. I know there are much better ways to do it. I have already stated my position on the decriminalization of pot, no big deal to me. The rest of it I would never support. I don't support putting drug addicted people into jail and not giving them treatment. I do not support the whole scale legaliztion of drugs, that would be a huge mistake.
re: merc:
Man, you live in a black and white world and know how all things should be, don't you?
No, I just have an opinion about this issue. Others have other opinions.
No, I just have an opinion about this issue. Others have other opinions.
Sorry, it is not my place to say your opinion is wrong (bad day, bad news hitting me every direction I turn.)
I do know that we are opposites when it comes to many issues; my perception is that you do believe you know exactly how people should be and what should govern their "choices" and not just this issue.
But lord knows my perception has been wrong a million times before.
In Baltimore, where we set The Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90% to half that. Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug arrests off the nearest corner.
I've been watching The Wire lately on DVD and they really keep pounding this point home. I think it's a valid one.
It used to be that cops would walk a beat and get to know the people of a neighborhood. They would know every kid by name and stop to talk to the citizens as they went around. If anything ever happened, the cop would hear about it from the law abiding citizens. They were approachable.
Now, with the war on drugs, virtually everyone in places like West Baltimore knows someone who has been locked up in the war on drugs. Maybe they have been locked up. Maybe it's their father or brother. Maybe a friend. The cops took that freedom away, and they are the enemy. Nothing good comes from talking to a cop. So the cops don't get any breaks. Homicide witnesses won't come forward. The cops are the enemy.
Get rid of the war on drugs, and the cops can go back to protecting a neighborhood from real crime with the help of the citizens.
Yea...well...I was pulled over once in the past 2 years because I was driving in a "bad neighborhood". I was pulled into the back of a cop-car to answer questions about people I know that do drugs (suggestively selling the question) and where they live.....heh. Yea...No probable cause and interrogation...I'm not sure if there is a question about enemies. That isn't how you make friends. I insisted that I myself don't do drugs a couple of times but they tore apart the car anyway...and of course...nothing.
:)
I was going to the Texas Steak House to pick up my to-go order......It was cold by the time I got it.
And I know your wondering and the answer is: hell no.
Did you get the steaks well done?
oh you've already answered never mind
I've been watching The Wire lately on DVD and they really keep pounding this point home. I think it's a valid one.
It used to be that cops would walk a beat and get to know the people of a neighborhood. They would know every kid by name and stop to talk to the citizens as they went around. If anything ever happened, the cop would hear about it from the law abiding citizens. They were approachable.
Now, with the war on drugs, virtually everyone in places like West Baltimore knows someone who has been locked up in the war on drugs. Maybe they have been locked up. Maybe it's their father or brother. Maybe a friend. The cops took that freedom away, and they are the enemy. Nothing good comes from talking to a cop. So the cops don't get any breaks. Homicide witnesses won't come forward. The cops are the enemy.
Get rid of the war on drugs, and the cops can go back to protecting a neighborhood from real crime with the help of the citizens.
You really don't think it is that simplistic do you. BTW I love The Wire.
I do think that cops walking a beat is a good thing, we just restarted that in a major city near us. But the practicality of it no longer fits todays demographic, not to mention the fact that you can't hire a person for $17,000 a year and expect him to love life walking in a neighborhood war zone the size of many small US towns. To much area, to many ingrained thoughts and ideas, to many generations removed from any fantasy that all cops are good guys, cause they are not. They are not paid to be either. Crime in general is to much and there are not enough good people available to do the job effectively, and one reason is there are to many people to police.
Cops are not the enemy because of the War on Drugs, that is but one small element. Much of the violent crime is related to the struggle between factions that want to control drugs. Legalization will not change that. People will just look to circumvent the system, legal or not, to keep their income and piece of the power pie.
Cops are not the enemy because of the War on Drugs, that is but one small element. Much of the violent crime is related to the struggle between factions that want to control drugs. Legalization will not change that. People will just look to circumvent the system, legal or not, to keep their income and piece of the power pie.
Legalization will absolutely change that.
Who is going to buy drugs of unknown quality from a shifty character on a street corner when you can get a known, quality controlled product made by Pfizer or Merck from the corner drugstore for half the price? The criminal dealers will be left out in the cold. Nobody will buy from them. The violence associated with the supply side will disappear overnight.
Also, those areas are far more densely populated than they were before and the people are far more transient than they were 20 - 30 .... years ago. There just isn't that constant where people grew up and stayed in one place anymore.
Legalization will absolutely change that.
Who is going to buy drugs of unknown quality from a shifty character on a street corner when you can get a known, quality controlled product made by Pfizer or Merck from the corner drugstore for half the price? The criminal dealers will be left out in the cold. Nobody will buy from them. The violence associated with the supply side will disappear overnight.
Like alcohol. MOST people go to the nearest grocery, bar, or liquor store. They don't meet up with Guido on the street corner to get their Absolut cheaper.
You all think weed is harmless?
Shoulda made that puppy watch
Reefer Madness.Legalization will absolutely change that.
Who is going to buy drugs of unknown quality from a shifty character on a street corner when you can get a known, quality controlled product made by Pfizer or Merck from the corner drugstore for half the price? The criminal dealers will be left out in the cold. Nobody will buy from them. The violence associated with the supply side will disappear overnight.
I don't buy it. The same thugs who can't afford anything other than their FUBU hoodie and $120 nikes will still be ripping off the guy who has the cash to buy the drugs legally. This continues to be an issue that is not simplified by discussing legalization. Even when opium dens were legal and readily available the drug use ruined many lives.
I was talking about the violence associated with the supply side. Now you're bringing up the violence associated with the demand side. I agree that demand side crime and violence isn't going to change very much if drugs are legalized. Addicts will still commit crimes to feed their habit.
I was talking about the violence associated with the supply side. Now you're bringing up the violence associated with the demand side. I agree that demand side crime and violence isn't going to change very much if drugs are legalized. Addicts will still commit crimes to feed their habit.
That is why I said it is not simplistic. I am and was bringing up the violence and health effects of the whole deal. Legalization only deals with a small part of the problem.
We have a black market here and across both borders in legal drugs as well.
Neither of these:
I don't buy it. The same thugs who can't afford anything other than their FUBU hoodie and $120 nikes will still be ripping off the guy who has the cash to buy the drugs legally. This continues to be an issue that is not simplified by discussing legalization. Even when opium dens were legal and readily available the drug use ruined many lives.
We have a black market here and across both borders in legal drugs as well.
will support a war zone:
... not to mention the fact that you can't hire a person for $17,000 a year and expect him to love life walking in a neighborhood war zone the size of many small US towns.
Despite the end of prohibition, people still make their own alcohol, and in some situations they still do so illegally, but there is no longer a war between moonshiners and cops. Commercially available alcohol is safer, and in many (most?) cases better and cheaper than anything you'd buy out of a pickup.
It sounds like you're letting the lack of the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that all crime and poverty won't end with the drug war doesn't mean that drastically reducing it is too simplistic. Drastically reducing is a good goal in itself.
Dude, you are not going to convince a pharmacy company to produce low cost recreational drugs to a point where it would cheap for you to use and expensive enough for them to make a profit. What I said was that crime and poverty associated with drug use would not change, I doubt it will be reduced a little. Of course neither you or I have any proof that legalization of any kind will or will not work either.
RJ Reynolds and Absolut produce what I am told are passable products for prices that many can afford, and they have very few gun battles over turf.
RJ Reynolds and Absolut produce what I am told are passable products for prices that many can afford, and they have very few gun battles over turf.
And they don't spend billions in R&D for new types of drink and smoke. All drugs are regulated by the FDA. These manufactures do not have to go through the hoops required. You compare Apples and oranges. Not even close in your best fantasy of legalized highs.
Why wouldn't a pharmaceutical company manufacture a legal drug?
Why wouldn't a pharmaceutical company manufacture a legal drug?
That is not the question.
And Pfizer... we can include Viagra in that group.
Companies love products where demand is constant and there are few alternative products. (If apples are too expensive, eat pears. If smack is too expensive...)
And Pfizer... we can include Viagra in that group.
Companies love products where demand is constant and there are few alternative products. (If apples are too expensive, eat pears. If smack is too expensive...)
I bet there are more regular users of viagra and cialias then there are regular users of pot.
And they don't spend billions in R&D for new types of drink and smoke.
They spend plenty. And, despite the restrictions in place, they probably spend even more on advertising. Common drugs wouldn't have to be researched all that much. Generic drug companies could jump in immediately. Production methods already exist for research purposes, so all that would be needed would be production facilities.
If a comany thought they could make a patentable version, they might want to pump in the R&D, but it would hardly be a requirement.
Ain't happening dude, not in the US on a Federal level.
I didn't say it was. But that's a completely different issue from whether it would decrease the violence.
That is not the question.
What are you talking about? That's the whole point of this thread.
If the laws are changed so that drugs that are currently illegal are made legal, why wouldn't a pharmaceutical company manufacture them?
Economics will not be the issue, because large pharma companies have the factories in place to make this stuff cheaply and efficiently.
I didn't say it was. But that's a completely different issue from whether it would decrease the violence.
We moved from the violence issue to economics, now you want to go back and rehash the violence issue. Go ahead make your case. You think it would decrease violence. I do not. Explain to me how it would decrease violence.
Go back? You switched to economics to claim that the price of legal drugs would keep the demand-side violence up. I disagree, but even if I grant that, the supply side of the violence would be gutted.
Like I said, corporate turf wars in the US seldom devolve to gun battles. If you owe money on a legit transaction, you don't turn up dead.
And, back on the demand side, legit drugs would be known strength and purity, which would drastically reduce OD deaths and deaths due to poisoning from whatever it would have been cut with on the street. So again, even if demand-side violence stayed constant, deaths would decrease.
So you think that OD deaths are due to what they cut them with? Not. Other health problems are caused that.
No, what I said is even if you legalized them violence will continue. To think that the supply side would go away, sort of like carjacking, armed robbery, stealing to support your now legal habit? none of that would go away to support a now legit habit.
Maybe you might minimize some of the supply side violence, but I doubt it. People are not going to just jump out of the business if they can still get you product. How it is done and the quality of the black market may go up in response. What I have said is that none of these problems can go away over night because of legalization, in fact I think it will just open up an new can of worms we have not seen.
OK Merc, look at it this way.
When alcohol was illegal, who did all the bootlegging and standovering?
The Mob. (mostly, in conjunction with the Irish)
When alcohol was legalized, what did The Mob get involved in?
Drugs.
It's a natural progression, but basically, violence over alcohol supply evaporated overnight almost.
If you legalize drugs, the same thing would happen.
Yes there'd still be people who try to undercut the drug companies or come up with some new and better drug, but mainstream users would go the legal route because it's easier, and less dangerous. Exactly the same thing that happened with alcohol.
Ok we legalise pot. What about skunk?
The fact is humans are inherently stupid. Melbourne laxed it's liquer laws and now we have problems in some districts of the city where people are out of control. Riots are not uncommon. Melbourne is being held up as an example of why other cities around Australia will not change their liquer lisencing laws.
On the other hand I do have a sick sister who's doctor would love to prescibe pot to help her but he can't . she relies now on others who risk jail so as to help her. So I'm all for medicinal pot.
I can't believe that we are going to compare viagra to pot. Viagra does not cause a state of psychosis in the person who takes the drug. A guy driving a car after taking Viagra is just uncomfortable. A guy driving a car after smoking pot, is uncomfortably dangerous. That's a good idea.
We already have a problem with drunk drivers, lets put a few more on the road only high on pot, LSD, heroin, and what ever else they want to put into their body? I don't think this is a smart thing to do.
Next thread after we legalize drugs will be how all the people put in jail for driving under the influence of LSD, and pot are victims of the system and the jails are now REALY over crowded. I can see it coming. Oh wait, then we'll just have to change the driving laws too. Only sober drivers allowed from 0900 until sundown, after that drive at your own risk...have to accommodate the drug users.
Oh, and after your sister OD's on heroin, sue the drug dealer. Already precedence set in Canada.
Do you have roadside drug testing like roadside alcohol testing?
Over here the same sort of penalties apply to driving while under the influence of drugs as they do for alcohol.
You raise a good point Joe, although I really don't think legalizing drugs could make the problem any worse than it is.
So you think that OD deaths are due to what they cut them with? Not. Other health problems are caused that.
No, I think that poisoning deaths are due to the cutting, and OD deaths are due to ODing. Both would be reduced if the drug were of a known strength and quality.
No, what I said is even if you legalized them violence will continue. To think that the supply side would go away, sort of like carjacking, armed robbery, stealing to support your now legal habit? none of that would go away to support a now legit habit.
Those are demand side. For the sake of argument, I granted that that could stay at the same level.
Maybe you might minimize some of the supply side violence, but I doubt it. People are not going to just jump out of the business if they can still get you product.
They will if someone else is providing higher quality product with no fear of cops and much more conveniently and safely for customers. I doubt the junkies will be particularly loyal to their original suppliers.
How it is done and the quality of the black market may go up in response.
If the black market becomes as cheap and safe as a supermarket, that would be a good result in itself.
What I have said is that none of these problems can go away over night because of legalization, in fact I think it will just open up an new can of worms we have not seen.
Overnight is irrelevant.
Overnight is irrelevant.
Actually the whole discussion is irrelevant because it is a fantasy to think it will ever happen. Drugs will never be legalized in this country the way you invision.
Actually the whole discussion is irrelevant
Well, thanks for starting it, I guess... :yelsick:
Well, thanks for starting it, I guess... :yelsick:
You are welcome.:)
Next thing you know those koalas will be walking naked down main street. Damn long-hair pinko whippersnappers.
Then we will have to start the WOK.
{war on koalas}