Noan Finley says, "Legalize Drugs"

[gnome]

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090409/OPINION03/904090339/1008/Wave+white+flag+in+the+drug+war




Mexico's drug-fueled lawlessness is surging over our border. More than half our prison inmates are in for drug crimes, contributing to the shameful fact that Michigan spends more on Corrections than we do on colleges.
Detroit and other big cities have been dismantled by the drug gangs.
And the number of addicts remains constant.

This is a classic military quagmire. We respond to losing by deploying more troops instead of questioning the mission's viability. In 1986, Congress escalated spending, with the goal of ending the narcotics trade in 10 years.
And now we're about to undergo another major escalation to keep the anarchy in Mexico from destabilizing parts of our country.

Why not try something new? Take away the crime, and get rid of the criminals.
The drug cartels wouldn't have a market for their contraband if we legalized drugs. They'd be as obsolete as the Purple Gang.

Well, a conservative republican comes out in support of the legalize-it crowd. Better check on the temp in hell, I get the feeling it is pretty chilly.

With pot, cocaine and heroin legal ... can you imagine how much money won't be spent controlling the uncontrollable?

[East Detroit]

What makes him think the Purple Gang is obsolete?

[Crumbled_pavement]

With pot, cocaine and heroin legal ... can you imagine how much money won't be spent controlling the uncontrollable?
My question is this: if those drugs were legalized, would something stronger come out and continue to fuel the drug war? New drugs come out all the time.

[gnome]

I should have put the ellipses in a better location.

with pot, cocaine, heroin and ... legal

But you are correct, folks will dream up new ways to get blurry. It is the human condition. For some reason we like blurry.

I guess, my point with starting the thread was to point out that a mainstream Republican opinion maker/influencer had touched a third-rail for the law-and-order crowd. Granted Nolan stated view is not new, but within the Republican Party it is new. One could view his opinion as an appeal to the Libertarian wing (get Government out of my personal business) of the Party, hence I wonder if Nolan's view will find any traction within the Repub powerbrokers.

If the Republican Party would take up the five-leafed flag, I wonder what collection of supporters they would find in their tent.

hmm, Gannon, Lowell and Django voting a straight Republican ticket? Surely, the seas would turn to fire, cats and dogs would marry, as the GOP becomes the Gram Ol Party.

[Sstashmoo]

Can't control it, so do away with the laws? Where do you stop that practice? Following that same logic, Rape is really just sex anyway. And murder? we all gotta go sometime.

Start enforcing the laws. Ever wonder why people rarely rob post offices? Stiff penalties.

[Gistok]

Can't control it, so do away with the laws? Where do you stop that practice? Following that same logic, Rape is really just sex anyway. And murder? we all gotta go sometime.

Start enforcing the laws. Ever wonder why people rarely rob post offices? Stiff penalties.

Sstashmoo, sorry to have to call you out on this but you are using the classic Slippery Slope fallacy in arguing your point... the same type of argument that law enforcement and governments use to try to prove their point.... but it's still a fallacy that does not follow logic.

Slippery Slope



Definition:

In order to show that a proposition (http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/proposit.htm) P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then (http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/if.htm)" operator.
Examples:
If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.

[mclark]

It seems like the slippery slope is routinely employed in the argument against legalization. I don't know if full legalization/regulation of harder stuff like cocaine and heroin would be the way to go, but I think anyone with much common sense can realize that spending as much as this country does to prosecute pot crimes and lock people up for possession isn't doing any of us any good.

[Django]

Conservatives George Soros and William F. Buckley had been bringing up legalization for over a decade in response to the war on drugs. Now there are even more conservatives stepping up on that soap box.

If you think about it conservatives should logically be the first ones to want the government out of peoples private lives with their desire for minimal bureaucracy.

I remember in the early 90s when the US prison population was just edging up to one million, today its over two million. Thats two million felons learning to be better felons while incarcerated, sort of a college for criminals. When and if the prisoners of the drug war are released, do you think its going to be easy for them to get a job and walk straight? Most go back to what they know, and many know that they can make a pretty good living selling drugs.

Building and filling prisons have become big business, and you can bet your ass all thoes invested in the business of prisons will fight tooth and nail to keep this dug war going.

[ghein]

Can't control it, so do away with the laws? Where do you stop that practice? Following that same logic, Rape is really just sex anyway. And murder? we all gotta go sometime.

Start enforcing the laws. Ever wonder why people rarely rob post offices? Stiff penalties.

Anybody who's ever met a pothead knows their crime is about as dangerous as jaywalking, yet you equate it to rape and murder. Riiiiiiight.

You know, Ann Arbor recently made jaywalking legal as long as you're not impeding traffic. Oh no! They're not enforcing the law! Legalized rape and murder is sure to follow! Avoid A2 at any cost!

[rb336]

My question is this: if those drugs were legalized, would something stronger come out and continue to fuel the drug war? New drugs come out all the time.


If pot were available legally, and if other drugs were decriminalized (treat it for what it is, a health problem) there would be little incentive for the other designer drugs. they will be around, yes, but the impact would be minimal. most people I know who tried "harder" drugs did so because they could get them easier than pot or booze.

virtually ALL the bad crime that goes with drugs is a result of their illegal standing rather than the drug use itself

[thecarl]

what drugs would be legalized? marijuana, cocaine, mushrooms, pcp, lsd, ecstasy, heroin? do we have examples of countries where use of these drugs is legal, and this is regarded as a healthy practice - with no concerns over personal and public safety, or productivity? tobacco and alcohol are legal in the united states, and have a tremendous impact on people's health, productivity, and public safety.

[Sstashmoo]

Think this country needs another legal drug? I don't.

Like our society isn't screwed up enough as it is. The last thing we need is another enabling avenue for good men to become lazy-boy slouching zombies. Divorce rates are through the roof. You can handle your drugs you say? Good for you, the reality is, the majority of the people cannot.

We need stiffer laws and enforcement.

You want legal drugs? Find a country that has them and move there. I don't want legalized pot, I'm a US citizen I have a say in it.

I know people that smoke dope like cigarettes, all day long. There would be many doing this.

[Bigb23]

But you are correct, folks will dream up new ways to get blurry. It is the human condition. For some reason we like blurry.

There was a documentary about 20 years ago about fruit trees in Africa, where the fruit would ferment and produce alcohol only after they hit the ground. All the local animals, including tree climbers and giraffes, would wait patiently until the fallen rotting fruit had produced alcohol, to party. Funny video on drunken animals, but it shows that this behavior goes beyond mere humans.

[Crumbled_pavement]

If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.

I don't think that was what Sstashmoo was saying at all. I think he was attacking the logic that says if you can't stop someone from doing something then quit trying to stop them. If we follow that logic in regards to rape and murder then we see that it should be legalized too. Of course, that's crazy talk. To me, legalizing drugs is crazy talk as well - especially when we're talking about meth, crack, heroin, and other hard drugs. Marajuana should stay illegal as well, but enforcement should be minimal. Like driving 5 miles over the speed limit is illegal, yet most police officers won't even bother to pull someone over for that. We also need a different way of tackling the drug issues in this country. Too often we attribute the failure of a system to idea of the system itself and not how the system was implemented. The drug war may not be failing because we dare to fight a war on drugs, it may be failing because of how we choose to fight the war on drugs.

[Gistok]

I know that the Netherlands has decriminalized Marijuana (and hashish, a different form of the same drug). They actually have what are called "hash bars" in Amsterdam.

I think other drugs have been decriminalized, but don't know the specifics. Nor do I know the results of the decriminalization, nor the effect it has had on crime, or on the population in general (overweight people with the "munchies" :rolleyes:.... etc...).

One would think that American law enforcement would look at the Netherlands, and study the results.

But I do believe that law enforcement is not interested in studying this, because it would affect their funding... and has any government agency EVER come out and said we don't need as much funding or resources? :(

[Jerome10]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/

I agree completely. Do you know how many people are killed in the US over illegal drugs? Look at the D! Tax it, control its quality, use the money to help people who get addicted, allow people a legal means for complaint. It all makes too much sense. The money and drop in murders I'm willing to bet would be staggering.

The fact is people who wanna do drugs do drugs. I've never even smoked pot in my life and yet I think everything should be made legal, with of course the proper stipulations on driving, operating equipment etc. Hell, why not "drug parks" where everyone who does it can go hang out. Nobody gets out until they're sober, plus it should be an easy location and way to offer them help, rehab, etc. They have to attend a course on the addictive properties, learn its effects, etc before they sign the paper they still want to buy and consume.

This is just insane. The amounts of money spent to not get anywhere. Whats the harm in at least trying it? Sure a few more people will get addicted, but I see fewer people dying due to drug violence than the increase in drug deaths from OD. What we're doing now isn't working. Lets at least see what happens.

As an aside, can a city or state make their own rules on this stuff or are they limited because it is federally illegal? Could Detroit attempt this or not?

I'll go the same route for prostitution. Tax it. Control it. Get the ladies health care and checkups. Dudes get hookers. Might as well make it as safe as possible.

[irish_mafia]

"Conservatives George Soros...", Django, what the hell have you been smokin?

That's like saying, "liberal commentator Rush Limbaugh...."

[Django]

All the money spent on enforcement, court costs, lawyers, prisons etc. etc. etc. should be used more productively such as anti drug education, rehabilitation, cures for addiction, etc. etc. etc.

Their is a big difference between someone raping someone else and someone ruining themselves with drugs. As long as an addict isn't hurting anyone else I say let them have at it while giving them the resources they need to clean themselves up. Its a hell of a lot cheaper than just locking them up at over $50,000 a year.

More ppl are killed every year over drugs than by drugs by far, all because their illegal. Many times the ppl who do die from drugs did so because they were unregulated (remember all the fentynal deaths a couple of years back) A good friend of mine has a grandson who is now a vegetable because he bought some unregulated street dope.

I hate to bring up prohibition again but its such a no brainer that it does not work.
What you said Sstash "You can handle your drugs you say? Good for you, the reality is, the majority of the people cannot" is just not true. Of all the ppl I know, a majority of them have at least used cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc at one time or another, some use harder drugs occasionally still, but I only know a handful of addicts. The addictive brain is not all that common. Of course in the D your going to see the worst of it but for the most part ppl can control themselves.

Addiction is a terrible disease, and thats what it is, a disease. I dont want to see anyone start using any drug, including booze and smokes but thats not going to happen. Ppl like to get blurry (I like that Gnome) from the time their born. Ever as a kid spin in circles until you almost barfed? Ppl like to alter their consciousness, its just human nature, your not going to stop it. Harm reduction should be the goal, and keeping drugs illegal is not headed anywhere near that direction.

Sorry for rambling.

[Django]

My bad Irish_Mafia, I got Soros name mixed up with someone else, I cant think of it right now. Soros was big into drug law reform though.

[irish_mafia]

I knew it had to be a misnomer Django. Although, you are right that some conservatives have advocated the legalization of drugs. Of course, those guys are nuts!

[Sstashmoo]

Quote "The addictive brain is not all that common."

I've never met anyone who smoked cigarettes for a long period and did not get addicted to them. I have met people that have drank for years and quit no problem. And I've buried a few good friends from drinking, and seen many lives destroyed because of it. They say pot is not addictive, the people that I know say it is. It's psychological (allegedly), but still dependent. Hell, anything can be addictive.

[Bigb23]

Quote "The addictive brain is not all that common."

I've never met anyone who smoked cigarettes for a long period and did not get addicted to them. I have met people that have drank for years and quit no problem. And I've buried a few good friends from drinking, and seen many lives destroyed because of it. They say pot is not addictive, the people that I know say it is. It's psychological (allegedly), but still dependent. Hell, anything can be addictive.

At my age, 54, I was somewhat in the "middle" of the emergence of drugs. I spanned the country before military service, and tried A LOT of things. I stopped back in the mid - eighties of any illegal substances. (Although I partake a few tokes a year, of Gange with my neighbors). I can walk next door, or across the street and find some smoke. Let's stop the enabling of Federal Agency's first.


Hell, anything can be addictive.

So let's ban ANYTHING.

[Gistok]

Quote "The addictive brain is not all that common."

I've never met anyone who smoked cigarettes for a long period and did not get addicted to them. I have met people that have drank for years and quit no problem. And I've buried a few good friends from drinking, and seen many lives destroyed because of it. They say pot is not addictive, the people that I know say it is. It's psychological (allegedly), but still dependent. Hell, anything can be addictive.

That's true... anything can be addictive to some people. cigarettes, gambling, drugs

But aren't somethings chemical dependencies (such as cigarettes or heroin) while other things are mental dependencies.such as gambling and alcohol?

Or is one considered a dependency and the other a compulsion...

Hell I know of an ex-marine in Texas who's addicted to LEGO... he owns over 8,000 sets, and has over 30 copies of some sets... who would have thought that something as benign as a toy could be an addiction (but wait... there's Beanie Baby collectors :eek:).

[alleydad]

absolutely legalize and then do what the government does best, slap a big tax on it, and federal deficits will be something talked about in past tense. And stop wasting our police, courts, and taxpayers money stopping people from smoking their pot.

[Django]

Gistock, did he pawn his truck for more legos?

[Gistok]

Gistok, did he pawn his truck for more legos?

No, but in asking around for a specific very rare LEGO set, he jokingly offered his wife and one of his 2 kids in trade. Later when he finally got that rare set, he jokingly said that he was going to miss them! :D

Django, you know how the Somali pirates are in the news again for trying to hijack that Maersk Alabama ship?

Well Maersk is the worlds largest shipping company... based in Denmark (as is LEGO)... and wouldn't you know that the ship that that fellow was going to kiddingly trade his family for... was a LEGO Maersk ship... the highest priced LEGO set to date (on EBAY it sold for $3000 in Mint)....

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?S=1650-1

(LEGO Pirate Minifigs not included!)

[DetroitDad]

Approximately 50% of Americans under 55-60 have broken or are braking drug laws; http://digg.com/d1o1IY. Generations generally considered "slacker generations" tended to be less likely to try drugs than other generations.

Rape and violent crime is illegal because it is NOT just sex, it's all about control and power over another person. Doing drugs is not a violent crime that intrudes on the rights and freedoms of others.

We are risking our police officers life's everyday to arrest these miscreants who have no interest in being helped. The men and women of law enforcement are American fathers, mothers, and siblings. They give up a lot for us, and are constantly putting their lives and families peace of mind at risk every damn day so we can watch American Idol while our kids play in the backyard. They accept much less than many of us are paid. We owe them the respect of NOT asking to put them in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary.

I am not alone on this, many men and women of law enforcement are strongly fighting prohibition.


Law enforcement against prohibition: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Seattle police chief calls for legalization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWcGjf1i0qg
West Texas police sell videos showing drug users how to avoid police detection: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Former_cop_to_sell_video_showing_drug_users_how_to _avoid_police_detection?FC=PRCQ3
DRCNet Interview: Jack Cole, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: http://stopthedrugwar.org/cops_against_the_drug_war/jack_cole_explains_why_cops_say_legalize_drugs?pri nt

[Sstashmoo]

Ok lets say we legalize pot.

Claiming "slippery slope" logic is a "fallacy", I'll counter by saying comparing illegal drug laws to prohibition is a fallacy.

Here is the reason: The difference during prohibition and now. Booze was illegal here, but legal elsewhere. What are the ramifications going to be when it is legal here and still illegal elsewhere? Think the illegal drug cartels are powerful now? If they legalize any drug it's going to be pot, and I'd venture to say legalization of anything else is off the table. Think the other drug problems will just go away? Guess again, we could potentially see a spike in violent crimes related to drug trafficking. We'll just grow it here? This climate is not as good as south America. It will still be imported, and still be creating people like Pablo Escobar. The type of folks that order hits all over the world.

[Gannon]

It is a weed. It will grow here.

Sstash, your fear-mongering isn't getting any traction here.

It is a weed provided world-wide by dear Mother Nature.

The easiest plant to spot genders before flowering, which has basic benefits to those who wish to use this curious plant's unique gender-specific functions.

Hemp should be completely de-criminilzed and fully legalized for use of ALL its forms, for whatever indigenous use it had before the Europeans arrived.

Apparently before the advent of cheap oil, hemp was also the basis for much of the local-produced pharmaceia. Canvas is a word derived from canabis, which aided most of the sea-faring discoveries, same with the rope that held the sails up on the masts of those ships.


It shouldn't be restricted in any way, shape, or form. Ever. Silly for any of you all to endorse its prohibition.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "this curious plant's unique gender-specific functions."

Need any other reasons to keep it illegal?

[DetroitDad]

Ok lets say we legalize pot.

Claiming "slippery slope" logic is a "fallacy", I'll counter by saying comparing illegal drug laws to prohibition is a fallacy.

Here is the reason: The difference during prohibition and now. Booze was illegal here, but legal elsewhere. What are the ramifications going to be when it is legal here and still illegal elsewhere? Think the illegal drug cartels are powerful now? If they legalize any drug it's going to be pot, and I'd venture to say legalization of anything else is off the table. Think the other drug problems will just go away? Guess again, we could potentially see a spike in violent crimes related to drug trafficking. We'll just grow it here? This climate is not as good as south America. It will still be imported, and still be creating people like Pablo Escobar. The type of folks that order hits all over the world.

Sstashmoo has some things confused,

Most drugs already grow naturally in the U.S. or North America. Mushrooms containing psyclobin can be found on Belle Isle, Kensington and almost all state parks. Morning Glory, used to make LSD and containing strong hallucinogenic properties all by themselves, are planted right outside the Park Bar in Midtown, and are popular in many people's gardens. This stuff already grows legally in the U.S., what is illegal is consuming it.

[Sstashmoo]

Legalizing Pot would not make much difference in the crime surrounding illegal drugs.

Meth, Cocaine, Pills etc will never be legalized. The trafficking in them will just increase.

[DetroitDad]

Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results


In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank

[Bloomfield Pills]

Apparently before the advent of cheap oil, hemp was also the basis for much of the local-produced pharmaceia.[/B] Canvas is a word derived from canabis, which aided most of the sea-faring discoveries, same with the rope that held the sails up on the masts of those ships..


You also could drive cars on hempseed oil with a little creativity. Which is why they'll never legalize it.

Another reason: It makes millions of otherwise-law-abiding citizens lawbreakers, which means lots of money for the Powers that Be.

People talk about the money we would save by legalization, but there's far more money in it for the government if it stays illegal. The prison-industrial complex alone rakes in tons of money.

People often claim the Drug War is a failure. I totally disagree. It's been a smashing success. Where people get confused is, they think the Drug War aims to stop drug use. They're not looking at its real purpose: Control over the population and $$$$.

The War on Drugs has been wildly successful.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "there's far more money in it for the government if it stays illegal. The prison-industrial complex alone rakes in tons of money."

Prison? I'd like to see some hard numbers for the percentage of folks doing hard prison time for marijuana possession/trafficking. I'm going to guess it's a very small portion. County jail? yes, prison? nahhh.

If they are in the joint for dealing crack/cocaine etc, they need to be. that will never be legalized.

[Blarf]

Banning drugs goes against the ideas of conservatism.

The drug-cartels wants the drugs to remain illegal as much as the pro-drug war folks, that's how they make their money.

I like how people ignore the fact that alcohol is also a drug, and one of the most dangerous, deadly, addictive and abused substances. I guess drug use is only alright as long as the government says so. Go figure.

[Sstashmoo]

Here is a good read on the subject issued by the whitehouse:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf

First time offenders for marijuana possession nation wide prison population = .03%. That's 3 out of 1000.

And it goes on to say, almost all drug offenders are guilty of some other crime as well. Hence, why they are really in prison.

[Haikoont]

Quote: "there's far more money in it for the government if it stays illegal. The prison-industrial complex alone rakes in tons of money."

Prison? I'd like to see some hard numbers for the percentage of folks doing hard prison time for marijuana possession/trafficking. I'm going to guess it's a very small portion. County jail? yes, prison? nahhh.

If they are in the joint for dealing crack/cocaine etc, they need to be. that will never be legalized.

The percentage of inmates in prisons (not jails) locked up for drug offenses is around 20 percent. Most of them are in for distribution, not possession. Violent offenders make up around 50 percent of the prison population and those who committed property offenses is around 20 percent. So if we released everyone admitted on a drug crime (distribution, possession, the whole lot of them), the prison population would drop from 1.6 million to 1.3 million -- not as big a dent as some might believe.

It's interesting that two of the most passionate supporters of legalizing drugs in this thread have overshared their inability to hold down a steady job or keep a place to live. Of course, correlation does not imply causation.

[Pam]

It's interesting that two of the most passionate supporters of legalizing drugs in this thread have overshared their inability to hold down a steady job or keep a place to live. Of course, correlation does not imply causation


Wow, bogue man. No bong hits for you.

[Philbo]

Hey Sstashmoo a lot of non users are having a hard time holding a steady job and a place to live today. Check out a article in Parade magazine 3-29-09 " We must fix our prisons ". I'm sure you'll find that marijuana users are well represented in our penal system.

[DetroitDad]

The percentage of inmates in prisons (not jails) locked up for drug offenses is around 20 percent. Most of them are in for distribution, not possession. Violent offenders make up around 50 percent of the prison population and those who committed property offenses is around 20 percent. So if we released everyone admitted on a drug crime (distribution, possession, the whole lot of them), the prison population would drop from 1.6 million to 1.3 million -- not as big a dent as some might believe.

It's interesting that two of the most passionate supporters of legalizing drugs in this thread have overshared their inability to hold down a steady job or keep a place to live. Of course, correlation does not imply causation.


Wow, bogue man. No bong hits for you.

It is interesting. Luckily we know they are the extreme minority, and they need to be allowed to make and learn from their own mistakes. Most drug users hold down jobs, and from an interview with a NYC drug dealer on a CNN documentary, some of the top buyers of stimulants like crack cocaine are school teachers, businessmen and women, airline pilots, and bus and truck drivers.

[Blarf]

From my experience, most drug users can handle their drugs and function normally. It's only the abusers and addicts who give all the other casual users a bad name.

[Django]

The percentage of inmates in prisons (not jails) locked up for drug offenses is around 20 percent. Most of them are in for distribution, not possession. Violent offenders make up around 50 percent of the prison population and those who committed property offenses is around 20 percent. So if we released everyone admitted on a drug crime (distribution, possession, the whole lot of them), the prison population would drop from 1.6 million to 1.3 million -- not as big a dent as some might believe.

It's interesting that two of the most passionate supporters of legalizing drugs in this thread have overshared their inability to hold down a steady job or keep a place to live. Of course, correlation does not imply causation.

The last numbers I remember reading for % of ppl in prisons for drug related crimes was around 50%. That's not just distribution or possession but drug related crimes. That means they were caught committing a crime for or over drugs, not necessarily with or selling drugs. Another way which the drug war locks ppl up. If it were legal or decrimed they wouldn't have that option to make money illegally by way of drugs. Like I said earlier, thousands of ppl are killed every year OVER drugs, more so than BY drugs.

[Bloomfield Pills]

Quote: "there's far more money in it for the government if it stays illegal. The prison-industrial complex alone rakes in tons of money."

Prison? I'd like to see some hard numbers for the percentage of folks doing hard prison time for marijuana possession/trafficking. I'm going to guess it's a very small portion. County jail? yes, prison? nahhh.

If they are in the joint for dealing crack/cocaine etc, they need to be. that will never be legalized.


Well, one in six federal prisoners are there for marijuana, and there are more people in federal prison for weed than for violent crimes.

But the larger point: The prison/industrial complex I speak of doesn't just include penatentaries. I'm referring to the criminal justice system as a whole -- which profits wildly from drug prohibition.

My point is the War on Drugs is indeed working. It's just that people mistakenly believe it was enacted to stop people from taking drugs, when it's really about revenue and controlling the populace.

[Bloomfield Pills]

Here is a good read on the subject issued by the whitehouse:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf

First time offenders for marijuana possession nation wide prison population = .03%. That's 3 out of 1000.

And it goes on to say, almost all drug offenders are guilty of some other crime as well. Hence, why they are really in prison.


Oh, yeah, the White House is a good place to get unbiased information.

So, what does happen to these first-time offenders? Usually probation -- including lots and lots of fees. That's the real name of the game.

[Bloomfield Pills]

The percentage of inmates in prisons (not jails) locked up for drug offenses is around 20 percent. Most of them are in for distribution, not possession. Violent offenders make up around 50 percent of the prison population and those who committed property offenses is around 20 percent. So if we released everyone admitted on a drug crime (distribution, possession, the whole lot of them), the prison population would drop from 1.6 million to 1.3 million -- not as big a dent as some might believe.



....and how many of these violent crimes were perpetrated by drug dealers who would have no reason to shoot at each other if drugs were legal? Lots I'll bet.

It's like pointing to prisons in 1930 and saying, "Very few people are in there because they took a sip in a speakeasy; most of the inmates are people who committed violent crimes." Of course, without Prohibition, we'd have never had the Valentine's Day Massacre, etc.

Make drugs legal and you'll never again have ONE drug turf-war shooting. Not a one. Just like we don't see gangsters shooting each other over who gets to sell whiskey.

I bet that would put a dent in those numbers you cite.

[Django]

You said it Pills, much better than I tried to. Thank you.

Some folks don't seem to understand how widespread this issue creeps into society.

This is a little off topic but I went to Culiacan Mexico the other day. Culiacan is considered narco centro of Mexico by many. There they have a shrine in homage to Jusus Malverde, who South of the border is considered the patron saint of narco traffancantes or the narco saint. Thousands show up each year to pay homage to this guy who had nothing to do with drugs but is looked at as a Robin Hood like character. He was either hanged or shot in 1909, no one is sure. The shrine is filled with pictures of individuals, families, babies, I noticed many pics of cholos in group shots obviously still in prison wearing their jumpsuits. A banda band is often there playing corridas or songs of famous and often violent drug running. Often a drug runner will pay a musician to write a song about him and his exploits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Malverde

I just thought it was interesting how the drug war has changed things. Im going to try and post a couple of pics I took, first time on the new format so I hope it works.

[Gistok]

Quote: "this curious plant's unique gender-specific functions."

Need any other reasons to keep it illegal?

Sstashmoo (it's ironic that your DYES alias contains "stash" in it...;) )

By your reply I'm not sure you got Gannon's subtle (a little too subtle apparently) comment on "gender-specific".... but it's the female plants that create the "buds" that is what makes Marijuana desirable. The male plants are useless, and need to be destroyed before they cause any female plants to "seed"... which takes much of the potency of the buds away.

Sinsimilla (sp?) is the name referred to unfertilized female plant buds that have a higher potency... or so I've read! :rolleyes:

I had a friend who grew one plant behind his garage, and he had to keep trimming it because it was growing too big too fast. Yes it does grow like a weed, and will easily grow in the Michigan climate. Much of what is grown in Canada is grown in the cool rainy climate of British Columbia.

[DetroitDad]

We need stiffer laws and enforcement.

You want legal drugs? Find a country that has them and move there. I don't want legalized pot, I'm a US citizen I have a say in it.

Please be aware that Americans aren't really allowed to give up their citizenship anymore. I dare any one of you to try and give up your citizenship. You and I are Americans for life, whether we like it or not.

[Crumbled_pavement]

A positive story about the benefits of marijuana on society:
Positve Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-11-marijuana-driving_N.htm)

[Bigb23]

(http://www.detroityes.com/mb/member.php?u=35)
Crumbled pavement, how do you rename you're link ? I never had a problem on the old forum, but the BB seems to be a bitch on here. :mad:

[Gannon]

That Canadian study only proves that impulse-challenged individuals have trouble driving, which is almost a proven without any form of extra-curricular studies.

So they admit to smoking weed occasionally, also. H-m-m-n-n.

I'd say it was an expensive study that proved that some individuals simply cannot handle impulses, regardless the distraction.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Crumbled pavement, how do you rename you're link ? I never had a problem on the old forum, but the BB seems to be a bitch on here. :mad:

Simple. Just type URL="http://www.link.com" in between brackets. Type the display name and then type /URL in betwen brackets. Example below:



Detroit News (http://www.detroitnews.com)


Or just quote my last post and look at the code I used.

[DetroitDad]

A positive story about the benefits of marijuana on society:
Positve Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-11-marijuana-driving_N.htm)

I agree that you shouldn't drive under the influence of narcotics, and no one should be saying there are no risks involved in any drug. But compounding the negative effects on society by making drugs illegal is not helping anyone.

[Bloomfield Pills]

A positive story about the benefits of marijuana on society:
Positve Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-11-marijuana-driving_N.htm)


Hey, you know what causes more accidents than anything? Drowsy driving?

So why don't we legalize marijuana and outlaw companies that make their employees work 70 hours a week? You'd save a lot more lives that way. And, of course, drinking kills far, far more people than weed smoking. Are you advocating for the criminalization of alcohol?

Listen, I'm always open to hear others' opinions on issues, and sometimes I'll hear valid points from someone who holds an opposite viewpoint than me on various topics. I can see other people's points on issues such as abortion, capital punishment, global warming, etc. I may not necessarily agree with them, but I can understand that, intellectually, they have valid points.

But I have yet to hear one good reason for keeping marijuana illegal. Not a one. There's simply no logic in criminalizing a flower.

[1KielsonDrive]

I suspected it all along - Finley's on drugs. Well, I guess if that's what it takes to bring some type of reason to this ridiculous drug war, then I'll support Finley's idea. Not that it's new or original or anything.

[Roq]

I'm gonna go spark one up in Finley's honor right now.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "But I have yet to hear one good reason for keeping marijuana illegal."

Nor has there been one good reason to legalize it. Just trumped up numbers. I posted a document issued by the government stating the real deal on incarcerated "drug offenders" and all it received was questions of it's integrity. Most of those people are in jail because of other offenses. Assault etc.

Some of you are convinced, the state and fed are making large amounts of revenue off of illegal drug fines etc. The truth be known, it's costing us all tons of money to enforce those laws, build prisons and all the other bullshit that goes along with it. The problem is the laws are not strict enough or enforced properly. Any drug dealer will tell you going to jail is just part of doing business. If they received 30 years mandatory for dealing first offense, they would have a different take on it. Three strikes? What a joke, that just implies they can get caught twice.

Denmark has very lenient penalties for rape. Rapes are very commonplace there.

[Blarf]

Nor has there been one good reason to legalize it.

Than why were alcohol and tobacco legalized?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Than why were alcohol and tobacco legalized?"

The same reasons guns are legal. Think you'd get them legalized today if they were not?

[Blarf]

Quote: "Than why were alcohol and tobacco legalized?"

The same reasons guns are legal. Think you'd get them legalized today if they were not?


Alcohol and tobacco are legalized because of the second amendment?

[Sstashmoo]

Grandfathered in.

[Dbest]

Nobody is asking a huge question that needs be answered, so I will.

"Does legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana lead to higher rates of kid/teen use?"

According to research conducted in the United States(California) and Amsterdam, the number of users under the age of 18 has seen a steady decline. I was waiting for someone to use this tired old excuse.

Amsterdam is an interesting place, there is a no-tolerance attitude taken regarding the selling of hard drugs such as Cocaine and Heroin. If you were to overdose after ingesting too much of a hard drug and had to be treated in a hospital as a U.S. tourist you would face no legal trouble, but would be asked to leave.

Shrooms are frowned upon to a certain extent but are readily available in many shops. Many tourists try shrooms there for the first time I guess. The problem being they don't "feel anything yet" and are compelled to eat more. Mistake. LOL

Amsterdam has contact and or treats over 55% of their hard core drug addicts.They have these Red Cross type mobile health clinics that travel to areas most synonymous for hard core use. I thought I remember methadone first being used there? They also have stiff penalties for drug related crimes. If a known addict gets caught stealing multiple times hes sent to prison for awhile. As for California, if Michigan's medical marijuana laws are setup similar at all, HELLO POT-SHOPS and HELLO TOURISTS! Proposition 1 showed how people in the state feel, too bad I'm stuck in Indiana.:(

[chitaku]

No Deaths from Marijuana says a lot about the drug. However it will always have a hard time becoming legal because corporations run this country. Pharmaceutical companies, alcohol companies and cigarette companies lobby constantly for marijuana and other drugs to stay illegal. Any option for a vice other than their product is considered a threat to them.

Legalize it

[Big Dog]

Dbest, Michigan law does not allow pot shops. In fact, you have to break the law and buy it on the street to have it, or grow it at home. It appears that MI. is treating medical mj as a criminal drug, even though it won by a majority vote. Someone will have to challenge the state in regards to having to break the law to buy it, in order to comply with the new law to use it.. The MI. legislature did not think the law would pass and did not even develop a plan. After the law passed, they rushed to judgement, that it's not a good drug and developed a terrible plan. Even Governor Granholm is against it and is quoted that she "believes it is a gateway drug".

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "No Deaths from Marijuana says a lot about the drug."

And what good comes from it?

If they were to legalize pot, it of course would only be legal for adults. With this type of availability and ease to conceal, how would it be controlled in regards to minors? How would the private growing of it be controlled? It would be taxed, so growing it presumably over a certain amount would be illegal. There would still be laws that would have to be enforced. If it were sold for 10 dollars an ounce, there would still be people growing it illegally and selling it for 5 dollars an ounce. That stuff would be growing everywhere. It would be impossible to control.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote "you have to break the law and buy it on the street to have it,"

Unless it is prescribed by physician, same with Vicodin or any other controlled substance.

[Big Dog]

Sstash, There will not be any prescriptions for medicinal mj. in MI. All you will receive from the state is a card that prevents you from being arrested and charged for possession. The state will not provide or advise qualified persons needing it, where to get it. Your only choice is to buy it illegally or grow up to 10 plants in your home. You must buy the seeds illegally too, as they do not provide them. MI. law is treating mj as a much more serious drug than vicodin, which by the way is very addictive. Go figure!

[Big Dog]

Sstash. Where have you been? Minors use, and have more access to pot than any age group right now. High school and Jr. high students are rumored to be able to get grass within an hour. This has been the case for 10 years or more. You don't have to worry about them getting it, they already have it.

[Locke09]

If you legalize drugs, you'll just have a whole new set of laws to manage and reasons to incarcerate people who break them.

We would need to establish the maximum amount of drugs that can be in your system while driving, like we do with alcohol. Or are we claiming that drugs cause no impairment?

Will pregnant women be prohibited from using drugs while pregnant? How about all women of child-bearing age being prohibited because they might be pregnant long before they actually know it.

Will there be certain professions that will still be prohibited from using drugs? Is it okay for the airline pilot to be "high". Does the surgeon have to take a test each time before going into the operating room to ensure he/she doesn't have drugs in his/her system?

Won't thefts increase when some people who want the drugs don't have the means to procure them (or maybe the space to grow enough plants to keep them as high as they want)?

Who really thinks that a person addicted to crack or heroin or meth will make a good employee?

Won't there still be an underground market for getting the legal drugs to those whom we say cannot legally have them or have them in the quantities they want?

Also, people discredit what they call "slippery slope" logic. But some of the issues we have in society today are indeed a result of the slippery slopes humans often place themselves on. Sort of like when the hem of a skirt went up higher and higher as people told themselves that each new length was okay. That's a fairly benign example, but that's what people often mean when they say we will be on a slippery slope. As we become desensitized to one thing (or accepting of it) something else often comes along that carries us a bit further.

[Blarf]

Quote: "No Deaths from Marijuana says a lot about the drug."

And what good comes from it?

If they were to legalize pot, it of course would only be legal for adults. With this type of availability and ease to conceal, how would it be controlled in regards to minors? How would the private growing of it be controlled? It would be taxed, so growing it presumably over a certain amount would be illegal. There would still be laws that would have to be enforced. If it were sold for 10 dollars an ounce, there would still be people growing it illegally and selling it for 5 dollars an ounce. That stuff would be growing everywhere. It would be impossible to control.

It would be treated the same as alcohol. Very few people are going to grow it themselves if they can by it. It's much easier to brew your own beer than to grow good pot, and I'm not taking the time or effort to brew my own beer.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "It's much easier to brew your own beer than to grow good pot,"

Are you sure about that? Of course you didn't say GOOD beer.. Some of that crap they sell at these microbreweries is horrible. It's got junk floating in it.

[Bearinabox]

And what good comes from it?

In a free country, there shouldn't have to be "good that comes from" something for it not to be banned. Not everything in our lives is necessarily useful or constructive or socially beneficial, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Pretty glass vases aren't going to cure cancer or eradicate poverty, but you won't get thrown in jail for keeping one on your mantel.

[DetroitDad]

If you legalize drugs, you'll just have a whole new set of laws to manage and reasons to incarcerate people who break them....


We would need to establish the maximum amount of drugs that can be in your system while driving, like we do with alcohol. Or are we claiming that drugs cause no impairment?

-No drugs should be allowed without a prescription while driving. Driving on alcohol is only allowed now because it was grandfathered in and/or because it is used in other products, and they need a buffer. Orange juice, mouth wash, and non-alcoholic beer all have some alcohol in them.


Will pregnant women be prohibited from using drugs while pregnant? How about all women of child-bearing age being prohibited because they might be pregnant long before they actually know it.

-It depends on the drug. Birth control should be encouraged and made easily available.


Will there be certain professions that will still be prohibited from using drugs? Is it okay for the airline pilot to be "high". Does the surgeon have to take a test each time before going into the operating room to ensure he/she doesn't have drugs in his/her system?

-It depends on the amount of time the drug stays in the body. Obviously we do not let our airline pilots fly drunk, so we wouldn't let them drive high either. Typically, random tests or test of those suspected of being under the influence would be done; basically what they do now.


Won't thefts increase when some people who want the drugs don't have the means to procure them (or maybe the space to grow enough plants to keep them as high as they want)?

-I would think that the opposite is true. Most drugs are looked for after the consumer has money, and are already easily available to get after a phone call and a couple hours of waiting, or from certain stores. The real problems occur when availability plummets because of raids. Pent up demand means demand gets higher during times of low supply (raids), and price gouging occurs from whoever is left. If no one is left in a market, someone takes advantage of the opportunity, and enters the market or business.


Who really thinks that a person addicted to crack or heroin or meth will make a good employee?

-Many people. Drug users tend to have jobs. Plenty of the night cleaning crews and 30 something fast food workers in Metro Detroit are drug users. Drugs users will take a lot of shit and work for cheap. What really is different between saving to buy a drug and saving to buy a new sofa? I would bet that the sofa consumer would have less desire than a drug consumer.


Won't there still be an underground market for getting the legal drugs to those whom we say cannot legally have them or have them in the quantities they want?

-Yes, but it will be less violent. The problem should be similar to minors and hospital workers smoking tobacco, or truck drivers drinking too much coffee, for "light" drugs like Marijuana. The problems with harder drugs would probably be similar to alcohol.


Also, people discredit what they call "slippery slope" logic. But some of the issues we have in society today are indeed a result of the slippery slopes humans often place themselves on. Sort of like when the hem of a skirt went up higher and higher as people told themselves that each new length was okay. That's a fairly benign example, but that's what people often mean when they say we will be on a slippery slope. As we become desensitized to one thing (or accepting of it) something else often comes along that carries us a bit further.

-You are really looking at the slippery slope backwards. All drugs in America were legal just 50-100 years ago. Drugs started becoming illegal because of racism, in that most users were black, Mexican, etc., so it was a way to get them easily locked up. It is still illegal as a form of Socialism, in that the government and watch dog groups feel it is the government's responsibility to protect people from self harm choices, IE; the choice between right and wrong. This stance is a slippery slope to more protection and people telling people how they should live. Researching some of the supporters of keeping drugs illegal, you will find that they also are pushing for tougher regulation, heavy taxation, and outright bans on....



Cigarettes
Espressos (to much caffeine)
Cough Medicines
Chocolate
Amusement Parks (a gateway activity to thrill seeking behavior)
Roller Coasters (over a certain height, speed, G-force etc.)
Many Prescription Drugs
Jolt Brand Soda Pop
Energy Drinks
Caffeine Pills
Fast Food
Cell Phone Use
Catnip for Cats
Drag Racing
Skateboarding (see "amusement parks")
Multi Vitamins
Gambling
Exotic Dancing
Exotic Dancing Classes for Wives
Bungee Jumping
Music, Movies, and Video Games Deemed Inappropriate
Pregnancy/Birthing Videos on The Discovery Channel
Recreational Drug Research
Any Substance That Pretty Much Has Some Type of Chemical Reaction in the Brain.

It's a slippery slope all right. For the government it's downright unconstitutional, and for the religious watch dogs, it's downright blasphemous.

[Locke09]

DetroitDad,

I enjoyed the way you responded to the arguments I put forth, but I have to strongly disagree on one thing. I guess I know too many people who had mad skills in their various disciplines, who don't care about anything anymore except getting high.

Crack is relatively cheap. But, a crack addict is only going to work long enough to get the money to buy the next hit. I have personally had to fire a couple of crack addicts who could never seem to find their way back to work after lunch on a payday.

Also, there are many people who started out with enough money to buy the drugs they wanted. Problem is, they spent it all chasing that first high, which they would never have again. I know people who had good jobs who ended up selling expensive items for peanuts in order to keep getting high. They might have started with their paycheck on a Friday. By Monday they were broke, still wanted to get high, and didn't have money left to pay their bills.

Some drugs are cheap even though they are illegal. It's not that people can't afford them, it's that there is not enough money to keep them high as long as they want to be high. Of course, this is more prevalent with the harder drugs.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Drugs started becoming illegal because of racism, in that most users were black, Mexican, etc., so it was a way to get them easily locked up."

Are you serious?

[cheddar bob]

Start enforcing the laws. Ever wonder why people rarely rob post offices? Stiff penalties.
What about laws that require service to the military? Should draft laws be enforced, sstashmoo?

[Sstashmoo]

You must be busy, I figured you'd pick up on that 3 days ago.

Apples and Oranges, has already been explained.

[cheddar bob]

So laws about apples need to be strictly enforced, but with laws about oranges you can pick and choose?

Your hypocrisy continues...

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Your hypocrisy continues..."

So does your tendency to over-simplify things. I understand.

[Blarf]

DetroitDad,

I enjoyed the way you responded to the arguments I put forth, but I have to strongly disagree on one thing. I guess I know too many people who had mad skills in their various disciplines, who don't care about anything anymore except getting high.

Crack is relatively cheap. But, a crack addict is only going to work long enough to get the money to buy the next hit. I have personally had to fire a couple of crack addicts who could never seem to find their way back to work after lunch on a payday.

Also, there are many people who started out with enough money to buy the drugs they wanted. Problem is, they spent it all chasing that first high, which they would never have again. I know people who had good jobs who ended up selling expensive items for peanuts in order to keep getting high. They might have started with their paycheck on a Friday. By Monday they were broke, still wanted to get high, and didn't have money left to pay their bills.

Some drugs are cheap even though they are illegal. It's not that people can't afford them, it's that there is not enough money to keep them high as long as they want to be high. Of course, this is more prevalent with the harder drugs.


If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so. If they can't hold down a job, then they should be fired.

You don't seem to see the difference between use and abuse. Just because someone uses a drug, doesn't mean they abuse the drug. There is a huge difference between a casual user and an addict. a

[Locke09]

If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so. If they can't hold down a job, then they should be fired.

You don't seem to see the difference between use and abuse. Just because someone uses a drug, doesn't mean they abuse the drug. There is a huge difference between a casual user and an addict. a

I am well aware of the difference between use and abuse. If we were just discussing marijuana, I might not even respond. But I have known many drug users over the years, and they are all "abusers". The drugs control them, they do not control the drugs. I know crack addicts. None of them are casual users and I don't think the medical profession would claim any of them "can" be casual users. Same with meth and other hard drugs.

When I talk about them not being able to hold down a job, it is in response to a claim that they make good employees. They do not.

[Bearinabox]

I am well aware of the difference between use and abuse. If we were just discussing marijuana, I might not even respond. But I have known many drug users over the years, and they are all "abusers". The drugs control them, they do not control the drugs. I know crack addicts. None of them are casual users and I don't think the medical profession would claim any of them "can" be casual users. Same with meth and other hard drugs.

When I talk about them not being able to hold down a job, it is in response to a claim that they make good employees. They do not.
Sounds like you, like most reasonable and intelligent people, understand the distinction between hard drugs, and drugs which it is possible to use casually. It would be nice if the US government were capable of making that distinction, and legislating accordingly.

[9mile&seneca]

Let's continue to fight the war on drugs as if drugs were animated beings to make war on. No matter the cost. It seems to be working doesn't it? I always thought it was funny when our president tells South and Central American leaders to basically stop sending your drugs to my weak, depraved, degenerate constituants. We all know Americans can't be trusted to not snort up anything Mexico sends us, right? We need to be told what to ingest and when to ingest it. And forget the constitution, drugs trump that tired old document.The cops can now stop people based on this hysterical fear that there may be drugs in a vehicle. If drugs were legalized, they would be about as expensive and dangerous as a shaker full of salt.Except for a relatively small group of idiots that would get smaller each year, drugs would become totally irrelevant in 20 years or so.

[Locke09]

Who says drugs will be so inexpensive if legalized? Alcohol is legal and yet a good bottle of wine costs more than a rock of crack and more than a bag of weed. It is taxed and legalized drugs would be taxed as well. Tobacco is legal and look at what just happened with the taxes on tobacco.

And the police cannot just stop your car because they "fear" you are carrying drugs. They have to have cause and they need a search warrant to search your vehicle.

But you know, I do think the seatbelt law is stupid. If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that? Repeal the mandatory seatbelt law, and mandatory no-fault insurance while you're at it.;)

[Bigb23]

But you know, I do think the seatbelt law is stupid. If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that? Repeal the mandatory seatbelt law, and mandatory no-fault insurance while you're at it.

No, maybe not stupid, but that is the slippery slope of revenue enhancement by the government. They have more laws on the books than even a lawyer could even keep up with. How can we even keep up on it ?

Example : The law reformed by the Michigan State Police on dirt road speed limits. It was for all of the state of Michigan as reported - EXCEPT - Oakland County, who got an exemption. But that was not widely reported at all, and I found out I had been breaking the law for the past year or two, (35 in a 25, no tickets - :mad:)

So, if they want revenue enhancement, do it legally through the drug stores. Not something like your word, against the authority.

[9mile&seneca]

Yeah, when I'm going 35 mph on a city street, I really get scared. I seize up, and just pull over because I just know any second I'm going to go flying through the windshield. And I can't sleep at night because I just know that I'm not strapped into my bed. I could go flying through the ceiling. Or worse, I could become addicted to coke! I could become a drug crazed zombie! God help us! God help us all! There. is that hysterical enough for ya?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so."

Quote: 'If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that?"

Nobody's, as long as you have medical insurance and can find an insurance company that is willing to pay for your carelessness. Otherwise, we taxpayers have to pay for your "free spirit". Then it IS our business.

In some states the helmet laws are that way, you can ride without, but you must have medical insurance. No medical insurance? Must wear helmet. The way laws should be written.

[Sstashmoo]

QUote: "Yeah, when I'm going 35 mph on a city street, I really get scared."

And you really should. People have been killed going slower. Hit an immovable object like a tree going that fast and see what happens. If you aren't wearing a seatbelt, you'll be eating steering wheel.

[9mile&seneca]

yeah, I know. that's why I don't drive into trees. I also drive my car with the wheels down. I also look both ways before I cross the street. I do that on my own. No law yet...

[Bigb23]

Yeah, when I'm going 35 mph on a city street, I really get scared. I seize up, and just pull over because I just know any second I'm going to go flying through the windshield. And I can't sleep at night because I just know that I'm not strapped into my bed. I could go flying through the ceiling. Or worse, I could become addicted to coke! I could become a drug crazed zombie! God help us! God help us all! There. is that hysterical enough for ya?

Well, when it comes down to a $150 ticket and higher insurance rates, it's not so funny. No - I'm not scared, just watching the wallet.

[Blarf]

I am well aware of the difference between use and abuse. If we were just discussing marijuana, I might not even respond. But I have known many drug users over the years, and they are all "abusers". The drugs control them, they do not control the drugs. I know crack addicts. None of them are casual users and I don't think the medical profession would claim any of them "can" be casual users. Same with meth and other hard drugs.

When I talk about them not being able to hold down a job, it is in response to a claim that they make good employees. They do not.


You must not know that many people because I know casual users of every drug imaginable that hold down well paying jobs.

[Blarf]

Quote: "If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so."

Quote: 'If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that?"

Nobody's, as long as you have medical insurance and can find an insurance company that is willing to pay for your carelessness. Otherwise, we taxpayers have to pay for your "free spirit". Then it IS our business.

In some states the helmet laws are that way, you can ride without, but you must have medical insurance. No medical insurance? Must wear helmet. The way laws should be written.

So personal freedoms only go as far as how insurance companies play into it all? What a country!

[Gannon]

Welcome to corporate capitalist reality...you are only worth what they'll pay to keep you tickin', grinnin', and paying the fucking bills!

[9mile&seneca]

Thank you for making my point!!! We cannot safeguard each and every pinhead against every probability!!!

[DetroitDad]

DetroitDad,

I enjoyed the way you responded to the arguments I put forth, but I have to strongly disagree on one thing. I guess I know too many people who had mad skills in their various disciplines, who don't care about anything anymore except getting high.

Crack is relatively cheap. But, a crack addict is only going to work long enough to get the money to buy the next hit. I have personally had to fire a couple of crack addicts who could never seem to find their way back to work after lunch on a payday.

Also, there are many people who started out with enough money to buy the drugs they wanted. Problem is, they spent it all chasing that first high, which they would never have again. I know people who had good jobs who ended up selling expensive items for peanuts in order to keep getting high. They might have started with their paycheck on a Friday. By Monday they were broke, still wanted to get high, and didn't have money left to pay their bills.

Some drugs are cheap even though they are illegal. It's not that people can't afford them, it's that there is not enough money to keep them high as long as they want to be high. Of course, this is more prevalent with the harder drugs.

I know a lot of these people too. I find that these people are lazy and just passing time. This has nothing to do with drugs, because there are plenty of 30 year old adults still living in their parents basements playing video games or watching television all day, who don't do drugs. There are also plenty of people chasing old feelings, waiting for lost loves, or good times with friends. Living in the past is nothing new, but it has nothing to do with the pass times those people chose to waste their life on.

Is it wasting your life? Aren't most people on some pursuit of happiness? Is it really any one's choice to decide what is okay to chase?

I understand what you are saying about abuse, and I'm not saying there would be no problems, but to say every drug controls all it's user's life's is extreme. Some of my family uses a certain drug one week a year for a religious practice. Are you saying we are controlled by drugs? What about one of my friends who only uses them during a concert tour for a month in the Summer? Do drugs control him? How about the users over the age of 70? Do we care that a 102 year old is using LSD?

[DetroitDad]

Quote: "If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so."

Quote: 'If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that?"

Nobody's, as long as you have medical insurance and can find an insurance company that is willing to pay for your carelessness. Otherwise, we taxpayers have to pay for your "free spirit". Then it IS our business.

In some states the helmet laws are that way, you can ride without, but you must have medical insurance. No medical insurance? Must wear helmet. The way laws should be written.

Drugs would and should be taxed to make up for the medical and other problems it would have on society. Right now, you are paying for their rehab, prison time, and affects on community. You wouldn't pay a dime under legalization, let the screwed up users pay for it themselves. It might even be possible to lower your taxes based on the tax revenue that drugs would create out of nowhere.

This is really a win-win-win, and I still am not clear why so many are so against even looking into this as a possible solution to one of our biggest problems.

[Locke09]

People are opposed to it when they have witnessed first-hand the negative effect of hard drugs on the lives not only of users, but their children, their spouses, their employers, etc. Drug users are not an island unto themselves, their actions affect others.

Maybe we can "decriminalize" some drugs without actually saying they're now "okay". 'Cause I'm having a hard time with that, being one of those who has suffered in the past, as a result of the addiction of others.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Maybe we can "decriminalize" some drugs without actually saying they're now "okay".
I don't understand why marijuana can't stay illegal but just be treated like driving 5 miles over the speed limit. Currently most officers wouldn't even pull a person over for that. I routinely drive 10 miles over the speed limit down I-96. A police officer told me it was okay and that I wouldn't be pulled over for it. Guess what, he's right. I've been doing it the last couple of years and even drive past police officers and not get pulled over. Even if I did, it's a small ticket for going 10 over. The current problem is the way we deal with marijuana. It's treated like a felony. It doesn't need to be. But we also don't need to put up billboards saying, "hey it's okay to get high - come have a smoke with me," either.

[DetroitDad]

People are opposed to it when they have witnessed first-hand the negative effect of hard drugs on the lives not only of users, but their children, their spouses, their employers, etc. Drug users are not an island unto themselves, their actions affect others.

Maybe we can "decriminalize" some drugs without actually saying they're now "okay". 'Cause I'm having a hard time with that, being one of those who has suffered in the past, as a result of the addiction of others.

The stealing, the lying, the constant rehab, the absence, I know where you are coming from. Current drug users aren't going to stop. The question is more about minimizing damage and casualties, rather than saying it's okay. These people are already doing drugs.

Legalization does not mean you are approving of drug use. The government intervention is not working, and legalizing them should not have the stigma of public approval. The view that drugs are dangerous needs to stay, but the effort needs to go into encouraging parents to be responsible and warn their children about the dangers of the world and drugs at an early enough age to be saved.



Is there a difference between drugs?

I personally think that the drugs that are the real problems are the ones made for sheer profits, IE; crack, meth, hybrid heroins, and addictive designer drugs. These things were made to be ultra-addictive to make someone rich, because of that, there is a clear line between non addictive natural drugs like mushrooms and marijuana, and engineered for addiction drugs like crack and meth.

Allowing more research by the F.D.A., D.E.A., and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and decriminalizing drugs that prove not addictive would allow for resources to be reassigned to fighting the engineered for addiction drugs. A further study would be done on the health and criminal costs associated with these substances, and seen if taxes would be able to make up the cost.

The entire process would be time consuming, but if it saves us money, freedoms, resources against the real problems, and even one life of a law enforcement officer, it's worth the time and effort to at least explore, so I really agree with the stance of the original article. Why not fly a white flag in some areas?

[DetroitDad]

Quote: "Drugs started becoming illegal because of racism, in that most users were black, Mexican, etc., so it was a way to get them easily locked up."

Are you serious?

Many drugs came from outside immigrant culture, and were banned as a way to curve the fear that immigrants were taking American jobs. When drugs were made illegal, there were already a large amount of people addicted. The laws were made to be broken, and back then many really did carry life sentences.

[Bloomfield Pills]

Remember those old commercials, "This is drugs; this is your brain on drugs"? Those were produced by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

Did you know who funded the Partnership for a Drug-Free America? Tobacco and pharmecutical companies.

That should tell you all you need to know.

[Gannon]

Ushering in one of the largest unintended results EVER for propoganda...an entire generation of kids who won't eat eggs because they associate them with brains.

Caught that on some advertising magazine analysis...pretty powerful bullshit, that one.

Just say NO! There'll be more for me...