Legalize drugs, yes or no?

[Django]

Bye gOAT.


.

[Jimaz]

So what of employer local and state wide... will they be removing the 'drug screening' regimen? Or will the persons who use drugs continue to find themselves outside of the employment realm?

I'd like to add one seldomly noted point about employee drug screening. It teaches employees that the employer is otherwise incapable of trusting trustworthy people. It devalues and disrespects the pride of being innately trustworthy. This is not the best way to start any relationship.

[maxx]

I'd like to add one seldomly noted point about employee drug screening. It teaches employees that the employer is otherwise incapable of trusting trustworthy people. It devalues and disrespects the pride of being innately trustworthy. This is not the best way to start any relationship.

It would be nice if employers only tested people who showed signs of drug use, but who wants to spend a lot of time looking at people's pupils? I understand that mj stays in the smoker's system for weeks which is really unfortunate if they only indulge on the weekends. OTOH, drug testing has got to be pricey, so I wouldn't think most employers would do it very often. It doesn't require much of the testee. Those who don't use should understand the employer's need to maintain a drug-free workplace and not feel untrusted. The way in which testing is done can determine how many bad feelings are created.

[maxx]

blarf: You claim to be concerned about "public health", yet you're sitting there pretending alcohol is not a problem. Get real.

I have mentioned the problems we have with drinkers on this thread. I have never said there is no problem with alcohol. I merely said beer is not as addictive as hard drugs. So stop putting words in my mouth and creating strawmen and get real yourself.

[maxx]

Django: I thought we went over this, The many thousands of killings every year over drugs because their illegal would stop , cutting prison beds in half,

Half? Citation? I agree that we should not be jailing people for possessing a joint or two. We could stop that practice without wholesale legalization of all drugs.

free up our overburdened police,

Somehow I think there would be plenty of work for the police if all drugs were legalized. Even with methadone available for some addicts, some people just want to get high. I don't know how different it is to get high on coke v. inhalants. The latter are cheaper and easier to get, so I don't get why more people don't use them instead of coke. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with a fear of brain damage.

get rid of the DEA,

Even the Dutch haven't legalized all drugs.

the tax revenue to be had,

Again you're assuming that addicts have money. And where are all the drugs going to come from? Are we going to start growing coca in the U.S.?

HIV infection would drop dramatically,

That can be done with a clean needle program now.

free up more money for treatment,

It takes more than money; it takes a different approach to drug addiction that is more rehabilitative and less punitive. That's a political choice.

put the cartels out of business

And who will we start doing business with in this legalized drug industry?

[Zacha341]

Yep. And now they are doing 'credit' checks, you can be 100% drug free and still not qualify for a job and there are many, MANY people out there with less than sterling credit records these days!

I'd like to add one seldomly noted point about employee drug screening. It teaches employees that the employer is otherwise incapable of trusting trustworthy people. It devalues and disrespects the pride of being innately trustworthy. This is not the best way to start any relationship.

So what of employers local and state wide... will they be removing the 'drug screening' regimen? Or will the persons who use drugs continue to find themselves outside of the employment realm?

[Zacha341]

So therefore using screened drugs still must be evaluated relative to ones ability to find employment. The choice is crucial.

I don't know, ask the employers. I would assume that private companies can make it policy that you can't use even legal substances.

[jerrytimes]

With drugs this is how I look at it. If it grows naturally, if chemically produced it should be illegal. Alcohol is much much more dangerous than pot.

[Blarf]

I'd like to add one seldomly noted point about employee drug screening. It teaches employees that the employer is otherwise incapable of trusting trustworthy people. It devalues and disrespects the pride of being innately trustworthy. This is not the best way to start any relationship.

+ 1

When my old job started doing random drug testing, it pissed a lot of good hard working employees off. I never understood the whole concept. People who want to test my piss really creep me out.

[Jimaz]

I should have added that in companies that use thorough drug screening [[and reject those who fail the tests), there will form a concentration of employees that will have each experienced being distrusted by their employer despite knowing themselves that they were trustworthy. Consider what kind of a working environment that creates under the surface.

Ideally, an environment of genuine, deserved mutual trust would be best for both parties in the long run. In situations where that is possible, unnecessary suspicions should be held at bay.

[blackmath]

If anyone thinks that because a drug is legalized this will usher in some sort of junkie overthrow of society they really need to consider the following: If people want to get drugs, legal or not, they get them. If cocaine and heroin were legalized tomorrow it wouldn't suddenly result in a flood of new users. There is simply no hard evidence for this. What we DO know is that people are going to use drugs. They always have and they always will. Why continue to clog jails up with drug addicts? They can just as easily score drugs in jail as they can on the street anyway. It's totally pointless, like shoveling water.

It's so interesting to me how some people forget their own history. Prohibition did nothing but turn the mafia into the biggest and richest criminal organization on earth. During the 20s people could get alcohol easily at any time of the day, 24/7- but at a much higher price. Making it illegal did nothing to curb alcohol sales whatsoever. In fact it made it trendy to drink because it was illegal and if anything prohibition increased the amount of people who drank. People love doing things that they aren't supposed to be doing.

As for the collateral crime that goes along with the black market heres an example: You're a bootlegger. Your name is "Paulie Knuckles". You make a lot of money thanks to your speakeasy. You get word that another bootlegger, we'll call him "Johnny the Fish", just opened another speakeasy down the street. To you the solution to this problem is simple. You go over to his speakeasy, shoot him and either take over his business or burn it to the ground. Competition eliminated.

This scenario is played out over and over and over again on the streets of the USA every single day. Replace alcohol with drugs. Replace speakeasies and blind pigs with crack houses and meth labs, and there you have it. History repeating itself yet again, but we still fail to learn from. Legalize or decriminalize drugs and incidents like the aforementioned will become as rare as hens teeth - as opposed to a nightly body count.

[maxx]

blackmath:
You don't offer any way to legalize drugs that will ensure that there will be significant positive outcomes. You just make the statement " If cocaine and heroin were legalized tomorrow it wouldn't suddenly result in a flood of new users." Where is your hard evidence to back up this statement?
As most people will admit, young people are more likely to experiment with drugs. You mention alcohol, but that does not approach the addictiveness of hard drugs. And there are all the new designer drugs that people cook up. There is no evidence that any illegal drugs help one perform better at a job. So shall we just turn our job market over to people from other countries? You make the same tired statement that people are going to use drugs without considering why they do and others don't. Certainly legalizing all drugs just sends the message that taking those sorts of drugs is all right which is certainly not the case.
As for the mobs, they are also in the waste disposal and construction industries. They are not going to disappear with drug legalization.

[Blarf]

Certainly legalizing all drugs just sends the message that taking those sorts of drugs is all right which is certainly not the case.
.

But taking is alright, as long as it's done in responsibly and in moderation. Why should I have to go jail because some retard can't handle their buzz?

And I would say the positives of legalizing drugs would far outweigh the negatives.

[blackmath]

Maxx, the mafia got into construction industries and waste disposal, along with gambling, prostitution, numbers rackets and yes even drug dealing in a big way AFTER prohibition to supplement their lost income. The booze business was huge for them, an unlimited cash cow and when it ended they needed to dip their tentacles in other places much more than they already had been doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...g:_Prohibition

I ask you maxx, where is your hard evidence that legalizing drugs would result in a flood of new users? Drugs are readily available to anyone who wants them right now - no matter what the laws are. All legalizing would do is relieve the tremendous burden that drug laws place on the justice system.

Just as Blarf said, moderation in everything is the key. Is it alright to drink a case of beer? Is that healthy for anyone? Obviously not, but people do it. People also can have just a few drinks and don't feel the need to binge drink. On the other hand, many people don't drink at all, even though it is perfectly legal for an adult over the age of 21 to buy as much of it as they want.

I'm not saying that hard drugs are good for people, and I'm not saying that alcohol is good for people, but people always have and always will use them and in some cases abuse them. I, for one, do not want any government telling me what I can and can't put into my body. If what I put into my body results in me committing a crime, then yes, prosecute me for the harm that I caused other people, but not for what I did to myself.

Why do some people use hard drugs and others don't? Why do some people drink and others don't? Why are some people addicted to over the counter pain killers, or junk food, or gambling? No one can answer that question decisively. Genetics, the environment you grew up in, peer pressure, lack of a positive way to deal with stress, the need for an instant sense of gratification - all of these things are a factor. But again, I have to hammer home the point that making drugs illegal never did and never will eliminate or even curtail their prevalence in our society. Instead of jailing drug addicts we should be treating them and rehabilitating them - just as we do for alcoholics.

As for an example of a positive outcome of legalization? I can think of several, but the most glaring one would be in the criminal justice system. No longer would it be bogged down in a multitude of drug cases and the jails would not be stocked to the gills with drug offenders, saving the taxpayers untold millions of dollars. Some college kid with no priors gets busted with a bag of weed and suddenly he's a convicted felon. How is that positive? This kid's life is ruined over an archaic law based on tired morality based arguments and conjecture by people who never understood any of the drugs they were legislating. That type of thinking made the growing of hemp - a plant with a very high yield and with a multitude of uses illegal in this country.

[Papasito]

All legalizing would do is relieve the tremendous burden that drug laws place on the justice system.

what about dangers to those of us in our automobiles? or walking down/crossing the street? people under the influence are a danger to society. depth perception, balance, reaction times, ect are all effected by substance use. sure, you can say the same about alcohol applies, but there are thousands and thousands of deaths caused by DWI / DUI and million$ spent on enforcement, addiction, ect.

Throw a few million pot users behind the wheel who can pick up thier fix from the local convenience store.....

but what the hell would I know, I've never done a drug in my life. The worst thing I've done is have shots and beers.

[blackmath]

Throw a few million pot users behind the wheel who can pick up thier fix from the local convenience store.....

For those who want them, drugs are just as easily available as cigarettes and chocolate bars. Also, FYI, there already are millions of "pot users" out there...

Legalizing drugs and automobile accidents caused by people under the influence of drugs are two completely separate issues. Just as with shots and beers people need use whatever they are using responsibly and not get behind the wheel when they are under the influence of anything. It's just common sense and if anyone drives when they are drunk or high or altered in any way they are total idiots.

[Blarf]

what about dangers to those of us in our automobiles? or walking down/crossing the street? people under the influence are a danger to society. depth perception, balance, reaction times, ect are all effected by substance use. sure, you can say the same about alcohol applies, but there are thousands and thousands of deaths caused by DWI / DUI and million$ spent on enforcement, addiction, ect.
.

Well now that police don't have to waste time enforcing morality, they can concentrate on the whole DWI/DUI thing, things that are ACTUAL crimes.

[Blarf]

but what the hell would I know, I've never done a drug in my life. The worst thing I've done is have shots and beers.

Alcohol IS a drug.......

[maxx]

blackmath:
Again you are not making any distinction between soft drugs like mj and hard and very addictive drugs. Without an educational campaign informing kids of the dangers of drugs, legalizing drugs would send the message that they were all right. I'd like to see some rockers doing PSAs about why they stopped. From what I hear, there are very few pure alcoholics any more. Alcohol is only part of many people's "recreation". We have enough trouble with kids getting high on whatever they can find without making more mind-altering substances available.
You can say that no one should limit what you can do to your own body, but then if you come to a hospital, someone ends up paying the bill. And regulating drugs in a large country like the U.S. would be very difficult. Right now, we know the places where drugs enter the country, so the border guards, airport security and the Coast Guard cover those means of entry. Should we do more? Of course. If W hadn't poured billions down the Iraq toilet, we could have shored up our homeland defenses and been much better off. I don't see any reduction in police activity or healthcare costs by legalizing drugs, so tell me what are the positive outcomes from legalizing all drugs? Even the Netherlands have not legalized all drugs. They just do not enforce all the laws, and they concentrate on rehab and maintenance.

[blackmath]

From what I hear, there are very few pure alcoholics any more.

^^Firstly, what exactly does that mean?

"Alcohol is only part of many people's "recreation"'

- So are drugs. Not saying I agree with that practice, it's just the reality. Some people become addicted to alcohol, they are called alcoholics.

"We have enough trouble with kids getting high on whatever they can find without making more mind-altering substances available."

-Legalizing/decriminalizing, or even increasing the harshness of the laws would do absolutely NOTHING to stem the availability of drugs to anyone, let alone kids. Most kids are smart enough not to do drugs or get some 21 year old to buy them beer when they are 13. The illegal drug trade is just far too profitable to stop. As soon as you stop one kingpin, there are 10 more to take their place. It's like eating soup with a fork.

"...but then if you come to a hospital, someone ends up paying the bill."

-What does this statement mean exactly? Are you assuming that a drug user has no health insurance? Drug users run the gamut from the very poor to the very rich and fully insured.

"regulating drugs in a large country like the U.S. would be very difficult."

-The government doesn't seem to have a problem regulating the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries whatsoever. In fact, they profit monetarily from these industries exponentially.

"Right now, we know the places where drugs enter the country, so the border guards, airport security and the Coast Guard cover those means of entry."

-They have been doing this as best they can for a very long time. Unfortunately, the drug trafficking industry is an extremely profitable and huge business, so policing thousands upon thousands of miles of coastline and border is at best a crapshoot and at worst a lesson in futility. The money that these cartels have behind them rivals the GDP of many countries on earth. How can anyone make a serious dent? As I mentioned before, the drug business is incredibly profitable, so even if they bust the "biggest" drug kingpin, there will be others to take their place instantly.

"If W hadn't poured billions down the Iraq toilet, we could have shored up our homeland defenses and been much better off."

-That I agree with

"I don't see any reduction in police activity or healthcare costs by legalizing drugs, so tell me what are the positive outcomes from legalizing all drugs?"

Re read my previous posts. I've stated several times what the benefits to legalization/decriminalization would do. Not only would it save the taxpayers millions of dollars a year on NOT having to feed and clothe people in prison it would save the police the unendingly frustrating job of having to arrest the same people over and over again for the same thing. Millions have been arrested for drugs - has it done anything to curtail drug use in this or any other country that has the US's draconian drug laws? If a method does not work, then we need to rethink what we are doing as a society and do something different. As for the health care costs, again I tell you - the fact that drugs are illegal in every way does not one thing to stop their sale on the streets. If people want to do drugs, they do them. Most people don't do drugs, but some do. Kind of like how most people don't like the Toronto Maple Leafs, but some do...[[weirdos)

I think that when we stop treating drug addicts like criminals then we can begin to start healing them and treating them. One of the main causes of serious addiction and many other problems is that we dehumanize a certain sectors of our society. It is something that I hope, as we move forward as a species we can leave behind in the past as a mistake our forefathers made. If we treat people like human beings and not like subhumans, throwing them away into a box for decades then we can really get to the heart of the matter.

[Django]

Maxx, I really want to respond to your post #55 but to be honest I cant figure out how to work each individual quote box when making a response. I don't mean to be rude but most of your statements are a bit self explanatory or have already been answered.

Quote: Again you're assuming that addicts have money. And where are all the drugs going to come from? Are we going to start growing coca in the U.S.?

Addicts dont mind paying taxes to get what they want. Legalization could bring prices down to the point where its feasable to be an addict and hold a job. No need to grow coca in the US as Central and South America already have plenty of room and is dying to export, dying literally and figuratively.

Quote: It takes more than money; it takes a different approach to drug addiction that is more rehabilitative and less punitive. That's a political choice.

I totally agree, but money freed up to go at addiction as a health issue in a different way is needed.

Quote: And who will we start doing business with in this legalized drug industry?

Once it were legal there would be no need for the current violence. Wholesalers could make there rounds to the many poor farmers just trying to feed their family. I hardly see this a problem. The cartels are in it for the big easy money, take the big money out of the equation and they have to unfortunately find another line of work.

Quote: Half? Citation? I agree that we should not be jailing people for possessing a joint or two. We could stop that practice without wholesale legalization of all drugs.

Maxx, Im not worried about some kid doing 30 for an ounce of pot. Im thinking about the mules who from every corner of the globe who are lured to mule a Kilo of heroin out of Thailand or drive three tons of coke across the Laredo Texas border. These people are poor and sometimes have no other choice than to risk their free lives to start a new. That is what drugs being illegal has done. If you had to feed your kids would you do something some foreign government told you was wrong and illegal? Its easy to say "No of course I wouldnt" from our easy living here in the States, walking in another mans shoes is harder than it sounds.

[tvaspen]

every lie you wanted to know about mary jane...

http://drugabuse.gov/PDF/RRMarijuana.pdf

There, fixed it.

[maxx]

Django:
If you are talking about cocaine, my understanding is that cocaine is very addictive. And that there aren't any successful cocaine addicts holding down jobs for years. Most addictions require more and more of the substance to just feel normal. So are we going to have to create a methadone-like substitute for cocaine too?

And just how is this legalization going to work? Will people need prescriptions or will they just buy as much as they want?

I can remember when cocaine was very expensive. Then suddenly in the 1970s, it seemed everyone was sniffing it. Then came crack. With the legalization of cocaine and the price further depressed, I don't see how we could avoid the scenario of young kids getting it.

Again, I don't see anyone making a distinction between mj and hard drugs and hallucinagenics. If the drug war on the Mexican border is over mj, the solution would seem to be obvious, but not necessarily simple. The same goes for the number of people in prison over possession of mj. Mj would have to be tested and categorized by the amount of THC it has and regulated accordingly.
The argument that because people are able to get drugs now we should make it easier for these people to get all drugs legally just doesn't make sense. We have laws against murder, but people still commit murder. I am interested in protecting children, and I don't see where the legalization of all drugs will do that.

[Blarf]

Django:
If you are talking about cocaine, my understanding is that cocaine is very addictive. And that there aren't any successful cocaine addicts holding down jobs for years. Most addictions require more and more of the substance to just feel normal. So are we going to have to create a methadone-like substitute for cocaine too?

Ehh. I know plenty of regular coke users who hold down pretty good jobs. One of the reasons they can afford the stuff is because they make good money. If you use the drug responsibly, than there shouldn't be a problem.

[blackmath]

Django:
I am interested in protecting children, and I don't see where the legalization of all drugs will do that.

Drug dealers don't ask for I.D. Thats how kids can get drugs now, Maxx. With legalization or decriminalization of drugs, the government could regulate it, just as they do with other vices that are okay with them, gambling, alcohol, cigarettes.

As for the proliferation of crack cocaine in the late 70s/early 80s, we can thank the CIA for that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and...king_in_the_US

These drugs are not going anywhere. I wish people never did anything to excess, but they always have and always will. The best way to stop kids who are on the fence about doing drugs or not is to make them not cool and make them boring. Right now its "cool" to do drugs for some kids simply because its illegal. In Holland, for instance, by decriminalizing many natural drugs they have succeeded in making them not as appealing and about as exciting as a beer to people who are on the fence about doing drugs. Therefore, they have a much smaller problem per capita of drug addiction than the United States does.

We need to educate kids better and more realistically about drugs. Right now, marijuana is a schedule 1 drug, meaning that according to the US Government, it's just as dangerous as crystal meth, cocaine, crack and heroin, and I think we can all agree that it most certainly is not anywhere near as dangerous - if at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...le_I_drugs_[[US)

We need to stop throwing drug addicts in prison and start treating them. It is a medical problem, not a criminal problem.