Another thread by me about legalization.

[Django]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12...-eyes-lessons/

Fox news is even catching on to the obvious failure of the drug war and apparently so is our Drug Czar. This is exactly what I was waiting for, the slow creep away from trying to stay tough on drugs. Portugal's had them legal now for something like eight years but how many ppl knew? I try and keep up on this subject and I just first read about it only six months ago. The Czar has been visiting several countries who have been switching to a harm reduction stance instead of punishment, prison, and more prisons. You go Girl. Obamas still not havin it though, surely just because he doesnt want to seem weak on the drug issue.

[maxx]

The greatest danger I see to legalizing all drugs is the public view about drugs. If a drug is legal, then it cannot be that harmful. And where are the benefits? We change one form of enforcement for another, assuming that there will be an age limit for drug use. We don't do enough now to educate our youth about the dangers of drugs.
When you talk about cigarrettes, you are not talking about a substance that alters your sense of reality. They're not good for you; lots of things we eat are not good for us.Too much sugar can lead to diabetes. Too much fat leads to clogging of arteries. But they don't alter your sense of reality. That puts drugs that do into a whole other category of health issues.
I do think that marijuana should be legally available to people who have a medical need for it to relieve physical pain. I'm not sure about psychic pain since I've heard about people who get paranoid from it.

People who use drugs recreationally aren't going to be interested in any treatment prescribed by a doctor for their "problem". Most people don't recognize they have a problem with substances until something awful happens to them. The idea that there won't be crimes connected with these gov. drug stores is pretty naive. Especially when the clerk is making only $12/hr. And who will be responsible if someone dies from a gov. sold drug? Who will determine the amount of pure heroin to prescribe to someone? And does this mean the methadone treatment is out?

[Django]

Maxx, I agree, that public perception of drugs would need to be changed. Most drugs are bad for you but others are more dangerous than others. When I was a kid my mom didnt have a big problem with pot smoking, she listened to Cheech an Chong and even tried it once but it didnt agree with her. She stuck with the booze and is now dying of Cirrhosis. Addicts have a gene that makes them more prone to abusing any drug, including chocolate and tobbacco. But like I was saying, when I was a kid I was told all drugs are bad, start smoking pot and next thing you'll be a junkie shooting dope into his eyeball, it was all over hyped and talking down to kids is no way to build a trust, kids are not as stupid as we think. When I first started smoking pot at 16 yrs old I figured, "hey, this isn't so bad or dangerous, I wonder about that heroin, its probably not that bad either". Take Detroit for instance, how many young crack addicts do you know in Detroit? Not many if they grew up here. They've all seen what crack has done first hand to any number of their elders. They do learn one thing though, if you sell drugs and dont use them you can make a lot of money. I dont put all my faith in studies and censuses but it has been shown more than a few times that making a harmful drug available doesn't necessarily make that person more likely to use it if it were not so readily available. I believe with proper, truelful education about drugs our children could handle it. There will always be those who are going to become addicts, what would you call that, pre-disposition?

You ask "And where are the benefits? We change one form of enforcement for another, assuming that there will be an age limit for drug use" Maxx, seriously, have you read any of the articles or posts? Im not trying to be a dick but the benefits are huge and plentiful compared to the Neanderthal approach we've been taking for the past 40+ years. Take the drugs off the streets which means no more corner drug dealers because they would be regulated and distributed. If I had it my way you would have to be a registered addict to receive certain drugs. The drugs would be regulated so overdoses would be non existent, much like a prescription of Vicodin you would get from your doctor today. So drugs would be off the street and now we wouldnt have to build any more prisons, we could build schools and rehabs instead, I would feel much better about my tax dollars going to building a state of the art rehabilitation center and clinic rather than build a prison to hold DDs and users because prison has just become a college for criminals.

I could go on and on Maxx and Im wondering if your just messin with me. Check out the posts above and click on the links. The Swiss heroin experiment is especially good.

[Django]

We also might be able to get a handle on this situation. http://cplash.com/post/The-Afghan-Wa...Heroin154.html
not to mention the Mexican drug war that is only happening because we tell them to keep the war going. How many 100s of ppl died just south of the border in Mexico this past 30 days?

[lpg]

I am curious about an employer point of view. Who would want to hire or keep someone on the job that could hurt themselves or a co-worker by being stoned on the job? The liability would be tremendous. And before anyone asks, I worked in a couple of factories in the 60's and 70's where drugs and booze were readily available. And I saw people get hurt. Would a change in the law affect DOT rules regarding semi-truck drivers and other commercial vehicles ? Would a drug screen before employment become illegal ? Just askin'.

[Django]

I am curious about an employer point of view. Who would want to hire or keep someone on the job that could hurt themselves or a co-worker by being stoned on the job? The liability would be tremendous. And before anyone asks, I worked in a couple of factories in the 60's and 70's where drugs and booze were readily available. And I saw people get hurt. Would a change in the law affect DOT rules regarding semi-truck drivers and other commercial vehicles ? Would a drug screen before employment become illegal ? Just askin'.

I was thinking about this same thing yesterday. If an addict is registered I cant see anything wrong with turning him down for a job. Like I said earlier, the use of drugs is not going to sky rocket, its not like a lot would change. LPG, if you wanted to get and use drugs would it be that hard? do you think you would start using drugs just because they legalized them? Do you really think it would be all that different a country?

When I mention legalization or decriminalization I get the feeling everyone thinks proponents of such a change are looking to turn the USA into a Grateful Dead parking lot. Ending the drug war is about harm reduction and ending putting ppl in prison for something I feel is a god given right to choose what they put in their bodies. Do you have no faith in the human race? Do you really feel ppl are all of a sudden going to go off the deep end and start shooting crack and smoking heroin, selling their daughters and raping their mothers. The news is always telling you the worst of the worst, if it bleeds it leads. You dont hear about the millions of everyday ppl who have a slight habit, or a major one, but go to work, pay their bill and raise a good family.

[Fury13]

I had to read the thread to figure out just what you were talking about legalizing.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Do you have no faith in the human race?

When it comes to what some people may do that might harm me or my family, the answer is NO!

[Django]

When it comes to what some people may do that might harm me or my family, the answer is NO!

Of course not, I feel the same way. But again, do you really think our city could sink any deeper with all the DDs we already have on the street? Its an open market in some areas if you havent noticed. I say get them off the street by legalizing it, taxing it, not advertising it and regulating it.

Again, have you read through the links at all, the posts? The Portugal link states how their once drug ridden area is now bulldozed and sporting trees and shrubs, the city has been born again it seems. Im sure they've painted a bit of a rosy picture but they seem pretty happy and the Drug Czar had to check it out and now is on a harm reduction kick as it seems.

Jimminy, read a bit before you post, or are you just fuckin with me. What a waste of time feeling I should explain twice when you could just read it for yourself.

Does anyone have a real argument? Im not gonna answer [[except with a ^^) if you bring up the same tired old Regan era rhetoric over and over.


Now I know Im gonna get messed with.

[Django]

Capital of Portugal, – Casal Ventoso is an average working-class community – mothers push child carriages, men smoking outside coffeehouses, autobuses chug up and down the cobbled primary street.

10 years past, the Lisbon locality was a hell on earth, a “drug supermarket” wherever roughly 5,000 users lined up each day to purchase heroin and slipped into a hillside honeycomb of delinquent lodging to shoot up. In dark, foul-smelling nooks, junkies – a few with maggots squirming under track marks – staggered between the infrequent corpse, salvaging old, blood-filled needles.

At that time, Portuguese Republic, like the addicts of junkies, had arrive at rock bottom: An approximated hundred thousand people – an amazing 1 percentage of the population – were hooked to banned drugs. And so, as if anybody with little to lose, the Portuguese called for a high-risk leap: They decriminalized the usage from every last drugs in a groundbreaking law in 2000.

Now, the United States government, which has engaged a 40-year, $1 trillion state of war on drugs, is searching for answers in little Portuguese Republic, which are harvesting the benefits of what at one time appeared as if a dangerous gamble. White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske travelled to Portugal in Sept to see about they’re drug reforms, and additional countries – including Norway, Denmark, Commonwealth of Australia and Republic of Peru – have adopted involvement, also.

“The tragedies that were anticipated by critics did not take place,”

[Crumbled_pavement]

Of course not, I feel the same way. But again, do you really think our city could sink any deeper with all the DDs we already have on the street? Its an open market in some areas if you havent noticed. I say get them off the street by legalizing it, taxing it, not advertising it and regulating it.

Again, have you read through the links at all, the posts? The Portugal link states how their once drug ridden area is now bulldozed and sporting trees and shrubs, the city has been born again it seems. Im sure they've painted a bit of a rosy picture but they seem pretty happy and the Drug Czar had to check it out and now is on a harm reduction kick as it seems.

Jimminy, read a bit before you post, or are you just fuckin with me. What a waste of time feeling I should explain twice when you could just read it for yourself.

Does anyone have a real argument? Im not gonna answer [[except with a ^^) if you bring up the same tired old Regan era rhetoric over and over.


Now I know Im gonna get messed with.

Calm down Django. There's no magic pill to solve the drug crisis in this country no matter how loud some people scream it. The countries you are naming are more homogeneous and smaller in population than the US. There are other questions and concerns that any intelligent person would ask first before jumping head first into a new policy. Lastly, I doubt anyone thinks we are currently winning the war on drugs. That doesn't mean your idea automatically will work because the current ideas don't.

And yes, I do think there is a certain demographic that would be MORE likely to do drugs if it were legalized. Note, YOUR links state that most of the drug use is alcohol and tobacco related. Why do you think that is? Because they're legal, that's why. People drink in church, in bars after work, there are whole industries supporting the alcohol trade. And as for tobacco, I know people who have personally told me the only reason they got hooked on smoking cigarettes is they got tired of seeing other people take 10 - 15 minute breaks [[something about some government law) to smoke while they were busting their butts working, so they starting smoking too.

There are two sides to every story and because you didn't end up a crack addict because of your life experiences doesn't mean no one else hasn't. I still don't see why we can't move steadily towards a less punitive society in regards to drug use rather than just jumping head first into full blown decriminalization.

Plus, an underground market would still exist for drugs because the government would either limit the amount of hardcore drugs it dispensed or the potency of the drug. Therefore, if a drug user wanted the real deal or something new, they would still go underground. There is no silver bullet, sorry to say.

And as I said before I could care less what someone puts in their body, it's their body and their right, up until they do something to harm me or my family because they are under the influence. What I just posted is the only real argument against drug usage that anyone could possibly put up anyway. The "puritans" in this country could care less about making you "pure", they just don't want you running a red light and crashing into them and snatching away their life because YOU needed to get high.

[maxx]

django: Take Detroit for instance, how many young crack addicts do you know in Detroit? Not many if they grew up here. They've all seen what crack has done first hand to any number of their elders.

Yes, firsthand experience is the best teacher. But what about all the kids who don't have that firsthand experience?

django: There will always be those who are going to become addicts, what would you call that, pre-disposition?

I call kids who experiment with hard drugs self-destructive and self-hating. I think it's too easy to say that someone hooked on heroin has a predisposition to addiction. If I had experimented with heroin or cocaine when I was a teenage or young adult, I probably would have been an addict too. I was taught to respect my brain as a unique organ. The human body is a creature of habit. If you're brought up a vegetarian, your body will have a hard time digesting beef. If you're brought up on sweets as a child as I was, it's not east getting away from them. Alcohol can sneak up on anyone if they're not careful. The body craves stasis no matter from what.

RE: Switzerland
It has an unemployment rate of under 4% according to the CIA Handbook. So you think the same program can be done in Michigan with our unemployment rate and budgetary issues right now? With so many Michigan cities cutting their police forces, we're going to have something approaching decriminalization anyway.

The chart John Lodge posted is interesting, but what does "harm to users" mean? If it means brain damage or chronic illness that makes them unable to work and therefore likely to be getting welfare, I think that qualifies as harm to others.

[Django]

C.P. I dont really have a plan but yes decriminalization or legalization seem like the most obvious fix but of course is long down the road. I believe any plan other than the current one of locking ppl up and keeping the drugs underground and in the hands of anyone willing to deal them is fucked up. Any plan that is willing to treat drugs as a health issue is right on in my book. I just want to see some change and if we want change we need to talk about the problems that need changing, so I bring the argument here and often.
If we legalized tomorrow and let loose all the drug offenders in prison right now we would have a huge mess. I merely want to get ppl thinking of change by bringing up the obvious problems.

I dont believe I posted any links using booze or tobacco. There was one posted study by a respected source but as I mentioned above^ I couldnt understand it.

Maxx, The kids who dont have first hand experience most likely live outside Detroit and have a better family structure. But Im just going by what Ive seen. I grew up in the burbs, the stix really and my folks tried pretty hard to keep informed of what drugs do.

I dont think drug use would go down but I think drugs could be managed better under anything other than the current war. Some of you feel its all good, stay the course.

Ive lost many friend to drug overdoses, every one could have been prevented if the shit was regulated. I dont believe the shit would still be underground all that much. But I do know of a blind pig or two so I guess they didnt really fully control the alcohol trade once they realized that war wasnt working back in the 20s.

Sorry if I got riled up, I was on a bender. This drug war is my one soap box and Ill take you all on. King Kong the monkey aint got shit on my back.

[Jimaz]

Another unintended side effect of the war on drugs is how it fuels research into alternative synthetics. I think I mentioned this about a month ago when this story came out:

From The Detroit News, Nov. 30, 2010: Synthetic drug use is on the rise

Some believe that newly-invented synthetics may be more harmful than their natural counterparts yet until they are outlawed, there is nothing to deter them from being sold openly, even to minors.

A more recent story shows what legislative difficulties can emerge:

From The Free Press, Dec. 29, 2010:
Granholm to new lawmakers: Restore penalties for synthetic marijuana

According to a two-paragraph letter by Granholm to incoming lawmakers, wording in the package of three bills "inadvertently repeals criminal penalties imposed for the possession and use of synthetic cannabinoids and the Ecstasy-like stimulant BZP" -- substances banned three months ago.

It's become a cat and mouse game.

[Jimaz]

The big wheel keeps on turning: Smoke shops sue to block ban of ‘synthetic marijuana’ blends

Four shops in Minnesota have filed a lawsuit against the US Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration [[DEA) over a federal ban on five chemicals commonly found in a blend of legal herbs many have used as a synthetic form of marijuana.

[Gannon]

Some believe that newly-invented synthetics may be more harmful than their natural counterparts yet until they are outlawed, there is nothing to deter them from being sold openly, even to minors.

I will go one further, that ALL synthetics are more harmful than their natural counterparts and SHOULD be outlawed.

Including and specifically anything produced and patented by pharmaceutical corporations.


Because taking what is deemed the 'active ingredients' away from the buffers provided by Mother Nature always seems to guarantee troubles.

I don't care if it is the lowly poppy's seed bulbs being processed into heroin, or the distillation of alcohol into some of the more wicked spirits...or the foolishness that gives us so-called healing drugs that have a list of side-effects longer than any doctor's resume. Once humans get their hands on a thing we seems to defy natural logic, each and every time.


Then all natural things should be not only allowable, but encouraged.


But as the latest laws in both the US and Europe have shown, of course the corporate-fueled governments have indeed gone the exact opposite way...which will only cause millions to become outlaws. I welcome the revolution against such idiocy. I will be at the front lines of it...indeed perhaps these words are my first shot across the juggernaut's bow.


All things synthetic are against nature...or a bastardization of it. I will not allow such into my body knowingly, and when my wisdom increases to include previous behavior I pray I have the strength and courage to avoid it in the future...no matter the comfort.


Now I will reconsider my love of 86% chocolate and espresso...which go right to the edge of all I discussed above. Are they merely good concentrations which can be consumed in moderation...or are they a potential problem?!


Those are the things which keep my busy brain occupied.

[maxx]

Gannon: All things synthetic are against nature...or a bastardization of it.

Is there any food modern technology hasn't touched, i.e., chemical fertilizers, pesticides, preservatives? Good luck finding something purely natural to eat.

Treating addiction as a health issue is humane and rational, but expensive. We can't even get a decent healthcare bill through that will cover everyone with a nondrug-related health problem.

[Django]

Treating addiction as a health issue is humane and rational, but expensive. We can't even get a decent healthcare bill through that will cover everyone with a nondrug-related health problem.

Storing humans in prisons is much more expensive. The prison system has become big business due to the so called war on drugs. The prison guards now have unions which lobby for stricter drug laws which enable prison guards futures. The drug war is out of control. We have more people in prison pr cap that any other country yet we call ourselves the land of the free.

Anyone want to discuss California's three strikes law, and why Cali is broke?

[Django]

Gannon, Your saying you want beer outlawed? What the hell are we going to drink together on Monday?

[maxx]

Storing humans in prisons is much more expensive. The prison system has become big business due to the so called war on drugs. The prison guards now have unions which lobby for stricter drug laws which enable prison guards futures. The drug war is out of control. We have more people in prison pr cap that any other country yet we call ourselves the land of the free.

And you think you can rehabilitate hard drug addicts without locking them up? And they'll have to be seen by trained medical personnel available around the clock. And I can imagine someone who has gone through a program sueing the doctors when they are not completely "cured". We live in a very litigious society. So I don't think drug rehab run by the medical establishment will be cheaper than what goes on in prisons today.

[Django]

We dont lock ppl up for abusing booze so why should we for using cocaine or marijuana? I didnt mention anything about trying to rehab addicts. IMO addiction should be seen as a health issue not a criminal issue. I dont think its the governments business what I or you ingest, smoke or inject. Rehab for the most part is voluntary and should stay that way. It cost about $50,000 a year to house one man in prison. Worrying about being sued is crazy talk, what was that about?