marijuana

[vorticon]

to keep the other thread clean...

"

This isn't about if the drug in question is "harmless" or "non harmless".

If you want to get into that, then the only logical conclusion we can do here is that the prohibition of pot has led to the situation where the markets are controlled by criminals. This has nothing to do with the qualities of the drug, but it's legal status.

How many people were shot and killed in raids during the alcohol prohibition? This is same kind of waste of human life."

sure, but moonshiners havent stopped, and wont stop as long as theres taxes on alcohol. and legalizing pot would just cause the criminals to start producing worse drugs, so the meth problem would get even worse...

someone else was wondering about canads decriminalizing it, in small amounts...the point is that some 14 year old who gets caught doesnt get his life screwed over by a criminal record...

[gofaster]

Originally posted by vorticon
someone else was wondering about canads decriminalizing it, in small amounts...the point is that some 14 year old who gets caught doesnt get his life screwed over by a criminal record...

Maybe he should, on account of the addictive properties of the drug, the mood-altering effects, and long-term damage to health.

[Shane]

what addictive properties?


oh... you were talking about *tobacco"

my bad.

[vorticon]

Originally posted by gofaster
Maybe he should, on account of the addictive properties of the drug, the mood-altering effects, and long-term damage to health.

you should get a criminal record because you make a stupid mistake? not to mention the punishment that went with said record doesnt do much good, or leaves the kid worse off?

[Octavius]

Originally posted by Shane
what addictive properties?


oh... you were talking about *tobacco"

my bad.

Shane 1 - Dinosaurs 0

(not you gofaster )

[gofaster]

I think this is the part where the discussion breaks off into several concepts like why tobacco is ok and liquor is ok but daddy can't get a joint from a vending machine and how if weed were legalized then crime would disappear and lives would be saved and then there's some back and forth and someone mentions caffeine as an addictive drug and how coffee should be controlled and that Starbuck's is a purveyor of evil and entices children and someone replies that that's all different because caffeine is found in Coke and someone else says that Coca Cola used to have cocaine in it and how Pablo Escobar wasn't a coke head because he didn't get high from his own supply because he was a doper and only a doper and was falsely accused of being a criminal because he was a peasant patriot fighting to overthrow the ruling class and before you know it we're arguing about guns and how we need them to keep The Government from turning us all into sheep being led to slaughter and we need our own peasant patriots to keep The Government in check because nobody else can and then someone mentions school shootings and that bus driver in Tennessee and someone else says guns don't kill people people kill people and how the criminals would use rope and kung fu if they didn't have guns and then this gets pushed to the next page and people forget all about it because its on Page 2.

Or something like that.

[indy007]

Originally posted by gofaster
I think this is the part where the discussion breaks off into several concepts like why tobacco is ok and liquor is ok but daddy can't get a joint from a vending machine and how if weed were legalized then crime would disappear and lives would be saved and then there's some back and forth and someone mentions caffeine as an addictive drug and how coffee should be controlled and that Starbuck's is a purveyor of evil and entices children and someone replies that that's all different because caffeine is found in Coke and someone else says that Coca Cola used to have cocaine in it and how Pablo Escobar wasn't a coke head because he didn't get high from his own supply because he was a doper and only a doper and was falsely accused of being a criminal because he was a peasant patriot fighting to overthrow the ruling class and before you know it we're arguing about guns and how we need them to keep The Government from turning us all into sheep being led to slaughter and we need our own peasant patriots to keep The Government in check because nobody else can and then someone mentions school shootings and that bus driver in Tennessee and someone else says guns don't kill people people kill people and how the criminals would use rope and kung fu if they didn't have guns and then this gets pushed to the next page and people forget all about it because its on Page 2.

Or something like that.

i think you just saved everybody a couple digital trees.

[mora]

Originally posted by vorticon
sure, but moonshiners havent stopped, and wont stop as long as theres taxes on alcohol. and legalizing pot would just cause the criminals to start producing worse drugs, so the meth problem would get even worse...

Moonshining and large scale production are whole different things. Conserning other drugs, the markets are controlled by supply and demand. As long as there is demand, those drugs will be produced in large quatities, and legal status of MJ is not going to change that. The profits from chemical stuff are many times higher than from MJ so there's plenty of supply there too.

The Dutch experience has shown that legalization of MJ doesn't raise the levels of use of MJ or hard drugs. Infact the use of heroin for example is lower in Netherlands than in neighbouring countries, and so is death and crime associated with it.

I'm not saying that legalization of MJ itself is a rock of wisdom. It does break the connection of MJ users with pushers who also sell other stuff, and that contributes to lower use of hard drugs(there goes gateway theory).

If you want to tackle with stuff like meth it would have to start from education in schools. The most important thing in any education is to have the trust of the pupil. Nowdays there's no trust to begin with as they are given all out lies about MJ(meaning the "you'll get an instant psychosis if you take a toke" stuff. I'm not saying thath MJ is completely harmless). Only after you have their trust you can expect to believe the truth about harms of meth or whatever.

Then comes the question of treatment. I do not like the idea of providing free treatment for self inflicted problems. However it has been shown to be a good investment. The least that could be done in this matter is to remove all legal restrictions and let a free market develop in this area.

Then the punishments. Punishments haven't been shown to reduce the number of drug users. There's plenty of evidence about this in europe, where many neighbouring countries have different policies. There is no statitistical evidence that punishments would lower the levels drug use. Punishments only push the users out of society, and then they are more likely to do crimes to support their habits. Also the prices of drugs tend to be higher in this case, and it too contributes to higher levels of crime.

At the end comes the free supply of drugs to hopeless cases in a controlled enviroment. This lowers the level of demand and so the supply drops and so does the likelyhood of new people getting addicted. It also helps in reducing crime as the junkies don't need to make crimes to support their habits.

The above measures have been done in many european countries with good results.

[mora]

Originally posted by gofaster
I think this is the part where the discussion breaks off into several concepts like why tobacco is ok and liquor is ok but daddy can't get a joint from a vending machine and how if weed were legalized then crime would disappear and lives would be saved and then there's some back and forth and someone mentions caffeine as an addictive drug and how coffee should be controlled and that Starbuck's is a purveyor of evil and entices children and someone replies that that's all different because caffeine is found in Coke and someone else says that Coca Cola used to have cocaine in it and how Pablo Escobar wasn't a coke head because he didn't get high from his own supply because he was a doper and only a doper and was falsely accused of being a criminal because he was a peasant patriot fighting to overthrow the ruling class and before you know it we're arguing about guns and how we need them to keep The Government from turning us all into sheep being led to slaughter and we need our own peasant patriots to keep The Government in check because nobody else can and then someone mentions school shootings and that bus driver in Tennessee and someone else says guns don't kill people people kill people and how the criminals would use rope and kung fu if they didn't have guns and then this gets pushed to the next page and people forget all about it because its on Page 2.

Or something like that.

Interesting debating style, you made a pre-emptive straw man argument in your first comment.

Yep, why debate or change anything? You seem to be doing just fine in your current path(the highest numbers of  drug use, and the highest levels of crimes of all types in the western world).

[RTR]

Vort, I am all for prosecuting anyone for possesion, even in small amounts.

Here is why.

If you buy a bag of dope, and only intend to use it for your personal consumption, you are still supporting an illegal industry.

If people didn't buy the chit, there would be no market for it, and maybe 4 Mounties would be at home right now with thier loved ones.

I am not interested in getting into a debate about wether or not it should be legalized. The simple fact is, it is an illegal drug, and those who deal it or buy it should pay a hefty price when caught.

Those who don't get caught should know what thier money is really buying them. (in a broader scope, this includes partial responsibilty for deaths of other human beings as a result of the demand to support your 20 minutes of "high" time).

As for liquor or tobacco, as far as I can see these don't even enter into the equation here. Although they are wrought with consequences of thier own, they are a legal drug and the topic of an entirely different debate.

So Vort, in answer to your question " you should get a criminal record because you made a stupid mistake?"

Yes, yes, yes and unequivically, YES.

RTR

[2stony]

on account of the addictive properties of the drug

     Says who? I smoked pot for years and was never addicted. You sure someone isn't pissing on your stash?

[john9001]

marijuana is not addictive, i know this for a fact.

you should study what is known as "addictive personalties", some people can become addicted to anything , others not so.


on another note, i quit smoking 25 yrs ago, but when i dream, i still smoke cigarettes in the dream.

[gofaster]

We aren't talking about drugs anymore.  We're talking about guns now!  Get with the program, people!  I have people skills!  I'm good with people!

Now I'm all worked up!  I guess I'll just have to stop at Wal-Mart and pick up a tube of model glue and a can of silver spray paint.  You know, just to take the edge off.  I'm not addicted.  I can quit anytime I want!

[mora]

Originally posted by RTR
Vort, I am all for prosecuting anyone for possesion, even in small amounts.

Here is why.

If you buy a bag of dope, and only intend to use it for your personal consumption, you are still supporting an illegal industry.

If people didn't buy the chit, there would be no market for it, and maybe 4 Mounties would be at home right now with thier loved ones.

Yep, the best thing to do is to grow your own. If I'd get the urge to do pot I'd put up my own garden.

[spothq]

Its simply more justification for capital spending and "Make-work" activities.

It is clear in every clear mind that the banning of pot (By historical fact) was flawed.

That it is continued to be criminalized is not due to the effects of the drug, the real effects of the drug are the people who haven't used and continue to persue those who have by any means possible, death, imprisonment, or fine.

While I used when I was younger, I refrain because it is simply a drug. It is the same reason I am skeptical of ANY drug, whether FDA approved or not. Any drug has effects, harmless and positive the same, I have chosen to abstain from all drugs, and all that choose to abuse ANY drug. And I didn't need the government to help me learn this.