Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on August 26, 2006, 07:06:01 PM
-
for adults. Another thread got sidetracked...
I feel that there is no need for the "war on drugs". The so called war gets my car broken into and $1500 worth of car destroyed for a dime bag worth of drugs that some murdering scum drug dealer puts out on the street...
It fuels the black clad ninja secret police and the drug cartels and the endless expense and political bs posturing.
Don't get me wrong... I am a former drug addict and alcoholic and dealer and criminal... I hate the frigging whole drug scene but.... I know how ridiculous any "war" is on it.
Who is winning? are adults afraid of being busted by the police? hell no... Are the cartells and street level dealers ever gonna quit making that 5,00000 % profit? don't make me laugh!
Want to stop drug abuse for the most part (at least better than we do now)? Want to put the dealers and criminals out of business?
Make the drugs legal but... If you get caught driving under the influence... is is a DUI... any amount.
Give employers the right to drug test employees if they want. they have the right to have a drug free of allmost drug free workplace if they want.... or not..
It's not the cops the casual user fears.... it is his livelyhood and his drivers licence. And it is the casual user who is funding the murderous gansters in the drug trade.
ya got a better idea? lets hear it.
lazs
-
:huh . Isnt that a litttle bit 'left' for you lazs?
-
Kids in my school put herion on tampons and insert them in their buttocks. Fix that.
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Kids in my school put herion on tampons and insert them in their buttocks. Fix that.
Thats unfixable dude.
-
I love touring Amsterdam where the burnouts are constantly bugging your for money. I love seeing the wasted lives due to easily available drugs.
Do you think there is no crime since drugs are so easy to get? Do you think drug addicts are differant there? Do you think they don't steal there to feed an addiction? If you think any of that is the case, you are mistaken.
-
Better yet. They steal any and all medications theur parents and grandparents have. No matter what they are.
They then choose to snort, smoke, and who knows what else. Supposedely Viagra is supposed ot be good for snorting....:rolleyes:
Just as a reminder. This is white suburbia. By no means a bad part of town.
-
I don't think its a "leftist" idea. It makes sense. It is logical. But I don't see the government of the USA ever giving the official nod to legalize heavy drugs.
I also try to "never say never." But it wouldn't happen for a very long time.
I'm kinda for legalizing drugs... kinda.
-
But then the government would have to be, in effect, the supplier for good smack or whatever. It begins to sound like socialism. The more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems that a USA government, or the people for that matter, would ever allow it.
How bout telling people how to get some of that sobriety you've got?
-
A better idea would be to have done this a long time ago.
One thing about drug testing at work though, if drugs are legal employers should not be able to fire workers for having trace amounts in their system. They should be able to fire them for working while high, but not for doing something legal on their own time.
-
true, eskimo... there are a lot of angles to it. To me, the biggest thing is that drug dependancy is bad, and culture in this country will not soon elect politicians who will legalize drugs... not to mention that it would be worse for our society that what we have now, my 2 cents.
-
We could solve the drug problem tomorrow if we just poisoned the confiscated drugs and then put them back out on the street.
Tylenol sales went in the dumper when it happened to them.
-
Taking the libertarian track, Government has no right to legislate what anyone willingly does in their own home (that doesn't hurt someone else). So home based Mary Jane use is OK by me.
That doesn't mean that I think Marijuana is good, but it isn't as bad as some people say it is.
That being said, I think there should be severe penalties for DUI with pot. Past that, I think each state should decide whether public consumption should be legal.
But a big no to any other drug.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Taking the libertarian track, Government has no right to legislate what anyone willingly does in their own home (that doesn't hurt someone else).
Unless it's smoking....tobacco... we should heavily legislate against that.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Taking the libertarian track, Government has no right to legislate what anyone willingly does in their own home (that doesn't hurt someone else). So home based Mary Jane use is OK by me.
So looking at kiddie porn is ok then?
-
IMO smoking pot and doing hard core drugs are very different. Both seen as bad to me. But Id be willing to accept legislation on one and not the other.
-
You're trying to draw me into something vulcan, when I've already used the key words.
"that doesn't hurt someone else"
Kiddie porn is far from a victimless crime.
-
I didn't follow up on what went down in Mexico. Did they decriminalize possesion of all drugs? Let's just send all of our drug users to Mexico. Seem like a fair trade?
-
I'd like to add one thing to making drugs legal....
Tax the hell out of them .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I'd like to add one thing to making drugs legal....
Tax the hell out of them .
Bronk
Thats a commie!
Seriously, if you tax the hell out of them nothing will change.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I love touring Amsterdam where the burnouts are constantly bugging your for money. I love seeing the wasted lives due to easily available drugs.
Do you think there is no crime since drugs are so easy to get? Do you think drug addicts are differant there? Do you think they don't steal there to feed an addiction? If you think any of that is the case, you are mistaken.
Drugs are not legal in the Netherlands. They do not punish the users like they do in the US, so they are more visible. Hard drugs are less easily avilable than in the US. According to all statistics drug use is much lower there than in the US. According to all statistics crime is much lower there than in the US.
-
From Lazs:
"Don't get me wrong... I am a former drug addict and alcoholic and dealer and criminal... I hate the frigging whole drug scene but.... I know how ridiculous any "war" is on it."
That explains a lot.
Ok, a suggestion. The other way, like Singapore. Just hang the dealers.
No big drug problem there :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You're trying to draw me into something vulcan, when I've already used the key words.
"that doesn't hurt someone else"
Kiddie porn is far from a victimless crime.
And the same goes for smoking weed. From growing the stuff to the users, its an addiction, it does brain damage, its been proven to increase the likelyhood of psychosis in teens (Swedish study).
To hold marijuana up as a victimless crime is either extremely naive or blatant one eyed-ness.
-
Why do you think that your car getting broken into would be avoided if drugs were legal? Would legalizing drugs make an addict more likely to get a job?
-
People abuse drugs because they have a problem. Whether its anxiety, depression, bi-polar, situational, etc. The drugs make them feel better. People can still become dependent and addicted to drugs through recreational use, but its less common than those with problems.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
(Swedish study).
Swedish studies are problematic in this area. Firstly, They tend to be biased(goverment funded studies in a country with the most repressive drug policy in the western world).There's a history of BS drug studies from Sweden. Secondly, cannabis use is hardly mainstream there and people who do it tend to have other problems aswell(more than in coutries where it's more mainstream, and it will affect the results of this kind of study).
I'm not saying that the findings in that particular study were faulty.
Cannabis and psychosis There is now growing evidence for a small but significant link between cannabis use and vulnerability to psychosis.[15] Some studies indicate that cannabis use correlates with a slight increase in psychotic experience, which may help to trigger full-blown psychosis in some people.[15] Early studies have been criticized for failing to consider other drugs (such as LSD) that the participants may also have used before or during the study, as well as other factors such as possible pre-existing mental health issues. However, more recent studies with better controls have still found a small increase in risk for psychosis in cannabis users. It is still not clear whether this is a causal link, and it may be that cannabis use only increases the chance of psychosis in people already predisposed to it. Additionally, people who are in the process of developing psychosis possibly make greater use of the drug to provide temporary relief to their mental discomfort. The fact that cannabis use has increased over the past few decades, whereas the rate of psychosis has not,[16] suggests that a direct causal link is unlikely for all users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis#Cannabis_and_psychosis
-
With legalization of drug use addiction would undoubtedly go up, leading to even more health and mental problems for the country to deal with.
Heavily taxing the sale of legalized drugs would have the effect of preserving the status quo, at least in terms of the crime rates associated with drug use. While drug cartels and gangs "might" be defanged and emasculated, theft and muggings for drug money would probably go up.
Highway fatalities might also rise, with large numbers of stoned drivers wending their way down the nation's thoroughfares.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I'd like to add one thing to making drugs legal....
Tax the hell out of them .
Bronk
Good point. I dont think illegal drugs has made drugs harder to get. It boils down to a personal choice. what is it, 80% of inmates are drug offenses? 80% of law enforcement resources goes towards drug enforcement? One of those 'no soulution' things.
-
Ok... first of all... if getting the government out of your life and making it smaller is considered "leftie"... then call me leftie... I allready went through all this decades ago with the hippies who thought that me being a biker with long hair made me one of them.
You do not "tax the hell out of it" the government does not produce it... the government doesn't produce anthing... you have lily and co produce it and sell it for about a tenth or less than it sells for now on the street. The cartells die... the dealers dry up.
A heroin addict will be able to buy heroin or methadone for a few dollars a day and the dose will be predictable. He can pick grapes or run a leaf blower for enough to pay for his habit till he dies... he will be out there as a really bad example of drug use for all to see.
Everyone will know that the really good jobs are open only to drug free people. Got some in your system? well..... the DOT (if you are a driver) is not pleased... have a trace amount in your system and you run nothing more dangerous than a stapler? your boss MIGHT keep you if you are worth a damn anyway.
As for poisoning drugs... you need to watch meth being made and cut. It stops no one. It never even stopped me and I was in on it and knew all about it.
The cat is out of the bag... there are just a certain amount of people who will destroy their lives. I simply want them to have as little effect on mine as possible. I am not their mom and I don't owe them anything. Let them ruin their lives or not.
And dago.. you spent a lot of time in amsterdam? Have you spent a lot of time in our big cities where a lot of tourists go?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
With legalization of drug use addiction would undoubtedly go up, leading to even more health and mental problems for the country to deal with.
Why would that happen? I could claim the opposite and even could somewhat back it up by facts. It hasn't been tried anywhere, so it would be just speculation thougfh.
I believe that the numbers wouldn't go up in a country like the US as drugs are so easily available there allready. If they would go up the positives would still outweigh the negatives. In a country like Sweden where drug use is low it would probably happen though. There would likely to be more raise in the number of users than in addicts. It should be done anyway, as IMO the goverment has no business to tell what you can put in your body.
-
I don't think the actual amount of addicts would increase or decrease. there is no shortage of drugs in any city in the U.S.
In fact... the availabilty being artificaly curbed by vigerous enforcement of drug laws often makes things worse.... crack and meth are the results of making some of the slightly less potent drugs hard to get.
Even at that.. if a dose of heroin was about the same as a six pack.... do you see drunks robbing people?
addict criminals are lazy... once they have enough to fuel the habit they are done. They are mostly only criminals because... they have no choice.
An addict will do anything to get the drugs he needs. No law will stop him.
As for me giving advice to others to "share my sobriety"
I am doing that right now. This whole thread is about how evil drugs are but....
The addicts on this board reading it won't see themselves anyway. They may admit that I was an addict with "problems" but they most likely won't admit to their problem sooooo....
Guy gets fired... he had got caught and had to be tested regularly to keep his job... he gets a dirty test even tho the job was extremely important to him... he would be an addict.
lazs
-
Don`t think it will ever happen.
We invented the drug trade and the routes to the U.S. for the most part.
At one time, not sure now, drug trade was the #2 money producer here.
Noone is going to take a dump in their own bowl of Wheaties.
-
Something else to consider. If there are no laws regarding drugs what happens to what are currently prescription drugs? No prescription will be required for any substance which means a lot of people will be self medicating and I don't mean with what are now illegal drugs.
-
I agree... it is far to profitable and it gives far too much power to the government for the "war on drugs" to ever end.
luckster... what perscription drugs will people be self medicating with? I will still take the amount of amoxicillan that the doctror prescribes say.
It is only the mind altering drugs that will be abused. And... they are allready. People abuse their perscriptions now on a regular basis.
You either listen to the doctor or not.
The real good people that are at risk are those with chronic pain of some kind... they are a different animal. They will become addicts simply because of the pain but... they pretty much do now anyway.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And dago.. you spent a lot of time in amsterdam? Have you spent a lot of time in our big cities where a lot of tourists go?
lazs
Yeah, spent a fair amount of time in Amsterdam.
Yes, I have been to a whole bunch of our larger cities (over 50 of the biggest ones). Plus, I grew up in the Gary Indiana area, a really fun area where I was between Gary and the south side of Chicago. Am familiar with the whole package, not just where tourists wear fannypacks.
A good comparison of the advantages of legalizing a vice I could make would be the advent of gambling in Indian casinso here in MN. Back before gambling was easily accessed, you never heard of many problems with gambling and lives ruined.
Now, it seems we are rarely more than 30 minutes from a casino, and it seems almost weekly the newspaper has a report of someone being arrested and prosecuted for embezzlment. It is almost always reported to being done to support a gambling addiction. Not to mention the fools that leave their little children in the car while going into a casino for some fun.
Yeah, legalizing gambling sure worked out well, for a few sinster folks and the politicians they bought. I am sure legalizing drugs would be just as happy. Imagine the lives ruined if drugs were easily procurred. Really bright idea.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... first of all... if getting the government out of your life and making it smaller is considered "leftie"... then call me leftie... I allready went through all this decades ago with the hippies who thought that me being a biker with long hair made me one of them.
lazs
I feel your pain. I was called a leftist liberal for criticizing the Bush administrations warrentless spy program. Thats the most intrusive govt program in the history of this nation. Sometimes i think people just throw those terms around in order to avoid having to think through a counter argument. I apologize.
-
Lazs, without laws to regulate drugs anyone should be able to maket their own cheaper version of your current prescription drug. While this might have an added benefit of bringing all drug prices down it will no doubt lead to quality problems and self medication.
I don't believe you can separate what are now illegal drugs and those that are prescribed if you legalize all drugs. They then become the same. I'm not sure that this would be a bad thing but we definitely need to consider all of the ramifications.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And the same goes for smoking weed. From growing the stuff to the users, its an addiction, it does brain damage, its been proven to increase the likelyhood of psychosis in teens (Swedish study).
To hold marijuana up as a victimless crime is either extremely naive or blatant one eyed-ness.
The same goes for cigarettes and alcohol. The difference is that people have the choice to use it if they want. Err, Adults that is.
Any body under 18 caught using any of that should be whipped.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Lazs, without laws to regulate drugs anyone should be able to maket their own cheaper version of your current prescription drug. While this might have an added benefit of bringing all drug prices down it will no doubt lead to quality problems and self medication.
Of course you couldn't manufacture patented drugs without a licence, just as you can't make and sell bootleg cd's legally.
-
dago.. I don't think you can have a direct comparisson with drugs vs gambling... they may both be "vices" but that is where it ends.
A better way to compare is apples and apples... say alcohol and other drugs.
We also have examples of what happens when drugs are prohibited..
Soooo.. the grand experiment with prohibition.... That didn't work out so well now did it? It has been said that drinking actually increased. Most addicts, given the chance, will choose alcohol as a drug of choice or at least as part of their addiction.... no drug is worse.
Chair... I really don't care what political bent people think I am.... funky says I am a neocon and a fascist. It is just amusing to see their confusion when I don't fit their category down the line.
lazs
-
Originally posted by mora
Of course you couldn't manufacture patented drugs without a licence, just as you can't make and sell bootleg cd's legally.
There are many generic drugs often substituted for name brands legally. Of course legality does not prevent there being many bootlegged cd's sold.
This brings up another possibly intersting topic. We might be trading one form of government control in the form of drug use prevention for drug patent protection. If crack becomes legal who will own the patent? How far will the government go to protect it?
If the government doesn't actively protect patents on drugs like crack or ecstacy by going after the dealers of home made patent violating drugs what impact might that have on our non drug related patents?
-
Here’s how I see it; suppose that an urban city has 900 addicts (I’m totally making all numbers up here, just pay attention to the concepts). In the next few years:
Of those addicts: 300 will spend significant time in jail for committing crimes to support their addictions, 300 more will eventually die from an OD, car crash or whatever and the last 300 will recover and go on with life after being admitted to a rehab center or going cold turkey. – All of these folks got themselves into their own messes.
To support their habits there might be 90 local drug gang members/dealers; almost all of whom will eventually either be killed or spend most of their lives in jail. – All of these folks got themselves into their own messes.
Collateral damage by gang bangers will take out 9 innocent bystanders, some of whom are children. - None of these folks did anything to bring such fate upon themselves (besides living in the wrong place).
18,000 citizens will be the victims of theft crimes by addicts in search of cash or loot to support their habits. - None of these folks did anything to bring such fate upon themselves.
9 citizens will die during theft crimes turned violent by addicts in search of cash or loot to support their habits. - None of these folks did anything to bring such fate upon themselves.
18 citizens will be the victims vehicular by addicts driving high. - None of these folks did anything to bring such fate upon themselves.
To deal with all of these folks and their crimes, the city and federal government may employ 30 officers, one of whom might be killed in the line of duty. All of their salaries are paid by tax payers.
***********************************************
Now let’s look at that city if drugs had been legalized and affordable.
I think that this is a massive exaggeration, but let’s suppose that the city now has 1,200 addicts (300 would be law abiding citizens turned addicts once drugs became legal).
Of those addicts: 400 will spend significant time in jail for committing crimes to support their addictions, 400 more will eventually die from an OD, car crash or whatever and the last 400 will recover and go on with life after being admitted to a rehab center or going cold turkey. – All of these folks got themselves into their own messes.
24 citizens will be the victims vehicular by addicts driving high. - None of these folks did anything to bring such fate upon themselves.
12 innocent citizens are alive and well. (6 more citizens die in accidents, but 18 less die during drug related crimes.)
Taxes, security expenses and home insurance rates have dropped.
30 drug cops have other jobs.
90 would be gang bangers have either turned to other crimes, are on welfare or got real jobs.
18,000 people have all of their stuff.
The citizens of the city feel safer; tourism and the economy are better off.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I love seeing the wasted lives due to easily available drugs.
Do you think they don't steal there to feed an addiction? If you think any of that is the case, you are mistaken.
Do you love watching people that are more miserable then you, because then it makes your life look less miserable?
Originally posted by mora
Drugs are not legal in the Netherlands. They do not punish the users like they do in the US, so they are more visible. Hard drugs are less easily avilable than in the US. According to all statistics drug use is much lower there than in the US. According to all statistics crime is much lower there than in the US.
well said.. In US its waaaaay easier to score crack/ meth then little bit of decent weed.
-
Lazs, this is the first subject that I can recall you and I being in total agreement. Maybe there's hope for you yet.;)
Seriously, the WOD is a massive resource waste. It's been proven prohibition only causes more crime. Regulate it, set limits and monitor it's production just like alcohol.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Lazs, this is the first subject that I can recall you and I being in total agreement. Maybe there's hope for you yet.;)
Seriously, the WOD is a massive resource waste. It's been proven prohibition only causes more crime. Regulate it, set limits and monitor it's production just like alcohol.
Alcohol is but one drug and even after prohibition was repealed the government has been going after bootleggers to this day.
We're not talking about legalizing and regulating one illegal drug here. We're talking about dozens with new ones popping up all of the time. Basically we're talking about deregulation of all drugs, legal and illegal.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Alcohol is but one drug and even after prohibition was repealed the government has been going after bootleggers to this day.
We're not talking about legalizing and regulating one illegal drug here. We're talking about dozens with new ones popping up all of the time. Basically we're talking about deregulation of all drugs, legal and illegal.
True, but the level and amount of crime associated with alcohol went down dramaticly after prohibition was repealed. We are not talking about deregulating drugs, only decriminalizing them.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Alcohol is but one drug and even after prohibition was repealed the government has been going after bootleggers to this day.
We're not talking about legalizing and regulating one illegal drug here. We're talking about dozens with new ones popping up all of the time. Basically we're talking about deregulation of all drugs, legal and illegal.
I think we are talking about recreational drugs. Citizens will still want prescription drugs to be tested and approved. Crack, cocaine, pot, etc. would fall into a recreational drug category and require labeling with warnings much like cigarettes and alcohol. Drugs that have a 20% fatality rate per use probably would never be approved; but who would want to make them or take them when a variety of rec. drugs are cheap and relatively much safer. Some kids would still huff and die because they couldn’t buy real drugs, but adults would buy their drugs at specialty stores much like how they buy alcohol. “New” drugs might not pop up so often because the market and profit margin would be a tiny fraction of what it once was.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I think we are talking about recreational drugs. Citizens will still want prescription drugs to be tested and approved. Crack, cocaine, pot, etc. would fall into a recreational drug category and require labeling with warnings much like cigarettes and alcohol. Drugs that have a 20% fatality rate per use probably would never be approved; but who would want to make them or take them when a variety of rec. drugs are cheap and relatively much safer. Some kids would still huff and die because they couldn’t buy real drugs, but adults would buy their drugs at specialty stores much like how they buy alcohol. “New” drugs might not pop up so often because the market and profit margin would be a tiny fraction of what it once was.
Crack/cocaine a recreational drug. :lol Those things ruin lives and bodies.
-
There's a few points I'm seeing here that just don't make sense.
First of all, there is NO WAY that any of us, working out of our basement, could produce a "cheaper alternative" drug to any drug which a corporation is legally mass-producing on an assembly line. It just isn't possible.
The only way a "cheaper alternative" would come out is if another corporation streamlined the process.
There's capitalism for you, in all her beauty. And in this case, it would be a very good thing. Companies compete with each other, drive down the prices, the lower the prices, the less chance someone's going to turn to crime to get their fix.
Secondly, about the casino reference... That's completely different. Before the casino popped up in your region, someone would have to travel far (Vegas, Atlantic City, whatever) to gamble. As of right now, with drugs being illegal, they have to drive a max of 15 minutes to get just about anything they want. Once they are legal, they'll have to drive a max of about 15 minutes to get just about anything they want.
People just don't understand this. There is a far greater amount of Americans doing drugs now then is generally "accepted." I, for one, have never been asked to take a national survey on the matter, and I personally don't know anyone else who has. But I do know hundreds of people who do some sort of illegal drug with a fair regularity.
I *really* doubt that legalizing all drugs will lead to a TRUE upshot of users. I DO believe that legalizing all drugs will lead to a TRUE assessment of how many people actually do it as of now.
I'm sure some people will try a drug for the first time, sure... But I have serious doubts that they will choose heroin, coke, crack, meth, or one of the harder drugs simply because they can't get in trouble for it. I think they'll shy away from them then for the same reason they do now - because they fear for their lives, as they should.
Of course, if the drugs were legalized, and companies were producing them to some sort of government standard (as with tobacco and alcohol), I'd be willing to bet the government would try to set a standard that would be much less likely to kill someone then the crap you can currently find on the street.
Lazs had a really good point about the whole process of cutting up meth. I've seen that done too (amongst other things), and let me tell you, it's really no suprise so many people are dying from the stuff as it is. You wouldn't believe the crap people put in it. It's not all rock salt.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
With legalization of drug use addiction would undoubtedly go up, leading to even more health and mental problems for the country to deal with.Highway fatalities might also rise, with large numbers of stoned drivers wending their way down the nation's thoroughfares.
As I have stated before, before the war on drugs began, the price of a gram of cocaine was $100 a gram, and it was cut many times. After the war on drugs started, the price dropped as the market flooded, down to $25 dollars a gram, and with less cut. Then heroin prices started to fall, as the market became flooded.
With your logic, the war on drugs increased cocaine addicts by at least 75%
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Of course, if the drugs were legalized, and companies were producing them to some sort of government standard (as with tobacco and alcohol), I'd be willing to bet the government would try to set a standard that would be much less likely to kill someone then the crap you can currently find on the street.
We already have a legal mind altering drug, alcohol. If we legalize, regulate, and mass produce the current illegal drugs how long do you think it will be before someone comes up with an even riskier drug? If that isn't also legalized we'll be right back where we started.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And the same goes for smoking weed. From growing the stuff to the users, its an addiction, it does brain damage, its been proven to increase the likelyhood of psychosis in teens (Swedish study).
To hold marijuana up as a victimless crime is either extremely naive or blatant one eyed-ness.
OK, as a former smoker/dealer/grower (I live in Canada; cops leave small-time guys alone in suburbia), I take issue with this statement. During highschool, I smoked more pot in a year than most 'regular' smokers do in a lifetime. At no point was I ever addicted to marijuana. The day before and day of a big hockey game? Didn't smoke, no problem. Exams coming up? Stopped smoking for a few weeks, no problem. Hockey team's playoffs coming up? Quit smoking for a month or so, no problem.
Only an extremely weak person can be "addicted" to marijauna. Up until January of this year, I was ripping the bong every few hours every day. This went on for about 10 months or so. I decided I was getting too damned lazy, and was barely able to drag myself into the gym twice a week, so I quit. I didn't have any withdrawals, I didn't fiend for it. I didn't really know what the hell to do with myself when a bunch of people would show up at my house and rip the bong with my roommate, but that isn't addiction.
And as for doing damage to the brain? Minimal at worst. I rarely went to class in highschool, and my senior year I finished with an average in the high 80's. First year university, smoking entirely too much, average in the mid-70's. I blame alcohol and hangovers for that. My short-term memory wasn't great during my years as a burnout, but 8 months off and it's back to normal.
Marijauna should be legal (in Canada - I don't really give a **** what you do in the US, your weed sucks anyway :cool: ). It's less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, and easier to get when you're underage anyway.
edit: Can't believe I forgot to mention this. At one point, I had a nasty coke habbit (that's what happens when you've got more illegitimate money from dealing pot than you know what to do with), and you know what I did to kick that addiction? Kept myself bombed out of my tree, ripping the bong every few hours every day. It worked.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Of course, if the drugs were legalized, and companies were producing them to some sort of government standard (as with tobacco and alcohol), I'd be willing to bet the government would try to set a standard that would be much less likely to kill someone then the crap you can currently find on the street.
Good point, skew my numbers above to: ... less than 400 will eventually die from an OD, car crash or whatever.
-
Originally posted by lukster
We already have a legal mind altering drug, alcohol. If we legalize, regulate, and mass produce the current illegal drugs how long do you think it will be before someone comes up with an even riskier drug? If that isn't also legalized we'll be right back where we started.
Are you kidding? Opiates/marijuana have been in use for centuries. The real drug trade (and thus, creation of new 'hard' drugs) started when opiates began to be outlawed in western countries.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Are you kidding? Opiates/marijuana have been in use for centuries. The real drug trade (and thus, creation of new 'hard' drugs) started when opiates began to be outlawed in western countries.
Am I kidding about new drugs being created that may create a grearter sense of euphoria, are more addicitive, and riskier? Nope, not kidding. I think it is pretty much a certainty as the market grows and the risk to the creator/distributor diminishes. The more highly addicitive a drug the better for the producer.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Am I kidding about new drugs being created that may create a grearter sense of euphoria, are more addicitive, and riskier? Nope, not kidding. I think it is pretty much a certainty as the market grows and the risk to the creator/distributor diminishes. The more highly addicitive a drug the better for the producer.
I'm getting the sense that you've never been heavily in to drugs, and are speaking hypothetically (not the word I'm looking for, but close enough), and not from experience. I was addicted to cocaine. As such, I wanted COCAINE. It never even crossed my mind to up the ante to heroine or something more addictive, simply because it gives a more 'euphoric' experience. I wanted coke. That was my addiction.
A person that's addicted to one drug isn't going to magically move on to another new drug that comes along. They're going to ride their addiction until they either get clean, go to jail, or die. Simple as that. And it is VERY rare that someone dives straight in to the hardest stuff they can find, even if it does become legal. It isn't hard to get now, and the odds of getting caught aren't very high.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
I'm getting the sense that you've never been heavily in to drugs, and are speaking hypothetically (not the word I'm looking for, but close enough), and not from experience. I was addicted to cocaine. As such, I wanted COCAINE. It never even crossed my mind to up the ante to heroine or something more addictive, simply because it gives a more 'euphoric' experience. I wanted coke. That was my addiction.
A person that's addicted to one drug isn't going to magically move on to another new drug that comes along. They're going to ride their addiction until they either get clean, go to jail, or die. Simple as that. And it is VERY rare that someone dives straight in to the hardest stuff they can find, even if it does become legal. It isn't hard to get now, and the odds of getting caught aren't very high.
And yet new drugs do in fact come along and addict both new generations and old.
Don't get me wrong. I think we've lost our "war on drugs" which now only sustains a certain criminal class. However, I think it's foolish to enter this proposed new era without considering all of the possibilities.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
OK, as a former smoker/dealer/grower (I live in Canada; cops leave small-time guys alone in suburbia), I take issue with this statement. During highschool, I smoked more pot in a year than most 'regular' smokers do in a lifetime. At no point was I ever addicted to marijuana. The day before and day of a big hockey game? Didn't smoke, no problem. Exams coming up? Stopped smoking for a few weeks, no problem. Hockey team's playoffs coming up? Quit smoking for a month or so, no problem.
As a former (?) drug addict I think you're in the worst position to 'take issue with this statement'.
Is marijuana addictive?
No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties. Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams. Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users.
For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting.
http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm
You sound like the guy watching kiddie porn... "I didn't film it, I can quit anytime I want, it doesn't mean I touch kids or ever will".
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Why do you think that your car getting broken into would be avoided if drugs were legal? Would legalizing drugs make an addict more likely to get a job?
No, but making drugs more accessabile might increase the rate of associated crimes.
-
I notice lazs didn't bother replying to that. Maybe something about a "drugs being the price of a six pack".
I love the assumption that the reason a window was smashed out was because of drugs... and not something legal like alcohol. Or that it was even just a highschool kid wanting some pocket change.
The war on drugs did not cause your car to get broken into lazs.
-
During Prohibition, 'gangsters' were idolized and made into folk myth... kids played 'Capone and Ness' in their yards for years to come, and alcohol was the prime motivator for any mobsters empire during the Prohibition years.
I see the drug war of today very similar... we have an illegal substance, we have 'gangsters', we have the criminals being made into folk heros (Rap music), kids emulating their 'heros', and we still trying to fight a modern Prohibition.
It doesn't work and it won't work... the law will never win this fight as it lost it in the past.
-
Damn straight, Lasz.
Decriminalize all of it. What a person does to their own body should not be a concern of the government.
Hell... I'm for taking it even further. Decriminalize ALL consensual crimes.
-
And at the same time the laws can be changed so that health problems related to drug abuse quadruples their insurance premiums and also makes them ineligible for Medicare.
Why should the rest of society pay for the consequences of their irresponsible actions?
-
We're already paying.
The prison business in this country is booming.
-
Prison doesn't generate anywhere near as much revenue as does the treatment of drug problems by the health care industry.
-
According to DOJ 2001 figures, we spent $25,000 per inmate per year in California. It's over $4 Billion annually. For the U.S. it's close to $30 Billion per year.
-
So many crazy arguments, so little facts.
Don't give me your "if I remember right", or "this is what happened" if you really dont know.
Slippery damn slope you guys are talking about.
Hard drugs in Amsterdam? Hell yes. I have never seen an open crack deal myself in the US, but I have in Amsterdam.
Prohibition made alcohol consumption rise? I doubt it. Would love to see proof.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Prohibition made alcohol consumption rise?
I never posted that alcohol consumption rose during Prohibition, but crime sure did.
As in the past and current day, illegal substances fuel crime and in particular criminal organizations.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I love touring Amsterdam where the burnouts are constantly bugging your for money. I love seeing the wasted lives due to easily available drugs.
Do you think there is no crime since drugs are so easy to get? Do you think drug addicts are differant there? Do you think they don't steal there to feed an addiction? If you think any of that is the case, you are mistaken.
Agree.... but you need get out of the red light district :D :D
The the junkies are still there and the petty theft etc...is still around, but what is has done as cut down on the millions spent on the arrest of the casual user etc.... is it a good way to go ... not really as the government now spend more of free drugs for the junkies etc... so in reality legal drugs just f**k up the system even more than it already was.
-
Amsterdam is mad, why would you be a drug addict when you can go into a newsagent and buy a picture of a horse screwing a fat girl, get knocked over buy a tram/bike/boat, eat fantastic food and drink good beer, smoke a little fine grass in the park and then find something to make you laugh like a maniac till its time to go to bed....every day... wuuhhhooo!
-
mini... thought I did answer your question. My car did not get broken into. It was an example. the neighbor did have his broke into to get the stereo and they did a couple thou damage to do it.
You are a smart guy.. how much crime do you think revolves around a product with a 100-5000% profit margin? How many will kill for that kind of money? what do you think is the main source of money fueling the cartels in other countries and the gangs in America?
Why would someone risk breaking into a car to get money for drugs that would cost the same as a big gulp slurpy?
Are you not aware that many people have criminal records for nothing more than the consumption of illegal drugs? You are aware that convictions and prison time limit employment opprortunities right?
A junkie could work a few hours a day for a landscaper and make enough to support his habit. How is that worse?
And dago... if you don't see it then it is not happening? Amsterdam has it wrong... Why would there be dealers on the street if you could just go to a drug store and get brand name products for cheap?
lazs
-
And sandie... an adult should be able to do whatever he wants with his own body... At least in any case I can think of offhand. This would include suicide but not "assisted" suicide say.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Damn straight, Lasz.
Decriminalize all of it. What a person does to their own body should not be a concern of the government.
Hell... I'm for taking it even further. Decriminalize ALL consensual crimes.
If you take that approach then it's only logical that you get the government out of health care altogether. No regulation of any type of drug or government supported medical care for anyone. Let's not do this desocialization half assed.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
You sound like the guy watching kiddie porn... "I didn't film it, I can quit anytime I want, it doesn't mean I touch kids or ever will".
This is getting ridiculous. You really don't see the difference?
-
Originally posted by lukster
If you take that approach then it's only logical that you get the government out of health care altogether. No regulation of any type of drug or government supported medical care for anyone. Let's not do this desocialization half assed.
I fail to see the logic.
-
The thing is this. The war on drugs is such an industry on both sides that if legalized, whats to become of all the extra police,atf etc that are currently fighting it? Whats to become of the junkies selling it?
If you experience burglary now...imagine when drugs are legalized and the guy getting by today selling weed or crack, ends up "out of a job" and is breaking into your house to steal your tv for food money. I guess the extra cops would still have a job :)
-
Originally posted by Dago
I have never seen an open crack deal myself in the US
Just curious.........Where do you live that you have never seen an open crack deal? The middle of the desert? A swamp?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I fail to see the logic.
You want government to stop telling us what we can and can't do right? Why can't I come to this forum and get a diagnoses for my illness and then go buy whatever drug I think will cure me from whoever I want? Why do I need the government to control this?
-
Originally posted by lukster
You want government to stop telling us what we can and can't do right? Why can't I come to this forum and get a diagnoses for my illness and then go buy whatever drug I think will cure me from whoever I want? Why do I need the government to control this?
We'll tell you to go get alcohol. It's a government regulated drug.
You'll be cured once the hangover goes away... but that's how you know it worked.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You want government to stop telling us what we can and can't do right? Why can't I come to this forum and get a diagnoses for my illness and then go buy whatever drug I think will cure me from whoever I want? Why do I need the government to control this?
Self-medicate all you want.
Personally, I'd prefer the opinion of a medical professional.
-
Originally posted by indy007
We'll tell you to go get alcohol. It's a government regulated drug.
You'll be cured once the hangover goes away... but that's how you know it worked.
The government regulates alcohol only to ensure it is taxed. Since we're doing away with so much government we shouldn't need so many taxes, right? ;)
Alcohol does seem to be an all purpose drug doesn't it. Guess some have more serious ailments than others. What does crack cure?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Self-medicate all you want.
Personally, I'd prefer the opinion of a medical professional.
I'm fine with that so long as you pay for your own treatment, like I would expect of everyone else. Just don't deny me my own right to treat myself, ok?
-
Originally posted by lukster
What does crack cure?
You don't believe in Darwinism?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I fail to see the logic.
That's because there is none, no one wants the FDA to stop regulation, hell, I would love to see them regulate recreational use drugs as well.
It's just BS he pulled out of his bellybutton to make a point, since he can't make them any other way.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
That's because there is none, none one wants the FDA to stop regulation, hell, I would love to see the regulate recreational use drugs as well.
It's just BS he pulled out of his bellybutton to make a point, since he can't make them any other way.
You guys are blind if you can't see where "legalize all drugs" will lead in this. You're asking that the governement not restrict the use of any drug. How can you imagine that won't impact drugs which are currently prescribed?
-
Originally posted by lukster
What does crack cure?
Evidently................frig idness. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Evidently................frigidness. :)
:lol
-
Originally posted by lukster
You guys are blind if you can't see where "legalize all drugs" will lead in this. You're asking that the governement not restrict the use of any drug. How can you imagine that won't impact drugs which are currently prescribed?
No we see where banning them has gotten us:
Cheaper drugs
Easier to get drugs.
Tons of money wasted on users in jail.
More government intrusion.
ETC
You’re still blindly clinging to the idea that the war on drugs is anything but a wasteful farce.
Those of us going for legalization realize two things you fail to grasp.
A: Since the war on BS, err I mean drugs isn’t working its time to stop wasting the money and try something new.
B: We like freedom, we know freedom aint pretty at times, but we are willing to live with that cost.
It is really a shame you fear freedom so much, we know your way has failed, our way may as well, but we won't know tell we try.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
That's because there is none, no one wants the FDA to stop regulation, hell, I would love to see them regulate recreational use drugs as well.
It's just BS he pulled out of his bellybutton to make a point, since he can't make them any other way.
Lemme explain why you can't have both "all drugs" legalized and FDA regulation. Exactly when do you think the FDA will "approve" heroine and crack for recreational use? How about never.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
No we see where banning them has gotten us:
Cheaper drugs
Easier to get drugs.
Tons of money wasted on users in jail.
More government intrusion.
ETC
You’re still blindly clinging to the idea that the war on drugs is anything but a wasteful farce.
Those of us going for legalization realize two things you fail to grasp.
A: Since the war on BS, err I mean drugs isn’t working its time to stop wasting the money and try something new.
B: We like freedom, we know freedom aint pretty at times, but we are willing to live with that cost.
It is really a shame you fear freedom so much, we know your way has failed, our way may as well, but we won't know tell we try.
You're assuming a lot. I stated that I felt the war on drugs was completely ineffective and from which only criminals have profited.
I'm not opposed to "legalizing all drugs" but I won't go into it blindly. There will be far reaching effects many of which we can only guess at.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You are a smart guy.. how much crime do you think revolves around a product with a 100-5000% profit margin? How many will kill for that kind of money? what do you think is the main source of money fueling the cartels in other countries and the gangs in America?
What does this have to do with your original argument?
I don't think that petty crime would be affected one way or the other by legalizing drugs. Not one single bit. I think people that feel it's OK to steal from someone will do so regardless of reason. I think that people who are criminals will always be criminals regardless of motivation. Legalizing drugs will not stop that.
Legalizing drugs will not prevent someone from seeking an illegal means for a quick buck. It will not prevent them from defending themselves when they do it. It will not prevent them from killing or stealing. They will just move on to the next thing and society will degrade just a bit more.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Exactly when do you think the FDA will "approve" heroine and crack for recreational use? How about never.
Has the FDA approved caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol?
-
I've seen the argument that drugs became cheaper after the "war on drugs' began. That might be true for some drugs but in the lates 60's - early 70's marijuana typically sold for $10 an ounce. What's the going rate now?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Has the FDA approved caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol?
No, alcohol is controlled by the ATF.
I'm guessing you expect there to be a clear distinction between recreational drugs which would presumably fall under control of the ATF or some similar government organization? What about prescription drugs which are abused for recreational purposes? Do you really think anyone would accept jail time for someone caught abusing pain killers but not heroin?
-
I don't care about the distinction at all. Decriminalize all of it.
The fact that this creates a bureacratic hassle just tells me that we have too much bureacracy tied around it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't care about the distinction at all. Decriminalize all of it.
The fact that this creates a bureacratic hassle just tells me that we have too much bureacracy tied around it.
I agree completely with there being too much bureacracy. Trying to control all of the newly legalized drugs will create an even greater bureacracy than we have now though. Furthermore, how will you control anything without laws?
Once again, don't misunderstand my position. I don't like the current situation at all but we need to look before we leap and I think it's foolish to imagine we can maintain control over the "good" drugs without controlling the "bad".
-
It's rather simple... Let the medical profession decide. If you want to buy a "good drug" and you want your insurance company to cover it, you'll need a prescription.
If you don't have a prescription, you will have to use your own money.
I think the FDA should exist to enforce quality, not access.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I've seen the argument that drugs became cheaper after the "war on drugs' began. That might be true for some drugs but in the lates 60's - early 70's marijuana typically sold for $10 an ounce. What's the going rate now?
I'd say the price is affordable. MJ is of little interest to organized crime. The profits and addictivity potential are so low that it's not as good business as meth or coke, and therefore there's less supply than demand.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's rather simple... Let the medical profession decide. If you want to buy a "good drug" and you want your insurance company to cover it, you'll need a prescription.
If you don't have a prescription, you will have to use your own money.
I think the FDA should exist to enforce quality, not access.
Ok, now you're talking about what insurance companies will pay for and have relagated the FDA into an approval agency for insurance claims. I have no problem with that but it won't stop people who can't afford or decide they no longer need health insurance from self diagnosis and medication which was my original assertion.
-
Originally posted by mora
I'd say the price is affordable. MJ is of little interest to organized crime. The profits and addictivity potential are so low that it's not as good business as meth or coke, and therefore there's less supply than demand.
So you're saying then that it is supply and demand that determine the price of drugs and not the "war on drugs"?
-
Originally posted by lukster
I've seen the argument that drugs became cheaper after the "war on drugs' began. That might be true for some drugs but in the lates 60's - early 70's marijuana typically sold for $10 an ounce. What's the going rate now?
First of all, how many pot heads have you met that steal to support their habit? If anything they just grow it themselves. You're reaching if you are going to compare pot to cocaine and heroin. I say an alcoholic poses much more a threat to you than a pot head.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
First of all, how many pot heads have you met that steal to support their habit? If anything they just grow it themselves. You're reaching if you are going to compare pot to cocaine and heroin. I say an alcoholic poses much more a threat to you than a pot head.
All I'm doing is asking what an ounce of pot costs today. I know what it cost 35 years ago but have no idea what an ounce costs today. I'm curious to see how low the "war on drugs" has driven it down as has been claimed by some here. I'll allow for inflation of course.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Ok, now you're talking about what insurance companies will pay for and have relagated the FDA into an approval agency for insurance claims. I have no problem with that but it won't stop people who can't afford or decide they no longer need health insurance from self diagnosis and medication which was my original assertion.
I don't have a problem with people self-medicating.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't have a problem with people self-medicating.
I don't especially either but I think many will including the vast majority of health care professionals.
The reason for this is to reduce the numbers in our prisons and eliminate the profit earned by gangs and other predatory organizations right? What do you suppose these people will do to support their organizations when this easy money dries up?
-
Originally posted by lukster
All I'm doing is asking what an ounce of pot costs today. I know what it cost 35 years ago but have no idea what an ounce costs today. I'm curious to see how low the "war on drugs" has driven it down as has been claimed by some here. I'll allow for inflation of course.
It drove up the price of pot, because it is alot harder to smuggle pot, it takes up alot of space, and you have to smuggle alot to make a buck. Cocaine was, and still is, alot easier to smuggle, so smuggling pot just wasn't worth the trouble, so smugglers turned to smuggling cocaine, flooding the market.
There was so much cocaine they didn't know what to do with it, it dropped to $25 a gram, with alot less cut. They were cooking into rock(crack anyone?), shooting it, you name it. Why pay $2000 for a pound of pot and barely make any money when you can get cocaine on the cheap, cut it, and make quadruple your money?
It was no longer the rich man's aspirin, anyone could afford it.
The war on drugs caused a flood in supply.
-
If pot is expensive now and cocaine is cheap why hasn't the trend reversed? Is it still more profitable to sell cocaine than marijuana? Is there no demand for marijuana?
-
Originally posted by lukster
If pot is expensive now and cocaine is cheap why hasn't the trend reversed? Is it still more profitable to sell cocaine than marijuana? Is there no demand for marijuana?
There would have to be a change in supply for that to happen, it isn't profitable to smuggle pot, most people even grow it themselves now. Most of your pot is domestic now, but you can't grow it in great quantity.
-
mini... Ok... let's agree that petty crime will not go up or down... that there will allways be criminals. I would say tho that the big crime.. the gangs and the cartells will go down with legalized drugs. I think a lot of the petty criminals who steal soley to feed their habit will stop doing the risky crimes tho... I think the burglaries and convienence store holdups will go down.
sandie... I don't even think that doctors should perscribe the drugs unless that is what is wanted.... Like you... I would take the advise of a professional. I don't want there to be a big agency behind legalized drugs except to check the quality and purity of the drugs the manufacturer puts out on the market. I want the price to be low and availability high.
lazs
-
Originally posted by mora
MJ is of little interest to organized crime. The profits and addictivity potential are so low that it's not as good business as meth or coke, and therefore there's less supply than demand.
Say whaaaaaaaaaa????????????
Pot is the virtual backbone in a lot of organized crime operations. It`s what keeps things ticking.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mini... Ok... let's agree that petty crime will not go up or down... that there will allways be criminals. I would say tho that the big crime.. the gangs and the cartells will go down with legalized drugs. I think a lot of the petty criminals who steal soley to feed their habit will stop doing the risky crimes tho... I think the burglaries and convienence store holdups will go down.
History tells us the same groups will just find something else to smuggle and sell.
Crime is not a result of the drug trade. The drug trade is a result of crime. If the drug trade is removed, crime will simply move on like it has in the past.
-
Originally posted by lukster
All I'm doing is asking what an ounce of pot costs today. I know what it cost 35 years ago but have no idea what an ounce costs today. I'm curious to see how low the "war on drugs" has driven it down as has been claimed by some here. I'll allow for inflation of course.
What kind of weed?, there are dozens of new strains today. "Stress" or "Schwag" can be found $35 .5oz, it weaker & harsher but will get the job done.
A good Kush, like Triple OG , goes for $70 1/8th at the medical MJ store, about $10 less elsewhere. Other type of kush go from $30 - 50 for 1/8th
Different strains produce different highs, almost like the difference between having a beer (Stress) or a shot of Jack (Kush).
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Say whaaaaaaaaaa????????????
Pot is the virtual backbone in a lot of organized crime operations. It`s what keeps things ticking.
Well at least in here it isn't. People grow it themselves and distribute to their friends.
-
Mini... I am not sure that the lesson history gives us is what you think it is... the criminals would be hard pressed to smuggle anything illegal that brought so much a pound and so much percentage of profit.
what would it be? during prohibition it was booze.. booze was relatively compact for the money and the profit was high per pound and original cost... when that was over they went to drugs...
Drugs are king... nothing that can be smuggled will be worth more per pound per % profit. except maybe plutonium and... the average person will not be the market for that so.....
What would replace mind altering drugs as a smugglers new object? What smuggled goods would possibly fuel that huge cartells and street gangs?
There is none.
The war on drugs is the problem. It is a war on freedom and a war on our dollar. It is a sure fire way to create criminals and flood our legal system and grow gangs... It is a way for the government to create more secret police agencies and fund them with our dollars.
lazs
-
Originally posted by mora
Well at least in here it isn't. People grow it themselves and distribute to their friends.
Oh..........Finland. :)
There are some pretty sizeable grow operations here. A lot of the states that were "family farm' areas before small farms were made unprofitable and unsupportable have some grow operations. A lot of these people are old farmers and their families just trying to get by. The problem usualy arises when it comes to the distribution/sales end of the crop. You step on the wrong toes, invade some group`s territory, etc. and the fecal matter hits the fan. You either quit, go through their channels (read that taxation without representation :)), or expect a severe change in the health department.
The grow operations are nothing compared to the tons upons tons of pot that is smuggled in each year though. It`s big business.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Mini... I am not sure that the lesson history gives us is what you think it is... the criminals would be hard pressed to smuggle anything illegal that brought so much a pound and so much percentage of profit.
I believe you need to read up on history.Drugs are king... nothing that can be smuggled will be worth more per pound per % profit. except maybe plutonium and... the average person will not be the market for that so.....[/b]
You believe what you want lazs. You seem to think "smuggling" is the issue. You're wrong. Criminal behavior is. Whatever the criminal needs to do to survive, he will do.
What will replace it? I dunno. Kidnapping? Extorsion? Robbery? People who are ill equiped to make an honest living aren't going to miraculously figure it out when drugs become legal. Talk about your left wing fantasy views.
Legalizing drugs will do nothing to curtail violent crime, petty crime or any other crime. The people that commit these crimes will just have to find something else to justify it. This is not that difficult.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Legalizing drugs will do nothing to curtail violent crime, petty crime or any other crime. The people that commit these crimes will just have to find something else to justify it. This is not that difficult.
I'm inclined to agree. Gangs aren't going to disappear because their illicit drug revenues dry up. How about we do a test run to see what happens? I vote we test in Kalifornia.
-
mini... neither you nor I know what criminals will do if an easy, highly profitable and allmost risk free source of money like drugs dries up.
One thing is certain... we have a lot of non english speakers coming across the border simply because of the opprotunity to make good money on drugs. If that dried up then they would be reduced in numbers.. If the gangs had no customers for drugs.... what would they do? How would they support the hundreds of thousands of members they have? Nope... the gangs would pear down. The worst of em would simply switch to burglary and extortion and home invasion and such but... those type of criminals have a short career.
I don't know what you meant about history since crime went down when prohibition was repealed. the gangsters who tried to convert to bank robberies and such all met with a short lifespan.
It is like illegal immigration.. in a way it is illegal immigration... stop the lure and the problem goes away. In the case of illegal immigration... you can arrest the employer.. In the case of drugs... the lure is millions of users.... you can't arrest em all or even make a dent in em... employers are sitting ducks.... drug addicts and recreational users are elusive and clever targets.
Let's fill the prosons with real criminals. drug users are not criminals in my opinion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Legalizing drugs will do nothing to curtail violent crime, petty crime or any other crime. The people that commit these crimes will just have to find something else to justify it. This is not that difficult.
excepting, of course, possession of drugs. I know someone with a criminal record that only has drug possession convictions on it. If drugs were legal, that person would not have a criminal record at all.
-
yes... obviously the guys who use recreationaly or for whatever reason will no longer be listed as criminals. Also.. there is a large group of "dealers" who are doing so only to support their habit that would probly drop out of the ranks of "criminals".
lazs
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
People abuse drugs because they have a problem...
Undoubtedly social and medical problems are a huge contributers to the highly visible problem of hard drug addiction. But crack and meth destroyed addicts are a minority. For the majority of drug users, the reason they take them is simple - its fun.
Growing up in ninties Britain 'rave-culture' I witnessed literally thousands of people, form all walks of life taking drugs - mainly ecstacy, cocaine and pot - having the time of their lives and in most cases suffering no ill-effects. To these people, the government's warnings of doom bore no relation to their own experience and there was huge resentment at the fact they risked criminalisation for a recreational activity they could not morally differentiate from drinking alcohol.
Obviously, some people did develop problems - some people weren't able to judge when enough was enough and subsequently lost jobs, got criminal records for possesion or supply etc, but the vast majority simply grew out of it without issue.
As long as people's experience contradicts the government's message, the government are going to lose the war on drugs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mini... neither you nor I know what criminals will do if an easy, highly profitable and allmost risk free source of money like drugs dries up.
OK... so strike that one. There's the fantasy world where people would somehow turn good and there's the real one where ****s will be ****s.One thing is certain... we have a lot of non english speakers coming across the border simply because of the opprotunity to make good money on drugs. If that dried up then they would be reduced in numbers.. If the gangs had no customers for drugs.... what would they do? How would they support the hundreds of thousands of members they have? Nope... the gangs would pear down. The worst of em would simply switch to burglary and extortion and home invasion and such but... those type of criminals have a short career.
Wow... that's "for sure"? On so many levels you make so many completely unsupported leaps in logic there really isn't anything to debate.
Illegals coming over because of the drug trade? Yah, that would stop if drugs dried up. You betcha. You have the cause and the solution both wrapped up so neatly that it's astounding.
I don't know what you meant about history since crime went down when prohibition was repealed. the gangsters who tried to convert to bank robberies and such all met with a short lifespan.
Ummmm... you really need to visit up on that one. Criminals simply put their efforts into other criminal activity. You heard of gambling?
And, I've never heard the 30's described as a time of "low crime" by anyone other than... well... you right now. WW2 brought an end to the depression and reduced the crime rate for at least 7 years.It is like illegal immigration.. in a way it is illegal immigration... stop the lure and the problem goes away. In the case of illegal immigration... you can arrest the employer.. In the case of drugs... the lure is millions of users.... you can't arrest em all or even make a dent in em... employers are sitting ducks.... drug addicts and recreational users are elusive and clever targets.
What an odd argument for someone that said they were for increased penalties against someone that hired illegal alliens. Your flip-flop is duly noted and logged as "contradictory".
It's not the same, and I'm a bit suprised at how many times you have brought up illegal immigration after your initial post. I honestly think you're not really explaining your intentions behind it. Cut loose lazs, worst that will happen is you're called a racist again.
Let's fill the prosons with real criminals. drug users are not criminals in my opinion.
You mean fill the prisons with illegal alliens?
-
Crime did slow after prohibition. There was a depression... Even you admit that after the depression crime fell... It would not have if there were still and assinine "war on booze"
Gambling being illegal was a dumb idea too and as you say.... created crime out of nothing.
Illegal immigration... I am consistent. Take away the lure and they will not come. If no one will hire them then they will not come..... unless of course they can make money on illegal drugs.
The war on illegal immigration is much simpler... If there is no work and no benifiets for illegals... Why would they come? It is far easier to target employers than drug dealers and cartels and gangs of tens of thousands.
It is just paperwork and a few immigration guys making visits... they would be in no danger from wussie employers.
Apples to apples tho.... people want to get loaded... some all the time some a little of the time. They are going to use drugs to do it... Alcohol is a drug and one of the worst but.... one of the easiest to make. We tried to stop all the death and destruction it caused and simply made things worse...
We are doing the same with other drugs but we foolishly thought we could stop the source and that they couldn't readily be manufactured in a bathtub and that people would obey the law because we would be able to enforce it with police.
We were wrong on all counts and need to admit it.
lazs
-
war on drugs. 1972-2006. billions of tax dollars wasted. on police, on prisons. if legal the same people would be doing them, plus we could spend a fraction of what it is costing now on treatment and still be way in the black.crime would definitely drop and i would not go thru dry spells on sticky icky.
-
oh, btw, it'll never happen as long as the alcohol lobby keeps dumping tons of cash to pols. joe six-pack would become joe orange kool-aid with a bong hit. production from employees would rise as well. nobody ever woke up with a hang-over from smokin weed.
-
If all some of you care about is eliminating laws so you can smoke pot you need to put down the bong and try to look at the bigger picture. There is one I assure you.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The reason for this is to reduce the numbers in our prisons and eliminate the profit earned by gangs and other predatory organizations right? What do you suppose these people will do to support their organizations when this easy money dries up?
The next logical step......downgrade to law firms. Homie,Yo and Sup Attorney At Law.
:)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The next logical step......downgrade to law firms. Homie,Yo and Sup Attorney At Law.
:)
lol
-
lukster, all due respect, there is a bigger picture and youre refusing to look at it.read some of these posts, not mine, these are thought provoking ideas that really need to be examined by people in a position to do something about it.come to baltimore and i can show you what the" war on drugs" has done to this city. the people who dont do drugs dont do them because theyre illegal, they dont do them because theyve made a choice.the people who do drugs are going to continue illegal or not.this has been the truth since time immemorial.btw, there is a growing undercurrent of law enforcement personnel who agree with this position. its the pols. who dont have the balls to see this tons of taxpayers money down the drain fiasco for what it is.
-
Might as well just give up on the "war on drugs", "war on terror" and trying to control our borders/immigration. I don't think it'll matter much. Islam is rapidly growing in America and the laws and their enforcement will probably be much more effective than what we have today.
-
totally separate issues,my man.they have nothing to do with each other.nice try tho.:)
-
Originally posted by COBA94
totally separate issues,my man.they have nothing to do with each other.nice try tho.:)
What they have in common is our reslove to contiune our way of life.
-
coba... while I agee for the most part with your post..... I do not believe the alcohol drug lords are afraid of the competition.
As a former addict I can tell you that there were boozers who didn't like other drugs even if they were free at the time. I for instance, liked most drugs but thought pot was about the stupidest drug around... I would rather just hit myself in the head than smoke it. People develop preferences.... it is not even "either or".
Most of the drugs I took increased my desire and tolerance for booze.
the alcohol drug lords know this better than anyone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
If all some of you care about is eliminating laws so you can smoke pot you need to put down the bong and try to look at the bigger picture. There is one I assure you.
If Joe Blow sells them they're "illegal drugs", but if the Govt can collect tax $$ on them, those are "controlled substances".
The US Govt is totally cool with drugs, alcohol & cigarettes; both drugs... I'd say it's pretty much a fact Ted Kennedys' blushing vagina complexion is a result of his being a "drug addict".
The bigger picture is that stimulants and opiates are legally produced by the drug companies who cant patent weed and would lose billions if people started smoking NON ADDICTIVE blunts they grew at home for pennies on the dollar, rather paying $60+ for 1 months worth of ADDICTIVE OPIATES like vicodin.
As far a motivation for crime, a heroin junkie that is kick'n will take your head off, or maybe offer to polish it, for the $20 s/he needs to end physical withdrawals.