Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ygsmilo on September 12, 2003, 01:38:44 PM
-
A take off of the of the Tommy Chong thread,
I would like opinions please no mud slinging or name calling. It has been a good ongoing argument for my group of friends.
-
I don't think the government has any business telling me what I can or can't put into my body, or what plants I can grow in my backyard, etc.
-
i dunno
-
Drugs are already legal in the US, it ain't called a drug store because they only sell PEZ... and the booze, glorious booze.
-SW
-
The Government creates more crime with the War on Drugs than it stops (see Prohibition, 1920's). I don't think we should make Cocaine or Heroin legal, but Marijuana is a different subject. Watch the film "Grass".
-
Originally posted by rpm371
The Government creates more crime with the War on Drugs than it stops. I don't think we should make Cocaine or Heroin legal,
..Why not?
but Marijuana is a different subject. Watch the film "Grass".
why?
-
ref. movie "reefer madness"....makes you wonder who is crazy, the people who smoke, or the people who make it a crime.
-
actually they should legalize it all. pots easy not nearly as bad as either cigaretts or alcohol.
the other, while presenting major health risks (among other problems), are a self solving problem. if they were legal they would be cheap and plentiful, if they were cheap and plentiful, then the users could get much more with much less effort. so they OD much sooner.
I can't remember the exact % but something in the area of 90% of those charged of a drug crime are likely to re-offend. with enforcement, trial, treatment, incarceration, supervised probation,.... all costing 10's of thousands per offender.
however with the OD it costs about $300 bucks for the crematorium. and guess what, 0% repeat offenders.
we could tax the hell out of it and it would still be about a 10th the price it is now.
this would help in a few ways.
first you could use some of this tax money to ensure counseling and treatment are available for those who decide for themselves they really want to quit (really the only ones who it will work on, those who are forced into treatment rarely stay drug free).
second is just basic economics. right now your average crank junkie has to steal 3 or 4 car stereos a day just to keep his habit up. however, since a few dollars worth of chemicals can make what sells now for several thousand dollars. he could get a weeks worth for just one or 2 stereos, this is a huge drop in the crime rates, and doesn't even include the drop directly from legalization{if you have less things that are a crime you naturaly have less crime being comited}, also since he's not likely to save it for a weeks worth but more likely will do it all right away, he is much more likely to OD sooner (see above figures on repeat offender)
the other thing is these people who do drugs, (since they wouldn't have to hide it anymore) would be publicly more visable, they would be excellent examples to kids. without our safety net restricting supply, of those who do drugs, the % who die from it will go up. nobody else can be seen to blame but the drugs or the user, a very clean clear msg. much better than the gov't efforts to get kids to choose to say no. things like the movie reefer madness, or the dare program. the d.a.r.e. program may work on dumber kids but smarter kids are able to figure out that most of the examples of lives that are ruined by drugs are more acurately ruined buy drug law.
of course there are also the recreational users who keep their usage under control, don't do it at work, and basicly handle drug use just like a social drinker handles alcohol (as aposed to the type of user discribed above who handle drugs like an alcoholic handles alcohol). so far the only real reason given for getting involved is that it's illegal (not really a relivant argument in a "should it be legal" argument), or that it enables the adicts to use (kind of a lame argument when you figure that the only real effect I can see them having is tipping the ballance of suply and demand making the drugs more expensive for the addict)
-
What would "legalizing it" entail? Would you be able to buy crack or LSD at the corner 7-11? What kind of restrictions would stay in place? What ages, what drugs, etc? I've never been able to join these drug legalization debates because no one proposes specific changes to existing laws, they just say "legalize it and tax it, problem solved"! That sounds nice, but give us some details.
ra
-
Treat it like all the other legal drugs.
-
Funnily enough, while in college this topic came up often (note sarcasm).
It was interesting to note that of my friends that smoked pot, the ones in favor of legalization were casual smokers - maybe at a party or some other social event once every week or two.
The ones against pot legalization where the ones that smoked daily.
Thier reason? "Look at me."
The argument that Marijuana isnt as bad as Heroin is kind of like 'Saddam isnt as bad as Bin Laden.' Neither are very good.
Ive seen people ruined over drugs of every type, and yes, marijuana usage usually leads to the use of more addicting and damage causing drugs - no statistics or polls - just what I witnessed growing up.
-
What would "legalizing it" entail? Would you be able to buy crack or LSD at the corner 7-11? What kind of restrictions would stay in place? What ages, what drugs, etc? I've never been able to join these drug legalization debates because no one proposes specific changes to existing laws, they just say "legalize it and tax it, problem solved"! That sounds nice, but give us some details.
Good question. I would say marijuana could be legalized and sold in a "state" store just like alcohol is in some parts down South, or even a liquor store. Driving under the influence, sales to minors etc could be just as hard as you have for alcohol today. I know it was harder when I was in HS to get booze than it was pot.
As in parts of Europe, hard drugs could be decriminalized for possession, with clinic style shooting and smoking rooms (heroin and crack) where an abuser's health could be monitored and the abuser gradually weaned from the habit or moved into as productive a management strategy as possible. Perhaps a prescription with treatment monitoring system could be set in place for those who are not social users. I know this reeks of a big social program, but if you look at the costs associated with incarcerating both users and suppliers, I bet the expenditure would be less. Doesn't it cost about $30,000 to keep an inmate in prison for a year?
Charon
-
sure why not...it'll be3 the only way our bc residents can make a living thanks to your lumber tarrifs (wich your now whining about because its to dam expensive to get lumber)
-
Ive seen people ruined over drugs of every type, and yes, marijuana usage usually leads to the use of more addicting and damage causing drugs - no statistics or polls - just what I witnessed growing up.
And I bet in every case they started with alcohol. So why shouldn't that be criminalized. BTW, I've seen a friend's life ruined by Cocaine, two friend have died from alcohol (one by car accident and one by alcoholism) and two more have their lives ruined. [In fact, I've seen two anti pot people move from alcohol to cocaine because they were drunk at the time and had lower inhabitions and cocaine seemed cooler and hipper.] However, I haven't seen that with pot. And that includes two doctors, a lawyer and a handful of agressive salespeople who have a few hits on the weekend.
The argument that Marijuana isnt as bad as Heroin is kind of like 'Saddam isnt as bad as Bin Laden.' Neither are very good.
You left out Stalin (tobacco) and Hitler (alcohol). FWIW I would rate pot no worse than George Bush or Hillary Clinton :)
Charon
-
NO!
People can't handle that kind of freedom!!!
But argue unitl your all blue in the face.... Its not going to happen!!!
T0J0
-
By making some drugs illegal, the .gov is only making the bad guys more powerful.
But it will stay that way, because some of those bad guys are in politics.
-
is there anyone who is not a druggie who would like to see this happen ?
anyone who has not fried out a portion of their brain who sees a benefit to legalize anymore drugs ?
don't you think the country is spaced out enough already ?
-
Apparently the British cops (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=5&u=/nm/20030912/od_nm/crime_britain_cannabis_dc)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
is there anyone who is not a druggie who would like to see this happen ?
anyone who has not fried out a portion of their brain who sees a benefit to legalize anymore drugs ?
don't you think the country is spaced out enough already ?
I'm not a druggy. I think drugs are BAD! And I think we waste a lot of resources fighting this crime.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
is there anyone who is not a druggie who would like to see this happen ?
anyone who has not fried out a portion of their brain who sees a benefit to legalize anymore drugs ?
don't you think the country is spaced out enough already ?
I've smoked pot two or three times, drink on occasion, and have never touched a cigarette to my lips. I do, however, intake more than my fair share of caffine, but only because I can't get caffine free Dr Pepper around here.
People who want to abuse drugs are going to abuse drugs. There's nothing you or I or the government can do about it. The best they can (and do) manage is to arrest and incarcerate some of the offenders. When they are out, if they wanna use, they're gonna use. Make them legal, treat them like alcohol in regards to sale and consumption, and tax them nicely. End the loosing war on drugs, and put a fraction of the money from that failing war into rehabilitation programs for those interested in cleaning up their act.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm not a druggy. I think drugs are BAD! And I think we waste a lot of resources fighting this crime.
You're right MT....it's too hard to do what's right...let's give up.
-
Originally posted by Rude
You're right MT....it's too hard to do what's right...let's give up.
What's right?
Teach your kids... that's what's right.
Lead by example... that's what's right.
By your logic, cigarettes should be illegal. Alcohol should be illegal. Caffien should be illegal. Or have we just given up?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What's right?
Teach your kids... that's what's right.
Lead by example... that's what's right.
By your logic, cigarettes should be illegal. Alcohol should be illegal. Caffien should be illegal. Or have we just given up?
I thought you could differentiate between accepted social vices and the subject of this thread...legalization(meaning that they are currently illegal)of drugs.
I do teach my children...I do lead by example(except for the Winstons). What you said is correct, however, what does it have to do with fighting those who smuggle thousands of pounds of illegal drugs into our country and then distribute them to children and adults?
Ya wanna give up and legalize the stuff because it cost too much money? What's it cost to treat the social problems connected with drug use? What cost do you place on a human beings life?
-
Yes... we need serious population control. Make money for the Gov at the sametime.
-
I'm against all consensual crimes...
Drugs
Prostitution
Gambling
Ticket Scalping
These should all be legal.
-
Rude,
how 'bout if they made your drug of choice illegle (the Winstons) would you be for that? is it just to expensive to fight? wait, it's awful damed expensive (healthcare wise) as it is now. why not? it makes as much sense as the others being illegal, and actually considering the addictiveness of cigerettes compared to much less addictive drugs (like heroin for instance), and it's complete lack of any theraputic benifits (like the many known benifits for marijuana), it makes more sense than some of the drugs on our illegal list
-
IN my vote is yes! an i want all of them.!:D
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
Rude,
how 'bout if they made your drug of choice illegle (the Winstons) would you be for that? is it just to expensive to fight? wait, it's awful damed expensive (healthcare wise) as it is now. why not? it makes as much sense as the others being illegal, and actually considering the addictiveness of cigerettes compared to much less addictive drugs (like heroin for instance), and it's complete lack of any theraputic benifits (like the many known benifits for marijuana), it makes more sense than some of the drugs on our illegal list
I understand what your saying...cept smokes, alcohol, caffeine are not illegal.
The thread was about legalizing illegal drugs. Stay on topic pls.
Regarding my Winstons, you bet your rear I wish they had been illegal when I started smoking...I wouldn't have started...I haven't seemed to have to self control to quit on my own yet.
-
I understand what your saying...cept smokes, alcohol, caffeine are not illegal.
the thing is you can't really have a honest discussion on why some drugs should be legal (and why others are not) if you bring into the argument wether or not the drugs are illegal in the first place, in a discussion on the validity of making a drug legal or not, is just not relivant. saying "it should be illegal because it's illegal, and others shouldn't be illegal because they are legal now" is just childish and illogical.
your argument seems to be that some drugs should be illegal (those that are illegal now), yet you don't want to talk about why they should be on the list and your drug of choice shouldn't. it's a relivant question.
if your contention is that we should have certain drugs classified as illegal, the obvious next question is which ones should be on this list and why?
-
Legalize them. Tax them. Set age limits. Set intoxication limits for driving etc etc etc. Just like booze. You have a better chance of getting rid of cigs then you do drugs.
Rude you can quit all you have to do is want to. I know I quit. I tried many many many times. Only to start again. Finally I wanted to and guess what I did.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the thing is you can't really have a honest discussion on why some drugs should be legal (and why others are not) if you bring into the argument wether or not the drugs are illegal in the first place, in a discussion on the validity of making a drug legal or not, is just not relivant. saying "it should be illegal because it's illegal, and others shouldn't be illegal because they are legal now" is just childish and illogical.
your argument seems to be that some drugs should be illegal (those that are illegal now), yet you don't want to talk about why they should be on the list and your drug of choice shouldn't. it's a relivant question.
if your contention is that we should have certain drugs classified as illegal, the obvious next question is which ones should be on this list and why?
OK...last effort.
The title of the thread is, Should Drugs Be Legalized In The USA?
I believe they should not becuase they are destructive to our society.
You seem to want to discuss my smoking cigarettes as being relevant to Milo's thread....why I have no clue.
I kinda know Milo, because we go to lunch together and live in the same city as well as belong to the same squad....I do not believe he was speaking to drugs such as caffiene, cigarettes or alcohol...I could be wrong I guess, but I don't think so.
As to your reference of my contention regarding the classification of some drugs as being illegal and others not, the question is moot....the drugs mentioned as to being legalized are obviously already illegal.
Lastly, do you just like to argue?:)
-
Originally posted by icemaw
Legalize them. Tax them. Set age limits. Set intoxication limits for driving etc etc etc. Just like booze. You have a better chance of getting rid of cigs then you do drugs.
Rude you can quit all you have to do is want to. I know I quit. I tried many many many times. Only to start again. Finally I wanted to and guess what I did.
I hear ya...to be honest, I don't want to quit badly enough. I have never even tried due to watching my friends kid themselves over and over, only to start again.
I hope and pray that someday I'll quit...not the brightest choice I've ever made in my life for sure.:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
I thought you could differentiate between accepted social vices and the subject of this thread...legalization(meaning that they are currently illegal)of drugs.
I do teach my children...I do lead by example(except for the Winstons). What you said is correct, however, what does it have to do with fighting those who smuggle thousands of pounds of illegal drugs into our country and then distribute them to children and adults?
Ya wanna give up and legalize the stuff because it cost too much money? What's it cost to treat the social problems connected with drug use? What cost do you place on a human beings life?
I can differentiate Rude. Actually I think we probably are closer to agreeing on this issue than you think.
The point I think you are missing is that most of the ills perpetrated on society by illegal drugs stem from their illegality, not their effects on the person.
A person addicted to any illegal drug will rob or steal or cheat to get more. If the drugs were controlled ala cigarettes, they would be cheaper, and there would be whole industries developed to help kick the habit. (nicorette, nicoderm, nick-at-night... :))
-
Yes marijuana should be legalized.
I smoke cigarettes and have about 1 bottle of Baileys every 6 months.
In the 10 years I worked at a regional trauma center, I never saw a diagnosis at admission of "cannabis overdose". OTOH, I'd see MANY ETOH /related diagnoses.
I wouldn't recommend using either of the two drugs....
I find it amazing that we attempted this same thing with Prohibition and alcohol--and the same thing happened---the growth of organized crime.
I often wonder how many of those strongly against marijuana legalization type up their reply with a beer at hand?
If I were the boss, I'd legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it. Proceeds would be earmarked for treatment programs for users and jail cells for dealers. (No more of that early release due to prison overcrowding BS)
Just my US$.02
Edited for spelling, ok I know I can't type worth beans......
-
ok, last thing first, yes I do like to argue. how can you tell?:D
The title of the thread is, Should Drugs Be Legalized In The USA?
I believe they should not becuase they are destructive to our society.
You seem to want to discuss my smoking cigarettes as being relevant to Milo's thread....why I have no clue.
why I also want to include cigarettes is quite clear to me but I'll try again.
cigarettes are also a drug. they are also distructive to our society (likely the most costly).
when discussing moving different drugs from one list to another(lega/illegal)it is reasonable and relivant. to discuse other drugs that are on one list or another and why they are there.
it's very simple- cigerettes are a drug, they are much more addictive and deadly than marijauna. when deciding what list something should go on a reasonable person would look at other items and see how they are classified, then place those items under discussion on a list with simular items.
so which list other items fall on is relivant, along with why they deserve their place on that list when other items more apropriet for that list aren't included.
so far the reasons given for making pot ilegal are-
1. it's ilegal so it should be ilegal -completely assignine argument
2. adictive - not nearly so much as either alcohol, caffien, or cigearettes
3. it's a "gate-way drug"- actually most people I know started with either cigarettes, alcohol, or both long before trying pot. the only reason it is declared the gate-way is thats where the law draws the line (again where the law draws the line is not relivant in an argument deciding where the law SHOULD draw the line)
4. lack of reasoning or sense while using- not nearly as bad as alcohol, and while both make you dumber alcohol is more likely to make you violent and confrontational. with pot you're stupid, but easily controlled.
it's simple, if pot should be ilegal then it would be reasonable to include, tobacco, alcohol, and caffine as they are all either more adictive, more dangerouse or both.
or if these 3 should stay legal then pot should be included in the legal drugs also.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I understand what your saying...cept smokes, alcohol, caffeine are not illegal.
Not yet anyway, you seem to forget prohibition - hey alcohol was made illegal, so it should stay illegal. Smokes, take a look around - just exactly what movement do you think is in progress around you as we speak? It sure ain't to keep smokes nice and cheap, or legal to smoke in bars or even certain places outside.
Caffeine, well thats about the only thing thats made it this far. For how much longer? Who knows.
Just because its illegal doesn't mean that the law is right, did you know in some states its legal to marry a sheep? Its legal so its right!
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Just because its illegal doesn't mean that the law is right, did you know in some states its legal to marry a sheep? Its legal so its right!
-SW
In what states is it legal to marry a sheep? I really want to know. I can't beleive it myself.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
In what states is it leagal to marry a sheep? I really want to know. I can't beleive it myself.
I'm packing my bags, where is this state?
-
Why should any one legislate what you do to your self?
It's not like it's a gun or anything.
-
try it straight - you might even remember it ...
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
A take off of the of the Tommy Chong thread,
I would like opinions please no mud slinging or name calling. It has been a good ongoing argument for my group of friends.
YES!
It should be a medical issue, not a criminal one.
-
how many billions of dollars do we spend each year through taxes to pay for law enforcement, and insurance to pay for the property crimes that people commit to suport there habits? ive seen too many work-a-day people get ripped off so the thief can sell there stuff for ten cents on there dollar of what they payed for it to buy dope. most of your law enforcement types dont want them decriminalized because they would be out of a job. just think about it; the entire DEA, 30% to 50% of the police and proscuters, thousands of insurance adjusters and, my god, just think of all the people who would half to be let out of prison and there guards. and think of all the pawnshops loan/check cashing shops who would take a very serious hit to there bottom line. if you legalized drugs they would have to go out and get real jobs where they would have to show some sort of accomplishment, not like now where the worse they do the more money we have to give them. all those people hitting the job market would cause a resession. no friends illegal drugs is a very big business in this country. you shouldnt look at is cops vs. crooks, no. look at is cops+crooks both walking hand-in-hand to the bank with our money. and they will never let drugs be legalized because they would lose the most important thing, CONTROL
-
Big fat stinking pile of warm NO.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
how many billions of dollars do we spend each year through taxes to pay for law enforcement, and insurance to pay for the property crimes that people commit to suport there habits? ive seen too many work-a-day people get ripped off so the thief can sell there stuff for ten cents on there dollar of what they payed for it to buy dope. most of your law enforcement types dont want them decriminalized because they would be out of a job. just think about it; the entire DEA, 30% to 50% of the police and proscuters, thousands of insurance adjusters and, my god, just think of all the people who would half to be let out of prison and there guards. and think of all the pawnshops loan/check cashing shops who would take a very serious hit to there bottom line. if you legalized drugs they would have to go out and get real jobs where they would have to show some sort of accomplishment, not like now where the worse they do the more money we have to give them. all those people hitting the job market would cause a resession. no friends illegal drugs is a very big business in this country. you shouldnt look at is cops vs. crooks, no. look at is cops+crooks both walking hand-in-hand to the bank with our money. and they will never let drugs be legalized because they would lose the most important thing, CONTROL
LOL
you know why we haven't "won" the war on drugs?
because ppl use drugs
its very simple - wanna "win" this war? Don't do drugs
seems strange - those using drugs, breaking the law - complaining on the amount of money the gov has to spend trying to enforce the law they are breaking
-
The Bong thing is a waste of taxpayers money, Asscroft needs to go. Pot should be legalized and treated/taxed like alcohol.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
how many billions of dollars do we spend each year through taxes to pay for law enforcement, and insurance to pay for the property crimes that people commit to suport there habits? ive seen too many work-a-day people get ripped off so the thief can sell there stuff for ten cents on there dollar of what they payed for it to buy dope. most of your law enforcement types dont want them decriminalized because they would be out of a job. just think about it; the entire DEA, 30% to 50% of the police and proscuters, thousands of insurance adjusters and, my god, just think of all the people who would half to be let out of prison and there guards. and think of all the pawnshops loan/check cashing shops who would take a very serious hit to there bottom line. if you legalized drugs they would have to go out and get real jobs where they would have to show some sort of accomplishment, not like now where the worse they do the more money we have to give them. all those people hitting the job market would cause a resession. no friends illegal drugs is a very big business in this country. you shouldnt look at is cops vs. crooks, no. look at is cops+crooks both walking hand-in-hand to the bank with our money. and they will never let drugs be legalized because they would lose the most important thing, CONTROL
You seem to be very well versed on the subject. Is this knowledge you have gained from life expirence or from something you read on the intenet?
We tend to waste billions of dollars each year trying prevent/solve murders but they still happen... want legalize murder too?
As far as people going to prison for drugs, in Texas you have to have over 50 lbs of pot in your possession to be a felon. Casual use? The people in your prisons are your transporters and your hard core drug addicts, not your casual tokers.
I also think your estimate of "Cops" who would loose thier jobs is a bit hi, The federal agencies like Customs and DEA are into way many more things than just illegal drugs. Who do you think regulates pharmacies? DEA. Who do you think tries to keep foreign child porn out? Customs. The rest of the state and local agencies only have small depts. dedicated to narcotics and I can swear to you that there are MUCH bigger fish out there other than your two joints in his pocket toker.
You are correct about corruption. Even in my own department (Texas DPS) there has been instances of corruption, but it is very very limited and when it is found the "dirty cop" is terminated. There will always be corruption as long as there are people. Greed is a mighty thing.
please forgive my spelling
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The Bong thing is a waste of taxpayers money, Asscroft needs to go. Pot should be legalized and treated/taxed like alcohol.
A sign of the apocalypse...Rip and I totally agree on something! :)
-
The people in your prisons are your transporters and your hard core drug addicts, not your casual tokers.
around here it's handled like a traffic ticket for less than an oz, however when I lived in missouri I worked with a guy (19 yrs old) who did 6 months in county for a piece of tin foil with some resin on it. (rolled up the foil for a 1 hit pipe to smoke maybe a 1/4 gram)
as far as the money dedicated to it, we have had huge budget problems around here the last couple years. they have laid-off some of the OSP. we even had a few months where they quit prosecuting property crimes if they where under a certain dollar amount. (mostly car stereo theft and the like)
but all through that time when they wouldn't prossecute or even arest those guys, the pot busts just kept comming, bussines as usual.
when making funding cuts crimes with victims should be the priority for enforcement, the local bicycle theif should be an arest priority above someone growning pot.
as a taxpayer I'd rather they let that guy grown his dope and spend some time finding the dirtbag who took the stereo outta my jeep.
and in oregon they grow some of the worlds finest weed (I've been told ;) ). and since the fishing and logging have gone to hell it's likely our biggest cash crop. why not tax it and use the money for something worth while instead of all the money staying in the drug trade (either in the hands of dealers or in the hands of enforcement)
the other cost is that it puts a huge segment of our society seeing the cops as 'the enemy'. how much easier would the cops job be if your average guy on the street was glad to see him come by. as it is the drug laws turn kids against cops at a young age. they see friends and niegbors arested for crimes where they have hurt no one, while on the other hand when crime effects them (bike stolen or the like) the cops have more important things to deal with.
I'd be currious to see the budget for my (or any major cities) cities police department, how many of our police dollars are spent on property crimes, and how much on drug enforcement.
-
Drugs should not be legalised in this country, and I am confident in saying that they will not be for quite some time to come.
Lastly for those of you advocating allowing them as population control, I suggest you think about the impact that "population control" will have on you, should you ever have someone close to you succomb to this scourge of our country.
I have, and it hurts to think that we do not do more to interdict and punish the dealers and trafficers of these substances. They are dealer's of death and plain and simply should be treated as murderers.
-
In some states they already are...kind of...
Marijuana legal again in homes, Alaska court rules
Juneau Daily News Online
(Published: August 29, 2003) Marijuana legal again for use by adults in their own homes in Alaska The Alaska Court of Appeals has re-legalized the use of marijuana by adults in private homes.
The court handed down its decision Friday and directed state Attorney General Greg Renkes to review the case and make recommendations on how the state should proceed.
The court heard the appeal by David S. Noy, who was convicted of possessing less than 8 ounces of marijuana in his home.
Noy had appealed his conviction, arguing that he was convicted for engaging in conduct that is protected under the privacy provision of the Alaska State Constitution.
The Appeals Court agreed that Noys' conduct was constitutionally protected.
In its decision released Friday, the Court says Alaska citizens have the right to posses less than 4 ounces of marijuana in their home for personal use.
The Appeals Court cited the Alaska Supreme Courts' Raven decision in 1975, that the state Constitution protects possession of marijuana by adults for personal use in one's own home.
In 1990, Alaska voters approved a ballot proposition that re-criminalized the possession of any amount of marijuana by making a Class B Misdemeanor.
Possession and use of marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
-
Legalize it all,
Maybe then you guys will loosen up some...
-
Here are some drug war facts (credible sources) from, surprisingly enough, http://www.drugwarfacts.org/ They require some reading and effort, so I don’t expect many people to let them get in the way of misinformed opinions. However, here they are:
"Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995 (table 18). On September 30, 2001, the date of the latest available data in the Federal Justice Statistics Program, Federal prisons held 78,501 sentenced drug offenders, compared to 52,782 in 1995." Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), p. 11.
"The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and Dominica (420).
"However, more than three-fifths of countries (62.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The United Kingdom's rate of 139 per 100,000 of the national population places it above the midpoint in the World List; it is now the highest among countries of the European Union.)" Source: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (Fourth Edition)" (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2003)
[Edit: Something to be proud of, especially considering the high percentage that are incarcerated for non-violent drug-related crimes]
According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, federal spending on the drug war in 2001 totaled $18.095 Billion, rising to $18.822 Billion in 2002 and $19.179 Billion for 2003. According to ONDCP, the $18.822 Billion spent by the federal government on the drug war in 2002 breaks down as follows:
Treatment (with Research): $3.587 Billion (19.1% of total)
Prevention (with Research): $2.548 Billion (13.5% of total)
Domestic Law Enforcement: $9.513 Billion (50.5% of total)
Interdiction: $2.074 Billion (11.0% of total)
International: $1.098 Billion (5.8% of total) In other words, $12.686 Billion in 2002 was directed to supply reduction, i.e. law enforcement (67.4% of total), and $6.136 Billion to demand reduction, i.e. treatment, prevention and education (32.6% of total). Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary"
"In 1999 the United States spent a record $147 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities. The Nation’s expenditure for operations and outlay of the justice system increased 309% from almost $36 billion in 1982 (the rise of the Drug War). Discounting inflation, that represents a 145% increase in constant dollars." Source: Gifford, Sidra Lea, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 1999
"Overall, local police spending represented 31.1% of the Nation's total justice expenditure, and State corrections accounted for the second largest portion, 23.7%."
Source: Gifford, Sidra Lea, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 1999
According to a 1998 article published in the University of Chicago Law Review, the ability of law enforcement agencies to financially benefit from forfeited assets, and the provision of large block grants from Congress to fight the drug trade "have distorted governmental policy making and law enforcement." The authors believe that "the law enforcement agenda that targets assets rather than crime, the 80 percent of seizures that are unaccompanied by any criminal prosecution, the plea bargains that favor drug kingpins and penalize the 'mules' without assets to trade, the reverse stings that target drug buyers rather than drug sellers, the overkill in agencies involved in even minor arrests, the massive shift in resources towards federal jurisdiction over local law enforcement - is largely the unplanned by-product of this economic incentive structure." Source: Blumenson, E. & and Nilsen, E., "Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda," University of Chicago Law Review, 65: 35-114 (1998, Winter).
Federal forfeitures totaled approximately $730 million in 1994. Source: Heilbroner, D., "The Law Goes on a Treasure Hunt," The New York Times, (1994, December 11), Section 6, p. 70, (quoting the 1992 testimony of Cary H. Copeland, then director of the Justice Department's executive-office asset forfeiture unit).
During a 10-month national survey, it was discovered that 80% of people who had property forfeited were never charged with a crime.
Source: Schneider, A. & Flaherty, M.P., "Presumed Guilty: The Law's Victims in the War on Drugs," The Pittsburgh Press, (1991, August 11).
Note: Different Source
From The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98dec/prisons.htm
Three decades after the war on crime began, the United States has developed a prison-industrial complex -- a set of bureaucratic, political, and economic interests that encourage increased spending on imprisonment, regardless of the actual need…It is a confluence of special interests that has given prison construction in the United States a seemingly unstoppable momentum. It is composed of politicians, both liberal and conservative, who have used the fear of crime to gain votes; impoverished rural areas where prisons have become a cornerstone of economic development; private companies that regard the roughly $35 billion spent each year on corrections not as a burden on American taxpayers but as a lucrative market; and government officials whose fiefdoms have expanded along with the inmate population…
The inner workings of the prison-industrial complex can be observed in the state of New York, where the prison boom started, transforming the economy of an entire region; in Texas and Tennessee, where private prison companies have thrived; and in California, where the correctional trends of the past two decades have converged and reached extremes…
In addition to the more than $1.5 billion spent to build correctional facilities, the prisons now bring the North Country about $425 million in annual payroll and operating expenditures. That represents an annual subsidy to the region of more than $1,000 per person. The economic impact of the prisons extends beyond the wages they pay and the local services they buy. Prisons are labor-intensive institutions, offering year-round employment. They are recession-proof, usually expanding in size during hard times. And they are nonpolluting -- an important consideration in rural areas where other forms of development are often blocked by environmentalists. Prisons have brought a stable, steady income to a region long accustomed to a highly seasonal, uncertain economy.
Note: Different Source
The Future of Freedom Foundation
a Libertarian organization
The October 14 (2001) issue of the Washington Post reported that Washington area police and sheriffs' departments garnered a bonanza of nearly $2.2 million last year from the war on drug's asset-forfeiture laws. Eighty percent of the proceeds of confiscated assets went to local police and sheriff's departments. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) kept the rest to cover the expenses of administering the program.
Note: Different Source
http://www.tinotopia.com/
(a neat summary)
So why are we surprised that the Drug War continues? On a regular basis, the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association -- the prison guards' union -- lobbies against any measure in California that would reduce the number of prison admissions. Police departments push for greater powers to seize property of people accused of drug crimes. Other agencies of the government save money by, for instance, denying federal aid to would-be students who have been convicted of any drug-related crimes.
If you don't believe me, read this article from the Seattle Times about an attempt in Washington to require that people actually be convicted before their property is seized by the government. In part, it says:
And the money has become essential for police departments trying to stay on top of rising drug crimes while dealing with tighter budgets. "That'd put us out of business," said Tacoma police spokesman Jim Mattheis.
There you have it in a nutshell. I believe that this is an adequate explanation for a lot of the drug hysteria in the U.S. (which the U.S. then imposes on large parts of the rest of the world): that the government needs another source of revenue.
Whether this source of revenue would be necessary were the government not spending so much on the drug war is a question I will leave unexamined for the time being. In any case, this is the only explanation I've been able to think of that fits the circumstances. If you look at the government's actions not as any attempt to arrive at some kind of justice, but rather as the actions of a business with something to sell -- police and incarceration services, in this case -- the Drug War makes prefect sense.
[Edit: All of this sounds like some special/self interest to me.]
Cont.
-
In January 2001, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University published an analysis of costs to states from tobacco, alcohol and other drug addiction. According to the report, "CASA's analysis revealed a few cost categories where only a single category of substances is implicated. (Figure 2.B) For instance, CASA identified $1.1 billion in state spending linked to illicit drug use only: $574 million for public safety costs for drug enforcement programs; $114 million for drug courts; and $412 million linked to illegal drugs in state spending on Medicaid. "CASA estimates that $7.4 billion in state spending is linked exclusively to tobacco through state Medicaid spending. The single drug linked to the largest percentage of state costs is alcohol. We were able to identify $9.2 billion in state spending linked to only to alcohol in addition to the costs associated with abuse of both alcohol and illegal drugs: $915 million on highway safety and local law enforcement associated with drunk driving; $837 million in state costs for the developmentally disabled as a result of fetal alcohol syndrome; and, $7.4 billion in state Medicaid costs." Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets
A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimated the economic costs of alcohol abuse in the United States to be $148.02 billion in 1992, 80% ($119.32 billion) of which were due to alcohol-related illness (including health care expenditures, impaired productivity and premature death). To contrast, illegal drug abuse cost a total of $97.66 billion in 1992, of which less than 40% ($38.71 billion) was due to drug-related illness or premature death. This figure includes $4.16 billion in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis treatment costs.
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992 (Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, May 1998), Table 1.1, p. 1-3 and Table 4.1, p. 4-2.
[edit: And alcohol is still legal, how can that be? Maybe the only illegal drugs should be those I don’t use!]
It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law violators behind bars. Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of Jail Inmates 1996 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, April 1996), pp. 1 & 4; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 10-11; Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., The Corrections Yearbook 1997 (South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., 1997) [estimating cost of a day in jail on average to be $55.41 a day, or $20,237 a year, and the cost of prison to be on average to be about $64.49 a day, or $23,554 a year].
[Edit: Money well spent on the 21-year-old caught trying to buy a pound of pot.]
A study by the RAND Corporation found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi. The RAND Corporation study found that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.
[Edit: I guess the law enforcement and prison/industrial lobbies have more clout than healthcare in Washington.]
A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimated the economic costs of illegal drug abuse in the United States to be $97.66 billion in 1992. Sixty percent (60%) of drug costs were due to drug-related law enforcement, incarceration and crime. Only 3% of drug costs were from victims of drug-related crime. Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992 (Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, May 1998), Table 1.2, pp. 1-6.
"Although serious drug use is slightly more prevalent in poor minority neighborhoods than elsewhere, the major problem for disadvantaged neighborhoods is drug distribution. These communities are victims not only of their own drug abuse but also of a criminal drug market that serves the entire society. The market establishes itself in disadvantaged communities in part because of the low social capital in these neighborhoods. The drug economy further erodes that social capital." Source: Saxe, Leonard, PhD, Charles Kadushin, PhD, Andrew Beveridge, PhD, et al., "The Visibility of Illicit Drugs: Implications for Community-Based Drug Control Strategies," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, Dec. 2001), Vol. 91, No. 12, p. 1992.
[edit: Seems like the war on drugs causes more problems than the drugs themselves.]
In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration on the drug war; in 1982 the Reagan administration spent $1.65 billion; in 2000 the Clinton administration spent more than $17.9 billion; and in 2002, the Bush administration spent more than $18.822 billion. Sources: U.S. Congress, Hearings on Federal Drug Enforcement before the Senate Committee on Investigations, 1975 and 1976 (1976); Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, 1992: Budget Summary (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 214; Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Budget Executive Summary, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, April 9, 2001), p. 2, Table 1: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary" (Washington, DC: Office of the President, February 2002), Table 2, p. 6.
[Edit: Hey, Clinton supported the war on Drugs about as strongly as GWB -- it must be valid!]
The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on marijuana explained that marijuana has been mistaken for a gateway drug in the past because "Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug found that "While covariates differed between equations, early regular use of tobacco and alcohol emerged as the 2 factors most consistently associated with later illicit drug use and abuse/dependence. While early regular alcohol use did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of alcohol dependence, this finding should be treated with considerable caution, as our study did not provide an optimal strategy for assessing the effects of early alcohol use." Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.
[Edit: The tired, and broadly debunked Gateway Drug myth]
There’s a lot more. It’s not that hard to find for anyone with an interest. A final piece: http://www.drugwardistortions.org/
Charon
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Legalize it all,
Maybe then you guys will loosen up some...
why - don't partake in the "legal" ones now
it would surely cause substance abuse to increase - the money spent to fight the war would still be spent and then some in rehab and unemployment as they lost their job failing their drug tests
sober is the answer - but please continue to cry for your crutches ...
-
The costs don't only extend to actual enforcement on the "streets". Every day I have to deal with the rigmorole of "due dilligence" to ensure than funds we handle are not proceeds of crime. For the most part it involves the efforts to stop the drug tzars from washing and ultimately using their money.
It costs BILLIONS of dollars trying to police this in the financial sector of the worldwide economies.
Make the drugs legal and regulate them...and "voila" it all goes away. Then we can concentrate on doing business.
-
It's just a Cash Cow for Law Enforcement. First they seize the property (you have to prove everything they seize was NOT drug profit or it automatically is). Then they get court costs, fines, probation fees, councelling fees, testing fees, ect,ect,ect. Oh, don't forget all the Federal Grant monies received for programs like DARE (Yeah, that one really worked), special Task Forces, Officer hirings and overtime. And that's just on the local level. They boast of the Mules captured smuggling pot across the border. If it was legalized there would not be the Mules, we could grow it right here in the US and make ALL the profits and taxes. Heck, the profit off Marijuana Tax and Permits could fund the enforcement of laws for actual dangerous drugs like Cocaine, Heroin, and Meth. Try reading The LaGuardia Committee Report on Marijuana or the findings of the Shafer Commission (which Nixon threw out because he didn't like what he heard). They debunked all the myths about the "Gateway Drug" and the harm it supposedly causes. Once again this is a carbon copy of what happened with alcohol during Prohibition, and we all know what a failed experiment that was.
-
and unemployment as they lost their job failing their drug tests
actually if the drugs where legal you'd have a to develope a test that shows if you are under the influence at the time of the test. much more relivant from a work place safety standpoint than the current 'have you smoked any in the last 30 days' test.
and even if you still could fire people for participating in a legal activity, what makes you think they'd have any harder of a time cheating than they do now?
actually the reverse of your argument may very well be true, as those people who are curently out of work due to failed ua's would then be eligable to go back to work.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it would surely cause substance abuse to increase - the money spent to fight the war would still be spent and then some in rehab and unemployment as they lost their job failing their drug tests
Why would it increase substance abuse? You have the strickest drug laws in the western world and also most cops per capita, yet you have the greatest %of drug users. As someone mentioned it's easier to get your hands on illicit drugs than alcohol. Just look at Netherlands for example:http://www.trimbos.nl/Downloads/English_General/Cannabis2002_Report.pdf
Do you honestly think that edging out people because of something they do on their own time is going to help to reduce the harmful effects that drugs have on society?
-
When I and my friends dealt drugs there was allways violence at some point in the cycle. lower down the rung there was very little but still some. Major violence at the top or near it.
I don't know what to do about drugs... my inclination is to legalize and at the same time impose harsher penalties for abuse.
Abuse would be trace amounts of even pot in your system if you were driving. I would say that if you used pot regularly.... you should pretty much forfiet your drivers licence.. Unemployment or welfare benifiets should be cancelled if mandatory drug tests show positive.
employers should have a no fault ability to fire if drugs show up in mandatory tests.
simply legalizing drugs without making the druggies responsible for their actions is not fair to everyone else.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Abuse would be trace amounts of even pot in your system if you were driving. I would say that if you used pot regularly.... you should pretty much forfiet your drivers licence.. Unemployment or welfare benifiets should be cancelled if mandatory drug tests show positive.
employers should have a no fault ability to fire if drugs show up in mandatory tests.
simply legalizing drugs without making the druggies responsible for their actions is not fair to everyone else.
lazs
All of this should apply in equal terms for alcohol.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
employers should have a no fault ability to fire if drugs show up in mandatory tests.
You talk as if you want a Gattaca like future ... not everyone has the luxury to deny corprate intrusions into your life ....but..
Have you've become so used to this BS (Piss in a cup or no job) that you actully belive in it?
No wonder noone cares about crap like the patriot act ..... desensatized to bureacratic intrusions
Have you heard about the FBI's new registry virus? They think it's real 'cool' to spy on windoze user's; and that it's thier 'right' now.. for your safety of course ... cause you might be a terrorist...
and do i think drugs should be legal .. Yes ... but not gonna happen in this corrupt bellybutton country .....
Highest incarceration rate in the world .... ::shakes head::
supply and demand ... ya just can't stop it ...
Oh and we restarted that program that shoots down the aircraft of suspected drug dealer's in peru and colombia..... they stoped it when they shot down a missonaries plane .... Your tax dollars at work....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Abuse would be trace amounts of even pot in your system if you were driving. I would say that if you used pot regularly.... you should pretty much forfiet your drivers licence.. Unemployment or welfare benifiets should be cancelled if mandatory drug tests show positive.
employers should have a no fault ability to fire if drugs show up in mandatory tests.
simply legalizing drugs without making the druggies responsible for their actions is not fair to everyone else.
lazs
The problem is that if you take someone of welfare he won't die because of it, but he resorts to crime. Maybe them druggies should be just eliminated with more efficient methods?
-
Curval, you mean to say yank a DL because a guy had a beer at lunch and went home with a bad tail light and should lose his DL for blowing .01?
[edit] Don't ban me skuzzy for saying "YANK", I know Dripsnore "will complain"
-
Isn't that what lazs is suggesting if you happen to smoke a dubbie the night before and you get pulled over and have traces in your body?
I think it is wrong in both cases.
-
Maybe, not sure, but smoking a joint will show up long after impared, drinking is immediate. It's all in testing and how it is done.
-
I agree...which makes his suggestion "post legalisation" a very unfair one. He advocates strong government control over "druggies" usage, yet no control over guns or alcohol. I'm not advocating gun control..don't get me wrong. Just pointing out that he is somewhat hypocritical on his versions of "freedom".
I think he bases this on the fact that he is a responsible gun owner and therefore he should be allowed to do what he wants with guns.
It is also seemingly okay, in his mind, to be a responsible drinker.
It is, it appears, unfathomable for there to be such a thing as a responsible drug user in his mind, perhaps because he was so involved in the dirty business himself.
-
Testing for drugs and alcohol are already in place, but for a select few occupations. Airline employees such as pilots and mechanics to name 2 I know. So what Laz advocates is a reality, it's just for certain American employees. Does it work? Dunno. Would Laz put the 4 barrel 72 muscle car in the garage 10 years ago for fear of getting pulled over with last weeks joint in his system? Ask him if his new found sobriety legal views would have actually worked on him, I just don't know.
Your trying to say there is a no such thing as a responsible drug user, Im not touching that. I find time to party on my own time and pass every breathalizer I've had in 15 years. I may be a bastard here, but I always make work and get the job done, with the tests. Who knows.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
In what states is it legal to marry a sheep? I really want to know. I can't beleive it myself.
It certainly is not illegal to do it in all states. Unless all states have passed legislation stating marrying sheep is illegal, its legal in those states which have not passed legislation highlighting that fact.
-SW
-
Without getting into a debate over the merits of the govt's drug policy I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. IMO, it's a cash drain. Prohibition does not work. For booze, guns or drugs. Or illegal monkies. If someone wants something and are willing to pay for it, someone will sell it to them. I have friends who are local and federal law enforcement. I know that we spend billions world-wide to stop maybe 10% of the drugs that come into this country.
However...
I am a deputy county prosecutor in a poor rural county in Arizona. For the last two years I have prosecuted juvenile crime. Sure I see a bunch of kids who get busted for having joints or pipes or a small bit of weed. Are they hurting themselves any more than I did in high school where I was drinking at parties just about every weekend? No, probably not. But then I also see kids who have no future because of drugs. They're parents have so fried their brains with meth, pot and God knows what else that they recieved no guidence or supervision. And what didi the kids do? They same things they saw their parents do. So they're out smoking pot, huffing paint and doing meth. And now I look at them and know that there is no future for them. Just one drug convcition after another. If they don't get to the point where they are commiting crimes to support their habit. And if it were legal? Then they'd still be sitting on the sidewalk stoned out of their minds until they spent all their money on legal drugs and went out to commit crimes to pay for them.
Yes, I have friends who are recreational pot smokers. Educated, well-to-do, suburbanites. Are they at risk to end up meth-addicts because they smoke a joint every now and then? Nope. Not by a long shot. And of course you can say that these kids wouldn't be at risk if their parents were better, if they had better schools and education and job opportunities. And you'd be right. But what made their parents ****ty, stoned idiots? They didn't take advantage of the education opportunities they had. And they're not interested in a job. They just want to turn on and tune out.
What would happen if drugs were legalized tomorrow and taxed and regulated like tobacco or booze? Crime might decrease. There would be a rise in tax income to the gov't to pay for programs. But would there be a rise in addicts who are no longer productive members of society and end up having to be taken care of by the system? I'm afriad the answer is yes. In my county, despite the efforts of law enforcement, drugs are so easy to get they might as well be legalized. And the effect is crime and poverty. I can't really see how more of that would be good.
Perhaps we'll never know until we try it. But, what do we do if it creates a disaster? That's one genie that you'll never get back into the bottle.
-
Perhaps we'll never know until we try it
it's been tried sucessfully. here in the US when we re-legalized alcohol. sure you still have some drunks who are non-productive, familys are hurt, people killed by drunk drivers, all of these bad things, but you still had them during prohibition, but you where also fueling organized crime too. just like we are doing with drugs today.
-
Originally posted by Dune
What would happen if drugs were legalized tomorrow and taxed and regulated like tobacco or booze? Crime might decrease. There would be a rise in tax income to the gov't to pay for programs. But would there be a rise in addicts who are no longer productive members of society and end up having to be taken care of by the system? I'm afriad the answer is yes. In my county, despite the efforts of law enforcement, drugs are so easy to get they might as well be legalized. And the effect is crime and poverty. I can't really see how more of that would be good.
Perhaps we'll never know until we try it. But, what do we do if it creates a disaster? That's one genie that you'll never get back into the bottle.
That kind of thing can't be implemented overnight. At first you could stop locking people up and branding them for the rest of their lives. Arent they doing things a little bit different in Canada, maybe you should ask some advice from them?
-
Why not look at Oregon and Alaska's history? Both states had very liberal Marijuana laws for an extended period and they both seem to still be healthy, productive members of the Union and society. They didn't turn into "dens of depravity". Using the "if we ever start the walls will come crumbling down" arguement seems to be muted by this.
-
So wich countries can you legally smoke pot in today?
Holland
Belgium
And then?
-
I believe every European country has signed UN conventions which criminalizes drug use and posession. But, it's tolerated to different degrees depending on country. At least in Finland and Sweden there are always some consequenses.
-
The situation is complex here in Spain.
Drug use is not penalized in Spain if not performed in public avenues.
Drug posession for personal use carries an administrative fine, but is not a criminal offence.
Drug posession for traffic is a criminal offence.
The differences between posession for personal use or traffic lie largely at jurisprudence and particular case by case judgement.
In fact police and tribunals here concentrate on the most dangerous stuff, but also will prosecute big shipments of hash, cannabis, etc...
"Little fish" consumers or small time vendors of hash or cannabis are more or less left alone if they keep things quiet.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the thing is you can't really have a honest discussion on why some drugs should be legal (and why others are not) if you bring into the argument wether or not the drugs are illegal in the first place, in a discussion on the validity of making a drug legal or not, is just not relivant. saying "it should be illegal because it's illegal, and others shouldn't be illegal because they are legal now" is just childish and illogical.
your argument seems to be that some drugs should be illegal (those that are illegal now), yet you don't want to talk about why they should be on the list and your drug of choice shouldn't. it's a relivant question.
if your contention is that we should have certain drugs classified as illegal, the obvious next question is which ones should be on this list and why?
You're logic reminds me of mine when my face used to be buried in a bong.
This may suprise you, but I'm not arguing anything...I have my opinion as you do....this thread was about legalizing illegal drugs, not about other drugs which are and have been legal for years.
-
The point I think you are missing is that most of the ills perpetrated on society by illegal drugs stem from their illegality, not their effects on the person.
I disagree....some are yes, but most?
Still, I catch your drift....don't agree with your solution, but understand your logic.
-
You're logic reminds me of mine when my face used to be buried in a bong.
maybe you should take it back up, seemed to help your clarrity of thought :lol