No way dude, seriously, like you're head is getting smaller.....I think I could squish it with my fingers....hey, I can't feel my fingers...I once sang a song about feelings to this chick at Woodstock....MMmm...chicken....whoa, now I'm kinda hungry....maybe some Hungry Jack pancakes.....Mmmm...pancakes....with maple syrup.....does that stuff come from Canada....
Thats, uh, not shrooms. LSD and Ecstasy are the party drugs, but you seem to be mixing that with Cannabis.
Psilocybin - the part of mushrooms that are important - is a hallucinogenic that frequently gives mind-altering experiences that tend towards the intensely spiritual and frequently give users the perceptive of all things being somehow connected with each other. This is, of course, assuming for a "good trip," which should be easy to do so long as you make preparations for it and have others to assist you.
There's a reason mushrooms were first used for tribal religious ceremonies. There's also a reason there's ongoing research regarding the use of psilocybin for treatment of clinical depression or as an assist for anxiety and poor mood for cancer patients.
I wonder what Southern psilocybe sweet tea tastes like in July.
I wonder what Southern psilocybe sweet tea tastes like in July.
Like dirty mushroom water.
No way dude, seriously, like you're head is getting smaller.....I think I could squish it with my fingers....hey, I can't feel my fingers...I once sang a song about feelings to this chick at Woodstock....MMmm...chicken....whoa, now I'm kinda hungry....maybe some Hungry Jack pancakes.....Mmmm...pancakes....with maple syrup.....does that stuff come from Canada....Thats, uh, not shrooms. LSD and Ecstasy are the party drugs, but you seem to be mixing that with Cannabis.
Psilocybin - the part of mushrooms that are important - is a hallucinogenic that frequently gives mind-altering experiences that tend towards the intensely spiritual and frequently give users the perceptive of all things being somehow connected with each other. This is, of course, assuming for a "good trip," which should be easy to do so long as you make preparations for it and have others to assist you.
There's a reason mushrooms were first used for tribal religious ceremonies. There's also a reason there's ongoing research regarding the use of psilocybin for treatment of clinical depression or as an assist for anxiety and poor mood for cancer patients.
Whoa dude! You sound, like, smart an all. I almost think you're a real professor, or something.
only so much to go around...........
I'm still laughing at the exchange in the other thread that spawned this one.
I know; its funny right?only so much to go around...........I'm still laughing at the exchange in the other thread that spawned this one.
"That, sir, is BAT $h#+ CRAZY!"
"Wait, so it's OK to have sex for money on camera, but off camera it's a close call?"
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
I come at it from a different angle. I think it's wrong for the government to control what adults do with their own bodies.
I believe that prohibition is doing more harm than drugs, but the principal of self ownership is much more important to me than the pragmatic debate.
+1
Whoa dudes, shrooms are, like, totally awesome. The make me feel soooo trippy. I also love...whoa....hey....is your head shrinking?No, its just far, far away...:)
Whoa dude! Like that movie with that green dude with the weird ears?
Where would we be if Hitler had smoked green instead of drinking?
OooOOoooOooooooo........ @_@
...from experience, I'd rather clear a house of stoners than piss heads.*
*Unless, of course, I was disguised as a Mars Bar.
Have you guys heard about what happened in Portugal? Essentially, in 2001 they decriminalised possession of all drugs, and since then their use has stabilised or actually decreased. Drug deaths are down, too. Makes it kind of hard to sustain the "prohibition protects people" theory...
That's very compelling. There are a lot of differences between here and there, but this is very informative.
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies
>Enters thread in a cloud of cloudy water belly up<
Mr. Fishy heard that you had war and chips here. Mr. Fishy likes war chips.
Alcholics are more likely to fight than pot users as pot uses are most interested in food not fighting. Althought a nation wide Dorito shortage could occur and that would cause chip stockpiling and chip related crimes. Like Black Market CHIP SALES!!!
The War on Chips would make the War on Drugs look like a playground slap fight.
Mr. Fishy is hungry are you guys hungry.
Where are Mr. Fishy's chips.
...from experience, I'd rather clear a house of stoners than piss heads.*
*Unless, of course, I was disguised as a Mars Bar.
THEY WOULD KILL YOU!!!
Of course there should be limits. The only thing that is absurd is to think we, as in society, should not take a stand when issues of moral import, that affect all our lives, and just let whomever do whatever they want. False logic does not mean you get to pick and choose what laws you follow. This does not in fact fly in the face of the Constitution, but rather it follows the same course as our documents. For our laws have and always follow, with a few notable exceptions, that which benefits out society not individuals.Then should there be any limit on what the state can regulate? After all, all of our choices impact other people by this argument; so if you carry it to its logical absurd conclusion the government should be able to regulate every choice. I know you aren't making that argument per se, but how it your position on this different from any big government liberal on the issue they want to regulate?
I get that you have a history with those close to having tragic interaction with drugs, and I'm not going to change your feelings on this I'm sure, but that's hardly a basis for a policy that I think flies in the face of the constitution.
Again if "whomever do[ing] whatever they want" doesn't directly harm someone else or their property why does the government have the power to criminalize that choice?
"False logic does not mean you get to pick and choose what laws you follow."
I will assume that you are using "you" in the generic sense here because I don't use illegal drugs.
Where in the constitution does the federal government have the right to imprison someone for growing a plant in their home and using that plant in their home as they see fit without harming someone else or their property directly?
How has the war on drugs benefited society?
The Commerce Clause. Most members of the Supreme Court, liberal and conservative, agreed in this case that Congress enjoys the authority under the Commerce Clause to ban
home-grown cannabis.
The Commerce Clause. Most members of the Supreme Court, liberal and conservative, agreed in...Of course there should be limits. The only thing that is absurd is to think we, as in society, should not take a stand when issues of moral import, that affect all our lives, and just let whomever do whatever they want. False logic does not mean you get to pick and choose what laws you follow. This does not in fact fly in the face of the Constitution, but rather it follows the same course as our documents. For our laws have and always follow, with a few notable exceptions, that which benefits out society not individuals.Then should there be any limit on what the state can regulate? After all, all of our choices impact other people by this argument; so if you carry it to its logical absurd conclusion the government should be able to regulate every choice. I know you aren't making that argument per se, but how it your position on this different from any big government liberal on the issue they want to regulate?
I get that you have a history with those close to having tragic interaction with drugs, and I'm not going to change your feelings on this I'm sure, but that's hardly a basis for a policy that I think flies in the face of the constitution.
Again if "whomever do[ing] whatever they want" doesn't directly harm someone else or their property why does the government have the power to criminalize that choice?
"False logic does not mean you get to pick and choose what laws you follow."
I will assume that you are using "you" in the generic sense here because I don't use illegal drugs.
Where in the constitution does the federal government have the right to imprison someone for growing a plant in their home and using that plant in their home as they see fit without harming someone else or their property directly?
How has the war on drugs benefited society?
That is what SCOTUS says not the US constitution. Who honestly accepts this mental contortion as rational? This is an insanely expansive view of the interstate commerce clause. How can something that you produce in your yard and consume in your kitchen logically fall under the authority of the interstate commerce clause? If the commerce clause can be twisted to this extent what are the limits of the commerce clause? Under SCOTUS reading basically the federal government has unlimited regulatory power. I absolutely reject this interpretation of the commerce clause. It has turned into the fig leaf for virtually unlimited federal government intrusion.
If drugs were legal then what would the Government fight againist...HUNGER? UNEMPLOYMENT? 4TH EDITION?
Drug mules have bills to pay too. If the War of Drugs ended whole cartels would have to fire half their employee pool, mules, enforcers, bribed officals would be hurt the worse. Elections are expensive. Unemployment would rise.
|
If drugs were legal then what would the Government fight againist...HUNGER? UNEMPLOYMENT? 4TH EDITION?
Drug mules have bills to pay too. If the War of Drugs ended whole cartels would have to fire half their employee pool, mules, enforcers, bribed officials would be hurt the worse. Elections are expensive. Unemployment would rise.
That is one way of looking at things.
I am so sick of the drug legalization rhetoric. Drugs are illegal for a very good reason -- they are extremely dangerous not only to the people that use them but to all the people around them and to society as a whole.
The data show that illegal drug users have trouble holding down jobs, caring for children, and being productive members of society. Most non-drug crimes are done by people who abuse drugs. Most violent crime is committed by drug abusers.
To say drugs are harmless or only harmful to the abuser is to ignore the effects the abusers have on their family and communities. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise.
Yes, tobacco causes serious harm to health. Yes, people abuse alcohol and kill others by driving cars under the influence. Is it OK then, to add to the problems that alcohol and tobacco cause by including even more dangerous drugs?
There are differences between what is legal now and what is illegal. For example, alcohol may be inebriating, but it takes a few "doses" of alcohol to impair a person depending on body weight. Compare that to marijuana which is INSTANTLY impairing after a single dose and has effects that continue long after the "high" has gone away.
And please stop using "anecdotes as data". Anecdotes are not data. I don't want to hear how you or somebody you know abuses drugs and is successful, well-adjusted, productive, and a great parent. There are decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by NIDA other agencies that illustrate that drug abuse is dangerous to most people and their families. The pro-legalization side has at best, poorly-researched propaganda put out by NORML or other drug advocates.
To say drugs are harmless or only harmful to the abuser is to ignore the effects the abusers have on their family and communities. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise.
To ignore the fact that some drugs are far more harmful than others, except when pretending that all of the legal ones are far less harmful than all of the illegal ones, is about as intellectually dishonest a stance as I've yet seen on the thread.
Heroin abuse is indeed dangerous to the users, and to the people around them. No one will argue otherwise. Alcohol abuse is likewise dangerous to the abuser, and to the people around him or her. Possibly less dangerous, but try telling that to someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent, or who lost a spouse to a drunk driver -- and don't rely on anecdotes; look at data.
Also in terms of data, what are the actual statistics for addiction rates for pot smokers vs. tobacco smokers?
The idea that the current status of legality is based on solid fact is, for lack of a better word, sheer fantasy.
|
There are differences between what is legal now and what is illegal. For example, alcohol may be inebriating, but it takes a few "doses" of alcohol to impair a person depending on body weight. Compare that to marijuana which is INSTANTLY impairing after a single dose and has effects that continue long after the "high" has gone away.
Cite, please? How are you defining "dose?" It's been long enough since I read the paper that I can't find it online (published late 1980's), but I remember a British study of alcohol effects that showed measurably impaired judgment and driving ability at blood alcohol concentrations in the 0.02-0.04 mg/dL range, or about what an average person would get from a pint with lunch. Also, what effects of THC continue after the initial psychoactivity?
Leaving aside the question of impairment for a moment, consider the toxicity of ethanol. In 2007 in the UK (the only place I could find statistics from; see http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alcohol-poisoning/Pages/Introduction.aspx), 157 people died of acute ethanol poisoning, and in 2007/2008 around 30,000 people were treated for ethanol poisoning. By contrast, according to Baselt's "Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man" (4th Edition; don't hold that against it :-)), *one* THC poisoning death had been reported in the scientific literature as of 1990. Worldwide. And that was an ingestion dose, not an inhaled one.
Seriously, any argument you make that depends on lumping marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine into a single category and then arbitrarily excluding alcohol is going to be fallacious. Their psychoactive effects and toxicity differ far too much to generalize that way.
|
I am so sick of the Dungeons and Dragons rhetoric. Dungeons and Dragons should be illegal for a very good reason -- it is extremely dangerous not only to the people that use it but to all the people around them and to society as a whole.
The data show that dungeons and dragons users have trouble holding down jobs, caring for children, and being productive members of society. Most non-drug crimes are done by people who play dungeons and dragons. Most violent crime is committed by people who play dungeons and dragons.
To say dungeons and dragons is harmless or only harmful to the abuser is to ignore the effects the abusers have on their family and communities. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise.
Yes, tobacco causes serious harm to health. Yes, people abuse alcohol and kill others by driving cars under the influence. Is it OK then, to add to the problems that alcohol and tobacco cause by including dungeons and dragons?
There are differences between what is legal now and what is illegal. For example, alcohol may be inebriating, but it takes a few "doses" of alcohol to impair a person depending on body weight. Compare that to DnD which is INSTANTLY impairing after a single game and has effects that continue long after the "high" has gone away.
And please stop using "anecdotes as data". Anecdotes are not data. I don't want to hear how you or somebody you know plays DnD and is successful, well-adjusted, productive, and a great parent. There are decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by BADD & other agencies that illustrate that playing DnD is dangerous to most people and their families. The pro-legalization side has at best, poorly-researched propaganda put out by TSR or other DnD advocates.
See how when you don't actually provide any research and just shout out a lot of words because you personally have had bad experiences you sound just like good ole patty?
What I love is that you claim decades of research, while ignoring decades of research from the pro side who actually provide links, and how everything you say has absolutely no proof or bearing whatsoever. And here's a question, if what you said were true, how could there be any positive personal anecdotes? If what you said was true, we'd only have a bunch of people who have been hurt or hurt others.
I am so sick of the drug legalization rhetoric. Drugs are illegal for a very good reason -- they are extremely dangerous not only to the people that use them but to all the people around them and to society as a whole.
The data show that illegal drug users have trouble holding down jobs, caring for children, and being productive members of society. Most non-drug crimes are done by people who abuse drugs. Most violent crime is committed by drug abusers.
To say drugs are harmless or only harmful to the abuser is to ignore the effects the abusers have on their family and communities. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise.
Yes, tobacco causes serious harm to health. Yes, people abuse alcohol and kill others by driving cars under the influence. Is it OK then, to add to the problems that alcohol and tobacco cause by including even more dangerous drugs?
There are differences between what is legal now and what is illegal. For example, alcohol may be inebriating, but it takes a few "doses" of alcohol to impair a person depending on body weight. Compare that to marijuana which is INSTANTLY impairing after a single dose and has effects that continue long after the "high" has gone away.
And please stop using "anecdotes as data". Anecdotes are not data. I don't want to hear how you or somebody you know abuses drugs and is successful, well-adjusted, productive, and a great parent. There are decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by NIDA other agencies that illustrate that drug abuse is dangerous to most people and their families. The pro-legalization side has at best, poorly-researched propaganda put out by NORML or other drug advocates.
Does the place that you get this data from also have good unicorn meat recipes? NIDA, seriously? The only accurate thing you've said is that anecdotes are not evidence. Let's look at the evidence.
Drugs aren't going anywhere. They've always been here, and always will be because PEOPLE WANT THEM. The same lawmakers who spend time in smoke filled rooms drinking expensive liquor while taking various medications to combat the damage they have done to themselves with excessive lifestyles then have the unmitigated gall to think that they know best how to regulate drug use? Prohibition didn't work to curb alcohol usage, but it did make a lot of criminals very rich. Seems to be having the same effect now. Drunk driving is illegal, but people still do it. Why then, one wonders, could we not apply the same sort of system to any other drug? You know, something like: operating heavy machinery while under the influence of methamphetamine is illegal, but staying home and speeding yourself to death is not. Because ultimately you can do just that (kill yourself) with alcohol. And please, for the sake of reason, don't throw me that "what about the children" spiel. If I come off as being harsh in my tone, it's only because I am utterly sick of both the drug warrior hypocrites and the know nothings who support them who want to regulate what citizens do to themselves based on their own stupid and uniformed fears.
I'm sorry, but my campaign financiers inform me that we are not allowed to legalize any illegal substance until after Pfizer has perfected a prescription-strength version of it. And by perfected, we mean "rubber-stamped as safe and effective when used as directed".
|
|
MJ can be dangerous or rather the people on it can be dangerous. About the same danger as someone drunk and driving.
That may not be the case. Not to say that THC doesn't impair the ability to drive (it does), and not to say that the degree of impairment between the two may be comparable, but my understanding (based on the study I mentioned above) is that even low levels of ethanol impairs one's judgment. The way the folks who did the study determined that was by asking everyone--both the ones who'd had a pint with lunch and the ones who hadn't--how they rated their own performance on a driving test. And virtually without exception, the ones who'd been drinking thought they'd done much better than they actually had. That's a qualitative difference between THC intoxication and ethanol intoxication. Someone who's high isn't as likely to think that they're capable of driving as someone who's drunk. That translates into a reduced likelihood that the THC-intoxicated person will actually get behind the wheel.
None of this matters, though. The dangerous act is *driving* while impaired--whether drunk, high, or overtired, it doesn't matter to the person you hit. But if you're not driving or doing anything else dangerous, why is getting high any worse than getting drunk (or not getting enough sleep)?
|
|
MJ can be dangerous or rather the people on it can be dangerous. About the same danger as someone drunk and driving.That may not be the case. Not to say that THC doesn't impair the ability to drive (it does), and not to say that the degree of impairment between the two may be comparable, but my understanding (based on the study I mentioned above) is that even low levels of ethanol impairs one's judgment. The way the folks who did the study determined that was by asking everyone--both the ones who'd had a pint with lunch and the ones who hadn't--how they rated their own performance on a driving test. And virtually without exception, the ones who'd been drinking thought they'd done much better than they actually had. That's a qualitative difference between THC intoxication and ethanol intoxication. Someone who's high isn't as likely to think that they're capable of driving as someone who's drunk. That translates into a reduced likelihood that the THC-intoxicated person will actually get behind the wheel.
None of this matters, though. The dangerous act is *driving* while impaired--whether drunk, high, or overtired, it doesn't matter to the person you hit. But if you're not driving or doing anything else dangerous, why is getting high any worse than getting drunk (or not getting enough sleep)?
While I only have anecdotal evidence. Basically knowing people who have done both, many times together. I still think we should treat the user and combat the suppliers.
Whoa dudes, I love a good bong hit. And I can stop anytime I want. No, seriously. It true! I swea...uh...um...what was I saying?
Anyway, dudes, pass the pretzels. Oh yeah, anybody got some shrooms?
I removed a couple posts. Please remember that it is possible to disagree with someone without insulting their intelligence.
Whoa dudes, I love a good bong hit. And I can stop anytime I want. No, seriously. It true! I swea...uh...um...what was I saying?
Anyway, dudes, pass the pretzels. Oh yeah, anybody got some shrooms?
You're comments are not helping keep a reasonable tone in here and are distracting from the posts that are on topic.
Please refrain from posting more of these comments. Thanks.
Please refrain from posting more of these comments. Thanks.
No problem dudette! I got what I came for anyway.
|
|
Whoa dudes, I love a good bong hit. And I can stop anytime I want. No, seriously. It true! I swea...uh...um...what was I saying?
Anyway, dudes, pass the pretzels. Oh yeah, anybody got some shrooms?
You're comments are not helping keep a reasonable tone in here and are distracting from the posts that are on topic.
Please refrain from posting more of these comments. Thanks.
Who pissed your cornflakes this mornin? Nothing wrong with adding a bit of levity to a thread when things are getting tense.
EDIT: D'oh, didn't see the lil golem >.< apologies.
|
|
While I only have anecdotal evidence. Basically knowing people who have done both, many times together. I still think we should treat the user and combat the suppliers.
And legalization would most certainly combat suppliers by eliminating the need for them (the street suppliers at least). The money generated/saved by legalization could then be used for treatment programs. I don't see how legalization isn't a win-win for people taking a stance such as yours.
To say drugs are harmless or only harmful to the abuser is to ignore the effects the abusers have on their family and communities. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise.To ignore the fact that some drugs are far more harmful than others, except when pretending that all of the legal ones are far less harmful than all of the illegal ones, is about as intellectually dishonest a stance as I've yet seen on the thread.
Heroin abuse is indeed dangerous to the users, and to the people around them. No one will argue otherwise. Alcohol abuse is likewise dangerous to the abuser, and to the people around him or her. Possibly less dangerous, but try telling that to someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent, or who lost a spouse to a drunk driver -- and don't rely on anecdotes; look at data.
Also in terms of data, what are the actual statistics for addiction rates for pot smokers vs. tobacco smokers?
The idea that the current status of legality is based on solid fact is, for lack of a better word, sheer fantasy.
But Kirth, he's sick of the rhetoric! SICK!
|
|
While I only have anecdotal evidence. Basically knowing people who have done both, many times together. I still think we should treat the user and combat the suppliers.And legalization would most certainly combat suppliers by eliminating the need for them (the street suppliers at least). The money generated/saved by legalization could then be used for treatment programs. I don't see how legalization isn't a win-win for people taking a stance such as yours.
I can not agree. I once again just do not see people involved in illegal activities just giving up a profitable venture. Oh sure it will cause a few to go legit but many others will try to under cut the tax laws or other commercial interests. It will not in my opinion eliminate this part of society, by legalization alone. Just cause the same elements to change tactics instead.
I can not agree. I once again just do not see people involved in illegal activities just giving up a profitable venture. Oh sure it will cause a few to go legit but many others will try to under cut the tax laws or other commercial interests. It will not in my opinion eliminate this part of society, by legalization alone. Just cause the same elements to change tactics instead.
Laughable. While there are certainly a few people out there making moonshine, the end of prohibition killed organized bootlegging dead, dead, dead. Legalizing drugs would have the same effect on the drug trade. Being a drug dealer would make no more sense than making aspirin in your back yard.
|
|
I can not agree. I once again just do not see people involved in illegal activities just giving up a profitable venture. Oh sure it will cause a few to go legit but many others will try to under cut the tax laws or other commercial interests. It will not in my opinion eliminate this part of society, by legalization alone. Just cause the same elements to change tactics instead.While I only have anecdotal evidence. Basically knowing people who have done both, many times together. I still think we should treat the user and combat the suppliers.And legalization would most certainly combat suppliers by eliminating the need for them (the street suppliers at least). The money generated/saved by legalization could then be used for treatment programs. I don't see how legalization isn't a win-win for people taking a stance such as yours.
You're right that they won't go away, they'll turn to other crimes. But they'll get out of the business. There's just no way to compete with Wal-mart (if not wal-mart, then ABC, or some other large coporation)and it's suppliers if the stuff is legal to make and supply. Just as with booze going back to legal didn't kill off the mob, but the mob doesn't run speakeasys anymore.
|
|
You're right that they won't go away, they'll turn to other crimes. But they'll get out of the business. There's just no way to compete with Wal-mart (if not wal-mart, then ABC, or some other large coporation)and it's suppliers if the stuff is legal to make and supply. Just as with booze going back to legal didn't kill off the mob, but the mob doesn't run speakeasys anymore.I can not agree. I once again just do not see people involved in illegal activities just giving up a profitable venture. Oh sure it will cause a few to go legit but many others will try to under cut the tax laws or other commercial interests. It will not in my opinion eliminate this part of society, by legalization alone. Just cause the same elements to change tactics instead.While I only have anecdotal evidence. Basically knowing people who have done both, many times together. I still think we should treat the user and combat the suppliers.And legalization would most certainly combat suppliers by eliminating the need for them (the street suppliers at least). The money generated/saved by legalization could then be used for treatment programs. I don't see how legalization isn't a win-win for people taking a stance such as yours.
No they started dealing MJ then crack and crystal and Meth. Legalizing the one will not curtail the others.
Unless the people laughing want them all legal. Then we can go back to opium dens. [extreme comment is for example only]
|
|
You're right that they won't go away, they'll turn to other crimes. But they'll get out of the business. There's just no way to compete with Wal-mart (if not wal-mart, then ABC, or some other large coporation)and it's suppliers if the stuff is legal to make and supply. Just as with booze going back to legal didn't kill off the mob, but the mob doesn't run speakeasys anymore.I can not agree. I once again just do not see people involved in illegal activities just giving up a profitable venture. Oh sure it will cause a few to go legit but many others will try to under cut the tax laws or other commercial interests. It will not in my opinion eliminate this part of society, by legalization alone. Just cause the same elements to change tactics instead.While I only have anecdotal evidence. Basically knowing people who have done both, many times together. I still think we should treat the user and combat the suppliers.And legalization would most certainly combat suppliers by eliminating the need for them (the street suppliers at least). The money generated/saved by legalization could then be used for treatment programs. I don't see how legalization isn't a win-win for people taking a stance such as yours.No they started dealing MJ then crack and crystal and Meth. Legalizing the one will not curtail the others.
Unless the people laughing want them all legal. Then we can go back to opium dens. [extreme comment is for example only]
well this thread is about the war on drugs, not just marijuana, so I was speaking of legalization of all drugs. Honestly though, I'd prefer a regulated/controlled opium den to a neighbor with an illegal meth lab set up. I honestly don't know how I feel about any of the drugs you can OD on, that's a lot bigger debate than just MJ. I'd probably say legalization for MJ and decriminalization for the harder stuff, then you can focus on keeping down the suppliers for the harder stuff.
|
|
well this thread is about the war on drugs, not just marijuana, so I was speaking of legalization of all drugs. Honestly though, I'd prefer a regulated/controlled opium den to a neighbor with an illegal meth lab set up. I honestly don't know how I feel about any of the drugs you can OD on, that's a lot bigger debate than just MJ. I'd probably say legalization for MJ and decriminalization for the harder stuff, then...
Remember those stats on alcohol poisoning when you think about legalizing drugs you can OD on.
Pace Bitter Thorn's argument from personal autonomy, though, I think you've hit on the best argument for legalization: It gives far more options for drug *control*. Right now, the only club the gov't has is enforcing an absolute prohibition. Given the availability of users, there's no external driver for a drug supplier to do any sort of quality control on their product. In combination with the criminalization of drug use, this hits users (the people we really want to help, here) disproportionately--they lack legal recourse when, e.g., their supplier gives them drugs cut with strychnine, and a lack of knowledge about drug strength makes overdoses more likely. Compare to the incidence of methanol poisoning during Prohibition--again, no incentive for quality control, plus legal sanctions against someone reporting that they'd been poisoned.
That's entirely setting aside the corrosive effect of drug money on law enforcement. Not only is there enough money involved to make dishonest cops pretty well-off (and thus giving an incentive to dishonest people to become cops), but the War on Drugs has driven things like RICO--civil penalties (with lower standards of proof) for drug crimes. This gives police agencies financial incentives to go after the easy targets, and once again the user (and the user's landlord/parent/roommate) takes it in the shorts.
I don't think anyone is arguing that, e.g., meth use or drug addiction in general are good things. They aren't. What I'm arguing is that the current system is broken. It punishes the people who arguably need the most help (the users), incentivizes really unpleasant behavior (both illegal and putatively legal) on the part of law enforcement agencies, and fails to provide incentives for good behavior on the part of drug suppliers. From a purely pragmatic point of view, legalization seems to address these issues better than the current prohibition does (albeit at the likely price of greater drug use). That price may seem too high, particularly if you've lost someone to drugs, but I look at the way things are now and compare to, say, the Netherlands and maybe it isn't that bad.
Have you guys heard about what happened in Portugal? Essentially, in 2001 they decriminalised possession of all drugs, and since then their use has stabilised or actually decreased. Drug deaths are down, too. Makes it kind of hard to sustain the "prohibition protects people" theory...
That's very compelling. There are a lot of differences between here and there, but this is very informative.
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies
I'm not sure the assumption of increased use is well supported.
No they started dealing MJ then crack and crystal and Meth. Legalizing the one will not curtail the others.Unless the people laughing want them all legal. Then we can go back to opium dens. [extreme comment is for example only]
I was laughing at your assertion that legalizing drugs wouldn't affect dealers (econ 101 -- please!), not at the negative effects of addiction. I give you 8 stars (out of 10) in the category of deliberate misinterpretation.
But as a matter of fact, I do want drugs legal. The war on drugs has failed, just as prohibition failed. The only question remaining is simply this: How much longer does our society wish to pay, in both money and lives, for a policy which has clearly failed?