Marijuana

[ArenaBoy]

This is always a touchy subject but marijuana and legalization. As we all know marijuana is that one drug that can scare the most conservative person and then there's been the medical debate and everything.

I personally believe that it should be legalized as it is not as bad as one thinks. I've worked some pot heavy shows and honestly I'd rather deal with a stoner than a drunk because alcohol brings out the rage in some people. I would like to see it legalized but as long as there are some limits. One is to do it like they do in Amsterdam, cannot smoke outdoors but only in your house and designated areas. It would be frustrating for some yes but it would be worth saving the trouble and by legalizing it it can reduce some of the drug crimes that are committed.

I decided to post this because my friend is very open about her pot use. She thankfully smokes it once in a blue moon but she hates the attitude surrounding it. On a sidenote, I have never tried drugs of any kind as I nearly lost my best friend because of his use. He learned his lesson right then and there.

[AFPheonix]

I agree about the legalization, but I think the legal age should be 25: right about when your brain gets done developing. This stuff pretty much stops your mental and emotional development dead, not to mention it can pretty much ruin your memory centers.

In a lot of ways I wish my dad had a prescription for the stuff when he was still alive. His stomach was really sensitive, he had a lot of nausea, and he didn't eat well. My BIL slipped him a doobie on one family trip, and we noticed that he cleaned his plate that night ;)

[ArenaBoy]

I agree but the main deomographic is usually teens but they'll find ways through it, people always do. That friend I mentioned said she is glad that she doesn't smoke it as much as she used to, she's actually thinking about quitting because of how expensive it is but she will admit that it screws you up in a lot of ways. The scary thing is she shows those signs that you mentioned and when I first met her I thought she was just emotionless but when I recognized the smell of pot on her one day I knew it immdiately. I do know that she sees a shrink and I'm guessing it may be because of that.

I've gotten used to the smell at the arena but there is this poor new girl who is very naive and doesn't even know what it smells like.

[ditchdj]

It's like I said in the other thread: anything this country has "declared war" on: drugs, terrorism, crime, guns, have ALL been a failure. And the most common excuse I hear is "You gotta have patience". :mad:

[Rapscallion]

Colleague of mine reports that his wife/girlfriend (not sure) works in a ward for mentally unstable people. She reports that many people there used to smoke cannabis - a huge proportion. I don't know if this means that cannabis caused it, or that their mental instabilty made them more like to need/want it. However, he's certain he metabolises it better than they do, which caused many of us to snort in our cups of tea.

Legalise it? More and more evidence is coming out that it's harmful, and it's not just scare tactics. However, there's also the argument that alcohol is more dangerous and addictive (I'll hold my hands up and say I've seen more violent drunks than 'hippies'). Sure the government could make major money out of sales of cannabis by taxing the fellow as much as they do other recreational chemicals (cigs and booze, for two), but I can't see that they'll ever go that way. Well, not in the next two decades, they won't.

Legalise it for a certain age? I've had children as young as ten beg me to buy cigs for them, so they'll be begging for a joint next? Can't see it happening.

Legalising it to reduce the number of crimes committed? You do know the obvious answer to that one? Y'know, the one about legalising theft? The real question would be more like working out if legalising it would be bad for the country as a whole. Would police be able to tell who was driving under the influence of weed as well as they are able to work out who was driving under the influence of alcohol? There's apparently a urine test, but that's going to be hard to administer at the side of a road...

What really puts me off cannabis and other drugs - including alcohol - is partly that I'm somewhat of an addictive personality (try me and food, for example), but also that the definition of clinical depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain. Many people who drink or smoke cannabis say that they feel better after a dose of their favourite chemical. I don't want to rely on chemicals to feel good.

Actually, I don't, so nyeh!

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

The difference between legalizing theft and legalizing pot is that a pot smoker is pretty much just screwing himself up. Theft affects other people. That's comparing apples to oranges. If I were to compare, I'd probably bring up prohibition, and how poorly that worked, and how it brought about the rise of organized crime in this country.

I would imagine that the cops could test impairment from pot much like they do for alcohol as far as a field sobriety test, not to mention that pot has that telltale herbally smell. Also, I would hazard to guess that breathalyzers could be recalibrated to test for chemicals found in pot as well as for ethanol.

I don't have an addictive personality, and I'll be the first to admit that I've never smoked even a cigarette, much less pot, and I probably never will. However, I am fine with other people doing it. I don't think it's any worse socially than alcohol or cigarettes. Yes, it has serious effects on some people who have the propensity to become addicted to it, but so does food or sex or anything else that people with that sort of personality get hooked on. Should we restrict all of that just for a select few?

[Rapscallion]

Heroin only screws the user up, but the user then goes to steal from others to finance his hobby. Again, the degree is different, since most stoners are part-timers and nowhere near as bad as heroin addicts, but there is the correlation between drug use and crime.

I agree that the police could use tests such as the walking in a straight line etc, but they already do this for drink drivers - I think the term is probable cause to allow them to stop someone and use an empirical measure of how intoxicated someone is? They need to be able to show a court that someone has a certain amount of chemicals in their system, which will affect their ability to drive. "He couldn't walk in a straight line," is not as good in court as "He blew the breathalyser and it turned a funny shade of pastel colours..." Without evidence such as that, a halfway smart lawyer would be saying, "Well, maybe he tripped!".

Socially? I generally have no more objection to it than I do cigarettes, but mostly because it ends up in cigarettes, and they are the main reason I don't go out on a weekend/night. I can't abide the stench of tobacco smoke. I don't make a song and dance about it, I just don't go out much.

Is it a select few? I don't know how many people smoke cannabis, and I would suggest that nobody does have a good idea, since it's still kept behind closed doors. How many people smoke it and end up with mental problems caused by/exacerbated by it? I honestly have no idea, so I'd be cautious about saying it's only a few. I really have no idea how many it would be.

Where would you draw the line? One person in a hundred develops a mild psychosis? Is that acceptable? One person in a thousand? Acceptable?

For that matter, where would you draw the line with alcohol? http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/alcoholism/stats-country.htm suggests that there's an alcoholism factor in Western Europe, Canada, and the US of 5.5%, which seems extraordinarily high to me. That suggests that 5.5% of the entire population is suffering to one degree or other from alcoholism. Even if it was 5.5% of regular drinkers who became alcoholic, would that be acceptable?

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Well anytime you have a situation where a person is doing somethign harmful to themselves it is going to be unpleasant to themselves and others, but it goes back to my commetns about a reasonable and responsible person being willing to accept the consequences of their actions. Be it drugs, alcohol or other vices.

As for where do you draw the line that again is the tricky part. Personally I see cigarettes and alcohol and marijuana as all at about the same level of "evil" or vice so all three should be legal and tazed and restricted appropriately. What is approriate, age 18 for all three as that is the voting age, age of adulthood in America and age to enter the military in america. Responsible people would self moderate their actions. Those with addictive personalities would either recognize it as you do raps or fall into the trap and need help of those who care about them or they would fal by the wayside of society and be dragged under the wheels of progress. Sad but true in modern society.

As for tests there are a few companies that market swab tests for cannabis for parents to check their kids rooms and such surreptitiously. i suppose police could use that for a person.

[AFPheonix]

"He couldn't walk in a straight line," is not as good in court as "He blew the breathalyser and it turned a funny shade of pastel colours..." Without evidence such as that, a halfway smart lawyer would be saying, "Well, maybe he tripped!".

All a breathalyzer is is a spectrophotometer. I would imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to calibrate one to read for THC as well as for ethanol. Heck, I'd probably bet that it already has been done.

[rahmota]

I'm not sure how long THC will stay in the breath after you are done smoking it though. Ethanol will continue to be exhaled as a by product of the break down of the alchohol. Thats why and how they can tell how long ago (roughly) you stopped drinking by how high your BAc is.

[Cyanocobalamin]

Actually, ethanol IS the alcohol found in beverages. The metabolites (breakdown products) are acetaldehyde, then acetic acid (vinegar!).
;)

[digilight]

Marijuana is not physically adictive, it can be mentally adictive (anything can be mentally adictive though). The harmful effects really arise from smoking it, since breathing the smoke sure isn't going to be healthy for you. Now while there may be more harmful chemicals in Marijuana smoke the presence of them will actually not be as bad as normal tobacco smoke. If you compared a stoners use to an average cigarette smokers use (say 1-2 packs a day). Simply for the fact that a stoner is actually smoking less then a cigarette smoker.

Do I think it should be legalized, hell yeah. Do I smoke it, hell no, I havent touched it in over 7 years now. But the financial ramifications would be huge. THe amount of jail and prison space it would free up would be enormous. The taxable income it would provide the federal and local governments would be massive. Financially it makes sense.

Now for testing in a DUI type condition. THC and Canabanoids do not leave your system at the same rate that alcohole does. THC can stay present for days even weeks in a high volume smoker. Even if the user is not impared they could still test positive under current tests. The current method of testing would have to be greatly improved before any legalization could take place.

With government control the quality of marijuana would be better. There wouldn't be the risk of PCP laced weed any more (example would be the movie friday when smokey starts tripping and ends up in DBolts chicken coupe). Now I smoked a lot of weed in college and I never had anything that was laced myself so I cant really say if this happens or not.

They say that Marijuana is a gateway drug, and to a big extent I think it is. Nicotine and alcohol are even bigger gateway drugs though. But is this because we tend to try tobacco and booze at a younger age then our first puff from a joint, or our first line of cocaine. If the playing field were evened out by placing weed, cigs, and beer on the same table would smoking still be as big of a gateway drug?

Would legalizing it shift some of the glamour away from it that exists underground today. Or would our moral fabric decay even further at a much more rapid rate than it currently is.

Legalizing it would also make it more readily available as a treatment for cancer patients undergoing chemo, for aids patients, and for other patients whom it could potentially help. It may not be a cure, but it can and has been proven to help suffering in certain cases.

[rahmota]

Cyan: OopsYou know what I mean though.

Digi: I wasnt sure how long they stay detectable in breath type tests. I know hair, urine and nail clippings can all show it for long times after wards with hair being the longest duration. (One of the reasons when i left the dealership I got a burr cut hairdo)

I have to agree with you about the monetary effects of legalizing it. at the dealership a bag equivalent to about a pack of cigarettes was 100$. If legalized the price would probably drop a bit but still if they where willing to pay a Cnote for it when it was ilegal why not tax it so that its still that, that way the localities would get that much extra money while those who dont have the money might be discouraged. Of course the reverse could be said that crime would continue as a fundign soure for that but then if crimes where punished properly and the jails wherent filled with people whose only crime was smoking weed then there would be room for true criminals.

As for lacin yes it does happen but is generall rare. One of the guys I worked with had it happen to him and he about died. Apparently it was laced with cocaine and he had a cardiac arrest from smoking it. I never encountered it but then again I only casually smoked a few times while I worked at the dealership.

Aside from that I doubt it would speed the moral deacy of our society. Our society is already in flux from enough other issues that I doubt this one particular one would be the nail in the coffin as it where.

Otherwise I agree with you digi.

[MadMike]

I don't see how it's any worse than tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal, provided that you're a certain age. That, and I have a huge problem with someone else telling me, a legal adult, what I can and can't put into my own body.

I really love (note the sarcasm) those god-awful commercials that "prove" that pot is bad, by giving examples of people getting someone else hurt or killed because they were driving, babysitting, etc., while high. Sorry, that doesn't prove that getting high is bad, it only proves that you shouldn't get high while doing any of those things, just like you shouldn't get drunk while doing any of those things.

Apparently the government didn't learn anything from the Prohibition fiasco.

[BusBus]

I support the legalization of marijuana. Yes, it is a drug. Yes, excessive use has permanent side effects. But, alcohol and cigarettes are even worse for you, and they're legal. Anything in moderation is usually okay. As long as the public is educated properly on marijuana (not via propaganda ads) and that some of the taxes earned on the sales go towards health care to cover the costs of those with marijuana-related illnesses (I live in Canada, hence the health care + tax thing), then I believe that most people who choose to use the substance will do so responsibly.

If anything, we should be checking out the Netherlands and seeing what effect the legalization of marijuana has....

[Dreamstalker]

I support legalization as well. I'd rather deal with a stoner than a drunk (have you ever really seen a stoner get violent?).

Been there, done that, it's interesting but not so much I'd want to get addicted (I have better things to do usually).

I was mildly stoned when coding my C++ final project...I swear the code seemed to make much more sense to me.
I agree about the legalization, but I think the legal age should be 25: right about when your brain gets done developing. This stuff pretty much stops your mental and emotional development dead, not to mention it can pretty much ruin your memory centers.
Yup. Someone I know (we've been in a relationship on and off) used fairly heavily before he dropped out of college, and now can't even complete a required class for his job. As far as mental/emotional development...well, I'm not sure exactly what happened there. His logic when it comes to certain life lessons does tend to be (in addition to wrong) way off-center.

There is a certain genetic marker that increases the incidence of schizophrenic breaks if people who have this marker use pot. I'm not sure how this would be handled though...

[Puckishone]

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/alcoholism/stats-country.htm suggests that there's an alcoholism factor in Western Europe, Canada, and the US...suggests that 5.5% of the entire population is suffering to one degree or other from alcoholism.

(emphasis and editing mine)

That 5.5% sounds sneakingly like the right side of the bell curve to me. Take a sample of 100,000 people and most of them fall into the mean (the big arching area of the curve). But there are always those who settle into the far-left and far-right ends, and it doesn't disprove that, for the majority, the effects of Substance X (be it alcohol, pot, aspirin, Red Dye #5) aren't addictive/fatal/whatever. In every population there are the average, and there are the deviations from that, all along a continuum. To say that 5% of people will become addicted (physically, I presume) to anything is a pretty safe bet, scientifically speaking, and proves nothing.

That said, I think that until the ban on real scientific research on real marijuana in the US is lifted, there won't be enough good science to prove one side or the other. Personally, I am in the pro-legalization camp for many of the reasons already stated by others, but largely because I believe that adult citizens shouldn't be told what they can or cannot put into their body at their own risk.

[squall]

Marijuana is illegal because of the militant morality messages spread in the late 19th century around most of the world from a variety of religious and social groups. And they weren't necessarily made illegal because it was bad for the health, but because they were "wicked" and "sinful". How alcohol and tobacco escaped this, I believe, was that they were they were the most popular drugs of choice, the cheapest, and the cornerstone to every economy. The countries simply couldn't live without the the tax revenue, and in religious circles, alcohol(wine) was considered almost sacred. So the reason it remains illegal is because of its name and reputation, a reputation that began from a demonization campaign, somehow later justified by its mild, and highly exagerrated side effects. The name "marijuana" became a negative stigma, so no popular politicians are willing to put their career on the line to promote legalization.

I don't smoke it because it is illegal, but I've tried it. Anybody who does smoke it needs to know how to flex their constitutional muscle and refuse to submit to VOLUNTARY searches. The thing that most people don't realize is that if you get stopped for a traffic violation and the cop wants to search your vehicle, you have the right to say no. Just don't be stupid enough to have it where they can see it or smell it. They cannot search your house unless with a warrant, or if you invite them in. If they walk in without a warrant, tell them to march their ass back out. I have refused a search before, not because I had something to hide, but because I was going to work and it was inconvenient.

[Rubystars]

All drugs should be legal. Belladonna is completely legal and it's one of the worst drugs people can take. Why is that?

I'm a conservative person but part of conservatism is not wanting the government in people's business. Legalizing drugs would eliminate a lot of gang violence, free up prison space, and ensure that the drugs people did buy were more pure and less expensive. The latter would help people not to die from them as often and would lessen the need for addicts to steal to feed their addictions.

[squall]

Ummmm no.....that's not the message I was trying to make. There is not a single country on this Earth that does not ban the use of certain drugs.

While I am conservative and don't like the government trying to nanny me on the uses of marijuana, there are plenty of reasons why laws against OTHER illegal drugs are a VERY NECESSARY evil.

Reason numero uno: DRUGS KILL! Heroin, cocaine, crack, and xtc can cause immediate death to some people, death after much reputed use by others. Some people are not schooled in the proper dosage. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT THAT KIND OF LIABILITY AND THERE IS NO REASON THEY SHOULD! Lawsuits would follow, and the government would lose. Pure drugs!? Don't you mean HEAVILY DILUTED drugs?! Dependence is a very dangerous problem, you cannot quell dependence with a pure or diluted amount, nothing short of lacing it with another drug to counteract dependence.

And you think drunk driving is a problem? Well what about high driving? Alcohol does not compare to an acid trip or a euphoria by any given means. The highways would become much more dangerous. So why would the government sponsor drugs that do that?

And you would have packs of raving junkies on the loose in the streets! Do you want to expose your family to that? Kids would no longer be safe walking to school! They wouldn't even be safe at school! Kids would become part of the drug culture, and all on the government's consciense.

There are many other drugs besides this that should remain illegal of course. Wee NEED drug laws, because as plenty of people who visit customerssuck.com know, there are alot of stupid people in the world. They don't know better what to put in their body. DRUGS LAWS=IDIOT CLAUSE. Believe it or not, some people need to be told not to use their hairdryer in the bath tub. There is not a single country on this Earth that does not ban the use of certain drugs.

Sounds like a liberal idea if you ask me. I can go on all day about this having been around the block several times.

[Rubystars]

Ummmm no.....that's not the message I was trying to make. There is not a single country on this Earth that does not ban the use of certain drugs.

Why does that mean that they should?


While I am conservative and don't like the government trying to nanny me on the uses of marijuana, there are plenty of reasons why laws against OTHER illegal drugs are a VERY NECESSARY evil.


Why would you want them to nanny you on other drugs? It's your choice whether to take them or not.

Reason numero uno: DRUGS KILL! Heroin, cocaine, crack, and xtc can cause immediate death to some people, death after much reputed use by others.


So do alcohol, tobacco, and many other quite legal drugs. Deadly Nightshade, anyone? http://www.herbalfire.com/belladonna.htm

It's worthy to consider whether more people die of them both directly and indirectly now than would die of them if they were made legal.


Some people are not schooled in the proper dosage. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT THAT KIND OF LIABILITY AND THERE IS NO REASON THEY SHOULD!


If sold legally over the counter or by prescription, such drugs would come with proper dosage information on the labelling and inserts. It would also come with information on possible risks and side effects, as do current legal drugs.


Lawsuits would follow, and the government would lose.

Do people sue the government when they die of alcohol poisoning? Removing Prohibition was a good thing! The same thing that caused gangsters to operate during prohibition of alcohol is allowing them to operate now during an equally misguided prohibition of other drugs.

Pure drugs!? Don't you mean HEAVILY DILUTED drugs?! Dependence is a very dangerous problem, you cannot quell dependence with a pure or diluted amount, nothing short of lacing it with another drug to counteract dependence.


By pure I mean, if you bought ecstasy for example, you would be getting ecstasy, not DXM or something else sold as it. You would be buying the drug you were buying, and adulterants and additives, if present, would be regulated by the FDA and would be openly admitted to more often than not.

As for dependence, at least those with a dependence problem could openly go to doctors for help without fear of being reported for their drug use.

And you think drunk driving is a problem? Well what about high driving? Alcohol does not compare to an acid trip or a euphoria by any given means. The highways would become much more dangerous. So why would the government sponsor drugs that do that?


The government wouldn't be sponsoring it. They just wouldn't be banning ownership or use of such drugs. Abuse including public intoxication, high driving, etc. would still be illegal. What makes you think these things are not a problem today? Do the millions of illegal drug users never drive while high? Besides, the most common drug blamed for driving deaths is already a completely legal one and legal in most countries.



And you would have packs of raving junkies on the loose in the streets!
Do you want to expose your family to that? Kids would no longer be safe walking to school! They wouldn't even be safe at school! Kids would become part of the drug culture, and all on the government's consciense.


The War on Drugs messages are part of what makes drugs so appealing (a sort of forbidden fruit). Also the false information that's been given out regarding marijuana in particular has caused many people to disregard true information regarding the risks of other drugs, such as the ability of some drugs over time such as ecstasy or cocaine to eliminate your ability to feel pleasure, or of hallucinogens to cause flashbacks or lasting visual problems. If such information was included with every package, those using them would at least be aware of the risks as well as the supposed benefits.

What I don't like being exposed to are street gangs that are active in the illegal drug trade, and 'sex offenders' living in my neighborhood and many others closeby when they should be in prison, because the prisons are filled with non-violent drug offenders.


There are many other drugs besides this that should remain illegal of course. Wee NEED drug laws, because as plenty of people who visit customerssuck.com know, there are alot of stupid people in the world. They don't know better what to put in their body. DRUGS LAWS=IDIOT CLAUSE. Believe it or not, some people need to be told not to use their hairdryer in the bath tub. There is not a single country on this Earth that does not ban the use of certain drugs.


Some of the people that act that way may already be on illegal drugs. Making them legal won't make people who wouldn't take them anyway take them, it will just make the use more transparent, and we can focus more on helping addicts openly.

Sounds like a liberal idea if you ask me. I can go on all day about this having been around the block several times.

I don't think it's liberal, because liberals are definitely in favor of a nanny state as far as things like this go, and it may not be conservative either. I think the best way to describe it is 'Libertarian'.

While I don't agree with Libertarians on some things, I do agree on this issue.

Some of the commonly 'legal' drugs (but not legal in all areas) include Belladonna (a factor in the Manson murders),
http://www.erowid.org/plants/belladonna/belladonna_law.shtml

Salvia divinorum
http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia_law.shtml

Datura
http://www.erowid.org/plants/datura/datura_law.shtml

Syrian Rue
http://www.erowid.org/plants/syrian_rue/syrian_rue_law.shtml

Amanita Mushrooms
http://www.erowid.org/plants/amanitas/amanitas_law.shtml

and many others.

[squall]

Belladonna....belladona...belladona! Is that all you can say is belladona this and belladona that? What has belladona done to you? Maybe it should be illegal, I don't know much about it. Wouldn't you want it to be harder for people to obtain said drug if it has impacted you personally so much?

If speeding were legal, the deaths from speeding would rise. Lives are saved from speeding laws, sure people still break them. Figures show that traffic fatalities are reduced when the speed limit drops only 5-10 mph. Drugs laws...same thing. The whole point is to make them harder to obtain, and send a message to would be distributors. I don't care how much you tell me they are still easy to obtain from joe shmoe on the street, it would make it much easier to get if they were legal. Might as well drop the age limit for alcohol since "kids are going to do them anyway" huh? Might as well drop the drunk driving laws since they "aren't successful" and people do it anyway. Same as making drugs legal....since "people are going to do them anyway", right? Not if I have anything to say about it.....whether it is voting or protesting.

For example, "can I bum a hit of acid" might be as common place as "can I bum a cigarette", or "a stick of gum". And you see nothing wrong with that?

I am not a fan of obsessive quoting or picking apart other people's posts...but alcohol and cigarettes cause many deaths...my grandfather and grandmother died of lung cancer and ehphysema. I got an uncle nearly on his deathbed for alcohol abuse...I am more aware about the dangers associated with these drugs than some people. Unfortunately, they are beyond measurable control in their widespread use.

But drugs like heroin, cocaine, crack....have very high abuse potential. Everybody knows a junkie pays little attention to dosage, especially as their resistance rises. These people will rob their own mother, kill their own mother for just one hit. Use would be more widespread and rampant, it will run unchecked, despite doctor's orders or pharmacy labels. Have you seen what meth addicts look like? And besides, a certain dose of a drug can have different affects from person to person.

People under the influence of drugs are more likely to participate in illegal behavior. CRIME WOULD RISE! Theft, burglary, rape, murder...you bet. I'd wager my life's wages on that. And they are not rampant enough to be as big a failure as the prohibition of alcohol back in the 1920s and 1930s. I'll bet that 80-90 percent of Washington politicians had wine and champagne on their table...President Harding had it and served it to his guests.

The only way that I would sponsor the use of any of these drugs is for medicinal uses....there aren't any for many of these illegal drugs. Marijuana probably has the strongest case for legalization due to medicinal uses.

Yes countries need drug laws, they are a neccessary evil...the idea that we don't need them is anarchist. Anarchists have no moral compass.

[Rubystars]

I listed the legal drugs that are available now including Belladonna because many of them, especially that one, are just as powerful and deadly as the 'illegal' ones. That one was a focus for me because it's possibly the strongest hallucinogen available, completely dissolving reality, and was a factor in the famous Manson family murders.

Why should something like that be legal but many other drugs that only harm the user should be illegal?

There was a time in this country where all drugs were legal, and there was substantially less crime then than there is now.

The Netherlands makes a distinction between 'hard' drugs, like meth, and 'soft' drugs. Maybe there can be a case made for some 'hard' drugs to be off limits, but people will still be cooking them up and selling them.

Transparency allows for better control anyway, and if people can get it more cheaply and of more reliable quality from pharmaceutical companies, then they're much less likely to buy it from some street thug.

[squall]

Hard drugs MUST STAY ILLEGAL! The whole point is to make them harder to get ahold of. It is not highly successful sometimes, but better than the alternative. I'd rather live with the devil I know than to face a future I don't know.

People back 200 years ago were not as knowledgable about what could get them high, therefore experimentation was not advisable to amateurs. People centuries ago didn't spend all day trying to get high as much as they do now, it wasn't widespread. Crime statistics back in years past weren't very reliable because often times there was nobody to report it to within a day's wagon drive. The advent of speedy commerce has given us a wide availability of drugs. More sprawling urban areas, better technology, life becomes easier, but with an easier life comes new evils to replace the hardships lost. Knowledge increases, but knowledge is not always a strength.

The whole point is to make them harder to get. Sure, people will still do it, just like people will never stop driving drunk, or soliciting children online for sex even though dateline keeps busting suckers left and right. That does not mean the drugs should be legal, or that drunk driving should be legal, or child sex legal. Prevention is always the best means, ALWAYS. We do it every day we strap our children and ourselves down with seat belts.

So maybe those psychedelics should be illegal. Talk to your congressmen, it is the "we the people's" responsibility to change the laws. Maybe the use isn't a very widespread danger, no accurate studies or statistics. They must have been overlooked or ignored to remain legal as long as they have.

[Dreamstalker]

Transparency allows for better control anyway, and if people can get it more cheaply and of more reliable quality from pharmaceutical companies, then they're much less likely to buy it from some street thug.
Exactly. The whole point is to make them harder to get. Sure, people will still do it,
Hard drugs, yes. I vote for legalization of pot in the sense that if it is legal/regulated, the criminal element hopefully vanishes (no more lethal additives and people know what they're getting) and our prisons get a break from the smalltime drug offenders which means those that should be locked up are. I might not go so far as to give full control to the pharm companies, but possibly a handful of independent growers in each region.
just like people will never stop driving drunk, or soliciting children online for sex even though dateline keeps busting suckers left and right.
The burden there is on the parents to teach kids good internet habits such as not blabbing their private info everywhere (if the kids aren't smart enough to figure that out on their own). Kid gave out his/her home address online? Well, who should have taught them not to?
Prevention is always the best means, ALWAYS.

If prevention is the best means, how come abstinence education/DARE/any number of just-say-no approaches have failed?

Abstinence education (and DARE, although abstinence was the first program to earn this comparison) is like, to quote my dad, giving a 16-year-old the keys to a Ferrari and saying "See this? You can't drive it". Not going to work, and in the long run it will cause much more harm than it claims to prevent.

Most of what I remember from DARE is "drugs are bad, mmkay?" I passed that course because I was smart enough to sit there and learn what was expected; I learned the real scoop on various types of drugs later by reading and talking with my parents.

[rahmota]

Well i have to say that the best thing that ever happened for the drug cartels and the gangs and other crimnal elements was the war on drugs. their profits have risen, their motivation to become violent has become common. If the government where to legalize and yet control acces to the drugs in the manner of holland then the drug cartels (the columbian style one not the merck style ones) would loose a great deal of their profits and reason for existing.

In the same way that prohibition led to the creation of people like al capone and the rest of the organized crime syndacates of the 20s and 30s. Unless you are willing to wage and actual war on drugs the same way we are waging a war on terrorism you are never going to win the war on drugs. People will do so no mater what. Be it because they see it as somethign rebellious and cool, or because of whatever other reason they can come up with.

A legal controlled access to cocaine or other "HARD" drugs would actually probably cause a decrease in usage thanks to its "coolness" and "rebel gangsta" reputation going down.

Also the deaths from drug usage would be reduced bcause with the government controlling access, sale and creation of said drugs then you would be sure of getting said drug and not whatever billy methhead cooked up in his basement and is passing off as meth or heroin or whatever.

I'm with Rubystars on this one.

[squall]

If prevention is the best means, how come abstinence education/DARE/any number of just-say-no approaches have failed?


There is no proof of a total failure. There are no laws regarding abstinence in similar age groups except in theologist countries. Drug use since the 1980s is less widespread, and I believe it is because awareness has been increased.

I simply refuse to believe that making a drug widely available would in any way decrease the use. I don't care how much you dilute cocaine or meth, it will always be dangerous and addictive. It creates the need for more. They create unpredictable behavior and the user loses their inhibitions.....and to those of you that say alcohol does the same thing...SHUT UP already! Cocaine and meth are a in a whole different ballpark! They foster violent crime, make people do things they would not normally do. So the argument that they hurt only the user is ludicrous!

Legality of drugs will open the floodgates for new users. Marijuana I can understand because it has a bad stigma attached to it and alot of really biased studies against it. In reality, it is less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes and probably shouldn't be illegal.

PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS TRY TO BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE IT IS THE COOL THING TO DO! That does not mean we have throw the law off the books. Theft will always be one of the most common crimes, that does not mean we legalize theft.

History has shown that when a gang loses its source of income, they find a new one. When prohibition was lifted, most gangs turned to protection rackets, gambling, and prostitution.

The war on drugs is a never-ending war, but as soon as we admit defeat, we lose our society and there will be no innocence. The Iraq war is just pointless any way you slice it, we had no good reason to go in there and now we're just wasting lives.

[Rubystars]

At the very least, it seems like we could stop bothering people who only deal in softer drugs. I'd much rather see the sex offenders in my neighborhood behind bars than someone who sells pot.

Cocaine and Meth are nothing like alcohol, that's true, but does making them illegal stop their use?

[AFPheonix]

I don't care to see drugs that have really no redeemable purpose legalized.
The line of argument with belladonna is flawed, simply because it also has not only homeopathic properties, but also is used in modern medicine. Atropine is distilled from it, and can be used for dilation and as a decongestant.

Cocaine has also historically had medicinal purposes as well. It used to be used a while ago to stop nose bleeds :) My mom used to use it for her patients waaay back in the day. I imagine they have other things that aren't quite as titillating in their drug cabinets now.

[Dreamstalker]

There is no proof of a total failure. There are no laws regarding abstinence in similar age groups except in theologist countries.
The abstinenence thing was just an example of something well-intentioned that can go very wrong. What about abstinence education in some schools here?

PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS TRY TO BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE IT IS THE COOL THING TO DO! That does not mean we have throw the law off the books.
Legalizing or at the very least regulating pot would get the small-time "hoods" out of the prisons and make sure that the truly violent offenders get locked up where they belong. It would remove a large part of the "cool factor" of breaking the law.

The war on drugs is a never-ending war, but as soon as we admit defeat, we lose our society and there will be no innocence.[/QUOTE]
Call me cynical, but as far as I'm concerned, that loss of innocence has already happened.

The harder drugs can kill. Pot doesn't (except when unscrupulous dealers spike it with PCP or other badness, and legalization would prevent this).

[squall]

I never was against legalizing pot. Pot is a soft drug. I'm talking of making sure hard drugs remain illegal. I've done pot before, most people have. I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be legal. It has medicinal uses and it is relatively safe unless laced with pcp or other shit.

Bah....abstinence education?! You mean sex ed? Abstinence education was not prevalent in my area or school...at least when I was growing up. I'm not exactly a model Christian either, very far from it. There are no laws regulating it, so I doubt it is successful. That and the fact that sex is a part of human nature, it's going to happen to 99 percent of people eventually. I really have no opinion on abstinence movements. Making people aware of stds is a good thing, and I know that I wouldn't want my preteen daughter(if I had one) to have sex until she's at least 16 with protection, and preferably 18...still with protection.

[Primer]

If drugs were to be legalized, they could be regulated and heavily taxed.

Yes, there will always be those who abuse substances, regardless of their legality. Bring back the opium dens, and make regular tours a requirement for public schools so that the kids can see for themselves what can happen.

People keep telling themselves, "Oh, that can't/won't happen to me." They need to SEE that yes, it can/will happen to anybody.

If I had been forced to interact up close with smokers dying of lung, throat, and other cancers, and other direct cause ailments, I probably would never have started smoking.

My father is an alcoholic, so I did have up close and personal experience with drinking. Today, while I am not a tee-totaler, I drink very rarely.

Most kids are extremely smart and self-preserving. If they experience the devastating consequences, they tend to abstain.

[squall]

Cocaine is not useful enough to be legalized, there are drugs today that are better and safer that do the same thing. To legalize a former illegal drug, I believe that the drugs should meet certain criteria regarding its safety and abuse potential. Opium and cocaine will never be completely safe, and synthetic street drugs have no use whatsoever other than getting people high, so cross them off. Marijuana is not physically addictive and kills no one.

[linguist]

and synthetic street drugs have no use whatsoever other than getting people high, so cross them off.

not strictly true. some of the synthetic street drugs are actually in use medically (ketamine and dextromethorphan, for example), and mdma (ecstasy) has been studied for use in treating post traumatic stress disorder, with some promising results.

[Rubystars]

Forced March, which was a medicine containing caffeine and cocaine, no longer for sale, was used to help explore Antarctica. I wonder if it might be possible to use something like it in specific applications, not in an abusive way, but to help with long, strenuous tasks for certain people in certain jobs.

[AFPheonix]

Interestingly enough, opium tincture IS a legal drug. It's a class II narcotic, typically used to stop severe diarrhea.

Cool, huh?

[NightAngel]

No, I didn't read the whole thread...
A friend of mine wrote a very persuasive argument FOR the legalization of Marijuana using me as an example.

When I was pregnant with my second child I had disabling Migranes. Migranes so bad that I would go into spasms and have to be taken to the ER. Back then there really weren't all these fantastical Migrane meds- so first they'd always give me a Narcotic- which NEVER worked- but they always gave it to me even though they were told it never worked. Then they would give me a Barbituate.

Sometimes I'd be high for 48-72 hours after a visit. Remember- I was pregnant.

Anyhoo~ her argument was that if Marijuana was legal I could have partaken in a "natural" remedy as opposed to chemicals. A remedy that probably would have been much easier, in all honesty, on me and the baby.

Oh, she received an A+ on her paper. Of course, she was much more articulate than I am here.

Personally, I would only agree to the legalization of Marijuana for medical purposes.

[Rubystars]

I know that regular cigarette smoke can be harmful to a developing baby. Couldn't marijuana be a teratogen? Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's safe!

[AFPheonix]

I'm sure smoking it would be harmful for the fetus, perhaps even more so than cigarettes, because joints are not filtered at all.

However, she might have been a candidate for Marinol, which is a legal medication, made pretty much of the active ingredients of marijuana.
We don't dispense it all that often, though. It's expensive and other anti-nausea meds like zofran, formulated for chemo patients, work very well.

[Rubystars]

It would be horrible for a baby to end up with a deformity or a sickness because their mother wanted something 'natural' to ease away pain. I don't see how that kid got an A without at least devoting some paragraph space to that aspect of it.

Is Zofran non-teratogenic? Is it safe in the first trimester too?

[AFPheonix]

Zofran is not teratogenic, and has been prescribed for women through all 3 trimesters if needed, but it is a pregnancy class B drug, simply because they don't know the long term effects on it.
It's primary uses are for chemo and post-op patients.

It so far is considered safer for the unborn than phenergan, although it's a lot more expensive.

[Rubystars]

It's good to know there are some things that can be used relatively safely.

[rahmota]

As to forced march the USAF is trying to find a stimulant that is safe for aircrews to use on the extra lojng missions like has become common in the gulf war and afghanistan support missions.

I know some of the street drugs like meth are just whatever people can find in their medicine/chemical cabinets and mix together. That is why governmental control and regulation would be a good thing in this instance. Making sure that the pot or cocaine or whatever is the stuff it is supposed to be. Making pot cigs available from liscenced dealers with the whole age requirements tobacco has. Then taking those tax monies and dumping them in to education and prevention and other programs for those people who are not going to do drugs.

Because as was pointed out there are always going to be people who will do something that is bad for them even if you stand in their face and scream with a megaphone while holding a picture of a diseased lung. As long as they are consenting adults and capable of making the decision for themselves then that is their right to abuse their own body.

[Rubystars]

The real concern comes in with drugs that can cause someone to become violent or hurt other people. Maybe there ought to be places set up with designated 'trip sitters' for those who wish to endulge in those kinds of drugs, so that at least they would be legal, but in a controlled environment where the person could be kept from driving, etc. while high.

There might even be a tv show based around it where people could see how stupidly people behave in those types of facilities so that it wouldn't look so 'cool' anymore.

When the person's trip has ended, they would be allowed to leave, and would have to sign a consent and legal release form beforehand to go in.

The main problem I see with this idea is that some drugs can make people forget where they are, make them lose time, etc. and while in that state, they're vulnerable to being raped/abused, etc. so the sitters would also need to be monitored closely.

[Primer]

However, she might have been a candidate for Marinol, which is a legal medication,
Thalidomide was legal, also...

Scientists are between a rock and a hard place when determining the efficacy and harmlessness of drugs for pregnant women. You can do only so much research with animals, but they are not humans, and drugs will always have some different effects on humans than on other animals.

Personally, I cannot see that marijuana is any less harmful than alcohol, and alcohol is legal and widely accepted. Why not legalize, regulate, and tax the hell out of marijuana?

[AFPheonix]

Thalidomide still is legal. We dispense it occasionally for cancer patients. However, marinol doesn't make you have babies with no arms or legs that I know of.

And if you'd read the beginning of the thread, you'd see that I don't disagree with you.