Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-11 15:54:26

In a NHTSA study, the only statistically significant outcome associated with marijuana was that drivers drove more slowly.

Actually, I know several people that drive better after they've had a joint.

Palomar · 2003-01-11 16:12:20

soph, heh, you're underage. I wouldn't approve of you drinking regardless.When I drink (I haven't drank in awhile, though) taste does play a role. If it's not sweet and cold, I won't drink it. Alcohol or no.

*I don't like the taste of beer ::shudders::

Cold and sweet, yes; I like cocktails, though I seldom drink (less than 1 cocktail per month).

As for chugging beer (or anything else)...I'd advise anyone, regardless of age, not to do it; if your system can't keep up with the alcohol level, you're dead. It's not worth it.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-11 18:48:33

Indeed Cindy, and unlike alcohol, it's physically impossible to OD on marijuana. With alcohol, you can drink a gallon and pass out. With marijuana you have to smoke so many joints that you would suffocate from lack of oxygen before dying from THC (but since you'd have to be unconscious for a good point while this is happening, it could never occur in any case).

Marijuana has arguably the safety of cigarettes (minus the addictablity- while you may get two or three hits a day on marijuana, most cigarette smokers do 20), with the buzz of alcohol.

PaganToris · 2003-01-12 10:25:03

See me im a 17 almost 18 yr old who likes to drink beer and i smolke frajos (cigarettes) but its all gravey i honestly thnx they should lower the alcg age to 18 becuse how amny people do u guys know whos drinks under age anyway?
me i like the beer i odnt like getting drunk but i liie gettng buzzed

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-12 17:16:59

Tee hee, PaganToris, there's just something... ironic about your post... I can't quite pinpoint it though.

clark · 2003-01-13 10:21:39

Turn on. Tune in. Check out.

Cu-coo-kachoo.

I am the walrus.

Marijuana has arguably the safety of cigarettes

Oh, you mean Cancer? Yeah, "safe". I always thought trache tubes were sexy.

I know people who drive better while f-uped on one substance or another. Of course, most of them couldn't dirve to begin with. But hey, if everyone is okay with the school bus driver having legal and easy access to drugs over the weekend, the day before he picks up those tots, I guess you all must be wiser than I. I always liked the cartoon character "Otto"- and if he can drive as well and get along as well in a cartoon, then reality must be even better.

As for the taste of alcohol- little children shouldn't be drinking, unless of course you are french, or live in France- they actually HAVE to drink ( I think it is the only way they tolerate BEING French). If you don'tlike the taste of alcohol, then you are probably just starting to drink. As time goes by, you will discover that there are millions upon millions who congregate for the sole purpose to taste different kinds of alcohol- wine tasting being the most snobbish of the bunch.

I believe Amsterdam hosts an annual consuier event along similar lines.

So again, why should we allow people to choose another way to get cancer?

Why allow another avenue for people to destroy their lives?

You talk of an America that is apathtic, a population unwilling to vote,or to learn about issues- do you think legalization of drugs will help this issue any? Wouldn't it just compound our exsisting problems?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 11:47:24

Oh, you mean Cancer? Yeah, "safe". I always thought trache tubes were sexy.

No, I mean you can't OD on them in a short period of time. I suppose you could get a nicotine OD, but that would take a lot of cigarettes, and many people smoke several packs a day.

So again, why should we allow people to choose another way to get cancer?

There are no known examples of marijuana causing cancer, you shouldn't take hings so literally, my comment was merely meant to explain that marijuana, in the way that you take it, can't create an overdose. Smoking something gives you instant effects, but is easier to moderate than actual consumption. You can OD on anything you have too much of. The point is that you would pass out before you OD'd on marijuana.

Why allow another avenue for people to destroy their lives?

Provide proof how marijuana destroys peoples lives, other than criminilization, there is none. Canada is basically the pot capital of the world (yeah, most marijuana comes from Canada or Mexico, so don't believe these terrorist commercials about buying pot helps terrorists, you'd be better off beliving the commercials about owning an SUV helps terrorists), but they have practically no drug related crimes. Funnily enough, I bet Caltech will be shocked to know that his wonderful Colorado actually determined recently that marijuana isn't harmful.

You talk of an America that is apathtic, a population unwilling to vote,or to learn about issues- do you think legalization of drugs will help this issue any? Wouldn't it just compound our exsisting problems?

I'm for reform in every way. One must note that I'm not for the legalization of all drugs. I'm for legalization of marijuana, and deriminalization of the other hard core drugs (ie, you don't get mandatory jail time,a nd everything is highly regulated, and so on).

clark · 2003-01-13 12:24:19

There are no known examples of marijuana causing cancer, you shouldn't take hings so literally, my comment was merely meant to explain that marijuana, in the way that you take it, can't create an overdose.

Smoking ANYTHING invlves intaking foreign particulate matter into the lungs and throat which can lead to "bad things". Continued use see's increase in cases of sinus infections, bronchitias, asthma, inner ear infections, and cancer.

But hey, i hear the glocoma isn't a problem.

Should we legalize valium, prozac, speed, lsd, etc? Or is marijuana better off being a medicaly perscribed drug like the rest of are phramacopia?

Provide proof how marijuana destroys peoples lives, other than criminilization, there is none.

I suggest you visit a Marajuna Anonamous session. Failing that, attend some Narcotics Anonymous sessions. You will see the same sad story played out, over and over and over and over and over again.

Any addictive behavior destroys lives. A drug with few adverse side effects can be more insidious than drugs that are harder.

Canada is basically the pot capital of the world (yeah, most marijuana comes from Canada or Mexico, so don't believe these terrorist commercials about buying pot helps terrorists, you'd be better off beliving the commercials about owning an SUV helps terrorists), but they have practically no drug related crimes.

Huh? No drug related crime in Mexico? LOL. Tell it to the cartels in Tijuana. And, might I add, people die all the time in the Emerald triangle of California- all drug related.

I'm for legalization of marijuana, and deriminalization of the other hard core drugs (ie, you don't get mandatory jail time,a nd everything is highly regulated, and so on).

So you want to decriminalize PCP use? Have you EVER encountered someone on PCP?

One persons hard core drug is anothers "recreational drug of choice". What differentiates them? Who's point of view is correct?

What about dealers? Should we reduce the crimilization of drug dealers as well? Does a drug dealer gain respect when they open a brick and mortar shop? Is it suddenly okay to do PCP if it is "regulated" so only those over a certain pre-defined age may posses it? Do all the problems just magically go away?

Palomar · 2003-01-13 13:47:23

Turn on. Tune in. Check out.
Cu-coo-kachoo.
I am the walrus.

*I am he as you are me as we are he and we are all together...

Has anyone here read of the work of Timothy Leary? Oh, yes -- I can hear it already. Sighs, groans, gasps.

No, honestly. Robert Anton Wilson knew Leary personally, and asserts that Leary's intention with LSD was meta-reprogramming the human mind. Willing and consenting adults were, after intensive psychoanalysis and counseling, to be "reprogrammed" during an LSD "trip"...reprogramming such as in a clinical medical professional setting, suggesting (upon previous request by the patient) that certain memories be "deleted" in the mind; certain habits be undermined via suggestion, etc. Apparently Leary did -- legally -- manage to perform a few such sessions before the government closed him down (and then threw him in prison). Both he and Wilson asserted that the few allowed sessions were approached with the same high, quality standards of professional medical practice.

Of course, I can't vouch for the veracity of what they assert. And, of course, I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to the government which may indeed have been doing another "big brother" bit in Leary's case.

I just thought the concept was interesting. And no, I don't promote the use of illicit substances (however, at the time Leary was doing these sessions, LSD hadn't been made illegal).

Has anyone here read books by John C. Lilly, M.D.? I've read 3 of his books; he and Leary were personal friends. Lilly was the first person to take LSD in a sensory deprivation tank; the experiments were government controlled and government funded, including purchase and administration of LSD.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 13:59:04

Smoking ANYTHING invlves intaking foreign particulate matter into the lungs and throat which can lead to "bad things". Continued use see's increase in cases of sinus infections, bronchitias, asthma, inner ear infections, and cancer.

Sure, the question is how much marijuana you can smoke in a lifetime. You smoke twenty to forty cigarettes a day. Even the most hardcore marijuana smokers smoke one or two at tops. And then there's the ablity to vaporize marijuana, so that you don't get particulates in your lungs. All you get is a water mist rich in THC.

And one should note that marijuana has shown to clear up asthma in those who smoke it. And obviously it helps to alleviate the pain and suffering caused by cancer, and other lethal ailments.

Should we legalize valium, prozac, speed, lsd, etc? Or is marijuana better off being a medicaly perscribed drug like the rest of are phramacopia?

We should only legalize drugs which have shown the inablity to cause an OD. If we could make a valium, speed or LSD that managed to become inert once you had a certain ammount in the body, then I'm all for it. But that isn't going to happen.

I suggest you visit a Marajuna Anonamous session. Failing that, attend some Narcotics Anonymous sessions. You will see the same sad story played out, over and over and over and over and over again.

Um, the ones that you're forced to attend because you were caught with a joint and were told that you'd recieve a mandatory 5 year sentence or whatever if you didn't go? Very few people actually become addicted to marijuana. Unlike cigarettes, which aren't illegal but are as addictive as heroine.

Any addictive behavior destroys lives. A drug with few adverse side effects can be more insidious than drugs that are harder.

Of course. But we don't ban alcohol because it has adverse effects; it's shown to kill more lives than all the other illegal drugs combined. We don't ban cigarettes, even though because of their addiction people easily spend hundreds of dollars a month on them alone.

Personally, if we want to have a moral justification for it, I think that the double standard we have here is dispicable.

Huh? No drug related crime in Mexico? LOL.

I didn't say that, clark...

And, might I add, people die all the time in the Emerald triangle of California- all drug related.

Well, we were talking about pot, but sure, any black market is going to have crime. I mean, hello? Criminals do what they have to do to get the product to the people. This is hardly the problem of ?drugs,? but rather the market that exists due to restrictions.

Don't you remember how crime went up during prohibition? Heh, I actually, and I'm not making this up. I actually remember reading that when the crime went up, prohibitionists claimed that it was proof that alcohol was evil! They actually used the increased crime they caused to justify the ban itself.

<snip lots of clark-eqsue, redundant, questions

I think that putting people in jail serves no purpose. Most addictions can be cured. The hard core drugs are only problematic because of the black market, the addictiveness of them isn't really a problem. If it didn't cost $20 for a hit, people wouldn't have to commit crimes to get their fix. This is a no-brainer clark.

The question is whether or not we actually plan to do anything about it other than locking people up indefinitely.

soph · 2003-01-13 15:43:30

THC might not be addictive, but on a side note, i know people who are addicted to the high of pot. its like being addicted to happiness-you like the feeling.

clark · 2003-01-13 16:20:13

Hey Cindy, you're alright

You smoke twenty to forty cigarettes a day. Even the most hardcore marijuana smokers smoke one or two at tops.

LOL.

"I smoke two joints in the morning. I smoke two joints at night. I smoke two joints in the afternoon, and then I feel alright."

A couple of joints is equal to a couple packs of cigs. At least cigs have filters. And I don't think your joint-per day appraisal is very accurate. Can I get a witness?

And then there's the ablity to vaporize marijuana, so that you don't get particulates in your lungs.

There is no advantage- it is a myth. It is the same as smoking from a water pipe.

And obviously it helps to alleviate the pain and suffering caused by cancer, and other lethal ailments

I willnot deny the medical benefits of pot- however, cocaine and heorin have medical benefits as well. Cocaine can be administered as a controlled narcotic when it is medically called for. It serves a purpose. Those who havea the medical need are allowed in some states to use pot to help their suffering. Recreational use though endangers their ability to use the drug for medical purposes. Why do other people need it?

Very few people actually become addicted to marijuana.

Okay Josh, I'm calling you out. Go to an MA meeting before you speak so rashly. Perhaps people are able to be functional addicts, but that is hardly an improvent.

We should only legalize drugs which have shown the inablity to cause an OD.

WOW. Come on Josh, tell me this isn't your idea. If we used this rationale, we would have marijuana legal; and alcohol, asprin, sleep aids, weight loss pills, most of the over the counter meds, etc would all be restricted and/or illegal.

So we make pot legal, but everything else illegal?

Personally, if we want to have a moral justification for it, I think that the double standard we have here is dispicable.

So instead you presuppose that allowing even MORE drugs to be used is an improvement in our morality? Sure, we are consistent, but let us admit what we are now being consistent on- free and unfettered use of drugs. Is this a better world for us?

Don't you remember how crime went up during prohibition?

Yeah, thems was tuff years.

I think that putting people in jail serves no purpose. Most addictions can be cured.

I agree. But that is a matter of correcting the penalties associated with the behavior- make the time fit the crime. What you are sugesting though is something much different.

The hard core drugs are only problematic because of the black market, the addictiveness of them isn't really a problem.

Should a person be free to give up their freedom? addiction is a problem. If you don't understand addiction, you can't appreciate what it means- how a real obsession debilitates you as a person.

If it didn't cost $20 for a hit, people wouldn't have to commit crimes to get their fix. This is a no-brainer clark.

Ah, so the drugs become "cheaper", so thus, less crime is neccessary to procure the drugs. And what happens in a capitalistic society? That's right, products compete based on cost and quality- so what do we get? A system whereby really good drugs are created that are cheap- or a tiered system where you have a arange of prices and a range of quality, all with more and more addiction.

We are currently learning about the level of crime perpetrated by the tobacco industry in our recent past- now you suggest that we repeat this adventure- this cost in life and resources again? Good god, why? So you can get high?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 16:21:38

Sure, but they can stop without having issues with withdrawal and so on. Being ?bummed out? not getting your high is hardly an issue...

Have you ever seen a heroine addict try to stop? How about a smoker? My mother and brother are both heavy smokers. I've tried to get them to stop for years. Even going so far as to pay for patches and so on. It's futile.

clark · 2003-01-13 16:25:56

The problem Josh is that you want them to stop.

THEY have to want to stop.

Intervention only works when the party admits that they have a problem and need to work on it.

Patient, heal thy self.

soph · 2003-01-13 16:30:04

Wanting to stop doesnt always work.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 16:59:39

A couple of joints is equal to a couple packs of cigs. At least cigs have filters. And I don't think your joint-per day appraisal is very accurate. Can I get a witness?

What?! Filters have actually been shown to cause more particulates since the cellulose breaks up and goes into your lungs when you smoke them!

There is no advantage- it is a myth. It is the same as smoking from a water pipe.

It's the same as smoking from a water pipe? Are you saying the particulates are not decreased? Proof?

Recreational use though endangers their ability to use the drug for medical purposes. Why do other people need it?

Now, what are we talking about? Pot or hard core drugs? You introduced cocain when we were talking about pot. You know you can't do that, evil clarky boy.

No, really. Why do people need alcohol?

Okay Josh, I'm calling you out. Go to an MA meeting before you speak so rashly. Perhaps people are able to be functional addicts, but that is hardly an improvent.

Bah, use Google. I'm inclined to believe what people say. I would gather that there are no more marijuana addicts than there are alcohol addicts. You can be adminstered 30 gram shots of THC a day without becoming ill, and an interesting thing is that the more you smoke it, the more sensitive to it you become. So people may start off smoking 3 a day, but may cut back to 1.

If we used this rationale, we would have marijuana legal; and alcohol, asprin, sleep aids, weight loss pills, most of the over the counter meds, etc would all be restricted and/or illegal.

Oh, well, I didn't say we need to make all other drugs illegal. I was talking in small doses, anyway, though. Obviously over the counter drugs aren't much of an issue. You can OD on water, I'm hardly suggesting that it be made illegal. (So I honestly don't see where this comes from, but maybe there was a miscommunication here.)

And anyway, you can OD on THC if you really wanted to. Just inject yourself with a couple of thousand grams of the stuff. The point I was making that in its normal form, marijuana is safe. And that [illegal] drugs which are easy to OD on and get addicted to shouldn't be so easy to get.

Remember, most OD's occur because the black market doesn't have a standard of measurement or quality. One day you may get some cheap heroine, and the next day you might get some really potent heroine. Not a good idea.

Sure, we are consistent, but let us admit what we are now being consistent on- free and unfettered use of drugs. Is this a better world for us?

C'mon clark, free and unfettered? We weren't talking about all drugs in that statement, we were talking, specifically, about pot. Pot should be no more criminalized than alcohol. Pot was most likely banned due to the hemp ban in the first freaking place. There is no justification for it to be banned because it's an evil evil drug.

If you can prove to me that pot is worse than alcohol, then I will happily listen, but so far you haven't shown that...

If you don't understand addiction, you can't appreciate what it means- how a real obsession debilitates you as a person.

Sure I do. I've been posting on this forum every day practically. For nearly two years. I think that definitely constitutes addiction.

But really, we can cure addictions. The key here, is that I'm not suggesting that we get people addicted in the first place. Something you seem to be missing. People who sell hard core drugs could be locked up, I'm not really caring about them. People who possess small quantities of it, though, ought not go to jail (usually they trade jail time for rehab, but rehab usually means straight withdrawal, and it's costly to the state). The hard core drug industry needs to be highly regulated, if not no-profit all together.

We are currently learning about the level of crime perpetrated by the tobacco industry in our recent past- now you suggest that we repeat this adventure

No I'm not. That's ridiculous.

First, and let me get this clear. Drug houses won't be profit based industries, and they would be highly regulated. Second, you couldn't get your hit without proving that you're addicted. And the program would mean getting off the drugs. Or getting a very small dose.

But pot, again, is no worse than alcohol. How can we justify all these people in prison with mandatory sentences for possessing something that is no worse than one of the most popular drinks, if not industries, in America?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 17:01:11

Oh, and BTW clark, they both wanted to quit. My mom continuely tells me she doesn't like the taste of cigarettes. I got the patches for them because, well, the #### things are very very expensive. They couldn't afford them.

This is hardly a case of me trying to force them to quit...

Auqakah · 2003-01-13 17:19:40

I think the reasons for legalizing all drugs are quite simple.

If you tell people that they can't do something too often, they do it. If you tell people that something will harm them, and you make the message too strong, people will ignore you, and harm themselves anyway.

Take gun laws, for example.

In Britain, we have bans on automatic and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, etc, and also handguns (since the Dunblane 'incident'). Yet we have more guns on the street today than ever before. Why? Partly (admittedly only partly - another big reason is that there are now more armed police officers, which provokes the 'underground' into arming themselves a little better) because they are banned now, and they weren't before.

And people want to do what they aren't allowed to do.

And that stems back to a poor educations system; we don't teach our children to cease being children. We just fill them with facts, pat them on the head, and send them out the door into the world.

So in today's society (and possibly any society) drugs must be made entirely legal. People must have the choice to make the right choice - not be forced to make the wrong choice because of bad habits that we're never made to leave behind.

Democracy is all too often considered to be 'freedom'. But there is more to freedom than the majority of people getting what the majority want - especially considering as that ideal is currently only attained in one nation on the whole planet. And it doesn't work all that well there, either.

The simple fact is that legalizing drugs will cut the drug problem down immensley. In Holland, the average age of heroin addicts is rising - in stark contrast to say, the US, or Britain, where the age of addicts is falling. Inside prohibition-geared states, children are becoming addicted to drugs. In Holland, they aren't. Holland has its problems - they are far too liberal in many respects - but drugs isn't one of them.

I'd say thats evidence enough that drugs should be legalized.

And Holland, Sweden, and Canada agree with me.

Auqakah · 2003-01-13 17:36:37

All You Ever Wanted To Know About Cannabis, But Were Lied To About When You Asked:

1. Cannabis is not addictive. You do, however, build a tolerance to it. This means that the longer you smoke/use it, the more you need to ingest to get the same effect. However... thats not entirely true. By varying the 'dosage', tolerance can be avoided entirely. Just like with any drug that isn't addictive. All drugs produce tolerance, however.

2. Cannabis does not kill brain cells. In fact, it only acts on one area of the brain. I'm not sure which part, but this particular area of the brain only reacts to two types of stimulus: the ingestion of opiates or cannabanoids.

3. Cannabis does not impair driving ability. In a study by the DVLA (the British driving watchdog type people, who issue the licenses over here, amongst other things) a number of people were given cannabis, and then put into a simulated driving environment - one group one hour afterwards, another group two hours afterwards. The control was people who hadn't smoked any at all. The results were rather interesting; the first group actually proved to be better drivers than the other two groups, despite slightly slowed reaction times. Due to the fact that they were aware that their reaction times were slower by a couple of microseconds, they concentrated far more on the task at hand - and drove in a safer manner as a result. The British government is, naturally, totally ignoring this study.

4. Cannabis is not a gateway drug. The true gateway drugs are infant painkillers, infant cough mixtures, etc. Quickly followed by stimulant drinks, alcohol, and cigarettes. Look no further for your gateway drugs; anyone who has tried cannabis is guaranteed to have ingested one of those beforehand.

Leaving the numbers behind, and reading the posts on this page... uhm, where to begin?

First of all... pot ain't addictive, my friends. Not in the least. There are no accepted/discovered/confirmed withdrawal symptoms. Like I said much, much earlier - you might suffer from insomnia, but thats not withdrawal. Its a simple case of having been using a relaxant - and then stopping. Naturally, you aren't as relaxed. So it's harder to get to sleep. But that isn't a withdrawal symptom.

Moving away from cannabis - overdoses don't occur because of 'bad gear'. Thats a misnomer. Bad gear kills you because of toxicity, not overdose. Addicts overdose when they quit their drug of choice for a while, fail to quit because of the withdrawals, then take the drug again at the dose they were using at before. And that kills them, because their tolerance to the drug has lowered in the time they've been off of it.

Dealers aren't in the wrong. They are misguided, and poorly educated. And sometimes rather desperate people who have fared just as poorly in the system as the very addicts they sell to. They need care as much as the addicts do, in my opinion.

Alcohol is far more dangerous than cannabis/pot/whatever, but that doesn't mean it should be illegalized.

Prohibition never works.

If you can show me one example of where it has been successful (there is no such place, or time), then I'll agree that it can work.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 17:44:03

Ugh. Give me some time. I actually looked into this once and was surprised to find an actual study that demonstrated no appreciable difference between either method of smoking.

The key is that the marijuana is never actually burnt. It's heated to the combustion point, but no further. Sort of like mini-pyrolysis. The THC condenses and gets into the water, becoming steam.

There can't be actual particulates since, well, the marijuana doesn't ever actually burn...

Seriously, people don't. I'm not advocating for alcohol use. I'm not saying alcohol use is correct, or even what we should be allowing.

Okay, so, you're for prohibition?

WOW, you're crazier than I thought. Sure, on the surface, it would be nice if people didn't need psychoactive drugs to have a good time. But damnit, if they want to have a good time, and they can do it without harming others, I see no problem with how they do it.

Okay my fine techie firend- the door, that's outside. That's real. A bored tennager with an axe to grind can make it look like an entire country thinks Pot is okay.

Pfft. I prefer the library, or a place to research this stuff (most likely online). Going to a marijuana anonymous meeting would probably be depressing to me. And not because I do the drug. But because I'd be in the company of people who think they're doing something wrong (when the scientific evidence is to the contrary). It makes me feel bad to be around people who are constantly guilty. This may be why I hate church.

So what's a few more million addicts, huh.

It's still questionable whether or not THC is physically addictive. If it is, it's more of a psychological addiction than anything. Hey, if the government wasn't so reactionary about the drug, we could do testing.

And so what if there are a few more million addicts, huh? There are already 20 million casual smokers after all. I guess they're all miscreants.

yes, there can be small term reductions, but long term use sees the same development of "more" to get the same high.

Probably the same for alcohol or cigarettes, eh? They all affect the brain in some way or another, right?

Talk about some weird priorities- you want to make illegal drugs safer so the end user doesn't have to suffer?

How is that weird? Let me guess, you want high octain jet fuel for your car, huh? Nothing, which affects no one adversely, in moderation is bad, clark. Stop with this morality crap.

Why make it easier to do drugs?

Easier? Perhaps you should read my whole posts before replying next time.

First, you're probably throwing pot into the same category as hard core drugs. I make the distinction, because there is one. You, on the other hand, don't see the distinction, so you wrap the two concepts into one easy concept for you to handle. This is the best way to spread propaganda. You wrap all the issues into one big black and white issue, and there ya go.

Pot, yes, should have easier access, because as I've shown, it's no worse than alcohol or cigarettes. So either we ban those (which you seem to be suggesting, actually! ), or we allow them all.

Secondly, I said in this very thread that hard core drugs need to be regulated. It's a no brainer. It's illogical to get people addicted when they weren't before. Especially to drugs which have such an effect. But of course, again, you bottle up the issues into one thing and pretend that I want to legalize drugs alltogether in the end of your post.

But alcohol use is NOT criminalized.

Sure it is. It's a crime to drink and drive...

Becuase why? What are they doing that is so wrong?

They are providing a service which causes people to be highly addicted to a substence, causing irrevocible harm to their brains in a manner much worse than that or alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana.

They are simply providing a service to a customer? No?

Sure, and they will probably continue to do so. But since marijuana would be legal, people wouldn't go to the same lengths to get hardcore drugs. The only reason they do hard drugs, is for the same effort, they can get any drug on the black market, and it's easier and better to go for the hardcore drug.

Let them provide their black market service. And when the people get addicted, they can go to the drug houses and get their hit for really cheap. Plus, they could get off of the addiction if they really wanted to.

How is it you differentiate between the dealer and the user?

Easy. The user is the one who comes to the clinic and gets the daily or weekly hit. Clinc = infinitely cheaper than the black market.

If we pull someone over with a pound of crack on them, we take the crack, give them a huge warning, and let them loose. Perhaps even referring them to a highly regulated clinc. If this happens three or four times, we arrest them.

But no, currently, if you're caught with even half a dime, you go down.

We can't. I am not. I'll gladly vote for anyone who says that these peopel should be freed. But to legalize drugs all together- that is a different issue

Sure, I agree. I'm not for legalization of all drugs, though. Just marijuana. Other drugs could become illegal in so far that if you have them, they're conficiated and you get in deep shit for repeated abuses.

Just imagine how much freer the court system would be if it didn't have to handle all the minor drug cases?

Palomar · 2003-01-14 11:01:24

Pot should be no more criminalized than alcohol.
But alcohol use is NOT criminalized.

*Interesting, though, that alcohol was criminalized in the days of the Prohibition.

There also seems to me an extra snobbishness surrounding alcohol: Poor people who frequent bars are "drunks," whereas the teetotaling medical doctor is "an alcoholic."

Bar = dive.

Country club = status.

Go figure. ::shrugs::

I wonder if smoking marijuana would be more acceptable to U.S. society if the image of it weren't so easily connected with the image of dirty, zany hippies from the 1960s. Guilt by associated image or something akin...

--Cindy

Auqakah · 2003-01-14 13:09:14

Okay, so this Bob took LSD but hadn't tried acid? Did I miss something here?

And, just a quick note... pot might have medicinal value for people suffering from such conditions as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and a number of others. It has the property of 'masking' the symptoms of those conditions, to a certain degree. However, once tolerance is built, that ceases, and the symptoms are clear for all to see. I fail to see, however, how the #### (why can't I say ####? - and #### is the word for that place where the bad people go, by the way (no, not Broadmoor, the fiery place with the demons and stuff that Dante went on about)) pot could be responsible for causing any brain disorder.

Now ecstacy, definitley - but even then that is mostly because the 'E's' on the street (according to a recent study here in Britain, at any rate) are often not ecstacy at all, but a mix of other chemicals that gives a similar reaction - but is far cheaper to produce. Also, the 'shrooms. No complaint there.

But pot does not cause neurological damage. Sorry, thats rubbish.

soph · 2003-01-14 14:03:40

E and shrooms are harder than pot.

And this is a bad example. Who knows what different combinations can do to people? Or even different substances?

Just take alcohol. I can drink 5 beers, and be buzzed, just for the sake of argument. You have 2, and youre plastered. Peanut butter can kill some people. Does this mean we should outlaw peanut butter?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-14 17:28:03

Pressed reply while still composing. I'll have my reply shortly.

Bill White · 2003-01-14 17:37:11

clark writes -

Now if you are unfamiliar with raves, they are big parties with loud music and lots of drugs, people well under 18 go to these things.

Anyone know if this next quote is true or merely urban legend?

"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2003-01-11 15:54:26

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#152 2003-01-11 16:12:20

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#153 2003-01-11 18:48:33

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#154 2003-01-12 10:25:03

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#155 2003-01-12 17:16:59

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#156 2003-01-13 10:21:39

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#157 2003-01-13 11:47:24

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#158 2003-01-13 12:24:19

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#159 2003-01-13 13:47:23

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#160 2003-01-13 13:59:04

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#161 2003-01-13 15:43:30

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#162 2003-01-13 16:20:13

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#163 2003-01-13 16:21:38

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#164 2003-01-13 16:25:56

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#165 2003-01-13 16:30:04

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#166 2003-01-13 16:59:39

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#167 2003-01-13 17:01:11

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#168 2003-01-13 17:19:40

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#169 2003-01-13 17:36:37

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#170 2003-01-13 17:44:03

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#171 2003-01-14 11:01:24

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#172 2003-01-14 13:09:14

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#173 2003-01-14 14:03:40

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#174 2003-01-14 17:28:03

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#175 2003-01-14 17:37:11

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Board footer