legalized drugs

[Chadd 916]

That's because these debates always end up degenerating, but I'll humor you.

That basically is the idea behind decriminalization, and for that county it would be considered a form of decriminalization...drugs are still illegal, but you just take the criminality away from it, allowing for the police to focus on more important things.

Actually decriminalization and making enforcement of posession-type offenses a lower priority are very different. Decriminalization has a much larger "ripple effect" and that's where the problem with that approach lies.

Personally, I think that in a free country, we shouldn't have any illegal drugs/plants, whatever

So you believe in anarchy? While I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, your philosophy is indefensible by any rational person.

It would reduce street crime by quite a bit, and it would significantly help the economy with less money being spent fighting drugs, and more money being made taxing them

Why would it reduce street crime? By the same logic (albeit a very stretched version) you could reduce crime by making DUI legal. I don't see that happening either. As for the economy, people around here go online to buy cigarettes so they don't have to pay state taxes and that's a product that has always been legally purchased. If drugs are heavily taxed, people will continue to buy them from illegal sources. Most states spend more on managing alcohol than they make in taxes on it. My state is an exception.

Of course there will inevitably be more people who destroy themselves because of the availability, but I don't think it would be that much...most people who really want to use hard drugs will be getting them anyway..at least this way they would be dealing with high grade, sterile, regulated products, and not circulating their money into the black market

Any scenario where drugs become more accessible needs to be accompanied by increased education and rehab funding and programs. Think of all of the anti-smoking campaigns. Who will be producing these new top-level drugs for the mass market? I'd love to see the major drug company who would take on production and sale (not to mention legal liability) of a drug that has no medicinal benefit and has harmful side effects that could include death.

The tobacco and alcohol companies are currently the only legal "drug dealers", and the two are only really harmful if misused by the user. The addicts will bomb out no matter what, but that's the decision of the individual.

Second hand smoke can kill people who don't smoke and smoking can cause cancer. I'm not aware of any other use for cigarettes other than smoking, that's not a case of misuse at all. Then there are the cases of drunken drivers killing others, people who didn't have anything to drink.

I remember in high school though, it was much easier for kids to get some pot than alcohol, simply because one is controlled by the government and one isn't...legalization means more control. All just my opinion, but I'd rather not keep dumping more money into a losing war (or two, or three..)

It was easier because of the political pressure groups like MADD have put on the government to prevent people from consuming alcohol. When I was in school there were always times that you could get both and there were times that dealers didn't have weed, I grew up in a small town and had friends with various addictions. Legalization means more government and more options, not more control. I agree that the money could be better spent, but I believe that legalization would end up costing far more in the end for the reasosns stated and many others.

[zingbergeur 0]

Lets legalize crime. Then we wouldn't have to spend money to stop it. :P

[dstidham 0]

Never going to be legal because that would put thousands of government workers out of jobs...

The government is funding terrorist by driving up street prices with every drug bust. Like drugs being illegal keeps people from doing it, or putting those people in jail cells is going to fix anything.

Just like prohibition didnt work, and neither is the war on drugs....

[Vapor 0]

The government is funding terrorist by driving up street prices with every drug bust.

congrats, you get the WHAT THE F%$# ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT award... the government is funding terrorism by keeping drugs off the streets? PONDEROUS F'N PONDEROUS, mannnnn.

[usahockey22 0]

So you believe in anarchy? While I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, your philosophy is indefensible by any rational person.

Anarchy is closer to the way drugs are bought and sold now...entire cities, neighborhoods, controlled by gangs, flooding the streets with drugs, and no control of the "market" except for shoot outs in the park. The situation with alcohol right now is not "anarchy", but what would you call it back when Al Capone and his gang were running it onto the streets?

Why would it reduce street crime? By the same logic (albeit a very stretched version) you could reduce crime by making DUI legal. I don't see that happening either. As for the economy, people around here go online to buy cigarettes so they don't have to pay state taxes and that's a product that has always been legally purchased. If drugs are heavily taxed, people will continue to buy them from illegal sources. Most states spend more on managing alcohol than they make in taxes on it. My state is an exception.

Well, most street crimes are associated with gang violence, and the driving force behind gangs and gang violence is controlling the streets by moving their products more than the rival. If you take the drugs out of their hands, you take away their blood, and stop a lot of the deaths associated with gangs and especially drugs and drug deals, including officers being killed on the job. Making DUI legal would be quite different. We all know driving under the influence is bad and unsafe, but most people would also agree that having a few beers or smoking pot while relaxing at home doesn't hurt anybody except for possibly the user. They are in two different categories. Alcohol/driving is a deadly combination, yet legal, but there is no way to prevent people from being idiots.

Also, you say "if drugs are heavily taxed they will continue to buy from illegal sources". Well, no, if drugs were legalized and sold down at the corner store, there would be no more illegal sources. Any amount of taxation on illegal drugs would be far far less than the current street prices that are payed. And this money would be going back into the economy instead of funding criminals. Not to mention the drugs would be safely produced and sold, as opposed to people buying unknown shit off the street.

Any scenario where drugs become more accessible needs to be accompanied by increased education and rehab funding and programs. Think of all of the anti-smoking campaigns.  Who will be producing these new top-level drugs for the mass market? I'd love to see the major drug company who would take on production and sale (not to mention legal liability) of a drug that has no medicinal benefit and has harmful side effects that could include death.

Alcohol and tobacco have no medicinal value, and they both can kill you. Marijuana has been shown to have many benefits for certain medical problems. (and it can't kill you) Cocaine and heroin also have medicinal uses as pain killers, local anesthetics, etc. Coke is actually schedule 2 which means it does have legitimate medical uses. And heroin was originally developed by Bayer along with Aspirin as the next best "non addicting" pain killer (haha) after morphine. Just interesting things to know, but also for the hypocrisy involved in the decision of which drugs should be legal or illegal.

I think most kids are plenty scared out of using drugs throughout their youth, and most know how bad they are. And I don't think you or I know anybody who would runoff to the drugstore after heroin is legal just so they could try shooting up. I do think that rehab programs should be used for addicts, as opposed to treating them like criminals...they should be treated as a medical problem, and given help, not thrown into a prison environment where they will be more likely to head down a bad path.

Also, I don't think the drugs would become any more accessible than they already are to people who really want to use them. If I wanted to get drugs right now, I could probably call someone up and find them. And I would end up dealing with a criminal, paying a lot of money, and getting some nasty stuff made up in someone's bathroom. But I could still get it if I wanted to. We need to reduce the criminal stronghold on the people and neighborhoods, increase drug awareness, as well as rehad programs.

Second hand smoke can kill people who don't smoke and smoking can cause cancer. I'm not aware of any other use for cigarettes other than smoking, that's not a case of misuse at all. Then there are the cases of drunken drivers killing others, people who didn't have anything to drink.

Well, of course driving under the influence of any drug should be illegal, as it is with alcohol. But there's no way to keep stupid or uncaring people off the road, no matter their drug of choice.

It was easier because of the political pressure groups like MADD have put on the government to prevent people from consuming alcohol. When I was in school there were always times that you could get both and there were times that dealers didn't have weed, I grew up in a small town and had friends with various addictions. Legalization means more government and more options, not more control. I agree that the money could be better spent, but I believe that legalization would end up costing far more in the end for the reasosns stated and many others.

Just the fact that alcohol can't be purchased until you are 21 made it much more difficult to acquire in high school than illegal drugs. Alcohol is now controlled and regulated, and of course off the black market because of that. No more rumrunners and moonshiners selling it in the back of joe's barbershop after 9. It would be the same way with any other drug.

[Trippingblue 1]

Just so everyone is clear, and to get this back to its original intent-

The bill under consideration in Mexico bacially sets allowable limits for personal possession of Weed, Heroin, PCP, LSD, Ecstasy, Peyote, and Psilocybin plus some others. Most of these allowable limits are quite small, in fact incrementally miniscule. The manufacture and sale of these drugs is still a VERY serious offense under Mexican law. The law also proposes to make penalties for possession of these drugs in amounts higher than proscribed much more severe. Basically, if you were arrested for possession before this, you could claim you were an addict and the charges would be dropped given your case was strong enough. The new law gets rid of that loophole. In essence you can't use your addiction as a reason to commit crimes.

--nick--

[dstidham 0]

Here ya go Vapor, its a quick synopsis, of the cause and effects of the war on drugs....maybe this will clear up my statement earlier....specifically the second paragraph about the rise in prices, the example is columbia, but same thing happened in Afghanstan with heroin....you might have heard of the place...I believe bin laden called it home for a while...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

The War on Drugs is an initiative undertaken by the United States to carry out an "all-out offensive" (as President Nixon described it) against the prohibited use of certain legally controlled drugs. The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress noted in a 1989 report that the nation's war on drugs could be considered to have started in public policy dating to November 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement which prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries. By February 1887, the 49th Congress enacted legislation making it a misdemeanor for anyone on American soil to be found guilty of violating this ban.

The "War on Drugs" has caused a massive surge in cost for illicit mind-altering substances, in turn raising the market value of the trade in highly targeted drugs such as Cocaine and Heroin to over a trillion dollars. This has had several prominent sociological, economic and political effects. A case in point is the South American country of Colombia, which had developed a commodity market to manage their imports and exports by the late 1960's. The subsequent actions taken by the American government included dumping surplus corn and grain into the Colombian market below market prices, depressing domestic production. The following decade showed a substantial rise in the profile of Cocaine use in American pop culture.

Nixon's modern-day "War on Drugs" began in 1971. He characterized the abuse of illicit substances as "America's public enemy number one." This coincided with Colombia's destroyed domestic market, providing a fertile ground for the exploitation of the American hunger for narcotics. Thus began the rise of a culture that is still romanticized in popular media; drug cartel groups and families including Pablo Escobar's reign over Medellin became the norm in areas where drug production was an important part of the local economy. The political implications of the "War on Drugs" are extensive and the impact of the program has been severe.

Furthermore, according to a report released in March 2006 by the Justice Policy Institute, commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, America's "Drug-Free Zones" are ineffective at keeping youths away from drugs, and instead create strong racial disparities in the judicial system. [2]

Around the turn of the 20th century, a perception of widespread abuse of cocaine caused policy-makers in the U.S. to consider drug abuse a serious social problem rather than as cases of personal failures.

In 1988, towards the close of the Reagan Administration, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was created to centrally coordinate legislative, security, diplomatic, research and health policy throughout the government. In recognition of his central role, the director of ONDCP is commonly known as the Drug Czar.

Another milestone occurred in 1996, when 56% of California voters voted yes to Proposition 215, legalizing the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This act has created significant legal and policy tensions between the Federal and State governments. Courts have since decided that neither this, nor any similar acts, will protect users from federal prosecution.

For U.S. public policy purposes, drug abuse is any personal use of a drug contrary to law. The definition includes legal pharmaceuticals if they are obtained by illegal means or used for nonmedicinal purposes. This differs from what mental health professionals classify as drug abuse per the DSM-IV, which is defined as more problematic drug misuse, both of which are different from drug use.

There has been much controversy around the War on Drugs, most notably with reference to the corruption involved in the policing of the drug trade. Many major players of the Reagan administration were aiding the Nicaraguan contras in shipping cocaine into America's cities. The funding for this practice was gained through the illegal sale of weaponry to Iran. When this practice was discovered and condemned in the media, it was referred to as the Iran-Contra affair.

The United States has also initated a number of military actions as part of its "War on Drugs", such as the 1989 invasion of Panama codenamed Operation Just Cause involving 25,000 United States troops. The U.S. alleged that Gen. Manuel Noriega, head of government of Panama, was involved in drug trafficking (Panama). As part of Plan Colombia, the U.S. has funded coca eradication through private contractors such as DynCorp and helped train the Colombian armed forces to eradicate coca and fight the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia).

[Vapor 0]

first of all, that is wikipedia. Wikipedia is well, a wiki, meaning that the users update it. So those views CAN be as bias as they would like, and unfactual as your little heart my desire. I can edit that page right now and have it say that JR and CHADD are leaders of the venezaulian drug cartel... but onto what u said before...

How do you figure us busting drug dealers funds terrorism? This text has done nothing to prove your point. Are the terrorist drug dealers? Do they harvest the opium? Did Kadaffi snort coke? What the hell are you talking about?

[Trippingblue 1]

Just yesterday, President Fox caved to U.S. pressure and vetoed the proposal.

--nick--

[Chadd 916]

first of all, that is wikipedia. Wikipedia is well, a wiki, meaning that the users update it. So those views CAN be as bias as they would like, and unfactual as your little heart my desire. I can edit that page right now and have it say that JR and CHADD are leaders of the venezaulian drug cartel... but onto what u said before...

How do you figure us busting drug dealers funds terrorism? This text has done nothing to prove your point. Are the terrorist drug dealers? Do they harvest the opium? Did Kadaffi snort coke? What the hell are you talking about?

Don't go blowing my cover.

[jbones23 0]

The legalization of weed would put a lot of people out of work. It will never happen. Cannabis is cheaper than paper and it is said that would be a better substitute for paper. It would put paper companies out of business and they would not have to cut down as many trees. It would hurt that part of the enconomy. Honestly, the government has bigger things on their mind thatn people dealing or smoking weed.

But on the other hand, I mean what are the dangers of weed? The dangers of alcohol are much, much higher. Why would it not be legal? The impairment level of weed isn't even comparable to alcohol.

[Vapor 0]

Hey, second dumbest thing IVe hever heard, hemp paper!! You have to harvest a large amount of canabis to create a small amount of paper. How would paper companies go out of business because they dont have to cut down trees? Wouldnt this save the money? You dont think these companies will adapt to a cheaper processes to make their product? There would be no loss of jobs, what do you think, that people are going to be making this weed paper at home? Companies will make it...

[dstidham 0]

Unfortunately my work frowns on this kind of discussion, and since its my only link to the online community I have to carefully choose which links I pull up on my computer. Since I didnt really spend much time searching yesterday, the "wiki" was a safe link to pull up...so here is a paper that might lend a little more credibility to my statement.

http://www.revistainterforum.com/english/p...pp_steinitz.pdf

"The government is funding terrorist by driving up street prices with every drug bust."

Above is the statement I made, lets try and dissect. In economics there is supply and demand. What the government has failed to learn in the war on drugs is that taking away some of the supply has not decreased demand. So every time the DEA makes a drug bust it lowers the supply on the street. The demand doesnt go away, so prices go up. This ripples back to the traffickers/governments that supply the drugs, and therefore they make more money. The point I was trying to make from the "wiki" was that countries make a lot of money off of drug trafficking. If you want to believe that this money doesnt go to terrorism, then your right my statement doesnt make sense.

[Vapor 0]

of course, this is common sense. Your blanket BS sentance still has no ground. So every time the price of oil goes up are we funding terrorism? Columbia is a a huge coffe supplier, so should we stop drinking java? You are trying to make a direct correlation between terrorism and drugs. It matters who you call a terrorist. Many of these organizations are considered terrorists by some and great organizations by others. For instance, Hamass builds schools in palastine, they also construct roads and hospitals. They also organize sucidide bombings in Isreal...

The reason your statement is crap is simple. The "wholesale" price will not change due to a drug bust in the USA. The terrorists profit off of the wholesale price (according to your scheme). The people making more money are the low level drug dealers here in the states, and the people who traffic the drugs. You say yourself that the demand is still there, meaning these evil drug producing terrorists would make MORE money because they can sell more product when they are allowed to spread their product freely.

When you call every enemy in the world a terrorist, it is easy to say that the terrorists are selling drugs, lets jsut thang god they are not communists.

[jbones23 0]

A little link for ya bout the hemp paper. Apparently you Canucks don't think it is such a dubm idea.

http://www.rawganique.com/HempPaperProducts.htm

[dstidham 0]

So the basis of my crap statement is that I dont know the definition of terrorism, apparently neither does the person in the article. Also demand doesnt dictate wholesales prices, so your suggesting the wholesale price of drugs have stayed the same for the last hundred years, and just the street dealers have upped the price. Thats funny...you might want to actually read the article before making an arguement.

Can I get your definition of a terrorism?

[Vapor 0]

inflation has to do with prices going up sir, not demand. Anybody can be labeled a terrorist today... it is an easy label and creates negative sentiment.

[pat19 0]

Hey, second dumbest thing IVe hever heard, hemp paper!! You have to harvest a large amount of canabis to create a small amount of paper. How would paper companies go out of business because they dont have to cut down trees? Wouldnt this save the money? You dont think these companies will adapt to a cheaper processes to make their product? There would be no loss of jobs, what do you think, that people are going to be making this weed paper at home? Companies will make it...

you can get twice as much paper out of an acre of cannabis than an acre of trees. and cannabis grows back every year

[Vapor 0]

do you have any documentation t back that up? Everything I have read says to the contrary... The sources I have used arent exactly the least biast tho....

[pat19 0]

i found this look at the first and third bullets, i don't know how accurate that website is though. i heard hemp can produce more textiles but it feels like a burlap sack and who wants a shirt to feel like a burlap sack. but it says softer than cotten so i don't know, also if they grew it like this it would have alost no THC and woulnd't be a drug.

[tyler9 0]

i have hemp clothes and they don't feel any different thean my cotton ones. We have hemp fields around where i live and it produces something like .04 % thc or lower so no ones gettin baked off that. Hemps a very useful plant and it makes me proud to see the Canadian goverment cathcing onto this.