I hear you. The objection that I have, is more of a moral one. I don't want to do it, and I don't want my family exposed to someone doing it.

This is a similar situation to an abortion rights debate: some religions allow it, so it should be legal, and those whose religion don't allow it, still have the choice.

But in this case, there's no "need" or "right" that would allow marijuana to be made legal. If anything, it might cause a number of other vices to become legal.

On the other hand, and to be fair, tobacco is curently legal, and the real issue may be more about correcting an "injustice" in the first place, when marijuana was made illegal under dubious pretenses, as the history shows. But I'll always maintain that smoking pot is immoral.

I did not imply or express (nor did I intend to) an insult to any one of you pro-legalisation people. My opinion is that it is, as I put it "stupid", I have no opinion on any person with this opinion. In fact I know a lot of smart people that do stupid things, doing a stupid thing (in my opinion) or believing a stupid belief (ALSO in my opinion... no insults thrown) does not make a person stupid, so I should whish that you did not interpret my first post in such a personal way.

Also that sounds a lot like a legal disclaimer :) I should stop thinking so much while I write.

I can respect your opinion. The objection that was noted against you is that you simply and bluntly expressed it. As with any other debate, you should be able to offer a rational explanation for your position, otherwise your position comes off as being based on prejudice, which also implies that you may be unaware of the details on the issue.

We're on the same side here, but on a different basis.;)

I find it interesting that there are two rational, and expresive people, one on either side, (im refering to bigben and cova) and they have to keep all the crackpots and "uninformed" at bay, and must routinely remind them that these wild outbursts are not helping, but most likely hurting their case. Just an interesting observation, IMHO.

By the way, I am pro-legalization. pot should be legalized on the same level that tabaco or alcahol are, since it is nowhere near as harmfull to either the individual or society as a whole.

Furthurmore, I believe that harder and more addictive drugs, such as cocain, crack, etc. should also be legalized, but HIGHLY restricted. What I mean is, should an existing adict want/need a fix, he would go to a clinic, where a doctor would both prescribe and administer the propper dosage. I emphasize administer, since this would cut down or eliminate the street resale of such drugs, the rate of overdoses, and the rate of infection through dirty needles. Also at these clinics the addicts would recieve help on overcoming the problem and beating the habit.

In adition, since there would no longer be a demand for illigal drugs, the crime associated with them, such as bribery of officials, murder, gang violence, etc. would be eliminated as well. Just like after prohibition.

With such a plan, not only would the addicts no longer have to commit crimes such as burglary or mugging to get the needed funds to buy drugs, there would be less or no drug related crimes of the nature described above. Plus the addicts would be getting help with beating the addiction.

It is my understanding that some parts of canada have recently started similar programs in low-income enviornments with high drug problems. They have noticed a dramatic decrease in overdose cases and drug-related crimes commited by desperate addicts.

Im not sure of the source for this, I heard it on a news blurb on the radio.


*P.S. Sorry for the poor spelling, I'm @ work and i have no spell-check. :(

That's an interesting perspective, Superart. It's similar to Utabintarbo's, where he expresses that the government shouldn't have any influence in our personal and private lives.

However, it becomes the people's problem, when medical expenses negatively affect them. In other words, if you end up needing treatment, as a result of being on drugs, wether it's detox or a car crash, then you just bumped my insurance premiums. In Canada, it increases your taxes.

It's also not in the people's interest to allow a company to make money from selling a substance that is addictive, because the product markets itself, and I mean, the product creates a need for more of it, and that's unfair.

But if goverment cuts all the money spent on drugs war and reassign it to health and rehabilitation programs, the thing balances. Maybe it could lower your insurance costs!

Yes, but what about all the drugies that wind up in the ER from overdoses? Such a plan would practicaly eliminate overdose cases in the ER, which is a cost to taxpayers both in the US and Canada.


The whole point of the clinics would be to get the drugies off the drugs. The doctors would be there to administer and monitor, and at the same time could employ therapists to help in the recovery process.

Also, I did some googleing, found a couple links, unfortunately most of them were broken. this one, however was good:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/cds..._drug/appb.htm
if your concerned about financial cost to citizens, read the end. Se how this type of program has made life cheaper already.
does that sound like an infommercial?

also:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n992/a06.html?192

BINGO!!

Imagine all the money we spend on drug raids, customs inspections, court time, and the like that would all be gone.

I'm sure they'll find another way to waste it... ---> millenium dome now wasn't that a great success?

How would it eliminate ODs?

Not to mention incarcerating an appreciable percentage of the population, especially of certain minority groups.:shrug:

Bob

I'm kinda suprised at how many peps here are pro pot. Don't feel too safe dissenting because jaydee seems to be out to get me or something... I wouldn't know, but who here says that under average use, pot causes problems?

Some interesting stats quoted from the article I linked on the first page that relate to the recent discussion about whether it would save money or cost money to legalize pot (or other drugs) and spend it on rehabilitation/etc. instead of policing/punishment/etc. There is actually a lot more about this in that article, around page 28/29 (going by Acrobat's page numbers, not the page numbers that are part of the document).

And I'll re-link the article again to save you going back to page 1. If you haven't read this yet I highly suggest you do. It's long, but it's worth it - it is a summary report of a research committee of the Canadian Senate and their findings about pot (this doc is kinda at the root of the entire thing about decriminalizing pot in Canada btw)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/c.../summary-e.pdf

The doctors would be administering the drug. They would regulate the dosage, therefore, there would be no overdose since the doctors would give them just the right amount. And they would have to take it all their and then, this would eliminate them being able to resell it on the street or "saving up" dosages and overdosing later.

Would this be part of some kind of detox program? How's a patient not able to jump from hospital to hospital, to get his hit? How does a doctor reconcile this with the hypocratic oath? I'm suppose to agree to having a doctor payed 100'000$ so he can get people high?

I don't follow...

yea, I stated previously, numerous times, that the whole point would be to eventually get the drugies off the drugs. there would be therapists and addiction specialists on premises to assist the addicts in kicking the habit. Its not just a government sponsored crack house.

The clinics would be geographically far apart from each other. That would make it hard for patrons of the "ghetto community" (which would be the primary target of such a plan since these are the most highly concentrated areas of drug abuse) to jump from hospital to hospital since they don't have ample transportation. There would be ONE location that is easy to get to but no other near by facilities. Also, for someone to be eligible for such treatment, they would need a prescription from a doctor, the prescription would stipulate which clinic and how often the patient could be treated. This would all be computer controlled. For example, you couldn't forge a paper prescription because all the clinics would be networked. You would provide some form of ID, and they would check you up on their system. If you checked out, treatment would be administered.

Just to point out a few obvious points about this idea (well, obvious to me)...

1. Tracking who gets what and so on would simply go online into a persons permanent medical file, which all hospitals/clinics/etc. should have access to. At least here in Canada you need your healthcare number to get access to any kind of medical treatment, and those aren't easy to fake as far as I know (then again, as far as I know there isn't much demand for fake ones yet either, this could change that). If high security was required, it would be simple to implement something like putting a persons fingerprint into their medical file to ensure that each persons actual dosage is being tracked correctly.

2. You can't put these clinics far away from each other to prevent clinic-hopping, and at the same time have a clinic within easy travel of people who have no good form of transportation. Having enough clinics to meet the second requirement breaks the first requirement. Besides the fact that building a new chain of clinics for this purpose would be far too costly. If such a program were to be implemented it would require the use of existing clinics (again, here in Canada there are "Medicenters" all over the place) and a secuirity system similar to what I outlined in point 1 above would be required to prevent clinic-hopping.

However, even solving these problems, I disagree with the idea. There are already rehab programs in place, and prescription drugs available to help people with their addictions. More funding simply needs to be allocated to these things than prescribing the "hard" drugs themselves.

I agree, but where do we get the money for this? By eliminating the illigal status of hard drugs, they are no longer a lucrativeenterprise for criminals. this frees up the vast recources that were being used to combat said criminals. these recources could then be pumped back into the types of programs you described.

Simply making something legal doesn't get rid of all crime associated with it's production/distribution. So long as there is a demand for it, there will be a potential "black market" for it - especially if it's easier and/or cheaper to get that way than it is the legal way. Buying and running MS Windows is perfectly legal, but we both know there are a lot of people pirating it around the world. The only way enough funds could be removed from combating the illegal production and sale of drugs to use in rehab, would be if enough quantity of said drug was made available at a competitive price to the people looking for it. And that quantity would be FAR more than what you are thinking of distributing through your clinics.

However, legalizing pot would free up a significant amount of money from the anti-drug budget, and would create even more money from taxes on sales of it. There's 4 pages of discussion before this post about why doing such a thing would not be bad for society if done properly (see my previous posts, I'm not advocating turning pot into tobacco, it would still be restricted in many ways). And with all of that cash put back into rehab programs for all drugs (hard ones, but pot, tobacco, and alcohol as well), it just might make a significant difference.

I agree, there would still be a potential for a black market for harder drugs, but even if the black market was there, it would be no where as lucrative as it is now. If it is no longer as lucrative then the crimes associated with it will also go down.

You have to look at it this way: Drug dealers aren't evil, they are just business men. They don't kill and murder and bribe and what-not just for the hell of it. They do it because it is economically beneficial. They kill because it significantly increases their profit margins. To use your example, people who peddle illegal copies of Windows, do they kill people? No. Why? Is it because windows pirates have more ethics? No. Its because killing people in the illegal software business does not significantly increase profit margins. If we make it so that committing these types of crimes no longer produces higher profit margins, then they will no longer commit them. One way to do this is through legalization. Just like ending prohibition ended violence related to bootlegging. This, coupled with more rehab and treatment programs will curtail the demand for hard drugs thus making the entire business less profitable and will make the "criminal element" abandon the violent business of illegal drug traficking.

You have the reason why your clinic idea won't work in your own post just above this - you just stated it a bit differently and I think you're missing my point.

Ending prohibition and legalizing alcohol in the states did NOT end the violence/crime related to bootlegging. Making all the alcohol that the public could possibly want easily availble at your local corner store at a competitive price is what put a quick stop on bootlegging - legalizing it just made that possible. Legalizing hard drugs without making them readily available in large quantities will not have a significant effect on the crime related to it.

True, but it will significantly lessen demand for illegal hard drugs. This will make violent crime less beneficial to the bottom line, allowing government to funnel more money into treatment and rehab programs . This in turn will curtail demand even more, allowing even more money and resources to be funneled into rehab and treatment. I realize we will never completely eliminate demand for hard drugs like we did with alcohol, but we can hope to curtail demand to the point where murder and extortion and bribery are no longer economically beneficial, like the situation with pirated software.

The fact is hemp, pot, weed ect. isn't all that usefull. Yes many things can be made from it, no doubt.

But at competitive cost in a real world market place? With the exception of rope, no. West Indian hemp ropes were once the standard of the world for strength and long wear. They still would be in fact if it were not illegal for the farmers who once grew and marketed it to do so. And unlike nylon it is low stretch, nor does it degrade at the rate nylon does in sunlight/weathering.

It's funny to me that few know this plant prior to, and during the first world war was grown extensivly in the great plains states for rope making. Were thier massive numbers of stoner farmers? NO. On the other hand were clothing makers using it, NO. The idea put forward saying it should be legal so we can make clothing ect. is BS, plain and simple, and most people see it as such.

IS it really needed for medical use, again NO. Every single treatment it is possible to make a medical use for the "herb" is also well treatable with other drugs. Just because it is possible to use it to treat a illness or side effect of cancer treatment drugs doesn't make it NEEDED. So the medical use arguement in it's favor goes out the window.

I've read a great deal on the subject of drug abuse (includes alcohol), so as to form a personal oppinion of drug use. I've also been trained in how to deal with those who are drug abusers. I work as a corrections officer for the state of MI. and I've seen tens of thousands of drug abusers in my years in corrections. Some are violent people, with or without mind altering substances, this is made much worse if they are high ( and yes, they find ways to get it even in prisons.) Othes giggle to themselves or find common things rather amusing. A third group sits or lays down and "enjoys the buzz".

Drugs don't so much turn someone into a violent killer, or rapest BUT they can and DO lower inhibitions of individuals. And it is this lowering of a individuals inhibitions that is the danger in ALL drugs INCLUDING ALCOHOL. This is for those who don't abuse daily, but do so as "recreation".

There is a strong connection between being under the influence and crimes of impulse. Murder, assualt and rape often involve substance abuse. The most often abused substance involved in crimes by impulse is ALCOHOL. Even though there are numerous crimes commited involving other narcotic drugs, alcohol related crimes of impulse outnumber all those other drugs combined.

Those who become hooked on thier substance of choice are a bit differant. They count planed crimes amoung thier offences. Theft to gain money to buy more is common in this group. And they also include all the crimes of impulse.

Violent crime between drug dealers over "sales regions" are a third area of crimes that are drug related. But they are planned, not impulse. Also major dealers are most often involved in other criminal activitys besides drugs.

During prohibition alcohol use in our nation droped by huge amounts. It still existed and in fact created the illegal making and importing of alcohol as a new crime catagory. One of the strongest arguements forwarded in repeal of the law was that alcohol use was still wide spread and was funding organized crime. So the law was repealed, and alcohol use tripled and more almost overnight. And the goverment makes money from it again.

Tobacco has always been legal. But in recent years it has now been proven to be a cancer agent not only to the user, but to those around him. But again the goverments make a great deal of money off of tobacco sales. The goverment has doubled and tripled or more the taxes on cigaretts in the last 25 years.

To those saying the use of pot is no worse than alcohol I have this to say. I argee with you to a point. Alcohol is at this time involved in more crime than pot is. But this is in fact due, in part, to the fact alcohol is LEGAL. Pot use they claim won't increase much if made legal, BS. Just as alcohol use rose so will the use of pot. I don't think the growth would be quite so rapid as alcohol use after the repeal of prohibition as the pent up demand was there waiting on tap, so to speak. But pot use would grow quickly as those now restrained by it's legal standing won't be then. And don't even try the claim that people are not restrained by the status quo. Many are, they use less than they would if it were legal, or abstain entirely. And the amount of pot avaiable for sale would increase, thus lowering the price, which would make it less cost prohibitive to try.

I'm one of a very few who would gladly see alcohol and tobacco added to the list of illegal substances. Most of all alcohol. Tobacco is damaging, no question, but is not related to crimes of impulse as alcohol is.

There is so much more I could say on this topic.

By extension of your thesis, food should be made illegal, since hungry people might steal. :rolleyes:

The issue really in question here should be whether the government should have the power to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. I'm sure the implications of such a policy will become clear to those who put a little thought to the matter.:shrug: :cry:

Bob

I know you can do better than this. My post made referances to crimes of impulse while under the influence of drugs.

It is more than the question of what, you, or I, or anyone does with thier bodies. It is what the intoxicated individual does to OTHERS! Those in favor of making it legal to smoke pot, use any drug, say in effect, "Punish those who abuse it and do terrible things, but let me have my fun." This disregards the victoms of these acts, carried out under the influence.

I've seen those who cry bitter tears indeed, of true remorse, for what they did. They wish to god they hadn't, and if sober, never would have done. They are at extreme risk for suicides. The majority of this group, when released, would need a divine act to make them drink or smoke week again.

I also see those who blame thier incarceration on anyone, or anything, but themselves. They are the ones who should never be allowed out. They care only for what they want, what makes them feel good. When released, they will be back. (Mi. only gives life without parole for muder 1) I've seen drunks and dopers back for as much as a 9Th. NEW sentence.

The laws are for the protection of the innocent, form those who can't "handle it".

A individuals rights to do as he/she pleases stops the instant it indangers or harms others. And substances that can, and do, reduce a persons inhibitions, self-restraint or/& motor skills to the point they become a danger to others, must be prohibited.

And as I posted before, I wish this included alcohol.



I don't happen to like tattoos, or other body art. But I have no right to impose my feelings and values on others, when it offers no harm to anyone else.

Drugs DO offer harm to others besides the user, that is the whole point.

But is this harm necessarily a consequence of the drug use? Could this harm be explained in any other way? Can you say that every auto accident where alcohol is involved that the alcohol use is the certain cause of the accident? What if I get back-ended on the freeway after having a few beers (I really don't drink beer, btw). Am I at fault? I guarantee that I will be hauled off to the pokey, regardless.

Does this harm occur in all applications of the drug use? Should the actions of a minority dictate the response to the majority?

Is this harm a consequence of the drug use, or it's relative expense/unavailability? See prohibition. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - Georges Santayana.

The key here is responsibility - taking responsibilty, fully, for the things we do, as opposed to the things we might do. I, for one, do not stipulate the governments ability to foretell the future.

If the consequences for actual misdeeds were stiff and sure, the actions leading to those misdeeds might give one reason to pause and reflect, eh?

Bob

Tattoos on women offends my sense of aesthetics to the extent that I become ill.:cry: I advocate the death penalty for those that place tattoos on females. :mad:

:p Bob

It may not be NEEDED for any medicinal purpose - however that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used simply because many are predjudiced against it if it is the BEST drug to treat a particular problem. And especially in terms of medicinal use, crime is really not a factor - many of those using it for medicinal purposes are also likely under the supervision of a doctor.

In terms of recreational use - I don't believe the government should be able to make something illegal because it has the possibility to make someone more likely to harm others. That IMHO is simply a restriction of my own freedom. If I hurt someone I should be punished for it - however I should not be prevented from having (or punished for having) anything that has the possibility to harm others. I don't have the stats but I would bet car accidents kill more people a year than anything weed-related does, yet even driving reclessly while under the influence of alcohol carries a lesser punishment than simply having some weed on me. Guns are created primarily to hurt people (especially hand-guns), yet I could legally buy one if I wanted to.

I'm not saying to disregard the victoms of those acts - I'm saying that pot should be treated no differently than the thousands of other things that exist that can be abused and do terrible things, yet are legal. Why if it's a chemical should it be illegal to posses, but if it's a physical object like a knife or gun only those that abuse it need to be punished while the rest of the population can still go and have their fun?

Hi guys, I think I might be some what older and have had more exposure to life that some of you, so that might color my opinion some what.

That said: I smoked marijuana for a few years, not a lot just once or twice a month. I tried cocaine once to see what all the fuss was about. The coke did more to give me a runny nose than to get me high and the grass tied out my throat so much that it to lost much of its appeal.

But what really go me of the grass was discovering that it dulled my senses and made the world around me less interesting. That’s what worked for me. I’m sure it is not the answer for every one but it is why I stopped smoking.

On the law enforcement angle, here in Hawai’i the feds and the local police have done a great job of suppressing marijuana so now we have a huge methamphetamine problem to go with the crack problem.

Now “Ice” is a truly destructive drug, it has been shown that it can destroy parts of you brain in a little as a year. The photos of slides cut from the brain tissue of “Ice Heads” in autopsies reminds me of those that the anti drug zealots used to try to scare kids away from grass. The actions of people high on “Ice” are a lot like those high on PCBs. They tend to be very agitated, some even violent and when they are violent they are very hard to stop!

I have an in-law who is undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment for cancer and he has trouble keeping food down for a day or two after each treatment. It has been shown that moderate does of THC would alleviate much of his discomfort. There is also ample evidence that it is effective in the treatment of glaucoma. Even the AMA has found THC to be of use in these conditions. Still the new “Drug Zar” wants to keep it illegal even from medical usage. The same goes for the chief federal drug enforcement officer for the state of Hawai’i!

IMHO, the Republican Party, the one now in power in Washington cannot see a way for their constituents in the pharmaceutical industry to make money on THC so it must be suppressed. Thus it “must” and will remain illegal in These United (Not) States.

Grayson L. Wideman