Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

lutherblsstt

Guest
http://original.antiwar.com/henderson/2009/03/30/reduce-violence-end-the-drug-war/


The drug war has caused many ironies. Take the high price. It’s due to the fact that the drugs are illegal and, therefore, suppliers, to be willing to supply, charge a risk premium. In an unpublished article I wrote a few years ago, "The U.S. Drug War on Latin America," I compared two exports from Colombia, both of which are drugs or contain drugs, and both of which begin with the letter "c." I refer to cocaine and coffee. I estimated that if the same markups applied to cocaine as to coffee, which would occur with cocaine legalization, then cocaine’s price in the United States would fall by about 97 percent. No one would need to steal to support a cocaine habit. That would not mean, of course, that no one would steal to support a habit. People steal to get the wherewithal to buy even items that are cheap and legal. But virtually no one would need to steal to afford cocaine.

Consider the legitimate concern many people have that drug users would die from overdoses or from foreign substances used to "cut" the drugs. Even this problem is due to the fact that drugs are illegal. Because the drugs are illegal, no one in the business can use advertising to establish a reputation and brand name. You can’t have a brand name for, say, cocaine, that is at all comparable to the brand name for Coca-Cola. Therefore, there is much less incentive to provide a known-quality product.

It may be a hard pill to swallow, so to speak, but it is true, nevertheless, that the vast majority of harm attributed to drugs is, in fact, due to the drug war. End the drug war, and it’s true that some people will consume things that others don’t want them to; but it’s also true that the amount of violence in that market would decline to the amount seen in the legal alcohol market. That is, there would be almost no violence. Keep that in mind when you see politicians advocating stemming the violence by escalating violence against sellers of illegal drugs.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
http://original.antiwar.com/henderson/2009/03/30/reduce-violence-end-the-drug-war/


The drug war has caused many ironies. Take the high price. It’s due to the fact that the drugs are illegal and, therefore, suppliers, to be willing to supply, charge a risk premium. In an unpublished article I wrote a few years ago, "The U.S. Drug War on Latin America," I compared two exports from Colombia, both of which are drugs or contain drugs, and both of which begin with the letter "c." I refer to cocaine and coffee. I estimated that if the same markups applied to cocaine as to coffee, which would occur with cocaine legalization, then cocaine’s price in the United States would fall by about 97 percent. No one would need to steal to support a cocaine habit. That would not mean, of course, that no one would steal to support a habit. People steal to get the wherewithal to buy even items that are cheap and legal. But virtually no one would need to steal to afford cocaine.

Consider the legitimate concern many people have that drug users would die from overdoses or from foreign substances used to "cut" the drugs. Even this problem is due to the fact that drugs are illegal. Because the drugs are illegal, no one in the business can use advertising to establish a reputation and brand name. You can’t have a brand name for, say, cocaine, that is at all comparable to the brand name for Coca-Cola. Therefore, there is much less incentive to provide a known-quality product.

It may be a hard pill to swallow, so to speak, but it is true, nevertheless, that the vast majority of harm attributed to drugs is, in fact, due to the drug war. End the drug war, and it’s true that some people will consume things that others don’t want them to; but it’s also true that the amount of violence in that market would decline to the amount seen in the legal alcohol market. That is, there would be almost no violence. Keep that in mind when you see politicians advocating stemming the violence by escalating violence against sellers of illegal drugs.
And left out is the proof as in Denmark that commercializing drugs skyrockets their usage levels, and the longer term ramifications for that are unknown, and risky
 

purebred

Guest
i respectfully disagree: i wouldn't end the war on evil just because evil finds new ways and loopholes to exist and wreak havoc. evil is a necessary part of this imperfect world.

we're only passing through this life so while we're here why not do our part and fight the evil. generally speaking, if everyone "did their part", things would be much different. then again, I'm talking about a perfect world. we don't live there, yet. until then, i feel we need to do what's right and quitting isn't one of them b/c to me quitting exemplifies lack/loss of faith. I'm not having that :) hence, why i want to join the police force.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
Here is another major blind spot in the pro-War on Drugs ideology.

The money spent in the drug war is spent almost exclusively on curbing illegal drugs,a curious policy given that the abuse of legal drugs is a huge problem. More Americans use legal drugs for nonmedical reasons than use cocaine or heroine;hundreds of millions of prescription pills are used illicitly each year. More than half of those who die of drug related medical problems or seek treatment for those problems are abusing prescription drugs. By the AMAs own estimates one in twenty doctors is grossly negligent in prescribing drugs,and according to the DEA,at least 15,000 doctors sell prescriptions to addicts and pushers.

Yet,less than 1 percent of the nation's antidrug budget goes to stopping prescrption drug abuse.

The gargantuan disparity in spending reflects-and is perpetuated by-what the nation's media and political leaders have chosen to focus on.

Sources:

Prescription Drug Abuse and Dependence by Daniel Greenfield
http://www.sunshinecoasthealthcentre.ca/prescription-drugs.html

Prescription Fraud LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/18/local/me-drugs18

Prescriptions supplanting illegal substances as drugs of choice
http://www.nascsa.org/NEWS/RXAbuseLAtimes5.08.pdf
 

nopeace

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
My take on this "war" on drugs is as follows:

it's just like the "war" on terrorism. It doesn't have any actual end in sight and is used only to divert funds. The "war" on terror just causes people to lose their civil liberties when there is no actual threat knocking on our door.

The United States knows where drugs come from. We know where they are manufactured, we know how they are distributed, we know the routes they take across continents. The CIA has been and is still involved with the drug trade because that is how they pay for their black ops.

We could easily wipe out the opium in Afghanistan, we could easily target cocoa fields across South America and other drug manufacturing facilities. We have all the resources, and plenty of well trained pilots and special forces to handle it. Are these drugs lords really evading the world's most technologically advanced intelligence force? No, we just don't want them to stop poisoning our country.

On further analysis many of these drugs lords can be tied to prominent families around the world. Charities such as the Wildlife Fund are used for money laundering. Plus we won't **** with anything if the elitist are involved.

The US Government does only enough to portray it has an anti-drug policy. But then again we are a society of drugs, we are bombarded by ads and PHARMA companies lobby Washington all day and sell drugs that even worse than street drugs.(ritalin, SSRI's, heart meds)
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Here is another major blind spot in the pro-War on Drugs ideology.

The money spent in the drug war is spent almost exclusively on curbing illegal drugs,a curious policy given that the abuse of legal drugs is a huge problem. More Americans use legal drugs for nonmedical reasons than use cocaine or heroine;hundreds of millions of prescription pills are used illicitly each year. More than half of those who die of drug related medical problems or seek treatment for those problems are abusing prescription drugs. By the AMAs own estimates one in twenty doctors is grossly negligent in prescribing drugs,and according to the DEA,at least 15,000 doctors sell prescriptions to addicts and pushers.

Yet,less than 1 percent of the nation's antidrug budget goes to stopping prescrption drug abuse.

The gargantuan disparity in spending reflects-and is perpetuated by-what the nation's media and political leaders have chosen to focus on.

Sources:

Prescription Drug Abuse and Dependence by Daniel Greenfield
http://www.sunshinecoasthealthcentre.ca/prescription-drugs.html

Prescription Fraud LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/18/local/me-drugs18

Prescriptions supplanting illegal substances as drugs of choice
http://www.nascsa.org/NEWS/RXAbuseLAtimes5.08.pdf
Which one of these (although the 2nd and 3rd are the same article) shows that

Yet,less than 1 percent of the nation's antidrug budget goes to stopping prescrption drug abuse.
or is that more makebelieve numbers from you?
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
My take on this "war" on drugs is as follows:
We could easily wipe out the opium in Afghanistan, we could easily target cocoa fields across South America and other drug manufacturing facilities. We have all the resources, and plenty of well trained pilots and special forces to handle it. Are these drugs lords really evading the world's most technologically advanced intelligence force? No, we just don't want them to stop poisoning our country.
you are so insane, its amazing. Do you know what bombing another country's civilian own land is called? Terrorism at best if its hidden well as to where it came from, or war. what a totally lame argument.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
Which one of these (although the 2nd and 3rd are the same article)




shows that



or is that more makebelieve numbers from you?
Make believe numbers? Here you are:

http://www.ndsn.org/oct96/prescrip.html

"Nationally, the federal government spends $13 billion to $14 billion on the war on drugs, but only $70 million goes to the DEA to investigate prescription drug offenses. "There are two kinds of justice in this system, one for doctors, and one for everybody else," said Paul K. King, a former California narcotics agent who investigated prescription fraud in Los Angeles County"


Math lesson- 1 percent of 14 billion = 140 000 000

Also:

Since millions of prescription pills enter the illicit drug market every year, some see a double standard in drug enforcement because of grants of leniency towards the doctors and their rich clientele who abuse the drugs (Dan Weikel, "Prescription Fraud: Abusing the System," Los Angeles Times, August 18, 1996, p. A1; Dan Weikel, "Prescription Fraud: Abusing the System," Los Angeles Times (Washington Edition), August 19, 1996, p. A1).

The DEA estimated that prescription drugs were sold for about $25 billion in 1993 in the illegal drug market, compared to an estimate of $31 billion spent that year on cocaine, including crack.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Make believe numbers? Here you are:

http://www.ndsn.org/oct96/prescrip.html

"Nationally, the federal government spends $13 billion to $14 billion on the war on drugs, but only $70 million goes to the DEA to investigate prescription drug offenses. "There are two kinds of justice in this system, one for doctors, and one for everybody else," said Paul K. King, a former California narcotics agent who investigated prescription fraud in Los Angeles County"
So nationally we spend 13-14 billion on "the war on drugs" but only 70 million goes to the DEA for prescription drugs. How much goes to the DEA for non-prescription drugs? because if a majority of the rest of the money is going to border patrols, customs checking, educational programs etc, then your statistic as with many you present is wildly inflated in an attempt to "prove" your point.

The DEA estimated that prescription drugs were sold for about $25 billion in 1993 in the illegal drug market, compared to an estimate of $31 billion spent that year on cocaine, including crack.
Right and me just doing eyeball math at least 2x more for marijuana, i'm not sure about other drugs. california alone grows more than $14 billion in marijuana. And do you have anything more recent? since the quotes about how much is being spent is current, comparing volumes from 16 years ago is pointless.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
So nationally we spend 13-14 billion on "the war on drugs" but only 70 million goes to the DEA for prescription drugs. How much goes to the DEA for non-prescription drugs? because if a majority of the rest of the money is going to border patrols, customs checking, educational programs etc, then your statistic as with many you present is wildly inflated in an attempt to "prove" your point.
"If" ? That is your response? The statement you made was
Which one of these (although the 2nd and 3rd are the same article) shows that


Quote:
Yet,less than 1 percent of the nation's antidrug budget goes to stopping prescrption drug abuse. or is that more makebelieve numbers from you?
I provided a link that showed that less than 1 percent of the antidrug budget goes to stopping prescrption drug abuse and all you can do is introduce "If" followed by a red herring http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html?




Right and me just doing eyeball math at least 2x more for marijuana, i'm not sure about other drugs. california alone grows more than $14 billion in marijuana.
About 2.6 million people in the U.S. use prescription drugs for "nonmedical reasons" -- more than the estimated number of users of heroin, crack and cocaine, according to surveys by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, prescription painkillers, sedatives, stimulants and tranquilizers are about 75% of the top 20 drugs mentioned in emergency room episodes each year.

And do you have anything more recent? since the quotes about how much is being spent is current, comparing volumes from 16 years ago is pointless.
From 2008:
http://www.nascsa.org/NEWS/RXAbuseLAtimes5.08.pdf
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
2004 National Institute on Drug Abuse's (NIDA's) Monitoring the Future survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders found that 9.3 percent of 12th-graders reported using Vicodin without a prescription in the past year, and 5.0 percent reported using OxyContin-making these medications among the most commonly abused prescription drugs by adolescents.

The abuse of certain prescription drugs-opioids, central nervous system (CNS) depressants, and stimulants- can alter the brain's activity and lead to addiction.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Prescription/prescription.html

So EasyEJL,when these 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders sell or buy Vicodin should they be executed?
 
getbigbyjune

getbigbyjune

Member
Awards
0
hey ive got a great idea. why don't we ask my brother about this. Oh wait thats right, hes dead. Why? because he was invovled in a gang war and was shot to death because of traficking drugs(weed). If you make the damn thing legal you put the gangs out of buisness. They will lose most of their income and be destroyed. Gangs will be ousted. Do what they do in amsterdamn. Make it legal BUT PUT A LIMIT ON THE STUFF. only a certain amount per day. You don't see horrible gang fighting in holland or swiss or anywhere that makes it legal.
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm sorry your brother died but that's a risk you take when you involve yourself in those types of lifestyles. His choice to get money a certain way put his life in danger and unfortunately he paid the highest price. There are always going to be illegal activities and get rich quick schemes. I grew up in a broken home surrounded by drug users and dealers. I had options and some were harder than others. I was involved in gang activity when I was a teen and made wrong decisions but those decisions were mine. At no point did i not know what I was doing was wrong and i knew the dangers associated with it. Again, i'm sorry about your brother but his death wasn't the result of drugs being illegal. It was a result in him putting himself in a dangerous situation.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
"If" ? That is your response? The statement you made was

I provided a link that showed that less than 1 percent of the antidrug budget goes to stopping prescrption drug abuse and all you can do is introduce "If" followed by a red herring http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html?
no, you provided a link that stated that less than 1% of the budget went to the DEA for purposes of stopping prescription drug abuse in the late 90s. Its 10 years later, can you show its still the case? and what % of the budget went to the DEA in total of that antidrug budget? you still are answering neither of those. Like with your statistics, you cherry pick something very specific that would seem to support your case. Can you show what % of the DEAs portion of the drug wars budget it is? not what portion of the overall.



thats the same worthless op-ed you posted before, it doesn't have anything to do with drug war spending.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
2004 National Institute on Drug Abuse's (NIDA's) Monitoring the Future survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders found that 9.3 percent of 12th-graders reported using Vicodin without a prescription in the past year, and 5.0 percent reported using OxyContin-making these medications among the most commonly abused prescription drugs by adolescents.

The abuse of certain prescription drugs-opioids, central nervous system (CNS) depressants, and stimulants- can alter the brain's activity and lead to addiction.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Prescription/prescription.html

So EasyEJL,when these 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders sell or buy Vicodin should they be executed?
The person that gave them to them should be, as those children didn't magically conjure them out of the air.
 

purebred

Guest
The end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies, legalization of drugs could have similar effects.
following your reasoning and train of thought, this too can be viewed as unfounded wild speculation. case and point.
So EasyEJL,when these 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders sell or buy Vicodin should they be executed?
behind crimes like these, in which minors are involved, there's either a lack of supervision (as well as a number of other things I'm sure) and/or an adult who is supplying the demand.

on another note, its important to have discussions like this, not to see who can argue better, but rather, to explore all possible scenarios and outcomes if such a large decision as legalizing presently illegal drugs is made. this would be a monumental turn-key decision in the event it were ever made. we're not talking about something that has a clear cut solution or a significantly obvious "better" answer.

in order to contend effectively, it's beneficial to learn how to argue your side, but also the other person's, better than they can. ;)

either way, i tip my hat off to you all for such an intriguing debate.
continue! :)

 

lutherblsstt

Guest
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqWaf9DMFOc"]YouTube - Eye To Eye With Katie Couric: Rx Drug Abuse (CBS News)[/ame]
 
dg806

dg806

Enologist/Brewmaster/Damn good guy
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm sorry your brother died but that's a risk you take when you involve yourself in those types of lifestyles. His choice to get money a certain way put his life in danger and unfortunately he paid the highest price. There are always going to be illegal activities and get rich quick schemes. I grew up in a broken home surrounded by drug users and dealers. I had options and some were harder than others. I was involved in gang activity when I was a teen and made wrong decisions but those decisions were mine. At no point did i not know what I was doing was wrong and i knew the dangers associated with it. Again, i'm sorry about your brother but his death wasn't the result of drugs being illegal. It was a result in him putting himself in a dangerous situation.
Agree. In the early 90's, i had a cousin who lived in Maryland and was shot and killed in a drug deal gone bad in DC. He was a young kid of 16, but still knew what he was doing was wrong. During the course of the investigation and several months later, the guy who was suspected of the killing was shot and killed himself. Does anyone have age stats on drug dealers and life expectancy?
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Agree. In the early 90's, i had a cousin who lived in Maryland and was shot and killed in a drug deal gone bad in DC. He was a young kid of 16, but still knew what he was doing was wrong. During the course of the investigation and several months later, the guy who was suspected of the killing was shot and killed himself. Does anyone have age stats on drug dealers and life expectancy?
What this reminds me is that even if possession of marijuana was decriminalized (but sales was still illegal) I still wouldn't be able to go back to using marijuana like in college. I refuse to take the risk of going to a drug dealers and the risks entailed in just that portion of it. If it was legalized + commercialized that would be different, but as we saw in Denmark that significantly increases usage
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
What this reminds me is that even if possession of marijuana was decriminalized (but sales was still illegal) I still wouldn't be able to go back to using marijuana like in college. I refuse to take the risk of going to a drug dealers and the risks entailed in just that portion of it. If it was legalized + commercialized that would be different, but as we saw in Denmark that significantly increases usage
http://digg.com/d1mzJh

"The Attorney General of Arizona, citing evidence that Mexican drug trafficking organizations get 60% to 80% of their revenue from marijuana, has suggested that national policymakers debate legalizing marijuana as a way to cripple both Mexican and U.S. gangs.

Although he was careful to say he wasn’t advocating legalization, he nevertheless asked the right question: Should marijuana be taxed and regulated like alcohol?

Critics will say legalization might increase drug use.

Perhaps.

But then again, studies around the world have found that the relative harshness of drug laws matters surprisingly little.

After all, rates of illegal drug use in the United States are the same as, or higher than, Europe, despite our more punitive policies.

And thirteen U.S. states have already decriminalized marijuana, but marijuana use rates in those states go up and down at roughly the same rates as in other states."


Also:

"What matters most, of course, is not how many people use marijuana, alcohol or other drugs, but how best to reduce both the harms of drug misuse and the harms of drug control policies.

Seventy five years ago Americans recognized that the harms of alcohol misuse had been exceeded by the harms of alcohol Prohibition; they responded by repealing a national amendment for the one and only time in our nation’s history. Hundreds of thousands of Americans die prematurely each year because of cigarette smoking but we’re still wise enough to understand that tough public health strategies produce better overall results than criminal prohibition.

Marijuana is dramatically less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes. It’s far less addictive than the latter, and typically consumed in much smaller amounts. It lacks alcohol’s powerful association with violence, accidents and reckless sexual behavior. It’s impossible to die of a marijuana overdose. And the consequences of marijuana addiction, for the small proportion of marijuana consumers who do become addicted, are dramatically less than the consequences of alcohol addiction.

With Mexico in crisis, U.S. prisons packed beyond capacity, and state and federal deficits soaring, the time has come to at least consider taxing and regulating marijuana. "
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Critics will say legalization might increase drug use.

Perhaps.
No perhaps there at all luther, your own study you posted earlier trying to prove it wouldn't showed that legalization with commercialization significantly raises drug use. It showed that decriminalization of self usage quantities doesn't lead to increased use. However decriminalization has no effect on mexican drug gang revenues, as sales would still be illegal.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
No perhaps there at all luther, your own study you posted earlier trying to prove it wouldn't showed that legalization with commercialization significantly raises drug use. It showed that decriminalization of self usage quantities doesn't lead to increased use. However decriminalization has no effect on mexican drug gang revenues, as sales would still be illegal.
The article was discussing legalization not decriminalization.

From the article:

"The Attorney General of Arizona, citing evidence that Mexican drug trafficking organizations get 60% to 80% of their revenue from marijuana, has suggested that national policymakers debate legalizing marijuana as a way to cripple both Mexican and U.S. gangs. "





Also:

"What matters most, of course, is not how many people use marijuana, alcohol or other drugs, but how best to reduce both the harms of drug misuse and the harms of drug control policies. "
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The article was discussing legalization not decriminalization.

From the article:

"The Attorney General of Arizona, citing evidence that Mexican drug trafficking organizations get 60% to 80% of their revenue from marijuana, has suggested that national policymakers debate legalizing marijuana as a way to cripple both Mexican and U.S. gangs. "





Also:

"What matters most, of course, is not how many people use marijuana, alcohol or other drugs, but how best to reduce both the harms of drug misuse and the harms of drug control policies. "
And again, your own article showed that legalization and commercialization causes a huge increase in usage. And one mans opinion of "what matters most" is irrelevant. as we continue to increase entitlements via socialist policies, the # of people using drugs becomes more and more important as they will be being supported more and more by the people who are effective in the world - ie non drug users.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
And again, your own article showed that legalization and commercialization causes a huge increase in usage. And one mans opinion of "what matters most" is irrelevant.
Are you not "one man"?

Also,they were specifically discussing Marijuana:

"Marijuana is dramatically less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes. It’s far less addictive than the latter, and typically consumed in much smaller amounts. It lacks alcohol’s powerful association with violence, accidents and reckless sexual behavior. It’s impossible to die of a marijuana overdose. And the consequences of marijuana addiction, for the small proportion of marijuana consumers who do become addicted, are dramatically less than the consequences of alcohol addiction.

With Mexico in crisis, U.S. prisons packed beyond capacity, and state and federal deficits soaring, the time has come to at least consider taxing and regulating marijuana. " "
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Are you not "one man"?
yes, and I don't think my opinion alone should guide US foreign and domestic policy.

Also,they were specifically discussing Marijuana:

"Marijuana is dramatically less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes. It’s far less addictive than the latter, and typically consumed in much smaller amounts. It lacks alcohol’s powerful association with violence, accidents and reckless sexual behavior. It’s impossible to die of a marijuana overdose. And the consequences of marijuana addiction, for the small proportion of marijuana consumers who do become addicted, are dramatically less than the consequences of alcohol addiction.

With Mexico in crisis, U.S. prisons packed beyond capacity, and state and federal deficits soaring, the time has come to at least consider taxing and regulating marijuana. " "
And again I fail to see the upside. You'll increase marijuana usage by significant amounts, while not changing the ability of the drug gangs to move to cocaine and other drugs for their funding. Doesn't accomplish anything positive as far as his own stated goals goes (the Attorney General of Arizona).

Mind you, i'd still vote yes on it :D But its purely from selfish motives
 

nopeace

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
If you consider Alcohol and Tobacco a precursor to what kind of deathtoll and cost in society will be, allowing even more addictive and deadly substances will lead to a skyrocketing stats.

Plus the FDA/Pharma companies don't want you to buy drugs that make you feel good. You have to get there own SSRI's and Pain killers!!! They don't want competition.

I wish the entire US public was ready to handle something like this. But we are way too stupid to even drink responsibly. It would be great if it stopped the violence.

And also if they lifted the scheduling on AAS and some pre-2004 hormones!!! lol.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
yes, and I don't think my opinion alone should guide US foreign and domestic policy.
Who said the opinion posted should?



And again I fail to see the upside. You'll increase marijuana usage by significant amounts, while not changing the ability of the drug gangs to move to cocaine and other drugs for their funding. Doesn't accomplish anything positive as far as his own stated goals goes (the Attorney General of Arizona).

Mind you, i'd still vote yes on it :D But its purely from selfish motives
It's nearly incomprehensible that a natural plant that has been used as medicine for centuries is banned while drugs that cost up to or over $100 a pill, and can damage the kidneys, liver, heart, or even cause death, are seen as good things, even though some work a paltry 30% of the time or less.

OK to your point:

1. Even the government admits use by over 25 million annually.

Pot is the largest cash crop in the United States, yet none of that money gets taxed and most of it goes out of the country because of drug laws.

Marijuana has been used for centuries - short of finding a way to brainwash and control the entire world, its use will never be wiped out.

Prohibition of alcohol created the mafia: harsh drug laws have helped to create drug cartels. Getting rid of the anti marijuana laws will get rid of the worst problems.

2. Regulated legal markets for marijuana would reduce teenage exposure.

Yes, there are teens who pay adults to buy beer for them, and pot would probably work the same way, but there are millions of teens who smoke pot now when it's illegal.

It's big money for other teenagers who can hook up with dealers to sell it.

If marijuana was legal and regulated, it would be a lot less valuable, making it far less profitable for the lazy teenage entrepreneur. Legalized marijuana would not only likely cut down on the number of teenage dealers, but that would also keep them further away from exposure to more serious drugs.

3. Legalized Marijuana keeps money in the U.S. and out of foreign cartels.

Money from the U.S. ends up with cartels, while the U.S. spends billions of dollars more prosecuting marijuana offenses when PCP, cocaine, and meth are far more dangerous drugs . If marijuana was legal, it would be cheapest grown, processed, and produced in the United States, putting marijuana based cartels out of business or at least crippling them and allowing government agencies to focus on far more important matters while a giant source of new income could be used to fund education, help to balance soaring deficits, and even be used to stamp out meth.

4. Like it or not, Hemp has enormous potential and use. Hemp can make great natural rope. It can be used for clothes, and some of the most efficient and cleanest bio fuels in the world could be produced from hemp. This would allow incredibly efficient ethanol and butanol for vehicles to run on, while keeping crop prices affordable AND allowing the few surviving family farms to grow this cash crop instead of corporations. So legalized marijuana could save the environment and the family farm in one move.



YouTube - legalize marijuana www.thejivelive.com
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
1. Even the government admits use by over 25 million annually.
and given your study of denmark, legalizing and commercializing would raise that to 50-75 million

Pot is the largest cash crop in the United States, yet none of that money gets taxed and most of it goes out of the country because of drug laws.
this makes no sense. Its not a "cash crop" if its imported.

Prohibition of alcohol created the mafia: harsh drug laws have helped to create drug cartels. Getting rid of the anti marijuana laws will get rid of the worst problems.
And legalizing/commercializing marijuana alone won't get rid of them, it will just have them concentrating on cocaine and steroids, or something else.

2. Regulated legal markets for marijuana would reduce teenage exposure.

Yes, there are teens who pay adults to buy beer for them, and pot would probably work the same way, but there are millions of teens who smoke pot now when it's illegal.
Are you seriously that dense? alchohol is by far the most highly used substance by teens in the US, at least until its replaced by legal marijuana

Alcohol is the number one abused substance by teenagers in the United States. It's prevalence in this age group is quite staggering. According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse - Columbia University, "underage drinkers account for 11.4% of all the alcohol consumed in the United States."

Some studies done by NIAAA (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) have shown the following(1)

Prevalence in 8th graders:

51.7% have tried alcohol
43.1% have had an alcoholic drink in the past year
25.1% have been drunk
15.2% have had 1 or more binge drinking episodes
Prevalence in 10th graders:

70.6% have tried alcohol
63.7% have had an alcoholic drink in the past year
48.9% have been drunk
25.6% have had 1 or more binge drinking episodes
1.9% have been daily drinking for at least 1 month at some point in their lives
Prevalence in 12th graders:

80% have tried alcohol
73.8% have had an alcoholic drink in the past year
62.3% have been drunk
30.8% binge drank in the past 2 weeks
3.6% use alcohol daily
It's big money for other teenagers who can hook up with dealers to sell it.

If marijuana was legal and regulated, it would be a lot less valuable, making it far less profitable for the lazy teenage entrepreneur. Legalized marijuana would not only likely cut down on the number of teenage dealers, but that would also keep them further away from exposure to more serious drugs.
Apparently you've never sold marijuana before. its hard for it to be big money unless you sell big volumes and most teen dealers dont. And tell me how it would keep them away from more serious drugs? The dealers would just move on to pushing lsd, ecstacy, etc harder.

3. Legalized Marijuana keeps money in the U.S. and out of foreign cartels.

Money from the U.S. ends up with cartels, while the U.S. spends billions of dollars more prosecuting marijuana offenses when PCP, cocaine, and meth are far more dangerous drugs . If marijuana was legal, it would be cheapest grown, processed, and produced in the United States, putting marijuana based cartels out of business or at least crippling them and allowing government agencies to focus on far more important matters while a giant source of new income could be used to fund education, help to balance soaring deficits, and even be used to stamp out meth.
Your math sucks, but thats no surprise seeing your abuse of statistics. If marijuana becomes cheap, then its not going to be a giant new source of income unless usage increases tremendously. An ounce of tobacco is roughly what is in a pack of cigarettes which prerolled + boxed is still under $5. Marijuana's value as a cash crop in all your earlier garbage is based on its per oz retail of over $150. Marijuana is easier to grow in volume per acre than tobacco, so it would probably be cheaper. so try a cash value of 1/30th of what you were trying to use.

4. Like it or not, Hemp has enormous potential and use. Hemp can make great natural rope. It can be used for clothes, and some of the most efficient and cleanest bio fuels in the world could be produced from hemp. This would allow incredibly efficient ethanol and butanol for vehicles to run on, while keeping crop prices affordable AND allowing the few surviving family farms to grow this cash crop instead of corporations. So legalized marijuana could save the environment and the family farm in one move.
Show any real evidence of the bolded?
 

nopeace

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Simply put.

American's are not ready for drugs. Not smart enough. Not Responsible enough. Corporate corruption in marketing drugs. Society pays a high cost already when it comes to loss of productivity, death, abuse, with only Alcohol!

Now add in drugs that are waaaaaayyyy more addictive and affect reasoning and judgment on another level. We are looking at almost total mental destruction of our already stupid society.

I wish drugs would be legal only to reduce crime. But on further speculation, it will have damaging long term implications.

We have every resource to stop drugs. We don't want to, our Government relies on them for financial support of other operations. (black ops) The war on drugs, is more like a picnic against drugs. We can truly unleash a war on drugs but we don't!

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
Show any real evidence of the bolded?
Hemp Biomass for Energy
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRG.htm


Industrial hemp is a high-yielding multi-purpose "fuel and fibre" crop that has great potential for biomass energy. Hemp yields four times as much biomass as a forest can yield. An acre of hemp yields 10 tons of biomass in four months, enough to make 1,000 gallons of methanol fuel (by pyrolytic distillation), with about 300 lb of oil from the seed (about the same as soy).


Also:

"Marijuana Called Top U.S. Cash Crop"

"Marijuana is the top cash crop in 12 states and among the top three cash crops in 30, according to a new study. The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion)." See http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&page=1

The new study: Marijuana Production in the United States (2006), by Jon Gettman -- http://www.drugscience.org/bcr/.
Entire Report http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I can't believe there is this much discussion on legalizing marijuana, or the drug war in general. The drug war has not done anything except waste money and put more people needlessly in jail. Jail, the drug war, alcohol and tobacco, prescription drugs are ALL big business. The legalization of pot would affect all of these. All of these businesses have lobbyists in washington. It doesn't take a genius or a bunch of statistics to figure out what is going on. Based on the governments OWN standards, pot does NOT warrant criminalization. It kills less people annually than alcohol, tobacco, poor diet , prescription meds, aspirin. The archaic idea that it is a gateway drug is nothing more than propaganda. http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html The hypocrisy is disgusting.
What is ignored is that our governments function is NOT supposed to be to dictate what goes into our bodies. And yet we are conditioned by overzealot politicians to not only accept this crap, yet scorned if we don't embrace a futile "war" on drugs. Look at the new taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Being touted as a great win for public health. Now there are proposals of taxing sugary soft drinks. This is NOT their job. And whatever speculation might be used as an argument AGAINST legalizing drugs, the bottom line is that the current plan has FAILED. It's failed the people and failed in intent.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Hemp Biomass for Energy
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRG.htm


Industrial hemp is a high-yielding multi-purpose "fuel and fibre" crop that has great potential for biomass energy. Hemp yields four times as much biomass as a forest can yield. An acre of hemp yields 10 tons of biomass in four months, enough to make 1,000 gallons of methanol fuel (by pyrolytic distillation), with about 300 lb of oil from the seed (about the same as soy).
so you answer it yourself there. Its not particularly more efficient than other crops. Sure more effective than forest, but I dont' recall anyone anywhere advocating deforestation for biomass.

Also:

"Marijuana Called Top U.S. Cash Crop"

"Marijuana is the top cash crop in 12 states and among the top three cash crops in 30, according to a new study. The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion)." See http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&page=1

The new study: Marijuana Production in the United States (2006), by Jon Gettman -- http://www.drugscience.org/bcr/.
Entire Report http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf
[/quote]

And again, those are at street prices. So divide by 30, the approx factor of difference in tobacco and current marijuana prices, and its not a very valuable crop.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What is ignored is that our governments function is NOT supposed to be to dictate what goes into our bodies. And yet we are conditioned by overzealot politicians to not only accept this crap, yet scorned if we don't embrace a futile "war" on drugs. Look at the new taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Being touted as a great win for public health. Now there are proposals of taxing sugary soft drinks. This is NOT their job. And whatever speculation might be used as an argument AGAINST legalizing drugs, the bottom line is that the current plan has FAILED. It's failed the people and failed in intent.
At the same time, the government is NOT supposed to be paying for peoples housing, food, and giving them spending cash, but it does. Its not supposed to be paying for people's healthcare, but it does. And the higher taxes on cigarettes, alchohol, and proposed taxes on HFCS based drinks is a part of mandating that people be responsible for themselves, and generating $ to pay for the additional health care abusers of those things will need over their lifespan. as we head towards the Obamanation of this country and socialism, it becomes critical that as many things that will raise the cost of future universal healthcare generate funds to cover their own additional costs.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
At the same time, the government is NOT supposed to be paying for peoples housing, food, and giving them spending cash, but it does. Its not supposed to be paying for people's healthcare, but it does. And the higher taxes on cigarettes, alchohol, and proposed taxes on HFCS based drinks is a part of mandating that people be responsible for themselves, and generating $ to pay for the additional health care abusers of those things will need over their lifespan. as we head towards the Obamanation of this country and socialism, it becomes critical that as many things that will raise the cost of future universal healthcare generate funds to cover their own additional costs.
Just because the government does one thing it shouldn't that makes it ok to do another? I don't get the logic in that argument. I agree with most of the rest of this but I don't agree at all that the taxes on alcohol and tobacco are part of a plan to make people responsible for themselves. Do we then tax EVERYTHING that can cause health problems? The system is not supposed to work like this. And the proposed tax is not limited to hfcs. The people getting the government to pay for their health care are still going to get it whether or not they smoke or drink. The taxes gained do not go towards keeping health care low. How exactly does that make them take responsibility for themselves? I do not believe that that is the reason for healthcare increases, given the corruption of the system and insurance companies. I also do not believe for a second that if everyone stopped smoking and drinking my health care costs would drop. And what of the people who pay the tax on alcohol but still don't use it to excess or detriment of health?
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Just because the government does one thing it shouldn't that makes it ok to do another? I don't get the logic in that argument. I agree with most of the rest of this but I don't agree at all that the taxes on alcohol and tobacco are part of a plan to make people responsible for themselves. Do we then tax EVERYTHING that can cause health problems? The system is not supposed to work like this. And the proposed tax is not limited to hfcs. The people getting the government to pay for their health care are still going to get it whether or not they smoke or drink. The taxes gained do not go towards keeping health care low. How exactly does that make them take responsibility for themselves? I do not believe that that is the reason for healthcare increases, given the corruption of the system and insurance companies. I also do not believe for a second that if everyone stopped smoking and drinking my health care costs would drop. And what of the people who pay the tax on alcohol but still don't use it to excess or detriment of health?

The taxes all go into one pot. Whether it directly pays for x or y is irrelevant. Watch the movie I.O.U.S.A. and you'll see what I mean. Mostly it shows that we don't have enough tax income to cover our expenses as a government. Is that because spending is too high? You bet, but the majority of looser in this country will continue to vote themselves bread and circuses, so taking away entitlement programs won't happen. the only alternative to the US declaring bankruptcy in the next 30 years is raising tax income.

If you don't believe that peoples lack of responsibility for their health is the reason for massive increases in healthcare cost, here is a simple example for you. 30 years ago, if you were diagnosed with high blood pressure and high cholesterol from eating fast food, your doctor would have told you that your only hope was to eat right + exercise, or you'll die soon. Today instead you are put on a barrage of 4 different medications each costing $80 a month, and expect an insurance company to pay for it, and even worse since the medication should "fix the problem" you continue to live the same suckass lifestyle and are on those meds the rest of your life. Diabetes, heart issues, etc largely come from the shitty lifestyles most people live.

The average womens' waistline today is 36 inches, the average mens 40. 30 years ago it was quite smaller. The average weight of a 19 year old woman went from 131lbs in 1970 to 149 in 200. The average weight for a 30-39 year old woman went from 138 (so 7lbs gain from when 19 year olds) to 163 (a 14lb gain from 19 year olds). The average 40-49 in 1970 was 142, in 2002 168. These are SIGNIFICANT changes, more than 10% and they significantly impact health care costs.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The taxes all go into one pot. Whether it directly pays for x or y is irrelevant. Watch the movie I.O.U.S.A. and you'll see what I mean. Mostly it shows that we don't have enough tax income to cover our expenses as a government. Is that because spending is too high? You bet, but the majority of looser in this country will continue to vote themselves bread and circuses, so taking away entitlement programs won't happen. the only alternative to the US declaring bankruptcy in the next 30 years is raising tax income.

If you don't believe that peoples lack of responsibility for their health is the reason for massive increases in healthcare cost, here is a simple example for you. 30 years ago, if you were diagnosed with high blood pressure and high cholesterol from eating fast food, your doctor would have told you that your only hope was to eat right + exercise, or you'll die soon. Today instead you are put on a barrage of 4 different medications each costing $80 a month, and expect an insurance company to pay for it, and even worse since the medication should "fix the problem" you continue to live the same suckass lifestyle and are on those meds the rest of your life. Diabetes, heart issues, etc largely come from the shitty lifestyles most people live.

The average womens' waistline today is 36 inches, the average mens 40. 30 years ago it was quite smaller. The average weight of a 19 year old woman went from 131lbs in 1970 to 149 in 200. The average weight for a 30-39 year old woman went from 138 (so 7lbs gain from when 19 year olds) to 163 (a 14lb gain from 19 year olds). The average 40-49 in 1970 was 142, in 2002 168. These are SIGNIFICANT changes, more than 10% and they significantly impact health care costs.
But you are not asking WHY they increase costs and if it is justified.You have just described what can only be called irresponsibility of a doctor in prescribing 4 meds for high bp. So who is more at fault? How do you exonerate the doctor by needlessly prescribing meds at the profit of pharm companies and "burden" to health care? You are also assuming that the current costs ARE justified. And the taxes do NOT go into a pot. The state I live in has specific uses for sin taxes. That is one of the main arguments against them. The funds are used to build buildings, stadiums,etc. that are used by all and paid for by few. And you still haven't addressed the fact that not ALL people using alcohol and tobacco experience health problems. That is an assumption that is the core of your argument. And what of the cost of lost jobs, AND tax revenue if the taxes perform their "intended" function which is to get people to stop using these substances? What of the cost to society then? Look up any argument or article about adding taxes to this stuff. 9 times out of time they say FIRST that it is a great way to increase tax income for the government, and THEN they justify it by using the health benefit argument. Not the other way around. The MAIN intention is to line pockets.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
But you are not asking WHY they increase costs and if it is justified.
The increase costs because people refuse to take responsibility for their own health as to them "that is what insurance is for". Can you honestly for a second believe that its just too hard for people to change their diet or to spend 20 minutes a day just walking? Doctors tell people to do so, they just refuse

You have just described what can only be called irresponsibility of a doctor in prescribing 4 meds for high bp. So who is more at fault? How do you exonerate the doctor by needlessly prescribing meds at the profit of pharm companies and "burden" to health care? You are also assuming that the current costs ARE justified.
There is no evidence they aren't. Peoples obesity levels are up significantly, this creates a cascade of other health issues, none of which would exist if people just ate decently and exercised a little

And the taxes do NOT go into a pot. The state I live in has specific uses for sin taxes. That is one of the main arguments against them. The funds are used to build buildings, stadiums,etc. that are used by all and paid for by few.
They do go into a pot whether you choose to recognize it or not. If they weren't used for those specific purposes you mention, other taxpayer dollars would be used. Its no different than in the state of florida. The lottery was created to give money to schools, that was how they sold it to the population. They just stopped reduced the amount of other state money that went into the school system as lottery revenue went up. In the end its all the same pot whether you fall for the marketing or not.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that not ALL people using alcohol and tobacco experience health problems.
Seriously, you are an idiot if you think that tobacco and alcohol are used by any significant amount of users without causing bodily harm.

That is an assumption that is the core of your argument. And what of the cost of lost jobs, AND tax revenue if the taxes perform their "intended" function which is to get people to stop using these substances? What of the cost to society then? Look up any argument or article about adding taxes to this stuff. 9 times out of time they say FIRST that it is a great way to increase tax income for the government, and THEN they justify it by using the health benefit argument. Not the other way around. The MAIN intention is to line pockets.
Its not at the core of my argument at all. Do you know what the cost of a single visit to a hospital for chest pains do to a perceived heart attack costs? X-rays + MRI + biopsy for lungs? The cost is astronomical, as the cost of equipment used is astronomical. So the cost of people continuing to use these is much higher than the cost of the lost jobs + tax revenue. Look at what the lawsuits against the tobacco industry were looking for in terms of dollars.

Drinks can be made with less sugar easily enough, and tobacco fields can grow any of a number of other cash crops.
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
They do go into a pot whether you choose to recognize it or not. If they weren't used for those specific purposes you mention, other taxpayer dollars would be used. Its no different than in the state of florida. The lottery was created to give money to schools, that was how they sold it to the population. They just stopped reduced the amount of other state money that went into the school system as lottery revenue went up. In the end its all the same pot whether you fall for the marketing or not.
You are wrong. Sin taxes are passed by COUNTY in ohio. The funds generated are spent in that COUNTY. Projects were funded based on the passing of additional sin tax income. They would not have been funded otherwise.



Seriously, you are an idiot if you think that tobacco and alcohol are used by any significant amount of users without causing bodily harm.
And YOU are an idiot if you think that ALL of the people who use DO have problems and NONE of them have their own health care, which is what you based your argument on. As for the rest of your post -YOU gave the example of a dr. who 30 years ago would prescribe diet and exercise and now they give 4 drugs. That blame lies on the doctor, no matter how much crap you throw around it. And none of what you say comes close to justifying unconstitutional taxation.



I
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You are wrong. Sin taxes are passed by COUNTY in ohio. The funds generated are spent in that COUNTY. Projects were funded based on the passing of additional sin tax income. They would not have been funded otherwise.
yawn, so it goes into the pot for that county, its all the same. You can't say they wouldn't have been funded otherwise, it just likely would have been higher property taxes, bonds, etc

And YOU are an idiot if you think that ALL of the people who use DO have problems and NONE of them have their own health care, which is what you based your argument on. As for the rest of your post -YOU gave the example of a dr. who 30 years ago would prescribe diet and exercise and now they give 4 drugs. That blame lies on the doctor, no matter how much crap you throw around it. And non of what you say comes close to justifying unconstutional taxation.
I
You are just a plain idiot, as I never said anywhere that all the people do. But the cost of the majority who do have problems whether or not they pay for their healthcare raises the cost of for all healthcare, even those who do live in a healthy way.

The doctor today also prescribes diet and exercise, but people refuse to do it, as they believe their healthcare should fix their health problems. its a lack of personal responsibility. so the second time a person comes in with the same problem, should the doctor tell them "sorry no, you can fix this if you'd only eat right and exercise you fat slob, so i'm not prescribing meds" ? I wish they would honestly.

And show me where in the constitution there is anything that denies the right of the government to tax items in this way?
 
jarhead

jarhead

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
yawn, so it goes into the pot for that county, its all the same. You can't say they wouldn't have been funded otherwise, it just likely would have been higher property taxes, bonds, etc
Yawn, and YOU are talking about federal funds not county.You are not the expert you think you are or want people to believe. But you ARE extremely arrogant, i'll give you that. And yes I can say that certain projects would not have been funded. But wait-you probably live in ohio and voted on these issues right?


You are just a plain idiot, as I never said anywhere that all the people do. But the cost of the majority who do have problems whether or not they pay for their healthcare raises the cost of for all healthcare, even those who do live in a healthy way.
And I never said that all people who use don't, but mr. all knowing easy goes right into his routine of name calling. I sincerely apoligize for disagreeing with you all knowing one. I guess we can just close this thread now that you're here. Arrogant prick.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
so you answer it yourself there. Its not particularly more efficient than other crops. Sure more effective than forest, but I dont' recall anyone anywhere advocating deforestation for biomass.
Hemp Produces the Most Biomass of Any Plant on Earth.

Hemp is at least four times richer in biomass/cellulose potential than its nearest rivals: cornstalks, sugarcane, kenaf, trees, etc.

Hemp produces the most biomass of any crop, which is why it is the natural choice for an energy crop. Hemp converts the sun's energy into cellulose faster than any other plant, through photosynthesis. Hemp can produce 10 tons of biomass per acre every four months. Enough energy could be produced on 6% of the land in the U.S. to provide enough energy for our entire country (cars, heat homes, electricity, industry) -- and we use 25% of the world's energy.

http://www.hemphasis.net/Fuel-Energy/fuel.htm
 
abish

abish

Member
Awards
0
I think you are 100% correct. This country was founded on freedom which we all deserve but we have given too much freedom to citizens of this country. our judicial system at least in harris county (houston) texas is joke and we all have allowed our country to become what it is


We are maybe 5 years from hell in this country. I mean if your gona legalize crack, you mind as well make it legal for me to shoot people right? All is fair, no?

I like freedom, yes. But there is so much wrong with what freedom entitles people to today. I think freedom should be as it was in the early days. Most people dont deserve this freedom. Back then they respected themselves, and others for freedom. People had dignity, good hearts(at least a much higher % than today). You could trust people.

Between the companies that are allowed to exist that do nothing more than scam, but they are legit and allowed by our laws...

Our courts and jail system are a joke.

College is becoming a joke anymore.

Our country is a joke. I mean, poor people in countries not as well off are happier and enjoy their lives more than people in this country do. I have seen it before.

A few nukes wouldnt hurt this country at all. It would do it some good.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them?
99% SAY "NO" http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm

DAMAGE DONE:
The Drug War Odyssey

Damage Done introduces a group of maverick cops - and former cops - who have put in decades fighting the war on drugs. They may be libertarians, Republicans, socialists or evangelical Christians, but they all believe strongly that drug prohibition is a terrible mistake and that all illicit drugs should be controlled by government, not in the hands of criminals.

Trailer:

YouTube - DAMAGE DONE : The Drug War Odyssey
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm sorry your brother died but that's a risk you take when you involve yourself in those types of lifestyles. His choice to get money a certain way put his life in danger and unfortunately he paid the highest price. There are always going to be illegal activities and get rich quick schemes. I grew up in a broken home surrounded by drug users and dealers. I had options and some were harder than others. I was involved in gang activity when I was a teen and made wrong decisions but those decisions were mine. At no point did i not know what I was doing was wrong and i knew the dangers associated with it. Again, i'm sorry about your brother but his death wasn't the result of drugs being illegal. It was a result in him putting himself in a dangerous situation.
You are being way too simplistic here, Jay. You hang the profit potential of dealing contraband products in front of people with few legitimate options and opportunities for advancing, they're going to go for it in higher numbers than they otherwise would have if the substances had been legal and there were no more profit in selling them than there was in cigarettes. The latter is certainly still a very profitable business in what amounts to legal drug dealing, but the manufacturers and dealers aren't shooting each other over territories and customers and in the process turning neighborhoods and entire countries into war zones, and kids who do see the potential and get into the business don't tend to end up in morgues riddled with bullets.

The prohibiton of drugs has consequences as a policy decision, it is not merely a matter of obedience. Among those consequences are increases and tendencies toward higher potencies in the substances themselves, increased profits for every successful supply restriction by law enforcement, and that plus decreased legal oversight drawing in ever more violent and unscrupulous people into the trade. The inequalities inherent in any justice system mean the poor will bear the brunt of the enforcement end of the prohibition just as they are more likely to see entrance into the black market as a viable, and perhaps the only way out of a desperate situation.

Yes, people are responsible for their own actions in the end. Just as you as a supporter of prohibition are thus responsible in part for hanging the enticement of black market profits in front of a bunch of uneducated urban blacks and white trailer park rednecks with few if any other options to better their financial situations available. What do you think is going to happen when you do that, a rash of ethical and moral purity sweeps the urban ghettos and trailer park meth lab havens of the country as people convert en masse to Puritanism? Or do people behave like they always do and presented with an incentive, respond to it each according to their own personal levels of risk acceptance/aversion?

Yes, his cousin is responsible for his own actions and thus how his life ended. You are at least in part responsible for setting up the system such that the option was even available for him to consider and follow through on. Just as with our current financial woes, while individual lenders may have acted unscrupulously that doesn't take the onus off the people who set the rules such that the lenders could engage in and even be encouraged to engage in such reckless lending practices. They are just responding to incentives, however unadvisably. It is still the policy that sets those incentives in place.
 

purebred

Guest
Hey all. I realize this discussion as come to a bit of a standstill. I came across this article not too long ago and found it intriguing. Maybe some of you all will feel the same way. I hope the article stimulates more progressive, positive discussion. Enjoy.


Legalization and Motives Regarding Substance Use
Posted by William Berry

There is a lot of discussion these days about the legalization of substances, especially marijuana. These discussions and articles focus on how it might improve the economy, to decriminalization resulting in fewer deaths and a drop in the growth of HIV cases, to medical benefits of marijuana. You might expect someone who witnesses the difficulties and occasional devastation that substances cause to be firmly against legalization. This is not necessarily the case. After all, consider alcohol and tobacco are legal, and yet they are listed as the most destructive substances to individuals and society currently. Then again, this might be a reason not to legalize other substances. In this article the focus is not to focus exclusively on legalization, but on the motive for substance use, and how that is more important than its legal status.

In a class I teach at FIU on the Psychology of Drugs and Drug Abuse I am often asked if I think marijuana should be legalized. I usually try not to express my opinion directly, but instead present and entertain discussion on the topic. But recently I was pushed for an answer, and I replied: “I once read an outstanding book called ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Television.’ What I remember most from that book is how often we base our decisions on too little information (in the case of the book’s perspective, based on television images. Take elections for example). So my best answer is I probably do not have enough information to make an educated decision.” However, based on Amsterdam and Portugal’s experience of fewer problems as a result of decriminalization, it seems like it is at least a viable option. Of course, if the U.S took that approach, there is first no guarantee it would go the same way, and secondly I would anticipate an explosive increase in substance use initially. The difficulty is: are the rewards worth it?

One thing that concerns me about the American people’s substance use is the motivation. According to VH1’s documentary on “The Drug Years” the initial increase in marijuana and hallucinogen use in the sixties was a result of attempting to achieve enlightenment and a sense of oneness and communion. This is evident in the images we have of that time: sit-ins, free drugs being provided at musical events, and wanting others to “turn-on” and experience the sense of love and oneness that others were achieving and that a psychology lecturer at Harvard named Timothy Leary was advocating.

Initially, that seems to have been the purpose. But times have changed since the sixties, and let’s face it; even then the movement was not completely successful. We American’s are an individualistic culture. On the continuum between individualism and collectivism Americans definitely fall on the side of individualism, which is defined as everyone looking out for themselves or their family first. This is opposed to collectivism, where the group is cohesive, and where the group protects one another and the individual looks out for the group above their personal needs. Using these definitions, it is quite easy to state Americans are on the individualism side of the spectrum. The movement in the sixties (which in some regards continues, witness “one human race” and “coexist” stickers) to make the human race more united, and now more in tune with the earth and its needs, is not grand enough to alter the individualistic nature of this culture yet. And it is the opinion of this writer that the individualistic attitude of this culture has even altered the motivation of drugs initially used to enhance a sense of oneness and enlightenment.

My more recent experience with clients is that these substances, especially marijuana, are used as an escape from reality. Many people find their existence boring, or worse, painful. A student (who I promised I would give credit for the quote) named Christine Vera said “In a world that feels nothing, we all want to feel something,” when asked why she believes people use drugs. This statement seems related to the boredom with life discussed above. Many have become desensitized to life, and want more excitement. Without excitement, life is boring, and when life is boring, for many escape through substances becomes a viable option.

Although escape seems a motive much of the time (as reported by substance abusers entering treatment, by those who know addicts, or by those who also formulate personal theories to explain others’ substance use) it is not always from boredom. Sometimes the individual perceives life as too painful to cope with without the use of substances for relief. Substances, at least initially, provide a sense of euphoria. This is true of nearly all substances, although some seem more effective to different individuals. (For example, some enjoy marijuana but not other substances, others cocaine, others alcohol, and so forth). Some of those attempting to escape pain have endured horrible life circumstances or, some horrible internal states (self-loathing, depression, or overwhelming anxiety, to name a few). Others began substance use innocently enough, but progressed into relying on it slowly, and now, as a result of the substance use, are caught in an endless cycle of substance use, further problems, further need to escape, continued substance use.

Besides the escape motive there is the desire to experience something new and different. This is often true of hallucinogen use. It is rare that someone would use hallucinogens to escape reality on a regular basis. Hallucinogens generally render a person unable to function in a normal manner for a period of time. When someone takes mushrooms, LSD, or other hallucinogens, they aren’t generally trying to work, drive, or otherwise do much other than experience the “trip.” In other cultures hallucinogens are used to facilitate enlightenment.

As mentioned earlier, hallucinogens have been used by other cultures as a pathway to enlightenment. In many of these cultures, those familiar with the uses of hallucinogens were shamans, medicine men, or the spiritual leader. This movement was also true in the sixties, where a certain sect of the population attempted to again connect with God or the spiritual, often using hallucinogens.

This is not generally true of hallucinogen use today. Today many young people are looking for a new experience. The abuse of cold medications (some of which in large doses create hallucinogen effects) is evidence of this. This is also true of the drug Salvia, only recently (July 2008) made illegal in this state (Florida). In other cultures, it is called “Diviner’s Sage.” But rather than using it to connect with a spiritual sense, it is simply used for the experience.

Many substances initially create a sense of connectedness between individuals. Alcohol has been known as a social lubricant, making talking and interacting with others easier. And marijuana is usually initiated with others in the beginning. But many resort to isolated use later. And even if this is not true, many simply get “high” with others playing video games or watching movies. The point is, it is generally not taken for spiritual reasons anymore, but instead to make perceived tedious tasks more bearable or to heighten the enjoyment of relatively passive tasks (listening to music, video games, movies).

In some states marijuana is used for medicinal purposes, and I believe the facts in this area speak for themselves. Marijuana helps those wasting from AIDS, those with cancer, and many other ailments that traditional treatment falls short in. This includes pain relief for some. In fact, prescription pain analgesics (opioid based pain killers) are quickly becoming more damaging to their users (which in many cases are abusers) than all illegal substances combined. There were more deaths in Florida in recent years from overdose on prescription medications than all illegal drugs combined. And there has yet to be a reported case of marijuana overdose.

There is a drawback to these prescription uses however. Many of my students who know people in California (where there seems to be the most “medicinal” use of marijuana) state that many of their peers have prescriptions. One student reported that 8 out of 10 of their friends in California have a prescription. Headaches and anxiety as well as insomnia are reported to be reasons to get a prescription.

In summary, there are many reasons to decriminalize some, if not all, drug use. The benefits seem important in this day and age. But at the same time we are culture where people are often out for themselves. And we have become a country and culture of shortcuts and reliance on pills to make our lives tolerable, rather than the more natural and healthy (but requiring more time and energy) solutions. Feel depressed, get a prescription. Want to loose weight, get a prescription or order diet pills from the internet. Additionally, some of the communal and enlightenment reasons seem outdated and unlikely at this time. Then there is the likelihood there will be a strong surge in substance use if decriminalized. There is probably a great deal more information out there that both supports and denounces legalization or decriminalization.

In an ideal society, we would work toward self actualization while assisting our peers to do the same. There would be a sense of communion with all other humans, and with all living creatures. My question is which helps us get there, continued criminalization of substances, or the legalization of them.

About William Berry:
http://www.wmberry.com/about/
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Decent enough read, if only to expose some of the fallacies that persist even on the legalization side. Overall the article is nothing more than ex hippy navel gazing at the past even though it tries to qualify this aspect. The bottom line is the author favors legalization, but OoooOOooOOOoooO, people's motives for doing teh drugz have changed. Bad sociological sample! Bad! His statement about what an ideal society is and would accomplish is pretty much evidence of where he's coming from. A member of the , "Whoa man, hang on, 'cause I know we did all the right drugs for all the right reasons and our kids are screwed up, but they don't belong in jail..." school of thought.

The fact is no matter the supposed motives for drug use, and more specifically the supposedly more enlightened motives vs selfish ones, drug use levels remain fairly consistent and do not change with costs. Demand is largely inelastic, meaing whatever the reason people give for their use, generally speaking it's not in response to nor will it significantly change with changes in cost.

Legalization and Motives Regarding Substance Use
Posted by William Berry
That said, the motives are irrelevant in the broader view. What matters is that the policy itself is fundamentally flawed in so many ways as to make it unworkable.

I) The act of drug use itself is per se harmful to no one. The whole we don't live in a vacuum argument is BS and irrelevant. It can be used to justify any and every government action. Technically nothing is done in a vacuum, that doesn't mean everything is an appropriate area for government regulation.

II) There is a distinct difference between users and abusers, or more specifically between those who handle themselves peacefully and those with psychological and/or other problems who end up materially affecting the lives of others in a negative way. This applies to users and sellers. Prohibition doesn't distinguish between such users and guarantees the sellers to be of the problem oriented group. As such it wastes reources by default:

III) By not focussing on problem users it violates the inherent rights of peaceful users to do what they want sans harm to others. It wastes time, money, capital, and labor on their trial, incarceration, forded treatment and monitoring. In so doing it:

IV) Ensures that the pool of resources to be focussed on actual problem users will always be smaller than it needs to be. The lack of focus in policy leads to a situation where people who should not be the focus of the system get its fullest attention and people who should be the focus of the system get less time and money devoted to dealing with their issues vis a vi the rest of peaceful society.

V) Regarding sales, the illegalization of drugs gurantees the continued escalation in violence and lack of ethics and morals of sellers. All legal recourse for defective product is blocked, therefore the cost of such is placed solely on the user who doesn't even get protection or recourse to deal with outright fraud.

VI) Economically trying to restrict supply in light of basically unchanging and inelastic demand is moronic. Every momentary supply restriction by the police does nothing but create a greater profit incentive for remaining suppliers to get more supply out and engage in more violence to secure trade areas. As such prohibition sews its own seeds of self destruction since it is economically impossible to succeed. The population's motives stay relatively unchanged and intact. The government can not exert any significant effect on demand. Any momentary control over supply gets translated into greater rewards for the most innovative and violent suppliers.

To sum up, Prohibition is indefensible both morally, ethically, and practically. Telling people what they can or can not do regarding an action that is not per se harmful to others is shaky at best on moral and ethical grounds. Lumping all users together as one when many clearly do not warrant legal action/punishment is also at best shaky. This hold even if the majority of users are abusers/problem users. There is no reason in heaven or on Earth why the law must be so broad and target all users and as such without cause target and punish people who have done no harm to others. As a practical matter prohibition is a defective policy. It causes its own backlash and blowback. It causes its own failure. The focus on the supply of substances does nothing to reduce demand and does everything to increase incentives to meet demand and puts that role in the hands of the unscrupulous and unethical. The manufacturers and sellers of alcohol are not killing each other in the streets. They would be, and in fact were during the original prohibition, if we were to make alcohol illegal again. The contraband pricing along with the inelasticity of demand means users will revert to more and more desperate means of obtaining funds to get their fix, when in reality the drugs are so cheap that the real market price would just dictate a minimum wage job as being necessary to pay for their habit, little more. The crime associated with drugs both on the part of users and sales/manufacturers is almost entirely due to the policy regulating the substances, not the substances themselves.
 

Similar threads


Top