Drug War

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: slash196
I think the cutoff for legal/illegal is pretty clear: addictiveness. If it's addictive (coke, meth, heroin, speed, etc) then it's a matter of public health and safety; if it's not addictive (LSD, mescaline, cannabis, mushrooms, etc) then it should be legal and regulated. Obviously DUI laws, etc would still be in place to protect public safety, but use of non-addictive substances by adults in their own home should be a matter of personal freedom of choice.

EDIT: I should make a clarification: only drugs that actually impair your motor control should be covered under DUI laws. If there is a statistical link between use of a substance and impairment of driving, it's a matter of public safety. But is smoking a cigarette while driving illegal? No, because nicotine doesn't impair motor functions. What we need is ONE standard for all drugs; anything less is pure hypocrisy.

I find your post hypocritical. You call for one standard, but make subjective distinctions. Cell phones don't impair motor functions, but the process of talking on one changes your abilities/reactions. Just because nicotine doesn't impair motor function doesn't mean it doesn't change driving conditions in some other way (not to mention the number of fires caused by tossed cigarettes and second-hand smoke damage). Other drugs might have similar circumstances.

The same can be said for addictiveness. Just because there's no proven physical addictive properties to pot or other drugs doesn't address rather or not people will do them obsessively. Hence, potheads who destroy their lives. Alcohol is certainly addictive, yet it's legal. Physical addictive qualities are not psychological addictive tendancies but the outcome is the same, hence your distinction is false.

Either people are allowed to do drugs, or they are not. It should be an absolute.

Potheads who destroy their lives? Excuse me while I have a hearty chortle at your expense.


Now then, your post smacks of brainwashed ignorance. Psychological dependency is just that: psychological. There are no withdrawal symptoms, no incentive to continue the drug other than continued enjoyment. The same could be said of cookies. People become psychologically dependent on fatty and sugary foods, and can in fact ruin their lives. Are sugary snacks illegal? No, because when used responsibly and in moderation they cause no harm. Basing your laws on the outliers of population is a terrible way of doing business. To say that all drugs are exactly the same and that legalization is an all-or-nothing proposition is pure tripe. Heroin ruins lives. Crack ruins lives. Pot does not ruin lives. Alcohol and cigarettes both ruin lives, and frankly we'd be better off with these destructive substances being illegal, but so many are dependent on them already that the public outrage would blunt any attempt to rid society of them.

You call me a hypocrite, and yet point out no actual hypocrisy. I suggest the next time you move to impugn my character that you have substantive backing.

Bull-fvcking sh!t!!!! I have watched many a friend lose it all from NOTHING but marijuana. The desire to be under the influence becomes consuming and constant while the impaired function and decision-making ruins various aspects until there's NOTHING left. Loss of good relationships, loss of jobs (even career prospects), loss of economic stability, accidents, abandonment of friends and family, loss of mental ability, all stemming just from marijuana use. Not necessarily directly caused by the marijuana itself, but absolutely as a side-effect of its abuse.

My point was that the choice to fall victim to these things was with the person, since the drug itself is not physically causing the addiction. That distinction, however, did not prevent the side-effects. Physical addictiveness is not the only form of addiction, and is not the only causation of side-effects. It is the side-effects which DUI and other drug laws are intended to address, and so your ideas are missing the mark.

As to the hypocrisy: you say at the end of your post "ONE standard for all drugs", while at the beginning you make a distinction between addictive and non-addictive, and also later a distinction between direct motor impairment and DUI laws. In other words, you want one standard, but four categories??? If that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.

Remember that I have called for total legalization, so don't even try to make the argument that I'm against drugs. I am personally, but that doesn't color my view of government involvement in personal choice. Furthermore my views don't come from ignorance, but knowledge and experience.

 

[piasabird]

If we legalized Marijuana, we could require a special permit to grow it and find a way to tax it.

Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!

We would still have the problems with DWI and DUI!


The big advantage I see is that if more drugs were legal and easily accessable, would we become and even more decadent and lazy society? Of course then there would be no illegal drugs and no turf wars, and no reason to block drugs flowing into the US, because we could just make our own.

 

[Martin]

:music: legalize it, time to recognise it :music:

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: slash196
I think the cutoff for legal/illegal is pretty clear: addictiveness. If it's addictive (coke, meth, heroin, speed, etc) then it's a matter of public health and safety; if it's not addictive (LSD, mescaline, cannabis, mushrooms, etc) then it should be legal and regulated. Obviously DUI laws, etc would still be in place to protect public safety, but use of non-addictive substances by adults in their own home should be a matter of personal freedom of choice.

EDIT: I should make a clarification: only drugs that actually impair your motor control should be covered under DUI laws. If there is a statistical link between use of a substance and impairment of driving, it's a matter of public safety. But is smoking a cigarette while driving illegal? No, because nicotine doesn't impair motor functions. What we need is ONE standard for all drugs; anything less is pure hypocrisy.

I find your post hypocritical. You call for one standard, but make subjective distinctions. Cell phones don't impair motor functions, but the process of talking on one changes your abilities/reactions. Just because nicotine doesn't impair motor function doesn't mean it doesn't change driving conditions in some other way (not to mention the number of fires caused by tossed cigarettes and second-hand smoke damage). Other drugs might have similar circumstances.

The same can be said for addictiveness. Just because there's no proven physical addictive properties to pot or other drugs doesn't address rather or not people will do them obsessively. Hence, potheads who destroy their lives. Alcohol is certainly addictive, yet it's legal. Physical addictive qualities are not psychological addictive tendancies but the outcome is the same, hence your distinction is false.

Either people are allowed to do drugs, or they are not. It should be an absolute.

Potheads who destroy their lives? Excuse me while I have a hearty chortle at your expense.


Now then, your post smacks of brainwashed ignorance. Psychological dependency is just that: psychological. There are no withdrawal symptoms, no incentive to continue the drug other than continued enjoyment. The same could be said of cookies. People become psychologically dependent on fatty and sugary foods, and can in fact ruin their lives. Are sugary snacks illegal? No, because when used responsibly and in moderation they cause no harm. Basing your laws on the outliers of population is a terrible way of doing business. To say that all drugs are exactly the same and that legalization is an all-or-nothing proposition is pure tripe. Heroin ruins lives. Crack ruins lives. Pot does not ruin lives. Alcohol and cigarettes both ruin lives, and frankly we'd be better off with these destructive substances being illegal, but so many are dependent on them already that the public outrage would blunt any attempt to rid society of them.

You call me a hypocrite, and yet point out no actual hypocrisy. I suggest the next time you move to impugn my character that you have substantive backing.

Bull-fvcking sh!t!!!! I have watched many a friend lose it all from NOTHING but marijuana. The desire to be under the influence becomes consuming and constant while the impaired function and decision-making ruins various aspects until there's NOTHING left. Loss of good relationships, loss of jobs (even career prospects), loss of economic stability, accidents, abandonment of friends and family, loss of mental ability, all stemming just from marijuana use. Not necessarily directly caused by the marijuana itself, but absolutely as a side-effect of its abuse.

My point was that the choice to fall victim to these things was with the person, since the drug itself is not physically causing the addiction. That distinction, however, did not prevent the side-effects. Physical addictiveness is not the only form of addiction, and is not the only causation of side-effects. It is the side-effects which DUI and other drug laws are intended to address, and so your ideas are missing the mark.

As to the hypocrisy: you say at the end of your post "ONE standard for all drugs", while at the beginning you make a distinction between addictive and non-addictive, and also later a distinction between direct motor impairment and DUI laws. In other words, you want one standard, but four categories??? If that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.

Remember that I have called for total legalization, so don't even try to make the argument that I'm against drugs. I am personally, but that doesn't color my view of government involvement in personal choice. Furthermore my views don't come from ignorance, but knowledge and experience.

Anyone who had their lives "ruined" by pot is completely and totally at fault for for what happens to them. I'm sorry, but if you don't even have the willpower to give up pot when it's "destroying" your life, then you really don't deserve any success in the first place. I have a feeling, though, that you're simply making up anecdotes to support your case.

Quitting pot is no more difficult than quitting salt (in fact much less so); it may not be as much fun but the failure is entirely your own. People are quite capable of destroying their own lives, and saying pot was at fault is a straight cop-out.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: slash196
I think the cutoff for legal/illegal is pretty clear: addictiveness. If it's addictive (coke, meth, heroin, speed, etc) then it's a matter of public health and safety; if it's not addictive (LSD, mescaline, cannabis, mushrooms, etc) then it should be legal and regulated. Obviously DUI laws, etc would still be in place to protect public safety, but use of non-addictive substances by adults in their own home should be a matter of personal freedom of choice.

EDIT: I should make a clarification: only drugs that actually impair your motor control should be covered under DUI laws. If there is a statistical link between use of a substance and impairment of driving, it's a matter of public safety. But is smoking a cigarette while driving illegal? No, because nicotine doesn't impair motor functions. What we need is ONE standard for all drugs; anything less is pure hypocrisy.

I find your post hypocritical. You call for one standard, but make subjective distinctions. Cell phones don't impair motor functions, but the process of talking on one changes your abilities/reactions. Just because nicotine doesn't impair motor function doesn't mean it doesn't change driving conditions in some other way (not to mention the number of fires caused by tossed cigarettes and second-hand smoke damage). Other drugs might have similar circumstances.

The same can be said for addictiveness. Just because there's no proven physical addictive properties to pot or other drugs doesn't address rather or not people will do them obsessively. Hence, potheads who destroy their lives. Alcohol is certainly addictive, yet it's legal. Physical addictive qualities are not psychological addictive tendancies but the outcome is the same, hence your distinction is false.

Either people are allowed to do drugs, or they are not. It should be an absolute.

Potheads who destroy their lives? Excuse me while I have a hearty chortle at your expense.


Now then, your post smacks of brainwashed ignorance. Psychological dependency is just that: psychological. There are no withdrawal symptoms, no incentive to continue the drug other than continued enjoyment. The same could be said of cookies. People become psychologically dependent on fatty and sugary foods, and can in fact ruin their lives. Are sugary snacks illegal? No, because when used responsibly and in moderation they cause no harm. Basing your laws on the outliers of population is a terrible way of doing business. To say that all drugs are exactly the same and that legalization is an all-or-nothing proposition is pure tripe. Heroin ruins lives. Crack ruins lives. Pot does not ruin lives. Alcohol and cigarettes both ruin lives, and frankly we'd be better off with these destructive substances being illegal, but so many are dependent on them already that the public outrage would blunt any attempt to rid society of them.

You call me a hypocrite, and yet point out no actual hypocrisy. I suggest the next time you move to impugn my character that you have substantive backing.

Bull-fvcking sh!t!!!! I have watched many a friend lose it all from NOTHING but marijuana. The desire to be under the influence becomes consuming and constant while the impaired function and decision-making ruins various aspects until there's NOTHING left. Loss of good relationships, loss of jobs (even career prospects), loss of economic stability, accidents, abandonment of friends and family, loss of mental ability, all stemming just from marijuana use. Not necessarily directly caused by the marijuana itself, but absolutely as a side-effect of its abuse.

My point was that the choice to fall victim to these things was with the person, since the drug itself is not physically causing the addiction. That distinction, however, did not prevent the side-effects. Physical addictiveness is not the only form of addiction, and is not the only causation of side-effects. It is the side-effects which DUI and other drug laws are intended to address, and so your ideas are missing the mark.

As to the hypocrisy: you say at the end of your post "ONE standard for all drugs", while at the beginning you make a distinction between addictive and non-addictive, and also later a distinction between direct motor impairment and DUI laws. In other words, you want one standard, but four categories??? If that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.

Remember that I have called for total legalization, so don't even try to make the argument that I'm against drugs. I am personally, but that doesn't color my view of government involvement in personal choice. Furthermore my views don't come from ignorance, but knowledge and experience.

Anyone who had their lives "ruined" by pot is completely and totally at fault for for what happens to them. I'm sorry, but if you don't even have the willpower to give up pot when it's "destroying" your life, then you really don't deserve any success in the first place. I have a feeling, though, that you're simply making up anecdotes to support your case.

Quitting pot is no more difficult than quitting salt (in fact much less so); it may not be as much fun but the failure is entirely your own. People are quite capable of destroying their own lives, and saying pot was at fault is a straight cop-out.

This discussion has not thing one to do with 'deserving'. It has to do reality. In reality many, MANY people live there lives wasted on drugs which have no physical addictive properties. I would bet that for 90% or more of the people that try marijuana there is no long term problem. I would further allow that for those that experience a problem it is, at least partially, an exploitation of personal weakness. However, this also has no bearing on this discussion.

I never blamed a drug for anything, nor did I ever allow that any drug use or course in life was anything other than personal choice. That has been my argument from moment one. I pointed out some errors (as I saw them) with your post. Those errors stand. You responded with less than factual statements which I refuted. Those statements also stand.

The fact is that rather the side effects of drug use are physically caused by the drug itself, or manifested due to secondary or tertiary relation to the use of the drug, the side effects are what laws and regulation deal with and they still exist. Therefore it IS in fact an all or nothing situation. I have maintained, and still do, that it should be nothing. The government has no need, nor right to mandate the substance use policy of individuals. It can (and should) merely punish for abuses of law stemming from such uses.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov
Beam...don't listen to Vic's rhetoric. Instead, read this and then decide for yourself whether a true classical liberal would be against decriminalizing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire would imply legalization, which I support, not decriminalization. A free market is a legal market, not an illegal but ignored-and-swept-under-the-rug black market.

I think most people can read here Vic. Why not let them find out for themselves without putting your editorial piece along side it? Afraid of something?

I can read but I don't always understand what I read. Now I am trying to figure out what is the dif between legalize and decriminalize. Then there are all these fancy words like classical liberal and free murkest and lazy fairs where I thought I could go to have a good time. I got's to learn myself how you guys talk to make heads or tails of this stuff.

:laugh:

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Banning tobacco and alcohol would be good to protect people, but as those industries have a lot of power that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Decriminalize/legalize marijuana instead, independent (read: not funded by a 'marijuana is baaaaad' group) studies have proven it to be less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, so let people use it if they really want to. Same with any drug that is not too harmful for the human body nor causes a lot of problem for people around the user.

 

[maluckey]

Legalizing ANY substance that is detrimental to the body AND has addictive potential is not a good thing. This country spend Billions on Alcohol related deaths and treatment. Well over half of ALL traffic accidents show influence of alcohol, and half of those also show MJ.

Alcohol related deaths

Granted, these numbers are open to the other sides point of view, so cut the numbers in half and still see Billions of dollars at stake.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Legalizing ANY substance that is detrimental to the body AND has addictive potential is not a good thing. This country spend Billions on Alcohol related deaths and treatment. Well over half of ALL traffic accidents show influence of alcohol, and half of those also show MJ.

Alcohol related deaths

Granted, these numbers are open to the other sides point of view, so cut the numbers in half and still see Billions of dollars at stake.

This argument assumes that prohibition reduces abuse, and that the enforcement of prohibition does not cost billions itself, both of which are false.

 

[maluckey]

Like I said, cut it in half and you still have BILLIONS. This could assume no enforcement at all (which also assumes legalization of driving under the influence). Now we are to assume that once legal, not one extra percentage point worth of people would begin smoking MJ...yeah!!! Right!!!!

Dream on!! Every college kid that is likely to drink and smoke would likely give MJ a try. Now ad that to the ease of access for high schoolers and you see a skyrocketing health issue.

nice try though...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Like I said, cut it in half and you still have BILLIONS. This could assume no enforcement at all (which also assumes legalization of driving under the influence). Now we are to assume that once legal, not one extra percentage point worth of people would begin smopking MJ...yeah!!! Right!!!!

Dream on!! Every college kid that is likely to drink and smoke would likely give MJ a try. Now ad that to the ease of access for high schoolers and you see a skyrocketing health issue.

nice try though...

Uhh... some more fallacies in your argument. First, who said anything about legalizing driving under the influence? Second, who says every college kid and high schooler doesn't try MJ now? Third, compared to the dangers of drinking and smoking, what serious health issues does MJ present that would cause a "skyrocketing health issue"?

Do you really believe that illegality prevents anyone from using? That's not only naive, but contrary to all the real life evidence. It also says a lot about your low standard of morals, if the only reason you don't do certain things is solely because they're illegal, and you expect other people to do the same. Would you commit murder if that were legal? Does the illegality of murder prevent people from committing murder?

Ah, but forget it. I already know what your next responses will look like. You have the typical all-problems-can-be-solved-by-passing-draconian-laws-and-throwing-people-in-jail mentality... sometimes I wish we could do the same to your kind, as you are without question the worst problem of all...

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Legalizing ANY substance that is detrimental to the body AND has addictive potential is not a good thing. This country spend Billions on Alcohol related deaths and treatment. Well over half of ALL traffic accidents show influence of alcohol, and half of those also show MJ.

Alcohol related deaths

Granted, these numbers are open to the other sides point of view, so cut the numbers in half and still see Billions of dollars at stake.

That study showing that quite a few people who cause traffic accidents had traces of MJ in their system was highly flawed. Chances are it wasn't the trace of marijuana that caused the accident. Marijuana can stay in your system for several weeks. MJ is not a very harmful drug.

Do you realize how many people die each year because of the war on drugs? I'm guessing it's a hell of a lot higher than the few people that cause accidents because they're driving while on heroin, meth, etc. We would also be spending less on law enforcement and we wouldn't be having the problem of overcrowded prisons. Rehab is cheaper than putting a person in prison.

 

[Vic]

Roughly 10k people die every year from illicit drug use in the US. The #1 cause of death BY FAR is from inconsistent dosage and purity of heroin, which in itself is a result of the lack of regulation caused by prohibition. In contrast, roughly 100k people die every year from legal prescription drug use, a similar number from alcohol use, and 400k every year from tobacco use. There has never in all of human history been a single recorded case of a death from marijuana use.

The everyone-would-be-addicted-to-drugs-if-drugs-were-legal argument is just stupid. What's most powerful drug on the planet? Alcohol. What's the most addictive drug on the planet? Nicotine. They're both legal and is everyone addicted to those? No. Why? Because all drugs have unpleasant side effects that most people just don't like.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Like I said, cut it in half and you still have BILLIONS. This could assume no enforcement at all (which also assumes legalization of driving under the influence). Now we are to assume that once legal, not one extra percentage point worth of people would begin smopking MJ...yeah!!! Right!!!!

Dream on!! Every college kid that is likely to drink and smoke would likely give MJ a try. Now ad that to the ease of access for high schoolers and you see a skyrocketing health issue.

nice try though...

Not true at all. I drink like a fish but would never do a drug (and have never tried any form of smoking). Some people are just picky about their drug use. 😎

 

[KurskKnyaz]

"Total legalization to do them (on private property), regulation of manufacture and distribution. Concurrent is the requirement that committing any crime while under the influence of a drug results in automatic maximum sentencing if found guilty. Also necessary to suspend ALL government and insurance subsidization of treatment. If you choose drugs (including alcohol & nicotine) you're 100% on our own, live or die. No one should be financially responsible for your weakness."

It doesn't work that way, people are like kids. They cry for the government to leave them alone, they do all sorts of sh1t that is really stupid, and then they cry for the government to use tax money to take care of them. I mean people know smoking will kill you but they do it anyway and we pay for the healthcare costs. The thing about pot is that IT IS NOT ADDICTIVE. The government can save a lot of money by decriminalizing it. At the moment billions of your tax money is being spent on a drug war that has failed miserably. Despite being illegal marijuana is the 4th largest cash crop in the U.S., did you know that?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

"Physical addictive qualities are not psychological addictive tendancies but the outcome is the same, hence your distinction is false."

Psychological addiction is easier to treat. If the government was to regulate pot things would be OK as long as there is no ganja cowboy or a reefer camel.

 

[Genx87]

You know the guys who want to drop the drug war are probably right. Will a large % of the population suddenly become heroine addicts overnight if the drug laws were repealed?
Most likely not, the people who are going to do that stuff are already doing it even with the laws in place.

Will there be an increase in use due to the relaxation of the drug laws? Possibly, but I expect a new lobby will be found to put negative stigmas on it like alcohol and cigarettes. In other words society will continue to frown down upon the use of the drugs and or tax the hell out of it to reduce use.

The positives of such an action would be a massive lowering of profits for mafia, cartels, and other black market organizations who kill, rob, and steal their way to the top trampling people in the process. Of course a better regulation on the industry and taxes from the idiots who decide to shoot up.

The drug laws of the 1800s were interesting as people were able to buy shots of morphine and heroine right from the Sears catalog. That all changed not when there were hordes of addicted people on the streets in the inner cities but when farm wives were coked up all day due to boredom of living on a farm.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Physical addictive qualities are not psychological addictive tendancies but the outcome is the same, hence your distinction is false."

Psychological addiction is easier to treat. If the government was to regulate pot things would be OK as long as there is no ganja cowboy or a reefer camel.

LMAO, a reefer camel. The defining feature of a reefer camel is that it can consume enough cheetos and twinkies in one sitting to sustain itself for weeks without snacking. 😛

 

[KurskKnyaz]

It?s not about personal choice. Personal choice isn?t all that personal in this particular situation because there are others affected. Marijuana should be decriminalized officially because for all practical purposes it is decriminalized already. Growing up it was easier to buy pot than alcohol, in my case. However, since the government is not in control of it the wrong people are profiting from its trade. The war on drugs has been ineffective for all drugs and especially ineffective for marijuana. When I say ineffective I mean it has a negligible affect on preventing marijuana from being distributed and used. It hasn?t done good things for other drugs either. The war on drugs has caused cocaine to have a 17,000% (not a typo) markup and has made South American drug lords so rich that they can challenge democratically elected governments, but that?s another story.

The only thing that criminalization of marijuana is doing is wasting your tax money and contributing to crime, nothing else. Yes, tobacco and alcohol have a far more devastating affect on the individual and on society and it is right to argue that adding pot to the list of legal drugs doesn?t do society any good. But in this case keeping it illegal is doing far more harm.

People that make laws in this country have this utopian mindset: ?We will make this bad thing illegal; the law will prevent anyone from selling it, everything will be green and summery?

This is the same reason I?m against banning firearms - they will not be banned, just soled by the wrong people to the wrong people. I?m surprised that pro-gun activists never point out how effectively the government banned drugs.

 

[fitzov]

However, since the government is not in control of it the wrong people are profiting from its trade.

Well, not really. If I were a pot smoker, I would prefer to grow it myself than not be allowed to because I don't have a license (just like a still is illegal). I'd also be happier buying it from a friend who grew it rather than the local package store regulated by the state to only produce it at some mandated level of THC. In other words, I'd rather me and my friends (ordinary citizens) profit from it than the government or whatever pork projects they decide to push through this fiscal year. Decriminalization is definitely better than legalization.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
Roughly 10k people die every year from illicit drug use in the US. The #1 cause of death BY FAR is from inconsistent dosage and purity of heroin, which in itself is a result of the lack of regulation caused by prohibition. In contrast, roughly 100k people die every year from legal prescription drug use, a similar number from alcohol use, and 400k every year from tobacco use. There has never in all of human history been a single recorded case of a death from marijuana use.

The everyone-would-be-addicted-to-drugs-if-drugs-were-legal argument is just stupid. What's most powerful drug on the planet? Alcohol. What's the most addictive drug on the planet? Nicotine. They're both legal and is everyone addicted to those? No. Why? Because all drugs have unpleasant side effects that most people just don't like.

First, where are you getting your statistics from? Second, how do you figure alcohol to be the most powerfull drug on the planet?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

"Well, not really. If I were a pot smoker, I would prefer to grow it myself than not be allowed to because I don't have a license (just like a still is illegal). I'd also be happier buying it from a friend who grew it rather than the local package store regulated by the state to only produce it at some mandated level of THC. In other words, I'd rather me and my friends (ordinary citizens) profit from it than the government or whatever pork projects they decide to push through this fiscal year. Decriminalization is definitely better than legalization."

The point i'm trying to make is that by keeping marijuana illegal the government is providing a good source of revenue for criminals

 

[KurskKnyaz]

I don't think those numbers are accurate except the tobacco deaths and the heroin thing. Also, in the last 20 years alcohol has been involved in HALF of all auto collisions fatalities. That is a big number.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Roughly 10k people die every year from illicit drug use in the US. The #1 cause of death BY FAR is from inconsistent dosage and purity of heroin, which in itself is a result of the lack of regulation caused by prohibition. In contrast, roughly 100k people die every year from legal prescription drug use, a similar number from alcohol use, and 400k every year from tobacco use. There has never in all of human history been a single recorded case of a death from marijuana use.

The everyone-would-be-addicted-to-drugs-if-drugs-were-legal argument is just stupid. What's most powerful drug on the planet? Alcohol. What's the most addictive drug on the planet? Nicotine. They're both legal and is everyone addicted to those? No. Why? Because all drugs have unpleasant side effects that most people just don't like.

That statement is slightly misleading. There has never in all of human history been a single recorded case of a death solely from marijuana use. There are countless cases of automobile accidents cause when people both drink and get high. Marijuana has been shown to significantly slow down reaction times, so it can still be dangerous.

However, I agree with your view that marijuana should be legalized.

 

[IronWing]

However, since the government is not in control of it the wrong people are profiting from its trade.

I suspect the police and prison industries are making a heck of a lot more money off the drug war than the producers/trafficers/dealers are making off the drug trade.