They should legalize cannabis. It's about as harmful as tobacco is, and tobacco is legal. The problem right now is that the source of cannabis is often the same as the source of hard (cocaine, heroin etc.) drugs is. That can increase the number of people using hard drugs. Making cannabis legal would remove large source of income the criminals today enjoy. Also, it would increase tax-revenue of the state (as cannabis would be taxed) and reduce law-enforcement-costs (as resources would not be wasted on imprisoning pot-smokers)
Not to mention we would be able to enjoy the benefits of growing hemp for a myriad of products.
I wonder if the cotton industry lobbies against cannabis legalization?
:frown:
IMO, Tobacco and Alchohol should be illegal too. But, I'm in the FAR minority on that belief. I realize that... it's the freedom of choice to kill yourself.
clamum
Lifer
- Feb 13, 2003
- 26,256
- 406
- 126
So very true. Instead of feeding kids lies about drugs during school (D.A.R.E.) and through the media, why not actually give the fvcking truth about them? Exactly what the effects of the drug are, what a safe dosage is, what do to in case of an overdose, things of that sort. Kids (and adults) that don't know these things are going to find out for themselves. Not necessarily a good thing.
I would legalize cannabis, all psychedelics (mushrooms, LSD, peyote, mescaline, DMT, etc), MDMA. Cocaine and heroin I have yet to decide on. With the proper drug eduation and harm reduction programs, and addiction treatment centers, possibly. Methamphetamines, I honestly don't know. I would lean towards not legalizing meth at this point unless I come across something that would change my mind.
we cant stop the drug war now! Its just getting started!
I mean come on privatized prisons are a billion dollar business! Keep those inmates coming!
Stricter laws more mandatory sentences and constant survielance is what we need.
WHo is with me?!?!?
I mean come on privatized prisons are a billion dollar business! Keep those inmates coming!
Stricter laws more mandatory sentences and constant survielance is what we need.
WHo is with me?!?!?
UglyCasanova
Lifer
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
But it is a very hypocritical freedom. Sure you can get as drunk as you like off of alchohol, but don't light up a single bowl?
The government is spending about $40 billion a year on drugs. District attorneys regularly seize property without due process, and the original owner never gets it back. Police routinely kill people who are SUSPECTED of having a large quantity of drugs. Undercover police buy drugs from poor people trying to make a buck just to get them thrown in jail. Minor users of drugs spend years in jail. Gangs kill eachother over drug distribution wars. Drugs are laced with dangerous chemicals that can cause serious problems. And why is this? Because the government has decided that allowing people to choose for themselves what to do with their bodies is not acceptable.
Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with the private use of narcotics. Despite its adverse effects, it's far better to allow people to use drugs than to squander billions, kill thousands, and basically rape the constitution.
Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with the private use of narcotics. Despite its adverse effects, it's far better to allow people to use drugs than to squander billions, kill thousands, and basically rape the constitution.
Amazingly well said.
I love when I say stuff like this, then get accused of saying this because "You just want to do drugs!"
Then I offer to have them drug test me on the spot. I don't do drugs. It's not for my own personal benefit, it's for the benefit of society as a whole.
Legalizing drugs in the United States would reduce the profit margines of the organizations that produce and distribute the commodity.
Since these organizations have so much wealth and power at their disposal, they will do anything and everything they can to keep drugs illegal.
Until they move on to a more profitable commodity, the production and distribution of drugs will remain a cash generator for them. So in short...
Don't look for drug legalization in your lifetime.
Since these organizations have so much wealth and power at their disposal, they will do anything and everything they can to keep drugs illegal.
Until they move on to a more profitable commodity, the production and distribution of drugs will remain a cash generator for them. So in short...
Don't look for drug legalization in your lifetime.
I think the war on drugs is getting us nowhere. We need to step back and take a LONG look at what our policies have created: Prisons full of non-violent drug offenders, drugs keep pouring across the border despite our best efforts, our tax dollars going down the drain to further this crap.
My thoughts:
A. Legalize marijuana. If there needs to be an age limit, so be it. Prohibition got us nowhere with alcohol and it doesn't seem to be working very well with marijuana either.
B. Better educate people about drugs. Most people demonize drugs without even having tried them, marijuana especially, due to a truckload of sensationalized media hysteria.
C. More research into the medical benefits of marijuana, as unbiased as possible.
D. More research into the effects of other drugs like Ecstasy. Again, unbiased research and reports would be great.
E. Make rehabilitation and treatment the first option in the majority of drug cases, instead of automatically throwing them in jail.
My thoughts:
A. Legalize marijuana. If there needs to be an age limit, so be it. Prohibition got us nowhere with alcohol and it doesn't seem to be working very well with marijuana either.
B. Better educate people about drugs. Most people demonize drugs without even having tried them, marijuana especially, due to a truckload of sensationalized media hysteria.
C. More research into the medical benefits of marijuana, as unbiased as possible.
D. More research into the effects of other drugs like Ecstasy. Again, unbiased research and reports would be great.
E. Make rehabilitation and treatment the first option in the majority of drug cases, instead of automatically throwing them in jail.
Legalizing marijuana isn't enough. The whole beauty of making drugs legal is that in short order, the supply side will be taken up by legitimate companies, and drug dealers, along with all of the violence they create, will be out of work. If you only legalize SOME drugs, then drug dealers will still have jobs.
It's all or nothing folks. Either people have the right to decide what they put in their bodies, or they don't.
Wow, I can't believe this thread popped up again, it's been so long. I wrote 9 pages and got an A. I would copy paste the whole thing, but I don't want to open the door to plaguirism, so I'll just copy paste some key points:
"Perhaps one of the problems with the current approach is that the government has been placing too much focus on battling the drug trade and enforcing the drug laws, and not enough on the treatment and rehabilitation of drug users. We must not look at drug addicts and abusers as the enemy and as criminals, but rather as people in need of treatment. This tactic does not necessarily imply the legalization of all drugs, but rather decriminalization plays an important role. Most importantly, we must educate our population of the real dangers and true nature of such drugs, rather than spreading false propaganda implicating all drugs as inherently evil which ultimately results in contempt for the government and law. Perhaps then, our people may be able to make well informed decisions. "
"Now considering the war on drugs purely through an economic standpoint, the prohibition of substances makes little sense. Legal or not legal, there will always be drug usage (take the Alcohol Prohibition as an example). By deeming these drugs illegal, we allow other countries and a select few get rich (through across-the-border drug trafficking). Through legalizing such substances, the creation of a new industry of profitable businesses may easily help stimulate an otherwise weakening economy. Many new jobs would be created, and massive tax dollars generated. Add on the huge savings from dropping the costs of this war on drugs, and we?re talking big money. Now, is it right to profit off of the endangerment of our citizen?s well-being? Well, I would argue that if this were the case, than we must immediately place a ban on cigarettes, alcohol, McDonald?s, gambling, skydiving? you name it. You also have to think in terms of harm reduction. Impure, contaminated drugs lead to many unnecessary deaths each year. It?s better to have legitimate businesses which can be regulated and supervised to produce such substances rather than forcing the market underground where problems of impurities and ?dirty? drugs run rampant."
"Instead of allowing distant drug lords to profit, why not keep the profits within the U.S.? The forcing of drugs into the black market allows drug lords to acquire great wealth and power, which has lead to much corruption within the government and law enforcement agencies in such areas as Mexico and Columbia. We cannot deny that such corruption exists even within our own borders. Another direct effect can been seen in a great deal of our youths, predominantly in the ghetto, who see the great opportunity in the illegal drug trade and end up falling in the same trap that their brothers have in the past."
"The illegal drug trade leads to criminal behavior and the lives of many innocent people are taken in the process."
"We may have much to gain in legalizing drugs, however, at what price? We must acknowledge the implications and potential dangers involved with such a bold move. I do not believe an environment with cheap, freely available dangerous substances is one conducive to a productive society. You must understand that there are many drugs out there that are purely dangerous (with no known benefits) and highly detrimental to one?s health. Should these substances be allowed? Realistically speaking, no. So where do we draw the line? Well, substance should be subject to meet certain criteria in order to become legalized. I believe if the usage of a particular substance poses potential threats to others and/or society, than it may only be allowed should we find benefit within the substance, that is, unless of course the substance is highly addictive and dangerous. Take prescription drugs or even bleach as examples. They can easily be used as dangerous substances; however, they have their use within society. Even alcohol is shown to have benefits."
"Heroine, in contrast, is not known to have any benefits, and therefore should be illegal except in treatment facilities that may allow addicts to get better. Marijuana, on the other hand, a well researched substance with relatively low health-risks and great potential for health benefits such as the alleviation of pain for people suffering from chronic illnesses or even simply mild pain or nausea, would be one such substance that should be legal"
"As you may be aware, the organization, Partnership for a Drug Free America has been running advertising campaigns on major television networks aimed at educating our youth of the grave dangers of marijuana. One such commercial made the bold statement, ?By smoking marijuana, you support terrorism,? based on the idea that criminal activity and terrorist organizations are partially funded by drug sales. Well following this line of logic, one could say, ?By buying gasoline, you support terrorism? After all, a large portion of terrorist funding comes from Middle East oil (Dietz, 2001). Essentially, I could use this blanket statement and say, ?Your very mothers support terrorism by driving their sons to school.? No, terrorism is not funded by drugs; terrorism is funded by failed drug policy. You have to remember that if marijuana wasn?t part of a profitable black market, than this would not be the case to begin with! It?s not the user who causes these problems, but rather, it is the banning of such substances that allow terrorists to profit. This is just another reason as to why marijuana should be legalized. You don?t hear such organizations making statements that alcohol supports terrorism and organized crime, correct? Obviously not, although ironically, this was the case in the 1920?s during the Alcohol Prohibition, in which organized crime became prevalent and the mafia gained much power."
"Before throwing away millions of dollars on putting out these ads, why not educate yourself properly. Ignorance plays a large issue in this. I truly believe if such organizations didn?t propagate so much ignorance, our society would not make so many ill-formed opinions concerning this gray area."
"Now think for a second: isn?t it a bit unreasonable to consider smoking an herb or consuming other such substances criminal activity? If I subsequently harm someone, than yes I should be punished accordingly, but is the actual behavior of ingesting a harmful substance a criminal offense? Would I be labeled as a criminal if I drank rat poison? Rather than shunning and jailing these drug users, why not focus on their rehabilitation? The very fact that these substances are illegal, create a negative stigma associated with the user. They are cast out from society, and commonly mislabeled as a ?dumb stoner? or a bad person. As a result the user finds himself put in a position where he cannot seek help simply out of fear because his own family may not ?understand? and perhaps even disown him. The alienation and distancing of loved one?s only make the possibility of getting better less likely and more difficult. This may lead to the downward spiral that is escapism; this idea of turning back to drugs because no one will listen. I do not believe there are enough options available for an addict or drug abuser in terms of treatment. Cigarette smokers are encouraged by society and certainly by their parents to quit, and commonly receive warm positive support when they decide they want to make that change. A drug addict, on the other hand, is typically scolded, punished by law, and receives very little options in terms of help and rehabilitation. Would you yell at your daughter for being a bulimic or suicidal? Would you throw her in jail, and fine her? On the same note, if your son was a druggie, would look at him as criminal, or rather someone who needs help? This war should be a concern of public health, not crime. "
"Take a look at Malaysia, whose answer to the drug problem was harsher laws and stricter enforcement. Those caught for possession of even relatively small amounts, pay the ultimate price; their own lives. Malaysian officials admit that even after enacting mandatory death sentences, the drug problem has remained rampant, and the number of drug addicts continues to grow"
"Now, let?s look at a more liberal approach in contrast. In Switzerland, an experimental program where heroin addicts could obtain prescription heroin at clinics for treatment was tried and proven successful. The program was found to reduce crime and disease transmission as well as allow addicts to get healthy and lead productive lives after being reintegrated into society "
"It is quite clear that our current drugs policies are not working and are hardly solving anything. Just look at the statistics. Drug usage has not been going down as a whole, and trends show that usage of many substances, especially ?hard drugs? is in fact, steadily rising (Drug Use Trends, 2002). Now tell me, is the War on Drugs worth the precious lives and great resources it has cost Americans? Rather than spend valuable law enforcement resources and tax dollars on filling our prisons with drug offenders, why not instead worry about the real criminals such as murderers and rapists. Obviously, changes must be made, and efforts must be redirected in order to make for an effective transformation. Do I believe drugs are good for society? Absolutely not. The answer, however, does not lie within it?s banning, but rather in education and rehabilitation. Instead of spending many (ultimately) wasted resources on stopping the drug trade, we should instead focus our energies on educating our people, and most importantly, our youth. Additionally, we must be careful not to label drug addicts and abusers as criminals, but rather consider them people in need of help. This would involve, as I suggested earlier, the decriminalization of drugs while maintaining the illegality of certain dangerous substances. These people aren?t in need of incarceration and punishment, but rather simply require attention and treatment. Are drug addicts and abusers all that different from those with an alcohol addiction, or a condition of bulimia or obesity? We have to understand that they people just like you and me. We?re not all perfect; each and every one us may just as easily fall into the trap as the next person."
Ah f it, I posted almost all of it verbatim, so if you copy this at least PM me or something and you can quote/reference me.
"Perhaps one of the problems with the current approach is that the government has been placing too much focus on battling the drug trade and enforcing the drug laws, and not enough on the treatment and rehabilitation of drug users. We must not look at drug addicts and abusers as the enemy and as criminals, but rather as people in need of treatment. This tactic does not necessarily imply the legalization of all drugs, but rather decriminalization plays an important role. Most importantly, we must educate our population of the real dangers and true nature of such drugs, rather than spreading false propaganda implicating all drugs as inherently evil which ultimately results in contempt for the government and law. Perhaps then, our people may be able to make well informed decisions. "
"Now considering the war on drugs purely through an economic standpoint, the prohibition of substances makes little sense. Legal or not legal, there will always be drug usage (take the Alcohol Prohibition as an example). By deeming these drugs illegal, we allow other countries and a select few get rich (through across-the-border drug trafficking). Through legalizing such substances, the creation of a new industry of profitable businesses may easily help stimulate an otherwise weakening economy. Many new jobs would be created, and massive tax dollars generated. Add on the huge savings from dropping the costs of this war on drugs, and we?re talking big money. Now, is it right to profit off of the endangerment of our citizen?s well-being? Well, I would argue that if this were the case, than we must immediately place a ban on cigarettes, alcohol, McDonald?s, gambling, skydiving? you name it. You also have to think in terms of harm reduction. Impure, contaminated drugs lead to many unnecessary deaths each year. It?s better to have legitimate businesses which can be regulated and supervised to produce such substances rather than forcing the market underground where problems of impurities and ?dirty? drugs run rampant."
"Instead of allowing distant drug lords to profit, why not keep the profits within the U.S.? The forcing of drugs into the black market allows drug lords to acquire great wealth and power, which has lead to much corruption within the government and law enforcement agencies in such areas as Mexico and Columbia. We cannot deny that such corruption exists even within our own borders. Another direct effect can been seen in a great deal of our youths, predominantly in the ghetto, who see the great opportunity in the illegal drug trade and end up falling in the same trap that their brothers have in the past."
"The illegal drug trade leads to criminal behavior and the lives of many innocent people are taken in the process."
"We may have much to gain in legalizing drugs, however, at what price? We must acknowledge the implications and potential dangers involved with such a bold move. I do not believe an environment with cheap, freely available dangerous substances is one conducive to a productive society. You must understand that there are many drugs out there that are purely dangerous (with no known benefits) and highly detrimental to one?s health. Should these substances be allowed? Realistically speaking, no. So where do we draw the line? Well, substance should be subject to meet certain criteria in order to become legalized. I believe if the usage of a particular substance poses potential threats to others and/or society, than it may only be allowed should we find benefit within the substance, that is, unless of course the substance is highly addictive and dangerous. Take prescription drugs or even bleach as examples. They can easily be used as dangerous substances; however, they have their use within society. Even alcohol is shown to have benefits."
"Heroine, in contrast, is not known to have any benefits, and therefore should be illegal except in treatment facilities that may allow addicts to get better. Marijuana, on the other hand, a well researched substance with relatively low health-risks and great potential for health benefits such as the alleviation of pain for people suffering from chronic illnesses or even simply mild pain or nausea, would be one such substance that should be legal"
"As you may be aware, the organization, Partnership for a Drug Free America has been running advertising campaigns on major television networks aimed at educating our youth of the grave dangers of marijuana. One such commercial made the bold statement, ?By smoking marijuana, you support terrorism,? based on the idea that criminal activity and terrorist organizations are partially funded by drug sales. Well following this line of logic, one could say, ?By buying gasoline, you support terrorism? After all, a large portion of terrorist funding comes from Middle East oil (Dietz, 2001). Essentially, I could use this blanket statement and say, ?Your very mothers support terrorism by driving their sons to school.? No, terrorism is not funded by drugs; terrorism is funded by failed drug policy. You have to remember that if marijuana wasn?t part of a profitable black market, than this would not be the case to begin with! It?s not the user who causes these problems, but rather, it is the banning of such substances that allow terrorists to profit. This is just another reason as to why marijuana should be legalized. You don?t hear such organizations making statements that alcohol supports terrorism and organized crime, correct? Obviously not, although ironically, this was the case in the 1920?s during the Alcohol Prohibition, in which organized crime became prevalent and the mafia gained much power."
"Before throwing away millions of dollars on putting out these ads, why not educate yourself properly. Ignorance plays a large issue in this. I truly believe if such organizations didn?t propagate so much ignorance, our society would not make so many ill-formed opinions concerning this gray area."
"Now think for a second: isn?t it a bit unreasonable to consider smoking an herb or consuming other such substances criminal activity? If I subsequently harm someone, than yes I should be punished accordingly, but is the actual behavior of ingesting a harmful substance a criminal offense? Would I be labeled as a criminal if I drank rat poison? Rather than shunning and jailing these drug users, why not focus on their rehabilitation? The very fact that these substances are illegal, create a negative stigma associated with the user. They are cast out from society, and commonly mislabeled as a ?dumb stoner? or a bad person. As a result the user finds himself put in a position where he cannot seek help simply out of fear because his own family may not ?understand? and perhaps even disown him. The alienation and distancing of loved one?s only make the possibility of getting better less likely and more difficult. This may lead to the downward spiral that is escapism; this idea of turning back to drugs because no one will listen. I do not believe there are enough options available for an addict or drug abuser in terms of treatment. Cigarette smokers are encouraged by society and certainly by their parents to quit, and commonly receive warm positive support when they decide they want to make that change. A drug addict, on the other hand, is typically scolded, punished by law, and receives very little options in terms of help and rehabilitation. Would you yell at your daughter for being a bulimic or suicidal? Would you throw her in jail, and fine her? On the same note, if your son was a druggie, would look at him as criminal, or rather someone who needs help? This war should be a concern of public health, not crime. "
"Take a look at Malaysia, whose answer to the drug problem was harsher laws and stricter enforcement. Those caught for possession of even relatively small amounts, pay the ultimate price; their own lives. Malaysian officials admit that even after enacting mandatory death sentences, the drug problem has remained rampant, and the number of drug addicts continues to grow"
"Now, let?s look at a more liberal approach in contrast. In Switzerland, an experimental program where heroin addicts could obtain prescription heroin at clinics for treatment was tried and proven successful. The program was found to reduce crime and disease transmission as well as allow addicts to get healthy and lead productive lives after being reintegrated into society "
"It is quite clear that our current drugs policies are not working and are hardly solving anything. Just look at the statistics. Drug usage has not been going down as a whole, and trends show that usage of many substances, especially ?hard drugs? is in fact, steadily rising (Drug Use Trends, 2002). Now tell me, is the War on Drugs worth the precious lives and great resources it has cost Americans? Rather than spend valuable law enforcement resources and tax dollars on filling our prisons with drug offenders, why not instead worry about the real criminals such as murderers and rapists. Obviously, changes must be made, and efforts must be redirected in order to make for an effective transformation. Do I believe drugs are good for society? Absolutely not. The answer, however, does not lie within it?s banning, but rather in education and rehabilitation. Instead of spending many (ultimately) wasted resources on stopping the drug trade, we should instead focus our energies on educating our people, and most importantly, our youth. Additionally, we must be careful not to label drug addicts and abusers as criminals, but rather consider them people in need of help. This would involve, as I suggested earlier, the decriminalization of drugs while maintaining the illegality of certain dangerous substances. These people aren?t in need of incarceration and punishment, but rather simply require attention and treatment. Are drug addicts and abusers all that different from those with an alcohol addiction, or a condition of bulimia or obesity? We have to understand that they people just like you and me. We?re not all perfect; each and every one us may just as easily fall into the trap as the next person."
Ah f it, I posted almost all of it verbatim, so if you copy this at least PM me or something and you can quote/reference me.
Basically the gist of it all was considering legalization and then concluding that decriminalization without legalization would be the ideal solution. My main beef is, why are you deemed a criminal from the simple act of consuming a substance (dangerous or not)? If you harm someone in the process, than fine, punish away, but I do believe it would be taking away a basic right to say that you're not allowed to do something to your own body.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter