Some people just don't get it.

[Sal]

Of all the drug dealers I know and have known, nearly all of them did it on the side. They worked regular jobs, mechanics, cooks, fisherman. And for the most part, they were simply making a bit of extra money on top of their own habits. Buy a bag from a bigger dealer, and buy some extra to sell to your friends.

In the "grand scheme of things" we probably know the same guys - the guys who resell most of the ounce or QP they get so their tokes come cheap - or free. Really, unless there's a complaint or they've piddled in some cop's corn flakes, the law doesn't even pay attention to them.

Woof!

Maybe things have changed a lot since my day but wouldn't these guys just be pushers then. Dealers from my day did the importing, mixing and cutting then selling to the pushers who made the small change.

I just wish the government would take a hike out of the bedrooms and not be worried about what drugs I choose to put into my OWN body 'cause it is baaaaaaaad for me. Load of crap.

Legalize it all and tax it. Same with prostitution. It's a puritanical, big daddy will care for you, ridiculous attitude.

That would clean up most crime right there including the gangs.

 

[Kreskin]

Proove it.

For starters, nearly 100% of property crimes are drug related.

 

[darkbeaver]

For starters, nearly 100% of property crimes are drug related.

I don't believe that's correct either. Poverty, disease, erectial dysfunction, infrastructure failure, war the environment, I think you have to go way down the list of societal problems to get to recreational drugs in terms of expense or impact.

 

[Tonington]

I think there is a huge difference between drug use and problem drug use. I also think there's a huge difference between a problem dealer, ie the kind who participate in other more violent crimes, and simple dealers like those I mentioned earlier.

So when you make mandatory minimum sentences, you're disregarding that fact. It's like making price ceilings and price floors in economics, it distorts.

 

[lone wolf]

For starters, nearly 100% of property crimes are drug related.

I really do believe if they were to set up something similar to liquor control, we'd see an immediate drop in crime rates.

For one thing, you wouldn't see 500 to 1000 percent mark-ups as product moves from hand to hand - so you wouldn't have people commiting crime to feed the need. Even taxes (added revenue to government coffers instead of the cost of chasing it down) couldn't put the real price up to anywhere near where all the parasites who profit from users' sicknesses do.

Another, medical costs would drop because stuff would always be controlled quality. That means you don't have middle men skimming and adding foreign substance to bulk it up - thus the risk of overdosing is virtually gone.

Police are freed up to go after the idiots who kill from behind steering wheels and the like. The pusher and illegal labs would be gone. Who is going to buy bathtub crap when there is clinical quality for legal sale?

It IS drugs - and as such, they will be subject to abuse. It is much less expensive to treat than it is to incarcerate. Kids and thrill-seekers? Half the fun is in getting away with something. When the thrill is gone, so are they.

Yeah ... I know it will be unpopular with some. No matter what government does to make it go away - it will not go away. It will be driven farther underground. It will cost more for the user. The user will have to commit bigger crimes to feed his need. Prohibition didn't work either. Governments never learn, do they?

Woof!

 

[darkbeaver]

I agree with you Sal.The abuse and use of prescribed pharmaceuticals such as of pain killers and anti-depressants and the associated problems are many times greater than those associated with recreational drugs. A visit to the family doctor in many cases represents the introduction to drug abuse.

 

[Kreskin]

Making addictive hardcore drugs legal won't solve anything. They won't be free but they'll continue to screw up people and force them to steal to buy more. Creating less opportunity for people to get started is better.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

Its not just drugs, ladies and gentlemen: People's addiction to things is.

 

[Kreskin]

According to official figures, drug treatment programs in the UK have had disappointing success in drug rehabilitation. Several health care professionals have called for the decriminalization of illegal drugs. A head-to-head (debate) in this week's British Medical Journal (BMJ) debates the topic.

Yes - Decriminalize

A well thought-out policy would lower burglaries, gun crime, prostitution, and cut the prison population by 50%. Tax revenues would be increased as well, says Kailsh Chand, a GP (General Practitioner), Lancashire, England. However, politicians would never dare suggest this.

Chand believes that prohibition has failed. The illegal drug trade is not controlled by the government; it is controlled by violent criminal gangs. These gangs' turf wars simply make gun crime figures much worse. The current policy drives women into prostitution and leaves crime as the only option for low income addicts.

If currently illegal drugs were legalized they would be regulated in the same way tobacco and alcohol are - and more importantly, in Chand's opinion, heavily taxed. This tax could be channeled into much-needed rehabilitation and education programs.

With gangs out of the equation, legislation would mean users could purchase from places where they would be sure the drugs had not been tainted with other substances. Clear labeling about the risks could be included, as well as guidance on how to seek treatment.

Adults should be free to decide for themselves about the harmful substances they consume, argues Chand.

No - Don't Decriminalize

Joseph Califano, Chairman of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, USA, believes that decriminalization is not the answer - neither is legislation. We need to channel more resources and energy into research, prevention and treatment. Every individual citizen and institution should take responsibility to combat substance abuse and addition.

If you decriminalize drugs their prices would come down - this would make them easier to buy and more acceptable to use. Califano gives Italy as an example - while personal possession of limited amounts of heroin is generally exempt from criminal sanction, Italy has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in Western Europe.

Sweden, on the other hand, has a successful restrictive drug policy. Drug consumption was rising rapidly during the 1990s in Sweden. The government decided to tighten drug control, step up police action, set up a national action plan, and create a national drug coordinator. Sweden today has drug use levels 70% below the European average.

Califano adds that evidence is mounting regarding the serious mental illness consequences of cannabis consumption.

One does not make a drug dangerous because it has been prohibited; rather a dangerous drug becomes prohibited precisely because it is dangerous. Liberalizing drug laws would inevitably lead to increased usage among children - hardly a good public health approach.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88366.php

 

[darkbeaver]

You know for eight thousand years there wasn't a peep in the news about drug problems.
Kreskin the spelling in that article is horrible. (Every individual citizen and institution should take responsibility to combat substance abuse and addition.)
So it's a swiftly cobbled together psudo-academic article originating in two notoriously corrupt countries both with huge pharmaceuticle pushing industrys desperate to keep safe clean recreational drugs out of the hands of tax payers to protect thier trade in addictive drugs.
In the states heroin and grass are both listed as schedual 1.

 

[Kreskin]

Giving people more access to heroin will only create more people that sleep in the gutter and steal to buy more, no matter what the cost is.

 

[gerryh]

You know for eight thousand years there wasn't a peep in the news about drug problems.
Kreskin the spelling in that article is horrible. (Every individual citizen and institution should take responsibility to combat substance abuse and addition.)
So it's a swiftly cobbled together psudo-academic article originating in two notoriously corrupt countries both with huge pharmaceuticle pushing industrys desperate to keep safe clean recreational drugs out of the hands of tax payers to protect thier trade in addictive drugs.
In the states heroin and grass are both listed as schedual 1.

There isn't a single spelling error in Kreskins post, but there are 5 spelling errors in your own post. Maybe YOU should learn how to spell before commenting on other people's spelling.

 

[lone wolf]

Why do the "bust 'em and bag 'em" crowd always revert to the Reefer Madness propaganda?

Califano adds that evidence is mounting regarding the serious mental illness consequences of cannabis consumption.

As soon as they go there, their credibility goes right out the window.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Woof!

 

[Tonington]

According to official figures, drug treatment programs in the UK have had disappointing success in drug rehabilitation. Several health care professionals have called for the decriminalization of illegal drugs. A head-to-head (debate) in this week's British Medical Journal (BMJ) debates the topic.

Yes - Decriminalize

A well thought-out policy would lower burglaries, gun crime, prostitution, and cut the prison population by 50%. Tax revenues would be increased as well, says Kailsh Chand, a GP (General Practitioner), Lancashire, England. However, politicians would never dare suggest this.

Chand believes that prohibition has failed. The illegal drug trade is not controlled by the government; it is controlled by violent criminal gangs. These gangs' turf wars simply make gun crime figures much worse. The current policy drives women into prostitution and leaves crime as the only option for low income addicts.

If currently illegal drugs were legalized they would be regulated in the same way tobacco and alcohol are - and more importantly, in Chand's opinion, heavily taxed. This tax could be channeled into much-needed rehabilitation and education programs.

With gangs out of the equation, legislation would mean users could purchase from places where they would be sure the drugs had not been tainted with other substances. Clear labeling about the risks could be included, as well as guidance on how to seek treatment.

Adults should be free to decide for themselves about the harmful substances they consume, argues Chand.

No - Don't Decriminalize

Joseph Califano, Chairman of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, USA, believes that decriminalization is not the answer - neither is legislation. We need to channel more resources and energy into research, prevention and treatment. Every individual citizen and institution should take responsibility to combat substance abuse and addition.

If you decriminalize drugs their prices would come down - this would make them easier to buy and more acceptable to use. Califano gives Italy as an example - while personal possession of limited amounts of heroin is generally exempt from criminal sanction, Italy has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in Western Europe.

Sweden, on the other hand, has a successful restrictive drug policy. Drug consumption was rising rapidly during the 1990s in Sweden. The government decided to tighten drug control, step up police action, set up a national action plan, and create a national drug coordinator. Sweden today has drug use levels 70% below the European average.

Califano adds that evidence is mounting regarding the serious mental illness consequences of cannabis consumption.

One does not make a drug dangerous because it has been prohibited; rather a dangerous drug becomes prohibited precisely because it is dangerous. Liberalizing drug laws would inevitably lead to increased usage among children - hardly a good public health approach.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88366.php

Why do they mention Sweden's change relative to Europe? Would it not make more sense to say drug usage in Sweden dropped by a X% after they enacted tougher drug laws? Europe no doubt has a wide range. Compare Italy for instance to Holland.

People are going to use whether it's illegal or not. The standard mantra for years to throw more money, and stiffer penalties at the problem has not worked. Sweden may be the one exception and that's if there was even a significant change- which the NO side did not prove. There is a middle ground between taxing it to make it cost prohibitive to children and increased crime from poor users.

Education has been working at lowering teen uses of tobacco, and the same can no doubt be done with other drugs. That takes money, and that is a fine place to spend the extra tax.

It will also reduce violent crime, that's a given. All of that touches on the recent aims of Canada's new drug laws and plans, only they simply continued with the failing strategy.

 

[gerryh]

Why do the "bust 'em and bag 'em" crowd always revert to the Reefer Madness propaganda?

As soon as they go there, their credibility goes right out the window.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Woof!

This article does not address the medical consequences of marijuana use.

Here are a few articles on the medical consequences:

What are its short-term effects?Short-term effects of marijuana include problems with memory and learning, distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch), trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor coordination, increased heart rate, and anxiety.These effects are even greater when other drugs are mixed with marijuana.A user may also experience dry mouth and throat.What are its long-term effects?Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations.Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Marijuana

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.htm

Feb. 7, 2005 - The effects of marijuana in the brain may linger long after the last joint goes out.
A new study shows that blood flow to the brain in people who smoked marijuana remained altered up to a month after they last smoked pot.
Researchers say the findings may help explain the problems with memory and thinking found in previous studies of chronic marijuana users.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20050207/marijuanas-effects-linger-in-brain

http://teratogenmarijuana.pbwiki.com/

 

[Niflmir]

Well, there was a recent article that showed that the active ingredient in marijuana may actually prevent cancer. Another study found no correlation between marijuana usage and cancer. Both of those come from the media, but so do the previous links, none of which hold any scientific merit in my view.

However, all of that is largely irrelevant in the face of a simple fact: I know of three mind altering, addictive (to varying degrees) drugs, two of which are known to cause cancer, all of which are well accepted by society, one of which is more strongly connected to crime than "drugs". You should be able to guess which three I am talking about: alcohol, caffeine and tobacco.

None of the arguments for prohibition hold water. There are spurious assertions on health risks, milder than things we put up with from chemicals added to our foods supported by studies by biased organizations using poor methods. There are assertions of criminal connections which equivocate the crimes associated with prohibition with the crimes associated with the drug itself, no attempt is ever made to seperate the two. There are assertions that anything but prohibition will endorse drugs and see a rise in usage, completely ignoring the success of modern anti-smoking campaigns. There are finally reality defying assertions that because one person may suffer a crippling addiction that affects family and friends that prohibition is the only possible way to prevent this; we have seen the inability of prohibition to accomplish this goal.

People talk about the harms of addiction, well I went through that story. Had it been possible to be open with my family about my drug usage, I never would have got to the point I did, a point I am lucky to have been able to come back from. This is not anecdotal, were people able to be open about drug use, their family and friends would be able to act quicker when things start to go wrong. As it is now, people hide it.

Drugs in todays society are like tooth decay. The longer you ignore tooth decay, the worse it gets. We need drug use to be out in the open, so that people are aware of the difference between drug use and drug abuse. So that when an individual begins to abuse, we will see it and help them to avert disaster. Drug prohibition denies the possibility of drug use, it is always abuse, unless the drug is alcohol. or tobacco. or caffeine. or tylenol. or prescription. Prohibition is the view that a tooth with any decay needs to be yanked out of the mouth; the blood and pain that follows, the fault of the decay not the barbaric practice.

 

[Unforgiven]

Go take a look at the effects of Caffeine and compare them to Pot. Now imagine if drinking coffee and tea was criminalized. That for drinking a coffee on your way to work or after dinner would land you in jail, a criminal record, lock you out of the US and make you a target for police fishing for thier limit.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~4david/caffeine.html

 

[Sal]

I agree with you Sal.The abuse and use of prescribed pharmaceuticals such as of pain killers and anti-depressants and the associated problems are many times greater than those associated with recreational drugs. A visit to the family doctor in many cases represents the introduction to drug abuse.

I just hate the whole "society" will decide what is acceptable for others to do to thier body.

Food is killing more people than drugs will ever do. How about we legislate the number of fries and burgers you can eat in a week.

Legalizing drugs will not make everyone go out and stick a needle in their arm, nor snort coke. And at least making it a controlled substance would make the said substance adhere to certain standards. Put an age limit on it, put some warning signs on it, make it illegal to drive while under the influence and then get out of other people's business.

And let the money roll in. We can use that money towards building the new infrastructure that they say is falling apart.

 

[lone wolf]

This article does not address the medical consequences of marijuana use.

Here are a few articles on the medical consequences:

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Marijuana

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.htm

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20050207/marijuanas-effects-linger-in-brain

http://teratogenmarijuana.pbwiki.com/

The article doesn't cover the medicinal usefulness either - as in pain relief, as in its use as an expectorant for people who can't take recognized anti-asthma drugs, as in it's relief of blood vessel constraint (which makes it useful in the treatment of glaucoma and migraine headache) The effects they do list as medical concerns, oddly enough, sound very near the same as those of intoxication. Those effects vanish with the buzz.

Altered bloodflow to the brain? Might I (and a great many physicians) suggest increased bloodflow in the brain - therefore more oxygen - is a good thing? And from experience, I can safely say it does expand your thoughts to well beyond the box sometimes....

Propaganda against cannabis (both Sativa L and Indica) is easy to find. The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries are as afraid of the competition today as the wood, paper and textile industries were a hundred years ago.

Ever given some thought as to why cancer is running so rampant? Chemistry! They have a pill for everything today. What does it really do? Doctor-prescribed and socially acceptable junk is a lot more dangerous than an herb. (It's the spice I use in my barely-legal moosemeat spaghetti sauce and it didn't kill Mom or make her crazy - or even give her a light head) Yes, marijuana IS an intoxicant - just like every drug including alcohol - and as such is subject to abuse. God made pot. Man made chemistry. Who do YOU trust?

Woof!

 

[Unforgiven]

Pot used to make you murder people, rape women, align with Satan and join the commies.

Nothing new that it's purported by government and anti-pot cronies on the pay train, to cause cancer, make you unable to learn ever again and forget who it is that you are.

Bunk!

As it turns out, you don't want to murder anyone, chicks smoke pot too and so, the sex thing is consensual between two adults, some of the best music was also written about Satan and well, some people just think Communism is as good a way as we have now.

There is a war on. Some people want to tell you, no force you to live your life with in the markers they have staked out for you. They neither know what is good for you nor what it is you need or desire in your life. But they do know that they don't want someone who won't go fight in wars when told to, bend to fear of something that isn't actually a present threat, and get drawn away from the addictions they can profit from and control.

Drug companies don't get diddly squat from pot, as you can't patent it nor claim it as your own. You can't prevent everyone from growing it except your own customers and so there is no profit, which I might add, is what a corporation is all about. Drug companies are corporations, and as such, have a powerful lobby group to see that politics roll the company way.

Using the worst cases of abuse to show that something is dangerous is as you know, propaganda. When the government and industry use propaganda to convince or coerce the public into creating law or in this case outlawing a natural occurring native plant, you know it's not your best interest they are looking out for.