|
On June 12 2015 20:57 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 18:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 12 2015 16:57 Simberto wrote:On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!. The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any. It does if you're a dirty cop/agent, corrupt official, part of big pharma, a racist, or part of the prison industrial complex in general. I'm sure it's just a coincidence those are the main opponents of rational drug laws though. + Show Spoiler +(I'm not saying every opponent falls in one of those categories)
How does Big Pharma as a group gain from the prohibition in your eyes? If recreational drug use was made legal wouldn't that open an entire new market for them? Additionally the new psychotic events that will invariably follow will only increase the sales of their blockbuster antipsychotics. Or is it the usual (faulty) pothead argument of smoked cannabis replacing all current pain treatment to such a degree that big pharma would no longer have any market (nevermind that the vast majority of opioid-patents have expired)?
Big pharma benefits from places like "candy land" and other facilities that push their drugs harder than the best street pushers. They also benefit from the distraction and distinction people make between drugs like heroin and morphine.
Your pushing propaganda when you say decriminalization will automatically lead to increased consumption and related illnesses. That just isn't true.
+ Show Spoiler +"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." - National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102. Reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine." - Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford. "There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine)." - C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399. "Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization." - L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Although Pharma does benefit from selling opiates (even if they share profits with generics) that wasn't the benefits I had in mind. More about how they went more than a decade without DEA scrutiny while addiction and related illnesses rocketed past drugs like heroin or cocaine.
Would you have told that Harvard doctor that he couldn't give his kid a joint for chemo without going to jail?
|
Just a reminder, the event is this Thursday at the University of Toronto. LINK
"Making men's values--including toxic drugs--illegal, does not alter their values. It merely alters the methods by which they attain those values." — Andrew Bernstein - Capitalist Solutions
|
On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence.
Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons.
Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds.
|
On June 24 2015 00:35 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box. decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence. Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons. Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds.
I would argue it has been great for Colorado, but I'm a casual recreational user myself (1 or 2 times a week) so take that for what it's worth. So far in FY2015 we have raked in almost $100 million in taxes associated with marijuana sales, so it is hard to argue with the financial benefit. Speaking from personal experience, it is much nicer to go to a store rather than some shady guy's house, and I think legalization actually decreases the "gateway drug" effect. The "gateway" concept was never about cannabis itself, but the process of actually going to a dealer. You just want some weed, but you go to this guy's house and he wants to smoke with you and ends up offering you all kinds of shit you don't want. I would rather (and do) pay a little bit more to go to an actual store where the people are friendly and helpful, I can get my stuff and go home.
There are legitimate complaints about the smell in public places (although it is illegal to smoke in public places) and that "too many people are smoking now" but I think that is partly a novelty issue. The novelty will wear off and the market will stabilize, and we will continue to have a steady stream of tax revenue from something that was illegal two years ago.
I don't agree with legalizing all drugs, because I don't think condoning recreational use of drugs like heroin and meth is responsible, but people should not be going to jail for simple possession of any drug. Implement education programs to teach people the possible consequences, and try to get them help should they become addicted. Decriminalization all around is the way to go, IMO.
|
In Portugal i've been caught with "cannabis" two times and they let me go and just took the drugs or destroyed it.
One of those times we even asked to keep a bit because it was so good and they lets us grab a bit of weed while they were scaterring it in the wind ... :D
Basicly if you are not a known dealer, don't have a big quantity and don't have lots of money(that usually is used to say you are a dealer), they will probably take your drugs and let you go without anything.
If you have a bigger quantity like lets say 25g of hash but no money or criminal record you can go to court and have to do some community service but you won't get a criminal record. Usually this won't happen if you are a low profile guy, say you are sorry and you are not a knowed thug.
Harder drugs you will never be a criminal for using or if you are caught with 1 or 2g's of cocaine or heroin, ff course bigger quantities of harder drugs will get you in big trouble.
Overall in Portugal cops don't really care unless you are dealing and making money
|
On June 24 2015 01:23 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 00:35 QuanticHawk wrote:On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box. decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence. Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons. Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds. I would argue it has been great for Colorado, but I'm a casual recreational user myself (1 or 2 times a week) so take that for what it's worth. So far in FY2015 we have raked in almost $100 million in taxes associated with marijuana sales, so it is hard to argue with the financial benefit. Speaking from personal experience, it is much nicer to go to a store rather than some shady guy's house, and I think legalization actually decreases the "gateway drug" effect. The "gateway" concept was never about cannabis itself, but the process of actually going to a dealer. You just want some weed, but you go to this guy's house and he wants to smoke with you and ends up offering you all kinds of shit you don't want. I would rather (and do) pay a little bit more to go to an actual store where the people are friendly and helpful, I can get my stuff and go home. There are legitimate complaints about the smell in public places (although it is illegal to smoke in public places) and that "too many people are smoking now" but I think that is partly a novelty issue. The novelty will wear off and the market will stabilize, and we will continue to have a steady stream of tax revenue from something that was illegal two years ago. I don't agree with legalizing all drugs, because I don't think condoning recreational use of drugs like heroin and meth is responsible, but people should not be going to jail for simple possession of any drug. Implement education programs to teach people the possible consequences, and try to get them help should they become addicted. Decriminalization all around is the way to go, IMO.
Yeah I agree about decriminalizing simply because it has far more benefits to the public. Weed probably happens in 10-15 years imo. It has way too much immediate financial potential for it not to happen. Decriminalization of the other stuff I don't know if it will. There's no immediate financial motive for a politician.
|
On June 24 2015 05:07 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 01:23 ZasZ. wrote:On June 24 2015 00:35 QuanticHawk wrote:On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box. decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence. Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons. Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds. I would argue it has been great for Colorado, but I'm a casual recreational user myself (1 or 2 times a week) so take that for what it's worth. So far in FY2015 we have raked in almost $100 million in taxes associated with marijuana sales, so it is hard to argue with the financial benefit. Speaking from personal experience, it is much nicer to go to a store rather than some shady guy's house, and I think legalization actually decreases the "gateway drug" effect. The "gateway" concept was never about cannabis itself, but the process of actually going to a dealer. You just want some weed, but you go to this guy's house and he wants to smoke with you and ends up offering you all kinds of shit you don't want. I would rather (and do) pay a little bit more to go to an actual store where the people are friendly and helpful, I can get my stuff and go home. There are legitimate complaints about the smell in public places (although it is illegal to smoke in public places) and that "too many people are smoking now" but I think that is partly a novelty issue. The novelty will wear off and the market will stabilize, and we will continue to have a steady stream of tax revenue from something that was illegal two years ago. I don't agree with legalizing all drugs, because I don't think condoning recreational use of drugs like heroin and meth is responsible, but people should not be going to jail for simple possession of any drug. Implement education programs to teach people the possible consequences, and try to get them help should they become addicted. Decriminalization all around is the way to go, IMO. Yeah I agree about decriminalizing simply because it has far more benefits to the public. Weed probably happens in 10-15 years imo. It has way too much immediate financial potential for it not to happen. Decriminalization of the other stuff I don't know if it will. There's no immediate financial motive for a politician.
Cannabis will probably come off of schedule 1 before the end of the Obama administration. It should be medically legal in a majority of states too. Even Bush thinks it should be a 'states rights' issue. So realistically it should get federally decriminalized within the next 4 years regardless of who wins.
|
As someone who has recently been literally driven insane by weed i have to say that ending prohibition is the only way forward. The way cannabis is grown right now is basically a case of maximising THC at all costs. This means that various anti-psychotic chemicals normally contained within weed are diminished, leading to a highly dangerous product. I have first hand experience of some of the effects and it has had a permanent effect on my mind.
I am not anti-weed at all, but it needs to be regulated properly or cases of psychosis and related conditions will grow exponentially IMO.
|
"firsthand experience" and pharmacological specifics don't mix dawg. I mean, this may sound harsh, but think on what sort of value a 3rd party should place on the medical or medicinal opinion of someone who claims to have been driven insane.
|
I couldn't make it to the talk, had to work overtime. But I heard good things from friends that did. There will be a video posted sometime in the future.
|
Looking forward to it, definitely.
|
|
|
|