# Drug policy



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pubs_04.cfm

Interesting site, maybe we can talk about this issue without the thread getting locked, I hope :wink:

Look at the article about state prison populations


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Here we go again, the way i see it the drug laws are kind of like seatbelt or helmet laws unconstitutional. If I chose not to wear a helmet when I ride a motor bike who does that hurt? If I chose to smoke snort or shoot up drugs into my body who does that hurt? Ansewer ME!! And what I do with ME is my buisiness and noobody else and no goverment has the right to tell me what to do, unless of course I start to harm others with my actions IG drive a vehical intoxicated, distribute drugs to minors etc etc. thats my 2 cents 8)


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> If I chose not to wear a helmet when I ride a motor bike who does that hurt?


If you're killed in a accident then the only person that is hurt is you. If your seriously hurt, especially with a head injury you wind up in a hospital that uses my tax money to keep you going. I don't want to pay for your foolishness.



> unless of course I start to harm others with my actions


And that's the rub ........... you do hurt others. Common sense says you will think you are just fine and dandy because your mind in on another planet. Not to mention you are contributing to crime by buying the stuff, you will attempt to drive and the police are now dealing with a spaced out drug induced nut instead of patrolling the streets to protect me. When you run out of money to support your habit, you will seek money in any manner you can obtain it. Sorry Bore, drugs hurt us all.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

I see your point of view Gohan and it does have merit However, the medical treatment I would need as a result of my own actions is a seperate issue and an important one but lets just set that aside for now. If I used Pot or LSD or whatever does not mean I would go driving around and causing harm. Lets just say I sat in my living room and watched my fish tank for 12 hours and then fell asleep. Would you have a problem with this?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That is the same argument they used to end prohibition. We will never go back to that, but why slide further. If they make a place like a bar, put bars on the window, lock the doors, and don't let you out until you are socially responsible again, then you wouldn't be hurting anyone. The only way you wouldn't become a burden to the tax payer is if the government run the drug bar and used the income for medical expenses, psycho therapy expenses, and funeral cost.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I was intending that we discuss drug POLICY and not desend into the unending discussion about whether they are good or bad, I feel most of us will admit they are unhealthy ect. What I'd like to talk about is the wasteful methods we are currently using to treat the problem. ANd any alternative ideas to treatment of the users.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Its not a slide futher into trouble, it is the same argument that we are all responsible for ourselfs our loved ones etc. That people can make good decishons and be responsible and they can. Look at the antigun lobby they think if we have guns we will allrun around shootng up the towne, its just not the case. The real argument here is what the goverment and society has the right to tell you what and what you cannot do, and as far as the constitution of the United States of America is concerned what you do in your own home and to yourself is your buisiness. All this other stuff creates outlaws so they can grow organizations and more goverment. Look we all know what right and wrong is and wrong is not a plant in somebodys back yard!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK Bob, I got you, but I will have a though time because I don't have a hard opinion yet. Prohibition didn't work and the drug war has been a joke. I have no problem with drugs for pain relief. My god, give them anything if they are in pain.

My question is we have alcohol, then we could legalize pot, but where do we draw the line. Once we slide, it is hard to go back. The problem is I am not sure of our alternatives. I wouldn't want outright legalization simply because I don't want to feel partially responsible for people destroying their lives. If we can do something without being a part of it I would be more inclined to try something else. Has anyone any good ideas? I must say I don't.

With gambling we have people who become addicted. How much of the proceeds go from gambling profits to pay for gambling addiction? I worry that it may simply become a terrible expense. That is why I half jokingly said government drug bars where all the money goes to education, and rehabilitation. I agree we are not doing to well with current policy.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> My question is we have alcohol, then we could legalize pot, but where do we draw the line. Once we slide, it is hard to go back.


Simple, you stop at pot. Its easily growable by any average Joe so he doesn't have to rely on dealers like they would with a hard drug. As well pot is attested to less violence and accidents than booze, so its a softer drug in the first place.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

did any of you get a chance to take a look at the web site I listed above? I was wondering what you thought of the articles and the general point they were making.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just finished reading about half. It is sure costing a lot, but what would the cost of an alternative be. I don't want to make my decision simply on economics, I want to make it on what is best for society. I guess I still can't make up my mind what we should do.

The disproportionate numbers by race doesn't explain anything. There is missing data. What were the arrests for trafficking or use? Violent offense or other? It wasn't convincing one way or the other. I am afraid we will have to dig deep into our conscience and pocketbook.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Got this from my sister in Saskatchewan today, as I understand, these increases are largely do to the legalization of small amounts of pot. From the looks of it, I don't think we want anything to do with it.

Highest CMA rates in western Canada, lowest in Quebec and Ontario
The seven highest crime rates among the CMAs were all in the west: Saskatoon, Regina, Abbotsford, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton and Victoria. The lowest crime rates were in Quebec and Ontario: Saguenay, Québec, Toronto, Trois-Rivières, Kitchener, Gatineau and Ottawa.

Double-digit increases in crime rates were reported in 2003 for Saskatoon, Montréal, Winnipeg and Edmonton. The increase in Montréal was primarily because of an 87% rise in counterfeiting incidents.

Youth crime increasing
More than 84,000 young people aged 12 to 17 were charged with criminal offences last year. A further 100,000 youths involved in criminal incidents were "cleared otherwise."

An incident is cleared otherwise when police have identified an accused and there is sufficient evidence to lay a charge in connection with the incident, but the accused is processed by other means. In the case of youths, this could include formal measures such as a Crown caution or extrajudicial sanctions, or informal measures such as a police warning or referral to a community program.

The crime rate among young people aged 12 to 17, as measured by the total number accused by police, increased 5% last year. It was the third gain in the last four years.

The rate of youths formally charged declined 15%. However, this was more than offset by a 30% jump in the rate of youths cleared otherwise. In 2003, some of the increase in youths cleared otherwise may be a result of increased reporting by police under the new provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Violent crime among youth was up 3%, also the third increase in four years. Increases were reported in the rate of youths accused of homicide, attempted murder and assault. Declines were reported for sexual assault and robbery.

The youth property crime rate increased 4% in 2003, following three years of relative stability. This was driven by a 7% increase in the rate of break-ins and a 6% increase in the rate of thefts under $5,000. The rate of young people accused of motor vehicle theft fell 7%.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Lets just say I sat in my living room and watched my fish tank for 12 hours and then fell asleep. Would you have a problem with this?


Nope ............ I would have no problem at all. But, and there is always a but....... you can't honestly promise that is all you would do and the odds are against you that is what you would do..


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> did any of you get a chance to take a look at the web site I listed above? I was wondering what you thought of the articles and the general point they were making.


I read through a few but to be frank I didn't think much of what I did read as the only solutions they seem to offer was no crime short of murder is worth jail time. The very first article seemed to go in circles concerning racial equality on sentencing to the ratio to arrests. I got the impression that they were trying to say that holding, possession and trafficking were all the same and should be treated equal. They also offered no real proof that crack and heroin were both equally addictive and even went so far as to say that crack wasn't a faster high the plain cocaine.

Here is what I did find out doing a little back ground check as I do on all non profit organizations I read.

"In an election year, it's the quantity, not quality, of voters; a fact known all too well by The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice research and advocacy organization out of Washington, D.C., that seeks to promote a criminal lenience agenda by advocating for the rights of convicts, through such policy changes as: shorter jail sentences, alternatives to incarceration, and most importantly, the right for felons to vote".

A organization praised by the ACLU really doesn't get much attention from me but in all fairness that is prejudiced on my part.......


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon I agree with your assessment of them. I do think their analysis of the percentage of non violent offenders in state prisons and clogging up the courts on minor pot charges jives with the other stuff I have read on the subject.
Thats why I think something needs to change, in our policy on drugs. I think a lot of crimes are worth more jail time than is administered partly dut to the sheer load of non-violent pot heads in jail. They should make room for these sexual predators and child molesters that keep repeating their crime and killing little kids lately. I would advocate a lot tougher sentencing for them


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

My 0.02: First, does the data from states where pot is decriminalized show any differences between states where it is not decriminalized? This analysis should show if there is an increase in use over the long term and reflect addictive qualities, crime associated with pot, etc. Most data going back to the 60's show that pot use and experimentation peak in college years declines after that but the overall use by society has remained relatively constant for many years. making pot legal or less illegal has not been shown to increase use. Second, what does the data tell us about the difference between the overall health and societal effects of pot versus alcohol? From my perspective, I don't see much difference. We kill about 40,000 in drunk driving each year, don't have a clue about how much alcoholism and side effects cost the country but it must be substantial but I don't see a great cry from physicians and health insurance companies complaining about the great pot problem or alcohol effects. 
Third, if the gov't raiseed it or taxed it, how much would the gov't make? And what about home growers? That eliminates any "criminal activity" from making any money.

Finally, on the sentencing project. I agree with some of their stats. I think that there should be some statute of limitations on length of time you cannot vote after a felony (e.g. Do your time, stay completely out of trouble for 10 years after release, then you can vote). Second, what about differences in state laws? For example, you can be charged with a felony in some states for possession of pot over an ounce, while in other states you have to have over 4 ounces for a felony. Should the person convicted of a felony in a tough state then not be allowed to vote in a less strict state?


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

I still am not convinced that legalizing drugs would cause anything good or better. I feel people believe that they can just sit in their homes and do drugs and not leave until they are off their high. This just doesn't happen. Let's take LSD or another hard drug for example. This stuff pretty much kills your brain and your body. When you are hooked on this stuff, how are you going to get the money to pay for it? Even if it is cheap cause it is legalized, you more than likely won't be able to hold a job since you will be doing drugs daily and/or your brain is fried. You will probably go into poverty and commit crimes to get your money to support your habit.

I still don't believe that we can compare pot to alcohol statistics yet. One is legalized (alcohol) and millions and millions drink it and the other is illegal (POT) and people try to do it without getting caught. I wonder what the statistics were on drunken driving when alcohol was illegal. I would think way less than it is when it was legalized?

Why do we have to spend on this money on prison's for criminals that are committing such bad crimes? Why not just build a cement/concrete building out in the middle of no where with some running water and fence around it. Just have some beds and cells in it and that is it. Feed them mac and cheese daily(ha ha, really cheap) and water. Most of these guys live better than some people do out of prison. At least they have a roof over their head and food. I know this is extreme, but i think we can cut down on prison costs for them. Did I get off topic?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Third, if the gov't raiseed it or taxed it, how much would the gov't make? And what about home growers? That eliminates any "criminal activity" from making any money.


indsport you raise some good points and I agree in part with you. However this section caught my eye and it did so because of Alaska. Once upon a time as in most states it was illegal to possess and grow pot in Alaska. Then they had a ballot measure and the good people of Alaska decided to allow their citizens to grow pot for their own use. That was fine up until a few years back and then the law by the people was changed by the people again, and went in the opposite direction which once again made growing pot illegal. However as usual, a single judge came along and through out the new law by the people and said you can still grow pot. Now state law makers are scrambling to come up with new written laws that a judge can't trample on, and again make growing pot illegal in Alaska. Now here is the reason Alaska now wants to make growing pot for personal use illegal again ............. The marijuana grown all over the state of Alaska which is suppose to be for personal use, is quickly becoming a cash crop for some of their citizens that is finding it's way into the lower 48 states. So apparently the home grower thing hasn't worked in Alaska and who should know better than the state that has tried it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If it was legal in all states there wouldn't be a market for the "Alaskan gold" :lol: . Thats one of the big points of Indsports' post! By the way Indsport I heartily agree with your post also.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I would say the question is "how much are we willing to pay to continue to keep drugs illegal?" I think we pay to much now for offenses such as use, dealing I think is a different thing. I think the moivie or book "Escape From New York" (I could be wrong) had something to do with an idea of putting those who chose to do drugs in a seperate place where it was legal? Kind of like a colony of drug users, maybe that idea has merit? Who am I to say? I have also heard that keeping the cost of drugs high is a good thing so not everybody can afford them. This is why the explosion in meth has happened because you don't have a lot of dealers selling it you have users making it. I know common sence tells me one thing, If I were to do a drug I would rather do one that nature has created rather than one some jerk brew up in a crock pot!

TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If pot was legal there wouldn't be any dealers, there wouldn't be enough money in it, lettuce would be more expensive. Ditto with cime associated with drugs it would dry up and then we could spend all the money we are now spending on HONEST education and treatment for the foools that use.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Bobm, I think I agree, I'm not a 100% sure but I feel pot (nature created)
could be legal and then government could get thier evil hands on it just like taxes.... :lol: Ok I couldn't resist but ya then the dealers would be out and your right the fools who abuse could get help. I don't think there are any dealers with a sole that say "No you have bought to much this week I won't sell you anymore till you pay your rent and put food on the table."

I don't think I could be for meth being legal or some of the harder drugs but then again I don't know that much about it.

TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm not for legalizing harder drugs either but I am for decriminalizing them and using the extremely low cost of legalized pot to move the hard drug users to pot, then try to get the ones that are willing to get conseling ect. I think that if harder drug users had access to cheap legal pot they( at least some of them) would make the choice to go with the lower cost and risk. I have no doubt that some of them would be looking for an avenue out of their addiction.And even if all they did was move to pot and off the harder stuff that would be a move in the right direction. No point in incarcerating abunch of miserable stupid people, if they are non violent users. Making pot so low cost would also have a positive effect on the war on terroism because it would dry up a potential source of revenue for terrorists.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Never thought about the terror conection good point! I don't think you will get meth users to go to pot. It is way to adictive, I talked to one person who was on it, She sais "She would sell her own child to get more if she had to." Thats how crazy they are for it, can you immagane actually hating yourself for not trying it sooner? thats some crazy bad stuff! I have a friend in law enforcment and got to sit in on some meetings, wow! I'll stick to adrenaline, thank you!

TC


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

Bobm, I also don't feel you will be able to make the hard drug users switch to POT. They are addicted to the high like POT gives but they all give different kinds of highs. That is the whole reason why they keep doing it...they can't stop. I think if they could switch they would, but they probably aren't capable of it. It is like telling people that if smoking became illegal they should just use chewing tabacco. Probably couldn't get those people who smoke to change if they had to. They are addicted to the actual drug they are using. Think of how much cocaine costs compared to POT right now. Don't you think they would switch now so they could buy more drugs?

Speaking of meth, i was reading an article that showed a picture of a guy and all his teeth were rotted out and/or missing cause of the drug. They said take a look at yourself and why don't you quit. He said he couldn't and does whatever he has to do to get it. I highly doubt(but don't know the guy) this guy would make a switch to POT.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You guys may well be correct about how addictive it is but I still think if they took the criminal penalty part out of it, some of the people that are currently using would come for help. There are other drugs that could be administered (by a doctor at clinics we could afford to have with the money we would save without jail) that could be used as a stepping stone back to sobriety. These people need help not a jail sentence. If I have to pee away tax money I would rather it be to help them than to incarcerate them. I still think some of them would choose pot over harder drugs. 
I've never been addicted to anything but Coke, the kind that comes in a can (diet), and peanut butter, don't leave a jar of peanut butter around me, no kidding I just can't leave it alone.

I feel sorry for these people and I'm tired of doing the same thing over and over with no real positive change in the situation. SO with that thought in mind, if you guys don't think that my ideas will work what do you suggest???


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Hey Bob I think I got off point again I can't say I disagree with you I like the ideas you are talking about here.

TC


----------



## ThatGuy (May 1, 2005)

I'll start by playing devil's advocate. By legalizing pot or hard drugs, the government would be allowed to tax them if sold over the counter. Examine how much the government makes on taxes on cigarettes alone, goodbye national debt.

That being said, I'm not in favor of legalization. Don't get me wrong, there is a chance that I might have done my fair share of things such as pot, however, I have also seen the firsthand effects of harder drugs such as coke and meth. Trust me, I've poored my fair share of drinks in my day and the last thing you want in the bar is a meth-head who has not slept in 3 days and is a little "jittery".

Now we have to look at how much of your tax dollars go to rehab each year. Your average addict on a hard drug takes a couple years to over a decade to kick the habit. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK in rehab programs! According to most of the numbers on hard drug users, they started out on pot and theoretically we would probably see an increase in hard drug use if marijuana were legalized.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything about your occasional recreational smokers who light up every once in a while, or even a guy who gets high as a kite on a daily basis. That is their choice and most everyone that I know that uses is fully aware of the consequences that they might incur. Many people decide to have a few too many drinks and attempt driving. As I see it, it is the same difference other than they are adding an element of danger to themselves and bystanders.

The main drawback that we have here is there is a lot of gray area in this issue. However, for laws to be effective they must ignore gray area and set the line definitively.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Now we have to look at how much of your tax dollars go to rehab each year. Your average addict on a hard drug takes a couple years to over a decade to kick the habit. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK in rehab programs!


the number of hard drug addicts is tiny compared to the number of nonviolent people held in prison for drug offenses, so we would save money



> According to most of the numbers on hard drug users, they started out on pot


 statistically that is true but a very small number of people that try pot go on to become hard drug users



> and theoretically we would probably see an increase in hard drug use if marijuana were legalized.


No more than today but we would have alot better way of treating them instead of just throwing them in jail in a never ending revolving door thru the criminal justice system at much greater overall cost to the taxpayer. You yourself admit to pot use yet I'm assuming your not a meth addict so obviously that only happens to a few people that are predisposed to addiction anyway, because of a lot of factors, environment ,family structure ect. We need to change how we address the problem. It is undeniable that the vast majority of people that use pot are not hard drug users or addicts. Something like over 50% of the people in this country admit to having tried pot in their youth and obviously half the country isn't using meth or coke. I don't buy the arguement that its a gateway drug except for but a few that would end up addicted on something anyway because they are trying to escape their particular reality. And those are the people that we need to have the resources freed up from the criminal justice system to treat. The government has ahuge beuracracy of power and government jobs wrapped around the so called "war on drugs " and they have no real incentive to lose that power or jobs and thus no incentive to win the "waar on drugs". Its a farce.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have seen all these arguments, pro and con, before. Can't anyone come up with something new that will sway my mind. I still can't decide. Anyone have any hard data, I really like that stuff. Things like:

1 I countries where it has been legalized, what was the per capita rate of use five years before and five years after.

2 What were drug enforcement expenditures before, and after.

3 What were crime rates before and after

4 What were societal medical expenses before and after

I have many more questions, but no answers. So far everything is mostly opinion and guesses.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Well ....................... here are cons if someone wants to bounce pros against them.

* Immediate effects after someone has smoked marijuana may include: loss of restlessness, excitement, hullucinations, psychotic, paranoia, psychotic episodes, impaired coordination, impaired motor ability, mood swings, increased appetite, and impaired ability.
* Long Term effects of marijuana may include: the loss of brain cells, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, energy loss, slow confused thinking, apathy, and blood vessel blockage.
* Physical effects of marijuana may include diarrhea, cramps, weight loss or gain, and impaired sex drive
* Marijuana can be a gateway drug, which means it can lead to the use of many other harmful drugs--Children ages 12-17 are 85 times more likely to use cocaine
* The chronic use of pure resin(hashish) has been associated with mental deformation and criminality
* A marijuana cigarette(joint) contains 50%-100% more tar than that of tobacco.
* Smoking one joint is equal to smoking 7-10 cigarettes.
* New harvesting methods made marijuana 20x more effective than it was 30 years ago. It can be laced with other drugs and the smoker won't even know.
* Marijuana has been linked with teen violence, suicide, crime, and unsafe sex-HIV transmission.
* Smoking marijuana by adolescent user can disrupt their emotional development, delay puberty, and can delay the monthly cycle in females.
* Marijuana may produce a mild physical dependence that causes minor withdrawal symptoms when discontinued, including nausea, insomnia, irritabilty, and anxiety.
* Legalization of marijuana would not cut down on all crime, alcohol still causes family disputes, rape, robbery, reckless driving, and murder.

UPDATED MAY 2003
* Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may experience the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These individuals may include: daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to use marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.
* Research has shown that babies born to women who used marijuana during their pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli and increased tremulousness which may indicate problems with neurological development. Marijuana exposed children have also been found to have more behavioral problems and to perform tasks of visual perception, language comprehension, sustained attention, and memory poorly. In school, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in decision-making skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive.
* A study involving college students found that the heavy marijuana users made more errors and had more difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing, and using information. These findings suggest that the greater impairment among heavy users is likely due to an alteration of brain activity produced by marijuana.
Source: http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/dr ... juana.html

* People may experience adverse effects from marijuana use such as anxiety and paranoia. The anxiety can range anywhere from mild anxiety to complete panic.
* Chronic heavy use may lead to lasting behavioral problems such as loss of motivation and paranoia, and physical problems such as impairment of lung function, and weight gain due to the appetite enhancing effects associated with marijuana use.
Source: http://www.albany.edu/counseling_center/pot-p&c.html


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Gohon it seems as if some of the cons you posted are the exact same as some side effects of the drugs now being produced by the big companies? Ya know the ads say "May include diarrhea, cramps, weight loss or gain, and impaired sex drive...stuff like that." should some of these drugs be illegal as well? After all if its a good enough reason to keep pot illegal shouldn't drugs that have the same effects be illegal? Just curious?

TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> * Legalization of marijuana would not cut down on all crime, alcohol still causes family disputes, rape, robbery, reckless driving, and murder


.

this reasoning is pure stupid..not you gohon.. I know thats just a list you found and posted for discussions sake. I agree with many of the rest of them but thats not the question, the question is not is pot good for you the question is do we change the way we address the problem of its abuse?

By the way notice they using the adjectives "Heavy" "chronic" ect. The point I'm trying to make is that the anti drug government establishment is a bunch of phonies that really don't want to solve the problem. They use scarey sounding tactics to create the fears in the general public so the public will support the agencies without really analizing how effective these wasteful agencies and their policies are. 
Drugs, alchohol, and cigarettes will shorten your life and make your later years miserable, that is undeniable. I am against their use I don't use any of them although I've tried all of them in college and the army. 
The point of the thread is do we continue a failed policy thats failed consistantly for over 30 years and is probably backed by the alchohol lobby for monetary reasons or do we start caring for addicts more efficiently.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> "May include diarrhea, cramps, weight loss or gain, and impaired sex drive...stuff like that." should some of these drugs be illegal as well? After all if its a good enough reason to keep pot illegal shouldn't drugs that have the same effects be illegal? Just curious?


Oh I don't know.............. do ya think those drugs you're thinking about also have the rest of the effects that's on the list? If they do, I guess the answer is yes. If they don't then it is a moot point then isn't it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Tail Chaser

Yes some of the drugs produced by the pharmaceutical companies produce some of the same side affects. But pot doesn't cure cancer, it doesn't stop acid reflux, it doesn't stop infections etc etc. I don't see this argument having any serious merit. Don't let me discourage you, I would like some good reasons to at last move one way or the other.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> But pot doesn't cure cancer


True,it is well documented that it does allow the people that are on chemotheraphy to eat without nausia, loss of nutrition and the subsequent weaking of the immune system is often the reason peole don't survive cancer treatment.



> I would like some good reasons to at last move one way or the other.


The hardest part of this discussion is getting past the notion that recreational drugs are bad for us, once you do that and change your focus to the failed policy we use to handle the problem then I think I have given some good reasons.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob
Oh, I have no problem with a cancer patient using pot. I have no problem with it's use for medicine. As a matter of fact I would let people have absolutely anything to help pain or any other medical problem that can be alleviated.

As for the second portion of your post, I'm still thinking. I also realize that our policy isn't working, and if it doesn't it keeps money coming to the drug enforcement division of our government. I don't know how bad they want to solve it.

Liberals might say, the poor families in South America deserve to make a living don't they? I would say if they do legalize it used licensed growers here in the United States and tax the he!! out of it so the junkies don't become an economical burden. I'm still thinking.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The actual cost of a joint could be less then 5 cents like a cigarrette. So I guess taxing it is possible, but I was thinking on the order of making it so cheap that any incentive to engage in illegal activity to buy or sell it will be gone( thus eliminating the cost of the law enforcement related to pot), secondly the huge amount of money we could save as tax payers getting all these people out of prison would save more tax dollars the amount is so so huge that we would only need aportion of it for treatment. I don't think any of this is going to happen most americans are to knee jerk reactionary and uniformed to really give any reform no matter what the issue any support.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You know, I keep seeing only one main reason being thrown out here for the legalization of pot and that is to save money. If that is the goal then there are a lot of ways to save money in the government. And lets not forget those in jail for pot use, whether the laws are to strict or not are there because they knowingly chose to break the law. This doesn't speak well as to whether they would also obey or break other laws on the books. You're going to need something that benefits society as a whole other than just saving money. So far no one as mentioned before, has come up with data to support the positive side of legalization. If you want to convince me then I need to see hard data. Saving money and collecting taxes is the weakest of all arguments. I see no reason to supply congress with more money to pour down another rat hole project which I'm sure they would find if given more money. Make it legal, control it, tax it, then lower income taxes .......now I might be for that, but not if it just means more money for congress. I read on one web sight that we spend just over 8 million dollars for rehab of marijuana users at present. That's just chump change in the scheme of things as far as the federal budget goes.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

No it is not to save money its to redirect it to where it could actually start to show some results.

I'll ask you( not you personally gohon,all of you) the same question I did in the original thread about this, how many more years are we to continue doing something that isn't working, hasn't worked, and is actually causing additional crime and suffering.

The real problem with this discussion if that I can't get you guys off the "drugs are bad for you" idea (which I totally agree with you on) to the what are we going to do about it when the obvious reality is that the current "war on drugs" doesn't work. Not by any reasonable standard anyway, no private sector corporation would continue a plan for thirty plus years that didn't work, only government. Its hopeless


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

Bobm said:


> how many more years are we to continue doing something that isn't working, hasn't worked, and is actually causing additional crime and suffering.


Bobm, I understand that the current way isn't working the best. I wouldn't go as far as saying it isn't working, but it could use improvements. It is working, look at how many people are in prison, drug busts, etc. Now is this the best solution...probably not. I am trying my hardest to think of a solution to this. I don't think legalizing it will do any good. I know you say that we need to get off the drugs are bad kick, but that is just the case. People will smoke POT, and then some of those people will go on to do harder drugs more than likely to get a "better" high, people will lose jobs, families hurt...this will all cost money to soceity. As much as prison costs? Don't know. How about, the government does random drug tests to every American and if they are drug free...they don't have to pay taxes for that year? :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

May seem odd but all of the people that I know who smoke pot have either not done anything harder and don't plan on it, or have moved down from harder stuff to pot. The idea that it is a gateway drug shouldn't be taken as fact.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As far as a gateway drug MT it is fact. Studies have shown that people who don't use alcohol rarely move on to pot. People that don't use pot rarely move on to harder drugs. It is a process like slowly going into cold water, one step at a time. The pot may not be the chemical reason for them moving on to harder drugs, but it is a stepping stone used by those inclined to get into drugs. Who knows what the percentage would be if the had to jump from alcohol to heroin for example. No one, but there is a percentage that would not, it is just impossible to know.


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

MT Said: "May seem odd but all of the people that I know who smoke pot have either not done anything harder and don't plan on it, or have moved down from harder stuff to pot. The idea that it is a gateway drug shouldn't be taken as fact."

All the people that I know that do POT are now switching to cocaine to get a better high. See how your statement sounds. How many people do you actually know that smoke POT compared to how many people smoke it in the USA? Probably pretty minimal. My statement isn't true, but I just wanted to get the point across about how you presented your facts. Maybe I know three people who smokes POT and now they are doing cocaine, so does this say that everyone who smokes pot goes to cocaine. Nope. If you are going to throw around statistics, at least make sure they are valid and you can prove them. Talking about your friends who probably make up less than .001% of the US isn't going to persuade anyone.

Even at lower doses marijuana impairs attention and coordination and affects the way the mind processes information. Because of these effects marijuana use has contributed to automobile, household, and occupational accidents, resulting in harm to the user and to others. High doses of marijuana may result in image distortion, loss of personal identity, and hallucinations.

The abuse of marijuana also can cause serious physical and mental problems including frequent respiratory infections, impaired memory and learning ability, increased heart rate, anxiety, and panic attacks. Individuals who regularly abuse the drug may experience the same problems as tobacco smokers including cough, phlegm, chronic bronchitis, and frequent chest colds. In addition, because marijuana contains toxins and carcinogens marijuana smokers increase their risk of cancer of the head, neck, lungs, and respiratory tract. (http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs3/3593/#risks)

Legalizing POT will only add more people to these lists. I don't think legalizing is the answer...look at cigarettes. Look at how many people smoke compared to the ones that want help. I think POT will be the same way. I think people will smoke it and not try to get help.

I still like my tax idea.


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

New research confirms that marijuana is a *gateway drug* for most teens who use it.

Some will tell you marijuana is a harmless drug, but the Journal of the American Medical Association isn't one of them.

Young people who smoke marijuana are two to five times more likely to move on to harder drugs. That is the formal opinion of researchers, who published their conclusions from a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

It is also the informal conclusion of two recent high school graduates who talked with Family News in Focus. The two, who asked that their names remain anonymous, said they no longer smoke marijuana, but that most of the kids they smoked pot with in high school went on to harder drugs and aren't able to hold jobs.

(http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/news-left.htm?aid=49)


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> As far as a gateway drug MT it is fact. Studies have shown that people who don't use alcohol rarely move on to pot. People that don't use pot rarely move on to harder drugs. It is a process like slowly going into cold water, one step at a time. The pot may not be the chemical reason for them moving on to harder drugs, but it is a stepping stone used by those inclined to get into drugs. Who knows what the percentage would be if the had to jump from alcohol to heroin for example. No one, but there is a percentage that would not, it is just impossible to know.


That just doesn't seem logical to me. Thats basically like saying that if you have it in you to commit murder, you won't feel so bad about being a pickpocket, well yeah duh. If you could prove to me that they used pot before the other stuff, I would believe it.



> If you are going to throw around statistics, at least make sure they are valid and you can prove them. Talking about your friends who probably make up less than .001% of the US isn't going to persuade anyone.


Simply handing in a bit of second hand experience, didn't realize that was against forum rules.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your friends are simply very young and haven't moved on to the hard drugs yet would be a more realistic outlook. Give them time, they will get there.

The poor logic of some people is beginning to sway me on this one. Still thinking, but if you want to convince me MT try something besides your friends. We know you have friends in Afghanistan, Iraq, , the Israeli Masad , the Pentagon, Hollywood, Catholics, gays, gay Catholics, gay Muslims etc.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Your friends are simply very young and haven't moved on to the hard drugs yet would be a more realistic outlook. Give them time, they will get there.
> 
> The poor logic of some people is beginning to sway me on this one. Still thinking, but if you want to convince me MT try something besides your friends. We know you have friends in Afghanistan, Iraq, , the Israeli Masad , the Pentagon, Hollywood, Catholics, gays, gay Catholics, gay Muslims etc.


Actually he has. The person of which I speak was doing hard drugs like acid and "wet" in late middle school. He has now begun smoking pot instead of the harder stuff, something which he had never tried before. Seems to be just the opposite of your theories, so I figured I would state it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Do I hear a bid on that swamp land?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Do I hear a bid on that swamp land?


Do you really have that big of a problem with being wrong?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wrong wasn't bothering me, I just don't buy the friend for every occasion anymore.  Your statements last week that racer quoted saddened me and left me with little hope for the youth of America. You should really reflect on your values. Is it really worth a soldiers death for you to feel vindicated?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Wrong wasn't bothering me, I just don't buy the friend for every occasion anymore. Your statements last week that racer quoted saddened me and left me with little hope for the youth of America. You should really reflect on your values. Is it really worth a soldiers death for you to feel vindicated?


You have a problem with the fact that I know a wide spectrum of people? Apparently since all of your buddies ended up being mechnaics and working at wal-mart I shouldn't know more than a handful of interesting characters either. Frankly I couldn't give any less of a crap what you think, nothing is going to change your mind on any of these issues anyhow.

I've already said that I don't like to see death, and I argued to keep our boys out of Iraq. I'm simply stating that the blood of this war lies on the hands of those who supported it, yours.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No, MT you clearly stated that you didn't care if our soldiers were being shot at. You also stated you didn't shed crocodile tears when one dies.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> No, MT you clearly stated that you didn't care if our soldiers were being shot at. You also stated you didn't shed crocodile tears when one dies.


I don't like to see them die, but I don't make it a personal issue either.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."


I can see your trying to crawl out of this radical statement. What you did say is you couldn't care less. This means there is nothing you value less. They go their and die for your freedom to bad mouth them on this form. But hey, thanks for showcasing radical liberalism.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Well ....................... here are cons if someone wants to bounce pros against them.

* Immediate effects after people have drank alcohol may include: loss of restlessness, excitement, hallucinations, psychotic, paranoia, psychotic episodes, impaired coordination, impaired motor ability, mood swings and impaired ability. 
* Long Term effects of alcohol may include: the loss of brain cells, energy loss, slow confused thinking, apathy, and blood vessel blockage. 
* Physical effects of alcohol may include weight loss or gain, and impaired sex drive 
* Alcohol can be a gateway drug, which means it can lead to the use of many other harmful drugs.
* The chronic use of alcohol has been associated with mental deformation and criminality 
* Alcohol can be laced with other drugs and the drinker won't even know. 
* Alcohol has been linked with teen violence, suicide, crime, and unsafe sex-HIV transmission. 
* Alcohol use by adolescent user can disrupt their emotional development, delay puberty, and can delay the monthly cycle in females. 
* Alcohol may produce a mild physical dependence that causes minor withdrawal symptoms when discontinued, including nausea, insomnia, irritabilty, and anxiety. 
* Legalization of alcohol has not cut down on all crime, alcohol still causes family disputes, rape, robbery, reckless driving, and murder.

UPDATED MAY 2003

* Research has shown that babies born to women who used alcohol during their pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli and increased tremulousness which may indicate problems with neurological development. Alcohol exposed children have also been found to have more behavioral problems and to perform tasks of visual perception, language comprehension, sustained attention, and memory poorly. In school, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in decision-making skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive. 
* A study involving college students found that the heavy alcohol users made more errors and had more difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing, and using information. These findings suggest that the greater impairment among heavy users is likely due to an alteration of brain activity produced by alcohol.

There are many reasons to just say no!! Some of the same people who are so ******* on some issues are hypocritical on other issues. I am not in favor of legalization of marijuana but these same arguments are valid when it comes to alcohol use. I just substituted the word alcohol for marijuana and am not too far off base.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Some of the same people who are so ******* on some issues are hypocritical on other issues.


I'm agree with your post. I don't think alcohol would survive the food and drug administration testing today.

How is one politely a *******, and if one is a ******* on one issue, do they have to be a ******* on all issues or they are a hypocrite?


----------

