Gotcha. I know some older recreational users. Very successful and healthy people.
[quote]Charles Staley wrote:
Well certainly as a kid in high school, everyone I knew used it. I may have friends/relatives who use it, but if they do, I’m unaware of it.
jsbrook wrote:
Charles Staley wrote:
I don’t use it nor do I know anyone who uses it, so for me it’s a non-issue across the board.
buffballswell wrote:
In my humble opinion marijuana should be legal. Your thoughts please.
You don’t know anyone who uses it? Ever? On occasion?
This has been discussed before. There is significant potential for physiological addiction with opium. That is not the case with marijuana. Study a little NBB.
[/quote]
Read LBRTRN’s post, he wants to legalize everything.
This has been discussed before. There is significant potential for physiological addiction with opium. That is not the case with marijuana. Study a little NBB.
Read LBRTRN’s post, he wants to legalize everything.[/quote]
Sorry-I went back and edited after you already responded. See edit.
Reddog
Believe it or not you will pay for all those problems whether it is legal or not. One problem you won?t pay for is incarceration of someone who would be no problem regardless of the legality of marijuana.
peace
Agreed. It’s my opinion that legalizing drugs would lead to more of this, which would lead to more money out of my pocket. However, my point was that the statement that drug use affects only the user was asinine.[/quote]
Red dog if you are only looking at costs in dollars and sense then it could be stated that legalization of all drugs would hasten the demise of the user. I think it would be like alcohol, you may have a few more problems with the legalization but the dollars saved would more than address the new problems.
Red dog if you are only looking at costs in dollars and sense then it could be stated that legalization of all drugs would hasten the demise of the user. I think it would be like alcohol, you may have a few more problems with the legalization but the dollars saved would more than address the new problems.
[/quote]
Like we’re doing such a great job of addressing the problems associated with alcohol?
You can buy marijuana from 14 year old kids. The ‘war on drugs’ is obviously not working, and putting people in jail for years for posession with intent to sell solves nothing.
This is going to sound harsh but it simply isnt the job of government to pay for the mistakes and misjudgements of others. In my opinion, it is here to protect us from outside threats and harm from others…thats it.
If we, as private individuals and of our own volition, cant find it in ourselves to help those in need then all the government intervention in world isnt going to help the dehumanization of our society. Id like to believe that if the government would get of the way we would be more apt to help through private charity. As things stand now, we simply look to an inefficient, impersonal government to take care of “social injustices” rather than doing it ourselves.
In an ideal world, I’d agree with you, but your view is very unrealistic. I’m a huge proponent of limited frderal gov’t, but you have to draw the line somewhere.[/quote]
I dont think its unrealistic at all. Its just never been tried. Since the dawn of human civilization, human history has been one giant cycle of paternalistic/maternalistic governments. All I want is the federal government to step out of the way so individual states can become what the founders (specifically Jefferson) wanted…individual political experiments. If enough people want to live in a libertarian state then let them do it. As things are now, if a state passes a law that goes against a federal law ( one passed without regard to constitutional limitations on power; like drug laws)the people of that state are still subject to federal prosecution. I think thats wrong.
I have…maybe you should study a little hardy. First of all, opium was used medicinally for almost a thousand years in China before it was criminalized and rampant abuse corresponds with British occupation. Its widespread recreational use didnt really start until the 18th century and it was first made illegal in 1730 (give or take a few years). However, as is the case with all prohibition movements the sale was driven underground (British merchants made tons and tons of money) and its use simply increased for the next 100 years. Then in the beginning of the 20th century (when nearly half the population of China was addicted)Britian agreed to stop importing opium and its use began to decline. I find it interesting that opium was known to the Chinese for a millennia and there was no widespread addiction but once the stuff becomes a cash crop for a tyrannical world empire(and mixed with tabacco), half the population of the entire country becomes addicted. As you can see, comparing the situation in China to the situation in America isnt really fair nor is what you said historically accurate.
Before drug use was criminalized in this country the incidence of drug addiction was higher than it is currently (it was arround 5% of the adult population). But, as Im sure you know, statistics dont tell the whole story. At the time, addicts were mainly soldiers and middle class house wives. Both groups became addicted because they either werent aware that they were consuming large amounts of highly addictive substances (as in the case of patent medicines) or they had no choice in the matter. When the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in 1906 this problem was largely taken care of for one simple reason: product content became regulated. The use of narcotics was not criminalized it was controlled. Those supplying the product had to meet standards (like labeling a product if it was habit forming). You dont have to throw people in jail for personal use. Check out The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School.
With that said, all this doesnt really matter anyways because as I have already stated, federal drug laws prohibiting personal use are unconstitutional. Until someone can show me where congress gets the power to regulate the use of drugs that arent being sold and/or shipped across state lines, all of the appeals to history and whats beneficial to society dont mean a damn thing. That is simply the way this country was designed to function. Congress has a finite power over our personal lives and if it legally wants to increase its power, it has to seek a constitutional amendment (like it did with alcohol prohibition).
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple.
I agree in principle, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. If the gov’t doesn’t foot the bill, then the hospital is not going to treat them, & they die on the side walk. In the grand scheme of thing, this might be just(reap as you sow), but not a very humanitarion approach.
And if someone’s drug abuse harms another, then the user oght to be punished. If he stole to buy drugs, he should be thrown in jail for theft; if he killed someone while driving high, he should be thrown in jail for murder; if he forgot to feed his kids because he was high, he should be thrown in jail for child abuse.
This is kind of a “shut the barn door after the horses have gotten out” approach. Yes, the person should be thrown in jail, but that isn’t much help to the person they murdered, or their own dead kids.
I agree. I just don’t believe that people (drug abusers) should just be left to die on the street regardless of the fact that they only have themselves to blame. In terms of smokers, they pay through higher insurance. Would their actions and consequences affect my own premiums? I would hope not and don’t believe it should. The cost for medical care for illness associated with smoking should entirely be covered by smokers in terms of higher insurance rates, in my opinion. I’m not sure if it is. I’m a baby, and I don’t pay my own insurance yet.
So leave the smokers to fend for themselves but bend over backwards to help the heroin addict? Why the double standard?
If the heroin addicts lived into their 50s and 60s and went on to develop some disease (often terminal) that all evidence suggests is caused by or at least heavily correlated with heroin use, I would say that they should pay for that with higher premiums. Except that won’t happen. They’d be dead first. I was refering to offering treatment for acute life-threatening complications and funding for rehab programs.
[/quote]
Oh…i see your point. Sorry about that…I should have picked up on that in your original post. I still dont agree with the idea that we ought to be legally responsible for the mistakes of others but you make a good point.
I have…maybe you should study a little hardy. First of all, opium was used medicinally for almost a thousand years in China before it was criminalized and rampant abuse corresponds with British occupation. [/quote]
Why do you think it was crimianlized? Could the mass addiction of the Chinese population have anything to do with it? The criminalization was in response to the abuse, not the other way around. The Dutch East India Co’s opium import went from 0.6 metrec tones in 1660 to 72.3 metric tons in 1695. That is why China crimalized it in 1729. You must have been stoned during history class.
[quote]
Its widespread recreational use didnt really start until the 18th century and it was first made illegal in 1730 (give or take a few years). However, as is the case with all prohibition movements the sale was driven underground (British merchants made tons and tons of money) and its use simply increased for the next 100 years. [/quote]
During most of which it was legal. Smoking opium became legal in 1858 after the Opium Wars. By 1900 there were 13.5 million addict in China (1 out of every 400 people or 0.25%), by 1906 27% of all adult men were addicts. What more f’ing proof do you need???
I have…maybe you should study a little hardy. First of all, opium was used medicinally for almost a thousand years in China before it was criminalized and rampant abuse corresponds with British occupation.
Why do you think it was crimianlized? Could the mass addiction of the Chinese population have anything to do with it? The criminalization was in response to the abuse, not the other way around. The Dutch East India Co’s opium import went from 0.6 metrec tones in 1660 to 72.3 metric tons in 1695. That is why China crimalized it in 1729. You must have been stoned during history class.[/QUOTE]
I dont smoke weed so STFU. And how many metric tons of opium were imported after the 1729 ban? That was my point…opium imports continued to increase after the ban for over 100 years and it wasnt until those responsible for the illegal importation agreed to stop that the use of opium declined. In other words, the criminalization of opium did not stop its importation and led to two bloody wars. It took a government treaty with what amounts to their version of a drug cartel to stop importation. Try talking modern day drug cartels into that one…
Again, how is the situtation in China at all similar to that of the United States?
This isnt supposed to be a debate about Chinese history but by your logic the use of opium should have decreased between 1729 and 1858…right? After all, it was illegal. Well did it? Nope…it increased. By 1790, 4,000 chests were imported annually; 5,000 chests in 1820; 16,000 chests in 1830; 20,000 chests in 1838, and 70,000 chests in 1858. The trend didnt chang in either direction after it was made legal in 1858. China tried to wage war with a drug cartel and lost…so whats your point? What more fucking proof do I need…I need proof that decriminalizing drugs that are already available to anyone who wants them will lead to increased use.
Again, thats all beside the point because this isnt China. In this country we have a constitution and it limits the power of the federal government. So, again, until you show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to regulate drugs that arent sold or shipped across state lines, all the appeals to history dont mean a damn thing to me.
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
In my humble opinion marijuana should be legal. Your thoughts please.[/quote]
Over here it is legal.
I live in Belgium, and here and in Holland, it is legal to own it and for own use … that dialogue from Pulp Fiction isn’t wrong or anything.
Beer is being sold here to 14-year olds in bars as well, and very seldom do I see things going the wrong way … there always will be people that take things on the wrong path, but proper information on all subjects is, in my hopinion, a ton of times more effective than simply forbidding something that isn’t really that harmful.
Alcohol is a different animal, but most kids are pretty disciplined here(except college students, but that’s tradition)
I just returned from a music festival, where I guess 70-80% of the people were smoking … and that is no exaggeration.
It is a drug, and it should be dealt with in a responsible manner, but in all fairness, it is very harmless, making people happy, hungry and calm and all.
I dont smoke weed so STFU. And how many metric tons of opium were imported after the 1729 ban? That was my point…opium imports continued to increase after the ban for over 100 years and it wasnt until those responsible for the illegal importation agreed to stop that the use of opium declined. In other words, the criminalization of opium did not stop its importation and led to two bloody wars. It took a government treaty with what amounts to their version of a drug cartel to stop importation. Try talking modern day drug cartels into that one…
Again, how is the situtation in China at all similar to that of the United States?
Its widespread recreational use didnt really start until the 18th century and it was first made illegal in 1730 (give or take a few years). However, as is the case with all prohibition movements the sale was driven underground (British merchants made tons and tons of money) and its use simply increased for the next 100 years.
During most of which it was legal. Smoking opium became legal in 1858 after the Opium Wars. By 1900 there were 13.5 million addict in China (1 out of every 400 people or 0.25%), by 1906 27% of all adult men were addicts. What more f’ing proof do you need???
This isnt supposed to be a debate about Chinese history but by your logic the use of opium should have decreased between 1729 and 1858…right? After all, it was illegal. Well did it? Nope…it increased. By 1790, 4,000 chests were imported annually; 5,000 chests in 1820; 16,000 chests in 1830; 20,000 chests in 1838, and 70,000 chests in 1858. The trend didnt chang in either direction after it was made legal in 1858. China tried to wage war with a drug cartel and lost…so whats your point? What more fucking proof do I need…I need proof that decriminalizing drugs that are already available to anyone who wants them will lead to increased use.
[/quote]
Ok, let’s try this one more time for the learning impaired. Opium was widely available before it was made legal 1858. In fact, 0.25% of the entire population was addicted. Six years after it was made legal, 25% of the population was addicted. Hows that for “proof that decriminalizing drugs that are already available to anyone who wants them will lead to increased use”.
You & I probably agree that drug laws should be relegated to the individual states, but the supreme court says that drug use affect interstate commerce, so until you get a bill through congress, federal law trumps state law.
[quote]Leeuwer wrote:
buffballswell wrote:
In my humble opinion marijuana should be legal. Your thoughts please.
Over here it is legal.
I live in Belgium, and here and in Holland, it is legal to own it and for own use … that diagogue from Pulp Fiction isn’t wrong or anything.
Beer is being sold here to 14-year olds in bars as well, and very seldom do I see things going the wrong way … there always will be people that take things on the wrong path, but proper information on all subjects is, in my hopinion, a ton of times more effective than simply forbidding something that isn’t really that harmful.
Alcohol is a different animal, but most kids are pretty disciplined here(except college students, but that’s tradition)
I just returned from a music festival, where I guess 70-80% of the people were smoking … and that is no exaggeration.
It is a drug, and it should be dealt with in a responsible manner, but in all fairness, it is very harmless, making people happy, hungry and calm and all.
[/quote]
But…shouldn’t your world be imploding? Crime should be on a massive increase and there should be death in the streets! Your entire economy should be collapsing and tons of other plagues of biblical proprtions!
What the fuck are you talking about!? Between 1728 and 1858 (the time period opium was ILLEGAL) opium importation increased from 4,000 to 70,000 chests annually! The addiction rate went from from .25% to 25% in 6 years…please show me a link!
The only possible way we can track addiction rate of 18th and 19th century China is by tracking the quantity of opium comming into the country. Dont you think a 17 fold increase while opium is illegal is a collosol failure? Please provide a link showing that addiction rate was steady until opium was legalized. Because everything I have read states otherwise. For instance: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2005papers/HIER2072.pdf
Well no shit. That doesnt make it right though now does it? Thats what we are debating here isnt it…whats right? Show me how the personal production and consumption of drugs has anything to do with interstate commerce.
Justice Thomas-
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that ?commerce? included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
[quote]WMD wrote:
The children! Won’t someone please think of the children![/quote]
This just in…kids across America say, “what some 35 year old man does has nothing to do with me if mommy and daddy raised me right”.
You would think with all of these politicians looking out for the children, we wouldn’t be seeing so many kids completely unprepared for college after high school graduation. Imagine the money that could be spent on education and qualified teacher’s saleries if we weren’t spending billions throwing people in jail for possession of a plant that is relatively less harmful than alcohol.
But…shouldn’t your world be imploding? Crime should be on a massive increase and there should be death in the streets! Your entire economy should be collapsing and tons of other plagues of biblical proprtions![/quote]
Yeah, exactly.
This by no means European discrimination towards the US, but I often find US Officials or the people in general making a fuss about things that were less of a problem when they were left alone.
Over here, everyone knows what weed is, most know how to use it, and I seldom(except from 13-year olds who want to act tough)hear people going all crazy with it.
It might have to do with our culture, but children here have no problem saying “yes” or “no”, or “on occasion” to drugs.
I think there should be more credit given to the inner morale in people, other than treating them like little children.
What the fuck are you talking about!? Between 1728 and 1858 (the time period opium was ILLEGAL) opium importation increased from 4,000 to 70,000 chests annually! The addiction rate went from from .25% to 25% in 6 years…please show me a link!
The only possible way we can track addiction rate of 18th and 19th century China is by tracking the quantity of opium comming into the country. Dont you think a 17 fold increase while opium is illegal is a collosol failure? Please provide a link showing that addiction rate was steady until opium was legalized. Because everything I have read states otherwise. For instance: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2005papers/HIER2072.pdf
[/quote]
You want me to do your research for you? I get paid by the hour. There a dozens of good books writen about the Opium Wars, why don’t you turn off your computer and go read a few.
I’ll go over it one more time, and try not to use any big words. Opium use increased roughly 17 fold over 130 years while opium was illegal (using your numbers). Opium was legalized in 1858 after the second Opium War. From 1900 to 1906 addiction rates went from 0.25% to 27% (here’s a link for those to lazy to do their own research: http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v13n6p11.htm ). That’s a 108 fold increase in six years.
Stay with me now, this is where it gets tricky. 17x increase over 130 years vs. a 108x increase over six years. See the contrast? I never stated that addiction rates were steady before opium was legalized, but most intellegent people would agree that they were a hell of a lot better off before they legalized it.
I’ll play devils advocate here by using an unrealistic example to make a point. Let’s say State A had very strict prohibition of all drugs, while State B has no prohibition on any drugs. How long do you think it would be before State A had drug problems in thier border towns? How long do you think it would be before State A had drug problems everywhere? How would the drugs get into State A? Interstate (albiet illegal) commerce. Walla. It’s within the jurisdiction of the federal gov’t.
ya but thay are going to get it if it was legal or not ,the pros are far to geat to not make it legal ,the goverment can make a huge tax income from it and the the money can go back into our system. plus how much dose the police wast trying to get growers ,maby thay can actually us the money to get the real crimanls