[quote]kancerz wrote:
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[/quote]
There is something very wrong with your keyboard.
[quote]kancerz wrote:
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[/quote]
108 time MORE people became addicted to it after it was made legal. What exactly are the pros here? Opium addiction had a significant role in why Britian was able to walk all over China for nearly a century. It had a role in why Hong Kong belonged to GB for 99 years. It played a part in the corruption and innefficiencies in the Chinese gov’t that helped bring about communism. In short, opium fucked thier country up for over a century, sound like paradice to you?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
kancerz wrote:
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
108 time MORE people became addicted to it after it was made legal. What exactly are the pros here? Opium addiction had a significant role in why Britian was able to walk all over China for nearly a century. It had a role in why Hong Kong belonged to GB for 99 years. It played a part in the corruption and innefficiencies in the Chinese gov’t that helped bring about communism. In short, opium fucked thier country up for over a century, sound like paradice to you?[/quote]
And this relates in what way to cannabis? Portugal, Netherlands, Suisse, are all about street riots and cannabis wars now? Their goverments corrupted, violence on the streets, no-go areas, a collapsing economy?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
kancerz wrote:
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
108 time MORE people became addicted to it after it was made legal. What exactly are the pros here? Opium addiction had a significant role in why Britian was able to walk all over China for nearly a century. It had a role in why Hong Kong belonged to GB for 99 years. It played a part in the corruption and innefficiencies in the Chinese gov’t that helped bring about communism. In short, opium fucked thier country up for over a century, sound like paradice to you?[/quote]
Uh, you can not become chemically “addicted” to marijuana. I am not sure why you keep bringing up opium.
[quote]mike1212ms wrote:
How do they justify making any drug illigal? Crack, roids, weed, speed, lsd, angel dust, meth, etc.
NO DRUG EFFECTS ANYONE BUT THE USER! Therefor, they should have the choice to use it.
Note- No, I dont do any of the drugs listed above. [/quote]
I’m not the one who brought it up.
I’m not an expert on the addictive properties of any drug, but as much problems as we have with irresponsible use of drugs that are currently legal, IMO it would be ridiculously stupid to increase the number that are legally available.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
mike1212ms wrote:
How do they justify making any drug illigal? Crack, roids, weed, speed, lsd, angel dust, meth, etc.
NO DRUG EFFECTS ANYONE BUT THE USER! Therefor, they should have the choice to use it.
Note- No, I dont do any of the drugs listed above.
I’m not the one who brought it up.
I’m not an expert on the addictive properties of any drug, but as much problems as we have with irresponsible use of drugs that are currently legal, IMO it would be ridiculously stupid to increase the number that are legally available. [/quote]
Why? In countries that have semi-legalized it, the number of cannabis consumers have actually gone down after some time. I would also say that you can only take so many drugs, and if cannabis substitutes some alcohol that might actually be a good thing.
if arnie can do it… i should too
[quote]orion wrote:
Why? In countries that have semi-legalized it, the number of cannabis consumers have actually gone down after some time. I would also say that you can only take so many drugs, and if cannabis substitutes some alcohol that might actually be a good thing.[/quote]
I’m sure you’ll discount it because you don’t agree with it, but heres an intersting article.
http://www.cnoa.org/position-papers-2.htm
Among the issues he bring up are:
1.Drug abuse costs the US roughly $65 billion/year. Hardly a “victimless crime”.
2. Taxes on alcihool cover less than 10% of the cost associated with alcohol abuse. So much for the idea of legalizing, then taxing it to pay for the affects.
3.During Prohibition, alcohol use, deaths and related hospital visits were cut in half. Prohibition works.
4. Legalization has brought many associated problems to The Netherlands, such as increased crime, welfare, and unemployment. It’s not as rosy a picture as you present.
5. After Alaska legalized it, they had double the national average for the rate of youth usage. Legalazation leads to increased use.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
orion wrote:
Why? In countries that have semi-legalized it, the number of cannabis consumers have actually gone down after some time. I would also say that you can only take so many drugs, and if cannabis substitutes some alcohol that might actually be a good thing.
I’m sure you’ll discount it because you don’t agree with it, but heres an intersting article.
http://www.cnoa.org/position-papers-2.htm
Among the issues he bring up are:
1.Drug abuse costs the US roughly $65 billion/year. Hardly a “victimless crime”.
2. Taxes on alcihool cover less than 10% of the cost associated with alcohol abuse. So much for the idea of legalizing, then taxing it to pay for the affects.
3.During Prohibition, alcohol use, deaths and related hospital visits were cut in half. Prohibition works.
4. Legalization has brought many associated problems to The Netherlands, such as increased crime, welfare, and unemployment. It’s not as rosy a picture as you present.
5. After Alaska legalized it, they had double the national average for the rate of youth usage. Legalazation leads to increased use.
[/quote]
well, as far as propaganda goes that piece is at least bearable. I mean it?s a “gee, Mr police officer let us talk about why drugs are far too dangerous to be legal”- piece but at least it brings up some points that are worth a discussion.
I am of course really surprised that an organization that consists of people who made a career out of enforcing prohibition laws are for prohibition. So, the baker is pro-bread. A butcher pro-meat. Who would have thought.
yes, and no. First of all it only causes costs because we are not willing to let addicts die on the streets if we can help it. I actually agree on that one, but at least I am aware that there is a choice.
What makes me mad however is if costs of law enforcement, prisons, judges, border patrols, etc are included in such a claim, because that is not the cost of drug abuse, but the cost of the criminalization of drug abuse. There are a millions of ways you could choose to deal with the drug problem and if your way costs a shitload of money that is actually a problem you have caused yourself. To then argue, see how dangerous drugs are, because it costs sooo much money fighting them, that?s either stupid or bullshitting because you have an agenda.
-alcohol abuse costs money, therefore legalizing other drugs would cost money too
Yes. But as he himself stated , dealing with drug abuse allready does cost a lot of money. You can only decide how to spend it, and drug rehab programms are so much cheaper than prisons it?s not even a question that if it was all about cost effectiveness, therapy is the way to go.
First of all, as far as I know, he might have pulled that out of his ass. I also think that the Netherlands follow the general western european trend were crime rates are rising but violent crimes remain the same or go down. The crime rate in western Europe is not comparable to that of the US, because even if violent crime quadrupled we still wouldn?t come close. My main problem with this is however, that I walk trough the streets of Vienna every day and our drug laws are much more relaxed than in the US. I don?t see all the problems that should be there according to this article. Where are they? Don?t get me wrong people here are also afraid of “officially” legalizing it, but that is only because they don?t get that it has allready happened and that signing the papers would merely mean acknowledging it.
-we should not legalize, yadayadayada…
Now here?s the thing: When it is about my body and what I do with it, this is not a democracy. You don?t get a vote, you have no right that your opinion is heard and I couldn?t care less if we reach a consensus. If people start to force me to live by their values they can kiss my ass and if they use laws to do it, they can still kiss my ass.
[quote]Gregus wrote:…
[/quote]
Very profound observation. I like this response best so far. Someone finally presents the truth. Very good Gregus.
orion is making sense again. Good points, man.
To reddog:
Did you see the drug war stats I posted a bunch of pages ago? This isn’t about opium or heroin or coke… the drug war is not doing shit to even make a dent in the traffic of hard drugs because the cops are so busy putting potheads behind bars. If we legalize or decriminalize pot, then the cops will be forced to actually go after the hard stuff which has physiological addictive properties, and which is responsible for all the OD’s, etc., I see in here all the time.
The “social cost”, if you will, is incurred by potheads whenever we incarcerate them. Weed smokers aren’t stabbing each other, dude… crackheads are. When I see somebody crying for methadone, they aren’t withdrawing from weed… it’s heroin. Another 26 year old guy has a heart attack tonight… not because of pot, but because of cocaine.
The Pandora’s Box we all fear from legalizing weed isn’t there. What we are doing in the war on drugs in the law enforcement side of things is sitting around with our thumbs up our asses when it comes to taking real action against the shit that matters and does real harm.
My half-serious theory about all of this is that the police don’t want marijuana legalized because it’s so easy to pop a pothead. Just lurk around convenience stores and watch the guys who come out with all the lucky charms and little debbies. 
I would imagine catching a coke dealer or a heroin dealer is quite a bit more dangerous, and a pain in the ass, relatively speaking.
There has been NO INCREASE in the rate of drug arrests in the last dozen years for any drug except for marijuana – which has more than doubled. I suppose everybody stopped using coke then? Maybe they’re smarter and harder to catch now? Maybe. Or maybe this has become the war on pot. Easy pickings.
What do y’all think?
All this, just because Nixon hated hippies. We’d be better off with a war on long hair.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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.
Like we’re doing such a great job of addressing the problems associated with alcohol? [/quote]
What would you propose making alcohol illegal? I do not think alcohol is that big of a problem? Life is not perfect. I feel for the alcoholic. I believe marijuana would be no worse.
[quote]orion wrote:
well, as far as propaganda goes that piece is at least bearable. I mean it?s a “gee, Mr police officer let us talk about why drugs are far too dangerous to be legal”- piece but at least it brings up some points that are worth a discussion.
I am of course really surprised that an organization that consists of people who made a career out of enforcing prohibition laws are for prohibition. So, the baker is pro-bread. A butcher pro-meat. Who would have thought.
[/quote]
I figured that’s how you’d react. Is the butcher knowlegable about meat? Is the baker knowlegable about bread. Is somebody who spent their career dealing with drug addicts & thier associated crime knowlegable about drug abuse?
You’re missing the point. Even if drugs were legal, there would be an associated cost. Dept. of Labor estimates that drug use costs employers between $75-$100 BILLION every year. 65% of all work related accidents are traced to durg use. Drug users have 3 times higher absenteeism, and are 16 tomes more likely to use health care benifits. They are also 6 times more likely to file worker comp. claims.
http://www.shrm.org/hrmagazine/articles/0298cov.asp
Put down the NORML paper & do a little research on your own.[quote]
-alcohol abuse costs money, therefore legalizing other drugs would cost money too
Yes. But as he himself stated , dealing with drug abuse allready does cost a lot of money. You can only decide how to spend it, and drug rehab programms are so much cheaper than prisons it?s not even a question that if it was all about cost effectiveness, therapy is the way to go. [/quote]
I’m all in favor of increasing forced re-hab on those incarcerated for drug charges, I think it would be a wise use of funds.[quote]
First of all, as far as I know, he might have pulled that out of his ass. I also think that the Netherlands follow the general western european trend were crime rates are rising but violent crimes remain the same or go down. The crime rate in western Europe is not comparable to that of the US, because even if violent crime quadrupled we still wouldn?t come close. My main problem with this is however, that I walk trough the streets of Vienna every day and our drug laws are much more relaxed than in the US. I don?t see all the problems that should be there according to this article. Where are they? Don?t get me wrong people here are also afraid of “officially” legalizing it, but that is only because they don?t get that it has allready happened and that signing the papers would merely mean acknowledging it.[/quote]
For the record unemployment in the Netherlands in 2001 was 3.5%, in 2004 it was 6.5%. ( http://www.cbs.nl/en/publications/press-releases/2005/pb05e095.pdf )
[quote]
-we should not legalize, yadayadayada…
Now here?s the thing: When it is about my body and what I do with it, this is not a democracy. You don?t get a vote, you have no right that your opinion is heard and I couldn?t care less if we reach a consensus. If people start to force me to live by their values they can kiss my ass and if they use laws to do it, they can still kiss my ass. [/quote]
Drug use is not just about your body, and what you put into it. Read above reply, I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
orion is making sense again. Good points, man.
To reddog:
Did you see the drug war stats I posted a bunch of pages ago? This isn’t about opium or heroin or coke… the drug war is not doing shit to even make a dent in the traffic of hard drugs because the cops are so busy putting potheads behind bars. If we legalize or decriminalize pot, then the cops will be forced to actually go after the hard stuff which has physiological addictive properties, and which is responsible for all the OD’s, etc., I see in here all the time.
The “social cost”, if you will, is incurred by potheads whenever we incarcerate them. Weed smokers aren’t stabbing each other, dude… crackheads are. When I see somebody crying for methadone, they aren’t withdrawing from weed… it’s heroin. Another 26 year old guy has a heart attack tonight… not because of pot, but because of cocaine.
The Pandora’s Box we all fear from legalizing weed isn’t there. What we are doing in the war on drugs in the law enforcement side of things is sitting around with our thumbs up our asses when it comes to taking real action against the shit that matters and does real harm.
My half-serious theory about all of this is that the police don’t want marijuana legalized because it’s so easy to pop a pothead. Just lurk around convenience stores and watch the guys who come out with all the lucky charms and little debbies. I would imagine catching a coke dealer or a heroin dealer is quite a bit more dangerous, and a pain in the ass, relatively speaking.
There has been NO INCREASE in the rate of drug arrests in the last dozen years for any drug except for marijuana – which has more than doubled. I suppose everybody stopped using coke then? Maybe they’re smarter and harder to catch now? Maybe. Or maybe this has become the war on pot. Easy pickings.
What do y’all think?[/quote]
I agree the war on drugs has not been fought the proper way. That sure as hell doesn’t meen legalization is the answer.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I figured that’s how you’d react. Is the butcher knowlegable about meat? Is the baker knowlegable about bread. Is somebody who spent their career dealing with drug addicts & thier associated crime knowlegable about drug abuse?[/quote]
Could you explain how someone could be a drug addict for a plant that is not chemically addictive?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What would you propose making alcohol illegal? I do not think alcohol is that big of a problem? Life is not perfect. I feel for the alcoholic. I believe marijuana would be no worse.
[/quote]
Roughly 17,000 alcohol related traffic deaths per year. No problem here huh?
No, I’m not advicating making alcohol illegal. Of course if you had read this thread, you would already know that. The primary reason being that it would be politically impossible.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Could you explain how someone could be a drug addict for a plant that is not chemically addictive?[/quote]
Pardon me. Please substitute the word “user” where I typed “addict”.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
What would you propose making alcohol illegal? I do not think alcohol is that big of a problem? Life is not perfect. I feel for the alcoholic. I believe marijuana would be no worse.
Roughly 17,000 alcohol related traffic deaths per year. No problem here huh?
No, I’m not advicating making alcohol illegal. Of course if you had read this thread, you would already know that. The primary reason being that it would be politically impossible.[/quote]
You didn?t answer the question.If it were possible should we make alcohol illegal?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Could you explain how someone could be a drug addict for a plant that is not chemically addictive?
Pardon me. Please substitute the word “user” where I typed “addict”.[/quote]
If I do, then there goes half of your argument. You are making this much noise for a non-addictive plant that has the potential to decrease violence (completely the opposite of alcohol), increase appetite, and decrease nausea. It is a natural antiemitic. It can decrease intraocular pressure associated with glaucoma, and instead of constricting the lungs when smoked like cigarettes do, it actually has a dialatory effect.