what are the proposed limits if we decriminalize? does a pregnant woman have the freedom to do crack? what about a parent in the presence of his/her child? how do we police these things?
This is a great question.
A whole other thread.
In this thread, it has been mostly you against the masses.
If we started a thread about how drugs should be regulated I am sure there will be lots of different opinions. From controlled like prescriptions to government dispensaries to same as alcohol and cigarettes to let the markets decide.
I have already stated that I don't consider marijuana harmless. Others here have said it is. So I am sure this debate would be hotter than the one we are now having.
If your state is like my state, every legislative session there are debates about how much or little we should be controlling alcohol and tobacco. In my state capitol the beer and wine lobbies are as powerful as the gun, timber or tech lobbies.
What are the laws in your state? does a pregnant woman have the freedom to chain smoke or get drunk? what about a parent in the presence of his/her child? how do we police these things?
I recently read this book called Traffic.
Saw it recommended on soulstrut repeatedly.
I also recommended it.
It is NOT about drug traffic. It is about car traffic, streets, roads and highways.
It talks about laws we take seriously and laws we don't.
Many people have no problem going up to ten miles an hour over the speed limit.
Very few people will stop at a red light, then travel through after they determine the road is clear. Even late at night when there are no other drivers.
Running a red light is far less likely to get you killed than speeding.
Running a red light is no more illegal than speeding, likely the fine is smaller.
Our choices about which laws we adhere to and which we break are counter-intuitive and not based on risk assessment.
Here is another counter-intuitive finding of traffic engineers. Barriers and road signs designed to make pedestrians safer, don't. Don't expect your local (unless you live in the Netherlands) politicians to be advocating fewer signs and pedestrian barriers.
dan, dont know what impression i gave, but for the record, i wouldnt classify marijuana as harmless either. its a plant with powerful properties that needs to be treated as such
dan, dont know what impression i gave, but for the record, i wouldnt classify marijuana as harmless either. its a plant with powerful properties that needs to be treated as such
Tony, I love you. You know that, man. I really would have saved the drugs for you, I wasn't kidding. (OK I was, but I wasn't attacking.)
My point was not aimed at you. In fact someone did use the word harmless, but the point wasn't aimed at them. It is no secret that more than a few people here on occasion (and by occasion I mean every day) smoke. And it is no secret that a lot of people who smoke are convinced it is harmless.
I say legalize marijuana and outlaw salvia and bath salts.
http://bathsaltsdrug.com/
I am told, by my daily newspaper, that they are all the rage. And I thought you were young and hip.
I don't know anything about bath salts and salvia, accept that salvia was all the rage before bath salts were all the rage.
When I was a kid, for a minute, huffing household cleaners was all the rage. Best I know, despite the lives ruined and lost, there was never a more to outlaw oven cleaner.
people are speaking in a manner-of-fact way about something that is counter-intuitive. forget thailand, my friend just moved to singapore - which has mandatory capital punishment for certain drug offenses.
to say that laws don't effect how many people behave in this country is just a ridiculous proposition. it's true that people take hardcore drugs while being fully aware of the risks - but the same can be said for those who flagrantly cheat on their taxes. if you say it's not a crime anymore, you remove that deterrent from those who otherwise would not do it. i never said everyone thinks the same way.
My nazi grandfather always told me how low crime was during the Third Reich.
Robberies, rapes, break ins, according to him basically non-existent.
That's what the government was telling people, anyway.
Scroll down to 12 Aug 2002, 16:28 at this link for a discussion of the Bruno Ludke case if you're interested:
I'm giving the gas face to the group of people ITT that are claiming that the fact that some drugs are illegal does not serve as a deterrent to there use.
Yes, SOME people don't care about the law, but more do.
By the rationale advanced by this block of folk ITT, we might as well make murder legal, since it's illegal now, yet people still commit the act. No deterrence.
I'm giving the gas face to the group of people ITT that are claiming that the fact that some drugs are illegal does not serve as a deterrent to there use.
Yes, SOME people don't care about the law, but more do.
By the rationale advanced by this block of folk ITT, we might as well make murder legal, since it's illegal now, yet people still commit the act. No deterrence.
Give me a break
I think you're missing the point.
Murder, robbery, rape, etc., etc. = Harms someone other than the perpertrator
Using drugs = harming one's self.
If we made cigarettes and alcohol illegal chances are less people would use them but there's no doubt it would also spawn crime.
I want the right to hurt myself and less criminals as a result.
I'm giving the gas face to the group of people ITT that are claiming that the fact that some drugs are illegal does not serve as a deterrent to there use.
Yes, SOME people don't care about the law, but more do.
By the rationale advanced by this block of folk ITT, we might as well make murder legal, since it's illegal now, yet people still commit the act. No deterrence.
Give me a break
You're completely missing the point.
If the sale of drugs is legalized, government controlled and taxed, the consumption of drugs still can and must be controlled.
Once the misguided "war against drugs" is canceled (which is the only way of winning it). This will free up enough resources to do this.
Just the same as with alcohol and tobacco. You can't operate a vehicle while under the influence. If you are in the care of children and are drunk/high you will lose paternal rights. If you show up at work drunk/high, you will lose your job.
if you're alone at home or in the company of other adults, you're free to get as high as apple pie.
What could be wrong with this? It's way more harmful to yourself, others and your environment to practice some idiot sport like speedway racing but now I'm straying...
I have a lot of friends back in Germany who used to be big pot heads. The government as good as legalized posession but at the same time they put more resources in monitoring if people would drive around stoned. I think what they do is they swipe your hands and some electronic gadget shows if you're uner the influence or not. This happened to a couple of my friends and they lost their license for a month or a couple of months, had to pay a fine and had to go to some therapy shit to prove they are responsible enough to get their license back. Now they smoke when they know they don't have to drive for a couple of weeks afterwards which happens maybe once a year when they're on vacation.
Look around and see what's happening. Use common sense.
There's no way the "war on drugs" is going anywhere at all.
It's big business for a lot of very influencial people.
Drugs are also perfect to conduct sociographic warfare against certain groups of people and they are perfect to put fear into everybody else. They fill up prisons which are one of the few flourishing industries you still have left and they make millions for the gun industry. Legalization/decriminalization would throw a wrench into all of this. It would take the crime out of drugs, it would eradicate the devastating effect which drug crime has on communities, it would empty prisons and it would lower gun sales. These are the true reasons why legalization is not going to happen and that's just sad. And it's sad and baffling to me to see intelligent people argue against it.
I'm giving the gas face to the group of people ITT that are claiming that the fact that some drugs are illegal does not serve as a deterrent to there use.
Yes, SOME people don't care about the law, but more do.
By the rationale advanced by this block of folk ITT, we might as well make murder legal, since it's illegal now, yet people still commit the act. No deterrence.
Give me a break
I think you're missing the point.
Murder, robbery, rape, etc., etc. = Harms someone other than the perpertrator
Using drugs = harming one's self.
If we made cigarettes and alcohol illegal chances are less people would use them but there's no doubt it would also spawn crime.
I want the right to hurt myself and less criminals as a result.
There seems to be alot of people "missing the point" in this thread. I might as well be one of them. My point is pretty clear: The fact that drugs are illegal DOES, in fact, serve as a deterrent for many, many people. Is it the only deterrent? Hell no. But it is a very important one.
I tend to agree that merely "using" drugs doesn't harm society, but it's a slippery slope from "using" to full blown addict offering to suck Larenz Tate's dick for a free hit of the glass pipe. Hard to argue that having walking zombies on street corners only harms the zombies, legal or not.
I'm all for legalizing weed, maaaaaaaaaannnnn. But the hard stuff? Don't think so.
I'm all for legalizing weed, maaaaaaaaaannnnn. But the hard stuff? Don't think so.
Are you at least willing to consider decriminalizing it along the lines of the Portugal model, at least for possession by users? We've got an entire country there that seems to be having good results, without any increase in zombies.
Oddly enough, you don't think you are hurting anyone locking up someone for doing drugs in their own homes or something.
I've never done a dug in my life, but it's so simplistic to think if you lock up everyone doing drugs it's going to make society any better.
I mean, one could make the argument that every time you lock someone up for a year, you are taking away a proper education from a child. $50,000+ a year to lock up some guy smoking crack. Where do you think that money is coming from?
The funny thing is, you can get drugs just as easy in prison than you can on the street. You could spend $10,000 a year on helping someone get over drugs and get way better results than you will ever get locking them up.
I'm all for legalizing weed, maaaaaaaaaannnnn. But the hard stuff? Don't think so.
Are you at least willing to consider decriminalizing it along the lines of the Portugal model, at least for possession by users? We've got an entire country there that seems to be having good results, without any increase in zombies.
I'd be down for that, so long as it begins on an individual state level. California seems like the ideal place to start. That would allow to country to determine if it's something that could be implemented on a national level. Definitely.
Comments
This is a great question.
A whole other thread.
In this thread, it has been mostly you against the masses.
If we started a thread about how drugs should be regulated I am sure there will be lots of different opinions. From controlled like prescriptions to government dispensaries to same as alcohol and cigarettes to let the markets decide.
I have already stated that I don't consider marijuana harmless. Others here have said it is. So I am sure this debate would be hotter than the one we are now having.
If your state is like my state, every legislative session there are debates about how much or little we should be controlling alcohol and tobacco. In my state capitol the beer and wine lobbies are as powerful as the gun, timber or tech lobbies.
What are the laws in your state? does a pregnant woman have the freedom to chain smoke or get drunk? what about a parent in the presence of his/her child? how do we police these things?
Saw it recommended on soulstrut repeatedly.
I also recommended it.
It is NOT about drug traffic. It is about car traffic, streets, roads and highways.
It talks about laws we take seriously and laws we don't.
Many people have no problem going up to ten miles an hour over the speed limit.
Very few people will stop at a red light, then travel through after they determine the road is clear. Even late at night when there are no other drivers.
Running a red light is far less likely to get you killed than speeding.
Running a red light is no more illegal than speeding, likely the fine is smaller.
Our choices about which laws we adhere to and which we break are counter-intuitive and not based on risk assessment.
Here is another counter-intuitive finding of traffic engineers. Barriers and road signs designed to make pedestrians safer, don't. Don't expect your local (unless you live in the Netherlands) politicians to be advocating fewer signs and pedestrian barriers.
Tony, I love you. You know that, man. I really would have saved the drugs for you, I wasn't kidding. (OK I was, but I wasn't attacking.)
My point was not aimed at you. In fact someone did use the word harmless, but the point wasn't aimed at them. It is no secret that more than a few people here on occasion (and by occasion I mean every day) smoke. And it is no secret that a lot of people who smoke are convinced it is harmless.
I say legalize marijuana and outlaw salvia and bath salts.
(and i kinda like salvia)
I am told, by my daily newspaper, that they are all the rage. And I thought you were young and hip.
I don't know anything about bath salts and salvia, accept that salvia was all the rage before bath salts were all the rage.
When I was a kid, for a minute, huffing household cleaners was all the rage. Best I know, despite the lives ruined and lost, there was never a more to outlaw oven cleaner.
That's what the government was telling people, anyway.
Scroll down to 12 Aug 2002, 16:28 at this link for a discussion of the Bruno Ludke case if you're interested:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=5356
Yes, SOME people don't care about the law, but more do.
By the rationale advanced by this block of folk ITT, we might as well make murder legal, since it's illegal now, yet people still commit the act. No deterrence.
Give me a break
Or is it bring justice to the survivors?
If we made murder legal would the murder rate rise?
For myself I would continue not to commit murder, because I find it abhorrent.
I think you're missing the point.
Murder, robbery, rape, etc., etc. = Harms someone other than the perpertrator
Using drugs = harming one's self.
If we made cigarettes and alcohol illegal chances are less people would use them but there's no doubt it would also spawn crime.
I want the right to hurt myself and less criminals as a result.
You're completely missing the point.
If the sale of drugs is legalized, government controlled and taxed, the consumption of drugs still can and must be controlled.
Once the misguided "war against drugs" is canceled (which is the only way of winning it). This will free up enough resources to do this.
Just the same as with alcohol and tobacco. You can't operate a vehicle while under the influence. If you are in the care of children and are drunk/high you will lose paternal rights. If you show up at work drunk/high, you will lose your job.
if you're alone at home or in the company of other adults, you're free to get as high as apple pie.
What could be wrong with this? It's way more harmful to yourself, others and your environment to practice some idiot sport like speedway racing but now I'm straying...
I have a lot of friends back in Germany who used to be big pot heads. The government as good as legalized posession but at the same time they put more resources in monitoring if people would drive around stoned. I think what they do is they swipe your hands and some electronic gadget shows if you're uner the influence or not. This happened to a couple of my friends and they lost their license for a month or a couple of months, had to pay a fine and had to go to some therapy shit to prove they are responsible enough to get their license back. Now they smoke when they know they don't have to drive for a couple of weeks afterwards which happens maybe once a year when they're on vacation.
Look around and see what's happening. Use common sense.
There's no way the "war on drugs" is going anywhere at all.
It's big business for a lot of very influencial people.
Drugs are also perfect to conduct sociographic warfare against certain groups of people and they are perfect to put fear into everybody else. They fill up prisons which are one of the few flourishing industries you still have left and they make millions for the gun industry. Legalization/decriminalization would throw a wrench into all of this. It would take the crime out of drugs, it would eradicate the devastating effect which drug crime has on communities, it would empty prisons and it would lower gun sales. These are the true reasons why legalization is not going to happen and that's just sad. And it's sad and baffling to me to see intelligent people argue against it.
There seems to be alot of people "missing the point" in this thread. I might as well be one of them.
I tend to agree that merely "using" drugs doesn't harm society, but it's a slippery slope from "using" to full blown addict offering to suck Larenz Tate's dick for a free hit of the glass pipe. Hard to argue that having walking zombies on street corners only harms the zombies, legal or not.
I'm all for legalizing weed, maaaaaaaaaannnnn. But the hard stuff? Don't think so.
Are you at least willing to consider decriminalizing it along the lines of the Portugal model, at least for possession by users? We've got an entire country there that seems to be having good results, without any increase in zombies.
Soylent Green is people.
I've never done a dug in my life, but it's so simplistic to think if you lock up everyone doing drugs it's going to make society any better.
I mean, one could make the argument that every time you lock someone up for a year, you are taking away a proper education from a child. $50,000+ a year to lock up some guy smoking crack. Where do you think that money is coming from?
The funny thing is, you can get drugs just as easy in prison than you can on the street. You could spend $10,000 a year on helping someone get over drugs and get way better results than you will ever get locking them up.
I'd be down for that, so long as it begins on an individual state level. California seems like the ideal place to start. That would allow to country to determine if it's something that could be implemented on a national level. Definitely.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/150263/new_york_city_spending_$75_million_a_year_on_marijuana_arrests?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet
i wasn't arguing for or against legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana in this thread.
Are these people serious? Bath salts? wow.
Was that written by a bath salt addict?
"I can't even get real drugs in this town"