Pot!

[teacher]

So, if you don't harm your spouse, child, parent, or other relative by squandering the food money on drugs, or just plain causing them misery, or if you don't harm your employer by stealing time from your job, or perhaps stealing directly from your employer, or by engaging in some criminal activity from shoplifting or purse snatching, or mugging, to something more serious to support your habit, or eating up taxpayer money for treatment for the condition you have contracted, or end up a welfare 'client', then who else is there left for you to harm?

Just about everyone has become a victim of your victimless crime.

When I hear that ridiculous argument, I can only imagine that the person's brain has already begun to deteriorate.

Actually following all the rules put forth by you what is the victim other than your health?

 

[teacher]

You bring up a valid point, I also dont think the government exploiting off of adiction is a good thing. Also, since I am a socialist, I do oppose corporate control and sale of drugs. My solution would still be to legalize it, but also offer more rehibilitation services. For example, If you are found doing drugs in a public place, while driving, ect, instead of going to jail, you should recieve rehibilitation. This way, those who are addicted can get help. We would also offer rehibilitaion to anyone who wants it. Whether ALL drugs should be legalized is up for debate, but I see absolutely no problem with legalized marajuna. Also, a nice fact, no one on earth has ever died from a marajuna overdose. Ever. Also, I dont think we should tax drugs. I propose progressive income taxation as opposed to taxing drugs and such.

A 15 year old socialist? Is that a typo? Shouldn't one have to earn and be taxed a certain amount of money before deciding what to do with others money?

 

[teacher]

I don't think so. Talk with some of the folks in Amsterdam.

Anyone besides me spend some time in Amsterdam stoning with the natives. Don't know what the stats say but we don't want that scene in this country in my opinion.

 

[teacher]

With some incredibly anal penalties for the irresponisble use(while driving, etc.) of marijuana, I don't think I would mind seeing it legalized. I can't think of another drug that I would support in seeing it legalized.

The problem that remains for legalization is the governements lack of profit from it's taxes. Marijuana is incredibly easy to grow. It would essentially be cheaper for a pot head to grow it himself.

So should the unauthorized growth of the marijuana plant be restricted?

Swell point. Illegal to grow; legal to buy easy and cheap and taxed would deter most tokers from growing.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Couple of issues regarding this. Firstly, if you are going to legalize marijuana for recreational use then you MUST legalize all other drugs. Why? Becuase the arguments used to argue that marijuana be illegal are the same arguments that apply to all other drugs. If you are suggesting that the government has no business telling people what they can or cannot consume, then how can you stop with just marijuana? Furthermore, how can you tell an eighteen year old they are not allowed to consume alcohol?
I on the other hand feel that the laws should not be strictly relating to violence (as one poster on the thread suggested) or a crime with a second party victim. I believe that it is equally as important that our laws protect second party victims as much as it is to protect the foolish or ignorant who would hurt themselves. Now, if we were strictly speaking in the case of marijuana, then perhaps there is not a great deal of damage that can be done (although it does unquestionably hender your reflexes and action time, and is addicting). But as I said earlier, if marijuana is legalized based on the arguments that are being made for it, then all other drugs should and would be free game. And that is a dangerous road with even more accesibility and no consequences until it may be too late (for instance, it is one thing for a cop to arrest a person for posession, it is another for a person to drive into another person's car because they were wreckless with their addiction resulting in an injured or dead second party, both could potentially set the person striaght and provide the help they may need to kick the habit, but one could result in a life or lives).
The trend to attempt to pinpoint laws to issues of second party victims is, in my opinion, a dangerous path. Because as Nash's theory of revised governing dynamics suggests, the best way to move forward is to look out for what is best for oneself, as well as what is best for the group. And if we, as Americans, do intend on moving forward together, then it is in our best interest to save ourselves from our weaker links (whether it be due to ignorance or foolishness).

 

[teacher]

Couple of issues regarding this. Firstly, if you are going to legalize marijuana for recreational use then you MUST legalize all other drugs. Why? Becuase the arguments used to argue that marijuana be illegal are the same arguments that apply to all other drugs. If you are suggesting that the government has no business telling people what they can or cannot consume, then how can you stop with just marijuana? Furthermore, how can you tell an eighteen year old they are not allowed to consume alcohol?
I on the other hand feel that the laws should not be strictly relating to violence (as one poster on the thread suggested) or a crime with a second party victim. I believe that it is equally as important that our laws protect second party victims as much as it is to protect the foolish or ignorant who would hurt themselves. Now, if we were strictly speaking in the case of marijuana, then perhaps there is not a great deal of damage that can be done (although it does unquestionably hender your reflexes and action time, and is addicting). But as I said earlier, if marijuana is legalized based on the arguments that are being made for it, then all other drugs should and would be free game. And that is a dangerous road with even more accesibility and no consequences until it may be too late (for instance, it is one thing for a cop to arrest a person for posession, it is another for a person to drive into another person's car because they were wreckless with their addiction resulting in an injured or dead second party, both could potentially set the person striaght and provide the help they may need to kick the habit, but one could result in a life or lives).
The trend to attempt to pinpoint laws to issues of second party victims is, in my opinion, a dangerous path. Because as Nash's theory of revised governing dynamics suggests, the best way to move forward is to look out for what is best for oneself, as well as what is best for the group. And if we, as Americans, do intend on moving forward together, then it is in our best interest to save ourselves from our weaker links (whether it be due to ignorance or foolishness).

Empirical human labrotory data concludes of all drugs (alcohol included) THC has during abuse astronomically less debilitating effects of all brain candy.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The problem that remains for legalization is the governements lack of profit from it's taxes. Marijuana is incredibly easy to grow. It would essentially be cheaper for a pot head to grow it himself.

Isn't tobacco just about as easy to grow as marijuana? Yet we don't have many problems with people growing their own tobacco to avoid taxes. Whether or not this would be a problem really depends on the price to the end-consumer.

*shameless repost from my origional thread, since this one is more active*
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=1611

I want to point out what I feel is a common goal between pro and anti-prohibitionists. That common goal is to minimize the negative effects these dangerous drugs have on our society. Nobody can deny the harmful effects of most illicit drugs on the user's body. Nobody can argue with the belief that being addicted to any drug is a bad thing. The main question to answer is, what's the best way to handle this problem? And by "best", I mean "least harmful". Remember that our common goal is harm reduction.

Drug prohibition has made America's drug problem worse. The war on drugs has handed the trade over to gangs and organized crime on the black market. Just as alcohol prohibition in the 1920's gave us Al Capone and the mafia, today's drug war has given us the Crips, the Bloods, and Pablo Escobar. The criminal element in America has a monopoly on the drug trade, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry to fight over.

Drug prohibition inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies.

Nearly half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking instead of preventing violent crime. As a result, six out of ten federal inmates are in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal.

http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects.../issues/vcd.txt

The most destructive drug in our society is alcohol. We learned 80 years ago that this fact alone is not a good reason to criminalize its use. There's an economic theory that predicts the prohibition of any mutually beneficial exchange is doomed to fail.

Some drugs have withdrawal symptoms that can be fatal. Quitting cold-turkey can kill the addict. So it's not surprising that some will commit crimes if it means they get their fix. The higher the price of drugs, the higher the chance they will have no choice but to quit cold-turkey or steal to get more drugs.

Legalize does not mean glamorize, it means de-stigmatize. It's not illegal to be an overweight, alcoholic chain smoker, but these are three traits that most Americans seek to avoid. There's a lot to be said for how we as a society condone or condemn certain things, regardless of whether or not it's against the law.

Drugs are easier to get now than if they were legal. Under prohibition, drugs are sold by thugs who could care less how old their customer is, or whether they're severly addicted and need help. Drugs should be sold by reputable distributors who are strictly monitored by the police and bound by law to maintain certain ethical standards for distribution, similar to the way we handle alcohol and tobacco today.

Decriminalization will not result in more intoxicated drivers on the road. This myth is based on the assumption that, if drugs became legal, otherwise law-abiding citizens will not only start using drugs, but will also start breaking the law by driving under the influence. Not only is this myth not logical, it is not supported by statistics in other countries that have decriminalized drugs, such as the Netherlands, England, and Canada.

Decriminalization does not mean being allowed to use drugs in public. We have public drunkedness laws for good reason, in my opinion, and there's no reason why the same laws shouldn't apply to any intoxicating drug. Nobody should be intoxicated while at work, behind the wheel, operating machinery, or anywhere else that requires them to be alert and attentive. Each of us are responsible for what we do, when, and where.

In a decriminalized environment, drug users are not automatically prone to commit other types of crime. The fact that many crimes in America today often involve drugs is actually because of prohibition, not in spite of it.

Drug use is actually safer in a legal environment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is better quality control. Drugs in Liverpool, England were most likely never hidden in a box of laundry detergent or doused in gasoline to cover the scent from drug dogs. They probably weren't made using cheaper yet more dangerous ingredients. And the "potency" can be regulated and is easily known to the user, which undoubtedly reduces the number of overdose deaths.

The Reagan and Bush era Supreme Court has upheld police powers to detain and interrogate travelers who bear a resemblance to "drug couriers," to engage in surveillance, including secretly taping conversations and sifting through garbage. An anonymous tip is now sufficient grounds for a search warrant, meaning the police no longer have to verify that their source is reliable. New anti-crime legislation entails granting the police the power to submit as admissible evidence any property gained as a result of entering your home without a warrant. The new legislation also includes extending mandatory death sentences to include drug convictions which do not involve a homicide, and to limit federal death sentence appeals thereby speeding executions. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that a mandatory life sentence for a first-time drug offender acting as a drug courier is not cruel and unusual punishment.

http://www.anotherperspective.org/utopiaunarmed.html

Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a legal problem, therefore drug addicts should be handled by doctors and medical experts, not by judges and prison guards. Education is how we've reduced the number of alcoholics and cigarette smokers over the last decade. Education, not incarceration, is the only way to win the war on drugs.

 

[Pacridge]

Isn't tobacco just about as easy to grow as marijuana? Yet we don't have many problems with people growing their own tobacco to avoid taxes. Whether or not this would be a problem really depends on the price to the end-consumer.

I just don't think marijuana is all that easy to grow. I've seen several "grow sites" or "grow rooms" and I think it's fairly involved process. Indoor growing requires more than one room or at a min. lighting set on separate schedules as the plant goes from veg. growth to flowering. Most rooms I've seen have humidity/temp. controls and some include CO2 systems to help the plant survive indoors.

 

[teacher]

I just don't think marijuana is all that easy to grow. I've seen several "grow sites" or "grow rooms" and I think it's fairly involved process. Indoor growing requires more than one room or at a min. lighting set on separate schedules as the plant goes from veg. growth to flowering. Most rooms I've seen have humidity/temp. controls and some include CO2 systems to help the plant survive indoors.

Nutrients, light, H2O, temp, gases, all understood by most with farming grandparents.

 

[Fantasea]

Was that sarcasm or agreement. :2wave:

:wink:
I'm surprised that you needed to ask.

 

[Fantasea]

Need is time to quit.

Too late. The hook is in too deep.

These are just a few of the folks who, if they only could, would be glad to tell you about the suffering an addiction induces before it finally kills you.

Quite an intelligent and accomplished group, wouldn't you say? No doubt, they were all sufficiently arrogant as to believe they were in control.

Had their brains not been fried by their drug(s) of choice, would they have died when, and the way, they did?

Aimee Semple McPherson, radio evangelist
Alvin Karpis, former Public Enemy #1, overdose in Spain.
Andrew Wood, of Mother Love Bone, heroin.
Andy Gibb, of the Bee Gees, pills and heart problems.
Anissa Jones, pigtailed Family Affair actress, barbituates and cocaine.
Bela Lugosi, actor
Billie Holiday, heroin
Bobby Hatfield, of the Righteous Brothers, cocaine and heart problems.
Bobby Sheehan, of Blues Traveler, heroin + cocaine + Valium.
Bon Scott, of AC/DC, choked on his own vomit in a friend's car.
Brad Nowell, of Sublime.
Brian Epstein, Beatles manager
Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, drowned during an overdose.
Chris Farley, Saturday Night Live alumnus, cocaine and heroin, New York City.
Christina Onassis, daughter and heir of Aristotle Onassis, diet pills.
Christopher Pettiet, actor
Curt Hennig, pro wrestler, cocaine.
Dana Plato, Diff'rent Strokes, suicide overdose of valium and loritab.
Darby Crash, of The Germs, heroin.
Dee Dee Ramone, of The Ramones, heroin, Los Angeles.
Dorothy Dandridge, actress
Dylan Thomas, poet.
Edie Sedgwick, actor and model
Elis Regina, Brazilian singer
Elisa Bridges, Playboy Playmate
Elvis Presley, pills and/or other health issues, Memphis.
Frankie Lymon, Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers, heroin, New York.
G. G. Allin, heroin.
Gia Carangi, supermodel
Glenn Quinn, actor
Gram Parsons, musician
Hillel Slovak, of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Los Angeles.
Janis Joplin, heroin and whiskey, Hollywood.
Jean-Michel Basquiat, painter, heroin.
Jim Morrison of The Doors, choked on his own vomit, Paris.
Jimi Hendrix, barbituates and alcohol, choked on his own vomit, London.
John Belushi, heroin and cocaine speedball, Los Angeles.
John Bonham of Led Zeppelin, choked on his own vomit.
John Entwhistle, of The Who, cocaine-induced heart attack.
Johnny Thunders, of the New York Dolls, heroin.
Jonathan Melvoin, of Smashing Pumpkins, heroin.
Judy Garland, sleeping pills.
Keith Moon, of The Who.
Kristen Pfaff, of Hole, heroin.
Layne Staley, of Alice in Chains, heroin and cocaine.
Len Bias, college basketball star
Lenny Bruce, heroin.
Lolo Ferrari, huge knockers.
Marco Pantani, cyclist
Margaux Hemingway, actress
Marilyn Monroe, sleeping pills.
Neal Cassady, Hipster muse, pills and alcohol, Mexico.
Nick Drake, musician
Ol Dirty Bastard (a.k.a. Russell Tyrone Jones), of rap group Wu-Tang Clan, heart failure induced by cocaine and painkillers
Pamela Morrison, Jim Morrison's widow, Hollywood.
Paula Yates, TV host and girlfriend of deceased rocker Michael Hutchence, heroin, London.
Rainer Werner Fassbinder, film director
River Phoenix, actor, numerous drugs.
Robbie McIntosh, of the Average White Band.
Robert Pastorelli, actor
Shannon Hoon, of Blind Melon, New Orleans.
Sid Vicious, of the Sex Pistols, heroin.
Stefanie Sargent, of 7 Year Bitch, heroin.
Steve Clark, of Def Leppard, London.
Tim Buckley, musician
Tim Hardin, musician
Tommy Dorsey, choked on his own vomit in his sleep.
Trevor Goddard, actor
Vinnie Taylor, of Sha Na Na, heroin.
Will Shatter, of Flipper, heroin.

 

[Pacridge]

Nutrients, light, H2O, temp, gases, all understood by most with farming grandparents.

Yes, but is this plant easy to grow? I thought that was the question. Not whether or not it's a fact these items produce vegetation or plant growth.

 

[Binary_Digit]

People justified alcohol prohibition with a similar line of reasoning - if a person is addicted to alcohol, they no longer have a choice. Thus, we should step in and choose for them.

Addiction is bad. Drugs are bad. Prohibition is bad. Education is good.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Empirical human labrotory data concludes of all drugs (alcohol included) THC has during abuse astronomically less debilitating effects of all brain candy.

Alright, but the argument remains, that it is the same argument that keeps marijuana illegal keeps other drugs illegal. So, if you are going to choose to legalize marijuana, the argument cannot hold for continuing to have other drugs be illegal. I personally think that cigerettes and alcohol ought to be illegal as well. But this is a democracy and the voice of the majority has spoken on the issue.

 

[Fantasea]

Addiction is bad. Drugs are bad. Prohibition is bad. Education is good.

And dead is dead. :thumbdown

 

[Hoot]

Addiction is bad. Drugs are bad. Prohibition is bad. Education is good.

Boy, for a second there I thought you were doing a Mr. MacKey (sp?) impersonation from South Park?

"Kids, drugs are bad...mmmkay?"

 

[ShamMol]

Mar-a-ju-an-a is baaaddd for you...great south park quote.

 

[Pacridge]

Mar-a-ju-an-a is baaaddd for you...great south park quote.

I guess I'm not hip enough to get SP.

 

[Fantasea]

I guess I'm not hip enough to get SP.

Lotsa folks think SP stands for "Sick Puppies". Judging by the crap SP spews in the name of entertainent, they're right.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Lotsa folks think SP stands for "Sick Puppies". Judging by the crap SP spews in the name of entertainent, they're right.

I suppose you say the same for Chaucer right?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Lotsa folks think SP stands for "Sick Puppies". Judging by the crap SP spews in the name of entertainent, they're right.

I suppose you say the same for Chaucer right?

Ah yes, The Canterbury Tales. Well, it always gets boring on a long trek. A bawdy bull session goes a long way toward breaking the ice and livening up a dull party, especially in mixed company. Right?

Who knows, maybe Old Geoff provided some inspiration for James Joyce.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Ah yes, The Canterbury Tales. Well, it always gets boring on a long trek. A bawdy bull session goes a long way toward breaking the ice and livening up a dull party, especially in mixed company. Right?

Who knows, maybe Old Geoff provided some inspiration for James Joyce.

I would certainly suggest that is the case. I think satire is one of the most effective methods of reasoning available. I personally think that James Joyce is a very clever and convincing author.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Ah yes, The Canterbury Tales. Well, it always gets boring on a long trek. A bawdy bull session goes a long way toward breaking the ice and livening up a dull party, especially in mixed company. Right?

Who knows, maybe Old Geoff provided some inspiration for James Joyce.

I would certainly suggest that is the case. I think satire is one of the most effective methods of reasoning available. I personally think that James Joyce is a very clever and convincing author.

True.

In that vein, because of the controversy "Ulysses" 'aroused' due to the novel's explicit sexual content, had he lived, perhaps he could have hooked on as a writer for SP.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I actually came up with a personal theory regarding drug use, others may have come to this conclusion but I haven't heard anything. Here goes, make a marijuana tax stamp like the one put on cigarettes or other tobacco products and if a user does not have this stamp, it's tax evasion and it's done. Next, legalize the hard stuff but only in clinical settings with an FDA approved specialist and under medical supervision, this creates a taxable, controlled environment that would have to be sanitary and at the least safer than the neighborhood crackhouse, heroin den, or coke room.
The reason I thought of this is simple, the only thing that alcohol prohibition did in the 1920's was to create an underground and bring up organized crime and a huge black market, the same can be said about drug prohibition when you think about dealers and what they have to do to insure that they get paid, plus, the street gangs that sell, etc. What these groups do is to basically fill a demand that exists anyway, and since there exists no legal means to obtain supply, the dealer essentially sets his price, leading to extreme cost and of course, desperate actions (stealing, murder, etc.) to obtain the means for that product.

 

[Fantasea]

I actually came up with a personal theory regarding drug use, others may have come to this conclusion but I haven't heard anything. Here goes, make a marijuana tax stamp like the one put on cigarettes or other tobacco products and if a user does not have this stamp, it's tax evasion and it's done. Next, legalize the hard stuff but only in clinical settings with an FDA approved specialist and under medical supervision, this creates a taxable, controlled environment that would have to be sanitary and at the least safer than the neighborhood crackhouse, heroin den, or coke room.
The reason I thought of this is simple, the only thing that alcohol prohibition did in the 1920's was to create an underground and bring up organized crime and a huge black market, the same can be said about drug prohibition when you think about dealers and what they have to do to insure that they get paid, plus, the street gangs that sell, etc. What these groups do is to basically fill a demand that exists anyway, and since there exists no legal means to obtain supply, the dealer essentially sets his price, leading to extreme cost and of course, desperate actions (stealing, murder, etc.) to obtain the means for that product.

While you're at it, why not re-institute the Chinatown opium dens. That way, folks could enjoy themselves in peace and quiet. :roll: