Thinking about marijuana

[digsbe]

Or maybe have shops similar to liquor stores? Because, unless its been changed, I believe you can buy sudafed in small amounts over the counter anywhere, like at a 7/11 store.

Not anymore. Sudafed must be sold behind a pharmacy counter. To sell it you must be licensed by your state to handle controlled substances and register all sales with a government website and make a physical record of the purchase (be a licensed pharmacy technician). It's somewhat of a time consuming process. I believe most states are like this. It's purpose is to prevent people from buying a certain amount of pseudoephedrine to make meth with. It also helps the cops track down meth kitchens as everyone who buys it commercially has multiple records of their purchase both electronically and physically.

 

[tryreading]

Not anymore. Sudafed must be sold behind a pharmacy counter. To sell it you must be licensed by your state to handle controlled substances and register all sales with a government website and make a physical record of the purchase (be a licensed pharmacy technician). It's somewhat of a time consuming process. I believe most states are like this. It's purpose is to prevent people from buying a certain amount of pseudoephedrine to make meth with. It also helps the cops track down meth kitchens as everyone who buys it commercially has multiple records of their purchase both electronically and physically.

I didn't know that had changed. Glad it did.

Still, if marijuana is to be sold, I think it should be done in more of a liquor store environment.

 

[reefedjib]

I didn't know that had changed. Glad it did.

Still, if marijuana is to be sold, I think it should be done in more of a liquor store environment.

I think it should be up to each state.

Some state's may want to allow for coffeeshops, where you can sample and smoke herb.

 

[liblady]

What he said. I'll add a few comments as well.

Being ex-LE, I'd much rather arrest someone who's been smoking weed than someone who is drunk. Drunks often think they are 10' tall and bulletproof; weed smokers are usually pretty lethargic and relatively calm. Well, not always: sometimes they've been doing other drugs as well, or drinking, or circumstances may play into it. In general though, weed smokers are usually easier to deal with than drunks.


Psych's first point, self-ownership, is one I'd like to address more specifically. I agree with it up to a point: the point where an activity or consumption has a substantial negative effect on society. This is why I've come to the conclusion that, while I support the legalization of marijuana (both possession and the growing/sale of... I think that is important to break the black market), I could not support the legalization of crack or meth. Users of those substances tend to go out and cause trouble in my experience, much more so than weed smokers or even drunks. Also they are terribly toxic, and the things they do to the human body make smoking look trivial in comparison.

i agree completely. pot is relatively harmless, and is NOT a gateway drug except for people who find their way to other drugs anyway. we could certainly use the tax revenue, but would also have to consider all the regulations that would be necessary.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I agree it should be decriminalized, just to keep the the drug industry from profiting on it.

But I think people who smoke it should try to find out why.

I think "decriminalizing it" is a softball newspeak word.... They should end prohibition part II.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I think "decriminalizing it" is a softball newspeak word.... They should end prohibition part II.

Decriminalize has a specific meaning, it refers to removing penalties for personal use while manufacturing and selling is still prohibited.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Decriminalize has a specific meaning, it refers to removing penalties for personal use while manufacturing and selling is still prohibited.

So I can buy it from a "criminal", but the "criminal" still faces penalties?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So I can buy it from a "criminal", but the "criminal" still faces penalties?

Just so. Which is why I believe decriminalization fails to address the real issues.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Just so. Which is why I believe decriminalization fails to address the real issues.

that's like NJ and hollow point bullets:




You can buy it, you can have it in your home, but you can't transport it.

 

[liblady]

Personally, I'm for the legalization of all drugs.

One reason why is because I think the costs in law enforcement are far more than the costs in allowing it to be legal. There are, by far, much worse things out there that the government should spend the tax revenue the people pay into.

Another reason is because criminalizing drugs means only criminals will sell it. Make it legal to sell and it is then able to be regulated and taxed. In fact, the last people who want to legalize drugs are those who now sell it illegally and can make more money on it because they don't have to pay for any business licenses, income taxes, or payroll taxes, and also don't have to worry about regulators from the FDA looking over their operations to make sure they don't dilute the product in order to stretch it out to make more money. By regulating it, there can be better safeguards on recreational drugs.

A third reason is because it will reduce tax revenue spent in the legal system for drug crimes. It costs money to have judges, prosecutors, public defenders, defense attorneys, bailiffs, police, undercover cops, confidential informants, border security, customs agents, and prison guards to do all that they do. By making recreational drugs legal, that allows those law enforcement and legal professionals to focus on other, more important crimes.

can't agree.....i've seen first hand the damage that meth does.

 

[Djoop]

There are no pros and cons in the sense that this is a matter of principle. To me, all drugs should be legal, I never see room for the government to regulate my consumption. Anyone favor a glue ban?

I could tell you that the dutch policy of tolerating drug use results in less drug addiction, less drug related deaths, less prisoners, less crime than the american policy. The problem is that for every stat I show you, you can find a dozen saying the opposite. Whatever you do, before you make up your mind read this:
AMERICAN DISTORTION OF DUTCH DRUG STATISTICS

BTW, I quitted MJ a few months ago because I made a bet about withdrawl symptons (I used it on a daily basis for over 10 years). Only one month to go...

 

[marduc]

Just so. Which is why I believe decriminalization fails to address the real issues.

exactly. Decriminalization is merely a patch that removes penalties for the end user. It only alleviates a minority of the problems associated with prohibition, yet totally ignores the elephant in the room, namely the black market and its associated crime.

 

[marduc]

can't agree.....i've seen first hand the damage that meth does.

ideally (and this is hashing out details on something that is very far off - if a possibility at all) different drugs would have different controls associated with them, while still legal; this does not mean free unfettered access to whatever quantity you like. Different drugs require different controls.

the following idea has flaws, but even with the flaws I see it as a better solution than the current lack of control, which creates a violent black market which provides unrestricted access to the drug for whomever knows where to look - and this is merely a suggestion of possible ways to go about this.

Similar to the Sudafed controlled distribution already in place, allow access to a set quantity of hard drugs per person for recreational use via a pharmaceutical sales point. If you want to use a substance recreationally, fine, it is your body put what you want in it. However.. if you want to bypass a recreational dosage, then you need to go about it a different way.

Also make available FREE clinical maintenance dosage with trained and counselors and professionals (this should be done independent of the aforementioned, and could be done even with prohibition- see the Swiss and now the British heroin maintenance policies). I wander.. basically allow recreational usage distribution, but if this becomes problematic or you exceed a certain quantity above and beyond the recreational threshhold, then you must then go visit an addiction maintenance center for more. Here you will have face to face contact with an addiction specialist who you will build rapport and trust with, who can help you with your addiction, and ideally over time can guide an addict into treatment of so warranted.

Will there still be a black market? of course, there still is a black market for alcohol and blue jeans despite them being legal; however the scale and the scope are miniscule in comparison. There would be little profit motive in the black market, especially in light with them having to compete with a product being available for free to the addicts.

Is this perfect? no, absolutely not, this is just a suggestion and an incomplete vision of a potential means of controlled distribution. There are aspects that should be further hashed out and refined. Although there are some aspects of it that I do not entirely like and am not 100% comfortable with, and I imagine others would feel the same, I also strongly feel that this (or similar controls) is substantially better than the current situation which has aspects that are for worse than the alternatives I am suggesting here.

 

[digsbe]

I want to raise a concern about marijuana being a gateway drug. If it is legalized should we more strictly enforce more harmful drugs like meth and heroine to prevent people from using them? I appreciate everyone's input and I am still formulating my beliefs.

 

[marduc]

I want to raise a concern about marijuana being a gateway drug. If it is legalized should we more strictly enforce more harmful drugs like meth and heroine to prevent people from using them? I appreciate everyone's input and I am still formulating my beliefs.

The ONDCP commissioned a report and asked the IOM (Institute of Medicine) to look into the gateway theory, the following are all direct quotes from this report:

In January 1997, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine to conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. That review began in August 1997 and culminates with this report.

The fear that marijuana use might cause, as opposed to merely precede, the use of drugs that are more harmful of great concern. Judging from comments submitted to the IOM study team, this appears to be an even greater concern than the harms directly related to marijuana itself.

they conclude with:

... it is the legal status of marijuana that makes it a gateway drug.

however the gateway theory lives on despite these findings.

link to the report, chapter 3.21 is where they examine the gateway hypothesis:

Marijuana as Medicine - Assessing the Science Base - Institute of Medicine Report

The government was very eager to claim marijuana was the gateway when this was suggested, yet very quiet when further investigation (which they specifically requested) found that their policy was the gateway. So here we are over a decade later, and the false hypothesis lives on.

 

[liblady]

ideally (and this is hashing out details on something that is very far off - if a possibility at all) different drugs would have different controls associated with them, while still legal; this does not mean free unfettered access to whatever quantity you like. Different drugs require different controls.

the following idea has flaws, but even with the flaws I see it as a better solution than the current lack of control, which creates a violent black market which provides unrestricted access to the drug for whomever knows where to look - and this is merely a suggestion of possible ways to go about this.

Similar to the Sudafed controlled distribution already in place, allow access to a set quantity of hard drugs per person for recreational use via a pharmaceutical sales point. If you want to use a substance recreationally, fine, it is your body put what you want in it. However.. if you want to bypass a recreational dosage, then you need to go about it a different way.

Also make available FREE clinical maintenance dosage with trained and counselors and professionals (this should be done independent of the aforementioned, and could be done even with prohibition- see the Swiss and now the British heroin maintenance policies). I wander.. basically allow recreational usage distribution, but if this becomes problematic or you exceed a certain quantity above and beyond the recreational threshhold, then you must then go visit an addiction maintenance center for more. Here you will have face to face contact with an addiction specialist who you will build rapport and trust with, who can help you with your addiction, and ideally over time can guide an addict into treatment of so warranted.

Will there still be a black market? of course, there still is a black market for alcohol and blue jeans despite them being legal; however the scale and the scope are miniscule in comparison. There would be little profit motive in the black market, especially in light with them having to compete with a product being available for free to the addicts.

Is this perfect? no, absolutely not, this is just a suggestion and an incomplete vision of a potential means of controlled distribution. There are aspects that should be further hashed out and refined. Although there are some aspects of it that I do not entirely like and am not 100% comfortable with, and I imagine others would feel the same, I also strongly feel that this (or similar controls) is substantially better than the current situation which has aspects that are for worse than the alternatives I am suggesting here.

i still can't get behind making dangerous drugs legal. the illegality does stop at least some people from ever trying meth, and without that, many people WOULD try it. pot is fine, studies prove it. meth, heroin, coke, not so much. why make them available?

 

[liblady]

I want to raise a concern about marijuana being a gateway drug. If it is legalized should we more strictly enforce more harmful drugs like meth and heroine to prevent people from using them? I appreciate everyone's input and I am still formulating my beliefs.

it's not a gateway drug, and i don't know how much more strictly we even COULD enforce current laws. what we need is better availability of rehab centers.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I want to raise a concern about marijuana being a gateway drug. If it is legalized should we more strictly enforce more harmful drugs like meth and heroine to prevent people from using them? I appreciate everyone's input and I am still formulating my beliefs.

I think the MTV is far more a gateway drug honestly. :shrug:

 

[Jetboogieman]

I think the MTV is far more a gateway drug honestly. :shrug:

If by drug you mean the worst programming on TV then yes, If I was forced to watch MTV I'd be doing Heroine too. Compared to the crap on MTV, give me Sarah Palins Alaska any day :2razz:

 

[marduc]

i still can't get behind making dangerous drugs legal. the illegality does stop at least some people from ever trying meth, and without that, many people WOULD try it. pot is fine, studies prove it. meth, heroin, coke, not so much. why make them available?

What evidence there is shows no correlation between legal status and usage rates. The best example we have currently is Portugal where drugs have been decriminalized for the last ~10 years. Their lax stance coupled with treatment and education has actually resulted in a decrease in hard drug usage across the board.

Legalizing these substances and getting them out of the hands of the black market will delay the critical age of first use/exposure. Taking steps to reduce availability to minors (delaying age of first use) would cut down on the amount of people who go on to become addicts (this is strongly strongly supported with research). Couple that with accurate education (look at the decline of cigarette use), and treatment options readily and easily available for those who do unfortunately get addicted, and we have a recipe that allows us to actually make forward progress and cut into this problem instead of exacerbates it like our present one does.

Its a counter intuitive pill that is tough to swallow and I expect few to do so (I used to be firmly in the "no way should hard drugs be legal" crowd), but the more I looked into this the more I became convinced that although counter intuitive on the surface, ending prohibition would enable us to actually cut into and make progress in coping with our drug problems. Prohibition is certainly not working, and has -if anything- manufactured a gigantic criminal problem to distract from the underlying drug problem.

 

[Orion]

Cannabis remains illegal largely for industry reasons. You have to trace the history back to the Reefer Madness campaign in order to get to the root of it. That campaign was largely initiated by the fuel, pharmaceutical, and lumber industries: the three sectors who are directly threatened by sustainable hemp production. Hemp can't be patented, yet it can sustainably replace most of our economy's needs. You can extract essential fatty acids (the "omegas") from hemp far more efficiently than from flax or borrage; its seeds are complete proteins; its stalk can be made into rope, lumber for building homes, and thread for clothing. It is a cheap source of biofuel since hemp grows incredibly fast and attains productive mass far faster than corn. It can grow in nutrient poor soil, in partial shade OR in direct sunlight. (They don't call it "weed" for nothing. It grows anywhere and everywhere.) You can even make biodegradable plastics out of it. Cannabis relates to the medicinal aspect of the plant, which was widely used in regional ethnomedicine before Reefer Madness. Cannabis being made illegal was just one aspect of the AMA's direct assault on the other forms of natural medicine which existed in the U.S. all the way back to before the Civil War.

If cannabis flowers (a.k.a marijuana) are legalized, then the whole hemp plant will have to be made legal. Some special areas are allowed to grow hemp but they are under strict licensing conditions, and they are highly taxed. This is to maintain the artificial ceiling on the hemp industry. Ever wonder why hemp clothes are so expensive? That's the reason.

 

[d0gbreath]

i agree completely. pot is relatively harmless, and is NOT a gateway drug except for people who find their way to other drugs anyway. we could certainly use the tax revenue, but would also have to consider all the regulations that would be necessary.

The last statement is why it should remain illegal (decriminalized). That and afford-ability. I'm sure my beloved Gov. Perry would sin tax the stuff into the stratosphere in no time at all. That and someone somewhere would find that it could cause people to die and the weed industry (don't like the sound of that either) would be fighting some of the highest lawsuits in the nation, causing cigarette like prices.

Libertarians, lend me your ears. If you like the idea of people being able to use recreational drugs, never vote for legalization. Big Bro will just ruin everything like they always do. Don't touch your health care? Don't touch my herb.

 

[liblady]

The last statement is why it should remain illegal (decriminalized). That and afford-ability. I'm sure my beloved Gov. Perry would sin tax the stuff into the stratosphere in no time at all. That and someone somewhere would find that it could cause people to die and the weed industry (don't like the sound of that either) would be fighting some of the highest lawsuits in the nation, causing cigarette like prices.

Libertarians, lend me your ears. If you like the idea of people being able to use recreational drugs, never vote for legalization. Big Bro will just ruin everything like they always do. Don't touch your health care? Don't touch my herb.

you are correct in that many obstacles would have to be overcome, but i'm still in favor of legalization. and i remember when you had to smoke a LOT to get a buzz, quality these days is exceptional. not that i partake, mind you.