]I understand that reality which is why I like the idea that this sort of thing is being presented in terms of profitability and taking the money that normally goes into criminal profits for the legal businesses. I do see the obstacles of money out there. There is the for profit prison industry. There is a danger to prescription drugs from the use of cheaper alternatives. There are the political whores like DARE that make a lot of money off of anti-drug campaigning. There is also a huge and popular market out there for some of these drugs. I cannot say there is enough of a market for a drug like heroin to push it's fully legal recreational use, but something like Pot has a lot of money to be made off of it. The desire for pot has got to rival both tobacco and alcohol. That is huge.
•••You're basing your assumptions on logic. Right concept, wrong planet. Here are the schwedules right of the DEA website. See if you see any logic problems between schedules 1 and 2.
Schedule I
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote
Schedule II
Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:
cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin
Yes, that's right. Marijuana is much worse than speed and coke. See what I mean?
-----
Though i agree there are great big huge well funded obstacles, and investments in the present system of prohibition, there is also a lot of money to be made off the legalization of drugs. I would not rate it as unpopular or politically hazardous as you. I would say presently full legalization of all substances is not going to float. The analysis that pot is a gateway drug might actually hold true in this case. When people see the money that can be made off of it and the money they can funnel into legitimate business when not making prisons I am pretty sure that some will start to see the benefits of popular drugs. Right now the unpopular nature of drugs is due in large part to a massive propaganda campaign. There is a huge problem with the new free open information front of the internet in regards to that, and things are not going back to small well controlled media for propaganda. I am not saying they will not adapt the campaign, but things are changing and the state may be getting more tools, but they cannot keep up with the overwhelming production of society. That is why I think that the argument is going to change in the near future. I would have agreed years ago it would be slow, but seeing how far gays have come due to this I cannot say that anymore.
•••While I personally couldn't agree with you more, we're dealing with America and Politics. The only thing more valuuable than money is stupidity.
------
I don't doubt you are correct in that it will have it's problems. I am also under no delusion that the illegal profits of drugs do not influence those political structures. I think one of the biggest problems legalized drugs actually has is the current distributors. There is a very real danger to the life of any politician that starts successfully pitching legalized drugs. I completely agree that you will put a lot of big money concerns on the same side as criminal syndicates which is absolutely going to lead to some conflict.
•••On one side, we have the alcohol people, the cartels and the bureaucrats. On the other side we have....who? Ron Paul?
This is why i actually want things to move slowly. If you made drugs legal tomorrow you would have a war. Slower implementation allows legitimate business to buy out their opposition. States and businesses will soon see the profit of legalized recreational weed. Big money like that which deals with alcohol and tobacco will eventually see that pot is not an alternative, but a additive market. When that gets realized the push will come from big money for legitimate distribution. The rich criminals who are smart and powerful will sell out and the tide will turn against the other side. When the money comes the campaign to advertise the benefits of pot will come and that will destroy large parts of the effects of the anti-propaganda. A slow integration would work much better and allow us to confront the problems that would arise without overburdening ourselves. personally i would like them to all be legal tomorrow, but i do respect the nature of the world and that it would be a huge problem just to legalize them without thought.
•••I'm sure your patience will be rewarded someday. But I doubt it will be anytime in this century. As you pointed out earlier, we are just figuring out that gays are humans. Even that battle isn't over yet and this should be obvious. After all, who stands against it? The god dealers?
Have you done both? I am not saying they are not similar, but even small variations can be big effects for a user. For a medical purpose of pain killing doctors would presumably prescribe the least dangerous alternative. From a recreational users perspective the effects of the two do differ and therefor do not actually do the same thing. Think of it like any preference you have. you like a certain flavor of ice cream so that is what you are most likely to eat when you have it. In reality the other flavors may be enjoyable and have the same effect, but for recreational eating you are going to most often chose something you enjoy the most. Other things would be an option in a purely recreational environment, but may not be the drug of choice.
•••Who, me? Sure, I've done them all. Oxy, properly crushed and insufflated is just a slightly nastier tasting version of Oxy. Cheaper too. We all respond differently but given a choice between Oxy and Tar, I'll take the Oxy because it's cleaner, not because it does anything differently.
------
I would certainly agree on that view of cocaine. It has an effect, but unless i am looking for a long party and to piss away a lot of money it really is not that great. If it were cheaper and legal i would probably use it more, but I would be much more bothered if they took away my coffee.
•••Yeah, it's the mystery drug. You get ONE good high the first time you do it. After that, sped is a better investment. Of course, that's just me and others may experience something greater than the 20 minute "high" of Coke. At least with speed, I can get some work done.
------
i just do not see it that way. I just see the tide turning and legitimate business wanting a piece of the profits, and perhaps the whole damned thing, and that is what is going to eventually legalize it. I could see that point with a less popular harder drug, but pot is pretty low end and harmless in reality. I could see a company not wanting to be associated with making people heroin junkies, but stoners are a bit different. I think when pot becomes legal, which i feel is actually coming, the other drugs will become more attractive to the greedy in legitimate business and that will help to legalize them. I think pot is inevitable at this point. About the least i could see is the fed abandoning it, and leaving it to the states to decide. There is only so hard you can squeeze the people, and the prison industrial complex is reaching it's limit.
•••I truly hope you are right and I am wrong.
-----
I see it in the other way. There are obstacles but the wave is overtaking them. I also think slow movement towards legalization would be the most logical way to proceed
•••
DEA Raids Legal Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In Washington, 'Humiliating' Shop Owners - I rest my case.
I understand that reality which is why I like the idea that this sort of thing is being presented in terms of profitability and taking the money that normally goes into criminal profits for the legal businesses. I do see the obstacles of money out there. There is the for profit prison industry. There is a danger to prescription drugs from the use of cheaper alternatives. There are the political whores like DARE that make a lot of money off of anti-drug campaigning. There is also a huge and popular market out there for some of these drugs. I cannot say there is enough of a market for a drug like heroin to push it's fully legal recreational use, but something like Pot has a lot of money to be made off of it. The desire for pot has got to rival both tobacco and alcohol. That is huge.
Though i agree there are great big huge well funded obstacles, and investments in the present system of prohibition, there is also a lot of money to be made off the legalization of drugs. I would not rate it as unpopular or politically hazardous as you. I would say presently full legalization of all substances is not going to float. The analysis that pot is a gateway drug might actually hold true in this case. When people see the money that can be made off of it and the money they can funnel into legitimate business when not making prisons I am pretty sure that some will start to see the benefits of popular drugs. Right now the unpopular nature of drugs is due in large part to a massive propaganda campaign. There is a huge problem with the new free open information front of the internet in regards to that, and things are not going back to small well controlled media for propaganda. I am not saying they will not adapt the campaign, but things are changing and the state may be getting more tools, but they cannot keep up with the overwhelming production of society. That is why I think that the argument is going to change in the near future. I would have agreed years ago it would be slow, but seeing how far gays have come due to this I cannot say that anymore.
I don't doubt you are correct in that it will have it's problems. I am also under no delusion that the illegal profits of drugs do not influence those political structures. I think one of the biggest problems legalized drugs actually has is the current distributors. There is a very real danger to the life of any politician that starts successfully pitching legalized drugs. I completely agree that you will put a lot of big money concerns on the same side as criminal syndicates which is absolutely going to lead to some conflict.
This is why i actually want things to move slowly. If you made drugs legal tomorrow you would have a war. Slower implementation allows legitimate business to buy out their opposition. States and businesses will soon see the profit of legalized recreational weed. Big money like that which deals with alcohol and tobacco will eventually see that pot is not an alternative, but a additive market. When that gets realized the push will come from big money for legitimate distribution. The rich criminals who are smart and powerful will sell out and the tide will turn against the other side. When the money comes the campaign to advertise the benefits of pot will come and that will destroy large parts of the effects of the anti-propaganda. A slow integration would work much better and allow us to confront the problems that would arise without overburdening ourselves. personally i would like them to all be legal tomorrow, but i do respect the nature of the world and that it would be a huge problem just to legalize them without thought.
Have you done both? I am not saying they are not similar, but even small variations can be big effects for a user. For a medical purpose of pain killing doctors would presumably prescribe the least dangerous alternative. From a recreational users perspective the effects of the two do differ and therefor do not actually do the same thing. Think of it like any preference you have. you like a certain flavor of ice cream so that is what you are most likely to eat when you have it. In reality the other flavors may be enjoyable and have the same effect, but for recreational eating you are going to most often chose something you enjoy the most. Other things would be an option in a purely recreational environment, but may not be the drug of choice.
I would certainly agree on that view of cocaine. It has an effect, but unless i am looking for a long party and to piss away a lot of money it really is not that great. If it were cheaper and legal i would probably use it more, but I would be much more bothered if they took away my coffee.
i just do not see it that way. I just see the tide turning and legitimate business wanting a piece of the profits, and perhaps the whole damned thing, and that is what is going to eventually legalize it. I could see that point with a less popular harder drug, but pot is pretty low end and harmless in reality. I could see a company not wanting to be associated with making people heroin junkies, but stoners are a bit different. I think when pot becomes legal, which i feel is actually coming, the other drugs will become more attractive to the greedy in legitimate business and that will help to legalize them. I think pot is inevitable at this point. About the least i could see is the fed abandoning it, and leaving it to the states to decide. There is only so hard you can squeeze the people, and the prison industrial complex is reaching it's limit.
I see it in the other way. There are obstacles but the wave is overtaking them. I also think slow movement towards legalization would be the most logical way to proceed.