RE: Legalizing Drugs. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

rulemylife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 4:56:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

Well, there seems to be no constitutional basis or authority for drug or alcohol prohibitions. The first drug laws were towards the latter part of the 19th century, were specifically race based and were unconstitutional. Of course they have not been ruled such, but the Supreme Court isn't always right. Read the laws for yourself and weigh them against the US Constitution.

Uncle Nasty


Just out of curiosity, why do you assume I'm in disagreement?



Lorr47 -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 5:22:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

There is no one "answer."   But legalizing drugs can cut into the profit margin, making it less attractive as a choice.  There will always be drug runners, just like moonshiners and tobacco runners...and bookies and gun runners and loan sharks...

The trick, I think, is to find a way to take the profit out of an activity for more people.  Won't get rid of it, it will just make it less attractive.  Which should, if history is any teacher, diminish the activity. 



In the old days of the 50s, 60s and 70s the police officers I knew wanted Marijuana legalized but got into trouble if when they said it in public.  Legalize it; sell it and tax it.  They did not feel it was a gateway drug.  Driving was not a problem; just deal with it like alcohol: "Judge, he was really fucked up."  Also taking blood would show THC for 30 days. They all said to a man that a person on Marijuana never gave them a problem.  If it looked like a problem might arise , offer him a donut.  Of course, these were the same officers who felt that prostitution should be legalized in a red light district and taxed with medical rules.  They also felt that porn should be legalized.  Why?  They had real problems elsewhere and this "nonsense" wasted their time.  Of course, today if you get 40 police officers together you might be able to have someone in arrears on child support arrested.



UPSG -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 5:28:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

Every day we read new stories from Mexico about the drug cartels and the havoc they are wreaking there. For years people have bemoaned the efforts of the US government in its war on drugs. The solution to the problem that many suggest is to legalize drugs - taxing the sales to raise revenue.

While I will agree that legalizing drugs would remove or greatly diminish the drug crime problem... crime is only one issue. What about the effects of drug use and abuse? Alcohol is legal in the US and look at the social problems and cost incurred by society due to alcohol and its abuse. Same with legal prescription drugs. Are there potential drug users/abusers waiting in the wings that would come to the forefront if currently illegal drugs were available legally in the US?

Is legalizing drugs really the answer?



Eventually if and when I do relocate to Brazil (if not a different Latin American country) this will be one of the big things I'll support and probably try to convince many in the Brazilian population to support: legalizing cocaine, heroine, and marijuana.

It's possible the tobacco and alcohol industries have interest in these things remaining illegal, and tax payers will finance the war.

Someone once persuaded me that substance addiction should be viewed as a health issue and not a criminal issue. I pretty much take this view.



Vendaval -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 5:34:19 PM)

Of course, smoking vrs mainlining for example.
 
You also have to factor in genetic predispositions to additction.
That includes one side of my family.


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincent63
youre right vendaval, but dont delivery system also affects addictiveness



TheHeretic -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 5:58:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincent63
dont delivery system also affects addictiveness



      For the psychological aspect of addiction, yes.  Differing methods of getting the drug into the system will produce different highs.  Smoking a drug, be it crack, ice, or heroin is usually going to produce the most intense initial reaction, and that will become the level of stimulus the brain is looking for.

       When we get to the opiates, that create a physical addiction, the manner of ingestion matters less.  Someone popping hardcore pain pills every few hours is going to have much the same problem after two weeks that someone shooting up would.



MarcEsadrian -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 11:50:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

But the question was did the usage change pre and post Prohibition.

And if the answer is no then we are fighting a losing battle and need to find different solutions.



Should we be looking at consumption or human consequence? Considering alcohol alone, the current-day numbers are staggering. I do believe you're right; we need to explore different solutions, and those solutions lie deep in our culture, to where the hunger is.



VanessaChaland -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 12:45:20 AM)

Haven't some people been using some substances to get high since the beginning of time? Some animal species do as well. Its a losing battle. Besides, I'm not sure where it is written in our constitution that our gov. is supposed to protect us from ourselves. Our founding fathers seemed to kind of desire a bit of autonomy and free will. :)



NormalOutside -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 2:57:00 AM)

Humans define harmless things as crimes, and then get morally outraged when these behaviours continue to happen. In the case of drugs, we've even declared war on these "crimes", even though they don't hurt anyone.

Yes, the answer is to stop considering harmless things "crimes". Before smoking up was a crime, it wasn't a problem. It was made a crime so the government can profit.
Which brings me to my next point. More taxes? HELL NO. There's no reason for the government to add yet another agency, and another tax. Quit controlling our lives. You idiots were hired to do a small list of tasks. Please do your job or we'll fire you. And I mean with a shotgun.



VanessaChaland -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 3:29:00 AM)

Lets just evaluate how we are doing on all our "Wars" shall we:

War on Drugs             = Losing
War on Obesity           = Losing
War on Illiteracy          = Losing
War on DWI               = Losing
War on Porn                = Losing (Victory for free speech of course)
War on TV Violence     = Losing
War on TV Sex            = Losing
War on Crime              = Losing
War on Corruption       = Losing  (Thanks Bernie, Enron, World Com, Bush, Cheney)
War on Pollution          = Losing  (Thanks Bush, Cheney etc)
War on Hookers          = Losing  (Thanks religious right for keeping women oppressed)
War on Abortion          =Losing   (See above)
War on Gay Rights       =Losing  (or slowly winning if you actually have a brain and see change happening, like me)
War in Iraq                   = Losing/ Lost  Millions displaced, Billions spent/lost, Thousands dead
War in Afghan              = Losing
What other "Wars" has the US establishment assigned, or called a war or a call for action? No doubt, should there be more, we are losing those as well.

The flip side is that some "obscenity laws" have been kicked out, last time I checked women in Georgia can again buy condoms and get genital piercings, even in some places of Texas people can buy dildos, some gay people are making headway, Ashcroft and Gonzales are out and hopefully soon to be indicted along with the rest of that "Crowd". Perhaps there is hope in the future as long as politicians stop declaring everything as a "War". :)




MrRodgers -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 5:00:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

Every day we read new stories from Mexico about the drug cartels and the havoc they are wreaking there. For years people have bemoaned the efforts of the US government in its war on drugs. The solution to the problem that many suggest is to legalize drugs - taxing the sales to raise revenue.

While I will agree that legalizing drugs would remove or greatly diminish the drug crime problem... crime is only one issue. What about the effects of drug use and abuse? Alcohol is legal in the US and look at the social problems and cost incurred by society due to alcohol and its abuse. Same with legal prescription drugs. Are there potential drug users/abusers waiting in the wings that would come to the forefront if currently illegal drugs were available legally in the US?

Is legalizing drugs really the answer?

We forget or most are just too young to know. First, legalizing marij. is the only step we need take maybe cocaine. To do that eliminates all of the crime associated with the formation and protection of black-market territories and thus the cartels then formed. We had a legal cocaine street market as well as commercial market around the late 1890's to the 1920's and the public eventually grew tired of it and just stopped buying.

There are those that will tell you that there are such powers (legal, and behind the scenes) that do NOT want any talk of legalization. Either they profit from the trade or they profit from the 'war' on drugs. It is ALL about the money and greed.

The problems associated with legalization would pale in comparison to open warfare over the money as we have seen and still see in Mexico and saw in Columbia.



MrRodgers -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 5:08:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Of course, smoking vrs mainlining for example.
 
You also have to factor in genetic predispositions to additction.
That includes one side of my family.
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincent63
youre right vendaval, but dont delivery system also affects addictiveness


There exists no genetic predisposition to addiction. There can be an inherited addiction which is through birth and is a physiological but not genetic born addiction. Most addicition is environmentally passed along, so father an alcoholic, son and an alcoholic etc.

I am pretty sure that if one side of the family is hooked it is not genetic or both sides of the family would similarly be affected as both sides would have acquired...the gene.



MrRodgers -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 5:27:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

Well, there seems to be no constitutional basis or authority for drug or alcohol prohibitions. The first drug laws were towards the latter part of the 19th century, were specifically race based and were unconstitutional. Of course they have not been ruled such, but the Supreme Court isn't always right. Read the laws for yourself and weigh them against the US Constitution.

Uncle Nasty

There is no constitutional priviso that precludes such laws. They are similar to laws around your car. While the constitution doesn't prohibit me from owning one, laws can proscribe certain conditions upon its ownership and use. So there is no additional consitutitonal authority rerquired to legislate control of drugs...see FDA.

One may have a problem with the presciption drug environment but it is constitutional and of course a very big 20 year profit center.



MrRodgers -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 5:33:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland

Lets just evaluate how we are doing on all our "Wars" shall we:

War on Drugs             = Losing
War on Obesity           = Losing
War on Illiteracy          = Losing
War on DWI               = Losing
War on Porn                = Losing (Victory for free speech of course)
War on TV Violence     = Losing
War on TV Sex            = Losing
War on Crime              = Losing
War on Corruption       = Losing  (Thanks Bernie, Enron, World Com, Bush, Cheney)
War on Pollution          = Losing  (Thanks Bush, Cheney etc)
War on Hookers          = Losing  (Thanks religious right for keeping women oppressed)
War on Abortion          =Losing   (See above)
War on Gay Rights       =Losing  (or slowly winning if you actually have a brain and see change happening, like me)
War in Iraq                   = Losing/ Lost  Millions displaced, Billions spent/lost, Thousands dead
War in Afghan              = Losing
What other "Wars" has the US establishment assigned, or called a war or a call for action? No doubt, should there be more, we are losing those as well.

The flip side is that some "obscenity laws" have been kicked out, last time I checked women in Georgia can again buy condoms and get genital piercings, even in some places of Texas people can buy dildos, some gay people are making headway, Ashcroft and Gonzales are out and hopefully soon to be indicted along with the rest of that "Crowd". Perhaps there is hope in the future as long as politicians stop declaring everything as a "War". :)

You've got it VC. All wars are a profit center and is their most significant reason for being.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 6:23:17 AM)

While there are no genes that will make you an addict, there is at least one identified, and more suspected that give you a greater chance of becoming addicted to something that increases dopamine levels. This is called a predisposition for addiction.


Here are a few sources if you wish to read them:

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135142?cookieSet=1&journalCode=psych



" A significant advance in understanding the role of genetics in addiction occurred in 1990 when researchers linked the D2 dopamine receptor (DRD2 gene) to severe alcoholism. Studies of the brain showed that those with the A1 variation of the DRD2 gene have significantly fewer dopamine receptors in pleasure centers of the brain. Persons who become addicted to drugs that increase dopamine levels do so to compensate for that deficiency. Subsequent studies have linked the A1 variation of the DRD2 gene to other addictions including, cocaine, amphetamine, heroin and nicotine.
These studies suggest that people with this genetic trait are much more susceptible to addiction and likely to fall into severe forms of addiction. "
 
 
"``It appears that the genetic vulnerability for substance and alcohol abuse is fairly general in our society,'' says Dr.  David Goldman, chief of neuro-genetics at the U.S.  National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

In underscoring the roles that genes and environment play in causing addiction, the new findings open the possibility of developing the first effective prevention and treatment strategies for drug abuse. "
 
 
"Even the most extreme environmentalists along the nature-nurture continuum in psychology now acknowledge that genes often contribute to individual differences in behavior. Behavioral traits are complex, reflecting the aggregate effects of many genes. These genetic effects are interactive, inter se and with the environments in which they are expressed. Human studies of addictive behaviors have clearly implicated both environmental and genetic influences. "
 
 
 

 
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

There exists no genetic predisposition to addiction. There can be an inherited addiction which is through birth and is a physiological but not genetic born addiction. Most addicition is environmentally passed along, so father an alcoholic, son and an alcoholic etc.

I am pretty sure that if one side of the family is hooked it is not genetic or both sides of the family would similarly be affected as both sides would have acquired...the gene.



TheHeretic -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 8:24:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
There is no constitutional priviso that precludes such laws.



       Not specifically, Rodg, but what about in spirit?  Has there ever been a 9th Amendment debate about the right to get mellow in one's own living room?  If the laws cannot be enforced within the framework established by the Constitution, wouldn't that render those laws unconstitutional?  The War on Drugs has effectively gutted the 4th Amendment.  Many people find the use of psycoactive substances to be a deeply spiritual experience, the Free Exercise clause in the 1st is denied to them.  When we lock people away with rapists and murderers because of what they do to themselves, the 8th seems to be getting a kick in the crotch.

     And since you say there is nothing in the Constitution to preclude such laws, let me refresh you on the 10th:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.



MarcEsadrian -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 8:52:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NormalOutside

In the case of drugs, we've even declared war on these "crimes", even though they don't hurt anyone.



Are you sure about that? Automobile / industrial fatalities, rehabilitative costs of addiction, birth defects, assaults, rapes and homicides associated with drug use is all an illusion?

Edited to add: I wonder how much bigger Big G would get if we were to legalize all substances. Will we really be saving tax money and be moving toward a simpler, healthier, more efficient state?





CruelNUnsual -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 9:15:12 AM)

Amsterdam decriminalized and portions of the city are uninhabitable. Portugal only has 7 years of experience under decriminilization and scant data to assess its impact, other than that the number of heroin ODs has gone down.



TheHeretic -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 10:11:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

Automobile / industrial fatalities, rehabilitative costs of addiction, birth defects, assaults, rapes and homicides associated with drug use is all an illusion?

Edited to add: I wonder how much bigger Big G would get if we were to legalize all substances. Will we really be saving tax money and be moving toward a simpler, healthier, more efficient state?



      You don't seem to be paying much attention to the answers being provided in the thread, Marc.  That seems to be the only tactic available to those who favor a continuation of the prohibition.  Or, your position is that the gov't should be the final authority in how individuals choose to live their lives.  If the latter is the case, I see no point in offering you anything but my complete opposition.

      Automobile/Industrial fatalities:  Driving and operating machinery under the influence of legal substances is regulated.  Why would you assume there would be any difference if more substances were legal?

       Rehabilitative costs of addiction:  Far and away offset by the influx of new tax revenue, not to mention the savings in our justice system. 

       Birth defects:  Unless you are referring to cases of infants born to addicts, this is a bullshit charge that was thoroughly discounted decades ago.  Prenatal addiction issues could be far better addressed if addiction was regarded purely as a health issue, rather than a criminal one.  The health benefits of "clean" drugs have already been mentioned.

      Assaults, rapes and homicides associated with drug use:  First off, much of the crime reported as "drug related" is connected more to the illegal market than to the drugs themselves.  As for crimes committed by people under the influence, perhaps you should get some information a bit more current than Reefer Madness.  These things are still going to be crimes, and should be prosecuted as such.  We will even have the prison space available to put the criminals in.

         Do have any idea how the size and power of Big G has grown trying to make this utter failure of a policy work? 



slaveboy291 -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 10:18:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincent63

no, it won't because organized religion and the hard line bible belt wont let it,,,,,not to mention all the federal ,state and local LE jobs that would 'poof ' disappear overnight


There will be other agencies, they just won't be able to pad out their records anymore by busting aging hippies and teenagers with small hydro labs in their basement or selling bongs over the internet ala Tommy Chong and be forced to go after real criminals.

Also, just like Prohibition created Al Capone.

Drug laws created the cartels.



kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/29/2009 12:52:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Amsterdam decriminalized and portions of the city are uninhabitable.
On the other hand, a smaller percentage of young people have tried drugs there then in either the US or the UK.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875