Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
Bob, REALLY is a subjective term! 
Drug legalization trial-run
- Thread starter tyme
- Start date
bill in IN
New member
I do not favor legalization for many reasons.
#1 would be that I already have to deal with too many stoners, freaks, and such with the legal restrictions in place. Are employers supposed to deal with more employee problems and love it? How many would be moving to another country expresso? Does anyone really want to drive on an expressway with more legal drugs floating around?
#2 would be that I don't believe that there would be any significant tax collected vs. money spent. For every $ collected from excise on drugs probably 10 would be spent on the medical effects, crime control, etc. that the influx would generate. If the tax is high enough, you won't have changed anything.
#3 has got to be the legal ramifications of the entire government structure re: any kind of chemical. If we have an approval process that takes years and millions of dollars to get a new kind of aspirin on the market we're going to let any streetcorner pharmacist sell his wares as is? Or is the thought that only Merck, Lilly, Pfizer, and a few others should get the opportunity which would basically leave streetcornerjoe still in charge.
#4 with a good deal of people in this country being already undermotivated, would it make sense to sedate them the rest of the way?
#1 would be that I already have to deal with too many stoners, freaks, and such with the legal restrictions in place. Are employers supposed to deal with more employee problems and love it? How many would be moving to another country expresso? Does anyone really want to drive on an expressway with more legal drugs floating around?
#2 would be that I don't believe that there would be any significant tax collected vs. money spent. For every $ collected from excise on drugs probably 10 would be spent on the medical effects, crime control, etc. that the influx would generate. If the tax is high enough, you won't have changed anything.
#3 has got to be the legal ramifications of the entire government structure re: any kind of chemical. If we have an approval process that takes years and millions of dollars to get a new kind of aspirin on the market we're going to let any streetcorner pharmacist sell his wares as is? Or is the thought that only Merck, Lilly, Pfizer, and a few others should get the opportunity which would basically leave streetcornerjoe still in charge.
#4 with a good deal of people in this country being already undermotivated, would it make sense to sedate them the rest of the way?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
And Chuck Shumer is of the impression that the only peoiple interested in legalizing ownership of "Dangerous Assault Weapons" are paranoids and criminals.
Careful with the logic of your arguments....it just might be turned against you.
Rich
As a cop, I personally would like to see a decrimilization of marijuana. I dont think it would affect anything but overcrowding of jails.
I do not, however, think that any of the harder drugs should be legalized. I have made this argument here several times, so I wont go into the reasons.
I do not, however, think that any of the harder drugs should be legalized. I have made this argument here several times, so I wont go into the reasons.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
It seems to me that we've tried the enforcement route and it has been a miserable failure in terms of protecting people from themselves. That said, the decision should be based on what costs the taxpayers more...legalization or prohibition.
For my money, that it an easy decision. Drug legalization is not a Drug Addict's Paradise; there is no evidence whatsoever that it increases drug use. Meantime, the costs of prohibition are easily added up....and it ain't the users paying those costs...it's you and me. We pay them with our dollars and with our civil liberties.
Rich
For my money, that it an easy decision. Drug legalization is not a Drug Addict's Paradise; there is no evidence whatsoever that it increases drug use. Meantime, the costs of prohibition are easily added up....and it ain't the users paying those costs...it's you and me. We pay them with our dollars and with our civil liberties.
Rich
Robert J McElwain
New member
The two most addictive drugs out there are heroin and nicotine. This has been known for over fifty years. One is illegal and will send you to jail, The other is legal and heavily taxed. Why is that?
Bob
Bob
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Dunno about heroin, but I'll agree that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances available, legally or illegally.
Let's look at the trends with that:
Despite being legal for adults (and easily obtainable by minors) cigarette smoking prevalence is down over the past 30 years. http://www.no-smoking.org/may04/05-27-04-4.html
Why is that?
I'd suggest that it's due to a successful education campaign. At a nearly invisible fraction of the societal costs of [some drug] Wars and Prohibition, we've impacted nicotine use in ways that we could only hope to impact marijuana, cocaine, barbiturates and amphetamines.
Food for thought.
Rich
Let's look at the trends with that:
Despite being legal for adults (and easily obtainable by minors) cigarette smoking prevalence is down over the past 30 years. http://www.no-smoking.org/may04/05-27-04-4.html
Why is that?
I'd suggest that it's due to a successful education campaign. At a nearly invisible fraction of the societal costs of [some drug] Wars and Prohibition, we've impacted nicotine use in ways that we could only hope to impact marijuana, cocaine, barbiturates and amphetamines.
Food for thought.
Rich
Yes. For all the same reasons that other drug-legalization proponents have stated.
The WoD is a losing proposition with govt and criminals being the only beneficieries. Meanwhile the rest of us are getting our rights pi$$ed away in the name of WoD.
The Darwinism from legalization/non-intervention will benefit us as a society in the long run.
The WoD is a losing proposition with govt and criminals being the only beneficieries. Meanwhile the rest of us are getting our rights pi$$ed away in the name of WoD.
The Darwinism from legalization/non-intervention will benefit us as a society in the long run.
Legalize Drugs?
The concept of taking the profit from the drug dealers seems to have merit and
the PRCs (Chinas) method of dealing with users of HARD drugs likewise. Two attempts at rehabilitation and then third time Bang!
The illegal drug trade has ruined Colombia and Mexico and others, now lawless societies where people are kidnapped and/or murdered. Police either almost non existant or afraid to do anything or in on the trade.
People trying to escape from society and the realities of same will use alcohol, dope, or whatever. They seem to be with us forever. Again the Chinese method of dealing with hard drug users. A millstone about the neck of decent society.
Imagine a moment the heartache of parents with a drug addict son or daughter.
Marijuana or Cannibis Sativa L. likely doesn't lead to hard drugs except in rare occasions. Perhaps we should legalize it or just ignore its use. The government propaganda of the 1930s was ridiculous. Observations tend to
show that very heavy users are not interested in holding jobs, cleanliness, or much besides laying on their asses and listening to loud what they consider music. Light users are generally everywhere going about their normal daily lives. I do not smoke pot or tobacco!
The concept of taking the profit from the drug dealers seems to have merit and
the PRCs (Chinas) method of dealing with users of HARD drugs likewise. Two attempts at rehabilitation and then third time Bang!
The illegal drug trade has ruined Colombia and Mexico and others, now lawless societies where people are kidnapped and/or murdered. Police either almost non existant or afraid to do anything or in on the trade.
People trying to escape from society and the realities of same will use alcohol, dope, or whatever. They seem to be with us forever. Again the Chinese method of dealing with hard drug users. A millstone about the neck of decent society.
Imagine a moment the heartache of parents with a drug addict son or daughter.
Marijuana or Cannibis Sativa L. likely doesn't lead to hard drugs except in rare occasions. Perhaps we should legalize it or just ignore its use. The government propaganda of the 1930s was ridiculous. Observations tend to
show that very heavy users are not interested in holding jobs, cleanliness, or much besides laying on their asses and listening to loud what they consider music. Light users are generally everywhere going about their normal daily lives. I do not smoke pot or tobacco!
In order for it to work there would need to be a drug manufacturer or two or more to be able to supply all the "7 elevens" in the country with all the products at a very reasonable price even after taxes, to effectively put homegrowers and street corner dealers out of business.
Think, how many grow their own tabbaco and make their own cigarettes, or liquor. Very few and the majority who do now, do so for their own or friends use.
Employers would still be able to fire employees who use on the job. Think, what happens now if you show up to work drunk.
Driving laws would stay the same. DW under the influence.
DEA would move in to the bussiness of regulation. Gone would be alot of their funding.
There would be no reason for gangs to battle over "turf" since that form of revenue has been taken away ,and gangs them selves would have no reason to exist unless they moved into other illegal activities.Prostitution, gambling, intimidation.
In the short term other crimes would probably go up.Home invasions, car jackings, muggings. All those who suddenly found them selves out of a "job".
Hundreds of thousands if not millions would have to be released from jail.
Ect.ect.ect....
In short it would never work.
Like it or not we are stuck with this prohibition for a long time to come.
Think, how many grow their own tabbaco and make their own cigarettes, or liquor. Very few and the majority who do now, do so for their own or friends use.
Employers would still be able to fire employees who use on the job. Think, what happens now if you show up to work drunk.
Driving laws would stay the same. DW under the influence.
DEA would move in to the bussiness of regulation. Gone would be alot of their funding.
There would be no reason for gangs to battle over "turf" since that form of revenue has been taken away ,and gangs them selves would have no reason to exist unless they moved into other illegal activities.Prostitution, gambling, intimidation.
In the short term other crimes would probably go up.Home invasions, car jackings, muggings. All those who suddenly found them selves out of a "job".
Hundreds of thousands if not millions would have to be released from jail.
Ect.ect.ect....
In short it would never work.
Like it or not we are stuck with this prohibition for a long time to come.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
????
????You just concluded that:
- Employers would still be able to screen
- Driving Regs would not change
- Taxpayer money to fund the DEA (an myriad other local, state and Federal "task forces") would no longer be necessary
- Street gangs would loose their primary raison d'etre
And that doesn't work?
Because, I assume, you feel that "In the short term other crimes would probably go up.Home invasions, car jackings, muggings." So, you'd rather stick with a permanent situation of the status quo, "benign" crimes currently perpetrated by drug profiting gangs?
As to the "millions" that would be let out of jail....illicit drug sales would still be illicit and punished. Those punished under previous "using" laws broke the law at the time; they don't get some magical GetOutOfJailFree Card as a result of the law change. So, just who would we be letting out that would unleash the Dogs of Chaos?
Rich
That could be addressed by the legislation.Redworm said:
Hypothetically, newly-legalized drugs would be exempt from FDA trials. The only requirement would be purity and an appropriate label identifying the substance, warning that it's part of the 5-year drug legalization experiment, and cautioning that users are on their own. There would also be liability protection for drug distributors as long as purity requirements are met.
All that I am saying is that the amount of people who would need to work together in order to keep the chaos, and there would be chaos at first, to a mimiunm is so great, and the number of people who would have to give up power and money is so many, that for this reason alone it would just plain not work.
And this is not the only reason that it would not work....
As far as those in jail under drug offences, every single one of them would put in to have their case heard and reheard under the new laws. Not to mention all those who were awaiting trial. Thats alot of people and a small number of courts.
Prohibition 1920-1933 13years
The modern day "War On Drugs" 1971-present 30+ years.
It is ingrained by now,drugs so demonized,people so used to having it restricted, that there will even be resistance from people who have nothing to do with drugs one way or the other.
You can't just walk down to the local zoo throw open the cages and yell "your free!" Same principle applies here.
The only way it would work is very slowly by picking the least objectionable drug and start decreasing the penalties on it till it was no longer a crime.
And even this would most likely not work because whoever did that would be percieved to be soft on crime and in favor of drug use.
Would you vote for someone who was soft on crime and in favor of drug use.
Nope, neither would I.
Btw, I am on your side, I would like to see it legalized, but I just don't think it will happen, to many road blocks.
And this is not the only reason that it would not work....
As far as those in jail under drug offences, every single one of them would put in to have their case heard and reheard under the new laws. Not to mention all those who were awaiting trial. Thats alot of people and a small number of courts.
Prohibition 1920-1933 13years
The modern day "War On Drugs" 1971-present 30+ years.
It is ingrained by now,drugs so demonized,people so used to having it restricted, that there will even be resistance from people who have nothing to do with drugs one way or the other.
You can't just walk down to the local zoo throw open the cages and yell "your free!" Same principle applies here.
The only way it would work is very slowly by picking the least objectionable drug and start decreasing the penalties on it till it was no longer a crime.
And even this would most likely not work because whoever did that would be percieved to be soft on crime and in favor of drug use.
Would you vote for someone who was soft on crime and in favor of drug use.
Nope, neither would I.
Btw, I am on your side, I would like to see it legalized, but I just don't think it will happen, to many road blocks.
It would have to go a hell of a lot deeper than that. Marijuana, sure. People don't get thrown in jail for brewing their own beer or growing their own tobacco so guys who grow and share with their friends wouldn't be the issue.
McNeil, on the other hand, can't simply fill dime bags with pure coke and stick it on the shelf next to the Tylenol. Coca and opium based drugs would have to be available by prescription if this idea were ever going to work. Warning labels are simply not enough for chemicals that can have drastic effects on the human body. I'm not one to tell anyone else what they can put into their own bodies but the five year trial would go south as soon as the first group of college kids OD on heroin they bought at Walgreens because they didn't know how to use it or how much to use.
KenpoProfessor
New member
Black Market
There would still be a black market for drugs even if they were legal, but they would be minimal. Cigarettes, alcohol, guns,you know, the legal stuff, can be bought illegally now without taxes or governmental control.
Making drugs legal is a good idea, but whatever is legal, there will still be those that ignore the laws.
BTW, let's throw prostitution in there as well. I've been to Amsterdam and have seen both drugs and prostitution legal, and I have to say, I was quite surprised at how nice it was.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
There would still be a black market for drugs even if they were legal, but they would be minimal. Cigarettes, alcohol, guns,you know, the legal stuff, can be bought illegally now without taxes or governmental control.
Making drugs legal is a good idea, but whatever is legal, there will still be those that ignore the laws.
BTW, let's throw prostitution in there as well. I've been to Amsterdam and have seen both drugs and prostitution legal, and I have to say, I was quite surprised at how nice it was.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
Millions of people have been taking illegal drugs of wildly varying quality for decades. If drugs are legalized, what makes you think that suddenly people will start overdosing on drugs that are commercially prepared at a known concentration and without dangerous cutting agents?
If it makes you feel better, there could be a dose per kg recommendation on the bottle, and the mouse LD50 could be on the bottle in big red letters.
Let me go over your points one at a time bill in IN
In addition, all the problems with employees at my store involves alcohol. You have the employees who drink and don't let it interfere with their job and you have those who get hammered and biatch the next day because they are hung over. You are always going to have that hunover co-worker no matter what you do. Every company has to weed out the new hires and legal drugs won't make that any more difficult.
Besides, we ALREADY have high medical expenses, crime control, etc from drugs being illegal. Mostly because of impure drugs of unknown strength and violence over drug turf. If we made drugs legal, the worst we would have is simple overdoses that are relatively easy to treat instead of stabbings, gunshot wounds, and other complex injuries that take up hospital resources.
You just disproved your own statement against legalizing drugs. You already have to put up with people who are high even though the drugs are illegal. If they where legal, the people who use drugs will continue to do so and those who don't want to won't. (We are legalizing them, not making everyone take them.) I work in retail and people are *ssholes weither they are drunk or sober. Actualy, helping the stoners is quite nice. They tell you what they want, I show them, and they are on their way. They don't bore me with their life story while another customer is needing help, they don't complain that X product is cheaper at Y store, and they don't ask for discounts because they "are your best customer". Stoners are some of the best customers.
In addition, all the problems with employees at my store involves alcohol. You have the employees who drink and don't let it interfere with their job and you have those who get hammered and biatch the next day because they are hung over. You are always going to have that hunover co-worker no matter what you do. Every company has to weed out the new hires and legal drugs won't make that any more difficult.
Not going to happen. Looking at the end of prohibition will show that not to be true. Deaths from "bathtub gin" and gang violence decreased since quality of alcohol improved and the gangs lost their source of funding. Heck, look at alcohol today. Taxes raise large amounts of money, we still spend some money on ER visits and rehab, but as a whole we come out ahead because we don't have to build more prisons and crime overall decreases. When was the last time someone was killed over moonshine turf. A long time, because the profits are so low that very few people partake in bootlegging. It's just easier and cheaper to get it legaly. Tax it at the same rate as alcohol (8% or so.) and you will have few problems.
Besides, we ALREADY have high medical expenses, crime control, etc from drugs being illegal. Mostly because of impure drugs of unknown strength and violence over drug turf. If we made drugs legal, the worst we would have is simple overdoses that are relatively easy to treat instead of stabbings, gunshot wounds, and other complex injuries that take up hospital resources.
You are making this far too complex. Cocaine and other drugs are dirt cheap to produce and their affects are already well known. You don't need to go to the FDA for approval of a new kind of bourbon, beer, or cigarette. All you have to do is have oversight to ensure purity and have the sellers be lisenced like one has to be in order to sell alcohol. If you want to grow your own pot, issue them a permit like someone who has their own still for personal use. If you want to sell your own special blend of pot, you just send a sample for a simple purity test to be sure you arn't cutting it with Laundry soap and they issue you a permit to sell.
If you truely are undermotivated sober, what difference is it going to make if you are high or not.
DonR101395
New member
I have never used an illegal drug, I don't smoke, I don't drink and don't plan to start but.I wouldn't have a problem with legalizing organic drugs. Basically if it can be grown and used without processing it you can use it. That would basically be marijuana, mushrooms, qat and still keep the synthetic drugs like extacy,meth and processed drugs like cocaine and heroin illegal. Then make the penalties stiffer for using the illegal drugs. Place large taxes on the legal drugs to pay for the confinement of those using illegal drugs.
I don't. I do believe, however, that overdoses by these drugs will be given much more attention if they can be purchased with no more trouble than asprin.
Dose per kg? Cocaine, heroin, meth, X, K, mushrooms, salvia....none of those can be dosed like that. A lot more research needs to be put into these drugs before they can be safely sold by prescription and I highly doubt that putting a mere warning label is going to make a difference. People will still die because they don't know what they're doing, they don't know that you can't mix certain drugs, they won't know the addictive properties, the side effects, etc.
Just because we know exactly how much oxycotin is safe for a person to take doesn't mean it's a good idea to sell the stuff OTC. A lot more research is required before opium and coca based drugs - as well as a number of others - could be safely sold at the pharmacy. Anything less would fuel the arguments of antidrug proponents and would be counterproductive.
What makes you think that something from the ground is safer than something made in a lab?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
The same can certainly be said for alcohol and tobacco....oh, yes, and guns, too. Doesn't the double standard bother you at all?
On the one hand, we say you cannot be trusted with items that can harm you; on the other, we harp about personal responsibility. Seems to me you either believe in personal responsibility or you don't. What on earth is the difference between alcohol, tobacco and heroin? Answer: the quality of the first two is regulated.
Rich