[faragbre967]

Would legalization of marijuana and other "soft" drugs, the ones that aren't physically addictive, be a good thing for the US? I'm talking in any form, government sold or not, with harsher hard drug penalties or not. Personally, I think that having the government sell pot they grow would spur the economy a hell of a lot better than our idiot president's tax cut plan. Discuss.

[macvillage.net]

No, definately not.

There would need to be some regulation to keep anything else out of the drugs (mercury from thermometers is often done in small amounts to give a buzz... despite it's dangers)... several other very dangerious chemicals are also put in weed to make them more intoxicating, and more desirable.

So the government would have to ensure the drugs are safter than they are now.

As a result, there would be only so many companies, and so many distributers... meaning high prices.

This would put weed, on a level playing ground with much more hazardous drugs like Crack, Heroine, LSD.

People like weed because it's worth dirt. It costs practically nothing. So selling it has high profit. By the time it gets to the consumer... they still pay very low (considering what other drugs are).

If it were just as expensive as other more potent drugs... those would be the desired drugs.

So it wouldn't lower the use of more elicit drugs... it would increase. This has been proven in places where MJ is legal, including Amsterdam.



Then there is the economic part:

1. People spend more money on recreational drug use from a handful of companies... meaning an increase in drug monopolies.

2. More money spent on these big companies means less money spent on other recreational products/services. People only have X dollars... they can only spend X dollars. If they spend 10% of X on drugs, only 90% is left for other products...

Drug companies employ the rich. Those who would buy the drugs.

The poor once again would be left out, and actually lose. They would get drugs pulled away from them... and less job opportunites, since people are spending more money on companies that employ the rich, rather than goods/services that are produced using the poor.


3. Taxes could never compensate for the social expense of other drugs becoming more prevalent.

IMHO Drug Rehab is a scam. There has never been evidence from anyone but rehab centers to prove they work. People who want to quit, will quit with the help of their own doctor, and non-profit groups found in most community groups (churches, town associations etc.).

If the government posed a tax that would cover the extra burdon... light drugs would cost more than the hard drugs... that would make things worse.



In reality... the best solution is to leave as is. "Fight" it (notice the quootes)... and urge people to stay away.

What happens happens. It's still available at every middle school in the nation, in many cases, can even buy in an elementary school. Every street corner in any majory city, suburb.

Where's the problem now?

It's available, and cheap.

It's technically illegal for the conserviates.

Nobody is losing.

if it changes... everyone loses.


This is like inverted prohabition... it screws up the system.

[nvaughan3]

that was the most ludricrous post I've ever read on here.

[Buck_Naked]

Pot should be treated no differently than alcohol in the eyes of the law.
Drive drunk, drive high = Jail time
Provide drugs/ alcohol to children = Jail time
You can home brew wine and beer, why not grow pot at home?????
Personal growing and use should be legalized.

PS...
I have not smoked Pot in 5 years 1 month and 24 days.
I know I can not smoke Pot, just as an Alcoholic learns they can never drink again.
Are the powers that be worried the country will turn into 250 million potheads??

[voodoo]

Just to keep it clear: cannabis is addictive physiologically and psycholocally. It is *not* a soft drug. (It isn't even good - IMO)

Tobacco on the other hand is much more psycholgically addictive than physiologically.

Alcohol is 100% psychologically addictive, 0% physiologically addictive.

[faragbre967]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
So the government would have to ensure the drugs are safter than they are now.

As a result, there would be only so many companies, and so many distributers... meaning high prices.

This would put weed, on a level playing ground with much more hazardous drugs like Crack, Heroine, LSD.

If the government grew and sold the pot, then they would make all the profit from it. There would be no taxation issues as you said, and no safety issues. Even if they didn't sell it, and only taxed it, it would be like cigarettes or alcohol. You've also got to remember this is a market economy, cheaper products means more customers. If you could get a pack of joints for 5 dollars, the company that sold it would blow up almost over night. Instead of Big Tobacco being around, we'd have Big Mary Jane. But back to the government growing and selling, wouldn't that make a lot of money? I mean, if the ratio of potheads in the country and in my school are equal, then our national debt would be payed off in 2-3 years, and after that our country would be rolling in it. As for social services for addicts... what addicts? It's not even physically addictive, during the summer I smoke 2-3 times a day, then in the winter during school I stop almost completely, cold turkey, no withdrawl or anything. And in response to your comment about Amsterdam having hard drug problems, there is an easy solution. Heavier penalties for having them, worse for selling. You send someone to jail for 15 years for having half a line on them, and that sends a message.

[Captain Obvious]

No THAT is the most ludricrous post ever.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Just to keep it clear: cannabis is addictive physiologically and psycholocally. It is *not* a soft drug. (It isn't even good - IMO)

Tobacco on the other hand is much more psycholgically addictive than physiologically.

Alcohol is 100% psychologically addictive, 0% physiologically addictive.

I note the difference in terminology, but alcohol *is* physically addicting.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
No THAT is the most ludricrous post ever.

Actually quite intelligent. There is some flawed or naive thinking in my opinion but apart with how to deal with hard drugs I agree.

[spacefreak]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Marijuana cannot be legalized until an instrument similar to a breathylizer is developed and widely accepted for use as a roadside test by law enforcement officers.

[nvaughan3]

Divert a billion in spending from the $20B+ we spend annually for the war on drugs...I'm sure it could be developed with that much cash.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by faragbre967:
If the government grew and sold the pot, then they would make all the profit from it. There would be no taxation issues as you said, and no safety issues. Even if they didn't sell it, and only taxed it, it would be like cigarettes or alcohol. You've also got to remember this is a market economy, cheaper products means more customers. If you could get a pack of joints for 5 dollars, the company that sold it would blow up almost over night. Instead of Big Tobacco being around, we'd have Big Mary Jane. But back to the government growing and selling, wouldn't that make a lot of money? I mean, if the ratio of potheads in the country and in my school are equal, then our national debt would be payed off in 2-3 years, and after that our country would be rolling in it. As for social services for addicts... what addicts? It's not even physically addictive, during the summer I smoke 2-3 times a day, then in the winter during school I stop almost completely, cold turkey, no withdrawl or anything. And in response to your comment about Amsterdam having hard drug problems, there is an easy solution. Heavier penalties for having them, worse for selling. You send someone to jail for 15 years for having half a line on them, and that sends a message.

Government providing a product for sale.... now if that isn't a big ethical issue... at the very least a debate over the issues of Free market and enterprise....

In a free market, and an economy like this. That's about as acceptable as the president dismissing congress.

The government being the sole provider of a product that can be grown by a 6 year olds as a science project.


The only products a government can/should provide are ones that individuals can't tackle alone (famous examples are roads, defense, lighthouses).

The government could easily provide a univeral Operating System that allows only them to get past encryption in communications and outlaw all other systems....

that wouldn't go over very well... with conservatives or liberals.

The idea of the government selling weed is approaching an economic system typically found in totalitarian states.


----------------
Heavier penalities don't work either. The penalties for drug posession in the US has risen over the years. And usage has trippled in the same time.

Penalties don't do anything. If they did, this wouldn't even be a debate right now.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Marijuana cannot be legalized until an instrument similar to a breathylizer is developed and widely accepted for use as a roadside test by law enforcement officers.

AFAIK they have one that's been as accurate as an alcohol brethylizer test for several years now... it's just not used because most don't think MJ is as much of a problem behind the wheel as alcohol (in terms of usage).

Paying for all those machines is a lot of cash.

And the truth is, they don't want to stop all drunk driving/drug accidents...IF they did, they would have 1 strike policies in all states regarding drunk driving like many other countries... convicted once... no more license.

It's the only way for organ doners to become available.

Nobody wants the heart of a 90 year old man. Nobody wants the lungs of a cancer patient, the liver of an AIDS patient. Perhaps they are all bigots for turning these down?

How else does a perfectly healthy individual between 18-45 (ideal age for donor) just die, without causing harm to organs?

Remember: Airbags protect the body very well.. most deaths are either blood loss, or head impact. The organs in the chest cavity are ripe for havesting after most accidents.


The theme for the US is "Moderation". Allow, but prevent abuse. The current system allows that.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Just to keep it clear: cannabis is addictive physiologically and psycholocally. It is *not* a soft drug. (It isn't even good - IMO)

Tobacco on the other hand is much more psycholgically addictive than physiologically.

Alcohol is 100% psychologically addictive, 0% physiologically addictive.

From Time magazine recent cover story on pot - "...the risk of becoming dependent on marijuana is comparatively low. Just 9% of those who have used the drug develop dependence. By comparison, 15% of drinkers become dependent on alcohol, 23% of heroin users get hooked, and a third (33%) of tobacco smokers become slaves to cigarettes."

[pooka]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
From Time magazine recent cover story on pot - "...the risk of becoming dependent on marijuana is comparatively low. Just 9% of those who have used the drug develop dependence. By comparison, 15% of drinkers become dependent on alcohol, 23% of heroin users get hooked, and a third (33%) of tobacco smokers become slaves to cigarettes."

Heroin users get "hooked" yet cigarette smokers are slaves? Sweet.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
From Time magazine recent cover story on pot - "...the risk of becoming dependent on marijuana is comparatively low. Just 9% of those who have used the drug develop dependence. By comparison, 15% of drinkers become dependent on alcohol, 23% of heroin users get hooked, and a third (33%) of tobacco smokers become slaves to cigarettes."

The big controvercy about that is how many as a result of pot, move on to another drug and get addicted?

Remember most pot users try another drug at least once (intentionally, or put into what they wanted).

[simonjames]

Rehab is for quitters


Legalise the lot - more people use drugs than any government in the world knows - the statistics are invalid as most people are not going to admit being on an illegal substance. Legalising will reduce overdoses and drug related crime.

The only problem I can see is newly created high unemployment in the groups of people who supply drugs - these groups and conservatives are the only people who vocally oppose legalisation.

[simonjames]

Those Time stats look completely BS

15% of all people who drink become dependant on alcohol? What a load of crap - I would say less than 5%. Though I am speaking about Australia and not the US.

Similarly I am no heroin expert but the addiction figures IMO are more likely to be 60+%

[Psychonaut]

Its amusing how everyone here has spoken in practical terms of whether leagalization might be good or bad for the economy and quoting addiction statistics, but how is it that none of you have actually asked the question is it a right? Is it a man's right to own his own body; to do with it as he pleases? Is it his right when his actions hurt no one else but himself, when the recipient of his own, foolish descision is no one but himself? And do you really fear that most Americans would actually consider trying heroin, legalised or not? Take a good, hard look at what a couple people on this thread have been proposing. "You send someone to jail for 15 years for having half a line on them, and that sends a message." Fifteen years for doing what you please with your nose? I'm insulted when you suggest that I am stupid enough to not make a descision about my own body, my own life, and that the only thing stopping me from snorting a line of cocaine is losing 15 years of my life to jail. To speak in your favorite terms, the practical, leaving ethical and moral considerations aside: Should the American public be forced to pay for the cost of prison time, while at the same time letting violent criminals go free (both from prison overcrowding and police resources spent on the War on Drugs,) of a man who's victim was no one but himself? Hmm?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The big controvercy about that is how many as a result of pot, move on to another drug and get addicted?

Remember most pot users try another drug at least once (intentionally, or put into what they wanted).

Don't start with that gateway myth stuff. Common sense will tell you that is just a scare tactic. How many tens of millions of people have smoked pot since the sixties? I don't have the numbers but I imagine that the amount that became addicted to harder stuff is insignificant in number compared to pot smokers.The two are unrelated.

You've probably heard this before but most serial killers have eaten french fries so are you likely to become a serial killer because you ate fries at some point? Hardly.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Those Time stats look completely BS

15% of all people who drink become dependant on alcohol? What a load of crap - I would say less than 5%. Though I am speaking about Australia and not the US.

Similarly I am no heroin expert but the addiction figures IMO are more likely to be 60+%

Well, it is Time magazine. Not likely they would just make it up. It's not like they're the NYTimes, you know...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Don't start with that gateway myth stuff. Common sense will tell you that is just a scare tactic. How many tens of millions of people have smoked pot since the sixties? I don't have the numbers but I imagine that the amount that became addicted to harder stuff is insignificant in number compared to pot smokers.The two are unrelated.

You've probably heard this before but most serial killers have eaten french fries so are you likely to become a serial killer because you ate fries at some point? Hardly.

I can tell you that in High Schools, it's very safe to say that about half have experimented with either Cocane, Crack, or Heroine.

Harder drugs are as common, if not more common than pot.

Pot is just light enough to mention. If someone says "I smoke pot"... nobody cares.

"I enjoy cocane every once in a while". And people just stare.

There is a reason there are more cocane busts than pot busts... despite pot being easy to find, just check any middle school locker, and it's there.... it's not really used as much. Hence not enough of a priority.

If pot were something were the problem... they would be easily able to stop it.

The problem is the real drugs that people do.

Remember: Most pot sold in the US contains other ingredients. Either mercury, crack, or some other drug. People don't like just strait up pot.

You most likely don't enjoy the pot, but whatever else is in there.

It's like mixed drinks. Alcoholics always love mixed drinks. Because they drink a lot of Orange Juice No... because for every sip out of the drink they take, the refill with hard liquor. So even if the glass was half filled with OJ... they drank 99% liquor by the end.


The question here is not the pot, but the other drugs that it does lead to, and are most used. Pot is *not* the most used drug.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Remember: Most pot sold in the US contains other ingredients. Either mercury, crack, or some other drug. People don't like just strait up pot.

You most likely don't enjoy the pot, but whatever else is in there.

You are absolutely wrong here. Most pot sold in the US is just that...pot. In my heyday (for about 10 years), I can't even add up the amount of money I've spent on pot...easily into the thousands of dollars - and only once did I ever smoke something that I felt was 'fishy'.

My friends and I were also big into the Phish/Dead/DMB scene, and pot was everywhere, and everyone had ample supply. If anyone knows pot, it's me, and I'll tell you flat-out that your above statement is completely wrong.

As for legalization - no way. Those who want it can get it anyway. No need to have it sitting on a convenience store counter next to the bubble gum. Also, it absolutely impairs driving ability. Until there are dependable roadside tests, legalization motions are simply cries in the wind.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I can tell you that in High Schools, it's very safe to say that about half have experimented with either Cocane, Crack, or Heroine.

Well sorry, but you are wrong.

The "National High School Survey," also known as the Monitoring the Future Survey has been administered every year since 1975 to between 15,000 and 18,000 graduating high school seniors annually from approximately 150 high schools nationwide. Beginning with 1991, this survey also gathered limited data from 8th and 10th grade students in the same school corporations. It is administered through the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research on behalf of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The results used in this report's comparisons are those from approximately 50,000 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students in more than 400 schools nationwide.

http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/...erview2002.pdf

Nearly 40% have tried marijuana. Inhalants are at 7%. LSD is at 3%. Cocaine is at 5%. Crack, 2%. Amphetamines? 12%. Heroin? 1%.

Harder drugs are as common, if not more common than pot.

Nope. Page 13: Over 85% report pot is "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. LSD? 40%. Coke? 43%. Crack? 40%. Amphetamines? 58%. Heroin? 30%.

It has additional statistics if you would like to verify them for other drugs like x, ice, barbituates, and more.

Pot is just light enough to mention. If someone says "I smoke pot"... nobody cares.

"I enjoy cocane every once in a while". And people just stare.

Perhaps because these harder drugs can cause death, while marijuana does not. Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, which culls statistics from actual emergency room reports from physicians in the 42 largest cities, show that there were 10,123 drug deaths in 1998, 53 percent of which were due to cocaine or heroin. And that number is obviously not the total number of deaths.

There is a reason there are more cocane busts than pot busts... despite pot being easy to find, just check any middle school locker, and it's there.... it's not really used as much. Hence not enough of a priority.

There are WAY more marijuana "busts" that cocaine busts, you just dont hear about them. We had a 800 pound pot bust in our local area last week. Pics: http://www.nealv.com/gallery/album28 .

Remember: Most pot sold in the US contains other ingredients. Either mercury, crack, or some other drug. People don't like just strait up pot.

You most likely don't enjoy the pot, but whatever else is in there.

Bullsh!t. Marijuana potency has steadily been rising for 30 years but I challenge you to provide a source that says that most marijuana is tainted. Absolute rubbish.

It's like mixed drinks. Alcoholics always love mixed drinks. Because they drink a lot of Orange Juice No... because for every sip out of the drink they take, the refill with hard liquor. So even if the glass was half filled with OJ... they drank 99% liquor by the end.

I'm mindboggled by this. I dont even know how to respond it's so off-base.

The question here is not the pot, but the other drugs that it does lead to, and are most used. Pot is *not* the most used drug.

It certainly is in the US, at least in terms of illicit drugs.

[daimoni]

.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by daimoni:
All you need is a bag of Scooby Snacks. Hold up the bag to the suspect... and see how they react.

The police may even get free help in solving a wacky caper/mystery.

Why, that's no typical suspect - behind the mask is Old Man Williams from the Carnival!

"And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that daimoni and those meddling kids! And that stupid dog!"

[things]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Just to keep it clear: cannabis is addictive physiologically and psycholocally. It is *not* a soft drug. (It isn't even good - IMO)

Wrong! Psychological only

Tobacco on the other hand is much more psycholgically addictive than physiological.

Wrong- Physiological more than Psycological

Alcohol is 100% psychologically addictive, 0% physiologically addictive.

Wrong again.

[nvaughan3]

Actually I've personally seen physical withdrawal from a cannabis user before. Without a doubt he had developed a physical dependence on it. But that certainly is not the norm. But yes, he is wrong about alcohol.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

The question here is not the pot, but the other drugs that it does lead to, and are most used. Pot is *not* the most used drug.

macvillage.net, I'm just going to appeal to your common sense here.

Think about how many tens of millions (in the US alone) have tried or used MJ once or on a semi-regular basis. If even 1/2 of 1% of those moved on to harder addictive drugs we'd be dealing with addiction rates of epidemic proportion. That is just NOT the case.

To state that pot leads to harder drugs is a myth. The numbers don't support it. There is no more connection between pot and heroin than there is between heroin and wine drinkers, or beer drinkers, or milk drinkers.

Personally, my (non-professional) opinion is that in any given population you will always find a certain percentage that have a disposition to psychological/physical addiction. Much like if you can take a population and say that a certain % will die of heart disease, or of cancer, or be gay. (Don't mean to equate being gay with a deadly disease, just making a comparison)

[MrNo]

Smoking pot every day is crap. But if you are modest about it then it can work out. I've never had any problems driving stoned, while if I'm drunk (not often) it's like playing a video game
Legalizing it would be a wise decision. I read somewhere (long time ago can't remember the source) that Holland had las pot heads percentage wise then UK or Germany ...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by MrNo:
Smoking pot every day is crap. But if you are modest about it then it can work out. I've never had any problems driving stoned, while if I'm drunk (not often) it's like playing a video game
Legalizing it would be a wise decision. I read somewhere (long time ago can't remember the source) that Holland had las pot heads percentage wise then UK or Germany ...

I'd trust your opinion a lot more if you were a Doctor. Of course then you'd be Dr. No...

"Do you expect me to talk?"

"No, no, Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE."

[Spliffdaddy]

legal or not I'll still smoke pot.

hey that rhymes

A lot of misinformation out there. Reckon folks oughtta smoke a doobie and learn for themselves.

I'd rather it stay illegal - since the price is cheap and the availability is excellent. The government involvement would just muck up a good thing.

Status quo for Spliffdaddy.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Just to keep it clear: cannabis is addictive physiologically and psycholocally. It is *not* a soft drug. (It isn't even good - IMO)

Tobacco on the other hand is much more psycholgically addictive than physiologically.

Alcohol is 100% psychologically addictive, 0% physiologically addictive.

I would say that you have it backwards on almost every count.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I can tell you that in High Schools, it's very safe to say that about half have experimented with either Cocane, Crack, or Heroine.

Harder drugs are as common, if not more common than pot.

[snip]

Remember: Most pot sold in the US contains other ingredients. Either mercury, crack, or some other drug. People don't like just strait up pot.

[snip]

he question here is not the pot, but the other drugs that it does lead to, and are most used. Pot is *not* the most used drug.

This post sets some sort of record for nonsense, but nvaughn3 did a nice job of setting the record straight.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
macvillage.net, I'm just going to appeal to your common sense here.

sounds good

Think about how many tens of millions (in the US alone) have tried or used MJ once or on a semi-regular basis. If even 1/2 of 1% of those moved on to harder addictive drugs we'd be dealing with addiction rates of epidemic proportion. That is just NOT the case.

You obviously don't know how prevalent harder drugs are middle and high school. Cocane is not really a big deal in most middle and upper class areas. It's well spread (even easier to get your hands on than pot).

If anything, more people are using harder drugs, than pot.... it's just that you can't show these problems in an upper class white neighborhood... these are the ghetto's problems.

Parents in upper class neigborhoods even fight the police to stop crackdowns... saying it makes the neighborhood look cheap. At least that's what's happening on the east coast.

Meanwhile... I could score some cocane in less than 5 minutes if I really wanted. Weed... perhaps about the same... would have to look harders, since not as many users.

To state that pot leads to harder drugs is a myth. The numbers don't support it. There is no more connection between pot and heroin than there is between heroin and wine drinkers, or beer drinkers, or milk drinkers.

That's obviously the debate... nobody has real numbers. There are no real numbers.

The only numbers are from either from anti-drug organizations like the FDA etc... or the pro-legalization effort, who also found that smoking during pregnacy is a good thing.

Both sides are biased... and completely off the wall.

Personally, my (non-professional) opinion is that in any given population you will always find a certain percentage that have a disposition to psychological/physical addiction. Much like if you can take a population and say that a certain % will die of heart disease, or of cancer, or be gay. (Don't mean to equate being gay with a deadly disease, just making a comparison)

You couldn't be more right. I'm convinced it runs in families.

There was a report a few years back that found out of thousands of alcoholics... all had an alcoholic in the family... or didn't know their family history well enough to say so.

I know it runs in my family... both sides. A clear line through the families.

I know others with the same.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
legal or not I'll still smoke pot.

<snip>

I'd rather it stay illegal - since the price is cheap and the availability is excellent. The government involvement would just muck up a good thing.

<snip>

Exactly the point!!!!!

You can still do it. It's the cheapest way to do so. Who loses here? NOBODY. You can buy at a middle school if you want... As long as you don't buy in front of a cop... nobody could give a rats ass.

What does benefit does legalization have? Nothing more than the word... all sides lose.

There is no benefit for legalization. It would only be a negative thing.

There is no negative to having it illegal... just means prices are low.

[zigzag]

Perhaps the best available resource on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

[clod]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's well spread (even easier to get your hands on than pot).

If anything, more people are using harder drugs, than pot....

Complete and utter bullsh�t.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

You obviously don't know how prevalent harder drugs are middle and high school. Cocaine is not really a big deal in most middle and upper class areas. It's well spread (even easier to get your hands on than pot).

If anything, more people are using harder drugs, than pot.... it's just that you can't show these problems in an upper class white neighborhood... these are the ghetto's problems.

Again, if you take it back to the rebirth of the sixties drug culture we're talking about tens of millions of people. Maybe hundreds of millions if you count the whole world. According to your logic ALL those people from the last forty years are hard drug addicts now because they started smoking pot. That clearly is NOT THE CASE. So, is that what you're saying? Are there hundreds of millions of hard drug addicts right now? Addicts who can't function in society because they're supporting their drug habit?

So to state that pot is a gateway to hard drug addiction is clearly false. Your premise is wrong.

You couldn't be more right. I'm convinced it runs in families.

There was a report a few years back that found out of thousands of alcoholics... all had an alcoholic in the family... or didn't know their family history well enough to say so.

I know it runs in my family... both sides. A clear line through the families.

I know others with the same.

You might agree with my statement but I think you're missing my point. It isn't pot, per se, that is the problem. If pot didn't exist, it would be some other drug, food, or activity. There is always going to be a certain percentage of the population addicted to something.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by clod:
Complete and utter bullsh�t.

Move to America.

It's much easier for anyone to get hard drugs than weed.

Just getting caught is worse.

It's also much more widely used in reality.

Just when people say "I use cocane", the record stops.

There is a reason why weed is cheap... because they can't move the inventory.

[Spliffdaddy]

you 'misinformed' guys would crap your pants if you knew how many people smoke pot on a daily basis.

It's almost as popular as cigarettes.

Downright amazing, if ya ask me.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
you 'misinformed' guys would crap your pants if you knew how many people smoke pot on a daily basis.

It's almost as popular as cigarettes.

Downright amazing, if ya ask me.

Spliff, I think this is the only issue you and I agree on. That truly is 'downright amazing'.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
<snip>
According to your logic ALL those people from the last forty years are hard drug addicts now because they started smoking pot. That clearly is NOT THE CASE. So, is that what you're saying? Are there hundreds of millions of hard drug addicts right now? Addicts who can't function in society because they're supporting their drug habit?

Yes, there are many hard drug "addicts"...

Just because your an addict, doesn't mean you can't hold a job.

As long as you have your steady supply... you can operate. It's when there is an imbalance in the supply that there are issues.

The obvious exception of surgons, pilots, and such positions where the sharpest clearest mind is needed... byond those of a normal individual.

Many Americans have trouble sleeping if they don't drink Alcohol in the evening.... this is documented from as far back as the 1800's... that doesn't mean 50% of Americans are laying in the gutter.

It means they have a dependancy.

Most people with a dependancy never seek help.... most can't afford it.

I know family members, and friends with family members who have had cronic alcoholics for their entire lives... 70 years of binge drinking nightly.... never went to an AA meeting.

Working a blue collar job... lived their lives... died of liver cancer in a few cases... heart attack in another...

The primise that all hardcore drug users are not functioning is far from the truth.

The problem is the side effects on society that it causes (see my first post).


I personally couldn't give a damn if 10k people decided to commit a mass suicide... in my mind, that puts me a bit closer to having some social security to collect when I'm older.... and some more security for my parents/grandparents. -- yea, perhaps I'm cold hearted... but the American way is about what's best for *me*. 10k killing them selves has a serious *benefit* for me... not enough to harm the economy, or harm me in any real way (provided their method of death wasn't poison gas or something). Murder is bad... sucicide I'm all for...

The problem is the overall effect on society... which you have yet to address (again see post #1).

So to state that pot is a gateway to hard drug addiction is clearly false. Your premise is wrong.

Your focusing on something that is completely irrelevant to the legalization issue. It's a sticking point just becuase it's a fun topic... not because it's worth anything.

Legalizing pot has no advantages period. It's more of an advantage to keep it illegal... for everyone.

Secondly... legalizing pot, means by definition we should legalize most perscription drugs.. and lead to that... since most would have less of an impact on the body, and society than pot... Extacy being the first on the list. LSD would also be high on the list.

It is a gatway drug only in the fact that most people use their first "non pot" (for lack of a better word) through it. As most pot has additives to make it more effective. Pot on it's own is not very potent by today's standards... especially considering other drugs available in Europe and Asia.... to keep Pot attractive to the user, they add more to it... that way you get the same punch... without having to buy the more expensive imported drugs... that means more profit for the dealer... and better bang for your buck.

Back when this started in the 60's... people died from it (concerts were often where this was done). Now they realized if people die from this... the police track down who did it... so they moderated.

When people realize, you can get something even better, for just as much money... why buy the pot? It's just filler. Use less at a time... and get the same effect. That was the premisis behind Crack... It's a cheap substitute... it gives a major high... at a low cost... Unlike pot, it's easy to carry, and is cheap for what it can do... you can get much more milage out of a drug like that then pot.... just use less crack... get the same effect, at less risk..


But rest assured that you have smoked more than just MJ. IF it really was pure MJ... you got about as much of a buzz as you would from opening a window at a gas station.

You might agree with my statement but I think you're missing my point. It isn't pot, per se, that is the problem. If pot didn't exist, it would be some other drug, food, or activity. There is always going to be a certain percentage of the population addicted to something. [/B]

I believe if you read, rather than put your text over mine, this would be phrased differently.

My point isn't that POT itself is the problem.

My point is that legalizing it, brings out the addictive behavior.

When the speed limit was 55 in most states... people did 65-75... when they brought it up to 65 (and doubled fines) people started 75-85....

People will always take it a step further. That's human nature. That's what happened to all great empires (overstreached their limits). That's what happened to everything that was good in the past, and all that was evil.

That's the way the world works.

Again... just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's hard to find. You can find anything you want, no further than your nearest school.

Legalizing it... just pushes the general population to the next step. If coccane is concidered ok in High Schools already... provided you do it only at parties....

what happens when it's taken to the next step?


Again, there is no problem with the system today... you can buy, sell, use without being hastled...provided you do it at home.

You can't drink in a public place in most cities like NYC (even in a paper bag)... but does that mean you can't get drunk? NO... millions get drunk every night in NYC.

There is no advantage to legalization. Nobody benefits on any side of the argument.

[vmarks]

Incorrect- when you legalize, you gain better control of distribution.

Alcohol is sold in the convenience store, gas station, and bar, but it is not sold in the playgrounds, and it is not as readily available to children as drugs are.

Availability at high school parties is a non-starter argument. First off, it isn't available at parties that are school sponsored- if it is available at any parties, they are ones that are at a student's home, where a parent is ultimately responsible. You don't legislate prohibition based on a person's poor parenting decisions. Instead, you take action against that parent.


Legalize the substance and license the establishments that can sell it, and you gain better (not perfect, better) controls over who may and may not be the customer.

If this isn't an advantage, what is?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
As most pot has additives to make it more effective. Pot on it's own is not very potent by today's standards... especially considering other drugs available in Europe and Asia.... to keep Pot attractive to the user, they add more to it... that way you get the same punch... without having to buy the more expensive imported drugs... that means more profit for the dealer... and better bang for your buck.

Back when this started in the 60's... people died from it (concerts were often where this was done). Now they realized if people die from this... the police track down who did it... so they moderated.

[snip]

But rest assured that you have smoked more than just MJ. IF it really was pure MJ... you got about as much of a buzz as you would from opening a window at a gas station.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Incorrect- when you legalize, you gain better control of distribution.

Alcohol is sold in the convenience store, gas station, and bar, but it is not sold in the playgrounds, and it is not as readily available to children as drugs are.

Availability at high school parties is a non-starter argument. First off, it isn't available at parties that are school sponsored- if it is available at any parties, they are ones that are at a student's home, where a parent is ultimately responsible. You don't legislate prohibition based on a person's poor parenting decisions. Instead, you take action against that parent.


Legalize the substance and license the establishments that can sell it, and you gain better (not perfect, better) controls over who may and may not be the customer.

If this isn't an advantage, what is?

another one is eliminating drug related crime; keeping it out of the hands of the criminals, crime rates drop, and the police can focus on real issues. your taxes can be spent on more usefull stuff instead of maintaining users and dealers in prisons.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You have no idea what you're talking about. Where do you come up with this stuff?

he's smoking crack

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Incorrect- when you legalize, you gain better control of distribution.

Alcohol is sold in the convenience store, gas station, and bar, but it is not sold in the playgrounds, and it is not as readily available to children as drugs are.

Availability at high school parties is a non-starter argument. First off, it isn't available at parties that are school sponsored- if it is available at any parties, they are ones that are at a student's home, where a parent is ultimately responsible. You don't legislate prohibition based on a person's poor parenting decisions. Instead, you take action against that parent.


Legalize the substance and license the establishments that can sell it, and you gain better (not perfect, better) controls over who may and may not be the customer.

If this isn't an advantage, what is?

Hmm... you live in a really nice place.

I remember seeing beer at a 6th grade school dance... Catholic School, in a very rich area (I commuted from a further away town )

Alcohol is very easy to obtain if your tall enough to look over the counter.

Not many parents keep it out of reach.

To say there is better control is almost silly. Any kid over the age of 12 can easily get their hands on beer if they want. Don't even need money... just go home. Or to a friends house. Or pay someone in front of a liquor store... or in many cases... sneek someone at the liquor store some cash (if you look old enough to be close to the legal age).

Alcohol is a perfect example not to legalize.

It's the most accessible "drug" or intoxicating device available.

I think most kids have a harder time getting asprin.... seriously. In my school, and drugs (perscription or not) would result in mandatory drug counciling... even asprin... need to have a parents note... and go to the nurse to get it. Big trouble for violators.

Caught with Alcohol on school grounds... a few days in School suspension if first offense... second offense, perhaps a meeting with a counceler.

Much less (and the subject of many arguments between school <--> students).... they claim there was good reason...although I can't the big deal. If anything, treat both equal.


Illegalizing is the best way... low prices, available for those who want... deter certain individual from overusage...

Nobody loses on it. Both sides win.

You can't drink on the streets anyway. But you can drink at home... you can safely smoke at home too. Heck there are bars where they don't mind you smoke (despite it being illegal)... they are the ones that are never smoky... they have that giant noisy ventalation system (for good reason).


There is no good reason to legalize....

It would only cause hardship on smokers, and non-smokers alike.

yakkiebah
another one is eliminating drug related crime; keeping it out of the hands of the criminals, crime rates drop, and the police can focus on real issues. your taxes can be spent on more usefull stuff instead of maintaining users and dealers in prisons.

Umm.... if it were legalized... that would be one less thing we could charge criminals with.

Notice nobody gets bused for smoking weed (if that's seriously all you were doing).

Drug related crime goes will beyond MJ... it's more hard drugs that are related to it. So legalizing if anything would make drug related crime higher... since they would have a better market....

commerically available drugs would be taxed like crazy... not to mention "production costs".... so it would be expensive.

Now a dealer on the streets can charge almost nothing for the same product (perhaps a bit more potent)....

It just makes them more attractive. Now instead of competing against all low priced dealers... they are competing against very high priced dealers.


You don't really think all medication costs as much as we pay in the US do you? Cross the border and pay half at most on most over the counter and perscription drugs.... It's the same idea. By the time the Feds, and the big companies take their cut, the prices are 10X higher.



Legalization is a request for higher prices. It's economics 101. Price+10corporate_profit+2tax = gaint prices

cost_of_seeds+flowerpot+guys_revenue = much lower prices

It will still be very restricted (odds are 21+ at best)... so it's not like a 12 year old will be able to smoke during recess outside... they will still be in the bathroom stalls.

Other than that... nothing changes.

Why the heck people want higher prices is still unanswered.

Perhaps Apple can hike the price of the new Power Macs to please the Mac community? Since higher prices means it's worth it. Or wait... does there need to be a benefit to justify the higher prices.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Secondly... legalizing pot, means by definition we should legalize most perscription drugs.. and lead to that... since most would have less of an impact on the body, and society than pot... Extacy being the first on the list. LSD would also be high on the list.

It is a gatway drug only in the fact that most people use their first "non pot" (for lack of a better word) through it. As most pot has additives to make it more effective. Pot on it's own is not very potent by today's standards... especially considering other drugs available in Europe and Asia.... to keep Pot attractive to the user, they add more to it... that way you get the same punch... without having to buy the more expensive imported drugs... that means more profit for the dealer... and better bang for your buck.

Back when this started in the 60's... people died from it (concerts were often where this was done). Now they realized if people die from this... the police track down who did it... so they moderated.

Again, there is no problem with the system today... you can buy, sell, use without being hastled...provided you do it at home.

You can't drink in a public place in most cities like NYC (even in a paper bag)... but does that mean you can't get drunk? NO... millions get drunk every night in NYC.

There's really no point in continuing this with you.

Seriously, and I'm not saying this to be sarcastic or condescending, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You are all over the place.

You should really, if you're truly interested in the subject, try reading some books on the subject. Especially try to read a point of view that challenges your perceptions. You're locked into some logic roundabout that needs to be cleared in some way.

...but before I leave I need to address this:

Back when this started in the 60's... people died from it (concerts were often where this was done). Now they realized if people die from this... the police track down who did it... so they moderated.

There is absolutely NO DOCUMENTED case of ANYONE dying from a pot overdose. NOT ONE. The drug doesn't act on the body in that way. If you continue to believe this than there really is no hope for you to ever comprhend the subject. Really.

[clod]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
There is a reason why weed is cheap... because they can't move the inventory.

Wrong. Weed is cheap because the supply meets the demand and production costs are very low. Dealers have no problem selling it.

[Spliffdaddy]

nothing is added to pot to make it more potent - this would cost money and dealers ain't giving you nuthin for free. Besides, you can tell the quality of pot simply by looking at it. Adding 'something' to bad quality pot to make it 'better' is pointless - it'll still look like crap and nobody will buy it. Tell 'em you put 'something' in it and I'll guarantee you won't even be able to give it away. Pot is a plant. It comes in different varieties just like trees and corn and watermelon plants. Out of the last thousand times I've bought a sack of weed, not once did I suspect 'something' had been added to it. If it tastes funny it is likely because it was cured improperly and the mold is affecting the taste.

Pot is cheap because the manufacture and sale of it can result in almost pure profit. Dirt, water, sunlight. You can afford that. Seeds are available if you buy pot containing seeds. I'd guess that pot sold in America is primarily from Mexico and Kentucky. The months following 9/11 saw a drop in supply which I attribute to increased scrutiny at our Mexican border.

Smoking pot never killed anyone. Alcohol, on the other hand...

Let me tell you folks something. There ain't nuthin on God's green Earth that will get you more f*cked up than alcohol will. and it's legal. What more could you want?

[nvaughan3]

why do i not find it surprising that macvillage.net did not address any of the points i made. I stated legitimate and source FACTS which refuted his statements, and asked him to substantiate his "facts" yet he keeps spewing the same crap like his word is god. Unbelievable.