[subego]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

how would the regulators deal with people who don't want to smoke but may live above someone who does? how do you deal with people getting contact highs from excessive smoking? what if the person is hotboxing their apartment with a party or something? seems like it'd be a lot harder to contain smoke that gets you stoned from getting to people who don't want to get stoned.

People hotbox because it costs more per ounce than uranium yellowcake. Of course, that's a ridiculous price for something which is essentially a nuisance plant.

Mmmmm... yellowcake.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

how would the regulators deal with people who don't want to smoke but may live above someone who does? how do you deal with people getting contact highs from excessive smoking? what if the person is hotboxing their apartment with a party or something? seems like it'd be a lot harder to contain smoke that gets you stoned from getting to people who don't want to get stoned.

Here people have to live with it. A landlord can't boot some one out just for smoking pot. They are on the hook to fix the suite that leaks it in so it does not. Police don't enforce causal use here at all (in BC) But we also have pretty good renter protection laws here which favors renters not landlords. In my building of the units I know smoke weed, the one below me, the unit beside me on my side of the building, the 2 units across from me facing the other side and the unit below me facing the other side. Those are just the ones I know of fore sure. Wouldn't be surprised if half of the entire building smokes up.

Its common enough that when I go for walks I will at least once a week walk past some one smoking a J. Its pretty difficult now to stay 100% away from it. But I can understand those that don't want to be around it. When I quit smoking which lasted 2 months until Easter every time I was near a smoker I got annoyed by the smell of the cig. I imagine its the same for some one who does not want to be near pot too.

I think Amsterdam has a good model that we could follow here in North America. Coffee shops for smoking and home only. No public smoking. For those living in proper apartment buildings you shouldn't smell it from other units. Basement suites, older buildings could be a problem that landlords should address.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

how would the regulators deal with people who don't want to smoke but may live above someone who does? how do you deal with people getting contact highs from excessive smoking? what if the person is hot boxing their apartment with a party or something? seems like it'd be a lot harder to contain smoke that gets you stoned from getting to people who don't want to get stoned.

There is the "secondhand smoke" issue with marijuana as well. My brother, who supported the smoking ban in bars initiative here in Az (he's in a band), is also pushing for decriminalization of marijuana.

[RobOnTheCape]

That's hilarious - really funny. I know many many successful business people who light up on occasion. One person I don't know, but someone I think of as kinda successful is Richard Branson. Google him along with Marijuana and pull up a few videos of him and his crusade to decriminalize the stuff. I'll bet he twists a few up now and then while basking away on his island.

[subego]

“If you don't think drugs have done good things for us, then take all of your records, tapes and CD's and burn them.”

- Bill Hicks

[abbaZaba]

I'm VERY for decriminalization for the record and am a smoker but I still think the preferences of other people who don't want anything to do with marijuana isn't taken into account often enough.

You can't get drunk from other people consuming alcohol, and "contact highs" are dubious in my opinion but the fact remains that this smoke that can get you high even if you are an unwilling participant. In my mind, that's the toughest part of the legalization of marijuana.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

I'm VERY for decriminalization for the record and am a smoker but I still think the preferences of other people who don't want anything to do with marijuana isn't taken into account often enough.

Agreed. But, is this any different from people who don't want anything to do with cigarette smoke?

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by subego 

People hotbox because it costs more per ounce than uranium yellowcake. Of course, that's a ridiculous price for something which is essentially a nuisance plant.

Mmmmm... yellowcake.

in my experience people don't hotbox to conserve weed. my point was that more smoke is created as opposed to smoking a cigarette

Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape 

That's hilarious - really funny. I know many many successful business people who light up on occasion. One person I don't know, but someone I think of as kinda successful is Richard Branson. Google him along with Marijuana and pull up a few videos of him and his crusade to decriminalize the stuff. I'll bet he twists a few up now and then while basking away on his island.

that's the thing- I really think that people just have no idea how many people occasionally toke up in private.

Originally Posted by subego 

“If you don't think drugs have done good things for us, then take all of your records, tapes and CD's and burn them.”

- Bill Hicks

+1000. love bill hicks

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Agreed. But, is this any different from people who don't want anything to do with cigarette smoke?

I feel it is different because a cigarette buzz is nothing like a weed buzz. Like I said, I'm not super sure a "contact high" is even real- just because you can smell it doesn't mean it's going to get you high, but you KNOW people are gonna complain about "contact highs" even if they can barely smell it. I can count on one hand the number of cigarettes I've smoked and to me, cigarette smoke smells awful which is why I hate it

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

I feel it is different because a cigarette buzz is nothing like a weed buzz. Like I said, I'm not super sure a "contact high" is even real- just because you can smell it doesn't mean it's going to get you high, but you KNOW people are gonna complain about "contact highs" even if they can barely smell it. I can count on one hand the number of cigarettes I've smoked and to me, cigarette smoke smells awful which is why I hate it

True, although a weed buzz isn't known to cause cancer ...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Capitalism is amoral. It kind of has to be since the motivator is seeks to exploit is greed. The addictive nature of most drugs makes them immune to market forces. Once your addicted you'll pay any price for them. An we know already that people are incapable of making good decisions about drugs legal or not.

I'm not saying that legalizing drugs will make people not get addicted to them, I'm saying it's best to concede that they will one way or the other, and the deterrent provided by making them illegal is not as effective as profiting from taxation of them would be.

I thought you were a right wing guy?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Capitalism is amoral. It kind of has to be since the motivator is seeks to exploit is greed. The addictive nature of most drugs makes them immune to market forces. Once your addicted you'll pay any price for them. An we know already that people are incapable of making good decisions about drugs legal or not.

Certainly. Are you suggesting cigarettes and alcohol aren't addictive?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

If tomorrow they made crack legal would you immediately start smoking it?

This argument would seem to apply more to your position than Athens'.

More and more people seem to advocate the decriminalisation of all drugs but I'm not one of them. I think you have to look at the impact on personal health, the financial impact on society and then any other impact it may have on society.
I think you have to be careful with anything physically addictive, but if you take the position of personal choice being good and fair then the socioeconomic issues are the key.
Heroin is a nasty in drug in every respect. It f***s you up health-wise, it very often turns you into a criminal to pay for it and its just so addictive that these problems can spiral very rapidly. The same can be said of meth and to a slightly lesser extent, coke.

Weed and ecstasy are two that would benefit greatly from being legalised and regulated.
You can grow weed anywhere but to grow the really good stuff takes effort, equipment and hydroponics. In a legal market, very few people would bother with home growing I suspect (legalisation means higher availability driving the price down meaning you'd spend a fortune running the heat lamps). I suppose you could charge for a home grow license with no right to supply or share and heavy penalties if you breach those terms.

The other pros and cons of weed are probably best described by Bill Hicks.
Bill Hicks - Mandatory Marijuana - YouTube

Ecstasy is something that would benefit from regulation more than anything, The stuff you buy on the street these days isn't even called Ecstasy any more because there is hardly any MDMA in it. Instead its loaded with Ketamine and other crap which makes it dangerous because you have no idea what you are taking.

Both of these drugs could generate masses of tax revenue which could pay for any healthcare required as a result.

[Wiskedjak]

I'm just always amazed that the same people who fight against the decriminalization of pot on health and addiction arguments, will often also be the people defending the legality of cigarettes.

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other, as neither affects me. But, I think we should at least be consistent. Cigarettes and pot are almost equally addictive and harmful (some would argue cigarettes are more harmful). They should be equally legal or illegal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I want to live in a country were I don't have to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

If you're willing to accept that you'll end up working as a short order cook or a philosophy professor then go ahead and smoke pot.

I'm guessing you may be surprised to find out how many of your coworkers and in fact, bosses are getting high on the weekends. I'd be willing to bet they're more functional than regular alcohol users. Pot users may in fact be short-order cooks and philosophy professors, but they're also managers, analysts, economists, doctors, etc...

*Edited to include; capitalism is amoral? It's entirely about greed? Addiction will cause drug addicts to seek the entity charging more for their drug? Huh? No. Umm... a drug addict will get their wares from whomever gives them the best sh!t for the money. In a situation where it's legal and not regulated to cost a specific amount, standard market forces that bolster competition will apply. Food is addictive too, but this doesn't mean you always eat at the most expensive restaurant.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

? Addiction will cause drug addicts to seek the entity charging more for their drug? Huh? No. Umm... a drug addict will get their wares from whomever gives them the best sh!t for the money.

Yes but just like razor blades and printer ink, the producers of the drugs will have no problem using a loss leader to get customers hooked and then charging whatever they want. Drugs will be tailored to maximized their addictivness, withdrawal symptoms and tolerance so you have to keep buying more and more. Then they start hiring lobbyists.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This argument would seem to apply more to your position than Athens'.

More and more people seem to advocate the decriminalisation of all drugs but I'm not one of them. I think you have to look at the impact on personal health, the financial impact on society and then any other impact it may have on society.
I think you have to be careful with anything physically addictive, but if you take the position of personal choice being good and fair then the socioeconomic issues are the key.
Heroin is a nasty in drug in every respect. It f***s you up health-wise, it very often turns you into a criminal to pay for it and its just so addictive that these problems can spiral very rapidly. The same can be said of meth and to a slightly lesser extent, coke.

Weed and ecstasy are two that would benefit greatly from being legalised and regulated.
You can grow weed anywhere but to grow the really good stuff takes effort, equipment and hydroponics. In a legal market, very few people would bother with home growing I suspect (legalisation means higher availability driving the price down meaning you'd spend a fortune running the heat lamps). I suppose you could charge for a home grow license with no right to supply or share and heavy penalties if you breach those terms.

The other pros and cons of weed are probably best described by Bill Hicks.
Bill Hicks - Mandatory Marijuana - YouTube

Ecstasy is something that would benefit from regulation more than anything, The stuff you buy on the street these days isn't even called Ecstasy any more because there is hardly any MDMA in it. Instead its loaded with Ketamine and other crap which makes it dangerous because you have no idea what you are taking.

Both of these drugs could generate masses of tax revenue which could pay for any healthcare required as a result.

Let me explain my position on legalizing all drugs.

Step 1, you legalize all drugs and slap it under regulatory control.
Step 2, those that are not harmful like Weed, E for example are manufactured in a controlled manner, sold in a controlled manner and usage restricted in a controlled manner such as no public smoking period, no driving for x number of hours and so on.
Step 3, those other ones like Heroin, Coke are manufactured in a controlled manner and sold in a controlled manner. This does not mean for public consumption. But in the treatment of addicts for example the real thing has proven to be better then products like methadone in controlling addiction during the treatment process. It would allow health authorities, doctors and treatment centers access to the drug cheaply for management purposes, and to researches for study purposes. Does not have to be sold to private sale under regulations. And those busted with personal use from the black market would not end up wasting lots of tax dollars in jail.
Step 4, continue to prosecute the illegal manufacture and sale of all drugs.

The importance of the medical system being able to obtain and use the hard drugs in treatment and management methods for those already addicted is to insure a cheap accessible supply for the addicts to make the black market sale of the drugs non profitable for the risk involved. The benefits to society is great because a addict is a addict, they will obtain the drugs either on the black market, its preferable to provide it to them in a medical management system. It keeps them from committing crimes to support the addiction. This saves costs for the legal and justice system and insurance systems. Crime rates and the kind of crimes would drop so drastically from medically managed addiction the perception of how safe the streets are would change. Insurance should become cheaper with claims dropping drastically for broken into cars and houses, stolen cars, shop lifting. Organized crime would lose so much income. Terrorist income would drop as well, large exports from terrorists is drugs to fund there activities. With world wide demand lowering because I would assume governments would control the production of the products for medical use farmers in Afghanistan for example who produce poppies now either for greater profit or under gun point would be stuck having to grow more commercially viable products.

The disconnect between addict and pusher is also a important thing. If a addict can get there drugs from a drug store to manage the addiction and not be in contact with pushers the chance of successful treatment through detox will be higher. The pushing of other drugs wouldn't occur any more either.

I see way to many advantages from ending pure prohibition on all drugs and using manufacture and sale controls to make all drugs available via different reasons and purposes. Weed and E for personal enjoyment and hard drives under medical controlled settings.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

They can't even keep people from abusing the prescriptions drugs whe have now. They think it will get better when they add cocain and heroin to the list?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

If tomorrow they made crack legal would you immediately start smoking it?

Nope. And it being illegal now does not affect me smoking it or not. If I had a desire to smoke it I would be regardless of its legal status. Most people I know would not just go out and buy drugs if they became legal either.

Would you?

I suspect the Answer would be a no too. So why would you be worried about it?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

They can't even keep people from abusing the prescriptions drugs whe have now. They think it will get better when they add cocain and heroin to the list?

There is a difference between management control prescription drug vs pain killers and others that people become addicted to. For a management control system you already have to be a addict and abusing the drug before you could get management doses. Things like pain killers addiction develops from heavy use of a person that never was not a addict before the use. prescription medication is a mix bag of worms because they do so much good for those that need it but can cause a new problem for those weak to addiction. I was on high does of Percocets for a good 6 month before my surgery. I was taking a 100 pills a month at one point. After my surgery I stopped cold and didn't experience any real problems from it. My Doctor was very worried I would develop a addiction to them. But I really needed them. Personally I would have loved to have stayed on them because they helped with my ADHD and dyslexia.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This argument would seem to apply more to your position than Athens'.

More and more people seem to advocate the decriminalisation of all drugs but I'm not one of them. I think you have to look at the impact on personal health, the financial impact on society and then any other impact it may have on society.
I think you have to be careful with anything physically addictive, but if you take the position of personal choice being good and fair then the socioeconomic issues are the key.
Heroin is a nasty in drug in every respect. It f***s you up health-wise, it very often turns you into a criminal to pay for it and its just so addictive that these problems can spiral very rapidly. The same can be said of meth and to a slightly lesser extent, coke.

Weed and ecstasy are two that would benefit greatly from being legalised and regulated.
You can grow weed anywhere but to grow the really good stuff takes effort, equipment and hydroponics. In a legal market, very few people would bother with home growing I suspect (legalisation means higher availability driving the price down meaning you'd spend a fortune running the heat lamps). I suppose you could charge for a home grow license with no right to supply or share and heavy penalties if you breach those terms.

The other pros and cons of weed are probably best described by Bill Hicks.
Bill Hicks - Mandatory Marijuana - YouTube

Ecstasy is something that would benefit from regulation more than anything, The stuff you buy on the street these days isn't even called Ecstasy any more because there is hardly any MDMA in it. Instead its loaded with Ketamine and other crap which makes it dangerous because you have no idea what you are taking.

Both of these drugs could generate masses of tax revenue which could pay for any healthcare required as a result.

I know very little about ecstasy so I'm not entirely sure I agree 100% with the above, but for what it's worth; you and I agree on a political matter. Amazing.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

I'm VERY for decriminalization for the record and am a smoker but I still think the preferences of other people who don't want anything to do with marijuana isn't taken into account often enough.

You can't get drunk from other people consuming alcohol, and "contact highs" are dubious in my opinion but the fact remains that this smoke that can get you high even if you are an unwilling participant. In my mind, that's the toughest part of the legalization of marijuana.

I have an idea, lets have the crew from Myth Busters test out the second hand marijuana "contact high" theory. They could set up a room with those cigarette smoking machines and see if any of them get a contact high.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Agreed. But, is this any different from people who don't want anything to do with cigarette smoke?

Smoking weed will have to be restricted the same as tobacco is. I know people who anti tobacco and pro marijuana.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Let me explain my position on legalizing all drugs.

Step 1, you legalize all drugs and slap it under regulatory control.
Step 2, those that are not harmful like Weed, E for example are manufactured in a controlled manner, sold in a controlled manner and usage restricted in a controlled manner such as no public smoking period, no driving for x number of hours and so on.

As someone from The Great Brown North should know, controlling marijuana growing is impossible. Look at the number of grow houses in Vancouver alone. Unlike tobacco, marijuana has no growing season, can be grown indoors and does not require aging and curing. Look at Maui and Jamaica. They're islands and it's grown and exported to the mainland.

[subego]

To put it another way, weed is in fact, a weed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As someone from The Great Brown North should know, controlling marijuana growing is impossible. Look at the number of grow houses in Vancouver alone. Unlike tobacco, marijuana has no growing season, can be grown indoors and does not require aging and curing. Look at Maui and Jamaica. They're islands and it's grown and exported to the mainland.

How many illegal moonshine operations are busted these days?

[subego]

That's a far more complicated process than growing a a weed.

There's a basic unrealistic assumption in trying to make growing plants illegal.

To quote Bill Hicks again:

It's like god **** up or something...

"It's Sunday... I've created everything... Time to rest..."

[Furrows brow, starts looking around]

"Oh my me... I ****ing left pot everywhere. Shit."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know very little about ecstasy so I'm not entirely sure I agree 100% with the above, but for what it's worth; you and I agree on a political matter. Amazing.

Hah, I guess it had to happen sooner or later!

The main risk with proper ecstasy, MDMA is dehydration or even more rarely over hydration. People have died this way but its not common and if you consider how many millions of (dirty) pills are dropped every week in the UK alone the fatality rate is tiny. Without looking up any stats I'd imagine its on par with a good many legal substances. That is just my guess though. I'd also estimate some of these deaths could be directly prevented by legalisation since people woudn't be need to be afraid to admit taking it when seeking treatment for complications or overdoses.

Both Marijuana and Ecstasy would be very different beasts if they were properly cultivated/manufactured by farmers or drug companies. There would be much better regulated doses, a very hefty tax income and the quality of the legit stuff would pretty quickly negate the point of DIY half-measures. FDA guidelines on safe daily allowances would also be much more reliable than your older brother or that college drop out kid who sells on the street corner.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's a far more complicated process than growing a a weed.

Maybe so, but if the sale of pot were legal, there would be far less grow houses. It might end up more of a hobby industry, like wine making.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The main risk with proper ecstasy, MDMA is dehydration or even more rarely over hydration.

The real risk is chronic use causes brain chemistry problems, as MDMA appears to work by making brain cells dump massive amounts of neurotransmitters into the synapses, and the brain can't replace it as fast as it is depleted, and the over-simulation of receptors can reduce their sensitivity. The eventual consequence is depression, anxiety, teeth-grinding, and other issues.

But MDMA isn't addictive, so putting a stop to chronic use isn't hard, unlike other drugs.

[Athens]

I would prefer seeing MDMA in the stores. The street ones are dangerous. There have been 30 deaths in the last 12 months linked to E pills that had a poison in them in BC and Alberta. And the number could end up being higher. I know 2 young guys that have died over the last couple years from spiked E.

[Waragainstsleep]

Over here E has gone from being mostly MDMA (as the active ingredient anyway) and £10 a pill to being about £2-3 to the end user for something which might have traces of MDMA if you are lucky but will mostly have ketamine and whatever other crap the maker can find in it.

Its weird that in a country where people spend so much time and money getting s***faced on booze that people are so hardwired to disapprove of other types of mind altering substances.

[MacManMikeOSX]

I honestly do not understand why anyone or any government should be able to tell me what I can and cannot ingest, that's what religion is for (; . Adequately warn me, regulate this biz side-whatever. But my body is my f***ing body. To me it is about personal liberty. Legal means cheaper, so follow this. Supply follows demand, prices drop as throughput increases to the market due to legitimate channels being opened. (With the added benefit of decapitating all drug cartels, and bringing legit industry to current narco-states, bringing millions out of poverty through honest work.) Lower prices mean that those with a habit are able to support it (tobacco, caffeine, alcohol anyone?), means far less property theft, homelessness, stigma, etc. Win, Win, Win.

[Athens]

Blame Religion

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Over here E has gone from being mostly MDMA (as the active ingredient anyway) and £10 a pill to being about £2-3 to the end user for something which might have traces of MDMA if you are lucky but will mostly have ketamine and whatever other crap the maker can find in it.

You know way too much about E to be the only one who knows if your pubes are shaved or not.

[subego]

“Obama now lags Pat Robertson in a sensible approach to marijuana"

- Barney Frank