The war on drugs ..

[timesjoke]

Well that was a complete and utter non-reply.

 

Here's a quote for you.

 

?Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.? ~ Albert Einstein

 

 

Like thinking drug abuse will just go away if you make it legal?

 

Please.

 

 

Don't play stupid, you know darn well that most people are simply too weak to be allowed unrestricted access to drugs. Look at the mess we have with just one legal drug, Look at how many lives are a mess with booze, we will double these numbers the second we make other methods of getting wasted legal.

 

A big part of the drinking problem is the public perception of it being acceptable, the same will be true for every drug we make legal.

 

 

So, giving up on the "war on drugs" will only make the drug problems worse, not better.

 

 

 

Let's give this a different spin to see how humans behave. At one time, it was considered not illegal, but not acceptable for young girls to get pregnant outside of marriage. As time has passed, that outdated concept has been completely removed from society and we have the biggest problem with unwed young mothers we have ever seen and it keeps getting worse every year. The response was to make abortions legal so there would not be so many unwanted children in the world, and 1.2 million dead babies killed each year still leaves us with millions of unwanted children.

 

Dropping standards and morals is not the answer, quitting on something just because it is difficult is not the answer.

 

 

If you don't try, you always fail.

[ImWithStupid]

Like thinking drug abuse will just go away if you make it legal?

 

Please.

 

 

Don't play stupid, you know darn well that most people are simply too weak to be allowed unrestricted access to drugs. Look at the mess we have with just one legal drug, Look at how many lives are a mess with booze, we will double these numbers the second we make other methods of getting wasted legal.

 

A big part of the drinking problem is the public perception of it being acceptable, the same will be true for every drug we make legal.

 

 

So, giving up on the "war on drugs" will only make the drug problems worse, not better.

 

 

 

Let's give this a different spin to see how humans behave. At one time, it was considered not illegal, but not acceptable for young girls to get pregnant outside of marriage. As time has passed, that outdated concept has been completely removed from society and we have the biggest problem with unwed young mothers we have ever seen and it keeps getting worse every year. The response was to make abortions legal so there would not be so many unwanted children in the world, and 1.2 million dead babies killed each year still leaves us with millions of unwanted children.

 

Dropping standards and morals is not the answer, quitting on something just because it is difficult is not the answer.

 

 

If you don't try, you always fail.

 

Once again, you only heard what you wanted to hear. Nobody is saying to stop trying. Nobody is saying drug abuse will go away. I am saying we need another course of action. Ask anyone that deals with fighting drug in society. The time, money and resources wasted on busting pot dealers is doing nothing but take away from the fight against the truly harmful drugs.

 

There is only so much money allowed to combat drugs. Drug Task Forces only have so much grant and contribution money, if it runs out during the fiscal year, wasted on pot, the meth, coke, heroin, ect... go unchecked until the next batch of money shows up. It's one step forward, two steps back.

 

Money isn't endless. No more buy money, no more money for CIs, no more money for equipment. With all the money going to Homeland Security, and it's not going to change anytime soon, funding could come from taxed marijuana.

 

Sometimes you have to make a choice of the lesser of two evils. This is one of those times. Come back to the reality we live in.

[timesjoke]

Sometimes you have to make a choice of the lesser of two evils. This is one of those times. Come back to the reality we live in.

 

 

No it is not, your just stuck on defeat, I understand, it is slowly taking over the nation.

 

Like my example of how young girls get pregnant more often after you lower the expectations, the same will be true for drug use.

 

 

Drinking is legal, and it is the most abused drug in America. Making drug legal increases it's use ten fold. The numbers of daily users will explode, I guess we will have stoners playing football in a pot field for a superbowl commercial.

 

 

Short term solutions have a lifetime of cost.

 

America is alredy behind most other large nations in areas like education because there is little drive to succeed, to work hard to earn your place in life, I see no reason to make legal a substance that has as it's main side effect to be lazy and sit around watching life go by.

 

 

Regular drug use to escape reality is not a good thing, and I will never see it as an option.

 

 

You say we should make money from selling pot, how does that make us any better then the drug dealers selling pot or crack on the corner? That is just making money from other's suffering.

 

 

Tell me somehting, how many kids go hungry or without shoes because their parents are needing their drug of choice instead? How many medical problems are associated with just smoking tobacco? Pot has more tar than tobacco and is smoked without any kind of filter. There is no "harmless" drug.

 

No, we have enough problems with the one legal drug we have, we don't need to make an already out of control issue of the lack of self control in society made worse by giving them a bigger voriety of choice to screw their minds, and lives up with the governments approval.

[eddo]

The tax revenue could fund the fight against the truly harmful substances, that destroy lives and kill people on a daily basis.

 

I asked this on another board, and haven't received an answer yet, so I'll ask here:

 

How do you plan to tax something that can be easily grown by the consumer?

[timesjoke]

I asked this on another board, and haven't received an answer yet, so I'll ask here:

 

How do you plan to tax something that can be easily grown by the consumer?

 

Bingo!

 

Once it is legal, anyone who wants it can just grow it themselves, in fact, pot is one of the easiest plants to grow, it can survive in almost any environment above freezing and can be easily grown indoors.

[ImWithStupid]

No it is not, your just stuck on defeat, I understand, it is slowly taking over the nation.

 

Whatever. Like Wez says, just because you say it over and over, it still won't make it true. Take your, "I know you are, but what am I, replies to the forum on the elementary school website.

 

Drinking is legal, and it is the most abused drug in America. Making drug legal increases it's use ten fold. The numbers of daily users will explode, I guess we will have stoners playing football in a pot field for a superbowl commercial.

 

 

Short term solutions have a lifetime of cost.

 

I agree. The short term push to make alcohol illegal not only gave rise to the criminal empires that still exist today it also dramatically increased crime, destroyed businesses, drained government coffers and was linked to quite a bit of poverty that lingered for decades in many states.

 

As for your legalizing drugs increases use ten fold, how come alcohol abuse saw it's biggest rise during prohibition and actually decreased after prohibition was repealed.

 

America is alredy behind most other large nations in areas like education because there is little drive to succeed, to work hard to earn your place in life, I see no reason to make legal a substance that has as it's main side effect to be lazy and sit around watching life go by.

 

This is a societal issue far and above any drug issue. Try to tell me kids in the other nations don't use substances. I'll call you a liar. This is from lack of accountability and responsibility. This is a result of the dumbing down of the educational system to meet the failed, "no child left behind" plan of the Bush administration. No child left behind pulls everyone down to the lowes performers ability. When Timmy isn't challenged or expected to exceed, chances aren't he won't. That's a different topic though.

 

Regular drug use to escape reality is not a good thing, and I will never see it as an option.

 

In your opinion.

 

You say we should make money from selling pot, how does that make us any better then the drug dealers selling pot or crack on the corner? That is just making money from other's suffering.

 

Like I said the money to fight drugs is not limitless. I guess in your opinion we're better off failing in an attempt to combat all drugs including marijuana then we would be using tax money from marijuana sales to be more effective at combating seriously dangerous drugs.

[ImWithStupid]

I asked this on another board, and haven't received an answer yet, so I'll ask here:

 

How do you plan to tax something that can be easily grown by the consumer?

 

How do we tax wine and beer, when it is easily, and legal, to ferment and brew, as long as it isn't for sale, in most areas of the country.

 

Even without taxes it would take the resources and funding from the cartels, gangs, illegal immigrants, ect...

[ImWithStupid]

Bingo!

 

Once it is legal, anyone who wants it can just grow it themselves, in fact, pot is one of the easiest plants to grow, it can survive in almost any environment above freezing and can be easily grown indoors.

 

Hemp is easily grown effectively. Quality pot, that is consumed, is not easy to grow if you want consistency or quality.

[timesjoke]

Whatever. Like Wez says, just because you say it over and over, it still won't make it true. Take your, "I know you are, but what am I, replies to the forum on the elementary school website.

 

First of all, claiming sides with Wez's way of thinking is simply putting a gun to your own head if you want to be taken seriously in any debate.

 

Second, I say the same back at you, just "claiming" that legal pot would cure all the problems will not make it so, there are countless thousands of issues related that your completely ignoring.

 

 

I agree. The short term push to make alcohol illegal not only gave rise to the criminal empires that still exist today it also dramatically increased crime, destroyed businesses, drained government coffers and was linked to quite a bit of poverty that lingered for decades in many states.

 

And after how many years of this legal mind altering drug, we have it's abuse increasing every year, drinking related family problems, not to mention it's being involved in many of the darwin awards tells me that giving the masses another mind altering drug will only make the situation worse, not better.

 

As for your legalizing drugs increases use ten fold, how come alcohol abuse saw it's biggest rise during prohibition and actually decreased after prohibition was repealed.

 

It didn't, that is a false assumption made popular by those only wanting to get stoned in life and making stuff up as they go to try and make their case "sound" better. Drinking saturates our society now more then ever before, and alcohol related problems from direct abuse to torn apart families are higher then ever before.

 

Then there is the children to consider:

Children Of Alcoholics | American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

 

 

 

 

This is a societal issue far and above any drug issue. Try to tell me kids in the other nations don't use substances. I'll call you a liar. This is from lack of accountability and responsibility. This is a result of the dumbing down of the educational system to meet the failed, "no child left behind" plan of the Bush administration. No child left behind pulls everyone down to the lowes performers ability. When Timmy isn't challenged or expected to exceed, chances aren't he won't. That's a different topic though.

 

I have no idea where your trying to go with that, I never said anythign about kids in other countries not abusing drugs.

 

In national studies where our children are tested against kids from other developed Countries, we are on pace with them until about 8th grade, then all of a sudden, out kids fail to keep up, they fail to keep motivated to learn, why give them a legal substance that directly makes this problem worse:

 

Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared with their nonsmoking peers21,22,23,24. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the 30 days prior to being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired, even after the students had not taken the drug for at least 24 hours20. These "heavy" marijuana abusers had more trouble sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and using information than did the study participants who had abused marijuana no more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.

 

InfoFacts - Marijuana

 

In fact, we are making some headway in the war on drugs with kids:

 

Percentage of 8th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:

2000 - 20.3% 2005 - 16.5%

 

Percentage of 10th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana

2000 - 40.3% 2005 - 34.1%

 

Percentage of 12th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana

2000 - 48.8% 2005 - 44.8%

 

 

With every other indicator of declining morals rising every year, it is something of a miricle to see these numbers decling in my opinion.

 

 

In your opinion.

 

So just to set this straight, you do not agree that people living their lives in the persuit of altering their mental state for entertainment is a bad thing?

 

Why put any limits on this then?

 

Clearly a society of lazy stoners is not a good thing, I have no idea of your motivation to tear apart society in this way, but don't expect those of us capable of enjoying life without screwing with our minds to agree this kind of experimentation is a good thing.

 

 

Like I said the money to fight drugs is not limitless. I guess in your opinion we're better off failing in an attempt to combat all drugs including marijuana then we would be using tax money from marijuana sales to be more effective at combating seriously dangerous drugs.

 

As I have already shown, we are not losing the battle, we are making headway, sometimes things worth while take a lot of time to accomplish.

 

You instant gratification guys need to learn that you cannot have everything in the snap of your fingers.

 

 

 

By the way, as eddo pointed out, you cannot make much money on something easily grown.

 

Booze is very difficult to make and requires complicated equipment to distil. There are not too many people that would like the smell of the "buck" either. Making a gallon of quality wisky for example would require a large still and several gallons of buck.

 

 

Quality pot with a relatively high THC content can be grown in any home and most yards in the summer. It requires only basic care and grows very fast. The average person could grow enough pot to last a year (there are several very easy ways to preserve it) in just a couple months in the back yard of the average suburb home. Automatc sprinklers and the occasional miricle grow application is all it takes.

 

Of course, if you are not sure how to grow pot effectively at home, there are hundreds of thousands of web sites with all the information you will ever need about how to do it well:

How To Grow Weed - Home

 

 

You say it can be inconsistant, I do not agree, but who cares about being consistant when you can have it for free? If the strength is less in a batch, just smoke two taters instead of one, problem solved.

 

 

No, there would be no new money to speak of for the government to use against the other drugs and America wouls have a monsterious new problem in society to deal with that will make the current drinking problems look like nothing.

[ImWithStupid]

Just as I said in other debates. You don't read what someone says. You pick and choose what you want to take out of context, and make assumptions based on your wrong perception. There are so many misrepresentations in your posts, I'm not willing to even begin to address them.

 

Perhaps this is why you get banned or ganged up on, in other forums.

[wez]

First of all, claiming sides with Wez's way of thinking is simply putting a gun to your own head if you want to be taken seriously in any debate.

 

 

Hahahahaha.. what the f ck is "my way of thinking". Not wanting to be dominated by control freaks like yourself in every aspect of everyday life telling me what to think, say, feel, and do to please you, or else? Leave me out of your fantasy of world domination according to TJ... I'd rather dive into a volcano.

[snafu]

I asked this on another board, and haven't received an answer yet, so I'll ask here:

 

How do you plan to tax something that can be easily grown by the consumer?

 

It's just like alcohol. It's illegal to have your own still. You tax pot and you require people to have a license to grow. You would be able to grow but it would still be illegal to sell. If they get caught you fine them. Simple.

[wez]

It's just like alcohol. It's illegal to have your own still. You tax pot and you require people to have a license to grow. You would be able to grow but it would still be illegal to sell. If they get caught you fine them. Simple.

 

This is why, I believe, they wont make it legal.. people would grow their own and virtually give it away. They could never control it as deeply as they like to control everything. Hard to say, it's legal, but you cannot grow it for your own use, you need to buy it from us and our partners.. Illegality gives them that control, and creates a huge market and many, many "legit" jobs..

 

Why do we need to make money off of everything?

[snafu]

This is why, I believe, they wont make it legal.. people would grow their own and virtually give it away. They could never control it as deeply as they like to control everything. Hard to say, it's legal, but you cannot grow it for your own use, you need to buy it from us and our partners.. Illegality gives them that control, and creates a huge market and many, many "legit" jobs..

 

Why do we need to make money off of everything?

 

One we need money to fight the war on drugs. Two we live in a nation with a huge defecate. Also it could help compensate health care. Trust me we need the money.

[wez]

One we need money to fight the war on drugs. Two we live in a nation with a huge defecate. Also it could help compensate health care. Trust me we need the money.

 

That's the funny thing though snaf.. try this on.. Money creates nothing we need, except motivation. Nothing greater motivates than the will to survive. The Earth provides all we will ever truly have as human beings. How much money is the last glass of fresh water worth? The final apple? It's all a grand illusion..

[Jhony5]

Alrighty,TJ. Lets discuss this fraudulent link you provided me with in the Maddy McCann thread.

 

 

Cannabis and mental health -- Rey and Tennant 325 (7374): 1183 -- BMJ

 

Some of the misleading bullocks cited in this agenda pushing report;

 

The increase in use is of concern because cannabis may be a gateway to other drugs

This is an urban myth supported by those whom want you to stay away from pot. Those same people want you to do business with their corresponding pharmaceutical companies.

 

and it may cause psychiatric illnesses. The link between cannabis and psychosis is well established, and recent studies have found a link between use of marijuana and depression.4-7 Does cannabis cause these conditions, or do patients use cannabis to relieve their distress?

People self medicate with marijuana when the poisons that are sold at a high price under the counter are ineffectual.

 

Prescription narcotics account for more deaths then cocaine and heroin combined. If one was unintelligent, they would extrapolate from this article that marijuana causes depression and schizophrenia, when in reality, they are merely citing people whom already have these conditions present, and are currently using marijuana to relive the symptoms of their respective conditions.

 

Questions have, however, remained about the validity of the diagnosis, the possible causal role of other drugs, and prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia that might have led to the use of cannabis, rather than cannabis triggering the psychosis.

Exactly. Read between the lines. This link you gave me that you thought supports the danger of marijuana seems to counter its own pointless points. In certain parts, it makes statements equal to saying that if a person that enjoys Coca-Cola also has cancer, then the cancer must be a result of the Coca-Cola.

 

Your breaking the law to get stoned is not taking a stand, taking your cause to Washington, creating petitions, writing letters to your congressmen, these are taking stands and part of social discorse.

Who says I haven't been active. I am a card carrying member (AND DONOR) to NORML (National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws). I have attended 6 rallies in my lifetime. 3 here in Indy, 1 in Kokomo, 1 in Columbus Ohio, and one in Bloomington Indiana.

 

Don't make assumptions. We we assume we stand to make an ASS out of U not ME.

 

All you want to do is get stoned, the weed is your focus, not some high and mighty concept of right and wrong. Trying to compare wanting to get stoned with equal rights and women sufferage is completely rediclious. Your need to get stoned out of your mind is not a basic human right.

Lets delve into the totalitarian psychology that you seem to display. My marijuana usage is limited to off-work hours during times of relaxation when my child is not in my care (about 3 times a week). This is after I work my ass off, pay my bills, and care for my 8 year old. My habit is well in check. But typical of disconnected totalitarian-esqe, authoritarians, such as yourself, you cannot see my use of marijuana in the same light of acceptance that you would of an average joe whom drinks a few beers every night.

 

Again, how do you differ from any other criminal?

My crimes are devoid of victims. No matter how much energy you may expend in order to produce victims, you will find none. Me and my friends are autonomous with our marijuana supply. I will not go further into detail, but you should be able to grasp the clues in hand and connect the dots.

 

 

If you demonstrate to a child that laws are okay to break if you don't like the law, what laws will the child break for the same reason?

I teach my daughter to look up to police. She is too young to grasp civil discourse or even remotely be able to grasp the concept. She is very proud of her uncle Jason, a 7 year veteran police officer. If I were to teach her my disdain for authoritarians, I would liken it to mental child abuse.

 

This comes back to being a responsible person, your actions have effects, smoking pot hurts millions of people, it ruins lives, and it even can lead to mental disorders:

HAHAHA

.

 

Yep. I have ruined my life, I am mentally ill and my daughter is forced to eat boiled carpet fibers because I spend all of our food budget on grass.

 

By the way, as eddo pointed out, you cannot make much money on something easily grown.

There are reasons why the "tax" issue in regards to marijuana cannot work. #1- No one can patent marijuana. #2- Marijuana is the ONLY illicit drug that requires no specialized preparation. It is a naturally occurring plant that is capable of growing on all 7 continents (The only known plant to do this). Marijuana only requires planting, time to grow, pick it, dry it smoke it.

 

As a religious man TJ, I am surprised that you go against the word of God.

 

GENESIS 1-12

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[hugo]

The War We Are Losing

 

by Milton Friedman

 

From: Searching for Alternatives: Drug-Control Policy in the United States, pp. 53-67. Edited and with an Introduction by Melvyn B. Krauss and Edward P. Lazear. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1991.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

After everything that has been said on all sides of this issue, there is little new that is left to be said. I was going to say that one thing on which everybody has agreed is a need for more money for research-especially for the research we ourselves do--but I like to be contrary so I will express a disagreement with that. If on any subject whatsoever we waited until all the research we wanted to do was done, we would never do anything. If we are going to act, we have to act on the basis of the evidence that there is. I do not agree with those like my good friend, Ed Meese, who say that you need a detailed and well-reasoned alternative before you do anything about the present system, that the burden of proof is upon those who want to change the system. If the system is making a mess, it is a good thing to do something to change it even though you may not have a fully detailed alternative.

 

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that we are fundamentally all on the same side. We all have the same objectives. We all recognize that drugs are currently doing a great deal of harm. What divides us is our judgment about the best means to minimize the harm done by drugs. We must not let ourselves get diverted from trying to reach reasonable, sensible conclusions by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with us. There is a famous statement, which I have used many times, made by Pierre S. du Pont almost precisely two centuries ago (September 25, 1790) to the National Assembly in revolutionary France in which he said, "Gentlemen, it is a disagreeable custom to which one is too easily led by the harshness of the discussions, to assume evil intentions. It is necessary to be gracious as to intentions; one should believe them good, and apparently they are; but we do not have to be gracious at all to inconsistent logic or to absurd reasoning. Bad logicians have committed more involuntary crimes than bad men have done intentionally.'

 

I am obviously not going to add any arguments to the large number already presented. I want to use my limited time simply to try to bring a little order out of the discussion and to add a little evidence.

 

People tend to discuss the issue of drugs on two levels. One level was well described by one of the speakers as Plato versus John Stuart Mill: The philosophical disagreement between Plato's view that it is right for some of us ("philosopher kings") to tell others of us what they must do because it is good for them, and the doctrine of John Stuart Mill that the role of government is simply to prevent people from doing harm to others and that it is not right for government to try to force people to do anything simply for their own good. The philosopher-king perspective and the libertarian perspective, if you will. No doubt there is a wide disagreement on that level, and as many of you know my own sympathies are on the side of John Stuart Mill. That consideration is not decisive in this issue, however, as it is not in many. Nonetheless, it does affect people's attitudes and the way in which they look at things. I think that it is worth recognizing.

 

Why is it not decisive? Because even the libertarians justify interference to prevent harm to others. In my opinion, the most basic distinction that needs to be kept in mind in this discussion is between innocent victims and self-chosen victims. That has come out again and again in many discussions. As everyone recognizes, self-chosen victims may and do harm others as well. Even if there were no laws against drugs whatsoever, if they were completely legal, there would still be innocent victims. The most obvious, of course, are the crack babies. I don't know how many there are-that is for you medical people to decide-but insofar as there are any they are obviously innocent victims of their mothers. So legalizing drugs would not eliminate all innocent victims. Even a strict libertarian might argue for prohibiting certain drugs, or putting strict limits on them, on the ground that interference with individual behavior is more than offset by the prevention of harm to innocent victims.

 

That brings the real issue to the second level-the level of expediency. We now have a system to control drugs. Is it working? Is it doing more good or more harm? If it is doing more harm, let's stop doing that harm and let's not wait until we have a fully worked-out, detailed plan for exactly what we are going to put in its place. Let's eliminate those features of it that are clearly and obviously doing the most harm. Again, everybody agrees on this level that the present methods are doing a great deal of harm. Dr. Clarke movingly and effectively presents one of the most important components of that harm (in Chapter 25).

 

The attempt to enforce the prohibition of the use of drugs is destroying our poorer neighborhoods in city after city, creating a climate that is destructive to the people who live there. This phenomenon is perhaps the greatest disgrace in the United States at the moment. I say "perhaps" because an alternative is what we are doing to other countries-a subject discussed in Chapter 20. Can anybody tell me that the United States of America is justified in destroying Colombia because the United States cannot enforce its own laws? If we enforced our laws, there would be no, problem.

 

I don't mean to say we could not enforce our laws. In principle, there is no doubt that we could completely eliminate drugs if we were willing to use the methods that Saudi Arabia is willing to use: If we were willing to cut off the hands of a drug offender; if we were willing to impose capital punishment on drug dealers. We are not, and all of us without exception are proud of the fact that we are not willing to use those methods. Those are cures that are clearly worse than the disease. Given that we cannot enforce our own laws, I believe that there is no way to justify behavior by the United States that leads to the destruction of other countries.

 

We are destroying the poorer neighborhoods in central cities, but at least we are doing that to ourselves. I don't justify it-don't misunderstand me-but I see even less justification for destroying other people's countries. I have asked this question of many people who are in favor of our present policies. I have never had what I regard as a halfway satisfactory answer.

 

In discussing the issue of drugs, I, like many others, have cited the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s as an obvious example of the evil effects of prohibition, as does Dr. Morgan (Chapter 24). In response, I have received a good deal of correspondence. Those who object to my conclusions tend to make two arguments in response, and the little bit of data that I would like to add is in response to these arguments.

 

Everyone recognizes that the prohibition of drugs makes drugs into a profitable illegal activity and creates a class of criminals. However, the proponents of prohibition answer, if you legalized or decriminalized drugs, or in any other way changed the situation, these people would still be criminals; they would just go on to other crimes. Look, they say, what happened after prohibition. You had Al Capone and the gangs, and after prohibition ended they just shifted over to other sectors. Unquestionably, there is some truth in that. The building-up of a criminal class is going to leave a hangover, and the hangover is going to mean more criminality.

[hugo]

continues

 

How serious is it? I have a graph (Figure 3. 1). The series that goes all the way back to 1910 is the homicide rate. Its scale is on the left. It goes to 1987, which is as far as the data were readily available. From 1910 on, there is an almost explosive growth in the number of homicides. The first part of the explosion is during World War 1, and one phenomenon you observe over and over is that wars tend to lead to a rise in crime. What happened after the end of the war? The homicide rate kept on going up very rapidly and reached a peak in precisely the year in which prohibition was ended, 1933. It then fell drastically, and it stayed down throughout the forties and the fifties, except for a rise during World War II. Since 1933 was also the end of the great contraction, it can be argued that the Great Depression was also a stimulus to crime and to homicide. Throughout the prosperous 1920s, however, homicides per hundred thousand persons were very much higher than throughout the prosperous forties and fifties, let alone in the late thirties which were not so prosperous. I believe that no one who looks at the evidence can doubt that ending prohibition had a significant and prompt effect on the homicide rate.

 

Homicides started to go up early in the 1960s and rose very rapidly after Nixon introduced his drug war. More recently, the rate has come down a little, but it is still at the same level as in 1933. I believe one can have great confidence that if drugs were decriminalized the homicide rate would fall sharply, most likely back to the level that it maintained throughout the fifties. That is no small matter: A reduction in the homicide rate from its average during the eighties to its average during the fifties would, with our current population, mean a saving in excess of 10,000 lives a year!

 

As another bit of evidence I have plotted the number of prisoners (per 10,000 population) received into all prisons-federal, state, and local-year by year. Those data, at least in the sources readily available to me, only went back to 1926. From then on, the number of prisoners received went up very sharply until 1931. It then went down, then rose again to 1940, went down sharply during the war, rose thereafter to a peak in 1961 and came down sharply to 1969. From 1970 on, the number of prisoners received rose dramatically, to a level in 1987 more than twice as high as in 1931. The increase in the number of prisoners received coincides with the beginning of Nixon's drug war, and received an additional boost when the Reagan drug war started.

 

To say the least, those are disheartening figures. Most discussions of innocent victims, including those I have heard here, leave out what I regard as one of the most important classes of innocent victims, those of us who are not protected by the police because the police are too busy trying to do something about drugs and are being corrupted by the drug industry. The destruction of the atmosphere of law enforcement, of the whole climate of law obedience, adds greatly to the list of innocent victims. Personally, I find it hard to see how anyone can deny the enormous importance of the innocent victims who have been produced by making possession of specified drugs and dealing in them a crime. Few persons do deny the importance of such innocent victims. Those who nonetheless defend drug prohibition reply that decriminalizing drugs may well reduce the number of such innocent victims, but the price society pays for that gain will be a large increase in the number of addicts. Again they go back to alcohol and its prohibition for evidence. They claim that the end of alcohol prohibition was followed by a tremendous increase in the fraction of the population consuming alcohol and in the number of alcoholics.

 

The next two charts from my trusty computer are designed to answer that claim. The first (Figure 3.2) shows the fraction of total consumption expenditures spent on alcoholic beverages. It is available only for legal alcoholic beverages; that is why it starts in 1933. Unfortunately, all estimates of alcohol consumption during the prohibition era are necessarily highly indirect and uncertain, so I have chosen to stick only to the figures for legal beverages. Dr. Morgan refers to some data on consumption during prohibition, and it is clear that consumption did not disappear. Incidentally, among the innocent victims of prohibition are the addicts themselves, because of the factors that Dr. Morgan brings out. In an illegal market, there is bound to be adulteration and impure substances, which shows up in people dying. Indeed, it has always seemed to me that the greatest beneficiaries from the decriminalization of drugs would be the present addicts. They are made to become criminals. They can't ask for help without admitting that they are criminals. The argument in favor of the present method, thus, has to be that if drugs were decriminalized, you would have a vast increase in the number of addicts.

 

What does our experience after alcohol prohibition tell us? In the first three years, as legal beverages were being substituted for illegal beverages, it is not surprising that the reported percentage of all consumption expenditures spent on alcoholic beverages went up sharply. It peaked in 1937, then went down to 1940, then rose during the war until 1945. Thereafter it went down gradually but persistently.

 

I am old enough to be a veteran of that period myself. I remember a few months after prohibition had been repealed going to a Swedish restaurant in New York City with a Swedish friend of mine, a fellow graduate student at Columbia. It was a restaurant in which he had been able to buy Aquavit all during prohibition and he tried to get Aquavit for us. I had never tasted the stuff, and he thought that I ought to have that experience. They said, oh no, they couldn't serve it now because they hadn't received their license yet. He talked Swedish to them and finally was able to persuade them to take us back into the kitchen and give us a little taste of Aquavit. Anyone who believes that during prohibition there was any difficulty in getting alcohol in most of the United States should look at the evidence. I wasn't very old and was not much of a drinker but there was no difficulty in finding speakeasies.

 

To return to the chart, the skeptic may reply, and correctly, that it is a percentage. Total consumption is going up. Perhaps the smaller percentage of a larger total conceals a very large increase in the amount of alcohol consumed.

 

Figure 3.3 shows the expenditure on alcoholic beverages expressed in constant 1982 prices between the same dates. As you will see, absolute expenditures, like the percentage spent, went up to 1937 and then fell briefly. During the war, expenditures went up sharply, peaking this time in 1946. Expenditures then fell and remained fairly constant during the forties and fifties and then, beginning in 1961, there was a sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages. For our purposes, however, the important lesson from the chart is that the legalization of alcohol clearly did not stimulate alcoholism. The legalization of alcohol was followed by a plateau in the consumption of alcohol. The kinds of things that many people have talked about as occurring during the sixties produced the sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages from 1961 to 1980. Since then expenditures have been falling in absolute terms and not only as a percentage of total consumption.

 

The obvious implication is that if currently illicit drugs were decriminalized and handled exactly the way alcohol is now handled, there is no reason to suppose that there would be a vast increase in the number of addicts. That is by no means a certainty, but every statement that I have seen asserting the contrary is based on pure conjecture and hypothesis. I have seen no hard evidence. The closest to it that I have come across is reference to the opium craze in China. Given the evidence we have-not only from alcohol prohibition but also from Holland, Alaska, and others-the burden of proof, it seems to me, is on those who maintain that there would be a completely unacceptable increase in the number of addicts.

 

One thing we really do know for certain is that what we are now doing is not working. There is a wider measure of agreement on that proposition than appears on the surface. It is natural for people to exaggerate their differences. It is hard to impress people without overstating one's case. I suspect, for example, that on the issue of marijuana that Dr. Grinspoon addresses so movingly (Chapter 21), few people believe that dealing in marijuana ought to be a capital offense. I suspect that almost everybody would agree that there is no case whatsoever for treating marijuana the way we do.

[hugo]

continued

 

It seems to me that we ought to recognize the harm that we are now doing, and not let the tyranny of the status quo prevent us from making some changes that can stop the killing in the slums, and ghettos of our cities. We can stop destroying the possibility of a decent family life among the underprivileged in this country. I do not agree with many people who would agree with me on that point about the role that government ought to play in the treatment of addiction. I do not agree either with those who say that the tragedy of the slums is really a social problem, that the underprivileged do not have enough jobs and therefore government has to provide them with jobs. I want to tell those people that government performance is no better in creating jobs and solving other social problems than it is in drug prohibition. just as a very large fraction of our crime is, in my opinion, caused by government measures, a very large fraction of our poverty is caused by government measures. If those of you who have studied the drug situation were to study as carefully the effects of government measures in the areas of welfare, social services, housing, and so on, you would not have any difficulty in recognizing that there is at least a little bit of sense in what I am saying. That is a different subject, however, and we ought to separate those subjects. Let's not draw ideological lines on this issue because, although there is no doubt an ideological element, the expediential considerations are so strong and so overwhelming that it seems to me they really dominate the situation.

[timesjoke]

Lets move this discussion to the War On Drugs thread.

And when you do, please cease with insulting my parenting capabilities. I am easily infuriated when people question my parenting. I have made extraordinary sacrifices to provide for my daughter under extraordinary circumstance.

 

People that smoke pot aren't all befitting of such an ugly "drug addict" clich?.

 

Even if you are careful to never be impared when your daughter is around you, something I question but will take your word for at this point, there are still so many other factors and the easiest to talk about is how much money do you believe you have spent on drugs in your lifetime?

 

If you had spent all that money on prepaid college for your child or any number of other things to help her directly instead of using up limited income to get stoned. Well, that should speak for itself.

 

 

 

 

Alrighty,TJ. Lets discuss this fraudulent link you provided me with in the Maddy McCann thread.

 

My point was there are many studies that show many things, we don't have anything difinitive about pot being harmless, and until we do, I don't want my children having unrestricted access to it.

 

 

People self medicate with marijuana when the poisons that are sold at a high price under the counter are ineffectual.

 

And they are not doctors, treating yourself with the wrong things will make your problems worse, not better.

 

 

Prescription narcotics account for more deaths then cocaine and heroin combined. If one was unintelligent, they would extrapolate from this article that marijuana causes depression and schizophrenia, when in reality, they are merely citing people whom already have these conditions present, and are currently using marijuana to relive the symptoms of their respective conditions.

 

So you say pot does not "cause" these problems, just that people with problems are drawn to pot, either way it is disturbing to believe pot users are mentally ill and not getting the real medical treatment they need.

 

Exactly. Read between the lines. This link you gave me that you thought supports the danger of marijuana seems to counter its own pointless points. In certain parts, it makes statements equal to saying that if a person that enjoys Coca-Cola also has cancer, then the cancer must be a result of the Coca-Cola.

 

You mean the way cancer is connected to tobacco?

 

Sometimes there is a direct connection, the problem is we don't have good research, the only research supporting pot as good is from people without any respect in the field, what we truly need is one of the big research labs to take this on and put an end to the debate.

 

 

Who says I haven't been active. I am a card carrying member (AND DONOR) to NORML (National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws). I have attended 6 rallies in my lifetime. 3 here in Indy, 1 in Kokomo, 1 in Columbus Ohio, and one in Bloomington Indiana.

 

Don't make assumptions. We we assume we stand to make an ASS out of U not ME.

 

Only you are making an assumption, not me.

 

I never said you did not support these actions for change, I said that was the only "valid" way to do it. My point was that breaking the law and using an illegal drug is not a part of trying to get the change, it is only about getting stoned.

 

Lets delve into the totalitarian psychology that you seem to display. My marijuana usage is limited to off-work hours during times of relaxation when my child is not in my care (about 3 times a week). This is after I work my ass off, pay my bills, and care for my 8 year old. My habit is well in check. But typical of disconnected totalitarian-esqe, authoritarians, such as yourself, you cannot see my use of marijuana in the same light of acceptance that you would of an average joe whom drinks a few beers every night.

 

As I pointed out in the first part of this post, there are many ways "any" illegal drug use can be hrmful to your children. The people you associate with will tend to be drug abusers themselves (as a general rule, birds of a feather and all that) and who is to say what kind of result can come from drug abusers having access to your child. They may not all share your very strict drug use and may even make things available to her you never would. Remember, certain types of child abuse happens most often from "friends" of the family.

 

My crimes are devoid of victims. No matter how much energy you may expend in order to produce victims, you will find none. Me and my friends are autonomous with our marijuana supply. I will not go further into detail, but you should be able to grasp the clues in hand and connect the dots.

 

Well, I guess the only word you left out was the word "yet".

 

If your invoilved in creating your own supply, then if your ever busted, you don't get charged with the slap on the wrist possession charge, you get slammed with the big charges, and what does that mean for your family?

 

They would be real victims then right?

 

I could never take that chance, my kids are too important to me.

 

I teach my daughter to look up to police. She is too young to grasp civil discourse or even remotely be able to grasp the concept. She is very proud of her uncle Jason, a 7 year veteran police officer. If I were to teach her my disdain for authoritarians, I would liken it to mental child abuse.

 

First of all, you did not answer my question.

 

I asked what is the result of teaching children that some laws are okay to completely ignore. Children see and know more than the average parent knows. If you teach your child it is okay to break laws if you don't like the laws, then what laws will they decide they don;t like later in life, and will you take the proper blame for it?

 

 

Yep. I have ruined my life, I am mentally ill and my daughter is forced to eat boiled carpet fibers because I spend all of our food budget on grass.

 

I would not go that far, but most studies agree about how pot does slow down learning and such, Imagine what you could have done if you had not slowed yourself down with drugs.

 

 

There are reasons why the "tax" issue in regards to marijuana cannot work. #1- No one can patent marijuana. #2- Marijuana is the ONLY illicit drug that requires no specialized preparation. It is a naturally occurring plant that is capable of growing on all 7 continents (The only known plant to do this). Marijuana only requires planting, time to grow, pick it, dry it smoke it.

 

Well, we agree on one thing at least, there is no way for the government to make any real money from selling pot, so not added money for the fight against other drugs as some have attempted to say.

 

 

As a religious man TJ, I am surprised that you go against the word of God.

 

GENESIS 1-12

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

 

Well, I miss the part about how we are supposed to sit around the bong eating twinkies and watching our lives pass by.

 

 

Again, I do agree that there are a few people strong enough to keep their drug use under control, but that is a very tiny segment of society and even then, there are problems that can come by using the drugs that have nothing to do with how well you keep it under control.

 

My point is still two parts:

 

1. any messing with the chemical makeup of our bodies for recreational reasons is not really a good idea.

 

2. Laws are there for a reason and we have enough people in the world being irresponsible already and trying to say it is okay to pick and choose what laws you will follw because you don't like some of them is just not right.

 

If you can work hard and get the law changed, fine, at least your setting a good example about the proper way to do things. We should not ne teaching our kids that following the laws of the land is subject to our liking the law in question.

[Jhony5]

.....how much money do you believe you have spent on drugs in your lifetime?

Whew! Billions.

 

How much have you spent on potato chips? Or soda pop? Or any other recreational and/or luxury items/services/whatnot?

 

Don't get me wrong, it is a fair question. Albeit misleading and indicative of nothing substantial.

 

If you had spent all that money on prepaid college for your child or any number of other things to help her directly instead of using up limited income to get stoned. Well, that should speak for itself.

I could pose this same question to any casual beer drinker. However if I did, I would likely get laughed at.

 

My point was there are many studies that show many things, we don't have anything definitive about pot being harmless, and until we do, I don't want my children having unrestricted access to it.

Guess what? They do have access to it. More-so because it is illegal, It is unregulated. When I was 15ish I could comparison shop for LSD, marijuana, cocaine......you name it. The one thing that myself and my friends almost never could aquire...........ALCOHOL.

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass, TJ. I'm being for real. These things are facts. At 15, to purchase alcohol I would need to enter a licensed establishment and produce a valid ID. The second party "coping" thing seldom if ever would work.

 

Unless you were doing drugs at 15, I doubt you would understand.

 

And they are not doctors, treating yourself with the wrong things will make your problems worse, not better.

People medicate with marijuana for one thing and one thing only. Not to stop hemorrhagic fevers. Not to dissipate cancerous growths. People take marijuana to make them feel better. No one needs a doctors approval to tell if something makes them feel better.

 

So you say pot does not "cause" these problems, just that people with problems are drawn to pot, either way it is disturbing to believe pot users are mentally ill and not getting the real medical treatment they need.

Crazy/depressed people also drink Coca-Cola, no doubt. Is it fair to consider the soft drink as a possible contributing factor toward mental illness?

 

Sometimes there is a direct connection, the problem is we don't have good research, the only research supporting pot as good is from people without any respect in the field, what we truly need is one of the big research labs to take this on and put an end to the debate

The federal government put an all-stop to most marijuana testing, at least the testing requests by non-biased and impartial parties are disallowed. Why do you think this is?

 

I think I know. Because the same thing would happen that happened when Harry J Anslinger (Head of the FBI, Circa 1944) commissioned Ed Laguardia to do a study on Marijuana. Yes, the former NYC mayor Laguardia was commissioned and was supposed to come back with findings to support the governments inane accusations toward the misbegotten plant. Laguardia burned them hard. A snippet;

 

Mayor's Committee on Marihuana, by the New York Academy of Medicine

 

City of New York , 1944.

 

 

 

La Guardia Committee Report - Table of Contents

The consensus of marihuana users is that the drug is not harmful and that infrequent or constant use of marihuana does not result in physical or mental deterioration.

 

The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.

 

OOPPSSS!!!!

 

 

Harry J Anslinger goes berserk, denouncing Mayor LaGuardia and threatening doctors with prison terms should they dare to carry out independent research on cannabis.

 

I hope this answers your question as to why the gubberment won't allow proper testing on the most versatile plant ever discovered on planet Earth.

 

I wasn't joking when I claimed to be active in marijuana legalization, pro-actively. I know my sh t and I speak the truth on this matter. I believe this plant could be an extraordinary alleviation upon many of the psychological ills that have befallen our nation.

 

As I pointed out in the first part of this post, there are many ways "any" illegal drug use can be harmful to your children. The people you associate with will tend to be drug abusers themselves (as a general rule, birds of a feather and all that) and who is to say what kind of result can come from drug abusers having access to your child.

You do have a cops instincts, I'll grant you that. Yes, my very limited and close circle of friends includes ONLY marijuana smokers. None of them are criminals, in the conventional sense of the word i.e. they do not victimize others overtly.

 

That being said, I do not bring my daughter around my friends. Specifically because of the illegal elements of marijuana and the 100% probability that pot will be present when my friends are.

 

Well, I guess the only word you left out was the word "yet".

 

If your involved in creating your own supply, then if your ever busted, you don't get charged with the slap on the wrist possession charge, you get slammed with the big charges, and what does that mean for your family?

 

They would be real victims then right?

 

I could never take that chance, my kids are too important to me.

All to fair, and true. I do not cultivate marijuana. However, my supply flows through strict channels and is done in a most ambiguous manner.

 

Alot of folks outside of the circle cannot understand ho something like this actually works. It really is quite simplistic in its execution. There are ways to grow marijuana and never have your name on it. Guerrilla growing techniques are used and the true cultivator is hidden.

 

It really is quite beautiful.

 

I'll just say this. There is nothing that I ever do that could possibly result in my child being taken away from me. Simple possession is a misdemeanor.

[Jhony5]

First of all, you did not answer my question.

 

I asked what is the result of teaching children that some laws are okay to completely ignore.

I did answer that, at least on my part. I don't teach my child these things, so how and why would I feel responsible to answer a rhetorical?

 

I would not go that far, but most studies agree about how pot does slow down learning and such, Imagine what you could have done if you had not slowed yourself down with drugs.

I am a simple man. I do not require extraordinary lavishes and luxuries. I provide for my daughter much better then my parents provided for me (At least concerning luxuries), much better then many. I make my mint painting houses and apartments. I need not an extravagant lifestyle or a 6 figure income.

 

Well, we agree on one thing at least, there is no way for the government to make any real money from selling pot, so not added money for the fight against other drugs as some have attempted to say.

Our government spends million and millions trying to eradicate a plant. They have been doing this for over 80 years now. It ain't workin. Since the inception of the war on the marijuana menace launched by Anslinger, many far more insidious drugs have surfaced, literally being invented. If we stop investing money, manpower and resources trying to wipe out a god damn plant, than we could far better address the "bathtub" drugs such as methamphetamines.

 

Well, I miss the part about how we are supposed to sit around the bong eating twinkies and watching our lives pass by.

So you believe that god would be happy that he created the most versatile plant on the face of the Earth and we aren't even allowed to use it for industrial purposes anymore?

 

He gave us this plant to use. And we do not. Rather, we throw people in cages with robbers and rapists just for smoking it while they eat pasta and f ck their girlfriends.

[hugo]

The possible negative effects to jhony's family are due to the fact that marijuana is illegal not due to the nature of the drug itself. Another reason to legalize drugs..all drugs. I am tired of paying taxes to house the stupid. The free market will adequately punish those who abuse drugs.

 

My signature, JS Mill from On Liberty

 

The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

[wez]

The possible negative effects to jhony's family are due to the fact that marijuana is illegal not due to the nature of the drug itself. Another reason to legalize drugs..all drugs. I am tired of paying taxes to house the stupid. The free market will adequately punish those who abuse drugs.

 

My signature, JS Mill from On Liberty

 

Absof ckinglutey. Right on teach..

[timesjoke]

Johny,

 

You posted too much to reply to it all, I will just make a simple reply that I hope will not get me attacked again.

 

 

 

 

My point about the money you spend on drugs is how low money earners spend more on personal "entertainment" than high money earners.

 

I spend a lot of money on entertainment to be sure, I even own a hole in the water some land lovers call a boat. But, the percentage of my income I spend to entertain myself is less then 5% of my yearly income.

 

I am not sure of current costs of pot, it was always something all over the place when I worked the streets, but let's just say 100 dollars a week for something to talk about. Considering that the biggest abusers of pot are from poverty, to around 30k a year, that 100 dollars is a large part of their income. I always laugh when I hear some of these guys complain about life, if they so much money to spare they can blow it to get stoned, then why are they complaining?

 

 

 

 

While you keep saying how "perfect" your breaking the law, I would like to remind you most people in prison though they were smarter then the system as well.

 

 

 

The part your dodging concerning what your teaching your child is not what you say, but what you do. I am not sure how old your child is, but kids know their parents are doing drugs younger then you think. I have seen reports from social services where they would interview even 4 year lds and the kid knew names, places, vehicles, all sorts of stuff the parents nerer suspected.

 

Kids are not stupid, as a parent, you teach your child more through your actions than your words. She either knows, or will know you do drugs. When this happens, what does that teach her? What laws will she decide is okay to ignore? What laws will she think are silly?

 

And will you accept the blame if she decides to do something really bad?