The war on drugs ..

[Anna Perenna]

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

 

I love it when I agree with Hugo, and vice versa. It's like the planets come into perfect alignment and all is right with the universe.

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

You make it legal to use but not cultivate. As for the argument that everyone will just grow it isn't realistic. It's not like people living in tenement buildings, apartment buildings, townhouses, condos, high rise apartments or even just close neighbors are going to be able support their consumption with a couple plants in the window, on the ledge, on the porch, behind the shed or on the fire escape.

 

People would still buy from the store. All classes of people. I personally know of many attorneys, executives and business owners locally that use marijuana. I isn't a class based drug.

[timesjoke]

You make it legal to use but not cultivate. As for the argument that everyone will just grow it isn't realistic. It's not like people living in tenement buildings, apartment buildings, townhouses, condos, high rise apartments or even just close neighbors are going to be able support their consumption with a couple plants in the window, on the ledge, on the porch, behind the shed or on the fire escape.

 

So make it legal but illegal to grow yourself?

 

Now how do you think that is any less of a mess than what we already have?

 

Cops don't take marijuana busts all that seriously now, once you remove any real penalties, cops will not enforce the "don't grow" part, what is the point then?

 

No, if it is legal, then even if people need to supliment their own growing, stores will still compete against the guys that turn their entire appartment into growing pot for a little under the table money.

 

 

 

I actually have a way to stop almost all crime that I have been talking about for years.

 

 

 

We now have the ability to remove all "cash" from the streets. Even soda machines can take credit cards and Debt cards. Every local store has the machine on the counter.

 

The government could just take all currency out of circulation and overnight, most basic crime stops.

 

Even if the government had to pay to install these machines in the few stores still holding out, the reward for removing under the table money would far replace this cost.

 

 

Think about it, most crime is traced back to drugs, sure a guy could still steal your telivision but that does not help him if he cannot turn that telivision into money to buy his drugs. The drug dealer can only use so many drugs as trade and he is in the same spot, how does he turn televisions into cash when there is no cash.

 

This would also stop crooked scammers like bad contractors and such who work under the table and avoid being tracked down.

 

 

Just imagine the extra tax money we could collect from those who hide it.

 

This would even help single mothers because many times, dead beat dads will work full or part time under the table to avoid paying their support.

 

 

I can only see this as a win, win situation.

[snafu]

No it should be leagl to grow also. It's not gonna be a cash cow for the goverment. You will have private companies growing too. It takes about 400 to 1000 watt halogen lights to grow some good stuff. One 1000 watt would probably grow 5 plants. So it gets expensive for the the electicity. Once it was regulated you would tax it by how much you grow. And you have the goverment issue permits to grow. You would be able to only grow enough for self consumtion. Just some ideas.

[ImWithStupid]

No it should be leagl to grow also. It's not gonna be a cash cow for the goverment. You will have private companies growing too. It takes about 400 to 1000 watt halogen lights to grow some good stuff. One 1000 watt would probably grow 5 plants. So it gets expensive for the the electicity. But you tax it. And you have the goverment issue permits to grow. You would be able to only grow enough for self consumtion. Just some ideas.

 

That's fine. I guess I forgot to add the part about cultivate to sell. Grown for personal use is fine, just like for beer and wine now. There will always be many, many people who either won't or can't grow their own to buy the regulated, taxed, commercial stuff at the liquor/ganja store.

[Anna Perenna]

No it should be leagl to grow also. It's not gonna be a cash cow for the goverment. You will have private companies growing too. It takes about 400 to 1000 watt halogen lights to grow some good stuff. One 1000 watt would probably grow 5 plants. So it gets expensive for the the electicity. Once it was regulated you would tax it by how much you grow. And you have the goverment issue permits to grow. You would be able to only grow enough for self consumtion. Just some ideas.

 

That's fine. I guess I forgot to add the part about cultivate to sell. Grown for personal use is fine, just like for beer and wine now. There will always be many, many people who either won't or can't grow their own to buy the regulated, taxed, commercial stuff at the liquor/ganja store.

 

I love the way this thread is going.

 

I think it's a great idea for the government to regulate, impose quality-control and heavily tax private companies who want to manufacture and sell marijuana, speed, cocaine, ecstasy, etc.

 

The regulations would have to be pretty strict, of course (as has been said) - and other than that, I can only see comparative positives!

[ImWithStupid]

I love the way this thread is going.

 

I think it's a great idea for the government to regulate, impose quality-control and heavily tax private companies who want to manufacture and sell marijuana, speed, cocaine, ecstasy, etc.

 

The regulations would have to be pretty strict, of course (as has been said) - and other than that, I can only see comparative positives!

 

Minus the speed, cocaine, ecstasy, etc... I totally agree.

[Jhony5]

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

And you're right. A fool and his money and soon parted. The most square answer to your inquiry is that I spend on average, $20 a week on grass. Often, none at all. It is not uncommon for me to be to busy to mess with it and I go a few weeks without a toke. No detoxification symptoms, no stark mood changes.

 

Now bare in mind that I don't buy DVD's, I don't rent movies or buy/rent video games. I have cable and an internet hook-up, but that is probably the most extravagant expense on my disposable income list.

 

Many people I have known spend far more than that on fast food (I rarely if ever eat fast food) and beer (I don't drink). So it all evens out.

 

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?

True true. As with anything, the excess categorizes said subject as bad. Too much porn is bad. Too much junk food is bad. And yes, $100 a week is way too much. Thats nearly an ounce of pot a week. Which means that two things are bad here. Not only would that person be spending a great deal of cash on pot, but, that person would have to be stoned all day, everyday, to burn through that much weed. I have associates that do spend near that much, and they are burnouts.

 

I am a very casual smoker. Often literally taking 2 hits at night after I get settled in.

 

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.

 

It's all about perspective. I keep a sharp consciousness as to the consequences of my actions. "If I get caught, is this going to get me a ticket and a fine, or am I going to prison for 18 months".

 

I don't do sh t that will land me in prison. Not for a long long time. We're talking 15-17 years since I was a stupid kid doing highly illegal things with stiff consequences for being caught.

 

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.

Amazing how a lot of people don't realize this, but I do. She has no idea, because I am responsible and I keep it hidden. The same way in which people keep their sex toys and pornography hidden from their kids. I have many many guns. I keep my smokables in my gun safe when she is present.

 

It really isn't that hard to keep the two separate. I understand your point but, you seem to be assuming that if a parent smokes, than the child will know about it.

 

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?

 

I suppose you mean as she becomes a teen (she is 8 now). This may sound a bit frank, but she has to decide for herself at that age what bad choices can harvest.

 

I teach her that as long as you don't hurt anyone, you are in good standing. And if you break the law, there are consequences.

[timesjoke]

Okay, I will say you seem to be very structured about your drug use, but can you admit your not the norm?

 

Can you admit the "average" pot smoker is not so careful and responsible?

 

While I know I sound like I am attacking you, I really am speaking on what the norms of society are, not really you specifically, your just the only one here openly admitting your regular pot use so it gets directed at you mostly.

 

 

I have even said in this thread that I am sure there are a few people that could handle drug use of any kind without losing control, but unfortunately, we must set our rules by the most common man, not the strongest.

 

 

 

It really isn't that hard to keep the two separate. I understand your point but, you seem to be assuming that if a parent smokes, than the child will know about it.

 

Sooner or later they will. The smell alone lingers on the skin and clothing, furnature, using things to mask the smell does not remove the smell, in fact, pot smell can linger long after colognes wear off, once they smell one of their "friends" smoking pot, they will know you smoke pot.

 

 

I suppose you mean as she becomes a teen (she is 8 now). This may sound a bit frank, but she has to decide for herself at that age what bad choices can harvest.

 

Even if it takes that long (I doubt it) she is still a child learning some of her behavoirs from you through example. If your a walking/talking example of it being okay to break laws you don't agree with, what do you think that teaches your child?

 

 

I teach her that as long as you don't hurt anyone, you are in good standing. And if you break the law, there are consequences.

 

But can't "hurting others" be subjective?

 

Many criminals say robbery is not hurting anyone because their insurance will cover their losses, or again, the insurance fraud folks, they see themselves like Robin Hood or something, taking from the fat rich, not the poor.

 

Even what we talked about, you may be very controled, but can you gurantee that your daughter will be this strict and not get busted in her future? Will her family pay a price where yours may not because of that lack?

 

 

 

I great question to ask is do you want your daughter to smoke pot?

[Jhony5]

Okay, I will say you seem to be very structured about your drug use, but can you admit your not the norm?

 

Can you admit the "average" pot smoker is not so careful and responsible?

I am unsure if I am qualified to dole it out in averages. I would say, in my experience, that the younger pot smokers tend to be far less liberal in their consumption and expense toward pot. As was I when I was younger. And then life kicked my ass, my wife became pregnant, and the pot smoking all but stopped after that. I picked up the tempo slightly after dealing with the tragedy of my divorce. I tried prescription mood enhancers. Commonly known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. First Paxil and then Prozac.

 

I had a good friend sit me down and explain to me the bizarre behaviors that I was exhibiting, and he was right. I was acting crazy, I had lost 3 jobs in 6 months (After keeping the same job for 8 years). I threw that junk in the garbage and started going with my gut, smoking small amounts of pot. The change was profound. I sold my haunted home and invested my money into a painting contract business and got on with my life. Was it the weed? Maybe not.

 

Sooner or later they will. The smell alone lingers on the skin and clothing, furnature, using things to mask the smell does not remove the smell, in fact, pot smell can linger long after colognes wear off, once they smell one of their "friends" smoking pot, they will know you smoke pot

You are correct, this is inevitable. Whether in 3 years or 10, she will know. But we have such a great relationship, I believe she can handle the truth. She shouldn't smoke pot anymore than she should drink beer or have sex. The illegal status is what you are questioning, and I understand this.

 

This situation is far more complex than what can be covered in a single post. The variables are immense. Will she share my disregard for the law and transfer this toward other laws, or drugs? Will she adopt the same attitude toward shooting heroin into her veins after sucking a penis to score the stash? After all, "She isn't hurting anyone". Her crime has no victims", right? Just like her old man taught her.

 

As ugly as these things are, they are questions that I should address. I can only say that I believe I am capable of equipping her with the ability to never travel down those roads.

 

Even if it takes that long (I doubt it) she is still a child learning some of her behaviors from you through example. If your a walking/talking example of it being okay to break laws you don't agree with, what do you think that teaches your child?

That she is a sentient being and will do as she pleases. The consequences are measured by how far she wishes to take it. I know this sounds a generic answer. But after all of the fat is boiled out, that is all there is to it.

 

The question you pose is so broad that I feel specific scenarios are needed in order for a specific answer to be handed over.

 

Smoking pot is the only law I choose to break. I don't steal, hell, I don't even speed, ever.

 

But can't "hurting others" be subjective?

 

Many criminals say robbery is not hurting anyone because their insurance will cover their losses, or again, the insurance fraud folks, they see themselves like Robin Hood or something, taking from the fat rich, not the poor.

Smoking pot in your home cannot produce a victim of the crime of possession. Smoking pot while you drive your car, can. Smoking pot while you care for your child, can.

 

Sure, other criminals that commit to overtly victimizing other will create their sorted reasonings as to why their victims are not victims. Perspective is key, and lying to ones self is not always so apparent.

 

A great question to ask is do you want your daughter to smoke pot?

Do I want my daughter to smoke pot? No. I want her to go to college. I want her to work for a living. I don't want her to be like her mother. I don't want her to think that a womens lot in life is to find any boyfriend and sit at home having child after child, sucking the teat of welfare.

 

As an adult, I would support her if she smoked pot. So long as I saw her use was in check. I know the seedy elements of the illegal drug trade. Marijuana is a kitten in a lions den.

 

By default, to surround yourself with pot smokers/dealers, you must surround yourself with criminals. As is often true, marijuana distribution is the tamest of crimes that these often nefarious characters will be involved in. Fencing stolen goods, prostitution, cocaine, it's all out there. Illegal activities are often just rungs on a ladder. Climb up the ladder, or down?

 

I know you don't agree, but much of this is exactly why I wish to see marijuana freed from its enslavery as an illicit substance. Remove the illegal status, and you remove the crime that holds hands with it.

[timesjoke]

I am unsure if I am qualified to dole it out in averages. I would say, in my experience, that the younger pot smokers tend to be far less liberal in their consumption and expense toward pot. As was I when I was younger. And then life kicked my ass, my wife became pregnant, and the pot smoking all but stopped after that. I picked up the tempo slightly after dealing with the tragedy of my divorce. I tried prescription mood enhancers. Commonly known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. First Paxil and then Prozac.

 

I had a good friend sit me down and explain to me the bizarre behaviors that I was exhibiting, and he was right. I was acting crazy, I had lost 3 jobs in 6 months (After keeping the same job for 8 years). I threw that junk in the garbage and started going with my gut, smoking small amounts of pot. The change was profound. I sold my haunted home and invested my money into a painting contract business and got on with my life. Was it the weed? Maybe not.

 

I know your better equiped to answer the question than you admit, because you already did. You said you don't allow your daughter to be around your friends because if their around, the drugs are around. Clearly, even though your the most responsible drug user I have ever heard about, you cannot find friends that share your strict responsible actions.

 

I believe it is reasonable to believe that the "average" pot user does not show the caution you do tword their kids for example.

 

 

You are correct, this is inevitable. Whether in 3 years or 10, she will know. But we have such a great relationship, I believe she can handle the truth. She shouldn't smoke pot anymore than she should drink beer or have sex. The illegal status is what you are questioning, and I understand this.

 

I believe you two do share a great relationship, I have no doubt about that, and yes, that will make the revelation less damaging but that point foward is where she will learn that it is okay to break laws if she can say to herself that the law is a bad law, I hope she can escape the bad things that can come to her with this kind thing, but clearly this will add a layer of difficulty that would not be in her life if you did not offer such an example.

 

 

This situation is far more complex than what can be covered in a single post. The variables are immense. Will she share my disregard for the law and transfer this toward other laws, or drugs? Will she adopt the same attitude toward shooting heroin into her veins after sucking a penis to score the stash? After all, "She isn't hurting anyone". Her crime has no victims", right? Just like her old man taught her.

 

As ugly as these things are, they are questions that I should address. I can only say that I believe I am capable of equipping her with the ability to never travel down those roads.

 

That she is a sentient being and will do as she pleases. The consequences are measured by how far she wishes to take it. I know this sounds a generic answer. But after all of the fat is boiled out, that is all there is to it.

 

The question you pose is so broad that I feel specific scenarios are needed in order for a specific answer to be handed over.

 

Smoking pot is the only law I choose to break. I don't steal, hell, I don't even speed, ever.

 

The specific law you choose to ignore is not the point, the point is the lesson you teach to your child that as long as you can justify to yourself that a law is wrong, then it is okay to break that law.

 

You do have a choice to not teach her this lesson being my point. Setting the example is my point.

 

 

Smoking pot in your home cannot produce a victim of the crime of possession. Smoking pot while you drive your car, can. Smoking pot while you care for your child, can.

 

But your not an island, your actions have related things to consider. I am going to take it to extremes for a second just to make a point:

 

 

You and your friends get involved in buying pot from a certain source. That drug dealer at some point does something horrible. Did your helping him to stay in the drug business contribute to his ability to later do the horrible thing?

 

 

I know this is reaching but there are lesser "evils" to consider such as how it is teaching your child that breaking laws is okay if you can come up with a good excuse.

 

 

 

I just though of another one, I am not sure of the custody situation you have with your child, I know you mentioned being divorced so clearly there is some custody issues and that is enough for this point. If your busted for pot, it could be used against you for this areas as well, it could even cause your daughter to not be able to be with you.

 

Sure, other criminals that commit to overtly victimizing other will create their sorted reasonings as to why their victims are not victims. Perspective is key, and lying to ones self is not always so apparent.

 

Like there is a "victimless" crime?

 

 

Do I want my daughter to smoke pot? No. I want her to go to college. I want her to work for a living. I don't want her to be like her mother. I don't want her to think that a womens lot in life is to find any boyfriend and sit at home having child after child, sucking the teat of welfare.

 

So if you could by example, show her that there is a better life than being an illegel drug user and breaker of laws, that would be a good thing for her right?

 

 

As an adult, I would support her if she smoked pot. So long as I saw her use was in check. I know the seedy elements of the illegal drug trade. Marijuana is a kitten in a lions den.

 

But you cannot be with her all the time, so there is no way to know if her use is "in check".

 

Look, I understand that even with great parents, some kids just turn to drugs, that is part of the mystery with raising kids, my main concern is that children of parnets who abuse drugs are ten times more likely to abuse drugs themselves. That is one hell of a burdon to place on a child just so the parent can get stoned.

 

By default, to surround yourself with pot smokers/dealers, you must surround yourself with criminals. As is often true, marijuana distribution is the tamest of crimes that these often nefarious characters will be involved in. Fencing stolen goods, prostitution, cocaine, it's all out there. Illegal activities are often just rungs on a ladder. Climb up the ladder, or down?

 

Or avoid the ladder completely?

 

Why is it the most simple answer is the one nobody is wanting to see? If you just don't get involved in these things, you don't need to be concerned with the other parts that go with it right?

 

Tough comment and question comming, I appoligise but I would not ask it unless it went directly to the discussion

 

This choice, you have it, your child does not. Why is your desire for getting stoned more important than the possibility of messing up your child?

 

 

I know you don't agree, but much of this is exactly why I wish to see marijuana freed from its enslavery as an illicit substance. Remove the illegal status, and you remove the crime that holds hands with it.

 

While I will admit that a lot of the "rush" to make pot illegal was wrong, there is enough hard evidence concerning pot to make it a very disruptive element for society. The reduced mental abilities and "lazy" attitudes are pretty much a given, almost all studies agree on that and other studies seem to counter each other most of the time.

 

 

I can admit that if everyone was like you, I would support making pot legal because you seem to be able to handle it, but then again, how much of that is based on fear of getting in trouble and will go away if it is made legal, this is a question we cannot know the answer to.

 

But, everyone is not as responsible, you even admitted your friends are not to be trusted around your kid, so society must make it's laws based on the average, the normal expectation of how society will react if they no longer need to fear having and using pot.

 

If the every day attitude becomes similar to beer as I bel;ieve it would, then that would create a massive mess in society, a thing I don't want for my children's future.

 

I look at almost everything in my life as either being good or bad for my children. If I can see any bad for them in my actions, I try very hard to not do that bad, because they are what makes my life special.

[Jhony5]

I hate to make this thread more about me and my responsibility toward my child in respect to my pot smoking. But I must answer some of your statements. I'll keep it short.

 

I believe it is reasonable to believe that the "average" pot user does not show the caution you do tword their kids for example.

I doubt the average person shows the same responsibility toward their child as I do. Sober, stoned, drunk or otherwise.

 

I am not sure of the custody situation you have with your child, I know you mentioned being divorced so clearly there is some custody issues

 

As of now we have joint custody (<<<PUN?). About a year ago I had to file an emergency junction for temporary custody because of the poor conditions with my daughters mother and her household/relationship. We had a court date set for about a month after the junction was granted. All the while I did not smoke pot. And for some time afterward. Because I knew her mom would play the trump card (POT). She mentioned it once at the hearing and I immediately volunteered for a drug test. The judge denied my request to submit, citing the lack of reason to have me take a test. As she stated verbatim "I see no reason to pursue this. Your willingness to submit, as well as your work record and lack of felony convictions, leads me to believe that your personal life is stable, as well as your household".

 

Fact is, minor possession of marijuana is no more severe than a traffic violation. Upon reviewing this with my lawyer, allowing him full disclosure of my pot smoking, he agreed that as long as I do not commit a felony, I have no worries.

 

PS: Possession of any amount of cocaine, for example, is a felony. As well, possession of a prescription narcotic (Valium, Oxycontin etc) is a felony. Even for one pill. If you have 1 Valium and 1 vicodin without a prescription, then that is two felonies. Upon each various type of pill, added to your charge is one felony each.

 

Perspective allows one to understand that the laws regarding minor possession of marijuana is quite lenient.

 

 

Indiana Code 35-48-4

 

IC 35-48-4-11

Possession of marijuana, hash oil, or hashish

Sec. 11. A person who:

(1) knowingly or intentionally possesses (pure or adulterated) marijuana, hash oil, or hashish;

(2) knowingly or intentionally grows or cultivates marijuana; or

(3) knowing that marijuana is growing on his premises, fails to destroy the marijuana plants;

commits possession of marijuana, hash oil, or hashish, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony (i) if the amount involved is more than thirty (30) grams of marijuana or two (2) grams of hash oil or hashish, or (ii) if the person has a prior conviction of an offense involving marijuana, hash oil, or hashish.

 

 

Like there is a "victimless" crime?

Technically, you are right. The only victim in a case where a person is smoking pot in the privacy of their home (Excluding extenuating circumstance i.e. caring for a child etc.) is the person whom gets arrested.

 

As they say "The worst side effect of marijuana smoking is jail time".

 

Tough comment and question coming, I apologize but I would not ask it unless it went directly to the discussion

 

This is a debate that I entered into. Fire away.

 

Why is your desire for getting stoned more important than the possibility of messing up your child?

It isn't. But as with all things, there must be balance. I believe in the mentally therapeutic properties of casual marijuana smoking so fervently, that I have adopted it as part of my culture. Marijuana can only mess up my child if she smokes it as a child. I can control this until she is an adult. I'll add that some of the worst, I mean many of the kids I hung with had very strict, sober Christian parents. Ya wanna know how I was familiar with Genesis 1-12? Because when I was 16 I was rolling up some joints at my friend Brian's house, who's parents are devout Christians, and he thought it would be cute to tear out that passage from his bible and use it as a rolling paper. After all, it was printed on pure rice paper.

 

Man those kids were bad. Real bad. Brian is no longer a friend of mine. He got involved in a very heavy prescription drug habit and I haven't spoken to him in years.

 

My point being, the statistics are always skewed in this matter and a parents relationship with their kids is far more important that what the parent smokes after the kids go to bed.

 

My parents smoked pot until I was about 10. I remember the smell of marijuana lofting through the air when I was young. Remember, it was the 70's and things were different. I know that I liked the smell.

 

My brother was his classes valedictorian, he never used any drugs and is now a venerable police officer.

 

So my personal experience makes me feel safe to buck the "statistic". Maybe I'm gambling with my daughters future. Maybe I am wrong. But I feel very strongly otherwise.

 

As of now, and for as long as possible, my pot smoking will remain as personal, private and separate from my daughters view and knowledge as my sex life.

 

All one needs to do is to care enough to keep it private and to put this care into practice.

[timesjoke]

As I already said before, you are clearly the exception, not the rule.

 

While I still feel that some statistics are too strong to ignore (like children of drug using parents being ten times more likely to use them also) I can also see you side of things in the strict framework you describe.

 

Too bad most people are not like you, the world would be a better place and I really mean that.

 

 

There is always a "but" right?

 

But, your ability as one man is not reflective of society as a whole. Most pot smokers are not careful about smoking around their kids and most are not limited to a couple puffs a day like you.

 

Being as your getting what you need without a problem, and it costs you almost nothing on top of that, I cannot see where making it legal would change anything. The only thing making it legal would do is let dope smokers do it in public, I cannot see how people smoking pot at the park would make society any better.

 

 

 

 

I would like to hear your view on my idea to just remove all cash to end drug problems.

 

This discussion started by sying the government becomming drug dealers for pot could generate enough money to help stop other, more harmful drugs so if stopping drugs is the goal, why not just use the simplest method, when you take the money out of it, criminals will no longer want to do it.

 

Don't you think going to an all electronic funds policy would end most illegal drugs and also fix the other issues I mentioned like dead beat dads not paying their child support?

[ImWithStupid]

I would like to hear your view on my idea to just remove all cash to end drug problems.

 

This discussion started by sying the government becomming drug dealers for pot could generate enough money to help stop other, more harmful drugs so if stopping drugs is the goal, why not just use the simplest method, when you take the money out of it, criminals will no longer want to do it.

 

Don't you think going to an all electronic funds policy would end most illegal drugs and also fix the other issues I mentioned like dead beat dads not paying their child support?

 

I can see that as a way to put a hurt on thing for a while, but you would always have to have a way to exchange funds, privately. I think if that were to happen, the method of payment would just shift. Give prepaid credit cards, trade in valuable goods, etc...

 

 

I'm by no means a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I think requiring the people of a country to put all of their liquid assets in the hands of a government, corporations, or banking is a slippery slope leading to another possible way to control the people.

 

 

Will most transactions all be done electronically someday? Probably. I just would always like the option of something else.

 

 

It's an idea, but also with ways around it.

[Jhony5]

As I already said before, you are clearly the exception, not the rule.

Herein lies the problem. Misconceptions perpetuated by skewed education. Who says this is the rule, and why? What evidence is available to show that the average pot smoker is a seedy criminal, lurking in the shadows?

Many many pot smokers are doctors, professional, professors and the like. None of my current friends are criminals in the conventional predatory sense. They smoke pot, and thats it. They work, they have families and they don't bother anyone.

 

I don't bring my daughter around them, because they usually have a joint in their pocket or some sh t.

 

While I still feel that some statistics are too strong to ignore (like children of drug using parents being ten times more likely to use them also) I can also see you side of things in the strict framework you describe.

Again, how could it even be possible to compile accurate statistics in this regard? There are countless ways to argue that these statistics are flawed beyond reason.

 

The only thing making it legal would do is let dope smokers do it in public,

Not true. People often cannot drink in public. Hell, people can't even smoke tobacco in public anymore.

 

I would like to hear your view on my idea to just remove all cash to end drug problems.

You mean the associated crime I assume?

 

Crooks always find a way. Instead of robbing people for cash, they rob 'em for the plastic. Instead of fencing stolen goods for cash, they fence for credit. "Heres the radio I stole kind sir. Please transfer X amount to my card".

 

This discussion started by saying the government becoming drug dealers for pot could generate enough money to help stop other, more harmful drugs so if stopping drugs is the goal, why not just use the simplest method, when you take the money out of it, criminals will no longer want to do it.

My point in mentioning all that was that personally, as a pot smoker, I recognize the horrible social impact that methamphetamines, cocaine, heroin and other illicit drugs have. Prescription drugs are actually the worst, concerning the potential for death. As I stated earlier, prescription drugs result in more overdose deaths than heroin and cocaine combined. A statistic I saw cited on the show "Intervention", aired on the A&E network.

 

Don't you think going to an all electronic funds policy would end most illegal drugs and also fix the other issues I mentioned like dead beat dads not paying their child support?

It would statistically reduce much of it, yes. But ultimately it would do nothing to end the illegal drug trade. Maybe some of the impulsive crimes committed as a means of funding a drug habit. But as I said, the creature will adapt. What is needed is some common sense concessions.

 

Whether electronically transfered or not, millions of dollars in resources and payroll monies are needed to fight illegal drugs. Stop fighting marijuana and we free up unbelievable resources to combat the horrid man made drugs that turn people into monsters.

[Anna Perenna]

Minus the speed, cocaine, ecstasy, etc... I totally agree.

 

 

Sorry if you've explained this previously in the thread, but how come you want to exclude other recreational drugs?

 

I understand not wanting to mass-produce heroin & meth but ecstasy in particular isn't addictive and if it's made properly (and taken properly) the effects (and after-effects) really aren't that bad.

 

They're really rather wonderful, actually.

[snafu]

Sorry if you've explained this previously in the thread, but how come you want to exclude other recreational drugs?

 

I understand not wanting to mass-produce heroin & meth but ecstasy in particular isn't addictive and if it's made properly (and taken properly) the effects (and after-effects) really aren't that bad.

 

They're really rather wonderful, actually.

 

Ecstasy is about the only drug I don't know much about. I have heard that it kills dorphins (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong) in the brain that can never be recouped. Like Meth it cause brain damage. Also losing these dorphins you have long term depression.

But meth, crack and heroin are the most adictive.

[ImWithStupid]

Sorry if you've explained this previously in the thread, but how come you want to exclude other recreational drugs?

 

I understand not wanting to mass-produce heroin & meth but ecstasy in particular isn't addictive and if it's made properly (and taken properly) the effects (and after-effects) really aren't that bad.

 

They're really rather wonderful, actually.

 

There have been too many times that this country has had large problems with the effects of addiction by many of these harder more dangerous drugs. There was a large epidemic of heroin abuse in the '60s and early '70s, there was the cocaine problems in the late '70s and early '80s and the crack problem in the '80s and early '90s. The meth epidemic in this country, currently, is far worse then the crack problem in the '80s.

 

 

I've seen too many lives that have been destroyed by their addiction to these more harmful drugs.

 

It's not even just the effects of the drugs on the users, it's the associated crime that goes along with it. The burglaries, thefts, robberies, etc...

[Anna Perenna]

Ecstasy is about the only drug I don't know much about. I have heard that it kills dorphins (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong) in the brain that can never be recouped. Like Meth it cause brain damage. Also losing these dorphins you have long term depression.

But meth, crack and heroin are the most adictive.

 

There have been too many times that this country has had large problems with the effects of addiction by many of these harder more dangerous drugs. There was a large epidemic of heroin abuse in the '60s and early '70s, there was the cocaine problems in the late '70s and early '80s and the crack problem in the '80s and early '90s. The meth epidemic in this country, currently, is far worse then the crack problem in the '80s.

 

I've seen too many lives that have been destroyed by their addiction to these more harmful drugs.

 

It's not even just the effects of the drugs on the users, it's the associated crime that goes along with it. The burglaries, thefts, robberies, etc...

 

Ok, so let's say that the most addictive drugs with the most harmful side effects (including behavioural side effects) aren't included in our drugtopia:

 

Private companies are manufacturing marijuana and ecstasy (a drug which is only used occasionally purely for recreational/partying purposes) but speed, cocaine, meth, crack, heroin, etc are all still illegal.

 

But, because these illegal drugs are so addictive and people find them so appealing, drug dealers are still making and selling them in an unregulated market with nobody to impose quality control on the ingredients that go into these drugs.

 

In other words, nothing has changed.

 

I was hoping that drugs like these could be sold through pharmacies in packaging labelled with warnings and the like, and before they were handed over the counter to the buyer, the pharmacist would be obliged to tell them all the side effects, how to take the drug responsibly, etc.

 

Apart from giving the government the tax revenue (revenue which can go towards research into drug related crime?), it might also cause a decline in drug overdoses and other drug related ailments that are putting a drain on the health system.

[hugo]

Ok, so let's say that the most addictive drugs with the most harmful side effects (including behavioural side effects) aren't included in our drugtopia:

 

But, because these illegal drugs are so addictive and people find them so appealing, drug dealers are still making and selling them in an unregulated market with nobody to impose quality control on the ingredients that go into these drugs.

 

In other words, nothing has changed.

 

 

Exactly, and you still got heroin and coke addicts stealing, robbing and killing for a fix. Legalize all drugs, without a prescription, for anyone over 21. The price will be so cheap no one will need to steal for a fix.

 

I am tired of the stoner fascists arguing all recreational drugs should be illegal except for their so-called miracle drug.

[timesjoke]

 

It's an idea, but also with ways around it.

 

While I agree with you in principle, I cannot see how in reality.

 

How many 20 dollar gift cards can the drug dealer take? Sooner or later, he is going to get a lot of attention cashing in thousands of gift cards.

 

Then there is the other problem, how to keep supply comming if you cannot have portable, untracable money to pay for it. Cash funds can be packaged and given to people and the receiver can spend it without anyone knowing where it came from, with electronic funds, there is always a trail.

 

Hell, cops could just give cards to the dealers and watch the electronic "jumps" to the end.

 

Even if they do figure a way, the short term would be close to complete removal, the best time to put the most pressure on and try to collapse as much of the networks as possible.

 

Then it will be like starting all over with a more complicated system that most very poor (the average drug user and customer) will not be able to consistantly get their drugs.

 

 

 

Do you agree that this would also help things like stopping dead beat dads?

[ImWithStupid]

While I agree with you in principle, I cannot see how in reality.

 

How many 20 dollar gift cards can the drug dealer take? Sooner or later, he is going to get a lot of attention cashing in thousands of gift cards.

 

Then there is the other problem, how to keep supply comming if you cannot have portable, untracable money to pay for it. Cash funds can be packaged and given to people and the receiver can spend it without anyone knowing where it came from, with electronic funds, there is always a trail.

 

Hell, cops could just give cards to the dealers and watch the electronic "jumps" to the end.

 

Even if they do figure a way, the short term would be close to complete removal, the best time to put the most pressure on and try to collapse as much of the networks as possible.

 

Then it will be like starting all over with a more complicated system that most very poor (the average drug user and customer) will not be able to consistantly get their drugs.

 

Like I said it would be a deterrent and take the trade down to next to nothing for a while and leave an electronic trail.

 

This might make it hard for the poor drug user or consumer to get drugs easily but I think it has the potential to also hurt some poor or low income, honest people. You would still need a way to make it possible for the easy transfer of funds from one private individual to another, like at a farmer's market or roadside produce seller and the such. There are people who rely on this type of person to person sale that would be hurt if there wasn't another option. You would almost have to have some kind of Blackberry or something to do this electronically and there are many who can't afford something like that, and would hurt the poor, homeless or transients who collects cans for cash or accepts handouts (panhandling). I feel this could also cause these types of people to be more dependent on the government and possibly lead us even more towards a socialist/welfare state.

 

Do you agree that this would also help things like stopping dead beat dads?

 

I agree with this, assuming the person has the money and isn't paying, sometimes they don't have the money.

 

Believe me, I pay child support and it isn't the most fair system around. Before I got divorced and was paying child support, my then wife, two children, and myself lived in a 5 bedroom home. My wife wasn't working except for a part time job making about $400 a month. Pretty much just enough to make her car payment. I was paying all the rest of the bills on the home, utilities, food, another vehicle payment, insurance, etc... We got divorced, she was awarded custody of the kids, I was ordered to pay child support and she moved to another town so I was to keep the home. Within one year of me having to pay child support at the rate mandated by the State of Nebraska, I had to sell my house, move to a two bedroom duplex, and was struggling to afford necessities, like food, utilities which it's required by my job to have a phone, etc. If this is fair, how come I could support a family of 4 in this situation, but after child support, I couldn't keep the same basic bills and actually lower food and utility costs.

 

I'm just saying that many "deadbeat dads" might just not have the kind of money that is required by the state.

 

With that said, I know there are many, many losers that could do much more then they do. Believe me I deal with them every day.

 

I'm also going to go back to the slippery slope thing. When we start to give away liberties to the government that we had it gets easier to give away or lose others. I think it could just make it too easy for the government to have another control over the average, honest person. Threats of cutting off finances and such.

 

As for a way to attack drugs in this country. I feel the best thing that we could do is get that fence on the border.

 

Just take the meth problem. Here in Nebraska we were finding over 300 meth labs per year. They passed legislation that put regulations on items containing pseudoephedrine/ephedrine and within the first year, found labs dropped to less then 100. The problem is that 90% of the meth was coming into the state up from Mexico and the superlabs that they have in operation there.

[hugo]

There are other mediums of exchange. Gold and silver come to mind. A drug addict will get his fix.

[snafu]

...I am tired of the stoner fascists arguing all recreational drugs should be illegal except for their so-called miracle drug.

 

 

I'm trying to be piratical. Marijuana has less side effects and is widely used like alcohol. Just getting that legal would be a feat in it's self. By legalizing my miracle drug , you could get a consciouses of the outcome for further legalizations.

[snafu]

I don't think we would have a drug epidemic if we were to legalize all drugs. I think it would spike but in a decade or two it would pan out. People would be more educated and make wiser choices. Moneys that was spent for policing and incarcerations could go for treatments and education.

 

It's like losing weight. You can't get rid of it all at once.