Re: Re: Why are drugs ilegal?
 

Does alcohol not have this same effect?

Drug use in America is in its infancy. Some people still remember when marijuana, cocaine, and heroine were still legal. At some point, alcohol was also illegal (not consumption, just production and transportation). So what I'm trying to say is that quite possibly sentiments towards drugs will change.

Most, if not all, top economists believe drugs should be legalized and taxed. Drug users have been shown through tests to be FULLY RATIONAL. There is some propoghanda to suggest otherwisse, but tests show differently. Because people are rational and because the government can lower the usage of a "vice" through a tax while increasing its tax revenue, economists support legalization.

-Rudey

Alchohol isn't healthy. That "one a day" is advise for people who drink 6 a day.

Word up.

I don't know if full legalization of all drugs is the way to go. It will end up like cigarettes, where the government makes huge profts and costs millions of Americans their lives.

I would kinda disagree with the fact that all heroin/cocaine addicts are FULLY RATIONAL. Meet an addict and you decide.

Strange, b/c as I advocate for the decriminalization of Marijuana it's for economic reasons...

Marijuana, if legalized, could then become regulated which means they could tax the hell out of it. The Government would be able to spend money "War on Drugs" $$$ on the more dangerous drugs, and make money on the sale of Marijuana which could go to education programs similar to anti-tobacco programs. Plus the savings combined with the tax could go towards other things (just hopefully not the defense budget...)

As for the prisons and loss of jobs...well I think that those same people could go out and fight other drugs and other crimes. As for the Prisons, non-violent offenders who would be released would make room for those who we need to be protected from.

Real quick semantics...

Legalization and decriminalization are NOT the same thing.

To decriminalize something is to reduce or abolish criminal penalties for it. To legalize it is to sanction or advocate it.

The two could be interchangable, but it is important to note the difference.

Im confused...are you saying this never happens? A friend of mine was killed in a marijuana-related automobile accident, and I find it a tad disrespectful to question the validity of it ever happening. Yes, significantly more accidents happen because of alcohol. Why this strikes some people as an excuse to legalize it boggles the mind, because if, for example, alcohol related accidents caused 100,000 deaths a year, and pot related accidents claimed the lives of 4, why would anyone want to compound those figures. Does pot make anyone into a violent criminal? No way to be 100% certain, but Id actually lean towards no. It does make people careless, and that can be just as dangerous as violence.

When it comes to the decriminalization or legalization of a mind-altering substance, the argument becomes much more universal. It really depends on how much you trust other people to do the responsible thing. Id trust myself to smoke, (as I do to drink) because I know I wouldnt put myself in a compromising position (behind the wheel of a car, with a nonconsenting female). Im certain that there are people much more responsible than I am, but I just dont know for sure if theyre the ones that are going to be on the road, potentially endangering someone I love. If drugs (especially hard ones) affected just the people who use them, as stated before, then it would be a personal choice. However, many times it does not, and when you threaten someone elses livelihood, thats where our 'father figure' comes in. Regretfully, some people are 'too stupid to make their own decisions', and when left to their own devices, could cause harm to others.

My stance: Ive said a lot of ambiguous things, and I can say that I support decriminalization, because there are bigger problems for the government to be worried about. For me to vote for it, there would have to be the equivalent of a breathalyzer, or other instant test. Drivers under the influence should have the book thrown at them, as in alcohol related cases. I should add, that besides the medical uses (and there are other painkillers), I have not seen one persons life improved or maintained by pot smoking.

DeltaSigStan, Im not sure how you meant what you said above, but to me, you trivialized the legitimacy of the injuries, rapes, and deaths caused by marijuana use. Not every smoker (in fact, an extremely small few) has done those things, but it does happen, and I think everyone deserves to know the potential consequences without having them laughed at.

I guess what I was trying to say is that stupidity, not marijuana causes those things. If stupid people think smoking weed will enhance casual sex, then they're idiots. If you know how to control it and yourself and your decisions, then a lot of those things wouldn't happen. If you smoke in a bathroom at an arena, you're dumb. If you go to the drive through and do what those guys did, you're dumb. If you play with a loaded gun, then, well, you know.

I'm just tired of weed being the excuse when people do stupid things. If you're gonna smoke, then know to have some common sense. But, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, however I can see how that comes across as insulting.

Exactly, Stan. It's like the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing. Marijuana doesn't make you unknowingly shoot your best friend, run over children playing in the street, or get accidentally pregnant at 15. Stupidity does.

Regardless of the legality of marijuana, stupid & careless people are going to find a way to screw up their lives and other people's lives. And smart, responsible people will be able to avoid making those kinds of mistakes regardless of whether or not they choose to smoke marijuana.

If you're responsible, you know not to drive when you've been smoking marijuana, and you don't put yourself in situations where that's going to be an issue. If you're responsible, you know not to smoke up at a party without knowing that you have friends that you can trust with your life around you to keep an eye on you and take care of you (and vice versa), so someone will prevent it if somebody else tries to take advantage of you. And for god's sake, anybody who doesn't keep their guns locked up from their children is just asking for an accident to happen!

We cater too much to stupidy. Look at shows like Jackass, Fear Factor, etc. Or warnings on hair dryers that say don't use while showering. If you're that ignorant then yeah, death would be sad, but maybe those genes shouldn't be reproducing.

I agree those genes shouldnt be reproducing, but again, its not themselves alone that they take out :)

Stan, I didnt mean to come off as aggressive as I did. Believe me, Id be the worlds biggest personal freedom advocate/anarchist/libertarian if I could trust people not to be so stupid. But sadly, people are going to hold coffee between their legs, sue McDonalds for making them fat, rob each other for $150 Nikes, join the KKK, and other voraciously illogical activity. Quite frankly, the government has to make some decisions for people for the good of society as a whole.

In a study of long-term and shorter-term marijuana users, researchers in Greece found that both groups performed more poorly on tests of memory, attention and other cognitive abilities than a comparison group who'd only occasionally used the drug.

Long-term users - who'd smoked four or more joints per week for at least 10 years - showed the greatest deficits.

Absolutely!! My brother is much older than I, and went through the whole 70's drug scene and I am absolutely AMAZED by how much he will argue that (name the point) happened, or how (name the point) didn't happen.

I'm in geriatrics. For former (or current) drug users, the age span is MUCH lower than the average geriatric client.

Why is it illegal? They'll give you the old "gateway drug" factor, but I think JAM said it much better than I could.

So did they test these people before they started smoking weed? They're not saying that correlation implies causation, are they? I'm sure they would never do such a thing.

I personally feel like it's kinda hypocritical to allow tobacco but not allow marijuana. Tobacco has absolutely no health benefits. And while marijuana smoke is more potent and worse for your respiratory system, there are far more cigarette smokers than pot smokers. Plus, a lot of cigarette smokers aren't just smoking one or two. They're chain smoking, they're smoking in public places (bars, restaurants, outside, etc.), and non-smokers (myself included) end up breathing in second-hand smoke (as well as having our clothes smell like smoke after a night out). I'm not necessarily saying that we should legalize marijuana. I think marijuana should be legal for medicinal use, especially for terminal patients. I also think that our government needs to focus more on more dangerous drugs, especially with the growing problem of crystal meth. I couldn't find more up-to-date statistics, but the statistics for 1997 were that marijuana arrests accounted for 12.7% of the total federal prison population and 87.2% of marijuana arrests were for possession. So that means that we're mostly arresting users. Only 12.8% of the arrests were for the growers and dealers. Not only is arresting the users not going to stop the growth and sale of marijuana, it's putting additional strain on our overcrowded prison system.

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

In addition, I found this article, and below are the two sections that I found the most interesting.

----------------------------------------------------------
"If we are to have a consistent drug policy, we need to either legalize marijuana or prohibit tobacco. The government has created an international police force in the Drug Enforcement Administration, which aims to close down the trade and development of illegal drugs. However, at the same time, they have been providing substantial economic support for those who own and operate expansive tobacco plantations. While tobacco is less harmful than most illicit drugs, its effects are similar and at times, more extensive than those of marijuana."

"In economic terms, marijuana and tobacco are essentially substitution products. That means than an increase in use of one product tends to reduce use of the other, because they are used in a similar manner, often for similar reasons. If marijuana were to become legal, and usage were to go up, then cigarette sales would likely go down, which would decrease the profits of many campaign contribution giants, including Philip Morris, who was the top contributor for the 1995-96 campaign, and the three other tobacco companies in the top 100 contributors. Naturally, the corporate giants will use their political clout to stop legislation they see as a detriment to their economic health. In most industries, there would be heavily funded corporate lobbies defending business interests on each issue of legalization. However, because of the prohibition on pot, most people who raise cannabis domestically have small-scale industries, which are often run out of a converted guest room or green house. They lack the extensive economic resources of Philip Morris or Brown and Williamson, and so can’t pay millions each year toward campaign funds for their own political benefit. Because the tobacco companies own expansive plantations, they can donate more of their time and money to influence legislation on their behalf. In this manner, those who are within the marijuana industry are at a disadvantage when issues of advocacy arise."