Pot smokers, drug users.

[therealUT]

A few subpeonas to Freak and I could open a bunch of case files.

Decriminalized here. Have fun.

 

[McDad]

Most of you advocating legalization / decriminalization haven't answered my question about the hard drugs.

Heroin
Cocaine
Opium
Meth

 

[PKT_VOL]

Most of you advocating legalization / decriminalization haven't answered my question about the hard drugs.

Heroin
Cocaine
Opium
Meth

Theoretically, yes.

Practically, no.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Make sure you get that fungus from someone you trust.

A cocaine overdose would be a great way to go out.

I dunno that I would want to die of a cocaine overdose at old age.

 

[therealUT]

Most of you advocating legalization / decriminalization haven't answered my question about the hard drugs.

Heroin
Cocaine
Opium
Meth

What was your question? Should all narcotics be legalized? Yes; as well, all pharmaceuticals should be legalized and made available over the counter.

 

[McDad]

Theoretically, yes.

Practically, no.

Can you elucidate?

 

[McDad]

What was your question? Should all narcotics be legalized? Yes; as well, all pharmaceuticals should be legalized and made available over the counter.

Aren't some things simply toi dangerous to individuals or the community to allow?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Aren't some things simply toi dangerous to individuals or the community to allow?

It would be there, legal or not. Hard drugs make the law seem nonexistent.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I dunno that I would want to die of a cocaine overdose at old age.

Something about a thrilling, quick ending sells me on the idea.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Theoretically, yes.

Practically, no.

How's that, PKT?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Can you elucidate?

Good word.

How's that, PKT?

Well, theoretically, I believe a person ought to have the right to do whatever they want so long as it does not harm another individual. This would include digesting and mutilating their own bodies in whatever manner they see fit. A very Libertarian ideal.

The downside is that hard drugs tend to completely alter a person's mind. In fairness, that is the whole point of taking any drug. This is not bad in and of itself. The mind altering part of the drug usually causes addiction. Two problems arise from this.

1) The tend to become worthless once addicted.
2) They physically need the drug and will do anything they have to do to get the drug.

With the first problem, you are degrading your society from within. That is never good. The Libertarian in me, the theoretical/philosophical side of me, says that it is their prerogative. Again, they can do what they want with their life and their bodies. However, the practical side of me, the "realist" side of me, says that society (people within our society) want to mother hen these people. They will not let them fall flat on their face. They will want to support them financially via food stamps, welfare, etc. Oh, and if they have kids, that just really perpetuates the problem. So, to combat this, it seems easier to just outlaw such drugs. And yes, I understand the arguments (failures) against such actions.

The second problem is the more serious problem. People who are addicted to hard drugs will do anything to keep the high coming. You have all seen the various reality television shows and documentaries on the phenomenon of addiction. There is no need to go into this. The end result is that it significantly drives up crime against innocent people. The interesting thing about this problem is that it does not apply to all "hard" drugs. For people that use "high end" drugs (cocaine, etc), this is not a problem; they can afford their drugs and do not engage in various crimes to support their habit. It is the "hard drugs" in the poor communities that gives me concern. They get physically addicted to something they are completely hopeless to support on their own.

Is this more or less confusing than before? I feel like a hypocrite on this subject.

 

[therealUT]

Aren't some things simply toi dangerous to individuals or the community to allow?

No.

If someone murders while on bath-salts, charge them with homicide. If they assault someone while on bath-salts, charge them with assault. If they OD while on bath-salts, throw their body in a trash can.

What is the problem?

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don't think that would happen. I haven't had the pleasure of visiting a dispensary but I have seen enough news footage to know that the choice of strains is much greater than the underground trade. Price sounds about the same as well.

While there may be a big company out there like Phillip Morris that capitalizes by selling some watered down cheap product I think speciality shops would rule the roost. There is already a culture associated with quality bud much like fine cigars. Plus growers are like micro brewers, they take pride in their product.

I'm all for legalization and taxing in the same manner alcohol is. Although the regulation part would concern me on the state level as some states limit the alcohol content in beer. I would be worried about THC limits. Then again, if you were allowed to grow your own then all you would need are some seeds from a neighboring state.

Regardless, industrial hemp needs to be freed immediately. The plant is so versatile to be wasted by prohibition.

Therein lies your problem. For extremely casual smokers, one can grow enough in their basement or a closet for personal use. Many if not most would. Therefore, legalization/decriminalization without taxation. The same for Alcohol. I can brew nearly as much beer as I care to drink on a "casual" basis. I have enough equipment to basically produce 5 gallons a week. I currently don't have enough bottles or space to store it. It is really that easy. In TN you are allowed to home produce hard liquor also albeit in small quantities.

I have maintained for a long time that until they can come up with a reliable spot test for THC content in the blood, "legalization" won't happen. "Decriminalization" may happen since that leaves open the drug free work place laws, etc., etc. Legalization will require a test that can determine if there is any THC in your blood. Current pee tests simply measure a metabolite of THC that can be stored in the fatty cells in your body. That is why you can fail a pee test up to a week after a casual buzz. The THC is long gone (probably within hours) but the metabolite still shows up. When they legalize it, you will be required to get a blood test, an expensive blood test....the problem is getting that blood test on the highway by a trooper.

 

[therealUT]

Well, theoretically, I believe a person ought to have the right to do whatever they want so long as it does not harm another individual. This would include digesting and mutilating their own bodies in whatever manner they see fit. A very Libertarian ideal.

The downside is that hard drugs tend to completely alter a person's mind. In fairness, that is the whole point of taking any drug. This is not bad in and of itself. The mind altering part of the drug usually causes addiction. Two problems arise from this.

1) The tend to become worthless once addicted.
2) They physically need the drug and will do anything they have to do to get the drug.

Agree.

With the first problem, you are degrading your society from within. That is never good.

Not necessarily. I assume that your premise is that one degraded person in a society degrades the society. While such a premise is ostensibly sensible, it is much more complex, and many reasonable thinkers do not associate themselves with the thought that society is merely a sum of its parts.

The Libertarian in me, the theoretical/philosophical side of me, says that it is their prerogative. Again, they can do what they want with their life and their bodies. However, the practical side of me, the "realist" side of me, says that society (people within our society) want to mother hen these people. They will not let them fall flat on their face. They will want to support them financially via food stamps, welfare, etc.

True, society might have to support such individuals by providing basic subsistence; however, as a practical issue, this is a relative cost that one must weigh against the cost of enforcing the current legislation. While there are certainly cheaper ways of enforcing the current legislation, there are also cheaper ways of providing basic subsistence.

Oh, and if they have kids, that just really perpetuates the problem. So, to combat this, it seems easier to just outlaw such drugs. And yes, I understand the arguments (failures) against such actions.

I agree that the kids lose when their parents are addicted to narcotics; however, as a practical issue (once again), we must weigh this loss against what kids are losing in a society in which it can be argued that there is a black market which provides more incentive for many of these kids to peddle drugs on the street than to pursue legally permitted employment.

The second problem is the more serious problem. People who are addicted to hard drugs will do anything to keep the high coming. The end result is that it significantly drives up crime against innocent people. The interesting thing about this problem is that it does not apply to all "hard" drugs.

A question arises here with two possible and plausible answers: Why are these individuals turning to crime?

1. They have an altered mind-state. For these crimes, it appears as though it is simply a necessary condition that crime will increase. However, there are ways to control this phenomena. And, if we think about the practice of opium dens, we might be able to identify the key. Certain drugs (marijuana) could be sold and consumed anywhere; certain harder drugs (opium) might be limited to dens where individuals buy, consume, get high, and come down in a controlled environment. They get their fix; they get their high; and, they leave (or, remain forever).

2. Which you seem to embrace below, the high is so overwhelming and tempting, that individuals will do anything to chase it. Many of the harder drugs are too expensive for these individuals to afford; therefore, they will steal to fund their addiction. This theft will often result in physical harm. Regardless of how one tries to deal with and lessen this problem, it might still be a necessary consequence. However, it is worth attempting. Prohibited substances will always be more expensive than they would be were they permitted. Marijuana is an incredibly cheap crop to grow; poppy is cheap; coca is a bit more expensive, but not overwhelmingly so; meth is incredibly cheap to produce. Were these drugs legal, I cannot imagine a situation in which a large manufacturer would not get into the business of mass producing opium and cocaine (like Brown and Williamson mass produces cigarettes); in fact, just like cigarettes, I imagine that the product would be even cheaper because it would be cut with something (tar and other BS). The end result is a cheap low-quality version of these drugs and a more expensive high-end version of these drugs (cigarettes v. Davidoff cigars; Jim Beam v. Johnny Walker Green Label; etc.). The low-quality might be both less agreeable and less potent (just enough to get a decent high). Either way, though, it would be much more affordable to the masses who want to use, resulting in less crime to fund the habit (there would also be less crime attributed to turf war and dealers' justice).

For people that use "high end" drugs (cocaine, etc), this is not a problem; they can afford their drugs and do not engage in various crimes to support their habit. It is the "hard drugs" in the poor communities that gives me concern. They get physically addicted to something they are completely hopeless to support on their own.

Is this more or less confusing than before? I feel like a hypocrite on this subject.

Don't think you are a hypocrite, just have to place faith in the drastic economic consequences, related specifically to the cost of the drugs, that could foreseeably result.

 

[McDad]

trUT, I am almost there when it comes to MJ. Having a harder time wrapping my head around the concept of the harder stuff being readily available. Individual liberty and the right to do what you want with your own body is compelling. Drug use, especially the hard stuff, seems destructive to the community as a whole.

Are there currently any societies or countries where everything is legal and available? Anyone have any stats re crime, financial drain on community, etc?

 

[tim]

No.

If someone murders while on bath-salts, charge them with homicide. If they assault someone while on bath-salts, charge them with assault. If they OD while on bath-salts, throw their body in a trash can.

What is the problem?

What if they were already in jail and restrained from committing these crimes. Seems much better than your option.

 

[therealUT]

What if they were already in jail and restrained from committing these crimes. Seems much better than your option.

So, you think people should be locked up based on the probability that they will commit a crime. Glad that sounds better to you.

 

[therealUT]

trUT, I am almost there when it comes to MJ. Having a harder time wrapping my head around the concept of the harder stuff being readily available. Individual liberty and the right to do what you want with your own body is compelling. Drug use, especially the hard stuff, seems destructive to the community as a whole.

Are there currently any societies or countries where everything is legal and available? Anyone have any stats re crime, financial drain on community, etc?

I have no idea about the latter. I do know that the US has some pretty strict drug laws; moreover, the US has the highest rates of homicide and assault among what are considered to be developed nations. Many of the homicides and assaults occur in "outlaw" enterprises; the majority of them, according to individuals like Steven Pinker, are cases in which justice is being sought, but, since the endeavor engaged in is illegal, must be sought outside of the criminal and civil justice systems.

Make drugs legal, and then when someone feels as though they have been screwed over by either a supplier or a customer they have a form of address and retribution: the US justice system.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Well, theoretically, I believe a person ought to have the right to do whatever they want so long as it does not harm another individual. This would include digesting and mutilating their own bodies in whatever manner they see fit. A very Libertarian ideal.

The downside is that hard drugs tend to completely alter a person's mind. In fairness, that is the whole point of taking any drug. This is not bad in and of itself. The mind altering part of the drug usually causes addiction. Two problems arise from this.

1) The tend to become worthless once addicted.
2) They physically need the drug and will do anything they have to do to get the drug.

With the first problem, you are degrading your society from within. That is never good. The Libertarian in me, the theoretical/philosophical side of me, says that it is their prerogative. Again, they can do what they want with their life and their bodies. However, the practical side of me, the "realist" side of me, says that society (people within our society) want to mother hen these people. They will not let them fall flat on their face. They will want to support them financially via food stamps, welfare, etc. Oh, and if they have kids, that just really perpetuates the problem. So, to combat this, it seems easier to just outlaw such drugs. And yes, I understand the arguments (failures) against such actions.

The second problem is the more serious problem. People who are addicted to hard drugs will do anything to keep the high coming. You have all seen the various reality television shows and documentaries on the phenomenon of addiction. There is no need to go into this. The end result is that it significantly drives up crime against innocent people. The interesting thing about this problem is that it does not apply to all "hard" drugs. For people that use "high end" drugs (cocaine, etc), this is not a problem; they can afford their drugs and do not engage in various crimes to support their habit. It is the "hard drugs" in the poor communities that gives me concern. They get physically addicted to something they are completely hopeless to support on their own.

Is this more or less confusing than before? I feel like a hypocrite on this subject.

I think I said it earlier in this thread (again, I'm off kilter on Mondays), but when you're talking about hard drug users, the laws currently in place don't really mean squat to them. If they mug somebody to fund their fix, arrest them and charge them with battery/armed robbery. If they break into a house and kill a man for the key to his safe, charge him with murder of the first degree. The only difference in meth being decriminalized is that you won't have tweekers in jail simply for being tweekers. Now, decriminalization shouldn't change probation/parole conditions. If an addict went to prison for robbery and was regularly drug tested by his PO after his release, that's fine. The courts could also appoint rehabilitation as a method to alleviate the addiction.

I guess my main point is this:

Addicts will be addicts and act like addicts regardless of the laws of the land. If they go to jail, it needs to be for a crime that harmed/affected another person.

I know you don't know me, but do I seem like someone who should be in prison? Because by the logic of the current laws we have, I should be imprisoned week in and week out.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

What if they were already in jail and restrained from committing these crimes. Seems much better than your option.

See the last sentence in my previous post. This logic of yours is deeply flawed.

I've never assaulted, robbed, raped, or killed anyone.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Question for those who do NOT advocate legalization/decriminalization:

While there may or may not be arguments for hard drugs (intravenous and nasal insufflation), what arguments do you folks have against psychedelics such as:

LSD (acid)
Psilocybin (mushrooms)
Peyote
Salvia
DMT

Remember, these have zero addictive properties.
In fact, most require a cooldown period before they even work again.

 

[McDad]

I have no idea about the latter. I do know that the US has some pretty strict drug laws; moreover, the US has the highest rates of homicide and assault among what are considered to be developed nations. Many of the homicides and assaults occur in "outlaw" enterprises; the majority of them, according to individuals like Steven Pinker, are cases in which justice is being sought, but, since the endeavor engaged in is illegal, must be sought outside of the criminal and civil justice systems.

Make drugs legal, and then when someone feels as though they have been screwed over by either a supplier or a customer they have a form of address and retribution: the US justice system.

I asked about any societies or countries where it is all legal because it seems almost all went through a time when drug abuse and addiction was causing substantive issues. Opium dens in Asia as an example. Morphine addiction in the US.

If the decriminalized approach has already been tried, (because those societies didn't know enough to make it extremely difficult to obtain and use), why would we want to go back and repeat the mistakes from previous societies?

 

[McDad]

Question for those who do NOT advocate legalization/decriminalization:

While there may or may not be arguments for hard drugs (intravenous and nasal insufflation), what arguments do you folks have against psychedelics such as:

LSD (acid)
Psilocybin (mushrooms)
Peyote
Salvia
DMT

Remember, these have zero addictive properties.
In fact, most require a cooldown period before they even work again.

Again, I know very little about the use and effects of the items on your list. If they are not addictive, and they pose no threat to me (my neighbor using and attacking me because they think I am a dragon, etc), then I can't think of any reason not to decriminalize. Surely, these things cannot be any worse than what is available through a scrip and pharmacy.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I asked about any societies or countries where it is all legal because it seems almost all went through a time when drug abuse and addiction was causing substantive issues. Opium dens in Asia as an example. Morphine addiction in the US.

If the decriminalized approach has already been tried, (because those societies didn't know enough to make it extremely difficult to obtain and use), why would we want to go back and repeat the mistakes from previous societies?

The Opium argument is literally centuries upon centuries old. It was a different time and a very new substance back then. Plus, you had the British pushing the everloving **** out of it since they were shoulder deep in debt.

My question to you is this: How does the law stop crackheads from smoking crack when they're not in jail?

 

[McDad]

The Opium argument is literally centuries upon centuries old. It was a different time and a very new substance back then. Plus, you had the British pushing the everloving **** out of it since they were shoulder deep in debt.

My question to you is this: How does the law stops crackheads from smoking crack when they're not in jail?

Since I am not in enforcement or treatment of addiction,
I would have to suspect that the punishment of jail time and loss of freedom would cause some to get help and recover from the addiction.

Are you suggesting that the age of the Opium argument negates its validity?