Mexico Legalizes Drugs

[Saggy]

And at the end of the day the United States will still be the world's leading consumer of illegal drugs. It's on the Obama administration and this Congress to either keep throwing money at the worthless "drug war" that has done nothing but enrich and empower the cartels, or putting those resources into regulation, taxation, education, prevention and treatment.

didn't Nixon start 'the war on drugs'? - that is a mighty long time ago, and during my years i have only seen it get worse as far as the type of drugs younger people experiment with. it seems like before the war on drugs people were happy with the basic psychedelics and stimulants.

 

it's too late to turn back now for the US, but it would be nice to see if the changes in Mexico prove that legalization isn't a negative thing so that the US considers doing the same.

Henry J Anslinger is the guy responsible for the mess we're in today. First US Drugs Czar, I think 1920s made cannabis illegal and went after anyone having fun at the expense of an external chemical.

Actually, Harry J Anslinger had been campaigning for a national police force to fight drugs far before 1937, but with the surge of Mexican immigrants, he found that marijuana was easier to publish frightening stories about. I'm sure you know the rest of the story, about how he owned a pulp-paper making factory, and was the king of "yellow journalism" which is what scared the bejesus out of parents and teachers when it came to pot, coke, and all the other drugs they'd been living with for fourty or fifty years already.

 

What happened later on was that the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937 was founded to be unconstitutional, a battle Timothy Leary helped in the late 60's. For a while there was no federal law on marijuana, and since then the Federal Beareu of Dangerous Narcotics and Drugs, a part of the treasury department, turned into the DEA and appointed Harry J Anslinger as the top man. What happened in the early 70s was he decided to scare the bejesus out of Nixon, convincing him that illegal drugs were fueling the communist threat in China, and so Nixon actually went in with the U.N. on an international drug treaty, which brought forth our current drug scheduling system, and placed marijuana as a schedule I narcotic, thus making it once again illegal federally. Of course, the DEA and the FDA are responsible for which drugs are schedueled as which, and Harry J Anslinger wasn't about to leave marijuana off of that list. Then of course Regan came in in the 70s, smoked a bunch of monkeys to death, and showed that it caused brain damage, and so the DEA's stance is that, "It's dangerous and it has no therapuetic value," and have continued to monopolize whatever research may show that 1) It's not dangerous or 2) It is therapeutic.

 

The interesting thing is that Anslinger died in 75, yet his organization continues to handle marijuana in a very foolish manner, keeping it schedueled as a level I narcotic and preventing any real studies from being done. However, since Anslinger is dead, I think it has less to do now with racism and prejudice which is partly what motivated Anslinger, and really it has to do with money, which is what motivated Anslinger in the first place. Sure he made his money with DuPont chemicals, but what about the agency he left behind, how were they to make money? Legalize drugs and end their careers? Yeah, that's going to happen.

 

Not that there haven't been rumblings within the DEA, because Francis L. Young, their administrative judge of the DEA said this: "nearly all medicines have toxicm, potentially letal affects, but marijuana is not such a substance...Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care" (DEA Docket No. 86-22, 57). His ruling outright recomended that they rescheduel it from I to II

 

 

CONCLUSION

                                  AND

                          RECOMMENDED DECISION

 

    Based upon the foregoing facts and reasoning, the administrative law

judge concludes that the provisions of the Act permit and require the

transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II.  The Judge realizes

that strong emotions are aroused on both sides of any discussion

concerning the use of marijuana.  Nonetheless it is essential for this

Agency, and its Administrator, calmly and dispassionately to review the

evidence of record, correctly apply the law, and act accordingly.

 

    Marijuana can be harmful.  Marijuana is abused.  But the same is

true of dozens of drugs or substances which are listed in Schedule II so

that they can be employed in treatment by physicians in proper cases,

despite their abuse potential.

 

    Transferring marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II will not, of

course, make it immediately available in pharmacies throughout the

country for legitimate use in treatment.  Other government authorities,

Federal and State, will doubtless have to act before that might occur.

But this Agency is not charged with responsibility, or given authority,

over the myriad other regulatory decisions that may be required before

marijuana can actually be legally available.  This Agency is charged

merely with determining the placement of marijuana pursuant to the

provisions of the Act.  Under our system of laws the responsibilities of

other regulatory bodies are the concerns of those bodies, not of this

Agency,

 

    There are those who, in all sincerity, argue that the transfer of

marijuana to Schedule II will "send a signal" that marijuana is "OK" generally for

recreational use.  This argument is specious.  It presents no valid

reason for refraining from taking an action required by law in light of

the evidence.  If marijuana should be placed in Schedule II, in obedience

to the law, then that is where marijuana should be placed, regardless of

misinterpretation of the placement by some.  The reasons for the

placement can, and should, be clearly explained at the time the action is

taken.  The fear of sending such a signal cannot be permitted to override

the legitimate need, amply demonstrated in this record, of countless

suffers for the relief marijuana can provide when prescribed by a

physician in a legitimate case.

 

    The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been

accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very

ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision.  It would

be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand

between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of

the evidence in this record.

 

    The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator

conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently

accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no

lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that

it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II.  The judge

recommends that the Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to

Schedule II.

 

Dated: SEP 6 1988

 

                                      Francis L. Young

                                      Administrative Law Judge

 

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/medical/young/young.html

 

The DEA director John Lawn disagreed with Mr. Young, rejected his ruling, and then won an appeals case with NORML when they decided not to pursue it to the Supreme Court in order not to set a precedence which would doom marijuana legalization for good.

 

The DEA then decided to hire its own people to conduct studies, and obviously concluded the exact opposite of every other study done on the plant by bipartisan and independent organizations, and has continually denied Francis L. Young's decision and that marijuana has any therapeutic value.

 

Harry J. Anslinger may have started it, but someone else has taken the ball and ran with it. If the Administrative Judge for the DEA cannot even influence their decisions, then obviously they're not interested in the safety of marijuana or its potential medical uses, and it should be immediately obvious what they do care about: Money. Marijuana is the single most used illicit substance in the U.S., there is far more of it than any other drug int he nation, and the DEA gets billions of dollars a year to fight it. If they dropped it down to a scheduel II, they wouldn't necessarily be out of a job, but they definitely wouldn't be doing as well.

 

It's been my opinion for long time that instead of focusing on decriminalized marijuana, we need to focus on dismantling the DEA. They're nothing but a vacuum for our resources anyway, fighting a "war on drugs" that's going nowhere and benefiting no one but themselves. Isn't is obvious that they're just a big corrupt cash cow waiting for someone to blow the whistle?

[buffalosoulj4h20]

Not all drugs should be legal. I don't know if anyone remembers the story about the kid who got his eye plucked out by his PCP addicted father. However, it can be regulated. You can't have kids in your custody and so on.

[asimov]

Oh my god, do want. We are only one step away from drug vending machines on the street. Bless Mehico!

[Saggy]

Not all drugs should be legal. I don't know if anyone remembers the story about the kid who got his eye plucked out by his PCP addicted father. However, it can be regulated. You can't have kids in your custody and so on.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying that all drugs should be legal. I mean, we don't sell deadly poisons right over the counter, so I doubt that we would be quick to sell PCP, crack, or meth over the counter either. Then of course your other drugs like cocaine, opium, marijuana, mushrooms, other psycadellics... I mean, it's not like these are very likely going to be sold at your local WalMart even if they ever were decrminalized, you'd find them in very special places, and I'm sure we wouldn't allow minors to use or purchase them. I would take it so far as to even require a criminal background check if someone buys too much of a certain drug, the same way we do when someone buys too much of a certain type of fertilizer.

 

However I do think that drug prohibition in general has to end. It's counter-productive at the mild end of the spectrum, and it's practically destroying our country on the extreme end Just consider the amount of money we spend combating the drugs entering the country, and then consider the cost of all of the people that are still successfully purchasing them. That money is going right down the toilet, so that alone is having a devastating effect on our economy. Then you want to talk about addiction, and the social cost of it; I'm pretty sure that if heroin addicts could get pure, uncut heroin for chump change, then they wouldn't be in such bad condition or dropping like flies from overdoses. The same thing can be said for virtually any other stimulant type drug, and when it comes to hallucinogens and depressants, people seem to assume, "Oh, they've legalized drugs, now people are going to be driving around high as a kite, stumbling around in the streets," as if it's not already happening. Mean while, you look at places that have decriminalized a lot of said hallucinogens and psychedelics in Amsterdam, and Vancouver. You may see a few delinquents abusing it, just like they do with alcohol, but what else do you see? Establishments that serve and cater to people much like a bar, where tourists spend many dollars, and indulge themselves safely; sure they get a little rowdy, but what pub doesn't encounter that as well?

 

 

Over all, I think prohibition just makes the problems much worse economically and socially, and then you have to look at how futile it's been, and question whether prohibition is what's perpetuating the black market in the first place. I mean, the argument that if you legalize drugs, then drug dealers don't will not be able to make money... I don't really buy that one, because as soon as we say, "It's legal, now you have to pay taxes," then they'll just dodge the taxes and there will still be a black market. However, it will be a much smaller, much tamer market, and we can still tax the sales of such commodities and stores and establishments. The only thing is, that just moves the problem somewhere else. Do you really think Mexico decriminalizing is going to hurt the cartels? Of course not, they're just going to increase their sales in the U.S.--there is a legitimate reason that the government doesn't like Mexico's choice, because it winds up costing us money, and making our "War" on Drugs an even bigger massacre than it was already.

 

I mean, I think what stops the U.S. from decriminalizing drugs out-right is the international stand point that puts us in. Remember, the current drug scheduling is tied into an international UN treaty. However, I still think we could dismantle or reform the DEA, with new priorities and a new stance toward regulation and control that doesn't focus on prohibition.

[arsenal_fan]

The goverment has always over-exaggerated drugs, like steroids is the best example. All this c rap that it will kill you yet when they are asked to produce evidence of this they don't. Has anyone seen Bigger Stonger Faster? I think last year 3 people died of steriods in America yet legal substances like alcohol and tobacco killed more than half a million people last year in America. Gregg Valentino is the poster boy for steroid abuse yet when he went for a medical check he was found to be a healthy human being. Would that happen if you gave a medical check to a alcoholic or someone who smokes like 2 packs a day? Don't think so.

[epoxi]

Didn't start this in Portugal a few years ago, and now drug-taking is down 20%?

 

Sounds like a good idea to me if you implement it right.

[Oxidizer]

Well, good. Drugs shouldn't be illegal anyway, unless they're the hardcore hallucinogenic ones like that makes you eat your children whilst off your face on the stuff.

 

But seriously, I don't get why they're illegal in the first place. I think you'll find if the majority of drugs were legalised in every country then a lot of major crime would go down too. Tis a win-win situation.

[buffalosoulj4h20]

 

Not all drugs should be legal. I don't know if anyone remembers the story about the kid who got his eye plucked out by his PCP addicted father. However, it can be regulated. You can't have kids in your custody and so on.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying that all drugs should be legal. I mean, we don't sell deadly poisons right over the counter, so I doubt that we would be quick to sell PCP, crack, or meth over the counter either. Then of course your other drugs like cocaine, opium, marijuana, mushrooms, other psycadellics... I mean, it's not like these are very likely going to be sold at your local WalMart even if they ever were decrminalized, you'd find them in very special places, and I'm sure we wouldn't allow minors to use or purchase them. I would take it so far as to even require a criminal background check if someone buys too much of a certain drug, the same way we do when someone buys too much of a certain type of fertilizer.

 

However I do think that drug prohibition in general has to end. It's counter-productive at the mild end of the spectrum, and it's practically destroying our country on the extreme end Just consider the amount of money we spend combating the drugs entering the country, and then consider the cost of all of the people that are still successfully purchasing them. That money is going right down the toilet, so that alone is having a devastating effect on our economy. Then you want to talk about addiction, and the social cost of it; I'm pretty sure that if heroin addicts could get pure, uncut heroin for chump change, then they wouldn't be in such bad condition or dropping like flies from overdoses. The same thing can be said for virtually any other stimulant type drug, and when it comes to hallucinogens and depressants, people seem to assume, "Oh, they've legalized drugs, now people are going to be driving around high as a kite, stumbling around in the streets," as if it's not already happening. Mean while, you look at places that have decriminalized a lot of said hallucinogens and psychedelics in Amsterdam, and Vancouver. You may see a few delinquents abusing it, just like they do with alcohol, but what else do you see? Establishments that serve and cater to people much like a bar, where tourists spend many dollars, and indulge themselves safely; sure they get a little rowdy, but what pub doesn't encounter that as well?

 

 

Over all, I think prohibition just makes the problems much worse economically and socially, and then you have to look at how futile it's been, and question whether prohibition is what's perpetuating the black market in the first place. I mean, the argument that if you legalize drugs, then drug dealers don't will not be able to make money... I don't really buy that one, because as soon as we say, "It's legal, now you have to pay taxes," then they'll just dodge the taxes and there will still be a black market. However, it will be a much smaller, much tamer market, and we can still tax the sales of such commodities and stores and establishments. The only thing is, that just moves the problem somewhere else. Do you really think Mexico decriminalizing is going to hurt the cartels? Of course not, they're just going to increase their sales in the U.S.--there is a legitimate reason that the government doesn't like Mexico's choice, because it winds up costing us money, and making our "War" on Drugs an even bigger massacre than it was already.

 

I mean, I think what stops the U.S. from decriminalizing drugs out-right is the international stand point that puts us in. Remember, the current drug scheduling is tied into an international UN treaty. However, I still think we could dismantle or reform the DEA, with new priorities and a new stance toward regulation and control that doesn't focus on prohibition.

Actually a lot of people on here said that people have the right to put whatever in their bodies including any narcotic drug. The rest of your statement is just preaching to the choir.

[Saggy]

Not all drugs should be legal. I don't know if anyone remembers the story about the kid who got his eye plucked out by his PCP addicted father. However, it can be regulated. You can't have kids in your custody and so on.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying that all drugs should be legal. I mean, we don't sell deadly poisons right over the counter, so I doubt that we would be quick to sell PCP, crack, or meth over the counter either. Then of course your other drugs like cocaine, opium, marijuana, mushrooms, other psycadellics... I mean, it's not like these are very likely going to be sold at your local WalMart even if they ever were decrminalized, you'd find them in very special places, and I'm sure we wouldn't allow minors to use or purchase them. I would take it so far as to even require a criminal background check if someone buys too much of a certain drug, the same way we do when someone buys too much of a certain type of fertilizer.

 

However I do think that drug prohibition in general has to end. It's counter-productive at the mild end of the spectrum, and it's practically destroying our country on the extreme end Just consider the amount of money we spend combating the drugs entering the country, and then consider the cost of all of the people that are still successfully purchasing them. That money is going right down the toilet, so that alone is having a devastating effect on our economy. Then you want to talk about addiction, and the social cost of it; I'm pretty sure that if heroin addicts could get pure, uncut heroin for chump change, then they wouldn't be in such bad condition or dropping like flies from overdoses. The same thing can be said for virtually any other stimulant type drug, and when it comes to hallucinogens and depressants, people seem to assume, "Oh, they've legalized drugs, now people are going to be driving around high as a kite, stumbling around in the streets," as if it's not already happening. Mean while, you look at places that have decriminalized a lot of said hallucinogens and psychedelics in Amsterdam, and Vancouver. You may see a few delinquents abusing it, just like they do with alcohol, but what else do you see? Establishments that serve and cater to people much like a bar, where tourists spend many dollars, and indulge themselves safely; sure they get a little rowdy, but what pub doesn't encounter that as well?

 

 

Over all, I think prohibition just makes the problems much worse economically and socially, and then you have to look at how futile it's been, and question whether prohibition is what's perpetuating the black market in the first place. I mean, the argument that if you legalize drugs, then drug dealers don't will not be able to make money... I don't really buy that one, because as soon as we say, "It's legal, now you have to pay taxes," then they'll just dodge the taxes and there will still be a black market. However, it will be a much smaller, much tamer market, and we can still tax the sales of such commodities and stores and establishments. The only thing is, that just moves the problem somewhere else. Do you really think Mexico decriminalizing is going to hurt the cartels? Of course not, they're just going to increase their sales in the U.S.--there is a legitimate reason that the government doesn't like Mexico's choice, because it winds up costing us money, and making our "War" on Drugs an even bigger massacre than it was already.

 

I mean, I think what stops the U.S. from decriminalizing drugs out-right is the international stand point that puts us in. Remember, the current drug scheduling is tied into an international UN treaty. However, I still think we could dismantle or reform the DEA, with new priorities and a new stance toward regulation and control that doesn't focus on prohibition.

Actually a lot of people on here said that people have the right to put whatever in their bodies including any narcotic drug. The rest of your statement is just preaching to the choir.

Well, there's a pretty big difference between legal and unregulated, and I don't see how talking about the right to choose what goes into your body is saying that they should be unregulated. I mean, isn't it understood that to have a right, it shouldn't effect another persons'? With drugs, we're talking about a persons' right to safety, and to protect it a few things can not happen: PCP can't wind up next to the cold pills, and people tripping can not walk down the street willy nilly disturbing the peace.

 

I think people that suggest it should just be totally unregulated and legal are probably the types that would support anarchy too, so I wouldn't necessarily pay attention to them. Not to say anarchy is a daft political ideal, just to say that I don't want to shift the topic from drug prohibition to the type of government we have. Just wanted to point out that I think a lot of people that are for drug legalization are the same people that are for an anarchist society, so there will probably be a lot of views like that. Good thing they don't vote ( oh come on, I had to ).

[eltoro13]

hell yeah!! most of the people on mexico dont even know its legal due to all the swine flu sh*t that was on the news by the time it started to be legal, but its great news well for me it is.

[buffalosoulj4h20]

I'm talking about the cause and effect of certain drugs like PCP. Imagine, some dude does PCP ( a decriminalized amount ) and goes up to a kid then starts eating the kid's eye. Sure, now he has a right to use whatever drug he wants, however now the kid is partcially blind. Also, tell the dtug addicts that as long as they don't go over the decriminalized amount of coke and meth, it's okay. Yea they have the right, a right to f*ck up their lives. Sometimes jails make addicts hit rock bottem, making them realize it's not worth it in the first place, a minority of drug addicts might be beneficial to society, but the majority will either f*ck it up or become lazy.

[CryptReaperDorian]

 

I'm talking about the cause and effect of certain drugs like PCP. Imagine, some dude does PCP ( a decriminalized amount ) and goes up to a kid then starts eating the kid's eye. Sure, now he has a right to use whatever drug he wants, however now the kid is partcially blind. Also, tell the dtug addicts that as long as they don't go over the decriminalized amount of coke and meth, it's okay. Yea they have the right, a right to f*ck up their lives. Sometimes jails make addicts hit rock bottem, making them realize it's not worth it in the first place, a minority of drug addicts might be beneficial to society, but the majority will either f*ck it up or become lazy.

However, the real question is if a kid's eye would be tasty while on PCP.

 

Hopefully nobody thinks I'm serious about that.

Edited August 25, 2009 by CryptReaperDorian

[Saggy]

I'm talking about the cause and effect of certain drugs like PCP. Imagine, some dude does PCP ( a decriminalized amount ) and goes up to a kid then starts eating the kid's eye. Sure, now he has a right to use whatever drug he wants, however now the kid is partcially blind. Also, tell the dtug addicts that as long as they don't go over the decriminalized amount of coke and meth, it's okay. Yea they have the right, a right to f*ck up their lives. Sometimes jails make addicts hit rock bottem, making them realize it's not worth it in the first place, a minority of drug addicts might be beneficial to society, but the majority will either f*ck it up or become lazy.

That could happen now, whether or not PCP is legal or not. The argument that people have is that it would happen "more" if PCP were legal.

 

Besides, the same thing can be placed on to LSD... What if someone goes driving and runs over a park full of kids?

 

What if someone nods off shooting up heroin and burns their house down?

 

 

All this sh*t already happens, and so people always subscribe to the idea that it would just happen more if those particular drugs were legal. However, who was the guy in the first place that was doing PCP in a way that could hurt someone else? It's not like it's a mystery now that PCP will make you go nuts and do things you can't control, so obviously the guy that ate his kid's eye was just an asshole for doing PCP around his kids in the first place.

 

It's really comes down to: If we legalized PCP, would this make incidents like this more common? Probably, it's certainly feasible, but the problem is that it happens now regardless of its legal status, and it's running more harmful in general as an illicit substance because it generates a black market, people do it secretly without advice or counsel, and especially when you're talking about PCP, they do it a lot without really even realizing it ( impure drugs, or just not being told what it was ). If it was legal and regulated all that would be avoided, except kid's getting their eyes eaten out, but since we can't avoid that now what's the point of using that as the reasoning why we can't try something else?

 

What people ignore is that once it becomes more common place, once more people become aware of the dangers of it, the unpredictable nature of its high, I would assume it would probably go down in popularity. I mean, despite all of us well educated people that know what PCP is, and know it will make us trip hard, kids out there being handed "sherm" and being told "It will make you feel good" don't, and I think it's the awareness of what PCP is and what it can do that will stop incidents where people go nuts on it, much more successfully than prohibition can.

[buffalosoulj4h20]

For those curious of the story I'm talking about: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/116731.php

 

 

Yes, the more available the drugs the more people will use it. Some people don't want to have to deal with the black market all the time so they stay clear off of drugs, but if regulated by a government approved shop they won't mind going to the corner store to get their daily fix. Fear strikes people, when jail time is facing them and gun weilding dealers are their only way to get fixed, they tend to not want to deal with the crime and hassle. If accessible and easy, it will be more available to not just post-illagal crackheads but to people who are just curious. They won't get educated, they will just cop off from one of their friends without knowing what they are doing to their bodies, blinded by depression or peer pressure. Ofcourse this is without saying how we can ever regulate something that has been in the black market for years.

 

What is the age set for buying hard drugs? Let's say 21. Well, I have an older sibiling and I'm sure so does many of us here on the forums. Let's say an underage person here has an older sibiling who is going through a hard time in life and in our regulated world she decides to buy a sack of crack. She snorts and passes out on her first trip, but leaves a line. OMG, that's when little Billy goes in her room to see what she is up to. He sees the line of crack left and decides to say, ''f*ck D.A.R.E'' and snorts the rest. Hey, it can happen. .

 

Really though, if regulated and the age set being 21 the black market will just lower their prices and start selling to 20 and below which is easy as f*ck.

 

By the way, marijuana isn't even a debate, legalize that sh*t, don't even regulate it. People should be able to grow things that are natural. Ofcourse in order to even fully decriminalize marijuana we must appeal to money hungry politicians, so yea, might as well regulate it. sh*t, who cares if little Billy hits a blunt anyway?

Edited August 25, 2009 by buffalosoulj4h20

[nlitement]

Manofpease, would that your topic didn't mislead like that. There's a big difference between decriminalization and legalization.

[Saggy]

 

For those curious of the story I'm talking about: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/116731.php

 

 

Yes, the more available the drugs the more people will use it. Some people don't want to have to deal with the black market all the time so they stay clear off of drugs, but if regulated by a government approved shop they won't mind going to the corner store to get their daily fix. Fear strikes people, when jail time is facing them and gun weilding dealers are their only way to get fixed, they tend to not want to deal with the crime and hassle. If accessible and easy, it will be more available to not just post-illagal crackheads but to people who are just curious. They won't get educated, they will just cop off from one of their friends without knowing what they are doing to their bodies, blinded by depression or peer pressure. Ofcourse this is without saying how we can ever regulate something that has been in the black market for years.

 

What is the age set for buying hard drugs? Let's say 21. Well, I have an older sibiling and I'm sure so does many of us here on the forums. Let's say an underage person here has an older sibiling who is going through a hard time in life and in our regulated world she decides to buy a sack of crack. She snorts and passes out on her first trip, but leaves a line. OMG, that's when little Billy goes in her room to see what she is up to. He sees the line of crack left and decides to say, ''f*ck D.A.R.E'' and snorts the rest. Hey, it can happen. .

 

Really though, if regulated and the age set being 21 the black market will just lower their prices and start selling to 20 and below which is easy as f*ck.

 

By the way, marijuana isn't even a debate, legalize that sh*t, don't even regulate it. People should be able to grow things that are natural. Ofcourse in order to even fully decriminalize marijuana we must appeal to money hungry politicians, so yea, might as well regulate it. sh*t, who cares if little Billy hits a blunt anyway?

Yeah, of course people will subvert the regulations. I touched upon that earlier when talking about taxes and the like. No one is saying that it would be perfect, but it would be far better than having the black market surrounding it. I even said earlier that the market doesn't disappear, it just moves, so yeah, they would probably try to sell to younger kids, but that's a much more manageable problem than trying to keep every single person from using it.

 

What I'm saying is that, there's going to be a problem with drugs no matter what we do. There's nothing that will just magically make them all better, and all the problems that surround them go away. However, prohibition, this, "You can't have any of it, if we catch you with some of it you go to jail, if we catch you selling it you go to jail for longer," it's not working. I mean with a lot of drugs it doesn't even phase it, beacuse they're not that popular anyway, and PCP is definitely one of those drugs. I mean, it's not like we're seizing thousands of tons of it like we are with meth, coke, and pot, it's one of those things that we're netting maybe a ton of here and there like most other extreme hallucinogens. So really when trying to point out how prohibition is failing, PCP is not the drug to make an example of it. So what do we do with it? Decriminalize it, legalize it, or treat it as it is? A much more dangerous chemical than the majority of other drugs we're talking about.

 

I mean, a lot of the problem is that people just group all illicit drugs into one category: Illicit, and then think that all of those drugs are created equally when they talk about decriminalize and legalizing drugs. I mean of course PCP would have greater dangers than your other drugs, but all you have to do is go to to a greater extent to try to regulate. I'm talking about even going to the extent of getting it from the government if you're approved; of course that's going to lead to people who are approved selling to those who weren't, and the rates at which that happens might be exactly the same. However, at least the money is staying here, at least people aren't going to jail for deciding to put something into their body ( filling our prisons with non-violent offenders isn't exactly a good idea ), and over all the problem, while it may still be "big", is less severe. Just as the problem of people selling kids booze and cigarettes, are big, but not as severe as the current problem with drug prohibition.

 

My point is that the government cannot simply say, "No, you can't have this, and we'll arrest you if we catch you with it," beacuse all that does is create a black market, criminals, and a need to fix a problem that wasn't there before. We've know this for how many years? At least since the end of alcohol prohibition, yet we're still beating the same old drum. Meanwhile, other countries are going about with programs exactly as I'm talking about with decrminalization, and showing great success. So why is it that we're so hell bent on preserving a solution for this problem that doesn't work, and just makes things worse, especially when we know it.

 

Personally I think it comes back around to the DEA and what its priorities really are. I don't think we should have an agency like the DEA, because it just enables them to enact unfair drug laws (i.e. prohibition ), and getting them repealed is nearly impossible because even when at a state level a group of citizens decides to do something about it, the federal government just steps in and says, "Nope". What I'm saying is, when are we going to get our vote to keep the DEA in business? When are we going to get to vote on this at a federal level. So far it seems like the only people running the show are the DEA, and our systems of checks and balances has failed to stop it, and failed to even give we the people the chance to stop it.

 

Really what I'm saying is that, we need to move away from making criminals of people because of drugs, and move toward finding ways to solve it other than sending people to jail.

Edited August 25, 2009 by SagaciousKJB

[CryptReaperDorian]

I'm not sure if this was brought up, but will this decrease the number of people jumping the border?

[buffalosoulj4h20]

Yea, a managable problem, but the real problem is keeping it out of the hands of the kids. If all the 21 and older are going to buy it legally, so what if a few kids turn into junkies, right? As long as all the junkies have rights, riightttt?

 

PCP is not the only grug I'm using as an example for drug use, the PCP concept came from that story I linked you to. We all know that there will always be drugs, so what do we do? Make it more available? Yea, that to me doesn't sound like a good idea. Like I said, the fear of being killed by a dealer or facing time in jail scares off some people into not wanting that sort of lifestyle. It may not warn everyone off, but it keeps some people in check, may even save a few people's lives. Either way you put it, in a way, you are taking people's rights whether you legalize drugs or not. If you don't regulate it, you're taking their so called rights to get high off of the hard sh*t, but if you do make it available and regulated, you're taking a majority of their futures away, by letting them be junkies.

 

Liqour and Newports don't make kids junies though which is why it's not as severe as the problem we are talking about now. Drunk driving and lung cancer are high, but what's worse is adding to that problem, paranoia, addiction, and isolation along with it. And if people are going to have to go through the government just to get the hard drugs, like you said, what's the point? Most junkies are going to take the easy way.

 

What other countries have legalized and regulated? What success is shown?

 

Like the NYtimes article stated, if you tell junkies that they can get high and won't have to worry about getting caught, forget about it, they would try to escape rehab and do their thing. I hate to say it but be tough on people and put them in jail for about a year or two to rehabilitate or let them be junkies in hell for the rest of their lives, what do you do? In the end, I think euthanasia should be legal, if someone is too ill, both physically and mentally, they have the right to die if they must, if the help is no longer helpful nor necessary, however I have to argue on the mental need to die. Since we are talking about control over people's lives.

 

@Crypt: If you mean drug dealers jumping borders, yes, if all drugs were legal there will no need to traffick here. However, some Mexicans may still want to jump border to have a better life here.

Edited August 25, 2009 by buffalosoulj4h20

[beavis]

I'm not sure if this was brought up, but will this decrease the number of people jumping the border?

Possibly.

 

It could be possible that the Mexicans will just get stoned and say "f*ck it" and never try to attempt it. On the contrary, the Mexicans can get so high of grade A weed that it'll just give them further enthusiasm and courage to attempt to cross the border.

 

 

[manofpeace]

Manofpease, would that your topic didn't mislead like that. There's a big difference between decriminalization and legalization.

Hey, it's what the title said on the little link in Google. I just go along with it and see what happens.

[Oxidizer]

 

PCP is not the only grug I'm using

You grunkie!

[Saggy]

Yea, a managable problem, but the real problem is keeping it out of the hands of the kids. If all the 21 and older are going to buy it legally, so what if a few kids turn into junkies, right? As long as all the junkies have rights, riightttt?

 

PCP is not the only grug I'm using as an example for drug use, the PCP concept came from that story I linked you to. We all know that there will always be drugs, so what do we do? Make it more available? Yea, that to me doesn't sound like a good idea. Like I said, the fear of being killed by a dealer or facing time in jail scares off some people into not wanting that sort of lifestyle. It may not warn everyone off, but it keeps some people in check, may even save a few people's lives. Either way you put it, in a way, you are taking people's rights whether you legalize drugs or not. If you don't regulate it, you're taking their so called rights to get high off of the hard sh*t, but if you do make it available and regulated, you're taking a majority of their futures away, by letting them be junkies.

 

Liqour and Newports don't make kids junies though which is why it's not as severe as the problem we are talking about now. Drunk driving and lung cancer are high, but what's worse is adding to that problem, paranoia, addiction, and isolation along with it. And if people are going to have to go through the government just to get the hard drugs, like you said, what's the point? Most junkies are going to take the easy way.

 

What other countries have legalized and regulated? What success is shown?

 

Like the NYtimes article stated, if you tell junkies that they can get high and won't have to worry about getting caught, forget about it, they would try to escape rehab and do their thing. I hate to say it but be tough on people and put them in jail for about a year or two to rehabilitate or let them be junkies in hell for the rest of their lives, what do you do? In the end, I think euthanasia should be legal, if someone is too ill, both physically and mentally, they have the right to die if they must, if the help is no longer helpful nor necessary, however I have to argue on the mental need to die. Since we are talking about control over people's lives.

 

@Crypt: If you mean drug dealers jumping borders, yes, if all drugs were legal there will no need to traffick here. However, some Mexicans may still want to jump border to have a better life here.

Okay, so you're saying that big scary drug dealers with guns, and jail time scare the majority of people into not purchasing or using the drugs. Then in another breath earlier, you mention that people will get drugs from their friends and family. There's no evidence to suggest that if it weren't for jail time, and shady dealers with guns, that people would be buying drugs at a higher right. If you want to review what I mentioned about countries that have decriminalized, just look at Amsterdam, or the program that they enacted in Germany that someone mentioned a few posts back.

 

In reality the majority of people who are exposed to drugs and try them, do so when they are teens now. That's an unavoidable fact, and let's just move off the example of PCP. You claim that Newports and Liquor don't turn kids into liquor, but those two things are often the most common "gateway" substances that introduces mostly teens and adolescents to using drugs, and marijuana is the most commonly use illicit substance in the U.S., and mostly used amongst teens. Yet when polls are conducted asking them how hard it is to obtain, along with alcohol and cigarettes, the majority of them will say that cigarettes and alcohol are more difficult to obtain because they can get marijuana off of the black market. What little black market there is around supplying minors with cigarettes and alcohol is very minor and not very lucrative, so what makes you think that a black market selling anything else to teens would be any better? When you look at it in comparison now, teens, young adults, adults and seniors are all being served by this market, it's a huge source of money for the dealers, but when it comes down to only teens, suddenly there's a shift in the market where there's less people interested, with less money.

 

In the end ask yourself this. If meth, heroin, and alcohol are cheaper than marijuana, yet meth and heroin are just as easy to get, then why is the market to sell alcohol to minors so small, and why aren't teens using meth and heroin more than marijuana? If alcohol is illegal, and meth heroin and marijuana are illegal, then why are meth, heroin and marijuana easier for teens to get? In the end if it all comes down to accessibility and price, then why are teenagers able to buy cocaine with less money than it would cost them to get a fake ID and a bottle of liquor? Because, the more accessible the market, the bigger the market, the more difficult it is to control.

 

Now, I'm not saying that shady markets, and the possibillity of jail time aren't a deterrent for a lot of people. The problem is, for a lot more of people, it is a totally different circumstance really devoid of any real possibilities of jail time, or shady dealers. Frankly, they're not an effective deterrent, even if they technically do deter some. Our prisons are filling up year after year with non-violent offenders, guilty mostly of drug possession. Over 800K people were arrested for marijuana possession in 2008 ( go search NORML for that ), and most polls show that the amount of adults that use the drug at least once a month is well over a million; if you add to that the amount of teens, then obviously even when we're filling with our prisons, it is not deterring people.

 

Jail time for drug use and drug possession is just totally asinine, and goes against practically everything we've learned in the 20th century regarding prohibition efforts. The only people that should be getting jail time for drug offenses are the people that are dealing it, and supplying it, and really that just comes down to undermining regulations to protect people, and avoiding the pay of taxes, both of which are covered by U.S. law already. So obviously drug laws extending past that, to criminalizing possession and use, are just extraneous because of course every wrong doing a person could do on drugs is also already covered by public intoxication laws, disturbing the peace laws, etc. "Prohibition" and our currrent state of drug scheduling is nothing but a uselessly ineffective deterrent, that has grown to do more harm than good the longer it's been allowed to go on unchecked.

[buffalosoulj4h20]

Yea, most people who are in need of medical marijuana don't like dealing with the black market in fear of dangerous dealers and the illegality of purchasing weed. And those are the ones who actually NEED the drug. That right there eliminates other people's use to the point they won't get it for their relatives.

We are talking about legalizing and regulating, I never said show me a country that decriminalized it. Even Amsterdam doesn't allow hard drugs, in fact due to a Frech schoolgirl killing herself after a bad trip on mushrooms, they have considered banning shrooms now.

 

The black market is to far up the world's ass right now it's hard to get rid of it. Actually, at my local cornerstore in New York I see druggies trying to sell kids cigarettes and liqour all the time to get money for crack. Ofcourse when I was younger I took advantage of this for parties, and if not, I would get someone else who was older. For years, the black market has been controlling the drug trade, they don't see money in making their own cigarettes and liqour, they see money in crack and meth. And if the government controls the hard drugs, it will either be easy to get or hard to get. If it's easy to get most likely more people are going to be junkies, however if it's hard to get most people will go to the black market, especially those under 21. So what's the solution, lower it to 18? Then 16? The blackmarket will just go lower and lower.

 

Even today people are drunk driving and cigarettes are the most leading cause of death, why add more poisin to that for not only kids but adults? Not only hard drugs are worse than liqour and a lifetime supply of cigarettes, but they lead to, yes, death quicker than the two. You want to regulate it and legalize it for people's rights so they won't have to go to jail, but you forgot they will just go to their graves much quicker. Consider this. Jail for rehabilitation or freedom and addiction leading one to his or her's own demise. Not only that but sharing it with a new comer.

 

And? I said regulate marijuana, that right there will cut down the imprisonment of non-violent offenders. However, for the hard drug users who do get caught, throw them in jail to rehabilitate. Have you ever experience a hard drug aaddiction? That sh*t can follow you for the rest of your life. You become violent just to get the money for your next bag. These ''non-violent'' druggies can get a minimal sentece of 1 year or 2 years for rehabilitation. It seperates them from the drug, and while in jail/a rehab facility, they can reform.

Since most drug users in jail are marijuana users, go ahead free them and stop arresting them, that should free some space for murderers and rapists, however, get the ones who are using hard drugs.

[beavis]

Prohibition is costing my state and county so buch that we are forced to release inmates and fire off corectional officers. If Marijuana wasn't an illegal substance, all that free space would be there to help lock up REAL criminals.

[sarinc]

Prohibition is costing my state and county so buch that we are forced to release inmates and fire off corectional officers. If Marijuana wasn't an illegal substance, all that free space would be there to help lock up REAL criminals.

Pussy.^

Mexico is my destination after all this swine flu bullsh*t is gone.

[beavis]

Prohibition is costing my state and county so buch that we are forced to release inmates and fire off corectional officers. If Marijuana wasn't an illegal substance, all that free space would be there to help lock up REAL criminals.

Pussy.^

 

Explain yourself.

[xrk]

Prohibition is costing my state and county so buch that we are forced to release inmates and fire off corectional officers. If Marijuana wasn't an illegal substance, all that free space would be there to help lock up REAL criminals.

Pussy.^

Mexico is my destination after all this swine flu bullsh*t is gone.

How can you call someone a pussy and then say you're scared of catching a cold?