Dope: Should it be legalised.

[Berzerker]

H Tuttle -

I don't know if I can agree with your rational about illegal = punishment. I mean it could only be punishment if we were trying to make someone atone for what they did wrong.

And what do you propose doing to the millions of people who violate the pot law?

The only punishment with it being illegal is the kind given out when caught. By your definition I would say that we are punishing everyone by not allowing them the opportunity to smoke pot legally.

We are, but millions of people have decided not to use pot so they are sacrificing a freedom they choose not to use. And they are being hypocritical when they willingly give away this freedom but complain when the freedoms they do cherish come under attack by the very machine they've used to outlaw pot.

I don't understand what you mean. I was referring to the benefit and problems that are inherent with legalizing drug use such as pot. ie. no black market, possible addiction problems, etc...

I'll put it another way, what problem you associate with pot has been solved by prohibition? I can cite at least a couple dozen problems created by pot prohibition... Higher crime rates is probably the most obvious.

Woah! That is a big step don't you think? The Nazis killed based on race.

They began killing their own race, the mentally handicapped among others were the first to go. But you said "societal benefit" was your standard, so I was just pointing out where that standard has led in the past.

I was debating whether it's a good idea to legalize pot. My position now, after debating the issue, is that if it is no more harmful then the things we already have then legalize it.

Understood, but I reject "harm" as a standard as well. Politicians have spent decades lying about pot so "harm" becomes a fight over who can demagogue louder and longer than others... The American Medical Association opposed the the ban on pot back in 1937 so even the voices of the scientists and doctors were drowned out by the lying politicians.

And I'm a Republican/Conservative type. Nanny states don't sit well with me. I just want government to intervene on things that might be actually harmful to us because we have a hard problem saying no to them. If addiciton with pot is to much of a con for legalizing it then I say no.

From where did you obtain this power to decide for everyone else what harms them? Do you realise that is the same argument used by communists when they claim workers are exploited by employers even if the workers don't agree? That's the essence of a nanny state, you (or the communist) deciding for the rest of us...

[Sava]

The drug buyers should be aware of the dangers and its their own choice to go over the law to get it.

yes... prohibition is creating this VERY PROBLEM!

[Sava]

this is like a tag team... SLAP ME BERZ, I'm READY TO GO IN!

[Flip McWho]

I'm not saying totally irrelevant. But they do choose (in the case that they are forced into it then I do not hold this position) to work in there and so should hmmm suffer the circumstances.

[orange]

legalize it. And no, I've never smoked and likely never will.

[Sava]

Originally posted by orange
legalize it. And no, I've never smoked and likely never will.

*coughpussy*

if you don't believe in using any substances... caffeine, alcohol, tobacco.. then fine, I can respect it even if I don't agree with it. But if you get drunk, and don't ever smoke pot, you are a damn fool.

but if you do decide to smoke, ever... befriend a pot smoker and get him or her to give you some really good **** and teach you how to inhale it really well... it's like sex... your first time can be the best if you do it right.

but if you plan on ****ing some 2 dollar hooker, it will ruin the whole experience for you

[Ramo]

I'm not saying totally irrelevant. But they do choose (in the case that they are forced into it then I do not hold this position) to work in there and so should hmmm suffer the circumstances.

That's inane. Why should drug workers suffer the consequences of being gunned down when they complain about wages? Why should drug buyers suffer the consequences of dying because the drug they bought was laced with something nasty?

[Berzerker]

Flip -

I've been having some debates with people over the issue of dope legalisation. I keep getting mental blocks with ideas of why. Like I can think of them but can't quite put them into words so this is helping.

It's hard countering the "drugs are bad...umkay" argument with simple slogans because the media and the politicians are constantly focusing our attention on the tiny minority of drug users who do bad things and because there are so
many complexities involved, but just ask prohibitionists this question: what problem related to drugs has been solved by prohibition? You won't get an answer, just chicken little predictions about drug use
escalating. In response to that I always ask them what drug consumption rates were when all drugs were legal in the last century.

[Flip McWho]

Because it ain't regulated in anyway. You get the information about it and take the risks. Of course i don't advocate the gunning down thing, i'm not one for violence of any kind. Eh maybe the drug workers should band together and form a union. Hell once the industry gets legalised it'll be regulated and these conditions will improve.

[Berzerker]

That's inane. Why should drug workers suffer the consequences of being gunned down when they complain about wages? Why should drug buyers suffer the consequences of dying because the drug they bought was laced with something nasty?

Yes, notice how prohibitionists wash their hands of their complicity in creating the situation - the black market - and blame the bad results of their policy on others?

[Ramo]

Of course i don't advocate the gunning down thing, i'm not one for violence of any kind.

Then why are you saying they "should suffer the consequences?"

Eh maybe the drug workers should band together and form a union

That's a bit difficult while the industry is illegal.

[Berzerker]

Flip -

Because it ain't regulated in anyway. You get the information about it and take the risks. Of course i don't advocate the gunning down thing, i'm not one for violence of any kind. Eh maybe the drug workers should band together and form a union. Hell once the industry gets legalised it'll be regulated and these conditions will improve.

The violence is a result of prohibition, but do politicians admit this? No, they call it "drug-related violence". When was the last time you heard of alcohol dealers having shootouts over marketshare? Alcohol prohibition... Was that "alcohol-related violence"? No, it was prohibition-related violence...

[Flip McWho]

Yeah good point Berzerker. Never thought of it that way.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Sava
*coughpussy*

if you don't believe in using any substances... caffeine, alcohol, tobacco.. then fine, I can respect it even if I don't agree with it. But if you get drunk, and don't ever smoke pot, you are a damn fool.

And why can't you leave the decision to the people themselves? For my part, I've smoked pot and quit, I proved to be much more susceptible for weed than for alcohol. I also quit smoking. Not all drugs are for all people and if one decides to take or test one it doesn't mean he should test or take all. If orange decided not to test pot, but has no problem with alcohol, fine, why not.

Berzerker: The "prohibition-realted crimes" are a great argument, I use it myself a lot but now you gave me a good catchword.

[Dr Strangelove]

Dope already is legal. Just take a drive on a busy highway any evening, there will be plenty of dopes driving around perfectly legally!

One problem with dealing with prosecuting driving under the influence of marijuana is that unlike alcohol the relationship between blood levels of THC and the degree of intoxication is not linear or reliable. Alcohol freely distributes throughout the body and it's metabolism by the liver obeys first order kinetics. Marijuana has a higher affinity for fatty tissues, which act like a reservoir, and it's metabolism by the liver obeys more complex kinetics and has a higher variability from person to person. Since the brain is highly fatty the brain holds on to THC with a higher affinity than blood, thus the blood level doesn't reflect the level in the brain.

Marijuana cigarettes do indeed have the same carcinogens as tobacco cigarettes, and in much higher concentrations. Now that I've said that we'll soon be treated to the medical expertise of a dozen pro-marijuana websites, which after all are the leading sources of medical knowledge widely re3cognized by the scientific community.