blackstrap Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 I think the profit motive has to be taken from it. This means govt. regulation but the price must be kept low or drug 'bootleggers' will proliferate.
Calm Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 I think the profit motive has to be taken from it. This means govt. regulation but the price must be kept low or drug 'bootleggers' will proliferate.Definitely. That is one of the problems with making using legal, but selling illegal. I understand the reasoning, but practically I just don't see it working.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Here's another article on Portugal's solution.http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/drug-decriminalization-policy-pays
Calm Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) Ten years ago, Portugal became the first Western nation to pass full-scale, nationwide decriminalization. That law, passed Oct. 1, 2000, abolished criminal sanctions for all narcotics — not just marijuana but also "hard drugs" like heroin and cocaine.This is a misrepresentation. It only made using a noncrime. Even when they later define it differently, it may lead some to apply the results wider than they should be or draw inappropriate conclusions. I wish they would be more careful in their descriptions. The video did the same thing.http://www.cato.org/...tion-has-failedThis article is an example of it. It talks about the changes that would occur in the economics of the drug trade and then points to Portugal as evidence....but Portugal has not changed laws on the economic side of it, selling is still illegal making there the same problems with disagreements, competition, etc. that the writer talks about going away with decriminalization.Statements like this one below also are a problem, implying causation where there may be none:And the more the nation criminalized, the worse the problem became.It may sound counterintuitive that decriminalization can improve drug problems. It may be less the decriminalization and more the education that made a difference. I wonder what just using the intense education programs would have achieved.The problem with the US approach is that decriminalization generally means just ignoring users, not actually helping them get treatment. Therefore decriminalization may have the opposite effect as in Portugal. Edited November 12, 2012 by calmoriah
Nathair/|\ Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 For me, though, all this strays from the true issue, admittedly one that's beyond the scope of this board.Does the state have the right to tell an adult what he can and cannot do with his own body, or is that adult sovereign unto himself?
Calm Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) For me, though, all this strays from the true issue, admittedly one that's beyond the scope of this board.Does the state have the right to tell an adult what he can and cannot do with his own body, or is that adult sovereign unto himself?If the State is paying for universal health care and the individual makes use of such, then I would say 'yes, the State has a right'. If the individual is willing to accept full responsibility and not impose on the State at all (including paying for his own housing when it comes to prison for those that cross the line to imposing on others' 'bodies' or material possessions, etc.), then the State has little reason to interfere, imo, except perhaps to provide incentives for behaviour that is seen as beneficial to the growth and stability of the State. Edited November 12, 2012 by calmoriah
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 No. I believe that demand over time will decrease. Look at what happened to cigarettes in this country. While remaining legal demand is way down. Plus there probably will be less of the "Forbidden Fruit" problem.That is because it has been taxed into oblivion.
brainburn Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 What is the harm if someone finds that a small amount of thc cures their headache before they, say, want to watch a movie? Why take a tylenol instead?Of course, this is a very specific case but the point I'm trying to demonstrate is that there is such a thing as responsible and safe marijuana use, medical and recreational. The libertarian in me refuses to let this slide. 1
sheilauk Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 As regards the OP, I imagine that, if marijuana use becomes an issue, then someone will address it at a GA but, for now, almost everywhere, it is still an illegal drug. In any event, it is a drug - legal or otherwise - and so the discussion would presumably be about how to be responsible -as we shouldn't be taking legal drugs unless absolutely necessary.As for marijuana itself, I've been involved in law enforcement for 24 years and absolutely disagree with making it legal in any form. It is a seemingly benign drug which carries very bad side effects. Smoking it increases the chances of cancers of the mouth, throat and lungs (among other diseases) and it's long term use causes feelings of paranoia in many - which result in other offending (eg assault, harassment). The UK recently went through a period where, although it remained illegal, it was treated more leniently than before and personal use was not prosecuted. The use of the drug increased, more and more people grew it themselves and sold it on (thus the price went down and the use went up), thre strength of the drug has increased, the level of drugged drivers grew and the UK has now had to backtrack and introduce ways of catching drugged drivers. Making it less likely to be prosecuted made things worse. However, it is difficult to catch the serious drug dealers and I have never found the threat of punishment (however severe or mild) to be much of a deterrent to people. I wish that there was much more education and more drug rehab - so that all those found using were placed on a programme plus some form of economic deterrence (high prices). It seems to me that it is high taxation and continual education, leading to social stigma, which has reduced smoking and drink driving. We need more thorough education on the dangers of all drugs.
Duncan Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Something I have learned in life is this: if there is a rehab centre for something or a group to stop doing something, it's best to stay away from. Mankind doesn't do moderation real well. I have never once used mary joo awhna but if people don't think it's addictive can they stop at any moment and go the rest of their life without it? 1
thesometimesaint Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 That is because it has been taxed into oblivion.People still smoke the stuff. I don't have a problem with "sin" taxes. Also just to compensate the society for those that smoke state taxes would have to be closer to $41.00 per pack. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-11-26-smoking-costs_x.htm
Bikeemikey Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 People still smoke the stuff. I don't have a problem with "sin" taxes. Also just to compensate the society for those that smoke state taxes would have to be closer to $41.00 per pack. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-11-26-smoking-costs_x.htmGiven that we are already paying for the social ills of pot should we not change the structure to get some tax revenue from it?
Calm Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 That is because it has been taxed into oblivion.Peer disapproval has been a big contribution, it is not longer portrayed in the media as cool, etc. Making it inconvenient to smoke by making it illegal in public places cuts down on the desirability as well. It is also okay now to express distaste for the smell, etc.
Calm Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I wish that there was much more education and more drug rehab - so that all those found using were placed on a programme plus some form of economic deterrence (high prices). It seems to me that it is high taxation and continual education, leading to social stigma, which has reduced smoking and drink driving. We need more thorough education on the dangers of all drugs.Agree big time.
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Given that we are already paying for the social ills of pot should we not change the structure to get some tax revenue from it?I'm not convinced there are social ills associated directly with pot use, other than trying to operate heavy equipment while under its influence. Anything that distorts time and space perception should be avoided while trying to do complex tasks. The far bigger problem is in the draconian laws against it. I think that any tax revenues generated should be used for drug rehab, and drug education.
Duncan Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I'm not convinced there are social ills associated directly with pot use, other than trying to operate heavy equipment while under its influence. Anything that distorts time and space perception should be avoided while trying to do complex tasks. The far bigger problem is in the draconian laws against it. I think that any tax revenues generated should be used for drug rehab, and drug education.you don't think any of the Cheech and Chong movies are an offense to the good name of Comedy? They are a comedic social ill! 1
sheilauk Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I'm not convinced there are social ills associated directly with pot use, other than trying to operate heavy equipment while under its influence. Anything that distorts time and space perception should be avoided while trying to do complex tasks. The far bigger problem is in the draconian laws against it. I think that any tax revenues generated should be used for drug rehab, and drug education.Of course there are social ills - there is neglect of children while "stoned" and because money is spent on drugs and not food, clothing etc, there is driving whilst under the influence of the drug - it affects the user more than alcohol, there is the inability to work if one is a heavy user because it affects concentration and increases lethargy, there is the increased risk of mental health problems and illnesses associated with smoking which then affects the provision of medical services and there is the breakdown in relationships that occur. There is no such thing as safe drug use (even prescribed drugs must be taken with care) and marijuana is an addictive drug. And the laws are not draconian - it is an illegal drug and penalties are no more or less than those for other illegal drugs or unlawful behaviour. And having seen the damage drug use, even just marijuana, can do, there is no way I would support its legalisation in any way. (And yes - smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol are also very bad and I would love to see those activities also heavily discouraged - but the fact that they are legal does not justify making more drugs legal). 2
pogi Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 there is driving whilst under the influence of the drug - it affects the user more than alcohol, there is the increased risk of mental health problems and illnesses associated with smoking which then affects the provision of medical services. and marijuana is an addictive drug. .CFR pleaseWe are not talking about meth here - People do not spend money on pot before food and clothes! You have a total misunderstanding of the effects of marijuana.No such thing as a safe drug? As a registered nurse, I would disagree with that. Most drugs are more safe than sugar or McDonalds! I personally know a heavy user who is perfectly capable of holding down a reasonable job with a family. Do I agree with his lifestyle - No, but that is not my call, is it?
sheilauk Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 CFR pleaseWe are not talking about meth here - People do not spend money on pot before food and clothes! You have a total misunderstanding of the effects of marijuana.No such thing as a safe drug? As a registered nurse, I would disagree with that. Most drugs are more safe than sugar or McDonalds! I personally know a heavy user who is perfectly capable of holding down a reasonable job with a family. Do I agree with his lifestyle - No, but that is not my call, is it?Reference: my personal experience of working in the criminal and family courts. Feel free to ignore what i've said.of course there are people who are capable of significant drug use with seeming ill effect and there are many who aren't. And we need to protect those who aren't. As for prescribed drugs - I'm allergic to codeine and an antibiotic - both were prescribed and I had an immediate reaction - they are not very safe for me. Yes, prescribed drugs are tested and yes, for the most part can be safely used when used as prescribed - I never said that they shouldn't be taken,I still take prescribed drugs when necessary - but one must use them with care and be aware of the dangers - they all carry possible side effects don't they? So, how can they be safe? They are only as safe as they can possibly be.
DavidB Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 If consumption of "addictive" substances violated the Word of Wisdom, then almost no one could enter the Temple.Sheiluk, it is one thing to rely on personal experience, it is quite another to make blanket statements.I know people who are are regular uses of marijuana - they are judges, lawyers, everyday citizens. Marijuana laws are draconian, which is demostrated in the US by the rejection of the false hype against marijuana and acceptance of medical use or even low amounts of personal use.Even the US Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice have been instructed by the US President to not Target medical marijuana facilities in States where medical marijuana is legal via State law.Marijuana is villified without coherent reason.
Mark Beesley Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Marijuana is villified without coherent reason.I had something to say in response . . . but I forgot what it was. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I had something to say in response . . . but I forgot what it was. And now you've got a sudden case of "The Munchies," right? 1
pogi Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Reference: my personal experience of working in the criminal and family courts. Feel free to ignore what i've said.of course there are people who are capable of significant drug use with seeming ill effect and there are many who aren't. And we need to protect those who aren't. As for prescribed drugs - I'm allergic to codeine and an antibiotic - both were prescribed and I had an immediate reaction - they are not very safe for me. Yes, prescribed drugs are tested and yes, for the most part can be safely used when used as prescribed - I never said that they shouldn't be taken,I still take prescribed drugs when necessary - but one must use them with care and be aware of the dangers - they all carry possible side effects don't they? So, how can they be safe? They are only as safe as they can possibly be.I fail to recognize how working in criminal and family courts makes you an expert on the increased risk of mental health problems and illness associated with MJ, or how driving while under the influence of MJ is more dangerous than alcohol. If you go back and read my posts, I posted actual links and references from qualified professional with studies that show otherwise. MJ is less addictive than sugar, should we ban that as well? Some people might kill themselves from adult onset diabetes. Should we ban sugar? Fast food? Because we need to protect them too. Isn't that your argument? If that is your standard, we have to hold that standard up across the board. People are just as deadly on the roads from using prescription pills. Should we ban prescription pills because they may potentially harm others on the road?
pogi Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 And now you've got a sudden case of "The Munchies," right? Munchies, good point! In response to sheilouk, what pot smoker does not spend money on food?
Duncan Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I fail to recognize how working in criminal and family courts makes you an expert on the increased risk of mental health problems and illness associated with MJ, or how driving while under the influence of MJ is more dangerous than alcohol. If you go back and read my posts, I posted actual links and references from qualified professional with studies that show otherwise. MJ is less addictive than sugar, should we ban that as well? Some people might kill themselves from adult onset diabetes. Should we ban sugar? Fast food? Because we need to protect them too. Isn't that your argument? If that is your standard, we have to hold that standard up across the board.People are just as deadly on the roads from using prescription pills. Should we ban prescription pills because they may potentially harm others on the road?people with certain medical conditions aren't allowed to drive anymore like my dad because of his diabetes
Recommended Posts