Let's all talk about our experiences smoking weed. That'll be farging great.

Started by Diomedes, May 09, 2008, 08:14:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

shorebird

Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:47:25 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 12:41:17 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:33:51 PM
I don't know if I can bring myself to be for legalizing drugs.

That's either because you think there is something morally wrong with drugs (in which case there's no way to ever change your mind) or you have never researched the matter thoroughly. It is almost impossible to find research that points to any type of prohibition having any kind of positive impact. It costs money in a place where money could actually be made AND most importantly it's 100% ineffective. It doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs, it only serves to make those that do into criminals.

No my problem with legalizing drugs is that they are highly addictive substances. How do you legalize a substance like Heroin where you take one hit and mortgage your house to get more because it's that good? Crack? How do you legalize that? Then you have companies making and marketing it? Users are victims in most cases because it's a chemical addiction. It's all a slippery slope either way. 

Nicotine is highly addictive, and kills people every day. You don't mortgage your house to get it because it's controlled by the government and easily available. Make it illegal and see what happens. Beer, and liquor while not quite as addictive still kills people every day. Alcohol is as much a part of society as hot dogs and apple pie.

It's all about the money, I'll never think otherwise.

ice grillin you

Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 12:49:39 PM
At IGY: Fine, it lowered usage overall, but it also meant that 100% of the people who did use were, by definition, criminals. Which is ludicrous.

i totally agree...im just saying making something illegal does keep people from using/doing it



Quote from: Cerevant on May 09, 2008, 12:50:23 PM
(I think pot should be legal, subject to current smoking restrictions)


no way...it should be closer to the current alcohol restrictions
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Diomedes

The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

rjs246

Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:47:25 PM
No my problem with legalizing drugs is that they are highly addictive substances. How do you leaglize a substance like Heroin where you take one hit and morgage your house to get more because it's that good? Crack? How do you legalize that? Then you have companies making and marketing it? Users are victims in most cases because it's a chemical addiction. It's all a slippery slope either way. 

Cigarettes and alcohol are legal and federally controlled. Fedreal regulation would bring prices down significantly and make rehabilitation easier. The mortgage your house scenario becomes nearly non-existant (people do still lose their shtein to alcohol of course but it isn't exactly an epidemic).
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

Phanatic

#34
Well cig companies increasing Nicotine in their product is a whole different discussion and it's exactly why I'd worry about legit companies marketing a now legal substance. Capitalism has no conscious and will sell anything for a profit as long as it's legal. Once there's money to be made government regulation is sold to the highest bidder.

Nicotine levels in Cigarettes has been on the rise in brands most popular with young folks and minorities. Legalizing drugs just gives the racists and profiteers another way of getting the job done...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083001418.html
This post is brought to you by Alcohol!

Cerevant

Quote from: fansince61 on May 09, 2008, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Father Demon on May 09, 2008, 12:19:55 PM
Legalize it, tax it, control it.  It solves so many problems.  And this opinion is brought to you by a non-drug user.

Yup!  And Tax it again!  Set some money aside for rehabs and use the windfall to pay down the debt. (a real lock box this time).   Drug users get a photo id card and it's on their drivers license.  They buy it form state operated stores and each sale is recorded.  Users agree to giving blood samples for driving offenses if needed.  Users must have yearly doctors exam or there buyer registation privledges expire.  Employers have the right to check and see if potential or current employees are registered (for safety reasons).

NOW THAT"S CHANGE :yay :yay :yay

You should move to Utah, where they do much of this for alcohol sales.  The big difference there is that if you are a "registered drinker" you get kicked out of the Mormon church.  Maybe for the feds, being a "registered druggie" could put you on the terrorist watch list or something.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

QB Eagles

Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:47:25 PMNo my problem with legalizing drugs is that they are highly addictive substances. How do you leaglize a substance like Heroin where you take one hit and morgage your house to get more because it's that good?

There is no such thing as a "one hit and you're addicted" drug. That's a mythical concept. Government figures (and remember the government has motive to play up the addictive properties of drugs):

The percentage of people who became "dependent" on various drugs within two years of trying them:

Inhalants: 0.9%
Tranquilizers (nonmedical use): 1.2%
Psychedelics: 1.9%
Sedatives (nonmedical use): 2.4%
Painkillers (nonmedical use): 3.1%
Alcohol: 3.2%
Cocaine Powder: 3.7%
Stimulants (nonmedical use): 4.7%
Marijuana: 5.8%
Crack Cocaine: 9.2%
Heroin: 13.4%

QB Eagles

Quote from: Diomedes on May 09, 2008, 01:01:12 PM
The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.

And if you dig into the numbers you'll find that the huge increase in US prison population isn't due to increased crime or even increased number of arrests. It basically boils down to longer sentences, fueled by "getting tough on" the drug war.

Rome

they should legalize prostitution while they're at it.

just sayin'. . .

Father Demon

The drawback to marital longevity is your wife always knows when you're really interested in her and when you're just trying to bury it.

troyhstewart

If I can grow it in my garden, it should be legal.

Father Demon

If I could grow prostitutes in my garden, I'd be ho-ing all day long.
The drawback to marital longevity is your wife always knows when you're really interested in her and when you're just trying to bury it.

QB Eagles

Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
Well cig companies increasing Nicotine in their product is a whole different discussion and it's exactly why I'd worry about legit companies marketing a now legal substance. Capitalism has no conscious and will sell anything for a profit as long as it's legal.

Capitalism is also producing a wide range of much less harmful nicotine delivery systems, such as dip, snus, electronic cigarettes, and other innovations. After all, the nicotine itself isn't what's killing people, so there's definitely a market for nicotine addicts who want to get their fix without dooming their health. By the way, more nicotine in your cigarette means you smoke less cigarettes and inhale less of the tar and other shtein that kills you. That's why lights aren't any safer -- people smoke more of them.

The market won't get a chance to revolutionize the nicotine industry though. Most anti-smoking activists hate safer nicotine alternatives, as a lot of them are, at their core, drug warriors who are horrified at the prospect of people being addicted to a drug, even if the drug is low-risk and keeps people away from having to use more dangerous products. [They have some selfish motives also. Their ability to generate scary statistics -- and hence funding -- would be greatly compromised if cigarettes weren't as bad for you as they currently are.]

Not only do these acitivists have much support in the FDA and throughout government, but so does Big Tobacco, which (if you haven't noticed) LOVES embracing new tobacco regulation these days. Why? Because it gives them the opportunity smother any potential competition in its crib!

Example: This year's Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which seems to enjoy broad support in Congress, gives the FDA broad discretion to ban any new nicotine products (including safer-than-cigarette products).

QuoteHence the bill instructs the FDA to approve a "modified risk tobacco product" only if it would "benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products."

To make that judgment, the FDA is supposed to consider "the increased or decreased likelihood that persons who do not use tobacco products will start using the tobacco product that is the subject of the application" as well as "the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products who would otherwise stop using such products will switch to the tobacco product that is the subject of the application." In other words, the FDA could decide to keep a demonstrably safer cigarette off the market because it might attract new smokers or dissuade current smokers from quitting.

Worse, an existing product can be deemed a "modified risk tobacco product" subject to FDA approval if its manufacturer indicates on the package, in advertising, or in any other forum that it's less hazardous than cigarettes. If an executive at a smokeless tobacco company mentioned in a TV interview or an op-ed piece that his products were much safer than cigarettes, which is indisputably true, those products could suddenly be considered illegal.

Source: http://www.creators.com/opinion/jacob-sullum/fda-approved-cancer-sticks.html

The legislation is supported by anti-smoking activists and by Philip Morris USA.

4and26

Quote from: Father Demon on May 09, 2008, 02:36:34 PM
If I could grow prostitutes in my garden, I'd be ho-ing all day long.
That's bad....

Dio you've really started one of the more animated thread of late on  this board.

fansince61

The Columbian Cartles or the Internationa Assoc. of Gonja Growers will have to start funding studies if the risks/benifits are to be looked at honestly.  Red wine makes the news at times and cigarette smoking helps alzheimers patients but thats about it