What about all the jobs in corrections, law enforcement and the legal industry? Handcuff manufacturers will see their children go hungry. How could we hope to disenfranchise and alienate huge swaths of the black community? What could we blame on Mexicans then?

And just what kind of crap weed would Philip Morris be selling us?

Marcus Aurelius: When Nixon started the War on Drugs, 2/3 of the money went into treatment programs. But it turns out you can make money seizing property and locking people up instead, so that didn't last very long.

Two-thirds for treatment? What a farking hippy.

Between that, establishing the EPA, and normalizing relations with China, Nixon was a great Democrat president.

It may happen in some Western countries, but it's never ever ever happening in America. Ever.

Too bad no politician would get caught in the "disadvantageous" position of legalizing drugs.

"My opponent legalized teh durgs, herpa derp, think of the chrilden"

Suddenly, all drugs become illegal again.

Oh FFS. You know, "drugs" aren't just relegated to pot. You would have meth legal? Heroin? All that nonsense about "give the users a place to shoot up or snort in safety"... it doesn't work like that. Drug abuse spills over into daily lives, you can't just rope it off into a 'safe place'.

Am I for changing the drug policies into decriminalization and treatment? Absolutely... but 'forcing' people into treatment will still be costly and bring up a slew of civil rights issues.

Basically: IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE, PEOPLE.

I see your evidence and graphs and suggestions, and raise you one "The war will be won if we WAR HARDER!!".

/Never do the right thing when you can take money under the table for doing the wrong things.

Captain_Ballbeard: And just what kind of crap weed would Philip Morris be selling us?

The overpriced kind that burns so quick you can barely get 2 hits off it.

I agree we should legalize drugs. I want to see all the idiots that think this is a good idea Darwin themselves with cocaine.

Koalaesq: Oh FFS. You know, "drugs" aren't just relegated to pot.

Wow, really?

You would have meth legal? Heroin?

Yes. Yes.

All that nonsense about "give the users a place to shoot up or snort in safety"... it doesn't work like that. Drug abuse spills over into daily lives, you can't just rope it off into a 'safe place'.

Drug use isn't drug abuse.

Am I for changing the drug policies into decriminalization and treatment? Absolutely... but 'forcing' people into treatment will still be costly and bring up a slew of civil rights issues.

We currently force people in to treatment programs without controversy.

Captain_Ballbeard: What about all the jobs in corrections, law enforcement and the legal industry? Handcuff manufacturers will see their children go hungry.

There are over 200,000 registered members on Daily KOS. President Gingrich will have plenty for those police and jails to do.

We'll be inundated with law firm commercials for class actions suits like this:

"Dude. Did you or someone you know die from bad acid, toxic weed or bad ludes? Did you gain weight for no reason. Did your girlfriend run off with someone better looking, richer, and with better dope? We're here to help you get money damages. And there could be health effects like heart conditions, lung conditions, yada yada"

Freakman: I agree we should legalize drugs. I want to see all the idiots that think this is a good idea Darwin themselves with cocaine.

I want to see drugs legalized and have no desire to use cocaine. Poor plan.

Koalaesq: but 'forcing' people into treatment will still be costly and bring up a slew of civil rights issues.

What do you think is more costly. The punitive model or treatment?

The business of marijuana in Canada is a $7 billion industry. I hope someday the government realizes they'd make more money from taxes than all other opposition combined.

You may find this hard to believe, but the UK government tends to ignore the science, the studies and the experts and base their policies on "won't somebody please think of the children!" instead. The last guy who dared to suggest considering reform was promptly sacked.

I'd probably consider voting for decriminalization of pot if the stoners would just be honest. Just say "I wanna' get high", not "My grandma has cancer of the glaucoma".

Of course, decriminalization/legalization would be quickly followed by some stoned dumbass claiming getting high is a human right. Pelosi would introduce legislation to subsidize it so that not just the 99% could get stoned. The follow-up would be claims that ubiquitous access to drugs is a CIA plot to oppress (insert whoever) which has replaced the CIA plot of banning drugs to oppress (insert whoever).

Farkin'round: Captain_Ballbeard: And just what kind of crap weed would Philip Morris be selling us?

The overpriced kind that burns so quick you can barely get 2 hits off it.

It'll be like beer. You have the cheap, mass-produced stuff that tastes like water and appeals to the lowest common denominator, but you also have the thousands of craft breweries that put out stuff that tastes like the nectar of the gods.

notthisshiatagain.jpg

Koalaesq: You would have meth legal? Heroin?

Maybe not fully legalize, but decriminalize, yes. Meth was at one point the most prescribed drug in America. We were fine.

Koalaesq: All that nonsense about "give the users a place to shoot up or snort in safety"... it doesn't work like that. Drug abuse spills over into daily lives, you can't just rope it off into a 'safe place'.

Yeah, the point is to limit the spillover. I'm generally not into it just being a free for all, but needle exchange programs are a good idea.

Koalaesq: forcing' people into treatment will still be costly and bring up a slew of civil rights issues.

Less costly and less civil rights issues than prison. Addiction is a bad thing and no solution will be perfect, but treatment is immensely preferable to incarceration.

HotWingConspiracy: Yes. Yes.

No. No.

It depends on what is meant by 'legalization.' Removing those drugs from the controlled substance list is like credit default swaps being outside of securities regulation.

It causes problems.

DRTFA, but yes.

Treat all recreational drugs like alcohol.

I stand by everything I have said on this when running as a Libertarian candidate, or posted on this or other forums.

Summed up here, regardless of the attacks (new window)

ImperialHazman: I'd probably consider voting for decriminalization of pot if the stoners would just be honest. Just say "I wanna' get high", not "My grandma has cancer of the glaucoma".

Of course, decriminalization/legalization would be quickly followed by some stoned dumbass claiming getting high is a human right. Pelosi would introduce legislation to subsidize it so that not just the 99% could get stoned. The follow-up would be claims that ubiquitous access to drugs is a CIA plot to oppress (insert whoever) which has replaced the CIA plot of banning drugs to oppress (insert whoever).

I want to get high. My sister's life is greatly improved by synthetic THC and would likely be even better if she was allowed to use other forms of marijuana. I consider the latter fact much more important than the former. Is that dishonest of me?

thurstonxhowell: Meth was at one point the most prescribed drug in America. We were fine.

Amphetamines are not methamphetamines. And to say "fine" is a bit of an overstatement. There were a lot of domestic junkies in the 1950s and 60s -- which is why it's no longer proscribed.

2wolves: Koalaesq: Oh FFS. You know, "drugs" aren't just relegated to pot. You would have meth legal? Heroin? All that nonsense about "give the users a place to shoot up or snort in safety"... it doesn't work like that. Drug abuse spills over into daily lives, you can't just rope it off into a 'safe place'.

Am I for changing the drug policies into decriminalization and treatment? Absolutely... but 'forcing' people into treatment will still be costly and bring up a slew of civil rights issues.

Basically: IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE, PEOPLE.

It's not simple so we should never do it. Great attitude.

Did I say we should never do it? No, I didn't. Go reading comprehension!

I'm just pointing out that people act like this is the simplest fix in the world- "Just legalize it! All our problems will go away!" If you truly think it's that simple, you are fooling yourself.

thurstonxhowell: Koalaesq: You would have meth legal? Heroin?

Maybe not fully legalize, but decriminalize, yes. Meth was at one point the most prescribed drug in America. We were fine.

Koalaesq: All that nonsense about "give the users a place to shoot up or snort in safety"... it doesn't work like that. Drug abuse spills over into daily lives, you can't just rope it off into a 'safe place'.

Yeah, the point is to limit the spillover. I'm generally not into it just being a free for all, but needle exchange programs are a good idea.

Koalaesq: forcing' people into treatment will still be costly and bring up a slew of civil rights issues.

Less costly and less civil rights issues than prison. Addiction is a bad thing and no solution will be perfect, but treatment is immensely preferable to incarceration.

And Ecstasy was the first variant of methadone giving to recovering addicts. However, studies now show that it eventually turns your brain to Swiss cheese, should we legalize it? Hint: The answer is no. Pot on the other hand is less harmful than Cigarettes and Alcohol, I say legalize it.

Do the people who approve of legalization of all drugs approve of being able to obtain narcotics without a prescription?

funk_soul_bubby: notthisshiatagain.jpg

This is Fark, at least the it's easy to understand:

You're either for measured decriminalization of recreational drug use based on the merits of the drug or anything short of complete legalization is Stalinist.

thurstonxhowell: Maybe not fully legalize, but decriminalize, yes. Meth was at one point the most prescribed drug in America. We were fine.

I agree with the decriminalization. People seem to be missing this. And the meth of yesteryear has nothing in common with the stuff on the streets today.

thurstonxhowell: Yeah, the point is to limit the spillover. I'm generally not into it just being a free for all, but needle exchange programs are a good idea.

I agree with this too, but again- people do not pay enough attention to the spillover that will occur. When we decriminalize, we need those programs to limit spillover in place.

Dorf11: The business of marijuana in Canada is a $7 billion industry. I hope someday the government realizes they'd make more money from taxes than all other opposition combined.

The New American Way is not about Government making money, it is about killing Government so that corporate interests can fill the vacuum and make money. Imagine what it would take for an individual to make enough alcohol or tobacco to support a regular habit. And how mindlessly easy it would be to keep oneself covered up in ganja. They can't legalize the drugs with a more restrictive supply, like coke or heroin, without legalizing marijuana.

MugzyBrown: Do the people who approve of legalization of all drugs approve of being able to obtain narcotics without a prescription?

I my opinion yes. THought that does not mean without regulation. Treat it like alcohol so that the retailers and upstream companies are known and can be monitored for compliance with laws. That can not be done with a black market. Restrict purchase to the same age range as alcohol.

This is not perfect, but it works better than prohibition.

Addiction to narcotics does not necessarily incapacitate you. It can, but so can alcohol. Chris Hitchens is an example of booze not being crippling. I have read stories of people functioning well on opiates. Sorry, no links, but you can probably find them. But then, people wont come out about doing certain things when that will subject them to arrest and imprisonment.

The few things I think should be restricted are things like anti-biotics, where misuse can harm others by creating resistant strains of bacteria. Misuse of recreational drugs harms only the user, and perhaps family and friends in their sadness. But small tragedies like that, are bearable in contrast to the corruption and violence that prohibition always brings.

tomWright: I have read stories of people functioning well on opiates.

Yeah, it's called Exile On Main Street.

DarnoKonrad: funk_soul_bubby: notthisshiatagain.jpg

This is Fark, at least the it's easy to understand:

You're either for measured decriminalization of recreational drug use based on the merits of the drug or anything short of complete legalization is Stalinist.

No. you're worse than Hitler. On Fark, poor little Soviet Russia was misunderstood and not real communism anyway.

Petit_Merdeux: Do Rolex & Mitsubishi make drugs now?

I know Mitsubishi has for quite some time now:

The problem with decriminalization vs legalization is with simple decriminalization, you will still have the artificially high price of the drugs commensurate with it being a black market economy, which still allows gangs and other 'bad guys' to control the supply. So many of the surrounding problems and costs with drugs will continue. This will still effect poor neighborhoods more.

The problem with legalization, across the board, is the problems that come along with drug abuse will still be concentrated in the poor neighborhoods, and probably be exasperated. Do you think the Martha's Vineyard local government will aprove the zoning of a Meth store?

I am for the theory of legalization, but there are a lot of issues that come with freedom.

Captain_Ballbeard: Dorf11: The business of marijuana in Canada is a $7 billion industry. I hope someday the government realizes they'd make more money from taxes than all other opposition combined.

The New American Way is not about Government making money, it is about killing Government so that corporate interests can fill the vacuum and make money. Imagine what it would take for an individual to make enough alcohol or tobacco to support a regular habit. And how mindlessly easy it would be to keep oneself covered up in ganja. They can't legalize the drugs with a more restrictive supply, like coke or heroin, without legalizing marijuana.

You mean like keeping marijuana illegal for normal people while allowing a pharma corporation to extract THC from 'illegal' plant fibres to use as a topical spray. (Again, this isn't a synthetic, it's the real thing)

I do see your point of associated legalization, but I have to think it's a false association. The only common factor between coke or heroin and marijuana is the fact they're all illegal.

Koalaesq: You know, "drugs" aren't just relegated to pot. You would have meth legal? Heroin?

Of course. We'd have to.

See, legalizing (and regulating + taxing) these substances makes sense in quite a few ways. The first is the obvious economic argument; by legalizing them, it takes money away from the underground drug scene which is fueling inner city violence, the Mexican drug wars, etc. On top of that, the majority of the people in jail are in for drug related crime. Simply by removing these people from the system, you'd likely save billions. Police are freed up to worry about violent crime, and greater police presence is one of the standard - and most consistent - methods for decreasing crime.

There's also the "not your farking business what consenting adults do" argument. If I want to purchase and consume something that is bad for me, it is normally perfectly legal for me to do so unless the substance presents a clear danger to others (I can't make and consume weaponized ebola, or uranium nuggets). I can eat a tub of Crisco, jump out of an airplane, or stick my dick in a light socket and everything's kosher. But if I want to consume heroin, that somehow becomes the government's business - under no consistent or even apparent justification. All kinds of problems caused by bad diets (obesity, diabetes, heart disease) kill exponentially more people than drugs, yet dietary problems get only a fraction of the concern. If we're going to assume the government can step in and tell us what we can and can't choose to do for our own good, all the dangerous shiat we do on a day to day basis is equally open for the government finger.

Of course, there are addiction problems with drugs (though addictive properties alone are not enough to warrant outlawing a substance, see: sugar, caffeine, Everquest). With the scads of money saved by legalizing and taxing, we can very easily set up a massive amount of voluntary rehab facilities free for anyone who wishes to enter one and take it seriously. Drug consumption would go down significantly.

This rolls into the third major reason to legalize it; the social stigma drives a huge amount of public safety issues. The primary reason for violent crime around drugs is not the drugs, it's the illegal nature of the drugs. Smugglers, dealers, violent assholes of many types, drug lords, etc., all have largely free reign to do what they want because the money is so good and they're already breaking the law. Gangs have reason to push the police out of an area by making it particularly dangerous...if they do, they can deal unmolested. Legalize the drugs and there's no significant reason to 'take' territory, there's no reason to commit random violence, and the money fueling these gangs disappears. Neighborhoods would drastically improve, general safety in cities would go up, and people wouldn't have to worry that the apartment next door was a meth lab waiting to explode. With competitive corporate pricing, people would no longer need to steal to pay the grossly inflated price for their drugs. Addicts would be able to openly speak about it and seek help rather than admit to being a criminal. They're sick, they're not criminals. They need help, not jail time. Society as a whole would benefit.

Koalaesq: Drug abuse spills over into daily lives, you can't just rope it off into a 'safe place'.


O RLY?

It anything, legalize weed.

I hate the silly notion that if we legalize all the drugs then we will all turn into heroin and/or meth addicts overnight. How many people here would actually take Meth or Heroin if it were legalized? I can safely say I wouldn't.

Using the money wasted on this so called war could be much better spent by educating the populace and offering help to those who want and need it.

MugzyBrown: Do you think the Martha's Vineyard local government will aprove the zoning of a Meth store?

Why would there be a 'meth store'? Let it be sold in Walgreens.

MugzyBrown: I am for the theory of legalization, but there are a lot of issues that come with freedom.

There are always issues that come with freedom. Free speech means there are a lot of loud, obnoxious assholes in the world that you can't shut up. Free press allows companies like Fox to spout party line bullshiat as 'news'. Free religion lets the WBC tell soldiers' wives that the soldier was gay and is going to hell. There are always going to be assholes in the world...and that should never stop us from doing what's right.

sn82: I like Time and a Word best.

Really? It's a decent album but I found their efforts following that to be their strongest material. And I might be one of the few people who really enjoys "Relayer."

sprawl15: There's also the "not your farking business what consenting adults do" argument. If I want to purchase and consume something that is bad for me, it is normally perfectly legal for me to do so unless the substance presents a clear danger to others (I can't make and consume weaponized ebola, or uranium nuggets). I can eat a tub of Crisco, jump out of an airplane, or stick my dick in a light socket and everything's kosher. But if I want to consume heroin, that somehow becomes the government's business - under no consistent or even apparent justification. All kinds of problems caused by bad diets (obesity, diabetes, heart disease) kill exponentially more people than drugs, yet dietary problems get only a fraction of the concern. If we're going to assume the government can step in and tell us what we can and can't choose to do for our own good, all the dangerous shiat we do on a day to day basis is equally open for the government finger.

If you support a form of government-based/funded healthcare system, and I have no idea if you do, then it does become my business if you're injecting poisons into your body and find yourself at the ER every couple of weeks.

sprawl15: See, legalizing (and regulating + taxing) these substances makes sense in quite a few ways. The first is the obvious economic argument; by legalizing them, it takes money away from the underground drug scene which is fueling inner city violence, the Mexican drug wars, etc. On top of that, the majority of the people in jail are in for drug related crime. Simply by removing these people from the system, you'd likely save billions. Police are freed up to worry about violent crime, and greater police presence is one of the standard - and most consistent - methods for decreasing crime.


You're conflating legalization with decriminalization. Personally I think pot should heavily regulated and legal. Other drugs like methamphetamine, should be illegal, but that doesn't mean the users should be criminalized.

sprawl15: Of course, there are addiction problems with drugs (though addictive properties alone are not enough to warrant outlawing a substance, see: sugar, caffeine, Everquest).

None of those substances are particularly prone to chemical dependence -- which is a side effect of some addictive substances, but not all. Thus, not all addictive substances should be considered equivalents.