Ray
Master Black Belt
It's an E-Ticket ride. But alas, Disneyland did away with the ticket book?
Drugs and imprisonment
- Thread starter Empty Hands
- Start date
I think the comparison between marijuana and alcohol is a good one. When I was working as a bouncer, I used to look forward to the nights we had jam bands playing. Not because I like the music (hours of Jerry Garcia wannabes playing extended jams that all sound the same) but because those bands primarily draw the stoner crowd. Not once did I ever have to break up a fight between two stoners over "What the **** are you looking at?!"
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
I read an article about letting prison inmates grow and smoke all the week they wanted. The idea was to reduce violence, which would allow them to cut manpower... but they'd probably have to serve four or five meals every day. The idea was to introduce this when marijuana is legalized, & perhaps that this proposal would get more people behind it's legalization, if only to empty prisons of drug offenders, and the violent criminals left behind would be high & much less violent while incarcerated.
Just wanted to chime in on this one.
1. Criminal street gangs, and the commesurate violence, started long before the advent of the high sales of drugs in the community. Even in the city where I work, most of the gangsters are not killing each other over drug sales. And of all the cities in Los Angeles / Orange County, mine has one of the highest rates of homicide. Few of these are drug related, but most of them are gang related.
2. Just because something becomes legal, does not mean that all of a sudden millions of people are going to go out and use them. I don't believe that would nearly be the case, but that is just my opinion.
3. My main belief is that if you want to risk permanent damage to your body by using drugs (just like alcohol, parachuting, bungee jumping, etc.), go right ahead.
1. Criminal street gangs, and the commesurate violence, started long before the advent of the high sales of drugs in the community. Even in the city where I work, most of the gangsters are not killing each other over drug sales. And of all the cities in Los Angeles / Orange County, mine has one of the highest rates of homicide. Few of these are drug related, but most of them are gang related.
2. Just because something becomes legal, does not mean that all of a sudden millions of people are going to go out and use them. I don't believe that would nearly be the case, but that is just my opinion.
3. My main belief is that if you want to risk permanent damage to your body by using drugs (just like alcohol, parachuting, bungee jumping, etc.), go right ahead.
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
Can you cite some statistics?
... or martial arts... ^_^
A very healthy, non-reactionary attitude.
When I get back to work, I will do some reasearch (if this thread is still active). I'm out of town right now, so I don't have them readily available.
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
JBrainard
Senior Master
To go ahead and revive a day old thread, I wanted to throw in my two cents, which I didn't have the time to do yesterday.
(Most) everyone in this thread has made very good arguments pro and con decriminalizing "street drugs." But I noticed one thing that never came up: cigarettes. They are as addictive as heroin, and are as bad for you (if not worse) as many street drugs.
I point this out because the thing that irks me the most about the whole "drug issue" is the inconsistency in the government’s stance. Ban cigarettes or legalize heroin. Ban alcohol or legalize pot. Just be consistent, for god's sakes.
I think that the problem lies in that what drugs are legal or illegal has little to do with how addictive and/or harmful they are to you, but based more on "social acceptability" and to what extent the government gets their pockets lined by keeping substances legal or illegal.
For example, I would not be at all surprised if pot is eventually legalized in my home state of Oregon. Not for any rational reason (like the fact that it is much less harmful than alcohol), but because Portland and Eugene are very liberal cities and it seems to be becoming more and more socially acceptable to be a recreational pot smoker.
Another example: I would be shocked as hell if alcohol or cigarettes were criminalized. Why? Because the government just makes WAY to much money off of those cash cows to give them up.
To sum up, I would like to see a future where the criminalization of substances is based on science and reason, not ignorance and money.
(Most) everyone in this thread has made very good arguments pro and con decriminalizing "street drugs." But I noticed one thing that never came up: cigarettes. They are as addictive as heroin, and are as bad for you (if not worse) as many street drugs.
I point this out because the thing that irks me the most about the whole "drug issue" is the inconsistency in the government’s stance. Ban cigarettes or legalize heroin. Ban alcohol or legalize pot. Just be consistent, for god's sakes.
I think that the problem lies in that what drugs are legal or illegal has little to do with how addictive and/or harmful they are to you, but based more on "social acceptability" and to what extent the government gets their pockets lined by keeping substances legal or illegal.
For example, I would not be at all surprised if pot is eventually legalized in my home state of Oregon. Not for any rational reason (like the fact that it is much less harmful than alcohol), but because Portland and Eugene are very liberal cities and it seems to be becoming more and more socially acceptable to be a recreational pot smoker.
Another example: I would be shocked as hell if alcohol or cigarettes were criminalized. Why? Because the government just makes WAY to much money off of those cash cows to give them up.
To sum up, I would like to see a future where the criminalization of substances is based on science and reason, not ignorance and money.
