Drugs: Legalise or Prohibit?

[Blade96]

I have no problem with medical uses; the problem is that most 'medical use' marijuana is pure 'wink-wink' backdoor recreational use. Read some of the old threads here - even some MT members frankly admit either using 'medical' marijuana for recreational use or thinking it's just fine to do so.

In California, it's clearly a simple backdoor legalization scheme. You can get a 'prescription' from a doctor for medial marijuana for 'chronic pain'. Any kind of pain. You name it. Let us not pretend this is 'medical'.

That's not to say that there are not people who honestly derive a medical benefit from marijuana; but the provisions of the law are being abused for recreational use.

i think marijuana should be like steroids. illegalbut you are permittexd to have it with approval from the doctor. I once had to have medicinal cream that had steroids in it to treat a side effect from a bad allergy I had. (my family used to tease me about me developing muscles like Arnold. LOL.) I have heard of people getting medical benefits from marijuana so it should be regulated like that.

Shouldnt be able to go out and score some drug off the street tho

 

[ballen0351]

That is the only reason I don't smoke weed now, and haven't for over 20 years. But I'd happily buy a pack of Marleyboros if it's ever legalized.

Ultimately, the reasons pot is illegal are financial and political and have nothing to do with any sane arguments to the contrary. People don't get angry on weed. They don't get into fights. It's not addictive. It's not a gateway drug. It's not any more unhealthy for us than things we do every day. In many ways, it's much, much safer than alcohol.

Should it be regulated? Sure. Should it be legal for minors? Absolutely not. Should people be able to drive under the influence? Of course not.

That’s a 100% untrue statement. I have been in many many fights with people high on weed. I have seen fatal accidents where the driver was only high on weed. I have seen people kill each other over a $20 sack of Marijuana. Every Hard core drug user I have ever met and I meet them daily started their drug use with Marijuana and moved on from there. That does not mean every pot smoker move will on to other drugs. I’ve been to domestics where husbands high on Marijuana beat the crap out of their wives and kids.

 

[Steve]

That’s a 100% untrue statement. I have been in many many fights with people high on weed. I have seen fatal accidents where the driver was only high on weed. I have seen people kill each other over a $20 sack of Marijuana. Every Hard core drug user I have ever met and I meet them daily started their drug use with Marijuana and moved on from there. That does not mean every pot smoker move will on to other drugs. I’ve been to domestics where husbands high on Marijuana beat the crap out of their wives and kids.

While every hardcore drug user you've met may have started with weed, millions of people who smoke or have smoked weed regularly did not move on to hardcore drug use. It's just simply not a gateway drug any more than World of Warcraft is a gateway drug. Every hardcore drug addict you've ever met has had some alcohol, too. Is alcohol a gateway drug? Of course not. Why? Because it's legal.

Look, the topic has been done to death. Ultimately, any arguments about continuing the prohibition on weed are emotional in nature, and are not reasonable. You're entitled to your opinions, but I've never seen any rational argument for the continued prohibition on weed. It's just not there.

 

[ballen0351]

While every hardcore drug user you've met may have started with weed, millions of people who smoke or have smoked weed regularly did not move on to hardcore drug use. It's just simply not a gateway drug any more than World of Warcraft is a gateway drug. Every hardcore drug addict you've ever met has had some alcohol, too. Is alcohol a gateway drug? Of course not. Why? Because it's legal.

Look, the topic has been done to death. Ultimately, any arguments about continuing the prohibition on weed are emotional in nature, and are not reasonable. You're entitled to your opinions, but I've never seen any rational argument for the continued prohibition on weed. It's just not there.

Have you ever looked at the effects of long term Marijuana use on the brain? Have you done any research on the symptoms of Marijuana addiction? I mean real research not what the pro-pot lobby tell you.

You can believe the pro-marijuana talking points all you want. "hey man weed makes you happy, You dont get mad you dont get into fights man you just chill dude" "its so not addicting I’ve smoked dope for 25 years I can quit anytime wait what were we talking about" Its your right.

Sadly this country will someday make marijuana legal and we as a society will continue to fall behind.

 

[ballen0351]

Steve why stop at weed? Cocaine comes from a plant just like weed does lets make that legal too. Heroin also comes from a plant lets all pass the needles around.

Where do we draw the line?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ultimately, the reasons pot is illegal are financial and political and have nothing to do with any sane arguments to the contrary.

Everything is financial and political. Doesn't change anything with regard to what pot and other illicit drug use does to families and societies.

People don't get angry on weed. They don't get into fights. It's not addictive. It's not a gateway drug. It's not any more unhealthy for us than things we do every day. In many ways, it's much, much safer than alcohol.

I disagree.

Should it be regulated? Sure. Should it be legal for minors? Absolutely not. Should people be able to drive under the influence? Of course not.

I agree.

The topic of weed has come up several times before.

Starts here: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73168

Continues here: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78867

Yep. My views haven't changed, I'm just trying to be a bit kinder and gentler.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You're entitled to your opinions, but I've never seen any rational argument for the continued prohibition on weed. It's just not there.

A very simple one is that most people do not want it to be legal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx

While the trend is towards public approval, it is not a majority opinion at the moment, and historically, it has not been - in many years, by huge percentages.

I will still not be in favor of legalization if the balance tips and more people favor legalization than not, but you stated there is no rational argument for continued prohibition on pot, and this is one; the public does not want it to be legal. That's a very good and rational reason. One of many, but that's an excellent one.

 

[granfire]

A very simple one is that most people do not want it to be legal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx

While the trend is towards public approval, it is not a majority opinion at the moment, and historically, it has not been - in many years, by huge percentages.

I will still not be in favor of legalization if the balance tips and more people favor legalization than not, but you stated there is no rational argument for continued prohibition on pot, and this is one; the public does not want it to be legal. That's a very good and rational reason. One of many, but that's an excellent one.

but by the graph you posted that argument is losing credibility.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

but by the graph you posted that argument is losing credibility.

No, by the graph I posted, the public opinion is changing, which I clearly acknowledged. However, Steve said there was no rational argument against the legalization of marijuana, and I pointed out yes, there is a rational argument - the public does not want it to be legal. Historically, as can be seen on the graph, the public has not wanted it to be legal. That is a good, rational, and sufficient reason, so long as civil rights are not being infringed upon.

Majority rule is quite acceptable in a democratic (or republican representative) society. So long as civil rights are not infringed upon, the majority does indeed have a right to set the rules it pleases; whether directly by plebiscite or indirectly through elected politicians.

In fact, it is majority rule that has ushered in legal 'medical marijuana' in several states recently. So clearly, public sentiment is changing; but if you accept that the majority has a right to set the rules regarding medical use of marijuana, then you must also accept that the majority has the right to keep it illegal for all other use.

 

[granfire]

No, by the graph I posted, the public opinion is changing, which I clearly acknowledged. However, Steve said there was no rational argument against the legalization of marijuana, and I pointed out yes, there is a rational argument - the public does not want it to be legal. Historically, as can be seen on the graph, the public has not wanted it to be legal. That is a good, rational, and sufficient reason, so long as civil rights are not being infringed upon.

Majority rule is quite acceptable in a democratic (or republican representative) society. So long as civil rights are not infringed upon, the majority does indeed have a right to set the rules it pleases; whether directly by plebiscite or indirectly through elected politicians.

In fact, it is majority rule that has ushered in legal 'medical marijuana' in several states recently. So clearly, public sentiment is changing; but if you accept that the majority has a right to set the rules regarding medical use of marijuana, then you must also accept that the majority has the right to keep it illegal for all other use.

However frightful the thought is to be ruled by the dreadfully uninformed masses, you are correct.
And I am speaking of broader matters, past 'Mary Jane'

 

[Bill Mattocks]

However frightful the thought is to be ruled by the dreadfully uninformed masses, you are correct.

The difficulty in any system of governance that claims to represent the will of the people is that it does precisely that.

Our government in the US is very cleverly designed. The core principles were made such that they could only be modified by the will of the people using extreme effort - we can change the core principles, but we really have to be motivated to do so. However, any power which we have permitted the federal and state governments to have may be exercised by simple majority (plebiscite vote) or through the representative vote of elected leaders. This gives us rule by the masses, and also prevents us from swinging wildly to and fro with the current zeitgeist. It's the best system going.

It also means that when the majority, in their ignorance, want something to be banned, then banned it is. And is that a shame? Not really. Is it unfair? Only to the minority. And frankly, unless someone's civil rights are being trampled, the rights of the majority *should* outweigh the rights of the minority in a free society. I know that sword cuts both ways - I'm against the current 'medical marijuana' laws in Michigan that are really just backdoor legalization of recreational use, but the people have spoken and I have to deal with it. My recourse is to vote against it if it comes up on the ballot again, and to express my displeasure to my elected representatives. Whining about the unfairness of it all doesn't fix anything.

If pot is as innocent and non-dangerous as smokers make it out to be, they can just as easily do without it. If they need it so desperately that they cannot stop themselves from buying it even though it is illegal, then perhaps that says something about their argument that's just a harmless little weed.

 

[ballen0351]

The difficulty in any system of governance that claims to represent the will of the people is that it does precisely that.

Our government in the US is very cleverly designed. The core principles were made such that they could only be modified by the will of the people using extreme effort - we can change the core principles, but we really have to be motivated to do so. However, any power which we have permitted the federal and state governments to have may be exercised by simple majority (plebiscite vote) or through the representative vote of elected leaders. This gives us rule by the masses, and also prevents us from swinging wildly to and fro with the current zeitgeist. It's the best system going.

It also means that when the majority, in their ignorance, want something to be banned, then banned it is. And is that a shame? Not really. Is it unfair? Only to the minority. And frankly, unless someone's civil rights are being trampled, the rights of the majority *should* outweigh the rights of the minority in a free society. I know that sword cuts both ways - I'm against the current 'medical marijuana' laws in Michigan that are really just backdoor legalization of recreational use, but the people have spoken and I have to deal with it. My recourse is to vote against it if it comes up on the ballot again, and to express my displeasure to my elected representatives. Whining about the unfairness of it all doesn't fix anything.

If pot is as innocent and non-dangerous as smokers make it out to be, they can just as easily do without it. If they need it so desperately that they cannot stop themselves from buying it even though it is illegal, then perhaps that says something about their argument that's just a harmless little weed.

Great Post that last paragraph was spot on

 

[Sukerkin]

Some very interesting posts in the past day or so on this one. Thank you one and all for your input thus far.

My own views are that the drug trade should be legalised and regulated 'above the table'.

I am not and never have been a user of any of the illegal 'recreational' drugs and have an entire 'generation' of my friends who are no longer with me because they were i.e. all my friends of a certain part of my life are dead because of drugs.

To make my 'legal' position clear, as things presently stand, I would happily sign off, as a voter, on a shoot-on-sight policy for drug-dealers ... indeed, in my more feral moments, I'd add their 'regular' customers to the list too! I call it the "38 pence cure" (that being how much it used to cost to handload a pistol round). But that's an emotional reaction rather than an intelligent one.

However, the system of suppression and criminalisation causes more problems than it solves. Those of us here who are officers of the law, who still maintain that the position of legality is okay as it is, also tell us that the battle is not being won. The main point being that people can still get whatever drugs they want wherever they want to. That is not the mark of a successful policy really.

So it is time to experiment radically, on the premise that things cannot be worse than they already are.

There are provisio's, of course.

Ballen and Bill have made some excellent points for maintaining the status quo, the big one that struck home was the one I mentioned earlier viz the 'curious experimenter' who gets hooked right off the bat. That is a most serious point indeed and one I don't have a counter to. After all, I used to be a smoker! I made it through all the difficult years and never succombed and then I got promoted at work; someone offered me a cigarette and (Lord knows why) I accepted. Cue two decades of addiction.

This thread is largely for the American view-point on this issue, mind you, rather than the English (or more particularly, my) opinions. Please continue, it has been most interesting so far :tup:.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that there are not just two schools of thought on the subject, but indeed two reasons for it to be legal or not.

The first is with regard to the harm it does (or potentially does). I could even split that down into the harm it does the individual, the harm it does their families, and the harm it does society.

The second is with regard to the will of the citizenry that a behavior be legal or illegal.

With regard to the first subject, I am above all a proponent of freedom and the least amount of governance possible. I do not care if a person does themselves harm through their own free will; so long as it does not cost me anything (which is a sub-argument against it if we have any form of socialized medicine), let me be legal.

If it harms the individual and their family, I still say let the government keep their noses out of it; families are meant to deal with such issues on their own; even when those issues are difficult and when the government could conceivably assist them, in my view.

However, when it involves sufficient negative impact on society, then I feel that the government has a right and a duty to get involved. It is for reasons such as these that we have laws ranging from stop signs to laws against rape; if everyone behaves as they please, we haven't got any society at all.

With regard to the second subject, as I have said recently in this thread, in a free society in which the will of the citizenry is the basis for the law - excluding the framework, which is more difficult to change by design - then if the majority want a thing illegal, then that is what it should be. The minority will always natter on about the tyranny of the majority; but what would they prefer, the tyranny of the minority? Someone must have their voices heard, and if it does not infringe upon basic liberties enshrined the framework of our government, then I have to insist that in my opinion, the majority should in fact rule.

I suspect that we are moving towards legalization, and we may soon have it. This will disappoint me very much, and I believe it will be one of the many small cuts that lead to the bleeding to death of our society.

It may well alleviate some minor current issues, such as some drug dealing and so on, but in fact, it will not stop the drug trade so long as *any* currently-illicit drugs remain that way. The drug dealers who will no longer deal pot will gladly turn to whatever drug remains illegal and in demand. The criminal attacks on police and innocent citizens will continue; the legalization of marijuana will not put a stop to it.

It may also increase revenue for states that are currently suffering from lack of money, and forestall the curtailing of services or the raising of taxes. However, this is a Faustian Bargain in my opinion; we sell what we value in our society in order to raise the money to preserve our society. Selling our souls to the devil in order to keep the lights turned on is no bargain, and one that reasonable people should consider not lightly before making.

 

[ballen0351]

My question to the make them legal crowd would be. What is your answer to the drug related crimes. The crimes like theft, robbery,assaults, murders? The criminals are still going to need drugs and now they will cost more so they will need to commit more crimes to get them. Then add in the # of new people hooked because they tried it out on their 21st birthday.

the argument that it's still happens even when it's illegal so we might as well make it legal just does not hold water. You can make that same argument about all laws. Murder, rape, ect they still happen everyday but they are illegal so should we just get rid of all laws?

 

[Sukerkin]

I think the pivotal point of the non-moral part of your position is a pricing issue more than anything else, Ballen.

I do think that with the other aspect you are leaping to the upper-bound without traversing the points between, so to speak; it does your argument more harm than good to do that when it comes to those of us (who do not face the same work-a-day situation that you do) pondering your position seriously (tho' that may just be me ).

 

[ballen0351]

I think the pivotal point of the non-moral part of your position is a pricing issue more than anything else, Ballen.

I do think that with the other aspect you are leaping to the upper-bound without traversing the points between, so to speak; it does your argument more harm than good to do that when it comes to those of us (who do not face the same work-a-day situation that you do) pondering your position seriously (tho' that may just be me ).

Price will be a big deal. The price will cause a huge increase in crime. Right now the drugs are not taxed and everyone’s make it legal plan is to tax it to get all this great income of the govt.

If I’m a drug dealer for most drugs I know my normal customers. I know the area I "work" in. If I’m a street dealer in a poor area when I get my supply I buy in bulk. Let’s say Cocaine. I go to my supplier and buy an 8 ball of cocaine which is about 3.5 grams of cocaine around here. Now if I know my supplier well I can get it for a price anywhere between $100 and $350. The going rate right now where I work is around $150 bucks. I take my cocaine and go to my house to package it up. Now I know my customers are poor so Ill cut my cocaine with a product to weaken it and also give me more of it to increase my profit. so lets say I use my cutting agent and now I have 6 grams of cocaine. I package it up into "dime" bags or 0.1 grams which cost $10.00. Now I go out on my street corner and to make my money and my local crack head "bob" shows up hes a good crack head he buys from me all the time and he steals me nice things sometimes and hooks me up. So when "bob" gets there he says mr crack dealer man Im hurting I need a fix I only got 3 bucks. Ok bob here take this then run to the grocery store and steal me a steak. So now bob gets his cocaine for $3.00 This is a VERY common occurrence in the poor areas.

Now the Govt is in charge. The first question would be where are the govt authorized drug dealers going to get the drugs from? I would guess drug companies would find a great profit in selling these drugs. So they buy the raw material from the same drug cartels at an inflated price since now they can do it legally. So now the make the product is made. The Govt says ok this is a great money maker so were going to tax the crap out of it lets put a 50% tax on it. So now this cocaine cost double what it did before. They then sell it to the local drug store who also needs to make some money so they raise the price further. Ok so now "bob" has to get his drugs from the authorized govt drug dealing store. So he goes in mr clerk I need a fix Im hurting I got $3. Im sorry sir our cocaine is $25 per 0.1 gram. Now whats bob to do hes used cocaine for 20 years hes not going to stop. So bob goes to the nice part of town and robs someone to get his money to buy his cocaine. Or bob just pulls a knife and stabs the clerk steals all the cocaine and overdoes a day later we find him in the bushes.

 

[granfire]

Price will be a big deal. The price will cause a huge increase in crime. Right now the drugs are not taxed and everyone’s make it legal plan is to tax it to get all this great income of the govt.

If I’m a drug dealer for most drugs I know my normal customers. I know the area I "work" in. If I’m a street dealer in a poor area when I get my supply I buy in bulk. Let’s say Cocaine. I go to my supplier and buy an 8 ball of cocaine which is about 3.5 grams of cocaine around here. Now if I know my supplier well I can get it for a price anywhere between $100 and $350. The going rate right now where I work is around $150 bucks. I take my cocaine and go to my house to package it up. Now I know my customers are poor so Ill cut my cocaine with a product to weaken it and also give me more of it to increase my profit. so lets say I use my cutting agent and now I have 6 grams of cocaine. I package it up into "dime" bags or 0.1 grams which cost $10.00. Now I go out on my street corner and to make my money and my local crack head "bob" shows up hes a good crack head he buys from me all the time and he steals me nice things sometimes and hooks me up. So when "bob" gets there he says mr crack dealer man Im hurting I need a fix I only got 3 bucks. Ok bob here take this then run to the grocery store and steal me a steak. So now bob gets his cocaine for $3.00 This is a VERY common occurrence in the poor areas.

Now the Govt is in charge. The first question would be where are the govt authorized drug dealers going to get the drugs from? I would guess drug companies would find a great profit in selling these drugs. So they buy the raw material from the same drug cartels at an inflated price since now they can do it legally. So now the make the product is made. The Govt says ok this is a great money maker so were going to tax the crap out of it lets put a 50% tax on it. So now this cocaine cost double what it did before. They then sell it to the local drug store who also needs to make some money so they raise the price further. Ok so now "bob" has to get his drugs from the authorized govt drug dealing store. So he goes in mr clerk I need a fix Im hurting I got $3. Im sorry sir our cocaine is $25 per 0.1 gram. Now whats bob to do hes used cocaine for 20 years hes not going to stop. So bob goes to the nice part of town and robs someone to get his money to buy his cocaine. Or bob just pulls a knife and stabs the clerk steals all the cocaine and overdoes a day later we find him in the bushes.

Interesting math, however I don't think there is a lot of medical use for crack, non for meth and cocain is limited as well...

So we realistically are talking pot.
And by most accounts that has about the effect of booze, is less addicting than nicotine (which is legal and highly taxed, regardless of health concerns) plus most smoke less in joints than a smoker lights up.

That stuff can be easily grown, so you decriminalize that you got one leg up, plus even with taxes it should be cheaper legal than illegal. So the only people really having an interest keeping it on the books are the growrs and the temperance movement...

Not to mention that there is a little hing called hemp that is an excellent natural fiber, some believe superior to cotton, but under current laws it is also not legal to grow, heck some states make it illegal to have your life stock poop on it...

 

[Archangel M]

I can see decriminalizing user level possession to some extent, but not for legalizing manufacture, distribution or sale. In general I'm in step with Bill M on this one though. Thinking that legalization is the magic wand that will solve all our problems is pie in the sky. Heroin is not all that expensive off the street as it is and people will rob, steal and kill to pay for their next fix. Will that same person not do the same to buy their smack from Uncle Sugar??

 

[granfire]

I can see decriminalizing user level possession to some extent, but not for legalizing manufacture, distribution or sale. In general I'm in step with Bill M on this one though. Thinking that legalization is the magic wand that will solve all our problems is pie in the sky. Heroin is not all that expensive off the street as it is and people will rob, steal and kill to pay for their next fix. Will that same person not do the same to buy their smack from Uncle Sugar??

Though it's legal, you still got bootleggers and cigarette smugglers...