Drug Legalization

[themadscientist]

I'm all for legalizing pot if only so stoners will quit wasting my time with hemp trivia.

[stebo0728]

I'm all for legalizing pot if only so stoners will quit wasting my time with hemp trivia.

Are you kidding? Thats the only thing they know, their quite proud of it!

[audtatious]

Much of the "addiction" we hear about when talking about drugs is the same addiction that you can feel for anything. You can become "addicted" to sugar in that you can have a psychological addiction to the feelings you feel when you eat it. But not just stuff you put in your body: you can have similar feelings about driving fast, and you can develop the same mental dependencies.

I disagree. There are physical attributes associated with chemical dependencies of drugs like cocaine, meth, heroine, etc.

[AZhitman]

Where do the drug cartels get the majority of their money from? It sure isn't pot. Isn't Mexican pot s*** anyway?

Actually, yes. Last # I saw was upwards of 80%.

[AZhitman]

Much of the "addiction" we hear about when talking about drugs is the same addiction that you can feel for anything. You can become "addicted" to sugar in that you can have a psychological addiction to the feelings you feel when you eat it. But not just stuff you put in your body: you can have similar feelings about driving fast, and you can develop the same mental dependencies.

Correct.

A lot of it is the physical action, the associated activities,a nd the company we keep.

Ask any smoker: Is it the psychological or the physical habit, or the ROUTINE, that's hardest to break? Every ex-smoker has a different response.

Addictions run the gamut - there's food addiction, sex addiction, exercise addiction... hell, believe it or not, there's water addiction (and associated hyponatremia). We haven't regulated those (....yet).

[audtatious]

Hmmm....I thought their main was from heavier drugs and running illegals/guns. Some reports do show it's upwards of 60%. So...when pot is cheap and legal they simply shift to the other drugs and make their street value lower as a means to increase profits.....or they take less margin and still sell it cheaper than the Gov can sell it (with taxation).

[audtatious]

Ask any smoker: Is it the psychological or the physical habit, or the ROUTINE, that's hardest to break? Every ex-smoker has a different response.

Good point. I'm surely not denying the ritual or routine is part of the issue with smoking. With cocaine it's the "high" which is missed more than the routine.

[jbracy7]

Drug Legalization is a joke at best you cant even buy cold medicine at a store any more you cant smoke cancer sticks any where not in your car or at any common meeting place,Drug Legalization!!HA SOON YOU'LL NEED A PRESCRIPTION TO GET A ASPRIN

[mattblancarte]

I hear what you're saying Aud... I just disagree and frankly don't feel obligated to protect fellow adults from dangerous behavior. Drug addiction of any kind can be dangerous and disruptive to the user's life, but it's their life.

As I've said before, we have a set of sensible laws to protect people from drunk drivers, violent behavior, theft, and even second-hand smoke. I'm 100% on board with decency laws.

However, to throw adults in jail for possessing drugs (of any kind) is absurd in my opinion. It's costly to the taxpayer and unethical.

If we can, I'd like to shift the discussion to ethics surrounding imprisonment of non-violent drug users. Do you all feel like it's the morally correct thing to do? Are their substitutes for jailing (e.g., rehab, counseling)?

I think we are doing a huge disservice to society as a whole by placing non-violent offenders in jail to roost with violent offenders. As we all know, you are the company you keep.

[stebo0728]

If the drugs were legalized, they wouldnt be "offenders".

I agree non-violent drug charges dont warrant imprisonment. With all the inmate overcrowding, releases due to overcrowding, at the very least these should be the first released, and further I argue as you, they shouldnt be there to begin with. Sure would reduce the fecal matter levels found in the drugs due to storage in the glory hole to avoid busts (even though the glory hole seems to be first place cops look these days anyway)

[audtatious]

I hear what you're saying Aud... I just disagree and frankly don't feel obligated to protect fellow adults from dangerous behavior. Drug addiction of any kind can be dangerous and disruptive to the user's life, but it's their life.

Until the direction changes in which individuals are really responsible for their life choices then the cost of others doing drugs comes back and bites us all. If someone abuses drugs, and continually does so, are they denied hospitalization (repetitive visits) due to the self-inflicted issues or are they provided services in which they don't pay (money is for drugs, yo!) which results in the rest of us inadvertently footing the bill?

[IBCoupe]

Aud, Cocaine has no physically addictive attributes. You're right to say that people get addicted to the high, but that's all they're addicted to. They have a mental, not physical, attachment to the feeling that cocaine brings them. It's possible to develop the same mental attachment to anything that makes you feel good.

[mattblancarte]

Until the direction changes in which individuals are really responsible for their life choices then the cost of others doing drugs comes back and bites us all. If someone abuses drugs, and continually does so, are they denied hospitalization (repetitive visits) due to the self-inflicted issues or are they provided services in which they don't pay (money is for drugs, yo!) which results in the rest of us inadvertently footing the bill?

This just isn't compelling enough for me to believe that we should be incarcerating drug users, or even issuing citations. If an addict has health problems, doesn't have insurance and can't pay for their health care, we (those of us that are insured) may suck up the cost.

Should they be held accountable? Sure, they will be. They'll go into debt, collections, etc. just like anyone else.

How are uninsured drug addicts different from uninsured obese people in this scenario? If you want to talk about a large group of people that harm themselves, well... You know where I'm going with this.

I'm not in favor of throwing people in jail to save you and I a few bucks, sorry.

[audtatious]

Then it's a lose lose situation with no viable solution.

[mattblancarte]

Well, if by viable you mean keep everyone 100% safe and sober, minimize monetary losses due to reckless human behavior, etc. then you're right. There is no viable solution. People are stupid, lazy, and harmful to others. That's just human nature.

I'm making the argument that we should stop throwing people in jail, raiding private homes, and supporting the massive drug cartels that fuel mass amounts of violence and terror. To me, the solution there is to legalize drugs within alcohol-comparable laws.

[audtatious]

6/1 1/2 dozen of another.

[IBCoupe]

So, in the event that there's no way to change human behavior, what's the better approach? Letting them hurt themselves or putting them in jail and paying directly to take care of them?

You say there's no difference between the two options on the table, so go ahead and flip that coin again until you agree with those of us who have actually devoted thought to the issue.

[audtatious]

flip flip

How much deeper do I have to reach into my own pockets to help provide for these people to be able to do what they want?

[IBCoupe]

I'm pretty sure that any answer to that question will bring you no closer to a determination of your position on mine.

And I apologize for the insinuation that you didn't put thought into the issue.

[audtatious]

Personally I don't give a crap if people do drugs. I don't care if they Darwin themselves with an OD. I don't care if they just "need a little" to get going in the morning or to kick a bit of pain. I don't _want_ to impact their lives based on my personal viewpoints. BUT (see how I threw that in there ), if their actions are going to require me to provide support for them then I am personally being impacted and my viewpoints are valid.

I'm all for people's right to do what they want but their rights stop where mine begin. Maybe I need to put my rose-colored glasses back on.

[IBCoupe]

I saw how you threw that in there, and much to my surprise, the preceding sentences were not completely nullified.

But, if I'm interpreting your position correctly, the fact that they're going to drain the system in that way doesn't really matter, if the alternative is to find them, catch them, punish them for the thing that's leading them to turn themselves into a drain on the system (not for the drain itself, mind you) and drain the system perhaps to a greater extent by providing them clothes, food, and housing, and some really unfriendly neighbors.

[audtatious]

There is no real proof that "releasing the floodgates" is going to solve anything either. I do agree that prosecuting people for having a personal stash of pot is a crock of crap.

I've already stated if we allow "anything goes" and there are protections established where "I" don't have to pay for your poor choices that I would be OK with it. What do you propose to ensure the general population is protected from letting everyone have access to anything they want?

[IBCoupe]

No more protection than there exists today. Maybe there should be, but I don't know - in my mind, the issue of how do we prevent people from abusing the system is entirely seperate from the issue of whether or not we allow the system to abuse people.

[mattblancarte]

There is no real proof that "releasing the floodgates" is going to solve anything either.

I just don't see how you can say this. Prohibition in the US was identical, in concept.

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

Alcohol is dangerous as hell, and you already pay for the collective's use.

I mean no offense, but you seem to be skating over a good chunk of my responses to your arguments. Enact laws that regulate drugs similarly to the way we regulate alcohol.

Does that not work?

[mattblancarte]

the issue of how do we prevent people from abusing the system is entirely seperate from the issue of whether or not we allow the system to abuse people.

[themadscientist]

treat pot like alcohol. Possession and use is fine, but cause some sort of trouble under the influence and you will be prosecuted like a DWI.

[audtatious]

There is no real proof that "releasing the floodgates" is going to solve anything either.

I just don't see how you can say this. Prohibition in the US was identical, in concept.

Prohibition included cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, etc? I thought it was just one product and during a time when there were no such thing as "hard drugs" and people didn't know who junkies were?

Alcohol is dangerous as hell, and you already pay for the collective's use.

I mean no offense, but you seem to be skating over a good chunk of my responses to your arguments. Enact laws that regulate drugs similarly to the way we regulate alcohol.

Does that not work?

I see a difference between alcohol use and hard drugs. I can go into a bar and drink a beer with no ill effects. Can I say the same if I walked into a bar and shot up with heroine?

[audtatious]

treat pot like alcohol. Possession and use is fine, but cause some sort of trouble under the influence and you will be prosecuted like a DWI.

No, treat pot like cigarettes.

[AppleBonker]

treat pot like alcohol. Possession and use is fine, but cause some sort of trouble under the influence and you will be prosecuted like a DWI.

Only make the penalty for DWI/OWI/DUI/etc far more dramatic. It's not a good idea to be driving under the influence of anything. Make it a harsh penalty so we can keep those tards off the road. What you do in your own house, however, is none of my business and I say have at it.

[Crazyirish]

What do you propose to ensure the general population is protected from letting everyone have access to anything they want?

They already have that access. We're merely talking about decriminalizing that access.