Jump to content

Legalization


majrosebud

Recommended Posts

I think it is time to leagalize pot. There, I said it. I am not a user since my job requires that I keep away from the stuff. I am randomly drug tested. I have no problem with people using it. In fact, I much prefer the effects that pot has on people than that of alcohol. I think the problem is figuring out a way we can regulate the industry that makes sense.

Link to comment
beemerman2k
Is there a roadside test for pot-impairment? Or a blood test for THC levels?

 

------

 

 

I'm guessing they dangle some "Dorito's" chips in front of the suspects face and see how they respond :grin:

Link to comment

California and/or nation debt crisis will be solved by selling pot in liquor stores with hefty added taxes.

Added benefit, reduction of inner city thug crime and Mexican drug cartels.

Link to comment

In my view, very few things should be illegal if used in the privacy of your home.

 

This does NOT apply if you are under 18, or otherwise a guest in someone else's home.

 

Once you step out of your home, different rules apply...and we already have laws for that.

Link to comment
Works for me. Just stay off the road whilst stoned.

 

Yeah, we've seen how well that has worked with alcohol...

 

Legalization does not eliminate abuse, in fact it appears quite the opposite is true. Alcohol is by far the most widely abused drug in the U.S. I fear that legalizing marijuana would only increase its use and abuse. Not the answer.

Link to comment
California and/or nation debt crisis will be solved by selling pot in liquor stores with hefty added taxes.

Added benefit, reduction of inner city thug crime and Mexican drug cartels.

 

Taxation, especially heavy taxation, only leads to illefgal sales. Just look at the illegally imported/distributed cigarette industry. Nice try though...

Link to comment
In my view, very few things should be illegal if used in the privacy of your home.

 

The problem with highly addictive substances is that many of them tend to alter lifestyles radically, most rock-smokers are not contributing members of society. They live from hit to hit, and as such lose interest in things such as family or work. Nice theory, doesn't work in reality.

Link to comment
In my view, very few things should be illegal if used in the privacy of your home.

 

The problem with highly addictive substances is that many of them tend to alter lifestyles radically, most rock-smokers are not contributing members of society. They live from hit to hit, and as such lose interest in things such as family or work. Nice theory, doesn't work in reality.

 

Addiction is a medical problem, and should not be dealt with as a criminal problem. The law doesn't make any distinction to the reason for possession of an illegal or controlled substance, and the mere possession does not in itself mean it will incur addiction or socially unacceptable behavior. The laws are too overreaching.

 

I'd like to see the statistics that 'most' (over 50%) rock smokers are not contributing members of society. I doubt that's true.

Link to comment
California and/or nation debt crisis will be solved by selling pot in liquor stores with hefty added taxes.

Added benefit, reduction of inner city thug crime and Mexican drug cartels.

 

Taxation, especially heavy taxation, only leads to illefgal sales. Just look at the illegally imported/distributed cigarette industry. Nice try though...

 

You mean as opposed to now where all illicit drug sales are illegal? The number of illegal sales would INCREASE from 100%? Nice try, though.

Link to comment
In my view, very few things should be illegal if used in the privacy of your home.

 

The problem with highly addictive substances is that many of them tend to alter lifestyles radically, most rock-smokers are not contributing members of society. They live from hit to hit, and as such lose interest in things such as family or work. Nice theory, doesn't work in reality.

 

That is total BS.

Link to comment
In my view, very few things should be illegal if used in the privacy of your home.

 

The problem with highly addictive substances is that many of them tend to alter lifestyles radically, most rock-smokers are not contributing members of society. They live from hit to hit, and as such lose interest in things such as family or work. Nice theory, doesn't work in reality.

 

That is total BS.

 

Did you read what he wrote, referring to "highly addictive" substances? It's absolutely the case--meth, heroin, etc. lead to radical changes in behavior, with catastrophic results, time after time.

Link to comment

I thought we were talking about pot . And please do not try to make the argument that smoking pot will lead to smoking crack.I am sure that the 4 million smokers would strongly disagree.

I do not think that I will see it in my life time, but sooner or later I think the Gov. will yield to the fiscal windfall.We could certainly use another resource to pay for our entitlement programs.

Link to comment

A couple more minutes to write. First, while it's not claimed that marijuana is as highly addictive as other illegal drugs, it's pretty well established that a certain percentage of users--around 9-10%-- will develop an addiction of sufficient severity to affect personal or work relationships.

 

The problem with discussing "legalization" always seems to be defining what we're debating. First, are we talking about legalization or decriminalization? Are we talking only about pot? Or are we discussing whether to legalize the entire range of recreational drugs . . . crack, methamphetamine, heroin, hallucinogens? Does your concept of legalization contemplate a totally unfettered marketplace, like a farmer's market for drugs, or do you think there should be some provision for regulation to ensure purity and concentration of the psychoactive ingredients?

 

If we were to legalize or decriminalize one or more of these classes of drugs, what, if anything, should we do about defining any prohibitions against impairment in differing circumstances? Is it okay to drive under the influence of crack? How about pot? Putting aside long-term health concerns, do any of the now-illegal drugs render one incapable of operating an aircraft unsafely?

 

Taking it a step further, if we're to open up the markets to recreational drugs, should we do the same for drugs that are now regulated by the FDA and,in some cases, dispensed by medical professionals? If Xanax makes some people feel better, should we free it from the strictures of medical control? If we want to have wider access to drugs that can enhance our health, should we permit all NSAIDS, hypertension, and pain relief drugs (or add any category you'd like) to be widely available without a prescription?

 

I often hear arguments for and against legalization--and I think it's a worthwhile discussion--but few people seem to have developed a personal definition of what that means. It's kind of like debating about how tasty a fruit is, without identifying which fruit we're discussing.

Link to comment

So does the current system of criminalzation for pot eliminate abuse? No way! Just think if we could eliminate the criminal element associated with marijuana. I don't care to get in a long discussion over our war on drugs. But it's been an utter failure. Here's my simple plan. Let anybody grow a few plants for personal use. Those wishing to do so must have a permit which would create an income source for local gov'ts. Larger growers would be taxed at a fair rate that could sell there wares to retail outlet stores like the alcohol industry does. Outlets could sell the stuff to adults and again be taxed at a fair rate. This would eliminate much of the criminal element, create jobs, provide a source of income for our Gov't, and provide for safer pot (who knows what in that stuff that comes over the border). Of course industry should still drug test for use on the job and we should enforce laws that prohibit buzzed driving.

Link to comment
So does the current system of criminalzation for pot eliminate abuse? No way! Just think if we could eliminate the criminal element associated with marijuana. I don't care to get in a long discussion over our war on drugs. But it's been an utter failure. Here's my simple plan. Let anybody grow a few plants for personal use. Those wishing to do so must have a permit which would create an income source for local gov'ts. Larger growers would be taxed at a fair rate that could sell there wares to retail outlet stores like the alcohol industry does. Outlets could sell the stuff to adults and again be taxed at a fair rate. This would eliminate much of the criminal element, create jobs, provide a source of income for our Gov't, and provide for safer pot (who knows what in that stuff that comes over the border). Of course industry should still drug test for use on the job and we should enforce laws that prohibit buzzed driving.

 

I tend to agree with you regarding the war on drugs.

 

Do you think something along the lines of what you propose would have any effect on the use of other drugs?

Link to comment

I wonder how many people know that all the prescription drugs (amphetamine based) used to treat ADHD etc are supplied by the DEA to the phamaceutical companies?

Seems strange to me that we prescribe the same drug in a legal form to our youth, some as young as 2yo that is illegal for an adult to use in some cases.

 

 

 

Not advocating one way or another, just saying...

Link to comment

Mike, what kind of fruit are you talking about? It's apples to apples. Pot isn't the same thing as meth. Just as a beer isn't the same thing as heroin. Plain and simple.

 

Ya, I did not make a distiction between legalization and decriminalization. (those two words suck to type). But whatever word suits you is fine. I think decriminalization is the word I should have used. You are right. Good point!

Link to comment

Great points Mike, and far more than I had ever given thought to. :thumbsup:

 

I'm generally of the opinion that legalizing and setting a minimal standard for purity (akin to how tobacco is supposedly regulated) for pot and cocaine is inevitable. Tax it like gasoline or tobacco and regulate distribution like alcohol.

 

Get positively draconian about operating under influence laws and let industries regulate what they are willing to let their employees use and I'm agreeable to legalizing usage.

 

The other realms, like Xanax, bears investigation for sure.

Link to comment
Mike, what kind of fruit are you talking about? It's apples to apples. Pot isn't the same thing as meth. Just as a beer isn't the same thing as heroin. Plain and simple.

 

Ya, I did not make a distiction between legalization and decriminalization. (those two words suck to type). But whatever word suits you is fine. I think decriminalization is the word I should have used. You are right. Good point!

 

I come into this discussion knowing something is deeply wrong with the way we've been approaching recreational drug use, but I also don't see any clear path that fixes the problem. I'm truly interested in hearing what others think.

 

One thing I think we need to recognize, though, is that no approach is free of peril. A lot of people claim that pot is totally benign, but there's clear evidence to the contrary. Are the risks acceptable? What problems does decriminalization solve and what problems might it create?

Link to comment
First, are we talking about legalization or decriminalization? Are we talking only about pot? Or are we discussing whether to legalize the entire range of recreational drugs It's kind of like debating about how tasty a fruit is, without identifying which fruit we're discussing.

We’re talking about the legalization of the use of marijuana. That was the OP’s opening statement. Nobody's suggesting a free for all of substance consumption/abuse.

Link to comment
Yeah, we've seen how well that has worked with alcohol...

 

Legalization does not eliminate abuse, in fact it appears quite the opposite is true. Alcohol is by far the most widely abused drug in the U.S. I fear that legalizing marijuana would only increase its use and abuse. Not the answer.

It’s not truly apples to apples though. The negatives of alcohol consumption are well established. With regard to operating a motor vehicle and many other aspects. The effects of pot use are not the same. Let’s face it, lots of people have been getting high (with pot in this context) for a long time now and there is virtually no evidence of a significant increase in side factors (e.g. DUI) like there is with alcohol.

 

There is even a voiced train of thought that incidences of DUI, domestic abuse, crimes committed while drunk, abuse by youth and other side factors of alcohol use would actually go i]down[/i] if marijuana use was legalize. People, in particular younger (but of legal age) people would rather smoke pot but turn to alcohol instead due to it’s legality and easy availability.

 

And don’t even get me started on the pearls and cost to society and individuals of the other major but quite legal drug - tobacco. It’s a factor of 1000s beyond that of marijuana.

 

Canada has a long history of being tolerant of, if not quite legal, use of marijuana. And there is very little evidence of ill effects. Either individually or on society as a whole. Now the current federal gov’t is on a soap box to crack down on its use. I predict nothing good will come of the effort. 5 - 10 years from now we’ll look back and say well that was a colossal failure. All we did was spend a bunch of money, create a bunch of controversy and division, and we’re right where we started. People sit at home and smoke a joint. NBD.

 

It’s really just a generational thing. For the generation of (probably) most of the readers here alcohol and tobacco was/are the recreational drugs of choice. For the next ones it’s marijuana. By far the lesser of the three evils. Time will prove out allowing the switch is the better choice.

 

 

Link to comment
First, are we talking about legalization or decriminalization? Are we talking only about pot? Or are we discussing whether to legalize the entire range of recreational drugs It's kind of like debating about how tasty a fruit is, without identifying which fruit we're discussing.

We’re talking about the legalization of the use of marijuana. That was the OP’s opening statement. Nobody's suggesting a free for all of substance consumption/abuse.

 

I understand the OP's question, but it seems impossible to single out one substance without discussing the broad ramifications, particularly with respect to the overall war on drugs. In that regard, it seems that relatively little effort is being expended on enforcing marijuana laws, particularly the possession of small amounts, relative to the effort with respect to other drugs.

 

Is it feasible to legalize (or decriminalize) marijuana possession without creating a ripple effect? What is it about pot that justifies decriminalizing it, but makes it unwise to decriminalize cocaine? Or other drugs. I can understand the OP's focus on this one substance, but I cannot wrap my head around the concept that you can enact a legal change of this magnitude without considering it in the context of what you do about other drugs.

Link to comment
Is it feasible to legalize (or decriminalize) marijuana possession without creating a ripple effect? What is it about pot that justifies decriminalizing it, but makes it unwise to decriminalize cocaine? Or other drugs. I can understand the OP's focus on this one substance, but I cannot wrap my head around the concept that you can enact a legal change of this magnitude without considering it in the context of what you do about other drugs.

Of course it is. We have classes of legal and illegal substances now. Controlled ones and uncontrolled ones. Why would moving one from one side to the other automatically imply the same should or even could lead to the same about any others?

 

I think you’re trying to make a slippery slope argument, but I think that is both alarmist and not a forgone conclusion by any stretch. Marijuana (or more accurately THC) by all accounts, research and history, is not in the same league of a dangerous substance of the other illegal substances you mention (or even most controlled ones) by a long shot. I’d argue that on the ‘dangerous substances’ list, with regard to impact on individuals and society, it’s even below alcohol and tobacco.

 

The problem is people tend to lump substances that are currently illegal all onto one category. If one is bad they’re all equally bad. But it’s not true. There are degrees of potential harm. Even amongst so call ‘hard’ drugs; heroin is not the same as cocaine, which is not the same as crack, which is not the same as ecstasy. Marijuana/THC is waaay down the dangerousness list of known substances.

 

I think it’s quite possible to change the laws about this one substance without opening a Pandora’s box about all the others. Indeed the overall benefits of doing so, outweigh the negatives.

 

Link to comment
Is it feasible to legalize (or decriminalize) marijuana possession without creating a ripple effect? What is it about pot that justifies decriminalizing it, but makes it unwise to decriminalize cocaine? Or other drugs. I can understand the OP's focus on this one substance, but I cannot wrap my head around the concept that you can enact a legal change of this magnitude without considering it in the context of what you do about other drugs.

Of course it is. We have classes of legal and illegal substances now. Controlled ones and uncontrolled ones. Why would moving one from one side to the other automatically imply the same should or even could lead to the same about any others?

 

I think you’re trying to make a slippery slope argument, but I think that is both alarmist and not a forgone conclusion by any stretch.

 

Methinks you are too quick to ascribe motives to others when you don't have the foggiest idea what they're thinking, Ken. I tend to think that decriminalization probably is the way to go, so stick that in your blunt and smoke it. :P

 

But I also have seen enough people screw up their lives, starting with pot and moving on, that I think we need to understand the entire context of the drug problem, particularly in the context of the "War on Drugs."

 

If we're to look to legalizing pot, why should we or should we not legalize other drugs? Much of the street violence we experience in the U.S. arises not out of the fact that pot is illegal, but as a consequence of the street trade in cocaine (and other "hard" drugs). With the exception of fairly large-scale trafficking, my impression is that law enforcement doesn't spend a lot of time on enforcing marijuana laws. Enfocement may, however, be uneven.

 

I understand that the health consequences of coke and crack are pretty substantial, but doesn't it seem that the arguments for legalizing pot at least apply in some form to cocaine (and possibly others)?; if there was a legal means of purchasing and consuming cocaine, wouldn't much of the illegal drug trade go away instantly? Is there a logical reason for drawing the distinction between marijuana and other drugs? If we're just reshaping the same issue by moving marijuana off the list of prohibited substances, but not solving the problem of criminalizing widespread behavior, have we solved anything?

 

No foregone conclusions here. I tend to think that there's a problem with criminalizing marijuana use, but I'm not sure what the solution is and whether an attempted solution should be expanded to include other drugs.

 

Link to comment
In my view, very few things should be illegal if used in the privacy of your home.

 

The problem with highly addictive substances is that many of them tend to alter lifestyles radically, most rock-smokers are not contributing members of society. They live from hit to hit, and as such lose interest in things such as family or work. Nice theory, doesn't work in reality.

 

That is total BS.

 

Did you read what he wrote, referring to "highly addictive" substances? It's absolutely the case--meth, heroin, etc. lead to radical changes in behavior, with catastrophic results, time after time.

I was refering to pot. I thought that was the subject???

Link to comment
So does the current system of criminalzation for pot eliminate abuse? No way! Just think if we could eliminate the criminal element associated with marijuana. I don't care to get in a long discussion over our war on drugs. But it's been an utter failure. Here's my simple plan. Let anybody grow a few plants for personal use. Those wishing to do so must have a permit which would create an income source for local gov'ts. Larger growers would be taxed at a fair rate that could sell there wares to retail outlet stores like the alcohol industry does. Outlets could sell the stuff to adults and again be taxed at a fair rate. This would eliminate much of the criminal element, create jobs, provide a source of income for our Gov't, and provide for safer pot (who knows what in that stuff that comes over the border). Of course industry should still drug test for use on the job and we should enforce laws that prohibit buzzed driving.

 

I tend to agree with you regarding the war on drugs.

 

Do you think something along the lines of what you propose would have any effect on the use of other drugs?

 

 

I wish I could answer that, Mike. Perhaps a portion of the revenue could be used for drug education programs. As mentioned before, there is a certain percentage of the population that would further their drug use perhaps, but aren't those people out there already. Would taking a toke on a joint send zombies out in the streets to find hard drugs? I guess I don't see how you can truly answer that question.

Link to comment

I was refering to pot. I thought that was the subject???

 

You've got me. :S:S:S:rofl:

 

Anyway, whichever drug you're talking about, I agree that the rate of addiction is a matter of concern. What I've read indicates that the rate of addiction among marijuana users is about 9-10%, but with the caveat that the withdrawal symptoms are nowhere near as severe as they are for some of the more heavy-duty drugs.

 

So, what do you feel are pros and cons of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana?

Link to comment

I was refering to pot. I thought that was the subject???

 

You've got me. :S:S:S:rofl:

 

Anyway, whichever drug you're talking about, I agree that the rate of addiction is a matter of concern. What I've read indicates that the rate of addiction among marijuana users is about 9-10%, but with the caveat that the withdrawal symptoms are nowhere near as severe as they are for some of the more heavy-duty drugs.

 

So, what do you feel are pros and cons of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana?

 

Free up a bunch of room in the prison system, reduction in spending in the prison system due to less in-mates.

Tax money.

Better selection at the local distubition center!!!

Boost in farming!!!

Link to comment
Methinks you are too quick to ascribe motives to others when you don't have the foggiest idea what they're thinking, Ken. I tend to think that decriminalization probably is the way to go, so stick that in your blunt and smoke it. :P

 

But I also have seen enough people screw up their lives, starting with pot and moving on, that I think we need to understand the entire context of the drug problem, particularly in the context of the "War on Drugs."

 

If we're to look to legalizing pot, why should we or should we not legalize other drugs? Much of the street violence we experience in the U.S. arises not out of the fact that pot is illegal, but as a consequence of the street trade in cocaine (and other "hard" drugs). With the exception of fairly large-scale trafficking, my impression is that law enforcement doesn't spend a lot of time on enforcing marijuana laws. Enfocement may, however, be uneven.

 

I understand that the health consequences of coke and crack are pretty substantial, but doesn't it seem that the arguments for legalizing pot at least apply in some form to cocaine (and possibly others)?; if there was a legal means of purchasing and consuming cocaine, wouldn't much of the illegal drug trade go away instantly? Is there a logical reason for drawing the distinction between marijuana and other drugs? If we're just reshaping the same issue by moving marijuana off the list of prohibited substances, but not solving the problem of criminalizing widespread behavior, have we solved anything?

 

No foregone conclusions here. I tend to think that there's a problem with criminalizing marijuana use, but I'm not sure what the solution is and whether an attempted solution should be expanded to include other drugs.

Okay, maybe I was trying to put words in your mouth, read between the lines too much, I apologize.

 

However it is a common refrain in the general populous – legalize marijuana and the whole county will become a wasteland of hard drug users. An argument which is way over the top IMHO. And one that there is zero evidence to support where pot usage is common.

 

What’s the addiction rate for alcohol? For tobacco? The former I don’t know, the later approaches 100%.

 

How many people have we seen screw up their lives, starting with drinking alcohol? It’s a big long list too.

 

I think the negative implications of pot usage are rather minor in the face of the damage those two have done. And relative to other hard drugs. And as I mentioned earlier, there’s some school of thought, which I think has some validity, that legalizing pot would actually lead to a reduction of abuse of alcohol and the damage it creates.

 

Metaphor - You speed 15 over on your bike, NBD. Well that’s where pot is. It’s “15 over.” You speed 150 over – much bigger deal with much bigger consequences. That’s cocaine, crack etc. Many people drive/ride 15 over, that doesn’t mean they’ll ever go 150 over. You/we/society can raise the ‘speed limit’ to 15 over without any concession or even consideration to raising it 150. Nor do we have to, or even should, consider those that go 150 over in the consideration of raising the limit 15.

 

I think for all intent and purposes legalizing marijuana and our attitude toward other illegal drugs are two different subjects.

 

Link to comment
So, what do you feel are pros and cons of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana?

Free up a bunch of room in the prison system, reduction in spending in the prison system due to less in-mates.

Tax money.

Better selection at the local distubition center!!!

Boost in farming!!!

You forgot increase the market for Doritos!

 

In all serious though, what to create a hardened criminal? Send him/her to prison on a minor pot possession offence for a few years. Take away all his/her opportunities, usually right at his prime (young adult), slap him with a criminal record that will be an albatrosses around his neck for the rest of his life, and give him 3 -5 years exposure to real criminals and all those ‘life lessons’ learned in the joint.

 

I guarantee you the cost to society of that ‘new’ person will be leaps and bounds beyond what having just let the guy smoke the nickel bag in his living room while watching SpongeBob SquarePants in the first place ever would have been.

 

Link to comment
:thumbsup:

Excellent posts Ken!!!

 

Agree. That's been my concern for some time. When we decided to start "getting tough" on minor offenders, we vastly expanded the class of individuals who would be forever identified as criminals. Admittedly, not all of these folks are destined for greatness, but we created far worse problems than were purportedly being solved.

Link to comment
:thumbsup:

Excellent posts Ken!!!

Admittedly, not all of these folks are destined for greatness, but we created far worse problems than were purportedly being solved.

 

You never know, now do?

I know some great people, that lets say "lit one up"!

I bet you might know some to!

Maybe not all.

I just don't understand why you had to say " destined for greatness"

I'm not considerd great by all but I'm great for my dog, don't that count???

Link to comment
You/we/society can raise the ‘speed limit’ to 15 over without any concession or even consideration to raising it 150.
Before using a metaphor you might want to consider what happens under the circumstances of your metaphorical precedent. In this case when speed limits are raised the overall speed rises nearly in lockstep - e.g. if the speed limit was 55 and the prevailing traffic was 65 then raising the speed limit to 65 generally results in a new prevailing traffic speed of 75. Are you suggesting that perhaps coke becomes the "new 15 over" in your post-pot-legal world and that's okay? Because 10 years from then you'll not have any moral reason not to make the new 15 over the new legal. Just like a lot of 55 mph limits became 65 then 75 and even 80 mph.

 

If it's okay to legalize something because it's not as bad as some other currently legal stuff, then you've no grounds to argue against the legalization of things like X or Oxy or several other things people find pleasantly enjoyable yet have fewer side effects or social impacts than alcohol or smoking.

 

In fact there are enormous numbers of things that are less dangerous than smoking yet are illegal - I'd like to start re-enabling the use of transfats 'cause the new Oreos aren't nearly as tasty.

Link to comment
A couple more minutes to write. First, while it's not claimed that marijuana is as highly addictive as other illegal drugs, it's pretty well established that a certain percentage of users--around 9-10%-- will develop an addiction of sufficient severity to affect personal or work relationships.

 

And the same goes for alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, porn, and texting, all legal in today's society. I know I've over-simplified it but it is what it is.

 

I firmly believe that the main reason it leads to harder drugs is because you are exposed to them via you local dealer. "All your friends are doing it, the first one's free." I personally don't partake but have many friends who have done it for 30+ years and don't do anything else including alcohol.

 

The younger the legislative body gets the more likely it will someday be legal. IMHO...YMMV

Link to comment

The younger the legislative body gets the more likely it will someday be legal. IMHO...YMMV

 

Thirty,no...forty years ago this is exactly what we were thinking. So far - and in so many other ways, they have been a complete disappointmant.

Link to comment
Lets_Play_Two

80% of those who use marijuana try harder drugs. Negative affects on memory when used in significant amounts at ages 12-15(which is where most kids start). Likely arrests emotional development for those using at that age as well. I have worked with adult addicts and a larger and larger number are 18-30 year olds addicted to opiates (pain pills then heroin when pills are too expensive). They ALL started on weed as 10-13 years olds. You will say it won't be legal for them but that makes no difference. It is the assumption of acceptance and saying "its not addictive". Any excuse to pick up the first blunt. Try telling a 21 year old with a 20 bag a day heroin habit that weed wasn't addictive. Because that is where it leads.

Link to comment
80% of those who use marijuana try harder drugs. Negative affects on memory when used in significant amounts at ages 12-15(which is where most kids start). Likely arrests emotional development for those using at that age as well. I have worked with adult addicts and a larger and larger number are 18-30 year olds addicted to opiates (pain pills then heroin when pills are too expensive). They ALL started on weed as 10-13 years olds. You will say it won't be legal for them but that makes no difference. It is the assumption of acceptance and saying "its not addictive". Any excuse to pick up the first blunt. Try telling a 21 year old with a 20 bag a day heroin habit that weed wasn't addictive. Because that is where it leads.

 

Do you have anything to back that up?

I know quite a few that smoke pot, and other then a cold beer that is all. Nothing else.

No coke

No pills

No heroin.

Link to comment
beemerman2k
80% of those who use marijuana try harder drugs...Because that is where it leads.

 

I'll be honest, this sounds like one of those, "this is your brain on drugs" commercials.

 

WHY does it sometimes (I don't buy for a second that 80% figure) lead to other drugs when there is no pretense of social acceptance today?

 

I also take it you live an alcohol free life? If not, don't you think you're being a bit hypocritical?

Link to comment
I think it is time to leagalize pot.

 

Will never happen, not because it's bad or addictive or leads to other drug use, or whatever.

It will never happen because too many peoples' livelyhoods depend on the illicit trade.

 

Let's start from the top (sort of):

 

Politicians, holier then thou, touting endlessly the mantra, and using their piety as a (re)-election platform

Lobbyists for the above,

Judges,

Proscecuters,

Lawyers,

Police forces,

Jail guards,

Jail construction firms (for private and governmen run facilities)

Lethal and non lethal weapons manufacturers for law enforcement and for the criminal element,

High powereded vehicle producers for law enforcement and for law evasion,

Organized Crime syndicates with links right up into the law-making Government, determined to keep the current financially rewarding laws,

Street pushers,

Corrupt Customs officials, Police forces, Judges and Lawyers,

Health organizations, NGO and others that depend on government subsidies,

the relatively new medical Pot industries,

 

 

If you think anyone of the above listed (most of them high standing members of our society) is willing to give up or decrease a secure source of 'legal' or illegal income, I got that little parcel of land in Florida for Sale.

 

Just saying.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...