What moore can I add than the current reasons that are used to keep them illegal? They are illegal now and I want them to stay that way. IF crack was ever legalized ( I have no fear that it will be because I know it wont) I would still try to get it illegal again. The same for many other drugs. One thing I would add is that from what I see, very few users go down alone. When drugs take a user to adiction hell, that user takes several people with him. In the form of broke families, devorces, incarceration, lost jobs, theft from families and so on and so forth. I do not belive that the bad drug choices of users will be limited to the users.
Like I said, the system is not perfect, but it is much better than drug freedom.
Ok, so you won't play, I really did not expect anything. Using the limited information that you ARE putting out there, harms others and destroys families bla bla bla we can make almost anything illegal. Jail time for adultery, scarlet letters etc. etc.
I think your positions on this along with others, comes from a good heart with all good intentions but it does not make it right, just or good for the country and basic freedoms.
This is a point made on the forum many times, it doesnt get a decent response, it doesnt seem to affect arguments, it gets blown off.
Okay, since you brought it up and aren't ridiculous to talk to like Rick is...
I don't want to pay for any of that either. My ideal would be all drugs legalized with no social nets. If you **** up, then sorry mate, but you're on your own.
But, crimes to get the drugs? Drugs would be legal... how many crimes are committed trying to get cigarettes and booze? Yeah, I've seen petty theft with booze before, but it's minimal impact. What damage are they going to cause to someone else to get their drugs? It's available down the street at the store, who will be stopping them? Any crimes they commit under any influence would be the same as today. Crimes. Punishable by law. What's the difference? Not to mention most of the hardcore drugs lay you out for awhile, not hype you up.
It wouldn't be the same environment with the only difference being legality of use. No, screw that! That wouldn't do anything. It would have to be a change all around to make any sense. But sense, it does make.
The legality of it won't make it spread like wildfire either. Trust me, drugs are available virtually everywhere. I could get anything you wanted if you gave me 3 days. Most in 24 hours. A week if you set me down in a city where I don't know anyone. I don't do anything though. I see people get asked if they want to do untestable shrooms, and the vast majority say no. Molly, which does nothing but release serotonin. People say no because they don't like to mess with their bodies, not because there is a legal consequence for these things. Virtually everything but weed goes out of your system within 3 days. Trust me, it isn't the legality. It's people making their own choices.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 04-24-2014).]
This is a point made on the forum many times, it doesnt get a decent response, it doesnt seem to affect arguments, it gets blown off.
I gets blown off because, one, it is predicated on whether one has to pay, not what may be right or wrong or egregious attacks on liberty, due process and freedoms. Not only that but it has been shown by example that legalization DOES NOT make drug use spread like "wildfire".
Simply, we have done this here so many times people just get tired of talking with closed minded anti freedom people.
Originally posted by Red88FF: I gets blown off because, one, it is predicated on whether one has to pay, not what may be right or wrong or egregious attacks on liberty, due process and freedoms. Not only that but it has been shown by example that legalization DOES NOT make drug use spread like "wildfire".
Simply, we have done this here so many times people just get tired of talking with closed minded anti freedom people.
I dont think I understand the post. When you say pay what do you mean?
I think assuming and grouping and misinderstanding leads to people thinking otheres are closed minded anti freedom people.
Saw an old co-worker succumb to heroin recently. She's pretty pathetic now, but the way I see it her problem will take care of itself in short order... she has already turned on those that care about her, there's nobody left to care about her now but herself. And, well, we already know that's not the case. I will be sad to see her go, but ...I have heno tolerance for the way it destroys people's lives, often too close to my heart. Wish there is something to b e done, but they have to want to help themselves first.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 04-24-2014).]
Okay, since you brought it up and aren't ridiculous to talk to like Rick is...
I don't want to pay for any of that either. My ideal would be all drugs legalized with no social nets. If you **** up, then sorry mate, but you're on your own.
But, crimes to get the drugs? Drugs would be legal... how many crimes are committed trying to get cigarettes and booze? Yeah, I've seen petty theft with booze before, but it's minimal impact. What damage are they going to cause to someone else to get their drugs? It's available down the street at the store, who will be stopping them?
It wouldn't be the same environment with the only difference being legality of use. No, screw that! That wouldn't do anything. It would have to be a change all around to make any sense. But sense, it does make.
Your ideal is the only way it could work even with just MJ. But that ideal doesnt exist, would you say it could in reality?
The particular drug would be legal sure, youd have to be able to afford it though.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-24-2014).]
I dont think I understand the post. When you say pay what do you mean?
Pay, as in people seam upset that under the current system they end up paying monetarily for others drug problems so because of that, anything goes no matter how detrimental it is to the principal of freedom or that they are and have been duped by their government.
We can get quite a list going of OTHER ACTIVITIES that are more of a strain or cause plenty of damage or COST YOU MONEY but nobody wants to play that game, because they will lose, but not before hypocritically using the same arguments that are brought up by the supporters of freedom and personal responsibility every time this subject comes up here.
I totally understand why people are scared of freedom.
Pay, as in people seam upset that under the current system they end up paying monetarily for others drug problems so because of that, anything goes no matter how detrimental it is to the principal of freedom or that they are and have been duped by their government.
We can get quite a list going of OTHER ACTIVITIES that are more of a strain or cause plenty of damage or COST YOU MONEY but nobody wants to play that game, because they will lose, but not before hypocritically using the same arguments that are brought up by the supporters of freedom and personal responsibility every time this subject comes up here.
I totally understand why people are scared of freedom.
Oh no, I'm all for as Bdub said "legalized with no social nets. If you **** up, then sorry mate, but you're on your own." This includes many other currently legal substances, etc. Its got to be one or the other, it cant be a free for all everything is legal but whatever happens we'll bail you out. Thats the kind of entitled no corrective action stance that causes most societal problems. In addidtion to "you're on your own" though, there would have to be limitations, one example: such as being high while in custody of a kid. Would you disagree with that? How would that be enforced?
one example: such as being high while in custody of a kid. Would you disagree with that? How would that be enforced?
I'd counter that with the question: how is that enforced today?
Enforce the laws on the books. I'm pretty sure child neglect or something similar would cover any harm that came to the kid while the parent/guardian was high.
It would work mostly on the basis of attrition. If readily and legally available, the # of addicts would likely increase, but so would the numbers of overdoses (fatal and otherwise) and eventually the population of users would level out--more or less.
Any prospect toward legalization of "hard drugs" would be opposed vehemently by law enforcement and prison systems, especially privately run prison corporations as well as the companies that supply prison personnel. Private prisons here get paid (at least to a large degree) on basis of # of prisoners housed. Empty cells generate very little revenue.
On the law enforcement side, many if not most departments base their fiscal needs on the crime rates in their jurisdiction as well as the size of the geographic area. If most (or all) drugs are legalized, the departments would revert back to their previous roles of fighting theft, burglary, traffic enforcement,--all the non-drug related crimes that will always exist. The local departments will lose matching federal and state dollars that are currently provided in the drug war arena. Probably won't see much in the way of a decrease in manpower requirements, tho a big re-alignment of current drug task force people to more traditional roles not seen in 50 years will take place and the law enforcement agencies are in no way eager to see that happen. Combating drug crimes is a 2 edged sword that cuts both ways. Takes lots of personel but it also gets lots of budget appropriation, maybe even to the point of being viewed as a cash cow when it comes to annual budget.
Law enforcement will fight legalization of harder stuff, but again, the prison systems is where a huge lobbying effort will take place--not that these for-profit prisons haven't already. More than 1/2 of all federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug crimes. In 1980, there were 19,000 inmates in state prison on drug charges. 2011, there were 225,000. In 1980, there were only 4,700 inmates in Federal prisons on drug charges. 2011, there were 95,000. In 1980, there were 17,200 inmates in city and county jails on drug charges. 2011, that number was 181,700. Total: 1980--41,000. 2011--approx 502,000.
Private prisons cannot afford to see a reduction in crime sentencing for any reason. In the 1980s, the rising number of people incarcerated as a result of the War on Drugs and the wave of privatization that occurred under the Reagan Administration saw the emergence of the for-profit prison industry. Prior to the 1980s, private prisons did not exist in the US.[64] In a 2011 report by the ACLU, it is claimed that the rise of the for-profit prison industry is a "major contributor" to mass incarceration, along with bloated state budgets.[65] Louisiana, for example, has the highest rate of incarceration in the world with the majority of its prisoners being housed in privatized, for-profit facilities. Such institutions could face bankruptcy without a steady influx of prisoners.[66] A 2013 Bloomberg report states that in the past decade the number of inmates in for-profit prisons throughout the U.S. rose 44 percent.[67] Corporations who operate prisons, such as the Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group, spend significant amounts of money lobbying the federal government along with state governments.[65] The two aforementioned companies, the largest in the industry, have been contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which lobbies for policies that would increase incarceration, such as three-strike laws and “truth-in-sentencing” legislation.[68][69][70][71] Prison companies also sign contracts with states that guarantee at least 90 percent of prison beds be filled. If these "lockup quotas" aren't met, the state must reimburse the prison company for the unused beds. Prison companies use the profits to expand and put pressure on lawmakers to incarcerate a certain number of people.[72][73] This influence on the government by the private prison industry has been referred to as the Prison–industrial complex.[70] The industry is well aware of what reduced crime rates could mean to their bottom line. This from the CCA's SEC report in 2010: "Our growth … depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates …[R]eductions in crime rates … could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities."[65]
one example: such as being high while in custody of a kid. Would you disagree with that? How would that be enforced?
quote
Originally posted by 1988holleyformula:
I'd counter that with the question: how is that enforced today?
Enforce the laws on the books. I'm pretty sure child neglect or something similar would cover any harm that came to the kid while the parent/guardian was high.
Or-------the same way child endangerment/child neglect is handled in the case of alcoholics.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-24-2014).]
I'd counter that with the question: how is that enforced today?
Enforce the laws on the books. I'm pretty sure child neglect or something similar would cover any harm that came to the kid while the parent/guardian was high.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned, at least not directly, is the profit motive. If everything was legal and fairly readily available, the dealers would be out of business. As it is now, if someone has a supply of (even artificially) expensive "product" - whatever that product happens to be - it is to their advantage to recruit as many customers as possible, with "free samples". The fact that that product is addictive is just gravy, and more guaranteed income for the supplier.
Left to their own, most people know that many drugs are addictive. (Drugs are bad... mmmkay?) But "peer" pressure can overcome a lot of peoples' common sense. How may people are pressured into trying things that they never would have, otherwise.
Everybody talks about MJ being a gateway drug. For a certain segment of the population, that may be true. (I believe that there are genetically predisposed "addictive" tendencies.) For the others, I believe that because selling and using MJ is a "criminal" activity, it puts people in contact with people who are even more inclined to be "criminal", and thus exposing them to the more addictive things. (See above.) And I will never agree that MJ is anything more than mildly physically addictive to most people.
You know, I have nothing against you, but I certainly would never brag about being closed minded...
Basically you just said that you don't care if you are wrong or right, even if being wrong means that bad things happen to a lot of people...
Brad
If you impart your own context into my comments, I can see how you would think that. The context is absoltely oposite of what you just said. I am absolutely oposed to legalizing drugs. No debate, no discusion about it drugs are a VERY VERY VERY bad thing for America. I am closed minded to the thaught of legalizing them. Does that mean I am close minded about EVERYTHING,....no I am not. The toic of this thread is or was about drugs so in this repect I voiced my opinion. And I am not shamed for it, I am VERY happy to say that I DONT want to se people go thru drug abuse hell. Prevention is prevention andI will do evrything I can to prevent the legalization of drugs.
So please tell me what you think of my close mindedness as it is in context.
Okay, since you brought it up and aren't ridiculous to talk to like Rick is...
OK, lets step back from the banter and insults for a few exchages of ideas, can we do this? If you dont care too I guess I wont either, ball in your court.
OK, lets step back from the banter and insults for a few exchages of ideas, can we do this? If you dont care too I guess I wont either, ball in your court.
You really have no idea how insulting your language is, do you? The way you talk doesn't need insults. I really don't care to talk with someone who thinks it's not closed minded to not care to hear any arguments for legalization. You just don't see how ridiculous you are.
Yeah, I'm an ******* for dishing insults. I know. I really couldn't care less.
OK, lets step back from the banter and insults for a few exchages of ideas, can we do this? If you dont care too I guess I wont either, ball in your court.
I thought you already threw the ball out? Not certain but the insults might have come from your direction first also. You made it clear you were set in stone and bragged about it so why exchange ideas.
You really have no idea how insulting your language is, do you? The way you talk doesn't need insults. I really don't care to talk with someone who thinks it's not closed minded to not care to hear any arguments for legalization. You just don't see how ridiculous you are.
Yeah, I'm an ******* for dishing insults. I know. I really couldn't care less.
And how do they do it now? and are we expecting a huge increase somehow?
Every single dammed drug is out there and readily available right now. The only question is who gets rich and who gets power, but we already know the answer..
It would work mostly on the basis of attrition. If readily and legally available, the # of addicts would likely increase, but so would the numbers of overdoses (fatal and otherwise) and eventually the population of users would level out--more or less.
Any prospect toward legalization of "hard drugs" would be opposed vehemently by law enforcement and prison systems, especially privately run prison corporations as well as the companies that supply prison personnel. Private prisons here get paid (at least to a large degree) on basis of # of prisoners housed. Empty cells generate very little revenue.
On the law enforcement side, many if not most departments base their fiscal needs on the crime rates in their jurisdiction as well as the size of the geographic area. If most (or all) drugs are legalized, the departments would revert back to their previous roles of fighting theft, burglary, traffic enforcement,--all the non-drug related crimes that will always exist. The local departments will lose matching federal and state dollars that are currently provided in the drug war arena. Probably won't see much in the way of a decrease in manpower requirements, tho a big re-alignment of current drug task force people to more traditional roles not seen in 50 years will take place and the law enforcement agencies are in no way eager to see that happen. Combating drug crimes is a 2 edged sword that cuts both ways. Takes lots of personel but it also gets lots of budget appropriation, maybe even to the point of being viewed as a cash cow when it comes to annual budget.
Law enforcement will fight legalization of harder stuff, but again, the prison systems is where a huge lobbying effort will take place--not that these for-profit prisons haven't already. More than 1/2 of all federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug crimes. In 1980, there were 19,000 inmates in state prison on drug charges. 2011, there were 225,000. In 1980, there were only 4,700 inmates in Federal prisons on drug charges. 2011, there were 95,000. In 1980, there were 17,200 inmates in city and county jails on drug charges. 2011, that number was 181,700. Total: 1980--41,000. 2011--approx 502,000.
Private prisons cannot afford to see a reduction in crime sentencing for any reason. In the 1980s, the rising number of people incarcerated as a result of the War on Drugs and the wave of privatization that occurred under the Reagan Administration saw the emergence of the for-profit prison industry. Prior to the 1980s, private prisons did not exist in the US.[64] In a 2011 report by the ACLU, it is claimed that the rise of the for-profit prison industry is a "major contributor" to mass incarceration, along with bloated state budgets.[65] Louisiana, for example, has the highest rate of incarceration in the world with the majority of its prisoners being housed in privatized, for-profit facilities. Such institutions could face bankruptcy without a steady influx of prisoners.[66] A 2013 Bloomberg report states that in the past decade the number of inmates in for-profit prisons throughout the U.S. rose 44 percent.[67] Corporations who operate prisons, such as the Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group, spend significant amounts of money lobbying the federal government along with state governments.[65] The two aforementioned companies, the largest in the industry, have been contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which lobbies for policies that would increase incarceration, such as three-strike laws and “truth-in-sentencing” legislation.[68][69][70][71] Prison companies also sign contracts with states that guarantee at least 90 percent of prison beds be filled. If these "lockup quotas" aren't met, the state must reimburse the prison company for the unused beds. Prison companies use the profits to expand and put pressure on lawmakers to incarcerate a certain number of people.[72][73] This influence on the government by the private prison industry has been referred to as the Prison–industrial complex.[70] The industry is well aware of what reduced crime rates could mean to their bottom line. This from the CCA's SEC report in 2010: "Our growth … depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates …[R]eductions in crime rates … could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities."[65]
OK, lets step back from the banter and insults for a few exchages of ideas, can we do this? If you dont care too I guess I wont either, ball in your court.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:If you impart your own context into my comments, I can see how you would think that. The context is absoltely oposite of what you just said. I am absolutely oposed to legalizing drugs. No debate, no discusion about it drugs are a VERY VERY VERY bad thing for America. I am closed minded to the thaught of legalizing them. Does that mean I am close minded about EVERYTHING,....no I am not. The toic of this thread is or was about drugs so in this repect I voiced my opinion. And I am not shamed for it, I am VERY happy to say that I DONT want to se people go thru drug abuse hell. Prevention is prevention andI will do evrything I can to prevent the legalization of drugs.
So please tell me what you think of my close mindedness as it is in context.
Do you not see the contradiction in your two statements?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-25-2014).]
And how do they do it now? and are we expecting a huge increase somehow?
Every single dammed drug is out there and readily available right now. The only question is who gets rich and who gets power, but we already know the answer..
You tell me, have you read the link I posted?
Yes we expect an increase in its use when its legal. Probably also an increase in other drugs that will remain "taboo" in kids eyes.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-25-2014).]
I will never agree that MJ is anything more than mildly physically addictive to most people.
Psychologically addictive.
"In the APA Dictionary of Psychology, psychological dependence is defined as "dependence on a psychoactive substance for the reinforcement it provides." [1] Most times psychological dependence is classified under addiction. They are similar in that addiction is a physiological "craving" for something and psychological dependence is a "need" for a particular substance because it causes enjoyable mental affects.
A person becomes dependent on something to help alleviate specific emotions.[2] Psychological dependence begins after the first trial which a person then becomes satisfied and the satisfaction increases with each use. This constant feeling leads to psychological reinforcement which eventually leads to dependence.[3] Of the various things that a person can be psychologically dependent on, "opiates, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, alcohol, and nicotine" are among them. Along with substances, people can also become dependent on activities as well; such as shopping, pornography, self-harm, and many more. While a psychologically dependent person attempts to recover, there are many withdrawal symptoms that one can experience throughout the process. Some of the withdrawal symptoms are: headache, poor judgement, trembling hands, and loss of attention span and focusing.[4] When trying to over come psychological dependence on a drug, one can go to a substance abuse program.[5]"
No, what is it? What is so contradictory about pointing out how inportant context is?
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
OK, lets step back from the banter and insults for a few exchages of ideas, can we do this? If you dont care too I guess I wont either, ball in your court.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
I am absolutely oposed to legalizing drugs. No debate, no discusion about it drugs are a VERY VERY VERY bad thing for America. I am closed minded to the thaught of legalizing them.
Can't really toss that one up to context can ya? This whole thing is just a pointless circle jerk for you. You don't want a conversation.
Yes we expect an increase in its use when its legal. Probably also an increase in other drugs that will remain "taboo" in kids eyes.
Only link I am aware of was on the subject of THC testing. Other than statistics from countries that HAVE legalized drugs, and there have been links posted in previous threads on this, everything else is pure speculation.
Only link I am aware of was on the subject of THC testing. Other than statistics from countries that HAVE legalized drugs, and there have been links posted in previous threads on this, everything else is pure speculation.
Yes THC testing. How they do it now. Is this the plan going forward? I mean wouldnt it mean you could smoke some if you then took a month off work afterwards, or risk getting in trouble for driving or working while having it in your system? Nothing wrong with speculation I guess. I figured someone here would know more than I do.
I'm just thinking how does this work with jobs and driving, etc?
"How long does marijuana stay in your system? A urine drug test can detect marijuana as soon as 2 to 5 hours after use. However, the bigger question is how long will it still be detected with a THC urine drug test. The length of time marijuana is detected in urine depends on the amount used and the frequency of use. The more you use marijuana, the longer it will stay in your system even after you quit using it. For a person that is a heavy weed smoker with frequent use, THC could still be detected up to two months after the last use. For an infrequent user marijuana could stay in your system up to two weeks and for someone who only smoked marijuana one time it may be out of your system as quickly as a week. Since so many factors come into play when trying to determine how long you will test positive for THC, we typically provide the range of fifteen to thirty days is how long you could still test positive, but as you can see this can vary for each individual based on their marijuana use."
"Marijuana will show up in a drug test for seven to 30 days after its use..
The employer has the right to immediately fire the employee or to warn the employee that breaking the company's drug free policy will not be tolerated. In this case, the employee may be tested again at a later date. It is a second chance for the worker to provide a urine sample free from the evidence of marijuana use. In states where medical marijuana is legal, employees are usually treated the same as a worker who is using marijuana illegally. "
I sure it won't happen again in my lifetime but the SIMPLE solution is to charge, prosecute and sentence people for the actual crime or damage they commit after they cause harm.
I know, it is simplistic but laws to get people before they actually cause harm is stupid dangerous to freedom. In any other circumstance one MUST prove damage or you have NO action.
I am well aware that you and I will probably never agree on this subject but I like you and enjoy the banter.
When in states were marijuana is legal or medical marijuana is legal there are still several places and times that you can't smoke. If treated the same as alcohol you still couldn't smoke and go to work... most places don't allow you to drink alcohol at work, you still could not smoke marijuana in a restaurant or bar, you can't smoke cigarettes anymore in public. As far as driving a car, you couldn't drive a car stoned because you can't drive a car drunk. If pot was legalized most of all laws that pertained to alcohol would also apply to marijuana. Right now most drug test simply measure if there's THC in your system, not whether or not you are high from the effects of smoking it. There is a difference, I don't think anyone really believes that you're still high from the effects of smoking marijuana 30 days after you smoke it, but under most drug test today you would still fail the test. There are test that determine if you're under the influence of the active ingredients in pot but they cost more than a regular THC test. If the laws on legalizing marijuana ever change I think the methods used to test will also be changed.
I sure it won't happen again in my lifetime but the SIMPLE solution is to charge, prosecute and sentence people for the actual crime or damage they commit after they cause harm.
I know, it is simplistic but laws to get people before they actually cause harm is stupid dangerous to freedom. In any other circumstance one MUST prove damage or you have NO action.
I am well aware that you and I will probably never agree on this subject but I like you and enjoy the banter.
Thanks man, I appreciate your conversation as well. I am with the viewpoint that a drunk driver for example is too much risk to let them drive around until someon gets hurt or killed. I know its not complete freedom, but that kind of freedom can only happen while on an island alone. It is an unreasonable risk to my own life and infringes on my freedom to even walk out my door. I suppose even in my home their car could even come thru my wall too.
Right now most drug test simply measure if there's THC in your system, not whether or not you are high from the effects of smoking it. ... There are test that determine if you're under the influence of the active ingredients in pot but they cost more than a regular THC test. If the laws on legalizing marijuana ever change I think the methods used to test will also be changed.