legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

Not if it was a proper dose. A heroin OD can kill, sure. A water OD can kill, too. Most OD's are caused BECAUSE the drug is illegal, and the illegal supply chain has poor quality controls, so a batch hits the streets that's 10x more pure than it should be. Legitimate, legal suppliers would likely never suffer from that.

 

Well, I will admit that it's very possible that if heroin was legalised and regulated, then there would be way less overdoses, however, what about crystal meth? There's no possible way that crystal meth would become a way safer drug if it became legalised. Even if it was legalised and sold by legal and licensed suppliers that used some quality control methods, with this crystal meth substance, people would still get violent while they are high.

Also, heroin still makes some people violent while they are intoxicated, which is some other reason why heroin should not be legalised. However, I do believe in some harm reduction programs for people that are heroin addicts, in which they are taken under some controlled situations and they are not punished, but rather they are supervised under some controlled situations, and they are offered some treatment options. That's some much better alternatives than the legalisation of heroin.

 

I don't have enough knowledge about Crystal Meth to have an opinion. I've never even so much as laid eyes on it, much less taken it, nor am I aware that anyone I personally know has, unlike some of the other drugs you've mentioned. If your assertion that people get violent is true, and while I don't know that it is, neither do I know that it is not, I might be in favor of it's continued criminalization.

I have no problem banning substances based on their affects. If the affect is that a substantial portion of those who take substance X lose their mind and go on a killing spree with a stolen hangun, and they don't seem likely that they ever would have done that but for the effects of substance X, that's a good argument for banning substance X. But "it makes you high and it's bad for your body" is not. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting high and since we (should but don't) own our own bodies, "it's bad for you" isn't good enough. We have the absolute right to do things that aren't good for us.

 

Well, other than crystal meth, which specific illegal drugs would you not legalise if you could legalise some drugs?

 

I would legalize any and all chemical substances that can only cause harm to the user who has chosen to use them. I would criminalize chemical substances which cause users to cause harm to others as a normal and typical outcome. As an extreme example, if substance Y causes users to literally blow up and take out half a city block, it should be banned. Other than my admittedly over the top example, "Harm to others as a normal and typical outcome" is a grey area, and would have to be decided on a case by case basis.

 

I believe the point is that we should not encourage any sloth in government and insist on an FDA label on any drug on any market in the US.

Other than that, I believe that the private sector could be manufacturing better products at potentially lower prices.

 

It causes a loss of motivation. An industrial society couldn't survive if we had too many potheads.

 

How much better are we off with too many alcoholics?

 

That's totally false. Steve Jobs, Carl Sagan, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Ted Turner, and lots of rock and rap musicians that smoked marijuana was some very motivated and successful people.

 

This is a myth created by propaganda,

We have judges, law enforcement officers, attorneys, legislators, engineers, scientists, teachers, technicians and every professional under the sun that have or do smoke pot and it hasn't caused any loss of motivation in any of them. Barack Obama was a pothead and went on to graduate from Harvard and become the leader of the free world as president so obviously he didn't lose any "motivation" by smoking pot.

In truth some of the most highly motivated people in America are "potheads" that lead highly stressful daytime careers, come home, and smoke a little pot to relax and relieve the daily stress they endure. Going back 40 years or so "professionals" would probably have had martinis when they got home and, to tell the truth, I don't know how a person can drink four or five martinis. I tried a martini once and just that one drink kicked my butt. Drinking martinis is far stronger than doing shooters of tequila IMO.

There are so many myths about marijuana that have been created by propaganda over the years since "Reefer Madness" was used to rationalize the criminalization of marijuana that they are sometimes overwhelming to deal with. The belief that pot makes someone lose their motivation is just one of those myths just like the myth that pot turns a person into a violent rapist or criminal. Nothing is really further from the truth.

 

Here is the truth. All drugs produced legally are safer than those that are produced illegally. It is true that meth has been know to "release the violence" of violent people but the people were already violent people. Drugs don't really change a person as I noted with LSD but many will overpower the ability of the individual to refrain from acting violently or being psychotic. Many drugs are very strong in that they overcome a person's ability to refrain from actions that are inherent in their personality. A person with a violent personality really shouldn't do a drug like meth just like a person with a psychotic personality shouldn't do LSD.

Heroin, which is refined from opium, is actually a very heavy sedative that does not cause violent behavior. I was a close friend in a band with a heroin addict in the mid to late 1960's and it turned him into a couch potato when he used it. Based upon anedotal experience I'd say that those "heroin users" that become violent its actually when they're not high on heroin. They're way too passive when they're high to get excited over anything much less become violent.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

The core ethical question is: Does one person have the right to initiate force against another simply to prevent that person's peaceful behavior. In my opinion, the answer is no.

 

Do you support the legalization of all drugs, or just some drugs?

I believe in harm reduction programs for heroin users, but not 100% total legalization where heroin is fully legal and sold on some regulated markets, since the usage of heroin would greatly increased if that actually happened. However, putting heroin users under some sorts of controlled situations will greatly reduce the amounts of AIDS and overdoses. Harm reduction programs is a better alternative than either our current heroin policy, of the full legalization of heroin.

I totally support the decriminalization of marijuana, however, I'm totally against legalizing it. I strongly believe that marijuana should stay illegal because even from moderate continued use it lowers somebody's IQ, while alcohol only does that when it's drunk in large amounts. Moderate drinkers do not get some IQ losses, that sorts of stuff only happens to some heavy drinkers.

Also, unlike marijuana, somebody can use alcohol without intoxication (ie, they can drink small amounts of it to relax, but not necessarily to get drunk), wheras the only reason that people smoke marijuana is to get stoned or high.

Also, marijuana smoke has several times way more tar and carbon monoxide than tobacco smoke has, which means that it's even more harmful to somebody's health than the smoking of tobacco cigarettes is.

 

I believe the point is that we should not encourage any sloth in government and insist on an FDA label on any drug on any market in the US.

Other than that, I believe that the private sector could be manufacturing better products at potentially lower prices.

 

Really? Really?? Do you not use it simply because it's illegal? Are you suggesting that people would start using it once it became legal? Bro, you have either bought off on the drug propagandists bull(*)(*)(*)(*), or you are one of the drug propagandists.

 

I oppose all laws of prohibition where the Right of a Person are not being protected. This includes prohibitions against same-gender marriage, prohibitions on immigration that provides the supply of labor for enterprise, the prohibitons against prostitution, and the prohibitions against substances as are embodied in our drug prohibition laws.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that we can buy rat poison which will kill a person if ingested but we prohibit drugs that are far less toxic?

There is no evidence that legalization and regulation leads to increased usage of "hard" drugs. What has been shown is that legalization leads to far fewer property crimes though. I don't have a source but probably ten or more years ago I watched a "town hall" discussion where they had a representative from the UK where locally (provence or whatever) the government began providing herion free on demand to users. It did not increase the estimated number of users but burglaries dropped my 98% because many of these individuals resorted to burglary to fund the high cost of their addiction. Personally I don't care if a person does heroin and becomes a couch potato but I'm very concerned if they break into my home to steal my property to fund their addiction.

There is a "hidden cost" to society of illegal drug use that costs 100 to 1000 times more in dollars than if the drugs were legal and that also increases the threat against persons and property because of the prohibitions.

A couple of points worthy of noting.

The studies that marijuana causes some "IQ" losses remains disputed in the scientific community because the conclusions were based upon a subjective analysis and even based upon the studies the possible loss is insignificant. Next is the fact that IQ tests only measure specific characteristics of intelligence (i.e. related to education and employment) but do not measure all forms of human intelligence. For example the appreciation of art and music are acquired by the person but they are not measured by our IQ tests. Many forms of human intelligence are far to subjective to put into an objective test and measuring of these intelligence traits doesn't serve "Western economic philisophy" so they are ignored by IQ tests..

FALSE. Moderate marijuana use does not imply that the person is "high" or "stoned" to any significant degree and heavy marijuana use has far fewer effects on the person than alcohol use. One shot of tequila has far more of an effect on a person than one hit on a joint.

While comparing alcohol to marijuana is really an unsound proposition I will use an alcohol analogy to address this.

Per ounce tequila has far more alcohol than beer but a person that drinks one shot of tequila consumes far less alcohol than a person that consumes a six-pack of beer. A person that smokes a pack of cigarettes consumes far more tar and carbon monoxide than a person having a few hits of pot. In fact, driving behind a diesel truck or bus is less healthy than taking a hit of marijuana.

We've actually seen a dramatic reduction in the amount of marijuana that people use because the "quality" of the marijuana has increased dramatically over the years. In the 1960's a person had to smoke about 1/40th of an ounce to get "high" but today they probably use about 1/120th of an ounce to achieve the same high. Contrary to what many believe a person that smokes marijuana is seeking a specific level of "being high" (referred to as a buzz typically) and when they reach that level they stop.

This is one place where comparing marijuana to alcohol consumption fails. A person can start out seeking that perfect "two beer buzz" but when they reach that point then they are actually more inclined to drink more. With marijuana a person will seek that "perfect buzz" and then stop because they know they're in that "perfect zone" and simply don't want anymore. In the 1960's a person smoked a whole "joint" to get a buzz and today they smoke a small bong hit to achieve the same buzz.

Once agian this really points out the differences between pot and booze. The two are really unrelated in so many ways that for someone that drinks but has never smoked marijuana really doesn't have a foundation for comparison.

 

I prefer live animal traps, for the record.

 

I'm not exactly sure but I believe that medicinal marijuana in WA was selling for about $250/oz or $4000/lb. Yes, this is for the buds but we consume many "buds" from agricultural plants such as artichokes that we buy at the market. As a commercially produced agricultural product it would be my guess that marijuana could be produced and just the harvested "buds" could delivered to "market" for about $10/lb but even if it was up to four times that cost (up to $40/lb) it's still less than 1/100th the cost of the product because of the prohibition laws.

While I don't have any current information in the 1970's a close friend of my mine was a salesman for Mallinckrodt that legally sold cocaine for medicinal purposes. It sold legally for $98/lb and was 98.5% pure. At the same time illegal cocaine coming from S America was selling for about $12,000/lb and I don't believe it was anywhere near to being 98.5% pure and this was the "wholesale" price and not the "street" price of the illegal cocaine. The illegal cocaine cost 120-times what legal cocaine was selling for.

This is why so many are involved in the black market drug trade. There are huge profits to be made in the trafficing of black market commodities when compared to the costs of legal production and distribution.

 

Cannabis is more chemically similar to hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD than it is to some soft drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, because smoking marijuana causes some hallucinations, as well as it alters somebody's state of consciousness, unlike drinking some beers or smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Also, here's some proof about the "marijuana smoke is worse than tobacco smoke" claims.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1603611/posts

"SMOKING three cannabis joints will cause you to inhale the same amount of toxic chemicals as a whole packet of cigarettes, according to research published in France today.

Cannabis smoke contains seven times more tar and carbon monoxide, the French National Consumers' Institute concluded in research published in the April edition of its monthly magazine.

The institute tested regular Marlboro cigarettes alongside 280 specially rolled joints of cannabis leaves and resin in an artificial smoking machine.

The tests examined the content of the smoke for tar and carbon monoxide, as well as for the toxic chemicals nicotine, benzene and toluene.

"Cannabis smoke contains seven times more tar and carbon monoxide than tobacco smoke," the institute's magazine says.

Someone smoking a joint of cannabis resin rolled with tobacco will inhale twice the amount of benzene and three times as much toluene as if they were smoking a regular cigarette, the study says.

Smokers of pure cannabis leaves will also inhale more of these chemicals than from a normal cigarette, though the amount varies depending on the quantities.

"Smoking three joints every day – which is becoming frequent – makes you run the same risks of cancer or cardio-vascular diseases as smoking a packet of cigarettes," the magazine says."

Also, contrary to what some people may state, it's very possible for somebody to overdose on cannabis or hashish through this thing that's called dabbing.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/03/medical_marijuana_overdose_dabbing.php

"Marijuana is perfectly safe" is one of the marijuana legalization movement's most widely accepted (and most important) truisms.

Comical estimations of what would constitute a "lethal dose" -- such as orally consuming more marijuana than the stomach can physically hold -- lead to the also-accepted truism that it's impossible to overdose on marijuana.

That may not be true.

With high-dosage edibles, it's easy to become "uncomfortably high," and with a recent trend called "dabbing," it's also easy to become so high that the user passes out. And passing out leads to the only recorded method of marijuana-related death.
"Dabbing" is a simple concept: a small amount of super-high concentrate -- hash oil, wax, or another compound where so much of the marijuana plant's plant material is removed that what's left is between 50-to-80 percent active ingredients, a sort of grain alcohol to a bud's wine -- is put on a heated surface. A puff of smoke is emitted, and then the user inhales the entire puff of super-concentrated smoke.

The effects are immediate -- and they're intense. Folks who have used cannabis daily for 30 years report, "I am high again!" Other people not so used to the magic plant usually need to sit down for a minute or two before they can talk again. In other words, "dabbing" is a way to ingest a lot of medicine very quickly -- and a way to get really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.

It also may be dangerous, as California NORML's Dale Gieringer writes in a recent letter to O'Shaughnessy's, the marijuana medical journal published by veteran journalist Fred Gardner.

"In the past couple of years, there have been repeated occasions in which 911 teams have had to be called in due to cannabis overdoses," Gieringer writes, going on to describe people passing out from high-concentrates at High Times Cannabis Cups in LA. The most authenticated record of someone dying from marijuana use, by the way? A man who became so incredibly high on hashish he passed out -- and then died after hitting his head on a hard floor."

Also, some marijuana smokers report that even after they quit smoking marijuana for some years, they still have problems with their short term memories. This proves that smoking marijuana may alter somebody's brain chemistry and damage some of their cognitive abilities permanently.

 

As an analogy to high tech, how long does it take before prices may start to drop to new equilibriums. In California, pot prices tend to respond to the amount of prohibition counties and cities want to enforce and lose tax revenue on.

 

I can't actually answer that but I understand that marijuana prices are already dropping in WA with the state legalized use for recreational purposes. Since I'm not involved in the trade I don't have specific information but I believe there has already been a 15% or more cost reduction and we're still 6 months away from full "legal" distribution for recreational use being in place.

One point I'll bring up. If the government attempts to collect too much in taxation then there will remain a financial incentive for the black market to exist. If the disparity between the cost of production and distribution is increased too much by taxation then it establishes a financial incentive to produce and sell outside of the legal system.

I don't know what other states might do but in WA there will be taxation at three levels where a 25% tax is imposed. The grower will have a 25% tax on their product that they must sell to a distributor so $100 in pot will cost the distributor $125. While I don't know what the distributor will sell that pot for I'll assume they add just $25 to the cost bringing the price up to $150 and 25% will be added to that cost for the retailer so they'll pay $187.50. The retailer is going to use a standard mark-up of 100% on their "wholesale" price so the cost to the consumer will be $375 plus 25% for a total of $468.75. That results in a potential profit of at least $368.75 for someone that evades distribution through the "legal" system for the same amount of product.

I believe that WA has pressed the limits on taxation and I can see a smaller black market in marijuana continuing in WA because of the amount of taxation involved.

In truth if we want the most control of marijuana distribution and the lowest possible prices then we have to apply "capitalism" to the whole issue that would include legalization for an individual to grow marijuana for their personal consumption. That did not happen under the WA legalization law. If a person wanted to do that they'd have to purchase the $1000 "growers permit" from the States and then "steal" from their own harvest.

 

Will marijuana's legalisation eventually lead to the legalisations of some other drugs, or not?

 

Why should it matter? Many drugs are legal and require a prescription, but may be more harmful than many street drugs. So what if all drugs in a hypothetical, recreational drug category are legal. Legal simply means subject to Regulation while Prohibition means not subject to Regulation.

Why encourage sloth in government.

 

Hopefully it will. Legalization and pragmatic regulation if applicable is appropriate while prohibition violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person.