legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

Yes, I absolutely agree with you on this one. Decriminalization is a very nice compromise solution-you don't normalize pot smoking and make it more available, but on the other hand- you don't throw people in jail for doing it. It has some of the benefits of legalization, without some of the consequences of legalization, such as a skyrocket in usage, etc.

Anyways, since I have brought this up before in this thread, but me and others aren't really sure why, why does Colorado and Washington state have laws about how much marijuana somebody can legally posses? In all 50 American states, were tobacco and alcohol are both legal substances, there's no legal limit in the amount of tobacco or alcohol that a citizen can legally possess. So how come where pot is a legal substance, there's limits on how much pot somebody can legally possess?

 

They are also one of the worst pests, destroying countless wildlife every year, all over the country. Whole populations of birds are wiped out by outdoor cats, while their owners look on and cheer.

 

Exactly! but we shouldn't disagree with TPTB - after all, good citizens don't think. Fantastic quotes, by the way.

 

It was a probably a compromise measure to bring in enough votes to pass it.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

Limiting possession amounts under legalization doesn't make much sense, but it's often put forth as a way to gain the support of people who are generally wary of legalization.

It's similar to how you're only allowed to transport a certain amount of alcohol per vehicle in some states. My state is one of them.

 

Okay, now let's discuss this issue of drug legalization.

You strongly believe that the costs of drug prohibition far outweigh the harm that would happen if all drugs were legalized, and I disagree with you. I cited a source to express my opinions on this issue. Tell me what your response is to these arguments.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/multimedia-library/publications/speaking_out.pdf

 

Honestly, that quote you cited is an outright lie.

The majority of the costs associated with the drug war have to do with incarceration. A large portion of our prison population is drug offenders. Because of mandatory drug sentencing, we have the world's highest incarceration rate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/drug-war-mass-incarceration_n_3034310.html

 

The solution to that would be to just decriminalize pot and send all hard drug users to treatment, not full legalization. Why not decriminalize all drugs? This would solve the prison issues, but without all of the horrible consequences of making all drugs more available and less taboo, which is a skyrocket in drug usage.

 

Again, I'm fine with decriminalization as well.

 

No, I'm not implying that John Paul Jones became interested in rock music because of classical music. He became involved in both because he loved music. There was no "cause and effect" related to the different types of music. The cause was the "love of music" and the effect was that he learned and played "both classical and rock music."

A person that chooses to use drugs does so because they "like" drugs but there isn't a cause and effect relationship between the different drugs they might choose to use.

 

What about alcohol? There's no cause and effect relationship between marijuana smoking and harder drug usage (except for their black market connections), but do you believe that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between alcohol drinking and harder drug usage? Some studies have shown this to be true.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/...s-gateway-effect-much-larger-than-marijuanas/

http://news.ufl.edu/2012/07/10/alcohol-gateway/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/study-the-gateway-drug-is-alcohol-not-marijuana/

And what about nicotine? It primes the brain to receive cocaine, mainly because of nicotine's very strong addictive properties.

http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/november2011/11212011nicotine.htm

 

I believe it may be due to the physically addictive qualities of alcohol.

 

The studies reflect correlation and not cause.

I will go back to a simple point. Some people seek altered states of "reality" and that can manifest itself in the use of alcohol, marijuana, or harder "drug" use (prescription or illegal drugs) and it's an issue of individual psychology that is the "cause" and merely citing "correlation" does not establish cause.

People, for political reasons, try to establish "cause" by "correlation" and they aren't related. As noted the "Pastifarians" blame global warming on the reduction in the number of pirates but that is "correlation" and not "cause" when it comes to global warming.

 

No, it is due to the "altered state of consciousness" that the person is seeking when they consume alcohol. Many people consume alcohol for the "altered state" it creates but never become addicted to alcohol. It's the excessive-compulsive personality that leads to alcohol addiction just as is the excessive-compulsive personality that leads to heroin addiction.

 

It may depend on what you mean by "addiction". Many smokers are willing to quit every day.

Why do you believe a physical addiction may not be a factor that may impair rational choices under that theory?

 

Legalizing pot won't stop all kids that want to get it from using it, it will just reduce the amount of kids that get their hands on it, because there will be ID checkings.

However, this same argument cannot be applied to LSD, PCP, cocaine, crystal meth, heroin, or any other illicit substances, and here's why. You had stated that since smoking pot is already a very socially acceptable thing, and also because legalization of a commodity that is already extensively available does not increase usage (since marijuana is a very widely available substance, legalizing it won't make it any more available), it's not like legalizing pot is going to make it more available to kids or make it seem less harmful (which makes some people more willing to try out some substances).

While statistics have shown that tens of millions of Americans have tried out marijuana at least once, only a very small percentage of Americans have ever tried out PCP, LSD, or heroin. This is because those other substances aren't that widely available, in comparison to marijuana. The statistics have shown that very few kids even use those substances. Since the news has stated that PCP is making a comeback, this implies that PCP is not that widely available at all, just like LSD. If we legalize PCP and LSD, then way more adults are going to use it because it's going to be much more available and there's going to be a less perception of harm than it was before. It's usage will skyrocket. This also means that since more adults will use these substances, then more older friends will offer them to their younger friends.

While it's true that some kids that may want to use PCP and LSD if it was legalized will not be able to do so, because of it's regulations, the amount of kids that will use those substances when they become way more available is much larger than the small amount of kids that can't get it because of regulations.

 

I've never read that PCP, LSD, or heroin weren't widely available. The same goes for meth and cocaine that are also both widely available today.

Here's where I might find a difference with the legalization of marijuana. While PCP, LSD, heroin, meth and cocaine are widely available today it's generally through the "marijuana" black market sources. By analogy it's like having a soda machine at a gas station. Most people stop for gasoline but a few of those also purchase the soda that is in much less demand. Few stop just for a soda.

With the legalization of marijuana it will dramatically reduce the number of black market outlets for the harder drugs. The "supply" isn't affected but the number of "retail sales" outlets will be dramatically reduced.

In the end though if a person wants to do PCP, LSD, heroin, meth, or cocaine they're going to find an "outlet" willing to sell it and there is no shortage of supply nor has there ever been. We can make it more difficult and more expensive but that has never stopped someone from using a product that they want to use and there has never really been a "shortage" of illegal drugs.

 

Something I believe is that people often misunderstand addiction. A person doesn't use because they're addicted but instead they become addicted because of their use. The addiction of some substances is a side effect of the usage as opposed to being the reason for the usage. A person that wants to quit any "addictive" substance can quit at anytime. All they have to do is to decide to stop using the substance. They will go through physical withdrawal symptoms of course but that is just a minor discomfort that diminishes rather quickly over a relatively short period of time.

The addiction really is a side-effect and not a cause for the usage of addictive substances.

 

Yet, nanny-State-ists refuse to burden their respective populaces with Prohibition tax rates to finance their otherwise, boondoggles and generational forms of theft, for only the least wealthy in our republic.

 

How do you separate a side effect of being potentially fatal upon overdose, being physically addictive, and being potentially fatal if someone tries to abstain from the use of that drug?

 

Only if you believe the government standard of classifying it as a Class 1 drug, I have many many friends who smoke pot, none let me repeat none of them have "graduated" and moved on to harder drugs.

No, they do fine killing people all by themselves.

Yes it does, and alcohol is well beyond marijuana when it comes to altering your mind, and while yes, marijuana is classified as a psychadelic or hallucenogin, its not what you think, you do not see little green unicorns in fields of purple cotton.

The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile, according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana.

Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana.

Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug.

Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance.

 

It would be so much easier to confide in the sincerity of Nanny-Statists, if they were "patriotic" enough to their Cause, to also clamor for nanny-State tax rates.

 

Speaking of medicinal marijuana, here's why I am against it being legal.

THC weakens the immune system (various studies have shown it's immunosupressive effects), and medical marijuana is prescribed to people with AIDS. People that have AIDS already have severely weakened immune systems; smoking pot medically will just worsen their conditions, because it weakens the immune system.

 

So this boils down to, "Of all the medicinal uses for marijuana there is one that might be questionable even though a medical professional, knowing both the positive and negative effects of using marijuana, has determined that the use is appropriate for a specific patient."

All drugs have positive and negative affects on the person and it is the responsibility of the medical professional to evaluate the individual person's condition and make the best possible decisions related to treatment.

I can provide an analogy where the "general characteristics" of a drug take a back seat to the use of a drug. Morphine is highly addictive and medically is used sparingly except when a person is dying and is in severe pain. Doctors often prescribe extreme amounts of morphine in these cases to relieve the pain even though it will unquestionably result in the person becoming an addict. They don't care about the addiction because the person is going to die and the most important thing, overriding all other considerations, is relieving the pain of the patient.

I'm not the doctor treating the patient and I will leave the prescription of drugs to treat the patient in their capable hands. To do otherwise based upon general information that I might read as a layman would be down right silly.