legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

You seem to me missing the point about Prohibition no longer being a social Power delegated to our federal Congress.

 

Yes, I actually strongly believe in those rights of those states to make their own laws regarding the regulations of this marijuana drug, however, you still didn't answer my earlier question about marijuana's gateway drug status, which I had already proved that marijuana is some gateway drug.

 

From one perspective, and in that alternative, a drug is a drug, as a civil privilege and immunity.

It should always be hoped that Persons should handle their drugs better than their drugs handle them.

 

Yes, but marijuana is a gateway drug because it's psychoactive effects are extremely similar to the psychoactive effects of some hardcore drugs, such as being in some altered states of consciousnesses, as well as a very intense and strong "highs" or "euphoria", which alcohol and tobacco don't do to people, those two legal drugs just give people some mild buzzed feelings, as well as a very slight and mild euphoria, which shows us that marijuana really is some sort of gateway drug.

 

It doesn't matter to me; what should matter is that Persons realize that it is better to handle our drugs than to have our drugs handle us.

 

Sir i am a communist

 

It itself is not a gateway, the legality of it is a gateway. Since a person would try it and realize that they did not explode from smoking it, people figure out that in regards to health it is as bad as cigarettes and that it is a frivolous law. When people find out that the illegal drug, marijuana's legality is frivolous they start to think that the other illegal drugs are also not that bad and that they are also illegal for frivolous reason. Another reason is that since marijuana is illegal people gain a mentality which is along the lines of “I’m already labeled as a criminal and am breaking the law by smoking marijuana, why not do other drugs and break the other laws America has.” They are already labeled as criminals, why not act the part? If marijuana was legal through out the US, consumption of other drugs would decrease significantly.

 

Does anyone believe that our drugs handling us better than we handle our drugs is any form of excuse, for the Militia of the United States?

 

I paid more attention to the WebMd story and found an immediate flaw with it.

Marijuana is retained in the system for up to four weeks and so testing for it will result in a "positive" result even if a person quits for up to a month. So how were they able to determine if the subjects stopped using marijuana?

Additionally the symtoms described (irritability, anxiety, and depression) are psychological symptoms and not physical symptoms. No physical symptoms of addiction are noted and these symptoms reflect a psychological addiction and not a physical addiction to marijuana. No one has ever denied that people can form a psychological addiction but a psychological addition does not trigger an physical tolerance to the the drug. Only physical addictions where the "body" and not the "mind" crave the drug build up a physical tolerance to the drug. Now, if a chemical change in the brain were established that causes the irritability, anxiety and depression then there would be evidence of a physical dependancy but that has not been documented. What we seem to have are very minor psychological symptoms that soon disappear.

We can also note this only reflected very heavy users where there was an obvious psychological problem to begin with. As has been repeatedly noted it is the psychological problems of the individual that leads to their drug use that typically starts with alcohol (because it's legal), then marijuana (because its the most commonly used illegal drug that 75% of all teens are now reported as trying before age 21), and then transitioning to the addictive drugs.

It isn't the marijuana that triggers the person into becoming a drug addict but instead the psychology of the person that predates any drug use, whether legal or illegal, that eventually leads to addiction.

In another WebMD article the following statements are made.

Pot smokers that deny that marijuana can be psychologically addictive are simply wrong because they're not addressing the fact that many people form psychological dependancies on numerous substances. The medical profession openly recognizes that some people do become psychologically addicted but just using pot in and of itself doesn't create that psychological dependancy.

As for it being a "gateway" drug WebMD fundamentally establishes that this is a question of opinion and not medical fact at least as of today.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

In short, as of today, there has never been a "cause and effect" relationship established by medical science. For pot to be established as a "gateway" drug it would require a documented "cause and effect relationship" and that has never been established.

 

In my case, I use marijuana as an anti-hypocrisy medication. Why does the Right not have a better and more moral solution to that timeless form of "immorality"?

 

There could be some limited validity to this but I see it more as a case of hypocracy of government where marijuana that has no toxicity level is classified with drugs that can actually kill a person by overdosing. The federal government has lost creditability because of the misclassification of marijuana as a Class 1 narcotic which was typically reserved for drugs that could actually lead physical addition and death. If the government is "dishonest" related to marijuana then why would people believe the government warnings related to other drugs?

On an interesting note prior to cocaine becoming illegal there were actually very few cases of addiction to it and virtually no deaths. It was widely used in "patent medicines" which sometimes caused death but it wasn't the cocaine that caused the deaths but other ingredients (like snake venom) that were sometimes used in the 19th Century. Even Coca Cola is alledged to have used cocaine when it was first introduced. We do know that Coca Cola still uses parts of the coca plant where the cocaine has been removed but the exact recipe remains secret.

 

I believe the Right may be engaging in a form of "immorality" to Capitalism, by denying and disparaging a commodity and that form of Capital.

 

Well, there's actually some cause and effect relationships between smoking pot and doing those harder drugs, but that gateway effect is caused by marijuana's illegal status, which is not my main concern in the legalization of marijuana. I actually support legalizing pot because it will remove the so called "gateway effect", and because through a combination of eliminating those people's exposure to those black market dealers, and making smoking marijuana a legally and socially acceptable substance, alongside drinking alcoholic beverages or smoking cigarettes, it'll remove any associations between smoking pot and doing those harder drugs, which actually is what stokes people's interests in doing those harder drugs; then the gateway effect and the usage of those harder drugs will decrease.

Actually, my main concern in the legalization of marijuana is this. How much will the legalization of pot stop the violence that happens as a result of those drug cartels over there in Mexico? There's a lot of horrible violence going on in Mexico due to these sicko drug cartels. Somewhere about at least 60,000 people have died in Mexico due to those drug cartels. Which honestly is a very staggering statistic, if you ask me.

If we legalize pot, which makes up somewhere around 60% of their profits IIRC, how much will that violence stop? Won't those drug cartels just continue to make money through other means-such as loan sharking, extortion, kidnappings, slavery, stealings, etc? Which will probably still happen-but would legalizing pot shrink the size of their organized crime businesses to the extent that their criminal organizations will be destroyed much quicker? About how many lives will be saved from removing about 60% of their business? Hypothetically, if pot was never criminalized, would those 60,000 deaths possibly never have happened? IMHO, but I may be wrong on this issue, even if we legalize pot, the amount of violence from those drug cartels will still continue, and it wouldn't decrease, because the violence would still continue, they would just fight over different stuff (besides marijuana). People that make money through being evil criminals, tend to find some other ways to make money through continuing their criminal businesses.

 

In my opinion, Prohibition only increases market share for black markets; thus, open market transactions should crowd out black market transactions.

 

Well, let's look at this because it is a concern for all of us and I can provide some insight.

I live in WA and we've legalized the recreational use of marijuana even though it's still prohibited by federal law. We're still in the "implementation" phase but the State is going to be issuing growers and retailers licenses by the first of next year (as I recall) and all of our marijuana will be domestically produced when that happens. There will be no "profits" for the Mexican drug cartels because none of our marijuana will be coming from Mexico. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that someone buying marijuana was contributing to the violence of the Mexican drug cartels but that doesn't happen if the marijuana is domestically produced, regulated, and distributed under the law.

If all 50 states legalized marijuana it would remove 60% of the Mexican drug cartels profits if the above quotation is accurate a loss of income greatly reduces or eliminates the violence. How much gangster violence remained after the end of alcohol prohibition in the 1930's provides an excellent point reference. It virtually disappeared overnight.

 

Generally true although excessive taxation can also create black markets as well.

When I look at marijuana I address it as an agricultural product just like any other agricultural product. Since mostly the "buds" are used it could be compared to other plants where the "buds" are consumed like an artichoke. How much do artichokes cost per pound might be a good comparison for how much it costs to produce marijuana buds. While they're not exactly the same even if marijuana was roughly 3-4 times more expensive to grow it means that marijuana only costs about $10/lb at the retail level to produce at a profit.

If, as a farmer, I can produce marijuana for less than $10/lb and under the regulatory laws imposing taxation it's selling legally for over $1,600/lb (i.e. $100/oz) there is a huge financial incentive to grow and sell it through a black market. I can make over 100-times the profit and the consumer gets a substantial savings at the same time.

 

Well, here's what I really don't understand about this specific issue.

On this video that I will post below right now, this guy called that's Stephen Crowder; well he basically states that "people that make money through crime, those people will tend to find another way to make money through crime". I don't want to discuss every single detail that this guy mentioned in this video, since I mainly want to focus on what this guy stated about the relationship between cannabis legalization and also what will happen to those Mexican drug cartels, however, I will just tell you which specific parts of his video to go to. It's 5:56-6:26.

[video=youtube;Dv4x2pRMamE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv4x2pRMamE[/video]

IMHO, he has some very good points. Even if we legalize cannabis, and those drug cartels lose somewhere about 60% of their profits, they will still use the sale of harder drugs such as methamphetamines, cocaine, crack, as well as heroin, as a means of making some more money for themselves. Not only will they still make their money off of selling those harder drugs through their black markets,, they'll still have things such as kidnappings, extortions, ransoms, oil theft, contrabands, pirated goods, as well as loan sharkings. Suppose that all 50 USA states will legalize the recreational usage of cannabis. Logically, what will happen, exactly?IMHO, those same Mexican drug cartels will merely find some other ways to make some money through continuing their criminal businesses. And it doesn't matter if cannabis is legalized or not, they will still find some other ways, in which to continue their criminal businesses. There will be be some violence and crime, even if we legalize cannabis 100%? Is what I'm stating true or false? Well, maybe the legalization of cannabis won't really stop those drug cartels after all?

 

In my opinion, even the several States are denied and disparaged in a social Power regarding Prohibition, if it is not specifically delegated to our elected representatives, especially under our Constitutional form of government.

 

I'd make a simple point, Capitalism Happens.

If there is a demand for goods or services and the laws prohibit it then there will be a black market and violence is inherent in any black market.

This is the "Libertarian" argument why we shouldn't have prohibition laws because the demand merely generates a black market and with that black market violent crimes are inherent.

Below is a great link to the ACLU's arguments agianst the drug prohibition laws. The ACLU's arguments are compelling.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/against-drug-prohibition

 

Those clean needle programs are just a failure, because when they tried to do such a thing in Switzerland, the incidents of HIV, as well as AIDS, skyrocketed.

 

This is disputed by the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/IDU/facts/AED_IDU_SYR.pdf

The CDC believes that the "needle (syringe) exchange program" is an effective means of reducing blood-borne deseases and is a critical component in reducing the transmission of these deseases.

 

Well, here's some better arguments against the legalization of cannabis. It would simply just cause even more traffic fatalities as a result from the increases in stoned driving. Do you agree or disagree with me, Serfin USA?

 

A Canadian study disputes this claim. While the use of marijuana can adversely affect driving skills (e.g. reaction times are slightly slower) for a relatively short time after use unlike alcohol the marijuana user is normally aware of this impairment and compensates for it by driving slower and paying more attention to their driving. There is no statistical evidence that the use of marijuana increases the number of accidents or that it causes more fatalities when compared to people that don't smoke marijuana.

http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/druggeddriving.html

 

The same logic could be used to argue for the prohibition of alcohol.

Some policies are supported via similar logic. For example, one of the primary reasons for why the drinking age was raised was because teen drivers were more likely to drink and drive than older drivers.

The net effect was fewer drunk driving incidents, although the tricky thing about this logic is it could be used for any extent.

For example, less drunk driving probably occurred during Prohibition, but it also created a massive illegal market.

So, typically, banning something only results in a net positive if it is limited to something like an age group. If you extend the ban to all citizens, an illegal market develops, and the criminal activity will often outweigh any positive gains.

 

Remember that video that I posted where those people talked about their experiences with smoking marijuana? Now, I don't want to get into this whole gateway drug discussion, since that question has been basically resolved already, however, one of those guys in that video stated that one of his friends was driving somewhere about 80 miles an hour while he was driving stoned. Some pot smokers may very well drive very fast and reckless, because if somebody's intoxicated, they can't think straight at all and they'll probably make some very stupid decisions while driving some car. While driving, a person needs to think straight. Just because their motor skills are only slightly impaired, that doesn't mean that there's some other dangers to driving while stoned-such as stupid decisions that a stoned person may make while driving that may very well cost somebody their life.

Well, if stoned driving is so safe, then why does Colorado (as well as Washington state, which are both two states where the recreational smoking of cannabis has been legalized), have some laws against somebody driving while they are stoned?

It's a well known-fact that some people engage in some risky sexual behaviors while they are stoned. The reason for that is simple. Being intoxicated on any substance, whether it be alcohol or smoking marijuana, by definition, impairs your judgement. Well, if marijuana impairs your judgement (just like what happens whenever somebody gets drunk), how does a marijuana smoker magically and suddenly become careful and have good judgement while driving? That doesn't make any sense at all to me.