The legalization of drugs

cigarettes are legal, and they're still not allowed to advertise on tv. In fact a lot of the cigarette tax money goes towards advertising against it.Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

if you really want politics, you realize that growing hemp is banned?hemp and marijuana are grown from the same plant--but grown in two different ways. To get good mj, you need lots of flowering--roomy space, that kind of stuff. to get good hemp, you don't want flowers. And (while I'm going to be screwing some of this stuff up) this difference in growing affects the level of TFC (i think that's the hallucanegenic component, it could also be my bank).Better yet, it is legal to buy hemp in the US--even though you can get high off of it. (mind you, this isn't recommended. the amout of hemp needed to compete with a hit of mj is insane. totally impracticle--much more so than drinking alcohol based fuels to get drunk).Better still, the DEA burned tons of hemp in the 30s (i think that's the decade, but no earlier) in thier attempt to eradicate mj, never mind that you really can't get high off of it. We wasted money burning fake mj. Just like with the 436 dollar hammers.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I completely agree that politics are a factor. I also believe that politics play a big factor into both the crimilization of drugs and the production of drugs. The chemicals required for cocaine manufactor are imported primarily from the US. With the talk of the war on drugs, was it ever brought up that maybe DuPont or some other company maybe should question the 10,000 barrels of ether being sent to Columbia? It is one of those things that makes me wonder (from way back in the 80's). Is there really a committment to end dangerous drug use?Another more recent point. Lately in Alaska there has been laws enacted to limit the number of cold medication products that can be sold to an individual (five, I think). Further legislation would require those products to be sold behind the counter with the cigarettes. As those products are used in the manufactor of meth I see the logic (in a superficial way...) HOWEVER meth is not made by cold medicine alone. Two days ago while shopping in our building supply store (local, we don't have the biggies here in Sitka) looking for mold cleanser I saw that 1 gallon bottles of muriatic acid were for sale. I know it it used in industrial cleaning. But it is also a critical ingredient in meth processing. Doesn't it seem less invasive and more productive to keep your eye on the people buying gallons of acid versus people buying cold medication? I mean, only a limited number of people are going to by muriatic acid for legitimate purposes. Another critical ingrediant is red phosphorous. I don't know where that comes from (I heard it is in fireworks?). Seems like another good point control of manufactor. See my point? Seems like the push to end meth production is half-assed at best, so I wonder about the actual strength of conviction of those claiming to want to end it.And about marijuana decrimilization. It is now decrimilized here again in Alaska. You can have up to 6 plants in your home and one ounce in your possession. Use outside your home, sale, possession with intent distribute, etc. are dealt with harshly. People mistakenly believe that this means pot is legal here. It is not. Effectively it is you can get high at your house or your friend's house and have up to 1 oz in your possession. This been going on for about a year now (I believe) and I have no idea as to its success. I suspect it means that we have less people going into our jails. Just my 2 cents worth.

---

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"

Actually, haven't you posted your position before in earlier threads? I thought I had been through some of this before with you. IIRC we are both for legalization, but you are for gov't subsidy of its manufacture and distribution so all drugs will be free. Apparently you've never seen an addict. I live essentially right next door to a free drug clinic in Amsterdam. Some of them are pretty bad off, and as NJ suggests if they need something and can't get it right then, or enough of it right then, they trade and buy (sometimes from each other).But more to the point, who all is able to get this stuff? Unless you are going to allow foreign tourists to come in and get some free drugs, then they can sell to tourists (much as what happens right out my front door).Enterprising criminals could have a few people go in and get free drugs to create a stash to then sell in other nations. Sort of a reverse of the drug trade as it is.I agree that in theory your plan is nice, but it seems to lack practical value in that it sets up tax payers in a loss industry that will only benefit a very small % of the population, including criminals.Why can't market forces (uninflated by artificial pressure from the drug war) regulate it properly?And anyway, before this I'd want a lot more free things too. Full free medical, education, some housing and food.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Yes but it has not been posted in this thread. And you base that on?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There are so many compelling reasons for the legalization of drugs that it's hard to know where to begin. Here are the strongest two in my mind.The first argument is based on principal. I have no business telling anyone else what they should eat, drink, smoke, stick in their arm, suck up their nose or otherwise do with their own body, and nobody has any business telling me either.The second is based on protection. If drugs were legalized and regulated, I believe that the number of innocent people who are killed as a result of drugs would drop to a small percentage of what it is today. There would be no more street corner drug deals gone sour. Drug dealers wouldn't be having turf wars. Each of these types of events regularly results in some person completely unconnected with the dispute getting shot. I also believe that the number of people who die as a result of overdose would drop as quality and potency are stablilized, but this is a secondary concern. Overdose deaths don't bother me as much as the deaths of innocents. Moreover, the governmental resources now being spent on fighting drugs, which is a staggering amount, could be turned to protecting us from real criminals.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Just a FYI, its THC, TetrahydrocannabinolAs far as I am aware it is basically impossible to get high of hemp. A good cannabis plant will contain 20-40% THC, whereas hemp will be 0.3% or so. It would be like smoking cotton - you'd probably get a chronic headache and give up long before you got high. And even if you got high, you'd probably be to ill to notice!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That comment was a joke, followed by a counterexample to your claim. The reason for the joke being you countered NJ's argument with a statement of incredulity. As I have personally seen the counterexample supporting NJ's theory, regarding addicts, I made the statement you must never have seen an addict.Since you didn't see fit to answer anything but the joke, should I take it you have nothing serious to say on this topic?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You are, of course, free to assume anything you want. Since there was nothing else in your post other than the joke, a statement which I corrected and a strawman argument, I saw nothing else to respond to.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please understand that what I present here is only part of what was discussed, a short summary of a discussion that extended over several hours.It seems that there are a lot of threads started by others here at EvC explaining what it is I think.Perhaps one day there will even be one that is close to accurate.Let me try to explain my position on this. Please excuse the length of this post and if possible, read all of it.For many decades, we have been, as a Nation, pushing and funding something called "The War on Drugs." So far there are absolutely NO indications of any success. Drugs are plentiful and ubiquitous as are users, pushers and crime. Our prisons are filled with people convicted on drug related charges, our police forces spending too great a portion of their time and resources trying to deal with the problem, our court systems overwhelmed dealing with those charged.Continuing to do the same things over and over while expecting different results is simply foolish. We need to try something different.The cost of the drug problem in the US involves several factors.

• higher crime rates resulting from territorial distribution disputes.
• higher crime rates as users look for funding to support their habits.
• higher crime rates as the drug suppliers try to influence the legal system through bribes, coercion and intimidation.
• lost productivity.
• increased taxes to support policing, court systems and prisons.

To me, it seems the first question to ask is "Can we reduce the cost of the drug problem in the US?"I believe that the answer is a resounding "Yes!"What I would like to do is first describe what I believe is a possible solution.I think we need to address the biggest issue first. If we can find a way to take profits out of drugs, so that there is no way to make any money selling drugs, the all of the criminals involved will be forced out. They cannot compete when there is too small a profit margin.How can that be done?Simple. Give the drugs away for free.If all of the drugs now sold were available at no cost, then the drug lords and cartels would be put out of business immediately.How could that be done?First you must understand that the actual manufacturing costs of drugs is almost nothing. Many, such as Marijuana and Opium Poppies and others that are plant based could be grown as cash crops in the US. Others are byproducts of current pharmaceutical manufacturing.How would the drugs be distributed?The drugs should be distributed free of charge at local neighborhood health clinics where health care, counseling, and treatment would also be available.What other sources of revenue would help pay the cost of manufacturing and distributing the drugs?The major cost today of the War on Drugs is the expenses we currently pay for with our taxes. Those taxes pay for the extra police and equipment, the costs of the courts system (public defenders, judges, bailiffs, clerks of courts, buildings, janitorial staff, prosecuting attorneys and for the housing/incarceration system.Since a large percentage of those costs are devoted to things that would no longer be illegal, those funds could be redirected to the manufacturing, distribution, and most of all treatment, counseling, education and health care for those addicted to drugs.Why make the distribution through the neighborhood clinics?By using neighborhood clinics or doctors offices as points of distribution, you bring the addicts regularly into an environment where their health and changing life conditions can be noted. Other side effects of drugs can be addressed and where possible treated.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I just clarified that it was a joke. You can continue to act as if I was making a real assumption, if that is what you want to assume, but the joke is over. ??? You made two statements in reply and neither had anything to do with the larger portion of my post.Here are the more pertinent points from my post including direct questions regarding your position... That was an observation which supports NJ's claim and raises questions regarding your claim to incredulity on the matter. Why would people buy something they can get for free? Answer: when they are extremely desperate and cannot get enough material, or fast enough, or to sell to others for other material/money. This was a chance for you to explain more of your position. Who is eligible for receiving the drugs? What would prevent people from getting material to sell to others (who are not part of the system)? Or, is everyone open to get material from this system? This is a direct question regarding why it is necessary to have drugs be free, rather than allow the market to handle cost. I suppose I could have added a concrete example. We currently allow for the sale of alcohol, which used to be a controlled substance (and so quite high priced). Is there a reason currently controlled substances would not follow that model?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I personally agree with everything up until: "Simple. Give the drugs away for free." With legalization, and subsidy, how will they be cash crops? The reason they are such money makers right now is because of heightened prices for their product, plus many crops are detroyed making backups profitable. 1) How widespread/numerous are these clinics, as well as their general opening times?
2) Who is available to get drugs from these clinics?
3) How much is available for a person?
4) Are they able to take the drugs outside of the clinic?
5) What happens for invalids/housebound?All of those points effect how markets can re-emerge.Also, what prevents organized crime from beginning a reverse trade, from the US to the rest of the world, using "stolen" free product as their source? As long as other nations have it as illegal, a market will exist.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

They would be cash crops, just like tobacco, because today the American farmer is prohibited from growing them. No way near available enough. The US Health Care system sucks, big time. I would suggest anyone. I would suggest just about any amount. But that is a minor detail to be worked out. I would hope they would be allowed to take them away. In these cases I would suggest distribution through the Home Health Care industry. NMP. Simply another strawman.Edited by jar, : No reason given.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not disputing your position, but I think your case would be bolstered if you put forward some figures here. The crops grown would have to be suitable - if government weed was crappy and horrid, the black market would still thrive as people would be happy to pay money for better quality product. Growing cannabis is nice and cheap if you just plant it and let it go on its way, but how much would fertilization and lighting systems cost? I haven't a clue, so hence my asking.

How can a question be a strawman? I asked "what prevents"? That was your chance to answer how your plan does or does not take that into consideration.If you truly believe in your plan, why are you being so obstinate in answering questions about it? I am not an inherent "enemy" of this plan, in that I happen to favor legalization, and see some theoretical merit. My reservations are practical concerns and I am trying to get you to explain how your system works. I should be one of the easiest sells on such a plan. Maybe we have a different definition of cash crop. Currently american farmers do make money from growing such things. They likely make more than they would under a full legalized setting as prices/revenue are vastly inflated today due to their illegality.Wouldn't the market drop out for its production? This was a serious part of my practical issue. Doesn't admitting this, suggest NJ's point was correct that your plan is more or less a theoretical issue?But we can even forget the US healthcare system's current state. Under a hypothetically better system, how many clinics would you have to have to provide coverage? Then what would prevent people from nations that have drugs as illegal, or don't have as big a distribution system, from getting free drugs and then selling them to others outside the US?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)