Feds to stop prosecuting Medical Marijuana in States where it's been legalized

True, but I think the majority would still buy it vs. hassling with growing their own.

In any case, better to legalize and make tax profits rather than ban it and spend billions fighting it and wasting criminal justice resources etc.
 
It's hard to support legalization for harder drugs like Heroin that are more harmful/risky and more addictive.

But simple possession should be decriminalized. Use resources for treatment programs and prevention efforts, not punishing addicts with probation, prison/jail sentences etc.
 
This is one thing I can agree with the Obama administration on. Now legalize "medical" marijuana in Virginia, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why not just legalize all drugs? Why not just end the war on drugs?[/QUOTE]

Smoke a joint and then drive to the mall.

Then shoot up some heroin, sit still, and try to light a cigarette.

While on fire with a needle in your arm it will be plain as day why we must differentiate between different drugs and the laws that control them
 
[quote name='HowStern']Smoke a joint and then drive to the mall.

Then shoot up some heroin, sit still, and try to light a cigarette.

While on fire with a needle in your arm it will be plain as day why we must differentiate between different drugs and the laws that control them[/QUOTE]

How many people smoke while on Vicodin or Percocet?

All drugs can be legalized. Just develop proper regulations for distribution.

If somebody abuses drugs, we can focus on treating their addiction instead of crippling them with fines and scarring them with prison.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
All drugs can be legalized. Just develop proper regulations for distribution.

If somebody abuses drugs, we can focus on treating their addiction instead of crippling them with fines and scarring them with prison.[/QUOTE]

Agree with the second, but not the first. I really can't see good coming of legalizing stuff like Heroin that's very physically addictive, and has a much greater risk of overdose death than alcohol etc.

Decriminalize it and focus on treatment and prevention (which could be funded partly with marijuana tax which could go toward general substance abuse treatment).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, but I think the majority would still buy it vs. hassling with growing their own.

In any case, better to legalize and make tax profits rather than ban it and spend billions fighting it and wasting criminal justice resources etc.[/QUOTE]

The tax argument for legalization is contingent on the hope that just because you can purchase drugs legally from government approved dealers, that people will actually do that. If the taxes are high enough, they will still purchase drugs illegally from black market dealers at a lower price and / or grow their own.
 
True, they will have to be priced to be cheaper than local dealers.

But that seems feasible. They underground market for alcohol seemed to shrink pretty quickly after prohibition from what I've read.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']yup, drive to the mall while youre stoned. nothing bad can come from that.[/QUOTE]

If that if your argument, we should ban alcohol and most prescription and over the counter medicines. I've seen people get really fucked up on stuff I can walk into a CVS and buy.
 
[quote name='georox']If that if your argument, we should ban alcohol and most prescription and over the counter medicines. I've seen people get really fucked up on stuff I can walk into a CVS and buy.[/QUOTE]

i was just responding to howsterns suggestions.

and in case you havent noticed people get arrested for driving drunk all the time. and im certainly not endorsing driving after drinking a bottle a robotussin.

just an edit fyi, i have no problem whatsoever with the legaliztion, regulation and taxation of marijuana. its just a stupid comment by howstern, and i felt compelled to respond with a sarcastic comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']yup, drive to the mall while youre stoned. nothing bad can come from that.[/QUOTE]

There have been so few cases of "stoned" driving accidents that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn't even keep statistics on it.

Here's something else I found but I have no say in it's credibility. I just found it real quick.

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Marijuana-Not-A-Factor-In-Driving-Accidents-11081-1/

Just to make myself clear though I wasn't condoning driving while stoned. I was saying you are more likely to hurt yourself lighting a cigarette on heroin than driving on marijuana. It was an emphasis on how bad heroin is and why we shouldn't legalize every drug. Not a suggestion that driving stoned is a good idea.


[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How many people smoke while on Vicodin or Percocet?

All drugs can be legalized. Just develop proper regulations for distribution.

If somebody abuses drugs, we can focus on treating their addiction instead of crippling them with fines and scarring them with prison.[/QUOTE]

I, like dmaul, agree with with the second thing an not the first. Remember the guy who ate his kids eyes on PCP? We really shouldn't legalize every drug.

[quote name='spmahn']The tax argument for legalization is contingent on the hope that just because you can purchase drugs legally from government approved dealers, that people will actually do that. If the taxes are high enough, they will still purchase drugs illegally from black market dealers at a lower price and / or grow their own.[/QUOTE]


If legalized it would be WAY cheaper. The only reason it is so expensive is because it is illegal. So to compensate for the risk of being arrested and doing jail time dealers and growers set high prices.

It's not harder than tobacco to grow. If you could get a pack of joints for the price of cigarettes no one would go to illegal dealers.
 
The idea of taxing drugs isn't a bad one. As someone above mentioned, you'd have to make the "legal", taxed drugs cheaper than the untaxed ones.

So, what you have to look into is why the prices of illegal drugs are so high now - mostly, limited supply + high risk. In theory, legalizing a drug would increase the supply of the product while decreasing the risks associated with selling/shipping/producing/etc. the product.

Now, once prices drop (even after taxes), will there still be a market for the illegal activity? Probably - a little. But how many illegal stills been busted up this month? With out the high risk, there would be no high reward - which would drive a lot of people away from the 'retail' side of illegal drugs. So, it probably wouldn't be that hard to price the legal-taxed drugs at or under market rate.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I, like dmaul, agree with with the second thing an not the first. Remember the guy who ate his kids eyes on PCP? We really shouldn't legalize every drug.[/QUOTE]

PCP isn't legal as it is, and he still ate his kid's eyes while taking the illegal drug. People make poor decisions in life, whether an activity is beneficial or destructive, legal or illegal. Like with guns, there is a black market for hard drugs, and there's really only one way to get rid of that market - legalization.

That's not to say that I support or encourage people in their drug using endeavors; it's crap, and usually pretty harmful.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I, like dmaul, agree with with the second thing an not the first. Remember the guy who ate his kids eyes on PCP? We really shouldn't legalize every drug.[/QUOTE]

You're both making the assumption that illegal drugs that become legalized will have the same potency.

If somebody gets addicted to heroin, he or she will have a recreational prescription(s) and, with very little paperwork, it can be determined an addiction is starting.

With no social stigma and no criminal consequences, therapy and rehab can focus on getting the person off of that drug and onto a different drug or activity.
 
When I say legalization, I mean that it would be something you could just go buy like alcohol or cigarettes.

You're not going to have PCP, Meth, heroin etc. be legalized for medicinal purposes like marijuana as they are harmful. No doctor is going to prescribe them.

It's best to just legalize pot, and cell it like tobacco or alcohol, tax it like them, and use the money to fund drug treatment, reduce the deficit etc. etc.

Decriminalize possession of hard drugs, but still focus on the distributors. It just doesn't make since to legalize drugs that have clearly harmful effects, anymore than it makes since to make pot illegal while having alcohol and tobacco which have as bad or worse harmful effects legalized.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You're not going to have PCP, Meth, heroin etc. be legalized for medicinal purposes like marijuana as they are harmful. No doctor is going to prescribe them.[/QUOTE]

http://www.druglibrary.org/gh/what_is_the_difference_between_h.htm

"In terms of effects, they are exactly the same -- and medically interchangeable -- except for dosage. In fact, they are both converted to the same form of morphine when they get into the body."

That nixes heroin as being too hard to legalize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

"Methamphetamine is used medically under the brand name Desoxyn for the following conditions:

I know it's wikipedia, but that nixes meth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine#History_and_medicinal_use

"PCP was first synthesized in 1926, and later tested after World War II as a surgical anesthetic. Because of its adverse side effects, such as hallucinations, mania, delirium, and disorientation, it was shelved until the 1950s. In 1953, it was patented by Parke-Davis and named Sernyl (referring to serenity), but was withdrawn from the market two years later because of side-effects. It was renamed Sernylan in 1967, and marketed as a veterinary anesthetic, but again discontinued. Its side effects and long half-life in the human body made it unsuitable for medical applications."

Once again, wiki because I'm lazy, but I'll agree PCP doesn't have a good reason for legalization since it can't be used for anything outside of a surgical unit.

...

I understand your direction is that people are going to use these drugs recreationally. My direction is that people can go to a "drug" store and buy a "prescription". The "prescription" will come with dosing guidelines. The drug dealer will not become a doctor or pharmacist, but become an entity that has a modest knowledge of what he or she is selling and can be sued by an user much in the same way a drunk can sue a bar for selling him a drink. It would be a delicate transition and I have full faith our government would fuck it up royally.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']PCP isn't legal as it is, and he still ate his kid's eyes while taking the illegal drug. People make poor decisions in life, whether an activity is beneficial or destructive, legal or illegal. Like with guns, there is a black market for hard drugs, and there's really only one way to get rid of that market - legalization.

That's not to say that I support or encourage people in their drug using endeavors; it's crap, and usually pretty harmful.[/QUOTE]

While it will get rid of that market, it will also increase problems. If a drug is decriminalized/legalized, it will seem acceptable to use to many more people, which will lead to many more problems. I would rather see a black market with a small group of users for some drugs, than it to be something I buy at Walmart and everyone on the street is going insane from.*

*Note, I'm not talking about marijuana, but the harder stuff.
 
[quote name='georox']While it will get rid of that market, it will also increase problems. If a drug is decriminalized/legalized, it will seem acceptable to use to many more people, which will lead to many more problems.[/QUOTE]
This was verbatim the exact same argument I used to pitch until I saw the results of the Portuguese decriminalization. There just ain't no arguing with the facts.

Portugal changed all drugs offences (including heroin and cocaine) to administrative penalties on July 1st, 2001. DEA press release if you're interested.

Results after 8 years:
  • Fears of drug tourism were completely unfounded.
  • Without the fear of prison time, citizens declined drug use because of "social stigma".
  • Drug use has decreased in absolute terms.
  • Drug use among 7-9th graders dropped from 14.1 to 10.6%, a drop of almost 20%.
  • Among 10-12th graders, use increased the 1st year of decriminalization and has dropped every year since.
  • Drug use increased among 20-24 year olds (when asked if they'd used "any" drug), which coincides with alcohol use among those that reach the age of consent in countries still practicing prohibition.
  • Among 16-18 year olds, marijuana use almost doubled while heroin use almost halved.
  • Those enrolled in drug treatment increased 147%. Opponents point to this as an problem, but empirical evidence suggests a strong majority of those enrolled would not have received treatment before legalization.
  • HIV infection rates among drug users has dropped. The year before prohibition ended, more people with AIDS in Portugal were drug users than not. In 2000, 1400 surveyed drug users were HIV-positive. The last survey counted less than 400. Hepatitis B and C also dropped significantly among drug users.
  • In 2000, 281 people died from opiate use in Portugal. In 2006, that number was 133.
  • In 2000, the total number of drug related deaths was almost 400. In 2006, 281.
  • England has 6 times the cocaine use that Portugal does (in % terms).
  • Political opposition to prohibition has been virtually annihilated.
This is a great read, the kind of thing that absolutely crushes any anecdotal argument against drug legalization.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
Click to expand...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5853939&postcount=73
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
I understand your direction is that people are going to use these drugs recreationally. My direction is that people can go to a "drug" store and buy a "prescription". The "prescription" will come with dosing guidelines. The drug dealer will not become a doctor or pharmacist, but become an entity that has a modest knowledge of what he or she is selling and can be sued by an user much in the same way a drunk can sue a bar for selling him a drink. It would be a delicate transition and I have full faith our government would fuck it up royally.[/QUOTE]

The problem is the taxation issue which is a huge potential benefit to legalization. If something is legalized as a medication that can only be prescribed for medicinal reasons--it's hard, if not impossible, to slap huge taxes on it.

People are already up in arms over the cost of prescription drugs, so I can't see the government wanting to legalize some drugs for medicinal reason and slap big taxes on them.

So to get a lot of benefit financially, it needs to be legalized for recreational use and taxed to high heaven just like alcohol and tobacco already are.

That can happen for pot, I can't see it happen for harder drugs. They should be decriminalized. But you don't want to sell them everywhere that carries tobacco and/or alcohol and de-stigmatize them and likely increase usage.


[quote name='speedracer']This was verbatim the exact same argument I used to pitch until I saw the results of the Portuguese decriminalization. There just ain't no arguing with the facts.[/QUOTE]


I think that's likely very true with decriminalization as the stigma against the drugs stays in place, people probably still have to buy from dealers etc.

Legalization, where you could buy them in legit stores just like drugs or alcohol is likely another matter. The stigma will go away overtime as people see the drugs in stores, know more people who use them, and can buy them legally without going to a dealer etc.

Hard drugs should be decriminalized--at least possession--as it's a waste of resources to treat addicts like criminals. But legalization will probably never happen for hard drugs.
 
Haven't read this thread, but I disagree with the premise of the OP.

Do I like marijuana's gradual decriminalization? Sure, it's great potential source for taxation and will help drain our prisons of people who don't need to be there.

But this isn't decriminalization, it's a willful disregard for the law as written. Don't *not follow* the laws, change the laws instead. Help Barney Frank's bill get some traction as opposed to supporting a "meh" policy with regard to prosecutions.
 
I agree with that 100%. But it's at least baby steps in the right direction. Hopefully more states will legalize it now that the feds aren't cracking down. And as that happens there will be more pressure to change the federal law.
 
[quote name='speedracer']This was verbatim the exact same argument I used to pitch until I saw the results of the Portuguese decriminalization. There just ain't no arguing with the facts.



http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5853939&postcount=73[/QUOTE]


The thing is that Portugal has a national health care system. Our health insurance would never work with this. Around here you can get a bag of heroin for $10. You can get a bundle(10 bags) for about $70.

When you can get it dirt cheap already, the pharmacies won't be able to compete. And to add to that, if it's weaker strength like fatherofcaitlyn said, no one is going to pay more for less. We would need health insurance coverage to pay for it in order to coerce people to get it from the pharmacy, It would require a huge compromise on big pharma to provide very cheap drugs because there's very little room for taxation when the price on the street is so cheap.
 
HowStern, I think Portugal has only decriminalized using. I don't think they allow the sale, but they help the users get clean.

Maybe completely going above board with it would be the end game, but the Portuguese example is only based on decriminalization of possession.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why not just legalize all drugs? Why not just end the war on drugs?[/QUOTE]


Probably for the same reason a person can own a handgun but not a bomb. There are always going to be limits. I don't see any good in legalizing harder drugs, I've seen those destroy family members.

I never have used drugs and never will, but I think weed should be legalized if for no other reason than it is a waste of resources to prosecute users. Does that mean I think employers should not be allowed to test for it? No. I don't want my pilot or doctor smoking weed or drinking. I just think the criminalization of it needs to be lifted. Being high at work should be treated just like being drunk and should be dealt with in similar fashion. You can do whatever you want in your own home. Just don't bring it to mine.
 
[quote name='speedracer']HowStern, I think Portugal has only decriminalized using. I don't think they allow the sale, but they help the users get clean.

Maybe completely going above board with it would be the end game, but the Portuguese example is only based on decriminalization of possession.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see. Foc mentioned something about selling "prescriptions" earlier and I think I combined the ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top