I have surmised that there are a lot of people on this board that use marijuana. I know there are members from around the world here so if you are not from the USA, mention what the laws are in your country along with your views. 

I got a friendly reminder from a friend and Moderator that this is a touchy subject. Please keep in line with TOS and  keep  debate in purely theoretical terms - there must be ABSOLUTELY no advocating the use of any illegal substances or the thread will be instantly locked and deleted and people will undoubtedly be banned.


Questions to consider:
Legalize it and sell it like tobacco and tax it?
Allow people to grow for personal use only?
Keep the laws the same except allow for small amounts for personal use?
Should an employer be able to fire you for having it in your system?
Is it really that bad for you?
Occasional use vs. every day use?
Better or worse than alcohol?

•Alcohol is bad enough so I don't know about using it as any supporting reason why Pot should be legalized. At least with alcohol, it's apparant and quantitatively testable if some one is beyond a legal limit or impaired by it.
According to the CDC:
Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) tool, from 2001–2005, there were approximately 79,000 deaths annually attributable to excessive alcohol use. In fact, excessive alcohol use is the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for people in the United States each year.

Please be careful how you phrase your responses.  We are not here to try to change drugs laws. 

The discussion of illegal drugs will not be tolerated. It violates rule #5. "The posting of messages on the chat or forums which are of a threatening tone, obscene, pornographic, or depict illegal acts will not be permitted." There will only be so many warnings.

My personal thoughts are that the biggest problem is that the drug trade is funded by parts of society that can least afford it and billions of dollars leave our economy and fun drug lords and narco-terrorism. I think there are some people that use the stuff responsibly on an occasional basis but there are too many that use it every day and many times a day.

I'd like to see less of the stuff rather than seing it sold over the counter at the gas station so I'd be against legalizing it and selling it over the counter. I honestly don't know what the best solution is. If everyone was responsible with it I wouldnt care but I have seen TOO many people driving, working and going to school on the stuff and that's just not a good thing!

I don't really have an opinion on legalisation or criminalisation, but maybe there could be more education on endorphins, ways to release them (like exercise), and the ways the brain has of creating its own natural highs, without the need for any drugs. Cheaper, healthier, and no risk of jail.

I'm gonna go hug a tree now.

First off. Can we have this moved out of the "Addiction," sub forum and moved to general Health?
I for one, feel that their should not be a thread that advocates/debates drug legalization in the addiction related area.

To answer the question posed.

The Libertarian in me says, yes. The Realist, no.

Legalize all of them, not just privileged substances like alcohol and tobacco. It would reduce harm and increase freedom. Of course, I am also an anarcho-capitalist, and a lot of people can't stomach my opinion on this. Make information and private social support available rather than throwing peaceful users to rot in jail.

Quote from: Michelle. on May 20, 2011, 05:00:04 PM
First off. Can we have this moved out of the "Addiction," sub forum and moved to general Health?
I for one, feel that their should not be a thread that advocates/debates drug legalization in the addiction related area.

To answer the question posed.

The Libertarian in me says, yes. The Realist, no.

That sounds reasonable. If a moderator can do so, please do.

Did we learn anything from making alcohol illegal?

By MARTHA MENDOZA
updated 5/13/2010 4:06:53 PM ET

    Share
    Print
    Font:

MEXICO CITY — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

"Nothing happens overnight," he said. "We've never worked the drug problem holistically. We'll arrest the drug dealer, but we leave the addiction."
Advertise | AdChoices

His predecessor, John P. Walters, takes issue with that.

Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.

"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcement, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

Nixon seized on drug war
In 1970, hippies were smoking pot and dropping acid. Soldiers were coming home from Vietnam hooked on heroin. Embattled President Richard M. Nixon seized on a new war he thought he could win.

"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

    $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.
    $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.
    $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.
    $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.
    $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

I think that Marijuana should be legalized.  Here in Oregon, liquor is sold in state operated stores.  They should do the same for Mary Jane.

Of course that would mean that it would have to be legalized at the Federal level, which it isn't and may not be in the near future.

Realistically, all of them.  When has prohibition ever worked?  Exactly what drugs can't I find simply because they are illeagal? 

StaceyB, It should be interesting to compare TS/TG with cis people, if there is a significant difference, would it be across generations? Would MTF be the same as FTM?

California and Colorado tax revenues from medical marihuana, plus the continues assertions by law enforcement agencies that it is waist of money to fight marihuana, points to a not to distant legalization of marihuana

On the issue of health and marihuana, several points are worth clarifying. First, there is evidence that THC is an anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti cancer properties. This assertion is mostly based on animal and tissue culture experiments. Second, there is not doubt and the evidence indicates that marihuana smoke does contains more carcinogens that cigarette smoke -true that nobody or very few pot head smoke as many joints as cigarettes smokers do- thus smoking the weed should be discourage. Candy, cookies, ice cream, yes, smoking NO.  Third, chronic and heavy marihuana smoking does results in lower T, reduce fertility, hair lose, short term memory deficits, and hair loss. Are these effects mediated by higher doses of THC, or by the other chemicals present in the marihuana smoke?  Finally, there is not a single documented death due to marihuana overdoes! You know why? The LD-50 (lethal does to kill a human) has been calculated to be several pounds of pure and concentrated THC. Pure THC is a fat with a consistency similar to lard. Try to eat 2 pound of lard!

Personally I would like to see the weed legalized to remove the crime associated with it, more than anything.

Kate D

Legalize all of them! The government has no business dictating what people can and cannot put in their bodies. Even if some drugs such as hard drugs may be harmful, most of the harm still comes from the effects of prohibition. I'm thinking that perhaps for hard drugs (including alcohol as it is a hard drug) there should be an "informed consent" type of thing where a doctor prescribes the drug after informing the patient of its risks, lethal dose, side effects, addiction potential, etc. It would be really helpful because prohibition has created a culture of ignorance about drugs because of exaggerated government propaganda.

Kia Ora,

If one thinks about it, most illegal drugs were legal or at lease not illegal in the past...

Metta Zenda

What irks me the most is how "personal use" is illegal, regardless of what the substance is.
It means that people's rights to choose what they do with their own bodies is restricted, but also, I believe it means that an addict is illegal and so less likely to seek any help what so ever.

I think that whatever laws we enact or repeal need to be based in science and logic and honesty, not prejudice and whatnot, regardless of what topic.

Quote from: TheAetherealMeadow on May 21, 2011, 11:17:43 PM
Legalize all of them! The government has no business dictating what people can and cannot put in their bodies. Even if some drugs such as hard drugs may be harmful, most of the harm still comes from the effects of prohibition. I'm thinking that perhaps for hard drugs (including alcohol as it is a hard drug) there should be an "informed consent" type of thing where a doctor prescribes the drug after informing the patient of its risks, lethal dose, side effects, addiction potential, etc. It would be really helpful because prohibition has created a culture of ignorance about drugs because of exaggerated government propaganda.

The biggest problem is "how do you weigh the rights of an individual against the rights of society"?  If someones abuse of drugs and alcohol uses tax dollars for medical care, accidents or welfare, it becomes MY business as a taxpayer. What if there was a program where someone could apply for a "drug stamp" which legalizes whatever they want yet issues a lifetime ban on all public services and healthcare unless the individual pays up front, even in emergency life and death situations. Also buy a lifetime bond and insurance to cover any accidents etc.?


I know that would never go through because as a society, we are not willing to let people die in front of us without helping.  Unfortunately, children often get mixed up in the situation and then you have an innocent person who didn't sign up for that sort of misery. So yes, I think society has a legitimate reason to control and prohibit substances that are overall harmfull to us as a socity as a whole.

Quote from: StacyBeaumont on May 23, 2011, 09:35:32 AM
So yes, I think society has a legitimate reason to control and prohibit substances that are overall harmfull to us as a socity as a whole.

But where do you draw the line?  Alcohol?  Cigarettes?  Red Meat?  Cars?  Junk Food?  High Heels?

There is also the fact that many substances currently illegal are not particularly harmful unless abused.  Criminalising use of mind-altering substances increases the risk of use substantially through exposure to impure substances and criminal subculture, and limits access to information and cultures promoting safe use and harm reduction.  It also makes it more difficult for people having problems with their drug use to seek help.  Of course, the vast majority of people who use mind altering substances do NOT have significant problems associated with their use.  Those who do - IMO, addiction is a symptom of underlying psychological issues or external factors such as poverty, imprisonment etc.  Of course it is very difficult to resolve these issues and much simpler to blame the substances themselves...

I agree with whoever (might've been multiple people) said all of them and regulate the hell out of it.
Prohibition did nothing but piss people off and force them for find illegal ways around things.
So, IMO, legalize it and just sell it like liquor. Have some kind of "open bong violation" or something if people are doing it on the streets.

Except for angel dust. Screw that. Angel dust just scares the living hell out of me.

Every prohibition just increase usage and give money and power to mafia. (this was experimentally verified many times in history)
I see just one logical reason why most of drugs are illegal. Politics who don't want to sell other drugs regulated and taxed (like tobacco and alcohol) are well payed by peoples who earn great amount of money on drugs.
It is similar to "renewable energy" and most "eco" thing, it is just black hole for money.

I believe marijuana should be legalized and taxed. Cocaine and other harder chemical drugs should remain illegal.

I really do not believe the government will ever decriminalize pot because they would loose the funding of their pet programs for interdiction and incarceration-both big cash cows for our beloved government.

Randi

Realistically it is more damaging than helpful to have prohibition of any chemical substance. Ask any person who is under aged whether alcohol or pot is harder to get, 9 times out of 10 they will say it's harder to get booze. There are few drugs I don't find disgusting, but truthfully it is hard to legalize some but not others.
There are so many people who are capable of using drugs without abusing them or becoming addicted and most are completely non-violent, otherwise law-abiding people. The government wastes so much money on this War on Drugs arresting innocent people when if drugs were legalized and controlled, the crime aspect would be darn near gone.