There will always be people that abuse things, no matter if it is drug, food, gambling or anything else, and I can never think of a situation where that is healthy. However, if we go on a crusade to ban everything that can be potentially harmful, we'll find ourselves quickly left with nothing at all.

People will abuse marijuana whether it is legal or not, the same as they will abuse cigarettes and alcohol while they are legal. However, if you look at the harmful effects of these three substances, you will find marijuana at the bottom of the list, even if it is being abused.

The people who will abuse marijuana will contiue to abuse it whether it is legal or not. However, the responsible individuals out there who are able to use it in moderation and still function normally should not be punished for using a drug that is no different from those readily available and legal. We are allowed to kill brain cells with alcohol, smoke one of the most dealiest, addictive poisons known with nicotine and cigarettes, take a pill to give you an erection, and any number of drugs to make you "not depressed," but when someone wants to smoke a weed we scream in horror.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Thats an absurd question. With ot without legalization drug abuse would still cause problems - those problems range from criminal, family or financial. Whether or not crack is legal or not...if someone gets hooked they WILL rob, steal and kill for it....Makes no difference if u buy it in a dark alley or from some government sponsered facility makes zero difference. Hard drugs should not available to people...plain and simple.

But hard drugs are "available to people...plain and simple", in fact they are easier to come buy than alcohol in many places. So I'll ask you again - who do you think should regulate the drug trade? Criminals or the government? And bare in mind we have age restrictions on fags and alcohol, nobody tries to get you adicted to fags (cant advertise them and they all come with half the packet telling you you are going to die if you smoke them) Plus we are able to give addicts the help they need (whereas that is not possible with illegal substances)

So, who do you want to regulate the drugs trade - criminals or the government? Its not an absurd question it is the question you have to justify an answer for when talking about legalising or criminalising drugs...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So I'll ask you again - who do you think should regulate the drug trade? Criminals or the government? And bare in mind we have age restrictions on fags and alcohol, nobody tries to get you adicted to fags (cant advertise them and they all come with half the packet telling you you are going to die if you smoke them) Plus we are able to give addicts the help they need (whereas that is not possible with illegal substances)

Comparing cigarettes to crack, PCP or heroin is a bit much don;t you think? When was the last time you saw someone sell their life's possesions for 2 hits from a Marlboro? When was the last time you saw a nicotine addict shivering in the dead of summer lying in his own piss or selling his body for a pack of smokes? Certaintly you are not that sheletered.

I do not think government should regulate HARD drugs like crack, PCP or heroin...i think government needs to enforce laws against the drugs...and against the criminals who sell them...so to anseer your question as to who should regulate them? I guess no one...cus i do not see any benefits to our society with these drugs present...maker stronger laws against them and the people whos ell them.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So, who do you want to regulate the drugs trade - criminals or the government? Its not an absurd question it is the question you have to justify an answer for when talking about legalising or criminalising drugs...

No cus you try and twist words....you try and act like if i say drugs should be illegal that, that means i am FOR criminals...which i am not...play your mind games with the liberal drones..not with me pal.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

Alright. This is a U.S. based opinion, so Im not going to say this applies for the rest of the world. In the Constitution it states that no person can endanger the lives of other. Cigarettes are endanger the lives of others in public places with second hand smoke. Alcohol endangers the lives of others when consumed and some asshole decides to drive. Marijuana or any drug for that matter is the same as alcohol in this aspect of impared judgement. To me, there really isn't much of a debate when it comes to when these activities are appropriate, but if they are at all. If a smoker wants to smoke by himself, or around consenting company, so let him. If a drinker wants to booze with his friends and makes sure there is a designated driver for everyone, the let the party happen. If a person wants to smoke weed and doesn't go out driving, or do something where his/her judgement will endanger someone, then let them. However, because acid, heroine, and cocaine are much harder drugs than the previous, they therefore make the user even less stable, and more of a threat to society. They aren't simply a threat when they hop in a car, but when they are around any bystander. Therefore, while use of "less heavy" drugs should be legal, it should be regulated so as though not to endanger lives. However, their is no place for the legalization of heavy drugs in society.

Oh and by the way. The whole point of this thread was that in the article I read it stated heroin and cocaine arrests have been in decline since the 90s, however marijuana arrests have increased markedly over this same time period. There is no question the war on drugs has had an effect on the use of cocaine and heroin, my question was that should marijuana be legalized, as billions of dollars are being wasted on this drug that seem to be less harmful than a cigarette or alcohol.

___________________
Lost Souls

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Comparing cigarettes to crack, PCP or heroin is a bit much don;t you think? When was the last time you saw someone sell their life's possesions for 2 hits from a Marlboro? When was the last time you saw a nicotine addict shivering in the dead of summer lying in his own piss or selling his body for a pack of smokes? Certaintly you are not that sheletered. I do not think government should regulate HARD drugs like crack, PCP or heroin...i think government needs to enforce laws against the drugs...and against the criminals who sell them...so to anseer your question as to who should regulate them? I guess no one...cus i do not see any benefits to our society with these drugs present...maker stronger laws against them and the people whos ell them.

Your missing the point - the government CANNOT enfore any laws that stop people producing, supplying or taking drugs - it is simply impossible. They tried and they failed and now amount of harsh legislation will ever change that because the benefits of selling drugs will always outweigh the negative effects (jail etc). But the situation we have now is that we have impure (dangerous) drugs that get onto the market and we have dealers trying to push them onto people.

And who said I was comparing fags to crack?! I draw a distinctio between recreational drugs (like ecstacy, cannabis, speed and to some extent cocaine) and hard drugs such as crack and heroin. I see no problems with recreational drugs but I do see social problems with hard drugs, but as it is at present, there is no way out because keeping this trade in the hands of criminals who have no intention of helping people quit etc and not having the state regulate it means this problem will go on and on and no matter how many laws and how much money you throw at it it will never go away...

quote:

No cus you try and twist words....you try and act like if i say drugs should be illegal that, that means i am FOR criminals...which i am not...play your mind games with the liberal drones..not with me pal.

I'm not saying you support these criminals cos you clearly do not, so I ask you if you think it is a good idea that we leave it up to these people to regulate the drug trade...simple question simple answer will do when you make time...

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Alright. This is a U.S. based opinion, so Im not going to say this applies for the rest of the world. In the Constitution it states that no person can endanger the lives of other. Cigarettes are endanger the lives of others in public places with second hand smoke. Alcohol endangers the lives of others when consumed and some asshole decides to drive. Marijuana or any drug for that matter is the same as alcohol in this aspect of impared judgement. To me, there really isn't much of a debate when it comes to when these activities are appropriate, but if they are at all. If a smoker wants to smoke by himself, or around consenting company, so let him. If a drinker wants to booze with his friends and makes sure there is a designated driver for everyone, the let the party happen. If a person wants to smoke weed and doesn't go out driving, or do something where his/her judgement will endanger someone, then let them. However, because acid, heroine, and cocaine are much harder drugs than the previous, they therefore make the user even less stable, and more of a threat to society. They aren't simply a threat when they hop in a car, but when they are around any bystander. Therefore, while use of "less heavy" drugs should be legal, it should be regulated so as though not to endanger lives. However, their is no place for the legalization of heavy drugs in society.

I agree 10000000%%%...well said!

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Your missing the point - the government CANNOT enfore any laws that stop people producing, supplying or taking drugs - it is simply impossible. They tried and they failed and now amount of harsh legislation will ever change that because the benefits of selling drugs will always outweigh the negative effects (jail etc). But the situation we have now is that we have impure (dangerous) drugs that get onto the market and we have dealers trying to push them onto people. And who said I was comparing fags to crack?! I draw a distinctio between recreational drugs (like ecstacy, cannabis, speed and to some extent cocaine) and hard drugs such as crack and heroin. I see no problems with recreational drugs but I do see social problems with hard drugs, but as it is at present, there is no way out because keeping this trade in the hands of criminals who have no intention of helping people quit etc and not having the state regulate it means this problem will go on and on and no matter how many laws and how much money you throw at it it will never go away... I'm not saying you support these criminals cos you clearly do not, so I ask you if you think it is a good idea that we leave it up to these people to regulate the drug trade...simple question simple answer will do when you make time...

Even if government regulated...addicts would STILL go to dealers to get it...mainly cus it would be cheaper...its a catch 22....recreational drugs, i agree are very different...i am tlaking about hard.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Even if government regulated...addicts would STILL go to dealers to get it...mainly cus it would be cheaper...its a catch 22....recreational drugs, i agree are very different...i am tlaking about hard.

Actually, that's not true. The reason drugs are expensive is because they are illegal. It's supply and demand vs cost benefits. Drug dealers can charge alot because they have the monopoly. Look at Amsterdam and their drug prices compared to street prices in the US. The government could tax the hell out of drugs and they would still be cheaper than buying from a dealer.

Absolutely true, and since the demand for drugs is inelastic it doesn't matter what the price is, the demand will be much the same. In fact, the more the government tries to interfere (how do you spell that) with the drug trade, the more profitable they are making the drug dealers. This of course is ignoring the fact that the U.S. will often seize millions of dollars worth of drugs, pure loss for the drug dealer.

___________________
Lost Souls

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew But is it harmless in the same sense as alcohol? I mean the long term effects of alcohol can be pretty nasty too if you dont know how to handle it.

I don't know what you mean.

Recent studies I've seen have proven that daily consumption of alcoholic beverages (namely red wine and beer) actually increase ones health by decreasing risk to heart attack and other factors.

So alcohol is not only harmless, its benificial.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Look at Amsterdam and their drug prices compared to street prices in the US. The government could tax the hell out of drugs and they would still be cheaper than buying from a dealer.

Actually that is not true.

I was in Amsterdam about a month or so ago and I was very curious about the economics of it all. Was weed in Amsterdam cheaper? Was it better quality? Was it both? I mean we all know its legal there, but so what?

Since I have no clue what price or quality is like, I asked all the pot-smoking-hippie liberals I happened to come across (it was not hard) most indicated that the price is basically the same. Many from New York said they knew of better and cheaper places to obtain weed State side, and that Amsterdam was more expensive. Most Europeans however did say weed was not necessairly cheaper, but of better quality in Amsterdam than in their city of orgin.

From my unpercise research it seems that the best place to get good cheap weed is in cities with college campuses in the USA. Otherwise weed is cheaper in rural areas as a 'rule' and of better quality in cities. Amsterdam seemed to be the defining "Average" of world prices and quality from what I uncovered.


I did hear that hard drugs in Amsterdam were cheaper and more available than in most places across the world, but I didn't investigate this further as its not pleasent walking up to drug addicts in the street. They alway ask for money

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

kush paintings, if you're looking for inofrmative material on marijuana, or any drug for that matter, Erowid's Vault is an excellent source. it contains a bunch of articles, research papers, experiences, faqs etc.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller