PDA

View Full Version : US drug war has met none of its goals


Quasimodo
14-05-10, 15:02
And before anyone says we should just legalize marijuana - what about harder drugs?

Highlights (full article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_us/failed_drug_war))
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.
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.
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.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

spikejones
14-05-10, 15:26
Its sad indeed. But I don't think they will ever be able to totally eradicate the use of illicit substances. I mean, look at prohibition. When alcohol was illegalized, organized crime started up in order to manufacture, ship, and distribute moon shine. Wherever there is a will to have something one should not, there is a way to obtain such thing. When something is made to be illegal, people resort to crime in order to obtain it.

Personally I'm a proponent these days of not doing drugs, and I don't think they should be made legal at all, since a part of me says that they will become all the more available, and that perhaps there are those whom the only thing keeping them from experimenting with drugs is the fact that they are currently illegal. In such case, more people may become hooked on drugs.

I think that if the country wants to make more headway with reducing the amount of drugs, they need to reduce the market. Instead of continuing to go after the big guys that traffick the stuff, they need to go after the smaller guys -- the users. More preventative measures need to be developed to keep the not-yet-user from becoming a user, and better strides need to be made into reforming the current addicts. If we were able to erradicate the demand, the question then becomes what will happen to the supply?

Lemmie
14-05-10, 16:25
Quelle surprise.

Yup, marijuana should really be legalised already. :) And tax it. I know everyone says that, but I can't think of anything more substantive right now.

Encore
14-05-10, 17:37
There's actually a simple answer for that - its sheer profitability. Whenever something generates that much money, it's virtually impossible to end it. And I'm not just talking about drug dealers - banks earn a lot from the drug business, specially off shore banks.

Of course, police forces should keep on doing their best to eliminate as much as they can. To end some drug trafficking it still better than doing nothing at all.

But I also believe it's fundamental to start acting at the root of the problem too - why do people use drugs so much in the first place? Drugs need to become much more of a social stigma than they are right now. For high school and college kids, basically, drugs of all kinds are "cool". This needs to end now. People need to be educated and learn to appreciate life for what it is, not through ****ty synthetic substances.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
14-05-10, 18:09
There's actually a simple answer for that - its sheer profitability. Whenever something generates that much money, it's virtually impossible to end it. And I'm not just talking about drug dealers - banks earn a lot from the drug business, specially off shore banks.

Of course, police forces should keep on doing their best to eliminate as much as they can. To end some drug trafficking it still better than doing nothing at all.

But I also believe it's fundamental to start acting at the root of the problem too - why do people use drugs so much in the first place? Drugs need to become much more of a social stigma than they are right now. For high school and college kids, basically, drugs of all kinds are "cool". This needs to end now. People need to be educated and learn to appreciate life for what it is, not through ****ty synthetic substances.

If it's legalized the price will plummet though since part of the reason it's expensive is the risk and effort required to get it here. Once it were legalized, we could grow it right here. It seems to reason that the drug lords would go broke in the process.

interstellardave
14-05-10, 18:15
Let's just say that I believe it's working just fine for some folks with certain agendas (and I'm not just talking about the criminal element). Feel free to call me a "conspiracy nut" for implying what I'm implying... but I don't want to take the time to elaborate; read into it what you will!

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 18:17
Let's just say that I believe it's working just fine for some folks with certain agendas (and I'm not just talking about the criminal element). Feel free to call me a "conspiracy nut" for implying what I'm implying... but I don't want to take the time to elaborate; read into it what you will!:hea: When did you turn into one of them?

Drugs are a tricky issue. I'm against legalizing marijuana but at the same time there are some good arguments for legalizing it as well. There are no good arguments for legalizing drugs like cocaine or ecstasy though.

IceColdLaraCroft
14-05-10, 18:17
The US is also one of the biggest CONSUMERS of illicit drugs.

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 18:19
The US is also one of the biggest CONSUMERS of illicit drugs.With 300 million+ people I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

interstellardave
14-05-10, 18:26
:hea: When did you turn into one of them?

Drugs are a tricky issue. I'm against legalizing marijuana but at the same time there are some good arguments for legalizing it as well. There are no good arguments for legalizing drugs like cocaine or ecstasy though.

LOL... I knew I'd draw you out with that post! :p

I became "one of them" when I stopped believing everything I was told... logic sometimes tells me that the official story is wrong--without hearing it from anyone else, by the way. I don't accept anything as truth--including "conspiracy theories"--unless it passes my own inner logic test. Well let's say "possibly true" because clear evidence one way or the other is hard to find a lot of times...

Also, I'm not really "one of them" except that you want to label people as such...!

But I'm not going to get bogged down in finding and posting links or anything like that because I'm nearly done with the forum for probably the rest of the day--and weekend. Suffice to say there's been evidence that agencies like the CIA profit heavily from the illicit drug trade. Believe that or not, I don't care... but it makes logical sense, just like it makes logical sense that "declaring war" on it has done nothing more than make it more lucrative... more of a cash cow.

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 18:32
LOL... I knew I'd draw you out with that post! :p

I became "one of them" when I stopped believing everything I was told... logic sometimes tells me that the official story is wrong--without hearing it from anyone else, by the way. I don't accept anything as truth--including "conspiracy theories"--unless it passes my own inner logic test.Not this again. I don't care what you believe in but why do you always come out with implications that people who don't believe the conspiracies merely believe everything they are told?

interstellardave
14-05-10, 18:41
Not this again. I don't care what you believe in but why do you always come out with implications that people who don't believe the conspiracies merely believe everything they are told?

Because you seem to resist even the implication that the US government--or one the many, many, departments of it, could be involved in shady dealings! You hardly seem to even allow for the possibility, and immediately say that it's a conspiracy theory (so you, in turn, "always imply")! Well it's not always a conspiracy, it's often just a situation where those who are supposed to uphold the law wantonly break the law when a clear opportunity exists. The illegal drug trade is certainly one of those situations.

There are many agencies in local and federal government here that act as if they are above the law... there needs to be better oversight, that's all. Weed out corruption before it becomes engrained.

I like you and am not trying to pick a fight... you're very intelligent, I think, but you haven't been witness to years of government corruption. Time and experience makes almost anyone a bit more distrustful of authority. Don't get me wrong; I respect authority--but only when it clearly demonstrates it's worthy of it. ;)

danjodan
14-05-10, 18:44
How depressing:(

Uzi master
14-05-10, 18:46
grrat now I'll be thinking of sim city until I get home:mad:


honsestly I'm not surprised a teens not gonna say no because someone says so, most teenagers these days are really stupid, if I do say so myself but a trillion dollars? thats one fifteenth approximatly, of american money out there, and about one tenth of their debt.;)

interstellardave
14-05-10, 18:53
grrat now I'll be thinking of sim city until I get home:mad:


honsestly I'm not surprised a teens not gonna say no because someone says so, most teenagers these days are really stupid, if I do say so myself but a trillion dollars? thats one fifteenth approximatly, of american money out there, and about one tenth of their debt.;)

A case could be made--and has been--that the "legal" drugging of our youth (and society in general) is every bit as criminal an act as the illegal drug trade. It just has a prettier face to it.

LaraLuvrrr
14-05-10, 21:20
Everything that is not addictive should be legalized.

Marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, etc.

Heroin and other highly addictive substances should stay illegal because the person who tries it once is likely to be hooked for life.

Oh course there are people who say marijuana is a "gateway" drug which is nothing more than a lie.

Lemmie
14-05-10, 21:21
I think that LSD should definitely remain illegal. It can be very dangerous if someone has a bad trip.

Gregori
14-05-10, 21:26
Alcohol and Ciggarettes Kill and harm more people by far and yet they are still legal.

But deaths from those don't make interesting headlines :(

Uzi master
14-05-10, 22:28
"women has bad lungs and died twenty years earlier than she should have"

LaraLuvrrr
14-05-10, 23:51
I think that LSD should definitely remain illegal. It can be very dangerous if someone has a bad trip.

Well any substance can have a negative effect on an individual. I mean you can get drunk and make bad choices that affect your life negatively and in effect you had a "bad trip." Since LSD isn't addictive I don't think it should be illegal.

If anything the more people have bad trips and the media reports it the more citizens can make their own choice using their intelligence to not use it. We don't need government for that.

When you ban something people are going to get anyways it just opens pathways for a black market and those doing the dealings will be criminals. If you can get marijuana at let's say Walmart it would put all the drug dealers from Mexico out of business ASAP. And better having family friendly Walmart selling it and making profits than criminal drug lords and gangs.

Quasimodo
14-05-10, 23:56
Weed at Walmart. Wouldn't that be surreal!

spikejones
15-05-10, 03:52
Oh course there are people who say marijuana is a "gateway" drug which is nothing more than a lie.
This may be a bit "obscene" for the general public but let me list the things I've done...

Smoking (it started here)
Drinking (just a tad wee bit)
Marijuana
Dextromethorphan (DXM, dissociative hallucinogen)
Hydrocodone (generic Vicodin, abused this when it was prescribed for a broken leg)
Acid/LSD
Cocaine (addictive)
Ecstacy (addictive)
Mesculine (halucinogenic much stronger than Acid)
Crack (very addictive)
Oxycodone (might as well have been doing heroine)

theres probably more I cant recall at the moment, including some other natural things like Morning Glory seeds.. But basically the point I'm trying to make here is that I definitely would NOT have gone on to do most of that stuff if I'd never smoked pot in the first place. Hence, it is a gateway drug. This coming from a person with first hand experience in the matter. So maybe you do smoke pot yourself.. maybe you won't go on to other drugs, maybe you will. But that doesnt change the fact that it is infact a gateway drug.
Well any substance can have a negative effect on an individual. I mean you can get drunk and make bad choices that affect your life negatively and in effect you had a "bad trip." Since LSD isn't addictive I don't think it should be illegal.

If anything the more people have bad trips and the media reports it the more citizens can make their own choice using their intelligence to not use it. We don't need government for that.

When you ban something people are going to get anyways it just opens pathways for a black market and those doing the dealings will be criminals. If you can get marijuana at let's say Walmart it would put all the drug dealers from Mexico out of business ASAP. And better having family friendly Walmart selling it and making profits than criminal drug lords and gangs.

so by your logic, the higher the statistics of drunk driving related deaths, the higher an impact will be had in deterring people from drinking alcohol? Seems to me to be quite the opposite in a society that seems to glorify the drinking of alcohol. We practically live in a society where the message is put out that in order to have fun, you have to be drinking some alcoholic beverage or another. Nevermind the fact that you're ingesting a poisonous chemical into your body. True story... back in my drinking days, I opened a bottle of Jack Daniels and poured a bit into a styrofoam cup. Took a swallow and went about skate boarding. Came back about 10 minutes later to get another swallow of Jack and when I picked up the cup, the bottom fell out. It had been eaten through by the alcohol. And everyone that drinks is putting that into their bodies with little to no regard of health risks.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 04:06
But basically the point I'm trying to make here is that I definitely would NOT have gone on to do most of that stuff if I'd never smoked pot in the first place. Hence, it is a gateway drug.


so by your logic, the higher the statistics of drunk driving related deaths, the higher an impact will be had in deterring people from drinking alcohol?

I don't think your decision to do heavier drugs was based on trying marijuana. In my opinion you were bound to experiment with various drugs whether or not you began with marijuana. Seeing from the list you gave it seems like you were just looking to experiment with whatever drugs sparked your interest. I know plenty of people myself included who have done marijuana and never gone on to do other drugs.

I don't think the statistics of drunk driving would deter people from drinking alcohol. I do however think it would deter them from drinking and driving. Reckless people wouldn't care about statistics but I'd like to think the majority of the population is somewhat educated and intelligent and not completely reckless.

Draco
15-05-10, 04:27
Weed at Walmart. Wouldn't that be surreal!

You can already buy it at Wal-Mart... and with no sales tax.

spikejones
15-05-10, 04:36
youre missing the point with the gateway drug aspect. Ill grant you the fact that you don't know me at all, so you don't know the workings of my mind, but let me try to create an analogy for you of sorts. Lets say you've never surfed a day in your life, but one day you meet a person who says to you "man you know whats the best feeling in the world? Surfing a 100 foot wave!! The pure adrenaline rush you get from riding a mountain of water and getting the ride of your life - not knowing if you're gonna survive it or not... indescribable. Matter of fact, theres a swell hitting Mavericks tomorrow! Lets go ride!" Now, in the back of your mind you're thinking this dude is totally nuts, right? There's no way in hell you're gonna get out there and ride a 100 foot wave with no experience at all. Somewhere down the road though, you go to the local beach and see the beautiful offshore break. These waves are only 5 foot, and you see people of all ages out there having a blast surfing these waves. And you get interested to try it out after some time. So off you go to catch a 5 foot wave and there you find yourself having a blast as well. You begin to enjoy yourself immensely in the sport of surfing and get out there as often as you can, whenever the opportunity presents itself. Some time later, some of your fellow surfers invite you along on a trip and you find yourself at a beach where the waves range from 10-20 feet. Now that you've had a taste of the 5 foot break, you're ready for bigger action and you go ahead after slight hesitation.

Here you have curiosity that provoked you into smoking weed (the 5 foot break you started surfing) which you enjoy. Later on down the road some of your using buddies (fellow surfers) entice you into trying other substances (the 10-20 foot waves). Gradually, if things continue in this fashion you'll end up doing something like crack (surfing a 100 foot wave). Now just because its called a "gateway drug" does not mean you are undoubtedly going to do harder drugs, it just makes you more prone to doing the harder drugs. Nothing about the term "gateway" implies that you must go through the gate at all. It just makes entry more easy.


so to argue your second point, my previous analogy was admittedly off - so let me put things this way... I've had bad experiences with drugs, having nearly killed myself with overdoses. Did that deter me? For a time. But what I found myself doing is finding a smarter way to do the drugs. And thats what I forsee people doing when theres a report of someone with a bad trip. To pick up on what you said about "Reckless people not caring about statistics". Its my own personal opinion that people who indulge in mind and mood altering substances under any circumstances are infact reckless. That said, if they are anything like I was, they will simply not care about the shmuck that had a bad trip. OR.. they will find smarter ways of doing things

aktrekker
15-05-10, 05:18
The reason we aren't winning the war on drugs is because we aren't fighting it like a war. We fight it like a law enforcement operation. But the "enemy" is fighting it like a war.
We call it a war, and until we start fighting it like a war we will continue to lose.

But there may be another way. We know where the drugs come from. By isolating those countries from the rest of the world economically, we can force them to take action. Once the government cleans up the problem, they can join the rest of the world again.
I know this comes with alot of problems. Those countries tend to be poor. The government might not have the resources to deal with the problem. Economic isolation would hurt everyone, even those not involved with drugs.
But drugs are already hurting millions of people every year. And it's only going to get worse. If we're going to stop it, drastic measures will be required.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 15:37
The reason we aren't winning the war on drugs is because we aren't fighting it like a war. We fight it like a law enforcement operation. But the "enemy" is fighting it like a war.
We call it a war, and until we start fighting it like a war we will continue to lose.


So what should we do? Go and attack the drug cartels? They're hidden around parts of the globe and it's not easy to get access to their leaders. It's not like we can just go to one location shoot them all and then we won the war. The war on the drug trade would be like the war on terror because the enemy is so spread out and not apparent. And look at where our war on terror has gotten us... we now have to "fight" new terrorist recruits in the U.S. in addition to fighting their groups in their host nations.

Drugs will always exist and there will always be some way to deal them.


But there may be another way. We know where the drugs come from. By isolating those countries from the rest of the world economically, we can force them to take action. Once the government cleans up the problem, they can join the rest of the world again.


The problem isn't the country it's the drug cartels. If we isolate ourselves from a trading partner like Mexico there's no guarantee that will serve as an incentive for them to take action. They don't even know what to do. The cartels are practically running their nation.

It's a simple rule of business. If there's no demand for your product then you go bankrupt. So we should just get rid of the demand and the cartels will dismantle themselves. That way we don't even need to find who the individuals are doing the illegal trading and we don't have to spend money to "wage war" on them which we're already doing in Afganistan and other nations while our deficit is being run up.

Ward Dragon
15-05-10, 16:34
It's a simple rule of business. If there's no demand for your product then you go bankrupt. So we should just get rid of the demand and the cartels will dismantle themselves.

So how do we do that? Follow China's lead and make it a capital offense to be caught with drugs?

Gregori
15-05-10, 17:53
The reason we aren't winning the war on drugs is because we aren't fighting it like a war. We fight it like a law enforcement operation. But the "enemy" is fighting it like a war.
We call it a war, and until we start fighting it like a war we will continue to lose. They're trying that in Afghanistan.... and its not really working out very well so far!!!

But there may be another way. We know where the drugs come from. By isolating those countries from the rest of the world economically, we can force them to take action. Once the government cleans up the problem, they can join the rest of the world again.
It doesn't deal with the REAL problem, which is demand. The drug production will simply move to another country as soon as any government "cracks down" on it. Isolating countries has never ever worked. Its demand in the western world that is the problem. Just like prohibition never stopped alcohol consumption!!!

I know this comes with alot of problems. Those countries tend to be poor. The government might not have the resources to deal with the problem. Economic isolation would hurt everyone, even those not involved with drugs.
But drugs are already hurting millions of people every year. And it's only going to get worse. If we're going to stop it, drastic measures will be required.
Alcohol and cigarettes cause far greater harm every year across the world!!!
Its doesn't grab the same headlines, so no one is suggesting DRASTIC measures to stop them.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 18:35
So how do we do that? Follow China's lead and make it a capital offense to be caught with drugs?

No just make the demand for drugs from the drug cartels disappear by legalizing it in some way. Noone would go to some criminal on the street to get it if they could buy it online or at a special store without the fear of being charged.

spikejones
15-05-10, 21:32
So how do we do that? Follow China's lead and make it a capital offense to be caught with drugs?
I'm not sure about a capitol offense, however I was thinking that a "zero tolerance" policy of sorts would be beneficial. As of now, to posses any amount of marijuana less than 1 ounce is a misdemeanor offense and many times people get off with a simple slap on the wrist for such possession. I think if we made the penalties a bit stiffer, perhaps make possession of all illicit substances no matter the quantity, including the paraphernalia there of, to be a felony offense, a stronger message would be sent. I think a mandatory jail time should be instituted if you get caught either with drugs or under the influence of them. A first offense would get a relatively light sentence, say 72 hours. A second repeat offense could bear a sentence of 30 days (the average amount of time it takes for THC to clear the body) along with 1 year probation after release, during which time the offender should make at least 2 substance abuse classes per week. Any failed drug test for any reason, including simply being around others who are smoking pot, should be met with a zero tolerance attitude and the remainder of the probation should be served in custody of the state.

I'll tell you from personal experience that the state takes things way too lightly on many probationers. I failed every drug test I was given for a year and never once was "violated" on my probation, until I moved counties and was assigned a new case officer and was made to spend only 2 days in jail.
No just make the demand for drugs from the drug cartels disappear by legalizing it in some way. Noone would go to some criminal on the street to get it if they could buy it online or at a special store without the fear of being charged.

so you're telling me that if you were approached on the street by a guy selling pot for less money than what you would pay for in a store, you'd still go to the store to buy the pot? I may be wrong, but it appears as though you are not thinking about capitalism. Lets also take into account that with Marijuana, all it takes is a seed and you can start growing your own pot in your back yard. If the government were to ever legalize the stuff, it would come with a hefty tax so that they would make money off the sale of the stuff. By legalizing the sale and use of a plant, it leads to easy legal procurement of seed, thus undercutting the governments income. Honestly, who is going to pay lots of money for marijuana when they'd be able to grow it in their own garden? They would have to make the growing and manufacture of such to be illegal. But that leads to the argument of government monopoly on the business. In which case, the government essentially becomes a drug cartel.

Ward Dragon
15-05-10, 21:50
^ Harsher penalties might work, but first society would need to accept that it was necessary. I think most of the "minor" drug use gets a free pass because people don't really think it's a big deal so they don't want to give a harsh penalty for it.

so you're telling me that if you were approached on the street by a guy selling pot for less money than what you would pay for in a store, you'd still go to the store to buy the pot?

I've never done drugs, nor do I intend to, but hypothetically yeah I would go to the store. I would trust that the store hadn't added any poisonous chemicals and wasn't lying to me about what they were selling since presumably they would be audited by the health department. It would be worth the extra money to be sure that it was safe, or at least as safe as such drugs can be. Then again at college I also paid more for a Mike's hard lemonade as opposed to drinking the cheap crap from the keg that my semi-alcoholic friends had no problem with, so I concede that once someone is addicted they probably will take whatever they can get the most of :o

spikejones
15-05-10, 21:57
presumably they would be audited by the health department.

have you ever watched Food Inc (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/)?
that movie alone can open a whole new forum topic. Only reason I've not made one about it is that I'm unsure how many people have seen it. Basically without going much into depth about what the movie talks about, I'll just say that you'd be surprised what gets a pass, and how little (according to the movie) the FDA actually inspects slaughter houses. Not to mention how many people in the FDA were formerly employed by the big name companies in food production.

aktrekker
15-05-10, 22:32
You'll never get people to stop wanting the drug. You have to find another way to deal with the problem.

Gregori
15-05-10, 22:35
You'll never stop people producing the drug either as long as there is demand.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 22:37
so you're telling me that if you were approached on the street by a guy selling pot for less money than what you would pay for in a store, you'd still go to the store to buy the pot?

Yep. Because the store would have a better quality. Who would want the street crap when you can get high quality, potent, store bought weed that you know is not laced with anything.



As for the whole idea about seeds. You could buy the already packaged weed or the seeds. It's not easy to grow marijuana anyways so most people would probably just buy it from stores. But if you want to grow it you buy the seeds just like if you want to grow your own produce instead of buying it at the supermarket. Almost everyone I know doesn't grow their own produce from seed or if they're looking for a natural tea or supplement they don't grow it from seed they go to the store and buy it.

Americans are all about convenience and that is a factor in what makes consumers choose a particular product to buy in a capitalist economy.

Gregori
15-05-10, 22:38
Anybody here watch Breaking Bad?
http://www.icis.com/blogs/icis-chemicals-confidential/breaking-bad.jpg

MangelinaJolie
15-05-10, 22:41
Yep. Because the store would have a better quality. Who would want the street crap when you can get high quality, potent, store bought weed that you know is not laced with anything.

This pretty much only goes for the casual marijuana users, as opposed to the drug addicts who may smoke marijuana as well as use whatever their poison may be. Not to mention, I'm sure the government wouldn't be putting its all into growing it, and therefore there would certainly be better, cheaper product elsewhere.

spikejones
15-05-10, 22:42
Yep. Because the store would have a better quality. Who would want the street crap when you can get high quality, potent, store bought weed that you know is not laced with anything.

Thats mere speculation. You don't know for sure what the differences in quality will be. I could just as easily argue that they may be selling something along the lines of "legal buds" only a slight bit more potent, but the effects not lasting as long nor as strong as some of the killer buds I've seen in my day. Neither one of us knows for sure what it would be, so you can't say without a doubt that stores are gonna have killer buds and street dealers are gonna have dirt weed. I've seen all kinds, and some of the best came from the unlikeliest of sources.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 22:47
Thats mere speculation. You don't know for sure what the differences in quality will be. I could just as easily argue that they may be selling something along the lines of "legal buds" only a slight bit more potent, but the effects not lasting as long nor as strong as some of the killer buds I've seen in my day. Neither one of us knows for sure what it would be, so you can't say without a doubt that stores are gonna have killer buds and street dealers are gonna have dirt weed. I've seen all kinds, and some of the best came from the unlikeliest of sources.

Well your dealer could care less whether or not you like your weed. It is what it is and if you don't like it go to another dealer.

A business on the other hand would take customer satisfaction into account. If customers complain about the potency of the weed or the buzz they got off it then the business better step up to make their product better. It's the same with any legal product that's sold.

And I'm sure a large company would have more funds to make a better quality weed than a dealer who's looking to cut costs ;) that's why street weed can often be laced with chemicals, cocaine with some other powder, and lsd in lower potency or diluted in something else.

spikejones
15-05-10, 22:54
the government can put restrictions on the potency of drugs which are available to the general public. thats why we have OTC drugs and prescription drugs. Thats why most beers have a maximum alcoholic content of 5.0% by volume. Some states its actually illegal to sell beer above 8.0% alcohol by volume. I believe NC may be one of them. So for the beer consumer who may not be fully satisfied with the buzz of a 7.8% alcohol by volume drink, theres nothing the brewers can do to make it more potent, because their hands are legally tied.

Catapharact
15-05-10, 23:01
the government can put restrictions on the potency of drugs which are available to the general public. thats why we have OTC drugs and prescription drugs. Thats why most beers have a maximum alcoholic content of 5.0% by volume. Some states its actually illegal to sell beer above 8.0% alcohol by volume. I believe NC may be one of them. So for the beer consumer who may not be fully satisfied with the buzz of a 7.8% alcohol by volume drink, theres nothing the brewers can do to make it more potent, because their hands are legally tied.

Then tell me; How does that in anyway help the problem in question? The dealers on the street aren't selling your everyday "joints" that the hippy generation smokes and swears by... Oh no... Some of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels on the new drugs are sooooo high that the UN wants to categorize them in a whole new class. You can legalize it but the black market for higher THC drugs will always exist and it will keep on putting money in the hands of drug cartels and lords.

I am with WD on this one; Zero tolerance policy coupled with stronger stringent punishment methods need to be applied; Including life-imprisonment and the death penelty. Hey it works wonders in SA. Wanna deal drugs there? Be ready to lose your head.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 23:03
the government can put restrictions on the potency of drugs which are available to the general public. thats why we have OTC drugs and prescription drugs. Thats why most beers have a maximum alcoholic content of 5.0% by volume. Some states its actually illegal to sell beer above 8.0% alcohol by volume. I believe NC may be one of them. So for the beer consumer who may not be fully satisfied with the buzz of a 7.8% alcohol by volume drink, theres nothing the brewers can do to make it more potent, because their hands are legally tied.

Well that would be speculation about what restrictions the government would set.

I could speculate that since weed is an herb it would be classified as an herbal supplement and as such wouldn't be regulated by the FDA. Unless of course there's multiple cases of it causing some negative health effect like ephedra did.

But herbal supplement manufacturers can put whatever potency they want in their products. Obviously they wouldn't put some potency that's going to make a customer sick because theyd again get complaints and their product wouldn't sell.

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:04
Behead people for something as harmless as Weed?

Thats beyond silly...

Catapharact
15-05-10, 23:08
Behead people for something as harmless as Weed?

Thats beyond silly...

Like I said, the "weed" the dealers are selling these days isn't your "hippy" 70s clap trap. The dosage of THC in some of these drugs is mind boggling; Three to four times over the threshold level. So would I rather pay taxdollars for junkies to go the rehab, kick the stuff off and then leave without a viable gurantee that they won't come across another dealer and get hooked on the stuff again? Or create a situational gurantee that dealing these high potent substances means you are possibly dealing with your life?

I am all up for a gurantee like that.

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:13
Like I said, the "weed" the dealers are selling these days isn't your "hippy" 70s clap trap. The dosage of THC in some of these drugs is mind boggling; Three to for times over the threshold level. So would I rather pay taxdollars for junkies to go the rehab, kick the stuff off and then leave without a viable gurantee that they won't come across another dealer and get hooked on the stuff again? Or create a situational gurnatee that dealing these high potent substances means you are possibly dealing with your life?

I am all up for a gurnatee like that.

Weed is not addictive... No one in history has ever overdosed on weed!!! :vlol:

I'd rather see tax dollars used against alcohol and cigarettes. They kill far more people per year than any of the illegal drugs!!

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 23:15
Zero tolerance policy coupled with stronger stringent punishment methods need to be applied; Including life-imprisonment and the death penelty.

Killing someone for having weed wouldn't fly with the American legal system. As of now only certain degrees of murder can get you that sentence and having some weed isn't on that level :rolleyes:

As for life imprisonment. Yea that will help the taxpayers. Stick every individual caught with weed in our overcrowded jails which taxpayers pay for lol

techno-atom
15-05-10, 23:20
Yes, yes. I do believe the Government should keep a ban on the really bad stuff such as Meth and Heroin but I do think they should legalize Marijuana.

I don't see the big deal with Marijuana anyways. The medicinal benefits greatly outweigh the negatives and the only real reason it's illegal is because the Government and Medical honchos can't regulate and tax Americans on the substance (yet) and the Medicine corporations don't want it legalized because the substance can do tons of things such as relieve pain, treat depression, be used for Cancer patients, Relief from nausea and increase of appetite, Reduction of intarlobular ("within the eye") pressure and Reduction of muscle spasms. The legalization of the substance would cause these corporations to lose lots of money and monopolization they have on the industry.

Catapharact
15-05-10, 23:20
Weed is not addictive... No one in history has ever overdosed on weed!!! :vlol:

I'd rather see tax dollars used against alcohol and cigarettes. They kill far more people per year than any of the illegal drugs!!

Taken from an official UN report:

"Recently, there has been an increased availability of strong herbal cannabis, containing on average 2-3 times the amount of the active compound, tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, as compared to the traditional imported ‘weed’. This strong cannabis includes:‘sinsemilla’ (a bud grown in the absence of male plants and which has no seeds); ‘homegrown’; ‘skunk’, which has a characteristic strong smell; and imported ‘netherweed’...

On top of that, did I mention the fact that these dealers and cartels are the single HUGE thread to the security of the US? I hear so much crud about homeland security yet people are unaware that more US civilians have died in domestic Narcoterrorist incidents.

And actually IMO I am all up for putting medical restrictions like transplant avalibility on Alcohol and cigerette abusers as well. If you wanna crud up your body, do it at your own expense. I am not paying to support your bad habits.

spikejones
15-05-10, 23:20
Then tell me; How does that in anyway help the problem in question? The dealers on the street aren't selling your everyday "joints" that the hippy generation smokes and swears by... Oh no... Some of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels on the new drugs are sooooo high that the UN wants to categorize them in a whole new class. You can legalize it but the black market for higher THC drugs will always exist and it will keep on putting money in the hands of drug cartels and lords.

I am with WD on this one; Zero tolerance policy coupled with stronger stringent punishment methods need to be applied; Including life-imprisonment and the death penelty. Hey it works wonders in SA. Wanna deal drugs there? Be ready to lose your head.
Thats just my point, it doesn't. If the government were to legalize a drug that has long been illegal, they would have to set restrictions on its sale and potency. Otherwise this opens a can of worms for the alcohol market as well. If the government were to allow buds strong enough that a single joint gets you high for an entire day, in stores, this can possibly lead to allowing brewers to start selling more potent beers that get you drunker for longer. BTW Cat, if you look back further in the thread youll notice that I actually did propose stronger sentencing for drugs even considered as minor.


Well that would be speculation about what restrictions the government would set.

I could speculate that since weed is an herb it would be classified as an herbal supplement and as such wouldn't be regulated by the FDA. Unless of course there's multiple cases of it causing some negative health effect like ephedra did.

But herbal supplement manufacturers can put whatever potency they want in their products. Obviously they wouldn't put some potency that's going to make a customer sick because theyd again get complaints and their product wouldn't sell.

so facts are now myth?

explain to me please what weed is an herbal supplement for. What nutritional benefits does it give?

Catracoth
15-05-10, 23:22
And before anyone says we should just legalize marijuana - what about harder drugs?

I don't think anything should be legalized but marijuana - but in my opinion, I couldn't care less if marijuana was legalized or not - I don't smoke it.

But what I do find hilarious is that cigarettes contain a ****load of toxic chemicals including one found in rat poison and acetone in another. That could kill you. Marijuana cannot harm you and yet it's illegal. Go figure.

Catapharact
15-05-10, 23:23
BTW Cat, if you look back further in the thread youll notice that I actually did propose stronger sentencing for drugs even considered as minor.

My apologizes. I just had a chance to glance over the previous pages. I agree with your points.

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:23
Taken from an official UN report:



On top of that, did I mention the fact that these dealers and cartels are the single HUGE thread to the security of the US? I hear so much crud about homeland security yet people are unaware that more US civilians have died in domestic Narcoterrorist incidents.

And actually IMO I am all up for putting medical restrictions like transplant avalibility on Alcohol and cigerette abusers as well. If you wanna crud up your body, do it at your own expense. I am not paying to support your bad habits.


Yeah.... but you still can't overdose on it!!! It still not addictive :vlol: :vlol: :vlol:


I think you need to take a chill pill and stop worrying about people who aren't really harming you :)

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 23:23
explain to me please what weed is an herbal supplement for. What nutritional benefits does it give?

What nutritional benefit does ginkgo biloba and valerian root have? None. One helps with memory and the other is a sedative. Weed can be marketed as whatever companies want. A sedative, pain reliever, etc. There are herbs for every ailment.

spikejones
15-05-10, 23:24
Marijuana cannot harm you and yet it's illegal. Go figure.

actually the last I checked, marijuana is a carcinogen.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 23:26
So would I rather pay taxdollars for junkies to go the rehab, kick the stuff off and then leave without a viable gurantee that they won't come across another dealer and get hooked on the stuff again? Or create a situational gurantee that dealing these high potent substances means you are possibly dealing with your life?


Life imprisonment will clog up prisons even more and use up more of your taxpayer money if people are given life sentences for possession of marijuana like you propose.

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:28
People.... emm...USE DRUGS IN PRISONS!!!

spikejones
15-05-10, 23:30
lets momentarily step away from the debate of how it would be labeled in stores if legalized, and instead look at the individual who smokes, eats, drinks, etc a drug of any kind. I'll ask you guys that do smoke weed or do any other drugs (alcohol included) if, at any point in your life, you've done something stupid as a result of drugs or alcohol. Have you ever done something that you would not have done sober?

Catracoth
15-05-10, 23:31
actually the last I checked, marijuana is a carcinogen.

Yes, and if you'd check again, you'd see that despite it being a carcinogen, it does not put you at a higher risk for lung cancer like cigarettes do.

Catapharact
15-05-10, 23:32
Life imprisonment will clog up prisons even more and use up more of your taxpayer money if people are given life sentences for possession of marijuana like you propose.

Then the situational gurantee becomes even more clear; Dealers need to recieve the death penelty. That will create a plausible gap between supply and demand. Once the stakes on life/death situations are raised for the dealers, then they will seek an active market elsewhere. Keep a stringent jailtime option avalible to users and then (and ONLY then) will I see a viable reason to invest my money in rehab clinics.

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:34
lets momentarily step away from the debate of how it would be labeled in stores if legalized, and instead look at the individual who smokes, eats, drinks, etc a drug of any kind. I'll ask you guys that do smoke weed or do any other drugs (alcohol included) if, at any point in your life, you've done something stupid as a result of drugs or alcohol. Have you ever done something that you would not have done sober?

I tried Calamari...

I'd never tried Calamari or many other foods were it not for drinking. Your sober mind is just less open to new things. I would be like "eweee thats gross".

I think drinking has made me more cultured!!!

:D

spikejones
15-05-10, 23:36
fact is, you said "it doesn't harm you" when in fact it can. its erroneous statements like that which perpetuate some of the attitudes prevalent in the thread. Never mind the fact that your perception of reality is altered and you're more apt, due to lowered inhibitions, to behave in a criminal manner (beyond the use of the drug).

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:38
Emmm... I never said it doesn't harm me :D

But I don't act like a criminal under the influence, unless eating squid rings is a crime!!!!

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 23:40
Then the situational gurantee becomes even more clear; Dealers need to recieve the death penelty. That will create a plausible gap between supply and demand. Once the stakes on life/death situations are raised for the dealers, then they will seek an active market elsewhere. Keep a stringent jailtime option avalible to users and then (and ONLY then) will I see a viable reason to invest my money in rehab clinics.

While threatening people with death is probably the most definitive way to convince them not to do something that law wouldn't be passed in the U.S.

Catracoth
15-05-10, 23:42
fact is, you said "it doesn't harm you" when in fact it can. its erroneous statements like that which perpetuate some of the attitudes prevalent in the thread. Never mind the fact that your perception of reality is altered and you're more apt, due to lowered inhibitions, to behave in a criminal manner (beyond the use of the drug).

Oh please. You make it seem like marijuana is a persuasive criminal element. It does not make you want to behave in a criminal manner. Should you want to do such, it's by you're own doing. The substance just gives you the "I don't give a damn" attitude - it doesn't make you do such things. It's a feeling deep down to want to be like a criminal and with that aforementioned attitude, you're more apt on doing so.

If someone with no desire to be a criminal smoked marijuana, they would be fine. You're speaking from acquired "knowledge." Try getting friends who've done it and then get their sides of the story and base your statements on that and you'll surely be less ignorant.

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:42
Besides, you threaten people with DEATH and they STILL DO IT!!!!!


I think thats a testament to the unquenchable spirit of human beings, that they persist in the face of certain death.

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 23:47
Oh please. You make it seem like marijuana is a persuasive criminal element. It does not make you want to behave in a criminal manner. Should you want to do such, it's by you're own doing. The substance just gives you the "I don't give a damn" attitude - it doesn't make you do such things. It's a feeling deep down to want to be like a criminal and with that aforementioned attitude, you're more apt on doing so.


Yea I agree with this. Marijuana makes you more introverted and calm. Alcohol just makes you less inhibited so if you want to do something illegal your inhibitions may not keep you from doing it under the influence of alcohol.

Catracoth
15-05-10, 23:52
Yea I agree with this. Marijuana makes you more introverted and calm. Alcohol just makes you less inhibited so if you want to do something illegal your inhibitions may not keep you from doing it under the influence of alcohol.

Spot on, LaraLuvrrr. I couldn't agree more.

Ward Dragon
15-05-10, 23:54
Yea I agree with this. Marijuana makes you more introverted and calm.

Does it now? My freshman year at college there was a girl who smoked some pot and then went totally psychotic paranoid delusional. She was convinced that someone was trying to kill her.

Catapharact
15-05-10, 23:57
Doesn't leads people to do wreckless behavior huh? If only things were that simple... :

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/ntlc_cannabis.pdf

Read the percentages of illict drivers who drove under the influence of canninus. 440 fatalities in California alone were attributed to the use of cannibus. And before anyone goes on a tangent about problems related to drinking and driving, I am a huge supporter for cranking up penelties for drunk drivers.

Gregori
15-05-10, 23:58
Does it now? My freshman year at college there was a girl who smoked some pot and then went totally psychotic paranoid delusional. She was convinced that someone was trying to kill her.


Oh. That was me. Sorry :o

LaraLuvrrr
15-05-10, 23:59
Does it now? My freshman year at college there was a girl who smoked some pot and then went totally psychotic paranoid delusional. She was convinced that someone was trying to kill her.

It was probably laced with something.

lol @ Gregori

Mr.Burns
16-05-10, 00:00
Oh please. You make it seem like marijuana is a persuasive criminal element. It does not make you want to behave in a criminal manner. Should you want to do such, it's by you're own doing. The substance just gives you the "I don't give a damn" attitude - it doesn't make you do such things. It's a feeling deep down to want to be like a criminal and with that aforementioned attitude, you're more apt on doing so.

If someone with no desire to be a criminal smoked marijuana, they would be fine. You're speaking from acquired "knowledge." Try getting friends who've done it and then get their sides of the story and base your statements on that and you'll surely be less ignorant.

Actually, given the complexity of the human mind, this statement is a bit of a generalization. Perhaps fairly true in the broader sense with most people, however assuming a certain individual has the right mindset, weed can push people towards a more criminal way of life. It can be quite addicting for some and assuming they are unable to financially maintain their habit by legal means (a job, for example) then it's not unheard of for people to revert to theft.

This is something I have seen on almost a daily basis in my line of work as I am constantly going into people's homes, both rich and poor. Interesting point: It's usually the rich kids who do more drugs than the poor people, at least in my experience. Of course I'm going off a small sampling area (my city) and this isn't completely accurate. Just an observation I have noted in my time.

LaraLuvrrr
16-05-10, 00:04
Actually, given the complexity of the human mind, this statement is a bit of a generalization. Perhaps fairly true in the broader sense with most people, however assuming a certain individual has the right mindset, weed can push people towards a more criminal way of life. It can be quite addicting for some and assuming they are unable to financially maintain their habit by legal means (a job, for example) then it's not unheard of for people to revert to theft.

There's always exceptions but I think we're discussion the majority of individuals. And marijuana has not been found to be addicting to the brain like let's say heroin. Someone can be addicted to anything but if the drug isn't found to be addictive in itself then I wouldn't blame it I'd blame the person's biology or decisions.

And I think Weed would only push someone towards a more criminal way of life because it is associated with crime. If it weren't a crime to possess it then someone would not be entering into criminal activity by using or possessing it.

Catracoth
16-05-10, 00:10
Actually, given the complexity of the human mind, this statement is a bit of a generalization. Perhaps fairly true in the broader sense with most people, however assuming a certain individual has the right mindset, weed can push people towards a more criminal way of life. It can be quite addicting for some and assuming they are unable to financially maintain their habit by legal means (a job, for example) then it's not unheard of for people to revert to theft.

Does it now? My freshman year at college there was a girl who smoked some pot and then went totally psychotic paranoid delusional. She was convinced that someone was trying to kill her.

You mustn't forget - drug dealers might lace their weed with an unwanted chemical - some people are predisposed to mental illness when they use it. Normal, run of the mill weed does no harm whatsoever. But 8/10 times when someone purchases marijuana from an every day dealer, it will be laced.

Not to mention that weed isn't even addictive, physically anyway. Mentally, one could convince themselves that they need it. But like I said, weed is often laced when purchased from a street dealer - it might be the chemical they've laced it with that is addictive.

Regular weed is absolutely harmless.

Ward Dragon
16-05-10, 00:12
It was probably laced with something.

(AP) New findings on marijuana's damaging effect on the brain show the drug triggers temporary psychotic symptoms in some people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors say.

British doctors took brain scans of 15 healthy volunteers given small doses of two of the active ingredients of cannabis, as well as a placebo.

One compound, cannabidiol, or CBD, made people more relaxed. But even small doses of another component, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, produced temporary psychotic symptoms in people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors said.

The results, to be presented at an international mental health conference in London on Tuesday and Wednesday, provides physical evidence of the drug's damaging influence on the human brain.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/01/health/main2746434.shtml

LaraLuvrrr
16-05-10, 00:15
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/01/health/main2746434.shtml

Well I didn't know that. But in that case then those individuals who experience a psychotic episode should discontinue use. It's not the majority of the population that will have those episodes.

Just like prescribe drugs may cause side effects you simply discontinue use. If drugs were to be illegal because they causes any adverse effect on any individual then there would be no legal drugs.

Even natural supplements or certain vitamins can cause adverse effects in people.

Mr.Burns
16-05-10, 00:25
There's always exceptions but I think we're discussion the majority of individuals. And marijuana has not been found to be addicting to the brain like let's say heroin. Someone can be addicted to anything but if the drug isn't found to be addictive in itself then I wouldn't blame it I'd blame the person's biology or decisions.

And I think Weed would only push someone towards a more criminal way of life because it is associated with crime.

I wasn't speaking of heroin, which is known to be highly addictive. As for addiction. It's a two fold problem. One of habit (the development) and the biochemical reactions inherent with the effects of a particular drug.

For example, cigarettes. Not a drug obviously but since there has been a lot of research done into them, it makes for a good starting point. And as a former smoker, something I can attest to.

Cigarettes, like weed, have a known addictive compound, in this case, nicotine. Nicotine, when absorbed into the body at low levels, binds with receptors in the brain and stimulate the release of dopamine, a chemical responsible for activating a "high" or "buzz" in a pleasurable manner. It's a part of the pleasure center of the brain. For many who smoke cigarettes, they are primarily addicted to the nicotine for the above reasons. Breaking the habit can be difficult when one is addicted to nicotine since dopamine is no longer being released so people start suffering withdrawal symptoms. I won't go further into this part since we're all (at least we should be) aware of what people go through with withdrawal symptoms.

The habit portion is psychologically linked. Neural pathways are established when a certain action is repeated constantly, making the action easier to repeat. For example, learning a language. It's difficult at first because we can't easily associate the new language from how it compares to our primary language. However, over time and with repetition, one can develop a habit of remembering the association between the languages more easily. With smoking, it's the same thing. Now let's go back to dopamine. For me, nicotine wasn't my problem, associating smoking with certain actions like driving, eating, nerves, etc were my problem. I would smoke a cigarette after eating. The sensation of being satiated, pleasurable, releases a small amount of dopamine, hence the pleasure. Smoking after a meal, releases the nicotine and then the dopamine, thereby adding to the effect. At this point, a neural pathway has been established that associates smoking with an already pleasurable sensation.

Now moving on to weed. Weed contains THC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THC). A psychological chemical that can induce a dopamine release, like nicotine, though based on my experiences, at a lower level. The point is that the chemical is still present and responsible for releasing of dopamine. Add in the effects of weed which for most people are relaxing, which since relaxing is a form of pleasure, can be tied to dopamine, it's not unusual for a habit to be established. Especially if a person smokes weed during times when dopamine levels are higher than normal. Drugs most definitely have a biochemical reaction with our neural system than what people assume, as does the concept of a habit.

While it is true that weed does not appear to be as addicting as cigarettes, it can still be addicting in the right circumstances, with the right person. For other drugs like heroin or Meth, I can only assume that there is also some form of chemical that not only induces a release of dopamine but also something the body becomes dependent on. I'll have to look further into this.

Draco
16-05-10, 02:17
The biggest opponents of drug legalization are the suppliers.