Everything you've heard about crack and meth is wrong

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't think making the drug the criminal act does anything, but the individual who acts does a lot, whether it be bath salts, meth, pot or any other substance. All this started with the Prescription Drug Act and the Machinegun Act of 1934 paralleled by making drugs, in one instance illegal, and a certain class of guns illegal in the other. It is a series of laws that were made based on emotions, political control and no reason to support them. You can look at many laws and see the same thing. there was very little thought in the making of all those laws. That's where bad legislation has come from, time after time. Unfortunately, you can't undo much of this because of the emotions even some members of this forum have, due to personal family experiences, and I understand them while disagreeing with them. If you take that and put it out in whole society and look at it you would probably find the same result.

 

The incrimination of many things have only led to control over law abiding people and placed a bureaucracy as another burden on society and created another revenue source for politicians and moochers.

 

Legalizing some drugs, like pot wouldn't hurt anyone, except those who used them when they had to take that drug test

for their work. I remember a few people, where I worked, would stoop to lows to try to get around the drug test. Most of

them got caught, thankfully though. There are some places where you don't do stupid, or you shouldn't be there. It's

a more effective way of weeding out the idiots from productive society. They are the same who would get you killed,

at least where I worked.

Edited November 6, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

So then why are people going to liquor stores to buy booze as opposed to hitting up their local moonshiner? No doubt about it, legalization will remove the more dangerous chemical compounds and the criminal enterprises which thrive on illegal vices, unless you believe there are still people being machinegunned on the streets of Chicago over the booze trade.

I've no idea what your comment hast to do with my post. People buy booze because they want it...people do/will buy drugs because they want them.

 

My point to Lester was that government involvement in a "legal" drug trade would not likely make the price of these drugs go down or at least not to the extent that some may think if only because of typical government inefficiency.

 

Medical cannabis goes for around $150/half-oz...I'm not sure what a half-oz on the street costs but I expect it's less than that. Maybe recreational cannabis will wind up being less expensive but Colorado just put a 25% tax on theirs so I don't know. I think you would see similar govt involvement and prices for any other drug...the costs for requiring specific content and manufacturing standards and monitoring, etc. will have to be passed along to the buyers.

 

Part of the "high cost" of street drugs is to offset the risk of selling it (since it's a criminal act) but the manufacturing/transportation costs are generally pretty low. Make these drugs legal with all the government requirements/standards and it could well be that even though the price tied to the criminal risk goes down, manufacturing/transportation/distribution could replace it and maybe more than replace it.

 

It's all just pointless conjecture anyway because it isn't going to happen. ;)

Edited November 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[BigK]

That assumes people value the law more than their own livelihood. I don't believe that at all. I don't think pot is destructive, but the reason I don't smoke it has nothing to do with the law. In fact, possession of pot is hardly worse than a speeding ticket. If it was legalized tomorrow I'd still have to worry about drug testing at work, so I don't see how responsible folks would suddenly risk their career over getting high. People openly do it in California, Washington and Colorado. I doubt there are any productive members of society who have lost their careers to weed.

 

I do think pot is destructive, but only in that heavy users have not ambition to succeed at anything besides scoring another bag. Most of the really bad pot heads that I've known were plenty smart enough to have a good paying job, if they wanted to and could pass a piss test. Instead most that I've known wind up delivering pizzas or being a shift manager at a chain restaurant. I'm really only speaking of their potential and aptitude. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

 

People who want to go that level of "Pot head" already can. However, there are plenty of working people out there who already partake (I am not one of them FWIW). All it will mean to them is that they won't lose their job (and future jobs) or get a jail term for performing a relatively trivial recreational activity.

 

I'd put the occasional (once or twice a week or less) smoker into your trivial recreational category. I'd also agree that they lead productive lives, albeit risky from the perspective of possibly losing their jobs and getting slapped with a possession charge. Legalization doesn't mean their employer can't fire them for failing a drug test, though. It would only mean they wouldn't get into any legal trouble.

[TMF]

I've no idea what your comment hast to do with my post. People buy booze because they want it...people do/will buy drugs because they want them.
 
My point to Lester was that government involvement in a "legal" drug trade would not likely make the price of these drugs go down or at least not to the extent that some may think if only because of typical government inefficiency.

I took your comment to mean that you felt legalization and regulation wouldn't drop prices, therefore eliminating the argument that a black market wouldn't thrive. I used the banning of booze and subsequent legalization of it. Drugs are actually very, very cheap. It is the nature of the trade that drives up prices. If it was legalized, even with government regulations, the price would likely drop. Even if it stayed about the same or cost more, at least it would come from a reliable source. This is why there isn't much of an underground booze industry; it still exists but is beyond minuscule compared to the legal trade.

[TMF]

I do think pot is destructive, but only in that heavy users have not ambition to succeed at anything besides scoring another bag. Most of the really bad pot heads that I've known were plenty smart enough to have a good paying job, if they wanted to and could pass a piss test. Instead most that I've known wind up delivering pizzas or being a shift manager at a chain restaurant. I'm really only speaking of their potential and aptitude. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

 
I'd put the occasional (once or twice a week or less) smoker into your trivial recreational category. I'd also agree that they lead productive lives, albeit risky from the perspective of possibly losing their jobs and getting slapped with a possession charge. Legalization doesn't mean their employer can't fire them for failing a drug test, though. It would only mean they wouldn't get into any legal trouble.

Well then booze is destructive too, yet we have plenty of threads here promoting the drinking and making of it. I smoked pot when I was younger and can tell you the only dangerous part of using pot was buying it. I have no problem with marijuana. It's just a plant. It never made me do anything crazy. I can't say the same about booze.

If it was legalized I still couldn't use it because of work. Even still, I have kids, so smoking pot wouldn't be an option anyway, legal or not. Someday when I'm elderly I'll probably pick it up again. I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't. I don't think that makes me a bad person, lazy or a degenerate addict. I can't figure how it is worse than someone who occasionally drinks.

[BigK]

I think alcohol is actually worse than pot as far as drugs go. I don't have a problem with either, though, as long as those who do aren't out on the roads endangering my life.

[RobertNashville]

I took your comment to mean that you felt legalization and regulation wouldn't drop prices, therefore eliminating the argument that a black market wouldn't thrive. I used the banning of booze and subsequent legalization of it. Drugs are actually very, very cheap. It is the nature of the trade that drives up prices. If it was legalized, even with government regulations, the price would likely drop. Even if it stayed about the same or cost more, at least it would come from a reliable source. This is why there isn't much of an underground booze industry; it still exists but is beyond minuscule compared to the legal trade.

I guess that's why all those pharmaceutical s companies charge so little for their products. ;)

 

I wonder too; do all these libertarians want to do away with all the regulations/restrictions on all drugs (such as those available not only by prescription) or just a select few drugs?

[RobertNashville]

I think alcohol is actually worse than pot as far as drugs go. I don't have a problem with either, though, as long as those who do aren't out on the roads endangering my life.

I'm sure everyone would indulge their addiction only in the comfort of their own home. LOL

[Chucktshoes]

I guess that's why all those pharmaceutical s companies charge so little for their products. ;)

I wonder too; do all these libertarians want to do away with all the regulations/restrictions on all drugs (such as those available not only by prescription) or just a select few drugs?

All of them. Eliminate the FDA while we are at it. Edited November 6, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[E4 No More]

Because legislation has worked sooooo well for us. Billions spent annually on the war against drugs yet the drug problem is worse. :screwy:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm sure everyone would indulge their addiction only in the comfort of their own home. LOL

Not necessarily, but if they interfered with someone else while taking a particular drug, it's they who performed the act, not the drug.

Something to do with individual accountability. The laws are what is wrong with the whole drug issue. and yes, the FDA should be

done away with.

[TMF]

I guess that's why all those pharmaceutical s companies charge so little for their products. ;)

There's a huge difference between a drug that has been produced after decades of research and hundreds of millions of dollars invested versus a simple narcotic. Generic painkillers are pretty damn cheap unless you're getting them in an emergency room where 800mg Motrin costs 10000% more than what it costs at Walgreens.

And let me add to answer your libertarian comment, I've been to plenty of countries where you can pick up just about any medication that otherwise requires a prescription here in the states. Guess what, there ain't blood flowing in the streets due to it. There's narcotic pain killers sitting right there on the shelf next to the Tylenol and conveniently across the aisle from the cipro. I'm sure people abuse them and take other drugs that are harmful, but who cares? That's their effing business. Why am I supposed to care when the same people who would abuse oxy if they could get it are huffing gas behind Winn Dixie because they can't? They're gonna be turds either way; why restrict them from safer types of poison? Edited November 6, 2013 by TMF

[Chucktshoes]

There's a huge difference between a drug that has been produced after decades of research and hundreds of millions of dollars invested versus a simple narcotic. Generic painkillers are pretty damn cheap unless you're getting them in an emergency room where 800mg Motrin costs 10000% more than what it costs at Walgreens.

Hydrocodone runs about 10-15¢ a pill.

[TMF]

Hydrocodone runs about 10-15¢ a pill.

Yeah, I figured it wasn't much. My wife had a surgery earlier this year and I recall the narcs were nothing at all.... like cheap as a bottle of aspirin for a month supply. The costly stuff were the specialty pills, like anti nausea.

[RobertNashville]

Not necessarily, but if they interfered with someone else while taking a particular drug, it's they who performed the act, not the drug.

Something to do with individual accountability. The laws are what is wrong with the whole drug issue. and yes, the FDA should be

done away with.

Yeah...but I can't help but wonder how many innocent people they'll take with them because of their individual acts.

 

Individual accountability is great; the only problem with it is that it only works if people exercise it...most of the laws we have today are on the books precisely because people DON'T exercise personal accountability or responsibility.  That's not a should or shouldn't argument for legalizing all drugs and doing away with prescriptions, etc. but that's never going to happen anyway and these discussions are really never anything more than an interesting philosophical exercise. ;)

[RobertNashville]

There's a huge difference between a drug that has been produced after decades of research and hundreds of millions of dollars invested versus a simple narcotic. Generic painkillers are pretty damn cheap unless you're getting them in an emergency room where 800mg Motrin costs 10000% more than what it costs at Walgreens.

And let me add to answer your libertarian comment, I've been to plenty of countries where you can pick up just about any medication that otherwise requires a prescription here in the states. Guess what, there ain't blood flowing in the streets due to it. There's narcotic pain killers sitting right there on the shelf next to the Tylenol and conveniently across the aisle from the cipro. I'm sure people abuse them and take other drugs that are harmful, but who cares? That's their effing business. Why am I supposed to care when the same people who would abuse oxy if they could get it are huffing gas behind Winn Dixie because they can't? They're gonna be turds either way; why restrict them from safer types of poison?

I'm not saying whether it should be restricted or not, I'm just saying that this belief that prices will suddenly drop or that legalizing all drugs will end criminal activity is unfounded at best...mostly based on theory and conjecture.

 

Legalizing drugs is also one of the issues that make people think that libertarians are just a bit off-kilter and one of the reasons why they can't get any traction in elections.  

Edited November 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Legalizing drugs is also one of the issues that make people think that libertarians are just a bit off-kilter and one of the reasons why they can't get any traction in elections.  

 

If our nation is not yet near the "saturation point" of addiction, then legalization might make it worse. The "saturation point" being that virtually all addiction-prone people are either currently addicted, or they were addicted in the past and are struggling back to "normal" thru a long recovery process.

 

I suspect we are near the saturation point and have been for some decades. If that is true, then legalization at worst would show some addicts switching from one addiction to some other addiction, depending on personal preference and supply and price. Lots of addicts switch addictions fairly frequently, because they "can't help" being addicted to something, but after awhile they get bored with being addicted to the same old thing for too long. Some of them like to specialize, and then others will gobble down whatever comes along.

 

But you are correct about those wacky wibertarians, for thinking crazy that we could get along just fine on about the same drug laws the USA had for 134 years (1776 to approx 1910)-- Hardly any drug laws at all! Gawd how did the nation survive so long without drug laws?

 

Next thing you know, them thar wacky wibertarians might get weal kwazy and claim that we should abolish the income tax, or dismantle the federal reserve, or balance the budget or some other utter lunacy. :)

Edited November 6, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Chucktshoes]

I'm not saying whether it should be restricted or not, I'm just saying that this belief that prices will suddenly drop or that legalizing all drugs will end criminal activity is unfounded at best...mostly based on theory and conjecture.

Legalizing drugs is also one of the issues that make people think that libertarians are just a bit off-kilter and one of the reasons why they can't get any traction in elections.

Yeah, it does hold some folks back from taking a deeper look at libertarian ideas. They just can't let go of the idea that they have the right to tell other folks how to live their lives as long as they took a vote on it. ;)

[TMF]

I'm not saying whether it should be restricted or not, I'm just saying that this belief that prices will suddenly drop or that legalizing all drugs will end criminal activity is unfounded at best...mostly based on theory and conjecture.
 
Legalizing drugs is also one of the issues that make people think that libertarians are just a bit off-kilter and one of the reasons why they can't get any traction in elections.

I don't think anyone believes criminal activity will stop if drugs were legalized, just criminal activity related to drug dealing. It would be no different than the prohibition on alcohol. There were criminal empires built during prohibition that ceased to exist when booze was legalized. Why is someone "off-kilter" to suggest legalization other drugs would have the same effect? It just isn't logical. Furthermore, why should I care that people who haven't taken the time to think critically and logically on a subject think I'm a crackpot simply because I disagree with the unfounded assumptions of the masses? Someone make a sheep comment please.

Drugs are bad, m'kay. That's all I'm getting when we talk about why they should be illegal. That just isn't enough for me to justify a law or hundreds of billions of dollars in an ineffective "war" to stem the flow of them into our society.

[tnguy]

I wonder too; do all these libertarians want to do away with all the regulations/restrictions on all drugs (such as those available not only by prescription) or just a select few drugs?

 

It's not something you can generalize. There are a range of views even within the libertarian camp on the issue. Personally I'm for almost complete deregulation.

[TrickyNicky]

Not necessarily, but if they interfered with someone else while taking a particular drug, it's they who performed the act, not the drug.
Something to do with individual accountability. .

It strikes me as funny that were you to change the word drug to the word gun in that sentence, you'd more than likely have 100% agreement.

Personally I say deregulate the whole lot. If the government wants to stay involved they can continue to schedule them however they want and make it a crime to sell or give them to minors without approval from a doctor. From there if a state wants to have further regulations that's their business.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeah...but I can't help but wonder how many innocent people they'll take with them because of their individual acts.

 

Individual accountability is great; the only problem with it is that it only works if people exercise it...most of the laws we have today are on the books precisely because people DON'T exercise personal accountability or responsibility.  That's not a should or shouldn't argument for legalizing all drugs and doing away with prescriptions, etc. but that's never going to happen anyway and these discussions are really never anything more than an interesting philosophical exercise. ;)

It's a valid argument when someone chooses to make a bad choice. Why would you wish to punish the rest of society when it isn't

their choice? The way laws have been getting enacted is what is giving us this Orwellian landscape: lack of reason, logic and

constitutionality. If you wish to force a behavior on me, you better make sure it is for the right reason.

 

Like I said yesterday concerning the show about pit bulls, that was pretty much liberal politics applying to family's pets. You don't

outlaw a breed for a human's behavior and training of the animal. Euthanizing an entire breed sounds like eugenics for dogs. Well, it is.

It is also a bad way to fix a problem few seem to understand. You can force individual accountability on society when you make laws

that come from reason and logic, not hysterical stupidity drummed up from media and false assumptions.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It strikes me as funny that were you to change the word drug to the word gun in that sentence, you'd more than likely have 100% agreement.

Personally I say deregulate the whole lot. If the government wants to stay involved they can continue to schedule them however they want and make it a crime to sell or give them to minors without approval from a doctor. From there if a state wants to have further regulations that's their business.

Exactly! That's the same conclusion I had while watching that show about the dogs, also. It is the same argument when you reduce it

to the base cause.

[RobertNashville]

...But you are correct about those wacky wibertarians, for thinking crazy that we could get along just fine on about the same drug laws the USA had for 134 years (1776 to approx 1910)-- Hardly any drug laws at all! Gawd how did the nation survive so long without drug laws?

 

Next thing you know, them thar wacky wibertarians might get weal kwazy and claim that we should abolish the income tax, or dismantle the federal reserve, or balance the budget or some other utter lunacy. :)

Okay now Lester, I'm not saying that legalizing all drugs/drug use is crazy; I'm saying that the political position is considered "crazy"...there is a difference. ;)

 

I'm suggesting that most people think that lifting the laws regarding drugs/drug use is a crazy idea (I'm not saying it is crazy; just that it's perceived that way and you can blame that perception on "propagandist" or whatever; the point is that they perception is there) and when libertarians suggest such things those people think that libertarians are a bit crazy.  If memory servers if W.F. Buckley argued for legalization and received pretty negative responses even from those who thought he was conservative's patron saint!

Edited November 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Okay now Lester, I'm not saying that legalizing all drugs/drug use is crazy; I'm saying that the political position is considered "crazy"...there is a difference. ;)
 

The same could be said about folks who think "assault" weapons and machineguns should be legal to own. Even in the firearm community it's often considered crazy to suggest we should be able to own machineguns without registration, yet no one can explain why. I'm not gonna change my mind just because the majority believe something, nor am I gonna keep that opinion to myself. When we challenge conventional thinking it makes people ask questions, like "is this law logical and just?" Folks should put more thought into their beliefs than simply saying "well it's against the law, will always be against the law so let us just accept it and change the subject."