posted on December 13, 2002 11:18:14 PM new
... marijuana in January, but the Bush government sends a strong warning that if this law is passed, they will make it very difficult for Canadians to cross the border into the U.S. Do you agree with that?
posted on December 13, 2002 11:58:38 PM new
This is actually going to be interesting to follow and see what happens. After all, the U.S. Government determined that Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll were what made the Baby Boomers' generation rebel against the monstrosity that was Viet-nam. On that list of Drugs is Marijuana, not because it has such harmful effects to the user, but because the government is afraid of its use by the population. You can't be good little soldiers to go DIE for Bush Oil when all that they do is flip you off and tell you where to stick it.
So, this Administration and Congress that just HAS to control everybody and everything everywhere in the world is going into a fit. Good for them!
posted on December 14, 2002 03:50:40 AM new
Actually the Arab world has found that you can get people to charge into mortal danger with no regard for safety when stoned out of your mind. But that's not to say you will be effective - just enthusiastic.
To make it hard to come IN is silly all the traffic will be the other way. That would just be a petty punishment. But then if we have border guards and walls to keep citizens inside it starts to look like the government is repressive doesn't it? Sort of like the Berlin wall.
posted on December 14, 2002 08:44:33 AM new
What kind of sense does that make. While there is drug trafficking across the Mexican border, Bush is concerned about a little marijuana crossing the Canadian border?
All drugs should be legalized everywhere. No wall or war can stop the manufacture and sale of drugs. Just consider the volume of drugs that crosss the Mexican border. Legalization will end a lot of violence, crime and corruption.
In fact, the prison industry would suffer a mighty blow.
posted on December 14, 2002 10:45:30 AM new
Not only would the huge prison budgets go down, but we'd get TAX REVENUE from taxing drugs like we do Alcohol and Gambling.
posted on December 14, 2002 11:22:06 AM new
I read that the law WILL be passed. As I've mentioned before, Canada formed a separate drug committee to study the effects of mj for 18 months ending this month. Their recommendation was legalization BUT nobody really expected that to pass, so decriminalization it is (you can have 1 oz. of pot). (The DEA is fuming!!)
Canada has committed 3 billion dollars to added security at the US/Cdn. borders as requested by the U.S., which is a lot of money for Canada. Now more threats from the U.S. if (which it will be) this is passed.
Does this make sense to you that you can go buy a gun or a bottle of booze at your closest variety store, but you can't smoke a joint in the U.S.? England has just decriminalized... I haven't heard a word about Bush pointing the finger at Blair.
The victory in this is more for medical patients, not for the recreational smoker imo. I couldn't be happier for those that really need this drug and don't take it because they're afraid of the stigma of taking something illegal. I hope this will become a viable option to taking those ridiculously powerful pain pills and other concoctions the drug companies come up with that have terrible side-effects for most.
You know Helen, I've thought about that many times... making ALL drugs legal. While there will always be people in the world that have to use things chronically, I bet the majority of people wouldn't even bother with the stuff. Kind of like gravid said... people want what they don't have. Yes, drug lords would be bankrupt, Afghanistan would never have become a haven for terrorists without the drug trade funding them, etc., etc.
posted on December 14, 2002 12:35:38 PM new
Up until somewhere around 1910 there were no laws about drugs. If you wanted to go down to the drug store and buy opium or a derivitive like heroin you just walked in and bought it.
Sorry to say the main restraint on use is simply gone. Used to be if you used drugs to the point you were visably effected your family was embarrassed and they and your friends would refuse to have anything more to do with you.
Today it doesn't seem to matter what you do - few will make it their business to approve or disapprove.
posted on December 14, 2002 12:44:50 PM new
A certain percentage of the population are going to use drugs, regardless of the legality. It makes no sense to spend countless dollars trying to incarcerate the perpetrator of victim-less crime.
posted on December 14, 2002 02:16:24 PM new
Except that it hires so many people into law enforcement. Look at everyone who benefits from this War on Drugs: Drug Cartels charge high prices; Feds hire agents and support staff by the tens of thousands; local police, courts, and prisons are kept busy and employed and that includes the wardens on down to the guards; the Drug & Alcohol Rehabilitation centers who prey on the sentenced (if you don't pay up and participate, we'll violate your terms for release and back you go!); the paper-pushers to the street pushers, it's all a Big Business and National Employment scheme. Even the second-level businesses and agencies, like schools that train law enforcement and drug seizures, Child Protection Agencies who will take away the kids for "reckless endangerment" and the Foster Home system -- who will employ them if the system stops removing children from the care of their drugged parents? How will they all get to be employed if drugs were made legal? Would you rather have your local cops sitting around chewing fried bread or out there busting people in their living rooms for smoking pot?
Remember: Drug Use affects MORE than just the users!
posted on December 14, 2002 02:57:42 PM new
All the agencies and personnel that would be effected by the legalization of drugs, are for the most part ineffective at this point anyway. You will not lose drug abusers with legalization, what you will lose is the need for the drug addict to steal a Mercedes a week to satisfy their habit. When the black market is eliminated the price goes down, the tax goes into effect to cover the expenditures and salaries of all those aforementioned agencies and personnel.
posted on December 14, 2002 07:03:27 PM new
It makes you wonder what the U.S. government is really afraid of. They talk about the wrong moral message it would convey if drugs were legalized. I've also heard them talk about how it would degrade society. Like you, I tend to think the opposite.
In Canada, there are 600,000 people hoping for amnesty from this new law. They were charged with less than an oz. of mj in the past 2 years. I doubt they'll get pardons, but might get reduced charges. A step forward and a step back.
posted on December 14, 2002 08:22:05 PM new
One thing that they are afraid of is history.
In the nineteenth century, China had the largest trade surplus in the world, like Japan enjoys today. In order to change this, the British introduced Opium into Chinese society as a recreational drug. At first, Chinese intellectuals touted its merits and it was all the rage. But what eventually transpired was that it turned them into a nation of Opium addicts. There went their trade surplus -- all into opium. There went all of their productivity -- to live in the open sewers or to rot in prisons for stealing in order to pay for their habit. Eventually, it is credited with bringing down the whole of china, including the ending of the Imperial Dynasty and the takeover by first Nationalists and then by communists. By the time that China made Opium illegal, it was also lying in the gutter. It wasn't until the communists went from village to village, brought out all of the opium user and sellers, put them on their knees and put a bullet into the back of each head that the opium habit in China was finally kicked.
Admittedly, marijuana is not such a threat. MJ does represent a very real other threat to the government. MJ tends to give the user a pacifistic life philosophy with respect for one another and a decentralization of authority. That is anathema to the fascist political philosophy of our current government. Marijuana has been a Class One drug since the day that the list was created, and it has never been that way because it is a dangerous drug -- for the user, that is. It promotes sedition in their eyes.
posted on December 14, 2002 08:58:13 PM new
That's a good post Borillar. I was just wondering though... if most of the people in China were opium addicts in the 19th century, and all the opium addicts were shot, how come today there's 1.3 billion?
posted on December 16, 2002 07:38:13 AM new
There's also a big difference between Decriminalization, allowing it be a another substance to tax and control and Glorifying it.
Right now I have a friend in the US who has a liquor store who is crying the blues because people don't drink booze as much as they used too.
In his area there are only about 6 bars whereas there were over 20 as late as the late 80's.
Our culture and society evolves and changes. Our choices change.
In Canada Tobacco and Alchohol companies can't sponsor certain events and we actually pay public dollars telling people not to smoke and drink while taxing it! There is no reason in my opinion to not do the same for MJ.
I think in the US it's more of a cash cow for the gov't. What was it, 15 years of the "War on Drugs?" Now it's the War on Terrorism and I think the money machine simply has moved onto a new "Enemy."
Why do people react so strongly to things they are afraid of?
posted on December 16, 2002 08:12:12 AM new
I'm totally against decriminalizing drugs for many reasons.
You will not lose drug abusers with legalization, what you will lose is the need for the drug addict to steal a Mercedes a week to satisfy their habit. Maybe, maybe not. Those addicted to drugs usually aren't able to maintain a job. They're still going to steal in order to have the money to purchase these drugs, even if at a reduced rate. Drug addicts who have children are still going to be neglecting their children in favor of that next high. Police will still be dealing with, and maybe even more so, those who are breaking the law while loaded.
Comparing drugs to alcohol is apples and oranges. While some young people who drink do become alcoholics, those who experiment with the most addictive drugs are forever 'hooked'.
To me, making it legal will justify the experimentation that young people are famous for. We have enough problems in our world, we don't need more addicted users.
posted on December 16, 2002 09:51:55 AM new "Drug addicts who have children are still going to be neglecting their children in favor of that next high. Police will still be dealing with, and maybe even more so, those who are breaking the law while loaded."
Nobody said that legalizing drugs would solve ALL social problems and crime. It would just alleviate a LOT of crime and socio-economic problems. Unfortunately, police will still have to deal with some social problems and crime.
"Comparing drugs to alcohol is apples and oranges. While some young people who drink do become alcoholics, those who experiment with the most addictive drugs are forever 'hooked'."
An alcoholic is an alcoholic forever just as a drug addict is an addict forever. Fortunately, control of drug addiction is possible "forever".
"To me, making it legal will justify the experimentation that young people are famous for. We have enough problems in our world, we don't need more addicted users."
There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will increase experimentation. Education is the best answer to this problem in my opinion.
posted on December 16, 2002 10:50:11 AM newFortunately, control of drug addiction is possible "forever". Have you read the stats for those who are able to stay off heavy drugs? At O'Connor Hsp, in Santa Clara, CA they say the rate of long term, successful drug abusers who come throught their program is only 2 - 3 %. The odds are pretty low. And those who start using crack and heroine...their odds are worse. Most in drug rehabilition centers aren't there for using MJ.
It would just alleviate a LOT of crime and socio-economic problems. Is that your opinion or do you have facts to back that statement up? What problems do you see that legalizing drugs is going to solve?
An alcoholic is an alcoholic forever just as a drug addict is an addict forever. True. I am not condoning heavy drinking. But with some drugs just having one or two hits will cause addiction. Having one or two beers won't, for the majority. What I am saying is that fewer youths who drink alcohol are going to become so addicted that it will change their lives in the same way drugs will.
Education is the best answer to this problem in my opinion. There has been more education about the problems involved with using drugs in the past 30 years than there ever was. The problem has gotten worse in that same time frame, not better.
posted on December 16, 2002 11:06:39 AM new
Based on your posts on this topic, it's clear that it would take a few semesters to help you understand the obvious links between drugs, crime and the economy.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 — American teen-agers are cutting their use of illicit drugs, cigarettes and alcohol, said a report to the government Monday. Monitoring the Future, a survey of eighth-, 10th- and 12th-graders done for the Department of Health and Human Services, found declines in most major categories for all age groups.
posted on December 16, 2002 11:16:54 AM new
Typical answer from you when you don't agree.
I'm quite up-to-date on the subject of drugs and what they've done to our poor and black communities....they have been devastated by drugs. In the last two decades or so...drug use in the rich and white communities has increased too during that same period of time. You want to legalize it and make it easier for more to do the same? That's what I believe would happen if the purchase of drugs were made easier. If people are going to experiment, they most like will do so when their young. They believe nothing will hurt them...and they can control everything.
posted on December 16, 2002 12:05:56 PM new
That's an interesting question. After all, small pleasures should inevitably lead to greater, more sinful pleasures. LOL!
THE "GATEWAY THEORY"
The so-called "gateway theory", the once popular notion that the use of Cannabis leads to the use of more dangerous drugs like heroin or crack cocaine, is based more on a misguided belief system and on superstition than in science and empirical evidence.
The "gateway theory" is the modern manifestation of the 19th century puritan\temperance movement ethic that held that 'pleasure is sin' and 'small pleasures inevitably lead to greater, more sinful pleasures'.
Despite the overwhelming mass of evidence questioning or dismissing the validity of the theory, even to suggest in prohibitionist circles that cannabis may not, after all, be a "gateway drug" is to all but commit treason or heresy.
Indeed one could suffer the ultimate insult - being branded a 'legaliser'. (See links - 'The Complete Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of UK Cannabis Policies').
Of course any student of elementary logic immediately recognises the "gateway theory" as a classic example of the logical fallacy 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc' (roughly translating 'It came after therefore it was caused by' - see links).
The fact that tobacco and alcohol use usually precedes cannabis use is rarely mentioned, certainly you don't hear the prohibitionist lobby clamouring for the vigorous prosecution of boozers and nicotine addicts.
Ultimately the "gateway theory" will fall victim of its own absurdity, but, like a belief in a flat earth, the true prohibitionist believers do not seem ready to give up on it just yet.
posted on December 16, 2002 03:07:30 PM new
Hello Linda! Maybe someone already answered this comment of yours, maybe not.
>Comparing drugs to alcohol is apples and oranges. While some young people who drink do become alcoholics, those who experiment with the most addictive drugs are forever 'hooked'.
First, once a person is addcited to something, they are addicted for life. There is no such thing as "curing" an addiction. What takes place is that the person afflicted with the addiction is taught to control their addiction and said addictioon lasts for life.
Second, alchoholism can be just as addictive as heroin. It depends upon the person, upon their genetic makeup, upon the conditioning that they were brought up with and currently live with. It is a proven fact that a person who is addicted to anything stands a better chance of knocking the habit if they stay away from those who still do the drug or behavior. Genetics plays a large part in who gets addicted and who doesn't as well.
But the statement that you were addressing about how no one would need to steal in order to fill their habit if all drugs were decriminalized is a very naieve statement. The sad fact of the matter is that by making these hard drugs legal, more people will become hopelessly addicted. Many of them, including cocain use, eventually makes permenent changes to the brain; such as, paranoia, hypertension, and that part where commonsense decision making is, that gets destroyed as well. What does that have to do with whether the drug was legal or illegal? Nothing.
posted on December 16, 2002 03:53:56 PM new
Borillar - What are you talking about? I didn't say that.
[i]But the statement that you were addressing about how no one would need to steal in order to fill their habit if all drugs were decriminalized is a very naieve statement[i].
posted on December 16, 2002 04:23:46 PM new
Thanks for that link Helen... very informative!
Hi Linda!, I understand what you're saying and you're certainly not alone. Isn't it somewhat generational though? The norm for me when I was growing up was Viet Nam, Kent State, Timothy Leary, Charles Manson, Woodstock, Love-Ins, John & Yoko, etc. The world's innocence ended when Kennedy was shot (imo), so, pre-1964, your generation had different ideals in your formative years. All that has changed. Now that drugs have become part of society, how are we supposed to deal with them? We all know who doesn't benefit from drugs, but who does? Could any of the money used to buy drugs go to support things like terrorism? If so, wouldn't it be better if that money was collected by the government to be used to help the helplessly addicted? Not addressing the issue is like sticking your head in the sand while billions of North American drug dollars head to South America & the Middle East. Drugs aren't going to go away Linda... what else can we do?
