Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I look at all 'illicit' drug use (drawing a distinction with illegally procuring prescription medication but open to the suggestions as to how it pertains to the next part) in this context now: the cost of the war on drugs.
I did use mj for many years. I have tried most of the others (not opiates as my circle just didn't dabble. No judgement against those who have). I have abused alcohol. Not flattering but honest.
Since the war on drugs began in the early 70s (well named then), untold sums have been spent on the enforcement, incarceration, forced rehabilitation (court ordered), by local, state, and federal agencies. The net effect has been static at best if measured by usage and availability (not going to put this link or that link... It's fairly evident). That's not due to incompetence or any negative connotation to law enforcement. It's simply a fact that the war was lost, a long time ago, because a certain percentage will use, and a smaller percentage abuse, substances whether illicit or not.
So we have spent lord knows how much, incarcerated who knows how many, greatly increased governmental powers--putting more constraints on all of our freedoms, and basically caused cartels externally and internally, to be able to compete economically, and with firepower, to our local, state, and federal law enforcement. And internally, the street violence has greatly increased as a result of profitability of local drug trade.
Now I don't care how it looks but I want a government 'neutral' stance on drugs, all illicit drugs (yep, even heroin, cocaine, hallucinogens, etc...). If some want to regulate it similar to alcohol (license to sell, certain age to consume, etc...), fine. If some want a complete hands off, fine.
Do I know the implications? Of course. It won't look much different than today...those that use will, those that abuse will, those that won't won't. By government neutral, I wouldn't want to see new agencies created for registration, etc... Maybe rename the atf to atdf. Review those incarcerated and, if it was just possession and trafficking (non-violent) offenses, release from incarceration AND strike the felony so they can get those liberties back that being a convicted felon removes (and makes difficult obtaining gainful employment, housing, spouses!, etc...).
Government neutrality would then have to strike many laws from the books, reducing the need for MORE agencies/training/human capital... All of those costs, from local, state, and federal budgets (hopefully reducing our taxes).
Od deaths would probably go up. Driving under the influence and issues like that would probably go up as well. But we've lost it, the war, anyway so why continue to waste money and erode civil liberties on a no win proposition while simultaneously creating virtual armies out of the cartels that control the international drug trade.
This isn't a novel idea, just one that should be seriously discussed.
The pharmaceutical companies do not want the competition. Pharmaceuticals are one of the puppet masters controling our politicians who are preventing the full legalization of marijuana.
To satisfy the dictates of the drug companies 66% of our prisons are minor drug offenders. Housing these minor drug offenders cost us, the taxpayer, billions of dollars annually.
In order to provide their sick children with a medications that truly heals many hard working Americans must uproot and move to a state where cannabis is legal leaving behind career jobs and family.
It is time to elect good citizens who will lead the way for the federal legalization of cannabis.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,736,880 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
I look at all 'illicit' drug use (drawing a distinction with illegally procuring prescription medication but open to the suggestions as to how it pertains to the next part) in this context now: the cost of the war on drugs.
I did use mj for many years. I have tried most of the others (not opiates as my circle just didn't dabble. No judgement against those who have). I have abused alcohol. Not flattering but honest.
Since the war on drugs began in the early 70s (well named then), untold sums have been spent on the enforcement, incarceration, forced rehabilitation (court ordered), by local, state, and federal agencies. The net effect has been static at best if measured by usage and availability (not going to put this link or that link... It's fairly evident). That's not due to incompetence or any negative connotation to law enforcement. It's simply a fact that the war was lost, a long time ago, because a certain percentage will use, and a smaller percentage abuse, substances whether illicit or not.
So we have spent lord knows how much, incarcerated who knows how many, greatly increased governmental powers--putting more constraints on all of our freedoms, and basically caused cartels externally and internally, to be able to compete economically, and with firepower, to our local, state, and federal law enforcement. And internally, the street violence has greatly increased as a result of profitability of local drug trade.
Now I don't care how it looks but I want a government 'neutral' stance on drugs, all illicit drugs (yep, even heroin, cocaine, hallucinogens, etc...). If some want to regulate it similar to alcohol (license to sell, certain age to consume, etc...), fine. If some want a complete hands off, fine.
Do I know the implications? Of course. It won't look much different than today...those that use will, those that abuse will, those that won't won't. By government neutral, I wouldn't want to see new agencies created for registration, etc... Maybe rename the atf to atdf. Review those incarcerated and, if it was just possession and trafficking (non-violent) offenses, release from incarceration AND strike the felony so they can get those liberties back that being a convicted felon removes (and makes difficult obtaining gainful employment, housing, spouses!, etc...).
Government neutrality would then have to strike many laws from the books, reducing the need for MORE agencies/training/human capital... All of those costs, from local, state, and federal budgets (hopefully reducing our taxes).
Od deaths would probably go up. Driving under the influence and issues like that would probably go up as well. But we've lost it, the war, anyway so why continue to waste money and erode civil liberties on a no win proposition while simultaneously creating virtual armies out of the cartels that control the international drug trade.
This isn't a novel idea, just one that should be seriously discussed.
just legalize weed , cocaine and keep alcohol legal and most other hard drug use will probably drop. not that it would be good to have a bunch of cocaine addicts, but it would be better than heroin, meth, oxy, and a whole assortment of new synthetic drugs coming on line ever year.. its like if they were to eliminate wine and beer most of the wine and beer drinkers would go to hard alcohol better to have a few legal softer ones than have a bunch of hard ones. its time to try new methods, the war on drugs is a colossal failure.
"Here in Hawaii............................................ .":smack :
Yes, Hawaii- the epicenter for American productivity and industry. Having been to Hawaii many times, I can honestly say that the only larger population of dependent bums I have ever witnessed was East St. Louis.
So......................... if you want to be a lazy, dependent, federal bum, Hawaii is a good place to start. The scenery is great, food is crap, and the service is marginal.
If you want to be a pot head- do so. However, do not ask me to pay for your housing, food, medical care, child care, ect....... due to your lack of personal responsibility and enthusiasm for being stoned.
Where I live, we have a strong Northern European work ethic. Most people would be ashamed to escape from reality, be stoned, ignore your responsibility to your family and nation, and depend on a bum's handout for existence. I would rather be dead than be a bum; I would be too ashamed. I have enough money to "retire", but value work and the example it sets to my children. If I retired, I would be somewhat ashamed that I was not contributing and working when I am able (keep in mind that I have survived two cancers and am undergoing treatment for a third, all the while working with a full time medical practice of 12 hours per day minimum, as well as call time).
I like reality, therefore, I need no escape. Try being close to death a few times (like I have, and am) and reality becomes the best thing ever- THE BEST THING EVER. Just appreciating EVERY MOMENT of "reality" is fantastic; driving to work you look around and enjoy the beauty of your surroundings and appreciate your family. If you are escaping from reality, you are embracing death and are just too stupid to understand it.
You would think...as a doctor...you would know the benefits of pot. But instead you push Oxy on us because you are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies. They are the ones who are lobbying against legalizing it because they know the benefits and it would damage them greatly. Many I know smoke pot to relieve pain and also to relieve anxiety. They are not pot heads. They are lawyers, doctors and other professionals.
The pharmaceutical companies do not want the competition. Pharmaceuticals are one of the puppet masters controling our politicians who are preventing the full legalization of marijuana.
To satisfy the dictates of the drug companies 66% of our prisons are minor drug offenders. Housing these minor drug offenders cost us, the taxpayer, billions of dollars annually.
In order to provide their sick children with a medications that truly heals many hard working Americans must uproot and move to a state where cannabis is legal leaving behind career jobs and family.
It is time to elect good citizens who will lead the way for the federal legalization of cannabis.
What a bunch of crap. There is no medical use for pot- NONE.
When libs try the ruse of "medicinal pot" in an effort to gain legalization for pot, it is disingenuous and promotes a backlash at the tactic, not necessarily the goal. I really do not care if pot is legal; however, I find it academically fallacious and insulting when someone suggests that pot has "medicinal" benefits. If you want to get stoned, just say so. It is like Granny (from the Beverly Hillbillies) calling her moonshine "rheumatiz medicine".
Similarly, a goal of clean, alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels is a goal which most everyone agrees with. However, when an attempt to achieve that goal is made by perpetrating the lie of global warming, it detracts from the original goal and actually promotes opposition by those who react to the lie, not the initial premise.
Hey- get stoned if you want. Just don't call it "medicine". If it was "medicine", big pharma would grow it, package it, and sell it to the public for a profit. They have the "small" hurdles of the FDA and the burden of actual strong evidence to pull that off (not going to happen).
Go ahead. I'm waiting for you "freedom loving" conservatives to chime in.
Reason 1-5: It should not be up to the federal government to deem it legal or illegal, it is up to the citizens in each state to vote for it to be legal or illegal.
Personally, your smarmy attitude is what makes me want to vote "no", for nothing else than to tick you off. But that's because I don't have a lot of respect for those who smoke pot.
What a bunch of crap. There is no medical use for pot- NONE.
When libs try the ruse of "medicinal pot" in an effort to gain legalization for pot, it is disingenuous and promotes a backlash at the tactic, not necessarily the goal. I really do not care if pot is legal; however, I find it academically fallacious and insulting when someone suggests that pot has "medicinal" benefits. If you want to get stoned, just say so. It is like Granny (from the Beverly Hillbillies) calling her moonshine "rheumatiz medicine".
Similarly, a goal of clean, alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels is a goal which most everyone agrees with. However, when an attempt to achieve that goal is made by perpetrating the lie of global warming, it detracts from the original goal and actually promotes opposition by those who react to the lie, not the initial premise.
Hey- get stoned if you want. Just don't call it "medicine". If it was "medicine", big pharma would grow it, package it, and sell it to the public for a profit. They have the "small" hurdles of the FDA and the burden of actual strong evidence to pull that off (not going to happen).
Why would we need pharmaceutical companies to grow it when we can just grow it ourselves. It's not that hard you know. But this is the whole issue. They would rather push their manufactured drugs because they would lose money if a natural plant was legalized. Just think what it would do to their profits.
Are you denying NADA and the National Cancer Institute?
I'm more inclined to believe more of the other member of this board that have questioned your authenticity on being a physician, time and time again.
Cannabis has been a medicinal herb as long as humans have been ingesting plants for various reasons. Why do humans have an endocannabinoid system hardwired into our biology, doctor?
You denying the current studies, not to mention the research that has been done overseas for years, specifically in Israel, is an academic fallacy.
Should people who abuse rx opiates say "Hey, I just wanna get stoned/high" when they get a refill, or is it different because it's an rx drug? There are a lot more cases of OD from people who "just need their medicine" when it comes to opiates. How does that work?
To deny the overwhelming benefits of some cannabis based MEDICINE, especially based on results from things ranging epileptic children to cancer patients, is simply ignorant and closed minded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
