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.
Since crystal meth is not physically addictive, in most cases, it takes between twenty four and forty eight hours for it to process through a person's system after their last dose. This does not mean however that crystal meth detox should be avoided. The emotional effects can be devastating and should be addressed immediately through an established crystal meth detox program.
Creating a recreational drug category would let multi-billion dollar pharmaceuticals create drugs in state of the art laboratories instead of bathroom laboratories, and allow for an FDA label on those products.
A recent phenomenon, and it is quite expensive to transport and the profits to be made from it are lower.
If we're talking about Mexican operations, heroin's always been their staple -easier to transport and higher profits. When marijuana becomes legal they'll concentrate more and more of their efforts on heroin, their core business.
They control land, plant, and distribution channels and have a good amount of labor at their disposal in that field.
Quite true, but I just think heroin is much more harmful to be legal.
Let them keep their money, those with the means of transporting heroin are more sophisticated to be as violent as the lower guys running pot.
Land of the free though, and I don't want to be a hypocrite. I know I'm not playing with that stuff.
Quite true, but I just think heroin is much more harmful to be legal.
Let them keep their money, those with the means of transporting heroin are more sophisticated to be as violent as the lower guys running pot.
Land of the free though, and I don't want to be a hypocrite. I know I'm not playing with that stuff.
I would never do it either, especially after observing the effects of the '70s/80s heroin epidemic first hand growing up in L.A. at the time. I would imagine that most people would not do heroin even if it was legal.
However, the heroin maintenance programs that exist in some countries work along the lines of methadone maintenance programs in the US, and those seem to work just fine. Those would cut the cartels out of the picture.
Also, perhaps to weaken the power of the cartels the US government should allow pharmaceutical companies to buy Mexican grown opium for use in pharmaceutical narcotics and should allow Mexican pharmaceutical companies to make their own prescription narcotics (Mexico's laws, put into effect by order of the US, forbid this, and thus have stimulated the growth of the cartels). Currently, the US gets all of its opium for pharmaceutical use from Australia. Allowing more countries to grow opium and encourage their own pharmaceutical industries would not only weaken organized crime groups but would result in a lower price and greater availability of medications for the poor worldwide, the US included. (The same should be done with Afghanistan.)
Alot has been spoken on this forum about the "ridiculous" War On Drugs. How can any of you be a proponent of legalizing narcotics given the social and economic impact of illegal drugs on our communities?
It makes no sense whatsoever. So now it's time to defend your position.
Good Thread first of all Secondly, I am for the legalization of Mary Jane, nothing more. I do not believe(as others have pointed out all ready), that meth, pcp, crack, etc., serve any purpose, but to kill you or others around you. I was in law enforcement for quite a few years, and saw first hand the effects of said drugs on the person and their families.
MJ does effect a person's thought process, but not like the hard core drugs, or even alcohol(I know there is a thread about this topic already). That, and it does help in relieving pain in cancer and aids patients(my ex-mother in law died of aids, but told me that MJ did help her cope with the pain the she endured until her death four years later).
How do you draw the lines of legality? Is there an "addiction gauge" ?
For instance, Meth.
A drug that is EXTREMELY harmful to the body physically. We've all seen the pictures, no need to post them. While it may make someone feel good, that crap is poison, no ifs ands or buts about it, and in small amounts.
I believe the physical toll would have to be the major factor. Mental addiction is one thing, but coupled with harmful physical effects on the scale of Meth, yeah, that I wouldn't support to be legal.
Things like heroine are different. The best thing to do there would be to legalize it, but make it so expensive that its nearly impossible to buy. When the cartels sell theirs at a lower rate, you lower the price of legal heroine, until the cartels go bankrupt, because theres no money in it.
Monopolize the drugs that are harmful, then start raising the prices so that people who can't afford the healthcare to deal with their addiction, can't afford it.
That is, after all, what they are doing with tobacco.
Progressives are usually pretty consistent on shared goals. If the liberal constituency holds that the War On Drugs is near useless, why haven't we heard anymore movement to that effect from Democrats/liberals in Congress?
Progressives are usually pretty consistent on shared goals. If the liberal constituency holds that the War On Drugs is near useless, why haven't we heard anymore movement to that effect from Democrats/liberals in Congress?
Probably because they are scared. Also, I am sure that bringing this up to the POTUS right now, would NOT be in his best interest and they know this.
Progressives are usually pretty consistent on shared goals. If the liberal constituency holds that the War On Drugs is near useless, why haven't we heard anymore movement to that effect from Democrats/liberals in Congress?
Why do we hear that we must reduce social spending that actually provides for the general welfare, instead of the Drug War? It seems astonishing that there is an effort to abolish a profit center like the Fed; and no similar effort to abolish a cost center like the Drug War. It seems, to me, that abolishing a cost center that does not provide for the general welfare is more fiscally responsible than abolishing a profit center like the Fed.
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.
Secondly, I am for the legalization of Mary Jane, nothing more. I do not believe(as others have pointed out all ready), that meth, pcp, crack, etc., serve any purpose, but to kill you or others around you. I was in law enforcement for quite a few years, and saw first hand the effects of said drugs on the person and their families.
