legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

Well, I actually do support not only marijuana staying illegal, but I also support the prohibition of alcohol. Contrary to this popular myth, it actually was some good idea. Here's why.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong or whatever, but the amount of deaths that are related to the "massive illegal black market", which was a result of alcohol prohibition was minuscule in comparison to the amount of lives that could have been saved from less drunk driving. Is that correct or not? The pros of alcohol prohibition would far outweigh the cons of it. Tens of thousands of innocent lives that could have been saved, that seems to be far more significant than saving the lives of some hundreds of criminals that fight each other in organized crime over their illegal alcohol businesses.

 

To give you an idea of why your assumptions are incorrect, organized crime barely existed in America before Prohibition.

During and after Prohibition, the federal government struggled with removing mafia influence throughout the U.S. for a few decades. Even today, organized crime has a lot of influence in certain areas due to things like the drug trade.

If you want to see how serious of a problem organized crime can become due to things like prohibition of substances, observe Mexico. They nearly have a failed state due to the power of drug cartels. Much of Latin America is plagued by organized crime stemming directly from the drug trade.

 

Why are these reasons to punish people who smoke marijuana and don't drive while doing so?

- - - Updated - - -

Think how many lives could be saved if people were prevented from using their vehicles for any purpose other than government or moving commercial goods.

 

Well, suppose we just legalize cannabis, those Mexican drug cartels will still fight and kill each other over harder drugs, extortion, kidnappings, ransoms, stealings, loan sharkings, etcs. As Stephen Crowder has stated, "people that make money through crime, they tend to find some other way to make money through crime". The violence that results from organized crime will still exist, even after cannabis is legalized. Legalizing cannabis won't stop that violence that's happening all throughout Mexico, because of those drug cartels.

So, will legalizing cannabis really stop organized crime? Hmm, I think not. I strongly recommend that you just read these articles, as these articles explain how legalizing cannabis won't stop organized crime and those Mexican drug cartels. The "drug trade" that results from those organized crime syndicates over there in Mexico, as well as in Latin America, isn't just about cannabis.

Here's the proof for those statements that I had just made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

 

That would be why I support legalizing all drugs eventually.

Decriminalization is the first phase, and then legalization comes later.

Limiting cartel activity to things like human trafficking is better, because it's harder to move people around than drugs. It's easier to catch human traffickers than drug ones.

 

Well, since I believe in just the legalization of cannabis, here's some questions that I have for you. Hypothetically, if cannabis was legalized and socially acceptable just like alcohol is now, it may not be a gateway drug anymore, since smoking cannabis wouldn't really be considered a drug by some people, it wouldn't get them interested in trying out other drugs.

Since alcohol is legal, as well as very socially and culturally acceptable, most people wouldn't even consider it to be some drug. Is there any evidence that cannabis is getting that same "because it's legal, it's not a drug", attitude by society, in those areas such as Colorado, Washington, as well as the Netherlands?

 

As far as I can tell, yes. Although, recently, the Netherlands has become more restrictive in how tourists can smoke pot there. This is because Amsterdam is apparently getting tired of being seen as just a place to visit for the sake of smoking pot.

Also, a lot of traffickers use it as a hub, but that would cease to be a problem if their neighbors legalized pot as well.

Portugal has definitely seen more relaxed attitudes concerning drugs in general. They've decriminalized all substances.

 

Well, is cannabis really illegal in the Netherlands? I keep hearing that it's illegal but "just tolerated", but if they allow cannabis to be legally sold and consumed, well then technically, for all intense of purposes, isn't cannabis really legal in the Netherlands?

 

If I remember correctly, it's legal in small volumes and decriminalized in larger quantities.

 

Well then, if that's true, why did Rob Corry state that Colorado was the first state in the whole entire world that legalizes and regulates the recreational smoking of cannabis, if the Netherlands has legalized cannabis already, which happened a long time before America's legalization of cannabis?

 

The Netherlands decriminalized pot while Colorado and Washington have both legalized it. There is a difference between the two although no one is prosecuted for use in either case.

I'm not up on how Colorado is dealing with it but in Washtington the State Liquor Board is issuing licenses for growing, distribution and sales of marijuana (i.e. production and distribution) that will officially begin next year although current use in the home is now legal. The licenses, as I recall, are $1000/yr plus a tax on transactions of 25%.

 

Three quick responses.

1. There are bad drivers, such as those that drive too fast. and using marijuana is not a magical cure for their stupitidy. The studies that established there was no greater risk when those under the influence of marijuana were compared to those that weren't under the influence of anything didn't reflect no "accidents" but instead that it didn't make a difference.

2. Yes, both Colorado and Washington have laws related to driving under the influence of marijuana because it isn't advised that people under the influence of anything should be driving. In fact there are laws against driving under the influence of any substance that can impair driving ability.

3. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the use of marijuana leads to "risky sexual behavior" although people might want to engage in sexual behavior. A person isn't going to "jump into bed" with someone just because they smoked pot. Their judgement is not impaired. There are some substances that do impair judgment, such as alcohol, but marijuana isn't generally considered to be one of those. Marijuana doesn't make a person "stupid" like alcohol. Even it's effects on driving reaction times are very limited. In many cases it might even lead to better decisions by an individual as they might ponder the outcomes more that if they weren't "stoned" because it leads them to think more about things, not less. The fact that drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to compensate for reduced reaction times actually reflects the fact that their mental facilities are not impaired under marijuana.

I believe that a fundamental problem is that people try to compare marijuana to alcohol and there is no real comparison. When I served in Vietnam (1968-69) I would estimate 95% of US soldiers were smoking pot heavily and it did not impair their judgment one iota not even affecting their reaction times. Of course war is an intense situation that would overcome the relatively mild effects of marinjuana even when used in large quantities.

My point being that the effects of marijuana are grossly misunderstood by those that have no experience with it because they attempt to compare it to something they do know like alcohol and they are fundamentally opposites. If I was to cite a possible example of how marijuana might influence someone's driving then I would use the example of enjoying a song on the stereo so much and paying such close attention to actualy traffic that a person might accidently misses a turn and drives past it (which I've had happen to me when I'm totally straight) so they have to turn at the next opportunity. This does not represent dangerous driving.

 

Having been a pot smoker for more than 45 years and having raised four kids, as the kids got old enough to experiment iwth drugs and alchohol, I had two sayings that I repeated over and over to them and their friends.

In your life, always use drugs NEVER let drugs use you.

Remember, its not how much you drink, its about maintaining the buzz.

My wife and I came to the decision that we would empower our children with practical knowledge of using alcohol and recreational drugs. We believed that prohibition to a teenager is like a red flag to a bull (could have been our sordid pasts coming back to haunt us, but nevertheles....) so we wanted our children to be armed with the knowledge we believed they needed to make informed decisions for themselves. Emphasis on informed.

We wanted to ensure they had some "tools" to counter the "street knowledge" and peer pressures they were sure to run into.

Since my kids are not drug addicts nor alcoholics (knock on wood) we like to think our approach worked.

The entire world would be a better place if sex and drug education dealt with the realities of engaging in either or both, instead of the idiocy of abstinence, prohibition and the irresponsibility of ignoring the issues.

Cheers.

 

We should legalize everything because people have a right to put whatever they want into their bodies. They're coercing no one.

Laws to the contrary are enacted to satisfy the public's false compassion, without them actually having to do anything compassionate, other than ruin lives.

 

It is a violation of people's property rights to tell them what they may and may not do to their own bodies. Thus, I would consider drug prohibition a violation of natural law, and would support repeal.

 

Dude, in case you missed it, the Twenty-First Amendment was repealed as a bad idea in modern times, last millennium.

 

Just because something is legal doesn't imply it's not a drug. Where do people come up with this nonsense? One of the greatest problems we have today is related to prescription drug abuse and those drugs are all legal. It tends to be the "right-wing" that looks at "legal drugs" as being okay (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) while illegal drugs are totally unacceptable.

Coffee is a DRUG and caffeine can kill a person.

Yes, 80 to 100 cups of coffee in a short period of time is a lot of coffee but a person could do this and they could die from it. A person can smoke 80 to 100 joints in the same period of time and while they would be extremely "loaded" they wouldn't be in danger of dying from it. Caffeine that is in many of the products we consume, and that is the leading "mood altering drug" used in the world, is far more dangerous than marijuana. It also affects our driving skills because it alters our perceptions.

If we want to "rate a drug" based upon its effects and toxicity then it would be logical that "caffeine" products should be banned before marijuana but then who wants to address logic in our drug prohibition laws.

 

It would infringe on the rights of the private prison system to make boatloads of cash. The DEA's right to exist would be infringed upon. The Alcohol industries right to a captive market for recreational pharmaceuticals would be infringed upon. Corporate Pharma's lock on the pharmacuetical market would be wrecked. The legalization of hemp alone would throw a huge monkey wrench in the gears of the status-quo, it would effect everything from food industry to the energy industry.... no way it will happen... as long as Big-Money can buy its politicians the rest of America is only along for the ride.

 

Well, that's totally true. It's absolutley ridiculous how some people in our society think that alcohol isn't really some dangerous drug, but rather, they view it as merely fun beverage. It's still a drug, regardless of how legal, available, and socially acceptable it is. And this analogy will prove that

Cocaine was legal some many years ago. And it was being sold in drinks during those 1800s years, which now is Coca Cola. Just because cocaine was legal and socially acceptable during the 1880s, does that mean that cocaine suddenly changed from not being a drug in the 1880s, to being a drug nowadays, just because it changed it's legal status? Nope. "alcohol isn't a drug, it's just some drink", is that very same lame statement that somebody in the 1880s could have made to argue that cocaine actually wasn't some drug.

However, is there any evidence that some people don't view marijuana as being a drug anymore? I'm just curious if marijuana is getting that same "it's not a drug" sort of attitude, because it's now a legal drug in some areas, just like how alcohol's legality and social acceptability make lots of uninformed people think that it's somehow not a drug.

Also, is there any evidence that marijuana's legal and regulated status is keeping underaged kids in Colorado from smoking marijuana? Is the teen usage of marijuana increasing or decreasing in Colorado (and also in Washington state)? That very same legal age of 21 hasn't stopped millions of underaged kids from drinking alcoholic beverages, so why should that be any different with marijuana?

 

Well, why didn't the prohibition of alcohol lead to an increase in the usage of harder drugs? I mean, if marijuana's a gateway drug simply because it exposes people to some black market dealers that also sell hardcore drugs alongside marijuana, well why didn't the prohibition of alcohol lead to an increase in harder drug usage, if people bought and sold alcohol on the black market, which was alongside hardcore drugs? How come nobody considered alcohol to be some gateway drug during the alcohol prohibition era, if alcohol prohibition exposed people to some black markets?

 

Alcohol is a hard drug; that is why it is not sold as a soft drink.

 

I can't speak for Colorado but I can speak for Washington because I live here. While the use and possession of marijuana has been legalized for recreational use in Washington the legal distribution system has not yet been created. It isn't expected to be until next year as the state was given a year to establish it so basically all of the marijuana today is still being furnished through the black market here. The black market gives access to those under 21 to marijuana whereas the legal distribution will not.

Of course there will always be a "black market" for those under 31 just like there is for alcoholic beverages but with the vast majority of marijuana being distributed through a regulated industry it greatly reduces the size of the black market that gives teenagers access today.

One factor I think many people miss is that with legalization it takes marijuana out of the closet. Many parents secretly smoked marijuana (and their children often knew it anyway) and responsible use was not being discussed. With legalization it gets it out of the closet and the parents can sit around and smoke a bowl in the evening to relax while at the sametime telling their kids that getting high and driving is not something a person should do. Just through their actions of smoking and not driving it will teach their children to not drive if they smoke. And just like alcohol where some parents allow their teenager to have a glass of wine at home and not go anywhere the same can be true of marijuana (not that I advocate it). The teenagers can "safely" experiment and many won't even like pot. Legalization also removes the "forbidden fruit" syndrome where children will smoke it just to be rebellious.

There are many positive aspects to legalization that could lead to less use and unquestionably will lead to the safer use of marijuana by everyone

 

But why didn't the prohibition of alcohol lead to an increased usage of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc, if alcohol prohibition (just like with the prohibition of marijuana) also exposed people to the black market where some hardcore drugs were being sold? I mean, if marijuana's illegality makes it a gateway drug mainly for these reasons

1-The exposure to the black markets, which is also combined with.
2-The fact that marijuana's illegality may lead some people to associate it with those hardcore drugs, which may lead them into believing that hardcore drugs may not be any worse than marijuana is.

Why didn't alcohol prohibition also lead to an increase of hardcore drug usage, if it also exposed people to the black market?

 

MJ has now taken on many forms. I can walk down the street here in Colorado and get it in the form of a tootsie roll, peanut butter cup, sucker, tincture, honey, cookies, syrup and so on.

Some of the kids I talk with do not like the smoking aspect. This also got me to thinking that the kids are looking at it as not a drug. I smoked a lot of MJ in High School and then joined the Army at 18 and did a 23 year tour. My how things have changed.

 

How do you know it didn't, for those wealthy enough to afford it? And, how many of our modern drugs were available back then?