Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Drugs and the Government (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=72199)

Atman 07-4-2007 08:55 PM

Drugs and the Government
 
Well, I'll like to introduce myself in the forums since I've never really put any of my own thoughts down in here. Most of you know me for my thoughts and rants in the MP and Profile Chat.... Due to the immaturity, narrowminded thoughts, and ignorance, I've felt it's best to come in here and evade getting banned again for my own personal thoughts =X

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critcial Thinking, and noticed that drugs weren't allowed in here. I'm not going to be discussing methods of using, or anything similar. Actually I'm going to be discussing how drugs effect our government, our lives and the lives of others.

I'll firstly discus the negative effects of Marijuana. Firstly, Marijuana has only one sideffect that I've heard of, throat cancer. That's it. Secondly, there have been no deaths related to Marijuana from only using. There have been deaths which relate to violence concerning Marijuana. Examples: Gangs, mis-deals, and above all the government trying to control it.

With that said, one of the major reasons in my opinion that Marijuana, Shrooms, and other natural drugs (Notice I said "natural", as in not coke, methanol, etc...) are so "bad" for our people is that the government makes it so. They make these fallacies about drugs like Marijuana and include them with HARMFUL drugs like those I've stated earlier. Marijuana doesn't cause traffic accidents under the influence, does not promote horrible decisions like Alcohol does.

If you have anything to add in response to what I've put before you, please do your research and do not base your opinions off of personal experiences with friends or family. Especially if it only causes a biased opinion. If you do, heh then we'll have fun with that. Thank you for your time, and I'm not promoting drugs. Drugs should not be used under the age of 18 in my opinion, since when you're 18 and above you are fully capable of making up your mind, logically deciding whether or not it is something you believe in or choose to do. I'm sure there are a lot of run on sentences, and I appologise =P Thank you yet again for your time, look forward to hearing some sort of responses.

Normann, AKA Atman.

devonin 07-4-2007 09:27 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atman (Post 1644751)
Well, I'll like to introduce myself in the forums since I've never really put any of my own thoughts down in here. Most of you know me for my thoughts and rants in the MP and Profile Chat.... Due to the immaturity, narrowminded thoughts, and ignorance, I've felt it's best to come in here and evade getting banned again for my own personal thoughts =X

Well, welcome to Critical Thinking. Hopefully by "evade getting banned again" you don't mean you are ban evading, because that would be bad.

Quote:

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critcial Thinking, and noticed that drugs weren't allowed in here.
Er...I went back over the thread containing CT's rules, the thread about good threads in CT -and- the overall Chardish announcement about forum rules, and couldn't find anything about topics to do with drugs being disallowed. Could you perhaps link us to where you saw that? I may just be blind.

Quote:

I'm not going to be discussing methods of using, or anything similar.
That's probably a good plan. Advocating the use of illegal substances might not be a good idea, rules or not.

Quote:

Actually I'm going to be discussing how drugs effect our government, our lives and the lives of others.

I'll firstly discus the negative effects of Marijuana. Firstly, Marijuana has only one sideffect that I've heard of, throat cancer. That's it. Secondly, there have been no deaths related to Marijuana from only using. There have been deaths which relate to violence concerning Marijuana. Examples: Gangs, mis-deals, and above all the government trying to control it.
You might have a stronger case if you were advocating a lack of bad effects at all, as opposed to side effects. The side effects are anything that occurs incidentally in some number of people, whereas the effects themselves are what the substance does. My other objection is going to wait until the end, based on something else you said below.

Quote:

With that said, one of the major reasons in my opinion that Marijuana, Shrooms, and other natural drugs (Notice I said "natural", as in not coke, methanol, etc...) are so "bad" for our people is that the government makes it so.
I really don't think the government makes these drugs bad. The phrase you're looking for is "One of the reasons people often percieve these kinds of drugs as being bad is that the government tries to influence public opinion about them" Clarity of thought is -really- important in CT, as being left open to misinterpretations is a very good way to have someone misinterpret you. Then we get this ludicrous back and forth as we struggle to make ourselves understood to each other. Bad times.

Quote:

They make these fallacies about drugs like Marijuana and include them with HARMFUL drugs like those I've stated earlier. Marijuana doesn't cause traffic accidents under the influence, does not promote horrible decisions like Alcohol does.
I assume you have some statistical data to go along with a claim like "Marijuana -doesn't- do X, Y, Z"

Quote:

If you have anything to add in response to what I've put before you, please do your research and do not base your opinions off of personal experiences with friends or family. Especially if it only causes a biased opinion. If you do, heh then we'll have fun with that.
Well, since your post contains no citations, no references, no statistical data of any kind, how are we to be assured that you aren't merely presenting your own personal experience with friends or family? You've presented several absolute statements "Drug A -does not- cause effect B" "Nobody has -ever- died from marijuana use" without any actual evidence to back up the claims. Also...I hate to break it to you, but personal observation is one of the prime ways you -conduct- research. If I've personally witnessed someone smoke marijuana and have a siezure and die, that is absolutely a valid objection to your claim that it has no side effects and has never caused a death.

Quote:

Thank you for your time, and I'm not promoting drugs. Drugs should not be used under the age of 18 in my opinion, since when you're 18 and above you are fully capable of making up your mind, logically deciding whether or not it is something you believe in or choose to do.
You put an awful lot of faith in 18 year olds to assume that on the magical birthday, 100% of them instantly gain a full capability to make up their mind, and engage in logical, reasoned analysis. If you were allowing us to reference our personal observations, I'd have -plenty- of counters to that statement.

Quote:

I'm sure there are a lot of run on sentences, and I appologise =P Thank you yet again for your time, look forward to hearing some sort of responses.

Normann, AKA Atman.
You're very welcome. Don't take the forthrightness and blatancy of my response as something negative. Around here, a point by point discussion of what you said is a good sign. It means we considered what you posted to be good enough to want to respond to, to the best of our ability.

TK_Breed 07-4-2007 09:52 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1644810)

I assume you have some statistical data to go along with a claim like "Marijuana -doesn't- do X, Y, Z"

The chemicals released when you smoke marijuana are that of your own brain and do not slow down the neurotransmitters as of what alcohol does nor does the THC in your bloodstream. The only difference in thought process is that of an over whelming happiness during what you are doing which is from all those endorphins. Also, high drivers have a smaller percent crash rate then sober drivers. I read this a while back so im gonna have to do some looking up to quote my source but i would gladly do so if you dont believe me. High drivers generally dont want to be caught high so they also tend to be on edge when driving to make sure nothing happens. Now thats not statistical so much as a biological reason why he is right.
My best advice on learning about the subject is to do some research or your own on the stupidities of the government on this situation. The benefits outweigh the risks at least 100 to 1, and this isn't just concerning the effect drugs have the body. Marijuana is the best clothing resource(stronger, softer then cotton and much more but is a BIG DEAL), good source for canvas which can make paper that lasts 100's of years longer(guess what our original constitution was written on???lol), and blah blah blah i could write a hundred page essay on this. Try going to www.jackherer.com for much more detailed explanations or there's a very good book on it called "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."
I have also researched the negative effects of marijuana and frankly there just isn't any good reason for it being illegal. Cigarettes and Alcohol on the other hand, those have hundreds more reasons to be illegal!

devonin 07-4-2007 10:07 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
There is one fundamental reason why marijuana will almost certainly remain illegal in the United States in perpetuity. I won't spoil it just yet, I'm sure you guys can come up with it on your own.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with tobacco companies, or the moral rightness/wrongness of marijuana, nor does it have anything to do with the percieved or actual consequences or after-effects of marijuana smoking.

Atman 07-4-2007 10:21 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1644887)
There is one fundamental reason why marijuana will almost certainly remain illegal in the United States in perpetuity. I won't spoil it just yet, I'm sure you guys can come up with it on your own.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with tobacco companies, or the moral rightness/wrongness of marijuana, nor does it have anything to do with the percieved or actual consequences or after-effects of marijuana smoking.

Haha right, but if the government were to legalize it, tax it. There'd be a huge rise on income for the government, along with a crapload of already organized businesses haha. But I definitely see all your points, very accurate.

On another note, I also remember reading in a smoke enthusiast store that 1 acre of marijuana = to roughly what, 4 or 5 acres of trees? as far as nutrients, and oxygen productivity. Thank you for the input on how I should be more clear with my thinking. And yet again, thank you for all your inputs, keep 'em coming!!!

Thanks for the welcome =P

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critcial Thinking, and noticed that drugs weren't allowed in here.

I meant

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critical Thinking, and noticed that there wasn't a rule against talking about drugs. =P

SkySpy 07-4-2007 10:52 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
I would love to see Marijuana advertising companies pop up in magazines and billboards. Spliff-easy Ciggaweed, a 60 40 blend that will send you flying. But really guys, you ever see the great government produced "Reefer Madness" PSA/show?.. ,not remembering exactly what it was, but it showed people smoking marijuana then while "high" killing loved ones and all around being cranky.

About legalization though, I'm not sure what reason your thinking would be the gov's reasoning behind not legalizing it, but i wouldn't want it to be anyway. As an avid "stoner" I have a relatively easy and safe passage whenever I feel like making a purchase. I know exactly where my product is coming from half of the time and its usually good quality.... I would hate to lose the experience of hanging out with friends (who would happen to be dealers) and smoking the plant I've seen grow from seedling form. Which is what I think would happen if it became Legal. The common Citizen loses the right to grow, whatever company does its patents blah blah and has the R.J.Reynolds of Pot. I know the prices would be a great increase and the strains used for most would degrade.

Well I don't remember where I was planning on going with this but ill leave you with a main point I guess. I love the drug community (around where I live anyway) and I sort of take pride in how my friends and I are part of this business/family tree ladder of runners and dealers... its a great company to get into... though its not for everyone. Theres plenty of things wrong and dangerous about the drug in certain situations, but its a lot less frightening than Alcohol.

devonin 07-4-2007 11:07 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
See, here's the thing though...if the government were to legalize marijuana and try to tax it, they would absolutely -NOT- make a ton of money from it.

The kind of cigarettes most people are addicted to take a -lot- of processing between "A tobacco plant" and "A cigarette"

Alcohol that is any good requires a long time, and special facilities to make.

We have a vested interest in letting the government tax cigarettes and alcohol because the extra cost doesn't come close to outweighing the time and expense involved in manufacturing it ourselves.

Now look at pot. There's really just about -one- step between a plant and a joint, and that one step is easy, involves no special machinery and very little time. You see where I'm going with this?

People are already growing pot on their own, in their basements, and back gardens, and processing it themselves. All legalizing it would do is make it that much cheaper and easier to grow and use your own. The government would derive -very- little revenue from it, because very few people would have an incentive to buy it through government systems when they could just grow their own.

lord_carbo 07-5-2007 01:11 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1644810)
I really don't think the government makes these drugs bad.

It indeed does. See, marijuana is in the black market. The black market is a bad thing. Gangs get money from the black market because they're generally the ones who have control of it. Drugs are more potent in the black market to get the most out of a shipment. Things are UNREGULATED IN THE BLACK MARKET. There are zero taxes! You're getting a lot of bang for your buck in the black market.

Guess who generally buys from the black market? I bet you know. Why? Because it's illegal! A law abiding person is less likely to do something illegal by definition. There's also just so much risk from dealing with illegal drugs. Mess up and your future is ruined. Hard-working, intelligent people can lose a job 20 years down the road because they got caught with marijuana at one point.

Kids have easier access in the black market, too. If you have connections, in < an hour you could have any illegal substance on your doorstep (so says aperson at least). With cigarettes or alcohol, you'd need to do a straw purchase (remember, ALL of this is illegal!), which requires more effort because dealers usually don't carry around legal substances because, well, someone could usually get them anywhere yourself. And that would require having a different dealer, usually, especially if your dealer is also underage (which is the case for many kids who'd be into drugs... they'd get their drugs from their friends, possibly the one that got them into drugs, who might even possibly have another peer as a dealer, and who knows when the ladder ends and it finally hits an adult who could legally buy all of that stuff!).

(Although, with the legalization of all drugs, the black market for drugs would consist entirely of straw purchases intended for minors. Everything would arguably be just as easy as it was to get as before because people would switch to dealers intended for straw purchases, not purchases through the illegal drug market. This already established black market filters out things not in it, so removing everything from it would make the straw purchase market predominant. It would be wrong for me to assume that, well, since having alcohol and cigarettes legal makes it harder for minors to get it, that making everything legal would make everything harder to get. But would it matter at that point? No!)

I don't know about "bad." That assumes they're good in the first place. But their status as illegal definitely makes them worse.

devonin 07-5-2007 02:23 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
You seem to have made the same error in language that I was correcting in the first place.

"The government makes them bad" implies that They are good, and through some physical process, they are made literally into worse substances. "The tobacco companies make tobacco bad" is a true statement, because they add many chemicals and so forth to the tobacco that make them quantitatively -worse- for you than they started.

The phrase you're both looking for is "The government makes them out to be worse than they are"

lord_carbo 07-5-2007 02:29 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
It does not need to become physically worse to become worse. Although when illegal the drugs generally become more potent.

Izzy-chandess 07-5-2007 03:07 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Usually the drugs are more potent because (excuse my obvious answer) people want a better high. The better the product, the more money you'll be taking in because word will spread that you have really good stuff. Therefore another dealer tries to get even better stuff to run you out of the competition, etc...

Drugs are just bad for you, period. Of course I'm also just a good, old-fashioned law-abiding person now. My answer may be biased because of my experiences, but drugs, not matter how "beneficial" it may be, are bad. Period. However, this is just my opinion, and I understand that others may vary greatly. I just have not seen any benefits with people that use drugs.

lord_carbo 07-6-2007 01:31 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy-chandess (Post 1646334)
Usually the drugs are more potent because (excuse my obvious answer) people want a better high. The better the product, the more money you'll be taking in because word will spread that you have really good stuff. Therefore another dealer tries to get even better stuff to run you out of the competition, etc...

Wrong. I repeat what I said: more out of a shipment. Of course a dealer will be charging more, which is how they get the most out of a shipment. If they charged the same amount for a more potent shipment, then they wouldn't need to make it more potent:

On one unintended consequence of prohibition—drug potency—Thornton has a nice discussion. He shows, using standard economic analysis, that making drugs illegal causes the mix of drugs sold to be more potent. The idea, drawn from work by Armen Aichian and William Allen, and by Yoram Barzel, is that prohibition acts like a tax. If the government imposes the same per-unit tax on beer and whiskey, the price of beer, though still lower than the price of whiskey, becomes higher relative to the price of whiskey. Buyers would rationally respond by increasing the percentage of whiskey in the mix of liquors they buy. I communicate this subtle economic insight to noneconomists with the old saying: “You might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj13n1/cj13n1-13.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy-chandess (Post 1646334)
Drugs are just bad for you, period. Of course I'm also just a good, old-fashioned law-abiding person now. My answer may be biased because of my experiences, but drugs, not matter how "beneficial" it may be, are bad. Period. However, this is just my opinion, and I understand that others may vary greatly. I just have not seen any benefits with people that use drugs.

It is your opinion. Okay. Then don't present it like it's some sort of truism.

devonin 07-6-2007 02:56 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_carbo (Post 1648500)
Wrong. I repeat what I said: more out of a shipment. Of course a dealer will be charging more, which is how they get the most out of a shipment. If they charged the same amount for a more potent shipment, then they wouldn't need to make it more potent:

On one unintended consequence of prohibition—drug potency—Thornton has a nice discussion. He shows, using standard economic analysis, that making drugs illegal causes the mix of drugs sold to be more potent. The idea, drawn from work by Armen Aichian and William Allen, and by Yoram Barzel, is that prohibition acts like a tax. If the government imposes the same per-unit tax on beer and whiskey, the price of beer, though still lower than the price of whiskey, becomes higher relative to the price of whiskey. Buyers would rationally respond by increasing the percentage of whiskey in the mix of liquors they buy. I communicate this subtle economic insight to noneconomists with the old saying: “You might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj13n1/cj13n1-13.pdf

So...you're saying that making something illegal makes it more potent on the grounds that "If I'm breaking the law, I might as well break it as much as possible"?! I'm not entirely sure I buy that. In the example, if beer was 2.00 and whiskey was 5.00, and the fine for drinking alcohol was 5.00, they seem to be saying "In that situation, its as though beer became -more- more expensive than the whiskey did, so people who previously drank beer will drink whiskey"

Their example uses prohibition, making all alcohol illegal, as being the equivalent of a tax being put equally on all alcohol. Nowhere I've looked still has exact statistics or listed penalties available, but I find it hard to believe that the punishment for prohibition was identical for making/selling/drinking 0.5% beer as it was for making/selling/drinkin 75% moonshine you made in a still out back.

solopro 07-6-2007 03:02 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Normann
Drugs should not be used under the age of 18 in my opinion, since when you're 18 and above you are fully capable of making up your mind, logically deciding whether or not it is something you believe in or choose to do. I'm sure there are a lot of run on sentences, and I appologise =P

Of course drugs shouldn't be used by minors.

But, they still manage to get it somehow.

And for alcohol and such, yeah, I don't know why. Most minors believe all the myths people say about beer, like it'll make you feel good and crap. Well, it don't. I'm also thinking that most of the alcohol consumption, by minors, is by young girls.

But they end up getting raped if they are at a party. Why? They had too much, and they got some stuck in them, and they had a huge hangover the next morning.

devonin 07-6-2007 03:05 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by solopro (Post 1648723)
And for alcohol and such, yeah, I don't know why. Most minors believe all the myths people say about beer, like it'll make you feel good and crap. Well, it don't. I'm also thinking that most of the alcohol consumption, by minors, is by young girls.

I disagree completely. I would say most underage drinking is done by males 15-X (Where X is your legal age) though it would be a relatively simple task for you to check with your government information on underage drinking charges.

Quote:

But they end up getting raped if they are at a party. Why? They had too much, and they got some stuck in them, and they had a huge hangover the next morning.
Um...wait what? So...in your theory, a girl gets drunk, a guy (presumably not drunk in this scenario or you'd have said so) -RAPES- her, and you blame that on her having gotten drunk? Oh my friend, I wouldn't say that around too many women.

Dragula219 07-6-2007 03:26 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atman (Post 1644751)
With that said, one of the major reasons in my opinion that Marijuana, Shrooms, and other natural drugs (Notice I said "natural", as in not coke, methanol, etc...) are so "bad" for our people is that the government makes it so.

I first want to point out that this a completely illogical argument. By this you are saying that quote "Un-Natural" Drugs are as bad as the government makes them out to be. Now, I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I am saying you don't really know what a drug is. It's not marijuana or shrooms as a whole that that get you high, it is the chemical(s) inside them (Delta-9 THC and Psilocybin being the main chemicals, along with other ones that have a small affect on brain function.) Also, you seem not to know much about Cocaine either, or else you would know that pure cocaine is 100% natural, it is derived from the coca plant being ground in many different steps. By methanol, I'm pretty sure you meant Methamphetamine.

My point is, you can't say a drug is necessarily "better" because it is natural. It has nothing to do with how dangerous the chemicals inside them are. There are many natural plants that can kill you more quickly than 2C-I or other synthesized chemicals could kill you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_carbo (Post 1648500)
Wrong. I repeat what I said: more out of a shipment. Of course a dealer will be charging more, which is how they get the most out of a shipment. If they charged the same amount for a more potent shipment, then they wouldn't need to make it more potent.

Even though I do agree with you (to an extent), you're still missing the other main idea of drug dealing. I agree with you for higher ups in drug dealing, If A shipment comes in that is higher quality than normal than of course the buyer will be expected to pay more. But when you get down to lower amounts for common drugs, the main benefit to having higher quality product is not to make more money, because you could easily get lower quality product for less money and still sell it just fine. No, it is because customers want to get as high as they can for the money the spend and If they are completely satisfied with the transaction, they tell other people, Many people start coming to you. Better product = Less competitors, Less competitors = More customers, More customers = More deals more often. Drug Dealing is a lot more about the Time to Profit ratio than about the profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1644887)
There is one fundamental reason why marijuana will almost certainly remain illegal in the United States in perpetuity. I won't spoil it just yet, I'm sure you guys can come up with it on your own.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with tobacco companies, or the moral rightness/wrongness of marijuana, nor does it have anything to do with the percieved or actual consequences or after-effects of marijuana smoking.

You're right, it has a lot more to do with the fact marijuana can make a higher quality paper than trees, an acre of marijuana plants produces more paper than an acre of trees with less waste, and the best part is you can grow another crop in months as apposed to years. Hemp can also create a very high quality fabric that's comfortable and much more durable than cotton. One pot plant can also produce an extremely high amount cellulose (Due to the fibers in the stems) to make more methanol (an alternative to gasoline for fuel). And again, best part is you can keep growing it, almost a new crop every quarter, as opposed to using up all our non-renewable resoruces.

No, Marijuana Being illegal has little to nothing to do with "morals" or being bad, It's all about businesses and economy. Could you imagine everyone in Lumber/Paper, Oil, and Textile (and some other fields) companies being suddenly unemployed due to the legalization of a plant?

Atman 07-6-2007 09:39 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
BUT, the whole reason of legalizing it would be to make it easier for those people who have trouble obtaining the product. All those people in jail for ONLY using or in possession of, those slots would be free. I think the government wouldn't be obligated to WASTE so much money on keeping this substance off the streets, out of the homes. Personal opinion right there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkySpy (Post 1644980)
I would love to see Marijuana advertising companies pop up in magazines and billboards. Spliff-easy Ciggaweed, a 60 40 blend that will send you flying. But really guys, you ever see the great government produced "Reefer Madness" PSA/show?.. ,not remembering exactly what it was, but it showed people smoking marijuana then while "high" killing loved ones and all around being cranky.

About legalization though, I'm not sure what reason your thinking would be the gov's reasoning behind not legalizing it, but i wouldn't want it to be anyway. As an avid "stoner" I have a relatively easy and safe passage whenever I feel like making a purchase. I know exactly where my product is coming from half of the time and its usually good quality.... I would hate to lose the experience of hanging out with friends (who would happen to be dealers) and smoking the plant I've seen grow from seedling form. Which is what I think would happen if it became Legal. The common Citizen loses the right to grow, whatever company does its patents blah blah and has the R.J.Reynolds of Pot. I know the prices would be a great increase and the strains used for most would degrade.

Well I don't remember where I was planning on going with this but ill leave you with a main point I guess. I love the drug community (around where I live anyway) and I sort of take pride in how my friends and I are part of this business/family tree ladder of runners and dealers... its a great company to get into... though its not for everyone. Theres plenty of things wrong and dangerous about the drug in certain situations, but its a lot less frightening than Alcohol.


lord_carbo 07-8-2007 11:30 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
(Mostly a response to devonin's post, also to an extent Dragula's)
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1648714)
So...you're saying that making something illegal makes it more potent on the grounds that "If I'm breaking the law, I might as well break it as much as possible"?! I'm not entirely sure I buy that. In the example, if beer was 2.00 and whiskey was 5.00, and the fine for drinking alcohol was 5.00, they seem to be saying "In that situation, its as though beer became -more- more expensive than the whiskey did, so people who previously drank beer will drink whiskey"

Their example uses prohibition, making all alcohol illegal, as being the equivalent of a tax being put equally on all alcohol. Nowhere I've looked still has exact statistics or listed penalties available, but I find it hard to believe that the punishment for prohibition was identical for making/selling/drinking 0.5% beer as it was for making/selling/drinkin 75% moonshine you made in a still out back.

I too doubt identical, but very close. A felony is a felony. If I were caught with marijuana as opposed to heroin, I'd probably get less of a sentence but I'd still have a huge mark on my criminal record.

But believe what you may, it is true. what? Gonna try smuggling a kilogram of marijuana, or 500 grams with ten times the potency? If you sell by potency, you're getting the same amount and one is tons easier to smuggle. Here, this article says even more about the issue:

http://www.marijuananews.com/marijua...crack_by_r.htm

The article also talks about the demand perspective as the second reason, i.e. the consumers. Rather, the trend in who would be a consumer given its regulation. This more or less affects the types of drugs sold, not as much the single drug's potency levels. With really strict control and laws against them (to the point where it's unjust), marijuana sale and distribution would be damn near nonexistent. So in a sense, Izzy's reason (minus the details) was not entirely incorrect.

But either way, you are not trying to sell more potent drugs because people want to buy a drug that's more potent because there are dealer wars and people want to buy from the dealer who sells the most potent drugs. This may happen frequently but it is not the main reason, else we'd see this same trend dominant in the alcohol market today (potent alcohol exists, yes, but it is not mainly sold). Remember, general liquor potency increased during Prohibition and fell again when it ended. That goes undisputed.

I'd really like to hear from some sources for what you believe, though. Your viewpoint still seems vague to me.

TK_Breed 08-2-2007 10:24 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1645009)
See, here's the thing though...if the government were to legalize marijuana and try to tax it, they would absolutely -NOT- make a ton of money from it.

The kind of cigarettes most people are addicted to take a -lot- of processing between "A tobacco plant" and "A cigarette"

Alcohol that is any good requires a long time, and special facilities to make.

We have a vested interest in letting the government tax cigarettes and alcohol because the extra cost doesn't come close to outweighing the time and expense involved in manufacturing it ourselves.

Now look at pot. There's really just about -one- step between a plant and a joint, and that one step is easy, involves no special machinery and very little time. You see where I'm going with this?

People are already growing pot on their own, in their basements, and back gardens, and processing it themselves. All legalizing it would do is make it that much cheaper and easier to grow and use your own. The government would derive -very- little revenue from it, because very few people would have an incentive to buy it through government systems when they could just grow their own.



You are ever so wrong my friend. Making a cigarette is only hard to do in the manner that companies do it. A REAL cigarette is dried tobacco leaf crumbled up and wrapped in either a tobacco leaf or any paper(which is the same process of a joint). now take into consideration how many people want to grow there own tobacco. tobacco is even easier to grow then marijuana and yet nearly nobody does it because going to the local store to buy your smokes is massively easier then growing yourself. now to get to my point, nobody would want to go through the extreme effort of growing cannabis which needs a precise environment and constant care, especially for marijuana and would MUCH rather just drive down the road, spend 5 minutes and 5 bucks to get themselves 20 precisely rolled joints packaged up nice and cute.


Secondly, and more importantly, the government would benefit greatly from this for so many reasons i could not list them all off of the top of my head here and now. Marijuana is for smoking, so when purely talking about marijuana the benefits are just for taxes and new business, but the cannabis plant would revolutionize the material making world. better clothing, better paper material, more oxygen apparently as claimed by someone earlier, better medicine, more food, alternate energy sources, and for America, many more tourists.



I am addressing these lightly now, but could get heavily into it. my word of advice is do some research or at least a little bit of thinking before you post.

TK_Breed 08-2-2007 10:37 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragula219 (Post 1648769)
I first want to point out that this a completely illogical argument. By this you are saying that quote "Un-Natural" Drugs are as bad as the government makes them out to be. Now, I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I am saying you don't really know what a drug is. It's not marijuana or shrooms as a whole that that get you high, it is the chemical(s) inside them (Delta-9 THC and Psilocybin being the main chemicals, along with other ones that have a small affect on brain function.) Also, you seem not to know much about Cocaine either, or else you would know that pure cocaine is 100% natural, it is derived from the coca plant being ground in many different steps. By methanol, I'm pretty sure you meant Methamphetamine.

My point is, you can't say a drug is necessarily "better" because it is natural. It has nothing to do with how dangerous the chemicals inside them are. There are many natural plants that can kill you more quickly than 2C-I or other synthesized chemicals could kill you.


tell me how THC harms the human body? because it doesnt, before you attack someone else on a subject, the thc enters the bloodstream and exits through your pee, not taking anything with it. the only reason you loose brain cells is because your not exercising your mind because you are so relaxed by the release of the serotonin. to add on to that you are constantly losing brain cells anyways and the only reason you get smarter is by connecting synapses in your brain, and when you are high you lose them the same way but the synapses are less likely to be connected and so you appear to be getting dumber.

*edit* your point is correct though

devonin 08-2-2007 10:57 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Well here's one: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...648629,00.html

Quote:

The study by New Zealand's Medical Research Institute found that longtime pot smokers can develop symptoms of asthma and bronchitis, along with obstruction of the large airways and excessive lung inflation. The paper was released Tuesday ahead of its publication in the journal Thorax. "The study shows that one cannabis joint causes a similar degree of lung damage as between 2.5 and five tobacco cigarettes," said lead author Sarah Aldington.

lord_carbo 08-3-2007 02:53 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Just to rebut an old statement in the thread, an open letter signed in part by renowned economist Milton Friedman delivers an economic evaluation that says ending the drug war could save $7.7 billion in govt. spending annually. Although Friedman acknowledges that there very well could and probably would be economic benefits, though, he has been quoted for saying that the drug war is much more of a moral battle, and it's possible he signed it for the mere reason of supporting anything that may help end the drug war.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html

As a counterpoint, though, I (and Reason Magazine) do agree that the government would not legalize marijuana unless they saw/found financial benefits.

Anyway, a new subject has arisen.

TK_Breed has quoted completely out of context... well, he made a straw man by changing Dragula's wording of "get you high" to "harm." But devonin, please demonstrate how this study concludes that asthma and bronchitis are results of the THC inside of cannabis and not the cannabis itself. Note that his post was in complete reference to the main psychoactive drug found inside the marijuana, THC, not the plant itself.

jewpinthethird 08-3-2007 03:01 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1704641)

Well, it's kind of a given whenever you smoke something.

devonin 08-3-2007 11:32 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Yeah, but their point is that it is one way in which cannibis joints are actually worse than tobacco cigarettes.

TK_Breed 08-3-2007 10:48 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1705324)
Yeah, but their point is that it is one way in which cannibis joints are actually worse than tobacco cigarettes.


some people smoke 40 cigarettes a day, the biggest pot smokers smoke 5 to 8 times a day, that puts an end to that.



Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_carbo (Post 1705037)

TK_Breed has quoted completely out of context... well, he made a straw man by changing Dragula's wording of "get you high" to "harm."


You are right my friend, I jumped to a conclusion too quickly and didnt read carefully enough. The more times i read what dragula put the more and more right it seems.



Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1704641)




its not what gets you high that ruins your lungs. that why people should be more aware of vaporizers which eliminate almost all the harmful substances leaving you with a nice thc vapor, hence the phrase vaporizer. smoke is bad for you no matter what the substance or type of smoke, that is proven and should never be argued.

Coolgamer 08-17-2007 05:34 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
A low amount of teenagers in the Netherlands smoke pot, even though it is legal. They have tried it, but don't indulge, because the thrill a lot of people get from it is that they are doing something "bad". I support legalized grass, and E with tight controls.

Chrissi 08-18-2007 01:49 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by solopro (Post 1648723)
And for alcohol and such, yeah, I don't know why. Most minors believe all the myths people say about beer, like it'll make you feel good and crap. Well, it don't.

No, alcohol can certainly make you feel good.

The effect of alcohol is a narrowsightedness; whatever's in front of you is what you think about. Alcohol blunts your attention so that you find it hard to seriously think about things that aren't actually happening.

So basically, if you're at a party where things are going well, alcohol will definitely make you feel better. However, if you're depressed and you sit at home and drink by yourself with nothing to distract you, alcohol will definitely make you feel worse.

Parsnips 08-18-2007 06:37 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1734700)
No, alcohol can certainly make you feel good.

The effect of alcohol is a narrowsightedness; whatever's in front of you is what you think about. Alcohol blunts your attention so that you find it hard to seriously think about things that aren't actually happening.

So basically, if you're at a party where things are going well, alcohol will definitely make you feel better. However, if you're depressed and you sit at home and drink by yourself with nothing to distract you, alcohol will definitely make you feel worse.

Lies. I'm sorry but I cannot stand this anymore. Someone has to stand up for my dear friend.

Beer is made from tears of joy wept from rainbow unicorns, and if I sit by myself, drink and do nothing, I will have a blissed out smile on my face. It is true that if you drink too MUCH, you can get emotional and loser-drunk; many young teens with low tolerance reach this zone and I figure that's where solopro is coming from, but you. I expect better.

Wikipedia: "...alcohol generally produces feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness..."

Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Also, sometimes I hear people saying that alcohol is a depressant, in an attempt to further prove the sort of idea you had, that alcohol doesn't make you happy. The word depressant is used to specify what it does to the body; stimulants make your heart beat faster, depressants slow down your breathing. It does NOT classify the emotional affects. Just thought to clear that up beforehand if it comes up.

Coolgamer 08-18-2007 06:17 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose.

Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 786,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

In 1972, a Congressionally created commission called the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, whose members were appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, completed one of the most comprehensive reviews ever undertaken regarding marijuana and public policy. Their report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," proclaimed that "from what is now known about the effects of marihuana, its use at the present level does not constitute a major threat to public health," and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use.

Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies regarding marijuana’s health impacts. None of these have revealed any findings dramatically different from those described by Nixon’s 1972 Commission.

Coolgamer 08-18-2007 06:18 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Myth: Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people believed that marijuana was harmless. Today we know that marijuana is much more dangerous than previously believed.

Fact: In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

Myth: Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value. Safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, marijuana's primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol.

Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders. A synthetic capsule is available by prescription, but it is not as effective as smoked marijuana for many patients. Pure THC may also produce more unpleasant psychoactive side effects than smoked marijuana. Many people use marijuana as a medicine today, despite its illegality. In doing so, they risk arrest and imprisonment.

Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.

Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

Myth: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. Even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" like heroin, LSD, and cocaine.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.

Myth: Marijuana Offenses Are Not Severely Punished. Few marijuana law violators are arrested and hardly anyone goes to prison. This lenient treatment is responsible for marijuana continued availability and use.

Fact: Marijuana arrests in the United States doubled between 1991 and 1995. In 1995, more than one-half-million people were arrested for marijuana offenses. Eighty-six percent of them were arrested for marijuana possession. Tens of thousands of people are now in prison or marijuana offenses. An even greater number are punished with probation, fines, and civil sanctions, including having their property seized, their driver's license revoked, and their employment terminated. Despite these civil and criminal sanctions, marijuana continues to be readily available and widely used.

Myth: Marijuana Policy in the Netherlands is a Failure. Dutch law, which allows marijuana to be bought, sold, and used openly, has resulted in increasing rates of marijuana use, particularly in youth.

Fact: The Netherlands' drug policy is the most nonpunitive in Europe. For more than twenty years, Dutch citizens over age eighteen have been permitted to buy and use cannabis (marijuana and hashish) in government-regulated coffee shops. This policy has not resulted in dramatically escalating cannabis use. For most age groups, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are similar to those in the United States. However, for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States. The Dutch people overwhelmingly approve of current cannabis policy which seeks to normalize rather than dramatize cannabis use. The Dutch government occasionally revises existing policy, but it remains committed to decriminalization.

Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.

Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.

Myth: Marijuana Causes an Amotivational Syndrome. Marijuana makes users passive, apathetic, and uninterested in the future. Students who use marijuana become underachievers and workers who use marijuana become unproductive.

Fact: For twenty-five years, researchers have searched for a marijuana-induced amotivational syndrome and have failed to find it. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are unlikely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first.

Myth: Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition. Under the influence of marijuana, people are unable to think rationally and intelligently. Chronic marijuana use causes permanent mental impairment.

Fact: Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.

Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.

Myth: Marijuana Causes Crime. Marijuana users commit more property offenses than nonusers. Under the influence of marijuana, people become irrational, aggressive, and violent.

Fact: Every serious scholar and government commission examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime has reached the same conclusion: marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes other than the crime of possessing marijuana. Among marijuana users who do commit crimes, marijuana plays no causal role. Almost all human and animal studies show that marijuana decreases rather than increases aggression.

Myth: Marijuana Interferes With Male and Female Sex Hormones. In both men and women, marijuana can cause infertility. Marijuana retards sexual development in adolescents. It produces feminine characteristics in males and masculine characteristics in females.

Fact: There is no evidence that marijuana causes infertility in men or women. In animal studies, high doses of THC diminish the production of some sex hormones and can impair reproduction. However, most studies of humans have found that marijuana has no impact of sex hormones. In those studies showing an impact, it is modest, temporary, and of no apparent consequence for reproduction. There is no scientific evidence that marijuana delays adolescent sexual development, has feminizing effect on males, or a masculinizing effect on females.

Myth: Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus. Prenatal marijuana exposure causes birth defects in babies, and, as they grow older, developmental problems. The health and well being of the next generation is threatened by marijuana use by pregnant women.

Fact: Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities. The administration of hundreds of tests to older children has revealed only minor differences between offspring of marijuana users and nonusers, and some are positive rather than negative. Two unconfirmed case-control studies identified prenatal marijuana exposure as one of many factors statistically associated with childhood cancer. Given other available evidence, it is highly unlikely that marijuana causes cancer in children.

Myth: Marijuana Use Impairs the Immune System. Marijuana users are at increased risk of infection, including HIV. AIDS patients are particularly vulnerable to marijuana's immunopathic effects because their immune systems are already suppressed.

Fact: There is no evidence that marijuana users are more susceptible to infections than nonusers. Nor is there evidence that marijuana lowers users' resistance to sexually transmitted diseases. Early studies which showed decreased immune function in cells taken from marijuana users have since been disproved. Animals given extremely large doses of THC and exposed to a virus have higher rates of infection. Such studies have little relevance to humans. Even among people with existing immune disorders, such as AIDS, marijuana use appears to be relatively safe. However, the recent finding of an association between tobacco smoking and lung infection in AIDS patients warrants further research into possible harm from marijuana smoking in immune suppressed persons.

Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana's Active Ingredient, THC, Gets Trapped in Body Fat. Because THC is released from fat cells slowly, psychoactive effects may last for days or weeks following use. THC's long persistence in the body damages organs that are high in fat content, the brain in particular.

Fact: Many active drugs enter the body's fat cells. What is different (but not unique) about THC is that it exits fat cells slowly. As a result, traces of marijuana can be found in the body for days or weeks following ingestion. However, within a few hours of smoking marijuana, the amount of THC in the brain falls below the concentration required for detectable psychoactivity. The fat cells in which THC lingers are not harmed by the drug's presence, nor is the brain or other organs. The most important consequence of marijuana's slow excretion is that it can be detected in blood, urine, and tissue long after it is used, and long after its psychoactivity has ended.

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

Myth: Marijuana Related Hospital Emergencies Are Increasing, Particularly Among Youth. This is evidence that marijuana is much more harmful than most people previously believed.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause overdose deaths. The number of people in hospital emergency rooms who say they have used marijuana has increased. On this basis, the visit may be recorded as marijuana-related even if marijuana had nothing to do with the medical condition preceding the hospital visit. Many more teenagers use marijuana than use drugs such as heroin and cocaine. As a result, when teenagers visit hospital emergency rooms, they report marijuana much more frequently than they report heroin and cocaine. In the large majority of cases when marijuana is mentioned, other drugs are mentioned as well. In 1994, fewer than 2% of drug related emergency room visits involved the use of marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.

Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC sample sized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.

Myth: Marijuana Use Can Be Prevented. Drug education and prevention programs reduced marijuana use during the 1980s. Since then, our commitment has slackened, and marijuana use has been rising. By expanding and intensifying current anti-marijuana messages, we can stop youthful experimentation.

Fact: There is no evidence that anti-drug messages diminish young people's interest in drugs. Anti-drug campaigns in the schools and the media may even make drugs more attractive. Marijuana use among youth declined throughout the 1980s, and began increasing in the 1990s. This increase occurred despite young people's exposure to the most massive anti-marijuana campaign in American history. In a number of other countries, drug education programs are based on a "harm reduction" model, which seeks to reduce the drug-related harm among those young people who do experiment with drugs.

Chrissi 08-18-2007 11:19 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parsnips (Post 1735056)
Lies. I'm sorry but I cannot stand this anymore. Someone has to stand up for my dear friend.

Beer is made from tears of joy wept from rainbow unicorns, and if I sit by myself, drink and do nothing, I will have a blissed out smile on my face. It is true that if you drink too MUCH, you can get emotional and loser-drunk; many young teens with low tolerance reach this zone and I figure that's where solopro is coming from, but you. I expect better.

Wikipedia: "...alcohol generally produces feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness..."

Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Also, sometimes I hear people saying that alcohol is a depressant, in an attempt to further prove the sort of idea you had, that alcohol doesn't make you happy. The word depressant is used to specify what it does to the body; stimulants make your heart beat faster, depressants slow down your breathing. It does NOT classify the emotional affects. Just thought to clear that up beforehand if it comes up.

What I said was that alcohol narrows the attention, so, if you are already depressed and you sit by yourself and drink, you'll feel worse. If you are happy and you drink, you might feel happier. It all depends on what's obvious and prevalent at the time.

It is FACT that alcohol has the effect that I described. Look in any psychological study on alcohol's attentional effects.

Parsnips 08-19-2007 01:54 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1736383)
What I said was that alcohol narrows the attention, so, if you are already depressed and you sit by yourself and drink, you'll feel worse. If you are happy and you drink, you might feel happier. It all depends on what's obvious and prevalent at the time.

It is FACT that alcohol has the effect that I described. Look in any psychological study on alcohol's attentional effects.

I'd love to see a study like that. I googled around a bit but didn't really find anything that states: narrowed attention = amplified current feelings. From experience though... I'm trying to think back to a time where I have been unhappy, and then I drink by myself and feel worse or even still unhappy but I can't think of one, and there have been many a time that I've done that. The only time I feel worse after drinking is when I drink much too much, and I think the same is true with many other drugs. So, I can't take your word for it.

devonin 08-19-2007 02:26 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolgamer
A giant pile of "myth/fact" crap

Your myths and facts are all nonsense unless or until you provide citations showing where your myths come from and where your facts come from. You can't just copypasta this huge block of text and not even tell us where it was from and expect us to accept it.

lord_carbo 08-19-2007 03:17 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1737142)
Your myths and facts are all nonsense unless or until you provide citations showing where your myths come from and where your facts come from. You can't just copypasta this huge block of text and not even tell us where it was from and expect us to accept it.

I would assume this:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

One person's laziness is not an excuse to also be lazy. Viva la Google, first result!

After skimming through it, from the extent of my knowledge, most to all of it is true. I'm not too sure about the "fact" on pregnancy and marijuana, but again, it's highly preventable by not being an idiot in the first place (e.g. would you punch your uterus ten times a day?). Factoid or not, it's mostly trivial to being an intelligent person. And the best part about telling people that is that it applies to all drugs. Kids are stupid, so telling them that it's O.K. to smoke marijuana while they're pregnant would also make them possibly do drugs that may harm the fetus. Much like how when false facts on marijuana are told through anti-drug programs. Kids try marijuana and feel like it's not as bad as how the program made it out to be, they dismiss it all as false or shaky, when there are many drugs out there which are very dangerous to most people.

This is actually a justification for a drug program which isn't anti-drugs, but teaches something more like, "we personally don't recommend it for most people but if you choose to use drugs, safely and research drugs before you get into them, and be respectful to those who do drugs because they're still human." Most kids who fall for anti-drug propaganda probably wouldn't be doing drugs in the first place, and it actually makes it worse by making these kids anti-drug tools. Like if I offered someone a joint, they'd do the whole "they won't accept you if you don't accept the joint, so say no and go away" thing that's encouraged in drug programs. Which is completely bologna, of course, and can be compared to offering a piece of chewing gum to a person.

*Ahem, got off track*

Additionally, it's a bit sloppy on a few parts, e.g. instead of just saying "marijuana doesn't cause crime," I would say that its status as an illegal drug would cause people more likely to commit crimes to do the drug. And on the marijuana and driving part, it should mention still that driving high is still dangerous and only an idiot would do so, even though it is less dangerous than driving while drunk. I'm not sure if it's as safe as they make it seem, though. I would exercise caution in throwing that part around.

stephen_g74 08-19-2007 04:34 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
I am generally a very lazy person. I don't smoke very much (im not a stoner), but when I do smoke it makes me want to get up and do something. Then, I usually get up, grab my skateboard, and go find some of my friends to go skate with. I feel as though I am more rested and get a better night's sleep afterwards also. Since I dont smoke very often, this tends to have an overall positive outcome for me.

Coolgamer 08-19-2007 06:44 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_carbo (Post 1737212)
I would assume this:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

One person's laziness is not an excuse to also be lazy. Viva la Google, first result!

Sorry... I thought that I had included the source. Guess it didn't get pasted.

The war on drugs has resulted in the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of tens of thousands of persons each year for crimes associated with the possession and use of illegal drugs. The drug war has also eroded constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to freedom of religion, the right to travel, freedom of assembly, equal protection under the law, and the right to privacy.

* Prison Overcrowding More than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 is due to drug convictions.

* Racial Injustice In 1986, the year Congress enacted federal mandatory drug sentences, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49 percent higher.

* Women Between 1986 and 1996, the number of women in prison for drug law violations increased by 421 percent. This led U.S. Bureau of Prisons Director Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer to testify before Congress, "The reality is, some 70-some percent of our female population are low-level, nonviolent offenders. The fact that they have to come into prison is a question mark for me. I think it has been an unintended consequence of the sentencing guidelines and the mandatory minimums."

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program provides hundreds of millions of dollars a year to local and state crime prevention initiatives. In recent years the program has come under scrutiny for its role in perpetuating racial disparities, police corruption, and civil rights abuses. This is especially true when it comes to the program's funding of hundreds of regional anti-drug task forces across the country. These task forces, which lack oversight and are prone to corruption, are at the center of some of our country's most horrific law enforcement scandals. The program has also been criticized for wasting taxpayer money and failing to reduce crime.

The most notorious Bryne-funded scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas where dozens of African American residents (representing 16 percent of the town's black population) were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to collaborate his allegations. Suspicions eventually arose after two of the defendants accused were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out of state or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years of imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program.

A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, false imprisonment, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large-scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity. Recent scandals in other states include the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based on police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Sources- http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/

XpTrIpPyNeSsXd 08-20-2007 02:37 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1645009)

Now look at pot. There's really just about -one- step between a plant and a joint, and that one step is easy, involves no special machinery and very little time. You see where I'm going with this?

People are already growing pot on their own, in their basements, and back gardens, and processing it themselves. All legalizing it would do is make it that much cheaper and easier to grow and use your own. The government would derive -very- little revenue from it, because very few people would have an incentive to buy it through government systems when they could just grow their own.

That's strictly assuming the pot would be used only for getting high.

The actual cannabis plant has many different uses. Hemp can be used for clothing. Many natural medicines can be derived from the plant as well. It can also be turned into fuel just like corn can, except it grows faster, and much more grows in smaller spaces than corn.

If the government were to tax the fields where they are being grown, and allow farmers and other people to legally grow it with taxes. It could solve our fuel problem. And open up a whole new world of trade for us. thus, the government would make a whole lot of cash from taxing it.

Furthermore, recently a group of Californian drugdealers offered the californian government 1billion dollars to help california pay off their debts. (Ill try to find the article in a few minutes) They come from a site called letuspaytaxes.org (I think it's down as of late) California probaly won't take the money, but this shows that many dealers are willing to pay taxes.

tl;dr : Cannabis has thousands of uses, and if the governemnt were to tax the fields of cannabis being grown, they could make lots of money.

devonin 08-20-2007 03:09 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

tl;dr : Cannabis has thousands of uses, and if the governemnt were to tax the fields of cannabis being grown, they could make lots of money.
1/ tl;dr has absolutely no place in the Critical Thinking forum. Either read it anyway, or don't respond to it.

2/ My whole point is that since pot is so easily grown for private use, even if they were to tax large fields based on myriad uses for it, that would just make farmers growing crop A switch to growing Pot instead, if it generated enough profit. Fair enough, and likely to happen within the next 10 years in Canada if not the US. However, the whole thrust of my argument was in the context of legalizing its smoking, as a means of controlling it, and raising government tax money -from pot used for smoking- which falls afoul of the situation I described above: That it is impossible to actually enforce taxes on something which can be grown and processed for personal use so easily.

Context is important.

Chrissi 08-20-2007 09:45 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1738823)
1/ tl;dr has absolutely no place in the Critical Thinking forum. Either read it anyway, or don't respond to it.

2/ My whole point is that since pot is so easily grown for private use, even if they were to tax large fields based on myriad uses for it, that would just make farmers growing crop A switch to growing Pot instead, if it generated enough profit. Fair enough, and likely to happen within the next 10 years in Canada if not the US. However, the whole thrust of my argument was in the context of legalizing its smoking, as a means of controlling it, and raising government tax money -from pot used for smoking- which falls afoul of the situation I described above: That it is impossible to actually enforce taxes on something which can be grown and processed for personal use so easily.

Context is important.

I don't think so. We could easily grow our own tomatoes; however, few people bother to do so, and those who do grow it don't really seem to have an impact on the tomato growing industry of farming.

Understandably, it seems logical that if something is easily grown, nobody will buy it, but that doesn't happen. I understand perfectly that marijuana is far easier to grow than tobacco, but from what I know, tobacco isn't so hard to grow that you couldn't grow it yourself. And nobody does that. So basically, yeah, some people will grow their own marijuana, but it seriously shouldn't make a difference at all.

I think people (who smoke pot) would appreciate being able to go into a store, present their ID, and buy all the marijuana they want without fear of legal repercussions or anything. I don't smoke pot, and I think this is a good idea.

Coolgamer 08-20-2007 09:56 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1739504)
I think people (who smoke pot) would appreciate being able to go into a store, present their ID, and buy all the marijuana they want without fear of legal repercussions or anything. I don't smoke pot, and I think this is a good idea.

I disagree. Even in Amsterdam, the amount of cannabis one can buy is strictly controlled. This is how it should be in America.

Cats_Go_Meow 08-21-2007 01:03 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Well, ok. I saw this thread, saw first few posts and I noticied some things. Please forgive me if someone has already said this.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Atman (Post 1644919)
Haha right, but if the government were to legalize it, tax it. There'd be a huge rise on income for the government...

If people already grow, use, and sell this in secrecy, how would the government be able to collect tax? Why would someone go to a store selling weed for XX amount of dollars when they can grow / buy their own for a lot less than store price?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Atman (Post 1644919)
On another note, I also remember reading in a smoke enthusiast store that 1 acre of marijuana = to roughly what, 4 or 5 acres of trees? as far as nutrients, and oxygen productivity. Thank you for the input on how I should be more clear with my thinking.

Ok..Well first, there are many different trees that give off many different oxygen rates.

Second, where the heck are you getting your facts? Post a link to the article please?

Third, when you are saying Nutrients, what do you mean? Nutrients for what? I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, but please fill me in.


~Cats

Chrissi 08-21-2007 01:17 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cats_Go_Meow (Post 1739968)
Why would someone go to a store selling weed for XX amount of dollars when they can grow / buy their own for a lot less than store price?

I did discuss this earlier.

First off, people are lazy and will enjoy being able to buy rather than grow.

Secondly, when you buy from the government, you are guaranteed safe product. It's not laced with anything. Whereas pot from the street can easily be laced with PCP and sold as "super pot". PCP can be dangerous.

jewpinthethird 08-21-2007 01:20 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Growing marijuana is a felony. Possessing marijuana is a misdemeanor.

lord_carbo 08-21-2007 02:09 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolgamer (Post 1739524)
I disagree. Even in Amsterdam, the amount of cannabis one can buy is strictly controlled. This is how it should be in America.

What? Why? There's absolutely no logic behind this as it continues to violate the moral issue of arresting people who are doing no harm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cats_Go_Meow (Post 1739968)
If people already grow, use, and sell this in secrecy, how would the government be able to collect tax? Why would someone go to a store selling weed for XX amount of dollars when they can grow / buy their own for a lot less than store price?

"Sell" in secrecy... when marijuana is completely decriminalized, it can become a mainstream market item, like corn or tomatoes, but as a drug like tobacco. For the record, in the current market, a unit of pot that takes $1 to produce sells for over $5! And that's with marijuana being grown and imported "in secrecy"! In a free market, profits like this for a product like pot would be quickly taken up, most likely by a large firm which can produce quality marijuana for cheap.

Not everyone can grow pot and not everyone can grow good pot. And not everyone wants to buy from the streets, especially people just getting into marijuana. And not all pot is grown in the USA... most likely, a lot of it is imported.

That's not to say marijuana should be taxed excessively at all, but it makes a great incentive for government to do the right thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cats_Go_Meow (Post 1739968)
Third, when you are saying Nutrients, what do you mean? Nutrients for what? I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, but please fill me in.

Hemp, at least, requires less fertilization than most things, and photosynthesizes better than pretty much every plant out there. I think that's what he's referring to.

http://www.google.com/search?q=hemp+...otosynthesizer
http://www.google.com/search?q=fertilizer+for+hemp

Coolgamer 08-21-2007 07:42 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_carbo (Post 1740095)
What? Why? There's absolutely no logic behind this as it continues to violate the moral issue of arresting people who are doing no harm.

No, it doesn't. Think of it as getting a prescription for a drug, of having a drinks-served limit at a bar. You CAN grow at home if you wish, but in public venues, the amount allowed for purchase is controlled.

lord_carbo 08-21-2007 02:51 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolgamer (Post 1740239)
No, it doesn't. Think of it as getting a prescription for a drug, of having a drinks-served limit at a bar. You CAN grow at home if you wish, but in public venues, the amount allowed for purchase is controlled.

Hold up, what's your justification for having marijuana legalized or decriminalized, first of all?

Coolgamer 08-21-2007 05:54 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_carbo (Post 1740745)
Hold up, what's your justification for having marijuana legalized or decriminalized, first of all?

See my previous posts.

lord_carbo 08-22-2007 12:52 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
That it poses no health or safety risks?

I fail to see how possessing more marijuana at a time is less safe than possessing a smaller amount and that it justifies an arrest. Additionally, quantity of a possession does not equate to quantity of how much one is going to individually smoke at one time.

SkySpy 11-12-2012 05:53 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
guys guys guys! It happened

AdenL 11-12-2012 07:18 PM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Quick question, what's the difference between legal and Decriminalized pot?

Another incite, there are already "tax stamps," for the sale of marijuana and the transportation though, they're impossible to get. Why can't we actually enforce this, let states regulate how much possession is too much possession. Then once you've made your purchase print out a stamp (much like they do for hunting/fishing license) that is only valid for x numbered bag and of course tax it much like alcohol.

Make it's public use illegal! It would eventually become illegal for public use to go along with many general smoking bans that're happening all over anyways. Growing and smoking while on your property either in the house or in the backyard could remain legal.

I am actually all for persecuting people are under the influence while driving, it may make you focus more, and I do know this because I have driven blazed before, but your reactions are much slower. Take this into consideration, if you play video games how well do you play high? Say FFR here, I'm sure your PA is badass while stoned. I also bet that you have a lot of combo breakers in the mix.


I have a massive headache right now, sorry for clarity not being so clear.

Hateandhatred 11-14-2012 07:57 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 
Just a new point that doesn't seem to have been mentionned.

The fact that it's illegal means that customers/dealers need to deal personnally with other dealers, street gangs, the mafia, etc. That's a good load of risk. Not always a friendly deal in one's basement.

Not gonna debate in this topic too much since I'm really not someone well informed on the topic but just wanted to say that drugs are much more of a social issue when illegal than when legal.

MarioNintendo 11-14-2012 08:31 AM

Re: Drugs and the Government
 


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution