Drugs and the Government

[Chrissi]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

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.

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?

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

Growing marijuana is a felony. Possessing marijuana is a misdemeanor.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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.

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.

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]

Re: Drugs and the Government

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.