Legalization of drugs, pros and cons!

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Legalize ALL drugs and prostitution.
Who gains? Everyone but the criminals.
Who loses? The cartels and the CIA.

But it MUST be done at a Federal Level otherwise you end up with the mess we have here in CA. Medical Marijuana growers being prosecuted by the DEA and a Federal Jury not being told about the state law. Long sentences handed out.

I agree any legalization must be done on a federal level. I also agree that The Cartels and the DEA, CIA and all the other unknown govt. agencies would lose.

But legalize hard core drugs? I am not sure about that yet. It sounds too me too close to legalizing AK47s, but I am still pondering that.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

I agree any legalization must be done on a federal level. I also agree that The Cartels and the DEA, CIA and all the other unknown govt. agencies would lose.

But legalize hard core drugs? I am not sure about that yet. It sounds too me too close to legalizing AK47s, but I am still pondering that.

Check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8255418.stm

[UofMfan]

From my personal experience. I don't do drugs and legalizing it is not going to change that. I think most people would fall under that same category.

Anyone who wants to do drugs now does it, the fact that it is illegal is not a deterrent.

As for the economy and jobs. What happened back during prohibition when booze was finally legalized? New economies sprung up. Selling it legally would be a profitable business. I doubt the economic benefits would be negative. I must look for some articles I have read in the financial and economic areas regarding this very topic.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

From my personal experience. I don't do drugs and legalizing it is not going to change that. I think most people would fall under that same category.

Anyone who wants to do drugs now does it, the fact that it is illegal is not a deterrent.

As for the economy and jobs. What happened back during prohibition when booze was finally legalized? New economies sprung up. Selling it legally would be a profitable business. I doubt the economic benefits would be negative. I must look for some articles I have read in the financial and economic areas regarding this very topic.

The Great Depression happened and crime got organized to bring in the booze.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

I agree any legalization must be done on a federal level. I also agree that The Cartels and the DEA, CIA and all the other unknown govt. agencies would lose.

But legalize hard core drugs? I am not sure about that yet. It sounds too me too close to legalizing AK47s, but I am still pondering that.

You said earlier..

"I think I may have heard of someone breaking into a bakery to steal the brownies, but maybe I am just making that up.

Why keep the hard stuff illegal? Not that I don't agree, I am just curious. "

Not sure if you are playing devil's advocate or just waffling. Playing D.A. without stating it as such doesn't bode well here. Jus sayin.

I don't agree with legalizing chemically altered or produced drugs as that involves pharmaceuticals to become legal. I say keep the drug companies and insurance industry out of it altogether. They legalized alcohol again, but only govt certified regulated companies can make it and sell it legally. What about the organic home distilleries who have generations of producing "shine" in their lineage? What about organic "growers" who spend countless hours toiling over their crop? Why just hand this to Pifzer?

Let the govt run the man made drugs. They have enough resources to perfect meth. Fuckabunchathat anyway. I don't use pot or any other drug, so it truly is of little personal concern to me. However, I do see benefits in marijuana that far outweigh the prohibition placed on it here in the states.

The notion that "all" drugs should be legalized is just silly in my book. What practical purpose does meth serve? What "healing" properties does it hold? How do you go about acquiring a script for it? Go in to your doc and say "I am feeling way too normal and need a break" ??? WTF?

I have my opinions which will always differ from someone. One of those is that this is an interesting topic that unfortunately derailed an interesting thread.

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by Jess

You said earlier..

"I think I may have heard of someone breaking into a bakery to steal the brownies, but maybe I am just making that up.

Why keep the hard stuff illegal? Not that I don't agree, I am just curious. "

Not sure if you are playing devil's advocate or just waffling. Playing D.A. without stating it as such doesn't bode well here. Jus sayin.

I don't agree with legalizing chemically altered or produced drugs as that involves pharmaceuticals to become legal. I say keep the drug companies and insurance industry out of it altogether. They legalized alcohol again, but only govt certified regulated companies can make it and sell it legally. What about the organic home distilleries who have generations of producing "shine" in their lineage? What about organic "growers" who spend countless hours toiling over their crop? Why just hand this to Pifzer?

Let the govt run the man made drugs. They have enough resources to perfect meth. Fuckabunchathat anyway. I don't use pot or any other drug, so it truly is of little personal concern to me. However, I do see benefits in marijuana that far outweigh the prohibition placed on it here in the states.

The notion that "all" drugs should be legalized is just silly in my book. What practical purpose does meth serve? What "healing" properties does it hold? How do you go about acquiring a script for it? Go in to your doc and say "I am feeling way too normal and need a break" ??? WTF?

I have my opinions which will always differ from someone. One of those is that this is an interesting topic that unfortunately derailed an interesting thread.

Neither, as I stated, I am/was curious.

Why if I stated that was or is it hard to believe? I want to hear the opinions of all, I may not agree with everyone, but part of me is really interested in hearing what you or anyone else may have to say, not only about this subject but anything else we may engage in conversation about. That is just how I am.

I am not sure what you meant by the underlined part of your statement, so I am asking you for clarification.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Neither, as I stated, I am/was curious.

Why if I stated that was or is it hard to believe? I want to hear the opinions of all, I may not agree with everyone, but part of me is really interested in hearing what you or anyone else may have to say, not only about this subject but anything else we may engage in conversation about. That is just how I am.

I am not sure what you meant by the underlined part of your statement, so I am asking you for clarification.

For clarification, I am asking if you were being a "devil's advocate" as it has been stated by more than one member here that it ain't cool unless you say you are "upfront" and even then.. not cool unless you are going along with the popular opinion en masse. Do I need to pull up examples? I will do so in pvt if needed. I could not discern by the contrasting statements of your previous posts if you were A) agreeing with everyone B) being devil's advocate to further the discussion to some more pertinent destination or C) just talkin or D) had no real opinion and just made this thread cause someone suggested it on the AZ boycott thread.

I was confused. Seeking public opinion is cool in my book. if that is all this is about then cool. Carry on.

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by Jess

For clarification, I am asking if you were being a "devil's advocate" as it has been stated by more than one member here that it ain't cool unless you say you are "upfront" and even then.. not cool unless you are going along with the popular opinion en masse. Do I need to pull up examples? I will do so in pvt if needed. I could not discern by the contrasting statements of your previous posts if you were A) agreeing with everyone B) being devil's advocate to further the discussion to some more pertinent destination or C) just talkin or D) had no real opinion and just made this thread cause someone suggested it on the AZ boycott thread.

I was confused. Seeking public opinion is cool in my book. if that is all this is about then cool. Carry on.

Thank you for clarifying.

I never heard about having to be up front about playing DA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And no, I don't need examples, either in private or here.

A) I have stated my opinion, several times actually. I am not sure what parts are contrasting but I will be willing to clarify if you need me to.

B) I am seeking public opinion.

C) I don't make/start threads just because people ask me to.

and finally D) It is safe to say that I hardly agree with everyone, that is not who I am. I state my points and opinions quite openly and passionately.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Thank you for clarifying.

I never heard about having to be up front about playing DA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And no, I don't need examples, either in private or here.

A) I have stated my opinion, several times actually. I am not sure what parts are contrasting but I will be willing to clarify if you need me to.

B) I am seeking public opinion.

C) I don't make/start threads just because people ask me to.

and finally D) It is safe to say that I hardly agree with everyone, that is not who I am. I state my points and opinions quite openly and passionately.

I appreciate your position. Thanks for clarifying.

[betenoire]

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.

Absolutely. If there were any truth to the nonsense that there's a correlation between one's stance on drugs and one's parental status, then there wouldn't be any junkie parents in the world.

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.

Really? I want to see that. Could you find it for me?

I have made a few posts on this forum referencing my son, so yeah I have one, and my stance is not based on that fact, nor does it or did it change my stand.

I can't believe someone would make such a blanket statement.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I can't find the original post, but in the other thread someone alluded to the fact that you can tell who has children and who doesn't have children based on their stance on this subject.

I really -really- just need to say that I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all. My choosing not to become a parent has no relation at all to my political or morale stance. On this issue or -any- issue.

Can you however say the same thing for the addicted woman who is raped, used, or too high to know better who ends up pregnant as a result of needing that fix?

How will making these drugs readily available without consequence change that? I am just really boggled.

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by Jess

Can you however say the same thing for the addicted woman who is raped, used, or too high to know better who ends up pregnant as a result of needing that fix?

How will making these drugs readily available without consequence change that? I am just really boggled.

I think anyone who is raped, no matter what the circumstances where, should have the option of having an abortion. That is another topic.

Someone could be raped not just because they are high on drugs, so this statement boggles my mind.

Drugs are readily available now, it is just more dangerous and more expensive to get them. Shouldn't THAT be a deterrent to those who are addicted? It obviously isn't.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

I think anyone who is raped, no matter what the circumstances where, should have the option of having an abortion. That is another topic.

Someone could be raped not just because they are high on drugs, so this statement boggles my mind.

Drugs are readily available now, it is just more dangerous and more expensive to get them. Shouldn't THAT be a deterrent to those who are addicted? It obviously isn't.

Yes, absolutely someone can be raped without drugs being involved. It is an act of violence as well as opportunity. Unfortunately, the "opportunity" aspect increases dramatically under the influence of drugs. Yes, indeed a topic for another discussion.

Yes, agreed it should be a deterrent, just like vomiting with heroin would make normal folks go "ewwwwwwwww". However, in the throes of addiction folks will do insane things to get that "high". Why make such detrimental outcomes that much easier? Why not focus the energy into healthier options? Like equal human rights? Something that creates CORE issues within folks who turn to drugs out of debased self esteem? Like REAL healthcare.. something that sends chronic pain patients to street drugs for relief?

Go to the REAL shit instead of the bogus trappings is all i am thinking.

I agree with your points and truly do appreciate the discourse.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Really? I want to see that. Could you find it for me?

I pm'd you the quote and post number.

Originally Posted by Jess

Can you however say the same thing for the addicted woman who is raped, used, or too high to know better who ends up pregnant as a result of needing that fix?

You are completely missing my point. My point being that being a parent or not being a parent has NO correlation to my (or anybodies) political or moral ideas. HOW someone becomes a parent doesn't change this.

How will making these drugs readily available without consequence change that? I am just really boggled.

Change what? Change the fact that not having children is irrelevant to my thoughts/feelings on the subject? Again, you are missing my point and not making any sense.

Now I shall go walk to the grocery store. Toodles, bfp-people.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I pm'd you the quote and post number.



You are completely missing my point. My point being that being a parent or not being a parent has NO correlation to my (or anybodies) political or moral ideas. HOW someone becomes a parent doesn't change this.



Change what? Change the fact that not having children is irrelevant to my thoughts/feelings on the subject? Again, you are missing my point and not making any sense.

Now I shall go walk to the grocery store. Toodles, bfp-people.

I do get your point and agree that "choosing" to not have children is not an immoral act. It is a choice. I chose the same. My point was for addicts, sometimes those options aren't there. They are victims to their disease. Period.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Jess

The notion that "all" drugs should be legalized is just silly in my book. What practical purpose does meth serve? What "healing" properties does it hold? How do you go about acquiring a script for it? Go in to your doc and say "I am feeling way too normal and need a break" ??? WTF?

For me, legalize means over the counter, not by prescription. As for practical purposes or healing properties, one could ask the same of pretty much every food item sold in a convenience store. There's no practical purpose to twinkies. Oh, wait, except for pot munchies.

Question for everyone. If all drugs were legal, would people still do shit like meth? Or would they opt for a good high that doesn't fuck you up so badly?

[Jess]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

For me, legalize means over the counter, not by prescription. As for practical purposes or healing properties, one could ask the same of pretty much every food item sold in a convenience store. There's no practical purpose to twinkies. Oh, wait, except for pot munchies.

Question for everyone. If all drugs were legal, would people still do shit like meth? Or would they opt for a good high that doesn't fuck you up so badly?

Sorry but the only reported case of murder/ mayhem by twinkie was the Harvey Milk case and we all know what a fucked up piece of legalese that was. Buying a handful of meth over the counter and a twinkie is kinda apples to oranges. Evil fucked up oranges.

[Andrew, Jr.]

Betenoire,

I agree with you. I think about the kids who are violent and go on shooting rampages in their schools. What about violent video games that kids play? And the R rating that everyone knows kids of all ages watch due to the internet, Blockbuster, and Netflix.

I don't have kids. That has nothing to do with my morals or my values. Same as you.

Plus my older sister is a cocaine and heroine addict. She has 2 kids.