The War on Drugs

[Vegas Halo Fan]

The problem with a lot of the marijuana research is that it has been done with the purpose of justifying keeping it illegal. I haven't seen much in the way of what I would call objective data.

[Lifetime]

Are you saying the results of the research was skewed in favor of a particular objective? Can you be more specific about what research you're referring to and why it wasn't objective?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

aren't cigs taxed for this purpose as well?

 

IMO, what is done for cigarettes is a pretty good model for what should be done with most street drugs. Regulate them, don't market them to minors, don't allow media advertising, tax them, legalize sales but control them, and educate people about the consequences of using them. Beats the hell out of stuffing prisons with people for buying, selling and possessing them and having armed gangs roaming the streets armed to the teeth trying to protect their "business".

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Are you saying the results of the research was skewed in favor of a particular objective? Can you be more specific about what research you're referring to and why it wasn't objective?

 

Even going back to the 1930s, when the film Reefer Madness painted a very slanted picture of marijuana use, there has been a focus on reporting only the negative. The following article details how the FDA dismissed out of hand the argument that marijuana has medical value, despite numerous studies to the contrary:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/health/21marijuana.html?_r=0

 

And recreational use? Forget it.

[arch stanton]

I'm not interested in who is opposing the bills. Iuunderstand their opposition from a business perspective. More choices for altered recreation dilutes their market. It makes sense for them to fight it. But that doesn't tell me if it's a good idea or not. I'm more interested in the data. I'm also interested in why people are for legalization or limited legalization without having this information. If the data is out there, where is it? Have you seen it?

This is backwards. This is supposed to be a free society. I would rather someone give me data to prove that the ban or limitation is a real benefit.

[Lifetime]

Even going back to the 1930s, when the film Reefer Madness painted a very slanted picture of marijuana use, there has been a focus on reporting only the negative. The following article details how the FDA dismissed out of hand the argument that marijuana has medical value, despite numerous studies to the contrary:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/health/21marijuana.html?_r=0

 

And recreational use? Forget it.

OK, but that has nothing to do with the research I was talking about. 

[HaloMagic]

Well it's obviously the research that he was talking about.

[Lifetime]

This is backwards. This is supposed to be a free society. I would rather someone give me data to prove that the ban or limitation is a real benefit.

Actually it isn't supposed to be a free society. 

 

It's already illegal and if we are going to argue that it should be legal, should we know both sides of the argument and what the potential ramifications would be? It's about making prudent informed decisions. 

[Lifetime]

Well it's obviously the research that he was talking about.

Yes, and in response to my query, it's not related. 

[HaloMagic]

LT;: Where is the data?

VHF: A lot of the data is flawed.

LT: What data?

VHF: This data.

LT. I'm not talking about that data.

HM: Haha.

LT: That wasn't the data I was talking about.

[Lifetime]

Are you going to contribute to the discussion? 

[HaloMagic]

I pointed out to you that HE was talking about data and you replied to him. So the data he referenced was the data you were talking about since you asked him what data he was talking about. You seemed confused on that so I thought I'd help out. You can thank me later.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I pointed out to you that HE was talking about data and you replied to him. So the data he referenced was the data you were talking about since you asked him what data he was talking about. You seemed confused on that so I thought I'd help out. You can thank me later.

 

I appreciate the intervention, but I learned long ago that when LT's response to every reply is either that it's irrelevant or that his question hasn't been answered, I just walk away. Not worth the required effort, which probably wouldn't make a difference anyway.

[Lifetime]

So it's pretty clear what information looking for after a number of posts posing the question and your response is about different data that you don't trust is objective. Now you're bent because I said you didn't answer my question. Beautiful! 

 

And since when are all my replies irrelevant or the question hasn't been answered - unless of course that is true. 

[arch stanton]

LT we all realize by now that you are an authoritarian lover of the state who believes in controlling every breath that we serfs dare to take but some of us still believe the BS we've been fed since elementary school about freedom and liberty. If you can't make a compelling argument in favor of criminalizing personal behavior then I'll just assume that you've discovered a way to make a dime off of the laws in place and just want to defend your cash cow.  

[halobob]

I'm with HM, legalize everything.  Why should I or the government have any say in what people do to their own bodies?  If ur dumb enough to kill urself with the drugs then you didn't value your life anyway.

[Lifetime]

LT we all realize by now that you are an authoritarian lover of the state who believes in controlling every breath that we serfs dare to take but some of us still believe the BS we've been fed since elementary school about freedom and liberty. If you can't make a compelling argument in favor of criminalizing personal behavior then I'll just assume that you've discovered a way to make a dime off of the laws in place and just want to defend your cash cow.  

LOL! WTF are you talking about?

[arch stanton]

LOL! WTF are you talking about?

Drone strikes, gun control, drug laws, there's not a single government overreach that you don't defend vigorously. The only thing that makes sense to me is that you have a personal financial stake in government oversight of everything.

[Lifetime]

Drone strikes, gun control, drug laws, there's not a single government overreach that you don't defend vigorously. The only thing that makes sense to me is that you have a personal financial stake in government oversight of everything.

uh, you're completely wrong arch but do go on with your amusing assessment.

[Lhalo]

uh, you're completely wrong arch but do go on with your amusing assessment.

Hey LT, just out of curiosity are you against the legalization of marijuana?

[Lifetime]

No with the qualifier that it needs to be regulated.

[saangels]

Right in that sentence is what happens when you get older. Youth calls for no limitations but as you get older, find friends falling away to addictions and attend funerals you either are pushed into more conservative thought or remain steadfast believing that autonomy is all important.

 

Hard for me to accept legalization of drugs when I have had to stand over a fresh grave and no, by legalizing the drug that cost this person their life it would not have made a difference other than moved the year mark back a decade.

Eric, I'm sorry to rehash this conversation.  But you said in this thread that you are against legalizing drugs because, even though it would greatly reduce the deficit, it would cost people their lives; in another thread you said today, that, in order to reduce the deficit, you would be willing to cut spending on social programs.  Out of curiosity: why is it ok to allow 48,000 poor Americans without medical insurance to die every year, but not the drug user, who essentially brings it on himself?  The way I see it is, if we ended the war on drugs, and used a percentage of that $3 trillion to provide medical care for people without insurance, not only would we reduce the deficit, but we would save lives.  I don't really think this point can be argued.  But feel free to prove me wrong.       

[saangels]

And, again, I want to let everyone know: I'm in favor of cutting it all.  I'm just trying to get to the bottom of some of these contradictory ideas.  Why is a drug addict's life worth more than a part-time worker's who doesn't do drugs but develops cancer and can't afford treatment?  

[HaloFan85]

We already allow the importing of coca leaves into this country for beverage and pharmaceutical making purposes.

[Tank]

It's crazy how comfortable people feel telling others what they can do with their own lives. Count me in for legalization of all drugs. It's not my business what you do with your life.

If using any drug which alters your mind were done in a vacuum, including alcohol, your argument would hold up better. But that's not how any of these substances are used, and any peerson using these substances who then gets a behind a wheel or walks through a mall increases the risk of an accident to themselves or to others.

Aren't you guys tired of all the deaths due to drunk driving? Or are you not outraged because it hasn't affected you or your friends/family directly? And why would anyone want to increase the possibility of more road deaths by putting more mind-altering substances into the hands of the citizenry!