Marijuana Won Tuesday's Election

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Go ahead legalise it . And continue your decline into third world status .

Of all the nonsense and misinformed posts... Do you honestly believe that legal narcotics cause the decline of a country? Are you REALLY that naive and do you REALLY trust the government on this? Because that is what you are doing. You are trusting the government's opinion on drugs.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Here's the deal with that. A lot of overdoses go untreated because of the fear of being arrested and charged once they show up at the hospital. This goes for people dropping off the ODing person as well.

Portugal has been the stellar example of what the world's drug policy should strive to be like since 2001. Decriminalize all drugs. What happens is that usage rates go down and people with addiction more readily seek out help. Overdoses are also on the decline.

If you recognize that some people in society will use regardless of the laws then you can pivot to help them instead of demonizing them and throwing them in a jail cell for going against society's wishes.

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Go ahead legalise it . And continue your decline into third world status .

Hey Jeff,

did The Netherlands achieve a third world status with legalising weed yet? Maybe they should start to wage wars for "freedom" and burn nearly every tax-Euro on the MICs and various national security projects as well to get there? Way to go, eh?



bgerbger,

thanks for the thread, good news indeed!

The war isn't over yet but another battle was just won and every state that comes around and joins team green brings us closer and closer to federal legalization. This is momentum and we need to keep it going and keep pushing the issue and making our voices heard. The American people want this and our economy NEEDS it ad we will eventually get where we need to be.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not denying that aspect. But that's actually a separate issue. Simply legalizing all drugs isn't the same thing as focusing on treating drug abuse and rehabilitation, nor the same thing as ensuring that the substances have quality assurances (all of which Portugal also did). Those would be different programs and I have no faith that American conservatives would create or fund govt programs like those. They don't even want the FDA or EPA to function properly now, so why would I expect them to fund even more consumer protection-type programs?

I'm all in favor of drug treatment programs, rehabilitation programs, and most forms of decriminalization like in Portugal. I'm also mostly in favor of the highly secure and highly professional programs where addicts can get a legal fix, since that cuts down on the amount of tainted doses, overdoses, social stigmas, etc. (I say "mostly in favor of" because I have my doubts on how they would be implemented in the US, particularly in the South. But that's another topic altogether.)

But I still am adamant that some substances serve no public good whatsoever. And "legalization" is too broad of a term, since that doesn't describe what degree of legality we're talking about for each substance. For example, many herbal supplements and health supplements are completely legal right now. But they have a horrible track record for quality assurances, as well as a horrible record of claiming to do things that they really don't do. Many times, they aren't even audited. So legalization alone isn't enough.

If we're talking 100% legality, then I can picture every supplement company putting out their own legal versions of meth with zero oversight. Other than the reduction in criminal arrests/convictions, I'm failing to see how that would help the situation.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

But saying that all drugs should be legal includes powerful hallucinogens, date rape drugs, and even that supposed "zombie drug" Scopolamine. And simply legalizing all drugs means nothing if we don't explain what "legalize" means in context. Does that mean that people can grow opium poppies & coca plants freely the same way we can grow legal plants like tomatoes? Can people legally create meth & crack at home the same way we can make cookies (as in, with no regulations whatsoever)? Or will they be regulated like the production of alcohol? Or even regulated like the production of patented prescription drugs, meaning that even if you can recreate the recipe to produce those drugs, you still wouldn't be able to do it legally?

Right now we have BigPharma pushing falsified studies to make a profit, they don't care about quality either. Why would we need to regulate production if the market can sort things out for us? You wont buy any stuff from somebody that doesn't really know what he's doing, would you?
We'd have a legal infrastructure in no time as well, open source databases for users to exchange experiences and for producers to collaborate on the development of high quality dope. I'm pretty sure we can do this, the plants alone are not really a problem if you have some oversight and handle things with care. Except for the occasional ignorant kid eating datura in some test of courage, which essentially boils down to education again.
We don't ban mini skirts and bikinis just because hot girls might get raped, a crime is still a crime. I'd love to try some scopolamine for scientific purposes, but there is no such thing of savety from misusage. Education, education and education are the only solution to this imho, not criminalization.

There were experiments with shugar on rodents. By limiting their use of shugar, they experienced drugged like behaviour.

Of course, to any rodent that would get shugar normally, he would not act that way.

The more something is forbiden, the more prople want to try it. Limiting something just makes it more adictable.

Same with drugs but in a much bigger scale.

Of course @enlightenedservant is right. There shouldn't be a 100% legalisation all off the bat. There should be quallity laws set and better handling. We start with marihuana and move to the harder drugs little by little.

Point is to legalise everything and containt it in a civilised manner.

a reply to: DAVID64

They can and do pull that over a lot of different things. I'm currently in a battle over more money than I'd care to think about losing forever (though I'm fairly certain I'll never see it again) just because it was deemed "suspicious activity" even after I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was obtained legally and no laws were broken in ANY capacity. Everything is just one big money grab now.

I've also been questioned on several different occasions over my use of a prepaid debit card. I don't think a lot of police are quick enough on the uptake to understand that some people have been royally screwed by traditional banks and would rather go the prepaid route for direct deposit than risk losing it over some bank bs, nothing sinister or illegal involved. It would be sad if it weren't so infuriating.

For instance, what alcohol has good for the people? Does the good outweight the bad?

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

There shouldn't be a 100% legalisation all off the bat. There should be quallity laws set and better handling. We start with marihuana and move to the harder drugs little by little.

Point is to legalise everything and contain it in a civilised manner.

I can agree with this, except for some substances like date rape drugs and some of the less pleasurable but more addictive substances. So maybe some large forum or committee that distinguishes which recreational drugs would be allowed and which ones shouldn't be? Just throwing out ideas here.

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

Prohibition proved without a shadow of a doubt that criminalizing alcohol use is a terrible idea with the bad FAR outweighing the good. Alcohol isn't healthy, but criminalizing its use is beyond stupid.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well there is a key word I used here. Decriminalization. I didn't use legalization. I still think it should be illegal to sell some of these drugs. It's just that putting someone in jail for using is down right cruel and unusual punishment to quote the Constitution.

Some drugs pot, hallucinogens, ecstasy, I'd even throw coc aine in there should be legalized. Most other drugs should remain illegal to sell. Also, just because a drug is legal doesn't mean we can't regulate its legal status. Take nicotine for instance. It is legal to buy cigarettes, tobacco, cigars, hookas, etc, but it is illegal to advertise these products. That could be something that could be implemented for some of the harder but legal drugs.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If you recognize that some people in society will use regardless of the laws then you can pivot to help them instead of demonizing them and throwing them in a jail cell for going against society's wishes.

Well written. And, due to that, i would like to share a video from 2 years ago, here:

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
did The Netherlands achieve a third world status with legalising weed yet?

That is not entirely correct. Weed is not legal in The Netherlands, although a lot of people think it is.

Cannabis in the Netherlands is illegal, but is decriminalised for personal use.

Wiki page

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Right now we have BigPharma pushing falsified studies to make a profit, they don't care about quality either.

I touched on this aspect in another post (the one right above your post that I'm responding to).

Why would we need to regulate production if the market can sort things out for us?

How is the market sorting things out for us? You just said that even the large companies are falsifying their info and don't care about product quality. That's precisely why we'd need regulations in the first place. Without regulations and audits, there's nothing stopping companies from intentionally placing harmful chemicals and/or extra addictive substances in their products. Once people are addicted or have contracted some medical condition from the product (say hi to asbestos 2.0), it's too late for the market to "save" anyone.

You wont buy any stuff from somebody that doesn't really know what he's doing, would you?

It's not about whether or not they know what they're doing; it's about whether you the consumer knows what they're doing. That's the whole point in ingredient labels & safety regulations. The producers will always "know what they're doing", just as many illegal dealers know exactly what they're doing when they cut drugs with other substances or sell otherwise tainted products. It's the consumers who don't know.

Besides, you just pointed out that even the big companies lie about quality. So how would customers be able to "know what they're doing"?

We'd have a legal infrastructure in no time as well, open source databases for users to exchange experiences and for producers to collaborate on the development of high quality dope. I'm pretty sure we can do this, the plants alone are not really a problem if you have some oversight and handle things with care.

You seem to be arguing both sides now. On one hand, you're saying that even the big companies don't care about quality or care about lying about their info. But now you're saying we'd somehow have a legal infrastructure in no time and a way for producers to collaborate on the development of high quality products. It seems like you're assuming that the major cartels, gangs, tobacco companies, and pharmaceutical companies would stay out of the market for these newly legalized products.

But I think that just the opposite would happen. Those companies and organizations already have the technology and infrastructure to put out these types of products on a large scale. So how can Joe Shmoe compete with Marlboro branded blunts that are mass produced on an industrial scale, contain exotic foreign blends that have been cut with extra addictive additives, and are sold at Wal-Mart for half the price?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I was originally responding to the "legalize it all" idea. I could never support that. But I'm definitely a believer in decriminalization for a lot of recreational drugs, except for laws that are already on the books like DWI's. My basic feeling is "As long as you know what you're getting yourself into, you can do what you want to yourself. But if you harm others in the process, you're screwed".

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t
"As long as you know what you're getting yourself into, you can do what you want to yourself. But if you harm others in the process, you're screwed".

Exactly. It's a creed I've lived by for a long time. That motto was what attracted me originally to the Libertarian party before I got disgusted with how extreme it has gotten.

a reply to: Finspiracy

Yes, that is correct. Plus they toughened up with regards to foreigners, you probably wont get anything in a Coffeeshop without a Dutch passport by now. Pity.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm holding a somewhat ambivalent position on the issue of legalisation. You make some good points and we'd need professional oversight in order to maintain a certain quality for the consumers. I'm just holding high hopes that the civil society is capable to make it happen. Doctors without borders, national health councils, etc. pp. We have the committees to work things out, all we need is a legal framework to make it happen.
We wont need cartels to do the job, they'd still have to ship their product around the whole wide world. And a more decentralised production with labs anywhere will empower the people while potentially ruining the various criminal structures sooner or later. At least once corruption doesn't pay off anymore, which is probably the only problem with regards to legalisation. Who's going to pay/sway and bully the politicians to make it happen? Org. crime and secret services will do anything to prevent this from happening, which is why legalisation is a pipedream as long as we don't clean up the deep state madness.

a reply to: bgerbger

I think that it's pathetic that we are having to piecemeal marijuana legalization when we SHOULD be doing it at the federal level and not wasting all of these taxpayers' and voters' time and money to campaign for and vote on such measures.

regarding MJ we have aredy passed 51 percent acceptance for politicians this means they fallow suit or be voted out

I can't remember the name for it but a lot of things reach a point of acceptance and once you pass that point support grows rapidly

dinosaurs will die