|
Install Gentoo posted:I've seen a few people on facebook and stuff recently start claiming that marijuana legalization is a bad thing because it makes it harder to legalize other drugs now. Somehow. Anyone else encountering this? I know a lot of hardcore "legalize it all" (which is my position) advocates who wanted to use pot as a stalking horse for everything. Pot is a drug that most people agree should be legal, opiates, cocaine, acid, DMT, x, ketamine not so much. The logic is if you had sweeping drug reform some of those substances could ride in on pots coattails. But if you take pot out of the fight a lot of the support instantly vanishes.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
SilentD posted:I know a lot of hardcore "legalize it all" (which is my position) advocates who wanted to use pot as a stalking horse for everything. Pot is a drug that most people agree should be legal, opiates, cocaine, acid, DMT, x, ketamine not so much. The logic is if you had sweeping drug reform some of those substances could ride in on pots coattails. But if you take pot out of the fight a lot of the support instantly vanishes. Conversely, if you refuse to let pot legalization stand on its own and link it to legalization of other drugs like heroin or cocaine, support for pot legalization rapidly diminishes. Government doesn't really do sweeping reforms of any regulations or laws, you pretty much have to chip away at them over time no matter the situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That doesn't make any sense. We shouldn't give a poo poo about the actual price, any tax revenue that is made is still greater than or equal to the tax revenue that we get from pot sales now (which is $0), and millions or billions of dollars are saved from no longer prosecuting and jailing people who are breaking an unnecessary law. Everything about this is a huge win even if you're like me and don't smoke pot SilentD posted:I know a lot of hardcore "legalize it all" (which is my position) advocates who wanted to use pot as a stalking horse for everything. Pot is a drug that most people agree should be legal, opiates, cocaine, acid, DMT, x, ketamine not so much. The logic is if you had sweeping drug reform some of those substances could ride in on pots coattails. But if you take pot out of the fight a lot of the support instantly vanishes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Conversely, if you refuse to let pot legalization stand on its own and link it to legalization of other drugs like heroin or cocaine, support for pot legalization rapidly diminishes. Government doesn't really do sweeping reforms of any regulations or laws, you pretty much have to chip away at them over time no matter the situation. Besides, wouldn't the presence of legal pot ultimately yield genuine real-world evidence of the folly of prohibition? cheese posted:Probably because some of those substances listed are highly addictive, physically damaging and outright dangerous. There is a reason pot legalization has much more support than heroin legalization. Well, some of the main arguments for legalizing pot apply equally to more dangerous drugs (such as that there's nothing to gain from treating drug addiction as an offense to be punished rather than an illness to be treated).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Well, some of the main arguments for legalizing pot apply equally to more dangerous drugs (such as that there's nothing to gain from treating drug addiction as an offense to be punished rather than an illness to be treated). That's pretty much where I stand. Legalize it all and treat it as a public health issue. You want to take out the Mexican cartels? Wait till Monsanto and Phil Morris start farming pot and cocaine, then you'll see what a cartel really is like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I know a lot of hardcore "legalize it all" (which is my position) advocates who wanted to use pot as a stalking horse for everything. Pot is a drug that most people agree should be legal, opiates, cocaine, acid, DMT, x, ketamine not so much. The logic is if you had sweeping drug reform some of those substances could ride in on pots coattails. But if you take pot out of the fight a lot of the support instantly vanishes. I do think we should recognize that this is a step in the correct direction but the entire CSA needs to be re-worked and if we're actually going to use it, needs to be based on science. The entire class schedule is hosed from top to bottom. Having MDMA and LSD as schedule one is as absurd as pot being there. I'm sure you already know how different that list of drugs is you posted but I'll be damned if it doesn't irk me something fierce when I see LSD, DMT or MDMA compared with opiates. cheese posted:Probably because some of those substances listed are highly addictive, physically damaging and outright dangerous. There is a reason pot legalization has much more support than heroin legalization. The way I see it we either trust adults to manage their substance intake or we don't. Treating everything case by case is pretty drat pointless considering the most dangerous recreational drug of any meaningful popularity is already legal, alcohol. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
Basically the only drug which needs to be outright banned or artificially made a shitload more expensive at least is alcohol. But the current narrative in Australia is that it would place too much of a financial burden on the poorer members of society if alcohol prices were raised - students and pensioners were the two examples given - as though it would be a bad thing if those groups drank less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Flaky posted:it would place too much of a financial burden on the poorer members of society if alcohol prices were raised - students and pensioners were the two examples given - as though it would be a bad thing if those groups drank less. It's a rather insulting attitude if you ask me. It implies that poor people are unable to modify their drinking habits if the price goes up; as though being poor makes you a slave to your basest desires and somehow unable to control yourself. It's a line you hear repeated ad nauseam every-time the tax on cigarettes goes up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Flaky posted:But the current narrative in Australia is that it would place too much of a financial burden on the poorer members of society if alcohol prices were raised - students and pensioners were the two examples given - as though it would be a bad thing if those groups drank less. Basically you can boil it down to a class question: anyone who actually lives on a decent income isn't affected by a price hike of cigarettes or alcohol at all. However, the spending patterns and general entertainment available to poorer individuals are vastly different than those of middle-class or rich people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
^^^^When alcohol goes up, you just switch to a cheaper brand  SilentD posted:I know a lot of hardcore "legalize it all" (which is my position) advocates who wanted to use pot as a stalking horse for everything. Pot is a drug that most people agree should be legal, opiates, cocaine, acid, DMT, x, ketamine not so much. The logic is if you had sweeping drug reform some of those substances could ride in on pots coattails. But if you take pot out of the fight a lot of the support instantly vanishes. Honestly, your entire premise is off. Pot isn't a drug. It is a plant, that is smoked in its natural form. That alone makes it completely different from any "drug" on the planet. Personally, if I could get up in the morning and snort a rail of cocaine instead of drinking a redbull or 3 cups of coffee to get through the day I would. Then come home and smoke a bowl instead of drinking a beer or 6 to wipe away the memories of all the stupid users I had to deal with in the last 10 hours. I'd probably be much healthier too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Has there been any major cases on the federal level regarding marijuana since Randall v US? Isn't the whole Compassionate IND program a giant double standard that hasn't been challenged at all in regards to medical marijuana?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Pot isn't a drug. It is a plant, that is smoked in its natural form. That alone makes it completely different from any "drug" on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Honestly, your entire premise is off. Pot isn't a drug. It is a plant, that is smoked in its natural form. That alone makes it completely different from any "drug" on the planet. No it doesn't. It's still a chemical compound that interacts with your body. The distinction of it being "natural" doesn't mean poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:^^^^When alcohol goes up, you just switch to a cheaper brand One of the reasons, in fact it may be the biggest reason, why pot is getting legalized while other drugs arent is that we have a storied and very lengthy history with it. No major negative societal effects can be found in history (Think opium war levels) and it is known well enough by enough of the public that the efforts to stigmatize will only fall on ears of the choir. To legalize the other drugs we have to do something much, much harder. We have to battle the anti-intellectualism that is centered around drug use and the political and economic parties that use it as a tool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
I think really if we want to talk about legalization of other recreational drugs you have to look closely at abuse-ability and harm they can cause. Drugs that are naturally addictive (like heroin or meth) can cause much more serious social problems from addiction or problems caused by addicts of these drugs. However this means we would probably have to overhaul our drug scheduling so that way other, less abuseable or addictive recreational drugs like MDMA and LSD aren't in the same category.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:I think really if we want to talk about legalization of other recreational drugs you have to look closely at abuse-ability and harm they can cause. Drugs that are naturally addictive (like heroin or meth) can cause much more serious social problems from addiction or problems caused by addicts of these drugs. However this means we would probably have to overhaul our drug scheduling so that way other, less abuseable or addictive recreational drugs like MDMA and LSD aren't in the same category. Well if we are going to spend time into researching their harm and then implement some draconic scheduling laws why not spend the exact same time and resources in educating the public on which drugs do what, setting up public pathways for harm reduction and just increasing awareness instead of following abstinence. People are much less likely to endanger themselves foolishly when they know the risks. Of course you will have the few that will immerse themselves deeply into a downwards spiral but those people exist already even under the current laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Are tobacco, ethanol, coca, salvia, DMT, mescaline, psylocybin, khat, caffeine, opium, and a host of other recreational and medicinal drugs not drugs either? Because these are all natural products as well. Pretty much all of those have to be refined in some form or fashion to become the product that is introduced to the body. Psylocybin and Mescaline easily fall into the same category as MJ and should be treated as such. My point is, what gives those rich assholes running the country any right to tell me that I can't pick up a plant growing out of the ground and ingest it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Pretty much all of those have to be refined in some form or fashion to become the product that is introduced to the body. Psylocybin and Mescaline easily fall into the same category as MJ and should be treated as such. My point is, what gives those rich assholes running the country any right to tell me that I can't pick up a plant growing out of the ground and ingest it. There are plenty of plants you wouldn't want to pick up off the ground and ingest. Rhubarb, nightshade, and hemlock come to mind. "Natural" does not equal safe, or effective, or not a drug. Your attitude is exactly the negative stereotype applied to "hippie drug users." If we want a reasonable drug policy, then we need to discuss drugs and drug policy in a scientific, evidence-based manner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:There are plenty of plants you wouldn't want to pick up off the ground and ingest. Rhubarb, nightshade, and hemlock come to mind. "Natural" does not equal safe, or effective, or not a drug. Your attitude is exactly the negative stereotype applied to "hippie drug users." If we want a reasonable drug policy, then we need to discuss drugs and drug policy in a scientific, evidence-based manner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Poison-ivy is not illegal. If you dried it, rolled it and sold it to some kids telling them smoking it would get them high, you may find otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Poison-ivy is not illegal. I hate to continue this dumb argument, but if you start with the presumption that drug use is bad (it's a wrong but common starting point) you need something to prevent people from picking it up off the ground and ingesting it. Poison Ivy is sort of self-regulating in this regard and doesn't require the law. I'm sure if Poison Ivy reactions were considered pleasurable it would be regulated legally as opposed to naturally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:"Natural" does not equal safe, or effective, or not a drug. Your attitude is exactly the negative stereotype applied to "hippie drug users." If we want a reasonable drug policy, then we need to discuss drugs and drug policy in a scientific, evidence-based manner. You summed this up better than I did. "Natural" is not a compelling argument to many people, nor is it a winning legal one either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:If you dried it, rolled it and sold it to some kids telling them smoking it would get them high, you may find otherwise. Delta-Wye posted:I hate to continue this dumb argument, but if you start with the presumption that drug use is bad (it's a wrong but common starting point) you need something to prevent people from picking it up off the ground and ingesting it. Poison Ivy is sort of self-regulating in this regard and doesn't require the law. I'm sure if Poison Ivy reactions were considered pleasurable it would be regulated legally as opposed to naturally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Pretty much all of those have to be refined in some form or fashion to become the product that is introduced to the body. Psylocybin and Mescaline easily fall into the same category as MJ and should be treated as such. My point is, what gives those rich assholes running the country any right to tell me that I can't pick up a plant growing out of the ground and ingest it. Why should refinement have anything to do with the legality of consuming the chemicals you like?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:No it doesn't. It's still a chemical compound that interacts with your body. The distinction of it being "natural" doesn't mean poo poo. The whole word "drug" doesn't even have a real clear definition. As far as I can tell, by the definition most people use, sugar is a drug. Food is a drug. Everything we ingest interacts with our biochemistry on some level. The bottom line is that the government should not really be in the business of telling people which substances they can or cannot ingest. There's just no upside to punishing ingestion as a criminal offense. The only two things that will "fix" America's "drug problem" are education and a more expansive healthcare system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Why should refinement have anything to do with the legality of consuming the chemicals you like? Because no one should be able to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own loving house? It all comes back around to rich people making sure they control poor people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The bottom line is that the government should not really be in the business of telling people which substances they can or cannot ingest Uh yeah it is, it's like 90% of food regulations. And medicine regulations. We do a ton of things to prevent people from using lead and other such things in stuff people will ingest. veedubfreak posted:Because no one should be able to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own loving house? You can refine meth in the privacy of your own house so again what does refinement have to do with it? You chose to use those terms, refinement, refined etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Uh yeah it is, it's like 90% of food regulations. And medicine regulations. We do a ton of things to prevent people from using lead and other such things in stuff people will ingest. There's a difference between making sure that people don't unwittingly consume toxic substances and letting people willingly consume substances. I should have a reasonable expectation that my breakfast cereal won't have arsenic in it, but if I want to eat arsenic (suicide) or smoke some cigarettes then there ought to be an affirmative case for why I shouldn't do what I want with my body. The "natural" argument is loving stupid though. Natural substances contain/produce chemical compounds which are drugs. Willow bark contains salicylic acid, eating it is a delivery vector. Salicylic acid is definitely a drug (one of the precursors to aspirin), it doesn't matter whether you get it by extraction or by chewing some bark. THC is the drug in weed, the delivery vector is oral or inhalation. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Uh yeah it is, it's like 90% of food regulations. And medicine regulations. We do a ton of things to prevent people from using lead and other such things in stuff people will ingest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The whole word "drug" doesn't even have a real clear definition. As far as I can tell, by the definition most people use, sugar is a drug. Food is a drug. Everything we ingest interacts with our biochemistry on some level. The bottom line is that the government should not really be in the business of telling people which substances they can or cannot ingest. There's just no upside to punishing ingestion as a criminal offense. The only two things that will "fix" America's "drug problem" are education and a more expansive healthcare system. I agree in general terms. My point was pot being "natural" means jack poo poo for any legal or even policy purpose. Government policies should be made on the basis of data, harm, and benefits - and of that we have overwhelming amounts of data that pot should be legal, regardless of if it's "natural" or not. On the other hand, I believe the government does have a right to control some ingestable. Restricting access to antibiotics, for example, is a slam-dunk example. Restricting access to more "dangerous" narcotics has a case, I think as well, but by any logical measure marijuana fails to meet those criteria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Are tobacco, ethanol, coca, salvia, DMT, mescaline, psylocybin, khat, caffeine, opium, and a host of other recreational and medicinal drugs not drugs either? Because these are all natural products as well. Some of those are drugs and some of those are substances that contain drugs. In a certain context it's just being pedantic, but there is a real point for example to saying something like "beer is not a drug." As dangerous as beer is, as a means to deliver alcohol it is a LOT safer than vaporizing or injecting alcohol, which carries a much higher risk of death. It's also relevant in the case of marijuana that it isn't just arbitrary plant + THC; see for example how Marinol does not have the same efficacy as marijuana. Coca is another good example: really the only reason it is illegal is because cocaine exists, not because people are getting hosed up on coca.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's a difference between making sure that people don't unwittingly consume toxic substances and letting people willingly consume substances. I should have a reasonable expectation that my breakfast cereal won't have arsenic in it, but if I want to eat arsenic (suicide) or smoke some cigarettes then there ought to be an affirmative case for why I shouldn't do what I want with my body. People used to use lead in foods for coloring and flavor. You can't buy those foods anymore. It's something that isn't permitted by regulations now. There are all kinds of things you used to be able to have in food for general consumption that can't be done now. NathanScottPhillips posted:They don't come and test your vegetables from your garden before you eat them and they don't come test your kid's tree house for contaminants. They only test things sold, in like, a store. What does that have to do with anything? They also don't come and test your home meth lab or your hydroponic weed farm in most cases either, unless you slip up. They don't even test most food that's actually in the store either. But if it does turn out to be reported contaminated you get in trouble with the law. I mean jeez you hear about food having to be recalled all the time; that's because testing is often done after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Boulder DA dismissing small-scale marijuana possession cases in light of Amendment 64TFA posted:District Attorney Stan Garnett today announced that his office will dismiss all pending cases of marijuana possession under one ounce, saying the overwhelming support for Amendment 64 in Boulder County would make it highly unlikely a jury would ever reach a guilty verdict in any of those cases. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Uh yeah it is, it's like 90% of food regulations. And medicine regulations. We do a ton of things to prevent people from using lead and other such things in stuff people will ingest. The government does have a job in ensuring that the consumer is informed 100% about what they are ingesting, especially if they are receiving that product through the economic system the government manages. That being said, if people want to eat lead after being told the consequences, that's fine with me. I'm all for putting the dangers front and center (for example, warning labels on tobacco products) but allowing consumers to ignore them if they elect to. I find this much preferable to the government deciding which substances we should or should not be able to ingest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:What does that have to do with anything? They also don't come and test your home meth lab or your hydroponic weed farm in most cases either, unless you slip up. The difference is that not only can they come in and test your hydroponic weed farm (or meth lab), the very notion of its existence is probable cause to break down your doors, you can get arrested and have all your assets seized for having one, and it is illegal to farm weed even if you personally consume every last ounce of product. If you have a home vegetable garden that is crawling with salmonella, which is far more dangerous than any weed farm, that is your prerogative until you start trying to sell those vegetables. You can eat the stuff day and night while sending mocking messages to the FDA about flouting their rules, there is nothing that can be done to you. On top of that, even if you do start selling your contaminated vegetables, the worst consequence is usually a civil penalty barring some sort of gross negligence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The government does have a job in ensuring that the consumer is informed 100% about what they are ingesting, especially if they are receiving that product through the economic system the government manages. That being said, if people want to eat lead after being told the consequences, that's fine with me. I'm all for putting the dangers front and center (for example, warning labels on tobacco products) but allowing consumers to ignore them if they elect to. I find this much preferable to the government deciding which substances we should or should not be able to ingest. Point is that we can and do restrict things that people can ingest all the time. It's a fully accepted practice and it's in the nation's best interest to make sure that people aren't getting straight up poisoned by everyday foods even if they say they want to be. AreWeDrunkYet posted:The difference is that not only can they come in and test your hydroponic weed farm (or meth lab), the very notion of its existence is probable cause to break down your doors, you can get arrested and have all your assets seized for having one, and it is illegal to farm weed even if you personally consume every last ounce of product. But that's not a difference in whether it's allowed at all. Both selling weed and selling food you known is contaminated are illegal. It does not matter that one puts you up to harsher penalties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:But that's not a difference in whether it's allowed at all. Both selling weed and selling food you known is contaminated are illegal. It does not matter that one puts you up to harsher penalties. Of course it's a difference in whether it's allowed, you are the only person here limiting the discussion to sales. Let's try this again, perhaps you can figure this out if it's spelled out for you step by step: -Harmful substances, generally speaking, do not have possession and/or use prohibited. This goes for contaminated food, adulterated drugs, or just plain poisons. To make this as clear as possible, anyone can create and ingest as much of any of these prohibited items as he or she wants, with absolutely no legal penalties even if this person advertises their flouting of regulatory standards. -This is not true for weed. Manufacture and consumption, even for strictly personal use, is prohibited. -That the sale of both items is prohibited does not change the fact that their manufacture and consumption are treated differently by the law. The (very disparate) regulations on sales do not somehow magically eliminate how personal use is regulated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Of course it's a difference in whether it's allowed, you are the only person here limiting the discussion to sales. Because I was only talking about sales to begin with. AreWeDrunkYet posted:-Harmful substances, generally speaking, do not have possession and/or use prohibited. This goes for contaminated food, adulterated drugs, or just plain poisons. To make this as clear as possible, anyone can create and ingest as much of any of these prohibited items as he or she wants, with absolutely no legal penalties even if this person advertises their flouting of regulatory standards. Tons of harmful substances have their possession and use prohibited. How much plutonium do you think you can make out back before you get in trouble? poo poo, you can get in a hell of a lot of trouble just for possessing chemicals that 5 steps later on are sued to manufacture a drug, and they're usually toxic in themselves. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
It makes absolutely no sense to deprive cannabis users of their liberty while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty like drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco. The common retort is that we don't want to add to the problem we have with those other drugs (by adding another intoxicant into the mix) so the government has the right to draw the line between a lawful and unlawful act where ever it choses. Of course, if we grant the government that right they could quite easily make it a criminal offence for blacks to imbibe alcohol on the grounds that 'we've already got big problem with drinking among whites'. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
KingEup posted:It makes absolutely no sense to deprive cannabis users of their liberty while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty like drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco. I agree. Although are you aware that there were severe restrictions against tobacco and cigarettes in many states around the late 19th/early 20th century? Was actually quite popular for a while, mostly died off before Prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:46
|
|