|
Teflon Don posted:My greatest fear is legalization will end up like liquor/gun/abortion laws, i.e. completely different in every single state. Isn't that a necessary byproduct of the Commerce Clause?
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Teflon Don posted:My greatest fear is legalization will end up like liquor/gun/abortion laws, i.e. completely different in every single state. Except in this analogy you apparently want free guns for all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Except in this analogy you apparently want free guns for all. Liquor and abortions for all is a platform I can get behind. Bender 2016?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
What's really disappointing me is that there still doesn't seem to be any stomach or interest in broader drug reform. Talking to pro-legalization people, the argument is almost always "pot should be an exception because I like pot, everything else should stay the same" which is... disappointing, to say the least. I'm beginning to feel that we're never ever going to get comprehensive drug reform, it's just gonna be "the most popular drugs are legal, everything else means you're a deviant and deserve PRISON!". Drug law will never not be primarily a tool of social control, instead of something based on safety and effective health outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What's really disappointing me is that there still doesn't seem to be any stomach or interest in broader drug reform. Talking to pro-legalization people, the argument is almost always "pot should be an exception because I like pot, everything else should stay the same" which is... disappointing, to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:There is a lot of interest in medical MDMA and to a lesser extent medical magic mushrooms. In the case of MDMA, it's very likely we'll get it through the normal FDA approval process instead of having to force it down politicians throats via voter initiatives. Wow, I'm honestly surprised MDMA research is even happening, considering it's schedule 1. That's promising.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What's really disappointing me is that there still doesn't seem to be any stomach or interest in broader drug reform. Talking to pro-legalization people, the argument is almost always "pot should be an exception because I like pot, everything else should stay the same" which is... disappointing, to say the least. I talk about the idea of decriminalizing all drugs a lot and it seems pretty well accepted by younger people. It's just that politicians are old and have had decades of anti-drug propaganda drilled into their heads. Note how we probably have 60% of the country supporting legal weed yet very few Democrats even openly support legalization. Public opinion is definitely trending in the right direction but political progress is going to be slow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Wow, I'm honestly surprised MDMA research is even happening, considering it's schedule 1. That's promising. I was specifically referring to this Huffington Post article. Most relevant quote: quote:You've outlined an ambitious plan to make MDMA-assisted psychotherapy legal by 2021. How do you expect this to happen?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
I think if any ol' store could sell pot it would suck very hard, and people would want it banned because people can grow absolutely awful pot. Rich gardeners are rich for a reason, they have the right soil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What's really disappointing me is that there still doesn't seem to be any stomach or interest in broader drug reform. Talking to pro-legalization people, the argument is almost always "pot should be an exception because I like pot, everything else should stay the same" which is... disappointing, to say the least. One step at a time, man. Legal weed is already changing people's broader opinions. It is the hole in the dike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
How are u posted:One step at a time, man. Legal weed is already changing people's broader opinions. It is the hole in the dike. I absolutely think this is true. I mean, it's the reason people always decried weed as a 'gateway drug' in the first place - because once you become familiar with it, it really puts the lie to a lot of the other things you've been led to believe about drugs in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
How are u posted:One step at a time, man. Legal weed is already changing people's broader opinions. It is the hole in the dike. I was worried because in my own experience, legal weed hasn't, in fact, been changing people's broader opinions. They seem to think it's an exception, buying the argument that it should be treated like alcohol (an exception to normal drug laws because it's culturally popular, rather than because there's anything wrong with normal drug laws). Using drug law to pick cultural winners and losers still seems acceptable to them, they just want marijuana-users to be in the winner pile. If my experience isn't representative (which it probably isn't) that's a good thing. But remember that we legalized alcohol before in much the same way we're legalizing pot now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
How are u posted:One step at a time, man. Legal weed is already changing people's broader opinions. It is the hole in the dike. I kind of doubt that. If anything I think legal weed is likely to make a lot of people think the drug war is over because it will no longer be a threat to them personally. Like, what, you want to legalize heroin!?!? C'mon. We got weed now, white college kids are safe. Who's gonna go out and collect signatures in front of the Whole Foods to set up safe, legal cocaine shops? The major difference I see is that pot users feel comfortable, generally, advocating for themselves and their drug of choice. There is no NORML for hard drugs, and no one cares if we pack prisons with black and Latino junkies. I don't think pot legalization will do anything to reduce the major problems inherent in the drug war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I kind of doubt that. If anything I think legal weed is likely to make a lot of people think the drug war is over because it will no longer be a threat to them personally. Like, what, you want to legalize heroin!?!? C'mon. We got weed now, white college kids are safe. Who's gonna go out and collect signatures in front of the Whole Foods to set up safe, legal cocaine shops? I think the main draw behind legalization, or at least reform, around harder drugs would be the public health costs. Setting up Canada-style heroin clinics would be a lower burden on the healthcare system than ODs and injuries/deaths. The main reason would also be, you know, "if they're going to do it, let's make sure that they don't die", but that wouldn't sell as well because "THEY KNEW THE RISKS THE FILTHY ADDICTS"
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I kind of doubt that. If anything I think legal weed is likely to make a lot of people think the drug war is over because it will no longer be a threat to them personally. Like, what, you want to legalize heroin!?!? C'mon. We got weed now, white college kids are safe. Who's gonna go out and collect signatures in front of the Whole Foods to set up safe, legal cocaine shops? Banning a useful plant not because it is especially psychoactive but because after performing an extensive extraction process on a large quantity of it you can obtain a drug is ridiculous, you might as well ban reed canary grass because you can get DMT. Or cold medicine because you can get meth  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
I kinda get the feeling that, say, a lot of the people out there hooked on heroin or painkillers wouldn't have ended up that way if they could just go get weed legally and freely instead. It's not going to help them when weed is legalized but there's going to be much fewer people who have to turn to that in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I kinda get the feeling that, say, a lot of the people out there hooked on heroin or painkillers wouldn't have ended up that way if they could just go get weed legally and freely instead. It's not going to help them when weed is legalized but there's going to be much fewer people who have to turn to that in the future. I think this is more likely to be true for alcoholics than heroin or painkiller addicts., but I wouldn't be surprised if another legal somewhat-alternative dented their use numbers either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:I think the main draw behind legalization, or at least reform, around harder drugs would be the public health costs. Setting up Canada-style heroin clinics would be a lower burden on the healthcare system than ODs and injuries/deaths. The main reason would also be, you know, "if they're going to do it, let's make sure that they don't die", but that wouldn't sell as well because "THEY KNEW THE RISKS THE FILTHY ADDICTS" Public health officials are trying to do harm reduction in Baltimore by handing out opiate blockers and training directly to drug-using communities and people are literally mad that heroin addicts might not die of overdoses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
"US News posted:Trudeau takes office next month, and his government is expected to deliberate on the precise outlines for legalization before offering a proposal to Parliament. Loving that Westminster system right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
The costs of public health pale in comparison to the cost of incarceration. The last time I checked one inmate costs around $30,000 a year. I think as a whole the U.S. would save money. Not to mention the additional revenue from taxing the drugs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Only in drug war wonderland: https://theconversation.com/could-iran-be-the-next-country-to-legalise-cannabis-and-opium-49183
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What's really disappointing me is that there still doesn't seem to be any stomach or interest in broader drug reform. Talking to pro-legalization people, the argument is almost always "pot should be an exception because I like pot, everything else should stay the same" which is... disappointing, to say the least. I think it's just a matter of pragmatism and the incremental way that American politics works. I know, it can kind of suck. Look at people who were advocating for gay rights and against sodomy arrests in the 1950s and 60s who spent their whole lives doing so and only in their twilight years are getting to see some of the fruits of that hard work. And there is still work to be done there, of course. It would have been political suicide for people like NORML to take on the cause of cocaine users even if it would be the ethically right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:They might have more luck collecting signatures to allow coca to be imported and sold, especially now that Bolivia and Peru are pushing for legal growing. The only way forward I can realistically foresee is this approach, legalizing stuff like coca, magic mushrooms, opium poppies. Even that seems unlikely. But it would probably substantially reduce demand for the black market refined products (or their close analogues) of those plants. Isn't the move to highly refined drugs (cocaine, heroin) partly due to the black market in the first place, like with hard liquor in the prohibition era?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Only in drug war wonderland: Iran's government, despite its other quirks, is surprisingly pragmatic on a scattering of social issues. And the article raises a really interesting point about how drug legislation works in Iran: quote:The Expediency Council also plays a critical role in national drug policy: all Iranian legislation is discussed and voted for in the parliament, except for drug laws, which are both discussed and legislated in the council.[/b] So the way this is described, Iran could basically change its drug laws by committee rather than legislature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:I think it's just a matter of pragmatism and the incremental way that American politics works. I know, it can kind of suck. Look at people who were advocating for gay rights and against sodomy arrests in the 1950s and 60s who spent their whole lives doing so and only in their twilight years are getting to see some of the fruits of that hard work. And there is still work to be done there, of course. It's the same tired story of American politics over and over again. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that blacks were given the same freedom that blacks in other white countries like the UK and France had since at least 1864. Same story with same-sex marriage - other countries were on top of it decades before we were. The war on drugs hasn't followed quite the same path, but if you look at Canada it's clear that all it takes in most other countries is public sentiment and an election to get the change you need. The US doesn't have the same luxury. We're not a free or progressive country - we're one which regularly blocks human rights for as long as possible, with one of the most inefficient and abhorrent political processes of any democratic global power. Progress in the US is just arriving to conclusions generations after the rest of the world has already reached them. It more than kind of sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:It's the same tired story of American politics over and over again. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that blacks were given the same freedom that blacks in other white countries like the UK and France had since at least 1864. Do you know the colonial history of France at all, or is this sarcasm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
I specifically referred to France proper, and not its colonies. The same exact things that went on in America was allowed to go on in their colonies for long after those countries allowed blacks freedom on their soil, and I'm not absolving them of that, but you can't say the same for the United States in any capacity whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:I specifically referred to France proper, and not its colonies. The same exact things that went on in America was allowed to go on in their colonies for long after those countries allowed blacks freedom on their soil, and I'm not absolving them of that, but you can't say the same for the United States in any capacity whatsoever. The US Proper (that is, the parts that never tried to secede) were also perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
No place in the United States in its entire history has ever been perfectly fine for blacks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
And neither was France proper during Francafrique.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
I'm by no means a rah-rah American jingoist, but that's a pretty inaccurate whine. The US made progress on gay rights a lot faster than in most Western democracies, for example, with the first US congressperson to come out being 1987, vice 1984 in the UK, 1977 Netherlands, 1984 Germany. Well ahead of Denmark and France's 1988, Sweden's 1991, Switzerland's 1999. The US has had an exceptionally bad track record on African American issues in part because it's a large population with a very fraught history, and right there amongst the white population, so a really different situation to all of Europe until the post-colonial period where there was significant ex-colony emigration to France and the U.K. Not justifying US policies, just noting that having on-paper decent rights for a few thousand black citizens in London in the late 1800s is way different than dealing with mass population clashes in post-CW South. And while the US has done terrible things to American Indians, by 1900 or so we'd largely settled on neglect and enforced cultural erasure; cutting off peoples' hands for not extracting enough natural resources wouldn't have flown anywhere in the US by the 1920s, but went right on in Belgian Congo, and the Germans and Italians went right on committing full deliberate genocide in Africa into the 1900s. Getting back onto the drug track: peachy keen whenever Canada legalizes, but in the meantime the US has places where cannabis is completely legal and Canada doesn't. And the US is ahead of most other Western democracies on cannabis legalization. Yes the US has influenced a lot of the world's drug policies for the worse, but a lot of that was pre-WWII and prior to the period of real US dominance so not giving a pass to the world's other global powers that shaped the same path. I'm totally happy to highlight the US's warts and routinely do, I just dislike the whole schtick that makes the US out to be a unique ogre when Europe (not to mention much of the planet) is packed to the gills with homophobic racist reactionary assholes too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I'm by no means a rah-rah American jingoist, but that's a pretty inaccurate whine. The US made progress on gay rights a lot faster than in most Western democracies, for example, with the first US congressperson to come out being 1987, vice 1984 in the UK, 1977 Netherlands, 1984 Germany. Well ahead of Denmark and France's 1988, Sweden's 1991, Switzerland's 1999. How can you say that when there were still anti-sodomy laws in place in the US until 2003 and marriage equality was only achieved this year?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I'm by no means a rah-rah American jingoist, but that's a pretty inaccurate whine. The US made progress on gay rights a lot faster than in most Western democracies, for example, with the first US congressperson to come out being 1987, vice 1984 in the UK, 1977 Netherlands, 1984 Germany. Well ahead of Denmark and France's 1988, Sweden's 1991, Switzerland's 1999. What French politician in 1988?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Taitale posted:How can you say that when there were still anti-sodomy laws in place in the US until 2003 and marriage equality was only achieved this year? The first actual same sex marriage law in modern times was in the Netherlands in 2001. Belgium gets it in 2003. Also in 2003, the first Canadian province gets it (Ontario). In 2004 the first US state gets it, Massachusetts. In 2005, Spain gets legal same sex marriage, and Canada gets it nationwide. In 2006, South Africa gets same sex marriage. In 2008, Norway gets same sex marriage. In 2009, Sweden gets it. In 2010, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina got it. In 2012, Denmark gets it. In 2013, Uruguay, England, France and New Zealand get it. In 2014, Scotland and Luxembourg get it. Also Finland allows it but it's not going to actually happen til 2016 for some reason? In 2015, Slovenia, Ireland and America get it. Mexico basically almost has it. Out of 193 UN member countries, 17 of them got same sex marriage ahead of the US in total (UK still ain't got it in Northern Ireland). Further, the US started getting it before more than 2 other countries had it. Incidentally, anti-gay laws started to be repealed in the 60s and 70s in the US, it just took 30 years to finish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Taitale posted:How can you say that when there were still anti-sodomy laws in place in the US until 2003 and marriage equality was only achieved this year? Parts of Australia and the U.K. had anti-sodomy laws until 1994 and 1992. A lot of Scandinavia eliminated sodomy laws mid-century, but other parts of Europe took until the 1970s-1990s to eliminate them. The US, granted, did it piecemeal until 2003 when the last sodomy laws were struck down, but a lot of individual states legalized homosexuality when Western Euro nations still hadn't. So far as marriage equality, dude, like half of Europe still doesn't allow gay marriage, so it's not like the US is the last holdout amongst democracies. Hell, Ireland didn't legalize straight divorce until 1996. Getting back to the original point, yes the US has a (deliberately) patchwork system on a ton of issues, but parts of the US have enforced pretty progressive social policy well before more cohesive Western democracies did so nationally. Parts of the US are some of the most permissive places in the Western world for cannabis, and it's a pretty safe bet that weed will be legal in even the most backwards US states before the entirety of Europe gets with the program. It's not some simple binary where Western Europe is an enlightened paradise and the US is a comic book villain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Taitale posted:How can you say that when there were still anti-sodomy laws in place in the US until 2003 and marriage equality was only achieved this year? I would blame that on the religious right, they fought hard to keep those laws around long after they were actually enforced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Just as a reminder, only the dark blue areas have full same sex marriage: The dark yellow-brown countries legalized it but aren't doing it yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Friggin' Nepal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Friggin' Nepal? Nepal legally recognizes a third gender, and their brand new constitution explicitly provides protection for LGBT people against discrimination by the government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 19:24
|
|