|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How does this get to the root of the problem? This still means that those drugs will still be trafficked and sold by criminals, putting an enormous premium on the product. Junkies might avoid a drug charge, but everyone who wants to use harder drugs but doesn't want to register as an addict with the government (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's most people) will be paying exorbitant prices and propping up criminal enterprises. I guess heroin especially gets stigmatized so badly that people assume there's no middle ground between not using it all and being a junkie, but most users probably fall somewhere in between. An addict that is losing control has their situation exacerbated by the constant resource demands of the addiction, and will probably burn through any assets and relationships, and perhaps even turn to property crime, long before they're the stereotypical junkie that you might expect to register themselves and stand in line in public for their fix. I think there's two issues being conflated. He's talking about what he thinks could happen, you're talking about what you'd like to happen. Edit: while I agree dropping the price won't increase the number of people using hard drugs (though making them easily available might), but hard to imagine it won't heavily increase how much addicts use it, particularly for cocaine. Xandu fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Dec 20, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How does this get to the root of the problem? This still means that those drugs will still be trafficked and sold by criminals, putting an enormous premium on the product. Junkies might avoid a drug charge, but everyone who wants to use harder drugs but doesn't want to register as an addict with the government (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's most people) will be paying exorbitant prices and propping up criminal enterprises. I guess heroin especially gets stigmatized so badly that people assume there's no middle ground between not using it all and being a junkie, but most users probably fall somewhere in between. An addict that is losing control has their situation exacerbated by the constant resource demands of the addiction, and will probably burn through any assets and relationships, and perhaps even turn to property crime, long before they're the stereotypical junkie that you might expect to register themselves and stand in line in public for their fix. We have a better chance of getting single payer healthcare, legalized prostitution, and strong union protections at the same time than we do making heroin legally available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
KillHour posted:We have a better chance of getting single payer healthcare, legalized prostitution, and strong union protections at the same time than we do making heroin legally available. I'll take it, although prostitution is already legal on the federal level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
KillHour posted:We have a better chance of getting single payer healthcare, legalized prostitution, and strong union protections at the same time than we do making heroin legally available. This is true, but I think it's still worth talking about. I believe the most important question of drug policy is how to stop these products from destroying lives. Most of the harm comes from incarceration, the illicit drug trade and international war on drugs, and addiction, including the financial burden of addiction. I think some form of legalization has the best chance of addressing all these factors at the same time. We just need to keep in mind the the objective of legalization is not to make it easier to use heroin but harder, and to give the state better tools to help addicts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
KillHour posted:We have a better chance of getting single payer healthcare, legalized prostitution, and strong union protections at the same time than we do making heroin legally available. If there's any drug that stands a chance at being legal after marijuana, it'll either be psylocybin or MDMA. Mayyybe LSD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:If there's any drug that stands a chance at being legal after marijuana, it'll either be psylocybin or MDMA. Mayyybe LSD. MDMA-assisted psychtherapy will probably be FDA approved within 5 years. Mushrooms are farther off than that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Are you guys familiar with the work of Mark Kleiman? Not sure how to feel about this guy. I guess he's semi-pro legalization but in a way that's quite restrictive. He worked with the Washington State bureaucracy to implement legalization and it's likely because of his advice that laws there are restrictive (for instance, you can't grow, no edibles, and overall tax at point of sale is now 37%) He keeps saying that legal weed shouldn't be less cheap than street weed and prices need to be kept artificially high to as to discourage consumption. Long profile of him in The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/11/18/buzzkill If that is too long here's a video-interview he did with Vox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo9Stp6KvYs I guess I would summarize his perspective as "yes cannabis should be legalized but oh dear god please be careful...the sky will fall if you're not careful and aren't as restrictive as possible!" If he has more influence he'll prevent Colorado like implementations from being carried out by other states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
We are well aware of this this guy here. Kleiman and his clique are former prohibitionists (supporters of DARE, sit on the board of Drug Free America etc) and self styled 'drug policy experts'. They are among the smarter of the drug warriors who can see the writing on the wall for cannabis prohibition and still want to remain relevant in a post prohibition world. His MO is basically to disagree endlessly with any and all implementations of cannabis legalisation. Kleiman swindled WA state out of about 800 000 dollars for 'analysis' before they realised he was taking them for a ride and just kept wanting more and more money. quote:When it hired Kleiman last March, the LCB said it had budgeted an initial $100,000 for the much sought-after consulting work. The state ended up paying much more--$814,000, as of last week, with one payment still pending, Smith tells SW. http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/948679-129/kleiman-state-pot-says-botec-lcb Kleiman, in my view, is more of a weasel than Kevin Sabet. KingEup fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
Sabet plopped his "top 10 anti-marijuana victories of 2015" list onto HuffPo. Unsurprisingly it's transparently pathetic and pretty much every comment is making fun of him. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8879338
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Sabet plopped his "top 10 anti-marijuana victories of 2015" list onto HuffPo. Unsurprisingly it's transparently pathetic and pretty much every comment is making fun of him. Someone needs to corner that guy at a DC policy wank and blow weed smoke in his face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
With CBD now legal in Tx I got off my hydrocodone for my pain management. Progress! A lot of people still don't know is legal here yet so spread the word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
LunaSky posted:With CBD now legal in Tx I got off my hydrocodone for my pain management. Progress! A lot of people still don't know is legal here yet so spread the word. Where do you get your CBD from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This is true, but I think it's still worth talking about. I believe the most important question of drug policy is how to stop these products from destroying lives. Most of the harm comes from incarceration, the illicit drug trade and international war on drugs, and addiction, including the financial burden of addiction. I think some form of legalization has the best chance of addressing all these factors at the same time. I said this upthread but the only way forward I can see is to focus on the unrefined plant-based sources of these drugs (or analogs thereof). Legalizing coca, opium and magic mushrooms seems much more likely than legalizing refined cocaine, heroin and LSD. HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:Where do you get your CBD from? Any of the local head shops I prefer PPV(Pipes papes and vapes). I'll check the brand for you when I get home. Edit: The brand is Green Roads. This stuff is amazing! LunaSky fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
They were really stretching for that name, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
This "first rate" essay was posted by Mark Kleiman on his website: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-real-dangers-of-marijuana Here are some excerpts: quote:It is clear we would all be better off if marijuana did not exist. quote:Marijuana is safer than alcohol, but it is also more likely to harm its users. quote:Most important is the principle: to grant only grudging toleration because marijuana is no ordinary commodity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I said this upthread but the only way forward I can see is to focus on the unrefined plant-based sources of these drugs (or analogs thereof). Legalizing coca, opium and magic mushrooms seems much more likely than legalizing refined cocaine, heroin and LSD. Mushrooms aren't the base material that makes LSD fyi
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Mushrooms aren't the base material that makes LSD fyi
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
quote:Marijuana is safer than alcohol, but it is also more likely to harm its users.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:58
|
|
Iunnrais posted:How is it even possible to self-contradict yourself within the span of a single sentence and still expect to be taken seriously? "Thing Y is safer than thing X, except it's not safer at all." Bwuh? You can't agree that it's safer and then say it causes more harm! That's not how the English language WORKS! Well, you see, it is safe in a physiological sense. But in a moral sense, it is much more harmful. *nods sagely*
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:How is it even possible to self-contradict yourself within the span of a single sentence and still expect to be taken seriously? "Thing Y is safer than thing X, except it's not safer at all." Bwuh? You can't agree that it's safer and then say it causes more harm! That's not how the English language WORKS! "safer" in his sentence may refer to the safety of everyone, not just the user. If most drug deaths are car accidents which often kill multiple people, a drug could feasibly be more harmful to its users but less harmful (ie safer) overall. This...still isn't true for weed and alcohol but yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
To them it's impossible/very difficult to be a responsible user of marijuana, whereas it's really easy to be a responsible user of alcohol, even though evidence bears the opposite to be true
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Mushrooms aren't the base material that makes LSD fyi I know, but that's why I inserted the phrase "or analogs thereof". They're close enough in effect that legalizing one would greatly undercut the black market for the other. Opium doesn't contain heroin either but again it's close enough that I doubt anyone would seek out black market heroin if legal opium was accessible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I know, but that's why I inserted the phrase "or analogs thereof". They're close enough in effect that legalizing one would greatly undercut the black market for the other. Opium doesn't contain heroin either but again it's close enough that I doubt anyone would seek out black market heroin if legal opium was accessible. Legal opium was pretty much freely available for some time in Florida leading to hillbilly heroin addicts all over the south and a boon for methadone clinics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Legal opium was pretty much freely available for some time in Florida leading to hillbilly heroin addicts all over the south and a boon for methadone clinics. The biggest original problem wasn't that the pills were available, it was the highly dubious tactics used to market and promote them, and all that prohibition of the pill mills achieved once the problem was in place was moving everything across to the black market, with all that entails.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
NYT Interview with Debbie Wasserman Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee - Against Marijuana Legalization I'm shocked and extraordinarily disheartened by her comments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:30
|
|
Tab8715 posted:NYT Interview with Debbie Wasserman Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee - Against Marijuana Legalization Most of those responses are terrible.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:NYT Interview with Debbie Wasserman Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee - Against Marijuana Legalization I'm disheartened but certainly not shocked, DWS is a Rahm Emanuel like figure who doesn't really give a poo poo about ideology, she's just trying to keep her position in power. Luckily opinions like hers are becoming less common among Democrats, and I do appreciate how the interviewer at least tried to push back a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
quote:Q: What do you think is the absolute nastiest thing you could say about Trump and get away with? That was like the safest question in the universe for a democrat and she ran away from it. Come on, live a little.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:18
|
|
What really kills me is this:quote:I have individual opinions that may not line up ideologically I know a lot of people probably feel this way, but it is an assertion that doesn't really make sense. An ideology ought to be a coherent and logically consistent. Otherwise, your opinions are just that: opinions with little (or no) support. quote:I don’t think we should just let things happen to people and let them be stupid and the victims of the consequences of their actions. Comments like this are also particularly interesting, since this suggests more of a traditional conservative perspective than, you know, a liberal one. It's also condescending. quote:They’re formed by my personal experience both as a mom and as someone who grew up really bothered by the drug culture that surrounded my childhood — not mine personally. I grew up in suburbia. And then there are just plain idiotic claims like this one. You were bothered by a culture that you were minimally exposed to? That's a really compelling argument. Uh-huh. I'm sure that you, as a resident of suburbia, who has gone on to hold powerful positions in the US government, have some really great insights about drug use and criminal justice.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:That was like the safest question in the universe for a democrat and she ran away from it. Come on, live a little. That the only answer of hers that I enjoy. The only way to defeat Trump is to stop talking about Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
quote:They’re formed by my personal experience both as a mom and as someone who grew up really bothered by the drug culture that surrounded my childhood — not mine personally. I grew up in suburbia. kill me now DWS is literally the Tim Kreider caricature of the Democratic Party
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
starry skies above posted:A bit unfortunate that Andrew Sullivan quit blogging. I think he was the only public intellectual and opinion maker who was unabashedly passionate about cannabis legalization and willing to tackle the stigma attached to its use head-on. Nearly everyone else talking about this issue on the public stage ends up more or less justifying that stigma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
DWS has made it very clear that her position on marijuana is totally fungible as long as it brings in donor $$$$ and doesn't embarrass her personally, so don't expect any significant action at the party level. It's going to be up to the individuals within the party that choose to make it an issue. quote:Echoing Republican talking points, Wasserman Schultz suggested the proposal could lead to a variant of OxyContin-distributing “pill mills.” Wasserman Schultz has previously expressed concerns, as a parent, about marijuana decriminalization because she doesn’t want to make it easier for kids to get the drug. quote:In the meantime, Wasserman Schultz’s office sprung into action. Her team reached out to the campaign manager for the medical marijuana initiative — Ben Pollara, a top Democratic fundraiser and consultant in Miami — and offered him a deal. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/debbie-wasserman-schultz-medical-marijuana-115338
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That the only answer of hers that I enjoy. The only way to defeat Trump is to stop talking about Trump. The rest of her opinions are either ignorant or boilerplate. So her answer feels less like a mature decision and more of a way to fly under the radar. But I guess you're right, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:kill me now Who's Tim Kreider? Grey Fox posted:DWS has made it very clear that her position on marijuana is totally fungible as long as it brings in donor $$$$ and doesn't embarrass her personally, so don't expect any significant action at the party level. It's going to be up to the individuals within the party that choose to make it an issue. Wow. I hope she just resigns and retires.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Who's Tim Kreider? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Andy Harris, the Maryland Republican congressman who's been the biggest enemy of DC ganja, mighty get primaried out in April. Another R competitor is polling 58% to Andy's 29. http://www.washingtonian.com/2016/0...pot-republican/ I read about it first on Weed Blog, and thought maybe they were taking a selective view, and Andy's losing ground isn't really a weed thing. But reading the full article, his opponent is using Andy's "meddling" as a talking point against him, and 59% of likely R primary voters in Harris's district said his work against DC weed made them less likely to vote for him. It's entirely possible that this April could see a prominent (media-wise) Repub tank his career over opposing weed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Andy Harris, the Maryland Republican congressman who's been the biggest enemy of DC ganja, mighty get primaried out in April. Another R competitor is polling 58% to Andy's 29. There is no  large enough for me as a DC resident right now. Having said that, the article's source is "smigelforcongress" and maybe I'm just not into the local polling companies, but i've never heard of Gravis Marketing. But still,
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:There is no Gravis does internal polling for Republican candidates. In 2012 they were part of the "unskewing" that led Romney to believe he was going to coast to victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:42
|
|
