|
There's a good article on this over at The Amercian Conservative. The opponents are the worst kind of drug warriors you can imagine. What will we do these people after the [drug] war?quote:The legalization movement has benefited from a new approach, appealing to middle American sensibilities about the failure of the drug war and the hard lessons of prohibition. It is also gaining traction with fiscal conservatives who would rather tax marijuana sales than shuffle thousands of drug offenders through courts and prisons each year. According to this fiscal impact study, for example, the State of Colorado expects to save $12 million and raise $22.6 million in the first year of legalization through marijuana sales tax and licensing fees (embedded in the Colorado amendment is a clause mandating that the first $40 million raised be earmarked for a public school construction fund).
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Fragmented posted:This will just drive the selling of cannabis underground again for most people. So given the choice between a product that is grown in stable soil conditions, treated for mold spore and then placed in airtight packaging with an expiration date people would prefer to buy their gear without these things to save a few bob?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Someone was saying how much worse their experiences with alcohol had been, and I was merely posting a counter-anecdote. Neither should be a basis for policy, because everyone has different experiences with various substances. I found a graph that depicts the difference:  http://lufg.com.au/files/media/Popular_intoxicants_what_lessons_can_be_learned.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Still not sure why this would be Supreme Court issue. This is clearly an area in which both state and federal laws coexist. There is no requirement that I know of that states can't not have laws against things that are illegal at the federal level. This is the best overview of the issue I could find (University of San Francisco Law Review, 2012): quote:the Supreme Court has not fully spoken on the constitutionality of federal cannabis prohibition. It has never, that is, squarely tested the CSA as applied to activities that would have been protected by the RCTCA. U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Collective was a statutory ruling91 and Gonzales v. Raich held only that the CSA is generally a permissible exercise of Congress’ commerce power, and that the DEA may thus enforce it.92 This question is distinct from whether federal cannabis prohibition violates the equal liberty principle as articulated in the Court’s 14th Amendment case law. As Husak observes, further, While searching I stumbled across a great article in the Indian Law Journal which I may as well share: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=ilj KingEup fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Oct 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the main cause for that shift in policy is? Is it the nuisance of drug tourists, or the country becoming more conservative? Can't really be 'drug tourists' else they'd be banning foreign drinkers from pubs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The war on drugs provides a steady stream of inmates to our prisons. Yes, but inmates work for less than the minimum wage and are stealing jobs from honest hard-working Americans. The only solution is to erect a wall around prisons to stop people getting in (and then deport them if they do). KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
mdemone posted:But not for the private prison industry, which is not a marginal case to be glossed over. Exhibit A Corrections Corporation of America's 2010 Annual Report: quote:demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. [PDF] http://goo.gl/MRcnx KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:the idea that law enforcement likes weed because it's an incredibly low barrier for loving with people isn't tinfoil hat nonsense, it's fairly basic Exhibit B: quote:As for who is being arrested now, Pat Slack, commander of the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, says it isn't usually people who are just out to get high. Call me crazy but I don’t think we should make things illegal just so that the police can use it as a pretense to arrest and detain people. KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:It also doesn't hurt that police agencies profit from drug seizures. Exhibit C - The Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General's recent audit: quote:for the period of October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2011, the DEA and other federal agencies processed over 150,644 seized assets valued at about $9.2 billion of which $5.5 billion (60 percent) originated from seizures processed by the DEA and $3.7 billion (40 percent) originated from seizures processed by other federal agencies. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/a1240.pdf quote:Federal government will buy Ill. prison for $165M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDXYqUfvaVc KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Sad Panda posted:One thing, if they seize a bunch of drugs how do they get money for it? It's not like they can go out and sell them.. can they? That's why we need undercover police: quote:[officers] Ramos and Ferguson are accused of using lights and sirens to pull over the undercover officer. According to court documents, they took a bag containing 18 kilos of cocaine. They then handed the drugs off to a civilian named Alexi Matos, 38. http://www.khou.com/news/crime/HPD-officers-accused-of-stealing-drugs-appear-in-court-164716596.html See? The answer is always 'more police'. Prohibition is like the goose that laid the golden egg and just keeps on laying. KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
frest posted:I assure you it's not concern trolling, and I'm not specifically talking about pre-employment testing either. I work in an industry with mandatory random screening and pre-employment screening. You should be able to judge the sobriety of somebody by behavior, sure, but what if you've never worked with the person before and they're going to be operating dangerous or heavy machinery? The primary test I've had is a piss test which doesn't really distinguish between intoxicated-at-work or outside-work use. I wasn't aware of a blood test, that's why I asked. How do you know the person has had a full night sleep and is well rested enough to perform their duties safely? When you hop in you car each day, how do you know that all other drivers are completely unimpaired? How do you know your new coworker isn't going to bust out their phone to text their smoking hot girlfriend in the middle of operating heavy machinery that probably needs his full attention? You don't. This law creates no risks that didn't already exist before. Caffeine intoxication is an actual thing, people get hosed up on nutmeg, huffing and numerous other substances but when it comes to cannabis everyone suddenly goes into panic mode and starts talking about collecting peoples urine and bogeymen (which is totally loving bizarre if you give it even the slightest bit of thought). quote:Does workplace testing improve workplace safety? KingEup fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Do people actually think companies like the big tobacco producers don't have plans for how to hit a marijuana market the second it gets legalized by the Feds? People in power might hate weed but they also hated alcohol and prohibition died as well. The tobacco industry are in the business of growing and selling tobacco. I fail to see why they're anymore likely to start selling cannabis than any other agribusiness other than the fact they already have rollng machines (which are already in use rolling tobacco).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I'm pretty sure the tobacco industry have their hands in a lot more than tobacco products Yes, I've read Barbarians at the Gate too. Why do you think the tobacco industry will be specifically interested in cannabis? Delta-Wye posted:It would make sense for them to try and get in on the ground floor in the new industry in order to diversify. Diversification does not always make business sense. KingEup fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:Two reasons: Global cigarette consumption is increasing quote:
So do companies that manufacture tea and numerous other agribusinesses.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I think the author was saying that without legal heroin, coke, and meth, it wouldn't solve problems with disease transmission or criminal gangs. How well do you think McDonalds would fare if they could nolonger sell hamburgers? Weed is the bread and butter for most drug gangs. The demand for that other stuff (which should also be legal) is just not as big. Tailor made cigarettes in Australia cost roughly $17 dollars for a packet of 25 and there is virtually no black or grey market. Most people are fiercely brand loyal and would prefer to buy their smokes over the counter than from some fuckers trunk. Cigarette companies have spent decades trying to convince people to switch brands. If it were as simple as reducing their prices I'm fairly sure they would have figured it out by now. Similarly you're not going to be able to convince a Malboro man to smoke Canadian blend just because they're a few dollars cheaper. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
The author of that article, Caulkins, is also on the board of Drug Free America (a cannabis doomsday cult made up of insane prohibitionists still living in drug war wonderland).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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.  For cannabis, I prefer the name 'phytopharmaceutical'. quote:The plant kingdom has also enabled the production of so called phytopharmaceutical or ‘botanical drugs’. These are defined as well characterised, multi-component standardised drugs extracted from plant sources. The medicine VeregenTM, derived from green tea Camellia sinensis, and approved for the topical treatment of warts (Medigene Inc.) is such an example. In 2004 the United States Food and Drug Administration issued the Botanical Drug Guidance which made it possible to bring to market a complex mixture for which evidence of adequate safety and efficacy had been established (FDA, 2004). https://www.gwpharm.com/uploads/phd_david_potter_jp.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Also you appear to be arguing that addiction literally doesn't exist. People who are out of control alcoholics are going to drink whatever the price, same as any other drug. I think this is an important point to clarify, as it is the other end of the 'bootstraps' spectrum. I often hear the argument that taxation will not deter addicts from using because users are 'addicted'. This is false. There is no evidence that addicted individuals are 'out of control' and unable to modify their behaviour in response to strong incentives (like increases in the price of liquor, tobacco or any other drug). It's just that for some addicted individuals, price is not a powerful disincentive. Even so, price usually exerts some influence - smokers often 'cut down' to compensate for tax hikes. Heroin addicts may use their heroin sparingly to stave off withdrawals until they can get enough money for their next proper fix. Addicts choose to abstain when they are sufficiently motivated to do so. The problem is that not everyone is motivated by the same things. KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:This is completely loving false by all standards within the current understanding of modern Psychology, just FYI. If that were true it doesn't surprise me that modern psychology is notoriously bad at treating addiction. quote:According to just about every expert in the field addiction can, in fact, lead to people who are 'out of control' and are thus unable to modify their behavior in response to incentives. Whilst there are experts who believe addiction is compulsive and addicts are 'out of control' this is by no means universally accepted. This notion that addicts don't respond to incentive is bizarre (and could only be true if you believe that drug addiction is akin to demonic possession). Even the most heavily addicted smoker will not give them self permission to smoke in the office in plain view of their colleagues. This is why smoke-free workplace policies motivate people to quit. Even the most heavily dependent heroin addict still has to figure out how to get money to sustain their addiction. Not all addicts resort to crime. Many addicts work multiple jobs and cannot afford to be intoxicated all the time (your earning capacity is reduced if you are intoxicated or in withdrawal) which is a strong incentive to cut down or choose to be temporarily abstinent. quote:There are two reasons why it is tempting to label addictive drug use ‘compulsive’. First, there is a popular conception that addicted drug users will use no matter what countervailing reasons are present. In Oddie’s terms, such drug-oriented desires are not ‘reasons responsive’.29 It is popular to cite the case of the cocaine-addicted rat which continues to self- administer the drug, ignoring the bodily demands of hunger and fatigue, until it dies. As Davies points out, however, this is a terrible metric for compulsion – the rats tested have nothing to do other than self- administer drugs, and when the same tests are run under more naturalised environments, their behav- iour looks much more reasons-responsive, and much less compulsive.30 In fact, as Watson points out, drug-addicted humans are a lot more likely to decide not to use drugs than is popularly believed, especially when strong counterincentives are pre- sented. Mothers with dependent children, for exam- ple, are much more likely to give up their drug addictions.31 Neale reports that less serious reasons are also commonly given by users who decrease their heroin consumption, such as changes in the drug market, or conscious reflection of the drug’s pros and cons.32 The evidence that drug users do in fact respond to powerful incentives is a strong indicator that their behaviour is not compulsive. quote:neurobiological data do not establish that addiction is a form of compulsion and that control is nil. From a philosophical perspective, we should immediately be skeptical of any such conclusion on conceptual grounds. We commonly hold that what makes a piece of behavior an action, as opposed to a mere bodily movement, like an automatic reflex, is that it is voluntary. This means that there is the capacity for genuine choice between courses of action. Minimally, there must be at least two choices: to act in a particular way at a particular time, or not to.6 There is thus a dilemma facing the claim that addictive desire is genuinely irresistible. Drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior appears to be deliberate, to be flexible, and to involve complicated diachronic planning and execution. It bears all the hallmarks of action. But for it to be action as opposed to merely automatic reflex, alternatives must be available; minimally, it must be possible to refrain. Hence either addictive desires are resistible and the power to do otherwise remains or, despite appearances, the behavior they cause is not action (cf. Alvarez 2009). KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
rockinricky posted:They trotted out the old "If pot is legalized, it will be easier for kids to get it." line of bullshit. This is a mind-bogglingly stupid argument. According to the CDC it is already easier for kids to get it: CDC posted:Current marijuana use among high school students was more common than current cigarette use (23 percent compared to 18 percent). http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0607_yrb_telebriefing.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:This is a well documented scientific fact, I'm aware of more than one study on rats who are given junk food, and refuse to eat 'healthy' food, or are given the option to be able to press a button to receive food or to release pleasurable sensations, and do so ceaselessly , without concern for hunger, though I'm too lazy to do your research for you, as you were too lazy to do your own research in the first place. Wait, what? It's almost like you didn't read more than one sentence of the excerpt I posted. Specifically the part on why the behaviour of rats in cages is such a terrible metric to measure things by. So, before you accuse me of cherry picking and of not doing my research, it might behoove you to take a bit of your own advice. As of right now you've posted sweet gently caress all in terms of supporting material. It's well documented scientific fact, is it? Well guess what, it's no my job to do your research to support your point of view. KingEup fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
snorch posted:Egypt had a lot to do with it: See also: quote:The League of Nations and the Debate over Cannabis Prohibition http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2010.00740.x/full The problem with cannabis, according to the Tunisian representative (who happened to be a member of the French colonial government) was it enabled Arabs: quote:to lead in imagination the life which they would like to live, but which their indolence and love of ease in most cases prevents them from attaining by work, forethought and persevering effort The problem wasn't just cannabis though. According to the Algerian representative (who happened to be a racist French psychiatrist) quote:[the Arab] has a peculiar propensity towards drug addiction. It has been said that he is a born drug addict... his essentially passive temperament leaves him without defense against temptation. He lives from day to day, at the mercy of his instincts and desires. He has no idea of making provision for the future, and abandons himself to the satisfaction of his immediate needs. … Owing to his lack of mental and moral powers of resistance, the native soon falls into the state of decline and moral decay which follows too wholesale or long an indulgence in drugs. Similarly, his entirely instinctive way of life, the fact that his behavior is dictated solely by immediate reaction, and his fundamentally impulsive nature, soon give to his crises of intoxication a violent and tragic character’ There you have it folks. Drug prohibition was based on good old fashioned racism. KingEup fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:This wouldn't even be public if it wasn't legal but it might backfire in the effort to gain support for the cause of legalization, because "oh my god think of the children". What do you guys think? Methamphetamine is FDA approved. For 6 year olds. http://www.lundbeck.com/us/products/cns-products/desoxyn
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:This does literally nothing other than codify good prescribing practice into law and holding physicians and pharmacists to account for irresponsible prescribing behavior. Irresponsible prescribing behaviour is what exactly? In a manner that is inconsistent with the 'opinion' of highly trained government bureaucrats, like errr... the DEA? God help the doctor who doesn't subject his patients to the requisite level of surveillance or the pharmacist that doesn't dob in the doc who doesn't: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/bush-should-feel-doctors-pain Edit: Just out of curiosity, do you think it is 'irresponsible' for a shopkeeper to sell an individual [say] 5 cases of wine and half a dozen bottles of scotch whisky? KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:He was willfully blind to the fact that his patients were diverting his prescriptions which is what made him guilty. Why should 'diversion' be a crime?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:It takes the "controlled" out of "controlled substance". So does prohibition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Wait, you disagree with the concept of prescription drugs now? No. I just don't think 'diversion' is criminal and I'd love to know why people think it should be. There are, however, a number good arguments against prescriptions: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/07/25/medethics-2011-100240.long KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:There, that is the post that started this nonsense. Al Capone is a lovely person, and the Canadians who were selling him booze were also lovely people. Al Capone was a lovely person because he was a violent criminal and corrupt businessman, not because he sold alcohol. Are Americans who buy prescription meds illegally from Canadian pharamcies actually buying them from lovely people? KingEup fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:
Sorry I should have said that I don't think a consensual transaction between a buyer and seller ought to be a criminal offence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Diversion is separate from dealing. Diversion generally involves claiming medical benefits fraudulently on a prescription when what you're actually planning to do is distribution. Fraud is morally objectionable. Selling drugs is not. The behaviour of big tobacco is reprehensible because they lied and deceived their customers, not because they sold them tobacco. quote:
Generally speaking, providing there is no deception or tampering and both parties are consenting adults then yes, in the absence of a regulated system, buying or selling medication (to someone who wants it) should not be a criminal offence. It may not be good idea to buy medication that has not been prescribed for you, but that does not mean it should be criminal. Riven posted:Yeah, like purchasing assassination services. The assassin might be in trouble for killing him, but you'd be in the clear! It was just a consensual transaction! Seek psychological help if you think paying to have someone assassinated is the moral equivalent to, and involves the same kind of consensual transaction as, selling Lipitor to a poor American who can't afford it in their own country. KingEup fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Ok you just said it's ok to sell child porn Please explain how a transaction involving a non-consenting party is a consensual transaction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
TACD posted:Edit: I mean by all means KingEup if you are talking about 'any transactions at all' then I'll let you go ahead and defend that position but that's not the impression I got? You got the right impression. I have only ever been discussing transactions that involved 'controlled substances'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I asked him if he really meant the exact words he said. "Sorry I should have said that I don't think a consensual transaction between a buyer and seller ought to be a criminal offence." You can buy or sell an awful lot of things. You are in a thread about cannabis and we were discussing the Controlled Substances Act. Reflect on the context for a moment. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The victim of a killing contract is not party to the transaction. That is why it's wrong you nitwit (and why something like euthanasia shouldn't be). KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Y'all also said that all drug dealing is totally cool I seem to recall saying that selling drugs should not be a criminal offence not that all drug dealing is totally cool.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Babylon the Bright posted:Fraudulently seeking out prescriptions in order to divert drugs to the recreational market is wrong because it casts doubt on those who actually need the drugs to manage pain. This results in suffering people being unable to obtain drugs which could help. Blaming people who divert drugs for undertreated pain is idiotic. It's not their fault that the law intimidates some doctors into withholding medication that may relieve suffering. Here in Australia we recently had a tragic case where a man presented to hospital in agony and the doctor decided that he was 'drug-seeking' and turned him away. He died in agony a few hours later from faecal peritonitis: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/doctor-rejected-dying-man-as-an-addict-20110714-1hg54.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Hey give it time. We haven't even had a month with it yet. I find it rather strange that some people believe the consumption a leafy green vegetable is all it takes to bring society to its knees.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Dr Mark Kleiman (some drug policy 'expert' from UCLA) has posted this on his blog:quote:In my view, an increase of as little as 10% in heavy drinking would wipe out any benefits from cannabis legalization http://www.samefacts.com/2012/12/drug-policy/cannabis-and-alcohol-reprise/ This seems rather disingenuous to me. The primary benefit of cannabis legalisation is that the law becomes more 'just' and people are no longer locked in cages for buying or selling plant matter. I don't see how alcohol consumption can erase this benefit or how he can possibly calculate such a precise figure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 21:14
|
|