Drug poll

[jbombelli]

This is a good point. To me, the question comes down to whether or not drug use would increase if all drugs were decriminalized/legalized. Honestly, I think it would. I think legalization would give drugs an air of "legitimacy" that would lead some people to think that it must not be that bad if the government has given the green light. I also think it would increase availability and maybe lower price (I'm not sold on that) and more people would get involved with drugs. I think more people using drugs would be bad. That's all my opinion though.

It won't get any better air of legitimacy than drinking or smoking has. Probably less social approval than smoking.


As far as more people getting involved in drugs? It's plenty easy to get involved now. I'm not saying use would go down, but I don't know how much it would really go up, seeing as how easy drugs are to find right now if you want them. I'm sure it would go up a bit, and then level off, and decrease again after the newness wears off and people say "that's it? Really? That's all it does???" But that aside... I think in a free society people have the right to make these decisions for themselves. That's really the bottom line.

 

[lashicoN]

So all you have to do to get high potency, high grade pot is find the female plants, and voila that's it?

I'm not implying that you do anything illegal, but you appear to think you know a lot about it, so hopefully you can help me out. I know this topic isn't exactly the intent of the OP, but this is interesting too.

I'm not an expert either, and I've never heard of BC Bud until you referenced it, but everything I've read about Cannabis in general and specifically "High Potency" Cannabis, which I believe BC Bud falls under is what I laid out earlier. Most of the Mexican seedy weed is grown out in large fields, in national parks and whatnot, and there is so much that they don't bother with weeding out the males, so it all goes to seed, which decreases THC, but they don't care, because like you said earlier, most people don't know the difference or don't care that their weed is seedy. People who know what to look for (and I'm not sure what differs in a female or male plant) who grow indoors usually weed out the males to increase THC production, making the Cannabis more potent.

Apart from adding in the natural nutrients that plants receives growing in the Earth, outdoors, and weeding out the males, I don't think there is anything else one can do to increase the potency.

I'm not claiming to know everything about the plant or how to grow it at all, but this is what I've read concerning potency and it makes sense to me. If you have any contradictory information, I'd gladly read up on it so I don't sound like an idiot.

 

[jsharmon7]

Actually, history shows different results than your opinion. Hollands rates of drug use dropped when they decriminalised drugs and made it easier for those who were truly addicted to get their fix. Drug related crimes also went down. Portugal is a success story unlike any other. After 10 years their usage rate are down and drug related crime is down, as well. Just these 2 stories alone show that ending prohibition and then dealing with true addicts as people with an illness works. Our system doesn't work and is a huge failure.

I agree that the current system isn't working. I can't argue with experience, but I do think the social climate in the U.S. is much different than the countries you mentioned. That may make a difference, maybe not.

It won't get any better air of legitimacy than drinking or smoking has. Probably less social approval than smoking.

As far as more people getting involved in drugs? It's plenty easy to get involved now. I'm not saying use would go down, but I don't know how much it would really go up, seeing as how easy drugs are to find right now if you want them. I'm sure it would go up a bit, and then level off, and decrease again after the newness wears off and people say "that's it? Really? That's all it does???" But that aside... I think in a free society people have the right to make these decisions for themselves. That's really the bottom line.

True, it's not hard to find now. I think there is a certain percentage of people out there that don't use drugs simply because of the risk of going to jail. I think there is a deterrent effect there for SOME people. Also, there is a difference between having to call a dealer and meet up than there is grabbing some heroin at 7-11. Those two reasons are why I think drug use might increase. Ultimately I do agree with your last two sentences though. I think people should have the right to be as stupid as they want to be, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I also think a lot of times LEOs are against legalization (as Irahm stated) because they see the effects of drug abuse on a daily basis. They also see people at their worst on a daily basis. Views and opinions tend to change when you only see the worst. You mentioned that you used to smoke marijuana when you were younger yet you seem to be a perfectly normal and intelligent person. I've known many others who were the same way and never became addicted. They acted pretty stupid while high, but it was never a problem for them. This is one reason I started this thread, so keep the opinions coming. Mainly, I think opinions about drugs are changing too. More people (non-users) are forming the opinion that drugs are bad, but marijuana is okay. So are people okay with marijuana legalization, or ALL drug legalization?

 

[jsharmon7]

I'm not an expert either, and I've never heard of BC Bud until you referenced it, but everything I've read about Cannabis in general and specifically "High Potency" Cannabis, which I believe BC Bud falls under is what I laid out earlier. Most of the Mexican seedy weed is grown out in large fields, in national parks and whatnot, and there is so much that they don't bother with weeding out the males, so it all goes to seed, which decreases THC, but they don't care, because like you said earlier, most people don't know the difference or don't care that their weed is seedy. People who know what to look for (and I'm not sure what differs in a female or male plant) who grow indoors usually weed out the males to increase THC production, making the Cannabis more potent.

Apart from adding in the natural nutrients that plants receives growing in the Earth, outdoors, and weeding out the males, I don't think there is anything else one can do to increase the potency.

I'm not claiming to know everything about the plant or how to grow it at all, but this is what I've read concerning potency and it makes sense to me. If you have any contradictory information, I'd gladly read up on it so I don't sound like an idiot.

I think we're mostly on the same page. When I was referring to the "super-crazy" potency stuff, I was referring to stuff like BC Bud that is way up there and way expensive. The reason I believed there was more to it was some information I'd gotten from instructors and from growers about sexing the plants, fungus, drying, sap, hybrids, etc. It doesn't really matter, I was just under the impression that you had some information that I hadn't heard yet from those sources. I'm always up to learn something new.

 

[snapping turtle]

. Have you ever seen an old drug user?

Yes they do exist.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZQBm2aUpEw&ob=av3n[/ame]
i have in 2001 right down the street from me at farm aid.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFAZxI_szgA[/ame]
I now have to go to Chicago to see Kieth. They never come back to a town that did not sell out. I was at the bar on mass ave called the Chatterbox and Kieth and Mick came in to catch the act and have a couple of drinks.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0PrzNpUmuo[/ame]
Or Ozzy.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I am not for legalization. I am for decriminalization. We don't have a law "legalizing" caffeine. To be clear, what I'm saying is that I want nothing less than the full repeal of laws that make ingestion of some substances a criminal act. No tax, no regulation other than perhaps on the basis of self-responsibility... but much as you must be over 18 (I think) to purchase pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) now, you can still legally use it under that age. You just have to have a responsible adult purchase it for you. If I decide to allow my kid to smoke, whether tobacco or pot, that should be my choice. I do think a good education on what the effects and side effects of those drugs are would be a wise thing to support.

and no, I wouldn't use them. I can smoke and drink now, if I choose, and I choose not to do so. Personal decision, personal responsibility.

Blessings,
Bill

Here, Here

 

[45fan]

I am for legalization of all drugs. Not from a "I want to get high all the time" point of view, but from a point of view that I am sick of paying taxes to pay to hunt people down, cage them and feed them for selling or using something that they choose to put into their bodies. Not to mention the pinch it would put on cartels, having to compete with operations that do not have to deal with importation costs and the like.
I think some common sense should apply, not letting children buy them, and letting their parents be responsible for their life choices for starters.

 

[eatsnopaste]

Drugs?

Inject them.

Eat them.

Smoke them.

Snort them.

Choose to do whatever the heck you want to do to yourself.

But when you OD, when you are trying to "cure" your addiction, when you are seeking "treatment", when you "ruin your life", do not force me to bail you out.

Further, if you ever peddle the stuff to any of the minor members of my family I assure you that you will never need your drugs to feel no pain again.

On the thread the other day about drinking raw milk..I said the same thing, if it costs me nothing..go for it, but if you get sick you are on your own..I got my ass handed to me by several of the same people here who think drugs are ok..hmmm

 

[beararms1776]

Drugs: Lessening the penalties and legalizing it sounds like a double edged sword to me.

 

[jbombelli]

Drugs: Lessening the penalties and legalizing it sounds like a double edged sword to me.

As opposed to the double-edged sword called the War on Drugs that's done nothing but wreck people's lives and limit our rights more and more as time goes on, with not one bit of actual, real success?

 

[justjoe]

As opposed to the double-edged sword called the War on Drugs that's done nothing but wreck people's lives and limit our rights more and more as time goes on, with not one bit of actual, real success?

Not a success? Look what it's done for the DEA, FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup. No war on drugs, on more supplemental funding.

 

[jbombelli]

Not a success? Look what it's done for the DEA, FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup. No war on drugs, on more supplemental funding.

I used the term "success" in the same manner that MOST people would. I sometimes forget that "success" in a government agency means they get more money to spend.

 

[beararms1776]

As opposed to the double-edged sword called the War on Drugs that's done nothing but wreck people's lives and limit our rights more and more as time goes on, with not one bit of actual, real success?

I'm just thinking about the ways legalizing hard drugs could put the 2A in even more danger. Maybe it wouldn't.

 

[Darral27]

I think that marijuana should be legalized but unlike some people I think it is something the government should stay out of. It would be nearly impossible to tax because it is pretty simple to grow. It would save the taxpayer a bunch of money on enforcement and help with keeping down prison population.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm just thinking about the ways legalizing hard drugs could put the 2A in even more danger. Maybe it wouldn't.

The War on Drugs has already taken big bites out of the 2A. The Hughes Amendment was a direct result of drug-money-fueled violence in the 80's. We lost our machine guns because of the War on Drugs.

We've lost a lot over this failure of a war. The real tragedy here is that so many people think this war is a good thing.

We saw the light and repealed prohibition, then decades later a new generation came along and repeated the prior mistakes, only this time their propaganda has been better and more convincing. But it's still the same failure as before.

 

[lashicoN]

Drugs: Lessening the penalties and legalizing it sounds like a double edged sword to me.

Hopefully it's sharp enough to cut our prison population in half and set all of the POWs free.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It they were legalized, do you think that the cartels would bat an eye on slowing down their traffic or stop their killing?

The killings would stop overnight once drugs are relegalized.

To end the War on Drugs we must confront racism as racism is the reason for the War on Drugs and racism is something that this country has a horrific record confronting.

 

[bingley]

The killings would stop overnight once drugs are relegalized.

To end the War on Drugs we must confront racism as racism is the reason for the War on Drugs and racism is something that this country has a horrific record confronting.

I am inclined to agree with Kirk that legalization/decrminalization of drugs will end the violence. Maybe not overnight, but in good time. It will gut many criminal organizations and destroy them. They will not have monopoly on the drug trade, and will get competed out of existence by pharmaceuticals.

I was unaware of the connection between racism and the War on Drugs. A quick googling turned up links, none of which looks comprehensive or reliable. Some say that the War has its origin in racism. Other points to the effects of the War on African Americans. Any recommendations?

Da Bing

 

[beararms1776]

I can agree to an extent on legalizing certain drugs. What the heck, it might even help tame this crowd in the link below if you can get em in a zombied state of mind:
UK riots 2011: Liberal dogma has spawned a generation of brutalised youths | Mail Online

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Other points to the effects of the War on African Americans. Any recommendations?

Originally the War on Drugs was a proxy for the war on the Chinese.

Read Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920): FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The Hearst-inspired drumbeat against the "Yellow Menace" spread to other non-approved groups.

TheDEA.org: A Short History of Prohibition in America

Using drugs laws to oppress non-Whites was widespread even into the '80s when Congress "got tough" with crack cocaine.

Reforming Crack-Cocaine Laws, but Leaving Injustice Intact? - TIME

I think that there have been recent steps to correct our racist past (attempting to even the powder/hard sentencing ratio) but we won't be done with the War on Drugs until we are done with the War on Brown.