Drug poll

[jsharmon7]

Another question for the legalization/decriminilization crowd:

What would you do about prescription medications? Would you require a doctor's prescription or could anybody walk into Walgreen's and buy whatever they wanted?

 

[bingley]

Another question for the legalization/decriminilization crowd:

What would you do about prescription medications? Would you require a doctor's prescription or could anybody walk into Walgreen's and buy whatever they wanted?

You might recall my argument, which may be different from other legalizers, is about decreasing overall crime rate by hitting the wallet of the drug cartels. It has nothing to do with the nature of the substances. I do not regard the so-called "recreational drugs" as being in the same category as legitimate medication for illnesses. Hence prescriptions will still be needed for medication.

On a separate note, doctors today seem to prescribe too quickly. This ranges from relatively benign medication to psychotropics that we may not understand all that well:

Mass psychosis in the US - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Da Bing

 

[jsharmon7]

You might recall my argument, which may be different from other legalizers, is about decreasing overall crime rate by hitting the wallet of the drug cartels. It has nothing to do with the nature of the substances. I do not regard the so-called "recreational drugs" as being in the same category as legitimate medication for illnesses. Hence prescriptions will still be needed for medication.

On a separate note, doctors today seem to prescribe too quickly. This ranges from relatively benign medication to psychotropics that we may not understand all that well:

Mass psychosis in the US - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Da Bing

Prescription drugs have become recreational drugs and lots of people abuse them. Narcotics like OxyContin, Vicodin, etc. Depressants like Xanax, Valium, etc. The point of my asking that question was simply that these drugs are just as popular and just as widely abused as marijuana, cocaine, meth, etc. If we are to legalize/decriminalize drugs, I'd imagine they would have to be included. If not, what do we do to the people who have prescription drugs without a valid prescription? In effect, we'd still have a war on certain drugs. I would imagine that several folks here would be fine with not requiring any more prescriptions, but I was just asking the question to see. Is there a line, or do we let people have whatever they want?

 

[bingley]

Prescription drugs have become recreational drugs and lots of people abuse them. Narcotics like OxyContin, Vicodin, etc. Depressants like Xanax, Valium, etc. The point of my asking that question was simply that these drugs are just as popular and just as widely abused as marijuana, cocaine, meth, etc. If we are to legalize/decriminalize drugs, I'd imagine they would have to be included. If not, what do we do to the people who have prescription drugs without a valid prescription? In effect, we'd still have a war on certain drugs. I would imagine that several folks here would be fine with not requiring any more prescriptions, but I was just asking the question to see. Is there a line, or do we let people have whatever they want?

I see what you're thinking. I don't have an answer, because I don't understand the abuse of prescription drugs AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON. My thoughts on drug legalization arise not from libertarianism, but from crime suppression. I have certain convictions about what it takes to lower drug-related or cartel-related crimes, but I don't think these apply to stuff like Xanax. I'd think that the production, distribution, and abuse cycle must be different, and it may take a different strategy to break that cycle.

What do others think?

Da Bing

 

[jbombelli]

Another question for the legalization/decriminilization crowd:

What would you do about prescription medications? Would you require a doctor's prescription or could anybody walk into Walgreen's and buy whatever they wanted?

The reason there are prescriptions for prescription medications is because taking too much or too little results in bad things, up to and including death. People would be offing themselves left right and sideways without prescriptions and instructions to tell them how much morphine they should take.

You'll never die from smoking too much weed. Ever. So that wouldn't make sense for weed.

Harder drugs? I could see that for harder drugs, but I highly doubt those will ever be legalized, which makes this part of the discussion purely academic. Plus, those harder drugs are usually made in a lab using secret, mysterious processes, making them something I never wanted any part of, lol.

My happy medium has always been "if it grows naturally, it should be free from regulation." I mean, seriously. I can grow deadly nightshade. I can grow oleander plants. I can grow tobacco. Do you want to know how deadly nicotine really is? 60-70 mg will kill you deader 'n Dillinger. Don't even get me going on Castor Bean plants (also legal) and ricin. There are many other deadly plants that are perfectly legal to grow and own in this country.

So I have to ask, is this prohibition on weed really about health? Or is it more because the government hasn't figured out a way to tax plants people can grow in their homes with little difficulty?

 

[jsharmon7]

The reason there are prescriptions for prescription medications is because taking too much or too little results in bad things, up to and including death. People would be offing themselves left right and sideways without prescriptions and instructions to tell them how much morphine they should take.

You'll never die from smoking too much weed. Ever. So that wouldn't make sense for weed.

Harder drugs? I could see that for harder drugs, but I highly doubt those will ever be legalized, which makes this part of the discussion purely academic. Plus, those harder drugs are usually made in a lab using secret, mysterious processes, making them something I never wanted any part of, lol.

My happy medium has always been "if it grows naturally, it should be free from regulation." I mean, seriously. I can grow deadly nightshade. I can grow oleander plants. I can grow tobacco. Do you want to know how deadly nicotine really is? 60-70 mg will kill you deader 'n Dillinger. Don't even get me going on Castor Bean plants (also legal) and ricin. There are many other deadly plants that are perfectly legal to grow and own in this country.

So I have to ask, is this prohibition on weed really about health? Or is it more because the government hasn't figured out a way to tax plants people can grow in their homes with little difficulty?

I agree that it's academic, but I was just curious for those who have said "whatever you want to ingest." It sounds like you're for marijuana legalization but not much else. I understand that completely.

 

[jbombelli]

I agree that it's academic, but I was just curious for those who have said "whatever you want to ingest." It sounds like you're for marijuana legalization but not much else. I understand that completely.

Ultimately I'm kind of torn on that. IF someone wants to ingest something that they know will kill them, more power to them. I could grow and eat a hemlock/deadly nightshade/oleander salad if I wanted to and if I was that dumb. Those are no less poisonous than the harder drugs. It's just heroin, cocaine, crack and meth etc. make people feel good as they're dying.

When I was under 21 I could get a bag of weed with a phone call and a $20 bill, anytime I wanted. It was MUCH, MUCH harder to get a 12-pack of beer. Seriously. Much harder. Keeping all these drugs illegal ultimately serves to actually make them #1 ) MORE accessible to those who aren't old enough or responsible enough to really be able to make these decisions, and #2) more appealing to those same people due to the bad-boy status they'll achieve when they pull out that baggie, no matter what's in it. If all of these drugs suddenly became no big deal, they'd be less appealing to the bad boys and girls, and I would bet that usage would drop significantly.

Now, to sit and wait for the posts by the people who have never smoked weed, never eaten mushrooms, never taken any illegal drugs, and were never part of that culture, but knew a guy who did drugs, or knew a guy who knew a guy, to post and tell me how wrong I am. I need something to laugh at today.

 

[bingley]

Now, to sit and wait for the posts by the people who have never smoked weed, never eaten mushrooms, never taken any illegal drugs, and were never part of that culture, but knew a guy who did drugs, or knew a guy who knew a guy, to post and tell me how wrong I am. I need something to laugh at today.

I'll give it a shot. You should not use chemical substances to get high. You should do it the old-fashioned way: stay in the desert without food and water until the devil himself comes to tempt you, meditate naked under a waterfall in the middle of winter, expose yourself to scorching heat, walk on fire, walk on water, and anyway you can to get close to the sweet edge of Death and God. Scripture and faith unimportant. Heck, you don't even need to know how to read. OC/CC, it's up to you.

Taking drugs? Man, that's just crazy.

Da Bing

 

[J_Wales]

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

Well, often times folks want Liberty without responsibility.

They confuse "Give me Liberty or give me Death" with

"I want Liberty with a safety net".

 

[J_Wales]

Often, the same folks make their kids ride tricycles with knee pads and helmets and tell their kids they are always safe.


We teach our children and grandchildren self protection techniques, how to practice a ready mindset, the importance of being aware, and how to discharge a firearm with a certain degree of accuracy instead.

To each their own.

 

[Prometheus]

In the case of antibiotics should I just take any antibiotic I want when I want without acting responsibly this can have a direct impact on others. By misusing antibiotics I can contribute to the creation of highly resistant strains of bacteria that can kill other human beings. Thus, such abuse should be limited by controlling this substance.

While I generally agree with the rest of your post this makes no sense.

300~ million Americans. 6.7 billion non Americans who get antibiotics over the counter and the vast majority are, in theory, less educated due to their "third world" status.

That figure alone makes your argument a non starter.

Also the government controlling the only thing that can cure you? Well, we see how the FDA is currently abusing that power, I doubt it will change.

 

[Stschil]

I'm all for decriminalization of the natural plants and their use by individuals If someone wants to grow MJ, Opium poppies, Caccao(sp) for their own use, no biggie to me. Wanna blaze a doobie outside a bar? Go for it. Anything that is manufactured or grown on a large scale for profit needs to be regulated and taxed as tobacco and alcohol is now.
If someone steps on their dingly while under the influence, try them and fry them. They made the choice, they must suffer the consequences. Bring back work'em hard prisons and chain gangs. Their debt to society is not paid by sitting in a cell watching cable tv. They must be productive while incarcerated.

Drugs do not make people bad, they were bad to start with, the drug just gives them (and society) a convenient scapegoat to point to instead of admitting that people should be responsible for themselves and their actions at all times.

For the "There will blood in the streets if drugs are decriminalized" mentality subscribers, think about it, it's the exact same emotional grabber arguement as those who wish to continually restrict RTKBA. It doesn't hold water. Drug laws, like gun laws are not about controlling drugs and guns, they are about controlling people. Law abiding citizens will continue to be just that. Those who could care less about being upstanding members of society will not suddenly change their minds and become pillars of the community either. Change the the thought process from protecting society from itself to holding individuals responsible for their actions and you will see a change for the better.
That's my

 

[jsharmon7]

I'm all for decriminalization of the natural plants and their use by individuals If someone wants to grow MJ, Opium poppies, Caccao(sp) for their own use, no biggie to me. Wanna blaze a doobie outside a bar? Go for it. Anything that is manufactured or grown on a large scale for profit needs to be regulated and taxed as tobacco and alcohol is now.
If someone steps on their dingly while under the influence, try them and fry them. They made the choice, they must suffer the consequences. Bring back work'em hard prisons and chain gangs. Their debt to society is not paid by sitting in a cell watching cable tv. They must be productive while incarcerated.

Drugs do not make people bad, they were bad to start with, the drug just gives them (and society) a convenient scapegoat to point to instead of admitting that people should be responsible for themselves and their actions at all times.

For the "There will blood in the streets if drugs are decriminalized" mentality subscribers, think about it, it's the exact same emotional grabber arguement as those who wish to continually restrict RTKBA. It doesn't hold water. Drug laws, like gun laws are not about controlling drugs and guns, they are about controlling people. Law abiding citizens will continue to be just that. Those who could care less about being upstanding members of society will not suddenly change their minds and become pillars of the community either. Change the the thought process from protecting society from itself to holding individuals responsible for their actions and you will see a change for the better.
That's my

May I ask why you (and some others) think that naturally grown drugs should be allowed? Why is there a difference between a high that grows naturally and a high that is manufactured by man? It seems like your argument is that it's not the substance but rather what people do while using the substance, so why should there be a differentiation? Or are you saying that if a guy wants to grow his own coca plants and turn them into cocaine that's okay, but if a person/company does it to sell to others that would need to be controlled and regulated? In that case, would I be okay to grow my own tobacco or distill my own whiskey?

Somewhat related: I see a lot of people say we shouldn't regulate plants or anything that grows naturally. I'm not aware of a lot of drugs that aren't natural though. If we're okay with marijuana simply because it's natural, we should be okay with heroin, cocaine, etc. Should it even matter where it came from though?

 

[Stschil]

May I ask why you (and some others) think that naturally grown drugs should be allowed? Why is there a difference between a high that grows naturally and a high that is manufactured by man? It seems like your argument is that it's not the substance but rather what people do while using the substance, so why should there be a differentiation? Or are you saying that if a guy wants to grow his own coca plants and turn them into cocaine that's okay, but if a person/company does it to sell to others that would need to be controlled and regulated? In that case, would I be okay to grow my own tobacco or distill my own whiskey?

Somewhat related: I see a lot of people say we shouldn't regulate plants or anything that grows naturally. I'm not aware of a lot of drugs that aren't natural though. If we're okay with marijuana simply because it's natural, we should be okay with heroin, cocaine, etc. Should it even matter where it came from though?

My thoughts on the naturally growns are simply this. If Joe or Joanne Douchebag want to manufacture their own derivative of the base and kill themselves, oh well. If they are happy with smoking weed or opium without going further into the process, I'm equally as oh well.
If a corporation wants to profit from the sale of these plants and their derivatives, then some standards need to be applied and enforced. I fished bodies out of bahnhof bathroom stalls while stationed in Germany, the heroin they bought had been cut with platic shavings that melted when they cooked up and solidified once in the bloodstream. They died with the needles still between their toes.
They made a stupid choice to begin with, yes, and I really have no feelings of remorse for them, but on the other hand, let's just say that no regulation existed in the spirits industry I wouldn't want a company to water their whisky down with some sort of poison to increase the volume they sold on a cheaper basis.
As far as having your own still for whiskey making, go for it! I wouldn't care at all. Follow the $$$$$$ it's really the only reason why it conti use to be illegal. Uncle Sammy wouldn't get his tax money.

 

[jsharmon7]

My thoughts on the naturally growns are simply this. If Joe or Joanne Douchebag want to manufacture their own derivative of the base and kill themselves, oh well. If they are happy with smoking weed or opium without going further into the process, I'm equally as oh well.
If a corporation wants to profit from the sale of these plants and their derivatives, then some standards need to be applied and enforced. I fished bodies out of bahnhof bathroom stalls while stationed in Germany, the heroin they bought had been cut with platic shavings that melted when they cooked up and solidified once in the bloodstream. They died with the needles still between their toes.
They made a stupid choice to begin with, yes, and I really have no feelings of remorse for them, but on the other hand, let's just say that no regulation existed in the spirits industry I wouldn't want a company to water their whisky down with some sort of poison to increase the volume they sold on a cheaper basis.
As far as having your own still for whiskey making, go for it! I wouldn't care at all. Follow the $$$$$$ it's really the only reason why it conti use to be illegal. Uncle Sammy wouldn't get his tax money.

So is it fair to say that you'd be okay with law enforcement still going after drug dealers, smugglers, and manufacturers? What about a traffic stop where a guy has a lot of drugs that are obviously packaged for sale? Would he be okay as long as you didn't actually see him selling it and he claimed it was for personal use, or would there be a limit to how much you could possess for yourself? I'm thinking of the potential complications involved with saying "you can grow it and use it yourself, but nobody can manufacture it for profit outside of government regulated industry."

 

[jbombelli]

So is it fair to say that you'd be okay with law enforcement still going after drug dealers, smugglers, and manufacturers? What about a traffic stop where a guy has a lot of drugs that are obviously packaged for sale? Would he be okay as long as you didn't actually see him selling it and he claimed it was for personal use, or would there be a limit to how much you could possess for yourself? I'm thinking of the potential complications involved with saying "you can grow it and use it yourself, but nobody can manufacture it for profit outside of government regulated industry."

That's what they do with wine and beer now. And tobacco is legal to grow, too. You just can't sell it or import it without the .gov tax stamp of approval. It is truly about the tax revenue. That's why the enforcement agents are traditionally called "revenuers."

Homebrewing is one thing Jimmy Carter got right.

edited: thanks to everyone for keeping this civil. It's nice to have a reasonable conversation on this without all the rock throwing that usually ends up happening.

 

[Stschil]

So is it fair to say that you'd be okay with law enforcement still going after drug dealers, smugglers, and manufacturers? What about a traffic stop where a guy has a lot of drugs that are obviously packaged for sale? Would he be okay as long as you didn't actually see him selling it and he claimed it was for personal use, or would there be a limit to how much you could possess for yourself? I'm thinking of the potential complications involved with saying "you can grow it and use it yourself, but nobody can manufacture it for profit outside of government regulated industry."

If there is a non criminal means to possess, manufacture, and use said items, then yes. There should be criminal consequences for those who continue to attempt to skirt the law. If Homey the pusher wants to sell his crop, he'll need to follow the regulatory requirements in order to do so. If Jose' the importer wants to bring it in from outside the US, heavy tariffs should be levied. This would help keep from funding Foriegn companies and also help keep the pot farm workers employees here at home. All just examples of course.
Keep on the capitalistic side, keep the government meddling to a minimum and there will fewer who would be willing to maintain a black market for the stuff.

 

[jsharmon7]

The only issue I see with these last two ideas is that we already have an extensive underground network for manufacturing, transporting, and selling this stuff. Aren't we blindly assuming that these groups will begin following the law? I think we'd have to make sure that it was more profitable to follow the regulatory guidelines than to skirt the law. Also, there will be groups that won't go through the trouble of government hoop-jumping and will continue to sell it on the side, or they will undercut the legitimate businesses. Basically, I think we'll continue to have this war on drugs in some form simply because the illegitimate means are already in place.

I'd still like to see some discussion regarding prescriptions as well. Should a person be able to stop by CVS and get some OxyContin for recreational use, or should they still need a prescription? What sense would it make to legalize heroin for anyone to use, but not a prescription drug that can be used for the same purpose?

 

[rambone]

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

So we have this socialized healthcare plan coming into effect in 2014. Does that mean that anything unhealthy for people is OK to ban? How about candy and soda? Cigarettes? Beer? Watching too much TV? Eating processed garbage food? Fast foods? I could go on all day.

Now that unhealthy habits "cost you something" ... the logic follows that anything and everything could be banned or regulated. And that's exactly what these control freaks wanted.

What would you do about prescription medications? Would you require a doctor's prescription or could anybody walk into Walgreen's and buy whatever they wanted?

Decriminalize those as well. Get the government out of the health care industry.

People shouldn't be going to jail for having pills in their purse.

Government's brilliant regulations are the reason that people think there was a "health care crisis" to begin with. Costs are driven up when to get something as simple as antibiotics, you are forced to go pay for a $100+ doctor visit. The free market has been removed from health care.

I think Walgreen's can make up their own policy of to whom to sell drugs. If they want to only serve customers who have a doctor's script, then that's their choice... and the most likely outcome. It does not need to be done by government mandate, and it should not be a criminal act to be caught without a prescription.

On a separate note, doctors today seem to prescribe too quickly. This ranges from relatively benign medication to psychotropics that we may not understand all that well:

Mass psychosis in the US - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Evidence that requiring a prescription doesn't stop drug abuse. But as I mentioned, definitely drives up costs.

May I ask why you (and some others) think that naturally grown drugs should be allowed? Why is there a difference between a high that grows naturally and a high that is manufactured by man?

Try this. Instead of asking what things that We the People should be 'allowed' to own... ask what it is the government should be allowed to ban!

The government powerful enough to ban naturally occurring plants, is powerful enough to ban anything.

And now we see the results of this mistake, as the stories unfold of people getting arrested for 'dealing' raw milk.

Somewhat related: I see a lot of people say we shouldn't regulate plants or anything that grows naturally. I'm not aware of a lot of drugs that aren't natural though. If we're okay with marijuana simply because it's natural, we should be okay with heroin, cocaine, etc. Should it even matter where it came from though?

Absolutely, the logic follows. If nature is to be legal, then so should substances derived from nature. The government should not have the power to ban arbitrary objects and substances.

 

[jsharmon7]

So, rambone, you're of the idea that people should be allowed to have anything they want, whenever they want. Would you want there to be an age limit like there is currently for alcohol? Also, do you support any kind of government regulation? For example, would you disband the FDA, county health department, OSHA, etc?