PDA

View Full Version : US drug war has met none of its goals



JB
05-13-2010, 06:28 PM
No kidding.

Good article. Long. Read it if you have the time. It details how much has been spent, where, when and on what. How it's budget has exploded and basically solved nothing. In a nutshell:
By MARTHA MENDOZA, Associated Press Writer

MEXICO CITY After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
I don't think I can get behind coke, heroin, etc being legalized but why marijuana is still outlawed is beyond me.

It's AP, so here's the link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_us/failed_drug_war)

Wei Wu Wei
05-13-2010, 06:33 PM
The War on Marijuana alone has succeeded in funneling over $8 BILLION per year to Mexican Drug Cartels, allowing them to dug massive underground tunnel systems, purchase military-grade weapons, and turn the border into a warzone.

M21
05-13-2010, 06:59 PM
What if we took half of all the money spent on this failed war and built a REAL border? We probably would have stopped FAR more drugs from entering this country.

But that's not really what the powers that be ever wanted to begin with.

Wei Wu Wei
05-13-2010, 07:10 PM
Simple supply and demand.

Marijuana is the most demanded drug in the country, used more often and by more people than every other illegal drug COMBINED.

If you think we can just cut the supply despite the enormous demand, or that we can simply "just say no" and cut the demand (even though every single culture in human history capable of growing drugs have done so), then you are living in a fantasy land.

Marijuana is by far the least harmful to individuals and to society, and is far less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. The costs, societal, legal, social, and economic for this senseless prohibition are astronomical.

For some drugs, Heroin or Methamphetamine, the costs to individuals and society are far more dangerous than the costs of prohibition (although there needs to be some serious reform in how we deal with these drugs, while keeping them illegal).

Marijuana though, it's a no brainer.

Wei Wu Wei
05-13-2010, 07:13 PM
We have the highest incarciration rate in the world, and a large percentage of these inmates are non-violent drug offenders. The amount of money that goes into holding so much of our population behind bars is ridiculous.

People talk about fiscal conservatism, but really they want to just cut social programs and taxes on the wealthy. When it comes to real sensible reform the right is silent.

malloc
05-13-2010, 07:36 PM
People talk about fiscal conservatism, but really they want to just cut social programs and taxes on the wealthy. When it comes to real sensible reform the right is silent.

I think you are a bit misguided on this statement. I'm sure some conservatives on this board support ending the drug war, and of those who don't, I'm sure that most realize what a failure and waste of money its been, and that it requires reform to say the least. However, fiscal conservatism in and of itself is simply the advocation of an overall decrease in government spending. It other words, a fiscal conservative shouldn't aim to just cut self-destructive social programs, but cut across the board spending. The fiscal conservative shouldn't aim to just reduce taxes on the wealthy, but to reduce taxes across the board. In other words, fiscally conservative does not equate to politically conservative.

While what I described may be the ideal, it's nearly impossible to find Washington insiders, self proclaimed fiscal conservatives, from either side of the isle who supports this ideal in it's entirety. Since the Republicans in office didn't support cutting the size and scope of the military industrial complex, overall defense spending, and ending the war on drugs, are you saying I should just give up and vote for a liberal Democrat? How would that possibly further my goals of ideal, i.e. total, fiscal conservatism?

FeebMaster
05-13-2010, 09:36 PM
Nonsense, the War on Drugs is doing exactly what it was always intended to do: Increase the power of government while providing endless excuses for increasing the power of government.

patriot45
05-13-2010, 09:42 PM
Nonsense, the War on Drugs is doing exactly what it was always intended to do: Increase the power of government while providing endless excuses for increasing the power of government.

It has worked in some bad ways, I haven't seen colombian gold or Panama red in 30 years!

Gingersnap
05-13-2010, 09:48 PM
"Drugs" have been available to all human beings for thousands of years. What hasn't been available is a social/cultural system that allows drug abusers to turn a social/religious/recreational interlude into a full time job.

Back in the day, a farm boy who was a drunk or a mill worker who hit the laudanum too often just got kicked off the farm or out of the factory. They either got straight or they gravitated to urban areas where they supplied themselves by begging, crime, or sex. They had a very short life.

While I personally would be willing to endure the cultural transition if all drugs were legalized, I realize that's not a majority view.

Start with weed. Let employers drug test, if they want. Make government welfare conditional on clean drug tests (all drugs - tobacco, alcohol, Xanax without a prescription, etc.). If you take the government dime, you dance to the government tune. Make giving to street beggars a crime (go for the pigeon feeders, not the pigeons).

Let's see how it goes for 5 years.

PoliCon
05-14-2010, 01:50 AM
"Drugs" have been available to all human beings for thousands of years. What hasn't been available is a social/cultural system that allows drug abusers to turn a social/religious/recreational interlude into a full time job.

Back in the day, a farm boy who was a drunk or a mill worker who hit the laudanum too often just got kicked off the farm or out of the factory. They either got straight or they gravitated to urban areas where they supplied themselves by begging, crime, or sex. They had a very short life.

While I personally would be willing to endure the cultural transition if all drugs were legalized, I realize that's not a majority view.

Start with weed. Let employers drug test, if they want. Make government welfare conditional on clean drug tests (all drugs - tobacco, alcohol, Xanax without a prescription, etc.). If you take the government dime, you dance to the government tune. Make giving to street beggars a crime (go for the pigeon feeders, not the pigeons).

Let's see how it goes for 5 years.


Dismantle the welfare state and then we can talk about legalizing pot.

Wei Wu Wei
05-14-2010, 03:30 AM
Dismantle the welfare state and then we can talk about legalizing pot.

Offer job opportunities to people in disadvantaged communities, going to underfunded schools, and facing job discrimination.

Give people job opportunities, and then reform welfare. Both NEED to be done.

malloc
05-14-2010, 04:42 AM
Offer job opportunities to people in disadvantaged communities, going to underfunded schools, and facing job discrimination.

Give people job opportunities, and then reform welfare. Both NEED to be done.


Who should offer job opportunities in disadvantaged communities and via what method? What tool of government would you use to facilitate these offerings? Furthermore, whom shall have authority in declaring a community disadvantaged? To keep the ball rolling, who should have the authority to declare which disadvantaged people among certain disadvantaged communities should receive the mandatory job opportunity?

The proper answer is, "I don't know. I can't possibly know, and neither can any select group of individuals, because they could never represent the aggregate."

Your answer is most likely close to: "The 'rich' should offer job opportunities, under penalty of law, so that the effects of drug addiction doesn't escape them, and they can then learn why it's wrong to be rich and productive. As if that's somehow going to allow the business to survive, much less grow to offer more jobs. It's just psychotic to say the least.

How are underfunded schools to be funded and via what method? After you make the private business responsible for supplying addicts with jobs, and after the inevitable misappropriation of resources and lack of production pans out, and business go under, how is an underfunded education system to tax itself to greatness with no revenue? When there is no thriving business, there is no thriving population base, when there is no thriving population base there exists no local tax revenue to fund these underfunded schools. This isn't rocket science, it's just elementary civics.

Do you think it's some miracle, or white man's conspiracy that south central Compton cannot have competitive education revenues without dragging the State of California further and further into debt, a debt it's legislature is more and more reluctant to pay considering the real money comes from people who work, and actually toil, in other areas? Rather, can you not see why South Compton has never, ever, even been close to competing with central Sacremento revenues for education? You'll say, Oh! Oh! Oh! It's because those in Sacremento are richer! Then I'll say, 'You are right, but why are those in Sacremento richer?". Then you'll say, "Because they are white!". Then I'll point out at least 10 instances in which you are wrong, then you'll point out that all these non-whites were American subservients, or 'Uncle Tom's' to the whites. Then I'll point out basic simple economic reality, and you'll go to another thread to spread your fantasy land bullshit. How about we skip to the part where you run out of defensive idioms, and fantasy related ideas, and go straight to the part where you ignore the thread. It will save us both a lot of time we know is already coming.

Sonnabend
05-14-2010, 04:48 AM
Marijuana is by far the least harmful to individuals and to society, and is far less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

Wrong on all counts. (http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/buckets/drugs.html)


Street Drugs increase risk of Schizophrenia - use of street drugs (marijuana/hash - cannabis, etc.) have been linked with significantly increased probability of developing schizophrenia. Psychiatrists in inner-city areas speak of cannabis being a factor in up to 80 per cent of schizophrenia cases. Researchers in New Zealand found that those who used cannabis by the age of 15 were more than three times (300%) more likely to develop illnesses such as schizophrenia. Other research has backed this up, showing that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis by up to 700 per cent for heavy users, and that the risk increases in proportion to the amount of cannabis used (smoked or consumed).

Today, there are over 30 published papers linking marijuana to schizophrenia or other mental disorders. The increase in evidence during the past decade could be tied to the increased potency of marijuana. A review by the British Lung Association says that the cannabis available on the streets today is 15 times more powerful than the joints being smoked three decades ago.

The damage that someone does to their brain by smoking marijuana (or taking other street drugs) when they are younger (under the age of 18) may only become evident later in life; between the ages of 19 and 30, when the person develops schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia can sometimes be triggered by heavy use of hallucinogenic drugs, especially LSD; but it appears that one has to have a predisposition towards developing schizophrenia for this to occur. There is also some evidence suggesting that people suffering from schizophrenia but responding to treatment can have an episode as a result of use of LSD. Methamphetamine and PCP also mimic the symptoms of schizophrenia, and can trigger ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia in those who are vulnerable.

If I smoke a cigarette, and then drive, I am not impaired.

If I smoke POT and then drive I am impaired and a danger to anyone on the roads.

One is a narcotic. One is not.

noonwitch
05-14-2010, 08:52 AM
Wrong on all counts. (http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/buckets/drugs.html)



If I smoke a cigarette, and then drive, I am not impaired.

If I smoke POT and then drive I am impaired and a danger to anyone on the roads.

One is a narcotic. One is not.


Pot impairs the reflexes and the senses, and negatively affects driving, but it is not a narcotic. The term narcotic refers to opium-based drugs and their synthetic counterparts. Coedine is a narcotic. Cocaine is not one, it's a stimulant. Pot is pot-technically, it's classified as a mild hallucinogen, but I don't know anyone who ever hallucinated from pot without it being laced. People undergoing chemo think of it as an appetite stimulant and a pain killer.

Although the suburb I live in enforces the laws against any non-medical use of pot, it is de facto legal in Detroit, because there are not enough cops to patrol the city properly and in Ann Arbor, because possession has been decriminalized to a civil, non-criminal, infraction.

PoliCon
05-14-2010, 09:15 AM
blah blah blah blah - fucktard fucktard fucktard fucktard:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
05-14-2010, 11:46 PM
Pot impairs the reflexes and the senses, and negatively affects driving, but it is not a narcotic. The term narcotic refers to opium-based drugs and their synthetic counterparts. Coedine is a narcotic. Cocaine is not one, it's a stimulant. Pot is pot-technically, it's classified as a mild hallucinogen, but I don't know anyone who ever hallucinated from pot without it being laced. People undergoing chemo think of it as an appetite stimulant and a pain killer.

Yet is it is distinct from tobacco in that , as you said, mpairs the reflexes and the senses.


Although the suburb I live in enforces the laws against any non-medical use of pot, it is de facto legal in Detroit, because there are not enough cops to patrol the city properly and in Ann Arbor, because possession has been decriminalized to a civil, non-criminal, infraction.

Hence the term used here...drug driving.

Bottom line, pot is not the same as tobacco and never has been.


Offer job opportunities to people in disadvantaged communities, going to underfunded schools, and facing job discrimination.

They have to want to work, first.

asdf2231
05-15-2010, 01:37 AM
The War on Marijuana alone has succeeded in funneling over $8 BILLION per year to Mexican Drug Cartels, allowing them to dug massive underground tunnel systems, purchase military-grade weapons, and turn the border into a warzone.

So you point out the serious "military grade weapons" and the fact that the border is a "warzone" and yet people of your political ilk do everything to keep us from TREATING it like a war. Kudos.

Elspeth
05-15-2010, 01:49 AM
So you point out the serious "military grade weapons" and the fact that the border is a "warzone" and yet people of your political ilk do everything to keep us from TREATING it like a war. Kudos.

Nice!

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-15-2010, 05:38 AM
"Drugs" have been available to all human beings for thousands of years. What hasn't been available is a social/cultural system that allows drug abusers to turn a social/religious/recreational interlude into a full time job.

Back in the day, a farm boy who was a drunk or a mill worker who hit the laudanum too often just got kicked off the farm or out of the factory. They either got straight or they gravitated to urban areas where they supplied themselves by begging, crime, or sex. They had a very short life.

While I personally would be willing to endure the cultural transition if all drugs were legalized, I realize that's not a majority view.

Start with weed. Let employers drug test, if they want. Make government welfare conditional on clean drug tests (all drugs - tobacco, alcohol, Xanax without a prescription, etc.). If you take the government dime, you dance to the government tune. Make giving to street beggars a crime (go for the pigeon feeders, not the pigeons).

Let's see how it goes for 5 years.

I agree 100% with your post until the last point--Isn't giving to street beggars a form of personal charity?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-15-2010, 05:44 AM
"Drugs" have been available to all human beings for thousands of years. What hasn't been available is a social/cultural system that allows drug abusers to turn a social/religious/recreational interlude into a full time job.

Back in the day, a farm boy who was a drunk or a mill worker who hit the laudanum too often just got kicked off the farm or out of the factory. They either got straight or they gravitated to urban areas where they supplied themselves by begging, crime, or sex. They had a very short life.

While I personally would be willing to endure the cultural transition if all drugs were legalized, I realize that's not a majority view.

Start with weed. Let employers drug test, if they want. Make government welfare conditional on clean drug tests (all drugs - tobacco, alcohol, Xanax without a prescription, etc.). If you take the government dime, you dance to the government tune. Make giving to street beggars a crime (go for the pigeon feeders, not the pigeons).

Let's see how it goes for 5 years.


Wrong on all counts. (http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/buckets/drugs.html)



If I smoke a cigarette, and then drive, I am not impaired.

If I smoke POT and then drive I am impaired and a danger to anyone on the roads.

One is a narcotic. One is not.

If you have a few beers and drive, you are impaired. By that rationale, should alcohol be illegal too?
My argument is this--Punish the criminal, don't prohibit the substance he uses to commit crimes. It's the same argument anti-gun folks use against guns, ''Well, look at how much violent crime is committed by guns and what it does to society, etc.'' Wrong. It's people that kill people, not guns; similarily, it's not the drug itself that causes schizophrenia or impairment but the judgement of the person to use said drug or drugs in whatever quantities sufficient to cause these effects.

A person can have a beer and be responsible, as can someone on Marijuana;
Similarly, a person can own a gun and not be a gun toting gang banging lunatic.
I know both to be true from personal experience with those who either drink, smoke pot or own guns.
It's the same sort of big Nanny state argument--a bunch of assholes with little self control go and do something crazy on a substance/with a gun, so instead of just prosecuting the individual, let's also ban the offending substance or object and punish all of those who are responsible with them!

Sonnabend
05-15-2010, 07:27 AM
f you have a few beers and drive, you are impaired. By that rationale, should alcohol be illegal too?

Drink driving is already illegal. :rolleyes:


My argument is this--Punish the criminal, don't prohibit the substance he uses to commit crimes. It's the same argument anti-gun folks use against guns, ''Well, look at how much violent crime is committed by guns and what it does to society, etc.'' Wrong. It's people that kill people, not guns; similarily, it's not the drug itself that causes schizophrenia or impairment but the judgement of the person to use said drug or drugs in whatever quantities sufficient to cause these effects.

Except that, as usual, you miss the flaw in that argument, as more than 97 percent of all gun crime is committed with illegal guns.


A person can have a beer and be responsible, as can someone on Marijuana;

No.

wilbur
05-15-2010, 08:35 AM
Wrong on all counts. (http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/buckets/drugs.html)



If I smoke a cigarette, and then drive, I am not impaired.


http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/6/5/327

The number of patients with schizophrenia who smoke is very high (see Box 1Go). One study reported the prevalence to be 88%, nearly three times the rate in the general population and higher than the elevated rates of smoking in patients with other psychiatric illnesses. The increased prevalence persists even after adjustment for marital status, alcohol use and socio-economic status (Hughes et al, 1986).

...

In our own study (Kelly & McCreadie, 1999) we found that the average age when patients with schizophrenia started smoking was the same as in the general population, namely mid-teens; 90% of patients who smoked had started smoking before their illness began.


And guess what? The "smoking" that this article is referring to, is cigarette smoking. So, armed with this new information, should we now outlaw tobacco?

fettpett
05-15-2010, 02:28 PM
This is one area that I agree with Wei Wei.

Hemp needs to be decriminalized. I've said before and I'll say again I have NEVER smoked anything or done anything other than drink.

However, there are litterally thousands of uses for Hemp. Treat it exactly the same as tobacco and alchohol, 18/21 to buy and can't drive while under the affects. You legalize and tax it, you'll not only not have to worry about getting laced joints but people will be able to actually do some legit research on it to determin the medical use of hemp. Plus we'll have a crop that is far more usefull that corn, soy, tobacco, flax, trees, cotton, combined. It's cleaner as it doesn't need fertlizers or pesticides to grow, has more protiens and both Omega 3&6 in it. Oils, plastics and industrial lubericant's can be made from it as well as cloth and paper.

asdf2231
05-15-2010, 09:12 PM
Nice!

Thank you. Love the selective outrage hey? And the remarkable logical leap that since men armed like soldiers are turning portions of our border into war zones... then the obvious thing to do is just make the ilegal thing they are doing legal. But for God's sake Don't put our frigging Army down there to protect people because it makes no sense for a soldier to take on someone armed with military weapons in a warzone. :rolleyes:

asdf2231
05-15-2010, 09:48 PM
And guess what? The "smoking" that this article is referring to, is cigarette smoking. So, armed with this new information, should we now outlaw tobacco?

Maybe in England where they did the study on citizens of the UK who were smoking UK and European brand cigarettes, sure. Suggesting that a study done under those conditions and using that material on those test subjects be used as a basis for banning cigarettes in American is not only retarded it indicates a complete failure to grasp scientific methodology.

Maybe you could post an article on rates of disease in Pygmies who masturbate and use it to prove that we need to decriminalize speeding.

At any rate the study you referenced? Total Fail on your part Sparky.

Did you happen to notice, Genius, that the article involved effects of smoking on clinically treated schizophrenics and observed associated affects and interactions with clinically prescribed drugs used to treat them? And that it also offered supposition that nicotine use by them was an attempt at self medication to deal with the physiological effects of their disease?

And merely suggests that POSSIBLY it precipitates the onset of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals. IE, it's possibly a precurser self medication attempt at regulating the mesolimbic dopamine system that might actually worsen the condition that it is being enployed to self treat.

This was a study to find out WHY people with schizophrenic disorders smoke at a higher rate than normal individuals. And what effect it may have on their clinical medicinal treatment due to interaction.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonnabend
Wrong on all counts.
If I smoke a cigarette, and then drive, I am not impaired.



Idiotic link to unrelated study to try to score a point



And guess what? The "smoking" that this article is referring to, is cigarette smoking. So, armed with this new information, should we now outlaw tobacco?

No... But you may want to ensure you have armed something other than your pompous cannon before you pull the trigger.

JB
05-16-2010, 04:10 PM
pwnage kick.

Big Guy
05-16-2010, 04:33 PM
Simple supply and demand.

Marijuana is the most demanded drug in the country, used more often and by more people than every other illegal drug COMBINED.

If you think we can just cut the supply despite the enormous demand, or that we can simply "just say no" and cut the demand (even though every single culture in human history capable of growing drugs have done so), then you are living in a fantasy land.

Marijuana is by far the least harmful to individuals and to society, and is far less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. The costs, societal, legal, social, and economic for this senseless prohibition are astronomical.

For some drugs, Heroin or Methamphetamine, the costs to individuals and society are far more dangerous than the costs of prohibition (although there needs to be some serious reform in how we deal with these drugs, while keeping them illegal).

Marijuana though, it's a no brainer.


I partially agree here.
When we can have a test similar to the breathalyser test for Alcohol, I would see no problem with legalizing marijuana. But, until there is a way for police to ensure someone is or is not driving under the influence of Marijuana it should not be legalized.

The risks are still too high.

JB
05-16-2010, 05:12 PM
I partially agree here.
When we can have a test similar to the breathalyser test for Alcohol, I would see no problem with legalizing marijuana. But, until there is a way for police to ensure someone is or is not driving under the influence of Marijuana it should not be legalized.

The risks are still too high.I'm pretty sure the breathalyser is not used in the field in all 50 states.

It's usually administered back at the precinct.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2010, 05:16 PM
I partially agree here.
When we can have a test similar to the breathalyser test for Alcohol, I would see no problem with legalizing marijuana. But, until there is a way for police to ensure someone is or is not driving under the influence of Marijuana it should not be legalized.

The risks are still too high.

How about a field sobriety test? If they can pass the standard sobriety test for alcohol (that tests balance, cognitive functioning, motor skills, ect) then what's the problem?

Big Guy
05-16-2010, 05:18 PM
I'm pretty sure the breathalyser is not used in the field in all 50 states.

It's usually administered back at the precinct.


This is true, but there needs to be a similar test for Marijuana before they legalize it. It don't matter if it is done on the side of the road or if it is done at the precinct.

Big Guy
05-16-2010, 05:23 PM
How about a field sobriety test? If they can pass the standard sobriety test for alcohol (that tests balance, cognitive functioning, motor skills, ect) then what's the problem?

No problem if they can pass the field sobriety test, but if they do not, there needs to be a test similar to the Blood Alcohol Test.

A way to measure how much THC is in the blood stream at the precinct. There will also need to be a legal consensus as to which level of THC would be "over the limit".

JB
05-16-2010, 05:24 PM
This is true, but there needs to be a similar test for Marijuana before they legalize it. It don't matter if it is done on the side of the road or if it is done at the precinct.I'm no expert but I imagine the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test would work for weed as it does for booze. Not sure though.

Big Guy
05-16-2010, 05:31 PM
I'm no expert but I imagine the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test would work for weed as it does for booze. Not sure though.

Yes it works the same, however the field sobriety test is only a tool used to determine weather or not there is sufficient evident to go to the next step which is to check the Blood Alcohol Test to determine the level of impairment.

Someone can fail the field sobriety test and their BAC is below .08 which is the tolerance in most sates. It is mostly the BAC that determines if someone is charged with DUI/DWI.

RobJohnson
05-16-2010, 07:58 PM
Dismantle the welfare state and then we can talk about legalizing pot.

Those on welfare don't have to screw with pot...they get the good stuff & it's legal...compliments of the taxpayers.

wilbur
05-16-2010, 08:12 PM
Maybe in England where they did the study on citizens of the UK who were smoking UK and European brand cigarettes, sure. Suggesting that a study done under those conditions and using that material on those test subjects be used as a basis for banning cigarettes in American is not only retarded it indicates a complete failure to grasp scientific methodology.

Maybe you could post an article on rates of disease in Pygmies who masturbate and use it to prove that we need to decriminalize speeding.

At any rate the study you referenced? Total Fail on your part Sparky.

Did you happen to notice, Genius, that the article involved effects of smoking on clinically treated schizophrenics and observed associated affects and interactions with clinically prescribed drugs used to treat them? And that it also offered supposition that nicotine use by them was an attempt at self medication to deal with the physiological effects of their disease?

And merely suggests that POSSIBLY it precipitates the onset of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals. IE, it's possibly a precurser self medication attempt at regulating the mesolimbic dopamine system that might actually worsen the condition that it is being enployed to self treat.

This was a study to find out WHY people with schizophrenic disorders smoke at a higher rate than normal individuals. And what effect it may have on their clinical medicinal treatment due to interaction.

No... But you may want to ensure you have armed something other than your pompous cannon before you pull the trigger.

LOL - put your own pompous cannon in check there buddy, because you completely misread the intent of my post. You're effectively arguing against Sonnabend at this point, not me.

I agree with most of what you said, at least about the correlation versus causation, etc. All those same criticisms and questions apply to the the correlation between marijuana and schizophrenia. A correlation which Sonnabend presumes is a good reason to maintain the status quo on pot. Of course, the problem is, he is trying to defend tobacco at the same time, even though the correlations between tobacco and schizophrenia are far stronger. So it seems, if he doesnt want to be a hypocrite, he should be arguing for the prohibition of tobacco.

The single most damning part, is that throughout the history of pot use, with all its ups and downs, and its gradual increase in potency, rates of schizophrenia have not changed at all. Same with tobacco. So its likely that neither of them are actual causes, and at worst, may accelerate the onset of the disease, but only in folk who would have likely developed it anyhow.

And BTW, the study *did* claim that roughly 90% of subjects with the disease, started smoking tobacco at the same average age as everyone else - long before they had the disease. Self-medication doesnt explain that very well.

wilbur
05-16-2010, 08:19 PM
Yes it works the same, however the field sobriety test is only a tool used to determine weather or not there is sufficient evident to go to the next step which is to check the Blood Alcohol Test to determine the level of impairment.

Someone can fail the field sobriety test and their BAC is below .08 which is the tolerance in most sates. It is mostly the BAC that determines if someone is charged with DUI/DWI.

I don't see this as a reasonable requirement - there are all kinds of prescription drugs, and even over the counter drugs, which can impair driving far worse than alcohol or pot, for which we have no on-the-spot detection kits.

Not to mention, in reality, the situation on the road will basically undergo zero change with pot legalization - people are driving high as we speak.

Big Guy
05-16-2010, 09:10 PM
I don't see this as a reasonable requirement - there are all kinds of prescription drugs, and even over the counter drugs, which can impair driving far worse than alcohol or pot, for which we have no on-the-spot detection kits.

Not to mention, in reality, the situation on the road will basically undergo zero change with pot legalization - people are driving high as we speak.

I agree mostly with what you are saying, the prescription drugs are controlled much more tightly than alcohol and yes it is still illegal to operate a motor vehicle while impaired by ANY substance, be it legal, illegal, over the counter or prescribed.

The fact of the matter is, if a person in under the influence of OTC or Prescription drugs they almost always admit it when they are stopped by police. (They think it's okay)

The argument that there is no law needed because people are doing it anyway does not hold water. If it were not illegal to drive while drunk many more people would do it simply because it isn't illegal and that would greatly increase the death toll on the roads.

lacarnut
05-16-2010, 09:10 PM
And BTW, the study *did* claim that roughly 90% of subjects with the disease, started smoking tobacco at the same average age as everyone else - long before they had the disease. Self-medication doesnt explain that very well.

People that smoke cigs inhale. So, if you do not know how to inhale, you are pissing in the wind smoking pot plus you are going to gag and choke a lot.

fettpett
05-16-2010, 10:09 PM
Yes it works the same, however the field sobriety test is only a tool used to determine weather or not there is sufficient evident to go to the next step which is to check the Blood Alcohol Test to determine the level of impairment.

Someone can fail the field sobriety test and their BAC is below .08 which is the tolerance in most sates. It is mostly the BAC that determines if someone is charged with DUI/DWI.

well there is are piss/hair tests that they can administer...plus people get pulled over for driving high all the time now, if they smell it on them they take them in. there wouldn't be a change at all.

It's ironic that many conservatives are against spending all the money one the "War on Drugs" yet don't want anything to change. My guess is that within 20 years most of the country will follow CA on this issue and Pot will be legalized.

Big Guy
05-16-2010, 10:25 PM
well there is are piss/hair tests that they can administer...plus people get pulled over for driving high all the time now, if they smell it on them they take them in. there wouldn't be a change at all.

It's ironic that many conservatives are against spending all the money one the "War on Drugs" yet don't want anything to change. My guess is that within 20 years most of the country will follow CA on this issue and Pot will be legalized.


People get pulled over for erratic driving and for minor traffic offences, not for driving while they are high. If an officer smells the odor of marijuana, that gives them probable cause to take the next steps, which can include removing the driver and occupants from the vehicle, possibly searching the vehicle, and searching the occupants. It will usually also mean a sobriety test, if the test is failed there are even more steps that can be taken by the Officer.

Remove the fact that marijuana is illegal without adding the means to get an accurate measurement of impairment and people will be getting arrested and charged with DUI/DWI when they aren't over the limit, this will tie up the Courts and tie up the labs that process the drug screens.

Then the libs will be screaming that the Police aren't doing their jobs. Jobs that you liberals have no clue about.

fettpett
05-16-2010, 11:48 PM
People get pulled over for erratic driving and for minor traffic offences, not for driving while they are high. If an officer smells the odor of marijuana, that gives them probable cause to take the next steps, which can include removing the driver and occupants from the vehicle, possibly searching the vehicle, and searching the occupants. It will usually also mean a sobriety test, if the test is failed there are even more steps that can be taken by the Officer.

Remove the fact that marijuana is illegal without adding the means to get an accurate measurement of impairment and people will be getting arrested and charged with DUI/DWI when they aren't over the limit, this will tie up the Courts and tie up the labs that process the drug screens.

Then the libs will be screaming that the Police aren't doing their jobs. Jobs that you liberals have no clue about.

um....I'm not a lib at all...

On this issue i tend to agree that it needs to be decriminalized. You don't have to have a blood test to screen for pot in your system. all it takes is a quick piss test one that MANY jobs require and doesn't take long.

If the law is changed and set up so that you can smoke it wherever/whenever you want as long as your not driving, who cares. you wanna fuck up your life...go for it, alcoholics and smokers do it all the time, yet they are both legal drugs. IF you get caught driving erratically and fail a piss test, you get fined/time in the clink. I'd rather have our courts tied up with these cases than dealing with minor possession of an ounce or less.

Rockntractor
05-17-2010, 12:31 AM
um....I'm not a lib at all...

On this issue i tend to agree that it needs to be decriminalized. You don't have to have a blood test to screen for pot in your system. all it takes is a quick piss test one that MANY jobs require and doesn't take long.

If the law is changed and set up so that you can smoke it wherever/whenever you want as long as your not driving, who cares. you wanna fuck up your life...go for it, alcoholics and smokers do it all the time, yet they are both legal drugs. IF you get caught driving erratically and fail a piss test, you get fined/time in the clink. I'd rather have our courts tied up with these cases than dealing with minor possession of an ounce or less.

Liberals are the ones that made pot illegal in the first place, they also were the ones that brought us prohibition another highly successful endeavor. I don't know why conservatives have the ball and are running with it now, nothing has made our government bigger than the war on drugs. We have a huge civilian army ready to do battle with our own citizens while our border remains wide open and our country is being taken over from the inside out.
Yeah stop drugs, it has a real righteous sound to it, how's it working for you?

PoliCon
05-17-2010, 03:02 AM
Those on welfare don't have to screw with pot...they get the good stuff & it's legal...compliments of the taxpayers.
You're clueless if you don't think Pot is an issue with those who are welfare.

PoliCon
05-17-2010, 03:04 AM
the situation on the road will basically undergo zero change with pot legalization - people are driving high as we speak. people are doing it so we should make it legal . . . should we make pedophilia legal? I mean after all people are doing it as we speak . . . .:rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-17-2010, 03:08 AM
um....I'm not a lib at all...

On this issue i tend to agree that it needs to be decriminalized. You don't have to have a blood test to screen for pot in your system. all it takes is a quick piss test one that MANY jobs require and doesn't take long.

If the law is changed and set up so that you can smoke it wherever/whenever you want as long as your not driving, who cares. you wanna fuck up your life...go for it, alcoholics and smokers do it all the time, yet they are both legal drugs. IF you get caught driving erratically and fail a piss test, you get fined/time in the clink. I'd rather have our courts tied up with these cases than dealing with minor possession of an ounce or less.

reality is - when they get charged with minor possession - they were caught doing something worse and they plead down from the more severe crime to the minor drug possession. DA's do this because they get to get that person off the streets AND they get to do so while avoiding a trial that often costs the taxpayers coming and going in that we pay for the DA and the PD and then - there is a real chance that the criminal in question could get off on a technicality.

wilbur
05-17-2010, 09:36 AM
people are doing it so we should make it legal . . . should we make pedophilia legal? I mean after all people are doing it as we speak . . . .:rolleyes:

No, that's not what I'm saying. The fact that people will drive high, I do not believe, makes a good objection to legalization - because the problem already exists. I'm not presenting it as a justifying reason *for* legalization.

Gingersnap
05-17-2010, 10:02 AM
Liberals are the ones that made pot illegal in the first place, they also were the ones that brought us prohibition another highly successful endeavor. I don't know why conservatives have the ball and are running with it now, nothing has made our government bigger than the war on drugs. We have a huge civilian army ready to do battle with our own citizens while our border remains wide open and our country is being taken over from the inside out.
Yeah stop drugs, it has a real righteous sound to it, how's it working for you?

Just to clarify - criminalizing weed was mostly an effort to crack down on legal and illegal Mexicans. I don't think most communities cared what Mexicans smoked until issues around gangs, illegal border incursions, and farm labor problems became large problems for Western states.

This isn't to say that the newly formed FDA didn't seize on weed and run with it - just that the crackdown was less about keeping little Timmy from becoming a pothead and more about making it uncomfortable of little Juan to trot back and forth across the border whenever he pleased.

fettpett
05-17-2010, 10:35 AM
Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst propagated the myth and invented the word "marijuana" to help deal with it. most people knew it as hemp, refer, or cannabis. yes it was partly to deal with Mexican immigrants who smoked but it also had a lot to do with the increase in availability of tree paper products and petroleum products. Hemp could do both and hurt the profits at DuPont.

The American Medical Association even went before congress and told them that they had no issues with hemp and that they would have protested sooner if they knew that "marijuana" was Hemp.

In the '30's Anslinger said it was the most violent drug (causing insanity, murders, etc), then in the '50's said it would cause such pacifism that soldiers wouldn't fight against Communism. Since it was starting to become popular in the younger generations and the counter-culture was starting they had to change their toon.

Gingersnap
05-17-2010, 10:42 AM
Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst propagated the myth and invented the word "marijuana" to help deal with it. most people knew it as hemp, refer, or cannabis. yes it was partly to deal with Mexican immigrants who smoked but it also had a lot to do with the increase in availability of tree paper products and petroleum products. Hemp could do both and hurt the profits at DuPont.

The American Medical Association even went before congress and told them that they had no issues with hemp and that they would have protested sooner if they knew that "marijuana" was Hemp.

In the '30's Anslinger said it was the most violent drug (causing insanity, murders, etc), then in the '50's said it would cause such pacifism that soldiers wouldn't fight against Communism. Since it was starting to become popular in the younger generations and the counter-culture was starting they had to change their toon.

Getting-high-weed and making-rope weed were conflated during that time. Both are cannabis plants but they aren't interchangeable in use any more than a thoroughbred can do the same work as a draft horse.

fettpett
05-17-2010, 10:54 AM
Getting-high-weed and making-rope weed were conflated during that time. Both are cannabis plants but they aren't interchangeable in use any more than a thoroughbred can do the same work as a draft horse.

that would have been a valid argument, except it wasn't how it worked...they made it a blanket statement started heavily taxing ALL hemp. If it was just hemp that go you high then we'd see far more hemp products on our shelves today in the form of paper, cloth, food and other products. the AMA also recognized hemp as a medicine. Yes i know they said the same for cocaine and heroine, but by the 30's they knew that they weren't (even though the federal government says that both of those do have medical quantities and hemp doesn't :confused::rolleyes:)

FlaGator
05-17-2010, 10:54 AM
The whole issue with decriminalizing one drug is that all drug users have their drug of choice and each one believes that his/her's is harmless and should be legalized or the punishments reduced to minor fines. At what point do you draw the line and say that one drug is less destructive than another when either side can bring to bear evidence to prove their point of view and counter the other side? Who because the arbitrator of the arbitrary?

Gingersnap
05-17-2010, 11:10 AM
that would have been a valid argument, except it wasn't how it worked...they made it a blanket statement started heavily taxing ALL hemp. If it was just hemp that go you high then we'd see far more hemp products on our shelves today in the form of paper, cloth, food and other products. the AMA also recognized hemp as a medicine. Yes i know they said the same for cocaine and heroine, but by the 30's they knew that they weren't (even though the federal government says that both of those do have medical quantities and hemp doesn't :confused::rolleyes:)

It wasn't an argument - it was an observation. I'm pro-legalization. I want to see weed legalized and I want to see a new American hemp industry.

fettpett
05-17-2010, 11:49 AM
It wasn't an argument - it was an observation. I'm pro-legalization. I want to see weed legalized and I want to see a new American hemp industry.

ah, well it is an argument that is given, albeit a very weak one