Legalization of drugs, pros and cons!

[Jess]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

There are a lot of good points in your post, but I am going to start with those in bold because they struck a chord with me.

The same can be said for those of us who grew up like that but did not turn out to be addicts, thank God.

I think addiction is a disease, at times it is also hereditary. I am not a addict, so I am not coming from a place of experience of knowing, What I know I have read or learned while working in paces that do deal with addition. I came across a lot of addicts that came from affluent families and who where never exposed to abuse of any kind. So what made them addicts?

To me Human Rights and Equal rights mean different than to you, and that is OK. We simply see things different.

The other part that I highlighted I did because Bullshit like sports kept me away from drugs and alcohol and I know from my life experience and all those thousands of kids that later on I helped through sports, that it did the same from them. So I humbly disagree with that statement, wholeheartedly.

You make a lot of other points that I do agree with, but one, they are off topic and two I have a sugar induced headache. So perhaps at another time I can engage fully on those.

Just to let ya know... I never once used heredity as a premise for addiction , although some science does say it plays a role.

While I do see professional sports as bull shit, that is just my opinion and I also played sports in school and found great commraderie in the kinship of completing a common goal.

I don't know how you define Human Rights vs Equal rights, nor do you know how I do as we have not directly addressed this, so I do not understand how you can so readily disagree.

I am sorry you have a headache. Feel better.

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by Jess

Just to let ya know... I never once used heredity as a premise for addiction , although some science does say it plays a role.

While I do see professional sports as bull shit, that is just my opinion and I also played sports in school and found great commraderie in the kinship of completing a common goal.

I don't know how you define Human Rights vs Equal rights, nor do you know how I do as we have not directly addressed this, so I do not understand how you can so readily disagree.

I am sorry you have a headache. Feel better.

No, you didn't, I did. I think it does play a role, but I am only saying that from what I have observed, not backed by any scientific fact.

Playing sports while in school keeps kids off the streets and by default mostly off drugs, I truly believe that. Again, this from personal experience.

I wasn't saying Human Rights Vs. Equal Rights. I am thinking I may not be as articulate as I hope to be. We can certainly discuss that topic at another time.

Thanks for your sentiments about my headache, I have only myself to blame. Darn trip to "Candy's factory", the place I ran into after lunch. How could I resist nerds and gummy bears when I hardly ever get to eat them?!

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Jess

Opinion only...

Legalize pot. Never heard of anyone od'ing on pot or committing homicide in a pot induced haze. Never heard of anyone jonesing so bad for pot they commit larceny or murder or rape. Keep narcotics/ opiate derivitives /methamphetamines etc illegal.

I share this opinion.

Alcohol is legal and yet it's abused regularly and, during the course of the abuse, others are hurt through domestic violence, vehicular homicide, home invasions, etc. That won't change and it won't change if harder drugs are legal, either.

Pot has medicinal value. I do think it should be legal and bought and sold with few or no restrictions, as long as parameters are put into place to prevent folks from coming to work high, thus endangering any and all they come into contact with. I also think that...as someone already mentioned...sex workers should be legal and should be allowed to Unionize if they wish.

[Toph]

Legalize Marijuana!!! think of the generated tax revenue that will cushion the tax payer!!!

not that i smoke it or partake but, with its' prooven medicinal qualities, it can not be any worse than alcohol... however, many have lost their jobs over the use of it.

my view is simple
if workers are forced to into [the humiliation of] random drug tests in order to work (and pay taxes), then career social system abusers ought to be randomly drug tested in order to collect our taxes every month...

*please note* i said career social system abusers!!!

[weatherboi]

What is more humane people?? Letting the cartels control whats available on the street or a country that takes responsibility for a systemic and societal problem that is not going away no mater what we do??


Legalization of all drugs may work if we strictly enforce the points below and allow them the opportunity to systemically work there way into our society.The demand for drugs will always exist. Fear based laws and restrictions only allow the cartels the opportunity to put the drugs on our street. People, those drugs will be finding the way on the street no matter what!!!! We as a country have been fighting the war on drugs since Nixon and it has only cost lives and money. Being in the hospitality industry there is one thing I have learned. If an employee is gonna do drugs on the job it doesn't matter if they are legal or not...he/she is gonna do drugs. If a person is so depressed or distressed that they turn to heroin then they are gonna find it and do it weather it is legal or not.

People have been choosing drugs for self medication purposes, in some form or fashion, since time began. It is inherent in almost every culture on this earth. Why not make them legal so we can control the product???


Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.

Create regulation agencies (sorry libertarians and paleo-conservatives).

Sanitation, potency and purity. Standards people!! Set em and enforce em!!

In no way shape form or fashion can anything be advertised.

Taxes, fees and fines need to be imposed. Drug-abuse prevention and treatment programs can be paid from this and cover admin costs from regulation.

Just like the alcoholic-beverage-control agencies keep bars and liquor stores in check, the same can be dome with drugs. Understand there will always be a negative element to the drug world weather they are legal or not. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes.

[Apocalipstic]

I used to teach the alcohol classes to be able to serve alcohol in TN, I could start a new career teaching drug classes.

*beam*

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by weatherboi

What is more humane people?? Letting the cartels control whats available on the street or a country that takes responsibility for a systemic and societal problem that is not going away no mater what we do??


Legalization of all drugs may work if we strictly enforce the points below and allow them the opportunity to systemically work there way into our society.The demand for drugs will always exist. Fear based laws and restrictions only allow the cartels the opportunity to put the drugs on our street. People, those drugs will be finding the way on the street no matter what!!!! We as a country have been fighting the war on drugs since Nixon and it has only cost lives and money. Being in the hospitality industry there is one thing I have learned. If an employee is gonna do drugs on the job it doesn't matter if they are legal or not...he/she is gonna do drugs. If a person is so depressed or distressed that they turn to heroin then they are gonna find it and do it weather it is legal or not.

People have been choosing drugs for self medication purposes, in some form or fashion, since time began. It is inherent in almost every culture on this earth. Why not make them legal so we can control the product???


Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.

Create regulation agencies (sorry libertarians and paleo-conservatives).

Sanitation, potency and purity. Standards people!! Set em and enforce em!!

In no way shape form or fashion can anything be advertised.

Taxes, fees and fines need to be imposed. Drug-abuse prevention and treatment programs can be paid from this and cover admin costs from regulation.

Just like the alcoholic-beverage-control agencies keep bars and liquor stores in check, the same can be dome with drugs. Understand there will always be a negative element to the drug world weather they are legal or not. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes.

[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT="Century Gothic"][COLOR="Navy"]It seems (need to look at the actual language) that the proposed decriminalization and taxation of pot in CA proposition could begin movement toward this kind of model for other substances in CA and nationwide. Just have to see how it plays out, if it passes (looks like it will... well, if mega-bucks religious neo-cons don't grab hold with campaigns to defeat it).

It is hard for a lot of people (including myself, sometimes) to let go of long standing beliefs about drug use and certain kinds of drugs, but, these beliefs have certainly not done much to really deal with this whole issue effectively. The entanglements with crimes related to drugs really gets in the way with changing attitudes. Or to have effective and equally accessible treatment available to people.

I think you should write the legislation! Wouldn't it be great to have short, clear, direct language instead of the mega-loophole compositions most legislation ends up being! Also, what has been done in the past and still exists, isn't working.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Jess

Just to let ya know... I never once used heredity as a premise for addiction , although some science does say it plays a role.

While I do see professional sports as bull shit, that is just my opinion and I also played sports in school and found great commraderie in the kinship of completing a common goal.

I don't know how you define Human Rights vs Equal rights, nor do you know how I do as we have not directly addressed this, so I do not understand how you can so readily disagree.

I am sorry you have a headache. Feel better.

[FONT="Century Gothic"]
Early brain studies demonstrated a consistent hereditary relationship between male children and their father’s. concerning alcoholism incidence. But I don’t know if current research has shed any light on this and also the early work just did not focus on women alcoholics. Kind of the same thing as has been true in many medical research areas in which men were the focus (i.e., early heart disease research). Lots of factors of male privilege and stereotypical assumptions about women are behind this. The woman alcoholic was pretty much disregarded for decades. And not studied until women began to enter colleges, professions and the workforce at large in greater numbers. Now, in relationship to breast cancer (in women) and prostate cancer and even testicular cancer in men, the research was skewed in the other direction. Interesting to think about this as historically men seek medical attention less than women and this has some pretty stereotypic gender role assumptions behind it.


This could be very different today (I’m just no longer up with this literature). Also, the advances in MRI imaging and brain studies could have yielded new data. Maybe someone here knows more about current heredity research and alcoholism or other types of addictions that isn’t influenced in the same ways. There could possibly be research today that takes into consideration transgendered and intergendered people and addiction from a heredity perspective. I wonder..... this could throw a whole new set of variables in the mix!

My mind just works this way.... seems there are ever evolving ways to look at things.[/FONT]

[Jess]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

[FONT="Century Gothic"]
Early brain studies demonstrated a consistent hereditary relationship between male children and their father’s. concerning alcoholism incidence. But I don’t know if current research has shed any light on this and also the early work just did not focus on women alcoholics. Kind of the same thing as has been true in many medical research areas in which men were the focus (i.e., early heart disease research). Lots of factors of male privilege and stereotypical assumptions about women are behind this. The woman alcoholic was pretty much disregarded for decades. And not studied until women began to enter colleges, professions and the workforce at large in greater numbers. Now, in relationship to breast cancer (in women) and prostate cancer and even testicular cancer in men, the research was skewed in the other direction. Interesting to think about this as historically men seek medical attention less than women and this has some pretty stereotypic gender role assumptions behind it.


This could be very different today (I’m just no longer up with this literature). Also, the advances in MRI imaging and brain studies could have yielded new data. Maybe someone here knows more about current heredity research and alcoholism or other types of addictions that isn’t influenced in the same ways. There could possibly be research today that takes into consideration transgendered and intergendered people and addiction from a heredity perspective. I wonder..... this could throw a whole new set of variables in the mix!

My mind just works this way.... seems there are ever evolving ways to look at things.[/FONT]

Great points. Actually breast cancer research was primarily done on men for years. I think it was around 1989 or so that a huge push was made to do more research on women, cause gee, ya know.. we have breasts.

Now that we actually have cases of men getting types of breast cancer of course we need to do more work with their bodies.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Jess

Great points. Actually breast cancer research was primarily done on men for years. I think it was around 1989 or so that a huge push was made to do more research on women, cause gee, ya know.. we have breasts.

Now that we actually have cases of men getting types of breast cancer of course we need to do more work with their bodies.

Thanks... I kind of remember the nutso collection of breast cancer data about men initially. I think that the push to study women (yeah, we do have those breasts!) also shifted due to the upsurge of estrogen related breast cancer after the early years of women taking birth control pills. The first BC pills available had insane amounts of estgrogen!!! My Mom was in the first clinical trials of the little pink pill and devoloped one of these breast cancers. Also, many women taking the early generation of the pill developed problems conceiving when they did desire to get pregnant.

Absolutely, cancer research needs to be gender neutral...

[Toughy]

I'm not remembering that breast cancer research was done in men first.........shrug...........who has a link for this? Cancer research should not always be gender neutral. There are cancers that are not gender neutral.

Narcotics.......poppy based pharmaceutical drugs in the morphine family.........have huge medicinal value.

I'm a self proclaimed outlaw and proud of it. I never have done any drug because of the thrill of doing something illegal.....and none of my friends did it for some bogus crap like that.............

My granddaddy was a moonshiner (and the sheriff)........he didn't make moonshine for some thrill of breaking the law...he was the law.....he did it cuz he liked moonshine and liked the money he made from selling it..........

Romanticizing why folks use is not useful.

I think it is a red herring to suggest pot or any other drug should be legal based on medicinal value. I'm not a fan of the 'legalize pot because it's medicinal' club. Legalize pot because it's stupid to have it illegal. It grows everywhere and I mean everywhere in the world.

I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.

Anyone with half a brain can figure out the half-life of the their prescribed or illegal drug of choice..........it's all out there on the net. Pre-emploment drug testing is kind of like you have to take off your shoes and are limited to only 3 oz containers of liquids and toothpaste and they must be in a quart baggie ....and then there was you can have up to 3 books of matches but NO lighters.........ignorant bullshit that gives you a false sense of security. And if you have a prescription then it's all good.

[Nat]

I have mixed feelings. I think most drugs should be legal, but I would hesitate at really damaging drugs like meth and coke and heroine, etc. Drugs where the minute you get addicted, you may very easily do permanent damage to your health and brain.

Still, I'd rather see people placed in treatment than in prison.

I do not think that drug use is a victimless crime - when it comes to serious drugs. When a person is seriously addicted to something that keeps them from living, wanting to live, thinking relatively clearly, working, parenting, etc., I really feel like that's a crime that affects everybody in that person's life and also people that person doesn't even know - like those who end up paying the hospital bills. At the same time, most of that can be said of alcohol too, and that idea puts me right back on the fence.

I guess I'd go for legalizing the safer drugs and decriminalizing the rest. If use of some drug leads to driving while intoxicated or the commission of other crimes either due to lack of judgment or a need to feed the addiction with cash, then those crimes should most definitely be punished.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Narcotics.......poppy based pharmaceutical drugs in the morphine family.........have huge medicinal value.


Based on what you say about pot below and its medicinal value (red herring), I wonder you mention this.

I think it is a red herring to suggest pot or any other drug should be legal based on medicinal value. I'm not a fan of the 'legalize pot because it's medicinal' club. Legalize pot because it's stupid to have it illegal. It grows everywhere and I mean everywhere in the world.

I think drug testing for employment is bullshit. I don't care if the clerk at the local grocery store is stoned or not.......who gives a shit as long as they can pass the product across the bar code machine. Drug testing that finds THC present says nothing about my ability to function at the time I pissed in the cup. It just says I smoked pot sometime in the last 2-3 days or month or was in a room full of folks smoking the night before. General employment drug screens only say positive or negative. You can test positive for pot for years after you last smoked some........THC is fat soluble (is stored in fat) chemical and if you start losing weight you can test positive even if you haven't smoked pot for months.

Who gives a shit? Well, if...for example...it's a police officer and his actions or the speed (or lack thereof, depending on what he's high on) of his actions causes me to get hurt, then fuck yeah, I give a shit.

I give a shit if the people I leave my baby with are smoking it up or snorting or shooting something and my baby wanders off or gets hurt or develops medical issues because of being in the room with them while they processed meth, for example. I'd give one helluva shit about that.

If the doctor performing surgery on me is under the influence of anything, I give a shit.

I would give a shit if a firefighter was buzzing and had reduced reaction times and wasn't able to get all of my family out in time.

I can see a lot of potential lawsuits, actually, which is never a good thing.

On a personal level, my hotel's maintenance department...all two of them...are bona fide potheads. They don't need it. They do it because they're in a band and think that shit is cool. Okay, fine. But they come to work stoned and they smoke it at work and the "work" they do while here is sub-par so when guests find something that's not done right (and occasionally dangerous), then MY ass gets chewed out because I'm the face of the hotel. Fuck that and fuck them for putting the rest of their coworkers in this position. Obviously my personal opinion of them being shitheads colors my vision, but the point is the same. It's not isolated. We all are connected in different ways and the stupid shit one person does drips onto the next.

I can kind of see your line of thinking here, but I'm looking at the big picture. I don't think we'd be able to have one and not the other. Testing is non-negotiable to me.