Drug Legalization; your view?

[shmenguin]

I can see one joint doing more damage than one cigarette due to lack of a filter, but as much as an entire packet of cigarettes? I doubt it.

I've heard about studies showing a decrease in lung cancer rates for pot smokers. Endocannabinoids n'at

[Hockeynut!]

My favorite (read: silliest) argument is "Do you want someone to get high and go to work?" Really? You can't get drunk and go to work, or if you do and someone finds out about it, you'll likely get fired. It would be the same way with getting high, would it not?

I knew an attorney, who was a wake and baker and wore very expensive suits to work.
I gathered that he did quite well in his profession.

Shyster?

[Gaucho]

Legalize them, but obviously make the harder stuff hard to get.

[shafnutz05]

The "tax it and increase revenue" argument does nothing for me, although I favor legalization. I don't really trust the government to use those increased revenues responsibly anyway.

[Geezer]

I can see one joint doing more damage than one cigarette due to lack of a filter, but as much as an entire packet of cigarettes? I doubt it.

Well' I put quotes around experts because you never know if such claims are unbiased.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/s ... ng-damage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/s ... ng-damage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Time Magazine quotes a study that claims smoking pot is good for your lungs.

[tifosi77]

I've never done any sort of drugs ever, but I'm squarely in the pot-should-be-legal camp. As for the other things..... I have a harder time accepting arguments for their legalization, altho I can't quite articulate why. Certainly there's an element of not believing the government should be telling people what they can or cannot put in their bodies. But then another part of me very much believes that there are things the government should be regulating. (Pharmaceuticals, for example)

It sort of comes down to the old cliche that I've never heard of anyone ODing on pot, but there are tons of Schedule 1 and 2 narcotics, barbiturates and opiates that can be fatal if ingested in large amounts.

[Geezer]

Legalize them, but obviously make the harder stuff hard to get.

I'm not a government guy but I believe that it should control the distribution of opiates and other harder drugs. The price could be controlled (with free distribution if needed) to eliminate the US narco trade.The drug strength and purity would be consistent which should eliminate deaths from tainted drugs, higher strength drugs unbeknownst to users which causes overdoses,etc. I think a strong case can be made that the overall problems from hard drug use can be managed better from legalized government control.
The flip side is that there definitely will be an increase in users.

[Gaucho]

But you have to legalize them in order to effectively regulate them.

re: tif

[Gaucho]

Legalize them, but obviously make the harder stuff hard to get.

I'm not a government guy but I believe that it should control the distribution of opiates and other harder drugs. The price could be controlled (with free distribution if needed) to eliminate the US narco trade.The drug strength and purity would be consistent which should eliminate deaths from tainted drugs, higher strength drugs unbeknownst to users which causes overdoses,etc. I think a strong case can be made that the overall problems from hard drug use can be managed better from legalized government control.
The flip side is that there definitely will be an increase in users.

Agreed, except for the last part. I'm not convinced there will be more users, certainly not in the long run. Education is the key.

[Geezer]

But you have to legalize them in order to effectively regulate them.

re: tif

Yes that was my point.I'm for total legalization. I'm going from the view that the "drug war" is a complete failure and that we may be able to reduce the problems caused by harder drug use. For example there are lots of drug related burglaries, thefts, robberies that are to get money to by drugs.
Hard drugs could be given cheaply to poor users and sold with a tax hit to those who can afford it. Without drug profits the violent drug dealers have no business left, although I'm sure they'll change to other type crimes. With free drugs,where necessary, drug abusers have no need to steal,rob,burglar.

[Geezer]

Legalize them, but obviously make the harder stuff hard to get.

I'm not a government guy but I believe that it should control the distribution of opiates and other harder drugs. The price could be controlled (with free distribution if needed) to eliminate the US narco trade.The drug strength and purity would be consistent which should eliminate deaths from tainted drugs, higher strength drugs unbeknownst to users which causes overdoses,etc. I think a strong case can be made that the overall problems from hard drug use can be managed better from legalized government control.
The flip side is that there definitely will be an increase in users.

Agreed, except for the last part. I'm not convinced there will be more users, certainly not in the long run. Education is the key.

Hopefullly you're right.

[tifosi77]

Yeah, I've never really been persuaded by the argument that legalization will increase users.

Has anyone brought the Portuguese example to the fore yet? They decriminalized drugs in the early 2000s (it's effectively no worse than a parking ticket now) and they've experienced pretty good outcomes. Transmission of HIV via IV drug use has declined, there's been a large decrease in the number of ODs, the number of 'problem' users and young users has gone down markedly. The one negative is that consumption of most drugs has risen - in some cases quite a lot - but there is some doubt over the accuracy of the data. (Information before the decriminalization is somewhat unreliable, and it could be that the lack of legal consequences today simply allows people to feel more comfortable about honestly reporting their usage.)

So it's an interesting topic for discussion. And, I would say somewhat surprisingly, one that has a fair amount of support on both sides of the political spectrum.

[shmenguin]

It's funny, lgp has representatives from all over the political spectrum, and aside from eismann's somewhat bizzarre POV, I don't think there's been any support for keeping pot illegal.

Of course big pharma isn't shoving wads of hundreds into our pockets so we don't have all the bases covered.

[Willie Kool]

Legalize everything. Prohibition has never and will never work. People will always find a way to do what they want to do.

[Willie Kool]

Heres a Q from this gentleman:

How do you (not just geezer, but you people in general) precieve an adult (i.e. 25 or older) that smokes pot?

Double fail - were you high when you typed that, KtK?

[Factorial]

I can see one joint doing more damage than one cigarette due to lack of a filter, but as much as an entire packet of cigarettes? I doubt it.

Health studies show that smoking filtered cigarettes do not keep you from getting sick. Filters do not protect you from bad chemicals and, in some ways, they may be more dangerous than nonfiltered cigarettes.

http://www.nysmokefree.com/Subpage.aspx?P=40&P1=4060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


SF Assemblyman want's to ban filters in cigarettes:

Under the proposed regulation, introduced this month by Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Monterey Bay, the state would ban all cigarettes with filters designed to be discarded after a single use. A person or store caught selling or giving them away would be fined $500 per violation.

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Ki ... 183301.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[count2infinity]

the filter aspect was only a minor aspect of my post. I don't know how one joint can cause as much lung damage as an entire pack of cigarettes (filtered or not).

[columbia]

And all of those people who have died from fentanyl-laced heroin: You can't do anything about people ingesting too much of the "real" thing, but it's a good bet that legalizing it would stop that sort of thing.

Would the number of people ODing increase, if it were legal? I don't know, but apparently the number of heroin users has doubled in the last seven years.
People want it - for whatever reason - and won't stop just because it's illegal.

[Gaucho]

Getting rid of dealers giving away free samples to hook teenagers can't be a bad thing.

[Pitt87]

A further question (aplogizes to geezer if this is considered hijacking the thread)

Do you people think differently of people who smoke pot vs regular old cigarettes?

I certainly don't if they are not affecting me personally. At work, driving, etc. Do what you want. I can tell you that I would never hire someone that smokes pot every day or 'needs pot' to function. I feel that same way about alcohol, however. You can smoke a cigarette and go to a meeting and perform well, and you can drink a cup of coffee and drive a car without impairment, but if one of my employees showed up to work high, I would send them home.

Not much different from drinking or gambling, I like the idea of controlling its delivery and taxing the revenue -- as long as it ACTUALLY lowers exposure to other taxes and doesn't just hike state revenue -- but it is inevitable that someone will be adversely affected by it. As for the medical benefits... at least it doesn't have a list of terrifying side affects. Couldn't be worse than other OTC items that you can OD on.

[Sarcastic]

Heres a Q from this gentleman:

How do you (not just geezer, but you people in general) precieve an adult (i.e. 25 or older) that smokes pot?

The same as one who drinks beer. If it's a little bit, it's fine. It's it's too much, it's clearly no good. I know guys who buy cases of beer and walk around buzzed all day. They're beer alcoholics.

[tjand72]

Legalize everything. Prohibition has never and will never work. People will always find a way to do what they want to do.

I would add that I have no issue with health/life insurance and businesses taking a zero-tolerance stance. Legalize it all, but don't enable use. Make it an actual choice with consequences.

[Sarcastic]

btw, CVS announced they are stopping sale of all cigarettes in their stores. They estimate a loss of $2 billion dollars annually, but want to be taken more seriously as a health store/clinic.

[tjand72]

btw, CVS announced they are stopping sale of all cigarettes in their stores. They estimate a loss of $2 billion dollars annually, but want to be taken more seriously as a health store/clinic.

Good luck with that.

[Sarcastic]

As far as heavy drugs, real drugs, I would like to say it'd be nice if we could legalize it all and have people make their choices, yet at the same time I don't want to see people walking around high on crack or heroin or meth. However, I don't think legalization would have such effect, as most people aren't dumb enough to try any of that. What could happen, an extra 1% of druggies? What do you guys think, as far as the number of new users? It would have to be a special method of implementing such new rules and really keeping your eye on what happens, at least in the beginning.