The Battle to Decriminalize All Drugs

RyuJin wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

Wendaline wrote:

Star Forge wrote: I'm not trying to justify my smoking habit, but I'd rather have a habit that carried a risk of physical effects that left my mind unscathed, than one that was healthier physically but poisoned my mind. Weed makes people stupid, even if only for the time that they are high.

I very much disagree. Tobacco does affect the mind, both during use and after (withdrawal).

"Like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, nicotine increases levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which affects the brain pathways that control reward and pleasure. For many tobacco users, long-term brain changes induced by continued nicotine exposure result in addiction—a condition of compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative consequences."

http://www.4therapy.com/news/also-news/how-does-tobacco-affect-brain-2932
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Ferrell.html

"Using advanced neuroimaging technology, research is beginning to show that nicotine may not be the only psychoactive ingredient in tobacco. Scientists can see the dramatic effect of cigarette smoking on the brain and are finding a marked decrease in the levels of monoamineoxidase (MAO), an enzyme responsible for breaking down dopamine."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/nicotine

Besides that, weed does not make people stupid. In fact, many brilliant people have been known to use it. Like:

Carl Sagan
Steve Jobs (How many of us have ipods hmm?)
Richard Branson
Francis Crick
Margaret Mead
Richard Feynman
Pres. Obama
Ted Turner

The list is endless...and I wouldn't necessarily call these men stupid. In fact, most of them were/are really intelligent and ended up accomplishing a lot. Not to mention a good majority of the smokers I know are also the ones who scored highest on college tests. From personal experience pot smokers seem to be more curious about mental matters than many of the other people I have met. And most of the pot smokers I know are either college professors (Biology, Chemistry, Sociology, etc.) or are hard workers in their other fields.

Of course, you're right marijuana is a drug and it does affect the mind, but it's no worse than nicotine.

I meant while it is in effect. People act dumb when they are stoned. My best friend smokes a ton and he is a professor.

People act dumb when they are drunk too...so drunken stupidity is better than stoner stupidity?...seems to me stupidity is stupidity regardless of the cause....

Never once did I type a single word in defense of drunkenness.

They are a reality and the idea that they can be controlled seems unusual. I think it would be better to put efforts into stopping kids using them, and also to control quality and limit or remove organised crime from a means to penetrate all levels of society.

So perhaps decriminalize possession for adults, ban commercial production, heavily tax importation, and increase testing in schools, workplaces, roadside etc and use the health system to address the health problems with addiction instead of the prison system.

Adder wrote: They are a reality and the idea that they can be controlled seems unusual. I think it would be better to put efforts into stopping kids using them, and also to control quality and limit or remove organised crime from a means to penetrate all levels of society.

So perhaps decriminalize possession for adults, ban commercial production, heavily tax importation, and increase testing in schools, workplaces, roadside etc and use the health system to address the health problems with addiction instead of the prison system.

That's essentially what the article I posted earlier called for, and it was written by one of the drug policy makers for the Obama administration. To me, it seemed fair and moderate. No, you can't eradicate drugs to stop drug crimes any more than you can stop gun crimes with gun control. You have to change something else. In the case of drug use, I wouldn't be against decriminalization if there was legislation in place to dissuade people from providing the substances in question to kids, and production was illegal.

I hate weed, but I don't like the idea of a person's life being ruined because they got caught with weed at 16.

The current system of locking people up for possession does nothing but raise revenue...many arrested for possession continue to use no matter how many times they go to jail...instead my tax dollars get wasted on a continues circle just so the government can draw attention away from their many other inadequacies...

RyuJin wrote: The current system of locking people up for possession does nothing but raise revenue...many arrested for possession continue to use no matter how many times they go to jail...instead my tax dollars get wasted on a continues circle just so the government can draw attention away from their many other inadequacies...

And the US prison system is worse than that in Malaysia, even with the whoopings accounted for. It just churns out worse criminals. And, if I got tarred and feathered for possession, my logic would be, "well, I can't soil my name an chances of getting somewhere in life any more than I already have, so I'll just smoke away."

Star Forge wrote:

Adder wrote: They are a reality and the idea that they can be controlled seems unusual. I think it would be better to put efforts into stopping kids using them, and also to control quality and limit or remove organised crime from a means to penetrate all levels of society.

So perhaps decriminalize possession for adults, ban commercial production, heavily tax importation, and increase testing in schools, workplaces, roadside etc and use the health system to address the health problems with addiction instead of the prison system.

That's essentially what the article I posted earlier called for, and it was written by one of the drug policy makers for the Obama administration. To me, it seemed fair and moderate. No, you can't eradicate drugs to stop drug crimes any more than you can stop gun crimes with gun control. You have to change something else. In the case of drug use, I wouldn't be against decriminalization if there was legislation in place to dissuade people from providing the substances in question to kids, and production was illegal.

I hate weed, but I don't like the idea of a person's life being ruined because they got caught with weed at 16.

There is currently legislation in place to do just that...it isn't working...the entire current system is a complete failure and waste of tax dollars

RyuJin wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

Adder wrote: They are a reality and the idea that they can be controlled seems unusual. I think it would be better to put efforts into stopping kids using them, and also to control quality and limit or remove organised crime from a means to penetrate all levels of society.

So perhaps decriminalize possession for adults, ban commercial production, heavily tax importation, and increase testing in schools, workplaces, roadside etc and use the health system to address the health problems with addiction instead of the prison system.

That's essentially what the article I posted earlier called for, and it was written by one of the drug policy makers for the Obama administration. To me, it seemed fair and moderate. No, you can't eradicate drugs to stop drug crimes any more than you can stop gun crimes with gun control. You have to change something else. In the case of drug use, I wouldn't be against decriminalization if there was legislation in place to dissuade people from providing the substances in question to kids, and production was illegal.

I hate weed, but I don't like the idea of a person's life being ruined because they got caught with weed at 16.

There is currently legislation in place to do just that...it isn't working...the entire current system is a complete failure and waste of tax dollars

What would you suggest?

It wouldn't matter....no system of control will work for long...the more you try to oppress the more the oppressed will try to resist

Prohibition creates desire...during the 20's when alcohol was banned crime skyrocketed...when it was relegalized crime dropped almost to pre prohibition numbers....in the states that have legalized and regulated it crime in many cases went down or at least stayed the same...there was no escalation as was feared...we've tried one end and it's failed royally, why not try the other...and if it fails maybe find a balance between the two...

RyuJin wrote: It wouldn't matter....no system of control will work for long...the more you try to oppress the more the oppressed will try to resist

Prohibition creates desire...during the 20's when alcohol was banned crime skyrocketed...when it was relegalized crime dropped almost to pre prohibition numbers....in the states that have legalized and regulated it crime in many cases went down or at least stayed the same...there was no escalation as was feared...we've tried one end and it's failed royally, why not try the other...and if it fails maybe find a balance between the two...

I hardly consider attempting to control drugs "oppression," but I do strongly believe that the "War on Drugs" has been heavy-handed and unethical.

Star Forge, you said you can't stand potheads and turn them in when you can yet you say you have a good friend (a professor) who smokes a ton [of weed]. ?