Drugs

[Danoff]

Libertarians are bent on total freedom and anyone they encounter that tries to show them potential problems, they automatically label the person a fascist -- mainly because in the eyes of the Libertarian, the government represents everything that's wrong with society.

... I'm through talking with you about it if you're not going to listen. I don't know how many times I've explained to you why the above statement is wrong, yet you persist on spewing this rhetoric...

 

[Duke]

Yup, I agree. Tell us again how we must be against prisons and law enforcement since they affect people's freedom.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yup, I agree. Tell us again how we must be against prisons and law enforcement since they affect people's freedom.

Those are the only exceptions. I addressed this very topic in the first essay. Some Libertarians, whether you want to accept it or not, do not believe in any government at all.

... I'm through talking with you about it if you're not going to listen. I don't know how many times I've explained to you why the above statement is wrong, yet you persist on spewing this rhetoric...

If it makes you feel better, then don't. I would like to know, though, how the above statement is wrong.

 

[a6m5]

It has everything to do with judging your neighbor. You think it's common sense that drugs are bad becuase you've been told that your whole life.

So I'm brainwashed, and drugs are good? If this is true, I must live in a really weird place, because junkies are stoners(including ex-junkies and stoners) are pretty messed up around here.

As long as he's not hurting you what right do you have to judge his behavior?

Even if they stay inside their home, 24/7, it will still affect the society, IMO. And no, I don't believe they will stay home and do drugs only when they are at home. Also, around where I live, people who do drugs steal things to support their habbit. I really hate it, when hard working people like us buy nice things with the money we earned, then these drug addicts break in to your home, takes them, so they can support their habbit, which they can't afford. Oh, don't forget the identity thefts either. Locally here in Oregon, almost all news reports of identity theft busts by Police is followed by how the people charged were whatever drug addicts. Man, I wonder how much less crime we'll have around here, if it wasn't for the drug addicts.

98% of all £20 notes circulating in the City of London area have traces of cocaine on.

It seems many of our investment bankers and financiers - the people who effectively keep the economy of a country moving - do drugs and lead productive healthy lives.

Not that I'm advocating cocaine use, of course. I choose to live my life without it. But it doesn't mean I'd forego my ability to make millions of pounds a year if I choose to snort cocaine.

That is pretty crazy. But do you really think that 98% of those notes(sorry, I don't have the key for "Pound" ) had traces of cocaine on them, because "many" healthy & productive people were doing cocaine? If that was true, there would be so much cocaine busts in London, it would've made a international headline along with Iraq, IMO. Also, I do know and agree that doing drugs doesn't mean you can't make an fortune. Many successful people in this world are/were druggies. However, they usually lead darker, troubled lives. Your career isn't everything.

 

[Danoff]

Those are the only exceptions. I addressed this very topic in the first essay. Some Libertarians, whether you want to accept it or not, do not believe in any government at all.

No, if a person does not believe in any government at all, that person is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

I would like to know, though, how the above statement is wrong.

I've explained it more than 3 times. I won't go back through it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No, if a person does not believe in any government at all, that person is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

All libertarians agree that government should be limited to what is strictly necessary, no more, no less. But there is no consensus among them about how much government is necessary. Hence, libertarians are further divided between the minarchists and the anarcho-capitalists, which I addressed in my first essay. I made it a point to address it in my first essay because I know not all Libertarians are the same.

Libertarians feel much more strongly about their common defense of individual liberty, responsibility and property, than about their possible minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalist differences. Since both minarchists and anarcho-capitalists believe that existing governments are far, far too intrusive, the two factions seek change in almost exactly the same directions. Many libertarians don't take a position with regard to this division, and [usually] don't care about it.

That last bit said it all for me.

 

[Famine]

So I'm brainwashed, and drugs are good? If this is true, I must live in a really weird place, because junkies are stoners(including ex-junkies and stoners) are pretty messed up around here.

No - danoff didn't say drugs are good. He said you've been brought up to think "Drugs are bad".

Think about it for a minute. What constitutes "drugs"? Heroin? Cocaine? Calpol?

You can get addicted to medicinal nasal spray. You can overdose - quite effectively - on paracetamol. Caffeine, which is perfectly legal, is 500 times more potent in its effect than crack cocaine is. Yet you wouldn't say that someone taking nasal spray, paracetamol or drinking coffee is a stoner/junkie, would you?

There is a great deal of mythology surrounding "drugs".

I don't believe they will stay home and do drugs only when they are at home.

And an irresponsible minority is a reason to inflexibly control a responsible majority why?

Also, around where I live, people who do drugs steal things to support their habbit. I really hate it, when hard working people like us buy nice things with the money we earned, then these drug addicts break in to your home, takes them, so they can support their habbit, which they can't afford.

And they can't afford it because...?

"Drugs" are illegal. You can only get drugs from drug dealers. Drug dealers aren't regulated by anything except the market so can charge anything they like, because addicts will pay it. Drug dealers pay their suppliers, who pay their suppliers who are AK-47 wielding Colombians who make Bogota inhospitable to foreigners and shoot a footballer for scoring an own goal in the World Cup finals.

Why do people get addicted? Primarily because of the nature of the drug, but secondarily because doses vary. A 100g batch of heroin can contain 1g or 100g of heroin. Say you're used to a 20% dose and one day get a supply with a 40% dose. BANG, you're addicted - your body has a bit of a shock, but gets used to the higher dose, and you get serious delirium tremens when you don't get any more, so you have to go and get some more. Or if you get a 100% batch - which will kill you.

Regulate drugs and you'll have pharmaceutical grade batches, slashing addiction rates and death rates. You'd also have set, lower prices and possibly even room for taxation on there too. Drugs supporting the economy? Whatever next.

Man, I wonder how much less crime we'll have around here, if it wasn't for the drug addicts.

I wonder how much less crime you'd have around there if drugs weren't criminalised.

That is pretty crazy. But do you really think that 98% of those notes(sorry, I don't have the key for "Pound" ) had traces of cocaine on them, because "many" healthy & productive people were doing cocaine? If that was true, there would be so much cocaine busts in London, it would've made a international headline along with Iraq, IMO. Also, I do know and agree that doing drugs doesn't mean you can't make an fortune. Many successful people in this world are/were druggies. However, they usually lead darker, troubled lives. Your career isn't everything.

Just to point out that "The City of London" is different to "London". "The City of London" is a small, 1 mile square plot containing, mainly financial institutions - not many coke factories to bust. The only plausible reason that so many £20 notes circulating the City have traces of cocaine is that many lead financiers (since they are nearly the only people to pass through it) are snorting cocaine up them. If they were "druggies", they'd be using Y-pieces or Hookahs, rather than the rolled up £20 note of the casual crack snorter.

Given that you want the state to say perfectly reasonable people can't drink beer at home, unless it's non-alcoholic, I wouldn't say it was totally inaccurate.

Given that you want the state to say perfectly reasonable people can drink beer at home, even if it's with alcohol, does that make you an anarchist?

If I were an anarchist, I wouldn't want the "state" to say anything, because I wouldn't want a "state" at all...

Take the point. Don't take it as an insult - because that's not allowed here.

You want "The State" to go into people's houses and say what things they are and aren't allowed to use, despite there being no tangible, direct harmful effects on other people. Under your "not designed to help people" rule, I wouldn't be allowed to sit with my feet up watching the match with a beer. I wouldn't be allowed to drink some pleasant 80-year-old port as an aperitif, with a Gevry-Chambertain with my meal and a sparky Moscatel to finish with. I wouldn't be allowed to light up in my back garden. I wouldn't be allowed to sit in bed watching crap TV in the morning before I go to work with a cup of coffee in my hand. In fact it all seems rather like Demolition Man...

Now tell me. What part of that ISN'T "oppressive, dictatorial control"? Of which YOU are in favour. Which, according to the second dictionary.com definition of "fascism" makes you a proponent of it and thus a "fascist".

I didn't ignore the first definition. I read it and didn't believe it suited you - as you've extensively elaborated. But the second definition fits perfectly, as you can see.

 

[smellysocks12]

It looks to me like Famine is the only person here who I agree with, with anything he says, in any topic I enter.

 

[a6m5]

No - danoff didn't say drugs are good. He said you've been brought up to think "Drugs are bad".

I get your point. I still think people shouldn't be messing with illegal drugs. I think most of us see what they can do to people, everyday. Yet, there are those of us who still try and do drugs.

Think about it for a minute. What constitutes "drugs"? Heroin? Cocaine? Calpol?

You can get addicted to medicinal nasal spray. You can overdose - quite effectively - on paracetamol. Caffeine, which is perfectly legal, is 500 times more potent in its effect than crack cocaine is. Yet you wouldn't say that someone taking nasal spray, paracetamol or drinking coffee is a stoner/junkie, would you?

There is a great deal of mythology surrounding "drugs".

I'm pretty clear cut on this. I'm in favor of keep the ban on the "illegal" drugs. I don't know of an single person who overdosed on caffeine, so I don't really care, if I see somebody gets bit hyper on it. On medical prescription drugs, way I look at it, they have medical purpose and patients who needs them.

And an irresponsible minority is a reason to inflexibly control a responsible majority why?

And they can't afford it because...?

"Drugs" are illegal. You can only get drugs from drug dealers. Drug dealers aren't regulated by anything except the market so can charge anything they like, because addicts will pay it. Drug dealers pay their suppliers, who pay their suppliers who are AK-47 wielding Colombians who make Bogota inhospitable to foreigners and shoot a footballer for scoring an own goal in the World Cup finals.

Why do people get addicted? Primarily because of the nature of the drug, but secondarily because doses vary. A 100g batch of heroin can contain 1g or 100g of heroin. Say you're used to a 20% dose and one day get a supply with a 40% dose. BANG, you're addicted - your body has a bit of a shock, but gets used to the higher dose, and you get serious delirium tremens when you don't get any more, so you have to go and get some more. Or if you get a 100% batch - which will kill you.

Regulate drugs and you'll have pharmaceutical grade batches, slashing addiction rates and death rates. You'd also have set, lower prices and possibly even room for taxation on there too. Drugs supporting the economy? Whatever next.

With majority of illegal drugs, I don't belive that people will be able to control thier habits. People(including me) are not perfect, a lot of times stupid. I really believe people won't be able to handle illegal drugs.

If what you suggest applied to the current druggies, it will be great. Unfortunately, way I look at it, by legalizing illegal-drugs, number of people on drugs will increase(by a lot). That is one of the reasons why I'm still against the legalizaion.

Also, lower prices and regulated dose will not stop addicts popping up, IMO. Unlike the drug legalizaion promoters in this thread, I see the crime increasing. Just my opinion. We won't see who's right, until a year or two after the legalization though.

P.S. Thanks for the info on "City of London". I didn't know the difference.

 

[ledhed]

And an irresponsible minority is a reason to inflexibly control a responsible majority why?

And herein lies the biggest question . And herein lies the strongest point . For those of us that cherish freedom and consider it our most basic right as a human , something worth sacrificing our lifes for. We all give up some freedom willingly to live in a society under law but we do it GRUDGINGLY and with great restraint. There is no crime greater than taking our freedom . For a law to be considered worthy of our loss of freedom it must be considered fair and the punishment must fit the crime.
The drug laws do not meet either criteria for a law . They are unreasonable and unfair . they need to be changed. You can not look at the laws on pot and compare them to the laws on beer and wine and see them as equitable .
For those of you claiming freedom must be regulated and limited. I ask you BY WHOM AND AT WHAT COST TO THE FREE ? Who among you that would take freedom are better at judging what libertys the free would take with thier persons ? What makes you a better judge ? If you claim freedom must be limited who will decide what freedom is to be taken ? What will you do to those who will not give up there freedom willingly ? Are the consequences of an unjust law to the society that attempts to impose it worth the damages to society that law has attempted to address ? The current laws on drugs fail on all of these catagorys and yet you still defend them unthinkingly. You are much to free with your willingness to take away freedoms won by blood . You treat the limiting of freedom as if it was nothing more than a traffic ticket.
This is the United States of America . Go back and read its history. more importantly go back and honor the men and women who founded this country and learn the proper respect for FREEDOM.

 

[Swift]

And herein lies the biggest question . And herein lies the strongest point . For those of us that cherish freedom and consider it our most basic right as a human , something worth sacrificing our lifes for. We all give up some freedom willingly to live in a society under law but we do it GRUDGINGLY and with great restraint. There is no crime greater than taking our freedom . For a law to be considered worthy of our loss of freedom it must be considered fair and the punishment must fit the crime.he limiting of freedom as if it was nothing more than a traffic ticket.
This is the United States of America . Go back and read its history. more importantly go back and honor the men and women who founded this country and learn the proper respect for FREEDOM.

Hmmm...very passionate. As far as history goes. I understand the price that was paid by countless men and women just so I can type these words here.

But at the same time, freedom isn't and has never been free. There are costs to freedom. And the type of freedom that is being talked about in this thread pretty much puts people's well being in the hands of others. I think it's radically unfair that if I decide to take my girl home tonight that I need to take a back way because there ARE going to be drunks leaving the multiple bars on the way to here house. They ARE going to be there. It's a given, it's not a might or a maybe, it's going to happen. Now, how is if fair that they want to exercise they freedom to drink and then endanger my right to life on the roads. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

 

[Famine]

Someone's going to say "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", and then I'll assplode.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No - danoff didn't say drugs are good. He said you've been brought up to think "Drugs are bad".

The difference being?

Think about it for a minute. What constitutes "drugs"? Heroin? Cocaine? Calpol?

There are two different types of drugs:

• Legal and/or prescribed pharmaceuticals
• Illegal, mind-altering controlled substances that have NOT been medically prescribed

You can get addicted to medicinal nasal spray. You can overdose - quite effectively - on paracetamol.

I'm aware that it is possible to OD on OTC medication. However, there are labels etc. that tell the user the dosage, how often to take it etc. I don't see how that would be possible with marijuana. Especially considering the fact that we have Marinol already. The FDA has not approved of any smokable medication.

Caffeine, which is perfectly legal, is 500 times more potent in its effect than crack cocaine is. Yet you wouldn't say that someone taking nasal spray, paracetamol or drinking coffee is a stoner/junkie, would you?

Of course not, because the nasal spray and caffeine are legal.

And an irresponsible minority is a reason to inflexibly control a responsible majority why?

Not until a cost/benefit analysis is performed can a question like that be answered.

Regulate drugs and you'll have pharmaceutical grade batches, slashing addiction rates and death rates. You'd also have set, lower prices and possibly even room for taxation on there too. Drugs supporting the economy? Whatever next.

What a wonderful idea! I wonder why this hasn't been tried before...

I wonder how much less crime you'd have around there if drugs weren't criminalised.

Under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain -- along with the organized crime that profits from it.

Let's say we do legalize marijuana. If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. In either case, traffic-related violence would not be ended by legalization.

Let's say we legalize marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine.

Where do we draw the line? Or do you support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?

OK, let's say we do legalize drugs (pick any one you want, pot, smack, whatever -- I don't care). Let's say we set up a government agency (or corporations) assigned to distribute drugs. Under a legalization scenario, for safety purposes, these agencies/corporations most likely will not distribute the most potent drug (besides, if they're keeping the profits, they'll want repeat customers). The drugs will invariably be more expensive because of the bureaucratic costs of operating such a huge distribution system. Therefore, until 100 percent pure drugs are given away to anyone, at any age, a black market will remain.

To claim that drug use is "victimless crime" is insidious. I'm appalled at the fact that people would try deny the relationship between drugs and violence, especially when looking at Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) estimates.

You want "The State" to go into people's houses and say what things they are and aren't allowed to use,

Only when it comes to illegal substances -- just so we're clear on things.

despite there being no tangible, direct harmful effects on other people.

I suggest you check your facts again.

Under your "not designed to help people" rule, I wouldn't be allowed to sit with my feet up watching the match with a beer.

I only said that because there were people here suggesting that drugs should be legal. I was only providing a counter-point.

I wouldn't be allowed to drink some pleasant 80-year-old port as an aperitif, with a Gevry-Chambertain with my meal and a sparky Moscatel to finish with.

As long as it's legal now, I don't see why not. Besides, you're in control of your own body.

I wouldn't be allowed to light up in my back garden.

If you're referring to cigarettes, I could care less at this point. You want to destroy your lungs, be my guest. If, however, you're talking about marijuana -- you wouldn't be allowed to light up (and that's not my fault either -- that's the law).

I wouldn't be allowed to sit in bed watching crap TV in the morning before I go to work with a cup of coffee in my hand.

Once again, the only reason why I went to that extreme is because some people were going to the other extreme. I should have been more honest about my feelings on the subject.

In fact it all seems rather like Demolition Man...

Funny you should mention that. I guess that means you haven't evolved yet.

Now tell me. What part of that ISN'T "oppressive, dictatorial control"?

I've already explained why I went to the extreme. However, what part of legalizing drugs isn't "anarchism"?

Of which YOU are in favour.

I am in favor of keeping marijuana and all currently illegal narcotics ILLEGAL. I am in favor of completely ignoring every request NORML makes to legalize marjiuana. I am in favor of keeping cocaine, crack, MDMA, meth etc. ILLEGAL. Are we clear?

Which, according to the second dictionary.com definition of "fascism" makes you a proponent of it and thus a "fascist".

I am not a proponent of fasicsm. I am a proponent of "keeping things the way they are". I am a proponent of "traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." I am a proponent of "being Moderate; cautious." I am a Conservative. I don't see how I can make that any clearer. So when I am faced with the prospect of "sudden change in the established order" especially in relation to an illegal narcotic... I get flustered. So no more fascism...

I didn't ignore the first definition. I read it and didn't believe it suited you - as you've extensively elaborated. But the second definition fits perfectly, as you can see.[/color][/b]

Doesn't fit -- explained why. Moving on.

And herein lies the biggest question . And herein lies the strongest point . For those of us that cherish freedom and consider it our most basic right as a human , something worth sacrificing our lifes for. We all give up some freedom willingly to live in a society under law but we do it GRUDGINGLY and with great restraint. There is no crime greater than taking our freedom . For a law to be considered worthy of our loss of freedom it must be considered fair and the punishment must fit the crime.
The drug laws do not meet either criteria for a law . They are unreasonable and unfair . they need to be changed. You can not look at the laws on pot and compare them to the laws on beer and wine and see them as equitable .
For those of you claiming freedom must be regulated and limited. I ask you BY WHOM AND AT WHAT COST TO THE FREE ? Who among you that would take freedom are better at judging what libertys the free would take with thier persons ? What makes you a better judge ? If you claim freedom must be limited who will decide what freedom is to be taken ? What will you do to those who will not give up there freedom willingly ? Are the consequences of an unjust law to the society that attempts to impose it worth the damages to society that law has attempted to address ? The current laws on drugs fail on all of these catagorys and yet you still defend them unthinkingly. You are much to free with your willingness to take away freedoms won by blood . You treat the limiting of freedom as if it was nothing more than a traffic ticket.
This is the United States of America . Go back and read its history. more importantly go back and honor the men and women who founded this country and learn the proper respect for FREEDOM.

It sounds to me like you're taking the definition of freedom too literally. Speaking of history, let's go back. The United States was a different country back then -- 95% agricultural, low density, highly homogenous, primitive in technology, slavery was legal (so much for fighting for freedom) -- modern libertarianism simply doesn't apply. You can certainly find quotes where one Founder rants against big government; you can find other quotes where another Founder rants against rebellion, anarchy, and the opponents of federalism. Sometimes the same Founder can be quoted on both sides of the fence.

• It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. -- James Madison
• Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. --Thomas Jefferson
• All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it. --Benjamin Franklin

I said this before:

The Constitution is above all a definition of a strengthened government, and the Federalist Papers are an extended argument for it. The Founders were smart enough to negotiate a balance between a government that was arbitrary and coercive (their experience as British colonial subjects) and one that was powerless and divided (the failed Articles of Confederation -- which sounds strikingly similar to Libertarianism).

The libertarianism that has any effect in the world today has little to do with social liberty, and everything to do with removing most (if not all) restrictions on business.

 

[Famine]

The difference being?

The difference being that there is a long, long line between "good" and "bad". To say that something "isn't bad" means it's good is a false syllogism.

There are two different types of drugs:

• Legal, prescribed pharmaceuticals
• Illegal, mind-altering controlled substances that have NOT been medically prescribed

And where does caffeine fit? Or nicotine? Or non-prescribed pharmaceuticals? All are drugs, none fit into the two tier system above.

I'm aware that it is possible to OD on OTC medication. However, there are labels etc. that tell the user the dosage, how often to take it etc. I don't see how that would be possible with marijuana. Especially considering the fact that we have Marinol already. The FDA has not approved of any smokable medication.

I am unfamiliar with "Marinol" - it sounds like a trade name. However, if even crystal meth was supplied by pharmaceutical companies it would be subject to the same regulations as aspirin - the same QC, the same labelling...

Of course not, because the nasal spray and caffeine are legal.

Yet one is addictive and the other is a highly psychotropic stimulant which makes crack look like Hershey drops.

Under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain -- along with the organized crime that profits from it.

Let's say we do legalize marijuana. If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. In either case, traffic-related violence would not be ended by legalization.

Let's say we legalize marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine.

Where do we draw the line? Or do you support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?

Again, caffeine is the most dangerous drug in this entire post, and yet it is legal. And you don't seem to have a problem with that.

OK, let's say we do legalize drugs (pick any one you want, pot, smack, whatever -- I don't care). Let's say we set up a government agency (or corporations) assigned to distribute drugs. Under a legalization scenario, for safety purposes, these agencies/corporations most likely will not distribute the most potent drug (besides, if they're keeping the profits, they'll want repeat customers). The drugs will invariably be more expensive because of the bureaucratic costs of operating such a huge distribution system. Therefore, until 100 percent pure drugs are given away to anyone, at any age, a black market will remain.

To claim that drug use is "victimless crime" is insidious. I'm appalled at the fact that people would try deny the relationship between drugs and violence, especially when looking at an Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) estimates.

Your scenario may be right. After all, there's a "black market" for everything. But you'd then have a choice - guaranteed, medicinal grade product against cheap Russian import cut with breath mints and weed'n'feed. Assuming ONE drug user picks the "Made in the US of A" product, that's one less drug-related death chalked up.


I don't think anyone denies the relationship between illegal drug use and violence. Then again, I don't think anyone would claim that use of any "illegal" drug makes you a violent stoner/junkie.

If you're referring to cigarettes, I could care less at this point. You want to destroy your lungs, be my guest. If, however, you're talking about marijuana -- you wouldn't be allowed to light up (and that's not my fault either -- that's the law).

Actually, I'm a non-smoker. Yet again it's curious that you turn a blind eye to use of the single most addictive drug IN THE WORLD, because it's not illegal.

I've already explained why I went to the extreme. However, what part of legalizing drugs isn't "anarchism"?

For something to be legal/illegal there needs to be a jurisdictional structure. Anarchism is opposed to that.

I am in favor of keeping marijuana and all currently illegal narcotics ILLEGAL. I am in favor of completely ignoring every request NORML makes to legalize marjiuana. I am in favor of keeping cocaine, crack, MDMA, meth etc. ILLEGAL. Are we clear?

And caffeine and nicotine? Given that their effects are far worse, you'd want them to be...?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The difference being that there is a long, long line between "good" and "bad". To say that something "isn't bad" means it's good is a false syllogism.

All right, you got me there. That would be false syllogism.

And where does caffeine fit? Or nicotine? Or non-prescribed pharmaceuticals? All are drugs, none fit into the two tier system above.

I said legal or prescribed. Caffeine is legal, as is nicotine. So are OTC medications. It can fit in the two-tier system.

I am unfamiliar with "Marinol" - it sounds like a trade name. However, if even crystal meth was supplied by pharmaceutical companies it would be subject to the same regulations as aspirin - the same QC, the same labelling...

Do you really believe recreational drug users are going to read the label:

"Take twice daily not to exceed more than [amount] every 24 hours?"

Not to mention the fact anything pharmaceutical is going to be "watered-down" less powerful versions. You'll still have a black market for the purest, most powerful versions of the drug.

Yet one is addictive and the other is a highly psychotropic stimulant which makes crack look like Hershey drops.

Caffeine is addictive and responsible for anywhere between 1,000 and 10,000 deaths in the United States every year (ulcers, arrhythmia). I don't know why it's legal. If nasal spray is that addictive, why aren't they selling less powerful versions of it? Are they trying to kill people?

Again, caffeine is the most dangerous drug in this entire post, and yet it is legal. And you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Statistically speaking, it's not. Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous. And don't assume that I don't have a problem with it. Whenever I try to express my discontent with legal/illegal drugs, I get flamed -- so I'm trying a new approach.

Your scenario may be right. After all, there's a "black market" for everything. But you'd then have a choice - guaranteed, medicinal grade product against cheap Russian import cut with breath mints and weed'n'feed. Assuming ONE drug user picks the "Made in the US of A" product, that's one less drug-related death chalked up.

What if he/she doesn't want the watered-down made in USA product that's 15% chemical X? What if he/she wants the PURE 100% chemical X? Legalization does not address this issue.

I don't think anyone denies the relationship between illegal drug use and violence.

Believe me when I say this:

If people didn't deny (or at least try to deny) the relationship between illegal drugs and violence, I wouldn't be talking here right now.

Actually, I'm a non-smoker.

Good.

Yet again it's curious that you turn a blind eye to use of the single most addictive drug IN THE WORLD, because it's not illegal.

I didn't. I'm trying a new approach. You should've seen what I wrote in the Smoking thread.

 

[Famine]

I said legal or prescribed. Caffeine is legal, as is nicotine. So are OTC medications. It can fit in the two-tier system.

Apologies - the comma threw me. When you said "Legal, prescribed" I thought they were two items in a list.

Anyway, caffeine is far more potent than either alcohol or nicotine, chemically speaking. In terms of deaths it isn't, but gram per gram caffeine whips nearly everything else mankind has managed to come up with.

Aaaand, if you want 100% pure drug you either have a deathwish (98% batches of heroin have been fatal in the past) or you won't be going "black market". Drugs are commonly cut 25% drug to 75% "other household white powder" - anything from weed'n'feed, through cat flea powder, up to talc is commonplace. After all, they ONLY want your money and its not like they're governed by any regulatory body.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Apologies - the comma threw me. When you said "Legal, prescribed" I thought they were two items in a list.

It's my fault -- I should have made it clearer.

Anyway, caffeine is far more potent than either alcohol or nicotine, chemcially speaking. In terms of deaths it isn't, but gram per gram caffeine whips nearly everything else mankind has managed to come up with.

Which is worse? Synthetic caffeine from uric acid, or natural caffeine from kola nuts and coffee etc?

Aaaand, if you want 100% pure drug you either have a deathwish (98% batches of heroin have been fatal in the past) or you won't be going "black market".

That's true.

Drugs are commonly cut 25% drug to 75% "other household white powder" - anything from weed'n'feed, through cat flea powder, up to talc is commonplace. After all, they ONLY want your money and its not like they're governed by any regulatory body.

That's also true. However, when dealing with addiction 1 of 2 things is likely to happen:

1. The user will find a way to get multiple prescriptions in order to experience the same effect.
2. The user will take their chances by going black market.

If drugs were to be legal, corporate/governmental distribution would seem rather complex. This, I think, would drive prices up.

 

[ledhed]

Medical marijuana is an expression originating in the North America and refers to the use of Cannabis sativa (hemp), as a therapeutic drug or licenced medicine, most notably as an anti-emetic.
http://www.nih.gov/news/medmarijuana/MedicalMarijuana.htm
http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/marinol01.htm
your argument about the black market is not proven .
Beer is legal . How much beer is purchased on the black market ?
@ Famine Marinol is synthetic thc made by a drug co.
The current drug policy in the US is Unfair and unenforcable . Its not working and is hurting society . you say you are a conservative and resistant to change . I say you are much like the Battleship admirals in WW II who went down with thier ships . I do not take freedom lightly or am I taking it too literaly. read what I posted . We all give up some freedom to live under the rule of law ..but we do so grudgingly and with great care ..
laws that restrict freedom or deny it MUST pass the greatest test and be under the closest scrutiny . The laws against pot in the face of the legality of beer and wine , do not pass that test.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Liberty defined :
autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression .
What part of " secure the blessings of LIBERTY for ourselvesand our posterity " confused you ?
To me the current drug laws fit under the " freedom from arbitrary excercise of authority" . I want to be free of .
Liberty, or freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
In case it has not sunk in yet.

 

[Famine]

That's also true. However, when dealing with addiction 1 of 2 things is likely to happen:

• The user will find a way to get multiple prescriptions in order to experience the same effect.

Which their insurance won't cover...

• The user will take their chances by going black market.

Which won't give them the same effect, will leave them with no statutory rights whatsoever, could kill them (or give them a very nice lawn growing out of their nose) and will cost them dearly.

Which, right now, is the ONLY option. Legalising drugs saves lives if even one person chooses the legal route.

If drugs were to be legal, corporate/governmental distribution would seem rather complex. This, I think, would drive prices up.

Which is baffling, given how easily nicotine is distributed.

 

[ledhed]

I wouldnt feel comfortable having the government sell heroin and cocaine ( or meth and others in that class ) . I can actually see why they are considered dangerouse substances . Making them legal for sale would seem to be irresponsible . But regulating the drug and requiring the user to be registered to obtain it and to submit to education and rehabilitation for iresponsible use of his drug ..along with jail for breaking the law while using it , seems to me to be the way to controll the problem . Laws for illegal sale would have to be stringent and tightly enforced . I think England has something like this in effect ( or had ) .

 

[emad]

I'm aware that it is possible to OD on OTC medication. However, there are labels etc. that tell the user the dosage, how often to take it etc. I don't see how that would be possible with marijuana. Especially considering the fact that we have Marinol already. The FDA has not approved of any smokable medication.

You have mentioned marinol before, and I have also mentioned many times that Marinol is an ineffective and overpriced substitute for most people

The problem is that eating THC is extremely inefficient since it's highly dependant on a person's metabolism and body size. In addition, the effects are extremely slow to come and extremely difficult to predict. When you smoke marijuana, the effects hit you within 5 minutes and you can stop yourself when you have reached the point where you have had enough. Compare that to pills which take at least an hour to place their effects and may not even hit you because you didn't take a large enough dose. In addition to that, the edible form of THC (ie, marinol) has the potential to create EXTREMELY intense effects when it does get into your bloodstream. In many cases, people pass out from having too much or find themselves unable to move for long periods of time.

Of course, not everyone wants to smoke it or eat it. There's the other alternative method of taking marijuana where you heat the plant to around 120 degrees. This causes the THC to boil and vapourize into a mist which can then be inhaled. The plant itself just shrivels and dries as the fluids get forced out of it - no smoke, no flame, no tar, no harm to the lungs. And of course, there's devices called vaporizers available that make administering marijuana in this manner safe to the user and not a fire hazard.

Many users of medicinal marijuana take it to help prevent nausea. That's not possible with Marinol because the users constantly throw up the tablets before the effects even take place. Many of the medicinal patients who take it for helping reduce the anorexia that their medical treatments create fall asleep before they manage to get the THC induced "munchies".

Marijuana contains several other chemicals with a reputed theraputic value. Marinol is just pure, synthesized THC. The final effects of the pills and weed are very different. To make Marinol even worse for the user, the medication is a synthesis of only ONE strain of THC. For the user, that means that they will become immune to it's effects very quickly. There are 2 primary types of THC and several hundered breeds of Marijuana containing various percentages of the Indica and Sativa varieties. Each of these breeds produce similar but slightly varying effects. Marinol, while predictable, is only one strain. Where that one strain is suitable for one user, it may not work at all on another.

Then there's the cost of it as well. Marinol costs a typical patient $500 to $900 per month. Marijuana costs well under $500 per month. Even less if the buyer purchases in larger batches. Hell, it can even be free if the user grows it themselves.

Lets also add to that the fact that THC, regardless the method you use to take it is one of the safest known substance on the planet. It is impossible to OD on it because the effects will only hit you so hard. After that, they only last a little bit longer. It is EXTREMELY easy to judge the dosage by inhaling it since the effects are almost instantaneous.

In a 1990 survey of oncologists, researchers asked for comparisons on the effectiveness of Marinol and smoked marijuana. Only 28 percent felt familiar enough with both drugs to answer the question. Of these, only 13 percent thought Marinol was better; 43 percent believed the two forms of THC were equally effective, and 44 percent believed smoked marijuana was better. Four hundred and thirty-two oncologists (44% of respondents) said they had recommended smoked marijuana to at least one of their cancer patients.

In a 1994 survey, 12 percent of oncologists said they had recommended smoked marijuana and 30 percent said they might prescribe it if it were legal.

I made several edits and additions to the content

 

[ledhed]

You can use pot in a vapor form intead of smoking it.

 

[emad]

^^ I added that after I edited it

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Which, right now, is the ONLY option. Legalising drugs saves lives if even one person chooses the legal route.[/color][/b]

Let's say for one second that this is true:

If legalization could save lives, why did Alaska return to criminalization in 1988? Why was Needle Park shut down in 1992?

Which is baffling, given how easily nicotine is distributed.

Ease of distribution doesn't necessarily mean lower prices. Cigarettes are taxed (grossly under-taxed in my opinion) and are relatively expensive. There are people who smuggle cigarettes from other countries in order to avoid paying taxes.

I wouldnt feel comfortable having the government sell heroin and cocaine ( or meth and others in that class ) . I can actually see why they are considered dangerouse substances . Making them legal for sale would seem to be irresponsible . But regulating the drug and requiring the user to be registered to obtain it and to submit to education and rehabilitation for iresponsible use of his drug ..along with jail for breaking the law while using it , seems to me to be the way to controll the problem . Laws for illegal sale would have to be stringent and tightly enforced . I think England has something like this in effect ( or had ) .

The British have also tried liberalizing drug laws. England’s experience shows that use and addiction increase with "harm reduction" policy. They allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts (hoping for a decrease in usage), resulting in an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s, known addiction rates were increasing at a very high rate. Am I wrong, Famine? By the way, these aren't the only examples I have of legalization failing. If you address the problems that caused the failure, then I'll change my arguments. If you can show me a country that has "liberal" drug laws (and it's been successful) I'll chance my arguments.

In a 1990 survey of oncologists, researchers asked for comparisons on the effectiveness of Marinol and smoked marijuana. Only 28 percent felt familiar enough with both drugs to answer the question. Of these, only 13 percent thought Marinol was better; 43 percent believed the two forms of THC were equally effective, and 44 percent believed smoked marijuana was better. Four hundred and thirty-two oncologists (44% of respondents) said they had recommended smoked marijuana to at least one of their cancer patients.

In a 1994 survey, 12 percent of oncologists said they had recommended smoked marijuana and 30 percent said they might prescribe it if it were legal.

Interesting stuff. That very well may be true, but I have a question to ask. Is it possible that the 44% who believed the smoked marijuana was better were addicted to smoking marijuana? I'm not saying the facts are wrong -- I just want to consider the possibility. It's interesting to note, though, the fact that 56% of users said Marinol was as effective (if not more effective) than smoking marijuana.

I will say this, though. Currently, there is research into a different method of delivery. Instead of using a pill, which as you say is not quite as effective, a patch or an inhaler is in the works (if I remember correctly).

Smoking marijuana also has the user taking in 400+ chemicals -- most of which are hazardous. Why not incorporate some of the "theraputic" chemicals into Marinol (or a patch, or inhaler)? This way, the patient gets parts of smoking marijuana without the side effects... That is what I think organizations like NORML should be fighting for -- not legalizing another dangerous stick "just because".

There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems.

Morphine, for example, has proven to be a medically valuable drug, but the FDA does not endorse the smoking of opium or heroin. Instead, scientists have extracted active ingredients from opium, which are sold as pharmaceutical products like morphine, codeine, hydrocodone or oxycodone. In a similar vein, the FDA has not approved smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, but has approved the active ingredient-THC in the form of scientifically regulated Marinol.

Back to pot, though...

The most comprehensive, scientifically rigorous review of studies of smoked marijuana was conducted by the Institute of Medicine, an organization chartered by the National Academy of Sciences. In a report released in 1999, the Institute did not recommend the use of smoked marijuana, but did conclude that active ingredients in marijuana could be isolated and developed into a variety of pharmaceuticals (just as you suggested), such as Marinol in pill form or some other form of delivery.

To make Marinol even worse for the user, the medication is a synthesis of only ONE strain of THC. For the user, that means that they will become immune to it's effects very quickly. There are 2 primary types of THC and several hundered breeds of Marijuana containing various percentages of the Indica and Sativa varieties. Each of these breeds produce similar but slightly varying effects. Marinol, while predictable, is only one strain. Where that one strain is suitable for one user, it may not work at all on another.

Again, that is what proponents and NORML should be fighting for.

Then there's the cost of it as well. Marinol costs a typical patient $500 to $900 per month.

Well, depending on your political viewpoint, that could be a good thing.

 

[ledhed]

You cannot get physically addicted to smoking pot ! Where do you come up with this crap ?
THC is not habbit forming .

Smoking marijuana also has the user taking in 400+ chemicals -- most of which are hazardous. Why not incorporate some of the "theraputic" chemicals into Marinol (or a patch, or inhaler)? This way, the patient gets parts of smoking marijuana without the side effects... That is what I think organizations like NORML should be fighting for -- not legalizing another dangerous stick "just because

So why not use the vapor form of pot instead of smoking it if thats what floats your boat ?
Instead of advocating an artificial form of a substance that already exsist ?
Pot is still less harmfull than beer or wine it should be regulated in the same way . If at all . There are many things in the world that are much more dangerouse and or harmfull that are legal . POT LAWS ARE STUPID . They make no sense . They are an arbritrary infringement on a personal choice.
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/815.html


Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It don't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.

Franklin P. Adams (1931)

On Thursday, March 17, 1988, at 10:45 p.m., in the Bronx, Vernia Brown was killed by stray bullets fired in a dispute over illegal drugs.[1] The 19-year-old mother of one was not involved in the dispute, yet her death was a direct consequence of the "war on drugs."

By now, there can be little doubt that most, if not all, "drug-related murders" are the result of drug prohibition. The same type of violence came with the Eighteenth Amendment's ban of alcohol in 1920. The murder rate rose with the start of Prohibition, remained high during Prohibition, and then declined for 11 consecutive years when Prohibition ended.[2] The rate of assaults with a firearm rose with Prohibition and declined for 10 consecutive years after Prohibition. In the last year of Prohibition--1933--there were 12,124 homicides and 7,863 assaults with firearms; by 1941 these figures had declined to 8,048 and 4,525, respectively.[3] (See Figure 1.)

Vernia Brown died because of the policy of drug prohibition.[4] If, then, her death is a "cost" of that policy, what did the "expenditure" of her life "buy"? What benefits has society derived from the policy of prohibition that led to her death? To find the answer, I turned to the experts and to the supporters of drug prohibition.

In 1988, I wrote to Vice President George Bush, then head of the South Florida Drug Task Force; to Education Secretary William Bennett; to Assistant Secretary of State for Drug Policy Ann Wrobleski; to White House drug policy adviser Dr. Donald I. McDonald; and to the public information directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, General Accounting Office, National Institute of Justice, and National Institute on Drug Abuse. None of these officials was able to cite any study that demonstrated the beneficial effects of drug prohibition when weighed against its costs.[5] The leaders of the war on drugs are apparently unable to defend on rational cost-benefit grounds their 70-year-old policy, which costs nearly $10 billion per year (out of pocket), imprisons 75,000 Americans, and fills our cities with violent crime. It would seem that Vernia Brown and many others like her have died for nothing.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

 

[skip0110]

Pot is still less harmfull than beer or wine it should be regulated in the same way . If at all . There are many things in the world that are much more dangerouse and or harmfull that are legal . POT LAWS ARE STUPID . They make no sense . They are an arbritrary infringement on a personal choice.

Indeed. Armed with $20, I can walk into your neighborhood drugstore and pick up any number of OTC chemicals that are far more harmful to my body than THC/pot (detromethorphan, diphenhydramine, guasanifen (sp?), pseudophedrine, ..., the list goes on). Often the OTC medications are not provided in a medium that is self-regulating as well. THC/pot has simply become a scapegoat.

 

[emad]

There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems.

Vaporizing is just as viable a solution. You get the THC and all the other chemicals in marijuana without the burning plant matter which results in the hundereds of harmful chemicals that are released when you smoke. In addition, the FDA refuses to greenlight access to research grade marijuana to a vast majority of requests by universities and research institutes. Because of that, Marijuana research has historically been concentrated on the effects of THC rather than the rest of the plant.

Morphine, for example, has proven to be a medically valuable drug, but the FDA does not endorse the smoking of opium or heroin. Instead, scientists have extracted active ingredients from opium, which are sold as pharmaceutical products like morphine, codeine, hydrocodone or oxycodone. In a similar vein, the FDA has not approved smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, but has approved the active ingredient-THC in the form of scientifically regulated Marinol.

Of course they don't endorse the smoking of Opium or Heroin even for medicinal purposes. Both drugs contain more than 50 opiates, pain killers, and psychoactive ingredients. Get addicted to Opium and you'll essentially be addicted to 50+ chemicals, not just one. It'll also mean you'll be immune to 50+ powerful prescription medications.

As for the legal approval of Marinol, I stated my view on it already. It's ineffective in a vast percentage of users, and easy to get immune to.

Also, keep in mind that the Federal government has yet to even go beyond considering legalizing marijuana. Even IF the FDA approves it, I'd be willing to wager that the feds won't be too happy. You'll have religious groups all over in cahoots about it being legalized and of course, that means either Bush or some other politician will attempt to prevent that from happening. In this case, the lobbyists will succed only because of the "history" behind the criminalization of marijuana.

Well, depending on your political viewpoint, that could be a good thing.

Is that an indirect stab in Danoff's direction?

To be honest, it's a good thing for the company and its shareholders, and it's a bad thing for the users who have to pay the money. One of the problems with marinol is that because THC is such a strongly controlled substance, the FDA will more than likely not allow any other company to create a generic substitute.

Legalize marijuana and the pharmaceutical price drops since alternatives will spring up. The users save money, and the companies will go into competition rather than having a monopoly as we do now.

--

On another note. Did you know that the Federal Government still has medical marijuana banned? Meaning if you live in a state where it's legal and you get caught in a sting while you're trying to purchase it for medicinal use and can prove that you have a prescription for it, you'll STILL be charged for posession on a federal level. That's a minimum 1 year posession charge and a $1000 fine. The seller, even IF he/she was state authorized to grow it would be charged a fine of $250,000 and 5 years of jail time.

This is for something many people NEED in order to live their lives without suffering. Could YOU imagine being in serious pain and in jail for a year without access to the only medication that has any effects on you? While they pop you full of who knows what medications which in you will either become immune to or recieve severe side effects from?

Marijuana law NEEDS to be reformed, and it needs to be done soon. The laws and reasoning against it are bogus and are only effecting the lives of the people who need it most as well as the lives of the people who choose to get high instead of drunk. With some states charging people with 3 or more years in jail for a simple posession charge. Very few states force you into rehab or even suggest it. Either way, rehab for Marijuana is pointless since even after the rehab is over, it's all in YOUR desire to take it. It's a psychological addiction caused in people with weak minds. They need psychological help (at their expense) if anything, not rehab. The ones that do, the programs are typically unsuccessful. In the end, it's just a bloody waste of YOUR tax money and everyone else's. You and many other people around the country know it but fail to recognize it.

--
Damn, I'm getting a major RSI in my wrists right now. My fingers hurt like **** and they'll continue to do so for the next day or two. I won't be able to write as many long winded posts

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You cannot get physically addicted to smoking pot ! Where do you come up with this crap ?
THC is not habbit forming .

That's not the point. 100,000-160,000 people every year are treated for marijuana addiction. Whether it's a physical addiction or a psychological addiction, is beside the point.

So why not use the vapor form of pot instead of smoking it if thats what floats your boat ?

That wouldn't "float my boat", but that is a viable argument. Argue that vapor from marijuana should be used (but not in its smokable form).

Pot is still less harmfull than beer or wine it should be regulated in the same way . If at all . There are many things in the world that are much more dangerouse and or harmfull that are legal . POT LAWS ARE STUPID . They make no sense . They are an arbritrary infringement on a personal choice.
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/815.html

What is your motivation, Mike? Is it personal freedom that you're advocating? Or is personal consumption? You've got me wondering now...

And cato.org is a Libertarian website. It's biased in favor of total personal freedom and limited government. None of the information/statistics I've provided are from "biased" websites.

Indeed. Armed with $20, I can walk into your neighborhood drugstore and pick up any number of OTC chemicals that are far more harmful to my body than THC/pot (detromethorphan, diphenhydramine, guasanifen (sp?), pseudophedrine, ..., the list goes on). Often the OTC medications are not provided in a medium that is self-regulating as well. THC/pot has simply become a scapegoat.

Why is pot the scapegoat? Why was Needle Park shut down? Why was pot made legal in Alaska in 1975 and criminalized in 1988? Why?

the FDA refuses to greenlight access to research grade marijuana to a vast majority of requests by universities and research institutes.

Why? Why would the FDA refuse access to research grade marijuana? Why?

Did you know that the Federal Government still has medical marijuana banned?

No I didn't. Why? Why is Marinol still being marketed to patients even though its a federal offense? Why?

 

[emad]

Why is pot the scapegoat? Why was Needle Park shut down? Why was pot made legal in Alaska in 1975 and criminalized in 1988? Why?

Poor implementation.

Needle park was a bad idea to begin with. It was created out of fear for aids. In the end, it just became a hell-hole where druggies came for free needles and an easy way to shoot up. They got drugged up there, and too stoned to leave the place.

Alaska decriminalized it but did nothing to regulate it and control the supply chains. In addition, those numbers would have rebounded back down after the people who tried it realized it wasn't for them. -- Not everyone enjoys marijuana or it's effects. About half of the people who try never try again because it doesn't suit them in one way or the other.

 

[Max Powers]

Amen to that, skip, I've gotten more ****ed up from OTC medication than I ever have from smoking pot. Yes, marijuana is a drug, but other than lung damage, which is comparable to the damage done by cigarette smoking, there isn't much harm when somebody smokes a joint/bowl/bong/whatever.

I've been smoking marijuana for the past 3 years or so now, and I have yet to see it take a toll on me. I smoke nearly every day, yet I still manage over a 3.0 at college, and I'm in an engineering program, the same goes for 95% of my friends who smoke pot, and the ones who aren't doing well can't blame it on pot, in fact, most of the friends I have who aren't doing well in school can blame their problems on beer, not pot.

Secondly, there has never been a recorded death from an overdose of marijuana, there are very few drugs, legal or not, that you can say that about.

Anybody who has smoked marijuana knows that the effects of it are very mild when compared to other drugs, again legal or not. Usually after smoking, I feel a "high" for about 30 minutes to an hour, and during that high, I have no trouble completing any tasks that I'd normally do.

And, as skip said, marijuana really has become the scapegoat. I'm not sure why, compared to all of the other drugs out there, marijuana ranks for most people right above nicotine and caffeine, and right below alcohol, it's a very mild high, with little to no addiction symptoms.

Also, about rehab for marijuana, the majority of people who go into rehab for it are doing so by orders of the court. I have had plenty of friends have to go through rehab for it because they got caught smoking by the cops, and they all said it was ridiculous. In fact, most of the people I know who have gone through rehab for marijuana have told me that they get told, "just don't get caught."

I honestly don't see what the big fuss is about marijuana, the police would be much better off combating more dangerous drugs, such as heroin, which actually does kill people. Yet they still waste their money and resources trying to get that evil marijuana off the streets. Heroin, I have had friends die from heroin, that's a much more serious problem than marijuana, marijuana doesn't kill, yet I hear more propaganda about marijuana than any other substance, I just don't understand it.