Mary Jane

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:08 pm

The other thing people overlook is if "drugs" are legal you can put some good ol' fashioned capitalism behind their production and marketing. Think if you had a team of chemists and an R&D budget what kind of safe highs American ingenuity could come up with (good 60s LSD, anyone?). Think if crank heads could get the same feeling without the side-effects or the addiction. Legalize it and there's no way there's not going to be a huge product line on the shelf in 6 months. Frankly, I'd be stunned if the pharmas don't have the recipes sitting in a vault somewhere right now waiting for the law to change.

There's no real reason we shouldn't be able to walk down the pill aisle at HyVee the way we can the booze aisle and then bake our brains at home if we feel like it.

mrdwhsr · Post by **mrdwhsr** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:08 pm

S33 wrote:

Have we all forgotten it was the introduction of crack cocaine that really destroyed the inner city? They hooked the locals and there communities nosedived. That's when the gangs came in. It was the introduction of drugs that destroyed cities.

In the 1960's? I thought it was Interstate highways and urban renewal...

S33 wrote: If people weren't such pussies and overly sensitive, we could shut down the |expletive| border where that |expletive| originates. But no, that would be politically incorrect and/or racist to do so.

Guess we need to shut down the Bob Kerry Pedestrian Bridge to keep the meth manufactured in Iowa out of Omaha.

I'm not convinced that jail time is more effective in stopping users from using (crack, meth, whatever) than twelve step programs like Narc-Anon or other rehabs. Sooner or later a user is going to figure out they must change or die. It does separate the users from the rest of the populace, if we are willing to build and operate enough prisons.

Legalization appeals to me on a rational/logical basis...but emotionally it is scary. That is one of the problems with freedom..not me but others might not make good choices. (Sure not me, I make and have made plenty of my own bad choices). If I had to vote on the issue today, I don't know for sure which way I would vote.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:13 pm

mrdwhsr wrote:

I'm not convinced that jail time is more effective in stopping users from using (crack, meth, whatever) than twelve step programs like Narc-Anon or other rehabs. Sooner or later a user is going to figure out they must change or die. It does separate the users from the rest of the populace, if we are willing to build and operate enough prisons.

.

And how do you plan to mandate 12 step recovery programs if the substance is legal? It would have to be ILLEGAL for the courts to fill those programs. Users VERY RARELY have the will to enroll themselves in recovery centers.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:05 pm

People don't get sent to court issued alcohol classes now?

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:11 pm

Yes they do!

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:19 pm

S33 wrote:
And how do you plan to mandate 12 step recovery programs if the substance is legal? It would have to be ILLEGAL for the courts to fill those programs. Users VERY RARELY have the will to enroll themselves in recovery centers.

The same way they do now for DUI's, abusing controlled substances (usually from prescription fraud), MIP's, custody rights issues (parent lost custodial rights to children because of alcholism), diversion programs (i.e. get help or go to jail), etc. etc.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:01 am

If I wasn't getting my |expletive| kicked with the H1N1 I would have a rebuttal...

I still don't get why we can say dick but no as-s.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:14 am

And I can't make my pecker Van Lesbian joke.

(LOL... "pecker" is ok but "pen!s" isn't??? That's awesome.)

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:24 am

i see the thread taking a turn for the worse...

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:32 am

thenewguy wrote:i see the thread taking a turn for the worse...

Generally, my participation does that. DTO ain't far behind though.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:04 pm

Marijuana proposal petitions ready

Martha Stoddard WORLD-HERALD BUREAU wrote:The Nebraska Proposition 19 Cannabis Initiative seeks to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2012 general election ballot. The amendment would regulate and tax all commercial uses of marijuana and remove all laws governing private, noncommercial use of the plant. Medicinal marijuana is legal in 16 states, including Colorado, and the District of Columbia.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:09 pm

Apparently these guys are going all in. heck will freeze before this gets passed though.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:22 pm

So I'm reading that as legalizing ALL of it?

Yowza.

Professor Woland · Post by **Professor Woland** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:54 pm

Hopefully they keep pushing this. In 20 years marijuana will be legal in most of the United States, and other drugs will start becoming legal in some. Best to get on the right side of history sooner than later, I say.

HuskerDave · Post by **HuskerDave** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:38 am

Coyote wrote:Marijuana proposal petitions ready

Martha Stoddard WORLD-HERALD BUREAU wrote:The Nebraska Proposition 19 Cannabis Initiative seeks to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2012 general election ballot. The amendment would regulate and tax all commercial uses of marijuana and remove all laws governing private, noncommercial use of the plant. Medicinal marijuana is legal in 16 states, including Colorado, and the District of Columbia.

Of course, this would be meaningless, as it's still illegal under federal law.

2Adam29 · Post by **2Adam29** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:36 am

true, but if Barney Frank's bill to legalize marijuana gets through congress, MJ regulation will become a state issue.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:25 pm

Professor Woland wrote:Hopefully they keep pushing this. In 20 years marijuana will be legal in most of the United States, and other drugs will start becoming legal in some. Best to get on the right side of history sooner than later, I say.

I honestly don't think other drugs will, or at least shouldn't, be legalized. Marijuana is one thing, but cocaine, heroin, LSD etc. ? God no. Those things cause legit and terrible damage to the body, marijuana doesn't.

DeWalt · Post by **DeWalt** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:10 pm

I dunno. In and of itself, smoke marijuana is no more dangerous and damaging than drinking alcohol and/or smoking cigarettes. In fact, it may be less dangerous.

But even the pro-pot people have to admit that "the jury is still out" regarding whether Marijuana is a gateway drug.

Most hard-core drug users used pot at one time. Perhaps they would have done the hard stuff anyway, but it's tough to tell.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:02 pm

I would also say there are exponentially more people that have smoked marijuana and not moved on to harder stuff than the other way around. Alcohol, cigarettes and pharmaceuticals are more addictive and worse for your body than marijuana.

If some ones opinion differs that is fine, I am not militant on the issue or anything, but my opinion it is that it is one of the most victimless crimes in the history of written law.

DeWalt · Post by **DeWalt** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:20 pm

iamjacobm wrote:I would also say there are exponentially more people that have smoked marijuana and not moved on to harder stuff than the other way around. Alcohol, cigarettes and pharmaceuticals are more addictive and worse for your body than marijuana.

If some ones opinion differs that is fine, I am not militant on the issue or anything, but my opinion it is that it is one of the most victimless crimes in the history of written law.

Good point. I suppose that's probably true.

Not sure I'm with you on the "...most victimless crime in the history..." deal though.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:44 pm

The victimless comment is because I don't see how using it infringes or affects on anyone other than the user. I for one have never heard of a husband beating his wife because he was too stoned and the amount accidents caused while under the influence of marijuana isn't even a drop in the bucked compared to while driving drunk.

The only crimes with victims associated with marijuana is in the drug selling game. If it were legal there would not be the crimes involved with marijuana drug deals.

One problem is that there isn't a test to tell if your "high" at that moment. The THC stays in your body for a month so until there is some way to breathalyze a person's "highness" I don't see it becoming a normal over the counter recreational thing. There would be no way to regulate it if a cop pulled some one over for DUI or whatever.

I just don't see why it can't be treated the same way as alcohol. Minimum age to buy it, no DUI(if that technology ever comes along), show up to work stoned get fired I see no reason why it can't be treated like alcohol.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:30 pm

Excuse me, Professor, I think you are glazing over some pretty significant issues.

Ok, let's assume we do away with all anti-drug legislation and make them legal for recreational use. First, they are now legal, which means there is now an open, legal commerce market to sell LSD, Heroin, Crack, Meth, and etc wrapped in fancy candy-like packaging. Do you really think it is ever a good idea to have these products openly promoted and marketed in stores for anyone to access just because the inherent illegality of them now is perceived as a cause for crime and smuggling operations "south of the border"? You know, you can't just legalize a product and prohibit the product from being sold in a free and open market. Or what, do you want the government to control its sales - for the government to provide drugs for its people? explain...

I say |expletive| it, let's just go ahead and legalize anything that can be construed as a reason why crimes are committed, heck, I bet we could even find a way to justify rape under that kind of thinking. "That causes crime, let's make it legal" I like the sound of that.

Additionally, to lump marijuana in with those other drugs makes no sense, either. The fact is, those other drugs are so dangerous not only because of causing severe mental and physical damage, but most of all because of their highly addictive properties. Solution = I'll trade cigarettes with marijuana in our legal system and call it a day.

It just astounds me that liberals are always crying about the government's need to coddle, protect and invest in the people, yet, are so willingly to allow the government to turn a blind eye to how these drugs |expletive| up the lives of those users and the people around them. Oh yeah, I bet our already over-burdened healthcare system would love the bear the weight of what a free-drug society would do to it.

S33_ · Post by **S33_** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:30 pm

me again posting as guest

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:40 pm

Yeah I really don't agree with making all currently illegal drugs legal. My view is that if it has to be produced it should not be legal, but if it grows I don't see a problem with it.

I never would want to see heroin being sold at our local Tobacco and Phones 4 Less(ok I don't want to see heroin being sold there legally). Drugs like that are incredibly dangerous.

And with the simply doing a field sobriety test comment. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you have to blow over .08 to get a DUI? The field sobriety test is simply to give the officer probably cause to administer the Breathalyzer test. So until something like Breathalyzer for marijuana comes along it would be impossible to prosecute for driving under the influence of marijuana.

Professor Woland · Post by **Professor Woland** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:21 pm

You can be charged with DUI even if you blow under .08. My point is that we should focus on impairment, not some arbitrary (even if somewhat well founded) definition of intoxication.

Now, how one could argue that by my logic rape could also be construed as legal doesn't really follow. My point was that someone shooting up or selling heroin to a consenting party isn't victimizing anyone. A rapist is, definitionally, violating someone else's body. Believe it or not until the first part of the 20th century a 6 year old could legally walk into a pharmacy and buy heroin made by companies like Bayer (this changed in 1906 as a result of anti-Chinese sentiment mainly as well as a rise of certain segments of the Progressive movement who felt that drug use was akin to slavery, or made people worse employees, or less fit for public service.)

mrdwhsr · Post by **mrdwhsr** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:35 am

Professor Woland wrote:Believe it or not until the first part of the 20th century a 6 year old could legally walk into a pharmacy and buy heroin made by companies like Bayer (this changed in 1906 as a result of anti-Chinese sentiment mainly as well as a rise of certain segments of the Progressive movement who felt that drug use was akin to slavery, or made people worse employees, or less fit for public service.)

And the country survived just fine. But that was then, this is now. Have to preserve those jobs at the FDA don't we?

(Aside to S33: I'm just trying to help out).

riceweb · Post by **riceweb** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:43 pm

Anonymous wrote:I say |expletive| it, let's just go ahead and legalize anything that can be construed as a reason why crimes are committed, heck, I bet we could even find a way to justify rape under that kind of thinking. "That causes crime, let's make it legal" I like the sound of that.

Yeah, 'cuz that's what we're talking about here. :roll:

Using drugs does not mean an infringement upon the rights of others. When you assault someone, then you are infringing upon someone's rights. But drug abuse does not imply abusing others, and abusing others can happen without drug use. They're totally separate topics, and our legal system should treat them as such.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:56 pm

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110629/N ... galize-pot

Maybe it is sad that this pot initiative is (I believe) hopeless even though I'm glad it's hopeless in this case because I think total legalization of pot is a bad idea even though I also agree that too many people are sent to prison on relatively minor drug offenses and that there may be some legitimacy to an argument for medical cannabis.

+10 if he belted that run-on out during a single inhale...

S33 · Post by **S33** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:37 pm

*exhale

Professor Woland · Post by **Professor Woland** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:14 pm

Anonymous wrote:

It just astounds me that liberals are always crying about the government's need to coddle, protect and invest in the people, yet, are so willingly to allow the government to turn a blind eye to how these drugs |expletive| up the lives of those users and the people around them. Oh yeah, I bet our already over-burdened healthcare system would love the bear the weight of what a free-drug society would do to it.

Regarding this paragraph, two things. One what does this have to do with "liberals?" I'm an anarchist, I don't like the government at all. Second, you presume that if drugs were all legalized 1) drug use would skyrocket and 2) drugs would remain as dangerous as they are today. Neither of these is likely to be true. People aren't going to say, "boy now that it's legal I'm gonna snort a bunch of coke off of a prostitute's rear!" Regarding the harms from drug use they would likely decline in a non-prohibitionist society. If we look at alcohol prohibition we see that bathtub gin and moonshine are a great deal more dangerous than legal booze. The reasons are obvious, you can't sue a moonshiner for poisoning you and prohibition hinders the development of discourse regarding safe and responsible use. The bad effects of drug use would be greatly reduced in "free-drug" society.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:45 pm

Professor Woland wrote:boy now that it's legal I'm gonna snort a bunch of coke off of a prostitute's rear!

In fairness, I'm going to give that a whirl once.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:49 pm

That's what I always ask people. Ok so because they changed the laws, are you going to start piping up the crack because you can? Likely not. Except Big E.

As far as a few other things I've seen in this....

The marijuana gateway effect...

The POLICY is the gateway. Think of how the law is now. If somebody wanted to buy weed, where are they likely getting it? The local drug dealer! What else does he have to sell? Harder Drugs! If you legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, people wouldn't have to be exposed to harder drugs at the local crack shack. An upfront, honest education would take away some of the mystique of it as well. Do you know that the % of high school marijuana smokers is lower in the Netherlands than it is in the United States?

Some other points I make when debating this with people. We have a perfect historical model of what happens when the government tries to control what substances people can use. Remember prohibition of alcohol? Well probably not unless you are REALLY old. ;) But I can tell ya, mobsters tommy gunned the |expletive| outta each other trying to control the black market of bootlegging booze. Hmmmmm..... I wonder why all of these inner city youths are doing the same thing today? Why are dudes getting their heads cut off in Mexico??? Must be for kicks I guess? :roll: Eliminate the black market on drugs and I guarantee that inner city crime across the country drops. Mexico is a war zone right now. It's largely all about drug turf.

Here's something for the Republicans crying about spending (I largely agree BTW). In 2009, the FEDERAL prison system held 187,886 inmates. Of those, 95,205 (50.7%) were in for drug offenses. The budget for California's STATE prison system is around $10.6B (yes Billion) a year. Using the same 50%, you can see that California alone is spending about $5 Billion annually on housing drug offenders. This country is spending billions of dollars every year on a policy that DOES NOT WORK. Period.

Think of the $$$ savings. Prison crowding (2009 40 of 50 states at 90% or more, 23 of those over 100% capacity) gone. Time freed in court rooms, for police to chase violent criminals, etc, etc.

My suggested solution is.....

The complete legalization, regulation, and taxation of Marijuana and.....

Decriminalization of personal amounts of all other drugs. Not fully legal, decriminalized. Like a speeding ticket. $$$ from fines is earmarked for treatment centers.

I'm not advocating a free for all, wild west style either. There would be laws (as there are now) for driving under the influence of drugs, etc.

The current policy does NOT work. Its time to try something else.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:50 pm

Is making prostitution legal part of the bill too? And they said if we built casino's our morals would go to heck. When really all it takes is a lawyer from McCook. Think of the tourism Nebraska would gain if weed were legalized.

DeWalt · Post by **DeWalt** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:36 am

Is there a country where Marijuana is fully legal?

What have been the cultural, personal, financial, and other result of fully legalizing the drug? What about its cost to the health-care system?

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:29 am

Myself, I have a lot of mixed feelings on this - so don't lump me in with any crowd here...

But all I want to know is this: For those of you in favor of across the board legalization of all drugs, are you willing to allow these things to be sold in your local stores. Keep in mind, because they are legal, they are now available to the free-market - meaning, they can be sold just about anywhere and marketed pretty freely.

Or... Do you see the government issuing crack badges for those who qualify to use them and the government regulating and divvying them out?

And yes, legalization of ANYTHING would greatly change the perception of these drugs, socially and medically - so yes, of course the usage will |expletive| skyrocket.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:36 am

S33, how do explain the aforementioned lower than U.S. rate of high school students in the Netherlands using marijuana? Its legal there and their use is lower. Again, are you going to start banging H just because its decriminalized? I think your fears of skyrocketing use are unfounded.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:54 am

Also S33, to address your other question, note I favor DECRIMINALIZATION of the other drugs, not legalization. Just like a speeding ticket. Its not legal, but you aren't going direct to the slammer either. I'd advocate fines for possessing small amounts of the other substances. Just like speeding or other driving infractions, people could receive points for 1st offense, second offense, etc. X amount of points would require counseling, drug treatment programs, etc.

If they went with the full legalization model you are referring too, I'd advocate the sale of those harder drugs through pharmacies, not a free for all. You wouldn't have crack sales at Larrys Liquor Mart.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:55 am

the1wags wrote:S33, how do explain the aforementioned lower than U.S. rate of high school students in the Netherlands using marijuana? Its legal there and their use is lower. Again, are you going to start banging H just because its decriminalized? I think your fears of skyrocketing use are unfounded.

Explain Spain and the Czech Republic at 19% and 20% usage, respectively. It's just as legal there as it is in the Netherlands.

Another good example - Peru, South America. Completely legal, and they are off the freaking charts.

That's all beside my main point - my main point is the marketing and sales of such drugs - how does everyone think that should be handled?

the1wags wrote: If they went with the full legalization model you are referring too, I'd advocate the sale of those harder drugs through pharmacies, not a free for all. You wouldn't have crack sales at Larrys Liquor Mart.

So then it wouldn't be completely legal, then. Today, the pharmacy is needed for drugs which are illegal without prescription. But yeah, that would be interesting. For every case of beer, they toss in a rock to keep you coming back for more.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:43 am

Just for marijuana I think it should be like a liquor license a weed license of sorts. You apply and all that jazz. There should be a minimum age and they can even say no selling it before noon on Sunday if they want to. I just don't see how buying a pack of joints is any different than buying a case of beer.