|
Post by Chuck Storm on May 8, 2008 19:24:16 GMT -6
I've heard a lot of people stating that all drugs should be legalized recently (the theory being that people wouldn't use drugs more than they do now if it was legal).
I agree with respect to weed, but am skeptical about meth, crack, etc.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on May 8, 2008 19:27:06 GMT -6
Damn hippies....
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on May 8, 2008 19:44:46 GMT -6
Nope, shouldn't legalize them. People already can't control their lives when they are illegal, how are they going to when they are illegal. I don't care that they mess up their lives, just that their actions are going to affect those that don't do drugs and are innocent. JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on May 8, 2008 21:36:21 GMT -6
You can't legalize meth, crank, etc. Those are toxic, poisonous substances. They lead only to death and destruction. Pot? Go for it. Potheads don't generally hold up the local 7 11.
Where the drug war has really failed is in dealing with offenders. Drug addicts who have not engaged in violent crime do not belong in prison. Jamming them in jail does nothing to fix their problem and is a waste of money and jail space that ought to be reserved for rapists, murderers, and subprime lender CEOs. Nonviolent offenders ought to be placed in confined rehab until they are clean. And no one should ever go to jail for pot. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 8, 2008 21:59:39 GMT -6
Cosign most of thunderhawk's leftist tripe. Approximately 1% of the adult population in jail is a ridiculous amount that should make big government liberals stop and think for a minute.
If the states had to be on the hook for paying for lockup for the guys caught with a few grams of crack, there'd prolly be a helluva lot fewer people in the slammer, but with the unlimited pockets of the feds, the silliness can continue forever because we can count on the feds to never revoke a failed policy unless it goes really, really poorly (prohibition of booze).
The War on Drugs is just a mouthbreather gravy train designed to help provide full employment to knuckledgraggers who, in the absence of jobs in law enforcement, would be unemployed. The percentage of GDP that goes to law enforcement/crime prevention in this country is freaking ridiculous. Without that war to fight, what the hell would those meatheads do? How could local PDs function without the property they seize without due process?
|
|
|
Post by TBELL on May 9, 2008 2:07:25 GMT -6
Meth=Nasty ass shit. I have seen lives completely ruined from abuse of meth. I come from a small Southern Iowa Community, so we didn't see that much crack or other "suburban" drugs. However, meth will completely mess up anyone that gets ahold of it. Legalizing (and I'm talking about Meth only) will contribute to more property crimes in my opinion. Sure, at this point it would be legal, but you still have to pay for it, and I'm sure Uncle Sam is going to get his share of the profits. So by that time you have equilized the price of an ounce of meth street value v. regulated value.
Now meth is being sold in a more pure form called "Ice". Just recently in the Des Moines Area, the 5th Judicial District Violent Fugitive Task Force along with the US Marshals Office tried to arrest a guy with a Parole Violation Warrant. When they encountered this guy, he became EXTREMELY violent and tried to disarm one of the officers. He ultimately ended up losing his life after another task force officer shot him. He had over 3 grams of ICE and some cash on him. My point after all the rambling is this stuff is EXTREMELY dangerous, and has effects similar to PCP when one is using Meth. You feel no pain and gain what would seem to be "super human" strength.
When it comes to POT, I have never, ever, ever, in the 11 years I have been around the law enforcement community, seen a "violent" pothead. Now, for the real question...Is pot a "gateway" drug? Do people start on pot thinking that is as far as they will ever go and end up hitting the Meth or Crack? I honestly can say I could not vote for a "legalization" of pot until the "gateway" theory is put to rest. If it is false, then by all means, have fun with the hippie lettuce.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on May 9, 2008 5:40:38 GMT -6
Acctually BTR, the drug war continues because of nothing but the politicians. There are very few politiicans with the BRAVERY to stand up and say the obvious; the drug war doesn't work. However, the second a pol says that, what does the opposing party say? Weak on crime! Weak on families! Don't you know what drigs do to people!
If government is good at anything, it is scaring people during a war, and the public scare campaign against drugs is the greatest of all time. All it would take to end is a few politicians with political courage and common sense. Har har.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 9, 2008 6:34:12 GMT -6
When it comes to POT, I have never, ever, ever, in the 11 years I have been around the law enforcement community, seen a "violent" pothead. Now, for the real question...Is pot a "gateway" drug? Do people start on pot thinking that is as far as they will ever go and end up hitting the Meth or Crack? I honestly can say I could not vote for a "legalization" of pot until the "gateway" theory is put to rest. If it is false, then by all means, have fun with the hippie lettuce. Any "gateway theory" of weed comes directly out of the fact that it is illegal. In order to get weed, the smoker has to call, get this, a drug dealer. Drug dealer says "Sorry, the town's dry, but I've got some great... if you want to get high." If weed's legal, the guy looking for weed just goes to Hy-Vee or Walgreens and buys a bag, where weed will always be in stock. He will be too lazy to go seek out crank. If the "gateway theory" is true, you better ban booze and smokes, because I would bet that 98.7% of potheads drank booze or smoked cigarettes before they ever tried pot.
|
|
|
Post by bucketochicken on May 9, 2008 6:36:12 GMT -6
Cosign most of thunderhawk's leftist tripe. Approximately 1% of the adult population in jail is a ridiculous amount that should make big government liberals stop and think for a minute. If the states had to be on the hook for paying for lockup for the guys caught with a few grams of crack, there'd prolly be a helluva lot fewer people in the slammer, but with the unlimited pockets of the feds, the silliness can continue forever because we can count on the feds to never revoke a failed policy unless it goes really, really poorly (prohibition of booze). The War on Drugs is just a mouthbreather gravy train designed to help provide full employment to knuckledgraggers who, in the absence of jobs in law enforcement, would be unemployed. The percentage of GDP that goes to law enforcement/crime prevention in this country is freaking ridiculous. Without that war to fight, what the hell would those meatheads do? How could local PDs function without the property they seize without due process? I'm suprised to see you express such disdain for a program started under Reagan. I thought you guys all worshiped him unequivocally. I think you may need to reassess just who the purveyors of "big government" really are, and which party is responsible for our authoritarian and punishment-centric culture. But you won't. So never mind.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 9, 2008 6:38:44 GMT -6
Cosign most of thunderhawk's leftist tripe. Approximately 1% of the adult population in jail is a ridiculous amount that should make big government liberals stop and think for a minute. If the states had to be on the hook for paying for lockup for the guys caught with a few grams of crack, there'd prolly be a helluva lot fewer people in the slammer, but with the unlimited pockets of the feds, the silliness can continue forever because we can count on the feds to never revoke a failed policy unless it goes really, really poorly (prohibition of booze). The War on Drugs is just a mouthbreather gravy train designed to help provide full employment to knuckledgraggers who, in the absence of jobs in law enforcement, would be unemployed. The percentage of GDP that goes to law enforcement/crime prevention in this country is freaking ridiculous. Without that war to fight, what the hell would those meatheads do? How could local PDs function without the property they seize without due process? I'm suprised to see you express such disdain for a program started under Reagan. I thought you guys all worshiped him unequivocally. I think you may need to reassess just who the purveyors of "big government" really are, and which party is responsible for our authoritarian and punishment-centric culture. But you won't. So never mind. You're right, everything was legal before Reagan invented crack. Isn't there a Jeremiah Wright book you should be reading? But for Rooseveltian notions of expansive federal government, none of this crap is federal.
|
|
|
Post by The Bluzmn on May 9, 2008 7:37:44 GMT -6
Pot as a "gateway" drug? Please, that was dispelled in like 1965, wasn't it? Causation vs. correlation, people. I hear that watching television causes heroin addiction because all heroin addicts have watched TV.
I am all for freedom of choice, but I do not feel that meth, crack, etc., should be legalized. Pot, on the other hand, should never have been illegal to begin with. And on a semi-related subject, the uses of hemp (paper, etc.) should be explored as well.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on May 9, 2008 8:30:51 GMT -6
Pot as a "gateway" drug? Please, that was dispelled in like 1965, wasn't it? Causation vs. correlation, people. I hear that watching television causes heroin addiction because all heroin addicts have watched TV. I am all for freedom of choice, but I do not feel that meth, crack, etc., should be legalized. Pot, on the other hand, should never have been illegal to begin with. And on a semi-related subject, the uses of hemp (paper, etc.) should be explored as well. Absolutely. Also agree with Thunder's points on this. I don't smoke the stuff, but it's an absolutely non-violent substance, and don't consider it a drug.
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on May 9, 2008 9:01:40 GMT -6
Pot as a "gateway" drug? Please, that was dispelled in like 1965, wasn't it? Causation vs. correlation, people. I hear that watching television causes heroin addiction because all heroin addicts have watched TV. I am all for freedom of choice, but I do not feel that meth, crack, etc., should be legalized. Pot, on the other hand, should never have been illegal to begin with. And on a semi-related subject, the uses of hemp (paper, etc.) should be explored as well. Absolutely. Also agree with Thunder's points on this. I don't smoke the stuff, but it's an absolutely non-violent substance, and don't consider it a drug. Agreed. I have no problem with marijuana being legalized...the harsher drugs should remain illegal.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on May 9, 2008 9:28:49 GMT -6
Legalize the weed so BTR and I can toke a number together at the next Hawkeye tailgater
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on May 9, 2008 9:57:53 GMT -6
Cosign most of thunderhawk's leftist tripe. Approximately 1% of the adult population in jail is a ridiculous amount that should make big government liberals stop and think for a minute. If the states had to be on the hook for paying for lockup for the guys caught with a few grams of crack, there'd prolly be a helluva lot fewer people in the slammer, but with the unlimited pockets of the feds, the silliness can continue forever because we can count on the feds to never revoke a failed policy unless it goes really, really poorly (prohibition of booze). The War on Drugs is just a mouthbreather gravy train designed to help provide full employment to knuckledgraggers who, in the absence of jobs in law enforcement, would be unemployed. The percentage of GDP that goes to law enforcement/crime prevention in this country is freaking ridiculous. Without that war to fight, what the hell would those meatheads do? How could local PDs function without the property they seize without due process? That was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 9, 2008 10:09:10 GMT -6
What should be taken into account with the "gateway" theory...
While a pre-doobed citizen would likely never choose one of the after-gateway drugs, the present/post-doobed citizen may have blocked that neuron that stopped the choice from happening.
And when alcohol is introduced into the equation, "it seemed like a cool idea at the time" is a very common afterthought.
So I'd say that in itself, weed isn't a gateway drug. But with external factors included, it certainly can be.
|
|
|
Post by bucketochicken on May 9, 2008 10:15:21 GMT -6
What should be taken into account with the "gateway" theory... While a pre-doobed citizen would likely never choose one of the after-gateway drugs, the present/post-doobed citizen may have blocked that neuron that stopped the choice from happening. And when alcohol is introduced into the equation, "it seemed like a cool idea at the time" is a very common afterthought. So I'd say that in itself, weed isn't a gateway drug. But with external factors included, it certainly can be. In my personal experience and personal observations, this is not true at all. Not with "post-doobed" persons, anyway. I would agree with that assessment in terms of alcohol, however. Not necessarily in conjunction with marijuana use, but rather alcohol use in and of itself. That is a drug that has a far, far greater effect on decision making and lowered inhibitions, regardless of whether it's consumed in addition to any amount of weed smoking.
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on May 9, 2008 12:39:33 GMT -6
Absolutely agree drugs should be legalized and controled by the gov't.
Prohibition was a miserable failure. So has been the war on drugs. All it does is waste resources, and drive up product prices.
Take the money out of the product and the criminal element goes away.
Not so sure the usage rates would go up if it were legal to buy pot.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on May 9, 2008 14:41:13 GMT -6
When kids start getting high on something, we have to take it away immediately.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on May 9, 2008 20:34:19 GMT -6
What should be taken into account with the "gateway" theory... While a pre-doobed citizen would likely never choose one of the after-gateway drugs, the present/post-doobed citizen may have blocked that neuron that stopped the choice from happening. And when alcohol is introduced into the equation, "it seemed like a cool idea at the time" is a very common afterthought. So I'd say that in itself, weed isn't a gateway drug. But with external factors included, it certainly can be. In my personal experience and personal observations, this is not true at all. Not with "post-doobed" persons, anyway. I would agree with that assessment in terms of alcohol, however. Not necessarily in conjunction with marijuana use, but rather alcohol use in and of itself. That is a drug that has a far, far greater effect on decision making and lowered inhibitions, regardless of whether it's consumed in addition to any amount of weed smoking. Good post, bucket. It's amazing that the leftards and righties are in agreement on this. You holdin', Cali? Break it out in celebration.
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on May 10, 2008 8:17:28 GMT -6
My last girlfriend was great... when she was stoned. When she wasn't she was violent, moody, and terrible to be around.
Just yesterday I found a tin full of the last weed I bought her, it turned into a green dust so I threw it away.
When she talked me into smoking I did enjoy it, but not the harsh smoke. As you all know alcohol is my drug, weed is okay every once in a while. BTR is right though about weed being a gateway drug because of its legality, I've been offered meth and coke from some of the tools I bought her weed from. Just being in the same room with them made me feel dirty.
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on May 10, 2008 8:21:26 GMT -6
Oh, and I'm against the war- its too damn expensive and constitutionally repugnant at the federal level. Let crack heads OD legally or whatever, If a community or state is getting to f'd up from the drug bums on the street, they can regulate or ban it.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on May 10, 2008 16:08:51 GMT -6
In my personal experience and personal observations, this is not true at all. Not with "post-doobed" persons, anyway. I would agree with that assessment in terms of alcohol, however. Not necessarily in conjunction with marijuana use, but rather alcohol use in and of itself. That is a drug that has a far, far greater effect on decision making and lowered inhibitions, regardless of whether it's consumed in addition to any amount of weed smoking. Good post, bucket. It's amazing that the leftards and righties are in agreement on this. You holdin', Cali? Break it out in celebration. This issue is more about common sense than partisan politics. The gateway theory doesn't hold water in my eyes. The thing the brainwashed don't understand is people can be very high functioning when stoned. The stereotype is that all stoners sit on the couch and watch cartoons when high, that is true part of the time, but I've encounterd many folks who are active when stoned (taking a hike, playing golf, cleaning the house,)
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on May 10, 2008 19:38:45 GMT -6
No way crack, cocaine, heroin or a multitude of oter drugs should be legalized. What doctor is going to write that prescription? Pot, well, not one to hang out with potheads, wouldn't know the effects. We would need some substanital controls put in place though so it is handled fairly (similar to the ones for alcohol/ DUI/underage etc).
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on May 12, 2008 13:13:51 GMT -6
Good post, bucket. It's amazing that the leftards and righties are in agreement on this. You holdin', Cali? Break it out in celebration. This issue is more about common sense than partisan politics. The gateway theory doesn't hold water in my eyes. The thing the brainwashed don't understand is people can be very high functioning when stoned. The stereotype is that all stoners sit on the couch and watch cartoons when high, that is true part of the time, but I've encounterd many folks who are active when stoned (taking a hike, playing golf, cleaning the house,) See, here's the deal. Almost EVERY issue is more about common sense than partisan politics. Some people have decided to politicize EVERYTHING...including science. Fucking science. To the detriment of us all. Here's a little rule to live by. If some asshole (Glenn Beck) is politicizing something fundamental to human existence (like physics or biology), you should consider that person a traitor to the human race. Wake the fuck up.
|
|