Why The USA Must End Drug Prohibition

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

If that was the Case , and you Happened to have a 13 Year Old Son or Daughter that Partook in Certain Mind Altering Substances you Happen to be Unaware of , and that Could Possibly put their Young Unexperienced Lives in Danger , Would You Personally Feel the Same as you Profess Here > ? Go Ahead , Answer TRUTHFULLY ! ........

a reply to: quintessentone

Its interesting that most of the discussion on the result are in regards to cigarette smoking

Tobacco is a documented source of metal exposure.55 In our study, we found that exclusive tobacco use was associated with higher levels of Sb, Ba, Cd, Pb, W, and U. As in the cannabis plant, Cd and Pb hyperaccumulate in tobacco plants.56,57 In addition, Cd and Pb are reported to have a high transfer rate from tobacco plant to cigarette smoke (Cd: 81%–90%; Pb 46%–60%) and are found at higher levels in the lung tissue of individuals who smoke cigarettes.58 Tobacco smoke is the main source of Cd exposure followed by consumption of food for the nonsmoking general population.59 Tobacco smoking is estimated to increase overall Cd exposure by 15%–30%, although there are discrepancies in reported percentage differences.60 In our study, we found that exclusive tobacco users had urinary Cd levels (0.75 microgram per gram0.75μg/g) three times higher than those of exclusive marijuana users (0.18 microgram per gram0.18μg/g). Dual users had similarly higher levels of urinary Cd compared with exclusive tobacco users (0.64 microgram per gram0.64μg/g
and 0.75 microgram per gram0.75μg/g
, respectively). The general population is exposed to Pb from drinking water, food, air and indoor dust.61 Unlike Cd, tobacco smoke is not the primary source of Pb. However, we found that exclusive tobacco users had 26% higher blood Pb levels than exclusive marijuana users. Dual users, however, had much higher blood Pb levels of 0.64 microgram per deciliter0.64μg/dL
, indicating that cumulative exposures may increase blood Pb levels, as previously reported with Pb from diet.62,63 Ba has been measured in tobacco plants at high levels (123.0 micrograms per gram123.0μg/g
), but was reported to have a lower rate of transfer to cigarette smoke.58,64 Similar to our results, Badea et al. recently found higher levels of Sb and Sr measured in blood serum of participants recruited from Romania who smoke cigarettes

Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design, small sample of exclusive marijuana users, recall bias, social desirability bias, and potential for exposure misclassification.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes I would.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes I would.

Then You would be a Fool , and Fools Always Regret Unadvisable Acts in Retrospect.......

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

You Know , Wisdom becomes a Truth as Apposed to Believing in a Lie . Will You Ever Learn that ? I Hope So .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

'Someone think of the children!"

Yea.
Weak irrational argument is weak.
Part of the lure of mind altering substances to kids is the fact it's forbidden fruit.

Contrary to helicopter parents and the US governments persistent delusion.
You cannot protect someone from themselves and nor should you.
It's not doing you or in particular those you presume to protect any favors...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes I would.

Then You would be a Fool , and Fools Always Regret Unadvisable Acts in Retrospect.......

How does ending prohibition put my children in more danger? Drugs are everywhere in this country already. Continuing on as we have seems the more foolish notion to me.

And what of the children of the functional users who are imprisoned for their lifestyle decisions? Families utterly destroyed to satisfy the desire of some men to control others...

Sure, stupid games, stupid prizes...a stupid saying that does not undo the damage done by the criminal justice system when it is misapplied.

How do you imagine those victims might feel when they suffer the damage done by such a system? I'd imagine that many of them might never trust an authority figure again, and that such mistrust might often become generational, passed down to their posterity.

This sort of predatory behavior toward victimless crimes does nothing to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm pretty sure it generates a great deal of resentment and animosity as well. Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans who will never respect their government so long as it continues on this path...

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
I keep putting this one off, intending to write some epic OP, which has had me procrastinating about it. To end this pussy footing around, I'm just going to start the conversation despite not yet composing the epic super awesome golden argument. That's okay though, there are lots of reasons for the USA to end drug prohibition, so I'm pretty sure all of that epic awesomeness will come out in the wash. Let's get started then.

I

You can't do it. Look what happened when the Krauts got into drugs and the Nazis's made it an essential part of society and their military.......................... the Shoah

a reply to: Degradation33

I wanted to write you another reply on the economics of this issue.

Formerly prohibited drugs could easily be produced by a regulated "low profit" company. Simple regulations could regulate the prices of drugs so produced, so that the company could realize a modest profit without gouging its customers.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Are you going to require EMS to respond to overdoses or just let the addicts provide their own Narcan?

Yes, I think drug users should not be discriminated against in a post prohibition world. There should be no weird legal curve balls or retributive policies incorporated into an end to drug prohibition.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yeah, I know, druggies want legal drugs.

So do people who are appalled by the evils of drug prohibition.

I cycle the highways and byways of America. I have to be aware of distracted drivers on a regular basis. Can't see a problem worrying about the slow motor skills of Marijuana and the like 😁

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: CloneFarm1000

Tobacco is addictive and should be banned as a product. Yes. The amount of resources wasted on health care for prior addicts alone should justify it's removal. Our health system, if ever nationalised, would justify banning tobacco.

Caffeine and sugar are habit forming. So is MJ. But not really addicting. Tobacco is one of the most addictive substances known. Quitting was very very difficult and took almost 6 months for the constant craving to easy up.

Targetting children for a product to get them hooked and a lifelong customer should be illegal. I dont cae about personal autonomy. If someone wants to grow tobacco, have at it.

I can see from this post that you are more in favor of protecting people from themselves than "securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." How you can take an oath to support and defend the constitution, yet think it's okay to apply that sort of strict oversight is beyond me.

I'm not really trying to insult you so much as to point out that what you propose (and what prohibition represents) is the exact opposite of protecting those "inalienable rights" such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Think about it. Prohibition is wrong.

originally posted by: vance
I cycle the highways and byways of America. I have to be aware of distracted drivers on a regular basis. Can't see a problem worrying about the slow motor skills of Marijuana and the like 😁

There are many legal drugs that affect people in ways that could be considered dangerous when operating a motor vehicle (including weed), yet we all ignore them now don't we:

Knowing how your medications — or any combination of them — affect your ability to drive is a safety measure. Some drugs that could make it dangerous to drive include:

opioid pain relievers
prescription drugs for anxiety (for example, benzodiazepines)
anti-seizure drugs (antiepileptic drugs)
antipsychotic drugs
some antidepressants
products containing codeine
some cold remedies and allergy products, such as antihistamines (both prescription and OTC)
sleeping pills
muscle relaxants
medicines that treat or control symptoms of diarrhea
medicines that treat or prevent symptoms of motion sickness
diet pills, “stay awake” drugs, and other medications with stimulants (e.g., caffeine, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine)

www.fda.gov...

From a Libertarian standpoint, legalizing drugs makes sense.

From an academic standpoint, legalizing drugs makes sense.

But it's like communism. From an academic standpoint, it makes sense.

All until you put it to practical application.

Every city where drugs have become decriminalized, crime has increased. OD deaths have increased. Hospitalizations have increased.

People muck things up. As a species, we're lazy, we steal, we most often look for shortcuts in life.

We drink, smoke, snort, shoot drugs of all types.

Hell, you want riots, ban caffeine.

As a species, we are not yet capable or mature enough to handle legalized drugs.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
From a Libertarian standpoint, legalizing drugs makes sense.

From an academic standpoint, legalizing drugs makes sense.

But it's like communism. From an academic standpoint, it makes sense.

All until you put it to practical application.

Every city where drugs have become decriminalized, crime has increased. OD deaths have increased. Hospitalizations have increased.

People muck things up. As a species, we're lazy, we steal, we most often look for shortcuts in life.

We drink, smoke, snort, shoot drugs of all types.

Hell, you want riots, ban caffeine.

As a species, we are not yet capable or mature enough to handle legalized drugs.

I am skeptical of such a claim. Nevertheless, even if I accept your criticism of what I propose as fact for the sake of this post, prohibition is still wrong. People need to be able to make their own decisions as to what they should be able to put into their bodies.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: DBCowboy
From a Libertarian standpoint, legalizing drugs makes sense.

From an academic standpoint, legalizing drugs makes sense.

But it's like communism. From an academic standpoint, it makes sense.

All until you put it to practical application.

Every city where drugs have become decriminalized, crime has increased. OD deaths have increased. Hospitalizations have increased.

People muck things up. As a species, we're lazy, we steal, we most often look for shortcuts in life.

We drink, smoke, snort, shoot drugs of all types.

Hell, you want riots, ban caffeine.

As a species, we are not yet capable or mature enough to handle legalized drugs.

I am skeptical of such a claim. Nevertheless, even if I accept your criticism of what I propose as fact for the sake of this post, prohibition is still wrong. People need to be able to make their own decisions as to what they should be able to put into their bodies.

In theory, I agree.

Practical applications though? They tell a different story.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Question:

We can certainly correlate drugs to illegality in other aspects of law. (Trespassing, theft, destruction of property etc) Are there statistics that differentiate drug use stats from those other illegal activities?

What I'm trying to say is that where states have eased the illegal use statutes, are they equally being lax on other laws creating a conflated statistic?

Followup:

If we were to increase penalties for drug use adjacent criminal activity, would this solve for the liberty mindset while still adhearing to a law and order mindset?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Just to make a point, the only good heroin story you hear about is where the person got clean and survived or thrived.


Unless there's a contingent of people that are functioning heroin addicts for a long period of time I mean.

I realize I'm using an extreme case to highlight the point and there are many arguments and nuance for other drugs.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

Question:

We can certainly correlate drugs to illegality in other aspects of law. (Trespassing, theft, destruction of property etc) Are there statistics that differentiate drug use stats from those other illegal activities?

What I'm trying to say is that where states have eased the illegal use statutes, are they equally being lax on other laws creating a conflated statistic?

Followup:

If we were to increase penalties for drug use adjacent criminal activity, would this solve for the liberty mindset while still adhearing to a law and order mindset?

They go hand-in-hand. Cities like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, have eased criminality on all things.

We really have not seen "responsible" drug use.

If that is even a thing.

On Fridays and the weekends, I may crack open a few beers. Have a glass of wine with dinner.

But during the week I tend not to drink because I'm working.

Now how many professionals only use heroin or meth on the weekends, and then go on with their regular workweek?

a reply to: DBCowboy

They go hand-in-hand. Cities like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, have eased criminality on all things.

That's my point. I would say if there is a responsible way to go about this, it would be aggravated charges in conjunction with drug use on top of the normal penalties.

I think we agree that crimes categorically aren't properly punished as well as being partisan these days.

Now how many professionals only use heroin or meth on the weekends, and then go on with their regular workweek?

I take your point and I agree. Yet, if we are to attempt and remain liberty minded, who can say what another can do to themselves?

I asked the OP the same question in this regard above.

Even if we wished as a nation to outlaw drugs, we've already seen how that plays out.....even with our own govts help..

Conversely, we have a few cities where we can see how freedom for drugs turns out, yet if the adjacent criminal behavior is also as lax, then there really is no penalty to learn and grow from.


Its like touching the fire and not feeling the burn.