What's the world coming to?

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
What's the world coming to?

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." — Justice Louis D. Brandeis (in dissent), New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann 285 U.S. 262 (1932).

By approving Amendment 64 on Nov. 6, Colorado voters did what generations of craven elected officials, from city councilors to district attorneys to state legislators to governors to congressmen to every president since 1970, have been afraid to do. They challenged the lunatic might of the national drug-control bureaucracy.

Drug warriors like to portray marijuana as a "gateway drug," a seductive portal that leads innocent youths to perdition. Close the gateway, so they claim, and we'll all grow up to be healthy, athletic, clean-living folks like Paul Ryan, or Lance Armstrong or Paula Broadwell ... oh, never mind!

Legalizing marijuana strikes at the heart of drug control and criminalization — the Controlled Substances Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970. It divides drugs into five "schedules." Schedule 1 includes drugs with "high potential for abuse, for which there are no accepted medical uses, and for which there is a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision."

The list includes virtually every popular recreational drug of the 1960s. In the halcyon days before worldwide drug control, I tried at least three.

Marijuana made me paranoid, and peyote made me puke. Psilocybin? I fondly remember wandering through cow pastures in Grenada during the mid-1970s looking for mushrooms. We'd walk the fields at dawn, before the fierce tropical sun burned off the blue-tinged 'shrooms that grew from cow patties. Three or four would give you a nice, mellow, day-long high.

My experiences are hardly unique. Millions of Americans have used illegal drugs, and millions have dealt them. Such behavior may be mildly reprehensible, but it shouldn't be criminal, except when truly dangerous substances are involved. Few would advocate blanket legalization of heroin, methamphetamine or cocaine. Fewer still would argue that marijuana should continue to be classified as Schedule 1. The classification is arbitrary, capricious, punitive, irrational and vengeful — thoroughly Nixonian.

Remember when Douglas Bruce persuaded a comfortable majority of Colorado voters to approve the tax-limiting, revenue-capping Taxpayer's Bill of Rights? Powerful forces in and out of government did everything to delay, dilute and defang the law. Confident of support, Bruce fought back.

TABOR endures, but it's an emasculated shadow of its former majestic self — as is its author, brought low by ceaseless battle and careless pride.

Legal dope is much easier to attack than tax limitation — so what's next? Though we've reported that District Attorney Dan May is re-evaluating cases, he's stated he will not be following the lead of Boulder DA Stan Garnett by simply dismissing all minor marijuana cases. (See CannaBiz for more.)

In Washington, federal lawyers are busy fending off another legal challenge to the CSA being considered by a three-judge appeals panel. The courts historically have deferred to government in refusing to change marijuana's classification, but perhaps they'll defer to science and voters this time.

What if they do? And what if the feds take marijuana off the list? It'd be legal, subject only to controls similar to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Amendment 64 doesn't merely require that the state regulate production, distribution, sale and possession of the demon weed. It effectively creates a state-sanctioned indoor marijuana industry, heavily taxed and regulated.

If CSA falls, that structure will not long endure. Tobacco, hops and barley are grown in the open air, not warehouses. Breweries and distilleries locate wherever it makes economic sense, not in unmarked buildings.

A new world awaits. Imagine vast fields of marijuana along our city's eastern edge, irrigated by water from the otherwise-unneeded Southern Delivery System. We could even have a new state song:

"Colorado! Where the dope grows thick upon the plain / And the bloomin' buds can sure smell sweet / When the wind comes right behind the rain."

Or maybe we should just stick with "Rocky Mountain High."

http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/whats-the-world-coming-to/Content?oid=2590307
 
that's nice and all but legalize benzos/opiates for fuck sakes, they cause more problems being prohibited than any other drugs, well maybe meth too.
 
Meth would be hard, it causes so many problems that aren't a product of prohibition but just side effects of the drug itself. I wouldn't feel comfortable with it being legalized without a lot of careful research first.

As for opiates/benzos, I'd like to see it too, but the reality is that it's going to take a huge amount of time and effort to bring people around. Marijuana is more or less socially acceptable in a lot of places, but opiates in particular still have a strong stigma attached, we're going to have to wait for attitudes to shift and for people to realize that legalization is a positive step, not a drug free for all.
 
yeah but bath salts are everywhere and it's an issue yes, but not a huge one.

well at least opies and benzos are already prescription drugs lol. Got cannabis beat on that one!
 
I don't really think bath salts are comparable, personally. Although it's hard to say when they're so variable in their contents.
 
Meth would be hard, it causes so many problems that aren't a product of prohibition but just side effects of the drug itself. I wouldn't feel comfortable with it being legalized without a lot of careful research first.

According to the FDA the science has already said that it is perfectly fine for human use, as it has been prescribed for obesity and ADHD for decades. The real issue is the dosage of "crystal" meth. I would say that in Quebec and Ontario, methamphetamine is the second most popular recreational drug after marijuana. However, very few people become addicted. Why? It all comes in low-dose "speed pills." I think the smartest option would be for the government to allow methamphetamine to be exclusively available in pill form with a reasonable dosage per pill.
 
dont want to see legalized drugs with high addiction potential

ecstasy and lsd i could see as highly moderated prescriptions for ptsd, headaches, etc as long as its nothing like weed
maybe in controlled guided situations with a trained therapist/sitter
 
dont want to see legalized drugs with high addiction potential

ecstasy and lsd i could see as highly moderated prescriptions for ptsd, headaches, etc as long as its nothing like weed
maybe in controlled guided situations with a trained therapist/sitter

I don't get the rationale of anyone who says things like this while (I'm making an assumption based on your name and avatar) they use the drug themselves NOT under these prescribed, controlled, guided situations. Don't you think people will still be using it illegally like they are now, if they want to? Why do you feel like its okay for you to make the decision to use it with only your own supervision but it isn't okay for others? To me, that's the same kind of "I know whats best for you" paternal thought process that is keeping the drugs illegal in the first place.
 
i'm not denying that narcotics like that aren't inherently more addictive, but ppl don't tend to go for a needle the 1st time they get intoxicated, they tend to start with cigarettes/alcohol/marijuana, and then some of them progress (my point being that the ppl typically using harder drugs are the ppl who were already going to "progress" their 'intoxicant careers', obviously being far more likely to end up with habits that were out of control- if they didn't have heroin/ice to move onto, they're the ones who woulda just been worse with their drinking. Hell, lots of the hardcore addicts i've seen just need *something*, if their DOC isn't available they don't just sit there pining for it, they get fuct on something else, which is a big factor in why alcohol, with its ready availability and cheap pricing, is the most common hobo nectar)

When talking about legality, all of the concern over drugs' relative safety profiles is practically irrelevant, as the legal status does jack-shit to hinder usage in the 1st.

/"intoxicant careers" is trademark/copyright bmxxx, 2012.
 
Maybe not in the same way, but some people can never give them up and that is a pretty big addiction. And of course alot of people ultimately die from those 2 as well.

I know plenty of people who have used meth and heroin who aren't addicts after their first hit, and I know people who have used Oxy or xanax and never been able to give it up and are still addicted after trying it.

To me a heroin or meth addict should have access to a legal form of it in a clean measured dose with money going back into legit business's like doctors, pharmacies, pharma companies. Hopefully providing a longer life, and quality of life for the addict and the community around them.

I can understand some people dont want more heroin and meth in the world, but thats obviously never going to happen, the market stays black and the product purity varies and crime is involved. Im not saying that selling them like alcohol or tobacco (ie in stores) is a good idea or should ever happen, but via doctors and scripts possibly.
 
When did this turn into a legality debate? My point is simple: Alcohol and Tobacco can more often be used in a soft manner relative to Heroin and Methamphetamine. Extrapolate what you will.

I don't really have a clear idea as to what I want to see happen with drugs and the law. Its pretty much stopped at somewhere between legal and illegal.
 
doing it like dr.'s/rx's is a decent start (like the netherlands do it with H). The only way it'd work like that tho is if it's easily accessible, otherwise there'll still be a black market and everything that comes with it.
A properly regulated (nationalized) psychoactives industry would, IMO, aim to keep access right at the level necessary to all but eliminate the need to for black markets, as the illegality and all that comes with it are the biggest harms to both addicts and non-users alike.
((ppl who know my views on markets may be surprised to hear that i'm quite against laissez faire for drugs - the truth is that laissez faire for drugs (in the US), while not being nearly as bad to users and society as illegality is, is still full of lots of problems. The damage that selling meth at *true*, open / unregulated practices would cause should be obvious - if you can't see the problem with CVS selling ice at a few bucks an ounce then you're as blind as the prohibitionists are))
 
When did this turn into a legality debate? My point is simple: Alcohol and Tobacco can more often be used in a soft manner relative to Heroin and Methamphetamine. Extrapolate what you will.

what other reason would you have had for talking of relative harms wrt addiction potential? Surely you didn't think ppl considered meth and alcohol to be comparable drugs as far as safety goes..
 
When talking about legality, all of the concern over drugs' relative safety profiles is practically irrelevant, as the legal status does jack-shit to hinder usage in the 1st.

QFT.

You can't argue for restriction of substances based on their realative harm/risk of addiction. The more addictive, the harder people are going to try to get it, the more demand, the more cutting/quality issues, etc.

No logical argument can be made to control drugs based on their relative risk of addiction or harm. All you can do is legalize, regulate quality and access to minors, educate, and hope for the best. I'll put my money down it will cause much less harm than prohibiton, save billions of tax revenue wasted on prohibiton, and more people will be able to make educated decisions about said drugs if HR and solid facts were provided by a joint governmental/scientific entity. Perhaps even taught in public schools.
 
No logical argument can be made to control drugs based on their relative risk of addiction or harm. All you can do is legalize, regulate quality and access to minors, educate, and hope for the best. I'll put my money down it will cause much less harm than prohibiton, save billions of tax revenue wasted on prohibiton, and more people will be able to make educated decisions about said drugs if HR and solid facts were provided by a joint governmental/scientific entity. Perhaps even taught in public schools.

a great logical argument can be made: Getting high is morally wrong and dangerous to society, like theft/assault/rape, and thus deserves its status as a criminal issue.
(clearly i don't believe that, and i really wish ppl who *do* feel that way could just admit it already instead of hiding in the "benefit to society" or "protect the kids" BS. Of course, it doesn't help their case to admit that they make things worse for non-users in their attempts to punish the act of getting intoxicated)
 
"dont want to see legalized drugs with high addiction potential"

I find it hard to comprehend why someone would want to force someone, who is addicted to any given substance, to obtain their chosen poison from the black market with the added risk of overdosing, loss of quality control, loss of control over their situation, being subject to extortionist financial ruination, just so they can function.

One of the first things I do when I come across a person with such views, is that I ask them what their views are on abortion, and then cross reference their views on abortion with their views on drug use, which would give me the opportunity to point out that if they are pro-abortion then they are wrong to attack someone for being a drug addict - in fact I would point out they are an utter hypocrite and need to reevaluate what they are thinking because it shouldn't make sense to them either. Whether or not that changes their mind is another thing, but it worked for a few people I've encountered.

"a great logical argument can be made: Getting high is morally wrong and dangerous to society"

I could argue that abortion is morally wrong and VERY dangerous to society. If you look at what the Nazi scum did with regards to abortion, and look at that racist bitch known as Margaret Sanger, you will understand my position that I don't think it has as much to do with freedom as one would assume.

I don't like to force my moral views onto others, but you have admit that it is quite harmful - and we're not talking about the unborn here, but to the way people deal with other areas that at first may seem unrelated to abortion, but upon closer analysis are related to abortion by way of moral hazard. If abortion is acceptable then why aren't other things acceptable as well, why should I be forced to submit myself to some unholy self-righteous demi-God on their say-so? Why shouldn't I indignantly tell them to f**k off? Abortion is perfectly legal, and, according to the majority of society should stay that way, and I'd agree that it's better to be safe than women being forced to use unsanitary means such as coat hangers which would be very sad if we returned to those days, even if such was morally "correct". I am by NO means a misogynist for being ethically opposed to the practice, but I am going to call a spade a shovel and tell it like it is, something I haven't done for a long time.
 
Top