News Stories

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by flying ^

It looks like I'm now comfortable with legalizing marijuana..... for medical purposes

BUT under 2 conditions:

- prescribed ONLY by doctors!
- raw, non 'kosher' variant shall remain illegal unless it's highly processed to eradicate 'impurities'.

You nearly made me stand on my chair...

Well, like any controlled substances.... everything should be done according to the law. If it has medical benefits why not allow it. As long as "using it, the way it should be medical" and be abuse, its a good progress for medicine.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'm completely comfortable legalizing it for whatever people want to use it for, with a significant tax placed on it that funds education, financial aid and the like.

That is a great idea, and we here in Colorado have been trying to pass a law to legalize it for recreational purposes for some time.
It will be on the ballot again this year.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...itiative_(2012)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal for those who wish to use it.
The revenue the government could make off it is well worth making it legal and taxing it.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I see no reason why it shouldn't be legal for those who wish to use it.
The revenue the government could make off it is well worth making it legal and taxing it.

Not to mention it would end the stupid drug cartels from waging war south of the border.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That is a great idea, and we here in Colorado have been trying to pass a law to legalize it for recreational purposes for some time.

Massachusetts voters decriminalized possession of up to an ounce a couple years back. Law enforcement agencies claimed this would make their jobs harder, but there's no evidence that has been the case. The only case I know of to be litigated after the passage of decriminalization concerned whether police could search someone because they smelled marijuana. The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled they could not since there was no evidence a crime was being committed. It hasn't stopped the authorities from busting marijuana dealers; an attorney friend just represented one a few months back. As far as I can see, decriminalization has had as much real impact on peoples' lives as the SJC's decision to legalize same-sex marriage back in 2004 -- virtually none except for those happy couples who can now marry and for their friends and families.

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Not to mention it would end the stupid drug cartels from waging war south of the border.

Legalizing marijuana would help, but the trade in cocaine and amphetamines will continue on. The Times had a interesting piece about the Mexican drug gangs a couple weeks back. (I avoid using "cartel" since there's little evidence they behave the way an economic cartel actually does.)

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Massachusetts voters decriminalized possession of up to an ounce a couple years back. Law enforcement agencies claimed this would make their jobs harder, but there's no evidence that has been the case. The only case I know of to be litigated after the passage of decriminalization concerned whether police could search someone because they smelled marijuana. The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled they could not since there was no evidence a crime was being committed. It hasn't stopped the authorities from busting marijuana dealers; an attorney friend just represented one a few months back. As far as I can see, decriminalization has had as much real impact on peoples' lives as the SJC's decision to legalize same-sex marriage back in 2004 -- virtually none except for those happy couples who can now marry and for their friends and families.



Legalizing marijuana would help, but the trade in cocaine and amphetamines will continue on. The Times had a interesting piece about the Mexican drug gangs a couple weeks back. (I avoid using "cartel" since there's little evidence they behave the way an economic cartel actually does.)

"Drug-financed warlords" is a better description...

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Legalizing marijuana would help, but the trade in cocaine and amphetamines will continue on.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I see no reason why any substance (uppers, downers, steroids, etc.) should be made illegal, just regulated the same as alcohol and tobaco are. Here a quick resume of the pros:

1. Purity of the substance. If they are done at labs the purity and perecentage of active ingredient of the substance would remain a steady constant; plus, you could sue hem if that were not the case.
2. Price will drop. Simple demand and offer, they would not be any pricier than other equivalent recreational drugs (alcohol/tobaco) and therefore criminal organizations could not corrupt society inside or outside the USA with their blood-money.
3. Drug concentration. People using legal recreational drugs tend to seek brands lower concentration dosage (unless you become a junkie, see alcoholism and tabaquism).
4. Profit. This is a tax that no one can speak against.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I see no reason why any substance (uppers, downers, steroids, etc.) should be made illegal, just regulated the same as alcohol and tobaco are. Here a quick resume of the pros:

1. Purity of the substance. If they are done at labs the purity and perecentage of active ingredient of the substance would remain a steady constant; plus, you could sue hem if that were not the case.
2. Price will drop. Simple demand and offer, they would not be any pricier than other equivalent recreational drugs (alcohol/tobaco) and therefore criminal organizations could not corrupt society inside or outside the USA with their blood-money.
3. Drug concentration. People using legal recreational drugs tend to seek brands lower concentration dosage (unless you become a junkie, see alcoholism and tabaquism).
4. Profit. This is a tax that no one can speak against.

The problem is, no matter how much you earn, you can never spend enough to rectify the damage caused by drug abuse in society.

Unless of course, you don't mind the taste of marijuana flavoured soylent green.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The problem is, no matter how much you earn, you can never spend enough to rectify the damage caused by drug abuse in society.

Unless of course, you don't mind the taste of marijuana flavoured soylent green.

No debate about the severe cost about substance abuse (that is what should the tax should be used for, healthcare of those addicted), so, are you an outspoken supporter of making alchohol and tobacco illegal? because thinking legal drugs are better than illegal drugs is plain delusional.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

No debate about the severe cost about substance abuse (that is what should the tax should be used for, healthcare of those addicted), so, are you an outspoken supporter of making alchohol and tobacco illegal?

If we could get away with it, sure.

because thinking legal drugs are better than illegal drugs is plain delusional.

It's not really a matter of "better". We just don't want the number of addicts to increase. Whether the ban helps or not on that front is hard to quantify.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

If we could get away with it, sure.

Does Al Capone means anythng to you at all?

It's not really a matter of "better". We just don't want the number of addicts to increase. Whether the ban helps or not on that front is hard to quantify.

More than 40 years, millions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted in the "war on drugs" (courtesy of Richard "crook" Nixon, which just wanted a legal mechianism to imprision in jail all of his political adversaries aka the hippies) and people still think there is some debate about whether prohibition works or not

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Does Al Capone means anythng to you at all?

Thus, "if".

More than 40 years, millions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted in the "war on drugs" (courtesy of Richard "crook" Nixon, which just wanted a legal mechianism to imprision in jail all of his political adversaries aka the hippies) and people still think there is some debate about whether prohibition works or not

It's the devil we know.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

No debate about the severe cost about substance abuse (that is what should the tax should be used for, healthcare of those addicted), so, are you an outspoken supporter of making alchohol and tobacco illegal? because thinking legal drugs are better than illegal drugs is plain delusional.

I really don't get your argument at all, or it is a strawman.

How do you even qualify "better" drugs? Drugs with lower addictive rate? It is the control of distribution of drugs that stems addiction and substance abuse - how much easier do you think it is to grow a cannabis or opium plant than to distill alcohol or cure tobacco to a desired flavour?

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Massachusetts voters decriminalized possession of up to an ounce a couple years back. Law enforcement agencies claimed this would make their jobs harder, but there's no evidence that has been the case. The only case I know of to be litigated after the passage of decriminalization concerned whether police could search someone because they smelled marijuana. The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled they could not since there was no evidence a crime was being committed. It hasn't stopped the authorities from busting marijuana dealers; an attorney friend just represented one a few months back. As far as I can see, decriminalization has had as much real impact on peoples' lives as the SJC's decision to legalize same-sex marriage back in 2004 -- virtually none except for those happy couples who can now marry and for their friends and families.

To those claims that decriminalizing drug possession makes the law enforcement job more difficult and other related claims I can only point to what is one of the few things I can feel proud about my neck of the woods:

Forbes: Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

I can tell you it did work brilliantly: possession was decriminalized and stuff like syringes can be freely traded for new, clean ones for free and in a safe manner at mobile units (that also provide methadone treatments) as well as any local clinic and many pharmacies.

It worked wonders! Couple that with work by the police and municipalities to clean up run-down neighbourhoods that constituted trouble hotspots for drug trafficking and consumption and you have an effective way to clean up a substantial fraction of drug abuse cases using positive reinforcement instead of punishing the victims. It's not cheap upfront but what you save in tangentially related stuff like persecuting people for possession charges and all the minor criminality like muggings and break-ins that get reduced as a side effect makes it more than worth the price of admission (in my humble but supported by empirical evidence opinion obviously).

PS: do note however that trafficking is still illegal, that hasn't changed even if I'm in the camp of those that supports it for all the tax-related benefits it incurs.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

How do you even qualify "better" drugs?

You do not, that is the whole point. Any substance (call it cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, etc) whose consumption may become addictive has the potential and will damage the body (often beyond any repair modern medicine would afford) if consumed in excess. It is pointless to say "x" substance does half the damage of "y" substance since people if addicted can and will consume twice of "x" because they think it is "healthier".

It is the control of distribution of drugs that stems addiction and substance abuse -

If we agree that the bigger evil is making a substance consuption illegal I do not understand what is your point

how much easier do you think it is to grow a cannabis or opium plant than to distill alcohol or cure tobacco to a desired flavour?

Without the seeds and the right climate, it might be pretty damn imposible in most of the USA to grow cannabis, opium or tobacco. Since the ingredients for alcohol (and other "designer drugs") are easy to get at your local supermarket, you only need an still (or similar device) and if the alcohol prohibition in the 20th century gave us any insight, is that there will be many people building one, no matter how difficult you think it might be.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's the devil we know.

If you limit yourself to what has happened in yout lifetime that is true, but if you include the lessons learned from the 1930 alcohol prohibition is that legalization is the lesser of both evils (see above post if you desire a link), plain and simple (unless of course, living under a fascist regime that controls what you may or may not consume is your idea of heaven).

[Zakoo]

To put on the same scale the side effects of both tabacco/alcohol with those drugs seems ... quite not right to put it pleasantly.

If you want to live in the fear of being attacked by somebody who didn't have his daily injection or simply took to much, I understand but well ... I think most human don't really want.
Of course the same can apply to alcoohol, but as said before, the scale totally isn't the same, and tabacco, well .... It's one's own life, if people want so badly to reduce their life simply to feel some pleasure, they may do so, but the moment my own safety enters in the equation, it's a no-no from me.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

To put on the same scale the side effects of both tabacco/alcohol with those drugs seems ... quite not right to put it pleasantly.

To say that the speed of light cannot be exceed seems ... quite not right to put it pleasently, or so I would say if I had not learned long ago to disociate my limited empirical experience from the truth (or the closest thing to it) as we know it.

If you want to live in the fear of being attacked by somebody who didn't have his daily injection or simply took to much, I understand but well ... I think most human don't really want.
Of course the same can apply to alcoohol,

Go and get the number of deaths in your country due to alcoholism (incluiding those dying or causing death due to the fact that they were drunk and created an accident) and tobaco (incluiding the aproximation of those that die of cancer due to passive smoking) and you will realize the reality where you live is not as pleasent as those TV comercials about drinking and smoking, thinking only illegal drugs cause negligent deaths is delusional as I have said before.

but as said before, the scale totally isn't the same, and tabacco, well .... It's one's own life, if people want so badly to reduce their life simply to feel some pleasure, they may do so, but the moment my own safety enters in the equation, it's a no-no from me.

Like it or not you are already at risk (reed the above), yet I do not see you rising your voice to prohibit tobaco or alcohol consumption. People already reduce their lifespan by consuming junk food, sleeping less than required (this is specialy bad for women) and not having enough excersice (you might be guilty of at least one of the prior) but it seems normal to you since no illegal drug is involved.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

You do not, that is the whole point. Any substance (call it cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, etc) whose consumption may become addictive has the potential and will damage the body (often beyond any repair modern medicine would afford) if consumed in excess. It is pointless to say "x" substance does half the damage of "y" substance since people if addicted can and will consume twice of "x" because they think it is "healthier".

You are quoting Captain Obvious here then. The saying goes "You can't have too much of a good thing"; the same goes for drugs and anything else.

I do not understand what is your point

Actually that is my question to you. Your initial "Quick resume of the pros" had a fundamental, and possibly rhetorical flaw in its reasoning, which I pointed out in the first place; and your argument of

so, are you an outspoken supporter of making alchohol and tobacco illegal? because thinking legal drugs are better than illegal drugs is plain delusional.

is way out of point and jumped the gun. I agree that "domestic substance consumption" is to be made illegal, not just "substance consumption".

Without the seeds and the right climate, it might be pretty damn imposible in most of the USA to grow cannabis, opium or tobacco. Since the ingredients for alcohol (and other "designer drugs") are easy to get at your local supermarket, you only need an still (or similar device) and if the alcohol prohibition in the 20th century gave us any insight, is that there will be many people building one, no matter how difficult you think it might be.

It IS difficult. Human physiology states that alcohol is metabolised at 25-30 grams per one-and-half hours, and at around 200 milligrams of alcohol per 100 ml of your blood can be considered dangerous. Secondly, an immediate introduction of much alcohol into your bloodstream can cause toxic shock.

And that means the distilliation process has to be controlled carefully through a hydrometer to prevent "KO water" from being made, as well as several purity control factors - and to add to that, taste had to be factored in.

As for the plants; I think you need to read about guerilla farming and how different parts of America has different climates - it is much easier to plant and dry leaves to smoke and export elsewhere than to make alcohol. So isn't making alcohol more difficult than planting hashish?

If you limit yourself to what has happened in yout lifetime that is true, but if you include the lessons learned from the 1930 alcohol prohibition is that legalization is the lesser of both evils (see above post if you desire a link), plain and simple (unless of course, living under a fascist regime that controls what you may or may not consume is your idea of heaven).

The Prohibition is a major disaster in legal administration, and the major swings between BOTH regulation and deregulation at the extremes is the cause of problems. Similarly to China's sudden economic liberalisation and the lack of control over production standards and labour management, the huge swings in policy execution is the cause of society's problems, not the policy execution itself.

If you think government control is all about being facist and neo-nazi, I think you have got to be one of those delusional idiot anarchists out there who has no idea what in going on in what the US media labels "oppressed countries with limited freedoms". How wrong can that view be? [/sarcasm]

Seriously, there is a limit to control and freedom - they can co-exist. I am not one for control of internet, freedom of thought and opinion, but not to the extent where the media can write total bullshit without giving thought into EXACT figures. I am totally for the control of drugs and tobacco, but not to the extent where CFT cocktails and cyber-prosthetics are strangled away from those who want another chance at life near death. The few aspects which I stand in-between is gun-control and self-defence, so does that make me a pro-facist simply because I wanted some control over society-breakers?

If you think living under leaders funded by drug lords armed by arms-makers across the border is better than living under corporatist politicians with no hint of how modern technology functions, that is your opinion; I respect that. However, if you do not wish to understand that there is a humungous "middle ground" between order and freedom in state functionalities, take your puritanical arguments elsewhere.

[AnimeFan188]

Palestinian Authority agrees to exhume Arafat's body over new poison claims:

"The Palestinian Authority agreed on Wednesday to the exhumation of Yasser
Arafat's body after new allegations that he was poisoned with the radioactive
element polonium-210 in 2004.

A Swiss institute that examined clothing provided by Arafat's widow Suha as part of
an Al Jazeera expose said it found "surprisingly" high levels of polonium-210, though
symptoms described in the president's medical reports were not consistent with the
radioactive agent."

See:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...laims-1.448814

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Palestinian Authority agrees to exhume Arafat's body over new poison claims:

"The Palestinian Authority agreed on Wednesday to the exhumation of Yasser
Arafat's body after new allegations that he was poisoned with the radioactive
element polonium-210 in 2004.

A Swiss institute that examined clothing provided by Arafat's widow Suha as part of
an Al Jazeera expose said it found "surprisingly" high levels of polonium-210, though
symptoms described in the president's medical reports were not consistent with the
radioactive agent."

See:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...laims-1.448814

I listened to the BBC report that interviewed the scientist. He was very careful to say that they had simply found levels of polonium inconsistent (way high) for what should naturally be there. He said that samples of Arafat's remains would be the next prudent step.

Given what he said and how forcefully he stopped the BBC reporter from jumping to conclusions (yay, good science at work). One possibility is that someone was trying to poison him but his own vast array of medical conditions got him first. Unanswerable at present would be whom - internal faction, rivals, foreign interests, etc.

[flying ^]

The Case For American (Automotive) Exceptionalism

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...xceptionalism/