Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Illegal Drugs: Marijuana Vs The Rest of 'Em, and How Far to Go?

Posted 2 years ago on April 18, 2012, 6:10 p.m. EST by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Ok, so I am going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume most here are for legalizing marijuana. As they should be.

But the rest of the scenario is this: What do you do about the rest of em? Cocaine, heroine, etc.

I say legalize EVERYTHING. People who want it are not having a hard time finding it. And if people cannot control themselves, then I don't see that lasting too long before the stigma is cast on teh entire thing. Because when its legal, it will lose a lot of its "cool" power.

41 Comments

41 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 2 years ago

The point is missed entirely by your statement sir. It is not and should not be the roll of government to tell people what they can consume. If I chose to eat poison it is my business alone. The government should have no say in the matter. The argument they always use is that they are trying to protect us from ourselves and we as individuals are to dumb to know what is good for us. This is NAZI thinking. Besides the GOV don't care about our health, if they did we would all have universal health care from birth. They also do not care about the danger of addiction, if they did tobacco would be banned. The truth is the just want to control people, people who get high are harder to control because they forget about the 20+ years of brainwashing they received and live in the here and now.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Definitely legalize marijuana, and "decriminalize" other drugs (i.e. we shouldn't be sending people to prison for manifestations of a disease). However, cocaine and heroin are extremely addictive, and "cool power" only gets people to try it (from there, biochemistry takes over). Ideally, we'll come up with medications that can treat addiction (because unfortunately the biochemical and genetic aspects, in many cases, has the more powerful influence, compared to the psychological aspects of addiction, which is why drug addiction is so difficult to treat).

These issues really don't exist with marijuana, although smoking too much pot isn't exactly a good idea (but neither is eating too much McDonald's or drinking too much beer).

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26693) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I like you reasoning on this.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

What happens is the entire political and economic system gets addicted, to the contaminated fund and social flows, from the drug war. Money gets hidden, and people become contaminated, including by fund and social flows, generated by cartels. Down at the street, gangs rule. In jail and prison, gangs rule. In courts, cartels rule, including to enforce and prosecute, unevenly, and then somebody gets used to collusion, as profiteering media, and look out for both cartels AND gangs, at the same time! Rules of evidence are out the window! Unless you are making money, hey. LOSE THE DRUG WAR AND START OVER.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, and decriminalization of everything (along with complete legalization of marijuana, since it shouldn't even be considered in the same category as cocaine or heroin) would go a long way in accomplishing this. Half the revenue of Mexican drug cartels is generated by marijuana (and it's just ridiculous that we continue to criminalize such a benign plant, when that policy causes so much more harm than legalization could ever possibly cause).

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

Hey, take it from all of us or Vicente Fox, Ron Paul, maybe even Ralph Nader. But for sure, Barack Obama is no help.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Why are drugs still illegal. Because America is ashamed. How would it look? What will the neighbors say? It is to save face, within our country and internationally. Instead of acknowledging our drug problem, we suppress it, sweep it under the rug, lock it in the basement.

In fact we literally lock up behind bars, hidden from view, the most visible part of our drug problem. These members of our family do not deserve to suffer even more than they already do. They need our love. But instead we are more concerned with our outward appearance, and for that reason the shame is on us, and no smile can cover it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I think drugs law may be more severe in the US

[-] 1 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

Legalize EVERYTHING, now. The drug war has contaminated all professions and markets. We suffer criminal prison and street gangs, and cartels control absolutely EVERYTHING, or haven't you noticed? This process is exacerbated by the drug war. The anal drug war lets all kinds of anal geeks evade prosecution, since the riot ongoing is driven by conspiracy to evade review of violations of the separation clause, the standing army clause, the royal favors exclusion clause, and USCA 1,4,5,14, Sedition Act, RICO, and obstruction of justice. Law enforcement and medicine are completely distorted, since the drug war. And NOBODY thinks to get the lousy Christians out of any media. Doctors prescribe terrible psych-meds, with all kinds of side-effects, and then they think to profiteer, when they cause tremors, pain, stiffness, weight gain, death. We cannot support the corrupt, without properly regulated drug revenues. And the distortion against industrial hemp removes Jack Herrer-estimated 25,000 market-leading products, including those for food, enrgy, and building materials, while petroleum enjoys fracking, cancer, and war, on its behalf. The lousy Democrats cannot even get biomass research to catch up with Henry Ford, who made indestructible, Model A-gen body panels and fenders, from HEMP PLASTIC. So end all the distortion, at once. LEGALIZE EVERYTHING, shut up, and pay taxes. But end the related corruption, to the miserable wars, including the stinking drug war. But beware Democrats and their Inconvenient Truth. They believe in global warming, but even farmers like Al Gore aren't smart enough to legalize hemp and GROW THE STUFF. They would rather war on, with a heavy carbon signature, and try to trump Republicans with a lousy 2700-page Obamacare debacle, lose the house, and then ask us for donations.

[-] 1 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 2 years ago

We import opium from Central Asia and cocaine from South America. We export war to these places to fight insurgencies that are funded by our drug imports. And the defense contractors and drug cartels stay rich while the rest of us stay poor. Insurgents and soldiers die for what they think are ideas, but really it is to keep the drug and weapon sellers rich.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

You wouldn't have a link with that info about those hemp plastic Model A body fenders, do you. I'd never heard that and it sounds interesting. The steel interests undoubtedly kept that idea from coming to fruition.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

No, sorry. This is remembered, from a TV special on hemp. I saw the hammer demonstration, from old Ford footage, from the 30s. Tthe TV show and the footage has probably since been suppressed, while biomass research has been lamely touted, as an afterthought, by inconveniently lame Democrats, only after they blow their majority, by messing around, in an oil oligopoly.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Not suppressed, photo here; http://www.hemphasis.net/Building/plasticmettle.htm

Just search; hemp ford fenders

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 2 years ago

Ultimately, yes. Legalize it all. However, in doing research on Article V, or the research and activism of Christopher A Brown, who writes on Article V as well as other major social issues, some that are logically of paramount importance, I've learned that he filed a lawsuit which basically shows that government wants everyone destroyed by drugs.

The suit was about developing the ultimate treatment for drug addiction as well as a number of other mental issues. He found the United States District circuit courts illegally, unconstitutionally, secretly changing the court rules to deprive him of access to the court. Basically dismissing unconstitutionally on pre trial motions.

Accordingly, yes, but after we have the ultimate form of treatment for drug addictions.

His legal site is algoxy.com/law and there is a link from there to a page describing the treatment he's working to develop. Spend some time there, I have, very illuminating as to the core problems we are facing with this and other issues.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 2 years ago

I don't go for rants as a tactic, for court. I find courts are so contaminated, they are best avoided, unless you are an attorney. Otherwise, you will find collusion, to fraud, so every rule of evidence gets violated. I don't need to know about addiction, where gangs and cartels call all the shots and make all the determinations. This guy's facts, pleadings, and motions look lacking, so what would I learn?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

I say legalize everything! Grow it here. Put an age limit on who can get it. Tax the crap out of it. Use the tax money to open rehabs and actually detoxic people who want off of it. Keep it cheap for addicts to maintain if they can't quit. We'd clean out the jails, we'd keep the money here in this country, we could pay for rehabs.... What we are doing is stupid and ineffective and benefits warlords, drug cartels, and funds CIA projects.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

It all once was legal, including meth, Mama's little helper...

For some reason a lot of people seem to think that drug experimenters are knowledgeable about the drugs they try. Sad fact is that knowledge goes about as far as "hey man this is some good shit" and no farther.

You'd be surprised at the number of people who quit using drugs for the simple fact that the DOC (drug of choice) just wasn't readily available.

But let's presume that all Scheduled drugs are now completely legal, over the counter purchases are common.

This is supposed to save lots of money, how much of this goes into REAL drug education? How much is slated to 'cover future tax cuts'?

What do we do to regulate it? I mean you don't want 12 year olds able to just walk in and buy it do you? We aren't doing so good keeping tobacco products out of the hands of kids so what steps can we take to at least limit the access children have?

These are not foolish questions, they are not an attempt to be extreme anti drug, these are questions recovering addicts have presented as well as myself when such has been discussed over a period of 12 years.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you regulate. alcohol is a recreational drug. the system works fine. why is that hard to figure out?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

If you think we do a good job of regulating alcohol, you'd best take a good look around.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you better take a good look around.. your at the mall.. thousands of people.. not one drunk??? omg.. your at home..not one drunk walking down your street? omg. your at work not one drunk breathing in your face? omg. no guess all that regulating is not doing a good job.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Look at the stats on underage drinking, just to get going.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

very small compared to the number of people complaining about that student loan debt. follows that that underage drinking had little effect on future endeavors.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

I posted this elsewhere, but its quite simple. People attend unbiased harm reduction training, and have their first experience in a safe environment with an experienced guide and medical support.

People selling to unlicensed users (i.e. kids) get sent to jail and their licenses get taken away. People acting like complete idiots and being a public nusience similarly have their license taken away.

In other words, people would have to treat it with a level of respect which is at least on par with with driving a motor vehicle. (I have no problem if alcohol gets included in this licensing scheme either).

I'm not using motor vehicles by accident (no pun intended) but they are far more dangerous any illegal drug, and by an large, most people get from A to B every day without issue, because of intelligent regulations.

It would save tons of money. People would no longer have to rob stores, they could support their habit working at McDonalds. That saves policing costs. Taxes would more than pay for the treatment of the addicts who want to recover... and then some. There is something to be said about having clean product available as well... lots of people die from adulterated drugs.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I have debated this with recovering addicts many times...your scenario somewhat mirrors what I proposed as an alternative, although I put it in more of a spa type scene, arrive Friday evening, lock down in the facility until Sunday afternoon, leaves you Friday and at least most of Saturday to 'play' and Sunday morning to recover for the trip home.

No drugs outside the facility to be available. Naturally there would be age requirements, no minors etc.

In this manner the regulation simple, the access controlled, use is supervised, product safety assured.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Fair enough... but there is something so nice about being out in nature away from people when your enjoying a trip.

The overwhelming majority of people I know who partake are middle class people (many professionals) who don't trouble anyone, or themselves for that matter. I think people are generally quite responsible, even if they do party pretty hard on occasion.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

The problem with most 'street drugs' is that they are addictive. I know people think it won't happen to them, they think they can keep it under control...but there is a little issue called tolerance.

The body and brain build up a tolerance to the drug, meaning that it takes more to reach the previously enjoyable level. Addiction usually isn't a slam bang your an addict thing, it's insidious, it sneaks in and slowly takes over...just a little more to get 'there', just one more bump to take the edge off...a cycle begins a cycle that is so easy to fall into it doesn't even seem like a cycle at all.

If drug use were to be legalized, I truly believe it should be treated as thought it was a rare 'treat'.

Addiction is a bitch and it don't let go...staying out of it's clutches is the best way to handle it in the first place.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Some are addictive, sure. But most do not cause addiction unless you really push your luck. Many people try drinking, but do not become alcoholics. People try Marijuana, but are not pot-heads, try cocaine but do become coke addicts. Most people who try gambling are not addicts either, its not so much the drug as it is the person.

For me, if someone offers me a joint I might say "no" 99 times, then on some rare occasion decide I want a puff, but I'll very rarely go out of my way to track some down.

Then you have psychedelics that are impossible to become addicted to, because tolerance rises so rapidly. The experience while wonderful does get tiring if you try to keep it going, and you can't do it every day because tolerance develops and leaves so quickly.

I appreciate what you are saying about addiction issues, but in my view its not quite as simple as you try it, like it, keep trying it, then become addicted because of the drug. Its got a lot more to do with how you were raised, and how much stress you have in your life.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

There is also the issue with chemistry, some peoples are simply born with or without enzymes that counter or allow absorption of a substance. With the enzyme or lack there of the body will utilize the substance either more quickly or not at all.

I could go through a great deal more about the process of addiction, but it would take a great deal of space. Simplifying it for a forum such as this is not a lack of understanding but one of respect for the space available.

How one is raise usually has little to do with it, there are people who have grown up in using homes that do not use and people who have grown up in nonusing homes and have nonusing siblings do use. As for stress levels, that too has little to do with it, it's coping mechanisms that make the difference.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

take a listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk4B7BFxYR4&feature=related

Makes some sense. Addiction is a social problem not a genetic problem. Addictive behavior is a symptom of a sick society, and in our culture its ok to be addicted to money because it causes hard work for the 1%, but if you can fill the void with drugs rather than products... we don't want that.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I'll skip the youtube stuff on addiction, I've worked in the field and still keep up with the latest information in it. Thanks anyway.

About money, actually it's a lot like gambling, there is the search, the act, the rush, the come down and the craving for it all to occur again. Face it, it's a rush for some when they make money, doesn't matter if they need it financially, they need it emotionally, mentally, and even physically because they get sick when they can't. Addiction sucks.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Normally I would agree on that youtube comment. But Dr. Mate has the same work experience you seem to have, and is very well respected in the field of addiction.

If you don't like youtube, you might also check out his book in the realm of the hungry ghosts, or the documentary about addiction treatment centers using ayahuasca in the Amazon basin which feature him.

In all seriousness, his view on addiction might not be considered orthodox but it is right on the money. Might give you some added perspective.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I'll take a look, I researched herbal supplements and amino acids as an aid for recovering addicts, herbals and amino acids replaced antidepressants for many of them, and some who had ADD and ADHD issues found that some amino acids worked very well for them on a long term basis.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

That's interesting, thanks. I'm gonna check into that. :)

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Im right there with you on many levels, if ya konw what I mean.

But surely you realize then that anyone who wants some shit, can get it. Supply and Demand.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Having worked with addicts seeking recovery, I am well aware of the drug culture and the way things work there.

Why my first question was about REAL drug education, not the scare tactics so common today.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I'd say apply common sense, but I've noticed that common sense can be oddly subjective at times. So how 'bout asking some fundamental questions: Why do we make certain drugs illegal? and not others? To protect the public from dangerous drugs, right? Right?

Alcohol and tobacco kill more people every year than all the other drugs combined, yet they are completely legal. We tried prohibition on alcohol and we quickly ended that fiasco. They are regulated, restricted, taxed and tobacco even has nasty labels warning about it's horrific effects (just like Republicons should).

So since we legalize the most dangerous drugs, why don't we legalize the less dangerous ones? And tax (estimates show we could pay a lot of bills with Pot Tax alone), restrict (today a minor can get meth easier than a beer), regulate (no more laxatives in your coke or herbicides in your pot), and warning label (close-ups of common tweakers would scare anyone away). It would kill the black market (one less criminal enterprise), free up law enforcement for real criminals (like WS execs), and get a lot of people in our crazy prison system out paying taxes where they belong.

While we're at it, let's legalize prostitution, too (aren't we all prostitutes, anyway?), there's a real no-harm/no-foul no brainer!!!

But we don't criminalize certain drugs (and prostitution) to protect the public, do we? Why, then? Hmmm?

[-] 1 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 2 years ago

The prostitution law goes back to patriarchy, women and their vaginas are the property of men. They should not be allowed to gain their own money and therefore get power over their own lives. The drugs are all about the 1% A drug cartel leader in Columbia, or Mexico or India or Afghanistan are part of the 1%. Defense contractors who build weapons in Russia or the US are also the 1%. Cartels export dope for money, use the money to buy weapons from contractors, sell weapons to dumb asses who want to fight for control of the land that produces the dope. Then the contractors sell even more weapons to Russia and the US to help stop the dumb asses. The war drives up the cost of guns. Eradication campaigns drive up the cost of drugs. The more drug producing plants get burned, the higher the value of the remaining plants, this encourages new growers. It is impossible to win a war against a plant.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Greed and botany?

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Legalize Mariana fully and completely! Decriminalize the rest. People will always get the drugs they seek,. and under current laws are forced to get unknown quality and purity and this does more harm that good. the drug war is a war on the people, a war of control and a war for profits of the few.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I don't want them legalized. I want them decriminalized for smaller amounts that are found on a person.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

legalize marijuana!