Drug Legalization

Dassault Papillon: Agreed

Blackflag: All I'm saying is that I can have an opinion contrary to popular opinion, and still defend the public's right to have a contrary opinion. There's nothing contradictory about that.

Blackflag: Sure, but that's because pot usage is under-reported in science. I have no doubt stigma makes it under-reported even where it is legal. The thing is this - drug usage does go up when it's legal. Every bit of science or statistics will back me up on this. And not just pot, but alcohol, or any other drug you care to mention, too.

Cannabis does generally make people chill and relaxed. Which unfortunately leads to crime. For example, somebody doing pot is more dangerous on the roads than somebody who is drunk to a similar extent. Reaction times and judgment are impaired.

Blackflag: My pic wasn't of a stoner, but a famous meth user in NZ. Who, incidentally, DID go on a murderous rampage.

admin: If that is what you meant than I agree.

admin: We were talking about Colorado at the time, so I figured it was a stoner pic. Meth heads more or less are innocent.

Blackflag: For what it's worth, I'd be against the legalization of marijuana as well.

In other news I'd also be for outlawing the sale and use of tobacco as well.

nzlockie: It is understandable since you are old, sorry

Blackflag: Happy to be wise beyond my years then.

admin: Disagree. Old people are usually more stuck in the past. You are what I call the Old Man's whacking hoe. A young voice advocate for the ignorant ways of the old man, always at the heat of the ongoing social rights debate. A decade from now when marijuana is mainstream and a way of life you'll slowly fade away from your previous voalitions that marijuana is dangerous and harmful.

When drug rights escalated in Jamaica and The Netherlands there were a lot of people opposed to the wave. Those people are passive now that they have seen cannabis legalization wasn't apocalyptic.

Blackflag: Yeah, except that in the past, drugs were more legal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't nzlockie grow up in the 70s?

I went to boarding school with a bunch of serious stoners. 5 years of being surrounded by pot. I know *exactly* how harmful it can be, even if stoners themselves don't immediately realize it. That's why I've always kept away from it. They made the same arguments you did. The truth is, old people have also seen stoners. They speak from experience, just like me.

Also, The Netherlands has never legalized cannabis. Their experience with lax enforcement has been dismal, and that's why for the past decade or so enforcement has been given more and more resources. The anti-cannabis lobby is stronger than ever. Similar things can be said about Jamaica. These places are idolized in some western media as a pot smoker's dream, but the political reality is VERY different. The only places, coincidentally, where drug use is seen by the government as quite acceptable, happen to be faux progressive democracies like Colorado, and oppressive states like North Korea. If Colorado was really progressive, they would have not required a court decision to legalize same sex marriage. In reality the only reason they legalized cannabis was conservative - for some reason modern conservatives like to hark back more than 100 years.

admin: Yeah, except that in the past, drugs were more legal.
Not here they weren't. Drug laws have laxened over the past couple of decades. More people have been to prison though. I am sick of locking up a million people for selling a product which is a personal choice to use. Fascism sucks. Communism sucks. Stop being Fasco-Communists!

I went to boarding school with a bunch of serious stoners. 5 years of being surrounded by pot. I know *exactly* how harmful it can be, even if stoners themselves don't immediately realize it.
Okay, and how did it harm them exactly? Half of my friends use recreational pot, and they are no less on an equal footing than me in the workforce or education. Many of them are ahead of me. Drugs are a recreational activity, especially cannabis, which is less addictive and less harmful to your system than both Alcohol and Tobacco. Neither Alcohol nor Tobacco are great for you that is, but their use only affects the user in a very minor way, so why should I or them care? In moderation the activity of smoking or drinking isn't that harmful.

If Colorado was really progressive, they would have not required a court decision to legalize same sex marriage. In reality the only reason they legalized cannabis was conservative
Despite popular opinion already favoring same sex marriage in the state? The court decision shows the progressiveness of Colorado's courts, does it not? What about the other states that legalized pot, such as Oregon and Washington?

Colorado is one of the many states which are dominated by a conservative gerrymandered congress making laws for a growing liberal base. That sucks, but that is how it has always been. Get over it.

In reality the only reason they legalized cannabis was conservative - for some reason modern conservatives like to hark back more than 100 years.
What are you mixing admin? Conservative parties internationally criticize the use of marijuana. Veteran republicans would never support marijuana legalization. Putting a ridiculous amount of people in prison for a cruel time sentence, on an issue that shouldn't even be debated, is not liberal or conservative. This issue is about authoritarian elites like you clashing heads with the libertarians who support autonomy and liberty that represents modern day governance.

Also, The Netherlands has never legalized cannabis.
Lol, why say something that isn't true? The Dutch were the second in the world to legalize cannabis mate. They were the first in the world to legalize c

Blackflag: If Colorado was really progressive, they would have not required a court decision to legalize same sex marriage.
Despite popular opinion already favoring same sex marriage in the state? The court decision shows the progressiveness of Colorado's courts, does it not? What about the other states that legalized pot, such as Oregon and Washington?

Colorado is one of the many states which are dominated by a conservative gerrymandered congress making laws for a growing liberal base. That sucks, but that is how it has always been. Get over it.

In reality the only reason they legalized cannabis was conservative - for some reason modern conservatives like to hark back more than 100 years.

In reality the only reason they legalized cannabis was conservative
What are you mixing admin? Conservative parties internationally criticize the use of marijuana. Veteran republicans would never support marijuana legalization. Putting a ridiculous amount of people in prison for a cruel time sentence, on an issue that shouldn't even be debated, is not liberal or conservative. This issue is about authoritarian elites like you clashing heads with the libertarians who support autonomy and liberty that represents modern day governance.

Also, The Netherlands has never legalized cannabis.

Yet you can buy and use cannabis in the netherlands. That is legalization, like it or not. They were also the first to legalize gay marriage, euthanasia, and prostitution. Take a hint from the real liberals.

For what it's worth, I'd be against the legalization of marijuana as well.
@nzlockie I am actually going to ask you to back this up, since the fact that you are old apparently doesn't excuse your beliefs (or whatever)
Why do you feel you have the right to regulate other people's life choices and recreational activities?

Blackflag: Drug laws have laxened over the past couple of decades.
Then let's see what I was referring to...

Between 1973 and 1977, however, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. In January 1977, President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on a campaign platform that included marijuana decriminalization. In October 1977, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war

Now tell me where you're getting your facts from.

I am sick of locking up a million people for selling a product which is a personal choice to use.
Is it always, though? Are date rape drugs personal choices?

Okay, and how did it harm them exactly?
When you're high, you have impaired judgment. People dropped grades, money, time, employment, and the effects last long after you're high.

In moderation the activity of smoking or drinking isn't that harmful.
In moderation smoking is INCREDIBLY harmful, much more so than cannabis. I'm strongly against tobacco too.

Drinking depends, however, on concentration. Much like caffine. One cup of coffee does not contain enough caffeine (usually) to make a noticeable difference. When somebody arrives at a supermarket at 6am buying 8 cans of high-caffeine energy drink, while shaking all over and clearly not having slept in four days, then yeah, I do believe that sale should be restricted. Similarly, why the hell are bars allowed to sell super-jugs of alcohol? There's no way you can drink that and not get drunk. So I do support alcohol restrictions. The odd beer or wine is fine, but there should be no reason for anybody to get wasted.

Despite popular opinion already favoring same sex marriage in the state?
Sure, but the lawmakers were conservative. It's called politics.

The court decision shows the progressiveness of Colorado's courts, does it not?
It wasn't even Colorado's court! I think it was a case from Idaho from memory, and the judge there made some ruling with a comment that Colorado should have to revisit their standing on cannabis on similar grounds as well. Or something like that.

Conservative parties internationally criticize the use of marijuana.
Really? All drugs were legal in the US prior to 1910. No conservative rhetoric ever speaks to that time? The Abe Lincolns and such of the world?

Putting a ridiculous amount of people in prison for a cruel time sentence, on an issue that shouldn't even be debated, is not liberal or conservative.
Proving only that your drug policy is a failure. The USA has a problem with gangs and drug cartels. Rather than legitimizing their main source of income, these need to be shut down.

Lol, why say something that isn't true? The Dutch were the second in the world to legalize cannabis mate.
Well let's check the sources on that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

Read it. Cannabis IS illegal but the law is deliberately NOT ENFORCED as the country concentrates on "hard" drugs.

They were also the first to legalize gay marriage, euthanasia, and prostitution.
Really? You don't think prostitution existed in ancient Rome?

Who the hell sold you this idealist view of the Netherlands anyway?

Blackflag: Haha - guys, I'm 37. I grew up in the 80's, although technically, I guess I was born in the 70's. 1978 to be specific.

Happy to back up my opinions, as always.

I think that drugs like Marijuana and Tobacco are too accessible. I don't think that there's any doubt that they cause harm, not just to those who partake but to those around them. The exact nature and degree of this harm can be debated, but I also think that it's uncontested that the harm is magnified when the affected person is young.
Given this understanding, I support the restriction of sale and useage that exist today.

So why would I ban them altogether? Well simply because I don't feel that the age restrictions or the public awareness campaigns have worked. This is a personal opinion based on the fact that I and just about everyone I know started smoking when we were around 8 or 9 years old. In hindsight I had no idea what the risks were at that stage, even though the information was freely available back then. By the time most of my friends realised just how damaging and addictive these things were, it was too late.

If Society were more responsible, then I'd support simple age restriction. But we're not, so I'd support total ban.

As for authoritarianism... I'm a fan. I think life is infinitely better with rules. People live longer, quality of life is better... etc.
I have absolutely no problem submitting my wants and desires in favour of, what I perceive as, the greater good. This includes many of my "freedoms".
The only thing that makes Authoritarianism fail is when the leaders are bad or weak or elitist. That's why I like democracy. I get a say in who I take orders from.
This is also why I like the monarchy even better.

This (largely) american obsession with personal freedom is quite ridiculous. And more than a little selfish. And short sighted. And spanks of paranoia and fear.
There's nothing wrong with submitting to authority, especially when authority has our best interests at heart.

Between 1973 and 1977, however, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. In January 1977, President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on a campaign platform that included marijuana decriminalization. In October 1977, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war

Now tell me where you're getting your facts from.
The growing crackdown on citizens taking drugs. The prison per capita population has increased. Decriminalization is lessening the sentences, which were brought to ridiculous proportions in the late 80's, after the first drug wave. The prison sentences are still ridiculous, and the police are more brutal on enforcing drug control. That is why we declared this whole war on drugs thing.

Is it always, though? Are date rape drugs personal choices?
Not falling for these fallacies. We should ban knives as well, because they are an "easily accessible tool of murder"
BTW, Meth, Cocaine, and Marijuana are not date rape drugs.

When you're high, you have impaired judgment. People dropped grades, money, time, employment, and the effects last long after you're high.

People are smarter than you think. They do not get high at work or at school unless they have no regard or motivation for progress to begin with. But hey, I wouldn't mind if they did get high at work or school, because it is their choice and their consequences to deal with.

In moderation smoking is INCREDIBLY harmful, much more so than cannabis. I'm strongly against tobacco too.

Then you need to moderate it even more. It really isn't your business or anyone elses business what people want to do with their bodies. Maximization of enjoyment can outweigh the benefits of having a healthy body. The Quality of life is more important than the longetivity of life, and you already admitted you do not have all the answers, so stop making judgements on all the choices.

Sure, but the lawmakers were conservative. It's called politics.
I know what it is called. The lawmakers are conservative because they were put there in a gerrymandered system. The people and the court officials are liberal. Big deal.

It wasn't even Colorado's court! I think it was a case from Idaho from memory, and the judge there made some ruling with a comment that Colorado should have to revisit their standing on cannabis on similar grounds as well. Or something like that.

You don't know what you are talking about here. An Idaho court has no say on the Colorado state constitution.
The three states where same sex marriage is considered unconstitutional but not supported by the voters are Utah, Texas, and Alabama.

Proving only that your drug policy is a failure. The USA has a problem with gangs and drug cartels. Rather than legitimizing their main source of income, these need to be shut down.

I agree that the US drug policy is a failure. That is why we need to legalize drugs instead of criminalizing them.
The honest truth though is that cartels and gangs diminish in power following legalization. Some more powerful organizations will transform into typical capitalist mega-corporations. How do you think dealers get their drugs. The cartels ship them overseas. If they no longer need distributors and can sell their product straight to consumer without a third party, then gangs will completely collapse. Right now we have small time hoodlums making 10's of millions on drugs they get from the cartels, which they use to buy guns and influence government politicians.

Fighting drugs is a losing battle. Do not resist what will inevitably persist.

Read it. Cannabis IS illegal but the law is deliberately NOT ENFORCED as the country concentrates on "hard" drugs.

Technically cannabis is illegal in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, but stores still sell it and people still use it in public because it is legal in practice. The US federal government bans the prostitution and cannabis trade, but states like Nevada and Colorado ignore federal law and have it legalized anyways.

It is the same in the Netherlands. It is legal in all but name, which is still considered legal. If I can use it in front of a cop and not get arrested than I consider that legal. If they did decide to enforce drug control there a law would be passed in a week officially legalizing marijuana.

Really? You don't think prostitution existed in ancient Rome?

Who the hell sold you this idealist view of the Netherlands anyway?
That makes Rome more progressive than both New Zealand and the United States. Shouldn't that be a bad thing?
As for the Netherlands, I am just speaking the facts. When your country has euthanasia, cannabis, and full prostitution legalized, then you have a right to criticize The Netherlands for not being liberal enough.

This (largely) american obsession with personal freedom is quite ridiculous. And more than a little selfish. And short sighted. And spanks of paranoia and fear.
There's nothing wrong with submitting to authority, especially when authority has our best interests at heart.
Actually other people's obsession with being mindlessly controlled and dominated is quite ridiculous. When will people learn to care to stop being self riteous. Nanny societies are the worst and most intolerable societies. Not giving a damn about how others choose to live their lives is a lot better than enslaving them to elitist and self righteous wimsy.

Blackflag: The prison per capita population has increased.
Sure, but that's because more crime is being committed, too. Did the mafia just pack up and leave after prohibition ended? No, they continued their criminal activities for (literally) generations. When other drugs are legalized the effect is the same.

Decriminalization is lessening the sentences, which were brought to ridiculous proportions in the late 80's, after the first drug wave.
Not sure you're right there, on two counts:
1) The first wave was under Reagan, who had a strong anti-drug platform. His war dates well into the 70s in California and gradually spread east.
2) Decriminalization actually means to repeal a strict ban while keeping some regulation. A good example of a modern society where this is the case is Portugal, where you cannot do anything with cannabis (pretty much) except possess a small quantity for personal use.

The prison sentences are still ridiculous, and the police are more brutal on enforcing drug control. That is why we declared this whole war on drugs thing.
I agree. Fight the gangs, not the drugs. Still not a reason to make drugs legal though.

We should ban knives as well, because they are an "easily accessible tool of murder"
False equivalency. The reason knives are legal is not because they are a personal choice to use. All I'm saying is that the fact something is a personal choice to use, does not mean it should be legal.

BTW, Meth, Cocaine, and Marijuana are not date rape drugs.
Yip. Courts have held that you can't give proper consent if your judgment is significantly impaired. People have successfully upheld a rape claim by saying they were high at the time they gave their "consent".

They do not get high at work or at school unless they have no regard or motivation for progress to begin with.
1) Yes, they do.
2) THC remains in the system for months, and the time stacks with each smoke. Even if a person is no longer high, their judgment is impaired for a long time.

The Quality of life is more important than the longetivity of life, and you already admitted you do not have all the answers, so stop making judgements on all the choices.
We're all interconnected. "Personal" choices one person makes invariably affect many more people, and are based on the choices of other people.

The lawmakers are conservative because they were put there in a gerrymandered system. The people and the court officials are liberal. Big deal.
It is a big deal, because it shows probable cause that their intentions were conservative, even if the outcome aligned with so-called "liberal" (more like "libertarian") beliefs.

An Idaho court has no say on the Colorado state constitution.
That's true, but it can still cause lawmakers to think in Colorado "hey hang on, if we got sued over the same thing, we'd lose the case - we need to revisit our law on this". That's particularly true when Colorado was specifically singled out in the judgment, and those kinds of obiter dicta can be very influential.

I agree that the US drug policy is a failure. That is why we need to legalize drugs instead of criminalizing them.
If murder was a huge problem, would that be a reason to legalize murder?

If they no longer need distributors and can sell their product straight to consumer without a third party, then gangs will completely collapse.
Two problems:
1) overseas still has cheaper more efficient production - lower wages, better product. That's why so much tobacco comes out of Africa etc.
2) gang's key economic advantage is a lack of tax. They simply have no incentive to turn legitimate. Since users and dealers cannot be arrested, the gangs are almost impossible to track. If a dealer is caught, they can get off the lack of tax by claiming to be a sole trader not breaking even.

Fighting drugs is a losing battle. Do not resist what will inevitably persist.
Then how do you explain so many societies that have successfully done so? Singapore for example.

If they did decide to enforce drug control there a law would be passed in a week officially legalizing marijuana.
Right now there's a bill to get cannabis reclassified as a hard drug if it has a significant amount of THC in it. It's very likely to pass. The point is, the Dutch experiment has been a failure.

That makes Rome more progressive than both New Zealand and the United States. Shouldn't that be a bad thing?
Uh - prostitution is fully legal in NZ. What are you on about?

I'm a fan of prostitution being legal. I think that IS socially progressive. Drugs, on the other hand, are socially regressive. They set society back.

then you have a right to criticize The Netherlands for not being liberal enough.
I strongly believe in liberalism, and strongly disagree with both authoritarianism and libertarianism. I think you're confusing liberalism with libertarianism.

Liberalism stands only for the maximization of freedom and equality. Liberals have different ideas about how best to achieve those ends. I agree with substantive liberalism in all its forms, and recognize I might disagree with another liberal on how to achieve that. Social progressivism requires a substantive increase to freedom and equality. Libertarianism seeks only to maximize personal freedoms (no equality, and the freedoms are personal as opposed to substantive).

Sure, but that's because more crime is being committed, too. Did the mafia just pack up and leave after prohibition ended? No, they continued their criminal activities for (literally) generations. When other drugs are legalized the effect is the same.

More crime is being committed. That crime being drug possession. If drug possession was not a crime, then the prison population would go down. Not rocket science.

1) The first wave was under Reagan, who had a strong anti-drug platform. His war dates well into the 70s in California and gradually spread east.
What the hell!? Read up on US history. The first drug wave happened in the 60's and Reagan was a president in the 80's. I have called you out on making up false history in the past, but my god man.

I agree. Fight the gangs, not the drugs. Still not a reason to make drugs legal though.
Fighting a war on gangs causes civilian casualties and mayhem in our urban communities. The War on Drugs has already cost 50,000 non-combatant lives in Mexico. If you want to stop gangs than legalize drugs. You shift their power to corporations, which means less money and less power for them. Less power for gangs means more power for the people. If you want to stop gang violence, the first thing any reasonable man would do is legalize drugs.

False equivalency. The reason knives are legal is not because they are a personal choice to use. All I'm saying is that the fact something is a personal choice to use, does not mean it should be legal.
Anything can be used positively or negatively. What don't you get about that?
If someone wants to have positive experiences with drugs, you have no right to deny that right.

Yip. Courts have held that you can't give proper consent if your judgment is significantly impaired. People have successfully upheld a rape claim by saying they were high at the time they gave their "consent". Then you have a personal choice not to smoke meth with your new boyfriend. If you get raped it is your fault, life goes on. At least you will have the luxury of being raped and not remembering it, cry me a river.

1) Yes, they do.
2) THC remains in the system for months, and the time stacks with each smoke. Even if a person is no longer high, their judgment is impaired for a long time.

Nope, that is not scientifically supported. Your judgement returns to you, not that it was impaired to begin with, after a period of time. Sort of like if you have a hangover.
Again though, no one cares about your opinions on our personal choices, because you have no say in our lives. Make sense?

That's true, but it can still cause lawmakers to think in Colorado "hey hang on, if we got sued over the same thing, we'd lose the case - we need to revisit our law on this". That's particularly true when Colorado was specifically singled out in the judgment, and those kinds of obiter dicta can be very influential.

Yeah, you really do not know what you are talking about. First you say Colorado courts legalized marijuana, then you said the Idaho courts legalized marijuana for Colorado, and now you are claiming that Colorado politicians made marijuana legal in response to an Idaho supreme court case.

You are talking up your ass. Idaho's supreme court did not find marijuana use unconstitutional. Colorado legalized marijuana in their own court endeavor. Colorado had already initiated a law change through a popular vote referendum. The truth is, every state in America which has legalized marijuana has done following an election referendum.

If every state legislature in America allowed a referendum on cannabis legalization for 2016, then only 10 out of the 50 states would still have marijuana illegal by 2017.

1) overseas still has cheaper more efficient production - lower wages, better product. That's why so much tobacco comes out of Africa etc.
Cool, then countries that produce opiates such as Afghanistan should legalized drugs as well. That would go even further in putting an end to the mess the elite fascists have creates.

Then how do you explain so many societies that have successfully done so? Singapore for example.

Give me a break, you know this is bullshit. Singapore will execute you for using illegal substances. If you are a Singapore citizen and smuggle drugs into the country, they will stone you to death. That is ruling out of fear. And just so you know, countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore have the most expensive markets for drugs. You can get triple the buying price for successfully smuggling in drugs to these countries. That sounds like a failed policy, not a successful one.

But yeah, let us learn from Singapore and start executing those who use drugs. That is pretty much the only trick they have up their sleeves.

Right now there's a bill to get cannabis reclassified as a hard drug if it has a significant amount of THC in it. It's very likely to pass. The point is, the Dutch experiment has been a failure.
That bill is supported by bullshit rhetoric and fabricated science, I can guarantee you. If it was a hard drug, who the hell cares besides you and your fascist buddies?

Uh - prostitution is fully legal in NZ. What are you on about?

No it isn't. I made sure to look it up to verify I was correct in the claim. In Rome I could get a whore on the streets. In New Zealand that might be "unhealthy." Screw nanny states. Neo-fascism is more predominant than ever.

I think you're confusing liberalism with libertarianism.
No, you are. Libertarianism is the belief that social liberty should be protected at all costs according to Oxford, and the belief in free will according to Merriam Webster.

Liberalism by definition has nothing to do with social liberties. It refers strictly to the level of economic freedoms citizens should be granted.

You once again don't know what you are talking about.