War on Drugs: A danger to the public and police alike - Page 2

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

What about the people of CA who voted to make Pot legal.

Republican support of state rights only extends into what they think should be legal, even if they don't live there.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Republican support of state rights only extends into what they think should be legal, even if they don't live there.

Like I said. Pot I could see. Nothing else though.

There goes your smart ass reply. Sorry

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Like I said. Pot I could see. Nothing else though.

There goes your smart ass reply. Sorry

So you are ok with pot. Whew, California just breathed a sigh of relief.

Your response actually strengthened my statement.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

So you are ok with pot. Whew, California just breathed a sigh of relief.

Your response actually strengthened my statement.

Hey. I've got my opinion. Just like you have yours. Isn't this forum all about sharing our opinions on issues. Don't take it so personally

I'm not the one keeping you from being able to buy Pot at Oscar drugs.

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hey. I've got my opinion. Just like you have yours. Isn't this forum all about sharing our opinions on issues. Don't take it so personally I'm not the one keeping you from being able to buy Pot at Oscar drugs.

I'm not taking anything personally and I don't smoke pot.

Publius · 08-01-2007, 04:02 PM

that is possibly one of the biggest red herring arguments ever. Just because one believes that drugs should be legalized because the government does not have a right to control what we put into our bodies does not mean that one is a drug user himself.

I am not a drug user, for example. I think they're idiotic wastes of money and I would never put something like that in my body. But at the same time, I don't feel I have any right to tell you that you can't either.

phreak · 08-01-2007, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Further, a lot of these drugs are less addictive than your average every day nicotine-filled cigarette. Yet cigarettes are completely legal. What sense does that make?

people aren't commiting violent crimes to get cigarettes.

Publius · 08-01-2007, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by phreak

people aren't commiting violent crimes to get cigarettes.

Fact Sheets > Cigarette Theft (Fact Sheet) | NACS Online

In many cases, cigarettes already are sold behind the counter. Thieves are, in some cases, committing armed robbery of cigarettes and taking them from behind the counter.

I'd consider armed robbery a violent crime.

WickedLou9 · 08-01-2007, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by phreak

people aren't commiting violent crimes to get cigarettes.

normally they don't have to. Being legal and sold by virtually every convenience store, gas station, etc.. they are readily available and inexpensive.

Publius · 08-01-2007, 04:26 PM

Further, you didnt see people committing violent crime before alcohol was prohibited ... and yet during Prohibition violent organized crime came to be synonymous with alcohol distribution. And after it was legalized again, violent crime was no longer directly associated with it.

DosEquis · 08-01-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Pot is the only thing I could see and understand maybe being legal. To me it's not as bad as drinking. But then again, it's been a long time since I have smoked and i hear the new stuff is much, much more powerful then anything I used to smoke.

Its not getting any more powerful, but SOME of it might almost be getting back to where it used to be.

My parents talk of "back in the day" about genuine tai stick and columbian red bud like it was the jesus and the stuff out today is as good as notebook paper.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Its not getting any more powerful, but SOME of it might almost be getting back to where it used to be.

My parents talk of "back in the day" about genuine tai stick and columbian red bud like it was the jesus and the stuff out today is as good as notebook paper.

Wow, everything I have heard is that with the jump in genetic engineering that people have learned how to grow Super Weed. They are cross pollinating different styles of weed to give different highs. I have to find the story but it was saying that back in the 80's, when I smoked, the "good stuff" had THC (?) levels were at a 5 rating. And now the good stuff is at a 15 rating. (it was something like this. I'll see if I can find the story).

Here is something I found.

Sophisticated cannabis cultivation of today produces high levels of THC and marijuana that is far more potent than pot of the past. THC content of marijuana, which averaged less than 1 percent in 1974, rose to an average 4 percent by 1994.

For the highly popular form of marijuana called Sinsemilla (from the Spanish "without seeds"), made from just the buds and flowering tops of female plants, THC content averages 7.5 percent and ranges as high as 24 percent. As for hashish, a resin made from flowers of the female plant, THC levels may be five to ten times higher than crude marijuana’s.

Sinsemilla. Wow, that is a word from the past. Mmmmmm..... Sinse........ I suddenly feel like breaking out my PF The Wall CD's.....

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Further, you didnt see people committing violent crime before alcohol was prohibited ... and yet during Prohibition violent organized crime came to be synonymous with alcohol distribution. And after it was legalized again, violent crime was no longer directly associated with it.

I was thinking about the same thing at lunch today.

We already have recent historical proof of how prohibiting substances affects society and what happen after it's lifted. Why do people choose to ignore it?

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 04:54 PM

And a question to those that support the war on drugs:

How much are you willing to spend? Is a victory the elimination of all illegal drugs?

We spend a ton of money on it now and drugs are still everywhere. Should we raise taxes, or are you content with the level of enforcement now?

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

And a question to those that support the war on drugs:

How much are you willing to spend? Is a victory the elimination of all illegal drugs?

We spend a ton of money on it now and drugs are still everywhere. Should we raise taxes, or are you content with the level of enforcement now?

I don't even know what "War on Drugs" means. It's a stupid political slogan that means they are enforcing the laws of our country as far as I know. Do I support them enforcing the laws of our country? You're damned right I do.

motivez · 08-01-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wrong. People steal and kill to get alcohol. It would only get worse if you make heroin, crack, etc legal. More people would get addicted because it's freely available. Ruin their lives because of their addiction and turn to crime to keep their addiction fed.

Fuck that. These things do not need to be legal. And never will be.

What a hypocritical stance

garbagemanlb · 08-01-2007, 05:20 PM

I'm definately torn on the legalizing substances issue.

While weed and other substances I definately believe should be legalized, the harder stuff I have a hard time accepting.

While I understand the argument that keeping substances illegal likely increases other criminal activity, I also can't really see the government openly allowing such devastating drugs like meth to be sold on the streets (in stores, wherever). Some drugs can basically physically and mentally hook you after one hit, and quickly cause peoples' lives to spiral out of control.

There definately needs for a line to be drawn, in my mind.

As far as the punitive aspect goes, I do think that rehabilitation should be emphasized over jail time and other punitive measures for users, so less of a strain will be put on our overcrowded jails/prisons.

motivez · 08-01-2007, 05:23 PM

What is the line then? And who gets to make it?

I think it's completely hypocritical to praise one mind altering drug (oh, lets say alcohol for example, we recently had a thread where people professed their love for it).. while on the other hand saying that people shouldn't have the freedom of choice to put other mind altering drugs into their bodies.

The potential effects are similar. Potential addiction, reckless behavior, turning to crime, and so on and so forth.

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I don't even know what "War on Drugs" means. It's a stupid political slogan that means they are enforcing the laws of our country as far as I know. Do I support them enforcing the laws of our country? You're damned right I do.

You didn't answer a single question I asked in the post you quoted.

garbagemanlb · 08-01-2007, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What is the line then? And who gets to make it?

I think it's completely hypocritical to praise one mind altering drug (oh, lets say alcohol for example, we recently had a thread where people professed their love for it).. while on the othe