Comments on: The Consequence of ‘Come On, It’s Just Pot’

By: dcase

dcase — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:29:06 +0000

Maybe not. But are you willing to take that chance? For every one or two casual users there are an equal amount of abusers? You want to drive down the freeway with your family while the more irresponsible amongst us are not only texting but doing it high? As we have said all along you've got to think this through- which is why at least in the short run decriminalization makes the most sense. No jail time- but no stamp of approval from society. Makes sense to us…

By: tim

tim — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:42:25 +0000

are you sure your 6 friends didn't start w alcohol

By: tim

tim — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:40:55 +0000

I think there needs to be a distinction between drug use and drug abuse, not everyone who uses drugs is a destructive force

By: Lagmart

Lagmart — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:41:54 +0000

I know this is an old topic, likely not going to be read at all by anyone, but I hate it when idiots pull the hemp argument. With the right permits, hemp is a 100% LEGAL!

And for the love of all that is holy, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were all written on Sheepskin Parchment, NOT HEMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: dcase

dcase — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:40:09 +0000

your post is a mishmash of philosophies and incorrect assertions, so it's hard to follow your thread. If you legalize drugs, they will fall under the purview of the FDA and will be marketed and taxed. Get it? By doing this society gives it's tacit approval. Period. In Holland organized crime and violence has been rising, contrary to what you believe. The city fathers are seriously considering restrictions on the drug and sex trade. Potrugal? They don't have the same laissez faire attitude as Holland- Brazil would be a better example.

Ultimately you see this through the narrowest of prisms- yours. You want to be able to feed your endorphins whenever you want. Fine. Don't expect everyone else to agree with you, particularly when the downside- what you callously disregard-is so apparent. School sports? You must be joking, one builds character the other destroys lives… no one cares what you do in private- just continue to get your fix- underground- and we'll not prosecute you. But don't ask us to approve of your self-destructive behavior and, as such advocate it for millions of innocents…

By: mar low

mar low — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:55:42 +0000

As to actual crime associated with drugs – penalize that. Actual crime are those actions wherein one intentionally (or should know) takes action to harm the person or property of another. Drug use does not fall within that definition. Arrest, incarceration, fines, forfeiture applied to drug users are intentional actions that do harm others. Thus, officials from arresting police, prosecutors, judges to prison guards are, in fact, the real criminals in the drug war (war on people's freedom).
And why stop at drugs? Bad ideas can be more harmful than mere substances. Let’s do all within our power to stamp out ideas the majority deems bad. Inquisition here we come.

By: mar low

mar low — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:54:52 +0000

"Sensible drug policy" is code for "I don't like it so it shouldn't be allowed". I don't know where you got "as long as we get our tax revenue" from. Taxation is theft. Being in favor of re-legalizing drugs does not equate to endorsing its use.
As to Amsterdam I just read they are closing prisons as the crime rate has dropped significantly. Portugal too has dramatically liberalized its drug laws with no apparent ill effect – which to me is not even the issue.
Many activities cause enormous harm with no movement to ban them. Nobody really needs school sports, Thousands of youngsters are seriously injured every year playing sports but we don't ban them at the point of a gun and send otherwise harmless kids to prisons – for their own good, of course – where they are beaten, raped and their futures ruined – all because some people object to other's private behaviors.

By: dcase

dcase — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:40:07 +0000

sensible drug policy is not totalitarianism- and having a sense of responsibility to the youngest amongst us to provide at least a scintilla of leadership is both good- and wise. You legalization types all speak from the narrow perspective of those who enjoy said substances- and want it available 24/7 with no repercussions...

but what of the societal cost? We all have to pay that. There will ben a spike in all drug use, addictions, DUI arrests, accidents- not to mention the approval of society that sure, smoke your crack, snort your line, pop that needle- as long as we get our tax revenue... listen, it's all legal in Amsterdam, but the Dutch authorities are really worried about the spike in crime, and violent crime as well.

Think this through- and decriminalization is the only sensible alternative...

By: marlow

marlow — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:07:54 +0000

You don't know what thought precesses I have gone through. All choices have costs – those of foregone alternatives. Your characterization of my preference for liberty with respect to marijuana as "selfishness" could equally apply to all individual choice. Assuming you are condemning 'selfishness" such a view leads to a thoroughgoing totalitarianism – which I comdemn.

By: dcase

dcase — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:28:05 +0000

you're the one who wants it all legalized- wtihout thinking through the implications. Selfishness has it's costs…