Bath Salts use spreading across Canada.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I can guarentee you the cost of policing, prosecuting, jailing, treating, following people out of prison on probation and washing, rinsing, and repeating because the cycle never ends is substantially more costly than treaing a few more people. In fact I'd bet its a tens of billions of dollars difference. As always its cost versus benefit. It costs an exceptional amount to prohibit drugs, and its stopping nothing and actually the problem is getting worse. Lets stop wasting money shall we?

He's talking about more than just money costs. The goal of the system you criticize is also one of rehabilitation, and certainly not the absolute failure you describe.

If you're saying lets just throw our hands up and deal with the fallout, I'll stick with the current system.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I can guarentee you the cost of policing, prosecuting, jailing, treating, following people out of prison on probation and washing, rinsing, and repeating because the cycle never ends is substantially more costly than treaing a few more people. In fact I'd bet its a tens of billions of dollars difference. As always its cost versus benefit. It costs an exceptional amount to prohibit drugs, and its stopping nothing and actually the problem is getting worse. Lets stop wasting money shall we?

That's cause we're targeting the wrong people plain and simple.

Plus we could make up the cost by making convicts make cheap knock offs of purses and selling them to china.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

He's talking about more than just money costs. The goal of the system you criticize is also one of rehabilitation, and certainly not the absolute failure you describe.

If you're saying lets just throw our hands up and deal with the fallout, I'll stick with the current system.

Deal with what fallout? The fallout we're already dealing with? I love how legalizing drugs would all of a sudden make everyone run out and get try heroin or cocaine. The people who want to do those drugs are doing them anyways. The people who aren't are not going to magically do a 180 and start doing hard drugs. Do you care about the 50,000+ murdered in Mexico these last 5 years as a means of preventing drugs from entering America? Because legalizing drugs will stop that number of deaths instantaneously. I mean think about that, 50,000 people murdered in 5 years and most people could care less. If destroying the current system brings that number to 5,000 in 5 years, is that not worth it?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by rayne008

My wife is taking an addictions course, I found this very intersting with regards to marijuana. I'm pretty ignorant on the effects of drugs personally, but I suggest the costs to society from all drugs (including alcohol) are staggering.

This chart is from whitehouse.gov




Basically over time as the levels of THC has increased, the relative number of people being treated for addiction has increased.

That is such a misleading chart. The main reason for the rise in "addiction" when it comes to marijuana is because when people are being busted for small possesions they are given two choices, go to jail or get help. Which one do you choose? Which do you choose for your son or daughter if they are busted smoking marijuana?

It's a win-win for the government because they don't have to continue to fill up jails with small crimes (or children) but get to point to stats like that one saying how powerful marijuana is now a days and how addictive it is even though the same government claims that it is a non-addictive drug, rating it below caffeine, in other studies.

Notice the resemblance in this chart below with the one you posted?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The stats for addiction treatment for pot are BS. In the US it's common to let people off of possession charges by making them take mandatory 'addiction treatment.' So those stats are not a reflection people going into treatment because pot smoking had ruined their lives. Watch the doc movie 'The Union,' it discusses the point that pot is really benign and it was only because Richard Nixon hated hippie protesters that any of this 'pot is evil and will ruin everyone's lives if legalized' BS came out.

All statisitcs that are based on law enforcement are utter BS because the changes in the numbers year over year vary greatly by the effects of new laws, how much enforecement is pursued, and issues of police funding rather than the actual variable that's being measured.

Pro-legalization people always seem to tout that it doesn't ruin lives, and while I agree it's not going to outright kill you, I'd argue from my own observations it likely does throttle potential to some degree. Virtually none of the high functioning contributors to society I know smoke pot, while many of the pot users I do know are the ones on EI, have menial jobs and carry other vices. I see this in the ER too, as ~95% of pot users would fit in the low socio-economic status group. Obviously this is anecdotal & subjective, and correlation /= causation, but the trend is rather incriminating.

Now someone post that they know a Mr. 420 who happens to be a CEO and thus this is invalid. To you I'd say my observations are based on thousands of people, and probably more accurate in general than some outlier.

[jammies]

The original article should be a textbook example of how not to write "news". Short on facts, yet long on allegations and fear-mongering. A couple random quotes, a single incident, and all of the sudden the nation faces a drug crisis! Absolutely terrible "reporting", and the editor must have been drunk or an employee of Quebecor to let it pass.

PS "No one would eat a meal prepared by an anonymous cook in a sketchy kitchen" has to be one of the worst examples I've ever heard. Aren't pretty well ALL cooks anonymous, unless it's some famous jerkwad chef? Do you personally inspect every kitchen at every cheap restaurant you've ever been to, in order to make sure it isn't sketchy? Idiot!

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I agree drugs like heroin and meth are different animals than pot, but anyone who says they're that much worse than alcohol clearly has not hung around too many alcoholics. Having worked in retail liquor for 5 years, they can be just as bad as illegal drug addicts. Alcohol is a drug after all, it's just being made by a profitable, taxable industry (that is usually the biggest supporter of drugs remaining illegal. Can't have competition after all)

Addition rates for alchohol are much less. Many peole have casual drinks but few become alcoholics. Conversely, very few people become casual heroin, crack, or meth users but don't become addicts.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Deal with what fallout? The fallout we're already dealing with? I love how legalizing drugs would all of a sudden make everyone run out and get try heroin or cocaine. The people who want to do those drugs are doing them anyways. The people who aren't are not going to magically do a 180 and start doing hard drugs. Do you care about the 50,000+ murdered in Mexico these last 5 years as a means of preventing drugs from entering America? Because legalizing drugs will stop that number of deaths instantaneously. I mean think about that, 50,000 people murdered in 5 years and most people could care less. If destroying the current system brings that number to 5,000 in 5 years, is that not worth it?

Your arguments are entirely conjecture and theoretical outcomes derived from your opinion. Just because the current system isn't perfect, doesn't mean you can't make it worse.

"legalizing drugs will stop that number of deaths instantaneously" - really? As long as there is a profit margin and desperate impoverished people, this sort of activity will always exist - it will just shift to smuggling or dealing some other contraband.

And yes, I'd argue removing barriers and facilitating access would likely create a few more users.

[CaptainCrunch]

Reading up on hardened drugs, Crack and meth and heroin are instantly addictive.

It does take some time to build an addiction to booze and even smokes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Pro-legalization people always seem to tout that it doesn't ruin lives, and while I agree it's not going to outright kill you, I'd argue from my own observations it likely does throttle potential to some degree. Virtually none of the high functioning contributors to society I know smoke pot, while many of the pot users I do know are the ones on EI, have menial jobs and carry other vices. I see this in the ER too, as ~95% of pot users would fit in the low socio-economic status group. Obviously this is anecdotal & subjective, and correlation /= causation, but the trend is rather incriminating.

Now someone post that they know a Mr. 420 who happens to be a CEO and thus this is invalid. To you I'd say my observations are based on thousands of people, and probably more accurate in general than some outlier.

I smoke pot every day. I'm going to graduate with a degree in accounting, eventually earning my CMA designation, oh yeah the average CMA makes $140,000 a year. I didn't smoke much pot in high school, C+ student. I smoked pot before class sometimes in college, have a 3.7 GPA. But go ahead and generalize everyone.

And I'll mention it again: 5 years in retail liquor, and believe me alcohol is the real gateway drug. Never been at a party with some doobies and had someone say "Lets get the coke out to keep this party going". But basically every drinking party I've been to in the last few years has had cocaine show up somehow. Weird how that works huh?

I've never seen or heard of a stoner begging for change for a doobie, but I've frequently seen drunks taking empties in just to be able to afford a 40 of Colt 45. And I've seen tens of thousands so I think I can be a pretty good judge too.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Your arguments are entirely conjecture and theoretical outcomes derived from your opinion. Just because the current system isn't perfect, doesn't mean you can't make it worse.

"legalizing drugs will stop that number of deaths instantaneously" - really? As long as there is a profit margin and desperate impoverished people, this sort of activity will always exist - it will just shift to smuggling or dealing some other contraband.

And yes, I'd argue removing barriers and facilitating access would likely create a few more users.

And your arguments aren't? And yes legalizing drugs will stop the murder rate. When cartels are fighting for territory over something that generates $50+ billion a year, I'd imagine they'll kill anything and anyone. But legalize drugs and all of a sudden their fighting for...nothing. Drug prices and profits are astronomical because they are illegal, so why charge less than what people will pay?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I smoke pot every day. I'm going to graduate with a degree in accounting, eventually earning my CMA designation, oh yeah the average CMA makes $140,000 a year. I didn't smoke much pot in high school, C+ student. I smoked pot before class sometimes in college, have a 3.7 GPA. But go ahead and generalize everyone.

And I'll mention it again: 5 years in retail liquor, and believe me alcohol is the real gateway drug. Never been at a party with some doobies and had someone say "Lets get the coke out to keep this party going". But basically every drinking party I've been to in the last few years has had cocaine show up somehow. Weird how that works huh?

I've never seen or heard of a stoner begging for change for a doobie, but I've frequently seen drunks taking empties in just to be able to afford a 40 of Colt 45. And I've seen tens of thousands so I think I can be a pretty good judge too.

What you fail to see is that if you didn't smoke pot, you could have been a CA.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

What you fail to see is that if you didn't smoke pot, you could have been a CA.

Mind if I get those lotto numbers off you for Friday too?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And your arguments aren't? And yes legalizing drugs will stop the murder rate. When cartels are fighting for territory over something that generates $50+ billion a year, I'd imagine they'll kill anything and anyone. But legalize drugs and all of a sudden their fighting for...nothing. Drug prices and profits are astronomical because they are illegal, so why charge less than what people will pay?

You aren't addressing my point - they will shift to other 'illegal' profit centers.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Addition rates for alchohol are much less. Many peole have casual drinks but few become alcoholics. Conversely, very few people become casual heroin, crack, or meth users but don't become addicts.

The argument for this is that Alcohol is a vastly more socially acceptable addiction, and what criminalizes those who are addicts is:

Social Stigma
Unreliability of supply
Cost

What's the difference between Johnny Depp and a guy on the DTES? One lives in a world of easy access, reliable supply and non-stigmatization of his addiction. The other has to worry about crap supply, hot shots, police round ups/beatings, robbery etc.

None of this is to say that I desire the lifestyle of a well-to-do heroin addict. If I wanted to try heroin, I could.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Seeing as they're all about to be one accounting body anyways, it won't particularly matter what type of accounting I specialize in, we'll all be CPA's (P for professional unlike the US where it's Public). Regardless my point was its individuals who decide how they react to a substance. Some people can handle mind altering substances and still be productive members of society. Some don't. Some alcoholics are begging for change. Some are oil and gas CEOs. Keeping drugs illegal isn't going to stop someone, and while some may fear it will lead to catastrophic results, what exactly does wasteful spending contributing to stopping the unstopable lead to? Besides deficits?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

You aren't addressing my point - they will shift to other 'illegal' profit centers.

Right, but nothing as profitable and easy as drugs. Drugs = 300% profit margins. Outside prostitution, nothing has that kind of profit margin. What else can they do? Go back to kidnappings? Less money, less guarentees, higher risk, lower profits. Once drugs are gone cartels can do extortion I suppose, but then we get into a how to you eliminate all crime debate, which seems really pointless.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Pro-legalization people always seem to tout that it doesn't ruin lives, and while I agree it's not going to outright kill you, I'd argue from my own observations it likely does throttle potential to some degree. Virtually none of the high functioning contributors to society I know smoke pot, while many of the pot users I do know are the ones on EI, have menial jobs and carry other vices. I see this in the ER too, as ~95% of pot users would fit in the low socio-economic status group. Obviously this is anecdotal & subjective, and correlation /= causation, but the trend is rather incriminating.

Now someone post that they know a Mr. 420 who happens to be a CEO and thus this is invalid. To you I'd say my observations are based on thousands of people, and probably more accurate in general than some outlier.

The high functioning people you know probably statistically also eat better, excercise more, drink less, smoke less tobacco, read more, watch less TV, eat less chicken wings as well. Pot is a vice that, yes, certainly doesn't enhance performance in otherwise perfectly healthy people. That doesn't mean we need to invent statistics to imply it's somehow as bad as crack or heroin that will infect those high functioning people you speak of with addiction. It's simply not physically addicting. We need to stop lying to ourselves and pretending pot is any more evil than many legal drugs.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Pro-legalization people always seem to tout that it doesn't ruin lives, and while I agree it's not going to outright kill you, I'd argue from my own observations it likely does throttle potential to some degree. Virtually none of the high functioning contributors to society I know smoke pot, while many of the pot users I do know are the ones on EI, have menial jobs and carry other vices. I see this in the ER too, as ~95% of pot users would fit in the low socio-economic status group. Obviously this is anecdotal & subjective, and correlation /= causation, but the trend is rather incriminating.

Now someone post that they know a Mr. 420 who happens to be a CEO and thus this is invalid. To you I'd say my observations are based on thousands of people, and probably more accurate in general than some outlier.

Yes but when you have people in high positions that are "Mr. 420" couldn't the case be made that the pot isn't the cause of the EI/socioeconomic status/ menial jobs and its more that low socioeconomic people tend to smoke pot vs pot smokers tend to be low economic status? There are far fewer CEO's in the world then there are people on EI. Would the percentages of CEO's that smoke pot be similar to the percentages of people on EI that smoke pot?

Also what are the age ranges? I feel like its likely that a 50-60 year old CEO have had their share of drug-fun in their younger days.

[The Yen Man]

I'm sorry but you're opening up a huge can of worms by legalizing addictive drugs. It'd be like the tobacco industry but a hundred times worse. Can you imagine companies legally able to produce and sell crack. Money would be poured into making it as addictive as possible in order to get people hooked and dependent on it. And all the while, the government will basically be supporting it.