Where does everybody stand on, like, drugs and legalization and stuff?

[Ken Burch]

[niceypoo]

1. Decriminalize pot

Let the government distribute opiates and treatment to addicts.

Harm reduction instead of prison.

[mth44sc]

2. if you are the leasty bit serious

way back when I was goin' for that degree in law enforcement I wrote some papers saying pot should be legal and other such stuff. That was around about 1975. Same debate decades later...

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Legalize & Tax Marijuana, adopt a harm reduction strategy for dangerous hard drugs.

Treat them as a public health issue, instead of a law enforcement one. Fully fund treatment on demand, educate kids with honest facts instead of scare tactics. (Tell kids that pot will kill them or get them date raped, they're never going to believe you when you tell them the truth about something like meth)

All things being equal, though, I skew towards the concept that consenting adults should be able to do as they damn well please with their own minds, bodies, and bloodstreams, as long as they're not directly harming or endangering anyone else.

[Kaleva]

27. +1

[Electric Monk]

4. Some drugs really do make people crazy, like cocaine or meth for example

I'm in favor of harm reduction.

[Taitertots]

5. Legalize pot, mushrooms, and LSD

Keep Heroin, Crack, and Meth illegal. Make special detox prisons. Where people are sent to get off hard drugs.

Drug addiction is a major part of the harm related to hard drug use. Pot, mushrooms and LSD don't cause physical addiction. People can die just trying to quit heroin.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. To play the devil's advocate, people can die just trying to quit booze, too.

The DTs from alcohol can rival any other drug-related withdrawl in terms of medical severity.

As far as the addictive drugs you mention, I have a hard time envisioning them for sale at the 7-11... OTOH, as another poster pointed out "prohibition doesn't work". I think a harm reduction strategy may be the best balance between a recognition that the substances have a high addictive potential yet also acknowledging that, in the end, a consenting adult is the one who is in charge of his or her own body and decisions.

Fully fund treatment, make it available on demand- treat hard drug addiction as a public health matter, not a law enforcement one, that's sort of where I'm at with it.

It's not black and white, but what we're doing now isn't working.

[Taitertots]

22. It is possible to be a causal drinker or pot smoker

It is not really possible to be a causal meth, crack, or heroin user.

Prohibition doesn't work. Criminals are still murdering, raping, stealing, and making child pornography, prohibition doesn't work. People don't follow the speed limits, prohibition doesn't work. Its against the law for children to smoke and drink and yet they have no problem finding cigarettes and alcohol, probation doesn't work.


What we are doing now isn't working, that doesn't mean we should legalize crack. It means we should find ways that do work, while keeping dangerous drugs illegal. I think drug addicts should have special prisons for detox. Where non-violent drug addicts are locked down to get them off drugs. Get them the help they need, education, food, safety, and a chance when they get out to succeed. I think it should be both a law enforcement and a public health issue. Isolate them, then break the addiction, and then extended probation to ensure they stay drug free.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I think if people break the law, endanger others, etc. then law enforcement should get involved.

I don't think making bad decisions about one's own body should be reason alone to lock someone up. For one, I think it's counter-productive.

When addicts come into conflict with the lives of those around them by breaking laws beyond simple drug possession; that's when I think it's legitimate for gov't to intervene. Up until that point, make treatment available, but don't force it on people.

[Taitertots]

28. Anyone who thinks hard narcotics addiction only effects the users body

Must have never had an addict in their life. It is corrosive to society.

I think treatment needs to be forced, because most people wouldn't go willingly or would just keep running back to narcotics wasting all the resources used to treat them.

You think if people break the law then law enforcement should get involved. Using hard narcotics is against the law.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Actually, I've had plenty of experience around addiction- and addiction to alcohol, too.

I'm more familiar with what takes place than I'd like to be.

And I also know that what motivates people into treatment isn't prohibition. Alcohol prohibition didn't cause alcoholism to go away, nor did it force alcohol abusers into recovery.

Messy as it may seem, the only thing that has a high probability of pushing recovery from addiction along is a genuine desire on the part of the addicted person to do something about it.

The tautology of your last sentence ignores the topic of the thread; by your logic, laws against pot smoking are justified b/c pot smoking is against the law. Well, that's why there's a debate.

I don't deny that some substances are inherently seriously bad fucking mojo- meth, for instance- what I question is whether criminalization of drug use and posession is productive or counter-productive to the problem. I side with the latter.

And there is a baseline philosophical point, that consenting adults- even ones impaired by addiction or bad decision making- should have the right to make their own (even bad) decisions. I stand by that. If the only factor in whether something should be illegal for consenting adults or not is whether or not it's inherently addictive and bad for you, then cigarettes absolutely should be outlawed.

[Electric Monk]

10. LSD can really fuck with someone's head too

I saw this guy on acid once who kept trying to walk into traffic on a busy highway, saying "I just want to go home" over and over. Eventually it wore off and he went back to his real home and slept the rest of it off, but at the time it was pretty scary.

[Ken Burch]

14. It's possible to work against drug use(including LSD use)without criminalization

In fact, criminalizing LSD in the 60's(a drug that was first put into wide usage by the U.S. government as a chemical warfare weapon, btw) probably made abuse of the drug far worse, since it removed its use from controlled situations where people who used it(as in the original Acid Tests in San Francisco)were being watched and kept under physical control by those who understood what acid could do.

There's a strong case to be made that you could reduce drug use, even hard drug use, far more effectively by taking it out of law enforcement and dealing with it as a health and social issue. We don't do that in this country because candidates don't get to have photo ops with tons of polizei with the support non-law enforcement approaches to the problem. It's one of the many problems we have do to the American fixation with "toughness".

[Xicano]

15. "a drug that was originally developed by the U.S. government as a chemical warfare weapon, btw"

Ah, the Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann in 1938 is the first to develop LSD. He initially developed it as a possible circulatory & respiratory stimulant because its molecular structure was similar to nikethamide.

It wasn't until ten years later that it was introduced to the United States in 1948, and then it was looked at as a tool to study and try and better understand schizophrenia. It doesn't get into the CIA's hands until two years later, 1950, where the CIA studies its use as a possible mind control substance in the infamous MK-ULTRA project.

[Ken Burch]

16. Ok, I amended that to "a drug that was first put into wide usage" by the U.S. Gov't.

Whatever it's origins, the Feds gave Dr. Hoff's sugar cube its big break in showbiz, so to speak.

BTW, re: MK-ULTRA-it's possible that Paul Robeson may have been driven to the mental breakdown that ended his public life in the late 1950's by some sort of exposure to something The Company was doing with mind control. Robeson's son believed this to be the case.

[Xicano]

18. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Paul Robeson was a target of MK-ULTRA

Its hard to believe we have tolerated an agency within the U.S. government such as the CIA because of its history of criminal activity.

[Xicano]

20. Technically speaking, shrooms are not illegal. They are not on the schedule list.

There's an an interesting case involving a gentlemen from Iowa who was sentenced to prison for 20yrs for possession of shrooms. This case brings up some interesting information regarding Shrooms in their natural state not being scheduled. Also it brings up some good information regarding the religious freedom restoration act and this individual's memberships in the Sacred Mushroom Church and The Fane of the Psilocybe Mushroom (a Canadian recognized and chartered religious organization).

Here's some excerpts from the case:

The rule of lenity should be used to construe an ambiguous statute of this type in favor of Petitioner. Since "material," as interpreted by the Iowa Supreme Court, does lead to such absurd results, it raises a "reasonable doubt" about legislative intent. Moskal v. United States, supra at 108. The term "material" given the dictionary meaning of "consisting of matter," State v. Patterson, 679 P.2d 416 (Wash.App. 1984) (citing Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1392 (1975)), would prohibit any and all of the plants and organisms which endogenously contain a listed substance, and such a broad scope could not have been the legislative intent.

Further evidence that such was not the legislator's intent can be discerned by a review of the statute and the substances they did list. Applying this Court's analysis in Chapman, supra at 454, ("Congress knew how to indicate that the weight of the pure drug was to be used to determine the sentence" "and did not make that distinction with respect to LSD."); the legislative intent can be discerned in respect to mushrooms, where they "knew how to indicate that" a plant was prohibited "and did not make that distinction with respect to any mushroom.

The legislature specified the plants it wanted to outlaw as well as their chemical: Peyote & mescaline; coca leaves & cocaine; Papaver somniferum L. (opium poppy) & opium and codeine; Tabernanthe iboga & ibogaine are all examples. More telling of the legislative intent is marijuana, and THC, which are not only both listed, but in Iowa, and most states, the natural plant has a much less severe penalty than the extracted, (or synthesized) THC chemical it endogenously contains.

The meaning of this double listing of certain plants, as well as their separated chemical speaks volumes as to legislative intent. When the legislature wanted to outlaw a plant, they did so specifically. Had they intended "material" to be so broad as to encompass "anything" there would have been no reason to list any plant at all.


-----


As in Chapman, supra at 459, a reading of the statute confirms that "material" was not meant to be so broad as to encompass an unlisted plant. The legislature has specifically enumerated certain chemicals, and where they desired, certain plants, as "controlled." It is unreasonable to assume any other plant, any other chemical, or any other life-form is a "controlled substance" if not specifically listed as such. No person of common and ordinary intelligence, in examining the statute, would come to the conclusion that silver maples, morning glories, or mushrooms were intended to be outlawed, even with the "knowledge" of their endogenously containing a listed controlled substance gained from this Petition.

A simple test will confirm this. Going to the statute with the "knowledge" contained herein, does the statute prohibit morning glories (Lysergic acid); San Pedro cacti (mescaline); sensitive plants (DMT); or mushrooms (psilocybin)? Since none of these plants are listed we must look further to discern what the statute prohibits. The Code of Iowa § 124.101(16), "manufacture" defined, says in part, "extraction from substances of natural origin" (of a scheduled substance) is prohibited. But the language, "from substances of natural origin," indicates that the legislature intended to differentiate, and not outlaw, the "substances of natural origin" unless they specifically listed them. The conclusion, of the person of common and ordinary intelligence, would be that it is legal to grow, possess, or sell morning glories, San Pedro cacti, sensitive plant - and there is no reason to conclude otherwise as to mushrooms. Processing any of the above to "extract" the substances scheduled is what the statute clearly prohibits. There would have been no reason for the phrase "extraction from substance of natural origin" if the legislature had not intended to differentiate between "legal plants of natural origin" and the scheduled substances obtainable by "extraction."


-----


With law enforcement armed with an interpretation of "material" broad enough to include mushrooms, which, by implication includes all of the above plants and organisms, where does this leave the concept of specific guidelines for enforcement? If morphine occurs in hay and lettuce, in every one of our bodies, even in all the milk sold ... on what basis can a cultivator of mushrooms be punished, without also punishing cultivators of lettuce and hay, tobacco growers, flower growers, and the corner Mom and Pop grocery for illicit trafficking in controlled substance?

As this Court said 25 years ago in Graynard v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 (1972):

A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.


http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/atley-01.html

[Fumesucker]

30. Nope, it's alcohol which can kill you from withdrawal, not heroin..

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

Unlike most withdrawals from other drugs, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.

[TexasObserver]

6. Legalize all drugs

[sohndrsmith]

7. We've *proven* that prohibition doesn't work - on any level. I believe that

(as with alcohol, for example), the object/substance should not be illegal, but one's behaviour and/or misuse of it is what should be restricted.

If you're over 21, you can drink, possess, buy, transport (if sealed, of course), provide to others (21+), manufacture, market and sell (w/license),etc. and all of that is perfectly legal.

However, you cannot ingest more than the legal limit and operate a vehicle, endangering yourself and others. You can't overuse it and be intoxicated in public. And so on.

To me, this is the more sane way of dealing with any mood-altering or potentially dangerous substance.

I also agree with another poster that treatment instead of criminal charges for those who are addicted who's only contact with the substance is for personal use (misuse) without endangering others in that process - makes more sense.

Or, if someone is "caught" with possession (of anything, unless there is evidence of intent to sell) and are unimpaired or have none of it in their system - I don't think that should be illegal. We are (and expect) to own, use, ingest lots of very dangerous, lethal things - and we're allowed that right unless we act irresponsibly.

It makes no sense to criminalize an object, plant, substance or material, but it makes sense to demand requirements, limitations and those who don't adhere to them, then they should fully expect to be penalized.

I've presented my view in an over-simplified way, but my post is long enough - you get my gist..(I hope).

[Selatius]

8. Legalizing all the drugs would help weaken the worst drug cartels in the world.

If the US approached it in that fashion, a domestic drug industry that is legal and regulated would go a long way towards taking down the international drug cartels. I wouldn't support this without a robust safety net in place for detox and rehabilitation for addicts.

[RagAss]

29. And the Paid off Politicians?

[forum slut]

11. My inner hippie supports MJ legalization but still rejects total legalization of everything else

[ccharles000]

12. I think Marijuana should be legal but I don't know about others.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. I've been torn over this for years...

we did have lealization for quite a while, with opium and cocaine being sold over the counter. And we had some terrible addiction problems that couln't be handled back then. Mix that with some racism involving "Negro" drugs back in the last century and you got the various prohibitions.

But, nowadays we regulate damn near everything, the point being we have nonpoisonous, nutritious food and less snake oil.

So, if we did attempt to legalize various drugs, the first questions are which ones.-- crack and crank aren't on the top of anyone's list, and there's a ton of bad juju about heroin.

Then the question pops up about just who's gonna sell 'em? Give the tobacco companies pot to sell? Liquor companies or drug companies get 'shrooms and acid? And then how do we regulate strength and stuff?

Or, just let that "market" sort it all out?

I was fairly happy with the decriminilization plans years ago-- only the guys selling serious weight got busted, and then only when they got particularly nasty.

BTW, crack and crank can mess you up, but heroin actually causes very little physical damage by itself-- much less than tobacco or liquor. And while nobody looks forward to heroin withdrawal, it hurts like hell but it's not fatal like alcohol withdrawal can be.

[Xicano]

17. All drugs should be legalized.

Even the hard drugs such as heroin and crack because they are too dangerous not to. Prohibition should have taught everyone by now that all it accomplishes is creating criminal cartels who provide hard drugs to anyone with the cash to pay for it anyway, and, with no quality guarantees.

Education is the best key to preventing people from harming themselves on the hard drugs. Providing safe legal access and detox programs is the best way to keep a lucrative business away from financing criminal cartels.

Soft drugs such as marijuana should be treated with less regulation than alcohol is.

[Blue-Jay]

19. I like stuff.

[eShirl]

21. prohibition enriches criminals. n/t

[Electric Monk]

24. Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

<snip>

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

[Initech]

25. We should have coffee shops like in fucking Amsterdam!

[aikoaiko]

26. First legalize and tax marijuana to show that it is not the great Satan

[Quantess]

32. I don't like your poll, so I won't vote.

I think some drugs should be legalized, but maybe not all of them. I personally don't enjoy marijuana, but I think it should be legalized, because it's no worse than alcohol. But meth is a terrible substance that destroys families and ravages communities, so, I don't support legalizing meth.

[rollin74]

33. I support legalization of marijuana

I would never support legalizing meth