Make all drugs legal; stop the myths~

but society does not stop you from putting a bullet or a knife into your body? In fact lots of times some society member will put bullets and knives into peoples bodies.

so what gives society the authority to arrest your conduct to yourself?

 

we need look no further than the opium wars of the 1830s to understand WHY drugs are illegal. That is the real reason that certain drugs are illegal.



His first course of action was to enforce the imperial demand that there be a permanent halt to drug shipments into China. When the British refused to end the trade, Lin blockaded the British traders in their factories and cut off supplies of food.[SUP][20][/SUP] On 27 March 1839 Charles Elliot, British Superintendent of Trade—who had been locked in the factories when he arrived at Canton—finally agreed that all British subjects should turn over their opium to him, amounting to nearly a year's supply of the drug, to be confiscated by Commissioner Lin Zexu. In a departure from his brief, he promised that the crown would compensate them for the lost opium.
While this amounted to a tacit acknowledgment that the British government did not disapprove of the trade, it also forced a huge liability on the exchequer. Unable to allocate funds for an illegal drug but pressed for compensation by the merchants, this liability is cited as one reason for the decision to force a war.[SUP][21][/SUP]
As well as seizing supplies in the factories, Chinese troops boarded British ships in international waters outside Chinese jurisdiction, where their cargo was still legal, and destroyed the opium aboard. After the opium was surrendered, trade was restarted on the strict condition that no more drugs would be smuggled into China. Lin demanded that British merchants sign a bond promising not to deal in opium, under penalty of death.[SUP][22][/SUP] The British officially opposed signing of the bond, but some British merchants that did not deal in opium were willing to sign. Lin had the opium disposed of by dissolving it in water, salt, and lime, and dumping it into the ocean.
In 1839, Lin took the step of publishing a letter addressed to Queen Victoria questioning the moral reasoning of the British government (it is not known that she ever received it). Citing what he understood to be a strict prohibition of the trade within Great Britain, Lin questioned how it could then profit from the drug in China. He wrote: "Your Majesty has not before been thus officially notified, and you may plead ignorance of the severity of our laws, but I now give my assurance that we mean to cut this harmful drug forever."[SUP][23][/SUP]
In fact, opium was not illegal in England at the time, however, and comparably smaller quantities were imported. The British government and merchants offered no response to Lin, accusing him instead of destroying their property. When the British learned of what was taking place in Canton, as communications between these two parts of the world took months at this time, they sent a large British Indian army, which arrived in June 1840.[SUP][24][/SUP]
British military superiority drew on newly applied technology. British warships wreaked havoc on coastal towns; the steam ship Nemesis was able to move against the winds and tides and support a gun platform with very heavy guns. In addition, the British troops were the first to be armed with modern muskets and cannons which fired more rapidly and with greater accuracy than the Qing firearms and artillery, though Chinese cannons had been in use since previous dynasties. After the British took Canton, they sailed up the Yangtze and took the tax barges, a devastating blow to the Empire as it slashed the revenue of the imperial court in Beijing to just a fraction of what it had been.
In 1842, the Qing authorities sued for peace, which concluded with the Treaty of Nanking negotiated in August of that year and ratified in 1843. In the treaty, China was forced to pay an indemnity to Britain, open four ports to Britain, and cede Hong Kong to Queen Victoria. In the supplementary Treaty of the Bogue, the Qing empire also recognised Britain as an equal to China and gave British subjects extraterritorial privileges in treaty ports. In 1844, the United States and France concluded similar treaties with China, the Treaty of Wanghia and Treaty of Whampoa respectively.
The First Opium War was attacked in the House of Commons by a newly elected young member of Parliament, William Ewart Gladstone, who wondered if there had ever been "a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know."[SUP][25][/SUP]




as someone else said with the creation of black markets and or licensing scheme there there creates a huge profit margin in either case for the club sanctioned to stick their nose in the middle of your business and regulate and control what is purely your personal rights.

 

Legalize EVERYTHING.

It will work as a darwinian weeding process and make some money for us for a change.

If I walked into a Drug store and there was heroine, coke and meth, I'd keep walking right by and pick up the 6 pack of IPA I was going for.

 

Of course. But idiot drug warriors think the only reason everyone doesn't use heroin is because the government tells them not to. It's a shocking dependency on government in lieu of treating people like adults.

 

In the privacy of people's homes, I don't care what they do! They can commit suicide, do hard drugs, tie their nuts to ropes, overdose, etc.

However, if drugs are considered legal, this means that all drugs can now be consumed in the public.

I do not and will not support any laws which will allow people in public areas to smoke pot, shoot crack, or whatever vice. This IS NOT a solution to your problem or any problem!

 

What do you mean exactly, because I suspect it depends on the persona generally. I haven't seen any mental deficiency from my drug use. On the other hand I've heard that marijuana use has been linked to that. I would think that other drugs are more physically damaging than mentally...although I realize that with substance abuse it might not be entirely separate all the time. Additionally, there is always the forbidden fruit argument...

I'm not meaning to start a political argument with you, I understand you have access to information I don't and want to know more.

 

person, not persona. LOL

 

Note; I got the sequence of OMOF’s quotes reply messed up (I think) , I edit on the WP. I don’t think it changes the meaning of anything. Nevertheless, I will change them around or the mod can if its an issue.

I distrusting government and all authority in general to a state of near spasmodic proportions unreservedly agree with your statement concerning closed doors. In fact I feel the police FBI, CIA’s, etc have FAR too much leeway when it comes to search and seizure, privacy rights etc.

You smoke crack my friend, rock is smokeable CokeCane [sic]. Most ‘punch’, ‘shoot’, ‘bang’, or mainline powdered coke OMOF. How do I know? My ex was an addictions specialist. Also I will admit that I experimented with some drugs as a 20 something young guy and really enjoyed some of them. Really, REALLY REALLY enjoyed one of them, thats why I ran from the stuff after that! As the old rock song goes; 'what were once vices are now habits'. Lol. Then you either die young or you wise up and quit. Pot? I think its a HUGE mistake to demonize it. It’s a moral crime to make users of it felons or criminals. It should be a class X criminal felony level offence to deny reefer to patients that show a demonstrable need for da weed. Pot, the thing is that I tried it a few times and detest the way pot makes me feel. Anyway, that’s all I have to say about that. I am now a tee totaler although I may drink bppze in a social situation, but it too has such bad effects etc that I havent wanted to partake.

reva

 

Thank God!

It's time for people to realize that drugs don't force you to do anything you don't want to. You pick up that joint/pill/needle/whatever of your own free will. I'm sick of big government.

 

I agree that government oversteps it's practical jurisdictions...minimize government and maximize the private sector!

Sorry I don't know the practices or correct jargon of the drug trade.

Regarding pot, I don't care if people smoke pot in their privacy but not in public. But just like alcohol, people who smoke pot then enter the public and cause problems need to be held accountable for those actions. DUIA driving under the influence of alcohol, or DUIP driving under the influence of pot. If alcohol or pot or any other ingested substances alters people's behavior to the point of causing harm to themselves or others, laws need to be in place for this. As I previously mentioned I don't want people smoking pot in the public so the legalization of pot from my perspective must protect this.

Sounds like pot laws are stupid? Possession of a joint or 3-4 joints should never be a violation of law. A person needs to be held accountable if they share or give a joint to others, just as it is if I give a beer to a minor or allow someone to drive if they've had too much to drink...IMO common sense stuff but not the heavy-hand of the law...

 

I agree that government oversteps it's practical jurisdictions...minimize government and maximize the private sector!

Sorry I don't know the practices or correct jargon of the drug trade.

Regarding pot, I don't care if people smoke pot in their privacy but not in public. But just like alcohol, people who smoke pot then enter the public and cause problems need to be held accountable for those actions. DUIA driving under the influence of alcohol, or DUIP driving under the influence of pot. If alcohol or pot or any other ingested substances alters people's behavior to the point of causing harm to themselves or others, laws need to be in place for this. As I previously mentioned I don't want people smoking pot in the public so the legalization of pot from my perspective must protect this.

Sounds like pot laws are stupid? Possession of a joint or 3-4 joints should never be a violation of law. A person needs to be held accountable if they share or give a joint to others, just as it is if I give a beer to a minor or allow someone to drive if they've had too much to drink...IMO common sense stuff but not the heavy-hand of the law...

 

I agree except for sharing a joint being illegal

 

I never implied sharing a joint should be illegal??

I said people who share a joint with others, just like alcohol, are accountable...

 

An American Citizen has the right to their own body. This was reflected in Roe vs Wade as well. Any legislation requiring one group of Americans to demand bodily fluids from other Americans would be unconstitutional.

 

Why do drug legalisers tend to rely on the emotional comment? "Its our own body" blubber blubber blubber. Why don't they refer to the empirical evidence and how that impacts on rational economic man and therefore the rationality of legalisation?

 

Praise the Queen!!!...I actually agree with your statement above...

 

Careful now, I'm a republican! Do you support the rational addiction model (i.e. the notion that we can maintain rationality, despite addictive consumption, by just introducing an 'addictive stock' within the individual's preference function such that they are fully aware of how past, current and future consumption can be related)?

 

I have some money invested in pharasuticals as well as private prisons. And the US inverstors need to have laws to make street drugs illegal to keep pharasutical companies in bidness and to keep prisons filled with prisoners so tax payers can pay me the investor for housing them.

With leagal drugs there would be no capitalization.

 

side effects - the truth rather then myth

the war on drugs is a failure

"5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results" April 7, 2009

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

ending prohibition is the way to go...

 

we do, the question is, will the prohibitionists listen?

"Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/


remember, the abuse is there legal or not, just one makes criminals of those that did not abuse


.

 

I'm not interested in poor utilisation of case studies. Everyone can play that (e.g. the natural experiments into localised decriminisation of cannabis and the subsequent increase in psychosis rates). For an attempt at using the rational addiction model you'd have to refer to empirical analysis into price elasticity of demand. You'd have to couple that with rejection of alternative models (myopia, regret consumption etc.)

 

we have had medical marijuana for a few years now in some states, your doom and gloom has not happened, it's a myth

 

You haven't bothered to respond to my comment, preferring instead to go for the empty humph typical of the topic

 

You shouldn't pigeon-hole yourself into that political corner.

I'm thinking when people/addicts hear that drugs of their choice will be legalized in the future, their current consumption will begin to increase. If this news says prices will increase when legalized, they might reduce their consumption in anticipation. Conversely, if they believe legalizing drugs will create more competition and lower prices, their current consumption will begin to increase.

Rationality is subjective. As I have stated, I'm against legalizing pot if the results allow pot smokers in all public areas. Just as I don't want to see people drinking alcohol in all areas of the public, I also don't want pot smoking in the public. Whatever savings might be generated by legalizing pot will be spent on enforcing the legalization of pot...maybe an increase in spending. Someone drinking alcohol violating a law can be measured for alcohol content...how can this be achieved with pot smokers?

To legalize 'hard' drugs would be all of my concerns on steroids...

 

In terms of the rational addiction model, it just needs utility maximisation to be followed. The time dependency in consumption becomes part of the utility function.