Legalize it: Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter clemsontiger02
- Start date
-
- Tags
- you cool man?
LOL, I've never heard anyone phrase it that way. Doing weed, like it's some sort of hard drug. Do you call it "doing alcohol"?
Yes. Used to love it when I was a teenager but I no longer care for the sensation these days and don’t have any interest in using. But it’s 2020 and I can’t think of a single good reason why it shouldn’t be legal
Haven’t smoked since college and don’t plan on it again but I definitely think it should be legalized. My line of thinking is if alcohol is legal, and I drink regularly, then weed should be legal. Obviously with parameters, just like with alcohol. I mean smoking cigarettes is known to cause lung cancer and other health problems but people have no problem saying that should be legal.
Heck most of my friends that smoke do way more reckless and stupid things while drunk than high.
Heck most of my friends that smoke do way more reckless and stupid things while drunk than high.
The fact that you don’t get it and used what you just said to try and be a smart a** says all I need to know.
Denzel Washington flew the shit out of an airplane while drunk, but he was also doing blow so not sure if that answers things definitely one way or the other.
Ding, ding, ding... And we have a winner! What's drug related crime about? MONEY (ain't it always). We seem to have really 3 base types of "heavy drugs" and let's add marijuana as a 4th type. You have cocaine based drugs, opioids (opium poppy based), and artificial chemicals (see Meth and such). Moderate amounts of any of these types are worth a lot of money to people who want to use them. That's why you have the crime associated with it... the money is just too good for people NOT to try and cash in.
That begs the question... Why are these drugs so expensive? Cocaine is produced from a common plant grown by poor farmers in central America and processed with simple refinement with common chemicals. Heroin is grown and harvested by poor farmers in the far east and processed easily and cheaply as well. Meth is MORE complicated, but uneducated people living in trailers seem to be able to produce it with rather common chemicals and methods. Marijuana is literally a weed with a lot of uses. It still grows wild in many parts of the country from the WW2 era... where it was patriotic to grow in spite of many decades of attempting to get rid of it.
NONE of these drugs are worth very much from a labor or materials point of view. Their "value" is derived simply from them being illegal and people willing to pay a premium to get that illegal material. By legalizing it, you remove the value from the equation and criminals aren't going to bother to bring in something that isn't going to make them a lot of money. You remove a source of income... the BIGGEST one from criminal organizations AND you can spend the resources that you spent fighting these guys to educate and rehab the folks that these drugs are hurting... Meth is REALLY REALLY bad for a person. You can literally watch folks using it lose their teeth and develop open sores. Heavy use of Heroin and Cocaine are not really good for you either. Apparently you can smoke dope all day and not really come to any harm.
This is actually a good question. The answer of course is yes. Just as people sell cigarettes illegally as well. There's usually a market for luxury goods that are heavily taxed by governments. Alcohol is a prime example. And while moonshine is probably the best example, most of the "glory days" of moonshine production were during the prohibition period and shortly thereafter when states and/or large numbers of counties were "dry". So there's always going to be a "black market" on some items. But let's face it... how much illegal "moonshine" does anyone on here buy on a yearly basis? Cigarettes? Pot (if you are in a state where it's legal)?
Personally I like to know what it is that I'm consuming. And I'll pay the extra tax for the government oversight and monitoring of said product.
Good points, but moonshine is actually more expensive than the legal stuff you can very easily buy at a store. The risk of losing ones' freedom, and the resulting premium, far outweigh what the government charges in taxes. I don't know the prices of illegally sold cigarettes, so can't comment on that.
For the states that have legalized cannabis, the dispensaries still face high levels of risk, due to various factors, but mainly because it's still illegal at the federal level. The black market has had to adjust their prices, but you can still buy weed cheaper on the black market than you can legally. That means that cartels are making $1.5MM instead of $2.0. That's still not good, and continues to put money into the hands of criminals.
The next step needs to happen at the federal level IMO. That's the only way to truly make a dent.
So you are telling me that drinking moonshine help stop you from losing your freedom? I'm not sure how that works. And yep... you can (and always will) be able to buy items on the black market cheaper than the legal one. Otherwise there's not much point in a black market. Again, with liquor and pot, you are talking about something that you are ingesting.... That's delivered by people who are not following the law. There's no way to tell what you are getting when there's no oversight. Just like ordering your meds from Mexico b/c they are cheaper. Yep, you saved a lot of money... and I suppose you protected your freedom. But don't be surprised when (surprise!), you aren't buying what you thought you were buying.
No, I said the opposite.
Moonshine is more expensive than legal liquor. That is because making and selling moonshine comes with the risk of incarceration, therefore, the suppliers demand to be paid for that risk. The premium placed on moonshine by bootleggers is greater than the taxes imposed by the government.
Not only should we legalize marijuana, we should also legalize cocaine and heroin. Marijuana laws accounts for many white people in jail but doesn't account for the large disproportionate number of Blacks in prison who are there for dealing cocaine and heroin. Having studied the drug trade for decades the facts are there that the inner city Blacks have a monopoly on the sale of cocaine and heroin in all of the major cities including DC, NYC, LA, San Francisco, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Baltimore and Miami. By this, I mean they get the drugs from a wholesaler and sell it by the gram to individual consumers of all races at designated spots. A typical spot brings in 20 grand a day which serves as income for the entire community. This activity involves many participants. There is a high probability that a black kid growing up in the inner city will become part of this street hustling business and will never be able to leave. The results are predictable which usually end up in death or imprisonment. What people don't see is the crime that comes with running a spot. Most of it results after the DEA intercepts a major shipment. This results in a shortage of wholesale drugs and the spots go dry. Competitive drug dealers start fighting for raw product and often steel and rob other dealers. This is where the killing starts and when the police get involved. Results in more killing to prevent witnesses. In the inner city, Blacks are much more fearful of other Blacks. Those not interested in the drug business, prefer the police.
When I bring this up with BLM leaders, they tell me to hush. The BLM narrative is that Blacks need this business to get by because they grow up poor. That getting rid of this business will make life worse for the Black communities. Let's not kid ourselves. Every time there is an officer involved shooting of an unarmed Blake man, the immediate cry is systematic racism within the police department which is wrong. Most of the major city police departments are run by Black police chiefs anyways and the statistics also show that unarmed whites and Hispanics are just as likely to be shot by a police.
Everyone likes to call people racist but what they are really complaining about are acts of prejudice. Do you cross the street when you see a Black man coming? If so, this is prejudice. Prejudice is an undesired condition. Are you afraid to walk unescorted thru a Black neighborhood? If so, this is prejudice. Are you afraid of a White Police officer that pulls you over? If so, this is prejudice. Do you feel that white people hate you? If so, this is prejudice. Prejudice can be based on many thing including fear, hate, time and location and or just racism. Very few people are racist. The Bible teaches that we all came from the same cradle of civilization. Noah's Ark. Ham, Shem and Japheth. They were brown. From there, we emerged as Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian and Black. Just a small change in our gene is responsible for our skin color difference but in reality Noah's family had all the gene traits that made us the colors that we are and we are all humans created by God.
So what's the solution?
That depends on what you believe the problem to be.
I've been an advocate for legalizing drugs for decades. All of them.
Last edited:
Show me where BLM suggests that "Blacks need this business to get by..." As I understand it, BLM is very interested in ending the nonsensical "War on Drugs" and supports legalizing drugs and letting people out of prison who are there only for drug-related non violent offenses. I'm not an expert on the finer points of the BLM platform, so I'm very open to any links, etc you care to share.
But yeah. Legalize it. All of it it. I spent a couple of weeks in Portugal last year. Many people here would expect that a country that had recently decriminalized drugs would be overrun with strung out homeless people. But- that's not what I saw at all. Let's talk all the $$$$ we spend on this irrational "war on drugs" (enforcement & incarceration are quite spendy) and plow it into mental health services.
That was one hell of a post. Some great truths in there. I don’t agree with everything said, but that is a quality post loaded with experience-based thoughts. A respect like for you, sir. Post more.
I engage with BLM on many private twitter discussions. Private for a reason. You could get in serious trouble having raw conversations on this topic. This is a sensitive topic. Yes, BLM want to let the Blacks out of prison. I agree with this but BLM believes that the Blacks are there because of systematic racism and not necessarily due to the compilation of events resulting from prohibition and the street hustling activities that comes with it. I encourage you to spend time just listening to the stories of drug dealers. I posted one below. There are 100s on Youtube.
The current BLM narrative is to get more money to the inner city from government programs to fix poverty and systematic racism. I'm not sure if BLM, absent of their radical left political wing understands the purpose of legalization.
I agree that the war on drugs is futile and a complete waste. It only takes a basic understanding of economics to understand why. I prefer to legalize over decriminalize just to avoid the possibility of Tent Cities.
Last edited:
They're already legally bought, sold by international drug cartels masquerading as pharmaceutical firms.
The uncomfortable question we have to answer is- why are drug addiction/mental illness/homelessness rates are so much higher in our country than they are in other developed countries? And what we are going to do about it?
That's a huge part of it. We need to take a more therapeutic approach to criminal justice generally, and deal with drug use/addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue.
This is a quality post for sure. There are a bunch of "lenses" that you can view the history of drugs in this country through. Racial, Political, Religious, Economic. The truth is that all of these factors play into where we are now. You can make a case for Racial issues being a driving force, but IMHO, not THE driving force. DItto with the economic arguments. These arguments explain a lot, but not everything.
Drug policy has ALWAYS had a racial component. Old white guys have historically made the laws in our country, for good or ill. That's just a fact. You don't have to look far to see that they were MUCH more willing to outlaw things THEY didn't do than things they did. Look no further than the difference in laws between cocaine the powder(yuppy white folks) and crack the crystal (poor black people) . Same thing, same effect. WAY different punishments. Same thing for Marijuana. Not a lot of white folks used that. It was a drug for poor black and hispanics. Hell, the argument that "Marijuana made Darkies think they were as good as a white man" was ACTUALLY used as an argument on the floor of Congress to get marijuana outlawed in the 1930s.
And of course, there's the economic lense. There's an old saying... follow the money. It's old and it's true. There's a reason that people of all walks of life risk everything for drugs... it's the money. There's just too much to be made in the trade for there NOT to be plenty of people who are willing to risk it. In the case of drugs though. the ENTIRE industry is based on the illegality of said drugs. I mean really. What other product grown by poor farmers in 3rd world countries is worth ANYTHING? Coffee maybe? So you can bet your ass that drug cartels have NO INTEREST in legalizing drugs... quite the contrary.
Cloud 9 said:
The opiod/heroine crisis in this country is killing hundreds everyday. No way those should be legally bought.
Here is how I argue this.
Why are people dying from opiods?
Answer: Heroin is expensive with the recent uptick in drug enforcement so dealers are cutting it with fentanyl. This increases the risk of death for drug users since they don't know how much they are taking. Something similar helped create the crack era in the mid 80s. Before crack, cocaine was 70 grand a kilo and only rich people snorted it, then someone invented crack and that enabled poor people to use it. Crack was the poor man's cocaine and soon the market grew just like for flat screen tvs. The result increased the supply of cocaine to the point where now cocaine can be bought at wholesale for 30 grand a kilo in most cities.
Prohibition always results in more potent drugs.
I don't have a problem with demonizing the use. I have a problem of how we react to the use. Like I always say. I have more respect for a drug dealer than a drug users. The drug dealer has a job. He's trying to make a living in a heavily regulated market just like Tony Montana in Scarface.
So, what's your value judgement on the user? And how do you handle that person? Throw them in jail? Or do you favor a harm reduction/therapeutic/medical approach?
You're leaving out a crucial element in the opioid problem: the hell that the Sackler family/Purdue Pharma hath wrought w/ Oxycontin. Fentanyl is a big part of why people are ODing, but it's not what's getting them hooked in the first place. By the time folks are shooting up the black laced with fentanyl they are pretty far down the road.
If someone wants to knock themselves out with a speedball, more power to them. I don't believe the government should protect people from themselves. In fact, I'm counting on the herd thinning out a bit when we finally come to our senses and legalize it all. Drugs should be legalized. All of them.
My comment was more along the lines that I don't respect drug users. I believe drugs are bad. They make people crazy and drugs are addicting. As long as they aren't endangering other people and that includes kids, then let them shoot up, snort smoke in their own place.
The minute someone puts someone else in danger, then apply the law. Otherwise, leave them alone. We have proven that the War on Drugs doesn't work. In fact, it has continually made things worse in so many ways.
Last edited:
All true.
My point is that by making heroin more scarce, drug dealers try to recover their margin by cutting the product with cheaper less expensive fentanyl. This lowers the quality of the product from a drug user standpoint. My point is, if heroin were legal, it would be cheap and readily available for consumption and it wouldn't be cut with fentanyl. That said, there would be fewer deaths from it.
The big difference between me and you is that I'm not as concerned with someone using heroin even if it kills them. Seriously, I don't care. Like I said earlier. I have no respect. Don't @ me with you know someone who died. Been there too. My family has been hit hard.
I'm all about individual responsibility.
I totally understand where you're coming from. It's quite logical. And I completely disagree. I have compassion and empathy for addicts. Your focus on individual responsibility is convenient and lets you off the hook. After all, in your libertarian ideal you're only responsible for yourself. Not your brother's keeper by any stretch. Some people do have the capacity to be honest with themselves and make a decision to live differently. 12 step programs work well for them. It did for me.
But, you're making assumptions about drug users that are erroneous and self-serving. For example: "Drugs make people crazy." My schizophrenic brother-in-law is a homeless meth addict in Colorado. His "crazy" pre-dates his drug use by a couple of decades. I've spent considerable time volunteering with orgs that serve the needs of the homeless population in LA. Most of them are drug users. Almost all of them have profound underlying mental issues that are unaddressed, and their drug use is unproductive self medication. Many of them, like my brother-in-law- wind up in an awful cycle where he bounces from the hospital to jail to the street, to the psych ward to the street, to jail, etc. Unless we get lucky and are able to have him committed or he gets locked up for a serious enough offense, he'll be dead. I guess that'll make you happy. Thinning the herd and whatnot.
As to the oxycontin problem. Over the last 7 years I've spent several hours a week in church basements drinking shitty coffee hearing the stories of other addicts and junkies. I was shocked at the number of people who are super successful business people, MDs, entertainment execs, clergy, lawyers, whatever- who either hurt their back, had a major surgery, etc and were prescribed Oxycontin, wound up hooked on it, couldn't get the refills anymore and eventually wound up addicted to heroin. And yes- that situation has gotten even more dire with the advent of Fentanyl. I think it's unfair to discard these people as just some losers who are suffering the consequences of their bad choices, and lets the pharma and medical fields off the hook for the consequences of their choices.
It's not a self-serving argument to value individual responsibility nor does it imply that I don't see value in mentoring others to be responsible individuals. Once a person decides to take drugs, they have taken a critical step in ruining their lives and those they love. I hold this view because it is the most consistent way to legalize drugs. Once a person starts taking heroin, only God can save them. Government has tried for years to stop them, but all they have managed to do is create a network of economic zones where cocaine and heroin are traded in the billions of dollars a day.
As for the pain killers in all. The same argument applies. Many people fall in love with the pain killers and don't focus on fixing the underlying problem causing their pain. There are no exceptions to individual responsibility. Prince and Tom Petty both died of fentanyl overdose because they refused to get their underlying health condition causing their pain fixed and they wanted more.
Thru my own studies and research, I have independently come up with the same view as Milton Friedman. I agree with this video 100%.
Last edited:
