Why it is time to end the War on Drugs

1) The drug war leads to more organized crime. Does anyone really need a refresher course on the lessons of alcohol prohibition? Do you think that the Bloods and Crips are gunning each other, and innocent bystanders, down over lunch money? Do you think that Columbia and Mexico, or the US for that matter, would have the same level of violence that they do now if there were not a War being fought over drug profits?

2) The drug war jails non-violent criminals who then take space away from violent criminals. How many women have been raped, how many children have been molested and murdered, how many grandmothers have been beaten and robbed by violent repeat offenders because the prison cells are full of drug violators? Yes, laws have been passed lately to help cut down on this problem. But the prisons are still over crowded and with mandatory minimum drug sentences it is the thugs and rapists and murderers who are released to make room, room for people who have a problem with drugs, not people who hurt other people.

3) The drug war is eroding our civil liberties, privacy, and is destroying the Bill of Rights. It seems that hardly a day goes by that Congress is not passing some further draconian measure to help win this losing "War". Just see this thread about the latest such law passed, a law that circumvents the Fourth Amendment. And look at the seizure laws, while amended recently, they still amount to legalized state-backed robbery. People who take drugs do not call the police and turn themselves in, so the police must use snitches (who are often wrong) infrared helicopters, meter readers, wiretaps, nosey neighbors, and other intrusive means on all of us, everybody is being spied on in order to catch a few of us.

4) The drug war has increased violent crime. Drugs are profitable BECAUSE they are illegal. You do not see Budweiser and Miller beer gangs gunning each other down over beer profits. You do not see beer lovers knocking off old ladies to get money for that next $25 six-pack. You see this type of activity related to drugs because drug prices are substantially higher than they would be if they were not prohibited. A heroin addict could buy enough to supply him for a few dollars a day, rather than a few hundred dollars a day. That would stop a lot of addicts from stealing and robbing to get their fix money.

5) The drug war corrupts the police, and takes police away from doing what they should be doing; catching thugs that hurt other people. This is another result of the artificially inflated huge drug profits; police corruption. Most cops are honest, but tens of thousands of dollars waved in a cops face causes many to succumb to the temptation. And because there are so many police chasing drug users violent criminals have less worries about being caught. If the police were freed from drug war activity they would be able to concentrate solely on real criminals, the criminals who prey on innocent people. Combined with a huge drop in organized and violent crime if drug profits and inflated prices disappear, and our streets would be virtually crime free compared to what we deal with today.

6) The drug war destroys families. This is an easy one. A father in prison for a drug offense cannot support his family. Even a father who has a drug problem would be able to help support his family better than a father who is in jail. Throw a father or mother in jail for life because they sold drugs, and a family is destroyed forever.

7) The drug war has failed to keep drugs away from our kids. Kids can most times find drugs easier than can adults. It is in our schools despite it being illegal, hasnt stopped it a bit. Because it is illegal it is sold by people who do not care who they sell it to, they only care that they get their money.

8) The drug war costs an insane amount of money. The price of this war is almost incalculable. Billions and billions of dollars wasted on enforcement. Billions wasted on incarceration. Billions spent trying to control the other crimes that occur simply because drugs are illegal. Billions and billions and billions of dollars have been pissed down a rat-hole since this War started, and drug use rates have remained roughly the same. A total damned waste!

It's time for this insanity to end.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000

Answers

Unk,

I will not go into a long diatribe about this,except to say you are 1000% correct,Ronnie Milsap or Ray Charles could see that even on the base contention this policy is contradictory and counter-productive.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 31, 2000.

Unk,

You said,

The drug war jails non-violent criminals who then take space away from violent criminals.

Bullets are cheap. Why do we have so many violent criminals taking up prison space that could be filled with druggies?

Or better yet...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Ah, the classic Libetarian argument (I say that as one who has Libertarian sympathies). BUT, what if serious drug use increases due to legalization? This is a one-way street. Once legal, you can't return to prohibition.

Hey, it would become big business like tobacco and gambling and liquor. We could have an Acapulco Gold golf tournement! The Federal tax revenue would be enormous and that revenue would be used to fund ever more government activities. So much for Libertarianism.

And why legalize only narcotics? The same arguments apply to prostitution and kiddie porn.

The ultimate irony is that billions of the new tax revenues would be spent on additional drug rehab facilities and their associated bureaucracies. Has legalized gambling done any good for the country as a whole? Yes, it has helped (so far) American Indians. But gambling addiction and the related social pathologies (divorce, personal economic devastation) are growing.

I've got a bad feeling that legalizig drugs would become a disaster much worse than the current insanity that you describe. I know, let's try it at one place as a test case. What city do you live in Unc?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 31, 2000.

Lars,

There already have been test cases. Not only were many drugs legal in the United States prior to the 20th century (opium is a prime example), other nations around the world have laws much different from ours (ex, Holland, where "recreational" drugs such as marijuana are perfectly legal) and seem to handling the problem better than we are.

Congress decided to make these drugs illegal for precisely the same reason as it originally pressed for Prohibition of alcohol. Both stemmed from a genuine desire to prevent addiction.

I share that desire. I despise what drugs do to people. I will do anything in my power to prevent a friend or loved one from even trying something like cocaine.

But I also agree with Deedah in principle: the facts are self-evident that prohibition just plain DOESN'T WORK. If people want to do something, they're going to find a way around the law, period.

(This even applies to the current efforts against cigarettes. A growing problem in public buildings is people sneaking smokes in restrooms and storage areas, which is leading to the installation of cameras and monitoring devices ... and is yet ANOTHER example of where personal freedoms and privacy are being eroded by the desire of sincere -- but utterly deluded -- Do-Gooders to prevent people from engaging in harmful behavior.)

It's amazing how we can't seem to learn this lesson. Prohibition (with a capital "P") is the prime example. The *MOB* lobbied strenuously against its repeal. Why? Because they were making a KILLING off alcohol! (That's *precisely* how Al Capone made his mint.) They had a captive market and -- same as with drugs! -- were able to draw from DEEP pockets to buy off the cops. Speak-Easies were just as common as crack houses are today.

The parallels are astonishing and instructive ... if we'll only bother to consider them. Nowdays, the DRUG LORDS THEMSELVES are the biggest cheerleader for tougher drug laws.

Shoot, do you know what many petty drug lords do now if a competitor tries to muscle into their territory? Forget the gunfights in the streets; it's easier just to turn that competitor into the cops! The police will get a nice raid to show off on the evening news, all the little moms and dads will be pleased to see that the War On Drugs is being fought ... and the drug lord's market is safe.

YOU CANNOT STOP PEOPLE FROM ENGAGING IN DUMB BEHAVIOR.

I cringe as much as you at the idea of permitting, say, the sale of cocaine at CVS or Walgreens. I *WANT* to believe that the war on drugs (or on cigarettes, or on pornography, or etc., etc.) will work. But it won't.

Instead, it just leads to the continued erosion of personal liberties, the corruption of our police and worst of all, to the embarassing fact that the United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other industrialized nation.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 31, 2000.

And why legalize only narcotics? The same arguments apply to prostitution and kiddie porn.
Lars, I wish I could give you a link to the arguments Frank, Steve, and I used to have on this very topic. (Do you happen to have it, Frank?) I think Uncle Deedah's argument was well written to be drug war specific. Although I am not an advocate of criminalizing prostitution, that's another argument for another day. Kiddie porn directly violates the rights of others -- definitely not applicable here.

Bullets are cheap. Why do we have so many violent criminals taking up prison space that could be filled with druggies?

Or better yet...
Frank, I know you are just kidding. Cruel and unusual punishment... incarceration not addressing the problem... etc.

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), May 31, 2000.

Unk:

A topic on which we totally agree. Even though I am a recovering addict, and legalized drugs might be tempting; alcohol is legal and I have not touched that either in 5 years. I was rehabilitated-went through a 28 day program and survived until now on AA and other spiritual input. More money is needed for rehab-it is especially ironic that as the war on drugs has progressed, rehabs are closing down at an alarming rate.

As for distribution, the now classified schedule I drugs could be downgraded to schedule 4 and dispensed in pharmacies-where the buyer would have to sign a sheet. Enough purchases and there could be an intervention to offer treatment-not by the pharmacist, but by a designated worker. I have not thought this through, but it is somewhat of a solution.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 31, 2000.

Unk: I couldn't agree more.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), May 31, 2000.

Unk, it is difficult for any thinking person to oppose your views on the state of drug enforcement laws in this country. I will confess to fairly heavy drug use during the 60s and 70s that gave me a much better insight into the culture than most. If it was obtainable I used it or dealt it, in some cases in large volume. I was so lucky not to have ruined myself and to this day Im not real clear on how I stepped away from it all. My point is this: Legal or not the regular use of drugs will eventually destroy the user and those around him/her. I have no answers for reforming our current laws but I guarantee that outright legalization of drugs will rip apart the fabric of our society. BTW, things arent so sweet in Holland.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 31, 2000.

Good summary Unk but you forgot this one:

9) Drug prohibition causes unnecessary risks and deaths. Because the substances are illegal, there is no way to judge purity. This is the main cause of heroin overdose. Also, poor people will resort to more dangerous substance abuse, such as "huffing" spray paint, in order to feed their cravings if they can't afford premium drugs. Compare the deaths and blindness caused by the consumption of denatured alcohol during prohibition.

-- Gruff the Crime Dog (@ .), May 31, 2000.

-- this (is@the.way), May 31, 2000.

Way to go, "rational". You've just demonstrated to the satisfaction of any actually rational observer the inadequacy of your thinking. Thanks for upholding the Polly standard!

-- Steve Heller (Steve@SteveHeller.com), May 31, 2000.

Short on time but must chime in.

Nice job Unk. You run for dog catcher, Ill stand in the town square shouting your name. Cant use your picture on the campaign posters though. Ive seen your picture. No can do.

Ive found that the currently illegal psychoactive drugs are not for everyone. Can you picture mom chewing coca leaf ? Is grandpa gonna trade in his Cutty Sark for black Afghanny hashish? Would dad begin stuffing his pipe with red Lebanese? Maybe. Most wouldnt. Over several generations taboos would change, IMO. Fade with time. Until then I have little fear there would be a mass migration to the regular use of those drugs currently illegal. I have much more to say on this. It is a very interesting & important issue to discuss.

Many folks in this culture use legal, non-prescription drugs such as sugar, chocolate, coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol on a daily basis. These are their drugs of choice. The sad fact is most users of these substances are oblivious that they are altering their consciousness. Ignorance on a societal scale is sad & dangerous. In this case it is dangerous to ALL concerned. These legal substances can negatively affect the users health & mindset. Those who choose to use illegal substances do so at the risk of arrest, levying of fines, forfeiture of property, loss of jobs, alienation from those around them, incarceration & as stated above, negatively impacting health not only from dangers inherent in each substance but also due to impurities.

I say we start with those substances provided to us through nature. Legalize possession & use of all plant life, fungi, etc. It is the height of pomposity, hitched to ignorance, to criminalize natures bounty! HYEnAs!!!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

RAINY DAY WOMEN #12& 35, Bob Dylan

Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good,

They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would.

They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to go home.

Then they'll stone ya when you're there all alone . But I would not feel so all alone,

Everybody must get stoned.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 31, 2000.

Rational actually has a point. Amsterdam is the city in Holland that has the relaxed attitude toward soft drugs, and things aren't going so well there. The difference in Amsterdam of say 10 years ago and 2 years ago was profound [TO ME!] However, it's not just the relaxed attitude on soft drugs that's the cause. Amsterdam also has a relaxed attitude toward welfare. The COMBINATION of welfare and soft drugs created a target place for folks who don't want to work and want to smoke weed all day. There's another place [on the outskirts of Copenhagen, I think] named Christiania. It's really an alternative community. The folks who live there have their own school, their own stores, etc., and they don't believe that TPTB have any right to interfere with their community. However, they hoof it to Copenhagen once/month to pick up their welfare checks.

My daughter knew of the relaxed attitude on soft drugs in Amsterdam [I'd probably related this information myself.] On my first trip, I went into a neighborhood bar and the bartender asked if I wanted to see a menu. I said, "Sure." On the menu were samples and descriptions of cannabis that ranged from the mild to the strongest of hashish. Knowing the situation in Amsterdam, and knowing I would be leaving Amsterdam that evening, I chose to get only what I could smoke onsite. Of course the bar was full of folks smoking, sorting, etc., and the bartender was quite a fascinating American son of a mother who tended to repeatedly marry CIA agents. [grin]

In Berlin, my daughter met some young men from Houston who told her how beautiful it was in Christiania. She really wanted to check it out. I was already familiar with the happenings in Christiania, but had never been there myself. It was FAR from beautiful. EVERYTHING was in disrepair. It was similar to visiting the worst imaginable slum in the U.S. After touring Christiania, my daughter said, "Let's get out of here before we're mugged. This place is worse than Amsterdam."

While I don't think soft drugs are harmful, if used frequently enough, and long enough, one does lose motivation. It's fine for a percentage of a population to lose motivation, but when 100% of a society loses motivation, everything goes into disrepair. The question that occurs to me is how many people are NOT using drugs STRICTLY because they're illegal? Put in another frame, how many people WOULD be using drugs if it were legal? If marijuana were cheap enough, and readily available, I see no reason why more folks wouldn't avail themselves of it. The ONUS would be lifted. I remember days when my parents came unexpectedly to visit and I'd stand waving my arms and running the kitchen vent fan so they wouldn't know what I'd been doing. I have mixed feelings on legalization. Would it be less enticing if it were legal? Would we simply sit down and smoke a joint in front of our parents and ask them if they'd like a toke? Would we ever get around to doing what needed to be done, or would it always be postponed until after this joint?

I see all the obvious arguments for legalization. Certainly regulation of product is desirable. I just can't help get over my fear that the only thing stopping everyone from engaging is illegality, and I've already seen what everyone engaging can do.

After touring Christiania, my daughter said, "Let's get out of here before we're mugged. This place is worse than Amsterdam."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

And would we continuously click on copy instead of cut and leave a redundant paragraph at the end of our posts?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Ra and Anita,

I think is also a city in Switzerland that legalized narcotics with very bad results. It's hard to imagine anything more cynical than a government that legalizes addictions in order to tax them.

Prozac Nation? How about crack/horse nation?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 31, 2000.

Lars:

I think much of the problem with legalization has been that it's been localized. This means that folks who NEED the drug establish residence in the location where it's legal. I'd feel more confident about the whole legalization thing if it were global. If it's confined to a particular region, only those with needs will live there. If it's legal EVERYWHERE, there's more of a take-it-or-leave- it attitude.

Of course this applies to most anything, doesn't it? Problems occur because of a density of ANY group of people with one specific shared characteristic, while problems are absorbed by surrounding "normalcy" if the "normal" people allow an oddity or two.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Aqua,

One of the threads was I Troll, the other was something like "OT: To Steve Meyers on HEMP" but it was deleted by TPTB (I think) due to its length (>1mb).

I wouldn't be suprised if Steve had a copy though, and I think his e-mail addy is in the thread somewhere.

Frank

P.S. While I wasn't really serious, I was thinking about it driving to work this a.m, and considered it. This society condones the murder of innocents in abortion, why NOT quickly and quietly kill off the rapists, murderers, and armed robbers out there? What really is the point of trying to rehab someone who's proven themselves a menace to society when we aren't even willing to extend that courtesy to people who've done nothing wrong? -F

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Just thinking about the three weeks my wife & I spent in Amsterdam brings on a big grin! Gilders were valued at 3/$1.00 US at that time! Kashmiri hash sold for $3-$4 US per gram! And talk about fresh!

It is nigh impossible to assess the pros & cons of legalization of certain substances based upon results garnered from the Amsterdam experiment. Picture alcohol made illegal in all countries, the sole exception being New York City. What would become of NYC? Who would be attracted to live there? Would NYC present a clear picture of the effects on a society with alcohol as a legal substance? Hardly.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

In 1938, hemp was on the verge of becoming a billion dollar crop, which threatened key industrialists. From 1901 to 1937, the U.S. Department of Agriculture repeatedly predicted that hemp was on the verge of becoming America's number one farm crop. In fact, in 1938, Popular Mechanics ran an article entitled "The New Billion Dollar Crop," predicting a bright future for the hemp plant. In the same year, Mechanical Engineering Magazine called hemp "The most profitable and desirable crop that can be grown."

Why the sudden excitement? After all, the demand for hemp had existed for thousands of years. The earliest known fabric was made from hemp, which came into use around 8,000 B.C. From 1,000 B.C. until after the American Civil War, hemp was the world's largest agricultural crop, used to make fabric, lighting oil, paper, incense, medicine, and food oil, as well as being an important source of protein for human and animal consumption.

During periods of shortage between 1763 and 1767, farmers in Virginia were threatened with jail sentences for NOT growing hemp. There were at least sixty tons of hemp on the U.S.S. Constitution alone; the original draft of the Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp on their plantations, and the flag sewn by Betsy Ross was made from hemp fabric.

In fact, it was Ben Franklin's cannabis paper mill which allowed the colonies to operate a free press without having to beg for paper from England. And without the hemp thread used by our Founding Mothers who sewed soldiers' clothing at spinning bees in the early days of the Revolution, the Continental Army would have frozen to death at Valley Forge.

Hemp fibers were extracted from cannabis and used for textiles, rope, canvas, paper and other industrial uses. For millennia, this was an extremely labor-intensive process, although the results were deemed worthy of the effort. Hemp is softer, warmer and more water-resistant than cotton, and has three times as much tensile strength. Although in the 1820s Eli Whitney's legendary cotton gin launched cotton as America's number one textile, hemp remained the second most popular natural fiber until the 1930s.

Which brings us to 1937. Human technology had finally reached the point at which hemp could be processed economically. Machinery such as George Schlichten's "decorticator," which could strip fiber from any plant, did for hemp what Whitney's gin did for the cotton industry: production labor was reduced by an order of magnitude.

Hemp-based newsprint could be produced at half the cost of inferior wood-based newsprint. Superior hemp fabric could easily compete with cotton. And scientists had just begun to explore the medical uses of marijuana. In 1937, hemp was a rapidly growing industry with virtually unlimited potential, which, according to conservative estimates, would currently generate $500 billion per year -- if it had not been criminalized by a group of elite industrialists with very different plans for industry in the 20th century. Hemp posed a dire threat to key American industrialists in the 1930s. Cheap, durable hemp paper threatened Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA) and other timber and paper companies, who stood to lose billions of dollars and possibly face bankruptcy.

In 1937, DuPont patented processes to manufacture plastics and synthetic fibers from oil and coal, as well as new processes to produce paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records, these new processes would account for more than three quarters of its industrial output for the next fifty years.

These industrial interests knew they could not compete with hemp, yet they were stuck with billions of dollars invested in products, processes and holdings which would be overwhelmed by hemp's rapid expansion. Industrial cannabis production had to be nipped in the bud, so to speak.

The attack on the hemp industry was two-fold: a massive propaganda campaign demonized cannabis in the eyes of the public, and the power of government was used to cripple and eventually exterminate industrial uses of hemp. In DuPont's 1937 Annual Report, the company urged its stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical products. Although stalks of hemp were rising on the horizon, DuPont anticipated "radical changes" from "the revenue raising power of government... converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."

The first legal assault on hemp was actually rooted in the National Firearms Act, passed in June 1934. This Act was the first piece of legislation to impose an unconstitutional prohibitive tax under the guise of public safety. Congress did not ban machine guns with the National Firearms Act, but instead required the payment of a $200 transfer tax (the equivalent of about $4,000 today) in order to purchase such a firearm.

Herman Oliphant, general counsel to the Treasury Department, was the first to deploy the power of taxation against cannabis. He modeled his Marijuana Tax Act bill after the National Firearms Act, and introduced it to Congress on April 14, 1937 -- just two short weeks after the Supreme Court upheld the anti-machine gun law.

Meanwhile, William Randolph Hearst, king of yellow journalism, was going berserk. His massive timber holdings, endangered by cheaper, cleaner and more durable hemp paper, brought him face-to-face with financial catastrophe. Hence, a car wreck in which a marijuana cigarette was found stayed on the front page of his newspapers for weeks, while news of alcohol-related wrecks, which outnumbered marijuana-related wrecks by more than a thousand to one, was relegated to the back pages.

Hearst warned his readers of Negro men raping white women while under the influence of marijuana and anti-white "voodoo-satanic" jazz music. Not only that, but "Negroes and Mexicans," inflamed by the hell-spawned herb, dared to step on white men's shadows, look white people directly in the eye for more than a few seconds, look at a white woman twice, and even go so far as to laugh at white people in public. The sheer horror of it all!

According to Hearst -- and this, he said, "is not an overstatement" -- "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marihuana he would drop dead of fright."

Hysterical stories with headlines such as "Marihuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days: Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust" whipped readers into a paranoid frenzy. The public, which had no idea that this sensational propaganda was based on thin air and motivated by big money, began calling upon their representatives to protect their children from the "demon weed."

But not everyone wanted to see hemp repressed, least of all the American Medical Association. Dr. James Woodward testified against the marijuana tax bill before the House Ways and Means Committee, saying that no real testimony had been used in the passage of the bill, and that in fact federal testimony was based exclusively on tabloid sensationalism disseminated by the likes of William Randolph Hearst.

The AMA was completely taken by surprise, only realizing two days before Marijuana Tax Act hearings that the "killer weed from Mexico" was actually cannabis sativa, the plant from which so many crucial medicines were safely derived at the time. "We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman," Woodward said, "why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the profession, that it was being prepared."

Woodward and the AMA were quickly denounced and summarily dismissed from the hearings. The Marijuana Tax Act passed and was signed into law in December, 1937, outlawing hemp in America. Over the next few years, Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger prosecuted more than 3,000 AMA doctors for "illegal prescriptions" derived from cannabis. In 1939, the AMA backed down and halted its dissent on the marijuana issue. After that, only three doctors were prosecuted for prescribing cannabis-derived drugs.

Anslinger played a key role in marijuana's criminalization. He was hand-picked to head the FBN by his uncle-in-law, Andrew Mellon, owner and largest stockholder of the Mellon Bank. The Mellon Bank was at the time the sixth largest bank in the United States, and one of DuPont's only two bankers from 1928 to the present.

Anslinger was known to make references to "ginger-colored niggers" in letters to department heads on FBN stationary. He told Congress that fifty percent of all violent crimes were committed by Latinos, Negroes and Greeks, and that these crimes could usually be traced back to marijuana. Anslinger did not consult FBI statistics, which would have told him that at least 65 to 75 percent of all murders in the United States were related to alcohol -- just as they are today.

Anslinger later contradicted his claims that pot inspired violence and began warning Congress that the communists were using marijuana to turn American fighting men into pacifists who would be unwilling to make war with Stalin's commie hordes.

Marijuana was criminalized, and the hemp industry died on the vine, guaranteeing untold trillions in revenue for petrochemical monopolies and related industries. Millions of aggregate life-years have been spent in prisons by people engaged in a victimless crime, while tens of billions are spent to keep them there and to bring in new cellmates. The Drug War has been used as an excuse to erode the Bill of Rights, just as hysteria over "Marihuana, the Assassin of Youth" was used to destroy the burgeoning hemp industry. Meanwhile, with the prohibition of marijuana, use of cannabis as a drug increased tenfold.

It's a damn shame, when you consider the repressed potential of the hemp plant. The potential uses and benefits of hemp are so vast, it seems utterly absurd that its industrial uses should be barred because a small percentage of the population would rather stick it in a bong than a pulp mill.

As noted earlier, there are numerous maritime uses of hemp. Hemp is also perfect for textiles, and is less harmful to the environment than cotton. Hemp requires no chemicals and has few insect foes to contend with; by contrast, fifty percent of all agricultural chemicals currently used in the United States are used to grow cotton.

Hemp also produces 4.3 times as much pulp fiber per hectare than trees. Hemp paper products can be recycled seven times, while white paper made from wood pulp can only be recycled three times.

The criminalization of marijuana in 1937 presented some difficulties in World War II, when the Japanese seized the Philippines, the source of America's cordage at the time. (The Philippines were seized forty years earlier by the United States during the Spanish-American War, a war which Hearst worked very hard to help initiate -- but that's another story.) Hemp was temporarily re-introduced in 1942 to fill the hemp gap, and films such as the USDA's Hemp for Victory encouraged patriotic American farmers to make good use of cannabis. George Bush, whose War on Drugs would send untold American citizens to prison, was actually saved by hemp during World War II: the webbing of the parachute he used after bailing out of his burning airplane over the Pacific was made from -- that's right -- hemp.

But the practical uses of hemp extend far beyond saving the lives of Rockefeller Republicans. In 1935, 116 million pounds of hemp seed were used in the United States to produce paint and varnish. DuPont got most of that business after hemp was criminalized.

More significant that paints and rope, however, is hemp's potential as a source of biomass energy. Biomass can be converted to methane and gasoline below the current costs of fuel oil, and instead of creating sulfur-based smog and acid rain as by-products, it produces oxygen instead. Plus, biomass is a truly sustainable fuel resource; costs will not rise as resources become scarce. Widespread use of biomass fuel -- and hemp is one of the best sources of biomass around -- would drastically cut our imports of foreign oil, increasing our economic independence as a nation and saving us big bucks at the fuel pump.

With world food reserves currently at an all-time low and bad weather hampering this year's crops, it is worth noting that hemp seed is an excellent source of food. High in protein, oil from hemp seeds has the highest percentage of essential fatty acids and the lowest percentage of saturated fats. Tons of drought- and weather-resistant hemp seed can be produced on a relatively small plot of ground.

The medical uses of cannabis are far too vast to examine in detail here, but to mention a few:

--Marijuana is useful in treating approximately eighty percent of all asthma patients, and could replace toxic legal medicines which reap huge profits for pharmaceutical companies.

--Marijuana could be used to reduce ocular pressure in ninety percent of all glaucoma patients, without the toxic side effects associated with legal medicines.

--Federally-funded research at the Medical College of Virginia was shut down after it was discovered that cannabis was very successful in reducing many types of cancerous tumors.

--Marijuana can be used to control nausea resulting from AIDS medication and chemotherapy.

--Cannabis is useful for treating many forms of epilepsy, reducing the intensity of the seizures and in many cases out-performing legal pharmaceutical drugs.

Marijuana can also stimulate appetite (as any pot smoker who's had "the munchies" can attest), relieve migraine headaches, relieve pain and stop an attack of insomnia dead in its tracks. Science Digest and Omni Magazine have reported that energy costs account for eighty percent of every dollar of living expense in America. Eighty-two percent of the value of all stocks traded in the world's major exchanges are tied directly to energy supply companies, energy transportation, refineries and retail fuel sales.

Many Americans are painfully aware that they spend a third of their work-year paying off their taxes. But fewer people realize that they spend more than three quarters of the work week just to cover the energy cost of whatever it is they spend their money on.

Our society, along with the colonized masses of the "developing" world, is being transformed into a global system of totalitarianism controlled by a financial elite. Virtually unseen, this "hidden hand" and their thousands of minions worldwide have manipulated legitimate governments and converted the democratic process into a thinly-veiled sham.

The global elite use numerous tactics in their struggle for one-world economic hegemony, and one of the main pressure points is the oil industry. If you can control a nation's fuel supply, you can exert tremendous influence over that nation's affairs. You can make it do your bidding.

The fossil fuel leg of the globalist pyramid would be yanked out by widespread use of biomass fuel, of which hemp is probably the best source. Hemp would also dislodge certain pharmaceutical monopolies, who charge exorbitant prices for drugs which cost pennies to produce and whose effects can be readily replicated by cannabis-derived drugs.

Ah, but what about the timeless argument that "You people are just using all that as an excuse to smoke pot"? No doubt, the prime motivator for some marijuana decriminalization activists is that they simply enjoy smoking it. Evidence in this article provides plenty of other compelling reasons to support legalization, but the argument can still be made. Well, what of it?

According to the federal Bureau of Mortality Statistics and the National Institute of Drug Abuse, tobacco kills 340,000 to 425,000 per year. Alcohol -- NOT including 50 percent of all highway deaths and 65 percent of all murders -- kills more than 150,000 Americans per year. Even aspirin takes out between 180 and 1,000 people per year.

According to these same figures, marijuana kills not one person per year. Zero. Zilch. Nada. So pick your poison!

In light of the vast economic potential of hemp, does it really matter that some Americans who smoke marijuana anyway would be able to do so legally? In addition to putting a Vulcan nerve pinch on a number of key corporate monopolies, decriminalization of marijuana would cripple the illicit drug trade's use of cannabis to achieve its dirty ends.

So what kind of world do we really want here? One in which we give the Beast eighty cents on its dollar for the roofs over our heads and the shirts on our backs? Or one in which a natural, clean, proven resource -- hemp -- pries the greedy fist of the New World Order out of at least a couple of our pockets? How much are we really willing to pay for a lie contrived in the 1937 Congress at the behest of industrial elitists?

Think about it carefully before you answer. There's a reason you've never been told both sides of the marijuana story.

-- ganja man (ganja man@bongtown.pot), May 31, 2000.

Another take on substance use and abuse (well, I suppose it's not really relevant) is that alcohol can be used by the body as food, and in small quantities may even be good for you. It's about as "natural" as you can get. The same can't be said for pot or other natural psychoactives, as they don't confer a *physical* benefit to people (that I'm aware of). In the case of *smoking* pot, this is clearly detrimental physically.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

OW! My glaucoma!

And anti-nausea, ok, there may be some, but not in the same league.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Frank:

"(that I'm aware of)."

There are actually quite a few health benefits if used in moderation, Frank [much like alcohol in that regard.] Oddly enough, it can even be used to help bronchitis [I know...you've introduced a bronchial irritant], due to the relaxing effects on the bronchial tubes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Lars: BUT, what if serious drug use increases due to legalization?

I can address this from a couple of angles. Ill go at it from this one because it is more easily understood. IMO most debates return to this one core issue  do we as individuals bear responsibility for our actions? ALL of our actions? What say you Lars?

I take responsibility for my thoughts, words vocalized & written, and my actions. Today is day 29 for me without tobacco. I chose to smoke for the better part of twenty-five years. Now I choose not to smoke. It has served its purpose. Time for me to move on. It should be my decision, right? Or should tobacco be banned for my protection & that of society?

I smoked marijuana daily for more than a decade. I stopped because it had no more to teach me, among other reasons. I didnt stop due to arrests, nor fines, nor expense, nor societal pressure. It should be my decision, right? Or should marijuana be banned for my protection & that of society?

I dont look upon those who are addicted to a substance (or activity) as any less responsible for their actions than those who are free of addiction. My advice is that we as a society hold people responsible  you dont perform your job duties consistently then you hit the road. Or your employer can offer assistance. It should be the employers decision, right?

Name an issue for debate & more times than not it comes down to personal responsibility versus help me Im a child its not my fault philosophy. Compassion dictates we help each other when we are able to do so. Liberty dictates we get the hell out of each others business unless an invitation is extended into it.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

My wife would like to smoke a couple times every four weeks. Marijuana has eased certain symptoms she experiences on a cyclical basis in the past. We no longer buy it because the risk outweighs the reward in our opinions. I'll be damned if I'd risk a long jail sentence for growing it. Therefore she goes without & suffers with discomfort every month.

Marijuana also works wonders with tension headaches. Doesn't excise the source of the problem, but then neither does aspirin.

What was that about health benefits Frank? ;^)

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

Ra: Legal or not the regular use of drugs will eventually destroy the user and those around him/her.

A great example of how an over-generalization can hold just enough truth so that it can be swallowed hook, line & sinker by the uninformed & inexperienced. That statement is worthy of a government grant!

To which drugs to you refer, Ra? A great big lump of illegal drugs? Mix em together in a punch bowl?

Define regular use please, Ra. If I were to ingest Liberty Caps once every two months would I & my family end up panhandling? If I were to eat hash brownies once or twice a month, would my dogs go uncared for? How bout smoking a spliff every day?

My guess is you used heroin &/or cocaine for a significant period of time. Throw in a few Quaaludes, mebbe drinkin crystal meth in your orang juice? Experience is everything but to extrapolate based upon it as if yours were the typical experience is not a good policy. I know because I get caught in this trap myself. See, there I go extrapolating again!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between the hemp one smokes and the hemp that is used in industry. The THC level is much much lower in the industrial hemp...

-- clara (clarifying@this.time), May 31, 2000.

After I broke my neck the doctors gave me a boatload of pills to help with pain,muscle and ligament cramps etc.problem was they dulled/dumbed me down so much I could hardly function,much less seriously rehab myself.So I stopped taking them except in emregency cases and started using reefer instead (had allways smoked it recreationaly),but it did the same thing without the side effects the pills did.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 31, 2000.

Bingo,

AHH, not again! Seriously, my big beef is with decriminalization comes acceptance (I believe casual use will increase), and then people (much like with alcohol) will (for example) go for a drive to the market after becoming just a bit intoxicated, causing problems for NON-users in addition to themselves.

Does the cost of legallizing drugs outweigh the benefits? I'd think so, but then I think legallized gambling was bad for Atlantic City.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Going to the store after smoking pot is as bad as going while hungry.

Actually worse! Talk about obesity! The smoking American public would end up living in the grocery store! LOL

-- growlin' tummy (sideeffect@grocer.EAT!), May 31, 2000.

Frank, I'm not trained in biochemistry. That being said, a person can compensate for the physical effects of marijuana 100%. It takes a bit of familiarity with the high for a person to be able to do so. My experience agrees.

My understanding is marijuana does not hit the motor nerves the same way alcohol does. I am not at home presently or I'd give you more substantial proof than "It is because I say it is"!

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

Bingo--

Believe it or not, I agree with you. As individuals we are responsible for all our actions. Trouble is, in the real world too many people do not accept their responsibilities. In the real world, individuals cannot even agree on what constitutes responsible behavior.

Unfotunately, the world is a collection of 7 billion interacting individuals. Often laws have to be made for the greater good even at the expense of the individual good. That is the cost of living in an interdependent society. For that society to be civil, there must be laws. Call it an enforced Social Contract. Maybe, in a Libertarian Utopia, these laws would not be necessary. We would all be so resposible there would be no need. But even in such a Utopia, there would need to be some legal directives. Like all agreeing (thru laws) to drive on the same side of the road.

IMO, laws are needed to prevent indiscrimant use of addictive drugs. I don't think we can rely on personal responsibility to prevent their abuse. Abuse that would threaten everyone, user or non-user. Sad but true, IMO.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 31, 2000.

Frank,

WWJD?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.

IMO, laws are needed to prevent indiscrimant use of addictive drugs. I don't think we can rely on personal responsibility to prevent their abuse. Abuse that would threaten everyone, user or non-user. Sad but true, IMO. -- Lars

Lars, how about like we have now? Adults can drink alcohol to their hearts [liver?] content. But get behind the wheel of a car? that is a no-no.

how about laws like we have now concerning guns. Owning them is okay, for now, but use them to kill someone? a definite no-no.

use drugs to your hearts content? go ahead. drive while under the influence? a no-no.

have drugs in your possession? go ahead. use them to kill someone? a no-no.

it ain't that hard, ya know.....

it's like kids and parents. A parent tells a kid 'do not eat that' and so the kid goes on and eats it.

parent says no. the kid does it anyway.

parent says 'if you do that, you will get a spanking.' more often than being told 'no' the kid will think before doing it.

-- It's my choice! (freewill@any.price), May 31, 2000.

Thanks for the response Lars. Of course we require laws.

What is your definition of addictive drugs? How about sugar? Look what sugar does to some children. Watch a parent give a kid a sugar- laden soft drink. What happens next? Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy! Chances are the kid goes slightly nuts until the sugar high wears off. No problem, feed the kid prescription meds because he/she doesn't pay attention!

LSD isn't addictive except in a very few isolated cases. If used in a controlled set & setting, one can learn much from each trip. Should it be banned because a tiny fraction of one percent of those who use it become abusers & injure themselves &/or others? Same with psychoactive mushrooms.

Should marijuana be included in this grouping? Cocaine & derivatives? Heroin & other opiates?

I'm not picking on you Lars. I just want people to think more thoroughly about this, examine their own lives. These are questions which should be debated in every neighborhood.

Go to the library & get Andrew Weil's book Chocolate to Morphine or Natural Mind for a more thorough investigation of this subject.

Thanks for reading,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

Eternal questions Bingo. I have no answers except to say that I feel lines must be drawn somewhere. I am no fan of the Nanny state, but neither do I think everything can be left to individual choice. The question to me is where to draw the line.

I've enjoyed our civil exchange. Just don't mess with my chocolate.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 31, 2000.

My basic question would be would legalizing drugs ADD new users (even if in moderation) or would it just shift current users of alcohol to different drugs.

What really concerns me is that a whole new group of substance abusers will hit the scene with their problems to society. Who needs it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Frank, if I may be so bold to make an assumption based upon your last post.

To you: drug use=drug abuse drugs users=bad citizens

Am I wrong here? I get the idea you imagine drug use cannot contribute positively to the user & society. In fact the intelligent use of drugs can be of tremendous benefit. It depends upon the user, the drug, the set & setting, and the reasons for using the drug.

It is my opinion that because in our society we have not developed any but the most shallow awareness of the interactions between the substances we put into our bodies and their effects on us physically, psychologically & spiritually, most people have no grounding to properly evaluate drugs per se.

For the record I'll state once again I currently refrain from using alcohol, caffeine, tobacco & all illegal drugs. I limit sugar intake drastically, going days at a time without it. So this is not some drug fiend writing this stuff. :^)

Will Harry the gin drinker add a hit of Buddha Thai weed to his after dinner constitutional? Will Sally the burger flipper snort methamphetamine before work whereas now she takes diet pills? Some will, some won't. Will our society devolve into devil-eyed addicts? Could be.

I'm willing to trade this sterile community existence which sucks curiosity & adventure out of us like a shop-vac for the opportunity to learn & grow limited only by my potential & basic rules of peaceful citizenship.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

Bravo, Bingo! [Spoken like a TRUE drug fiend. [grin]

I observed a thread on another forum [which I won't name] in which a poster [which I won't name] got pissed because the DARE program in school told her kid that coffee and tobacco were drugs. I agree that folks don't realize what they're "using." Lars probably doesn't even realize that his chocolate is a sex-substitute. Caffeine is HIGHLY addictive. Tobacco is more addictive than heroin.

To answer Frank's question, however, I, personally, think there would be more folks smoking marijuana if it were legal. It will never replace alcohol, however. The two drugs don't equal in effect. In fact, many marijuana users never smoked tobacco and some don't enjoy the effects of alcohol at all. Marijuana is NOT physically addictive and does not lead to hard drug use. Like anything else, it IS emotionally addictive, which is to say, "If you THINK you need it, you need it." [much like Lars and his chocolate] I suppose it COULD replace drugs like Prozac, Xanax, etc. That would be a good thing, because those drugs ARE habit-forming. I don't think society would see an increase in hard drug use, even if they were legalized. JMHO.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

All forum participants who will begin using crack and heroin because it is now legal to do so please raise your hand.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

Hello?

I thought so.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.

Bingo,

While I usually get *deeply* offended when people put words in my mouth, here I must say you're correct. I don't see drug users in our society being like the Indians using peyote for spiritual awareness, but rather escapists trying to get "wasted". (Drug use=abuse for many)

I don't think they're doing themselves any good, but believe that's *their* business. I think drugs have to be regulated because these users DO interact with society, which is MY business.

Anita,

No offense, but I wouldn't lump Xanax (a benzo) and Prozac (an SSRI) into the same category. Xanax isn't needed by most people who take it (IMHO), but Prozac is VERY effective returning depressed people back to functionality. How is giving prozac more addictive than giving a diabetic insulin? The goal isn't to ALTER their physiology or mental state from normal, but to return them TO normal.

Unk,

No one may answer, but that doesn't mean some won't. Personally, I don't want them on the road when I'm driving home.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

This thread talks around a few nettlesome practical issues. Plenty of room here for careful discussion, and too much scope for political grandstanding and/or pious moralizing.

1) Usage. It is presumed that a sizeable number of people either don't use drugs, or use them much less than they would otherwise, for reasons our legal stance creates -- perhaps respect for the law, fear of getting caught, high prices, lack of easy availability, etc. Accordingly, if these restrictions were lifted via legalization, we assume national drug consumption would rise considerably.

Almost surely consumption wouldn't decrease, but the *amount* of increase, if any, is hard to determine. The presumption that it would skyrocket isn't founded on much more than abstract (and highly variable) faith, or lack of faith, in human nature.

2) Resulting deleterious effects. The scare image is of hordes of previously productive social contributors dropping out (or becoming strikingly less productive). Many of them might require government assistance. The economic effect of this productivity loss would be significant. But how accurate is this scare image? We all know there are people who fall victim to their inability to handle drugs. But what statistical (as opposed to anecdotal) basis underlies the "serious economic decline" presumption?

3) Shortsightedness and political inertia. We may all want the greatest good for the greatest number (without unreasonable restrictions), and we might all agree that the minuses of most controlled substances outweigh their plusses. As with guns, the simpleminded approach is to wish real real hard that drugs would all just somehow go away, and we'd all be better off. The political expression of this wishful thinking is to pass laws banning them all. When this simpleminded expression, as always, runs badly afoul of the law of unintended consequences, we have painted ourselves into a corner. Politically, we cannot repeal laws billed as being for everyone's benefit, without looking like we are now *against* people's benefit, regardless of how obviously our laws have backfired.

And politicians are well aware that the public has associated the laws with the goals, despite the empirical opposite result, much as Steve Heller now calls everyone a "polly" who disagrees with him about *anything*. For good or ill, most people can't see through the symbolism to the reality, and as a result opposing drug laws MEANS favoring drug abuse in the public mind. This is NOT easy to overcome.

Uncle Deedah has delineated the measurable, demonstrable evils our legal position has brought us. But this is strictly a tradeoff issue. Would the putative evil effects of legalization be worse, or an improvement, over what we currently suffer? Without question we'd be trading one set of problems for another. Is there any useful common denominator by which we could compare the relative "badness" of different problem sets? What might it be? We would surely see a reduction in crime, but how much is that "worth"? Is it worth trading the high social losses due to crime and incarceration for presumed social losses from a higher dropout rate? How *much* higher? How can we tell?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.

Excuse me, Frank, but WHERE did you get the idea that Xanax was NOT an SSRI? What exactly is a benzo? The difference that I've seen between Xanax and Prozac is that Xanax can be taken only when needed, and can be prescribed by any medical doctor. Prozac is a more regularly used drug and last time I looked required a licensed psychiatrist to write the prescription.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Frank, they are on the road with you now, that is the point of my little rant.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.

Anita,

Xanax is a benzodiazapine (sp?) and turned out to be more addictive than Valium. It's main use is for anxiety. Prozac is an SSRI, and can be prescribed by any MD. The doctor doesn't have to be a psychiatrist.

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 31, 2000.

Frank, thank you for your understanding. I don't usually *shove* my words into someone else's mouth. Promise I won't perform such oral surgery on you again. Your post hit me a certain way which necessitated my response be presented as such. Clear? LOL!

BTW, I am not so blind as to not see many drug users are abusers. I was there. I have theories on this phenomena which I will share if this thread remains active.

Though I am a self-proclaimed pessimist when it comes to evaluating humanity, this outlook has its roots in my visualizations of the possibilities this species could journey towards IF...

The leash must be let out. Those who wish to explore the myriad nooks & crannies of consciousness must be allowed to do so without the threat of punishment from without. After all, is it MY consciousness or society's?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

Under Current Drug Laws in the U.S.

*Those that must are using now

*Those that want are using now

Legalize drug usage?

*Those that might will use

*Those that can will use

*Those that were afraid wont be

*Young folks will not be likely to oppose peer pressure

How many more zombies will be added to the roles under the last scenario?

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 31, 2000.

Anita,

Try a PDR :-)

Xanax = alprazolam, 0.25-0.5mg po tid

It's a short half-life benzodiazepine that leaves people wanting more

Trust me on this one. Or not.

Prozac = fluoxetine 20mg po qd to start, and is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, works well WITHOUT causing addiction (unless freedom from bad depression is an addiction)

In every state I know of either can be prescribed by any liscensed M.D., in some states I wouldn't be suprised if paraprofessionals could prescribe Prozac, but don't know that for a fact.

Unk,

Exactly, my point is I don't want MORE of them out there with me.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Unk,

Just roll a bigun' up,ice the brew down and de-thaw the shrooms,lets hit the beach long bout midnight.That is a shit eatin' grin kinda night.

Yaw'll have to learn HOW to party!!!,It's not IF ya party but how you go about it.BTW,it's happy hour as we speak : ) Enjoy!!!!!!!!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 31, 2000.

Hey Willy, from which issue of Reader's Digest did you plagiarize that list?

Unless you're really #88 (in which case those multiple concussions explain a lot), those cheesesteaks have gone to your head, man.

Dallas in six.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 31, 2000.

Thanks, Frank. I'm going to spend some time tomorrow comparing the chemical breakdowns of the two. The PDR just doesn't cut it for me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Anita,

Actually, you might *want* to look at a PDR to check up on me, as (between you & me) my post was off the cuff ;-) .

I remember xanax particularly though as it has a 12 hr. half life but has to be prescribed TID for some reason. It's a bad one IMO.

Another funky benzo is Dalmane which has a LOOONG half life. If you have some little old lady show up stoned out of her gourd chances are some old doc has her on Dalmane which she's been taking religiously, with her blood level creeping up, up, up each day she takes it.

Frank

P.S. I like the SSRIs though, I think they've done a lot of good for a lot of people with incredibly few side effects.

P.P.S. Of course, what do I know?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Bingo my good fellow you are living proof that detox is not a cure- all. BTW, I agree that Dallas will be history by the sixth game. Now back to your demons.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 31, 2000.

OK Frank, let me see.

Let us say that we are spending 25 billion dollars a year on this war, I think that this is probably a conservative figure when one takes into account the all pervasive nature of the drug war, from interdiction, to prison building, to housing inmates etc, etc, etc. I have seen figures as high as 50 billion dollars wasted each year on this war, when all of the total costs are added up.

Let us also say that hard core drug use quadruples. So, instead of...well...I don't know how many drug users are on the road now, I don't seem to read a lot of stories where drug users are involved in a lot of accidents. Drunks, yeah, lots of drunks get in accidents, but folks who are only on heroin? Beats me. For argument's sake lets say that instead of one in a thousand we then have four in a thousand people driving under the influence of drugs. Too many sure, but still not as bad as drunk drivers I think, why not make alcohol illegal? Oh yeah, never mind, we tried that.

Anyway,

How many extra traffic cops would 25 billion dollars buy? 25 billion dollars divided by fifty thousand dollars (twice what our local cops make just to be safe)equals 500,000 new cops on the street doing nothing but looking for screwed-up drivers. Ten thousand new cops in YOUR state driving around just to be sure that Frank is safe when he drives to work. Then add in all of the cops who are now doing nothing but chasing drug offenders and put them on the street looking for impared drivers too. What's that, another third of the current police force? Hell Frank, you would be more likely to run into a cop than a guy on dope!

And I haven't even touched the argument that you wish to continue this war, and all of it's demonstrated casualties, because some people MIGHT drive under the influence and they MIGHT hit you. Throwing people in prison to stop them from maybe doing something is not right.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.

Unk,

Cordially, I don't buy the argument that drug use will only rise a little bit if legalized. I think that the reason there are so many fatalities and lost productivity due to alcohol is that it IS legal and considered socially acceptable, so people meet for a beer or two, have one too many and don't think that it's *morally wrong* to drive home afterwards.

With crack or heroin a user KNOWS that if he's even SEEN by a cop he goes to jail, so I think that they tend to avoid activities that will bring them in contact with society (in general). Now I don't have any PROOF of this, and am quite open-minded ;-) about being proved wrong here.

I think that if you legalized drugs you *would* see an explosive rise after a generation or two of casual use of these drugs, just like with alcohol, which would lead to a markedly increased societal burden.

Anyway, I'm not willing to find out.

I do agree it's frustrating though, I'd like a solution, but don't think getting everyone high is it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Damn it Frank, I just cant say it any better than you have. On the other hand I have to agree with the Unk that the current War wont hunt. What I dont hear as yet is a plan that makes sensemaybe there isnt one!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 31, 2000.

Yes it is frustrating. Sadly, in a generation or two I do not think America will be the land of the free anymore if the current trend continues.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.

America needs to ask itself why people prefer to be stoned...

As for harm reduction, I've been to Amsterdam and it's obvious... no risk = no big money = no violence = no corruption.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), May 31, 2000.

Unk,

Well, appealling to my paranoid side is kind of like hitting below the belt, but I agree completely. If the choice was destroy the Bill of Rights or legalize drugs, I'd keep the B of R.

Hopefully it won't come to that...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 01, 2000.

Are there other European countries that have lax drug laws? If so, what are their experiences?

Also, any more detailed information on Holland's experience?

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 01, 2000.

A few more words if I may.

I think the worries about a culture gone berserk if drugs were legal are overblown. We as humans are social creatures and we adhere to unwritten rules of interaction. Social stigma as it were.

If drugs were legal that does not mean that employers would have to hire you and put up with your drug use any more than employers have to put up with alcoholics who cannot perform their duties now. People for the most part want to better themselves, and the vast majority of people who experiment with drugs stop using drugs of their own accord because it tends to interfere with a productive life.

It is not illegal to have "Fuck You" tattooed on your forehead, yet I have yet to see anyone with such a tattoo. I don't see any bank vice- presidents who have purple mohawk hairstyles, though purple mohawk hairstyles are perfectly legal to have. People want to fit in for the most part, most people like being part of a community.

I believe that people are the captains of their own ships in life, that folks need to screw-up now and then and learn from it. I believe that a man should be free to mess up his own life as much or as little as he wishes, without well meaning others interfering and screwing it for him because he does not live his life as the well meaning others think he should. This is the basic premise of freedom, that you are free to set your own sails and chart your own course, that you are the one who determines where you sail. If you need help with a problem you should ask, but "help" from bystanders should not be forced upon you against your will, through the force of law.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Flash

Zurich has a drug park,,, you can get heroin by prescription in England, this is hardly earth shattering,,America is still very much a sort of colonial place, that's all.

And yes, friendly men in suits sell drugs from briefcases in Amsterdam, and the Cafes are... well... appropriately stocked. Everything is still illegal of course but if everybody behaves then relax. And it is very relaxed.

The US gov. chooses tyranny... why?

-- Will (righthere@home.now), June 01, 2000.

I'm no expert on Amsterdam, I've only visited 3 times. The impression that I had is that the "layabouts" there seemed to come from all over the world. I found the Dutch that I met to be intelligent and cultured with no overwhelming interest in getting high. When they do it's no more of a production than having a cup of coffee. I never felt unsafe there, in total contrast to the city I live in now. My kids went through the DARE brainwashing last year. They were actually told that vitamins were drugs! All I can hope is that the generation gap is becoming narrower each year and that soon there will be some stoners in Congress. Grass is not manmade. Therefore, the right to legislate it should not exist.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

Hummm... I really do want to check in on this thread. Some of you know me as the "stoned hippy" here, and that's OK, because I guess that's how I am. But I also do hold down a real job, and I've got an early day tomorrow. Hummm, 1:30 and counting...

But I will comment. Nothing new for those that do know what I think about this. Nothing new about the cops that are killed when they do find a bag. Nothing new about someone that spends most of their life behind bars, because they deceided to not kill that cop.

Naa, nothing new here. But I did add this thread to my favs. And, as they say;

I'll be back!!!

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Unk,

I hear you, but cultures do change. For example, compare the 1940s births to single mothers, or acceptance of homosexuality with todays, wouldn't you say a change has occurred?

I'm not saying societal acceptance of the businessman snorting coke at lunch instead of having a martini WILL occur, just that it could.

Again, WHY should we have more people on drugs? Personally, I think the reason we have so many users NOW is due to collapsing societal values, adding legalized drug use IMO will only speed this process, worsening society.

I suppose the other point could be that the legal or illegalization of drugs is not the issue, but rather the underlying value structure of society. Aw H@ll, I'm not going to veer off on another tangent.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 01, 2000.

"Kids can most times find drugs easier than can adults"

LOL Unc, ain't it the truth...

Being a 48 year old adult, and dealing with "kids" on a regular basis, I gotta tell ya that the kids do have better dope these days! I think it's called a fact of life...

Anyway, gotta book. I'll catch up on my reading later... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Amen, Deedah. Amen.

Regarding pot smokers and driving... I talked to a Texas DPS Sargeant at length at a party once (go figure...) about drugs and alcohol. He admitted to me he would wish that all drivers were stoned. They were the paranoid ones driving the speed limit, watching every thing that was going on...

loungin' on the porch...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

My, what an active discussion. Thanks for digging up that link, Frank. It's a shame the old one had to be deleted; this thread revisits a lot of the same arguments. I really appreciated a lot of Steve's input, but he had a knack for writing incredibly long posts.

In my opinion, severe decriminalization of marijuana (specifically) will not lead to a significant increase in the number of * irresponsible marijuana users. In my opinion, responsible marijuana users do not deserve to be treated like criminals. In my opinion, the cons of draconian drug laws grossly outweigh the pros.

I noticed a couple posts about driving while under the influence of THC. I agree that the level of impairment by THC is considerably less than by alcohol, yet I feel driving while intoxicated (be it from THC, paint, glue, or miscellaneous) is an irresponsible action.

* Examples of irresponsible marijuana use: driving while under the influence; providing to minors; violating the rights of another while under the influence.

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), June 01, 2000.

My kids went through the DARE brainwashing last year.

How unfortunate... I was under the impression everyone knew by now the program was / is an utter failure. At least give kids enough credit to realize they will know when they're being lied to. It would be really refreshing to have a program that presented unbiased, straightforward information to the schools. Still, you can't directly blame the DARE coordinators -- their teachings had to complement prohibition.

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), June 01, 2000.

Frank, not putting words in your mouth per my sworn oath...but...you either didn't understand a single word I've written OR you've simply disregarded my posts. Or read them & decided I was full of shit. Whatever.

Your comparisons between alcohol & other drugs are shoddy, bordering on the ridiculous. You obviously have little to no experience with illegal drugs, Frank. Or more importantly, alteration of consciousness.

These are merely starting points from which to offer effective input into this discussion. I do appreciate you adding your limited views to the mix, however. You are typical of so many I've had discussions with over the years. Not a clue. Ive yet to devise a way to get through to people who are challenged in such a manner, short of spiking their soft drinks withjust kidding.

Words alone aren't sufficient to awaken anyone to the possibilities which may be afforded us individually AND as a society through the freedom to expand or contract our consciousness as each of us deems appropriate. As Ive written in prior posts drugs are just one way of achieving this. And by no means the cleanest, crispest routes to this end.

If you would use a real e-mail addy I wouldn't have had to post this publicly. I'm sorry for my abruptness. My patience has run short this morning.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 01, 2000.

Gia Said:

All I can hope is that the generation gap is becoming narrower each year and that soon there will be some stoners in Congress.

Im confident that your wish has long ago been granted. Too friggin funny!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 01, 2000.

Frank,

The choice between the drug war and the Bill of Rights is being made for you, right now.

Warning: This press release could be illegal under new anti-drug legislation

WASHINGTON, DC -- Politicians are so desperate to win the War on Drugs that they're willing to outlaw this press release, the Libertarian Party said today.

"Warning: This press release contains illegal information," said the party's National Director Steve Dasbach. "You could be prosecuted -- and sentenced to a 10-year prison term -- for reading it on the air, publishing it in a newspaper, or linking it to yourwebsite."

The reason? Congress appears poised to pass legislation that would make it a crime to publicize information about illegal drugs. The bill, HR. 2987, would make it a federal felony to advertise, link a website to, or even publish certain kinds of factual data about drugs, drug culture, or drug paraphernalia.

"The War on Drugs has been turned into a War on Words," said Dasbach. "This bill would make certain kinds of Constitutionally protected speech illegal, and give politicians the power to put Americans in prison for writing, posting, or advocating information the government doesn't like."

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, sponsored by senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- passed the Senate unanimously last November. It is now being considered by two House committees.

Supporters say the bill is designed to fight so-called "meth labs," which produce a dangerous form of amphetamine.

But the bill would go far beyond that, said Dasbach -- and would create several new "communication crimes," including:

* Illegal linking (three years in prison): It would be illegal for any "communications facility to post, publicize, transmit, publish, link to, broadcast or otherwise advertise" -- or even provide "indirect advertising for" -- Internet sites that sell drug paraphernalia.

"For example, this press release would be illegal if we mention that www.bongs.com has information about buying marijuana pipes," said Dasbach. "It could even be illegal if we provided this information so you could prevent your children from visiting thatsite."

* Illegal teaching (10 years in prison). It would be illegal to tell someone how to produce an illegal drug, such as growingmarijuana.

"It would be a felony to mention that you can purchase a book about growing marijuana at www.marijuana-hemp.com," said Dasbach. "It could even be a felony if you intended to grow marijuana in a state where medical marijuana is legal, and you planned to grow it for bona fide medical reasons."

The bill is a dangerous expansion of government power, said Dasbach, because although politicians now have the power to outlaw certain activities, the First Amendment prohibits them from outlawing speech about those illegal activities.

"Politicians have already made possession of drugs a crime -- now they want to make possession of press releases, books, newspapers, magazines, and websites about drugs a crime," he said. "If this bill passes, the War on Drugs will have escalated into a full fledged War on the First Amendment."

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Link me, baby.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 01, 2000.

Here's the bill, if anyone is interested:

HR 2987

I wouldn't get too concerned over this one, Unk. When Hatch introduced it, he referenced the 1992 bill that banned shops from selling drug paraphernalia. He figured that since all these shops were closed, they'd gone to the internet to peddle their wares. Oddly enough, however, these shops are still functioning. In fact, the closest one here is owned and run by some local policemen. We get the free calendar every year [one must forgive the mistakes.]

It's easy to toss a "for tobacco use only" disclaimer on a product. Is someone going to do a search and seize on all the books in the libraries nationwide to eliminate those that reference growing techniques? I don't think so.

BTW, BC was mentioned on the news a few nights past as producing one of the strongest strains of marijuana available EVER. They grow it indoors. I saw the pictures on T.V..

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

Bingo,

Dang, did you get up on the wrong side of bed this morning or what? Maybe you should medicate yourself ;-)... Anyway, feel free to tell me what I said that got you so bent out of shape.

Best,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 01, 2000.

In Frank's defense, Bingo, one would have to have broken the law at some point to determine the reality versus the propoganda. His ignorance of the effects of marijuana are equivalent to a virgin's ignorance of the sexual experience. There wouldn't be enough time in a day for me to correct all the sexual misconceptions I've seen on this forum. Ignorance due to inexperience is perfectly acceptable to me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

Acceptable - absolutely.

My frustration stems from the fact I believe this thread has barely scratched the surface of its potential. My fear (figuratively) is this thread may die prematurely.

As most can see I've much of my life invested in this subject. I feel strongly about individual freedom, states & levels of consciousness. My communication skills are somewhat lacking. It is my failing in that I haven't communicated my thoughts clearly & succinctly.

I jumped on Frank as a guard dog an intruder. I'm sorry Frank.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 01, 2000.

Bingo,

No problemo. If I had a nickel for every time *I* did something I later regretted, well, I wouldn't be where I am :-)

Anyway, what was it that got you so upset? I wasn't trying to Troll here, what I posted is pretty much my honest opinion.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 01, 2000.

Frank, I believe you.

And thank you for your understanding.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 01, 2000.

Bingo, if ever there was a subject for debate we have it here. You have put out thousands of words in support of what appears to be unrestrained personal use of drugs. Now at this point I have the impression that you have been and still are a serious doper that somehow is managing his habit. Why thats just super. Im sure we could develop a whole society of brain-fried Bingos to lead us into the future. I suggest you confine your cell reduction program to your own diminishing person and hope that few will follow you into your drug-induced abyss. You may have found a way to live while lit but few will be able to duplicate your level of limpidity. Perhaps we need to replace the inefficient war on drugs with a more focused crusade for personal responsibility. We humans have proven over and over how badly we manage a discipline-free existence. The trick is finding that middle ground of controls that will placate the majority and restrain the minority.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), June 01, 2000.

The following quotation was written by Tom Robbins for the forward to the book The Archaic Revival by Terence McKenna:

Our problems today are more complex and more threatening than at any time in history. Sadly, we cannot even begin to solve those problems, because our reality orientations are lower than a snowmans blood pressure. We squint at existence through thick veils of personal and societal ignorance, overlaid with still more opaque sheets of disinformation, thoughtfully provided by the state, the church, and big business (often one and the same). The difference between us and Helen Keller is that she knew she was deaf and blind.

My apologies to Ms. Keller, but I feel the paragraph presents an important point which needed to be stated.

I know from personal experience that marijuana, mushrooms containing psilocybin, LSD & a few other drugs can help one to tear through these veils. This is the major reason why they've been banned, IMO. Not just so Frank can drive home with some measure of peace of mind. ;^)

Willy, you crafted that last post very carefully. You did not accuse me of using drugs currently, merely suggested it strongly. What if I were using? Does this possibility in any way deflate my arguments?

Ideas are entities unto themselves. They hold vibrations, can change us in small ways & large. I'm not the source of these thoughts & phrases, merely a temporary host. Am I high? Irrelevant!

As I've mentioned before, I don't use these drugs anymore. Instead I meditate, chant & pray. If anyone, especially you Willy, cares to challenge the makeup of my blood or fatty tissue, my e-mail is real.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 01, 2000.

Ive done more than my share of drugs and have seen what the effects are on the average person. Anita, you should not mistake your experience for that of others. Some folks can drive just fine on many drinks while others will be dangerous after 1 beer. Bingo, as I dont know you personally I can only comment on your thoughts as you post them. Ive heard nobody supporting the current drug laws, myself included, but how could we possibly agree to a society with no restraints on the usage of drugs? Clockwork Orange anyone? BTW, as long as you have offered Bingo please send a few of your hair samples to:

CDC 241 Toxic Circle Atlanta, GA 30071

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), June 01, 2000.

"The leash must be let out. Those who wish to explore the myriad nooks & crannies of consciousness must be allowed to do so without the threat of punishment from without. After all, is it MY consciousness or society's?" ---Bingo1

Well said Bingo1.

-- Debra (somany@windows.com), June 01, 2000.

Debra, I must agree that this line of reasoning sounds most attractive when applied to our somewhat normal predilections such as drug use of choice. How will you feel when the more bizarre and disgusting activities are also given that extra leash. Oh, we can keep that kind of stuff under control you say. Okey, Dokey.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 01, 2000.

Debra, I must agree that this line of reasoning sounds most attractive when applied to our somewhat normal predilections such as drug use of choice. How will you feel when the more bizarre and disgusting activities are also given that extra leash. Oh, we can keep that kind of stuff under control you say. Okey, Dokey. -- Ra (tion@l.1), June 01, 2000.

As long as they do not hurt anyone else, besides themselves of course, is it really anyone else's business?

The seller is not hurting anyone by selling, it is what the buyer does with the product that matters.

A drug dealer, not to be confused with a pharmacist, sells hashish or cocaine to a buyer, he hurts no one by that act. If the buyer, while using the product, hurts someone, then the buyer is at fault.

If a department store sells a butcher knife to a buyer, it hurts no one by that act. If the buyer, while using the product, hurts someone, then the buyer is at fault.

But the drug dealer is selling something that is bad for society? The government must step in and control or stop it from hurting the rest of us?

Well, there are a lot of other products and things out there that are bad for society and cause hurt like gas, asbestos, radiation, nuclear weapons, but the government is not stopping them for our sake.

Why are drugs so different? And why certain drugs? Maybe the government should outlaw caffiene, and require a prescription from a doctor?

[btw, I think I got the html right, crossing my fingers...]

-- just wondering why (seems@little.uneven), June 02, 2000.

Ra,

Man has used mind-altering drugs since the beginning of time. I cant see that changing.

I see the "more bizarre and disgusting activities" connected to drug use the same as I see them connected to alcohol. There would be some of that sort of activity but I don't think it would be substantially worse than it is with alcohol. Once we got thru the initial period drugs would fall into a pattern of use and abuse just like alcohol.

Someone who was very drugged and who came stumbling into a store to purchase more drugs would be told the same thing the drunk person looking to purchase more alcohol would be told. No sale. And like the person who buys 5 cases of beer at a time and stocks his fridge, so the person who buys 5 packs of joints will stock his cabinet. Both then will have the ability to knock themselves out on any given night. As long as they dont put anyone else in danger its their call. Once THAT line is crossed then the law should get involved.

There are so many benefits to legalizing. Those benefits have been described throughout this thread so I dont need to repeat them here.

Man will not stop using drugs in the near future. There will always be a market. IMO we should take that market out of the hands of organized crime. Our drug policies should be tossed and started again from scratch. And, I believe, it should recognize that my mind is mine and I will make the decisions concerning it.

-- Debra (...@....), June 02, 2000.

Just wonderin, you said,

As long as they do not hurt anyone else, besides themselves of course, is it really anyone else's business?

NO. But do they hurt *only* themselves? An alcoholic affects everyone around them, whether they just drink at home or not. Why add to more people to this category by legalizing drugs and increasing users?

But the drug dealer is selling something that is bad for society? The government must step in and control or stop it from hurting the rest of us?

Well, there are a lot of other products and things out there that are bad for society and cause hurt like gas, asbestos, radiation, nuclear weapons, but the government is not stopping them for our sake.

Yes, the drug dealer IS selling something bad for society. As your examples point out, when making laws we don't just worry about what the responsible people would do (or we wouldn't *need* most of the laws) we have to worry about *everyone*. The .gov isn't regulating what you listed? Can you go down to Sears and buy asbestos pipe covering, a cobalt60 source, or a nuke? What town do you live in? I believe actually gasoline is pretty well regulated too, since some people have stored it in trash cans and such causing fires, now the fire marshall (I believe) can cite you for violations.

Dangerous, that is POTENTIALLY dangerous, products are regulated in some way or another for the good of society.

Drugs are not different. Some people could recreationally use crack (for example) responsibly and for them I agree it's a bummer that it's illegal. But the law isn't made to punish them, it's to keep down the number of people who use while pregnant, blow crack in their baby's face to keep it from crying, etc.

My complaint isn't with ANYONE acting responsibly in their own home, but I don't believe drugs fall into the same category as someone playing solitaire. People who use & abuse drugs/alcohol affect society, and often adversely, so we shouldn't expand the problem by giving it a societal o.k.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Frank said: My complaint isn't with ANYONE acting responsibly in their own home, but I don't believe drugs fall into the same category as someone playing solitaire. People who use & abuse drugs/alcohol affect society, and often adversely, so we shouldn't expand the problem by giving it a societal o.k.

I agree, drug do not fall into the same catagory as playing solitaire.

And I am not saying that we should it societal o.k. either.

I just don't like the government telling us what we can and cannot do.

I feel that it would be governments role to inform us of the adverse effects of using drugs. And I think it should fall to government, as informed by us, to make law for the consequences of such use should we injure someone. i.e. like a car wreck with injuries and property damage as a result of drug impairment the same as we have with drunk drivers.

You mention that alcoholics hurt more than just themselves. In some cases yes, this is true. There is an animal out there called 'a functional alcoholic' just as there is an animal out there called 'a functional druguser.' The key word is functional.

As you know, there are many gray areas related to this subject.

i do not like the idea of government having so much power that they can, as someone put it earlier, regulate nature.

If they regulate the manufacturing and selling of the substances, such as with alcohol having a 'proof' then it shouldn't be much worse, and the death count from bad drugs would drop. Yes? Maybe?

Look at cigarettes. We know they kill. We know what makes them kill. Government has taxed them quite a bit, and yet people still smoke. And children still manage to start smoking even tho it is taught in their health classes that smoking is bad. Adults still smoke even with all the warnings.

One thing that I see as a major problem with pot use as opposed to alcohol consumption is this. An adult is capable of drinking in front of children without the children getting drunk from it. Not so with pot. The smoke permeates the air and affects all who breathe it. Like the cigarettes, second hand smoke is hard to control. Solve that, and I may vote for it to become legal.

-- just wondering (curious@here.now), June 02, 2000.

As my own attendance at church is somewhat spotty (make that non- existent) I hesitate to make a biblical analogy regarding this issue. That being said does anyone remember the Sodom and Gomorra saga? Left to our own devises we humans will certainly self-destruct without a system of checks and balances. If you really think it through you will have to agree that totally legalizing drug use will not be a good thing. There are lots of activities that we all might love to do that are illegal, and usually for a good reason.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 02, 2000.

Solve that, and I may vote for it to become legal.

Smoke outside! Send the kid to play outside. Smoke in another room. Don't smoke it, eat it! Yikes!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 02, 2000.

Yes Bingo, those would work I suppose. I just used a child in the example because so many are 'thinking of the children.'

But what about those that do not want to inhale. Say in a public place, where the wind carries the smoke around? or in a bar? Not all people in a bar are drinkers of alcohol, remember. And some, drinkers or not, do not smoke.

Also, if you smoke outside of your house, say on the patio or deck, while you are keeping the house clear inside, your neighbors are getting a whiff. [That could be good or bad, i suppose. grin]

smoking pot, or crack, or whatever is being smoked these days, affects all who are in reach of the smoke. I see that as one deterrent to legalizing it.

I am not saying that it is a good or bad thing. what i am saying is that society is the one to decide, not government. And the laws should be there for the ramifications of the use, not the use itself.

-- just wondering (notsure@being.clear.yet), June 02, 2000.

Just Wondering,

Do you agree that it is a legitimate function of the .gov to regulate POTENTIALLY dangerous items such as gas, radiation, asbestos, and nuclear weapons? Or should individuals be able to possess whatever they want, regardless of the POTENTIAL cost to society?

This is where I think we differ. Just as while some people would be o.k. having a nuke in their yard, I wouldn't want *everyone* to be able to have one, I think that while individual drug users may not be dangerous, as a group they pose a significant enough danger that their spread should not be encouraged.

Also, legalizing something does IMO give a stamp of societal approval to it.

I also believe that a "functional alcoholic" means that they can hold down a job, and perform their activities of daily living. I do NOT believe that they have healthy relationships, or are good for their families or society in general.

With cigarettes, that's MY point. Cigs are legal and regulated, and lots of people die of them. If they were illegal, and less people smoked, the cost in lives would most likely be lower.

Further, there is a BIG difference between pot and alcohol. With alcohol, the vast majority of kids can't make it themselves, so that at some point an adult is (in one way or another) responsible for their getting it. OTOH pot is a WEED. Once legalized and with it growing in every hippie's front yard, how do you restrain fifth graders from getting as much as they want?

Everyone seems to hate seeing kids on Ritalin, why would you want kids stoned at school?

I don't see how it's worth it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Do you agree that it is a legitimate function of the .gov to regulate POTENTIALLY dangerous items such as gas, radiation, asbestos, and nuclear weapons? Or should individuals be able to possess whatever they want, regardless of the POTENTIAL cost to society?

Regulate, yes. make illegal, no.

Look at gas. There is no minimum age for buying gas. Anyone can do it. Supposed to be sold into an approved container, and it is taxed a lot. But easily obtained.

Look at radiation. Sometimes radiation can be benificial. Sometimes not. Gov. regulates, based on scientific research I hope, what we can get for health, and tries to keep the bad rads under control. There are regulations pertaining to the power industry for example, as to how much is safe leakage, and how much is not. It is bad when it leaks, but is it illegal? Nope. Can we do without it as a power source? Yes. Can a man on the street, average joe, make radiation? possibly. I have no info on this, so cannot say yes or no with certainty.

Asbestos. Well, it is supposed to be controlled and used in specific applications. Where I work we have asbestos. It is in the floor tiles. Whenever work is done that involves the floor being cut, removed, drilled, whatever, the area is sealed off. [If it is so bad, why do they use it? It doesn't make the floor softer to walk on, and does not really make it last any longer considering how often they are fiddling with it. So why use it? It's dangerous. I dunno. They just do.] but, the people were informed, and manufacturers were regulated to remove asbestos from day to day products that are used in the home. Same with lead paint.

Now nuclear weapons. This is where I think we differ. Just as while some people would be o.k. having a nuke in their yard, I wouldn't want *everyone* to be able to have one, I think that while individual drug users may not be dangerous, as a group they pose a significant enough danger that their spread should not be encouraged.

Well, I wouldn't want one in my yard. [But if someone had to have one in my neighborhood, I would rather it was me. lol] At one time no one wanted other countries to have that technology. Look how many have it today. It would seem that 'everyone has one in their yard' almost. So, you say I mean individuals, not countries. But what are the countries but groups of individuals. And as a group they pose a significant danger to society. So, let us not allow their spread to be encouraged. Right? Oops! Already happening.

Also, legalizing something does IMO give a stamp of societal approval to it. Alcohol is legal, with restrictions, regulations, and legal repercussions for missuse. Why not drugs?

I also believe that a "functional alcoholic" means that they can hold down a job, and perform their activities of daily living. I do NOT believe that they have healthy relationships, or are good for their families or society in general.

This one is a biggie. If a person drinks alcohol, are they an alcoholic? What if they only have one drink [1 oz] a year for New Year's? Well, according to the authorities, yes, that person is a functional alcoholic. Why? Well, they discovered that there is a gene in our DNA [excuse me, but gene may not be the right word here] which, when a person has the first taste of alcohol, gets turned on. If the person never drinks any alcohol during the entire life, it remains dormant, but is passed on to the next generation.

Now, as the person continues to drink, their body learns to tolerate and even crave more and larger amounts. This is the road to doom, as in the movie "Leaving Las Vegas." Some people do not have this gene, and can go with or without alcohol for any length of time, and can vary the amounts without anything but the usual effects.

By the way, you can go and get tested for this gene, or whatever it's called, but beware. If you have an individual insurance policy, as in not part of a group policy at work, you can be canceled if you come up positive for it. Doesn't matter whether you drink or not. Don't that suck?

With cigarettes, that's MY point. Cigs are legal and regulated, and lots of people die of them. If they were illegal, and less people smoked, the cost in lives would most likely be lower.

Well, if they were illegal, the state of North Carolina would go bankrupt. LOL But really, I smoke. I am aware of all the dangers to myself and those around me when I do it. Some of my elder relatives smoked andthey lived to a ripe old age. Could it be a gene factor with this like with alcohol? I dunno. But why can't pot be handled the same way? Do you think that everyone would start growing it in their own yards just because they could? The cig smokers don't do that, even in North Carolina. if it was easier to just go buy a pack of joints, I think they would do that instead. For the most part, anyway.

Further, there is a BIG difference between pot and alcohol. With alcohol, the vast majority of kids can't make it themselves, so that at some point an adult is (in one way or another) responsible for their getting it. OTOH pot is a WEED. Once legalized and with it growing in every hippie's front yard, how do you restrain fifth graders from getting as much as they want?

There are stores that will sell anyone regardless of age the materials needed to make alcohol. The libraries have books on the subject with no age limitations on who reads them, and then there is the internet.

And what selfrespecting hippie would grow his stash in his front yard where any jerk could take it? I mean really.....! lol

Everyone seems to hate seeing kids on Ritalin, why would you want kids stoned at school? I don't see how it's worth it. Frank

I don't understand this Ritalin thing myself. Doesn't sound good for the kids, but then hardly anything does these days. maybe the hyoperactive kids could be better able to handle school if they were buzzed. Pot does tend to relax. It is natural, and if regulated, can be grown to a certain strength. May be you have an idea there!~

-- just wondering (hoping@html.okay.typing.toomuch!), June 02, 2000.

Just,

I don't know if you're pulling my leg, or not, but as I don't see a ";-)" attached to your post, I'll assume not.

With radiation, you as an individual cannot go buy a lump of Cobalt without being liscensed to do so by .gov.

VAT (vinyl asbestos tiles) are non-hazardous unless sanded, so you can still buy them, but CAN't buy asbestos pipe wrap, etc. which has been ruled potentially dangerous.

You didn't even try to say that an individual should have a nuke, BUT you didn't answer the question either. Should an *individual* be able to possess whatever they want or not?

You said,

Alcohol is legal, with restrictions, regulations, and legal repercussions for missuse. Why not drugs?

Because of alcohol's example. The societal costs from alcohol are high, we shouldn't expand them by adding new substances.

You said,

This one is a biggie. If a person drinks alcohol, are they an alcoholic? What if they only have one drink [1 oz] a year for New Year's? Well, according to the authorities, yes, that person is a functional alcoholic.

I think you're playing games here. This is not the general definition of a functional alcoholic.

Do you think that everyone would start growing it in their own yards just because they could? The cig smokers don't do that, even in North Carolina.

*Everyone* doesn't have to start growing it, a devoted few would do. Pot doesn't need intense cultivation, and in many areas of the country would grow just fine after some modern-day Johnny Appleseed planted seeds along the roadway. If it is easy (and quick) to turn a tobacco leaf into a cigarette (which I kind of doubt), then maybe when taxes go up some more, people will go back to making their own. That's missing the point though, the point is tobacco is a societal problem because it's cheap and legal.

There are stores that will sell anyone regardless of age the materials needed to make alcohol. The libraries have books on the subject with no age limitations on who reads them, and then there is the internet.

Right, but still *to* make the alcohol is a production, and has to be made somewhere, like at their parent's house? How many kids do you see doing it? As you say, since alcohol is legal, and it's much easier not to make it, we have a large societal problem.

And what selfrespecting hippie would grow his stash in his front yard where any jerk could take it? I mean really.....! lol

You're thinking of the "now" man, expand your horizons. When pot's legalized, "the Man" can't roust you for growing it everywhere. Picture it dude, acres of free consciousness-raising grass free for the taking, it's paradise, man. And of course you can still grow your own "stash" in your backyard too!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Edit:

Right, but still to *make* the alcohol...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Frank:

You're STILL comparing pot to alcohol. At the risk of ticking off the poster that suggested that I not judge all things by MY experiences, I don't know ANYONE who would compare the two and conclude they were equal.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

...When pot's legalized, "the Man" can't roust you for growing it everywhere. Picture it dude, acres of free consciousness-raising grass free for the taking, it's paradise, man. And of course you can still grow your own "stash" in your backyard too!

Frank, if I've told you once I've told you a thousand times, no fair reading minds! Control your powers. :^)

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 02, 2000.

When I was a kid we grew pot in the treehouse. Some friends had a 'fort' in the mangroves along the bay, well hidden. They had pot growing there too. They tried a still but couldn't monitor it well enough. They got the directions from the school library.

The pot you smoke and the hemp for industry are two separate types, and one does not grow as wild as the other. I've tried! And, wild grown hemp, as you say along the roadside, is not as strong as 'private pot' or stash pot would be. As it goes to seed each generation will lose a bit of the THC level reverting to the industrial level with a small amount of THC. Ask any gardener.

But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that to have the .gov spend my tax dollars to tell me that this part of nature is illegal just sounds rather stupid and wrong. I should be allowed to use my own judgement, as bad as that may be, to decide for myself. If I make a mistake and as a result hurt someone, then I must pay the consequences.

The .gov should make sure that I have the must up-to-date information in which to make a decision. Education, information, the key.....

No I wasn't pulling your leg. I still personally would have a tough time voting pot legal, but I dislike intensely the .gov telling me I can't do it!

I forgot to paste your comments on the note pad, so I don't know if I missed anything. I may post again tonight, time permitting. I am having a similar arguement in real time now. lol

-- just wondering (my@choice.not.theirs), June 02, 2000.

Bingo,

Actually, it wasn't my psychic powers, I was having a "flashback" :-) to a thread with Steve Meyers, a devoted "pot-head". He he, I usually don't resort to cheap tricks like this, but I have the feeling that much like with Satan, invoking his name and tossing in an insult will bring him back. He had extensive amounts of material on Hemp.

Now to the point of this post: I really don't know the answer to this, perhaps some of you do. With a blood alcohol level, you can tell the amount of alcohol in someones system, by taking two levels separated in time, since it is processed linearly, you can even see how drunk someone was say a few hours ago.

With pot, as it stays in the fat, can you tell whether someone is acutely under the influence, or just may have been High days ago? Is the test quantitative?

Thanks,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Frank,

It would probably be easier to test the hair.

-- hair of the dog (so@to.speak), June 02, 2000.

Just a few points I'd like to respond to here:

when making laws we don't just worry about what the responsible people would do (or we wouldn't *need* most of the laws) we have to worry about *everyone*.
Frank, I think you will agree that if marijuana was legalized tomorrow you would not go out and try it. What is my point? As I have stated before, I believe the number of both responsible and irresponsible marijuana users would increase a tiny amount as a result of decriminalization. In my opinion, the troublemakers (the irresponsible users) will use marijuana in spite of the law; this makes their possible increase in numbers that much smaller -- they are already doing it!

Some people could recreationally use crack (for example) responsibly and for them I agree it's a bummer that it's illegal. But the law isn't made to punish them, it's to keep down the number of people who use while pregnant, blow crack in their baby's face to keep it from crying, etc.
I understand your point here completely. Let's say prohibition is supposedly in place to keep marijuana out of the hands of people like those cited in your crack example. The problem with this is marijuana is very easily obtained on the black market. So with prohibition in place, instead of irresponsible Mom going to a pharmacy or store to buy marijuana and to receive factual, unbiased information on it (for the good of her and her baby), she is getting it from a shady person who may take advantage of or harm her. If Mom is the sort who would stoop so low as to blow smoke in her baby's face, she will not care about the law anyway.

If you really think it through you will have to agree that totally legalizing drug use will not be a good thing. There are lots of activities that we all might love to do that are illegal, and usually for a good reason.
Agreed, Ra. Complete legalization may not be the best answer. As Frank has pointed out, heavy marketing of marijuana could and probably would end up targeting children, just as alcohol and tobacco products do now. As for your second sentence, I think it's important that we evaluate pros and cons of every situation and also those of its alternatives. Not all laws are in place for good reason.

Do you agree that it is a legitimate function of the .gov to regulate POTENTIALLY dangerous items such as gas, radiation, asbestos, and nuclear weapons?
Frank, I agree that regulation of dangerous material is a legitimate government function. Marijuana is not a dangerous material, in my opinion. Government informs us of the dangers of alcohol and tobacco (both of which are deadly substances); is this not hypocritical of them? Unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana is neither physically addictive nor is it possible to overdose from. Yet government informs our children of alcohol and tobacco dangers, and severely punishes those using marijuana. This is not consistent. It is one thing to warn us, and it is entirely another to imprison a few million people at our expense.

With pot, as it stays in the fat, can you tell whether someone is acutely under the influence, or just may have been High days ago? Is the test quantitative?
Yes, the UA test measures concentration. The major problem is, as you wrote, he may have just been high days ago.

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), June 03, 2000.

Frank, you might find this article interesting and informative:

Marijuana Myths

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

A few tidbits from The Natural Mind by Andrew Weil:

It is my belief that the desire to alter consciousness periodically is an innate, normal drive analogous to hunger or the sexual drive. Note that I do not say desire to alter consciousness by means of chemical agents. Drugs are merely one means of satisfying this drive; there are many others

Anyone who watches very young children without revealing his presence will find them regularly practicing techniques that induce striking changes in mental states. Three- and four-year-olds, for example, commonly whirl themselves into vertiginous stupors.

What then happens to it [desire to alter consciousness] as the child becomes more and more involved in the process of socialization? In most cases, it goes underground. Children learn very quickly that they must pursue antisocial behavior patterns if they wish to continue to alter consciousness regularly. Hence the secret meetings in cloakrooms, garages, and playground corners where they can continue to whirl, choke each other, and perhaps, sniff cleaning fluids or gasoline.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 03, 2000.

A few more tidbits from The Natural Mind by Andrew Weil:

If we are to make any headway in solving the drug problem, we must strictly observe certain rules of evidence. The most important is to identify and remove from consideration all nonessential issues that trigger emotional responses. Once we can see that consciousness alteration is not in itself undesirable, we need be concerned only with an evaluation of methods of achieving it.

Another kind of inadmissible argument is one based upon circular logic: drugs are illegal because they are bad; therefore, they are bad because they are illegal. Most of the social arguments against drugs are built upon this kind of circularity.

The medical arguments are the easiest to discuss because they diverge from fact so greatlyFor example, no illegal intoxicant approaches alcohol in medical harmfulness.

"As a case in point, let us compare alcohol with heroin, which many Americans consider the worst drug one can use...Both are depressants of the activity of the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). Regular use of both is associated with the two hallmarks of physical dependence: tolerance and withdrawal...Withdrawal from alcohol and barbituates can be fatal despite medical treatment; withdrawal from heroin is never fatal and quite unspectacular."

Note: This book was written a decade prior to widespread availability of crack cocaine.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 03, 2000.

The following is excerpted from The Archaic Revival by Terence McKenna. The author refers to his use of magic mushrooms:

Speaking for myself, let me say I am not an abuser. It takes me a long time to assimilate each visionary experience. I have never lost my respect for these dimensions. Dread is one of the emotions that I feel as I approach the experience. Psychedelic work is like sailing out onto a dark ocean in a little skiff. One may view the moon rising serenely over the calm black water, or something the size of a freight train may roar right through the scene and leave one clinging to an oar.

I ask you, as described, is this a substance a significant segment of the population will suddenly decide to take, and abuse? Hardly.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 04, 2000.

Is this thread played out? Or just buried under the fecal barage this morning?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 05, 2000.

Bingo:

This is an ex-thread. It has gone to meet its maker.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), June 05, 2000.

It's sleepin'. It's pinin'. It's...been too long since I saw that episode!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 05, 2000.