Marijuana.com

SpiralArchitect

If you had the ability and power to end the War on Drugs in the United States of America and instead regulate the distribution and sale* of all drugs would you?
*no sales to minor, sensible limit on purchasing amount, high quality unpolluted product, etc.

This includes everything from marijuana to hard drugs to psychedelics and also future drugs that have yet to be synthesized or discovered.


Before you post, I'd like to make this very clear:
Discussion of other drugs is allowed in context with marijuana. Please, no discussion of off-topics.

Thank you for participating in the poll, and feel free to shed some insight on your decision.

I voted yes. I envision a country where people aren't turned into criminals for recreational drug use. Where the youth is educated about addiction, and informed about drugs and their powerful effects on the mind and body. If you regulated them the sales could be controlled, monitored and taxed. The money spent can then be spent used for studies on the effects on drugs, harm reduction sites and literature as well as funding addiction treatment facilities.

__________________
I embrace my desire to
feel the rhythm,
to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow
to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain,
to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human.

 

RookieSmoker

I still have to put no. I don't think all drugs should be illegal, but I don't think all should be legal either. I understand the stance you're taking in the initial post and I think it would be a good thing, but I just don't see it ever happening without being corrupted somehow. I think it would be great to decriminalize some drugs, but I don't see the public going through any sort of drug-education programs. There could also be addiction treatment centers, but the problem I see, is that there would be a higher demand for them because more people would be doing drugs. There are people that will do drugs whether they're legal or not, and there are people that won't do drugs because they're illegal (either directly due to police, or family that won't allow it). That second group, which definitely isn't a small amount, will probably have a good portion (maybe not the majority, but close) start using drugs, whether it be MJ or anything else. What I was saying earlier today, and what I still believe in, is not legalization, but instead cutting prison/jail sentences for non violent drug offenses and have them punishable by fines depending on the crime. It would mean less prison funding due to less inmates (huge cutback there) as well as an intake in city and state funding due to the fines. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but I'd see it happening before complete legalization of drugs. Some people are gonna come out and say "If I'm walking around with an 1/8th of weed in my pocket, should I be fined?", my answer to that is, if you have an 1/8th in your pocket and it's illegal still, I don't see you getting stopped/pulled over by a cop unless you're doing something worthy of being stopped/pulled over, which in that case yes, you probably should be fined INSTEAD OF being arrested for possession.

SpiralArchitect

I am a non violent drug user, how does that make me a criminal? It doesn't matter what drug it is, I'm not hurting anyone and am being responsible, why should I be punished?

How about them suspecting I have illegal contraband on my persons, in my home or in my car?

Why do people always think this?

RookieSmoker

1) If you're walking around with weed in your pocket, you normally don't run into a cop who just for the fun of it, singles you out and requests to search you. If you're running around doing something worthy of having a police officer called on you, then your screwed if you get caught because you'll be charged with possession. What I'm saying, is that instead of a possession charge that can lead to possible incarceration, it could lead to a fine.
2) Don't give them any reason to suspect that you would.
3) Alcohol and Tobacco are legal, yet there is proof of how many people that drink or smoke continue to drink or smoke. Why should I think any addictive off topic drug should end up with any different results?

StonedImmaculate21

I support full legalization of everything. If someone wants to put something in their body, that's their right, even if it's destructive, it's still their decision. The role of government is to keep order and balance in society at large, not play mommy and daddy for every individual, holding your hand and saying "No, no, don't eat that".

Besides, the drugs that are really bad for you, like heroin, meth, etc., come with their own punishments. You get addicted, you spend all your money on it, you lose everything you own, you overdose and die . . . you don't need jail time on top of it.

Drug laws are based on the assumption that people are unable to be responsible for their own actions. If you treat someone like a baby, they're going to act like one. The only way we're going to "grow up" and evolve as a society is to let people be personally responsible for their own actions. Obviously, certain limits would have to be enforced, especially when it comes to driving, or anything else that can directly endanger the life of another person, but the life of the individual in their own to do with as they please.

And if some people overdose and die on some smack they bought at Wal-Mart? It's unfortunate for them and their families, yes; but natural selection does not favor self-destructive behavior. I would say that after nine or ten generations of legalization, the market for truly dangerous drugs would be almost, if not completely eliminated due to more thorough drug education (which would be necessary for legalization to work) and the dying off of the genetic inclination towards using these substances. (I realize that last bit sounds harsh, but natural selection is a powerful force of nature, and we humans are not above it.)

__________________
Feel free to add me at my MySpace page.
And my band page.

 

JohnBoySmoker

I wouldn't end the War on Drugs but rather change it. Weed is a no brainer. The war on that substance would end if I had the stroke. But the war on drugs isn't a black and white issue as some would have you believe. I would increase the number of manditory treatment centers for crack and meth users. I would increase the sentences for bigtime dealers as they are nothing but parasites.

Trocisp

You give two options, on the far ends of the spectrum.

If legalizing and regulating all drugs, what about Perscription Narcotics? People tend to forget that there is a state of legality which is neither "legalized and distributed" or "illegal." It's called Prescription.

If you're addicted to Heroine, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you can pay for it and still be an independent member of society, more power to you.

However, if you're using your drug addiction as an excuse to live on a social program, without putting forth effort to reform - I can very easily see how you being a drug addict negatively effects me. With a finite amount of resources, as we have, individuals who don't carry their own weight like the rest of society negatively impact the entire society.

While there are times when this is beyond a persons control, drug addiction without attempting to get help isn't one of them.


So, Spiral, if you're asking me what to do with the drug war? Drugs shouldn't be something the Government is involved with anyway. The FDA should be an AMA department and should dictate policy which the DEA should respect, perhaps with an elected Medical Doctor leading the FDA.

This, in my opinion, would lead to drugs being properly, scientifically, classified, rather than classed based on their reputations.

__________________
"No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights." - Vladimir Putin
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." - Oscar Wilde
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies." - Aristotle

JohnBoySmoker

I tend to agree that the poll was too narrow. An all or nothing choice.

Oh really? I tend to think that addiction to anything is an anchor on your ability to grow as a person and reaching your maximum potential.

If the AMA was truly a neutral entity instead of a lobbying mouthpiece for MDs.

Trocisp

As long as you're pulling your own weight, quite frankly I don't care if you reach your maximum potential. It's not my goal in life to make sure that you reach your full potential, just that I'm not paying for you not to be at your full potential.

If you're at your full potential, and you still can't fully support yourself, that's fine. I understand. There are times in most peoples life when they need help, hell, some people need help through their entire life, and that's okay. However, if you're capable of supporting yourself, and choose not to for any reason, drugs included, you should be disqualified from Social Programs.

Admittedly valid point. Perhaps the FDA should be an independent Medical organization with no lobbying powers, then?

JohnBoySmoker

You should care and deep down you REALLY DO care about your fellow human beings. Theres no limit to happiness and fulfillment.