Drug Legalization

[Luke T.]

So we can expect perjury charges against them to be coming soon, right?

Yep.

Also:

The Washington Post reports that yesterday's government action is "indirectly ... part of the first criminal action brought by the department after a three-year investigation." While the "tobacco industry has long denied that it controls nicotine levels," the Post notes that "companies could be prosecuted for perjury or other charges if they made false statements about their activities to federal investigators." One senior government official said the court filing "ought to send a signal to the industry that the criminal inquiry is serious and that it is moving."

http://www.no-smoking.org/jan98/01-09-98-1.html

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Legalization = Control ....

Charlie (nuff said) Monoxide

 

[Luke T.]

No one in America believed them. A Justice Department task force labored for years to see if it could prove that the tobacco executives had lied. An abundance of documents demonstrated the addictive and carcinogenic nature of tobacco. But because the executives expressed what they insisted was their personal belief, the Justice Department never brought a perjury indictment.

Link

 

[shecky]

Have, for instance, cigarette companies tailored cigarettes to be less harsh on a smoker's lungs? From what I know, many cigarette companies have instead made a relatively more lethal cocktail to heighten addiction to their product (though, yes, some cigarette companies did make "lighter" cigarettes).

Drug companies aren't very involved with cigarette production. I didn't suggest drug companies would be very involved with recreational drugs, Rob Lister did. He suggested drug companies would get involved, seemingly with nefarious motives. I suggest if they did, they'd have enough motivation to offer safer drugs.

I wonder, in a world of legal drug use, how much market there would be for new recreational pharmaceuticals from drug companies versus plain old (currently street) drugs?

I have some bad experiences with drugs. My grandfather died horribly of lung cancer thanks to cigarettes, my father was an abusive drunk, and I know at least a couple others that have greatly diminished mental states at a very young age (think sophomore high school) thanks to heavy drug use, and their futures are entirely gone thanks to these drugs they were addicted to.

Interesting that two of your examples are legal drugs. My personal experience with drugs, legal and illegal, has been good, with no addiction or no noticable long term effects.

While I support the legalization of marijuana, I am leery on the idea of legalization of all drugs, without care to short-term or long-term affects. And the argument that it's only the drug user's business is dead wrong. When a man drinks and drives, it's no longer just his problem; meanwhile, when a guy gets cranked up on PCP, goes on a trip, and decides to cause havoc, it's not just his problem. When a man's mental state puts others around him at risk, then it's no longer just his problem.

By your own example, this happens with currently legal drugs.

Laws aren't designed just to protect the individual, but to protect the individuals around the individual.

I'm very skeptical of laws designed to protect the individual from himself. I think laws should be designed to protect others and their property.

As for the claim that illegalization makes the product more attractive... while that could potentially be true, it is usually far more difficult to obtain an illegal item than a legal item.

Usually. However demand and competition has made availability of drugs a non issue. After decades, $$$ spend on the war on drugs, harsh sentencing, I can step out my door and buy any drug in less than 15 minutes. It's more difficult to buy prescription athlete's foot medicine than pot or coke in these parts. Probably other illegal drugs, too.

In the circles I've hung with, drug, alcohol and tobacco use had no particular overwhelming stigma despite legality issues. Addiction, on the other hand, does seem to be marginalized, even down to the chain smoker.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

.... I can step out my door and buy any drug in less than 15 minutes. It's more difficult to buy prescription athlete's foot medicine than pot or coke in these parts. Probably other illegal drugs, too.

I wish ....

Charlie (stuck in a wasteland called Orlando) Monoxide

 

[Luke T.]

Addiction, on the other hand, does seem to be marginalized, even down to the chain smoker.

I would guess that the cigarette smoker who is not dependent on nicotine would be the exception, not the rule.

That is why I linked the Henningfield and Benowitz ratings. While nicotine has perhaps the highest dependence rate, it has the second lowest intoxication rate after caffeine. The next highest addictive drug is heroin, which also has a high intoxication rate, which is why heroin is a bigger personal and societal hazard than nicotine.

Heroin is two steps higher on the dependence scale than alcohol, but only one step lower on the intoxication scale. So to me, that means it also has a higher personal and societal risk than alcohol.

Marijuana, on the other hand, has the lowest dependence rate, and a much lower intoxication rate than alcohol. So unless smoking a marijuana cigarette makes your penis fall off instantly, there is no reason why it should be illegal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Have, for instance, cigarette companies tailored cigarettes to be less harsh on a smoker's lungs? From what I know, many cigarette companies have instead made a relatively more lethal cocktail to heighten addiction to their product (though, yes, some cigarette companies did make "lighter" cigarettes).

Well they did change some of their processing techniques when they found it was resulting in a markably less safe product. Specificaly useing dirrect propane exaust was creating an anarobic enviroment and increasing some carcinogenic compounds. So in their drying rooms where makeing the product less safe.

You can also look at the precentage of wood alcohol in much of the bath tub gin durring prohibition compared to now and see that legalization did result in a much safer product with alcohol.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would guess that the cigarette smoker who is not dependent on nicotine would be the exception, not the rule.

That is why I linked the Henningfield and Benowitz ratings. While nicotine has perhaps the highest dependence rate, it has the second lowest intoxication rate after caffeine. The next highest addictive drug is heroin, which also has a high intoxication rate, which is why heroin is a bigger personal and societal hazard than nicotine.

Heroin is two steps higher on the dependence scale than alcohol, but only one step lower on the intoxication scale. So to me, that means it also has a higher personal and societal risk than alcohol.

Marijuana, on the other hand, has the lowest dependence rate, and a much lower intoxication rate than alcohol. So unless smoking a marijuana cigarette makes your penis fall off instantly, there is no reason why it should be illegal.

You forget the reason why it was made illegal in the first place. It was popular with mexicans durring the depression along the boarder and to make room for good white people to get jobs they needed something to go after them for. It was that their prefered intoxicant was pot instead of alcohol.

You can trace any drug being made illegal to a minority group using the drug. The only notable exception was prohibition

 

[Lonewulf]

IInteresting that two of your examples are legal drugs. My personal experience with drugs, legal and illegal, has been good, with no addiction or no noticable long term effects.

That's good. Care to stand that up to scientific tests, and show me the results?

I don't take anecdotes as data.

By your own example, this happens with currently legal drugs.

And that validates what, exactly? "Because we mess up, we should mess up some more"? I'm more in the direction of making drugs legal and illegal based on scientific research, as well as common sense.

I'm against the status quo as much as you are... I just want to go more the direction of science instead of "all the drugs you want, free!"

I'm very skeptical of laws designed to protect the individual from himself. I think laws should be designed to protect others and their property.

Read it again. That's what I said.

The laws are in place to protect, say, me from that raving lunatic loaded up on PCP, or a child from his drug-abusing mother. Hence, it's not to protect the individual from himself, but other individuals from that individual.

Hell, if I had my way, alcohol would be made illegal again... my father might have killed my mother if he wasn't loaded up on the stuff, and certainly tried to kill himself enough.

But of course, we ALL know that the only victims are the poor drug-users who can't get their daily fix, right? Well, what about when the drinking age was lowered in the U.S.? Guess what? Driving accidents increased radically. They increased the drinking age once more, and less accidents! Wow! Amazing! I guess laws actually DO work sometimes... or, no, wait, they don't, you say.

Also, news flash: Just because the laws are mishandling the situation currently, doesn't mean that I think that status quo is hunky dory. I'd be first to admit that current medicinal change needs radical change, and that it isn't perfect. But that doesn't invalidate my argument.

 

[shecky]

That's good. Care to stand that up to scientific tests, and show me the results?

I don't take anecdotes as data.

Scientific tests for my personal experience? You can choose not to believe me if you wish.

And that validates what, exactly? "Because we mess up, we should mess up some more"? I'm more in the direction of making drugs legal and illegal based on scientific research, as well as common sense.

Point is illegality hasn't stopped anyone from intoxicating themselves. It's currently perfectly legal to be a drooling drunk, as it should be. Even if you are a royal pain in the ass to your family.

The war on drugs is a ridiculous failure no matter how you measure it. Drugs have not been eliminated. Addiction has not been eliminated. The only thing it's managed to do is create a large, profitable, violent and illegal trade and a bottomless money pit for our taxes, dwarfing the problems we have with actual addicts.

 

[Mephisto]

Legalization = Control ....

Charlie (nuff said) Monoxide

Hey, you forgot to complete the equation so it looks more enticing . . .

Legalization = Control = TAXES! There you go, I can see the ad campaign now: SMOKE UP, AMERICA! YOUR HIGH PAYS FOR THE WAR! or maybe instead of Rosie the Riveter we could have Jane the Joint Roller, Mary the Munchie, Debbie Doobie or Bertha Blunt.

We could put a luxury tax on things like Doritos (don't forget, Saddam likes 'em too), popcorn, Oreo cookies, ice cream and doughnuts and pay off the enormous deficit in no time.

 

[Kaylee]

You forget the reason why it was made illegal in the first place. It was popular with mexicans durring the depression along the boarder and to make room for good white people to get jobs they needed something to go after them for. It was that their prefered intoxicant was pot instead of alcohol.

Also …

There is some belief that Anslinger, DuPont petrochemical interests and William Randolph Hearst together created the highly sensational anti-marijuana campaign to eliminate hemp as an industrial competitor.

To make a long story short -- Anslinger was the country's first commissioner on drugs. (The agency was known as the FBN, Federal Bureau of Narcotics.) It was in his interest to not only take advantage of prejudice against Mexicans and blacks, but to also exaggerate any dangers from marijuana as a way of making his brand new agency more important in the political arena.

In 1937 DuPont had just patented a new process to make paper from wood pulp and Hearst's business empire included large holdings in timber. Both men were interested in eliminating hemp as a competitive source of paper.

Marijuana and hemp were made illegal in 1937.

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2908621023073531157

A friend sent me the link to the following video. Any thoughts on the ideas presented?

Also, does anyone know if this is a regular program that's produced this, or was it a one-off?

Soma

DR

 

[Lonewulf]

Point is illegality hasn't stopped anyone from intoxicating themselves. It's currently perfectly legal to be a drooling drunk, as it should be. Even if you are a royal pain in the ass to your family.

In the U.S., there's still an age limit, as there should be.

When this age limit went down, accidents went up. When it went up, accidents went down. Cause and effect -- legislation has been shown to work for alcohol, at the very least.

 

[shecky]

In the U.S., there's still an age limit, as there should be.

OK. Have I argued otherwise?

When this age limit went down, accidents went up. When it went up, accidents went down. Cause and effect -- legislation has been shown to work for alcohol, at the very least.

I believe the same was true during Prohibition, only across the board. So at least some of the goals were met. At the same time, it created bigger problems than it fixed.

 

[UserGoogol]

I believe that if this is true, it is to a very small degree. Example: alcohol.

Teenagers and college students love beer.

Prozac is rumored to cause terminal (pun intended) depression and has been blamed for murder and suicide. It's supposed to stifle depression.

I've heard that that can be explained away by "A person who is too depressed to do anything takes Prozac and suddenly has the energy to go to the store and buy a gun."

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Hey, you forgot to complete the equation so it looks more enticing . . .

Legalization = Control = TAXES! There you go, I can see the ad campaign now: SMOKE UP, AMERICA! YOUR HIGH PAYS FOR THE WAR! or maybe instead of Rosie the Riveter we could have Jane the Joint Roller, Mary the Munchie, Debbie Doobie or Bertha Blunt.

We could put a luxury tax on things like Doritos (don't forget, Saddam likes 'em too), popcorn, Oreo cookies, ice cream and doughnuts and pay off the enormous deficit in no time.

I hoped I was implying that. It seems that some people are under the notion that we can control something by passing laws. The "war on drugs" has been a massive failure. Other than throwing more money, technology, and policing/incarceration, there has never been a serious look at legalizing.

In the US, it's political suicide to advocate any lessening of the drug laws.

As a tax paying salary guy, it perturbs me that a large amount of untaxed money is flowing to criminal organization both local, national, and international.

It also perturbs me to watch sanctimonious Cops episodes when they bust users caught in police sting operations. Especially the part when the cop preaches to the busted user, playing up to the camera.

Charlie (free the pot 10,000,000) Monoxide

 

[ponderingturtle]

Read it again. That's what I said.

The laws are in place to protect, say, me from that raving lunatic loaded up on PCP, or a child from his drug-abusing mother. Hence, it's not to protect the individual from himself, but other individuals from that individual.

Exactly. Cocaine was made illegal to protect white women from "cocaine crazed negroes", and it serves the same purpose today.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Also …



To make a long story short -- Anslinger was the country's first commissioner on drugs. (The agency was known as the FBN, Federal Bureau of Narcotics.) It was in his interest to not only take advantage of prejudice against Mexicans and blacks, but to also exaggerate any dangers from marijuana as a way of making his brand new agency more important in the political arena.

In 1937 DuPont had just patented a new process to make paper from wood pulp and Hearst's business empire included large holdings in timber. Both men were interested in eliminating hemp as a competitive source of paper.

Marijuana and hemp were made illegal in 1937.

I was unaware of that angle on it as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Teenagers and college students love beer.



I've heard that that can be explained away by "A person who is too depressed to do anything takes Prozac and suddenly has the energy to go to the store and buy a gun."

Also even if you are not as depressed you still hold the same opinions of yourself or others. So persistance of thought patterns is an issue as well.