Should We Re-Legalize Drugs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

you've flooded this board with libertarian propaganda while leaving the old politics board without its top logic cop!

forced registration

---

Flooded??? That's not flooded. Flooded would look a bit more like what pisshead and cryote do. It's just that no one posts here much, so it looks like it's flooded. Not only that, but every time someone replys the damn things shoot back to the top of the page. Just when ya think ones gone, it can show back up just like that.

I still visit the old board, you know that. Don't be trying to accuse me of running out on you guys. I just thought this might be fun also. They don't really know me here yet, so it's kinda different.

Toker

Drug War Victims

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stori...arVictims.html

Read them Hvy, read them all and then tell me you still want a drug war.

Toker

Still want? When did I say I wanted the War on Drugs? But I'll go through your points as I know you like that. I'll do it slightly differently than you do Toker, I'll answer the points instead of making up new meanings for them.

"Yes, it is. It is hypocritical for you to say your buzz is ok, but anothers is not."
I didn't say that. I said plant. Natural plant. You answer fictional questions instead of the ones written and make reference to tobacco when I quite clearly said "single sitting lethal recreational drugs" I like to try and keep debates specific.

"Nice try, but i wasn't talking about just recreational."
Yes, you were. The four drugs you personally named were "cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana" all of which are recreational drugs.

"You think just because someone is in for coke or something, that they are violent"
Yet again here you chose to answer the first few words of the sentence and ignored the fact ".. I was not referring to users" but I'll answer your point anyway. Coke, no, it's the "or something" I'm talking about. I know people withdrawing from heroin are violent from experience and have read withdrawal from crack is worse. As the supply of drugs inside prisons is irregular at best users of these drugs would be a constant state of partial withdrawal.

"A tax on weed is why it is illegal in the first place."
In the U.S., or is that the only one that matters? Rather limited argument in either case.

"I don't like over regulating things. Your tax the weed plan would more then likely do just that. "
It's not my tax the weed plan it's what realists know will happen. If I could buy a licence to grow I'd do it tomorrow and buy a packet of high thc, low tar, spliffs from the local store on the way. To make people buy taxed cannabis they have to make it cheaper than black market cannabis so please legalise and tax me.

"It's not the politicians that need convincing, it's the voters."
Don't the politicians have to put forward a manifesto before people can vote on it? How are you going to vote for legalisation if the politicians don't want it? Oh, I see the confusion, I'm talking about real politicians and you're talking about people who won't get 4% of the vote. So you're really just saying, yet again, everyone should vote Libertarian. *yawn*

"I won't settle for doing away with only part of the drug war just because it seems a more likely win."
I will. I'm a cannabis grower on a cannabis forum talking about cannabis, strange as it may seem I want cannabis legalised.

And back to your "drug war" statements. I haven't got one in my country and don't support the one in the U.S. Bush is the anti-Midas in my eyes, everything he touches turns to shit. I would never be greedy or stupid enough to vote Republican but half the people who managed to get off their arses in the last US election did. America's war on drugs will end when Americans stop voting for it.

peace :)

"Still want? When did I say I wanted the War on Drugs?"

Well, lets see, you did say

"Taking cannabis off the statute books would allow the police and customs to concentrate on" and "It's hypocritical to want a natural, safe, plant legalised but not lethal man made drugs?"

Seems to me that you would like to see the drug war continued, just minus the weed.

"I didn't say that. I said plant. Natural plant. You answer fictional questions instead of the ones written and make reference to tobacco when I quite clearly said "single sitting lethal recreational drugs" I like to try and keep debates specific."

Who cares how long it takes to kill? Your trying to micro manage you arguement so you can over look things you know are fucked, but support anyway. Coke comes from a natural plant. Hash is proccessed also, and being from england I would think that you have toked a lot of it. Is poppy not a natural plant? I wonder Hvy, do you think the government should protect us from all things recreational that can end your life in one sitting? Or are drugs all you really care about saving people from?

"Yes, you were. The four drugs you personally named were "cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana" all of which are recreational drugs."

And weed isn't recreational? Do you think booze should be illegal? It can kill in one sitting, and causes otherwise mild mannered people to be violent and uncontrolable, and then they can't even remember what they did the next day. It is the worst drug there is. Will you call for making it illegal? Booze kills, fast and slow. What is your big plan to save us from booze?

"Yet again here you chose to answer the first few words of the sentence and ignored the fact ".. I was not referring to users" but I'll answer your point anyway. Coke, no, it's the "or something" I'm talking about. I know people withdrawing from heroin are violent from experience and have read withdrawal from crack is worse. As the supply of drugs inside prisons is irregular at best users of these drugs would be a constant state of partial withdrawal."

If you really need the rest of it, it's all right there in the thread. I can believe that you would forget what you say from reply to reply, that is why I like to refresh peoples memory with their own words. You said weed tokers where the non-violent ones in prison. To me that means you think anyone but weed tokers are violent. Your exact words were;

"The non-violent drug users in prison are the cannabis users"

As for your partial state of withdrawl, isn't that proof right there that the drug war is a failure? I mean really, if they can't keep it out of the prisons how are laws against it going to stop anyone that wanted to do it from doing it? You read that withdrawl from crack is worse? I have read lots of jacked up stuff about weed. Do you always believe everything you read? You want to see some violent withdrawls, take away a drunks booze.

"In the U.S., or is that the only one that matters? Rather limited argument in either case."

Yes, in the US, and yes, for me it matters more then what you do there.

"If I could buy a licence to grow I'd do it tomorrow and buy a packet of high thc, low tar, spliffs from the local store on the way."

Read the story below. As a realist I am sure you can see where that would more then likely be the case.

"To make people buy taxed cannabis they have to make it cheaper than black market cannabis so please legalise and tax me."

Whats next? A tax to grow corn? If they legalized weed there would be no black market for it to artificaly jack up the prices. I should not be made to get a license, or pay a tax on a natural non-leathal plant that I grow for my own consumption on my own property.

"Don't the politicians have to put forward a manifesto before people can vote on it?"

Well, they do, but if you look at the people that support Bush and Kerry you will see that it makes no difference what that manifesto says. They vote just to keep the other guy out. It's usualy an emergency also.

"How are you going to vote for legalisation if the politicians don't want it?"

The politicians don't control the people, the people control the politicians.

" Oh, I see the confusion, I'm talking about real politicians and you're talking about people who won't get 4% of the vote."

You have kind of a herd mentality don't cha? Your talking about career polititians that do only for who gives up the most cash, or worse yet, controled by outside forces. I'm talking about real people solving real problems. The career polititians your so fond of are the same idiots that brought us the drug war, and are the same ones that continue it. From the looks of it, you like the drug war as much as the two party system, so I can see where you would like to keep the people that are saving us from the evils of drugs in office. They also brought outright war to us.

"So you're really just saying, yet again, everyone should vote Libertarian. *yawn*"

Yep, your sleepy alright. I think people should vote for the person that they agree with the most on the issues. I don't think people should vote for one person just to keep another out.

"I will. I'm a cannabis grower on a cannabis forum talking about cannabis, strange as it may seem I want cannabis legalised."

So do I. But I won't stop there just because what I want is done. I won't feel like the drug war is over until it really is.

"And back to your "drug war" statements. I haven't got one in my country and don't support the one in the U.S."

What are you a moron or something? You support laws against drugs!!! You want cops to concentrate on all drugs but the one you use! Now you want me to believe you don't support the drug war? If you support laws against drugs, then your supporting the drug war.

BTW, you may want to rethink your "we don't have a drug war" statement.
http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo...forcement.html

"America's war on drugs will end when Americans stop voting for it."

Well mister real politics talker, how we going to do that if we only follow two herds that won't end it? You laugh at the people that would end it because they seem to be a minority, then claim to not support a drug war. Those two that handed us the drugwar are not going to end it. Why on earth would they want to admit they were wrong and end it when their manifesto says to keep it going, and the people voted them into office? Repos and demonrats will continue the drug war as long as they keep a tight hold on their two party system.

Toker




So You Want To Be A Marijuana Farmer?

by Matthew Bryan


Let's fantasize of an across-the-board legalization of marijuana by the federal government. Stop laughing and set aside all of the improbabilities of such fantasia for now. Our purpose is to examine the ramifications of legalizing a substance that, in the past century, has infected our federal masters with an arguably unprecedented messianic zeal and unslakeable thirst for moralistic discipline. That such a rollback of federal marijuana statutes could ever occur amidst the current climate of rampant general paranoia and loathing of all things even slightly subversive is, indeed, laughable. But we soldier on. In fact, it is in the spirit of living during a time of most oppressive fear and loathing where we may begin. Assume all is the same, except we are now free to cultivate and smoke pot with impunity. Let's see how this might play out.

We've already made our first incorrect assumption. Cultivate with impunity? Not likely. First we must procure our Official United States Marijuana Grower's license from the newly created Office of Psychoactive Substances, a subdivision of the Department of Agriculture. We can't just walk in and get a license, of course. First we must navigate a Kafkaesque labyrinth of regulatory obstacles, beginning with the license application itself, form THC-420. So dense with irrelevant minutiae is this voluminous questionnaire, inquiring deeply into our motivations for becoming a federally sanctioned cannabis farmer, we may well decide to just grow our buds on the sly. Ah, but woe betide to any who deign to "moonshine"--grow sans license. So declares the sign on the wall at the OPS office:

"Any individual and/or organization who shall grow or attempt to grow unlicensed cannabinoidal substances shall be subject to a fine of not less than one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per metric ounce of cannabinoidal substance and shall also be subject to a term of no more than six (6) months in a federal penal institution, or, should said weight not exceed one metric ounce, said fine shall not exceed nine-hundred-ninety-nine dollars ($999.00) and said penal liability shall not exceed one-hundred-seventy-nine (179) consecutive days. Furthermore, any individual and/or organization who shall abet or attempt to abet another in the cultivation of unlicensed cannabinoidal substances shall be subject to the same penalties as described above, pursuant to United States Federal Penal Code BS--MF--13."

Yikes! So we slog through the form--"pressing hard," as it warns balefully, for we are making five (5) copies! Finally, our hand throbbing from writer's cramp, we proudly present our application to the gum-snapping, perfunctorily friendly drone, so bureaucratically ensconced behind her unnecessarily high counter. We shift restlessly as our government servant peruses our form with what seems like resigned boredom disguised as rigid contempt. At last, she produces a rather large rubber stamp and similarly proportioned inkpad. With deliberate deliberation she stamps the front page of our form: "Approved, subject to applicant's case history, digital processing, and payment of processing fee." Case history? Digital processing? Processing fee? The clerk sighs, and with the manufactured patience of one speaking to an errant child, explains that our application will be approved, provided we pass an extensive background check, submit to fingerprinting, and fork over five-hundred dollars ($500.00) for the privilege. Undeterred, we dutifully recite our social security numbers aloud--she has apparently forgotten she could just as easily have copied them from the front page of our form THC-420, which still resides on the counter before her. She summons us behind the counter (!) to submit our fingerprints and pay our processing fee. We have spent five (5) hours at the OPS office.

Marveling at the rapidity with which the government constructed such an intimidating bureaucratic hash, we return home anxiously to await the arrival of our license. Six (6) weeks later, we receive a letter:

Dear Prospective Cannabis Grower,

Thank you for your recent application for licensing under the Realigned Cannabis Cultivation Act of two-thousand-four (2004).

We are sure you are anxious to receive your license and begin cultivating cannabis for the enjoyment of your family and friends. We share your excitement.

You will soon receive your Official United States Marijuana Grower's license in the mail. Please follow the instructions in the accompanying letter carefully.

Shortly after receiving your license, an Office of Psychoactive Substances Inspector will come to your residence. DO NOT commence cultivation until the inspector has cleared your facilities for cultivation. The inspector will advise you of all pertinent growing regulations for your area.

Once again, thank you for your application. We look forward to doing business with you.

Sincerely,

John Walters

Second Assistant Deputy Undersecretary for Cannabinoidal Cultivation
Office of Psychoactive Substances
Department of Agriculture
Washington DC

Six (6) weeks after this letter, we receive our license. Approximately five (5) minutes after we open the envelope, there is an aggressive knock at the door. It's the inspector, of course. Clad in a dark blue windbreaker with "OPS" printed large across the back, he invites himself in. If we didn't know any better, we'd have pegged this guy as Narco. Of course, now we glimpse a faded DEA t-shirt through his carefully unzipped jacket! It is open far enough to see his shoulder-holstered Desert Eagle as well. He scans the room from behind opaque aviator sunglasses and flips open his credentials and badge:

OPS guy: Agent Smith, OPS.

Us: Where do you want to start?

Smith: Will you be growing indoors or out?

Us: Hydroponics. In that room over there.

Smith: Can't do that. It's a street exposed room. Kids might see in.

Us: Uh, okay. I guess we'll do it in the back bedroom.

Smith: (now in back bedroom) Ok, this will be fine. Just keep the windows covered.

Us: Yes, sir.

Smith: What are you going to grow?

Us: Marijuana.

Smith: (visibly annoyed) What strain?

Us: Oh. Thinking about Super Afghani.

Smith: Can't do that.

Us: (sighing) Why not?

Smith: Aside from trafficking in seeds from a nation with which we are at war?

Us: Ah, of course. Tell you what, why don't you tell me what we can grow?

Smith: Glad to. (produces a thick tome from behind the Desert Eagle) All in there.

Us: Ok. Thanks.

Smith: I'll be back in six (6) weeks.

Us: Can't wait.

The manual weighs in at five-hundred-six (506) pages, not counting indices, appendices and addenda. From amidst the bureaucratic blah blah, we deduce three (3) main points: Firstly, power usage will be monitored. Excessive kilowatt-hours are grounds for a reclassification of our grow to "industrial reapage." In other words, we are producing too much for the reasonable use of a dozen (12) people. Our grow would then be considered as one of mass production, thus quintupling (5x) our taxes and "reapage fees." Secondly, we are required to submit names, ages and addresses of all who will partake in our harvest. Each member of our list must undergo "case history, digital processing and processing fee", just as we did three (3) months ago upon submittal of our grow application. The processing fee is a mere one-hundred dollars ($100.00) for smokers, however. Finally, our choices of strains we are allowed to grow are limited to "locally indigenous varieties only". If we wish to grow "non-indigenous" varieties we must complete form THC-420a/e\069, and submit an environmental impact statement along with any associated "impact fees." As we are not aware of any varieties "indigenous" to our northerly-located state, we resign ourselves to a failed attempt at legal cannabis cultivation. We pop a legally scripted Oxycontin to hold off a nascent migraine and set out for Eddie the Head's house, where we can partake "off-list" for a one (1)-time fee of fifty dollars ($50.00). Eddie has friends at the OPS; he scored a waiver.

OK, swayed by the legalise all argument. But, having read your link, I still say we do not have a drug war in the way you think of it. The policing of drugs in the UK is shared between departments of the regular police force. Just as burglary, vice, and family law is shared. The changes in law enforcement, and in the law, in the US is frightening and bears direct links to the rise of the Nazis.

I still think you have a better chance of getting them legalised one at time though. And I still wouldn't vote Libertarian because I don't believe guns should be openly available. Your Libertarians are quite similar to our Liberal Democrats, which is the party I vote for, but not so radical. We had a vote in favour of legalising cannabis at the party conference but it's not in the manifesto yet. Once one drug is legalised it opens the debate in the minds of the public as to whether all drugs should be.

I know you believe Bush and Kerry are two sides of the same coin but I still think voting Libertarian puts Bush back in the Whitehouse. If I were American I'd be voting Kerry.

peace :)

In Colorado, where I live, weed has pretty much been decriminalized in small amounts for quite a while now. Under an OZ is no arrest, just a ticket and a small fine. The most you can be fined for under an oz is 100.00, I think. I'll have to look it up again to refresh my memory a little. We also have a medical card that let's certain people grow for medical reasons.

Toker

http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/colorado/

We haven't won by any means, but we are working towards it. We will win here in Colorado eventualy. The people are tired of the drug war.

Toker

Just a theoretical question. If the people of Colorado wanted to leave the union, could they? I'm not saying they ever would, but isn't Canada your neighbour? Just a thought.

peace :)

Canada is a few states up from Colorado. I doubt we could leave the union successfully. We could vote for it, but it will never happen.

Toker

I wouldn't mind but I'm sat next to a map, duh! The thought was if a state voted or petitioned to leave the union and cited the war on drugs as a primary reason it would cause ripples of discontent throughout the country. Maybe even make Joe Public open their eyes to the way laws are being put in place that support dictatorship.

As you say leaving the union would probably never happen but threatening to could be enough.

peace :)