Should Cannabis Remain Illegal Amid Growing Debate?

[OmCheeto]

Sorry if this has already come up in this thread (haven't been following closely ) but there is an alternative to legalizing pot: decriminalizing it.

The city where I live voted on this issue a while back. By initiative*, we instructed the local cops to move marijuana use far down on the priority list. No idea if what we did would pass judicial review, though.

*An initiative is a vote that goes straight to voters instead of legislators.

lisab for president.

 

[Monique]

Dude, where do you live? We need to chill sometime.

Thanks, but the occasion really is an exception.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

Here (India) it is relatively decriminalized. There are laws against it, but there are cities where its not looked upon as a crime to smoke. In fact, it is publicly distributed, largely in part to it being associated with Shiva.

Of course, the number of times I've seen stoners who have nothing to do with religion rationalize it that way is ironic.

 

[nitsuj]

Sorry if this has already come up in this thread (haven't been following closely ) but there is an alternative to legalizing pot: decriminalizing it.

The city where I live voted on this issue a while back. By initiative*, we instructed the local cops to move marijuana use far down on the priority list. No idea if what we did would pass judicial review, though.

*An initiative is a vote that goes straight to voters instead of legislators.

From a "use" perspective, in Canada this is pretty much the case. The smell is more an issue (similar to ciggs) than the "use".

From a production perspective it seems the laws are enforced according the revenue generated, and not "drugs are bad mmmkay, you're going to prison son."

Oh and we generally get a one time "get out of jail free" pass. Like a donation or required community service.

I have seen a case where a 19 yo, parents apparently deceased, had a house in his name, busted for growing hundreds of plants, some mature & ready to go. He got house arrest conditions. That's a very light punishment for making an illegal living. They didn't even address income tax issues (his house, i.e. he got to keep it, wild I know) Oh and very importantly, no prior records. The crown didn't make a peep outside of agreeing with the terms.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry if this has already come up in this thread (haven't been following closely ) but there is an alternative to legalizing pot: decriminalizing it.

The problem I see there is that this doesn't kill the black market, which is [I believe] ultimately the reason for most violent crimes associated with drug use.

I don't know if the qualifier "I believe" is needed or not. I think this is a well established fact. But it is so obvious to me that I may be making an assumption on that point.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The city where I live voted on this issue a while back. By initiative*, we instructed the local cops to move marijuana use far down on the priority list. No idea if what we did would pass judicial review, though.

Local cops can pretty much not do whatever they don't want to do. State laws and federal laws don't say "all cops must enforce these laws" to the best of their ability (except for the rare occasion). State police have to enforce state laws because that's what they're hired to do, but the local cops only have to do whatever the town tells them to do (as long as they aren't actively breaking any laws).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

The problem I see there is that this doesn't kill the black market, which is ultimately the reason for most violent crimes associated with drug use.

I've heard from time to time the claim that most weed is grown near to the dealers. I have no idea if this is true or not. Maybe someone in this thread has any knowledge of how true or false this might be?



obviously it would not be true for things like cocaine or heroine

 

[Gokul43201]

People don't have the right to harm themselves.

Are you stating a moral position or a legal one? If the former, what's your argument supporting it? If the latter, where is this law valid?

The implications of your requirement that people be prevented from harming themselves:
- Alcohol and tobacco would be banned
- As would most soda, fast food and snacks
- In fact all personal diets would have to be approved by a government authority
- Any sport or physical activity where injury is a natural expectation (most all of them) would be banned
- too much TV and video games ...

... essentially, this amounts to the enslavement of the citizenry.

Perhaps you'd like to revise your statement?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've heard from time to time the claim that most weed is grown near to the dealers. I have no idea if this is true or not. Maybe someone in this thread has any knowledge of how true or false this might be?
obviously it would not be true for things like cocaine or heroine

Wars are still fought over pot. Perhaps the best example is the problem of the Mexican Cartels using US forest land for pot farms, which is a huge problem in California. Just a casual hike in the woods can be dangerous if you happen to stumble into a pot farm.

Any time you have a lot of money involved in a black market, you are going to have violent crime. What drives the crime is mostly the money, not the drugs.

 

[turbo]

Yep. Legalize and regulate cannabis and you'll cut the life-blood of the Mexican cartels (money). Drugs don't drive the violence - money and the fight for turf does. Prohibition in the US caused a great deal of damage.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Wars are still fought over pot. Perhaps the best example is the problem of the Mexican Cartels using US forest land for pot farms, which is a huge problem in California. Just a casual hike in the woods can be dangerous if you happen to stumble into a pot farm.

Any time you have a lot of money involved in a black market, you are going to have violent crime. What drives the crime is mostly the money, not the drugs.

right, and the violent crime behind drugs is the main reason why I am against their use in the current situation. I just wasn't sure of how bad it was because of weed.

 

[Hobin]

Wars are still fought over pot. Perhaps the best example is the problem of the Mexican Cartels using US forest land for pot farms, which is a huge problem in California. Just a casual hike in the woods can be dangerous if you happen to stumble into a pot farm.

Any time you have a lot of money involved in a black market, you are going to have violent crime. What drives the crime is mostly the money, not the drugs.

Wait... Pot, as in, cannabis? My apologies if this makes me sound ignorant, as I'm not from the USA, but people fight over freakin' POT? It's not like that's much of a dangerous drug to begin with... (Of course, it's bad for you. But not as bad as tobacco, to name but a single thing.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I get the impression hobin that in the United States drug dealing is a far more organised affair that in turn is fought against with increasingly weaponised police forces (I'm thinking of images of DEA officers with machine guns though I may be misunderstanding the set up). In Europe things like cannabis are grown small scale all over the place in people's homes and there isn't so much organised gang crime, there's certainly a lot less armed gang crime.

EDIT: Just to clarify I'm not saying gang crime isn't a problem in Europe, far from it. But in the UK at least gangs are more often than not very small groups of individuals that partake in fairly unorganised levels of crime. In the US it seems that larger gangs with significant operations are in effect. For a comparison: I can't remember a single example of a drugs lab bust in the UK (I'm talking about MDMA, coke etc), I gather it's imported and simply distributed.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Wait... Pot, as in, cannabis? My apologies if this makes me sound ignorant, as I'm not from the USA, but people fight over freakin' POT? It's not like that's much of a dangerous drug to begin with... (Of course, it's bad for you. But not as bad as tobacco, to name but a single thing.)

no, like he said, it's the money that drives the crime, not the drugs

 

[turbo]

no, like he said, it's the money that drives the crime, not the drugs

Money fuels the criminal activity, and money allows the gangs to bribe and corrupt local law-enforcement. Go back to Chicago during alcohol prohibition and see how that works. I'd hate to live on the Mexican border.

Do-gooders who want to control the activities of others are only rarely cognizant of the damage they do. A now-deceased old friend of mine from Nova Scotia had a father who was a bootlegger, buying up cider and fermenting it. NS is not and was not then a hotbed of criminal activity, but when you make something that people want illegal, the demand can convince others to get into the supply-side, even though they risk legal sanctions.

 

[mathwonk]

Cannabis has both beneficial and harmful effects. it is worse for young people than older ones. I do not know whether the harmful effects wear off after 24 hours or so as do those for alcohol. The worst problem seems to be the enormous income provided to criminals who supply it, i.e. the prohibition effect. I conclude that legalization would probably cause fewer problems than the current situation. Presumably we could try that and then reassess after 10 years.

 

[TylerH]

Cannabis has both beneficial and harmful effects. it is worse for young people than older ones. I do not know whether the harmful effects wear off after 24 hours or so as do those for alcohol. The worst problem seems to be the enormous income provided to criminals who supply it, i.e. the prohibition effect. I conclude that legalization would probably cause fewer problems than the current situation. Presumably we could try that and then reassess after 10 years.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncchap2_40.htm

During the 21-day Boston free-access study, no harmful effects were observed on general bodily functions, motor functions, mental functions, personal or social behavior or work performance. Total sleep time and periods of sleep were increased. Weight gain was uniformly noted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding my argument about "sin" taxes, or what I like to call Risk Taxes, consider the alternative and the philosophy already being entertained.

The survey by doctors.net.uk, which claims nearly 192,000 members, found that 593, or 54 percent, of the 1,096 doctors who participated answered yes to this question: "Should the NHS be allowed to refuse non-emergency treatments to patients unless they lose weight or stop smoking?"...

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/29/11452500-in-uk-survey-doctors-support-denying-treatment-to-smokers-the-obese#.T52VTD7uUG8.email

 

[shalikadm]

Anything that make intoxication must be prohibited..It's my opinion..

 

[TylerH]

Regarding my argument about "sin" taxes, or what I like to call Risk Taxes, consider the alternative and the philosophy already being entertained.http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/29/11452500-in-uk-survey-doctors-support-denying-treatment-to-smokers-the-obese#.T52VTD7uUG8.email

Sin taxes, when used correctly, are reasonable, I believe. By "correctly," I mean that the tax is determined in an actuarial way to correspond to the exact cost of each unit of the "sin" and that the money is used to pay the exact expenditure created by the sin. For example, with tobacco, the tax should be exactly how much it costs to pay for the medical costs created by smoking whatever amount I buy and the money should go to public healthcare, but that's not generally what is done with tobacco taxes.

My argument against a sin tax on cannabis isn't a philosophical one; it's a practical one that is based in the reality of how the tax is actually going to be used. As a cannabis user, I shouldn't have to pay for all the random crap that the government wants to spend on but can't find another way to pay for. I'm totally okay with paying the extra healthcare bills I may cause, but that's not what I'll actually be paying.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sin taxes, when used correctly, are reasonable, I believe. By "correctly," I mean that the tax is determined in an actuarial way to correspond to the exact cost of each unit of the "sin" and that the money is used to pay the exact expenditure created by the sin. For example, with tobacco, the tax should be exactly how much it costs to pay for the medical costs created by smoking whatever amount I buy and the money should go to public healthcare, but that's not generally what is done with tobacco taxes.

I'd argue it has to go beyond medical expenses because there are very real social expenses. The number escapes me right now but last year I read an article outlining how much money alcohol costs every week in the UK in terms of; vandalism (broken street furniture, shop windows etc), mess (litter, vomit, urine), extra policing etc.

 

[Hobin]

I'd argue it has to go beyond medical expenses because there are very real social expenses. The number escapes me right now but last year I read an article outlining how much money alcohol costs every week in the UK in terms of; vandalism (broken street furniture, shop windows etc), mess (litter, vomit, urine), extra policing etc.

To be fair, vandalism isn't only caused by alcohol, per se. When I'm drunk, I don't start breaking things.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To be fair, vandalism isn't caused by alcohol, per se. When I'm drunk, I don't start breaking things.

I know it isn't directly caused but look out on the average town centre on a Friday night, somewhere you are bound to find people acting this way. If there wasn't such prolific drinking they wouldn't be doing that.

 

[Hobin]

I know it isn't directly caused but look out on the average town centre on a Friday night, somewhere you are bound to find people acting this way. If there wasn't such prolific drinking they wouldn't be doing that.

I agree that there's a strong correlation, which could perhaps be lessened if people drunk just as much alcohol but were raised in different ways. I was just being pedantic.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I get the impression hobin that in the United States drug dealing is a far more organised affair that in turn is fought against with increasingly weaponised police forces (I'm thinking of images of DEA officers with machine guns though I may be misunderstanding the set up).

Here's the tunnel story:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/20/139425/pot-smuggling-tunnels-in-tijuana.html

I live in San Diego, so this smuggling method is often in the local news.

There's also smuggling by boat from Mexico to various points on the California coast:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8635362

Smaller amounts are probably also brought across traditionally, by hiding them in vehicles crossing the border, and I would assume they've tried every variation of flying it across in small planes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'd argue it has to go beyond medical expenses because there are very real social expenses. The number escapes me right now but last year I read an article outlining how much money alcohol costs every week in the UK in terms of; vandalism (broken street furniture, shop windows etc), mess (litter, vomit, urine), extra policing etc.

Ironically, alcohol is probably the biggest offender when it comes to these sorts of problems. There is no reason to believe legalized cannibis or even most other drugs would have the same consequences. If you want to make people aggressive, violent, and destuctive, give them booze. If you want them buying munchies at the 7-11, give them pot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anything that make intoxication must be prohibited..It's my opinion..

Why? I suspect your opinion is based purely on a moral judgment. But from a practical point of view, is it really worth destroying the inner cities, making criminals out of children, and destroying people's lives as the price for human nature, in order to preserve some lofty, idealized version of how we should be?

 

[turbo]

Ironically, alcohol is probably the biggest offender when it comes to these sorts of problems. There is no reason to believe legalized cannibis or even most other drugs would have the same consequences. If you want to make people aggressive, violent, and destuctive, give them booze. If you want them buying munchies at the 7-11, give them pot.

If you want to make people aggressive, serve them rum and coke with real caffeinated cola, Irish coffee, etc. I spent a lot of time playing in bars, and the barmaids/barmen kept a close eye on people drinking those concoctions. Their philosophy was "The only thing more dangerous than a drunk is a wide-awake drunk."

 

[nitsuj]

... is it really worth destroying the inner cities, making criminals out of children, and destroying people's lives as the price for human nature, in order to preserve some lofty, idealized version of how we should be?

Well said,

And it's not just people,
Deer are a particular "pest" for some outdoor gardeners. Particularly when the flowers are just right, deer seem to become a problem. That tells me it is not just because they enjoy the "food" in their stomach.

Maybe it helps them relax, they're so "jumpy".

lol just joking they do eat it, but I think it is unlikely the thc is metabolized.

 

[nitsuj]

If you want to make people aggressive, serve them rum and coke with real caffeinated cola, Irish coffee, etc. I spent a lot of time playing in bars, and the barmaids/barmen kept a close eye on people drinking those concoctions. Their philosophy was "The only thing more dangerous than a drunk is a wide-awake drunk."

Wow that actually sounds dangerous from a health perspective. Bet there aren't too many over 40yr doing that.

 

[TylerH]

I'd argue it has to go beyond medical expenses because there are very real social expenses. The number escapes me right now but last year I read an article outlining how much money alcohol costs every week in the UK in terms of; vandalism (broken street furniture, shop windows etc), mess (litter, vomit, urine), extra policing etc.

That's a good point, but I'd still argue that the tax should be determined based on the total cost (healthcare, police, vandalism, etc.) and that the tax collected should be distributed proportionally to the correct departments (healthcare, police, whoever fixes vandalism, etc.).

I know it would be hard to determine, but it is possible. The lack of statistical information and understanding should never be an excuse for a baseless tax rate.

 

[TylerH]

Ironically, alcohol is probably the biggest offender when it comes to these sorts of problems. There is no reason to believe legalized cannibis or even most other drugs would have the same consequences. If you want to make people aggressive, violent, and destuctive, give them booze. If you want them buying munchies at the 7-11, give them pot.

Exactly! The stimulus to the food industry alone will be enough to fix the economy if pot is legalized. Although, it will increase obesity significantly. I gained 4 pounds in one weekend once... (Not permanently, thought. I lost it the following 2 weeks.) What can I say? There was just too much junk food sitting around the house.

 

[nitsuj]

Exactly! The stimulus to the food industry alone will be enough to fix the economy if pot is legalized. Although, it will increase obesity significantly. I gained 4 pounds in one weekend once... (Not permanently, thought. I lost it the following 2 weeks.) What can I say? There was just too much junk food sitting around the house.

lol, it's hard to stretch out monthly annuities properly. just kidding

 

[nitsuj]

Oh no!

Reefer Madness Flashbacks!

Apparently the generic term "tar" equates to cancer risk. 20 times the tar, is 20 times the cancer risk.

That and other fascinating derivations possible from this BBC article.

BBC ARTICLE HERE

 

[Pythagorean]

Oh wow, it's linear too? How convenient!

 

[Some Slacker]

Quantify the level of intoxication, in real time, problem solved!

 

[nitsuj]

1.) what's being "quantified"?
2.) if it's THC in the blood, good luck, & that's a solution purely from a legal perspective. And is resolved via zero tolerance. All should agree with that, a "little" high & driving is not more due diligence than "really" high.

3.) In my opinion the issue lies in (sub?)culture, voting power & politicking.

 

[Some Slacker]

1.) what's being "quantified"?

If I knew this, I would solve the problem myself, and I know there probably was some investigation into this with no results. The best we can do nowadays is tell you have smoked in the last 30 days (give or take a week) and a probable amount of usage, weather it be casual, habitual, or abusive... To me, that just isn't good enough to make pot legal, 'cause like those 'fun' commercials show, I don't want my surgeon or my kids bus driver high while working, but they should be able to have some when not on duty, as the effects wear off after a few hours (give or take an hour or two).

2.) if it's THC in the blood, good luck, & that's a solution purely from a legal perspective. And is resolved via zero tolerance. All should agree with that, a "little" high & driving is not more due diligence than "really" high.

Can't measure that.
And yet a little drunk is considered ok.. While drinking is way Way WAY more debilitating than pot can ever be.

3.) In my opinion the issue lies in (sub?)culture, voting power & politicking.

Because of the stigma of using hard drugs like marijuana a politician is committing career suicide if they back it (mostly). I do really believe that pot got a bad rap right from the start, and too many believe the worst.

 

[TylerH]

1.) what's being "quantified"?
2.) if it's THC in the blood, good luck, & that's a solution purely from a legal perspective. And is resolved via zero tolerance. All should agree with that, a "little" high & driving is not more due diligence than "really" high.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1g.htm

* The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.

* It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

How about we rely on scientific research instead of baseless opinion/conjecture to decide what others should and shouldn't agree with.

 

[Evo]

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1g.htm
How about we rely on scientific research instead of baseless opinion/conjecture to decide what others should and shouldn't agree with.

Oh yeah, because smoking pot has no effects.

A Phoenix, Ariz., woman put her 5-week-old baby on top of her car in his car seat and drove away, apparently forgetting he was there, not even noticing when the seat fell off the car and landed in an intersection, police said.

Neighbors discovered the baby on the roadway, still strapped to his safety seat, which was lying on its side. Luckily, the baby was unhurt.

The baby's mother, 19-year-old Catalina Clouser, who allegedly had been smoking marijuana, was arrested and charged with aggravated driving under the influence and child abuse, police said.

"We believe that whatever she was under the influence of was the deciding factor in what did happen to this child and we're extremely happy that for the baby this turned out well and the baby is going to be OK," Officer James Holmes of the Phoenix Police Depart said.

Clauser, her boyfriend and their friends had been smoking marijuana earlier in the evening at a nearby park, but the boyfriend was arrested on suspicion of aggravated DUI when they went to a store - with the baby in the car - to get beer, according to police.

Upset that her boyfriend was arrested, police said, Clauser went to a friend's home and smoked more marijuana.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...d-top-car-164426051--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[TylerH]

Oh yeah, because smoking pot has no effects.

Can you show me what I said that even implies that? You can't, because my quote only speaks of the impairment *in terms of road tracking*.

I said nothing about the effects on memory or whatever it was that caused that person to leave their baby on the roof of their car nor did I say anything that implied no such effects existed.

In case it wasn't obvious by the fact that I quoted him, I was responding only to nitsuj's proposition that a zero tolerance policy is something that everyone should agree with.

 

[Evo]

Can you show me what I said that even implies that? You can't, because my quote only speaks of the impairment *in terms of road tracking*.

I said nothing about the effects on memory or whatever it was that caused that person to leave their baby on the roof of their car nor did I say anything that implied no such effects existed.

In case it wasn't obvious by the fact that I quoted him, I was responding only to nitsuj's proposition that a zero tolerance policy is something that everyone should agree with.

I think marijuana should be legalized with the same restrictions as alcohol.

But we can't pretend that abusers don't get f'd up on it.

 

[ThomasT]

I think marijuana should be legalized with the same restrictions as alcohol.

But we can't pretend that abusers don't get f'd up on it.

I agree, and there are laws against driving (operating machinery, etc.) while under the influence of marijuana (just as with alcolhol and other behavior altering drugs). I think that a person should be allowed to grow and consume marijuana for personal use in the same way that a person is allowed to make a few gallons of beer at home for personal use.

Personally, I don't smoke marijuana (but do like its aroma), though I know people my age who do, and though it's quite easy to get with virtually no risk -- but it's current classification and the laws against possession and use make no sense, imo.

The war on drugs has, imo, turned out to be a colossal mess, leading to lots of unnecessary corruption and violent crime.

Imo, we should put the marijuana cartels out of business by legalizing pot.

For a little history on, imo, one of the influential precursors to the current attitudes of a certain significant portion of the US populace see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

 

[nitsuj]

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1g.htm
How about we rely on scientific research instead of baseless opinion/conjecture to decide what others should and shouldn't agree with.

How about...screw the scientific research, which merely ATTEMPTS to quantify an effect. It can't be done.

When getting behind the wheel of a 2,000kg machine on public roads, zero tolerance is best. All else is guess work.

I [STRIKE]never[/STRIKE] rarely drink. I could go all day with no food, pop some blood thinner, pop a shot of vodka and have a "buzz" that despite level of impairment, is an impairment.

If I crash and kill, who's to know if my thin blood & alcohol had an influence in the cause. Certainly not historical scientific research.

It's your duty to be in tip top shape when getting behind the wheel.

Sorry if it was the terminology "all should agree" that's upsetting you, how presumptuous of me to think everyone would agree with their civic duty before getting behind the wheel.

 

[btbam91]

I'm personally against it. But if it ever is legalized, I'd want it to be taxed like hell and the money be put to good use.

 

[ghost_r32]

If there's one thing I've learned in my life, its one of my mottos "Weed Ruins Friendships"
Its a social life killer and ruins ambitions. Sure some people may argue that their life is "improved" or "not affected adversely" by it. But maybe you're one in a million. So many around me are into it and I hate it so much. I could go on and on but to cut a long story short I've lost a couple of best mates to it and my brother skips school because he's smoking it. He's got such a bright future but he's throwing it down the drain. I hate the BS videos I see about how great it is, its benefits and all that. Its just brainwashing the younger generation.

 

[nitsuj]

If there's one thing I've learned in my life, its one of my mottos "Weed Ruins Friendships"
Its a social life killer and ruins ambitions. Sure some people may argue that their life is "improved" or "not affected adversely" by it. But maybe you're one in a million. So many around me are into it and I hate it so much. I could go on and on but to cut a long story short I've lost a couple of best mates to it and my brother skips school because he's smoking it. He's got such a bright future but he's throwing it down the drain. I hate the BS videos I see about how great it is, its benefits and all that. Its just brainwashing the younger generation.

I'm not so sure about your moto, the weed is pretty innocent there.

But I do hear you on the other concerns, and agree. Drugs, and in particular marijuana carry little "consequence" from abuse. So yea it's difficult to convince a pot head they are not as "successful" as they could be without abusing drugs.

thing of it is...what's the problem again?

Oh yea abuse, that's the issue. Seems a separate issue from smoking weed. Isn't?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

thing of it is...what's the problem again?

Oh yea abuse, that's the issue. Seems a separate issue from smoking weed. Isn't?

How is drug abuse separate to the issue of drug use ? I'm not saying their exactly the same but as they are intimately linked it would be damaging to consider one without the other.

 

[nitsuj]

How is drug abuse separate to the issue of drug use ? I'm not saying their exactly the same but as they are intimately linked it would be damaging to consider one without the other.

gimme a break ryan, I could abuse bananas, carrots and or oranges. I think abuse is totally separate from drugs.

Unless you meant to put words in my mouth with "drug abuse separate to the issue of drug use". That's a bit of a truism. I said abuse is separate from smoking weed. They are not mutually inclusive.

My momma told me drug abuse is never about the drugs. In what sense do you think it is?

How is it not the emotions produced, and enjoyed enough to become less ambitious towards other (more?) meaningful goals? Unreasonably focusing on getting an emotional high. The drug itself is moot.

People don't become coke heads, because they like blowing coke. The like the high. The high is an emotion, apparently a great one, earned merely by snortin' some crap up the nose.I guess it's emotional abuse more so than drug abuse. Perhaps, legislators had the same mind set as you when drafting laws that can incriminate drug abusers.

Skydiving can result in death. It produces an emotional "high". Do you think that would be abuse of planes and parachutes?

The drug is merely the means to emotional abuse as I've described.

In this thread I've called it "cheating life".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

gimme a break ryan, I could abuse bananas, carrots and or oranges. I think abuse is totally separate from drugs.

Unless you meant to put words in my mouth with "drug abuse separate to the issue of drug use". That's a bit of a truism. I said abuse is separate from smoking weed. They are not mutually inclusive.

My momma told me drug abuse is never about the drugs. In what sense do you think it is?

How is it not the emotions produced, and enjoyed enough to become less ambitious towards other (more?) meaningful goals? Unreasonably focusing on getting an emotional high. The drug itself is moot.

People don't become coke heads, because they like blowing coke. The like the high. The high is an emotion, apparently a great one, earned merely by snortin' some crap up the nose.I guess it's emotional abuse more so than drug abuse. Perhaps, legislators had the same mind set as you when drafting laws that can incriminate drug abusers.

Skydiving can result in death. It produces an emotional "high". Do you think that would be abuse of planes and parachutes?

The drug is merely the means to emotional abuse as I've described.

In this thread I've called it "cheating life".

Firstly: calm down. Secondly with the exception of the clear physical dependency that a lot of drugs create you are partly right, people take them for enjoyment and escapism. But you can't deny that most drugs are easily and readily abused, far more so than fruit. To have a sensible and balanced discussion about drug policy you have to acknowledge that.