Woman gets 10 Years in Prison for Selling $30 Worth of Weed in Oklahoma

[GVC]

Usage will increase dramatically.

Why hasn't this been the case in countries that have either legalized or decriminalized cannabis? Can you provide any support of any kind for this assertion?

 

[GVC]

And, although I realize you refuse to be persuaded no matter how overwhelming the evidence, the effects of alcohol prohibition on organized crime, alcoholism, and other social ills shouldn't be forgotten. The policy was a complete failure.

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/31267826

 

[JohnStockalypse]

Gun laws, also a failure.

 

[franklin]

1. It sounds like these people were sick, and didn't get the help they needed. Using terms like "thrill ladder" does a disservice to those with serious psychological disorders. The negative stigma attached to many completely normal attitudes and behaviors of young people, and the way they are often handled by families, schools and communities, lead to some terrible outcomes, like suicide. I have my doubts that prohibition, and the lies that are perpetuated by the government propaganda machine, do little to help people overcome their problems with depression and addiction.

I agree except that something like thrill ladder does a disservice or was used inappropriately. Some have mental issues, some form chemical issues through dependency, and some climb the thrill ladder for one reason or another. If anything, to label them all as psychological cases does a disservice to those with true impairments.

2. Even if there were a strong gateway effect, so what? There has now been (some contend) ample time and evidence to judge whether legalization/decriminalization of cannabis leads to higher use of these substances (in Portugal, the Netherlands, and other European countries). The studies have not shown any statistically significant uptick in use post-legalization/decriminalization. So, again, even if there is a gateway effect, prohibition of cannabis likely does very little to curb the move toward hard drugs, since it does little to slow the use of the initial substance, cannabis. Further, as evidenced by some survey data, teens have an easier time getting their hands on cannabis (and other illegal substances) than they do on alcohol and tobacco. It isn't too much of a stretch to assert that if you were to legalize and regulate cannabis like tobacco, that teenage use would go down. Whether an adult decides to consume cannabis, cocaine, meth, etc. is not really any of my concern until he becomes violent, dangerous or parasitic (although the cost of walking them through the criminal justice system and imprisoning them for years is almost certainly higher than whatever societal cost their addictive lifestyle imposes on the outside).

"So what?" is my position. I doesn't matter much to me if something is a temptress or not. I just want to make sure you're backing up that Spazz is half assed crazy for making the gateway position. As far as I know it's quite undecided and probably always will be. There are too many variables to form anything but a loose correlation at best. I don't put much stalk into the Portugal and Netherlands cases, although they are worth looking at. There are just too many variables and too short a time frame to consider it anything higher than an interesting correlation. Pot use went down in the 80's and 90's in the US too, I believe, and people are trying to correlate that with medical marijuana use. It's probably as simple as something like no appeal to the children of stoners.

 

[PearlWatson]

Why don't we ban TV, fast food, carbonated beverages, fat, sugar, cars, etc. These are all more harmful than cannabis, and most of them are more addictive.

That is the liberal agenda in a nutshell.

 

[Agoxlea]

That is the liberal agenda in a nutshell.

Please provide ONE example. If you are referring to SF banning Happy Meals, that is because they are targeting minors. Most people propose restrictions on Cannabis for minors as well. Once people are of a consenting age to eat themselves to death, I haven't seen anyone attempt to legally forbid them.

 

[PearlWatson]

That's fine. I don't much care whether people think drugs are good or bad. I'm concerned with what policy best suits individuals and communities. The current policy is extremely expensive and is aimed at users, not dealers (and certainly not the cartels). Those are the people who are caught, prosecuted and imprisoned. If someone sells to minors, drives while under the influence of cannabis, or commits violent crimes under the influence of cannabis, there should be government/society imposed consequences. If I grow cannabis for my own personal use, there shouldn't be.

I don't believe this is the case. Even in this case she was put in prison for selling it...not simply possessing it.
I asked my friend who works at the Utah prison if he has a bunch of pot users taking up space in prison. He said he know of only one dude in for pot and he had 2 truckloads of the stuff.

 

[One Brow]

Did you just randomly pull a "big" word out of the dictionary to see if it fit.

No. When someone puts their personal experience over careful studies as a source of reliable information, three thing come to my mind, the least offensive of which is homeopathy.

So you pull one small sentence out of all of the posts and try to make some brilliant move by connecting me with homeopathy?

You say that like it is a bad thing. You believe in the superiority of anecdotes and personal experience over carefully collected and examined data. That's the same process used by homeopaths, who caim their experiences and anecdotes show that all those scientific test which have their product being no more effective than a placebo are wrong. Why don't you think teh comparison is a compliment? Is it because only your personal observations and anecdotes are allowed to trump carefully collected data?

I don't even have a response for you.

No problem. I don't really expect one.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe minimally, but you also have to factor in the damage, or effects that come from legalizing it.

Do you have anything specific?

When you legalize something, that means businesses will focus on it's production. It will be out there for cheaper, and will negate the illegal side of things, but it will also be everywhere... every drug store, corner market, liquor store, etc. Instead of being smuggled into the country bit by bit, it will be trucked in. Instead of people buying it for large amounts of their check, they will be able to buy a lot more for fairly cheap.

I agree.

Usage will increase dramatically.

Why? How many people are limited in their usage today by the cost? Do you have any evidence, or is this just your personal experience? How did you gain such experience?

Now, I agree that usage will increase somewhat due to the legality. Cost, not so much.

If you are a user, and this is what you want, more drug for your dollar I can see why you want this to happen.

I smoked once when I was 14, and didn't see the point in doing it again.

Illegal drugs will still be out there, we will just have more of the hard drugs out there.

Why would usage of other drugs increase?

We would be changing the field to step one being coke, or crack or something instead of pot. Pot would then be lumped in with cigarettes and alcohol.

I'm not sure what you mean by "changing the field". I agree it would be lumped in. I am unsure why you think this is a bad thing.

I just don't think legalizing it is going to solve the issues people think they will.

I agree. Issues are almost never solved, although they can be contributed to or diminished.

It's also not a one to one comparison to say it worked in Portugal.
Portugal is in a different situation, under different laws, with different citizens.
There may be some similarities, but it is definitely not one to one.

I agree. However, as far as I know, it is our only example.

 

[Agoxlea]

No. When someone puts their personal experience over careful studies as a source of reliable information, three thing come to my mind, the least offensive of which is homeopathy.

Antivaxers

 

[Jazz Spazz]

No. When someone puts their personal experience over careful studies as a source of reliable information, three thing come to my mind, the least offensive of which is homeopathy.

Are you trying to say my experience was not careful or studied?

If you like studies so much why haven't I heard this one yet?

https://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html

Oh, because it doesn't back up what you say, so it must be wrong.
Just because I don't post or reference a study doesn't mean I haven't looked into things.
Just because I have an opinion that is different than what you want it to be doesn't mean I haven't put any effort into it, or that I must be blind.
I could use the same arguments at your position as were used on mine, *only a blind fool would ignore studies like these.

*paraphrased and altered from a prior post in the thread.
~this rant is not specifically directed at you One Brow.

Why? How many people are limited in their usage today by the cost? Do you have any evidence, or is this just your personal experience? How did you gain such experience?

Now, I agree that usage will increase somewhat due to the legality. Cost, not so much.

Why do I get the impression you are just being a prick and that you don't really care?

You don't think it will increase due to the cost, but will due to the legality? Is this based on experience, or some sort of case study?

Why would usage of other drugs increase?

It would increase because the kids that experiment with drugs will now start with highly addictive drugs that are not generally classified as "recreational drugs".
Welcome to the Hotel California.

I'm not sure what you mean by "changing the field". I agree it would be lumped in. I am unsure why you think this is a bad thing.

Casual, or experimental drug users would start with coke or something, rather than starting with pot. The jumping off point will have changed, which changes the whole field. You can't make a big change like people are talking about without it affecting everything, and every aspect of the whole scenario.

 

[Bronco70]

I've been reading the back and forth here between GVC and Spazz, and though it won't clear anything up, I wanted to add my two cents:

Personally, I'm for the legalization.

I don't do marijuana, never have, but I have probably half a dozen close friends that do or did, and several dozen acquaintances that do. This is an extremely small sample size, I know, but their behavior is fairly consistent.

None of them do harder drugs (that I know of) despite having used for years. Several of them go through phases where they will use for a while, then put it on the back burner for a few months. This doesn't look a lot like addiction to me. Also, for the most part, when they use, they are extremely unmotivated to go out and do things that may be considered dangerous under the influence of a mind altering substance (really, they are pretty much unmotivated to do anything.) But my point is, I've never seen one of them do something to put them in a position to hurt someone else.

Anyway, it's a shame that something far less destructive than prescription opiates (yeah, Spazz, I'm aware of your position on Rx) is treated like such a threat. I believe that it would already be legal, minus the 1930's propaganda blitz that was motivated more by politics than actual health and welfare. But that's just me.