Should we decriminalize drugs and let big pharma take over production?

[darthtang aw]

A less violent way would be to just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself.  Retards and morons will naturally become extinct i.e the Dodo bird...
No more seat belts, airbags, crosswalks, gun restrictions,  traffic lights or speed limits...  what a perfect world.
Your ideas would give a different aspect to the term of corporate takeover.....
What you speak of can not be done. Pandoras box is open. Rewinding thousands of years of world history is not possible. Thus these arguments in support of these ideas aren't sound. I get what you are saying....but it doesnt fit in todays world or society. Therefore we must mitigate as much damage as possible.
Think of it this way. A plane takes off with a damaged wing. while flying the wing falls off and the plane plumments. How do you save the people? Your stance is the plane never should have taken off and they should all die. My stance is I agree, but that is the fault of the pilot...not the people so how do you save them.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397132/should-we-decriminalize-drugs-and-let-big-pharma-take-over-production#post_3538794
Because of the Nation wide campaign against smoking. The laws created to prevent cigarettes to being marketed to young as well. This has been a 30 year campaign. The last 10-20 years have been spent stating how weed isn't as bad as alcohol. Once weed is legal, how many of the younger generation will run out and purchase it? How many of those will become addicts? How many of those addicts will become the dreggs of society.
I find this comical.Those that show the greatest support for it only see the money it "could" bring. Early someone cited a cheaper cost for it if it were legal..yet, the colorado weed is three times above street value. Go figure.
I mentioned several months back the moral decline of this country. The legalization of weed will not just affect the users...it will affect those around. How do you test for THC level of a vehicular wreck? There is no breath test for it. It has to be drawn by blood. which can stay in one's system for days....... So for the gain of a few dollars to ease some of our deficit (sorry folks this might reduce it by 2% if taxed) we are willing to put lives at risk on a grand scale. Lives and futures of those may never touch marijuana.
Marijuana is not the "safe" drug it is made out to be.
I have several friends that are responsible adults. Yes, they smoke occasionally. Most likely they would not fall into the category I speak of. However I have had friends that would spark up with kids asleep on the couch next to them. Infants. I have been on this planet a long time. I have been at the very bottom and seen some down right nasty crap. I have been at the top and still seen some down right nasty crap. It isn't just the "ignorant" drugs get a grip on and ruin lives. It is the lawyer, the doctor, etc. We once had a discussion if you would go to doctor or lawyer that was tattooed up. Most here said no. Would you hire a lawyer that smoked an eighth to a quarter a day? How about if you would allow a doctor to perform surgery on you that smoked that much a day. Weed slows down motor function and thought processing. If the answer is no....if weed were legal...you might have no choice. And would never know. Currently random drug screening minimize the odds of this happening in the proffesional world. If weed were legal, those drug screenings for THC would be no longer legal. As no private compnay can dictate if you consume on your own time a legal substance.
Again I ask you, the stoners in school you grew up with, were they the top of the class?
Question. Have you ever smoked pot? I did in high school and college. So did several of my "stoner" friends. Every one of us graduated in the Top 10% of our class (there were 780 students in my high school graduating class). Out of those individuals, one became a neurosurgeon, another a lawyer, a couple of them police officers, and one is an actor. I haven't touched the stuff since I left college over 35 years ago. Never had the urge to pick it up again, and I've have multiple opportunities to do so. The fallacy in your argument about doctors "lighting up" before a surgery is that almost all hospitals notify their employees that they are subject to random drug tests. If caught with ANY drug in their system, it's an immediate termination. Most major companies abide by the same policies. What rational person would risk their livelihood by smoking a couple of joints?

 

[2quills]

Seems like this would be a boon for democrats. If you really want to control the masses then you should be controlling the drugs.

 

[darthtang aw]

Question. Have you ever smoked pot?  I did in high school and college.  So did several of my "stoner" friends.  Every one of us graduated in the Top 10% of our class (there were 780 students in my high school graduating class).  Out of those individuals, one became a neurosurgeon, another a lawyer, a couple of them police officers, and one is an actor.  I haven't touched the stuff since I left college over 35 years ago.  Never had the urge to pick it up again, and I've have multiple opportunities to do so.  The fallacy in your argument about doctors "lighting up" before a surgery is that almost all hospitals notify their employees that they are subject to random drug tests.  If caught with ANY drug in their system, it's an immediate termination.  Most major companies abide by the same policies.  What rational person would risk their livelihood by smoking a couple of joints?
They are subject to random drug tests because drugs are illegal. They do not do random alcohol tests.....If drugs were legal the drug tests would be illegal.
I ask you. would you be comfortable with a pot smoking surgeon performing heart surgery on you?
Yes, I have smoked weed. Was never my thing. But harder stuff was. so when I speak on drug addiction I do so from experience on a very expensive scale. 1000 dollar a week drug habit has a way of hindering life choices and decision making skills in people.

 

[2quills]

They are subject to random drug tests because drugs are illegal. They do not do random alcohol tests.....If drugs were legal the drug tests would be illegal.
Are you under the impression that is is unlawful to administer alcohol testing to employees who've signed an agreement per their employment?

 

[darthtang aw]

Are you under the impression that is is unlawful to administer alcohol testing to employees who've signed an agreement per their employment?Not unlawful. But show me a company that performs RANDOM alcohol testing and fires employees because of it. The only alcohol tests that ever come into play are ones involving tests for accidents in the work place. Firing someone from partaking in a legal substance off the job is illegal.

 

[2quills]

Not unlawful. But show me a company that performs RANDOM alcohol testing and fires employees because of it. The only alcohol tests that ever come into play are ones involving tests for accidents in the work place. Firing someone from partaking in a legal substance off the job is illegal.
You've probably just been self employed for too long. Random drug AND alcohol screening is common for many industries these days that have serious safety concerns to consider. It ties into insurance.. Companies lose big bucks because of drugs or alcohol on the job. Especially if an employee causes serious injury to another or causes some type of major catastrophe.
Other than that I don't know of too many small companies running around randomly asking their employees to submit to a breathalyzer. Might make you seem like a bit of an arse hole and nobody would want to work for you.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397132/should-we-decriminalize-drugs-and-let-big-pharma-take-over-production/20#post_3538861
They are subject to random drug tests because drugs are illegal. They do not do random alcohol tests.....If drugs were legal the drug tests would be illegal.
I ask you. would you be comfortable with a pot smoking surgeon performing heart surgery on you?
Yes, I have smoked weed. Was never my thing. But harder stuff was. so when I speak on drug addiction I do so from experience on a very expensive scale. 1000 dollar a week drug habit has a way of hindering life choices and decision making skills in people.
That's called weakness. Blaming it on using marijuana first is ludicrous.

Hate to burst your bubble, but if a physician shows an inkling of signs that they may be inebriated while on duty, they will be subjected to a blood test to determine their alcohol blood content or be summarily dismissed. I know this because my wife is a surgeon. Even if they legalized drugs, random drug tests would continued to be performed in that profession, and any other profession that involves caring for the safety of another human being, whether it be a doctor, dentist, fireman, nurse, or police officer. Hospital administrators and the billion dollar corporate shills would never risk their reputation, or their pocketbooks, with multi-million dollar lawsuits because some surgeon smoked a doobie right before he/she decided to open up a heart patient.

 

[darthtang aw]

That's called weakness.  Blaming it on using marijuana first is ludicrous.
I wont even dignify this assinine comment with the response it warrants. I NEVER implied marijuana leads to harder drug use. Typical Bianic response. Attack the personal experience of the poster.

 

[darthtang aw]

You've probably just been self employed for too long. Random drug AND alcohol screening is common for many industries these days that have serious safety concerns to consider. It ties into insurance.. Companies lose big bucks because of drugs or alcohol on the job. Especially if an employee causes serious injury to another or causes some type of major catastrophe.
Other than that I don't know of too many small companies running around randomly asking their employees to submit to a breathalyzer. Might make you seem like a bit of an arse hole and nobody would want to work for you.
There are three ways to test. Breath, urine and blood.
For alcohol all companies use breath tests. Usually right after an accident. But breath tests can NOT test for drugs.
Urinalysis is the primary form of drug testing. Since this doesn't test the actual level of drugs but that metabolites are present. This is an unclear form of testing. All this test shows is the person used an illicit drug recently. Sometimes as much as 7 days ago.
Therefore this leaves blood testing. Blood testing tests accurate levels of drugs and alcohol at the moment. You wont get readings from the day before (unless a crap ton was consumed). This test will tell you if the individual is impaired right at the moment. This test is costly and typically used before major events or after accidents. Unfortunately, by then it is to late, and now opens up the company to lawsuit.
Here is the problem I am talking about. Long term drug use affects motor functions and thought processing speed.. If the drug is legal though.....................................................
Something else to think about. There have been studies that conclude high marijuana use increases the chances of developing schizophrenia.

 

[phixer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397132/should-we-decriminalize-drugs-and-let-big-pharma-take-over-production/20#post_3538847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397132/should-we-decriminalize-drugs-and-let-big-pharma-take-over-production#post_3538846
A less violent way would be to just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself. Retards and morons will naturally become extinct i.e the Dodo bird...
No more seat belts, airbags, crosswalks, gun restrictions, traffic lights or speed limits... what a perfect world.
Your ideas would give a different aspect to the term of corporate takeover.....
What you speak of can not be done. Pandoras box is open. Rewinding thousands of years of world history is not possible. Thus these arguments in support of these ideas aren't sound. I get what you are saying....but it doesnt fit in todays world or society. Therefore we must mitigate as much damage as possible.
Think of it this way. A plane takes off with a damaged wing. while flying the wing falls off and the plane plumments. How do you save the people? Your stance is the plane never should have taken off and they should all die. My stance is I agree, but that is the fault of the pilot...not the people so how do you save them.
Darth I have to agree with you somewhat. I've met some seriously stupid stoners that would make Jeff Spicolly (Fast times at Ridgemont High) look like Stephen Hawking.
Except the people would be free. Sure it can, a little at at time. Todays culture or society only exists this way because we allow it to. Those in Congress need to be fired the same way as any under performing employee would. Instead they give themselves raises.

"The Matrix is a system, That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."

Thats what revoloution means it continually re-volves and ev-olves. But Im not talking about going back to the stone age Im talking about everyone doing thier part to keep us free. Here's a few ways.

1) Dont vote for red or blue.
2) Help only the people in your family and medically only those who are children.
3) Stop trying to save things.
4) Eliminate charity as a tax break.
5) Buy local.
6) Become as independent as possible.
7) Help your fellow man by never becoming his burden in any way shape or form.
8) Drink Newcastle...

You dont save them, You dont event attempt to. In trying to save them you are disrupting the natural order of events and creating a burden. I shrug my shoulders and say "thats one less guy I have to wait behind in traffic" and thank gravity for doing its job. And if it's somone in my family I mourn and then get over it. My stance is if your going divorce yourself from the natural order of things expect chaos... and dont fly Pan Am.

 

[2quills]

There are three ways to test. Breath, urine and blood.
For alcohol all companies use breath tests. Usually right after an accident. But breath tests can NOT test for drugs.
Urinalysis is the primary form of drug testing. Since this doesn't test the actual level of drugs but that metabolites are present. This is an unclear form of testing. All this test shows is the person used an illicit drug recently. Sometimes as much as 7 days ago.
Therefore this leaves blood testing. Blood testing tests accurate levels of drugs and alcohol at the moment. You wont get readings from the day before (unless a crap ton was consumed). This test will tell you if the individual is impaired right at the moment. This test is costly and typically used before major events or after accidents. Unfortunately, by then it is to late, and now opens up the company to lawsuit.
Here is the problem I am talking about. Long term drug use affects motor functions and thought processing speed.. If the drug is legal though.....................................................
Something else to think about. There have been studies that conclude high marijuana use increases the chances of developing schizophrenia.
You forgot hair samples. Again, you keep making this argument that drugs are bad. No one disagrees. That doesn't change the fact that they are already here and don't appear to be going away anytime soon.

 

[darthtang aw]

You forgot hair samples. Again, you keep making this argument that drugs are bad. No one disagrees. That doesn't change the fact that they are already here and don't appear to be going away anytime soon.
The same with murder. The same with rape. The same with drunk driving. The same with theft. The same with....... Fill in the blank.
Just because they arent going away doesnt mean it benefits a civil society to make it legal to do. Legalize marijuana. You still have other drugs. Each generation has their drug of choice. Do we make krochidil legal. What about heroin? The all have detrimental effects on society but all are here to stay.

 

[darthtang aw]

The entire basis and primary argument to legalize is to save money. If someone can list more than that i might be open to discussion on this.
While i enjoy drinking alcohol i wouldnt care if this was illegal either. However i can drink a beer and not be greatly impaired or damage my physical make up and thought process. Can the same be said of smoking a joint? One hit off a joint causes more impairment that one shot. There is a difference between the two.

 

[2quills]

Its more than just saving money, Darth. Its about cutting crime as well. How many innocent people get caught in the cross fire of gang violence over who gets to sell what where? I've seen you argue the very same point in regards to alcohol and how prohibition led to organized crime.
And maybe, just maybe we'll see usage drop like they have in other countries.

 

[darthtang aw]

Its more than just saving money, Darth. Its about cutting crime as well. How many innocent people get caught in the cross fire of gang violence over who gets to sell what where? I've seen you argue the very same point in regards to alcohol and how prohibition led to organized crime.
And maybe, just maybe we'll see usage drop like they have in other countries.
True, and I will give that point as valid.
However. During prohibition organized crime had not delved into the drug trade to the level it is now. They primarily operated off numbers games, items that fell off trucks and alcohol. Alcohol being their number one money gainer during the time. The prohibition created a whole new criminal element to be exposed and used.
After prohibition was overturned we started to see a huge up swing in the drug trade. Primarily because organized crime lost their revenue stream from alcohol.
The overturning of prohibition did reduce the crime rate, for a while. But then it grew again. Organized crime will always find the next thing. If we legalize drugs, I am willing to bet the cartels and organized crime will delve into human trafficking a lot more or some other such criminal activity....child porn...you name it.
Will it reduce crime? sure.....for a while. But this is not a long term fix, just like the overturning of prohibition. We can not legalize things for money and to reduce crime.
If you want to reduce crime, hell amnesty does this....open borders do this as well. doe you support either?
On a sidenote, I guarantee, even though it is legal in colorado to be weed, this will not hurt the local marijuana drug trade there. Stop and look at the law.....I am curious if anyone can figure out why it wont affect the drug trade....

 

[darthtang aw]

In 1980 the U.S.had just under 25,000 prisoners incarcerated in state or federal prison, for drug related charges.
In 2009 there were almost 350,000 prisoners.
The drugs stayed ilegal. But the crime rate for drug imprisonment rose dramatically. Legalizing drugs is not the answer. The answer is finding out what changed so dramatically in the last 30 years and correct that.
47% of all violent criminals are illicit drug users.
63% of all property crimes are done by illicit drug users.
Making drugs legal makes them more expensive................................do you think those numbers will go up or down if drugs are legalized but more expensive?

 

[2quills]

What changed, Darth were the republicans like Regan and Bush jr. With their aggressive tactics towards the drug war and going after offenders.

 

[darthtang aw]

What changed, Darth were the republicans like Regan and Bush jr. With their aggressive tactics towards the drug war and going after offenders.
From 1990 to 2007 that number doubles. It isn't just republicans. What legislation changed is the question. That is what needs looked at. Prior to 1980 Drugs were illegal but the prison pop for them was way down.

 

[2quills]

The 90's is when cities and states started militarizing the police forces. Zero tollarance began going into effect all over the place after gangster rap hit the air waves lol. Bush jr. pumped more money into it than anyone. Regans polices paved the way
So you have a system now that goes after people with problems with reckless abandon. Meanwhile people grow up with an increasing anger and distrust towards a system that believes in helping people by locking them up, taking away their rights or any chance at ever getting a real job or hold a business license in their state.
Anyone who's ever been through a serious addiction like that knows it doesn't happen over night. And if you didn't end up dead, robbed or in prison than you better thank your lucky stars your still out in the free world and able to support a family.