So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[Cain]

Wow that was badly written.  And nonsensical.  Basically drugs = secret money to do stuff no-one will find out about.  Insert your favourite intelligence service, terrorist group or international crime organisation here.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So remember, kids: the use of drugs is a victimless crime.


[/sarcasm]

ROFL... well as long as we keep the black market as the sole supplier of drugs. Can you imagine how horrible and victim laden the situation would be if you could actually buy it at a State store?!

I for one, am glad the government is looking out for our best interests... as Cain pointed out in his excellent summary above.

[AFK]

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.  

2) Do you recognize the validity of experiential evidence, especially experiential evidence gathered over many years?

It can be valid, depends on how the evidence is gathered.  When this experiential evidence is gathered through an empirical process like focus groups, key informant interviews, etc., it can be ONE source of valid information.  However, a finding is more robust when it is triangulated with multiple sources to back it up.  

3) Are you aware that there's way more to the US government's drug policy than just caring about keeping kids off of harmful drugs? Are you aware of the documentable connections between domestic drug policy and foreign policy and that it is frequently not in the government's best interests to disclose the full truth regarding the reasons behind their domestic drug policy, or the hypocrisy in adopting a "tough on drugs" stance for the electorate while simultaneously using drug money to finance proxy armies (mujahideen, Contras, etc.)? And would you agree that, given these things, the US government may not be a very credible source for hard science regarding drugs and drug use?

If someone wants to provide a specific source of information and debunk it with documented evidence of how it is incorrect and how it is linked to a hidden agenda, I'll be happy to discuss it.  

now, I've got no more respect for the yahoo hippies that think everything would be great if we were all stoned all the time and I recognize that there are people for whom recreational drug use is detrimental and they may even be the majority, but where do you draw the line between legally enforced prohibition and giving people reliable information so they can make their own choices?

Well, I don't work in the government so I'm not in any position to decide what line is drawn where.  I know where the line is currently and I believe it is in the best interest to maintain it.  The reality is that you can't separate the decisions adults make about drugs from the impacts those decisions have on adolescents.  There is no way around that.  

I absolutely do not believe in preventative legislation of anything, drugs included. If a crackhead robs someone for his fix, then he's guilty of armed robbery and should be dealt with appropriately but I disagree that that means that smoking crack in and of itself should be illegal. Preventative prohibition is absolutely contrary to the ideals that America was founded on.

Well, technically it is the possession of the crack that is illegal, not the smoking of it.  But obviously you can't have one without the other.  And again, if that possession didn't end up being a minor in possession, I'd be all for legalization.  But that world will never exist.  

[Rumckle]

Wow that was badly written.  And nonsensical.  Basically drugs = secret money to do stuff no-one will find out about.  Insert your favourite intelligence service, terrorist group or international crime organisation here.

Wouldn't that depend on the drug though?

I thought that most of the weed in the US was grown in the states (I could well be wrong), which would mean that the CIA has less of a hand in it than other illegal drugs (ie cocaine and heroin).

Also, I'm assuming they have less to do with prescription drug trade too.

[Cramulus]

that was fascinating reading, Cain. Great post.

[Cain]

Oh absolutely.  But there is the protection racket aspect, too.  CIA assets who happen to be involved in the drugs trade often have immunity from prosecution....just ask the DEA about that little trick.  These guys can be domestic or international, though usually the latter.  With that tool, they can make sure certain dealers who don't have arrangements with, when they get busted, stay busted.  On the other hand, those people they do work with will be protected...in return for some favours, now and again.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

 And again, if that possession didn't end up being a minor in possession, I'd be all for legalization.  But that world will never exist.  

But, generally minors currently have  better access to supply than we adults do... assuming they're like me and won't buy from a minor. I suppose if the current system appeared to help lots of kids and not hurt lots of adults, I'd be fine with it... but it seems to protect a very small number of kids and is very bad for a large number of adults.

[Rumckle]

Ah, yeah, I overlooked that Cain, good point.

[AFK]

Umm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right?

When I hear claims that make no sense, then YES I call bullshit and misinformation. The fact that the US Drug Czar is legally required to NOT TELL THE TRUTH if the truth conflicts with the drug policy tells me that the government is not exactly a trustworthy source.

And what makes people on the pro-legalization side of things trustworthy?  Why should I believe your side isn't spreading bullshit and misinformation?  

You want to talk about kids experiences that you've personally seen, I think thats awesome... you start telling me that hydro has secret evil chemicals that MIGHT BE BAD... uhhh, I'm gonna call Bullshit.

Umm, no.  I said that hydroponics has lead to increased THC levels and that there is evidence that some growers have used hydroponics to dye their products with food coloring.  And I even said I don't know what kind of effects smoking food coloring has.  It may be negligible compared to the chemicals (over 150) that are already in marijuana smoke.  I said nothing about "secret evil chemicals" so cut that shit out right now.  

Sometimes you say things and they sound like you're naive or misinformed.

Sometimes you read things I say the way you want them to read because that seems to be the way you want to combat me.  By making me appear like I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.  

As for the "chemicals"... Are you seriously debating the health risks of potassium, phosphates etc? I mean, it's in every vegetable you eat. I am far more concerned with the dangerous chemicals in our food that the FDA gives a pass on, to worry about fertilizer in plants. If those chemicals were BAD, then I guess my Dad's hotbed should be illegal and we should not eat anything from it...

Yes, smoking chemicals are probably bad for your lungs.  Is it really that far-fetched?  Oh, and I eat organic vegetables and fruit.  So yeah, I am concerned about the chemicals and do what I can to avoid them.    

I think I would have a lot more respect for your position, if you recognized that there is at least 'some' information you're getting may not be factual.

I could care less if you respect my position.  You are basing this on your contorted readings of my posts about food coloring and THC levels through hydroponics.  You are turning that into me screaming something I did not scream.  I think the THC levels themselves are enough to be concerned with.  And I do think it is important to consider what kinds of chemicals you are introducing into your body along with the THC.  So you are going to take this one contorted claim and lay that upon the entirety of my professional output?  You are really going to jump to that conclusion based on this scant little information?  

[Cain]

that was fascinating reading, Cain. Great post.

It's not that good.  Google "Nugan Hand", "the French Connection", "Gary Webb", how the ISI funded the Afghan mujahideen, Hamid Karzai's brother and a whole bunch of other stuff for a fuller picture.  If you want to really go deep, check out the intersection between the Mafia and the OSS during WWII, and work from there. 

[AFK]

legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

[AFK]

Well, it's been fun, but I've gotta prepare for my next brainwashing Retreat training in the woods.  I just got these hawt new brochures from NIDA, complete with talking points about how to best pull the wool over kids eyes.  Gotta make sure I get them all in, because I'm being monitored and I'll only get 100% of my kickbacks from the government if I get them all in.  At this rate I'll have that yacht in no time!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Umm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right?

When I hear claims that make no sense, then YES I call bullshit and misinformation. The fact that the US Drug Czar is legally required to NOT TELL THE TRUTH if the truth conflicts with the drug policy tells me that the government is not exactly a trustworthy source.

And what makes people on the pro-legalization side of things trustworthy?  Why should I believe your side isn't spreading bullshit and misinformation?  

You shouldn't.

You want to talk about kids experiences that you've personally seen, I think thats awesome... you start telling me that hydro has secret evil chemicals that MIGHT BE BAD... uhhh, I'm gonna call Bullshit.

Umm, no.  I said that hydroponics has lead to increased THC levels and that there is evidence that some growers have used hydroponics to dye their products with food coloring.  And I even said I don't know what kind of effects smoking food coloring has.  It may be negligible compared to the chemicals (over 150) that are already in marijuana smoke.  I said nothing about "secret evil chemicals" so cut that shit out right now.  

Err...  <i>Actually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.</i> which was in response to comments about cutting pot with something to make it stronger.

Sometimes you say things and they sound like you're naive or misinformed.

Sometimes you read things I say the way you want them to read because that seems to be the way you want to combat me.  By making me appear like I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.  

I don't want to combat you. When you say things that sound ... uhh... wrong, though I'm not gonna make it sound otherwise.

As for the "chemicals"... Are you seriously debating the health risks of potassium, phosphates etc? I mean, it's in every vegetable you eat. I am far more concerned with the dangerous chemicals in our food that the FDA gives a pass on, to worry about fertilizer in plants. If those chemicals were BAD, then I guess my Dad's hotbed should be illegal and we should not eat anything from it...

Yes, smoking chemicals are probably bad for your lungs.  Is it really that far-fetched?  Oh, and I eat organic vegetables and fruit.  So yeah, I am concerned about the chemicals and do what I can to avoid them.    

And all of that organic fruit and veg... HAS POTASSIUM, PHOSPHATES, HYDROGEN, OXYGEN, and all the same "chemicals" that hydro growers put in their pot. Its natural chemicals found naturally and used for thousands of years as FERTILIZER for the plant. As for the chemicals being bad for your lungs... smoking anything isn't great for your lungs... but I think that biologists might disagree with your argument here... since we talking about feeding a plant what it normally eats... which it breaks down and uses in its normal course of existence.

To equate that to 'people putting chemicals' in your drugs is absurd. Entirely absurd.

I think I would have a lot more respect for your position, if you recognized that there is at least 'some' information you're getting may not be factual.

I could care less if you respect my position.  You are basing this on your contorted readings of my posts about food coloring and THC levels through hydroponics.  You are turning that into me screaming something I did not scream.  I think the THC levels themselves are enough to be concerned with.  And I do think it is important to consider what kinds of chemicals you are introducing into your body along with the THC.  So you are going to take this one contorted claim and lay that upon the entirety of my professional output?  You are really going to jump to that conclusion based on this scant little information?  

No, I'm basing it on the many conversations we have had on the subject here. You have used a number of 'facts' from your sources which, to be blunt, are bullshit... or at least look an smell like bullshit.

I think kids should not do drugs and that we should educate kids so that they are smart about drugs... but I do not think its wise, smart, useful or helpful to hold the various other positions you've espoused. Not only do I disagree from a realistic position, but the philosophy that some small number of kids 'maybe not' trying pot justifies the current insane policy is downright idiotic.

Though by all means, don't pay any attention to me. I don't know anything.

[fomenter]

legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

you say your job will be much harder to impossible...
Based upon what evidence?

i cant say with any certainty (i used the words "i suspect" for a reason) -  alcohol is the best example of the benefits of doing away with prohibition the trouble caused by alcohol being illegal (cop raids, smuggling bad quality booze killing people, gang wars, political and police corruption etc etc) all decreased when prohibition was repealed, the problems of alcohol abuse are not impossible to deal with today because of it being repealed, and i suspect (no citation) the fact that its not a crime that gets you thrown in jail makes getting people to admit they have a problem easier than it would be if they were breaking the law to feed their addiction,
after prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

[East Coast Hustle]

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.  

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.