• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 123...6
coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:from: http://www.cannabisculture.ca/articles/4570.html
br>
Written by: www.cannabisculture.ca

DENVER LEGALIZES MARIJUANA 53% - 46%!
by CC Magazine update (01 Nov, 2005)

Denver voters make adult possession of one ounce or less of marijuana legal.

Denver became the first city in the nation to make the private use of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older as an alternative to alcohol, a far more harmful drug. By 10.45 p.m. Tuesday night, with 100% of the votes tallied, the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative had passed 53.49% YES to 46.51% NO.

The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative is the first local measure in the nation to draw a comparison between the harms of alcohol and marijuana.

The successful I-100 campaign focused on the vast number of health, safety and social problems associated with alcohol use, promoting marijuana use to avoid the prevalence of such problems. The campaign pointed to government reports and scholarly studies that show alcohol is a contributing factor in domestic violence, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes, as well as overdose deaths, whereas the use of marijuana has never been linked to such violent behavior and there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history.

Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
"It is time our laws reflect the facts, and it is an indisputable fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, both to the user and to society," said Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER and coordinator of the I-100 campaign. "Current laws accept and even encourage the use of alcohol over marijuana, thus pushing people toward using a more harmful substance. Why on earth would we prohibit an adult from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol in their own home?"

By approving the I-100, the use of marijuana in public, the use of marijuana by people under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the cultivation and distribution of marijuana would all remain illegal, much like with alcohol.

Cannabis Culture will update this story as more details become available.

Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) is a Colorado-based non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the public about the harmful consequences associated with alcohol, as compared to the safer yet illegal substance: marijuana.

Here is the language of the Initiative-100

Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative

WHEREAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, an average of 317 Americans die annually as the result of alcohol overdoses; and

WHEREAS, there has never been even a single fatal marijuana overdose recorded in the medical literature, as noted by the British Medical Journal in September 2003; and

WHEREAS, according to U.S. Department of Justice, About 3 million crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offenders use of alcohol, about 35% of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking; and

WHEREAS, extensive research, documented in official reports by the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, among others, shows that -- unlike alcohol -- marijuana use is not generally a cause of violence or aggressive behavior and in fact tends to reduce violence and aggression;

WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to have the private adult use and possession of marijuana treated in the same manner as the private adult use and possession of alcohol;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER

________________________________________________________________________

TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATIVE
(proposed addition in all caps, underlined)

Amend Art. 5, Div. 3, Sec. 38-175 (Revised Municipal Code)

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) to possess one (1) ounce or less of marihuana. If such person is under the age of eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the offense, no jail sentence shall be imposed and any fine imposed may be supplanted by treatment as required by the court.




mind you, if you're 19 or 20 and a smoker, watch your back!


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


maus
maus

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia
Member Since: 14th Jul 2005
Total posts: 4191
Posted:hmmmmmm........a strange one that.don't really know how i feel about it,because although i agree with 99% of it,it seems absurd that if you're 19/20 you'll still get done for carrying.

and to be honest i don't think any 19-20 year old is gonna take a damn bit of notice of the details of the law and will only hear the fact that its been legalised.

hmph.....what do i know,but it just seems a little half arsed to me,making such bizarre age restrictions?



Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Well it's the same as the restrictions for alcohol in some states: 21. But there are student parties still...

I'm glad they put quite a high age limit on it though, because Cannabis damages developing minds somewhat more than it damages developed ones.

And personally, anything to stop the 13 yr olds drinking and dying of liver failure can only be a good thing.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


maus
maus

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia
Member Since: 14th Jul 2005
Total posts: 4191
Posted:Written by: Sethis

And personally, anything to stop the 13 yr olds drinking and dying of liver failure can only be a good thing.



ditto



coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:unfortunately it turns out that this is moot as you can still be arrested under state (and federal) law rolleyes


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Seye
Seye

Geek
Location: Manchester, UK
Member Since: 27th Mar 2005
Total posts: 1261
Posted:Written by:
WHEREAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, an average of 317 Americans die annually as the result of alcohol overdoses


Surely that cant be right? Last time I heard the stats for the UK they were attributing 30,000 deaths a year to alcohol use.

I know that a lot of them wont be from direct overdoses but in a population over 5 times the size of ours (I have no idea what the actual population of the US is) surely there's got to be more than 317 deaths on average?

And as far as I am aware there have been 2 recorded deaths from cannabis use. One was cumulative - a guy who had smoked almost a quarter ounce (7g) a day for 40 yrs I think. The other was from someone eating an obscene amount in one go.
Its always good to remember that its not quite as safe as we may like to think.

That said - Its all good biggrin
Imagine the number of new businesses that could be spawned by the complete legalisation of one of the worlds most widely used drugs. People who were formally considered criminals for their cultivation of the 'wrong plants' could become legitimate business people.

Imagine the amount of police time that such an inniative could free up. No more wasting time on arresting people for their personal choice about what they want to put into thier body. (I'm still not sure about the idea of a crime where the only potential victim is yourself)

The UK police released a statement last year saying that they believed that legalising cannabis would not have any effect on the number of users in the country as the market is already saturated. Everyone who wants it can already get it easily.



Kyrian
Dreamer
Location: York, England
Member Since: 15th Mar 2002
Total posts: 4308
Posted:Er, guys?

Only helps so much. There is a federal law saying pot is illegal and the states don't have a right to pass any laws on its use. Hence the constant DEA raids in california. Being as federal laws supersede state and everything. :/

Nice gesture tho- and it means the local cops may get freed up a bit.

And, a new home for some sparkly DEA offices and night raids... yum.....

*sighs*


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....


coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:seye - alcohol related death figures are far higher than overdose figures.

and i'm afraid i think you'll find that no-one has ever died from a cannabis overdose - not smoking, not eating, not even injecting.

the amount you would have to eat to overdose is prohibitive by itself.



kyrian - yep, the mayor pointed that one out - tis a shame (see my last post).





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Kyrian
Dreamer
Location: York, England
Member Since: 15th Mar 2002
Total posts: 4308
Posted:so you noted.... I totally missed that... sorry cole!

I'm too busy fussing over leave-takings and prolly shouldn't be trying to post where it requires actual thought ubbangel


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:I believe that marijuana has no business being illegal.

HOWEVER, I am aware of no good evidence that availability of marijuana in any way decreases alcohol use. There are people who don't like to drink and who like to smoke, but in the absence of marijuana those people don't usually drink to substitute. There are people who like both and they're unlikely to drink less because marijuana is available, and there are people who like to drink and don't like to smoke and this will have no real effect on them.

So I predict that this will have no measurable effect on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related morbidity and/or mortality.

In general, drug use is bad for health. All drug use comes with risks. That said, I'm a staunch civil libertarian and I don't believe that the government has any business telling me what I can put in my body for recreational purposes. Antibiotics are one thing because it can be easily demonstrated that misuse of these breeds resistant strains of bacteria, but smoking weed harms nobody but the user.

The exception is, of course, driving impaired. And I support amazingly strict punishments for that.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:i agree with all of that.

*stands next to the doctor and nods*


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


Seye
Seye

Geek
Location: Manchester, UK
Member Since: 27th Mar 2005
Total posts: 1261
Posted:Written by: coleman

seye - alcohol related death figures are far higher than overdose figures.Written by:

I know. I said that. I cant believe that such a small number occur in such a large country though.
Written by: coleman

and i'm afraid i think you'll find that no-one has ever died from a cannabis overdose - not smoking, not eating, not even injecting.
the amount you would have to eat to overdose is prohibitive by itself.



Chiiiiiil Winstaaaan!

I just thought I remembered something about there actully being one case - thats all though, ever. I could of course be wrong.

I know its extremely difficult to do. Anything is possible though. You can even die from nutmeg overdose wink



Seye
Seye

Geek
Location: Manchester, UK
Member Since: 27th Mar 2005
Total posts: 1261
Posted:Written by: coleman

seye - alcohol related death figures are far higher than overdose figures.Written by:

I know. I said that. I cant believe that such a small number occur in such a large country though.
Written by: coleman

and i'm afraid i think you'll find that no-one has ever died from a cannabis overdose - not smoking, not eating, not even injecting.
the amount you would have to eat to overdose is prohibitive by itself.



Chiiiiiil Winstaaaan!

I just thought I remembered something about there actully being one case - thats all though, ever. I could of course be wrong.

I know its extremely difficult to do. Anything is possible though. You can even die from nutmeg overdose wink



KaelGotRice
KaelGotRice

Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA
Member Since: 21st Jul 2003
Total posts: 1584
Posted:*headbangs next to doctor and cole

ubblol

On a serious note...

Deaths related to alcohol, especially DUIs are ASTOUNDING in the states. Absolutely retarded.

I don't know anyone who hasn't known at least one person who have died because of drunk drivers. I know I know quite a few.


To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ubbrollsmile.gif" alt="" />


JauntyJames
JauntyJames

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Member Since: 22nd Dec 2004
Total posts: 3533
Posted:I read someplace that cannabis actually stimulates neurogenesis. Let me see if I can find that article...

Here it is!


-James

"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"


Nantheos
Nantheos

Member
Location: Netherlands - Hengelo
Member Since: 19th Aug 2004
Total posts: 82
Posted:you can have one ounce eek ?? that's like 100 grams isn't it ?

Over here (The Netherlands) weed is more or less legal to people over 18. But the maximum you may carry ranges between 2 and 5 grams...!

say you need about 2 grams of (dutch) weed to make a joint, that would mean in Denver you can walk around with 50 joints. That would make you a well-stacked dealer in Holland.

My actual question: is this a hoax or is this true ?


Hij die zijn kind benzine voert moet niet roken als het boert.

Love you MyIng ubblove


Drudwyn
Drudwyn

Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
Location: Southampton Uni
Member Since: 27th Aug 2005
Total posts: 632
Posted:1 ounce is about 28 grams, but is still a lot to be carrying

Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...


thegreatBJ
Woman! Not gay Man!
Location: Hull...ish
Member Since: 13th Oct 2005
Total posts: 332
Posted:yea but the stuff in holland is usualy a lot purer than the stuff in other places... better quality control an all that so you'd probably need more to get a decent high on the weed in denver

I AM NOT A GAY MAN!


i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:Bull! I've been to Amsterdam and their pot is no better than ours. You are smoking some crappy pot if you think theirs is "a lot purer".

An ounce is a lot to be carrying around though... if your planning on smoking it all in one sitting. But let's say you just bought and ounce from your dealer and are taking it home with you. In which case, its not absurd at all.

It gives me a sliver of hope that one day marijuana will be decriminalized at the least, and hopefully legalized. But of course I don't think the feds are ever gonna let that happen, and average joe citizen doesn't care enough to make it different. The funny thing is, the first thing I heard about this was that the whole state legalized it. "Denver" isn't really that big of a deal.

Does this mean that local cops can NOT arrest people, but state highway and sherrifs can? Or are local cops still allowed to arrest people? And do judges sitting in that district then have to rule in favor of citizens, or against via federal/state laws? Maybe someone from California can comment?



Nantheos
Nantheos

Member
Location: Netherlands - Hengelo
Member Since: 19th Aug 2004
Total posts: 82
Posted:About dutch weed: it has showed in test that the THC level in the weed around here is just under 20%. The THC level in 'imported' weed is about 5-7%. In 1999 the dutch weed had a mere 9%. It has gotten slightly stronger. Beefy, I'm afraid you got some tourist-weed.



Some coffeeshops have special weed for tourists because they can't always cope with the more serious dutch stuff.

Or you are used to good weed wink



On a personal note: pure THC (hasj as its called here) is great fun too ! :P



PS I don't want to encourage anyone to use drugs, not even if they are legal in your country.

EDITED_BY: Nantheos (1131320380)


Hij die zijn kind benzine voert moet niet roken als het boert.

Love you MyIng ubblove


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:Funny, I heard that good california or British Columbian cannabis is as much as 30% THC by weight.

Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution can eat their heart out. There's evolution in action (albeit by artificial selection) if there ever was an example.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:the irony is that you can smoke weed, but it's still illegal to sell it, and one might assume, to purchase it. so then technically, the law would be a moot point.

i think this is an awesome step though. all different preventative measures have been taken to reduce drug use and its harmful effects, but none have significantly worked. i think that's because drug use is inevitable. what we need is measures to minimize the related side effects, such as prostitution, theft, murder, selling dirty drugs, sharing needles. i think we'd get a lot farther in reducing those crimes (and clear out unnecesary convicts in jail) by having the governments legalize drugs and control it's distribution. tax the hell out of it if they want. at least it would be under their control, they can ensure it wouldn't be dirty quality, they could reduce the spread of AIDS through dispersing clean needles with each purchase, they could minimize overdose deaths by controlling the distribution, etc.


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: pounce


i think this is an awesome step though. all different preventative measures have been taken to reduce drug use and its harmful effects, but none have significantly worked



Personally, I don't care whether weed is legal or illegal; but, to re-introduce a point made on an earlier drugs thread- how do you know that preventative drug measures haven't reduced drug use?

Given that we've lived in a culture where drug legislation has been present, what evidence is there that, if that legislation hadn't been present, drug abuse and harmful effects from drugs wouldn't have been considerably worse than they are?

(ideally, if you're going to answer that point, it would be great if you didn't drag in 'Prohibition', as that took place against a different drug (alcohol), and in a totally different culture where corruption amongst govt officials was a prime factor in its failure).

Note that I'm not critisisng Denvers approach in legalising cannabis here; simply questioning a common belief (that legislating against drugs like cannabis has not reduced cannabis use); a belief that I have yet to see any evidence for, other than the fact that it 'seems obvious'.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave


Personally, I don't care whether weed is legal or illegal; but, to re-introduce a point made on an earlier drugs thread- how do you know that preventative drug measures haven't reduced drug use?




Compare use rates in the Netherlands with the US.

I mean, not a huge sample size, but hey...


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:drug prevention has been an area psychology has routinely asssisted in, which is my area of expertise. and all studies have shown that previous preventative measures taken haven't substantially reduced drug use, and in fact, several have increased usage. but if you want further evidence, consider this. MDMA wasn't made illegal until the 80's. in fact, it previously was used as an aid for depression. and there weren't as many documented crimes or medical problems related to its use.

I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Any details of the studies? I don't want to appear cynical, but studies can be highly flawed.

I'm not sure what point you're making about MDMA, could you clarify how it shows that legislation does not lower use?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

Any details of the studies? I don't want to appear cynical, but studies can be highly flawed.

I'm not sure what point you're making about MDMA, could you clarify how it shows that legislation does not lower use?



agreed - some of the best examples of flawed studies are those relating to the effects of passive smoking wink


i'd like to reiterate dr. mike's point about usage rates in the u.s. or the u.k. compared to that in the netherlands over the past decade although by its very nature, illegal drug use is not quantifiable to any acceptable degree.

i think we can say with a good degree of certainty that we know for a fact that the mdma laws did not lower use - all reports suggest that the use of mdma has increased hugely in the last 20 years.

at best, legislation has only served to slow the rate of increase of the usage of the drugs they apply to.

it is very possible that it has the opposite effect as pounce states.

as dave points out, there are very few examples we can point to make the point that legislating against drug use produces more favourable attitudes towards drug use than not legislating does.


personally, i am more concerned with the restrictions to my personal liberties imposed by drug laws than i am with the effect that legislation has on their use within society.

the way i see it, if the 'problem' truly is the use of drugs, can someone tell me why being found under the influence of an illegal drug is not a crime yet being in 'possession' of the drug is...?


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: coleman

i think we can say with a good degree of certainty that we know for a fact that the mdma laws did not lower use - all reports suggest that the use of mdma has increased hugely in the last 20 years.




I'm still wondering where the evidence or reasoning for that is.

Personally, I suspect that mdma laws did lower use (compared to the use there would have been without the laws).

Here's why- (I may be wrong, I'm just putting forward a line of reasoning).

As with many new drugs, mdma was made illegal at the point where it was getting quite popular, it was on an upward swing where laws against it would not stop use, but may hinder it.

Mdma was not hard to obtain for users who cared not about its legal status, just a little inconvenient sometimes.

Those, otherwise potential users, who did care about its legal status, would now not take it, whereas previously they may have done.

I think its certainly fair to say that, if mdma had the same legal status that alcohol and tobacco do, and could be sold openly and commercially, possibly in club venues; then, IMO, its use would have been even greater than it actually was.

ie, if that line of reasoning is correct, then making mdma illegal, did cut down on its use.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:my evidence for the assertion that "we know for a fact that the mdma laws did not lower use" is: mdma use has increased.



i said "at best, legislation has only served to slow the rate of increase of the usage of the drugs they apply to."



which is equivalent to saying "mdma laws did lower use (compared to the use there would have been without the laws)."



you used the term "laws lower use" but then had to qualify it with "compared to this case".

my statement states explicitly what change the introduction of legislation brought about.



i will state that fact again:



legislation serves to slow the rate of increase of the usage of the drugs they apply to



drug laws do not reduce usage - for that to be true they would have to turn an increase in usage into a decrease in usage.



your reasoning may very well be correct, but since we do not have a comparative case (due to the fact that the idea of 'control by legislation' has been applied to *every* illegal substance that has gained anything approaching popular use in the last century), there is no way to test if that line of reasoning is true or not.



my question to you is this:

if, as we both agree, legislation only serves to slow the rate of increase of usage of a drug, rather than actually serving to decrease its usage, then why should we assume that legislation will ultimately lead to usage reaching zero?







personally, i think that the time, money and effort spent on enforcing legislation that does not in real terms reduce the usage of a drug, would be better spent on ensuring that those drugs are both ethically produced and properly regulated.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: coleman


my evidence for the assertion that "we know for a fact that the mdma laws did not lower use" is: mdma use has increased.



i said "at best, legislation has only served to slow the rate of increase of the usage of the drugs they apply to."



which is equivalent to saying "mdma laws did lower use (compared to the use there would have been without the laws)."





Thanks for clearing that up- as you say laws did not reverse usage of mdma, but, may lead to lower use than would be the case without legislation.



Which is the point I was addressing with my first post on this thread- challenging the common view that drug laws do not serve to decrease drug use to a level lower than would be the case without drug laws.









Written by: coleman


my question to you is this:

if, as we both agree, legislation only serves to slow the rate of increase of usage of a drug, rather than actually serving to decrease its usage, then why should we assume that legislation will ultimately lead to usage reaching zero?







We shouldn't. It is highly unlikely that legislation will lead to usage reaching zero, and I don't think that any intelligent person who supports drug legislation believes that it will.



Similarly, legislation against murder will never lead to zero levels of murder in a society; but it may well lead to lower levels of murder (lower than would be the case if murder wasn't illegal).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:i would love to cite specific studies but i have absolutely NO time to take to look it up, as i'd have to research it through psychINFO then go to the library to get the actual articles, then link it somehow to the web. either that or i'd have to dig through my storage facility for the right box that contains my research from my prevention psychology class. but i do assure you i have actually studied this phenomenon....prevention is a big piece of what i do in my professional practice.

i think coleman puts an excellent point forward:
Written by: coleman

personally, i think that the time, money and effort spent on enforcing legislation that does not in real terms reduce the usage of a drug, would be better spent on ensuring that those drugs are both ethically produced and properly regulated.



that's the point that i'm trying to get at. i don't think legalizing drugs is going to substantially change the rates of usage...my guess is that they would stay relatively equal. BUT i do think legalization and government control (quality, taxation, etc) would noticeably reduce the crimes/health disorders/negative consequences related to or that arise from drug use.


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**


Page: 123...6

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [denver leagalise* weed] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > denver leagalises weed! [156 replies]
2. Forums > Fire in Denver [3 replies]
3. Forums > poi gathering in denver Colorado [1 reply]
4. Forums > Springs / Denver Area
5. Forums > new in Denver

     Show more..