For all of your fair and balanced approach, how in the world can you say outlawing weed does more harm than good when we haven't seen what will happen if it isn't outlawed? Talk about one sided debate!

 

Wasn't trying to be fair balanced was giving an opinion. It's obvious status quo is a failing. I understand reservations on other drugs. But weed? Come on. To much money spent on this war . I'm a business man focused on ROI, and from a business sense status quo is a failure.

I just finished watching an outstanding documentary on the failed war on drugs. Weed and narcotics never became illegal until there was a group of non-whites who ALSO used them AND who were seen as threats to white workers ie they'd take jobs away. Cocaine was said to make "negroes" able to not only withstand bullets from police but also work untold hours upon hours. Weed was used by many until a minority group who was a threat to jobs were also found to use it.

 

The laws were never about the damage the drugs do to society.

That's a great excuse for doing nothing.

And poor argument for doing the polar opposite.

And poor argument for doing the polar opposite.

 

Who said it was polar opposite? You're falling into that trap that says extreme opposites are the only possible outcomes. What we do know for sure is the war on weed is costing local, state and federal governments a mint, and it's netting no real results. That has to change. But that doesn't mean opening the floodgates and selling Ecstasy next to the bubble gum at the corner store.

I just finished watching an outstanding documentary on the failed war on drugs. Weed and narcotics never became illegal until there was a group of non-whites who ALSO used them AND who were seen as threats to white workers ie they'd take jobs away. Cocaine was said to make "negroes" able to not only withstand bullets from police but also work untold hours upon hours. Weed was used by many until a minority group who was a threat to jobs were also found to use it.

 

The laws were never about the damage the drugs do to society.

 

What documentary? I mean they said it so it must be true...but why not share their proof as well?

What documentary? I mean they said it so it must be true...but why not share their proof as well?

 

Don't get whiny, son.

 

Every day, more people agree that the U.S. War on Drugs has failed? | The House I Live In

 

The part that said whites used it legally until minorities also started using it isn't really an opinion. The guy documents it . The "why" part is opinion.

 

When Congress created the tougher laws in the 80s they said that the penalty for 5 grams of crack should be the same as 500 grams of powder cocaine.

 

Without saying "we're going to make it harder on blacks than whites" they made a law that was , indeed, much harder on blacks than whites. There's no other justification for the discrepancy in the penalties.

 

It wasn't anything new though.

Who said it was polar opposite? You're falling into that trap that says extreme opposites are the only possible outcomes. What we do know for sure is the war on weed is costing local, state and federal governments a mint, and it's netting no real results. That has to change. But that doesn't mean opening the floodgates and selling Ecstasy next to the bubble gum at the corner store.

No, what I'm presuming (no different than the proponents of legalization) is that no one knows the results of legalization, yet that's the answer the proponents trumpet as the solution with no clue of it's outcome or effect.

 

I agree that war on drugs is failing. It's politically based. It's a money sink. I agree with all of that. I don't agree however with the blanket statement that legalization is the answer. I don't have the answer but disagree that legalization is it, with no more intel about it than proponents clamor for it with no data to support that claim either.

 

What's the solution? No clue, but I imagine we will try all the wrong ones first.

No, what I'm presuming (no different than the proponents of legalization) is that no one knows the results of legalization, yet that's the answer the proponents trumpet as the solution with no clue of it's outcome or effect.

 

I agree that war on drugs is failing. It's politically based. It's a money sink. I agree with all of that. I don't agree however with the blanket statement that legalization is the answer. I don't have the answer but disagree that legalization is it, with no more intel about it than proponents clamor for it with no data to support that claim either.

 

What's the solution? No clue, but I imagine we will try all the wrong ones first.

 

Re: legalization. No way it can be a blanket legalization. Narcotics need to be illegal.

 

As I've said numerous times IMO weed should be legal IF(big IF) we can come up with a way to measure it in a similar manner that we do with alcohol. Not sure how well that can be accomplished. If it can then it's a no-brainer for me.

Re: legalization. No way it can be a blanket legalization. Narcotics need to be illegal.

 

As I've said numerous times IMO weed should be legal IF(big IF) we can come up with a way to measure it in a similar manner that we do with alcohol. Not sure how well that can be accomplished. If it can then it's a no-brainer for me.

I agree with the first part. But referring back to the thread we had before about it, that was the choice for many. I'm sure you waded thru that one too. Sadly, Clyde, I think we would have a better idea of how to come to a decision on the issue if we hashed out on this site versus the wranglings that are tied in political red tape and financial gain.

Being in pharmacy school my stuff, I've had a few discussions among some of other students as well as some others I know across the professional fields and I really have no problem with marijuana being used as it does have some legitimate medicinal uses by patients. I think it should be legalized but should still be labeled as a "controlled" substance like vicodin, percocet, etc. because it is a substance that is readily abused and does have addictive properties. I think if we labeled it as a schedule 2 or schedule 3 substance, it would be just fine with me. However, I would rather sales of medical marijuana going through pharmacies and not these "medical dispensaries" as they are called now. I just see too many avenues of potential misuse and abuse of the the legalization of weed without doing this. It would make sense that if it had a legitimate medical use that it should go through a pharmacy especially if it is considered a controlled substance where the distribution and use of this substance should be regulated to those who actually really need it.

I don't disagree with that totally, but it'll still be illegal on the street with that parameter, regardless how you schedule it. I write for scheduled drugs all the time, would chuckle the first time someone suggests I write them for weed when I carve out some wisdom teeth.

 

Don't get whiny, son.

 

Every day, more people agree that the U.S. War on Drugs has failed? | The House I Live In

 

The part that said whites used it legally until minorities also started using it isn't really an opinion. The guy documents it . The "why" part is opinion.

 

When Congress created the tougher laws in the 80s they said that the penalty for 5 grams of crack should be the same as 500 grams of powder cocaine.

 

Without saying "we're going to make it harder on blacks than whites" they made a law that was , indeed, much harder on blacks than whites. There's no other justification for the discrepancy in the penalties.

 

It wasn't anything new though.

 

How the heck was that whining, old man?

I don't disagree with that totally, but it'll still be illegal on the street with that parameter, regardless how you schedule it. I write for scheduled drugs all the time, would chuckle the first time someone suggests I write them for weed when I carve out some wisdom teeth.

 

It'll be illegal on the street still but if you go through the legal channels to get it then its not really an issue. Especially if it really helps you. Granted, writing a prescription for weed will not be a first line option for anyone for virtually any treatment. Even if a patient "suggested" it, I wouldn't consider it too much unless something more proven is tried first or even a second time. Heck, even if weed is legalized for medicinal purposes and goes through a pharmacy, insurance probably won't even cover it until those are other and more proven methods are tried first.

I write for scheduled drugs all the time, would chuckle the first time someone suggests I write them for weed when I carve out some wisdom teeth.

 

It may not ease the pain, they just wouldn't give a flip about the pain.

I think it should be legalized but should still be labeled as a "controlled" substance like vicodin, percocet, etc. because it is a substance that is readily abused and does have addictive properties.

 

What addictive properties does marijuana have?