One way to defeat the drug cartels is to make drugs legal, all of them, tax the sale and establish something on the order of the Pa State store system. If drugs could be bought legally at competitive prices, the illegal dealers would be out of business, and the violence would end. It worked at the end of prohibition when that it was realized that the laws were not working, and just created an illegal liquor business and organized crime.I've been saying that since St. Ron of Hollywood was president. We may finally start seeing some progress. Even some of my arch conservative relatives agree with me. That's unlikely to happen. Too many people in Congress and statehouses are getting rich from keeping drugs illegal. If that were not the case, we'd have legal drugs now, and not just marijuana in a few states--which, in fact, contravenes Federal law. Drugs will continue to be illegal in this country for decades, maybe a century or more. It is just too lucrative to be changed. Lois
That's unlikely to happen. Too many people in Congress and statehouses are getting rich from keeping drugs illegal. If that were not the case, we'd have legal drugs now, and not just marijuana in a few states--which, in fact, contravenes Federal law. Drugs will continue to be illegal in this country for decades, maybe a century or more. It is just too lucrative to be changed. LoisOne solution would be to prosecute those who are assisting or profiting from the traffic, but that would take the co-operation of the justice department, and that would be in conflict with the other branches of the government.
That's unlikely to happen. Too many people in Congress and statehouses are getting rich from keeping drugs illegal. If that were not the case, we'd have legal drugs now, and not just marijuana in a few states--which, in fact, contravenes Federal law. Drugs will continue to be illegal in this country for decades, maybe a century or more. It is just too lucrative to be changed. LoisOne solution would be to prosecute those who are assisting or profiting from the traffic, but that would take the co-operation of the justice department, and that would be in conflict with the other branches of the government. Ain't gonna happen. Lois
That's unlikely to happen. Too many people in Congress and statehouses are getting rich from keeping drugs illegal. If that were not the case, we'd have legal drugs now, and not just marijuana in a few states--which, in fact, contravenes Federal law. Drugs will continue to be illegal in this country for decades, maybe a century or more. It is just too lucrative to be changed. LoisOne solution would be to prosecute those who are assisting or profiting from the traffic, but that would take the co-operation of the justice department, and that would be in conflict with the other branches of the government. Ain't gonna happen. Lois If you're correct, then the wasted resources of the drug war on marijuana will continue. Also, the abatement of the black market (which is already happening, e.g., Mexican cartels giving up on marketing marijuana) will be reversed. Likely young black men will continue to be disproportionately imprisoned and their lives f'ed up, by the War on Marijuana. Impediments to genuine research on the medicinal benefits (or not) of marijuana and its cannabinoids will continue. The dysfunctions attributable to the War on Marijuana for the past 80? years will continue. IOW, if you are correct, it really, really SUCKS.
... I know that any addiction can be difficult, it's possible to stop, but it has to come from inside, nothing from the outside can make you stop.I think that truism is incorrect. The "inside" of us is typically impacted by what is outside of us. Mice in an impoverished setting, with free access to cocaine water will dose themselves until they die. If they have the option of regular water and an environment that is highly enriched (from a mouse's perspective) they will typically ignore the cocaine water. The applicable corollary of this, it seems to me, is that, if one wishes to overcome alcohol (or other chemical) abuse, the enriched and open availability of alternative ways to experience pleasure and avoid pain, is essential. That is true to a point, but it is the inside that must start the process. I have seen a few cases and it was always the inside desire that was key. In one case the person wanted to quit but till they got into an environment where they were supported in their desire, they were not successful. Once they sere in a situation where everyone around them supported them, they were able to quit. In another case the person really didn't want to quit even though many were encouraging them , but they put on a show, and didn't quit. A social support system is outside of one's skin. What someone wants (the want is inside one's skin, but it cannot be completely separated from factors outside of one's skin) is heavily impacted by factors outside of one's skin.
A social support system is outside of one's skin. What someone wants (the want is inside one's skin, but it cannot be completely separated from factors outside of one's skin) is heavily impacted by factors outside of one's skin.Yep, they both have to come together to really work well. I've seen this demonstrated in real life on more than one occasion.
I find it's "conservatives" who are against legalizing drugs, not liberals. They're sure the whole country will become drug addicts if drugs are legalized.Thats not what I meant, however conservatives are totally correct that addiction will increase if drugs are legalized. (I mean true conservatives; there are so called conservatives who are pro-legalization, but they're really libertarians.)
My position is that drugs are so freely available now, nobody will notice the difference if they become legal. We'll have the same number of adddicts and abusers, but much less drug-related crime.Where did you hear this nonsense from?
The money saved could be used for effective drug education and rehab. LoisThere is money for effective treatment and rehab in most places, but thats not the main problem, the problem is the insidious nature of addiction. Do you really think that any 15 year old in any city in the US of, say, 100,000 people, or close to one, wouldn't know where to get every kind of drug imaginable? That's not to say he would want it or could afford it, but that he could make a connection within 24 hours. I asked a friend's son, a senior in high school in California, near Los Angeles, who does not take drugs, of he would know where to get cocaine and heroine and he said he knows exactly where to get it and so do most of his classmates, some of whom get it. You are kidding yourself if you think drugs are not already freely available. Money to pay for them is the only barrier and it isn't a barrier to addicts who always find a way to pay for their habit. And there isn't all that much rehab, either. Most of it has little to no effect or is way out of most people's reach. You need to live in the real world. Lois
Do you really think that any 15 year old in any city in the US of, say, 100,000 people, or close to one, wouldn't know where to get every kind of drug imaginable? That's not to say he would want it or could afford it, but that he could make a connection within 24 hours. I asked a friend's son, a senior in high school in California, near Los Angeles, who does not take drugs, of he would know where to get cocaine and heroine and he said he knows exactly where to get it and so do most of his classmates, some of whom get it.So what? You asked a kid in LA..... what he says has to be true, then. Growing up in Baltimore MD, I also knew where to get those drugs when I was a teen, few ever did get them.
You are kidding yourself if you think drugs are not already freely available.As I posted before, most drugs are not as "freely available" as you think they are, thats too simplistic. There are many variables to becoming addicted.
Money to pay for them is the only barrier and it isn't a barrier to addicts who always find a way to pay for their habit.Money isn't the only barrier.
And there isn't all that much rehab, either. Most of it has little to no effect or is way out of most people's reach. You need to live in the real world. LoisYou won't find scientific studies claiming that rehab is lacking, or definitively ineffective by method. I'll tell you now you can't, because addiction is so difficult to treat, scientific studies on it are impossible to compile.
Do you really think that any 15 year old in any city in the US of, say, 100,000 people, or close to one, wouldn't know where to get every kind of drug imaginable? That's not to say he would want it or could afford it, but that he could make a connection within 24 hours. I asked a friend's son, a senior in high school in California, near Los Angeles, who does not take drugs, of he would know where to get cocaine and heroine and he said he knows exactly where to get it and so do most of his classmates, some of whom get it.So what? You asked a kid in LA..... what he says has to be true, then. Growing up in Baltimore MD, I also knew where to get those drugs when I was a teen, few ever did get them.
You are kidding yourself if you think drugs are not already freely available.As I posted before, most drugs are not as "freely available" as you think they are, thats too simplistic. There are many variables to becoming addicted.
Money to pay for them is the only barrier and it isn't a barrier to addicts who always find a way to pay for their habit.Money isn't the only barrier.
And there isn't all that much rehab, either. Most of it has little to no effect or is way out of most people's reach. You need to live in the real world. LoisYou won't find scientific studies claiming that rehab is lacking, or definitively ineffective by method. I'll tell you now you can't, because addiction is so difficult to treat, scientific studies on it are impossible to compile. So let's keep it illegal and support international drug trade and allow drug crime by addicts to flourish. Meanwhile, US law has no control of the drug trade, no control of drug use and little control of the attendant crimes. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face!
... So let's keep it illegal and support international drug trade and allow drug crime by addicts to flourish. Meanwhile, US law has no control of the drug trade, no control of drug use and little control of the attendant crimes. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face!Lois, You're still keepin' it real, I see. I would add that another problem with the idea that legalization of drugs will lead to an enormous increase in drug use is that it is probably fallacious. e.g., Marijuana has been so widely available, for so long, for whoever really wanted it, that I seriously doubt there would be a significant increase in addicts (whatever addiction is considered to be with pot, which is up for consideration, since it's so non-toxic). With pot, the main negative concern should be protecting teens and young adults from constant use, as this apparently has a negative impact on IQ development. IOW, no one should use pot regularly until after age 25, unless they have a really good reason (one worth risking IQ points). I doubt that chronic use after age 25 will adversely effect IQ except, of course, while one is actually high.
... So let's keep it illegal and support international drug trade and allow drug crime by addicts to flourish. Meanwhile, US law has no control of the drug trade, no control of drug use and little control of the attendant crimes. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face!Lois, You're still keepin' it real, I see. I would add that another problem with the idea that legalization of drugs will lead to an enormous increase in drug use is that it is probably fallacious. e.g., Marijuana has been so widely available, for so long, for whoever really wanted it, that I seriously doubt there would be a significant increase in addicts (whatever addiction is considered to be with pot, which is up for consideration, since it's so non-toxic). With pot, the main negative concern should be protecting teens and young adults from constant use, as this apparently has a negative impact on IQ development. IOW, no one should use pot regularly until after age 25, unless they have a really good reason (one worth risking IQ points). I doubt that chronic use after age 25 will adversely effect IQ except, of course, while one is actually high. How would you keep pot way from the under twenty-fives? We've never been able to contol its use by anyone. People will find and take what they want to take, by hook or by crook. Lois
... So let's keep it illegal and support international drug trade and allow drug crime by addicts to flourish. Meanwhile, US law has no control of the drug trade, no control of drug use and little control of the attendant crimes. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face!Lois, You're still keepin' it real, I see. I would add that another problem with the idea that legalization of drugs will lead to an enormous increase in drug use is that it is probably fallacious. e.g., Marijuana has been so widely available, for so long, for whoever really wanted it, that I seriously doubt there would be a significant increase in addicts (whatever addiction is considered to be with pot, which is up for consideration, since it's so non-toxic). With pot, the main negative concern should be protecting teens and young adults from constant use, as this apparently has a negative impact on IQ development. IOW, no one should use pot regularly until after age 25, unless they have a really good reason (one worth risking IQ points). I doubt that chronic use after age 25 will adversely effect IQ except, of course, while one is actually high. How would you keep pot way from the under twenty-fives? We've never been able to contol its use by anyone. People will find and take what they want to take, by hook or by crook. Lois I suggest actual straightforward true education, rather than anti-drug propaganda. Let them know that the younger they are, and the more chronically they use pot, the more likely they are to lose IQ points relative to their peers. Of course, some will make the wrong choice for themselves, and become a relative drag on society, [i]but this will happen regardless of anti-pot laws. Still we shouldn't make it easier on the young to make the wrong decisions, so I suggest that we divert some of the misguided law enforcement against pot, overall, to focus on penalties for those who would make pot available to anyone under 18. Also, marketing edible marijuana as attractive candy, and drinks, should be nipped in the bud, for their sake, and for the sake of the newly developing marijuana industry itself. The edible industry is highly profitable, but also, is really stupid, if its appeal to the young is greater than Joe Camel.
... So let's keep it illegal and support international drug trade and allow drug crime by addicts to flourish. Meanwhile, US law has no control of the drug trade, no control of drug use and little control of the attendant crimes. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face!Lois, You're still keepin' it real, I see. I would add that another problem with the idea that legalization of drugs will lead to an enormous increase in drug use is that it is probably fallacious. e.g., Marijuana has been so widely available, for so long, for whoever really wanted it, that I seriously doubt there would be a significant increase in addicts (whatever addiction is considered to be with pot, which is up for consideration, since it's so non-toxic). With pot, the main negative concern should be protecting teens and young adults from constant use, as this apparently has a negative impact on IQ development. IOW, no one should use pot regularly until after age 25, unless they have a really good reason (one worth risking IQ points). I doubt that chronic use after age 25 will adversely effect IQ except, of course, while one is actually high. How would you keep pot way from the under twenty-fives? We've never been able to contol its use by anyone. People will find and take what they want to take, by hook or by crook. Lois I suggest actual straightforward true education, rather than anti-drug propaganda. Let them know that the younger they are, and the more chronically they use pot, the more likely they are to lose IQ points relative to their peers. Of course, some will make the wrong choice for themselves, and become a relative drag on society, [i]but this will happen regardless of anti-pot laws. Still we shouldn't make it easier on the young to make the wrong decisions, so I suggest that we divert some of the misguided law enforcement against pot, overall, to focus on penalties for those who would make pot available to anyone under 18. Also, marketing edible marijuana as attractive candy, and drinks, should be nipped in the bud, for their sake, and for the sake of the newly developing marijuana industry itself. The edible industry is highly profitable, but also, is really stupid, if its appeal to the young is greater than Joe Camel. I agree with most of that in theory but kids seldom believe that they are going to be victims of their own excesses. That are immortal, after all. Most kids already know the dangers of marijuana and hard drugs but use them anyway. Controlling edible marijuana gets us right back where we started. It goes into the Black Market where the prices go up, the illegal drug trade flourishes, and the users commit crimes to get it. Lois
I suggest actual straightforward true education, rather than anti-drug propaganda. Let them know that the younger they are, and the more chronically they use pot, the more likely they are to lose IQ points relative to their peers. Of course, some will make the wrong choice for themselves, and become a relative drag on society, [i]but this will happen regardless of anti-pot laws.Unfortunately in some circles of society 'dumb' is the new 'smart' and some members of society will not think there is a problem with seriously lowering their IQ. In fact some people are actively seeking to seem as dumb as they can be. To many this idea is not a detriment, in fact they would see it as "cool". Not everyone in our society values education, some see it as a waste of time.
... So let's keep it illegal and support international drug trade and allow drug crime by addicts to flourish. Meanwhile, US law has no control of the drug trade, no control of drug use and little control of the attendant crimes. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face!Lois, You're still keepin' it real, I see. I would add that another problem with the idea that legalization of drugs will lead to an enormous increase in drug use is that it is probably fallacious. e.g., Marijuana has been so widely available, for so long, for whoever really wanted it, that I seriously doubt there would be a significant increase in addicts (whatever addiction is considered to be with pot, which is up for consideration, since it's so non-toxic). With pot, the main negative concern should be protecting teens and young adults from constant use, as this apparently has a negative impact on IQ development. IOW, no one should use pot regularly until after age 25, unless they have a really good reason (one worth risking IQ points). I doubt that chronic use after age 25 will adversely effect IQ except, of course, while one is actually high. How would you keep pot way from the under twenty-fives? We've never been able to contol its use by anyone. People will find and take what they want to take, by hook or by crook. Lois I suggest actual straightforward true education, rather than anti-drug propaganda. Let them know that the younger they are, and the more chronically they use pot, the more likely they are to lose IQ points relative to their peers. Of course, some will make the wrong choice for themselves, and become a relative drag on society, [i]but this will happen regardless of anti-pot laws. Still we shouldn't make it easier on the young to make the wrong decisions, so I suggest that we divert some of the misguided law enforcement against pot, overall, to focus on penalties for those who would make pot available to anyone under 18. Also, marketing edible marijuana as attractive candy, and drinks, should be nipped in the bud, for their sake, and for the sake of the newly developing marijuana industry itself. The edible industry is highly profitable, but also, is really stupid, if its appeal to the young is greater than Joe Camel. I agree with most of that in theory but kids seldom believe that they are going to be victims of their own excesses. That are immortal, after all. Most kids already know the dangers of marijuana and hard drugs but use them anyway. Controlling edible marijuana gets us right back where we started. It goes into the Black Market where the prices go up, the illegal drug trade flourishes, and the users commit crimes to get it. Lois I suggest not allowing edibles and drinks that have THC content to be advertised or marketed in cool colorful, candy/soda pop wrappings and containers. That's like a subliminal or not so subliminal invite to kids. Yes some kids will still use pot too much, as some already do, but let's not entice them to do so.
I suggest actual straightforward true education, rather than anti-drug propaganda. Let them know that the younger they are, and the more chronically they use pot, the more likely they are to lose IQ points relative to their peers. Of course, some will make the wrong choice for themselves, and become a relative drag on society, [i]but this will happen regardless of anti-pot laws.Unfortunately in some circles of society 'dumb' is the new 'smart' and some members of society will not think there is a problem with seriously lowering their IQ. In fact some people are actively seeking to seem as dumb as they can be. To many this idea is not a detriment, in fact they would see it as "cool". Not everyone in our society values education, some see it as a waste of time. That is a condition that I don't think will change regardless of marijuana laws. People choosing to be stupid, is another one of those human behaviors that is confounding to me, like, for example, people choosing to believe in an all powerful supernatural entity. I need to look more closely at the studies, but I suspect that the only way that pot use is lowering IQ points, is by teens that use it, using it so often as to be high during too much of the time that they would otherwise be learning and processing scholastic information (during the years that their brains are continuing to reach mature development).
... So let's keep it illegal and support international drug trade and allow drug crime by addicts to flourish. Meanwhile, US law has no control of the drug trade, no control of drug use and little control of the attendant crimes. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face!Lois, You're still keepin' it real, I see. I would add that another problem with the idea that legalization of drugs will lead to an enormous increase in drug use is that it is probably fallacious. e.g., Marijuana has been so widely available, for so long, for whoever really wanted it, that I seriously doubt there would be a significant increase in addicts (whatever addiction is considered to be with pot, which is up for consideration, since it's so non-toxic). With pot, the main negative concern should be protecting teens and young adults from constant use, as this apparently has a negative impact on IQ development. IOW, no one should use pot regularly until after age 25, unless they have a really good reason (one worth risking IQ points). I doubt that chronic use after age 25 will adversely effect IQ except, of course, while one is actually high. How would you keep pot way from the under twenty-fives? We've never been able to contol its use by anyone. People will find and take what they want to take, by hook or by crook. Lois I suggest actual straightforward true education, rather than anti-drug propaganda. Let them know that the younger they are, and the more chronically they use pot, the more likely they are to lose IQ points relative to their peers. Of course, some will make the wrong choice for themselves, and become a relative drag on society, [i]but this will happen regardless of anti-pot laws. Still we shouldn't make it easier on the young to make the wrong decisions, so I suggest that we divert some of the misguided law enforcement against pot, overall, to focus on penalties for those who would make pot available to anyone under 18. Also, marketing edible marijuana as attractive candy, and drinks, should be nipped in the bud, for their sake, and for the sake of the newly developing marijuana industry itself. The edible industry is highly profitable, but also, is really stupid, if its appeal to the young is greater than Joe Camel. I agree with most of that in theory but kids seldom believe that they are going to be victims of their own excesses. That are immortal, after all. Most kids already know the dangers of marijuana and hard drugs but use them anyway. Controlling edible marijuana gets us right back where we started. It goes into the Black Market where the prices go up, the illegal drug trade flourishes, and the users commit crimes to get it. Lois I suggest not allowing edibles and drinks that have THC content to be advertised or marketed in cool colorful, candy/soda pop wrappings and containers. That's like a subliminal or not so subliminal invite to kids. Yes some kids will still use pot too much, as some already do, but let's not entice them to do so. I would agree to that. L
One way to defeat the drug cartels is to make drugs legal, all of them, tax the sale and establish something on the order of the Pa State store system. If drugs could be bought legally at competitive prices, the illegal dealers would be out of business, and the violence would end. It worked at the end of prohibition when that it was realized that the laws were not working, and just created an illegal liquor business and organized crime.Legality hasn't stopped oil companies from engaging in massive acts of violence in underdeveloped companies. :lol:
As much as 2/3 of Mexican Cartels profits (more than 13 billion annually) used to be from marijuana. With the little bit of legalization in the US the Cartels have already had to change their business model. (i.e., shifting focus to their other illegal substances) They continue to be enormously successful, just not so much with marijuana.
We don’t know what would be the impact on Cartels if all of their illegal substances were legalized, but surely, it would be very problematic for them. (Perhaps they would find a way to get in on the legal market.)
Anyway, the numerous potential beneficial effects for our society, of legalizing marijuana, go way beyond any discomfort it may cause for Mexican Cartels.
As much as 2/3 of Mexican Cartels profits (more than 13 billion annually) used to be from marijuana. With the little bit of legalization in the US the Cartels have already had to change their business model. (i.e., shifting focus to their other illegal substances) They continue to be enormously successful, just not so much with marijuana. We don't know what would be the impact on Cartels if all of their illegal substances were legalized, but surely, it would be very problematic for them. (Perhaps they would find a way to get in on the legal market.) Anyway, the numerous potential beneficial effects for our society, of legalizing marijuana, go way beyond any discomfort it may cause for Mexican Cartels.That reminds me of something I read some time ago, that corporate heirarchies and organized crime families (and churches) are structured in similar ways and that the people successfully running both have similar personalities. So if organized crime types move into a legalized drug trade, they would fit right in. Lois