A hit would be more equivalent to a beer than an entire joint would be. I guess I should have specified that I was comparing both substances in the sense that you have reached the limit of being under the influence. Getting "drunk" leads to worse decisions and consequences than getting "high" in most cases. Not that I've ever tried the stuff.
You're telling me that you are against weed which has never had a documented case of causing a death but are all for legalization of alcohol that ruins millions of lives each year? I dont understand.
That is a misleading statement. Weed kills thousands of people annually by impairing their judgement and ruins lives as well. I'm in agreement that it is less severe than alcohol but far too many people find the extremes on this topic. Either weed is the devil and should be banned everywhere, or weed is a perfectly harmless substance that has never hurt a single person in history. The truth is in the middle, which is what makes it such a valid debate for both sides.
Give some examples of where weed has caused thousands of deaths... I am 100% for the legalization of weed, although I no longer use the drug, I see absolutely no harm in it. It is used as a medicine in a lot of cases. Weed needs to be decriminalized... Plain and simple. It is too petty of a drug for us to be paying the millions to keep people incarcerated.
Do you really want me to dredge up police reports of wrecks where the driver was high or are you going to just acknowledge the common fact that it happens? The medicine argument isn't valid either. Morphine is a medicine, should people be able to pick some up at the gas station as they please? Look, I want weed legalized as well because I think it is safer than Alcohol which is already legal and I'm tired of the government wasting millions if not billions fighting it when they could be profiting from it via taxes. But Im not naive enough to view the drug as having no negative consequences either.
To some degree, yes. No one want's anarchy. Well no one intelligent anyway. It's why we have trade agreements, murder laws, tariffs, the FDA to regulate food and medicines, child protective services, etc... The argument lies in where to draw the line on how big of a government is too big.
I'm all for less government, but I draw the line where things begin to affect others. I feel the use of hard drugs affects people negatively outside of the user by a substantial amount. I could go either way on pot and would prefer for the states to make that decision by themselves, but like I said above I don't believe there is any such thing as recreational use of heroine, crack, or meth.
I will acknowledge that it happens, yes... But when someone states that it should not be legal is just baffling to me. IMO, there should be no argument over what is better for ones health when arguing weed vs. alcohol. To the OP... Decriminalizing all drugs would not be in the best interest of the US. Sure the responsible ones would not go beyond what is already legal now, and would set a good example for their families... But once your children, etc see a meth head shooting up in a Walmart parking lot it is going to cause a whole lot of issues. Just one tiny example of what could happen.
even when it comes to the FDA? Should farmers be allowed to use whatever chemicals they want and it's up to us as the consumers to cypher through what is good/bad? What about medicines? Should they all be legal regardless of harmful side effects and it's up to us to discern if we want to take them or not? There always has to be a balance...
Yes. As long as everything is out in the open and no one is hiding the side effects. Let the market dictate what they choose.
I think the problem is some think this is a black and white issue, cut and dry. I tend to side with RJ on this one. I've never done a drug in my life (yeah, I'm boring), but I certainly can't see justifying the decriminalization of many harmful "hard" drugs based on the fact that our perceived system isn't working. I don't believe this would improve or reverse our current situation. It might solve some aspects/problems (mostly governmental/taxpayer finances), but at what trade offs? I don't have a concrete answer, and to answer your question, Hooker, no I don't think our system in place is currently effective or our best solution. Wish I had an answer, but I don't think this is it.
If only the common masses were intelligent I'd be inclined to agree. Some people just aren't smart though. And there need to be stops put in place to keep from harming the general public. It won't help if Billy takes his diabetes medication only to find out the medication leads to heart failure and would have been removed from the market by the FDA in the old way of doing things. It's a fine line we walk for sure when it comes to government...
Fair enough I just thought this might be a good discussion. I think most would agree that our current system is not working, so why not try to think of new solutions? The Portugal method has it's pros and cons. Some stats have gone way down, but some negative stats have gone up as well. Like always, you can play the stats to fit any argument. I do kinda agree with this quote "Drug addicts are not criminals, they are addicts". Although the addiction might lead to more criminal activity. But then...if you decriminalize drugs, the prices will most assuredly go down, thus reduce drug related crime.
Drug related crimes will go down... Drug overdoses would go up. Although it is in the very beginning and may change in the future, weed bought from a store in Colorado is actually significantly higher priced than what people are able to buy on the streets.
overdoses way down in Portugal I was under the impression that was only in the very beginning and the prices have already gone below street value in less than a month
I'd say that depends on what kind of marijuana a person is buying on the street. Ditch weed, sure, but if you are out buying quality stuff it will be more on par with what is being paid in the shops.
I might be confused. Thought I read an article stating people were buying one ounce of weed for something like $500. From what I remember, that is a considerable jump from here in Minnesota. I shouldn't have said anything as I don't know what it is in Colorado. Didn't look into that... Just assumed cheaper drugs = people can buy and use more.
