Time to decriminalize

[HUSKER FREAK]

Hemp needs to be legalized now, it's not even a drug.

 

Don't think I agree with that..................at some point being under the influence of marijuana, depending on the amount, can cause some motor skill issues. You can get picked up for OWI by either being under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

 

Let's say we legalize marijuana, I definately will never agree that other drugs should be legalized. Things like meth, crack, wet, etc. are very dangerous drugs and need to be illegal. Ever fought a 6'3" 250 man on wet? It took 7 of us to get him under control and that was after his femur was broken during the fight. He didn't even notice that it was broken.............scary as hell!

 

I said hemp, not pot or anything harder.

 

But I would support the legalization of pot.

 

I don't even know what wet is.

 

I definately do not agree with having hard core drugs legalized. I have never tried pot or medical marijuana, but I have had this conversation before, because I have permanent nerve damage and chronic pain due to a serious back injury. I have tried all of the things I can with taking minimal narcotic meds, but almost all have failed. I have heard that Medical pot could help with this, but living in Nebraska well I can't. I would have to think that it would be better for you than popping pills.

[AR Husker Fan]

***SNIP***

 

I definately will never agree that other drugs should be legalized. Things like meth, crack, wet, etc. are very dangerous drugs and need to be illegal. Ever fought a 6'3" 250 man on wet? It took 7 of us to get him under control and that was after his femur was broken during the fight. He didn't even notice that it was broken.............scary as hell!

BRI, I understand what you're saying, but what you just described goes to my (rhetorical) question earlier, which is why we don't drop the criminalization of the substance itself, and instead address the acts that result from the use. Using alcohol as an example, society has irrefutable proof that criminalizing possession does not deter use (see Prohibition). So, today we no longer fight that losing battle; rather than criminalizing the possession of alcohol, we criminalize behavior - behavior in which we say that the use of the substance doesn't justify the action. If you become so intoxicated that you are a risk to the public (either driving or committing an assault or a battery), we punish you for the driving or fighting. And we don't allow you to claim innocence due to intoxication. The drunk decided to drink, and any criminal activity that resulted therefrom is the reasonable consequences, and thus not a defense. Why not do that we all drugs?

 

Take meth as an example. We shouldn't care if someone has it or if they even use it - assuming that they don't harm others in the use. Rather, we should just punish for the acts that result. That would include cooking meth; it produces toxins that are extremely dangerous to the public. So, we criminalize that behavior. If you take meth and drive, we criminalize any damage you do.

 

I realize we already do that - what we don't do is recognize that crcriminalizinghe mere possession does no good per se. So, legalize the substances just like alcohol. Tax it. Regulate it. Punish anyone that, while under the influence, commits a criminal act.

 

Think about marijuana. In many respects, it's like alcohol. It slows reaction times, it impairs judgment. If you drive drunk, you are subject to criminal prosecution for endangering the public. But if you merely possess it, or use it in your own home, or drink responsibly in public, there's no crime. The same could be said about marijuana - the effects are the same, the impairment is the same, so treat it the same.

 

The same logic applies to any so-called illegal substance - possessing it alone, or using it "responsibly" (meaning, without endangering the public) should be fine.

 

Going back to your example of the guy that was under the influence and thinking strictly in terms of activity, does it really matter to the cop why the guy acted as he did? The crime is the same whether he was high, drunk, or just angry. The reason he acted as he did was irrelevant; the only relevant issue from a criminal conduct standpoint is that he was acting that way. Yes, he posed a greater risk to the public and to the police due to his drug use, but the same can be said of the guy who collects guns or weapons or body armor for years and goes out and has target practice - and then one day dons the body armor, loads the guns, and spays the public with gunfire. Up until he went nuts - regardless why he went nuts - society had no problem with him. It was only when he endangered the public that it became criminal. And like your example, his weapons and body armor posed a far greater risk to the public and police than if he'd just used his fists. So heighten the punishment of crimes committed under the infulence.

[huskerjack23]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8n11F39axs

[MLB 51]

***SNIP***

 

I definately will never agree that other drugs should be legalized. Things like meth, crack, wet, etc. are very dangerous drugs and need to be illegal. Ever fought a 6'3" 250 man on wet? It took 7 of us to get him under control and that was after his femur was broken during the fight. He didn't even notice that it was broken.............scary as hell!

BRI, I understand what you're saying, but what you just described goes to my (rhetorical) question earlier, which is why we don't drop the criminalization of the substance itself, and instead address the acts that result from the use. Using alcohol as an example, society has irrefutable proof that criminalizing possession does not deter use (see Prohibition). So, today we no longer fight that losing battle; rather than criminalizing the possession of alcohol, we criminalize behavior - behavior in which we say that the use of the substance doesn't justify the action. If you become so intoxicated that you are a risk to the public (either driving or committing an assault or a battery), we punish you for the driving or fighting. And we don't allow you to claim innocence due to intoxication. The drunk decided to drink, and any criminal activity that resulted therefrom is the reasonable consequences, and thus not a defense. Why not do that we all drugs?

 

Take meth as an example. We shouldn't care if someone has it or if they even use it - assuming that they don't harm others in the use. Rather, we should just punish for the acts that result. That would include cooking meth; it produces toxins that are extremely dangerous to the public. So, we criminalize that behavior. If you take meth and drive, we criminalize any damage you do.

 

I realize we already do that - what we don't do is recognize that crcriminalizinghe mere possession does no good per se. So, legalize the substances just like alcohol. Tax it. Regulate it. Punish anyone that, while under the influence, commits a criminal act.

 

Think about marijuana. In many respects, it's like alcohol. It slows reaction times, it impairs judgment. If you drive drunk, you are subject to criminal prosecution for endangering the public. But if you merely possess it, or use it in your own home, or drink responsibly in public, there's no crime. The same could be said about marijuana - the effects are the same, the impairment is the same, so treat it the same.

 

The same logic applies to any so-called illegal substance - possessing it alone, or using it "responsibly" (meaning, without endangering the public) should be fine.

 

Going back to your example of the guy that was under the influence and thinking strictly in terms of activity, does it really matter to the cop why the guy acted as he did? The crime is the same whether he was high, drunk, or just angry. The reason he acted as he did was irrelevant; the only relevant issue from a criminal conduct standpoint is that he was acting that way. Yes, he posed a greater risk to the public and to the police due to his drug use, but the same can be said of the guy who collects guns or weapons or body armor for years and goes out and has target practice - and then one day dons the body armor, loads the guns, and spays the public with gunfire. Up until he went nuts - regardless why he went nuts - society had no problem with him. It was only when he endangered the public that it became criminal. And like your example, his weapons and body armor posed a far greater risk to the public and police than if he'd just used his fists. So heighten the punishment of crimes committed under the infulence.

Nominate this as post of the year.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

***SNIP***

 

I definately will never agree that other drugs should be legalized. Things like meth, crack, wet, etc. are very dangerous drugs and need to be illegal. Ever fought a 6'3" 250 man on wet? It took 7 of us to get him under control and that was after his femur was broken during the fight. He didn't even notice that it was broken.............scary as hell!

BRI, I understand what you're saying, but what you just described goes to my (rhetorical) question earlier, which is why we don't drop the criminalization of the substance itself, and instead address the acts that result from the use. Using alcohol as an example, society has irrefutable proof that criminalizing possession does not deter use (see Prohibition). So, today we no longer fight that losing battle; rather than criminalizing the possession of alcohol, we criminalize behavior - behavior in which we say that the use of the substance doesn't justify the action. If you become so intoxicated that you are a risk to the public (either driving or committing an assault or a battery), we punish you for the driving or fighting. And we don't allow you to claim innocence due to intoxication. The drunk decided to drink, and any criminal activity that resulted therefrom is the reasonable consequences, and thus not a defense. Why not do that we all drugs?

 

Take meth as an example. We shouldn't care if someone has it or if they even use it - assuming that they don't harm others in the use. Rather, we should just punish for the acts that result. That would include cooking meth; it produces toxins that are extremely dangerous to the public. So, we criminalize that behavior. If you take meth and drive, we criminalize any damage you do.

 

I realize we already do that - what we don't do is recognize that crcriminalizinghe mere possession does no good per se. So, legalize the substances just like alcohol. Tax it. Regulate it. Punish anyone that, while under the influence, commits a criminal act.

 

Think about marijuana. In many respects, it's like alcohol. It slows reaction times, it impairs judgment. If you drive drunk, you are subject to criminal prosecution for endangering the public. But if you merely possess it, or use it in your own home, or drink responsibly in public, there's no crime. The same could be said about marijuana - the effects are the same, the impairment is the same, so treat it the same.

 

The same logic applies to any so-called illegal substance - possessing it alone, or using it "responsibly" (meaning, without endangering the public) should be fine.

 

Going back to your example of the guy that was under the influence and thinking strictly in terms of activity, does it really matter to the cop why the guy acted as he did? The crime is the same whether he was high, drunk, or just angry. The reason he acted as he did was irrelevant; the only relevant issue from a criminal conduct standpoint is that he was acting that way. Yes, he posed a greater risk to the public and to the police due to his drug use, but the same can be said of the guy who collects guns or weapons or body armor for years and goes out and has target practice - and then one day dons the body armor, loads the guns, and spays the public with gunfire. Up until he went nuts - regardless why he went nuts - society had no problem with him. It was only when he endangered the public that it became criminal. And like your example, his weapons and body armor posed a far greater risk to the public and police than if he'd just used his fists. So heighten the punishment of crimes committed under the infulence.

Oh, and I'm not saying I disagree, although it seems some think that's the way I was going. It's a slippery slope so to speak and we would have to go about it the right way. I wouldn't be totally against legalizing marijuana, really I wouldn't. If you tried to get me to say it was okay to legalize meth I'd probably never agree with you. Totally understand what you're getting at and where you're coming from. I hate agreeing with you.....................................

[Enhance]

I agree with just about everything AR said. I actually wrote a 10 page report on the legalization and taxation of marijuana three years ago.

 

I think there's a certain way that things need to be carried out. I don't think meth, cocaine, etc., should be legal, because they pose serious, immediate threats to public health. For example, some people want to try ecstasy or acid, immediately go into seizures after consumption and die. One could argue that this could happen with any drug (i.e. prescription), but those drugs go through some pretty rigorous trials and aren't concocted from gasoline like cocaine is. And with meth, the production process has created house explosions. Although legalization would probably result in more safe work environments, I doubt people would give up their trailer meth lab even though it's legal.

 

I will, until the day I die, support marijuana legalization. It's physically impossible to overdose on and does not impair judgment as immediately or effectively as alcohol. It could be easily taxed and regulated like cigarettes, and (as of 2009), was being estimated to be worth $14 billion in tax revenue. Imagine having $14 billion more in our economy, instead of spending billions on incarcerating people guilty of marijuana usage and possession.

[308_Husker]

Colorado and Washington are voting on legalizing marijuana for recreational use this November. Hopefully the first two of 50.

[The Dude]

But there is a huge difference between what marijuana does compared to meth, crack, and heroin. The later three are some of the worst creations man has ever made...

I agree with this 100%. I've seen first hand what meth can do to someone. I watched one of my dad's closest friends wither away and die way too young because of his meth addiction.

 

However, at some point we have to ask ourselves, what has outlawing these drugs actually accomplished? Aside from creating a massive illegal drug market (and thus making the country [and world] a much, much more violent place), wasting trillions of dollars on an unwinable "war" on drugs, overpopulating our prisons, ect, ect...

 

It certainly hasn't stopped people from using them. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a massive illegal drug market. At some point we should concede that outlawing them didn't, doesn't, and won't work.

[knapplc]

We are never going to legalize stuff like crack, meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. Mood-altering drugs like this unleashed on society would cause far more harm than "the war on drugs" ever did.

 

The war on drugs hasn't been terribly effective. But that doesn't mean it's without merit, or that its goals are not beneficial to society.

 

 

And any time I read "time to legalize it," inevitably that means the person who wrote it smokes, and wants to do it without getting busted.

[carlfense]

And any time I read "time to legalize it," inevitably that means the person who wrote it smokes, and wants to do it without getting busted.

I think marijuana should be legal and I don't smoke.

[knapplc]

And any time I read "time to legalize it," inevitably that means the person who wrote it smokes, and wants to do it without getting busted.

I think marijuana should be legal and I don't smoke.

 

I should probably have clarified that I was referring to the OP.

 

 

And for the record, I smoked pot in high school, and I probably would on occasion today if it was legal.

[carlfense]

And for the record, I smoked pot in high school, and I probably would on occasion today if it was legal.

Regarding the bold: I probably would too.

[knapplc]

I'm far more likely to smoke (legal) pot than to drink whiskey. One is nice, the other heinous. Same goes with most strong liquors.

 

Heck, if it wasn't for the ridiculously addictive qualities of most hardcore drugs, I'd like to try them. I'd like to know what the big deal is about opium/laudanum, cocaine, heroin, etc. I've been drunk, I've been high, but I've never been drugged. I'm curious, but not curious enough to 1) break the law, or 2) run the risk of addiction.

[ZRod]

I'm far more likely to smoke (legal) pot than to drink whiskey. One is nice, the other heinous. Same goes with most strong liquors.

 

Heck, if it wasn't for the ridiculously addictive qualities of most hardcore drugs, I'd like to try them. I'd like to know what the big deal is about opium/laudanum, cocaine, heroin, etc. I've been drunk, I've been high, but I've never been drugged. I'm curious, but not curious enough to 1) break the law, or 2) run the risk of addiction.

There's always salvia, for now...

[Sub-Husker]

Colorado and Washington are voting on legalizing marijuana for recreational use this November. Hopefully the first two of 50.

 

Damn... Vermont won't be first.