USA - When bud get's legalized

[TheGreeter]

What are you going to do? Seriously we all have something in mind. I'm just curious to see what y'all are going to do.

[Lobsang]

Well SWIM lived in Alaska when pot was totally legal. Nothing was special. Life was just the same. It is not like when it is legal people dance around in the streets smoking joionts or go wild rapeing and pilliging the town. It just becomes more socially acceptable to do at home without fear or at a party. And also pot will never be legal in our lifetimes in the USA. You have to overcome the state hurdle and then the federal hurdle and the federal hurdle is tied into international politics. The most you can hope for is an individual state like Alaska legalizing it to possess and grow in limited quantities. And it is interesting that in Alaska where it is legal then illegal and legal again. Like the law changes. Nobody seems to know or care if it is illegal or not. Normal life and use just goes on.

Reputation Comments on this post:

true

[Matt The Funk]

Honestly the above is correct. It's just more socially acceptable. Nothing changes. I'll probably have a fat session with buddies celebrating the legalization though.

[Shampoo]

What does this have to do with Cannabis Paraphernalia? Thread moved to Law & Order.

[Shiacmkmleer]

If current trends continue it's not going to happen. ever.
even if there were the same number of people in favor of legalization and the status quo it wouldn't happen. People like us, people who favor legalization and policies based on logic simply are unwilling to make their voice heard.
Where as the pro-drug war crowd raise a shit storm any time anything slightly progressive in the war on drugs arena happens. giving out clean needles? They raise hell about it. But what do we say about the current situation where non violent offenders are locked up, possibly for life. Seriously the situation is fucked up but the good people, the ones who's minds are filled with fear of junkies roaming the streets (eg government propaganda) are too afraid of what people will think/what will happen to them if they stand up for what is right. Until people like us are willing to take a stand the situation will not change

[Sippin40oz]

In the media world fear sells. People are afraid of things they dont understand and drugs fall nicely into this catagory. As long there are news channels and newspapers misinforming people bout pysco junkies and addicts, the governments of the world will never legalise drugs!

[Nature Boy]

If pot were legalised, I can imagine a short-term increase in SWIM's usage sort of like a tourist in the Netherlands. I think the prospect of a coffeeshop culture weighing against the current aggressive pub culture would create a more pleasant night life in many cities. It wouldn't be everyone's goal to go into town to get hammered drunk anymore.

Once normalised, I guess SWIM would actually end up smoking less. It could be said that SWIM likes to smoke cannabis but he actually prefers the option of being able to smoke cannabis, if you follow me. Being illegal, cannabis is expensive, sometimes scarce and can be a bit of a time-consuming nuisance when it should be a lot simpler.

The main advantage of legalisation is basically the financial reward. A taxated, commonly-used recreational drug would churn out a tidy amount and would snatch millions from the black market.

[Burnt]

There are a lot of hard working people out there fighting for the legalization of Cannabis through valid scientific research. SWIM is witnessing and is involved first hand this battle there is hope. As far as what SWIM would do? Smoke a fat joint with SWIMs friends and be happy that finally people who are sick can use Cannabis and that those in jail for non violent drug offenses can be set free.

[Ontherooftops]

Swim goes back and forth between canada and the states often. While in BC where it is essentially illegal, and is nearly completely socially acceptable, not much changes. He really does enjoy the fact he can smoke a joint out in the open, laying in the sun. What if swiy can't find their lighter? Well they can just walk up with doob hangin' off their lip and ask for a spark. Even if it doesn't change a ton, it still makes livin pretty easy. Its particularly nice in circles where its replaced, or almost replaced alcohol, certainly makes for a much more coherent social gathering.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by Burnt

There are a lot of hard working people out there fighting for the legalization of Cannabis through valid scientific research. SWIM is witnessing and is involved first hand this battle there is hope.

That's true and the great thing is, as our scientific discoveries continue, the material is stacked very much against the prohibitionists. Nearly all of the negative consequences of using cannabis are linked to its legal status. Many well-educated people are realising how needless cannabis prohibition is. It's absolutely incredible how politicians stand on it, especially the likes of Gordon Brown. Putting conservative social values over scientific findings is a cause of embarrassment to say the least. It makes a politician look like some kind of flock leader as opposed to an effective policy-maker.

The prohibitionist's most commonly cited argument is the chaos that would ensue but there is no evidence for this. In societies where cannabis has been decriminalised there has been no long-term notable increase in use. The people who are into it will use it but at least they will do it within safe perimeters. The gateway effect would also be removed as cannabis would no longer be associated with black market dealers.

Originally Posted by Ontherooftops

Its particularly nice in circles where its replaced, or almost replaced alcohol, certainly makes for a much more coherent social gathering.

Quite true. Throw an Xbox and a multi-player game into that circle and it becomes a pretty quiet one however. Definitely better than drunken brawling and liver problems though.

[Orchid_Suspiria]

While it is a huge victory it isn't the victory we are all hoping for.It will just be a small step.I'm not going to celebrate til the drug war in all its entirety is dismantled.

[Nature Boy]

True enough O_S. But even the liberal drugs policy the Dutch practice, allowing natural highs and harm reduction policies that help get heroin addicts back to their lives, is a massive advancement compared to the generic worldwide model. Pragmatic parliaments with increasing drug problems in their country need to turn to harm reduction. The heroin situation is so bad in Scotland that they have even considered this. It's all very well for pious individuals to sit in their high castles and doubt the effectiveness of the Dutch model but the statistics work against them and struggling communities really need change despite all the claims prohibitionists make.

[cyndi]

I would be surprised if the "war on drugs" was ever ended. It is big money for politicians and le. Think of all the prisons that would be emptied and agents out of work. I think weed should be legalized at least. To me it is not as bad as booze that is legal. It is just crazy how many people are in prison over weed possession. I was reading the local paper and out of 20 arrests, 15 were weed possession. Just insane.

[Burnt]

Yea as much as SWIM thinks ALL plants should be legal there is still some danger in allowing a free market around drugs to develop. For example if you could go down to your local corner store and buy grams of cocaine whenever you wanted it could be a dangerous situation for your brain. Although SWIM hates the side effects of cocaine and that alone keeps SWIM from getting addicted many people are not that strong.

However I feel that this problem can be solved. All plant drugs should be legal weed coca leaf even opium (although mass scale production should not be in certain circumstances). Manufacturing cocaine or heroin should not be legal unless you have special permission (will explain in moment).

People processing drugs then into pure form could then be more easily controlled. enforcement agencies could focus on that kind of control instead of busting pot farmers n growers etc. Anyone who says ok i can sell pot or coca leaf and as long as i don't turn it into hard drugs I can have a business and not worry about getting into trouble will be better off then those who break the rules. It wouldn't be a battle against coca growers in lets say Columbia anymore because they would have a legit market for their crop. Besides chewing coca is probably more healthy then drinking coffee and their is evidence to back that up. Opium is of course dangerous but look at prescription opiates more people are using them these days then heroin! The real change would be is that it would then be a battle against people who are taking it too far such as those manufacturing dangerous drugs from their plants and i think most people could agree with this even users.

Things like LSD and E and whatever should be obtainable but only after going through some procedure. Like taking some course into how to responsibly use these drugs (and limit supply also of how much someone can buy). Kinda like defensive driving then its the persons fault if they screw up. If they endanger someone else's life like going driving while high on LSD then they get fucked over just like drunk drivers. Or if they go on a crime spree while on drugs don't blame the drugs blame the person because its their responsibility if they take the risk. This would open up the legal system to deal with people who aren't just using drugs but also being a general menace to society and they could more easily be dealt with. It separates true criminals and morons away from the vast majority of people who would be trying to use drugs responsibly.

Now addicts on the other hand should have access to government regulated supply of hard drugs. They have to register as an addict and such have to fulfill certain requirements (like have some kind of income or basically be doing something somewhat productive to earn their supply and in general stay out of legal trouble etc). People would also be limited on how much stuff they can get (gram of coke a day or so, enough heroin to keep you going or whatever) but if its cheap and good and they can stay out of legal trouble I think many will adapt their habits. This way they are treated like sick people not criminals. This would destroy the black market monopoly and most of the crime involved with drugs. It would also save a lot of lives because people would have safe access to drugs of known origin. I think over time it would also gradually reduce addiction rates on hard drugs because the black market would probably for the most part go away because addicts would be turning to legal safe supply and those who are curious about drugs have access to softer drugs and will probably never meet dealers etc.

We can have our cake and eat it too.

Oh yes and nature boy in response its really not even about science at all these politicians just use the war on drugs or whatever to gain votes from the same kind of people they use the war on terror to gain votes and control with. There are so many useful properties from the chemicals in cannabis its completely indisputable. Its purely about politics the science is already there. However it has to go further because people really need to get it through their heads whats going on with drugs and that much of what they thought they knew (LSD makes you insane or weed automatically makes you a lazy hippy or whatever) is wrong and someone has to prove it so the science must go on and should go on not only for the legalization fight but also for the development of better more effective and safer medications.

[Shampoo]

Originally Posted by Burnt

For example if you could go down to your local corner store and buy grams of cocaine whenever you wanted it could be a dangerous situation for your brain.

Why do you assume a drug, let alone a drug like cocaine, would be legalized at this level?

Too often do I hear people refute legalization initiatives with the reasoning of, "Well I dont think every human on the planet should be able to walk down to 7-11 and buy a kilo of heroin, or even a handful of joints". Well, does every human on the planet have the ability to walk into a 7-11 at any time of day and buy all the alcohol they can possibly hold? No. There are rules and regulations that surround substances, from DUI rules to specific hours during which businesses can sell alcohol and possession quantity limits. Most importantly, there is an age restriction. Why would just anyone be allowed to buy cocaine whenever they wanted? Assuming you have actually read or listened to serious proposals for legalization, you would certainly have understood that legalized drugs would not become ubiquitous as water. There would be an appropriate age, time, and quantity at which people could procure substances, not some free-for-all anarchy where every child, man, and woman could walk down to the corner store and buy themselves a bag of coke.

[Burnt]

I never once said that was a good idea or what I think would happen. Read the rest of my post. In fact you completely missed the point of my post.

[Shampoo]

I did read the post. I agreed with the majority of it, which is why I did not include the reaction in my response (I tend to find that 'me too' posting is pretty worthless).

I was just curious as to where this idea came from that you expressed in your opening statement? It is clear that somewhere the idea arose that anyone would be able to go down to the corner store and buy cocaine, I am curious as to this ideas origin. I understand that you do not support this, nor do you think it is a true possibility, but the sentiment exists that there are people out there who believe that this is the direction of legalization.

So, here is my question: where does the idea arise that legalization implies that cocaine or marijuana will be sold with the same lack of restrictions as a pack of gum?

Pardon me for trying to continue sparks of discussion in an otherwise repetitive thread that has nothing to do with the OPs question, made up of people rehashing a discussion that has been had elsewhere, many times before, and with great and extensive vigor.

If you really want me to address the rest of your post, picking out the few parts I disagree with, here:

Things like LSD and E and whatever should be obtainable but only after going through some procedure. Like taking some course into how to responsibly use these drugs (and limit supply also of how much someone can buy).

What kind of criteria would be used to determine a responsible user? Who determines these criteria and what mode of use are they based on? Recreational use? Spiritual use? Therapeutic use? Would these criteria then apply to every psychedelic? and why MDMA? What kind of a limit are we talking about? to prevent overdose? or dosing above recommendations? would these kind of limits apply to already available drugs like alcohol to prevent the same?

If they endanger someone else's life like going driving while high on LSD then they get fucked over just like drunk drivers. Or if they go on a crime spree while on drugs don't blame the drugs blame the person because its their responsibility if they take the risk.

Correct me if I am wrong, but these statements seem to contradict eachother. On the one hand, you say that a person should be held responsible for their own crimes, regardless of their drug use, while on the other you imply that people should be punished in accordance with their drug use... According to the second part about crime sprees, why shouldnt a drunk driver be charged with reckless driving, regardless of their intoxication? It seems to imply that people should be regarded as people, wether or not there are substances involved. I happen to agree. But how does driving differ from any other activity. If swim decides to go hunting on LSD, he could mistakenly shoot a person. Should he be charged with shooting the person? or with shooting the person while under the influence of LSD?

[Burnt]

Maybe we should move this to another discussion cause its kind of off topic but anyway. The first statement was made for exactly the reason you stated its because its one of the main argument people have against legalizing drugs but certainly not how SWIM thinks the process of legalization should go if it were to go.

To determine whether someone is responsible would have to be an age thing for one 18 21 i dunno for sure SWIM cant say. Also if your psychotic already then no you can't buy LSD or similar drugs. Basically you have to understand that you will be taking a powerful mind altering drug and you should do it in a safe environment with a safety net such as a guide or something. In some cases certain drugs should only be available for therapy or whatever but I think LSD and other psychs are capable of being use responsibly in a non therapeutic manner. For example SWIM loves to take LSD and go to music show and has a great time and doesn't hurt anyone and its totally fine in SWIMs opinion.

Just show people that there is such thing as responsible use and then they are a free to make their own choice in the matter. I don't have all the details worked out but it would result in a situation thats a bit better then now when kids of any age can go buy drugs off some guy on the corner and have no clue what its going to do and its obvious the problems that arise from this kind of use. Not that everyone who does use will be responsible but people I think deserve the right to have a choice and get access to good information about the choice they are making.

Ok yea and my other statement about driving on LSD might not be so clear but let me try to explain. Like if you get caught driving on LSD you get charged with driving while intoxicated and you were told that its illegal and stupid to do so but you did it anyway your judgement was clouded but you still made the mistake. You can't say I was too drunk to realize that driving drunk was a bad idea and expect to get away with it . But like I mean if someone murders his wife while taking some drug whether its alcohol or LSD they get charged with murder and don't get to plead insanity there fucked. When this happens with alcohol people don't ban alcohol and it happens often. When it happens with LSD people think its all the LSD to blame.

[Lobsang]

Well all I will say again is that I think all drugs should be legal 100%. No one has the right to tell anyone what to do in privacy.

[Shampoo]

Nitpicky, but...

Originally Posted by Burnt

But like I mean if someone murders his wife while taking some drug whether its alcohol or LSD they get charged with murder and don't get to plead insanity there fucked. When this happens with alcohol people don't ban alcohol and it happens often. When it happens with LSD people think its all the LSD to blame.

Actually, someone intoxicated on alcohol can argue diminished capacity in a 'specific intent' case, such as home robbery. Non-specific intent crimes can only be argued as diminished capacity if the intoxication is unintentional (i.e. a spiked drink)

Other than that, excellent points.

I still think that determining the 'right' to use mind-expanding substances like LSD is not something that can be determined by any sole person or organization of control, and no general age or mental requirements will ever really make sense for psychedelic use in a non-subjective, non-case-by-case system.

Lobsang, I happen to agree that no one should have the right to control what other people do in the privacy of their home and property, but what about in public?

[Lobsang]

Lobsang, I happen to agree that no one should have the right to control what other people do in the privacy of their home and property, but what about in public?

Well a person should be able to do what ever they want in public as well as long as it is not harming anyone else or putting othersa in a significant degree of potentiol harm. So I would say you should be able to drink in public or trip in public but is you get out of hand then that should be delt with. I think you should be able to walk down the street with no cloths on in public.

[Coconut]

If legalised in Ireland, SWIM would probably smile for a bit.

Yeah, that's all. He probably wouldn't consume cannabis any more than he already does, which is already a rare event. To him, legalisation of cannabis would be a small battle won in the fight for liberty and the end of the war on drugs, not just a chance to carry a bong around the city centre.

[Shampoo]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

Well a person should be able to do what ever they want in public as well as long as it is not harming anyone else or putting othersa in a significant degree of potentiol harm. So I would say you should be able to drink in public or trip in public but is you get out of hand then that should be delt with. I think you should be able to walk down the street with no cloths on in public.

Who determines at what point a person is to be restrained or removed from their position in public? Who determines what is danger or harm? Who gets to define 'out of hand'? and who gets to deal with it? This seems like a somewhat naive (no offense intended) view of a functioning society. Examining each human being on a subjective basis according to their own ability to control an altered-state experience is near impossible, and in my opinion, an absurd way to control/regulate intoxication/inebriation. Just because someone may be able to handle their drinks one day, does not mean the same for the next day, or the next person. This is why public intoxication is illegal. Whether or not you are perceived as dangerous, it is illegal to be noticeable intoxicated in public. Who knows when a seemingly stable person will suddenly snap?

I suppose you mention nudity as an example of other human rights that should be unregulated, unrestricted, and considered basic facets of our freedoms as humans. Im not sure however, that it has anything else at all to do with this discussion.

[Lobsang]

Originally Posted by Shampoo

Who determines at what point a person is to be restrained or removed from their position in public? Who determines what is danger or harm? Who gets to define 'out of hand'? and who gets to deal with it? This seems like a somewhat naive (no offense intended) view of a functioning society. Examining each human being on a subjective basis according to their own ability to control an altered-state experience is near impossible, and in my opinion, an absurd way to control/regulate intoxication/inebriation. Just because someone may be able to handle their drinks one day, does not mean the same for the next day, or the next person. This is why public intoxication is illegal. Whether or not you are perceived as dangerous, it is illegal to be noticeable intoxicated in public. Who knows when a seemingly stable person will suddenly snap?

I suppose you mention nudity as an example of other human rights that should be unregulated, unrestricted, and considered basic facets of our freedoms as humans. Im not sure however, that it has anything else at all to do with this discussion.

Well you raise some legitamate concerns. From my view if you are not hurting anyone or putting anyone in clear direct danger then you should be left alone. I realize it puts society at more risk. However I believe the benefit in maintaining a free society outweighs the damages. Like if some people want to sit in a public park and smoke salvia and fall on their backs and trip unable to get up. That is cool by me. If people want to sit in a public park and get drunk on vodka I am OK with that. But if they get out of hand I am not. However I feel that it is not anyones place to judge them until they do. Because if we do otherwise this opens the door to police procecuting people because their eyes look "a little funny".

[Shampoo]

Originally Posted by Lobsang

Well you raise some legitamate concerns. From my view if you are not hurting anyone or putting anyone in clear direct danger then you should be left alone. I realize it puts society at more risk. However I believe the benefit in maintaining a free society outweighs the damages. Like if some people want to sit in a public park and smoke salvia and fall on their backs and trip unable to get up. That is cool by me. If people want to sit in a public park and get drunk on vodka I am OK with that. But if they get out of hand I am not. However I feel that it is not anyones place to judge them until they do. Because if we do otherwise this opens the door to police procecuting people because their eyes look "a little funny".

Interesting. How do you define 'clear, direct danger'? Some would say that a man, walking through a park tripping his face off with a sailor's hat on and a sword in his hand is a clear, direct danger to the other citizens of the park. However, to him, he could simply be making a gesture of pride towards his time as a sailor, or recanting stories of old in his head. What Im saying is that circumstances, not a clean-cut black and white case of right and wrong. At what point do you decide someone is 'getting out of hand?' and how are we supposed to have an infrastructure in place, waiting for something, anything dangerous to happen and suddenly step in? This would certainly occupy the entire police force considering the volatility of many people under the psychedelic influence. I agree that allowing preemptive arrests on drug users to be instated does lead to an abuse of power like you noted in your last sentence, but how do you propose we deal with the man in the park with his sword? simply have a police officer on call, doing nothing, until he actually hits someone with the sword? does that man's 'right' to trip in the park outweigh the person he stabs right to live? which 'right' should we protect with more aggression/vigor?