cannabisnews.com: Ease Up on Marijuana, Tighten Up on Meth
Ease Up on Marijuana, Tighten Up on Meth
Posted by CN Staff on October 10, 2004 at 11:55:22 PT
By Joshua Marquis
Source: Oregonian
In the War on Drugs, as in most wars, there's a little truth on each side of the battle. Oregonians will vote Nov. 2 on what's being called "Medical Marijuana 2." It's the Measure 33 sequel, if you will, to an existing law that, sort of, allows the use of marijuana if someone can get a doctor to write a note saying the drug would help the patient's condition. Contrary to popular belief, the law did not legalize marijuana -- and the law is now being abused by recreational dopers.
At the same time the Bush administration furiously denies marijuana has any medical value whatsoever. Amid this chatter there's been a deafening silence from the administration -- until last week, that is -- when it comes to a drug that's destroying families, lives and communities: methamphetamine. We need to reprioritize our fight against dangerous drugs and raise the bar on methamphetamine while reducing the legal stigma of marijuana, recognizing it has limited medical use. The Oregonian's devastating expose of the federal government's failures to limit the spread of methamphetamine ("Unnecessary Epidemic," Oct. 3-7) shows how we failed to slow what is clearly the most dangerous drug on the street. Gov. Ted Kulongoski has proposed a bold, if controversial, rule change making it harder to access the base component of meth, pseudoephedrine, by putting cold medications behind the counter. And President Bush's drug czar endorsed the idea during a visit to Oregon last week. It's a program that's worked in Oklahoma, and Kulongoski gets credit for doing something concrete and right now. It's time we start thinking outside the box on drug control. There's something in my proposal -- let doctors prescribe marijuana but lock up meth -- to make both sides in the drug war hopping mad. Oregon Has Been Sensible In an effort to meet the president's goal of reducing illegal drug consumption by 10 percent during his first term, the administration has gone for volume. Since marijuana is used by a far greater number of people than the so-called "hard drugs" (methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine), it's much easier to reduce overall statistical drug use by achieving even a small decrease in marijuana users. But opponents of the Drug War are even better funded, albeit privately, than the government. Billionaire financier George Soros, through a vast interconnecting network of foundations, has undertaken a systematic campaign to eliminate drug laws or, failing that, prevent their enforcement. Note: A district attorney suggests shifting priorities to fight the more dangerous drug. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/easeup.htmSource: Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)Author: Joshua MarquisPublished: Sunday, October 10, 2004Copyright: 2004 The OregonianContact: letters news.oregonian.comWebsite: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/Related Articles & Web Site:Voter Power Foundation http://www.voterpower.org/Deputy Drug Czar Opposes Legalizing Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19612.shtml Deputy Drug Czar Sees MMJ as Dangeroushttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19608.shtmlMedical Pot Measure Ignites Opposition http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19482.shtmlOregon To Vote on Easing Medical Marijuana Use http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19124.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #52 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 20:44:51 PT
Dankhank
Thank you. I wasn't sure. I thought it meant marijuana. I don't think I've never used the term because I was confused by it's meaning.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by Dankhank on October 12, 2004 at 20:37:16 PT
War On Some Drugs ...
I've always believed that the WOSD, war on some drugs, referred to all of the drugs that the DEA is charged with eliminating. The DEA has announced lately that they are going harder after misused, read 'abused,' prescription drugs, but the generic WOD, war on drugs, was coined a few decades ago. Here's a link to a 2001 story about the WOSD:http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock030201.shtml
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 19:31:22 PT
End the War on Some Drugs
Dankhank, I know how closely some of us are following this election. I see how hard it must be for someone who doesn't know about Cannabis to fear it. It's really sad but bad information is really out there. I always thought the expression the WOSDs meant marijuana. Isn't that what it means out of curiosity.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by Dankhank on October 12, 2004 at 19:09:55 PT
End the War on some drugs ...
End the police war on all drugs ... no ifs, ands or buts ...I stopped at the local newsrag office and told the Editorial Chief about Jonathon Magbie. Of course he knew nothing till I arrived. He was not ready for the punchline: "dead on the fourth day." A good man but afraid of the illegal drugs. Says he will never try MJ even if it is legalized. Said he wouldn't want to find out when he was 75 that prostate drugs won't work on him because he smoked some pot.I saved my response for the upcoming meeting.I personally may be OK with the DEA protecting kids ... brrr ... can't believe I just said that ... no DEA ... just go to hell.
Hemp N Stuff
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 15:10:21 PT
Here's a Better Article About Her
http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/tucker/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 15:08:39 PT
dr slider comment 2
Dope is a lot of things.American Rifleman Magazine has had a section for over a hundred years, every month...and still does...called "The Dope Bag". I think it's American Rifleman, but it might be Field and Stream or some other sport or hunting magazine.They considered not using it anymore because of new 'connotations' but they decided to stick with the original title.I know people who buy and use dope legally all the time. People who build their own model airplanes for flying use dope to seal and make stronger and more durable their airplanes all the time.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 15:06:13 PT
I Was Wrong On How Many She Killed
I did a search and it wasn't 5 but 2 people. http://www.blogd.com/archives/000164.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 14:58:31 PT
Meth users do bad things
too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 14:56:41 PT
Bad things happen to Meth users
too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 14:49:15 PT
Something Else I Just Remembered
There was a woman who was put to death. I think her name was Carla Tucker but I could be wrong. She was a Meth User and hacked I think 5 people to death. When she was in prison she became a role model and was loved by everyone in the prison. I remember her commenting on Meth and it wasn't in a good way. She was executed none the less.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 13:56:21 PT
Hope
I've never seen that with a Meth user. I've seen someone full of energy and could talk a mile a minute. I've seen irresponsibility in their lives which weighed heavy on their personal life. There's an old expression about Meth. A Meth user will either quit or die. It went on to say that there's no such thing as an old speedfreak.PS: The one diehard Meth user I met back in the 70s was found in his apartment a few years ago hacked to pieces by someone that was really angry with him. He was beyond recognition because of the multiple stab wounds I was told.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 13:55:03 PT
What about the dunderheads?
If they blow their butts up...that's bad. There is probably some turkey out there somewhere right now contemplating starting a fire with his handy dandy five gallon can of gasoline. The world is full of bad ideas gone wrong. Across the board, outright prohibition of a consumable that is desirable to some has always been a bad idea. It ALWAYS breeds more destruction than the actual substance.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 13:45:43 PT
The strange thing I’ve seen about meth…
I’ve only known of a few people that I had been told were using it. I was totally stunned when I saw them again that instead of deteriorating to scarecrow lunatics…they seemed to be thriving, robustly healthy, and seemed to have developed a better attitude than they had before. Now what’s that about? Maybe the "Rocky Mountain way is better than the way they had."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 13:40:07 PT
About Hard Drugs
Most everyone here agrees on cannabis issues but when it comes to hard drugs it is easy to see all the potential dangers to individuals and to society in general. That's why people are so divided because there are so many what ifs.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 13:34:57 PT
dangers of meth
Everything is or can be dangerous. Meth is made far more dangerous and destructive by it's illegality.People blow themselves up or risk blowing themselves up all the time. Whisky manufacturing stills blow up. Fireworks and fireworks factories and storage are a great risk for the sake of entertainment. Races are dangerous. Cars blow up. Hot water heaters used to blow up alarmingly often. Volcanoes...tornadoes...hurricanes. Snakes…spiders…TRANSPORTATION! Life is filled with many dangers. Some people are bigger risk takers than others. It's not right to cull out a group of people and try to control their lives more rigidly than what is right.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 13:29:05 PT
Hope
I understand. I guess what I mean is hard drugs will never be completely legal because of people trying to make money from it's production. I don't know why alcohol is still made by moonshiners but it is.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 13:22:15 PT
FoM
Meth should be manufactured at a drug factory...a real one.The true free market is known for ...or used to be known for, quality manufacturing, oversight, and the ability to keep prices so low that it would be a fools errand to try to produce one's own or expect to make any profit by producing for the black market.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 13:17:02 PT
Let Me Try To Clarify
I was in an MSNBC News chat years ago and a DEA Agent was the guest and he answered my question. My question was if drugs were legalized what would happen to your job. He said if drugs were legalized I'd still have my job because people would sell to children and that will never be legal.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by kaptinemo on October 12, 2004 at 12:52:37 PT:
The fatal flaw theory
Before anyone dismisses Commonsense's position, consider: How many people have you known who felt uncomfortable with cannabis?Not with it's legal status; I mean when they used it they felt uncomfortable? Yet they enjoy alcohol? I know a husband and wife; she likes her cannabis, he likes his beer. Neither one cares much for the other's indulgence.I am no fan of the heavy stuff, of any sort. In my opinion, alcohol is a hard drug. I never touch ANY alcohol. I don't like to be around drunks, for a variety of reasons I've made public before, and won't belabor them now. Yet some folks like booze and are responsible with their imbibing, while others crash and burn. I can't undertsand why, but some do.So...if some people seem to gravitate to such chemicals, it might be a good idea to find out why. The mechanics of most drug addictions are fairly well mapped out by now, but it still begs the question as to why people tend to favor one drug as opposed to others. A 'fatal flaw' in biological composition, perhaps?In my experience, some drugs DO bring out the worst in some people, but that worst was ALREADY THERE and waiting to be tapped open. As the old saying goes, "What is said when drunk is thought when sober".Yes, IMHO, the truth is indeed somewhere in the middle. I don't blame the drug for the behavior, but it makes sense to find out WHY some folks behave (as the great Frank Zappa said) like it gave them 'a license to be an a**hole.'
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 12:50:40 PT
Hope
But what about those who still will do what my question posed? People will still try to make money from it's production even it was legal. It's always been that way.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 12:43:45 PT
allowed to make their own Meth?
Meth should be dealt with like whiskey and marijuana should be dealt with like wine.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 12:28:15 PT
Commonsense
It's not politcally incorrect here to say anything negative about a drug.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by Commonsense on October 12, 2004 at 12:20:32 PT
dr slider; goneposthole
Did I ever say I think it's okay to put people in prison for using meth? Is it politically incorrect here to say anything negative about any drug? I've just given my honest impression of what I see on a day to day basis in my work, and what I've seen over the course of my private life. I have not intended in any way to be patronizing or condescending, and I have no desire to wage war on anyone. If you are getting that from reading my posts, you are misreading me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 11:19:14 PT
Correction
I can't get insurance thru AARP because we have a Rottweiler. We do have insurance.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 11:17:36 PT
A Big Question
I don't believe people should go to jail for using Meth. I don't believe anyone should go to jail for using a drug. That a side I do have a point I want to throw out.This is my question.Let's say a person owns a home and wants to rent it out. They rent it to a family and then this happens. The people who rent the house make Meth. They have children in the home. A fire starts and the house burns down. The insurance company isn't interested in paying because cooking Meth is dangerous. Most insurance companies gringe if you heat with wood. I can't get insurance for our home because we have a Rottweiler. My question is should people be allowed to make their own Meth and expect it to be ok?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by BigDawg on October 12, 2004 at 10:49:12 PT
I know I'm late to this discussion... but
The difference between truck drivers and "meth heads" was hinted at in the original WHO document on the social costs of drug use. Of course, the US administration didn't like the report... so it was rejected and edited down.In any event, it was found that people who use meth in less repressive environments/countries tend to use it like most people use coffee... and like most truck drivers use speed.... to stay awake and alert... and for a little extra energy. Such countries don't have the same level of hard core meth addicts... possibly because of the different social perspective.Don't get me wrong.... I am in no way saying meth is a "soft drug"... but how it is handled socially can make a world of difference when a person encounters it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 09:38:21 PT
An anomaly?
You've got to go look at this. It's so uncanny and creepy. It's a photograph of Ronald Reagan and Jonathan Magbie.Look at Reagan's apparent left hand.I know it's just an illusion...but it's such a "clear" illusion. That sounds like an oxymoron if ever there were one. A clear illusion?Do you see an illusion of long bladed dagger in Reagan's hand? So weird. It should be up on George Norry's Coast to Coast.http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Number=967465Brrrrrrr...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 09:04:27 PT
Hope
When I say something as important as I said about the 10 to 1 ratio I feel I need to post where I found those stats. I am not a numbers type person. Polls drive me crazy.http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5891/1/235/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 08:20:41 PT
Hope
It's going to be tough here. They have been registering 10 to 1 in favor of Democrats. When I registered in our little county they were getting 300 a day and were swamped. This year an International group of people will be overseeing our elections so we don't repeat what happened in 2000.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by Hope on October 12, 2004 at 07:55:58 PT
FoM...political info...but no arguing
Good morning. Groggy morning here, and grogginess makes me unsure of your state. If it's Ohio...this might be of interest.http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2004/10/11/story1.html"For many election observers, Ohio is the swing state in a presidential election that is expected to be decided by several swing states."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by FoM on October 12, 2004 at 07:35:51 PT
News Brief from The Associated Press
Netherland's Medical Marijuana Program Elbowed Out by Common Coffee Shops Tuesday, October 12, 2004
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands Dutch government officials are learning it's not that easy selling marijuana.The country launched a program last year allowing people with medical needs to buy prescription marijuana.However, in a country where any adult can get the drug at "coffee shops," the government is finding price and selection play a large role in attracting consumers.Marijuana buyers say they can get cheaper and better-quality drugs at the coffee shops.This has all cut into the government's anticipated sales. It says since the program started it has sold 176 pounds of marijuana -- less than half of what it had anticipated.Copyright 2004 Associated Press
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by goneposthole on October 12, 2004 at 06:05:44 PT
complete nonsense
is what is going on here. I guess patronizing and condescending adds more to the nonsense.An elephant hunt we're not on here.Please be sure to play the vulnerable for suckers and fools.It's time for a change.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by dr slider on October 12, 2004 at 00:40:12 PT:
Commonsense?
The truth is way outside of the box that contains your rationale that there is a right way to wage war on your own.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by E_Johnson on October 11, 2004 at 23:27:54 PT
Commonsense
I hope you came here to learn as well as lecture.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by Commonsense on October 11, 2004 at 23:15:39 PT
dr slider
I don't like the way the "war on drugs" is being fought either. It does cause a lot of problems. But to blame prohibition for all of the problems caused by drugs is about as ludicrous as blaming drugs for all of the crimes committed by people who happen to use drugs. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by FoM on October 11, 2004 at 23:07:28 PT
BGreen
That was funny. Yes back then my next door neighbor was a nurse and she kept gads of them in a little dresser she had. We'd go over to her house and she would give us lots of them too. There weren't any laws back then that anyone ever mentioned. Everyone took diet pills! PS: By the way The 6 hour Vote For Change Tour on the Sundance Channel was fantastic and everyone was really fired up and into it all. Neil didn't show up at this one though. He did at least 3 concerts I think and said he was representing Canadians for Kerry. It took a lot of nerve for these musicians to stand up and be counted.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by BGreen on October 11, 2004 at 22:58:53 PT
1960's Update of Little House On The Prairie
Your friend sounds like a 1960's version of Nellie Olsen giving away the candy at the Mercantile. LOLThe Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 11, 2004 at 22:48:21 PT
I Can Relate EJ
Diet pills were like candy. My best friends father was a Pharmacist and owned his own Pharmacy. We would stay at the Pharmacy while he delivered scripts to sick people and his daughter just practically emptied the bottles a few times. She just gave them to anyone who wanted them. Can you imagine that now! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by dr slider on October 11, 2004 at 22:45:33 PT:
abnormal thoughts
Without getting into free will and determinism, I would warn one from attributing any behavior to a substance, as a cause and effect relationship. "I tell ya baby it was the booze." It is a profoundly narrow view of how all of this came to be, to buy into society's notions of "why" something happens. In my estimation the only true answers to the question " why?" can only be found in the fullness of time. Why did Christopher Reeve fall off of that horse? Many would speculate as to the fitness of the horse or rider, or conditions that day, or the alighnment of the star, or any of an endless list of conditions that led to the event taking place, and call that "why". I counter that Christopher Reeve had to fall off of that horse to transform a life, and in doing so restoringly affect his world more than any other 420,000 actors. That is why it happened. The endless speculation as to how it came to be is called history.Don't get me wrong. It is readily apparent that the use of substances both precipitate and encourage certain behaviors. Why else would that woman want me to talk to my doctor about Cialis? Why else would we guzzle coffee?(an aside, calling cannabis a drug is like calling coffee a drug. and saying "alcohol and drugs" is like saying "marble rye and bread") But placing blame on any one specific contribution to an event and calling that why, is, in my humble opinion, ludicrous.Addiction to a substance does not sneak up on people. If we truly informed people about the dangers of substances with accurate information, instead of the crap force fed America through the media, we could effect great change. Seems to me truck drivers and fighter pilots probably both put amphetamines to good use. The lunatic on the psychotic run (psychosis sets in to a huge percentage of people deprived of sleep for more than a week) injecting black market crap? not so good. Not only does prohibition of any substance (thankfully to a much less degree with everyones favorite botanical), guarantees that poison will be sold. This is a classic example of blaming "drugs" for the effects of prohibition. You are right when you say "meth is bad stuff" if you take into account black market origins. Meth is just how the poor man makes speed. The pilot and the driver get theirs from big pharm or perhaps bikers and was of determined strength and quality. The "drug addicts" the cops and courts are constantly dealing with are forced into antisocial behavior by the nature of prohib. The Dutch have already found that a safe clean supply of heroin turns "junkies" into "productive citizens". The percecution of those that use banned substances is self fulfilling prophecy. It creates conditions that neccesistate that the poor and dissaffected are forever fighting back requiring ever more persecution.Grok me?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by E_Johnson on October 11, 2004 at 22:44:25 PT
I remember FoM
A lot of girls in high school in the sixties were hooked on speed by their family physicians trying to help them lose weight.One girl I knew used to sell her diet pills to the druggies for ten dollars each.I heard that later in life when she grew up and got a high paying job, she ended up on coke, and went to prison for embezzlement.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by FoM on October 11, 2004 at 22:39:52 PT
Commonsense
You made perfect sense to me. I am what could be called a reformed speed freak. From the age of about 10 I started taking amphetamines. I was a little over the normal weight for a girl my age back then and Diet Pills were new on the market so the Doctor put me on a drug called Eskatrol Spansules. Then it was Dexedrine. I took them on and off into my mid 20s. I later for a short time in my life did Meth. The difference was huge to me. I never heard of anyone snorting or shooting a diet pill but that's how people use Meth. I am a believer in the higher you go the harder you crash when you come down. I didn't have any real problems with diet pills except I couldn't sleep. Meth is so good it can easily take over a person more then the good old diet pills did. Maybe it is the way Meth is consumed compared to diet pills but I do agree with what you said.http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/stimulantsNS.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Commonsense on October 11, 2004 at 19:21:10 PT
E_Johnson
I'm not sure I know the answer to that. All I can tell you is what I see everyday at work. One thing I will say though is that the reason I couldn't agree with the DA's 75% number for drug and alcohol involvement in serious crimes is that I suspect he is including drug dealing, manufacturing, and drug related property crimes like hot checks, forgeries, and other thefts in his count. If I included all of those drug and/or alcohol abuse would be a major contributing factor in a good 75% of all of the felony cases I handle. Violent crime and sex offenses only make up a small percentage of the work we do. Alcohol and drugs are very often a major factor in the those. But, it is important to note that with alcohol and even drugs like meth, it is only a small percentage of these people who are committing violent crimes.I have represented several current and former truck drivers. One reason why you might not see as much violence with truck drivers who use speed is that they tend to use it for the purpose of staying awake and alert, and unless they are heavy addicts, they aren't doing just piles and piles of it and staying up for days on end. Most who get to that stage don't keep their jobs. Also, there is a difference between plain old amphetamines and meth. Meth is much more powerful and addictive. When you talk about truck drivers and "amphetamines," to me that could mean milder amphetamines like Dexedrine or even things like those pseudoephedrine tablets that used to always be available at truck stops. Meth is up in a different in a different league.Similar to the way it is with alcohol, if a person is already an angry mean person with a propensity for conflict and violence, being hyped up on meth seems to exacerbate that. Where I see the worst crimes from meth though is when heavy users stay up for days on end. Meth or no meth, staying up for several days can cause hallucinations and irrational behavior. A lot of the guys I deal with tell me they've stayed up for several days or even weeks on meth in some cases. Certainly not all of them turn violent, but a lot of them do crazy things. I got a new case a couple of weeks ago where my client jumped into a cop car and told the cops some creatures were spawning and killing everyone at his house. The police just thought he was crazy and after taking him in they stopped by his house to check if there really were any bodies and found a meth lab in operation. A lady tried to escape from the home on a donkey. I had another one in the last couple of weeks caught with a little meth who had reported that laser toting "El Salvadorians" were chasing him. He told me he had been up for days. These stories may seem kind of funny but it's not funny when people totally lose it and freak out and hurt someone because they are delusional and spun out on meth. That does happen. The combination of being delusional from sleep depravation and wired hard on meth is a recipe for trouble. It can lead to terrible accidents and purposeful violent conduct.Which causes more violence, meth or alcohol? Alcohol wins that one, but it is important to note that far more people use alcohol than use meth. Meth is a factor in a lot of the cases I have and I can't help but think that meth use is more likely to cause crime than alcohol use. If as many people used meth as use alcohol I think we'd see a massive increase in crime. I'm no prude about drugs either. I've smoked tons of pot and I even played around with drugs like meth and coke more than just a little bit in my young and wild days. I did it all except for heroin, and had a heck of a lot of fun. I know how relatively harmless marijuana is compared to alcohol and other drugs, and I know that some drugs are worse than others. Meth is the worst one I've ever seen. It gets ahold of people and won't let go. It destroys lives and causes more harm to innocent people than any drug I've ever come into contact with. I just feel lucky that I didn't do it enough to get addicted.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by E_Johnson on October 11, 2004 at 16:33:55 PT
Something that confuses me, Commonsense
Truck drivers have been abusing amphetamines on our nations highways for many decades now -- starting as far back as the fifties or sixties I believe -- but that group of amphetamine users was never associated with violent crime.Were they using some different kind of speed, or not using as much, or is there some socio-economic filter being applied here?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by Commonsense on October 11, 2004 at 15:29:31 PT
Dr. Slider
"Commonsense, I'm sure the very highest percentage of serious crimes you handle (esp. murder, rape and dom. violence) involve alcohol...primarily."That's true. Meth is right up there though, not just because of all of the property crimes addicts commit to get by, but also because of a lot of the crazy things people do when they've been tweaking for days without sleep. Heavy use of that drug tends to make people irrational. Heavy users who stay up for days on end can really lose it. Meth is bad stuff. It contributes to a high percentage of the criminal conduct I see even though only a tiny percentage of people use it compared to those who use alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Hope on October 11, 2004 at 14:27:38 PT
Bush and Tax Cuts
Imagine what a "tax cut" ending the war on drugs would be.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by afterburner on October 11, 2004 at 07:42:51 PT
Say What???
' But opponents of the Drug War are even better funded, albeit privately, than the government. 'Billionaire Ponies Up Millions for Political Ads http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/19/thread19613.shtml' 21 million [dollars plus previous] millions ' Are Anti-Drug Ads a Big Waste?
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/19/thread19593.shtml' The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy on Oct. 4 chose a new advertising agency, Foote Cone & Belding, to lead its $200 million-per-year anti-drug advertising effort aimed at parents and children. '$200 million on advertising alone!Congress Recommends $145 Million For Drug Office http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/17/thread17789.shtmlWar On Drugs ClockDrugSense Drug War Clock. It is Sat Oct 9 2004. Money Spent on the War On Drugs this Year. Federal State Total.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htmOver 30 *billion* dollars so far this year (15 *billion* federal and 15 *billion* state) spent on the Drug War.Who's fooling whom?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on October 11, 2004 at 07:28:18 PT
common nonsense
common sense flys out the window with the first typewritten letter.Common nonsense prevails thereafter.Recreational dopers also means 'untermenschen'; the real meaning is that stark.The nonsense continues pell mell and unabated. What else is new? It's been going on for 67 years; you can't stop now.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on October 11, 2004 at 05:30:07 PT:
When 'common sense' makes no sense
After having read the article once before, I started to comment, but decided against doing so; after reading it again, I feel I ought to.Since the parting shot in any article is made for impact, Mr. Marquis (a man who makes his bread and butter from using the law to ruin the lives of illicit drug consumers) in his conclusion makes an impassioned plea for what he regards to be 'common sense'. But an examination of both his motivations and his particular view of 'common sense' should cause any reader to wonder how the continued prohibiton of cannabis under *any* regime could possibly be construed as rational.Although the article appears to be speaking with the voice of sweet reason, the fact is the prohibitions would remain in effect. He pays lip service to the terrible cost that prohibition creates to individuals and to the society that pays for it, figuratively and literally, but he proposes no really earthshaking changes, just a variation of the same tired old theme.The core of the problem - drug prohibition laws breeding the every crime they are supposed to inhibit - remains. Mr. Marquis offers only faltering non-solutions (seemingly) designed to deflect the growing demand for substantive review and overhaul of illicit drug laws that is growing in every State.Hobson's Choice (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hobson%27s%20choice) is still no choice at all, however it's presented. Half a loaf of moldy, maggot-infested bread is not better than none, it's worse. I know what I'd be voting in favor of, and it's not this.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Alias on October 11, 2004 at 05:18:33 PT:
medical vs recreational?
I would think that the medicinal effect overlaps the recreational effect. There does not seem to be any clear place to draw the line.
A person may delay or even stop a cancer from growing inially by smoking cannabis recreationaly. They may not even realize they are risk. Or cannabis might help protect against developing neurological problems. Who knows?
More research would help. Being illegal is fuelling the controversy which is dampening research.
Disabled Ideas
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by billos on October 11, 2004 at 02:54:03 PT
Most antis would call us dopers...................
this is the stigma that must be shattered. Is it going to take the upcoming generation to disband the WoD? It's coming but I'd rather see an outright win to legalize.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by dr slider on October 11, 2004 at 00:07:54 PT:
crime abuse
Louis Armstrong said he didn't understand why the man compared gage (cannabis) to "dope". Naturally, by dope, he meant heroin. Enter the DEASixty years later "dope" means gage!Resentments are for those that don't know pain.Commonsense, I'm sure the very highest percentage of serious crimes you handle (esp. murder, rape and dom. violence) involve alcohol...primarily.Cannabis prohibition was a temporal tactic. Patience is the only human virtue.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by Commonsense on October 10, 2004 at 21:17:38 PT
Dopers
"-- and the law is now being abused by recreational dopers."Do any of you resent the term "dopers" being applied to people who happen to smoke marijuana? "Those two controlled substances changes wouldn't win the War on Drugs, but they'd signal a more rational approach, recognizing the real risks posed by marijuana and methamphetamine. Most criminal justice professionals would agree that 75 percent of all the serious crimes they handle involve substance abuse."I am a criminal justice professional and while I don't know if 75% is an accurate percentage, I would agree that a very high percentage of the serious crimes I handle involve substance abuse. But the substances involved are usually drugs like methamphetamine, alcohol, cocaine, and drugs like Oxycontin and hydrocodone. Marijuana doesn't come anywhere close to any of these other drugs when it comes to contributing to criminal conduct, and I think most other criminal defense attorneys would agree with that. District attorneys tend to like to paint marijuana in a bad light to justify what they have to do in marijuana cases, but even most of them would begrudgingly agree that marijuana doesn't come close to these other drugs when it comes to actually being a major causal factor in crimes that don't involve marijuana's legal status.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment