Governor Arnie calls for debate on maraujuana

[Mr I]

Me thinks he's angling towards something else:D:evil:

Legalising Cannabis: Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Welcomes Debate | World News | Sky News

[Shibby]

I read something recently that if the U.S. would decriminalize (sell to adults) marijuana it would bring up near $20 billion dollars in tax revenue.

[curtus e flush]

The crazy thing is alcohol is ten times worse:drunk:

[Mr I]

yeah but if it were established that weed was ok (which it won't be because the truth is it has been found to be physically addictive and the skunk variety has been shown to induce scitzophrenia and even phsycosis) then who could argue with legalizing steroids

[Shibby]

yeah but if it were established that weed was ok (which it won't be because the truth is it has been found to be physically addictive and the skunk variety has been shown to induce scitzophrenia and even phsycosis) then who could argue with legalizing steroids

The case will be made that the weed that will legally be produced will be safer the tobacco and alcohol. The market for a skunk breed of weed will be insignificant to acquire much the same as something like absinthe.

[Mr I]

The case will be made that the weed that will legally be produced will be safer the tobacco and alcohol. The market for a skunk breed of weed will be insignificant to acquire much the same as something like absinthe.

fair point

[Shibby]

Assuming the weed was legalized, I think the interesting part will be if they all people to smoke weed during work.

[FitnessBrat]

yeah but if it were established that weed was ok (which it won't be because the truth is it has been found to be physically addictive and the skunk variety has been shown to induce scitzophrenia and even phsycosis) then who could argue with legalizing steroids

:agree: It will never be leglized

[Turbo3000]

:agree: It will never be leglized

Wrong. The "War" on drugs is a crazy money (taxpayers) pit.

Most pharmaceuticals are dangerous, yet people will blindly pop pills just because a doctor told them to do it.

[FitnessBrat]

Wrong. The "War" on drugs is a crazy money (taxpayers) pit.

Most pharmaceuticals are dangerous, yet people will blindly pop pills just because a doctor told them to do it.

I'm aware that pharm drugs are dangerous, and I personally don't "pop pills" for the hell of it/because someone told me to do so. Hell, I have a brother that used OTC drugs as rec drugs and they could've easily killed him. None of that is in question here. I personally just don't see marijuana being legalized. It may not be any worse than smoking a cigarette and having an alcoholic beverage - but it is addictive, it's shown to be a gateway to other drugs, and is generally "unhealthy."

[Shibby]

but it is addictive, people go through a days work without a weed smoke break all the time it's shown to be a gateway to other drugs media propaganda, and is generally "unhealthy." lol

Not that your points are invalid, they are just very weak in a discussion of it being illegal when tobacco and alcohol are such a huge downfall of American society.

Concerns about the health of our citizens, or about their productivity, are red herrings in this debate, as the legality of alcohol and cigarettes attests.

The fact that people are being prosecuted and imprisoned for using marijuana, while alcohol remains a staple commodity, is surely the reductio ad absurdum of any notion that our drug laws are designed to keep people from harming themselves or others. Alcohol is by any measure the more dangerous substance. It has no approved medical use, and its lethal dose is rather easily achieved. Its role in causing automobile accidents is beyond dispute. The manner in which alcohol relieves people of their inhibitions contributes to human violence, personal injury, unplanned pregnancy, and the spread of sexual disease. Alcohol is also well known to be addictive. When consumed in large quantities over many years, it can lead to devastating neurological impairments, to cirrhosis of the liver, and to death. In the United States alone, more than 100,000 people annually die from its use. It is also more toxic to a developing fetus than any other drug of abuse. (Indeed, “crack babies” appear to have been really suffering from fetal-alcohol syndrome.) None of these charges can be leveled at marijuana. As a drug, marijuana is nearly unique in having several medical applications and no known lethal dosage. While adverse reactions to drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen account for an estimated 7,600 deaths (and 76,000 hospitalizations) each year in the United States alone, marijuana kills no one. Its role as a “gateway drug” now seems less plausible than ever (and it was never plausible). In fact, nearly everything human beings do—driving cars, flying planes, hitting golf balls—is more dangerous than smoking marijuana in the privacy of one’s own home. Anyone who would seriously attempt to argue that marijuana is worthy of prohibition because of the risk it poses to human beings will find that the powers of the human brain are simply insufficient for the job.

And yet, we are so far from the shady groves of reason now that people are still receiving life sentences without the possibility of parole for growing, selling, possessing, or buying what is, in fact, a naturally occurring plant. Cancer patients and paraplegics have been sentenced to decades in prison for marijuana possession. Owners of garden-supply stores have received similar sentences because some of their customers were caught growing marijuana. What explains this astonishing wastage of human life and material resources?
-
-
-
The consequences of our irrationality on this front are so egregious that they bear closer examination. Each year, over 1.5 million men and women are arrested in the United States because of our drug laws. At this moment, somewhere on the order of 400,000 men and women languish in U.S. prisons for nonviolent drug offences. One million others are currently on probation. More people are imprisoned for nonviolent drug offences in the United States than are incarcerated, for any reason, in all of Western Europe (which has a larger population). The cost of these efforts, at the federal level alone, is nearly $20 billion dollars annually. The total cost of our drug laws—when one factors in the expense to state and local governments and the tax revenue lost by our failure to regulate the sale of drugs—could easily be in excess of $100 billion dollars each year. Our war on drugs consumes an estimated 50 percent of the trial time of our courts and the full-time energies of over 400,000 police officers. These are resources that might otherwise be used to fight violent crime and terrorism.

-
-
-
In historical terms, there was every reason to expect that such a policy of prohibition would fail. It is well known, for instance, that the experiment with the prohibition of alcohol in the United States did little more than precipitate a terrible comedy of increased drinking, organized crime, and police corruption.
-
-
-
The United Nations values the drug trade at $400 billion a year. This exceeds the annual budget for the U.S. Department of Defense. If this figure is correct, the trade in illegal drugs constitutes 8 percent of all international commerce (while the sale of textiles makes up 7.5 percent and motor vehicles just 5.3 percent). And yet, prohibition itself is what makes the manufacture and sale of drugs so extraordinarily profitable. Those who earn their living in this way enjoy a 5,000 to 20,000 percent return on their investment, tax-free. Every relevant indicator of the drug trade—rates of drug use and interdiction, estimates of production, the purity of drugs on the street, etc.—shows that the government can do nothing to stop it as long as such profits exist (indeed, these profits are highly corrupting of law enforcement in any case). The crimes of the addict, to finance the stratospheric cost of his lifestyle, and the crimes of the dealer, to protect both his territory and his goods, are likewise the results of prohibition. A final irony, which seems good enough to be the work of Satan himself, is that the market we have created by our drug laws has become a steady source of revenue for terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Shining Path, and others.

Even if we acknowledge that stopping drug use is a justifiable social goal, how does the financial cost of our war on drugs appear in light of the other challenges we face? Consider that it would require only a onetime expenditure of $2 billion to secure our commercial seaports against smuggled nuclear weapons. At present we have allocated a mere $93 million for this purpose. How will our prohibition of marijuana use look (this comes at a cost of $4 billion annually) if a new sun ever dawns over the port of Los Angeles? Or consider that the U.S. government can afford to spend only $2.3 billion each year on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are now regrouping. Warlords rule the countryside beyond the city limits of Kabul. Which is more important to us, reclaiming this part of the world for the forces of civilization or keeping cancer patients in Berkeley from relieving their nausea with marijuana? Our present use of government funds suggests an uncanny skewing—we might even say derangement—of our national priorities. Such a bizarre allocation of resources is sure to keep Afghanistan in ruins for many years to come. It will also leave Afghan farmers with no alternative but to grow opium. Happily for them, our drug laws still render this a highly profitable enterprise.

- Sam Harris

[FitnessBrat]

Not that your points are invalid, they are just very weak in a discussion of it being illegal when tobacco and alcohol are such a huge downfall of American society.

- Sam Harris

Alcoholics can work all day without having a drink until they get home - same "weak" point. I already stated that I personally am not saying marijuana is any worse than smoking/drinking - but the fact is, those two are already legal and THAT is what makes them different. Your arguments are the same ones the potheads have been using the last 30 years - hasn't worked yet.

[Shibby]

Alcoholics can work all day without having a drink until they get home - same "weak" point. I already stated that I personally am not saying marijuana is any worse than smoking/drinking - but the fact is, those two are already legal and THAT is what makes them different. Your arguments are the same ones the potheads have been using the last 30 years - hasn't worked yet.

Just because it hasn't worked in thirty years, doesn't mean the information is invalid. Hence the start of the thread. The point of the alcohol that Sam Harris makes is to show the logical contradictions to the debate at hand.

[caged]

He's always been a "reasonable" governor...but it doesn't matter: we've had pot legalized for medical reasons here for years...but all it does is give the *federal* government easy busts when they got tired of busting docs over the us...at least pot salesmen and doctors don't shoot back, which is why the DEA loves this latest manifestation of their failed drug war...exactly the same as the U.S. going to war in Grenada, after we lost in Vietnam...

So this avenue will never see any reasonable daylight, as Federal Governemnt ignores constitution...an early manifestation of this happened in old Louisiana days, when doctors started heroin clinics for addicts...and federal gov finally closed them down...all our congressmen and senators have sold themselves down the river so long, they don't know any other way...

[FitnessBrat]

Just because it hasn't worked in thirty years, doesn't mean the information is invalid. Hence the start of the thread. The point of the alcohol that Sam Harris makes is to show the logical contradictions to the debate at hand.

I already know how "bad" alcohol is, how it kills more people every year than probably every drug combined, etc. That is certainly not up for debate from me.

I find it a little odd that you share such a strong opinion about this drug. How does pot work with your diet and training? How about as a parent - are you okay with your children using it when they're of age?