One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Cannabis Exception
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Dec 3, 2016 10:57:14   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
kenjay wrote:
You are correct Linda a man with COPD went into a coma, when he went in big pharmaceutical had him on 22 medications. He couldn't do any exercise was barely existing. When he came out of the coma he did his research and learned of pot oil. He is now off medications and walking 3-5 miles a day.


Excellent, kenjay!! I guess it takes living with or knowing someone who has actually been helped for others to believe it has purpose as a medicinal bases..

I would never deny someone to be helped by its value being in question..As you pointed out there certainly is enough proven studies confirming it does help...

I lost my Aunt a month after loosing my mother last year...What I gave thanks for was how she went from a women in the most unbearable pain you can imagine to someone who sat in peace or laid actually able to sleep and gained a slight changes in eating habits too..
It was well worth it to see this take place...

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 12:12:15   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
buffalo wrote:
Yes I graduated, 3.4 GPA, and worked in the banking industry for 17 1/2 years (4 1/2 as President) before becoming self employed in 1993.

As a "non doper" have you ever given any thought as to WHY those cartels exist? Are you "non dopers" aware that alcohol prohibition gave rise to the gangster criminal element?

Have you "non dopers" ever given any thought as to how not only US drug policy but policy in general, like NAFTA, gave rise to the "drug cartels"? Bilateral agreements on agriculture under NAFTA made it nearly impossible for small Mexican farmers to compete with subsidized food stuffs imported from the US. These destitute farmers found the burgeoning market for marijuana and poppies their only avenue to surviving on the land, thereby increasing the drug supply available to cartels. Not only the corruption that exists in Mexico, but also Mexico's acquiescence to flawed US security policies are major reasons for the growth of cartels.

When you establish a policy of prohibition, you also create a black market. And Mexico, being next door, did its best to respond to that market. According to the book, “A Narco History: How the United States and Mexico Jointly Created the Mexican Drug War", "the United States sent discreet shipments of high-caliber weapons to a founder of the Guadalajara cartel, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo, during the early 1980s. These guns were later passed on to the US-proxy, the Contras in Nicaragua, to assist in their attempt to topple the left-wing Sandinista regime (something InSight Crime has chronicled as well). In return for this “humanitarian aid” the cartel provided, the US turned a blind eye to the huge quantities of crack cocaine processed in Mexico that were arriving on street corners throughout the United States, the authors say."

So, before you sanctimoniously and hypocritically lecture me on how I raised my boys, maybe YOU need to "educate" yourself as to the truth behind the failed "war on drugs" and how it gave rise to the drug cartels in the first place and maybe a little bit about pot that you obviously know nothing but what you've been brainwashed with. Oh, and learn a little bit about raising children. As my father said, I'm not going to tell you not to do it, just don't get caught. I would rather my boys been honest with me (which they were) and mature enough to discuss the issues.

PROHIBITION DID NOT WORK FOR ALCOHOL, NOR HAS IT WORKED FOR DRUGS!!!
Yes I graduated, 3.4 GPA, and worked in the bankin... (show quote)


Regardless of your excuses, your explanations, the only reason for the drug use and the production in Mexico, Afghanistan, Columbia, etc, etc, etc, is because of the huge DEMAND and addiction by Americans. The problem isn't the producer, it's the consumer. I grew up in an age where we heard there was such a thing as marijuana but no one we knew ever used it. It was also a time where most boys by age 17 had already had their first taste if liquor although the legal age for drinking was 21. We never experienced kids in grade school getting drunk and using dope as we do today. But we also didn't murder children in the womb by the million either. I wonder if we can find common ground between the huge increase in illegal drugs amongst all ages, a need to get high and escape life and conscience, and the decline in the sanctity of human life, the decline in morality and values and the decline in spirituality? Why do you believe the demand increase?

I posit a compromise: actually a capitulation. I suggest we take ALL restrictions off the sale and use of alcohol and drugs regardless of age and tax it fairly. When I was 12 years old I could walk into a hardware store in Oklahoma and, providing I had the money, buy a shotgun and shells without approval or permission from anyone. No one ever killed kids in school back then. We could legally buy guns but we couldn't legally buy booze and drugs were not even known about. For all the talk about guns today, drugs kill more kids than guns. Nevertheless, let's put your theory to use:decriminalization, deregulation, advocate use, tax fairly and finally, stop the losing war on drugs. Personally, I refuse to hate children and my fellow man enough to allow the further destruction of what tatters remains of our hedonistic society. But I fear I am in the minority. Your side, your philosophy on drugs is winning, Buffalo, but at what eventual cost? I believe in fighting evil not because we'll always win but because evil deserves to be resisted.

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 13:28:46   #
katmm
 
I definitely agree. If there was no regulations I believe the trend would eventually die out. There is always going to be "users" and "sellers". Most people that sell drugs have their own drug issues. They are trying to support their own habits. My sons father received 300+ years in the FBOP for drug sales. He has been in for 14 years so far. The government built a case on testimony from mostly other criminals that wanted a time reduction. No drugs, money, pics, phone conversations, ect. They labeled him as a "kingpin/reco act". Although he couldn't afford an attorney. They couldn't freeze or take any assets, because he didn't have any. Figure that out?. My son's life was ruined behind this and he suffered all through school with depression and bitterness towards " The system". The basis of the story is the Fed's fabricated a story to get a conviction. They lied, cheated and made up phony media to enhance and justify what they did all because they had a personal vendetta against him. Our judicial system sucks and it's not going to get any better. No one died in this case. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head to make them use or sell. A pedophile can rape babies and get less time. You could kill someone and get less time. Now we have Mr. Sessions who thinks "people that smoke marijuana are horrible people." We all better get ready to pay more taxes to build more prisons to house these "horrible" people. Not to mention it costs approximately $17,000 per year per inmate. Sounds like money wasted. How can these individuals be so smart with college degrees, but can't figure out the problem with this? Only my opinion.

Reply
 
 
Dec 3, 2016 14:47:11   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
lindajoy wrote:
Drug Cartels are some of the meanest people alive that care not for life...Motivated by greed and control, those are the people I was referring to as well...They must be stopped yet as one is taken down three more surface..


One simple move and the drug cartels and all the nasty things that come with them go away once and for all: End this moronic 'war on drugs'. The illicit nature of the drug trade is what makes it so profitable and so tempting to criminal gangs in the first place. Same with alcohol prohibition. Al Capone and his buddies would never have been anything more than street corner thugs if not for prohibition.

Once the drug trade comes out of the darkness, there will be many benefits and very few downsides:

Drug users will be able to buy their drugs from pharmacists instead of some back alley hoodlum, making the trade safer for all concerned.

The price of drugs will plummet, since the inherent dangers of illegal activity will no longer apply; making drugs more affordable. This will reduce drug related crime as users will be more able to fund their habit without resorting to robbery, burglary, theft and the like.

The quality of each drug will be known and predictable, reducing the risk and incidence of overdose.

Drug cartels and crime syndicates will no longer be able to command such high prices for the drugs they supply and will be forced out of the game. The accompanying incidence of related crime will be significantly reduced as the drug lords cease to operate.

The prison population would be significantly reduced, and drug users would no longer be subjected to the stigma of criminality for their use.

Police forces will be freed to focus on true criminal activity and so improve enforcement overall. Fewer officers will be needed, freeing some to pursue more productive avenues. The same can be said for the federal DEA.

The billions of dollars spent on drug prohibition every year would no longer be needed. Sales taxes on recreational drugs would be a bonanza for local and State governments, reducing the overall tax burden on the general population.

This is just a short list off the top of my head, so what's not to like?

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 15:12:01   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
One simple move and the drug cartels and all the nasty things that come with them go away once and for all: End this moronic 'war on drugs'. The illicit nature of the drug trade is what makes it so profitable and so tempting to criminal gangs in the first place. Same with alcohol prohibition. Al Capone and his buddies would never have been anything more than street corner thugs if not for prohibition.

Once the drug trade comes out of the darkness, there will be many benefits and very few downsides:

Drug users will be able to buy their drugs from pharmacists instead of some back alley hoodlum, making the trade safer for all concerned.

The price of drugs will plummet, since the inherent dangers of illegal activity will no longer apply; making drugs more affordable. This will reduce drug related crime as users will be more able to fund their habit without resorting to robbery, burglary, theft and the like.

The quality of each drug will be known and predictable, reducing the risk and incidence of overdose.

Drug cartels and crime syndicates will no longer be able to command such high prices for the drugs they supply and will be forced out of the game. The accompanying incidence of related crime will be significantly reduced as the drug lords cease to operate.

The prison population would be significantly reduced, and drug users would no longer be subjected to the stigma of criminality for their use.

Police forces will be freed to focus on true criminal activity and so improve enforcement overall. Fewer officers will be needed, freeing some to pursue more productive avenues. The same can be said for the federal DEA.

The billions of dollars spent on drug prohibition every year would no longer be needed. Sales taxes on recreational drugs would be a bonanza for local and State governments, reducing the overall tax burden on the general population.

This is just a short list off the top of my head, so what's not to like?
One simple move and the drug cartels and all the n... (show quote)


Ask Sweden how it's working out for them.

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 15:32:54   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
padremike wrote:
Ask Sweden how it's working out for them.


From what I'm seeing, not all that well:

"Among the general population (15-64-year-olds), drug use is rising. By two out of three measures (last-year and lifetime) cannabis use is now higher in Sweden than in Portugal, which decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs in 2001".

Here's the link to the rest of it:

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-policy-sweden-repressive-approach-increases-harm

Also, "Countries that follow a similarly punitive approach to Sweden’s (such as the UK and France) have significantly higher levels of drug use". seems to me that the Swedes are just naturally less likely to use drugs than the rest of their European counterparts.

Time and again, prohibition is seen to fail, sometimes spectacularly. Not only is possession a criminal offense in Sweden, but drug use is also a criminal offense punishable with prison sentences for those who fail government mandated drug tests. Still, there are more pot-heads in Sweden than in Portugal, where all drugs are legal. And here's a real kicker; drug use has actually fallen in Portugal since decriminalization. Since it's no longer illegal, it no longer has the allure it once did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/

Seems that treating adults like adults has its advantages.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.