User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

16. October 2009, 18:02:13
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: Re:I know the ways drugs take and what they do to humans.
(V):
I remember some 12 years ago China was critized on human rights ground because they executed 67 drug dealers.  The attitude of the Chinese government was one of eradication through the highest applicable legal penalty.  It worked to some extent although China still has problems with drugs, like most other countries around the world.  Their tough approach would probably be acceptable to some people who see no other way out other than extermination.

In many countries drug-related offenses cause a huge drain in the economy.  In the US about 80% of the people in the corrections system were incarcerated due to drug-related offenses.  That means that about 4 million people are there due to drugs and the cost of incacerating them is huge.  It hasn't worked because drugs are still a big problem in the streets.  Here in Canada the situation is the same and drugs are everywhere.

The Netherlands legalized some of the "softer" drugs like marihuana and hashish.  It seems to have worked for them, but politically their approach would not be acceptable to other countries.

I think that it is a losing battle.  The only way it will end is when poverty is eliminated both at the source of the drugs where poor farmers plant drug crops to survive, and at the destination where demand is fuelled by poverty.  This has to be accompanied with legalization of some drugs, and stronger penalties for trafficking others.  Marihuana, hashish, and LSD are not as destructive as cocaine and the amphetamines.  I think that penalties for possession have to change depending on the drug.  We see some of this here in Canada where possession of small amounts of marihuana has become tolerated by the law.  It might not solve the marihuana problem, but it has certainly kept a lot of people out of jail and out of descending into a life of crime.

16. October 2009, 18:37:30
Ferris Bueller 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Übergeek 바둑이:   There are those of us who lobby for the legalization of such drugs in the US, but the "war on drugs" keeps it from happening despite the fact it is practical for many reasons to do so.  Medical marijuana is helpful to dying patients.  It is outrageous to put a dealer of such substances in jail for 10 years due to mandatory sentencing.  Marjuana general use could carry a huge "sin tax", like cigerettes, to pay health care which people are crying about being too expensive.  In other words, its stupid & inpractical not to legalize such dope; therefore, I agree with you strongly on this subject.

18. October 2009, 04:13:31
Czuch 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Ferris Bueller: Medical Marijuana in California is a joke...... its just an attempt to make it as legal as cigarettes, and INMHO if dying patients need it, then why not like other drugs, instead of local "dealers"??

18. October 2009, 05:03:17
Bernice 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch: best wait for (V) as he seems to know all about drugs...

as he said way back in march***I mean, I'm growing a 50/50 THC to CBD cloned plant. My standards are very high as I work for the government.***

18. October 2009, 11:41:25
Mort 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch: If you are trying to say "why not other prescription drugs".. Because they cannot make a drug like it. Most man made drugs of a heavy duty nature have serious side effects, some can even kill ya in order to try and improve your health. So many different people with different illnesses find medical marijuana 'clean' compared to man made drugs, and also helps combat side effects of man made drugs.

As one old lady over here pointed out.. when she was on man made drugs for her problems, she felt crap all the time through the side effects. A friend of hers suggested to try eating very small amounts of marijuana. She did and found it works better then expensive pharmaceutical stuff without the side effects. The amount she has to use in a making a dish is very small.

Many of our basic medicines are based on natures own brands... Aspirin for example.

19. October 2009, 04:32:20
Czuch 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
<bMost man made drugs of a heavy duty nature have serious side effects, some can even kill ya in order to try and improve your health. So many different people with different illnesses find medical marijuana 'clean' compared to man made drugs, and also helps combat side effects of man made drug



Yes, so why here, like California, do we let private people grow the stuff and sell it for prescription???

19. October 2009, 09:15:53
Mort 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch: ... why import it, if it is to be used for medical purposes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Partial_list_of_clinical_applications

19. October 2009, 16:53:52
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch:

> Yes, so why here, like California, do we let private people grow the stuff and sell it for prescription???

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are working on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) inhalers similar to the inhalers used to treat asthma. There are already THC tablets on the market. I think the unwillingness to decriminalize marihuana comes from its potential economic benefit to pharmaceutical companies. You can make a lot more money selling inhalers and tablets than you can make letting people grow a plant in their garden.

19. October 2009, 23:42:01
Czuch 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Übergeek 바둑이: Well, I dont personally believe that pot is a "soft" drug. It is addictive and does cause problems for those who use it for recreational purposes.

It does have benefits that outweigh its downside for some sick people.... but letting people grow their own or for people to be able to sell it to people with a prescription doesnt really make sense to me either?

I have read that there are some benefits to smoking it that you cannot get from taking a pill... I had not heard about the inhaler yet, maybe that gives the same benefits as smoking it does? I am not against whatever is good for medicinal purposes.... but pot is not some drug without a harmful side effect.

20. October 2009, 10:37:51
Mort 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch: With regards to Marijuana.. as far as I am aware.. there has never been a fatality related directly to it's use.

When compared to some drugs that are prescribed.. that makes it "soft". One prescribed drug is now part of a $500 million plus lawsuit over people getting diabetes from it. That same drug (and all in it's class) has side effects that can cause renal failure and as at this time.. there are no tests to see if you have that side effect or not... yet it is prescribed.

As for addiction, yes.. it can be, but then again that applies to many prescription drugs that are prescribed to which a procedure of coming off slowly has to used. Many of the side effects noted on Marijuana can be seen on prescription drugs or worse.

They did a study on harmfulness of various drugs in relation to health recently (the study included tobacco and drink) and on those grounds Marijuana is "soft". Drink and tobacco kill and yet are legal. The main concern was over the age of smoking pot. As with underage smoking and drinking it can cause problems in development of a person, yet because it is underground there is no control over underage use as there is with drink and tobacco.

21. October 2009, 03:28:28
Czuch 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
(V): With regards to Marijuana.. as far as I am aware.. there has never been a fatality related directly to it's use.



Everyone has heard this one before..... but I have read studies that show too much caution when driving impaired by pot, and that can, and has lead to other people being involved in an accident.

Also, just because one drug is "better" than some other legal one, is not a good argument for it to be legal as well, IMHO.


What is the definition os a drug anyway??? You want to say caffeine too? Is caffeine a drug?? What substance is not a drug then???

I dont mind it as a prescribed drug, I am sure it much safer than many other prescribed drugs, and others that are legal too. but I dont want you and me growing it and selling legally to someone with a prescription either.

And as dandy pointed out, prescription drugs have a warnig that they are not to be used while driving etc..... same as legal drugs IE alcohol, no drugs should be used while doing anything that can harm someone else!

21. October 2009, 03:59:06
rod03801 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch:
"Also, just because one drug is "better" than some other legal one, is not a good argument for it to be legal as well, IMHO."

If a legal drug is "worse" than an illegal one, should it be illegal? Seems kind of logical to me. But of course I see the opposite as logical as well.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as marijuana is illegal, booze should be as well.

Let the drunks get prescriptions for booze I guess.

In actuality, I fully support legalization of marijuana. With the same restrictions as alcohol. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't a test to tell if you are CURRENTLY under the influence of marijuana. I believe the only tests are if you have recently smoked it. (Which could be a week ago!)

21. October 2009, 09:24:29
Mort 
Subject: Re:Unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't a test to tell if you are CURRENTLY under the influence of marijuana.
rod03801: I'm not sure, I've heard of at least 3 testing systems. Hair, urine and one other.. and there is probably more. By the sound of things, I think they can be more accurate then a week.

21. October 2009, 06:41:45
The Col 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch: "but I have read studies that show too much caution when driving impaired by pot, and that can, and has lead to other people being involved in an accident


That has been my major complaint regarding women drivers for years............less the pot part

22. October 2009, 00:42:28
Papa Zoom 
Subject: That has been my major complaint regarding women drivers for years............less the pot part
Jim Dandy:

21. October 2009, 09:20:47
Mort 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch: It's a crime here to be under the influence of any substance while driving. Drink/drugs.. anything that impairs your ability including prescription drugs and any illness that could cause an accident.

NO actual deaths from just smoking Marijuana have ever been recorded as far as I can tell.

As to growing.. as far as I can tell, the states that allow it do so that the grower is under license. Better that then imported via drug cartels. Personally I feel it rather wrong that a drug baron gets money from medical 'pot' in the same regards I do not agree with the massive trade in prescription drugs on the internet (eg Viagra) that has sprouted.

As such there is no excuse here to have smoked and then drive. The advertising about the dangers have been going on for years in the UK.

21. October 2009, 17:59:12
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Modified by Übergeek 바둑이 (22. October 2009, 04:56:27)
Czuch:

>  I dont mind it as a prescribed drug, I am sure it much safer than many other prescribed drugs,
>  and others that are legal too. but I dont want you and me growing it and selling legally to someone
>  with a prescription either.

I think this will always be a problem with recreational drugs.  Alcohol is available to anyone over 18 (or 21, depending on where you live).  The same is true with tobacco.

I think that people should get an alcohol consumer license.  If people drink responsibly, then they have earned the right to enjoy their alcohol.  If somebody is found driving or operating machinery under the influence of alcohol, or causing a domestic disturbance, or falling into addiction (alcoholism), then they should lose their alcohol license temporarily or permanently depending on the case.  We have this with driving licenses and drunk drivers lose their licenses, but not their ability to buy alcohol.  If a person has no alcohol license, then it would be illegal for them to purchase products containing alcohol.  A similar license then could be in place for other substances, like tobacco, marihuana, etc.  Of course there would be great opposition to this from breweries, distilleries, vineyard owners, etc.  Controlling the product they sell is not in their best interest.

Marihuana as a prescription drug would probably be like other prescription drugs that are abused for reasons other than the medically prescribed reason.  A good example is insulin.  If you are a diabetic your life depends on insulin injections and proper control of dosages and timing of the injections.  This is the medically correct way to use insulin.  If you are not diabetic, does it make sense to take insulin?  Of course not, because it is dangerous and it could potentially kill you.  However, there are people who abuse insulin.  Bodybuilders inject themselves with insulin in the hopes of forcing nutrients into their muscle cells so that their muscles can grow bigger.  It is a common practice in bodybuilding and some of the people who abuse insulin this way build big muscles at the expense of serious health problems later in life.  It is not illegal to possess insulin.  I never heard of anyone going to jail for having insulin vials in their possession.

Marihuana as a prescription drug would probably be the same.  People who need to take advantage of its analgesic and atininflammatory effects will use it for medically correct reasons.  Then there will be those who will abuse it as a recreational drug.  The government can try to control the supply of any drug, but when people are determined to use and abuse a drug there is nothing the government can do, whether that drug is legal or not. 

18. October 2009, 22:34:35
MissDelish 
Subject: Re:Legalization of "softer" drugs has worked in other countries, but politically unacceptable in many places.
Czuch: Today's cannabis far stronger than in '70s, DEA says

Related
See telltale signs of homes gone to pot
Cuban pot rings: Cops call them 'organized crime at its best'
Topics
Drugs and Medicines
Orlando International Airport
Colleges and Universities
See more topics »
XNew York Times
Crimes
Columbia University
Drug Trafficking By Henry Pierson Curtis

Sentinel Staff Writer

October 18, 2009
E-mail Print Share Text Size

Grow-house raids in residential neighborhoods — happening regularly these days in Florida — often yield an illegal crop worth millions.

Super Pot.

Once a mildly inebriating plant, cannabis's potency has increased steadily since first studied by the University of Mississippi Marijuana Project in the 1970s.

Back then, the average marijuana sample contained less than 1 percent THC. That jumped to 3.2percent in 1992 and then to 8.8 percent by 2006, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

But marijuana cultivated in Florida regularly tests twice as strong as the national average, the result of years of genetic tweaking by Miami-based Cuban drug rings.

Raised in grow houses as clean as high-school science labs, the pot seized so far this year has contained 20 percent THC on average, according to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration in Miami.

"I don't know what they're teaching them in Cuba, but they know what they're doing," Polk County sheriff's Lt. Steven Ward said. "This is the best marijuana I've ever seen."

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the chemical known as THC, is what gives marijuana its high. Plants seized elsewhere in the United States contain 10 percent on average, according to the DEA.


27% THC stuns MBI
When high-tech grow houses spread from Miami to Georgia from 2005 to 2007, drug agents say, marijuana samples began breaking old standards for potency.

"Twenty-seven percent!" said Agent Billy Powell of the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation in Orlando, who seized 366 pounds of that strength pot from a grower near Orlando International Airport in 2007. "That's the highest I've ever heard of."

Pedro Tomas, the Cuban-born defendant in that case, told officers he learned how to grow marijuana by reading magazines at a local 7-Eleven store. Saying he didn't think raising pot for personal use was illegal, Tomas claimed he intended to smoke all 366 pounds himself.

"He said that with kind of a smirk on his face," Powell said.

In September, Tomas, 37, was sentenced in Orange County Court to 28 months in state prison.

Mahmoud ElSohly, a pharmacist in charge of the Marijuana Project, told The New York Times last year that illegal-pot growers have been using the same techniques to grow stronger cannabis that agronomists deploy to produce better-quality fruits, vegetables and other plants.

The Marijuana Project, a University of Mississippi research facility, is the only federally approved cannabis plantation in the U.S. Its laboratory tracks pot's chemistry and grows plants for researchers.

"They have been doing genetic selection for years," ElSohly said in December. "You can see the potency keeps going up."


Strong pot riskier?
What that means is debated endlessly.

Law enforcement and drug-treatment experts say significantly stronger pot poses known as well as suspected health dangers.

"The first thing to keep focused on is that marijuana at any potency is not a benign drug," said David Rosenbloom, president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, who compared marijuana consumption to alcohol abuse. "I'm not talking about a kid who smoked one joint and went on with his life."

Marijuana's negative side effects include anxiety, hallucinations, panic reactions and physical impairment, such as with driving a car, which likely increases at higher THC levels, he said.

"I'm saying it's probable because of there hasn't been a lot of formal research," Rosenbloom said. "There's no reason to believe there will be any difference in outcome other than intensification."

Advocates for legalizing marijuana say stronger pot reflects market demand and simply means smokers can consume less to get its euphoric kick.

"The bottom line is there's more of a connoisseur market now than in the 1970s," said Keith Stroup, founder and legal counsel of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Henry Pierson Curtis can be reached at 407-420-5257 or hcurtis@orlandosentinel.com.
Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

16. October 2009, 21:12:17
Mort 
Subject: Re:I know the ways drugs take and what they do to humans.
Übergeek 바둑이: Many here want the lower risk to health illegal drugs virtually decriminalised. Drink and cigs cost far more in terms of health risk and drains on resources. Putting someone in prison for minor things not only is an immediate waste of money and resources, but serves no good.

The big dealers.. bang em up. That or as would be more sensible with the likes of Marijuana.. make it a registered tax payable business. The Gov here already has 'farms' for 'research', and as pointed out by the boffins there.. it has many possible uses. Pain via THC, sanity via CBD (excuse if I've got my initials wrong on the second) .. Properly regulated, strains could be grown like those sold legally in California for specific problems.

.... The only problem is the pill makers... I don't think they like the idea of natural drugs replacing their multi-billion pound gravy train.

And if it was more regulated (eg police are very afraid of the consequences of a rogue batch of heroin coming in that is far better then users are use to.. people die) and grown under licence.... it cuts drug running, cuts out (in the case of bad hashish) people smoking so much junk that the big boys have mixed in to make a profit...

...and the dear old chancellor gets a nice bit of money. Plus.. as such the police then can target their time on stopping the hoodies and others who ruin actual quality of life rather than a shareholders bank account.

.. another thing.. community service, why lock up someone for a non-violent crime when they can be working off their debt by helping the community. I heard the good thing about prisons was that they gave criminals a chance to learn how to be better criminals..

... ... .. Oh sorry.. I got that wrong. I thought it was a good thing as the prison service keep making that mistake. One European country has it that non-violent offenders work during the week, go home to their families, pay from their wages compensation and goto jail at the weekend... with the tag system.. why not!!

16. October 2009, 22:43:30
Ferris Bueller 
Subject: Re:The drawbacks to jail time.
(V):  I used to work in group home for juvenile, non-violent offenders.  Often they did learn to be better criminals - "graduating" from the non-violent to the violent.  I think there needs to better options for the non-violent offender than prison time.  Probation, community service, counseling and/or house arrest come to mind.  It would not only save the money of prison time, but hinder the criminal "education" they get in our jails. 

16. October 2009, 23:44:50
Mort 
Subject: Re:The drawbacks to jail time.
Modified by Mort (16. October 2009, 23:45:31)
Ferris Bueller: The tag seems to be an effective system over here. Not perfect but it is better then locking someone up for non-violent crimes. I don't believe for major non-violent (such as a big fraud) that it should be applied but that's what minimals are for, and house arrest.. though not a luxury house.. that's insult to injury.

But at the same time.. some penance beyond locking up needs to be applied in such cases, community service tends to be very popular over here. plus an attempt to prevent by changing attitudes of small time crooks, though although not always successful.. I have seen positive results.

The alternative is that someone gets use to going to jail. It's not a prison.. just another home and 3 meals a day.

Anyway.. did you here about the court ruling over here regarding some guy who got tortured?? The Government is having to appeal against 7 paragraphs of info regarding said act being made public. The judge says it's not a security risk in that your country's intelligence service will stop working with ours.

The BNP. Who only allows indigenous caucasian people to join has to put this policy to a members vote or face prosecution under racial discrimination laws.

.... An the UN has backed a report condemning BOTH Israel and Hama's. Although we know the USA (seeing as a certain power advises the 'other' government) .. They may be held to account in the international war crimes court.
... perhaps in the long run if they both recognise as well as protecting their people they have been bad boys. there might get to be a level playing field from which this decades old mess can be sorted.

16. October 2009, 23:58:42
Ferris Bueller 
Subject: Re:The drawbacks to jail time.

(V):   What is "the tag"?


What u say about jail becoming a home happens over here also - especially w/ the homeless.  Duh


17. October 2009, 12:47:53
Mort 
Subject: Re:The drawbacks to jail time.
Ferris Bueller: The tag is an ankle bracelet tied to a home base. If you leave your home.. it goes off to alert those who monitor your probation/house arrest conditions.

as such our homeless are not jailed unless they break the law. Some people just find the jail world easier to live in then the outside world... that is disturbing.

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top