Derail from GRD : pros and cons on the legalization of drugs

[J842P]

As as someone who used a lot of drugs as a kid I feel that I should share that alcohol was much harder to obtain than marijuana. Marijuana was pretty much everywhere and easily available by the time I was in 8th grade. Cocaine was likewise fairly easy to obtain by the time I was around 15 or 16, and the same applied to heroin by the time I was 17, although, I didn't really dabble in those two very much, but they were available.

I'm lucky I don't really have an addictive personality, and that my inclination was for psychedelic hallucinogenic drugs rather than for uppers and downers, which tend to be more addictive and dangerous.

I must say, alcohol is probably one of the most dangerous drugs in my own experience, and the only drug that made me put my life in danger multiple times. I have tried every major type of drug that gets asked about in those surveys they give to college students at least once. I have been around serious abusers of many different kinds of drugs, and still, I find that drunks are some of the most dangerous creatures out there, to themselves and to others around them.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But we don't require prescriptions for recreational use of alcohol or tobacco. That's kinda why it's called 'recreational.' It's not to fill a medical need.
No one here but you is talking about selling recreational drugs to children.

How about, you identify one product that you think is controlled in the manner you'd like to see pot controlled. Rather than throwing around terms that you seem to have an idiomatic usage for.

My question to you is would you make drugs available to children?

I think several in this thread have made it clear that NO ONE is talking about making 'drugs' available to children. 'Cept you.

If not, what restrictions would you liker to see?

I'm still trying to figure out the restrictions you're suggesting. You're not advancing prohibition, but you keep using terms that are not preventing kids from getting their hands on the stuff.
My kid comes home from college and talks about what others on his dorm floor did with alcohol, pot, LSD, their mom's prescriptions, bongs and cigarettes.
What model would you use?

- - - Updated - - -

My question to you is would you make drugs available to children?

Is there anyone in favour of legalization who is in favour of that? If so, who?

I'm sure Self-Mutation's The Atheist would have been.
Oh, and his cancer researchers! Party FREAKS, those guys.

"I think several in this thread have made it clear that NO ONE is talking about making 'drugs' available to children. 'Cept you. ".

Then perhaps you guys should let your social consciousness and your brains kick in.

One would have to be a total fool if he thought that children and their drinking was not facilitated when alcohol prohibition was repealed. Parents have a right to try to prohibit what their children have access to and legalization of pot should happen but we adults have yet to learn how to use intelligent use of freedom of choice as articulated by the Canadian Royal Commission on psychotropic drugs.

If Canadians are not ready, American certainly are not.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

As as someone who used a lot of drugs as a kid I feel that I should share that alcohol was much harder to obtain than marijuana. Marijuana was pretty much everywhere and easily available by the time I was in 8th grade. Cocaine was likewise fairly easy to obtain by the time I was around 15 or 16, and the same applied to heroin by the time I was 17, although, I didn't really dabble in those two very much, but they were available.

I'm lucky I don't really have an addictive personality, and that my inclination was for psychedelic hallucinogenic drugs rather than for uppers and downers, which tend to be more addictive and dangerous.

I must say, alcohol is probably one of the most dangerous drugs in my own experience, and the only drug that made me put my life in danger multiple times. I have tried every major type of drug that gets asked about in those surveys they give to college students at least once. I have been around serious abusers of many different kinds of drugs, and still, I find that drunks are some of the most dangerous creatures out there, to themselves and to others around them.

I hear you on alcohol. It too should be on a prescription restriction so that dad can know how much junior is partying.

If fathers care that is. It seems that when thinking of drugs, adults only think of themselves and not the greater common.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

"I think several in this thread have made it clear that NO ONE is talking about making 'drugs' available to children. 'Cept you. ".

Then perhaps you guys should let your social consciousness and your brains kick in.

One would have to be a total fool if he thought that children and their drinking was not facilitated when alcohol prohibition was repealed.

Okay.... And this is helped by your model....how?

Parents have a right to try to prohibit what their children have access to

But why is it the state's responsibility to make sure one parent's prohibition extends to everyone?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I hear you on alcohol. It too should be on a prescription restriction so that dad can know how much junior is partying.

Okay, so you apparently acknowledge that putting drugs on a prescription schedule does not prevent kids from getting ahold of them.
Like the other prescription drugs already out there.
So why bother to prescribe them?
What does it do for us?

If fathers care that is. It seems that when thinking of drugs, adults only think of themselves and not the greater common.

Sooooooo..... NO gains?
Then why the fuck make it more difficult for adults to get the stuff, if it doesn't protect the kids?

Can you explain, really, rather than just snide at other posters?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Okay.... And this is helped by your model....how?

Parents have a right to try to prohibit what their children have access to

But why is it the state's responsibility to make sure one parent's prohibition extends to everyone?

What prohibition for parents. None that I put up. Control is not prohibition. It is monitoring for harm.

Why is it the states responsibility to monitor or supply drugs like alcohol and pot while all other psychotropic drugs are under medical control?

Does the government care how much you intoxicate yourself?
No they do not. Your doctor does.

Do governments care if your kids intoxicate themselves?
No. You as a parent are supposed to care. And facilitating uncontrolled access is not the way for parents to do their job better.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Okay, so you apparently acknowledge that putting drugs on a prescription schedule does not prevent kids from getting ahold of them.
Like the other prescription drugs already out there.
So why bother to prescribe them?
What does it do for us?

If fathers care that is. It seems that when thinking of drugs, adults only think of themselves and not the greater common.

Sooooooo..... NO gains?
Then why the fuck make it more difficult for adults to get the stuff, if it doesn't protect the kids?

Can you explain, really, rather than just snide at other posters?

It would protect and train the children.

The more an adult has to use intelligent use of freedom of choice, the more he will pass that thinking down to his child.

What do you have against having people know how much of their drugs and alcohol is being pilfered by their children?

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

It would protect and train the children.

The more an adult has to use intelligent use of freedom of choice, the more he will pass that thinking down to his child.

That doesn't appear to work with drugs that are currently limited to prescriptions. Why would that suddenly work for recreational prescriptions?

What do you have against having people know how much of their drugs and alcohol is being pilfered by their children?

I have nothing against their knowing, per se. I'm asking why it's something the state has to legislate, esp. as it does not stop the pilferage in the first place.
And clearly, it doesn't stop prescribed drugs from being sold. So what's the benefit?
Why add pot to the pharmacist's work load? Why should i pay a doctor to get a prescription for pot, in addition to the cost of the pot?
Why confuse my insurance company, when they can't just say they'll pay X% of my prescription costs, now they'll have ACTUAL FOR REAL medical prescriptions, with X%, and prescription benefit fraud with people trying to use their HSA to buy their recreational prescriptions?

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions and not really conveying what the fuck you're trying to do.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That doesn't appear to work with drugs that are currently limited to prescriptions. Why would that suddenly work for recreational prescriptions?

It does work if parents want it to work as they know how long their prescriptions usually last.
Add psychotropic drugs to the parents list and those who care enough will make it work man for those who do not care, their doctor will as he will ask why their consumption has gone up.

What do you have against having people know how much of their drugs and alcohol is being pilfered by their children?

I have nothing against their knowing, per se. I'm asking why it's something the state has to legislate, esp. as it does not stop the pilferage in the first place.

Who but the state can legislate it. They control the sales?

And clearly, it doesn't stop prescribed drugs from being sold. So what's the benefit?

Knowing what your children are doing to a higher degree is the benefit and who wants to stop prescribed drugs from being sold? Not I.

Why add pot to the pharmacist's work load? Why should i pay a doctor to get a prescription for pot, in addition to the cost of the pot?

Whoever delivers the product will get paid so your question has no relevance but since they can be harmful, it makes sense that doctors would be monitoring use.

Why confuse my insurance company, when they can't just say they'll pay X% of my prescription costs, now they'll have ACTUAL FOR REAL medical prescriptions, with X%, and prescription benefit fraud with people trying to use their HSA to buy their recreational prescriptions?

No relevance. They would not be paying for these types of drugs. Do they pay for your booze?

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions and not really conveying what the fuck you're trying to do.

I assume nothing and have read many learned reports on this issue.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

I assume nothing and have read many learned reports on this issue.

Whee dogs.
But have you learned anything from these learned reports?

You still haven't explained how prescription pot protects kids from illegal pot.
I mean, they HAVE pot, pot they're not supposed to have.
If we make it difficult for adults to get recreational pot, kids will just use the same channels for their pot.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I assume nothing and have read many learned reports on this issue.

Whee dogs.
But have you learned anything from these learned reports?

You still haven't explained how prescription pot protects kids from illegal pot.
I mean, they HAVE pot, pot they're not supposed to have.
If we make it difficult for adults to get recreational pot, kids will just use the same channels for their pot.

Who is making it difficult for adults to get recreational pot? A prescription system is not difficult at all.

But to your main question.
What do you think will happen to the pot black market that kids use toady over time?
History says that it will be greatly reduced and of the authorities do not have to waste resources on those who use legal supplies, they can concentrate more on the protection of our children. Bonus. Right?

Do you see many bootleggers or moonshiners around as compared to the days of prohibition?
NO you do not.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Who is making it difficult for adults to get recreational pot? A prescription system is not difficult at all.

I can pick up recreational liquor any place that sells it. I don't need to make a doctor's appt. in order to get a beer prescription.
I can buy alcohol in any state during vacation, without having to have my prescription registered with a national chain, and without having to get a local prescription.
You're definitely making it more difficult to purchase drugs if you're having them prescribed. Plus, the doc is going to charge you for the prescription.

But to your main question.
What do you think

Sweet chili sauce, could you possibly actually answer the question rather than offer a leading question back? I've been asking for specificity, not allusions.

will happen to the pot black market that kids use toady over time?

Not much, as long as there's still a demand for it.

History says that it will be greatly reduced and of the authorities do not have to waste resources on those who use legal supplies, they can concentrate more on the protection of our children. Bonus. Right?

No. Because now the state will have to be chasing prescription fraud, prescription abuse, and people who would rather buy local than go through a drugstore.

Do you see many bootleggers or moonshiners around as compared to the days of prohibition?
NO you do not.

Yes, i do see many moonshiners around. My first weps serves his brother's moonshine every thanksgiving.
Moonshiners still exist, and they produce as much as the market will bear. Not AS MANY as there were during prohibition, but that's still not an accurate comparison.
Prohibition was all or nothing.

Rather, check the quantities of prescription drugs on the street and figure that as long as kids will want prescription pot, there will be a market developed to provide it.

It won't help enforcement, it won't put it out of reach, it'll aggravate people who think it should be available over the counter, like all other recreational intoxicants, with no more than proof of age.

It ain't going to accomplish shit, except continue to burden the state with new rules that need to be enforced.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Now you are just into B.S.

See you on the next issue.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now you are just into B.S.

So if you disagree, it's bullshit.
Gotcha.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Now you are just into B.S.

So if you disagree, it's bullshit.
Gotcha.

No. B.S. is B. S. whether I agree with it or not.

Regards
DL

 

[Perspicuo]

Please understand that Portuguese style decriminalization of cannabis is not full legalization.

Heavy drugs should always remain controlled substances. Even the not-so-heavy ones should be monitored for children by their parents and caretakers. And for the rest of us, we're not children, we should be left to decide for ourselves, the government and society at large informing us about them.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Please understand that Portuguese style decriminalization of cannabis is not full legalization.

Heavy drugs should always remain controlled substances. Even the not-so-heavy ones should be monitored for children by their parents and caretakers. And for the rest of us, we're not children, we should be left to decide for ourselves, the government and society at large informing us about them.

We may be close in thinking.

Do you mean monitored as in monitoring the sales through a prescription type of system that tracts quantity bought?

Regards
DL

 

[Sabine Grant]

TFT Moderation Team.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I assume nothing and have read many learned reports on this issue.

Whee dogs.
But have you learned anything from these learned reports?

You still haven't explained how prescription pot protects kids from illegal pot.
I mean, they HAVE pot, pot they're not supposed to have.
If we make it difficult for adults to get recreational pot, kids will just use the same channels for their pot.

7/11 checks IDs, the local pusher does not.


Beyond that, I disagree with the notion of pot as a gateway drug. The real gateway drug is tobacco.

Furthermore, the illegality of drugs ruins lives, both through the illegal nature and through the impurities and varying potency.

Legalization is no panacea, it's just far less harmful than the current system. Personally I support a mixed system:

The drugs which are primarily recreational would be treated much like tobacco is today. I would like to see a bit more restriction: I would prohibit ads beyond product/price listings at any location other than inside one devoted to selling that drug. I would also require that drugs be sold alone. This would not prohibit a store from selling more than one drug, it would just have to separate them. Pot on aisle 1, mushrooms on aisle 2 and so on--and the aisles do not connect other than at the front of the store. Nobody is going to go past a drug they don't choose to go past (I'm thinking of Food 4 Less where you *HAVE* to pass through the produce section no matter what your objective.) Note that I would apply these same rules to both tobacco and alcohol.


The drugs which are primarily addictive would be available only by prescription, but addiction would explicitly be stated as an appropriate reason to prescribe the drug, docs are expected to write for addicts even if the dose is risky (and they would be shielded from liability in writing such scripts.) The idea is not to make the stuff hard to get, it's to destroy the street market. If anyone can go to their doc (or even another doc) to get a heroin prescription the pusher can't make a business out of it--and thus you have no pushers trying to get new customers. (England used to use this approach--and it worked very well. Virtually no new addicts other than those who got hooked while out of the country.)

 

[bleubird]

Is this another English is my second language thread?