War On Drugs Is STUPID!!!

[Nyoibo]

Cannabis is hardly the same thing as nicotine. Nicotine doesn't make one high like pot does. Not even remotely close.

True, but it is both a stimulant and relaxant and can cause a euphoria like state, it's a mind altering chemical, it just happens to be government regulated.

[Gravekeeper]

Sorry if I don't see how locking people up for making poor choices is helping anyone. Heck, giving them a criminal record makes it even harder for them to land a job and will most likely encourage them to continue taking drugs.

It's not the poor choice so much as the poor choices made while on the poor choice that are the problem. Yes, the crime and punishment aspect of it in the US is totally fucked up and out of proportion. But people tend to get caught with drugs while doing something else that brings said attention onto themselves.

Like being ass naked on the side of the road humping a traffic cone.

[Rapscallion]

Hey, the cone was quite willing at the time!

Rapscallion

[Racket_Man]

I'm pretty sure that's why marijuana became illegal in the first place. One of the big newspaper moguls (William Randolph Hearst maybe? I need to research it again to be sure) was afraid that hemp would take over and cut into his profits or something, and so he helped back the Marijuana Tax Act. Its criminalization had nothing to do with health concerns and everything to do with politics. What else is new?

that is only a part of the reason for MJ being banned.

Mostly it started in the US Southwest. mostly it was uptight white people aledging that "those dirty Mexicans" were getting high on reefer and raping white women (seems to be a familiar reoccuring theme with non whites).


Remember the film Reefer Madness???? and all of its inaccuracies????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_h..._United_States

One source of tensions in the western and southwestern states was the influx of Mexicans to America. Many Mexicans also smoked marijuana to relax after working in the fields.[16] Later in that decade negative tensions grew between the small farms and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Shortly afterwards the Great Depression came which increased tensions as jobs and resources became more scarce. Because of that, the passage of the initial laws is often described as a product of racism, yet use of hashish by near eastern immigrants were also cited, as well as the misuse of pharmaceutical hemp, and the laws conformed with other legislation that was being passed around the country. Mexico itself had passed prohibition in 1925, following the International Opium Convention (see below).[17]

[Rageaholic]

It's not the poor choice so much as the poor choices made while on the poor choice that are the problem. Yes, the crime and punishment aspect of it in the US is totally fucked up and out of proportion. But people tend to get caught with drugs while doing something else that brings said attention onto themselves.

Like being ass naked on the side of the road humping a traffic cone.

Not everyone though. Cops will stop people if they merely suspect they're doing drugs. Even if you're clean, they'll still give you a hard time. And if you have drugs on you, it's off to jail you go. Why even make it a criminal thing? We have laws against the stupid stuff that people do while drugs.

And it's not just drugs, I know someone who got harassed and searched by cops while walking home one night It turns out he had beer in his backpack. Since he was underage (By only one year!), they put him in jail, charged 300 dollar bond, and how he has to appear in court. Why? Because of some stupid "protect the children" law. Yes, protect the children by locking them up if they make dumb choices! That makes perfect sense!

[Seifer]

We actually discussed this in one of my college courses. The War on Drugs has gotten so big that trying to end it will cost thousands of people their jobs and end a HUGE revenue stream for state and federal governments. They'd have to slowly change the laws to become more tolerant of (safe) drug use - i.e., drug use that doesn't affect anyone but the user. (It's the same as the laws that say you can't drive while under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol itself is legal, but you can only consume it under certain circumstances.)

[Andara Bledin]

Sure, there's a revenue stream involved in fines, but how much of that goes right back out the other side taking care of incarcerating people and paying all those thousands of salaries?

Plus, how much revenue could be generated in taxes and regulatory fees?

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Not everyone though. Cops will stop people if they merely suspect they're doing drugs. Even if you're clean, they'll still give you a hard time. And if you have drugs on you, it's off to jail you go. Why even make it a criminal thing? We have laws against the stupid stuff that people do while drugs.

That's where the problem with the US system lays. Possession and traffiking charges. An arbitratory limit on how much you can have on you before you're upgraded from dopehead to drug pusher and get locked up for 20 years.

Up here, getting caught with a small amount is a fine and many cops find it rather annoying to have to deal with just writing up people for being stupid. But in the US, the justice system is very much PUNISH. EVERYONE. So cops seem to go out of their way to nail you as hard and as often as possible.

Here in BC, beat cops will walk right through a cloud of marijuana smoke, shrug and keep on walking. They don't care unless you have a grow op. -.-

And it's not just drugs, I know someone who got harassed and searched by cops while walking home one night It turns out he had beer in his backpack. Since he was underage (By only one year!), they put him in jail, charged 300 dollar bond, and how he has to appear in court. Why? Because of some stupid "protect the children" law. Yes, protect the children by locking them up if they make dumb choices! That makes perfect sense!

What law specifically? I'm hoping you're not calling drinking age minimum's "stupid protect the children" laws. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

What law specifically? I'm hoping you're not calling drinking age minimum's "stupid protect the children" laws. -.-

There are a lot of stupid "OMG! Think of the children!" laws on the books regarding drinking. The 21 age limit can be considered part of that, depending on how you feel about alcohol.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

There are a lot of stupid "OMG! Think of the children!" laws on the books regarding drinking. The 21 age limit can be considered part of that, depending on how you feel about alcohol.

Well, seeing as underage drinking can mentally and physically fuck up a younger person, I'm perfectly okay with the think of the children age limits. Hence I was wondering if there was some additional law being referred too.

[Andara Bledin]

Other cultures have different and more relaxed age-related drinking laws and have a healthier culture as relates to underage drinking, so I suspect that the limit in the US is based mostly on bullshit.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Amen to that. I've always felt that if you're old enough to vote, drive, serve in the military or buy a gun, you are old enough to drink. Minimum age of 21 seems unnecessarily high - and, seriously: who actually observes that?

In Germany, minimum age to buy alcohol is 16 for beer, wine and similar; 18 for hard liquor. However, no parent is (AFAIK) ever been fined or arrested for giving their 15-year-old a glass of beer for his birthday, or letting their 17-year-old drink a shot with them. As long as the parents handle alcohol responsibly with regards to their children, the police stays out of their business. As they should.

Yes, of course, there is underage drinking. And yes, sometimes it's a problem. But from what I've read from the US, a higher minimum age doesn't prevent that, either.

[Racket_Man]

I remember how harsh the drug sentensings laws used to be.

A guy in Missouri in the 1970's was jailed for 8 years for possessing ONE MJ joint.

[Gravekeeper]

Other cultures have different and more relaxed age-related drinking laws and have a healthier culture as relates to underage drinking, so I suspect that the limit in the US is based mostly on bullshit.

Um, no. Countries with lower drinking ages have worse problems with underage drinking and underage binge drinking. And there's a massive wealth of problems with underage drinking ranging from physiological damage to long term health risks that stick with you for life to the obvious increased risk of dangerous behaviour and being a victim of various delightful crimes. Such as good ol' rape.

Even in the US, the problem became considerably better in states where the age limit was raised to 21. It sharply reduced incidents of underage drunk driving.

So no, its not bullshit at all, quite the opposite. =p

Amen to that. I've always felt that if you're old enough to vote, drive, serve in the military or buy a gun, you are old enough to drink. Minimum age of 21 seems unnecessarily high - and, seriously: who actually observes that?

There are very real health issues and effects regarding alcohol consumption and age. Specifically its affect on a developing body and mind. Its not a matter of just being "mature enough".

[Canarr]

There are very real health issues and effects regarding alcohol consumption and age. Specifically its affect on a developing body and mind. Its not a matter of just being "mature enough".

Do you have any sources to back that up? Specifically on the difference between 18 and 21?