You've spent *how much*? And for what?

[draco664]

linky

Just. Fscking. Wow. That's like 1/10th of the whole US gov debt...

[AccountingDrone]

<checks> Yup, fratching.

Assholes just want to protect their income stream - marijuana is no worse than a beer and a cigarette sin-wise. There is more garbage being put out by the government about marijuana that is not upheld by various scientific studies. About all they are managing to do is pump money into the Mexican Cartels and ruin American lives by giving them a criminal record for marijuana use. The government should have learned from the last debacle that prohibition does not work. If you control it like alcohol and tobacco, we could at least stop sending so much money to Mexico, start some farming in the US and save billions of bucks not trying to arrest everybody who kicks back with a bong or brownies.

[Aethian]

Gee, why not instead of spending all that money to stop drugs let the labs out there make the damn things and then sell it in a pharmacy? The strength will always be the same and at least that money will going into our coffers then the coffers of some drug lord.

[Andara Bledin]

At this point, I have no idea why the government is so hellbent on doubling down on keeping marijuana illegal. About half of our incarcerated are there for drug use/possession. What a waste of resources.

And marijuana is notably less worse than alcohol or cigarettes. Medically, there is no reason to keep it illegal and a rather large pool of reasons to legalize it and regulate it. Economically and socially, as well.

^-.-^

[Panacea]

At this point, I have no idea why the government is so hellbent on doubling down on keeping marijuana illegal. About half of our incarcerated are there for drug use/possession. What a waste of resources.

And marijuana is notably less worse than alcohol or cigarettes. Medically, there is no reason to keep it illegal and a rather large pool of reasons to legalize it and regulate it. Economically and socially, as well.

^-.-^

Because the government does not want to admit the War on Drugs is a dismal, expensive failure.

Really want to hear something that will blow your mind?

Marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance. Schedule I means there is no accepted medical use for the drug. Other Schedule I drugs include cocaine, heroin, LSD, and methamphetamine.

There is a prescription only form of THC (the active ingredient that gets you high) called Marinol. It's been around for years: it was originally developed as an appetite enhancer for cancer and HIV patients because it controls nausea so well.

So, if there is no accepted medical use for marijuana, one might ask, why is there a legal pharmaceutical version of it?

Beats the hell out of me. But I do know this. A very close friend of mine suffers from terrible fibromyalgia as a result of her military service. She had heard pot was effective for fibro pain, and wanted to try it when she went to Spain last summer. I was hesitant to encourage this; smoking marijuana is not risk free (basically, same risks as smoking tobacco), and neither is getting it here in the US.

But she tried it and she said it worked. She had a friend who could hook her up, but she was worried about the message she'd be sending her kids about drug use. That's when I remembered Marinol. So I suggested it to her; I thought her doctor (who happens to be my doctor and who happens to be totally awesome) might just give it to her. He did. She's tried it and says it works great for her, and doesn't make her as loopy as pot did so she likes it better.

No medical use my ass.

Oh, and did you see I mentioned cocaine on the list? Well, cocaine is still extensively used in ophthalmology as an anesthetic, and in ENT to stop nosebleeds (it's a vasoconstrictor). It's also used as a local prior to giving kids stitches--I've administered this many times.

No medical use my ass.

The feds just need to STFU and let the medical profession decide what constitutes acceptable medical use, and not the DEA.

/rant

[Jester]

I personally hate cocaine. I've never tried it, but I've seen what it does to people, and can't stand being around it or around people who are doing it. That is a whole separate rant. But the reason I bring it up is that I think that all drugs should be legalized and decrmininalized, not just marijuana, but ALL drugs. Including cocaine. And heroine. And LSD. And on and on.

Legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it.

Alcohol, which has ruined more lives and caused more deaths in the United States than all other drugs combined, is legal. And the government doesn't spend billions of dollars fighting its sale or use, but actually makes millions (perhaps billions) of dollars from it via taxes on it.

And....I just checked. As of a couple of years ago, the federal and state governments combined made approximately $5.6 billion from alcohol tax revenues.

Just think what a financial windfall it would be to decriminalize drugs and treat them the same as alcohol: regulated and taxed.

Billions made in tax revenue from legal sales.
Billions NOT spent on a ridiculous and clearly ineffective War on Drugs.
Billions NOT made by organized crime and gangs on the illegal drug trade.
Millions of lives saved by drugs being regulated and safer. (Not safe...safer. Just as alcohol has its risks, so do drugs, and that would not end if they were legal.)
Thousands of lives not ended by gang warfare over the drug trade.
The power of the Mexican, Colombian, and other drug cartels wiped away with the legalization of their product.

Will there still be illegal use? Of course. Will there still be overdoses and deaths? Absolutely. Will both of those drop faster than Felix Baumgartner? You better believe it!

I don't use drugs, and in actuality, my favorite drug is the only legal one: booze. But the social and financial impact that decrminalizing, legalizing, regulating, and taxing drugs would have on this country is staggering.

Naturally, it won't happen. After all, as we all know, "if it makes sense, it is not allowed."

[KabeRinnaul]

At this point, I have no idea why the government is so hellbent on doubling down on keeping marijuana illegal.

Politics.

Because like Panacea said, they'd have to admit that they were wrong about it. And you may notice how frequently American politicians admit they were wrong (excluding cases where they've been caught red-handed doing something immoral or illegal, and "I admit I was wrong" becomes a standard part of PR damage control).

Next, there's the fact that "tough on crime" is one of the cheapest ways to score points with voters (particularly the elderly and conservative), and the easiest way to be "tough on crime" is to push for draconian drug laws.

And the flip side of that one is the fact that all it takes is admitting that a drug maybe shouldn't be criminal, even once, and you have your opponent declaring you a drug czar who wants to personally feed meth to all the babies in the country.

Then there's our stupid chicken-and-egg logic of "it's illegal because it's dangerous, and it must be dangerous or else it wouldn't be illegal." My mother is fond of that one.

And finally, while the war on drugs is costing us absurd amounts of money, most of that goes to law enforcement and, especially, the prison industry. Neither are groups politicians generally want to offend.

[SongsOfDragons]

In the UK hospitals use heroin in the form of\under the name of Diamorphine as a painkiller. I read an article aimed at epileptic mothers-to-be that suggested its use during labour than anything else because of the seizure risk.

(I can post the article when I get back to a computer. I'm sure that's what it said...)

[Panacea]

In the UK hospitals use heroin in the form of\under the name of Diamorphine as a painkiller. I read an article aimed at epileptic mothers-to-be that suggested its use during labour than anything else because of the seizure risk.

(I can post the article when I get back to a computer. I'm sure that's what it said...)

Please do, I'd like to read it. Diamorphine is a variation of heroin's chemical name, and the name its prescribed under in the UK. While it is a Central Nervous System (CNS) depressant, I've never heard that it raises the seizure thresh hold.

[SongsOfDragons]

Home now!!

Here's the article. http://www.hutchon.net/NFMMSIG/epilepsy.htm

I've no idea how good it is, or if I'm reading it properly. Please correct me if I'm not.

I like to know about my medical condition so I read about it a lot; also I'm on sodium valproate and I want to get the hell off it before I even think about conceiving, though this article lessened my fears slightly.

[Greenday]

You know, I think drugs are dumb and becoming a druggie is pathetic, but Jesus Christ what a waste of money. At some point, the government needs to realize that money doesn't solve everything.

[Andara Bledin]

Pst: Just a note: As Jester said, alcohol is a drug. So, do you think that everybody who drinks is "pathetic?" How about cigarette smokers? Nicotine is a drug, too. Or, better yet, how about the most-common drug that people take regularly and joke about not being without - caffeine. I'm enjoying a nice chilled can of my favorite caffeine delivery system right now. So, do you really think that every single person who drinks coffee and soda is "pathetic?"

Or do you just have an unrealistically narrow definition of "drugs" crafted by the government that only actually means "the drugs we say are no good because we're saving face, and somebody's making money keeping them illegal."

^-.-^

[Greenday]

I think people who are dependent on drugs (Whether it be weed, coke, heroin, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine) are pathetic, yes.

I don't hold it against people a beer here, a cup of coffee there, partying once in a while. But when you can't function without it, come on man.

[Jester]

I agree with Greenday. And I'm a drunk! But when it gets to the point of you not being able to function, to get through your everyday life, without your drug of choice, you are addicted. This goes for all drugs, from minor ones to major ones, however you may describe them.

I have witnessed, for example, coworkers who "had" to take a smoke break even while we were busy, leaving me behind the bar alone when it was clearly a two person job. But do I get to have a "beer break"? No, of course not. And even were I allowed to do so, I would never do so while in the middle of a rush.

There's a difference between ENJOYING a drug, and DEPENDING on it.

I generally only drink alcohol, but I have tried other, less legal, "recreational" drugs. I enjoyed some, some not so much. But I had my fun, and I moved on.

Period.

And there are plenty of people who could do just that with legalized, decriminalized, regulated, and taxed drugs. Plenty of people smoke marijuana and don't get addicted. Ditto for drugs such as LSD, cocaine, etc. Are there highly addictive drugs out there? Sure. And while I think all drugs should be legalized, I can understand why some would not be.

But spending trillions of dollars in a losing battle that is having virtually no effect is fiscally stupid. And we proved 90 years ago that prohibition doesn't work. Isn't it time to stop locking people up for smoking a joint?

Now, if you'll pardon me, I am going to go have another beer, and thus enjoy the most dangerous drug, statistically speaking, in America: alcohol.

EDITED TO ADD: I was wrong. Alcohol is actually the second most dangerous drug, statistically speaking. Tobacco is far more dangerous, killing far more people each year, even than alcohol. And alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined. So, yeah, the two most dangerous drugs are legal. And yet we wage war against the others. Which begs the question: WHY?

[Panacea]

I think people who are dependent on drugs (Whether it be weed, coke, heroin, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine) are pathetic, yes.

I don't hold it against people a beer here, a cup of coffee there, partying once in a while. But when you can't function without it, come on man.

Addiction is a disease. Whether it be drugs, nicotine, or alcohol--these substances literally change the chemical functioning of your body to the point where you can't function without them, even while they continue to poison you.

In the case of some drugs, to suddenly stop taking them is literally life threatening: alcohol withdrawal and opiate withdrawal in particular. The symptoms are spectacularly dramatic, dangerous, and painful for the addict.

The correct approach to addiction is treatment. In some cases, prolonged in patient care (which is difficult to get as it is very expensive), followed up by even longer outpatient therapy.

The worst addiction problems we have today are not with pot, alcohol, or illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or meth. It is with prescription drug abuse: Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, oxycontin, Vicodin, and Percocet among others.

I have witnessed, for example, coworkers who "had" to take a smoke break even while we were busy, leaving me behind the bar alone when it was clearly a two person job.

I've had to deal with this as well. There's nothing worse than dealing with the typical evening ER rush, and doing it short handed because half your co workers are in the ambulance bay taking a "breathing treatment."

There's a difference between ENJOYING a drug, and DEPENDING on it.

I generally only drink alcohol, but I have tried other, less legal, "recreational" drugs. I enjoyed some, some not so much. But I had my fun, and I moved on.

I agree; there is a big difference. I have no issue with recreational drug use of any kind so long as the person is not driving or otherwise engaging in behaviors that might hurt others.

Though I don't see the appeal of it myself. I loathe taking prescription narcotics even when I have legitimate pain. I don't like the buzz it gives me; it makes me feel like I'm not in control, and I'm a bit of a control freak. Ditto with alcohol--though I enjoy drinking some types (usually beer) for the taste.

And there are plenty of people who could do just that with legalized, decriminalized, regulated, and taxed drugs. Plenty of people smoke marijuana and don't get addicted. Ditto for drugs such as LSD, cocaine, etc. Are there highly addictive drugs out there? Sure. And while I think all drugs should be legalized, I can understand why some would not be.

I don't think the government should be deciding for us what we put in our bodies. Regulate and tax, yes. Banning doesn't work and we should not try. And there are enough legit medical uses that we can't even investigate properly because of the restrictions of the Schedule I classification. LSD has promise in the treatment of mental illness, but we can't research it because it is Schedule one. Ditto for pot.

There is evidence that pot use in teens can cause harm to brain development. But after the brain finishes developing at around age 21, this is not a problem and I see no reason why people should not use it if they so choose: it is actually safer than alcohol. Users stay home, are mellow, don't fight, and bother no one.

But spending trillions of dollars in a losing battle that is having virtually no effect is fiscally stupid. And we proved 90 years ago that prohibition doesn't work. Isn't it time to stop locking people up for smoking a joint?

90% of the people we lock up are locked up for drug related offenses. If we legalized most drugs, we could stop turning people into career criminals, add vastly to the tax base, and stop pouring money down the drain enforcing unenforceable laws.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I am going to go have another beer, and thus enjoy the most dangerous drug, statistically speaking, in America: alcohol.

Cheers!