Day of the Rope -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rayRKcErb2A

Craig .. So cocaine used to be in over the counter items. I am still trying to figure out why someone should die for using a substance, for what freakin reason. The worst drugs are prescription drugs being pushed as a "solution" .. look at prozac .. look at all the crazys who shot people when they were on legal big Pharma drugs ... In a free society i shoul dbe able to use any drug

Blade: DDT used to be legal too, as are other chemicals that created babies with three eyes and gills!
Big Pharma is a part of the issue here as well- they will want to make a buck.
As to your statement you should be able to use any drug in a free society: You can, but it doesn't mean it should be legal to smoke Ajax kitchen cleanser, bath salts, or inject tree sap.
But if you want to break the law and do so- have at it. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time, or price of the choices you make.

So when I ingest drugs who i am hurting .. I trying to figure out WTF DDT has to do with it .. SO why the Frick do you care if i smoke Ajax or do F'in anything if it doesn't hurt you .. oh thats right you like to control people and tell them what to do ... Break the Law now thats freakin funny .. the Law is BS .. it used to be against the law to drink ... we are talking about changing the law if you couldn't figure that out

Bladerunner: Go back on your Haldol, the risks to your life are well worth the benefit to the rest of society!

@Craig You are a Genius --- Let's KILL 5000 people so they don't die from a drug overdose ----- well we are at it, if you blow over a .12 on alcohol, just have the officer put a warning shot to the driver's head !!!

David: What part of the greater good don't you understand? Yes it is 5,000 lives, but those deaths could save a hundred thousand lives.
If the US was invaded by another Country, we would certainly lose some soldiers fighting a war to defend our freedom. But this is for the greater good. Sure the loss of life is terrible, but it pales in comparison to the entire population being at risk.
Druggies put all of our lives at risk everyday, desperate for a fix they will kill for a dollar. Tainting the supply would lead to natural selection or abstaining from such activity, how is that bad for any of us?
Obviously the war on drugs doesn't work, so it is time to try another approach.

Craig, I think you are way off with this idea. It was interesting to evaluate, but it would be a bad idea for several reasons. Do you have a way of just killing hard core druggies, or would the casual user be at risk, yours or my family or neighbors? All drugs or just the bad ones? Is fast food the next substance? The White House may actually like this one, kinda like giving guns to drug cartels to end drug related violence.

Greg: Something different has to be done considering what hasn't worked so far. My idea is not to kill off all drug users, but sacrafice a few in order to scare the rest straight. It may be cold hearted to those who are lost, but how many times do you hear of a kid 'experimenting' and having an accidental death due to overdose? Or the kid who tried it once and became an addict, only to kill someone for a few bucks to get another hit?
All options are less than perfect, but the current system sucks most.
I would hate to be the person of authority to approve my plan, regardless if it worked or not.

Face it, the "war on drugs" has always been a joke, nothing but a political tool. Have we used agent orange on the poppy fields of Afghanistan? Napalmed the coca fields of Columbia? Sniped drug mules? or made any Real effort? The answer is, no. In politics, talk is cheap.

@Craig --- you are right the War on Drugs is not working --- prohibition didn't work -- let's do the same thing they did with Prohibition LEGALIZE IT --- they didn't put out poisoned alcohol for the "greater good" ------- they saw how many people were being killed in order to fill a demand from the public, and said it wasn't worth the extra loss of lives.

But I am glad to hear that you are so in tune with sacrifice for the greater good.

Be a Hero and contact drug companies (you may have to go overseas for this) and let them test out drugs on you instead of on mice or rats or dogs. Yeah --- good chance you will die -- but the results will be known much more quickly than the old mice-rat-dog routine about how it affects a human being --- and if you die "for the greater good" I for one will nominate you for a gold star.

Whatsamatta David, not selling any real estate lately?

Re: poisoning drug users:
Quite aside from the moral aspects, it's been tried under similar circumstances and didn't work then. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html

(Apologies if someone has already pointed this out, but I didn't feel like scrolling through all 200 comments to see if they had.)

Good info Andy, some here have contradicted that article. But This is 2012, we have media coverage on major news instantly. Social media also is now available. ONE day of death reports would stop the recreational user. Several days would inspire addicts to seek help for the last time. Those who don't care and continue using- would make the news reports. Everyone wins.

@Jim Brittain...You again prove that you're not the brightest bulb. I worked with addicts for many years and I know better than you the problems that addiction causes. It's an American tragedy. By continuing the illegal drug business, it actually hurts the nation. Addicts are people with a disease. Why not do something that has proven effective.

Yes I see that you have had quite an illustrative litany of many failed careers Mr Ruble, does that make you an expert on the effects of meth and crack since you are a failed psychotherapist as well? Hardly. How many drug addicts are sleeping your spare couch tonight? Thats right, there is no PROFIT in doing it for free.

@Jim Brittain...You certainly have a rich fantasy life, but that appears to be the only life you have. Why don't you through up your CV and your resume and let's have a look. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

No reason to show me your CV, it is a sad tale of failure for all of the world to see.

@Jim -

There's no need to attack Lyle personally, is there?

At least Lyle is putting forth solutions, and for this effort, I give him a lot of credit and respect. Let's try to focus the discussion to the merits of Lyle's ideas and/or the broader issues presented by them instead of degrading the conversation into meaningless and petty personal attacks, shall we?

Meth is against the law now Jim ... So obviously that doesn't work .. Hey posion is legal to buy now Jim .. You can't pass laws to stop stupid people .. so people better wake the Frick up and take care of themselves .. morons like you probably want to pass laws to force people to eat vegetables

I don't know - Craig does make an excellent point. New addicts are more likely to come from old addicts, as opposed to a straight and narrow family. Yes, there are always the exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, personal use encourages use by your offspring.

Perhaps lacing the illegal narcotic supply with a sterilization device would be an appropriate course of action!

@JRH...Thus, the use of "rope".

@Lyle -

'Prayer of the Rollerboys' (1990).

The film is set in an America where the economy has crashed. A majority of our society has been reduced to living in government run municipal homeless shelters. A popular racist youth gang leader sells drugs to fund his operations of buying back America from the foreign interests that have since controlled most private property in the country, but prohibits his members from using the drugs they sell. The Day of the Rope is a reference to when a sterilization agent will be added to the drugs, in an effort to passively reduce the 'weaker' element from the new American society that he envisions building out of the ashes of our former greatness.

It's actually a pretty good film with a lot of parallels to the hot button issues of today's political environment! You should check it out. Here's the opening scene with Gary Lee's infamous speech starting at about 1min 24sec in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN-ZP0PFK-A

Here's a YouTubers variation on the Gary Lee speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-_3sIfHax4

@JRH...I'm fully aware of the movie and its implications. It's an interesting case study.

I am delighted to find an issue where Lyle and I are in agreement. I probably would go further than he would.

@The Donny Show...If you don't use drugs, you don't pay taxes. Just like if you don't smoke or drink, you don't pay taxes. We're spending about $50 billion a year just for law enforcement with the War on Drugs. If we are trying cut government costs, then why not cut a program that's not effective and costs us billions each year. Besides, I thought that Ron Paul supported legalizing drugs, and he's a physician.

Not so fast, Lyle. If you don't purchase health insurance, now you must pay taxes. Or is it a fine? I forget. Fair? Not if you'd prefer to pay cash for service.

@Bob McBride...Don't worry, I won't be running for public office. I am fully aware of the current trends on prescription abuse. That doesn't mean I am suggesting providing drugs to create addiction. Only once someone is addicted we treat them with a medical model.

What I am suggesting is saving money and eliminating federal and state government programs that aren't working. My brief calculations indicate that the total savings would be somewhere between $100 to $150 million per year. The addiction rate will settle out to about 10% overall. The highest addiction rates are found in inner cities and this program would pretty much dry up the underground economy supporting it. It all sounds crazy, but sometimes you have to go out of the box for a solution.

Lyle,

You're missing the point. We currently are not able to control "controlled substances". In order to supply an addict who isn't being treated for their addiction (i.e, desirous of quitting), you'll have to make the drug essentially available to them at all times, lest the revert to the street variety. If you don't do that, you will still have street traffic. If you do do that, you run the risk of the prescription variety getting out into the open market as do painkillers and other drugs now. Additionally, unless you plan on rounding up all the addicts and treating them for free and providing their food, shelter and drugs for free and providing them with everything else they desire, you're still going to have a good portion of them that won't voluntarily submit to your system. And unless you also step up enforcement and conviction to the point where the supply the streets is unavailable or so expensive as to make the government supplied variety the only "affordable" option, you're not going to dry up that street supply.

@Bob McBride...The general strategy is to under cut the illegal drugs with legal drugs and take all the profit out. Prescription drug abuse has always been a problem and we have to educated people to control their supplies from their kids and others. That's the single largest source of prescription drugs. I am not saying that there won't continue to be problems, but they will be more controlled than they currently are.

An Rx is never cheaper than OTC supplies for anything: add in a heavy tax and the illegal stuff wins every time.
Because we can't seem to eliminate the supply, we need to eliminate the consumer- either by the scared straight method, or natural selection.

Lyle, if you're only dispensing to diagnosed addicts, that leaves a whole, wide-open market out there made up of the uninitiated and "casual users" (whether they actually be that or just in denial and not at a point yet were their only option is to seek the diagnosis and associated prescription). Since you'd be dispensing with the "war on drugs" you'd essentially be taking a good portion of the cost of getting drugs here, or manufacturing them (i.e., surreptitious transportation and/or manufacturing) away, making it possible to provide much more affordable drugs to the street market, if necessary.

You bring up a great point; tobacco use. Many smokers have gone to the 'roll your own' because the damn taxes on a carton of smokes ($35 per carton).
This points out the obvious flaw to Lyle's solution to legalize and tax everything. Street supplies will be less expensive than the legal stuff.
Even an addict seeing an MD for his heroin fix will buy crap off the street to get a bigger high, just creating a bigger mess.
Lyle: Under ObamaCare; do you propose no deductible and co pay for these prescriptions? Understand that in that scenario, it frees up more of the addicts' money to buy the illegal substances to supplement better highs.

It was a serious question Lyle. Should the drugs be covered under NHC?

Bren - the points about the drug cartels are well taken. Legalizing would indeed take care of that problem. I just can't help thinking it would just create a whole new host of problems this country cannot deal with. We already do not have a handle on alcoholism.

You make a good point about new addiction problems, Sunrocket. But legal drugs would address back alley deals, tainted needles, and hopefully crime. Drug trafficking is a huge gang related issue with routes spanning Chicago, Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Madison, and Minneapolis/St. Paul with stops in between. The gangs would lose much of their purpose. The authorities could then direct efforts toward cleaning up other gang activities such as auto theft (chopping and shipping).

As neighborhoods improve, perhaps some of the desperation felt by people who abuse themselves with drugs would subside. (I can't imagine that people would gather at crack houses solely for socialisation!)

I believe the Netherlands has legalized a number of drugs. They also have a national healthcare plan, so I'd say they are more socially and culturally advanced than we.

JB, since Lyle acused you of enjoying your Miller Lite on another thread, thus coloring your viewpoint. I'll use the same logic here: Lyle must still toke up. That's why he is passionate about this "reform."

Agreed ... As soon as we pass Lyle's huge tax on alcohol to fund rehab and educational services for alcohol abuse in Wisconsin, let's press ahead and legalize drugs. Then we can pass a huge drug tax to fund rehab and educational services for drug abuse and use any surplus cleft on the drug tax to continue funding the failed alcohol rehab and re-education programs. CHECK ... next?

@JW -

Actually, if used responsibly and in moderation, heroin is the least destructive of the popularly used illegal narcotics. Regular marijuana use will eventually lead to lung cancer and kidney failure, in addition to other medical ailments.

I like your point, Hoffa. Why should pot use become regular, when cigarettes are pretty much banned everywhere? This is the kind of circular argument that eventually leads to liberals heads exploding.

Drugs in 1915? Did we even have Tylenol or Aspirin back then?
Morphine is a legal drug, I have even taken it, though I protested due to fear of addiction. It is highly addictive and can cause death in overdose.
Morphine is chemically the same as Heroin.....think about it.

@David,

Bad comparison. Back then not only were there poor distribution networks, but the general population tended to abstain from almost anything. Dancing and card playing were rejected by the general population. You might as well include stats on 1950's Iceland, because they are just as relevant.

@Luke & Craig ---- Actually morphine was around for a long time --- poppy plants --- Heroin was developed to help people get off Morphine !!! Just as Methadone was created to get people off of Heroin.

Both of you are wrong if you think drugs were not used extensively back then --- even George Washington used Mariquana, as did most of our Founding Fathers -- and the Patent Medicines that were sold in the Sears catalogs and in every variety and food store, etc contained cocaine, or lithium, etc .......... How do you think those women out on the prairies during the sod busting days got pass their isolation and loneliness ???

If you check out history, you will find that plantation owners in the South provided mariquana to the slaves to help them work better --- and that most drug restriction laws were done for Fear that Crazed Black Men on Mariquana would be Out Raping White Women !!!

Don't believe this --- google it and learn

David: I think you are mistaken about heroin and morphine- they are both chemically the same. Made from the sap of poppy plants. Both are highly addictive if abused.

What was false about his statement?
Pot IS bad for the lungs. One joint is equal to a pack of smokes.
Morphine and Heroin are chemically the same. If used by following the Dr's orders for a limited time frame, it is safe.

@John G -

What exactly are you asserting is false about my previous commentary?

Joe ... your an idiot .. why can't i injest drugs, who do i hurt .. Ban food cuz it makes people fat

Nice personal attack. Well, when you ingest drugs such as PCP, meth, etc, it messes with your mind and body. Many times criminals are on such drugs when they commit their crimes. I guess that would be ok if I can defend myself and shoot you from harming me...

Ideally, we should be able to eradicate drug crime with legalization.

****************

Only if you're willing to dispense to whomever wants it, whenever they want it - much as we do alcohol. If you don't, there will be an underground market no different than the one we have now.

As for emergency room visits, rehab centers and prisons, I think you'll find many if not more people, end up in at least two out of the three of those places as a result of something that occurred while they were under the influence alcohol.

Alcohol use, gambling, theft, drug abuse, prostitution all, in a way, support legitimate business. Some of those activities are legal, some not. All have deleterious effects on a personal and societal basis in some way, shape or form. Unless someone can figure out a way to hardwire human beings not to seek relaxation, escape and euphoria via certain substances and activities, we'll continue to have to deal with that particular trait on a case by case basis.

@Lynne...Enforcement, incarceration, etc has not worked. Half of the prisons are full of people locked up for drug offenses. The costs to our present society are fully out of balance to the benefits of continuing our current policies. Just like our experiment with alcohol prohibition, it just doesn't work when you have a population that wants to consume the illegal substance.

I spent many years as a paid professional and volunteer working with addicts and their addictions. Just like with alcohol addiction, people voluntarily don't seek treatment until they've hit rock bottom and that creates huge costs to society. When you do a cost/benefit analysis, clearly legalization is the best path.

Yes, Lynne, just ignore the fact that unless Lyle's willing to dispense any and all abused substances to anyone who desires them, whenever they want them, it's not going to do a thing about eliminating illegal activity related to drug use.

Lyle Ruble,

As usual, the problem with your theories involving everything from marriage to law enforcement is the unintended consequences resulting from the erosion of the original law.

In support of my claim, look at your comment above, which doesn't mention marijuana even once. Instead, it is an argument in the abstract for the legalization of everything. Just as with your theory involving marriage, the drifting away from the original intent of the law results in my segment of society supporting your segment's poor choices.

I'm in favor of either strict enforcement or a total libertarian approach, which allows people to do what they want, but does not allow those who are having their grandpa's baby while on meth to affect my taxes or schools in any way. Wherever those type of people live, me an mine will move very far away.

@Luke...You are not any kind of intellectual powerhouse are you. The idea that society should not put any limits on its members is ludicrous. You know full well why the prohibitions on incest exist and attempting to throw out a straw man argument is not worth commenting on.

Your involvement and support of the political right is emotive at best and ill thought out. I don't mind discussing in the market place of ideas, but you haven't anything to sell.

Lyle,

For someone who regularly makes insults against the intelligence and education of people, I expect a little more skill with grammar, spelling and punctuation.

That said, my points still stand. You want to lift restrictions in all sorts of areas, and you also want others to foot the bill for the consequences. The logical conclusions to every objection you have regarding marriage and law enforcement issues can't be avoided, unless you just run away from them. Apparently, that's your usual tactic, this time not withstanding.

I suggest you stop acting like a child and take a seat at the table you have set before us. Your non sequitur responses and ad ad hominem attacks are quite revealing, in a way that is not flattering to you

Robert,

Yet keep in mind that Lyle wants to increase your taxes to redistribute the wealth to those who are poorer, due in part to the fact that no one wants to hire people that can't pass a drug test, whether or not the drug they are testing for is legal.

I am still trying to find the kingpin for the FREON black market.

How can a prison profit from this? Prisons are a drain on society because they aren't producing anything.

Joe .. Most prisions are private, and they profit from taxpayer money, the more people in prision the more money they make ... Do you understand anything??

There are very few privately run prisons. Most are still run by government. Where are you getting your information from?!

The use and abuse of the legal substances causes much higher costs to society than that of the use of illicit substances.

******************

Which is the perfect argument against your proposed solution, unless it's the hypocrisy that bothers you more than the actual costs and effects of the problem itself.

Glad you support more drug users under the influence on the roads. How loving and caring.

So, Steve, you're advocating for the prohibition of alcohol? That would be consistent with your position that mind-altering substances shouldn't be legally available because of the risk that a segment of the population will drive under the influence.

It's weird that you're so much in favor of government prohibitions... I thought you were more of a free-market type.

As expected you can't think logically about this.

"under the influence" its its own related can of worms. For one, people can be under the influence of many things... a drug (prescription or not) or alcohol... or under the influence of being overly tired. Just as inattentive driving is its own offense... legislating the reasons is kinda stupid. The problem is not what people are doing... its whether what they are doing has affected their ability to drive. Changing the song on the stereo can be inattentive driving... looking in the mirrors leaves you inattentive to what is going on straight ahead, etc. Driving under the influence is a problem... not the thing that makes them under the influence. People would have to do the thing they do responsibly just as is the case with any substance usage or situation that could lead to imparement while driving.

Being under the influence is another area where the government is overly criminalizing now as well. While I support major punishment for major offenders I do not think lowering the blood alcohol content measurement point really does that correctly or fairly. Imparement cannot be measured purely by that. There are factors of weight and tolerance involved that leave a bac for one person very different in influence from that same bac in another. I am not saying the bac should go away... but I do think .08 to .12 or so should only be a ticket... and it can even be a very sizable one... whereas above .12 could carry the full punishments imposed.

Steve, my logic is sound. If you're going to call me out on my logic, then you should do me the courtesy of pointing out what's wrong with it. You will, of course, find this to be impossible.

Which is why it is pointless to explain failed logic. If you missed my first reply please scroll up. 3 of 4 of your facts are opinion, it's like explaining 911 to the truthers. Way too much emotion is wrapped up in their "facts".

Toke up my friend, puff puff pass

So Steve, just out of curiosity, which of my 4 facts do you agree with?

And furthermore, Steve, you seem to be confused about what a fact is. Those are all statements of fact. You may disagree with them, but that means that you're telling me that my facts are wrong (and then it's on you to refute them). That doesn't make them an opinion.

My claim (which you could call an opinion) is that marijuana should be legalized, and my argument is that the facts I've stated support that claim.

This is basic argumentation; clearly, despite throwing the word "logic" around, you're not up to speed.

@Taoist -

FACT - Heroin, when used responsibly and in moderation, is less dangerous than marijuana, and is in fact one of the least damaging drugs to the body when used in such a fashion.

And when did Hoffa ever say that he was against legalization of narcotics? One of Lyle's expressly stated goals is to use government programs to reduce and/or eventually eliminate all together narcotic usage from our society. So, Hoffa merely suggested that one of the most effective and efficient means of doing so would be to introduce a sterilization agent into the narcotic supply, as drug use tends to beget drug use. A more humane solution than Craig's recommended death agent.

Hoffa is all for legalization of all narcotics, as the government has NEVER been effective at legislating morality. And all its attempts to do so have done is cost Hoffa and the righteous more of their hard earned money. However, Hoffa also doen't want to be subsidizing narcotic, alcohol, and tobacco usage of the poor, as Hoffa's currently already doing because of the waste, fraud, and abuse of the social safety net programs! That crap has to stop! If people want to indulge, then they need to pay with their own money to play - for the product and for whatever consequences that may arise because of such usage! PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

BTW - Hoffa is still waiting for that link from you that shows how Obama admitted that his campaign/job promises pertaining to federal deficit and debt reduction was in fact a mistake. Hoffa has searched far and wide for such an assertion having been made by our President, but low and behold, Hoffa just can't find it anywhere. But seeing as how you're the super intellectual liberal elitist, I know that everything you assert has to be the truth. So, Hoffa is asking again for that link please - we're all waiting…

Or perhaps you should just drop your bs and admit that you were WRONG about Obama's character and integrity in such regard.

The choice is yours - how are you going to play this one?

FACT - The naked guy that ate that homeless guy's face off had marijuana in his system.

Steve please explain to me how World trade center building number 7 fell .. no freakin plane hit it .. Nobody can explain it so why don't you freakin help me out and freakin tell me how it fell .. I am freakin emotional cuz of F-sticks like you who have no freakin idea WTF you r talkin about

The biggest "Gateway Drug" is Alcohol

Hey Croc .. i must say i agree with you completely .. which was kinda hard for me to admit

Cow Dung,

Is every person who committed a brutal crime while drunk a reason why alcohol should be prohibited? If you disagree, then you have no point.

Johnny Blade,

You are disconnected from reality. Think about it - if there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, that would be the biggest, most important news story in politics, wouldn't it? And wouldn't any credible hint of a conspiracy be chased down by any one of innumerable news organizations that would stand to profit from breaking such a massive story? So why aren't they doing it? How is it possible that you and a tiny fringe coterie of truthers are the only ones who are interested in this?

There are two possibilities - either you are wrong, and are engaged in a pointless and offensive obsession, or you're right, and the rest of us are too unmotivated to open our minds to the possibility.

So, per the above, your bottom line is that Americans just don't care enough about 9/11 to follow up on your compelling theories. Do you have any idea how divorced from reality that makes you sound?

@Taoist -

Still waiting for that link ...

How come all I hear from you is crickets?

Croc: Maybe the USA should be more like China when it comes to drug convictions. After a guilty verdict they are led out the back of the courthouse and promptly shot in the back of the head, the family is billed for the cost of the bullet.
NO repeat offenders in China.

@Lyle -

Is this really your daughter?

@Sarah -

If so, hello, I'm Hoffa - please to meet you!

@Hoffa Yes I am the youngest of his four children! Nice to meet you too!

@Sarah -

Even though I rarely agree with your father, I do have a great deal of respect for him.

Hello Sarah - I am a huge fan of your father. Nice to meet you!

Nice Alex!!!!!

Ok dumbass, then smoking is not bad for the lungs either if used in moderation. One puff a day....
OMG I think you used a little more than a moderate amounts of drugs to even make that claim.

Again with the ad-hominem attacks, Craig?

Now, I could go and point out everything wrong with the reply you just left, but that wouldn't be advancing my argument at all, would it?

If you had actually read the article, you would find that, yes, ultra-frequent cannabis users may reduce their lung function slightly, but not to anywhere near the extent that cigarettes do.

But to agree with the claim that cannabis will cause lung cancer? Open your eyes, friend.

And besides, Craig. It wasn't my claim to make. I was merely citing an article published by Time Magazine. What I was making reference to, in fact, was that MODERATE use of cannabis does not have MUCH adverse effect on the lungs. You can re-read my post, and then the article, if you don't understand.

Now, does backing up your side of the argument with reference to a reputable source, instead of simply calling somebody a dumbass, and then going on to make claim about how many drugs the other person has done (while making a clear syntax error, nonetheless) really make it seem like I'm the dumbass?

@Alex -

That's the problem with 'studies,' and taking a blind faith in their conclusions. Did you actually read the study you linked to and analyzed what you read there using your own independent thought processes?

The conclusions of the study were premised upon smoking 2-3 joints a month and comparing them to the average tobacco smoker, who they claimed smoked 8 cigs a day. If that honestly appears to be an apples to apples comparison to you, then you must be toking! At only 2-3 joints per month, of course the lungs are going to be able to clean themselves and stay in better condition vs the tobacco user who's using 8 times daily without interruption. Did we honestly need a government funded study to tell us that? I'm pissed that they wasted my tax dollars on such nonsense!

Why not compare lung damage of smoking 8 joints a day nonstop vs 8 cigs a day nonstop? Wouldn't that more accurately reflect the destructive capabilities of both substances to the lungs? In fact, I bet that an apples to apples comparison would prove the assertions that I made which you called nonsense - care to put money on it? I got $50 that I'm willing to bet if you're willing to fund the study!

When used in moderation, almost any drug is pretty safe as far as permanent damage to the body is concerned, with heroin being the safest when used in such a fashion.

So what's your point and how exactly is Hoffa full of nonsense?

Hoffa, try to take this in the implied context in which it was meant. The average cannabis smoker will feel content with eight joints a month; I shutter to think of the psychologically dependent stoner who would smoke eight joints a day. I am a cigarette smoker, and can veritably say that in the years I have smoked cigarettes, I can never get enough. I have tried on multiple occasions to quit, but without assistance can barely get myself to smoke less than twenty cigarettes a day. The difference is, that with cannabis (and yes, I do have a history of smoking cannabis, which I had to end for job-related reasons), there is no real physiological dependence that develops. I was able to quit cannabis use abruptly, without hesitation, and with no adverse effects. And when I did use this plant, I never had any desire, or even longing, to smoke more than what was enough to feel slightly different. It was simply something that made a good time better. The times I have tried to cut down tobacco use have (oddly enough) left me feeling out of breath, plagued me with headaches, and caused me to become irritable and anxious. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, yes, there are some people who will cause significant damage to their lungs with cannabis. However, these things have to be taken into account with context. One could state that the claims suggesting red wine are good for your heart are false because of the damage it can do in abundance.

Alex: Put the bong down and think about it for yourself. You do not need to read some study, article, or propaganda by the cannabis crowd. A joint is unfiltered smoke, it doesn't matter if you are smoking leaves, wood, flowers, or grass clippings- all smoke harms your lungs. If you can not agree to that, then you in fact really are a dumbass.

Craig, again, please don't chime in until you have fully read the last comment I've posted, it will save us both some time in the end. I have, as I had previously stated, 'put the bong down' some time ago, and have not picked it up since. I also had never stated that smoke does not harm your lungs. Anyone who would accept that notion is surely doomed. The argument I was trying to make is that in conventional use, cannabis causes nowhere near the amount of damage to the lungs that cigarette smoking does. It is also highly, highly, unlikely that a cannabis smoker would develop lung cancer, due to the anti-tumoral effects of various cannabinoids. Also, a very popular form of 'smoking' cannabis for those concerned about lung health is vaporization. It is a method that employs a vaporizing device to induce cannabis to a target temperature, that does not burn the plant, but instead vaporizes most of the active molecules, delivering all of the 'active ingredients' without any of the carcinogens produced by burning plant material.

@Alex -

Fair enough, but it still ignores the basic premise, as Craig elaborated upon, that any kind of smoke is bad for the lungs. Thus, to voluntarily subject your lungs to smoke exposure of any kind is not a very logical activity to partake in, is it?

Instead of smoking the cannabis, why not eat it, as such would appear to be a much more logical approach to 'responsible' drug use, wouldn't it? Don't they have the so-called pot brownies? Apparently, it is edible, so why smoke it?

Alex: Your 4:01 post was not available when I posted at 4:03. I do not disagree with that post. In fact the vapor method has been gaining popularity for regular smokers.
The vapor is not a heated gas...well, obviously you know this.
I do know of people who smoke more than one joint a day- this can not be harmless, not to mention it is nearly impossible to find a bag of chips in their house.

Sarah: I worked in insurance for years. When asking about tobacco use, if a client stated they smoked pot they were considered a "smoker", and paid smoker's rates.
Many pot smokers smoke cigarettes to cover the smell of the pot, but will not admit to it. Regarding radioactive tobacco... it is not the tobacco that is the bad ingredient. How many indians died from lung cancer? It is the government regulations for flame retardents additives and the big tobacco additives and fillers that make them really bad for you. A smoke has only 20% pure tobacco- the rest is fillers and additives. Smoke pure tobacco with a filter and I guarantee you are doing less harm than a joint of equal size with no filter.
Ask an MD what they write in the file of a patient who admits to smoking weed. I know of at least one who notes "light smoker".
I wonder if that would be one of them 6 million deaths per year?

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Interesting, it's not as good as many say.

In conversation with members of law enforcement, pot is considered an "introductory" drug; that the purchase/use of pot exposes an individual to other, more serious illegal drugs (not to mention a criminal element). This is another reason that I believe that legalization would address crime. In Canada, there have been cigarette smuggling rings in operation on the Great Lakes because of the high price of cigarettes, but one doesn't hear about cartels bloodying the countryside battling each other. Craig is correct about the additives in commercially-purchased tobacco. My father smoked a carton of Pall Malls a week back in the 1950s. Those cigarettes were very different from those of today. That's not to say they were ever healthy.

Sarah,

The EPA blames general polution for killing hundreds of thousands a per year due to cancer and other illnesses, and you claim that pot smoke doesn't kill anyone?

Also, I haven't heard that tobacco smoke affects anyone's ability to drive. Certainly pot smoking has resulted in many traffic deaths.

I said no deaths from the substance, not the result of an activity done while using the substance. Just like drunk driving, cannabis use and other substances can cause death while operating equipment. But people have died from rolling cigarettes and searching for cigarettes in the car while driving.

Sarah,

You can't be serious. Put at least a LITTE amount of effort into this topic.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

I lost a friend from pot. Initially as a friend when he started using pot in high school, then, a few years after graduation, when he died. He smoked pot on a daily basis. The build up of THC in his system caused major depression and he eventually killed himself.

But the pot didn't put the gun to his head, he did
/crazy sarah response

- sorry about your friend

If you legalized pot it would be produced on large farms similar to tobacco, not in someones house. So the same phosphate radon rich fertilizers would be used sticking to the same sticky leaves.

You are not going to be able to find the same comparable data from pot to tobacco since one is currently ILLEGAL dum dum

Next they will want the 8 year olds with ADHD to smoke a joint before school so they can 'chill out man'.

I agree that we should not legalize addictive drugs, such as meth, crack, heroine, cocaine, etc... But can we not take a second look at some of the softer drugs such as cannabis, psilocybes, ketamine, MDMA, and LSD? These drugs can (notice I said CAN, Craig) instill a sense of bliss and wellbeing in those that use them; a sense that tends to promote a better life view, and under the right circumstances, eliminate anxiety over imminent death in terminal patients, or even just reduce anxiety in everyday life (If you want me to back this up, look up M.A.P.S. as a starting point). Some of the greatest innovations and discoveries, not to mention artistic achievements, have held psychedelics responsible. Take for example Francis Crick, who admitted to having discovered DNA while under the influence of LSD. Unless you folks live under a rock, and don't listen to any music made after 1965, you can go burn all the tapes, records, and CDs you have, because surely most of the great music we've come to love were made under the influence of these non-addictive drugs. Before getting to far into this, I'd like to come around to the point I'm trying to make. By simply rounding up all drugs into one group, and discounting them as evil, we are negating the fact that some drugs have had more positive effects than negative in our society. Should we really throw a tarp over all the things that could potentially help a society progress and innovate in an ever-changing world?

Alex Van Schaik, there's nothing "soft" about LSD!!!!! Ever try spending 27 hours trying to keep a tripper calm through his "trip?" I had to. Not fun. I also have a relative who claims to have taken 500 hits of acid in the 1960s. Whether that is specifically true, I can write with certainty that this was an individual who had ambition, drive, a strong entrepreneurial spirit and sense of adventure, and who occasionally smoked pot. However, after emigrating to the United States and building their own successful business, the relative graduated from pot to hashish, opium, cocaine to LSD and everything crashed. Marriage, business, focus. Returning to their home country, the employment history has been sketchy (work a few months then coast) at best. A person of remarkable intellect, charisma, and potential. The drug usage began as part of the Beat Movement as an ill-thought-out "stick it to 'the Man.'" This one's story didn't start here but the introduction to hardcore drugs did. Another story of seeking a naughty thrill gone horribly wrong.

There's nothing soft about LSD.

With any substance there is the potential of abuse. I have certainly seen my fair share of freak-out incidents and burnouts with LSD to thank. But this can also be because of our society's lack of understanding of the drug. It is not anything like MDMA or cocaine, where there is a fairly certain outcome after consumption. In fact, I would cringe to think of LSD as a recreational drug at all. It is something that is to be taken with sincere caution, in company of a knowledgeable and ideally experienced party, and in a safe environment. The thing is, due to our lack of education on how the drug works, and without a regulated dosage, people who do take it often have no idea what they are getting into. I'm not trying to advocate the drug itself, but rather shed light on the fact that when we address drugs as a whole, we often overlook some of the potential benefits that can be reaped through proper, educated use.

@Alex -

Why no heroine? It's the safest and least harmful of all the drugs to use in moderation?

And special K is soft?!?! Sorry, I fell out of my chair laughing at that one!

Paging Michael Alig...

So are you saying if someone want to stab themself in the eye with a fork, they should have to get a prescription for the fork?

Sarah, Good points. That is pretty much how I feel about guns.

I do agree that good decisions start with parents, the primary influencer(s) in a child's life. But what about that kid who, despite living in a loving two-parent, middle class home, engages in risky behaviors?

They should then see where the problem is derived from. Usually a person who engages in risky behavior is acting out from some underlying problem.

@Bob -

The fascination of the Ruble family with this topic is indeed interesting, isn't it?

That's the second time now that you've pulled that video on Lyle, and if I'm not mistaken, the last time you commented on the 'natural' appearance of the females in the video... ;-)

Hoffa has a near photographic memory - it's a curse!

Indeed I did and indeed I did.

Obviously there are other family similarities as well. For instance, telling others they've not been properly educated on the topic du jour.

Touche! ;-)

What this plan proposes to do, is essentially fund itself. By eliminating the expensive costs of the drug war (billions to date) and taxing the drugs consumed (billions in potential revenue), we would be able to afford, more than we ever have in the past, creating a harm reduction program more effective than what we do have now. We are paying too much to imprison drug users, and conduct pricey raids on various compounds. And, we already do have state-run rehabilitation facilities that I'm not quite sure how we're paying for. Think about it. Our country's budget, plus whatever we've been using to fund the drug war, plus the millions we're paying to imprison drug users, plus the revenue to be gained from legalization/regulation. I truly doubt the consequences in partaking in such activities, even if state-funded, will amount to anywhere near the deficit we're already creating ourselves by combating these drugs.

When did the Declaration of Independence decelerate?

My misspellings are caused by dyslexia...thanks for ignoring the argument and focusing on the spelling. Autocorrect doesn't fix everything.

Sarah: I know what pain family of cancer patients endure, and the patient deserves anything that will benefit them. THC can be made available in pill form- THAT I support. But handing the patient a baggie of weed? No way.

Yo another arrogant Ruble!! da apple do not fall far from da poorly educated tree! ya'll is mad stupid.

►because people are uneducated when it comes to most topics◄

and there it is folks. Your elitist Ruble leftie take on life in all it's glory.

Whose the ignorant Ruble? Look at your grammar you poor ignorant fool. If you want to insult someone about being poorly educated, please educate yourself first. I am disappointed that you share my last name. May G-d have mercy on your soul.

Yo Whose da ignorant Ruble? peep at yo' grammar you poor ignorant foo'. It's not 'whose' foo'! It's who'se! in the hood

►My misspellings are caused by dyslexia...thanks for ignoring the argument and focusing on the spelling. Autocorrect doesn't fix everything.◄

Officer: Sir you seem impaired you crossed the center line 5 times
Pot head: No man
Officer: Sir I need to issue a test for marijuana
Pot head: Dude it's legal now
Office: Please pull down your pants and urinate in this cup. If you would rater I take a hair sample I have a razor in the car and a mini testing lab in the trunk.
Pot head: But I smoked 10 days ago and feel fine now
Officer: Doesn't matter, it stays in your system for 28 days and if found positive your going in, no matter if your high right now or not.

@Janice -

Another Ruble - and what relation are you to Lyle?

And what relation are you to the late Teamster union gangster, Mr. anti-union?

Thanks for the answer Lyle. This thread is getting hard to keep up with- you picked a helluva topic. Kudos.
One would think I would agree with you on this topic being Libertarian, but that is where I differ from most of that party.
Terminal patients are often given higher doses of Morphine on a daily basis in hospice. But that doesn't mean those who have a chronic illness should be able to smoke crack or meth.
I am sorry to hear from your daughter regarding your loss, I certainly understand under those circumstances more should be available to the patient. But THC is available in pill form, is it not?. Big Pharma can certainly do this and should for those who it will benefit.

@Craig....What Sarah didn't include in her comment was that her mother, my wife, survived and is now a four year survivor. Thanks for the kind thoughts and concern.

It had a tremendous impact on the family. I went into full retirement to care for her while she was going through treatment. She's a tough lady and continued to work throughout her treatment when she could. It's an experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone and it sure drives the point home about our own mortality.

Lyle, I am sorry I jumped to conclusions. Cancer is very prevelant in my family, and not one has survived with treatment. It is wonderful to hear of good results, I am glad that you are still blessed to have your wife with you.

BTW Lyle: When my father was passing due to lung cancer, he opted for home hospice. I was fortunate my employer allowed me to use the current and the future year's worth of vacation time to be at his home to provide care for him. It was very painful to see how sick he became, and I was unhappy with the medical lack of help. If THC would have been available to help him tolerate the treatment, he may have opted to continue with it. Dad was a smoker as am I. One would think it would be easy to quit after seeing what can happen, but people can be genetically predisposed to addictions.

Kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water, aren't you?

It's the purposeful dumbing down of the education system along with mainstream media propaganda. In a few decades the moron masses won't be able to make a move without the government telling them what to do.

Sarah: If I insulted you I am sorry, it was not my intention to do that. I do like to challenge other's opinions and defend my own. You know what they say about opinions? They are like a--holes, everyone has got one.
Years ago, I fostered children who were removed from their home by CPS due to the parents recreational drug use. I can not begin to explain how messed up these kids lives were- and still are today.
It is too difficult to go into more detail.

This came out in this discussion "Hey Dad!!!! Love this post! I agree with you completely!!! Don't let these fools get you down!", doesn't say much for your parents, does it?

The Ruble clan will never denounce the war on poverty since they PROFIT from the pain and suffering of the poor.

I think you overestimate the amount of unemployment resulting from the legalization of drugs. You'll still need plenty of police officers to attend to the drug-fueled versions of crimes such as rape, robbery, domestic disputes, battery and, ultimately, murder. Assuming legalization means ready access to drugs to any and all who want them (otherwise you've eliminated only a part of the street market for said drugs, along with only a limited amount of the crime associated with rival dealers, etc), the degree to which those crimes occur as a matter of someone being under the influence is actually likely to increase rather than decrease.

Go back to your prohibition argument:
1) Police and jails are required for alcohol related crimes. Alcohol related crimes did not go away because alcohol is legal.
2) Regulation and tax enforcement is going to require a lot of people. Remember the revenuers?
Legalizing this stuff is more complicated than just saying it's legal.
David, Do you really buy into the "war on drugs"? In my community the police can't find the drug dealers, but any high school student can find one within an hour. How does that work?
The real question should be, does our society want drug use at all? If yes, why? Alcohol and tabacco may have been a bad idea, but you can not use their legality as an excuse to legalize something else. Drug use should stand on it's own, if it is a good idea.

Sarcasm is the ultimate argument. :-)