Legalization of marijuana

[Guest LadyC]

sorry, i stand corrected. apparently the law has changed to make posession of small amounts a misdemeanor if the posessor is over 21 years of age.

[Eliyahuw]

it may be a misdemeanor where you are, but it is a felony offense in nevada.

lol thats rare for that to happen. mostly if whoever is going in front of a judge is stupid.

They plea the charge down to a misdemeanor and pay a fine.

really? you live here in nevada and can say that as a fact? i think not. there is no leeway with marijuana here, despite many attempts to legalize it. at this point even a SEED is a felony. now i'm sure it's likely that many cops will simply not make an arrest, but once an arrest is made, there is no plea bargaining it down to a misdemeanor. not here.

LadyC, ANYTHING can be plea'd down. I dont' care what state your in. Nevada is no different.

heres a cut to show you anything can be plea'd down.

FALLON, Nev. (AP) - A Fallon man arrested more than two years ago on charges of growing marijuana has pleaded guilty to a single count of being under the influence of drugs.

Bruce Stephen Risi entered his plea Tuesday in District Judge Robert E. Estes' courtroom after a plea bargain was worked out with the Churchill County District Attorney's Office.

Using or possessing drugs is a mandatory probation offense for a first or second conviction under Nevada law.

District Attorney Arthur Mallory said the plea agreement was worked out because there were problems with evidence in the case, which was scheduled for trial next week.

"Considering the fact that this is not methamphetamine, not heroin and not cocaine, that was the proper charge," Mallory told the Lahontan Valley News.

"For us to go to the Nevada Supreme Court on marijuana plants, is this a proper use of resources?" he said.

Risi, 56, was accused of growing marijuana for sale on his Austin Highway property two years ago.

The North Central Narcotics Task Force reportedly found 14 large marijuana plants - some as tall as 6 feet - along with more than 2 pounds of dried marijuana at Risi's home.

Risi was originally charged with two counts of possession of narcotics for sale and two counts of using drugs. He faced one to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine on each charge. He will be sentenced in March.

[Eliyahuw]

sorry, i stand corrected. apparently the law has changed to make posession of small amounts a misdemeanor if the posessor is over 21 years of age.

LOL, its a never ending battle just to keep up with the laws.

[Eliyahuw]

eli, have you really, really thought this through? did you see my point in my previous post, that making it legal is NOT going to take drugs off the street?

and you said "all drugs"... in fact, you mentioned something about the user being in control of their own medical care. let's examine this.

there are no health benefits to "all drugs". SOME, maybe, but not all. yet you advocate making it legal for people to buy meth... for what, for medical treatment? the hippocratic oath comes to mind, "first do no harm". have you ever known anyone who uses meth? do you know what the stuff does to the body? do you know how it is made? people may as well be snorting or smoking drano. there is no "up" side to that drug, or to PCP, or ecstacy or acid, or to many other drugs. a few, such as pot or cocaine, CAN be used for medical purposes, and in fact, the medical benefits of coke are greater than any medical benefits of pot, because at least cocaine can cure some opthalmolo-however you spell it, OCCULAR diseases. all pot can do is manage pain while making you stupid and hungry. and there are medications that can do as well or better with pain management.

yet you'd be in favor of legalizing things and letting the GOVERNMENT be in control of running the meth-labs? you want the government to be able to create drugs which KILL?

i don't understand.

no need trying to explain it to me... i don't think there's anything you could say that would make me understand your all-inclusive position.

its not hard. you legalize it, you take away the profit. You take away profit, then there is no incentive to manufacture or import it. simple economics.

Pharmaceuticals are the worst offenders in this country. Doctors and pharmacies create more drug addicts than drug pushers do.

Doctors tell patients here go fill this script. people go fill it and take it without question. Heck, even the drug addicts on the street inquire to what quality, type of side effects and strength before they lay their money down.

I'll go one even farther. i don't think anyone should be licensed including doctors, lawyers, anyone. the market will weed out the bad ones!

[Ovedya]

Then you are opening up an entire new market to the "benefit" of self-medication.

I am a advocate for everyone taking control of their own medical care. I 100% for legalization of all drugs, including removing any restrictions to obtaining prescription drugs. the costs associated with 'regulation" drive the cost of drugs out of reach. IT is a racket that you have to pay 150 dollars to get a prescription. I know that if i am in pain, i need a certain medication to stop that pain. If i have a bacterial infection, i need a antibiotic.

Everyone should educate themselves in their own health care.

I guess you wouldn't mind forking out extra taxes and insurance premiums for the increases in the number of rehab clinics and welfare benefits for mental impairment. Not to mention the increases in your automobile and life insurance premiums.

What has auto insurance premiums got to do with healthcare. No i am not that worried about auto insurance premiums. The fact is that if we legalize all drugs, 1. we can take the 250 billion dollars a year that is wasted on the "War on drugs" and take 1/3 of that money and fund any clinic you want. give any addict 1 chance to clean up. next time they go to prison. simple effective and fixes the problem.

IF they were legalized, it would remove the profit from drugs and the dealers wouldn't bother with trying to sell it if it were available over the counter, and taxed.

Its real funny how you can buy your drugs in mexico without a prescription and they don't have a massive drug problem! The reason is there is no profit to be made by the dealers.

People educate themselves on what drug they need for what ails them instead of spending a fortune on doctors visits to get the prescriptions like we do.

When you say that you are 100% for the legalization of all drugs, are you including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and PCP?

I can't take anything that you write seriously if you advocate for the legalization of "all drugs."

All drugs. if you make it legal you take its profit out. Drugs are marked up 1,700%

that makes it worth the risk to sell drugs to people. IF you make them legal, tax it, you take away all the profit that these dealers make and it will dry up. Simple economics.

Sure there will be a few junkies, but we have junkies now even with it being illegal.

Drugs are legal in denmark. Didn't end up with millions of junkies either. people that do drugs are going to do them whether the drugs are legal or not. they could care less. if the profit is gone from the drugs, then no one will bother making them to sell. it drys up and goes away.

The ONLY other alternative that will stop drugs is to execute all drug addicts. are you ready to go down that road??

Sadly, none of what you wrote is true. It's a specious argument:

1) America is not Denmark. It will never be like Denmark.

2) There is a direct correlation between drug use and crime. Violent crime is often caused by drug use in fact. Simple logic: More access to drugs will lead to increases in violent crime.

3) People that do drugs will still do them, true. But more people will experiment with drugs also. Drug experimentation was really popular in the 60s. Can you think of one positive thing that came from that? It also spawned "free love," which increased STDs and abortions.

Finally, increased drug exposure leads to increased drug use. Increased drug use leads to increases in violent crime. Increases in violent crime leads to the need for stricter laws and the need for more police, more emergency services, and social programs to get addicts off drugs. Health and automobile insurance rates would skyrocket, as more and more people are caught driving under the influence of drugs (And alcohol, they often go hand-in-hand), and more people seek medical care for drug related illnesses. But then, hey, the benefits outweigh the results, right? We'll have a nation of addicts but at least the drug dealers would be off the streets.

Now, you may argue that with legalization there would be the imposition of laws that restrict where, how and to whom these drugs are made available. But take a look at the laws related to alcohol consumption. Do they prevent drunk drivers? Do they prevent minors from obtaining alcohol whenever they want? In fact, overall there is an increase in the number of drunk drivers on the roads, despite increasingly stricter laws. Besides, advocating for legalization is contradictory to conservatism, which philosophy advocates fewer government restrictions and impositions on private citizens.

In my view drug legalization is an open-door to Socialism.

[Ovedya]

eli, have you really, really thought this through? did you see my point in my previous post, that making it legal is NOT going to take drugs off the street?

and you said "all drugs"... in fact, you mentioned something about the user being in control of their own medical care. let's examine this.

there are no health benefits to "all drugs". SOME, maybe, but not all. yet you advocate making it legal for people to buy meth... for what, for medical treatment? the hippocratic oath comes to mind, "first do no harm". have you ever known anyone who uses meth? do you know what the stuff does to the body? do you know how it is made? people may as well be snorting or smoking drano. there is no "up" side to that drug, or to PCP, or ecstacy or acid, or to many other drugs. a few, such as pot or cocaine, CAN be used for medical purposes, and in fact, the medical benefits of coke are greater than any medical benefits of pot, because at least cocaine can cure some opthalmolo-however you spell it, OCCULAR diseases. all pot can do is manage pain while making you stupid and hungry. and there are medications that can do as well or better with pain management.

yet you'd be in favor of legalizing things and letting the GOVERNMENT be in control of running the meth-labs? you want the government to be able to create drugs which KILL?

i don't understand.

no need trying to explain it to me... i don't think there's anything you could say that would make me understand your all-inclusive position.

its not hard. you legalize it, you take away the profit. You take away profit, then there is no incentive to manufacture or import it. simple economics.

Pharmaceuticals are the worst offenders in this country. Doctors and pharmacies create more drug addicts than drug pushers do.

Doctors tell patients here go fill this script. people go fill it and take it without question. Heck, even the drug addicts on the street inquire to what quality, type of side effects and strength before they lay their money down.

I'll go one even farther. i don't think anyone should be licensed including doctors, lawyers, anyone. the market will weed out the bad ones!

All of your answers are absent any real evidence. I think that you are making a lot of assumptions.

[Eliyahuw]

eli, have you really, really thought this through? did you see my point in my previous post, that making it legal is NOT going to take drugs off the street?

and you said "all drugs"... in fact, you mentioned something about the user being in control of their own medical care. let's examine this.

there are no health benefits to "all drugs". SOME, maybe, but not all. yet you advocate making it legal for people to buy meth... for what, for medical treatment? the hippocratic oath comes to mind, "first do no harm". have you ever known anyone who uses meth? do you know what the stuff does to the body? do you know how it is made? people may as well be snorting or smoking drano. there is no "up" side to that drug, or to PCP, or ecstacy or acid, or to many other drugs. a few, such as pot or cocaine, CAN be used for medical purposes, and in fact, the medical benefits of coke are greater than any medical benefits of pot, because at least cocaine can cure some opthalmolo-however you spell it, OCCULAR diseases. all pot can do is manage pain while making you stupid and hungry. and there are medications that can do as well or better with pain management.

yet you'd be in favor of legalizing things and letting the GOVERNMENT be in control of running the meth-labs? you want the government to be able to create drugs which KILL?

i don't understand.

no need trying to explain it to me... i don't think there's anything you could say that would make me understand your all-inclusive position.

its not hard. you legalize it, you take away the profit. You take away profit, then there is no incentive to manufacture or import it. simple economics.

Pharmaceuticals are the worst offenders in this country. Doctors and pharmacies create more drug addicts than drug pushers do.

Doctors tell patients here go fill this script. people go fill it and take it without question. Heck, even the drug addicts on the street inquire to what quality, type of side effects and strength before they lay their money down.

I'll go one even farther. i don't think anyone should be licensed including doctors, lawyers, anyone. the market will weed out the bad ones!

All of your answers are absent any real evidence. I think that you are making a lot of assumptions.

So are yours. Your assumption that legalization would increase crime, more addicts, and this one was really way out there, that we would become a nation of addicts. RIGHHHTTT

the majority of people don't do drugs. people that are intellegent and use critical thinking skills they have worked hard to develop don't use drugs. they know the consequences of their actions.

Its not my job nor the governments job to protect us or anyone else from themselves. if joe down the road wants to go snort his brains out with coke, then its his choice. IF joe goes and shoots up heroine, thats his business. IF joe goes drivin a car afterwards, then there are laws concerning driving intoxicated. joe goes to jail for a real crime.

The main arguement i have is, its no better now with BILLIONS being pumped into this sham called a War on Drugs. At least if we end this so called war, send the "employees' in this war on drug tothe unemployment line, we can take that 250 billion dollars a year and use it for something else that will work. Better yet, take 1/3 of that money, treat the addicts and return the rest to the taxpayor!

[Guest LadyC]

well i almost agreed with you for a moment... that legalization would cause us to become a nation of addicts, and then i read the next paragraph. personally, contrary to what you believe, i believe we're already a nation of addicts. not everyone uses, but enough do that it taints all of society.

and i still gotta point out the undeniable truth that drugs that are controlled (and taxed) by the government do NOT take them (or the profit from them) off the street. i don't hang around with druggies... but i guarantee you that if i wanted some "legally controlled substance" i could have my hands on it for a price within the next few hours.

case in point (i may get stoned), a few weeks ago i was experiencing some really severe pain. within a few hours i had been offered methadone, valium, lortab, vicodin, morphine, and zanax... all for a price, of course.

[Guest LadyC]

Its not my job nor the governments job to protect us or anyone else from themselves. if joe down the road wants to go snort his brains out with coke, then its his choice. IF joe goes and shoots up heroine, thats his business. IF joe goes drivin a car afterwards, then there are laws concerning driving intoxicated. joe goes to jail for a real crime.

but your position doesn't just take the responsibility of protecting people from themselves out of the government's hands...

your position advocates putting the responsibility for PROVIDING the deadly substances squarely in the hands of our government.

don't you see that?

[rtwo]

Alcohol is legal. The government doesn't pour the drinks.