Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco

Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco For political topics and discussions about drugs, alcohol, and tobacco


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 8th, 2010, 10:01 AM   #1
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Benefits of legalization...

If we legalize drugs, we will be able to regulate and tax the products, we will nearly eliminate all drug crime crime over night... We'd eliminate most problems with overdosing or getting a "bad dose", and suddenly, there would be a lot less crime in Central and South America as well.



Corporations would eager jump on this... Just imagine the marketing and the clever products they'd come up with...



tadpole256 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 11th, 2010, 10:29 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
For those of you who are interested, the following is the executive summary of a report concerning the legalization of marijuana that had been endorsed by three economics Nobel Laureates (Milton Friedman, George A. Akerlof, and Vernon L. Smith), as well as 100's of other economists:





Executive Summary



Government prohibition of marijuana is the subject of ongoing debate.



One issue in this debate is the effect of marijuana prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale.



Thisreport examines the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana—taxing and regulating it like other goods—in all fifty states and at the federal level.



The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.



The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.



Whether marijuana legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. But these impacts should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy.







And, here is the complete report:



Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis
baloney_detector is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 10:42 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
And, here is Milton Friedman discussing America's "Drug War," for anyone who is interested:





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyystXOfDqo&feature=related"]YouTube - ‪Milton Friedman on America's Drug Forum pt.1of3‬‎[/ame]





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37-zCyI6rmk&feature=related"]YouTube - ‪Milton Friedman on America's Drug Forum pt.2of3‬‎[/ame]





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZNeZUROVM0&feature=related"]YouTube - ‪Milton Friedman on America's Drug Forum pt.3of3‬‎[/ame]
baloney_detector is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 11:27 AM   #4
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
California is voting on a ballot to legalise marijuana this November. Surprisingly the polls show the NO vote is slightly ahead of the YES vote at this stage.



Apparently, one of the problems is coming up with a definitive test to prove someone is driving under the influence of marijuana.
garysher is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 11:37 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
California is voting on a ballot to legalise marijuana this November. Surprisingly the polls show the NO vote is slightly ahead of the YES vote at this stage.



Apparently, one of the problems is coming up with a definitive test to prove someone is driving under the influence of marijuana.


Offer them some munchies.
Catus Felidae is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 01:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
California is voting on a ballot to legalise marijuana this November. Surprisingly the polls show the NO vote is slightly ahead of the YES vote at this stage.



Apparently, one of the problems is coming up with a definitive test to prove someone is driving under the influence of marijuana.


That depends on what poll one references. A chart that shows the general trend of public opinion regarding marijuana legalization can be found here:







Source: White House Press Secretary thinks “professional left” who criticize Obama “ought to be drug tested” | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform





Regarding testing for driving while impaired on marijuana, the police can utilize-and already do utilize-blood tests. Surely, a blood test takes time to perform. However, it is certainly much more "definitive" for detecting recent marijuana use than, say, testing potentially drunk drivers using a breathalyzer. And, of course, the limitations for accurately monitoring marijuana-impaired driving will exist, regardless of marijuana's legality...just as long as it remains illegal to drive-at least to some extent-under the influence of marijuana.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 01:35 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
intangible child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 9,734
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XUWnxc6-GA]YouTube - ‪Illegal Drugs Bullshit‬‎[/ame]
intangible child is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 02:33 PM   #8
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,364
Marijuana stays in your blood for 30 days.
waitingtables is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 03:08 PM   #9
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
Marijuana stays in your blood for 30 days.




And, THC is fat soluble, so if you begin to loose weight... it may re-appear in your blood.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 04:29 PM   #10
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadpole256
And, THC is fat soluble, so if you begin to loose weight... it may re-appear in your blood.


Wow. I didn't know that.
waitingtables is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 04:56 PM   #11
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
Wow. I didn't know that.


It's true, though you'd have to have TONS in your system to pop on a piss quiz.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old August 11th, 2010, 05:04 PM   #12
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
One of the facts which should be well-known to anyone in any field involving drug testing is that THC gets stored in the fat cells, so if one is at all overweight it's likely that they have THC stored. If the person then exercises during the week of testing, it can result in the release of sufficient THC metabolites into the bloodstream to yield a positive test, since the test looks for metabolites, and not THC itself. So you won't get stoned when the metabolites are released into your bloodstream when you exercise, but the test will still detect them. It can take several years for these metabolites to be released and excreted from the body, so false positives in former cannabis users are not uncommon. However in order to have to have enough stored in fat, you'd really have to have smoked a lot. This should not be an issue for a casual user, unless they are morbidly obese and actively losing weight rapidly.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 06:33 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
For those here who are interested in a recent examination of the detection window for THC metabolites in urine, please refer to the following study:



http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/fi...n_Window_0.pdf





And, in this study they concluded the following:



"Based upon recent scientific evidence, at

the 50 ng/mL cutoff concentration for the

detection of cannabinoids in urine (using

the currently available laboratory-based

screening methods) it would be unlikely for

a chronic user to produce a positive urine

drug test result for longer than 10 days after

the last smoking episode. Although there are

no scientific cannabinoid elimination studies

on chronic users using non-instrumented

testing devices, one would assume that if

the on-site devices are properly calibrated

at the 50 ng/mL cutoff level the detection

guidance would be the same.




At the 20 ng/mL cutoff concentration for the

detection of cannabinoids in urine (using

the currently available laboratory-based

screening methods) it would be uncommon

for a chronic marijuana smoker to produce

a positive urine drug test result longer than

21 days after the last smoking episode.



For occasional marijuana use (or single

event usage), at the 50 ng/mL cutoff level,

it would be unusual for the detection of

cannabinoids in urine to extend beyond

3-4 days following the smoking episode

(using the currently available laboratorybased

screening methods or the currently

available on-site THC detection devices).

At the 20 ng/mL cutoff for cannabinoids,

positive urine drug test results for the

single event marijuana use would not be

expected to be longer than 7 days."

baloney_detector is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 08:08 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
The metabolites for the hardcore drugs (methampetamine, cocaine, methadone) do not remain detectable in the urine for extended periods of time, while the metabolite for the most benign (pot) does. So, meth and coke users have a better chance of dodging a drug screen.



Booze causes more domestic problems and far more auto accidents than pot. The two are not even comparable.



Pot should not be illegal.



Actually, I think that most schedule drugs should be legal. Clamp down on antibiotic use instead. Resistant bacteria are becoming a bigger issue all the time.



Make meth and cocaine legal for adults, but give no taxpayer assistance to anyone needing a clean up. A tough issue, but if you are adult enough to decide to use it, you're adult enough to suffer the consequences.
leighredf is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 08:11 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighredf



Actually, I think that most schedule drugs should be legal. Clamp down on antibiotic use instead. Resistant bacteria are becoming a bigger issue all the time.




A-freaking-MEN!



There are idiots out there who want antibiotics for a cold, and doctors worried about loosing patients who will give them to them!
Catus Felidae is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 10:11 AM   #16
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighredf
The metabolites for the hardcore drugs (methampetamine, cocaine, methadone) do not remain detectable in the urine for extended periods of time, while the metabolite for the most benign (pot) does. So, meth and coke users have a better chance of dodging a drug screen.



Booze causes more domestic problems and far more auto accidents than pot. The two are not even comparable.



Pot should not be illegal.



Actually, I think that most schedule drugs should be legal. Clamp down on antibiotic use instead. Resistant bacteria are becoming a bigger issue all the time.



Make meth and cocaine legal for adults, but give no taxpayer assistance to anyone needing a clean up. A tough issue, but if you are adult enough to decide to use it, you're adult enough to suffer the consequences.




I don't see much advantage in legalising marijuana, apart from helping it loose its "cool" image when it's no longer a forbidden fruit.



We have a much bigger problem with prescription drugs, especially psychotropic drugs prescribed for children.



Drug addiction is a very complex problem and for some people it's not simply a character defect.



Not all change is progress or for the better.
garysher is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 10:12 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catus Felidae
A-freaking-MEN!



There are idiots out there who want antibiotics for a cold, and doctors worried about loosing patients who will give them to them!


Our dentist passes out antibiotics like they were candy but acts like a request for painkiller is a request for a shot of heroin.
leighredf is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 11:46 AM   #18
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighredf
The metabolites for the hardcore drugs (methampetamine, cocaine, methadone) do not remain detectable in the urine for extended periods of time, while the metabolite for the most benign (pot) does. So, meth and coke users have a better chance of dodging a drug screen.



Booze causes more domestic problems and far more auto accidents than pot. The two are not even comparable.



Pot should not be illegal.



Actually, I think that most schedule drugs should be legal. Clamp down on antibiotic use instead. Resistant bacteria are becoming a bigger issue all the time.



Make meth and cocaine legal for adults, but give no taxpayer assistance to anyone needing a clean up. A tough issue, but if you are adult enough to decide to use it, you're adult enough to suffer the consequences.


I think all drugs should be legal. You should be allowed to smoke antifreeze if you want to...
tadpole256 is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 11:47 AM   #19
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighredf
Our dentist passes out antibiotics like they were candy but acts like a request for painkiller is a request for a shot of heroin.


I have never gotten antibiotics from a dentist.
tadpole256 is offline  
Old August 12th, 2010, 12:10 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighredf
The metabolites for the hardcore drugs (methampetamine, cocaine, methadone) do not remain detectable in the urine for extended periods of time, while the metabolite for the most benign (pot) does. So, meth and coke users have a better chance of dodging a drug screen.


And, of course, it is important to note that some prescription drug users could arguably be doing illegal drugs on or off the job and their illegal drug use might not be detected by a drug test since a positive result for opiates such as heroin, for example, cannot be distinguished from a positive result for a prescribed opiate, for example.



At best, employee drug testing provides an illusion of safety.



And, at worst, employee drug testing is an outright violation of a person's right to due process and an unwarranted violation of a person's right to privacy.



And, for far too long drug testing has been used as a diagnostic tool to determine work performance/safety...something which drug testing is incapable of doing.
baloney_detector is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco

Tags
benefits, legalization


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Uk To Announce Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Tomorrow tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 164 April 26th, 2012 02:24 PM
All you pro legalization mf's better get out and vote hevusa Current Events 12 October 26th, 2010 01:27 PM
Committee Approves State Pot Legalization Bill highway80west Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco 3 January 13th, 2010 09:05 AM
Proponents Say They Have Signatures to Put Pot Legalization to a Vote in Calif. intangible child Money and Finance 0 December 14th, 2009 06:43 PM
The Problem With Legalization in the US vivelafrance Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco 21 February 8th, 2007 03:18 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.