Conservative? I don't think so.
Posted on 05/07/2006 7:17:42 PM PDT by found_one
Availibility and use are two different things.
Every single survey has shown that teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol -- yet teens use alcohol 2:1 over marijuana. Legalization (even restricted to adults) carries a societal acceptance.
And, despite all those restrictions (you left out the high "sin" taxes imposed by all levels of government) teens still use tobacco and alcohol 2:1 over easy to get marijuana.
"A substance that people want" being the key phrase. Two-thirds of the people passed a constitutional amendment to repeal the 18th and turn the alcohol legalization decision exclusively over to the states.
Do you think you can get even one-third to legalize maruijuana much less all drugs?
Conservative? I don't think so.
Are you proposing the legalization of all drugs or just marijuana? Do you think we will eliminate "a constant war that makes criminals rich, costs tax payers billions upon billions, and throws people in jail" by simply legalizing marijuana?
Then why is it used so much on the medical marijuana threads? I'll look for you LOLing some of those posts, though I haven't seen you do it so far.
Better yet, I'll ping you to those posts so you can LOL to your heart's content.
PLUS, drugs will still be illegal for those underage. Currently, 30% of marijuana users are underage, and I would expect that percentage to rise with legalization.
So, the government's manpower, money, and time will still be expended for arrest, trial, conviction, incarceration and drug treatment for that group of drug users.
You can't argue that MJ can alleviate symptoms of various conditions. I think it should be an available option, but I don't think it's a cure-all. Letting someone decide on their choice of medicine isn't really a laughing matter when they're dying anyway, but I wouldn't put it past you to laugh at a terminal cancer patient that wanted the freedom to use alternate meds.
It's a bad idea to start an article off with something as stupid as this: "Ever hear a liberal or libertarian say that we need to legalize “soft” drugs like cocaine and marijuana because they did this in Holland and it was wildly successful? You know: kids immediately lost interest in these drugs and stopped taking them?"
I've never heard anyone refer to cocaine as a "soft" drug. The rest of the article is short on facts. So at least one out of every 20 kids has experimented with coke or ecstasy? Note that there's no proof of this "fact" in the article. Also, how does that compare to other countries?
This article debunks nothing.
Hmmm, is that a black jazz musician in that poster? And what's he doing - shooting her up with marijuana? Hilarious!
Hey, I'm not the one who's laughing at anecdotal stories. I simply discount them as a basis for making medical decisions -- I favor research, peer-reviewed studies, and clinical trials.
You're the one who's LOLing and saying that "anecdotal evidence debunks nothing". I'm just waiting for you to repeat that exact statement on the medical marijuana threads, that's all.
I don't post on MMJ threads so you might be waiting a while.
The Foreign Ministry, Justice Ministry, and Health Ministry issued a joint diplomatic press release which can only be called wry understatement:
The impression had been gained that Mr. McCaffrey was coming to the Netherlands to familiarise himself on the spot with Dutch drugs policy. The Netherlands would not exclude the possibility that if Mr. McCaffrey familiarises himself with the results of Dutch drugs policy, he will bring his views more closely into line with the facts" (Financial Times [London], July 16, 1998, p. 2).
And why were they upset, you ask...
Whatever the reason this fact eluded General McCaffrey and his staff, it did not elude the journalists to whom he spoke. In less than 24 hours, the world's media caught and corrected McCaffrey's mistake. They showed that he had arrived at his Dutch figure by lumping homicides together with the much higher number of attempted homicides, and that he had not done the same for the U.S. figures. Thus, the Drug Czar had compared the U.S. homicide rate with the combined rates of homicide and attempted homicide in the Netherlands. The correct Dutch homicide rate, the international press reported, is 1.8 per 100,000, less than one fourth the U.S. rate (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, July 13, 1998; Reuters, July 14, 1998).
It's a shame that he didn't link the article he referenced so others could read it for themselves.
Misconceptions about the Netherlands
The aim, as in many countries, is to reduce addiction to hard drugs and the crime associated with it. In the Netherlands, one way of achieving this has been to separate the markets for hard and soft drugs. The theory is that if soft drugs are brought out into the open and away from the criminal dealers, their use is far less likely to lead to hard drug addiction. Young people are free to try smoking a joint if they wish; they can do it openly and without coming into contact with criminals. The statistics show that under these circumstances, most young people do not form a habit. (Nuffic, the Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education, was established in 1952.)
Lots of interesting tidbits in there Doc.
Yep, those black jazz musicians were shooting up white women with marijuana. It was a huge problem back in the thirties!
.
What a failure to control supply!
yet teens use alcohol 2:1 over marijuana. Legalization (even restricted to adults) carries a societal acceptance.
Alcohol has always been preferred over mj in the US, regardless of the changing legal status of each. So much for whatever point you were attempting to make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.