Sometimes you only need one.
Posted on 06/06/2012 6:14:32 PM PDT by PreciousLiberty
A third of people think cannabis is harmless, despite it being 20 times more carcinogenic to smoke than tobacco, according to a report published today (Wednesday).
Young people are particularly ignorant of the health dangers posed by smoking cannabis, found the British Lung Foundation.
The British Lung Foundation, which produced the report, said there was “an alarming disconnect” between public perception of the drug as safe, and “the serious, even fatal impact it can have”.
Almost nine in 10 people think tobacco cigarettes are more damaging to health than cannabis ones, found the BLF.
The charity reviewed existing scientific evidence on the health impacts of smoking cannabis, and reported there was strong evidence it contributed to diseases including lung cancer, tuberculosis and acute bronchitis.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The question isn't whether smoking pot is a good idea - question is whether criminalizing pot is a good idea.
Nobody steals air conditioners and scrap the coils out them to finance an alcohol habit. But heroin abusers do and a button (capsule) is about 6 to 10 dollars, so very cheap.
Putting these drugs in a free market venue opens up more opportunities for employee theft, more opportunities for pharmacy robbery, and Walgreens definitely does not want customers shooting up and dying on their parking lot.
Put the distribution in a safe, enclosed enviroment voids these expensive unpleasantries.
Now, I don’t know what the dollar figure would be to purchase the product, distribute and staff the dispenseries but it can’t be more than we are spending in the War on Drugs/Citizens/Constitution now.
How long does a button last? 10 dollars of alcohol is enough to keep even a high-tolerance drinker happy for several days.
Putting these drugs in a free market venue opens up more opportunities for employee theft,
You can say that about any consumer good.
more opportunities for pharmacy robbery,
Prescription drugs is not a lightly-regulated free market.
and Walgreens definitely does not want customers shooting up and dying on their parking lot.
Nobody would be required to sell any drug. And liquor stores don't seem to be worried about alkies passing out in their parking lots.
My goal is to end the violence associated with the illicit narcotics trade and the over expansion of the government.
I would prefer that those narcotics be distributed in single venues with onsite usage at little or no cost to the user with the taxpayer expenditure offset with the savings in smaller government bureaucracies or outright elimination of some.
I am intimately aware of the lengths that citizens are prepared to go through to get something they must pay for and must have lest they become very ill. I offer my idea so the victimization of law abiding citizens by those involved in the drug trade is minimized greatly.
Mine too.
I would prefer that those narcotics be distributed in single venues with onsite usage
That would be a vast improvement over the status quo. I could get behind that.
at little or no cost to the user
Simply ransporting heroin base from its source to its destination currently results in a more than 30-fold price increase; if drugs were legal they'd be vastly less expensive than now.
Thank you for the conversation. I hope more will consider the end of the War on Drugs/Citizens/Constitution.
Never happened in history with anything ~ and drugs getting cheaper? Obviously you aren't buying many drugs these days. Even with generics the price inevitably goes up!
Hmm ~ so you imagine the middlemen can be put out of business?
Did I say that? No. Show me a legal product whose simple transportation results in a 30-fold price increase.
and drugs getting cheaper? Obviously you aren't buying many drugs these days. Even with generics the price inevitably goes up!
The generic always remains cheaper than the brand name, just as legal drugs will always be cheaper than illegal ones.
You do realize your friendly neighborhood dope dealers have absolutely NO INTEREST in legalization. Like the numbers salesmen before them they'd be out of business ~ even though, like the return rate on numbers, that will decline substantially. Folks engaging in state sponsored lotteries may get to deal with clean cut sales clerks in tidy gas station snack shops BUT the state keeps more than any Mafia Don ever thought seemly.
"Brand name" is irrelevant in the context of cannabis; unlike synthesized medicines, nobody has any claim to a patent on cannabis.
You do realize your friendly neighborhood dope dealers have absolutely NO INTEREST in legalization.
Of course I do. Do you realize that dealers' opposition to legalization is a point in favor of legalization?
Which is why a ‘legal product’ will always have a higher market price than the illegal product.
Sometimes you only need one.
Wrong; during alcohol Prohibition "The price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, but spirit prices increased by only 270 percent" - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa157.pdf (Free clue: many legal products are not patent-protected.)
I tend to think that Marijuana should be if not “legalized” than “decriminalized”.
I think in many ways it already has been - but - if a cop doesn’t like you he can still bust you if he finds marijuana on you.
I don’t think marijuana or alcohol are “good for you”. I think this is the lie that people who use these drugs tell themselves. They each are destructive in their own ways.
Not always - but most of the time. But people are going to get high and we should focus our attention on scourges like heroin and meth which most reasonable people feel are a whole different beast.
My final point is that we can define DWI when it comes to alcohol much easier than we can define DWI when it comes to marijuana. Not only define it but also enforce and ajudicate that definition. This is a not insignificant issue.
I certainly agree that legalizing all drugs in one fell swoop is not a prudent idea. Let's legalize and regulate marijuana, taking a big bite out of criminal profits and law enforcement costs, and see what lessons there are to be learned.
During prohibition there were no legal products.
Agreed - with emphasis on “lessons learned”. The law of unintended consequences has never been repealed and no matter what you do something will happen that you hadn’t planned on. All this stuff is easy on paper. When you actually try to do it it can get messy.
Whatever solution is ultimately adopted, I think society has a vested interest in solving the DWI issue - driving while high is not something society should tolerate as from a practical, theoretical or moral point of view.
This is one club pak that will suffice for any party.
Wrong; during alcohol Prohibition "The price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, but spirit prices increased by only 270 percent" - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa157.pdf (Free clue: many legal products are not patent-protected.)
During prohibition there were no legal products.
Can you suggest any reason anyone should believe that, although legal pre-Prohibition alcohol was much cheaper then illegal Prohibition alcohol, illegal pre-Prohibition alcohol was cheaper than either?
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.