Halibut Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 How about if crack were legal and prescribed to addicts for free along with free advice and counseling to help get addicts off the drug? Sounds like a hell of a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Speakeasies more often than not served booze smuggled across the border from Canada or Mexico and it was the good stuff brewed in Canada or Europe. Stuff by the ton came from both countries. Wrong again: Two other effects of prohibitions are the effects on overdoses and accidental poisonings. Because suppliers in a prohibited market must hide their activities from the authorities, they have a strong incentive to produce and ship the good in the most concentrated and hence most easily concealed form (Thornton 1998). This implies that prohibitions help make the potent forms of a good more readily available or even help create more potent forms of a prohibited substance. By itself this effect does not necessarily change the manner in which consumption takes place; consumers can potentially redilute the commodity in question to achieve their desired degree of potency. But in practice such redilution is imperfect, suggesting increased overdoses under prohibitions.7 7 Evidence from Warburton (1932) suggests a substantial substitution of hard liquor for beer consumption during Prohibition, presumably because of this effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Sounds like a hell of a plan. I bet Harley doesn't think so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The poor who cannot afford to buy the better stuff will still be big clients. If the better, regulated stuff is cheaper than the illicit, then clearly they will be able to afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Crack, a deadly addicitve substance will remain the choice in the inner city ghettos and no one, not law enforcement or any government with all their rules and regulations will be able to stamp it out. Not really relevant when it comes to legalising marijuana though. Thoug of course, like all drugs, when regulated they will be much safer to use, and, users will be more able to lead productive lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I think it's a subject perfectly suited for this thread, it is after all the most suitable legalised drug with which to compare cannabis when discussing the pros and cons of legalisation or decriminalisation. Yes looking at it from that perspective,I can see what you mean. I was in a rush when i replied to your post,and missed out a word. Anyway i havn't really got anything more to add to the discussion.I have made my feelings clear on my previous posts. Except to mention that I accept that alcohol addiction may be worse then cannibis addiction but the way things stand at present alcohol is legal and cannabis is not,so however much people on this thread try to justify it they have to accept that they are breaking the law. Furthermore I would question the moral aspect,by that i mean if they are growing the weed only for their own use at least no one is involved to the same extent as would be the case if they were buying it from a dealer who is supplying it to vulnerable young people.They may be supplying harder drugs to them too.Those dodgy people that are making a living out of it are the ones i view as criminals.I've just got no time for them. Making money out of other peoples miseries its appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Furthermore I would question the moral aspect,by that i mean if they are growing the weed only for their own use at least no one is involved The sad thing is, it is precisely these people that the judge mentioned in the OP is "targeting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The sad thing is, it is precisely these people that the judge mentioned in the OP is "targeting". What happened to that google video link,you posted i was going to watch that debate It said the video was unavailable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I was in a rush when i replied to your post,and missed out a word. Anyway i havn't really got anything more to add to the discussion.I have made my feelings clear on my previous posts. Except to mention that I accept that alcohol addiction may be worse then cannibis addiction but the way things stand at present alcohol is legal and cannabis is not,so however much people on this thread try to justify it they have to accept that they are breaking the law. Furthermore I would question the moral aspect,by that i mean if they are growing the weed only for their own use at least no one is involved to the same extent as would be the case if they were buying it from a dealer who is supplying it to vulnerable young people.They may be supplying harder drugs to them too.Those dodgy people that are making a living out of it are the ones i view as criminals.I've just got no time for them. Making money out of other peoples miseries its appalling. *Gives you a big hug* You nailed it sister, absolutely spot on! 1) Alcohol is worse than cannabis 2) Cannabis is illegal 3) Because of this, people (who want to buy it) have to buy it from dealers who MAY also introduce them to harder drugs. It's so simple, yet Harley gets it so wrong. His argument is that drugs are sold by criminals so they should stay illegal, which continues to keep the criminals in business. EDIT: The law and morals are not the same thing. There are some stupid laws that I wouldn't lose any sleep over if I broke them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The sad thing is, it is precisely these people that the judge mentioned in the OP is "targeting". I may not be that clever,but i'm quite capable of recognising a rascal when i see one, bearing in mind that you have quoted a section from my post that makes it look as if i'm in favour of growing an illegal herb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.