In light of today's tech article, I have a few questions for my peers.
http://tinyurl.com/2cz9jk

Quote :

"Schedules are used to group together substances by severity; the lower the number of the Schedule, the more severe the punishment is for possession. ... Marijuana is considered a "Schedule I" substance. Substances classified as Schedule I include those that: (1) have a high potential for abuse, (2) have no acceptable medical use in treatment in the U.S. and (3) are dangerous without medical supervision ... If we want dangerous, addictive substances to be illegal, then let's do it - I hope you won't miss that post-exam beer as much as I will. If we want to make "Schedules," then let's do it. But, let's do it without a thinly veiled social agenda; let's do it with honesty."

1) Can a war of this nature be won?

2) Do we have this policy only because, while many of us disagree with it, we just don't feel very strongly about it? Save for CecilDiesel, hempster, & McDanger, not many of us would lift a sign into the air or a pencil to write with for this cause. Is it just the case that there are enough people who like republicans positions on security & taxes, so they'll just put up with this, or are their actually alot of people out there who are really against marijuana to the point of voting on the issue?

3) What would it actually take to make marijuana legal?

My personal thoughts are wars of this kind are unending and thus impossible to win, that people perhaps too often just look at it in terms of recreational activities rather than an issue concern personal autonomy, but I'm not sure what it would take to make it legal. Fighting for the right to do drugs seems hard to do on the scale required to change public policy without making it look selfish and for personal indulgence. I think it would have to become part of a broader push for more individual autonomy & liberty, but I'm not sure how to make that conceptual change.

[Edited on February 3, 2007 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2007 4:37:24 PM

i don't understand why they don't give up on weed and actually focus on drugs that kill large numbers of people.

2/3/2007 4:39:53 PM

^Alcohol and cigarettes?

2/3/2007 4:46:39 PM

There are several of positive ways to spin canabis legalization:

-Medical Purposes
-Law enforcement, justice system no longer burdened by trifling drug offenses
-Opens research for other commercial/scientific uses (hemp)
-Drug money is no longer in the hands of criminals, but in the hands of a legal, transparent, regulated industry (new jobs too).

2/3/2007 5:00:30 PM

It's as vague and ambiguous (and unwinnable) as such abstract concepts like the "War on Crime" and the "War on Terror".

2/3/2007 5:10:36 PM

If a state legalizes marijuana, the federal government should butt the fuck out. The recent Supreme Court holding concerning this issue was one of the worst rulings ever--along with the eminent domain decision.

My short answers to the questions:

1) No.

2) This is a multilayered question that requires a multilayered answer, but I don't have the time now.

3) A populists' uprising--nonviolent, of course.

2/5/2007 12:50:02 AM

Decriminalizing Marijuana would be a significant step in the right direction.

2/5/2007 12:57:57 AM

1.) Of course not, but I'm not sure it's intended to "win" in any conventional sense. I hope to God that not even the most rock-ribbed conservative higher-ups in the DEA actually think we're ever going to eradicate, or come close to eradicating, any kind of drug use. We might be able to keep it to "acceptable levels."

2) I think most of the population (at least the voting population) supports the prohibition of marijuana, in many if not most cases because of widely-held misconceptions about it. They may not be very active in that support, but it's there. Try to remember that outside of college, youth culture, and this message board, there are teeming hordes of people from a variety of backgrounds who are all about getting rid of drugs.

For God's sake, every few years they vote to make my home county (Randolph) open to even limited alcohol sales (currently dry except for a couple of communities), and every year the reaction against the move is impressive. We have several ill-gotten "Say NO to liquor!" signs in my basement.

And then there are others, like me, who see marijuana in a vacuum as something that has no business being illegal across the board. But it isn't in a vacuum, and it's a component in many cases of larger political agendas that are much less palatable. It wouldn't be the deciding factor, but I would at least consider the fact that legalizing pot would lend credence and momentum to fruitcakes like hempster before I voted on the matter.

3) More and more communities will decriminalize, and over time it will become fairly obvious that those communities aren't collapsing into a cess pool of crime and moral decay. This will lead to more communities and maybe states following suit.

I could envision a situation where such a sizeable part of the country is decriminalizing that the feds try to make criminalization a condition for certain federal aid, but I suspect it wouldn't get far. Eventually the feds will say, "We're ignoring pot, it's up to you" and eventually most -- but perhaps not all -- of the country will have decriminalized/legalized.

Quote :

"My personal thoughts are wars of this kind are unending and thus impossible to win"

Sure, but police work in general is a "war on crime" that is unending and unwinnable. That doesn't really say much about the validity of either effort.

Quote :

"i don't understand why they don't give up on weed and actually focus on drugs that kill large numbers of people."

That has always been my tack: "Look, I'll give you weed (and maybe some other light stuff), but you need to give me carte blanc on prosecuting these other drugs."

2/5/2007 1:49:44 AM

Thanks for the thread --

This is an interesting spinoff, because in the column I was pretty agnostic about whether to legalize it or not. I'm more concerned about the government having honest policies first. It seems to me that if our drug policy were honest, it would quickly become rational.

2/5/2007 10:47:50 AM

McDanger is dangerous with some NO2

2/5/2007 10:57:28 AM

just look at Canada

2/5/2007 12:44:09 PM

the whole situation is nonsense. alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana in almost every aspect. i think if we could get a few more generations between the social stigma of pot smoking and having people actually do good faith studies it'd be for the better.

in all actuality alcohol and marijuana should probably switch places.

2/5/2007 1:30:35 PM

Is it possible to win a war on something that broad and vague?

It makes as much sense as a war on poverty or terror.

2/5/2007 1:33:30 PM

LSD is a similarly benign substance (chemically). You should have compared marijuana to a genuinely dangerous substance such as heroin or meth (though I dont know which "schedules" those are in).

2/5/2007 1:51:31 PM

LSDs effects on the brain make a fairly strong argument for its being listed as a controlled substance. While people may responsibly use it, its distortion of reality can cause a user to harm others irrationally. Of course, so could alcohol, so that argument is tenuous at best.

I spent a couple of years working for the State Surplus agency and saw the amount of money we spend confiscating and auctioning off the belongings of drug dealers. It is, in short, an enormously inefficient waste of money. Of course, money should not be the only consideration here, but in the case of marijuana, I think it strengthens the call for legalization.

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2007 2:30:04 PM

Quote :

"LSD is a similarly benign substance "

maybe in regards to physical health, but it can really do a number of your mental health.

2/5/2007 2:31:26 PM

but Tom cruise says psychiatry is pseudo-science!

2/5/2007 2:36:57 PM

How did my name get brought into this? I'm all for the incarceration and castration of those goddamn dope smoking hippies. Their long hair and lovey dovey flowers are ruining this amazing, God-fearing country of ours.

1. A war of this nature is not meant to be won. It's meant to pray on the irrational fears of people so they agree that it is okay to limit the individual freedoms of some section of the population (the "bad" section). Of course the war can never be won; experimentation and intoxication are basic human traits and no government or religion is ever going to stop that.

2. There are many reasons why people don't speak up about this issue. The first group is those that don't want people to suspect them of drug use; these people want to stay under the radar, and it's easy to understand their perspective when they are lawyers, doctors, teachers, parents. They may sign petitions, write letters to legislators, but they won't voice their opinion in public.

The second group is plagued by apathy or despair, thinking it's impossible to change the system; these people also stay under the radar, but they knowingly risk their freedom by breaking the law, accept it and do nothing to change it.

The third group are those that do not ingest drugs. They could either think ingesting drugs is perfectly fine, or it may be completely immoral. What they don't realize is this is an issue of individual liberty and personal responsibility. The government should have no right to dictate to its citizens what they are allowed to do with their person, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of other citizens.

There are people who will vote against marijuana law reforms. Just look at the Nevada decriminalization bill last election. I think a good percentage of them would fall into the third group if the right message was given from the pro-legalization community.

3. Medicinal marijuana, lower priority offenses and reintroducing hemp are all steps in the right direction. But you're right, fighting for personal autonomy is the way to go for mass acceptance. Of course there will always be the alcohol and tobacco industries fighting against legalization of any other drugs since it will cut right into their pockets.

One thing the movement should not do is to spout propaganda in the same way the government has. Too often I've heard of cannabis as a wonder drug for medical patients - an amazing solution, no drawbacks, it helps any ailment under the sun! Of course there are drawbacks, and spewing out false information makes them no more credible than the government.

---

On the same topic, there is a marijuana law reform march May 6th at the State Capitol from 12 - 8 pm. There will be bands and speakers. This is part of a worldwide march to raise awareness of unjust cannabis laws. The main site is here: http://www.globalmarijuanamarch.com/

A website for the Raleigh site is here: http://www.myspace.com/cannabisNC

And I've set up a Facebook event here: http://ncst.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2235632012

Come April I'll be putting up fliers around campus and setting up tables in the Brickyard to try to get people out. So if you guys feel strongly enough about the issue to chill out downtown on a Sunday afternoon, mark the date or RSVP with the Facebook event.

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2007 5:19:06 PM

^so can we get cheap weed at that march?

2/5/2007 5:20:54 PM

^^^^
^^^^^

Thats what I tried to imply by "chemically". LSD wont give you cancer and is not chemically addictive. Of course, all drugs, even pot, have the potential to fuck you up mentally, whether you're having a nightmare after a bad trip or you cant get off the couch because you smoked yourself lazy. IMO, that potential is pretty much equal across the board, and does not warrant comparison.

It wasnt a bad choice of words; most people have exaggerated preconceptions about LSD as well and probably understood the analogy.

[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2007 7:02:25 PM

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/03/23/assesing-the-harm-of-illegal-drugs

3/26/2007 9:43:52 AM

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/drugs_and_toxic.html

3/26/2007 10:01:24 AM

im guessing that chart actually should read "ratio of effective dose to fatal dose".

...and 1 fatal does to every 10 effect doses of alcohol seems pretty high. but ive never really looked at the numbers before.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 10:11 AM. Reason : d]

3/26/2007 10:10:36 AM

even if that chart is 100% true it just seems kind of counter intuitive that LSD is "less lethal" than alcohol

i guess it just fucks up your brain but keeps you alive

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 10:14:57 AM

it also depends on what you consider a "dose"

3/26/2007 10:15:35 AM

Quote :

"even if that chart is 100% true it just seems kind of counter intuitive that LSD is "less lethal" than alcohol "

i dont agree. LSD will fuck with your head, not kill you.

3/26/2007 10:17:04 AM

yeah look at my edit

3/26/2007 10:18:52 AM

just to clear some things up, lsd does not physically or permanently mess with your head. only psychologically and usually only temporarily.

Quote :

"Negative reactions, sometimes called bad trips, are most apt to occur in unstable persons or in other persons taking very large amounts of a drug or taking it under strange conditions or in unfamiliar settings. So far as is known, these drugs are nontoxic, and there are no permanent physical effects associated with their use. There is no physical dependence or withdrawal symptom associated with long-term use, but certain individuals may become psychologically dependent on the drug, become deeply preoccupied with its use, and radically change their lifestyle with continued use."

http://www.britannica.com/psychedelic/textonly/hallucinogen.html

3/26/2007 2:18:13 PM

Quote :

"there are no permanent physical effects associated with their use"

i dont care what that article says...i know enough people to say thats bullshit

also the passage you quoted doesnt exactly specify LSD, psilocybin or mescaline

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 2:20:45 PM

kava kava and nutmeg?

excuse my ignorance but what are those used for?

3/26/2007 2:24:03 PM

nutmeg makes you trip

course its supposed to be the actual raw nutmeg, not the powder you buy in the spice section of harris teeter

3/26/2007 2:25:06 PM

i heard holding your breath can give you a high...

3/26/2007 2:26:50 PM

nutmeg gets you high if you dont mind throwing up all night, thats why its never caught on as a recreational drug

Quote :

"im guessing that chart actually should read "ratio of effective dose to fatal dose"."

the chart is correct as labled, you are reading it wrong.

it takes over 1000 times the effective dosage for marijuana to be fatal
it takes 150 times the effective dose for nitrous oxide to be fatal
it takes 10 times the effective dose of alcohol for it to be fatal
it takes only 5 times the effective dosage of heron for it to be fatal

none of those stick out to me as way off base

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 2:29:57 PM

Quote :

"it takes over 1000 times the effective dosage for marijuana to be fatal support of alcohol for marijuana to be legal"

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 2:58 PM. Reason : /]

3/26/2007 2:58:05 PM

i kinda get what you are saying, but not really

3/26/2007 3:11:57 PM

ahhh, ok, i was reading it wrong.

its dose size, not number of doses.


i guess the chart is making assumption about what an "effective dose" is. for someone with a tolerance that effective dose isnt going to be the same as someone without a tolerance.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 3:24 PM. Reason : fd]

3/26/2007 3:20:35 PM

Noen told me that weed would be legalized within 15 years

and u know how what noen says, goes

3/26/2007 3:22:55 PM

^^^there would have to be overwhelming public support for weed to be decriminalized in a given area in the current political climate....as opposed to say, the proportionally less support required to "turn on the drip" in a dry county. and even if the public of a given area takes a step forward on weed policy(cali) the feds step in to try and strip them of their legislative power.

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ^]

3/26/2007 3:23:51 PM

Quote :

" i dont care what that article says...i know enough people to say thats bullshit "

So you'll take the word of "people," most likely products of DARE, over scientific studies and the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people?

What permanent physical effects have you seen in these "people"?

Or are you just referring to psychological changes after ingestion? And if so, I believe you're implying that any lifestyle changes from ingesting a psychedelic are negative.

3/26/2007 3:37:00 PM

i am probably confused but these are ratios correct?

wouldn't that mean that the 1000 to 1 ratio of lsd could simply mean that it takes some small fraction to be effective but easily could be overdosed on? like let's say 1/1000th of a penny sized pill has enough to be effective but that penny sized pill easily could kill you. this is probably a huge oversimplification but i just wanted some clarity from you uber druggers

just seems to me when you're working with numbers that small it'd be extremely easy to overdose

kind of like how you can drink a 12 pack one night and be good or have 12 shots and be fux0red

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 7:49 PM. Reason : jank]

3/26/2007 7:48:46 PM

what it says is that if one blotter is the effective dose, it would take 1000 blotters of LSD to be fatal

3/26/2007 7:59:35 PM

what if you have high tolerance and need 2 blotters?

3/26/2007 8:03:02 PM

^^^^i'm talking about i know people who have done a lot of acid who are fucked up in the head permanently...i'm talking about the experiences of people

[Edited on March 26, 2007 at 8:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2007 8:04:06 PM

^^im sure its based on the median or something

3/26/2007 8:30:14 PM

the war on pot is kinda like the war on underaged drinking

3/26/2007 8:46:31 PM

^No, it's not at all.

3/27/2007 1:08:18 AM

1) Dictating to people what private lifestyle choices they may or may not make is not within the legitimate scope of the government's authority. The fact that government thugs are willing to forcefully invade private homes, assault peaceful, non-violent citizens, haul them off to years of incarceration - only to be released with a "criminal record" that permanently damages or destroys their ability to make an honest living - all over a fucking leisure activity, is nothing short of sickening.

2)The consequences of the drug war far outweigh the dangers of the drugs, especially for those who don't use them. Gang wars fueled by black market profits and cops who can seize your assets at will are both scarier than either drugs or those addicted to them.

3) The war on drugs is never going to be successful, or even marginally effective. If there were any chance, any hope at all, of government keeping illegal drug use down to "acceptable levels" as GrumpyGOP put it, then Government would be able to keep drugs out of prisons. That they are not even able to accomplish this illustrates the futility of the entire effort. For all the good it does, Congress may as well bundle the $20 billion odd dollars they now allocate to drug enforcement each year into bricks and use it to pave the streets of Washington, at least then the money wouldn't be be used to directly harm anybody.

Don't get me wrong, I don't use illicit drugs. Despite my crazy schedule, I rarely even consume caffeine. Since I gave up binge drinking a few months ago, I've only been drinking socially, and that rarely.

Though vastly overstated, I'll allow that drug abuse can be a serious problem. To the extent that it is, there are far more effective ways to deal with it than empowering a vast police state to trample our civil liberties.

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 2:56 AM. Reason : ']

3/27/2007 2:43:51 AM

A vast police state? Calm down fool. Do you know anyone personally that has been caught up in this "war on drugs" that actually wasn't a drug user?

3/27/2007 7:15:00 AM

lou dobbs

3/27/2007 7:18:33 AM

^^every single taxpayer?

3/27/2007 8:11:08 AM