Jump to content

War on Drugs


Guest bengalrick

What should we do next, in the war on drugs?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. What should we do next, in the war on drugs?

    • A. What do you mean... it's working fine :crazy:
      1
    • B. It's not working, but we need to keep pumping $ into the current way its done...
      1
    • C. War on drugs in necessary, but we need to attack illicit drugs only, and think seriously about legalizing and taxing marijuana...
      14
    • D. We need to scrap war on drugs, and figure a better way altogher...
      10


Recommended Posts

Guest bengalrick
I was thinking about this, and wouldn't it make the war on drugs alot easier, if they didn't have to go after marijuana, and focused on the big stuff, like cocaine, heroin, etc...

we could tax it, but not too much so people will stop growing it, and the gov't could have a lot of extra money...

what do you guys think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
It`s not what you do to YOURSELF that makes you a bad person.
It`s what you do to others that makes you a bad person. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]

With that said...they need to legalize everything !
That way they could tax it, have farmers that are
losing their farms grow it and the Government would have
" some control" by selling it. Plus it would free up money
spent on fighting the "war on drugs" and free up the jail/prison system.

Right now it doesn`t matter how old you are ...if you got
the $$$ you can get what you want.

If people break other laws while doing drugs or steal
to get drugs ....the arrest them for that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

i can't see us legalizing everything imo... too many health concerns w/ doctors prescribing crack :D

weed on the other hand, should be seriously looked at imo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Apr 11 2005, 08:56 AM']i can't see us legalizing everything imo... too many health concerns w/ doctors prescribing crack  :D

weed on the other hand, should be seriously looked at imo...
[right][post="73894"][/post][/right][/quote]


Doctors don`t prescribe alcohol...and health concerns ?
People are going to buy it whether it is legal or not... or healthy or not.
If it was something made by the Government...it would be "healthier"
than if some crackhead was paranoid and geeking out ...putting God
knows what in it ... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//17.gif[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='oldschooler' date='Apr 11 2005, 10:02 AM']Doctors don`t prescribe alcohol...and health concerns ?
People are going to buy it whether it is legal or not... or healthy or not.
If it was something made by the Government...it would be "healthier"
than if some crackhead was paranoid and geeking out ...putting God
knows what in it ... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/17.gif[/img]
[right][post="73897"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

i just can't see illicit drugs ever being legal... i know the gov't could make it safer, but seriously, do we want the US gov't in the drug dealing business? i mean, i'm for legalizing weed, but not all drugs... there are enough crack heads out there...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='bengalrick' date='Apr 11 2005, 09:40 AM']i just can't see illicit drugs ever being legal... i know the gov't could make it safer, but seriously, do we want the US gov't in the drug dealing business? i mean, i'm for legalizing weed, but not all drugs... there are enough crack heads out there...
[right][post="73903"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



Well Rick I can`t see them being legalized either.
I was just saying what I think we/they should do.

As far as "there are enough crackheads out there"...yeah I agree.
That`s why I said legalize it. Legalizing it would give them "some control"
to set a age limit (like alcohol) and they would know who is buying it.
Plus they would get tax dollars from selling it...and free up the jails...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BengalBacker
I definitely think weed should be legal. I go back and forth on harder drugs though. One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is what the black market for this stuff has created. Many of the problems with illegal drugs aren't so much the effects on the users, but the violence due to the buying and selling of them. Turf wars of rival gangs, drug deals gone bad, etcetera. I don't think there is a perfect solution, but it seems obvious to me that the current approach doesn't work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marijuana is a gateway drug, if we legalize that, all the hard shit will become a lot bigger of a problem. Anyone who has ever seen someone on meth will think twice about legalizing it all. No matter what is legalized, the dumbass dealers will have harder, cheaper, and more dangerous shit. Suicide rates would skyrocket, my best friends brother killed himself after taking heroin, I saw what it did to his family, and nobody should go through that.
DRUGS ARE BAD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[b]Prohibition created Al Capone and the Tommy Gun

The War on Drugs created Escobar and Noriega....[/b]

Niether worked.....


in fact Kingpins love that drugs are illegal, it allows them to increase profits, step on them with rat poison (since there are no quality standards), and it is the fuel of at least half of all crime in the country today.


Legalize all substances and then increase punishments for abuse to very high standards. For instance Cocaine is legal but if you drive on it and run over someone you are put to death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think of marijuana as a depressant just as alcohol with virtually
the same effects, legalizing it would mean putting the same
restrictions on it as alchohol...age limit, illegal to drive under the
influence..etc....OUR GREAT COUNTRY WOULD NEVER BE IN DEBT
IF IT WAS LEGALIZED... that's for sure....BUT...
the harder drugs are hallucinagents...IMO...no way should be legalized,
there is absolutly no control while being "high" on some of those
harder drugs such as heroine, crack, meth....the difference between
the behavior of someone on crack and someone on Marijuana is
night and day....I guess I'm saying, legalizing pot wouldn't be such
a bad idea...with a tax on it, our country would always have a surplus [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]
put the same restrictions as alcohol...
I don't think it will never happen because they say pot is what leads people
into the next level of drugs...oh well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey BengalRick, according to the board it's your birthday man. Well, Happy Birthday! best wishes for the year ahead.

With regards to the question...I don't think it'll happen down south. Wouldn't the Bible belt freak? Given the large amount of support they provide come voting time..would any party try this? Wouldn't it be political suicide?

It was close to happening here in Canada. Decriminilization of weed....but now that many Canadian organized crime groups are swapping Canadian grown weed with US gangs for cocaine straight up...the government is taking a step back and reconsidering the whole venture.

Plus the number of grow ops has exploded in this country. In British Columbia alone, conservative estimates place it as a $8 billion a year cash crop. All black market ofcourse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='Apr 11 2005, 01:17 PM']I definitely think weed should be legal. I go back and forth on harder drugs though. One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is what the black market for this stuff has created. Many of the problems with illegal drugs aren't so much the effects on the users, but the violence due to the buying and selling of them. Turf wars of rival gangs, drug deals gone bad, etcetera. I don't think there is a perfect solution, but it seems obvious to me that the current approach doesn't work.
[right][post="73940"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

If you legalized drugs there would still be a black market. No one would want to buy their drugs at the gas station and pay exhorbinant taxes like they do with cigarettes. We're forced to pay the tax on cigs because there wasn't a thriving black market established when the taxes took effect. The gov. having control of the market is a good idea, but their control wouldn't eliminate the black market.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

[quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' date='Apr 11 2005, 02:44 PM']Hey BengalRick, according to the board it's your birthday man. Well, Happy Birthday! best wishes for the year ahead.

With regards to the question...I don't think it'll happen down south. Wouldn't the Bible belt freak? Given the large amount of support they provide come voting time..would any party try this? Wouldn't it be political suicide?

It was close to happening here in Canada. Decriminilization of weed....but now that many Canadian organized crime groups are swapping Canadian grown weed with US gangs for cocaine straight up...the government is taking a step back and reconsidering the whole venture.

Plus the number of grow ops has exploded in this country. In British Columbia alone, conservative estimates place it as a $8 billion a year cash crop. All black market ofcourse.
[right][post="73974"][/post][/right][/quote]

thanks man...

yes, the south would go absolutely crazy... at least, like you said, the extemely religious people... i'd say that more that half of america would support legalizing weed, but the people that would yell the loudest are the religious right...

it won't happen unless someone has the balls to offer it up (in one of the two big parties)... in other words, we're wasting time talking about it, b/c it would never happen... it makes TOO much sense :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' date='Apr 11 2005, 02:44 PM']Hey BengalRick, according to the board it's your birthday man. Well, Happy Birthday! best wishes for the year ahead.

With regards to the question...I don't think it'll happen down south. Wouldn't the Bible belt freak? Given the large amount of support they provide come voting time..would any party try this? Wouldn't it be political suicide?

It was close to happening here in Canada. Decriminilization of weed....but now that many Canadian organized crime groups are swapping Canadian grown weed with US gangs for cocaine straight up...the government is taking a step back and reconsidering the whole venture.

Plus the number of grow ops has exploded in this country. In British Columbia alone, conservative estimates place it as a $8 billion a year cash crop. All black market ofcourse.
[right][post="73974"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

What exactly are the laws about pot in Canada?

I've been up to Montreal several times and I've heard that there are after-hours clubs where everybody just sits around and smokes weed/hash. It not like it's a big secret as to what's going on in there. How do they get away with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='akiliMVP' date='Apr 11 2005, 06:46 PM']Marijuana is a gateway drug, if we legalize that, all the hard shit will become a lot bigger of a problem. Anyone who has ever seen someone on meth will think twice about legalizing it all. No matter what is legalized, the dumbass dealers will have harder, cheaper, and more dangerous shit. Suicide rates would skyrocket, my best friends brother killed himself after taking heroin, I saw what it did to his family, and nobody should go through that.
DRUGS ARE BAD.
[right][post="73952"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[b]Bullshit!!!!!![/b]
Marijuana is not a gateway drug! I've seen many a people smoke weed and never do any other drugs and I've seen coke heads and oxycontin addicts that have never smoked weed!


If there was no such thing as marijuana, do you thing people wouldn't do any other drugs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason drugs won't be legalized it has become such a huge part of our economy. Some experts think as much as 25% of our economy is fueled by the illegal drug trade. Drug dealers buy expensive cars, houses and jewelery among other things. Law enforcement confiscates these items reselling them back to the public generating even more income.

Also the drug testing industry has become a billion dollar a year industry and the drug test masking industry growing into a very lucrative business in itself.

The truth be told, our economy needs illegal drugs! could you imagine what would happen if we subtracted 25% out of the economy? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Storm' date='Apr 11 2005, 08:47 PM'][b]Bullshit!!!!!![/b]
Marijuana is not a gateway drug!  I've seen many a people smoke weed and never do any other drugs and I've seen coke heads and oxycontin addicts that have never smoked weed!
If there was no such thing as marijuana, do you thing people wouldn't do any other drugs?
[right][post="74138"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
And I know a lot of people who started smoking marijuana and moved on to harder shit because the weed wasn't strong enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WELL IT'S A BOOK FULL... ENJOY!!!!

Half a million nonviolent drug offenders clog our prisons and jails. Mandatory minimum sentences and inflexible sentencing guidelines condemn numerous low-level offenders to years or decades behind bars, often based solely on the word of compensated, confidential informants.

Overall, criminalization has become a reflexive, default reaction to social problems, as opposed to its more limited, proper role as a last resort after other methods have failed. As a result, more than two million people are imprisoned in the United States, the highest incarceration rate of any nation.


Prohibition creates a lucrative black market that soaks our inner cities in violence and disorder, and lures young people into lives of crime.

Police officers routinely violate constitutional rights to make drug busts, often committing perjury to secure convictions; or resort to trickery and manipulation to cause individuals to give up their rights, enabled by an intricate web of legalistic court rulings stretching the letter of the law while betraying its spirit.

In the District of Columbia they have attempted multiple times to effect modest changes to our drug policy, only to have our voices rebuffed or silenced. A voter initiative to permit medical use of marijuana, Measure 63, was struck from our ballot by Congress; and an initiative to divert a limited class of offenders from jail into treatment, Measure 62, which the electorate of the District approved overwhelmingly, was blocked from being implemented by a court, in a proceeding initiated at the behest of our own Mayor.



some questions and awnsers

By continuing the "War on Drugs" we're protecting our children.
Then why, after 30 years of failure and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars, can virtually every child in America buy illegal drugs at will?

Reforming drug laws will send a dangerous message to our children.
What message are we sending to an inner city child that sees drug deals on his way to school every day? The worst message we can send to children is lying to them thereby undermining our credibility and the drug war is based on fabrications, inaccuracies and outright falsehoods.

Marijuana is a dangerous drug and should be defined as a schedule one (most dangerous) drug.
More people die from aspirin overdose and being struck by lightening than die from marijuana use. All drugs carry some danger, but according to DEA's own administrative law judge Francis Young after conducting a 2 year intensive study of marijuana concluded that, "Marijuana is the safest therapeutically active substance known to man."

Reforming drug laws will mean a huge increase in drug abusers.
For the first 130 years of the existence of the United States there were no laws whatever regarding drugs or drug use and the per capita usage was lower than it is today by orders of magnitude. Youthful drug use was virtually unheard of only 50 years ago. How has the "War on Drugs" improved anything?

All Drug users are drug abusers
The vast majority of drug users (more than 90%) use drugs recreationally or medicinally and suffer no long term debilitating side effects. Less than 10% develop chronic problems as a result of drug use and much less than that if you factor out the worst and most debilitating drug of abuse, alcohol. Fifty times more people die from automobile accidents than from drug overdose. Should we prohibit driving?

Only bad things result from any drug use.
Drug use should always be considered carefully by adults with a good knowledge of facts, science, and reason about both the positive and negative effects of any drug use (this does NOT mean the irrational unscientific propaganda and scare tactics often foisted upon the public by our "leaders"). A great deal of good has been accomplished by proper use of illegal drugs just as has been accomplished by the proper use of legal drugs. There are hundreds of benefits to be derived from the proper use of what are now illicit drugs from helping cancer and AIDS patients live longer and reduce nausea (marijuana) to exceptionally effective pain relief properties for terminal patients (heroin).

The "War on Drugs" is effective. (We can win if you just give us more money).
With all factors combined, the war on drugs has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Youthful drug use goes up with each increase in drug war costs. Despite billions of dollars wasted over many decades, all illicit drugs are easily available nationwide by both youth and adults alike. The "Drug War" cannot show ANY positive results after 70 years of wasted resources. Does throwing more money at it make logical sense?

The Partnership For a Drug Free America (PDFA) is doing a good and valuable service for the country
PDFA has mislead the American public. Even the name is deceptive. If PDFA wants a "drug free America" (an impossible objective) then why have they accepted money from alcohol and tobacco companies and why do they still admit, on their web page, to taking money from pharmaceutical (drug) companies

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) is helping to keep our kids off drugs
A recent University of Illinois study tracked hundreds of school children who took the DARE course in the fifth grade. The study found that the program generally had no effect on later drugs use, except in certain instances: Surprisingly, suburban students who took the DARE course were more likely to use drugs than their counterparts who didn't.

We can and should continue to fight the "War on Drugs"
The "War on Drugs" has resulted in the US being the proud owner of the largest prison industrial complex on the planet. It has failed miserably by any rational standard. Virtually no objectively questioned individual, who does not have a personal interest in maintaining the "War on Drugs," will attempt to defend it. Our law enforcement and criminal justice systems have been all but destroyed by the war on drugs.

How can you say we are fighting a war on drugs when we do nothing about alcohol and tobacco, the drugs doing the most damage?
Talking about drugs and ignoring alcohol and tobacco is like talking about oceans and ignoring the Atlantic and the Pacific

all of these questions and awnsers can easily be found by searching the internet under drug war facts...

1. According to David West, Ph.D. , "The THC levels in industrial hemp are
so low that no one could ever get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp
contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that
actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not
marijuana; it could be called 'antimarijuana.'"

Source: West, David P, Hemp and Marijuana: Myths and Realities, p. 3
Madison, WI: North American Industrial Hemp Council (1998).

2. Although opponents of hemp production claim that hemp fields will be
used to hide marijuana fields, this is unlikely because cross-pollination
between hemp and marijuana plants would significantly reduce the potency of
the marijuana plant. On March 12, 1998, Canada legalized hemp production
and set a limit of 0.3% THC content that may be present in the plants and
requires that all seeds be certified for THC content.

Source: West, David P, Hemp and Marijuana: Myths and Realities, p. 4, 21
Madison, WI: North American Industrial Hemp Council (1998).

3. In a July 1998 study issued by the Center for Business and Economic
Research at the University of Kentucky, researchers concluded that Kentucky
hemp farmers could earn a net profit of $600 per acre for raising certified
seeds, $320 net profit per acre for straw only or straw and grain
production, and $220 net profit per acre for grain only production. The
only crop found to be more profitable was tobacco.

Source: Tompson, Dr. Eric C., Dr. Mark C. Berger, and Steven N. Allen,
Economic Impacts of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky, p. 21, Lexington, KY:
University of Kentucky, Center for Business and Economic Research (1998).

4. In a July 1998 study issued by the Center for Business and Economic
Research at the University of Kentucky, researchers estimated that if
Kentucky again became the main source for industrial hemp seed (as it was
in the past), the state could earn the following economic benefits:

Scenario: Main source for certified industrial seeds only
Full time jobs created: 69
Worker earnings: $1,300,000.00

Scenario: Certified seeds, plus one processing facility
Full time jobs created: 303
Worker earnings: $6,700,000.00

Scenario: Certified seeds, plus two processing facilities
Full time jobs created: 537
Worker earnings: $12,1000,000.00

Scenario: Certified seeds, one processing facility, one industrial hemp
paper-pulp plant
Full time jobs created: 771
Worker earnings: $17,600,000.00

Source: Tompson, Dr. Eric C., Dr. Mark C. Berger, and Steven N. Allen,
Economic Impacts of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky, p. iv Lexington, KY:
University of Kentucky, Center for Business and Economic Research (1998).


About 140 million people--nearly 2.5% of the world's population--smoke
marijuana.

Source: Associated Press, "U.N. Estimates Drug Business Equal to 8
Percent of World Trade," (1997, June 26)

Marijuana was first federally prohibited in 1937. Today, nearly 70
million Americans admit to having tried it.

Sources: Marihuana Tax Act of 1937; Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse:
Population Estimates 1996, Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (1997), p. 23, Table 3A.

Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative potential for
harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on
society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly
punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns,
on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our
interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also
is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the
elimination of use is unattainable."

Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, Ch. V, Washington D.C.: National Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse, (1972).

When examining the relationship between marijuana use and violent crime,
the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than
inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its purported effects of
lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and heightening aggressive
tendencies, marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of
aggressive impulses by pacifying the user, interfering with muscular
coordination, reducing psychomotor activities and generally producing
states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity."

Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, Ch. III, Washington D.C.: National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse, (1972).

When examining the medical affects of marijuana use, the National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "A careful search of the
literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not revealed
a single human fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely
from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments with the drug in monkeys
demonstrated that the dose required for overdose death was enormous and for
all practical purposes unachievable by humans smoking marihuana. This is in
marked contrast to other substances in common use, most notably alcohol and
barbiturate sleeping pills. The WHO reached the same conclusion in 1995.

Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, Ch. III, Washington D.C.: National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse, (1972).Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO
Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of
the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine
and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization (1998, March).

In 1996, 641,642 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses; that's
approximately one arrest every 49 seconds. About 85% of those were for
simple possession--not manufacture or distribution.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for
the United States 1996, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office
(1997).

The World Health Organization released a study in March 1998 that states:
"there are good reasons for saying that [the risks from cannabis] would be
unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health risks of alcohol and
tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke
tobacco."

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications
of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological
Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28,
1995, (contained in original version, but deleted from official version)
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (1998, March).

The authors of a 1998 WHO report comparing marijuana, alcohol, nicotine and
opiates quote the Institute of Medicine's 1982 report stating that there is
no evidence that smoking marijuana "exerts a permanently deleterious effect
on the normal cardiovascular system."

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications
of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological
Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995,
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (1998, March).

Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The WHO report
addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces
a well defined amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the
value of studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited
by their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural
groups.

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications
of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological
Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995,
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (1998, March).

Since 1969, government-appointed commissions in the United States, Canada,
England, Australia, and the Netherlands concluded, after reviewing the
scientific evidence, that marijuana's dangers had previously been greatly
exaggerated, and urged lawmakers to drastically reduce or eliminate
penalties for marijuana possession.

Source: Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, Cannabis, London, England:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1969); Canadian Government Commission of
Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada
(1970); The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A
Signal of Misunderstanding, (Nixon-Shafer Report) (1972); Werkgroep
Verdovende Middelen, Background and Risks of Drug Use, The Hague, The
Netherlands: Staatsuigeverij (1972); Senate Standing Committee on Social
Welfare, Drug Problems in Australia--An Intoxicated Society, Canberra,
Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service (1977).

In May of 1998, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, National Working
Group on Addictions Policy released a discussion document which
recommended, "The severity of punishment for a cannabis possession charge
should be reduced. Specifically, cannabis possession should be converted to
a civil violation under the Contraventions Act." The paper further noted
that, "The available evidence indicates that removal of jail as a
sentencing option would lead to considerable cost savings without leading
to increases in rates of cannabis use."

Source: Single, Eric, Cannabis Control in Canada: Options Regarding
Possession,Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (1998
May).


The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana stated, "The
accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs,
particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting,
and appetite stimulation." Researchers emphasized the following conclusions:

Cannabinoids likely have a natural role in pain modulation, control of
movement, and memory.

The natural role of cannabinoids in immune systems is likely multifaceted
and remains unclear.

The brain develops tolerance to cannabinoids.

Animal research demonstrates the potential for dependence, but this
potential is observed under a narrower range of conditions than with
benzodiazepines, opiates, cocaine, or nicotine.

Withdrawal symptoms can be observed in animals, but appear to be mild
compared to opiates or benzodiazepines, such as diazepam (Valium®).

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.
(1999). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Division of
Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana examined the
question whether the medical use of marijuana would lead to an increase of
marijuana use in the general population and concluded that, "At this point
there are no convincing data to support this concern. The existing data are
consistent with the idea that this would not be a problem if the medical use of
marijuana were as closely regulated as other medications with abuse potential."
The report also noted that, "this question is beyond the issues normally
considered for medical uses of drugs, and should not be a factor in evaluating
the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.
(1999). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Division of
Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

In the Institute of Medicine's report on medical marijuana, the
researchers examined the physiological risks of using marijuana and cautioned,
"Marijuana is not a completely benign substance. It is a powerful drug with a
variety of effects. However, except for the harms associated with smoking, the
adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for
other medications."

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.
(1999). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Division of
Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana examined the
question of whether marijuana could diminish patients' immune system - an
important question when considering its use by AIDS and cancer patients. The
report concluded that, "the short-term immunosuppressive effects are not well
established but, if they exist, are not likely great enough to preclude a
legitimate medical use."

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.
(1999). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Division of
Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

In spite of the established medical value of marijuana, doctors are
presently permitted to prescribe cocaine and morphine--but not
marijuana.

Source: The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C.
801 et seq.

Organizations that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include:
the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians; American
Bar Association; American Public Health Association; American Society of
Addiction Medicine; AIDS Action Council; British Medical Association;
California Academy of Family Physicians; California Legislative Council for
Older Americans; California Medical Association; California Nurses Association;
California Pharmacists Association; California Society of Addiction Medicine;
California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church; Colorado
Nurses Association; Consumer Reports Magazine; Kaiser Permanente;
Lymphoma Foundation of America; Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network;
National Association of Attorneys General; National Association of People with
AIDS; National Nurses Society on Addictions; New Mexico Nurses Association; New
York State Nurses Association; New England Journal of Medicine; and
Virginia Nurses Association. A few of the editorial boards that have endorsed
medical access to marijuana include: Boston Globe; Chicago Tribune; Miami
Herald; New York Times; Orange County Register; and USA
Today.

Many organizations have favorable positions (e.g., unimpeded research) on
medical marijuana. These groups include: The Institute of Medicine, The
American Cancer Society; American Medical Association; Australian Commonwealth
Department of Human Services and Health; California Medical Association;
Federation of American Scientists; Florida Medical Association; and the
National Academy of Sciences.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 established five categories, or
"schedules," into which all illicit and prescription drugs were placed.
Marijuana was placed in Schedule I, which defines the substance as having a
high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United
States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. To
contrast, over 90 published reports and studies have shown marijuana has
medical efficacy.

Sources: The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C.
801 et seq.; Common Sense for Drug Policy, Compendium of
Reports, Research and Articles Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Medical
Marijuana, Vol. I & Vol. II, Falls Church, VA: Common Sense for Drug
Policy (1997, March).

The U.S. Penal Code states that any person can be imprisoned for up to
one year for possession of one marijuana cigarette and imprisoned for up to
five years for growing a single marijuana plant.

Source: The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C.
801 et seq.

On September 6, 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief
Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled:

"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active
substances known. ...[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act
permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II.
It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to
stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the
Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22] (1988,
September 6), p. 57.

The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict
medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For
example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison,
it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana
in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances
known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used
within the supervised routine of medical care."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the
Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (1988,
September 6), p. 57.

Between 1978 and 1997, 35 states and the District of Columbia passed
legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.

States include: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IO, LA, MA, ME, MI,
MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV,
and WI.


Economics

1. According to the United Nations, drug trafficking is a $400 billion per
year industry, equaling 8% of the world's trade. This is greater than the
exports of the automobile industry, worldwide.

Source: Associated Press, "U.N. Estimates Drug Business Equal to 8 Percent
of World Trade," (1997, June 26).

2. It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law violators
behind bars.

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of Jail Inmates 1996,
Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996, April), p. 1 &;
p. 4; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996, Washington D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office (1997), pp. 10-11; Criminal Justice
Institute, Inc., The Corrections Yearbook 1997, South Salem, NY: Criminal
Justice Institute, Inc. (1997) [estimating cost of a day in jail on
average to be $55.41 a day, or $20,237 a year, and the cost of prison to
be on average to be about $64.49 a day, or $23,554 a year].

3. A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimated the
economic costs of alcohol abuse in the United States to be $148.02 billion
in 1992, 80% of which were due to alcohol-related illness. This 80% figure
includes health care expenditures, impaired productivity and premature
death. To contrast, drug abuse cost a total of $97.66 billion in 1992, of
which less than 40% ($38.71 billion) was due to drug-related illness or
premature death. This figure includes $4.16 billion in HIV/AIDS and
Hepatitis treatment costs.

Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the
United States, 1992. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Table 1.1, p. 1-3 and Table 4.1, p. 4-2 (1998, May).

4. A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimated the
economic costs of drug abuse in the United States to be $97.66 billion in
1992. Sixty percent (60%) of drug costs were due to drug-related law
enforcement, incarceration and crime. Only 3% of drug costs were from
victims of drug-related crime.

Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the
United States, 1992. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Table 1.2, p. 1-6 (1998, May).

5. According to the United Nations, illegal drugs create enormous profits
-- kilogram of raw opium in Pakistan averages $90, but sells for $290,000
in the United States.

Source: Associated Press, "U.N. Estimates Drug Business Equal to 8 Percent
of World Trade," (1997, June 26).

6. According to the United Nations, profits in illegal drugs are so
inflated, that three-quarters of all drug shipments would have to be
intercepted to seriously reduce the profitability of the business. Current
efforts only intercept 30% of cocaine shipments and 10%-15% of heroin
shipments.

Source: Associated Press, "U.N. Estimates Drug Business Equal to 8 Percent
of World Trade," (1997, June 26).

7. In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration on the drug
war; in 1982 the Reagan administration spent $1.65 billion; and in 1998 the
Clinton administration requested $17.1 billion.

Sources: U.S. Congress, Hearings on Federal Drug Enforcement before the
Senate Committee on Investigations, 1975 and 1976 (1976); Office of
National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, 1992: Budget
Summary, p. 214, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1992);
Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy,
1998: Budget Summary, p. 5, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office (1998).

8. Recent estimates indicate that Colombia repatriates $7 billion in drug
profits annually, which is nearly as high as the total legitimate exports
for Colombia which were $7.6 billion in 1993.

Source: Trade and Environment Database (TED), TED Case Studies: Columbia
Coca Trade, Washington D.C.: American University (1997), p. 4.

9. It is estimated that Colombian narcotics cartels spend $100 million on
bribes to Colombian officials each year.

Source: Trade and Environment Database (TED), TED Case Studies: Columbia
Coca Trade, Washington D.C.: American University (1997), p. 4.

10. In 1993, 98% of Bolivia's foreign exchange earnings from goods and
services came from the coca market.

Source: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Alternative Coca
Reduction Strategies in the Andean Region, F-556, Washington D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office (1993, July).


NOT TO MENTION HEMP IS THE 3RD STRONGEST FIBER IN THE WORLD!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='akiliMVP' date='Apr 11 2005, 09:45 PM']And I know a lot of people who started smoking marijuana and moved on to harder shit because the weed wasn't strong enough.
[right][post="74147"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

yeah and obviously those people weren't very smart... Not dissing on you, but those people... if your "WEED" isn't very potent... basically if your paying 25 to 35 for 7 grams. your not going to get high...your going to get stoned, and then you want something to pick you up which leads to coke... and then so on and so on... That's the only way I can see your point about weed not being strong enough for those "people" to be valid...

Had those people smoked krypto They would need nothing else... NOTHING. seedless bud is where you get a high from... The only thing shwag ever gave me was a headache... I've been smoking chronic for 6 years now... and the only other drug I've ever touched was right out of the Shenandoah valley... my Coors light, and the occasional shot or two of moon shine. Mother Nature gave me all that I need... not some pre fabricated man made drug...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Boomer07' date='Apr 11 2005, 06:57 PM']What exactly are the laws about pot in Canada?

I've been up to Montreal several times and I've heard that there are after-hours clubs where everybody just sits around and smokes weed/hash.  It not like it's a big secret as to what's going on in there.  How do they get away with that?
[right][post="74080"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Montreal as a rule, the cops were pretty lenient about pot. The unwritten law was that anything an ounce and under (28 grammes) and you were allowed to go free.
Obviously if you had it broken into little one gram bags you'd get busted for selling, but there's no problem. When I was in Montreal for university, we used to attend the Cannabis Cup every year! Great times! And everyone knew what was going on.

In British Columbia, it's virtually legal. As in there are Cafe's where you can smoke.

In Ontario, they're a bit stricter. The plan here is to go to anything four ounces and under...you get a ticket...like a traffic violation. Anything above still leads to arrest.

The strictest provinces are Alberta and Saskatchewan probably. That is the Canadian version of the Bible belt, so it's enforced there. But still no one goes to jail for having dopr on them.

Montreal has bigger fish to fry...till a few years ago, that province was ruled by the Hells Angels virtually. The Canadian Hells Angels aren't the stereotype fat, overweight thugs. They're a smooth well organized organization that imported blow directly from Columbian drug lords and racked up about 2 billion a year in drug sales. They don't use drugs on the threat of death. In 1994 (my freshman year there!) , under their new leader Mom Boucher, the Hells Angels made a push to control all drug dealing in Quebec.

[url="http://www.geocities.com/wiseguywally/HellsAngels.html"]http://www.geocities.com/wiseguywally/HellsAngels.html[/url]

[img]http://www.showbizz.net/uploads/matinternet_jn_greg/mom_boucher.jpg[/img]

Mom Boucher - Leader of the Hells Angels in Quebec. He didn't stop at anything...he enforced strict price controls on all product. When another high ranking deputy...Louis Melou Roy was in favour of reducing whole scale prices...he was found shot to death...so it was clear that he wasn't messing around. Another thing in Boucher's favour...he had beaten murder charges twice...he was like the Teflon Biker...so he developed a cult following amongst his underlings. They were convinced nothing could stop him.

Montreal being such a big drug city had a fair amount of independent dealers. They formed an alliance to stop the Hells Angels. This was made possible because they bought their drugs from the same place that the hells did. The West End Gang...which is a coalition of 100-150 individuals mostly of Irish descent. They control the port of Montreal and the Unions. They decide who gets hired as security, cargo checkers, etc. etc. So it's very easy for them to get drugs in. And the numbers they dabbled in were huge. They would ship in 25 tonnes of hash at a time...they had direct links to the Cali Cartel in Columbia...they would ship in two to four tonnes every month. Then they would move product to the East Coast of the states.

More info on the West End gang can be found here:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/wiseguywally/WestEndGang.html"]http://www.geocities.com/wiseguywally/WestEndGang.html[/url]

So a war broke out between the Hells Angels and the independent dealers in 1994. 160 people would die over the next few years. Drive by, but mostly bombings. The police didn't do anything about it. In their view, it was dealers killing dealers...the city was better off.

Shit really hit the fan in 1996...the independent dealers had taken on a name by now..that of the "Rock Machine" (weiner name!!) But they approached the Bandido's (the world's second largest biker gang) to become a chapter. The Bandido's tempted by the large amount of cash the Rock Machine were making, agreed. This freaked out the Hells Angels not only in Quebec, but across Canada. Until then, the other Hells Angels from other provinces like BC (where they are loaded due to the drug trade) had stayed out. they quickly shipped money, arms, to Quebec. the Hells Angels could pay so much to people that they quickly wiped out all opposition. Cops were paid to look the other way, they even infiltrated the Canadian DMV so they could get the addresses of their enemies.

Three things brought the Hells Angels down...

1. a car bomb meant for a Rock Machine dealer exploded prematurely. It killed an 11 year old boy, Daniel Desrochers. Upto that point, police had been happy to let these dudes go at it. the public back lash was so large that an innocent kid had been killed, the montreal cops and rcmp started to get their shit together.

2. The Hells Angels were becoming so powerful that they even took on the cops. Two cops were killed by them to send a message. This of course pissed them off. The two things got a new law passed C-21, Gang Legislation. Now if a guy was suspected of being in an organized crime group. The cops could go to town. It's the Canadian version of the US RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

3. The States got involved. FBI. The FBI for years had suspected that the Angels in Quebec were moving drugs to the East Coast of the States, so they developed extradition treaties..this developed huge when the Angels killed a US govt. witness in a case via a car bomb. Extradition to the States scared the crap out of these guys. They could face 30-40 years for drugs, while in Canada, that would be about 15-20.

So, the Quebec Hells got decimated with arrests. But they have regrouped, and are more discrete now. In the rest of Canada they are still very powerful. It's the tie up that they have with US criminal groups to swap Canadian pot for cocaine straight up, that has many government officials clamouring that weed shouldn't be legalized.

[url="http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/featurestories/bikers/index.html"]http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/featurestories/bikers/index.html[/url]

The Road to Hell: How the Hells Angels are Conquering Canada by Julian Sher and Bill MacDonald is a fantastic book that explains the biker war, the power of the bikers..and how more and more biker crews in the states are abandoning the "Easy Rider" image and re-organizing like the Canadian chapters who are like corporations.

There are something like 4,000 Hells Angels worldwide. 800 of them are in Canada. When you compare that percentage to Canada's overall population in relation to world population, you know somethings fucked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Boomer07' date='Apr 11 2005, 06:57 PM']What exactly are the laws about pot in Canada?

I've been up to Montreal several times and I've heard that there are after-hours clubs where everybody just sits around and smokes weed/hash.  It not like it's a big secret as to what's going on in there.  How do they get away with that?
[right][post="74080"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I don't know exactly, but i know the laws are pretty relaxed up there... You don't get jail time anymore... and from what i've been TOLD most of the time they just ask you to hand over your bud if you have some, and they let you walk away without a fine...

They have other things to worry about like murder and theft not people smoking herb...

"you got a gun, I got a plant, You got a GUN so tell me who's the criminal?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...