knapplc wrote:I would never joke about such a serious topic.
Just clarify for me Knapp.
Is the drugs or the boner the serious topic? We are choosing sides, need to know dude.
It's all serious, man. We're solving world crises today. First cocaine, then global warming, and after that we're going to fix those awful Oregon Ducks uniforms. But we have to work our way up to the Ducks' unis. Baby steps, you know.
Can you help out with all these damn feet that keep floating up to Canada man. People are becoming afraid of wearing sneakers.
"Show me one peron that went to prison (not jail) whose only infraction was being caught with a dime bag of weed"
"There's that arguement I always see. There is nobody in our prison system that is there for a dime bag."
You are wrong.
Again read, have to go to prison a first time to get a 3rd strike.
Perhaps you're the one with a reading comprehension problem. Just because you have 3 strikes or 3 convictions, doesn't mean you went to prison 3 times. It means you've been convicted of a crime three times.
You're a fiery one aren't ya?
Fair enough. I will rephrase and say convicted on 2 prior felonies regardless of what those felonies were. Felony petty theft, felony pot possesion etc...
Possession with intent to sell any amount of marijuana is a felony. Health and Safety Code 11359. California
It is now up to the interpretation of a police officer and then a judge as to whether it was personal use or not.
I'm pretty sure "less than a joint" would be considered personal use and wouldn't be considered a felony. Not only that, but Mr Schlosser doesn't exactly sound like an expert witness to me.
The point is, generally speaking, people getting caught with personal amounts of weed usually get nothing more than a slap on the wrist in this country and that the prisons in fact are not full of pot smokers.
I do agree the amount of prisoners arrested for marijuana related crimes is pretty ridiculous. Of course that's why I purposely specified I was NOT talking about marijuana. I think we got off on some tangeant here because you kept insisting that in America it's common practice for people to go to prison for smoking weed. This is in no way accurate.
Your laws in America are much more rigid in terms of all drug use. Canada, I believe in 2007, was downgraded in some rating system by the U.S. because we decriminalized pot.
Let me say this. A drug dealer convicted of selling large amounts of anything should go to prison. It is against the law, plain and simple. A kid taking a couple ounces to a party for him and his friends should not even though it is against the law. The eyes of the law do not always see the difference.
The legalization of illicit drugs may or may not work. Who knows, we never will as even if it is tried, it will be tried by a government so ill equipped to handle it it will be a disaster. All I have ever said is that you need to have an open mind. The way you presented an ABSOLUTE argument got people going. It is not an absolute, it is theory as it has never been tried. Legalization of heroin MAY not result in more addicts or more crime but I am essentially positive it will not result in anarchy as you have thrown out a couple of times.
I am arguing a possibility that if implemented properly, I would back. I am in no means for this if a government has its hands in it other than handing over cheques. The only way I can agree to back something is if I know what it invloves. I can say that I am not for the War on Drugs as it stands now.
I would like to see 1 state or province chosen, a person who has passion for saving addicts and has had success in the past chosen to implement a program based on legalization and control to see what would happen. No one is talking about going to 7-11 and getting smack. We are suggesting a controlled environment. If you choose to be a heroin addict then that is what you can be, you choose to listen to someone who wants to help you when you come to get your fix, then maybe there is one less addict.
Switzerland tried a free area several years ago, the problem was no one tried to help them really, they just wanted them off the streets. Some groups handed out fliers, talked to some people etc...but that was it. You allow a user to come get a fix for a nominal fee and I am convinced that the crime associated with addicts would drastically come down. Controlled dosages with quality heroin would eliminate overdoses. Administering the drug at a safe site would help eliminate the spread of HIV etc..
95% of the cost of drugs is what it costs to transport and along those lines, the supply and demand that results with a risky trasport system. You eliminate that cost, bring the cost of coke or heroin down by 90%, my assumption is that of 90% of users would take advantage of this. The other 10% too far gone in there addiction or too untrusting in general.
I've taken issue with certain things you have said and sometimes the way you presented them. At this point, I am not going to change your mind, your not going to change mine either, so be it. Just wanted you to perhaps have a little clearer idea of what I think legalization would mean.