The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[The Drug War] UN Declares drug war a failure, Obama rejects calls for change, hope

1235»

Posts

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    I think for such a brief summary I captured what you need to grow good pot pretty succinctly. I could elaborate and go into timers and how to cause flowering, or types of lights / chain setups for indoors, or use of fertilizer and leeching thereof, but those things aren't actually hard either.

    Anyhow, I stand by my statement that pot grows like a weed, is not comparable to crafting a banzai tree, and is in fact easier to grow than most things one might grow in a garden.

    I guess the problem is that you make it sound like it just growing on it's own is really that much of an achievement. Most flowers grow alone easily enough too and that's nice for your garden and all but from a commercial perspective (i.e. if you want to sell it) you have to put in a lot of work.


    I mean, we grew a bunch of plants a while ago and it was pretty easy but there was no intention of selling. It could've maybe competed with the cheapest stuff in the shop but probably not even then because even those growers are not mere hobbyists.

    Ahh, ok, yeah I'm not talking from the perspective of growing as a business or anything. I imagine that's pretty tough, if nothing else just by virtue of all the competition to do things in the most efficient and profitable manner.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    I think for such a brief summary I captured what you need to grow good pot pretty succinctly. I could elaborate and go into timers and how to cause flowering, or types of lights / chain setups for indoors, or use of fertilizer and leeching thereof, but those things aren't actually hard either.

    Anyhow, I stand by my statement that pot grows like a weed, is not comparable to crafting a banzai tree, and is in fact easier to grow than most things one might grow in a garden.

    How hard is it to grow a Bonsai tree?

    You take a woody plant and put it in a pot.

    And....you're done.

    Burtletoy on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Come to think of it; Bonsai is an amazing analogy.

    A tree in a pot, while technically a Bonsai tree isn't impressive, nor is it hard to do. Like outdoor ditch weed.

    A beautiful well crafted work of art bonsai grown for decades placed in a meticulously hand crafted pot takes tons of time and work. Like decent-to-good pot.

    Burtletoy on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Crafting it? Well, it does take years of patient work, totally aside from the requisite artistic talent. Not that I know a lot about bonsai trees, but wikipedia seems to have a good article on them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_cultivation_and_care

    edit: It'd be a good analogy, if growing good pot took tonnes of time and work ;).

    Also, ditch weed != weed, at least no more than a german shepherd is a miniature schnauzer. Growing outdoors does not make weed into ditch weed. Being wild and completely interbred (most notably with the cannabis we used for hemp, which might as well not have any THC at all) makes ditch weed ditch weed.

    Anyhow, this is a silly tangent. There are a million good resources about this on the net if you want to actually learn about what is involved in growing pot and don't care to take my word for it. If you want, I'll link them in a PM.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Interestingly enough, there is one more good reason to end the Drug War.

    David Simon will give us Season 6 of The Wire if it does.

    joshofalltrades on
  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Going back to the initial OP discussion point, as I see it there are either two options in the fight on drugs:

    If you make it illegal to own drugs, then you get caught into what can only be described as a never-ending war with extremely rich drug barons. You have successes, but the failures are generally larger. You keep drugs off the commerical streets, thus maintaining reasonably low addiction ratings, but you force it onto the black market, thus increasing violence and criminalisation of drug usage. You find a good part of your budget is spent in wars that are meaningless. Prohibition generally fails, as has been proven in the 20's against alcohol in the US of A.

    If you make it legal to own or use drugs, then you get caught into an addiction spiral: much like you have to fund campaigns to point out the dangers of excessive alcohol usage, you'd have to fund campaigns to point out the dangers of excessive drug usage. The budget you spend on meaningless wars is now being spent in proper campaign reports. Your drug barons are destroyed, but the money earned from such capital is absorbed into pharmaceutical corporations who are no better (presuming most Government's would have no interest in nationalising drug output). Drugs are on the commercial streets, thus addiction rating increase unless proper moderation is enforced.

    There is no end of the rainbow, there are only these two options. You either fight against drugs, knowing that in the end you'll never win, or you have to deal with fighting against the excessive usage of drugs. Much like smoking, much like alcohol.

    WMain00 on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    WMain00 wrote: »
    Going back to the initial OP discussion point, as I see it there are either two options in the fight on drugs:

    If you make it illegal to own drugs, then you get caught into what can only be described as a never-ending war with extremely rich drug barons. You have successes, but the failures are generally larger. You keep drugs off the commerical streets, thus maintaining reasonably low addiction ratings, but you force it onto the black market, thus increasing violence and criminalisation of drug usage. You find a good part of your budget is spent in wars that are meaningless. Prohibition generally fails, as has been proven in the 20's against alcohol in the US of A.

    If you make it legal to own or use drugs, then you get caught into an addiction spiral: much like you have to fund campaigns to point out the dangers of excessive alcohol usage, you'd have to fund campaigns to point out the dangers of excessive drug usage. The budget you spend on meaningless wars is now being spent in proper campaign reports. Your drug barons are destroyed, but the money earned from such capital is absorbed into pharmaceutical corporations who are no better (presuming most Government's would have no interest in nationalising drug output). Drugs are on the commercial streets, thus addiction rating increase unless proper moderation is enforced.

    There is no end of the rainbow, there are only these two options. You either fight against drugs, knowing that in the end you'll never win, or you have to deal with fighting against the excessive usage of drugs. Much like smoking, much like alcohol.

    This is an interesting post. It makes me think of how drug usage has not been curbed by current policy, while the harmful effects of tobacco and alcohol have in large part been mitigated by education campaigns. Drunk driving is not at all a thing like it was even 10 years ago.

    TL DR on
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Pretty much exactly my argument for the ending of prohibition. Thank you, WMain00.

    However, I maintain that when drugs are illegal you still actually have to deal with addiction through means beyond prison. I say this because we have gone farther in banning drug use than any other country in the history of humankind, and the end result is full prisons and an overloaded justice system that requires us to provide alternative treatments despite the illegal status of drugs.

    I also am seeing a false choice that many expostulate: ending prohibition means ending efforts to mitigate the harms of drug use. This is totally wrong and not something I have suggested. Even once prohibition is ended there will need to be addiction mitigation systems that force abusers into treatment. This is far preferable to prison, given that the glut of new treatment seekers can be absorbed by the mental health system, not only because it is vastly cheaper, but because the success rates are much higher in treatment than in prison. Hell, in prison you don't even have to quit drugs if you have something to trade with smugglers (such as your ass).

    hanskey on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I agree with the general idea that as prohibition gets relaxed, addiction rates are likely to go up.

    That said, I think the reality might be more complicated than a simple inverse correlation.

    Not all drugs are equally addictive; it isn't entirely clear that if you were to legalize marijuana that would see addiction problems comparable to alcohol or nicotine.

    IMO, part of the difficulty with addiction to legal drugs in the US is availability. You can buy alcohol or nicotine on literally any street corner in many states. It's easier to kick an addiction when you can avoid suppliers. Legalization doesn't have to mean "let gas stations sell it."

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    hanskey wrote: »
    This is far preferable to prison, given that the glut of new treatment seekers can be absorbed by the mental health system, not only because it is vastly cheaper, but because the success rates are much higher in treatment than in prison.

    Part of the problem in the US, overall, is that our "mental health system" isn't really a "system" per se. Sometimes getting arrested is the only way a person can obtain mental health care.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I foresee a much better addiction treatment rate if a person can go into a state-licensed facility, swipe their ID, and procure their supply. You then have the means to consult with them on mental health and other issues, exchange needles, etc. All while not causing them grief with the legal system, getting them fired from their job, and pushing them to the outskirts of society.

    TL DR on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So my state, Florida has PILLZ HERE.

    Pill Mills are something I've never heard of before, but it's splattered all over the newspapers today.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Something about that article bothered me.
    Meanwhile, prescription drugs kill thousands in Florida each year — nearly seven people a day.

    "If there were seven people dying a day from salmonella … don't you think something would be done?" said Sue League, an Orlando mother and grandmother whose 32-year-old son died of a prescription-drug overdose in January 2010.

    Is that deaths from all prescription drugs, or specifically from opioid pain medication?

    Part of the insidiousness of opioid pills is that they don't kill a lot of people. An addict builds up a tolerance slowly until they're taking so much that they spend an onerous amount of time and money seeking out additional prescriptions. Deaths do occur, but they're relatively rare.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Something about that article bothered me.
    Meanwhile, prescription drugs kill thousands in Florida each year — nearly seven people a day.

    "If there were seven people dying a day from salmonella … don't you think something would be done?" said Sue League, an Orlando mother and grandmother whose 32-year-old son died of a prescription-drug overdose in January 2010.

    Is that deaths from all prescription drugs, or specifically from opioid pain medication?

    Part of the insidiousness of opioid pills is that they don't kill a lot of people. An addict builds up a tolerance slowly until they're taking so much that they spend an onerous amount of time and money seeking out additional prescriptions. Deaths do occur, but they're relatively rare.

    Or, you know, old people taking the correct amount of the correct prescription pill and get an adverse effect and still keel over from it.

    That statistic says nothing about abuse.

    Burtletoy on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Something about that article bothered me.
    Meanwhile, prescription drugs kill thousands in Florida each year — nearly seven people a day.

    "If there were seven people dying a day from salmonella … don't you think something would be done?" said Sue League, an Orlando mother and grandmother whose 32-year-old son died of a prescription-drug overdose in January 2010.

    Is that deaths from all prescription drugs, or specifically from opioid pain medication?

    Part of the insidiousness of opioid pills is that they don't kill a lot of people. An addict builds up a tolerance slowly until they're taking so much that they spend an onerous amount of time and money seeking out additional prescriptions. Deaths do occur, but they're relatively rare.

    Or, you know, old people taking the correct amount of the correct prescription pill and get an adverse effect and still keel over from it.

    That statistic says nothing about abuse.

    My grandmother endangered her life because she ****ed up her diabetes prescription and sent her blood sugar level way down. It definitely happens.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    hanskey wrote: »
    This is far preferable to prison, given that the glut of new treatment seekers can be absorbed by the mental health system, not only because it is vastly cheaper, but because the success rates are much higher in treatment than in prison.

    Part of the problem in the US, overall, is that our "mental health system" isn't really a "system" per se. Sometimes getting arrested is the only way a person can obtain mental health care.
    This is true, so coupled to the ending of prohibition you have to implement better harm reduction strategies, and to do that we must set up a more centralized mental health system which will be utilized through the inevitable proliferation of drug courts. In fact, the drug czar could be elevated to an addiction treatment czar, which also centrally controls legal drug distribution, you know, issue the required tax-stamps, make rules about where they can be sold, etc. This would entail a massive return to involuntary state sponsored mental health services, but if modern techniques and practitioners are utilized, then I see nothing but good in that, since our system of mental health treatment is vastly under-serving the neediest populations, and they would also benefit from new facilities and additional government services.

    hanskey on
  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    edited June 2011





    On June 17, 1971, President Nixon told Congress that "if we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely destroy us."

    That is the day the war on drugs began.

    Today marks the 40th anniversary of this American war. And the numbers are staggering.

    We've spent over $1 trillion on this war. And what do we have to show for it? Right now, 2.3 million Americans are sitting in prison, while over 7.2 million people are currently part of the criminal justice system as a result of being on probation or parole -- a full 1 in every 32 adults. Because of the failed drug war, America now imprisons more people than any other nation on earth.

    And we haven't cut drug use. We've only created a violent, multi-billion dollar underground industry responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands across the globe, especially in neighboring Mexico.

    But there is an important reality starting to take hold: While there is still much to be done to end this war, more and more people are becoming aware of the problem -- and that there are solutions.

    A fantastic sign of this is an op-ed written in the New York Times by former President Jimmy Carter entitled Call off the Global Drug War. We hope you'll read it -- then forward this email to your friends and family, and share President Carter's article on Facebook.

    On this 40 year anniversary, let us take a pledge together. Let us pledge to make ending the drug war a priority -- and let us speak to everyone we know about why it is important to get involved. Your voice is needed now. Tell others what you know and have them join us. One person at a time, we will end this tragically failed policy and make America the Land of the Free, once again.
    Sincerely,

    Richard Lee
    Board Member
    Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform
    Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform

    Click Here to unsubscribe.


    Montell Williams on medical mj and opiate based pills

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/06/15/exp.am.intv.montel.williams.mpg.cnn

    Tommatt on
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    END PROHIBITION!

    Try something rational and evidence based instead, right?

    hanskey on
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    There has to be a middle ground of some kind though.

    Middle ground between what and what?

    Between having an impotent federal government versus one that may interpret the ICC to grant itself any power imaginable as long as it does not expressly violate the Bill of Rights.

    That pretty much seems to be what's happening right now.

    Pretty sure you're too late on that one.

    zerg rush on
  • the Togfatherthe Togfather Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    From NORML's site:
    Lawmakers for the first time have introduced legislation in Congress that seeks to end the federal criminalization of the personal use of marijuana.

    The measure, entitled the ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011,’ prohibits the federal government from prosecuting adults who use or possess marijuana by removing the plant and its primary psychoactive constituent, THC, from the five schedules of the United States Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

    Under present law, all varieties of the marijuana plant are defined as illicit Schedule I controlled substances, defined as possessing ‘a high potential for abuse,’ and ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment.’

    The ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act’ seeks to federally deregulate the personal possession and use of marijuana by adults. It marks the first time that members of Congress have introduced legislation to eliminate the federal criminalization of marijuana since the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

    Language in this Act mimics changes enacted by Congress to repeal the federal prohibition of alcohol. Passage of this measure would remove the existing conflict between federal law and the laws of those sixteen states that allow for the limited use of marijuana under a physicians’ supervision. It would also allow state governments that wish to fully legalize and regulate the responsible use, possession, and production of marijuana for all adults to be free to do so without federal interference.

    Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced the bill. Sure seems like there has been a LOT of talk about this lately, from increasingly powerful people.

    the Togfather on
    The night is dark and full of terrors.
    twit feed
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    From NORML's site:
    Lawmakers for the first time have introduced legislation in Congress that seeks to end the federal criminalization of the personal use of marijuana.

    The measure, entitled the ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011,’ prohibits the federal government from prosecuting adults who use or possess marijuana by removing the plant and its primary psychoactive constituent, THC, from the five schedules of the United States Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

    Under present law, all varieties of the marijuana plant are defined as illicit Schedule I controlled substances, defined as possessing ‘a high potential for abuse,’ and ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment.’

    The ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act’ seeks to federally deregulate the personal possession and use of marijuana by adults. It marks the first time that members of Congress have introduced legislation to eliminate the federal criminalization of marijuana since the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

    Language in this Act mimics changes enacted by Congress to repeal the federal prohibition of alcohol. Passage of this measure would remove the existing conflict between federal law and the laws of those sixteen states that allow for the limited use of marijuana under a physicians’ supervision. It would also allow state governments that wish to fully legalize and regulate the responsible use, possession, and production of marijuana for all adults to be free to do so without federal interference.

    Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced the bill. Sure seems like there has been a LOT of talk about this lately, from increasingly powerful people.

    It won't pass but it's nice to see responsible laws toward pot finally being considered by serious politicians.

    This is literally the only topic Ron Paul and I agree on and I'm getting a little vertigo just thinking about that.

    hanskey on
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited June 2011

    Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced the bill. Sure seems like there has been a LOT of talk about this lately, from increasingly powerful people.

    The Great Depression killed alcohol prohibition. The Great Recession is looking like it could kill, at the very least, mj prohibition.

    Phillishere on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    BBC: Central America drugs war: Clinton pledges more funds
    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged more foreign aid to fight drug cartels in Central America.

    Mrs Clinton told a regional security conference in Guatemala that the US would increase its aid by more than 10% to nearly $300m (£187m).

    Analysts say the figure is still small, given that more than two-thirds of cocaine sent from South America to the US now passes through Central America.

    In total, some $1.8bn was promised to support the region's security.

    TL DR on
  • the Togfatherthe Togfather Registered User regular
    edited June 2011

    Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced the bill. Sure seems like there has been a LOT of talk about this lately, from increasingly powerful people.

    The Great Depression killed alcohol prohibition. The Great Recession is looking like it could kill, at the very least, mj prohibition.

    That's a very good point, hadn't thought of it that way.

    And yeah, definitely won't pass, but it's becoming a more and more public conversation/debate every day. Really feels like we're quickly approaching the tipping point where legalization becomes innevatable.

    the Togfather on
    The night is dark and full of terrors.
    twit feed
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011

    Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced the bill. Sure seems like there has been a LOT of talk about this lately, from increasingly powerful people.

    The Great Depression killed alcohol prohibition. The Great Recession is looking like it could kill, at the very least, mj prohibition.

    You think a Socalist and a Libertarian are going to combine forces and undo prohibition in the US?

    Good luck with that one.

    Burtletoy on
Sign In or Register to comment.