On 21 Nov 2013, at 03:54, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>>We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington
>Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path!
Amsterdam & Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier. I hope
it works here (and in Colorado too) so that we can work out models
for other states.
I hope so.
and within a few months the state run stores selling it will begin
opening. Already medical dispensaries are quite common, but these
new stores will be able to sell to anyone of legal age.
>> I just hope the feds will not come with tanks!
They have indicated that they will not. There has been a fair amount
of confusion and legal footsies between state level legal advisors
and the Justice Dept. for example. The prospect of Washington state
employees – as the workers in these state stores would be – becoming
arrested for trafficking in a schedule I drug raised a lot of
concerns and discussion locally. From what I read in the local press
the indication from the feds is that they will not be rolling in
with the tanks – or making arrests. It remains to be seen what
actually happens. One problem we have with the American legal system
is that a federal prosecutor can act without being directed to act
by the administration that is in office. Recently one such federal
prosecutor went on a crusade against medical dispensaries in
Southern California – the region this individual was districted in.
So until this insane prohibition – purely for the benefit of
organized criminality is overthrown at the federal level everything
remains vulnerable to a policy change rollback.
I do not think that the feds have the stomach though to take on
constituent state governments over this issue, but we shall see.
>>You see the contradiction? 18 states have legalized medical
cannabis, and two states have legalized recreative cannabis, yet it
is still "schedule one" at the federal level.
Yes… see above.
You worry me a little bit .... I was joking with the tanks ... (Well I
was hoping being joking ...).
>>The "schedule one" notion is also an incredible aberration. A
product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is
forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make
physics and math schedule one?
Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is
less toxic than vitamin C; not one person has ever died from a
Marijuana overdose. How many have died from acute alcohol poisoning?
The justifications for the original decision were suspect from the
beginning and based on shoddy research that has since been
discredited. And yet the prohibition policy has rolled on decade
after decade after decade. It has been known for decades that it was
a failure and that the war on drugs has only succeeded in creating
powerful global criminal organizations that have corrupted every
dimension of life – perhaps that was the purpose of this irrational
policy from the very beginning.
I think that the evidences go in that direction.
Washington and Colorado are the first states to make cannabis fully
legal (I think). Even in The Netherlands cannabis is still illegal.
It is tolerated, decriminalized, but still illegal.
Decriminalization is a nonsense: it is de facto a contract between
states and criminals. It is better than nothing, though, for some
finite period of time.
Agreed – though the tolerance of the Dutch (and also the Danes and
Portuguese) showed how a different approach was possible. One reason
these nations did not legalize is the international treaty
obligations. Perhaps ignoring them was the best they could do in
that time. Washington and Colorado are now pushing the envelope; I
hope this busts the criminal blocking of a return to sanity.
Those international treaties are a mystery for me. Also how quick all
this happened. Prohibition seems to be an international criminal
decisions at the start.
>>>I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last
the official result of the "Tadam Project", which has consisted in
providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege).
It is considered by the experts involved as an important success,
but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to
approve it, and to decide to pursue it.
Since the project has been stopped, already three heroin users have
died.
Most of the time it isn’t Heroin that kills the addicts; it is what
it has been cut with by criminal gangs that are without scruples.
Although it saddens me personally when I see a junkie – it is very
much a waste of life (but excellent for dulling pain), I would far
prefer that addicts could get --- at a reasonable price and
quality – the heroin they need. And be able to inject their drug in
a safe environment – again I believe they should pay some small fee
for this too.
Just to prevents the spreading of AIDS, legalizing heroin (even if
medically prescribed) is common sense.
This would have an immediate dramatic effect on street and property
crime – a junkie needing to make $100 to $150 and up each and every
day in order to support their habit and the organized criminals
profiting off of them is a veritable street crime wave.
I believe that drugs such as heroin or cocaine, or tobacco or
alcohol for that matter that have known chronic health costs and
pose risks of death and physical and mental deterioration of the
users should be taxed so that users of these drugs can fund the
costs society must bear because of their use.
Heroin or cocaine could be produced for far less than they are
currently marked up by the mafias that distribute these drugs
globally; so there is plenty of room for a large tax on them while
still bringing down the cost for the addict into a realm where they
are not doing desperate things – like stealing cars or prostituting
themselves – in order to get a fix.
I have lost a good friend – a drummer I used to play in a rock band
with (20 years ago) – to heroin. We (the other guys in the band)
actually were thinking about kidnapping him and taking him to a
cabin in the forest to sweat out his withdrawals, I guess because we
knew his habit was going to kill him. But the legal implications – a
potential kidnap charge (even if the motive is pure) is a powerful
inhibitor. Three weeks later he was dead. Who knows if it had been
legal he might still be alive… perhaps.
Sorry for your friend. This last year I lost two close friend. One for
overdoing with a legal antidepressant, and the other succumbs to a
radiotherapy and I am pretty sure that both would be alive if some
herbs were used instead. Hard to prove, but I have the intimate
conviction on this.
How many death brought by prohibition? Millions if not billions.
The only drugs that should remain illegal or at least be highly
controlled are those that induce extreme violence in those who take
them.
I know only alcohol for being like that. Prohibition of alcohol has
not worked. Let us make "violence" illegal. It is enough.
In general it is my belief that it is only when using something or
doing something becomes a clear and clearly demonstrable danger for
others that the state should be able to legislate. For example, why
were anti-sodomy laws still enforce in 15 states in the US, until
struck down in a 2003 US Supreme court decision? This is none of the
state’s business, and states should not be in the business of
enforcing codes of behavior.
Absolutely.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
