Stop the pill mills

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Legalize all drugs, let the addicts do what they want.

Stick bottles of rx-grade oxycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine, and everything else behind the counter next to the cigarettes at the kwikimart. Prosecute and punish sales to minors.

Done, and the rest of us can get on with our post-prohibition lives.
 
Legalize all drugs, let the addicts do what they want.

Stick bottles of rx-grade oxycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine, and everything else behind the counter next to the cigarettes at the kwikimart. Prosecute and punish sales to minors.

Done, and the rest of us can get on with our post-prohibition lives.

👍
 
I don't know if I agree with the legalization of all drugs, but decriminalization should at least happen for most of them. It's just silly, the government is supposed to exist for the good of the people. And don't get me started on the free-for-all of asset forfeitures.
 
I don't know if I agree with the legalization of all drugs, but decriminalization should at least happen for most of them. It's just silly, the government is supposed to exist for the good of the people. And don't get me started on the free-for-all of asset forfeitures.

What's the difference between decriminalization and legalization?
 
What's the difference between decriminalization and legalization?

I never thought about it before, but I would guess with decriminalization they can maybe seize your drugs, but can't fine you or toss you in jail. With legalization they can't touch you.

Just guessing.
 
Legalize all drugs, let the addicts do what they want.

Stick bottles of rx-grade oxycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine, and everything else behind the counter next to the cigarettes at the kwikimart. Prosecute and punish sales to minors.

Done, and the rest of us can get on with our post-prohibition lives.

They say people who don't learn from history are bound to repeat the mistakes.

The U.S. tried prohibition in the past with alcohol and it failed miserably. So I'm with you on this one pgg.
 
Stop the pill mills. All suspicious practices need to be reported. The devastation on people's lives is unfathomable:

http://news.yahoo.com/documents-ohio-pill-mill-corrupt-drug-den-200554899.html

UT, I can understand where you are coming from. But who do you propose report suspicious practices? The patients are unlikely to do so. Those who work at these places are also unlike to do so, probably because they don't want to lose their jobs.

About the only way to do so would be to send in phony patients.
 
UT, I can understand where you are coming from. But who do you propose report suspicious practices? The patients are unlikely to do so. Those who work at these places are also unlike to do so, probably because they don't want to lose their jobs.

About the only way to do so would be to send in phony patients.

Anyone who is willing and has a conscience. I take one 5 mg hydrocodone for cancer pain in my neck and I feel stoned for a day. I can't imagine the level of dependency created by some hack prescribing 100+ pills of oxycodone (minus the 2-5 pill "tax" taken by the secretary in the story above) on top of the pills then finding their way onto the party scene especially with teens.
 
What's the difference between decriminalization and legalization?

With decriminalization the government focuses more on the good of the people. If you get caught with simple possession, punishment could include fines, seizing the drugs, and court ordered therapy. Jail time is eliminated. Portugal did this awhile ago with all drugs and it has been a success overall. Distribution is still illegal. Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, the Czech Republic and Mexico have also implemented similar policies. This leaves vastly more resources for police to go after violent crimes, fraud and other crimes with victims. The jails and court systems are also not tied up anymore which frees up tons of money. When stuff like this happens it is usually kept fairly quiet though. We have a lot of power in the United Nations and have a history of bullying other countries about their drug policies.
 
With decriminalization the government focuses more on the good of the people. If you get caught with simple possession, punishment could include fines, seizing the drugs, and court ordered therapy. Jail time is eliminated. Portugal did this awhile ago with all drugs and it has been a success overall. Distribution is still illegal. Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, the Czech Republic and Mexico have also implemented similar policies. This leaves vastly more resources for police to go after violent crimes, fraud and other crimes with victims. The jails and court systems are also not tied up anymore which frees up tons of money. When stuff like this happens it is usually kept fairly quiet though. We have a lot of power in the United Nations and have a history of bullying other countries about their drug policies.

And how has that been working out for mexico?
 
Legalize all drugs, let the addicts do what they want.

Stick bottles of rx-grade oxycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine, and everything else behind the counter next to the cigarettes at the kwikimart. Prosecute and punish sales to minors.

Done, and the rest of us can get on with our post-prohibition lives.

that's an ignorant idea.

all drugs should be legal, i agree. however, they are not legal in this country and have not been for a very long time. if hard drugs are suddenly legalized the period of change would be catastrophic.

start and end with the legalization of marijuana.

further change drug sentencing to focus on rehab rather than incarceration.
 
with decriminalization they can maybe seize your drugs

With decriminalization the government focuses more on the good of the people. If you get caught with simple possession, punishment could include fines, seizing the drugs, and court ordered therapy. Jail time is eliminated. Portugal did this awhile ago with all drugs and it has been a success overall. Distribution is still illegal.

The problem with keeping the manufacture, sale, and distribution illegal and punishable under the law, is that it does NOTHING to solve the black market and violence problems.

Given that there is (and will be) demand for the drugs, someone will step in to supply them. If there is legal risk involved for the suppliers, that role will be filled by a criminal element. If there are large profits to be made, that criminal element will be violent.


If some adult wants to drink, smoke, snort, or inject their way to a life of pain or an early grave, that's tragic but we can't prevent it with laws.

What we can prevent are
- the users' desperation to obtain their drugs, and their need to steal or violently obtain them
- the suppliers' huge profits and motivation to use violence to get their piece of the market


that's an ignorant idea.

all drugs should be legal, i agree. however, they are not legal in this country and have not been for a very long time. if hard drugs are suddenly legalized the period of change would be catastrophic.

start and end with the legalization of marijuana.

further change drug sentencing to focus on rehab rather than incarceration.

Gradual change would be OK with me, but the end goal has to be complete legalization. Anything less will keep profits high on the selling side, which is the cause and motivation for drug-related violence.


Prohibition is an unmitigated disaster. That people are willing to tolerate such an obviously failed and costly (in $ and blood) policy, for the sake of their own moral superiority, is deplorable.
 
comparing the failed prohibition on alcohol to our current static illegality of hard drugs is invalid - those are two completely different sets of circumstances.

ie morality isn't even present on the current argument against legalization of drugs...
 
comparing the failed prohibition on alcohol to our current static illegality of hard drugs is invalid - those are two completely different sets of circumstances.

How's that?

ie morality isn't even present on the current argument against legalization of drugs...

I'm going to have to disagree there. Near as I can tell, it's the primary argument against legalization. And IMO, the only one with a shred of validity ... but still insufficient to outweigh the great harm prohibition causes.
 
How's that?

ok. prohibition was driven by religious factions and women who touted drinking as a personal sin. morality and fire and brimstone were the driving principles. alcohol has always been legal in this country except for that 13 year "noble experiment" - in the early twentieth century. the status quo - legal alcohol consumption, which has always been an accepted part of human society, was very briefly and unsuccessfully interrupted. of course it failed.

how can you compare that to our current situation - the status quo - hard drugs ie coke, heroin, and meth have always been illegal? the current argument to keep those drugs illegal is one of harm especially cost. morality has faded into the background - the foreground is economics.

the argument that "prohibition didn't work, so we should legalize all substances" is oversimplistic. two completely different situations, eras, substances, cultures, etc..

tell me what lessons from prohibition should be applied to the current situation, in your opinion? what do you think would happen in the first five, ten years of legalizing all drugs?
 
As a prehospital provider I have noticed that drugs seems to facilitate violent crime and also child & elderly abuse.

In other countries as a soldier I have noticed that other countries that dont have policy or the capability to control addictive substances suffer greatly. Addiction becomes a cultural norm and they're very unproductive; therefore, violence and poverty take over.

I agree with the statement that prohibition didn't work is "simplistic".
 
I don't understand how legalizing all drugs will change the problem of dependency or overuse. Seems to me it would just open Pandora's box. I'm not saying our current laws are ideal- there are certainly some changes that could be made. I just don't see how making something more accessible would lead to less usage. Not when it comes to drugs in the USA.
 
ok. prohibition was driven by religious factions and women who touted drinking as a personal sin. morality and fire and brimstone were the driving principles.

When I hear arguments in favor of keeping drugs illegal now, it's always a moral argument. Drugs are bad, they harm people, they harm families. This is at its core a moral argument.


alcohol has always been legal in this country except for that 13 year "noble experiment" - in the early twentieth century. the status quo - legal alcohol consumption, which has always been an accepted part of human society, was very briefly and unsuccessfully interrupted. of course it failed.

how can you compare that to our current situation - the status quo - hard drugs ie coke, heroin, and meth have always been illegal?

Meth didn't exist until recently, so I don't see the "it's always been illegal" argument carrying weight.

Opiates haven't always been illegal. You used to be able to buy them all over the counter. The first regulation was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which only required products containing such drugs to be labelled.

If you read the history of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, it absolutely was a moral issue, with a sprinkling of racism (what passed for morality at the time) kicked in for good measure. "If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope we can get along without him."

It wasn't until 1970 and the Uniform Controlled Substances Act that the force of law really came down on drugs.

the current argument to keep those drugs illegal is one of harm especially cost. morality has faded into the background - the foreground is economics.

Actually I think the reverse is true. The economic argument is in FAVOR of legalization. Less money spent on incarcerating nonviolent offenders, less spent on futile enforcement. Less profit to be made on the black market. If someone can buy a gram of inexpensive cocaine at the kwikimart, without fear of legal repercussions, what need for violent cartels to smuggle it into the United States? Their profits are gone. Sure, they'll find something else illegal to do, like organized crime did post-prohibition.

the argument that "prohibition didn't work, so we should legalize all substances" is oversimplistic. two completely different situations, eras, substances, cultures, etc..

I disagree.

tell me what lessons from prohibition should be applied to the current situation, in your opinion? what do you think would happen in the first five, ten years of legalizing all drugs?

Usage would probably increase. Crime would decrease. The expense of enforcement would decrease. I can live with the first in return for the other two.

I'd like to see a 13 year noble experiment start with admitting that governments can't protect people from themselves. I'm tired of paying the price for this futile and counterproductive war on drugs.
 
I don't understand how legalizing all drugs will change the problem of dependency or overuse. Seems to me it would just open Pandora's box. I'm not saying our current laws are ideal- there are certainly some changes that could be made. I just don't see how making something more accessible would lead to less usage. Not when it comes to drugs in the USA.

The assumption here is that reducing usage is the point of legalization. It's not. Reducing violence, crime, and the cost (in blood and money) of enforcement is.
 
The assumption here is that reducing usage is the point of legalization. It's not. Reducing violence, crime, and the cost (in blood and money) of enforcement is.

Yet there was no violence, and only petty crime in UT's link. Maybe I need to read it a little deeper.
 
Yet there was no violence, and only petty crime in UT's link. Maybe I need to read it a little deeper.

UTSW's link was a different sort of problem. Those were pain physicians betraying the profession's trust and supplying drugs to addicts and black market dealers, when their role should be to provide appropriate treatment for chronic pain and dependency problems. They're committing the same kind of malpractice as Dr Murray was. Then I derailed the thread.

But to get back toward the original topic, another plus to legalization is that physicians can be removed from the addict and dealer supplier role, and interact with patients only for the betterment of treatment.

Imagine what all the EDs would do if their supply of LBP patients allergic to morphine, codeine, Tylenol, and NSAIDS dried up. Or what legit pain clinics would do if drug seekers didn't have to come in and lie for a fix.
 
Usage would probably increase. Crime would decrease. The expense of enforcement would decrease. I can live with the first in return for the other two.

I'd like to see a 13 year noble experiment start with admitting that governments can't protect people from themselves. I'm tired of paying the price for this futile and counterproductive war on drugs.[/QUOTE]

good discussion, but seriously?

i think that you are saying that if usage is made legal, and usage increases, than the crime of usage would decrease.

but i guarantee you that if hard drug usage increases, violent crime will follow. screwed up people do screwed up things.

i think we are agreed that prosecution of nonviolent nondistributing drug crime is a waste of time that no one wants to pay for, but that is a separate issue.
 
i think that you are saying that if usage is made legal, and usage increases, than the crime of usage would decrease.

Well, by definition, yes 🙂 but that's not the crime I'm interested in.

What concerns me are the crimes of theft, burglary, assault, etc to obtain funds to buy drugs on the black market. The violent crimes associated with the illegal drug trade itself.


but i guarantee you that if hard drug usage increases, violent crime will follow. screwed up people do screwed up things.

Well first, I'm not convinced that hard drug usage would really increase, at least not in the long run. We'd surely see some increase in casual users, and some of them would get sucked into heavy abuse. One risk of liberty is that you're free to waste your life.

Second, in general those screwed up people do screwed up things in order to get more hard-to-obtain drugs. If the drugs weren't expensive and risky to obtain, some of the screwed up things they're doing now won't happen any more.

Sure, there's the fabled near-mythical screwed up meth addict who puts the baby in the microwave to make him stop crying. But screwed up drunks kill more people than drug addicts. The crimes of intoxicated people are still crimes.

i think we are agreed that prosecution of nonviolent nondistributing drug crime is a waste of time that no one wants to pay for, but that is a separate issue.

Making drug possession and use legal would be a good step 1. Unfortunately much of the violence is on the distributing side (just look at Mexico and our southern border), and the only way to put an end to that is to remove their profit. Maybe step 2 could be legalizing possession, production, and distribution of marijuana - this already enjoys popular support. Step 3 - legalizing the rest of it - could follow, once more skeptical people see that civilization didn't unravel around them when the neighbors started growing their pot outdoors instead of indoors.

In any case, obviously what we're doing now
- doesn't prevent people from using drugs
- creates a huge and profitable market for illegal production and distribution
- costs a fortune
The only reason the public puts up with the status quo is because of moral pandering by modern prohibitionists.
 
This is not true in other countries that have no drug laws / poor control. It's the opposite. Sorry, libertarian ideals are only ideals and dont pan out too well in the real world.

How many of you who are proposing legalizing substances have lived in areas where they're prevelent or have been outside the US to countries where the supply is not limited and there is little legal action taken against those who use durgs?

The assumption here is that reducing usage is the point of legalization. It's not. Reducing violence, crime, and the cost (in blood and money) of enforcement is.
 
Last edited:
And how has that been working out for mexico?

Huh, are you joking? If this is in reference to the violent, billionaire drug cartels and their crimes, this policy did not stop them and I wouldn't expect it to. The United States have really enabled these guys to rise to power. Wachovia bank allowed cartels to launder money of over $400 billion, and when they got caught they only got a slap on the wrist. The US Department of Justice estimates that earnings in drugs in Mexico range from $13 to $48 billion annually. Meanwhile the US government was caught red-handed trafficking military grade weapons straight to the cartels. Grenades, armor, rifles and guns, anti-aircraft missiles etc. The war in Mexico is a horrible and sad (and globally unique) situation that was not caused or worsened by this policy.
 
This is not true in other countries that have no drug laws / poor control. It's the opposite. Sorry, libertarian ideals are only ideals and dont pan out too well in the real world.

How many of you who are proposing legalizing substances have lived in areas where they're prevelent or have been outside the US to countries where the supply is not limited and there is little legal action taken against those who use durgs?

Where would those places be? I assume based on your post, you've been to at least one.
 
Well first, I'm not convinced that hard drug usage would really increase, at least not in the long run. We'd surely see some increase in casual users, and some of them would get sucked into heavy abuse. One risk of liberty is that you're free to waste your life.

Second, in general those screwed up people do screwed up things in order to get more hard-to-obtain drugs. If the drugs weren't expensive and risky to obtain, some of the screwed up things they're doing now won't happen any more.

Sure, there's the fabled near-mythical screwed up meth addict who puts the baby in the microwave to make him stop crying. But screwed up drunks kill more people than drug addicts. The crimes of intoxicated people are still crimes.

.[/QUOTE]

certainly alcohol causes more damage than hard drugs. but that's not what we're talking about.

folks intoxicated on meth, pcp, coke, and heroin are more likely to commit violent crimes than sober folk, especially self harm and motor vehicle aided harm. if you doubt this, proceed to your local county ER this weekend.

your assumption that legalization of hard drugs will eradicate violent crimes associated with the obtaining of said drugs is sorely mistaken. those crimes are associated with the cost, not the legality of the drug. legalizing the drug will not drive the cost down - only a decreased demand would do that. and if you legalize a drug, the demand will certainly go up short term, and taxes will add to that increased cost. crimes associated with the obtaining of money to buy legalized drugs might actually go up.

and btw, the baby in the microwave thing has happened a number of times in the last 20 years with fatal results - intoxicants of all flavors were usually involved, almost all in the setting of severe mental illness and domestic violence.

addiction is a disease of accountability.
 
LEGALIZE IT

all of "it"

The fact that drugs are so easy to obtain is proof that criminalization is not working it's certainly not proof that more people would do drugs were they legalized.
 
The fact that drugs are so easy to obtain is proof that criminalization is not working it's certainly not proof that more people would do drugs were they legalized.

exactly

anyone that really wants to do drugs, currently is

I'd like to hear one person admit they'd do heroin, on the regular, if it were legal. The ONLY reason they don't do heroin is because it's illegal.
 
exactly

anyone that really wants to do drugs, currently is

I'd like to hear one person admit they'd do heroin, on the regular, if it were legal. The ONLY reason they don't do heroin is because it's illegal.

It's not about heroin. It's about oxy, weed, coke, etc.

This forum is not exactly anonymous, so I'll restrain from full commitment, but I will say that my threshold for trying things like X, cocaine, etc. in a safe, social setting would be negligible if they were completely legal, say, in my own home. What happens next? Maybe not me, but a dozen other people just like me, in a similar setting would become addicts.

Furthermore, I understand that this war on drugs will never be won, but I don't want to live in the first major Western country which legalizes these things. It'll be like Vegas for gamblers. Certain cities will become straight-up drug dens. Let some other countries play around with this, like Amsterdam.

Addiction is not some hard line we all have to jump over. I don't at all consider myself to have an addictive personality type. Have no problem controlling my EtOH, and I have never been interested in cigarettes. Nonetheless, I had my wisdoms out about 10 yrs ago, and within 4 days I managed to time the doses so I never felt pain. I was riding the buzz, calling in a refill less than a week after it was dispensed. I had the willpower to never pick it up, and basically stopped when the bottle ran out. But if someone like Brett Favre can get addicted, just about any one of us can.

Like it or not, the illegality of drugs is a hard line that prevents many more people from using on a regular basis.
 
Im sure Ill hear it for this but this is where libertarian logic goes kaput and starts to be exposed as little more than anarchist philosophy.

Im all for the legalization of weed but hard drugs that are extremely addictive and destructive to be controlled by...eeeek...the government.

Would the same dudes proposing legalization of everything also be all in on CRNA independence? Its basically the same logic, why restrict one practitioner from practicing what they believe to be capable of if they can convince the consumer of using their product? Freedom and liberty for all no?
 
It's not about heroin. It's about oxy, weed, coke, etc.

This forum is not exactly anonymous, so I'll restrain from full commitment, but I will say that my threshold for trying things like X, cocaine, etc. in a safe, social setting would be negligible if they were completely legal, say, in my own home. What happens next? Maybe not me, but a dozen other people just like me, in a similar setting would become addicts.

Furthermore, I understand that this war on drugs will never be won, but I don't want to live in the first major Western country which legalizes these things. It'll be like Vegas for gamblers. Certain cities will become straight-up drug dens. Let some other countries play around with this, like Amsterdam.

Addiction is not some hard line we all have to jump over. I don't at all consider myself to have an addictive personality type. Have no problem controlling my EtOH, and I have never been interested in cigarettes. Nonetheless, I had my wisdoms out about 10 yrs ago, and within 4 days I managed to time the doses so I never felt pain. I was riding the buzz, calling in a refill less than a week after it was dispensed. I had the willpower to never pick it up, and basically stopped when the bottle ran out. But if someone like Brett Favre can get addicted, just about any one of us can.

Like it or not, the illegality of drugs is a hard line that prevents many more people from using on a regular basis.

Yeah, I know we're talking about ALL drugs here. As an aside even if drugs were legal, I'm still sure the licensing boards would have a problem with drugs, so it would still be "illegal" for physician. I simply have a hard time believing that there are hordes of people sitting at home just waiting for drugs to be legal before they try them. Hell the only place I ever used drugs when I used to partake before getting sober a long time ago now was in safe, social situations, in private homes. Largely, outliers notwithstanding, the people that want to use drugs have and do regardless of legality.
 
Would the same dudes proposing legalization of everything also be all in on CRNA independence? Its basically the same logic, why restrict one practitioner from practicing what they believe to be capable of if they can convince the consumer of using their product? Freedom and liberty for all no?

I'd be ok with it, but then, I'm not competing with them. Hell, I'd go so far as to get rid of licensing.
 
Pgg,

I like the cut of your jib - what you say resonates with me.

What we are doing now CLEARLY doesn't work and costs in blood and much much money - with little change in apparent outcome.

However, what happens if we legalize the stuff, and realize it was a mistake? Would it be hard to return? That would be my concern.

No one can say what would happen for sure, but you need a contingency plan.

No one ever does that with law making. Law's that don't work are rarely - if ever - reversed.
 
Afghanistan, lots of opium products.



Where would those places be? I assume based on your post, you've been to at least one.
 
Last edited:
Afghanistan, lots of opium products.

Oh. I see. You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

I didn't realize you were already talking about an uncivilized country and society. Afghanistan hasn't had anything like a real modern societal model or cohesive government. If you're trying to make the case that legalizing drugs would be bad because a crap hole like afghanistan is bad, you're not making an appropriate comparisan. Hell, Afghanistan was a crap hole when the Taliban was in power and they made poppies illegal (the production of poppies was down by 90% by some reports). Utopia didn't appear, did it?

Where else might you have been referring to where legalizing drugs turned the country bad? This time try and actually use a western civilized country as an example. It would be helpful towards the intellectual honesty of the discussion.
 
Oh. I see. You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

I didn't realize you were already talking about an uncivilized country and society. Afghanistan hasn't had anything like a real modern societal model or cohesive government. If you're trying to make the case that legalizing drugs would be bad because a crap hole like afghanistan is bad, you're not making an appropriate comparisan. Hell, Afghanistan was a crap hole when the Taliban was in power and they made poppies illegal (the production of poppies was down by 90% by some reports). Utopia didn't appear, did it?

Where else might you have been referring to where legalizing drugs turned the country bad? This time try and actually use a western civilized country as an example. It would be helpful towards the intellectual honesty of the discussion.

Maybe you can start the discussion by naming a civilized country which legalized drugs, leading to a more stable society or reduction in crime.
 
I think that the point of UTSWs thread was that we should be vigilant for suspicious dispensing practices, and report suspicious activity to the medical board and/or DEA. They can do whatever they want with the information. If everyone looks the other way, we're part of the problem. Having said that, the addict might not admit to taking 18 oxy a day, but you never know. His/her independent CRNA "pain specialist" might have told them that it's ok to take that much. (see related thread re Oregon rogue CRNA)
 
Maybe you can start the discussion by naming a civilized country which legalized drugs, leading to a more stable society or reduction in crime.

There is currently no country with legalization of drugs the way it's been brought up per this discussion, though Portugal which arguably has the most liberal drugs laws of any western nation has shown hard data that decriminalization did not increase drug use. And you can look back to drugs use in this country BEFORE drug laws were passed, and see that there was not a drop in crime following the passage of drug law. Furthermore, when alcohol, a drug, was legalized crime decreased, at least murder did.

The idea of total drug legalization, while popular with the anarchist and libertarian crowd for a long time, is actually a relatively new idea into the mainstream politic in any sort of practical form. What I think can been since in almost 100 years of attempts at prohibitions is that they do not work in keeping people from using the substance (at least we are not draconian enough in our punishment as they exist - perhaps if we burned drug users alive), create black markets which increases crime, and also furthers a police/surveillance state that is ultimately dangerous to all of the other freedoms we love, enjoy, and probably too often take for granted.
 
However, what happens if we legalize the stuff, and realize it was a mistake? Would it be hard to return? That would be my concern.

I don't think it'd be hard to return at all; indeed, I think that'd be a risk. Attempting to modify behavior through legislation is what every government thinks it does best.

If confronted with evidence that putting shrooms next to the cigarettes at the kwikimart really DID cause crime to increase ... a return to 2011-style prohibition and War On Drugs round 2 isn't the only option.


No one can say what would happen for sure, but you need a contingency plan.

Well, I'd start by arguing that legalization is the contingency plan for a failed war on drugs. 😀

No one ever does that with law making. Law's that don't work are rarely - if ever - reversed.

You don't need a law to make something not illegal. 😉 The hard part is repealing the drug laws we have now. If we did that Friday, I'm sure by Monday there'd be people drafting laws to reinstate them.

Point being, if we somehow overcame the War on Drugs inertia and made a change to legalize some/all drugs, I don't see any good reason why other changes then become more difficult.



Afghanistan, lots of opium products.

Oh man, I don't even know where to begin with this.

Granted, my trip to Afghanistan was as an evil imperialist occupying invader and my interactions with the locals were not always candid or genuine, impaired as they were by all the guns we had pointed in their general direction ... but I'm pretty comfortable with my assessment of why the Pashtuns are so ****ed up, and drugs ain't even 1/10th the story there.
 
Simple-

Legalize (and tax) MJ for 5 years and monitor the results. Only then you could even consider legalizing the "harder" drugs.
 
I believe they are referring to places such as Boise, Idaho or Bismarck, North Dakota...at least that is what I pictured in my mind.

HEY GERN! I'm from Idaho, those are fighting' words! Why I aughta.....(picture of shaking fist).

(I am reading my parents this interesting thread.....just in case you were wondering what I was doing...)
 
HEY GERN! I'm from Idaho, those are fighting' words! Why I aughta.....(picture of shaking fist).

(I am reading my parents this interesting thread.....just in case you were wondering what I was doing...)

I like the cut of your jib!
No offense intended. I know several from that area and it seems like good people live there. I live in a fly over state as well.🙂
 
HEY GERN! I'm from Idaho, those are fighting' words! Why I aughta.....(picture of shaking fist).

(I am reading my parents this interesting thread.....just in case you were wondering what I was doing...)

Idaho boy, huh- Same here.
Maybe I'll stop giving you such a hard time about your excessive caudal epidural use on the pain forums..........
 
Top