How come manufacturers and distributors and retailers of alocohol and tobacco never get blamed by their abusers, yet traffickers and dealers do?

Actually sounds like double standards.

And how come the liberals who are working to make drugs legal also blame violence on the traffickers, and cast them aside, when they are the very ones who can help them?

Blaming the trafffickers and dealers is lose-lose.

The traffickers were not the cause of violence without being in a system of anarchy encouraged by illegalization.

Therefore, their integrity and fair trade practices never had a chance to shine or be accurately measured under those laws.

The dealers never had any FTC-Competition Bureau nor DOJ Antitrust laws to look over there industry and regulate the competition and unfair trade laws to begin with.

They never had a chance to display their fair trade ethics. They never had a third party, governmental body, to preside over any unfair trade practice disputes that would frequently arise from within.

If they had a third party to go to say for Sherman-Clayton Act and fair trade practices, it would reduce, if not eliminate the violence, or at least filter out the irresponsible from the responsible.

The only thing they ever had was RICO. And that never determined who was most or least irresponsible in fair trade practices with each other. Just made flat out all "equally" responsible.

Were it to be legalized and regulated with FTC and DOJ Antitrust like all other businesses, it could eliminate violence and vast resources otherwise spent on something that can never be controlled otherwise.

Sherman-Clayton Act has the power to eliminate the violence, more much than RICO ever could.

Also, I doubt other businesses such as alocohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical industries could ever have a chance of taking over those markets, they may have the money and resources, and so on, but who from the Latin American drug trade would ever interested in doing business with them.

The only people they trust is our own dealers. If we don't start legalizing and regulating by partnering with our own dealers already familiar with the market, etc., thereby using them to encourage fair trade practices, demilitarize, etc., we'll never improve relations with Latin America either.

It's like I've told a friend of ours who continues to push for legalization of marijuana------the people making all the money don't want it legalized, either, any more than the public does, because then they wouldn't make so much money. The price would go down and the government would have their big fist in the profits to boot, plus a lot of regulations being put on it. If a person could go buy their drugs at the corner store for $20 bucks, they sure wouldn't be out on the street hustling so they could pay $100 to a dealer. Right?

Not if the corner store can't get a legal license to sell, due to prohibition by city zoning regulations.

Were it to be decriminalized on a federal level, it would then become regulated by each state and township levels, just like tobacco and alcohol are.

For example, all smoking outdoors and in public is completely banned in the entire state of Delaware. That's because the majority of people who live there want it that way.

In other words, if you're a smoker, just live somewhere where people share your lifestyle and if you're not, vice versa.

No advertising, no unrestricted selling, strict DUI and underage laws enforced, the whole works.

You can bet there would be strict pricing controls, on those who would qualify for license, most definitely.

Too may powerful conservatives on Capital Hill would not want a movement like this to make anything different other than to increase the amount of law-abiding citizens among those who are already active in drug trade.

To have mass consumerism market proliferate would be unthinkable.

The idea of legalization is to promote law and order where there currently is none. For those already active.

Not meant for any others to participate in. All others currently not active would be left alone. The only thing different they would notice is the general decrease in violence and increase in law - abiding citizens in the media and such.

All this from a Republican view.

Good to see you Toi ama :)

Canada is currently looking into Pharmacies distrubuting pot instead of the Canadian government or doctors (for medical purposes). So there would be a prescription just like any other drug which would be filled at a pharmacy, which makes sense if its for medical purposes. There is a lot of division between Canada and the U.S. over our new drug laws and the ones that are still in the process of being worked out. Personally I think the U.S. should take a long look at what is going on in Canada and in some European countries regarding drugs. I believe its over 4000 people who are going to to be getting their criminal records erased for pot possession here in Canada. I think its all a step forward though the Government being almost totally in control of it may not be the answer at all. After all if they are acknowledging the use for medical purposes then it should be treated like any other prescription drug and many of them are abused too and the other prescription drugs are not manufactured by the government. Some good signs regarding this is that the Canadian government has started approving some growers permits to grow it. Also a card carrying approved user of 'medicinal pot' has the option of growing it themselves so long as they follow certain rules on how it is grown and under what conditions. i.e. the grower has to take measures to deter theft.

That's the problem. Conservatives don't want to see people's drug habits hamper the health care and insurance industries. They think their premiums are going to go up because of all the 'medical' needs.

Besides, it may be medical for some, but what about the majority of others who want it for recreation?
All it will do is encourage them to claim false medical reasons.
More fraud, more dishonesty.

What we need is not fraud, not dishonesty, not hampering the health care industry, nor insurance, but just basically the users need to say, "If we could regulate it for recreation, we will use responsibly, just like drinking responsibly, and therefore not hamper your health care indusrty, nor create further social ill-will."

Also, they don't want addicts to continue robbing people. That's why they put addicts in jail. For crimes of dishonesty and theft and buglary. They don't want social ill-will.

If you can promise them it will decrease social ill-will and not hamper haelth care & ins industries, then by all means, get it off the medical paltform and get on the recreational platform, right up there with alcohol and tobacco.

ALthough there are reports that people who drink a glass of wine a day improves your heart, you don't see people running to their doctors to get permission to run up the insurance bills.

Medical cannibis use in Canada requires the person have a prognosis of DEATH in 12 months OR LESS.

What about the people who aren't on the edge of death?

It will get much further once off the medical slate.
That fear of abusing the health care industry and insuracne claims, (alongside with addicts' crimes of dishonesty to support habits) is what's hurting, not helping legalization.

I personally am not for the legalization of drugs, not even marijuana. The agruement that it is no worse than alcohol or tobacco doesnt hold water with me. Just becuse those and bad for you and legal, does not mean we should legalize another thing that is bad for you.

Medical marijuana is another thing all together. If it has medical benefits for specific illnesses, then I think doctors should be allowed to use their disgretion as they do already with other pharmeseuticals.

Well actually there is a lot more to it then that (Canada's pot laws), you dont have to be just dying, there are other diseases, conditions and injuries that are included that you dont have to be dying from (and this is suppose to be expanding next year). I know because I fit into one of the catagories though I don't plan on applying. These are the basic guidelines as far as who is elgible:

Under the new regulations, those who fall into one of three categories can apply for an Authorization to Possess marijuana for medical purposes. Holders of this authorization may possess a maximum 30-day treatment supply of marijuana at any given time.

Category 1: This category is for applicants who have terminal illnesses with a prognosis of a life span of less than 12 months.

Category 2: This category is for applicants who suffer from specific symptoms associated with certain serious medical conditions, namely:

Multiple Sclerosis: severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms
Spinal Cord Injury: severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms
Spinal Cord Disease: severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms
Cancer: severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea
AIDS/HIV infection: severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea
Severe forms of Arthritis: severe pain
Epilepsy: seizures

Category 3: This category is for applicants who have symptoms associated with a serious medical condition, other than those described in Categories 1 and 2, where among other things conventional treatments have failed to relieve symptoms of the medical condition or its treatment.

Also, something that I guess was missed is the fact that being addicted to some drugs cost society an awful lot of money from everything to various treatments, taking up space in a prison or rehab, councilling, and various other things. I think violence and crime is by far not the only cost to the public. Many families lose an awful lot when an addict is in the family, whether its booze or crack or many other destructive drugs. Just to bury the unknown drug addict that died in the gutter that no one cares about anymore costs money, atopsey (sp), processing, and disposal, it all costs money, and to the tax payer. Im not defending anyone here, just that there is a lot more of a cost to society then what appears on the surface. Often the family or loved one of an addict ends up in some form of councilling too.
Also most of the addicts (from the numbers Im seeing and hope to post soon) that are in prison are in on parole violations for having drugs in their system, not possession or other crimes relating, though there are still alot in from being on drugs when they commit crimes, but the numbers are alarming on how many people are in prison for being on drugs and as a result; violation of parole, for example; last year 75% of parole violators returned to prison were in violation of taking drugs only and were known to be an addict, this stat is from Michigan only though. I hope to post data on this in the near future for other states and countries. Prison is very obviously to me not the answer or a way to control it happening again. There needs to be a lot of changes for sure in all aspects of illecit drugs. They need to look at the whole thing from a different angle and some people in power I think are starting to realize this because they see the numbers and that things are worse not better, prisons are fuller not freeing up and more and more families are being destroyed by addiction and relying on the system for support.

I will add that I dont actually consider pot a drug that destroys familys or is destructive or addictive like some of the other drugs, I do consider more akin to alcohol though less addictive. I dont think its destructive like other drugs at least not here in Canada and some European countries that have taken a different stance to pot and hasish.

This is a pretty good conversation and a lot of points are coming out here, this is good for this forum and to get all the different opinions and feelings.

Hello flygrl, good to see you again too.

The purpose of legalizing is not meant to encourage further abuse, but to address the prison problem; to enable those with problems to get help they otherwise cannot get due to being in prison for something illegal.

In other words, you have to legalize it in order to get treatment. There's no other way around it. You can't do both something illegal and not get punished for it. You have to have one or the other.

Most people say prison is not the answer, therefore legalize.
I agree with them.

Withlinblue, I was not aware of the other two categories, however, now that you bring it out, I must say, there is way too much temptation for everyone and their grandmother to make up all kinds of symptons and imagined illnesses just so they can satisfy their habits legally and get paid for it by false insurance claims, thereby wreaking havoc on insurance companies and premiums.

On the other hand, if people would just be honest and admit it's for recreation and treat their drug abuse just like alcoholics treat theirs, then the fraudulent medical claim fears would be allayed.

Well our health system is quite different then the U.S., so that may be part of why it can be done easier in Canada. Also the amount of red tape anyone has to go threw here to get approval for medical pot is quite something, also the criteria for proving these things is acurate, as far as the diseases, most of them are verified by blood test. Also other more conventional drugs therapy has to be exhausted first which I dont agree with in all cases since pot is a lot less harmful then some of the drugs used for some of these diseases. I had to inject a chemo drug for five years once a week and it destroyed my immune system and also didnt put my disease in remission, Ive been on anti-rejection drugs, anti malaria drugs, and countless other drugs that are all very powerful and can cause many very serious and deadly side effects. In Canada, someone with my disease would have to have exhausted a large number of drugs first. I cant see fraud happening in many cases, though Im sure someone will do it someday. There are extensive forms that need to be filled out and verified as well as at least two different specialist have to fill out forms and provide test results. To give you an idea of it all, only just over 600 people in Canada right now have been approved. I think they took a lot of care in avoiding fraud if possible.

I think there are many other options to a drug violator if they are a user and not a dealer. Unfortunately most of the money goes to the prisons not treatment Im hoping this trend will end soon and there will be more options for drug addicts including more states allowing treatment on demand. The addicts are the clients for the dealers and if they can cut down the demand they lower the business potential for the dealers.

We actually have some places in Canada that now have safe injection sites for needle users. Its aimed at cutting down the amount of diseases that are transmitted with needle sharing and needles that arent disposed of correctly as well as providing clean needles, they are also trying to cut down on some street addicts that become victims to violence. People know where it is and though in a way its like herding them all to one area, its a safe area and anyone who doesnt want to see it stays away. There is also the option of getting treatment being made available. Also the cops leave the addicts alone. How long that last part will last I dont know, but right now I think they have a good idea there. They keep the needles out of the playground at the very least.

Originally posted by witchlinblue
Also the cops leave the addicts alone.
That's the other problem. Apparently Canada is partial to the users, yet turns their backs on select few groups being abused and used as scapegoats in the so-called 'war on drugs" to no end by RCMP.
The RCMP have been given all freedom to break any and all laws necessary to "do" their "jobs". Nothing but shame after shame.
Canada's police, pepper-spraying innocent people after they are handcuffed on the ground with police boots stomping on top their heads so they can't turn their heads and they can't move, and to sit there and spray them in their faces totally helpless. Disgusting and appalling.
The police torture tactics, unwarranted raids, that's not on the conservative's agenda. That's not political. That's sick. That's appalling.
Your country's cannibis laws may be further than ours.
But your RCMP force looking for trafficker scapegoats, are appalling and barbaric. Where do they recruit your police from anyway? Third world guerilla torture chambers?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad at you, Witchlin, I'm just disgusted at Canada's policing practices, absolutley appalling.
How come it seems none of the average citizens are doing anything about it? Do they even knoww what's happening?

Well I think all countries have their policing problems, but regardless on the topic of the Drug War, I hope that there will be positive changes for both our countries and others in the near future. It cant keep going like it is currently.

Actually, contrary to the position stated by Margaret at the start of this discussion, manufacturers and dealers of alcohol and tabacco DO take some of the blame for abusers addictions. The entire multi-billion dollar tabacco law suit was due to the fact that the tabacco industry had long known about the addictive power of tabacco, yet they hid that knowledge from the general public, and even told lies about it.

Not blaming the major drug traffickers for the violence that they cause seems more than a bit naieve. They always have had the option of abiding by the law, yet they chose to maintain their criminal activities by resorting to violence. THAT certainly is not the fault of those who decided to make drugs illegal.

But the fact is, keeping drugs illegal has not worked very well. I think that everyone here is well aware of the failure of the war on drugs. BTW, I should point out that there have been instances in other countries where tabacco and alcohol were sold through the black market, and there were indeed a number of violent instances. Everyone knows that prohibition during the 1920's led to the rise of organized crime.

Also, it is not only liberals who would like to see drug use legalized. Conservative advocates of laisze faire capitalism, such as the very famous economist, Milton Freedman, have long held that drug use and production ought to be legalized. As an avowed liberal, I too think that the time has come to legalize drugs and make treatment freely and readily available to all who want it.

I not big on people not accepting personal responsibility for their drug habit. I grow tired of hearing how it is all the dealers fault. People have a choice whether or not to become addicted to drugs.

The best I can show this is me and my sister. She chose to do nothing but drugs, I chose not too. She has two kids, and is still struggling with her addiction. I am 18 years at the same company making 75K a year. I could have very easily become addicted if I had done drugs. I have an addictive personality. But, I chose not to.

Also, Techie, I am as liberal as they come and I dont want to see any drugs legalized. I think the pro pot people are partially to blame for not getting pot legalized for medical use. They have openly stated that their agenda is to get it legal for medical use then go for full legalization. Now, if you were a law maker, would you allow a door to crack open when you feel they might come and kick it down?

Of course addicts are almost always responsible for their own addiction, and I never said anything to the contrary.

I grew up during the late 1960's. When I was in High School most of my friends used a variety of drugs. I faced tremendous peer pressure to use drugs, particularly grass. For me, I decided that smoking a joint was something that I never want to do.

Some of those people are still my friends. They also still smoke pot and are very productive people holding full-time high paying jobs.

For me, I decided that experimenting with drugs was and is a very bad idea. Still, I do occassionally have a drink or two. I know enough about myself at this point to know that alcohol will never be a something that I will abuse. Everyone is different.

That said, I think that everyone should have the choice to decide for themselves whether or not to use recreational pharmacuticals. There is nothing wrong with an occassional drink, and I see nothing wrong with smoking an occassional joint.

Adults ought to be given all of the knowledge they need to make the choice that is best for them. Very few things are more addictive than tobacco, yet we sell it in every 7-Eleven throughout the land. I do not believe that the societal damage done selling marijuana in the same way would be any worse than what we are currently seeing with the so-called War on Drugs.

Techie, would you be open to discuss this in pm? I dont want to sound argumentative. I want to understand where people are coming from, honestly. I want to understand why making marijuana legal would benefit this country. But, I am afraid I would be misunderstood. I am not exactly known for my communication skills, LOL>

Techie, Ive read some of your posts with great interest. One thing Im not clear on, you say "That said, I think that everyone should have the choice to decide for themselves whether or not to use recreational pharmacuticals" Are you referring to just a drink and/or a joint or are you referring to all recreational pharmacuticals ? I'm just curious, and found myself wondering when reading this last post.

Happy Holidays

Witchlinblue,

Let me try to be more specific. By everyone, I mean everyone who is an adult of at least age 21. Once someone reaches adulthood, their bodies are their own to do with as they please. I would prefer that no one use drugs, but there are lots of things that others would prefer that I don't do.

By recreational pharmacuticals, I do indeed mean more than alcohol or grass. That doesn't mean that I think that people ought to be allowed to drive while drunk, or steal to support a heroin habbit. Both behaviors endanger or hurt innocent people. Stealing should always be a crime, as should driving a car in a way that endangers others. But the actual purchase or use of the drugs by adults should never be against the law.

We do not punish people for things that they may do in the future. The arguement that becoming a heroin addict may eventually cause someone to commit a criminal act is in many cases true. But those crimes are what ought to be punished, not the mere use of the drugs. I also suspect that if the drugs were legal they would be lower cost, making it less likely that people will have to steal in order to support their habbit. In that regard, keeping drugs illegal actually may cause more real crime than it prevents.

The problem, as I see it, is that criminalizing the drug use only makes the problem worse. There are much better reasons not to use drugs than it is against the law to do so. Surely, the danger of killing yourself through an overdose seems like a worse deterent than spending time in prison. If the threat of death doesn't stop someone from using drugs, why should the threat of prison?

The other thing that I believe, is that treatment to help people to stop using drugs should be available at no cost to anyone who wants it.

Drug addiction is a very complicated problem, and I do not claim to know the answer. What I do know, is that the present approach doesn't work. One out of 50 Americans goes to prison at some point in their life, and a huge proportion of those people are there for drug use or possession. That doesn't seem like much of a solution to me. I also doubt that locking all of those people up did anymore to get them off drugs than any of the other bad things that happen to addicts. Spending the money used to incarcerate people for drug use could be better spent on treatment programs.

I've heard conservative legislators say that locking people up (sometimes for a very long time ala NY's Rockefeller laws) IS the treatment, because it punishes bad behavior. I strongly disagree.

Of course, I could be very wrong. What I am saying here are not really new arguments. But I do believe that the present way of doing business isn't working.

Could Margaret post me some links to the RCMP stuff she discussed earlier in this post?
I don't read the paper much or watch the news cus it depresses me and I would be very interested in finding out what this is all about.
Also, I have friends who have the Rx for medical marijuana useage and it was no breeze for them to get it.
They went thru extensive screening for thier Rx's and were not just handed a ticket to ride.
I have seen the benefits in the quality of life my friends enjoy now that they can use their weed for pain and nausea rather than prescription pills that didn't work or were addictive.