TexasCHLforum.com

John wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:As to it being a "gateway drug," that argument pre-supposes that it is illegal. When it was NOT illegal, use didn't lead to stronger drugs. Now that it IS illegal, it DOES lead to stronger drugs. Perhaps it is a gateway drug BECAUSE it is illegal. Perhaps the simple use of it makes users less sensitive to illegal drug use and that is WHY it acts as a gateway drug.

Where did you get this information? When it was not illegal, cocaine could be picked up at the store and was used in coca cola. I really don't see your statement as an honest argument.

If you legalize it, they'll be a hell of a lot more users and more bad consequences. Driving under the influence, minors, children, idiots.... you name it.

anyhoo... kinky doesn't get my vote.

How about here: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/schaffer1.htm

I understand what you guys are saying, but pointing to those sites is like pointing someone pro-gun to handguncontrol.org to argue an issue. I guess it's a good thing if you agree with the goals. I do not, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

How about RAY? He has an office in Houston now.

Tropical1 wrote:How about RAY? He has an office in Houston now.

Don't see why not, most of those bused over to New Oleans last April to vote for Nagin were bused right back here and are eligible to vote in our elections in November (if they registered here).

John wrote:When it was not illegal, cocaine could be picked up at the store and was used in coca cola.

So could heroin, morphine, and opium. And the "drug problem" was almost non-existent.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

John wrote:When it was not illegal, cocaine could be picked up at the store and was used in coca cola.

So could heroin, morphine, and opium. And the "drug problem" was almost non-existent.

Kevin

Oh i'm sure it was a problem, just wasn't illegal. We had a different work ethic and social norms then too. Times have changed. Reminds me of a line in a Jimmy Buffett song, "But only jazz musicians were smokin' marijuana...".

Russell wrote:To sum this up,
US: 29.9% of all deaths in car accidents involved alcohol.
UK: 15%

US drinking age: 21
UK: 16 restaurants, 18 bars and pubs

Could this be because it is less regulated, and people learn at an earlier age how to safely consume a drug?

Not necessarily, it could mean that much denser population means people walk instead of drive, that people use public transportation rather than owning their own car, that standard of living is lower and fewer people can afford vehicles (which could mean that higher income people are less likely to DUI (or not)).....

That just isn't sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusion.

I have heard and happen to believe that most crime is related to attempting to acquire money for drug / alcohol purchase. I don't see how legalizing drugs makes it more likely those types will say "hey, think I'll get a job to pay for this legal drug". Again, I admittedly don't have facts to support this, I've just heard it and in my opinion, I believe it to be true.

Russell wrote:Keep in mind grillking this is a percentage of accidents that occur. not a total number of accidents per population.

So therefore, there IS a sufficient amount of data there.

Respectfully disagree. I understand percentage. What I'm saying is that a different part of the populace may be a higher percentage of the drivers, with different drinking habits, or people know they will be intoxicated and since they live close to the neighborhood pub they walk or since public transportation is much more workable due to denser population they may choose to take that option. The drinking and transportations habits of those in the UK is different than in the US. Age, what is legal vs non-legal, who drives who doesn't, etc., are all important components of the equation. Comparing the raw percentages doesn't have meaning w/o understanding the those other components.

What you say MAY be true, but it isn't enough to draw that conclusion only from the data presented.

As far as because millions and millions of people do something, that doesn't necessarily make it the best thing to make legal.

I obviously disagree with your conclusion and beliefs, but I do respect your right to have a differing opinion (and enjoy the discussion).

Regards,

Gary

John wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

John wrote:When it was not illegal, cocaine could be picked up at the store and was used in coca cola.

So could heroin, morphine, and opium. And the "drug problem" was almost non-existent.

Kevin

Oh i'm sure it was a problem, just wasn't illegal. We had a different work ethic and social norms then too. Times have changed. Reminds me of a line in a Jimmy Buffett song, "But only jazz musicians were smokin' marijuana...".

It was a problem, but it was treated as a "personal problem" and those who became addicted were seen as lacking in self-control. Even Arthur Conan Doyle portrayed Sherlock Holmes as addicted through a personality lack.

My grandmother used to tell tales of a couple of cousins of hers who demonstrated their lack of self-control by developing drug habits in the 1880s to 1890s, one to "marihuana" which was originally prescribed for control of pain, cramping, and nausea associated with a bowel condition. I myself suffer from that same condition, Irritable Bowel, which seems to have passed down through the maternal side of my family, and there have been times that I would gladly have smoked almost anything for relief.

The other cousin became addicted to Cocaine when he was introduced to it while participating in explorations in South America and eventually moved from chewing the leaves to swallowing powder and eventually to injection.

My grandmother disdained both for their lack of self-control but never blamed easy access to the drugs.

She also told interesting tales from when she and my grandfather were in China in the nineteen-teens and the numerous Chinese that she observed who were addicted to Opium.

Would that we could move back to a societal norm that held that those who became addicted were responsible for their own actions, not where we are where we have to be protected from our own obvious weaknesses by having laws passed against the use of a variety of things, such as guns too. Prohibitions never seem to work very well, but that doesn't stop significant subsets of our society from trying to use them to control access by other subsets.

jimlongley wrote:Would that we could move back to a societal norm that held that those who became addicted were responsible for their own actions

that is what i was trying to point out. we no longer have those norms in our society (or maybe just a lesser degree). legalizing those drugs today would just add a new class of dependents.

Going back to the subject at hand, from this article

Kinky Friedman says he favors legalizing marijuana to keep nonviolent users out of prison. If Texas elects him governor, he says, he'll try to get locked-up pot users released to make room for more violent criminals.

I could be way off here, but I am not sure how many "pot users" are in jail. Isn't usage just a misdomener? I honestly do not know.

Just my thoughts:

The whole idea that a police state can raid a home and arrest everyone in their own home for growing and using a natural herb that may be giving them relief from diseases such as glaucoma and cancer seems wrong to me. The idea that we must have such draconian laws to protect our 10 year olds is equally absurd, especially while so many children are being killed by drunk drivers.

My suggestion.
Allow anyone one to grow their own for their own consumption. Sale, resale and transporting could still be illegal. The government doesn't need to be in anyones home or private property as long as there is no real threat to others.

Liberty wrote:My suggestion.
Allow anyone one to grow their own for their own consumption. Sale, resale and transporting could still be illegal. The government doesn't need to be in anyones home or private property as long as there is no real threat to others.

Can't disagree with that - what a person does in their own home......

However, we should limit you to your home while under the influence. Or at the very least, there must be a restriction against driving or operating machinery/weapons under the influence.