Reed College Bust - Internal affair or PD involved?

Most of you heard about this story in the news this past week.

From what I have read, being in possession of LSD is a 2nd Degree felony (most states) and possession of ecstasy is a felony (most states) if caught with intent to distribute, it is a misdemeanor if caught with only 1 or 2 pills.

Oregon's laws: http://oregoncrimes.com/drugs.htm

Sounds like the guys had a decent stash along with weighing scales and such. So in this case the student body of the senate is wrong about it being an "internal issue". In this case cops should be called.

source: http://www.katu.com/news/local/Some...e-handled-drug-case-internally-139565413.html

 

Reed has always been a drug haven for smart rich kids.

I used to visit a friend there in the late 70's and they had bowls of pills in the commons area of all the dorms, all night drug fueled parties... I was jealous I couldn't go there.

 

all 3 of those drugs are harmless in moderation, and marijuana is just plain harmless period, as well as all 3 being non-addictive.

but lets prescribe our caffeine and sugar riddled toddlers hyper-addictive drugs so they can become dug riddled teenagers, hopelessly bound to big pharma

 

Even in utopia there's myopia.

 

Alcohol.

Kills more Americans in one year than all illegal drugs combined have ever killed.

 

That's primarily because booze isn't illegal and drugs are. Make drugs legal and then the death rate for those using drugs and those killed by people in drug fueled rages will probably sky rocket.

 

The Republican handbook wants you to believe that....

I believe people who are anti-drugs are the one's that got paranoid when they smoked pot.

 

So if meth, crack, cocaine, RX, ..... were all made full legal you don't think there would be either an increase in usage or increase in deaths?

 

No. Because if people are going to do it, they are going to do it. The law isn't going to stop them. You make choices in life. Its like people who gorge themselves on fast food and die of a heart attack when they're in their 30's or 40's.

 

I’ll disagree with you there.

Fully legalize all kinds and types of dugs and I am certain there will be an increase in usage as they will be as easy to get as a beer. That will lead to more addiction and that to more deaths.

 

yet there was an increase in alcohol use & abuse when we had prohibition. In countries where drugs aren't demonized/illegal, there is lots to suggest that your intuition is just off... the allure of the forbidden is very strong.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

"The figures for cannabis use among the general population reveal the same pictures. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries. In contrast, a comparison with the US shows a striking difference in this area: 32.9% of Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis and 5.1% have used in the past month. These figures are twice as high as those in the Netherlands."

I'm for taxing pot for a huge new revenue stream and pocketing the savings of not having to pay for locking up all of those "criminals". The Mexican border would become vastly less violent and expensive as well

STOMP

 

STOMP, it may be that weed usage will increase only slightly (although it's a highly debatable point), I'm more talking about other drugs. As to usage of weed leading to stronger drugs, there's a good case to be made for that.

But we won't really know unless drugs are decriminalized.

 

4 ways to argue this. This thread has shown all except the conservative one.

Fascist
The law is the law. No debate is needed over whether the law is correct. Law is the same thing as morality, so if you don't like a law, you are a bad person.

Conservative
The government should make illegal anything which decreases social order. Drugs cause laughter and creativity. Loose behavior must be stopped because it makes the job of police harder to control us.

Liberal
The government should make illegal anything which might kill us or hurt us. The government should protect us from what we want to do. The argument should be over how many people would die if drugs were legalized.

The majority
People should have freedom, even if they hurt themselves or die exercising their freedom. It is none of the government's business. Risk is the price of freedom.

 

I'd be interested in seeing you try to mount a case for pot being more of a gateway to harder drugs then nicotine or alcohol... & certainly from a medical standpoint it's less harmful to the user.

only a limited % of the population are prone to addictions, most seek/are capable of avoiding that sort of slavery.

STOMP

 

As to your statement that quitting smoking is harder than quitting drugs or alcohol, I read some academia articles on the matter. The general conclusion is that it's not harder to quit smoking, it's just not seen as necessary. In other words, it's easy to see the negative effects of drugs or alcohol addiction every time they are ingested. But smoking has no real effect until someone has cancer. By then it's too late. But each are an addiction and each are relatively the same with respect to the degree of effort to quit.

As far as cigs, alcohol or weed leading to more dangerous drugs, the 3 or 4 articles I read state the progression for teens is cigs to alcohol to weed to stronger drugs. The primary reason is that cigs and alcohol are much more accessible to teens than weed so I suppose the results are a bit skewed. I tried to find an article about teens who start on just alcohol or weed and where that leads, but was unable to find anything authoritative. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is the current progression.

 

so according to these mystery articles you're citing, nicotine is the gateway drug. Actually, that would be more correctly termed cigarettes as the manufactures put so many other things into their product that it's hardly just the nicotine. Of course their is no debate on which of the three is by far the least harmful to the body

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_is_worse_cigarettes_or_pot

Since you can't seem to find much that supports your expressed views on pot, will you be changing them? It's sort of sad that people still choose to chain smoke & become alcoholics, but thats part of living in a free society. It's reasonable that we tax the hell out of them as they cost taxpayers a ton in health care $

STOMP

 

I just went over to google and read a few articles that seemed non political.

 

As I said above, I think this line of reasoning is irrelevant if you believe in freedom. You could prove that something is dangerous to the person doing it, and that several thousands will die each year if granted some new freedom, and it wouldn't faze me.

Now, if you prove that thousands will die because stoned people will kill them, it would have an effect on me. But not if thousands of stoners will die. As long as the government educates people on the risks, it should be their decision, not the government's.

 

where did I say that?

I said pot is less physically harmfull then alcohol or nicotine... which is a fact. As far as addiction, unlike cigs or alcohol it has zero physically addictive qualities, but of course people can become mentally dependent on just about anything.

Cancer could strike the smoker or just about anyone else through 2nd hand smoke (but of course the unborn are most at risk). Other real affects include loss of lung capacity, increased impotence, and smelling like shit

here is a link with several other pre-cancer concerns

http://www.semcaprevention.org/tobacco.html

STOMP

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...uana-study-adds-to-health-effects-debate.html