What does that have to do with anything? Don't you get the fact that the above example is purely conceptual?
And I supposes all those studies that have proven weed is not a gateway drug should just be ignored? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2538065.stm http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/45535/ http://canadaonline.about.com/od/marijuana/a/senatemjreport.htm http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/05/18/601/89840 http://www.impactlab.com/2006/12/13...ateway-to-illicit-drug-use-as-often-reported/
How is that? Lets break it down into pieces. 1. A person needs to buy beer. 2. In the hypothetical situation listed above, they have to go buy it where other drugs are sold. 3. So the person goes there to buy beer. 4. But they are exposed to cocaine. 5. They think "Hey, all sorts of people told me beer was bad for me, maybe cocaine isn't as dangerous as they say." 6. They buy some coke, go home get addicted, and destroy their life. Or maybe they just have a good time. It's up to them. The point being, if people had to go to the same shady places to buy beer that other folks do to buy marijuana, it would be a "gateway drug" too. The solution is to make it so those folks don't have to go to those places to buy it, and then it is no longer a gateway drug. No more than beer anyhow.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...al-8-billion-deficit-over-next-16-months.html California in 8 billion debt over 16 months.
I don't think it is necessarily just, well, you sell this AND that, so I will try them both. If you notice, a lot of people that do drugs, and mroe specifically, abuse drugs, tend to have addictive personalities. Someone prone to trying cocaine isn't only going to try it because they smoked pot, they were going to try it because that is their personality. For a whole bunch of people I know, pot was just fine for them. Stopped right there. For others, they started smoking cigarettes at a younger age than most, started drinking at a younger age than most. Then pot. mushrooms, acid, coke, etc. It was not well, I smoked pot, now I am going to start doing PCP. If the gateway excuse is to be made, then let's say that cigarettes are a gateway drug, as I have never known a friend or otherwise who smoked pot who didn't also smoke cigarettes. Or smoked cigarettes first, adn then quit, but continued to smoke pot. I do not know any friends who never drank before smoking pot. Gateway drug. fuck that shit.
OK, now I see what you're saying. I guess my thing is this- first, I simply do not support legalizing dope. If so, something would certainly follow. And follow that. And follow that. Where does it all end? Second, we have a hard enough time keeping people from legally drinking and illegally driving when intoxicated. To make any drugs so easily available to the masses just adds another layer of irresponsible people driving, commiting crimes... when high on drugs. So why go there?
No, but when I see wholesale irresponsability with it, it becomes clear dope will only be worse. BTW, I watched an hour long show about Mendicino county in CA that did nearly fully legalize pot. Each week multiople houses burn down from pot growing equipment, massive environmental sites (diesel, herbocides...) that cost tens of thousands of dollars each to clean, violent crime up dramatically, many people moving due to the whlpe area being terrorized... The count has finally dropped their legalization experiment due to all the fires, crimes and hazerdous waste.
That's a completely different issue. Making hooch in one's basement is different from being able to buy a drink in a bar. If growing pot by amateurs creates a major danger issue, then that can always be outlawed. Marijuana could still be sold in stores from large distributors. Why would there be more "violent crime?" Making something legal takes away the gang-driven black market aspect. There isn't violent crime around the beer and wine industry.
Its inevitable that weed becomes legal in parts of the US in the next few decades, possible next few years. The older generation that was adamantly opposed of legalization is being replaced by the '60's baby boomers that see the positives and negatives of legalization. Alcohol and Marijuana both have some serious consequence, but can be used responsibly. They should be taxed and regulated.
I find it humorous that cigarette smoking has been severely regulated and curtailed, in no place moreso than CA, but they will allow herb smoke to be legalized now? Generally, though, I'm against the morals of those who "really lived" in the 60's and 70's being applied to my country as a whole. But if it's voted on...
I don't see the contradiction. The main restrictions California has instituted revolve around smoking where the second-hand smoke will be inhaled by other people. You can inhale harmful things yourself, but it's not reasonable to have a legally protected right to harm the health of others. Similarly, it should be legal to ingest marijuana (and, of course, marijuana is far less damaging to one's health than nicotine or alcohol).
