I know however that USA spends more than anyone on drug prohibition and jails more than any country (per capita and total)
Spending a lot isn't necessarily a sign of doing things right or not. America spends more on healthcare than other countries, more than it would under a socialized system that would work better.
The trade in illegal drugs is billions of dollar annually. Do you disagree? You are now claiming you think this money should go straight into the hands of criminals.
No, I am arguing that we should arrest the criminals and punish them harshly. The trade in human trafficking and child pornography generates a lot of revenue too. Guess we should have legal brothels for children too!
You suggest here we should protect adults and children from drugs. Protection means regulation, not prohibition. Prohibition is the opposite of protection. Remember it is because drugs can be so dangerous that they must be taken out of the hands of criminals and treated rationally.
There is no safe, rational way to use dangerous recreational drugs. You are doing harm to your body and mind and walking a path that leads to addiction for temporary fun.
Dangerous activities like gun ownership? Yes Driving cars? I wouldn't mind it, if there is well developed enough public transport, but drugs and alcohol contribute to much of the danger here anyway) Waging wars? I do not support wars other than when neccesary for defense Taking prescription drugs? Many of them should be banned, yes, but taking certain drugs under the supervision of a doctor is necessary to sustain life and thus should not be banned
Seriously, you think I should be able to buy Draino but not cocaine?
Chemicals that do not have recreational uses or are otherwise necessary for daily life should not be banned, no. Addictive recreational drug sessions are not necessary in any way.
You think that nicotine is OK to buy but ganja means a cop can take your house?
No, nicotine should definitely be prohibited as well, but it isn't close to as harmful to the body as marijuana is.
You think a playground pusher is better than a state regulated store?
In Pennsylvania they have state run liquor stores. Children still drink alcohol, adults still die from it too. State run stores are not solutions to the drug problem.
You think that gang violence and corruption is better than regulated markets?
I think gang violence will be much less of a problem once we take away their guns and drugs.
Might want to work on that spiritual enlightenment a bit. You'd be surprised, not all police and religious officials are corrupt.
Of course they aren't corrupt, which is why they don't support allowing the people they are supposed to be serving to poison themselves.
The FDA and DARE are not enough to educate one about drugs.
The sources I have cited are the views of government and law enforcement experts based on knowledge of the range of available studies . I'm sure they would be happy to be wrong on this and be able to focus on other problems, but they aren't. You can find a minority of scientists who might disagree with the studies, but the denialists try that same trick of pointing to outliers instead of the scientific consensus, which is that marijuana is dangerous.
Zimmerman clearly wasn't going through withdrawal if your argument is that he was high at the time of the alleged murder. And carrying a lighter does not mean you are high.
Martin tested positive for drugs and had the appropriate paraphernalia with him. I know you wish he wasn't high but he was. You have to accept reality instead of denying it. High or in withdraw, the marijuana is what caused his violent decisions in regards to Zimmerman. I will not accept that a good kid like Martin just randomly decided to attack someone. He would not have done it if he was thinking clearly and he would not have been acting strangely and suspiciously when Zimmerman saw him.
The first article I found (http://www.idmu.co.uk/canagr.htm
) with an actual list of sources ends with "The preponderance of scientific evidence does suggest cannabis may have a role in reducing aggressive behaviour, and the drug is certainly perceived to do so by a large number of cannabis users."
The article lists some studies that say precisely the opposite.
However some researchers have reported increased "aggressive" responses on human or animal behavioural models, Carlini et al reported increased aggressive behaviour in THC-dosed rats following deprivation of REM sleep, or after developing tolerance to morphine. Dorr et al reported that a high THC dose (2.5 mg/kg) "markedly increased the percentage of animals which showed both aggression and flight acts--a rare combination among controls." Clinicians have reported a toxic psychosis following prolonged or heavy cannabis use, including aggressive behaviour or panic disorder, however the existence of a specific "cannabis psychosis" is not firmly established in the absence of an underlying psychopathology.
And part of what it ended with, which you chose not to post of course was:
for some individuals heavy use of cannabis may precipitate a psychotic reaction with aggressive outbursts. These incidents are relatively rare, and highlight the varied individual responses to the drug.
This sounds like precisely what happened to Martin. I think it's wise to trust government experts more than some random site with a pot leaf logo and an agenda.
I'm also curious what you think about articles like this one from mothering.com http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/aristotles-child/201111/the-truth-about-marijuana-and-pregnancy
I think you will find the bulk of doctors agree more with the FDA.
...it does have an impact on fetal brain development. Long-term studies document that children whose mothers have used marijuana during pregnancy have a higher rate of executive functioning difficulties, which interfere with learning and behavior, especially as related to planning and following through with a task. Executive functioning is a vital issue, because although the children "look normal," they cannot behave and respond appropriately in the classroom or sometimes even at home.
...and I think you do to, and would not actually dose a baby with Marijuana because it would be "harmless", I would hope.
prohibition would have worked if only we had also banned guns.
Of course it would have. It was a hallmark accomplishment of the progressive movement and only failed because of the violence. Without the guns, it never would have been repealed.
I think that Netherlands handles drugs in a much more sane way than Singapore. I'm not saying that there isn't a link between drugs and crime. I'm saying that it isn't a simple of forumla of people + drugs = violence.
The guns are a big part of the equation. They are restricted to only hunters and collectors in the Netherlands which limits the potential for violence significantly. Even the Netherlands realizes that their policy simply doesn't work. They are closing down coffee shops
, banning tourists
from them, and reclassifying Marijuana as a hard drug.
They tried the policy of believing the fantasy of safe marijuana, and of course it failed. They also banned psychedelic mushrooms
, another product people also often claim is safe but in fact ends up killing people.
Comparing Child Porn and Marijuana use is asinine. Smoking pot does not hurt others. Abducting children so you can sell them as sex objects does.
Drugs harm the addicted users and the family members who love them, it is a lie to say it is a victimless crime.