On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Drug enforcement is a huge business and helps feed the prison-
industrial complex. This is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue
because both sides have vested interests in keeping the huge drug
enforcement industry and prison industry going.
It's a case of too many laws and not enough good sense.

It would be easy to agree with legalization until you put it into the
perspective of your own children having easy and legal access to
cocaine or pot. Long term users of both seem to suffer negative
consequences and certain personality types are prone to dependence.
We've already got legal alchohol and although very few would want a
repeat of prohibition, there is no disputing the high cost to society
of alchohol abuse. Do we really want easy and legal access to two
more substances with the same potential?

On Aug 5, 3:19*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
Drug enforcement is a huge business and helps feed the prison-
industrial complex. *This is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue
because both sides have vested interests in keeping the huge drug
enforcement industry and prison industry going.
It's a case of too many laws and not enough good sense.

It would be easy to agree with legalization until you put it into the
perspective of your own children having easy and legal access to
cocaine or pot. *Long term users of both seem to suffer negative
consequences and certain personality types are prone to dependence.
We've already got legal alchohol and although very few would want a
repeat of prohibition, there is no disputing the high cost to society
of alchohol abuse. * Do we really want easy and legal access to two
more substances with the same potential?

They already have easy access

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:37:36 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Aug 5, 3:19*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
Drug enforcement is a huge business and helps feed the prison-
industrial complex. *This is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue
because both sides have vested interests in keeping the huge drug
enforcement industry and prison industry going.
It's a case of too many laws and not enough good sense.

It would be easy to agree with legalization until you put it into the
perspective of your own children having easy and legal access to
cocaine or pot. *Long term users of both seem to suffer negative
consequences and certain personality types are prone to dependence.
We've already got legal alchohol and although very few would want a
repeat of prohibition, there is no disputing the high cost to society
of alchohol abuse. * Do we really want easy and legal access to two
more substances with the same potential?

They already have easy access

I know there are a lot of people growing their own weed but cocaine
has to be illegally smuggled, distributed and sold. I would hope
that the taint of serious illegality would discourage at least some
people.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:00:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

I know there are a lot of people growing their own weed but cocaine
has to be illegally smuggled, distributed and sold. I would hope
that the taint of serious illegality would discourage at least some
people.

I understand there are people in Texas doing life for the possession
of small ammounts of weed.

Casady

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:00:38 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

It would be easy to agree with legalization until you put it into the
perspective of your own children having easy and legal access to
cocaine or pot. Long term users of both seem to suffer negative
consequences and certain personality types are prone to dependence.
We've already got legal alchohol and although very few would want a
repeat of prohibition, there is no disputing the high cost to society
of alchohol abuse. Do we really want easy and legal access to two
more substances with the same potential?

They already have easy access

I know there are a lot of people growing their own weed but cocaine
has to be illegally smuggled, distributed and sold. I would hope
that the taint of serious illegality would discourage at least some
people.

In the case of cocaine, I think the taint of illegality is a big part
of the attraction. The mystique is just about the only reason I can
think of for someone to pay $100 a gram for this stuff (usually to get
laid). As a drug the powder is really a pretty mild thing. It is
certainly a heart stimulant but if you snorted pure caffeine (or
smoked it) I imagine the effect would be similar.

I also think the problem is addictive personalities, not the drug
itself and you would actually end up with about the same number of
people addicted to something, no matter how many different chemicals
were around.
I do know a lot of abusive drunks who are less danger to society when
they just smoke pot.

As our friend a Federal prosecutor told me. We have not slowed down the
import of drugs over the years. And they reason we know that is the price
has not risen. Supply is keeping up with demand. So we might as well tax
and regulate the trade.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:25:45 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

As our friend a Federal prosecutor told me. We have not slowed down the
import of drugs over the years. And they reason we know that is the price
has not risen. Supply is keeping up with demand. So we might as well tax
and regulate the trade.

In 1970 weed was 15 bucks an oz and now it is 300. Coke has remained
steady at 100/gm. What is wrong with this picture?

Casady

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:17:16 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:25:45 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

As our friend a Federal prosecutor told me. We have not slowed down the
import of drugs over the years. And they reason we know that is the price
has not risen. Supply is keeping up with demand. So we might as well tax
and regulate the trade.

In 1970 weed was 15 bucks an oz and now it is 300. Coke has remained
steady at 100/gm. What is wrong with this picture?

Casady

Supply and demand?

How do you know these things?
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:17:16 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:25:45 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

As our friend a Federal prosecutor told me. We have not slowed down the
import of drugs over the years. And they reason we know that is the price
has not risen. Supply is keeping up with demand. So we might as well tax
and regulate the trade.
In 1970 weed was 15 bucks an oz and now it is 300. Coke has remained
steady at 100/gm. What is wrong with this picture?

Casady

Supply and demand?

How do you know these things?
--
John H

Exactly what I was thinking!

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:25:45 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

As our friend a Federal prosecutor told me. We have not slowed down the
import of drugs over the years. And they reason we know that is the price
has not risen. Supply is keeping up with demand. So we might as well tax
and regulate the trade.

In 1970 weed was 15 bucks an oz and now it is 300. Coke has remained
steady at 100/gm. What is wrong with this picture?

Casady

Coke is foreign manufactured?

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:25:45 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

As our friend a Federal prosecutor told me. We have not slowed down the
import of drugs over the years. And they reason we know that is the price
has not risen. Supply is keeping up with demand. So we might as well tax
and regulate the trade.

In 1970 weed was 15 bucks an oz and now it is 300. Coke has remained
steady at 100/gm. What is wrong with this picture?

Casady

Your friends are paying too much.
http://marijuanaprices.homestead.com/usa/Florida.html