98 Percent Of All Domestically Eradicated Marijuana Is "Ditchweed," DEA Admits

September 7, 2006 - Washington, DC, USA

Washington, DC: More than 98 percent of all of the marijuana plants seized by law enforcement in the United States is feral hemp not cultivated cannabis, according to newly released data by the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program and the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics.

According to the data, available online at: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4382005.pdf, of the estimated 223 million marijuana plants destroyed by law enforcement in 2005, approximately 219 million were classified as "ditchweed," a term the agency uses to define "wild, scattered marijuana plants [with] no evidence of planting, fertilizing, or tending." Unlike cultivated marijuana, feral hemp contains virtually no detectable levels of THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis, and does not contribute to the black market marijuana trade.

Previous DEA reports have indicated that between 98 and 99 percent of all the marijuana plants eradicated by US law enforcement is ditchweed.

NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre criticized the DEA program for spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to predominantly eradicate wild hemp. "The irony, of course, is that industrial hemp is grown legally throughout most the Western world as a commercial crop for its fiber content," he said. "Yet the US government is spending taxpayers' money to target and eradicate this same agricultural commodity."

According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, "The United States is the only developed nation in which industrial hemp is not an established crop."

St. Pierre said that most of the hemp plants eradicated by law enforcement are remnants of US-government subsidized crops that existed prior to World War II. "Virtually all wild hemp goes unharvested and presents no legitimate threat to public safety," he said. "As such, it should be of no concern to the federal government or law enforcement."

According to DEA figures, Indiana reported seizing over 212 million ditchweed plants - far more than any other state. Missouri law enforcement confiscated some 4.5 million plants, and Kansas reported eradicating approximately 1.2 million plants. More than half of all states failed to report their ditchweed totals.

California led all 50 states in the number of cultivated cannabis plants eradicated in 2005, with the DEA reporting that more than 2 million plants had been destroyed.

The Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program is a joint federal and state effort funded, in part, by the DEA.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7033

Should they get minimum wage? (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155AP_Drug_Control.html)

WASHINGTON — White House employees who oversee the war on drugs could be in for a huge pay cut next year.
Salaries and expenses at the Office of National Drug Control Policy would fall from $26.6 million to $11.5 million under the recommendation of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The director of the office, John Walters, earns $183,500. There are 111 full-time employees at the agency.
(...)

we can never say those who run the government were ever intellectuals.

duh, a million dollars to destroy a wild plant? and then deceive the people on what we are actually doing? ok....... more than likely have to cover their sorry clumsy dumbasses .

The legendary war on drugs has produced .... nothing! It's gone on longer than Vietnam and what have we gained - few million more felons?

I have spent a lot of time outdoors and I have never once seen a wild marijuana plant, have you?

I have spent a lot of time outdoors and I have never once seen a wild marijuana plant, have you?


I have... in my front yard

:lolhit:

Screw the war on drugs - legalize pot, put an age restriction on it and tax the hell out of it.

Check out all these coppers getting high. They did it for 2 days. The guys in yellow are burning the stuff. The others are "supervising"...

http://bigbugnews.com/print.asp?SectionID=27&SubSectionID=46&ArticleID=11362

I would support legalizing pot. It would save so much time and money, dammit.

why do they have to "tax the hell out of it" if they legalize it? Just so the government can have more money to waste? FOrget that, if you legalize it dont tax it at all. Those people will need that money for Doritos and such.

Pot is a personal enjoyment, not a necessity - so no incredibly ill effects will come from putting large taxes on it. Besides, putting a tax on it restricts it a little more, so we won't have a nation of pot-heads. I know far too many people who would just smoke pot all day if they could, and they'd just waste their lives doing that. If you put a tax on it, they would actually have to earn money to support the habit, and when they go and earn money they would help our economy.

Society at large has to be tired of the fact that they're supporting thousands of individuals - room & board, full medical & dental - who's only crime was to be involved with marijuana in one way or another. The vast majority of these individuals aren't violent, low life scum, they're our neighbors & peers. One day society at large is going to come to the realization that the war on drugs has been a complete waste of money, probably costing more than anyone wants to attempt to calculate, let alone admit to.

plus, there's worse drugs out there like meth. meth makes people do crazy things. my neighbor tried to break his wife's neck because he was totally out on meth. shouldn't they concentrate on that instead of pot <--which isn't even that big of a deal, anyway.

Check out all these coppers getting high. They did it for 2 days. The guys in yellow are burning the stuff. The others are "supervising"...

http://bigbugnews.com/print.asp?SectionID=27&SubSectionID=46&ArticleID=11362

sweeeeeet job...just gotta get the wind positioning correct and one is all set if you have lots of snacks with ya...:thumbs:

Society at large has to be tired of the fact that they're supporting thousands of individuals - room & board, full medical & dental - who's only crime was to be involved with marijuana in one way or another. The vast majority of these individuals aren't violent, low life scum, they're our neighbors & peers. One day society at large is going to come to the realization that the war on drugs has been a complete waste of money, probably costing more than anyone wants to attempt to calculate, let alone admit to.

Yes and it's not just pot...make it all legal... and restrict it...like alcohol...
If someone wants to sniff coke till their nose falls off...let them!

then they'll sniff it through their ears or whatever. yes, let them kill themselves, you're saying?

then they'll sniff it through their ears or whatever. yes, let them kill themselves, you're saying?

first...welcome to allforums...

Yes if they so choose to sniff it till they kill themselves...go for it... making it illegal does not stop someone from harming themselves... you can't outlaw stupidity nor addiction...

Addictive personalities will have their drug of choice...cigarettes, alcohol, crack, heroin... whatever...

thanks for the welcome. but say we let them do whatever. and they kill someone else. could it have been prevented if it was illegal and they got caught and sent to jail? i know it happens a LOT where some drugged up person kills someone else, but wouldn't it happen a lot more if they were ALLOWED to do it?

The guys in yellow are burning the stuff.
===========================================

I helped too, in the 60's I tried to burn all I could. :thumbs:

i wasn't even alive in the sixties. lol. was that a 'used to' or 'still do' ? my dad does, so i don't look down on it. well, not that specific drug, anyway.

As I've said many times before: we've centuries of documentation regarding the myriad issues of alcohol use & abuse, yet, it is the sanctioned recreational intoxicant of (pretty much) world society. The numbers are staggering - from accidents to violent crime to domestic abuse involving alcohol. Don't forget the medical issues. Alcoholic gastritis, fetal alcohol syndrome, or alcoholic blackouts to name but a few. Pick up just about any newspaper on any given day and read about it. College campuses are rife with alcohol overdoses - yet, where is the outcry? It doesn't exist! Yet ... let it be known that the evil weed merrywanna is being used and SWAT gets called out. Yeah, we've certainly got our priorities in order.

Screw the war on drugs - legalize pot, put an age restriction on it and tax the hell out of it.


whatever. if it is legal, damned if i am buying it. i'll grow my own. if you can grow a tomato, you can grow a pot plant.

whatever. if it is legal, damned if i am buying it. i'll grow my own. if you can grow a tomato, you can grow a pot plant.
How much are your shipping fees? :D

How much are your shipping fees? :D

depends on the taxes on it. and how much i grow. it would still be cheaper than what the punk ass ripoff artists charge now.

all because it is illegal they get away with $50 a 1/4 oz for bullshit weak weed. and $300 a 1/4 oz. for mindfuck weed.

thanks for the welcome. but say we let them do whatever. and they kill someone else. could it have been prevented if it was illegal and they got caught and sent to jail? i know it happens a LOT where some drugged up person kills someone else, but wouldn't it happen a lot more if they were ALLOWED to do it?
I think many of the crimes connected with drugs are due to the other various illegal acts it spawns. There is a whole network of problems such as high profit and violence associated with protecting one's territory and prostitution. If it were legal there would be control.

Yes and it's not just pot...make it all legal... and restrict it...like alcohol...
If someone wants to sniff coke till their nose falls off...let them!

I know you were joking around, but a lot of people do share that belief, so here's mine;

An educated, well rounded society is a good thing. It is a benefit to all those people who live in that society. A drugged up/cracked out society is not a good thing. People do not want to live in that sort of society. Using drugs does not just harm yourself. Just the fact that you destroy yourself and make a mess of yourself produces an ill-effect for all those people who come into contact with you and those who live around you. That's why I would be very opposed to legalizing all drugs.

That is the same reason that we have seatbelt laws. You are hurting more than just yourself when you crash and die because you didn't wear a belt. Your parents and friends go through a lot because of that. Damaging yourself has ill-effects on the people around you regardless of whether you actually physically hurt them or not.

I know you were joking around, but a lot of people do share that belief,
;) well I was only joking to a degree. I wuld not be so cavalier about someone with that kind of drug problem... but seriously...there the joke ends.

An educated, well rounded society is a good thing. It is a benefit to all those people who live in that society. A drugged up/cracked out society is not a good thing. People do not want to live in that sort of society. Using drugs does not just harm yourself. Just the fact that you destroy yourself and make a mess of yourself produces an ill-effect for all those people who come into contact with you and those who live around you. That's why I would be very opposed to legalizing all drugs.,

Windwip, are you saying that you believe the majority of people in our society would suddenly run out and become addicts if it were legal? Compare it to alcohol. If you substitue “abusing alcohol” with “using drugs” in your argument there is virtually no difference. It is an equally addictive substance. If you made it illegal would there be less alcoholics? No, you know that is not true.
If drugs were to be made legal and RESTRICTED it would solve a great many social ills almost immediately. It would remove the distribution away from the gangs. It would lessen their power in a myriad of ways. It would become a controlled substance and as such more easily monitored. There is a difference between using and abusing and the difference is a world of behavior apart.


That is the same reason that we have seatbelt laws. You are hurting more than just yourself when you crash and die because you didn't wear a belt. Your parents and friends go through a lot because of that. Damaging yourself has ill-effects on the people around you regardless of whether you actually physically hurt them or not.
That has zero to do with legalizing drugs and everything to do with personal responsibility. Too bad we couldn't make abdication of personal responsibility illegal.

Windwip, are you saying that you believe the majority of people in our society would suddenly run out and become addicts if it were legal?
No, but I believe that if we made it legal, usage would increase drastically.

Compare it to alcohol. If you substitue “abusing alcohol” with “using drugs” in your argument there is virtually no difference.
Alcohol is vastly different than most drugs. Heroin is incredibly addictive and can easily ruin lives. Meth and E cause a huge amount more brain damage and can kill a person much faster (it is possible to die from E on your first use). There is a huge difference between alcohol and those drugs.

It is an equally addictive substance.
Hahaha, oh come on. You know it's not nearly as addictive as most illegal drugs.

If you made it illegal would there be less alcoholics? No, you know that is not true. The only reason that alcohol did not decrease when prohibition started was that it had been legal before and it had become a habit for many people and there had been advertising when it was legal. Now with a substance that was illegal, and became legal - the usage would increase because the avaliability would increase a huge amount and there would be more advertising for it (also advertising to make it a more socially acceptible, or a 'cool' thing). Take a look at cigarettes - they started marketing them to kids!

If drugs were to be made legal and RESTRICTED it would solve a great many social ills almost immediately. It would remove the distribution away from the gangs. It would lessen their power in a myriad of ways. It would become a controlled substance and as such more easily monitored. There is a difference between using and abusing and the difference is a world of behavior apart.

What social ills would it remove?
Distribution would still work its way into the black market - people buy smokes and alcohol for kids - why not for the harder drugs that cause much more mental damage and are more addicting? It would lessen the income for those gangs, yet the social repercussions of the drugs being commonplace in our lives is a horrible trade-off.

There is a difference between using and abusing, but how can you tell that people won't start abusing if drugs are readily avaliable? Look at all the rockstars that have the easy access to drugs, they often become addicted and often have died from ODing or committing suicide.

That has zero to do with legalizing drugs and everything to do with personal responsibility. Too bad we couldn't make abdication of personal responsibility illegal.
It just goes to show that poor personal responsibility can affect others, just as being irresponsible with drugs (becoming addicted or OD-ing) can affect others as well.

Were alcohol to be discovered today, it would be classified as a dangerous, addictive narcotic in the same category as heroin. Quite simply, alcohol is the anesthetic ether, with water and sugar added. Alcohol is far more damaging to both the individual and society than marijuana could ever hope to be.

No, but I believe that if we made it legal, usage would increase drastically.
Well right off we disagree on that and there is no way short of legalizing it to prove one right over the other. I am not proposing it go on the supermarket shelves.



Alcohol is vastly different than most drugs. Heroin is incredibly addictive and can easily ruin lives. Meth and E cause a huge amount more brain damage and can kill a person much faster (it is possible to die from E on your first use). There is a huge difference between alcohol and those drugs.
An addict is an addict period. If you have ever known one, this would be clear to you. Alcohol, gambling, sex, ... they will all destroy you and they are legal.


Hahaha, oh come on. You know it's not nearly as addictive as most illegal drugs..
Not funny...google it and check your stats

The only reason that alcohol did not decrease when prohibition started was that it had been legal before and it had become a habit for many people and there had been advertising when it was legal. Now with a substance that was illegal, and became legal - the usage would increase because the avaliability would increase a huge amount and there would be more advertising for it (also advertising to make it a more socially acceptible, or a 'cool' thing). Take a look at cigarettes - they started marketing them to kids!
Do they market alcohol to kids?




What social ills would it remove?
Distribution would still work its way into the black market - people buy smokes and alcohol for kids - why not for the harder drugs that cause much more mental damage and are more addicting? It would lessen the income for those gangs, yet the social repercussions of the drugs being commonplace in our lives is a horrible trade-off.
So all this is to protect the children? That is lame.

There is a difference between using and abusing, but how can you tell that people won't start abusing if drugs are readily avaliable? Look at all the rockstars that have the easy access to drugs, they often become addicted and often have died from ODing or committing suicide..
They're doing now and it is illegal... they have no trouble getting it and neither does anyone else that really wants it.



It just goes to show that poor personal responsibility can affect others, just as being irresponsible with drugs (becoming addicted or OD-ing) can affect others as well.
Yes, every personal choice we make affects someone else on some level or another.

Alcohol is vastly different than most drugs. Heroin is incredibly addictive and can easily ruin lives. Meth and E cause a huge amount more brain damage and can kill a person much faster (it is possible to die from E on your first use). There is a huge difference between alcohol and those drugs.I am sorry you believe this. Alcohol is very addictive and can easily ruin lives. Alcohol can cause a huge amount of brain damage and can kill a person on their first use. There are differences between alcohol and the drugs you mentioned but the potential dangers are not among them.Hahaha, oh come on. You know it's not nearly as addictive as most illegal drugs.Hahaha not. Sure, many people can take or leave alcohol (just as some people can take or leave heroin) but to an addictive personality alcohol is as dangerous as heroin. And just as deadly.

Well right off we disagree on that and there is no way short of legalizing it to prove one right over the other. I am not proposing it go on the supermarket shelves.
Well maybe you can start by telling me why you believe that legalization would not increase usage. I believe that usage would increase because of easier accessibility and increased advertising.

An addict is an addict period. If you have ever known one, this would be clear to you. Alcohol, gambling, sex, ... they will all destroy you and they are legal.
I have known many. I know that certain addictions are harder to kick than others. I know that nicotine and heroin are some of the most addictive substances out on the streets.

Not funny...google it and check your stats
I did. In nearly every site I looked at nicotine is number 1, with heroin right behind and then cocaine. Alcohol usually came in just before caffeine.

They're doing now and it is illegal... they have no trouble getting it and neither does anyone else that really wants it.
Rock stars are offered it very frequently. It is easily accessible for them. If it were legal then people would have a much easier time getting those drugs. I have never been offered crack, heroin, meph or E. If they were legal, then those companies who make it would make sure that it was easy for me to try it if I wanted to.

Yes, every personal choice we make affects someone else on some level or another. Yes, and the effects on others that are caused by drug use are not marginal.

I am sorry you believe this. Alcohol is very addictive and can easily ruin lives.
It is addictive. I never denied that, but it is nowhere near as addictive as heroin or nicotine, which was the point I was trying to make.

Alcohol can cause a huge amount of brain damage and can kill a person on their first use.
You possibly could die on your first use, if you had a fair amount. You could die if you drank too much water too.

The difference is that with E, there have been cases of people dying from having one pill.

Hahaha not. Sure, many people can take or leave alcohol (just as some people can take or leave heroin) but to an addictive personality alcohol is as dangerous as heroin. And just as deadly.
It's true that some people are more prone to alcoholism, though it is not true that being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to heroin are just as deadly. The OD rates among heroin users is much greater than among alcohol users.

Penn and Teller's Bullshit
War on Drugs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3653114296815352489

Watch it...

BTW it has everyones favorite nut-bag sheriff Joe Arpaio

Damaging yourself has ill-effects on the people around you regardless of whether you actually physically hurt them or not.

Buying something has negative effects on the rest of society as well - increased demand for a product increases the price for everyone. I say we should ban the sale of everything.

I personally don't want any part of a society that would restrict individual choices and responsibility for something as nebulous as saving people from feeling sad.

You possibly could die on your first use, if you had a fair amount. You could die if you drank too much water too.
No, you couldn't. You could not sit there and physically drink so much water that you die. You would have to be hooked up to a machine past the point where you could not physically drink any more until your stomach exploded. You could EASILY drink too much alcohol. VERY easily. It doesn't take very many shots of vodka before a person could pass out after puking. And that's over hours of drinking.
Also, alcohol is illegal if you're under 21. I can count on one hand the number of friends I have that haven't drunk. Anybody that wants to drink, drinks. Making it easier to get doesn't really make it any easier to get. Same goes for other drugs.

It's true that some people are more prone to alcoholism, though it is not true that being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to heroin are just as deadly. The OD rates among heroin users is much greater than among alcohol users.
Oh, and just to throw it out. There are no recorded deaths from an overdose of THC. *Yawns* I'm just sleepy, man.

A number of people die each year from doing no more than ingesting alcohol. They don't drive drunk or get into fights, they aspirate on their own vomit as their bodies attempt to rid them of the overdose condition these individuals have put themselves into.

The OD rates among heroin users is much greater than among alcohol users.Actually, you are 22 times more likely to suffer a fatal heroin overdose if you are also an alcohol user.

"Our data suggest that ethanol enhances the acute toxicity of heroin, and that ethanol use indirectly influences fatal overdose through its association with infrequent (nonaddictive) heroin use and thus with reduced tolerance to the acute toxic effects of heroin."

[Ruttenber, A. J. and Luke, J. L., "Heroin-Related Deaths: New Epidemiologic Insights," Science, Vol 226, Oct 5, 1984, pp 14-20] "found that blood ethanol concentrations in excess of 1000 mg/L raised by a factor of 22 the odds of a heroin user experiencing a fatal overdose."

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/heroin/heroalc.htm

Also, it's a bit misleading to focus only on death by overdose. Deaths caused by alcohol poisoning comprise only a small percentage of alcohol-related deaths. If you factor in traffic fatalities, victims of alcohol-related violence and deaths caused by cirrhosis the toll is staggering. Alcohol is every bit as dangerous and deadly, if not more so, than heroin.

Well maybe you can start by telling me why you believe that legalization would not increase usage. I believe that usage would increase because of easier accessibility and increased advertising.
I do not believe it would increase in usuage because I do not think your average person has the money, nor the inclination, nor the ignorance to stick a needle in their arm and line heroin all day. It does not increase one's sociability. Alcohol on the other hand does increase many people's ability to cope socially. Therefore it is far more dangerous. Pot on the other hand is not carcinogenic, and does less damage to the body than alcohol unless it has been cut with toxic hallucinogens. It slows people down and mellows them out. AND it does not lead to stronger drug use any more than alcohol does.

I just don't care to tell people what they can ingest in their own home. They live in a relatively free country. Make their own educated choice, not what someone else limits them to for your own good. If someone needs to make the choice for them, then they are already a sad waste of clean air and water.

As gorilla's video points out...the WAR ON DRUGS has done zero except use up good money. Gorilla that was excellent by the way. They are great!

Buying something has negative effects on the rest of society as well - increased demand for a product increases the price for everyone. I say we should ban the sale of everything.

I personally don't want any part of a society that would restrict individual choices and responsibility for something as nebulous as saving people from feeling sad.

We do restrict individual choices: seat belts, age restrictions, areas where you can drink, etc... We also restrict where a person can be intoxicated - which is a definitely a good thing.

Buying certain things have more of an ill-effect on others, like smoking for example. Buying chips would maybe annoy another person who hears you eat, but it's not a very big issue. The magnitude of the ill-effect on others is the issue between something like food sales and drug sales

You possibly could die on your first use, if you had a fair amount. You could die if you drank too much water too.
No, you couldn't. You could not sit there and physically drink so much water that you die. You would have to be hooked up to a machine past the point where you could not physically drink any more until your stomach exploded.
There was a death recently right after dry rush. Instead of drinking alcohol they made the pledges drink water. If you're really interested I'll go find the article.
You could EASILY drink too much alcohol. VERY easily. It doesn't take very many shots of vodka before a person could pass out after puking. And that's over hours of drinking.
You could more easily die from alcohol than water, thats true. My original statement regarding dying from alcohol was in comparison to E, where deaths have been recorded from someone having only 1 pill, their first time.

Also, alcohol is illegal if you're under 21. I can count on one hand the number of friends I have that haven't drunk. Anybody that wants to drink, drinks. Making it easier to get doesn't really make it any easier to get. Same goes for other drugs.
There is a difference between a drug that is illegal to minors and sold everywhere, and a drug that is only very discretely sold in areas where the law would not see them. The majority of the population is over 21, if I was under 21 I could just get one of them to buy some for me. A very small minority of the population are drug dealers.

Oh, and just to throw it out. There are no recorded deaths from an overdose of THC. *Yawns* I'm just sleepy, man.
I know. I wasn't using that argument for pot, more for heroin, meth and crack.

Actually you can die after consuming too much water. It happens sometimes while marathoning. It is rare though. What happens is that you are sweating out tons of water and also minerals etc. Too much water can then deplete the mineral balace further. I think it then causes a heartattack. That's why one must balance both water, Gatorade and food supply while running.

A number of people die each year from doing no more than ingesting alcohol. They don't drive drunk or get into fights, they aspirate on their own vomit as their bodies attempt to rid them of the overdose condition these individuals have put themselves into.
Yup.

Please continue, I'm sure you had a point you were going to make

Actually, you are 22 times more likely to suffer a fatal heroin overdose if you are also an alcohol user.

[I]"Our data suggest that ethanol enhances the acute toxicity of heroin, and that ethanol use indirectly influences fatal overdose through its association with infrequent (nonaddictive) heroin use and thus with reduced tolerance to the acute toxic effects of heroin."
Yes, alcohol does amplify the effects of heroin.

Also, it's a bit misleading to focus only on death by overdose. Deaths caused by alcohol poisoning comprise only a small percentage of alcohol-related deaths. If you factor in traffic fatalities, victims of alcohol-related violence and deaths caused by cirrhosis the toll is staggering. Alcohol is every bit as dangerous and deadly, if not more so, than heroin.

Take the number of annual alcohol related deaths (85,000, which include all those deaths that you stated) and divide it by the number of people who drink alcohol in the US (48,000,000) - That comes to 00.1% of people who drink alcohol die each year.

Now for heroin - about 20,000 deaths a year and about 600,000 users - That comes to 03.3% of heroin users who die a year. Thats 33 times the chance of dying from using herion than from using alcohol.


You have all made very good arguments against the legalization of alcohol, yet you guys have not made one against my argument that the illegal drugs we have now should stay illegal.

Heroin overdoses are probably due to the varying quality and purity available through the illegal network. Were it legal (as in England) and available through reputable pharmacies such would not be the case.

Legalizing marijuana would remove the criminal element from the substance and allow those with badges and guns to focus on actual criminal behaviors. Think of the impact on the legal system alone if marijuana was removed from the table! How many jail cells would open? How many lawyers would have to find another population to defend? While the use of the drug would probably increase in the short term, over the long term I suspect it would decrease as people were not attracted by the idea of "thumbing their noses" at the "establishment" by doing illicit substances. Crime would go down in other ways as those seeking it would not have risk life, limb & property in their search for the evil weed in strange neighborhoods.

All in all, I fail to see a downside to legalizing marijuana.

Heroin overdoses are probably due to the varying quality and purity available through the illegal network. Were it legal (as in England) and available through reputable pharmacies such would not be the case. 874 deaths by heroin in England in 2000 out of aprox. 55,000 - That comes to 01.5% - Now that's twice as good as the US, yet it is still 15 times that of alcohol.

Legalizing marijuana would remove the criminal element from the substance... just as legalizing homocides removes the criminal element to murder

Think of the impact on the legal system alone if marijuana was removed from the table! How many jail cells would open? How many lawyers would have to find another population to defend? While the use of the drug would probably increase in the short term, over the long term I suspect over the longer term it would decrease as people were not attracted by the idea of "thumbing their noses" at the "establishment" by doing illicit substances. Crime would go down in other ways as those seeking it would not have risk life, limb & property in their search for the evil weed in strange neighborhoods.
My arguments were mainly against the harder substances. I actually agree to legalizing pot and taxing it heavily.

The issue over jail cells is not a good argument though - the same could be said for murderers. You're argument for 'thumbing their noses at the establishment' applies probably only to a couple rebels in highschool. Disobedience for the sake of disobedience is incredibly juvenile.

Now for heroin - about 20,000 deaths a year and about 600,000 users - That comes to 03.3% of heroin users who die a year.20,000 a year? In what country? Source, please.Thats 33 times the chance of dying from using herion than from using alcohol.And divide whatever the real number is by 22 to get the the chance of dying without alcohol.You have all made very good arguments against the legalization of alcohol, yet you guys have not made one against my argument that the illegal drugs we have now should stay illegal.I see no reason to make alcohol illegal. I do, however, think it's important for people to be well-informed of it's dangers. A statement like Alcohol is vastly different than most drugs makes me wince. Alcohol is far and away the most destructive drug abused in our society.

Alcohol is far and away the most destructive drug abused in our society.

I disagree. I believe that dubious honor goes to nicotine.

I do understand and appreciate your sentiments, however.

I disagree. I believe that dubious honor goes to nicotine.

I do understand and appreciate your sentiments, however.Wow. If I keep posting in this thread I'm going to wind up disagreeing with everybody! While tobacco accounts for more deaths I think the societal effects of alcohol are more deleterious. If your parents are smokers and die of cancer that's terrible. If your parents are alcoholics and raise you in a dysfunctional home that's far worse. Second-hand smoke arguments aside (and I don't buy the worst of them anyway) nicotine users for the most part only harm themselves. Alcoholics harm themselves, their families and those they kill and maim.

I'll shut up for a while now. :)

Agreed. Alcohol is disasterous to many, where nicotine is pretty much singular in its' effects (if one discounts the effects of second-hand smoke). One day, society at large may wake up & recognize just how bad it is.

why do they have to "tax the hell out of it" if they legalize it? Just so the government can have more money to waste? FOrget that, if you legalize it dont tax it at all. Those people will need that money for Doritos and such.


Tax is good...helps pay for wars

We do restrict individual choices: seat belts, age restrictions, areas where you can drink, etc... We also restrict where a person can be intoxicated - which is a definitely a good thing.

I wear my seatbelt at all times, but I'm opposed to seat belt laws once you reach the age of majority.

The magnitude of the ill-effect on others is the issue between something like food sales and drug sales

I definitely agree that there's a scale of harm to others. I just have a different scale, I guess. Again, if the only harm to society is that others will be sad when you die, I just don't think that's enough. We could go crazy banning all sorts of stuff using that measurement. Starting with rock climbing, heli-skiing, mountain climbing . . .

I think many of the crimes connected with drugs are due to the other various illegal acts it spawns. There is a whole network of problems such as high profit and violence associated with protecting one's territory and prostitution. If it were legal there would be control.


and the fact that the really hard drugs that screw with people brains have nothing to do with their criminal acts they commit WHILE ON THE DRUG? you're saying it's just because it's illegal, and they get away with it so they think they can get away with other things?

and the fact that the really hard drugs that screw with people brains have nothing to do with their criminal acts they commit WHILE ON THE DRUG? dO people do stupid shit on alcohal? Hell yes. Do we arrest people for drinking alcohal? hell no. We arrest people who break the law. Its nanny state bullshit to deny people the right to do what they want with their own bodies. It becomes a problem when it interferes with others, not before.

Again I urge everyone to go and watch the Penn and Teller show I linked. Many of these arguements are addressed.

If you want a law that says people on drugs can't drive cars or use guns, I'm all for it. Anything past that is oppressive.

so let them stay home high and drunk, away from people? i'll vote for it.

and the fact that the really hard drugs that screw with people brains have nothing to do with their criminal acts they commit WHILE ON THE DRUG? you're saying it's just because it's illegal, and they get away with it so they think they can get away with other things?
No that isn't even close to anything I said.

you said if it were legal there would be control.

you said if it were legal there would be control.
That is one of things I said, yes.

how would it be more under control if it were legal?

how would it be more under control if it were legal?
Same way alcohol is.

you believe the use of alcohol is under control?

He said "more under control"

If you can't make a decent arguement without twisting peoples words fuck off. You've done this on a few occasions. Its unproductive and dishonest.

i see everyone keeping the jumping me thing going. i didn't twist his words, he said more under control, meaning that it's already under control (however little) and i don't believe it's under control one bit.

i see everyone keeping the jumping me thing going. i didn't twist his words, he said more under control, meaning that it's already under control (however little) and i don't believe it's under control one bit.
Frankly, no one is jumping you. You just keeping extrapolating tiny bits of what someone says and ignoring the whole thrust of the argument. You are seizing a tiny portion and running with it. It makes it hard to refute or answer and seems pointless.

Sorry but it is hard to follow your logic when you give one sentence arguments.

it seems as though when i give short answers, it isn't enough to make sense. but if i do give a long one, i talk myself in circles. you people don't seem very satified with anything i really have to say.

it seems as though when i give short answers, it isn't enough to make sense. but if i do give a long one, i talk myself in circles. you people don't seem very satified with anything i really have to say.

Sooooorry, really, I don't mean to get on your case...just that my stance is quite clear... I am not for government control to ensure safety at the cost of limiting freedom...to chose only a small part of it and attack has nothing to do with the overall concept.

i see everyone keeping the jumping me thing going. i didn't twist his words, he said more under control, meaning that it's already under control (however little) and i don't believe it's under control one bit. no. "more under control" means that parts/fractions of it are under control, not the whole thing. Obviously if the whole thing was under control you couldn't have it "more" under control.

Sooooorry, really, I don't mean to get on your case...just that my stance is quite clear... I am not for government control to ensure safety at the cost of limiting freedom...to chose only a small part of it and attack has nothing to do with the overall concept.

limiting freedom, how exactly? elaborate as much as you wish.

I do not believe it would increase in usuage because I do not think your average person has the money, nor the inclination, nor the ignorance to stick a needle in their arm and line heroin all day.
Yet there are people who do have the money and the inclination and are ignorant enough to do it - and there are people who fit that criteria yet do not have the access to heroin. Now how does adding accessibility not increase those numbers?

It does not increase one's sociability. Alcohol on the other hand does increase many people's ability to cope socially. Therefore it is far more dangerous. Pot on the other hand is not carcinogenic, and does less damage to the body than alcohol unless it has been cut with toxic hallucinogens. It slows people down and mellows them out. AND it does not lead to stronger drug use any more than alcohol does.

I am not against pot!!! I'm fine with it. I don't think it's all that bad.

20,000 a year? In what country? Source, please.
I just checked the original source I found and it wasn't a good one, so I'll find you a better one. I think DAWN stated something like 5,000 a year, which is still very high in comparison to alcohol.

And divide whatever the real number is by 22 to get the the chance of dying without alcohol.
People die by using both heroin and alcohol at the same time. If you're looking at numbers that don't deal in reality, then they mean nothing.

I see no reason to make alcohol illegal. I do, however, think it's important for people to be well-informed of it's dangers. A statement like Alcohol is vastly different than most drugs makes me wince. Alcohol is far and away the most destructive drug abused in our society.
I have to agree that nicotene is much more damaging. 418,000 died from smoking in the US in 1991 (CDC report). Also, you can't just discount second-hand smoke - an estimated 53,800 die a year (CA EPA report, 1997. The number has actually increased since then). Roughly 85,000 die from alcohol a year, and that includes the deaths of innocent bystanders from drunk drivers.

Finding exact numbers of alcohol related deaths is tough. The cause listed on the death certificate often does not contain the word alcohol. The "cause" may have been a bullet to the heart, or a steering wheel to the chest but the level of intoxication won't be mentioned. These are but 2 examples - countless others exist.

Yet there are people who do have the money and the inclination and are ignorant enough to do it - and there are people who fit that criteria yet do not have the access to heroin. Now how does adding accessibility not increase those numbers?.
Well obviously limitinig accessibility doesn't work. If someone wants something they will get it. But it is the subculture that comes with making it illegal that all you pro-Big Brother is watching you and I know what is best for YOU and I will impose my WILL on you mentality people never address. Tell me how all the counter culture that goes with illegal drugs is more positive than a few more drug addicts?



I am not against pot!!! I'm fine with it. I don't think it's all that bad.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAhhh I knew you weren't all bad...:thumbs: