Law School Discussion

Marijuana

Jebber

  • ****
  • 292
  • Git-R-Done!
    • View Profile
Re: Marijuana
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2005, 05:17:30 PM »
Right now I would say that Vancouver is the model for that the U.S. could/should(however you feel about this subject) be. 

This is quite possibly the dumbest comment I've ever heard. Vancouver is a sh*thole. They have taxpayers pay for clean needles so their junkies can shoot up "safely"

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2005, 05:25:25 PM »
Right now I would say that Vancouver is the model for that the U.S. could/should(however you feel about this subject) be. 

This is quite possibly the dumbest comment I've ever heard. Vancouver is a sh*thole. They have taxpayers pay for clean needles so their junkies can shoot up "safely"

I was not talking about their policies on ____________.  I was talking about their policy on marijuana.

angelus

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2005, 08:26:50 AM »
far too often gov't policy on marijuana has nothing to do with legality. It is a question of right-wing moral dictates and fear mongering which infects the minds of the people.

Do some research on Hemp and Marijuana as paper. Then look at the history of DuPont and teh paper industry. Hemp and weed was cheaper but DuPont had political clout and wanted to smashe the competition. Most people never get past the scare tactics long enough to research the subject.

fooseball22

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2005, 08:29:27 AM »
tobacco companies also lobbied hard against marijuana cigarettes for obvious reasons in the early 1900's...its funny how our policies towards drugs are shaped on fear and capitalism.  Like the supposed 'crystal meth' scare in the early 90's...it was bunk, but ppl bought it.

elemnopee

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2005, 09:35:55 AM »
tobacco companies also lobbied hard against marijuana cigarettes for obvious reasons in the early 1900's...its funny how our policies towards drugs are shaped on fear and capitalism.  Like the supposed 'crystal meth' scare in the early 90's...it was bunk, but ppl bought it.

There is a huge meth problem in this country right now.

fooseball22

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2005, 09:43:35 AM »
its funny you say that b/c i took a course studying drug use trends and history of drug use trends and the findings are quite the contrary...however news reports say what people want to hear...which is that drugs are rampant and pervasive.  Its kinda funny actually...but not in a ha-ha sort of way.

NathanB

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2005, 09:47:21 AM »
I have actually never tried drugs, they just never really appealled to me.  I saw what they did to a lot of my friends and just wasn't interested.

elemnopee

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2005, 09:58:53 AM »
its funny you say that b/c i took a course studying drug use trends and history of drug use trends and the findings are quite the contrary...however news reports say what people want to hear...which is that drugs are rampant and pervasive.  Its kinda funny actually...but not in a ha-ha sort of way.

Actually, I'm not talking about perceptions and media coverage.  I think drug abuse remains relatively constant throughout history, but right now there is a huge meth problem in this country especially in the mid west and rural areas.


There was a great story in the LA Times yesterday mostly about Rural Areas
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-meth27jun27,1,2241094.story


here's a snip about large cities:

Meth is not just a Midwestern drug. It's popular among club-hoppers in Miami and gay men in New York City. It poses a challenge for law enforcement in cities such as Phoenix, Sacramento, San Jose and Honolulu, where two out of every five men arrested test positive for meth.



fooseball22

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2005, 10:11:52 AM »
well, like i said, i've actually sited studies in papers who have found the contrary...In fact, the original 'epidemic' of meth users was confined to a small area in honaloulou and certain sections of LA.  Not exactly what i'd call an 'epidemic', but that was what it was dubbed.  In fact, there were many other drugs that blew meth out of the water in terms of numbers.  Pot, coke, crack and heroin, etc.  So its a bit misleading to think that meth is the 'new drug'.  Also, i'd like to point out that the strain is on 'rural law enforcement'...you know, like good ole boys from the old football team.  I find it hard to believe that theyre backlogged solely because of the sheer density of meth users. 

Although drug problems will never be quelled, their problem is certainly expounded by media sources and by american hysteria...go watch the movie Reefer Madness (circa 1930s?)...its american hysterics at its finest hour.

elemnopee

Re: Marijuana
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2005, 10:16:27 AM »
well, like i said, i've actually sited studies in papers who have found the contrary...In fact, the original 'epidemic' of meth users was confined to a small area in honaloulou and certain sections of LA.  Not exactly what i'd call an 'epidemic', but that was what it was dubbed.  In fact, there were many other drugs that blew meth out of the water in terms of numbers.  Pot, coke, crack and heroin, etc.  So its a bit misleading to think that meth is the 'new drug'.  Also, i'd like to point out that the strain is on 'rural law enforcement'...you know, like good ole boys from the old football team.  I find it hard to believe that theyre backlogged solely because of the sheer density of meth users. 

Although drug problems will never be quelled, their problem is certainly expounded by media sources and by american hysteria...go watch the movie Reefer Madness (circa 1930s?)...its american hysterics at its finest hour.

I couldn't agree with you more about hysteria.  You mentioned statistics, but didn't cite them, do you remeber what they were?  I know there was downward trend in all crime since 94, but I'd be interested to see any statistics on meth use.