SALEM — A large quantity of marijuana reportedly was found at the home of the owners of Friend’s Roaster....
« Back to Article
I think it is stupid for Fedzilla and the cotton lobby to ban the growth of industrial hemp in the US. So many things that can be made from the fibers and oil.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees |
Report Abuse »
Have been to the Netherlands multiple times. Had a daughter who lived there for a year also. Our take on the drug scene there is a little different after seeing the parks where users get new needles and shooting up is ignored.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees |
Report Abuse »
Especially read the second paragraph.
The core features of the Dutch system were established by the Baan Commission and are rooted in the concept of harm reduction, i.e., the minimization of the risks and hazards of drug use rather than the suppression of all drugs.
Another key aspect is the notion of market separation. By classifying drugs according to the risks posed and then pursuing policies that serve to isolate each market, it is felt that users of soft drugs are less likely to come into contact with users of hard drugs. Thus, the theory goes, users of soft drugs are less likely to try hard drugs.
H E R O I N
Prosecution for marijuana offences began, but experts and official agencies soon started to call for a reconsideration of prosecution policies. The excessive use of force by Amsterdam police in response to student riots in 1966 made law enforcement highly sensitive to public opinion and led to more relaxed attitudes towards social issues such as the peace movement and drug use. Policies de-emphasizing marijuana possession arrests resulted.
The changing views of law enforcement with respect to some drugs coincided with a new drug problem in the early 1970s: a violently competitive ****** market.
Inside a Dutch nursing home for drug addicts
Posted By: Times Editors Posted On: 5:00 a.m. | September 22, 2011
Freelance photojournalist Angela Shoemaker recently completed a documentary project about HVO De-Aak in Amsterdam, one of several retirement homes across the Netherlands designed to help the country’s aging drug addicts.
I would ask the nursing staff and Dutch friends what their thoughts were on this nursing home for drug addicts, sponsored by tax dollars, that allowed them to continue using while still having access to healthcare and government benefits. Consistently the answer was that they were glad the people were being cared for and getting the help they needed. They saw it as the government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens and that all people deserved to live a dignified life regardless of their life choices.
Grant, did you read that last paragraph?
So let me get this straight, they say that you are free to make your own decision...and fewer people do it...hmmmmmmmm.....
Also in The Netherlands, "Dutch drug policy is unique in the whole world. It is directed by an idea that every human being may decide about the matters of its own health. The Dutch consider this rule as fundamental, accepting for example as the only country in the world, the possibility of the controlled suicide (voluntary euthanasia)"
I'm not in favor of that either, altho some may be.
The Dutch try to prevent the drug abuse through the educational measures, closely monitoring the scene of the drug abuse, fighting with the consequences of the abuse by the health measures such as the free testing of the ecstasy pills, the free syringe exchange program and the free methadone (surrogate of ******e) supply program for the ******e users. Today in 60 Dutch cities, hundreds of these programs operate om daily basis, deeply influencing life in the country.
This doesn't sound like a lack of hard drug use, especially considering "statistical data certifies that among young people of medium age 28 in the Netherlands, only 16% ever smoked marijuana"
One big difference in Holland is that they have had more success in this area: "Dutch authorities try to eliminate deadly illegal drugs by combating drug trafficking."
One thing you clearly aren't willing to do is look at evidence that is contrary to an opinion that you have already established and change your mind, even if it overwhelmingly overrides the evidence that created your established position. It's a shame really. I used to be that way, then I allowed the truth to set me free.
Put it on the ballot and let's vote on it. I am willing to live with the outcome. Are those that support it willing to live with the results and obey the law?
Gupta also states there is only a 10% chance of any type of addiction associated with pot, meaning your chances of getting addicted to sugar products are higher. He's basically saying that a placebo is more addicting than Marijuana. It's no secret that cannabis does SOMETHING to people who use it, but does that something ruin their life? No. Dr. Gupta feels it exposes underlying issues more readily.
So a person who has ruined their life because of marijuana, could have just as easily ruined their life eating Chips Ahoy cookies or buying scratch off lottery tickets. It's a matter of self control, and as with anything, you must exercise moderation and control.
It's already been completely legalized in certain locales and at least two states. I think it's definitely a topic that should be discussed especially in light of our current government expenditures. It's a nonsense prohibition with little scientific backing in the 21st century. It was legal in the past and the main reason for its prohibition was due to cultural differences of the US and Mexico. Harry J. Anslinger was the commissioner of the FBN in the 30's and had it out for Mexican immigrants. He knew cannabis was a staple of their culture and used prohibition of the substance in hopes that it would drive them out and create a stigma towards the plant and its users. He succeeded, and the rest is history. Most laws regarding cannabis are the product of years of government indoctrination and propaganda.
I read the article from Dr. Sanjay Gupta and he rose some interesting points. This is a guy who used to oppose the use of cannabis, and now he apologizing for even holding that belief. Dr Gupta believes that only about six per cent of studies into cannabis in the U.S. look at the benefits of the drug, while the rest investigate the dangers of it. As a result the evidence is unfairly skewed towards the view that the drug is harmful. He believes that it is too difficult for scientists to study the effects of marijuana as it is hard to access the drug, and hard to get approval for the research. He goes on to say that in the U.S. someone dies from a prescription drug overdose every 19 minutes while he was unable to find a single example of someone dying from a cannabis overdose.
Medicinal use has been legalized in 20 states, it's on the ballot for 4 more and it is also decriminalized in D.C. meaning possession amounts to nothing more than a civil citation.
Still didn't answer my question Grant. Why are you so pro pot legalization?? You are wrong. I never accused you of anything. I was just giving an example of why someone may be so pro legalization. You want everyone to go along with your legalization idea but you won't tell us why. If it is for medical reasons only, I might agree with you for a doctor's prescription only use. However, I believe the medical profession could probably get it approved without a vote from us if they felt it was a viable alternative treatment. They prescribe drugs all the time that are not street legal.
By the way, a question for you "gatewayers", if marijuana is a gateway drug then why, in Amsterdam where marijuana is legal to be smoked, do they have MUCH fewer people doing coke, h e r o i n and m e t h?
Let me reiterate, I do not wish to continue this conversation and regardless of your answer, I will not. But I do have one question for you. If alcohol prohibition was a ballot issue again, would you vote in favor of prohibiting it's use?
Fighting cancer is escaping reality? I refuse to participate in this sort of conversation with you. It isn't an honest conversation with the facts laid out on the table, which is the only kind of conversation I requested. You aren't coming at the issue with a fresh perspective. You're publicly accusing me of being a user of illegal drugs because you can't see any other reason I would favor legalization, because you refuse to look at and take seriously any information that is contrary to your established position. You're claiming you couldn't support it for certain reasons that I never claimed as reason to support it. This is a completely worthless conversation and I'm not going to participate in it anymore. You did the exact opposite of the reasonable request that I made in my letter. That was your choice, and I'm choosing to not engage in a deeper conversation about the issue with someone how hasn't done that.
Ok Grant give an incident where I put words in your mouth and also where I made any accusations. I simply asked you why you were for legalization of pot and gave two illustrations. One if you used pot and one if you didn't. You have yet to answer the question of why you are so pro pot legalization!!! Now who is starting to act like Obama? He thinks his agenda is what everyone should agree with. Those that don't agree he demonizes. You talk a good talk about listening, but refuse to yourself. I listened to your arguments I just don't think they are accurate. For every so called expert that you find in favor of pot there are just as many so called experts or more that are against it. But that is not why I am opposed, for me it is a moral issue. I don't think we should put chemicals in a healthy body just so we can escape reality. I don't think people need chemicals to get high, that is why I am against it. It has nothing to do with the alleged safety or harm of the substance.
I refuse to address any points you make as long as you refuse to consider the evidence. You can continue to put words in my mouth, make baseless accusations against me in a public forum and whatever else your little heart desires, but as long as you openly refuse to consider the evidence and any other side of the argument, any real conversation about it is nothing but a charade.
"our remarks about me being like Obama "
Them's fightin' woids!
Grant I think the only conversations you like to have is when people agree with you. Maybe all these so called experts you like to quote are just trying to justify their own usage. Do you use the stuff? If you do, why are you worried about the law being changed, the law must not of stopped you (if you use it)? The only thing I can think of is you would be worried about getting caught. If you don't use it, why do you care if it is illegal? Do you think you are missing out on something? I think thou dost protest to much young man.
Continually putting words in my mouth and refusing to consider any other side of the issue is really making this a conversation worth having.
Grant I didn't come to my opinion on pot because of anything I have heard or read. I have seen people in real life really mess up their life with it. They all start out thinking it is harmless. But with heavy users it does effect the thought process over time. I have seen it happen first hand. My question is why do you think you need it to get thru life? Put it on the ballot, I will still not vote for it. Like I said if it passes I will live with it, but I would still not use the stuff. I have never really had a need to try to escape reality.
And concerned, this WILL be on the ballot someday. Likely in the near future. That is why we need to have this conversation. Just like any issue, there should be some research and honest discussion BEFORE people create their biases for or against something. I refuse to believe in anything that I haven't objectively looked at myself just because someone has told it to me so many times. That's a dangerous game to play.
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |