|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
The first step could be taken by the Executive Branch. All Obama has to do is move marijuana down from a Schedule 1 drug (too dangerous for any use; along with heroine and LSD) to a Schedule 2 or 3 drug.
21 USC Sec. 812
| Quote: |
(a) Establishment There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. Such schedules shall initially consist of the substances listed in this section. The schedules established by this section shall be updated and republished on a semiannual basis during the two-year period beginning one year after October 27, 1970, and shall be updated and republished on an annual basis thereafter.
(b) Placement on schedules; findings required Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.
(4) Schedule IV. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(c) Initial schedules of controlled substances Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended (FOOTNOTE 1) pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated: (FOOTNOTE 1) Revised schedules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 of Title 21, Food and Drugs. |
Personally, I think it belongs in Schedule III, along with anobolic steroids and synthetic THC, since there is a great potential for abuse (but little actual harm). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Free World

Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Drake Hotel
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| I know Obama has ended the marijuana dispensary raids and, I really hope he pardons Charlie Lynch. That is such a terrible situation, in fact it's BULLSH*T! |
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2008/la080708.html
| Quote: |
Lynch sold more than $2 million worth of marijuana in nine months, which included numerous sales to young people under the age of 21, many of whom were repeat customers. Two specific counts at trial concerned sales by the store to one of Lynch's minor employees. Receipts and the defendant�s own testimony established that the store sold marijuana to this employee numerous times and even gave the employee free marijuana on his 20th birthday.
The indictment and evidence at trial also showed Lynch's employees distributed marijuana on numerous occasions outside of the store, including one instance where the store's chief security officer sold more than $3,000 in marijuana to undercover officers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006 Location: Koreatown
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While i generally agree with legalization, there are a few things i worry about.
One--can we trust that companies will not seek ways of making designer drugs or the natural stuff more addictive in an effort to corner the market? Does anyone really want Monsanto brand Marijuana?
Two--what happens to the drug dealers who suddenly don't have "jobs"? If the stuff they peddle is made legal, regulated and taxed like tobacco or alcohol then what do these people who never made a "legitimate" dollar before do?
Three--do we really want to make legitimate businesspeople out of the thugs, rapists, murderers and terrorists who make up the Cartels which manufacture and push this stuff?
If legalization happens, it needs to be done verrrry carefully. I think the OP had some good arguments put forward by the Economist of all publications, but it's not so cut and dry as that. I think either way you look at it though we need to shift away from incarceration and punishment of addicts and move toward treatment and healing. It's the desperation for the next fix which drives the addicts to commit the crimes they do--not that they generally want to commit armed robberies or breaking and entering. To that end, i would argue that if we treat the addiction, it could go a long way toward solving many issues that are peripherally involved with the drug trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robot_Teacher
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Location: Robotting Around the World
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How to stop the drug wars?
Legalize soft recreational drug (marijuana, hash, and shrooms) use with strict hard line domestic laws on hard drugs like meth and heroin. Fight the importing of hard drugs like meth and heroin with mandatory execution on American soil; not Mexico, if found blatantly guilty and exercise this law as Asian countries do when someone is caught importing/exporting hard drugs. We know Thailand has these mandatory execution laws on the books, but usually give life sentences. This is expensive burden on the country and it doesn't curb trafficking when they know the law is relaxed or a bribe can allow them to pass go. Give fines for unlicensed/untaxed soft drugs, but allow them to be produced, sold, and used in a similiar fashion that Holland does while enforcing an execution for hard drugs.
I bet America wouldn't have such an expensive complicated problem with fighting hard drugs if they enacted a mandatory execution order placed on those proven guilty of importing/exporting hard drugs and stayed the hell out of other countries. This execution order would not allow eligbility for parole or life in prison, but with a thorough and fair criminal justic court sytsem. Only police the USA for drug smuggling and police for the exportation of American guns before they can cross the border. This would prevent much of the problem since the risk/threat of mandatory execution will force 99% of those would be smugglers of hard drugs and guns to think twice and reconsider what they're doing. If a suspected smuggler is spotted on American soil and fails to stop when ordered to do so, then law enforcement should shoot to kill if suspect fails to allow to be detained for search. This would be highly effective in preventing most of the violence, bad sentiments, and violence once they know we mean business.
When you enter Taiwans aiport, the first thing you see is a sign in English warning of mandatory execution for the importing of drugs. If you're in many other countries and import drugs or even fail to stop when ordered to stop by a law dog, they will shoot you dead. It's important that all international travelers understand this. Of course, they're a bit overly strict in Taiwon as this mandatory execution includes marijuana and hashish; not only meth, crack, cocain, opium, and heroin. I think the US needs to take this hardline stance on hard drugs while legalizing soft drugs like marijauana and hashish, but having regulations regarding the sale and use.
It's a bit too late to repair the issue with American guns in Mexico as they've already made it into many bad hands, but we could had done much better than we did in my opinion. We got it all wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robot_Teacher wrote: |
| I bet America wouldn't have such an expensive complicated problem with fighting hard drugs if they enacted a mandatory execution order placed on those proven guilty of importing/exporting hard drugs and stayed the hell out of other countries. |
| Robot_Teacher wrote: |
| If a suspected smuggler is spotted on American soil and fails to stop when ordered to do so, then law enforcement should shoot to kill if suspect fails to allow to be detained for search. |
Killing people for importing and exporting hard drugs isn't even in touch with reality honestly, and shooting to kill based on suspecting someone of smuggling drugs is something I don't even know how to respond to.
We could really solve our nation's shoplifting problem by executing shoplifters too. Most crimes -- in my opinion, actually, all crimes -- are not worth taking someone's life for. I'd like to think that understanding is one of the positive, humane features of our nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TexasPete wrote: |
| One--can we trust that companies will not seek ways of making designer drugs or the natural stuff more addictive in an effort to corner the market? Does anyone really want Monsanto brand Marijuana? |
We can no more trust them on that account than we can trust cigarette companies not to alter tobacco to be more addictive. We can't trust illegal drug producers on that account either, though, so it's irrelevent; at worst you end up with an equally habit forming substance that can at least be somewhat regulated by the government. At best, you end up with a less habit forming substance. You can only win.
| TexasPete wrote: |
| Two--what happens to the drug dealers who suddenly don't have "jobs"? If the stuff they peddle is made legal, regulated and taxed like tobacco or alcohol then what do these people who never made a "legitimate" dollar before do? |
Some will move on to selling other illegal substances (e.g. prescription medication), some will move on to other criminal ventures, some will find other sources of menial labor (yes, selling drugs on the street is menial labor) to partake in. It's not as if street drug vendors are otherwise upstanding individuals who just happen to sell drugs; the bulk of the ones that rely on the pathetic wages of street pushing to get by are generally going to be committing other criminal acts all ready. So, worst case scenario, you have just as many criminals as before. Best case, you have fewer as some of them end up finding legitimate employment. You can only win.
| TexasPete wrote: |
| Three--do we really want to make legitimate businesspeople out of the thugs, rapists, murderers and terrorists who make up the Cartels which manufacture and push this stuff? |
The reason those individuals are able to profit is precisely because those drugs are illegal, meaning legitimate businesses can't compete with them. Legalize it, and many of them will be competed out of business. Those that manage to remain profitable just might become legitimate business people as you fear. I don't think a violent criminal overseeing an illegal operation becoming a legitimate business man is a bad trade, personally.
| TexasPete wrote: |
| If legalization happens, it needs to be done verrrry carefully. |
Maybe, but not for any of those reasons.
| TexasPete wrote: |
| I think either way you look at it though we need to shift away from incarceration and punishment of addicts and move toward treatment and healing. |
Agreed, and the easiest way to do that is to decriminalize it. You can't incarcerate and punish someone who hasn't committed a crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Free World

Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Drake Hotel
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TexasPete wrote: |
| Two--what happens to the drug dealers who suddenly don't have "jobs"? If the stuff they peddle is made legal, regulated and taxed like tobacco or alcohol then what do these people who never made a "legitimate" dollar before do? |
Some will move on to selling other illegal substances (e.g. prescription medication), some will move on to other criminal ventures, some will find other sources of menial labor (yes, selling drugs on the street is menial labor) to partake in. It's not as if street drug vendors are otherwise upstanding individuals who just happen to sell drugs; the bulk of the ones that rely on the pathetic wages of street pushing to get by are generally going to be committing other criminal acts all ready. So, worst case scenario, you have just as many criminals as before. Best case, you have fewer as some of them end up finding legitimate employment. You can only win. |
You can only win? Are you kidding me?
If you were criminal making $1000 / day selling drugs and lost your job would you
a) rob a bank
b) break into houses
c) find a minimum wage "menial labour" job.
d) steal cars |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Free World

Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Drake Hotel
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| We could really solve our nation's shoplifting problem by executing shoplifters too. Most crimes -- in my opinion, actually, all crimes -- are not worth taking someone's life for. I'd like to think that understanding is one of the positive, humane features of our nation. |
Which nation? If you come from a country with capital punishment then you don't really have that understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/clinton.mexico/index.html?iref=topnews
(CNN) -- The United States shares the blame for Mexican drug trafficking and the attendant violence that has killed thousands in the past year alone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Mexico for a series of meetings on the drug crisis and other issues.
"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she said en route to Mexico City, Mexico, according to pool reports.
"Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians. So, yes, I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Killing people for importing and exporting hard drugs isn't even in touch with reality honestly |
Singapore does this and has very few problems with drug related, or other crime for that matter. Similarly, Korea and Japan also do not have the huge levels of drug taking we see in the West, and have a zero tolerance approach to drug taking, although nowhere near Singaporean severity.
So, it's not just a simple case of legalisation solving the problem. Of course, the US is in an altogether different situation, seeing as it has a border with Mexico and cannot hope to stem the inflow of narcotics, but clearly legalisation is not the only option for other nations. I also don't buy the argument that legalisation would lead to more sensible drug use. I for one think that cocaine and opium/heroin use, and the consequent numbers of addicts would rise massively if legalised. I suppose we just have to decide whether the costs of war on drugs are greater than the possible costs of legalisation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Free World wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| We could really solve our nation's shoplifting problem by executing shoplifters too. Most crimes -- in my opinion, actually, all crimes -- are not worth taking someone's life for. I'd like to think that understanding is one of the positive, humane features of our nation. |
Which nation? If you come from a country with capital punishment then you don't really have that understanding. |
Its decided state by state, you Commonwealth ignoramus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D975QL000&show_article=1
| Quote: |
| Obama opposes legalizing marijuana |
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama had some fun with at least one question at his online town hall, saying he doesn't think legalizing marijuana is a good strategy for turning around the economy.
Obama told the audience Thursday that one of the most popular questions was whether legalization of the illicit drug would help pull the nation out of the recession. The president jokingly said: "I don't know what this says about the online audience."
In a serious response, he said he didn't think that was a good economic policy. |
No hope for that change, I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
The government needs to RE-legalize all drugs for manufacture, sale, distribution and use by adults.
They should only be taxed the same as other goods under a national/state/local shared sales tax capped at 10%. (All other taxes repealed.)
The government should pardon and free all those convicted only on drug charges.
Then, they should forget about drugs.
Free people have the right to engage in any medical treatment or recreation they choose.
Governments have no rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree.
But if the US can't or won't do it now, with the most lefty (yes, he is) president of late, then it just can't happen. It just can't and it won't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I'm extremely grateful that I have a government that will save me from myself and always tell me what to do.
My government is always so smart. I wish I could give it a big hug (especially that stud Bobby Jindal). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|