# Legalize Drugs



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Marijuana?
Coke?
Heroin?
Meth?
Pills?

How would it work?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

All.

The same way alcohol and tobacco work. 

Easy peasy.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Marijuana?
> Coke?
> Heroin?
> Meth?
> ...


You would put a lot of people out of business! But then again maybe kids would stop eating tide pods.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> You would put a lot of people out of business! But then again maybe kids would stop eating tide pods.


I’d put a lot of people into legitimate businesses. 

Kids have, and always will, do stupid things.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> All.
> 
> The same way alcohol and tobacco work.
> 
> Easy peasy.


So we would have drive through heroin store? Discount Coke stores?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Marijuana?
> Coke?
> Heroin?
> Meth?
> ...


One way it could work is to allow licensed dealers such as drug stores to sell people what they want, when they want it without prescriptions. Just like they do with lots of other drugs now.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I’d put a lot of people into legitimate businesses.
> 
> Kids have, and always will, do stupid things.


The legitimate business owners would more than likely not be the illegitimate current ones, some maybe but probably very few.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> So we would have drive through heroin store? Discount Coke stores?


Yeppers, and the gummit could even tax them them!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Of course. Stop letting government tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Marijuana?
> Coke?
> Heroin?
> Meth?
> ...


Too easy. In fact, there’s even a manual for how to do it:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Cliff Notes version:

The Federal government accepts that it’s not their place, and promptly butts out. Then the States take over the issue, and try their own solutions. 

With 50 separate Petri dishes running their own experiments, with all funding and enforcement paid for with real dollars (not digitized ones that they can make themselves), we start finding out, real quick, what works and what doesn’t. 

The States with poor programs/solutions take a queue from the States with more effective ones, and tweak their solutions to suit their unique circumstances. 
Evolution of governance.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

So the only thing in the way is an over controlling government?

You would think if it was so easy we would have done something by now.

There seems to be a consensus here on HT. Do you think most, or at least 51%, of the country would favor legalization?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

How would it work? Just fine , just like it did till the 30s.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Too easy. In fact, there’s even a manual for how to do it:
> https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
> 
> Cliff Notes version:
> ...


And that's the way it should be for 90% of the stuff the feds try to regulate.

WWW


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> So we would have drive through heroin store? Discount Coke stores?


We could. Much would depend on locality and the markets.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> The legitimate business owners would more than likely not be the illegitimate current ones, some maybe but probably very few.


So?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> So the only thing in the way is an over controlling government?
> 
> You would think if it was so easy we would have done something by now.
> 
> There seems to be a consensus here on HT. Do you think most, or at least 51%, of the country would favor legalization?


Pretty much.

There are many historical reasons why the easy solution isn’t always the one chosen by our government.

Who cares? We don’t live in a country where such things are decided by public approval.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> So the only thing in the way is an over controlling government?
> 
> You would think if it was so easy we would have done something by now.
> 
> There seems to be a consensus here on HT. Do you think most, or at least 51%, of the country would favor legalization?


Yes.

I’m not sure what the “51% of the country” figure has to do with the discussion. I haven’t considered what the majority of the country wants on this issue, as it is of no consequence.

The more prescient question is: what do 51% of Californians want? What do 51% of South Carolinians want? Ask the question 48 more times, and you have the setting for Round 1.

Round 2 comes at election time in each of those States. Once the people of each State have had a couple years to see how their initial position is working, in comparison to the positions of the States around them, they get to vote again.

Round 3 comes at the next election cycle. Run the experiment a few times, and we start to get to enjoy some real, practical, effective solutions.


This isn’t that hard. I don’t get how people struggle to grasp the principles of our Republic, and how it became so great.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Yes.
> 
> I’m not sure what the “51% of the country” figure has to do with the discussion. I haven’t considered what the majority of the country wants on this issue, as it is of no consequence.
> 
> ...


I guess most don't want them legalized, or we are just too lazy, (apathetic, etc.) to make a change.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I guess most don't want them legalized, or we are just too lazy, (apathetic, etc.) to make a change.


I don’t know about the former, but the latter, at least, does appear to be true. 

We’re too apathetic to demand that our Federal government stick to the powers that our States gave them when they ratified the Constitution. 

Short of another secessionist movement, I’m not sure what can be done about it.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

A bunch of people who want legalization of drugs just don't have the cash to spread around like multibillion dollar drug companies and multibillion dollar drug cartels. It takes money to get anything done at either federal or state levels. Suitcases of cash, campaign contributions, jobs to idiot nephews, you know the many ways to spread out what is, in truth, bribes.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don’t know about the former, but the latter, at least, does appear to be true.
> 
> We’re too apathetic to demand that our Federal government stick to the powers that our States gave them when they ratified the Constitution.
> 
> Short of another secessionist movement, I’m not sure what can be done about it.


Take back what is ours.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> There are many historical reasons why the easy solution isn’t always the one chosen by our government.
> 
> Who cares? *We don’t live in a country where such things are decided by public approval.*


Not true. We live in a republic where our elected officials are supposed to vote the way their constituents tell them not their party. Some where along the lines this got lost and needs to be regained.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I'll take a few grams of mushrooms, I think I remember them as being kinda fun in the 70's


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Since it's legal, just give me a sample packet of the top five best sellers. I don't drink and pot is kinda weak so I'd be down for getting a buzz, it's been years, decades.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Take back what is ours.


I reckon that’s the secessionist movement I was talking about. 

I don’t think the next American revolution will involve a lot of people going to Washington. I think it will involve one or more States actually calling back the representatives they have there.

...and then escorting any federal personnel currently there to the state line.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Not true. We live in a republic where our elected officials are supposed to vote the way their constituents tell them not their party. Some where along the lines this got lost and needs to be regained.


You’re close but you have it a bit wrong. Our elected representatives are elected to represent the interest of everyone they serve, regardless of party and regardless of whether they voted for that representative or not. Whether 51% of the people support a candidate who wishes to keep drug laws the status quo or wishes to change them should have no bearing on whether the laws need to be changed or whether that representative should vote to keep them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

On a pragmatic level, and to prove we don't give a hoot about out-of-control government spending, we spend over a $1,000,000,000 per year in the US fighting drugs, and over $100 billion is spent globally each year on enforcing the war on drugs.

http://www.countthecosts.org/seven-costs/wasting-billions-drug-law-enforcement


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> You’re close but you have it a bit wrong. Our elected representatives are elected to represent the interest of everyone they serve, regardless of party and regardless of whether they voted for that representative or not. Whether 51% of the people support a candidate who wishes to keep drug laws the status quo or wishes to change them should have no bearing on whether the laws need to be changed or whether that representative should vote to keep them.


So the states that have legalized recreational marijuana was done through legislators or votes of the citizens?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> So the states that have legalized recreational marijuana was done through legislators or votes of the citizens?


Depends on the state but that has nothing to do with the claim you made about the role of elected representatives. 

Since there is no direct vote by citizens on federal laws we must rely on the representatives elected to vote on them. But, as I said earlier, they don’t just represent the 50.1% of the people who voted for them. Sometimes doing the right thing means they should vote for unpopular things. It’s a courage sorely lacking in most of today’s politicians.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I've noticed several here have mentioned the need to find a solution to the problem. What problem??


----------



## spud (Feb 3, 2007)

On a pragmatic level, and to prove we don't give a hoot about out-of-control government spending, we spend over a $1,000,000,000 per year in the US fighting drugs, and over $100 billion is spent globally each year on enforcing the war on drugs.

Government don't care, it's just more jobs and control for them. Think of it this way. How much do we spend in military industrial complex Afghanistan to protect the opium? How much does the CIA and big banks make shipping and in laundering? How much do local governments make with extra staff in police, swat teams, court system when people are caught using or selling? How much is made in prisons incarcerating all of our citizen? How much is big pharma making legal opioids and then illegally distributing em? Freaking crazy isn't it, and with opioids, most could easily be controlled by just not supporting the growing of it. Swamp needs drained, swimming with concrete blocks would be much needed start.


----------



## AggieChris (May 9, 2015)

I’ve always thought it was kind of funny in the land of the free that depending on what kind of seed I plant...and didn’t ever do anything more than add to my landscape...I could be a felon. 

I don’t consume any of the items mentioned in the original post, but legislating plants just always made me chuckle a bit. I guess my take on a lot of laws is “who was the victim of the defendants action?”. If there wasn’t a victim, is there actually a crime? Being a “victim” of your own weakness isn’t a crime (alcoholics for example). It may be a shame, but I just don’t see it as a crime.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I guess most don't want them legalized, or we are just too lazy, (apathetic, etc.) to make a change.


There is something funny, ironically funny, about a thread wanting to legalize hard drugs saying the drugged people are too lazy to get it done.......

The folks hanging around here sure have changed!

Paul


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The reason for controlling drugs is primarily to ensure the rich a have a source of cheap labor.
And of course it helps the rich maintain their status. They wouldn't want the poor to have a pleasant life..........


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> The reason for controlling drugs is primarily to ensure the rich a have a source of cheap labor.
> And of course it helps the rich maintain their status. They wouldn't want the poor to have a pleasant life..........


Gees, cant help myself. Perhaps the above is meant as sarcastic. 

How does controlling drugs insure cheap labor ?

Drugs that are currently illegal are needed to have a pleasant life ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> Gees, cant help myself. Perhaps the above is meant as sarcastic.
> 
> How does controlling drugs insure cheap labor ?
> 
> Drugs that are currently illegal are needed to have a pleasant life ?


Many of our controlled drugs can make people's lives much better. Without them I would most likely have been dead for a number of years by now.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I know this... We can't keep letting the cartels and other organizations like them have the money and the power they have. It's far more dangerous than legalization. Legalize it, obviously make sure people understand they can't drive under the influence or just act insane in public without consequence, and simultaneously wipe the cartels from existence. Big world problem solved. I think the people doing it now will probably be doing it after legalization, with maybe a small spike in popularity. Regulate it to home and "bar" use, just like alcohol, and I don't think we'll see any more craziness than we already do. And hey... All the billions of dollars going to cartels will stay here. Even methadone clinics will probably see an uptick in sales as people feel less stigmatic about that. They're doing it. Can't stop it. We've lost a lot of 4th amendment protections because people were so afraid of it that they fell in love with hard charging cops. Let's put an end to all that.

Also... Legalize things like coca leaf tea and kratom along with that and South/Central American countries will still have some cash crops to work off of.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wiscto,
You hit on my reason for starting this thread. It is not because I do drugs now, or that I would if they were legal. I simply think we have to recognize what we have been doing for the last 50 or more years is NOT working. Time to try something else, and the parallel of alcohol, and its prohibition seems like the best comparison.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Many of our controlled drugs can make people's lives much better. Without them I would most likely have been dead for a number of years by now.


Makes sense but has little to do with cheap labor. 

And drugs for medical use is legal (usually) and a bit different than what I was thinking of versus recreational use.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

HDRider said:


> Wiscto,
> You hit on my reason for starting this thread. It is not because I do drugs now, or that I would if they were legal. I simply think we have to recognize what we have been doing for the last 50 or more years is NOT working. Time to try something else, and the parallel of alcohol, and its prohibition seems like the best comparison.


Your probably correct. Far as I can tell humans are generally going to partake of some kind of dancing, religion, athletic sport, drugs (including alcohol), and gambling. Toss in a mix of those who do not wish to work and intend to survive off from others and you have a mess in progress. Might as well figure out a way to make the vices a bit easier to deal with and have less issues with things like cartels.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> Your probably correct. Far as I can tell humans are generally going to partake of some kind of dancing, religion, athletic sport, drugs (including alcohol), and gambling. Toss in a mix of those who do not wish to work and intend to survive off from others and you have a mess in progress. Might as well figure out a way to make the vices a bit easier to deal with and have less issues with things like cartels.


My concern is mostly related to cost. If we spent some percentage of what we spend on interdiction, prosecution and incarceration, on treatment, and taxed drugs like we do cigs and liqueur, I think it would offer more benefit than our current system.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

HDRider said:


> My concern is mostly related to cost. If we spent some percentage of what we spend on interdiction, prosecution and incarceration, on treatment, and taxed drugs like we do cigs and liqueur, I think it would offer more benefit than our current system.


Check out how things are going in Colorado... 2016 1 Billion in Tax Revenue from Marijuana sales...


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Shine said:


> Check out how things are going in Colorado... 2016 1 Billion in Tax Revenue from Marijuana sales...


Maybe total sales revenue but not tax revenue.

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Wiscto,
> You hit on my reason for starting this thread. It is not because I do drugs now, or that I would if they were legal. * I simply think we have to recognize what we have been doing for the last 50 or more years is NOT working.* Time to try something else, and the parallel of alcohol, and its prohibition seems like the best comparison.


If we put it in bold maybe the DEA will finally come to their senses and just quit?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> Makes sense but has little to do with cheap labor.
> 
> And drugs for medical use is legal (usually) and a bit different than what I was thinking of versus recreational use.


I'm still not quite sure what the connection between drugs and cheap labor might be? I think you will find most drugs used for medical purposes are illegal if not in their proper container with the proper paperwork filled out and signed by the proper persons.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm still not quite sure what the connection between drugs and cheap labor might be? I think you will find most drugs used for medical purposes are illegal if not in their proper container with the proper paperwork filled out and signed by the proper persons.


It is funny, we cannot heal ourselves unless we go to the government authorized drug dealers. Those of us that need pain medicine are not [for a good period of time] able to go to our doctor of choice, one that might have been seeing us for years, one that might know all about our story but now have to go to a pain med center, to see someone that does not know us, to expect of this person to sincerely attempt to assist us in our attempt to live somewhat of a normal life. Sad, I was receiving a prescription from my primary care doctor that, for the most part, worked for what I was seeking. The pain med clinic told me those meds were not available. I lived for a year and a half while they tried this and that and nothing worked as well as what the doctor that knew my medical story prescribed me. AND - I had to go every month, pay to be seen in the pain med clinic and had to pay for the medicine that did not do what was needed.

If people cannot see this for what it is then we deserve the path that we are being led down...

We are cash cows...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I'm currently dealing with a pain management specialist. Know just what you mean. Spent the first six months trying various combinations of stuff that didn't work, have finally found an opioid that gives pretty good relief. For how long? I dunno? As long as I keep writing valid checks every month most likely.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Make drugs legal? OK - BUT I don't want the government to be responsible for you in any way - not one penny to a drug users support through SNAP, medicaid, housing, rehab...NOTHING!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Wolf mom said:


> Make drugs legal? OK - BUT I don't want the government to be responsible for you in any way - not one penny to a drug users support through SNAP, medicaid, housing, rehab...NOTHING!


How far do you want to extend that?

Alcohol? Nicotine? Caffeine? Herbal remedies?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wolf mom said:


> Make drugs legal? OK - BUT I don't want the government to be responsible for you in any way - not one penny to a drug users support through SNAP, medicaid, housing, rehab...NOTHING!


I think it would be fair, and wise, to use savings from interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration for addiction remediation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> Make drugs legal? OK - BUT I don't want the government to be responsible for you in any way - not one penny to a drug users support through SNAP, medicaid, housing, rehab...NOTHING!


That's a bit extreme don't you think? While I agree we shouldn't be handing out checks and providing a free living to the able bodied, we really should provide for the needs of our disabled, be it mental or physical impairments.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> How far do you want to extend that?
> 
> Alcohol? Nicotine? Caffeine? Herbal remedies?


If they can afford Alcohol and Cigs, they don't need my tax money.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> If they can afford Alcohol and Cigs, they don't need my tax money.


Tsk tsk. There are necessities in this life, man does not live by bread alone!


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

Pot, yes. Meth, coke, narcotics? Uhh, no.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GeneV said:


> Pot, yes. Meth, coke, narcotics? Uhh, no.


So you are in favor of our current efforts on Meth, Coke, et al?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Redlands Okie said:


> Gees, cant help myself. Perhaps the above is meant as sarcastic.
> 
> How does controlling drugs insure cheap labor ?
> 
> Drugs that are currently illegal are needed to have a pleasant life ?


Simple the rich don't want the workforce to be happy without buying the "STUFF" that they sell. They want to use unhappiness to force people to take crappy jobs to buy their stuff. If people could live poor but happy a small homestead and some homegrown might suffice.
Its much the same with what you would call legal but controlled drugs. By not being available without prescription the price is a lot higher and a lot of the medical establishment gets paid.
Lastly the enforcement of these laws keep a lot of the government employed.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wolf mom said:


> Make drugs legal? OK - BUT I don't want the government to be responsible for you in any way - not one penny to a drug users support through SNAP, medicaid, housing, rehab...NOTHING!


Why is that? Are you trying to save the money to give to the rich?


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

I just don't see any reason for pot to be illegal in the first place, it's ridiculous to clump it in with meth and heroin.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Why is that? Are you trying to save the money to give to the rich?


What money do we give to the rich?

You’re not referring to tax breaks, are you? If that’s your idea of a “gift”, remind me never to sign up for a Secret Santa that you’re part of.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

LOL no I was thinking of all the grants and subsidies we give them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GeneV said:


> I just don't see any reason for pot to be illegal in the first place, it's ridiculous to clump it in with meth and heroin.


Why pick and chose?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> If they can afford Alcohol and Cigs, they don't need my tax money.


How about other drugs like caffeine and herbal remedies?


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Why pick and chose?


Because between ambulance and poison control center work, I've got 20 years of experience on the differences between all these drugs.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

and that would be?

Thanks to the governments attitude the labels on them are not very helpful.


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> and that would be?


Yeh, that would be that I never seen a pot o/d. I've never seen a whore turning tricks to support her pot habit. Never seen homeless dudes nodding off in a pot haze. Never seen zombie-looking people with scabs all over their faces, picking at their skin from pot hallucinations. 

Nope, all I seen with pot is maybe some apathy, laziness, lack of motivation, etc. Not a bad tradeoff for all that tax revenue. Legalize that ****!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

OH MY THATS AWFULL!
WHO IS MAKING THEM DO THAT? WE HAVE TO STOP IT!

Oh its their choice?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> OH MY THATS AWFULL!
> WHO IS MAKING THEM DO THAT? WE HAVE TO STOP IT!
> 
> Oh its their choice?



As long as you get your pain pills and stay high everything is good, huh ?


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> OH MY THATS AWFULL!
> WHO IS MAKING THEM DO THAT? WE HAVE TO STOP IT!
> 
> Oh its their choice?


Oh I'm sorry, wasn't aware you live on a deserted island. Unfortunately here, the rest of society pays all the various costs for them types of choices. 

I'm sure your next post will be "what costs?" or some such, but yeh it seems you're just here to argue, so I'll leave you to that, bye bye.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> How about other drugs like caffeine and herbal remedies?


As long as they are on welfare, they should have no luxuries. We can come of with a list of items that meets the definition of "luxuries". I am from the Ben Franklin School of charity. *“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”*


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Tsk tsk. There are necessities in this life, man does not live by bread alone!


Oh, I am not against someone indulging in a good stogie or fine wine, as long as I am not forced to subsidize said action. (And yes, even if they pay for it with "Their money" my tax money freed up "their money" if they are on welfare.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> As long as they are on welfare, they should have no luxuries. We can come of with a list of items that meets the definition of "luxuries". I am from the Ben Franklin School of charity. *“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”*


It’s a direct question. Would you consider things like caffeine and herbal remedies “luxuries”?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> It’s a direct question. Would you consider things like caffeine and herbal remedies “luxuries”?


I likely would, yes. Especially caffeine. Herbal remedies? I don't know.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

This is a bit different than that prohibition situation. Alcohol had widespread cultural use, especially with immigrants. And alcohol may be consumed in moderation. For a good perspective, watch Ken Burn's documentary.

Legalization may work OK for pot, since it too may be used in moderation, and even though pot does not have a cultural tradition like alcohol, it now has widespread use medically. And legalizing it would remove it as a "gateway" drug that has the user dealing with those that sell harder drugs. 

But can anyone use heroin, meth, or cocaine in moderation - most always, if not always, NO! It is a shame that so many get hopelessly hooked on hard drugs like heroin, and because the street drugs are unregulated, they sometimes are sold in lethal doses. What we probably should do, however, is stop putting addicts of these hard drugs in prison where they can learn how to break all kinds of other laws. Rehab would be the more proper option.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Heroin, and cocaine were used for a very long time as self administered over the counter medicines. As with most things, the real problems came about when the government wanted to control it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GeneV said:


> Oh I'm sorry, wasn't aware you live on a deserted island. Unfortunately here, the rest of society pays all the various costs for them types of choices.
> 
> I'm sure your next post will be "what costs?" or some such, but yeh it seems you're just here to argue, so I'll leave you to that, bye bye.


LOL its called discussion.
No doubt there are costs associated with over dose, But don't you suppose that one reason meth exists was to get around laws about other drugs?
Besides don't people have a right to be stupid?

Society chooses to pay those costs right? I don't have a problem with them choosing not to.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Remember the diet pills of the 60's ?

Every housewife was on them


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> LOL its called discussion.
> No doubt there are costs associated with over dose, But don't you suppose that one reason meth exists was to get around laws about other drugs?
> Besides don't people have a right to be stupid?
> 
> Society chooses to pay those costs right? I don't have a problem with them choosing not to.


There's fantasy world where emergency response, medical facilities, and various other institutions could opt out of treating crackheads or crankheads, or where cops don't have to police junkies breaking into cars and houses, and then court, confinement, probation/supervision costs and all that. And then, there's the real world. 

If this thread asks about legalization of everything in fantasyland, sure ok.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Gene if it was all legal don't you think most of the policing and Emt costs would go away ?


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

MichaelZ said:


> This is a bit different than that prohibition situation. Alcohol had widespread cultural use, especially with immigrants. And alcohol may be consumed in moderation. For a good perspective, watch Ken Burn's documentary.
> 
> Legalization may work OK for pot, since it too may be used in moderation, and even though pot does not have a cultural tradition like alcohol, it now has widespread use medically. And legalizing it would remove it as a "gateway" drug that has the user dealing with those that sell harder drugs.
> 
> But can anyone use heroin, meth, or cocaine in moderation - most always, if not always, NO! It is a shame that so many get hopelessly hooked on hard drugs like heroin, and because the street drugs are unregulated, they sometimes are sold in lethal doses. What we probably should do, however, is stop putting addicts of these hard drugs in prison where they can learn how to break all kinds of other laws. Rehab would be the more proper option.


There is such a thing as functional heroin addict. The author William S. Burroughs was an example. These are not happy people generally, the goal is not the high but just the maintenance dose to feel unsick, and then they hold down steady jobs. I guess you could call that moderate use, but that's the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

If someone is taking prescribed drugs in a legal fashion for medical reasons then fine. Supposedly we have checks and balances for their safe use. (Yes I know thats a issue but not for this thread) 
If currently illegal drugs became “legal” and people want to self medicate for their happiness then no problem as long as the public does not have to subsidize their use, or misuse in any form. No government assistance for rent, food, goverment paid medical care, child care, etc. possibly related to the drug use. The users can either afford the habit and be able to care for their self and their loved ones or suffer the consequences. 
To save some remarks read the statement. Not talking about alcohol or caffeine or herbal drugs or what ever is currently legal or used in a legal manner. Although I do not feel much different on those items either. Once again thats a whole different thread.


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Gene if it was all legal don't you think most of the policing and Emt costs would go away ?


How would it go away? They wouldn't do crimes to finance their drug addiction? They wouldn't OD or develop health problems that the rest of society has to pay for because they're most often not covered by health insurance? Please explain.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I know some people are going to see this as hippy dippy leftist crap... But there are also some pretty clear signs that "underground" meth labs can do some pretty nasty things to the local environment, including well water. I feel like making it legit would make it safer for everyone.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

GeneV said:


> How would it go away? They wouldn't do crimes to finance their drug addiction? They wouldn't OD or develop health problems that the rest of society has to pay for because they're most often not covered by health insurance? Please explain.


All those things happen today, do they not? So the solution is to continue with policies that are probably not working or take a chance. 

Licensing and taxation would bring in revenue that could be used for treatment or enforcement. Go by your local methadone clinic in the morning and you’ll watch any number of people stopping by on their way to work to get their legally prescribed and administered dose of opioid. They function and contribute. Not everyone can or will but why not give more the chance to do so? What do we really have to lose?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> I likely would, yes. Especially caffeine. Herbal remedies? I don't know.


Thanks for the answer. It’s good to know that in the context of the original question someone in a low paying job supppementing their diet with SNAP benefits couldn’t have that morning cup of coffee or coke at lunch. And that cup of chamomile tea at the end of the day is questionable.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for the answer. It’s good to know that in the context of the original question someone in a low paying job supppementing their diet with SNAP benefits couldn’t have that morning cup of coffee or coke at lunch. And that cup of chamomile tea at the end of the day is questionable.


If they want it, they can strive to improve their lot in life.

Lets take it the other way. Say Mr. Low paying job has a taste for lobster and caviar? Should we subsidize that craving?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> If they want it, they can strive to improve their lot in life.


Again, thanks for the answer.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> If they want it, they can strive to improve their lot in life.
> 
> Lets take it the other way. Say Mr. Low paying job has a taste for lobster and caviar? Should we subsidize that craving?


We do.
Who makes you the word about what poor people should eat?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

One word. Crawfish and bluegill eggs.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> If they want it, they can strive to improve their lot in life.
> 
> Lets take it the other way. Say Mr. Low paying job has a taste for lobster and caviar? Should we subsidize that craving?


Nice edit.

Why not?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GeneV said:


> How would it go away? They wouldn't do crimes to finance their drug addiction? They wouldn't OD or develop health problems that the rest of society has to pay for because they're most often not covered by health insurance? Please explain.


 They wouldn't need to do those things as much. Drugs would be cheaper with no legal consequences to their use. So you could have your drugs AND a job. there would be fewer ODs when you knew what you were getting. and fewer health problems over all when you didn't have to use more dangerous drugs to get the high that older drugs provided till banned


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> One word. Crawfish and bluegill eggs.


That’s four words.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

You forgot already?? North Carolina..

Entire conversations are often one word.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> You forgot already?? North Carolina..
> 
> Entire conversations are often one word.


‘Nuf said.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Nice edit.
> 
> Why not?


Because it is a waste of taxpayer money. If they can afford Lobster and Caviar because they get subsidized by my tax money, they should be able to afford rice and beans WITHOUT my tax money.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Because it is a waste of taxpayer money. If they can afford Lobster and Caviar because they get subsidized by my tax money, they should be able to afford rice and beans WITHOUT my tax money.


And I feel that if they’ve budgeted their money and SNAP benefits well enough to enjoy something a bit better than rice and beans good for them. Aren’t opinions grand?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> We do.
> Who makes you the word about what poor people should eat?


I don't care what poor people eat as long as I am not paying for it. (or subsidizing it)  I know plenty of poor people who are not on welfare, heck, I was one for some time. It is no ones business what they eat because they buy it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And I feel that if they’ve budgeted their money and SNAP benefits well enough to enjoy something a bit better than rice and beans good for them. Aren’t opinions grand?


Then make it a true charity and let the contributions be voluntary.


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> All those things happen today, do they not? So the solution is to continue with policies that are probably not working or take a chance.
> 
> Licensing and taxation would bring in revenue that could be used for treatment or enforcement. Go by your local methadone clinic in the morning and you’ll watch any number of people stopping by on their way to work to get their legally prescribed and administered dose of opioid. They function and contribute. Not everyone can or will but why not give more the chance to do so? What do we really have to lose?


If you're referring specifically to opiates, some function with methadone maintenance. Most of them do NOT contribute, in fact very many opiate addicts (or meth addicts) are sitting on disability because of various illnesses caused or exacerbated by their drug addiction. And there's no methadone equivalent for crank, btw. 

No I'm sorry, I don't see anything great about legalizing a substance so caustic to individuals, their families, and society at large. Following that logic, we should legalize murder, rape, and pedophilia, because all those things happen today, do they not?


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

oneraddad said:


> Remember the diet pills of the 60's ?
> 
> Every housewife was on them


I do remember valium, lot of folks were hooked. I remember the Dr saying ..."no side effects and not addictive", but all that wasn't true. That might have been those diet pills.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

GeneV said:


> If you're referring specifically to opiates, some function with methadone maintenance. Most of them do NOT contribute, in fact very many opiate addicts (or meth addicts) are sitting on disability because of various illnesses caused or exacerbated by their drug addiction. And there's no methadone equivalent for crank, btw.
> 
> No I'm sorry, I don't see anything great about legalizing a substance so caustic to individuals, their families, and society at large. Following that logic, we should legalize murder, rape, and pedophilia, because all those things happen today, do they not?


All those other things directly harm others. Drugs directly harm only the user. Big difference.

I didn’t say most, I said many. And if many can do it with proper support so can others. What we have and what you seem to wish to continue sure isn’t making the problems go away. Could be it’s time to try something new.

If you wish to drink yourself into a stupor every night in the comfort of your home who am I to care? And the government doesn’t either because they get their cut.


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> They wouldn't need to do those things as much. Drugs would be cheaper with no legal consequences to their use. So you could have your drugs AND a job. there would be fewer ODs when you knew what you were getting. and fewer health problems over all when you didn't have to use more dangerous drugs to get the high that older drugs provided till banned


Drugs are expensive, therefore that's why addicts resort to stealing stuff, whoring and panhandling as opposed to holding a job. That's your theory lol? Guess what bud, here's a dose of reality for you: heroin and meth are cheap. So cheap in fact, that a teen could go stand with a sign in an intersection for a half hour and then go score himself a hit. 

These people don't work only because they're in a perpetual state of being either strung out or high, in either case in no condition to hold down a normal job. 

And then here comes the other guy, drugs directly only harm the user. Yeh, because addicts live in a vacuum, right? 

You guys are clueless, I'm out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

GeneV said:


> Drugs are expensive, therefore that's why addicts resort to stealing stuff, whoring and panhandling as opposed to holding a job. That's your theory lol? Guess what bud, here's a dose of reality for you: heroin and meth are cheap. So cheap in fact, that a teen could go stand with a sign in an intersection for a half hour and then go score himself a hit.
> 
> These people don't work only because they're in a perpetual state of being either strung out or high, in either case in no condition to hold down a normal job.
> 
> ...


You do understand the difference between directly and indirectly, don’t you? If I choose to put a needle in my arm my drug use directly affects me. It has no direct affect on you. If I rob your house to pay for my drugs my drug use indirectly affects you. My robbing you directly affects you. One action should be punishable. The other not.

Tell us your plan. The one we have isn’t working.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GeneV said:


> Drugs are expensive, therefore that's why addicts resort to stealing stuff,


 do you think the price is high because they are either illegal or tightly controlled? Don't you think making them cheaper will help reduce that downside? 


GeneV said:


> whoring and panhandling as opposed to holding a job.


 Those are jobs sorry you don't like them


GeneV said:


> That's your theory lol? Guess what bud, here's a dose of reality for you: heroin and meth are cheap. So cheap in fact, that a teen could go stand with a sign in an intersection for a half hour and then go score himself a hit.


Wait I thought they had to whore themselves for the money?



GeneV said:


> These people don't work only because they're in a perpetual state of being either strung out or high, in either case in no condition to hold down a normal job


. What else can they do when they cant work because of criminal records and drug test failures?

No all the problems with drugs wont be cured but a lot will and the problems will be of the users own choosing.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> You do understand the difference between directly and indirectly, don’t you? If I choose to put a needle in my arm my drug use directly affects me. It has no direct affect on you. If I rob your house to pay for my drugs my drug use indirectly affects you. My robbing you directly affects you. One action should be punishable. The other not.
> 
> Tell us your plan. The one we have isn’t working.


Fine legalize them and tax them or whatever who cares as long as the user supports them self’s, their habit and those their responsible for. 

Once its legal then its time to get real serious on the the consequences of their misuse. 

Need government assistance then pass a drug test and show some effort to work or help out the community. If you fail the drug test then no government assistance for housing, food, or medical, and no living in a household getting assistance. You can rely on charity provided by those that think its ok. 
Caught robbing, handling stolen goods, or other crimes that affect the rest of us and you fail a drug test then the penalties increase a lot. 

For the repeat offenders just give them a free airplane ticket to the Philippines. See how they like those rules over there.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A cautionary tale of Colorado, or slanted take on how things are....

Five years of retail pot coincide with five years of a homelessness growth rate that ranks among the highest rates in the country. Directors of homeless shelters, and people who live on the streets, tell us homeless substance abusers migrate here for easy access to pot.

Five years of Big Marijuana ushered in a doubling in the number of drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana, based on research by the pro-legalization Denver Post.

Five years of commercial pot have been five years of more marijuana in schools than teachers and administrators ever feared.

"An investigation by Education News Colorado, Solutions and the I-News Network shows drug violations reported by Colorado's K-12 schools have increased 45 percent in the past four years, even as the combined number of all other violations has fallen," explains an expose on escalating pot use in schools by Rocky Mountain PBS in late 2016.

The investigation found an increase in high school drug violations of 71 percent since legalization. School suspensions for drugs increased 45 percent.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found Colorado ranks first in the country for marijuana use among teens, scoring well above the national average

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5571976?access=271bc4bd30590a3723082980c3da7fef


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

Heard on the radio that Colorado is reducing the tax on legal pot because "street corner" dealers are still cheaper.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I'd go ride my snowmobile stoned right now if it wasn't for the white out. I'm gonna hit it hard tomorrow though


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

catsboy said:


> Heard on the radio that Colorado is reducing the tax on legal pot because "street corner" dealers are still cheaper.


That doesn’t surprise me. In fact, I think it’ll only be worse with the more processed drugs. 

If heroin or meth were ever legalized, no one stupid enough to have them in their life would ever be able to afford the legal stuff. By the time it got FDA’d and taxed enough to keep Uncle Sugar happy, a single hit would cost as much as an EpiPen.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

GeneV said:


> Drugs are expensive, therefore that's why addicts resort to stealing stuff, whoring and panhandling as opposed to holding a job. That's your theory lol? Guess what bud, here's a dose of reality for you: heroin and meth are cheap. So cheap in fact, that a teen could go stand with a sign in an intersection for a half hour and then go score himself a hit.
> 
> These people don't work only because they're in a perpetual state of being either strung out or high, in either case in no condition to hold down a normal job.
> 
> ...


Not to be disagreeable, but there are actually addicts that do work.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Bunch of States are closing medical pot cause the banks wont take the money


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Forcast said:


> Bunch of States are closing medical pot cause the banks wont take the money



Link ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> Link ?


Google.com


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Google.com



That's your job


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> That's your job


No.
That's a website for a search engine.


----------



## GeneV (Nov 28, 2015)

keenataz said:


> Not to be disagreeable, but there are actually addicts that do work.


There are functional drug addicts, but it's not common to the group. Feeding a physical addiction overtakes an addict's life, it's next to impossible to balance it with a job, or kids, spouses, parents, friends, property rights of others, which is why most addicts sink deeper and deeper into a state of isolation, poverty and crime.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It will never happen. Feeds have spent trillions on the War on Drugs and they will never wave the white flag and surrender. Even with the states falling over like dominoes to legalize marijuana, they haven't changed its status at the federal level.

Marijuana should be on the same level as alcohol. But meth and crack are just so nasty and destructive, it seems wrong to turn them loose. Maybe not logical but it feels wrong.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GeneV said:


> There are functional drug addicts, but it's not common to the group. Feeding a physical addiction overtakes an addict's life, it's next to impossible to balance it with a job, or kids, spouses, parents, friends, property rights of others, which is why most addicts sink deeper and deeper into a state of isolation, poverty and crime.


Being a functional drug addict is far more common than most people realize. Lots of folks qualify for that label without realizing it. How many people do you know that are addicted to their coffee, tea, smokes, alcohol, pot, cocaine etc that continue right on with their lives?


----------



## blanket (May 28, 2013)

yes and I have investigated the industrial accidents they caused


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A lot of insight in this thread. There are no simple answers.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

blanket said:


> yes and I have investigated the industrial accidents they caused


 Interesting !
Could you tell us more about how you came to do this and the findings of your investigations ?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Apparently drug addicts are so industrious that they get jobs building bridges or something, and have accidents! Who would have known? So, instead of just ruining your life, drug addiction makes you more ambitious, right?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Control, with good reason. 

Who is it coming at me in the opposing lane?

Who is it with their hands in the crane controls?

Who is it doing the cypherin’ on that bridge?

Who is it that holds the scalpel?

Certainly, some have the capacity to operate with reasonable discretion. But how do we differentiate? Alcohol metabolizes rather quickly. Can you determine “under the influence” for the remainder?

Summa, and Mary Jane. Employed and vino.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There’s no reason to control substances to have safety on the job. Let’s face it we don’t hire three-year-olds to operate airplanes and many people have been known to fly airplanes who drink , but not when flying. 
you hire responsible people for responsible positions


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Clem said:


> Apparently drug addicts are so industrious that they get jobs building bridges or something, and have accidents! Who would have known? So, instead of just ruining your life, drug addiction makes you more ambitious, right?





AmericanStand said:


> There’s no reason to control substances to have safety on the job. Let’s face it we don’t hire three-year-olds to operate airplanes and many people have been known to fly airplanes who drink , but not when flying.
> you hire responsible people for responsible positions


I have know more than a few drug using people who worked steady jobs in high risk occupations. Oil field mainly since thats what I grew up around. It’s not uncommon. 
Have only walked off two jobs in my life with no notice. Both when drugs were in use at job site in dangerous conditions. Casing crew one time and another when tripping pipe on a H2S well. Probably been others if I was more knowledgeable. 
What people do at home is one thing. Being under the influence or using at work or in public such as on the roads is something else. Education, being a responsible person or having a good work ethic, etc seems to not alway matter when it come to the temptation of drugs.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

The best doctor I ever dealt with was on opiates all day, every day. A chronic pain condition, the details are unimportant. However, he was the only doctor who would actually listen to you describe what was happening with your body. No preconceptions, just straightforward caring for his patients.(Note, I personally don't go to doctors. BUT, I've dealt with them often having been married to women who got seriously sick)

Not to say he was a better doctor because he used opiates. BUT, he certainly was not deficient in his work.


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> There’s no reason to control substances to have safety on the job. Let’s face it we don’t hire three-year-olds to operate airplanes and many people have been known to fly airplanes who drink , but not when flying.
> you hire responsible people for responsible positions


There is a short term test for alcohol. 

Is there a short term test for being under the influence of pot, cocaine, heroin, etc?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Clem said:


> The best doctor I ever dealt with was on opiates all day, every day. A chronic pain condition, the details are unimportant. However, he was the only doctor who would actually listen to you describe what was happening with your body. No preconceptions, just straightforward caring for his patients.(Note, I personally don't go to doctors. BUT, I've dealt with them often having been married to women who got seriously sick)
> 
> Not to say he was a better doctor because he used opiates. BUT, he certainly was not deficient in his work.


There will be those that can function under the influence of a substance. Are they at the top of their game? Probably not.


----------



## blanket (May 28, 2013)

After an industrial accident in my state, the people involved are drug tested. Amazing how many are found to be using drugs. No they are not industrious and anyone trying to support their argument is just plain stupid


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Skamp said:


> There will be those that can function under the influence of a substance. Are they at the top of their game? Probably not.


I'm not arguing with you, personally, but just quoted you in order to carry on the same line of thought.
Most people who are addicted to opiates are people who got there through a great deal of pain, and prescriptions. Hardly anybody wants to be a street addict, and sets out on that path intentionally. When I say hardly anybody, that would be in context of the number of people who are considered addicts, most being medical...
And like non-addicts, some do a good job, some not so good. I personally know people who would never take drugs, but are about as common as it gets.
My takeaway is that there are good and bad actors, some on drugs, some not. However(this is the important part) it's not the drugs that made a person good or bad, competent or incompetent. It's the person who is responsible for their behavior.

For instance, if I'm going to climb a tree, the old fashioned way, and cut out the top, it's my choice whether to be stone cold sober, or completely wacked. For decades, I've made my own wine, and believe me, it's some severe stuff. So, my choice. If I decide to climb a tree dead drunk, and end up asleep at the top of a tree, hanging on by a strap under my armpits, I'm the one did that, not the wine. And the exact same is true of drugs. Doing away with drugs will in no way, shape, or form make goofballs into "A1 type" people.
Might as well legalize it, sell it in measured quantities. Take the money spent on such failed programs as are in the "war on drugs", money saved by the court and prison system, and look into ways to improve the very worst people in society, the real criminals. They need fixing, or put away until they fix themselves.


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Clem said:


> I'm not arguing with you, personally, but just quoted you in order to carry on the same line of thought.
> Most people who are addicted to opiates are people who got there through a great deal of pain, and prescriptions. Hardly anybody wants to be a street addict, and sets out on that path intentionally. When I say hardly anybody, that would be in context of the number of people who are considered addicts, most being medical...
> And like non-addicts, some do a good job, some not so good. I personally know people who would never take drugs, but are about as common as it gets.
> My takeaway is that there are good and bad actors, some on drugs, some not. However(this is the important part) it's not the drugs that made a person good or bad, competent or incompetent. It's the person who is responsible for their behavior.
> ...



Cut the top onto my house? Kill one of my kids on the drive to the job?

Sure, cut your own arm off, fall on a stick in your eye, high or not. 

Keep it to yourself. Most can’t.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

So I guess I'm not getting any mushrooms


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

As long as you can do what you normally do, it's fine!! Normally, I lay on the ground and stuff like that, so I'm good. Making a thread right now about my homemade dirt. That's the sort of thing I feel like would go good with the sort of drugs I'd take, were they legal in my state.


----------

