Natural Hallucinogens

[ZRH]

Understandable. To be honest I don't see why the exhibitionism should be an issue. But that's just me and others may not agree. Perhaps the majority of the voting populace in NY would prefer not to have people having sex in broad daylight.....

and thus laws for public intoxication or exhibitionism or anything that that occurs in public yet doesn't directly harm others should be left up to individual municipalities, counties, or at best, states to decide. In either case the Federal government should have zero say in any of those issues.

I didnt say anything about the Federal government. They dont have the authority to make those kind of laws. Every state has a public intoxication law. The Federal government can use money to encourage the sort of laws they like in any case, e.g. drinking age 21.

Let's say one particular town does. They're a bunch of happy go lucky drinkers and would like to enjoy drinking in public. Should they not be allowed to decide their own laws on the matter?

Municipal codes cant override State law. They have no soviergn power.

 

[Sarcasmo]

That's not how it happened when Prohibition was repealed. Tell me, if you had the choice between buying a 1/4oz of weed from some guy named Joe that your buddy knows or from Walgreens, which would you choose? The unknown, unreliable source or the one you know has gone through quality control for health and safety concerns?

There is nothing unreliable about the products currently coming out of South America. Which is why the cartels are worth billions upon billions of dollars. There are exceptions to everything, but the big players got that big through deliberate design. Do you think they would add a few more cogs to their machine to encourage the now far less fearful American consumers to spend even more money on their products? Their products would surpass anything offered by Walgreens, I can almost promise you.

 

[my little brony]

I didnt say anything about the Federal government. They dont have the authority to make those kind of laws. Every state has a public intoxication law. The Federal government can use money to encourage the sort of laws they like in any case, e.g. drinking age 21.

We can an 18 year old into a war zone to die for his country but he can't have a beer when he returns from deployment.

Municipal codes cant override State law. They have no soviergn power.

I realize that. Are you sure that all states have public intoxication laws?

 

[ZRH]

Who is going to find and pursue the millions of people who are evading those taxes, and how are you going to prove they actually ARE evading if you have no idea what they're producing and where? The chemicals used to make most drugs can be found at Walgreens, and these people are ingenius when it comes to covering up their activities. It's not for want of trying, it's simply impossible to track some of them down.

Look at drug use today. It's a vast subculture, and yet it's illegal. That wouldn't change just because you make it legal and decide to tax it. It is a completely uncontrollable and immeasurable monster. After three years of working with prosecutors at the DOJ, that's the one thing I learned the fastest. Everything you do represents about .0003% of what you COULD do or would like to do.

I know that people CAN get away with a great deal and they do. The advantage of taxation and regulation though would to the average consumer outweigh the burden of paying a small tax. Why dont people buy vast quantities of tax free alcohol? Because quality varies so much, it isnt generally safe, and the only advantage is that they dont pay a VERY small tax on it. AFAIK the only place where it even competes with licensed production is WV and south PA.

 

[my little brony]

There is nothing unreliable about the products currently coming out of South America. Which is why the cartels are worth billions upon billions of dollars. There are exceptions to everything, but the big players got that big through deliberate design. Do you think they would add a few more cogs to their machine to encourage the now far less fearful American consumers to spend even more money on their products? Their products would surpass anything offered by Walgreens, I can almost promise you.

Say what? The reason cartels are worth billions upon billions is because they're the only source of the product. Of course they're unreliable; you never know the true purity of the product you're getting unless you're an accomplished chemist and considering the number of hands it passes through there's no telling what other deadly stuff could be in there.

You don't think that Abbot labs could produce better cocaine than the guys in Colombia that pay kids ten cents to stamp on plastic sheets for six hours?

 

[Sarcasmo]

Understandable. To be honest I don't see why the exhibitionism should be an issue. But that's just me and others may not agree. Perhaps the majority of the voting populace in NY would prefer not to have people having sex in broad daylight.....


and thus laws for public intoxication or exhibitionism or anything that that occurs in public yet doesn't directly harm others should be left up to individual municipalities, counties, or at best, states to decide. In either case the Federal government should have zero say in any of those issues.

joke

Let's say one particular town does. They're a bunch of happy go lucky drinkers and would like to enjoy drinking in public. Should they not be allowed to decide their own laws on the matter?

Yes, and they do. If the States don't say otherwise.

 

[ZRH]

We can an 18 year old into a war zone to die for his country but he can't have a beer when he returns from deployment.

Voting age use to be 21 too. Conscription is never going to happen again in any case. There would be a civil war first.

I realize that. Are you sure that all states have public intoxication laws?

A quick search of Findlaw seems to say so.

 

[my little brony]

Voting age use to be 21 too. Conscription is never going to happen again in any case. There would be a civil war first.

Conscription? I'm talking about the fact that an 18 year old is considered mature enough to carry an M16 into battle or direct a 45 million dollar Hornet across the deck of an aircraft carrier but for some reason isn't mature enough to have a beer.

A quick search of Findlaw seems to say so. Most of them are part of the MV code.

rgr. you make a good point either way

 

[ZRH]

Conscription? I'm talking about the fact that an 18 year old is considered mature enough to carry an M16 into battle or direct a 45 million dollar Hornet across the deck of an aircraft carrier but for some reason isn't mature enough to have a beer.

Ah, well the thing is that the only people who care about the drinking age are 18-21. Once you turn 21 it's a non-issue. Around here it's also a non issue because the cops frankly dont care unless you are outside, driving, or making a lot of noise.

rgr. you make a good point either way

 

[Sarcasmo]

Say what? The reason cartels are worth billions upon billions is because they're the only source of the product. Of course they're unreliable; you never know the true purity of the product you're getting unless you're an accomplished chemist and considering the number of hands it passes through there's no telling what other deadly stuff could be in there.

You don't think that Abbot labs could produce better cocaine than the guys in Colombia that pay kids ten cents to stamp on plastic sheets for six hours?

Have you ever seen a pound of coke with 99% purity? I've seen several. Straight out of the "ghettos" of Venezuela and Columbia. I wonder how a bunch of talentless, uncommitted hacks could produce something like that without chemistry degrees or proper facilities. Don't believe everything you see on t.v. or read in books.

I should take you bowling with a buddy of mine in the DEA. He has stories about corruption and pharmaceutical intrigue that would leave you drooling. Drugs in South America go all the way to the top. Abbott Labs? They've got nothing that the cartels don't have. It's the same thing. I bet they even know the same people and go to the same Christmas parties.

But you're right, the weak spot is in the distribution channels. Once it gets to them they can do whatever they want with it. But with the exponential increase in profits that legalized drugs would bring those channels would likely be cleaned up in a hurry, though of course that's just talk. There's no way to know for sure.

 

[my little brony]

Ah, well the thing is that the only people who care about the drinking age are 18-21. Once you turn 21 it's a non-issue. Around here it's also a non issue because the cops frankly dont care unless you are outside, driving, or making a lot of noise.

I'm 23 and I still think the drinking age is stupid.

 

[my little brony]

Have you ever seen a pound of coke with 99% purity? I've seen several. Straight out of the "ghettos" of Venezuela and Columbia. I wonder how a bunch of talentless, uncommitted hacks could produce something like that without chemistry degrees or proper facilities. Don't believe everything you see on t.v. or read in books.

I've seen several as well. But how many dime bags have you seen that pure? I guarantee you not a single one because to find an importer that doesn't cut, a distributor that doesn't cut, a wholesaler that doesn't cut, and a dealer that doesn't cut is nigh impossible. I never said the stuff wasn't made well, only that by the time it gets to your hands it could be laced with god knows what or be a hell of a lot less than what you're paying for. Having it in a regulated form, available by prescription, would eliminate many of the dangers associated with most drugs.

I should take you bowling with a buddy of mine in the DEA. He has stories about corruption and pharmaceutical intrigue that would leave you drooling. Drugs in South America go all the way to the top. Abbott Labs? They've got nothing that the cartels don't have. It's the same thing. I bet they even know the same people and go to the same Christmas parties.

No doubt but at least in the case of Abbot the money isn't going into the hands of murderers, thieves, gangs and hell, even terrorists. At least with Abbot there's quality control from manufacturing to the store shelf. At least with Abbot there are strict health and safety guidelines to follow and workers aren't killed and dumped in harbors when they don't perform.

But you're right, the weak spot is in the distribution channels. Once it gets to them they can do whatever they want with it. But with the exponential increase in profits that legalized drugs would bring those channels would likely be cleaned up in a hurry, though of course that's just talk. There's no way to know for sure.

Yes there is. It happened once already in 1933.

 

[Epididymis]

One little point to add:

Public intoxication, no matter what the substance is and should be illegal.

What should be a measure of intoxication? DWI (alcohol) has a clear threshold. Plenty of people drink alcohol moderately in public places. If other substances were made to be legal, they should likewise have some form of standardized threshold, no?

 

[Epididymis]

There is nothing unreliable about the products currently coming out of South America. Which is why the cartels are worth billions upon billions of dollars. There are exceptions to everything, but the big players got that big through deliberate design. Do you think they would add a few more cogs to their machine to encourage the now far less fearful American consumers to spend even more money on their products? Their products would surpass anything offered by Walgreens, I can almost promise you.

I think this is a misreprentation. The original point was that one cannot trust the purity or quality of these illicit products. Sure, some are made well, and some are made poorly. Some are clean, some are cut with all kinds of garbage. Some makers can't get ahold of the sovents they want, so they use sovents that leave toxic residues. The fact is that you just don't know.

I do know that the alcohol I buy from the store doesn't have significant quantities of methanol in it. There's a good chance that the moonshine I buy from farmer JoeBob doesn't have methanol in it either. But then again, I don't know for sure...

 

[ZRH]

What should be a measure of intoxication? DWI (alcohol) has a clear threshold. Plenty of people drink alcohol moderately in public places. If other substances were made to be legal, they should likewise have some form of standardized threshold, no?

The threshold for public intoxication isnt like DWI/DUI, it's normally subjective and up to the individual officers and the court to decide. Acting like you are drunk even if you havent had any alcohol will still land you with a fine. It normally written into the Statute.

For example:

§ 18.2-388. Profane swearing and intoxication in public; penalty; transportation of public inebriates to detoxification center.

If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In any area in which there is located a court-approved detoxification center a law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to such detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center.

 

[eileenbunny]

IMO there's no question of public intoxication. People shouldn't go out in public and cause a ruckus no matter who they are or what they are drinking/smoking/eating/injecting. If you are bothering someone to the point where their quality of life is effected, then you've gone too far. Certainly nobody should go out and drive under the influence. You are putting other people's lives in danger and that's just not cool.

However, what I do in my home on my own time shouldn't be anyone else's business but my own. If I'm responsible and safe, I don't see where the harm is. Our country is spending a lot of time trying to legislate against stupidity, and it just isn't possible.

 

[Epididymis]

IMO there's no question of public intoxication. People shouldn't go out in public and cause a ruckus no matter who they are or what they are drinking/smoking/eating/injecting. If you are bothering someone to the point where their quality of life is effected, then you've gone too far. Certainly nobody should go out and drive under the influence. You are putting other people's lives in danger and that's just not cool.

However, what I do in my home on my own time shouldn't be anyone else's business but my own. If I'm responsible and safe, I don't see where the harm is. Our country is spending a lot of time trying to legislate against stupidity, and it just isn't possible.

I propose that before decriminalization of various substances could ever happen, the issue of what constitutes intoxication would need to be clarified. This goes for public, driving, etc. Perhaps less subjective measurements and standards could be instated; and there would be different standards for different situations. With present saliva/breath/skin/sweat/whatever non-intrusive testing technology we have and will have in the near future, I think more quantitative standards for intoxication will be easier.

The fact of the matter is that all substances are different, and effects vary by dose. I honestly think there is an amount of many different presently illicit substances that wouldn't effectively impair one's driving ability any more than a <.08 BAC. There are also substances which could seriously impair driving ability at any amount. It's easy to say alcohol is okay at <.08 BAC, but any amount of anything else is bad, when anything else is illegal. It's not easy to say that when those other things are legal. Same goes for public consumption. We have bars. We have alcohol at ball games, and in churches and, in samples at grocery stores. There are certain amounts of alcohol that are okay, certain behavioral changes that are not considered extreme enough to be legally considered intoxication, and this would have to be applied for other substances as well for any decriminalization to occur.

 

[ZRH]

I propose that before decriminalization of various substances could ever happen, the issue of what constitutes intoxication would need to be clarified. This goes for public, driving, etc. Perhaps less subjective measurements and standards could be instated; and there would be different standards for different situations. With present saliva/breath/skin/sweat/whatever non-intrusive testing technology we have and will have in the near future, I think more quantitative standards for intoxication will be easier.

The fact of the matter is that all substances are different, and effects vary by dose. I honestly think there is an amount of many different presently illicit substances that wouldn't effectively impair one's driving ability any more than a <.08 BAC. There are also substances which could seriously impair driving ability at any amount. It's easy to say alcohol is okay at <.08 BAC, but any amount of anything else is bad, when anything else is illegal. It's not easy to say that when those other things are legal. Same goes for public consumption. We have bars. We have alcohol at ball games, and in churches and, in samples at grocery stores. There are certain amounts of alcohol that are okay, certain behavioral changes that are not considered extreme enough to be legally considered intoxication, and this would have to be applied for other substances as well for any decriminalization to occur.

There already is, just most people arent aware of it.

For example NY:

S 1192. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol
or drugs.

1. Driving while ability impaired. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person`s ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol.
2. Driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .10 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in the person`s blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person`s blood, breath, urine or saliva, made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this article.
3. Driving while intoxicated. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.
4. Driving while ability impaired by drugs. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person`s ability to operate such a motor vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug as defined in this chapter.

NY and most other states have two or three DWI statutes. There is the .10% "in its own right" statute, that no matter what your ability you are guilty if you have that amount of alcohol in your system. Then there is the intoxication statute, even without a blood test if you are in an 'intoxicated condition' it is a crime to operate. The last one takes away your defence for use of OTC and other drugs, essentially if your ability is impaired at all by any drug it is a crime.

I can get court cases to give you a better definition of the two other statutes but I think I explained it pretty well. The BAC statutes are essentially a tool to streamline the justice procedure, there is no defense to it once a person is tested. Most of the cases around here actually stem from the DUI/DWAI statutes. They only haul out the breath test stuff on holidays and friday night.

 

[my little brony]

BAC laws in themselves are pretty arbitrary. People don't understand that the only thing Blood Alcohol Content tells you is blood alcohol content. That's it. It is not an accurate measure of intoxication.

 

[eileenbunny]

I propose that before decriminalization of various substances could ever happen, the issue of what constitutes intoxication would need to be clarified. This goes for public, driving, etc. Perhaps less subjective measurements and standards could be instated; and there would be different standards for different situations. With present saliva/breath/skin/sweat/whatever non-intrusive testing technology we have and will have in the near future, I think more quantitative standards for intoxication will be easier.

The fact of the matter is that all substances are different, and effects vary by dose. I honestly think there is an amount of many different presently illicit substances that wouldn't effectively impair one's driving ability any more than a <.08 BAC. There are also substances which could seriously impair driving ability at any amount. It's easy to say alcohol is okay at <.08 BAC, but any amount of anything else is bad, when anything else is illegal. It's not easy to say that when those other things are legal. Same goes for public consumption. We have bars. We have alcohol at ball games, and in churches and, in samples at grocery stores. There are certain amounts of alcohol that are okay, certain behavioral changes that are not considered extreme enough to be legally considered intoxication, and this would have to be applied for other substances as well for any decriminalization to occur.

I don't think it matters whether they define it or not. I've never taken a drug and thought "I'm okay to drive." I think that nobody else should either. Driving is a privilige, and a dangerous one at that. It is irresponsible to get behind the wheel of a large piece of metal when you don't have all your wits about you. We really shouldn't need any laws about this at all. If you are using, DON'T DRIVE!!! I think the whole BAC thing is a load of crap. One beer or twenty, I just think people shouldn't drive. Sadly, people are going to continue to do this and it's a problem, but all the laws in the world hasn't stopped it.

As far as being impaired in public, it's really easy to define, and I believe I did in my previous post. Don't bother anyone else so that their quality of life is effected. It really doesn't matter what you are on, this is just a good rule of thumb. If you can't act like a human being, don't go out.

Maybe we should just make the law state that if you are gonna use, do it at home and don't go anywhere.