“The number of addicts considered problematic has fallen by half since the early 90′s. Drug use statistics in Portugal are generally “below the European average and much lower than its only European neighbour, Spain,” the report also said.

Portugal’s holistic approach had also led to a “spectacular” reduction in the number of infections among intravenous users and a significant drop in drug-related crimes”.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9C6x99EnFVdFuXw_B8pvDRzLqcA?docId=CNG.e740b6d0077ba8c28f6d1dd931c6f679.5e1

As for the distinction between drugs and alcohol (which, of course, is a drug), it is purely a false one. I see no difference. And so my position can be summed up this way: I’ll give up my margarita only when they pry the glass from my cold dead hands.

1. what is good (or bad) for them
2. what risks are worth assuming
3. what is “healthy”

I really don’t have any business deciding those things for anyone else. If a musician wants to shoot heroin, I may think that this is all so very very awful for him. He may think that it gives him the creativity needed to succeed.

It doesn’t matter if I’m right. Let me repeat that: It doesn’t matter if I’m right. Because it’s his life and it should be his decision.

If we go down the road of deciding for others what is in the best interest of others then we end up being Bill Donohue pointing at AIDS stats and announcing that homosexuality should be banned because it is an unhealthy lifestyle.

You don’t die from NOT getting high and using drugs a RECREATION.
Therefore, using drugs for that purpose is NON ESSENTIAL, and also it’s effects are direct and NEGATIVE because of who ELSE is either exposed to marijuana in the presence of a user, or their behavior while stoned.

It’s STILL risky for other reasons when users don’t confine themselves away from their jobs, or relationships or responsibilities while high.
Counting on the honor system of people who DO take risks regardless, is naive at best, and stupid at worst.

Marijuana isn’t a healthy pursuit, nor should young people be told it’s harmless and ONLY affects them. The conditions under which that would be true, are rather difficult to actually accomplish.
As with anything else, there are millions of people whose brain chemistry will make them addicted. Taking risks, especially in doing something illegal, is part of a personality issue, not just having the drugs available legally.
OTHER factors MUST be in place, and it’s a good bet, regular users won’t like THAT end of accountability.

Such as random tests, admitting such usage to potential or current employers and expecting scrutiny when it comes to the welfare of their children or others they are responsible for.

Food is obtainable through charity, and open regular mission halls and food banks for free. Food IS necessary, marijuana is not, for a healthy person.

The real question is, why would a person go out of their way to get high, get others high with them, at the expense of even a casual visit and interaction with friends?

I would think a problem is already there, that’s only hidden or exacerbated by the desire to get high to the extent of risking freedom and other things.

It truly is a victimless crime if you think about from a different point of view. Dealer is happy. User is happy. Look at the Big Pharm. They make oxy pills and sell them. We don’t stop making oxy because someone broke into a pharmacy.

So, I say that Priya is right.

i hope his hate and intolerance rot in jail.

I don’t see users of illegal drugs as being equivalent to dealers. And I don’t see a small-time street dealer as equivalent to someone like Buju Banton. They shouldn’t be treated similarly under the law.

The category “drugs” is a conflation of unalike things, a logically fallacious aggregation of apples and oranges. Illegal heroin, Oxycontin, Dilaudid, cocaine, crack and methedrine aren’t eqivalent to marijuana or hashish in the harm they do. These drugs occupy differing major drug categories and do far different things to their users. I don’t think they should be treated similarly under the law.

But as to Banton, he’s a little creep with a bad attitude, and that attitude has finally gotten him consequences that stopped him cold. He may not learn a single positive lesson from this experience, but I agree with the poster who said it will be beneficial in and of itself to have him out of the way for the next 5-10 years.

This was HIS CHOICE. He was not forced by economic factors – unless he had made other unfortunate choices before.

He was/is a “star”. He remained very popular, even after the whole anti-gay murder thing.

Why indulge in illegal activity? If you want to change those laws — use your money and power to work toward that end.

What does the ultimate outcome of changing drug laws have to do with Mr. Banton’s conviction?

He took his chance — he lost. Given the charges, 10 years is not that bad.

As far as his anti-gay stance is concerned, prison might well change him. He well might end up someones “boyfriend”, or might end up having a “boyfriend”. In any case, his conviction has nothing to do with his advocacy of gay murder.

Then again, perhaps some gay person will not be killed simply because he will not be out and about telling folks to kill other HUMAN BEINGS.

I recently saw an article regarding some tainted cocaine that is causing skin eating infections in people.
Wonder how much it costs for treating these problems.
There are addicts claiming disability and other public services, even after they are no longer using.
And this isn’t ‘a few’ who have a problem, it’s hundreds of thousands. If not millions…