joey93turbo
December 9, 2004, 02:59 PM
I just read this article here. Curious to hear your thoughts and comments...
http://www.actionamerica.org/drugs/fundterr.html
http://www.actionamerica.org/drugs/fundterr.html
Legalize Drugs? What do you think of this article?
If you enjoyed reading about "Legalize Drugs? What do you think of this article?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rl2669
December 9, 2004, 04:09 PM
I support decriminalization of most drugs - but in my mind its not the same thing as legalization.
I do not want to see this country become Holland, where drugs are sold openly in cafes and on street corners. The slippery slope is very slippery, and it leads to many other problems.
In my perfect world, people who wanted to do drugs go to a Doctor, explain that they are an addict, and get treatment they need to get off drugs. This makes drugs not a recreational activity, nor a hugely lucrative criminal enterprise, but a medical and social problem much like alcoholism.
I suffer from a condition that many people feel can necessitate medical MJ; although I don't smoke pot for it as I'm not in pain, I think people who are in pain should have access to whatever they need to not be in pain, so I support medically supervised access to drugs, including MJ.
My goal of decriminalization is to take the money out of it, so the bad guys are put out of business, the violence stops, etc. - prohibition all over again - and to let the law enforcement folks concentrate on more serious threats. Another huge problem with the supposed "War on Drugs" is that its become a war on the rights of law abiding people.
FWIW - I've never tried any of the stuff, and wouldn't start even if the law changes. As I explained to my family doctor once, I hate smoking, hate taking pills, and loathe needles (sometimes I feel dizzy or even throw up after an immunization or a blood test). So, question to family doctor - how on earth would I get the drugs INTO me if in fact I wanted to take them?
I do not want to see this country become Holland, where drugs are sold openly in cafes and on street corners. The slippery slope is very slippery, and it leads to many other problems.
In my perfect world, people who wanted to do drugs go to a Doctor, explain that they are an addict, and get treatment they need to get off drugs. This makes drugs not a recreational activity, nor a hugely lucrative criminal enterprise, but a medical and social problem much like alcoholism.
I suffer from a condition that many people feel can necessitate medical MJ; although I don't smoke pot for it as I'm not in pain, I think people who are in pain should have access to whatever they need to not be in pain, so I support medically supervised access to drugs, including MJ.
My goal of decriminalization is to take the money out of it, so the bad guys are put out of business, the violence stops, etc. - prohibition all over again - and to let the law enforcement folks concentrate on more serious threats. Another huge problem with the supposed "War on Drugs" is that its become a war on the rights of law abiding people.
FWIW - I've never tried any of the stuff, and wouldn't start even if the law changes. As I explained to my family doctor once, I hate smoking, hate taking pills, and loathe needles (sometimes I feel dizzy or even throw up after an immunization or a blood test). So, question to family doctor - how on earth would I get the drugs INTO me if in fact I wanted to take them?
slugcatcher
December 9, 2004, 04:21 PM
I think there may be a case for legalized medical uses but... I personally think anyone that manufactures or sells or distributes or smuggles/transports illegal narcotics and/or uses children to perform any of the previous actions should be executed. Just my opinion.
Yowza
December 9, 2004, 04:33 PM
...anyone that manufactures or sells or distributes or smuggles/transports illegal narcotics...should be executed. Why? Because they're illegal? If these various narcotics weren't illegal, this statement wouldn't make much sense, would it.
Rick
Rick
griz
December 9, 2004, 04:35 PM
If I understand him correctly, the drugs would only be sold to people in a treatment program. I don't understand how that would work, but if other countries have done it I might just be missing something.
Anyway, I'm for legalizing or decriminalizing (I see no difference between the terms) drugs. I like the idea of treating those who want help since they are physically bad for you in the long run. I believe people who want them will use them anyway, so why add legal problems to their mental and physical problems? Legalizing it would take out the profit. Ironically, drug prohibition creates it's own need for an unwinable "war on drugs".
Anyway, I'm for legalizing or decriminalizing (I see no difference between the terms) drugs. I like the idea of treating those who want help since they are physically bad for you in the long run. I believe people who want them will use them anyway, so why add legal problems to their mental and physical problems? Legalizing it would take out the profit. Ironically, drug prohibition creates it's own need for an unwinable "war on drugs".
clipse
December 9, 2004, 05:03 PM
I think it should be legalized. There should be manufacterers and it should be sold just like cigerettes and beer. And the government should tax the crap out of it.
clipse
clipse
slugcatcher
December 9, 2004, 05:09 PM
Yowza,
They're illegal for a reason. We need serious punishment for these people. Legalizing pot for medical use would mean just that. Medical use only. Any other use would be illegal. The article that joey linked discusses how terrorists use the drug trade for financial support. That's a bigger problem. It needs to be addressed. Make the cost of the drug trade higher than the dealers can afford and prices will follow. They will price themselves out of a market. Serious and terminal punishment is one way to get that happening.
Griz,
I don't see how it will work either especially if there are not stiff penalties for those who abuse the system.
As far as legalizing/decriminalizing I think it's just a bad idea. I agree we as a nation need to make a serious effor to help all those that we can to kick the habit and get on with productive lives. Part of the problem imo is there is no serious punishment for the ones on the supply side. So date rape drugs are ok? How about crack? Are you going to say,"free opium for all."? I don't see that logic. What about kids? Look at cigarettes. They're legal for anyone 18 and up. How many 17 and under smoke? Are you comfortable with having kids have such easy access to narcotics as well?
slug
They're illegal for a reason. We need serious punishment for these people. Legalizing pot for medical use would mean just that. Medical use only. Any other use would be illegal. The article that joey linked discusses how terrorists use the drug trade for financial support. That's a bigger problem. It needs to be addressed. Make the cost of the drug trade higher than the dealers can afford and prices will follow. They will price themselves out of a market. Serious and terminal punishment is one way to get that happening.
Griz,
I don't see how it will work either especially if there are not stiff penalties for those who abuse the system.
As far as legalizing/decriminalizing I think it's just a bad idea. I agree we as a nation need to make a serious effor to help all those that we can to kick the habit and get on with productive lives. Part of the problem imo is there is no serious punishment for the ones on the supply side. So date rape drugs are ok? How about crack? Are you going to say,"free opium for all."? I don't see that logic. What about kids? Look at cigarettes. They're legal for anyone 18 and up. How many 17 and under smoke? Are you comfortable with having kids have such easy access to narcotics as well?
slug
USP45usp
December 9, 2004, 05:28 PM
As an American I should be allowed to do with my brain and my body as I wish. As long as I didn't intrude on other peoples Rights in the process. What I do in my own home or yard is my business.
The government (state and federal) has no authority to regulate me, my life, or my property (no matter the law).
Wayne
*that said, I have tried MJ and it made me sick. I don't like to take pain killers (even when I broke my ribs which was the worst pain I've ever experienced). I don't like needles, would be really hard pressed if I ever got diabetis(sp) or had to inject myself for whatever reason. I don't like stuff going up my nose and I do smoke ciggs but am quitting.
The government (state and federal) has no authority to regulate me, my life, or my property (no matter the law).
Wayne
*that said, I have tried MJ and it made me sick. I don't like to take pain killers (even when I broke my ribs which was the worst pain I've ever experienced). I don't like needles, would be really hard pressed if I ever got diabetis(sp) or had to inject myself for whatever reason. I don't like stuff going up my nose and I do smoke ciggs but am quitting.
Michigander
December 9, 2004, 05:54 PM
I concur with Mr. Gaver.
However, when he writes,
In fact, there would be only two losers in this equation; the terrorists, who would lose a major amount of funds and our lawmakers, who would lose a tremendous amount of power over the voters. And therein, lies the rub. The only way that our lawmakers (including Republicans) will ever vote for any measure that would reduce their power over the voters, is if their constituents give them no choice. You must make your wishes known to your elected representatives at every level, all the way up to the Whitehouse and back up those wishes with your votes, or they will continue to vote themselves more power over you, at the expense of effective policy and a shredded Constitution.(emphasis added)
I have less hope in the "system" than he.
However, when he writes,
In fact, there would be only two losers in this equation; the terrorists, who would lose a major amount of funds and our lawmakers, who would lose a tremendous amount of power over the voters. And therein, lies the rub. The only way that our lawmakers (including Republicans) will ever vote for any measure that would reduce their power over the voters, is if their constituents give them no choice. You must make your wishes known to your elected representatives at every level, all the way up to the Whitehouse and back up those wishes with your votes, or they will continue to vote themselves more power over you, at the expense of effective policy and a shredded Constitution.(emphasis added)
I have less hope in the "system" than he.
CentralTexas
December 9, 2004, 05:57 PM
from www.lp.org
The Libertarian Party asks:
SHOULD WE RE-LEGALIZE DRUGS?
Should We Re-Legalize Drugs?
Libertarians, like most Americans, demand to be safe at home and on the streets. Libertarians would like all Americans to be healthy and free of drug dependence. But drug laws don't help, they make things worse.
The professional politicians scramble to make names for themselves as tough anti-drug warriors, while the experts agree that the "war on drugs" has been lost, and could never be won. The tragic victims of that war are your personal liberty and its companion, responsibility. It's time to consider the re-legalization of drugs.
The Lessons of Prohibition
In the 1920's, alcohol was made illegal by Prohibition. The result: Organized Crime. Criminals jumped at the chance to supply the demand for liquor. The streets became battlegrounds. The criminals bought off law enforcement and judges. Adulterated booze blinded and killed people. Civil rights were trampled in the hopeless attempt to keep people from drinking.
When the American people saw what Prohibition was doing to them, they supported its repeal. When they succeeded, most states legalized liquor and the criminal gangs were out of the liquor business.
Today's war on drugs is a re-run of Prohibition. Approximately 40 million Americans are occasional, peaceful users of some illegal drug who are no threat to anyone. They are not going to stop. The laws don't, and can't, stop drug use.
Organized Crime Profits
Whenever there is a great demand for a product and government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand. The price of the product rises dramatically and the opportunity for huge profits is obvious. The criminal gangs love the situation, making millions. They kill other drug dealers, along with innocent people caught in the crossfire, to protect their territory. They corrupt police and courts. Pushers sell adulterated dope and experimental drugs, causing injury and death. And because drugs are illegal, their victims have no recourse.
Crime Increases
Half the cost of law enforcement and prisons is squandered on drug related crime. Of all drug users, a relative few are addicts who commit crimes daily to supply artificially expensive habits. They are the robbers, car thieves and burglars who make our homes and streets unsafe.
An American Police State
Civil liberties suffer. We are all "suspects", subject to random urine tests, highway check points and spying into our personal finances. Your property can be seized without trial, if the police merely claim you got it with drug profits. Doing business with cash makes you a suspect. America is becoming a police state because of the war on drugs.
America Can Handle Legal Drugs
Today's illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana. Drugs were inexpensive; crime was low. Most users handled their drug of choice and lived normal, productive lives. Addicts out of control were a tiny minority.
The first laws prohibiting drugs were racist in origin -- to prevent Chinese laborers from using opium and to prevent blacks and Hispanics from using cocaine and marijuana. That was unjust and unfair, just as it is unjust and unfair to make criminals of peaceful drug users today.
Some Americans will always use alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or other drugs. Most are not addicts, they are social drinkers or occasional users. Legal drugs would be inexpensive, so even addicts could support their habits with honest work, rather than by crime. Organized crime would be deprived of its profits. The police could return to protecting us from real criminals; and there would be room enough in existing prisons for them.
Try Personal Responsibility
It's time to re-legalize drugs and let people take responsibility for themselves. Drug abuse is a tragedy and a sickness. Criminal laws only drive the problem underground and put money in the pockets of the criminal class. With drugs legal, compassionate people could do more to educate and rehabilitate drug users who seek help. Drugs should be legal. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions.
From the Mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke, to conservative writer and TV personality, William F. Buckley, Jr., leading Americans are now calling for repeal of America's repressive and ineffective drug laws. The Libertarian Party urges you to join in this effort to make our streets safer and our liberties more secure.
The Libertarian Party asks:
SHOULD WE RE-LEGALIZE DRUGS?
Should We Re-Legalize Drugs?
Libertarians, like most Americans, demand to be safe at home and on the streets. Libertarians would like all Americans to be healthy and free of drug dependence. But drug laws don't help, they make things worse.
The professional politicians scramble to make names for themselves as tough anti-drug warriors, while the experts agree that the "war on drugs" has been lost, and could never be won. The tragic victims of that war are your personal liberty and its companion, responsibility. It's time to consider the re-legalization of drugs.
The Lessons of Prohibition
In the 1920's, alcohol was made illegal by Prohibition. The result: Organized Crime. Criminals jumped at the chance to supply the demand for liquor. The streets became battlegrounds. The criminals bought off law enforcement and judges. Adulterated booze blinded and killed people. Civil rights were trampled in the hopeless attempt to keep people from drinking.
When the American people saw what Prohibition was doing to them, they supported its repeal. When they succeeded, most states legalized liquor and the criminal gangs were out of the liquor business.
Today's war on drugs is a re-run of Prohibition. Approximately 40 million Americans are occasional, peaceful users of some illegal drug who are no threat to anyone. They are not going to stop. The laws don't, and can't, stop drug use.
Organized Crime Profits
Whenever there is a great demand for a product and government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand. The price of the product rises dramatically and the opportunity for huge profits is obvious. The criminal gangs love the situation, making millions. They kill other drug dealers, along with innocent people caught in the crossfire, to protect their territory. They corrupt police and courts. Pushers sell adulterated dope and experimental drugs, causing injury and death. And because drugs are illegal, their victims have no recourse.
Crime Increases
Half the cost of law enforcement and prisons is squandered on drug related crime. Of all drug users, a relative few are addicts who commit crimes daily to supply artificially expensive habits. They are the robbers, car thieves and burglars who make our homes and streets unsafe.
An American Police State
Civil liberties suffer. We are all "suspects", subject to random urine tests, highway check points and spying into our personal finances. Your property can be seized without trial, if the police merely claim you got it with drug profits. Doing business with cash makes you a suspect. America is becoming a police state because of the war on drugs.
America Can Handle Legal Drugs
Today's illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana. Drugs were inexpensive; crime was low. Most users handled their drug of choice and lived normal, productive lives. Addicts out of control were a tiny minority.
The first laws prohibiting drugs were racist in origin -- to prevent Chinese laborers from using opium and to prevent blacks and Hispanics from using cocaine and marijuana. That was unjust and unfair, just as it is unjust and unfair to make criminals of peaceful drug users today.
Some Americans will always use alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or other drugs. Most are not addicts, they are social drinkers or occasional users. Legal drugs would be inexpensive, so even addicts could support their habits with honest work, rather than by crime. Organized crime would be deprived of its profits. The police could return to protecting us from real criminals; and there would be room enough in existing prisons for them.
Try Personal Responsibility
It's time to re-legalize drugs and let people take responsibility for themselves. Drug abuse is a tragedy and a sickness. Criminal laws only drive the problem underground and put money in the pockets of the criminal class. With drugs legal, compassionate people could do more to educate and rehabilitate drug users who seek help. Drugs should be legal. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions.
From the Mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke, to conservative writer and TV personality, William F. Buckley, Jr., leading Americans are now calling for repeal of America's repressive and ineffective drug laws. The Libertarian Party urges you to join in this effort to make our streets safer and our liberties more secure.
CannibalCrowley
December 9, 2004, 06:16 PM
They're illegal for a reason.What reason is that? I'd really be interested in why this country has chosen to make some narcotics illegal while others remain legal.Look at cigarettes. They're legal for anyone 18 and up. How many 17 and under smoke?Doesn't that show you how futile drug laws are?I agree we as a nation need to make a serious effor to help all those that we can to kick the habit and get on with productive lives.I know an awful lot of people who don't want to quit using, and they live productive lives. In fact many people use narcotics and live productive lives, whether legal or not.
People need to view both Penn & Teller's show BS when they highlighted the WoSD as well as the specials that the History Channel aired. P&T have a great scene with a guy smoking a joint in front of the capital, that scene alone would be worth it.
People need to view both Penn & Teller's show BS when they highlighted the WoSD as well as the specials that the History Channel aired. P&T have a great scene with a guy smoking a joint in front of the capital, that scene alone would be worth it.
Sindawe
December 9, 2004, 06:26 PM
What reason is that? I'd really be interested in why this country has chosen to make some narcotics illegal while others remain legal.
Race and money.
Opium laws came about for fears that the Yellow Peril (Asians) would lead good upstanding white women into lives of prostituion and despair with their opium dens.
Cocaine laws came about from fears of cocaine addicted blacks would go on rampages of raping white women.
Marijuana laws came about for fear of the Mexicans going on murder sprees after smoking some weed, and hemp was starting to threaten William Randalf Hersts paper making empire.
Race and money.
Opium laws came about for fears that the Yellow Peril (Asians) would lead good upstanding white women into lives of prostituion and despair with their opium dens.
Cocaine laws came about from fears of cocaine addicted blacks would go on rampages of raping white women.
Marijuana laws came about for fear of the Mexicans going on murder sprees after smoking some weed, and hemp was starting to threaten William Randalf Hersts paper making empire.
griz
December 9, 2004, 06:34 PM
Slugcatcher, I think we are viewing this from opposite directions. Making the cost of drugs higher will only worsen the problem, which is the profits are too great to ignore for those with a criminal bent. Reduce the cost by legalizing it and you eliminate the incentive for dealers and the government to continue the very expensive WoD.
And you are right that I don't want kids doing drugs. But I don't want them getting drunk or smoking either. Legislating judgement is a bad way to prevent self-victimizing choices.
And you are right that I don't want kids doing drugs. But I don't want them getting drunk or smoking either. Legislating judgement is a bad way to prevent self-victimizing choices.
Chris Rhines
December 9, 2004, 07:18 PM
Do you own your own body?
Then why is it anyone else's business what chemicals you choose to put in it?
- Chris
Then why is it anyone else's business what chemicals you choose to put in it?
- Chris
Standing Wolf
December 9, 2004, 08:35 PM
...the government should tax the crap out of it.
Why? Just because government can impose sin taxes?
Why? Just because government can impose sin taxes?
slugcatcher
December 9, 2004, 08:49 PM
Ok gentlemen obviously we have a difference of opinion. I'll try to collect my thoughts and make my point better (bear with me).
So you want it legalized and regulated by the government? You really think that is going to work? You think that will make it cheaper and safer? You think that will eliminate the black market? You're seriously underestimating human nature if that's the case. Do you really think the crackhead is going to magically go get a job to support his now legal habit? :confused:
Casual users? I know several. They show up to work and they pay their taxes. Beyond that they are not functional members of society. The ones I know are highly educated and know/do their jobs very well most of the time. However their home lives are a mess. Their responsibilities as spouses and parents take a backseat to "relieving stress". That may not be the experience you have with the casual users you know Cannibal but it is for me. As far as kids smoking that due to bad parenting as are nearly all social problems. Not due to the fact that it's illegal for kids to buy cigarettes. Unfortunately we can't wave a magic wand to make people better parents. The backlash to that is that the government is now trying to regulate how we raise our kids. :banghead:
Griz, my point is to make the cost or dealing/mfg/transporting drugs the life of that person. If we are ever going to have a real war on drugs we need to kill the enemy. That's how wars are won. This alone will drive the price of drugs higher than the average crackhead can steal to support his habit. He'll have no choice but to seek help (hopefully).
Chris,
Quote:
"Do you own your own body?
Then why is it anyone else's business what chemicals you choose to put in it?"
Because that decision will negatively affect others. So I am expected to trust the judgement of a drug addict that he is straight enough to drive the school bus my kids are in? Not gonna happen. How can you guarantee that drug users are going to be responsible? They're breaking the law of the land just feel better and escape reallity for a short time.
If that doesn't make anyone think how about this:
Do you really want Ted Kennedy hitting LSD or coke or crack? You trust him to only do it at home right?
So you want it legalized and regulated by the government? You really think that is going to work? You think that will make it cheaper and safer? You think that will eliminate the black market? You're seriously underestimating human nature if that's the case. Do you really think the crackhead is going to magically go get a job to support his now legal habit? :confused:
Casual users? I know several. They show up to work and they pay their taxes. Beyond that they are not functional members of society. The ones I know are highly educated and know/do their jobs very well most of the time. However their home lives are a mess. Their responsibilities as spouses and parents take a backseat to "relieving stress". That may not be the experience you have with the casual users you know Cannibal but it is for me. As far as kids smoking that due to bad parenting as are nearly all social problems. Not due to the fact that it's illegal for kids to buy cigarettes. Unfortunately we can't wave a magic wand to make people better parents. The backlash to that is that the government is now trying to regulate how we raise our kids. :banghead:
Griz, my point is to make the cost or dealing/mfg/transporting drugs the life of that person. If we are ever going to have a real war on drugs we need to kill the enemy. That's how wars are won. This alone will drive the price of drugs higher than the average crackhead can steal to support his habit. He'll have no choice but to seek help (hopefully).
Chris,
Quote:
"Do you own your own body?
Then why is it anyone else's business what chemicals you choose to put in it?"
Because that decision will negatively affect others. So I am expected to trust the judgement of a drug addict that he is straight enough to drive the school bus my kids are in? Not gonna happen. How can you guarantee that drug users are going to be responsible? They're breaking the law of the land just feel better and escape reallity for a short time.
If that doesn't make anyone think how about this:
Do you really want Ted Kennedy hitting LSD or coke or crack? You trust him to only do it at home right?
Chris Rhines
December 9, 2004, 09:17 PM
Please, please, tell me that this is a joke and not an actual attempt at argument... :scrutiny:
Because that decision will negatively affect others. Horsefeathers. There is no possible way that my firing up a doob or spiking a vein can have any impact whatsoever on anyone else's life, liberty, or property. Now I could get wasted and run my car over a bunch of carolers, or kick over a bank to feed my habit. I might do that, but you see, we already have laws against vehicular homicide. And against bank robbery. And murder, and rape, and every other possible infringement on the rights of others.
Using drugs does not infringe on anyone else's rights, no matter what tortured non-logic you apply.
So I am expected to trust the judgement of a drug addict that he is straight enough to drive the school bus my kids are in? Not gonna happen. For the children, eh? Once again, you've missed the point by a country mile. No one is asking you to let some e-**** drive your kiddies to school - the private school bus company is perfectly free to place whatever restrictions it wants on the conduct of its employees. You cross the line, however, when you try to dictate what I can put into my body on my own time. You're not my boss, my priest, or my mother, so you don't get to modify my behaivor.
How can you guarantee that drug users are going to be responsible? Oh, for the love of.... :banghead: How can you guarantee that anyone is going to be responsible?!?!
Right this moment, I have a Glock 35 holstered on my hip, two twenty-round magazines on my belt, and a twelve-gauge autoloading shotgun leaning against the wall not three feet away. Can you guarantee that I'll be responsible with all these instruments of death?
For a long time, I thought that political liberals were much more unknowingly fearful than their conservative brethren. I now know that I was wrong - both liberals and conservatives live their lives in a state of abject panic. They're just afraid of different boogeymen...
They're breaking the law of the land just feel better and escape reallity for a short time. :rolleyes: Anyone who takes Paxil, drinks alcohol, watches television, or owns an XBox has nothing to say to anyone about escaping reality.
If that doesn't make anyone think how about this: Expressing one's own morbid fear by calling for government crackdowns against victimless non-crimes is not thinking.
Disgusted,
Chris
Because that decision will negatively affect others. Horsefeathers. There is no possible way that my firing up a doob or spiking a vein can have any impact whatsoever on anyone else's life, liberty, or property. Now I could get wasted and run my car over a bunch of carolers, or kick over a bank to feed my habit. I might do that, but you see, we already have laws against vehicular homicide. And against bank robbery. And murder, and rape, and every other possible infringement on the rights of others.
Using drugs does not infringe on anyone else's rights, no matter what tortured non-logic you apply.
So I am expected to trust the judgement of a drug addict that he is straight enough to drive the school bus my kids are in? Not gonna happen. For the children, eh? Once again, you've missed the point by a country mile. No one is asking you to let some e-**** drive your kiddies to school - the private school bus company is perfectly free to place whatever restrictions it wants on the conduct of its employees. You cross the line, however, when you try to dictate what I can put into my body on my own time. You're not my boss, my priest, or my mother, so you don't get to modify my behaivor.
How can you guarantee that drug users are going to be responsible? Oh, for the love of.... :banghead: How can you guarantee that anyone is going to be responsible?!?!
Right this moment, I have a Glock 35 holstered on my hip, two twenty-round magazines on my belt, and a twelve-gauge autoloading shotgun leaning against the wall not three feet away. Can you guarantee that I'll be responsible with all these instruments of death?
For a long time, I thought that political liberals were much more unknowingly fearful than their conservative brethren. I now know that I was wrong - both liberals and conservatives live their lives in a state of abject panic. They're just afraid of different boogeymen...
They're breaking the law of the land just feel better and escape reallity for a short time. :rolleyes: Anyone who takes Paxil, drinks alcohol, watches television, or owns an XBox has nothing to say to anyone about escaping reality.
If that doesn't make anyone think how about this: Expressing one's own morbid fear by calling for government crackdowns against victimless non-crimes is not thinking.
Disgusted,
Chris
Firethorn
December 9, 2004, 09:21 PM
So you want it legalized and regulated by the government? You really think that is going to work? You think that will make it cheaper and safer?
Let's take an example: Heroin, which was originally a pain medication. You legalize that. Bayer dusts off their old notes, modernizes them, and starts production. Do you think that a basement lab will be able to produce Heroin:
1: Cheaper than Bayer
2: More safely than Bayer
3: More reliably than Bayer (remember, the basement lab is still subject to shutdown with prejudice for FDA & zoning violations).
It's out of patent, so it's completely legal for the generics to get in the business. Suddenly, Heroin doesn't cost much more than a bottle of Motrin or extra strength tylenol. You don't have to deal with that shady dealer, you can buy it from the corner drugstore. People like and Rush and Richard Paey (http://reason.com/sullum/042304.shtml) don't have to become criminals. Slap a tax on it to fund treatment centers if you like.
You think that will eliminate the black market? You're seriously underestimating human nature if that's the case.
While it might not totally eliminate the "black market", if for no other reason that it still wouldn't be legal for minors, it would knock the BM down to the level of moonshiners, tax-evading tobacco products, and distributing to minors. Keep the 'sin tax' low enough and you won't have too many problems. Treat distribution to minors the same way as we do with alchohol&tobacco. It's been reported by kids that they can get crack cocaine easier than booze.
Do you really think the crackhead is going to magically go get a job to support his now legal habit?
If you define "crackhead" as a career criminal who's addicted to crack cocaine, then no, he's not going to magically become straight. However, you'll be able to throw him into prison for alot longer because the prison's have been emptied of a number of the hippy weed-smokers(to use another stereotype).
Also, just like there are alchoholics who manage to hold a job for years before falling apart and people who drink alchohol without ever having a problem, there are people who use the other drugs the same way.
You make drugs illegal, they find new ones. Do you think that ecstasy would be the big thing it is if it wasn't for the other drugs being banned? Do you realize that crack cocaine was developed as a form of cocain easier to ship and use? People now sniff paint, glue, gasoline, lick toads, eat mushrooms, and do other stuff to get high. I'd almost rather have them use cocaine/LSD/Marijuana. It'd be safer for them.
Personal freedom comes with personal responsability. I would do my best to insure that Prisons would be drug free zones. That'd give the druggies another reason to stay out of it.
And just think of all the money it'd deny the gangs, smugglers, drug-lords(well, at least some would go 'legit'), and othe criminal elements. Best way to stop organized crime? Remove the profit.
Let's take an example: Heroin, which was originally a pain medication. You legalize that. Bayer dusts off their old notes, modernizes them, and starts production. Do you think that a basement lab will be able to produce Heroin:
1: Cheaper than Bayer
2: More safely than Bayer
3: More reliably than Bayer (remember, the basement lab is still subject to shutdown with prejudice for FDA & zoning violations).
It's out of patent, so it's completely legal for the generics to get in the business. Suddenly, Heroin doesn't cost much more than a bottle of Motrin or extra strength tylenol. You don't have to deal with that shady dealer, you can buy it from the corner drugstore. People like and Rush and Richard Paey (http://reason.com/sullum/042304.shtml) don't have to become criminals. Slap a tax on it to fund treatment centers if you like.
You think that will eliminate the black market? You're seriously underestimating human nature if that's the case.
While it might not totally eliminate the "black market", if for no other reason that it still wouldn't be legal for minors, it would knock the BM down to the level of moonshiners, tax-evading tobacco products, and distributing to minors. Keep the 'sin tax' low enough and you won't have too many problems. Treat distribution to minors the same way as we do with alchohol&tobacco. It's been reported by kids that they can get crack cocaine easier than booze.
Do you really think the crackhead is going to magically go get a job to support his now legal habit?
If you define "crackhead" as a career criminal who's addicted to crack cocaine, then no, he's not going to magically become straight. However, you'll be able to throw him into prison for alot longer because the prison's have been emptied of a number of the hippy weed-smokers(to use another stereotype).
Also, just like there are alchoholics who manage to hold a job for years before falling apart and people who drink alchohol without ever having a problem, there are people who use the other drugs the same way.
You make drugs illegal, they find new ones. Do you think that ecstasy would be the big thing it is if it wasn't for the other drugs being banned? Do you realize that crack cocaine was developed as a form of cocain easier to ship and use? People now sniff paint, glue, gasoline, lick toads, eat mushrooms, and do other stuff to get high. I'd almost rather have them use cocaine/LSD/Marijuana. It'd be safer for them.
Personal freedom comes with personal responsability. I would do my best to insure that Prisons would be drug free zones. That'd give the druggies another reason to stay out of it.
And just think of all the money it'd deny the gangs, smugglers, drug-lords(well, at least some would go 'legit'), and othe criminal elements. Best way to stop organized crime? Remove the profit.
Igloodude
December 9, 2004, 09:26 PM
For a crowd that repeatedly (and IMHO, correctly) talks about how guns are inanimate objects and not inherently evil thus should not be banned, it surprises me that the point of view can so quickly be forgotten when it comes to other inanimate things.
Michigander
December 9, 2004, 09:33 PM
However, you'll be able to throw him into prison for alot longer because the prison's have been emptied of a number of the hippy weed-smokers(to use another stereotype).
You know, now that you mention it, Mr. Gaver should have stated that there would be three losers, not two:
• Terrorists
• Legislators (I'll assume Federal, State and Local LE in this group too because they would have much less forfietures)
• The Prison Industry
editted to add a fourth:
• Lawyers
You know, now that you mention it, Mr. Gaver should have stated that there would be three losers, not two:
• Terrorists
• Legislators (I'll assume Federal, State and Local LE in this group too because they would have much less forfietures)
• The Prison Industry
editted to add a fourth:
• Lawyers
Intune
December 9, 2004, 09:49 PM
I applaud the freedom minded people of this thread. Well done. If you drive on our public roadways under the influence and endanger the public… Busted. If you make a monkey out of yourself & hassle the general public… Busted. If you sit in your house & snort coke , shoot up H, smoke reefer, huff paint or drink alcohol I don’t give a rats bottom. The gov can’t even regulate water reasonably. Why in the world would I want them involved in the drug trade? Decriminalize. They’ve already proven themselves inept trying to battle it at the tune of OUR 18 Billion annually. Prohibition has created the monster we see on our streets, not drugs. If a crack rock is worth .20 instead of $20 the dude will pick up two redeemable soda bottles instead of robbing our wives, mothers & sisters. Grrr...
benEzra
December 9, 2004, 09:59 PM
So you want it legalized and regulated by the government? You really think that is going to work? You think that will make it cheaper and safer? You think that will eliminate the black market?
Which is more easily obtained in any big city today, diacetyl morphine (aka Heroin), or prescription foot powder? Heroin. Despite the fact that it's been subject to very tight controls since the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1919.
I used to be a convinced anti-drug warrior, but after studying the pharmacology of cannabis for an (anti-drug) research project, I changed my mind, at least for cannabis. Cannabis, or even purified delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is demonstrably far less dangerous than alcohol and far less addictive than nicotine, and all the studies I've looked at alleging otherwise were based on egregious methodological errors that I can't believe ever made it past peer review. I suspect that society would probably see a net benefit if the legal standings of cannabis and alcoholic beverages were reversed. Though I don't support alcohol prohibition, either.
(BTW, I have never used any recreational drug, including alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis--nor do I plan to--but I am rather familiar with drug pharmacology from an academic standpoint, and my 5yo son has been given medical morphine extensively. And yes, I've seen him go through severe withdrawal, but that's a heck of a lot better than feeling the cut halves of your sternum grind together every time you breathe.)
Which is more easily obtained in any big city today, diacetyl morphine (aka Heroin), or prescription foot powder? Heroin. Despite the fact that it's been subject to very tight controls since the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1919.
I used to be a convinced anti-drug warrior, but after studying the pharmacology of cannabis for an (anti-drug) research project, I changed my mind, at least for cannabis. Cannabis, or even purified delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is demonstrably far less dangerous than alcohol and far less addictive than nicotine, and all the studies I've looked at alleging otherwise were based on egregious methodological errors that I can't believe ever made it past peer review. I suspect that society would probably see a net benefit if the legal standings of cannabis and alcoholic beverages were reversed. Though I don't support alcohol prohibition, either.
(BTW, I have never used any recreational drug, including alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis--nor do I plan to--but I am rather familiar with drug pharmacology from an academic standpoint, and my 5yo son has been given medical morphine extensively. And yes, I've seen him go through severe withdrawal, but that's a heck of a lot better than feeling the cut halves of your sternum grind together every time you breathe.)
Intune
December 9, 2004, 10:11 PM
I am sorry for what your son is having to go through Ben. As a father my heart goes out to you. I wish you and your family the best.
It's the "recreational" aspect that gets people's goats. If I get a script for percodans after a tooth is pulled, that's ok. If I take those same pills a month later sitting around watching a movie it's abuse? Go figure. Control. Plain & simple.
It's the "recreational" aspect that gets people's goats. If I get a script for percodans after a tooth is pulled, that's ok. If I take those same pills a month later sitting around watching a movie it's abuse? Go figure. Control. Plain & simple.
CannibalCrowley
December 9, 2004, 10:16 PM
If you can't trust people with a plant, how can you trust them with a gun?
They're illegal for a reason.Still waiting for you're reasoning as to why certain narcotics should be legal and others illegal.So you want it legalized and regulated by the government? You really think that is going to work?It couldn't do any worse than the current state of prohibition.You think that will eliminate the black market? You're seriously underestimating human nature if that's the case.If you eliminate the profit from the black market, then it would have no reason to continue. Why is this so hard to understand?As far as kids smoking that due to bad parenting as are nearly all social problems. Not due to the fact that it's illegal for kids to buy cigarettes.Replace "smoking" with "using drugs" and "cigarettes" with drugs". You've just proven your own argument to be foolish.So I am expected to trust the judgement of a drug addict that he is straight enough to drive the school bus my kids are in? Not gonna happen.By that reasoning, you already trust alcoholics and perscription drug addicts enough to drive the school bus your kids are in; what's the difference?Do you really want Ted Kennedy hitting LSD or coke or crack? You trust him to only do it at home right?So you trust him enough to chug a fifth and pop some oxy, but not enough to do a line of coke? I think you keep missing the point here, any substance can be abused whether legal or not.
Prohibition didn't work the first time, sadly this country didn't learn that lesson.
They're illegal for a reason.Still waiting for you're reasoning as to why certain narcotics should be legal and others illegal.So you want it legalized and regulated by the government? You really think that is going to work?It couldn't do any worse than the current state of prohibition.You think that will eliminate the black market? You're seriously underestimating human nature if that's the case.If you eliminate the profit from the black market, then it would have no reason to continue. Why is this so hard to understand?As far as kids smoking that due to bad parenting as are nearly all social problems. Not due to the fact that it's illegal for kids to buy cigarettes.Replace "smoking" with "using drugs" and "cigarettes" with drugs". You've just proven your own argument to be foolish.So I am expected to trust the judgement of a drug addict that he is straight enough to drive the school bus my kids are in? Not gonna happen.By that reasoning, you already trust alcoholics and perscription drug addicts enough to drive the school bus your kids are in; what's the difference?Do you really want Ted Kennedy hitting LSD or coke or crack? You trust him to only do it at home right?So you trust him enough to chug a fifth and pop some oxy, but not enough to do a line of coke? I think you keep missing the point here, any substance can be abused whether legal or not.
Prohibition didn't work the first time, sadly this country didn't learn that lesson.
griz
December 9, 2004, 10:39 PM
Slugcatcher, a couple quick points.
1. Yes I do think drugs would be cheaper and safer if legalized. That's safer as in consistent quality, not safer to your body. Just like now, you would still have the option of taking too much, you just wouldn't do it accidently.
2. Good luck selling the idea of executing thousands of people for drug use. We can't even make a dent in the number of murderers on death row. We call it a "war" on drugs, but we don't mean it. It's a political football.
Well it looks like we have quickly found where we differ even though I suspect our intent is the same. I'll let you get back to the other posters.
Good talking to you, Griz
1. Yes I do think drugs would be cheaper and safer if legalized. That's safer as in consistent quality, not safer to your body. Just like now, you would still have the option of taking too much, you just wouldn't do it accidently.
2. Good luck selling the idea of executing thousands of people for drug use. We can't even make a dent in the number of murderers on death row. We call it a "war" on drugs, but we don't mean it. It's a political football.
Well it looks like we have quickly found where we differ even though I suspect our intent is the same. I'll let you get back to the other posters.
Good talking to you, Griz
Intune
December 9, 2004, 10:53 PM
Someone please tell me why they would care if I had a cocoa bush, a reefer plant or a poppy plant in my back yard. We’ll go from there. This could prove interesting.
stevelyn
December 9, 2004, 11:05 PM
I'm constantly amazed by those who think the solution to a failed policy of prohibition is to enact and enforce more failing policies of prohibition.
:rolleyes:
The government and the drug dealers both profit from prohibition.
The dealer obviously profits from a cheaply manufactured and banned substance that he can charge exponentially high prices to costs for.
The government enforcement agencies profit since like pirates, they can sieze and keep whatever profits/property is taken as a result of enforcement actions. Neither side is interested in legalizing drugs since both will lose their profit potential if drugs are ever legalized.
The only losers are the American citizens whose tax dollars are being used to fight a contrived war and the continual loss their Constitutional protections that keep getting chipped away in the name of the "War on Drugs". :banghead:
What does this have to do with guns and gun rights?
What do the the antis always tie in with drugs and drug dealers?
Guns.
What have legislatures around the country enacted laws against?
Possession of a gun while in possession of drugs.
What has been the main excuse given for gun control?
Drug gangs.
End the "WOD" and you significantly end excuses to assault our rights.
:rolleyes:
The government and the drug dealers both profit from prohibition.
The dealer obviously profits from a cheaply manufactured and banned substance that he can charge exponentially high prices to costs for.
The government enforcement agencies profit since like pirates, they can sieze and keep whatever profits/property is taken as a result of enforcement actions. Neither side is interested in legalizing drugs since both will lose their profit potential if drugs are ever legalized.
The only losers are the American citizens whose tax dollars are being used to fight a contrived war and the continual loss their Constitutional protections that keep getting chipped away in the name of the "War on Drugs". :banghead:
What does this have to do with guns and gun rights?
What do the the antis always tie in with drugs and drug dealers?
Guns.
What have legislatures around the country enacted laws against?
Possession of a gun while in possession of drugs.
What has been the main excuse given for gun control?
Drug gangs.
End the "WOD" and you significantly end excuses to assault our rights.
Linux&Gun Guy
December 9, 2004, 11:05 PM
(The below text is all made up! I dreamed this and its not real)
I wish cannabis(weed) was legal because:
1) I could grow it without fear and have access to wonderfull strains like White Widow, Nevilles Haze, BOG Bubblegum, Nothern Lights and many others - oh joy! :) :) :) :D
2) I would not have to put up with idiot dealers or stupid people just to buy herb
3) I could make/buy hash oil and smoke that - helping my lungs very much
4) Its moraly wrong for for government to ban it
Now if you drive high, tripping, geeked, drunk, spun or otherwise intoxicated then yes you should get harsh reprocutions.
I also support making legal all other drugs.
In general I support cannabis as a mildish drug to smoke/eat weekly or more and ethogens(LSD, mushrooms, dmt, salvia, 2C-B, MDA) as a monthly or less trip to clear and refresh the mind and enjoy life to the fullest. In this way I believe you can live a long and happy life full of wonder at the worlds natural beauty without wasting $ or getting addited to anything.
I don't like additive/harmfull drugs such as meth, coke, crack, ethanol, nicotine, H, opium, benzos ext. - they don't help the mind and sometimes hurt the body - they also cost alot and can be addictive
I think part of the problem is people(even people that want an end of the WOD not understanding drugs all that well
Case in point
You make drugs illegal, they find new ones. Do you think that ecstasy would be the big thing it is if it wasn't for the other drugs being banned? Do you realize that crack cocaine was developed as a form of cocain easier to ship and use? People now sniff paint, glue, gasoline, lick toads, eat mushrooms, and do other stuff to get high. I'd almost rather have them use cocaine/LSD/Marijuana. It'd be safer for them.
Mushrooms are a great drug - not a crappy, harmfull drug like the others you have listed(now of course random mushrooms you find can kill you)
These wonderfull mushrooms are similar to LSD but they last about 4-6 hours and have a much more 'organic' feel to them and are very chill - great drug for general fun or self exploration.
I used to be a convinced anti-drug warrior, but after studying the pharmacology of cannabis for an (anti-drug) research project, I changed my mind, at least for cannabis. Cannabis, or even purified delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is demonstrably far less dangerous than alcohol and far less addictive than nicotine, and all the studies I've looked at alleging otherwise were based on egregious methodological errors that I can't believe ever made it past peer review. I suspect that society would probably see a net benefit if the legal standings of cannabis and alcoholic beverages were reversed. Though I don't support alcohol prohibition, either.
Good job educating yourself!
:)
Everyone - whether against or for drugs should read the erowid section on the drug they are talking about first
erowid.org
http://www.overgrow.com/edge/images/smilies/rastaopt.gif :neener:
I wish cannabis(weed) was legal because:
1) I could grow it without fear and have access to wonderfull strains like White Widow, Nevilles Haze, BOG Bubblegum, Nothern Lights and many others - oh joy! :) :) :) :D
2) I would not have to put up with idiot dealers or stupid people just to buy herb
3) I could make/buy hash oil and smoke that - helping my lungs very much
4) Its moraly wrong for for government to ban it
Now if you drive high, tripping, geeked, drunk, spun or otherwise intoxicated then yes you should get harsh reprocutions.
I also support making legal all other drugs.
In general I support cannabis as a mildish drug to smoke/eat weekly or more and ethogens(LSD, mushrooms, dmt, salvia, 2C-B, MDA) as a monthly or less trip to clear and refresh the mind and enjoy life to the fullest. In this way I believe you can live a long and happy life full of wonder at the worlds natural beauty without wasting $ or getting addited to anything.
I don't like additive/harmfull drugs such as meth, coke, crack, ethanol, nicotine, H, opium, benzos ext. - they don't help the mind and sometimes hurt the body - they also cost alot and can be addictive
I think part of the problem is people(even people that want an end of the WOD not understanding drugs all that well
Case in point
You make drugs illegal, they find new ones. Do you think that ecstasy would be the big thing it is if it wasn't for the other drugs being banned? Do you realize that crack cocaine was developed as a form of cocain easier to ship and use? People now sniff paint, glue, gasoline, lick toads, eat mushrooms, and do other stuff to get high. I'd almost rather have them use cocaine/LSD/Marijuana. It'd be safer for them.
Mushrooms are a great drug - not a crappy, harmfull drug like the others you have listed(now of course random mushrooms you find can kill you)
These wonderfull mushrooms are similar to LSD but they last about 4-6 hours and have a much more 'organic' feel to them and are very chill - great drug for general fun or self exploration.
I used to be a convinced anti-drug warrior, but after studying the pharmacology of cannabis for an (anti-drug) research project, I changed my mind, at least for cannabis. Cannabis, or even purified delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is demonstrably far less dangerous than alcohol and far less addictive than nicotine, and all the studies I've looked at alleging otherwise were based on egregious methodological errors that I can't believe ever made it past peer review. I suspect that society would probably see a net benefit if the legal standings of cannabis and alcoholic beverages were reversed. Though I don't support alcohol prohibition, either.
Good job educating yourself!
:)
Everyone - whether against or for drugs should read the erowid section on the drug they are talking about first
erowid.org
http://www.overgrow.com/edge/images/smilies/rastaopt.gif :neener:
slugcatcher
December 9, 2004, 11:12 PM
Cannibal, obviously you think the only drug is MJ. It's not. I've never heard of a firearm causing halucinations or psychotic episodes.
You sound like you're confusing drug abuse with drug legalization. You think cheap, easily accessible narcotics for all is better than what we have now?
So you get rid of a black market for drugs? The drug problem goes away? So there are no black market cigarette trade in this country? They're legal and regulated but they're still smuggled into the US.
I did not prove my argument to be foolish. So you see no difference in a 13yr old smoking a Pall Mall or crack? Talk about foolish.
I had acuaintances that used to mfg illegal alcohol. They got out of not because there wasn't plenty of money in it. They got out due to the severity of the level of punishment.
The part about Teddy was meant as humor. I've never trusted him. I can't even imagine what laws he'd try to pass after being up 5 days straight on coke.
You sound like you're confusing drug abuse with drug legalization. You think cheap, easily accessible narcotics for all is better than what we have now?
So you get rid of a black market for drugs? The drug problem goes away? So there are no black market cigarette trade in this country? They're legal and regulated but they're still smuggled into the US.
I did not prove my argument to be foolish. So you see no difference in a 13yr old smoking a Pall Mall or crack? Talk about foolish.
I had acuaintances that used to mfg illegal alcohol. They got out of not because there wasn't plenty of money in it. They got out due to the severity of the level of punishment.
The part about Teddy was meant as humor. I've never trusted him. I can't even imagine what laws he'd try to pass after being up 5 days straight on coke.
Dead
December 9, 2004, 11:17 PM
They were legal before, they should be legal now.... Have the same 'restrictions' as booze, well except for the taxes :p
commygun
December 9, 2004, 11:22 PM
I haven't drank in 18 years or used any narcotic in over
25 years, however it is absolute insanity that marijuana
is illegal when alcohol isn't. The amount of death,suffering,
and economic damage attributible to alcohol every year
must easily be equivalant to nuking a small city.Don't get
me wrong, I'm not advocating any kind of prohibition or
legalization of harder drugs. But the criminalization of
marijuana is incomprehensible to this conservative Republican.
25 years, however it is absolute insanity that marijuana
is illegal when alcohol isn't. The amount of death,suffering,
and economic damage attributible to alcohol every year
must easily be equivalant to nuking a small city.Don't get
me wrong, I'm not advocating any kind of prohibition or
legalization of harder drugs. But the criminalization of
marijuana is incomprehensible to this conservative Republican.
torpid
December 9, 2004, 11:48 PM
Until marijuana is re-legalized we should morally re-criminalize "recreational" alcohol consumption as to not act hypocritically. All of the arguments used to demonize cannabis apply as well to (the drug) alcohol, only alcohol comes off as being much more detrimental to society.
Heck, it might even make the pro drug-war crowd realize what they've actually been doing to some of their fellow citizens when they start facing mandatory minimums for possession of Heineken, and calls for execution by anti-drug zealots for smuggling Jack Daniels.
Anti-drug fundamentalists who love "zero tolerance" are very scary people to me. (And I feel this way even though I don't even use illegal drugs, and rarely even avail myself of legal ones- go figure.)
I think they share the same thought processes as the fiercely anti-gun crowd, the lack of exposure/understanding of the "evil" demonized object of their blind hatred being the prime similarity. They will not let logic interfere with their dogma, plain and simple.
The biggest danger of cannabis is that of a "gateway drug", however that danger is created precisely by the anti-drug demonization of it. When kids realize that pot is actually not at all like the scare tactic propaganda pushed down their throats, they immediately disregard any further warnings as to the (real) dangers of other drugs. The intentional misinformation about marijuana is the true "gateway" to dangerous substances- when the emperor is found to have no clothes, credibility becomes nil.
I've known many bright, respectable and very successful folks that have enjoyed cannabis on a casual basis, and I really found it not to impair their lives in an any way whatsoever, and the only reason I didn't join them in the occasional use is my adherence to abiding the (wrong in my opinion) law.
(As a sidenote, I do feel that "hard" drugs like heroin, crack, etc., are so addictive as to warrant heavy restriction, though.)
Heck, it might even make the pro drug-war crowd realize what they've actually been doing to some of their fellow citizens when they start facing mandatory minimums for possession of Heineken, and calls for execution by anti-drug zealots for smuggling Jack Daniels.
Anti-drug fundamentalists who love "zero tolerance" are very scary people to me. (And I feel this way even though I don't even use illegal drugs, and rarely even avail myself of legal ones- go figure.)
I think they share the same thought processes as the fiercely anti-gun crowd, the lack of exposure/understanding of the "evil" demonized object of their blind hatred being the prime similarity. They will not let logic interfere with their dogma, plain and simple.
The biggest danger of cannabis is that of a "gateway drug", however that danger is created precisely by the anti-drug demonization of it. When kids realize that pot is actually not at all like the scare tactic propaganda pushed down their throats, they immediately disregard any further warnings as to the (real) dangers of other drugs. The intentional misinformation about marijuana is the true "gateway" to dangerous substances- when the emperor is found to have no clothes, credibility becomes nil.
I've known many bright, respectable and very successful folks that have enjoyed cannabis on a casual basis, and I really found it not to impair their lives in an any way whatsoever, and the only reason I didn't join them in the occasional use is my adherence to abiding the (wrong in my opinion) law.
(As a sidenote, I do feel that "hard" drugs like heroin, crack, etc., are so addictive as to warrant heavy restriction, though.)
Michigander
December 9, 2004, 11:56 PM
Prohibition didn't work the first time, sadly this country didn't learn that lesson.
Didn't work the first time?
I beg to differ.
If gubmint generally attempts to usurp ever more power (nature of the beast, some have said), then, to the gubmint, the first prohibition was quite successful in terms of acquiring more power over its citizens.
The second prohibition and the far greater power the gubmint has usurped is a clear indication that they, the gubmint, learned greatly from the first prohibition.
When the first prohibition was repealed, how many laws, that were passed primarily due to the problems the prohibition created (real or imagined), were repealed? I don't know the answer, but I'd suspect few, if any.
If (and hopefully when) the second prohibition is repealed, how many laws that were (are being) passed primarily due to the problems the second prohibition created (real or imagined), will be repealed? I suspect few, if any.
Yes. Both prohibitions have been very successful for the gubmint beast. Yes indeed.
Didn't work the first time?
I beg to differ.
If gubmint generally attempts to usurp ever more power (nature of the beast, some have said), then, to the gubmint, the first prohibition was quite successful in terms of acquiring more power over its citizens.
The second prohibition and the far greater power the gubmint has usurped is a clear indication that they, the gubmint, learned greatly from the first prohibition.
When the first prohibition was repealed, how many laws, that were passed primarily due to the problems the prohibition created (real or imagined), were repealed? I don't know the answer, but I'd suspect few, if any.
If (and hopefully when) the second prohibition is repealed, how many laws that were (are being) passed primarily due to the problems the second prohibition created (real or imagined), will be repealed? I suspect few, if any.
Yes. Both prohibitions have been very successful for the gubmint beast. Yes indeed.
Intune
December 10, 2004, 12:03 AM
Michigander gets it. The one reason, the whole reason and nothing but the reason. Y'all can thank your lack of machine guns to this too. Well done. Control. Face it.
Still waiting on the answer to my bush growing. (Don't even go there ;) )
Still waiting on the answer to my bush growing. (Don't even go there ;) )
why_me
December 10, 2004, 01:34 AM
You can own poppy plants and seeds. You cannot harvest the opium. The poppy seeds you eat are genuine opium prducing poppies. Coca wont grow up here. And i think it is illegal. You can grow bundleflowers. The root bark is full of DMT. You can possess colorado river toads. You cannot smoke or lick them
that is illegal. You can possess spores for pslocybe mushrooms. You cannot grow them.
that is illegal. You can possess spores for pslocybe mushrooms. You cannot grow them.
davec
December 10, 2004, 01:58 AM
I'm too stupid to figure out what I should put in my body, so I'm thankfull the government is there looking out for me protecting me from myself.
RevDisk
December 10, 2004, 02:37 AM
If you think the government will voluntarily give up the War on some Drugs, you must be smoking something. The WOD has created insane restrictions of civil rights, insane prison populations, and insane amounts of money for politicians/dealers. Asset seizure laws are downright evil. I read more than one story of someone's house getting raided because their electrical bill was rather high.
The only possible way to convince the politicians to end the War on Drugs is to let them insanely tax re-legalized drugs. As for people that meantioned cigarette smuggling, it's due to price inflation due to taxes. When the price of cigarettes in NYC is $7-9 a PACK, why would anyone be surprised that there is a black market?
The only possible way to convince the politicians to end the War on Drugs is to let them insanely tax re-legalized drugs. As for people that meantioned cigarette smuggling, it's due to price inflation due to taxes. When the price of cigarettes in NYC is $7-9 a PACK, why would anyone be surprised that there is a black market?
sctman800
December 10, 2004, 02:44 AM
The war on some drugs is a farce and any one who says it can be won is in my opinion either highly delusional or is profiting of it in some way. Usually once or twice a year I read about a lockdown in one or more of our state prisons where drugs have been found in the hands of the inmates. Come on now, these are prisons and the government cannot keep drugs out of them. I totally agree that pot being illegal and alcohol is legal is at the very least totally backward. I get so sick hearing about pot being a gateway drug, if it is that is because of the government keeping it illegal. People that try it do find out it is not the horrible addicting monster it is made out to be, so mabye the other drugs aren't so bad either. Also, most people buying pot are doing so from someone who sells other drugs and so are exposed to them also.
I don't want to hear the schoolbus driver thing either, someone driving a school bus should not be impaired either by legal drugs illegal drugs or alchol, and someone who does should be in jail. We have plenty of laws that protect us from drug users and alchol users. These are laws against DUI, theft, assault. If someone drives impaired, steals to support any kind of habit, goes nuts and starts fights or harasses inocenent people they are breaking the law and should go to jail. But, the guy sitting home smoking a joint or doing a line, whatever, leave him alone.
I remember back in the 60s I thought the Democrats would legalize at least pot, but they haven't. Making drugs legal would take the profit out of the drug trade, and without the profit there would be no reason to fight over who sells drugs in what neiborhood. This should lesson a lot of the gang violence and that would give the antigunners less gun crime to use as statistics against us.
I just want to make this clear, I did a lot of things in my younger years that I don't do now. I do no illegal drugs and very seldom even take asprin, I don't drink or use tobacco. I really believe we would all be better off without the WOSD, but if it ends today I am not going to start using any of them. Jim.
I don't want to hear the schoolbus driver thing either, someone driving a school bus should not be impaired either by legal drugs illegal drugs or alchol, and someone who does should be in jail. We have plenty of laws that protect us from drug users and alchol users. These are laws against DUI, theft, assault. If someone drives impaired, steals to support any kind of habit, goes nuts and starts fights or harasses inocenent people they are breaking the law and should go to jail. But, the guy sitting home smoking a joint or doing a line, whatever, leave him alone.
I remember back in the 60s I thought the Democrats would legalize at least pot, but they haven't. Making drugs legal would take the profit out of the drug trade, and without the profit there would be no reason to fight over who sells drugs in what neiborhood. This should lesson a lot of the gang violence and that would give the antigunners less gun crime to use as statistics against us.
I just want to make this clear, I did a lot of things in my younger years that I don't do now. I do no illegal drugs and very seldom even take asprin, I don't drink or use tobacco. I really believe we would all be better off without the WOSD, but if it ends today I am not going to start using any of them. Jim.
Justin
December 10, 2004, 03:56 AM
Off the top of my head, here is a list of ways in which the drug war affects each and every one of us, especially including those who do not partake in recreational drugs.
1)Prescription drugs that are even mildly narcotic are controlled in such a manner as to drive up prices and limit supply to the average consumer.
2)Doctors are now becoming so worried by the feds' crackdown on supposedly "illegal" prescriptions of Schedule II and III narcotics that they are often times hesitant to prescribe proper dosage levels. In other words, medical practitioners are not free to set dosage levels of narcotic pain killers for someone suffering from terminal cancer, lest the feds think that they're dealing drugs.
Put another way: If you are injured or contract an illness that requires the use of such drugs, your dosage is likely to be set low because the doctor isn't the one making the ultimate decision as to what is a medically safe dosage level. That decision is now made by some gov't feeb with little or no medical background.
3)We have all lost civil rights due to the passage of asset forfeiture laws. Basically, even if you are ultimately found innocent of any wrongdoing in a court of law, that doesn't mean you're going to get your stuff back.
4)Abrogation of the spirit of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. For more info, see #3 above.
5)Increased crime. As a direct result of drug prohibition, those who deal in illegal narcotics are likely to engage in vicious turf wars. Were drugs legalized I seriously doubt that such shenanigans would continue. When was the last time you heard about representatives from Coors and Anheuser-Busch getting into territorial shootouts? Geeze, come to think of it, there are no less than four microbreweries within a 20 mile radius from where I sit, and I have yet to hear about those associated with the Bristol Brewing Company rolling up the street to bust caps at the Phantom Canyon brewery, or Il Vicino trying to muscle in on The Warehouse's action.
6)Increased tax burden to fund the so-called "War On Drugs." Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent prosecuting this utterly braindead attempt at modern puritanism, and absolutely none of it has kept Johnnie the 15 year old wasteoid from scoring a dimebag for a reasonable price.
Of course, I fully expect that none of this will dissuade any ardent supporters of the WoD. After all, they've decided that drugs are bad, and that since they're obviously bad, that means that no individual is responsible enough to make their own decisions with regard to drug use.
1)Prescription drugs that are even mildly narcotic are controlled in such a manner as to drive up prices and limit supply to the average consumer.
2)Doctors are now becoming so worried by the feds' crackdown on supposedly "illegal" prescriptions of Schedule II and III narcotics that they are often times hesitant to prescribe proper dosage levels. In other words, medical practitioners are not free to set dosage levels of narcotic pain killers for someone suffering from terminal cancer, lest the feds think that they're dealing drugs.
Put another way: If you are injured or contract an illness that requires the use of such drugs, your dosage is likely to be set low because the doctor isn't the one making the ultimate decision as to what is a medically safe dosage level. That decision is now made by some gov't feeb with little or no medical background.
3)We have all lost civil rights due to the passage of asset forfeiture laws. Basically, even if you are ultimately found innocent of any wrongdoing in a court of law, that doesn't mean you're going to get your stuff back.
4)Abrogation of the spirit of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. For more info, see #3 above.
5)Increased crime. As a direct result of drug prohibition, those who deal in illegal narcotics are likely to engage in vicious turf wars. Were drugs legalized I seriously doubt that such shenanigans would continue. When was the last time you heard about representatives from Coors and Anheuser-Busch getting into territorial shootouts? Geeze, come to think of it, there are no less than four microbreweries within a 20 mile radius from where I sit, and I have yet to hear about those associated with the Bristol Brewing Company rolling up the street to bust caps at the Phantom Canyon brewery, or Il Vicino trying to muscle in on The Warehouse's action.
6)Increased tax burden to fund the so-called "War On Drugs." Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent prosecuting this utterly braindead attempt at modern puritanism, and absolutely none of it has kept Johnnie the 15 year old wasteoid from scoring a dimebag for a reasonable price.
Of course, I fully expect that none of this will dissuade any ardent supporters of the WoD. After all, they've decided that drugs are bad, and that since they're obviously bad, that means that no individual is responsible enough to make their own decisions with regard to drug use.
RealGun
December 10, 2004, 05:22 AM
If we had "secure" borders and ports, the drug problem would be less of an issue. If we aren't really serious about enforcing drug trafficking laws and shutting down producing countries, Afghanistan included, the laws should be repealed. What we do is throw money at a problem but only enough to say the problem is being addressed, never solved.
Art Eatman
December 10, 2004, 08:14 AM
Y'know, I've been around all this pro-drug/anti-drug argument for over forty years. I've read both sides. I've read the various pronunciamentos of the politicians and the bureaucrats.
I've watched people mess up their lives via drug use.
I've ridden with the cops, and listened to their stories.
I like to think I'm not all eat up with the terminal stoopids.
I read a very objective article in the LA Times, detailing the costs and successes of the War On Drugs. To keep it short, the unspoken conclusion was that the WOD was lost, lost, lost.
The article was published in 1973.
I don't care what anybody's view is about drugs. I don't care if you're for legalization or against it. That's immaterial. What's happened is more of an assault on the Bill of Rights; that has been far more successful than our Drug War.
Why the BOR is less important is beyond my understanding. I dunno; I guess my priorities about liberty are different from those who see harshness toward the entire citizenry as some sort of rational solution to the drug problems we face.
Give up some of the Bill of Rights so we can fight drugs; give up some of the Bill of Rights so we can be safer from terrorists.
Hey, somebody explain the difference?
Art
I've watched people mess up their lives via drug use.
I've ridden with the cops, and listened to their stories.
I like to think I'm not all eat up with the terminal stoopids.
I read a very objective article in the LA Times, detailing the costs and successes of the War On Drugs. To keep it short, the unspoken conclusion was that the WOD was lost, lost, lost.
The article was published in 1973.
I don't care what anybody's view is about drugs. I don't care if you're for legalization or against it. That's immaterial. What's happened is more of an assault on the Bill of Rights; that has been far more successful than our Drug War.
Why the BOR is less important is beyond my understanding. I dunno; I guess my priorities about liberty are different from those who see harshness toward the entire citizenry as some sort of rational solution to the drug problems we face.
Give up some of the Bill of Rights so we can fight drugs; give up some of the Bill of Rights so we can be safer from terrorists.
Hey, somebody explain the difference?
Art
why_me
December 10, 2004, 09:53 AM
When they feel it necessary.
If you point out the criminal damage from drugs you will tend to give up some of your rights to prosecute the War on Drugs.
Problem is the war on drugs is whats causing the problem. Ask someone why drugs should stay illegal and the first things are:
a) look at the gang violence
b) people stealing to support there habit
c) you will have people running around stoned
d) i dont want my kid ended up addicted to drugs
illegal drugs are cheap to produce. Make them legal and there is no profit to be made. Wants gangs gone? Take the money out of em. If the drugs were sold at cost plus 100% profit a cocaine habit would be cheaper than a cup of coffee. Joe crackhead is not going to rob a quicky trip to support his 5 dollar a day habit,thats now costing him 200.
Drugs are illegal and there are still people running around stoned. I tell my daughter not to run in the house and she still runs around the house. Guess that law doesnt work.
Who wants there kid to grow up addicted to anything. I believe proper parenting is all you can do. Laws arent going to fix bad parenting.
And last but not least. Illegal drugs are an unregulated market. Legalise and regulate. Then come up with a new law.
New law: If you give sell or make accesible any drugs to minors. 5 years imprisonment.
If you point out the criminal damage from drugs you will tend to give up some of your rights to prosecute the War on Drugs.
Problem is the war on drugs is whats causing the problem. Ask someone why drugs should stay illegal and the first things are:
a) look at the gang violence
b) people stealing to support there habit
c) you will have people running around stoned
d) i dont want my kid ended up addicted to drugs
illegal drugs are cheap to produce. Make them legal and there is no profit to be made. Wants gangs gone? Take the money out of em. If the drugs were sold at cost plus 100% profit a cocaine habit would be cheaper than a cup of coffee. Joe crackhead is not going to rob a quicky trip to support his 5 dollar a day habit,thats now costing him 200.
Drugs are illegal and there are still people running around stoned. I tell my daughter not to run in the house and she still runs around the house. Guess that law doesnt work.
Who wants there kid to grow up addicted to anything. I believe proper parenting is all you can do. Laws arent going to fix bad parenting.
And last but not least. Illegal drugs are an unregulated market. Legalise and regulate. Then come up with a new law.
New law: If you give sell or make accesible any drugs to minors. 5 years imprisonment.
CannibalCrowley
December 10, 2004, 10:39 AM
Every "War on ____" has been at a significant cost to the public.
War on Poverty = We're taking your money
War on Some Drugs = We're taking more of your money and using it to strip your civil liberties.
War on Terrorism = We're taking even more money along with more civil liberties.
Of course none of these "wars" has even been won. They just keep plodding along year after year, racking up more casualties yet making no progress. Now where's that picture of the two parties chopping down the same tree?
Cannibal, obviously you think the only drug is MJ. It's not. I've never heard of a firearm causing halucinations or psychotic episodes.I've never heard of a microdot firing a bullet into someone's brain either. I've seen drugs that are currently legal cause both hallucinations and psychotic episodes when abused, so what's the difference? Why penalize responsible users just because a few choose to do things improperly? Should all guns be banned just because some use them improperly? This goes double when government sponsored propaganda clouds the issue so that people cannot tell the truth from the lies.You sound like you're confusing drug abuse with drug legalization. You think cheap, easily accessible narcotics for all is better than what we have now?Of course, legalization alone would remove much of the taboo behind drugs and turning off the propaganda machines would allow people to make informed choices. Ask yourself what group is the one more often seen with alcohol poisoning, under 21 or over 21? At 21 booze doesn't suddenly change the way it affects people, it simple loses its taboo aura and for most people drinking loses some of the appeal that it once had.
So there are no black market cigarette trade in this country? They're legal and regulated but they're still smuggled into the US.I believe you'd be hard pressed to find an instance of cigarettes being smuggled into the US. Often it's just people buying them in a cheap state and taking them to a state where they're taxed more heavily. That's only because some state governments have seen fit to heavily tax tobacco. Of course even this problem is very small. When was the last time you heard of a shoot out between rival cigarette smugglers?
I did not prove my argument to be foolish. So you see no difference in a 13yr old smoking a Pall Mall or crack? Talk about foolish.The biggest difference is that it's currently easier for that kid to get crack than a pack of cigarettes. In principle the substances themsleves don't matter, you tried to argue that drugs would be more available to kids if they were legalized as an age restricted item. You based this on kids smoking under the age of 18. After I pointed out to you that the example should prove how futile drug laws are, you countered with saying that children smoking cigarettes was the fault of the parents. If those kids are doing drugs, why wouldn't that be the fault of the parents as well? You can't blame the parents for the nicotine but excuse them when it comes to acid, that doesn't follow logic at all.
I had acuaintances that used to mfg illegal alcohol. They got out of not because there wasn't plenty of money in it. They got out due to the severity of the level of punishment.And they likely moonshined because their state outlawed liqour about a certain proof. In a lot of states, 151 is the highest proof that retailers are allowed to sell. They've outlawed anything higher, thus creating a black market for it.
The part about Teddy was meant as humor. I've never trusted him. I can't even imagine what laws he'd try to pass after being up 5 days straight on coke.Other people can't even imagine the damage people would cause if full auto weapons had the same availability as an average rifle. Don't you see the parallel?
War on Poverty = We're taking your money
War on Some Drugs = We're taking more of your money and using it to strip your civil liberties.
War on Terrorism = We're taking even more money along with more civil liberties.
Of course none of these "wars" has even been won. They just keep plodding along year after year, racking up more casualties yet making no progress. Now where's that picture of the two parties chopping down the same tree?
Cannibal, obviously you think the only drug is MJ. It's not. I've never heard of a firearm causing halucinations or psychotic episodes.I've never heard of a microdot firing a bullet into someone's brain either. I've seen drugs that are currently legal cause both hallucinations and psychotic episodes when abused, so what's the difference? Why penalize responsible users just because a few choose to do things improperly? Should all guns be banned just because some use them improperly? This goes double when government sponsored propaganda clouds the issue so that people cannot tell the truth from the lies.You sound like you're confusing drug abuse with drug legalization. You think cheap, easily accessible narcotics for all is better than what we have now?Of course, legalization alone would remove much of the taboo behind drugs and turning off the propaganda machines would allow people to make informed choices. Ask yourself what group is the one more often seen with alcohol poisoning, under 21 or over 21? At 21 booze doesn't suddenly change the way it affects people, it simple loses its taboo aura and for most people drinking loses some of the appeal that it once had.
So there are no black market cigarette trade in this country? They're legal and regulated but they're still smuggled into the US.I believe you'd be hard pressed to find an instance of cigarettes being smuggled into the US. Often it's just people buying them in a cheap state and taking them to a state where they're taxed more heavily. That's only because some state governments have seen fit to heavily tax tobacco. Of course even this problem is very small. When was the last time you heard of a shoot out between rival cigarette smugglers?
I did not prove my argument to be foolish. So you see no difference in a 13yr old smoking a Pall Mall or crack? Talk about foolish.The biggest difference is that it's currently easier for that kid to get crack than a pack of cigarettes. In principle the substances themsleves don't matter, you tried to argue that drugs would be more available to kids if they were legalized as an age restricted item. You based this on kids smoking under the age of 18. After I pointed out to you that the example should prove how futile drug laws are, you countered with saying that children smoking cigarettes was the fault of the parents. If those kids are doing drugs, why wouldn't that be the fault of the parents as well? You can't blame the parents for the nicotine but excuse them when it comes to acid, that doesn't follow logic at all.
I had acuaintances that used to mfg illegal alcohol. They got out of not because there wasn't plenty of money in it. They got out due to the severity of the level of punishment.And they likely moonshined because their state outlawed liqour about a certain proof. In a lot of states, 151 is the highest proof that retailers are allowed to sell. They've outlawed anything higher, thus creating a black market for it.
The part about Teddy was meant as humor. I've never trusted him. I can't even imagine what laws he'd try to pass after being up 5 days straight on coke.Other people can't even imagine the damage people would cause if full auto weapons had the same availability as an average rifle. Don't you see the parallel?
Yowza
December 10, 2004, 10:40 AM
Well, I was going to get back to this, but all my points have been made by now. All I can say is there is no fundamental difference between drug prohibition and gun control. The same reasons are given in favor of both, and the reasons why they don't work apply to both.
Rick
Rick
White Horseradish
December 10, 2004, 11:55 AM
Here's a thought for ya - WoD is what made the Patriot Act possible. PA mostly consists of minor changes in language of existing laws which equate to major changes in their application. In short, PA expands special drug-crime laws to "terrorist suspects", while giving the government a lot of leeway in defining just who is such a suspect and what activity constitutes terrorism. Come one, come all into 1984...
Slugcatcher, your argument seems to boil down to "Drugs kill people". Sorry to be blunt, that is just as stupid as "guns kill people". Coke does not crawl up anybody's nose by itself. There are no winged syringes of heroin flying around looking for a vein. People make choices, choices have consequences. It's called personal responsibility.
"It's for the children" is not much of a reason, either. Don't want your kids on crack? Pay attention to them. Talk to them. Be a parent. You have a responsibility to do that until they are adults. If you do not want that responsibility, you should not have had children. On that note, I believe surgical sterilization should be made available for free to anyone who wants it, which would take away the cost as an excuse for irresponsible people.
Yes, if we were to legalize all drugs, there would be a temporary increase in drug deaths. It sounds terrible, but it is not as bad as one might think. The people hurrying to kill themselves with chemicals are doing that anyway, availability will only speed up the process.
As far as public safety is concerned, legalization should be with a condition that all intoxicating substances must be consumed within one's residence or a place dedicated to such activity. Any intoxication-related improper behavior is already covered under existing alcohol laws, they just need to be held to apply to other chemicals as well.
In short, if you don't like drugs - don't take them, if you don't want your kids to do drugs - bring them up right. Don't expect the state in any way, shape or form to take over your responsibility.
Slugcatcher, your argument seems to boil down to "Drugs kill people". Sorry to be blunt, that is just as stupid as "guns kill people". Coke does not crawl up anybody's nose by itself. There are no winged syringes of heroin flying around looking for a vein. People make choices, choices have consequences. It's called personal responsibility.
"It's for the children" is not much of a reason, either. Don't want your kids on crack? Pay attention to them. Talk to them. Be a parent. You have a responsibility to do that until they are adults. If you do not want that responsibility, you should not have had children. On that note, I believe surgical sterilization should be made available for free to anyone who wants it, which would take away the cost as an excuse for irresponsible people.
Yes, if we were to legalize all drugs, there would be a temporary increase in drug deaths. It sounds terrible, but it is not as bad as one might think. The people hurrying to kill themselves with chemicals are doing that anyway, availability will only speed up the process.
As far as public safety is concerned, legalization should be with a condition that all intoxicating substances must be consumed within one's residence or a place dedicated to such activity. Any intoxication-related improper behavior is already covered under existing alcohol laws, they just need to be held to apply to other chemicals as well.
In short, if you don't like drugs - don't take them, if you don't want your kids to do drugs - bring them up right. Don't expect the state in any way, shape or form to take over your responsibility.
S Roper
December 10, 2004, 11:58 AM
As long as insurance companies can choose not to insure (or insure at a higher rate) drug users, and as long as employers can choose not to hire drug users, I don't have much of a problem with decriminalization. I guess this is already in place; as a pipe smoker (tobacco) I pay higher rates and am barred from certain jobs.
justice4all
December 11, 2004, 11:16 AM
You know, now that you mention it, Mr. Gaver should have stated that there would be three losers, not two:
• Terrorists
• Legislators (I'll assume Federal, State and Local LE in this group too because they would have much less forfietures)
• The Prison Industry
editted to add a fourth:
• Lawyers
Not to mention the alcohol industry.
• Terrorists
• Legislators (I'll assume Federal, State and Local LE in this group too because they would have much less forfietures)
• The Prison Industry
editted to add a fourth:
• Lawyers
Not to mention the alcohol industry.
RealGun
December 11, 2004, 12:48 PM
There are a vast number of jobs built around a law or related subset and the resulting bureaucracy. Lots of people would be affected, DEA for starters.
13A
December 11, 2004, 01:30 PM
Are we winning the war on drugs yet? How can we tell?
How about the war on guns? Are we winning that war yet?
The right is attacking the Bill of Rights with the war on drugs. The left is attacking the Bill of Rights with the war on guns. The loser? The rights of the American people.
How about the war on guns? Are we winning that war yet?
The right is attacking the Bill of Rights with the war on drugs. The left is attacking the Bill of Rights with the war on guns. The loser? The rights of the American people.
Sindawe
December 11, 2004, 02:13 PM
N.M. church fights to serve hallucinogenic tea for Christmas Associated Press Dec. 10, 2004 01:49 PM
WASHINGTON -
The Supreme Court sided Friday with a New Mexico church that wants to use hallucinogenic tea as part of its services this Christmas.
Justices lifted a temporary stay that the government had won last week. The Bush administration contends the hoasca tea is illegal and dangerous.
Nancy Hollander, the lawyer for the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, told justices in a filing that hoasca is not only safe, but to members it "is sacred and their sacramental use of hoasca connects them to God."
The government and the church have been tied up in a legal fight since federal agents raided a church leader's office in Santa Fe in 1999 and seized 30 gallons of hoasca tea. The tea contains DMT, a controlled substance. Hollander told justices that since then, raid members have not been able to receive communion to commemorate the birth of Jesus during the church's annual Holy Days.
The church won a preliminary injunction in a lower court. Last week Justice Stephen Breyer granted a temporary stay, blocking the church from using the tea, to give both sides time to file more arguments with the court. The full Supreme Court sided with the church.
The case is Ashcroft v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, A-469.
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1210Scotus-Religion-ON.html
The court has yet to reach a final decision, but as the article states, lifted the stay on the church.
WASHINGTON -
The Supreme Court sided Friday with a New Mexico church that wants to use hallucinogenic tea as part of its services this Christmas.
Justices lifted a temporary stay that the government had won last week. The Bush administration contends the hoasca tea is illegal and dangerous.
Nancy Hollander, the lawyer for the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, told justices in a filing that hoasca is not only safe, but to members it "is sacred and their sacramental use of hoasca connects them to God."
The government and the church have been tied up in a legal fight since federal agents raided a church leader's office in Santa Fe in 1999 and seized 30 gallons of hoasca tea. The tea contains DMT, a controlled substance. Hollander told justices that since then, raid members have not been able to receive communion to commemorate the birth of Jesus during the church's annual Holy Days.
The church won a preliminary injunction in a lower court. Last week Justice Stephen Breyer granted a temporary stay, blocking the church from using the tea, to give both sides time to file more arguments with the court. The full Supreme Court sided with the church.
The case is Ashcroft v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, A-469.
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1210Scotus-Religion-ON.html
The court has yet to reach a final decision, but as the article states, lifted the stay on the church.
zahc
December 11, 2004, 11:44 PM
I wish mj at least was legal. Why? I don't drink except for wine on special occasions, but I do like weed. However, I don't do it at all for two reasons, one minor reason being that it's illegal.
The other big reason being it's impossible to know what you are buying or about to take, unless you grow it yourself. The risks with street weed are too great. It could be laced with anything. Also buying it supports a lot of violence which I refuse to do. All this angers me because it shouldnt be that way. It's that way because of WOSD. It should never be illegal to grow and eat a plant. Ever.
The other big reason being it's impossible to know what you are buying or about to take, unless you grow it yourself. The risks with street weed are too great. It could be laced with anything. Also buying it supports a lot of violence which I refuse to do. All this angers me because it shouldnt be that way. It's that way because of WOSD. It should never be illegal to grow and eat a plant. Ever.
Combat-wombat
December 12, 2004, 12:00 AM
I believe all drugs should be decriminalized (not legalized), and I believe marijuana and similar drugs should be treated like alcohol. Even if it's not legalized for recreational use, I think the only word to describe the government's anti-medicinal marijuana crusade is disgusting.
I cannot believe that our government, with so many other problems it should deal with, needs to use its might to make DAMN SURE that NOONE who is possibly dying and in excruciating pain gets the SLIGHTEST BIT OF RELIEF from marijuana. NO WAY IN HELL would they let anything so horrible as the use of pot by someone suffering on their deathbead happen. It sickens me. It really does.
I cannot believe that our government, with so many other problems it should deal with, needs to use its might to make DAMN SURE that NOONE who is possibly dying and in excruciating pain gets the SLIGHTEST BIT OF RELIEF from marijuana. NO WAY IN HELL would they let anything so horrible as the use of pot by someone suffering on their deathbead happen. It sickens me. It really does.
IANALY
December 12, 2004, 04:42 AM
This appeared some time ago in my college newspaper
Legalize all drugs
John Litle
I am sick and tired of paying for everyone else's illegal drug habit. It enrages me that I have to involuntarily contribute thousands of dollars for drug abusers in this country. That's why I advocate legalizing all forms of drugs, for everyone.
Without even taking money into consideration, I don't see any good reason to ban drugs. If some junkie wants to go get high every weekend of his life, fine by me. He's not hurting me in any way. It's just one less guy vying for my job. If some druggie overdoses on crack, it certainly isn't my problem. It becomes my problem when the government expects me to pay to resuscitate him.
I really couldn't care less what anyone else wants to do with their time, so long as they aren't interfering with other people's rights. I know many students on this campus would disagree. We have to care for everyone, they might say. We have to show compassion, they might claim. Indeed, those are nice sentiments. Thank God we live in a free country where citizens are allowed to choose their own charities. Go ahead, donate to your local drug rehabilitation center, I just don't care to do the same at our current juncture.
Imagine how much money could be saved if we closed the narcotics unit of every police station, disbanded the DEA and stopped pumping money into drug producing countries in failing efforts to stop the flow of drugs. It could be amazing. Tax-free day could move to the beginning of May instead of the middle. That would help our economy for sure.
And imagine how the prices of formerly illegal drugs would bottom out. The business would become far less profitable, and thus, the business would become less violent, volatile, and demand over time could drop as the rebellious nature of drug use is removed. We could even tax the incoming shipments of drugs like we tax tobacco. After all, tobacco is our own drug, only legal because it is so profitable to our government and is produced right here in the good ole U.S.A. We could make the same money off the crack and heroin.
In my discussions with others on this topic some have brought up the idea that, with drugs legalized, the incidence of other crimes, such as theft, would increase as users sought money to continue their habit; or even that random intoxicated mayhem would increase as a result of more access to drugs. Though I disagree with the premise as a whole (citing the fact that the cost of drugs would decline) I should address the point of intoxicated crime. There has to be harsh, merciless punishment of those who commit crimes under the influence of now-legal drugs. The message is that though you may do whatever you want when it is only affecting you, should you infringe on the rights of others, your punishment will be swift and harsh.
It wouldn't be as difficult to make this a practice as one might think. With all the narcotics and DEA officers seeking reassignment, it would not be difficult to redirect their efforts to punishing those who would take their freedoms for granted.
Still others argue that the cost to society would undoubtedly increase, as the increase of persons admitted to the hospital for drug related problems would increase. This could be a valid argument, as certainly more people would overdose and need medical attention. Fortunately the solution to this problem is easy. If one wants the cost to society to decrease, society shouldn't pay. After all, it was the individual, not society as a whole, who decided to take drugs and OD, so why should everyone else have to pay for it? I know I certainly have no interest in funding the hospitalization of junkies.
"Oh, but that's so harsh," one might reply. Indeed. But perhaps not as harsh as a clean-cut American family barely being able to survive because all the money they should be free to spend on food and common necessities goes to a government more concerned with the welfare of selfish drug addicts who know they can get bailed out, unlike the family, whenever they screw up.
In sum, drugs should be legal because I don't want to pay to keep people from using them, I don't want to pay to try and rehabilitate them, I certainly don't want to pay to incarcerate them and I don't care to pay to heal them. You shouldn't either. Perhaps I am a cold-hearted jerk; perhaps I just bombarded you with more pragmatism than you can stand. Either way, I feel I am being fair. All I ask is that people's rights be as uninhibited as possible and that they take responsibility for their decisions, whatever they may be — and that I not have to pay for it.
Legalize all drugs
John Litle
I am sick and tired of paying for everyone else's illegal drug habit. It enrages me that I have to involuntarily contribute thousands of dollars for drug abusers in this country. That's why I advocate legalizing all forms of drugs, for everyone.
Without even taking money into consideration, I don't see any good reason to ban drugs. If some junkie wants to go get high every weekend of his life, fine by me. He's not hurting me in any way. It's just one less guy vying for my job. If some druggie overdoses on crack, it certainly isn't my problem. It becomes my problem when the government expects me to pay to resuscitate him.
I really couldn't care less what anyone else wants to do with their time, so long as they aren't interfering with other people's rights. I know many students on this campus would disagree. We have to care for everyone, they might say. We have to show compassion, they might claim. Indeed, those are nice sentiments. Thank God we live in a free country where citizens are allowed to choose their own charities. Go ahead, donate to your local drug rehabilitation center, I just don't care to do the same at our current juncture.
Imagine how much money could be saved if we closed the narcotics unit of every police station, disbanded the DEA and stopped pumping money into drug producing countries in failing efforts to stop the flow of drugs. It could be amazing. Tax-free day could move to the beginning of May instead of the middle. That would help our economy for sure.
And imagine how the prices of formerly illegal drugs would bottom out. The business would become far less profitable, and thus, the business would become less violent, volatile, and demand over time could drop as the rebellious nature of drug use is removed. We could even tax the incoming shipments of drugs like we tax tobacco. After all, tobacco is our own drug, only legal because it is so profitable to our government and is produced right here in the good ole U.S.A. We could make the same money off the crack and heroin.
In my discussions with others on this topic some have brought up the idea that, with drugs legalized, the incidence of other crimes, such as theft, would increase as users sought money to continue their habit; or even that random intoxicated mayhem would increase as a result of more access to drugs. Though I disagree with the premise as a whole (citing the fact that the cost of drugs would decline) I should address the point of intoxicated crime. There has to be harsh, merciless punishment of those who commit crimes under the influence of now-legal drugs. The message is that though you may do whatever you want when it is only affecting you, should you infringe on the rights of others, your punishment will be swift and harsh.
It wouldn't be as difficult to make this a practice as one might think. With all the narcotics and DEA officers seeking reassignment, it would not be difficult to redirect their efforts to punishing those who would take their freedoms for granted.
Still others argue that the cost to society would undoubtedly increase, as the increase of persons admitted to the hospital for drug related problems would increase. This could be a valid argument, as certainly more people would overdose and need medical attention. Fortunately the solution to this problem is easy. If one wants the cost to society to decrease, society shouldn't pay. After all, it was the individual, not society as a whole, who decided to take drugs and OD, so why should everyone else have to pay for it? I know I certainly have no interest in funding the hospitalization of junkies.
"Oh, but that's so harsh," one might reply. Indeed. But perhaps not as harsh as a clean-cut American family barely being able to survive because all the money they should be free to spend on food and common necessities goes to a government more concerned with the welfare of selfish drug addicts who know they can get bailed out, unlike the family, whenever they screw up.
In sum, drugs should be legal because I don't want to pay to keep people from using them, I don't want to pay to try and rehabilitate them, I certainly don't want to pay to incarcerate them and I don't care to pay to heal them. You shouldn't either. Perhaps I am a cold-hearted jerk; perhaps I just bombarded you with more pragmatism than you can stand. Either way, I feel I am being fair. All I ask is that people's rights be as uninhibited as possible and that they take responsibility for their decisions, whatever they may be — and that I not have to pay for it.
gunsmith
December 12, 2004, 05:12 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=19358&stc=1
iapetus
December 12, 2004, 07:44 AM
I pretty much think drugs should be legalized, for the same reasons people have already said.
But given that it is a radical proposal, and most people have argued in favour of legalization, I think I'll play Devil's Advocate and suggest reasons for keeping in illegal.
1) Effect on behaviour.
Lots of people have said that people should be blamed for crimes, not inanimate objects (guns, drugs, etc). Neither drugs nor guns can get up and attack someone. Not can a gun make a non-violent person suddenly turn into a thug. But drugs are different. They do alter people's behaviour and personality. It won't always happen, but a decent, sane person could "just try" a drug, and become addicted, turn violent, develop mental problems, etc.
2) Effect on others.
Another argument against prohibition is that drug abuse is a "victimless crime" As long as the user/abuser is only harming himself, there is no reason to punish him. And if he attacks someone because of the effect of the drugs, or to rob them to fund his habit, there are already laws and punishments for assault and robbery.
But there are other effects of drug use that are harmful, but are more subtle than stright-forward crimes against persons. Things like the harm to a familly if one member (especially the bread-winner) makes him or her self useless through drug abuse. Without an effective source of income, the familly would become materially impoverished. And possibly worse, without an effective parental role-model, morally impoverished as well.
But given that it is a radical proposal, and most people have argued in favour of legalization, I think I'll play Devil's Advocate and suggest reasons for keeping in illegal.
1) Effect on behaviour.
Lots of people have said that people should be blamed for crimes, not inanimate objects (guns, drugs, etc). Neither drugs nor guns can get up and attack someone. Not can a gun make a non-violent person suddenly turn into a thug. But drugs are different. They do alter people's behaviour and personality. It won't always happen, but a decent, sane person could "just try" a drug, and become addicted, turn violent, develop mental problems, etc.
2) Effect on others.
Another argument against prohibition is that drug abuse is a "victimless crime" As long as the user/abuser is only harming himself, there is no reason to punish him. And if he attacks someone because of the effect of the drugs, or to rob them to fund his habit, there are already laws and punishments for assault and robbery.
But there are other effects of drug use that are harmful, but are more subtle than stright-forward crimes against persons. Things like the harm to a familly if one member (especially the bread-winner) makes him or her self useless through drug abuse. Without an effective source of income, the familly would become materially impoverished. And possibly worse, without an effective parental role-model, morally impoverished as well.
denfoote
December 12, 2004, 08:22 AM
The so called war on drugs was the first attack on our fundamental liberties!!
Pot was made illegal in order to keep all the "revenuers" employed after prohibition (another attack on liberty) ended. Up until then, nobody cared!!
It was only after the fact, that the junk science machine started rolling, in an attempt to cover up the real reason it was made illegal!!
It also put an end to an entire American industry!! Rope making!! The logging interests were happy because competition from the hemp industry for the making of paper was gone!!!
Wanna save a tree?? Make pot legal again!!
Cocaine was made illegal in an attempt to bring down the Coca-Cola company!! Yes, Virginia, the original Coke was laced with cocaine!!
More government interference in our freedom of choice and fundamental liberties!!
The list goes on and on!!
Pot was made illegal in order to keep all the "revenuers" employed after prohibition (another attack on liberty) ended. Up until then, nobody cared!!
It was only after the fact, that the junk science machine started rolling, in an attempt to cover up the real reason it was made illegal!!
It also put an end to an entire American industry!! Rope making!! The logging interests were happy because competition from the hemp industry for the making of paper was gone!!!
Wanna save a tree?? Make pot legal again!!
Cocaine was made illegal in an attempt to bring down the Coca-Cola company!! Yes, Virginia, the original Coke was laced with cocaine!!
More government interference in our freedom of choice and fundamental liberties!!
The list goes on and on!!
spartacus2002
December 12, 2004, 08:42 AM
The biggest difference is that it's currently easier for that kid to get crack than a pack of cigarettes.
This nails it down perfectly in one sentence. 7-11 is scared ****less that they will get the lash from the govt if they sell cigarettes to minors, so they check ID and hold sales clerks accountable. That isn't happening with the pot dealer.
I've been a prosecutor and defense attorney, and I'm here to tell you it is easier for your kids to get illegal marijuana than to get legal cigarettes. That "It's for the cheeeeeeeeeldren" argument is subject to the law of unintended consequences, just like everything else govt touches.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here: I had an epiphany in law school during my criminal procedure class. Every case we studied in class where SCOTUS carved away at the 4th Amendment was a War On Drugs case.
That should tell you something.
The WOD ain't keeping drugs away from the cheeeeeldren, and it is directly responsible for the erosion of your civil liberties. End it now before Bush has us invading Colombia.
This nails it down perfectly in one sentence. 7-11 is scared ****less that they will get the lash from the govt if they sell cigarettes to minors, so they check ID and hold sales clerks accountable. That isn't happening with the pot dealer.
I've been a prosecutor and defense attorney, and I'm here to tell you it is easier for your kids to get illegal marijuana than to get legal cigarettes. That "It's for the cheeeeeeeeeldren" argument is subject to the law of unintended consequences, just like everything else govt touches.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here: I had an epiphany in law school during my criminal procedure class. Every case we studied in class where SCOTUS carved away at the 4th Amendment was a War On Drugs case.
That should tell you something.
The WOD ain't keeping drugs away from the cheeeeeldren, and it is directly responsible for the erosion of your civil liberties. End it now before Bush has us invading Colombia.
RealGun
December 12, 2004, 08:44 AM
It should never be illegal to grow and eat a plant. Ever. - zahc
Heroine and cocaine come from plants. If you mean marijuana, best just to stick to that. If you are thinking non-addictive or reputedly so, best to be specific. Addicts are a burden to society in one form or another, so society says they have reason to control it. That is meant as an observation, not necessarily a justification for control of what people do.
Heroine and cocaine come from plants. If you mean marijuana, best just to stick to that. If you are thinking non-addictive or reputedly so, best to be specific. Addicts are a burden to society in one form or another, so society says they have reason to control it. That is meant as an observation, not necessarily a justification for control of what people do.
Dannyboy
December 12, 2004, 09:44 AM
Imagine how much money could be saved if we closed the narcotics unit of every police station, disbanded the DEA and stopped pumping money into drug producing countries in failing efforts to stop the flow of drugs. It could be amazing. Tax-free day could move to the beginning of May instead of the middle. That would help our economy for sure.
And imagine how the prices of formerly illegal drugs would bottom out. The business would become far less profitable, and thus, the business would become less violent, volatile, and demand over time could drop as the rebellious nature of drug use is removed. We could even tax the incoming shipments of drugs like we tax tobacco. After all, tobacco is our own drug, only legal because it is so profitable to our government and is produced right here in the good ole U.S.A. We could make the same money off the crack and heroin.
Holy crap! I wrote almost the exact same thing on an essay type test last semester. Legalize em, tax the hell out of em and then disband the DEA. We'd get close to getting rid of the deficit in a few years, I think.
And imagine how the prices of formerly illegal drugs would bottom out. The business would become far less profitable, and thus, the business would become less violent, volatile, and demand over time could drop as the rebellious nature of drug use is removed. We could even tax the incoming shipments of drugs like we tax tobacco. After all, tobacco is our own drug, only legal because it is so profitable to our government and is produced right here in the good ole U.S.A. We could make the same money off the crack and heroin.
Holy crap! I wrote almost the exact same thing on an essay type test last semester. Legalize em, tax the hell out of em and then disband the DEA. We'd get close to getting rid of the deficit in a few years, I think.
White Horseradish
December 12, 2004, 01:49 PM
Cocaine was made illegal in an attempt to bring down the Coca-Cola company!! Yes, Virginia, the original Coke was laced with cocaine!!Not quite. CocaCola did contain cocaine, that's true. The gov't didn't outlaw coke to bring down Coke. It was made illegal because some people were worried about coke-crazed negroes in the south. Cause, you know, white people don't do that. And we have to protect society from the coke-crazed negro.
"a hitherto inoffensive negro, with whom he was well acquainted, was "running amuck" in a cocaine frenzy, had attempted to stab a storekeeper, and was at the moment engaged in "beating up" various members of his own household. " (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/negro_cocaine_fiends.htm)
Yes, it's true. WoD is racist and classist in origin, same as gun control.
"a hitherto inoffensive negro, with whom he was well acquainted, was "running amuck" in a cocaine frenzy, had attempted to stab a storekeeper, and was at the moment engaged in "beating up" various members of his own household. " (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/negro_cocaine_fiends.htm)
Yes, it's true. WoD is racist and classist in origin, same as gun control.
Clean97GTI
December 12, 2004, 06:00 PM
One little flaw I've found with the Drugs support terror line is that more than half of the pot consumed in this country is grown in this country.
Not really supporting terror now are we? More like some farmer supporting his family when crop prices go in the toilet. Ecstasy( MDMA) was in use by therapists and many reported people doing very well while using it (under a doctors care) The problems from X come when the drug isn't pure and too much is taken. Just like any medication (from Morphine to Aspirin) too much will cause harm. Ditto for coke and heroin.
Decriminalize drugs and tax them. The government can give rights to the tobacco companies can let them handle it.The government gets its cut, tobacco compaines hire more people, and a previously forbidden substance loses its forbidden alure. We'll see a spike in usage and then watch it fall to pre-legalization levels...it might even go down.
Kinda off the subject, marijuana can be put in a vaporizer and inhaled that way. You get rid of some of the hazards of smoking it and also make it easier on the lungs (no hot smoke burning them)
Medical MJ patients have been using these devices for several years.
Not really supporting terror now are we? More like some farmer supporting his family when crop prices go in the toilet. Ecstasy( MDMA) was in use by therapists and many reported people doing very well while using it (under a doctors care) The problems from X come when the drug isn't pure and too much is taken. Just like any medication (from Morphine to Aspirin) too much will cause harm. Ditto for coke and heroin.
Decriminalize drugs and tax them. The government can give rights to the tobacco companies can let them handle it.The government gets its cut, tobacco compaines hire more people, and a previously forbidden substance loses its forbidden alure. We'll see a spike in usage and then watch it fall to pre-legalization levels...it might even go down.
Kinda off the subject, marijuana can be put in a vaporizer and inhaled that way. You get rid of some of the hazards of smoking it and also make it easier on the lungs (no hot smoke burning them)
Medical MJ patients have been using these devices for several years.
Selfdfenz
December 12, 2004, 10:34 PM
Why couldn't this just have been a poll? Isn't this the umpteenth time this thread has been run here on THR.
Same people, same positions.
Why not just make it a poll, let people vote and once and for all let that be the end of it. Then we would all know if the pros vs. cons have it 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 whatever.
I think this kind of exchange is one of the the reasons Oleg has those "that which cannot be spoken of" subjects in the first place. Like the "that which cannot be spoken of" subjects, neither side is ever going to convince the other side to come over. I used to be kind of opposed to Oleg's POV on "the that which cannot topics" but the more I see of this particular topic the more appreciation I have for his wisdom.
S-
Same people, same positions.
Why not just make it a poll, let people vote and once and for all let that be the end of it. Then we would all know if the pros vs. cons have it 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 whatever.
I think this kind of exchange is one of the the reasons Oleg has those "that which cannot be spoken of" subjects in the first place. Like the "that which cannot be spoken of" subjects, neither side is ever going to convince the other side to come over. I used to be kind of opposed to Oleg's POV on "the that which cannot topics" but the more I see of this particular topic the more appreciation I have for his wisdom.
S-
USP45usp
December 12, 2004, 11:23 PM
Selfdfenz,
Your question brings into being our natural being, the questions are asked and polls are taken and yet we do seem to stay individuals on each and every subject.
Does that bother you? I, for one, enjoy the debates. Whether once or two or three.
What alot of folks can't either take as life or wish that life be only to their way, life is life and debates upon the same will continue until the day that we die.
We can either be high roaders of our own making or we can appreciate the questions of asked by the members. We are no greater, no smarter, no richer, then anyone here. We all have our attributes and our ways, our thoughts. Please respect that aspect of the membership.
The question, as well as the debate, is well within reason.
Wayne
Your question brings into being our natural being, the questions are asked and polls are taken and yet we do seem to stay individuals on each and every subject.
Does that bother you? I, for one, enjoy the debates. Whether once or two or three.
What alot of folks can't either take as life or wish that life be only to their way, life is life and debates upon the same will continue until the day that we die.
We can either be high roaders of our own making or we can appreciate the questions of asked by the members. We are no greater, no smarter, no richer, then anyone here. We all have our attributes and our ways, our thoughts. Please respect that aspect of the membership.
The question, as well as the debate, is well within reason.
Wayne
Selfdfenz
December 13, 2004, 12:35 AM
USP
At 1000+ posts I welcome you to review my log here THR. I think you will see fear of debate is nothing you can safely associate with my manner of doing business here on THR.
I wish those wanting to explore the pros and cons of legalization as argued by the many good minds on both sides of the topic as put forth here on THR would familiarize themselves with the "search" function first. The legalization topic is richly and repeated covered here. Having done that simple step toward self education, I think most will agree the subject of drug legalization threads is or has become a bit the stuff of beating dead horses and, for all the success evident to this viewer in recasting PsOV, wasted bandwidth.
But that's just me and I wouldn't want to get it the way of someone requiring periodic revalidation from getting it here if it's their only outlet to explore the issue.
If I wasn't clear enough about it in my previous post, the issue I see with the legalizational issue as a thread topic goes strictly to endpoints. People cannot agree on it and never will. The arguments tend to become circular and eventually, if not immediatley, emotional. It is a topic that has a great deal in common with some others that are "that which cannot be spoken of here on THR" as I have come to call them.
-No endpoints
-Tend to increase polarization, arguments tend to become emotional
-People will never agree
-Not sure it makes THR stronger or weaker as (IMHO) most significant 2A site on the WWW but possibly a wedge issue better left to some other site
Not my website, however, so knock yourself out.
S-
At 1000+ posts I welcome you to review my log here THR. I think you will see fear of debate is nothing you can safely associate with my manner of doing business here on THR.
I wish those wanting to explore the pros and cons of legalization as argued by the many good minds on both sides of the topic as put forth here on THR would familiarize themselves with the "search" function first. The legalization topic is richly and repeated covered here. Having done that simple step toward self education, I think most will agree the subject of drug legalization threads is or has become a bit the stuff of beating dead horses and, for all the success evident to this viewer in recasting PsOV, wasted bandwidth.
But that's just me and I wouldn't want to get it the way of someone requiring periodic revalidation from getting it here if it's their only outlet to explore the issue.
If I wasn't clear enough about it in my previous post, the issue I see with the legalizational issue as a thread topic goes strictly to endpoints. People cannot agree on it and never will. The arguments tend to become circular and eventually, if not immediatley, emotional. It is a topic that has a great deal in common with some others that are "that which cannot be spoken of here on THR" as I have come to call them.
-No endpoints
-Tend to increase polarization, arguments tend to become emotional
-People will never agree
-Not sure it makes THR stronger or weaker as (IMHO) most significant 2A site on the WWW but possibly a wedge issue better left to some other site
Not my website, however, so knock yourself out.
S-
Justin
December 13, 2004, 12:43 AM
Selfdfenz-
The one thing you are missing though, is that the drug legalization threads tend to remain civil and therefore unlocked, as opposed to "those subjects not meant to be spoken of" which tend to get locked down PDQ.
The one thing you are missing though, is that the drug legalization threads tend to remain civil and therefore unlocked, as opposed to "those subjects not meant to be spoken of" which tend to get locked down PDQ.
LiquidTension
December 13, 2004, 01:26 AM
My midterm exam in my CRJU 541 class (Drugs and Crime) made us take a position on decriminalization/legalization/zero tolerance. Maybe I'll post my paper sometime when I feel like taking the time to type it.
If you look at the drug schedules and families, there are some glaring inconsistencies. For example, the schedules are divided up according to such attributes as addictive qualities, potential for abuse, and medical uses (or lack of). Even though nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and even though it is toxic, has no medical use, and has a very high potential for abuse, it appears nowhere in the drug schedules. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug, yet it has accepted medical use and only mild addictive properties. While it has a high potential for abuse, the effects of abusing pot are not nearly as harmful as abusing say, cigarettes.
There is little reasoning behind which drugs are legal and which ones aren't. The main factor is MONEY. When DuPont developed synthetic rope in the '30s, people still used hemp ropes because hemp is superior. DuPont teamed up with the US government to make hemp illegal in order to sell more synthetic rope (i.e. make more money). Don't believe me? Go watch Reefer Madness - a collaborative film by DuPont and the US government.
Marijuana is not the devil that some of you make it out to be. Cocaine, meth, crack, heroin, etc should indeed be illegal because they cause severe behavioral changes due to their addictive qualities. Yes, addicts do commit crimes to fund their drug habits. This is absolutely not true of pot smokers. Why? Because pot does not have the addictive potential of harder drugs, and it is CHEAPER THAN ALCOHOL, users do not have to commit crimes to pay for the drug.
Here's something to think on. Let's say you are at a party and did not drive, so you must ride home with someone. You have the choice of riding with someone that is high or someone that is drunk. Who do you get in the car with? None of that "I'd call a cab" or "I'd walk" or anything, just those two choices. The majority of people would ride with the stoner, because pot does not impede motor control (not wanting to get off the couch is not the same as not being able to stand up). Some of the same people that would ride with the stoner still want it to be illegal even though they admit that its potential for harm is less.
That's enough for now, I don't wanna get all riled up about this.
If you look at the drug schedules and families, there are some glaring inconsistencies. For example, the schedules are divided up according to such attributes as addictive qualities, potential for abuse, and medical uses (or lack of). Even though nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and even though it is toxic, has no medical use, and has a very high potential for abuse, it appears nowhere in the drug schedules. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug, yet it has accepted medical use and only mild addictive properties. While it has a high potential for abuse, the effects of abusing pot are not nearly as harmful as abusing say, cigarettes.
There is little reasoning behind which drugs are legal and which ones aren't. The main factor is MONEY. When DuPont developed synthetic rope in the '30s, people still used hemp ropes because hemp is superior. DuPont teamed up with the US government to make hemp illegal in order to sell more synthetic rope (i.e. make more money). Don't believe me? Go watch Reefer Madness - a collaborative film by DuPont and the US government.
Marijuana is not the devil that some of you make it out to be. Cocaine, meth, crack, heroin, etc should indeed be illegal because they cause severe behavioral changes due to their addictive qualities. Yes, addicts do commit crimes to fund their drug habits. This is absolutely not true of pot smokers. Why? Because pot does not have the addictive potential of harder drugs, and it is CHEAPER THAN ALCOHOL, users do not have to commit crimes to pay for the drug.
Here's something to think on. Let's say you are at a party and did not drive, so you must ride home with someone. You have the choice of riding with someone that is high or someone that is drunk. Who do you get in the car with? None of that "I'd call a cab" or "I'd walk" or anything, just those two choices. The majority of people would ride with the stoner, because pot does not impede motor control (not wanting to get off the couch is not the same as not being able to stand up). Some of the same people that would ride with the stoner still want it to be illegal even though they admit that its potential for harm is less.
That's enough for now, I don't wanna get all riled up about this.
Guy B. Meredith
December 13, 2004, 02:15 AM
Sure, totally legalize drugs, put Darwinism to work, reduce the world population and save the environment by reducing the vermin.
On the other hand, some drugs like marijuana are criminalized only because of social predjudice. Marijauna is no worse than tobacco and alcohol, but hey those are socially acceptable suicide. I have used all three, have decided I don't like tobacco or marijuana and am leaning towards reducing my alcohol intake to less than one fifth of high proof stuff a day. However, if others use them responsibly and with some courtesy, then I have no problem.
Edited--Not on the high proof stuff this morning and the insurance angle comes to mind. People who become ill for using their drug of choice should be required to pay for care on their own, not from my health insurance premiums.
On the other hand, some drugs like marijuana are criminalized only because of social predjudice. Marijauna is no worse than tobacco and alcohol, but hey those are socially acceptable suicide. I have used all three, have decided I don't like tobacco or marijuana and am leaning towards reducing my alcohol intake to less than one fifth of high proof stuff a day. However, if others use them responsibly and with some courtesy, then I have no problem.
Edited--Not on the high proof stuff this morning and the insurance angle comes to mind. People who become ill for using their drug of choice should be required to pay for care on their own, not from my health insurance premiums.
Justin
December 13, 2004, 04:15 AM
Cocaine, meth, crack, heroin, etc should indeed be illegal because they cause severe behavioral changes due to their addictive qualities. Yes, addicts do commit crimes to fund their drug habits. I would submit that the vast majority of the crimes committed by addicts can be traced back the massivly inflated prices of drugs due to interdiction efforts and the WoD.
In other words, if the prices on such narcotics were low, there really wouldn't be an economic reason to go about robbing others to get one's fix. I would venture to say that this is where the "legalize it and tax the hell out of it" crowd goes somewhat astray. They're still attempting to use governmental power to effect a positive behavioral change in people that are not likely to suddenly see the light due to the inflated prices of their vice of choice.
In other words, if the prices on such narcotics were low, there really wouldn't be an economic reason to go about robbing others to get one's fix. I would venture to say that this is where the "legalize it and tax the hell out of it" crowd goes somewhat astray. They're still attempting to use governmental power to effect a positive behavioral change in people that are not likely to suddenly see the light due to the inflated prices of their vice of choice.
RealGun
December 13, 2004, 07:13 AM
I wish those wanting to explore the pros and cons of legalization as argued by the many good minds on both sides of the topic as put forth here on THR would familiarize themselves with the "search" function first. - selfdfenz
I think you may be singling out an issue that simply doesn't interest you and which you should have quietly bypassed. Thinking of other topics and applying your reasoning, we should not have discussed election politics ad nauseum for 7 months. We didn't need to hear again and again how above it all the Libertarian Party was or what a putz George Bush was, etc., etc.
There are a number of other topics that are not particularly productive, but those who have something to say value the outlet. They skip others with a yawn or are simply burned out on that subject.
These debates are educational. Pick which ones appeal to you. If an issue really is a dead horse, then no one will respond to it. Some older threads are large enough to be unmanageable in the browser, so starting fresh, possibly from a slightly different angle, has its merits.
I think you may be singling out an issue that simply doesn't interest you and which you should have quietly bypassed. Thinking of other topics and applying your reasoning, we should not have discussed election politics ad nauseum for 7 months. We didn't need to hear again and again how above it all the Libertarian Party was or what a putz George Bush was, etc., etc.
There are a number of other topics that are not particularly productive, but those who have something to say value the outlet. They skip others with a yawn or are simply burned out on that subject.
These debates are educational. Pick which ones appeal to you. If an issue really is a dead horse, then no one will respond to it. Some older threads are large enough to be unmanageable in the browser, so starting fresh, possibly from a slightly different angle, has its merits.
Selfdfenz
December 13, 2004, 07:48 AM
RealGun,
"I think you may be singling out an issue that simply doesn't interest you and which you should have quietly bypassed. Thinking of other topics and applying your reasoning, we should not have discussed election politics ad nauseum for 7 months. We didn't need to hear again and again how above it all the Libertarian Party was or what a putz George Bush was, etc., etc."
I'm just applying the same rule already in place for a few selected topics that keep them in the cooler fairly to this one. The dialogue regarding the past election may have become irritating to many on both sides but the issue was resolved. W won.
Seven months of debate regarding the election was not too much.
Legalization goes back as far as the beginning of THR and was discussed on TFL prior to that time. Not the same thing at all. The dialogue is unending and issue will not be resolved just like ab------ or re------. Your comparison was apples and oranges.
BTW....W is a putz. I didn't vote for him and I'm not a liberal or a libertarian but he is the POTUS and nothing can change that. He is my President as a result but doesn't change the fundamental truth he is still a putz. :D
I will continue to p-ay for the the President and Laura but let's not be in denial.
As a resident of the Great State of Texas I can say I voted for him when he ran for Gov and 1x for POTUS but that was enough and terminal given his policy on immigration. Also, end of thread drift.
S-
"I think you may be singling out an issue that simply doesn't interest you and which you should have quietly bypassed. Thinking of other topics and applying your reasoning, we should not have discussed election politics ad nauseum for 7 months. We didn't need to hear again and again how above it all the Libertarian Party was or what a putz George Bush was, etc., etc."
I'm just applying the same rule already in place for a few selected topics that keep them in the cooler fairly to this one. The dialogue regarding the past election may have become irritating to many on both sides but the issue was resolved. W won.
Seven months of debate regarding the election was not too much.
Legalization goes back as far as the beginning of THR and was discussed on TFL prior to that time. Not the same thing at all. The dialogue is unending and issue will not be resolved just like ab------ or re------. Your comparison was apples and oranges.
BTW....W is a putz. I didn't vote for him and I'm not a liberal or a libertarian but he is the POTUS and nothing can change that. He is my President as a result but doesn't change the fundamental truth he is still a putz. :D
I will continue to p-ay for the the President and Laura but let's not be in denial.
As a resident of the Great State of Texas I can say I voted for him when he ran for Gov and 1x for POTUS but that was enough and terminal given his policy on immigration. Also, end of thread drift.
S-
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 13, 2004, 08:07 AM
There would be far fewer problems associated with the total legalization of all controlled substances than there are associated with the current criminialization of drug abuse: Less violent crime, less money going to terrorists, less subversion of governments in SE Asia, Afghanistan, Columbia, way more prison space available for keeping violent criminals locked up for far longer sentences, less waste of police resources on futile attempts to stem the flow of drugs and more resources to fight terrorism (maybe not a great thing for civil liberties), and probably a more enjoyable life for many otherwise law abiding folks who like to smoke a harmless joint every now and then.
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 13, 2004, 08:16 AM
One little flaw I've found with the Drugs support terror line is that more than half of the pot consumed in this country is grown in this country.
That's true, but the cocaine supports narco terrorists in Columbia, and heroin supports terrorism in Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.
Your conception of who exactly is growing pot here in the US is not very accurate. A lot of it is being grown on public land by some pretty violent thugs who don't mind booby-trapping their National Park & National Forest land plots.
That's true, but the cocaine supports narco terrorists in Columbia, and heroin supports terrorism in Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.
Your conception of who exactly is growing pot here in the US is not very accurate. A lot of it is being grown on public land by some pretty violent thugs who don't mind booby-trapping their National Park & National Forest land plots.
Firethorn
December 13, 2004, 09:58 AM
In other words, if the prices on such narcotics were low, there really wouldn't be an economic reason to go about robbing others to get one's fix. I would venture to say that this is where the "legalize it and tax the hell out of it" crowd goes somewhat astray. They're still attempting to use governmental power to effect a positive behavioral change in people that are not likely to suddenly see the light due to the inflated prices of their vice of choice.
I knew there there was a reason that I tend to say "moderatly tax it". I'd use the funds to run detox centers. :rolleyes:
There would be far fewer problems associated with the total legalization of all controlled substances than there are associated with the current criminialization of drug abuse: Less violent crime, less money going to terrorists, less subversion of governments in SE Asia, Afghanistan, Columbia, way more prison space available for keeping violent criminals locked up for far longer sentences, less waste of police resources on futile attempts to stem the flow of drugs and more resources to fight terrorism (maybe not a great thing for civil liberties), and probably a more enjoyable life for many otherwise law abiding folks who like to smoke a harmless joint every now and then.
Ditto, man, Ditto. As far as freeing up more resources to fight terrorists being a bad thing(loss of rights?), legalizing drugs would enable the police to fight terrorism better without violating our rights.
If you:
a: legalize drugs,
b: end welfare
c: make legal immigratin easy for non-terrorist types
you would be able to lock down the borders quite easily because you know anybody trying to sneak in are up to some really bad stuff. Also, you wouldn't have the estableshed smuggling routes. While the cocaine barons go broke(or legal), you set your anti-drug forces to looking for terrorists.
I knew there there was a reason that I tend to say "moderatly tax it". I'd use the funds to run detox centers. :rolleyes:
There would be far fewer problems associated with the total legalization of all controlled substances than there are associated with the current criminialization of drug abuse: Less violent crime, less money going to terrorists, less subversion of governments in SE Asia, Afghanistan, Columbia, way more prison space available for keeping violent criminals locked up for far longer sentences, less waste of police resources on futile attempts to stem the flow of drugs and more resources to fight terrorism (maybe not a great thing for civil liberties), and probably a more enjoyable life for many otherwise law abiding folks who like to smoke a harmless joint every now and then.
Ditto, man, Ditto. As far as freeing up more resources to fight terrorists being a bad thing(loss of rights?), legalizing drugs would enable the police to fight terrorism better without violating our rights.
If you:
a: legalize drugs,
b: end welfare
c: make legal immigratin easy for non-terrorist types
you would be able to lock down the borders quite easily because you know anybody trying to sneak in are up to some really bad stuff. Also, you wouldn't have the estableshed smuggling routes. While the cocaine barons go broke(or legal), you set your anti-drug forces to looking for terrorists.
Igloodude
December 13, 2004, 12:37 PM
Your conception of who exactly is growing pot here in the US is not very accurate. A lot of it is being grown on public land by some pretty violent thugs who don't mind booby-trapping their National Park & National Forest land plots.
Boy, think of what a difference there'd be in that circumstance when farmers are able to set aside an acre or two to grow it. The pretty violent thugs will go back to petty thievery and the illegal immigrants will become a larger problem instead. I've never heard of any tobacco farmers booby-trapping their land (or at any rate, no moreso than anyone else in the Carolinas) or for that matter having any reason to do so.
Boy, think of what a difference there'd be in that circumstance when farmers are able to set aside an acre or two to grow it. The pretty violent thugs will go back to petty thievery and the illegal immigrants will become a larger problem instead. I've never heard of any tobacco farmers booby-trapping their land (or at any rate, no moreso than anyone else in the Carolinas) or for that matter having any reason to do so.
Selfdfenz
December 13, 2004, 02:13 PM
"and the illegal immigrants will become a larger problem instead."
Me thinks you said more of a mouthful on that one. Isn't dope the core of the Mexican econony? Possibly the rest of Mexico will move here.
Makes one wonder what all the drug lords will do when their revenue goes away. Go legit and buy El Subway franchises I guess. :)
S-
Me thinks you said more of a mouthful on that one. Isn't dope the core of the Mexican econony? Possibly the rest of Mexico will move here.
Makes one wonder what all the drug lords will do when their revenue goes away. Go legit and buy El Subway franchises I guess. :)
S-
zahc
December 13, 2004, 02:33 PM
You have the choice of riding with someone that is high or someone that is drunk. Who do you get in the car with?
Furthermore, I cannot remember ever feeling threatened or afraid around someone who is high, like I often do around people, even people who are level headed when sober, that are violent and inflammatory when drunk.
Furthermore, I cannot remember ever feeling threatened or afraid around someone who is high, like I often do around people, even people who are level headed when sober, that are violent and inflammatory when drunk.
LiquidTension
December 13, 2004, 02:44 PM
Justin - that's a good point. The problem is that when people are cracked out they don't exactly think rationally, so crimes would still be committed (mostly vandalism and assaults). But I believe you are correct, many of the crimes associated with drugs would vanish if they were cheaper.
zahc - that question comes from one of my class lectures. The professor often asks it to rooms full of police officers, and even they acknowledge that pot is less harmful to public safety than alcohol. But they still want it illegal because of asset forfeiture laws, which line their pockets.
I'm not going to get into asset forfeiture and the horrible unintended consequences it has brought about right now, maybe after I get back from work.
zahc - that question comes from one of my class lectures. The professor often asks it to rooms full of police officers, and even they acknowledge that pot is less harmful to public safety than alcohol. But they still want it illegal because of asset forfeiture laws, which line their pockets.
I'm not going to get into asset forfeiture and the horrible unintended consequences it has brought about right now, maybe after I get back from work.
Igloodude
December 13, 2004, 03:00 PM
"and the illegal immigrants will become a larger problem instead."
Me thinks you said more of a mouthful on that one. Isn't dope the core of the Mexican econony? Possibly the rest of Mexico will move here.
Makes one wonder what all the drug lords will do when their revenue goes away. Go legit and buy El Subway franchises I guess.
Isn't Mexico fighting that War on Drugs as well? Sounds like they're doing considerably worse than we are...
Me thinks you said more of a mouthful on that one. Isn't dope the core of the Mexican econony? Possibly the rest of Mexico will move here.
Makes one wonder what all the drug lords will do when their revenue goes away. Go legit and buy El Subway franchises I guess.
Isn't Mexico fighting that War on Drugs as well? Sounds like they're doing considerably worse than we are...
tyme
December 13, 2004, 03:42 PM
Sure, let's legalize drugs and then tax them ... because we can!
Just as taxing guns, alcohol, and tobacco is pathetic, ridiculous, and unconstitutional, a tax on all currently-illegal drugs would be just as idiotic.
It's already illegal to be severely altered in public. That doesn't seem to stop the crack and pcp addicts, heroin junkies, or any other dangerous drug users. Why not make those penalties more severe (and treat the addicts while they're in jail), and legalize drugs so those who can do them responsibly don't risk having their lives screwed up by the legal system, and so that the dangerous people aren't committing quite so many violent crimes to satisfy their habits?
Just as taxing guns, alcohol, and tobacco is pathetic, ridiculous, and unconstitutional, a tax on all currently-illegal drugs would be just as idiotic.
It's already illegal to be severely altered in public. That doesn't seem to stop the crack and pcp addicts, heroin junkies, or any other dangerous drug users. Why not make those penalties more severe (and treat the addicts while they're in jail), and legalize drugs so those who can do them responsibly don't risk having their lives screwed up by the legal system, and so that the dangerous people aren't committing quite so many violent crimes to satisfy their habits?
Selfdfenz
December 13, 2004, 05:27 PM
Igloodude,
From what I understand Mexico is fighting the WOD and the Mexican Government are having the same massive levels of success they enjoy in The War on Stopping Illegal Immigration (of their countrymen to El Norte).
Which is 0.
S-
From what I understand Mexico is fighting the WOD and the Mexican Government are having the same massive levels of success they enjoy in The War on Stopping Illegal Immigration (of their countrymen to El Norte).
Which is 0.
S-
OpenRoad
December 13, 2004, 05:48 PM
I do not want to see this country become Holland, where drugs are sold openly in cafes and on street corners.
Too late. Prohibition ended more than 70 years ago.
Too late. Prohibition ended more than 70 years ago.
Igloodude
December 14, 2004, 07:41 AM
Igloodude,
From what I understand Mexico is fighting the WOD and the Mexican Government are having the same massive levels of success they enjoy in The War on Stopping Illegal Immigration (of their countrymen to El Norte).
Which is 0.
S-
I think they're fighting a three-front war: drugs, emigration, and guns. Seems that it is too easy to purchase guns here and smuggle them south.
With Mexico having a supply of drugs and a demand for guns, and the US having a supply of guns and a demand for drugs, one wonders how long both governments can maintain the illusion to their respective electorates that they can eventually overcome basic economic principles.
From what I understand Mexico is fighting the WOD and the Mexican Government are having the same massive levels of success they enjoy in The War on Stopping Illegal Immigration (of their countrymen to El Norte).
Which is 0.
S-
I think they're fighting a three-front war: drugs, emigration, and guns. Seems that it is too easy to purchase guns here and smuggle them south.
With Mexico having a supply of drugs and a demand for guns, and the US having a supply of guns and a demand for drugs, one wonders how long both governments can maintain the illusion to their respective electorates that they can eventually overcome basic economic principles.
If you enjoyed reading about "Legalize Drugs? What do you think of this article?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.