The solution to the U.S. war on drugs


PDA






walking arsenal
February 13, 2006, 05:35 PM
While doing research for a one of my classes i came across some interesting data concerning Drug trafficking into the state of Minnesota.

Since i live in the state of MN this naturally piqued my interest.

Drug Situation:In Minnesota, MEXICAN traffickers control the transportation, distribution, and bulk sales of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and small amounts of black-tar heroin. Numerous Mexican groups and street gangs such as the Latin Kings are operating in the state. As a general rule, the upper echelon Mexican distributors in Minnesota transport the majority of their proceeds back to family members residing in Mexico. At the retail level, independent African American traffickers, African American street gangs, Native American gangs, and independent caucasian groups purchase cocaine, black-tar heroin, and marijuana from Mexican traffickers. In outlying areas of the state, independent caucasian groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs distribute methamphetamine in small quantities. Street gang activity in Minnesota has increased dramatically over the past few years. African American gangs appear to be primarily involved in the distribution of crack cocaine. DEA Web site http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/minnesota.html

So the conclusion i came to was that if we control the Mexican border we control drug imports into the U.S.

Granted the drug producers will then start growing things in state but that is significantly easier to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "The solution to the U.S. war on drugs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
February 13, 2006, 05:42 PM
How about even more simplistic?


Take the market away from them!

That's right, legalize it all and produce it cheaper, sell it cheaper, but at a higher quality. Beat them at their own game; take the profit out of it and they'll stop. By leaving everything regulated in the War on (some) Drugs [thanks SW for the phrase], you make the regulated items high priced.

stevelyn
February 13, 2006, 05:43 PM
Legalize. Regulate. Tax. Take the blackmarket profits out. Recreational drugs should not be treated any different than liquor.
Prohibition of liquor didn't work. Prohibition of some drugs dosen't either.

Thain
February 13, 2006, 05:45 PM
Legalize `em all, and let Phillip-Morris start selling pot. Quality will go up, prices will go down, and I'll buy stock in Little Debbie snack cakes.

Sindawe
February 13, 2006, 05:50 PM
Legalize `em all, and let Phillip-Morris start selling pot. Quality will go upI don't know about THAT. PM products are pretty poor examples of quality tobacco.

I agree with the legalize 'em all stance.

ElTacoGrande
February 13, 2006, 05:56 PM
So the conclusion i came to was that if we control the Mexican border we control drug imports into the U.S.

Granted the drug producers will then start growing things in state but that is significantly easier to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

Sorry, won't work.

The first thing to understand is that the drug business is a business, a highly competitive business, with many entrepreneurs trying to find innovative ways to lower costs, improve customer satisfaction, and market their products.

There are a million ways to get drugs into the US. You can haul them over the Mexican border. You can haul them under. You can put them in condoms and have people swallow them. You can put them on submarines (yes the Colombians have done this). You can bribe government officials (US customs and law enforcement agents; yes this happens). You can put them on airplanes. You can synthesize them in the US. You can send them by speedboat (this is done frequently). You can ship them from Canada (this is done by the ton). The US has thousands of miles of coastline, with many little islands and bays and vegetation.

Anyway, the point is, that if Mexicans are currently moving drugs from Mexico, that's only because it's the most cost-effective way to do it right now. Like I said, there are a million ways to do it, all with varying levels of expense and risk. If one of these ways becomes non-competitive with the other ways, they will try one of the remaining 999,999 options they have. Or some entrepreneur will invent a new option. Why couldn't the genes to produce cocaine be moved from the coca plant into some other plant? There's no reason; it would be easy to do, and if they can't ship it from Colombia they'll geneticly engineer it and produce it here. Or they'll synthesize it. Or bribe customs officials. Or the CIA will get in the coke business. Or whatever.

There's a $500bil market for illegal drugs in the US. That means that every year, there's enough cash flowing around for 500,000 people to become millionaires. Every year! That's powerful motivation to a lot of people to be creative, work hard and take risks. A lot of them don't make it, but many who are trying are in situations where they don't see many other avenues to success. Remember, ambition is present in every race and education level and class, but opportunities for "legitimate" success are not so available to those who are in the most disadvantaged groups. So they take the ways that are open to them, whether it is sports, entertainment, drug dealing, whatever.

If we want to stop illegal drugs, there are only two ways that could work. One is the Asian-style solution, which is summary executions for everyone involved, which includes executing plenty of innocent people and basically abolishing our jury trial system. The other is to legalize them. Take your pick.

neoncowboy
February 13, 2006, 06:01 PM
Granted the drug producers will then start growing things in state but that is significantly easier to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

Domestic producers must have an eye kept on them why exactly?

As was previously stated, the solution to the war on [some] drugs is to dismantle the DEA, repeal federal controlled substances laws and leave people alone to live their lives the way they want to.

Biker
February 13, 2006, 06:03 PM
Legalize `em all, and let Phillip-Morris start selling pot. Quality will go up, prices will go down, and I'll buy stock in Little Debbie snack cakes.
Ya got me with that one, I have to admit. I now know what 'guffaw' means...back in the day, I preferred Oreos, milk and Cheech and Chong's 'Up In Smoke'.
:)
Biker

Derby FALs
February 13, 2006, 06:14 PM
How about even more simplistic?


Take the market away from them!

That's right, legalize it all and produce it cheaper, sell it cheaper, but at a higher quality. Beat them at their own game; take the profit out of it and they'll stop. By leaving everything regulated in the War on (some) Drugs [thanks SW for the phrase], you make the regulated items high priced.

I wish it was so simple but unemployment would go through the roof. At least for six months and then they wouldn't be counted anymore as their benefits run out. :what:

FeebMaster
February 13, 2006, 06:50 PM
I wish it was so simple but unemployment would go through the roof. At least for six months and then they wouldn't be counted anymore as their benefits run out. :what:

Former DEA employees will just have to find other jobs. I'm sure they're qualified for something.

ElTacoGrande
February 13, 2006, 06:56 PM
Former DEA employees will just have to find other jobs. I'm sure they're qualified for something.

That's really the major problem. There are hundreds of thousands of DEA agents, cops, prosecutors, prison guards, etc, who have worked in these jobs for their whole careers and really AREN'T qualified to do anything else. It's really hard to give pink slips to a bunch of powerful and heavily armed people who are sort of above the law. But that's exactly what we need to do. Sorry to any DEA agents reading this, you're risking your life doing a job that no one needs you to do, and that does more harm than good.

O.F.Fascist
February 13, 2006, 06:59 PM
Sorry, won't work.

The first thing to understand is that the drug business is a business, a highly competitive business, with many entrepreneurs trying to find innovative ways to lower costs, improve customer satisfaction, and market their products.

There are a million ways to get drugs into the US. You can haul them over the Mexican border. You can haul them under. You can put them in condoms and have people swallow them. You can put them on submarines (yes the Colombians have done this). You can bribe government officials (US customs and law enforcement agents; yes this happens). You can put them on airplanes. You can synthesize them in the US. You can send them by speedboat (this is done frequently). You can ship them from Canada (this is done by the ton). The US has thousands of miles of coastline, with many little islands and bays and vegetation.

Anyway, the point is, that if Mexicans are currently moving drugs from Mexico, that's only because it's the most cost-effective way to do it right now. Like I said, there are a million ways to do it, all with varying levels of expense and risk. If one of these ways becomes non-competitive with the other ways, they will try one of the remaining 999,999 options they have. Or some entrepreneur will invent a new option. Why couldn't the genes to produce cocaine be moved from the coca plant into some other plant? There's no reason; it would be easy to do, and if they can't ship it from Colombia they'll geneticly engineer it and produce it here. Or they'll synthesize it. Or bribe customs officials. Or the CIA will get in the coke business. Or whatever.

There's a $500bil market for illegal drugs in the US. That means that every year, there's enough cash flowing around for 500,000 people to become millionaires. Every year! That's powerful motivation to a lot of people to be creative, work hard and take risks. A lot of them don't make it, but many who are trying are in situations where they don't see many other avenues to success. Remember, ambition is present in every race and education level and class, but opportunities for "legitimate" success are not so available to those who are in the most disadvantaged groups. So they take the ways that are open to them, whether it is sports, entertainment, drug dealing, whatever.

If we want to stop illegal drugs, there are only two ways that could work. One is the Asian-style solution, which is summary executions for everyone involved, which includes executing plenty of innocent people and basically abolishing our jury trial system. The other is to legalize them. Take your pick.

I agree.

You cannot stop the freemarket, and if you think we should then perhaps you should be thinking really hard about renouncing your citizenship and looking for a new home elsewhere because there are plenty of countries out there that try just that.

ArmedBear
February 13, 2006, 07:02 PM
Former DEA employees will just have to find other jobs. I'm sure they're qualified for something.

They wouldn't be happy in a free society. And salary/benefit packages in the few remaining genuine police states are pretty low, compared to our Federal government.

Still, I wouldn't oppose sending them to North Korea.

bamawrx
February 13, 2006, 07:11 PM
You have to remove the cost of the drugs in order to also put a stop to the property crimes that result from users trying to afford the drug use. The government could contract private companies to produce drugs that are very controlled in quality and provide the drugs for free to anyone that qualifies. We will know who is doing what and how much.

Lets face it, we could produce all the drugs we need and distribute them for what we spend on the "war on drugs" in ONE DAY. That will free up resources for treatment and help to make some people feel better about the new program.

No profit, no cost, no market. The implications would be hard to imagine. Forget legalize and tax, as that only solves half the problem.

ElTacoGrande
February 13, 2006, 07:18 PM
You have to remove the cost of the drugs in order to also put a stop to the property crimes that result from users trying to afford the drug use. The government could contract private companies to produce drugs that are very controlled in quality and provide the drugs for free to anyone that qualifies. We will know who is doing what and how much.

The cost of producing drugs which are currently illegal is so vanishingly small that you almost wouldn't measure it. Even if the whole thing were legal, the packaging (pills, bottles, injectables) would be more expensive to produce than the drugs themselves. These are cheap cheap cheap chemicals.

Right now, there are very few property crimes committed by people to buy alcohol, and legalized drugs could be cheaper than alcohol. 10mg of the right substance will satisfy an addict for 24 hours. How much does it cost to produce 10mg of a simple pharmaceutical? $0.001 maybe?

Ezekiel
February 13, 2006, 07:26 PM
Legalize. Regulate. Tax. Take the blackmarket profits out.

Should we do this with guns?

"Liberty" allows folks to do what they desire [drugs] until it harms another. If you do not back legalization of drugs, it is pretty hard to be righteous on gun control.

John Q. is both a dumbass, and a hypocrite.

Third_Rail
February 13, 2006, 07:31 PM
I think he meant regulate and tax as in tobacco; make sure the drugs aren't going to kill someone with the recommended dose, etc. Not "regulate" like the NFA. At least, that's how I read it.

Maxwell
February 13, 2006, 07:32 PM
The drug war is prohibition under a new name.
It will work the same way when you up the security on the border.

Lets roll back to remember what happend in the 20's, only now most of our urban citizens are disarmed and the criminals will rampage without any fear of them.

Then theres the semi-legalized slavery of mexicans thats been taking place. Illegal workers being shipped in, used, abused, and dumped when their employers cant use them anymore.

Overall its a human tragedy waiting to explode.
I think securing the border would solve one easy problem, then make many more than we can ever hope to contain.

First we have to do something about destroying the drug market (I say legalize, tax, and educate). Then we have to deal with the social situation of these immigrants to either deport or integrate them with the border towns.

If their going to live here, we need to identify them and put this group to working proper American jobs. Make sure their getting at least minimal wage, good insurance, paying for their medical care and signing up for all the benefits employers must give.

Then go to work with more education stuff. Get their kids speaking english, eating apple pie and memorizing the plege of alliegance.

longeyes
February 13, 2006, 07:56 PM
Legalize it.

Don't hide the Dark; learn how to dance with it.

Watch some august institutions on this side of the border go belly up if drugs get cheap.

NMshooter
February 13, 2006, 08:40 PM
I thought most pot for "commercial" use was grown in the US already.

All those acres in California state and national parks for example.

Not counting all the folks who grow it for personal use.

Sure would be nice if meth labs could not compete with Pfizer et.al., and all went away. I really do not want to watch my apartment complex burn down because some fool was cooking a rush batch and screwed up.

Just think of all the poor gang bangers who would have to earn an honest living...:D

308win
February 13, 2006, 08:45 PM
Make it free, as much as you want when you want it and go straight to the hard stuff. In a short period of time we wouldn't have a drug problem nor many users.

stevelyn
February 13, 2006, 08:52 PM
I think he meant regulate and tax as in tobacco; make sure the drugs aren't going to kill someone with the recommended dose, etc. Not "regulate" like the NFA. At least, that's how I read it.

Yup. Gotta have the quality control.

Merkin.Muffley
February 13, 2006, 08:57 PM
Former DEA employees will just have to find other jobs. I'm sure they're qualified for something.

They'd move to the BATFE.

Zero_DgZ
February 13, 2006, 09:11 PM
Trouble is, legalization is a slippery slope.

Am I for it? Hell yes. And I don't drink or smoke (anything).

To me, it's a basic right for people to figure stuff out for themselves and do what they want with their bodies.

The problems come in when unscrupulous types pushing hard drugs (like heroin or crack) start ruining the lives of others. Smoking some grass now and again is one thing (as is having a drink every once in a while, &c.) but getting trapped in the hard drug game is a different story entirely.

That's where the government has to walk the thin line between not infringing on people's personal rights and protecting them from stuff that is actually quite nasty.

You want my opinion? It should all be legal - Locking the poor users up for consuming the stuff doesn't help them and just hurts everyone all around in creating more criminals. Instead, that effort ought to be put towards providing places and services to clean them up when they've had enough.

That's a big factor. If by nature your vice is a felony you aren't exactly going to go knocking on the government or any professional's door for help, are you? The powers that be need to quit being hypocrites about it and get their hands dirty. Remember the original role of the government? To protect the people, not punish them?

Yeah.

You catch more flies with sugar.

Standing Wolf
February 13, 2006, 09:38 PM
Legalize. Regulate. Tax. Take the blackmarket profits out.

Baloney! Just legalize all that junk. There's no authority for government to stick its grubby paws into any of it.

beerslurpy
February 13, 2006, 09:42 PM
That's really the major problem. There are hundreds of thousands of DEA agents, cops, prosecutors, prison guards, etc, who have worked in these jobs for their whole careers and really AREN'T qualified to do anything else. It's really hard to give pink slips to a bunch of powerful and heavily armed people who are sort of above the law. But that's exactly what we need to do. Sorry to any DEA agents reading this, you're risking your life doing a job that no one needs you to do, and that does more harm than good.
The classic roman problem of how to get rid of the praetorian guard. If you dont pay them, they assassinate you. If you keep paying them, you get steadily worsening codependency, ultimately ending in the bankruptcy of the empire.

The change isnt going to come from above because powerful men inherently enjoy the service of many henchmen. The change will come either because society collapses under the weight of the police apparatus or because some unforeseen convergence of events causes people to take notice of the direction things are going and try to fix it en masse.

I predict that this problem will be left until it is way too late to fix. The corrective action for this is going to be very painful. Either America will descend into the long darkness of tyranny or there will be a genuine civil war resulting in a complete reworking of our government.

Firethorn
February 13, 2006, 10:30 PM
There's plenty of places we can use the DEA agents, with moderate retraining. Iraq and Afghanistan still needs people, after all. Heck, transfer them to Border Patrol agencies.

You can also do the gradual legalization thing, and simple commence a drawdown, attrition through retirement.

My idea is the same as stevelyn.
Legalize it: Kills the black market. Bootleggers aren't considered a major problem anymore.
Regulate it: FDA style regs here, not BATFE. Ensure the stuff is sanitary, cut with safe materials, of a constant purity, free from hazardous contamination. Same as alchohol, better than tobacco.
Tax it: You tread a fine line here. I'd use the money to provide for treatment centers when somebody wants to dry up. Treat it as an insurance program bought with each dose. Oh, and provide funds for a reduced DEA to go after anybody giving them to kids.

The commercial cost of a dose of Heroin, without black market distortions, comes out comparable with a dose of aspirin.

The problems come in when unscrupulous types pushing hard drugs (like heroin or crack) start ruining the lives of others.

I envision that it'd be like alchohol/tobacco today. Advertising not allowed, but available at most drug stores. You wouldn't get the 'Pusher' type because he doesn't have what's effectivly a monopoly on distribution. When the addict can get it straight from the drug store, cheaper and safer, and the pusher is still prosecutable, he has no profit, thus no business, no motive. He'll just have to get a job selling used cars or something.

As for the drug users, many manage to have habits for years while maintaining a paying job. Legalize it, drop the expense, reduce contamination problems and dosage problems, and many more will be able to maintain productive lives while using. Just like smokers and drinkers.

I'm reminded of the Ringworld series. They invent the ultimate drug. A simple brain operation(cheap in the setting), then simple voltage puts the user in a state of ultimate bliss. They tended to die of neglect within a year, without reproducing or causing trouble(they were happy as long as they could get electricity, which was cheap). This was a major problem for society, but within a few years those disposed to be addicts starting running out. Within 20 years it wasn't more than an occasional problem anymore, as the genetics that disposed one to addiction were eliminated.

longeyes
February 13, 2006, 10:36 PM
Legalize.

It's always good to understand your addictions. America needs to know what it's hooked on--and how badly--before it can become responsible. (Our real heroin is debt.)

We need to prevent America from turning into an economic satellite of the Third World, from turning into a narco-economy.

What happens in the Third World will also be instructive.

ElTacoGrande
February 13, 2006, 10:37 PM
The classic roman problem of how to get rid of the praetorian guard. If you dont pay them, they assassinate you. If you keep paying them, you get steadily worsening codependency, ultimately ending in the bankruptcy of the empire.

The change isnt going to come from above because powerful men inherently enjoy the service of many henchmen. The change will come either because society collapses under the weight of the police apparatus or because some unforeseen convergence of events causes people to take notice of the direction things are going and try to fix it en masse.

I predict that this problem will be left until it is way too late to fix. The corrective action for this is going to be very painful. Either America will descend into the long darkness of tyranny or there will be a genuine civil war resulting in a complete reworking of our government.

Yeah basically. The rulers of our country may like the power that comes from having a DEA etc running around, but a) the powers that run this country also like a strong economy, and employing 1% of our population to keep another 1% of the population in prison is an enormous, outrageous drain on the economy and b) these guys are a threat to stable government, and therefore a threat to business and c) these people are a direct threat to the rulers' own families and lives. It is exactly the problem of the Praetorian Guard, who did play a significant role in the downfall of Rome.

I agree with you. This problem won't be corrected until we (like an addict!) hit rock bottom, and that will be muy ugly. My main concern is how that will effect me; what happens is not my choosing and not under my control.

Really, think about it from the perspective of a career DEA agent. Let's imagine Bob has been working for the DEA for the past 20 years, since he was 27 years old. Suddenly drugs are legalized, or regulated or whatever, and the DEA hands him a pink slip. What happens to Bob? It's a highly competitive job market these days. What are Bob's qualifications? He has a college degree from a second-rate college in a subject like "criminal law" or whatever. He has twenty years of experience in busting down doors, collecting evidence, and being a bad-ass. That qualifies him for what, exactly, in the non-law-enforcement world? Nothing. Maybe he could get a job as an $15/hr security guard, but even those are competitive and would be even more competitive if there are a lot of unemployed DEA agents and cops all over the place. Maybe he could get a teaching certificate and be a highschool teacher? All the people who got real jobs after college now have business connections, business experience, and mangement positions. Bob has... well, he's good with guns and breaking down doors and interrogating people!

Oh and on top of that Bob has lost all his special privileges: no more Class III weapons, no more special CCW permit, no more immunity from speeding tickets, no more general fear/respect/deference from the general public who are now his equals.

And there are hundreds of thousands of Bob who would be in that position if drugs were legalized!

Some people think that the War on Drugs was started as a make-work program for cops after Prohibition ended. It makes sense. The whole thing is a make-work program, and a way to keep colored people in their place (prison or on parole).

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 10:44 PM
While doing research for a one of my classes i came across some interesting data concerning Drug trafficking into the state of Minnesota.

Since i live in the state of MN this naturally piqued my interest.

DEA Web site http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/minnesota.html

So the conclusion i came to was that if we control the Mexican border we control drug imports into the U.S.

Granted the drug producers will then start growing things in state but that is significantly easier to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

San Diego/Tijuana is the world's busiest port of entry. Come down here and witness the sheer amount of cars and people who cross daily. Much of the drugs are simply driven or walked across. Homeland Security does what they can, but they cant do a detailed inspection on every one of the thousands of cars and people that cross everyday. The traffickers lose some product, but more than enough gets through for them to make a profit. It's detailed nicely in the movie "Traffic"

Kill American demand for drugs and you will win the war on drugs.

"Legalize it" is a ridiculous solution IMO. Who wants to fly on an airplane that's been worked on by a recreational crack user. Who here would trust a cop who is a heroine user on his free time?

beerslurpy
February 13, 2006, 11:10 PM
Actually in previous centuries there were many great men who were casual and frequent users of opium, snuff, coke, weed and later morphia and heroin and it never harmed them one bit. Some people cant handle drugs and will get addicted to them but most people are prefectly fine with recreational use of drugs- look at alcohol for a perfect model of this. Some people like myself drink regularly and never get addicted to booze. Some people cant come within 20 feet of it without becoming binge-drinking uncontrollable alcoholics.

Do you think people would be allowed to consume legal cocaine in a cockpit anymore than they are currently allowed to consume legal booze?

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 11:13 PM
Hey wassup man :)

There's a big difference between alcohol and hard drugs like crack, meth and heroine. It's much more easy to get addicted to them. I've heard of people becoming crack addicts after a couple of uses. No one because an alcoholic after a few drinks. It takes some drinking effort to become an alcoholic :)

mordechaianiliewicz
February 13, 2006, 11:19 PM
Legalize pot, decriminilize everything else, go after the dealers, treat the addicts. Simple, too simple for the gub-ment

Sindawe
February 13, 2006, 11:21 PM
Kill American demand for drugs and you will win the war on drugs. And pray tell, how do we as a nation go about killing the American demand for drugs?

Further, by what right does ANYBODY have telling another adult what they can and can not do/eat/smoke/drink with their own body, so long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others?
I've heard of people becoming crack addicts after a couple of uses.I've heard of people getting completely wasted from smoking toasted banana peels.

Based on comparisons of those who've quite a substance after becoming addicted to it, the most difficult drug to kick is sold openly in nearly every grocery store, gas station and Wally World in the country.

Its called tobacco.

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 11:36 PM
I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use narcotics like cocaine and meth.

walking arsenal
February 13, 2006, 11:37 PM
Wow, didn't expect this thread to take off like this.



Business, borders and what goes through, over, under and around them can be controlled. Notice i said controlled and not stopped. What a lot of people have focused on in this thread is the substance. The problem isn't the substance but it's delivery system namely the people which the DEA says is the mexican runners along with other minorities.

It's like the analogy we use "Guns arent evil people are evil".

My point in this thread was that controlling our borders would solve a lot of our gang problems which is a major source of crime, drugs are also a source of crime but the gangs deliver them here.

They fight over turf to sell them, murders.

They need the money for them, robberies.

See my point?

My conclusion was control the border, control crime by slowing the people that cause the crime.

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 11:43 PM
The problem isn't the substance but it's delivery system namely the people which the DEA says is the mexican runners along with other minorities.


At the retail level, independent African American traffickers, African American street gangs, Native American gangs, and independent caucasian groups purchase cocaine, black-tar heroin, and marijuana from Mexican traffickers

I think you let a certain group off the hook when you were blaming everyone.

walking arsenal
February 13, 2006, 11:44 PM
I consider the white male a minority.

Sindawe
February 13, 2006, 11:45 PM
My conclusion was control the border...Ah, therein lies the rub. How DO we control the border, and traffic across same?

Personally, I'm very much in favor of electrified fences, fields sown with toe-poppers & bouncing bettys, backed up by roaming prides of African Lions & Military target ranges.I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use narcotics like cocaine and meth. Cocaine and Methamphetamine are stimulants, not narcotics.

longeyes
February 13, 2006, 11:47 PM
Kill American demand for drugs and you will win the war on drugs.

There's a difference between desperate escapism and a desire for ecstasy. You can be a libertarian and still understand the need for the latter, which is profoundly spiritual rightly comprehended. In fact, tapping into the infinite, by the means of your choice, is quintessentially American.

The Government wants to tell you how to get high and control the means. That's not their prerogative.

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 11:48 PM
:confused:

Umm Ok.

A minority in what respect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
According to the 2005 CIA World Fact (an official statistics agency), America is:

White
81.7% or 216 million, (Including Hispanics and those of Middle Eastern and North African descent)
69% (Excluding Hispanics but including Middle Easterners, North Africans, and others who checked "Some other race" in the Census)
Hispanics 14.1% or 41.3 million
Black or African American 12.9% or 36.4 million,
Asian 4.2% or 11.9 million,
American Indian 1.5% or 4.1 million,
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or more races 2.4%


If you mean white males are a minority of people involved in drugs.. then you might have an argument.

CleverNickname
February 13, 2006, 11:55 PM
"Legalize it" is a ridiculous solution IMO. Who wants to fly on an airplane that's been worked on by a recreational crack user. Who here would trust a cop who is a heroine user on his free time?

I'm not necessarily advocating legalization, but there's nothing stopping an employer from making "no drug use" a condition for employment. And if you say "they'd do drugs anyway", what's to stop them from doing drugs now?

GunnySkox
February 13, 2006, 11:56 PM
I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use narcotics like cocaine and meth.

I'm sorry, but I don't put much faith in the responsibility of people who carry guns around.

~GnSx
Oh, wait.

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 11:59 PM
Ah, therein lies the rub. How DO we control the border, and traffic across same?

Personally, I'm very much in favor of electrified fences, fields sown with toe-poppers & bouncing bettys, backed up by roaming prides of African Lions & Military target ranges. Cocaine and Methamphetamine are stimulants, not narcotics.

Ok.. let me rephrase.. I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use drugs like cocaine and meth.

In a perfect world, everyone would be 100% reponsible, but in real life if you let crack users be cops, fix planes, work at nuclear facilities, buy weapons, etc you will have problems. Drugs like crack and herione end up controlling and destroying people's lives.

I grew up in east Oakland, CA I see first hand what drugs can do to people.. It's not pretty. For everyone 1 person who didnt get addicted there's probably 1000 more who are addicted and swore they'd be able to manage their drug use.. now they're out selling their bodies for money or robbing people like you and me to get more cash to support their habbit. If drugs were readily available at the local drugstore that doesnt mean people wont be going to any lengths to get them after they become addicted and have used up their savings and maxed their credit cards.

crazed_ss
February 14, 2006, 12:00 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't put much faith in the responsibility of people who carry guns around.

~GnSx
Oh, wait.

What have legal gun owners done that make you feel this way?

I have a very good reason for not trusting in the responsibility of crackheads and tweakers.

crazed_ss
February 14, 2006, 12:03 AM
I'm not necessarily advocating legalization, but there's nothing stopping an employer from making "no drug use" a condition for employment. And if you say "they'd do drugs anyway", what's to stop them from doing drugs now?

I dont know how things work in TX, but ,many jobs here do not tolerate drug use. I'm a contractor who works on a federal government project. If I were to pop positive on a urinalysis, I'd be instantly fired. That simple.

When I was in the Marines, drug use was absolutely not tolerated. You could expect a bad conduct discharge for using drugs. Loss of VA benefits and everything.

Otherguy Overby
February 14, 2006, 12:07 AM
One thing that people tend to overlook: It's pretty much an historical fact that a certain percentage of any population likes to alter their state of consciousness with some substance. That percentage doesn't change much for politcal/legal reasons. Generally substance abuse is also somewhat higher where it's prohibited.

Of course the next thing you get with prohibition is a black market. Historically, governments never can control black markets, but they keep trying.

GunnySkox
February 14, 2006, 12:09 AM
What have legal gun owners done that make you feel this way?

What'd Sigmund Freud do to make you feel this way about people who snort the coke?

What'd Xyz(can't remember which) Earp's wife ever do to make you feel this way about people who do laudanum (opium)?

Legal gun owners != legal recreational drug users, because there aren't any of the latter, because society refuses to allow them to exist.


I have a very good reason for not trusting in the responsibility of crackheads and tweakers.

For all the reasons you could give me that you refuse to allow me to seek chemical euphoria (you MIGHT get addicted, you MIGHT start robbing people, you MIGHT get the diseases off the needle, you MIGHT x-y-z...) I could give you an equally piss-poor reason why you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun (you MIGHT shoot someone because they said your shoelace is untied, your gun MIGHT go off, you MIGHT flip out one day and start plugging people in the mall).

Punishing people for hypothetical crimes is wrong, there's nothing inherently wrong with stuffing your body with screwy chemicals.

~GnSx

miconoakisland
February 14, 2006, 12:11 AM
Like many others, I suggest legalizing drugs.
Relocate all the DEA agents to Border Patrol and Immigration.

Crime will go down and our jails and court system will be streamlined.
The money saved could go into rehab and education.

As for junkies working on planes and in nuclear power plants, etc., most companies drug test, so this is a non-issue!

Criminalize the acts commited while on drugs, just like criminalizing the acts commited by drunks.

"The streets will run wild with drug-crazed maniacs if drugs are legalized!"
(Sound familiar?)

"But if it keeping drugs illegal saves just one child...."

Hire the ex-DEA as bouncers at all the pot bars and opium dens that will open up as a result. Retrain them to go after pedophiles, theft ID, and internet predators.

The legal economic boom created by legalization (taxes, new businesses, less court and jail backlogs, etc) will free up much more resources and create many more jobs in a short amount of time.

To eliminate the demand for drugs in order to eliminate the supply is an unrealistic goal (while good intentioned) and will never happen.

Making laws to curb self-harming human nature (drugs, prostitution, etc) has been tried since the beginning of laws and has yet to ever work. Humans will always engage in efforts to degrade themselves no matter what laws are in place. The answer isn't more or harsher laws, it's education and rehabilitation.

Manufactured drugs would be able to be tagged so they would show up in drugs tests for, say up to 60 days, unlike many current illegal drugs (coke, LSD, mushrooms, etc.) and since dealing drugs on the street wouldn't be possible, the current pushers would be forced to either get help to quit or get a menial job where no drug testing is required.

Polititions aren't used to simple solutions that pay for themselves and make sense, they just think that charging their constituents more to throw money at unrealistic goals is what is gets them re-elected, and, unfortunately, history supports this way of thinking. "The people that elected me want me to eliminate the demand and be tough on users, so I will increase taxes to pay for more jails, LEO's, court officers/judges and questionable tactics to go after recreational users and street dealers in the hope to get to the bigger fish! If that doesn't work, I'll just increase taxes again and spend even more money! It doesn't matter if it works or not, look how much money I'm spending of yours to do what makes you feel good and righteous!"

The simplest solution is the most difficult to get through a thick head.

crazed_ss
February 14, 2006, 12:15 AM
I know this kind of opinion isnt popular here, BUT..
ensuring our society doesnt go to crap because of drug addicts is more important than your need to get high.. regardless of how responsible you feel you are. If that means outlawing cocaine and crystal meth, then so be it.

I feel that i can safely drive my Camaro at 100mph on the highway. Does that mean we shouldnt have a speed limit and simply expect everyone to be responsible drive to their abilities?

hot head
February 14, 2006, 12:25 AM
to the ones who thinks that ALL of the illegal drugs need to be legal , you must be high or on some type of illegal drugs your self..... Making them legal will never work . theft, rape, and alot more serious violent crimes will sky rocket.

GunnySkox
February 14, 2006, 12:27 AM
I know this kind of opinion isnt popular here, BUT..
ensuring our society doesnt go to crap because of drug addicts is more important than you need to get high.. regardless of how responsible you feel you are. If that means outlawing cocaine and crystal meth, then so be it.

Ridding our society of gun-wielding maniacs, murderers, robbers, and puppy-stomping gun-nuts is more important than your need to punch holes in paper and break clay and feel manly, regardless of how responsible you think you are. If that means outlawing guns, then so be it.

Do you see how silly that sounds? The parallels are exactly the same. Basing policy on the hypothetical evils of an object/substance is madness.

I feel that i can safely drive my Camaro at 100mph on the highway. Does that mean we shouldnt have a speed limit and simply expect everyone to be responsible drive to their abilities?

You can drive 100 MPH on your own land all you want, you can drive "to your ability" all the way to the end of your property; once you leave it, and get onto public lands (e.g., roads), it becomes their business how you drive. What I stick in my body on my property (or another consenting party's property) is my business, and none of the government's (or yours), unless in the process or thereafter do something to infringe on someone else's rights. That's why the government can put you in jail for "public drunkenness" or "driving under the influence" but not for, say, "drinking at home" or "drunk in a bar".

~GnSx

Alex45ACP
February 14, 2006, 12:27 AM
The answer is to end drug prohibition. It really is that simple.

Sindawe
February 14, 2006, 12:29 AM
Making them legal will never work . theft, rape, and alot more serious violent crimes will sky rocket. And your evidence backing up this assertion is?

beerslurpy
February 14, 2006, 01:19 AM
Ok.. let me rephrase.. I'm sorry but I dont put much faith in the responsibility of people who use drugs like cocaine and meth.

In a perfect world, everyone would be 100% reponsible, but in real life if you let crack users be cops, fix planes, work at nuclear facilities, buy weapons, etc you will have problems. Drugs like crack and herione end up controlling and destroying people's lives.

I grew up in east Oakland, CA I see first hand what drugs can do to people.. It's not pretty. For everyone 1 person who didnt get addicted there's probably 1000 more who are addicted and swore they'd be able to manage their drug use.. now they're out selling their bodies for money or robbing people like you and me to get more cash to support their habbit. If drugs were readily available at the local drugstore that doesnt mean people wont be going to any lengths to get them after they become addicted and have used up their savings and maxed their credit cards.

I disagree. Let me enumerate the more obvious reasons:
1) The ghetto was crappy before drugs. Its not like they were playing golf and reciting poetry before crack came along and turned them into reavers. The problem is the reasons that people seek to huff paint fumes or smoke crack, not whether we card people at the paint store.
2) Your speech is just a variation on the tired "if we let people have guns" or "if we let black people use our water fountains" scare tactics that are essentially an appeal to our fears and doubts. Been done before and it still rings hollow.
3) I grew up in a bad neighborhood. I've lived in east bay and I've lived in Baltimore. That being said, I dont think the average illiterate crackhead is any less dangerous or annoying than a perfectly legal wino.
4) Speaking of which, arent you arguing that legalization would increase supply? How could weed, crack, heroin and coke possibly become more available than it already is? The only thing that would really become more common under legalization is the use of rehab.

Dont you get it? The problem is EXACTLY the same one approached by gun control in exactly the same wrongheaded way. The people who abuse drugs do so despite it being against the law! The people who would begin using drugs if it became legal are the ones who would be the most responsible users. Everyone you worry about being high is already getting high.

ArmedBear
February 14, 2006, 01:32 AM
I know this kind of opinion isnt popular here, BUT..
ensuring our society doesnt go to crap because of drug addicts is more important than your need to get high.. regardless of how responsible you feel you are. If that means outlawing cocaine and crystal meth, then so be it.

If I thought there was credible evidence that making drugs illegal is helping more than hurting, IN THE BIG PICTURE, I'd agree. But I think that the evidence points the other way. Note that, during Prohibition, alcohol consumption actually increased, and more people participated in that consumption than did before booze was banned. I really question whether people who get hooked on crack and crystal are really all there to begin with.

Oh yeah, I know a good number of people who have had serious "drug problems". Laws banning drugs didn't stop them, any more than the people you've known.

Gun control doesn't stop violence, as some silly Californians want to believe. I don't think that making drugs illegal seems to stop drug abuse. What it does is take people who are screwed up anyway, and lure them into the criminal underworld. THIS is the source of violent crime, theft, rape, etc., more than the drugs themselves (as evil as I think some of them are).

Disclaimer: here I'm talking about "hard drugs", the obviously destructive stuff. People who are into some shamanic thing, hey, go ahead. Not my deal, but you don't have to extol the virtues of peyote. I'm talking about crap drugs like crack that has done so much damage in ss's native Oakland, or crystal that has done so much damage where I've grown up and lived, around here.

I feel that i can safely drive my Camaro at 100mph on the highway. Does that mean we shouldnt have a speed limit and simply expect everyone to be responsible drive to their abilities?

Well, it works in Germany. They have no speed limit, but they strictly enforce the rules of the road, like passing on the left, etc. And they have more stringent tests to get a license, too. Somehow I doubt that, when it rains, they have 300-400 wrecks per day in a given city, like we do every storm in San Diego.

In the US, we enforce speed limits, but incompetence on the road goes unpunished until someone gets hurt.

Things ain't so simple, really. I don't think I have all the answers, though.

(And no, I wasn't referring to you in the locked thread. I work for a university, and my reaction to the PC comes out in my humor, sometimes. No offense meant, though I never mind a vigorous debate. :) )

ElTacoGrande
February 14, 2006, 01:37 AM
4) Speaking of which, arent you arguing that legalization would increase supply? How could weed, crack, heroin and coke possibly become more available than it already is? The only thing that would really become more common under legalization is the use of rehab.

Dont you get it? The problem is EXACTLY the same one approached by gun control in exactly the same wrongheaded way. The people who abuse drugs do so despite it being against the law! The people who would begin using drugs if it became legal are the ones who would be the most responsible users. Everyone you worry about being high is already getting high.

Yeah, how could drugs possibly be made MORE available than they are? I can buy coke 24 hours a day 365 days a year. That's more available than alcohol.

They would have to put them in the water supply to make them any more widespread than they are.

On the other side of the argument, do you honestly think the War on Drugs has achieved anything at all?

hot head
February 14, 2006, 01:41 AM
My assertion came from a lot of home work. my info comes from some books that i have read .Drugs in society causes, concept and control . Michael D. Lyman , Gary W. Potter . Drugs In America ! sociology, Economics, and Politics Ansley Hamid, this good stuff it has a lot of good info . it just might change a person view and how they look at drugs and effects.

DRZinn
February 14, 2006, 01:44 AM
in real life if you let crack users be cops, fix planes, work at nuclear facilitiesWho advocated that?

ensuring our society doesnt go to crap because of drug addicts is more important than your need to get highSecond strawman from the same guy - most of us here arguing for legalization do not use illegal drugs. I never have.

crashm1
February 14, 2006, 02:30 AM
Hey wassup man :)

There's a big difference between alcohol and hard drugs like crack, meth and heroine. It's much more easy to get addicted to them. I've heard of people becoming crack addicts after a couple of uses. No one because an alcoholic after a few drinks. It takes some drinking effort to become an alcoholic :)

Well actually as a recovering addict and drunk I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. The first time I drank I got falling down drunk, I was 5. The last time I got loaded the night before going into treatment I got falling down loaded. Every time in between I used, it was to get as far away from myself as possible. Notice a pattern. I cannot remember ever using "socially". I can remember many times trying to. It's very rare that I meet someone who is an alcoholic or dope fiend that doesn't tell the same story. The difference is alcohol is legal so the habit is cheaper. I also have coworkers and aquaintances that can use in moderation and always have. My ex wife is a perfect example. She wouldn't drink if she was sad or angry, she was capable of having one glass of wine or a couple tokes of weed. I never could, it always turned into the whole bottle or two or smoking til it was gone. I say legalize it and tax it. It might even help the deficit.

crazed_ss
February 14, 2006, 02:39 AM
Who advocated that?

Second strawman from the same guy - most of us here arguing for legalization do not use illegal drugs. I never have.

Wouldnt you think it'd be illegal to discriminate against drug users in hiring if drugs were legalized?

Derby FALs
February 14, 2006, 02:41 AM
Substance abuse is a symptom of an underlying illness. Some people can be heavy drinkers all their life and never become an alcoholic. Others become alcoholics right from the start. Same with drugs abuse, overeating, gambling, etc...

beerslurpy
February 14, 2006, 02:46 AM
Wouldnt you think it'd be illegal to discriminate against drug users in hiring if drugs were legalized?

Most employers dont screen for drugs except govt positions. There already is no discrimination against drug users in 99 percent of jobs.

Discriminate against people based on the quality of their work. This is the only fair criteria anyway.

If homosexual sodomy was illegal, would it be legal to discriminate against gays in hiring?

ElTacoGrande
February 14, 2006, 02:46 AM
Wouldnt you think it'd be illegal to discriminate against drug users in hiring if drugs were legalized?

Absolutely positively no way.

Employers can discrimate freely in their hiring decisions, with a few narrow exceptions. One, they can't discriminate in certain protected categories. These are the obvious ones: race, age, religion, marital status (they are NOT allowed to ask if you're married or have children during the interview!).

Second, job requirements do have to have some connection to the job. So a warehouse worker position could have requirements like "must be able to lift 50lbs to a height of 5'" which would exclude many disabled people, for example. Could an office worker position have that requirement? If part of the job involves going to the stock room, sure. An employer can draft this any way he wants to so long as he could justify it.

Getting back to drugs: Any position at all could have a drug screening requirement. That's reasonable for really any type of work. Employers already routinely screen for alcohol and nicotine, both of which are legal. They can definitely say "no" to someone who has alcohol in his blood during a screening. It's absolutely reasonable to deny employment to someone who is drunk or stoned or high, for ANY position.

So, employers would have the same freedom to do drug screening they have today, and make their hiring decisions based on that. This isn't a gray area, or something an employer would have to fight in court. This is clear fact.

crazed_ss
February 14, 2006, 02:50 AM
Dont you get it? The problem is EXACTLY the same one approached by gun control in exactly the same wrongheaded way. The people who abuse drugs do so despite it being against the law! The people who would begin using drugs if it became legal are the ones who would be the most responsible users. Everyone you worry about being high is already getting high.

I see what you're saying here and actually makes a lot of sense. I'd just be afraid that even these new "responsible" users could easily become addicts. Like I said.. a lot of current drug addicts started off saying that they could handle their high and they couldnt get addicted. Look at them now.

But maybe legalizing drugs would be good if it got rid of all the violence associated with the illegal trade. In that case legalization might be the lesser or two evils.

DRZinn
February 14, 2006, 02:54 AM
Wouldnt you think it'd be illegal to discriminate against drug users in hiring if drugs were legalized?Why would it be? Pilots can't fly drunk, why do you think they'd be allowed to fly stoned?

Jeff
February 14, 2006, 03:40 AM
Beerslurpy says:

The problem is EXACTLY the same one approached by gun control in exactly the same wrongheaded way. The people who abuse drugs do so despite it being against the law! The people who would begin using drugs if it became legal are the ones who would be the most responsible users. Everyone you worry about being high is already getting high.

How is that? Using drugs-- including alcohol-- is not on the same logical footing as owning and operating firearms. Someone may decide to use drugs only once the drug becomes legal, but why would it follow that the individual would not become a drug abuser- like those who abused the drugs when they were still illegal? A drug is a drug, and an addictive substance is an addictive substance.

The perjorative behavior in question with drug abuse is the drug use itself. As soon as one consumes a substance that everyone knows is relatively dangerous and relatively given to clouding one own's judgment, then the questionable behavior has already occurred. You have become irresponsible by ingesting a substance that renders you vulnerable to faulty judgment-- this includes drinking alcohol to intoxication.

The perjorative behavior with gun use occurs only with the rare and objective crime. The other 99.9% of gun use is totally responsible and follows what gun use was intended to be.

Using firearms does not cloud one's judgment-- using drugs does.

I'm not in favor of the war on drugs. It obviously isn't working, and I don't see the value in spending billions of dollars each year in trying to prevent a universal urge that is probably as great as sexual activity. Crimes should have coerced victims, only.

However.......

Guns do not kill people, right? Isn't that what everyone says here? So do not equate a simple mechanical device that has no interaction with its user (other than as a relatively mundane hobby or means of proper self-defense) with a complex chemical that begins to render its user irrational as soon as he interacts with it.

ElTacoGrande
February 14, 2006, 04:03 AM
I see what you're saying here and actually makes a lot of sense. I'd just be afraid that even these new "responsible" users could easily become addicts. Like I said.. a lot of current drug addicts started off saying that they could handle their high and they couldnt get addicted. Look at them now.

But people who want to try drugs try them now. I have been offered so many kinds of drugs so many times in my life, if I ever had even the slightest urge to try them I would have by now.

But maybe legalizing drugs would be good if it got rid of all the violence associated with the illegal trade. In that case legalization might be the lesser or two evils.

That's partly why so many of us are for it. How much violence is there in the alcohol trade, or the nicotine trade? None really. How much money do drug cartels get from the alcohol trade? None. How much of our civil liberties are compromised by fighting against alcohol? Some: we have to show ID to get into bars, but that's nothing at all compared to what has been done in the name of the War on Drugs.

And anyway, by any objective measure you care to come up with, the War on Drugs has failed. We've been trying it for the past 30 years and it hasn't achieved a thing. How much more do we keep throwing into this money-pit?

LAK
February 14, 2006, 04:45 AM
What Stevelyn said.

Minus "regulate" and "tax".

The "drug war" is a cherade.
-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

O.F.Fascist
February 14, 2006, 04:48 AM
I know this kind of opinion isnt popular here, BUT..
ensuring our society doesnt go to crap because of drug addicts is more important than your need to get high.. regardless of how responsible you feel you are. If that means outlawing cocaine and crystal meth, then so be it.

Our society is going to crap because of lack of freedom, and the big government nanny state.

Government intrusion in the freemarket and government welfare has done more harm to this country than drugs could ever have.

If people choose to get high and do stupid things to kill themselves then so be it. Our society is better off when our government wasnt protecting us from ourselves.

I feel that i can safely drive my Camaro at 100mph on the highway. Does that mean we shouldnt have a speed limit and simply expect everyone to be responsible drive to their abilities?

In Texas it is legal to drive 100mph if conditions allow.

O.F.Fascist
February 14, 2006, 04:51 AM
to the ones who thinks that ALL of the illegal drugs need to be legal , you must be high or on some type of illegal drugs your self..... Making them legal will never work . theft, rape, and alot more serious violent crimes will sky rocket.

Just like when they ended prohibition of Alcohol it caused all sorts of crime and problems...oh wait...it didnt.

Art Eatman
February 14, 2006, 11:42 AM
I am adamant that the steady erosion of our civil rights that are enumerated in the first Ten Amendments have stemmed from the various laws passed as a result of the War on Drugs. I refer specifically to the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. I really don't seehow anybody can disagree with me on this.

So: Which is more important? An intact Bill of Rights, or the anti-drug efforts as they are now done?

Which would you rather have?

I have watched our anti-drug efforts for forty years. Forty. Our present system is still "interdicting" the same old ten percent now that it did some forty years back. The price per gram of cocaine has remained roughly constant, although inflation has more than quadrupled the cost of an automobile in that same period.

So I fall back on one definition of insanity: Repeating the same experiment in the hopes of a different result.

Art

Ezekiel
February 14, 2006, 11:57 AM
If you mean white males are a minority of people involved in drugs.. then you might have an argument.

"Not even close."

Even if the actual percentage of minority users is greater -- which is still hotly debatable -- there are so many more "Whites" in the United States that their number of users must far exceed any other race/nationality, etc.

Using firearms does not cloud one's judgment

I cannot readily agree with this one, either. I've witnessed far, far too many people get all "gun heavy" with the sanctioned ability to carry one. A badge, or permit, does not make you intelligent or immune.

Punishing people for hypothetical crimes is wrong, there's nothing inherently wrong with stuffing your body with screwy chemicals.

Until the moment it adversely effects me, I'll agree. I feel that way about all "general" rights, including CCW, for example.

Sindawe
February 14, 2006, 12:01 PM
hot head: About the authors of your first citation Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts And Control, 4th Ed.Michael D. Lyman

Michael D. Lyman, Associate Professor and Chair in the Department of Criminal Justice at Columbia College in Columbia, Missouri. He earned his bachelor and master’s degrees at Wichita State University, and his Ph.D. at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Lyman worked as a drug enforcement agent for 11 years, and has many years of college teaching experience. He has published six textbooks in the criminal justice field, including Practical Drug Enforcement: Procedures and Administration and Narcotics and Crime Control.Gary W. Potter

Gary W. Potter, Professor in the Department of Police Studies at Eastern Kentucky University. Potter emphasized criminal justice in his doctoral work in Community Systems Planning and Development at the Pennsylvania State University. In addition to writing several book reviews and many articles in refereed journals on the subjects of drug law, organized crime and pornography, Potter is the author of The Porn Merchants and co-author of The City and the Syndicate: Organizing Crime in Philadelphia. Additionally, Potter is a referee for the American Journal of Criminal Justice and the American Journal of Police.

Neither is coming from an objective, disinterested position on the question of drugs and the War On Some Drugs. But since we are looking to Lawmen for opinions on drugs and the drug war, I invite you to read the work of this man. http://www.libertybill.net/np.htmlSo: Which is more important? An intact Bill of Rights, or the anti-drug efforts as they are now done? I'll take in intact Bill of Rights over keeping my neighbors/friends/relatives from frying their brains on chemicals any day of the week. Doing the latter is *MY* task, not that of my government.

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 12:07 PM
Some reasons why legalizing drugs is a bad idea.

1. Some drugs are far more addicting than nicotine and alcohol. (crack)
2. Some drugs are far more mind altering than nicotine and alcohol. (lsd, pcp)
3. Hallucinations are not controllable and people will hurt themselves (not really a problem) and other people. ( a big problem)
4. Health care costs will increase due to increased drug use.
5. Driving would become more dangerous.
6. Companies would be reticent to sell drugs from fear of being sued.

bamawrx
February 14, 2006, 12:24 PM
People don't really drink bathtub gin anymore do they?

There are some drugs that are high quality and others that are crap. If we stop the drug war and give away the drugs for free like I propose, we won't be giving away paint cans, meth, crack, etc.. It will be the "good" stuff clean and pure.

No profit, no cost, no tax, just free high quality drugs provided at "our" expense.

Just think of all the police time wasted on this effort that could be directed to other crimes that get overlooked. If anything the crime rate would fall to almost nothing! Just ask any cop about the crimes he sees and if they have some connection to drugs. Trying to buy, sell, cheat, steal, kill, etc.. all related to the black market for drugs.

Better yet why not leave it to the States? I'd love for some of the liberal areas to give away the drugs and attract all the loosers, so my conservative state can clean up a little bit.

neoncowboy
February 14, 2006, 12:25 PM
Some reasons why legalizing drugs is a bad idea.
1. Some drugs are far more addicting than nicotine and alcohol. (crack)

Well, so what. What business of the government's or society at large if people want to risk becoming addicted to drugs? I personally don't believe it's the .gov's place to interfere with this. Also, I don't think laws will really change the addiction equation: people of good character will avoid drug addiction regardless of the law, people of poor character will continue to choose drugs, regardless the law. All the law change does is to make poor character and drug use a non-criminal act.

2. Some drugs are far more mind altering than nicotine and alcohol. (lsd, pcp)

And? I've had some experience with drugs & alcohol when I was younger. I've never been more mind-altered than when under the influence of vodka...which is commonly available. There's no reason to try to legislate non-altered states of mind, we already have enough laws that criminalize legitimately criminal behavior (eg: threatening people, assault, etc). If people are minding their own business during their LSD trip, what business is it of the government's?

3. Hallucinations are not controllable and people will hurt themselves (not really a problem) and other people. ( a big problem)

We already have laws against people hurting one another.

4. Health care costs will increase due to increased drug use.

That a drug users problems cause health care costs to rise is simply indicative of problems in our health care system...not of drug use. By this same logic, you would support banning sausage biscuits, cigarette smoking and high school football.

Why should someone else's drug problem cause my health insurance costs to rise? Because of the socialization of health care...which I am as opposed to as I am drug prohibition.

5. Driving would become more dangerous.

Driving is already dangerous. We already have laws against driving under the influence. Do they keep people from DUI? Then what rationale exists to support the notion that prohibition laws do?

6. Companies would be reticent to sell drugs from fear of being sued.

Ah, perhaps. But imagine the market created for drug companies! drug companies would be able to invest in R&D to create a whole new class of legal recreational drugs that are safer, less prone to abuse and more predictable in their effect. Why would people risk using dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or PCP if you could buy really fun pills from a pharmacy that were (reasonably) safe?

hot head
February 14, 2006, 12:25 PM
thanks for the info i will keep an open mind. i will try to get some of the books or other info on these people.

DRZinn
February 14, 2006, 01:14 PM
neoncowboy, ya beat me to it, podna.

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 01:25 PM
Some counter points

Well, so what. What business of the government's or society at large if people want to risk becoming addicted to drugs? I personally don't believe it's the .gov's place to interfere with this. Also, I don't think laws will really change the addiction equation: people of good character will avoid drug addiction regardless of the law, people of poor character will continue to choose drugs, regardless the law. All the law change does is to make poor character and drug use a non-criminal act.

1. Addiction and character have nothing to do with one another.
2. A good society does what it can to discourage the multiplicity of reasons that addicts become addicts.
3. Any kind of society that accepts the unnatural death of one of its members does not value human life.

And? I've had some experience with drugs & alcohol when I was younger. I've never been more mind-altered than when under the influence of vodka...which is commonly available. There's no reason to try to legislate non-altered states of mind, we already have enough laws that criminalize legitimately criminal behavior (eg: threatening people, assault, etc). If people are minding their own business during their LSD trip, what business is it of the government's?

1. Mind altering is bad.
2. Any society that oks something that is bad is stupid.

We already have laws against people hurting one another.

1. Well using the same logic as the drug legalizers: See prohibition against murder does not work. People are still murdering in the streets. We need to make murder safe, legal and rare.

That a drug users problems cause health care costs to rise is simply indicative of problems in our health care system...not of drug use. By this same logic, you would support banning sausage biscuits, cigarette smoking and high school football.

Why should someone else's drug problem cause my health insurance costs to rise? Because of the socialization of health care...which I am as opposed to as I am drug prohibition.

When insurace costs rise insurers charge everyone more. Thats the way insurace works.

Driving is already dangerous. We already have laws against driving under the influence. Do they keep people from DUI? Then what rationale exists to support the notion that prohibition laws do?

Prohibition against DUI does not work, people still do it. Lets make that legal too.

Ah, perhaps. But imagine the market created for drug companies! drug companies would be able to invest in R&D to create a whole new class of legal recreational drugs that are safer, less prone to abuse and more predictable in their effect. Why would people risk using dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or PCP if you could buy really fun pills from a pharmacy that were (reasonably) safe?

Drug companies could do this now. In fact they do. They are called anti-depressants. Guess what. They cause problems.

neoncowboy
February 14, 2006, 01:37 PM
DocZinn, the rebuttal here is all yours.

No_Brakes23
February 14, 2006, 01:39 PM
Granted the drug producers will then start growing things in state but that is significantly easier to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

My thoughts?

You ever seen the abundance Meth trailers there are in many rural areas?

Oh, and I can't help but think of Steve Earle's Copperhead Road

Done me two tours of duty in Viet Nam
When I came home, I had a brand new plan
I take the seed from Columbia and Mexico
Plant it up a holler down Copperhead Road
Now the DEA's got a chopper in the air
Wake up screamin'-I'm back over there
I learned a thing or two from Charlie, dont' ya know?
Better stay away from Copperhead road.

That's just a song making paralells 'tween alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition, but back to the meth thing, what are ya gonna do? Restrict sales of sudafed? Oh that's right, politicians are trying that. Funny, here in Cali, it is Diane Feinstein pushing for it. Hmmm DiFi trying to restrict lawful acces to something because some people abuse it, where have I heard that before?

Prohibition is a joke, one that we waste of ton of money on every year. Prohibition breeds gang violence and gun control. Where do you think the first restrictions on FA weapons came from?

How anyone can be pro-RKBA and pro-War on Some Drugs is beyond me.

The War on Some Drugs is just another nanny-state attempt to turn us into a socialist state unencumbered by such obsolete ideas as freedom, liberty, responsibility and self-determination.

neoncowboy
February 14, 2006, 01:54 PM
Pafrmu,
I hear you, some of these are valid points to be considered. I don't believe that character and addiction hold an explicit cause:effect relationship...but at the same time, discipline, self control, pride and wisdom don't lead people to drug abuse and subsequent addiction.

There are plenty of harmful, 'bad' things we do that we do not expect or tolerate government intrusion of. Our diets, our sports, our sexual conduct...all sorts of things. It is a stretch to say that it's the government's responsibility to protect the people from themselves. That's a slippery slope that leads straight to totalitarianism.

Preexisting medical conditions cause health insurance to cost more for that individual, if they could even get coverage at all. If I ran a free-market health insurance company, I would not insure users of street drugs. Consequently, I wouldn't penalize non-drug users for the higher costs associated with drug use because there wouldn't be any higher costs from drug use.

Sort of like how sky divers pay more for or are unable to buy life insurance.

The prohibition's against murder, assault, etc are legitimate use of the law. The law is there to protect people and to punish these acts...they are wrong! There is nothing wrong about minding your own business with a buzz on from [fill in the blank], and thus no legitimate basis for a law about it.

The idea is for the government to offer as little intrusion into it's citizen's lives as possible, while still protecting the people. Personally, I would rather see the government err on the side of less intrusion. Either way, prohibition against drugs/drug use is pretty far fetched as a legitimate function of government and simply represents over-intrusion into the lives of the people by government.

GunnySkox
February 14, 2006, 02:07 PM
2. A good society does what it can to discourage the multiplicity of reasons that addicts become addicts.

Being a good society has nothing to do with throwing people in jail or having the government stick its nose into things. If you want to intervene for your friends, or your kids, or your family, that's tippity-top. Just tell Uncle Sam to keep his paws where they belong.


3. Any kind of society that accepts the unnatural death of one of its members does not value human life.

Society != government

It's neither the government's responsibility nor its problem to prevent individuals from doing what they like to themselves, so long as those actions do not infringe on the rights (life, liberty, or property) of others.



1. Mind altering is bad.

Says you. Millions of social drinkers, marijuana afficianados and LSD-fans disagree with you. Moreover, millions of coffee/cola drinkers and gamers (all hopped up on Jolt and Bawls) disagree, too. Plenty of physicians disagree with you, too, when they prescribe pain medications and mood-modifiers.

In any case, that isn't your decision (or the government's) to make.

1. Well using the same logic as the drug legalizers: See prohibition against murder does not work. People are still murdering in the streets. We need to make murder safe, legal and rare.

Murder (that is, the unjustified killing of an innocent) is absolutely and inherently wrong. Effing up your brain with dope, drink, or smoke is not absolutely or inherently wrong, the activity affects noone but the user; what the user does while under the influence of the drugs is his problem, and he ought to be locked up for any actual crimes he commits.




Prohibition against DUI does not work, people still do it. Lets make that legal too.

The government has the power to regulate what goes on in public and on public possessions (e.g., roads, sidewalks, places which aren't private property). They have the power to decide that operating a vehicle on THEIR roads in an intoxicated state is unacceptable, but they don't have the power to decide whether or not, say, for instance, drinking is illegal.



Drug companies could do this now. In fact they do. They are called anti-depressants. Guess what. They cause problems.

And? Do you suggest we ban antidepressants and antipsychotics, too? They can make people go even nuttier than they were before.

~GnSx

DRZinn
February 14, 2006, 02:46 PM
1. Addiction and character have nothing to do with one another.I don't know how you can even suggest this. Some of us have the strength to avoid substances the addiction to which would adversely effect them, others do not. Yes, I know it's not quite that simple, but that's the essence of it.
2. A good society does what it can to discourage the multiplicity of reasons that addicts become addicts.Sure, if it doesn't involve confiscating my money to spend on doing"what it can" or restricting my rights to discourage them.
3. Any kind of society that accepts the unnatural death of one of its members does not value human life.Or maybe values human life so highly that it [gasp] allows the owners of that precious commodity to do what they wish with it, including destroy it.
1. Mind altering is bad.
2. Any society that oks something that is bad is stupid.Are you being serious here? I happen to agree with you that "mind altering" by the use of hallucenogenic drugs is bad. But IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS whether I or anyone else engage in "mind altering." As to this point 2, would you then outlaw fatty foods? Watching too much TV?
1. Well using the same logic as the drug legalizers: See prohibition against murder does not work. People are still murdering in the streets. We need to make murder safe, legal and rare.The fact that drug prohibition does not work, combined with the fact that using drugs hurts no-one but the user, is an argument for legalization. Murder, obviously, is quite different.
When insurace costs rise insurers charge everyone more. Thats the way insurace works.You oviously have precious little understanding of how insurance works as well. Those with a higher risk (like tobacco use) pay much higher premiums for their insurance. Crack users would probably be totally ineligible. The fact that those crack users could then get taxpayer-subsidized health care is a separate issue that neds to be dealt with by making people responsible for their actions, including smoking crack. Also, you're making the assumption that legalizing drugs would lead to higher levels of use. I thingk the exact opposite is true. Drug use is largely driven by the counter-hegemonic culture, and I believe compromising the rebelliousness of it would actually reduce the number of first-time users and, over time, all users.

Sindawe
February 14, 2006, 02:50 PM
1. Mind altering is bad. RRRRRRIGHT. Tell that to these guys.In a monastery in northern India, thinly clad Tibetan monks sat quietly in a room where the temperature was a chilly 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Using a yoga technique known as g Tum-mo, they entered a state of deep meditation. Other monks soaked 3-by-6-foot sheets in cold water (49 degrees) and placed them over the meditators' shoulders. For untrained people, such frigid wrappings would produce uncontrolled shivering.

If body temperatures continue to drop under these conditions, death can result. But it was not long before steam began rising from the sheets. As a result of body heat produced by the monks during meditation, the sheets dried in about an hour.

Attendants removed the sheets, then covered the meditators with a second chilled, wet wrapping. Each monk was required to dry three sheets over a period of several hours.

Why would anyone do this? Herbert Benson, who has been studying g Tum-mo for 20 years, answers that "Buddhists feel the reality we live in is not the ultimate one. There's another reality we can tap into that's unaffected by our emotions, by our everyday world. Buddhists believe this state of mind can be achieved by doing good for others and by meditation.

Source: http://www.zudfunck.com/zudfunck/2005/01/buddists_dry_sh.html I alter my mind daily with my morning fix of java, and monthly with ethanol when I play cards. I also alter my mind with endogenous chemicals when I learn a new skill, play an exhilarating game of paint ball or in lucid dreams.

Biker
February 14, 2006, 02:54 PM
I don't use drugs at all. Now, excuse me while I go make another Bailey's and Coffee and open another carton of smokes. :neener:
Biker

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 03:04 PM
What we've got here is a failure to communicate:)

I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion. Where do rights come from and what are they?

To answer the first part of the question, I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible. Now the problem with a statement like this is that is is either fact or fiction. Unfortunately for protagonists and antagonists, this can neither be proven or disproven.

To answer the second part of the question, I believe that rights are something to which someone has a just claim. (I stole this from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rights definition 2.)

Now, given that information. I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin.

But, I would also say that nowhere in the Bible would I be required or desired by GOD to inflict my religion upon others. He would have each come depending upon their relationship with Him. But I also believe that I am required and its God desire that I allow no one to inflict their religion upon me, even to the point of my own or that of my loved one's death.

So where does this leave us and where should we focus our discussion?

Does it just boil down to property rights?

Thoughts?

Derby FALs
February 14, 2006, 03:10 PM
What we've got here is a failure to communicate:)

I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion. Where do rights come from and what are they?

To answer the first part of the question, I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible. Now the problem with a statement like this is that is is either fact or fiction. Unfortunately for protagonists and antagonists, this can neither be proven or disproven.

To answer the second part of the question, I believe that rights are something to which someone has a just claim. (I stole this from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rights definition 2.)

Now, given that information. I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin.

But, I would also say that nowhere in the Bible would I be required or desired by GOD to inflict my religion upon others. He would have each come depending upon their relationship with Him. But I also believe that I am required and its God desire that I allow no one to inflict their religion upon me, even to the point of my own or that of my loved one's death.

So where does this leave us and where should we focus our discussion?

Does it just boil down to property rights?

Thoughts?

My God doesn't force me to obey Him. He gives me freewill to screw up on my own. If I do screw up and really want to do better He will give me a fresh start with no strings.

So keep your side of the street clean and I'll keep my side clean. Or not...

:what:

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 03:24 PM
My God doesn't force me to obey Him. He gives me freewill to screw up on my own. If I do screw up and really want to do better He will give me a fresh start with no strings.

Sounds like we are talking about the same God then.

So keep your side of the street clean and I'll keep my side clean. Or not...

So are you sayin that it comes down to property rights?

bowfin
February 14, 2006, 03:31 PM
/*take the profit out of it and they'll stop*/

Not so. Drug dealers are not drug dealers because they like dealing drugs. They don't have a passion for on time and reliable deliveries of high quality pot and meth at competitive prices. They deal drugs because they like getting lots of tax free cash money for very little work involved and not having to follow any rules.

If you make drugs legal, the current drug dealers aren't going to put on a tie and become an assistant manager at "Bongs-R-Us", clocking in precisely at 8:30 A.M., working every other Saturday. They won't be studying at the Community College to work their way up to Manager. They are going to move black market drugs across the border, or find another line of work with the same pay/workload/independence model they are accustomed to having, which is something else illegal. Drug dealers won't go away with legalized drugs, they become some other type of criminal.

Second, if Asbestos, Silicone, Tobacco, Firearms, and Fast Food makers are getting their pants sued off, how is a product like black tar heroin going to be a profitable product, free from litigation? How do you word the disclaimer for meth to "use responsibly", that will hold up in the courts? Which drugs are safer than Red Food Dye #2 or Nutra Sweet? Drugs are not a viable product if legalized.

neoncowboy
February 14, 2006, 03:44 PM
I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion.

huh?

I thought we were talking about law, public policy and the war on drugs.

Thoughts?

I believe in the same God. He has given me free will to pursue whatever I want to: right, wrong or indifferent. When I use that free will to honor Him, He takes great joy in me. As His child, when I exercise that free will in a way that is disobedient, He accepts me anyway, forgives me, picks me up out of the dirt to brush me off and set me back on my feet.

Remember the prodigal son? Think he used drugs while he was out squandering his father's wealth? When he demanded his portion to go live as he pleased, what was his father's response?

That's God.

Government is not God. It shouldn't even atttempt to try to mandate the behavior that God asks for.

Property rights? No! It's the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to do what you want as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others. The right to act as an individual. The right to own yourself.

Sin is between me and God, not me and the Government.

GunnySkox
February 14, 2006, 03:45 PM
I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion. Where do rights come from and what are they?

Natural rights are those rights which we observe to arise in "natural law" which we understand by observing nature. Humans have a natural right to "life" because everything in the world will fight tooth, nail, leaf and root to survive; humans have a natural right to "liberty" because beings will fight to be free, upto and surpassing chewing limbs off or killing other things to protect their freedom; humans have a natural right to "property" because we can observe that other creatures take control of, possess, and fight to protect territory (even plants and coral do this).


To answer the first part of the question, I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible.

That's fine and dandy, you can believe that all the way to the bank and back, for all it ought to matter to anyone else. Keep your Jesus off of my person, and out of my house. Your beliefs are your own, and you've no right to force anyone else to act how you think they ought to outside of maintaining your natural rights (e.g., ganking somebody who's trying to kill you/steal from you/kidnap you/etc.), any more than I've a right to force you to snort coke or drop acid.

Now the problem with a statement like this is that is is either fact or fiction. Unfortunately for protagonists and antagonists, this can neither be proven or disproven.

Things which are neither "fact or fiction" don't deserve a place in deciding who goes to jail or for what reason.

But I also believe that I am required and its God desire that I allow no one to inflict their religion upon me, even to the point of my own or that of my loved one's death.

Nobody's inflicting their religion on you by telling you to mind your own business. It's no business of yours if somebody likes whackin' out seven ways to tuesday on chemicals whose names have more syllables than I have rounds of ammunition; similarly, it's no business of anybody else's to tell YOU that you SHOULD do drugs, or that you should have to hire or associate with people who do drugs, and that's the whole "rights" deal: you keep your paws off mine, and I keep my paws off yours, and everybody's square.

That sounded a little more antagonistic than I meant it to be, but you get the gist, yeah?


So where does this leave us and where should we focus our discussion?
Does it just boil down to property rights?
[/quotes]

I think that's reasonable. Most matters of "I don't like it and I don't think you should" should be matters of property rights. I was screaming obscenely at the TV last night because the damned legislature here in VA decided that business owners couldn't be trusted to allow or disallow their patrons to smoke or not smoke, blatantly in violation of their property rights (had the smoking ban only extended as far as "in public" I wouldn't have minded one lick, the government is free to regulate public stuff on "its" property, but once their little tendrils start creeping in the door, my hackles get all up).

[quote]Thoughts?

I am a banana!

~GnSx

DRZinn
February 14, 2006, 03:49 PM
Pafrmu, only if you think that our rights come from God, in the sense that the God depicted in the Christian Bible consciously granted those rights, are we talking about religion.

If you think, as I do, that the souce of those rights don't matter, and that we have them by virtue of being human beings, then religion doesn't enter into it.

If you believe that a Christian God granted those rights, given that information. I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin.makes perfect sense. Then you'd have to prohibit many (all?) other religions, and I don't think that's what you intended to say.

Drugs are not a viable product if legalized.You could be right, but wouldn't that be even better, if a free market simply didn't produce those products?

Sinsaba
February 14, 2006, 03:50 PM
What we've got here is a failure to communicate:) ...

I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible. ...

...To answer the second part of the question, I believe that rights are something to which someone has a just claim. ...

... I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin. ...

But, I would also say that nowhere in the Bible would I be required or desired by GOD to inflict my religion upon others. ... (emphasis mine)

I've tried to keep the concrete statements you made that I am going to respond to. If I have left anything out I do apologize please do feel free to correct me.

It seems as if your logic is that your religion says that nobody should do drugs (therefore, not doing drugs is part of your religion). At the same time you say that your religion says that you shouldn't try to inflict (your word not mine) your religion on me.

Therefore you shouldn't try to inflict the attitude that I shouldn't do drugs on me.

INFLICT an attitude is just what the WAR ON DRUGS tries to do.

Maxwell
February 14, 2006, 04:00 PM
The "legalize >> tax >> educate >> treat >> contain" route is far more realistic than the "prohibit >> imprison >> shootout >> blockade >> endless war" path we have been taking.

The end goal is to limit drug use while causing as little property damage and loss of life as possible.

One meathod is a reasonable way to achieve that result. Its time consuming and would require alot of people to change their minds, but its do-able.

The other plan has proven impossible. The harder you clamp down, the more drugs cost and the more people are willing to import them. Where does it end?
A death penalty for drug trafficing? shootouts daily? rampant crime as the addicted try to maintain their habit?

Enforcing a perfect prohibition is like building a bevy of swans to cross a river when a boat will do just fine.
Yes its possible in theory but youll waste alot of time doing the same things you could have done alot faster, cheaper, and with less danger to everyone involved.

Derby FALs
February 14, 2006, 04:10 PM
Sounds like we are talking about the same God then.



So are you sayin that it comes down to property rights?

Mental property rights...

:D

bowfin
February 14, 2006, 04:18 PM
It would be impossible to make methamphtamine a "legalized" drug. It would be impossible to make Crack cocaine a "legalized" drug.

If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step. Let me know how it gets FDA approval, how it survives lawsuits, who and where would let you open up a storefront, and how it is manufactured, stored, shipped, and sold with an end price any cheaper than what it is right now. How does the company survive boycotts by umpteen jillion groups?

Government would cease to function for years as every Senator and Congressman weighs in with his working model of how to tax and regulate it, where the money is gathered and how it is spent. How many agencies, bureaus, commissions, and Departments would line up for a piece of the pie?

The laughable statement "...and if we legalize it, the price would come down" ignores what goes into the price of cigarettes currently sold for over the counter. How much of that price consists of taxes and lawsuit liability? How much is tobacco and rolling paper?

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 04:54 PM
First off, sorry for thread jacking.

Thank you to everyone on their input to rights theory but that should probably left to another thread.

Back to drugs and legalizing.

There is nothing like a filling lunch to return clarity to my mind.

I could support the legalization of drugs as long as strong property rights rules were inforced. People could manufacture, use, and distribute drugs as long as it stayed entirely on the private property of those that approve.

Public property is decided upon by majority vote. If the majority decides to allow drugs on public property then so be it. If they do not, then so be it.
Drug laws should be ammended as such.

How does that sound to everyone?

Sinsaba
February 14, 2006, 05:00 PM
It would be impossible to make methamphtamine a "legalized" drug. It would be impossible to make Crack cocaine a "legalized" drug. ...


Hmm... we haven't tried making them legal so you don't KNOW we can't. We HAVE tried prohibition (twice) and it didn't work either time.



If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step. ...

Do you have a nuts and bolts plan on successfully making prohibition work?


Let me know how it gets FDA approval, how it survives lawsuits, who and where would let you open up a storefront, and how it is manufactured, stored, shipped, and sold with an end price any cheaper than what it is right now. How does the company survive boycotts by umpteen jillion groups?...

How did it work with alcohol? While it never came under the FDA you wouldn't have to have recreational drugs come under FDA either. You could use the current structure of the DEA (though MUCH smaller) to a) set standards for recreational drugs, and b) enforce the tax etc. on them.

Government would cease to function for years as every Senator and Congressman weighs in with his working model of how to tax and regulate it, where the money is gathered and how it is spent. How many agencies, bureaus, commissions, and Departments would line up for a piece of the pie?

1) "Government" would not cease to function. The public wouldn't stand for it and the representatives know it.
2) "Governement" NEVER has problems finding ways of spending monies taken from the public.
3) Agencies, bureaus, commissions and departments are already lined up for a piece of the "Government" pie. Nothing changes.

The laughable statement "...and if we legalize it, the price would come down" ignores what goes into the price of cigarettes currently sold for over the counter. How much of that price consists of taxes and lawsuit liability? How much is tobacco and rolling paper?

Look at what happened to the price of booze. Care to rethink that statement? There is an EXACT parallel here.

I would have to say that your arguments don't stand up to the logic of reality.

Sinsaba
February 14, 2006, 05:02 PM
... I could support the legalization of drugs as long as strong property rights rules were inforced. People could manufacture, use, and distribute drugs as long as it stayed entirely on the private property of those that approve. ...

What about commercial distributition (wish I could spell)?

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 05:07 PM
What about commercial distributition (wish I could spell)?

Thats fine as long as it stayed on private property from manufacture to the effects wearing off on the user.

The same rules would apply if the public voted for allowing drugs and their effects on public property.

neoncowboy
February 14, 2006, 05:11 PM
Public property is decided upon by majority vote. If the majority decides to allow drugs on public property then so be it. If they do not, then so be it.
Drug laws should be ammended as such.

How does that sound to everyone?

I'm glad my freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to keep and bear arms don't stop at the edge of my private property! I also can't see any reason why any of my other liberties/rights should.

I am pleased to see you willing to change your mind instead of just stubbornly adhering to what you'd always thought...way to keep an open mind!

Sindawe
February 14, 2006, 05:22 PM
Pafrmu: Your proposal sounds reasonable and something I could support, PROVIDED those same conditions extend to ethanol or tobacco. OR we treat the other recreational chemicals in the same fashion we treat ETOH and tobacco.

Sinsaba: http://www.fornada.com/html/quickspell.html Is what I use on all my machines. I suk at spelin. ;)

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 05:24 PM
I'm glad my freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to keep and bear arms don't stop at the edge of my private property! I also can't see any reason why any of my other liberties/rights should.


Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
Paul

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 05:26 PM
Pafrmu: Your proposal sounds reasonable and something I could support, PROVIDED those same conditions extend to ethanol or tobacco.

I could not agree more.

White Horseradish
February 14, 2006, 05:28 PM
Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
PaulDoesn't it fall under "pursuit of happiness"? Or other rights not explicitly stated?

neoncowboy
February 14, 2006, 05:29 PM
Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
Paul

But Paul, the 10th amendment says what? Basically, that just because it isn't enumerated in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The bill of rights doesn't make any mention of my right to have more than 2 children...but you can bet I'd consider it an offensive intrusion of government into my life if they passed a law mandating a 2 child limit per household!

The reason that drug prohibition/regulation depends on the commerce clause is because congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate it. They justify the controlled substance act by calling it a regulation of 'interstate commerce'.

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 05:40 PM
But Paul, the 10th amendment says what? Basically, that just because it isn't enumerated in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The bill of rights doesn't make any mention of my right to have more than 2 children...but you can bet I'd consider it an offensive intrusion of government into my life if they passed a law mandating a 2 child limit per household!

The reason that drug prohibition/regulation depends on the commerce clause is because congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate it. They justify the controlled substance act by calling it a regulation of 'interstate commerce'.

Congress has the power to regulate the Militia. Most adult males are part of the Militia. Congress could regulate on these grounds although this has virtually no precendence, although that hasn't stopped anyone before.

Secondly they use the commerce clause because it is easier to prove, not because of 10th amendment. Al Capone was a known murderer but no one could prove it legally. They could prove that he didn't pay his taxes and engaged in fraud.

Manedwolf
February 14, 2006, 05:52 PM
Our Constitution does not recognize a right to do crack. I agree with it.

Thanks,
Paul

Nor does it recognize a right to drink alcohol. Want to go back to THOSE days? :barf:

neoncowboy
February 14, 2006, 05:55 PM
Good grief, are you now arguing for congress' authority to regulate what Americans can and can't do? Arguing for the state having a say in all of our behaviors and actions!?
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 05:57 PM
Nor does it recognize a right to drink alcohol. Want to go back to THOSE days? :barf:

Nor does it recognize rape or murder or bestiality, yet those are illegal.

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 05:58 PM
Good grief, are you now arguing for congress' authority to regulate what Americans can and can't do? Arguing for the state having a say in all of our behaviors and actions!?
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Not arguing for it just stating what the Constitution says. Hate to say it but government has its appropiate place.

Pafrmu
February 14, 2006, 06:01 PM
Guys,

I am going to close this one for myself.

(I love having discussions on the internet, but unfortunately I will waste all my time on it.)

See you at the range.

bowfin
February 14, 2006, 06:08 PM
/*Look at what happened to the price of booze. Care to rethink that statement? */

I would, but the outcome would be the same. Otherwise, why do people bootleg untaxed cigarettes when everyone can buy them legally?

/*(ME) If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step.

(YOU) Do you have a nuts and bolts plan on successfully making prohibition work?*/

I take that as a "No, I don't".

Your argument seems to say that if the present system doesn't work well, then any other system WOULD work well, just by virtue of it being different than the present one.

You are also going on the premise that the "Drug War" has failed. What is your criteria for calling it a failure? Would you dismantle all fire departments because our war against fire could be labelled a failure, since houses still burn down and people still burn up? How about poverty, should we give up helping the poor, and label charity as a failure?

I think law enforcement against illegal drugs is much like a bilge pump in a leaking ship. It can't keep us dry, but it can keep our heads above water. What would happen if we say the bilge pump isn't keeping us dry enough, it is time to tear it out, and just move everything up one deck to where it is dry?

publius
February 14, 2006, 07:19 PM
I've owned lots of boats, but never had a bilge pump that missed 90% of the water coming into the boat. I'd chuck the thing if I ever did have one.

Crosshair
February 14, 2006, 08:03 PM
Nor does it recognize rape or murder or bestiality, yet those are illegal.
Bad comparison. Murder and rape are illegal because they infringe on the rights of others. Beastiality, meh, if that is your thing, go for it. As long as you are not doing it on my front lawn I could care less. I should be able to get hammered, stoned, flying high, etc in my own house without worrying about Mr. Fed comming to get me.

beerslurpy
February 14, 2006, 10:03 PM
The constitution doesnt need to recognize a "right to do crack" because people have ALL rights and powers not explictly granted to congress or taken by the state goernments. Since the constitution is silent on the issue of crack smoking, the issue is up to the states or if they decline, up to the individual.

This thread has gotten sidetracked by a couple of posters that fundamentally misunderstand the structure of our government and its laws. The federal government is forbidden to exercise any power not expclitly granted to it by the constitution. Congress was emphatically not granted the power to regulate medicine, narcotics or alcohol. Despite the extensive interstate trafficking of liquor, the US had to pass the 18th amendment. Yet they resorted to no such amendment for all of the post-Wickard regulations. What changed in the constitution to permit this? Answer: absolutely nothing, it is an illegitmiate exercise of power.

If you read the federalist papers and take an intellectually honest look at the constitution you will see:
-the commerce clause only grants the power to create uniform rules on commerce, not to regulate all things that are even tangentially related to interstate activity. This was a check on the state's economic powers that were heavily abused during the articles of confederation.
-the general welfare clause is NOT a grant of power. Not in the preamble and not in the section granting the ability to levy and collect taxes. General welfare was a goal towards which congress could work using only the powers enumerated elsewhere in the constitution. This was plainly stated by those that wrote the constitution.
-the constitution creates a limited goverment and gives almost unlimited liberty to the people. You cannot make value judgments about whether or not people should be allowed to exercise their liberty. Their right to exercise it is beyond such questions. The place for such questions is in the state legislatures.

IndianaDean
February 14, 2006, 10:10 PM
Cocaine and marijuana were both originally outlawed on racial grounds. And at the time, Congress acknowledged that alcohol is a WORSE drug than either cocaine or marijuana. Yet it was brought back and the other two stayed illegal.

Gun control and illegal drugs are both rooted in racist ideas. Marijuana was made illegal in the early 20th century based on reports that illegal Mexicans (there's that illegal immigrant issue again) were coming into Arizona, smoking pot and committing crimes.

Cocaine was made illegal when Southern politicians went to Congress and said Blacks were getting high on cocaine and raping white women.

The History Channel recently did programs on the histories of these drugs and why they were outlawed.

The point is, the drug trade, just like criminals getting guns, will never be stopped because the bad guys don't care that the stuff they're selling is illegal.
It would be logical to me to legalize the two.
Cocaine is still used as anesthesia for eye surgery.

Firethorn
February 14, 2006, 10:19 PM
Not so. Drug dealers are not drug dealers because they like dealing drugs. They don't have a passion for on time and reliable deliveries of high quality pot and meth at competitive prices. They deal drugs because they like getting lots of tax free cash money for very little work involved and not having to follow any rules.

Agreed. Legalize the drugs however and they'll loose the money.

If you make drugs legal, the current drug dealers aren't going to put on a tie and become an assistant manager at "Bongs-R-Us", clocking in precisely at 8:30 A.M., working every other Saturday. They won't be studying at the Community College to work their way up to Manager. They are going to move black market drugs across the border, or find another line of work with the same pay/workload/independence model they are accustomed to having, which is something else illegal. Drug dealers won't go away with legalized drugs, they become some other type of criminal.

Then you throw them into prison for that. However, criminal markets tend to work alot like standard legal markets. The 'flood' of now-unemployed(:rolleyes: ) drug dealers looking for alternate work would lower the profit potential for other criminal industries, such that at least some would find getting a legal job now easier and more profitable. Heck, they'd flood the 'illegal' job categories so bad that they'd drive out the ones currently in it. There's only so many illegal immigrant runners you can have, gun running is a penny ante business comparitivly speaking, and most of the demand is by *gasp* drug dealers(now unemployed). Other things don't have near the profit potential, and it takes a special kink to be a child pornographer(and you're back to the limited marked). As it is it takes careful planning to make an 'job' involving illegal drugs more profitable than working many legal semi-skilled jobs. Oh, and we'd legalize prostitution, so *Pimp* ain't a great job anymore. Wanna pull robberies or rackets? Well, we've found a use for all those DEA agents... One business owner drops a line and they'll be all over the crooks...

Second, if Asbestos, Silicone, Tobacco, Firearms, and Fast Food makers are getting their pants sued off, how is a product like black tar heroin going to be a profitable product, free from litigation? How do you word the disclaimer for meth to "use responsibly", that will hold up in the courts? Which drugs are safer than Red Food Dye #2 or Nutra Sweet? Drugs are not a viable product if legalized.

Fast food makers are NOT getting 'their pants sued off'. DuPont and other makers of Asbestos lost alot of money over concerns, but they're getting aid.

As for lawsuits involving the traditional drugs, it's simple. You treat it like alchohol and tobacco. Both have been sued. Thing is, the reason tobacco lost and had to pay so much money was that they decieved the public, deliberately hid the addictivness and danger of their products.

As a seller of Mary Jane, cocaine, heroine, etc... I'd have warnings plastered all over them. Every box would include 'suggested safe dosages'. I'd still be liable if contaminated product reached the shelves, but that's the same for any medicine or food product.

It would be impossible to make methamphtamine a "legalized" drug. It would be impossible to make Crack cocaine a "legalized" drug.

Oddly enough, both of those drugs were developed in response to the drug war. Meth was developed and is produced because it can be made from legal chemicals obtained here in the USA and doesn't have to be shipped long distances or across borders. Crack cocaine was produced in an effort to 'stretch' the sale potential of cocaine. A little bit of cocaine makes alot of crack.

If they became legal, safer alternatives like the traditional Cocaine, Opium and Marijuana would probably outsell crack and meth to the point that nobody would bother carrying or using them.

If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step. Let me know how it gets FDA approval, how it survives lawsuits, who and where would let you open up a storefront, and how it is manufactured, stored, shipped, and sold with an end price any cheaper than what it is right now. How does the company survive boycotts by umpteen jillion groups?

FDA approval: Either through a new category, to a 'safest reasonable standard' that doesn't let the FDA ban it or require dilution to the point that it's not usable. For example, Heroin, when legal, was traditionaly sold in a 10% solution.
Lawsuits: Like the new gun immunity, people suing would have to prove that the substance was contaminated in some way to cause damage. Misuse of product wouldn't be a valid excuse, as would side effects from the usage. IE people who start smoking today get no money if they get lung cancer from it. That's been the case since they put the warning labels on it.
Storefront: Drugstores are my existing business choice, they already handle potentially dangerous drugs. Besides that, various 'Dens' or specialty shops. There were Opium dens where it was almost like a hotel, you went in got high, and stayed there until you came down. Security was provided.
Locations: Where zoning allows it. I can see it being easy to get approval in many of the more liberal areas. Heck, I'm in a solidly conservative area and there's at least three strip joints and two adult product stores.
Cheaper Production: Most drugs are plant products. Just as an example, Heroin costs the same to produce in quantity as Aspirin. The reason that it costs so much now is Black market pricing(and profits), ~50% loss of product before reaching point of sale, various expensive, low quantity shipping methods such as small planes, boats, on the body, in passanger cars, and basic homegrown manual refining of the product using makeshift chemicals obtained from retail products not intended for that purpose. Get some proper chemical engineers and equipment, use proper medical quality pre-curser chemicals, and use proper cargo shipping methods and it gets cheaper(and safer!) at every step of the way. Renting retail space is cheap in comparison.
Company Survival: Free market economics! If a business can't make it, it's likely that a black marketeer wouldn't either.
Boycotts: Would only be effective if it's a company branching off into the drug business. Normally speaking nobody notices the transport company. Retail joints will call boycotters 'non customers'. It could prevent someplace like Costco or Walgreens from stocking the stuff, but that'd just encourage dedicated sellers. The production side of the house would work like normal.

Government would cease to function for years as every Senator and Congressman weighs in with his working model of how to tax and regulate it, where the money is gathered and how it is spent. How many agencies, bureaus, commissions, and Departments would line up for a piece of the pie?

They manage to hammer out a budget each year, this wouldn't be any different.

The laughable statement "...and if we legalize it, the price would come down" ignores what goes into the price of cigarettes currently sold for over the counter. How much of that price consists of taxes and lawsuit liability? How much is tobacco and rolling paper?

And tobacco smuggling is how prevalent? Do we still have a moonshine problem?

As long as congress doesn't go too crazy with setting the tax rate, it'll work out. I personally think that anything under 500% would work for most drugs except Marijuana.

Spiphel Rike
February 14, 2006, 11:12 PM
"Legalize it" is a ridiculous solution IMO. Who wants to fly on an airplane that's been worked on by a recreational crack user. Who here would trust a cop who is a heroine user on his free time?

Perhaps some "relevent organisations" could still have a "no drugs" policy, rather than law. Have cops, soldiers e.t.c sign that they agree to random and targeted testing (like they do now) and just expand that program to any other job involving sensitive or dangerous equipment.

Kim
February 14, 2006, 11:27 PM
I will agree with the Libertarian utopia idea of drugs on one condition. You must get rid of the welfare state first and the person using drugs will have to be held morally,and legally responsible for any other crime commented while under the influence and for all the medical bills,rehab they decide they want, and support of themselves and their dependents. I do not want to take care of any more druggies problems that they bring on themselves and others ie society. Get rid of the Welfare State then I will vote with you on this. Otherwise you are dreaming. I see way to much harm done as it is now to children, parents, spouses and my check book. Plus I am tired of getting up at 2 am taking care of a vomiting, violent, cussing person who is drugged out of their minds.

Sindawe
February 14, 2006, 11:42 PM
You must get rid of the welfare state first and the person using drugs will have to be held morally,and legally responsible for any other crime commented while under the influence and for all the medical bills,rehab they decide they want, and support of themselves and their dependents. You are so heartless and cruel Kim, wanting to take away the safety-net for those poor benighted souls who've trashed their lives via chemical excess.

I like that in a person. I agree completely. Eliminate the welfare state and stop stealing MY earnings to support those who chose not to support themselves.

bowfin
February 15, 2006, 12:02 AM
So Firethorn, what "safe dose" of crack cocaine or methamphetamine or even regular cocaine would you be willing to defend in court as a "safe dosage", if many people become addicted with their first use?

Also, illegal business ventures DO NOT act as legal ones. Crooks don't branch out or turn legal when business is bad, they start fighting with the competition. Of course, we could turn a blind eye to murder also, in your scheme of things.

Do you remember what happened this very day (St. Valentine's day) in 1929 when illegal business got too crowded in Chicago? Yes, you are right, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. It still happens every day in L.A. No, the Crips don't have a price war with the Bloods when business gets tight, they just have a plain old war.

There is also a mistaken idea that addicts would respond to sensible prices and limits. They don't. They want all they can get and then some. If the prices are cheaper, they buy more and use more. If you give them free drugs, they use them and use their own money to buy more.

bowfin
February 15, 2006, 12:08 AM
I've owned lots of boats, but never had a bilge pump that missed 90% of the water coming into the boat. I'd chuck the thing if I ever did have one.

Then you have never been in a boat that was in danger of sinking, because no one throws the bilge pump overboard when the boat's leaking, you would just sink faster. You WOULD try to get it to work better, get a bigger one, similar, you wouldn't give up and drown. Correct?

Leaving the analogies, if the present law enforcement tactics aren't making a difference, then you try new methods of law enforcement, such as tightening the borders, cracking down on the money source. That would be the users, take them out of circulation by imprisonment or rehab.

Otherguy Overby
February 15, 2006, 12:14 AM
Okay, they make drugs legal, and the socialists get to tax them.

Next thing, the blissninney social engineers try to control drug use by really high taxes. Sounds good to them, sounds good to prohibitionists, too, and also the criminals. If we allow a tax on drugs (other than general sales tax) we are gonna recreate the same black market we have right now.

Please do think about this...

bowfin
February 15, 2006, 12:48 AM
Otherguy Overby,

Exactly. People are suggesting tobacco as a model in this debate.

Let's see, pay someone to grow it, then tax it to the hilt to support various programs, and then spend tens of millions to try to tell everybody not to use the stuff you are paying someone else to grow and whose sale you are counting on to raise revenue.

Also liquor. Let's look at this:

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation wants ownership of the liquor licenses for Whiteclay, Nebraska (Populaton 14, and liquor sales of $4 million), so they could sell enough beer to the Indians to build an alcohol rehab hospital.

Legalizing the now illegal drugs would lead to the same sort of lunacy as the above cases of these two legal drugs.

Sindawe
February 15, 2006, 12:53 AM
Leaving the analogies, if the present law enforcement tactics aren't making a difference, then you try new methods of law enforcement, such as tightening the borders, cracking down on the money source. That would be the users, take them out of circulation by imprisonment or rehab. Now there is SPLENDID idea. Lets put MORE people in prison or under some means of government control than we have so far in the War On some Drugs. After all, its worked SO well to to date, giving the U.S. the largest prison population on the freaking planet*, that we just need MORE of the SAME! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

* Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2925973.stm

Here's an idea. Lets put EVERYBODY in prison, and instantly solve all our crime and drug problems. Surely drugs never get into our prisons, do they?Let's see, pay someone to grow it, then tax it to the hilt to support various programs, and then spend tens of millions to try to tell everybody not to use the stuff you are paying someone else to grow and whose sale you are counting on to raise revenue. Well, then don't use public funds to pay people to produce the stuff, stop trying to be a national nanny and telling people what they should not be doing and don't put a freaking tax on free trade.

Crosshair
February 15, 2006, 02:16 AM
I say let the states take care of it. With 50 different drug policies it sould not take long to find what works best.

If hemp where legal we could be growing it on land that is currently useless for any other crop. (My uncle has plenty of saline soil land that is basicly useless.) Use it as a fuel source. I could grow it in my backyard. Remember, you used to be able to pay your taxes in hemp. (Yes that was years ago, but still.)

BTW, a person can make a killing smuggling cigarettes to New York. They could cut their crime rate drasticly if they just lowed the tax. But no, they want the money, they don't care about the crime.

LAK
February 15, 2006, 04:41 AM
Some reasons why legalizing drugs is a bad idea.

1. Some drugs are far more addicting than nicotine and alcohol. (crack).
Like what? Like prescription painkillers?

Is removing criminal penalties for possession and use going to have all the people that stay away from these things flocking to buy and use them? I doubt it.

2. Some drugs are far more mind altering than nicotine and alcohol. (lsd, pcp)
Like Ritalin and Prozac for instance. The prescription drugs most of these school shooters and other walking problems waiting to happen are on. There are millions of people on these things.
3. Hallucinations are not controllable and people will hurt themselves (not really a problem) and other people. ( a big problem)
Yep; like Ritalin and Prozac - etc.
4. Health care costs will increase due to increased drug use.
This is nonsense. Were thousands of people flooding the hospitals and dying on the streets prior to their prohibition and the "war on drugs"?

A very good analogy to this is the lack of any speed limits on many sections of highway in Germany. Years ago a survey by the ADAC showed that the average speed driven on these roads though averaged around 70 mph. And they still have a lower per capita death rate than here in the land of "55".

In Scotland a recent report shows that at least 50 elementary school children are addicted to heroin. That's: "that we know of". Not just sometime-users; full blown addicts. How many elementary students were addicted to heroin before it became a controlled substance?

Despite the fact that many substances are currently "illegal"; there is no trouble getting them by anyone that wants them. With the exception of people who have required regualar testing because of their employment contracts, the only deterrent is "getting caught". And that ranks very low, if non-existant among the reasons why people who do not try or use them.
5. Driving would become more dangerous.
History does not bear this out. Whether horse, ship, train, plane or automobile drivers. And this really goes back to #4.
6. Companies would be reticent to sell drugs from fear of being sued.
Why should we be worried about what companies are willing to do or not do when discussing the prohibition of certain controlled substances? Who cares?

Frivilous litigation should be the focus of the Legislatures - and the impeachment of judges who do not summarily dismiss them as soon as they are presented. This is a government problem, not a "drug" problem.
--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

ElTacoGrande
February 15, 2006, 04:56 AM
Like what? Like prescription painkillers?

Like Ritalin and Prozac for instance. The prescription drugs most of these school shooters and other walking problems waiting to happen are on. There are millions of people on these things.


To put it more directly:

Perscription pain killers (morphine, oxycontin, etc) = heroin

Ritalin = cocaine

If you take oxycontin and inject it, it has all the same effects (mental effects, addiction) as injected heroin. If you take a ritalin, grind it up and snort it, it has all the same effects as cocaine. The only thing different is that one is legal and sold by drug companies, and the other is not, and their users have different administration habbits.

Another poster asked, "what would it take to end the war on drugs, from a legal point of view?" This is actually the easiest part. The FDA would simply re-schedule heroin, cocaine and canabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 or 3. This would be done administratively; neither congress nor the president would not need to act for this to happen. The FDA would also need to create labeling for these things. The labeling for heroin would probably be something like "for treatment of chronic heroin addiction".

Also, manufacturing and liability would be no problem. These things are easy to manufacture. They have no more liability problems than a lot of other things. They would almost certainly be manufactured by companies which have no other business. Distribution would be through special channels, maybe even state-controled channels like the liquor stores in some states.

It's practical. It can happen. We just have to get past the problem of what to do with half a million suddenly-unemployed cops, prison guards, DEA agents, etc, who are in the middle of their careers and have no real-world skills that private sector employers need.

Manedwolf
February 15, 2006, 09:49 AM
Nor does it recognize rape or murder or bestiality, yet those are illegal.

Aw, c'mon...that's Law 101. Crimes that have a victim vs victimless "crimes"...

Raping, stealing, etc...all violate the rights of another. Drinking alcohol is not grabbing someone else and forcing THEM to drink against their will...it's you, making a concious decision as an individual, to have a drink.

Wanting to allow the government to tell you what you can do to yourself is NOT anything to do with liberty-minded values, I think. From thus comes helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc...

bowfin
February 15, 2006, 11:35 AM
Now there is SPLENDID idea. Lets put MORE people in prison or under some means of government control than we have so far in the War On some Drugs. After all, its worked SO well to to date, giving the U.S. the largest prison population on the freaking planet*, that we just need MORE of the SAME! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Have you ever seen a crackhead or a meth user? I mean up close every day, day after day, close enough to see how their life goes? They already are in a prison, one about the size of little square of tinfoil, and no chance of parole or pardon. It is a life sentence, and what a life it is.

Take away their freedom? Ever see a guy so tired from smoking an entire 8 ball of meth in a weekend that he sits down and tries for an hour and a half to get back up but can't? He might as well have been chained to that chair.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Ever have someone run up to you screaming he cut off his hands in the punch press he was running, crying and spitting, but he really didn't, he was running a machine that was turned off for the last hour. If I was doing that to the guy, it would be torture.

At least in prison you have someone to cook your meals and remind you to eat. If you pass out and bash your head against the concrete, someone picks you up. They have a dentist pull your rotten teeth (Yeah, the most appealing part of meth, your teeth rot and break off) before you get a sinus infection bad enough to kill you.

Heavens to Betsy, let's not jail them. Let's let them go on with their life as described above. That way, we will be TOLERANT. We'll let them roam the streets, waste away, and do whatever crimes against themselves and others until they are used up. Has THAT worked so well so far? Has it? I have a 12 year old kid come into my office every day, after school. He used to pray that his mom would go to prison so he wouldn't have to worry about her. Go tell him he was wrong.

If anyone of you ever knew someone who had a serious addiction, you would choose prison for him in a heartbeat.

Sorry fellas, I live in a county with the highest drug use in the state, mostly meth. I can't back any of your plans or theories, you know the old saying about draining swamps when being butt deep in alligators.

Selling the idea of using hard drugs in moderation is like telling someone they can jump off a cliff and be okay, as long as they use gravity in moderation.

Derby FALs
February 15, 2006, 11:48 AM
Have you ever seen a crackhead or a meth user? I mean up close every day, day after day, close enough to see how their life goes? They already are in a prison, one about the size of little square of tinfoil, and no chance of parole or pardon. It is a life sentence, and what a life it is.

Take away their freedom? Ever see a guy so tired from smoking an entire 8 ball of meth in a weekend that he sits down and tries for an hour and a half to get back up but can't? He might as well have been chained to that chair.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Ever have someone run up to you screaming he cut off his hands in the punch press he was running, crying and spitting, but he really didn't, he was running a machine that was turned off for the last hour. If I was doing that to the guy, it would be torture.

At least in prison you have someone to cook your meals and remind you to eat. If you pass out and bash your head against the concrete, someone picks you up. They have a dentist pull your rotten teeth (Yeah, the most appealing part of meth, your teeth rot and break off) before you get a sinus infection bad enough to kill you.

Heavens to Betsy, let's not jail them. Let's let them go on with their life as described above. That way, we will be TOLERANT. We'll let them roam the streets, waste away, and do whatever crimes against themselves and others until they are used up. Has THAT worked so well so far? Has it? I have a 12 year old kid come into my office every day, after school. He used to pray that his mom would go to prison so he wouldn't have to worry about her. Go tell him he was wrong.

If anyone of you ever knew someone who had a serious addiction, you would choose prison for him in a heartbeat.

Sorry fellas, I live in a county with the highest drug use in the state, mostly meth. I can't back any of your plans or theories, you know the old saying about draining swamps when being butt deep in alligators.

Selling the idea of using hard drugs in moderation is like telling someone they can jump off a cliff and be okay, as long as they use gravity in moderation.

It is nice that you feel so much of their pain but very few users will ever be willing to change and only about 15% of those will be able to do it. None will try until they become sufficiently horrified at what they have become.

Art Eatman
February 15, 2006, 11:53 AM
Better to have some meth-heads around than to not have a Bill of Rights. And that's where we've been headed, via the WOD.

Still my opinion...

:), Art

neoncowboy
February 15, 2006, 12:03 PM
Not to mention that methamphetamine is a direct result of the war on drugs.

Addict after addict I talked to in Hawaii (where meth is a huge problem) talked about the good old days when pot was plentiful and affordable...thanks to gobs of federal funding to eradicate marijuana...it's $200 per 1/4 oz now.

So, druggie kids being what they are, they look for an alternative buzz that doesn't cost so much. Which leads them to meth. Which leads them to the disgusting life that bowfin pointed out.

I'm pretty confident that if there were cheaper, better drugs readily available...nobody would choose to use meth.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 12:10 PM
I'm back.

There are no such things as victimless crimes.

Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?

Dealers in physically addicting substances have an unfair advantage over their customers. All they have to do is get someone to try the drug and then they have a customer for life. This should be illegal.

The argument that the laws do not prevent drug use is no argument. No law prevents a crime. It may get someone to think about it but it does not prevent it.

The slippery slope arguments are weak also. The same logic would say that legalizing things is a slippery slope to anarchy. Sorry but liberty is like being perched on a mountain top. If we slip down one side we end in tyranny, if we slip down the other we end in anarchy. The trick is getting a balance.

Sindawe
February 15, 2006, 12:38 PM
We just have to get past the problem of what to do with half a million suddenly-unemployed cops, prison guards, DEA agents, etc, who are in the middle of their careers and have no real-world skills that private sector employers need.Seems to me that I recall we have a bit of a southern border control problem, with large sections of said border being unguarded and marked with only a few rust strands of wire.

In fact, thats how this whole thread started. Hmmmm... Napkin calculation time.

500,000 agents/1330 miles = 375 agents per mile/2 (12 hour shifts) = 187 agents per shift per mile/5280 ft in a mile = one agent every 28 feet. I suspect that might make it tad difficult to sneak across for ANY reason. Better to have some meth-heads around than to not have a Bill of Rights. And that's where we've been headed, via the WOD.+1 Yes, some folks are gonna trash their lives with chemical excess, and thats a darn shame. But the reality of it is that Liberty is NOT a neat and tidy exercise full of pink light and blue bunnies. It is a tumultuous, noisy, messy affair. Sometimes its down right unpleasant, but its FAR less unpleasant than the alternative. Which is what we are getting a taste of right now with the WOsD.Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?Well, for a short time I worked with a paint huffer, and for a longer time a few dudes that would smoke ganja after work who happened to get caught.. I guess that makes ME a victim. SOMEBODY needs to compensate ME!

Truthfully, the only way I EVERY suffered as a result of the above mentioned fellows was loosing two well trained, competent staff (the ganja smokers) as the result of an assinine policy, and having to pick up the extra load until we could get new people in and trained. Those who MADE the policy suffered not a bit. The paint huffer did not last a month IIRC.

Manedwolf
February 15, 2006, 12:53 PM
At least in prison you have someone to cook your meals and remind you to eat. If you pass out and bash your head against the concrete, someone picks you up. They have a dentist pull your rotten teeth (Yeah, the most appealing part of meth, your teeth rot and break off) before you get a sinus infection bad enough to kill you.

Heavens to Betsy, let's not jail them. Let's let them go on with their life as described above. That way, we will be TOLERANT.

No. We just won't be subsidizing a welfare program to feed and house those who choose to destroy themselves, rather than using the same funding to help people who are TRYING to make something of their lives.

It might sound cruel, but it's the truth. All that money to feed and clothe and house people who are intent on self-destruction, while there's not enough funds to help people who are truly trying to raise themselves up from poverty through hard work and determination. That money would be better spent on state-of-the-art educational resources for the latter, to let them help themselves.

Totally life-trashed drug users made a concious decision to take that first hit. And in a free society, if you are free to make choices, you must deal with the consequences. I'd rather use funding to help out people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control, not people who "did it to themselves".

The question used for donor organ decisions is a good analogy. You have one liver. Do you choose to award it to someone who has a fatal genetic defect with their liver that wasn't their fault, or do you award it to a lifelong drinker who made the choice to drink and destroyed their own otherwise-healthy liver?

I'd go for the first case, myself. People need to learn personal responsibility, harsh as it is.

45Frank
February 15, 2006, 12:56 PM
The drug problem in this country is organized and controlled by the Goverment.
Simply take 55 gallon drums fill it with drug of choice (different every day)and install it on every major corner in every major city.
With that you give each person there own bodybag. Story over.
Only the highest quality stuff no cheap Sh__.

DRZinn
February 15, 2006, 12:59 PM
Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?The obese are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to an obese person is in some way a victim. Ever heard of Thanksgiving dinners, Valentine's chocolates, etc?

Let's ban fatty food.

Sindawe
February 15, 2006, 01:04 PM
Let's ban fatty food.Excellent idea DocZinn. Federal mandate that mostly sedentary office workers can consume no more 1200 calories a day of healthy, low fat food, high fiber foods. No more Taco Bell, McDeath's or other junk. Just lots of fresh veggies and fruits, whole grains and whole grain breads, tofu and other soy for the protein.

Manual laborers get 1800 calories/day, with a bit of lean meats in addition to the above.

We'll have a healthy, happy population that will live a long time. Society will be all the better for it.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 01:28 PM
Sarcasm Alert.

Lets instead legalize arsenic, DDT, lead based makeup, nuclear weapons, child porn, NAMBLA, and other "victimless crimes".

Its a slippery slope to anarchy.

White Horseradish
February 15, 2006, 01:44 PM
Sarcasm Alert.

Lets instead legalize arsenic, DDT, lead based makeup, nuclear weapons, child porn, NAMBLA, and other "victimless crimes".

Its a slippery slope to anarchy.

Arsenic is illegal? Nuclear weapons are illegal?(other than in that one town in Nevada) NAMBLA is illegal? Since when?

Two problems here. One, you're arguing from emotion, not reason. Two, you need better metaphors.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 01:58 PM
Arsenic is illegal? Nuclear weapons are illegal?(other than in that one town in Nevada) NAMBLA is illegal? Since when?

Last time I checked. I would encourage you to try to obtain any of these to prove me otherwise.

Two problems here. One, you're arguing from emotion, not reason. Two, you need better metaphors.

What emotion are you referring to? If is the dislike of meaningless arguments based upon flawed reasoning then yes, I am arguing from emotion.

Second, what metaphors are you referring to, I believe I was engaging in hyperbole.

I think that this question has been settled. Except for a fringe minority, no political support exists to legalize drugs. It is therefore is not a real solution to the drug problem. Its like saying that s solution for world peace is for everyone to just get along. They both lack a basis in reality.

Can someone tell my why legalizing drugs is a good idea? Please be clear and concise and make your points with facts and not mumbo jumbo about the 10th amendment and how it reserves to the people every this and that. Clearly the people are for banning drugs because they keep voting for representatives and senators and presidents that ban them. So get a new or better or realist argument.

Sindawe
February 15, 2006, 02:29 PM
Its a slippery slope to anarchy. You are confusing anarchy with chaos. The two are completely different concepts. Except for a fringe minority, no political support exists to legalize drugs. It is therefore is not a real solution to the drug problem. Odd stance you have, seeing how nine states have passed laws that recognize the legal use of marijuana for medical needs. Additionally at least one city that I can name off the top of my head has decrimminalized the possesion of up to one ounce of the stuff by adults. That city is the "bastion" of Liberty known as Denver. Rather more than a "fringe minority". Please be clear and concise and make your points with facts and not mumbo jumbo about the 10th amendment and how it reserves to the people every this and that. So, the charter of this nation and our highest law of the land is just "mumbo jumbo" to you? :what:

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 15, 2006, 02:35 PM
Can someone tell my why legalizing drugs is a good idea?

Sure! Start here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=182899

Clearly the people are for banning drugs because they keep voting for representatives and senators and presidents that ban them. So get a new or better or realist argument.

They are? Last time I looked there wasn't anyone running on a PROdrug platform, at least not from my area...anyone else have anyone running on a legalization ticket?

Gordon Fink
February 15, 2006, 02:43 PM
Can someone tell my why legalizing drugs is a good idea?

Doing so would eliminate or vastly reduce the ancillary crimes (murder, theft, etc.) associated with the illicit drug trade. Other benefits would follow, as well, but this would be the most noticeable.

Of course, the pro-freedom among us have already explained this many times.

~G. Fink

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 02:43 PM
You are confusing anarchy with chaos.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anarchy

Main Entry: cha·os
Pronunciation: 'kA-"äs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek -- more at GUM
1 obsolete : CHASM, ABYSS
2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms -- compare COSMOS b : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a : a state of utter confusion b : a confused mass or mixture <a chaos of television antennas>
- cha·ot·ic /kA-'ä-tik/ adjective
- cha·ot·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/chaos

In case a reminder is needed. I believe that I am clearly referring to anarchy. Argue with Merriam Webster if you disagree.

The two are completely different concepts. Odd stance you have, seeing how nine states have passed laws that recognize the legal use of marijuana for medical needs.

Yet federal law supercedes local law. Don't believe me, ask the Supreme Court. Last time I checked all those states voted for their federally elected officials and those same federally elected officials voted time and time again to continue the drug war.

So, the charter of this nation and our highest law of the land is just "mumbo jumbo" to you?

No, nice way to intentionally misquote me, the only mumbo jumbo are your arguments.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 02:45 PM
They are? Last time I looked there wasn't anyone running on a PROdrug platform, at least not from my area...anyone else have anyone running on a legalization ticket?

Because they would lose in a landslide.

ArmedBear
February 15, 2006, 02:46 PM
I'm back.

There are no such things as victimless crimes.

Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?

Dealers in physically addicting substances have an unfair advantage over their customers. All they have to do is get someone to try the drug and then they have a customer for life. This should be illegal.


Everyone, then, is a "victim" of something or somebody. Every choice that every person makes every minute -- every legal choice, too -- is creating more "victims."

If you think this through, you will find that this worldview was created and spread to justify totalitarianism. It implies that people don't really make their own choices, so these choices must be made by the government. But the government is just another group of people, with the power to create REAL victims at the muzzle of a gun.

Violent rapists, armed robbers, murderers and burglars don't try to persuade. Their victims are truly victims. Drug dealers may prey on the stupid and weak, but stupidity and weakness will generally lead to all manner of ills, not just drug abuse. All manner of ills come from a pattern of dumb choices. But they're still CHOICES.

BTW codependence, enabling, etc. are all terms of the 12-step program and there are some very successful non-12-step rehab techniques that focus on people's own choices. These terms did not exist until pretty recently. They are not unassailable truths; they're just some ideas that people have had. Furthermore, codependents, even to those who believe in the idea, are CHOOSING their fate. They might be deluded, but they're making choices.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 02:47 PM
Doing so would eliminate or vastly reduce the ancillary crimes (murder, theft, etc.) associated with the illicit drug trade. Other benefits would follow, as well, but this would be the most noticeable.

Of course, the pro-freedom among us have already explained this many times.

~G. Fink

There simply is not factual evidence that supports this claim.

If you would provide some that I could research myself, I would greatly appreciate it.

Just because something gets repeated over and over again, doesn't make it true.

Gordon Fink
February 15, 2006, 03:00 PM
Pafrmu, if there were no “drug turf” to defend or invade, how would people be murdered in turf battles? If drugs were no more expensive than booze, why would addicts steal to support their habits?

~G. Fink

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 03:00 PM
Everyone, then, is a "victim" of something or somebody. Every choice that every person makes every minute -- every legal choice, too -- is creating more "victims."

If you think this through, you will find that this worldview was created and spread to justify totalitarianism. It implies that people don't really make their own choices, so these choices must be made by the government. But the government is just another group of people, with the power to create REAL victims at the muzzle of a gun.

Violent rapists, armed robbers, murderers and burglars don't try to persuade. Their victims are truly victims. Drug dealers may prey on the stupid and weak, but stupidity and weakness will generally lead to all manner of ills, not just drug abuse. All manner of ills come from a pattern of dumb choices. But they're still CHOICES.

BTW codependence, enabling, etc. are all terms of the 12-step program and there are some very successful non-12-step rehab techniques that focus on people's own choices. These terms did not exist until pretty recently. They are not unassailable truths; they're just some ideas that people have had. Furthermore, codependents, even to those who believe in the idea, are CHOOSING their fate. They might be deluded, but they're making choices.

Don't people choose to live in High Crime areas. Don't girls choose to go on dates with date rapists. Don't joggers choose to run by muggers and rapists and murderers. Didn't I choose to park the car in the street and not in the garage when it was stolen?

So since people made all those choices shouldn't the laws against theft, rape and murder exclude these?

The lets legalize everything worldview leads to anarchy.

Sindawe
February 15, 2006, 03:03 PM
If you would provide some that I could research myself, I would greatly appreciate it.Lets look at another example of chemical prohibition, that of ethanol. Looking at the pre and post repeal rates of assult and murder via firearms, we find an interesting decline AFTER ETOH was again legal to consume.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/murder_and_assault_1910-43.gif

Source: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html Last time I checked all those states voted for their federally elected officials and those same federally elected officials voted time and time again to continue the drug war. Please cite the relevant section of the U.S. constitution that gives congress the authority to ban the trade in, possesion and use of currently illegal drugs, and reconcile that with the fact that the LAST time this nation banned a chemical substance, it required and amendment to the constitution to do so, yet this time it does not.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 03:04 PM
Pafrmu, if there were no “drug turf” to defend or invade, how would people be murdered in turf battles? If drugs were no more expensive than booze, why would addicts steal to support their habits?

~G. Fink

I would have no problems with these conjectures if there was some hard evidence to support them.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 03:24 PM
Lets look at another example of chemical prohibition, that of ethanol. Looking at the pre and post repeal rates of assult and murder via firearms, we find an interesting decline AFTER ETOH was again legal to consume.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/murder_and_assault_1910-43.gif

First off, the first lesson in statistics is that correlation does not imply causation.

Second off, the chart shows crime growing prior to the prohibition. So unless you can account for that your chart doesn't really prove anything.

Source: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html Please cite the relevant section of the U.S. constitution that gives congress the authority to ban the trade in, possesion and use of currently illegal drugs, and reconcile that with the fact that the LAST time this nation banned a chemical substance, it required and amendment to the constitution to do so, yet this time it does not.

Please show me where it is denied the ability.

Gordon Fink
February 15, 2006, 03:24 PM
The evidence is right in front of your face, Pafrmu. People addicted to alcohol or nicotine don’t kill or steal in support of their habits at the rate illegal drug users do. Legal sellers of these and other intoxicants commit almost no violent crimes whatsoever.

Most drug crime is the result of black-market economics. When alcohol was illegal, there was a lot of crime associated with bootlegging. As tobacco becomes more tightly controlled, we are seeing an increase in crime related to cigarette smuggling.

Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes?

~G. Fink

Derby FALs
February 15, 2006, 03:29 PM
Sarcasm Alert.

Lets instead legalize arsenic, DDT, lead based makeup, nuclear weapons, child porn, NAMBLA, and other "victimless crimes".

Its a slippery slope to anarchy.

What is wrong with DDT?

Ban on DDT Continues to Kill People (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4460)

Derby FALs
February 15, 2006, 03:33 PM
I would have no problems with these conjectures if there was some hard evidence to support them.

Keep coming back...

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 03:35 PM
The evidence is right in front of your face, Pafrmu. People addicted to alcohol or nicotine don’t kill or steal in support of their habits at the rate illegal drug users do. Legal sellers of these and other intoxicants commit almost no violent crimes whatsoever.

Most drug crime is the result of black-market economics. When alcohol was illegal, there was a lot of crime associated with bootlegging. As tobacco becomes more tightly controlled, we are seeing an increase in crime related to cigarette smuggling.

Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes?

~G. Fink

I have seen many more lives broken to booze and nicotine than to illegal drugs. I have three dead family members from smoking and I know that at least one of them would be alive because she died from second hand smoke, which she wouldn't have had to face if smoking were illegal.

Furthermore, I know of lots of bad things that people have done while under the influence of drugs, things they would not have done had they not chosen to consume them.

But I cannot think of and I dare you to find one good thing someone did through their drug and alcohol abuse.

ArmedBear
February 15, 2006, 03:38 PM
First off, the first lesson in statistics is that correlation does not imply causation.


That lesson does not mean "any correlation can be dismissed out of hand," which is what you are doing.

Sindawe
February 15, 2006, 03:44 PM
Please show me where it is denied the ability.Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.Nowhere in the cited seciton to a see the authority to BAN the cultivation, trade or possesion of any plant or animal, or any substance derived from a plant or animal, only to regulate as in make consistent and orderly. And to make that point crystal clear to the government, we have:Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The rights listed are not the ONLY rights possessed by the people. This goes along with:Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Unless the powers of the United States are specified in the constitution, the States or people hold them.

This ain't rocket science Parfmu. Its basic American Civics. You DID have that class, did you not?

ArmedBear
February 15, 2006, 03:45 PM
Don't people choose to live in High Crime areas. Don't girls choose to go on dates with date rapists. Don't joggers choose to run by muggers and rapists and murderers. Didn't I choose to park the car in the street and not in the garage when it was stolen?

So since people made all those choices shouldn't the laws against theft, rape and murder exclude these?


Choosing to live somewhere, go on a date, exercise or park your car are not the same as choosing to be robbed, raped, murdered, or stolen from. Choosing to take a drug is a direct choice made by the drug user.

Take a class in Elementary Logic and get back to me...

And your fear of anarchy is misplaced, when far more people have been killed in the past 100 years by authoritarian governments than by recreational drugs. Real-world evidence suggests that the price of freedom is lower than the price of totalitarianism, plain and simple.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 03:47 PM
I think I have said enough for today.

I can tell when I am a conservative on a libertarians ship.

I'll be back tomorrow to see if we are still interested in discussing this.

See you at the range.

The Real Hawkeye
February 15, 2006, 03:52 PM
How about even more simplistic?


Take the market away from them!

That's right, legalize it all and produce it cheaper, sell it cheaper, but at a higher quality. Beat them at their own game; take the profit out of it and they'll stop. By leaving everything regulated in the War on (some) Drugs [thanks SW for the phrase], you make the regulated items high priced.Absolutely! +1

ArmedBear
February 15, 2006, 04:00 PM
I think I have said enough for today.

I can tell when I am a conservative on a libertarians ship.


Ad hominem.
Genetic fallacy.

You might be correct in your conclusions about drugs, but you're really not going to win any debates by racking up a few more fallacies with every post. You are doing this; no one it doing it to you.

The mental effort that libertarians are willing to put out to argue their points certainly stems from their beliefs. But that doesn't make them wrong; it means they won't be persuaded by an answer that lacks rigor, or worse.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The Real Hawkeye
February 15, 2006, 04:03 PM
Make it free, as much as you want when you want it and go straight to the hard stuff. In a short period of time we wouldn't have a drug problem nor many users.Don't have to make it free. If you let the free market operate, it will be as cheap as oregano and cane sugar.

confed sailor
February 15, 2006, 04:06 PM
Wait a minute, if you make delightfully mind-altering substances availible cheap and easy, then arent some of us (that being the "national" us) going to overindulge?

:evil: and darwin rears his ugly head, or as we say in the Nuclear navy, "the stupid shall be punished."

There are many things in this world that serve as a filter for the not-so-bright, AD's for one, motorcycles (esp. for sailors), and far from the least drugs. So as far as im concerned let'em get high, Darwin will reap his share.

On a side note I am most definately against substance use in the Nuclear Navy, and i firmly belive that urinalysis serves as one of the first lines of reactor protection, by ensuring clear-headed operators.

The Real Hawkeye
February 15, 2006, 04:19 PM
I think I have said enough for today.

I can tell when I am a conservative on a libertarians ship.

I'll be back tomorrow to see if we are still interested in discussing this.

See you at the range.You are no more conservative than I am, and I think you are dead wrong on this issue. Do you think Bill Buckley is a conservative? He thinks you're dead wrong on this issue too. What is it that conservatives wish to conserve? Well, one thing conservatives wish to conserve is liberty under the rule of law. The War on Some Drugs is a corrosive to the rule of law, as it causes the Constitution to be violated daily. What else do conservatives wish to conserve? Well, a limited central government is a biggie. The War on Some Drugs causes a steady and rapid growth in the Federal Government, as it usurps power after power, at the expense of local government (another thing conservatives wish to conserve, i.e., local governmental power, i.e., decentralization). These are all conservative notions.

I think you are confusing authoritarianism with conservatism. They are, in fact, opposites, but I don't blame you for making the mistake, since that's all you've heard in your government schools growing up, and in the news media your entire life. Maybe you should try to read some seminal authors of conservative thought, instead of just assuming your public education and the mainstream media taught you correctly what a conservative is?

yinyangdc
February 15, 2006, 04:19 PM
Pafrmu

I can tell when I am a conservative on a libertarians ship.

You may be a conservative, but you obviously do not uphold the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I don't have to do drugs to support the Constitutional right of other, less conservative, people to choose to use. I also don't have to own, use, or even care about guns to support, or even encourage, others to own, use and care about guns.
The constitution isn't about what we like or dislike, it is about the LIMITS placed upon the federal government in interfering with the lives of we, the CITIZENS of the United States of America.

David

Gordon Fink
February 15, 2006, 04:21 PM
I have seen many more lives broken to booze and nicotine than to illegal drugs.…

Furthermore, I know of lots of bad things that people have done while under the influence of drugs, things they would not have done had they not chosen to consume them.

Exactly, and addicts will continue to ruin their lives if drugs were legalized, just as they do right now while drugs are illegal. The current drug laws are not preventing drug addiction or abuse. They are merely fueling the ancillary crime that surrounds the illicit drug trade.

~G. Fink

Maxwell
February 15, 2006, 04:38 PM
The lets legalize everything worldview leads to anarchy.

The Right sells anarchy, the Left sells slavery.
Such good choices.... I'll take anarchy.

At least under anarchy its not illegal to defend myself and choose my own lifestyle. Besides, we tried slavery and it sucked.


I for one dont care to use my tax dollars to enhance the drug dealers cash flow, which is exactly whats happend. We enforce the border, we create the blockade, we pay to jail people, and He reaps the benefits of a high market value.
What do we still have? addicted people and drug dealers.

Lets go back and review prohibition and see how well that never worked.
What did we have back then for all our efforts? addicted people and booze dealers.

If theres three things you should learn from it:
1) People will always get addicted to some crap or the other.
2) other people will always want to make money importing illegal goods.
3) Pro-prohibition canidates are unlikely to be elected.

I think in 50 years we'll be saying the same things about the drug war. Unfortunatly it will come after many lives and billions in dollars have been wasted.

308win
February 15, 2006, 06:11 PM
Don't have to make it free. If you let the free market operate, it will be as cheap as oregano and cane sugar.

Maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I could have. I don't want any barriers between drugs and persons who use them so: 1. The abuser becomes addicted and 2. Feeds his addiction to the point that darwinism takes over and he isn't around anymore.

Edited to change user to abuser although user alone is fine with me - call me old-fashioned.

White Horseradish
February 15, 2006, 07:06 PM
Last time I checked. I would encourage you to try to obtain any of these to prove me otherwise.

"Illegal" and "hard to obtain" are not the same thing. Are you trying to muddy the waters here?

You made the assertion, you should provide proof. Find me a law that says I can't have any of those.

Arsenic has been used as a preservative in timber up unitl very recently. I can still buy it from any industrial chemical supply company.

Nuclear weapons are large and expensive and require special facilities. That
would keep me from obtaining them.

NAMBLA is an organization. How would I go about obtaining it? Can you obtain NRA? Aside form that, NAMBLA still exists quite openly. I would say that means it's legal.

I could also point out that none of the things on your list except child pornography are actually crimes, but that would be nitpicking.

What emotion are you referring to? If is the dislike of meaningless arguments based upon flawed reasoning then yes, I am arguing from emotion. The emotion I am referring to is fear. You are afraid of drugs (probably due to ignorance on the subject). You accept "drugs are bad" as an axiom and refuse to think about it.

You repeat the cliches of the media fear-mongers, such as "try it once and you're addicted". Do you have any medical sources that would support that?

I think that this question has been settled. Except for a fringe minority, no political support exists to legalize drugs. It is therefore is not a real solution to the drug problem. Its like saying that s solution for world peace is for everyone to just get along. They both lack a basis in reality.

Can someone tell my why legalizing drugs is a good idea? Please be clear and concise and make your points with facts and not mumbo jumbo about the 10th amendment and how it reserves to the people every this and that. Clearly the people are for banning drugs because they keep voting for representatives and senators and presidents that ban them. So get a new or better or realist argument.

Have you ever seen a violent pothead? How about a mean drunk? Now, with those two questions in mind, can you tell me why pot is illegal? Absense of a good reason to ban something is a good enough reason to have it available.

Pafrmu
February 15, 2006, 07:11 PM
I know, I know, I promised to be done for today but I think I need to be finished with this thread. So I am gonna stop. I feel like the guy who calls Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage to argue with them. I would never do it in real life, I have no idea why I am doing it on the internet.

I am sorry for disagreeing with you all. I hope that time shows you correct. As for me and my views, I will discuss them face to face rather than keyboard to keyboard.

See you at the range.

Gordon Fink
February 15, 2006, 11:23 PM
I hope we are proven correct in time. Otherwise, our wars on various abstractions will surely be our undoing.

~G. Fink

crazed_ss
February 15, 2006, 11:45 PM
I know, I know, I promised to be done for today but I think I need to be finished with this thread. So I am gonna stop. I feel like the guy who calls Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage to argue with them. I would never do it in real life, I have no idea why I am doing it on the internet.

I am sorry for disagreeing with you all. I hope that time shows you correct. As for me and my views, I will discuss them face to face rather than keyboard to keyboard.

See you at the range.

Heh.. dont feel bad. I bowed out of this thread earlier after using your same arguments pretty much. Hard to argue against and entire forum by yourself :)
Must be something in the water here in San Diego that makes us think drugs are bad.

Derby FALs
February 16, 2006, 01:51 AM
Heh.. dont feel bad. I bowed out of this thread earlier after using your same arguments pretty much. Hard to argue against and entire forum by yourself :)
Must be something in the water here in San Diego that makes us think drugs are bad.

No one has said drugs are good. Quite a few of us believe government intrusion is bad, costly and ineffectual.

LAK
February 16, 2006, 04:05 AM
I'm back.

There are no such things as victimless crimes.

Drug users are victims of themselves. Thier family members are victims. Their coworkers are victims. Anyone connected to a drug addict or any addict is in someway a victim. Ever heard of codependence, enabling, etc?

Dealers in physically addicting substances have an unfair advantage over their customers. All they have to do is get someone to try the drug and then they have a customer for life. This should be illegal.

The argument that the laws do not prevent drug use is no argument. No law prevents a crime. It may get someone to think about it but it does not prevent it.

The slippery slope arguments are weak also. The same logic would say that legalizing things is a slippery slope to anarchy. Sorry but liberty is like being perched on a mountain top. If we slip down one side we end in tyranny, if we slip down the other we end in anarchy. The trick is getting a balance.
The same reason and logic could be applied to "gun control" etc.

Where were all the "victims" from uncontrolled heroin and cocaine, firearms etc in 1885? 1910? 1926?

The idea that we need prohibitive government legislation to protect people "from becoming their own victim" is ridiculous; unless you are speaking of people who are clinically declared mentally incompetent to begin with. In which case such people need to be under 24 hour supervision or lock and key.
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Ezekiel
February 16, 2006, 10:56 AM
unless you are speaking of people who are clinically declared mentally incompetent to begin with. In which case such people need to be under 24 hour supervision or lock and key

You might be quite surprized at how large a slice of humanity that might be.

Quite simply, drug addicts negatively effect me: that's where their rights end. Eventually, they get hungry and realize they've spent all their $$$ on ice. Next, they decide your car stereo looks like it might be worth $15 to someone...

"Screw 'em." Drugs should be -- and ARE -- illegal.

Rhetorically? Sure, I understand and support the idea of all citizens' personal liberty. Reality? Most folks shouldn't be trusted with it. "John Q. is a dumbass."

Derby FALs
February 16, 2006, 11:30 AM
You might be quite surprized at how large a slice of humanity that might be.

Quite simply, drug addicts negatively effect me: that's where their rights end. Eventually, they get hungry and realize they've spent all their $$$ on ice. Next, they decide your car stereo looks like it might be worth $15 to someone...

"Screw 'em." Drugs should be -- and ARE -- illegal.

Rhetorically? Sure, I understand and support the idea of all citizens' personal liberty. Reality? Most folks shouldn't be trusted with it. "John Q. is a dumbass."

So make it so cheap and let them use drugs freely while nature corrects its mistakes.

Maxwell
February 16, 2006, 11:48 AM
Black markets are nasty things. They put funds strait into the pocket of a criminal. Terrorists, organized crime and gangs are supercharged by the cash flow we've generously provided.
Drugs have a negative effect, but things created by such a vast illegal trade are far worse.

Drugs leave you with the ugly scene of a stoned addicts on the sidewalks.
Drug wars leave you with the ugly scene of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers.

Which one is more important to eliminate right now?

Derek Zeanah
February 16, 2006, 01:30 PM
There simply is not factual evidence that supports this claim.

If you would provide some that I could research myself, I would greatly appreciate it.

Just because something gets repeated over and over again, doesn't make it true.I'd suggest you look into prohibition, and the changes that occurred once alcohol became legal to buy and sell again.

Seen any shootouts between Budweiser and Miller distributors lately?

Gordon Fink
February 16, 2006, 01:46 PM
Quite simply, drug addicts negatively effect me: that’s where their rights end. Eventually, they get hungry and realize they’ve spent all their $$$ on ice. Next, they decide your car stereo looks like it might be worth $15 to someone.…

And yet they already do this, even though drugs are ridiculously illegal. Maybe we can try punishing just the ones who steal your car stereo for a change. With otherwise law-abiding drug users not filling up the prisons, we could afford to keep the thieves, rapists, and murderers locked up for their full sentences.

~G. Fink

DRZinn
February 16, 2006, 08:11 PM
Sure, I understand and support the idea of all citizens' personal liberty. Reality? Most folks shouldn't be trusted with it.Rather than reply to that, I'll just let it twist slowly in the breeze. You have shown us who you are.

Crosshair
February 16, 2006, 08:38 PM
"Screw 'em." Drugs should be -- and ARE -- illegal.

I haven't tried to get drugs since my second year in college, but give me an two hours and a phone and I will be able to get any drug I want. Actualy, all I have to do is go to a friends boarding house and ask around. It is now harder for me to buy "legal" cold medicine than it is for me to buy illegal drugs.

Did you know that Ritalin "legal" is basicly a cocaine "illegal" substitute. It has the exact same effects on the brain when snorted as cocaine. The only difference is that Ritalin can be taken oraly so the effect is not sudden as it is when snorting it. We are essentially giving our children an oral dose of cocaine. I see no problem with this if it aleviates the simptoms of whatever illness they are suffering from. We have been brainwashed to think "Cocaine = Evil". It is not so. Coca leaves are actualy very nutritious as well.

A coca leaf weighing 100 grams contains 18.9 calories of protein, 45.8 mg of iron, 1540 mg of calcium and vitamins A, B1, B2, E and C, which is more than most nuts, according to a 1975 study by a group of Harvard University professors.

It is when the Coca leaves are refined that we get the white powder that we are familiar with today. Eating raw Coca leaves affects you as much as a few cups of coffee.

If you enjoyed reading about "The solution to the U.S. war on drugs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!