Ron Paul: Repeal the War on Drugs -- just like we repealed Prohibition

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by HereToStudy View Post
    I support the same thing. Decriminalization across the board and legalization in for certain things. Focus our drug war money on abuse prevention and recovery, rather then filling a jail cell.
    good post.......

    the question to ask people, if heroin was legal would you change your mind do it?

    if you want to do it and its illegal, you will get it......hard core drugs were easier for me to get in high school than beer.

    we need to take criminals off the street simply by legalizing drugs, and then having cash for having good support and education about drugs and its dangers.

    1/2 trillion dollars since 1970's has not changed anything, just filled up prisons and made alot of criminals rich. so after 40 years why stay the course?
    This message was paid for by the Russians


  2. ...especially when we all know prohibition does not and never has worked. The US admitted fault when people like Capone were shooting up people in the streets to get people their prohibited vice (alcohol), but cant admit fault when our countries law counters the demand for these drugs, and we have not only violence in our country, but near war like violence in others to feed the demand.
    Just inject.
    Facebook:
    www.facebook.com/heretostudy
    •   
       


  3. Yes, legalization of marj is a not a good idea. I'm a probation officer so I see the damage. Some have this theory that there are drug users that are not hurting anyone and should not go to jail. Well most are violent drug users. We actually tried a program to take drug users only with no violent crimes and give them treatment. Well they had to open the door violent crimes too because they did not have enough people in the program to justify having the program. They had to stop violating the drug users to show the program as a success because treatment does not work. Yes, continued drug use and new misd, and felonys were still considered a success.
    As far as costs of locking them up. Tent city costs very little.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2 View Post
    Yes, legalization of marj is a not a good idea. I'm a probation officer so I see the damage. Some have this theory that there are drug users that are not hurting anyone and should not go to jail. Well most are violent drug users. We actually tried a program to take drug users only with no violent crimes and give them treatment. Well they had to open the door violent crimes too because they did not have enough people in the program to justify having the program. They had to stop violating the drug users to show the program as a success because treatment does not work. Yes, continued drug use and new misd, and felonys were still considered a success.
    As far as costs of locking them up. Tent city costs very little.
    but marijuana is illegal, and widely used. the point is making it illegal wont stop anybody from doing it.

    this supports drug dealers and puts alot of cash in their pockets. we could be putting the money into the system for scientific research to cure diseases such as cancer, and also putting the money into drug education and better rehab programs.

    legalizing drugs isnt about getting people to do drugs. i dont do drugs, i dont even drink alcohol, never ever. im the straightest you can get not including bodybuilding supplements (lol). i know if drugs were legal i still wouldnt do it, but the fact is i can walk into town and find most drugs easily available but that doesnt mean my accessibility will cause me to try it. something isnt working here with the war on drugs.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  5. Quote Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2 View Post
    Yes, legalization of marj is a not a good idea. I'm a probation officer so I see the damage. Some have this theory that there are drug users that are not hurting anyone and should not go to jail. Well most are violent drug users. We actually tried a program to take drug users only with no violent crimes and give them treatment. Well they had to open the door violent crimes too because they did not have enough people in the program to justify having the program. They had to stop violating the drug users to show the program as a success because treatment does not work. Yes, continued drug use and new misd, and felonys were still considered a success.
    As far as costs of locking them up. Tent city costs very little.
    I am going to highly (no pun - I am at work) disagree.

    Marijuana does not, and never has, caused violence. Numerous organizations have come out to say this, including government bodies and police officials.

    Government Body (This is a defense lawyers site, but he links source):
    http://blog.austindefense.com/2007/1...ause-violence/

    Here is a police organization dedicated to repealing prohibition:
    http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

    You situation seems to not be the norm, but is no different then saying Bernie Madoff drank milk, so milk has a correlation to financial crime. Have you smoked pot? I couldn't imagine being in a fight while high, much less stronger violence.

    BTW, stating drug use is linked to violence and marijuana is linked to violence should be two different things. Also, if we are going to strictly consider a precurser to violence, I would love to see the numbers of violent crimes, particularly domestic violence, commited while under the influence of alcohol.

    Also noteworthy to discuss that marijuana prohibition is costing us alot of money. ALOT. This, again, is a blog, but it is just a copy of a forbes article put onto the blog:
    http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?****860
    Just inject.
    Facebook:
    www.facebook.com/heretostudy
    •   
       


  6. being around pot heads and bars when i was younger, ill tell you first hand the violence comes from alcohol, not stoners.

    are you suggesting we throw everybody who drinks alcohol in tent cities as well since there is a direct relation between beer and spousal abuse?

    if so ill be for it, as id see most of washington finally locked up!
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  7. Quote Originally Posted by HereToStudy View Post
    I support the same thing. Decriminalization across the board and legalization in for certain things. Focus our drug war money on abuse prevention and recovery, rather then filling a jail cell.

    I love conservatives that consider themselves "fiscally conservative" but are pro drug war. Do you know how much of your tax dollars go towards keeping a kid in jail who sold some weed to his buddies?!?!
    Word.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2 View Post
    Yes, legalization of marj is a not a good idea. I'm a probation officer so I see the damage. Some have this theory that there are drug users that are not hurting anyone and should not go to jail. Well most are violent drug users.
    Bro, I live in Vancouver. If that were the case then some 20% of the city would be violent criminals.

    Quote Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2 View Post
    As far as costs of locking them up. Tent city costs very little.
    Just like the cost of a death sentence needs only be $0.79 for the bullet? Sorry not that simple...

  9. I have spent a few months in Netherlands and gotta tell you, there is barely any disturbance around their "coffeeshops" (places where dutch smoke weed) a lot different from bars and other places where alcohol served. Even though I am not a user, I'd say legalize the mj.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    why? why is it hilariously a bad idea?
    Quote Originally Posted by HereToStudy View Post
    Before I state my opinion on the matter, I would love to see you justify your comment.
    Okay naive morons. Go spend some time around rehab clinics. Go watch crack heads steal anything for money. Watch a heroin addict shoot up behind an alley. Watch a coke head freak out when they need a fix. Go watch someone suck **** to get more acid. Ive seen all of these in person, save for the acid, I wasnt actually watching. You are all ****ing idiots who have no concept of what people are getting into. You want to legalize this ****? Fine. Pay for their rehab, tell the kids to just say no. Tell them heroin needs to be used responsibly. I mean, since the government seems to want to have the rich pay for all our healthcare, why not put all the rehab stays and treatment for these people? Its not their fault! What would be the harm in introducing highly addictive substances into a society where excess and hedonism are the cornerstones of our contemporary culture? You want to pay for someones rehab stay(s)? Fine, my tax dollars wont. Legalizing drugs going well is a ****ing pipe dream. I love yalls attitudes. "You know what America needs!?! More legal addictive drugs! NOW!" It cracks me up that California is campaigning to ban smoking cigarettes and is trying to legalize weed, among other things. Just lol.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Okay naive morons. Go spend some time around rehab clinics. Go watch crack heads steal anything for money. Watch a heroin addict shoot up behind an alley. Watch a coke head freak out when they need a fix. Go watch someone suck **** to get more acid. Ive seen all of these in person, save for the acid, I wasnt actually watching. You are all ****ing idiots who have no concept of what people are getting into. You want to legalize this ****? Fine. Pay for their rehab, tell the kids to just say no. Tell them heroin needs to be used responsibly. I mean, since the government seems to want to have the rich pay for all our healthcare, why not put all the rehab stays and treatment for these people? Its not their fault! What would be the harm in introducing highly addictive substances into a society where excess and hedonism are the cornerstones of our contemporary culture? You want to pay for someones rehab stay(s)? Fine, my tax dollars wont. Legalizing drugs going well is a ****ing pipe dream. I love yalls attitudes. "You know what America needs!?! More legal addictive drugs! NOW!" It cracks me up that California is campaigning to ban smoking cigarettes and is trying to legalize weed, among other things. Just lol.
    Morons? Kinda the pot calling the kettle black dontcha think? Err wait, no you don't, sorry...

    Maybe read the posts, watch the vids, and do a little homework on the pros and cons of the argument, and make your case in a objective manner instead of resorting to insults.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Okay naive morons. Go spend some time around rehab clinics. Go watch crack heads steal anything for money. Watch a heroin addict shoot up behind an alley. Watch a coke head freak out when they need a fix. Go watch someone suck **** to get more acid. Ive seen all of these in person, save for the acid, I wasnt actually watching. You are all ****ing idiots who have no concept of what people are getting into. You want to legalize this ****? Fine. Pay for their rehab, tell the kids to just say no. Tell them heroin needs to be used responsibly. I mean, since the government seems to want to have the rich pay for all our healthcare, why not put all the rehab stays and treatment for these people? Its not their fault! What would be the harm in introducing highly addictive substances into a society where excess and hedonism are the cornerstones of our contemporary culture? You want to pay for someones rehab stay(s)? Fine, my tax dollars wont. Legalizing drugs going well is a ****ing pipe dream. I love yalls attitudes. "You know what America needs!?! More legal addictive drugs! NOW!" It cracks me up that California is campaigning to ban smoking cigarettes and is trying to legalize weed, among other things. Just lol.
    Once again, as anytime you try to involve yourself in a discussion, you come off as completely uninformed.

    "Okay naive morons." - Funny, when I originally asked you for your opinion, I had typed "Immature response in 5...4....3....2...1...", but I erased it because I figured I would give you a chance as coming off as an adult. My trust in people always bites me. But then again, me and you have been at this point before.

    Although other drugs were mentioned in this thread, this thread is about marijuana, and more specifically Prop 19 became a focus in discussion. Please inform me of how many people you have seen "sucking ****" for marijuana. I think we all know this doesnt happen


    It simply didnt happen. With the price drop that would inevitably come from legalization, it would be even further from the point of someone becoming that desperate for a hit of a drug that is only shown to be addictive through habitual means, no different then someone who insists on smelling food before eating it. THC, or Tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active canninoid in the marijuana plant, contains no properties leading to a physical addiction, as seen in drugs such as nicotine and hydrocodone.

    But you know, those who smoke pot are really just going to slowly move towards crack cocaine and heroin. I mean pot is a gateway drug. Again, not so much.
    "While the gateway theory has enjoyed popular acceptance, scientists have always had their doubts," said lead researcher Andrew Morral, associate director of RAND's Public Safety and Justice unit. "Our study shows that these doubts are justified." [Unlike your random ranting, here is a source]
    Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age.

    There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. [Again, Source'd]

    Well now that we settled that, we must address the other problems with marijuana we know are true. I think we should attack the core of the problem here. We all know marijuana eats at your brain and is the leading cause of death in america. Oh man, thats not true either? But my parents and the government told me it is!?! Why do people lie to me?

    "Although the use of [marijuana] is not harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality," Sidney concludes [Yay, even WebMD is more informed then you]
    2.The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." [Clearly this quote came from a pot smoking liberal, right? Nope... THIS IS FROM THE DEA]
    Yet, Despite this long history of use and extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that marijuana has caused a single death [Same Source-DEA]

    Oh man, again I can't get over how much I have been lied to. I wonder what other things we have been lied to about.

    Also please don't comment on the amount of children who visit rehab for marijuana addiction. We all know they took that option over jail time when they were caught. This is like saying every driver who received a speeding ticket and went to driving school really needs to relearn how to drive. Its a moot argument.

    You are anti-governmental control of health care. General arguments for this include the high cost to the upper class (which based on your intelligence level I hope you are not a part of, but you might be upset about daddy's money being taxed before hitting that trust fund). I agree, the health care reform will not be cheap, and rather than get into that argument, lets leave it there. But, why not create an industry here in United States, that would create numerous jobs for our country, from seed experts, to growing, to cultivating, to preparation, to distribution, to retail, while at the same time receiving a very large tax benefit for the country, which might, oh no don't say it, help support health care in the united states. Other arguments for the health reform is that the government should not be in control of your health and make decisions for you receiving care. Why is it then that they should be able to tell you how to use your body, experience your body, and live your life? Especially when it becomes no risk to oneself? Sounds like a big government rule to me.

    Lets also look at marijuana scheduling, shall we? It is schedule I drug. That means its bad, really really bad. Or does it? Really a schedule I drug is a drug the DEA believes to be addictive and harmful, with no medicinal benefit. Because we all know that marijuana has shown to have no medicinal benefit. Oh damn, again, I think we have been mislead:
    Alright, so the government doesnt agree that there is a medicinal benefit to marijuana. Fine, if they really don't think it is a medicine, then maybe we should follow their logic. Whats that? I believe the government does believe in medicinal marijuana? Why do I believe that? Because they approved a patent for marijuana to be used for medicinal reasons [PATENT 6630507]. God I love the government.

    For additional information, Cocaine/Crack is a schedule II drug, indicating that cocaine has medicinal benefits. But lets not recognize marijuana to have the same benefits.

    I also am not going to even get started on the Alcohol vs. Marijuana debate, if you can't wrap your simple mind around that argument, then this discussion is worthless.

    Oh and I LOL'd Hard at your cigarette comment. Again, if you don't see tobacco as more harmful to health then marijuana, you are very mislead.

    I will address other drugs later, but for now will get back to work.
    Just inject.
    Facebook:
    www.facebook.com/heretostudy

  13. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Okay naive morons. Go spend some time around rehab clinics. Go watch crack heads steal anything for money. Watch a heroin addict shoot up behind an alley. Watch a coke head freak out when they need a fix. Go watch someone suck **** to get more acid. Ive seen all of these in person, save for the acid, I wasnt actually watching. You are all ****ing idiots who have no concept of what people are getting into. You want to legalize this ****? Fine. Pay for their rehab, tell the kids to just say no. Tell them heroin needs to be used responsibly. I mean, since the government seems to want to have the rich pay for all our healthcare, why not put all the rehab stays and treatment for these people? Its not their fault! What would be the harm in introducing highly addictive substances into a society where excess and hedonism are the cornerstones of our contemporary culture? You want to pay for someones rehab stay(s)? Fine, my tax dollars wont. Legalizing drugs going well is a ****ing pipe dream. I love yalls attitudes. "You know what America needs!?! More legal addictive drugs! NOW!" It cracks me up that California is campaigning to ban smoking cigarettes and is trying to legalize weed, among other things. Just lol.
    The human psychical experience is simply phenomenal in its ability to produce such varying perspectives from experiences of an equal severity. I have seen all the unsavory acts you mention here, and more to boot, and yet I managed to avoid making such a fundamental error of attribution as to paint the activity as such with such a broad and intrinsically negative stroke.

    Rather, I gleaned that such individuals tend toward illegality not due to some evil inherent within the act of ingesting elicit compounds, nor due to terminal flaws in the fabric of their characters, but precisely and only because the act itself is and was already illegal: which is to say, the peripheral activities of drug use (theft and larceny, assault, et al) occur primarily because the central activities of drug use (acquiring and using them) exist in a social context which predicts the former.

    While I concede your point that the mortally addictive nature of elicit drug use contributes earnestly to the issue, I could recite a litany of compounds with similarly addictive natures that do not result in such indirectly destructive behaviors. The distinguishing feature, here, is that the avenues of obtainment for these other addictive compounds - pharmacies for prescription medications and liquor stores for alcohol, namely - have been legitimized, and subsist in a social atmosphere which provides collective normative constraints that prevent such behaviors as a result.

    Does an alcoholic, for example, not commit such acts because alcohol is less addictive than its illegal counterparts, or because alcoholics are vested with a sense of moral aptitude that drug addicts do not possess? No, of course not, and suggesting as much is absurd. They do not because they are permitted to conduct the central activity of their addiction (obtaining and drinking alcohol) through legitimate channels which carry pressures to conduct oneself in a particular manner - and needless to say, purchasing heroin in a back alley does not come associated with such constraints.

    I could pose a thought experiment asking you to reverse the legalities of elicit drugs and alcohol in an effort to consider what the consequence would be, but luckily, that is not necessary: tradition already proffers an answer of what occurred when alcohol was made illegal, and displays what activities seemingly normal people are willing to engage in when they are placed in the right context. Unfortunately, you have not managed to make yourself a student of history, and your premises fail miserably on those grounds.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Okay naive morons. Go spend some time around rehab clinics. Go watch crack heads steal anything for money. Watch a heroin addict shoot up behind an alley. Watch a coke head freak out when they need a fix. Go watch someone suck **** to get more acid. Ive seen all of these in person, save for the acid, I wasnt actually watching. You are all ****ing idiots who have no concept of what people are getting into. You want to legalize this ****? Fine. Pay for their rehab, tell the kids to just say no. Tell them heroin needs to be used responsibly. I mean, since the government seems to want to have the rich pay for all our healthcare, why not put all the rehab stays and treatment for these people? Its not their fault! What would be the harm in introducing highly addictive substances into a society where excess and hedonism are the cornerstones of our contemporary culture? You want to pay for someones rehab stay(s)? Fine, my tax dollars wont. Legalizing drugs going well is a ****ing pipe dream. I love yalls attitudes. "You know what America needs!?! More legal addictive drugs! NOW!" It cracks me up that California is campaigning to ban smoking cigarettes and is trying to legalize weed, among other things. Just lol.
    ok, so its illegal, and you see this happening all the time. so it being illegal is a waste of tax dollars.

    instead, use money to put more cops on the streets to help fight crime. make them legal and they dont have to worry about all the drug dealers anymore as an extra bonus.

    its as simple as that, making things illegal doesnt stop anybody, and your seeing first hand how big of a problem it is, although its illegal. nobody is saying doing drugs is good.

    making drugs legal will get the drug pushers off the street introducing the drugs to kids, pushing them and convincing them to learn some new habits so the drug dealers can make some cash.

    for your last comment, about making ciggarettes illegal, well i dont think they should be illegal just like all the other drugs. the problem is you compare ciggs to pot. ciggs kill 450,000 americans a year, and pot kills 0, so do the math and you will see a little difference there.
    This message was paid for by the Russians
  15. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    The human psychical experience is simply phenomenal in its ability to produce such varying perspectives from experiences of an equal severity. I have seen all the unsavory acts you mention here, and more to boot, and yet I managed to avoid making such a fundamental error of attribution as to paint the activity as such with such a broad and intrinsically negative stroke.

    Rather, I gleaned that such individuals tend toward illegality not due to some evil inherent within the act of ingesting elicit compounds, nor due to terminal flaws in the fabric of their characters, but precisely and only because the act itself is and was already illegal: which is to say, the peripheral activities of drug use (theft and larceny, assault, et al) occur primarily because the central activities of drug use (acquiring and using them) exist in a social context which predicts the former.

    While I concede your point that the mortally addictive nature of elicit drug use contributes earnestly to the issue, I could recite a litany of compounds with similarly addictive natures that do not result in such indirectly destructive behaviors. The distinguishing feature, here, is that the avenues of obtainment for these other addictive compounds - pharmacies for prescription medications and liquor stores for alcohol, namely - have been legitimized, and subsist in a social atmosphere which provides collective normative constraints that prevent such behaviors as a result.

    Does an alcoholic, for example, not commit such acts because alcohol is less addictive than its illegal counterparts, or because alcoholics are vested with a sense of moral aptitude that drug addicts do not possess? No, of course not, and suggesting as much is absurd. They do not because they are permitted to conduct the central activity of their addiction (obtaining and drinking alcohol) through legitimate channels which carry pressures to conduct oneself in a particular manner - and needless to say, purchasing heroin in a back alley does not come associated with such constraints.

    I could pose a thought experiment asking you to reverse the legalities of elicit drugs and alcohol in an effort to consider what the consequence would be, but luckily, that is not necessary: tradition already proffers an answer of what occurred when alcohol was made illegal, and displays what activities seemingly normal people are willing to engage in when they are placed in the right context. Unfortunately, you have not managed to make yourself a student of history, and your premises fail miserably on those grounds.
    Mulletsoldier I salute you,that was a very thorough response to TexasTitans typical insulting,adolescent tirade.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox View Post
    Morons? Kinda the pot calling the kettle black dontcha think? Err wait, no you don't, sorry...

    Maybe read the posts, watch the vids, and do a little homework on the pros and cons of the argument, and make your case in a objective manner instead of resorting to insults.
    Cry about it. Really. The whole "dont resort to insults" thing is just a cop out. Thanks for playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by HereToStudy View Post
    Once again, as anytime you try to involve yourself in a discussion, you come off as completely uninformed.

    "Okay naive morons." - Funny, when I originally asked you for your opinion, I had typed "Immature response in 5...4....3....2...1...", but I erased it because I figured I would give you a chance as coming off as an adult. My trust in people always bites me. But then again, me and you have been at this point before.

    Although other drugs were mentioned in this thread, this thread is about marijuana, and more specifically Prop 19 became a focus in discussion. Please inform me of how many people you have seen "sucking ****" for marijuana. I think we all know this doesnt happen

    [IMG]http://thecriticalcritics.com/review/wp-content/images/top10/cameos/half_baked.jpg[IMG]

    It simply didnt happen. With the price drop that would inevitably come from legalization, it would be even further from the point of someone becoming that desperate for a hit of a drug that is only shown to be addictive through habitual means, no different then someone who insists on smelling food before eating it. THC, or Tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active canninoid in the marijuana plant, contains no properties leading to a physical addiction, as seen in drugs such as nicotine and hydrocodone.

    But you know, those who smoke pot are really just going to slowly move towards crack cocaine and heroin. I mean pot is a gateway drug. Again, not so much.


    Well now that we settled that, we must address the other problems with marijuana we know are true. I think we should attack the core of the problem here. We all know marijuana eats at your brain and is the leading cause of death in america. Oh man, thats not true either? But my parents and the government told me it is!?! Why do people lie to me?




    Oh man, again I can't get over how much I have been lied to. I wonder what other things we have been lied to about.

    Also please don't comment on the amount of children who visit rehab for marijuana addiction. We all know they took that option over jail time when they were caught. This is like saying every driver who received a speeding ticket and went to driving school really needs to relearn how to drive. Its a moot argument.

    You are anti-governmental control of health care. General arguments for this include the high cost to the upper class (which based on your intelligence level I hope you are not a part of, but you might be upset about daddy's money being taxed before hitting that trust fund). I agree, the health care reform will not be cheap, and rather than get into that argument, lets leave it there. But, why not create an industry here in United States, that would create numerous jobs for our country, from seed experts, to growing, to cultivating, to preparation, to distribution, to retail, while at the same time receiving a very large tax benefit for the country, which might, oh no don't say it, help support health care in the united states. Other arguments for the health reform is that the government should not be in control of your health and make decisions for you receiving care. Why is it then that they should be able to tell you how to use your body, experience your body, and live your life? Especially when it becomes no risk to oneself? Sounds like a big government rule to me.

    Lets also look at marijuana scheduling, shall we? It is schedule I drug. That means its bad, really really bad. Or does it? Really a schedule I drug is a drug the DEA believes to be addictive and harmful, with no medicinal benefit. Because we all know that marijuana has shown to have no medicinal benefit. Oh damn, again, I think we have been mislead:
    Alright, so the government doesnt agree that there is a medicinal benefit to marijuana. Fine, if they really don't think it is a medicine, then maybe we should follow their logic. Whats that? I believe the government does believe in medicinal marijuana? Why do I believe that? Because they approved a patent for marijuana to be used for medicinal reasons [PATENT 6630507]. God I love the government.

    For additional information, Cocaine/Crack is a schedule II drug, indicating that cocaine has medicinal benefits. But lets not recognize marijuana to have the same benefits.

    I also am not going to even get started on the Alcohol vs. Marijuana debate, if you can't wrap your simple mind around that argument, then this discussion is worthless.

    Oh and I LOL'd Hard at your cigarette comment. Again, if you don't see tobacco as more harmful to health then marijuana, you are very mislead.

    I will address other drugs later, but for now will get back to work.
    Its hilarious how you complain about being lied to and yet, fully embrace the other side of the issue without considering that..maybe...just maybe...they may be telling some lies themselves. Anyways.

    Find out how much prices would drop if legalized. In fact, whatever taxes would be put on it and regulation would raise the price is what I hear. I was talking the entire time about drugs on the whole, but great job isolating the argument purely on marijuana to give yourself a rallying cry.

    Exposure to drugs at a young age will inevitably lead a few to try others. Its not the substance itself as much as the lifestyle. This is not a hard reach. Marijuana may not by physically addictive (according to modern research) but the act and lifestyle can be. In the same way they say quitting cigs is almost 50% just holding the cigarette between your fingers and taking breaks since its an embedded part of your lifestyle.

    Here anuder dink for you. Go ahead and see what legalization would do to California's budget problems. I think it was estimated that the budget shortfall for the year would have been gapped...a stunning 1/26th from the stuff I saw. So without a huge amount of taxation to make it practically unaffordable, it really wouldnt help pay for jack ****.

    You need to get over the fact that marijuana is not a cure all miracle drug. The whole "oh youre big government because you want to regulate drugs" **** doesnt fly. Mind altering substances, something that will impair your judgment and can be addictive, does not fit into the unlimited personal freedom column. You use tunnel vision to make the issue black and white for you. No risk to ones self.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    The human psychical experience is simply phenomenal in its ability to produce such varying perspectives from experiences of an equal severity. I have seen all the unsavory acts you mention here, and more to boot, and yet I managed to avoid making such a fundamental error of attribution as to paint the activity as such with such a broad and intrinsically negative stroke.

    Rather, I gleaned that such individuals tend toward illegality not due to some evil inherent within the act of ingesting elicit compounds, nor due to terminal flaws in the fabric of their characters, but precisely and only because the act itself is and was already illegal: which is to say, the peripheral activities of drug use (theft and larceny, assault, et al) occur primarily because the central activities of drug use (acquiring and using them) exist in a social context which predicts the former.

    While I concede your point that the mortally addictive nature of elicit drug use contributes earnestly to the issue, I could recite a litany of compounds with similarly addictive natures that do not result in such indirectly destructive behaviors. The distinguishing feature, here, is that the avenues of obtainment for these other addictive compounds - pharmacies for prescription medications and liquor stores for alcohol, namely - have been legitimized, and subsist in a social atmosphere which provides collective normative constraints that prevent such behaviors as a result.

    Does an alcoholic, for example, not commit such acts because alcohol is less addictive than its illegal counterparts, or because alcoholics are vested with a sense of moral aptitude that drug addicts do not possess? No, of course not, and suggesting as much is absurd. They do not because they are permitted to conduct the central activity of their addiction (obtaining and drinking alcohol) through legitimate channels which carry pressures to conduct oneself in a particular manner - and needless to say, purchasing heroin in a back alley does not come associated with such constraints.

    I could pose a thought experiment asking you to reverse the legalities of elicit drugs and alcohol in an effort to consider what the consequence would be, but luckily, that is not necessary: tradition already proffers an answer of what occurred when alcohol was made illegal, and displays what activities seemingly normal people are willing to engage in when they are placed in the right context. Unfortunately, you have not managed to make yourself a student of history, and your premises fail miserably on those grounds.
    Look, I get it. You really put your heart and soul into it and tried to write something I guess you feel is a leap and bound above my intellect. Way to show me up. Youre an internet champion. You "gleaned" that people do them simply because they are illegal. Cute. I think its hilarious that apparently people do things because they are illegal. Well, I suddenly have the urge to steal and car and kill someone since its illegal. Hot damn. Yeah, Im not buying your brand on, stealing and violence only are results of drugs being illegal. Crack heads would still be stealing anything not bolted down if they could go to a corner store and get it. No really, as long as you guys just want to let the addicts run rampant in the name of personal freedom and give them access to anything they may want, lets just stop paying the DEA and rerout the money to health and human services. No, all those kids born with defects from drug using parents, itll be great. Pay for all these people who are addicts since they wont have any money themselves to pay for it. I dont understand how adding more addictive drugs to the loadout of readily available things to **** yourself up will have a positive net gain. Legalization is condoning it. Lets go clubbing, get some ex, whatever, wooo. So alcoholism is a devastating condition that rips apart families, puts people into massive debt, and a cascade of other negative ramifications. So putting other more addictive, harmful substances on the market will just create a new line of addicts. As you yourself said, alcohol is less addictive. Whereas with many drugs, it can only take a number of uses on less than one hand to be hooked. Then the fun begins. Alcoholics can even attempt to live normal lives. Good luck when you are shaking from needing another shot of heroin. You girls need to see big picture. Peoples lives, finances, health, ability to work, etc etc. How are they positively impacted here. Then you say, well I hate big gubment and it should be our freedom bro. It becomes my problem when my tax dollars have to pay for the cleanup of the mess this would bring on. You either have a impressively naive romantic view of libertarianism or you just refuse to see what the impact would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    for your last comment, about making ciggarettes illegal, well i dont think they should be illegal just like all the other drugs. the problem is you compare ciggs to pot. ciggs kill 450,000 americans a year, and pot kills 0, so do the math and you will see a little difference there.
    BRO, PERSONAL FREEDOM BRO.

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Mulletsoldier I salute you,that was a very thorough response to TexasTitans typical insulting,adolescent tirade.
    Shut up luther, youre the biggest ****ing moron on here. Your hilarious fringe idiot propoganda threads are priceless. I hope israeli commandos blow down your door one day. I wont respond to anything you post after this.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Look, I get it. You really put your heart and soul into it and tried to write something I guess you feel is a leap and bound above my intellect.
    Actually, that was and is not my sentiment; however, given that you felt compelled toward preferring that interpretation, I am led to believe you feel that way. I will concede the compliment and move forward.

    You "gleaned" that people do them simply because they are illegal. Cute. I think its hilarious that apparently people do things because they are illegal. Well, I suddenly have the urge to steal and car and kill someone since its illegal. Hot damn.
    Ironically, your inability to extract and comprehend the primary message of my post highly suggests the post was "leaps and bounds above your intellect." The issue here is the context. More on this later.

    Yeah, Im not buying your brand on, stealing and violence only are results of drugs being illegal.
    Coincidentally, there is nothing for you to "buy," as that is not the message I am "selling." Again, it is your muddied interpretation which may or may not be deliberately crafted to make my initial argument appear weaker.

    Crack heads would still be stealing anything not bolted down if they could go to a corner store and get it. No really, as long as you guys just want to let the addicts run rampant in the name of personal freedom and give them access to anything they may want, lets just stop paying the DEA and rerout the money to health and human services.
    I cannot imagine which part of my post led to this afield nonsense.

    Legalization is condoning it. Lets go clubbing, get some ex, whatever, wooo. So alcoholism is a devastating condition that rips apart families, puts people into massive debt, and a cascade of other negative ramifications. So putting other more addictive, harmful substances on the market will just create a new line of addicts. As you yourself said, alcohol is less addictive. Whereas with many drugs, it can only take a number of uses on less than one hand to be hooked. Then the fun begins. Alcoholics can even attempt to live normal lives. Good luck when you are shaking from needing another shot of heroin. You girls need to see big picture. Peoples lives, finances, health, ability to work, etc etc. How are they positively impacted here. Then you say, well I hate big gubment and it should be our freedom bro. It becomes my problem when my tax dollars have to pay for the cleanup of the mess this would bring on. You either have a impressively naive romantic view of libertarianism or you just refuse to see what the impact would be.
    While this portion, like your entire bellyaching rant, presents little in the way of a substantive counterposition which even attempts to remain salient to my post, it seems like an appropriate place to summarize my argument in a simple format.

    Your position can be stated as follows, "Drug use, in and of itself, devoid of all other societal factors, leads to theft and larceny, crime, rape, and mortally damaging trends to a given society."

    My position, counter to this, can be stated as follows, "Drug use does not, in and of itself, lead to theft and larceny, crime, rape and mortally damaging trends to a given society, and requires the introduction of other societal factors."

    Obviously, it is simple to see that my argument in no way resembles what you have here presented. These "other societal factors" are obviously the sum total of criminal elements that will inevitably control nearly all illegitimized activities in the pursuit of profit. While it seems a stretch for you to consider any given topic as existing in terms beyond simple binaries and the limited scope of your geography, I again appeal to both history and cultures other than this one to reveal your perspective as rooted in little else than simple mindedness.

    Let us take prostitution, for example, as an elicit activity in the United States which comes associated with other peripheral crimes (drug use, murder, assault, etc). In your limited view, again, the activity itself inherently causes these problems, which ought to predict that conclusion wherever the activity takes place, whether it has been legitimized or not. Obviously, this is nowhere near the case. Countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and some portions of the United States have fully-regulated prostitution industries that have not been shown to induce these activities in their areas of establishment.

    As any reasonable person can see how these examples verify my argument, I will end the post here.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Actually, that was and is not my sentiment; however, given that you felt compelled toward preferring that interpretation, I am led to believe you feel that way. I will concede the compliment and move forward.



    Ironically, your inability to extract and comprehend the primary message of my post highly suggests the post was "leaps and bounds above your intellect." The issue here is the context. More on this later.



    Coincidentally, there is nothing for you to "buy," as that is not the message I am "selling." Again, it is your muddied interpretation which may or may not be deliberately crafted to make my initial argument appear weaker.



    I cannot imagine which part of my post led to this afield nonsense.



    While this portion, like your entire bellyaching rant, presents little in the way of a substantive counterposition which even attempts to remain salient to my post, it seems like an appropriate place to summarize my argument in a simple format.

    Your position can be stated as follows, "Drug use, in and of itself, devoid of all other societal factors, leads to theft and larceny, crime, rape, and mortally damaging trends to a given society."

    My position, counter to this, can be stated as follows, "Drug use does not, in and of itself, lead to theft and larceny, crime, rape and mortally damaging trends to a given society, and requires the introduction of other societal factors."

    Obviously, it is simple to see that my argument in no way resembles what you have here presented. These "other societal factors" are obviously the sum total of criminal elements that will inevitably control nearly all illegitimized activities in the pursuit of profit. While it seems a stretch for you to consider any given topic as existing in terms beyond simple binaries and the limited scope of your geography, I again appeal to both history and cultures other than this one to reveal your perspective as rooted in little else than simple mindedness.

    Let us take prostitution, for example, as an elicit activity in the United States which comes associated with other peripheral crimes (drug use, murder, assault, etc). In your limited view, again, the activity itself inherently causes these problems, which ought to predict that conclusion wherever the activity takes place, whether it has been legitimized or not. Obviously, this is nowhere near the case. Countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and some portions of the United States have fully-regulated prostitution industries that have not been shown to induce these activities in their areas of establishment.

    As any reasonable person can see how these examples verify my argument, I will end the post here.
    Seriously. I have a very serious question. Could you possibly think more of yourself? Evidently, you think you are THE ****. See, all you have done is sugar coat your post which is nothing more than attacking my credibility while trumping up what is nothing more than speculation on your part. You think legalization will bring down the use of drugs and its negative consequences. You could make an arguement organized crime would have less funding. Whatever we save would be directed towards other things like I have said before. Indirect consequences of it. You rephrase and argue many points only when they fit what you are arguing against. Its hilarious how despite how smart you think you are, you still argue like a typical internet cronie, just with an expanded vocabulary. You know what, legalize them. See what happens. See if this utopia you speak of comes about. Lets make our society one of vices. Drugs and prostitution seem to share similar venues but are not similar enough to draw conclusions like you have. Much like the rest of your argument, you declare your speculation as fact while mine is mush. A society of vices can never fail.

  19. damn TT did not take you very long to resort to personal attacks filling up your long and unconvincing posts (that really need more line breaks if you want anybody to read that crap).
    Mostly answered PM's
    Don't post on my profile, I don't read that stuff, PM me instead
    <------ Hard to believe, but I wasn't on any anabolics in the avatar shot

  20. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post


    BRO, PERSONAL FREEDOM BRO.

    i dont mean this as an insult, but arent you being a hypocrite?
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  21. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Seriously. I have a very serious question. Could you possibly think more of yourself? Evidently, you think you are THE ****. See, all you have done is sugar coat your post which is nothing more than attacking my credibility while trumping up what is nothing more than speculation on your part. You think legalization will bring down the use of drugs and its negative consequences. You could make an arguement organized crime would have less funding. Whatever we save would be directed towards other things like I have said before. Indirect consequences of it. You rephrase and argue many points only when they fit what you are arguing against. Its hilarious how despite how smart you think you are, you still argue like a typical internet cronie, just with an expanded vocabulary. You know what, legalize them. See what happens. See if this utopia you speak of comes about. Lets make our society one of vices. Drugs and prostitution seem to share similar venues but are not similar enough to draw conclusions like you have. Much like the rest of your argument, you declare your speculation as fact while mine is mush. A society of vices can never fail.
    Nowhere do I even intimate that my perspective is that legalized drug use will induce a "utopia," or that drug use will cease on this basis, or any such nonsense that you suggest. I merely presented a position, counter to your view, that the activity itself does not predict the crimes you alluded to, but only contributes to it given the social context in which they both occur - that is, in the context of generally illegal activity. I then gave you examples which substantiate this point, and others which demonstrate that the activities themselves do not necessarily indicate peripheral crime.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Cry about it. Really. The whole "dont resort to insults" thing is just a cop out. Thanks for playing.
    No, The "Personal insult" thing is not a cop out. It is actually about keeping this site to adult discussion. If you want we could see what David Dunn's or Wyatt Earp's feelings on usage of "****ing idiots" in the political discussions, when no incitement of such an argument was proposed. In fact, me and David Dunn have seen each other as polar opposites at times in a political sense, yet neither of us have ever even considered crossing the line in term of personal attacks, because we happen to try and be respectful members of the community, and their are numerous members on this site that would back that up.


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Its hilarious how you complain about being lied to and yet, fully embrace the other side of the issue without considering that..maybe...just maybe...they may be telling some lies themselves. Anyways.
    WOOOOOOOSSSSHHH! Someone missed the sarcasm.
    Either way, here is the main flaw in the argument you presented. I posted sources, from both sides (Again, even the DEA was sourced), and you presented opinion. If I need to explain to you the difference between how you and I presented our arguments, there is no need to continue this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Find out how much prices would drop if legalized. In fact, whatever taxes would be put on it and regulation would raise the price is what I hear. I was talking the entire time about drugs on the whole, but great job isolating the argument purely on marijuana to give yourself a rallying cry.
    Unfortunately, I won't lower myself in this argument to "I heard" or "I was told" or "word on the street," but rather will posts actual sources.

    Pot prices could drop from $375 an ounce under the state's current medical marijuana law to as little as $38 per ounce before taxes as legal pot suddenly becomes available to the public, RAND researhers concluded. [CBS NEWS - referring to a RAND study]
    The RAND Corp. study estimated that marijuana prices could fall as much as 80 percent if the drug is legalized as proposed in a pending ballot initiative that Californians will vote on this fall. That translates into as little as $1.50 per joint
    Again, thanks for trying.


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Exposure to drugs at a young age will inevitably lead a few to try others.
    Has Alcohol led children to Heroin? Has cigarettes led children to crack cocaine? First off, a dealer will sell to anybody who has cash in hand. Having Marijuana legalized, means it will be age controlled, and harder to get for children. But hey, its not my style to make a claim without backing it up:

    n fact, seven times as many teens (35%) listed the prohibited marijuana as easiest to obtain as listed beer (5%), which of course is legal and regulated. [CASA (National Center on Addition and Substance Abuse) Study]
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Its not the substance itself as much as the lifestyle. This is not a hard reach. Marijuana may not by physically addictive (according to modern research) but the act and lifestyle can be. In the same way they say quitting cigs is almost 50% just holding the cigarette between your fingers and taking breaks since its an embedded part of your lifestyle.
    I LOATHE this argument. Habit forming and addictive are two different things. If we banned everything can can be this form of addictive, then we should ban soda, junk food, gambling, Video Games (Think World of Warcraft), Internet (I myself probably have this addiction), shopping, working (work addictions do exist), hell even weight lifting can be habit forming addictive for people. Anything you do everyday, rinse and repeat, will become a part of your lifestyle. Marijuana is no different then any thing else I have listed.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Here anuder dink for you. Go ahead and see what legalization would do to California's budget problems. I think it was estimated that the budget shortfall for the year would have been gapped...a stunning 1/26th from the stuff I saw. So without a huge amount of taxation to make it practically unaffordable, it really wouldnt help pay for jack ****.
    Nothing can be said for sure, however, there is no doubt that the legalization of marijuana would benefit the state, in at least some way. We will look at the proposals from California. First off, lets see how much California is currently spending on enforcement:

    COST OF MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA IS OVER $200 MILLION PER YEAR

    The cost of marijuana enforcement in California currently can be estimated at over $200 million per year, as follows.

    State prison
    (1500 prisoners @ $49 K per year - 2009 est.) $73.5 million

    Jail costs (est. 40% of prison population) $29.4 million

    Felony prosecution, court & probation
    (est. 8500 felony prosecutions (2008), SF DA's office est. $9250 per case) $78.6 million

    Felony arrests 17,000 arrests (2008) @ $732/arrest* $12.4 million

    Misdemeanor court costs: $100 court time/case, 61,000 cases) $6.1 million

    Misdemeanor arrests ($300/arrest,* offset by fines) ----- $0

    California Marijuana Suppression Program (OCJP) $3.8 million

    TOTAL: $203.8 million
    [CA-NORML]
    So by no longer needing to wrongfully arrest, prosecute, and jail someone for marijuana, the state is saving over 200 million. Nice. Now we are taxing the pot, and collecting money for the state on every ounce/joint sold.

    California NORML's analysis of the benefits of marijuana legalization are as follows:

    * An excise tax of $50 per ounce of marijuana would raise about $770 - 900 million per year.
    * Retail sales on the legal market would range from $3 - $4.5 billion, generating
    another $240 - 360 million in sales taxes.
    * Legalization would save over $200 million in law enforcement costs for arrest, prosecution, trial and imprisonment of marijuana offenders. Need for CAMP helicopter surveillance would also be eliminated.
    * Based on experience with the cigarette tax, total revenues of $1.5 - $2.5 billion might ultiimately be realized.
    * Based on experience with the wine industry, the total economic activity generated by legal marijuana could be nearly four times as great as retail sales, around $12 - $18 billion. Amsterdam-style coffeehouses would generate jobs and tourism. If the marijuana industry were just one-third the size of the wine industry, it would generate 50,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in wages, along with additional income and business tax revenues for the state.
    * Industrial hemp could also become a major business, comparable to the $3.4 billion cotton industry in California. [Same Source]
    You need to get over the fact that marijuana is not a cure all miracle drug. The whole "oh youre big government because you want to regulate drugs" **** doesnt fly. Mind altering substances, something that will impair your judgment and can be addictive, does not fit into the unlimited personal freedom column. You use tunnel vision to make the issue black and white for you. No risk to ones self.
    Oh please to the medicinal benefits. This is the wiki that discusses outcomes of recent studies. No one claims it to be a "cure all," but the extent of which can benefit from a flower is insane. If a supplement company were to discover a herb that had as many effects on the bodybuilding world, you would be singing its praises.

    As for the mind altering not equaling freedom, why then are you ok with cigarettes? They are insanely addictive, and although they offer only a very short "high," they still are a leading cause of death in the United States. Dont get me wrong, I am not anti-smoking, but I do prefer consistency in an argument. How does this become black and white me? The black and white may be existent in the law sense only. Something is either legal or not. Sure, are there reasons that go against marijuana usage? Maybe. But none that we know of. Marijuana is illegal for very questionable reasons, (seriously read into), none of which are presented in a manner consistent with what we are as a country today.



    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    (What you said to Mullet)
    Please don't attack someone for coming off as intelligent. Its a welcoming change in the realm of e-arguments.


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    BRO, PERSONAL FREEDOM BRO.
    Are you kidding me? Cigarettes are about personal freedom, which leads to a strong addiction and cancer, but a drug that does not cause any harm is not considered part of personal freedom? Very hypocritical stance.

    Now you mentioned to me that you were addressing drugs as a whole, and I never commented on it. I am actually very mixed on the belief, and can't take a full opinion on it. I ideally think that drugs should be legal. But I don't want people using them and can't honestly say that I think someone should be able to purchase Heroin at a grocery store. This is honestly one of the great mysteries in life (as in how to handle this issue). But, I do have a proposal that I find to be significantly better than our current issue:

    Decriminalize all Drugs. Stop jailing people for drugs. You see, decriminalization is not legalization. If something is legal, it would be the right of everyone to participate. If something is decriminalize, it is still not legal to participate in, but, the punishment would be lowered.

    In this state of decriminalization, the enforcement should be towards helping out addicts, not jailing them. Focus the money on programs to treat these addicts, not punishing them. Drug addiction is a mental disorder. Someone who becomes addicted to a drug needs medical attention, that may actually lead to the person overcoming the problem. Enforcement should be pushed against the dealers.

    As I said though, it is a complicated freedom, and I still would like to see it legalized. Although it would kill me to see someone using heroin in front of me due to legalization, I don't feel the govt. should be able to say what one can do with their own body. Where the line can be drawn, who knows.
    Just inject.
    Facebook:
    www.facebook.com/heretostudy

  23. (Sorry to those following this discussion for the length, I am just very passionately behind this issue.)
    Just inject.
    Facebook:
    www.facebook.com/heretostudy

  24. Quote Originally Posted by HereToStudy View Post
    (Sorry to those following this discussion for the length, I am just very passionately behind this issue.)
    Kudos. Too bad it won't be appreciated by the dissenting parties.
  25. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasTitan View Post
    Shut up luther, youre the biggest ****ing moron on here. Your hilarious fringe idiot propoganda threads are priceless. I hope israeli commandos blow down your door one day. I wont respond to anything you post after this.
    Thanks! Being called a ****ing moron by a bigoted,stupid son of a b**** like you is a compliment or as Aristophanes put it back in the day: `To be insulted by you is to be garlanded with lilies`
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-30-2011, 02:07 PM
  2. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    By lutherblsstt in forum Politics
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 06-22-2009, 12:31 PM
  3. Who is Ron Paul?
    By ECTOmorph in forum General Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-12-2007, 01:43 PM
  4. End Prohibition
    By foo.c in forum Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-06-2005, 09:20 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-25-2005, 08:12 PM
Log in
Log in