Conservative Nonsense in the War on Drugs

[CDB]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[The Experiment]

:rofl:

Thats pretty much my reaction to the War on Drugs.

Legalizing them and taxing them is the best strategy. Then use that tax money proceeds to educate people on drugs, drug intervention programs, after-school activities, etc.

 

[bioman]

Yeah, can't even keep psuedophed out of the hands of hillbillies who make that crap. I've heard that meth addicts only have about a 16% chance of kicking thier habit. That's pretty bleak..may as well euthanize them and get it over with.


I'd bet coke use is down but only because of the cheaper and easier to attain replacements like Meth, X et cetera.

We've wasted a trillion dollars chasing our own tails..trying to keep ourselves from using drugs. It's really pretty dumb when you think about it.

 

[bioman]

My contention is not to give up on the war on drugs completely, but obviously it's pretty much a lost cause with pot, coke and prescriptions.

DEA should basically focus all their attention on meth from here on out..because I agree Rogue, meth and tweekers are blight on society. They represent that drug abusing bogeyman that we've been told potheads are or that coke addicts could become. Decriminalize pot and you free up immense resources.

We could just ban several key ingredients of meth and see a pretty good reduction in output..or at the very least keep it from spreading any further. Psuedoephedrine is not even necessary in today's market, IMO. There are vasty superior products to take it's place so just get rid of it.

We can decriminalize pot, coke, AAS and other substances and focus on the demon that is meth. With more money to deal with the problem we can start educating people as to how wretched the drug truly is.

 

[BigVrunga]

Ive noticed that with drugs, there are certain ones that destroy the lives (or make them substantially worse) for a large percentage of those that get involved with them. Meth, crack, heroin, etc. Other illicit drugs, like marijuana, some psychoactive drugs, AAS, etc have some positive uses, even some health benefits (especially regarding AAS and anti-aging) and only create junkies out of people abuse them, or apporach them from an uneducated perspective. And yet, they are all placed in the same group and demonized by the government and most of the media.
What this society needs is an end to that dark ages mentality and a serious focus on educating people regarding the truth about drugs. Im sure if young kids were told the truth about steroids and their questions answered honestly, a lot of the kids we're kicking out of the Anabolics forum would have a much greater appreciation for the effects and power of these substances and not take their use so lightly.
There's just so much misinformation, ignorance, and fear about freakin' molecules in our society that it makes me sick. How hard is it to pick up a book, research the facts, and learn for yourself rather than believe every word you hear coming out of the television?

Sorry to rant, but you look forward and its going to be decades before people get their heads out of their asses. Its just really frustrating.

BV

 

[BigVrunga]

We could just ban several key ingredients of meth and see a pretty good reduction in output..or at the very least keep it from spreading any further. Psuedoephedrine is not even necessary in today's market, IMO. There are vasty superior products to take it's place so just get rid of it.

The problem there is the illicit drug chemist wil always find away around it, if there's enough demand for that chemical. Making meth is ridiculously easy technique-wise, and with these crackpot hacks mixing it up in a bathtub - who the hell knows what they'll experiment with trying to bring a product to maket.

BV

 

[TINYTOAD]

In my travels, I'd have to say that alcohol takes the cake, when it comes to destroying innocent lives. Alcohol prohibition did not work. It seems like alcohol prohibition just made a lucrative market for gangster-types, and really didn't solve the problem. As I understand it, yes, alcohol consumption decreased during alcohol prohibition, but alcohol did not go away.

I really have mixed feeling about alcohol, and other drugs. On one hand, I see the destruction they cause, and on the other hand, I feel that it is nobody's business what anybody consumes. This whole concept of victimless crimes is absurd.

Punish people when they do something that hurts other people, don't punish them if they're hurting nobody but themselves. If somebody wants to sit home and drink themselves into oblivion, that's their business. If that same person gets in their car after having a few drinks, then it's everybody's business.

Believe it or not, it's possible to use alcohol, and other drugs responsibly. Not everybody that drinks, is an alcoholic. Not everybody that uses drugs, is an addict.

I can think of a couple of drugs that are worse than meth. PCP users are so wacked out, that they pretty much have no idea what the hell they're doing while they're high. Heroin users can become so addicted that they'd literally kill their own mother to get another fix. The only heroin user I've known (a friend of a friend), robbed banks to support his habbit.

Over the years, I've known a lot of people that have used various mind-altering drugs, and the alcoholics are the ones that scare me the most. As a side note, I know three people who tried PCP, and will never touch that chemical garbage again. PCP is evil ****.

About the only "good news" that I have, is that everybody I know, that got tangled up with meth, has quit. That's 100%.

Granted, sample size is relatively low (about 10 people), but I'm very skeptical by the 16% recovery rate quoted for meth addicts.

From what I understand, this pseudoephedrine ban / ephedrine band is pretty much useless. Here in Phoenix, busts for meth labs are way down. However meth consumption is up. How can that be? Well, the meth is coming in from Mexico now. The "labs" that were busted her in Phoenix were producing, on average, a whopping 10 grams of low quality meth per batch.

By making everybody sign a log so they can buy Sudafed, about all you're doing, is punishing people with colds and allergies, and punishing the company that makes Sudafed. Sudafed is relatively expensive. It's not viable as a source for making meth for profit. I think there was a recent study saying that Sudafed was actually more effective for coughs and colds than the "new" stuff like Zyrtec. I'll have to go search.

Anyhow.... So much for the "war on drugs." I think that it's a terrible waste of money, and does more harm than good. If somebody is robbing houses, or robbing banks, arrest them for robbing house and robbing banks. If somebody is beating their wife, or abusing their child, lock them up. If they're using drugs, and not harming anybody but themselves, leave them alone.

-Tinytoad

[FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]As a side note, here's an excerpt from a Consumer's Union report that matches up with my own personal experience that amphetamines have a lower abuse potential than alcohol.[/FONT]

[FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]Swedish physicians apparently found the drug useful, for by 1942 they were prescribing it to about 3 percent of the population. [/FONT]Invalid Link Removed
[FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]Some 6,000,000 doses were prescribed during the year. A survey [/FONT]Invalid Link Removed[FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman] indicated that most Swedish users were using amphetamine sensibly and in moderation:[/FONT]

• [FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]140,000 were occasional users, taking four amphetamine tablets or fewer per year. No doubt, like Americans at the same time, they used amphetamine on rare days when they had to work longer than usual, or faced some extraordinary challenge, or woke up depressed and out of sorts and needed something to "pull themselves together."
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]60,000 others were also occasional users, but with somewhat greater frequency; their usage ranged from five times a year to twice a month.
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]4,000 users took amphetamine only once a week or so, but often took two or three tablets at a time–– perhaps for a Saturday-night "high."
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]3,000 users might be described as "borderline." Their frequency of use varied from several times a week to daily–– and they sometimes took from five to ten tablets in a single day.
  
  [/FONT]
• [FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]200 users–– less than a tenth of one percent–– could properly be labeled "abusers." They took from ten to a hundred or more amphetamine tablets a day, more or less regularly.[/FONT]

[FONT=Tms Rmn,Times New Roman]This spectrum of use suggests that amphetamines prescribed by physicians are drugs with only a modest potential for misuse. The figures may be contrasted with the estimated 10 to 12 percent of alcohol users who become problem drinkers or alcoholics, and the estimated one percent who become skid-row alcoholics.[/FONT]

There's more to read here:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[The Experiment]

I've seen the damage of meth first hand. I live in Iowa and its gotten a lot better but its still meth infested. Mostly because small towns don't have police officers (they rent a cop if necessary; sometimes a Sheriff will drive through), it still has a meth problem. So its pretty lawless in many parts of the state.

Anyway, there is a nearby town that was ok in the early-mid 90s but now is a total **** hole to be blunt. All chain businesses have shut down except for a McDonald's. Its lots of old and abandoned buildings. The homes have different colored lights. The colors on the lights show who is making the meth. I assume the colors change.

I had to drive through there once because of some business. It was about 1 am during the summer and I had to have seen at least a dozen anorexic looking meth heads walking around.

Scary stuff. Apparently the big drug craze in the state before meth was crack.

Crack is pretty bad too. A few minutes of that high feeling, then hours of depression. Then you buy crumbs of it here and there, then soon you get psychotic from it.

 

[bioman]

BV- I'm sure some garage chemist would alter the way meth is cooked if psuedofed were banned..BUT I think you'd still make it harder to produce meth if the easiest ingredients were made hard to get. I could easily be wrong, but it just seems like this stuff has gotten so big because it's so readily available.

To me, it seems like the worst drug ever. I can't ever picture wanting to stay up for 4 days at a time and be edgy. ick.

 

[Nullifidian]

Mike Mentzer used to use Meth during all his contest preps to cut him up.

Drove him literally nuts though.

 

[anabolicrhino]

I grew up in an area were meth was very prevelent. I knew at least 50 people who used meth on a regular basis. It started when we were about 16 and lasted about ten years. There are still some people who are using today after 25 years! It was fun and inexpensive (about 20 bucks to get high for 10-12 hours!) There would be huge parties in the middle of large fields that would last for 2-3 days..lots of kegs, weed bonfires babes, fights...kind of like the opening scene in Dazed and Confused. Although I have been a fan of styms all my life, my personal experience drifted from meth into other sustances. The thing about meth was the cross clique popularity. It was used by jocks, brainiacs and hot chicks trying to stay skinny. The signs of abuse were rapidly apparent; dramatic weight loss, erratic behavior, black teeth and facial lesions. It was a constant reminder for me that it was a dangerous drug, so I always remained skeptical and cautious through out my experience. The was a strange mentality with friends who worked in construction or factories... I need meth, so I can work more hours, so I can buy more meth, so I can work more hours to get more meth...and on infinium. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, meth is popular because it works...but talk about your rough side effects! People need away to relieve stress and anxiety. They will always find something, no matter how illegal or distructive.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

The problem there is the illicit drug chemist wil always find away around it, if there's enough demand for that chemical.

BV

agreed. banning certain ingredients is like making meth use illegal, it really doesnt help.

bioman- yeah its retarded how much money we spend to try and save ourselves. decriminalizing is a great idea, but i dont think it will happen soon...

call me cold hearted or whatever, but really, why do so many care to save people that do not care to save themselves? if they want to be idiots, than by all means be an idiot, but dont harm anyone else. sadly, they are doing the world a favor in a way....wiping themselves out.....

 

[CDB]

Even if prohibition were ideologically sound there are too many practical problems for it to work. Recently I've met a few meth users, they're a bit weird and not people I'd consider hanging out with, but they weren't robbing anyone either. One major problem is people conflate problems that exist in people's lives without drug abuse, and larger social problems that exist because of prohibition, with drug use in general.

As for an end to prohibition, it likely will not happen soon. There are a few movements out there, but they're too spread out and diffuse to make a difference. Everyone's fighting for the legalization of their own pet substance rather than supporting a general cause.

 

[BigVrunga]

BV- I'm sure some garage chemist would alter the way meth is cooked if psuedofed were banned..BUT I think you'd still make it harder to produce meth if the easiest ingredients were made hard to get. I could easily be wrong, but it just seems like this stuff has gotten so big because it's so readily available.

Yeah, I agree. But the other problem with criminalising compounds that are relatively innocuous in their own right is that it ends up hurting people who would use those compounds for non-illegal reasons. For instance, if I want to make old-style root beer I cant, because Sassafras oil is a watched chemical. If I ordered it, the feds could come knocking on my door. I suppose that shouldnt bother me, because Im not doing anything illegal, but I dont want them to find the 1-test I have stashed in the back of the fridge.

call me cold hearted or whatever, but really, why do so many care to save people that do not care to save themselves? if they want to be idiots, than by all means be an idiot, but dont harm anyone else. sadly, they are doing the world a favor in a way....wiping themselves out.....

I tend agree with that. A possible end to the problem is to let nature take its course. Let the junkies fall where they may, and eventually those genes that cause one to become addicted will be weeded out of the human species. Of course, if someone came into an emergency room suffering from a drug overdose, you'd have to deny them medical assistance. That would be kind of harsh

The real reason drugs wont be decriminalised in the US anytime soon is because The War on Drugs is big business. Think of how many law enforcement and correctional services personnel are employed because of our burgeoning prison system. Sure, plenty of people in there are non-violent criminals caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They went through the meat grinder that is the US Justice System and their lives are destroyed. But that doesnt matter, there is money to be made.

All the gangs, murder, crime, etc associated with drug prohibition just means politicians have a bigger platform to campaign in the name of 'saving the children' and reduce our ability to decide for ourselves a little more each year.

BV

 

[Whiskey Steve]

The Bush family (and others) wants drugs to be illegal.
People want what they can't have.(price goes/stays up)
and if drugs illegal then people have to buy his foreign grown product.

When he was campaining for his first election his dealers/farmers in south america bought him a jet to campaign in..... Fact.

 

[CDB]

Yeah, I agree. But the other problem with criminalising compounds that are relatively innocuous in their own right is that it ends up hurting people who would use those compounds for non-illegal reasons. For instance, if I want to make old-style root beer I cant, because Sassafras oil is a watched chemical. If I ordered it, the feds could come knocking on my door. I suppose that shouldnt bother me, because Im not doing anything illegal, but I dont want them to find the 1-test I have stashed in the back of the fridge.

That's one of the practical problems. You have a population that uses substance X. A certain percentage have a problem, the rest don't. Outlawing the substance means law enforcement has to concentrate on the whole population instead of the percentage that's making life difficult for other people. Wasted resources in other words.

I tend agree with that. A possible end to the problem is to let nature take its course. Let the junkies fall where they may, and eventually those genes that cause one to become addicted will be weeded out of the human species. Of course, if someone came into an emergency room suffering from a drug overdose, you'd have to deny them medical assistance. That would be kind of harsh

Harsh yes, but it could be avoided. There are charity hospitals and also, if someone wants to, they could always opt for coverage of substance abuse problems. In the strictest sense it's not insurable, but it's offerred now. In fact people who don't want it are forced to pay for it. As an option available to those who think they might need it for whatever reason it would probably be workable.

The real reason drugs wont be decriminalised in the US anytime soon is because The War on Drugs is big business. Think of how many law enforcement and correctional services personnel are employed because of our burgeoning prison system. Sure, plenty of people in there are non-violent criminals caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They went through the meat grinder that is the US Justice System and their lives are destroyed. But that doesnt matter, there is money to be made.

Bingo. What's more, often the people who get screwed by the system end up not being able to vote through disenfranchisement laws. So it's sometimes, if not often the case that those who could and would vote on aq wedge issue like this can't vote at all anymore.

It's not just the institutional aspect either, many corporations don't want to lose control of the drug market. Competition in a managed market is preferrable to businesses than open competition. Suppose for example a high dose of a vitamin is more effective as an antidepressant than the many RX antidepressants out right now. Suppose certain actives in marijuana are better at killing pain and/or nausea than currently available RXs, etc. It's easier for a business to get what it wants through a turn of the political arm than to compete for it on the market.

All the gangs, murder, crime, etc associated with drug prohibition just means politicians have a bigger platform to campaign in the name of 'saving the children' and reduce our ability to decide for ourselves a little more each year.

This is true, but for some reason even though people knew the crime during alcohol prohibition was due to the prohibition and not the booze, for some reason many people have swallowed the reverse when it comes to other drugs, most likely because of long decades of government propaganda.

Another point worth mentioning is the constitutionality of prohibition. There's a reason an ammendement to the constitution needed to be passed before the government could outlaw booze. People knew it was not constituional otherwise. However, through much more activist courts and long years of propaganda and virtual control of the educational system, the government has gotten everyone to buy the idea that they have the power to 'regulate' drug traffic through an extremely broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

As long as most people's oxes aren't being gored by this there won't be any action even if the money starts to dry up on the government end. And, as long as the people who do get gored get stripped of their voting rights and keep buying the government's line of BS, things won't change.

Of course, as I've said before, if the stoners would put down the Doritos and the juicers would put down the weights, if all users of all illicit drugs would stop stroking themselves into believing that some how their drug of choice is better than someone else's, and instead of BSing themselves got together in a large scale movement, this could end very quickly.

As it is though you've got users of one substance fighting for its legality while, for the most part, not caring about users of other substances, and that just leads to disorganization and so, no real force to deal with politically.

Look at Bill Maher, he's a typical stoner. Anytime the topic of weed comes up he rants about how relatively harmless it is, and when compared to most drugs it is. But, when the topic of steroids comes up he spits out all the usual BS about liver damage and heart attacks and shrunken nuts and 'roid rage, etc. It's another aspect of the whole thing, the people that research their pet substance for some reason rarely apply that experience to other drugs. In other words they cry for the truth of their substance to be known, but spout the government line on every other substance, never once even thinking that if the government was full of **** about their substance, perhaps the evidence about the harmfulness of the other illicit substances isn't exactly that solid either.

 

[GREENFEATHER]

I was a fighter of the "war on drugs", that has to be the biggest oxymoron in the world!! Until they let the men that are there to do a job, take out the drug makers, the war is lost, plain and simple. It's run just like the war in Vietnam, you can take this one out, but not that one. I almost lost my comission twice because I took out the wrong (right) target. When we go to war, we have to go to win. This pussy footing around has to stop before we'll make headway.Invalid Link RemovedWas what I did!!
ROB

 

[BigVrunga]

It's not just the institutional aspect either, many corporations don't want to lose control of the drug market. Competition in a managed market is preferrable to businesses than open competition. Suppose for example a high dose of a vitamin is more effective as an antidepressant than the many RX antidepressants out right now. Suppose certain actives in marijuana are better at killing pain and/or nausea than currently available RXs, etc. It's easier for a business to get what it wants through a turn of the political arm than to compete for it on the market.

I was going to bring that point up to...glad you did. If someone could alleviate pain/handle stress by growing a couple marijuana plants in his garden, where would Merck and Pfizer be without all those sales for criminally over-priced prescription pain killers and anti-depressants?

Look at Bill Maher, he's a typical stoner. Anytime the topic of weed comes up he rants about how relatively harmless it is, and when compared to most drugs it is. But, when the topic of steroids comes up he spits out all the usual BS about liver damage and heart attacks and shrunken nuts and 'roid rage, etc. It's another aspect of the whole thing, the people that research their pet substance for some reason rarely apply that experience to other drugs. In other words they cry for the truth of their substance to be known, but spout the government line on every other substance, never once even thinking that if the government was full of **** about their substance, perhaps the evidence about the harmfulness of the other illicit substances isn't exactly that solid either.

Totally agree. A lot of people at work were/are stoners to one degree or another. The topic of marijuana comes up and they all extol the virtues of this substance and clamor for its decriminalization. But one word of steroids and they'll spout, word for word, the babble they heard on the latest news 'report'. Amazing.

IMO, some drugs really do need to be controlled, but not with fear and propaganda. If kids were told the real truth about drugs, rather than the 'drugs are bad, m'kay?' mentality taught in schools Im sure there'd be a lot less in the way of abuse.

I was a fighter of the "war on drugs", that has to be the biggest oxymoron in the world!! Until they let the men that are there to do a job, take out the drug makers, the war is lost, plain and simple. It's run just like the war in Vietnam, you can take this one out, but not that one. I almost lost my comission twice because I took out the wrong (right) target. When we go to war, we have to go to win. This pussy footing around has to stop before we'll make headway.

This pussyfooting will never stop. The government doesnt want to win the 'War on Drugs'. They want to keep the machine turning, generate cash and profit for everyone who has their hands in it...foot soldiers are just numbers to them.

BV

 

[bioman]

and the more vicious the drug lord the situation breeds up, the more justification they have for the War on Drugs. It'd be a simple as starving these guys out of business via decriminalization of their product.

 

[The Experiment]

The war on drugs happens for these reasons:

1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.

2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics.

It also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town.

3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing.

All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty fucked up but thats how it is.

 

[BigVrunga]

Right, and that's why I cant see any end to the 'War on Drugs' anytime soon. Its too engrained in our socioeconomic infrastructure. What would happen if a lifetime on anti-depressants could be averted with a few well-guided sessions with a particular psychoactive? Or if countless marriges could be saved via carefully administration of MDMA? (which was the original intended purpose of the chemical).
The judicial system, huge pharmaceutical companies, and overall the general perception of most Americans would undergo a huge paradigm shift that would equate to less money for politicians and their bed-buddies.

While I dont think it should just be a free-for-all, the government should at least open up scientific research for some things...but then the truth would come out, and they can't have that.

I'd at least like to see a radical change in the way young people are educated about anabolics...I think that's one reason why kids abuse the hell out of them in the first place. The whole 'Drugs r bad...m'kay?' approach quickly dissolves from a young guy's mind when he adds 70lbs to his bench press and gains a stack of muscle. If in health class, the teacher explained the essentials of diet and training, how steroids work in the body and the reasons why a young person shouldnt use them...I think we'd have much less of a problem.

BV

 

[CDB]

I'd at least like to see a radical change in the way young people are educated about anabolics...I think that's one reason why kids abuse the hell out of them in the first place. The whole 'Drugs r bad...m'kay?' approach quickly dissolves from a young guy's mind when he adds 70lbs to his bench press and gains a stack of muscle. If in health class, the teacher explained the essentials of diet and training, how steroids work in the body and the reasons why a young person shouldnt use them...I think we'd have much less of a problem.

That's also not going to happen, not so long as prohibition is going on. Teaching the truth about most drugs in school would lead to the inevitable questions: why are these substances illegal?; why are we imprisoning people for decades for using/selling this stuff?; why are we spending billions upon billions of dollars on prohibition? Because, in the end, most drugs aren't that bad and often a lot less harmful than what you might typically find in someone's medicine cabinet.

The crusade against drugs is not, and never was based on fact or truth. It's been a moral crusade from the very beginning, and moral crusades are fought against Evil. To keep prohibition going, and at the very least to keep embarrassing and subversive questions to a minimum, drugs have to be portrayed as Evil. And, because they're not fighting some group of arbitrary chemicals but Evil incarnate, any and all steps to curb their import, sale and use are justifiable in the end, in the mind of drug warriors at least.

Fourth Ammendment violation? **** it, these are drugs we're after! Sting operations bordering/crossing the border on entrapment? **** it, these are drugs we're fighting against here! Tear a family apart and throw the bread winner, who has no violent criminal history, in prision for decades because they were caught with an amount of drugs over some arbitrary limit? **** it, these are drugs we're fighting against here! Destroy a kid's life and saddle him with a felony record for the rest of his life for a nonviolent crime? **** it, these are drugs we're fighting against here!

That's also why few people tend to change their minds on this topic. Once they've bought the "drugs are Evil" line rationality takes a back seat when it comes to discussing the issue. Do a search and find out how many times this quote or a paraphrase of it has been uttered: "If we make marijuana legal what's next, rape and murder?" Not only are such statements not unheard of, back in my school days as an activist on this issue I heard it all the time and saw it and similar quotes from legislators all the time. That's how detached from reality a lot of our most highly placed drug warriors are. If someone is willing to equate legally being able to smoke a joint with raping and/or murdering another human being, there's really nothing you can accomplish with that person in terms of debate because any connection to reality on this issue has fled their minds a long, long time ago.

 

[The Experiment]

Exactly. The war on drugs rarely has anything to do with the truth. It comes from all different reasons, including racism. Cocaine was banned because white men hated the fact that black men were having sex with white women. The resurgence of the KKK in the early 1900s turned this into law.

CDB is right about the moral crusade. People didn't like the fact that people were high on heroin instead of high on Jesus. The 1900s was a very strict Christian conservative time. Thats why prohibition for alcohol was made into an amendment. People hated the fact that others took pleasure with narcotics as opposed to religion. It also was a strike against the Catholics who sip wine as the Blood of Christ. Like I said, the KKK was a dominate force in that time and they hated Catholics.

Besides, the public doesn't give a **** about facts, they care about the sensation. Thats why these scare tactics are continued. What draws Mrs. Soccer Mom to the TV every night isn't the local events but the shocking new discovery of teenagers and debauchery. Where a couple of isolated incidents becomes an epidemic while real problems continue to get ignored.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

The war on drugs happens for these reasons:

1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.

would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?

 

[TINYTOAD]

For those who like history, there is a very interesting article here:
Invalid Link Removed

-Tinytoad

The war on drugs happens for these reasons:

1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.

2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics.

It also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town.

3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing.

All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty fucked up but thats how it is.

 

[CDB]

would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?

Thousands if not millions of people are dependent on it. At base the war on drugs has led to massive government employment of social workers, prison guards, etc. Anyone receiving a check from the government that works on this issue, directly or indirectly, profits from it personally. Police and teachers as well. It's one of the easiest ways to keep the public frightened, emerse them in a crime wave by making things that weren't and shouldn't be criminal into crimes. A huge percentage of our state and federal law enforcement budgets would not be justifiable if the war on drugs ended, and all those people would need to find jobs in the private sector or find some new hobgoblin to go after on the public dime.

That's direct profits. An example of indirect profits is politicians using this to scare the public and get reelected. Also using it as leverage in international relations, things like that.

 

[MarcusG]

Thousands if not millions of people are dependent on it. At base the war on drugs has led to massive government employment of social workers, prison guards, etc.
........
That's direct profits. An example of indirect profits is politicians using this to scare the public and get reelected. Also using it as leverage in international relations, things like that.

Have you read Michael Levine's books? He wrote about the phony war on drugs more than 10yrs ago. As a former DEA agent he talks about why the war on drugs isn't working at the street level and why high level targets being left of the hook because the CIA had other plans.

 

[CDB]

Have you read Michael Levine's books? He wrote about the phony war on drugs more than 10yrs ago. As a former DEA agent he talks about why the war on drugs isn't working at the street level and why high level targets being left of the hook because the CIA had other plans.

I may have, it's been a while since I was an 'activist' on the subject, back in my early college days during the mid 90s. Don't recall reading about CIA involvement beyond any possible involvement in places where we're hitting crops and the like. I don't know that the war is phony beyond the fact that it can't work and was started with less than noble motivations. I'm not much for conspiracy theories as I generally think people are too dumb to keep anything a secret or make any high level conspiracy work for any length of time.

 

[spatch]

I would like to see someone with a SHITLOAD of money challenge any drug being illigal in the suppreme court.

According to the constitution, somethign is legal unless it presents a "clear and present danger." Drugs do NOT do that, not roids, not coke, not pcp.


Funny story, kinda...

For a senior project earlier in the year, I was going to do a study on the benefits (and if there were any, disadvantages) of legalizing several drugs. I had to come after school to talk to my teacher about it, because it was a dicy subject, which is understandable.

However, she ALMOST agreed to let me do it. Then she asked what drugs I was planning on using in the study. I said coke, she nodded her head, I said heroid, she gave a kinda uneasy nod, but a nod nun the less. After she approved me supporting the legalizing of 2 of the most potent drugs on the earth, I said "anabolic steroids." She gave me the most EVIL of EVIL looks ever, and said I couldn't do the project.

 

[spatch]

1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous. .

They could still make generous salaries... putting the real criminals in jail, such as child touchers.

2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics. .

This is the abuse of christianity, and people who use the word of god in this manner are phony. Reminds me of the Catcher in the Rye.

It also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town. .

She wants to help the country and her community? GET A JOB. I cant stand soccer moms, especally those who cut you in line because "Oh, im in a hurry."... Long story

3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing. .

The government, know what its doing? You cant be serious.

All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty fucked up but thats how it is.

Sadly, truer words have never been spoken. However, we can turn the tables on this. Picture a commercial of a young boy at a funeral, and his dad died buying drugs from a gang that, if they were legal, he could get a Wal-Mart Pharmacy.

 

[delta314]

Seems everyone thinks people should be able to do what they want. That would be great if everyone took responsiblity for their actions and could pay their own way. Unfortuantely that is not the case. How many times have you seen a child molester standing in front of the judge, crying like a baby saying he doesn't know why he did those terrible things to that young child, "I was so high your honor, I don't remember nothing"........
Each of you have also picked the drug you think is the worst one, and some of you have chosen the one you think is ok. Different drugs affect people different. What might be ok for you could tear somebody else up for hours. The thing is, people do not use good judgement when they are under the influence of drugs. Even pot. I've seen people who smoked pot stumbling, eyes half shut, acting like complete idiots.
If you had to ride a beat in a large city with defined areas of crack use, you'd see the heartache and misery. People lose everything they have when they fall victim to the drug. Their homes, jobs, families...To say that we should let them do what they want is assinine. When they have exhausted all their money and possesions, they start to steal yours to get that buzz.
You say alcohol is just as bad, and you are probably right. Does that mean we should throw 25 more substances into the mix?
Do I think all drugs should be classified the same? Hell no. I believe if you want to do steroids, you should be able to go to a doctor and be evaluated. As far as pot goes, I think it should be legalized and taxed, and sold to adults only. All the others, coke, meth, crack, etc....the laws should be made much tougher for the makers and sellers and users.

 

[CDB]

I would like to see someone with a SHITLOAD of money challenge any drug being illigal in the suppreme court.

Medical Marijuana made it to the SC. I believe the justices were unanimously opposed with some saying severe penalties should be imposed on even a sick person using for pain/naussea relief.

 

[CDB]

Seems everyone thinks people should be able to do what they want.

This is classic drug war rhetoric and it's nonsense. NO ONE is suggesting people "should be able to do what they want." What we are saying is that IF their actions are not inherently harmful to anyone else or anyone else's property, THEN they should be allowed to do whatever they want. That is a big distinction.

That would be great if everyone took responsiblity for their actions and could pay their own way. Unfortuantely that is not the case. How many times have you seen a child molester standing in front of the judge, crying like a baby saying he doesn't know why he did those terrible things to that young child, "I was so high your honor, I don't remember nothing"........

If you're equating child molestation with nonviolent drug use you're living in a fantasy land with reality being a long, long journey away, but one I'd recommend taking. If not, this is a bad analogy. Child molestation is inherently harmful to the child. Drug use by adults is not inherently harmful to anyone else, often not even the user in the long term.

I've seen people who smoked pot stumbling, eyes half shut, acting like complete idiots.

The obvious answer being to imprison them and take man hours away from tracking down murderers, rapists, molesters and robbers. If someone causes a problem or commits a crime after taking a drug that can be introduced at a trial as a mitigating or aggrevating factor depending on the circumstances and be used to determine the appropriate sentence. The fact remains that there are a hell of a lot of people, the majority of people, who can and do use most drugs responsibly and who commit no crimes other than selling, buying and using, and there is nothing inherently criminal in any classical sense of the word with the sale, aquisition or use of a drug.

If you had to ride a beat in a large city with defined areas of crack use, you'd see the heartache and misery. People lose everything they have when they fall victim to the drug.

They do not fall victim to the drugs, they fall victim to themselves and social circumstance. I've been on more than one ride along in some seriously bad neighborhoods, been in crack houses, heroin dens and seen the addicts, etc. Blaming the drug, an inanimate object, for these people's personal choice to use is as ridiculous as blaming a knife for a stabbing. And as was mentioned in previous postings there's no sense in conflating the misery and poverty in those areas with drug use. The misery and poverty were there before, drugs just offerred an easy escape which some people were stupid enough to choose, and their choose to use a drug, not the drug itself, has aggravated the problem. Responsibility lies with people, not with inanimate things.

Their homes, jobs, families...To say that we should let them do what they want is assinine. When they have exhausted all their money and possesions, they start to steal yours to get that buzz.

I believe the gist of the posts here was that drug use should be legal, not robbery and burglary. What's more, these are problems of prohibition, not drug use. If these people did not have to pay black market prices for these substances and did not have to associate themselves with criminals to obtain them the crime rate would go down, not up, as it has done with the repeal of every single past prohibition.

You say alcohol is just as bad, and you are probably right. Does that mean we should throw 25 more substances into the mix?

Ah, the "don't open the flood gates" argument. Haven't heard that in a while. There is no flood gate to open, we are not throwing anything else into the mix because the substances are already in the mix. I can have any drug I want within a half hour right now, as easy as a ride to the store, as could anyone else with the slightest shred of comon sense. Who uses is more related to social pressures and circumstances, and is not largley affected by legality. That's why use of drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, etc., move cyclically regardless of the increase/decrease of legal penalties. Making these drugs legal will at most lead to an increase of one time users of softer drugs like marijuana. No one is going to just decide to become a junkie just because heroin is legalizaed, the idea itself is absurd. Grant that an increase in use of other drugs would occur, the drop in price and removal of the criminal element would still have a net beneficial effect overall when compared to continued prohibition.

All the others, coke, meth, crack, etc....the laws should be made much tougher for the makers and sellers and users.

The laws have been made progressively tougher over the last seventy years with no effect whatsoever on use or sale. This would seem to be a failed approach. I know plenty of people who do coke, none of them have robbed anyone. Growing up I knew many heroin users/addicts, and I myself have used, and while a couple are dead from ODing, their own stupid fault, none were otherwise criminal in their behavior.

And for those who do use drugs responsibly, even if they are a minority, they do not belong in prison. I don't care if 98% of the people who use drug x, y or z turn into raving lunatics. That 2% doesn't belong in prison and it is wrong, immoral, unethical and even criminal to put them in prison just because the other 98% of people behave like idiots. And in the real world those numbers are no where near that clear. More often than not it is the extreme minority of users who abuse to the point that they start causing problems for other people. Most just want to get stoked and be left alone, and if they don't drive, rob, burgle or otherwise harm anyone else, they should be allowed to do so, even if they are throwing their own lives away. That's their choice, tragic though it may be, and while I would support the intervention of friends, families and even charities in their lives to help save them, official intervention on the part of the government will lead to nothing but a shitload of wasted money and a shitload of unjustly destroyed lives.

 

[delta314]

Talk about being removed from reality, you are the prime example.
You don't care if 98% of the drug users turn into raving lunatics as long as the 2% gets left alone. That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So you've been on a few ride alongs, have you. Get out there and do it day in day out. You haven't seen ****. I don't really care that you think it is your right to do drugs as long as no one gets hurt. It isn't. I enjoy hearing all the bullshit reasons why drugs should be legal. All the way to the jail.

 

[The Experiment]

For those who like history, there is a very interesting article here:
Invalid Link Removed

-Tinytoad

Good link and doesn't surprise me one bit. The KKK influence was really, really strong during this time. Its not a shock that around this time, people wanted to eliminate anything that might cause white women to be with black men.

would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?

CDB touched on most of it but also, the US has a lot of interests in South America, like mining, logging, chemical extraction (from the rainforest) Its in the US's interest to keep these anti-drug governments running.

Also, the US gives these nations weaponry and these weapons aren't made by the Government themselves; they're licensed and manufactured by other companies. Guns aren't exactly dirt cheap either. So if these weapons weren't being made, then thats millions of dollars of profit from being made. That profit will go to lobbyists who pay for gifts, vacations, and campaigns.

Another one is bonds and fines. If a drug kingpin gets nailed, his bail is usually in the millions. Inside the prisons, they contract food services sometimes, like Sodexho. I'm sure providing for the prisons (full of drug dealers but short on molesters) gives them a nice chunk of change.

It keeps people from questioning the government by pinning problems on a patsy. George Orwell has pretty much nailed this. I know you might all slink away from him because he's a socialist but read what he says. The parallels to this and the "War on Drugs" shouldn't be ignored.

They could still make generous salaries... putting the real criminals in jail, such as child touchers.

Not to the extent that the drug war has. The Drug Wars are international also where molesters are pretty much national.

This is the abuse of christianity, and people who use the word of god in this manner are phony. Reminds me of the Catcher in the Rye.

Preach!

The government, know what its doing? You cant be serious.

For public policy, you're right. Otherwise, they know whats going on.

If you had to ride a beat in a large city with defined areas of crack use, you'd see the heartache and misery. People lose everything they have when they fall victim to the drug.

Thats because of the social situations, self-fulfilling prophecies, and the perception of peril by the cities who have been damaged by crack. Nobody wants to pony up the money to better these communities so they're just going to get hammered by these drugs until something is done.

When you're in the ghetto, your choices are to work for minimum wage. In a city, living costs are expensive so you need to take up multiple jobs. This is your life. Then you see a community of people who are the same. Then you get the law enforcement who lets just say doesn't have a great record of dealing with the ghetto.

You might try to excel but at a young age, you're told by everyone, including the ghetto itself that you won't succeed. Schools are shitty, your older brother/cousin/father whatever is shot dead, etc. Its pretty tough to have a positive outlook on life. So you give up and decide crack is better.

Another thing is that you see a guy driving around in the nicest cars, being with beautiful women, and having shiny metal things. The allure of drug dealing is so apparent, its obvious.

Religion there helps but its not enough.

 

[CDB]

Talk about being removed from reality, you are the prime example.
You don't care if 98% of the drug users turn into raving lunatics as long as the 2% gets left alone.

Perhaps I worded myself poorly then. go ahead and lock up the 98% of the raving lunatics, there is no reason and no cause to pass a law that will also land the 2% in prison, which is what making nonviolent acts such as buying, selling, possessing and using a substance illegal. Once more, it's the typical nonsense argument that in order to deal with the portion of the drug using/abusing population that commits crimes we have to lock up all users. It's literal nonsense.

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So you've been on a few ride alongs, have you. Get out there and do it day in day out. You haven't seen ****.

You do not know what I've seen or how much time I've spent in the presence of addicts, be it on ride alongs or wiping their asses as a volunteer in halfway houses and recovery centers, or seeing their remains scraped off the street. I won't question your experience, I will vehemently question your logic and premises. The point being that there are people, not just myself, who have been exposed to these people and dealt with these issues day in and day out who disagree with you, so the "get out there and look" or more appropriately the "my experience is better than yours" argument is irrelevant.

I don't really care that you think it is your right to do drugs as long as no one gets hurt. It isn't. I enjoy hearing all the bullshit reasons why drugs should be legal. All the way to the jail.

On a because you say so? Brilliant argument. Drugs should be legal, once more, because there is nothing inherently criminal in the buying, selling, possessing and use of certain substances, just as there's nothing inherently criminal in owning a knife or a gun, or doing, owning, selling, buying or using any number of other things in this world which are in and of themselves harmless but have the potential, if misused, to cause or contribute to harm.

In any given population of drug users the percentage that aren't causing a problem or otherwise acting as criminals, but who get arrested and caught up in the sweep of the law anyway, represent a massive violation of their rights and a massive misuse and total waste of public money. We've had decades of increasingly oppressive laws passed to no end. I'd wager safely and with a clean conscience that prohibition has destroyed more lives and caused more harm socially than any drug or combination of drugs ever has. It's been the excuse more often than not for continued attacks on civil liberties, massive interventions in the US and abroad, made us many enemies especially in Middle and South America and has fueled a black market that readily puts ridiculous profits in the hands of any criminal, from mobsters to terrorists, with a little bit of brains and enough balls to take a risk.

 

[delta314]

I'm not here to wipe their asses. They wouldn't need their asses wiped if they conducted themselves like mature adults. And where do all these wonderful drug users that you are talking about do their drugs? At home? If they did, how would they get busted? No, they go out and drive vehicles on the streets that my children are on. And when I catch them, I'm not wiping their ass, I'm taking it to jail. And where do they sell their drugs? On the streets that children and mothers and wives have to travel to go to the grocery stores and schools. And they rob each other for being on someone elses "turf", and innocent people get hurt so they can ply their trade. Everytime I take a drug pusher off the street, it makes a difference. And when I take a user off the street, thats one less customer for the pusher.

 

[CDB]

I'm not here to wipe their asses. They wouldn't need their asses wiped if they conducted themselves like mature adults.

Granted.

And where do all these wonderful drug users that you are talking about do their drugs? At home? If they did, how would they get busted? No, they go out and drive vehicles on the streets that my children are on. And when I catch them, I'm not wiping their ass, I'm taking it to jail.

Be my guest. What about the ones who aren't under the influence but mere transporting? They will be just as arrested if caught. What about the ones that the police use IR vision to bust for having grow rooms/labs, when no reasonable suspicion existed nor was any warrant obtained to use this technology to look into their houses or at their energy usage patterns? They are equally busted.

As I said before, lock up all the ones you want out of those who behaving recklessly or otherwise criminally. Denying that nonviolent, responsible users get caught up and caught up massively in the broad sweep of the law is ridiculous. Perhaps you could explain to the mother and father of the kid whose life is destroyed because he had some arbitrary amount of drugs on him that he deserves what he got despite the fact he had no criminal record and might have had a promising future. I assure you it would be as difficult as explaining to someone that their kid died because he was hit by a drunk, because I've seen it tried. Perhaps if the cops weren't spending so much time locking up harmless stoners they could do more about the intoxicated drivers and violent offenders. That's part of the whole waste of money that occurs when you target a whole group of users as opposed to the people who are actually doing something inherently criminal.

And where do they sell their drugs? On the streets that children and mothers and wives have to travel to go to the grocery stores and schools.

I assume they're also selling liquor on the street? Oh wait, that's right! Liquor is LEGAL and therefore sold in stores with a reasonable age restriction on sales and licensing required for sellers. Gee, that might mean... wait a minute, this is an incredibly complex problem, but I think it just might mean the reason the pushers have crack, heroin, weed and cocaine and not Jim Beam is because Jim Beam is legal. This just might lead to another eureaka! moment... Yeah, I think, I think it is! That might mean if the drugs were legal they'd be sold in stores like all other legal drugs. So, while my logic may be a wee bit rusty, that might mean the problem with this particular issue you raise is due to PROHIBITION and not the drugs themselves. I also don't see Pfizer and Merk sales-reps gunning each other down in the streets, which just might mean the violence surrounding the drug trade is also due to PROHIBITION and not the drugs themselves.

And they rob each other for being on someone elses "turf", and innocent people get hurt so they can ply their trade. Everytime I take a drug pusher off the street, it makes a difference. And when I take a user off the street, thats one less customer for the pusher.

see above. When Merk and Pfizer employees start killing each other you'll have a point, as they both sell drugs that are equally in demand and often just as if not more addicting and habit forming than our current group of illegal drugs. But, miraculously, they aren't killing each other in the streets. It doesn't take a genius to find out why.

Every nonviolent, nonreckless user you take off the streets is a person whose rights have be violated. Every minute you spend accomlishing their arrest and detention, including the hours of paperwork related to their arrest, and every minute that the system spends putting them on trial and punishing them, is time that isn't spent going after drunk drivers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, burglers and robbers. It's wasted money and effort and accomplishes nothing of worth.

Every drug pusher you put away will be replaced by another one, every user you take off the street will most likely continue to use in prison or after their probabtion/punishment. Every cartel and supplier our government removes will be replaced by another, every shipment intercepted represents God knows how many that weren't. Every legitamate and legal crop we destroy helps starve a country and robs an innocent farmer of their livlihood, every government we force to accept our policies makes us enemies among their populace. Every increase in the severity of the laws increases the profits available to criminals and terrorists, and economically will likely cause a rise in the amount of people drawn to the trade on all levels, not a fall, and likely also a rise in violence considering the kind of person who thinks a black market business is a good idea. Every grandmother and mother harrassed on the street, every child gunned down by a gang in a drug war, every innocent bystander shot, knifed, robbed, mugged, burglarized, many of the erosions of every citizen's civil liberties and almost all of misery of the inner cities can be traced back to the failed and disgusting policy of prohibition.

Keep supporting it if you like. As I say to all such people I'm glad you'll sacrifice the many innocent to catch the few who are guilty. I'm glad you'll trample the rights of everyone to catch a few who deserve punishment. Because in the end, on this issue or another, one of those innocents will be among your loved ones, and all those who would support you in saying the punishment your loved one receives is unjust will be safely locked away in prison, because you put them there.

 

[The Experiment]

Jail is a bandaid and it doesn't do **** except patting themselves on the back for a job poorly done. I don't think all drugs should be legal but imprisoning them isn't a good option for anybody.

This kind of punishment is ineffective in most situations where drugs are a serious problem. If you throw a cat in with a dozen pitbulls, the cat doesn't have much of a chance. Its not much difference here. From Day One, the drug culture is ingrained in your mind. The struggle, the destruction of families, the ruining of lives and society.

You can speak out but you'll end up getting shot. Remember, snitches get stitches is the code. The police isn't there to protect snitches either. Sometimes but not always. You could try to get a job but oh wait, job opportunities are sparse and exceptionally low paying. How about working in fast food where you work until 2-3 in the morning, not even enough time to do your homework or even get a good night's rest.

You could move out but oh wait, you barely have any money. You want to go to college but since you live below living wage, you have to have welfare, which bars you from attending college.

Its a matter of socioeconomics, bottom line. There is so much proof that its true. You insist you don't want to wipe people's asses but you don't want to haggle with the consequences of people being shortchanged.

That $50 billion a year could go to so many other things, things that will actually make a difference in the lives that are affected most by the drug culture.

 

[MaynardMeek]

Jail is a bandaid and it doesn't do **** except patting themselves on the back for a job poorly done. I don't think all drugs should be legal but imprisoning them isn't a good option for anybody.


I think it was already said but i haven't really read much, i just want to get in this convo... drugs should all be legal. It would bring back darwin's theory and allow those people that do not hold life to be special to die and thusly save us more money in the long run. Tax the **** out of them


This kind of punishment is ineffective in most situations where drugs are a serious problem. If you throw a cat in with a dozen pitbulls, the cat doesn't have much of a chance. Its not much difference here. From Day One, the drug culture is ingrained in your mind. The struggle, the destruction of families, the ruining of lives and society.

I agree 100% but not when it comes to cats. My cat would kick the **** out of any dog or pack of dogs.. he isn't named skelator for nothing.


You can speak out but you'll end up getting shot. Remember, snitches get stitches is the code. The police isn't there to protect snitches either. Sometimes but not always. You could try to get a job but oh wait, job opportunities are sparse and exceptionally low paying. How about working in fast food where you work until 2-3 in the morning, not even enough time to do your homework or even get a good night's rest.

America is the land of hope and opportunaty.. it isn't the land that just goes ahead and hands you a perfect life. You go out, you get those fast food jobs, hell, you get two or three, as my grandfather did selling jock straps when he escaped germany EVEN though he was IN the SS. Then he fought for the USA. He did this in hopes that my father and his 6 brothers would have a little bit better life than he did. And they did, but not with out working 3 jobs, as a bartender, taxi driver and yes.. a short order cook.. he had nothing, living in the projects of Elizabeth NJ... now.. with hard work he is a CFO to a very well known company.

You could move out but oh wait, you barely have any money. You want to go to college but since you live below living wage, you have to have welfare, which bars you from attending college.

I disagree. College today is a joke. I teach at a college and i am shocked to see what schools let in today. My college Jr's cannot even write a paper correctly and most of them came from private high schools! The ability to obtain loans and grants for college today is second to no other time. The poor can get in with loans.. the middle class will not.

Its a matter of socioeconomics, bottom line. There is so much proof that its true. You insist you don't want to wipe people's asses but you don't want to haggle with the consequences of people being shortchanged.

can we use baby wipes? they always leave me feeling cleaner.

That $50 billion a year could go to so many other things, things that will actually make a difference in the lives that are affected most by the drug culture.

50 million can go to so much in theory.. but the reality is that no matter how much money we have, no matter which party is in power.. no matter how much debt we as a nation create.. it doesn't matter in the least. The true reality is this.. the war on drugs is one of the dumbest ideas EVER undertaken by humans; however, it creates jobs.. and we all like jobs, we can print all the money we want to pay those jobs.. we are not backed by anything more than the good faith and trust of the American people.. our trends control our economy.

 

[CDB]

I think it was already said but i haven't really read much, i just want to get in this convo... drugs should all be legal. It would bring back darwin's theory and allow those people that do not hold life to be special to die and thusly save us more money in the long run.

Two points I would want to make here: while in principle I do agree with your Darwin point, if some prick is shooting his life's earnings into his veins every night and his kids are getting neglected because of it, I wouldn't be against forcing his ass into some kind of program. Even if it be maintenance for the rest of his life. I am an idealist, but idealism does have to give way for practicality and compassion sometimes despite a little wasted money in the process.

As for the taxes, I think it's an exceedingly bad idea. The government will waste that money as readily as it wastes other money it gets. What will happen is you'll get a slow slide up in the taxes, which will lead to a slow resurgence of the black market, which politicians will blame on the drugs and not their unGodly high taxes, which the public will buy and eventually the drugs will be illegal again. I firmly believe that's the trail tobacco is going down. All that's needed is a good amount of nonsmoker/idealists to get into office and beat the tobacco companies down. Ironically the people who would make tobacco illegal are likely the same ones who would ease restrictions on marijuana. Once the older generation admits it's time for a changing of the guard and lets my generation into office things will be just as fucked up, just in a different way. At least in my opinion.

The only price a drug needs to be sold at is the market price.

America is the land of hope and opportunaty.. it isn't the land that just goes ahead and hands you a perfect life. You go out, you get those fast food jobs, hell, you get two or three, as my grandfather did selling jock straps when he escaped germany EVEN though he was IN the SS. Then he fought for the USA. He did this in hopes that my father and his 6 brothers would have a little bit better life than he did. And they did, but not with out working 3 jobs, as a bartender, taxi driver and yes.. a short order cook.. he had nothing, living in the projects of Elizabeth NJ... now.. with hard work he is a CFO to a very well known company.

Again I agree to a point. The government is happily fucking the economy up to the point that the American Dream is becoming ever more unattainable. We're doing okay now, but our government, surprisingly enough, is not doing as much monetary pumping as other governments. That's one of the main reasons why the dollar hasn't gone down despite expectations that it would. But eventually the new head of the Fed will get a hold of the pump and start it again and we'll go bust as always. Everyone seems to be getting pissed because salaries haven't gone up, not realizing that a higher salary paid in devalued dollars doesn't mean anything. The American Dream is soon going to be attainable only to those who can buy it from the government.

I disagree College today is a joke. I teach at a college and i am shocked to see what schools let in today. My college Jr's cannot even write a paper correctly and most of them came from private high schools! The ability to obtain loans and grants for college today is second to no other time. The poor can get in with loans.. the middle class will not.

I remember my college days. I was helping a prof grade papers and one of the ones I got, the gem of a horrid bunch, which in the end he told me to give a B to, had no puncutation. Let me write that again: no punctuation. Now I know for a fact that in Spanish, the writer's native tongue, they have punctuation. An upside down question mark I could excuse. But no puncuation? He got a B because of the wise advice of my professor who told me, "You don't need to be literate in English to file a lawsuit in this country. Trust me."

50 million can go to so much in theory.. but the reality is that no matter how much money we have, no matter which party is in power.. no matter how much debt we as a nation create.. it doesn't matter in the least. The true reality is this.. the war on drugs is one of the dumbest ideas EVER undertaken by humans; however, it creates jobs.. and we all like jobs, we can print all the money we want to pay those jobs.. we are not backed by anything more than the good faith and trust of the American people.. our trends control our economy.

Cheers!

I'm gonna go finish my wine now. The room has stopped spinning. Not good.

 

[Squeaks4ver]

hey i think this is the first time that you and maynard sorta agree on something! lol

 

[CDB]

hey i think this is the first time that you and maynard sorta agree on something! lol

I was looped on pinot noir. It won't happen again.

 

[BigVrunga]

mmmmm....Pinot Noir

 

[delta314]

CDB, Do you think for a moment that we don't spend as much time on alcohol related incidents as drugs? Just because it is legal to purchase alcohol for consumption by adults doesn't stop the illegal activities that occur from alcohol use. Look at how easy it is for minors to get alcohol. If you could only see some of the accident scenes related to alcohol abuse. So when the DUI task force goes out on Saturday night and pulls over some sales manager or CEO or whatever, and he fails the sobriety test, he goes to jail. Even if he was just "a little drunk". He probably could have made it home without incident, but he got caught. Too bad. Don't drink and drive. Period. And if you are not happy with the current laws on drugs, change them. You're the younger generation, so have at it. You change the laws, I'll enforce the new ones. I've had close family get in trouble due to drug use. I love them very much and it hurt me to see them ruin their lives. But they chose the road. It all boils down to following the rules. If you don't agree with the rules, change them. But don't break them. Hell, I'd love to do a cycle of AAS and add strength and muscle quick instead of the long hard way. If I screwed up my liver, who did I hurt but me. But it is illegal. So I get up at 4am and go the gym and bust me ass week after week, and ocassionaly I add another 5-10lbs to my bench, squat, etc....I'd probably like to smoke a joint too, even though I haven't done it in 30 years.......

 

[CDB]

CDB, Do you think for a moment that we don't spend as much time on alcohol related incidents as drugs? Just because it is legal to purchase alcohol for consumption by adults doesn't stop the illegal activities that occur from alcohol use. Look at how easy it is for minors to get alcohol.

Alcohol dealers aren't shooting each other in the streets and killing kids in the process while recruiting others at a young age and turning them into career criminals. They were doing that during alcohol prohibition however, which might make a more thoughtful person make a few logical connections and come to a certain conclusion about the harmfulness of prohibition.

While it may be easy for kids to get a hold of alcohol, at least the product they are getting isn't likely to be a black market product which will kill them even if they only use a little in what would otherwise be a responsible way. Tainted, deadly alcohol was not uncommon during alcohol prohibition. What's more the idea of locking up responsible adult users to 'protect the children' or to stop drunk drivers or alcoholics involved in other types of crime is recognized as idiotic and a waste since responsible users are not the problem, and their existence shows that the substance itself is not the problem.

Lastly, you're not locking up or trying to lock up all alcohol users, just those that engage in criminal acts, at which point their intoxication is taken into account to determine their punishment. The substance itself is legal and responsible users don't have to worry about landing themselves in prison for a twenty year minimum sentence because they were caught with a bottle of Jack Daniels. Police don't waste money going after them, no one's rights are being violated.

If you could only see some of the accident scenes related to alcohol abuse.

You're assuming I haven't. Once more it's the "my experience trumps yours, so there!" argument.

So when the DUI task force goes out on Saturday night and pulls over some sales manager or CEO or whatever, and he fails the sobriety test, he goes to jail. Even if he was just "a little drunk". He probably could have made it home without incident, but he got caught. Too bad. Don't drink and drive. Period.

Are you making an effort to completely miss the point? I have no problem with you locking up someone who is driving while drunk. The point is, if you want to use alcohol as an analogy, you're also locking up designated drivers, people who buy alcohol and go home and drink, and people who generally use alcohol but do not use in a way that endangers others. Is it at all possible for you to see the difference and distinction? Prohibition targets ALL users regardless if they are engaging in ANY OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY and regardless of whether or not they are BEHAVING RECKLESSLY, such as driving under the influence.

Or are you honestly saying we should waste time locking up designated drivers and people who just buy and drink alcohol in general because it might stop a few drunk drivers? If so, would you be willing to throw your mother, your father, your kids, your wife, brother or sister in prison to accomplish this end even if they didn't do a damn thing that could be considered criminal or even reckless? Would you be willing to saddle them with a criminal record for the rest of their lives, willing to see them rot in prison for unGodly amounts of time and watch all their dreams and opportunities get destroyed? Because if not you've got some nerve locking up other people's relatives on this principle regardless of their drug of choice.

And if you are not happy with the current laws on drugs, change them. You're the younger generation, so have at it. You change the laws, I'll enforce the new ones. I've had close family get in trouble due to drug use. I love them very much and it hurt me to see them ruin their lives. But they chose the road. It all boils down to following the rules.

Mindless following of the rules without questioning their ethicality, morality and legality makes for a good state drone, not an American. Here we are supposed to question, supposed to oppose the state, and supposed to be free. Laws are not the end all be all of society. Laws are subject to ethical and moral review, morals and ethics are not subject to legal restrictions.

I'd probably like to smoke a joint too, even though I haven't done it in 30 years.......

I don't understand your subserviance to "the rules" as you put it, especially since it seems to exist in a total vacuum with no consideration whatsoever as to individual rights, right and wrong, ethics and morality. It is wrong to lock people up for drug use in and of itself. The only rules that I consider justly binding on me are ones that concern me hurting other or acting so reckless as to serious increase the risk of others being hurt. Anything else is a restriction on my freedom based on someone else's aesthetic judgement of what good living is.

Maybe I should ask you this then: at what point, if any, would you consider it unethical, immoral, and just plain wrong to obey "the rules"? What exactly does the government have to do, what point do they have to go beyond, before "the rules" become wrong in your view, and breaking them justifiable and right? Or should we all just live in total subserviance and obedience to "the rules" even if it means our death for no cause whatsoever, other than it's in "the rules"?

 

[delta314]

You have the right to question any rule you don't agree with. You do not have the right disobey it. I will never decide that it is ok to break the rules. Rules are what keeps society from disaster. If everyone was left to make their own rules, there would be nothing but chaos and disorder. You are not free to do whatever you want to do. Where is that written?
You are 29 years old and you have all the answers. You've seen it all, done it all, and now you feel that all the laws you disagree with should be abolished. Once again I'll say it, if you don't like the laws change them. If you can convince enough people to see your point of view, you will succeed. As far as me not being an American because I follow the rules, well, I'm a veteran. USMC 74-76. You?

 

[CDB]

You have the right to question any rule you don't agree with. You do not have the right disobey it. I will never decide that it is ok to break the rules. Rules are what keeps society from disaster. If everyone was left to make their own rules, there would be nothing but chaos and disorder.

Nazi Germany had some rules you might want to peruse and then use in a reconsideration of this statement. So did other nations with a mind towards ethnic cleansing/preference through law. Guess all those uppity blacks during the US Civil Rights Movement should have known better and stayed in their proper places and followed the rules. Guess Rosa Parks should have moved her black ass at the command of a white man. After all, it was in the rules. I guess when the fire hoses were turned on them they should have just taken it. After all, plenty of judges and juries would have considered that within the rules.

It seems from your posts and your blind adherence to the rules that you're one of those people who would happily abuse, torture, imprison and even kill your fellow citizens on order for any reason whatsoever. Do it because they're Jewish or Christian, do it to advance a eugenics program, do it because they're enemies of the state, do it because they're criminals, do it because their skin is liter or darker than yours. And you would never question those rules, would you?

If however you would question it, that is a tacit admission that above Law and Order are Right and Wrong, and if you would under any circumstances disobey the rules (laws) because they were wrong, that is a tavit admission that Law and Order are not always in sync with Right and Wrong, and the Right and Wrong are the higher authority. I adhere the higher authority of right and Wrong. You most likely just take orders.

What keeps society from destroying itself is not rules set forth by the government, unless of course you think the first crime in the history of the civilized world was preceeded by the formation of a monster state and a verbal/written legal code that everyone knew, which is ludicrous and logically and chronologically contradictory. What keeps society from destroying itself is the general agreement of all involved over what constitutes right and wrong. Society's order is built from the bottom up, not the top down. Law is an attempt to codify the much vaguer notions of right, wrong, decency in behavior, and justice in how people are treated by each other and the government.

You are not free to do whatever you want to do. Where is that written?

No where, and more specifically no where in this thread, which proves you can't read or are oblivious to what I and others have said. Once more, for those who are apparently visually impaired: NO ONE IS SAYING YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. Could you please now explain how saying "people should be allowed to do as they wish SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE and SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT BEHAVING RECKLESSLY SO AS TO MAKE HURTING SOMEONE ELSE LIKELY," translates into "people should be allowed to do whatever they want" in your mind? Because there are two qualifying clauses in the statement, I've bolded them to make them easier to see for you, that put definite restrictions and logically lead to certain rules, and I know you like rules, that most certainly and obviously mean people can't do whatever they want. No one here has come close to saying that.

You are 29 years old and you have all the answers. You've seen it all, done it all,

In my 29 years I have seen and done more than most people do in their entire lives, and I'm thankful for that. That said there are people in their sixties who share my views, and my age has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning. For others reading this, this argument is kind of a softball ad hominem combined with an argument from surious authority. Watch for it in debates, it's a sign your opponent is running out of steam and getting close to either admitting they are wrong or storming off in a huff because they'd rather not lose.

Once again I'll say it, if you don't like the laws change them.

See first response, then if possible go back in time and tell that to the slaves in our history. After all, if they tried to escape they'd be breaking the rules. Do you not acknowledge any distinction between what's legal/illegal and what's right/wrong? If you don't it doesn't surprise me you have/had a state job, assuming you are/were a cop.

If you can convince enough people to see your point of view, you will succeed. As far as me not being an American because I follow the rules, well, I'm a veteran. USMC 74-76. You?

I'm an orange, as if it mattered. Your veteran status commands respect, it doesn't make you correct by default. Yes, if I convince enough people I can get those laws changed and drugs would be legal, and in your mind that would be right. I could also, if I convince enough people, enact laws that require the government sponsored imprisonment/murder of all blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, latinos and whoever the hell else I please, and that would be equally right in your eyes. After all, as long we're all obeying the rules.


And I guess if I decided to imprison all veterans for the hell of it in that way, I could justly turn around to you and say what you said above. Don't like the rules, change them! Of course since in addition to imprisoning you the laws I pass would also impoverish you and other veterans, take away your right to vote through disenfranchisement laws, and make it hard as hell for you to get a job and live (drug/veteran testing anyone?) and generally otherwise **** up your life and families, at that point changing the law, even though it would be blatantly unjust and wrong, wouldn't be all that frigging easy now would it?

And if you don't see the analogy, I pity you. If you don't think the government is capable of something equally as arbitrary and spurious (400 million blacks brought here in chains, millions of jews and the handicapped killed in Nazi Germany, etc.), I can only shake my head in bewilderment at your complete and total disconnection with history and reality. And if you honestly do just follow the rules as you say, executing any order of the state without a care whether it's right or wrong, moral or immoral, just or unjust, then I can only be scared of you and everyone like you, because historically when the government has decided to spurious and arbitrarily cruel and viscious things, it's been people like you who have been only too happy to help facilitate its actions.

 

[delta314]

Nazi Germany had some rules you might want to peruse and then use in a reconsideration of this statement. So did other nations with a mind towards ethnic cleansing/preference through law. Guess all those uppity blacks during the US Civil Rights Movement should have known better and stayed in their proper places and followed the rules. Guess Rosa Parks should have moved her black ass at the command of a white man. After all, it was in the rules. I guess when the fire hoses were turned on them they should have just taken it. After all, plenty of judges and juries would have considered that within the rules..

Save that Nazi crap for someone else. Laws have evolved over time, and yes, there were/are some bad ones that have been on the books. But they have been changed. Like I told you, if you don't agree with them, change them through the proper channel.

It seems from your posts and your blind adherence to the rules that you're one of those people who would happily abuse, torture, imprison and even kill your fellow citizens on order for any reason whatsoever. Do it because they're Jewish or Christian, do it to advance a eugenics program, do it because they're enemies of the state, do it because they're criminals, do it because their skin is liter or darker than yours. And you would never question those rules, would you?.

So now I would happily abuse, torture, and kill people, and I'm prejudice because I don't think people should be allowed to use drugs....sorry sport. I wouldn't do any of those things, but I'd throw your butt in jail for drugs, that you can count on.

If however you would question it, that is a tacit admission that above Law and Order are Right and Wrong, and if you would under any circumstances disobey the rules (laws) because they were wrong, that is a tavit admission that Law and Order are not always in sync with Right and Wrong, and the Right and Wrong are the higher authority. I adhere the higher authority of right and Wrong. You most likely just take orders.
.

You adhere to the higher authority of right and wrong, or "what you perceive to be right or wrong". You want to make the rules, become a politician. You're right. I take orders. From people I respect and trust.

In my 29 years I have seen and done more than most people do in their entire lives, and I'm thankful for that. That said there are people in their sixties who share my views, and my age has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning. For others reading this, this argument is kind of a softball ad hominem combined with an argument from surious authority. Watch for it in debates, it's a sign your opponent is running out of steam and getting close to either admitting they are wrong or storming off in a huff because they'd rather not lose..

I would never admit to being wrong when I'm right. Drugs are poisoning our country and destroying our children. I will continue to fight the war. And if a few non violent criminals, and make no mistake about it, they are criminals, get arrested, well, they shouldn't be involved in illegal activities.

See first response, then if possible go back in time and tell that to the slaves in our history. After all, if they tried to escape they'd be breaking the rules. Do you not acknowledge any distinction between what's legal/illegal and what's right/wrong? If you don't it doesn't surprise me you have/had a state job, assuming you are/were a cop.



I'm an orange, as if it mattered. Your veteran status commands respect, it doesn't make you correct by default. Yes, if I convince enough people I can get those laws changed and drugs would be legal, and in your mind that would be right. I could also, if I convince enough people, enact laws that require the government sponsored imprisonment/murder of all blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, latinos and whoever the hell else I please, and that would be equally right in your eyes. After all, as long we're all obeying the rules.


And I guess if I decided to imprison all veterans for the hell of it in that way, I could justly turn around to you and say what you said above. Don't like the rules, change them! Of course since in addition to imprisoning you the laws I pass would also impoverish you and other veterans, take away your right to vote through disenfranchisement laws, and make it hard as hell for you to get a job and live (drug/veteran testing anyone?) and generally otherwise **** up your life and families, at that point changing the law, even though it would be blatantly unjust and wrong, wouldn't be all that frigging easy now would it?..

Where do you dream up your replies? They are so colorful, but have very little substance. Go ahead and enact the above laws....you'd have a better chance making drugs legal.....

And if you don't see the analogy, I pity you. If you don't think the government is capable of something equally as arbitrary and spurious (400 million blacks brought here in chains, millions of jews and the handicapped killed in Nazi Germany, etc.), I can only shake my head in bewilderment at your complete and total disconnection with history and reality. And if you honestly do just follow the rules as you say, executing any order of the state without a care whether it's right or wrong, moral or immoral, just or unjust, then I can only be scared of you and everyone like you, because historically when the government has decided to spurious and arbitrarily cruel and viscious things, it's been people like you who have been only too happy to help facilitate its actions.

Save your pity for someone else. I follow lawful orders. Shall I BOLD the word "lawful" for you? I have not come across an immoral law on the books lately. Could you be more specific. And here you go again with "people like me" crap. Would those be the law abiding citizens, military, law enforcement, religious, family oriented, ....exactly what people like me?

 

[50joe]

I respect everyone in this thread for providing very thought provoking material! Especially CDB, and delta314, and their back and fourth. It makes me think about both sides this way.

I always thought the war on drugs, is flawed. So I have to agree with CDB here, who makes great logical arguments.

I think the point of CDB's rediculous law examples is what delta314 missed the point on; when delta says

Where do you dream up your replies? They are so colorful, but have very little substance. Go ahead and enact the above laws....you'd have a better chance making drugs legal.....

I believe CDB uses these insane examples, because earlier you said you will NEVER decide it's ok to break the rules. He is proposing, what if those crazy laws were the rules.. would you still follow them? By following your stated principals, you would, with no question, because there is no breaking the rules, no matter who decides them, as long as it is backed by the government. I believe that is the point of CDB's argument. You can admit in those absolutely rediculous situations proposed that you would break the rules! CDB seems to have a valid arguement here, which you write off as rediculous.

By the way, wanted to mention that I respect all the work you do as a LEO, even though I don't agree with it all, because it's not your decision to create these rules.

Delta314, I was kind of taken aback by your saying

"Would those be the law abiding citizens, military, law enforcement, religious, family oriented, ....exactly what people like me?"

Because I find that funny. I know plenty of religious, family oriented, and great parents who dabble in a vice of their choice. I know some military who do some rec drugs when home. So don't you feel for them if they are caught in a situation that ruins their career or family life, just because they aren't perfect? Say you have to take away a great father, and the source of income from a family because he does some drugs, by himself, at night, not bothering a soul. Wouldn't you feel the least bit of regret in that situation? If not, I would feel bad for you. It would make me think of you more as a robot, then a human being.

side note being, I personally have never done any illegal rec drug. I drank a bit in school. Now I usually drink wine with dinner. Never tried pot, never smoked a cig. My high school had one of the biggest drug problems too. Many friends did drugs. I never wanted to.

This is why most think I'm weird for questioning the war on drugs, because I have no part in the use of it.

I attribute this to my parents. They educated me. I never felt a need to go do a drug. But I still would like to see a lift on some of the prohibition, or lessening of penalties. Perhaps it will even be a bad idea... but you will never find out unless it's changed. I just think there is a fundamental difference between someone using something in private, and bothering others.
I always thought by the phrase "My freedom ends where your freedom begins" .


I don't think anyone can say there are NO bad laws. You don't find out until looking at it in hindsight, as thats always 20/20.