Conservative Nonsense in the War on Drugs

[delta314]

The nonsense you brought up about how the system treats users different than dealers is also a bit of hogwash. It's another drug warrior propoganda attempt. They will haul out federal statistics on who is in prison, and yes most of the peoplein federal prison for drugs also have a violent offense or twenty to their names. Most of the people serving time for nonviolent drug 'crimes' however are in state prisons and local Jails, not federal prisons. It's a convenient way to skew the reality though to only look at the federal picture. It also helps if you ignore the fact that many drug arrests are the result of sting operations where people busted for small time possession are used/leveraged to catch 'bigger fish', who are most times someone no more important in teh drug trade than the person who was originally busted, but who could simply be manipulated into a situation that resulted in a higher criminal charge than the police could level at the first person they busted. And that they wouldn't have committed the particular incidence of crime they were arrested for were it not for the police, entrapment anyone?, is also conveniently ignored..

Where do you get your statistics? I'm starting to think you make up this **** as you go along.

Or did you mention kids just to get the old "Save the children" shiboleth into the argument? Quite frankly, in the absolute and ideal sense and specifically in response to the save the children crowd, I would have to say **** the children. I'm not endangering them in any way with my actions and I and others like me are the main targets of the war on drugs, so it's quite obvious these people are a lot less interested in 'protecting' children than they are in raising them in a world they find aesthetically pleasing, or one that makes their job easier. If you can't deal with the fact that your precious children will eventually have to live in a world were people do and say things they don't agree with or like, and make choices to live their lives in ways that disagree with your vision of what familial and societal perfection is, don't breed the little pricks..

You say f*ck the children", I say f*ck the drug dealers and users. I can deal with my children living in a world that things I disagree with happen, and you need to deal with living in a world where you cannot do what you want just because you think it's ok. Your pro drug bullshit is not how the majority of the population feels. If it were, the laws would be changed.

To be blunt, yes, and to be blunt further anyone who thinks otherwise is either willingly or unwillingly being extremely stupid, obtuse and oblivious, because that's exactly what does happen when you make drugs legal. Is the mafia still bootlegging? No. Why not? Because alcohol is legal and there are few if any black market profits to be made. What black markets do exist for alcohol and as another example, tobacco, are for the most part strictly aimed at cost reduction by avoiding taxes. There's a hell of a lot less violence in those black markets, if any, than there is in our current marijuana, heroin and cocaine markets. There is certainly no violence in the legal market surrounding the manufacture, distribution and sale of these products..

You are stupid if you think organized crime is going to give up their profits when certain drugs are legalized. I believe if you tried to legalize marijuana by itself, you could possibly change the law. If you think you are going to legalize coke, crack, pcp, meth, etc.....you are worse than stupid, you are a moron. You can keep preaching this rediculous crap, but you will not change my mind, or anyone else with a shred of common sense.

The mafia did when it came to alcohol. If you honestly believe the black market would continue as is after legalization you're in serious need of a few history and economics lessons. This isn't a point where reasonable people can disagree, it's so blatantly obvious anyone who doesn't see it has serious problems of one kind or another, or just doesn't give a ****..

No, they just opened up bars and added drugs and protitution to the mix. It gave them a legal front for their other illegal operations. You think the black market will just go away if drugs were legal. I think you are the one with serious problems. Anything that you say can be reasonably disagreed with. And it seems like you are the one that doesn't give a ****. All you are concerned with is being able to do drugs.

 

[BigVrunga]

Guys this is a good discussion, but lets try to tone it down on the personal jabs. I understand people get heated about these topics, and that you're both at opposing poles of the issue being discussed - but verbally attacking eachother's intellect isnt the way to go about it.

Thanks,
BV

 

[delta314]

Guys this is a good discussion, but lets try to tone it down on the personal jabs. I understand people get heated about these topics, and that you're both at opposing poles of the issue being discussed - but verbally attacking eachother's intellect isnt the way to go about it.

Thanks,
BV

You're right BV. I oppologize CDB. I know I will not change your mind, and you can be sure you will not change mine. I've made my point, so I'm done here. Til the next thread!

 

[CDB]

Where do you get off saying that I would happily let the prison system release rapists and child molesters early to make room for you and other users? When did I ever say anything like that?

It is standard practice of the current system of prohibition and mandatory minimum sentences which you presumably support. So either you support that directly or are just unaware it's a consequence of the policies you support because you really haven't thought your point of view through. You see, when you make something "illegal" and someone gets caught possessing or doing that thing, they get "arrested," which often times means they end up getting "convicted" too, which means they go to this place called "prison" where there is not unlimited space to house people.

You don't agree with me and you try to make everything I say seem like I'm out to destroy the world just to throw a bunch of drug addicts in jail. Sorry, but they just don't mean that much to me.

I truly hope one day someone convinces the government it's okay to destroy your life and throw you in prison because you just don't mean that much to them. As I've said, your willingness to destory lives and families because one or both parents or a child gets caught using a substance you don't approve of is disturbing. Your disregard for and your willing violation of their rights for the betterment of your sense of aesthetic well being is disturbing and not a little disgusting to me. They don't mean that much to you so it's okay they rot in prison, have their kids taken away have future job and education options shut to them, their lives limited and sumsbumed so you don't have to see them? Do you have a clue how blatantly anti American and just basically anti human that statment is?

You speak of all these wonderful people you know who do drugs regularly, doctors, lawyers, mothers.....well, I've seen the mothers who do drugs also.

No doubt. Your experience is not the end all be all last word on the issue though. It would be likewise stupid and self defeating to let a person's experience with binge drinkers and alcoholic wife beaters alone dictate the entire policy of our government toward all users of alcohol.

You say I get my information from drug war propagandists, well, the information I hear from you seems to be pro drug propaganda. The story you tell is drugs are ok and everyone should be left alone to enjoy them.

I have never said that nor will I ever. You need to set up a straw man argument to take down. I never denied drugs are abused by some people with tragic consequences, all I've said is it's wrong and even criminal in my opinion to target all users. But, because that view is reaonable and most likely right and makes it a little hard to defend 70 years of increasingly harsh criminal prosecution of the war on drugs and the millions upon millions of lives that have been devastated by the primary and secondary effects of prohibition, I'm not surprised you need to consciously or unconsciously ignore it.

I don't think you are evil, Delta. I don't think you are wrong when you speak of how some people have used drugs to destroy their lives and the lives of others. But unless you are willing to broaden your view on the issue and admit that your experiene alone with the worthless of the crowd isn't the whole picture you're going to be arguing from ignorance and lack of experience. But it seems not even you know what you believe. Sometimes you seem to be saying all users are scum and deserve to be in prison, other times as in this post you seem to be willing to admit they aren't all scum but in the end you just don't give a **** what happens to them because their use of a substance you disapprove of, whether or not they have done anything else to merrit the attention of the law, is enough of a reason to **** them over.

I don't agree. And I don't buy that crap about all the wonderful people doing drugs. I've never taken any of these wonderful people to jail.

You wouldn't know it if you did apparently, it was apparently news to you drug laws can actually be used to destroy families, and most drug users are scumbags in your opinion and you admittedly don't give a **** even if it is true that they are getting unjustly fucked. I don't know which is more outrageous, but the former certainly stacks up, the way so many drug warriors don't seem to understand or give a **** about the consequences of what happens when you make something illegal.

But I have taken the scumbags and thieves, and perverts, and most of them were high on something.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. That crazy and criminal people do drugs does not translate to all drug users are crazy and criminals. And while you have before claimed such a wider, greater experience than others as some kind of justification for your views it is blatantly obvious you have had a decidely one sided and extremely limited experience on this subject. An experience I've never denied the reality of, some people do abuse drugs to the point that it negatively affects other people. But you might want to broaden your experience a bit because just as the answer to alcohol abuse is not targetting all drinkers with laws making them criminals, the answer to drug abuse is equally not the criminal targetting of all users. No matter what the drug there is a portion of the population of users that can and do use responsibly, and in my experience it is often the majority, especially with drugs like weed, cocaine and even heroin. Those users do not deserve to be in prison, whether you care about them or not. To suggest it's alright to do what is blatantly unjust and even likely illegal and unconstitutional to someone just because "they don't mean that much to [you]" is so disconnected from reality and the way America is supposed to be run it's amazing you're comfortable here and have bothered to fight for this country. After all it was built on the idea of freedom, not freedom so long as a bunch of prudes and pseudo ascetics approve of the said freedom.

 

[CDB]

Seems like friends in the drug world are pretty worthless. Why would a friend do that to another friend? What type of sentence do you get for possesion of steroids that you have to make a deal and turn in your firends? All my years on the streets and I've never seen anyone busted for steroids. Seems like you know all the good drug users and all the drug users with really bad luck...

Since some if not most jurisdictions define possession with intent to distribute in terms of dosage units, and 150 5mg Dbol pills is only really enough for a 30 day cycle at 25mg which is fairly normal, how a dosage unit is defined could legally define the person as a dealer even though he only had enough for his own personal use. Even if he was lucky enough to come in under that limit it would still be possession of what is legally considered a large amount of drugs, be it steroids or marijauna or any other drug. Sentences can be fairly harsh for minor offenses, or are you really unware of our 2 million plus prison population and the fact that a massive amount of those people are in there for nonviolent drug offenses and serving mandatory minimum sentences of ridiculous lengths?

Once more, reality to Delta... You'd think if you were going to argue for continued drug prohibtion you'd have some clue how the laws work and what the consequences of breaking them are. As far as your friend comment, that's why I put the word in quotes. Personally I don't know what I'd do if I were faced with betraying an aquaintance I knew could get drugs or spending an unGodly amount of time in prison seperated from my life and my loved ones, with my right to vote and any decent career prospects thrown in the shitter not as the direct result of usage of this or that substance,b ut as a direct result of it being prohibited. I think at this point in history we have more people in prison per capita than any other country in the world. More than South Africa at the height of apartide, maybe more than Russia at the most virile height of its show trial and political witch hunt days, and a vast amount of the people in there if not the majority are in there on nonviolent drug charges. But hey, it's okay because they don't mean that much to you.

 

[CDB]

You're right BV. I oppologize CDB. I know I will not change your mind, and you can be sure you will not change mine. I've made my point, so I'm done here. Til the next thread!

I guess we'll call it square and over then. Despite any ironic satisfaction there may be in it happening, I truly hope you don't have to face the injustice of your own policies on a personal level. But one day you may see someone you love living a perfectly normal, successful and full life, and in less than a day their lives will be destroyed with a drug charge. And even though they were using said drug for quite some time and apparently causing no problems for themselves or anyone else, you will then get to see what these laws really do to a lot of people. It's not something I hope for, but it is, I believe, inevitable. If not with drugs then something else, the power you have given to the government to regulate people's lives regardless of whether or not their behavior has any negative effect on others will come back to bite you in the ass. And everyone who would agree with you about the injustice of the situation will be in prison or released but unable to vote so it won't matter.

 

[Whiskey Steve]

Delta... you have 420 posts right now... ,,,,lol

 

[CDB]

Delta... you have 420 posts right now... ,,,,lol

:toofunny:

Fucking perfect!

:head:

 

[delta314]

Delta... you have 420 posts right now... ,,,,lol

How Ironic to end this thread on that number......I gotta post once more just to change it...

 

[CDB]

Where do you get your statistics? I'm starting to think you make up this **** as you go along.

Read any book about the drug war and you'll find the same facts, stats and everything. Pro drug war people use them to justify continued prohibition, anti drug war people use them to argue against prohibition. For example take some info from the 1999 IOM report on medical marijuana. It has addiction rates listed in section three that some drug warriors use as alarmist propoganda. Cocaine was 17% addictive or in that range I believe. A person against the drug war would point out that there are many legal OTC, RX and recreational drugs with higher addiction rates that don't seem to be destroying society.

You say f*ck the children", I say f*ck the drug dealers and users. I can deal with my children living in a world that things I disagree with happen, and you need to deal with living in a world where you cannot do what you want just because you think it's ok. Your pro drug bullshit is not how the majority of the population feels. If it were, the laws would be changed.

I don't care how the majority of the population feels, by definition half of them are on the wrong side of the bell curve and their opinions are essentially worthless drivel. The majority has done some amazingly stupid things when given control of domestic and foreign policy. And yes, I do believe I have the right to do what I want IF I AM NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY or NOT BEHAVING SO RECKLESSLY AS TO MAKE SUCH HARM LIKELY. You always seem to conveniently forget those qualifiers. And yes, so long as people insist on dragging out their children as the 'reason' why they need to run my life and tell me what I can and can't do regardless of whether or not my actions have any effect whatsoever on them or their little rats, **** the little assholes. It's a shibolleth that's been dragged out and beaten to death so many times I'm surprised anyone takes 'the children' seriously anymore. What about 'the adults' and the freedoms they are supposed to be able to enjoy? **** the children. And since it's the prohibition which encourages the violence surrounding drug manufacture, sale and distribution, it's these same idiots dragging their kids around who are almost directly responsible for the deaths of so many of them. I find that ultimately satisfying in an ironic sense, even if I do feel a bit bad for the kids because they got screwed by their parents stupidity.

You are stupid if you think organized crime is going to give up their profits when certain drugs are legalized.

The black market creates the profits genius. This isn't arguable, it's a fact. Where the manufacture and distribution of drugs is legal, be they RX or recreational drugs, the black market is small to nonexistant and there is little to no violence surrounding the sale/distribution because the risk is low and the market is aimed at avoiding taxes/other restrictions like RX mostly. If you honestly believe gangs and organized crime would continue to sell these drugs when they're legal you are in severe need of an economics/history lesson. Alcohol is still a widely used and abused drug with sales that are probably in the billions each year, as are cigarettes. Why are the mafia and street gangs not selling these products? Even RX drugs that are easy to get aren't surrounded by this kind of violence because the risk surrounding their distribution and sale are low and their manufacture is legal. You don't need a cartel to get them in, just a conncetion at one of the legal companies or pharmacies who is a little shady.

I believe if you tried to legalize marijuana by itself, you could possibly change the law. If you think you are going to legalize coke, crack, pcp, meth, etc.....you are worse than stupid, you are a moron. You can keep preaching this rediculous crap, but you will not change my mind, or anyone else with a shred of common sense.

I'm not out to change your mind, as I wrote in one of my original posts once someone is as far done the road as you are, rational discourse is impossible. What I am doing is at least demonstrating to others how ridiculous, irrational, and often times outright unreal your opinions are, and how so completely disconnected from reality you are that you can't even see it. You are actually suggesting organized crime will still sell drugs when there is no black market. This is demonstrably false. How is the mafia going to sell 50 bags of coke on the street when any person over 21 can get it in the store legally for less? Even at the same price, the lack of legal risk means the legal buying route 'costs' less in the end.

People in Holland do not buy on the streets anymore, they go to the coffee shops despite the still relatively high prices for the weed they buy there. They also go there for other drugs. It's an interesting case but ultimately a bad example because many of the aspects of manufacture and distribution are still illegal in the Netherlands. However, even with a partial repeal of prohibition which in many cases is the equivalent of executive neglect in our policitcal system, they have seen dramatic decreases in crime surrounding the drug trade. That you are oblivious to this is evidence of your complete disconnection from reality and impossibility of rational discourse on this issue.

In the end you just want people locked up because you don't like the choices they make. It's easy to spot, because the rational behind why they should locked up varies from post to post, from They're scum to I don't care to If they're legal this will happen. There's no logical or rational coherence to any of your views, you're just raging against something which, in the end, is ridiculous to rage against.

No, they just opened up bars and added drugs and protitution to the mix. It gave them a legal front for their other illegal operations.

So people are still killing each other and bootlegging, running alcohol over the Canadian border? Do you know what year it is, Delta?

You think the black market will just go away if drugs were legal.

Um, yeah, because a black market is where contraband is sold genius... If you make them legal they are no longer on the black market. If you impose massive restrictions on who can get them and/or artifically inflate their cost you can create another black market, but that is the result of those restrictions not something that's inherent in the nature of the drug, its manufacture, sale and distribution.

Although I do agree these cartels would not like to see their profits evaporate, which is why if you looked I wouldn't be surprised if you could trace a lot of the money going to our most viscious drug warriors back to drug profits that have been laundered. These dealers must have realized a long time ago their continued profits depend on continued prohibition. It's just a hunch of mine, I admit there's no proof but I wouldn't be surprised were it the case.

I think you are the one with serious problems. Anything that you say can be reasonably disagreed with. And it seems like you are the one that doesn't give a ****. All you are concerned with is being able to do drugs.

Then once again you've called your reading comprehension skills into doubt. It's good to end this on a rant where as is usual, once you push the prohibitionist the raving lunatic inside comes out. "Drugs are EVIL! I don't care if otherwise harmless and innocent people are in prison, DRUGS ARE EVIL! They're all SCUM!"

People who are not hurting others or behaving recklessly so such harm is likely should not have their actions arbtrarily restricted based on the aesthetic whims of lunatics who honestly believe innanimate things like drugs are inherently evil. You sir are the true destructive force in our society, because you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of others to satisfy your own aesthetic whims of what is pleasant and good. That kind of tyranic, fascist thinking has demonstrably destroyed entire nations. I've yet to see evidence of a society brought down by heroin, cocaine or weed, though admittedly some individuals do a good job of screwing their own lives up with those things. but the fanatical need of some to control the actions of others though, their unending crusade to purge certain people from society by criminalizing their very existence, that has been the basis for the destruction and fall of many nations.

 

[brogers]

The reasoning of keeping drugs illegal is ridiculous..
"Some people on drugs are scum bags"
"Thus, drugs make people scumbags"

What it seems they forget is that there's alot of non drug using scumbags out there.

It's just like the gun control argument to me, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The irresponsibility of a few shouldn't destroy the freedom of many.

 

[Whiskey Steve]

Delta...
do you really think that prohibition right now does ANYTHING in terms of people getting their hands on these substances?

At my high school in the fucking salt lake valley of utah we could get ANY drug we desired within five minutes......or less.


So the pro's of prohibition:
1. ? hmmm

Cons:
1. Extreme drug related violence
2. Good people (recreational or not) spend life in prison while their children get raised in foster homes.
3. Billions of dollars carelessly waisted.
4. (here CDB can insert fifty other reasons)

 

[brogers]

So the pro's of prohibition:
1. ? hmmm

Great campaign platform!

 

[Whiskey Steve]

I was just talking to my friend about this.
He thinks that if drugs are legal it will change the social
stigma(s) surrounding drug use and cause a surge of new users.
What do you guys think?
I think that should not be something the government should be concerned with and is definitely not worth spending Billions of dollars on these ass hole who will not demonstrate any self control.

 

[jarhead]

I was just talking to my friend about this.
He thinks that if drugs are legal it will change the social
stigma(s) surrounding drug use and cause a surge of new users.
What do you guys think?
I think that should not be something the government should be concerned with and is definitely not worth spending Billions of dollars on these ass hole who will not demonstrate any self control.

I would lean towards no. As it is right now, drugs are readily available. Those who want to do them have easy access now. But who knows. Definitely not worth the money in my opinion either.

 

[Whiskey Steve]

The reasoning of keeping drugs illegal is ridiculous..
"Some people on drugs are scum bags"
"Thus, drugs make people scumbags"

What it seems they forget is that there's alot of non drug using scumbags out there.

It's just like the gun control argument to me, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The irresponsibility of a few shouldn't destroy the freedom of many.

I completely agree with you here.
But in other threads you where calling people with view points like these "leftists" and retards that are not worth talking to.

Why do you use those ignorant terms when they profit you and not when they don't. Why cant we debate without all the name calling ect...


I can't wait for Delta to call you a leftist

 

[CDB]

I was just talking to my friend about this.
He thinks that if drugs are legal it will change the social
stigma(s) surrounding drug use and cause a surge of new users.
What do you guys think?
I think that should not be something the government should be concerned with and is definitely not worth spending Billions of dollars on these ass hole who will not demonstrate any self control.

If you knew you could get away with killing someone, would you? We have laws against murder because some people do it and it is unjust and we need a framework to deal with them. However, the reason most people don't do it is not because it is against the law. They don't do it because they know it is wrong. Likewise, the social stigma surrounding drugs is not there because they are illegal. If anything prohibition facilitates the existence of extreme arguments: people like Delta who simply cannot see the difference between responsible use and abuse of most if not all drugs; and people who think there are absolutely no problems surrounding abuse that could properly be considered criminal or subject to law. And these arguments can cut both ways depending on which one people listen to.

Either way it is a war, and the first casualty of war is the truth, and the truth is the most effective weapon against drug use and abuse. Bottom line is anything beyond passing, occasional use of any recreational drug is a waste of time and money, and some probably should be avoided altogether.

The law isn't what stands between us and anarchy, it's the basic common decency of most people that does that. The law is just an attempt to codify that decency. In the process it gets severely fucked up and gets used as a tool to maintain power. The easiest way to create a crime wave is to just take some currently legal behavior and make it illegal for whatever reason.

Whether or not more people will do drugs if they were legal isn't really known. You would likely see an increase in one time users, as that seems to happen in all cases of the easing or repeal of prohibition I believe. Abuse and use rates seem to stay the same though in areas where the laws have been changed. Sometimes they go up a little, sometimes down a little. Holland's per capita use stats are below ours and you can legally get the **** at 16 there I believe. But, the Dutch of whom I am proud to have as my main ancestry, are also pretty stout, hard headed, to the point no nonsense people who like to live fairly plain lives. Cross cultural comparrisons are a problem, but I've never seen seen even a correlation with legality and use stats. They seem fairly independent overall.

The question from a utilitarian point of view, which most people would dig, is does the harm created and perpetuated by prohibition outweigh the harm caused by drug abuse? Also, does prohibition do anything significant to curb the harm of drug abuse? It doesn't take a reasonable person much thought to see what a huge cock-up and completely stupid idea prohibition is. In 70 years it hasn't made one iota of progress towards its stated goal. That alone should be enough for its repeal.

Ask yourself this: how many people do you know that you honestly think would go out and start shooting heroin because the only thing holding them back is that it's illegal, or even just go out and become pot heads? Do you honestly know anyone who would? The stigmas surround the drugs, not the legality. It's the floodgate argument basically, Delta brought it up. Do you honestly think the only thing stopping a significant amount of people from trying, using and abusing drugs is prohibition? If not, there's little to no harm done with repeal and a shitload of good done by eliminating the black market.

If it is the only thing standing in the way though, it shouldn't be repealed. But then the question must be posed as to why it is limited to the current crop of scheduled drugs. After all, if prohibition is so effective, and if it is the only thing staunching the flood of drugs into our country, and if is the only thing stopping a significant portion of people from turning into raving lunatic junkies overnight, why not use it to further stem the tide? Why not apply the same exact policy to alcohol, cigarettes, hell even junk food and anything at all that can be unhealthy if abused? That's another one of those inconvenient questions Delta and his ilk can't answer, because there is no rational to why some drugs are legal and others aren't, no objective rational at least, and they then have to explain why prohibition was so inneffective concerning alcohol but so wonderful when applied to other drugs regardless of any objective measure as to how they stack up against alcohol.

They aren't classified by addiction, marijuana's addiction rate is around 7%, one of lowest of all drugs, lower than caffeine even I believe. They aren't classified by harm as opposed to possible benefits either. If the government were truly trying to stop dangerous drugs with no health benefits from coming into our country and corrupting our children, cigarettes would be Schedule I drugs. If the overall level of harm caused by a drug's abuse were the issue alcohol and cigarette prohibition are way over due, as is to be blunt McDonald's and Burger King prohibition.

Prohibition does make sense though if you look at it through the original rational for it: racism. Marijauna is illegal because of Mexican Borracho myth. Cocaine was traditionally considered the drug of choice by blacks. Opium and it's derrivatives were the province of the Chinese. And whites generally used cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes have never been illegal, were even glamorized for a long time, and even with a constitutional ammendment alcohol prohibition didn't last. It is a culture war to be blunt, and as long as it's only the lower class niggers, spics and occasional white trash getting thrown in prison and having their lives destroyed, and for the most part middle to upper class caucasians can make everything all white again by paying for a good legal team or knowing the judge, nothing will change and no one will give a ****.

 

[BigVrunga]

Prohibition does make sense though if you look at it through the original rational for it: racism. Marijauna is illegal because of Mexican Borracho myth. Cocaine was traditionally considered the drug of choice by blacks. Opium and it's derrivatives were the province of the Chinese. And whites generally used cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes have never been illegal, were even glamorized for a long time, and even with a constitutional ammendment alcohol prohibition didn't last. It is a culture war to be blunt, and as long as it's only the lower class niggers, spics and occasional white trash getting thrown in prison and having their lives destroyed, and for the most part middle to upper class caucasians can make everything all white again by paying for a good legal team or knowing the judge, nothing will change and no one will give a ****.

And that is so true. Case in point ( I may have brought this up before in another thread, so forgive me if Im repeating myself). I worked with a kid at one of my previous jobs. He was a quiet guy, hippie-type kid. We both played guitar so we started chatting, eventually I found out that he was currently in litagation for getting caught with over ONE POUND of P.Cubensis mushrooms enroute to a Phish concert.

The short story? His dad is one of the most prominent doctors in my hometown, and the kid got off with a slap on the wrist.

Money talks, bullshit runs the marathon in this country. There is no justice, its a big fucking gameshow where lawyers and a judge decide the fate of a human being based on laws that shouldnt exist in the first place.

Change the laws? Felons can't vote in most cases. How convienient for the ruling elite.

people like Delta who simply cannot see the difference between responsible use and abuse of most if not all drugs; and people who think there are absolutely no problems surrounding abuse that could properly be considered criminal or subject to law. And these arguments can cut both ways depending on which one people listen to.

In Delta's defense, as a police officer he does have to deal with the lower element of society frequently. I can see how this would shape his views to be what he currently defends to be the truth. To a cop, if drug abuse didnt exist then all these crack-whore moms neglecting their kids and commiting crimes wouldnt exist. I may not agree with him, but as a law officer his job is to enforce the laws of this country, which he seems to take pride in doing. Much respect to him for that; its not a job I could do.

If drugs were properly regulated, and people were told the truth and properly educated about being responsible, then the black market wouldnt exist, crack whores wouldnt exist, and drug-related crime would be far less of an issue than it is now.

That's OK though, there's money to be made and politicians that need electing. So let those crack whore moms keep on feeding the machine.

That's my take on it.

BV

 

[delta314]

I think there are allot of people that would try drugs if they were legal. I also believe that there are people that would kill someone if it was legal, but don't because they fear the consequences. The amount of road rage that goes on today is ridiculous. If it was legal to kill people, you would see people dying in the streets everyday. For being in front of someone going slow. Same with drugs. They would try them, and maybe like the feeling, and before you know it, they would be doing whatever it takes to stay high. For every one of you out there that seems to think you can do your drugs WHILE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY or NOT BEHAVING SO RECKLESSLY AS TO MAKE SUCH HARM LIKELY, there will be twenty five that do end up hurting someone, stealing, or behaving recklessly. Not everyone is the genius that you think you are.
It isn't my job to evaluate every law on the books and decide if they are perfect. You can hold me responsible for enforcing the laws, and I'll hold you responsible for talking about how they should be changed, but not doing a damn thing to change them except bashing the enforcer. I can tell from your tone in all your replies that you really enjoy talking trash to someone on the other side. That's cool. There is a big difference between voicing your opinion and trashing someone personally because they don't agree with you. I doubt you are that vocal in the real world. I meet very few that are.

 

[The Experiment]

I guarantee you that alcohol had something to do with the Catholics. Catholics would no longer be able to receive the Blood of Christ during Mass if alcohol is outlawed.

The KKK was a big ass force then and they hated Catholics as much as black people.

I'd say more but CDB and BV pretty much covered it. Its a way for the rich white, the WASPs, to keep flexing their nuts over society.

Delta who simply cannot see the difference between responsible use and abuse of most if not all drugs

Yeah but most people feel that way. Most people have accepted and somewhat embraced the Totalitarian/Authoritarian Neoconservative/Bush/1984 style Government. The "Sit down and shut the **** up" kind of Government.

Its like what Bush said a while back about being Commander in Chief of the US. No, he's really the Commander in Chief of the Military but he acts like he's commanding everyone in the US. He even considers himself an "Educator in Chief" of the American people. He wants people to believe only what he wants to believe and will stop at almost nothing to achieve it.

Its not like its some special case regarding George W. Bush. Its been the norm for decades now.

 

[CDB]

In Delta's defense, as a police officer he does have to deal with the lower element of society frequently. I can see how this would shape his views to be what he currently defends to be the truth.

Quite true, but his apparent complete inability to recognize that is akin to excusing racism on the part of cops because they lock a lot of blacks up, and to be blunt a lot of them deserved to be locked up. Just because a cop deals with the scum of the black population does justify or come close to excusing a view that all blacks deserve to be locked up. Just as all a black who has dealt with racist whites has can not be excused for using that as a justification or excuse for assuming all whites are racists. It's an obviously skewed point of view. I said in response to him many times that I don't doubt his experience, that people do abuse drugs and can destroy their lives and the lives of others with poor behavior. But he translates his experience into what Brogers said, reverse logic. Some users **** up, so punish them all? I mean this is first grade gym class logic, and he's got everyone doing push-ups because the class clown **** in the locker room. It's ridiculous and I'll admit I don't see any rational defense whatsoever for targetting all users when all users are not a problem.

If drugs were properly regulated, and people were told the truth and properly educated about being responsible, then the black market wouldnt exist, crack whores wouldnt exist, and drug-related crime would be far less of an issue than it is now.

Ain't gonna happen unless you, I and others call the likes of Delta out on this ****. Have you noticed in every single post he's made he does not even begin to admit, much less grasp how prohibition can not only aggravate the problems he is trying to solve but in fact can cause them? It doesn't even begin to speculate as possibility in his mind. It's the most effective brainwashing campaign in government history. It's not the prohibition, it's not the black market it creates, it's the drugs and the people who use them, and please ignore those white upper class people using those legal drugs made by multibillion dollar companies who fund our campaigns, and definitely ignore it when one of them or their kids gets caught using the illegal ones and gets off with a slap on the wrist for some crime we just sent some young black kid to prison for 30 years for committing five minutes before.

I don't know how you can offer the slightest amount of respect to someone who supports that kind of thinking. It is so disgusting, so opposed to anything and everything this country is supposed to be about, so destructive that I can't even believe it's still the dominant mode of thinking. And look how happy Delta is about that too! Millions in prison, inner cities that are war zones, billions of wasted dollars a year, untold man hours and other resources wasted every year, decimated neighborhoods after 70 years of this ****... And he and his ilk aren't even willing to entertain the idea that their views might be a bit off. It's just a matter of degree, or they're concentrating on the wrong drugs, or instead of locking up users let's lock up dealers, etc., etc., etc. Always change the system, never admit the system is the problem.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who still supports prohibition is more in need of being locked up in a rubber room with a nice set of crayons than any drug user is in need of being put in jail or even rehab.

 

[CDB]

I think there are allot of people that would try drugs if they were legal. I also believe that there are people that would kill someone if it was legal, but don't because they fear the consequences. The amount of road rage that goes on today is ridiculous. If it was legal to kill people, you would see people dying in the streets everyday.

It must be horrible for you living among such a bunch of barely controled lunatics all the time. Me, I tend to have a slightly higher if not glowing opinion of my fellow human being. Funny also, I remember when they liberalized gun laws in Florida as a response to the high crime rate all the antigun nuts were down there claiming road rage would result in death, that people would be gunning each other down for the slightest personal afronts and Florida would be the Wild West with walkers and blood pressure medication. Didn't happen, but I guess that must be the exception that proves the rule though.

For every one of you out there that seems to think you can do your drugs WHILE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY or NOT BEHAVING SO RECKLESSLY AS TO MAKE SUCH HARM LIKELY, there will be twenty five that do end up hurting someone, stealing, or behaving recklessly.

According to the government 70 million people have tried marijuana just once. That means according to your bullshit statistic there should be roughly 1,750,000,000 raving drug crazed lunatics in this country at least, which I think illustrates how full of it you are because I think that's more than our actual population.

Not everyone is the genius that you think you are.

Quite obviously.

It isn't my job to evaluate every law on the books and decide if they are perfect. You can hold me responsible for enforcing the laws, and I'll hold you responsible for talking about how they should be changed, but not doing a damn thing to change them except bashing the enforcer.

Reading comprehension or presumtuouisness once more. Perhaps you haven't actually read my posts but I did mention quite some time ago that I had put some time in as an activist on this issue.

I can tell from your tone in all your replies that you really enjoy talking trash to someone on the other side.

Your God damn right. Pointing out how blatantly idiotic prohibition is to people who blindly support it is in fact something I enjoy.

That's cool. There is a big difference between voicing your opinion and trashing someone personally because they don't agree with you. I doubt you are that vocal in the real world. I meet very few that are.

Look up the Paz case from California. On a bad drug tip, and disregarding little things like the Fourth Ammendment and **** like that, a SWAT team of jackbooted Rambo wanna bes busted into some grandfather's house, shot him dead, confiscated his life savings and then, after they realized their mistake and found no drugs, still tried to keep the money. To date I don't think anyone has been dismissed from the police or God forbid charged with his murder. Read further and you'll find while extreme cases like this aren't the norm, they are by no means isolated incidents and are in fact the normative trend.

At what point would I be justified in condemning the enforcer of a bad law along with the maker? How many millions of lives have to be destroyed, how many kids shot, how much property confiscated, how many of our rights eroded or outright trashed and how many people have to be in prison on BS charges before I get to call them for what they are, Scum? You have no problem calling all drug users scum even though you sometimes admit not all of them are causing problems for other people. So I have no problem with calling drug warriors scum either and offerring a blanket condemnation of all of them as such, and to be blunt I think I can and have made a far better case for my view than you have for yours.

 

[Whiskey Steve]

and to be blunt I think I can and have made a far better case for my view than you have for yours.

:clap2:

 

[delta314]

It must be horrible for you living among such a bunch of barely controled lunatics all the time. Me, I tend to have a slightly higher if not glowing opinion of my fellow human being. Funny also, I remember when they liberalized gun laws in Florida as a response to the high crime rate all the antigun nuts were down there claiming road rage would result in death, that people would be gunning each other down for the slightest personal afronts and Florida would be the Wild West with walkers and blood pressure medication. Didn't happen, but I guess that must be the exception that proves the rule though..

Being able to posses a gun does not give anyone the right to use it. Once again, you prove nothing.

According to the government 70 million people have tried marijuana just once. That means according to your bullshit statistic there should be roughly 1,750,000,000 raving drug crazed lunatics in this country at least, which I think illustrates how full of it you are because I think that's more than our actual population..

Once again you run your mouth and put words I did not say into it. I never said anything about people who tried marijuana once, as a matter of fact, I admited that I had done it when I was younger also. How many times have I pointed out which drugs I am against. Give it a break.

Reading comprehension or presumtuouisness once more. Perhaps you haven't actually read my posts but I did mention quite some time ago that I had put some time in as an activist on this issue..

Evidently things didn't go your way and now all you do is talk **** in a bodybuilding forum. I've read more of your posts than I care to.

Look up the Paz case from California. On a bad drug tip, and disregarding little things like the Fourth Ammendment and **** like that, a SWAT team of jackbooted Rambo wanna bes busted into some grandfather's house, shot him dead, confiscated his life savings and then, after they realized their mistake and found no drugs, still tried to keep the money. To date I don't think anyone has been dismissed from the police or God forbid charged with his murder. Read further and you'll find while extreme cases like this aren't the norm, they are by no means isolated incidents and are in fact the normative trend..

They are isolated incidents. Just how common are they mr. genius? You quote one case as it is the norm.

At what point would I be justified in condemning the enforcer of a bad law along with the maker? How many millions of lives have to be destroyed, how many kids shot, how much property confiscated, how many of our rights eroded or outright trashed and how many people have to be in prison on BS charges before I get to call them for what they are, Scum? You have no problem calling all drug users scum even though you sometimes admit not all of them are causing problems for other people. So I have no problem with calling drug warriors scum either and offerring a blanket condemnation of all of them as such, and to be blunt I think I can and have made a far better case for my view than you have for yours.

You don't care about kids, so what do you care? Read your previous posts genius. You have not done a thing. Drugs are still illegal and all you have done is run your mouth.

 

[Whiskey Steve]

Delta...
So you can honestly say prohibition works?


read my post #117 (prohibition does NOTHING in terms of the publics access to these substances)

 

[BigVrunga]

I think there are allot of people that would try drugs if they were legal.

I agree with you. But I also think that if the government focused on educating kids about drugs in an honest way and teaching people responsibility, they would be able to make the right decision.

Right now, what do you hear all over the airwaves and in classrooms about marijuana? That it makes you kill your friends, run over cyclists, lose your job, become a bum, go crazy, etc. A kid tries pot and realizes "Holy **** - they lied to me!" and then automatically assumes that its OK to try other drugs as well. Marijuana isnt a gateway drug, the government turned it into one by demonizing an innocuous plant.

Keep on telling kids 'Drugs are Bad mm'kay?" and they'll keep being curious. That's what leads to addictions and problems. You've got the government on one side saying saying all drugs are evil, and then you've got some anti-prohibition people saying that drugs are great for everybody. In fact, drugs are powerful chemicals that should be respected and non taken lightly.

I also believe that there are people that would kill someone if it was legal, but don't because they fear the consequences. The amount of road rage that goes on today is ridiculous. If it was legal to kill people, you would see people dying in the streets everyday. For being in front of someone going slow.

No doubt, although I cant really draw the same paralell between drug use and road rage. Personally,I think any asshole that gets out his car to berate an old lady should be locked up for a few days to cool him off.

Same with drugs. They would try them, and maybe like the feeling, and before you know it, they would be doing whatever it takes to stay high. For every one of you out there that seems to think you can do your drugs WHILE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY or NOT BEHAVING SO RECKLESSLY AS TO MAKE SUCH HARM LIKELY, there will be twenty five that do end up hurting someone, stealing, or behaving recklessly. Not everyone is the genius that you think you are.

If the government one day just up and said "**** it! Drug war is over, have at it!!" You'd probably see an upsurge in use/abuse for a few years because most people dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. Look at all the young guys pounding SuperDrol like its PezCandy..and why? Because when they were curious about anabolic drug use, all they had was "Steroids are The DEVIL!!" from their school and government and some jackoff in their gym that's packed to the rim with brotelligence.

The truth is there, if you want to look for it. But most people are pretty lazy and I think American's in generally are moving toward a mentality where they want ridiculously fast results and dont want to take responsibility for anything they do.

Maybe we should make drugs legal all at once, and then cut off health care for drug-abuse cases. Within a few years the genes that proliferate asshole behavior would be out of our society and we could move on.

It isn't my job to evaluate every law on the books and decide if they are perfect. You can hold me responsible for enforcing the laws, and I'll hold you responsible for talking about how they should be changed, but not doing a damn thing to change them except bashing the enforcer.

Im not bashing you Delta. Like I said I respect your position although I may not agree with it. CDB, while I do agree with a lot that you have to say on this issue, if it wasnt for guys like Delta enforcing all the laws it wouldnt be a very safe place to live. He doesnt make those rules. I dont think his his job to to consider the nation-wide social disasters that prohibition has created everytime he goes to make a bust. He sees a crackhead robing a store, he arrests him. That crackhead may be the end result of decades of black-market drugtrading and social degradation, but what else is he supposed to do? Its his job to enforce the laws that our society has made, and someone has to do that. You can't possibly belive if there were total anarchy that the US would be a better place. A cop can't decide what law he feels is right and wrong...its his job to enforce them all regardless.

CDB:
I don't know how you can offer the slightest amount of respect to someone who supports that kind of thinking. It is so disgusting, so opposed to anything and everything this country is supposed to be about, so destructive that I can't even believe it's still the dominant mode of thinking.

Delta:
I can tell from your tone in all your replies that you really enjoy talking trash to someone on the other side. That's cool. There is a big difference between voicing your opinion and trashing someone personally because they don't agree with you. I doubt you are that vocal in the real world. I meet very few that are.

Delta has a valid point here in that most people who would like to see and end to prohibition keep their views private. For one, its political suicide,and two - most people who choose to use drugs responsibly know enough to stay out of the line of fire. A pro-drug activist draws attention to himself, and that's not what you'd want to do if you have a pot plant in your closet or a fridge full of 1-test. I can't see many people who use a drug like cannabis infrequently and responsibly putting their jobs, families, and lives on the line so they can make themselves heard. Its a catch-22.

BV

 

[brogers]

At what point would I be justified in condemning the enforcer of a bad law along with the maker? How many millions of lives have to be destroyed, how many kids shot, how much property confiscated, how many of our rights eroded or outright trashed and how many people have to be in prison on BS charges before I get to call them for what they are, Scum? You have no problem calling all drug users scum even though you sometimes admit not all of them are causing problems for other people. So I have no problem with calling drug warriors scum either and offerring a blanket condemnation of all of them as such, and to be blunt I think I can and have made a far better case for my view than you have for yours.

Couldn't have said it better, "I'm just doing my job" doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

 

[BigVrunga]

And guys, again this discussion is deteriorating into name calling and insults. If we can't keep it civil, Im going to close the thread.

BV

 

[jarhead]

Couldn't have said it better, "I'm just doing my job" doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

I would like to point out that doing his job doesn't mean he deserves all of what's been directed at him. Let me state that I am firmly against the "drug war" and agree with pretty much all you guys have said. But as a Marine, I'm against the war, but if I got called to duty in Iraq, guess what- I'm going. Because he has the job he has, it's his duty to uphold the laws( again, many of which I disagree with). If he failed in this, THEN he'd be failing at his responsibilities,because he believes in what he does and this is America, so let him. It's easy to say how he should do his job when it's not your kids food, your cashflow, and your morals at risk. We may not agree with him, but trashing the guy on a website just takes away from the good points you guys have made. Nevermind the fact that his job isn't entirley about the drug war. He's risking his life in other areas of the law as well. Like I said, I don't agree at all with the drug war, but I can respect a guy for risking his life for what he believes in. Just my 2 cents.

 

[BigVrunga]

I would like to point out that doing his job doesn't mean he deserves all of what's been directed at him. Let me state that I am firmly against the "drug war" and agree with pretty much all you guys have said. But as a Marine, I'm against the war, but if I got called to duty in Iraq, guess what- I'm going. Because he has the job he has, it's his duty to uphold the laws( again, many of which I disagree with). If he failed in this, THEN he'd be failing at his responsibilities,because he believes in what he does and this is America, so let him. It's easy to say how he should do his job when it's not your kids food, your cashflow, and your morals at risk. We may not agree with him, but trashing the guy on a website just takes away from the good points you guys have made. Nevermind the fact that his job isn't entirley about the drug war. He's risking his life in other areas of the law as well. Like I said, I don't agree at all with the drug war, but I can respect a guy for risking his life for what he believes in. Just my 2 cents.

Well said jarhead, my thoughts exactly

 

[brogers]

I'm pretty sick of hearing how dangerous being a cop is, and how they are "putting their life on the line."

I was a construction worker over the summer, and over twice as likely to die on the job than a police officer, so can we please stop this bullshitting.

Other more dangerous jobs: Taxi cab driver(almost 3x more likely to die), Roofer, Fisherman, Lumberjack, pilot, truck driver, farm worker.

 

[jarhead]

I'm pretty sick of hearing how dangerous being a cop is, and how they are "putting their life on the line."

I was a construction worker over the summer, and over twice as likely to die on the job than a police officer, so can we please stop this bullshitting.

Other more dangerous jobs: Taxi cab driver(almost 3x more likely to die), Roofer, Fisherman, Lumberjack, pilot, truck driver, farm worker.

Great. Noone said it was the most dangerous job on earth. What's your point? Actually, that is a pretty ignorant statement. If those jobs you mentioned get killed on the job, it's because of an accident for the most part, not at the hand of another person. Either way,what you have said in no way takes away from the risks a policeman, fireman, Marine, etc. take. Not to mention your "statistics" are faulty. There are more people in most of the occupations you mentioned than police officers. There are more of them to get killed.

 

[brogers]

Great. Noone said it was the most dangerous job on earth. What's your point? Actually, that is a pretty ignorant statement. If those jobs you mentioned get killed on the job, it's because of an accident for the most part, not at the hand of another person. Either way,what you have said in no way takes away from the risks a policeman, fireman, Marine, etc. take. Not to mention your "statistics" are faulty. There are more people in most of the occupations you mentioned than police officers. There are more of them to get killed.

Ignorant? It's pretty ignorant to say a cop is "putting his life on the line," which is implying that millions of American's aren't putting "their life on the line" at their jobs, or ****, even driving a car! I just don't want to hear that emotional appeal anymore "oh they are putting their lives on the line so cut them some slack" ... spare me the bs.

BTW the stats are based on fatality rate, not sheer numbers, I don't know how that can be "faulty."

 

[jarhead]

Ignorant? It's pretty ignorant to say a cop is "putting his life on the line," which is implying that millions of American's aren't putting "their life on the line" at their jobs, or ****, even driving a car! I just don't want to hear that emotional appeal anymore "oh they are putting their lives on the line so cut them some slack" ... spare me the bs.

BTW the stats are based on fatality rate, not sheer numbers, I don't know how that can be "faulty."

You are fighting with yourself. I don't recall ever saying other jobs aren't risking their lives. How is simply saying cops put their lifes on the line implying other people don't as well? It's not an emotional appeal, it's just a fact . Get over it. I used it in the context of " I can respect anyone who risks their life for what they believe in". What do you not understand about that?

 

[CDB]

Being able to posses a gun does not give anyone the right to use it. Once again, you prove nothing.

Except that you miss the point, which by now shouldn't surprise me. When someone does use a gun to rob a store, it is not the gun's fault. When someone does use a gun to murder someone, it is not the gun's fault. A gun is an innanimate object, it has no moral or ethical standing on its own. And despite the fact that some people who own guns do not use and care for them responsibly, and despite the fact that this can result in the injury and death of others, we are not locking up all gun users. Because it is their responsibility to use those weapons appropriately so that no one else is hurt or threatened. The same goes for drugs, and it would be just as stupid to argue that a gun you own should taken away from you, or that you should be locked up because some idiot robbed a store with the same model firearm that you own, as it is to argue that because some idiot destroys his life with a drug or drives under the influence and destroys some else's life, that all users of that drug should be thrown in prison.

Once again you run your mouth and put words I did not say into it. I never said anything about people who tried marijuana once, as a matter of fact, I admited that I had done it when I was younger also. How many times have I pointed out which drugs I am against. Give it a break.

Do you even read what you write at all? Your direct quote, once more:

For every one of you out there that seems to think you can do your drugs WHILE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY or NOT BEHAVING SO RECKLESSLY AS TO MAKE SUCH HARM LIKELY, there will be twenty five that do end up hurting someone, stealing, or behaving recklessly.

I would assume trying marijuana once and never touching it again would qualify as responsible use even to the most idiotic drug warrior, which means, once more by your claimed version of reality, we should have at least 1,750,000,000 raving lunatic drug users out there. If you honestly believe that 25 to 1 ratio about any drug, once more you're so disconnected from reality the only point of responding is to point that out to people who might happen upon it and give it any credibility. I know BV said be respectful, but this it's hard to show respect to something so blatantly stupid like this claim.

Evidently things didn't go your way and now all you do is talk **** in a bodybuilding forum. I've read more of your posts than I care to.

Please explain what you mean? Things didn't go my way? In this argument? Once more, a serious disconnection from reality pal. Take a course in logic and rhetoric and get back to me. In my personal life perhaps? Seeing as you know jack **** about me I guess I'd have to reserve judgement about that. It is typical for your ilk to resort to personal attacks. I've lobbed a few myself, but they've always at least been backed by logic and when I've attacked it's been because I find your ideology on this issue disgusting. Your aguments and ideas I have dealt with on their own terms. As far as talking **** on message boards, you're here too genius.

Didn't go my way... I also notice the vagueness of your insults. Mine have been on point: I think those who still support and enforce prohibition at this point at least have a screw loose and at the extreme are worth less than pond scum. It is a direct insult with a reason. Your's well they're vague, and I have to wonder why. Is it because you know a direct attack on the point of view I've expressed will only end up with you looking like a bit of a clown? Probably.

They are isolated incidents. Just how common are they mr. genius? You quote one case as it is the norm.

Then let us quote a continuous large scale outrage going on, medical marijuana. From the government's own IOM Report on the subject:

Conclusion: Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation; smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances. Recommendation: Clinical trials of cannabinoid drugs for symptom management should be conducted with the goal of developing rapid-onset, reliable, and safe delivery systems.
Recommendation: Clinical trials of marijuana use for medical purposes should be conducted under the following limited circumstances: trials should involve only short-term marijuana use (less than six months), should be conducted in patients with conditions for which there is reasonable expectation of efficacy, should be approved by institutional review boards, and should collect data about efficacy.
Recommendation: Short-term use of smoked marijuana (less than six months) for patients with debilitating symptoms (such as intractable pain or vomiting) must meet the following conditions:

• failure of all approved medications to provide relief has been documented,
• the symptoms can reasonably be expected to be relieved by rapid-onset cannabinoid drugs,
• such treatment is administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows for assessment of treatment effectiveness, and
• involves an oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use.

I guess the fact that the government is still locking up grandmothers in wheelchairs and depriving terminally ill people of a plant that might ease their sufferring even when they meet the above criuteria doesn't count as an outrage to you. I suppose documented cases of cancer patients in wheel chairs being hauled off the prison for possession don't qualify as outrages in your eyes. Look up the specific instances yourself, reports are all over the internet. It's a wonderful tool use it to do some research for once.

And as far as Paz goes, is one dead grandfather a reasonable trade in your eyes, or is it just that his last name was Paz that makes it reasonable? Would you be so glib about it if it was your kid or your wife or your mother or your father that got gunned down by a SWAT team on a bad tip? would the accident be excusable then in the larger picture of fighting the good fight?

You don't care about kids, so what do you care? Read your previous posts genius. You have not done a thing. Drugs are still illegal and all you have done is run your mouth.

Ah I see, so I should snap my fingers and change the laws. I'll give David Copperfield a call, I'm sure h could help with that one. I'd organize some of the nonviolent excons, but oh yeah, they're still in prison because their mandatory minimums mean they get stuck with 25 years while the kiddy slurper that shared a cell with them got 2 to 6, and then got let go early on good behavior and because they needed room for a hippie they caught with a few too many doses of acid at a Phish concert. And the ones who are out can't vote because disenfranchisement laws have taken that right away from them, which makes them useless politically. You really just don't know, do you? You honestly don't know what's been done in the name of the war on drugs. It's amazing but apparently true.

I put in years on this issue, talking to local and state politicians, organizing protests, helping mm patients get hook ups. I have attacked you, I'll admit that, but all my attacks are based soley on views you have expressed here. If you wish to call me scum because of my views go right ahead, I could care less. But you do not have a clue who I am or what I have done beyond that, so I can only guess such broad reaching insults really mean you are out of things to say, which I'll take as a tacit admission that you're full of it and just can't admit it like a man. I on the other hand do know what you think of this issue and what you have said about this issue, and that alone is enough in my eyes to condemn you and those like you, more than any drug user, as what's truly wrong with this country.

 

[CDB]

Delta has a valid point here in that most people who would like to see and end to prohibition keep their views private.

I have no political aims, I spent a few years as a very active local and state activist. I met personaly with that prick Schumer, D'Mato, and uncountable local politicians. Judges, county supervisors, sherifs. The fact that I knew a lot of them through my father gave me an in and made me very valuable to the organization I was a part of.

I don't drink often, or do drugs often, but I like to have the option if I'm in the mood. I'm more often than not the designated driver for friends, I've driven literally hours in my fucking pajamas to pick people up rather than let them get on the road even mildy impaired. I walked the campus with student policing squads to protect women from rapists and people from muggers in general through my entire college career, and in my current job I work my ass off just to get employers to open their horizons just a bit and perhaps hire someone who needs a break, a single mother, a blind person, a deaf person who can still do the job. A guy with a family who just got laid off, a disabled person, people with no arms or legs. I've got to search these people out and their organizations, in every state of this fucking union and then convince our clients they're worth hiring. Otherwise they'd stick an ad in the paper and take the first lilly white asshole with a degree who came their way. And yes, some of the orgs I get are trying to help recovering drug addicts.

Does that not command a bit of respect or is it just people who lock up nonviolent drug users in the course of also enforcing the laws that make sense who get the nod? I can't think of one life I've destroyed in my life. Have you destroyed anyone's life? I'm sure there are people who perhaps wouldn't be happy to see me, and perhaps it's the same for you.

Know anyone whose life was destroyed by a nonviolent drug charge on their record? Who spent a ridiculous time in prison for buying or selling? I do, and it was someone like Delta who did that. It was someone like Delta who arrested them, put them on trial and sentenced them. Just following orders. And what point, how many ruined lives do I have to see and do there have to be before the blame finally can be put on people like that, when the respect can be dropped and people who are tired of this **** can say , "Enough is enough"? It's not a rhetorical question, when does the enforcer start bearing some of the responsibility for the harm the law causes? A uniform of any kind doesn't excuse anyone from having to use their conscience or their brain in my opinion. Others can disagree, I've no problem with that. That's a point of ethics and morality. But this one is mine to hold on to.

 

[CDB]

I would like to point out that doing his job doesn't mean he deserves all of what's been directed at him. Let me state that I am firmly against the "drug war" and agree with pretty much all you guys have said. But as a Marine, I'm against the war, but if I got called to duty in Iraq, guess what- I'm going. Because he has the job he has, it's his duty to uphold the laws( again, many of which I disagree with). If he failed in this, THEN he'd be failing at his responsibilities,because he believes in what he does and this is America, so let him. It's easy to say how he should do his job when it's not your kids food, your cashflow, and your morals at risk. We may not agree with him, but trashing the guy on a website just takes away from the good points you guys have made. Nevermind the fact that his job isn't entirley about the drug war. He's risking his life in other areas of the law as well. Like I said, I don't agree at all with the drug war, but I can respect a guy for risking his life for what he believes in. Just my 2 cents.

Perhaps true. I've trashed my fair share in life, because as you can tell I'm pretty passionate on the issue. And as it stands because I'm a lot bigger than most people and look threatening, I get away with it. But I agree with Brogers. I get that Marines and other people disagree and like I wrote to BV, it's a point of ethics I can't push beyond the point of saying it's my opinion that everyone is responsible for what they do personally, whether it was an order or not, whether it was their job or not. I've not been on firing line of a war, but I have walked away from jobs when I just wouldn't do things that I thought were wrong. One of my last employers had a thing where they conned retired old widows into buying into a private unemployment insurance policy. Sure it worked and it had other features, but it wasn't worth it to these people. But sell sell sell was their motto. I walked. I know it would not be so easy to make such a decision of conscience in a war zone or perhaps even in the precinct, but within the bounds and circumstances I've been in, I have practiced what I preach.

 

[CDB]

Ignorant? It's pretty ignorant to say a cop is "putting his life on the line," which is implying that millions of American's aren't putting "their life on the line" at their jobs, or ****, even driving a car! I just don't want to hear that emotional appeal anymore "oh they are putting their lives on the line so cut them some slack" ... spare me the bs.

BTW the stats are based on fatality rate, not sheer numbers, I don't know how that can be "faulty."

I agree to a point. In the end though cops are the ones who are out there with their lives on the line, at whatever fatality rate, for the express purpose of keeping other people safe. When they die it'll be from a knife or a drunk running them down, or a gunshot. That many of the laws they enforce cause more problems for them than they solve I have no doubt, and in my private conversations with most cops they admit drug laws at least as currently set up are a waste of their time. I just wish more of them would speak out, but like BV said it's career/political suicide to not toe the line along with everyone else.

It hilarious, but you would probably get in more trouble as a cop for suggesting that perhaps not all drug users belong in prison that you would if you suggested they should all get the death penalty on a first offense. In that kind of atmosphere, well not much is possible. I did try and talk reasonably with Delta, but Mr. The Rules are the Rules, I'm a Veteran, Who are You?, They Don't Mean That Much to Me So It's Okay They're In Prison, etc. Well, reasonableness as I think you can see is not possible with a person who has knowingly or unknowingly let go of all reason.

 

[delta314]

The bottom line is this;
1. I can't change the laws.
2. Evidently, you can't either.
3. I can't enforce only the laws I totaly agree with. I have an obligation to uphold all the laws, or quit. I will not quit.
4. Even though you (CDB) like to attack me personally for my views, there are somethings that you have said that I could agree with, (but won't publicly), but be rest assured, how ever big and intimidating you are/think you are, you cannot and never will be able to intimidate me. I'm big too.
5. The war on drugs will continue. I just don't see it ending anytime soon. I hope that any of you that do use, (WHILE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY or NOT BEHAVING SO RECKLESSLY AS TO MAKE SUCH HARM LIKELY,) Do not become caught up in the system. You can believe that or not, I don't really care.
6. I think I'm done with this thread.

 

[delta314]

Delta...
So you can honestly say prohibition works?


read my post #117 (prohibition does NOTHING in terms of the publics access to these substances)

Does it keep it off the streets, I have to say no. But it does make it a little harder for those not caught up in it to just get something they have never used before and try it. There are reputable liquor stores that would not sell to minors, and there the ones that do. If drugs were legal, it would be the same thing. They would still get inot the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

 

[CDB]

The bottom line is this;
1. I can't change the laws.

If you can't, how am I or anyone else reasonably supposed to be able to do so? If you don't want them changed that's another matter.

3. I can't enforce only the laws I totaly agree with. I have an obligation to uphold all the laws, or quit. I will not quit.

That leaves us with a dilema, where apparently we have to accept the greater and ever increasing war up to and perhaps including the point where it literally does tear our entire society apart. That's not a reality I can live with, so it's once I will always work and speak against, and try to stop from coming into being.

4. Even though you (CDB) like to attack me personally for my views, there are somethings that you have said that I could agree with, (but won't publicly), but be rest assured, how ever big and intimidating you are/think you are, you cannot and never will be able to intimidate me. I'm big too.

Me being big has nothing to do with this debate, but your assertion that I like "mouthing off" on message boards. I have a life and job, same as most here do I'd say, and I have people who are dependent on me to a point. The assumption that because I think drugs should be legal somehow makes me a loud mouth, log cabin hippy with a bong collection and no responsibilities or duties, and therefore no understanding of what those imply, is off base. I do my share of civil and uncivil debate in real life as well and I enjoy it.

Have I attacked you personally? Yes. I've admitted as much, I find even the "I might sort of agree but it won't change anyway so deal with it" view in this post disturbing. I can't be complacent like that when people's lives are being ripped apart, and many of them undeservedly. I can't look at a sex offender website and simply accept the fact that there are nonviolent offenders of marijuana laws getting longer sentences than some of those guys who have raped a bunch of kids. And if I attack someone, hell anyone who takes even just a complacent attitude toward such a situation, it's because I can't simply sit around and here/read that kind of attitude expressed towards blatant injustice and not do anything to counter it, even if it is something as simple as posting a dissenting view on a body building forum.

Like I said, call me scum for my beliefs here, you're more than welcome. I even like when debates go beyond 'spirited' like that sometimes. It lets me flex my vocabulary and metaphorical insult abilities. But kindly stop assuming you're the only one of the two of us who's paid any dues or put in any time worth a damn, or whose experience is the only one worth taking into account. I've more than acknowledged some people use drugs to totally **** their lives up, as is your experience. You've yet to give anything but a grudging acknowledgement to the fact that in my experience there are also a lot of people who don't **** their lives up with drugs, who can and do act and behave responsbibly and live otherwise full and productive lives, and even when you acknowledge they exist somehow you still think they deserve to be in prison, at least up until this post where at least you said you "hope" the laws don't get them. Very magnanimous of you. I admit, this view is frightening and perhaps it is beyond my mental capacity to understand why otherwise peaceful, nonthreatening citizens deserve to be locked up.

Maybe it's because that means the government can lock anyone up it chooses. Hell, Jews, Christians, Blacks, Spics, people with blonde hair, people who don't hold the door open for old ladies, mormons, why restrict the incarceration of the unpleasant, the undesirable and the otherwise aesthetically offensive? Because if the classic standard of whether or not a person's actions harm someone else or their property, or are likely to cause harm is no longer applicable, apparently no thought or justification of the law whatsoever by the law makers or the enforcers ever has to be given as to whether or not the law is ethical, moral or just, before they start decimating entire populations and locking up millions of people. Perhaps there's a higher moral or ethical standard at work here, but I'll be damned if I can see it.

5. The war on drugs will continue. I just don't see it ending anytime soon. I hope that any of you that do use, (WHILE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY or NOT BEHAVING SO RECKLESSLY AS TO MAKE SUCH HARM LIKELY,) Do not become caught up in the system. You can believe that or not, I don't really care.

To my knowledge that's the first time in this whole thread you've expressed that view, that people who do use under those qualifiers do not belong in prison. As such I offer you the same thoughts, I hope such never happens to any of yours or yourself. But should a drug dealer gun you or a loved one down, I might also hope it would pass through your mind as you/they were being rushed to the hospital that, were the drugs sold by Merk, Bayer, Pfizer, etc., on an RX or even through a government distribution network, chances are you wouldn't have had to deal with the bullets. The drug war also makes lives hell for cops in many ways, which is another point which we haven't addressed here but is another reason why it should be repealed in my opinion. I see no good coming out of this for anyone, even people who just want to lock up all drug users for the fun of it, because on balance their lives and their freedom will be less safe whether they know it or not.

6. I think I'm done with this thread.

And despite the hot headedness on both sides, I've enjoyed all of it.

 

[CDB]

Does it keep it off the streets, I have to say no. But it does make it a little harder for those not caught up in it to just get something they have never used before and try it. There are reputable liquor stores that would not sell to minors, and there the ones that do. If drugs were legal, it would be the same thing. They would still get inot the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

Small point, but that means prohibition is completely ineffective even in your own view. The liquor stores that don't sell to kids don't do so because they are run by ethical, moral, law abiding citizens. By making other drugs illegal you are guaranteeing that those dealing those drugs are a hell of a lot less likely to be ethical, moral, law abiding citizens. I don't see how that in any way limits access to kids. It would seem the net effect would be greater access in fact.

By making the manufacture, distribution and sale of those substances illegal you are by nature and definition guaranteeing that the less ethical, moral and law abiding among us will be that much more involved at every step of the way. And a drug that might otherwise have been manufactured in a plant subject to legal quality controls and safety standards, and sold by a store owner who adibided by the law of age restrictions, is now being cooked up in some hick's basement and sold on the street by someone who by the nature of his business is a default law breaker, so what's one more law broken to him? And whether it's liquor, weed, heroin, crack or meth, all any kid really needs is to know where to go and who to talk to. The prohibition makes it just that much more likely that when he does find the 'store,' he'll be more likely to get what he needs, because the proprietor is going to be that much more likely to be the type of person who'll supply him.

Or, to go leftist for a minute and make posters like the Experiement happy, the legal and free market is the profit incentive plus a few common sense restrictions on how it can be earned. The black market is the profit incentive with no restrictions on how it can be earned, because since the whole market is illegal and the restrictions are so extreme and ridiculous, all those involved simply ignore the restrictions.

Food for thought.