|
Houston is correct: Prohibition (1) doesn't work, and (2) causes crime.
I still don't see the link between drug cartels and illegal immigrants the OP was hand-wringing about.
The connection is there, but it's peripheral. Many of the guys down there who run dope do side business as coyotes, as it isn't stepping on the higher ups in the dope game's shoes, and it's a nice low six figure income they don't have to split with La Familia. I did a little transport work on the side, $1.5k a head from H-town to Atlanta. I used the same routes (and the guys crossing the border did as well) I used when I delivered product, as they were already established to be enforcement light.
Here's the deal for me on the issue: We have laws on the books. Either enforce them or change them, but don't, for the love of the rule of law, ignore them. 99% of the people I have come in contact who came across illegally are really good people trying to do the best for them and theirs. I have zero gripe with them coming here for a better life. But, as long as the law is what it is, they're technically criminals.
I went to prison for my crime. I knew I was breaking the law. I would prefer that drugs were legalized, but they were illegal when I did what I did.
I feel the same way about the border situation. I think there should be a solid and generous guest worker program, which would ensure the rights of migrant or seasonal workers and protect citizens from the problems that arise from an illegal population (auto insurance and the like). But, under the current law, they are here, by and large, illegally, and they know that. So, really I have little sympathy as long as the Feds chose to ignore the situation, and states are forced to pass laws giving their law enforcement the same rights of engagement as the Feds.
Bottom line for me, work your congressperson to change the law or quit b*%$%ing.
Edit: The last sentence is a general statement and not directed at anyone.
I wonder what the Cynics in Ancient Greece would say about our Democracy?
Nothing. I doubt they could stop laughing.
Democracy's a scam, anyway.
I don't want to sound like a douche, but if your friends have ruined their lives using non-addictive drugs, then that's a matter of lack of willpower, not the drugs. They could have done the same thing with alcohol...which is addictive and which I have experience with through my father being addicted.
I have to agree here: We're already at a point where you can legally purchase substances that can f@!& you up big time.
Most western nations already allow cigarettes and alcohol. Both can be addictive, and both can wreck your health.
I could get out right now, walk a hundred metres, and buy enough alcohol to kill myself. I don't need a prescription, I don't need to explain myself, I just need the money. I think I have enough in my wallet right now, and I don't carry much cash around.
Everyone who doesn't know anyone who got messed up by either alcohol or cigarettes probably leads a charmed life.
I don't know too much about the effects of the so-called soft drugs and how it can be used without being abused, but I do know that there is already legal stuff you can freely buy that can be very, very harmful.
I don't think that the facts and speculations about how harmful a substance is or can be are the only reasons for the legal status of all the stuff that is being discussed here.
|
Yes there will be a point where the "war on drugs" will be worse then the drugs. I however disagree that we have reached that point. I have seen too many friends whose lives have gone to rot because of so-called "soft drugs" to ever agree with that opinion.I don't want to sound like a douche, but if your friends have ruined their lives using non-addictive drugs, then that's a matter of lack of willpower, not the drugs. They could have done the same thing with alcohol...which is addictive and which I have experience with through my father being addicted.
Now if they have a ruined life due to drug convictions well...you kinda made the argument for BT and myself.
What do you call non addicting?
and not sounding like one......... to late.
No I am not making the argument for you. You just pick and choose what to listen to.
In point of fact the original question wasn't addressed to you anyway.
|
|
Yes there will be a point where the "war on drugs" will be worse then the drugs. I however disagree that we have reached that point. I have seen too many friends whose lives have gone to rot because of so-called "soft drugs" to ever agree with that opinion.I don't want to sound like a douche, but if your friends have ruined their lives using non-addictive drugs, then that's a matter of lack of willpower, not the drugs. They could have done the same thing with alcohol...which is addictive and which I have experience with through my father being addicted.
Now if they have a ruined life due to drug convictions well...you kinda made the argument for BT and myself.
What do you call non addicting?
and not sounding like one......... to late.
No I am not making the argument for you. You just pick and choose what to listen to.
In point of fact the original question wasn't addressed to you anyway.
It has been proven that soft drugs like MJ are not physically addictive. Some people who have less than stellar will power can technically become mentally addicted to what would be considered non-addictive substances. Alcohol, OTOH, has been proven to be physically addictive so has double the problems of MJ...yet it's still illegal. You can't OD on weed, you aren't going to get to the point where you'll suck...offer sexual favors to another person of the same gender in exchange for it, etc. Were it not for the demonization it has received at the hands of the federal government and the resultant problems, weed would be one of the most innocuous substances on the planet.
And how is that too late? IIRC, this is the only douchey comment I have made so far (on this thread at least).
|
|
The government isn't taking care of anyone but prison guards, drug "taskforces" and prosecuting attorneys. If you think rehabilitation happens in prisons, I invite you to experience the seven years I spent in prison (and Federal prison is 1000% better than just about any state joint) and tell me with a straight face the government "helped" you.
And, yes, most of the people in with me were small time dealers supporting a habit. They would have been better served by rehab than five years on ice.
I am not sure the government is taking care of much of anything to be honest. Since my original question was preempted and lost in the chatter. What do you,meaning Houstonderek, think is a more likely solution? Since, and I repeat myself here, you have more practical experience in this, then I, or I would guess just about anyone else on these boards would have. I know you feel MJ laws should be adjusted, do you think it should be legal? How do you feel, Houstonderek, this would affect the drug trade? Will it decrease the drug cartels profits and put them out of business as others, while not coming out right and saying it but otherwise insinuating that it would? Or would they change to other means to gain illicit money?
|
|
Yes there will be a point where the "war on drugs" will be worse then the drugs. I however disagree that we have reached that point. I have seen too many friends whose lives have gone to rot because of so-called "soft drugs" to ever agree with that opinion.I don't want to sound like a douche, but if your friends have ruined their lives using non-addictive drugs, then that's a matter of lack of willpower, not the drugs. They could have done the same thing with alcohol...which is addictive and which I have experience with through my father being addicted.
Now if they have a ruined life due to drug convictions well...you kinda made the argument for BT and myself.
What do you call non addicting?
and not sounding like one......... to late.
No I am not making the argument for you. You just pick and choose what to listen to.
In point of fact the original question wasn't addressed to you anyway.
It has been proven that soft drugs like MJ are not physically addictive. Some people who have less than stellar will power can technically become mentally addicted to what would be considered non-addictive substances. Alcohol, OTOH, has been proven to be physically addictive so has double the problems of MJ...yet it's still illegal. You can't OD on weed, you aren't going to get to the point where you'll suck...offer sexual favors to another person of the same gender in exchange for it, etc. Were it not for the demonization it has received at the hands of the federal government and the resultant problems, weed would be one of the most innocuous substances on the planet.
And how is that too late? IIRC, this is the only douchey comment I have made so far (on this thread at least).
An addiction is still an addiction. Mental or physical. According to some, a mental addiction is in fact physical because it can change how your brain thinks and reacts. I can understand that many people, I am not one of them, have the feeling that MJ is a harmless drug. From my experience I just can't agree.
Now, anyone care to tell us who the drug cartels are comprised of? Anyone care to take a guess? Anyone?
MexiCIAns?
CIAlombians?Venture Capitalists in the illicit agriculture and extortion business?
Corrupt PolitiCIAns?
|
|
An addiction is still an addiction. Mental or physical. According to some, a mental addiction is in fact physical because it can change how your brain thinks and reacts. I can understand that many people, I am not one of them, have the feeling that MJ is a harmless drug. From my experience I just can't agree.
I use the term mental addiction loosely and only because that is the accepted term. People like doing things that make them feel good, and they grow to like the good feeling anything provides. I would not call somebody who eats ice cream every day an addict any more than I would call somebody who smokes pot every day an addict.
|
|
It's because of things like this.
Closing a large section of park land to U.S. citizens, leaves it to drug and human traffickers.
This is expletive disgusting. Unless something is done, this shows that if you just up the violence enough, America will back down on it's own soil. Yeah, that's the image of a strong World Leading nation.I weep for America that was.
Since you got your information from Faux News, here's a press release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response.
Faux News is just that. Crap they make up. When I was in the navy, we would watch it just for laughs.
Surprise, surprise! Not only are they 4 years late, but they're both wrong and exaggerating details.
If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.
But why should it reduce the use of these other drugs. As was pointed out, alcohol and some other drugs are already legal, yet that doesn't stop people from using MJ or harder drugs. Legalizing MJ might not affect the use of those harder drugs. In fact it might increase the use as then MJ won't be a "bad boy" drug anymore.
|
|
But why should it reduce the use of these other drugs. As was pointed out, alcohol and some other drugs are already legal, yet that doesn't stop people from using MJ or harder drugs. Legalizing MJ might not affect the use of those harder drugs. In fact it might increase the use as then MJ won't be a "bad boy" drug anymore.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.
Well maybe because if they aren't spending an insane amount of money putting people with a sack of weed (and the people who sell them their sack) in prison they'll have money for what actually helps reduce drug use: rehab and treatment programs.
Look at alcohol prohibition for an example for what drug prohibition is getting us: organized crime (mafia/cartels), organized crime related murders, normal people being put into prison for something that in most cases doesn't affect anybody but themselves, etc. etc.
I mean hell, weed wasn't even legal til the 30's IIRC...after alcohol prohibition had ended. That's not even not learning from history, that's not learning from current f##!ing events.
But why should it reduce the use of these other drugs. As was pointed out, alcohol and some other drugs are already legal, yet that doesn't stop people from using MJ or harder drugs. Legalizing MJ might not affect the use of those harder drugs. In fact it might increase the use as then MJ won't be a "bad boy" drug anymore.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.Well maybe because if they aren't spending an insane amount of money putting people with a sack of weed (and the people who sell them their sack) in prison they'll have money for what actually helps reduce drug use: rehab and treatment programs.
Look at alcohol prohibition for an example for what drug prohibition is getting us: organized crime (mafia/cartels), organized crime related murders, normal people being put into prison for something that in most cases doesn't affect anybody but themselves, etc. etc.
I mean hell, weed wasn't even legal til the 30's IIRC...after alcohol prohibition had ended. That's not even not learning from history, that's not learning from current f*%*ing events.
But you don't need those rehab and treatment programs if people don't use those harder drugs in the first place. Why would legalizing MJ cause people not to use those harder drugs, that seems to be what you were suggesting.
Wow who urinated in your wheaties?
I wonder what the Cynics in Ancient Greece would say about our Democracy?Nothing. I doubt they could stop laughing.
Democracy's a scam, anyway.
Nothing. I just don't think democracy has ever really worked.
An addiction is still an addiction. Mental or physical. According to some, a mental addiction is in fact physical because it can change how your brain thinks and reacts. I...
Alright. Let's ban world of warcraft. It is definitely addictive (I know people I'd call addicted, and one guy I know was in rehab).
|
Yes there will be a point where the "war on drugs" will be worse then the drugs. I however disagree that we have reached that point. I have seen too many friends whose lives have gone to rot because of so-called "soft drugs" to ever agree with that opinion.I don't want to sound like a douche, but if your friends have ruined their lives using non-addictive drugs, then that's a matter of lack of willpower, not the drugs. They could have done the same thing with alcohol...which is addictive and which I have experience with through my father being addicted.
Now if they have a ruined life due to drug convictions well...you kinda made the argument for BT and myself.
What do you call non addicting?
and not sounding like one......... to late.
No I am not making the argument for you. You just pick and choose what to listen to.
In point of fact the original question wasn't addressed to you anyway.
It has been proven that soft drugs like MJ are not physically addictive. Some people who have less than stellar will power can technically become mentally addicted to what would be considered non-addictive substances. Alcohol, OTOH, has been proven to be physically addictive so has double the problems of MJ...yet it's still illegal. You can't OD on weed, you aren't going to get to the point where you'll suck...offer sexual favors to another person of the same gender in exchange for it, etc. Were it not for the demonization it has received at the hands of the federal government and the resultant problems, weed would be one of the most innocuous substances on the planet.
And how is that too late? IIRC, this is the only douchey comment I have made so far (on this thread at least).
O god I can't believe I'm posting in a political thread but...... You are correct marijuana is not chemically addictive, however where THC sticks to your nerve endings for a short time and it slows the electrical signals in your brain and nervous system as a result it is very effective with dealing with stress. Now stress has become huge in our society and so has generalized anxiety disorder, reaching near epidemic levels. Point is marijuana does in fact help relieve stress for a time. But I do not endorse marijuana use because it does have negative side effects, antianxiolitics are much more effective over time. Hence the mental addiction I believe is likely a lot of the time a form of self medication. I also am not going to comment on the immigration debate, I have to many strong opinions and I'm not sure I'm qualified to weigh in on this debate.
|
|
But you don't need those rehab and treatment programs if people don't use those harder drugs in the first place. Why would legalizing MJ cause people not to use those harder drugs, that seems to be what you were suggesting.
People are going to do drugs no matter what. You know it, I know it. What you have to do is mitigate the consequences of that drug use--by legalizing the drugs which are (arguably) not harmful to the user and society at large. Through the increased treatment and rehab that will have funds available due to no longer pursuing marijuana arrests and convictions (not to mention taxes on MJ), you will be able to reduce the use of other drugs.
It's because of things like this.
Closing a large section of park land to U.S. citizens, leaves it to drug and human traffickers.
This is expletive disgusting. Unless something is done, this shows that if you just up the violence enough, America will back down on it's own soil. Yeah, that's the image of a strong World Leading nation.I weep for America that was.
Since you got your information from Faux News, here's a press release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response.
Faux News is just that. Crap they make up. When I was in the navy, we would watch it just for laughs.
I'm not seeing a date on this Media Advisory. Do we know a release date?
|
|
I'm not seeing a date on this Media Advisory. Do we know a release date?It's because of things like this.
Closing a large section of park land to U.S. citizens, leaves it to drug and human traffickers.
This is expletive disgusting. Unless something is done, this shows that if you just up the violence enough, America will back down on it's own soil. Yeah, that's the image of a strong World Leading nation.I weep for America that was.
Since you got your information from Faux News, here's a press release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response.
Faux News is just that. Crap they make up. When I was in the navy, we would watch it just for laughs.
the title of the pdf suggests 6/2010 but it doesnt say specifically.
Did anyone notice that both articles stated that the same size of land was closed?
3500 acres
Also, the FOX article stated the trek was 80 miles long but the fish and wildlife posting stated it was 3/4 of a mile in width (N-S). Hardly a rfutation.
Further, although the FWS posting stated that the closing was not a large portion of the park, it in no way states that it was not a large piece of land. Just that it was small compared to the rest of the park.
The FOX article had nothing to do with trying to argue that the size of the closing would be an impact upon the park. They were pointing out the violence occurring there. The FWS posting was refuting the thought of the available amount of land so that people would still consider it useable. Their post stated that violence had decreased but did not say it was safe enough to reopen. Take that as you will.
I really do not see how FOX was misleading on any account in that article. But, I guess that must be because I actually pay attention to what I read.
People are going to do drugs no matter what. You know it, I know it. What you have to do is mitigate the consequences of that drug use--by legalizing the drugs which are (arguably) not harmful to the user and society at large. Through the increased treatment and rehab that will have funds available due to no longer pursuing marijuana arrests and convictions (not to mention taxes on MJ), you will be able to reduce the use of other drugs.
Umm, drugs are bad. Mmmkay?
Umm, drugs are bad. Mmmkay?
Nooo! They're awesome! I must urge everyone to try them! They have no downsides - the part about them messing up your life is a lie propagated by stuffy old puritans (like that Mackey fella) who cannot stand the thought that somebody might be feeling good! They even sneak into bars and poison your drink so you throw up, because they don't want you to drink alcohol and have a great time!
Everyone who wants to stop buying into those oldsters' lies: I can set you up with a great, wholesome experience. You'll even get a free ride! Shiver, pesh, you name it!
I'm honest, so you can believe me!
@Mackey: Stop suppressing people!
I'm voting to legalize it in California in November...
An addiction is still an addiction. Mental or physical. According to some, a mental addiction is in fact physical because it can change how your brain thinks and reacts. I...Alright. Let's ban world of warcraft. It is definitely addictive (I know people I'd call addicted, and one guy I know was in rehab).
I've been up for banning that game for years...
But on the topic of addiction, yeah. You can get addicted to a lot of things. It is very rarely pretty.
O god I can't believe I'm posting in a political thread but...... You are correct marijuana is not chemically addictive, however where THC sticks to your nerve endings for a short time...Yes there will be a point where the "war on drugs" will be worse then the drugs. I however disagree that we have reached that point. I have seen too many friends whose lives have gone to rot because of so-called "soft drugs" to ever agree with that opinion.I don't want to sound like a douche, but if your friends have ruined their lives using non-addictive drugs, then that's a matter of lack of willpower, not the drugs. They could have done the same thing with alcohol...which is addictive and which I have experience with through my father being addicted.
Now if they have a ruined life due to drug convictions well...you kinda made the argument for BT and myself.
What do you call non addicting?
and not sounding like one......... to late.
No I am not making the argument for you. You just pick and choose what to listen to.
In point of fact the original question wasn't addressed to you anyway.
It has been proven that soft drugs like MJ are not physically addictive. Some people who have less than stellar will power can technically become mentally addicted to what would be considered non-addictive substances. Alcohol, OTOH, has been proven to be physically addictive so has double the problems of MJ...yet it's still illegal. You can't OD on weed, you aren't going to get to the point where you'll suck...offer sexual favors to another person of the same gender in exchange for it, etc. Were it not for the demonization it has received at the hands of the federal government and the resultant problems, weed would be one of the most innocuous substances on the planet.
And how is that too late? IIRC, this is the only douchey comment I have made so far (on this thread at least).
Hn. Good point. One could say that its addictive due to the short term physical change it causes.
|
|
so basically everything but alcohol or what's in the medicine chest.
This statement is actually false. The biggest gateway drugs are the two drugs that are legal: alcohol and tobacco. IIRC (and it's been awhile since i've read the study) something like 95% of the people who use marijuana use alcohol and tobacco first...people are MUCH less likely to use illegal drugs if they have not used alcohol/tobacco.
Seriously, where is this large number of people who have not 'tried' alcohol?
*raises hand* :)
Seriously, where is this large number of people who have not 'tried' alcohol?*raises hand* :)
Oh, you poor man!
Cool, now find me enough other individuals to make up a chunk of the population large enough to be statistically relevant and then we're on to something!:)Seriously, where is this large number of people who have not 'tried' alcohol?*raises hand* :)
I would point at my (extended) family, since 90% of them like myself do not drink any alcohol except for medicinal purposes, but I can't say which ones simply have never drank any alcohol (like me) and which ones may have actually tried it during their young/rebellious years.
Half the fun of responding to a thread like this is seeing the reactions of people to discovering that someone older than 21 not only doesn't drink regularly but never has had alcohol for a non-medicinal reason. It's hilarious. :D
I drink a little too much on occasion, then....
Smurfy good times.
Mmmmmm.....smurfffffff
Edit: Damnit! Always the chick!
Did you win yet?
|
|
all that speaks to is the ubiquitous nature of both alcohol and tobacco. Seriously, it doesn't make either one of them a gateway drug, so much as it says that people willing to do one unhealthy thing are more likely to do another unhealthy thing than someone unwilling to do either.
No, it speaks to the fact that government officials are willing to make sh!t up and/or disregard other things which could contribute to the "problem" that contradict the message they are trying to spread. I actually found the study, and while I was off on my 95% number, the numbers still support my original statement. Only 25% of those in the long-term study used MJ before using alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. The other 75% used alcohol and tobacco first.
It does in fact make alcohol and tobacco gateway drugs. They are drugs, are they not? And people tend to use them prior to using illegal drugs do they not? I fail to see how they don't meet the definition of being a "gateway drug."
all that speaks to is the ubiquitous nature of both alcohol and tobacco. Seriously, it doesn't make either one of them a gateway drug, so much as it says that people willing to do one unhealthy thing are more likely to do another unhealthy thing than someone unwilling to do either.No, it speaks to the fact that government officials are willing to make sh!t up and/or disregard other things which could contribute to the "problem" that contradict the message they are trying to spread. I actually found the study, and while I was off on my 95% number, the numbers still support my original statement. Only 25% of those in the long-term study used MJ before using alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. The other 75% used alcohol and tobacco first.
It does in fact make alcohol and tobacco gateway drugs. They are drugs, are they not? And people tend to use them prior to using illegal drugs do they not? I fail to see how they don't meet the definition of being a "gateway drug."
How many used ibuprofen or aspirin before using illegal drugs. Damn gateway drugs.
Did anyone notice that both articles stated that the same size of land was closed?
3500 acres
Also, the FOX article stated the trek was 80 miles long but the fish and wildlife posting stated it was 3/4 of a mile in width (N-S). Hardly a rfutation.
Further, although the FWS posting stated that the closing was not a large portion of the park, it in no way states that it was not a large piece of land. Just that it was small compared to the rest of the park.
The FOX article had nothing to do with trying to argue that the size of the closing would be an impact upon the park. They were pointing out the violence occurring there. The FWS posting was refuting the thought of the available amount of land so that people would still consider it useable. Their post stated that violence had decreased but did not say it was safe enough to reopen. Take that as you will.
I really do not see how FOX was misleading on any account in that article. But, I guess that must be because I actually pay attention to what I read.
The linked article has been revised.
Heavily.
Faux News originally claimed that the Obama administration "gave" the land back to Mexico. And the map they attached to the article made it seem larger than it was. They got called on it and reposted the article with some corrections but still trying to blame Obama. USA Today ran an article on it, calling Faux news out. Again. This is the 6 or 7 time they've had to change that article.
There's an email with the original article floating around. I deleted it when I checked into it.
The statement from the Wildlife Service was in response to the USA Today article.
Faux News: We make crap up so you don't have to.
And just exactly why am I supposed to take your word that this is true?
Clarification requests:
1. By chance, did you read the "original" on the FOX site or in the email?
2. By chance could you tell me the date of the USA Today article and if it was print or online or both?
3. @ wofthulhu/dark wolf: By chance, could you reread the article in your link and tell me if it is the same one you linked to?
Just looking for some answers...
This statement is actually false. The biggest gateway drugs are the two drugs that are legal: alcohol and tobacco. IIRC (and it's been awhile since i've read the study) something like 95% of the people who use marijuana use alcohol and tobacco first...
I won't go into the tobacco thing, so let's focus on alcohol.
Do you mean "used alcohol" or "abused alcohol". Because there is a huge difference.
Saying that 95% of the people who do drugs drank alcohol before is like saying 95% of all criminals eat bread, or all cases of gun rampages were committed by people who played first-person shooters.
Because a really, really large number of people "use" alcohol. And eat bread. And play those games. Only a very small number of these people take illegal drugs.