|
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
|
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
Most of the time John Stossel comes across as an idiotic tool, but I have to agree with him here. We waste billions of dollars tracking, arresting, and prosecuting (mostly) users. People should not get jail time for using...they should get rehab at worst. Of course the better solution would just be make it legal, tax it, and regulate it. We save money by not keeping the drug war going, and we make money off of taxation. It's a win-win.
|
|
Most of the time John Stossel comes across as an idiotic tool, but I have to agree with him here. We waste billions of dollars tracking, arresting, and prosecuting (mostly) users. People should not get jail time for using...they should get rehab at worst. Of course the better solution would just be make it legal, tax it, and regulate it. We save money by not keeping the drug war going, and we make money off of taxation. It's a win-win.Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
And see I feel the exact opposite. Oh well Just thought this is a better place for that sort of debate.
|
|
And see I feel the exact opposite. Oh well Just thought this is a better place for that sort of debate.Most of the time John Stossel comes across as an idiotic tool, but I have to agree with him here. We waste billions of dollars tracking, arresting, and prosecuting (mostly) users. People should not get jail time for using...they should get rehab at worst. Of course the better solution would just be make it legal, tax it, and regulate it. We save money by not keeping the drug war going, and we make money off of taxation. It's a win-win.Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
Why do you feel that drugs should be illegal? Why do you feel that currently illegal drugs are worse than the currently legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco) or easily obtainable prescription drugs (vicodin, xanax, valium)?
Drugs are bad. Mmkay.
You dont have to spend your life addicted to smack
Homeless on the streets giving...uh...manicures....for crack
Follow my plan and very soon you will say, its easy mmkay
|
|
Of course the better solution would just be make it legal, tax it, and regulate it.I'm for making drugs legal and taxation and regulation illegal.
That would be a better solution, however the only way to sell legalization will be to sell it as an additional tax revenue. Also if it isn't regulated we won't be any better off than we were before legalization.
Boys, I seriously doubt that Mr Garrison ever said: "Eat penguin s#&@, you ass spelunker".
Did you win yet?
I wun when Iza clocked dat sumbeetch on the bus! I am a muthafokka!
Of course the better solution would just be make it legal, tax it, and regulate it.I'm for making drugs legal and taxation and regulation illegal.
:)
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
I come at it from a different angle. I think it's wrong for the government to control what adults do with their own bodies.
I believe that prohibition is doing more harm than drugs, but the principal of self ownership is much more important to me than the pragmatic debate.
takes some meds
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
I come at it from a different angle. I think it's wrong for the government to control what adults do with their own bodies.
I believe that prohibition is doing more harm than drugs, but the principal of self ownership is much more important to me than the pragmatic debate.
It comes down to this for me as well. Despite my personal dislike for anything stronger than caffeine and choice to be rather straight-laced when it comes to what I will partake of.
(BT, I think you might be converting me to your political PoV at this rate....)
|
|
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
I come at it from a different angle. I think it's wrong for the government to control what adults do with their own bodies.
I believe that prohibition is doing more harm than drugs, but the principal of self ownership is much more important to me than the pragmatic debate.
I see this point of view as selfish and one living in denial. It basically means that you have no responsibility for your actions and feel that nothing you do has any effect on anyone else.
However thats just my opinion and thankfully we live where we all have the right and responsibility to have our own opinions.
I see this point of view as selfish and one living in denial. It basically means that you have no responsibility for your actions and feel that nothing you do has any effect on anyone else.
See, this confuses me. How do you get that? If the choice is yours, ALL responsibility is yours - so if you choose to partake of an intoxicating substance and become addicted, you've no one to blame but yourself. I'm curious how you get "no responsibility" out of that.
|
|
I see this point of view as selfish and one living in denial. It basically means that you have no responsibility for your actions and feel that nothing you do has any effect on anyone else.See, this confuses me. How do you get that? If the choice is yours, ALL responsibility is yours - so if you choose to partake of an intoxicating substance and become addicted, you've no one to blame but yourself. I'm curious how you get "no responsibility" out of that.
No man is an Island. There is NOTHING we do or say that does not at some point effect others.
No man is an Island. There is NOTHING we do or say that does not at some point effect others.I see this point of view as selfish and one living in denial. It basically means that you have no responsibility for your actions and feel that nothing you do has any effect on anyone else.See, this confuses me. How do you get that? If the choice is yours, ALL responsibility is yours - so if you choose to partake of an intoxicating substance and become addicted, you've no one to blame but yourself. I'm curious how you get "no responsibility" out of that.
Then should there be any limit on what the state can regulate? After all, all of our choices impact other people by this argument; so if you carry it to its logical absurd conclusion the government should be able to regulate every choice. I know you aren't making that argument per se, but how it your position on this different from any big government liberal on the issue they want to regulate?
I get that you have a history with those close to having tragic interaction with drugs, and I'm not going to change your feelings on this I'm sure, but that's hardly a basis for a policy that I think flies in the face of the constitution.
I'm not going to change your feelings on this I'm sure, but that's hardly a basis for a policy that I think flies in the face of the constitution.
... and flies in the face of simple empirical data. The illegality of most drugs in no way eliminates their potential for abuse. After 30 years, what has the "war on drugs" gotten us? The "land of the free" now has more adults incarcerated per capita than any other nation on earth, and we're not one step closer to eliminating their use. Indeed, a case could be made that the situation is worse now, given the methamphetamine abuse statistics.
I believe that the use of physically addictive drugs (heroin, meth) is ultimately destructive to the user and to everyone around them. I also believe that by lumping everything together as "drugs," as if they are all identical -- while randomly leaving out a few favorites like alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine -- represents the height of intellectual dishonesty. Finally, I strongly believe that the "war on drugs" has damaged the nation (in terms of lives destroyed) far more than all of the marijuana use in the last 30 years combined -- I'm tempted to say throughout all of human history -- by many orders of magnitude.
So, yeah, no one is saying that meth is harmless. We are saying that prosecuting all drugs indiscriminately, as purely an excuse to incarcerate people, is not helping anything -- and indeed is hurting.
*sigh*
Failed my Will save. I know I am going to regret posting, but ...
The War on Drugs has done nothing. Are drugs less available? Less people on them? Are they more expensive? How much taxpayer dollars have been spent fighting this war? Check here and that total is just THIS year.
You know what the most favorite drugs among kids are now? Perscription pills. How do you stop that? Doctors give them out like candy, and folks turn around and sell them. Percosets, OxyContin, Attivan, you name it, there is a legal pharmacopea that kids are scarfing daily, along with their 'legal' meds like Ritalin and Seroquel. We are the Prozac Nation.
Government-sponsored open-ended 'concept' wars are always an expensive disaster, whether you are talking Terrorism, Drugs or Poverty.
|
|
Then should there be any limit on what the state can regulate? After all, all of our choices impact other people by this argument; so if you carry it to its logical absurd conclusion the government should be able to regulate every choice. I know you aren't making that argument per se, but how it your position on this different from any big government liberal on the issue they want to regulate?
I get that you have a history with those close to having tragic interaction with drugs, and I'm not going to change your feelings on this I'm sure, but that's hardly a basis for a policy that I think flies in the face of the constitution.
Of course there should be limits. The only thing that is absurd is to think we, as in society, should not take a stand when issues of moral import, that affect all our lives, and just let whomever do whatever they want. False logic does not mean you get to pick and choose what laws you follow. This does not in fact fly in the face of the Constitution, but rather it follows the same course as our documents. For our laws have and always follow, with a few notable exceptions, that which benefits out society not individuals.
|
And see I feel the exact opposite. Oh well Just thought this is a better place for that sort of debate.Most of the time John Stossel comes across as an idiotic tool, but I have to agree with him here. We waste billions of dollars tracking, arresting, and prosecuting (mostly) users. People should not get jail time for using...they should get rehab at worst. Of course the better solution would just be make it legal, tax it, and regulate it. We save money by not keeping the drug war going, and we make money off of taxation. It's a win-win.Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
CJ you've made it clear that your perception has been shaped by personal experience? If it isn't too painful (if it is of course I don't want to harp on it) can you actually tell us what these situations were, and how many, so we have some idea of where your point of view came from.
I too have seen the effects of drugs and destruction they can lead on lives, I was hanging out with a very bad crowd and made very poor choices in friends when I was younger (despite staying clean myself I hung out with the drug crowd because I had trouble making and keeping friends, even though the quality of friends you get with the drug crowd is pretty awful) however I also saw the factors that led to the drug use in the first place, both the friends who had problems with the harder drugs, and the softer drugs, (and the peer pressure). All of this has led me to a belief that legalization and treatment are better solutions than criminalization and jail time.
And you're against legalization, but what about decriminalization for possession. Where do you stand on that? I know a friend who other than being an otherwise normal and ho-hum guy, has his own pot plant for his personal and social use (he doesn't sell, but he'll share with friends). If he was ever caught for some reason, he'd be facing jail time and government seizure of his house when he is neither harming anyone but himself (single, no kids) and is otherwise a perfectly productive member of society. I mean do you think that the laws we currently have should be kept, even when they can seriously hurt people just as much as the substances themselves?
A great example is my dad, who is 50, about 4 years ago he was being considered for a government job, long story short, a pot bust from his 20s caused him to have to go through a lot of embarrassment and hassle when all it was, was a pipe and bag of weed from a concert when he was a young adult.
I'm curious since you are on the against side of legalization what your opinions about our current laws and discussion stands.
Of course there should be limits. The only thing that is absurd is to think we, as in society, should not take a stand when issues of moral import, that affect all our lives, and just let whomever do whatever they want. False logic does not mean you get to pick and choose what laws you follow. This does not in fact fly in the face of the Constitution, but rather it follows the same course as our documents. For our laws have and always follow, with a few notable exceptions, that which benefits out society not individuals.Then should there be any limit on what the state can regulate? After all, all of our choices impact other people by this argument; so if you carry it to its logical absurd conclusion the government should be able to regulate every choice. I know you aren't making that argument per se, but how it your position on this different from any big government liberal on the issue they want to regulate?
I get that you have a history with those close to having tragic interaction with drugs, and I'm not going to change your feelings on this I'm sure, but that's hardly a basis for a policy that I think flies in the face of the constitution.
Again if "whomever do[ing] whatever they want" doesn't directly harm someone else or their property why does the government have the power to criminalize that choice?
"False logic does not mean you get to pick and choose what laws you follow."
I will assume that you are using "you" in the generic sense here because I don't use illegal drugs.
Where in the constitution does the federal government have the right to imprison someone for growing a plant in their home and using that plant in their home as they see fit without harming someone else or their property directly?
How has the war on drugs benefited society?
|
|
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
I come at it from a different angle. I think it's wrong for the government to control what adults do with their own bodies.
I believe that prohibition is doing more harm than drugs, but the principal of self ownership is much more important to me than the pragmatic debate.
I see this point of view as selfish and one living in denial. It basically means that you have no responsibility for your actions and feel that nothing you do has any effect on anyone else.
However thats just my opinion and thankfully we live where we all have the right and responsibility to have our own opinions.
No, this point of view holds adults completely responsible for their own actions. There are many laws on the books to cover theft, vandalism, violence, or any of the other common complains about laws drug users break. Considering how many people use drugs in this country, it must amaze pro-prohibition folks that everyone doesn't get mugged twice a week.
Oh, wait, you know why that doesn't happen? Because a vast majority of people who use drugs don't ruin their lives. Incredible, huh?
Oh, wait, you know why that doesn't happen? Because a vast majority of people who use drugs don't ruin their lives. Incredible, huh?
+1
It still surprises me that folks have trouble wrapping their mind around the fact that the vast majority of recreational drug users pay their bills and often have good jobs kind of like folks who use alcohol or prescription drugs.
+2 I can point to LOTS of people I know now or who I have known who smoke on a recreational level and aren't ruining their or others lives. I can also point to those who have ruined their lives and are on drugs, but not nearly as many as the casual smokers who aren't hurting anyone.
Unfortunately I can only point to a handful. My day job more or less keeps me around people who have had their lives ruined by such substances, and my night job, while it does expose me to a different side of usage, presents me with some people who have made(or are about to make) some poor decisions with respect to using.
|
|
Since a previous thread went way off course I thought I would share this here.
I am not so sure I agree however it does give you reason to pause and think about it.
I come at it from a different angle. I think it's wrong for the government to control what adults do with their own bodies.
I believe that prohibition is doing more harm than drugs, but the principal of self ownership is much more important to me than the pragmatic debate.
I see this point of view as selfish and one living in denial. It basically means that you have no responsibility for your actions and feel that nothing you do has any effect on anyone else.
However thats just my opinion and thankfully we live where we all have the right and responsibility to have our own opinions.
No, this point of view holds adults completely responsible for their own actions. There are many laws on the books to cover theft, vandalism, violence, or any of the other common complains about laws drug users break. Considering how many people use drugs in this country, it must amaze pro-prohibition folks that everyone doesn't get mugged twice a week.
Oh, wait, you know why that doesn't happen? Because a vast majority of people who use drugs don't ruin their lives. Incredible, huh?
All I can speak for is what I have seen. No at this time I do not think it should be legal. That being said I am thinking hard on that point of view. Right now I am thinking most of the money we are spending on "fighting the war on drugs" would be better spent on education and treatment for those who are addicted.
All I can speak for is what I have seen. No at this time I do not think it should be legal. That being said I am thinking hard on that point of view. Right now I am thinking most of the money we are spending on "fighting the war on drugs" would be better spent on education and treatment for those who are addicted.
On that I think we can agree. I don't like the idea of people using drugs and I wish they wouldn't, but I think education - in schools, from families, and from churches/support groups/other organizations - and deterring people from getting started in the first place while also helping those who are addicted to get away from the problem is a better way to handle the problem than the current methods.
|
|
All I can speak for is what I have seen. No at this time I do not think it should be legal. That being said I am thinking hard on that point of view. Right now I am thinking most of the money we are spending on "fighting the war on drugs" would be better spent on education and treatment for those who are addicted.
In other words you think sale should be kept illegal, but possession be decriminalized to require a Narcotics Anonymous type treatment if caught with rather than hard jail time?
|
|
In other words you think sale should be kept illegal, but possession be decriminalized to require a Narcotics Anonymous type treatment if caught with rather than hard jail time?
All I can speak for is what I have seen. No at this time I do not think it should be legal. That being said I am thinking hard on that point of view. Right now I am thinking most of the money we are spending on "fighting the war on drugs" would be better spent on education and treatment for those who are addicted.
Honestly right now, yes that is the way I am leaning. Hard jail time should be limited to hard actions. If you hold up a liquor store then that is why you should be in jail. If on the other hand you are ruining your life by smoking pot all day, then you need some serious help and hard time is not it.
|
|
Honestly right now, yes that is the way I am leaning.In other words you think sale should be kept illegal, but possession be decriminalized to require a Narcotics Anonymous type treatment if caught with rather than hard jail time?
All I can speak for is what I have seen. No at this time I do not think it should be legal. That being said I am thinking hard on that point of view. Right now I am thinking most of the money we are spending on "fighting the war on drugs" would be better spent on education and treatment for those who are addicted.
See as long as you're willing to realize that there are fundamental flaws with our current system, I'm more than happy to agree to meet halfway on the steps taken. I personally am fine with that as a way of doing drug law reform, granted I think it'd be better as a first step on the path of legalization. But our current system does do terrible things. Like I said, I personally know people who use pot without selling it or in any way harming the community. While I don't think it's fair that they should have to attend a NA meeting either, I'd be much less distraught to learn their plant was seized and they had to get treatment, whereas the current system could have their house raided in a military style assault, their home taken from them as a drug seizure, and they spend the next several years in jail. Because one good sized plant can do that.
|
|
Medical pot can cost parents in custody disputes
Just plain ridiculous...being on valium or prescription painkillers makes you more "out of it" than a little MJ. I didn't notice any reference in the article to women losing custody of children over this...must just be another way for the courts to deny fathers' rights.
|
|
Medical pot can cost parents in custody disputes
Just plain ridiculous...being on valium or prescription painkillers makes you more "out of it" than a little MJ. I didn't notice any reference in the article to women losing custody of children over this...must just be another way for the courts to deny fathers' rights.
Just another point to prove that our current laws are just plain s@~!.
Just another point to prove that our current laws are just plain s&#&.
You really shouldn't say bad words, mmkay. You just violated step 2:
Step 2: Instead of s@~! say poo, as in "bull poo", "poo head" and this "poo is cold".
Mmkay.
If you hold up a liquor store then that is why you should be in jail. If on the other hand you are ruining your life by smoking pot all day, then you need some serious help and hard time is not it.
Now, hopefully we're getting somewhere, in acknowledging that not all drugs are the same. Realistically, the THC in marijuana is one of the least addictive chemicals known. Alcohol, caffeine, nicotine -- all of which are legal -- are far more addictive. Cocaine is more so. Finally, opiates seem to be the worst.
Realistic drug laws would be informed by the facts of the differences, rather than a naive separation into "currently legal = good for you; currently illegal = addictive and bad."
Addiction's bad, mmkay.
and flies in the face of simple empirical data. The illegality of most drugs in no way eliminates their potential for abuse. After 30 years, what has the "war on drugs" gotten us? The "land of the free" now has more adults incarcerated per capita than any other nation on earth, and we're not one step closer to eliminating their use. Indeed, a case could be made that the situation is worse now, given the methamphetamine abuse statistics.
I believe that the use of physically addictive drugs (heroin, meth) is ultimately destructive to the user and to everyone around them. I also believe that by lumping everything together as "drugs," as if they are all identical -- while randomly leaving out a few favorites like alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine -- represents the height of intellectual dishonesty. Finally, I strongly believe that the "war on drugs" has damaged the nation (in terms of lives destroyed) far more than all of the marijuana use in the last 30 years combined -- I'm tempted to say throughout all of human history -- by many orders of magnitude.
So, yeah, no one is saying that meth is harmless. We are saying that prosecuting all drugs indiscriminately, as purely an excuse to incarcerate people, is not helping anything -- and indeed is hurting.
What he said.
<SNIP>I believe that prohibition is doing more harm than drugs, but the principal of self ownership is much more important to me than the pragmatic debate.</SNIP>
Also an excellent point.
Wow, you guys are making it easy on me...I don't have to type any of this stuff myself. :)
The war on 'drugs' was lost because people want 'drugs'.
Lawmakers need to accept this and offer ways of controlled and taxed distribution for 'drugs'.
On a side note; if the government legalized and mandated purity standards for some the more harmful drugs they would actually decrease the amount of physical damage done by the drug and make it 'safer' to use.
The thing that people tend to gloss over is that your brain is on drugs 24/7. Right now? Your brain is being chemically altered. That's because your brain exists purely to be chemically altered. Chemicals and electricity is what your brain is. Chocolate chemically alters your brain, but I don't see people up in arms about that ;)
Some drugs ain't for everyone. One person goes out with a group of people they trust once a year and they go on a mushroom induced trip and feel it seriously benefits their life as a whole. Another person doesn't touch 'em. That's fine. Some drugs are horrifying like PCP. That's scary! But then again, alcohol is scary as hell too, and that's legal.
So yeah, it's a quagmire, and it's a quagmire in part because the legality and illegality of drugs seems to be almost at random. Alcohol is a mood altering drug that greatly increases aggression and lowers pain tolerance. If that sounds scary, it's because it is. Trying to break up a fight or dealing with someone who's pissed and drunk is a frightening situation. And it's a completely legal one. Marijuana makes people lazy and hungry. I've yet to encounter a fight or deal with someone who's pissed and stoned. And it's completely illegal.
|
|
The thing that people tend to gloss over is that your brain is on drugs 24/7. Right now? Your brain is being chemically altered. That's because your brain exists purely to be chemically altered. Chemicals and electricity is what your brain is. Chocolate chemically alters your brain, but I don't see people up in arms about that ;)
Some drugs ain't for everyone. One person goes out with a group of people they trust once a year and they go on a mushroom induced trip and feel it seriously benefits their life as a whole. Another person doesn't touch 'em. That's fine. Some drugs are horrifying like PCP. That's scary! But then again, alcohol is scary as hell too, and that's legal.
So yeah, it's a quagmire, and it's a quagmire in part because the legality and illegality of drugs seems to be almost at random. Alcohol is a mood altering drug that greatly increases aggression and lowers pain tolerance. If that sounds scary, it's because it is. Trying to break up a fight or dealing with someone who's pissed and drunk is a frightening situation. And it's a completely legal one. Marijuana makes people lazy and hungry. I've yet to encounter a fight or deal with someone who's pissed and stoned. And it's completely illegal.
You, good sir, win the thread!
Whoa dudes, shrooms are, like, totally awesome. The make me feel soooo trippy. I also love...whoa....hey....is your head shrinking?
|
|
Whoa dudes, shrooms are, like, totally awesome. The make me feel soooo trippy. I also love...whoa....hey....is your head shrinking?
Shrooms are great...and in Amsterdam, you can buy em out of a blister pack like you would get if you went down to the grocery store and bought some fresh herbs. Sealed up complete with ratings of how mind affecting that specific variety is, country of origin, etc.
No way dude, seriously, like you're head is getting smaller.....I think I could squish it with my fingers....hey, I can't feel my fingers...I once sang a song about feelings to this chick at Woodstock....MMmm...chicken....whoa, now I'm kinda hungry....maybe some Hungry Jack pancakes.....Mmmm...pancakes....with maple syrup.....does that stuff come from Canada....
You, good sir, win the thread!The thing that people tend to gloss over is that your brain is on drugs 24/7. Right now? Your brain is being chemically altered. That's because your brain exists purely to be chemically altered. Chemicals and electricity is what your brain is. Chocolate chemically alters your brain, but I don't see people up in arms about that ;)
Some drugs ain't for everyone. One person goes out with a group of people they trust once a year and they go on a mushroom induced trip and feel it seriously benefits their life as a whole. Another person doesn't touch 'em. That's fine. Some drugs are horrifying like PCP. That's scary! But then again, alcohol is scary as hell too, and that's legal.
So yeah, it's a quagmire, and it's a quagmire in part because the legality and illegality of drugs seems to be almost at random. Alcohol is a mood altering drug that greatly increases aggression and lowers pain tolerance. If that sounds scary, it's because it is. Trying to break up a fight or dealing with someone who's pissed and drunk is a frightening situation. And it's a completely legal one. Marijuana makes people lazy and hungry. I've yet to encounter a fight or deal with someone who's pissed and stoned. And it's completely illegal.
Basic reasoning skills will be ignored. ;)