Drug legalization
Hi, I'm still kinda new, but I did want to say that legalization solves the problems in a couple of ways. There are those who feel I am a little intense;
The intensity comes from a fundamental overriding principle of "Don't tread on me", which was the SC state flag in 1777... The feds override this princple daily, and fuel my frustration. Their corruption of the schools, framers intents, specifics, and abuse of the system (and my inherent passionate nature) tend to meld into this same "intensity".
---------------
My thoughts on legalization of all "controlled substances
1. It puts the responsibility for addiction back where it belongs upon the inidvidual--whether it's getting stoned 24/7 or whatever, the indiviual is
responsible for his (that includes the ladies, ladies) actions/use--period.
2. It reduces LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers--not astrogocial lions) interaction with the general populace (hopefully).
3. Legalization (and taxation) increases revenue sources for the feds and perhaps they'll lower the personal rates (I can dream, can't I?).
-----------------
Now as to my comments on the thread.
Capt Canada:
I agree with you that the responsibility of use is upon the user (not gov't). WE don't need them to "protect" us or the bill that goes along with it.
You'll find there are surveys that show a marked difference between "experimentation" and frequent users. The majority of pot smokers are under 30, and a very small portion of the populace are 'frequent' abusers opposed to users (and there is of course a difference) of 'hard' drugs.
-----------
Keeping it illegal is generating MORE percieve revenue to employ LEOs, that's why legalization would cause a PERCEIVED decrease in employment
in that field. What happens when a quarter of a million people all hit the federally funded Unemployment line ALL at the same time?? Follow the MONEY.
Shrike:
Most of the time I couldn't agree with you more about most humans being lemmings who refuse to think for themselves, but many people find that
frequent drug use actually gets in the way of living life, and knock it off (style it down, cool it etc.) Addictive behaviour is a personality 'defect' and can apply to ANY thing from hand washing to heroine addiction. ANY one with a ritual is "suspect" to the shrinks as an obessive compulsive, btw.
Nicotine is actually one of the most deadly subtances on the face of the planet and primary addictive component of tobacco ( I smoke Dutch half zware which is far stronger than the "tailormade" crud, so I know--I also don't get all the additives, either)... A smoker gets his "hit" seven times faster than a junkie injecting his skag IV so...Why the junkies don't put it in
their tobacco/marijauna is beyond me...
Alcohol does have it challenges but it comes from abuse, not use. AND you have SIG/PACs SCREAMING about it. If you start looking at the actual
number of incidents/perprotionately you find out they are NUT groups with a grudge.
If you really belive the gov't gives a damn in hell about the safety of its citizens, you've been smoking WAY too much (whatever). It is only
interested in TAXES. This is why I am for legalization (dopers will pay MORE taxes, just as drinkers and smokers do now). The feds have already proven repeatedly they will, shall, and have always violated "States Rights". Look at what Ascroft is doing to OR's Pain Patient Treatment Act, as an example. THe FEDS have NO lawful means to intervene, but they have...
and their lackeys appointed for LIFE are backing him up.
RE: Chomsky:
Quantity (eg: frosted flakes) is not quality. His logic is wanting, and facts frequently skewed. In about half of his stuff he is either deliberately lying, or compeltely ignorant of the issues involved. No, I'm not one of his fans.
Try Reason.com and FrontPage.com for alternative views of contemporary political issues.
---
First rule of Statistics:
Correlative data does NOT provide CAUSITIVE results...
This is the entire problem with the ANTI smoking lobby, all of their "data" is corelative (eg:
epidemiological, not scientific fact).
You are appling the same non sequitor to dope...
---------
How many CEOs LIE deliberately to their bankers about what they will do with the bank loans? Some? Many? Most?
Now, could Noriega or Escobeda have lied to the CIA about what they would do with the money?
Could you have named two political persons paid by the CIA to influence their governments for various reasons, unnamed or embarassing who used the money to fund their drug operations (which the CIA did not necessarily know about, becasue of their being STRIPPED of the HumInt funding)? Just a question regarding logical process... Could the Feds have lied about their involvements with them? Is our government honest? If they are honest, why are they?
Tiassa
Your sheriff is postioning his department for fed law enforcement matching funds (your dopers have nothing to do with the issue) other than they just
happen to the Feds poster kids of the moment. As you mentioned he's illegally (the APA doesn't make it legal) detained aliens, to validate his fed
feeding trough, already.
Tell me your joking about putting Coffee on the Class 1 list, please, please, I NEED my coffee, please don't make that illegal, too... I'm begging
and I'm serious. I WANT MY COFFEE!!! oh, :0
A econ prof of mine once said "...if really you want to study history, follow the money... So far he's been right. Take a look at the budget (public docs)of your local sheriff. I'm willing to bet you a crispy creame donut (if he doesn't eat it, first) he's funded by MORE dollars through the feds these days than he is by the county--so who's he going to listen to, Ashcoft, or your county supervisor? Just a thought
IF you want to get him to back down his dogs, you'll need to kick him in the wallet a few times (eg: cop brutality cases).
The Curly 1:
Uh, this is a republican democracy (because of universal enfrancisement) opposed to a Democracy where EVERYTHING is decided by those that bother to show up (In the last persidential election, 101 MILLION voters couldn't be bothered to show UP. Their reasons don't matter, they didn't). I'm not 18 so I remember when ANYone started a political discussion the FIRST question was, "Did you vote in the last election?" (if the answer was NO, they were told to SHUT UP, because if you don't vote, you can't have an opinion). CA made some steps to legalization (medical usage, first, like antihistymines) and the FEDS are revoking DEA medical script licenses like the docs are passing out skag. The message from Ashcoft and Reno before him is, "YOU acted without OUR permission".
She's (Reno) being sued for enforcing COPA by the way (the courts are saying you cannot apply LOCAL standards Globally. There may well be a way to apply the same princple to dope, eg: State's Rights...
IF you did manage to get a legalization bill on the floor of the senate, they'd make it die on the floor of the HOUSE or vice versa. THEY want drugs
illegal to justify the 85 BILLION a year they spend on COPS to control us. The issue has never been drugs, it is control. Follow the money.
-----
IF it were put to national popular vote, I think you'd be very suprised by the results (the polls are skewed, btw). I do agree this country will not ever see legalized heroin. The media has so wrongfully stigmatized it, that legalization will never happen however it along with coke (which is not a narcotic as skag is, btw) could be decriminalized. In the 60s the brits took about 30 herion users off the streets of Manchester, fed them up, cleaned them up, gave them SCRIPT for their maintainance dose, and they went back
to work... When it became too much of a hassle to keep getting the script, they opted for rehab. Keep in mind the USA is the ONLY country which does not use pharmacuitical herion medicinally. It is alos the ONLY country which requires a "permission slip"--script--for antibiotics...
----
Uh, tobacco was discovered about 1592. that would be 410 years at most. Yes Booze has been around for millennia, but there were opium eaters as
early as 600 AD in India when It and Zen were imported to CHINA.
Brief Tobacco history lesson:
When Walter Raliegh (soon to be Sir) returned from Roanoke VA, he showed up with it, the ENGLISH loved the stuff. Capt James Smith actually
(along with the Dutch in NY) set up regular shipments of the stuff, cuz Nobody figured out what happend to Roanoke Island Colony. Later, James I despised its smell, taste, and looks of people using it, and banned it at court as was his right (his house, his rule). Uh, yeah I know, Walter didn't hang out that long, as QEI stretched him and a hemp rope, simultaneously. He made the mistake of backing the WRONG horse (Mary Queen of Scots)...
Cris
Where did you GET that figure? Fifty percent of hospializations are due to booze and cigaretts, an anti smoking website? IF as documented, only 26%
of the populace smoke, there is NO WAY 50% of the addmissions could be smoking related--it implies that if you don't smoke or drink you'll never be
hospitalized (uh, what about burn victims? what about cancer (non smoking related) what about appendectomies or an menisci tear repairs... huh?
YOU do have the right idea, though. The hash clubs in Amsterdam cause FEWER problems than the booze bars do. SOME are currently selling both,
but there are a number of cafes which VOLUNTARIALLY dropped booze because of the instant AH problem, which they DON'T have with hash or
pot. The Dutch are giving them a choice at present either or both, but soon it will be either cannabis OR booze NOT both. The brits are easing their pot arrests as they are finding MORE problems with the booze than with the dopers. The brits are even thinking of putting in Ecstasy purity machines like the Dutch clubs have (Ecstasy is actualy classified by theDutch as a "hard" drug, but they base their LEO priorities upon "public nusiance factors rather than "morality" as the USA does.
----------------
uh, the BASIS of U.S. law is: English COMMAN law is not quite so implicit, all authourity reverts back to the Crown through an unsuspendable
Parliment--middle french for gabfest.
(shhh. Don't tell anyone Cris, but you may be a closet libertarian..
Chagur:
AT LAST, the voice of reason. Passing all that money around, generates taxes. The perscriptive cost of Percodan (synthetic morphine and aspirin) is about 8¢ a pill/5mgs, vs $15/gr~ of skag on the street (average purity 89%). btw my knowlege comes from READING not using...
(I like your avatar, but what is the FIW?) I am ignorant of it.
machaon:
Interesting concept, but who feeds the bulldog if EVERYBODY is stoned out of their gords? Enslaved droids, no doubt, all of whom stike for 'sentient' rights, right, and then sue because they CAN'T get high?...
Stryder
Been watching too much TV? Legalization makes the drugs cheaper, by far. Look at hash prices in Amsterdam. It is WAY below US street prices,
because it is legal. Just as booze prices dropped after the depression (until the tax man cometh...) When I lived in FL, nearly EVERY liquor store had a picture of a bottle with showing the percentage of local, state, and federal tax. I wish they would do that for gasoline prices and tires, and telephone bills, etc that have STUPENDOUS fed excise taxes that go 'unnoticed'. In Europe at least the VAT is added at the point of sale so you KNOW how much it is (like retail sales tax).
Your supposed 'litter' would remain in the clubs, and I think you'll find that given alternatives IV injection would be on the LOW end of the scale. Not to mention there is the high pressure gun used in large scale inoculation
theaters which IF IV injection were the chosen means would no doubt be used in lieu of hypodermics...