the hypocracy of our drug laws

[scott3x]

This post is in response to John99's post 52 in the "Kids charged with Child Porn" thread.

Scott, nocotine is naturally in tobacco and when smoking was widely accepted by the public it was because people didnt know how bad it was. Now some local governments are trying to eliminate it because it is so unhealthy to do and the methods of making it very costly and eliminating it in public places is working. Addiction is a strange phenomenon and people get addicted to gambling but many do not and there is no substance in a slot machine that gets them addicted.

Believe it or not be the so-called natural cigarettes actually contain more nicotine simply because they contain more tobacco.

Lets not be disingenuous and compare cigarettes to coke or heroin though because there is simply no reality in this. Addiction to these drugs is on a completey different level.

Sounds reasonable; but I hear that they're comparable to alcohol.

As far as the CIA, there are bad people in everything and money corrupts people but i cannot sit here and judge all Canadians on something you do.

True. However, the CIA is not any U.S. citizen- they are a government organization.

I said that when a government decides to legalize hard drugs then in time the same people who wanted them legal will be the first in line with the lawsuits and i stand by that claim.

They may try, but so long as they've been properly warned of the dangers, which did -not- happen with cigarettes (thus the large amount of money they h ad to pay), I doubt it'd go far.

 

[John99]

This post is in response to John99's post 52 in the "Kids charged with Child Porn" thread.

Sounds reasonable; but I hear that they're comparable to alcohol.

No way. You think a hit of crack or a line of heroin is like doing a shot of booze and you are crazy.

True. However, the CIA is not any U.S. citizen- they are a government organization.

It is still individuals, a person or a few people, who made the decision to do the wrong thing. So lets not be flat out liars.

They may try, but so long as they've been properly warned of the dangers, which did -not- happen with cigarettes (thus the large amount of money they h ad to pay), I doubt it'd go far.

. The Netherlands is rethinking their drug poilcy and i think they recently made some changes.

 

[John99]

Then on the other hands maybe it is worht a shot just to eliminate the criminal aspect and making criminals wealthy. Hard to say.

 

[mikenostic]

No way. You think a hit of crack or a line of heroin is like doing a shot of booze and you are crazy.

No, but a bong hit of weed is not near as bad as doing a shot of booze.

It is still individuals, a person or a few people, who made the decision to do the wrong thing. So lets not be flat out liars.

So why do the rest of us who are responsible with our 'recreational activities' have to suffer for the stupidity of the few?

They may try, but so long as they've been properly warned of the dangers, which did -not- happen with cigarettes (thus the large amount of money they h ad to pay), I doubt it'd go far.

I predict that marijuana will be legal within the next 50 years.

 

[John99]

No, but a bong hit of weed is not near as bad as doing a shot of booze.

I dont have a problem with weed - and i need to do more research. It is better not to do it though but then wh. I think a shot of vodka may be benificial, perhaps one every other day. i am not a doctor though.


So why do the rest of us who are responsible with our 'recreational activities' have to suffer for the stupidity of the few?

true

I predict that marijuana will be legal within the next 50 years.

Maybe

:

 

[mikenostic]

No, but a bong hit of weed is not near as bad as doing a shot of booze.

I dont have a problem with weed - and i need to do more research. It is better not to do it though but then wh. I think a shot of vodka may be benificial, perhaps one every other day. i am not a doctor though.

Given the advice about the wine of glass per day, I'd say you are right on.
A 5 oz glass of wine is alcoholically equivalent to a 1oz shot of Vodka.
The premise behind that is that the alcohol will thin your blood out for a little while allowing it to flow through your heart easier.
And I do agree with you concerning the other hard drugs aside from weed.
Herion and crack should never be legal. While I don't think MDMA or acid should be (even though they are a lot of fun), I do think psilopsybin shrooms should (they, like weed, are natural).

So why do the rest of us who are responsible with our 'recreational activities' have to suffer for the stupidity of the few?

true

I mean honestly. This isn't like a military unit where if one person screws up, they all could suffer.
Joe Schmoe getting high, getting in his car out of his own stupidity and kiling someone* should have no affect on people like me who know better than to get behind the wheel of a car when they are too messed up to drive.

I predict that marijuana will be legal within the next 50 years.

Maybe

I think it will. The outlaw of weed IMO is just an extended prohibition. It's just going to take a bit longer than alcohol for people to realize that making it illegal was stupid mistake.
I've also heard that the big tobacco companies are set up to where if the gubmint does legalize weed, they are ready to have packages of marijuana on the shelves within a matter of hours of the legalization. If that's true, that tells me that the legalization is just around the corner.

 

[Montec]

Hello all
You cannot legislate morality. When you make a commodity illegal that is in demand then you will generate an illegal subculture to fulfill said demand. Just supply and demand at its worst. You then have a subculture that tries to generate more demand for its services in the general public. This happened in the past and its happening now with the current problems with drug cartels and gangs.

 

[scott3x]

Then on the other hands maybe it is worht a shot just to eliminate the criminal aspect and making criminals wealthy. Hard to say.

I found that Dirk Chase Eldridge, in his book "Ending the War on Drugs", made a very persuasive case that this would certainly be a large benefit in the legalization of certain illegal drugs.

 

[scott3x]

Scott, nicotine is naturally in tobacco and when smoking was widely accepted by the public it was because people didnt know how bad it was. Now some local governments are trying to eliminate it because it is so unhealthy to do and the methods of making it very costly and eliminating it in public places is working. Addiction is a strange phenomenon and people get addicted to gambling but many do not and there is no substance in a slot machine that gets them addicted.

Believe it or not the so-called natural cigarettes actually contain more nicotine simply because they contain more tobacco.

Lets not be disingenuous and compare cigarettes to coke or heroin though because there is simply no reality in this. Addiction to these drugs is on a completey different level.

Sounds reasonable; but I hear that they're comparable to alcohol.

No way. You think a hit of crack or a line of heroin is like doing a shot of booze and you are crazy.

Dirk Chase Eldredge apparently believes that they are. I think that a big part of the problems with drugs like heroin is not so much their physical effects so much as the fact that it's illegal and thus it's harder to get treatment. I personally have never taken it, however, so I can't really comment on it from a first hand perspective.

 

[swarm]

good spot for research: http://www.erowid.org

 

[scott3x]

It is still individuals, a person or a few people, who made the decision to do the wrong thing. So lets not be flat out liars.

So why do the rest of us who are responsible with our 'recreational activities' have to suffer for the stupidity of the few?

Word (I guess that's the new "I agree" ). I'm not even interested in drugs, unless I'm in pain. Fortunately, there are legal drugs and I've never been in so much pain that I've required anything else. Yes, I have 'inhaled' weed once or twice in my college years, but I just wasn't all that impressed. Nevertheless, I certainly believe that it is less harmful then alcohol. But to me this whole 'let's jail people who are doing things to their own bodies' is ridiculous. If the people who are doing things to their own bodies are doing something bad to said bodies, they're the ones who are going to suffer the consequences. I think that sending people to jail only makes the situation worse. And if Mr. Elredge is right, even drugs like heroin are about as addictive as alcohol; and while we may have alcoholics and yes, it can be lethal, we gave up on prohibition a long time ago, and for good reason; it doesn't work and just makes organized crime that much bigger (it gave rise to the likes of Al Capone, now the drug lords have stopped selling strong licquour and have moved on to the new illegal drugs).

 

[Balerion]

Our drug laws don't work. Neither does the propaganda we still spread (my favorite is the commercial from a couple of years ago stating that buying weed funds terrorism).

If we legalized all drugs today, we'd put millions of dangerous criminals out of business. That by itself would free up room in prisons, considering that the vast majority of America's prisoners are non-violent offenders. And if you slow down the incarceration rate, you also free up tax dollars. And if you actually regulated some of these drugs, you'd create new tax revenue streams that could help us rebuild our infrastructure, or build new schools, or pay teachers more, or something else of actual use that produces actual workable results.

It is, as Montec said in his post, morality legislated. And as he also said, it doesn't work. You can only lie to your people for so long before they figure it out for themselves. We know today that marijuana doesn't turn young men into rapists and fiends, nor does it make you stupid and lazy, nor does it fund terrorism. We know it isn't as dangerous for your lungs as cigarettes, nor is it as addictive.

The reason alcohol is legal today is because our government realized that prohibition was simply providing organized crime (and criminals in general) a new product to put on the market, and that the consequences of illegal alcohol were far worse than the alternative. Our leaders, however, have yet to get over that hump with narcotics. Once they realize that no amount of laws can stop people from using, and no amount of incarceration will stop an addict from using, they'll hopefully change the laws so they actually benefit the country rather than harm it.

The war should be on criminality itself, not the product the criminals are offering. Once we lost sight of that, we ended up with the costly and totally ineffective war on drugs.

 

[scott3x]

Our drug laws don't work. Neither does the propaganda we still spread (my favorite is the commercial from a couple of years ago stating that buying weed funds terrorism).

Maybe it does to some extent. But I think we should be focusing on why- since the drugs are illegal, the only people who'll touch it are people who care little about the law, such as terrorists and organized crime. Make it legal and all of a sudden those who care little about the law will have stiff competition with law abiding citizens who pay taxes. So lawless people get much less money in their coffers while the government gets more.

If we legalized all drugs today, we'd put millions of dangerous criminals out of business. That by itself would free up room in prisons, considering that the vast majority of America's prisoners are non-violent offenders.

I'm not sure there are 'millions' of dangerous criminals, but I agree with you on the freeing up of prison space by taking out the non-violent offenders.

And if you slow down the incarceration rate, you also free up tax dollars. And if you actually regulated some of these drugs, you'd create new tax revenue streams that could help us rebuild our infrastructure, or build new schools, or pay teachers more, or something else of actual use that produces actual workable results.

Agreed.

It is, as Montec said in his post, morality legislated.

I have no problem with legislating morality/ethics, so long as the morality/ethics being legislated makes sense. The drug laws don't.

And as he also said, it doesn't work.

True.

You can only lie to your people for so long before they figure it out for themselves. We know today that marijuana doesn't turn young men into rapists and fiends, nor does it make you stupid and lazy...

Agreed.

We know it isn't as dangerous for your lungs as cigarettes, nor is it as addictive.

Cool.

The reason alcohol is legal today is because our government realized that prohibition was simply providing organized crime (and criminals in general) a new product to put on the market, and that the consequences of illegal alcohol were far worse than the alternative. Our leaders, however, have yet to get over that hump with narcotics. Once they realize that no amount of laws can stop people from using, and no amount of incarceration will stop an addict from using, they'll hopefully change the laws so they actually benefit the country rather than harm it.

Agreed. Severe addicts could always be treated in clinics, perhaps with the profits made by selling drugs legally.

The war should be on criminality itself, not the product the criminals are offering. Once we lost sight of that, we ended up with the costly and totally ineffective war on drugs.

Especially when the products they're offering are generally no worse then the drugs already available (cigarettes, alcohol). In point of fact, many times the products that -are- worse (conventional illegal drugs laced with truly nasty stuff) simply wouldn't be able to happen if the drugs were legal. Why? Because the producers would only get sued if they had the nasty stuff; they would be fine otherwise, which is clearly not the case with the drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroine today. As I said before, it may be that drugs such as heroine and cocaine are reduced in potency if they were to become legal, just as beer became in vogue instead of spirits after people were officially allowed to drink spirits; it seems counterintuitive but when you consider issues such as the fact that the more concentrated the illegal drug, the easier the less space is needed to smuggle it, it begins to make sense.

 

[Balerion]

Maybe it does to some extent. But I think we should be focusing on why- since the drugs are illegal, the only people who'll touch it are people who care little about the law, such as terrorists and organized crime. Make it legal and all of a sudden those who care little about the law will have stiff competition with law abiding citizens who pay taxes. So lawless people get much less money in their coffers while the government gets more.

Woah, I can't agree on that. You mean to tell me that the only people who smoke pot are the "lawless"? Give me a break. I know dedicated police officers--good police officers--who smoke weed. You generally get started as a teenager, and because it's so wonderful, you do it for the rest of your life. It has nothing to do whatsoever with you view on the legal system.

And it does not fund terrorism. At all. If you want to know what really funds terrorism, go fill up your gas tank. Also, the propaganda doesn't work, but it hasn't stopped them from trying. Ronald Reagan said that weed was the "most dangerous drug in America".

I'm not sure there are 'millions' of dangerous criminals, but I agree with you on the freeing up of prison space by taking out the non-violent offenders.

How aren't you sure? Why is that an unrealistic number?

I have no problem with legislating morality/ethics, so long as the morality/ethics being legislated makes sense. The drug laws don't.

But the drug laws don't work precisely because they are moral and ethics in legislation! Morals and ethics change, and at a decidedly faster rate than the legislation. Just walking out your front door would show you that. And it's not even just that morals change; it's also that not everybody shares morals. The folks making the laws certainly don't stand on the same moral ground that the twentysomethings and tweens do, and those folks make the culture what it is.

Especially when the products they're offering are generally no worse then the drugs already available (cigarettes, alcohol). In point of fact, many times the products that -are- worse (conventional illegal drugs laced with truly nasty stuff) simply wouldn't be able to happen if the drugs were legal. Why? Because the producers would only get sued if they had the nasty stuff; they would be fine otherwise, which is clearly not the case with the drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroine today. As I said before, it may be that drugs such as heroine and cocaine are reduced in potency if they were to become legal, just as beer became in vogue instead of spirits after people were officially allowed to drink spirits; it seems counterintuitive but when you consider issues such as the fact that the more concentrated the illegal drug, the easier the less space is needed to smuggle it, it begins to make sense.

Part of it is the ridiculous and oppressive Religious Right stepping in an enforcing their dated morality on the country, the other part is lobbyists for drug companies keeping the cash flowing into Washington. When our President is a guy who literally thinks he talks to Jesus, and belongs to a radical end-times cult, of course the laws aren't going to change in a progressive way. In fact, the laws have change in a regressive way, to the point where we've actually lost civil liberties. So until we have a man or woman in the highest office--and likewise in the lawmaking positions of congress--we're not going to get over this stupidity. But don't think for one second that this shit doesn't apply to all morality in legislation. I mean, just look at the whole gay marriage issue. That's a moral stance belonging to one sect of this nation, being enforced on folks who don't believe in the same thing. It will have to change eventually because it doesn't work.

 

[frattman]

I've experienced drugs - many you can name and many you'd never think of. I've had my problems with drugs - I sometimes act irresponsibly while drinking, and I'm addicted to nicotine (two semi-sociably acceptable flaws). The one thing I keep hearing that irks me most is the chatter about which drugs are really bad and which drugs are just sorta bad for you, and society. These lines in the sand are simply idiotic. We live in a society where people risk killing themselves to get high on water (water!!). We live in a society where over 100,000 people die every day worldwide from drunk driving and we have the gaul to call crack evil? In any human culture there will be a fairly steady percentage of individuals who will chronically abuse drugs. In fact, it is shown that at least one species of primates share an exact correlation of alcoholism per population with humans. NO addiction is healthy, and addictions are partially genetic and partially social. If we could just have a common sense non moral discussion about the risks of drugs without fear of condemnation, I think that would go a long way towards tempering our own self destruction.

At the very least, I think we should criminalize unrestrained addictive consumerism, people that have food fetishes, and those who are addicted to love so that the stoners will have some company behind bars.

Make no mistake, we are NOT living in enlightened times, and there is no guarantee that it will get better in our lifetimes unless we force the matters.

 

[scott3x]

Our drug laws don't work. Neither does the propaganda we still spread (my favorite is the commercial from a couple of years ago stating that buying weed funds terrorism).

Maybe it does to some extent. But I think we should be focusing on why- since the drugs are illegal, the only people who'll touch it are people who care little about the law, such as terrorists and organized crime. Make it legal and all of a sudden those who care little about the law will have stiff competition with law abiding citizens who pay taxes. So lawless people get much less money in their coffers while the government gets more.

Woah, I can't agree on that. You mean to tell me that the only people who smoke pot are the "lawless"? Give me a break. I know dedicated police officers--good police officers--who smoke weed. You generally get started as a teenager, and because it's so wonderful, you do it for the rest of your life. It has nothing to do whatsoever with you view on the legal system.

Yes and no. I erred somewhat in how I worded the above statement. What I -meant- to say is that law abiding citizens are much more leery of taking illegal drugs then legal ones, for obvious reasons. You are completely right in saying that some people who are generally law abiding do indeed touch them; but as a general rule, the generally law abiding side of the equation are the end users, not the distribution network. The reason why, I think, is obvious; the more you get into distribution, the deeper in trouble you can be with the law. Depending on just how law abiding the citizen is, this can be of lesser or greater concern. Personally, drugs of any kind, be they legal or illegal, have never really interested me. While I have tried marijuana once or twice, that's about as far as I've gone. I can easily imagine that if it -weren't- illegal I would have tried it more, but things are the way they are and I simply don't think it's worth getting arrested for.

And it does not fund terrorism. At all.

I'm not so up on pot, but illegal drugs in general have been a mainstay for funding terrorist networks. Many people know that the CIA has been in some drugs for guns schemes and from what I've heard, it and other state sponsored organizations are still raking in the dough on the sly. However, as I mentioned, if certain mainstream illegal drugs were made legal, generally law abiding citizens could compete with shady types. And personally, I greatly prefer providing funding to generally law abiding citizens ;-).

If you want to know what really funds terrorism, go fill up your gas tank.

I know that oil definitely funds terrorism as well, and it can entice nations with terrorist streaks to invade other nations; when the U.S. invaded Iraq, its first priority was (naturally) to secure the oil fields; museums and such were left to the looters.

Also, the propaganda doesn't work, but it hasn't stopped them from trying. Ronald Reagan said that weed was the "most dangerous drug in America".

Perhaps he perceived it that way; as a general rule, older generations see things somewhat differently then younger generations . In this case, I think he was dead wrong. In other cases, he might have had some points. I don't know, I wasn't really paying much attention to politics in Reagan's time. What I -do- know is that Dirk Case Elredge was once an adviser to Ronald Reagan, when he was making a bid or had succeeded in becoming the Governor of California. And as you may have seen, after researching the matter, I think the title of Elredge's book, "Ending the War on Drugs" makes it clear what side of the debate he's on.

 

[scott3x]

If we legalized all drugs today, we'd put millions of dangerous criminals out of business.

I'm not sure there are 'millions' of dangerous criminals, but I agree with you on the freeing up of prison space by taking out the non-violent offenders.

How aren't you sure?

Well, I've never heard an estimate of how many dangerous criminals were in the drug trade, but millions? Perhaps. I think it'd be good to back it up with some kind of data though.

Why is that an unrealistic number?

It just seems so high. Perhaps it's realistic if applied on a global scale though.

I have no problem with legislating morality/ethics, so long as the morality/ethics being legislated makes sense. The drug laws don't.

But the drug laws don't work precisely because they are moral and ethics in legislation!

My morals/ethics would never have instituted such laws. The issue here is -who's- morals and ethics we're using. Take a look at the general age of politicians. Relatively old. In general, I believe it's older crowds who vote (the below 18 crowd is automatically excluded ofcourse but I think it goes a bit beyond the exclusion part). I think that to some extent Obama was definitely an exception. He's also relative young as politicians go, especially presidents. So we get the morals and ethics of the older people. Ofcourse, the older generations pass away, to be replaced by the (currently) younger generations. I personally have definitely seen signs that the old ways of doing things in regards to drugs is changing- take a look at Bolivia, for instance, which has now decided to make it legal to farm the coca plant. Evo Morales wishes aside, I have a strong feeling that the farmers are not turning all of that coca plant into coca tea ;-).

There are beginning to be 'legal injection clinics', wherein people can shoot up legally, so long as they're in the clinic. And in some parts of Canada, if you're caught with some marijuana, they just take it away from you. I was there when they did their marijuana march or what not- I was walking on the street and along came the pot march and I figured I might as well tag along for a while . Tons of people smoking up; some teen taught an old guy how to smoke up, laugh . Sure, there were some cops, but they were basically just making sure that no one was getting rowdy. They even had some metal things with a 'cops for pot' or what not . Times are changing. Some try to hold the tides of change back, others are trying to push them forward. But let's face it, the next generation -always- wins, because, as far as I know, no one has lived past 120 years or so (and those that do are few and far between).

Morals and ethics change, and at a decidedly faster rate than the legislation. Just walking out your front door would show you that. And it's not even just that morals change; it's also that not everybody shares morals. The folks making the laws certainly don't stand on the same moral ground that the twentysomethings and tweens do, and those folks make the culture what it is.

Yeah. Things do change ofcourse. I think that Bush was someone who in many ways tried to 'hold things back'; However, after 8 years, I think that many people have gotten rather tired of that approach.

Especially when the products they're offering are generally no worse then the drugs already available (cigarettes, alcohol). In point of fact, many times the products that -are- worse (conventional illegal drugs laced with truly nasty stuff) simply wouldn't be able to happen if the drugs were legal. Why? Because the producers would only get sued if they had the nasty stuff; they would be fine otherwise, which is clearly not the case with the drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroine today. As I said before, it may be that drugs such as heroine and cocaine are reduced in potency if they were to become legal, just as beer became in vogue instead of spirits after people were officially allowed to drink spirits; it seems counterintuitive but when you consider issues such as the fact that the more concentrated the illegal drug, the easier the less space is needed to smuggle it, it begins to make sense.

Part of it is the ridiculous and oppressive Religious Right stepping in and enforcing their dated morality on the country, the other part is lobbyists for drug companies keeping the cash flowing into Washington.

Yeah- 2 groups that the ex president really liked to cozy up to.

When our President is a guy who literally thinks he talks to Jesus, and belongs to a radical end-times cult, of course the laws aren't going to change in a progressive way.

Our president.. as in Obama?

In fact, the laws have change in a regressive way, to the point where we've actually lost civil liberties.

I personally believe the 9/11 deception had a lot to do with that. Ofcourse many people here think that the official story regarding 9/11 is just peachy and not a darker version of Iraq's non existent WMDs.

So until we have a man or woman in the highest office--and likewise in the lawmaking positions of congress--we're not going to get over this stupidity. But don't think for one second that this shit doesn't apply to all morality in legislation. I mean, just look at the whole gay marriage issue. That's a moral stance belonging to one sect of this nation, being enforced on folks who don't believe in the same thing. It will have to change eventually because it doesn't work.

So you're saying that.. gay marriage should be allowed? That's my stance anyway. Churches are ofcourse free to marry whoever they want, but civilly, I think any 2 people who understand the consequences of their actions should be able to marry each other. Or more then 2 people ;-).

 

[PieAreSquared]

Legalize weed--yes .. same rules as booze

the hard stuff, I don't think so

 

[cosmictraveler]

 

[scott3x]

I've experienced drugs - many you can name and many you'd never think of. I've had my problems with drugs - I sometimes act irresponsibly while drinking, and I'm addicted to nicotine (two semi-sociably acceptable flaws). The one thing I keep hearing that irks me most is the chatter about which drugs are really bad and which drugs are just sorta bad for you, and society. These lines in the sand are simply idiotic. We live in a society where people risk killing themselves to get high on water (water!!). We live in a society where over 100,000 people die every day worldwide from drunk driving and we have the gaul to call crack evil? In any human culture there will be a fairly steady percentage of individuals who will chronically abuse drugs. In fact, it is shown that at least one species of primates share an exact correlation of alcoholism per population with humans. NO addiction is healthy, and addictions are partially genetic and partially social. If we could just have a common sense non moral discussion about the risks of drugs without fear of condemnation, I think that would go a long way towards tempering our own self destruction.

"Common sense" is a loaded term. If we define it as what people commonly believe to be true, I'm not so keen on it. I prefer terms like logic. Anyway, I agree with the rest I believe .

At the very least, I think we should criminalize unrestrained addictive consumerism, people that have food fetishes, and those who are addicted to love so that the stoners will have some company behind bars.

Laugh

Make no mistake, we are NOT living in enlightened times, and there is no guarantee that it will get better in our lifetimes unless we force the matters.

Forcing things frequently leads to bad times. Do you really want to live in a place like Iraq? I prefer talking things out. Politicians are elected by the people. The people comprise society; convince society and your problems are solved.