You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
War on Drugs - Disaster or justified crusade?
- Thread starter Balder1
- Start date
Zanket , I'm not sure what country you live in ...but your repeated call for " majority rule " sounds like you live in a socialistic democracy . Just because a larger percentage of people agree on something , doesn't make it correct . What kind of scientific methodology utilizes mob rule ?
Just because you and all your buddies can agree on limiting what some one else consumes ....doesn't lend validity to your position .
Just because you and all your buddies can agree on limiting what some one else consumes ....doesn't lend validity to your position .
Someone’ll rule you. Would you rather be ruled by a majority or a minority? In my country the majority rule applies to each issue or candidate. (Sometimes a supermajority applies.) The majority comprises different people for each issue or candidate.
As it relates to drugs, the majority makes many drugs illegal because users negatively affect them. The laws are designed to reduce the negative effects. Whether they work is a different story.
As it relates to drugs, the majority makes many drugs illegal because users negatively affect them. The laws are designed to reduce the negative effects. Whether they work is a different story.
Last edited:
What kind of scientific methodology utilizes mob rule ?
It seems to me that that is how the scientific community works.
Zanket , thanks for the reply . Your quote : " the majority makes many drugs illegal because users negatively affect them. "
Many drug laws were inacted ( alcohol prohibition included ) by utilizing PR campiagns and targeting law makers and the public with fabricated scare tactics . Some drugs were in direct conflict with others profit ( Dupont , Hearst and hemp a good example ) .
Many of these laws were inacted under the guise of necessity , when in reality they were designed to generate additional income , demonize minorities and to impose a concocted paradigm how everyone should behave . A democracy was defined as " two wolfs and a sheep deciding what's for dinner ..."
I don't advocate using any drugs , just trying to be realistic about motivational factors inherent in the decision making process .
Xevious , the point I was trying to make , was ... the truth is not determined by how many people believe something . Years ago , most thought that evil spirits were the cause of illness ...
Many drug laws were inacted ( alcohol prohibition included ) by utilizing PR campiagns and targeting law makers and the public with fabricated scare tactics . Some drugs were in direct conflict with others profit ( Dupont , Hearst and hemp a good example ) .
Many of these laws were inacted under the guise of necessity , when in reality they were designed to generate additional income , demonize minorities and to impose a concocted paradigm how everyone should behave . A democracy was defined as " two wolfs and a sheep deciding what's for dinner ..."
I don't advocate using any drugs , just trying to be realistic about motivational factors inherent in the decision making process .
Xevious , the point I was trying to make , was ... the truth is not determined by how many people believe something . Years ago , most thought that evil spirits were the cause of illness ...
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
I have no problem with someone who gets stoned on an occasional basis. The problem is that chronic users are effecting everyone around them.
If you were in an accident and ended up in an intensive care unit, would you want your nurse to smoke a joint on his/her break?? It is happening in all occupations and is having a disastrous effect on our productivity and safety.
One of my greatest concerns is that we will not be able to compete in a global economy with a stoned work force.
So why doesn't the government stop it?? Most druggies aren't looking for work. If they were to show up looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would skyrocket. Rehab centers are making millions. Unemployed drug users are not about to riot about a "no job economy"
Drugs are a method that people in high places are using to control us. During the Boxer rebellion in 19th century China, the people were rebelling because the use of opium was enslaving them. And who was shipping them the opium?, some of the most influencial people in America.
If you were in an accident and ended up in an intensive care unit, would you want your nurse to smoke a joint on his/her break?? It is happening in all occupations and is having a disastrous effect on our productivity and safety.
One of my greatest concerns is that we will not be able to compete in a global economy with a stoned work force.
So why doesn't the government stop it?? Most druggies aren't looking for work. If they were to show up looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would skyrocket. Rehab centers are making millions. Unemployed drug users are not about to riot about a "no job economy"
Drugs are a method that people in high places are using to control us. During the Boxer rebellion in 19th century China, the people were rebelling because the use of opium was enslaving them. And who was shipping them the opium?, some of the most influencial people in America.
Ah, insurance companies. A most profitable business. Statistics say that most won't get hurt that pay. Somehow the price for that coverage always goes up.
Next the business that are required to carry insurance are looking for ways to control the cost. In that method, many alterations for behaviour modifications have been made law. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, drug tests, mandatory insurance, and much more. Businesses have reached the point that it is always the victums fault. Like tiassa's post, the individual was in the wrong place, so he was at fault. When you fill out an accident form for a fortune 500 company there is no way you will not be at fault. Either the victum will say he was at fault or the investgation of it will say so.
We long ago lost the war on drugs. Go to any city in the US and you can find whatever it is you are looking for. If we were winning such a war, it wouldn't be there. But it is. Controlling the inflow of drugs hasn't worked. Period.
Making the user responcible hasn't worked either. The prisions are over flowing to the point that they have to let them out to make room for the next batch. So are we making a criminal population because they use drugs? You betcha we are. somehow that doesn't stop it either. The prisons are just as crowded as ever.
People want drugs, they are willing to pay astronomical prices to get them and there are people quite ready to take that money. The only way to stop the flood of drugs is to make the value worthless. If there is no money in it there will be no drug trade. Say what you will, nothing to date has worked to control the flow or stem the tide. If drugs are legal then the drug dealer is the new class of unemployed.
People will always go where the price is less for the product. Why do you think Walmart is doing so well? It isn't because they offer a better product.
By legalising it you do drop the price. If there is no great sums to be reaped then there won't be a drug trade. You can not get people to stop using them or it would have been successful long ago.
The double standard of business to enforce for the worker yet turn a blind eye to the management only tells that it is at all levels. At least with legalization the government would recieve something besides more bills to pay for enforcement, court, and prisions.
Next the business that are required to carry insurance are looking for ways to control the cost. In that method, many alterations for behaviour modifications have been made law. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, drug tests, mandatory insurance, and much more. Businesses have reached the point that it is always the victums fault. Like tiassa's post, the individual was in the wrong place, so he was at fault. When you fill out an accident form for a fortune 500 company there is no way you will not be at fault. Either the victum will say he was at fault or the investgation of it will say so.
We long ago lost the war on drugs. Go to any city in the US and you can find whatever it is you are looking for. If we were winning such a war, it wouldn't be there. But it is. Controlling the inflow of drugs hasn't worked. Period.
Making the user responcible hasn't worked either. The prisions are over flowing to the point that they have to let them out to make room for the next batch. So are we making a criminal population because they use drugs? You betcha we are. somehow that doesn't stop it either. The prisons are just as crowded as ever.
People want drugs, they are willing to pay astronomical prices to get them and there are people quite ready to take that money. The only way to stop the flood of drugs is to make the value worthless. If there is no money in it there will be no drug trade. Say what you will, nothing to date has worked to control the flow or stem the tide. If drugs are legal then the drug dealer is the new class of unemployed.
People will always go where the price is less for the product. Why do you think Walmart is doing so well? It isn't because they offer a better product.
By legalising it you do drop the price. If there is no great sums to be reaped then there won't be a drug trade. You can not get people to stop using them or it would have been successful long ago.
The double standard of business to enforce for the worker yet turn a blind eye to the management only tells that it is at all levels. At least with legalization the government would recieve something besides more bills to pay for enforcement, court, and prisions.
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
Legalizing drugs will lower the price
Legalization of drugs will only bring in new profiteers, the tobacco companies have been waiting for 20 years to take over the MJ market. The pharmacuitical companies are gouging us already on legitimate drugs, just think what they would do with the current "illegal" drugs.
Just what drugs would we want to legalize? Lets see; we could allow Eli Lilly to manufacture and sell crystal meth, Pharmacia should make the date rape drugs, (because they are allready screwing the public anyway), GlaxoWelcome could produce Ecstasy. and of course we can buy everything, including crack, at the drive thru window at Walgreens.
We have a major drug problem in this country and although it will probably never be completly controlled it can certainly be contained to a smaller segment of society.
Legalization of drugs will only bring in new profiteers, the tobacco companies have been waiting for 20 years to take over the MJ market. The pharmacuitical companies are gouging us already on legitimate drugs, just think what they would do with the current "illegal" drugs.
Just what drugs would we want to legalize? Lets see; we could allow Eli Lilly to manufacture and sell crystal meth, Pharmacia should make the date rape drugs, (because they are allready screwing the public anyway), GlaxoWelcome could produce Ecstasy. and of course we can buy everything, including crack, at the drive thru window at Walgreens.
We have a major drug problem in this country and although it will probably never be completly controlled it can certainly be contained to a smaller segment of society.
Last edited:
The problem with containment to a smaller society is that it simply doesn't work. Witness the days of prohibition. The illegal use of alcohol was not controlled, it only opened up the way for bootleggers and speak-easy's. In the process we got the mob to distribute drugs, taking the place of the modern day drug deal and drug king pin.
Education of the masses hasn't worked either, nor has "just say no". What has happened instead, is that those who would use drugs are exposed to the ads, education against drugs, ect. of all the horrors of drug use, whatever the most catchy slogan of the day is. They wind up out of curiosity trying it to see what is so bad about it. What they find is that the gateway drugs, like pot ain't so bad, certainly not what it was made up to be. So the only thing that comes to mind to the initial user is that they lied in telling and presenting these drugs as being the scourge of mankind. Therefore if these are not that bad, then surely the rest aren't.
It also breeds contempt for the law. If you must break the law to use this then what is another step along the way? The next thing is, it is ok not to pay taxes, it is ok to "borrow" your neighbors lawn mower to sell for drugs, (he isn't using it anyway, when you took it) and other behaviours that law says is not to be done are suspect. Law officers become "the pigs" as they are upholding unpopular laws and lose respect of the populace in the process.
You have the second most largest business in the US, in the black market. (if I remember my figures correctly) that should give you some key as to just how unpopular the current laws are and what Joe Public is willing to do to get them. If that money remained within the US, tell me our economy would not be better? Tell me our taxes would not be less? Tell me our money would be worth less (As the government must print more to replace that which left the country, devaluing what remains).
It is far easier to make a clinic where you could buy legal drugs. Reasons? Users can be kept watch on to general health and condition as they come to purchase said drugs. Help may be offered to those that will take it. If they won't take it, crack babies aren't going to stop. Whether you pay now or later isn't the issue. Because you are already paying. The user will find what they desire, come hell or high water. It doesn't stop it now. So the advent of making drugs legal holds no water as far as proliferation goes. Studies show that after the initial legalization in The Netherlands that drug use decreased to a certain level and then remained there. In otherwords, no matter what the government rules, a precentage are going to do drugs. You will not stop it but you can control it to a minor extent.
You need only look around your home town to see that it is neither controlled nor is the drug war in anyway a success...
Education of the masses hasn't worked either, nor has "just say no". What has happened instead, is that those who would use drugs are exposed to the ads, education against drugs, ect. of all the horrors of drug use, whatever the most catchy slogan of the day is. They wind up out of curiosity trying it to see what is so bad about it. What they find is that the gateway drugs, like pot ain't so bad, certainly not what it was made up to be. So the only thing that comes to mind to the initial user is that they lied in telling and presenting these drugs as being the scourge of mankind. Therefore if these are not that bad, then surely the rest aren't.
It also breeds contempt for the law. If you must break the law to use this then what is another step along the way? The next thing is, it is ok not to pay taxes, it is ok to "borrow" your neighbors lawn mower to sell for drugs, (he isn't using it anyway, when you took it) and other behaviours that law says is not to be done are suspect. Law officers become "the pigs" as they are upholding unpopular laws and lose respect of the populace in the process.
You have the second most largest business in the US, in the black market. (if I remember my figures correctly) that should give you some key as to just how unpopular the current laws are and what Joe Public is willing to do to get them. If that money remained within the US, tell me our economy would not be better? Tell me our taxes would not be less? Tell me our money would be worth less (As the government must print more to replace that which left the country, devaluing what remains).
It is far easier to make a clinic where you could buy legal drugs. Reasons? Users can be kept watch on to general health and condition as they come to purchase said drugs. Help may be offered to those that will take it. If they won't take it, crack babies aren't going to stop. Whether you pay now or later isn't the issue. Because you are already paying. The user will find what they desire, come hell or high water. It doesn't stop it now. So the advent of making drugs legal holds no water as far as proliferation goes. Studies show that after the initial legalization in The Netherlands that drug use decreased to a certain level and then remained there. In otherwords, no matter what the government rules, a precentage are going to do drugs. You will not stop it but you can control it to a minor extent.
You need only look around your home town to see that it is neither controlled nor is the drug war in anyway a success...
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
Wet1
You are probably right about complete containment of MJ, but some form of controlling where and when it is used is an absolute necessity. Like I said before "If you were in a critical care unit in a hospital, would you want your nurse to smoke a joint on her/his break?
An informative link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/socialhistory.html
You are probably right about complete containment of MJ, but some form of controlling where and when it is used is an absolute necessity. Like I said before "If you were in a critical care unit in a hospital, would you want your nurse to smoke a joint on her/his break?
An informative link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/socialhistory.html
Justiceusa, alcohol is just as bad, and it's legal. When it's used can be controlled. You would still get a DUI if you drove while stoned(true, enforcement would be a lot harder. Wonder what the Netherlands does.)
As far as what drugs to legalize, I already posted that I think we should only legalize pot, and try harder to eliminate mass production of heroin and cocaine from the world. As for designer drugs like ecstacy... can you guys think of any constructive plans for dealing with those, other than the status quo? It's a major problem, and I'm wondering what other people would do about it.
As far as what drugs to legalize, I already posted that I think we should only legalize pot, and try harder to eliminate mass production of heroin and cocaine from the world. As for designer drugs like ecstacy... can you guys think of any constructive plans for dealing with those, other than the status quo? It's a major problem, and I'm wondering what other people would do about it.
Are you sure that is not already the case?
Many is the doctor, who has available trial drugs, given by drug salesmen to give to patients. These trial drugs are not given the same scrunity that drugs in a hospital pharmacy are given. Nor are they given the same accountability. I have known some of these doctors, who thought nothing of using those drugs to stay awake for the long periods that both internship and that patient load put upon them. I would suspect that if you only knew, you would be frightened out of your mind...
Many is the doctor, who has available trial drugs, given by drug salesmen to give to patients. These trial drugs are not given the same scrunity that drugs in a hospital pharmacy are given. Nor are they given the same accountability. I have known some of these doctors, who thought nothing of using those drugs to stay awake for the long periods that both internship and that patient load put upon them. I would suspect that if you only knew, you would be frightened out of your mind...
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
wet1
My pm is active now. I am aware of a lot of drug misuse in the medical profession. Medical doctors have a high rate of addiction to perscription drugs.
My pm is active now. I am aware of a lot of drug misuse in the medical profession. Medical doctors have a high rate of addiction to perscription drugs.
The non-users can’t be expected to subsidize the users. I’m not talking about MJ but crack or heroin where the cost to society is significant. The “they will use anyway” point is along the lines of “they will murder anyway.”
I mentioned before my idea of rehab instead of prison. I’d support closing off escape to known crack alleys & houses and doing on-the-spot drug tests. Shift all the money pumped into the drug war into getting the users into rehab. Focus on users, the root cause of the problem, and ignore the drug lords and pushers. In a drug transaction, arrest the user only. Make the users aware that if they buy or use in any public way, they have a high chance of experiencing rehab. Most people don’t care about private, responsible use.
I mentioned before my idea of rehab instead of prison. I’d support closing off escape to known crack alleys & houses and doing on-the-spot drug tests. Shift all the money pumped into the drug war into getting the users into rehab. Focus on users, the root cause of the problem, and ignore the drug lords and pushers. In a drug transaction, arrest the user only. Make the users aware that if they buy or use in any public way, they have a high chance of experiencing rehab. Most people don’t care about private, responsible use.
While rehab is an excellent way to try and deal with the situtation, most courts and even companies offer this. Not only that but if you are caught and identified as a drug user in a drug test there is usually a requirement that you take a drug rehab and continue a regular drug test schedule after being identified.
The percentages show that the effectiveness of drug rehab are not that good. The majority are only waiting it out to escape the wraith of the law. It is only when the user himself seeks drug rehab, without outside influance, that the percentages for successful treatment go up.
Non-users are already funding and subsidizing the users. That is what brings in court sponsered drug rehabs. The users that attend usually pay some amount but that is not anywhere near the total.
No matter how you go at it, it is a knotty problem.
I think also in the middle of all this, I have not made my true position known. Call it putting the bell on the cat.
My actual feelings are that there should be no tolerance for drugs on the job. That only the lesser of the evils be made legal. In truth, pot. That it should be treated just like alochol as far as fines, penalties, and the like go. I do not feel that heroin, crack, or designer drugs of any kind should be made available as a legal substance. We have enough evidence of where that leads.
The percentages show that the effectiveness of drug rehab are not that good. The majority are only waiting it out to escape the wraith of the law. It is only when the user himself seeks drug rehab, without outside influance, that the percentages for successful treatment go up.
Non-users are already funding and subsidizing the users. That is what brings in court sponsered drug rehabs. The users that attend usually pay some amount but that is not anywhere near the total.
No matter how you go at it, it is a knotty problem.
I think also in the middle of all this, I have not made my true position known. Call it putting the bell on the cat.
My actual feelings are that there should be no tolerance for drugs on the job. That only the lesser of the evils be made legal. In truth, pot. That it should be treated just like alochol as far as fines, penalties, and the like go. I do not feel that heroin, crack, or designer drugs of any kind should be made available as a legal substance. We have enough evidence of where that leads.
A knotty problem indeed. I can’t deny what you say about rehab, just look at Robert Downey, Jr.
How about garnish a chunk of their wages for years rather than prison or rehab, unless they volunteer for free rehab? Granted it's an outside influence, but at least then we non-users save prison costs and can get some payback to boot.
How about garnish a chunk of their wages for years rather than prison or rehab, unless they volunteer for free rehab? Granted it's an outside influence, but at least then we non-users save prison costs and can get some payback to boot.