Legalization of drugs

[Scribbler1]

Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen this topic around here. I'm wondering what everyone's take on this issue is?

Personally, I see our laughable "war on drugs" as not only unwinnable (didn't ANYONE learn anything from Americs'a prohibition experiment with alcohol?) and poorly thought out with no consideration of human nature or history. Just as Prohibition nurtured the mobs back then, drug prohibition is nurturing the more violent drug gangs today. The answer to drug-related crime seems clear. Legalize it, period. It takes away the easy money, profit motive away from the gangs and individual dealers, AND would support a new American industry, which can be regulated and taxed.
What's the difference between drugs and alcohol here? You can either suck down a couple of pints of Southern Comfort and get commode hugging drunk, or smoke a few joints and giggle all night with a mouthful of chips and playing Pink Floyd over and over. Either way, ain't nobody's buisness but yours, right?

[darwinist]

Interesting stuff. :)

Read 'Ben Elton's ' - " High Society ".

It is about this very topic. Very good. Very insightfull.

It is the old mistake of legislators, in spite of experience invariably showing that laws, however barbarous they may be, have never served to suppress vice. The more severe the penalties imposed on the consumers and traffickers of drugs, the greater will be the attraction of forbidden fruits and the fascination of the risks incurred by the consumer, and the greater will be the profits made by the speculators, avid for money.

But fear holds back governments. Fear that we will all become 'drug addicts' over night. A few for all, frenzy of drug taking. A mad rampage of luncy. Also i think it is a big fear of loss of control. Most governments are control addicts, they want to control every aspects of our lives. That is why there is so much paperwork involved in life.

[Impenitent]

legalizing drugs is fine...

except we must change dwi laws... first offence, 10 years minimum; second offence, death penalty... and welfare laws need to be changed as well, any trace amount of drugs or alcohol in the blood disqualifies one from any money or aid whatsoever...

if you want to screw your own mind up, that's great... do it on your dime... and if you think you will get the chance to kill while under the influence, think again

and if you think society should foot your bill while you are stoned, you've got another thing coming...

[G. Adams]

Great, the rich get stoned and the peoples lives that are so damned shitty that getting stoned is the only release can't. And how about we cut welfare if they are overweight, hey they are clearly blowing their money on donuts and m+m's. And what if they have half decent car? Wasters. Or a new piece of furniture? Hell any piece of furniture should disqualify them right?

[Scribbler1]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
legalizing drugs is fine...

except we must change dwi laws... first offence, 10 years minimum; second offence, death penalty... and welfare laws need to be changed as well, any trace amount of drugs or alcohol in the blood disqualifies one from any money or aid whatsoever...

if you want to screw your own mind up, that's great... do it on your dime... and if you think you will get the chance to kill while under the influence, think again

and if you think society should foot your bill while you are stoned, you've got another thing coming...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, I think your idea for DWI laws is a bit draconian. My own take is that the laws are fine the way they are, but are not enforced. Most likely from the lack of manpower due to the fact that most people who drive while over the legal limit are hard to spot, and pulling over everyone to check their breath is unworkable.

However, "doing it on your own dime" is exactly what I mean. Although I do neither, if I want to get shitfaced or stoned in my own home it's nobody's business but mine. In general, social laws should be enacted ONLY to protect people, like DWI laws, but not at home (unless you drive right afterward, which is another matter) or anywhere else where you are not endangering anyone. If I go to the beach and sombody with me has a few too many, so what, as long as I'M driving. The same applies to, say, smoking a joint in the park, as long as someone else drives back.

And the trace amounts of drugs argument is bogus. If you are near the pot smoker in the park, chances are YOU have trace amounts in your system, and as long as blood tests still sometimes mistake over the counter cold medications for speed, and poppy seeds on your bagel for heroin, you can't use the "trace" argument as the basis for a legal judgement.

[Scribbler1]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,)
Interesting stuff. :)

Read 'Ben Elton's ' - " High Society ".

It is about this very topic. Very good. Very insightfull.

It is the old mistake of legislators, in spite of experience invariably showing that laws, however barbarous they may be, have never served to suppress vice. The more severe the penalties imposed on the consumers and traffickers of drugs, the greater will be the attraction of forbidden fruits and the fascination of the risks incurred by the consumer, and the greater will be the profits made by the speculators, avid for money.


>>>Right. It's more about the money than anything else. Like the old cliche about pushers hanging around schoolyards and handing out free samples until the kids are hooked. The reality may not be EXACTLY that way, but it's close. When you analyze it, it really is simply an extension of the capitalist mentality gone amok. The dealers know they can get busted, but the lure of that new BMW is pretty strong and you wont buy anything near that price working at most regular jobs.
I wrote a article many years ago about prisons, and interviewed the Warden at our local (overcrowded) prison, and was told (if memory serves) that over SEVENTY PERCENT of the inmates were in there for drug offenses, mostly posession or nickel and dime dealing. That is the true result on our highly touted "war" on drugs.<<<


But fear holds back governments. Fear that we will all become 'drug addicts' over night. A few for all, frenzy of drug taking. A mad rampage of luncy. Also i think it is a big fear of loss of control. Most governments are control addicts, they want to control every aspects of our lives. That is why there is so much paperwork involved in life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


I don't think it's fear, but political reality. The government has done such a good job demonizing ALL drugs, like with that "this is your brain on drugs" TV ad with the egg in the frying pan, that too many people think Heroin and pot are the same thing. And there IS a liquor lobby in DC as well, who would not like to see the sales of the recreational drug called alcohol eroded by legal pot smokers.

And since I've benn called a statistic freak before, I guess I'll have to throw one in. :)
Heroin is actually a trademarked brand name. It was originally intended as a Morphine replacement to be used for battlefield wounds as it wasnt quite as addictive, and was trademarked by the Bayer Company (I believe in the 1940s). Due to its current reputation, it's no surprise Bayer isn't talking about it.

[darwinist]

It's painfully obvious that drug prohibition is not only destroying our civil liberties, but is also producing a lot of violence and property crime because of the combination of illegality and high profit margins; this results in turf wars by dealers, and crimes committed by drug addicts to support the high price of their habits. All of this should be, and is, obvious, but there is so much fear, authoritarianism and sadism in the general population, and so little ability to analyze data, that the war on drugs continues. And we all pay the price for it through destruction of our liberties, sky-high taxes, and the creation of what could well become a police state.

[Utah]

I have no problem with legalization of marijuana, but the question I have is how do employers know they are dealing with someone that is hi or not high when working with machinery, etc.,? Alcohol is easy to test because it leaves your system fairly quickly, but other drugs are a problem.

[G. Adams]

Maybe its because I've only ever had crap stuff, but the effects on me of joints only last about 15 minutes. So as long as you bought from my guy, you'd probably be safer on marijuana than alcohol.

[Utah]

Well, safer in only a few regards. I haven't smoked anything for about 17 years, but at least you can't overdose from pot like you can alcohol. However, taking foreign substances into your lungs can never be good and the health issues there probably are worse than a hardened liver.

[lefty]

I just find it inherently wrong that the police need a warrant to come into my home, yet a prospective employer need only hand me a cup to piss in and that will invariably decide my future. I personally have nothing to hide, but find it to be invasive for some schmo to stand over my shoulder while I pee in a cup for him. Legalization would be a great idea, but that would also nearly shut down the dea and leave many people out of work. The government is addicted to their no win war on drugs. It's a sad scenario.

[Utah]

Lefty,

They would clearly have to come up with a real way to test "when" you last used it. Obviously getting high the night before and sober the next shouldn't get one fired. Otherwise, you are absolutely right.

[white rice]

Sell LSD and heroin at Costco and Sam's Warehouse. That'll shatter the crimelords' grip on America...

I think pot should be decriminalized, but I wouldn't mind all drugs being decriminalized if that money saved went into effective prevention and rehabilitation programs instead of mindless scare tactics and propaganda easily defeated by peer pressure.

[Waychel]

Personally, I find alcohol a poor comparison in this circumstance. Alcohol has been widely consumed in our society and a part of our culture since before the country was even founded - which is why prohibition did nothing to stop it. Likewise, large numbers of the rich, middle class and poor drink alcohol. I would go so far as to estimate that 4 out of every 5 persons (of any financial standing) enjoys a drink every so often on some social occasions. Those who do drugs on the other hand do not even begin to compare to these statistics (and never have come close), so drugs bein illegal inconveniances few. This also brings into question the impact that legal drug use would have on our society sociologically, because let's face it: the majority of those who participate in drug use are of a lower class in regards to income - with a few priveledged being the exception.

I also fail to see why we should make other damaging substances legal just because one such as alchohol already is. I guess the bottom line for me is that I see no direct benefit in making drugs legal. If it is legal for medicinal purposes (such as in the case of Marijuana) then that is the important thing. As a means to get high, I find it a reckless abuse of a substance that simply has a damaging affect upon our society sociologically.

[Utah]

I would say drugs are as popular with people of a high standard of living as those with a poor standard of living, it is just the rich or upper middle class don't and won't get the same attention a poor person gets. I remember back in the day of school, there were those that everyone thought they knew did drugs and then there were those loved and respected by the teachers, administration, and parents that did far more drugs because Mommie and Daddie gave the money and care not where it went. If they got caught, they got off... everyone else got in trouble.

I believe it is naive to think that only poor or majority of the poor deal in drugs.

[Waychel]

The only people of "higher class" you ever hear of being involved in drugs are trust-fund babies like our dear Paris Hilton, or the likes of Rock Stars. In other words, those who are over-abundant in money and reflect that with careless lifestyle. I have yet to come accross a doctor, attorney or other hard-working, middle-to-upper class person of reasonable education however that does drugs either on a regular or occasional basis.

If they exist, they are an exceptional few in a majority of school/college kids and the minimum wage working class.

[Utah]

You simply don't know about it Funny though how even education can't prevent themselves from recognizing the dangers of cigarettes, yet for some reason they understand that taking to drugs to relieve stress with work or family is totally unacceptable?

You don't hear about it because it isn't news. The wealthier you are or the more prominent in society the better you are at being able to cover it up, work a deal, and keep your family name with honor. I have seen it so many times it is ridiculous. The poor or lower middle class with basically no social status do not have the friends in high places to help them out.

[Waychel]

To be honest, I have yet to come into contact with an attorney, doctor, or person of any similar profession that either does or condones drugs. I work with one paralegal who admitted to having done marijuana, but whom no longer does because it affected her memory. I highly doubt you will find very many attorneys who are hyped up on heroine, or very many doctors doing cocaine that are also successful in their business practices. You may say there are one or two unique exceptions, but until I see any for myself (let alone a considerable amount) I am going to remain of the opinion that “recreational” drug use and drug addiction are not good business traits to have.

[Utah]

I agree they aren't good traits, but you are assuming one is going to "admit" to it in the first place. You stick by what you think and I'll stick by what actually happens, no big deal. WE are all able to believe what we want.

[Waychel]

I don't believe what I have seen no proof or reasonable documentation of. But anyways, that sounds good to me. =PpP