legalization of drugs [Archive] - Beastie Boys Message Board

Rosie Cotton

03-03-2005, 10:19 PM

ok because people you know got really affected by drugs it should make them stay not legalized.

because them being illegal stopped that from happening?
I meant most people in that situation would wrongly think that stricter laws would have prevented their loved ones' addictions. Perhaps I didn't word it as best I could.

However, I know better. I know that if the threat of jail time couldn't stop my dad from snorting coke then nothing would. I know that the possibility of ODing wasn't enough to prevent my uncle from shooting up. Nothing could have stopped my friends from fucking up their lives. If our drug laws weren't as strict it might have helped some of them. Some only started because they weren't allowed to do it, which glamorized it. Others were just already fucked up and would have been addicts anyway. And others still had a hard time distinguishing the line between healthy experimantation and full-blown addiction.

There is no good reason as to why we have the drug laws that we have. Common sense should tell us that treatment works better than prison. There's no reason why a naturally occuring leaf is illegal while far worse drugs are sold legally in our neighborhood pharmacies.

checkyourprez

03-03-2005, 10:24 PM

Yeh..... Duh, just like tabacco.

The only thing stopping some people is knowing it is illegal, because obviouly people do not care if they MIGHT get cancer, or MIGHT become instantly addicted to Heroin.

thats a persons decision. you have to be acountalbe for your own actions, if someone smokes they do so knowing what could happen to them. also niccotine is more addictive than heroin sooo, idk where you get that "instantly addicted" stuff when talking about H.

obviously if drugs were legalized they would be regulated just the same.

not to mention how much crime/violence would be stopped.

Rosie Cotton

03-03-2005, 10:33 PM

also niccotine is more addictive than heroin sooo, idk where you get that "instantly addicted" stuff when talking about H.
People have become addicted to heroin and other drugs the first time they've tried it. Not everyone, because people have different tolerance levels. But yes, it can be, depending on the person, instantly addictive.

checkyourprez

03-03-2005, 10:37 PM

People have become addicted to heroin and other drugs the first time they've tried it. Not everyone, because people have different tolerance levels. But yes, it can be, depending on the person, instantly addictive.

yes as with anything it depends on the idividuals body, theres no way i can sit here and say it has never happend. but scientifically speaking niccotine is a more addictive than herion.

Rosie Cotton

03-03-2005, 10:43 PM

yes as with anything it depends on the idividuals body, theres no way i can sit here and say it has never happend. but scientifically speaking niccotine is a more addictive than herion.
I know it's one of the hardest addictions to overcome, but I don't know if it's one of the most easily addictive substances. I believe it takes about three or four cigarettes to become addicted, but there are other things that you can become addicted to when you first take it.

Of course, I don't smoke so I really have no firsthand knowledge.

racer5.0stang

03-03-2005, 11:25 PM

healthy experimantation

Is there a such thing?

racer5.0stang

03-03-2005, 11:26 PM

not to mention how much crime/violence would be stopped.

Why because if it were legalized people would then have the money to support their addiction? Get real.

Rosie Cotton

03-03-2005, 11:33 PM

Is there a such thing?
Yes.
Why because if it were legalized people would then have the money to support their addiction? Get real.
I think he means that there would be less gang warfare since they wouldn't be fighting over places to sell. Of course the hatred between the groups is so deeply ingrained that that wouldn't actually happen.

racer5.0stang

03-03-2005, 11:40 PM

Yes.

Explain.

I think he means that there would be less gang warfare since they wouldn't be fighting over places to sell. Of course the hatred between the groups is so deeply ingrained that that wouldn't actually happen.

Yeah it is pretty dumb.

Rosie Cotton

03-03-2005, 11:53 PM

Explain.
Many drugs are meant to be taken to expand your mind. I know that sounds like new-age hippy bullshit, and it sort of is. But that's why many native groups have used (and some still do) drugs in many of their rituals. You could look at it like alcohol, a few drinks now and then aren't really a problem.

We wouldn't really have much of a problem if our drug laws weren't so strict and if people were actually educated. When I was in high school we had to listen to this man (from the military, of course) talk about how evil drugs are, because pot gives you chlamydia. No, I'm not making that up. He really said that.

yeahwho

03-03-2005, 11:54 PM

Marijuana should have been legal 30 years ago. WTF is up with these repressive laws? Total bullshit that Alcohol is legal and weed ain't! :mad:

Damn were ass backwards, the destruction caused by alcoholism in this country is very well documented and has touched everyone in one form or another. Yet marijuana is barely on the radar....munchies and headphones, be careful.

I say this as a person who does either drug, it does not mean I would want to do either, either ;) . Just let the weed flow. Reagan had his 0 tolerence, "War on Drugs" team come out with the most twisted fucking statistics ever on marijuana use, like 90% of all Heroin addicts used marijuana first (gateway hype), but the fact of those numbers is 99.9% of people who smoked marijuana never tried heroin. Just a fucking warped sense of truth...people still buy it today.

Rosie Cotton

03-03-2005, 11:58 PM

Marijuana should have been legal 30 years ago. WTF is up with these repressive laws? Total bullshit that Alcohol is legal and weed ain't! :mad:

Damn were ass backwards, the destruction caused by alcoholism in this country is very well documented and has touched everyone in one form or another. Yet marijuana is barely on the radar....munchies and headphones, be careful.
Heh, because of my father's job he has been attacked by belligerent morons on multiple occasions. Most of these people are drunk, though occasionally he'll come across a meth addict. Never once has he been attacked by a pothead.

Yet pot's illegal. Makes sense to me.

racer5.0stang

03-04-2005, 12:05 AM

Many drugs are meant to be taken to expand your mind. I know that sounds like new-age hippy bullshit, and it sort of is. But that's why many native groups have used (and some still do) drugs in many of their rituals. You could look at it like alcohol, a few drinks now and then aren't really a problem.

We wouldn't really have much of a problem if our drug laws weren't so strict and if people were actually educated. When I was in high school we had to listen to this man (from the military, of course) talk about how evil drugs are, because pot gives you chlamydia. No, I'm not making that up. He really said that.

It is unfortunate that in order to try and "expand the mind" you end up killing brain cells which inevitably make you more dumber. ;)

yeahwho

03-04-2005, 12:08 AM

Yet pot's illegal. Makes sense to me.

Here is a strange dichotomy I've found throughout my life, everybody I've ever asked, including folks who go to AA and all that happy horseshit, 90% of them, even the old codgers, say weed should prolly be legal. WTF, am I the only one who has this happening, I doubt it. Just fucking amazing how much money we spend keeping it illegal and dangerous.

Whats up with that? Correct me if you know more people who want it illegal than legal.

yeahwho

03-04-2005, 12:11 AM

It is unfortunate that in order to try and "expand the mind" you end up killing brain cells which inevitably make you more dumber. ;)

I agree wholeheartedly with you, yet if LSD and weed were legal, the church would probably benefit. Spiritual experiences can be addictive too.

Rosie Cotton

03-04-2005, 12:24 AM

It is unfortunate that in order to try and "expand the mind" you end up killing brain cells which inevitably make you more dumber. ;)
True. But isn't the same thing happening when people needlessly load up on anti-depressants? And in many cases the person isn't getting any benefit at all.

And to answer your question yeahwho, I do know quite a few people who do think pot should remain illegal. However, I'm related to all of them and I can tell ya right now that they all have various addictions of their own. The only difference is that they can walk into a pharmacy whenever they need a fix.

Schmeltz

03-04-2005, 12:31 AM

I dunno, racer, I've been smoking herb for years and you don't see me using phrases like "more dumber" in conversation.

Legalize the weed and I'll say thank heavens.

yeahwho

03-04-2005, 12:45 AM

And to answer your question yeahwho, I do know quite a few people who do think pot should remain illegal. However, I'm related to all of them and I can tell ya right now that they all have various addictions of their own. The only difference is that they can walk into a pharmacy whenever they need a fix.

In my immediate family my Dad will say, "Yes", keep it illegal in front of the family, yet I know it's weak. Not one we bring up much.

I know the FDA keeps a lot of funding going with various anti anxiety/seratonin levelers/etc type of drugs, which really do help those who need them, but c'mon! Damn! The side effects of these drugs make Whiskey look like a health drink. Fuck. It's me, I get bummed every time I think how this argument goes. It's a stacked deck, with police, prisons, pharmacueticals and all presented to you by your concerned goverment.

Marijuana is all I'm talkin' bout. Not fucking Crystal Meth. jeez. Sorry had to vent.

Rosie Cotton

03-04-2005, 01:05 AM

In my immediate family my Dad will say, "Yes", keep it illegal in front of the family, yet I know it's weak. Not one we bring up much.
Eh, my grandparents worked for the Bush campaign. Nuff said.

Ali

03-04-2005, 02:12 AM

Others were just already fucked up and would have been addicts anyway.Which is why drugs should be legally available...

...and dispensed from registered headshops (for 'soft' drugs) or, for harder stuff, like coke, smack and E, specialised clinics, where customers need to sign for their purchase, see a counsellor and a nurse and only then do they get their 'fix' which will last so long before they have to come back.

At least somebody's keeping an eye on them and they're getting 'clean' doses rather than stealing car stereos and robbing houses and mugging people to by something or other from some dodgy fuck on a street corner.

Drugs should be legalised, because people are going to do them anyway, but the sale of drugs should be strictly regulated.

I can promise you, the last people who want drugs to be legalised are the Dealers and the first are the cops. If drugs were legalised, then the cops would not have to waste time further victimising users and devote more time to nailing the real criminals, the Illegal Dealers. Not one of us who's ever been to score would ever be sorry to see a dealer get nailed, especially when we have the option of going to a shop or clinic to get a dose of something we can rely on.

Most drug users are no less fucked up than somebody enjoying a glass of wine or whiskey or whatever, some are not enjoying the drugs, they are like the alcoholic, chugging a bottle of gin each morning, trying to dull the pain or somehow enhance or change a life they do not like.

hellojello

03-04-2005, 03:23 AM

like the true unintelligent-uninformed posters of this forum i didn't even read this thread but i'ma ad my 2cents regardless.

legalization of drugs= ain't gunna happen
ever noticed how most drugs (except alcohol which stupifies people) makes u think outside the square?
and people wonder why they're illegal.
a free country my ass.
we don't even have freedom over our own bodies
oh the irony

ms.peachy

03-04-2005, 05:30 AM

Which is why drugs should be legally available...

...and dispensed from registered headshops (for 'soft' drugs) or, for harder stuff, like coke, smack and E, specialised clinics, where customers need to sign for their purchase, see a counsellor and a nurse and only then do they get their 'fix' which will last so long before they have to come back.

At least somebody's keeping an eye on them and they're getting 'clean' doses rather than stealing car stereos and robbing houses and mugging people to by something or other from some dodgy fuck on a street corner.

Drugs should be legalised, because people are going to do them anyway, but the sale of drugs should be strictly regulated.

I can promise you, the last people who want drugs to be legalised are the Dealers and the first are the cops. If drugs were legalised, then the cops would not have to waste time further victimising users and devote more time to nailing the real criminals, the Illegal Dealers. Not one of us who's ever been to score would ever be sorry to see a dealer get nailed, especially when we have the option of going to a shop or clinic to get a dose of something we can rely on.

Most drug users are no less fucked up than somebody enjoying a glass of wine or whiskey or whatever, some are not enjoying the drugs, they are like the alcoholic, chugging a bottle of gin each morning, trying to dull the pain or somehow enhance or change a life they do not like.

Sing it, brother.

Ace42

03-04-2005, 06:08 AM

Cannabis has been kept illegal because Babylon is hating on the blackman.

Free the Rastafari!

bb_bboy

03-04-2005, 06:23 AM

ms.peachy

03-04-2005, 07:28 AM

And you think drug related crimes will go down? Why, because everyone is so sedate and happy that they will forget that they need money to get their fix? I guess that they will continue working through extreme manic and depressive periods of withdrawl to afford their drug of choice. Maybe they can work 5 days a week and then freebase on the weekend. Monday, back to work to to save up for next weekend's bender on heroin from the corner store.

I guess someone's not familiar with the results of the recent Caledonian University study, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1471001,00.html) then.

Qdrop

03-04-2005, 07:45 AM

i remember this article from a while back....really opened my eyes to the blatant propaganda that had been force fed to me since birth:

http://www.reason.com/0306/fe.js.h.shtml

bb_bboy

03-04-2005, 08:25 AM

I guess someone's not familiar with the results of the recent Caledonian University study, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1471001,00.html) then.

If have only read the article that you linked to then apparently someone else hasn’t read the study either. However, as I admittedly haven’t read the study, then I can only post intelligently in regard to the article that you referenced. Here are some passages that I found to be interesting:

“Heroin destroys some people and not others.” [purposely ambiguous, accurate, but not cited from the study itself]

“The Glasgow research found that among its sample, 70 per cent of those who had used heroin for more than seven years had not experienced serious health problems as a result. That is not to say they were not addicted.” [accurate misdirection]

“Not all are equally addictive and heroin is certainly among the most addictive, though I am not convinced it is more so than nicotine, a really hard drug.” [speculation not cited from the study itself]

“Heroin also suppresses hunger, so if the user turns to crime and begins to neglect himself things can spiral out of control.” [accurate but not cited from the study itself]

“My guess is that loss of self-respect plays a big part, but it is difficult to establish how far this is an effect, or how far a cause, of addiction.” [speculation and not cited from the study itself]

“David Shewan, the co-author of the report, has rightly said that his findings should be treated with caution.” [accurate but not cited from the study itself]

“What is undoubtedly true is that heroin is a dangerous drug, which can wreck lives.” [accurate but not cited from the study itself]

“What this study shows, however, is that in the direct experience of many people, heroin does not always do so.” [ambiguous and unsubstantiated]

“I no longer turn off my mobile phone in aeroplanes; …. I no longer attend to that ritualised modern ballet, the air steward’s safety instructions, because I have never, ever, heard of a single case in which they saved a life. … I no longer divert when I see the sign “road-closed — access only” … . I no longer stop automatically at red traffic lights in Spain because there may be no crossroads: local councils have gained powers to install dummy-lights designed only to slow traffic. … As a pedestrian I ignore those vile galvanised steel barriers at road intersections … I smell food to decide if it is off.” [author force feeds audience evidence of his own stupidity in order to convey the idea that he is open minded reinforcing the low level of credibility that he has established throughout the article]

I’m afraid I’ve missed your point. Maybe if I find the actual study rather than a vague editorial then I can be enlightened...

ms.peachy

03-04-2005, 08:32 AM

I’m afraid I’ve missed your point. Maybe if I find the actual study rather than a vague editorial then I can be enlightened...
Admittedly I did only google quickly to find something relevant to the study that I thought would encapsulate my point, which you are correct I didn't make clear.

What I was getting at was in response to that specific statement from your post that I had quoted, in which had inferred it was impossible or unusually difficult to maintain a 'normal' (ie, stable, productive) life as a drug user. The study shows that it is far from either.

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 10:28 AM

you all know of prohibition. what happend when that happend? the murder rate went up, a lot. people had to start making the drug more potent (liquir) because its eaiser to hid. when something is illegal it becomes more potent and in smaller quantities.

you know what happend when they relegalized alcohol in the early 30s? the murder rate went down. this being in the heart of the deepest darkest economical period in the United States history, known as the depression.

a study was done in the late 80's in the New York City area on all drug related crimes. 15% of the crime it was found happend because of people on drugs hurting some one or something to that extent. the other 85% were the result of people waring over turf or the sale of drugs or bad deals. ALL which would not be happening if drugs were legal.

The so called "war" on drugs we have actually supports terrorism. when something is illegal there is always a black market for it (alla prohibition, look at how the mob made millions off it). if it were legal and regulated by the government there would be no need for a black market. prices would be cheaper and product would be more pure. when something is more pure the chance for overdose is signifigantly reduced. id trust a government scientist anyday over some drug dealer cooking up crack in some nasty lab.

ill let this get digested and be back with more..

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 10:34 AM

o it would also stop insidences of this.... http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20050304%2F0123316249.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20050303EDM110&ewp=ewp_news_0305mounties

ask those mounties familys if they had the choice to legalize drugs or have them illegal and then have what happend happend, ehhh idk but i think you could guess what they would have picked.

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 10:38 AM

It is unfortunate that in order to try and "expand the mind" you end up killing brain cells which inevitably make you more dumber. ;)

This is by no means a reason that should even be considered to factor into this debate. What you think is good for someones body doesnt matter. Its not the topic. If we all wanted to be told what to do and what was good for us we would go live in China or some other authoritative state.

Qdrop

03-04-2005, 11:02 AM

yeahwho

03-04-2005, 11:52 AM

I think that every person insisting on the legalization of drugs does so with the caveat that the sale of those drugs must be strictly regulated/enforced/taxed, etc. This idea is foolish. How do you think that law enforcement's ability to control the supply of drugs to the streets and through illegal mehtods of purchase is going to increase simply by placing a tax on said drugs?

And you think drug related crimes will go down? Why, because everyone is so sedate and happy that they will forget that they need money to get their fix? I guess that they will continue working through extreme manic and depressive periods of withdrawl to afford their drug of choice. Maybe they can work 5 days a week and then freebase on the weekend. Monday, back to work to to save up for next weekend's bender on heroin from the corner store.

EDIT: And saying that drugs should be legal simply because alcohol is legal is not really a sound argument. If you dislike the use of alcohol so much, then say it should be illegal. Period. Then state your case about drugs.

This is a good argument for many drugs, especially home produced Crystal Meth (wildly popular in the NW, recent crackdowns have sent most production back to Mexico, yet much of it is still made in the kitchens of rural America) these drugs, the manmade synthetic drugs are extremely dangerous, speed, barbituates, painkillers et al; The damage done is devastating, I know from what I've seen, that shit is evil. Nothing good is coming from the abuse of these drugs, the very nature of these drugs demand abuse. Don't know any social meth-heads.

Heroin and Cocaine are highly addictive and IMO should retain there Class A narcotic status. Heroin is one of the easiest drugs on the human constitution, but so what? We all don't have Kieth Richards $$$ to get the purity and the blood transfusions!

Alcohol & Weed? The percentage of alcoholics in this country does not justify another prohibition, which is the worst of the 2 evils, I don't partake in the booze or the herb, but I have done much research in the past, cannabis laws are completely and totally out of line. Marijuana is much, MUCH safer than alcohol, and actually does have benefits for the aging population of this world. The weed laws in our country are repressive, to put it lightly.

Hey, if you find a mushroom in the ground and you know WTF it is...go for it! :D

LSD, mescaline, have to think some more.

Qdrop

03-04-2005, 12:23 PM

the pragmatic points to legalizing drugs are as follows:

- the drug war is, and has been, a complete failure. billions have been spent...with negative results. google it.

-it can be said with unquestionable historical accuracy, that "if the public wants it, the public will get it". you cannot stop the will of the people with legislation....
guns, drugs, alcohol, illegal immagrant workers, prostitution....
you cannot stop these things.....you cannot even slow them down.
if you cannot fight it, make the best out of the situation....make a profit.

- gov't sanctioned and run outlets can run virtually every dealer out of business through price cutting.
supply and demand.

-the gov't can target every user with on-sight, in person drug counseling and rehab enrollment, and substitute programs.- these programs could be funded completely by the sale of the drugs themselves....decreasing the billions spent by taxpayers.

ASsman

03-04-2005, 12:36 PM

Meh, like I said, start letting people do as they please, and they will. Most of the "drug" problems are from poverty...etc. The problem is bigger than drugs..

Opiates will F you up.

Leonie

03-04-2005, 12:36 PM

aah fakers!! :p

yeahwho

03-04-2005, 01:33 PM

Perhaps legalize all drugs, then incorporate a drug/rehab/mandantory military service type of ordeal, a gestalt like shock for people in withdrawls!

That would scare the fuck out of our enemies, Hi I'm yeahwho, today is my first day off of crystal meth and I am here in your land with gun.....do you know where the fucking drugs are Biatches!?! :eek: The sarge say's your hiding them from me.

Qdrop

03-04-2005, 01:51 PM

Most of the "drug" problems are from poverty...etc. The problem is bigger than drugs..

agreed.

cookiepuss

03-04-2005, 01:55 PM

legalization of drugs= ain't gunna happen
ever noticed how most drugs (except alcohol which stupifies people) makes u think outside the square?
and people wonder why they're illegal.
a free country my ass.
we don't even have freedom over our own bodies
oh the irony

EXACTLY the government doesn't want us expanding our conciousness, cause then it would be harder to maintain control.

ASsman

03-04-2005, 02:23 PM

Pff, what are you smoking?

yeahwho

03-04-2005, 02:42 PM

all the mind expanding you'll ever need is right here (http://abc.go.com/), now throw away your internets.

Qdrop

03-04-2005, 02:59 PM

all the mind expanding you'll ever need is right here (http://abc.go.com/), now throw away your internets.
MMMM...kelly ripa....

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 03:13 PM

America is going to have a drug problem weither it is legal or not. Theres always been people with drug problems. Shakspear (i know he wasnt american but just goes towards the point) used to do coke, George Washington used to smoke weed. Just like there were always homosexuals, people became comfotable enough with how things were to be able to say who they really are and thats why it appears that there are more now than ever. There were always drug users, and there always will be.

The only way to effectivly regulate drugs is for it to be legal.

Also say someone whos a good person just has a hard time in thier life gets into herion for a bit gets caught and cleans up. But while getting caught he gets a manditory felony sentence that is asociated with all Herion convictions. This person should now with his life cleaned up has to apply for jobs and has to check that felony box when filling out applications. Who really wants to hire them? Would you?

I dont know if anyone is familair with when America gave Afganistan 300-400 million dollars to fight oppuim production in their country. Granted for a year and half most of europe was at a shortage for it. This just caused a chain reaction however, and the oppium growers went to south america. Now there is a hopping oppium crop more powerful and cheaper than ever coming from south america. Also the government of Afganistan at the time was the Taliban. Now you think the Taliban spent all that money on cleaning up the oppium trade? Ehh its a safe bet that some of that money went directly to the funding of terrorist training camps and actions. So you tell me how me buying a dime bag funds terrorism again? Well atleast thats what the governement wants you to believe.

ASsman

03-04-2005, 03:24 PM

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 03:27 PM

Heroin will destroy you..... Like I don't even know what the statistics are...but you'd start smoking cock for heroin in no time... It has little other (if any) sideffects, except becoming addicted after one time.

Thats not the point here. People will do herion regaurdless legal or illegal. The point is being able to stop all the accompying violence and crime that goes along with all of it. And if it was legal it would be able to be regulared and controlled a lot better. There would be a lot less peopel overdosing because it will all be a uniform herion. It wont come from god knows where made by god knows who. Once problems like that are fixed then we can work on the actual drug problem this country has. Warnings and regulations would all follow.

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 03:35 PM

and assman i also got this info about herion off www.erowid.com a very well devolped site on all kinds of drugs...

In other cases, the users may never use
enough drug to develop significant physical dependence. Senay
(1986) estimates that between 25 per cent and 40 per cent of street
addicts are not physically dependent.

Ali

03-04-2005, 03:47 PM

The only time there's a drug problem is when you can't get any.

or, to quote The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers:

“Drugs will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no drugs.”

Dispensing drugs in a regulated manner means that you can dispense the kind of help these people need to stop doing drugs. They would do them anyway. Most druggies really want to stop, but can't; and the people, who currently make huge sums of tax-free cash selling them cut-to-fuck versions of what it is they think they're buying, most certainly don't want them to stop. If the people 'selling' them the drugs were also trying to get them to stop, offering to help them stop; there'd be more of a chance of them stopping than by being arrested and thrown in jail, (where scoring drugs is far, far easier than 'outside').

People who do drugs occasionally, who know what the signs are and generally stop at a certain age anyway; are not criminals and could really do with a place to get safe, legal drugs to enjoy... If the drugs start to take hold, or if people start graduating to harder, more addictive types or quantities of drug, then the people dispensing them are going to notice and to try to find out what is making this person want to waste all their time being stoned all day or tripping every weekend or munching loads of e's every Friday (or let them grow out of it, as they surely will).

Of course, overindulgers (gluttons) cannot be forced to stop, but regulated dispensing of clean drugs is going to put a lot of Bad People out of business and give the cops much more time to track down and nail them.

In the end, the abuse of any kind of substance cannot be condoned in any way. Legislation does not condone it, but at least it recognises the problem for what it is and tries to deal with it in a way that is far less expensive and more effective than the criminalisation of users, which is one of the most harmful side-effects of doing drugs.

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 04:04 PM

he sees the light

Ali

03-04-2005, 04:05 PM

he sees the lightpity it's igniting a Fattie right now.

ASsman

03-04-2005, 04:07 PM

Hmmm, private or public? Im sure the evangelists won't want tax money going into these places.

Ali

03-04-2005, 04:11 PM

Hmmm, private or public? Im sure the evangelists won't want tax money going into these places.public

private induces a profit motive, like the booze and tobacco industries.

It works in Switzerland and other European countries. Only problem is that the cops are so bored that you can't do ANYTHING wrong!

checkyourprez

03-04-2005, 04:39 PM

probably not, but the first womans sufferagests and black sufferagists were certaintly not the first to see them get the vote. and if it were up to the people who made the rules in the first place they woulda never got it either. just takes times. but spreading the word is a good place to start.

Whois

03-04-2005, 04:52 PM

Might aswell start pumping heroin into our toddlers then.

An excellent idea...can I help?

Ali

03-04-2005, 05:45 PM

An excellent idea...can I help?you already have

checkyourprez

03-05-2005, 12:06 PM

also if drugs were legal, like i said there would be no black market, and no need for this... http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050305%2F0349407168.htm&photoid=20040411NY190

hellojello

03-05-2005, 12:20 PM

EXACTLY the government doesn't want us expanding our conciousness, cause then it would be harder to maintain control.
i'm glad someone got my point (y)

hellojello

03-05-2005, 12:24 PM

People have become addicted to heroin and other drugs the first time they've tried it. Not everyone, because people have different tolerance levels. But yes, it can be, depending on the person, instantly addictive.
i don't think you can be instantly addicted to heroin i mean the person might feel the MENTAL need to do it again after the first time, which is a form of addiction, but i highly doubt its possible to get a phsyical dependance on heroin or any drug for that matter after only one session which is usually what people mean when they say addicted.

Ace42

03-05-2005, 12:26 PM

Infact, according to the book by Michael Farnem, Heroin takes several sessions before the user achieves the "high" that is the endpoint. The first few goes, the effects are much less prounounced.

hellojello

03-05-2005, 12:32 PM

It is unfortunate that in order to try and "expand the mind" you end up killing brain cells which inevitably make you more dumber. ;)
i think alcohol makes people the dumbest out of any drug. don't be fooled alchol kills plenty of brain cells too.
so that's hardly a reason not to legalize it.

AND there was a study in germany about people who were using ecstacy in the long term ie 10 years plus and although they found that it kills off some of the receptors of the brain..(they show up as black spots on a cat scan...i first saw it on oprah when they were using it as an absoloute scare tactic to stop people using E) anyways in this german study they found that even though over time using E frequently did cause these receptors to 'die' or perhaps 'fry' would be a better word YET they failed to find any colleration between it actually affecting a person's functioning. I don't know if I explained that proper, I"ll try and find the study.. Basically what is said was that even though it kills these things in your brain dr's cant prove at this point that it has any affect on the brains/bodies functioning.
i.e it doesn't make you dumber
AND i might add on OPRAH when they showed the cat scan they actually said the black spots were HOLES in your brain, like a swiss cheese, which freaked me out at first, as was their intention, until i found out the proof. Not just some idiotic propaghanda

checkyourprez

03-05-2005, 01:08 PM

i think alcohol makes people the dumbest out of any drug. don't be fooled alchol kills plenty of brain cells too.
so that's hardly a reason not to legalize it.

AND there was a study in germany about people who were using ecstacy in the long term ie 10 years plus and although they found that it kills off some of the receptors of the brain..(they show up as black spots on a cat scan...i first saw it on oprah when they were using it as an absoloute scare tactic to stop people using E) anyways in this german study they found that even though over time using E frequently did cause these receptors to 'die' or perhaps 'fry' would be a better word YET they failed to find any colleration between it actually affecting a person's functioning. I don't know if I explained that proper, I"ll try and find the study.. Basically what is said was that even though it kills these things in your brain dr's cant prove at this point that it has any affect on the brains/bodies functioning.
i.e it doesn't make you dumber
AND i might add on OPRAH when they showed the cat scan they actually said the black spots were HOLES in your brain, like a swiss cheese, which freaked me out at first, as was their intention, until i found out the proof. Not just some idiotic propaghanda

the goverment loves making people scared to get its desired effect. shit, it caused a war in iraq.

yeahwho

03-05-2005, 01:15 PM

checkyourprez

03-05-2005, 02:12 PM

I understand the basic principle of wanting to legalize all drugs. Each man for himself, true liberty and the pursuit of individual freedoms.

In the USA it will not be happening...not in our lifetimes. Not because of repressive laws, the will of the people will not allow it. Commercially available heroin in our country is not going to happen. It is a non-issue, just writing this paragraph I'm cracking up. I do not want heroin legal, I've seen the needle and the damage done. I've heard all the arguments, but what I've witnessed ='s funerals, 50 years too early.

We should, IMHO, turn the focus to Cannibus Stativa. Key word being focus, not a initiative that has hippy shit all over it. A serious cohesive attempt at law. One which reflects the "red" and "blue" states ideals. Aim it at the financial gains and the lifting of repressive laws that keep the courts, jails, even prisons clogged with people who like to listen to music on headphones and eat cookies.

Dude what do you not get? Heroin is illegal now right. All the bad things you have talked about are happening regaurdless. Its a different issue, drugs are bad, but people are going to do them, laws/prison sentences arent scaring the people who are doing that stuff. Might as well make it safer and significantly reduce crime at the same time.

One Half of the prison population is non violent drug offenders, do you know how much our tax dollars go for that shit? They cant even keep drugs out of a prison, where people are watched all the time by people with guns and are basically in cages. You think its reasonable to think that it can be controlled in the civillian population?

The mob used to make millions and millions off of the numbers rackett(i think that was the name not sure, but anyway youll get the point). As soon as the government legalized it, it just went away. It became the lottery, and now the states/gov get all that money off taxes because of it and theres litterally no reason for the mob to want to do it. Same would follow with drugs, gangs, mob, corupt countries, theyd have no reason to do anything with drugs, violent or non violent.

You have to be responsible for your own actions, and when your sticking a neddle filled with heroin into your viens thats some shit you just need to not do. But thats up to you, not the governement.

Let me ask you all some questions. When was the last time you saw your local beer vender get a drive by? When was the last time you saw a bar fire bombed or blown up? When was the last time people were getting shot over a place to sell alcohol?

O wait, it doesnt happen. Alcohol is legal, after prohibition all the crimes associated with it evaported (besides things like dwis and a violent drunk, but thats just life and would happen regaurdless). The same thing would happen with drug crimes and thats whats really important. After that is when we can deal with Americas actual drug problem. Which is different all in itself.

freetibet

03-05-2005, 04:24 PM

I will be called a nazi for that but..

Fuck, drugs are awful. Trust me :p it's impossible to stop people from drinking alcohol or smoking, but why open another Pandora box/can? And they lead to HIV, crimes, death in general.

racer5.0stang

03-05-2005, 04:53 PM

i think alcohol makes people the dumbest out of any drug. don't be fooled alchol kills plenty of brain cells too.
so that's hardly a reason not to legalize it.

AND there was a study in germany about people who were using ecstacy in the long term ie 10 years plus and although they found that it kills off some of the receptors of the brain..(they show up as black spots on a cat scan...i first saw it on oprah when they were using it as an absoloute scare tactic to stop people using E) anyways in this german study they found that even though over time using E frequently did cause these receptors to 'die' or perhaps 'fry' would be a better word YET they failed to find any colleration between it actually affecting a person's functioning. I don't know if I explained that proper, I"ll try and find the study.. Basically what is said was that even though it kills these things in your brain dr's cant prove at this point that it has any affect on the brains/bodies functioning.
i.e it doesn't make you dumber
AND i might add on OPRAH when they showed the cat scan they actually said the black spots were HOLES in your brain, like a swiss cheese, which freaked me out at first, as was their intention, until i found out the proof. Not just some idiotic propaghanda

It is not worth the risk, in my opinion.

Remember, there are always three sides to every story: Your way, there way, and the truth.

It is funny how people will try to justify the things that they want to do.

ASsman

03-05-2005, 05:41 PM

Meh, cleaning out the genepool.

The weak won't survive.....

But the way I see it, comparing US and Denmark... High School kids are given more liberties, and they respect them... give some US HS kids a little liberty they'll tie you and and shit in your bag.

Culture thing I suppose....

checkyourprez

03-05-2005, 06:03 PM

It is not worth the risk, in my opinion.

Remember, there are always three sides to every story: Your way, there way, and the truth.

It is funny how people will try to justify the things that they want to do.

I dont see how the facts im stating arent true. I dont see you really dissproving them as much as just dissmissing them.

Wars are supposed to end. Even if you were the most republican bush supporter and Bush said were going to war with iraq, forever, i think you would have to disagree with him. Its just wasting money on something that really cant be stopped.

I will be called a nazi for that but..

Fuck, drugs are awful. Trust me it's impossible to stop people from drinking alcohol or smoking, but why open another Pandora box/can? And they lead to HIV, crimes, death in general.

All of that would be reduced. The whole reason most of that happens is because its illegal. There would be no need for crime because it would be legal, who would buy less pure drugs for a more expensive price(the price something being illegal makes it have), when you could get a more pure cheaper product from someone you trust, the governement. It would all be regulated, there would be warnings, they would not incourage it by anymeans they would help people get off it.

But you say "they can lead", um where have you been? I see a huuuuuuuge amount of crime because of it being illegal. HIV happens because people have to do it unsafley. And yes people are dieing because of them right now. Like law inforcement officers, young kids and people that werent supposed to be hit in shootings, gangmembers, and lots of others.

"it's impossible to stop people from drinking alcohol or smoking, but why open another Pandora box/can?"-Its already open, were not doing a good job stopping it at all as is. 52% of the adult population doesnt drink at all. I dont see why because thats legal that everyone isnt just getting hammered of atleast sipping on a beer with dinner all the time. Everybody doesnt do that why do people think that all these normal level headed people will just start shooting up H because its legal. Theres a lot of legal stuff thats not good for you and people dont do it because they know that. Why dont you eat burger king everyday for every meal? Becuase it will fuck you up, just like doing H. Youre both eventually going out painfully. I dont think that line of rashioning works.

yeahwho

03-05-2005, 11:42 PM

Dude what do you not get? Heroin is illegal now right. All the bad things you have talked about are happening regaurdless. Its a different issue, drugs are bad, but people are going to do them, laws/prison sentences arent scaring the people who are doing that stuff. Might as well make it safer and significantly reduce crime at the same time.

One Half of the prison population is non violent drug offenders, do you know how much our tax dollars go for that shit?

I get what you are saying and I disagree. I live in a town saturated in heroin use. Seattle is the motherload of USA heroin use. The good shit. I've been to more than one funeral directly related to heroin use. I've also been to many funerals related to alcohol abuse. Drugs in general are an equal oppurtunity risk.

Heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, alcohol, pharmecueticals do not care if your a moron or have an IQ of 200, fact's are most addictive people have an higher than average IQ, I get it, what you don't get is that I understand your logic, but completely disagree with your solution. That is OK because you are perfectly right to have your say. The problem I have is when you say I don't get it. Your wrong. I disagree. That is why Heroin, PCP, crystal meth and the like are illegal, because people like me do get it.

Your reasoning is also why legalizing Marijuana is so fucked up. Rational thought on a relatively safe drug is associated with the hard drugs....why do people do this? I get it, I really do get it.

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 12:35 AM

I get what you are saying and I disagree. I live in a town saturated in heroin use. Seattle is the motherload of USA heroin use. The good shit. I've been to more than one funeral directly related to heroin use. I've also been to many funerals related to alcohol abuse. Drugs in general are an equal oppurtunity risk.

Heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, alcohol, pharmecueticals do not care if your a moron or have an IQ of 200, fact's are most addictive people have an higher than average IQ, I get it, what you don't get is that I understand your logic, but completely disagree with your solution. That is OK because you are perfectly right to have your say. The problem I have is when you say I don't get it. Your wrong. I disagree. That is why Heroin, PCP, crystal meth and the like are illegal, because people like me do get it.

Your reasoning is also why legalizing Marijuana is so fucked up. Rational thought on a relatively safe drug is associated with the hard drugs....why do people do this? I get it, I really do get it.

O trust me man, i believe in people to have the right to say whatever they want. Saying you hate niggers or jews and all that kkk stuff is sickining to me, but i believe they should have every right to say it.

But im just saying, give me something that opposses what im saying. Its more the people who are disagreeing saying they dont agree with me and what im saying is wrong but i dont really see anyone coming with facts or reasoning behind it.

Like i said before its not like any of this drug use would be encouraged in fact it would be just the opposite, essentially wed want no one to use drugs it would just be a better world, but you have to live in reality, it will never happen.

Americas actual drug problem is different than its crime problem. But the crime problem is in a big part a result of the fact that drugs are illegal.

Saying drugs are bad and that they should be banned because they are harmful to people is not signifigant reasoning.

yeahwho

03-06-2005, 01:10 AM

If the funerals I've attended we're for social drinkers and heroin user's all this would make sense. My argument may seem weak to you, but some substances really do wreak havoc on society. South Central LA is not going to become Beverly Hills if we legalize crack. Aids will not decrease if we make Crystal Meth socially acceptable.

Your previous statistic on over half of the prison population is "non violent drug offenders" is wrong. Alcohol is legal and the fucking courts are choked in alcohol related offenses. Treatment centers are a Cottage Industry of the pain created by drug abuse. Alcohol is legal and crime is commited behind alcohol on a higher statistical basis than all of the illegal drugs you want to legalize. Violent crime. The statistics are readily available.

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 01:40 AM

Violent people are the ones that commit violent crimes. the alcohol just inhibits them more. What about the murder and crime rates in the 20s and early 30s of prohibition? Everything sky rocketed when that happend. When it was relegalized all of it went down because there was no market for illegal unsafe liquirs from the mob. There was no money for it. And you would think that just being in the depression alone would be causing that crime, but with everything going down after it was relegalize you can only look at the fact it was the illegalness of it that was the cause. And the same thing would follow with drugs.

What they are doing right now with things is just not working.

What im saying is quite drastic and maybe unthinkable to some people, but i think when actually examined it makes more sense.

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 01:57 AM

sorry i mispoke with the "non violent drug offenses" but here are some hard facts to support my claims...

"Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995 (table 18). On September 30, 2001, the date of the latest available data in the Federal Justice Statistics Program, Federal prisons held 78,501 sentenced drug offenders, compared to 52,782 in 1995."

Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), p. 11.

The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.

Source: John Irwin, Ph. D., Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 1999), pg. 4.

In 1997, there were 216,254 drug offenders in state prisons (out of a total State prison population of 1,046,706 that year). Of these, 92,373 were in for possession, 117,926 were in for trafficking, and 5,955 were in for other drug crimes. Only 41.9 percent of State drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense.

Source: Mumola, Christopher J., "Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, January 1999), p. 3, Table 1.

In 1997, there were 55,069 drug offenders in federal prisons (out of a total Federal prison population of 88,018 that year). Of these, 10,094 were in for possession, 40,053 were in for trafficking, and 4,922 were in for other drug crimes. Only 25 percent of Federal drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense.

Source: Mumola, Christopher J., "Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, January 1999), p. 3, Table 1.

States spent $32.5 billion on Corrections in 1999 alone. To compare, states only spent $22.2 billion on cash assistance to the poor.

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), 1999 State Expenditure Report (Washington, DC: NASBO, June 2000), pp. 38, 68.

From 1984 to 1996, California built 21 new prisons, and only one new university.

Source: Ambrosio, T. & Schiraldi, V., "Trends in State Spending, 1987-1995", Executive Summary-February 1997 (Washington DC: The Justice Policy Institute, 1997).

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 03:02 AM

Youll find from the Health Ministry in Switzerland verifying the 60 per cent reduction in felony crime by those enrolled in the Swiss Heroin Maintenance Program.

Nine years of experience shows this reduction to be consistent, as the Swiss provide free or very low cost heroin to their addicts unable to stay on methadone.

Police there are overwhelming supporters, because it has reduced so drastically the number of victims.

racer5.0stang

03-06-2005, 09:01 AM

I dont see how the facts im stating arent true. I dont see you really dissproving them as much as just dissmissing them.

You have not posted any links to your supposed facts. So yes, I disagree and there for dismiss them.

Wars are supposed to end. Even if you were the most republican bush supporter and Bush said were going to war with iraq, forever, i think you would have to disagree with him. Its just wasting money on something that really cant be stopped.

I thought we were talking about drug use and the consequences there of, not the war in Iraq.

Ace42

03-06-2005, 09:09 AM

You have not posted any links to your supposed facts. So yes, I disagree and there for dismiss them.

This coming from you, who not only fails to support any of his arguments with fact, but also asserted that monkeys don't have opposable thumbs.

What was it Jesus said about hypocrits? Refresh my memory, sinner.

(Incase you didn't get it, that was rhetoric, I do not expect you to paste chapter and verse, even though I doubt anyone could say anything to stop you)

ASsman

03-06-2005, 09:44 AM

Always turns into a Gay Fest with Racer....

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 12:36 PM

You have not posted any links to your supposed facts. So yes, I disagree and there for dismiss them.

hah post 82 all of the information i have is clearly cited.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm has a lot of stuff. check that out i know its not in the bible but you can look at it.

hah dude honestly look through this whole thread, you find anything ive said and tell me to prove it, i can. your side of the aurgument is just that im wrong and no reasons accordingly exept the fact you dont believe what im saying.

hey and just for good measure since you like citing things... http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l8&flok=FF-APO-1501&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050306%2F1038499605.htm&sc=1501 this one disproves that little thing called creationism. but for some reason i dont think youll believe it even though its spelled out in black and white, so what makes me think your closemindedness could even try and grasp a concept that im trying to put out there like why drugs need to be legalized. who am i fooling.

I thought we were talking about drug use and the consequences there of, not the war in Iraq.

o and this part, i was drawing a comparision. take the time and try and connect 2 things before skiming real quick and making me waste my time explaining this to you. ok here goes..

i was refering to the "war on drugs", this war has been going on for years, it is not working, we are not winning, we never will be. i was drawing the comparison between a war, could be anywar, i just picked one. that if george bush were to tell you were going into iraq and we are never coming out, like this war on drugs, i think people would be like are you crazy? well that is whats going on with this war on drugs they just dont want you to look at it like that because then people might want to do something different, and they dont want that.

yeahwho

03-06-2005, 01:42 PM

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 02:16 PM

This thread sucks.

This piece of shit has been at the top of the forum all weekend!

nothing else going on, im just trying to spread the good word.

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 02:19 PM

yeahwho were you echoing my point or asking me to prove that.

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 02:47 PM

Tell me about it....

This forum only has 5 or 6 regular posters...and this thread is the only one getting any action. I'm (at work) bored as fuck right now and nobody is posting shit.

one that sucks in general, 2 that really sucks ur at work on a sunday. sorry dude.

i just find it funny that people are disagreeing with what i have to say on their principles and denieing the facts im stating and or not coming with their own to disprove what ive said.

yeahwho

03-06-2005, 03:03 PM

yeahwho were you echoing my point or asking me to prove that.

my bad, very unprofessional. Must of hit the wrong button. I was just disagreeing again.

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 03:49 PM

my bad, very unprofessional. Must of hit the wrong button. I was just disagreeing again.

on what grounds...

yeahwho

03-06-2005, 08:50 PM

checkyourprez

03-06-2005, 09:10 PM

On the grounds that anything outside of marijuana is not an option for legalizing. Heroin isn't really an option. I'm willing to have dialogue on heroin, even though a bunch of scratchy, drooling, nodded off addicts are not really the type of folks who need encouragement to continue on in a legal sense of the matter. I've been around the addicts enough to tell you, they would give anything to get well, legalizing heroin is not a solution based idea, it will keep addicts sick. If the amount of money spent on the drug war had been put into recovery and solution based thought, rather than the court systems', we'd have been in a much better place today.

I'm not going to have any dialogue on crystal meth, pain-killers, PCP and the whole other plethora of drugs which do society nothing but harm. That shit makes you crazy. The average lifespan of a speed freak is 5 years, 5 years of pure unadulterated hell. The FDA has a responsibility to not put crack out and about for general population use. I think the answers are obvious. What sort of a warning do you put on an 8 ball?

What country is legalizing all drug use? Is there actually a goverment who thinks crystal meth (currently the epidemic rising star of drugs) is safe in any form?

I see where youre coming from and thats dealing with the actual drug problem that this country has. But we will have it either way. It is a very bad problem in its own right but that is secondary. If drugs were legal, and we were not wasting all this money on the actual war on them, plus all the money to use to house so many of these people in prisons and spend on cops and DAs and all the time they spend dealing with it, we could use that money for treatment and provention. Which really is the goal, to have no one use. I think its midunderstood like im saying we legalize it and just let people have a free for all to smoke all the crack they can. Thats defiantly not what im advocating here.

I think its the person who does heroins fault in the end how they turn out. I dont think its the little girls fault who gets gunned down in a drive by that she had nothing to do with because 2 gangs were waring over drug turf.

yeahwho

03-06-2005, 09:39 PM

I think its midunderstood like im saying we legalize it and just let people have a free for all to smoke all the crack they can. Thats defiantly not what im advocating here.

I think its the person who does heroins fault in the end how they turn out. I dont think its the little girls fault who gets gunned down in a drive by that she had nothing to do with because 2 gangs were waring over drug turf.

I thought you wanted to legalize all drugs? Legal drugs means a free for all. If I tell the goverment I need my drugs, will they comply? I'm not going to be discriminated on because I've decided in my infinite wisdom that, Hey, Crack doesn't kill, it promotes a healthy social enviroment.

It won't work, IMO, the primary problem is the disease, not the drug. I don't inject bathroom cleansers because eventually it will kill me, yet crystal meth is loaded in amonia and millions do inject it? The problem is the underlying symptons, not the drugs.

Even though marijuana is relatively safe, if legalized certain restrictions should be put on the product. That is a no brainer.

When the general population is using lethal substances for pleasure, what warning does society put on the container? Honestly, how is that going to fly? It isn't, I'd be ashamed of myself for not trying to do better. Just as the USA should be today.

Ali

03-07-2005, 06:53 AM

You have not posted any links to your supposed facts. So yes, I disagree and there for dismiss them.please provide links to credible sources which disprove the facts you are dismissing. On what grounds are you dismissing these facts? Where's the proof that these are not facts?

Play by the rules, dummkopf, you are very keen to quote the bible, but not too hot on quotes from credible sources.

When the general population is using lethal substances for pleasure, what warning does society put on the container?SMOKING KILLS

:)

Qdrop

03-07-2005, 07:45 AM

i just find it funny that people are disagreeing with what i have to say on their principles and denieing the facts im stating and or not coming with their own to disprove what ive said.

yeah, well....get used to it on this board.

at least from some of the posters......

many on this forum are driven by sentiment first.....rational and pragmatism a distant second......

i completely agree with your view, however.

racer5.0stang

03-07-2005, 08:23 AM

What was it Jesus said about hypocrits? Refresh my memory, sinner.

Romans 3:23

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:10

As it is written. There is none righteous, no, not one.

checkyourprez

03-07-2005, 08:51 AM

I thought you wanted to legalize all drugs? Legal drugs means a free for all. If I tell the goverment I need my drugs, will they comply? I'm not going to be discriminated on because I've decided in my infinite wisdom that, Hey, Crack doesn't kill, it promotes a healthy social enviroment.

It won't work, IMO, the primary problem is the disease, not the drug. I don't inject bathroom cleansers because eventually it will kill me, yet crystal meth is loaded in amonia and millions do inject it? The problem is the underlying symptons, not the drugs.

Even though marijuana is relatively safe, if legalized certain restrictions should be put on the product. That is a no brainer.

When the general population is using lethal substances for pleasure, what warning does society put on the container? Honestly, how is that going to fly? It isn't, I'd be ashamed of myself for not trying to do better. Just as the USA should be today.

Now your just reaching. It wont work if it happend tommarow, just like blacks voting wouldnt have worked the first time it was suggested. Drastic changes take time, they are too much to handle right away.

But you are missing the point here, the WAR ON DRUGS IS A FAILURE. Your talking about being discriminated against? I never said that, i said drug use would be discouraged like ciggerettes are. They are legal, they are not good for you, they kill you, and its your choice to use or not. Legal does not mean free for all. That is anarchy.

The problem is educating people so they will not feel the need to do something that kills you like that in the first place. If Herion were legal today, i would not do it just the same as its actually illegal today. You under estimate peoples ability to reason and make sound judgment for themselves.

The same warnings would be placed on the drugs as cigs, probably more. Just an idea/example of my own but for the harder drugs people would have to be registered and attend classes and fully understand what will happen to them if they use this product. They will be shown the distruction, shit make them watch Requim and see if there about it after that.

The people that are doing this drugs, are not forced, they do it to themselves. A lot of the people getting gunned down have nothing to do with the drug trade they just live in a bad neighborhood or are in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is the stuff that needs to be stopped. Then worry about some basehead that got like that on his own doings.

racer5.0stang

03-07-2005, 10:14 AM

hey and just for good measure since you like citing things... http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l8&flok=FF-APO-1501&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050306%2F1038499605.htm&sc=1501 this one disproves that little thing called creationism. but for some reason i dont think youll believe it even though its spelled out in black and white, so what makes me think your closemindedness could even try and grasp a concept that im trying to put out there like why drugs need to be legalized. who am i fooling.

What exactly was that site supposed to tell me. Oh, they found fossil remains that they assume is 4 million years and they assume that it walked up right. Alot of guessing going on here. So what is error rate in fossil dating? Something like plus or minus 3,990,000 years? Wouldn't it be great if they could find an entire skeleton, instead of a pile of bones that may or may not be from the same animal.

You talk about being closeminded, well the truth is a straight and narrow path.

It is funny how you try to post your opinion and take it as fact.

The only person you are fooling is yourself.

Ace42

03-07-2005, 10:17 AM

Romans 3:23

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:10

As it is written. There is none righteous, no, not one.

I said "what did Jesus say about it."

I didn't ask you to quote the Christian-killing hypocrit, Paul. Paul AKA the father of Catholocism.

Alot of guessing going on here. So what is error rate in fossil dating? Something like plus or minus 3,990,000 years?

See, again it is YOU who is making assumptions and guesses.

Radio-carbon dating gives approx 70% accuracy with a 400 year error margin.

So, with your stab in the dark at "+- 4,000,000" you were approximately 10,000 *TIMES* out.

Once again, science has proved to be more accurate than your speculations.

Incidently, Radiocarbon dating is not the be-all and end-all of fossil-dating. The sedimentary layer something is in, dendro-cronology, isotopic spectroscipy and other methods can all be used to help pinpoint the date of an artefact.

By combining different methods, an agreement on the date can be found which is of an even greater reliability than just the already reliable radiocarbon date.

Again, racerstang, your understanding of the world has been proven to be false. No wonder you have such ridiculous beliefs, when you do not know the first thing about the world you live in.

Only someone as profoundly stupid and ego-centric as you would claim to have authoritative knowledge on a subject which is unknowable, when they are authoritatively WRONG on something as simple and objective as monkeys having opposable thumbs.

Really, stop posting until you have even the faintest clue about the subject being discussed.

checkyourprez

03-07-2005, 11:12 AM

I said "what did Jesus say about it."

I didn't ask you to quote the Christian-killing hypocrit, Paul. Paul AKA the father of Catholocism.

See, again it is YOU who is making assumptions and guesses.

Radio-carbon dating gives approx 70% accuracy with a 400 year error margin.

So, with your stab in the dark at "+- 4,000,000" you were approximately 10,000 *TIMES* out.

Once again, science has proved to be more accurate than your speculations.

Incidently, Radiocarbon dating is not the be-all and end-all of fossil-dating. The sedimentary layer something is in, dendro-cronology, isotopic spectroscipy and other methods can all be used to help pinpoint the date of an artefact.

By combining different methods, an agreement on the date can be found which is of an even greater reliability than just the already reliable radiocarbon date.

Again, racerstang, your understanding of the world has been proven to be false. No wonder you have such ridiculous beliefs, when you do not know the first thing about the world you live in.

Only someone as profoundly stupid and ego-centric as you would claim to have authoritative knowledge on a subject which is unknowable, when they are authoritatively WRONG on something as simple and objective as monkeys having opposable thumbs.

Really, stop posting until you have even the faintest clue about the subject being discussed.

racer you just got "served".

Qdrop

03-07-2005, 11:14 AM

Please do not let Racer hijack yet another thread and turn it into a creationism debate....

come on, people.....show some resolve.

ASsman

03-07-2005, 11:28 AM

Racer just come chill with the virgo.

bb_bboy

03-07-2005, 11:33 AM

The same warnings would be placed on the drugs as cigs, probably more. Just an idea/example of my own but for the harder drugs people would have to be registered and attend classes and fully understand what will happen to them if they use this product. They will be shown the distruction, shit make them watch Requim and see if there about it after that.

How do you intend to enforce requiring people to attend classes in order to be able to get heroin? People have made it obvious that they are willing to kill indiscriminately and risk their own lives in order to get the highs achieved using the "hard drugs" that you are describing. A hardcore addict doesn't care what they have to do to get their fix. You assume that they will now sign up for a class or wait in line just because you think they should? Under this system, all they have to do is walk into the corner drugstore with a gun and walk out with some bindles of heroin. I guess we'll need to have armed guards at every pharmacy. (Remember the troubles brought about by pharmacies keeping oxycontin on their premises - think about that magnified by the availability of cocaine, heroin, PCP, etc.) Like I said in my previous post, these regulatory intentions are even more fantastic then the goals of the drug war that has been repeatedly desribed here as a failure.

Ace42

03-07-2005, 11:37 AM

You assume that they will now sign up for a class or wait in line just because you think they should? Under this system, all they have to do is walk into the corner drugstore with a gun and walk out with some bindles of heroin.

Only in America would it be easier to walk into a store with a gun in order to get a product, rather than simply *sitting in a class / queue for a while*.

Qdrop

03-07-2005, 11:38 AM

How do you intend to enforce requiring people to attend classes in order to be able to get heroin? People have made it obvious that they are willing to kill indiscriminately and risk their own lives in order to get the highs achieved using the "hard drugs" that you are describing. A hardcore addict doesn't care what they have to do to get their fix. You assume that they will now sign up for a class or wait in line just because you think they should? Under this system, all they have to do is walk into the corner drugstore with a gun and walk out with some bindles of heroin. I guess we'll need to have armed guards at every pharmacy. (Remember the troubles brought about y pharmacies keeping oxycontin on their premises - think about that magnified by the availability of cocaine, heroin, PCP, etc.) Like I said in my previous post, these regulatory intentions are even more fantastic then the goals of the drug war that has been repeatedly desribed as a failure.

i would assume special gov't regulated street clinics would be set up....and of course strict security would need to be used.- your local grocery store pharmacy would not be selling crack.

but with prices cheaper than any dealer around....the junkies will come, and counsling may not have to be required, but it will be available.

remember, the goal to is to eliminate drug trafficking/selling crime.......
not necessarily to get people clean...though this procedure would be more conducive to getting help then the average street pusher trade.

bb_bboy

03-07-2005, 11:39 AM

Only in America would it be easier to walk into a store with a gun in order to get a product, rather than simply *sitting in a class / queue for a while*.

I'm not following your reasoning. You're saying that no where other than in America is it easier to use a gun rather than attend a class or wait in line to get something?

bb_bboy

03-07-2005, 11:49 AM

i would assume special gov't regulated street clinics would be set up....but with prices cheaper than any dealer around....the junkies will come, and counsling may not have to be required, but it will be available.

You're saying that the operation of fortified specialty clinics with clerical, medical, pharmaceutical, socio/psychological, and security personnel with space to send/receive shipments of narcotics, sell said narcotics, track records of patients, counsel said patients, administer narcotics to said patients and provide short term living quarters to psychotically induced patients that also have to be located conveniently in urban and suburban areas based on need is going to drive down the cost of getting the narcotics to the user?

Let's say John Doe would rather shoot up on the street or in the comfort of his own home rather than go through all of that hassle. He doesn't want the govt. telling him when and where to get geezed. Maybe the small price difference between black market shit and going to class and down to the clinic makes sense to him then. Of course, this is all hypothetical.

Ace42

03-07-2005, 11:54 AM

I'm not following your reasoning. You're saying that no where other than in America is it easier to use a gun rather than attend a class or wait in line to get something?

Precisely. Stealing, especially at gunpoint, where you risk all manner of trouble, is not "easier" than simply waiting in line.

bb_bboy

03-07-2005, 11:56 AM

Precisely. Stealing, especially at gunpoint, where you risk all manner of trouble, is not "easier" than simply waiting in line.

Except, as you said, in America.

Or, for someone who has no concept of or care for an analysis of risk vs. benefit (examples may include drug users).

Ace42

03-07-2005, 12:12 PM

Or, for someone who has no concept of or care for an analysis of risk vs. benefit (examples may include drug users).

By that argument, all junkies would go around killing their dealers so they could steal their gear for free. Doesn't happen.

As Bill Burroughs points out (I'd recommend reading Naked Lunch to all people interested in a first-hand account of Heroin addiction from someone who is competent) Junkies need their fix, and as such they need their dealers.

Even if pharmacists are in loco caupo for the dealers, the need for a steady (and manageable) supply of Junk remains the same. While Junkies might shoot themselves in the arm, they (as Burroughs points out) do not "shoot themselves in the foot" by ruining their access to the supply.

bb_bboy

03-07-2005, 12:19 PM

Even if pharmacists are in loco caupo for the dealers, the need for a steady (and manageable) supply of Junk remains the same. While Junkies might shoot themselves in the arm, they (as Burroughs points out) do not "shoot themselves in the foot" by ruining their access to the supply.

I can appreciate that point. But what if, in the original scenario, they don't get to be an accepted user (pass the class, etc.) Won't they need to either quit or attempt to circumvent the system (likely at least criminal if not violent acquisition of the desired drug)?

Ace42

03-07-2005, 01:38 PM

I can appreciate that point. But what if, in the original scenario, they don't get to be an accepted user (pass the class, etc.) Won't they need to either quit or attempt to circumvent the system (likely at least criminal if not violent acquisition of the desired drug)?

But the whole point is to make it easier and safer to get access to their fix. So I can't see how they'd *not* be accepted. It's not like people expect them to become versed in astrophysics before they are allowed to shoot up.

yeahwho

03-07-2005, 01:40 PM

Now your just reaching. It wont work if it happend tommarow, just like blacks voting wouldnt have worked the first time it was suggested. Drastic changes take time, they are too much to handle right away.

But you are missing the point here, the WAR ON DRUGS IS A FAILURE. Your talking about being discriminated against? I never said that, i said drug use would be discouraged like ciggerettes are. They are legal, they are not good for you, they kill you, and its your choice to use or not. Legal does not mean free for all. That is anarchy.

The problem is educating people so they will not feel the need to do something that kills you like that in the first place. If Herion were legal today, i would not do it just the same as its actually illegal today. You under estimate peoples ability to reason and make sound judgment for themselves.

The same warnings would be placed on the drugs as cigs, probably more. Just an idea/example of my own but for the harder drugs people would have to be registered and attend classes and fully understand what will happen to them if they use this product. They will be shown the distruction, shit make them watch Requim and see if there about it after that.

The people that are doing this drugs, are not forced, they do it to themselves. A lot of the people getting gunned down have nothing to do with the drug trade they just live in a bad neighborhood or are in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is the stuff that needs to be stopped. Then worry about some basehead that got like that on his own doings.

Absurd. That is not a revolutionary idea, it is an idea that harms people.
I'm against further damage to my fellow man. Laws are not all bad. Laws currently have sent settlements from tobacco companies in the billions to our state, Washington St., all within the past few years. The same companies that have the warnings on their product.

I'm not reaching, I find that to be insulting. If you cannot accept that I am looking for a solution based answer to drug abuse, then just say so. Enabling alcoholics is one thing, but when the goverment gets into the business of enabling extremely dangerous drug use, that is flat out against what I and apparently millions of other citizens goals are. People behave differently when they are high on crack, meth, hallucinates, barbituites and many of the other soups made up in popeye doyles kitchen.

But you are missing the point here, the WAR ON DRUGS IS A FAILURE

I never once said it was a success, in fact in my previous post I said the goverment should be ashamed of themselves.

I agree that marijuana should be legal, I do not agree that all currently illegal drugs should be legal. That is a giant step from someone who doesn't partake in any drug or alcohol use. I have personal reasons and so does everybody involved in this debate. Mine are firsthand, what I've seen is some of the ugliest shit imaginable, families destroyed, and it wouldn't of mattered if Jesus was dispencing the drug, symptons of the disease kill these people, not the drug. We have a much better chance of treating the symptons if the drug is removed from the patient, not readily available in some FDA form. It's pretty hard to hit bottom when the goverment is hanging with you there.

Honestly,you think the goverment should just prescribe PCP, Meth, Crack? And how does that not change who the dealer is? How is it different than the current tobacco crisis we subsidized? Do we just export US dope when the 2 ton gorilla comes home to roost (thanks for destroying my health USA)?

yeahwho

03-07-2005, 01:52 PM

But the whole point is to make it easier and safer to get access to their fix. So I can't see how they'd *not* be accepted. It's not like people expect them to become versed in astrophysics before they are allowed to shoot up.

The ironic thing with heroin, which I'm willing to have a dialogue on, is brilliant people tend to gravitate towards it. In it's purest form it is actually easier on the human constitution than alcohol or marijuana. I've been around a few junkies in my time (Seattle is the heroin capital of the USA) and as fucked up as they can be, alot of those fucked up junkies are extremely sharp under that drooling itchy nod.

The cure for pain is drastic in our society for some.

racer5.0stang

03-07-2005, 01:55 PM

Please do not let Racer hijack yet another thread and turn it into a creationism debate....

come on, people.....show some resolve.

I did not "hijack" this thread.

If you would review the previous threads, you will see that Ace and Checkyourprez called me out. Until then, I was talking about drugs which is what the thread is about. Also you will find that I was talking with hellojello.

This makes twice now, right Q?

racer5.0stang

03-07-2005, 01:56 PM

racer you just got "served".

I am simply amazed at your originality.

Ace42

03-07-2005, 02:10 PM

brilliant people tend to gravitate towards it.

Interestingly, in the orient, over-fondness of Opium was considered a relatively harmless vice comparable to drunkeness. It was ol' Mary-Jane that they considered to be socially degenerative (They called it 'The Whiteman's poison').

yeahwho

03-07-2005, 02:14 PM

Interestingly, in the orient, over-fondness of Opium was considered a relatively harmless vice comparable to drunkeness. It was ol' Mary-Jane that they considered to be socially degenerative (They called it 'The Whiteman's poison').

Drugs are misunderstood on many levels. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his 7% Solution always intriqued me....a little too much if you know what I mean. :cool: Mr Holmes had a little more than just deduction going through his veins.

racer5.0stang

03-07-2005, 04:18 PM

[QUOTE=Ace42]I said "what did Jesus say about it."

Luke 15:10

Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Ace42

03-07-2005, 05:35 PM

Luke 15:10

Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Jesus did not say that *about hypocrits*.

Once again, you have shown that your profound ignorance extends to even the subjects you profess to know a lot about. This is not the first time you have pasted a random quote that in no way relates to any topic in any respect.

As usual you are not making any sense. How does that verse pertain to this conversation?

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=632822&postcount=22

It is pathetic that you try to tell us that the bible proves your religious beliefs (it doesn't) when you don't even have a grasp of what it means.

You have the nerve to tell people that they are kean to misrepresent facts (something which any knowledgeable person would be able to see they were not doing) because it suits their lifestyle, then you cite random unrelated chunks of it, under the immense misapprehension that it proves anything other than your gross stupidity.

Racerstang, strong contender for "worst christian ever." - Why don't you "repent" your stupidity, actually engage your brain and learn things, and give the angels something to *really* rejoice about.

Whois

03-07-2005, 05:58 PM

Racerstang, strong contender for "worst christian ever." - Why don't you "repent" your stupidity, actually engage your brain and learn things, and give the angels something to *really* rejoice about.

Because doubt is sin, and since learning can lead to doubt...

checkyourprez

03-07-2005, 06:57 PM

Absurd. That is not a revolutionary idea, it is an idea that harms people.
I'm against further damage to my fellow man. Laws are not all bad. Laws currently have sent settlements from tobacco companies in the billions to our state, Washington St., all within the past few years. The same companies that have the warnings on their product.

I'm not reaching, I find that to be insulting. If you cannot accept that I am looking for a solution based answer to drug abuse, then just say so. Enabling alcoholics is one thing, but when the goverment gets into the business of enabling extremely dangerous drug use, that is flat out against what I and apparently millions of other citizens goals are. People behave differently when they are high on crack, meth, hallucinates, barbituites and many of the other soups made up in popeye doyles kitchen.)

They have their warnings on there products but they also used to lie to their customers and falsify studies to do it. That is illegal. The full consequences of all drugs would be made readily clear to the user before use.

Yes i think you are looking for a solution to the drug based question. But this is not what im really adressing. Yes ive acknowledged that the drug abuse in America is bad, but i dont think it will get much if any worse if they were legalized. And well your saying you dont want the government to be almost enabling people to in a sense kill themselves, and semi understandable. But these people have a chioce, they've made the choice to do this to themselves. Come on weve all had health class in like 7th grade, and even if we didnt we know what can really happen to you by taking drugs. There not good for you, fun, but not good. If you dont use responsibly or not at all of course you can become addicted and sick/die.

You say they act differently but where is this mass exodus of drug induced crime that you speak of. If someone really wants drugs you know where to get them, the illegality is not really holding that many people back. I see rarley any crimes when people are on drugs compaired to in the process of dealing or bad deals or something. Like i stated in an earlier post, there was a study in the early 80's in NYC that looked at any kid of drug related crime. 15% were because someone was fucked up and hurt someone or did some crime. The other 85% were deals gone bad, wars over turf, gang stuff, mob stuff. If it the scales were tilted in the other direction it would be a different story, but its not even close.

Honestly,you think the goverment should just prescribe PCP, Meth, Crack? And how does that not change who the dealer is? How is it different than the current tobacco crisis we subsidized? Do we just export US dope when the 2 ton gorilla comes home to roost (thanks for destroying my health USA)?

The 2 ton gorilla i dont understand what your getting at, clarify for me please.

Id prefer the government prescribing safe drugs to people. So atleast they know what they are getting, no supposed MDMA in a E pill but some coke and other shit cut up in there. Crack would be on point not cut with too much baking soda. Same thing with H, it would all be standardized so over doses didnt happen. HIV wouldnt be as big of a risk because injecting could be done in safe places.

Im not for doing most drugs. But it cuts taxs wasted, money on looking and policing drug dealers, DAs wasting time on cases, cuts crime, terrorism, and increases saftey. I dont see how its that bad other than morally bad.

Ace42

03-07-2005, 07:00 PM

I bet there would be a lot less junkies if scag had to be injected into the testicle.

checkyourprez

03-07-2005, 10:24 PM

I bet there would be a lot less junkies if scag had to be injected into the testicle.

hah your gonna have to give me a defination of scag in that one.

Ace42

03-07-2005, 10:33 PM

Horse

racer5.0stang

03-07-2005, 11:43 PM

Id prefer the government prescribing safe drugs to people. So atleast they know what they are getting

Is that even possible?

I mean, the prescription drugs that the FDA approves now seem to cause more side effects than anything else.

Get rid of allergies but take on nausea, diarrhea, blindness, migranes, and/or impotence.

yeahwho

03-08-2005, 02:13 AM

When a person is addicted to heroin they call it a "Monkey on your Back", which most addictive folks laugh at, they call it the 2 ton gorilla.

Addiction to drugs or alcohol is not a choice, Addiction Definition; Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.

Addicts have lost the freedom of choice. Most addicts have no idea they have addictive or alcoholic personalities until they are in the midst of their disease. This is where we have failed as a country IMO, a nation in denial about it's own drug war.

I'm willing to wager most, in fact 90% of all alcohol related crimes happen while the person is under the influence of legally sold alcohol. I've been arrested under the influence of alcohol myself, it happens real easily, much easier than during the pursuit of alcohol.

Dialogue on this topic is good, but have you ever noticed that GWB our self described "Born Again" ex drunk could give two shits about open dialogue on inner city drug abuse? The open-mindedness we have discussing drugs (even the luxury of disagreeing) will never become part of the National psyche while he holds office. A sad sack indeed.

checkyourprez

03-08-2005, 01:38 PM

Dialogue on this topic is good, but have you ever noticed that GWB our self described "Born Again" ex drunk could give two shits about open dialogue on inner city drug abuse? The open-mindedness we have discussing drugs (even the luxury of disagreeing) will never become part of the National psyche while he holds office. A sad sack indeed.

agreed. i think its funny on those secret tapes that were released he didnt want people to know he did drugs so "kids wouldnt make the same mistakes he did".

Addicts have lost the freedom of choice. Most addicts have no idea they have addictive or alcoholic personalities until they are in the midst of their disease. This is where we have failed as a country IMO, a nation in denial about it's own drug war.

to an extent i think. its a horrible thing to watch a person waste away on a drug. and addictive personalities arent always known before hand. but i still come back to the fact that they started this addictive process. a person cannot become addicted to heroin if they never do it in their life.

I'm willing to wager most, in fact 90% of all alcohol related crimes happen while the person is under the influence of legally sold alcohol. I've been arrested under the influence of alcohol myself, it happens real easily, much easier than during the pursuit of alcohol.

This part yes, i dont have figures at my disposal this minute but i wouldnt be suprised if that percentage was correct, in todays society. But how many crimes are not going on because it is legal? The 20's and 30's were filled with a high murder rate and lots of mob related crime. Which went down severly when it was re-legalized. The 18th ammendment much like the rest of todays drug laws are just unenforceable....

In 1920, the homicide rate was 5.5. By 1933, it had peaked at 9.6. Rather, national alcohol prohibition had empowered organized crime, and turned some cities into war zones. Prohibition was repealed on December 5, 1933, and the crime rate began to decline immediately.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/OthWr/CriminalAdvantage.htm

During the depression, when poverty and hopelessness were overwhelming the nation, crime rates declined! During the boom time of the 1920's, crime rates soared! It appears that poverty does not cause crime to the extent that prohibition does -- because prohibition breeds disrespect for the law.

The Independent (newspaper) editorialized: It is, in short, not drug abuse itself which creates the most havoc, but the crime resulting from its prohibition.

http://www.efficacy-online.org/Lessons/lessons6.html

addition, the number of federal convicts over the course of the prohibition period increased 561 percent. The crime rate increased because “prohibition destroyed legal jobs, created black-market violence, diverted resources from enforcement of other laws, and increased prices people had to pay for prohibited goods”

http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4399/

these are just some of the numerous examples. alcohol is a drug, its in plain view what happend when that was illegal. The same thing is happening now because other drugs are.

i sited just for you racer :p

baltogrl71

03-09-2005, 10:41 PM

whos for whos against? and what reasons do you have support your belief.

ill come with it when i see what some other people have to say..

i do support it by the way.
I too have seen people die, rot in jail, go broke, I still think they should be legal for many reasons. I live in the murder capital and almost 99% of the violence is drug related if drugs were legal this would change. Once again making things illegal does not stop people from doing drugs, shooting people, and the millons of other crimes commited every day. Over the past decade our government has had this so called war on drugs, but its more war on victims why not take the 30,000 a year it cost to house a prisoner( where they still use drugs and waste their days with criminals doing nothing productive and invest the money into actually helping these people.

racer5.0stang

03-09-2005, 11:24 PM

i sited just for you racer :p

Just for me?

Gee, thanks. (y)

racer5.0stang

03-09-2005, 11:28 PM

I too have seen people die, rot in jail, go broke, I still think they should be legal for many reasons. I live in the murder capital and almost 99% of the violence is drug related if drugs were legal this would change. Once again making things illegal does not stop people from doing drugs, shooting people, and the millons of other crimes commited every day. Over the past decade our government has had this so called war on drugs, but its more war on victims why not take the 30,000 a year it cost to house a prisoner( where they still use drugs and waste their days with criminals doing nothing productive and invest the money into actually helping these people.

How exactly, would we distribute drugs once they are legal. You are trying to take away the dealer and territory, so will the gov't roll up in an icecream truck with the music playing? Then you would have people hijacking the delivery trucks so they can sell on the streets and make the profit for themselves.

Sounds like a viscous circle.

baltogrl71

03-09-2005, 11:36 PM

racer5.0stang

03-09-2005, 11:45 PM

I live in the murder capital and almost 99% of the violence is drug related if drugs were legal this would change.

I assumed that you were implying drug dealers and the like.

What drug related crimes are you refering to?

Schmeltz

03-10-2005, 02:21 AM

checkyourprez

03-10-2005, 07:10 AM

checkyourprez

03-10-2005, 07:14 AM

How exactly, would we distribute drugs once they are legal. You are trying to take away the dealer and territory, so will the gov't roll up in an icecream truck with the music playing? Then you would have people hijacking the delivery trucks so they can sell on the streets and make the profit for themselves.

Sounds like a viscous circle.

im not a government planer nor do i confess to have the answer to everything. the answer to the question you are asking is a tough one no doubt about it, but that is by no means strong enough opposition to just cancel out all of the facts i have stated in favor of legalization.

a workable solution would be found if it needed to be. you act like our governement would be incapable of dealing with the matter, which i just dont think is true.

racer5.0stang

03-10-2005, 07:59 AM

What was it Jesus said about hypocrits? Refresh my memory, sinner.

Matthew 16:1-4

1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would show them a sign from heaven.
2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

racer5.0stang

03-10-2005, 08:02 AM

Yeah, you know, it was exactly like when they legalized alcohol after repealing prohibition. The alcohol-dispensing trucks were continually being hijacked by black marketeers, so it proved the system was unworkable. And that's why alcohol is still illegal today.

So every convience store will selling heroin, mary jane, etc..

"Yeah I got $10 on pump 12. Let me get 2 oz. of cannibas and a line coke. "

baltogrl71

03-10-2005, 08:35 AM

So every convience store will selling heroin, mary jane, etc..

"Yeah I got $10 on pump 12. Let me get 2 oz. of cannibas and a line coke. "
I am sorry that your mind is so limited. Although in my experience people who constantly quote the bible have little ability to think for themselves.

baltogrl71

03-10-2005, 08:40 AM

I assumed that you were implying drug dealers and the like.

What drug related crimes are you refering to?
when you are an addict it is pretty hard to live a normal life you know hold a job etc. which usually leads to some sort of crime. Also if the gov't leagalized it you could then monitor the production for saftey.

ASsman

03-10-2005, 09:53 AM

I am sorry that your mind is so limited. Although in my experience people who constantly quote the bible have little ability to think for themselves.
Balto Burn....

racer5.0stang

03-10-2005, 10:12 AM

when you are an addict it is pretty hard to live a normal life you know hold a job etc. which usually leads to some sort of crime. Also if the gov't leagalized it you could then monitor the production for saftey.

So an addict has a hard time living a "normal" life and therefore has a hard time holding a job. Where is the addict going to get the money to support his/her habit? Will the gov't give out drug stamps along with food stamps?

I don't believe that you have given much thought to your proposed idea.

What exactly will change if drugs were legalized? People will still be addicted and need money for their addiction.

I am sorry that your mind is so limited. Although in my experience people who constantly quote the bible have little ability to think for themselves.

And the drug addicts that you are so well versed in have the ability to think for themselves.

You obviously have no knowledge of either.

Qdrop

03-10-2005, 10:22 AM

someone lock this thread...

for the love of Racer's God!!

Schmeltz

03-10-2005, 11:47 AM

Drugs don't have to be treated any differently from controlled substances that are already legal - alcohol and cigarettes. Government takes control of the supply produced by private contractors and regulates and taxes the sale of the substances, performed by licensed distributors. Naturally it wouldn't do to have heroin and cocaine sold in convenience stores, so you'd simply have to limit the dispensation of harder substances to government-run outlets with heavier security. And that paves the way for increased access to treatment and prevention programs for these people, while the grip of organized crime on the drug trade is at least loosened if not released altogether.

I suppose it sounds simpler than it probably is, but I think it pretty obvious right now that the War on Drugs is gaining about as much ground as the War on Terror. Might be time to try a different approach... although with hardline fundie conservatives dictating the executive morality of the world's only superpower, there seems to be precious little chance of common sense prevailing most anywhere in the world these days.

bb_bboy

03-10-2005, 11:54 AM

Qdrop

03-10-2005, 01:18 PM

I think a more effective program would be to develop a testing program that can determine if someone is addicted to/a habitual user of a controlled substance. Once this is positively determined, the person undergoes govt. sanctioned execution. Repeat. Let's start in the inner city.
wow, and i thought I was hardline.

my sentiments aren't too far off though...

i would try and fix the REAL issues in the innercity that cause such rampant drug use and crime....way before i started mass executions.

and drug users need to be treated, not punished......they need rehab and some education...
if they falter after that (commit crime, ect), i could give to shits about them....
bury them.

checkyourprez

03-10-2005, 01:21 PM

I assumed that you were implying drug dealers and the like.

What drug related crimes are you refering to?

maybe your not understand, not wanting to understand, or not reading what i or some of the other people who are taking the stance i am taking are saying.

possibly you live in a nice suburd everybodys got picket fences and life is grand. cool. but a lot of people dont, they live in bad areas, and cannot help it. a lot of people are affected by crimes created by drugs, maybe not you personally, but that doesnt mean you are the deciding factor.

i life in the burbs of rochester when im not in school and rochester is not a bad place at all, but i definatly read stories in the paper or watch on the news of people getting killed because of drug related incidences. i can only imagine in bigger cites that it is much worse.

half of the prison population is there because of drug stuff. Thats litterally billions being spent on these people. Not to mention the money that goes to police and search for these people along with the money it takes to prosecute these people. Not to mention the money that the US government spends in other countries to try and eliminate drugs at the source (which doesnt work). ANNNND not to mention the money that could be collected on taxs off of the drugs. Thats a rediculous amount of money that could be spent in areas such as education, social security, or paying for our gigantic budget deficit.

And youre point about oooo let me get a gram of H and some coke at the 711 is just dumb dude. These drugs are no joke, its obvious they hurt people/kill people (dont bring this up as a reason why it shouldnt be legal, bc they are doing it to themsevles and its happening right now when it is illegal) it would not be done in that sort of way. Our government as much as some people might think otherwise has smart people in it and would come up with a sufficent plan. All regulations and precautions would be taken.

Also you act like soon as its legal everyone is gonna start burning and looting just to get the cash to be able to pay for their drugs. One, the drugs would not be as expensive due to them being legal, illegality tends to raise the price of such things. Also people are on drugs now, and yea the crimes you are speaking of are happening now, but i dont think it would happen anymore so if it were legal. You fail to see the underlying point, and i think you really under estimate how much crime happens on account of drugs. Look at those stats i showed you for alcohol, the explosion of violence was just baffling. Gaurenteed the rate of violence in this country would decrease if drugs were legal. Shit it might even force some of those now drug dealers to get out and get a real job.

checkyourprez

03-10-2005, 01:22 PM

wow, and i thought I was hardline.

my sentiments aren't too far off though...

i would try and fix the REAL issues in the innercity that cause such rampant drug use and crime....way before i started mass executions.

and drug users need to be treated, not punished......they need rehab and some education...
if they falter after that (commit crime, ect), i could give to shits about them....
bury them.

word

racer5.0stang

03-10-2005, 02:43 PM

checkyourprez

03-10-2005, 04:47 PM

And you thought the lack of alcohol didn't cause involuntary rage.

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/03/09/colo_man_charged_with_rampage_on_flight/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+News+of+the+odd (http://)

idk bout anyone else but its not letting me get at it, sooo either post the whole thing or link it again or dont.

racer5.0stang

03-10-2005, 06:25 PM

idk bout anyone else but its not letting me get at it, sooo either post the whole thing or link it again or dont.

Try this one.

Here (http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/03/09/colo_man_charged_with_rampage_on_flight/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+News+of+the+odd)

baltogrl71

03-10-2005, 06:54 PM

maybe your not understand, not wanting to understand, or not reading what i or some of the other people who are taking the stance i am taking are saying.

possibly you live in a nice suburd everybodys got picket fences and life is grand. cool. but a lot of people dont, they live in bad areas, and cannot help it. a lot of people are affected by crimes created by drugs, maybe not you personally, but that doesnt mean you are the deciding factor.

i life in the burbs of rochester when im not in school and rochester is not a bad place at all, but i definatly read stories in the paper or watch on the news of people getting killed because of drug related incidences. i can only imagine in bigger cites that it is much worse.

half of the prison population is there because of drug stuff. Thats litterally billions being spent on these people. Not to mention the money that goes to police and search for these people along with the money it takes to prosecute these people. Not to mention the money that the US government spends in other countries to try and eliminate drugs at the source (which doesnt work). ANNNND not to mention the money that could be collected on taxs off of the drugs. Thats a rediculous amount of money that could be spent in areas such as education, social security, or paying for our gigantic budget deficit.

And youre point about oooo let me get a gram of H and some coke at the 711 is just dumb dude. These drugs are no joke, its obvious they hurt people/kill people (dont bring this up as a reason why it shouldnt be legal, bc they are doing it to themsevles and its happening right now when it is illegal) it would not be done in that sort of way. Our government as much as some people might think otherwise has smart people in it and would come up with a sufficent plan. All regulations and precautions would be taken.

Also you act like soon as its legal everyone is gonna start burning and looting just to get the cash to be able to pay for their drugs. One, the drugs would not be as expensive due to them being legal, illegality tends to raise the price of such things. Also people are on drugs now, and yea the crimes you are speaking of are happening now, but i dont think it would happen anymore so if it were legal. You fail to see the underlying point, and i think you really under estimate how much crime happens on account of drugs. Look at those stats i showed you for alcohol, the explosion of violence was just baffling. Gaurenteed the rate of violence in this country would decrease if drugs were legal. Shit it might even force some of those now drug dealers to get out and get a real job.
Thank you

checkyourprez

03-10-2005, 10:38 PM

Try this one.

Here (http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/03/09/colo_man_charged_with_rampage_on_flight/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+News+of+the+odd)

i think a person who acts like that has bigger problems in life.

racer5.0stang

03-10-2005, 10:48 PM

Yeah, you are right. Lets go ahead and legalize drugs and while we are at it, lets go ahead and legalize everything else that people want to do that is illegal. Such as prostitution, gambling, and whatever else we can come up with.

Problem is, where is the line drawn?

Ace42

03-10-2005, 11:07 PM

Does it matter? You'd not understand the reasoning behind it either way.

checkyourprez

03-11-2005, 12:08 AM

Ali

03-11-2005, 03:20 AM

Yeah, you are right. Lets go ahead and legalize drugs and while we are at it, lets go ahead and legalize everything else that people want to do that is illegal. Such as prostitution... That's about the cleverest thing you've ever said on this board, racer.

There's a big move to legalise prostitution all over the world (except the US, which is not a part of the world), mainly for the saftey of the women who work in the sex industry (and who already work there, even if it's illegal) also for the saftey of their customers (ditto) and for the simple fact that you can tax anything which is legal.

Of course, there will always be people who don't want to pay the tax and don't declare their income from prostitution (or drug dealing) and they will be prosecuted in the same way as any other businessperson who hides his/her income from the Tax Man. And the cops won't be quite so busy busting hookers, johns, dealers and users, so there's a much higher chance that a hooker or dealer who doesn't declare him/herself to the govt is going to get nailed.

Legalising an illegal activity actually makes it less profitable for those who are prepared to risk prosecution and will most probably reduce the numbers of dealers and prostitutes, while making everything safer for the people who choose to partake of their services.

Agreed?

Funkaloyd

03-11-2005, 03:21 AM

So far this thread has mainly focused on the question of whether the legalization of drugs would be good or harmful for society, but it seems to me that regardless of who's right on that issue, it's far more important to consider personal liberty and justice. We obviously can't consider ourselves free if the government's controlling what we can and cannot do to ourselves in the privacy of our own homes. But on the other hand, if we were to legalize physically addictive and/or dangerous drugs, then what would stop McDonalds from making addictive $30 burgers and drinks which you can easily OD on? Does McDonalds have a right to do that (I know that PaulK thinks it does)?

Also, can anybody think of one good reason to keep marijuana illegal?

Ali

03-11-2005, 03:35 AM

what would stop McDonalds from making addictive $30 burgers and drinks which you can easily OD on?don't people already OD on McD's? I hear that there are restrictions on McD ads directed at kids.

Also, can anybody think of one good reason to keep marijuana illegal?Paul Weller

yeahwho

03-11-2005, 03:38 AM

Also, can anybody think of one good reason to keep marijuana illegal?

Yes. The whole theme of this thread is why marijuana is illegal. Legalizing all drugs is so far removed from legalizing marijuana it is a joke. I would like nothing more than to see weed legal in my lifetime, but this hippyshit let it all flow legalize everything attitude is going to just get more money funded to the drug war.

Hey we have the right to bear arms correct, but for some reason we cannot bear ICBM's, why? Because, a little will do you, OK?

If this thread were about just marijuana becoming legal this thread would be a rational starting point for such a movement, but noooo, that isn't good enough for some. Legalization of all drugs isn't going to happen. Repeat, news bulletin, Legalization of all drugs isn't going to happen. Talk of legalization of all drugs severely damages legalization of marijuana.

Isn't this much apparent? The math is obvious, much more obvious than all the arguments for legal crystal meth. Foolishness.

racer5.0stang

03-11-2005, 08:19 AM

prostitution-vegas

gambling-have you heard of casinos? the lottery. Horse racing.

I meant in all 50 states.

racer5.0stang

03-11-2005, 08:23 AM

But on the other hand, if we were to legalize physically addictive and/or dangerous drugs, then what would stop McDonalds from making addictive $30 burgers and drinks which you can easily OD on? Does McDonalds have a right to do that (I know that PaulK thinks it does)?

Why do you think they took away the "Biggie Size" menu?

Fat people couldn't resist them.

ASsman

03-11-2005, 09:59 AM

I meant in all 50 states.
Does Germany have 50 states?

Fat people couldn't resist them.
Hahahaha, they can still go to their local grocery and buy a tub of butter. The McD argument goes deeper than just that.

checkyourprez

03-11-2005, 11:15 AM

Yes. The whole theme of this thread is why marijuana is illegal. Legalizing all drugs is so far removed from legalizing marijuana it is a joke. I would like nothing more than to see weed legal in my lifetime, but this hippyshit let it all flow legalize everything attitude is going to just get more money funded to the drug war.

Hey we have the right to bear arms correct, but for some reason we cannot bear ICBM's, why? Because, a little will do you, OK?

If this thread were about just marijuana becoming legal this thread would be a rational starting point for such a movement, but noooo, that isn't good enough for some. Legalization of all drugs isn't going to happen. Repeat, news bulletin, Legalization of all drugs isn't going to happen. Talk of legalization of all drugs severely damages legalization of marijuana.

Isn't this much apparent? The math is obvious, much more obvious than all the arguments for legal crystal meth. Foolishness.

I dont see how you can refer to the stance im coming from of legalizing all drugs as "hippy bullshit". It seems to me all the reasons im stating for legalization of all drugs has nothing to do with me wanting to be able to go out and get all fucked up on every drug.

Out of anything i think marijuana should be legal, but that wont stop all the stuff i am taking about. Im sure some of the drug crimes are related to marijuana but id be willing to bet more are because of coke/crack/heroin/meth, that type of shit. And only legalizing marijuana wouldnt solve the problem dealing with those sorts of drugs.

Marijuana legalization seems to be the obvious first step. But dude i go back to the point you have to work in stepping stones. At first black people were considered property, then 3/5 a person, then a free person with no rights, then one that had rights but were denied, then one who gets a decent shot at equality. Its a slow process to anything as dramatic (at this point) to thing of something like legalization of all drugs.

yeahwho

03-11-2005, 12:53 PM

I dont see how you can refer to the stance im coming from of legalizing all drugs as "hippy bullshit".

Frustration! Logic in legalizing marijuana is what people want to see. Perhaps funding for addiction and recovery efforts from the profits from legal marijuana. Even the mention of this being connected in anyway with legalizing drugs proven to promote dangerous behavourial patterns drives me and the majority of US citizens out of the picture.

Marijuana legalization seems to be the obvious first step. But dude i go back to the point you have to work in stepping stones. At first black people were considered property, then 3/5 a person, then a free person with no rights, then one that had rights but were denied, then one who gets a decent shot at equality. Its a slow process to anything as dramatic (at this point) to thing of something like legalization of all drugs.

Repeat above response. Drugs are not being discriminated upon, drugs are already an equal oppurtunity employer, they are the common denominater of all races, genders and nations.

checkyourprez

03-11-2005, 03:07 PM

Frustration! Logic in legalizing marijuana is what people want to see. Perhaps funding for addiction and recovery efforts from the profits from legal marijuana. Even the mention of this being connected in anyway with legalizing drugs proven to promote dangerous behavourial patterns drives me and the majority of US citizens out of the picture.

Repeat above response. Drugs are not being discriminated upon, drugs are already an equal oppurtunity employer, they are the common denominater of all races, genders and nations.

I was just using it as an example of the process of change in this country. Its a slow thing. Something what i am propossing would not happen in a short amount of time with how things are right now.

phinkasaurus

03-11-2005, 03:33 PM

...Drugs are not being discriminated upon, drugs are already an equal oppurtunity employer, they are the common denominater of all races, genders and nations.

agreed.
but the enforcement of the laws and punishments associated with the use, possesion, and sale of illegal drugs are not "equal oppurtunity". The percentage there is overwhelmingly skewed towards the minority and poor american. That is a huge reason why laws should be reformed and most narcotics legalised and regulated.

yeahwho

03-11-2005, 09:58 PM

agreed.
but the enforcement of the laws and punishments associated with the use, possesion, and sale of illegal drugs are not "equal oppurtunity". The percentage there is overwhelmingly skewed towards the minority and poor american. That is a huge reason why laws should be reformed and most narcotics legalised and regulated.

I would take this as meaning more minorities are being arrested because drugs are illegal. Perhaps, and if making it an even playing field means making drugs legal, how do you promote this, "Let's even the racial barriers in drug abuse by legalizing drugs?" That is a weak and racist spin, by my standards and I'm positive millions of other voters standards.

Alcohol is legal and is a perfect reflector of how indiscriminate alcoholism can be. A perfect reflection of society in general, an equal oppurtunity drug, so what? Am I to believe that legalizing drugs is a race issue? Then we have a whole other problem to deal with....outside of drugs.

I would much rather see marijuana legal than alcohol. Nobody (90% anyway) is going to support legalizing all drugs, it is so far out of the mainstream that it isn't even negotiable. I am obviously against it and still able to have dialogue on it only because at this point I find it appalling for anyone to promote behavior that leads to incomprehensible demoralization. The theory is flawed, because what your doing is legitimizing addiction and insanity. The health of the nation should be weighed against the ability to stop an addicted persons insatiatable appetite for more meth, pcp, crack, heroin.

If your looking to legalize marijuana I would recommend working on that cause, a huge effort that will require years of legislation and many, many failed attempts before the Federal goverment caves in.

If your looking to legalize all drugs I would suggest you find a drug that can sustain your life about 300 years, because it will not happen in this lifetime in the USA.