Reuters' Freeland: US Prisons An 'American Gulag Archipelago'
Chrystia Freeland has called the US prison system an "American Gulag Archipelago." The Global Editor-at-Large of Reuters made her comment during today's Dylan Ratigan show on MSNBC.
The context was a discussion of the recent WikiLeaks document dump about Gitmo, but Freeland was clearly speaking of the domestic US prison system, not our military prisons. Ratigan picked up on her theme, saying we could cut our prison costs in half if marijuana were legalized.
View video after the jump.
CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I would like to connect [the Gitmo discussion] to your favorite [inaudible], which is the budget debate. And what I thought of when we got this WikiLeaks dump, when we're talking about the budget, which is surely an issue, why aren't we talking about American prisons, and the whole American Gulag Archipelago, which is hugely expensive? Surely this is a moment for right and left to come together and say: we're spending so much money on jails. Clearly we're not getting a lot --
DYLAN RATIGAN: I just want to say, you legalize marijuana and you cut the bill in half.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I thought they liked the Commies?
Submitted by JeffC... on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 6:40pm.
After all, you can't have communism without gulags!
You flat out do not
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 6:42pm.
know what you are talking about.
Drug Testing
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 6:42pm.
I say we could cut marijuana use in half if we drug test welfare recipients, government employees, and public school students. Just redistribute DEA funding. Problem solved.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Cut it in half?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 6:49pm.
Well, when the left's hyperbole fails there's always outright lies to fall back on.
I can't wait for the
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 6:56pm.
I can't wait for the inevitable Libertarian parade that confirms that half of all US inmates are in prison for possessing papers or after having had their home breached by DEA agents who smelled pot smoke.
???
Submitted by tcm14 on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 7:13pm.
"Gulag" connotes a place for political prisoners. What is she talking about?
I think she just likes to hear herself use big words.
She doesn't know what she's talking about
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 10:31pm.
It's the kind of hyperbole that defines cops as pigs, conservatives as racists, and terror bombers as heroes.
legalizing mary jane...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 8:25pm.
would dramatically cut prison expenditures. It's true. Conservatives need to stick to the small government platform, not curtail liberties.
Different crimes*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 8:34pm.
The majority of states in the US have possession of marijuana as a misdemeanor. Those given a minimum sentence generally serve that time in local or county jails. If caught with more than "individual possession" that constitutes "intent to distribute". That is a felony offense. The sentence for a felony conviction requires more than a year incarceration, then the convicted is sent to a state or federal prison.
Misdemeanor possession is a hellava lot different than 'distribution". It has nothing to do with limiting a person's LIBERTY, it has to do with limiting CRIMINAL behavior.
Different crimes...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 7:55am.
which would both be eliminated with legalization, and should be eliminated. I don't understand your point...are you saying possession is not criminal behavior, but distribution is and should be fanatically policed by the Federal Soul Crushing Big Government? Why do you believe man, in any nation, has the power to forsake God? To outlaw and punish the users and distributors of a PLANT? Do you think God actually f*cked up there? He didn't mean to make that plant? For supporters of small government (which I'm assuming you are), you're sure advocating a conversely gigantic claim on God given liberties by the Federal Government.
cajun's post and statements were quite clear, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 6:50pm.
which is far more than I can say for yours.
It is difficult to discern whether you are more in favor of marijuana, or more against the government being involved in making laws against it.
I guess we should consider doing away with drunk driving laws on the off chance that some types of booze may be made from plants, eh?
MD
getting weary*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 7:16pm.
You are talking about individuals choosing to get stoned or get drunk or watch porn. The side of liberty that allows individuals the right to ruin their lives.
Then there are those who take advantage of people willing to ruin their lives. Ever hear of drug cartels? They dont sell a joint or two, they sell tons of drugs. In order to protect their inventory and territory, they kill people.
Liberty is the right to ruin your life. Criminal behavior should not have that kind of freedom in a humane society.
How difficult is that to discern the difference? Some immature individuals have difficulty seeing any issue from any perspective other than "me". Intelligent, educated, mature individuals try to determine issues with a serious consideration for future consequences for ALL PEOPLE.
Ok Matthew, he's yours, I lack the patience.
You covered it sufficiently, cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 7:25pm.
for anyone who does not utilize the term "Libertarian" as a cudgel.
For those types, even a Vehicle Code infraction such as jaywalking is a horrendous clamp down on freedom.
MD
I never...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:46pm.
use words as cudgels matthewdean...only billyclubs, bludgeons, canes, clubs, maces, nightsticks, paddles, and whipping rods. I'll thank you to get your facts straight next time.
That, wearycalls---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:09pm.
was funny !
MD
You're...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:37pm.
projecting your values and predetermined notions onto the public. Why do you think people hate Republicans? Getting "stoned" is a bad thing..like evil porn and drinking spirits. You do know the war on drugs correlated with the explosion in black market traffic, and the rise of the cartels, right? You have to have heard these arguments before, you don't live in a sealed off box. Prohibition of alcohol produced the same results. Marijuana is a plant...it just happens to be a schedule 1 narcotic! Classified with heroin and cocaine. Give me a freakin' break. Mary Jane never ruined anyone's life; this ain't Reefer Madness. This site is all about the Left's misinformation...you should know propaganda when you see it. Go preach to someone else cajun2...you're speaking with a devout Christian who loves every gift his Lord has provided him.
Yes weary*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:43pm.
I can see how you love the gift of flora and fauna.
After re reading your posts, I hope you soon realize that "getting high" does eventually take its toll.
I was not "preaching" but sharing information I have gathered over my career as a social worker.
The thing about "sharing" or "preaching" is that you can choose to ignore both.
lol...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:51pm.
you're right about that cajun2, but I don't ignore replies. Plus, I get fired up about the subject :)
have a good night
Come on!
Submitted by eugenedebs on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:26pm.
That's just a silly argument matthewdean. Any provision legalizing marijuana (such as prop 19 in Cali.) would include DWI laws. I'm in favor of the plant, and I'm in favor of small government. I don't know why you would care which one I'm MORE in favor of. My points were very clearly stated...I don't know what could be confusing you.
Unfortunately
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:19pm.
you're unclear on the facts regarding both marijuana use and the number of criminals in state and federal prisons as a result of it. But that's not unusual among committed libertarians.
Next time you look up the statistics of inmates serving time for marijuana use, take the time to find out how many of them are there on possession as a secondary charge. Most are there for a major crime such as carrying a concealed weapon, distribution, money laundering, and/or possession of other drugs as well.
Also, many people have had their lives ruined by marijuana use. Ask the next 100 heroin addicts if they first got involved in drug use with marijuana. 99 will say yes. Also, ask the next 100 teens with severe depression if they smoke pot. More than 80 will say yes.
The gateway...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:34am.
drug theory has been discredited. Teens are depressed, it's not because of pot...it's because they're teens. I'd say pharmaceuticals have a lot to do with it too. Doctors prescribe Adorall and Xanax to these kids like candy. Smoking marijuana is probably the healthiest thing a depressed teenager does. I could link dozens of studies showing the health benefits of pot.
The expenditures towards marijuana enforcement are the real problem. As you noted, most with possession charges have secondary charges, or ACTUAL drug charges. Heroin, cocaine, meth...that sort of deal. Prison expenditures in the long run, I think, would drop. The total collapse of the marijuana black market must surely bring some measure of relief to overcrowded prison systems.
You're right, though...I don't know the numbers on prisons. I jumped on the issue because the author sneaked in that sucker punch on legalization at the end.
weary
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:21pm.
Actually, you can't link one single study proving the heath benefits of pot outside of relieving nausea, which can be accomplished more effectively by already legal prescription drugs. Marijuana has no medical benefit outside of that. It cures nothing.
And you certainly can't link anything that shows that pot helps relieve depression. Pot is a major contributor to depression and has a circular effect as teens often use pot to escape depression by getting high. This only leads to increased use as the periods between being high are more difficult for them to navigate. I will concede that often times it's difficult to determine if marijuana is the chicken or the egg with depression, but in many cases, it is, in fact, one or the other. Keep in mind, there is a difference between a teen being depressed about breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, and clinical depression.
Excessive use by teens seems to cause chemical variations among receptors in the brain. And study debunking the gateway effects of long-term and chronic use of marijuana, especially by teens, is either decades old or sponsored by legalization groups. There are both psychological and physiological responses from excessive and long-term use that can, and often do lead to use of harsher drugs.
I won;t be a PopTech with the pot links, but suffice it to say: It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users.
I can't?
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:18pm.
I'll have you know I'm very confident in my abilities.
There have been several official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized.
the National Academy of Sciences Analysis of Marijuana Policy (1982);
the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973);
the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970);
the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968);
the La Guardia Report (1944);
the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29);
and Britain's monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).
Here's the latest health news -
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509
I know scientific journals are boring so here's a good editorial that puts it in layman's terms -
http://budfacts.com/243/new-study-proves-that-marijuana-increases-brain-...
Perhaps I erred when I said the gateway theory had been discredited...in fact it was never credited in the first place. There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Try to find it. The one way in which marijuana leads to other drugs is through its illegality; persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs.
I'll never understand how some can rail against oppressive Big Government and then accept anything they say about pot as dogma. Your link to Nida? The government is the problem! Their incessant propagandizing has demonized a harmless, and in some cases healthful plant!
I don't deal in second hand knowledge, and certainly not from the ever honest U.S. of A government. Addiction to pot is unlikely if not impossible. Now alcohol, xanax, adoral, prozac, colonopin, zoloft and the myriad of harmful and legal substances...that's another story.
Some more...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:46pm.
of those health benefits ;)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/leveque_migraines_6-30-08.php
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=4963
http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/marjuana_tourettes.shtml
http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/20080205147/cannabis-
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=4561
http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/080906.html
weary
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 7:06pm.
As I said, decades old. Also, the majority of your links were studies on rats and mice. If you want to legalize pot for rodents, I'm all for it. Human studies? Not so much. The tourettes study was 6 weeks and 24 patients. This does not make for a scientific breakthrough.
But, typical of the libertarian, anyone not for the unfettered use of weed is a big government advocate. Well, that's a silly argument. I'm far from a big government advocate. You discount the findings posted on the National Institutes of Heath website and champion those posted on some stoner's blog? If my position is political, how is yours not? This is one of the things that always comes up on this topic, by the way. "Oh, you're not for legalized weed? You're a big lib." What's you're position on abortion?
What I've said a number of times on this site is that the reality is far different from what the casual pot smoker would like to believe, especially when it comes to teen use, and daily use. You're free to deny that all you want but I've seen it first hand. In fact, the largely Conservative suburb community where I reside has a significant problem with the gateway effects of marijuana. Again, deny it all you want, but denial is the basis for the legalization argument anyway, so at least you'll be consistent.
Which part of legalization and medical use of marijuana is representative of small government?
You're not serious...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:45am.
right? What part of preserving personal liberties, and eliminating oppressive govt. prohibition isn't representative of small government? Don't call me a libertarian again...I've never claimed that, and assumption is the motha of all f*ck ups my friend. I'm not denying anything that you've shown proof of...which is nothing. You certainly seem to think you know a lot..."first hand"...and you BS with the best of them, but your evidence is completely lacking. I know more, and it's actual experience...not just propagandized Govt. talking points. I gave you one link to a blog commenting on a scientific study, and told you as much beforehand. Instead of refuting the study (which you can't) you marginalize the editorial as written by a "stoner". Then you marginalize all my studies, because like every study in history, they use non human subjects first. Then you marginalize me, and call me silly. I've kept this very civil, but your tone and methods are beginning to resemble those of the "sore loser". I suggest you take your defeated government molded views and hawk them to a less inquisitive soul who doesn't mind being monitored and controlled by a Nanny State.
Unless of course you want to give me some evidence? Other than extensive experience in your community suburb...
Not at all, wearycalls---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:35pm.
I truly do not care which you are more in favor of, what you are more in favor of, who you are more favor of, or how or why you come to the conclusions you do.
To term my argument as silly as a way to bolster your viewpoint, angle, position, stance, belief, status, side, concerns, or ideology, is foolish, selfish, one-sided, bone-headed, and a waste of time; both yours and mine.
To say definitively that "any provision legalizing marijuana --- would include DWI laws" bespeaks either a naivete about the real world or a presumed ability to foretell the future which I sincerely doubt you possess.
What 'should' be, and what ultimately prevails, whether in regard to laws put on the books or people's behavior, is far outside either your talents or mine to discern as far as probability of enactment.
If you like the plant, - grow it, cultivate it, cut it, dry it, smoke it or put it in Brownies, whatever blows your skirts up; but don't try to sell it in pre-packaged amounts or you will likely run up against the "law" you speak so disingenuously about.
Unforeseen consequences, don't you know.
Rest assured, wearycalls, I am not confused by you; I just disagree with you. :o)
MD
ouch!
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:07am.
You gotta go all semantic on me. Yes, I can't predict the future, but your argument is still silly. I'm not against DWI laws...I'm against prohibition. Even though I know you don't care who, which, what, where or why :) I see we share a fondness for the thesaurus, so I'm more than happy to agree to disagree. Nice to meet you
Yes, wearycalls---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:22am.
I, too, like dinosaurs.
So, you are not against Driving under the Influence Laws, but you are against the prohibition of certain substances that make those laws necessary?
Ah, what the hell; nobody who indulges pays any attention to the rules, anyway.
Marijuana is no big deal to me, one way or the other; I tried it once, didn't care for it. I do believe it is a gateway to harder stuff, despite the studies you say indicate otherwise. Studies, like polls, can be easily slanted for a desired outcome.
There are those here who will go to the mat with you on the ganja issue, but I'm not one of them.
So we shall agree to disagree.
Remember, though, that calling someone's argument silly because you disagree with their viewpoint takes silliness itself to a whole new level.
Nice to meet you, as well.
MD
okay...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:25pm.
I disavow the silly claim. That was a debate foul on my behalf. I didn't claim any studies that discredit the gateway theory...I wonder if I could find some? I do see glaring fallacies in the argument, for instance, bkeyser phrases it in a typical manner - "Also, many people have had their lives ruined by marijuana use. Ask the next 100 heroin addicts if they first got involved in drug use with marijuana. 99 will say yes." Unfathomable logic! Let's assume the bandied percentage is correct (it's not). How many of these mythological heroin addicts tried alcohol at the same time? Let's go high, say...99 ;) Why isn't alcohol a gateway drug? (because it's legal) Am I going to shoot heroin next week because I drank a beer yesterday? It's propaganda. If I ask the next 100 heroin addicts what ruined their lives, my educated (don't ask me how) guess is they don't say marijuana.
weary
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 7:28pm.
Alcohol can be a gateway drug too. You're providing the straw man here; alcohol wasn't the topic. Speaking from a personal standpoint, I find that I was much more apt to start on the double shots of Jack after I had 8 beers, than the moment I walked into the bar.
You are correct and I erred on one claim, the 99% number regarding heroin users who first used weed. According to an advocate for legalization, Dr. James Goddard, that number is actually between 90 and 95%. So I was way off. While he claims that is irrelevant to the issue of legalization, the fact remains that the vast majority of heroin users began with pot. And yeah, heroin addicts will surely say it was heroin that ruined their lives. Though most would also tell you that if they had never gotten involved in the drug culture from the outset, they never would have ended up with track marks. (Instead of just reacting to stoner keywords like "gateway", you'll note that I qualified "gateway" by including the term "physiological" in the definition.)
Look, I'm not here to change your mind, call you names, or insinuate you're somehow less intelligent than I for taking the position that you do. Just know that drug use has greatly effected my family and I base my opinions on what I've personally witnessed and learned in treatment programs. Everyone has a bias, and everyone has a condition from which they base their opinions; mine is definitely not ideological.
If you've witnessed...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:39pm.
treatment programs, then you know addicts will laugh in your face if you mention marijuana addiction...because it doesn't exist.
sorry weary*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:55pm.
During my career, I went with my clients to many drug treatment programs and rehab centers. I dont recall every seeing any patients laughing. Many adults who I encountered who were dysfunctional and sufferred from arrested adolescence all were pot heads in their early teens.
Take your studies, spin them, but I worked in the real world with real people who had very sad lives because they too didnt think smoking pot was a big deal.
noted...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:48am.
cajun2...I only point out one fallacy that I'm sure, with your background, you will recognize. There are all manner of factors that led your clients to wherever they ended up...to say weed was the cause is an equivocal statement to say the least.
I've yet to meet one addict whom didn't chuckle at the very idea of marijuana addiction. And I lived in the real world, with real people shooting real drugs right along with me. Not to mention the real treatment centers, the real jail cells, and my real friends that died. I don't take this subject lightly, and I do know the difference between actual drugs and a medicinal plant. I'm not interested in spinning studies, nor have I done so. If you disagree, please show me the spin...so I can spin my way out of it :)
If? Weary?
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:29pm.
Actually it was in these programs that I learned that marijuana can be addictive. I didn't say for every user, or even for the casual user. But it is precisely the casual user who doesn't become addicted that consistently denies marijuana can be addictive.
The fact is that some people -who may either be predisposed chemically or psychologically- addiction is a real condition. You're argument against however, is akin to me saying, "Yeah, I drink beer on occasion but I'm no alcoholic. That whole alcoholism thing is a farce." Or, "My buddy plays the lottery every week, but he's not running off to Atlantic City every Friday night with the deed to his house. That gambling anonymous thing is a racket."
You need to keep in mind the agenda. Global Warming Alarmists swear up and own the science is in on that one too.
As for other comments where you've referenced me:
Just as a point on note, you didn't answer any of the questions I asked -unless you consider the question you asked regarding personal liberties and oppressive government prohibition- an answer. You might consider that if pot is legalized, it will fall under the jurisdiction of both the FDA and the IRS. And surely HHS and Commerce will have a say about it as well. Oh, and the DEA and DOJ won't go away as many of the same people who use pot also happen to use several other still-to-remain illicit and illegal drugs, and marijuana will only be legal to limited quantities, both in use and possession. In fact, known legal pot users might be the perfect subjects for increased DEA and local law enforcement scrutiny. Funny how the majority of legalization advocates seem to forget these facts all in the name of freedom.
I apologize...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:12am.
if I jumped the shark there. There were mitigating factors; I wasn't in a good mood, so I over reacted. That's a good point...bureaucracy would most certainly engulf a legal pot trade just as it does every form of commerce. Personally, I'd rather deal with the IRS than the Dept. of Corrections. I think we can both agree a government that taxes citizens is smaller than a government that incarcerates citizens.
- You didn't call me silly. You called the argument silly...I play that game all the time, I don't know why I fell for it here. Anyway, I didn't call you a big government advocate, I just questioned whether your small government advocacy jibes with your stance on marijunana...see? I'm great at that game :)
- I am a a staunch conservative, a devout Christian, and an enemy of the progressive agenda. I may love pot, but not nearly enough to vote democrat or third party. I'd feel dirty! Weed is widely available anyway...no one gets in trouble (usually) unless they're doing something else they shouldn't be doing. I abhor criminal behavior...I just don't put smoking the ganj in that category.
- My granddad was in the Marines, my brother in the 82 nd airborne. That's a great sacrifice, and I thank you for your service. Some times I think the army would have straightened me out sooner, but I doubt it. I couldn't stand authority, and I didn't like lifting more than say...a finger.
- lol...it wasn't my blog. I do take it personally though...it's a very stigmatized term. I know many great, loving, caring people...the friendliest and sharpest tools in the shed (I'm not including myself) whom would be called stoners if their private lives were revealed. It's unfair, It's not accurate.
- I never said the science was settled...I referenced a few studies that are just beginning to shed light on the healthy benefits of marijuana. The medical marijuana laws have allowed new and exciting research to flourish. Even you have to admit...the cancerous lung tumors reduced by half? That's incredible. Rat, mouse, or whatever.
I swear I'm not usually arrogant and rude. Playoffs is a bad time to talk to me...I can get rather petulant. But I see we're only of a different opinion here, and I'd surmise we'd be in ideological agreement elsewhere... so I regret my last post.
Weary
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:28am.
No problem. This is just one of many topics that people feel strongly about. I noticed md engaged in this debate -kind of from a referee standpoint- and I appreciate you taking some of what he said in consideration. I don't know how long you've been reading NB, but I think you'll find a relatively wide range of positions on social issues here, though the vast majority of us are gelled in our stance against progressive policies. That was largely my point - life experiences often effect the way we view the world, probably more so socially than in strict political policy. Certainly your experiences with marijuana helped shape your view on, as have mine. Sometimes it doesn't even come down to right and wrong.
One last note on the topic at hand- if pot was "engineered" in such a way as to limit the effects to a certain level (most scientists agree that the THC strength is roughly 5x greater now than it was two decades ago) and it could be kept from children, I would not oppose it's legalization in the same vein as alcohol. Studies do show that frequent use by teens can and does lead to various developmental difficulties, and the progression to stronger drugs. Again, not necessarily due to a chemical addiction, especially since an addiction to THC wouldn't be fed by cocaine or opiates. Rather, it is the psychological "addiction" to the culture, those with whom the person shares the experience (friends, gangs), and access that often leads teens to try other drugs.
When I was a kid, the other drugs available were pretty much all smoked. Now however, kids often get into narcotics that they obtain from the home. Percs and oxys are common, and kids go from popping the pills to grounding and snorting them as the need exists. Then the benzos come into play as they need to come down so they can navigate for school or work. Of course, these are highly addictive drugs and sadly, easily obtainable. Did the first joint make the kid jump into oxys? No. But kids who do drugs gradually eliminate kids who don't do drugs from their circle of friends; so eventually, they end up in situations where percs and oxys and benzos are readily available. Once chemically addicted, use often leads right back to marijuana to calm the nausea of withdrawal. So now you've got a high school teen addicted to narcotics and marijuana- he's unable to deal with the withdrawals and becomes dependent on pot.
Dependency is addiction. Not in the same sense as the percs, but addiction just the same. Eventually, this can lead to the use of whatever is available and the dependency becomes all encompassing. This is what happened to a member of my family, and he will forever be an addict. He had a dental condition not long ago and had to suffer through more of the pain because a prescription of pain killers would've likely triggered the opiate receptors in the brain and brought about a strong desire to return to the drugs.
Another issue that effects drug users of all stripes, but especially teens, is money. The stuff isn't free, so users often have to steal to fund their habit. This certainly has an effect on others and does not fit within the "liberty" mantra so often claimed.
Well, that last note turned into more of a novel; sorry about that. I wish everyone were capable of making reasonable and rational decisions about drug use, but unfortunately, that's not often the case, especially teens who haven't fully matured mentally and/or haven't the responsibilities of an adult.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and don't take offense to anything I've said. Welcome to NB and see you around the treads. Oh- and sorry about the Sixers but at least the Flyers got past Buffalo. I'm not too far down the road and have been patiently waiting for the fist round of the NHL playoffs to play out so I could see who my Capitals will play. We got Tampa.
wearycalls---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 7:47pm.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:34 am. -
Subject line of your post - "The gateway drug theory has been discredited".
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:25 pm. -
Logged in 17 hours and 51 minutes later -
Third sentence into your post - "I didn't claim any studies that discredit the gateway theory...I wonder if I could find some?
Ok, now the difference between those two statements does seem a bit confusing.
?
MD
hehehehe
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 8:47pm.
I just said it was discredited...not by what. And somewhere later I cleared that up...what I meant to say was the theory never owned any credit in the first place. Never proven, ever.
As I said, wearycalls---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:38pm.
your argument for drug legalization don't bark my shins; as far as I'm concerned, let 'em flow and kill off the ones to weak or the ones who think they are strong enough to handle drug use.
For what it's worth, you're rationalizations have been backed and forthed and upped and downed, and done sideways on various threads here at NB's; and while you are most certainly entitled to your opinions, you might consider that that your opinions do not make your case anywhere but in your own mind.
Act as you choose with your posts, but you have quickly allowed them to take on an edge, but talking down at others, i.e, your 8:40 p.m. post, who do not necessarily agree that you have the winning cards, is not going to make your stay here a pleasant one.
MD
he started it...
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:43pm.
marginalized everything I showed him, refuted nothing, and called me silly. I believe even you would have a problem with that matthewdean.
And it's marijuana legalization...I don't advocate legalizing hard drugs.
wearycalls---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:55pm.
Well of course you don't advocate legalizing hard drugs; ganja isn't a gateway drug, according to you, so no harm, no foul.
I have been at NB's about a year and a half, and I have seen bkeyser argue the marijuana issue many times. Against.
Why would he not marginalize everything you showed him?
Probably for the same reason you now say he refuted nothing.
You argue for marijuana; he argues against it.
Isn't that sort of the way an argument is supposed to be conducted? For, and against?
As far as calling someone silly - you and I already worked that out between us, in a tactful and most satisfactory way.
Try it with bkeyser.
You will not find a more polite, intelligent, or nicer person on these threads.
MD
I will try
Submitted by eugenedebs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:29pm.
It just seemed like he was getting personal for no reason...I got miffed. Plus the Sixers were losing the d*mn game just as I was posting, so that didn't help my attitude.
I say outsource the rapists,
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 8:28pm.
I say outsource the rapists, murderers, molesters and any other "gruesome" acts against humanity either to the Mexican's or to the Chinese (or maybe even someone cheaper). Once they have had their day in court, they should be expelled from our country.
I know, hippy liberals won't let us do that. Even though you KNOW the founding fathers would have.
We can reduce the expensive of our correctional . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 10:39pm.
. . . custody system by doing what many countries do: put the onus on the families of the convicts to support them.
- No free medical care
- No free dental care
- Minimum meals
- No TV or other entertainment
- No fitness rooms
- No libraries
what a lying cvnt! pardon me
Submitted by fromphoenix on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:02am.
what a lying cvnt! pardon me but that describes her best.
so,, because she wants the freedom to get high..
Submitted by Mark81150 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:49am.
Our systemn is the same as the Soviet Gulag's?
She's an idiot.
The cold war was my war, and I studied my enemy well. I may have been enlisted, but we all were given to understand the best warrior for America is one who reads, studies, and understands the nature of what they fight. Understand why they were evil, and what was good and decent about us to be worth, taking a bullet, or.. being vaporized at ground zero.
I was SAC, and General Curtis LeMay our patron Saint.
When she can show me where the lowlyest prisoner in the Soviet system could get a hearing before his nation's highest court, and win, when they had a better living standard than any of the worlds other country's prisoners. When she can show a gulag survivor who gained weight, or beefed up, while watching HBO, one who recieved a free legal defense, or the protection of the 5th amendment..
Show me miss..
or sit down and shut up. I'd resign if I had wasted a college education as she did....
You compare us to a system that killed more people than the Nazi's or Chinese combined by some estimates.. and after what some went through to win that fight... the friends.. family,.. My Uncle never did leave Vietnam, not completely till it killed him in the end.. men I grew up with, and after the war ended before I was of age, my own cold war time.. my own scars as nothing to those so many had,
You.. .................. defile them,
with your ignorance.
we didn't serve the evil empire.. Gorby did, we didn't fill mental hospitals with protesters, Breznev did, Kurchev, Stalin... we didn't herd civilians into famine zones to punish the insufficiently loyal..
I never shot a man for fleeing this country, as they did theirs..
Some of us remember the stakes, and what was won, when the walls came down..
some of us remember the cost, to our own.. to keep this nation true to it's promise.
--
Stupidty I can forgive, but mindless babbling ignorance?
not on this,
If there's one thing MSNBC knows about, it's prisons (/s)
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 8:37am.
Yes, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would spot the similarities right away: weight rooms, paid prison jobs, cable TV, baseball teams, commissaries, family visits, time off for good behavior, 3 squares a day, muslim "clerics", libraries, college courses, etc etc.
Huh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 7:04pm.
"Surely this is a moment for right and left to come together and say: we're spending so much money on jails."
No, we're spending "so much money" on criminals. Let's bring back "chain gangs" and use them for OUR benefit, mainly in the restoration of our failing infrastructures. This way, those criminals can learn a marketable skill while they repair and replace our failing infrastructure without having to charge us exorbitant labor costs.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Talk about a coincidence!
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 7:20pm.
"I just want to say, you legalize marijuana and you cut the bill in half."
Talk about a coincidence! I had finished listening to A Passage to Bangkok just before I read that!
Our first stop is in Bogota
To check Colombian fields
The natives smile and pass along
A sample of their yield
Hay, Dylan, how many samples did you try tonight?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.