Drug Prohibition

  • Bookmark and Share

Drugs should be legal.  Prohibition does not prevent use or abuse, so why should we continue to pour our tax dollars and law enforcement resources into a losing battle? 

There is no sense in prosecuting victimless crimes.  Who has the right to tell another person what they can or can't consume?  

Prohibition leads to higher prices which creates a profit incentive.  This will always lead to someone getting into the business.  By making it illegal we have taken a legitimate business and handed it over to gangs and cartels.  Actual crime usually follows.

Then we've made the average user into your average criminal.  Now that we've got a criminal instead of a citizen we have a burden.

These are just a few quick thoughts off the top of my head to get the ball rolling.  I hope we can all engage in a reasonable discussion on this subject and expand on these points and many more.  Since many people on this site are in favor of smaller government and lower taxes I would think alot of people would agree with this position, but we'll see.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Tough call...

WW,I would allow only drugs which have been known not to kill anyone from an overdose. I'm not a drug user. Supposedly, pot does not kill. On the other hand, herion, meth, cocaine & a host of others can kill you. Hell, even legal drugs can kill you if taken incorrectly. Lifting the restrictions on pot to free up our resources to battle the other deadly drugs. Is that what you are proposing?

BUBBA

 

Not exactly...

Hey Bubbaster, thanks for the response.  

I'm actually proposing the legalization of all drugs to be quite honest.  You mention that you'd like to prohibit drugs that can kill, but dismiss the legal drugs that kill.  Some of those drugs, like alcohol and tobacco products, can kill you even when taken correctly.  Those two substances, by the way, will individually kill more Americans every year than heroin, meth, cocaine and pot combined. 

So where do we start and stop?  Should we really be wasting our resources protecting people from themselves?  (And what about the fact that it isn't working anyway?)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Good Morning WW

No one here has been more of an advocate of making pot legal than me, but I agree with BM. Heroin or Crack Cocaine can kill you and I would not make them legal.

He had my vote

Afternoon

Howdy Shawn,

You mention that you'd like to prohibit drugs that can kill, but what of the legal drugs that kill.  Some of those drugs, like alcohol and tobacco products, can kill you even when taken correctly.  Those two substances, by the way, will individually kill more Americans every year than heroin, meth, cocaine and pot combined. 

So where do we start and stop?  Should we really be wasting our resources protecting people from themselves?  (And what about the fact that it isn't working anyway?)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion

Inducing societal ROT is never a good idea.  There IS a reason that downtown Oslo, capital of that world hyperpower called Norway, is not a very safe place to visit these days.  (Hint: it has something to do with all these harmless druggies who do absoultely nothing but hurt themselves, or so I am told.)  Or why the Needle park experiment was stopped in Zurich over a decade ago.  Or why those countries that are either moving up in the world or are already at the top of the game frown severely upon drug use, while those that are Going Absolutely Nowhere are not. 

That being said, thanks for dedicating a thread to your OBSESSIVE DEVOTION to drugs.  I was going to suggest you do this instead of constantly changing the subject of whatever you are arguing to your OBSESSIVE DEVOTION.

Note: no, the users are not criminals.  Unless you can show me a drug law where it is illegal to consume drugs.  Much as in your favorite Amendment, the 18th, where the consumption of alcohol was perfectly legal. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Hi

Hi Unsane,

The reasons for those countries going nowhere, in your opinion, could be many.  If I were advocating socialism you would probably tell me that is the reason.  Or even a very high rate of taxation.  If you think a minority of the population using drugs legally can slow the productivity of an entire nation, don't you fear what the illegal use is doing here?  We have drug users in this country today, but we've decided to ensure they can't be productive by using your tax dollars to imprison them. (So now we've robbed resources from multiple parties, seems couterproductive.)

It's true that users aren't technically breaking the law when consuming, but that's really a silly point to make here.  Just as silly as it was with alcohol prohibition.  Simple logic tells us that one would have to possess a substance in order to consume it, and someone must of bought and sold along the way.  All those actions should be legal between adults.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Losers

 The reasons for those countries going nowhere, in your opinion, could be many.  If I were advocating socialism you would probably tell me that is the reason.  Or even a very high rate of taxation.  Or even decriminalizing drugs.  ALL of those things can factor into whether or not a country joins Unsane's Going Nowhere club. 

Imagine...the Netherlands, which long ago decided it would be a great idea to baby their population with "free" health care, gets to pick up the tab for likewise babying its population of druggies. All of that money for health care that could go to people who did not ask for their ailments goes to people who routinely self-inflict their medical problems. 

If you think a minority of the population using drugs legally can slow the productivity of an entire nation, don't you fear what the illegal use is doing here?  At least the drug laws reduce the rate of consumption.  Your proposal would allow the rate of drug use to rise.  And thus it will create more problems. 

We have drug users in this country today, but we've decided to ensure they can't be productive by using your tax dollars to imprison them. (So now we've robbed resources from multiple parties, seems couterproductive.)  Hardly.  Where do you think license plates come from?  By the way...I still would love to see the law which makes drug use illegal.  Found one yet?

It's true that users aren't technically breaking the law when consuming, but that's really a silly point to make here.  Just as silly as it was with alcohol prohibition.  Simple logic tells us that one would have to possess a substance in order to consume it, and someone must of bought and sold along the way.  Nope!  It's a GREAT point to make.  YOU keep insisting that people are thrown into prison for merely using.  Not so.  The majority of people who go are pushers and dealers.  If a druggie goes to The Slam, it is most likely committing a related offense, like committing armed robbery in order to produce the funds needed for the next high.  Yeah, there's some productive citizenry there.  You think people's behavior is going to change magically if the crap is legalized?  Hell no it won't.  Legal or not, they will still drag down the rest of humanity in their quest for more drugs.  Hmmmm.  Maybe you wish to legalize various crimes to make it easier for the losers to procure funds for their habit?

All those actions should be legal between adults.  I don't believe the government should be in the business of encouraging losers and loser behavior.  If I thought that was a great idea, I'd be a huge supporter of the current White House occupant.  But I don't.  Losers need to be punished in all sorts of ways for loser behavior. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Keep it in the box

You boast that a majority of the people who go to prison are for being "pushers or dealers."  But these are people participating in the free market.  That is also a prime example of a victimless crime.  One adult seeking a product from another, both participating willingly, who is the victim in this scenario?

If anyone commits armed robbery, regardless of whether they are funding a drug habit or a shoe fetish, the should be prosecuted.  We don't need to ban drugs or shoes, just the armed robbery.

Since you are certain that people's behavior won't change if drugs are legalized then you should not be opposed to it, right?  Users will be users, non-users will remain non-users.  Those that are productive will remain so and vice versa.

"I don't believe the government should be in the business of encouraging losers and loser behavior."  We agree.  

"Losers need to be punished in all sorts of ways for loser behavior."  We disagree.  If they truly are losers then they will be punished by their own actions, but leave my wallet out of your moral quest to make us all winners.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

What? No campaign to end law enforcement?

 You boast that a majority of the people who go to prison are for being "pushers or dealers."  But these are people participating in the free market.  That is also a prime example of a victimless crime.  One adult seeking a product from another, both participating willingly, who is the victim in this scenario?  It can't be a free market if illegal.  Who are the victims?  The druggies, those who get caught in the crossfires of competing gangs and other criminals, society as a whole for losing people who could be more productive elsewhere and should be freed to have the freedom and liberty to do even better and more productive things, the families of the victims...

If anyone commits armed robbery, regardless of whether they are funding a drug habit or a shoe fetish, the should be prosecuted.  We don't need to ban drugs or shoes, just the armed robbery.  Except that in many cases the armed robberies wouldn't occur if there wasn't a need for addictive drugs.  I don't see how that goes away with your prescription of inducing societal rot and decay.  Hell, perhaps we should legalize robbery too.  Think of all the money we pour into law enforcement agencies that we waste every year on that.  If we weren't prosecuting robbery suspects, and throwing them in jail, we'd SAVE SO MUCH MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Right, WhichWhine?  (h/t to FS)

Since you are certain that people's behavior won't change if drugs are legalized then you should not be opposed to it, right?  Users will be users, non-users will remain non-users.  Those that are productive will remain so and vice versa. Since you like loser behavior and wish to allow and encourage loser behavior, the ranks of losers will grow.  It may fill you with overwhelming, total GLEE to see a country full of losers, or at least with more losers, but I am not comfortable with that.  Just because you don't give a crap about your kids doesn't mean that I need to stop caring about mine. 

We disagree.  If they truly are losers then they will be punished by their own actions, but leave my wallet out of your moral quest to make us all winners.   OK, WhichWhine.  You may lead the charge to disband your local law enforcement agencies if you feel so strongly that your wallet needs to be left out of a "moral quest to make us all winners."  Which, again, and again, and again, you give me WAAAAYYYY too much credit.  I'm not the only one who feels this way, or perhaps we wouldn't have silly things like PDs and government...or even society in general.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Lessons

Don't you see where the market from drugs comes from?  Or the inflated market might be more accurate.  Remember the lessons from the prohibition of alcohol, they apply the same here.   (Hint:  organized crime, etc.)

There are many addicitive drugs, legal and not, but you pretend that people only rob for the illegal ones.  Strange.   And then it's right back to being stupid again.  You wouldn't legalize robbery because that is a crime against another person or property.  (WOW you are dumb!)

Where do you get the idea that I encourage drug use?  (From that thread where JWF was encouraging the use of torture?)   Where the idea came from doesn't matter, it's false.   You care for your kids the way you see fit, I'll do the same for mine, but we are not raising a village here, Mr. Society.

You repeat your typical BS propaganda everywhere you go, don't you?  'Now that WW doesn't want cops making arrests for drugs, he must not want them around for anything!  Anarchy!'  (WOW you are dumb!)

Instead of changing my argument, why don't you counter it.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Lessons you refuse to learn

 Don't you see where the market from drugs comes from?  Or the inflated market might be more accurate.  Remember the lessons from the prohibition of alcohol, they apply the same here.   (Hint:  organized crime, etc.)  Oh, you mean like the beginning of such things as Alcoholics Anonymous?  The time when people began to treat alcoholism as a disease?  A drop in the use of alcohol?  And organized crime still very much exists, for much more than drugs. 

It is a great thing that the market is inflated.  For some druggies it might serve as a disincentive. 

There are many addicitive drugs, legal and not, but you pretend that people only rob for the illegal ones.  Strange.   And then it's right back to being stupid again.  You wouldn't legalize robbery because that is a crime against another person or property.  (WOW you are dumb!)  It is actually YOU that are dumb because you cannot see the contradiction you find yourself in.  You repeatedly assure us that since people will use drugs anyway, we need to just go ahead legalize them. People rob each other anyway for ALL SORTS of reasons, and this happens in spite of millenia-long efforts to eradicate this basic property crime.  So, WhichWhine, because people will rob each other anyway, why not legalize larceny and just do away with those statist fascist evil oppressors, the cops?  Besides, if we don't have cops anymore, WE WILL SAVE SO MUCH MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do you get the idea that I encourage drug use?  (From that thread where JWF was encouraging the use of torture?)   Where the idea came from doesn't matter, it's false.   You care for your kids the way you see fit, I'll do the same for mine, but we are not raising a village here, Mr. Society.  Because people who so deeply, intensely ACHE as you do for legalized drugs MUST think it is GREAT of people use drugs.  If you disapproved of drug use, you'd be on the side of keeping them 100% illegal, as they are now.  As you constantly plead for drug use, and are so deeply obsessively devoted to the legalization of drugs that you change the topic on virtually every thread you post on to your desire to legalize drugs...what else am I supposed to conclude? 

It really pisses you off to know that you live in a society with folkways, norms, and mores, doesn't it?  You are just going to have to grow up and accept that you are ensconced in a thing called society and that in this thing called society there are these things called STANDARDS that people live by.  This has been going on for...oh, I don't know...6000 or so years, and will probably go on as long as their are such things as human civilizations.  You can raise your kids however you want, but one day they are going to HAVE to interact with the children of other families who will likewise raise thier children with certain STANDARDS. 

Again, just because you do not give a crap about anyone at all other than yourself doesn't mean I don't have concerns about my family and the children I might one day raise. 

You repeat your typical BS propaganda everywhere you go, don't you?  'Now that WW doesn't want cops making arrests for drugs, he must not want them around for anything!  Anarchy!'  (WOW you are dumb!) Again, your simplistic thinking, that most of us adults have abandoned in kindergarten, beclouds your view so greatly you cannot see your own contradictions.  If you don't want cops enforcing drug laws because it is an exercise in futility...well, why aren't we legalizing murder, rape, robbery, and all sorts of laws against crimes that have been happening since...well, to use a Biblical reference, since Cain whacked Abel?  Aren't enforcing those laws big exercises in futility as well?  (WOW you are redundant!  And a total simpleton!!!)

Instead of changing my argument, why don't you counter it.  Instead of ignoring my countering my (and many others) countering of your arguments, and instead being an insulting smartass, why don't you face them squarely? 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Drugs should be legal ?

Drugs should be legal.  Prohibition does not prevent use or abuse, so why should we continue to pour our tax dollars and law enforcement resources into a losing battle?

Murder, theft,  and assualt should legal.  Prohibition does not prevent them, so why should we continue to pour our tax dollars and law enforcement resources into a losing battle?  /Sarcasm Off

"Sometimes sarcasm helps us think more clearly"  --Dogbert

free

you forgot rape and infanticide (oh wait....)

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

Ignoring one thing

Hey there Free Stinker,

You are ignoring a very important difference in the crimes you listed and drug use.  Murder, theft and assault all have a victim, simple drug consumption or possession does not.  I don't see an adult choosing to use drugs as a victim.  (Besides, who would that leave as the criminal?)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 

ignorant of one thing

drug abuse is not a victimless crime----see below----

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

Question botg

Would you like to criminalize alcohol abuse?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 

answer which wing

i don't follow rabbit trails

but i am amused by my elevated status the bumper sticker used to be "Question authority" now it's "Question botg" my how awesome i have become............

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

botg r de awesome

ignore this - just bookmarking the conversation ;)

Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall

Indeed

Indeed, I should just make my point. 

You say drug abuse is not a victimless crime, therefore you must want to criminalize alcohol (a drug) abuse.  

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion, Part II

Drug consumption is not against the law anywhere I am aware of.  

Again, as much as it fills you with rage: sure, it is a victimless crime, if you are all alone on Clipperton, Pitcairn, or St. Paul's Rocks.  I had a relative that was addicted to drugs and this effected the entire family.  So much for drugs not victimizing anybody. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Choices

You apparenlty chose to be a victim.  You should attempt to help your family member with their problem in a situation like that.  If this doesn't work, or they reject your help, you could cut ties with them.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion, Part IV

 You apparenlty chose to be a victim.  You CLEARLY love ascribing powers to people.  Unfortunately for you I did not choose for said relaitve to become a druggie.  Nor did anyone else in the family.  We just went along for the ride. 

You should attempt to help your family member with their problem in a situation like that.  Wow, a family counselor in our midst.  Nothing like a reactionary that likes to scold, lecture, and talk down to people like a Leftist!

If this doesn't work, or they reject your help, you could cut ties with them.  I'd HATE to be in your family.  Or even a friend of yours.  Apparently you like to throw anyone under the bus that becomes even the slightest burden to you.  How sick is that? 

What's funny is that people say I'M selfish!  They should read this post and see how selfish YOU are!!!

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Choices

"We just went along for the ride."  This is where your choice to be a victim was made.

An attempt to help your family member would be an intervention of some sort and a suggestion of treatment.  (Intervention is a great show on A&E)

Ironic that you chose to state it this way:  "Apparently you like to throw anyone under the bus that becomes even the slightest burden to you.  How sick is that?"  This is exactly what you are advocating with our tax dollars.  You want the state to pick up the tab so you don't have to take action and make tough decisions in your family?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 

The Obsessive Devotion, Part V

"We just went along for the ride."  This is where your choice to be a victim was made.   Since you STILL have yet to show me where I or anyone else in my family leveled a gun at that relative and forced her to use drugs, you are still laughably incorrect.  Of course, since you don't value the notion of family, much less the notion of society, the idea of sticking up for family members apprently is a foreign concept for you.  What a self-absorbed little boy you are. 

An attempt to help your family member would be an intervention of some sort and a suggestion of treatment.  (Intervention is a great show on A&E)  One, I watch TV so seldom it's a wonder I am connected to society in any way.  Two, I know you can't read and all, but go back to where I first mentioned my relative.  You will notice I wrote in something we English users call "the past tense".  Three, for throwing a temper tantrum about the alleged nosy busybody "nanny state" (as YOU define it) actions of the government, you sure are going out of your way to be a nosy busybody here.  Granted, I DID bring up the situation as an example, but that's as far as it goes.  Everything else - including what we did to get her back on her feet - is none of your f**king business. 

Ironic that you chose to state it this way:  "Apparently you like to throw anyone under the bus that becomes even the slightest burden to you.  How sick is that?"  This is exactly what you are advocating with our tax dollars.  You want the state to pick up the tab so you don't have to take action and make tough decisions in your family?  Still committed to being a nosy busybody, I see.  If your statement was true, then you can explain why no one in my family thought to call the cops.  None of us did, none of us suggested it.  It's none of your business as to how it turned out, but we took care of things all on our own.  So that stupid point of yours gets shot to hell.  Again.  Just as your repeated whining that people get busted for using has long been shot to hell (although you did sorta-kinda acknowledge that premise was and is nonsense as no such law exists). 

But it's true, WhichWhine.  At least said relative is still with us.  If she were in your family you would have slipped her enough money to get high again, as her drug use is none of your business and besides, it makes her SO HAPPY!!!  It doesn't change the fact that if any of your relatives are reading this, they better get the hell away from you as fast as they can.  Your wife should divorce you on the spot, as any sort of vow is clearly meaningless to you. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Until you show me where I

Until you show me where I or anyone else leveled a gun at your family and forced you to "go along for the ride" then you have still chosen to be the victim in this story.   You are not required to follow people down their path of stupidity and self-destruction, family or not.  Choices, we make all make them, and some are tough.

Believe me, I have no interest in your business, if you are going to get bent out of shape about something, maybe you shouldn't bring it up.

So, your family gets to decide how to handle their situation, but others should be prosecuted and jailed?  This is what you imply.  Your family member had a problem and your family took care of it without interference from law enforcement or the judicial system, why not extend that freedom to the rest of us???

Then you come to the magical conclusion that I would provide money for your drug-crazed relative.  Sadly, you have it exactly backwards.  Just as I think they have the right to use drugs, I have the right to reject their choice of lifestyle.  I don't encourage people to use drugs, I just encourage people not to lock up those that do use them.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

I thought it was me.

  Looks like pumpkinhead starts ticking people off wherever he goes.

  Now why are you arguing with this guy pumpkinhead?

The WhichWhine primer

JWF,

Comet WhichWhine is smudging the skies above the NB world as he does ever six months or so.  Soon, he'll go away, going back to whatever home he has, and the whole time, he will hope and pray all of the NB world will forget him and his M.O.

When he comes back, it's the following:

1) The U.S. military, since we spend more on it than the rest of the world on their militaries combined, is the locus of the world's evil. The only reason terrorists exist and the only reason the United States has enemies is because of the evil military. If we essentially destroy it and make America as whiny and as pathetic a nation as possible, the world will be a happier, safer place.

2) Ron Paul is God.

3) The #2 locus of the world's evil are independent central banks.  Especially the EVIL Federal Reserve.  He has no clue what he wants in terms of money; he just knows the Federal Reserve mus be destroyed as it is the #2 locus of the world's evil.  If you don't believe me, check out his "audit the Federal Reserve" thread, where he blames virtually everything on earth on the Fed and refuses to hold Congress or his Reps and Sens responsible for ANYTHING.

4) Ron Paul is God.

5) DRUGS!!!  DRUGS!!!  DRUGS!!!  DRUGS!!!  DRUGS!!!

6) Ron Paul is God.

7) Yummy yummy yummy DRUGS!!!

8) Ron Paul is God. 

9) Freedom is 100% FREE to WhichWhine.  He has zero obligations to his fellow man, and he sure as all hell does not have to fight for it.  If you insist that freedom has a cost, you are (pick one) a "statist", a "central planner", a "Nazi", a "fascist", and so on.

10) Ron Paul is God.

"That jaundiced pipsqueak wants to be President?" - my old man upon seeing Ron Paul in the Presidential debates of 5 January 2008 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

He is mad at me.

  I slapped him around a little in my liberal lies: waterboarding is torture and he got mad at me.

 Then he called me a dick. :-|

 Pumpkinhead hurt my feelings I tells ya.

 Watch out Mr. Unsane. He is a big meany and will hurt your feelings too. Especially when you get all logical or it looks like you are winning the argument or you start slapping pumpkinhead around real good.

For JWF

Oh, believe me, I saw that.  You may have seen a dude nearby drinking beer and eating popcorn as The Vet was b***h-slapping the Pumpkinhead all over the place.  That was me.  You shoulda charged admission.  :-)

WhichWhine and I have a history.  I wonder if he's addicted to drugs or maybe just pain.   (I loved the time where he declared that I was NBs "biggest chickenhawk".  Yeah.  A "chickenhawk" who was eight weeks away from deploying.  Not a very good move on his part.)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

All right sir. You have fun with him here.

Don't forget. Don't slap him too hard because the weight of the huge pumpkinhead will snap the little pencil neck of his if he should lean over too far.

Dismantling of the US

Dismantling of the US Military will lead to International primacy of new powers.  More to the point. while it is clear who some of those new powers would be, there will be OTHER names on that list that will both surprise and dismay the libtards and WhichWing and his ilk. 

An old favorite of mine in caricature.  Watch the 1951 production of Horatio Hornblower starring Pack and Mayo sometime.  You only need to watch the first 25 minutes or so unless you want to oggle Virginia Mayo in some nice gowns.  There is a caricature of the classic Latin American Dictator in this movie.  'El Supremo'.  He is laughable, but the traits he caricatures are all too close to the truth.

Self-absorption on parade

 You are not required to follow people down their path of stupidity and self-destruction, family or not.  Choices, we make all make them, and some are tough.  What a self-absorbed little boy you are, WhichWhine.  The concepts of "love" and "family" are clearly alien to you.  No wonder you get so pissed off whenever society is discussed, as a society is in essence a composite mass of many, many families. 

Believe me, I have no interest in your business, if you are going to get bent out of shape about something, maybe you shouldn't bring it up.  What did I tell you about barking orders at me? Anyways, I brought up an example, purposely leaving much vague, for a reason.  For instance, I did not tell you the substances at issue.  Nor did I tell who who or what my relative was.  There are reasons for all of this.  Yet, YOU, the nosy busybody, who I presume hates society and law enforcement for what YOU perceive as nosy busybody behavior by preventing you from engorging yourself in drugs, decides to turn into a nosy busybody.  Worse, you assume the behavior of the Leftists and "statists" you so deeply hate, all the while demonstrating to one and all your contempt and hatred of your fellow man, and your sneering scorn at such concepts as "love" and "family".  So, not only are you a nosy busybody, you are also a hypocrite in the extreme. Do you need help finding the rock you crawled out from under?

So, your family gets to decide how to handle their situation, but others should be prosecuted and jailed?  This is what you imply.  Your family member had a problem and your family took care of it without interference from law enforcement or the judicial system, why not extend that freedom to the rest of us???   I'm still waiting to see where drug users are thrown in the slam for using. Perhaps if said relative comitted armed robbery,for example, it would have been taken out of our hands entirely and thrown into a court.  By Shahinshah's Providence (Peace Be Upon His Majesty The Shahinshah), this did no happen, so what you describe was a luxury.

Rex is still right; read below, you SCREAM incessantly about freedom but refuse to consider, for even a nanosecond, your responsibilities to your fellow man and your obligations.  You see freedom as 100% free, with no costs whatsoever in any form; freedom as strictly a legal thing.  AT BEST, that is laughably naive. 

Then you come to the magical conclusion that I would provide money for your drug-crazed relative.  Sadly, you have it exactly backwards.  No I don't.  You have demonstrated that the ONLY person you care about, ANYWHERE, is WhichWhine.  Not your wife, your kids, your parents.  ALL of them can go straight to Hell in your world. It is ALL about WhichWhine. Just as I think they have the right to use drugs, I have the right to reject their choice of lifestyle.  Can you show me where in the Constitution, or anywhere else, where people have the right to use drugs?  What ISN'T a "right" to you?  I don't encourage people to use drugs, I just encourage people not to lock up those that do use them. For the last time, WhichWhine, SHOW ME A SINGLE LAW WHERE DRUG USE IS ENOUGH TO GET SOMEONE LANDED IN THE SLAM. IF YOU CANNOT DO THIS, THEN STFD AND STFU!!!

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

You have misunderstood

You have misunderstood again.  My understanding of family is what leads my desire for you (and gov't) to butt out of the business of families.  That means drug use, too.   

LOL that was a classic example of Unsane.  Bring up a personal issue and then call everyone else a nosy busybody for reading it.  You haven't even lost a step ol' pal!

You keep falling back to robbery, apparently unaware that we agree on that being a crime that we should prosecute.    Plus you get some sort of weird satisfaction from pointing out that people are not prosecuted for using drugs, as if you are the only person with this knowledge.  You get so excited over all this that you gloss over the fact that people must buy, sell and possess in order to consume, which are all considered criminal offenses.

Hilarious, here is an example of your proud little cheer.

SHOW ME A SINGLE LAW WHERE DRUG USE IS ENOUGH TO GET SOMEONE LANDED IN THE SLAM. IF YOU CANNOT DO THIS, THEN STFD AND STFU!!! - Unsane

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The man asked you a question pumpkinhead.

  I was gonna stay out. It is not my fight. But I wanna know too.

  Answer the question pumpkinhead -

  SHOW ME A SINGLE LAW WHERE DRUG USE IS ENOUGH TO GET SOMEONE LANDED IN THE SLAM. IF YOU CANNOT DO THIS, THEN STFD AND STFU!!!

I am always amazed

At how smart liberals think they are. They play the word games well, but cannot defend what they believe or say. 

 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

victimless crime?

get real WW.  Have you seen the effects of long term meth abuse?  These people can not support themselves thus will be stealing to support themselves or living on the government dole (which is also stealing) Plus they will be a danger to my loved ones on the roadways and directly from their drug-induced psychotic behaviors.  Not to mention the danger they impose on their families.

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

Bruce

Wow......I can't believe it, I am in total agreement with you on a issue regarding drugs ;-)

People that do Meth are very prone to violent behavior, and to pay for their addiction, they have to sell that poison, maybe to our kids. 

He had my vote

see Shawn?

resistance IS futile

------ bot-g

Possession/Consumtion of drugs is a victimless crime.

Hey BOTG, 

First, I'll have to agree with you about the effects of long term meth abuse, but this doesn't change my argument.  Notice that you and I are both well aware of meth and it's problems while it is illegal, so have we actually prevented anything?  (One could make the case that meth was created as a result of prohibition and the skyrocketing prices of cocaine.) We need another approach.

Next, you assume that a meth user would not be able to support themselves.  This is simply not true.  While there will be instances of people abusing meth, as there will be with alcohol or oxycontin, a majority of users are capable of acting as responsible adults.  We don't imprison alcoholics and the like, so why should we do that to users of other drugs?

Finally, your point about those under the influence of drugs being on the roadways is a legitimate fear, but you should rest easy.  Repealing drug prohibition does not mean repealing all laws.  It would still be illegal to operate a vehicle intoxicated.  All laws meant to protect your family and your property would still be in place.  (Smoking crack = legal,  robbery on crack = illegal.)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 

The Obsessive Devotion, Part III

 Next, you assume that a meth user would not be able to support themselves.  This is simply not true.  But it is.  I have seen the effects of drugs up close elsewhere.  Even pot smokers fall into this trap due to the hippie lettuce's enervating effects. 

We don't imprison alcoholics and the like, so why should we do that to users of other drugs?  Please show me where drug use is illegal.  Alcohol consumption has never been illegal.  Reread the 18th Amendment.

Finally, your point about those under the influence of drugs being on the roadways is a legitimate fear, but you should rest easy.  Repealing drug prohibition does not mean repealing all laws.  It would still be illegal to operate a vehicle intoxicated.  Yeah, I'll rest easy - don't know about botg - that you still want cops on patrol to clean up the mess after the horrific accidents caused by druggies.  As we all know, DWIs completely stopped as soon as a law against them was passed! 

Wait a minute...

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Thanks

I was responding to botg here, and if you read the responses I've made to your posts above you will see that I have responded to these same points.  Please allow me to carry on a discussion with other members about this subject.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 

Don't like me responding to your posts? Tough...

The last thing you do is bark orders at me and otherwise tell ME what to do.  If you post anywhere on NB, as long as I am a poster, I will respond and say whatever it is that I please no matter what.  Pure and simple.  If I don't, it's because for whetever reason I do not feel like posting.

You don't like that?  Don't post on NB ever again. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

your ignorance is only surpassed by

your hubrus

i'd suggest you really learn the effects of long-term drug abuse before you embarass yourself further.  Let's just say that i have direct knowledge of the subject having a degree in psych and having lived through the lifestyle.  Trust me when i tell you that long-term use causes changes in the neurotransmitters in the brain leading to drug-induced psychosis.  It is not pretty or safe for society.

As for your secondary arguement Free has dealt with it above, why would you repeat that nonsense here?

Victimless crime, my ass!!

 

 

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

As I said before

As I said before, I recognize the dangers of long-term drug abuse.  But self destruction is not something we should be in the business of regulating.  We do not need laws to protect people from themselves.  (They will never work anyway.)  If a drug user commits a crime against you or your property, whether a result of the effects of long-term drug use, or as a result of a sugar rush, they should be prosecuted. 

There is a crime when there is a victim, we agree there I hope.  Consuming, possessing, buying or selling drugs,  where is the victim?  These are actions undertaken by consenting parties.  Victimless crimes.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 

not quite

public safety must be maintained

a crime is committed when a law is broken whether it's speeding or murder......

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

public safety

Consuming, possessing, buying or selling drugs does not endanger public safety.  

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

public safety

but drug addicts do endanger public safety

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

BUT

Not by consuming, possessing, buying or selling drugs.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw


you win wing

and giving suitcase nukes to terrorists won't hurt anyone either, it's only when they blow something up with them that people get hurt.

cause and effect may be a new concept to you but drug sales lead to drug use leading to drug addiction causes danger to the public

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

gross exaggeration

People don't have to be under the influence of drugs to commit a crime and be a danger to the public.  It's not being under the influence that we should be criminalizing.  This is as absurd as a "hate crime."  It's a crime whether high or sober, filled with hate or love.  The motivation is not the concern.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

winger

but persons who would not normally commit crimes will do so after becoming addicted and endanger my life.  If that happens i will hold you responsible.

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

Wait a minute

You are making a pretty broad statement there aren't you?  Not all users of drugs commit crimes, you do realize this, right?  The users that commit crimes should be punished for them, but there is no reason to punish a whole group of people for the actions of a few.  (I don't think we can afford to do that anyway.)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Lawn darts

I take it you favor bringing back lawn darts?  After all, we ALL have to suffer just because a few kids got injured/killed from them... 

How about ending speed limits?  Why should I be forced to drive 70 mphs max on most TX roads when it is only a few dumb people who do stupid things at 100 mph?

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

also which wing

if it helps just consider it as SMDT

"state mandated detox propgram"

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

Hmm

Maybe we could use a 're-education camp' after the 'state mandated detox program.'

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion, VI

So, given the opportunity to help the losers straighten themselves out...you aren't willing to do that, either?

If drug rehab and, yes, AA meetings can happen in prison, isn't that a good thing?  Isn't the rehabilitation of people and the prevention of recitivissim (sp?) part of the idea of prison?  

(botg, forgive me, but this is too good to pass up)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

NO

No way would I endorce a forced rehabilitation or detox program.  I would support the idea of making them available (by private groups), but not mandatory.

I like that these are options in prison, but sending people to prison under the misconception that you are helping them would be extremely ignorant.  Rehabilitation is/should be part of prison, but that is not why we send people there.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion, part VII

No way would I endorce a forced rehabilitation or detox program.  I would support the idea of making them available (by private groups), but not mandatory.  Clearly, you love, and perhaps yourself indulge in, loser behavior, and desperately want to allow and encourage loser behavior.  I mean, who cares if, say, downtown San Antonio and downtown Houston are overrun with homeless burnouts and druggies, right? 

I say that yes, because the loser behavior caused the loser to f**k up and threaten the life/property of others in his/her loser behavior, then they need to be sent down the path of the straight and narrow.  But hell, not even THAT is good enough a reason for you!  Just more evidence that you approve of losers and loser behavior. 

Rehabilitation is/should be part of prison, but that is not why we send people there.  This is a contradictory sentence.  Rehabilitation is/should be a part of prison but we don't send people there for that?  We send people there for both punishment AND rehabilitation.  If we didn't so the latter, you may explain "halfway houses" and parole officers and why they exist. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Loser behavior

I couldn't care less about you or your loser behavior, just keep it away from me and my property.

Huh?

My loser behavior? 

I'm not the one with an OBSESSIVE DEVOTION to drugs.  I'm not the one who is DYING to legalize them and the attendant loser behavior, and to send a message to losers everywhere that it is wonderful if your life's ambition is to be a burdensome loser.   

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Drug Abuse a Victimless Crime? NO!

We have a problem in this country of equating legal/illegal with moral/immoral, legal/illegal with ethical/unethical.  Until this is corrected, we will have a lot of problems.

This misbegotten turning away from ethics and morals, not only fosters an environment for the drug abuser, but also keeps proper punishment and effective law enforcement from occurring.  Corruption is one of the key ways in which liberties are lost for the majority by the actions of a minority. Statists of all flavors thrive on the corruption and immorality of a society.

This moral and ethical equivalency and degradation is encouraged  purely for the benefit of the Leftists and 99 other flavors of Statists to justify oppressive response.  Irresponsibility does nothing for Liberty.  The selfish people in our society whine about their rights and privileges without once talking about what their responsibilities and duties as a Free Person are!

If people base their decisions solely from a selfish, loophole oriented perspective, you end up with a decayed society, much like the one we live in.  The society and individuals relinquish their own self-responsibility to another authority, for bad or worse.  A Free Person must evaluate their decisions not only from a rights and privileges perspective, but also from a responsibilities and duties perspective. 

Authority without responsibility is a very, very stupid way to run a society.

For narcotics, much less any drug to be other than illegal or regulated, requires a population which has a tradition and accepted duty towards self-responsibility or otherwise, society will suffer.  A society which would not be destroyed by drug abuse is one in which it would never cross a person's mind to abuse drugs..

I do not use narcotics, nor do I drink to excess or abuse tobacco.  Why?  Because of legality or illegality? Heck no!

I am a Free Man, and as such, I not only recognize my rights and privileges as such, but also my responsibilities to my Nation and community.  If I incapacitate myself, I become a burden upon not only myself and family, but to my fellow man as well.

If I do stupid things while so incapacitated, I risk not only damaging another, but also damaging their Liberty.  I have the freedom right this minute at use and abuse all manner of things, legal or not.  But because I am a Free Man, I will not damage another person's Liberty for the sake of my own selfishness.

The sort of people given to drug abuse, legal or illegal, not only make a selfish decision right from the start, but are also engaging in a behavior which will increase their selfishness and diminish their judgment and responsibility. Legal or illegal, society will degrade.

What in the world makes anyone think that an irresponsible person. acting in an irresponsible fashion will be anything other than irresponsible?

It has been stated that narcotics are a victimless crime.  Up the thread and probably later down the thread, it will be contended that the drug abusers, illegal and otherwise, are only committing a crime when they commit a crime, ignoring the decrease of responsibility and increase in selfishness demonstrated by drug abusers.

When a drug abuser, illegal or legal, injures themselves or another, does that not potentially affect my insurance rates, my taxes, my quality of health care and run the risk of legislation and regulation being increased on otherwise legal activities, all because of a drug abuser's selfish lack of responsibility?

When a drug abuser, illegal or legal, damages property (even their own,) does that not affect my insurance rates, my taxes, my law enforcement availability, my piece of mind, my sanctity of property and does this also not risk the increase of regulation and legislation potentially affecting my property?

When a drug user, illegal or legal, commits a crime or is irresponsible with a gun, does that not affect my chances of keeping my own lawful and rightful ownership of weapons?

The list goes on and on.  I am very much impacted, in many ways, in serious ways, by drug abuse.

Encouraging the abuse of drugs, illegal and legal, in an atmosphere of "do what you feel moral equivalency" does nothing more than increase the chances of irresponsible behavior, thereby giving the Statist mentalities room to justify the removal of my liberties.

Victimless crime?  Heck no!

Drug use, legal or illegal is only victimless if I never see it, never deal with it, never have to see the aftermath of it and don't have to fund it.

I have yet to meet a self-responsible drug abuser, and I have lived a long and interesting life.  So as soon as a crack-head can show me that they are a stand-up citizen and are not incapacitated by what they are doing, I will be more "open-minded" about it.

The bottom line is that every time someone is irresponsible, I end up paying the bill.  Increasing potential and allowing, as a society, for irresponsibility is beyond stupid; it is suicidal.  And very expensive, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of other rights abridged and in areas of domestic tranquility.

Before worrying about getting more privileges and helping the Leftists and Statists get more justification for oppression, try educating the populace as to their rights and responsibilities as citizens.  You need to get people back to understanding the difference between rights and privileges and remind people that privileges are earned and can be lost.  Accountability must be restored, corruption crushed and dignity made a priority.

Talk of increasing privilege without obligation is truly stupid.  It serves no one.

People want the privilege of drug abuse, legal and illegal.  Okay.

I want the privilege of horsewhipping them for their stupid, selfish, jackass behavior that I end up paying for.

For all our love and understanding, our compassion as caring human beings, we need to recognize that drug abuse is a selfish choice, a choice made by an individual. Drug abuse is a jackass thing to engage in.

As much as we may love and care for someone, however much we might want to help them and work with them, the choice to stop will also be theirs, and theirs alone.  They chose to be a jackass and have to pay the many penalties accompanied with not only being a jackass, but the long road back from such behavior.

We can help, but the best way we can help is by getting a grip on our common sense as a Nation again and get back to some basic standards.

"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H

 "I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...every time!" -me

Commenting on an Obsessive Devotion

A GREAT post.  Unfortunately, though, you have marked yourself for our borderline anarchist (and definite reactionary) WhichWhine as an evil, oppressive statist/fascist/whatever other term he can dream up...ESPECIALLY with that last phrase of "getting back to some basic standards".  That does not sit well with WhichWhine AT ALL. 

This ought to be fun to watch... 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Well said

Your post is great, all very insightful,  I just don't see the need for the government and law enforcement to convince people of these things.  Convince your child or your neighbor, but don't send the police to do the convincing. 

Some here seem to be in favor of protecting society, while I see a need to protect individuals and their property.  Lucky for them society benefits from this.

I have yet to meet a self-responsible drug abuser, and I have lived a
long and interesting life.  So as soon as a crack-head can show me that
they are a stand-up citizen and are not incapacitated by what they are
doing, I will be more "open-minded" about it. 

Consider that you may have met one (or many) and haven't recognized them as such.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Drug use is not victimless

  • Drug overdoses burden emergency rooms
  • Families of addicts are victims
  • Victims of crime by addicts supporting their habit are of course, victims
  • Employers are victimized because their drug-using employees are less effective

The problem with the punishment for dealers is it is not severe enough ... dealing should be a capital offense.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

Stetch

This is all kind of a stretch, isn't it?   All these things could be said about obesity.

Besides, I stand be the original premise that you cannot be the victim of my choosing to buy, sell, possess or even consume drugs.  

Crimes committed while engaging in these endeavors would still be crimes.  Spending money on drugs, not a crime.  Stealing money for drugs, a crime.  And so forth.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

No responsibilities...

You can always tell when someone speaks from the point of view in which they have no responsibilities except to themselves.

Out of your ignorance you try to justify your position that buying, possessing, etc. is a victimless crime ... do you have any understanding of addictions? What happen when a father is so addicted to drugs that he spends ALL of the family money on drugs? When the family has no money for food and other essentials, are they not victims? 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

Ignorance?

Don't cry about my ignorance in an attempt to cover up your own.  

Believe me when I tell you that I understand the nature of addiction.  Now you apparently need a better understanding of the idea that not everyone who uses drugs devolves into a irresponsible burden.  There are plenty of people that use in their free time, outside or work and other responsibilities.  Some of them don't even have families.  But you think that a minority of users should ruin for everyone else?  Foolishness.

There are people that have some strange addictions that can ruin families and their lives, but you see only drugs as something that needs prohibition.  Alcoholics don't bother you, no sir.  Even if a couple hundred thousand die every year from alcohol.  What about gambling addicts?  Some people even blow all their money on state run lotteries.  Should we lock people up for that in order to protect their families?  Some people have shopping addictions.  Prison for them too?  Some lady maxes out the credit cards chasing new clothes and shoes until they foreclose on the house.  Family is the victim by your logic, surely you'd like to imprison such a horrible person, right?

Nope.  You think using drugs is the only way someone can ruin their life.  And you think it's impossible to use drugs responsibly (except for alcohol?!).  

You need to open your eyes to reality of the situation.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Whichwing ... you presume too much

You presume too much!

What makes you think that I am okay with alcoholics or gamblers or any legal addictive vice?

Alcoholism does ruin lives ... as does gambling ... as do drugs, illicit and prescription.

I am not in a position to change the policy regarding alcohol or gambling, but I can certainly voice my opinion that legalizing drugs would just be enabling another addictive habit to be legalized.

I have a suggestion for all the POT HEADS ... move to Alaska and toke your life away. (It's legal there) 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

I presume

I don't see you calling for the prohibition of those things, alcohol and gambling.  Is that because you know it doesn't work?

ALL these things CAN ruin lives.  Once you prohibit these things they WILL ruin lives.  

Not everyone that uses drugs will be irresponsible in doing so.  They won't all need to rob in order to support themselves.  Most have jobs and mortgages.  BUT, job and mortgage or not, possession of drugs can ruin a life.  No other act, just the mere possession.  Buying or selling could net you decades of prison time.  So who's the victim in their cases?  I can take a 12 pack of beer home from the store, but I better not get caught with a half ounce of weed?   We take a man out of his home, away from his family, cost him a job, his employer a worker and decided to foot the bill for locking him up simply for possession of drugs.  Now we're all victims.

Excessively using just about anything in can be harmful to you.  This may result in those around you being effected in a negative way.   Should we prosecute people for anything they do that doesn't maintain or improve one another's life?  Your line is drugs on one side, gambling and alcohol on the other?

Ending the prohibition of drugs does not grant immunity to crimes committed while using or pursuing drugs. 

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

WhichWing ... FOCUS

I know that sometimes it is hard to focus because POT has that affect, but the topic was Drug Prohibition.

I expressed my opinion that why I believe it should remain prohibited.

Frankly, trying to justify the legalization of drugs simply because alcohol is legal is WEAK !!!

Hint: In a debate, you try to the win an argument by demonstrating that the positive exceeds the negative. If you can successfully do that, congratulations, you win. 

Fact: You have failed miserably at showing that the legalization of drugs would have more positive than negative.

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

Focused

Frankly, trying to avoid the fact that alcohol is legal while imprisoning people for pot is WEAK !!!

Hint:  In this debate, my arguments were specific to yours, and your first post was stated as fact, not the opinions you are expressing now.

There are many positives to drug legalization.  Reduced spending on law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration.  In many communities that could result in lower sales and/or property taxes, theoretically creating more economic oppurtunity; and plausibly less drug (over)use.

We had to get you past the notion that drug use or possession is in themselves crimes before we could get into all that stuff. 

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

whichy ... facts

My original post does contain facts.

When people of reason formulate an opinion, they use facts to support their opinion. My opinion is therefore based on FACTS.

POT HEADS, however, have an emotional tie to this issue and their reasoning is clouded. As such, in a debate, they cannot support their position with facts so they try to justify by diverting off of the topic. You started focusing on alcohol instead of the topic, drugs and their prohibition.

[ Another liberal schooled !!! ]

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

HA

You fool, alcohol is a drug and it was once prohibited!  I understand and accept that you can't refute the point as it relates to the subject of drug prohibition, but accusing me of having clouded reasoning as a result of an emotional tie to the issue is ludicrous.

I said that your original post was stated as fact, here is the relevant portion:

Drug use is not victimlessMay 12, 2009 - 20:07 ET by LionKing

  • Drug overdoses burden emergency rooms
  • Families of addicts are victims
  • Victims of crime by addicts supporting their habit are of course, victims
  • Employers are victimized because their drug-using employees are less effective

I agree with you that these are not facts, but you stated them as such.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Whichwing ???

If alcohol is a drug, then what you are complaining about? It is legal.

As for my original post, those are facts and you have not refuted one of them because they are facts.

If your reasoning is not clouded, then how have you managed to justify the need for drugs to be legalized except for your OWN personal desire.

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

The point

I'm pointing out that you shrug your shoulders at alcohol, which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, but furrow your brow at illegal drugs, which even combined don't match the destruction of alcohol.

As for your original post, are they facts or not, you seem to be back and forth on this.  And while you are contending they are facts, do they apply only to illegal drugs or many other legal activities as well.  Do you wish to prohibit any activities that your facts apply to?

If you think this simply comes down to my own personal desire then you haven't considered any of the points I've made to you in previous comments.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion goes on and on and on...

Have you considered the only reason the drugs you so deeply ache to see legalized haven't killed more people is precisely because they are illegal?

Did you also know that alcohol is illegal in 3 states?

And as obsessed with drugs as AK is, there were regions of the state, especially to the north, where I and others were forbidden to bring alcohol to.  Hmmm.  Sounds like alcohol is regulated and proscribed all over the place even today...

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Stay on topic...

You cannot seem to stay on topic. Is this because you cannot focus?

The forum topic is drug prohibition. I am in favor of this, but you are not. I have justified my position, you have not.

Your only argument has been, "What about alcohol?" -- which isn't really an argument.

Furthermore, you have not rebutted any of my facts. btw, I did not say that ALL emrgency room incidents are as a result of illegal drugs, but they have certainly contributed a disproportionate amount because of how dehabilitating these drugs are.

If you want to discuss alcohol, I suggest you start another forum topic.

unsane makes a great point that drug related incidents are probably not as bad as they could be because they are illegal. 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

Nonsense.  You are

Nonsense.  You are avoiding the various points I've made in regards to prohibition, whether in comparison to alcohol or on it's own merit.  You have chosen to reduce it to alcohol vs drugs in your mind.  That's an issue that you'll need to overcome on your own.  

Furthermore, you keep going back and forth on whether or not your statements are fact.  I think you've made generalizations, not statements of fact.  

Seeing as this is a thread about DRUG prohibition, I think alcohol fits right in.  You just spin your little head crazy trying to figure out how to justify prohibition of less prevelant and less dangerous drugs while saying nothing of a much larger threat.

Unsane did that same as you, he made a characterization based on false premises.  He provided you with no facts, just his wild guess, and you want to call that a good point?  I'm guessing that's only because he's headed down the same path you are.  You aren't looking for correct or incorrect, you just want someone to agree with you.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion part 8 million

You aren't looking for correct or incorrect, you just want someone to agree with you.  I agre, WhichWhine.  That's exactly why you post here.

Think about it.  Why did alcohol usage drop during Prohibition?  Hmmmm.  Because it was illegal.  So, why isn't America crawling with loser druggies, as you so desperately want?  Because it is illegal. 

Legalizing drugs, something which you so DEEPLY ACHE for (I suspect because you yourself are a loser druggie who wants to get high legally), will give the green light to the loser element and those who wish to join them to consume as much as they want.  As I have yet to find the druggie that actually is responsible and NOT utterly self-absorbed, here your problems begin.  Enter societal ROT. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Slight correction

We are on the same page here - just a brief correction:

The AK Supreme Court made the possession of 1 oz of the hippie lettuce legal, in 1975.  (Hey WhichWhine, as I don't know about this sort of thing...does one ounce of weed make a joint, at least?)  If the Anchorage Power Trippers pull you over, for example, and they see 1 oz of grass in your car, they have no legal right to arrest you for possession.   

As for state law, as far as I know, it still isn't legal.  Though NOT for lack of trying.  WhichWhine would LOVE Alaska.  It is a drug-obsessed state; by far the most drug obsessed place I have been to.  In 2004, the potheads campaigned mightily for pot to be legalized there.  They rolled out people suffering from MS and all sorts of diseases and had them whine about how much they needed pot for medicinal reasons.  Other adverts featured people yelling how "It's about FREEDOM!!!"  (No, no, no.  It was ALL about GETTING HIGH LEGALLY.  That's it!)

But the law was shot down, in every borough in the state except Juneau.  (Maybe WhichWhine should move there.  It's a beautiful area, at least!) 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Victimless drug use

Many of the 200 plus homeless our church used to feed a hot meal to every Saturday night from our truck were the victimless victims of drug use. These individuals could no longer function, hold a job or have any kind of normal relationship with anyone. They came from all walks of life but had one thing in common. Their brains were all fried by drugs.

It is interesting that the true victims are ignored by those that promote legalization of drugs. Is it that you just want to pay a lower price for your next high? Be careful, you may not return from your next trip.

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

Similar to LionKing, you

Similar to LionKing, you seem to think that everyone who uses drugs lets their life go to ruin.  Occasional users don't exist in the minds of you folks.  It's all or nothing as far as you're concerned.  Again, that's foolishness.  The drug trade would have crumbled long ago if this were even remotely true.  

It is interesting that people you see as victims will be victims whether there is legalization or not.   You understand this, right?   Think back to your church example.  Did all these people wander in from some country that legalized drugs?  Nope, they managed to do this to themselves despite your best efforts.  Such is life.  

By the way, yes, legalization should lead to a lower price for drugs, and I see that as a good thing.  Many gangs exist only because of their drug business.  Take away their profit and most of them will dry up and fade away.  Instead we prohibit and drive up the price and provide incentive to engage in drug dealing and gang-related activities.  Just look at the recent violence in Mexico.

We need to recognize our follies.  The intentions are noble, but the results are devastating.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion continues...

Occasional users don't exist in the minds of you folks.  It's all or nothing as far as you're concerned.  Again, that's foolishness.  Not in my experience.  Quite a few of those who dabbled in the hippie lettuce in high school went on to more powerful crap later when the hippie lettuce wasn't doing it for them anymore.  Besides, even if you try a joint once, IMHO, you are a very weak, unimaginative, unintelligent person.  You, in short, are a LOSER for even occasionally using drugs.   

By the way, yes, legalization should lead to a lower price for drugs, and I see that as a good thing.  And you have the audacity to whine that I have unfairly accused you of advocating for more drug use?  Please. 

Many gangs exist only because of their drug business.  Take away their profit and most of them will dry up and fade away.  Yeah, because they'd never think to diversify into things like prostitution and other illegal activities, or, say, smuggling of goods that are heavily taxed, like cigarettes.  Right?

 Instead we prohibit and drive up the price and provide incentive to engage in drug dealing and gang-related activities.  Just look at the recent violence in Mexico.  So, instead of driving the gangs out of business and throwing them in the slam, we should just throw up our hands and induce vast quantities of societal ROT.  Yeah, that's logical...

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Your plan...

So far your plan has cost us alot of money and provided results that were probably the opposite of those intended, so would prefer to just continue as it is now?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

MY plan???

AGAIN, you give me FAR too much credit.  This isn't MY plan...this has been going on since before I was born.

It is working in the sense that losers and loser behavior is strongly discouraged.  This makes the society (there's thast word you so deeply hate again) that I...and as much as it disgusts you, YOU... a healthier, less worrisome thing to be part of.

I'd continue it, with one proviso.  Law enforcement needs to stop screwing around and absolutely shut down the drug trade in the United States.  This should make your precious, so deeply craved drugs so expensive that the losers check themselves into rehab and otherwise clean up their acts.   

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

The only thing that I give

The only thing that I give you credit for is your stubborn refusal to consider circumstances below the surface.

Constantly choosing  the 'health' of society over the rights of individuals remains a disturbing trend with you.

Your one proviso is the main flaw in the drug policy.  The main flaw in your thinking.  It's the one thing that has been called for and delivered time and again over recent decades.  You only lack the results to back up your flawed policy.  If success is more inmates then I guess you've got something, but I'm guessing there is a bigger and better goal than just that. 

I read an article recently that said, in part:

Government spending related to smoking and the abuse of alcohol and
illegal drugs reached $468 billion in 2005, accounting for more than
one-tenth of combined federal, state and local expenditures for all
purposes, according to a new study.

Most abuse-related spending went toward direct health care costs for
lung disease, cirrhosis and overdoses, for example, or for law
enforcement expenses, including incarceration, said the report released
today by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, a
private group at Columbia University. Just more than 2 percent of the
total went to prevention, treatment and addiction research. The study
is the first to calculate abuse-related spending by all three levels of
government.

Your goal is noble, but the approach is fatally flawed. 

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

The Obsessive Devotion take 8 million and one

Constantly choosing  the 'health' of society over the rights of individuals remains a disturbing trend with you. Refusing to acknowledge the public health problems associated with drug use is a very disturbing trend with you.  And you ascribing EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING ON EARTH as a "right" is even more disturbing.  Finally, not acknowledging the government's primary purpose - to protect its citizens, and this includes matters of public health such as that posed by illegal drugs - is even more astounding and reflects your simplistic thinking and lack of a proper civics education (which you constantly proudly parade as if such makes you a genius).

WhichWhine, I really don't need to see whacked out druggies on the streets of the cities of this earth taking a crap on the street, or taking a whiz everywhere, or rudely accosting people for money, and so on.  Apparently all of these activities and more are all basic rights to you, but most of us who were not raised by wolves like you were don't see these as good for the general public.

Doubtless you seeing druggies do his or leaving their used syringes in the street make you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but this sickens me.  And millions of others.  This is why the Needle Park experiment ended in short order.  I suggest if you truly believe these harmless little druggies are the footsoldiers of our "rights" as individuals (where is the right to consume drugs in the Constitution?), go to downtown Oslo and tell me what you think. 

If success is more inmates then I guess you've got something, but I'm guessing there is a bigger and better goal than just that.  Once again, Loser, show me where the CONSUMPTION of drugs is illegal.  Show me ONE case where someone was imprisoned solely for using drugs.  If you cannot, STFU. 

That article is GREAT news.  Imagine that...the government spending money on what it is SUPPOSED to be doing, like law enforcement, instead of things it shouldn't be doing, like funding symphonies, building cars, or giving away medical care to people. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

I don't think that

I don't think that legalizing drugs is a good idea. I believe that legitimizing psychotropic medications, whether legal or illegal, will have negative unintended consequences. I spelled out some of the negative consequences that have arisen from the medical and pharmaceutical industries pushing medications on the general public in an article called "Legal Drug Pushers and Their Victims". Also, not mentioned in this article, are millions of children that are now being put on Ritalin and other stimulants to treat so called attention deficit disorder (ADD) in an effort to control unruly behavior by school-age children.

I believe that a feminized school system is attempting to reduce boys' natural unruly, defiant, masculine nature with medication. The unintended consequence, is to stifle the natural inquisitive, adventurous, and mischievous behavior of young men. Albert Einstein was unable to concentrate on his schoolwork as a boy, he got bad grades and was quite restless. If Ritalin was available during Albert Einsteins youth, he could very well been diagnosed with ADD and putt on on this medication. This would have undoubtedly have affected his creativity and intellectual curiosity. If Einstein had been medicated as a child, he may never have made the discoveries which have had a profound positive impact on our country, and humanity. I think that encouraging and legitimizing the use of psychotropic medications, will have unintended consequences beyond our current understanding. Perhaps these unintended consequences would limit our ability to stand up to, and defeat, the "bad elements" in our global society. Another unintended consequence could be that we become, as a nation, one of these "bad elements". This is likely to happen if we drift away from the universal spiritual principles that this country was founded upon, and become a nation of people who chase thrills and pleasures, and seek to avoid confrontation and unpleasantness at all costs. Well intentioned liberals and libertarians often seek a quick fix, without considering the unforeseen and unintended negative consequences.

While an active member in the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous (NA), I learned that drug addiction is a physical, mental and spiritual illness. The physical nature of the disease is the physical addiction. Physical addiction causes withdrawal symptoms, physical discomfort, and sometimes severe illness if you stop taking the drug. The mental aspect of the disease of addiction, leads the addict to continually make the same mistakes and expect different results. There is no rational or reasonable explanation for taking the risks that we do, yet no matter how severe the consequences, we continue to use drugs and put our families, our freedom and even our own lives in jeopardy. Although our lives are clearly unmanageable, we are often in complete denial of our apparent circumstance. The spiritual nature of addiction is the most insidious. We learned that we were addicts long before we took our first drink, drug or pill. Spiritual bankruptcy accompanies active drug addiction. This is is what allows us to do whatever it takes, to get our next fix. As practicing addicts, our whole life centers around the using of drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. As addicts we lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive people, use people and put people around us in danger in order to get our next fix. Some of us have killed or rapped as a consequence of our addiction. There is no bottom the the depths of the spiritual depravity of an active drug addict. I have heard many personal stories in NA, and I have shared my own. Many of these aspects of addiction are true in all the stories that I have heard including my own.

The ongoing recovery offered by NA is based on spirituality as spelled out in the twelve steps and the twelve traditions of Narcotics Anonymous. In NA, we come to understand how our lives have become unmanageable. We come to see how drugs controlled every aspect of our lives. We were out of control. We had no control. Drugs had all control and power over us. At the same time we were powerless to stop using drugs. We tried to stop on our own over and over again but we couldn't. We were powerless. We could not stop or control our using them and once we were under the influence we could not control our actions. Our whole life centered around getting and using drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. After attending NA meetings for a period of time,with a sponsor, it became clear to me that drugs are a power greater than myself. The solution that NA offered was to believe that another power greater than myself could restore me to sanity. That power is God. I was taught to "Let go and let God". Don't fight it, just do God's will and all will be well. Basically those are the first 3 of the 12 steps in the NA or AA program. God is mentioned in most of the steps. The other 9 steps deal with practical ways that you can do God's will. First by taking a personal inventory, next by asking God to remove our shortcomings, then, when we were wrong we promptly admitting it, then making a list of people we have harmed and making amends to them all and then by helping other addicts get and stay clean. Thus, when your words and actions are in line with God's will, you will have serenity. Basically that is the NA program in a nutshell.

NA is a spiritual program, based on an all powerful God. NA and AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) have the best track record of success with drug and alcohol problems? Every rehab that I have been in, and I've been in about a dozen over the years, include NA or AA meetings as part of their treatment and they strongly recommend continuation of AA or NA meetings after leaving the program. Many drug and alcohol offenders are required by the courts to attend these spiritually based meetings as part of their probation. I was court ordered on several occasions. When the public sees Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan go off to rehab, do they know that the treatment is based on spirituality and a belief in God? Why is there no outrage on the part of the liberals and atheists because the state (the court) is ordering offenders to attend a spiritual program based on an all powerful God? Perhaps because the program works, but I think that the more likely reason is that the program is anonymous and it is not widely publicized that these programs are based on spiritual principles and God.

I know from my own 25 year experience as an active drug addict, that drug addiction is a spiritual disease, with serious consequences for the addict and everyone that he comes in contact with. I believe that widespread use of drugs in the US is only possible due to the spiritual depravity that is widespread in our nation. As with most problems, a solution that addresses the root cause of the problem is most effective. Legalizing and legitimizing drug use in our country will only exacerbate the spiritual depravity that we are experiencing and will undoubtedly lead to unforeseen, negative consequences. Addressing the spiritual depravity in our nation is the solution that I think will be most effective in fighting drug addiction. This solution will reduce the demand for illegal narcotics as well as reducing the widespread use of legal psychotropic medications . This is the only solution that has been proved to work as demonstrated by the fellowships of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous.

The US has grown into a situation of unprecedented economic abundance, coupled with spiritual depravity. This is what has led us to be the leading consumer of illicit drugs as well as legal psychotropic medications. This unique situation can not and will not be self sustaining. We must grow spiritually, as individuals and as a nation, or we will lose our individual and collective prosperity as well as our freedom.