PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Illegal Drugs


keg in kc
05-11-2001, 08:14 AM
I've got to get to work, so this is my last post for a while...

My argument is this:

In my opinion the government has no right to dictate my behavior in the privacy of my own home, so long as that does not infringe directly upon the rights, life, liberty and welfare of another. For example, if I want to sit in my basement and down 10 shots of tequila I have that right. If I want to have a type of consentual sex with my gal that fundamentalists find gross/sinful, that's my right. If I want to sacrifice rubber chickens to pagan gods for fertility that's my right. And, in my opinion, if I want to sit in the confines of my own house and light up a doobie, that should be my right, too.

When, however, any activity of mine endangers another, say for instance I drink a few beers or snort a line of coke and then get behind the wheel of my car, then I am legally accountable for my illegal action.

And, I should add, the fact that I am right now not a drug addict has nothing to do with a draconian system that tells me drugs are "wrong" or because they're illegal. It's because I see no reason to do it and because I see that drugs could be both dangerous and destructive to me. It's a personal choice, and I'm happy to have the freedom to make that choice. I don't EVER want my morality or my behavior shaped by some to fit thier narrow view of what the world should be. It's the same argument I use when discussing religion in politics, pornography and anything else that involves "morality".

And don't bother to try and bring any more "well, then let's legalize murder, rape, etc. etc." because that doesn't fit into the argument. Those are crimes with a victim. When I'm sitting in my basement popping LSD tabs (speaking figuratively here, I don't do drugs...), who exactly is the victim?

Further, you can't legitimately, IMO, say that drugs have to be illegal when we live in a society where alcohol is both used and condoned, as well as tobacco, another "legal" drug. There's no, well that drug is okay, but this one isn't, in my opinion. That's complete hypocricy.

As for the drug war, I say it should be stopped not because it's a failure, I say it should be stopped because it was designed from the start to fail. Either be real about it and outlaw everything, including alcohol and tobacco, or else just drop the facade. What's "good" and what's "bad" is dictated to Washington by special interest groups representing alcohol and tobacco interests as well as by under-the-table bribes designed to keep things status quo. Stop wasting my tax money on this crap.

TCB
05-11-2001, 08:14 AM
oooosssst-ahhh

ken man
better go to bed gotta get up in the morning so i can go to work and support my habit

keg in kc
05-11-2001, 08:21 AM
Wow, that's bizarre. My last post is now the first of the thread.

Jamie, as I said before your point made no sense. But I guess it shouldn't be a surprise because 2 out of 3 retorts from you on this topic seems to involve some version of "we might as well legalize murder and rape then" which is just a pathetic scare tactic that has absolutely no pertinence to the discussion at hand.

Anyway, I took the time to completely describe my opinions no this so there's no more confusion. I'm not, again, saying drugs should be legalized because the war is lost (although that is true, IMO). I'm saying that activities in the privacy of my home should not fall under the auspices of the federal government.

Good night, all, I need to get my novel going.

AustinChief
05-11-2001, 08:22 AM
The problem here is that we are trying to legislate based on probability...

I know QUITE a few people who use drugs recreationally... while it may be stupid, none of them have turned to violent crime as a matter of fact they are all indistinguisable from the rest of society.

It is PROVEN that African-Americans statistically commit more crime in the U.S., but we can't make blanket laws based on these statistics alone.

The same logic that refuses to look at drug use on a case by case basis could be used to keep minorities out of "high risk" jobs... i.e. banks, liquor stores, gun stores...

It sucks that we can't have it both ways... but that is the price of freedom... and a VERY small price if you ask me.

I will always choose living in danger over living without freedom (which isn't really living at all)

--Kyle
(always looking out for that slippery slope)

AustinChief
05-11-2001, 08:23 AM
test

Raiderhader
05-11-2001, 08:28 AM
And that's the fault of your argument. You simply can't stop the demand. Human beings for millennia have gotten drunk, toked up on opium, done heroin, so on and so forth. It's simply human nature and a form of escapism.


OK, this is what really got me going on the rape and murder thing. I know you say that it is different because their is another person involved, but I was refering to the human nature part. If you are going to make allowances for one aspect of human nature then why not all? The fact is that human nature is being used in this discussion as an excuse. We need to step up and take responsibility for our actions. Not legalize them so that we keep from getting into trouble.

Now I do agree that the war on drugs is useless as long as there are some exceptions. You have to do away with it all if you are to accomplish anything.

This should be it for the night. I'll talk to you all later. Good night.

Frazod
05-14-2001, 10:02 PM
I will now attempt to post my first poll. The Supreme Court thread got me wondering where everyone stands.

This could be interesting...

keg in kc
05-14-2001, 10:19 PM
Prohibition was a failure nearly a century ago and nothing has changed. The role of government is not to mandate morality nor to completely control behavior...

If I want to smoke up and can do so without infringing upon the rights of another American citizen, then there is no reason why I should not be allowed to. When, however, I overstep the bounds of my own personal liberties, and real crime against another is committed, then punishment should be swift and severe. It's no different than with other traditionally legal drugs in society, including but not limited to alcohol and tobacco (one of the most addictive substances known to science...). In other words, whereas now if I want to have a drink it's fine, but if if I want to have ten and then drive somewhere, I should be prepared to pay the consequences for my actions which are now endangering the rights of others, as well as their lives. And the same should be true for MJ or cocaine or other drugs, in my humble opinion.

Frazod
05-14-2001, 10:36 PM
I agree, Kyle, but for a different reason. As Clint Eastwood so eloquently said, "A man's got to know his limitations." Well, you also have to know the limitations of others. Call it fatalism, but I recognize that people are going to do what they're going to do. If someone wants to get drugs, they will - pretty much anywhere, anymore. They will feed the need by any means necessary. Because these drugs are illegal, they resort to illegal means and sources. We'd all be dramatically better off, IMO, if drug users could go to legal, non-violent sources instead of the current dealers who brutally and indifferently enforce their market, territory and way of life. Junkies are a problem, to be sure, but they are far more harmless than the bloodthirsty dealers.

At this point, I note that the only votes have been for, IMO, the only two viable options - go Draconian and ruthlessly and mercilessly attack both the source and the consumer, or (certainly more reasonably) admit that you can't put out an oil well fire by p!ssing on it and just legalize the damn stuff and be done with it. Either cut the head off the snake, or realize that the snake is so well-entwined that you just have to accept it.

keg in kc
05-14-2001, 10:46 PM
Frazod, I was actually going to add that exact point to my previous post, but I left it out because I felt I'd rambled-on enough...

That's exactly right, IMHO. First of all, legalizing drugs won't mean every person in America will instantly become a drug addict because, frankly, virtually anyone who wants drugs can (and does) get drugs anyway. Furthermore, as you pointed out, the criminal network behind the current drug pipeline into the US will be crippled.

However, I also see that as the largest obstacle, because I sincerely and honestly believe that members of our government, visible or otherwise, helped to put this pipeline into existance and may even still have a stake in it, so legalizing anything may be an impossibility.

Who knows...

The last point I should make is that I just would rather see my tax dollars going to something other than building more jails to house thousands of minor drug offenders who are not in actuality a "menace to society" in any way, shape or form any more than I am (and I'm not...).

Frazod
05-14-2001, 10:52 PM
I agree. I also wonder about the government angle - is this something they use as a cash cow, or perhaps even some sick form of population control?

Certainly no government official taking in fat bribes for looking the other way would want to see drugs legalized - that is a certainty.

And speaking of tax dollars, think about the windfall that legally distributed (and therefor taxed) drugs would bring in. The junkies in Chicago alone could probably balance the budget! That, coupled with the money we'd save from no longer dumping billions into a lost cause, could be spent on education and rehabilitation.

jAZ
05-15-2001, 12:53 AM
i am not opposed to legalizing drugs, however, make it illeagel to do while pregnant. If I had my way, it would be illeagel for a woman (or a man, if he were to ever become pregnant:) to smoke tobacco while carring a baby. Seems to me that the mother is infringing on the babies rights. Strangely, i don't see it that way with abortion, at least not until the 3rd trimester.

I am an anti smoker, and I get irate when I see a pregnant woman smoking. That just seems beyond selfish! I am getting angry just thinking about it.

47mack
05-15-2001, 12:48 PM
Legalizing marijuana would not bother me, but to legalize all drugs is insane. In a perfect world, a drug user would do it in his own home until his insides rot out. In our world, he/she will snort and inject every poison they can find, then go out and hurt an innocent person.

Ask you local police officer if he/she would rather arrest a drunk driver or someone blasted on drugs (excluding MJ).

OPEN YOUR EYES

donkhater
05-15-2001, 01:23 PM
My main objection to legalizing any drug is that it gives those individuals who are impressionable (kids, young adults) that just because something is legal it is not harmful to you and there are no consequences associated with its use.

I saw it plenty of times growing up with respect to alcohol. Many kids see adults drinking, even responsibly, and don't realize that, without proper discipline, those actions can become harmful and addictive.

You can argue all day whether or not MJ is as addictive as alcohol, but regardless of its chemical dependency it is habit forming and is a habit, devoid of discipline, that is extremely harmful.

Gaz
05-15-2001, 01:26 PM
In our world, he/she will snort and inject every poison they can find,

And more power to 'em, says I.

then go out and hurt an innocent person.

And that is when you punish him. You do not punish people for what they might do, for what another "similar" person did, or for what you are afraid they will do.

The State should not interfere in anything that consenting adults to do themselves or each other, as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.

Legalize it all and then prosecute the criminals who drive while drunk, break into a house to support their habit, force-feed drugs to non-consenting adults, smoke in a designated no-smoking area or provide drugs to minors.

xoxo~
Gaz
Far, far from insane.

AustinChief
05-15-2001, 01:33 PM
Gaz,

I couldn't agree more... The problem is that people are trying to legislate based on their version of "probable" outcomes...

If drugs are legal... people will "probably" go crazy and kill for a joint...

This kind of "nanny state", false logic has brought us seat belt laws and I'm sure we'll be seeing a "running with scissors" law and a "no fatty foods" law coming soon.

--Kyle
(tired of people protecting me from myself...
or legislating on possibilities)

Gaz
05-15-2001, 01:37 PM
a "no fatty foods" law coming soon

Say it ain't so, Kyle.

xoxo~
Gaz
Fearing the end of life as he knows it.

Brock
05-15-2001, 01:37 PM
Ask you local police officer if he/she would rather arrest a drunk driver or someone blasted on drugs (excluding MJ).

what drugs? If you are talking about heroin, the worst part about arresting them is carrying them to your cruiser. Likewise, crack cocaine smokers are usually face down. A person is much more likely to want to fight when drunk.

MrBlond
05-15-2001, 01:45 PM
Gaz,

If we legalized all drugs, what about currently legal prescription drugs? Will I still need a doctors order? Will I need a doctors order for Crack Cocaine? Will I still need a doctors order for Vicodine? Will it be easier to obtain black-tar herion then Tylenol 3? What about laughing gas? I love that stuff at the dentist. Can I order up a tank from my local supplier and fill up the apartment? Is it really as simple as saying "You can do anything you want as long as no one else is affected."?

Iowanian
05-15-2001, 01:49 PM
For those of you that don't think drugs hurt people and people should be able to do anything you want....

fine. I really don't care what a person does to his/her body chemically...I choose not to so I don't want to deal with the associated guff...

BUT!!! at the point you(of course not "you" guys) crash into someone in my family, break into a house to steal for crack money, or stab someone for jonesin' yo crumbs.......I'd like to see the guilty hung from a bear trap by their balls in a public place...

I'm a big advocate of personal responsiblity going with personal freedom.

smoke em if you got em'

ExtremeChief
05-15-2001, 01:52 PM
As far as violence from someone under the influence of drugs....I keep seeing in my mind a guy with a samurai sword getting shot by police with bean bags, tear gas, etc.. and just taking it. I think the dude was there over 7 hours. I don't know what he was on, but it was some good sh!t.

I think MJ should be legal, but I'm not informed enough on the "hard" stuff to form an opinion. I do agree that if all were legal it would probably cut down on crime and prison overcrowding.

Gaz
05-15-2001, 01:54 PM
MrBlond-

Yes. It really is that simple, provided you drop the penal hammer on those who abuse their freedom. Do what you want to yourself and consenting adults. Just take personal responsibility for the consequences.

If nitrous oxide is decriminalized, then you can negotiate with the seller on the price. The free market will drive the price down, making drug peddling slightly less attractive to the criminal elements. I call that collateral benefits.

And if you want to fill your apartment with laughing gas canisters, go for it, sir, and have a blast. Do not operate a motor vehicle under the influence, steal to support your canister habit or give a hit to a minor and I do not care.

Party on.

xoxo~
Gaz
Not responsible for the bad decisions of others.

Gaz
05-15-2001, 02:00 PM
For those of you that don't think drugs hurt people and people should be able to do anything you want....

I think that drugs can harm people, but I think they should be able to harm themselves all they want.

These are [2] separate issues.
1. Are drugs harmful? Yes.
2. Does the State have the right to prevent adults from harming themselves? No.

xoxo~
Gaz
Does not want to outlaw fast cars, fatty food, extreme sports or golfing in a thunderstorm, either.

AustinChief
05-15-2001, 02:00 PM
Mr. Blond,

That is a good point... but the difference is that prescription medication is regulated so that people don't harm themselves withought knowing the risks involved. People who are doing recreational drugs (alcohol, tobacco, MJ, cocaine, etc...) are warned by the govt. (labels and such) that their is risk involved and then left to their own devices.

The same arguement can be made concerning alcohol.

Alcohol harms your body...plain and simple. But it is accepted that people are using it with this knowledge and are not trying to "misuse" it for medicinal purposes.

The issue become a little differrent when you get into "dual" usage drugs... (and I'm sorry MJ fans... as much as it has medical benefits... it is a recreational drug) such as heroine/morphine and some of the pyschotropic drugs... I don't have a clear answer for these... yet.

--Kyle

Gaz
05-15-2001, 02:03 PM
As far as violence from someone under the influence of drugs....I keep seeing in my mind a guy with a samurai sword getting shot by police with bean bags, tear gas, etc.. and just taking it.

A few 9mm pills would have solved that problem.

xoxo~
Gaz
Taking the straightforward approach to drug abuse.

AustinChief
05-15-2001, 02:04 PM
Gaz,

You left out the "running with scissors" law...in your sig. ;)

I DO believe in having a system of prescribing medicine when it is for a medical reason... but recreation drugs cannot and should not be logically grouped with medicinal drugs.

--Kyle

DenverChief
05-15-2001, 02:08 PM
How about this angle, The people of eight states, Colorado, California, Maine, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon and Nevada have spoken and said enough is enough and we want our sick and dying to have access to marijuana if a doctor sees benifit in the use of marijuana for them. How ever our federal government has decided the will of the people is not important anymore and whatever big brother says is final. I think it's time they had better start listening to the people or this country could fall like the Roman and Greek emipres did. This is absolutly ridiculous, we have Doctors saying that this is a good medicine for people with AIDS and Cancer and numerous other ailments and yet the government doesn't care. What does that say to you? They are looking out for themselves, fat paychecks and corporate payoffs have them looking the other way. I have no doubt the Supreme Court ruled they way they should have by saying that the federal laws did not allow for a medical use. However those laws need to be repealed because this kind of insanity cannot go on. The state has the police powers and not the federal government, in the constitution the powers of policing were givin to the state to make laws and enforce them not the federal government. I know that was a tangent but this whole thing has got me all P.O.ed the governemnt doesn't care what the citizen says anymore they have their own agendas.

Iowanian
05-15-2001, 02:13 PM
by kyle:" Alcohol harms your body...plain and simple. But it is accepted that people are using it with this knowledge and are not trying to "misuse" it for medicinal purposes."

Actually, medical studies have shown that 2 alcoholic drinks per day reduce collesterole and are good for your heart.

I just choose to make up on friday and saturday for the days I miss my "treatment" ;)

DenverChief
05-15-2001, 02:20 PM
http://www.mpp.org/statelaw/table1.html

Lightning Rod
05-15-2001, 02:24 PM
Legalize all of them. Tax them to a ludicrous degree ( see tobacco and Alcohol) use the revenues to fund education and treatment programs. Take the money now spent on "the war on drugs" fund cab rides to and from bars be it beer or hash. Take the billions left over and split it between me and the rest of the BB members. Of course I get half since it was my idea.

AustinChief
05-15-2001, 02:25 PM
Iowanian,

I MUST have the LOWEST cholesterol on the planet than!!!

...but seriously, even though it can be shown to have some benefits in certain cases... it ALWAYS harms your body (however small the harm may be) because it is a toxin that damages the liver. The liver can recover if the amount of alcohol is small enough...

My point was just that alcohol is used recreationally AND is accepted by the govt. for this use. I see no differrence between it and the "illegal" recreational drugs.

--Kyle

DenverChief
05-15-2001, 02:39 PM
Does anybody agree with my post #20?

MrBlond
05-15-2001, 03:38 PM
Gaz,

I think the Gov't does have a responsiblity to anticipate dangerous behavior and pass laws protecting its citizens accordingly. IMO, saying that the Gov't should not regulate behavior until it affects others is short-sighted. For example, why have speed limits? Why not let people drive as fast as they want, and punish them if they cause a wreck? Why can't I drive 120 MPH if I don't cause anyone any harm? Would you like to live next to a guy stock-piling explosives? He isnt harming anyone...until they go off. Why can't I yell fire in a crowded theatre, if no harm comes to those inside? In some instances, individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the whole. IMO, outlawing and regulating mind, mood and behavior-altering drugs is in the common good. I will concede the comparisons between alcohol and MJ. Alcohol is far more destructive. It would be more reasonable to advocate banning alcohol than legalizing drugs. If there was a better than even chance that these addicts on depressents, anti-depressents, mushrooms, pain-killers, coke, crank, LSD, peyote, air-plane glue, and a host of other substances would stay home and bounce off the walls or fall asleep harmlessly, I might agree. But I think, and I believe most reasonable people think that these people would be causing a great deal of bodily, financial, and emotional harm on others. Ignoring that until the really do this damage is irresponsible.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 05:42 PM
RCG, I suggested the tax thing in Post 4. You'll have to split the profits with ME :D

Some good points raised on a painful topic with no easy answers.

One thing I'd like to point out is that I know first hand the horrors of drug addiction - I p!ssed away five years of my life on coke - been on the wagon for almost five years. Probably spent enough money on blow to put a 50% downpayment on my new house - sure wish I had it (and the wasted years) back, but oh well. I do not condone drug abuse (legal or otherwise) of any kind. I just recognize the futility of trying to fight it. I say legalize it, tax it, come down on those who commit crimes to feed their habits like nuclear death, and for those who drug themselves to death (as I nearly did on more than one occasion), f#ck 'em - this is nothing more than Darwinism in action. Looking back at the way I was, I can't say that my death by cocaine overdose would have been any great loss. Luckily I saw the light, quit, distanced myself from all my loser druggie pals and made a pretty good life for myself once I realized that its impossible to have both. I sympathize with drug addicts, for I've walked in their shoes, but in the end, if they don't change, they die, and have no one to blame but themselves. Life is harsh.

Legalization won't make the acquisition of drugs any easier than it already is - it will just eliminate the violence the current suppliers bring to the mix.

KCWolfman
05-15-2001, 05:46 PM
Denver Chief - #20 sounds alright on paper, but you have missed a fact. Even the defendants of medicinal marijuana admitted to the Supreme Court that it is not medicinal. There are no proven benefits and many other controlled tested substances that alleviate pain better.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 05:59 PM
I voted stricter enforcement of the laws. As good as bombing Columbia sounds, it isn't a real solution. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. For those of you who think it should be legalized because people are going to do it anyway, should we also legalize speeding unless it is causes harm to someone else?

Frazod
05-15-2001, 06:10 PM
Not a good comparison in my book, Jaime. I recently got my umpteenth speeding ticket - as usual, for doing 70 in a 55 in the middle of nowhere, in perfect weather on a well-maintained road in light traffic. When you throw in the $30 I had to pay to go to f#cking traffic school so I could keep the conviction off my record, I ended up shelling out $105 for BULLSH!T. The way I see it, I was robbed by an armed gangmember. That's all that happened to me.

Had I been weaving in and out of heavy traffic like a maniac, or doing 110 past a school, it would have been different. I just got screwed. Didn't even get a kiss or a cigarette afterwards.

Even the ex-cop who conducted the traffic school class couldn't give me a satisfactory answer as to why I deserved to get a ticket under those circumstances. Of course, he didn't have to. I was robbed, plain and simple. Like the taxes I pay aren't enough.

My experience with cops has basically been this: if I need help or protection, or my stolen goods returned, there's nothing they can do. But the bastards are there in a split second to give me a ticket. I don't think I'll be buying any tickets to the policeman's ball anytime soon, although I'm sure I've subsidized alot of donut purchases with my ticket money. :mad:

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 06:18 PM
Tim,
I don't get why it isn't a good example. Driving over the speed limit is dangerous only to us unless we somehow involve other people in the scenario. Just like drugs. They are only dangerous to us, unless we involve other people i.e. driving stoned. It looks like a perfect comparison to me.


You ever think about buying a fuzz buster? Not that it would have helped in the situation you just described, but it could prove useful at other times.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 06:27 PM
It may have been a good example, but when I hear anything about speeding tickets these days I see red instantly.

I have a fuzz buster, but don't use it. I don't drive all that fast anymore - usually 5 to 10 over. I got nailed in a speed trap where the limit went down to 55 - I just hadn't slowed down yet (was putting in a CD at the time).

As for your comparison, I feel if someone wants to drive like a speed demon out in the middle of nowhere, with no traffic around, that's fine. Until recently, this was legal in Montana. If you die as a result of being a f#cking idiot and take no one else with you, again, that's Darwinism in action.

If you hurt others, though, you should be slammed hard.

Just because I want drugs legal doesn't mean I think people should be able to do them anywhere. I don't ever want to see a bunch of cokeheads freebasing in front of my office building, for example. They should quietly dope themselves to death in the privacy of their own homes.

If there was a legitmate way to stop the use of drugs, I'd be all for it. There simply isn't. Its time to embrace the horror and deal with it.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 06:34 PM
There is no way to completely stop murder and rape, should we just embrace those and deal with them?

I have no problem with driving like a speed demon in the middle of nowhere. I tend to be heavy footed when I am in the middle of somewhere. I am starting to see why maybe it wasn't a great comparison. I'll think some more and come up with another.

keg in kc
05-15-2001, 06:40 PM
I have a hard time equating a person knowingly ending the life of another or a person who violently sexually assaults another equalling a person who wants to get high. That argument is little more than a scare tactic, IMHO.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 06:43 PM
Well, we deal with murder, rape and other serious crimes after the fact. No other way to do it. You can't punish someone for murder before he murders, because he hasn't done anything wrong yet.

And again, a druggie who is quietly drugging isn't hurting anyone but himself. When that changes, you stomp on him. But often times he won't hurt anyone but himself (I personally never robbed anyone to feed my habit).

Not every drug user is a fiend - many can continue to function in society. They may not function well, but they don't generally hurt others.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 06:44 PM
Kyle, it was only to make a point (I don't deal in scare tactics unless the scary thing happens to be the truth). There will always be people who want to do wrong, or dangerous things. Do we simply legalize all of it and learn to accept it? Or do we stand up for what is right? A stretch yes, but the over all principle still counts.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 06:47 PM

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 06:49 PM
I do think legalization of everything should be taken into consideration if not for anything but the basic makeup of human nature-just about every walking creature on this planet is looking for a way to alter their consciousness. If the Feds were to eliminate all the illegal drugs on their list (a completely, totally impossible task), I'd be willing to bet they'd be working off a new list within a month.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 06:57 PM
When you say everything, do you mean all drugs, or everything considered illegal?

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 07:10 PM
Everything considered illegal should be "considered"-IMHO

47mack
05-15-2001, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Gaz


And that is when you punish him.

That's great. Punish them when the innocent person is dead. The punishment in this case goes to the grieving family. Yes, you can stop something because of what might happen.You legalizes dangerous drugs and innocent people WILL get killed. There is no might in that.

~TWB...not calling Gaz insane, just suprised that such an intelligent person thinks this way.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 07:22 PM
Mack, I hate to break this to you, but innocent people get killed as a result of drug violent every single day, right now. Only most of the ones dying now are killed by the dealers, not the junkies.

As I said, there is no easy answer.

Brock
05-15-2001, 07:24 PM
If you allow the citizenry to own firearms, innocent people WILL get hurt. There is no might.

If you allow the citizenry to own automobiles, innocent people WILL get hurt. There is no might.

People willing to sacrifice freedom for security shall have neither.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 07:28 PM
And as for the grieving families, I would remind you that we're all mortal. Some of us die before our time, in horrible ways, unjustly, undeservedly. It's always happened and it always will.

But neutering street gangs by legalizing the drug trade would cut it back more than anything else I can think of.

47mack
05-15-2001, 07:30 PM
Street gangs will never go, drugs or no drugs.

Brock
05-15-2001, 07:38 PM
They might not completely evaporate, but their number one source of income would.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 07:44 PM
I never said they would. But drugs are their top money-maker, much like booze was the top money-maker of prohibition gangsters.

A drug dealer wants your money. If he can kill you or beat you into submission or cheat you, thereby getting your money and keeping his drugs, then he's a good businessman. The average drug dealer is an amoral thug. Trust me on this. They'll f#ck you up on side and down the other if they can get away with it. Now, given the choice between going to a legal outlet to obtain drugs and going to the aforementioned scumbag, what do you think the average junkie will do? Therefore, the profits for illegal drug dealing are decimated. Many people deal drugs because it's the best way they have to make money - make thousands in week dealing drugs or a couple of hundred a week flipping burgers at McDonalds.

When McDonalds becomes the more financially viable option, many will take it.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by kcfanintitanhell
Everything considered illegal should be "considered"-IMHO


That is freakin' scary! Let's just all run around and murder, rape, and pillage. Yeah, I like the idea of the women in my life having a greater chance of being raped. I like the idea of me or others that I love having a greater chance of being killed. I also like the idea of having my personal belongs stolen, hey I'll just go steal from someone else to get something even better.

Can you imagine the world if this were to happen? Utter chaos. I don't think this is an acceptable solution.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 07:46 PM
Relax, Jamie. I think he's talking about drugs, not violent crimes.

AustinChief
05-15-2001, 07:47 PM
In response to post #43

Brock,
Another way to say it is (paraphrased)

"Those who would give up freedom for safety... deserve neither"
--Benjamin Franklin

Brock
05-15-2001, 07:47 PM
Drugs=Murder and Rape?

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 07:48 PM
Tim,
I asked him specifically if he meant drugs or everything considered illegal. That was his response.

Brock
05-15-2001, 07:49 PM
Austin, yes. That is the exact quote I was groping for!

Frazod
05-15-2001, 07:50 PM
Another interesting point - most drug dealers ARE NOT JUNKIES. This is a fact. As one of my old dealers once told me, "a monkey can't sell bananas."

These people are exposed to junkies everyday. Quite simply, they know better.

They are, however, with few exceptions, vicious, violent criminals.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 07:51 PM
So he did, Jamie. I take exception with that one...

Brock
05-15-2001, 07:52 PM
The ones that aren't vicious and violent usually end up in the trunk of a car with a 22 cal. rattling around in their dome.

Brock
05-15-2001, 07:53 PM
Can't speak for KCFiTH, but I doubt he condones violent crime.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 07:53 PM
RH-
First of all, I said "considered". Secondly, I honestly think your futuristic scenario of rape, pillage, murder,and robbery is pretty much already happening-all over illegal drugs. If you want to take a realistic view of a country that crossed over into that Armageddon, check out the crime statistics in The Netherlands.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 07:54 PM
Good point, Brock. It is definitely a "survival of the fittest" environment.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:05 PM
faninhell,
you shouldn't consider a good majority of that stuff. The concept of even "considering" it is scary as he!!.

Just because the crazy Europeans are doing something stupid doesn't mean that we should model ourselves after them.

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:08 PM
"Crazy"? "Stupid"? That an informed opinion?

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 08:11 PM
My humble apologies over "everything ". I thought that being this thread was over illegal drugs and my post in response to RH's question had to do with ALL illegal drugs, rather than anything illegal-I started thinking about things like PCP, crack, things like that, and I posted the "consider" reply. I sincerely apologize.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:12 PM
Yes.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 08:13 PM
Jamie, I must disagree. What they do in the Netherlands is proof that legalization works. Hell, they even pass out free hypodermic needles to heroin addicts so that they won't all use the same needle and contract AIDS from each other (and then spread it to everyone else).

Of course, we only have to look to prohibition in this country to know that outlawing these drugs will never stop people from using them.

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:13 PM
Didn't work with alcohol, why would it work with drugs? Answer: It isn't.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:15 PM
faninhell,
glad we got that cleared up. As scary as legalizing drugs sounds, what I thought you were saying is a whole lot scarrier.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:18 PM
Tim,
who pays for these needles? The government i.e. the people? I am sorry but I can't support the use of my money going to see that these people who are killing themselves do it in a "clean" manner. What happened to personal responsibility? If you don't want aids, don't sleep around with everyone in town, and spend your own d@mn money to get clean needles. I cannot and won't support what goes on in the Netherlands.

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:20 PM
If they end up with aids, you'll end up paying for their care anyway.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:23 PM
Yeah, and I don't support that any more than I do paying for their needles. If they want to risk getting a deadly disease then it should be up to them to pay the price. I hate socialism!:mad:

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:24 PM
I'm not talking about socialism. I'm talking about your insurance rates. Good ol' capitalism.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 08:26 PM
Jamie, a needle costs a couple of bucks. To keep some junkie welfare patient alive would cost untold thousands.

Pretty big savings on a small investment, IMO.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:27 PM
I thought you were talking about medicade. And face it, many who have aids are on medicade. But the needle thing is still socialism. Socialism leads to a lack of personal responsibility, and money out of my wallet.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 08:30 PM
Junkies aren't exactly responsible. Giving them the needles helps them keep their irresponsibility from becoming a serious headache to those around them.

Again, a small price to pay.

BTW, Jamie, I'm curious as to what your exact views on how to deal with the drug problem are. We know what you don't advocate - what do you propose?

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:31 PM
Tim,
I don't want to pay any of it. And I shouldn't have to. There needs to be a change in this country's thinking, and I can see it coming in the future. But I can also forsee it getting worse, so that means instead of sitting around complaining about it, I'll have to do something.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 08:32 PM
Correct if I'm wrong but I thought Medicaic was an Americanized form of socialism.

tommykat
05-15-2001, 08:34 PM
I just got online and saw this...A question since I haven't had time to read all the posts, I curious as to how you can say or think pot is harmless? This can and usually does lead to something more. Just asking..

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:34 PM
As I said earlier, as good as it sounds to bomb Columbia that isn't an answer. As long as people want it, it will continue to come. You can't stop the supply with out first stopping the demand. So I am for an extremely tough punishment, throw the book at them, and make it mandatory to go through rehab during the sentence. A perfect solution? No, but neither is anything else that has been proposed thus far.

Otter
05-15-2001, 08:39 PM
You guys are giving me the muchies!

Frazod
05-15-2001, 08:48 PM
Okay, I guess tougher punishment could work, if you're willing to dump even more money into new and bigger prisons and more and more cops. Would cost alot more in the long run, IMO, and the problem would still be there.

As for rehab - well, unless the junkie in question truly wants to quit, rehab is useless. If a junkie isn't ready to quit, he won't. Three words - Robert Downey Junior. This poor bastard has racked up enough frequent flyer miles from rehab to travel to the nearest star, and he's probably getting high as I write this. He's not ready - and until he is, neither jail nor rehab will cure him. He'll either stop on his own or, like his character in Less Than Zero, simply die from it.

BTW, in my third year of cokedom, I quit and started going to NA. Sat around the campfire with all the 12-steppers talking about how we all hated drugs. It lasted 7 weeks, and then I started up again, twice as bad as before, for another two years. For me, it was a complete waste of time. I quit when I was ready to. Period.

AND WITH THAT, I HAVE COMPLETED POST 1500!

keg in kc
05-15-2001, 08:51 PM
...curious as to how you can say or think pot is harmless? This can and usually does lead to something more

That may have been true at one point in time (it was statistically true in the 60s, for instance) but the latest studies/statistics are now showing that that is, in fact, not true any longer. The great majority of people who either try and/or smoke marijuana regularly do not partake in any other drugs (somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% as I recall, although I don't have the numbers at my disposal).

On a related note, many people, myself included (I do not smoke, btw, although I did try it once), consider it the equivalent of alcohol, as several posts on this thread demonstrate.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 08:52 PM
Yes, I agree with that your solution is not a fair one. Columbia is a beautiful country, as well as all the other coca-producing countries
in Central and South America-just absolutely beautiful, populated by decent people that have also gotten in the crossfire precipited by organized crime in these regions over the demand for illegal drugs in the US-let me ask you this-what happened to organized crime in the US after prohibition was lifted?

keg in kc
05-15-2001, 08:56 PM
Tim, I've seen some interesting information in the past about how 12 step programs like AA are largely a farce. This was information garnered and presented by drug/alcohol treatment centers in Europe (who, coincidentally have a higher success rate), centers who, I believe, use other more direct methods and refuse to give into the concept that abusers suffer some sort of disease. Not sure where to go about finding information on that sort of thing, but I've heard enough horror strories from folks in different xxx-anonymous groups to put at least some credence in the idea. Obviously there are successes as well, and like you say, I really think it matters the most that the person really wants to deal with the problem.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 08:57 PM
First of all, if I have to spend money on these people,then I would rather spend it on putting them away, then subsidizing their dirty habits.


You know, I never thought about rehab having a negative affect. I'll have to think about that some more.


Let's face it, until parents start acting like parents again, and really get involved in their kids' lives, no matter what we do this problem will just get worse. Granted even if all the parents were doing their jobs just right you would still have a fall out, but no where near anything like we have today. So we have to wait and encourage parents to do better, although I don't see any real changes coming now. We might have to wait on one of the earlier generations. But this is the real answer, encourage kids to never try it to begin with, and no government program is going to do half the job that parents can do.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 08:57 PM
Kyle, that certainly matches my experience. I know several people who smoke pot, and almost none of them use harder drugs. Coke, for example, gives you a completely different and opposite high than pot. If you smoke pot and then snort coke, they counteract each other, so basically you're getting absolutely nothing out of doing them at the same time.

I never liked pot, even when I smoked it. Hated the smell, hated the taste, hated the high. Unfortunately, I really, really liked coke.

Granted I did start with booze and pot, but I don't see the connection between those and cocaine. My cocaine use had nothing to with reefer.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:03 PM
let me ask you this-what happened to organized crime in the US after prohibition was lifted?


Faninhell,
so since bad guys are going to commit crimes, we should just legalize everything so we don't have bad guys anymore, right? If you think gangs are going to go down because drogs are legalized, you are saddly mistaken.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 09:06 PM
Actually, if the 12 step programs work (they do work for some) then more power to 'em. It's like what Costner said in Bull Durham - "If you think you're winning because your getting laid, or not getting laid, or wearing women's underwear, then you are." If you think it works, then its working. This is all psychological. The enemy is within. Outsmart him by any means necessary.

Personally, sitting around talking about dope for a couple of hours with other struggling junkies just made me want to go get some dope. Ironically, it later reminded me of sitting around with my junkie friends getting high talking about what rehab/NA was like.

Jamie, I agree that parent should do more to educate, protect and discipline their children. However, even Ward and June Cleaver couldn't protect their kids 24/7, especially in a sh!thole like Chicago. The crap is out there, and often kids find it, no matter what you do.

TCB
05-15-2001, 09:07 PM
There are no negatives to the legalization of drugs.

Revenue will be saved in Law Enforcement.
Revenue will be saved in our courts.
Revenue will be saved in our prisons.
Revenue will be generated by taxation.
Revenue will be generated from new jobs in the private sector. Manufacturing, processing, and sales.

Make no mistake about it, we are talking billions of dollars here folks.

What to do with all of this new found wealth?

You educate the children of this country.
You teach them well, that's all you can do.
I am not referring solely to public education.
You go into every sector of this country and you build facilities that give these children options, something to do.
Give them the ability to pursue their goals without monetary restrictions. I am not advocating carte blanc. But if a kid thinks they want to write or work with people or be an artist or work with animals or participate in sports or whatever else, give them a place to do it.
Properly educate these children and make it possible for any kid to pursue his or her dreams regardless of their background and drug use in this country will drop dramatically.

All of these things are possible with the monies saved and generated by the legalization of all drugs.

ken man
old hippies never die...they just get lost in the smoke

Zebedee DuBois
05-15-2001, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by TCB


You educate the children of this country.
You teach them well, that's all you can do.

old hippies never die...they just get lost in the smoke

Teach - your children well, their parents hell....


Zeb,
singing in his head......

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:13 PM
Tim,
as I said there will always be some fall out. The hope is that parents will have done a good enough job that kids have the smarts and the will power to say no and walk away (I am by no means dissing you or your parents, I doubt you'll take it this way but just in case). It all comes down to the family IMO.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 09:17 PM
No one is naive enough to think that street gangs will simply go away if drugs are legalized. But they will wither considerably when their primary market dies.

Another thing: My method of legalization would be this: special stores would be created that would sell nothing but hard drugs (I don't want to be standing on line with a bunch of addicts while I'm buying Tums at Walgreens). I would couple this with savage penalties against anyone who continues to deal drugs illegally. In tandem, this would severely reduce the gang influence.

Now, these stores would undoubtedly become targets of protests (much like abortion clinics are now). Cops would probably keep a constant eye on these places, as well. The average junkie probably wouldn't give a sh!t about this - he'd just get his dope and leave, but screaming protestors and cops waiting in the wings would probably scare off curious kids and first timers.

Just a thought.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 09:21 PM
RH- I'd really like a source on your comeback

Twenty years ago, I got busted for cocaine, after a four-month excursion into it. I was rehabbed at the very instant cuffs were applied on me (or maybe it was right before when I had to dive in front of my golden retreiver to keep her from getting shot by a police officer). Anyway, I got in deep sh!t and was sentenced to five years in prison. I have not done cocaine since, don't miss it, probably will never do it again-have I been rehabbed?-damn right! And it's been twenty years! Can I vote? Can I get a job at places that do a background check? Can I get into Canada? NO! All these aforementioned things I don't really care about, but it's the principle. I never even had a freaking parking ticket before that. In light of this, do you really feel that I should still be paying a debt to society?

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:21 PM
A thought that was a little slow coming - you say part of the reason to legalize drugs is to help with crime rates, but either way a junkie has to pay for his/her drugs. Isn't reasonable to think that the robberies that take place to feed habits will continue?

Frazod
05-15-2001, 09:24 PM
Jamie, I was raised in Jefferson City and Kirksville in the 70's and early 80's. There was no coke back then (hell, in KV all we had was crappy pot that some kid grew behind his dad's barn). Coke was something we saw in the movies. The first time I ever handled coke, it was when I was a court reporter holding it as a prosecution exhibit during a Navy court-martial.

When I moved to Chicago, I was completely naive. I knew nothing of drugs or the horrors of urban life. Learned quickly, though. This, above all other reasons, is why I hate this f#cking place so much. I have developed a massive amount of life wisdom as a result of my experiences, most of which I'd be happy not to know.

My parents (both raised on farms) knew nothing of drugs. I'm sure it never even crossed their minds that I would end up an addict. How could they have known? I don't blame them for that one bit.

TCB
05-15-2001, 09:26 PM
raiderhater, You have got to give them something to do besides deal dope and cruise around at night.

If the feds made chocolate illegal tomorrow. Immediately a black market would be created. There would be people lined up to traffic in it for the money to be made. Soon, if a big enough market is out there, people will be getting killed over it.

Coming down harder on the offender is not and never will be the answer. If there is a market and money is there to be made, there will allways be somebody there to take the place of the guy who just got busted.
Simple economics.

ken man
"cough, cough" man it's smokey in here

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:27 PM
faninhell,
are you talking about my comeback to you? If so are you talking about the gangs going away? If that is the case, yes I do have a source, it's called personal experience with gang members. My family used to live in NM, while we were there we had a program that reached out to at risk and gang kids. Do you think jail, for any crime not just drugs, scared them? He!! no, it was a way of life for them. Infact many would do things to get back in there because they 1)felt at home there because that was where they spent most of their lives or 2) felt safe within the confines of walls. They had structure. If you think that everyone is going to be like you, you are mistaken. Especially when dealing with gang bangers.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 09:30 PM
Jamie, I'm sure you'd be surpised at the amount of functioning addicts in the world. I'd bet my last dollar that you know some and are oblivious to it. They don't have neon signs hanging around their necks that say "DRUG ADDICT - BEWARE!" I am a fat, bald, white guy, and even at my worst, if you'd seen me at the office or on the street, you'd never have suspected in your wildest dreams that I went home at night and freebased cocaine.

I never stole anything to support my habit. The worst thing I did was lie to friends so that I could borrow the money to get my drugs (and believe it or not, I always paid them back). Most addicts do not commit crime to feed their habits. The crime comes from the suppliers.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 09:33 PM
RH-
How did jail and incarceration get to be a way of life for them?
Just curious.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:33 PM
Tim,
that was true of back then, but nowadays everyone knows what drugs are.


TCB,
that is why I said come down on the demand and not the supply. You have to stop the demand to stop the supply. And sure there will always be somebody to take the place of someone who is out of business, but hopefully with tougher laws, and maybe some kind of rehab, you will lessen the number. It makes more sense than bombing the he!! out of the suppliers, because you know that there will definitley be more of those popping up as long as people will buy.

TCB
05-15-2001, 09:37 PM
doesn't matter raiderhater, you take the drug money out of those gangs and they will start to whither.

You will still have gangs, after all they have been around for a long time. Ever seen West Side Story?

Actually gangs can be a good thing. Just not as we know them today. Stucture and friends, these are good things. Especially in today's society when the parents that are supposed to supply that are busy trying to get through one more day.

ken man
livin large

keg in kc
05-15-2001, 09:41 PM
that is why I said come down on the demand and not the supply. You have to stop the demand to stop the supply

And that's the fault of your argument. You simply can't stop the demand. Human beings for millennia have gotten drunk, toked up on opium, done heroin, so on and so forth. It's simply human nature and a form of escapism.

Some people read books, some people watch TV, some people hit the local pub and toss a few back and some people smoke up and look at the pretty colors on the ceiling. That will never, ever change.

And that's not even touching on the subject of addiction and so-called addictive personalities.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:41 PM
Tim,
true, but I think you might be underestimating the number of people who steal to support their habit. But that is JMO, you would know better than I.


faninhell,
no family structure in most cases. It's a do what you want life. Crime happens to be fun for some reason. I guess the rush of doing something sneaky and getting away with it. But all of their friends commit crimes, and many times they have to commit crimes to be ranked in. So you have peer pressure. Now, why do these kids turn to gangs in the first place? That goes back to the lack of a family that most had. The gangs gave them a family structure of sorts. They truly think of their fellow gangsters as their family. So a life in crime and prison from what I have seen is based, not completely, but to a great extent of lack of family. There is the long way around the barn for ya.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 09:43 PM
"That was true back then, but nowadays everyone knows what drugs are".

I wonder if the Founding Fathers could say the same thing about guns.....

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:44 PM
Kyle,
some people have addictive urges to rape women. I suppose our efforts to stop that is futile we should just give up and legalize it.


TCB,
yes to an extent. But drugs is not the only thing gangs live for.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 09:44 PM
Actually, I wouldn't. All the junkies I hung out with had jobs. Even then I wouldn't have associated with the other kind.

keg in kc
05-15-2001, 09:45 PM
some people have addictive urges to rape women. I suppose our efforts to suppose since our efforts to stop that is futile we should just give up and legalize it.

That made absolutely no sense.

Frazod
05-15-2001, 09:47 PM
It's kind of hard to be a serial rapist without hurting other people. Drug users generally hurt themselves.

Were it up to me, all habitual rapists and child molesters would be executed. No exceptions. No reprieves. No sh!t. Don't care about their rights or if they'll get better. F#ck 'em.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:47 PM
I wonder if the Founding Fathers could say the same thing about guns.....

Now that is just about the stupidest thing I have heard all night. You actually think the Founders didn't know what guns were? He!!, they only fought a war with 'em.:rolleyes:

TCB
05-15-2001, 09:48 PM
raiderhater, that is why I say legalize all drugs and put that money to good use. Education, rehab, and local facilities to give the kids and their gangs something to do instead of lining the pockets of your local law enforcement.

Think what you could do with the money given annually to the local DEA, police, sherriff. and HP to fight the war on drugs.

ken man
add to that money generated by legalization and you have a big chunk of money on your hands

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 09:50 PM
RH-You totally missed my point-that is the second most stupid thing you've posted.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:51 PM
Kyle,
it made just as much sense as your post.


Tim,
but human nature is human nature. Addictions are addictions. Rape will always happen to satisfy an addiction.


I agree with you one hundred percent on the punishment for these people. The only thing I might do differently is castarate them with out any pain killers a day or two before the killing.

Raiderhader
05-15-2001, 09:55 PM
faninhell,
perhaps you would like to more clearly define your point?


TCB,
yet another problem I have with this whole thing. If the government won't be spending that money, then it has no need for it and should be given back to the people. You on the other hand want to increase government programs. I would rather my money went to fighting crime than more of these d@mned programs. Because let's be honest, there ain't a snow ball's chance in he!! that the people will ever see all of their money returned.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 09:55 PM
And by the way-there were millions of lives lost in both WWI and WWII, (as long as you're talking about conflicts) to preserve our right to maintain the freedom that you're basically saying that we don't deserve, because of "nowadays"!

Frazod
05-15-2001, 09:56 PM
I still don't agree with your comparison. If the junkie in question does commit crimes against others to feed his need, then he's a horse of a different color. A junkie just doing his dope hurts no one but himself.

And castrating rapists then killing them? Seems a bit sadistic to me. I wouldn't want that job. The idea is to remove them from the gene pool and the planet in general, not sink to their level.

A bullet through the head will do just fine.

I've had enough for one evening. I'm outta here. Be back tomorrow.

Goodnight to all.

TCB
05-15-2001, 10:02 PM
oooosssst-ahhh

ken man
better go to bed gotta get up in the morning so i can go to work and support my habit

Gaz
05-16-2001, 06:33 AM
MrBlond-

RE #32

You missed my point. Freedom to "do as thou wilt" extends only as far as the next person's house. Equating drug consumption to storing explosives is a very weak argument. I'm sure you see the inherent flaws in that one, so I will not bother pointing them out to you.

Your speed limit analogy is better. I see your point there. However, I would not have speed limits on open highways, only in the city. In the city, the population density is sufficient to make speeding dangerous to others and not just the speeder. There, a speeder is endangering those who did not give their consent to be endangered. That is the defining criteria for government intervention.

You bring up speed limits as a reason to outlaw drugs, I would outlaw speed limits.

But I think, and I believe most reasonable people

A tawdry and unworthy tactic. Allow me to define "reasonable" on my terms and I assure you that the vast majority of them think the government should butt out of the recreational drugs issue.

xoxo~
Gaz
As reasonable as they get.

MrBlond
05-16-2001, 08:32 AM
Gaz,

Wow! this thread has exploded since 5 last night. I agree that the vast majority of people would agree that pot should be legal. It is far less harmful than alcohol. However, put legalization of crystal meth on the ballot in any state and I bet it is shot down. IMO, MJ is the first step on a slippery slope. make medicinal MJ legal, and is recreational MJ far behind? Once rec. MJ is legal is rec. cocaine next? If powder coke is fine, how about crack? Where does it end? I have seen some great examples and arguments for legalization. I agree with many. But, I can't imagine society improved by making ALL drugs legal. The argument that people should have a right to do anything they want to themselves as long as it doesnt affect anyone else is hard to argue against. It strikes a chord with the rugged individulist is all Americans. But in reality do we really want to ignore the potential damage of readily available "hard" drugs in the name of personel freedom? If the answer is yes, then my example of owning large amounts of explosives is valid. Why wouldnt I have the personel freedom to own as much TNT as I want? As long as it doesnt explode it doesnt affect you. And if it explodes and causes damage to your person or property, why I could be fined or imprisoned. If the personel freedom we are talking about is bungee jumping off of Devils Gorge, I am with you. Gov't should stay out. But if the issue is some skin-head getting his hands on some good acid, I want the cops locking him up.

BTW, I love the changes to the Post Reply page.

Raiderhader
05-16-2001, 09:08 AM
I tried to reply last night and not only did it not show up, but the thread disapeared. The same happened in any other thread I tried, it just disapeared. Must have been Kyle working on it.



And that's the fault of your argument. You simply can't stop the demand. Human beings for millennia have gotten drunk, toked up on opium, done heroin, so on and so forth. It's simply human nature and a form of escapism.


This is what really got me going on the rape and murder thing. I understand that rape and murder involves others, but my point is that if you are going to make allowances for human nature, then sooner or later people are going to want allowances made for all human natures. To be quite honest, I see human nature being used as an excuse in this topic. You can't just say well that's human nature and there is nothing we can do about it. Over at the Pen I used this analogy, crude though it may be, in a completely different topic, but it is useful in this as well. Humans have the ability to control their nature and even make changes, whereas animals can't. Dog's don't know that it is rude to start humping each other in front of people, it is just their nature of when they want it they go for it. People on the other hand know that it shouldn't be done. So for the most part it is kept private. So humans have the ability to change and control themselves and their nature. So I think it is wrong to just excuse these people because of human nature. There is right and wrong, and these people have the ability to learn it. And if they don't they should be punished just like anyone else who doesn't obey the law.


Tim,
perhaps my punishment for rapists and cchild molestors is a bit excessive, but I hate people like that even more than murderers. I don't know why, but that kinda stuff sickens me in a way that murder can't. Plus I have always been one for really tough punishment.

MrBlond
05-16-2001, 09:10 AM
Keg,

I agree with you and others who say "As long as I am not hurting anyone, it is none of your or the Gov'ts business." But, IMO, it is clear that drug abusers and addicts do harm others with their actions. Again, if you could persuade me that these people on speed, crank, pot, 'shrooms, LSD, herion, morphine, etc, would sit in their basements and hurt no one else I will sign on. Punishing them after the fact may be too late. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Gaz
05-16-2001, 09:18 AM
MrBlond-

IMO, the "explosives in my house" argument is totally weak. I do not believe a legitimate correlation can be made between a junkie snorting coke or smoking crack and someone stockpiling explosives.

In one case, the junkie MIGHT steal to support his habit [since the "war on drugs" only succeeds in driving up the price]. In the other case, a person is putting his neighbors directly at risk.

In one case, a mistake MIGHT cause damage to a non-consenting person or property. In the other case a mistake WILL cause damage to a non-consenting person or property.

This rationale is the same I use to approve of drunk driving laws. True, we could wait until a drunk driver actually kills someone before we intervene, but drinking ALWAYS impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle. There is no might or maybe or could. Since the other drivers did not consent to the drunk endangering their lives, the state has the "right" to intervene when someone with impaired judgment wants to operate a two-tone chunk of momentum.

In the drug user's case, there is a POSSIBILITY that the junkie MIGHT resort to stealing to support his habit. That is far too vague a rationale to justify the evil of government intervention, IMO.

xoxo~
Gaz
Needs a compelling reason to allow the ham hands of government under the tent.

Gaz
05-16-2001, 09:32 AM
MrBlond-

Carrying the concept of preemptive action to its logical conclusion, we should make all sorts of items illegal. Handguns, baseball bats, kitchen cleavers, electrical appliances, automobiles, wire cutters. The list goes on and on and on and on. Each of these items has been used to harm another person. Unless you want us all to live in government-approved padded rooms, we cannot "child-proof" life.

Yes, some people will abuse drugs, just like some people abuse alcohol, fast cars and sports equipment. The solution is not for government to look into the crystal ball and determine which toys we ignorant citizens are allowed to have.

I am certainly not willing to concede that the government is any wiser than I.

Punish those who infringe upon the rights, property or welfare of fellow adult citizens without the informed consent of those citizens. That means people who drive recklessly, fire handguns into the air, steal [whether supporting a drug habit or a lazy lifestyle] or store massive quantities of explosives in a residential area.

Leave everyone else alone.

xoxo~
Gaz
Cannot recall a case where more government intrusion was a good thing.

MrBlond
05-16-2001, 10:27 AM
Gaz,

Valid points. I can't argue with your reasoning. I disagree because I think that addicts are LIKELY to cause harm to others. In the likely event of harm to others, the authorities have a responsiblity to step in and enact laws prohibiting such behavior. I also disagree that the explosives argument is weak. I believe it is a valid comparison. I have to get back to real work now, but as always you are very persuasive in your arguments whether it be for legalization or the Chiefs D.

phillfree
05-16-2001, 11:09 AM
Looking at the results of the poll who is worse, the seven people who are stoned :) or the eight people who would nuke a country and have people killed?:eek: I also find it interesting that over 60% of the fans on this BB favor some sort of legaization of drugs. Someone who visits alot of different BBs should conduct this same poll to get a better sampling.

PhilFree :cool:

BIG_DADDY
05-16-2001, 02:55 PM
Phillfree,

You notice none of the 8 are posting though. They must be ashamed of their own opinion.

BIG_DADDY
05-16-2001, 02:58 PM
The way I see it, the poll was 38 to 16.:) How much longer will our politicians ignore the citizens?:mad:

Lightning Rod
05-16-2001, 03:10 PM
Big Daddy,
While you and I are basically on the same page concerning this subject, you are missing something. This BB is NOT a representative sample of our society. Many of the good "God fearing" citizens, that I agree with on many issues are the culprits here. It is the superiority complex that many of our fellow citizens have that is the cause of this kind of legislation. Often called victimless crimes. It is the mindset that we need to make our brothers and sisters do what is right and moral and healthy, regardless if they like it or not. I have a very different set of rules for my own behavior than what I think should be law. There are many activities that I find morally wrong "for me". This does not mean I need to make that decision for others. Sadly most people IMO cannot separate their personal moral beliefs from what should be legal or illegal. This is one of the main reasons the Founding fathers were adament for the separation of Church and State.

shakesthecat
05-16-2001, 03:26 PM
Well kids, it's 4:20. Time to relax.
And to those nameless 8 who would like to see me dead...

K.M.A!:p

Should ALL drugs be legal? No. Should Pot? Yes!
But like I've said before, as easy to get as it is now, I'd hate to see the gubment step in a screw it up.

47mack
05-17-2001, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by phillfree
Looking at the results of the poll who is worse, the seven people who are stoned :) or the eight people who would nuke a country and have people killed?:eek:

From what I have read, there aren't too many arguments about being stoned. Most argue that the hard stuff shouldn't be legal. There is a big difference.