Washington State's I-1068/Pot legalization... What do YOU think?
Offline http://sensiblewashington.org/read-i-1068/
I personally have been working to get signatures for this, since I think the only thing prohibition does is create a large black market. What do you think? Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success or failure? It looks like this has a good chance of winning, along with California's almost identical initiative. So... your opinions?
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
- Login to post comments
I really wish that people would not insist on using the term “war” to describe what has been done with drugs. It pretty much requires a situation where the normal concepts of success and failure are turned on their heads.
What would the idea of a successful war be in other areas of activity? To me, that is something that can be won. As in the reason for starting it in the first place goes away as a direct consequence of the efforts of the people involved. We once made Nazi Germany go away. We did not make Germany go away and we can more more make drugs go away. Drugs are not in a category of things that go away.
By that standard, the war on drugs can never be successful.
On the other hand, the war on drugs is a huge cost in the federal budget. If we did make the assumption that it was a winnable thing, then the victory condition would, as above be to make it such that the money could be freed up for other things. The people who are getting the money now would not like that very much.
Yet, the people getting the money can keep themselves on the gravy train simply by not ever winning the war. Paradoxically, continued failure on the federal level means that the cash stream never ends. So this war is a success only if it never ends.
=
Perpetual war... Orwell is TOTALLY rolling over in his grave...
I've already said most of what I have to say about drugs in my "blog" here. But the US really needs to be dealt with on the federal level before any state legislation really matters. Until drugs are wiped from federal law, you can always still get busted.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
But almost all of the people doing the busting are state employees. If a state adopted a policy of not enforcing drug laws, then most drug convictions just wouldn't happen. But you are right: the feds could still hypothetically get you. In practice they won't unless you are a smuggler or producer. And as far as we can tell they don't even get most of the smugglers or producers. Getting rid of drug laws on the state level would do wonders by itself.
California is voting on whether or not to legalize weed soon. I'm voting to legalize it and I'm never going to use it.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Also, calling a civilian issue a legitimate war makes the Posse Comitatus Act seem less relevant to the public. I think that it would be in our best interest to call it what it is: Prohibition of drugs.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
It is prohibition, there's no doubt. But first the US would have to rescind all of its treaties that demand other nations not produce poorly-regulated "narcotics". There's a good deal of ceremony to be overcome before the influence of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs dies off.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
hear, hear!
i've never used marijuana and i never plan to. for personal reasons, i prefer my slow death on tobacco and alcohol, but i goddamn sure don't begrudge anyone their weed.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
This is so the right attitude.
Whether you use it or not is irrelevant, others have the right to responsibly, and you should vote for that right.
Cheers.
Drugs are irrelevant to me unless they're the prescribed variety. HOWEVER...
Answers makes a valid point! Right now The "War on Drugs" is a GIGANTIC pork barrel in budget spending. It simply means more drug enforcement employees, basically.
None of what either of you suggests means Speedballs should be offered freely to whomever wants to buy it. Drug consumption should be stifled when it comes to HARDCORE substances; most stimulants, cocaine and heroin derivatives are the type that destroy friendships, family, jobs, and young minds... kids grow up to be failures while hooked on these things.
Many depressants lead to self-destructive use as well.
Cannibis, acid, shrooms and peyote... on the other hand, have no such known side effects. The "War on Drugs" keeps people off of self-destructive habits, nevertheless
My conclusion is thus: if it doesn't cause dependence, legalize it! If it does... keep it off the fucking streets.
(And no, "WoD" isn't symmetrical to prohibition, at all.)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Looking at social/domestic issues in black n' white is convenient when straw-manning an argument in such a way that it agrees with you.
Drug use is not black and white nor is it a question of "success or failure". I don't care who uses cannibis, as long as they're 21 and passed the "Lord of the Flies" stage of life, though.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I'm sorry, I better not ask people if they agree or disagree with a policy and how, since that's just trying to make the world fit into a two dimensional, absolutist box. So, Kapkao, what should I ask then? I had no intention of any of that at all because I don't care if everybody agrees with me. There are people who think that drugs should be prohibited, and while I disagree with them, I would like to hear the reasons for it because discussion on topics is healthy and necessary for a free society.
Plus, I don't plan on misrepresenting anybody's position, so I have no clue where the straw man argument line comes from.
21: no, on the initiative it will be 18
Post "Lord of the Flies" stage: yes (hopefully, but some people NEVER outgrow that stage...)
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
Well, my original point is simply that we can't legalize everything, and that comparing The Nixonian "War on Drugs" to Prohibition does not add anything to a conversation.
Vastet makes a valid point as well regarding federal regulation of recreational substance use.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
How is the current "War on Drugs" not a prohibition? I think showing the historical similarities between the Al Capone's of the past and the drug lords of today is important. Both examples have become amazingly rich and powerful simply because they got into selling a product designated a "no-no" and made a killing (a lot of times literally) because of it's black market status.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
Counterpoint:Kiddie rape porno is a no-no!
Your point doesn't stand on solid foundations.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
That's an odd comparison: when someone purchases and consumes a drug, there may be some incidental, indirect, or "collateral" damage to family members, but in the case of child pornography, an easy case can be made for the direct exploitation of a child for malicious purposes. A really easy case, and the damage is very direct (possibly equivalent to kidnapping in addition to rape ... for profit).
With prohibition, substances were disallowed, or only allowed by prescription. With the war on drugs, substances are "controlled", and only available only by prescription. I'm having a hard time making the jump from either the war on drugs or prohibition to child pornography.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
War on Drugs has been a huge success accomplishing the following main goals:
1) criminalising superflous population that the "free market" has no answer for and removing them from the political scene altogether
2) creation of a multi billion dollar incarceration industry
3) institutionalisation of slavery on a level never seen before
4) keeping the police force leadership incompetent, racially charged and/or corrupt through the incentive policy: rewarding the number of arrests rather then importance is an incentive for arresting ordinary users, rather than trying to make meaningful (big) arrests inside organized crime circles.
5) excuse for cooperation with violent regimes
6) excuse for military activity on large areas of middle and south america
All in all, war on drugs makes sure that there are plenty of drugs on the street, that the unwanted population is kept out of the loop entirely, that the law enforcement is at virtual war with ordinary civilians and gives credence to military operations in the southern hemisphere.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Yet another ancillary benefit is that the government can make money for "black budgets" by selling the drugs themselves and keep their cronies fat by being able to launder the money through their banks, sans penalty of course.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
The "Black market" argument is one that I'm already familiar with, however.
Drugs (besides cannibis, which does little else except 'tar-up' the lungs and shorten attention spans) destroy individuals on such a wide scale that (in some cases, primarily those associated with opiates) their use drags society down as a whole, not in part.
(Whether this is because of the drugs by themselves or because of how many drugs tend to interact with human societies OR EVEN because of a fatal flaw in the basic substance and superstructure of the human psyche -i.e. the Reward:Punishment complex of most vertebrates- ........... is an ongoing controversy without a clear answer.)
Never-the-less, ZuS makes some valid counterpoints himself.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
What harm does opium cause that would otherwise be illegal?
making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. if i wanted a joint right now--or almost anything harder, for that matter--i know at least six people i could go to, one of them being my brother. drugs are not hard to get.
the only thing anti-drug legislation has accomplished is creating drug-related crime. with or without the war on drugs, you will have drugs. without the war on drugs, however, you will not have pablo escobar. simple as that.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Harm? Oh... you might want to check the historical records of late Victorian China, and 'ask' Chinese historians what they think about the British and other Colonial Europeans peddling opium to the natives for so many decades.
(Hint: it wasn't an act of charity)
Counter-question: Why is it legal to destroy people's lives, without them permitting it in an informed manner?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
By your rationale if a person buys drain cleaner at the grocery store, takes it home and drinks it then the grocery store destroyed their life. I tend to disagree. I don't think the grocery store destroyed your life because they sold you the drain-o you had for breakfast. Despite that I'd be interested to find out exactly how opiates destroy your life in a way that is illegal.
example:
Opiates are destructive to your health.
Destroying your health is illegal.
Therefore opiates should be illegal.
Of course destroying your own health isn't illegal and it's very poor reasoning to suggest that something should be illegal because of the possibility that it might bring about some result or state of being that isn't prohibited anyway.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Intentionally misconstrueing my "rationale" does not equate an argument against my little 'opium hypothesis' on controlling psychoactive substances. Indeed, I dare say I could argue that your original post in this thread is little else besides a loaded question; i.e. a supposition to which no rational argument can be utilized against because of the fallacious premise on which it is founded...
... and it is ultimately irrelevant.
"Harm is illegal? Who knew!" Ah! But Illegal where? And who is being harmed in your loaded question? The world may never know...
(*sigh* with the fallacious debate tactics out of the way, hopefully...)
If you take a dose of heroin, you're hooked for life. And indeed, many families, communities and even entire cities are destroyed because of innately self-destructive opium use. China learned the "Poppy Blight" lesson of history quite well because of the use of opium in subduing the native Chinese during the late colonial period of Victorian Era.
It seems Europe and America are about to learn that lesson as well, thanks to Afghanistan being liberated from the Taliban.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Yay. You have a personal anecdote about how easy it is for you to access narcotics. How droll; this must automatically mean that strict legal control of narcotic substances is an abject failure.
or not.
BTW, ZuS already beat you to the punch about criminalizing otherwise harmless narcotics use. Your post is redundant.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Actually your thesis seems clear and unambiguous.
Is this not your case for interdiction? I believe there could be no better, though it is deficient in various ways.
Actually the most common arguments for drug prohibition are that drugs harm those who use them or that they harm people other than the ones who use them. You seemed to be rather committed to the former until now. The argument goes something like this:
(1) Drug use is very harmful to users.
(2) The government should prohibit people from doing things that harm themselves.
(3)Therefore, the government should prohibit drug use.
Of course that's assuming that the proper function of government includes preventing people from harming themselves. If harm is irrelevant then I have to wonder why it is all you've presented by way of a reason for interdiction. In fact you're going to do it again after making quite a commotion about how I've misrepresented you.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I would say you've either (intentionally) put words in my mouth that weren't there, or you've (as I said before) misconstrued the point I originally attempted to make while setting up an interesting straw man.
As clear as I can possibly frame it, my original point is:
That isn't a "thesis", it's merely a generic assertion.
And... I believe 'firm legal control' is beneficial in stymieing the (inevitable) societal and even economic decay resulting from (essentially) putting 'poison' in the hands of 'children'. And yes it is "deficient" in the sense that not even government authority can trusted to put a cap on the "opium blight" I mentioned earlier.
Which would be valid if "the most common arguments" had anything to do with my posts.
They don't; I could not honestly give a flying fuck if the only harm of narcotics use was done soley to the users themselves- it's social darwinism in action! China has already learned from the decades leading up to Sun Yat Sen's governance that this is not the case. Opiates destroy societies in addition to users.
I might convinced otherwise if someone here could make a reasonable argument that it's possible to responsibly use opium and it not effect anyone else but the user. Anyone of modest intelligence should be capable of understanding that the negative consequences of smack can not ever be limited to the user (without help from methadone, anyhow.)
Thus... the only possibility left that I can imagine is to simply agree to disagree.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
It wouldn't matter if such a case was made because the argument that drugs should be prohibited because of the harm done to people other than the drug user or society is equally defective. Though you haven't been very clear about the nature of this societal destruction, others have and I doubt at this point you're going to express some completely unique perspective. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy:
Now imagine a person who for reasons having nothing to do with drugs does all the bad things to his family, friends, coworkers, and society that the ONDCP says may result from drug use. They are a bad student, employee, spouse, parent, friend, neighbor, and citizen who doesn't value liberty or responsibility. Should the government pass a law prohibiting this behavior and send police to arrest the individual? It would be absurd to suggest that one should be arrested for behaving this way, it is even more absurd to suppose that one should be jailed for drug use on the grounds that drug use has these potential effects.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
A reprint from a NY Times article: http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_Henningfield_Benowitz.html
I could also hunt up stats for comparing societal costs - medical, lost productivity, actual cost to purchase to support the habit, etc. Want to bet which one is the most expensive? The societal costs argument against opiates fails against actual statistics. If we are going to prohibit opiates based on cost, we should also prohibit any substances with societal costs. Who is going to give up coffee? <crickets>
The only reason people want opiates banned is because they make you feel real good. Period. Do some people abuse them to the point of ruination? Do some people abuse alcohol, coffee, marijuana, ....... Yeah, and some people gamble to ruination. I generally don't want the government trying to protect us from ourselves. Costs too much.
The one drug that I am certain should be banned is crystal meth. That one ruins people physically and is the scourge of the rural western US. Nasty, nasty, stuff. Some poorer rural towns have had to burn down a meth house because they didn't have the money to properly dispose of the contaminated structure. It gets worse as meth-addicted women are unable to keep it together enough to use birth control and authorities have had to remove babies crawling in the spilled chemicals on the floor. This one, the societal costs do justify the government intervention.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
If the flaw with such arguments was merely logistical improbability I might be inclined to agree with you, but it probably isn't the proper function of government to prohibit people from harming themselves. Many things are harmful in life including motorcycle riding, promiscuous sex, dead end jobs and unfulfilling relationships, is it that these things should be banned? Most would agree that none of them should be banned.
You might argue that drugs like crystal meth should be banned because they are more dangerous. It's difficult to determine but if we base an assumption of 30 million smokers and 7 million illicit drug users in the US on recent census bureau statistics, illicit drugs kill 2.6 out of every 1000 people who consume them while tobacco kills 15 out of every 1000, more than five times that amount. Yet almost no one is in favor of outlawing tobacco or arresting smokers.
Or one may suggest that drugs harm you in a different way, but is this actually true? What sorts of harms do drugs cause? One may be harmed financially, or their relationships or health may be damaged, but if you eat junk food every day your health will certainly be damaged and no one would consider arresting you. If you are rude and obnoxious it would definitely harm your relationships but it isn't a crime and no one would think of criminalizing it. If you quit your job and take all your money from the bank and throw it in the river you'll be in financial ruin but prohibition of such activity is completely out of the question. It is not illegal to directly bring about any of those consequences and beyond that it would be an abuse of government power to prohibit you from bringing them about. Surely the fact that drug use might indirectly bring them about is not a good reason to prohibit drug use.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
The War on Drugs is a joke--always has been, always will be.
The "war" will end when the government (be it local, state or federal) gets its cut. Just look at Nevada in regards to prostitution. It'll never be a moral issue, just a money issue.
you know, you always like to theorize that i'm so fucking threatened by you, but you always go on the offensive first. that means you yourself are at least as threatened. probably because you like to appear as some kind of wacked-out misunderstood genius and i call you on what you really are: a shit-eating, mediocre leech whose only joy in his fetid, primate existence is masturbating to his own persecution complex while revelling in his pathetically cherished ability to manipulate fonts and upload images--not to mention boasting about "bullying" (i.e., irritating) those who are supposedly (in his fevered imagination) his "intellectual inferiors."
if i ever meet your intellectual inferior, you mealymouthed sack of compost, i'll know i've stepped back into the precambrian era.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I basically agree with you for most drugs. They often harm the person taking them a lot more than their family or society. A pity, but we all should be able to go to hell in the hand basket of our choosing.
Crystal meth is an exception. The chemicals are readily available at most supermarkets and the process only requires standard kitchen equipment. The byproducts of meth production are poisonous. The people cooking it are usually high on meth and do not adequately protect themselves, their families, or their neighbors while these hazardous chemicals are being generated. The byproduct chemicals get into the materials of the building and can not be easily removed except by disposing of the materials in a hazardous land fill. They are so poisonous that the people who remove the material wear full hazmat suits. I have heard of cases where some of the soil the house was sitting on must be removed and landfilled as well. Rather than testing every board and tile in the house, the entire house is carefully removed and land filled. This is expensive - if the owner of the building can afford it, they are liable. If they can not afford it, your local tax dollars pay for the removal and landfill costs - or for torching the house. If the environmental costs were not so high, we could treat meth like any other recreational drug.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Cj, the problem is that even though it's illegal, these things are still happening. Having a prohibition on it has done nothing to stop this. I agree it needs to be stopped, but just prohibiting people from using and creating it has done nothing. We need to deal with the reasons why people turn to it in the first place, like poverty and depression.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
Your failure to address his argument, instead focusing on an anecdote which was merely used to support it, amuses me.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Drugs should be illegal because I don't like them.
Absolutely true. And requiring a prescription for some of the easily available ingredients also seems to help.
Yes, one year does not a trend make. We will have to see if the trend continues downward.
For some detailed information see, http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/
The picture on the cover of this federal report is downtown Portland, OR.
Again, the people addicted to meth and the damage to children in the house is bad enough. It is the environmental costs of cleanup that are my concern. Meth cookers are not just damaging themselves and any children in the house, they are actively damaging the local environment. Which someone has to clean up. Which usually is NOT the meth cookers.
You are right, just locking them up is not enough. Because once they are out, they will often just start again. And proceed to damage another neighborhood. Making meth legal, however, will not work from the viewpoint of limiting damage to others.
This is my mantra-do no harm to others. Most drug abuse harms very few people. And if it were legal, it would harm even fewer people. But meth cookers do a fuck of a lot of harm to a lot of people, not just themselves. Solutions include but are not limited to education at a very young age, family intervention where appropriate, decent youth shelters for those almost old enough to be on their own but unable to live with their birth family, restrict access to the chemicals used in producing meth, legalize prostitution, effective neighborhood block watches, law enforcement that pays attention to busy-body old people who see this happening in their neighborhood. Probably not a bad start for general neighborhood health. I'm sure I haven't thought of a lot of other good ideas.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
There are hazardous chemical byproducts associated with the production of buttons, and pretty much anything else that is mass produced. Maybe if there wasn't a ban on crystal meth (which hasn't prevented any of these environmental problems) then it's production could be regulated like the production of anything else that creates hazardous waste.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I'm game for making weed legal, but meth and things that make people steal and kill, no thanks.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
To all those saying that certain drugs should be illegal, the question isn't if they are bad for you and the community or not (crack, heroin, and meth certainly are) but does prohibition end those damaging aspects of their use. I don't think prohibition works to stop their use and the damage they cause. Do I think people should be running out to go shoot up and start meth labs? Of course not! I have watched as my friend David has struggled with heroin addiction, trying to be as supportive as possible of him while still maintaining my complete opposition to his use. I just don't think that criminalizing works at ridding our society of the drugs damaging effects. I think the resources would be better used on more (and accurate) early childhood drug education, more help for users in the form of therapy and possibly drug replacement to deal with addiction, and more efforts to deal with one of the main problems that CAUSE drug addiction and dependence: namely poverty. Nothing motivates someone to start a meth lab or cook up some crack rocks and make some money like being poor and seeing no other way out. Not that I'm excusing the behavior, far from it. I just think we need to deal with the sickness and not the symptoms.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
The way things are nowdays, if meth were legalized, and you could purchase it at the age of 18 or w/e it seems in my mind at least that a 12 year old would have a much easier time getting this stuff. I could not care less if an adult wants to fuck their life up, but keep this shit away from kids. Sure I know kids can get it now, but how much easier will it be when it's legalized? I distinctly remember buying cigarettes for my dad when I was around 10. I also remember giving a bum 5$ to buy some beer for myself and friends from the jiffy store.
I just think it will up the odds on kids getting it, thats all.
But I'm not really concerned with weed, I haven't heard about much death and killing over smoking a joint. I think there may still be some debate on brain cell loss or some such, but alchohol is supposed to be worse and it is legal.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
From what I've seen, it's usually easier for a teen to acquire drugs when they are on the black market and there are no ID's to speak of. That doesn't mean I think meth should be sold at the local supermarket though.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
Yes, just like you often see dead-drunk 12 year olds wandering the streets since the alchohol prohibition was abolished.
It would be much harder, as it is with alcohol. There would be no dealers, since the 12-year old segment of the population just isn't a viable target for large scale drug production and smuggling.
Yea, that sounds like organized crime right there. Damn.
What, you think idiot dads wouldn't do the same if the drugs came from dealers, rather than an official store? Well, maybe not, because now you don't NEED to buy it from an imbecilic dad or a bum, you can just go to your friendly neighborhood dealer and maybe pay with a blowjob.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
We will just have to agree to disagree. I suppose putting meth on a store shelf in view of the general public might not make one whit of difference.
If they do legalize marijuana I might start smokin it, I don't now, it's not legal and jail is not fun.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
No, that's what people who aren't discussing anything do - opinion is not an argument. We should use arguments untill we at least reach some consensus.
How about in a medicine cabinet out of reach of anyone but the clerk? Maybe with a special counter that makes sure none of it dissapears? Something like the ordinary medicine.
So what? I would rather have you smoking pot because you are free to do so, than have the largest prison population in the world, basically institutionalized slavery. I would also rather see you walking down the street with 10 joins lit - 5 in your mouth, 2 out of your ears, 2 in your nostrils and one out of your ass - than have South America suffer our "War on Drugs".
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Are you american? Do you guys really get thrown in jail (or even arrested) if you get busted smoking weed? It's so hard for me to imagine, most cops here (vancouver) don't care atall, many cops here smoke it. When I watch your cop shows and see some kid getting tossed on his back and handcuffed cuz he has a dime bag in his pocket it makes me think, what a joke, what a waiste of time money.
My personal opinion is it should only be illegal to make or sell drugs. using them should be legal.
How could you use drugs if nobody makes them? They wouldn't exist.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
There's one problem with that, see.. There are a couple of industries earning billions on incarceration of humans and they don't care much for what you think. They lobby to put more people in prison, because it helps their bottom line.
I don't think people realize just how detrimental to our own interests market mechanics not only have become, but have always been. I don't think people realize that survival of the human race might be riding on our ability to shake out of the stupor and start learning how to interact with the world around us for our benefit. People are afraid of being sued - why? Aren't courts supposed to be where we decide right from wrong? Why are we so disengaged? Look at the corporations - they have dozens and hundreds of lost cases behind them and they plow right on. What about an average Joe? He can get life for having pot on him 3 times some places in the US. First would be evening the playing field in the courts some, so that people can get some practice with being involved in legal matters. Before that's done, you should not sleep.
So how do you do this? We have to start somewhere, I suppose. How about pulling out the hose shoved down your throat with mother's milk that is continuously force-feeding you bullshit and this crap you call opinion?
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
People would still make them. They do now after all.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.