I want my drugs because I do, I am selfish and demand my rights to drugs!! And if I kill you or yours doing it thats your fault for being intolerent...ya heard it for 30 years never means anything but those that can't live with themselves and demand the right to blot out life...:barf:
The war on Americans who use drugs...
- Thread starter VaultDweller
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Let's try and keep the discourse here on an adult level. Try to address the points made by others logically and with the use of reason, instead of calling their position "whiny" and "selfish".
See how that sounds? But of course there's a difference because guns are protected by a piece of paper...but then the same people that are going to talk about that tend to ignore the reason why their precious guns are protected by that piece of paper.
Has any pro-drug advocate ever suggested that people be allowed to hurt others with their drugs or while under the influence of their drugs?
I'm sure what you mean about the "30 years" comment.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
No I sure cannot. Because you are absolutely right about everything on this subject.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
The simple truth is that without the War on Drugs, there would have been no push for gun control.
Without the turf wars and the "habit support" crime, we'd have a pretty low violent crime rate.
The War on Booze caused turf wars, which caused NFA '34.
The War on Drugs caused turf wars, which caused GCA '68 and the 1994 Crime Bill.
Yet most "from my cold dead hands" Conservatives fail to see the pattern. In clear text: your desire to control what your neighbor ingests, snorts or injects has cost you many of your gun rights, and may cost you all of them in the end.
Without the turf wars and the "habit support" crime, we'd have a pretty low violent crime rate.
The War on Booze caused turf wars, which caused NFA '34.
The War on Drugs caused turf wars, which caused GCA '68 and the 1994 Crime Bill.
Yet most "from my cold dead hands" Conservatives fail to see the pattern. In clear text: your desire to control what your neighbor ingests, snorts or injects has cost you many of your gun rights, and may cost you all of them in the end.
I hear and read about the war on drugs in many places. Most notably those who espouse the end of the war do so on the grounds that the drugs don't hurt anyone else but those who use the drugs. It's even been said here.
How wrong that is.
Hard drugs like crack cocaine hurt many many many thousands of unborn children whose junkie mothers used the drugs while pregnant. Prematurely born, these babies drain our ability to pay for cheap medical care. They place a huge strain on our adoptive and child services programs. They increase the payout from gov't services.
And for what? So their mommas can get high from the money they get turning tricks?
Doing drugs is possibly the worst thing anyone can do to themselves and others. Legalizing drugs will only make things worse - not better.
You want to end the war on drugs? STOP USING THEM!
How wrong that is.
Hard drugs like crack cocaine hurt many many many thousands of unborn children whose junkie mothers used the drugs while pregnant. Prematurely born, these babies drain our ability to pay for cheap medical care. They place a huge strain on our adoptive and child services programs. They increase the payout from gov't services.
And for what? So their mommas can get high from the money they get turning tricks?
Doing drugs is possibly the worst thing anyone can do to themselves and others. Legalizing drugs will only make things worse - not better.
You want to end the war on drugs? STOP USING THEM!
I'm shocked, shocked, to see Ron P. on the other side of this debate. Not.
That "drugs only hurt the user" is not my argument.
My argument focuses on the $80-billlion spent annually at all levels of government for the War on Some-Drugs (including the assualt on the Bill of Rights) not to mention the blessed work of the DEA and bored SWAT teams nationwide with its corruption that black markets bring. is a threat to liberty in and of itself.
Anyone who can understand the history of alcohol Prohibition and the still-present problems it caused cannot reasonably support a repeat of that history in the War on Some-Drugs.
We often speak of the racism of gun control. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 as well as the Marijuana ban of 1937 (taxed it but refused to give tax stamps) were both racially motivated. Cocaine was included at the behest of southern states which claimed that cocaine led to blacks raping women.
The marijuana law was pushed by southwestern states who saw marijuana and Mexicans as a great threat to the public good and the innocence of their women-folk.
Anyone see clips from "Reefer Madness?" It was released contemporaneously with the run-up to the vote on the marijuana ban legislation. Talk about over-the-top acting. The star of the show was so messed up by "dope" that he was shown screaming and confessing that marijuana led him to kill, kill !! (likely for the last few crumbs of Cool Ranch Doritos).
Repealing all drug laws would be a net plus.
Rick
That "drugs only hurt the user" is not my argument.
My argument focuses on the $80-billlion spent annually at all levels of government for the War on Some-Drugs (including the assualt on the Bill of Rights) not to mention the blessed work of the DEA and bored SWAT teams nationwide with its corruption that black markets bring. is a threat to liberty in and of itself.
Anyone who can understand the history of alcohol Prohibition and the still-present problems it caused cannot reasonably support a repeat of that history in the War on Some-Drugs.
We often speak of the racism of gun control. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 as well as the Marijuana ban of 1937 (taxed it but refused to give tax stamps) were both racially motivated. Cocaine was included at the behest of southern states which claimed that cocaine led to blacks raping women.
The marijuana law was pushed by southwestern states who saw marijuana and Mexicans as a great threat to the public good and the innocence of their women-folk.
Anyone see clips from "Reefer Madness?" It was released contemporaneously with the run-up to the vote on the marijuana ban legislation. Talk about over-the-top acting. The star of the show was so messed up by "dope" that he was shown screaming and confessing that marijuana led him to kill, kill !! (likely for the last few crumbs of Cool Ranch Doritos).
Repealing all drug laws would be a net plus.
Rick
Drugs can hurt others but they don't have to. People can use them responsibly without causing any harm to anyone else. Again the comparison with guns and alcohol can be made. There are many people that abuse alcohol but the majority of alcohol users use it responsibly. There are many people that abuse guns but the majority of gun users use them responsibly.
As does alcohol. But the current method has not helped most of those unborn children. Treating it as a public health problem as opposed to a law enforcement issue will. Education as to the dangers of the drugs during pregnancy is what will help, tossing a woman in jail for eight months because she had an eight ball in her purse will not stop her from screwing up her fetus.
I have to ask: do you drink?
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Marko Kloos
Inactive
It's quite amazing how the same people that shout "Prohibitions don't work!" when the Liberals ban guns in D.C. or Chicago then turn around and argue for Prohibition of a different thing.
Folks, all the arguments you make for the War on Drugs have been made by the Liberals for the banning of firearms: public health ("it's an epidemic"), cost of health care for victims ("they'll be a drain on the health care system and we'll all have to pay for them!"), societal utility ("who needs them anyway, unless you're a loser?"), damage to the children of users ("if it only saves one child"...'nuff said), damage to innocent third parties done by irresponsible users, and so on.
Why is it that you can recognize flaws in logic and reasoning when it comes to criticizing a Prohibition (on something you value), yet you fail to see the same flaws in your own reasoning when arguing for Prohibition (on something you want to see gone?)
Worse yet, you use precisely the same arguments against the banning of guns that anti-WoD advocates use when arguing against a drug prohibition, and you use precisely the same arguments used by Liberals when insisting that a ban is necessary....yet you call the Liberals "illogical" and claim that the other side is prone to feeling instead of thinking.
How does that make you any better, smarter or more reasoned than the gun-banners? All it means is that you just have a different emotional hot button issue where logic does not apply.
Folks, all the arguments you make for the War on Drugs have been made by the Liberals for the banning of firearms: public health ("it's an epidemic"), cost of health care for victims ("they'll be a drain on the health care system and we'll all have to pay for them!"), societal utility ("who needs them anyway, unless you're a loser?"), damage to the children of users ("if it only saves one child"...'nuff said), damage to innocent third parties done by irresponsible users, and so on.
Why is it that you can recognize flaws in logic and reasoning when it comes to criticizing a Prohibition (on something you value), yet you fail to see the same flaws in your own reasoning when arguing for Prohibition (on something you want to see gone?)
Worse yet, you use precisely the same arguments against the banning of guns that anti-WoD advocates use when arguing against a drug prohibition, and you use precisely the same arguments used by Liberals when insisting that a ban is necessary....yet you call the Liberals "illogical" and claim that the other side is prone to feeling instead of thinking.
How does that make you any better, smarter or more reasoned than the gun-banners? All it means is that you just have a different emotional hot button issue where logic does not apply.
Several years ago I was working as a defense investigator on a drug case which stemmed from an incident inside a well known Federal Prison.
Through the course of the investigation we determined that drug use ranging from pot to heroin is common in the Federal Prison system.
This leads to the question: If Federal Officials cannot keep illicit drugs out of the Federal Prison system, how will it ever be possible to even slightly curtail drug issues in a free society?
Through the course of the investigation we determined that drug use ranging from pot to heroin is common in the Federal Prison system.
This leads to the question: If Federal Officials cannot keep illicit drugs out of the Federal Prison system, how will it ever be possible to even slightly curtail drug issues in a free society?
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Guys, it's utterly beside the point to argue whether 'drugs are bad' - of course they are! They are evil incarnate IMO, particularly alcohol and tobacco.... There is an incredible litany of reasons why it's in society's best interest to reduce drug use rates! BUT....
The point is, the war on drugs hasn't reduced drug use rates! So, the only way you can be in favor of the "war on drugs" is if you think doing drugs is just great, and we need more crack babies!!!
Because if we as a nation did this: First, we take all the multitudes of billions upon billions of dollars we spend in LEO budgets in the 'war on drugs', and slash their budgets by about 3/4ths. Then, take all that money, and spend half of it on (a) education to kids about the dangers of drugs, and (b) drug rehab center funding so that people who want to get off of them can get off of them, and give the other half of the savings back to the people with tax cuts, we have the following result:
1. Far, far far less drug use
2. Far, far, far more civil rights (gun rights, free from unreasonable searches, etc.)
3. Far, far, far less violent crime (related to the drug trade / turf wars), and far less petty/property crime from druggies stealing stuff for their drugs, because of #1 and because drugs would be far cheaper, being legal and all.
4. More money in our pocket.
At a minimum, pot should be completely legal, just regulated in the same way that alcohol is.
The point is, the war on drugs hasn't reduced drug use rates! So, the only way you can be in favor of the "war on drugs" is if you think doing drugs is just great, and we need more crack babies!!!
Because if we as a nation did this: First, we take all the multitudes of billions upon billions of dollars we spend in LEO budgets in the 'war on drugs', and slash their budgets by about 3/4ths. Then, take all that money, and spend half of it on (a) education to kids about the dangers of drugs, and (b) drug rehab center funding so that people who want to get off of them can get off of them, and give the other half of the savings back to the people with tax cuts, we have the following result:
1. Far, far far less drug use
2. Far, far, far more civil rights (gun rights, free from unreasonable searches, etc.)
3. Far, far, far less violent crime (related to the drug trade / turf wars), and far less petty/property crime from druggies stealing stuff for their drugs, because of #1 and because drugs would be far cheaper, being legal and all.
4. More money in our pocket.
At a minimum, pot should be completely legal, just regulated in the same way that alcohol is.
Last edited:
Again, the concepts of freedom and liberty are nothing more than liberal whining?
Many believe that the difference lies in the fact that guns are protected by the Constitution. Yet, as I said before, they completely ignore the reason that guns are protected by the Constitution. If they're not used in the defense of safety and liberty then the second amendment is useless.
While under the supervision of a doc or pharmacist, maybe. But certainly almost never, if left to their own devices, will people use drugs "responsibly" as a whole. Individuals will, but not the gen pub as a whole.
Even prescription drugs are not immune from abuse (like Oxycontin).
And the "responsibly" argument has a logic flaw. IF everyone were responsible enough to use drugs correctly, there wouldn't be any need for a "war on drugs" because there wouldn't BE any illicit drug use. No illicit drugs, no "war on drugs".
So, the answer to ending the war on drugs is to stop using them.
And even growing your own drugs for "medicinal purposes" isn't the answer either. Some 13 yr old idiot kid is going to see you use them and get mellow or relaxed and is going to want some too. He's too young to work for money and you're not going to give your medication/drugs away so where does he get the $ to buy them from you? Answer - he steals. Either money or valuables which he then sells. To pay you for some of your good stuff. Same old story as now.
Laws to regulate that won't help. It's STILL the "war on drugs" in a different form.
Being a "liberal" isn't relevant. Drugs have NO political party preference. It's an equal opportunity destroyer.
References to gun control being the same thing misses some minor point which changes the picture totally. I can keep a gun in my holster and not hurt anyone. I buy it legally, posess it legally and use it legally. There's a black market for guns but it's relatively small and confined to the lawless population who're going to go to jail eventually anyway.
Drugs aren't the same. Illicit drugs aren't bought legally, posessed legally, or used legally. Just having them around is meaningless; they have to be used or sold to have meaning. The black market for them is spread throughout the population spectrum. The difference between drugs and guns is the legality part.
Making drugs "legal" won't stop someone from growing or brewing their own. It won't stop the sale. It won't reduce the widespread use. It won't change the fact that people use these drugs then go out into public and do dangerous things. It won't make drugs any less addictive. And it won't change a thing about drugs destroying people's hopes, dreams, and lives.
And, of course, there's no right to get high in the BofR's.
Drugs, even legal ones are too easy to abuse. It's the abuse part that makes their use so fascinating. And when abused, they impact lots of other people besides the user. I am 46 yrs old and a recovering alcoholic for 32 yrs. Just try to tell me or anyone like me that I'm/we're wrong in this.
Is alcohol abused by the general public? Is alcohol not used responsibly by the majority of the users?
Yet Oxycotin is far more dangerous and addictive than marijuana. People can die from Oxycotin. You can't die from an overdose of marijuana.
First of all, many people do use drugs responsibly. Or do you think that everyone who smokes pot, snorts coke, or pops a few pills actually hurts other people?
I don't get your second sentence, though. Do you mean illicit as in illegal or immoral? The word can carry either definition and while the use of many drugs is illegal it's ridiculous to claim that it's immoral. Even then, your logic is a bit recursive. Of course there would be no war on drugs because if there were no illegal drugs people wouldn't be charged with commiting crimes when they're not actually hurting other people.
Ah yes, everyone should simply stop doing something they enjoy because you don't like it. The answer to the war on christianity is to stop believing in christianity?
There are people with some incredibly painful diseases, pain that you and I simply cannot imagine. Brain tumors, advanced multiple sclerosis, and many others....many diseases where the safest way to alleviate the pain is through THC, a completely non-toxic chemical that has no addictive properties and is cheaper than most pain relieving pharmaceuticals.
What right do you have to tell these people that they can't have the one medication that will help them feel better without risking addiction or draining their wallets?
Where did you get the scenario about the thirteen year old? Did you steal when you were thirteen? I sure didn't; my parents taught me from a very young age that anything I wanted I had to earn. I understand most kids aren't taught that but the majority at least ask their parents for money as oppossed to outright theft. You seem to believe that since the object in question is a drug that it would automatically make someone that wants it a criminal and thus more likely to steal for it.
Completely and utterly illogical.
Do you see an epidemic of thirteen year olds stealing to buy liquor and beer? It's one thing to argue a point and another to conjure up some unlikely scenario that assumes guilty until proven innocent.
Do you consider laws that regulate motor vehicle operation to be a "War on Cars"? Laws to regulate legalized drugs would work exactly the same way they do with alcohol and prescription drugs.
True but it's typically the Republicans that want to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. Democrats are not that much better but then again that's not saying much. Drugs only destroy lives when the users allow them to.
I'm sorry, a relatively small black market for guns?
Compared to the number of guns in the world or compared to the black market for drugs? If the latter then the only reason there is a black market is because of the illegal status. The drugs themselves are not these evil concoctions that only end up in the hands of bad people.
Just as you can keep a gun in your holster without hurting anyone I can have a glass of scotch or a bowl of marijuana without hurting anyone. For you to assume that I can't makes no more sense than me assuming you can't carry a gun without being a danger to everyone around you.
Of course illicit drugs aren't bought, possessed, or used legally because the definition of illicit means that they're illegal. If they weren't illegal then I most certainly could buy and use drugs legally as well as continue to use them safely without harm to anyone else.
Of course the difference is the legality, that's what I'm arguing about. Why do you support the prohibition of one thing that you don't like while crying out against the prohibition of something you do like?
Oh yeah, the second amendment. I guess some people forget what the point of the second amendment is.
You're right, making drugs legal won't stop the growing or the use but your "fact" that drugs do dangerous things is no more a "Fact" than when Sarah Brady claims that your gun can jump out of its' holster and kill a small child.
Are you saying the only rights we have are the ones "given" to us by the BoR?
So if Ben Franklin, who himself enjoyed cannabis along with some of the other founding fathers, had included the right to enjoy intoxicating substances then you'd be all for it?
Bingo.
Note that I say this with all due respect and I don't mean it as a personal attack. Whatever bad decisions you made as an alcoholic were your own. You chose to drink and you chose to do whatever it is you believe was harmful to you, your life, and the people around you. No booze made you do anything that you were not already capable of doing and you did not have a "disease". Alcoholism is a CHOICE and you chose to be one. Then you chose to stop being one and for that I sincerely congratulate you but that doesn't mean that I will suffer the same fate.
Just because some people are weak in regards to certain chemicals does not mean that everyone is nor does it mean that those who have suffered from their own choices with drugs, legal or illegal, should have say in what the rest of us do with our own bodies.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
That's not the way the Bill of Rights or the Constitution work. They're not a List Of Things Allowed To Citizens. They're a List of Things Allowed to Government, amended by a List Of Things Definitely Not Allowed To Government Ever.