The war on Americans who use drugs...

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.

I'm not taking this as a personal issue. However, let me say this succinctly as possible:

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Alcoholism isn't a "choice" it's a disease. You should do some research before you say things you don't know anything about.

I was 13 when I became an alcoholic. So I DO know something about the motives behind 13 yr olds who will do ANYTHING to get what they want. The fact that you were raised to not do the things I did shows your ignorance when you spout the "choice" argument.

Completely and utterly illogical.

My point illustrated. IN SPADES!

Are you saying the only rights we have are the ones "given" to us by the BoR?

No. I'm saying that since there's no enumerated right to get high, it CAN BE regulated. Your argument appears to be more of a "pursuit of happiness" argument which still can be regulated. Reference peyote and religious worship - peyote is STILL outlawed even for use during religious ceremonies by native americans and yet there's an enumerated right to free worship. The worship is fine, just can't use the drugs even for that. Pursuit of happiness can be regulated.

Otherwise how do you think they can regulate booze, cigarettes and all that and that stuff is "legal"?

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.

The problem is that no one knows until afterwards if addiction will come sooner instead of later. And make no bones about it, addiction WILL happen. To any and all who use drugs, legal or illegal. So, yes there should be some sort of guideline which says what everyone should be able to do to themself or others. It's why drugs are regulated in the first place besides the fact that there are some out there which are just plain dangerous to have around unregulated. So it becomes a matter of public safety as well.

It's just too easy to abuse them. Maybe not by "you" but why should "you" alone be the basis for everything? Just because you don't steal won't change the fact that "some" do so we have laws about that. Same with reckless driving, murder, spousal abuse, teenage drinking, etc. Are you so perfect and godlike that the whole world could model itself after you and everything will instantly become nirvana?

More likely something different.

I was once told that even if I was the best in the world at something, that only meant that the very best that the next guy could be is second best. Which means he makes at least one mistake. If that's the case, then how can I trust HIM to do the right thing every time? Simply put, I can't so laws are written to prevent people from doing those things which break trust.

Those who use drugs like to use drugs and will do just about anything to defend that use. Unfortunately they're already on the side of those who break the law for their own pleasure. That sort of makes their arguments suspect. I'm not saying YOU specifically do drugs, what I'm saying is those who use them tend to want to defend that use to the point of self induced blindness about the bad effects of drugs on individuals as well as society. It's a well-known and well researched subject.

And yes, I can keep a gun in my holster or gunsafe and not hurt anyone. I can admire it, take pictures of it, sell it, fondle it, buy more and make it part of a collection, etc. Unfortunately you can't do the same with a bowl of marijuana. Someone somewhere did something illegal in order for you to have it and the mere posession of it won't do anything for you since you have to smoke it in order to put it to it's only intended purpose. And once you do that you start the whole chain of misdeeds which has created the war on drugs.

It's easy to say "just stop using them". Be it drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol it's still easy to say it. The hard part is when you realize you have to convince your body that the stuff that feels so good is really, really, REALLY bad. And with illegal drugs it's even harder to get the help and support you need to get clean and stay clean because of the stigma connected to it.

But it still starts with saying "stop".
 
Please read post #26

originally posted by Marko Kloos: "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."

The WoD is yet another instance where the Federal Government is flexing its muscle to keep the populace under control (a bad thing? yes, unless I was the benevolent dictator; then it would be alright:D ). I have certain inherent rights since I was born a human being. The BoR covers most of them. I'll not allow ANYBODY (i.e. ANYBODY) to determine them for me. Doesn't anybody realize that laws are continually added each year? The longer the country exists, the more laws there'll be, numbering in the hundreds of thousands to the millions. Sooner or later the laws will cover EVERYTHING, so that you can be punished at a politician's whim (if not so already).

Look at medical marijuana in California. From what I understand, it's legal, according to state law. Yet the Federal government again flexed its muscle and overrode state law. So you can follow local law and still get slapped with a felony. Again, a show of power.

WoD: public safety in mind? To a certain extent. It's mostly another controlling device. Government is all about control. They're the shepards, we're the sheep. Everything is done for "public safety." Adopt a slogan that pulls at the heartstrings and they've won over most of us ("for the children", "public safety", "homeland security"). It all started in the mid 1800s, we fought up until 1865, and the Feds won. Would a Confederacy of States be better? I think so. Smaller governments keeping each other in check.That'd help keep them off the common man's back.

Hank Jr. said it best: If the South woulda won we'd 'a had it made.

I understand what a government is supposed to do. I'm just bitter that I hold no supreme executive power. :D

Severian, who felt the need to post (and incidentally upping his post number so he'd be less likely to be viewed as a troll)
 
my cure is simple. punish the user. give them dime & a half first offense. Life without parole second. From what I've seen drugs do to people, execution with no stay for the dealers and users would suit me. I for one am tired of paying out the rear end for insurance and everything else junkies steal & kill for. Bet you can tell I'm not a Canadian:cool:

I just read where they figured out the best way to keep their alkies in line in their shelters is to give them enough alcohol to keep them placid. I'M STONE DEAD SERIOUS. They want to pump 15 GLASSES a day of wine or sherry in them:barf:

I bet the winos are lined up at the borders
 
Punish the user for what?:confused: Putting something in their body......something you don't or should have any control over?:barf:

So when we put all those users in prison for committing victimless crimes, what do you propose we do with the violent criminals once we run out of space because the poor bastid that got caught smoking weed is taking up a needed cell?:rolleyes:

Bet you can tell I'm not Canadian.

Irrelevant. I find it hard to understand how one can speak of rights and freedom, yet advocate a fascist response to a medical problem.
 
One problem with the Prison solution geneinnc, the feds can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons. What chance do you think they have in the free world?
 
BY Marco:


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.

Plus 1. The BOR is not about what the Government gives (allows) it citizens. It about what the Government cant take away, a line in the sand.
 
rob I understand where you're coming from but not everyone is prone to addiction or abuse. if something can be done that doesn't hurt anyone else then there's no reason it should be a crime. the act itself hurts no one besides the user, any choices made afterwards or under the influence are the responsibility of the user. punish crimes under the influence of any drugs far more severely but not the people who do nothing more than take whatever drug it is, be it caffiene or morphine. it would be nice to see the profits of drug sales out of the hands of real criminals and the money spent on fighting it on better drug education


but to think that the world could ever be convinced to give up mind altering chemicals makes no more sense than trying to convince the entire world to give up guns. it's not right to force others to stop doing something because you had bad experiences with it. I drink but no one ever gets hurt when I do and I'm far from being addicted. why should I stop?
 
Let me give you an example of the real world result of your belief.

Lets take 2 ficticious little kids. Identical twins in fact. Now, due to some quirk, one is easily addicted to something. We don't know what she will be addicted to or which one will be the one to get addicted but it is guaranteed that the addiction will happen IF the child tries the thing that will addict her. And once addicted, she will ruin her life, the life of all those around her, and possibly commit suicide or criminal offenses due directly to the addiction.

Remember, we do not know which child this will happen to.

So, do we allow them to just go on about their merry business, trying and sampling everything and anything that comes along? Drugs, sex, death, cannibalism? Maybe she will become addicted to torturing her twin. Maybe it'll be child molesting. And maybe it'll be something relatively benign like alcoholism or a compulsive eating disorder.

Remember, we don't know which one or what addiction.

Now, do we just let it happen, or do we put limits on the things that people can do in order to minimize the possibility that the addiction will be a horrendous thing? Remember, the addiction can only happen AFTER the first incident/trial. By preventing the first incident/trial from occurring you could possibly prevent the addiction from being one of the awful ones.

What do you do?
 
WoD, WoT, WoG - guess what that would be?

I've gone to the American Society for Criminology meetings and drugs and their economics are a tremendous engine of crime.

One interesting fact - arrest all the major dealers in a city. Killing go up!! Why, because turf wars start.

Another interesting fact - if you interdicted 90% of the drugs coming in (which we are no where near doing) - the market is so great that it would continue to be profitable.

In another thread - we discussed the new SWAT shows - how many of those take downs were for marijuana? You see flashbangs and a slew of cops in armor bust a guy in his car for a backpack with some marijuana in it? Is it worth it?

We have a president who used alcohol and marijuana and (debatedly) became a successful adult. The millions who have used marijuana and have productive lives suggests that the WoM is a waste of time as compared to legalization and regulation. Think of the tax revenue.

It goes back to something I said elsewhere. Many gun advocates only think of freedom has having a gun - otherwise they are terribly controlling on matters of private behavior.

As Marko and others side, every power of government control uses in the WoT and WoD can and will be used in the WoG if that time comes.

Of course, some folks drool about that with fantasies of leading their militia to victory. If they actually won, there would have to be another revolution against their crypto-fascist state that went after all the other liberties.
 
Now, do we just let it happen, or do we put limits on the things that people can do in order to minimize the possibility that the addiction will be a horrendous thing? Remember, the addiction can only happen AFTER the first incident/trial. By preventing the first incident/trial from occurring you could possibly prevent the addiction from being one of the awful ones.

What do you do?

We have laws in place that put limits on what people can do that hurt others. My drinking a beer does not hurt anyone. If I drink eleven more, hop in the truck and then run over a bum, I've hurt someone but it was MY decision that caused it, not the alcohol. If I become an alcoholic it was MY decision because I chose to continue drinking.

You're suggesting that all mind altering chemicals be banned for good because some people could potentially become addicted? Perhaps we should also ban cars because some people could potentially cause accidents. Let's ban all household cleaners because some people could potentially kill themselves with them. Let's ban all matches and lighters because some people could potentially set homes on fire.

Let's ban all guns because some people could potentially be killed with them.

Again, just because some people become addicted to substances does not mean that everyone is susceptible to it nor does it mean that everyone hurts other people when they use their substances.

My drinking has never hurt anyone. My use of vicodin after having my wisdom teeth pulled hurt no one. I could further the argument but out of respect for the TFL forums staff I won't discuss illegal activities I may or may not have done but I think you get my point. My caffiene and capsaicin "addictions" have been utterly benign to everyone around me.

My legal drug use has never hurt anyone.
 
Many gun advocates only think of freedom has having a gun - otherwise they are terribly controlling on matters of private behavior.

I bothers me that so many gun owners are so ingrained in their right wing ideas that they feel freedom only applies to the things they find acceptable. "Traditional values" my rear bumper. :rolleyes:
 
Wow.

The war on drugs has cost to much in tax payer dollars and freedoms lost.

For those reasons alone people should be able to do as they please and be punished for their actions if those actions warrant punishment.

Today's prison overpopulation has at least a little bit to do with the war on drugs and it is costing way to much to keep operating.

Even with the potential problems, the freedom should belong to the people because throwing money at it has solved nothing and simply continued to cost more money.
 
Rob P, a simple question.

Do you believe that alcohol should be outlawed the same way other drugs are? Why or why not?

Actually, no I do not believe that alcohol should be outlawed. But then, again, I don't believe that drugs should be outlawed either.

My position is that it should be (and currently is) regulated to keep dangerous substances away from ordinary citizens to prevent abuse.

With alcohol the regulation is to prevent minors from getting it and limiting the use of it to prevent dangerous behavior that may harm other members of the public.

With drugs, the regulation is to prevent dangerous accidents from happening due to abuse. Some drugs have the power to permanently damage the unborn. I don't mean that the same way that alcohol has the power to harm a fetus. Some drugs are so powerful they can cause chromosomal damage to future generations not even conceived yet by altering the DNA of the current user which he then passes on. Chemically induced genetic defects.

Some of the drugs that have this ability are those which are at the core of the illegal drug culture.

WHY would we consider allowing something this powerful be unregulated considering the abuses already being done?

AT some point we have to say: "Hey, wait a minute. Something is wrong here." And then take steps to make sure that those who can't/won't act responsibly can't have access to those things.

The counter argument seems to be "I'm responsible so don't limit me in what I can do/say/play with/etc. If someone else acts wrong, that still shouldn't affect me because THEY decided to do bad things."

My answer to that is to sarcastically wonder if it really harms anyone to not be able to have a weapons grade nuclear powered wristwatch. I mean, afterall, I wouldn't do anything bad with it so why should I be prevented from having one just because someone else might.
 
W.o.d

I live in the Pacific Northwest, Oregon in fact.This state has the highest per capita gun ownership,most of this states gun involved crimes happen in the Portland area.This area also has the most gun control and "drug free zones". Niether have resulted in advancements in fighting crime.I live in aplace that has the best beer {McMennimans and Widmer} in the world,supposedly the best cannibas and a decent pharmecutecal opiate market .It also has a reputation for meth labs.I have seen what the use of these drugs can do to derstoy otherwise good people.But it was always the person who chose to use/abuse the who went wrong.All that drugs are is a chemical compound set in a specific pattern,inanimate objects.A bag of coke left on a table untouched is just as likely to kill as an "assault rifle" left on the same table.All that a gun can be is a chemical compound set in a specific pattern.It is nothing more than an extension of its owners/users will.Drugs don't kill people and guns don't either.
 
Vaultdweller: Oh yeah, and do you know what the .gov took as precedent to model their fancy new federal drug laws after? The national firearms act of 1934. The NFA used tax laws to enforce a law that was not constitutionally kosher.

Not exactly. The NFA was an example of the use of tax law to create regulatory authority, and not primarily to raise revenue. But it was following prior drug-law precedent, specifically the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. Here's an interesting speech on the subject.

It's pretty long, but here's an excerpt:

Introduction

This session is going to be about the history of the non-medical use of drugs. Let me say that, because this is going to be a story, that I think it will interest you quite a bit. The topic is the history of the non-medical use of drugs and I think you ought to know what my credentials are for talking about this topic. As you may know, before I taught at the University of Southern California, I taught at the University of Virginia for fifteen years, from 1968 to 1981. In that time period, the very first major piece that I wrote was a piece entitled, "The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - The Legal History of Marihuana in the United States". I wrote it with Professor Richard Bonnie, still of the faculty of the University of Virginia. It was published in the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970 and I must say that our piece was the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970. The piece was 450 pages long. It got a ton of national attention because no one had ever done the legal history of marijuana before. As a result of that, Professor Bonnie was named the Deputy Director of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and I was a consultant to that commission.

As a result of Richard's two year executive directorship of the National Commission in 1971 and 1972 he and I were given access to both the open and the closed files of what was then called the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, what had historically been called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and what today is called the Drug Enforcement Agency. Based upon our access to those files, both open and closed, we wrote a book called "The Marihuana Conviction- The Legal History of Drugs in the United States" and that book went through six printings at the University of Virginia press before being sold out primarily in sales to my friends at the FBI over the years. It is based upon that work that I bring you this story.

The Situation in 1900

If you are interested in the non-medical use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900, and in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first. That is, that in 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900.

Now, there were two principal causes of this dramatic level of drug addiction at the turn of the century. The first cause was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legitimate medical operations. You know as late as 1900, particularly in areas where medical resources were scarce it was not at all uncommon for you to say, let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine.

The use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was so extensive that, by 1880, so many Union veterans were addicted to morphine that the popular press referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease". Now I will say, being from Virginia as I am, that the Confederate veterans didn't have any problems about being addicted to morphine because the South was too poor to have any, and therefore battlefield operations on the Confederate Army were simply done by chopping off the relevant limb while they drank a little whiskey. But the Northern troops heavily found themselves, as the result of battlefield operations and the use of morphine, addicted to morphine.

Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century.

In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry.

I think some of you, maybe from watching Westerns on TV if nothing else are aware that, again, as late as 1900, in areas, particularly rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for itinerant salesmen, not themselves doctors, to cruise around the countryside offering potions and elixirs of all sorts advertised in the most flamboyant kinds of terms. "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for What Ails You", or "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for Man or Beast."

Well, what the purveyors of these medicines did not tell their purchasers, was that later, when these patent medicines were tested, many of them proved to be up to fifty percent morphine by volume.

Now, what that meant, as I have always thought, was the most significant thing about the high morphine content in patent medicines was it meant they tended to live up to their advertising. Because no matter what is wrong with you, or your beast, you are going to feel a whole lot better after a couple of slugs of an elixir that is fifty percent morphine. So there was this tendency to think "Wow! This stuff works." Down you could go to the general store and get more of it and it could be sold to you directly over the counter. :eek: ;)

Now, for reasons that we weren't able to full research, but for reasons, I think, probably associated with the role of women rural societies then patent medicines were much more appealing to women than to men and account for the much higher incidence of drug addiction in 1900 among women than among men.

If you want to see a relatively current portrayal of a woman addicted to patent medicine you might think of Eugene O'Neil's play "A Long Day's Journey Into Night". The mother figure there, the one that was played by Katherine Hepburn in the movies was addicted to patent medicines.

In any event, the use of morphine in medical operations and the sale of patent medicines accounted for a dramatic level of addiction. Again, between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States was addicted to drugs as late as 1900.

Now if my first point is that there was a lot more addiction in 1900 than there is today and that the people who were addicted are quite a different group than the group we would be thinking of today, my next point would be that if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental.

People became involved with drugs they did not know that they were taking, that they did not know the impact of. The first point, then, is that there was more drug addiction than there is now and most of it was accidental.

The Pure Food and Drug Act

Then the single law which has done the most in this country to reduce the level of drug addiction is none of the criminal laws we have ever passed. The single law that reduced drug addiction the most was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.

read on...
 
The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, by the way, was based on the commerce clause of Article 1, Section 8. Read it. It's interesting that it treads carefully around regulating activities which occur completely within one state.

It was written back before the commerce clause grew to embrace completely intrastate activites, or, as Justice Thomas recently said, "virtually anything."

Sulaco: and what does it have to do with guns?

This:

Jun 13 2005 Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).

edit: and this:

Bill: Seize homes that contain 'illegal' guns
New Jersey lawmaker wants buildings, cars taken if firearms not permitted
Posted: May 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a bill that would allow the government to seize the home or car of anyone whose property contains an illegal firearm.

The legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Louis Manzo, D-Jersey City, authorizes the forfeiture of "motor vehicle, building or premise" if a firearm is found in it that is not possessed legally per state law – "even if the firearm was not possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or premise," states a summary of the bill, A3998. The legislation was introduced Thursday.

Manzo pointed out his bill extends government power now reserved for targeting those in possession of illegal drugs.
 
Some drugs are so powerful they can cause chromosomal damage to future generations not even conceived yet by altering the DNA of the current user which he then passes on. Chemically induced genetic defects.

Do you have a source for that?

Some of the drugs that have this ability are those which are at the core of the illegal drug culture.
Marijuana certainly doesn't. In fact, it's never caused a single death from overdose.

My answer to that is to sarcastically wonder if it really harms anyone to not be able to have a weapons grade nuclear powered wristwatch. I mean, afterall, I wouldn't do anything bad with it so why should I be prevented from having one just because someone else might.
That's the exact same argument gun control advocates use.


If you don't believe that drugs should be outlawed then what's the problem? If they're not outlawed then shouldn't they be legalized, regulated, and sold in controlled environments by genuine businesses as opposed to leaving the money in the hands of gangs and organized crime?
 
Hemp Cloth Making

The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of Hemp, which began to be worked in the Eighth Millennium (8,000-7,000 BC).

The word "canvas" is derived from the Dutch pronunciation, twice removed from French and Latin, of the Greek root word "Kannabis" which can be traced back to the early Sumerian/Babylonian word "K(a)N(a)B(a)" which is one of the longest surviving root words in human language.

Hemp provides the worlds longest, strongest, softest, most durable natural fibre.

Warmer and more absorbent, Hemp has greater tensile strength than cotton. Cotton became established in the 19th Century because it lent itself readily to mechanised processing by the early cotton 'gin.

Machinery for processing Hemp did not become available until the 1930's by which time synthetic fibres produced by the chemical industry had appeared on the scene. Cotton requires another of the chemical industry's products - artificial fertiliser. Unlike cotton, hemp needs no fertiliser or pesticide to aid in its cultivation.

It is estimated that half of all the agricultural chemicals used in the USA are employed in the growing of cotton. IF Hemp is planted at a density of 900 plants to the square yard and harvested after two or three month's soft, linen-quality fibres are produced.

Whereas an acre of cotton yields about 500 pounds of fibre, the same acre of Hemp will give 1500 pounds of fibre.

Garments made from Hemp are durable and long lasting. The original Levi's were made Hemp cloth during the '49 California gold rush.
 
Back
Top