The war on Americans who use drugs...

long winded

I have to agree with some of the posts, the war on drugs is a dismal failure, I'll relate a story a grandfather told me about prohibition.it created a market of speak easies and violant thugs set out to control its consumption while controling the market.quite profitable at a time when it was illegal and everyone enjoyed their drink back then.there was corruption everywhere from the huge $$ generated from it...then it was repealed and the big thugs went out of business.

alcohol is just as much a drug as anything else when abused.I dont drink but I have had a live in gf that was a chronic drunk and know that she would go to very great lengths to get her drink,including begging,borrowing and stealing-beating me up in my sleep cause I wouldnt go pick her up after a long nite of partying..do I think it should be prohibited again?didnt solve alcoholism the first time so why would it now?


The only things I see coming out of this are users finding more creative ways to get their high,more seizures and nazi like tactics in breaking into homes to seize it,more use and more dangerous thugs fighting to keep it.payoffs and the things nobody saw...just like the early alcohol prohibition.nothings changed cept now its global.


I dont know what solution is the right one-I do know that random drug tests dont stop it,asset forfeitures and no knock raids havent deterred it,it merely starts somewhere else.elevating the penalties havent stopped it neither.the money made from it and the demand outweight everything.alot of folks have died from it,including a best friend of mine who had everything to gain but made a stupid choice.so what to do about it?elevate more and more punishments and get more and more crime..?


somehow ,that doesnt seem to be working.
 
Repeated quality studies by folks I know to be competent indicate that aggressive video games lead to aggressive ideation and behavior in some.

Thus, let us ban violent video games - oh, how about IDPA or IPSC - violent simulations with real guns?

Probably cause more aggressive ideation than marijuana does.
 
That's the exact same argument gun control advocates use.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. There's no provision in the Constitution for marijuana.

Drugs are not guns nor guns drugs. So comparing them to each other and saying that the argument against one is the same as for the other isn't logical. There is a constitutional amendment for gun ownership and not for drugs.

Do you have a source for that?
Click to expand...

Source? No. Example? Try researching Thalidamide and then try to disbelieve how powerful drugs can be. And while Thalidamide isn't/wasn't an "illegal" drug the stated prececept was that "some drugs" are so powerful they can cause DNA damage not "some illegal drugs..." Mankind has yet to completely catalog all the various compounds which can be used to make drugs. Inevitably there will be more combinations which will be equal to or worse than Thalidamide. Some of those will certainly have "mood enhancing" qualities and will most likely be abused by someone once discovered.

In the end, neither of us will convince the other about the war on drugs. Too many people enjoy using illegal narcotics and don't give a damn about the consequences so long as they can get high. These folks will continue to use drugs while extolling the virtues and harmlessness of drugs. They will compare drugs to cars, guns, TV's and video games in an effort to prove that drugs and drug users are being discriminated against. They will do all that and ignore reality while tens of thousands of people destroy themselves with drugs. Just so they can continue to get stoned and party.
 
No, it isn't. There's no provision in the Constitution for marijuana.

Drugs are not guns nor guns drugs. So comparing them to each other and saying that the argument against one is the same as for the other isn't logical. There is a constitutional amendment for gun ownership and not for drugs.
Click to expand...

And once again gun owners fail to pay attention to WHY there is a constitutional amendment for gun ownership. Why do some only care about the tools to protect freedom as opposed to freedom itself.

Source? No. Example? Try researching Thalidamide and then try to disbelieve how powerful drugs can be. And while Thalidamide isn't/wasn't an "illegal" drug the stated prececept was that "some drugs" are so powerful they can cause DNA damage not "some illegal drugs..." Mankind has yet to completely catalog all the various compounds which can be used to make drugs. Inevitably there will be more combinations which will be equal to or worse than Thalidamide. Some of those will certainly have "mood enhancing" qualities and will most likely be abused by someone once discovered.

In the end, neither of us will convince the other about the war on drugs. Too many people enjoy using illegal narcotics and don't give a damn about the consequences so long as they can get high. These folks will continue to use drugs while extolling the virtues and harmlessness of drugs. They will compare drugs to cars, guns, TV's and video games in an effort to prove that drugs and drug users are being discriminated against. They will do all that and ignore reality while tens of thousands of people destroy themselves with drugs. Just so they can continue to get stoned and party.
Click to expand...

The genetic effects of thaladomide are still hotly contested. While there are certainly indications that it caused mutations in DNA there is still no solid, conclusive evidence to support it. Besides, it's one example out of the hundreds of other drugs available that have no effect on one's genes. You're right in that there are plenty of other drugs yet to be discovered but citing thaladomide as an example implies that you think medicine in general should be forgotten because of the potential risks. Ever heard of Tysabri or Vioxx?

Just because some people get high with no consideration to others does not mean that everyone follows suit. I haven't made your mistakes nor the mistakes of any drug abuser. If you can't understand why there is a definite, logical comparison with drugs and all those other things you mentioned then I truly do feel that you're one of the gun owners that only cares about the freedoms that they approve of.

Y'know, our opinions on the drugs themselves don't really matter. That's not the issue at hand. The problem is why you would support a program that only serves to put money into the hands of gangs and organized crime when it could just as easily be controlled like alcohol and tobacco. That's what boggles my mind. If you don't like drugs, that's fine. It doesn't affect me in any way. Spend the rest of your days trying to convince people to join a twelve step cult and to claim they're "powerless" over the choices they make. If it makes y'all happy, go for it.

But drug prohibition only serves to keep the market in the control of criminals. Just like outlawing guns only serves to keep them in the hands of outlaws.
 
There's no provision in the Constitution for marijuana.

Drugs are not guns nor guns drugs. So comparing them to each other and saying that the argument against one is the same as for the other isn't logical.
Click to expand...

Amendment 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

That means that if the power to prohibit drugs or guns can not be found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress has no such power.

So where did they find it?

The same place they found the power to regulate guns: first in the power to tax, then later, as the Constitution grew (living documents do that, you know), they found the power in the commerce clause. Many of the reasons given were the same (ie: both are too dangerous for the citizens to be trusted with them), and the legal reasoning is exactly the same.

For example, the Supreme Court decision in US vs Miller specifically referenced Sonzinsky vs United States " and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotic Act .... the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."

Drug war precedents were used to justify federal police powers in a firearms case about the 2nd amendment, just as they had been in the prior one about taxing authority. Drug war precedent, as noted, was also recently applied to firearms law again in US vs Stewart. Arguing that the 2nd amendment creates some distinction between the two issues ignores those facts.

The 2nd is, unfortunately, the Rodney Dangerfield of amendments. It gets no respect. The very guns which are most tightly regulated are the ones with obvious military applications, which is the opposite of the implication to be logically drawn from the Miller decision. It's an important and politically volatile Bill of Rights issue, and there is a current conflict between the 5th Circuit and the rest over what it means. The Supreme Court ducked the opportunity in Silviera vs Lockyer to settle that conflict. All of that means that, for purposes of commerce clause based federal regulation, Congress can treat guns and drugs the same.

They do, and the Courts do as well. Here is an excerpt from the cert petition in the US vs Stewart case:

Raich and the instant case have several features in
common. Both cases involve commodities that are
typically acquired through commercial transactions.
Congress has sought to eliminate the commercial mar-
kets in both marijuana and machineguns by enacting a
categorical ban on private transfer and possession of
the relevant items, rather than mandating a case-by-
case inquiry into the interstate commerce nexus of
particular acts of possession. And in each case, the
Ninth Circuit held that the statutory possession ban is
unconstitutional as applied to a discrete class of pur-
portedly non-commercial possession. This Court’s
decision in Raich is therefore likely to shed significant
light on the proper disposition of respondent’s as-
applied constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. 922(o).

CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be held
pending this Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Raich, No.
03-1454 (to be argued Nov. 29, 2004), and then disposed
of as appropriate in light of the Court’s decision in that
case.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what happened.
 
Didn't Oregon and Alaska decriminalize marijuana through out the 1970's?

It seems I remember those states revising their laws in an effort to maintain their federal contributions to law enforcement after the declaration of wod.

Did those states experience a higher crime rate or addiction rate during the decrim years?

Did they experience a decline in crime rates or addiction rates since re-criminalization?
 
It was a 1975 Alaskan Supreme Court decision which decriminalized marijuana up there. What has happened since is topsy-turvy. The voters re-criminalized it in the 90s (I think), only to have a prosecution thrown out based on the prior court decision. They had a decriminalization ballot initiative in 2004, which failed. They have a medical marijuana regulatory scheme, but it was invalidated by the Raich decision. Or was it? It continues. I don't know how the crime and addiction rates have gone during these 30 years.
 
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,
Click to expand...

And that my friends is as wrong as wrong can possibly be. How can this guy actually claim to be anything other than a fascist and actually introduce this legislation? It's so unbelievable. Some person brings a hidden gun onto your business premises (which are open to the public), and as a result, you completely lose your business and its premises? What in the world are we coming to. Publius and redworm speak very wisely.
 
Waaaaa I WANT my drugs and you are just trying to stop me from having a good time.....:barf:

Sorry picked up too many doped up hop heads after a car crash, assault to dive out a window to gut up any of this..

State of Maine reported this month that deaths from drug OD's was higher then the deaths recorded for auto accidents!! Ya we need legalized drugs. (Scarcasm off)
 
Last edited:
Higher than auto deaths, huh? That's a sure sign prohibition is working as planned </sarcasm>

Hey, at least now you know what all of this has to do with guns! Glad you asked? ;)
 
State of Maine reported this month that deaths from drug OD's was higher then the deaths recorded for auto accidents!! Ya we need legalized drugs. (Scarcasm off)
Click to expand...
And I would bet a year's salary that not a single one of those was a marijuana overdose. Yet how many people die each from alcohol poisoning?

Do you drink?
 
you would be correct. maines accidental over doses are mostly related to cocaine, and prescriptions drugs such as oxy and methadone.

its also a whopping 170 some people for the whole state, big deal. thats less than your average big city. i guess maine has some rather courteous drivers.
 
Re-set the % with any population/city you like, thats chilling wheither you want to accept it or not. Any as to pot the number of traffic deaths that had booze and pot together is countless and just as deadly. Its still a gateway and nothing about wishing other wise has changed that.
 
170 deaths from overdose is not chilling. Those people made their own choices and the only ones I feel bad about are the few that may have had it forced on them or been tricked into it. 170 nonviolent, otherwise law abiding citizens spending mandatory sentences behind bars for possession alone...that is chilling.

There have been no deaths from marijuana overdose. Ever.

So we know for a fact that there are "countless" people out there driving stoned and causing wrecks? We know that drunk drivers do it all the time and they should certainly be punished for it, just as those who drive high shcould be punished. Testing for inebriation of THC can be done on the spot though the technology is currently a bit too expensive to implement on a wide scale (hmm...maybe a better place to spend all that money that goes into raiding the homes of peaceful potheads?).

You are very wrong that it's a gateway drug. There are plenty of people out there who smoke pot and pot alone. I know more than a few that won't even touch cigarettes or alcohol and have never even tried harder drugs. The only "gateway" factor is that it puts one in contact with people that can get the harder drugs but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that THC makes one crave more intense highs. Not a shred.

It's not wishing, it's common sense. If you want to label something a "gateway" drug because it gets people to want more and stronger highs, look at alcohol or tobacco. They are almost always the very first drugs people try.


When was the last time you had a beer?
 
I just do not understand the position of those who believe that marijuana, heroin, crack and meth should be legalized. The "it's their own choice to use them" argument just fails the test for me.

For one thing, it's NOT their own choice. Addiction is not a "choice". Neither is drug prostitution or crack babies or the numerous other drug-based problems that abound in poor neighborhoods. It is not a "choice" when I'm burglarized by some hoodlum looking to score something to pawn for his next "fix". A premature baby didn't have the option of a "choice" to be born early or not. Ditto with crack babies born addicted and deformed.

For another, it seems small minded to believe that just because one doesn't have an addiction problem, others won't either. That's not the case and logic should tell one that. Unless one is blinded by a specific reasoning or opinion favoring the "pro/legalize" side of the issue. Addiction happens and one won't know if it'll happen to anyone until after one is addicted. I wonder how many of those who use marijuana are addicted to it and it's effects but won't admit to the addiction....

Next, the argument that only those who abuse the drugs should be punished is specious. It intimates that those who don't abuse drugs shouldn't be punished and our jails would be emptier as a result. What's interesting is that currently those who abuse drugs ARE being punished and those who don't aren't and the jails aren't standing there without inmates in them.

Lastly, do you know of any other activity, if legal, where one needs to LIE about whether they participate or not? Using illegal drugs carries a social stigma that is very strong. Legalizing the use and posession of these drugs won't change that stigma.

You want to change public opinion on drugs? Clean up, sober up, and stand up and you'll find that your viewpoint changes to mirror the rest of those who refuse to bow to the drug culture.
 
Addiction is not a "choice".
Click to expand...

It is, just like people choose to be addicted to smoking cigs, drinking and chewing tabacco.

Neither is drug prostitution or crack babies or the numerous other drug-based problems that abound in poor neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

Prostitution is either choice of the prostitute, or slavery by means of force by a pimp...

Crack babies? Mother negligence. My youngest brother was born premature by 3 months, due to my mother smoking legally bought and abused cigarettes, he also has asthma, and speech problems. So obviously the government OK'ed drugs are not any better than illegal ones, it's up to the user/abuser.

It is not a "choice" when I'm burglarized by some hoodlum looking to score something to pawn for his next "fix".
Click to expand...

You're right, you do not have much of a choice when youre being mugged, or your house is invaded, but the criminal has a choice to do or not do these actions, the only reason you never hear of people breaking into houses to cure their need for cigarettes is because they can buy them from the local 7-11, just like alchohol. (which while under the influence of this drug and driving is one of the leading cause of deaths, and the leading cause of pedestrian deaths every year)


A premature baby didn't have the option of a "choice" to be born early or not. Ditto with crack babies born addicted and deformed
Click to expand...

Same goes with babies like my younger brother, if you can pin blame on drugs, then I can pin blame on Marlboro for my brother.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Rob P.: "Lastly, do you know of any other activity, if legal, where one needs to LIE about whether they participate or not? Using illegal drugs carries a social stigma that is very strong. Legalizing the use and posession of these drugs won't change that stigma."

Guns and shooting. When most people ask me, I say no. Yes, I LIE about my participation in the shooting sports. I have no NEED to lie, but I choose to. If I didn't lie, I'd get smart-alleck remarks which would only diminish my respect for the questioner. It seems that some people have their minds made up about things and nothing I can say will change it. So I lie for my own peace of mind.

I believe guns have a negative social stigma attached. I think the majority of people don't like guns and view them negatively. Cigarettes are legal, yet they also have a negative stigma. I've known people who lied about smoking cigarrettes, drinking alcohol, and visiting titty bars. All legal activities.

I think guns, drugs, and individual behavioral characteristics are all the same: Do what you want, but don't harm me or mine. As humans, we must give the benefit of a doubt to EVERYBODY. Course, humans have never been very humane.

Severian, who only speaks the truth whilst cruising the internet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top