DonR101395
New member
I read it and you implied that because prohibition failed and it brought on nascar, the same would be true for illegal drugs. You're wrong. neener, neener, neener
Don't like your comments questioned don't make them.
US take note: This is how you fight the War on Drugs
- Thread starter Dust Monkey
- Start date
I read it and you implied that because prohibition failed and it brought on nascar, the same would be true for illegal drugs. You're wrong. neener, neener, neener
Don't like your comments questioned don't make them.Read it again
I implied that if we were allowed to buy a bag of pot with a 5th of JD we would see a reduction in crime because history supports that.
If you notice I separated the NASCAR comment from the '33 comment, as an aside
In have no problem with my comments being questioned
I do have a problem when simplistic mentalities latch on to minor points as if they were the central theme of the comment and cannot be dissuaded no matter how many times I answer their "questions"
This is wrong. It takes years of chronic use of alcohol to do what a year of the hard cores will do. I have seen customers go from 140 pounds and a hottie to a dried up sack of bones with skin in months. I have seen them get tossed in jail, fatten back up, then dry up again. I have never seen that with the many alcoholics who visit our shop. I won't even go into the dead brain cells aspect. Well yes I will. I haven't seen a recovering alcoholic sober for years having slurred speech and motor skill degradation as I have with the hard cores. Again like comparing an m-80 to a moab.
Notice the separation of the two thoughts there genius. Notice that they are two sepearate sentences seperated by a whole period not a comma.
Perhaps I should not have started the sentence with And but the point still stands, to anyone not being deliberately thick
In other words we saw a reduction in crime as Redworm suggested and as a plus it gave rise to NASCAR Even if NASCAR had not been started we still would have seen a reduction in crime
DonR101395
New member
I did and I disagree with both arguments. I "latched" on to the nascar comment, because it was the more false of the two comments.
Sure you do, you called me dumb because I questioned what you wrote.
You answered nothing, but you seem to have a superiority complex. Maybe you should go buy a 5th of jd and watch the races while you hope to be able to buy a dime bag legally one day.
I'm done with this one, enjoy jobob.
I have. Again it all depends on who you run with
Again the end of prohibition ended the tainted supply of alcohol and made it less potent and dangerous for the user
Ever heard of Jake Legs one session with a certain tainted alcohol gave the user a lifetime of physical and mental disabilities
Many people suffered these types of ailments in the mere 14 years of prohibition
And it gave rise to Al Capone ( anyone here think I just accused Al of orchestrating prohibition)
Actually the NASCAR comment was the easiest to verify
It never ceases to amaze me when people twist their own words, even though they are still here for all to read
Where is the question in that?
ANSWERED NOTHING HUH?
That was from my first response to your insulting post, hell you even quoted it in your response.
Typical of your type
I see it here all the time
You can't understand a comment so you attack the poster(yes you did) and when you have your ass handed to you you make another third grade insult and run as if you have said something pertinent and witty
If you had practiced that RIF thing as I suggested you would see
I never implied that I smoke pot. I don't
I never implied that I like NASCAR, I don't
I did however at least imply that I don't drink alcohol, but it may take a higher level of reading than you are willing to engage in to find that
But the JoBob comment was cute, in a third grade special ed kinda way
Joab, You have a segment of the population that is already brain dead so if your people were slurd speechers to begin with or if they were drunk at the time doesn't count.
As for making drugs safer after legalization you are correct. That however doesn't change the nature of the drug itself and its ability to addict and or reduce its addict to a walking skeleton. If made inexpensive by legalization I bet there are going to be even more people looking like a walking bag of bones. Cheaper only means more money for the drug. At some point the stealing and other crime will begin again.
As for making drugs safer after legalization you are correct. That however doesn't change the nature of the drug itself and its ability to addict and or reduce its addict to a walking skeleton. If made inexpensive by legalization I bet there are going to be even more people looking like a walking bag of bones. Cheaper only means more money for the drug. At some point the stealing and other crime will begin again.
But cheaper is not the only consideration
Government regulation would make the product safer
In the days of moon shining you would see those walking skeletons of addiction
In some thirdworld countries you still do
Areas of Vietnam are so into their rice based moonshine that entire villages are addicted and suffer the same health and crime problems you mention
When I went to these villages guards had to be posted at my bedroom door at night and I was not allowed to roam freely for fear that these addicts would kill the rich American for hooch money
Possibly that was overreaction on the part of my family but the mentality comes from somewhere
Today alcohol may not be in the exact same class as homemade drugs but it was at one time, back when it was homemade
I come from a long line of alcoholics I have seen the longterm effects of the drug both before and after the user quit
Apart from sales to children, drugs should be perfectly legal.
The main reason is that what individuals do with their own bodies and health is their OWN business -- not the government's, not society's, not anyone else's. And since when is prison better for your health than drug use? Also, putting "the good of society" above the rights of the individual is a hallmark of socialism.
In any case, the Drug War will fail for the same reasons that alcohol Prohibition failed. It's all tied to very basic economics. Why is it that Americans can never learn from history?
If I were a drug dealer who was getting rich off selling drugs, my worst nightmare would be legalization! That would put me out of business, or at least take away all my profits. As for getting busted, the profits make it well worth the risk. (The only reason I don't deal drugs myself is because my conscience won't let me. If I had no conscience, that would certainly be my line of work.)
The more strictly drug laws are enforced, the more profitable they are to sell, and the more incentive there is for people to take the legal risks of smuggling and dealing/pushing them. That's right -- every single raid, and every single dealer busted, eventually encourages more drug dealers to take their place.
Of course, drug dealers are going to fight each other over the huge black market drug profits. That's what the gangsters did in Capone's time. How many people kill each other over alcohol today? Didn't the US murder rate drop by something like 50% after Prohibition ended? Still, the gang warfare associated with all those Prohibition gangster murders led to the 1934 NFA. Today, the gang warfare associated with drug prohibition is a major source of gun crime and is the driving force behind the push for more gun control and other violations of our civil liberties.
Besides, if people want to get high, then they'll get high, and there's nothing any of the Puritanical busybodies can do about it. If all illegal drugs disappeared forever from the face of the earth tomorrow, some people would simply start huffing glue or solvents, which is highly addictive and far more harmful than most (maybe all) illegal drugs. (Drugs like pot are even less harmful and addictive than alcohol.)
Sometimes I think the government knows all of the above. It's really not rocket science, so how could they possibly be unaware of the numerous parallels between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition? Maybe they just want to continue the Drug War because it provides them with another excuse to crack down on citizens' rights.
The main reason is that what individuals do with their own bodies and health is their OWN business -- not the government's, not society's, not anyone else's. And since when is prison better for your health than drug use? Also, putting "the good of society" above the rights of the individual is a hallmark of socialism.
In any case, the Drug War will fail for the same reasons that alcohol Prohibition failed. It's all tied to very basic economics. Why is it that Americans can never learn from history?
If I were a drug dealer who was getting rich off selling drugs, my worst nightmare would be legalization! That would put me out of business, or at least take away all my profits. As for getting busted, the profits make it well worth the risk. (The only reason I don't deal drugs myself is because my conscience won't let me. If I had no conscience, that would certainly be my line of work.)
The more strictly drug laws are enforced, the more profitable they are to sell, and the more incentive there is for people to take the legal risks of smuggling and dealing/pushing them. That's right -- every single raid, and every single dealer busted, eventually encourages more drug dealers to take their place.
Of course, drug dealers are going to fight each other over the huge black market drug profits. That's what the gangsters did in Capone's time. How many people kill each other over alcohol today? Didn't the US murder rate drop by something like 50% after Prohibition ended? Still, the gang warfare associated with all those Prohibition gangster murders led to the 1934 NFA. Today, the gang warfare associated with drug prohibition is a major source of gun crime and is the driving force behind the push for more gun control and other violations of our civil liberties.
Besides, if people want to get high, then they'll get high, and there's nothing any of the Puritanical busybodies can do about it. If all illegal drugs disappeared forever from the face of the earth tomorrow, some people would simply start huffing glue or solvents, which is highly addictive and far more harmful than most (maybe all) illegal drugs. (Drugs like pot are even less harmful and addictive than alcohol.)
Sometimes I think the government knows all of the above. It's really not rocket science, so how could they possibly be unaware of the numerous parallels between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition? Maybe they just want to continue the Drug War because it provides them with another excuse to crack down on citizens' rights.
DonR101395
New member
I'll play one last round since you felt the need to harp on the "dumb", "third grade" side of me.
The question was what enterprising market such as nascar are the drug dealers/producers spurning? I'll take it a step further, what booming enterprise would they build that doesn't involve running/dealing drugs? I quoted my question below since you couldn't pick it out. Prohibition ended in 1933, the first nascar sanctioned race was in 1947. That's 14 years after prohibition by second grade math. How long do we give the newly legalized drug thugs to make their way?
I called the comment dumb, not you. Twist it how you like.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Someone questions what you said and automatically they are dumb because they don't agree with you, because they aren't as intellectual as you, etc.
"That is the dumbest comment I've heard" is different from "You are the dumbest poster" Just because you made a dumb comment doesn't make you dumb.
Once again, you have to resort to less educated. I probably am, and you didn't hand anyone their ***. You only showed yours.
Thanks, because I only made it to the second grade. Lordy, Lordy he paid me a compliment and thought I was more educated than I really am.
This is truly my last comment in the thread. I won't exchange in a battle of personal attacks with you.
No,
The question was what enterprising market such as nascar are the drug dealers/producers spurning? I'll take it a step further, what booming enterprise would they build that doesn't involve running/dealing drugs? I quoted my question below since you couldn't pick it out. Prohibition ended in 1933, the first nascar sanctioned race was in 1947. That's 14 years after prohibition by second grade math. How long do we give the newly legalized drug thugs to make their way?
I called the comment dumb, not you. Twist it how you like.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Someone questions what you said and automatically they are dumb because they don't agree with you, because they aren't as intellectual as you, etc.
"That is the dumbest comment I've heard" is different from "You are the dumbest poster" Just because you made a dumb comment doesn't make you dumb.
Once again, you have to resort to less educated. I probably am, and you didn't hand anyone their ***. You only showed yours.
Thanks, because I only made it to the second grade. Lordy, Lordy he paid me a compliment and thought I was more educated than I really am.
This is truly my last comment in the thread. I won't exchange in a battle of personal attacks with you.
Good cause you ain't good at it
I have explained the comment over and over if you can't get it then you never will
Personally I think you are just trying to get attention cause your comments have absolutely no merit and nobody can unintentionally be that thick and still be able to find the on switch of a computer
If anyone wants to question my comment in an intelligent non-insulting, non juvenile manner way I will be happy to expand
EricTheBarbarian
Inactive
You guys are missing the point, why argue over alcohol and hard drugs?
tobacco is the new evil drug that we need to ban. the first pack of cigarettes or can of cope is sure to kill you dead. You don't loose your ability to drive from smoking a cigarette or packing ur lip full of tobacco. Tobacco has never made me hit on unattractive girls at the bar im sure with all of the media and no tobacco stuff, most high school aged students would say other drugs are better for you than tobacco. You can easily live a productive life and hold a job while smoking a pack a day(although companies may fire you for smoking now). sure tobacco will kill you eventually(60 or 70 probably), but its not like fast food wont catch up with you sooner or later either. i dont know many 60 or 70 yr olds alive who are doing cocaine or meth, maybe thats how they got that old, who knows.
my 75 yr old grandma smokes, weve all tried to explain to her that shes going to kill us all with second hand smoke. if second hand smoke is so dangerous, why not start smoking to ensure youre only getting first hand smoke? well to avoid that problem, i prefer smokeless tobacco, they only thing to worry about is second hand spit which usually isnt a problem. thats just my rant about tobacco
as far as drugs go, i dont think theyre a good idea but neither is too much of anything. remember too much water, and youll drown. if there was a restoration of the right to self defense and being able to defend your property and carry I dont see a problem with other people doing drugs. and even if drugs do remain illegal, it doesnt seem to make much difference. if drugs are illegal or not people who want to do them will. if it magically become legal to do heroin tommorrow, im not going to be injecting it into my viens since now i can. just my opinion
tobacco is the new evil drug that we need to ban. the first pack of cigarettes or can of cope is sure to kill you dead. You don't loose your ability to drive from smoking a cigarette or packing ur lip full of tobacco. Tobacco has never made me hit on unattractive girls at the bar
im sure with all of the media and no tobacco stuff, most high school aged students would say other drugs are better for you than tobacco. You can easily live a productive life and hold a job while smoking a pack a day(although companies may fire you for smoking now). sure tobacco will kill you eventually(60 or 70 probably), but its not like fast food wont catch up with you sooner or later either. i dont know many 60 or 70 yr olds alive who are doing cocaine or meth, maybe thats how they got that old, who knows. my 75 yr old grandma smokes, weve all tried to explain to her that shes going to kill us all with second hand smoke. if second hand smoke is so dangerous, why not start smoking to ensure youre only getting first hand smoke? well to avoid that problem, i prefer smokeless tobacco, they only thing to worry about is second hand spit which usually isnt a problem. thats just my rant about tobacco
as far as drugs go, i dont think theyre a good idea but neither is too much of anything. remember too much water, and youll drown. if there was a restoration of the right to self defense and being able to defend your property and carry I dont see a problem with other people doing drugs. and even if drugs do remain illegal, it doesnt seem to make much difference. if drugs are illegal or not people who want to do them will. if it magically become legal to do heroin tommorrow, im not going to be injecting it into my viens since now i can. just my opinion
Ironically, I know and have met several people who smoke pot as a way to quit tobacco. Your brain craves a nicotine cigarette, you give it a marijuana cigarette. The act of smoking a cigarette of some kind and getting a buzz of some kind reduces/eliminates the urge for nicotine. Once you have weaned your brain off of nicotine you can quit smoking marijuana if you want to. Sure it may not work for everyone, but it does work for some people. Even if you don't stop smoking pot, you rarely smoke more than one or two cigarettes a day, if that.
I can attest from personal experience that quiting pot is about as difficult as a quitting caffeine. Yea it sucks for a bit, but if you really want to it is easy. When you are young, you figure out for yourself what stuff the adults have told you is propaganda lies and what is real.
That is the problem. The drugs that are very little danger are lumped in with the drugs that really are dangerous. When you tell kids that marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine, they WILL find that that is a flat out lie and then your credibility is shot to hell. Once I found that out, I took everything the "adults" said with skepticism.
If we really wanted to be honest, we would have a 3 tiered system. The drugs that really aren't a danger, the drugs that can be dangerous if one is not careful with their use, and then the drugs that really are dangerous. "Don't do drugs" is not a solution, no matter how much you want it to be.
The problem too is that, when drugs are illegal, once cannot be open about their use. This means that someone who knows they have a problem and wants help will be afraid to seek help out of fear of governmental retribution against him.
Legalizing drugs is not about solving the drug problem. Drug legalization is about solving the crime and violence problem. The current solution is a dismal failure. I can make a few phone calls and have just about any drug I wanted. I may not know who has the drugs to sell. But I do know someone who knows someone who might have something.
A person can get anything they want on the black market. The only two issues are price and connections. This is Econ 101 stuff here.
I can attest from personal experience that quiting pot is about as difficult as a quitting caffeine. Yea it sucks for a bit, but if you really want to it is easy. When you are young, you figure out for yourself what stuff the adults have told you is propaganda lies and what is real.
That is the problem. The drugs that are very little danger are lumped in with the drugs that really are dangerous. When you tell kids that marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine, they WILL find that that is a flat out lie and then your credibility is shot to hell. Once I found that out, I took everything the "adults" said with skepticism.
If we really wanted to be honest, we would have a 3 tiered system. The drugs that really aren't a danger, the drugs that can be dangerous if one is not careful with their use, and then the drugs that really are dangerous. "Don't do drugs" is not a solution, no matter how much you want it to be.
The problem too is that, when drugs are illegal, once cannot be open about their use. This means that someone who knows they have a problem and wants help will be afraid to seek help out of fear of governmental retribution against him.
Legalizing drugs is not about solving the drug problem. Drug legalization is about solving the crime and violence problem. The current solution is a dismal failure. I can make a few phone calls and have just about any drug I wanted. I may not know who has the drugs to sell. But I do know someone who knows someone who might have something.
A person can get anything they want on the black market. The only two issues are price and connections. This is Econ 101 stuff here.
I recall the late Jeff Cooper saying he was tired of the constant misuse of
the word "war". IIRC he said that if we are going to have a "war on crime"
for example, we should fight it like WWII-shoot on sight, search and destroy
missions, interdiction of supply lines, internment for duration, etc.
I also think the decline of the U.S. educational system can be blamed on the
growth of the drug culture. For a lot of students and teachers, that pre class
toke or hit or snort is how they start the day. Then we wonder why test scores are so abysmal and why so many high school graduates are barely
literate. And I'm waiting for a plane crash, or perhaps a crowded commuter train
crashing with hundreds of injuries and then the toxicology tests on the pilot
or motorman or whoever reveal drug use.
the word "war". IIRC he said that if we are going to have a "war on crime"
for example, we should fight it like WWII-shoot on sight, search and destroy
missions, interdiction of supply lines, internment for duration, etc.
I also think the decline of the U.S. educational system can be blamed on the
growth of the drug culture. For a lot of students and teachers, that pre class
toke or hit or snort is how they start the day. Then we wonder why test scores are so abysmal and why so many high school graduates are barely
literate. And I'm waiting for a plane crash, or perhaps a crowded commuter train
crashing with hundreds of injuries and then the toxicology tests on the pilot
or motorman or whoever reveal drug use.
oh bull. anything more solid than a few sensationalized news stories to suggest that there's any significant numbers of students and teachers around the country snorting cocaine or smoking pot before class? I'll give you a hand: there isn't. However you were right about one thing but the "drug culture" that's causing the problem is the legal prescription drugs that kids are being given. It starts with kids being fed utter crap in schools and allowing vending machines to dot the campus. These kids eat nothing but processed chicken and fake soy burgers at best or Snicker's and Doritos with a Coke to wash it down at worst and parents wonder why they have a bunch of hyperactive little monsters.
Adderall and Ritalin are doing more damage to the educational system as a whole and if teachers are doing anything it's taking Prozac and Zoloft with their Viagra and Propecia...and let's not forget the alcohol. Sure, there's a problem with the drug culture but the biggest problem is with the legal drugs and how comfortable everyone is with them because Uncle Sam says those pills are good for you but me taking a bong rip before watching Top Gear is somehow destroying the fabric of society. :barf:
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
Thanks for the link to the LEAP video, Will.
We have to do something different. Sure, drugs are bad, but what we have been doing these past 30+ years just ain't working. Along with the bad guys we are locking up a whole mess of musicians, students, and folks guilty of nothing more than bad judgment and moral weakness.
It's got to be bad when the red-blooded Americans of The Firing Line start promoting "European" ideas about such things.
I nominate New Orleans to be the new Amsterdam.
We have to do something different. Sure, drugs are bad, but what we have been doing these past 30+ years just ain't working. Along with the bad guys we are locking up a whole mess of musicians, students, and folks guilty of nothing more than bad judgment and moral weakness.
It's got to be bad when the red-blooded Americans of The Firing Line start promoting "European" ideas about such things.
I nominate New Orleans to be the new Amsterdam.