US take note: This is how you fight the War on Drugs

Redworm, We have made a habbit of not agreeing LOL.

But no, you have no right to regulate what goes into my body. Period.
Click to expand...

When it affects me physically or financially I have a right. If you could guarentee that you never become a burden to society financially or criminally due to drug abuse then I no longer have a right to prevent you from destroying yourself. I could care less what folks do with their bodies up and until it affects me or mine.

Sign a contract saying that if you become damaged and in need of medical care due to drug abuse that you will not accept state or federally funded medical service and shoot up until your brain oozes from your ears......I wouldn't give a hoot. Less drug addicts in America the better.
 
Threegun that argument is invalid.

It would be like asking you to sign a contract that any gun you may ever purchase whether you sell it or it is stolen will never be used in a crime. There is no way to tell what may happen.

Jefferson
 
The DUI arguments recently posted would logically support a return to alcohol prohibition, and we all know what a success that was. :rolleyes: The violence precipitated by prohibition was an important impetus for new firearm prohibitions then as well as now.

As for tobacco, it’s a good thing the world nipped that evil in the bud. My apologies to Deputy Fife. Obviously not an exhaustive list, but it illustrates the point that drug laws seldom conform to rational thinking and pragmatic action.

1633: REGULATION: TURKEY: Sultan Murad IV orders tobacco users executed as infidels. As many as 18 a day were executed.

1634: REGULATION: RUSSIA: Czar Alexis creates penalties for smoking: 1st offense is whipping, a slit nose, and trasportation to Siberia. 2nd offense is execution.

1638: REGULATION: CHINA: Use or distribution of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation.

Also of interest is the way the DEA classifies drugs. A schedule 1 classification is for substances with a high abuse potential (addictive) and no approved medical usage. Based on this, why is tobacco legal? IIRC, family fortunes were squandered in pursuit of the tobacco high just 200 to 300 years ago. Meanwhile, marijuana, which arguably has a low abuse potential and has known medical benefits, languishes as a schedule 1 drug. Even those who oppose broad legalization of drugs have got to appreciate the absurdity of this situation.

Opponents should understand that proponents of legalization are not so naïve as to believe that legalization will cure all of societies drug related ills. Similarly, the repeal of the 18th Amendment did not eliminate the destructive nature of alcohol, but it definitely cured the malignant cancers on society created by prohibition. DUI laws as presently written do not apply solely to alcohol. However, it is invariably alcohol intoxication that leads to the vast majority of fatalities on our roadways. Regardless, people should be held accountable for their actions and not for what others presume they will do.

There is also a distinction between drug use and drug abuse. While it may be true that legalization may lead to an increase in drug use in the short term, similar to the increase in alcohol consumption seen after passage of the 21st Amendment, there is no evidence to support the contention that there would be a long term increase in drug use. Further, even if there is an increase in drug use following legalization, there is evidence that those predisposed to addiction are already users and that therefore legalization will not increase the numbers of chemically dependent individuals. Third, even if drug addiction were to increase, treating the problem as a public health issue instead of a law enforcement problem would have financial benefits for society at large and would likewise be beneficial for the individual in need of medical intervention. This would simply be a better allocation of resources that helps the individual while decreasing the burden placed on the criminal justice system.

Drug prohibition does not occupy any moral high ground. The motivation behind every new drug prohibition has stemmed from a racist intent. Regardless of the catalysts that set the war on drugs in motion, one would think that after almost 100 years of the government getting increasingly aggressive, spending billions of dollars, and eroding our individual liberties in an unjust and immoral war waged against its own citizens, we would call for a stop to the madness and just maybe demand that something different be tried? Unfortunately, the federal government is too invested in men and equipment to just stop the war on us. With civil forfeiture laws, the “war on drugs” is proving to be a very lucrative business for law enforcement agencies.

Again, just a thought. :)
 
When it affects me physically or financially I have a right. If you could guarentee that you never become a burden to society financially or criminally due to drug abuse then I no longer have a right to prevent you from destroying yourself. I could care less what folks do with their bodies up and until it affects me or mine.

Sign a contract saying that if you become damaged and in need of medical care due to drug abuse that you will not accept state or federally funded medical service and shoot up until your brain oozes from your ears......I wouldn't give a hoot. Less drug addicts in America the better.
Click to expand...
Yes, when it affects you physically or financially. Until the moment that I commit some sort of crime because of a substance you have no business dictating whether or not I can ingest that substance.
 
The violence precipitated by prohibition was an important impetus for new firearm prohibitions then as well as now.
Click to expand...

Quite so. Any government that is given the authority, power, and legitimacy to use such an egregious degree of force against anything -- particularly a victimless activity such as the use of some substances (arbitrarily defined as "drugs") will inevitably use it in other areas -- and guns will no doubt be in the top of the list. How long before an aggressive drug war is used as an argument to confiscate guns, once a few stories of "drug lords out gunning our police!" appear in the daily rag?

Actually, why don't we take a look at how Indonesia, the case study from the original post, handles the whole issue of the right to keep and bear arms?

Money quotes:

Maybe ... gun haters would be happier in a place like, say, Indonesia, where gun ownership by the average citizen is completely illegal. It might comfort them to know that mere possession of firearms in that country could lead to the death penalty.
Click to expand...
http://www.gunowners.org/op0510.htm

Gun possession is illegal in Indonesia....
Click to expand...
http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/BC24Ae01.html

Definitely sounds like a great place to me. :rolleyes:
 
I don't. :confused: But I find it amusing that people are willing to waste money putting crackheads in jail and then releasing them despite the fact that if that money were used for rehab it would result in - TADA! - fewer crackheads.

That being said, at the very least the marijuana laws need to be changed before anything else. Argue what you will about cocaine and meth and heroin but for pot to be illegal is utterly, utterly pointless.
 
To the "kill the drug dealer crowd":

If we had executed the guys running stills during prohibition, would it have made prohibition work? Do you really think booze would still be illegal and it would be hard to find moonshine today?
 
I don't. But I find it amusing that people are willing to waste money putting crackheads in jail and then releasing them despite the fact that if that money were used for rehab it would result in - TADA! - fewer crackheads.
Click to expand...

I find it appalling how many people are willing to tolerate egregious violations of civil liberties in the pursuit of other goals that, if these same methods were applied to firearms laws, they would rise up in armed rebellion.
 
I find it appalling how many people are willing to tolerate egregious violations of civil liberties in the pursuit of other goals that, if these same methods were applied to firearms laws, they would rise up in armed rebellion.
Click to expand...

Maybe the crackheads and dope dealers should hire better lobbyists:D:p
 
Yeah, killing drug suppliers is a good idea. Then we can use those precendts to start killing the ones that are caught using by saying they could be selling. Then when your teenage son gets caught with a joint in his car while speeding in another state he can be up on trial for the death penalty far away from home.

Then why stop at drug pushers. We can start executing people that sell firarms illegally or get caught inpossession of an automatic weapon. Then we can start putting any person that gets caught with a firearm and no permit on trial facing the death penalty.

Or we could just let people do what they want with their own bodies as long as they do not inflict harm on anyon else. Removing the huge profits from the drug market would negate the criminal element.
 
Let's all take a step back, and see how Inspector Callahan felt about killing the criminals...rent & watch "Magnum Force" this weekend. A good mix of guns (Pythons, M29s), action (shoot'em ups) and sociology(shoot'em or save 'em?)

But seriously, some of you guys scare me. On several issues.
 
I find it appalling how many people are willing to tolerate egregious violations of civil liberties in the pursuit of other goals that, if these same methods were applied to firearms laws, they would rise up in armed rebellion.
Click to expand...

I have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I went and read the BOR again. No right in the BOR about dope, drugs, or being able to get intoxicated.
 
I have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I went and read the BOR again. No right in the BOR about dope, drugs, or being able to get intoxicated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the constitution doesn't delineate all of our rights, it merely puts limits the govt. Just because you don't see a right there, don't think it doesn't exist.
 
Ah, my favorite amendment!

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
 
"The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone."

-JUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS
 
Quite. What do you think this is, Indonesia?
Click to expand...

No. I think this is a difference of opinion and a prime example of why the Libertarian Party will never be looked at as a serious contender. My .02 cents worth.
 
Let's throw some truth out on the table, shall we...

My mom always said, "If you're going to do something, do it right."

If the war on some drugs is in fact a good idea, as weighed by the norms & values of the people in that society, through their policy-makers, then having such draconian punishment WILL in fact help to reduce the level of offenders, and potentially drug use rates themselves, overall; so I cannot say that it's a bad idea (other than the standard reservations with the death penalty that some people have, myself included, like putting innocents to death).

However, that still doesn't make the war on some drugs a *good idea* in our society or even necessarily in their society, since (a) it doesn't work in its current form in our society (doesn't reduce drug use), (b) even it it did work (and remember, it doesn't), the cost would too high in lost civil liberties, under the way the "war" is currently being prosecuted.

Now, as for the argument "well it would work if we got serious and instituted harsh punishments like this", I really don't have a good counter to that; that *may* be correct!! If we were to impose harsh penalties like the death penalty for drug running, but yet at the same time did NOT erode civil liberties to do it (the draconian punishments ipso facto do not run afoul of civil liberty protections, you see), then I might even support it, provided we RESTORE the prior state of the case law on search & seizure to before this war on some drugs - go back to the 1970s or so.

Again, let's fish or cut bait. Do it right or not do it at all. There's another one...something about getting off the pot. Anyway, increasing the criminal penalties *IS* the appropriate response to make the war on some drugs work to produce the desired results of less drug use (assuming that as a society this is the result we want). Conversely, these things are NOT the appropriate response:

1. Civil forfeitures of property withOUT a conviction necessary to take your stuff (i.e. legal theft)
2. Recuced 4A, 5A, 6A, and 2A protections, particularly 4A search & seizure.
3. Etc.

P.S. These defendants probably ought to be given a medal if they were making real "X" - my (limited) understanding is that people usually croak by eating something closer to rat poison in chemical structure, sold in a bait & switch off the street, when they think they are getting real "X", which is essentially harmless. That's my understanding, but I could be way off on that. But if I'm not, they were probably saving lives by making the real thing.

The chief executive of the UK Medical Research Council stated MDMA was "on the bottom of the scale of harm", and the Science & Technology Committee rated it of lower concern than for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, believing it should be changed to less harmful category B, while at the same time found methamphetamine should be scheduled up to the most harmful category A

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf
Click to expand...

Make a moderately powerful seratonin reuptake inhibitor, and you make billions upon billions of dollars (prozac, paxil, zoloft, etc.); But make a REALLY good SRI, and the government executes you - talk amongst yourselves.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top