You want a return to the true intent of the 2nd Amendment?

[invention_45]

Maybe I'm also myopic, but I'm of the opinion that the guys who get so riled up about legalizing drugs are most likely drug users. I'd say these threads are probably diagnostic.

I would bet otherwise. Those who actively argue for drug decriminalization here are doing so publicly, inviting government scrutiny. They'd be unwise to both use them and argue for them on here.

I don't use them, and I resent your McCarthyistic implication that I do.

 

[exar]

Maybe I'm also myopic, but I'm of the opinion that the guys who get so riled up about legalizing drugs are most likely drug users. I'd say these threads are probably diagnostic.

So? What exactly is your point?

 

[Coinneach]

I don't use. For one thing, I'm a private pilot. For another, I work in a notoriously unstable industry, and could be called on to pee in a cup at any time if I lose my job. For yet another, my mind is my primary asset and I don't need to inflict damage on it for the sake of entertainment.

However, I am 100% pro-relegalisation. Not because I want them to be legal for me, but because I think people should have the ability to make that choice for themselves.

You know, just like firearms ownership?

 

[johnsonrlp]

Ausserordeutlich, So If I was to get "riled up" because I think women should be able to vote, I must be a woman. Your logic is flawed on this one. I strongly favor legalization. And I'm in the military, so no I don't get high. But after I get out, who cares if I get a little high? If my neighbor smokes a little does it hurt me? Not one bit. If he loses his job, that's his problem.

The issue to me is that alcohol is legal yet cannibus isn't. Which one kills people? When my grandfather went out, got altered, came home and beat his wife and kids, it was alcohol. I've known a lot of drunks and a lot of potheads. I've known a lot of angry drunks but only happy potheads.

"we will see an increase in traffic deaths from stoned drivers" Name one incedent of a stoned driver killing someone. Stoned people, as a general rule, don't drive.

Modern moonshining is existant. It is not even close to being a real problem.

If it is found that one could get high by hitting oneself in the head with a hammer, should it be illegal? I'm for sitting back and letting the survival of the fittest take effect for awhile.

 

[FLJim]

Ausserordeutlich wrote:
Maybe I'm also myopic, but I'm of the opinion that the guys who get so riled up about legalizing drugs are most likely drug users. I'd say these threads are probably diagnostic.

You would be both myopic and wrong.

The War On (Some) Drugs, as noted by leadcounsel and others, has been responsible for an unconscionable rise in government power and intrusion. That alone should be reason enough to stop it.

 

[MeekAndMild]

I think your viewpoint is rather naive and myopic. As a society we absorb the medical costs of EVERYBODYS' poor choices and bad behavior through insurance and public health programs.

Er, I hate to ask, but:
(1) Isn't private insurance voluntary and subject to limitations? I know that my life insurance won't pay if I'm killed in a SCUBA accident, a flying accident or if I have evidence of tobacco in my system. Why not charge the druggies a higher premium for health insurance?
(2) Where does it say in the Constitution that the government is required to fund insurance programs like M'Care and M'Caid?
(3) Rather than being myopic might he be just a tad less co-dependent than some of the rest of us?

Steelheart, I think the answer to your tobacco question is based on an accident of history. Cannabis grew first in southern Asia, so it has been legal in many countries there for five thousand years. Opium has been grown in Afghanistan since the time of Alexander. Coca is a traditional plant in all those andies countries you see on National Geographic TV shows and will always be grown there no matter what. Tobacco funded the US from the time we were colonies, so there is a warm fuzzy spot in Uncle Sams heart for the killer weed.

I think the choice of which drug a country legalizes and which one to ban is more a question of which one is an import drug and which one is an export drug. Again we must follow the money.

I'm really surprised that some big company like Archer Daniel Midland, Heinz or Monsanto doesn't convince the US that growing cannabis is good for the economy. I've about decided the main reason they don't is that there is so much money flowing into agribusiness as the result of food stamps (AKA EBT cards) that they don't need any more diversification.

 

[Marko Kloos]

I think your viewpoint is rather naive and myopic. As a society we absorb the medical costs of EVERYBODYS' poor choices and bad behavior through insurance and public health programs.

Don't you realize that your argument is a universal adapter to justify government control over damn near every aspect of life? The gun ban crowd already used it both to push for bans (since we're all paying for treatment of gunshot victims in inner-city ERs), and to try and drive the gun manufacturers out of business (via cities suing them to recoup the "cost incurred to public health care".)

You couldn't come up with a better system for expanding control if you tried: buy votes by promising Free Government Money (in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug benefits, etcetera), and then push your laws to control behavior you want curbed, because after all, "we're all paying for fixing up the druggies/gunshot victims/whatever". Kill two birds with one stone.

Brilliant, isn't it?

The solution is to stop spending public money on trying to shelter people from the consequences of their own bad decisions, not a general tightening of the controlling leash around everyone's neck.

 

[johnsonrlp]

The solution is to stop spending public money on trying to shelter people from the consequences of their own bad decisions, not a general tightening of the controlling leash around everyone's neck.

There's something to be said for survival of the fittest, or at least not stupidest.

 

[BillCA]

BillCA:
So, let me ask you a question. Do you like having a government, in a free society noless, telling you what you can and cannot consume, what you can and cannot own, etc?

I see the arguments against legalizing drugs as nearly identical to the anti-gun arguments. There would be a sudden increase in (insert shootings, drug use, crime etc.). Nonsense.

While I agree that legalizing drugs would undercut the profit of organized crime as well as dealers, I think it would create other problems as well. Let's suppose post-legalization you could buy "fun" drugs like cocaine and/or LSD for about $8-$20 per hit/dose. Hey! Throw a party, get your friends high and have some laughs -- until that 19 year old college student tries to fly from the 3rd floor balcony and hits the concrete. (Don't like the example? Do a little research about TV host Art Linkletter's daughter.)

Who's responsible? The girl who willingly took it? The college jock who spiked the punch with LSD? The person throwing the party? The drug company?

The REAL question is how do you discourage people from behaving recklessly with drugs or alcohol. We still haven't figured that one out very well, have we?

And I'm in the military, so no I don't get high. But after I get out, who cares if I get a little high? If my neighbor smokes a little does it hurt me? Not one bit. If he loses his job, that's his problem.

Few people will care if you get a little high. The problem comes with people who get a LOT high then do stupid things, like operate machinery, walk across a freeway or simply lose control. Just like people who abuse alcohol -- the worry isn't your neighbor and his 2 glasses of wine after dinner. It's the guy pounding down boilermakers at his buddy's house then driving home. Alcohol and many drugs impair judgement -- like when to take a cab home or stay put -- yet people know it and still take too much.

I've known a lot of drunks and a lot of potheads. I've known a lot of angry drunks but only happy potheads.

Name one incedent of a stoned driver killing someone. Stoned people, as a general rule, don't drive.

I guess these didn't know the rules then...

November 15th, 1973 - driver of a '67 Impala, high on cannibis laced with PCP combined with amphetamines (whites), moving over 80 mph in a 35 mph zone t-bones a '68 Ford Mustang. Impact killed a 16 year old high school girl and crippled her 18 year old fiance (as of that night) while on their way to tell her parents they wanted to marry. Mustang was airborne about 20 feet before hitting a pole, crippling the driver. Suspect survived with serious injuries and was later convicted of 2nd degree murder.

February 1978 - Los Angeles - A 19 year old driver high on cannibis runs out of gas on the freeway around midnight. He starts walking towards the nearest gas station - across the busy freeway. Vehicle #1 strikes him and slams on brakes. Other cars collide, causing a multi-car pile-up. Driver who hit the 19 year old requires several years of therapy due to the graphic results of the pedestrian collision.

Yup... just happy freakin' potheads. No danger to anyone right?

And while not driving related...

March 1983 - Two men in their 20's were freebasing cocaine in their rented home when fire broke out. Both men were so wasted they simply walked away without pause. The ensuing fire gutted the rented townhome and set fire to three others in the 2:30 am fire. The fire rose to 3 alarms at one point and a responding FD light truck spotted the two men about a mile south of their home, both suffering from second and third degree burns. Police arrested them both when they attacked a fire department paramedic.

This incident occurred within 200 yards of my townhome and there was a real concern it would spread to other units.

 

[leadcounsel]

November 15th, 1973 - driver of a '67 Impala, high on cannibis laced with PCP combined with amphetamines (whites), moving over 80 mph in a 35 mph zone t-bones a '68 Ford Mustang. Impact killed a 16 year old high school girl and crippled her 18 year old fiance (as of that night) while on their way to tell her parents they wanted to marry. Mustang was airborne about 20 feet before hitting a pole, crippling the driver. Suspect survived with serious injuries and was later convicted of 2nd degree murder.

February 1978 - Los Angeles - A 19 year old driver high on cannibis runs out of gas on the freeway around midnight. He starts walking towards the nearest gas station - across the busy freeway. Vehicle #1 strikes him and slams on brakes. Other cars collide, causing a multi-car pile-up. Driver who hit the 19 year old requires several years of therapy due to the graphic results of the pedestrian collision.

Yup... just happy freakin' potheads. No danger to anyone right?

And while not driving related...

March 1983 - Two men in their 20's were freebasing cocaine in their rented home when fire broke out. Both men were so wasted they simply walked away without pause. The ensuing fire gutted the rented townhome and set fire to three others in the 2:30 am fire. The fire rose to 3 alarms at one point and a responding FD light truck spotted the two men about a mile south of their home, both suffering from second and third degree burns. Police arrested them both when they attacked a fire department paramedic.

The POINT is that legalizing drugs could do away with many of your above examples. While I don't know the specific details, let's discuss the 'why' of each scenario and I'll give one plausable reason (of many plausable reasons).

The driver with the marijuana laced with PCP... did he KNOW the impurities of his drugs? The lack of a standard in drug purities from home chemists is a significant problem. A dose from one drug dealer may be significantly more potent than the next, or the next who cuts his with sugar or rat poison. I propose a regulated standard.

And, as for the drivers in the scenarios why were they driving? If drugs were available at the Walgreens on the corner he might not have needed to drive 10 miles across town.

The free-basers.... again, desperate people hooked on a drug that's hard to obtain. Inexpensive controlled substances will do away with a lot of this problem.

Regarding a previous poster... it's not about lining our governments pockets, it's about STOPPING THE WASTEFUL PROGRAMS AND GETTING OUT OF DEFICIT SPENDING. We can't afford this ineffective, inefficient losing war on drugs because it doesn't work, it will never work, and it is too expensive. PERIOD.

I've advocated for the legalization and given sound reasons for doing so from a variety of standpoints including FREEDOM (remember... that's the principle for which our nation was founded), along with economics, social reasons, and fairness. Along with the failed experiment called prohibition, the currently miserably failing 'war on drugs' and the ever so incroaching government intrusions into many areas of the Bill of Rights as a direct result of the "war on drugs" that's pretty a pretty hard argument to fight.

And, worldwide terrorists get their money from two primary sources: Drugs and Oil. How do you stop terrorism. Stop their drug profits by undercutting their business. Make it unprofitable for them.

I have yet to hear any solutions to the bilion dollar 'war on drugs.' I'd like to know how we are to win? At what cost to liberty and the nations financial sitaution? When are we going to come to our senses.

 

[Glock 31]

Ok, I know this is long but bear with me.

First off, everyone already has the "freedom to choose" to get high or not. For that matter, everyone has the "freedom to choose" to murder, rape, and pillage. The thing that connects both, they are both ILLEGAL. People are arguing that they should have the right to do with their bodies what they will. Does that mean we should legalize murder for the sake of universal freedom? Legalizing a problem because noone has found a workable solution is the same as asking if everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it. Just because so many people break the law because they don't believe it is just, we should just capitulate to the popular opinion and not enforce the law? Your opinions are of the position that it is unjust to block up the bridge to keep people from jumping off of it. You want us to instead sell gravity in varying forms to control the demand. The only problem with that is, with the comparison of bridges to drugs, both have an uncontrolable factor. Which is gravity = death. Why is it that illegal drugs are illegal. Because when people use them, they die. Maybe not immediately, maybe not taken in small doses. But how often do people go out for "just one drink", and wind up dying of alcohol poisoning. They are illegal because those who use them demonstrate the lack of ability to regulate their intake or control their actions while under the influence. The only variable is the impact one drug has over another. Which is why marijuana use is not generally enforced with as strict punishments as say cocaine. I've never seen an incident where a cop let someone walk for a 'personal use' amount of cocaine, but I have seen it for marijuana.

As a society we absorb the medical costs of EVERYBODYS' poor choices and bad behavior through insurance and public health programs. This INCLUDES obesity problems through poor dietary and exercise choices (BTW heart attacks are the number one killer of men in America), ramifications of smoking, "legal" drug use, cerosis of the liver from alcohol, HIV and Hep B through unprotected sex, and the list goes on and on.

So why are all these examples covered under insurance plans if your lucky enough to have insurance, yet illegal drug use treatment isn't.

If drugs were legal, they would be regulated and less dangerous dosages.

So you would be willing to hire on to a company to manufacture these 'safe' doses of cocaine? Is that a good employment opportunity?

Legal drugs would cost less meaning there is less need for violent or property crimes to steal for money for a drug fix;

People commit violent and property crimes for drug money because they have NO money period. And who is going to regulate what street dealers charge?

The FEDs could tax the drugs.

Because Juan Valdez is just itching for those same tax breaks that the tobacco companies enjoy. And I'm sure he wouldn't kill anyone since there would be too many competitors to compete with who threaten his Mexico based buisness.

We would stop housing drug 'criminals'

Except those who commit crimes while on drugs right?

We would stop spending billions worldwide fighting drugs;

You mean every other country who has a drug problem would see it our way huh?

Our world would be much safer because terrorists would lose their #1 funding source of income,

How much does a box cutter cost? Like a buck fifty?

And the FEDS could spend more on prevention, education, and rehabilitation without fear of imprisionment.

Because kids these days are so intent on what they teach in public school already. Why would we they chose not to do something the government has already said is legal, according to your logic?

Small time criminals using guns, funding with drug money, in their violent trade because so much easy money is at stake. Big time criminals use bigger guns.

Small timers can use the same uzis that big timers use. Type of gun is irrelevant. The only thing that brings up the issue are the incidents that the media covers. (i.e. Indiana family slaying by assault weapon).

Who benefits from hooking kids on drugs? Answer: Pushers that stand to make alot of easy money.
What happens to pushers when drugs are legalized? They disappear.

Um..no. Why would they disappear? Their demand hasn't changed, just the fact that they don't have to run from cops anymore. Because again, Juan isn't going to stop making cocaine cause we legalize it. His problems just become less. And what are you going to do, criminalize the buying of non-government sanctioned and manufactured drugs? Isn't that what the discussion is all about?

cont...

 

[Glock 31]

What incentive do inner city kids have in staying in school to earn $10 an hour VS. selling drugs for $10,000 per week? Take the profit away and drug use will decline because the pushers disappear and kids stay in school.

Yeah, they'll stay in school. They'll be too stoned to understand what the hell the professor is talking about, but they'll be there.

Take away lucrative profits from drug sales and there will be no money or need for the hardware that floats around, placing in jeapordy the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment.

So by legalizing it, the drug dealers won't care about other dealers on their turf anymore? Again, the dealers aren't going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Let's go back and get our diplomas."

A large part of able bodied men and women are locked away for nothing more than drug use or possession.

How exactly is a junkie going through withdrawl, considered 'able bodied'.

ARE YOU qualified to tell ME what I should or shouldn't do with MY body????? Sounds AWEFULLY CONTRARY to what our forefathers would have to say on the matter....

Maybe not, as long as what you do to your body doesn't wind up costing me my tax dollars or my life. Can you guarantee that you will always make the smart choice while slamming an 8 ball? And somehow, I don't think our founding fathers were very enthusiastic about creating a better country and a better way of life, through drug use. That argument cannot be used in every debate in regards to today's problems. I'm pretty sure that drug enforcement was the furthest thing from their minds.

KenpoProfessor,
IF, as your name might suggest, that you instruct Kenpo. And, as a side note, I was under the impression that martial arts teach you to honor and respect your body, keeping it healthy at all times. Is it any challenge at all to teach kenpo to someone high on crack.

The driver with the marijuana laced with PCP... did he KNOW the impurities of his drugs?

Ignorance is not a defense under the law.

I propose a regulated standard.

For crack dealers!? They don't follow the law as it is, what makes you think they'll follow a standard?

If drugs were available at the Walgreens on the corner he might not have needed to drive 10 miles across town.

Alcohol is available at the walgreens on the corner. How come then people still kill people while driving drunk? It's called personal RESPONSIBILITY, NOT personal FREEDOM.

We can't afford this ineffective, inefficient losing war on drugs because it doesn't work, it will never work, and it is too expensive.

True, the current solution is not working. So we just give up? We just give criminals like Juan what they want? Or do we find something that does work, like executing drug importers, runners, and dealers on the spot. That might prove effective. Of course we can't do that, because it impacts their personal freedoms.

I'll tell you why: Tobacco is taxed - "The Government" gets a kickback. Not so regarding ganja, hashish, opium, crack, heroin, cocaine, LSD, et. al.

Money may be a factor, but how many have gone on killing sprees or crashed a car into another while under the influence of tobacco. It's not illegal to driver while taking excedrin, but it is while taking valium. The law is based on what drugs have what effects on the majority of people who use them.

So if a gun owner makes a mistake, has an AD/ND and winds up shooting himself in the neck should he simply be allowed to die because he made a stupid mistake? If you were woodworking an managed to chop your finger off on a saw should you be turned away from the emergency room because you chose to use a potentially dangerous tool?

Maybe a valid point. But how much tax payer money is spent to pay for these treatments? How much is spent on illegal drug emergency care and treatment? I'll bet the numbers are vastly different.
The point here is that society pays alot more for illegal drug use through taxes than it does for personal mishaps.

If your child was at a party and drank so much that he or she began suffering from alcohol poisoning should the paramedics simply shrug and walk off?

Maybe, might sound harsh or cruel, but I'll bet it leaves a lasting impression on the other party goers. Again though, the cost to tax payers for that example isn't close to what it costs for illegal drug use and treatment. I guess a good solution to that is, if you get sick through illegal activities, you should have to pay for your treatment and healthcare, UP FRONT. No pay, no save. You don't want your child to have to face that, then make sure you know what they're doing. That's your job as a parent.

I might go along with legalizing drugs if it were accompanied by changes in jurisprudence. Someone using drugs wanders into traffic and gets retreaded should be looked at as suicide. Have a car accident while using drugs means a permanent loss of your license. A citizen defending themselves against someone on drugs has no civil liability to the drug user or relatives.

+1 to that. More personal responsibility, less codling and second chances. Then you can have all the drugs you want.

This is bad for preachers whose sole source of income is brainwashing.

Well, to use another poster's example. The founding fathers might disagree with you on that. Since they came here looking for religious freedom. With Christianity as the founding religion of this country, so are we a Christian nation. Freedom of religion just happens to be a plus for living here. But yes, among the Christian world that is the general belief. If you don't subscribe to it, don't worry about it.

So, you could argue about 'personal freedoms' till your blue in the face. The point is, is enabling more wide spread drug use going to be beneficial, or detrimental to society? There is no BoR, no constitution, and no freedom, if there is no society.

 

[Redworm]

glock31: two quick points since I've already argued this to the death in other threads

A: No one has ever died from a THC overdose. I understand that other drugs are far deadlier but marijuana does not kill. If you're concerned about deaths from drug poisoning then you damn well better be rallying to ban alcohol.

2: You have no more right to tell me what I can put into my body than I have the right to tell you what kind of firearm you can own. If you don't commit crimes with your firearms you've done nothing wrong. If I don't commit crimes because I'm under the influence of drugs, I've done nothing wrong.

 

[leadcounsel]

It's like arguing with an anti-gunner... Question, Are you a TROLL?

I'm bewildered at your arguments Glock31... it's more paranoia like the anti-gunners possess than rational thought. While it's probably pointless to debate you at this point on this topic, I'll give it a try to try to reason with you, point by point.

Freedom means doing and act without the ramifications of going to jail. You are NOT free to kill, rape etc.... nor are you free to use illegal drugs. That's the most basic concept. If you don't get that, we're really lost aren't we???

Your bridge analysis makes absolutely no sense and is a poor analogy for reasons which are too numerous and obvious to bother stating. Humans have used drugs since the dawn of time. The best way to stop recreational drug usage is to address the psychological NEED and sociological needs for WHY people use a particular drug. Concerning narcotics the overwhelming reasons are generally they were "PUSHED" onto the drugs (e.g. by pushers who make lucrative cash selling illegal drugs) and/or they are in some despair (which as a society we could address with the resources from changing our policies against the drug war e.g. saving money on the fight, taxing drugs, and using those funds for education, rehab, and help). Bottom line, people are going to use drugs whether they are illegal or legal. Many educated and prominent people do (such as Rush Limbaugh for instance).

Regarding the medical and insurance costs:
1) Millions of hard working Americans are uninsured or underinsured. When they have medical problems they cannot pay for (like heart attacks from lack of exercise, obesity, smoking, etc.), broken legs, HIV, you name it, WE ALL PAY. The hospitals absorb the costs and pass it along to everyone else. When an insured person goes to the hospital, the hospital rates are higher as a result. The insurance carrier pays MORE which increases premiums.

2) Even insured Americans who have these and other problems cost everyone in higher insurance premiums. When an insured American has a heart attack, is in a car accident, cuts his hand off with a power saw, falls down stairs because he is drunk, accidently shoots himself in the leg drawing his gun, etc. your premiums go up for insurance. Do you know ANYTHING about how ANYTHING works in the country?

So you would be willing to hire on to a company to manufacture these 'safe' doses of cocaine? Is that a good employment opportunity?

Companies in the private sector would likely purchase land in areas of the world and grow the crops for drugs. Cocaine comes from cocoa plants (the same plants that grow chocolate to my knowledge). Heroine comes from poppy seeds. Marijuana is a hemp plant, which has many uses such as strong natural rope fibers, maybe even fibers strong for ballsitic armor similar to kevlar ???. We don't know because it's illegal. The drugs would be monitored for purity by the FDA and sold in drugstores at an affordable rate. Selling at an affordable rate takes the profits out of illegal distribution hence no more profits for pushers on the streets. Question, when was the last time you saw someone pushing alchohol or tobacco on the streets? Make advertising for the drugs illegal. While it's legal, society still isn't going to condone it. Make public use and driving while under the influence a crime to keep it behind closed doors. I invision that with each sale comes a pamphlet of how a person can get help to get free of the drugs.

People commit violent and property crimes for drug money because they have NO money period. And who is going to regulate what street dealers charge?

When was the last time someone committed a robbery for money for alchohol or tobacco?

Because Juan Valdez is just itching for those same tax breaks that the tobacco companies enjoy. And I'm sure he wouldn't kill anyone since there would be too many competitors to compete with who threaten his Mexico based buisness.

And you care because...? I'm talking about BENEFITING THE NATION AND GETTING OUT OF THIS POINTLESS AND COSTLY WAR ON DRUGS and you care about tax breaks...?

Except those who commit crimes while on drugs right?

No, I think if you commit crimes on drugs there is no punishment! SARCASM!!! Of course committing crimes on drugs is illegal. DUH! There are still crimes against driving while under the influence, making or distributing illegal drugs etc. (just like there currently are for alcohol and tobacco -- you can't make or sell without a license, can't drink and drive, etc.).

You mean every other country who has a drug problem would see it our way huh?

I don't care what every other nation does. I want to STOP SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON OUR WAR AGAINST DRUGS! WE GIVE BILLIONS OF AID TO OTHER NATIONS TO FIGHT THIS WAR AND I'M SICK OF PAYING FOR IT AS A TAXPAYER AND AS A CITIZEN, PAYING FOR IT IN THE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTED RIGHTS OF 2ND, 4TH, 5TH, 6TH, 8TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS. Take a government class, history class and/or a law class, please!

How much does a box cutter cost? Like a buck fifty?

Where do I begin??? 9/11 was the result of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of research, funding, and years of planning by the well funded Al Queda network. You want to know their primary sources of income? Oil and Drug money. Oil from the Middle East and Drugs from poppy seeds (heroine) in Afghanistan and drug money from elsewhere in the world. The MAJOR importer of drugs worldwide? Well the USA of course because we have the most disposable incomes in the world. So, it isn't a simple as your $1.50 box cutter belief. These were well trained, heavily funded, determined terrorists. Why don't you open a newspaper once in awhile and see what's going on in the world?

 

[leadcounsel]

It's like arguing with an anti-gunner... Question, Are you a TROLL?

Continued Part 2

Because kids these days are so intent on what they teach in public school already. Why would we they chose not to do something the government has already said is legal, according to your logic? Why would pushers disappear? Their demand hasn't changed, just the fact that they don't have to run from cops anymore. Because again, Juan isn't going to stop making cocaine cause we legalize it. His problems just become less. And what are you going to do, criminalize the buying of non-government sanctioned and manufactured drugs? Isn't that what the discussion is all about?

Look. Kids in poor school districts have few choices in life, practically speaking. Why bother studying in school if you realistically can't get out. DRUG DEALING is then very attractive for the kid who, in his/her eyes, doesn't have a future. I'm proposing we take drug dealing as a career away from kids as and option. In my research, I believe this will KEEP KIDS IN SCHOOL and help them to stay focused. Also, if you take the pushers away from the street corners, these 13 year old kids won't be getting hooked on drugs. And, instead of spending X number of dollars on patrolling, arresting, booking, prosecuting, and jailing drug pushers (who have disappeared due to lack of a business) and users, you take those resources and spend them on education (better schools, books, drug education, other education, higher teacher salaries, etc.). Give kids HOPE for the future with better schools, keep them interested, take away the drug pushers as a career or as a distraction, and you will get kids to stay focused and in school. I've now given you three simple to understand reasons why this is a better approach. What do you have to say as a counter argument?

The other point is this... nobody pushes booze or cigaretts on street corners because there is no market! The same is true for drug pushers. If there is no profit, why risk going to jail (selling drugs is and should be illegal and isn't worth the risk if there aren't suitcases of money to be made). Now, let's just say you are a smoker. A pack of cigaretts is $5. On the way to the store, a pusher trys to sell you a pack for $30. Do you buy from the pusher or the store? Let's say you are a pusher. Are you selling many packs for $30? No, because there is no market when people can buy for $5. Now, is it worth going to jail to sell packs for $2 per pack? No. So there is no market. Please take an economics class!

Regarding drug turf and violent gang wars, I've already addressed this. Drug dealers will disappear because there is no market. No profits = no reason to fight or no funds to buy guns = no guns = no gun violence = a better society.

Small timers can use the same uzis that big timers use. Type of gun is irrelevant. The only thing that brings up the issue are the incidents that the media covers. (i.e. Indiana family slaying by assault weapon).

Where do I begin???

Let me ask you, what were the antagonistic legal policies that caused the attack on specific classes of gun ownership in US History? I know you don't have the answer so I'll tell you. 1) Prohibition. This was the start of organized crime in the United States and introduced guns like the .30-06 BAR and the Thompson SMG into prolific use by mobsters. Before prohibition any Joe could buy these fully automatic guns without a bckground check for only a few hundred bucks. As a result of lucrative profits and massive gun violence in the 1930s, Congress outlawed fully automatic guns to citizens. 2) Significant increases in illegal drug trade and mafia organized crime in the 70's, 80's and 90's accompanied by significant arms trading and gun violence (over the lucrative profits made -- people trading suitcases of illegal money and drugs are naturally heavily armed and willing to use firepower). Naturally Congress signed the AWB and Brady bills into law, a further encroachement on gun rights.

Drug laws and gun laws go hand in hand. We will continue to suffer anti-gun laws as we fight this war on drugs, mark my word. All it takes is a few bad shootings with certain guns.

How exactly is a junkie going through withdrawl, considered 'able bodied'.

Drug rehabilitation with the money saved on the war and less prisons.

Maybe not, as long as what you do to your body doesn't wind up costing me my tax dollars or my life. Can you guarantee that you will always make the smart choice while slamming an 8 ball? And somehow, I don't think our founding fathers were very enthusiastic about creating a better country and a better way of life, through drug use. That argument cannot be used in every debate in regards to today's problems. I'm pretty sure that drug enforcement was the furthest thing from their minds.

There are no guarantees in life my friend. But the bottom line is that the current policies are not working and will never work and will cost us all freedoms and money in the short and long term, which is a greater detriment to us all and you individually than just letting people get high if that's what they want to do. It will cost you less to just let it happen than to spend time and resources figthing it directly. And as far as the founding fathers, please take a history lesson. Many used drugs prolifically and the nation was founded using tobacco as the main cash crop! The nation was founded on FREEDOM of choice, not regulating every aspect of every persons life on a daily basis!

If your child was at a party and drank so much that he or she began suffering from alcohol poisoning should the paramedics simply shrug and walk off? Maybe, might sound harsh or cruel, but I'll bet it leaves a lasting impression on the other party goers. Again though, the cost to tax payers for that example isn't close to what it costs for illegal drug use and treatment. I guess a good solution to that is, if you get sick through illegal activities, you should have to pay for your treatment and healthcare, UP FRONT. No pay, no save. You don't want your child to have to face that, then make sure you know what they're doing. That's your job as a parent.

As far as letting people die for their bad decisions, you are off the deep end on that point!


I've tired of this conversation for now. I hope some of this logic reaches you. If not, then I fear I'm at my wits end.

 

[FLJim]

Written by leadcounsel:
I want to STOP SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON OUR WAR AGAINST DRUGS! WE GIVE BILLIONS OF AID TO OTHER NATIONS TO FIGHT THIS WAR AND I'M SICK OF PAYING FOR IT AS A TAXPAYER AND AS A CITIZEN, PAYING FOR IT IN THE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTED RIGHTS OF 2ND, 4TH, 5TH, 6TH, 8TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS.

Besides: It simply isn't working. It may, in fact, be making things worse, rather than better. Consider just one aspect: Dealing with non-violent substance abusers vs. dealing with violent drug dealers and their networks.

The War On Some Drugs is a waste of my tax dollars and, IMO, makes me less safe, rather than more. I'd much rather see the same tax money spent on substance abuse prevention and rehabilitation programs.

 

[Scott Conklin]

Sometime back on a forum long deceased a fellow posted a link to a study(I could swear it was DOJ but I might be wrong) that showed stats on shootings in urban areas. What it came down to was if you narrowed it down to black on black youth gang-related drug induced/related shootings and could find a way to simply eliminate just that segment of crime involving firearms our total number of people killed with firearms in the US would drop to a number essentially the same, per capita, as Great Britain, even with our "lax" gun laws.

While I had prior reasons for thinking the WoD and Asset Forfeiture, etc was a huge crock THAT bit of analysis made me really believe we are wasting our time, lives and dollars. Seems to me just that decrease in gang activity and violence would offset potential costs associated with supposedly increasing drug abuse. Wish I could find that study again and do some further reading... *hint* *hint*

Oh, regarding the claims of how drug abuse will increase if things are legalized: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=693485

 

[Alx]

As a nation built on the laws of free enterprise, (demand and supply) hasn't anyone realized that each drug seizure only makes the next batch more expensive, and more in demand, and has the effect of making the next crime committed to obtain it, more serious, more desperate, and more costly.
The government should spend its anti-drug money buying every ounce/gram of drugs it can, directly from the growers in South and Central America.
'Could out-bid the drug cartels easily, eventually drive them off the market entirely, and come out spending less than we do on law enforcement, DEA, prisons, damages, court costs, etc. Put the drug runners out of business the only way possible.
What to do with the drugs ? destroy them or dispense them under medical control, ? whatever , it still would be less expensive to buy them direct. Most of the purchase cost of drugs once they arrive here, is in the middlemen, transportation, and attrition of seizure anyway. Those farmers in Colombia are only getting pennies on the dollar for their crops from the fields. Compared to the cost of the DEA, and the cost of the crimes, it woud be negligible. Has no-one ever considered this course of action ?

 

[Al Norris]

The coca plant is a small bush. Erythroxylum coca is its botanical name.

The "Chocolate" tree is actually a small evergreen tree, growing 12 to 25 feet in height. Theobroma cacao is its botanical name..

Two entirely different things... Just needed to clear that up.

 

[Glock 31]

I am truly at a loss for words. When did throwing in the towel become more popular than doing what's right, even if no-one else thinks so?

A: No one has ever died from a THC overdose. I understand that other drugs are far deadlier but marijuana does not kill. If you're concerned about deaths from drug poisoning then you damn well better be rallying to ban alcohol.

But if you legalize marijuana you have to legalize all the others, regardless of the level of lethality. If they come out with a drug that will kill you on the first hit, you will have to make it available and let people use it if they want to. Is it unconstitutional to talk a person out of committing suicide? Afterall, if someone wants to blow their brains out, it's their choice right. I guess I answered my own question though, since Kevokian was never convicted to my knowledge.
I personally don't care about those who die from drugs, I just don't want my tax dollars to pay for their burial or treatment, if there's no-one else who is responsible for them.

2: You have no more right to tell me what I can put into my body than I have the right to tell you what kind of firearm you can own. If you don't commit crimes with your firearms you've done nothing wrong. If I don't commit crimes because I'm under the influence of drugs, I've done nothing wrong.

I never said I had the right to tell anyone what to do with their bodies. I was only concerned that your actions can affect my life if your not carefull enough. And I don't put trust in drug users to be carefull enough. They already choose to damage themselves with harmfull drugs, what makes me think they'll be any smarter when they need to drive somewhere? But I guess for the sake of your freedom to choose, I have to live with your choices.

All of you here on this site who argue for this. Great, you may be smart enough to not drive while dui, or stable enough not to commit crimes while under the influence. But for every one of you, there's a thousand other morons out there, who can't or won't make the right decision, even though it would be legal and easy for them to get high.

The only problem as far as you being under the influence and not doing anything wrong. Right now, in this country, under these laws, your being under the influence of drugs is in itself a crime. My gun ownership is not. If you can't follow the rules now, why would you follow different ones later? A lot of people view breaking the law, any law, as being rebellious. The only thing you do by surrendering to them is make them feel they have won. It doesn't mean they will appreciate what they have gained anymore. It just means they will be all the more ready to break other laws, because now they know, they can do whatever they want, if there is enough people who think like them.

I will declare to one and all, I AM NO EXPERT! I am not a scientist or an economics major, or a freaking lawyer. My views are based on what I BELIEVE. What I BELIEVE would make a better society, and a safer society. I don't believe that drugs are a moral and practical solution to getting this country back on the right track. Personally, I believe that if your life is so empty, shallow, and devoid of things that can make you happy, without having to inject, snort, or smoke dangerous chemicals, natural or not, into your body to fry your brain to make you feel good, your pathetic. But again that's just my opinion, which doesn't really hold sway in a debate such as this.

Maybe I am paranoid. Paranoid that while I'm getting off work from one job to go to my other job, some toked up driver will slam into my car. Maybe I am paranoid that someone will break in, hurt me or my family, just to find a quick buck for a quick fix. I don't believe that by legalizing drugs, drug users are just going to start acting smarter, using only in the home, not endangering people with their habit, and being more financially sound because drugs don't cost as much, or aren't as hard to come by anymore. Tobacco may be just that, but it doesn't have the same effect as cocaine or other, more harmfull drugs.
You all say you don't want to be slaves to the government and unjust laws, yet you are perfectly willing to be slaves to some powder, or a plant. Maybe drugs aren't as addictive as I thought they were.

I honestly don't know how to convey my feelings on this matter in a clear way to you people, so that you understand my position. I really don't. No, I don't have any scientific evidence that says legalizing drugs would not set things right. No I don't have all the audit papers of financial spendings for the war on drugs versus Zurich's legalization and the subsequent financial impact on their society.

What I don't understand is, are you arguing for legalization, solely for the protection of every possible freedom someone should have, regardless if it can hurt them or others. Or are you arguing because you don't believe drugs are dangerous? I mean, sure crime in Zurich may be down, and these safe houses let junkies get their fixes in a controlled environ. Does that mean the drugs isn't destroying their bodies anymore than it was before legalization. What happens when their habit wants more and more than what they can legally obtain and use? How many people who can afford, and go through rehab, actually stay off the drug? What are the numbers? Does rehab work with enough money? If not, what happens when you can't get people off the drug?

Yes, tobacco is legal. It's been around since the beginning. You can buy it anywhere. And thousands of people still die every day because of it. Kids, who don't sell it on the streets, and who are still in school, still get hooked on cigarettes through peer pressure and the need to look cool in front of their friends. The fact that tobacco is legal sure hasn't detracted from the mystery of cigarettes to kids. So how is doing the same for pot or cocaine going to solve it. The fight to keep people from smoking isn't going anywhere. And many smokers are out right defiant and combative when people say, "don't smoke". Smokers say it's their right and they'll do it anyway. I've met these people, I've heard them say it. It doesn't seem to be any easier for some people to quit smoking with gum, or patches, or treatment, or any other alternative out there, so how is rehab for cocaine going to be any easier for people?

I conceded that the war on drugs was in-effective. But there has to be another way than just giving in and saying, "ok do what you want." Because it sets a precedent. It's saying that whether the battle is right or wrong, if it's financially feasible, that's all that is important.

If all drugs are legalized, are you going to tell your kids it's ok to use them and it's their freedom to choose? If you say yes, well I don't think that makes you a responsible parent. And if you say no, well, kids today don't listen to their parents when it comes to tobacco as I already pointed out. What makes you think they'll be anymore cautious of other drugs, simply because they won't go to jail for using them?

So fine, yahoo for Zurich. To me, they solved their drug problem by giving up and inviting the problem into their lives and giving it free reign. That's my opinion, they sold out on their principals. But Zurich isn't America. What worked for them might not work for us.

You say the FDA can regulate it and setup contracts with south american drug makers. Great, you just sent a message to every family that's lost a loved one to these drug makers, to every police department who lost an officer in the WoD, their loss, and their sacrifice wasn't worth dirt.

I can't put it any better than that. I'm sure I could argue point for point, but truth be told, they probably won't be as backed up arguments as yours. I don't have all the facts, and I don't have the time or ability to go out and get them on every topic on this site. I can admit when I'm out-numbered and out-gunned. Doesn't mean I think your right, or even that I see it your way at all. I think drugs destroy lives, bodies, and for the religious out there, souls as well. But I guess someone's right to choose to screw themselves up, is more important, than the minority number of people who will be hurt by those choices. And since I don't see many members arguing on this side, I guess I should just give up and stop pissing people off huh? Afterall, it's only the popular position that is important right.