A kinder, Gentler, drug war by the U.S.A.

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: maluckey
That's some double standard. In one breath you say that everyone should be allowed to do as they wish, but shouldn't be allowed to sell defective cars. Why not? You should be able to buy any car you wish, regardless of the safety, and drive it anywhere you want. Sure,some idiots will buy a POS and run over your mom when they find there are no brakes, but hey, it's your mom, not mine, and besides, before the FTSA, everyone drove whatever they wanted right? I think that gun ownership should be extended to convicted Felons too. It doesn't matter that they were violent before....They've reformed and found religion. It doesn't matter to me that they might shoot someone as they may have done in the past. It's up to them, not me. I also think that young children shouldn't have to be put into car seats. They belong to the parents, and the parents should decide if they want to risk the life of the child, right? Before you get mad, it's sarcasm OK!!!?

In any soceity, you have to pick and choose your fights, and weigh the good versus bad. I cannot imagine there being fewer addicts, or health related problems from legalizing dangerous drugs, and neither can anyone with a firm grasp of human nature. Your attitude seems rather selfish (you want to smoke dope, and fell that it would be good to legalize it), and ill thought out. I can only hope that others that want to smoke weed have more conscience than shown in your two previous posts, and decide instead to either follow the law, or petition to change it, knowing that their actions will allow other that want more dangerous drugs to follow in their footsteps. Don't believe it? Take a cue from the newcomers in the lawsuits after allowing more gay rights and unions. If you allow one Schedule I drug, you will eventually have others wanting different drugs. Think about more than your wants and needs for a moment if you will and consider the total implications of that which you ask. It affects more than just the casual weed smoker, and his friends.

You are making a complete and total mistake of logic by asserting that allowing people the freedom to use drugs is the same as allowing them to sell defective cars. It's not the same thing *AT ALL*. If I were to choose to use drugs (I do not choose to use ANY drug of ANY kind and never have; I had parents who were drug addicts and I have never once wanted ANY part of such self-destructive behavior) then that is not your business nor anyone else's. If you're going to be in favor of making anything that is potentially harmful illegal, you'll have to make virtually *everything* illegal. I could *potentially* pick up my 32" TV and hurl it at your head, does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have TV's? No, it doesn't. Don't be so ridiculous. Every single day people die from drinking too much, or from auto accidents while driving under the influence, though in auto accidents they more often kill the sober people into whom they crash. Why aren't you clamoring for a new prohibition?

And just to be clear, with your "allowing Schedule I drugs" commentary, I wasn't suggesting the legalization of just ONE drug, but ALL of them, but only for adults.

As I said previously, I'm not interested in drugs *at all*. I have no desire to try them or use them. I've watched lives being destroyed by them and I am utterly convinced that it is morally wrong to use them. Nevertheless, I don't have a right to tell you that you can't use them, and I at the least understand my position in that.

Bow, you're right, it is very sad that many of these scumbags DO have kids before they kick the bucket themselves; I'm convinced the kids are better off without the scumbag parents.

Jason

 

[maluckey]

Sure let's get rid of anyone with questionable genes. If I recall, Stephen Hawkins has a genetic defect, as did Abraham Lincoln. Psychiatric and/or psychological problems, and/or disposition are a great part as to why addicts become addicts, so lets get rid of some of the finest artists in history, along with most rock, and country music stars. Lets get rid of many of the movie stars and their ilk. Lets get rid of quite a few of our politicians, and the world will just be full of hugs and love. Wow! It sure seems like there are a lot of people that should be classified as disposable! I think not. Nice rosy glasses if you truly see it this way.

DragonMasterAlex, I still say that if you can prevent hardship, you have a duty to at least try. Don't give me the excuse that nobody should control what you put into your body. If you came down with Mad Cow (the human type), or got food poisoning from MBurger Inc., you would scream bloody murder and sue everyone for not protecting you.

If you wanted to ruin your life, and if I knew you as a friend, I would at least try to help you out, unlike your attitude of live, and let die.

I, despite seeing, and dealing with the dregs of humanity everyday of my life for the last ten years, at least care what happens to them, and want them to have the same kind of life that anyone else could have.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Maluckey, you're crazy. I never said anything about wiping out people with "questionable genes." All I said was that if these people are GOING to self destruct, LET THEM.

No, "we", and I assume you mean mankind collectively, which I reject in its entirety since man is not a collective creature but an individual creature, do NOT have a "duty" to protect people from their own stupidity. If I had a friend or relative with a drug problem you bet your ass I would try to help them because I care about them. However, I would never imagine for a moment trying to force YOU to help my friend or family member.

I might also point out that your example of getting mad cow or some other illness from MBurger (Presumably McDonalds?) is a totally different issue from getting myself messed up with drugs. If I go to a restaurant to eat I have a reasonable expectation that the restaurant is providing safe, clean food. When you stick a needle in your arm to shoot up, or put a straw up your nose to snort some nasty powder, you have no such reasonable expectation. You KNOW that you are putting POISON into your body, the amount of anti-drug literature, commercials and sentiment in America is so great that you couldn't possibly *not* know unless you'd spent the last 20 years locked in a closet.

People should be free to do drugs. Doesn't mean people SHOULD do drugs.

Jason

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Bow, you're right, it is very sad that many of these scumbags DO have kids before they kick the bucket themselves; I'm convinced the kids are better off without the scumbag parents.

Jason

I'm sure you're right in many cases. Unfortunately, children who grow up in such an environment are often emotionally scarred. Even when there is no real physiological damage, such children are often unstable and have difficulty forming relationships with other people. Without extensive counseling, they have trouble participating constructively in society. They either end up falling into the same hole as their parent(s), or they take the other extreme, becoming hardened and cynical, often even hateful to people they perceive as weak like their parent(s). The baggage remains long after the parent is gone.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Bow, you're right, it is very sad that many of these scumbags DO have kids before they kick the bucket themselves; I'm convinced the kids are better off without the scumbag parents.

Jason

I'm sure you're right in many cases. Unfortunately, children who grow up in such an environment are often emotionally scarred. Even when there is no real physiological damage, such children are often unstable and have difficulty forming relationships with other people. Without extensive counseling, they have trouble participating constructively in society. They either end up falling into the same hole as their parent(s), or they take the other extreme, becoming hardened and cynical, often even hateful to people they perceive as weak like their parent(s). The baggage remains long after the parent is gone.

No, you're right, this is very, very true. Both sides occur, and there is definitely therapeutic work to be done to help these kids at the youngest age possible. But I think they have a much better chance of recovering in this fashion than if they are left to the devices of their worthless parents, who instead of just being drug addicts are also criminals when we make drugs illegal.

Again, I say: I'm not FOR the use of drugs in any way, shape or form. The cost to yourself and your loved ones is just way too high. But I want people to make the *choice* not to do them. Instead of spending the cash on prosecuting druggies, spend it to educate young people in making good choices and knowing that drugs are harmful. Treat the problem, not the symptom.

Jason

 

[Drift3r]

Maluckey please provide some stats to back up your claims. From what I have heard the large increases of poor Eastern Europeans, North Africans and Middle-Eastern immigrants into those Western European nations were they have legalized drugs have more to do with their increase crime rates then the legalize drugs. After all Europe has never been the large melting pot that we have and we are not as good at it as we like to believe. I would love to see an article from a legitimt non-bais source detialing drug use in European nations where drugs were legalize.

P.S. I thought most people considered Europe to be a "Hedonist land", especially in the hard-core Christian right-wing of the GOP. Hell we still have hang up's about showing a womens breast let alone talking about sex or viewing sexually related ad's, movies, etc....in this nation.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I never bought that "Melting Pot" crap anyway. Who'd want to be part of that? Where everything all gets lost in the gray of the melted muck? Not pleasant! Instead, (and someone said this but I can't remember who,) we're more like a Mosaic, where many cultures and ideas mix and discuss and change, for the most part peacefully, but without losing all trace of identity. That makes for a far richer life experience, IMHO

Jason

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Bow, you're right, it is very sad that many of these scumbags DO have kids before they kick the bucket themselves; I'm convinced the kids are better off without the scumbag parents.

Jason

I'm sure you're right in many cases. Unfortunately, children who grow up in such an environment are often emotionally scarred. Even when there is no real physiological damage, such children are often unstable and have difficulty forming relationships with other people. Without extensive counseling, they have trouble participating constructively in society. They either end up falling into the same hole as their parent(s), or they take the other extreme, becoming hardened and cynical, often even hateful to people they perceive as weak like their parent(s). The baggage remains long after the parent is gone.

No, you're right, this is very, very true. Both sides occur, and there is definitely therapeutic work to be done to help these kids at the youngest age possible. But I think they have a much better chance of recovering in this fashion than if they are left to the devices of their worthless parents, who instead of just being drug addicts are also criminals when we make drugs illegal.

Again, I say: I'm not FOR the use of drugs in any way, shape or form. The cost to yourself and your loved ones is just way too high. But I want people to make the *choice* not to do them. Instead of spending the cash on prosecuting druggies, spend it to educate young people in making good choices and knowing that drugs are harmful. Treat the problem, not the symptom.

Jason

Wasn't your dad a drug addict?

 

[maluckey]

Again, I say: I'm not FOR the use of drugs in any way, shape or form. The cost to yourself and your loved ones is just way too high. But..........

.............

You seem to be torn. In one sentence you state the high cost, and in another admit that you would want to help addicted friends, but not my friends, or I, yours.

If you are not for the use of drugs " in any shape or form", to use your own words, then you are against legalization, in fact, principle, and the whole shebang. Your dislike of the control of your basic freedom of choices is mine as well. I don't like have the govt. in my life any more than you. If legalization is considered, then in-fact, the govt. will still regulate the drugs. The only thing that changes will be easy acces to whosoever wants to use them, and the mess that will follow. I am a realist however, in that I see how many alcoholics, nicotine adddicts, there are, and these are known dangers. You see these dangers and it's OK, so long as you don't know them????? You wash your hands of any responsibility, or wrongdoing after handing them the drugs???? I think I'm done here if that's your opinion.

Mark- out

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Originally posted by: maluckey


If you are not for the use of drugs " in any shape or form", to use your own words, then you are against legalization, in fact, principle, and the whole shebang.

The logic of this statement dpesn't follow - supporting the use of drugs and supporting the legality of drugs are completely different concepts. Here is a brief summary of why legalization is a 'good thing'.

Current drug users take drugs despite the fact that they are illegal. Those who choose not to use drugs do so because they know that drugs are bad for you, not because they are illegal. This point is arguable, but I suspect that there are not a large number of people who would start using hard drugs if they became legal overnight. I know I certainly wouldn't start smoking crack if I could buy it at a local convenience store for $5 a pack, because I know that smoking crack would be bad for me.

Given this, we can conclude that legalizing drug use would not lead to a dramatic increase in usage.

Instead, it would make it much easier to treat addicts, as they could be gradually taken off the drugs, rather than go cold-turkey or be given synthetics like Methodone. Legalization would also eliminate crimes perpetrated by drug users to get money to buy expensive illegal drugs, and would also eliminate all crimes resulting from organized crime turf wars fought over the sale of these drugs.

The only risk to legalization is increased usage, but I don't believe that would happen given that people make the decision to use hard drugs based on reasons other than price or legality.

So to conclude, that is why I am simultaneously pro-legalization and anti-drug.

 

[maluckey]

Your beleif in humanity is genuinely great. You did not address child neglect, hospital costs, dangerous behavior, jobs lost, highway fatalities, criminal acts, increased lethality of drugs etc. The following link does. Nobody ever bothers to read the other side of things on this forum. I've heard many reasons for, but no links, or anything against. Here's links and studies against: No need to reply, just read and think about it. I did.................

NDCP before the House, with links and studies.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Your beleif in humanity is genuinely great. You did not address child neglect, hospital costs, dangerous behavior, jobs lost, highway fatalities, criminal acts, increased lethality of drugs etc. The following link does. Nobody ever bothers to read the other side of things on this forum. I've heard many reasons for, but no links, or anything against. Here's links and studies against: No need to reply, just read and think about it. I did.................

NDCP before the House, with links and studies.

">http://www.drugwatch.org/McCaffrey Testimony on Drug Legalization.htm[/S</a>

Your link is borked, but much of those costs you mention are the result of the illegality of the drugs.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Again, I say: I'm not FOR the use of drugs in any way, shape or form. The cost to yourself and your loved ones is just way too high. But..........

.............

You seem to be torn. In one sentence you state the high cost, and in another admit that you would want to help addicted friends, but not my friends, or I, yours.

If you are not for the use of drugs " in any shape or form", to use your own words, then you are against legalization, in fact, principle, and the whole shebang. Your dislike of the control of your basic freedom of choices is mine as well. I don't like have the govt. in my life any more than you. If legalization is considered, then in-fact, the govt. will still regulate the drugs. The only thing that changes will be easy acces to whosoever wants to use them, and the mess that will follow. I am a realist however, in that I see how many alcoholics, nicotine adddicts, there are, and these are known dangers. You see these dangers and it's OK, so long as you don't know them????? You wash your hands of any responsibility, or wrongdoing after handing them the drugs???? I think I'm done here if that's your opinion.

Mark- out

As someone above just said, supporting the USE of drugs and supporting the LEGALIZATION of drugs are two *entirely* disparate concepts. I think I've said enough on the issue, so you just go ahead and sit there and tell us all how we're insensitive because we think people should be free.

Jason

 

[Bitdog]

Alaska is working up to a vote to decriminalize marijuana.
Our current laws making posession of small amounts of marijuana illegal is UNCONSTUTIONAL
since we have strong right to privacy laws in our constution.

The federal government influenced our vote a few years ago and the law against posession was created illegally.
A 54% to 46% vote put us back to the stone age.
Kinda reminds me of when our good government denyed me an education because my hair was a half inch over my ears.
My family still had to pay the government a school tax every year though.
A judge stood up the school board and said that the world would fall apart if we allowed disobedience.
I later found out that he was a child beater, spare the rod spoil the child kind of guy.
Then the school board members all supported the decision to expell me from school.
The self proclaimed good people are always the worst.
Which kinda reminds me of the time I was hitch hiking and a farmer in his truck started driving towards me,
I started backing off the road. I was standing next to the water in the ditch 20 feet off the road,
when he drove by at 35, 4 feet from me, completely off the road, down in the ditch, sliding sideways throwing mud,
as he tried to murder me because my hair was about the same length of most male school teachers these days.
He was probably a good god fearing person, doing gods work.

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Your beleif in humanity is genuinely great. You did not address child neglect, hospital costs, dangerous behavior, jobs lost, highway fatalities, criminal acts, increased lethality of drugs etc. The following link does. Nobody ever bothers to read the other side of things on this forum. I've heard many reasons for, but no links, or anything against. Here's links and studies against: No need to reply, just read and think about it. I did.................

NDCP before the House, with links and studies.

That "testimony" is nothing more than a regurgitation of the same old cliches, fallacial arguments, and manipulative tactics:
- the Straw Man argument - "What do drug ?legalizers? truly seek?"
- speculation disguised as fact - "If drugs were legalized, we can also expect that the attendant drop in drug prices to cause drug use rates to grow as drugs become increasingly affordable to buy"
- non-sequiters galore - Studies show that Marijuana use in Holland has increased since de-criminalization of Marijuana, therefore de-criminalization of hard drugs would have the same result (this is fallacious as the users of soft drugs are very different from hard drug users, and we cannot infer that de-criminalization would have the same effect on both groups).

Belief in humanity doesn't come into it, I just prefer to fix the causes of problems, not the effects. Hard drug use is a form of escapism which people use to blot out other problems in their lives. People who have well-developed social relationships and who are generally satisfied with life tend not to become hard drug users.

If you truly have concern for those susceptible to addiction, you should provide assisstance when they try to improve their lives, rather than toss them in prison when they go astray.

 

[maluckey]

Attacking the problem is a good approach.

Unfortunately, there have been those who couldn't care less about anyone or anything. Hard drug use is indeed the issue here as you stated, and living in Arkansas (often thought of as Meth Capital of the World), I can tell you that hard drugs cause far more crime than do others like alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes. I can also tell you that the price of Meth in this state is about the lowest in the U.S., and the quality is about the highest, so price IS affecting the usage and danger of the drug. Addicts will do whatever they can to pay for their addiction, and that fact remains. Allowing unfettered access for persons such as those is never a good idea. We simply cannot turn our backs on them, or apply band-aids to their lives just because a few smokerrs want ALL drugs to be legal.

Most law enforcement could care less about Marijuana (me included), but the facts are that the minute that jeanie is out of the bottle, others will push the envelope to open it for the rest of the far more dangerous substances. A slippery slope indeed is how I see it, and the easiest way to avoid slipping is to not go there at all.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
As long as there is demand, there will be people willing to grow coca. As Dari says, it's all about supply and demand. At best, a program like this will increase prices, but that's never been much of a deterrent with cocaine.

Hell has frozen over, again.