Bush officially stepping up war on drugs, 5 year plan seeks to decrease use by 25%

[Red Dawn]

<< Anybody who uses drugs within my field of vision is reported to the police. It's illegal, and I don't have any tolerance for that kind of nonsense. >>

Good thing you are so Myopic

 

[RedFox1]

<< Good thing you are so Myopic >>



On the contrary, I think I've just got a good grasp of the problem.

If drugs are a problem because they're available and casually accepted, then the solution is to make them not available and unaccaptable.

Though ... I guess you're right in the sense that the longer I look at this monitor at 1600x1200, more and more druggies slip beyond my clutches and more and more opthomologists send their kids to Harvard. 🙂

-Russ

 

[Blundar]

I guess I have to disagree with the setiments you express.

Chemicals have been used by humans as long as humans have existed. Psychedelics were worshipped by ancient cultures, thinking them to be tools to aid in communicating with the divine. As others have pointed out repeatedly, alcohol was used by such great religious figures as jesus f. in christ among others.

If you were to round up and call the police on everyone who drank too, I would give you a lot more respect for punishing all who use chemicals equally. However, if you were to do this, the cops would quickly ignore your lunatic views.

So what makes the current chemicals legal/illegal? Read up on your history. US drug policy is and always has been founded in paranoia, prejudice and fear. Opium was one of the first drugs to be made illegal because of the Chinese immigrants using it. Fear of the crazy yellow man insipred early controls of opium. Likewise, marajuana was added out of fear of the loco black male raping the white woman. You would think that this country would learn something from the period of alcohol prohibition! What did prohibition of alcohol accomplish? It created a massive black market, created organized crime organizations that plagued the country for years, created tons of violence and didn't stop people drinking.

Russ, there are laws on the books that are not enforced. At one point in this country, there were laws enforcing the enslavement of a sizeable chunk of the population. Do you hold those laws to be fair, just and honorable? Would you have blindly followed them at the time because they were laws or would you have questioned the rationality of them? The purely Positivist perspective you seem to follow is devoid of any understanding of how law works! The legal system in this country is founded on revision and contest. Without people challenging the law, the legal system would not need judges or lawyers. Law in this country is an interpretive affiair. Statutes on the books give way to precedent clarifying the law. This process implies that the absolute existence of law seperate from morality, thought or examination that you suggest is not a legal concept valid in this country.

Russ, I hate to say it but the viewpoint that you express is the kind of viewpoint that makes me disgusted to be an american citizen. Just because it is does not mean it is right.

 

[RedFox1]

<< If you were to round up and call the police on everyone who drank too, I would give you a lot more respect for punishing all who use chemicals equally. However, if you were to do this, the cops would quickly ignore your lunatic views. >>



Drinking isn't illegal.



<< US drug policy is and always has been founded in paranoia, prejudice and fear. Opium was one of the first drugs to be made illegal because of the Chinese immigrants using it. Fear of the crazy yellow man insipred early controls of opium. Likewise, marajuana was added out of fear of the loco black male raping the white woman. You would think that this country would learn something from the period of alcohol prohibition! What did prohibition of alcohol accomplish? It created a massive black market, created organized crime organizations that plagued the country for years, created tons of violence and didn't stop people drinking >>



Heh? Do a google search for "china" and "opium." Read for a while, and you'll find out why opium was so quickly made illegal. "Fear of the crazy yellow man?" How about "fear of a drugged out population living in opium dens." China had a heck of a time getting the opium out of their country. You're definitely barking up the wrong tree here. 🙂



<< At one point in this country, there were laws enforcing the enslavement of a sizeable chunk of the population. Do you hold those laws to be fair, just and honorable? Would you have blindly followed them at the time because they were laws or would you have questioned the rationality of them? >>


You can't seriously be comparing these two situations. You don't have a god-given right to sell marijuana anymore than I have a god-given right to sell chocolate laced with arsenic. The slaves were subject to laws formed by a government they weren't represented in. You're not.



<< The legal system in this country is founded on revision and contest. Without people challenging the law, the legal system would not need judges or lawyers. Law in this country is an interpretive affiair. >>


Next time you get pulled over, tell the trooper that "Law in this country is an interpretive affair, founded on revision and contest, and you're just challenging the speed limit." Maybe he'll sympathize with you. In other words, I agree that what you said is true, but I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Our democratically elected government has decided that, for the safety of the population, drugs can't be allowed. Pretty cut and dried. You can't just ignore laws you don't like.




<< Russ, I hate to say it but the viewpoint that you express is the kind of viewpoint that makes me disgusted to be an american citizen. Just because it is does not mean it is right. >>


Well I'm an American, I can hold any opinion I want. If I were you I'd be pretty happy to be an American too, because there are plenty of countries where you'd go to jail for expressing your opinion. I tend to break into uncontrollable laughter whenever some self-proclaimed free-thinker starts griping about me expressing my views.

-Russ

 

[jobberd]

Drinking isn't illegal. [/i] >>

Why not? what makes it tolerable or even pleasurable to society even when it directly kills hundreds of thousands of people whereas marijuana, which hasn't directly killed a single person yet, is considered a taboo?

<< Heh? Do a google search for "china" and "opium." Read for a while, and you'll find out why opium was so quickly made illegal. "Fear of the crazy yellow man?" How about "fear of a drugged out population living in opium dens." China had a heck of a time getting the opium out of their country. You're definitely barking up the wrong tree here. >>

It's common knowledge these days that opium was made illegal because of the immense chinese immigration and the racist majority that wanted them out. It was the same with cocaine and black people, and the same with marijuana and mexican people. An even bigger contributor to the marijuana criminilization was the cotton industry, which would lose big bucks if hemp products began to get made.

<< You can't seriously be comparing these two situations. You don't have a god-given right to sell marijuana anymore than I have a god-given right to sell chocolate laced with arsenic. The slaves were subject to laws formed by a government they weren't represented in. You're not. >>

Oh but you DO have a god-given right to sell alcohol, which most likely kills more people then arsenic yearly?

<< Next time you get pulled over, tell the trooper that "Law in this country is an interpretive affair, founded on revision and contest, and you're just challenging the speed limit." Maybe he'll sympathize with you. In other words, I agree that what you said is true, but I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Our democratically elected government has decided that, for the safety of the population, drugs can't be allowed. Pretty cut and dried. You can't just ignore laws you don't like. >>

Uh, you could put the same argument towards enfranchisement back in the early 1900's. "Our democratically elected government has decided that, for the safety of the population, women are not allowed to vote".

 

[RedFox1]

<< Drinking isn't illegal.

Why not? what makes it tolerable or even pleasurable to society even when it directly kills hundreds of thousands of people whereas marijuana, which hasn't directly killed a single person yet, is considered a taboo >>


Actually I don't think I ever said alchohol should be legal. However, it is. So what's your point -- we've got one illicit substance, might as well have two?



<< It's common knowledge these days that opium was made illegal because of the immense chinese immigration and the racist majority that wanted them out. It was the same with cocaine and black people, and the same with marijuana and mexican people. An even bigger contributor to the marijuana criminilization was the cotton industry, which would lose big bucks if hemp products began to get made. >>


None of that is common knowledge -- it's a bunch of conspiracy theories.



<< Oh but you DO have a god-given right to sell alcohol, which most likely kills more people then arsenic yearly? >>


I didn't say anything about God giving me a right to sell alcohol. I said that you don't have a "right to sell pot" in the sense that the "slaves had the right to be free."



<< Uh, you could put the same argument towards enfranchisement back in the early 1900's. "Our democratically elected government has decided that, for the safety of the population, women are not allowed to vote". >>


No, that's not the same. The women weren't represented in the government that passed those laws. You are. If you don't like how the government is working, you could vote in a new one.

-Russ

 

[walrus]

Our government lavishly funds a Colombian army that harbors, protects and conspires with an array of right-wing paramilitary death squads, known collectively as the AUC, that are responsible in recent years for approximately 75 percent of Colombia?s politically motivated killings. What the Taliban was to al-Qaida, the Colombian army is to the AUC.

Our State Department is well aware of the AUC?s depridations. The day before terrorists struck the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, Secretary of State Colin Powell designated the AUC a ?foreign terrorist organization

The heroin trade has financed Afghanistan?s murderous Northern Alliance as well as the murderous Taliban. The Taliban, as awful as it was, apparently honored a U.N. request last year to suppress opium cultivation. Today, in areas where the Northern Alliance has regained control, planting is widespread and a bumper crop is anticipated.

 

[Nefrodite]

Good! Now.......just add alcohol & cigarettes to the war and the goal will be reallized easily!



lol🙂 yes don't forget coffee, evil starbux is leeching millions of dollars off our economy!!! must crack down! and all that fast food, over 50% of americans are now overweight and slaves to these peddlers of poison!!


damn bush. damn him to hell!

 

[jobberd]

<< Actually I don't think I ever said alchohol should be legal. However, it is. So what's your point -- we've got one illicit substance, might as well have two? >>

I never said what your opinion on alcohol was, I'm asking why is it legal and marijuana not? especially when its much safer?

<< None of that is common knowledge -- it's a bunch of conspiracy theories. >>

With just a brief search through google, I came across a few websites proving the marijuana part. You can see them here and here if you want. There are plenty more, and I'm sure that with a bit more research I could find the same about cocaine and opium.

<< I didn't say anything about God giving me a right to sell alcohol. I said that you don't have a "right to sell pot" in the sense that the "slaves had the right to be free." >>

You said that people shouldn't have the right to sell marijuana any more then they have the right to sell arsenic laced chocolate. If you were talking about something else, why even mention arsenic laced chocolate?

 

[RedFox1]

Did you seriously just send me to "HippiesFromHell.org" and some guys website (he seems to be a lobbiest for the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws) to prove your point? 🙂 Those are not very convincing references. Moreover, only one of them even mentions what you were talking about, and that was just an offhand reference to "blacks and mexicans" in one paragraph. I can send you to three dozen sites that will tell you that you're being tracked by "black helicopters" if you'd like.



<< You said that people shouldn't have the right to sell marijuana any more then they have the right to sell arsenic laced chocolate. If you were talking about something else, why even mention arsenic laced chocolate? >>



What I said is that you're not being denied any inalienable rights by being forbidden to sell marijuana. It's our right as a nation to decide that something should not be sold in our country. (If you run the family arsenic-laced chocolate business, and took offense, I appologize. 🙂)

-Russ

 

[jobberd]

<< Did you seriously just send me to "HippiesFromHell.org" and some guys website (he seems to be a lobbiest for the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws) to prove your point? Those are not references. Moreover, only one of them mentions what you were talking about, and that was just an offhand reference to "blacks and mexicans" in one paragraph. I can send you to three dozen sites that will tell you that you're being tracked by "black helicopters" if you'd like. >>

Like I said, there's more. I only randomly grabbed the first two. Here, here, here and here are all fine links.

<< What I said is that you're not being denied any inalienable rights by being forbidden to sell marijuana. It's our right as a nation to decide that something should not be sold in our country. >>

First of all, he never said anything about any individual person on the street selling it. I myself believe that it should be government regulated and taxed. We ARE being denied the right to put what we wish in our bodies.

<< (If you run the family arsenic-laced chocolate business, and took offense, I appologize. 🙂) >>

You'd be surprised at the market demand of arsenic laced chocolate these days 🙂

 

[RedFox1]

<< You'd be surprised at the market demand of arsenic laced chocolate these days >>


I've seen even seen people drink Mountain Dew. Nothing surprises me anymore. 🙂

-Russ

 

[BoberFett]

It's funny that people think crime is high because of drugs. Well of course it is Sherlock, drugs are illegal. Therefore any crime involving drugs raises the crime rate. Decriminalize drugs and watch crime drop. Prohibition didn't stop drinking, it just created a black market for alcohol and drove up violent crime due to organized crime. The end of prohibition marked the end of the black market, and crime dropped back down. History, people. Know it. Love it.

 

[tbrown3123]

I was once on a grand jury (thats one of the things you get for registering to vote!) that envolved an undercover detective. I asked her what it would really take to do something about drugs. She relpied that to turn her loose in some of the country clubs to do some serious undercover work would do 1000 times more than busting a few lowly dealers and users. IMHO, justice is a function of money. The more money you have, the more justice you get!

 

[skace]

I won't argue whether drugs are good or bad because it is a mixed bag. Some people can bring up harmless drugs, others can bring up the most volatile drug on the market - they are both drugs so both have valid points, fair enough.

What I will bring up is whether or not you think this new war on drugs effort will stop drugs? Are you supporting it because you think it will bust little johnny down the street from smoking pot after school. Or are you supporting it because you think it will stop drug use at the roots. If you are supporting it for the first reason, then I think you are a sad individual who really needs to get their own life. If you are supporting it for the second reason, then I think you are sorely mistaken for believing that jailing people randomly to bring a statistic down will be of any help in the long run. This is just another war on drugs effort using the same method as a kid who tries to get rid of poison ivy by scratching it. The more the government scratches it, the worse they make the problem.

Do you people who support this war on drugs honestly believe there is nothing better to do with this money?

 

[chuck2002]

our tax dollars at work.....