Illegal Drugs?

[MAW1082]

What do you think, should certain drugs be illegal?

 

[HardWarrior]

All drugs should be legal. We're supposed to be free to do anything we want, even if it isn't pretty or it offends someone, somewhere.

 

[Genesys]

the low level drugs should be. and they should be sold as ciggarettes are sold, and taxed heavly.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Genesys
the low level drugs should be. and they should be sold as ciggarettes are sold, and taxed heavly.

This would be reasonable if the people who define what a "low level drug" is weren't the same people who gave us "zero tolerance." The only way to solve this mess is to get government out of the "parenting" business.

 

[bigdog1218]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
All drugs should be legal. We're supposed to be free to do anything we want, even if it isn't pretty or it offends someone, somewhere.

I should be free to beat the crap out of anyone I want to?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genesys
the low level drugs should be. and they should be sold as ciggarettes are sold, and taxed heavly.

"and taxed heavly"

You would think the RBC Politicos would be all over this.

Problem is that they are not in control of the Supply side. Give the RBC Polticos control of the regions that suppy the drugs and you'll see Legal and Taxed drugs in a heartbeat.

They tried a couple of times to gain control with the ouster of Noreiga and a couple of others but they were quickly replaced without loss of power and the Politico Rich Boys from here couldn't muscle in. That was the TRUE loss in the osing the War on Drugs, so they turned their attention on the Jihad War over in the sand region instead.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
All drugs should be legal. We're supposed to be free to do anything we want, even if it isn't pretty or it offends someone, somewhere.

I should be free to beat the crap out of anyone I want to?

We're talking about drug use. As long as you keep your hands off other people and their property the government should stay out of it. Clear enough?

 

[Tab]

Could anyone report to me on drug use in europe? Are there any reports comparing drug abuse in europe vs the united states? I've always heard drinking to get drunk is less common in europe and drug abuse is less. Does anyone know if this is true? BTW I think we should fsck it and make all drugs illegal, sell Coke in wal mart. If we would legalize it, the only reason drug lords stay in bussiness it because we consistantly try to keep them out.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
All drugs should be legal. We're supposed to be free to do anything we want, even if it isn't pretty or it offends someone, somewhere.

I should be free to beat the crap out of anyone I want to?

We're talking about drug use. As long as you keep your hands off other people and their property the government should stay out of it. Clear enough?

the problem is keeping a clear enough mind to differentiate between right and wrong.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genesys
the low level drugs should be. and they should be sold as ciggarettes are sold, and taxed heavly.

"and taxed heavly"

You would think the RBC Politicos would be all over this.

Problem is that they are not in control of the Supply side. Give the RBC Polticos control of the regions that suppy the drugs and you'll see Legal and Taxed drugs in a heartbeat.

They tried a couple of times to gain control with the ouster of Noreiga and a couple of others but they were quickly replaced without loss of power and the Politico Rich Boys from here couldn't muscle in. That was the TRUE loss in the osing the War on Drugs, so they turned their attention on the Jihad War over in the sand region instead.

get the govt into the supply side. make it a govt controlled substance.

or let ciggarette mfg corps do it

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

the problem is keeping a clear enough mind to differentiate between right and wrong.

Like people do that now

 

[Steeplerot]

Like the CIA hasen't been supply side for decades :roll:

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: bigdog1218

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
All drugs should be legal. We're supposed to be free to do anything we want, even if it isn't pretty or it offends someone, somewhere.

I should be free to beat the crap out of anyone I want to?

We're talking about drug use. As long as you keep your hands off other people and their property the government should stay out of it. Clear enough?

the problem is keeping a clear enough mind to differentiate between right and wrong.

There are plenty of peaceable drug users who don't pose a problem at all. You don't start off an nice guy, smoke a joint, and turn into Jack the Ripper. If a person has a "right or wrong" problem, it's them not what they take recreationally. Hasn't there been enough demonisation?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

There are plenty of peaceable drug users who don't pose a problem at all.

In a socialist system what everyone else does is the states business.

I say: get rid of socialism, get rid of drug controls.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

There are plenty of peaceable drug users who don't pose a problem at all.

In a socialist system what everyone else does is the states business.

I say: get rid of socialism, get rid of drug controls.

Agreed, completely. :thumbsup:

 

[BugsBunny1078]

To me a law forbidding drug use & possession is exactly equal to a law that would forbid masturbation.
Possession of anything(drugs, guns, porn, chemicals, ivory) should not be illegal. The whole idea is preposterous to me that just having an object is enough to get you in jail..

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I can see the state interest in it as they are the ones having to foot the bill when a junkie comes into the ER for an OD.

Hospital has to spend a few thousand to treat the guy, then they don't get paid, requiring further support, or higher expenses for the rest of us.

Not voting on the topic, just information.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
To me a law forbidding drug use & possession is exactly equal to a law that would forbid masturbation.
Possession of anything(drugs, guns, porn, chemicals, ivory) should not be illegal. The whole idea is preposterous to me that just having an object is enough to get you in jail..

You wouldn't do well in Italy apparently.

If you have an MP3 file or Movie on your hard drive you go straight to Jail for 3 years and they confiscate your computer.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
I can see the state interest in it as they are the ones having to foot the bill when a junkie comes into the ER for an OD.

Hospital has to spend a few thousand to treat the guy, then they don't get paid, requiring further support, or higher expenses for the rest of us.

Not voting on the topic, just information.

Two points on this:

1. There is no mandate to treat a junkie any more than there is to treat a gang-banger who comes in all shot up. Yet I don't hear anyone saying that the gang-banger poses and undo burden which justifies billions of dollars and draconian laws (not to mention some REALLY stupid foreign policy initiatives) designed to stop said individuals behavior. The same goes for people who eat too much and smoke.

2. As long as we allow the extremes of drug use, and our individual thinking\religious beliefs on the subject of drugs to pervate this debate, we'll never see sound, rational public policy (in this SUPPOSEDLY free society).

Some perspective: 450,000 people die from complications associated with smoking every year. Last time I looked, drug overdoes accounted for around 9,000 deaths a year.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
To me a law forbidding drug use & possession is exactly equal to a law that would forbid masturbation.
Possession of anything(drugs, guns, porn, chemicals, ivory) should not be illegal. The whole idea is preposterous to me that just having an object is enough to get you in jail..

So if I have a nuke in my backyard, I shouldn't be arrested?

Some items MUST be restricted because public interests are overriding - such as chemicals, which can be used for a.) terrorism or if improperly handled, can pollute the local environment. Things like ivory which come from animal sources can be of concern to the state as well - for instance, if ivory poaching was permitted, sooner or later elephants/rhinos would disappear, with potential impacts on eco-tourism and safaris. There can be overriding state interests without conflicting with personal liberty.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
I can see the state interest in it as they are the ones having to foot the bill when a junkie comes into the ER for an OD.

Hospital has to spend a few thousand to treat the guy, then they don't get paid, requiring further support, or higher expenses for the rest of us.

Not voting on the topic, just information.

How often does this occur? I don't think you can put a price on the restriction of liberty. Otherwise, where do you draw the line when money is involved? There is potential for slippery slope here, and I don't like that one bit.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
To me a law forbidding drug use & possession is exactly equal to a law that would forbid masturbation.
Possession of anything(drugs, guns, porn, chemicals, ivory) should not be illegal. The whole idea is preposterous to me that just having an object is enough to get you in jail..

So if I have a nuke in my backyard, I shouldn't be arrested?

Some items MUST be restricted because public interests are overriding - such as chemicals, which can be used for a.) terrorism or if improperly handled, can pollute the local environment. Things like ivory which come from animal sources can be of concern to the state as well - for instance, if ivory poaching was permitted, sooner or later elephants/rhinos would disappear, with potential impacts on eco-tourism and safaris. There can be overriding state interests without conflicting with personal liberty.

Ok so if nukes are restricted, which is unconstitutional btw, the most they should do is confiscate your nuke.
Once confiscated you would have no nuke so why should you also be arrested?
Anyways the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Banning nukes would be infringing on gun rights. Banning certain guns, whittling away the rights until finally there is no more.

 

[HardWarrior]

Actually, crew-served weapons (most at least) and nukes aren't protected under the 2A.

 

[onelove]

war on drugs has fallen out of the limelight, but there's lots of users in US prisons that we are all paying to guard, house, and feed everyday. good use of resources? would treatment be a better use of resources?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
I can see the state interest in it as they are the ones having to foot the bill when a junkie comes into the ER for an OD.

Hospital has to spend a few thousand to treat the guy, then they don't get paid, requiring further support, or higher expenses for the rest of us.

Not voting on the topic, just information.

Even with drugs being illegal we still have to treat people when they OD and we get the extre benifit of paying the next 5 years of room and board for the person.