The phony threat of liberal drug laws...

[Tab]

By Steve Chapman
Originally published May 22, 2006
CHICAGO // Recently, Mexican President Vicente Fox vetoed a bill passed by the Mexican Congress that would have removed criminal penalties for people caught with small amounts of marijuana or other drugs. This came after the Bush administration vigorously complained, predicting it would encourage Americans to pour southward as "drug tourists."

But that option is off the table for the moment. So Americans who want to get high without fear of going to jail will have to go some other place where cannabis can be consumed with impunity. Such as Nebraska.

Advertisement
As it happens, no fewer than 11 states on this side of the border have made the decision not to bother filling their prisons with recreational potheads. Among them are not only such states as California and Oregon, which you might expect, but states such as North Carolina and Mississippi, which you might not. About 100 million Americans live in places where pot has been decriminalized.

Maybe there are planeloads of college kids who travel to Maine or Minnesota to spend each spring break hitting a bong, but if so, it's a well-kept secret. In fact, the most noticeable thing about states that have decriminalized marijuana is that they're not - noticeable, that is.

Looking at these places, "you can't tell the difference from how many people use marijuana," says University of Maryland, College Park economist Peter Reuter. A 1999 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found "there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."

Not everyone is in complete agreement. Rosalie Pacula, co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center at the RAND Corp., says her research indicates decriminalization does tend to lead to higher use. But by her measures, the effect is small.

Laws are only a modest factor in the decision to use drugs or not - just as they are only a modest factor in the decision to smoke cigarettes or not. Most people don't even know if they live in a decriminalized state.

The evidence from abroad is not terribly scary either. The Netherlands has gone beyond decriminalizing pot: For years, the government has allowed the sale of small amounts of pot through special cafes known as "coffee shops." Yet easy accessibility hasn't made the drug any more tempting to the average person. Dutch adults and teens both are less likely to use cannabis than Americans.

So it's hard to see why the United States should mind if Mexico decides to go easy on potheads. A good deal of evidence indicates that the law wouldn't make much difference in the behavior of either Mexicans or Americans.

There are some clear advantages, though. By freeing cops from focusing on recreational marijuana users, governments can reallocate more resources to serious crime.

Of course, the Mexican measure would have decriminalized possession of other drugs too, including heroin, cocaine and amphetamines - something no American state has done. Wouldn't something so drastic produce an explosion of hard drug use?

Actually, no. Italy, Spain and Portugal have decriminalized personal use of all drugs, not just cannabis. But liberal laws don't necessarily lead to liberal behavior. Spain has one of the highest cocaine use rates in Europe - but lower than the rate in Britain, which has a much stricter approach. Italy, by contrast, is about average for the continent, but Portugal is well below average. On heroin, all three are on the high side, though not dramatically so.

That fact, however, may not reveal anything about the effects of drug policies. It's easy to assume that when you change the law, you change behavior with respect to drugs. But the process may go in the opposite direction. Spaniards may not tend to use more cocaine because they have a permissive law; they may have a permissive law because Spaniards tend to use more cocaine.

States and nations don't seem to lose anything when they stop treating drug use as a crime. But there are gains to be had: more police time to combat violent criminals, less need to build prisons and fewer young lives scarred by arrest and imprisonment for behavior that does no harm.

Some people are happy with Mexico exactly as it is. But it just might benefit from becoming more like Nebraska.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column appears Mondays and Wednesdays in The Sun. His e-mail is schapman@tribune.com.

Source

Drugs again have been put in the spotlight. In my home town Fargo, North Dakota we?ve got a lot of surrounding farms with a anhydrous ammonia tanks this is used as a fertilizer but is also a big key ingredient for making meth. Late at night people will sneak out onto farms and try to take some of the ammonia, apparently this problem is growing. Another problem is production; it's very messy and dangerous. If it?s made in doors the drywall, carpet, basically everything must be replaced. Some people living in an apartment were caught - however the land owner is stuck with paying the expensive renovation bill.

We now also have the failed attempt to legalize small amounts of various drugs in Mexico. This would have undoubtly put a lot less pressure on the police and hopefully this would allow the Mexican police to focus on a bigger problem ? corruption. The rumor is that America pressured Fox into vetoing the bill, as this would have Mexico turned into some big drug tourist attraction. Not that Mexico attracts drug tourism, all those less than 21 year old kids just goto Mexico too see all the historical sites! Same thing with Canada too!

Now, I am twenty years old I?ve had a beer or two or eight. I?ve also had the occasional pleasure of smoking a cigar and have smoked weed. It?s nothing something that I do consistently due to it being expensive, illegal and most of the time I actually have important things to do.

I don?t really see a problem with the legalization of marijuana and the reduction of the drinking age to eighteen. As for more ?harder? drugs that?s always left me a little worried. If we legalize crack are we going to end up having a bunch of enraged drug raged lunatics on the loose? Will we end up with a bunch of brain dead individuals that the government will need to all the sudden take care of?

Too my surprise, some European countries already has many of these drugs legal. Is their population poor because of all the resources they must put in to take care of drug addicts? Nope. Is the country in control of evil drugs lords? Nope. Did their populace turn into a bunch of hippies? Nope.

 

[jrenz]

Some people are happy with Mexico exactly as it is

LOL

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tab

By Steve Chapman
Originally published May 22, 2006
CHICAGO // Recently, Mexican President Vicente Fox vetoed a bill passed by the Mexican Congress that would have removed criminal penalties for people caught with small amounts of marijuana or other drugs. This came after the Bush administration vigorously complained, predicting it would encourage Americans to pour southward as "drug tourists."

But that option is off the table for the moment. So Americans who want to get high without fear of going to jail will have to go some other place where cannabis can be consumed with impunity. Such as Nebraska.

Advertisement
As it happens, no fewer than 11 states on this side of the border have made the decision not to bother filling their prisons with recreational potheads. Among them are not only such states as California and Oregon, which you might expect, but states such as North Carolina and Mississippi, which you might not. About 100 million Americans live in places where pot has been decriminalized.

Maybe there are planeloads of college kids who travel to Maine or Minnesota to spend each spring break hitting a bong, but if so, it's a well-kept secret. In fact, the most noticeable thing about states that have decriminalized marijuana is that they're not - noticeable, that is.

Looking at these places, "you can't tell the difference from how many people use marijuana," says University of Maryland, College Park economist Peter Reuter. A 1999 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found "there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."

Not everyone is in complete agreement. Rosalie Pacula, co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center at the RAND Corp., says her research indicates decriminalization does tend to lead to higher use. But by her measures, the effect is small.

Laws are only a modest factor in the decision to use drugs or not - just as they are only a modest factor in the decision to smoke cigarettes or not. Most people don't even know if they live in a decriminalized state.

The evidence from abroad is not terribly scary either. The Netherlands has gone beyond decriminalizing pot: For years, the government has allowed the sale of small amounts of pot through special cafes known as "coffee shops." Yet easy accessibility hasn't made the drug any more tempting to the average person. Dutch adults and teens both are less likely to use cannabis than Americans.

So it's hard to see why the United States should mind if Mexico decides to go easy on potheads. A good deal of evidence indicates that the law wouldn't make much difference in the behavior of either Mexicans or Americans.

There are some clear advantages, though. By freeing cops from focusing on recreational marijuana users, governments can reallocate more resources to serious crime.

Of course, the Mexican measure would have decriminalized possession of other drugs too, including heroin, cocaine and amphetamines - something no American state has done. Wouldn't something so drastic produce an explosion of hard drug use?

Actually, no. Italy, Spain and Portugal have decriminalized personal use of all drugs, not just cannabis. But liberal laws don't necessarily lead to liberal behavior. Spain has one of the highest cocaine use rates in Europe - but lower than the rate in Britain, which has a much stricter approach. Italy, by contrast, is about average for the continent, but Portugal is well below average. On heroin, all three are on the high side, though not dramatically so.

That fact, however, may not reveal anything about the effects of drug policies. It's easy to assume that when you change the law, you change behavior with respect to drugs. But the process may go in the opposite direction. Spaniards may not tend to use more cocaine because they have a permissive law; they may have a permissive law because Spaniards tend to use more cocaine.

States and nations don't seem to lose anything when they stop treating drug use as a crime. But there are gains to be had: more police time to combat violent criminals, less need to build prisons and fewer young lives scarred by arrest and imprisonment for behavior that does no harm.

Some people are happy with Mexico exactly as it is. But it just might benefit from becoming more like Nebraska.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column appears Mondays and Wednesdays in The Sun. His e-mail is schapman@tribune.com.

Source

Drugs again have been put in the spotlight. In my home town Fargo, North Dakota we?ve got a lot of surrounding farms with a anhydrous ammonia tanks this is used as a fertilizer but is also a big key ingredient for making meth. Late at night people will sneak out onto farms and try to take some of the ammonia, apparently this problem is growing. Another problem is production; it's very messy and dangerous. If it?s made in doors the drywall, carpet, basically everything must be replaced. Some people living in an apartment were caught - however the land owner is stuck with paying the expensive renovation bill.

We now also have the failed attempt to legalize small amounts of various drugs in Mexico. This would have undoubtly put a lot less pressure on the police and hopefully this would allow the Mexican police to focus on a bigger problem ? corruption. The rumor is that America pressured Fox into vetoing the bill, as this would have Mexico turned into some big drug tourist attraction. Not that Mexico attracts drug tourism, all those less than 21 year old kids just goto Mexico too see all the historical sites! Same thing with Canada too!

Now, I am twenty years old I?ve had a beer or two or eight. I?ve also had the occasional pleasure of smoking a cigar and have smoked weed. It?s nothing something that I do consistently due to it being expensive, illegal and most of the time I actually have important things to do.

I don?t really see a problem with the legalization of marijuana and the reduction of the drinking age to eighteen. As for more ?harder? drugs that?s always left me a little worried. If we legalize crack are we going to end up having a bunch of enraged drug raged lunatics on the loose? Will we end up with a bunch of brain dead individuals that the government will need to all the sudden take care of?

Too my surprise, some European countries already has many of these drugs legal. Is their population poor because of all the resources they must put in to take care of drug addicts? Nope. Is the country in control of evil drugs lords? Nope. Did their populace turn into a bunch of hippies? Nope.

Damn right...the time, energy and money we spend fighting drug usage would be better spent fighting things that truly threaten our country. If we're spending more than $5 to prosecute a surfer in LA who was toking up on the beach, it's too much money. Drug usage is a problem in some cases, but it's a health care issue, not a law enforcement one. The "War on Drugs" is one of the most wasteful and least productive activities this country has ever engaged in.

As a side note, a while ago I was looking at working for a federal agency. And while I kept my options open and looked at almost every agency out there, I refused to even talk to the DEA. Not because I'm some big drug user or anything, but because I don't think I could waste my life and tax payer dollars like that.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tab

By Steve Chapman
Originally published May 22, 2006
CHICAGO // Recently, Mexican President Vicente Fox vetoed a bill passed by the Mexican Congress that would have removed criminal penalties for people caught with small amounts of marijuana or other drugs. This came after the Bush administration vigorously complained, predicting it would encourage Americans to pour southward as "drug tourists."

But that option is off the table for the moment. So Americans who want to get high without fear of going to jail will have to go some other place where cannabis can be consumed with impunity. Such as Nebraska.

Advertisement
As it happens, no fewer than 11 states on this side of the border have made the decision not to bother filling their prisons with recreational potheads. Among them are not only such states as California and Oregon, which you might expect, but states such as North Carolina and Mississippi, which you might not. About 100 million Americans live in places where pot has been decriminalized.

Maybe there are planeloads of college kids who travel to Maine or Minnesota to spend each spring break hitting a bong, but if so, it's a well-kept secret. In fact, the most noticeable thing about states that have decriminalized marijuana is that they're not - noticeable, that is.

Looking at these places, "you can't tell the difference from how many people use marijuana," says University of Maryland, College Park economist Peter Reuter. A 1999 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found "there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."

Not everyone is in complete agreement. Rosalie Pacula, co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center at the RAND Corp., says her research indicates decriminalization does tend to lead to higher use. But by her measures, the effect is small.

Laws are only a modest factor in the decision to use drugs or not - just as they are only a modest factor in the decision to smoke cigarettes or not. Most people don't even know if they live in a decriminalized state.

The evidence from abroad is not terribly scary either. The Netherlands has gone beyond decriminalizing pot: For years, the government has allowed the sale of small amounts of pot through special cafes known as "coffee shops." Yet easy accessibility hasn't made the drug any more tempting to the average person. Dutch adults and teens both are less likely to use cannabis than Americans.

So it's hard to see why the United States should mind if Mexico decides to go easy on potheads. A good deal of evidence indicates that the law wouldn't make much difference in the behavior of either Mexicans or Americans.

There are some clear advantages, though. By freeing cops from focusing on recreational marijuana users, governments can reallocate more resources to serious crime.

Of course, the Mexican measure would have decriminalized possession of other drugs too, including heroin, cocaine and amphetamines - something no American state has done. Wouldn't something so drastic produce an explosion of hard drug use?

Actually, no. Italy, Spain and Portugal have decriminalized personal use of all drugs, not just cannabis. But liberal laws don't necessarily lead to liberal behavior. Spain has one of the highest cocaine use rates in Europe - but lower than the rate in Britain, which has a much stricter approach. Italy, by contrast, is about average for the continent, but Portugal is well below average. On heroin, all three are on the high side, though not dramatically so.

That fact, however, may not reveal anything about the effects of drug policies. It's easy to assume that when you change the law, you change behavior with respect to drugs. But the process may go in the opposite direction. Spaniards may not tend to use more cocaine because they have a permissive law; they may have a permissive law because Spaniards tend to use more cocaine.

States and nations don't seem to lose anything when they stop treating drug use as a crime. But there are gains to be had: more police time to combat violent criminals, less need to build prisons and fewer young lives scarred by arrest and imprisonment for behavior that does no harm.

Some people are happy with Mexico exactly as it is. But it just might benefit from becoming more like Nebraska.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column appears Mondays and Wednesdays in The Sun. His e-mail is schapman@tribune.com.

Source

Drugs again have been put in the spotlight. In my home town Fargo, North Dakota we?ve got a lot of surrounding farms with a anhydrous ammonia tanks this is used as a fertilizer but is also a big key ingredient for making meth. Late at night people will sneak out onto farms and try to take some of the ammonia, apparently this problem is growing. Another problem is production; it's very messy and dangerous. If it?s made in doors the drywall, carpet, basically everything must be replaced. Some people living in an apartment were caught - however the land owner is stuck with paying the expensive renovation bill.

We now also have the failed attempt to legalize small amounts of various drugs in Mexico. This would have undoubtly put a lot less pressure on the police and hopefully this would allow the Mexican police to focus on a bigger problem ? corruption. The rumor is that America pressured Fox into vetoing the bill, as this would have Mexico turned into some big drug tourist attraction. Not that Mexico attracts drug tourism, all those less than 21 year old kids just goto Mexico too see all the historical sites! Same thing with Canada too!

Now, I am twenty years old I?ve had a beer or two or eight. I?ve also had the occasional pleasure of smoking a cigar and have smoked weed. It?s nothing something that I do consistently due to it being expensive, illegal and most of the time I actually have important things to do.

I don?t really see a problem with the legalization of marijuana and the reduction of the drinking age to eighteen. As for more ?harder? drugs that?s always left me a little worried. If we legalize crack are we going to end up having a bunch of enraged drug raged lunatics on the loose? Will we end up with a bunch of brain dead individuals that the government will need to all the sudden take care of?

Too my surprise, some European countries already has many of these drugs legal. Is their population poor because of all the resources they must put in to take care of drug addicts? Nope. Is the country in control of evil drugs lords? Nope. Did their populace turn into a bunch of hippies? Nope.

Damn right...the time, energy and money we spend fighting drug usage would be better spent fighting things that truly threaten our country. If we're spending more than $5 to prosecute a surfer in LA who was toking up on the beach, it's too much money. Drug usage is a problem in some cases, but it's a health care issue, not a law enforcement one. The "War on Drugs" is one of the most wasteful and least productive activities this country has ever engaged in.

As a side note, a while ago I was looking at working for a federal agency. And while I kept my options open and looked at almost every agency out there, I refused to even talk to the DEA. Not because I'm some big drug user or anything, but because I don't think I could waste my life and tax payer dollars like that.

Doesn't the DEA also deal with other things besides illegal drugs? Other than, I've spoke to a lot of cops and just about all of them wouldn't have a problem with making marjiuana legal.

 

[fitzov]

pot is the anti-drug linchpin--if it's decriminalized the whole war goes down the toilet
this is why you see the feds cracking-down in states that have lenient pot laws or legalized medicinal use

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tab

By Steve Chapman
Originally published May 22, 2006
CHICAGO // Recently, Mexican President Vicente Fox vetoed a bill passed by the Mexican Congress that would have removed criminal penalties for people caught with small amounts of marijuana or other drugs. This came after the Bush administration vigorously complained, predicting it would encourage Americans to pour southward as "drug tourists."

But that option is off the table for the moment. So Americans who want to get high without fear of going to jail will have to go some other place where cannabis can be consumed with impunity. Such as Nebraska.

Advertisement
As it happens, no fewer than 11 states on this side of the border have made the decision not to bother filling their prisons with recreational potheads. Among them are not only such states as California and Oregon, which you might expect, but states such as North Carolina and Mississippi, which you might not. About 100 million Americans live in places where pot has been decriminalized.

Maybe there are planeloads of college kids who travel to Maine or Minnesota to spend each spring break hitting a bong, but if so, it's a well-kept secret. In fact, the most noticeable thing about states that have decriminalized marijuana is that they're not - noticeable, that is.

Looking at these places, "you can't tell the difference from how many people use marijuana," says University of Maryland, College Park economist Peter Reuter. A 1999 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found "there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."

Not everyone is in complete agreement. Rosalie Pacula, co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center at the RAND Corp., says her research indicates decriminalization does tend to lead to higher use. But by her measures, the effect is small.

Laws are only a modest factor in the decision to use drugs or not - just as they are only a modest factor in the decision to smoke cigarettes or not. Most people don't even know if they live in a decriminalized state.

The evidence from abroad is not terribly scary either. The Netherlands has gone beyond decriminalizing pot: For years, the government has allowed the sale of small amounts of pot through special cafes known as "coffee shops." Yet easy accessibility hasn't made the drug any more tempting to the average person. Dutch adults and teens both are less likely to use cannabis than Americans.

So it's hard to see why the United States should mind if Mexico decides to go easy on potheads. A good deal of evidence indicates that the law wouldn't make much difference in the behavior of either Mexicans or Americans.

There are some clear advantages, though. By freeing cops from focusing on recreational marijuana users, governments can reallocate more resources to serious crime.

Of course, the Mexican measure would have decriminalized possession of other drugs too, including heroin, cocaine and amphetamines - something no American state has done. Wouldn't something so drastic produce an explosion of hard drug use?

Actually, no. Italy, Spain and Portugal have decriminalized personal use of all drugs, not just cannabis. But liberal laws don't necessarily lead to liberal behavior. Spain has one of the highest cocaine use rates in Europe - but lower than the rate in Britain, which has a much stricter approach. Italy, by contrast, is about average for the continent, but Portugal is well below average. On heroin, all three are on the high side, though not dramatically so.

That fact, however, may not reveal anything about the effects of drug policies. It's easy to assume that when you change the law, you change behavior with respect to drugs. But the process may go in the opposite direction. Spaniards may not tend to use more cocaine because they have a permissive law; they may have a permissive law because Spaniards tend to use more cocaine.

States and nations don't seem to lose anything when they stop treating drug use as a crime. But there are gains to be had: more police time to combat violent criminals, less need to build prisons and fewer young lives scarred by arrest and imprisonment for behavior that does no harm.

Some people are happy with Mexico exactly as it is. But it just might benefit from becoming more like Nebraska.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column appears Mondays and Wednesdays in The Sun. His e-mail is schapman@tribune.com.

Source

Drugs again have been put in the spotlight. In my home town Fargo, North Dakota we?ve got a lot of surrounding farms with a anhydrous ammonia tanks this is used as a fertilizer but is also a big key ingredient for making meth. Late at night people will sneak out onto farms and try to take some of the ammonia, apparently this problem is growing. Another problem is production; it's very messy and dangerous. If it?s made in doors the drywall, carpet, basically everything must be replaced. Some people living in an apartment were caught - however the land owner is stuck with paying the expensive renovation bill.

We now also have the failed attempt to legalize small amounts of various drugs in Mexico. This would have undoubtly put a lot less pressure on the police and hopefully this would allow the Mexican police to focus on a bigger problem ? corruption. The rumor is that America pressured Fox into vetoing the bill, as this would have Mexico turned into some big drug tourist attraction. Not that Mexico attracts drug tourism, all those less than 21 year old kids just goto Mexico too see all the historical sites! Same thing with Canada too!

Now, I am twenty years old I?ve had a beer or two or eight. I?ve also had the occasional pleasure of smoking a cigar and have smoked weed. It?s nothing something that I do consistently due to it being expensive, illegal and most of the time I actually have important things to do.

I don?t really see a problem with the legalization of marijuana and the reduction of the drinking age to eighteen. As for more ?harder? drugs that?s always left me a little worried. If we legalize crack are we going to end up having a bunch of enraged drug raged lunatics on the loose? Will we end up with a bunch of brain dead individuals that the government will need to all the sudden take care of?

Too my surprise, some European countries already has many of these drugs legal. Is their population poor because of all the resources they must put in to take care of drug addicts? Nope. Is the country in control of evil drugs lords? Nope. Did their populace turn into a bunch of hippies? Nope.

Damn right...the time, energy and money we spend fighting drug usage would be better spent fighting things that truly threaten our country. If we're spending more than $5 to prosecute a surfer in LA who was toking up on the beach, it's too much money. Drug usage is a problem in some cases, but it's a health care issue, not a law enforcement one. The "War on Drugs" is one of the most wasteful and least productive activities this country has ever engaged in.

As a side note, a while ago I was looking at working for a federal agency. And while I kept my options open and looked at almost every agency out there, I refused to even talk to the DEA. Not because I'm some big drug user or anything, but because I don't think I could waste my life and tax payer dollars like that.

Doesn't the DEA also deal with other things besides illegal drugs? Other than, I've spoke to a lot of cops and just about all of them wouldn't have a problem with making marjiuana legal.

Do they? I honestly don't know, the whole war on drugs thing really turned me off to them before I really took a good look at anything else they might have been doing.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: fitzov
pot is the anti-drug linchpin--if it's decriminalized the whole war goes down the toilet
this is why you see the feds cracking-down in states that have lenient pot laws or legalized medicinal use

The Intel Agencies of the World's major Western powers are the main dope traffickers. That is common knowledge as well as being VERY exhaustively well documented by countless sources. Nothing has really changed much in that regard. In the 1800's it was Britian's shipping companies whovery openly were the World's largest opium traders.

Intelligence agencies work for the central bankers, not for the countries they pretend to serve. They are used to eliminate any genuine threat to the banker's monopoly over credit and power. And all their other scams like their "illegal" drug trade in PROHIBITED substances like pot, coke and heroin.

This reference http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=35&contentid=3528&page=1 is just one of millions that exist both online and in books, video documentaries, etc.

The statement i quoted above that says "the feds" are fighting a "war on drugs" represents the naive perception of reality of someone who has bought into a con game. I'm not criticizing 'fitzov'. But rather using the occasion to share the truth that can set him free.

Decriminalizing pot is the same exact concept as ending the PROHIBITION on alcohol in the USA in the 1930's. The so-called "Feds" are not interested in decriminalizing pot, cocaine and heroine because shipping those drugs in is their own extremely highly profitable business!

http://www.druggingamerica.com/

We have the foxes and wolves guarding the sheeple pens...

So while we boot out the corrupt politicians and the other traitors, gangsters and foreign crime syndicates who are using PROHIBITIONS on certain drugs to leverage profits exactly like Al Capone did with alcohol, we should decriminalize all those drugs. And free all the millions of prisoners currently in the pen in the USA on non-violent drug charges by granting them total amnesty.

There is nothing "liberal" about stopping PROHIBITION on pot, cocaine and heroine and similar "high" producing substances which some people choose to put into their bodies. It is common sense and a trade off that puts an end to the massive corruption we saw in 1930's Chicago for instance. Where the entire city was bought off by gangsters who openly ran all the booze joints in that town as their own private monopoly.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: fitzov
pot is the anti-drug linchpin--if it's decriminalized the whole war goes down the toilet
this is why you see the feds cracking-down in states that have lenient pot laws or legalized medicinal use

The "war"? Well if its a war its time to declare defeat. We have spent trillions and incarcerated millions. And it hasn't put a dent in the availability of drugs.
Perhaps the only thing that has had some success has been education programs aimed at younger kids.
The 'war' is already down the toilet.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: fitzov
pot is the anti-drug linchpin--if it's decriminalized the whole war goes down the toilet
this is why you see the feds cracking-down in states that have lenient pot laws or legalized medicinal use

The "war"? Well if its a war its time to declare defeat. We have spent trillions and incarcerated millions. And it hasn't put a dent in the availability of drugs.
Perhaps the only thing that has had some success has been education programs aimed at younger kids.
The 'war' is already down the toilet.

I was speaking from the anti-drug point of view. I think they look at it as a "never give up the good fight" thing. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at it, especially if you don't have to sacrifice too much of your own prosperity.

 

[sandorski]

Prohibition is probably the biggest historical lesson unlearned.

 

[Forsythe]

Much love at the thread summary!!!

 

[joshw10]

i think it would be pretty funny if they went and legalized all drugs.

it wouldnt be a year before 50% of the country was addicted to something and unemployed

then everyone would be complaining how much better it used to be when they had jobs.

most people simply arent capable of handling themselves with drugs, so unfortunately they ruin it for the small minority that are

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: joshw10
i think it would be pretty funny if they went and legalized all drugs.

it wouldnt be a year before 50% of the country was addicted to something and unemployed

then everyone would be complaining how much better it used to be when they had jobs.

most people simply arent capable of handling themselves with drugs, so unfortunately they ruin it for the small minority that are

That's exactly what Prohibitionists thought. Though there was some increase in Alcohol consumption, the world did not end and over the decades Alcoholism and other negative effects have actually decreased.

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: joshw10
i think it would be pretty funny if they went and legalized all drugs.

it wouldnt be a year before 50% of the country was addicted to something and unemployed

then everyone would be complaining how much better it used to be when they had jobs.

most people simply arent capable of handling themselves with drugs, so unfortunately they ruin it for the small minority that are

That's exactly what Prohibitionists thought. Though there was some increase in Alcohol consumption, the world did not end and over the decades Alcoholism and other negative effects have actually decreased.

I think alcohol tastes like crap and being drunk isn't all that great once you've done it a few times. coke, meth, heroin...i think those drugs are in a totally different league

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: joshw10
i think it would be pretty funny if they went and legalized all drugs.

it wouldnt be a year before 50% of the country was addicted to something and unemployed

then everyone would be complaining how much better it used to be when they had jobs.

most people simply arent capable of handling themselves with drugs, so unfortunately they ruin it for the small minority that are

That's exactly what Prohibitionists thought. Though there was some increase in Alcohol consumption, the world did not end and over the decades Alcoholism and other negative effects have actually decreased.

I think alcohol tastes like crap and being drunk isn't all that great once you've done it a few times. coke, meth, heroin...i think those drugs are in a totally different league

Others feel the same way about those drugs as you do alcohol. People are not going to rush out and try every drug just because it's legal. If people were that way 50%+ would be smoking right now.

 

[K1052]

Every effort to curb drug use in the US by legislation has been an unmitigated failure.

The fact that a good chunk of our population is unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge this and keeps supporting tougher drug laws, longer prison sentences, and drug abstinence programs as the only solutions is most troubling. These people agree to pour billions upon billions in tax revenues every year into these programs with absolutely nothing to show for it besides a rising prison population and continuous gang warfare. All this in the completely vain belief (clearly illustrated by decades of experience) they will make drug use subside.

No sane and logical argument exists for drug prohibition.

 

[fitzov]

No sane and logical argument exists for drug prohibition.

You say that because you don't know what a logical argument is. Here is an example:

1. If the prohibition of drugs is for the benefit of the common welfare, then drugs should be illegal.
2. the prohibition of drugs is for the benefit of the common welfare
3. Therefore, drugs should be illegal

It is a valid logical argument, but is it sound? If it's not sound, then you need to pick either line 1. or 2. and state why it is false.

A valid argument: an argument in the form of a valid inference rule (in this case modus ponens.
A sound argument: a valid argument that has true premises.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: fitzov

No sane and logical argument exists for drug prohibition.

You say that because you don't know what a logical argument is. Here is an example:

1. If the prohibition of drugs is for the benefit of the common welfare, then drugs should be illegal.
2. the prohibition of drugs is for the benefit of the common welfare
3. Therefore, drugs should be illegal

It is a valid logical argument, but is it sound? If it's not sound, then you need to pick either line 1. or 2. and state why it is false.

A valid argument: an argument in the form of a valid inference rule (in this case modus ponens.
A sound argument: a valid argument that has at least one false premise.

It doesn?t satisfy my first condition.
Experience (overwhelmingly) proves the solution unworkable and results in a worse problem than it aims to solve.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" -Einstein

 

[Moonbeam]

Uptight assholes vote Republican and own prison stock. Marijuana is the anti-uptight-asshole drug on a number of levels.

 

[DealMonkey]

Moonie hit the nail on the head - the private prison system (and union) are quite powerful and influential in this country. Imagine the gnashing of teeth if we removed all drug offenders from the prison system. You figure 2.2 million U.S. prisoners, with about 21% of those in for drug charges. That's 462,000 prisoners who could be released to house arrest and/or treatment programs depending on their situation.