Who supports the War on Drugs?

Red is always with the sweeping generalizations ending in gibberish.

There is no "conspiracy" to keep the USA "sedated"..... :roll:

Grow the heck up already.
 
undertheice said:
why should it be illegal to partake of any substance? the enlightened individual makes his choices and is willing to endure the consequences of his actions. if those choices do not affect the world around him, there is no reason for the law to step in screw up a perfectly good buzz. we always hear about the lives ruined by drug abuse, the families torn apart, etc, etc., etc..... what of all those occasional users who just want to enjoy every facet of life? we force them to become criminals, the first step on a road that can only lead nowhere. we force them to deal with violence because that is an integral part of any black market. we pass laws designed around the worst case scenario and, by doing so, eliminate the freedom to choose. we can say that there are people who just can't handle drugs, but those will become alcoholics and chain smokers anyway. there are millions of people out there with peanut allergies, but we don't go around outlawing peanuts. we can say it is all to protect our children from things they aren't yet equipped to handle, but there are better ways to go about that than an absolute prohibition. we know that a seven year old behind the wheel of daddy's chevy is a recipe for disaster, but driving isn't against the law. these prohibitions aren't a matter of public safety, they are all about the control of the population by those in power. these laws always seem to start with a public outcry from some batch of do-gooding busy bodies, they become a popular movement drummed up by the ignorant mob and end up as legislation for the sake of saving some political animal's career. individual choice always takes a back seat to political ambition and the ignorance of the masses.
Click to expand...
and on this we agree .... Glad to see we can agree on something :lol:
 
Rob Roy said:
Yes I get what you are saying. I'm just not buying it. If a person owns themselves, THEY determine what does and does not go into their body. While I may agree with you that some substances are harmful...what is more harmful is another determining THEY own your body and that you don't.

Prohibition of self ownership is the real crime. When your actions harm you, you bear the consequences of your choice. When your actions directly harm somebody else or their property etc., THEN and ONLY THEN, does another have the natural right to intercede.

Prohibiting self ownership under the guise of "for your own good" leads to tyranny...always.
Click to expand...
So then, Crackakak should be illegal under your thesis, as it usually leads to the harming of others, kids, people that get their shit stolen for money to buy crack etc. Same with Heroin, Junkies of all drugs eventually slide into the criminal spectre to acquire money to buy their fix, unless they are in fact wealthy to start. Even Pot heads, (Some) will revert to criminal activity to acquire pot, IE stealing others home grown, stealing anything to pawn to buy pot etc. The facts are generally that most on this site can afford to buy pot and arent susceptible to the above standards of behavior. But, even die hard pot smokers are not above criminal activity to acquire their "fix". "They" say pot is not addictive, I would definently argue with that. Take a heavy smoking pothead off of their pot and see what happens. They become extremely agitated, even violent. There are certainly withdrawals associated with quitting pot, for heavy users.
 
medicineman said:
So then, Crackakak should be illegal under your thesis, as it usually leads to the harming of others, kids, people that get their shit stolen for money to buy crack etc. Same with Heroin, Junkies of all drugs eventually slide into the criminal spectre to acquire money to buy their fix, unless they are in fact wealthy to start. Even Pot heads, (Some) will revert to criminal activity to acquire pot, IE stealing others home grown, stealing anything to pawn to buy pot etc. The facts are generally that most on this site can afford to buy pot and arent susceptible to the above standards of behavior. But, even die hard pot smokers are not above criminal activity to acquire their "fix". "They" say pot is not addictive, I would definently argue with that. Take a heavy smoking pothead off of their pot and see what happens. They become extremely agitated, even violent. There are certainly withdrawals associated with quitting pot, for heavy users.
Click to expand...

I think that's the problem, what one person might do to get their fix, another wouldn't ever think of doing.

I'm 100% with Rob on that one Med. Individual freedom is the most important thing, above what's dangerous or harmful, the only exception being, like Rob said, if you're harming someone else or their property.

I think I'd also argue your assessment for pot smokers. Speaking for myself, the worst thing that happens to me when I quit smoking is I get a bit irritable for a few days, but after a week passes it's like I was never smoking at all.

And I would consider myself a pretty heavy smoker.
 
medicineman said:
So then, Crackakak should be illegal under your thesis, as it usually leads to the harming of others, kids, people that get their shit stolen for money to buy crack etc. Same with Heroin, Junkies of all drugs eventually slide into the criminal spectre to acquire money to buy their fix, unless they are in fact wealthy to start. Even Pot heads, (Some) will revert to criminal activity to acquire pot, IE stealing others home grown, stealing anything to pawn to buy pot etc. The facts are generally that most on this site can afford to buy pot and arent susceptible to the above standards of behavior. But, even die hard pot smokers are not above criminal activity to acquire their "fix". "They" say pot is not addictive, I would definently argue with that. Take a heavy smoking pothead off of their pot and see what happens. They become extremely agitated, even violent. There are certainly withdrawals associated with quitting pot, for heavy users.
Click to expand...

Well ,let me be clear...Under my "thesis" inert substances wouldn't be illegal, that doesn't mean I endorse their use. Certain actions will have consequences though. If a person uses crack and fucks up their life, but leaves me alone, they bear the consequences. None of my business to make them do anything. If a person uses crack and tries to steal the tires of my truck, they again should bear the consequences, their ACTION made it my business.

I question why people use crack. My personal choice is it is harmful. I choose not to use it. If you use it and don't harm anyone, you bear the consequences, good or bad. I don't own anothers decision over how to run THEIR life. If their choices spill over to harming me or my property then I have a right to defend myself. No one person or group of people owns my life or YOURS, laws notwithstanding!

Taking away anothers choice even when "we know what's best for them" is a slippery slope that eventually comes around to bite us in the ass.

Leave me alone, I leave you alone. Use crack, smoke weed, bark at the fucking moon if you want to, just respect another person's boundaries while you're doing it. My preferences are important to me, I respect that others are important to them. Without mutual respect none of us are immune from having our ox gored eventually.


I disagree that "junkies" of all drugs eventually slide into crime. The facts are neither you nor I know how most people on this forum acquire their pot. If it were not illegal, it would certainly be cheaper though.
 
Reading this thread you could get the impression that the only possible alternative to the current system of using the full force of justice system to come down on users and suppliers of all kinds drugs is to have heroin and crack behind the counter at 7-11...

Philosophically, I agree with the idea that there shouldn't be any limits on the use or sale of any substance people want to buy. But in practice, cigarettes are a pretty good case study of what happens when you put marketing and the corporate culture behind a highly addictive product. So while I don't think we should be prosecuting and jailing people for using recreational drugs, I do feel that putting restrictions on commercial fabrication and distribution of certain substances is necessary.
If somebody wants to grow poppies and make his own opium or heroin, that's fine with me but I don't want phillip morris heroin to be for sale at walmart either.
 
Cig's were smoked a long time before anyone knew they were addictive. It makes a difference. Alcohol is addictive too....
 
medicineman said:
So then, Crackakak should be illegal under your thesis, as it usually leads to the harming of others, kids, people that get their shit stolen for money to buy crack etc. Same with Heroin, Junkies of all drugs eventually slide into the criminal spectre to acquire money to buy their fix, unless they are in fact wealthy to start. Even Pot heads, (Some) will revert to criminal activity to acquire pot, IE stealing others home grown, stealing anything to pawn to buy pot etc. The facts are generally that most on this site can afford to buy pot and arent susceptible to the above standards of behavior. But, even die hard pot smokers are not above criminal activity to acquire their "fix". "They" say pot is not addictive, I would definently argue with that. Take a heavy smoking pothead off of their pot and see what happens. They become extremely agitated, even violent. There are certainly withdrawals associated with quitting pot, for heavy users.
Click to expand...

You make several assumption, all of which are wrong. You say crack use USUALLY leads to harming others. This is just not true. The majority of crack users are casual users, not addicts. If you really want to know the truth about crack, rather than the media hysteria, here is a link to a discussion between William F Buckley and Professor Gazzaniga, who is a Professor of Psychiatry
at Dartmouth Medical School. Sure some crack users committed crimes to feed there habit, but the fact is the majority of crack users don't.

You make the same mistake with heroin. While heroin is regarded as the most addictive drug, only about 23% of users become dependent on heroin. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/h...n-ailment-not-a-moral-lapse.html?pagewanted=1

Furthermore, for both of these drugs if they were legal they would be much cheaper. This means those who are addicts could more easily afford their habit, and those that resorted to crime would have to commit less crimes to pay for their drugs.

As for criminal pot heads, you are over-exaggerating. Yes some pot heads steal home grown, but in my experience it is more about the money than the weed. I have yet to met a pot head who went and broke in to someones house just to get money to buy weed. I know plenty of criminals, yet I know none who have done this.

As far as withdrawal symptoms go, they are very mild. If you put pretty much any chemical into your body on a daily basis and suddenly stop using it your body will have to adjust.
 
abe23 said:
Reading this thread you could get the impression that the only possible alternative to the current system of using the full force of justice system to come down on users and suppliers of all kinds drugs is to have heroin and crack behind the counter at 7-11...

Philosophically, I agree with the idea that there shouldn't be any limits on the use or sale of any substance people want to buy. But in practice, cigarettes are a pretty good case study of what happens when you put marketing and the corporate culture behind a highly addictive product. So while I don't think we should be prosecuting and jailing people for using recreational drugs, I do feel that putting restrictions on commercial fabrication and distribution of certain substances is necessary.
If somebody wants to grow poppies and make his own opium or heroin, that's fine with me but I don't want phillip morris heroin to be for sale at walmart either.
Click to expand...

See this is a reasonable discussion that I have no problem having. Personally, I don't think if drugs were legal anyone would be allowed to market them seeing as we already heavily restrict tobacco and alcohol advertising. I doubt they would be sold at places like walmart either. Most likely they would sold at specialty stores, similar to liquor stores
 
Regarding where heroin should be sold...It doesn't matter what "we" want. If all of us were free to make the decision to purchase it or not any private business should be free to sell it or not. If enough people disapprove the market will tell them and they will either pull the products or suffer the loss in sales.

Bottom line if we don't like a private business we are free not to shop there. Imposing our restrictions on them should only be by our excerise of OUR choice to go elsewhere.
 
abe23 said:
Reading this thread you could get the impression that the only possible alternative to the current system of using the full force of justice system to come down on users and suppliers of all kinds drugs is to have heroin and crack behind the counter at 7-11...

Philosophically, I agree with the idea that there shouldn't be any limits on the use or sale of any substance people want to buy. But in practice, cigarettes are a pretty good case study of what happens when you put marketing and the corporate culture behind a highly addictive product. So while I don't think we should be prosecuting and jailing people for using recreational drugs, I do feel that putting restrictions on commercial fabrication and distribution of certain substances is necessary.
If somebody wants to grow poppies and make his own opium or heroin, that's fine with me but I don't want phillip morris heroin to be for sale at walmart either.
Click to expand...

Abe I agree with you that I wouldn't like to see heroin in Walmart. Where I think we disagree is who should make that choice. I say it's Walmart's choice, not yours, mine or governments. If we allow government to decide what private business can sell, how is that different from letting them decide what we can put in our bodies?

Allowing government to restrict rather than protect rights is a dangerous precedent.
That's how prohibition of cannabis laws come about. ;-)
 
That's a little naive though, don't you think? If we leave the decision to the market whether or not to sell a highly addictive and potentially lethal product that is guaranteed to make them a shitload of repeat business, then we end up with more phillip morris.

It's a tough question, but this is one of those instances where some form of prohibition might be a necessary evil.

It's our right to produce and consume any substance we like, but I don't think it's the right of companies to sell addictive, harmful products...
 
abe23 said:
That's a little naive though, don't you think? If we leave the decision to the market whether or not to sell a highly addictive and potentially lethal product that is guaranteed to make them a shitload of repeat business, then we end up with more phillip morris.

It's a tough question, but this is one of those instances where some form of prohibition might be a necessary evil.

It's our right to produce and consume any substance we like, but I don't think it's the right of companies to sell addictive, harmful products...
Click to expand...

Meaning no disrespect Abe, but I think it is naive to think once we allow "them" to restrict people's choices via trying to legislate morality, that we won't see that continue at the sufferance of our remaining rights and freedom. It's what always happens.

Besides what if the company selling heroin was held by a single person? Would you restrict a person from earning a living to only those things you find acceptable? I don't want to be a hooker, nor want my sister or daughter to be one, but do I have the right to tell another person they must accept my morality or suffer consequences?
Does anyone have that right?
 
I see where you're coming from, but this isn't about legislating morality. When you sell someone heroin or crack and they get addicted, you are infringing on their right to make decisions freely. I don't think you can really talk about free will when it comes to junkies. And allowing people to market and sell a product that does that is an infringement on their rights.

Australia just passed a law that bans logos and colors from cigarette packaging. Not sure I'm really comfortable with that, but it does speak to the issue...

Again, growing some poppies in your backyard for your own amusement is one thing. Pushing smack on an corporate scale is another...
 
How about pushing tobacco on a corporate scale? Tobacco, some say, is more addictive than heroin. Cigarettes have killed millions of people, yet they are at Walmart. I see them every time I go there. The fact that they are available doesn't mean I will be buying them though. Bleach is available in the laundry aisle, yet I have resisted drinking that. I see bleach and tobacco as both being bad for me, one simply has a quicker affect if administered orally. Both will lead to my death if ingested. Both are off my list as things to imbibe in.
If heroin makes it to the shelf at Walmart, I'll be ignoring that too.

Are you saying if Heroin were more readily available it's use would skyrocket? That's the same argument marijuana prohibitionists use to keep kids "safe" from Marijuana. However in the Netherlands, where Pot is very accessible fewer kids admit to using it than in the United States where there is a "drug war" against it. Why has cigarette use gone down despite it being readily available and legal for adults to purchase?

We could discuss alcohol or corn syrup for that matter as being guilty for ruining lives too, because obviously they do. When a person sells something to a consenting person they are NOT infringing upon their right to make a free choice. If consenting occurs,, it IS an act of free will, even if the outcome is less than desirable to you, me or "society". I do agree that addicts once addicted have very little resistance to refusing a substance. Ask a man in a desert what he will pay for water, alot more than one beside a river would, but I digress. I might take extra water with me though if I knew I were traveling through a desert, but maybe that's just me.

You are saying a persons ability to make wise choices should factor in and some people require babysitting. Who makes that call? That's lead to a prolonged marijuana prohibition, because some people HAVE equated pot to heroin, and they are the same people that make decisions about what will be "criminal substances". When we permit other people to make choices over our bodies they sometimes make errors. Those errors lead to unintended consequences. I'd much rather deal with the unintended consequences of "too much freedom" than too much control. I'd much rather you had the freedom to make an error concerning your OWN body, than a blanket restriction be placed upon everybody because we know a few people will ruin their lives. It is afterall, THEIR life isn't it?

Responsibility over our bodies lies with the individual, to deflect personal responsibility is the same as saying "just doing my job", when the job means arresting people for owning themselves.

I think our differences come down to, I want to be free and I'm willing to let others make their own choices and enjoy or suffer the consequences of those choices. You favor some restrictions. Good luck keeping that genie in the bottle.
 
abe23 said:
When you sell someone heroin or crack and they get addicted, you are infringing on their right to make decisions freely.
Click to expand...
what? are these people born addicted? are they being forced to take these drugs against their will? at some point there was a decision made by these people, before any drug took hold of their life, and that decision is their responsibility alone. as much as you might like to place the blame on someone else, they are no one's victims but their own. free will is not obliterated by addiction, it is merely subdued by the force of desire. every day the decision is made to avoid pain and feed the addiction.
 
Blah....

I tried to argue that there was some sort of middle ground between allowing walmart to market heroin and beating junkies to a pulp for possession, yet here I am, somehow arguing in favor of prohibition. See you what you right-wing nutjobs have driven me to...? Rob takes my statement and puts all kinds of words in my mouth. UTI takes one line out of context. I'm not sure about the point CJ is making but I'm sure it's relevant...

Rob, the physical addiction associated with opiates makes the comparison to pot meaningless. People choose to repeat smoking marijuana because they like it, not because they are in agonizing pain and dopesick. Whenever someone tries to make a buck off someone else's vulnerability, it bothers me; whether or the victim's initial decision to take the drugs in the first place is the root cause isn't really the issue.

I would actually be in favor of giving junkies heroin through the pharmacy until they're ready to kick the habit. I just don't see how having a free market and competition in the heroin market would be a good thing.

And of course people who become addicted bear the brunt of the responsibility when it comes their dependency. Does that mean we should not give them any help and instead allow others to profit from their sickness. And as far as personal responsibility goes....if you're an addict you're probably living the consequences of that mistake every day. I smoked cigarettes for about 10 years and had a tough time quitting. I know the decision to pick up that shitty habit was mine alone and I'll happily assume the consequences, but does that mean RJ reynolds aren't miserable pieces of shit for selling a product that does little more than get you hooked and make you sick? I'm leaning towards yes. And the tobacco industry saga also adds another question. When you have corporate money that will disingenuously fight scientific evidence about the danger and addictiveness of your product, like the tobacco industry did for decades, is it fraud or marketing? Because you know the heroin lobby would be like "there is no sound scientific evidence that heroin causes addiction or respiratory failure....we are still studying the issue"....

And I do think I need to be clear about this. I don't support using the criminal justice system to peruse drug users of any kind. I don't think there should be any prohibition on the use of any substance. I just believe there need to be legal restrictions on the commercial manufacture and distribution of certain illegal drugs. I repeat: having your own methlab for personal use or cultivating your own poppy field is none of my business. Selling your meth or heroin at walmart is an entirely different matter, whether or not people freely choose to use the stuff or not. There is a reason that heroin pushers are considered to be the scum of the earth, just above child rapists....

Let me ask you all this. Do you think pharmaceutical drugs should be approved by the FDA before they go on sale? Should pharma drugs be scheduled? Or should we just let people try them out and see how safe and effective they are and what types of side-effects etc? After all, the free market would let people vote with their wallets on which pharmaceuticals are good for them. And if someone gets hooked on oxycontin 2.0, it's their own responsibility. The free market would be able to regulate itself and we wouldn't need all this expensive regulatory crap that makes our meds so expensive.

Oh, and last thing. Should there even be public programs to help people get off the junk? I mean....after all, it's their own personal responsibility for being drug addicts. Taking my money to help them get off drugs is extortion, right rob?
 
Abe, taking a persons money without their consent under the threat of violence IS extortion. Giving your money or your time to help a drug addict that requests your help is charity. To state the obvious, extortion is bad, charity is good.

I'm not sure what words I put in your mouth, if I misunderstood your position, my mistake.
I don't endorse hard drugs, I DO endorse liberty though. That means if you choose to fuck up your body, you suffer the consequences.

I had a friend addicted to hard drugs, I thought he was nuts for getting there, because he was my friend I housed him, fed him and for a time employed him. Ultimately he returned to drugs. He also was addicted to alcohol. I don't think if something was legal or illegal it mattered much to him. He had alot of promise as a heavyweight boxer, but drugs got him. I actually tried to wean him off, by suggesting smoking weed. I imagine when he's had enough he'll stop.

I agree with you that big tobacco is evil, but that doesn't mean my control over them should be anymore than their control over me. I choose not to fund them too. In my opinion you made the right choice to stop funding them. When you were addicted to cigarettes how would you have felt if their possession was criminalized or restricted? Do you need to be made to stop doing something by an outside force or did you decide you'd had enough?

Should there be public programs to help people quit nicotine? What about public programs to help people with their "marijuana addiction" ? Careful what you advocate and who you assign authority to make decisions for other people, given enough time "they" will get around to prohibiting a substance or behavior that you do endorse or enjoy.

I think "approval" of what goes into my body is my choice, not the FDA's or the DEA for that matter.


Again I think our differences are you favor "doing good" by making others do it or endorsing government to use force on your behalf. I don't think that is the way I would do it, that's all. I'm rather particular about refusing to support a system that relies upon extortion. I'm simpy not going to do it.

Psst...wanna cigarette?
 
Rob, again....I'm not in favor of criminalizing drug use of any sort. I understand how that is illiberal and wrong. And like I said, I would have no problem with heroin being available at the pharmacy with a doctor's note if you are a junkie. What I am opposed to is putting the full forces of the market behind it.

And I never equated heroin with pot or even argued that use would go up if it were available at walmart. Those are the words you put into my mouth, just before you implied that I want the nanny state to babysit everyone. That's not at all what I said...

My point was that treating a highly addictive substance like heroin like any other commodity without any restrictions on it's production or sale would result in the same situation as with tobacco products. And yes, I would favor laws restricting the marketing and sale of tobacco products....the non-desrcript packaging I mentioned above and bans on advertising seem like a sensible place to start. Does this mean I want the police to arrest cigarette smokers? NO. Does it mean I want the police to raid people for growing tobacco in their backyard? Hell no...

And this is really at the heart of what I've been trying to say: Being against the drug war doesn't necessarily mean that you're favor of having colorful packages and 2-for-1 heroin baggie sales at CVS....

Oh, and fuck yeah do I want a cigarette....especially if I have a drink. It took me a while thought to figure out that the only way to quit was to stop entirely. Actually, the toughest part was kicking my disgusting eurotrash habit of mixing cigarette tobacco in with my joints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jimski
POSTING FOR HELP IDEA
Replies
2
Views
483
tstick
tstick
UncleJesse
Happy Thanksgiving - what a happy time for America and the world
Replies
15
Views
2K
doublejj
doublejj
Fladawg01
Has Anyone used or tried the HerbsNow Dryer?
Replies
1
Views
626
Boatguy
Boatguy
hanimmal
Biden's lame duck presidency, what does the old guy have in his tank?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
6K
Offmymeds
Offmymeds
Hijiri
New Member, Hello!
Replies
16
Views
1K
curious2garden
curious2garden
Back
Top