After Marijuana then what?

[SouthernDem2004]

Just curious as to the opinions of those around here. If marijuana is legalized and you for legalizing and banned drugs such as cocaine, herion and meth?

What about prescription drugs, Should we do away with prescriptions? Not the same thing as banned drugs but just curious.


Peace

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Let me guess:

you think the phony war on drugs is a good idea, right?

[ret5hd]

2. First lets wait for him to state HIS opinion.

[SouthernDem2004]

10. You would be wrong and making assumptions. I never stated anything of the

such.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. ok so state your position

[SouthernDem2004]

18. Ok....

I am for legalizing marijuana. However I am dead set against legalizing drugs such as meth. Meth is completely destructive. It severly damages the brain in a short period of time and causes violent paranoia. Some drugs need to be illegal.

[Pepperbelly]

23. and since meth is illegal ...

it is not to be found?

[SouthernDem2004]

27. I do not understand your point.

Are you saying that because some people are making and using meth it should be legal? People can make and use pipe bombs, legalize? I fail to see your point.

[Pepperbelly]

29. no ... your argument was that it should be illegal because ...

you think it is harmful. What I am saying is that the prohibition is not efficatious. Clearly it is not.

[SouthernDem2004]

35. Yes and no.

Yes, I think it should be illegal because it is harmful. Meth is not your run of the mill drug. It will kill you plain and simple. If you use meth you are going to die. Not might die or might get sick. You will die. Prohibition does not completely remove Meth from society but it keeps the amount down. Law Enforcement is switching more and more assets to the Meth trade. Meth will be easier to control due to the need for certain precursors. To say it is not efficatious is not completely accurate. Resources need to be switched from controlling marijuana to more dangerous narcotics.

[Pepperbelly]

40. my position is this ...

People who are going to do meth are going to do it regardless of it's legal status. I cite REALITY as my source of that. I do not believe that the legal staus has any bearing on the number of people tweaking.

Those who will, will.

Those who won't, won't.

Personally, I do not believe the legal status would alter the numbers of either column very dramtically.

[SouthernDem2004]

44. I disagree. The market forces mentioned by the poster just below might

solve the meth problem. Why do it if you can get better drugs that will not kill you?

[Pepperbelly]

48. you think the legal status will ...

affect the numbers of people tweaking?

I guess we just have different opinions because there is certainly no definative proof one way or the other.

[SouthernDem2004]

50. If people can get a better, less harmful drug they will not use meth.

[Pepperbelly]

51. i'm all for legalization of pot ...

i just see the entire prohibition logically, legally and morally flawed.

[SouthernDem2004]

53. Sometimes we have to protect people from their own stupidity.

Meth is a case in point.

[Pepperbelly]

55. nope ...

no one has that right. no one should have that power. Who should have the authority to tell me how to live my life, particularly if I am harming no one else?

Point him out to me because me and him are going to fight. I am a soverign, individual and do not believe that anyone has the right to tell me how to live my life.

[SouthernDem2004]

59. Yea but....

The same argument can be used for the right to own any type of gun etc.

[Pepperbelly]

60. yep ... pretty much ...

and i don't have a problem with that, either.

Here's the deal ... you remember prohibition? Not that you're that old or anything but you know ... anyway ... when they started prohibition, the only way it could be done was with a constitutional amendment. It ended with another amendment.

In the prohibition of drugs, they short-cut the process. Before, it was a pretty respected American premise that there are things that the government does not have the power to do. This is one of them. SC decisions notwithstanding (note Bush v. Gore), the consitution was not changed to give these rat-bastard politicians that right. They are usurping authority horribly and being aided and abetted by the pimps on the court.

[SouthernDem2004]

64. Hmmm

Amendments were used at that time because Congress had not figured out another way to pass Federal laws. They have certainly figured out a way now...

[Pepperbelly]

66. yep ...

the usurpation of authority with a complicit SC, pimping for their masters.

[Oldenuff]

209. Me too.

Legalize it already.

[catzies]

205. Sorry, don't think so. Tweakers will not reform into potheads, nor

potheads into tweakers.

If you're a tweaker, it's not as if any high will do. Before meth kills you, it irrevocably changes your brain chemistry. I doubt that pot will "satisfy the craving" for meth.

[frictionlessO]

56. I agree with you except for your bit of hyperbole

"If you use meth you are going to die. Not might die or might get sick. You will die."

Thats out and out false. I encourage your line of reasoning but leave out the hypebole as it only weakens your arguments.

Other than that I think you're on a good track... just dont go after the psychedelics and you'll get no argument from me.

[jdj]

92. meth is environmentally devastating .

people are retreating to the woods in southern appalachia and dumping these caustic chemicals into mountian streams. for this reason alone one might think that it may be better to legalize it, regulate it and at least have the waste disposed appropriately as hazardous waste.

[eridani]

212. We need environmental laws for that, not the "Drug War" eom

[ret5hd]

26. Dont you think "market forces" would take care of the problem?

[SouthernDem2004]

28. That is very possible. If by meaning...

that by legalizing marijuana and other drugs the demand for meth would dry up. It is certainly a good point towards legalizing minor drugs.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. facts vs fiction

methapmphetamine and related stimulants were widely used for medical purposes in the 50's and 60's reaching a peak of 31 million annual perscriptions in 1967. Similar drugs continue to be used by the military for flight crews.
http://amphetamines.com/methamphetamine/

Chronic use of MA is associated with a variety of medical problems. You appear to have fallen for MA as the current drug boogeyman of choice from the Drug Warrior Inc. propaganda machine.
http://www.streetdrugs.org/pdf/ONDCPmeth.pdf

The real question is how should society deal with addictive substances?

My answer is that the adult population should be warned, all drugs should be controlled for dosage and purity, all children should be educated, and all drugs should be legal. Drug use should be tolerated, but the use of dangerous drugs should be discouraged. Criminalization of drug use is invariably more harmful than the use of the same drugs, and consequently is an irrational social policy.

[SouthernDem2004]

42. Reply:

1) Meth is not used by the military. Please back up that claim.
2) They used to do lobotomies. Does not make it a good idea.
3) Street meth will kill and is extremely harmful, period.
4) Comparing meth with other members of that chemical family makes no sense. Street meth is street meth.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. ok

1) Meth is not used by the military. Please back up that claim.
google "go pills"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071789/

2) the point is that speed is not instantly deadly it was used for decades and continues to be used for medical purposes

3) street impurities are fixed by legalization

4) MA is very similar to other similar drugs. DUH.

[SouthernDem2004]

68. You fail to back your claim yet again.

The amphetamines used are not METH. Please educate yourself on the difference. I can see no point in continuing.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SouthernDem2004]

112. What propaganda? Give me a positive aspect of street meth.

I am more concerned with the harmful effects of some drugs. Legalizing highly addictive and dangerous subtances just does not seem like a good idea.

I do not respond to profanity. Call it what you will but it is my personal choice to ignore it.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. rather dishonest of you

Here was my claim: "Similar drugs continue to be used by the military for flight crews." You distorted that into "1) Meth is not used by the military. Please back up that claim." I backed up my original claim. EOM.

[SouthernDem2004]

126. Huh?

The military uses "go-pills" like ephedrine. If I am not mistaken your original point was that the Air Force uses meth. That is not correct. Backing up "claims" does not work they way you want. If you claim the Air Force is using meth you need to prove it not vice versa. Heck, I could say the Air Force injects liquified Slim Jims into pilots to keep them awake. Can you prove me wrong? Can not find and evidence stating specificly that the Air Force does not inject Slim Jims?

[DistressedAmerican]

130. The laws you are defending give the producers and dealers the incentive

to make it and sell it. How can that EVER be logically defended?

[Warren Stupidity]

138. you sir, are incorrect

Please go back and read post 31, which I quoted to you previously. Here, I'll quote my original assertion word for word again: "Similar drugs continue to be used by the military for flight crews."

You have stated that "go-pills" are not amphetamines but are instead ephedrine. Back up that assertion.

The link I provided: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071789 is titled

‘Go pills’: A war on drugs?
Air Force use of amphetamines raises questions".

What could that mean? I'll tell what it means as you appear to be in total denial here:

"The use of drugs to address the problem — a practice that goes back decades — is now under fire. Earlier this month, two Air National Guard pilots who mistakenly bombed Canadian troops during an F-16 flight over Afghanistan last year, claimed the “go pills” they took before the mission impaired their judgment. Lawyers for the two airmen, Maj. Harry Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach, contend the military pressured their clients to take the go pills — as the prescription amphetamine Dexedrine is called in the military."

Dexedrine. Hmmmmm.... it seems you may have a LEO background, so I am pretty sure you know that Dex is one of the amphetamines, right?

So you can put your apology right here:__________

[SouthernDem2004]

141. Sigh, reread the post you are replying to...

I said like ephedrine not that they were using ephedrine. You stated the Air Force is using meth. They are not using meth, period.

[Warren Stupidity]

171. persistent but dishonest

A trail of bullshit.

We start here where I point out that drugs similar to meth are routinely used by flight crews.
"Similar drugs continue to be used by the military for flight crews." post 31
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3227871&page=

SD calls me out, but either misread or is misinterpreting my assertion:
"1) Meth is not used by the military. Please back up that claim." post 42
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3227919&page=

So I back up my assertion that the military routinely uses drugs similar to meth:
"1) Meth is not used by the military. Please back up that claim.
google "go pills"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071789 /" post 65
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3228116&page=

Undeterred, SD is now attacking the claim he has made for me, rather than the one I made, he is attacking a strawman:
"The amphetamines used are not METH. Please educate yourself on the difference. I can see no point in continuing." post 68
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3228172&page=

Perhaps he still hasn't read my original claim and is confused?
"Here was my claim: "Similar drugs continue to be used by the military for flight crews." You distorted that into "1) Meth is not used by the military. Please back up that claim." I backed up my original claim. EOM." post 122.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3229215&page=

SD realizes he has made a mistake, and so true to form, attempts a diversion.
"The military uses "go-pills" like ephedrine" post 126
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3229238&page=
Note SD continues to falsely assert that I have claimed that the military uses methamphetamine, which it currently does not, it uses dexedrine, not that it really matters WHICH specific amphetamine they use, what matters here is the dishonesty.

I try again. I don't know why I bother but....
"Please go back and read post 31, which I quoted to you previously. Here, I'll quote my original assertion word for word again: "Similar drugs continue to be used by the military for flight crews."
You have stated that "go-pills" are not amphetamines but are instead ephedrine. Back up that assertion." post 138
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3229286&page=


"I said like ephedrine not that they were using ephedrine. You stated the Air Force is using meth. They are not using meth, period." post 141
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3227732&mesg_id=3229892&page=

Wow. No, you said 'the military uses "go-pills" like ephedrine', not 'go-pills are like ephedrine'. Nice try though.
Wow. No, I said the military uses drugs similar to methamphetamine, not the military uses amphetamines.

Wow, we are done, you and me. Honest debate not. Have fun with others.

[SouthernDem2004]

189. Sorry I stopped reading after the first line. Just not a big fan of

profanity in post. If you can not type civilly I have no time to read it.

Peace

[Liberal Veteran]

139. The fact is that AF go pills are dextroamphetamine.

Basically, just a different formulation of the same class of drugs that meth is in.

It's not any real big secret and they aren't really all that different except perhaps in how the drugs are ingested.

It's kinda like talking about the difference between heroin and oxycontin.

[SouthernDem2004]

142. Sorry, there is a big difference. Side effects for one.

[Liberal Veteran]

149. Well, I am just a lowly pharmacy tech...but...

Side effects of Desoxyn (methamphetamine):

The following are adverse reactions in decreasing order of severity within each category that have been reported:

Cardiovascular: Elevation of blood pressure, tachycardia and palpitation.

Central Nervous System: Psychotic episodes have been rarely reported at recommended doses. Dizziness, dysphoria, overstimulation, euphoria, insomnia, tremor, restlessness and headache. Exacerbation of motor and phonic tics and Tourette's syndrome.

Gastrointestinal: Diarrhea, constipation, dryness of mouth, unpleasant taste and other gastrointestinal disturbances.

Hypersensitivity: Urticaria.

Endocrine: Impotence and changes in libido.

Side effects of Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine):

Cardiovascular: Palpitations, tachycardia, elevation of blood pressure. There have been isolated reports of cardiomyopathy associated with chronic amphetamine use.

Central Nervous System: Psychotic episodes at recommended doses (rare), overstimulation, restlessness, dizziness, insomnia, euphoria, dyskinesia, dysphoria, tremor, headache, exacerbation of motor and phonic tics and Tourette's syndrome.

Gastrointestinal: Dryness of the mouth, unpleasant taste, diarrhea, constipation, other gastrointestinal disturbances. Anorexia and weight loss may occur as undesirable effects.

Allergic: Urticaria.

Endocrine: Impotence, changes in libido.


I suspect you are interchanging "side-effects of use" with "side effects of abuse".

They both have similar abuse potential (which is why amphetamines, dextroamphetamines, and methamphetamines are all CII drugs).

They also have similar abuse symptoms (which is not surprising considering they are not all that different from one another chemically). That includes severe dermatoses, marked insomnia, irritability, hyperactivity and personality changes. The most severe manifestation of chronic intoxication is psychosis, often clinically indistinguishable from schizophrenia.

You tend to hear more about meth problems because it's fairly easy to make and obtain and people are more likely to abuse meth chronically via IV or smoking it, but the pattern of side effects and addiction is pretty much the same across the board for the entire class of the drug.

This isn't my opinion, just pick up a copy of Drug Facts and Comparisons or Mosby's RX and look it up for yourself.

[Cooley Hurd]

34. I agree - marijuana's been long-lumped in with the dangerous stuff...

I think, between clinical studies as well as user testimonials, we know pot is relatively harmless to adults. To continue its prohibition is morally and ethically wrong.

However, we can also say safely that coke, meth, smack, et. al. have been proven to be dangerously addictive and destructive.

[MojoXN]

3. Huh?

Southerndem, I'd be glad to reply, but I'm afraid that I don't understand the question. Would you be so kind as to repeat it?

MojoXN

[SouthernDem2004]

8. Are you for legalizing cocaine. herion and other schedule ones?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. are you for continuing the war on drugs as it is?

and if so why?

[SouthernDem2004]

20. If current laws stay in effect then the current war should also continue.

Could it be waged more effectively? Certainly. Is it "winnable" with currect tactics? No, not enough resources. We like to call the current policy a "holding action" and not a war.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SouthernDem2004]

49. I thought I was clear before but I will try again for you....

I am FOR the war on drugs. While drugs are illegal those laws must be enforced. You can not have laws without enforcement. I may not agree with the laws but they should still be enforced.

The rest of your post makes no sense. RICO statutes have no bearing on simple possession charges.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. you are very misinformed

RICO statutes are used without any criminal charges at all. Civil forfeiture allows for and is used to do an end run around constitutional requirements for such minor details as 'probable cause', 'assumption of innocence' etc.

You also indicated that the War on Some Drugs suffers from a lack of resources. I pointed out the resources we are pouring into this crap and you have declared that nonsense.

Here is how your War on Drugs works: in a town I lived in the local police department got a huge grant to create an anti-drug swat team, despite the fact that we were a rural-in-transition-to-suburban new hampshire town with no serious drug problems other than the usual weed smoking. Naturally they needed to use their grand new paramilitary force, so they busted into some poor slobs home at 4am. The fellow stumbled out of bed, from his kids room (they were like 4 and 6 and he was in there 'cause one of them was having a nightmare,) and got shot dead from multiple gunshots 'by accident' in the police report. One officer emptied his revolver into the victim. They did find a stub from a joint. As it turned out, the probable cause for the raid was an uncorroborated tip from a paid informant that the victim was a dealer.

The victim worked a day job, as in he was out of the house and his kids were in school, every day, Monday through Friday. A search of his premesis could have been conducted any day without any danger of an 'accident'. That however would not have allowed the paramilitary swat team to get put to good use. So instead a man's life ended in front of his screaming, horrified children.

His wife sued the town and settled out of court. Not for money. She demanded and got the swat team disbanded. She is a hero.

Their story is just one of many. This is the system you support. This is the system you want to have more resources.

[SouthernDem2004]

67. Reply:

1) You continue to misstate RICO statutes. They are used against organized crime. Not simple possession, only transfer.

2) We do not have enough resourced to fight effectively. The money "poured" into it is clearly not enough as is evident by the results.

3) Your raid story: Yes, even with the best intentions sometimes things go wrong. Law Enforcement makes mistakes just like everyone else but of course the consequences are often more tragic. That being said, Why was a SWAT team using handguns in a raid? Why were they carrying revolvers for that matter? Got a link?

[frictionlessO]

63. So you are for needlessly destroying lives???

WTF!!

Just because some assholes made it illegal for their own gains and purposes you think its ok to continue to completely destroy lives for having a bag or two or three of dope?

So were you for the enforcing of segregation laws, because they were still laws? Its wrong but... its the law.

As far as not having laws without enforcement... Happens all the time in a variety of ways and circumstance.

[SouthernDem2004]

69. If you can repost that without the pointless profanity I will reply.

[frictionlessO]

73. LOL, ok... lets see you can make blatant false lies

about meth users, but I cant use a few words of profanity!!


Thats ok sorry to offend your obviously delicate sensibilities.

Yo can just put me on ignore if my words hurt your eyes and closed mind so much. Didnt mean to soil your soul.

You say you just wanted to understand our points of view on the far left? Yet you cant handle the most minor of swear words.

Nah, you know what dont bother to answer. I think I already know what you would say.

[SouthernDem2004]

75. What lie about meth? If you are going to call me a liar please explain.

[frictionlessO]

76. post number 56 above. n/t

[SouthernDem2004]

79. I did not make post 56 and anyway... Meth is TOXIC.

Here are some of the contents:
phedrine or pseudoephedrine (cold or allergy tablets);
Lithium batteries;
Starter Fluid;
Rock or table salt;
Drain cleaner;
Camping fuel;
Sulfuric Acid;
Acetone;
Heet" (gas additives);
Paint thinner;
Iodine;
Brake Cleaner;
Toluene;
Muriatic Acid;
Anhydrous Ammonia;
Matchbooks;

[frictionlessO]

83. Yes and there are nasty toxic things everywhere, post 56 is mine

which you didnt bother to read apparently. Which is why I am now done with this one sided flame fest you tried to instigate.

Have fun trying to understand where we are coming from on this issue.

[SouthernDem2004]

91. I did read it but whatever.

[Liberal Veteran]

85. Depends on where you get it. The brand name methamphetamine...

...called Desoxyn is an approved substance generally used to treat morbid obesity and special cases of ADD with hyperactivity.

Street drugs are ALWAYS risky. A good example would be the difference between a bottle of good brand name scotch and "moonshine" or "bathtub gin".

[SouthernDem2004]

97. You are correct. Desoxyn is a schedule II narcotic.

[Liberal Veteran]

100. More precisely...it's a Schedule II Non-narcotic substance.

Althought the DEA is a little broad on their definition on "narcotic" by including cocaine and coca leaves as narcotics, they seem to have realized that the amphetamine class of drugs is not a narcotic.

[fujiyama]

113. I'm not going to argue

that meth doesn't destroy lives. It does and it's certainly not like other drugs (usually the entire house has to be sterilized and is almost unlivable after the stuff is made).

But, as you showed yourself, the various ingredients you listed are mostly common household items.

Should we just go ahead and ban cold tablets because they are used to create meth?

The "war on drugs" is a failure, and just because it is our nation's current policy doesn't make it right and should be enforced.

Rather than condemning it, you find it easier to just say - "It's the law. It must be enforced". Remember, certain laws are unjust. Segregation was once the law. Did that mean that had to be enforced?

The law obviously isn't working as intended. People are dying off of meth right now. How will it make a difference, even if it was decriminalized?

The people using meth obviously need help, but locking them up and treating them the same as violent criminals isn't working.

In most other industries, when a certain strategy isn't working, the firm goes back to the drawing board and tries to find something new. Too bad the government has its head stuck in a hole, continuing the same failed policy it has for 40+ years.

[SouthernDem2004]

117. Reply:

1) Go to Wal-Mart and try to buy numerous packs of cold tablets. They will only sell you a certain amount. It is now illegal to possess large quantities of certain cold medications.

2) Enforcing laws: If the Police start choosing which laws they wish to enforce we will have chaos. Do I ever pour someones weed out onto the ground and let them go? Certainly if it is a small amount. Can I lose my job and be arrested for doing it? Yes. I still arrest people for simple possession even though I think it should be legal. If a Police Officer beats his wife and thinks there is nothing wrong with it should he be allowed to disobey domestic assault laws? Extreme example but it applies.


There are no easy answers.

[Liberal Veteran]

82. Actually, cocaine and methamphetamine are schedule II drugs.

Just a little factoid.

[SouthernDem2004]

98. True, I just mentioned that in another post.

[7th_Sephiroth]

4. Weed is harmless

on its own it never killed anyone unlike coke and meth, wich fuck with the heart.

[libertypirate]

45. Some Truth in a fog of BS would be nice

Why would something that can't kill you illegal?

You can not, no one has ever overdosed on pot.

It has been estimated that a person would have to consume 600lbs to OD that is freaking crazy. The most I have ever heard consumed by a person with a prescription was 3lbs.

If pot were legal it would take power away from the pill pushers. Anyone could grow their own medication for many daily ails tell me that isn't motivation for the pill people to keep the public dumb about weed.

You can even over dose on water, but not pot.


lp

[SouthernDem2004]

52. Wanna hear something interesting?

You can not OD on crack either or atleast its never been done.

[Liberal Veteran]

78. Actually...that's not really true.

You can OD on crack just like you can on cocaine and people do occassionally OD. It's not common, but people can and do OD.

[SouthernDem2004]

80. Where did you get that info? We have been told for a long time that

it is not possible to smoke enough crack to kill you.

[Liberal Veteran]

84. Of course it is. It has the same effects on the body as regular cocaine.

Generally, medical literature doesn't distiguish between toxicity from cocaine hydrochloride and "crack cocaine" since it's basically the same drug in the bloodstream and in physiological effects and treatment.

But here is a couple of articles that discuss cocaine (including crack) in the medical setting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1929786&dopt=Abstract

http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB05/1999cocaineRhabdo.html

[SouthernDem2004]

93. Ah but it is the method in which the cocaine is taken. It is my

understanding that it can not be smoked at a quick enough rate to reach OD levels. I am not aware of any incident of anyone ODing on crack. I can attest to people dying by injection.

[drdtroit]

94. Here's a link

http://www.drug-overdose.com/crack.htm

"Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of crack usage is the high risk of overdose. Since crack is more potent than street cocaine, it enters the bloodstream more quickly and in higher concentrations. This is particularly risky since smoking the drug makes it difficult to estimate dosage."

[Liberal Veteran]

95. It is not only possible, but a google search will verify many cases of it.

I'd say if you were going to make a list of most likely to cause cocaine toxicity the list would probably look like this:

1) IV use (most dangerous)
2) Smoking (absorbed very quickly into the bloodstream through the lungs)
3) Snorting
4) Oral

[SouthernDem2004]

96. Tried google with no luck.

I am certainly curious about this issue since all of the schools I have gone to about drugs state that there is no known OD death by crack. Let me clarify that by stating the death has not been caused by ODing on cocaine. I still can not find a document case on google.

[7th_Sephiroth]

62. don't forget big tobacco

they started the whole weed is bad movement

[arcos]

114. and DuPont.... nt

[7th_Sephiroth]

174. weed makes a good carpet, too?

wooooooow weed, the wonder plant

[arcos]

181. well, hemp makes a good everything...

And Dupont didn't want any competition to their recently patented nylon. :P

[Pepperbelly]

5. i am for legalizing EVERYTHING.

I have my reasons, none of which have anything to do with wanting any of those toxins. I believe my position to be the only logical and moral position.

[tinonedown]

6. Even cigarettes?

Oh, right, they are still legal. In a place or two....I think.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. not legalized, but regulated

Drug addicts have a medical problem, and therefore their addiction should be treated as such. Government run programs, such as those in the UK, could dispense the drugs at a reasonable cost, thereby assuring that the drug is of good quality and taking away the profit incentive to trade the product illegally. For it is the obscene amount of money to be made peddling drugs that fuels the drug epidemic far more than hordes of people eager to try and use drugs.

(FYI, I'm a Boomer, and have never used any illegal drugs, not even marijuana)

[K-W]

12. regulation is legalization EOM

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. true, but a specialized form of legalization

cigarettes are a regulated commodity; minors cannot purchase them.

Chocolate is a legal commidity but is not regulated; anyone can buy it.

I called it regulating drugs as opposed to legalizing them in my post headline so that people would know I wasn't for letting drugs just be sold to anyone indiscriminately.

[lonestarnot]

9. You are silly...

[ret5hd]

14. Come on...lets hear YOUR opinion...take a stand!

then you'll hear mine.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. insert sound of crickets here (NT)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SouthernDem2004]

22. Read above posts. I can only type so fast and I am doing other things.

The baby is roaming all over the place and lunch is cooking. Give me a few...

[JVS]

15. OPIUM!

So what if it's addictive, can it kill you?

[seabeyond]

16. you want to have a line, i dont mind the line

but if it is going to be, then punishment must at least fit the crime.

a meth lab in town, with neigbors, and all kinds of illegal activity, i think we can clearly see a more dangerous threat than the 50 year old guitar playing person, sittin on a hill smoking a jane.

surely as a people we are clever enough to figure this out.

70's in calif, five finger bag. receive a ticket comparable to a speeding ticket. i have the same kind of choice if i go fast as if i have pot.

it is about the same kinda deal

it is simply the extreme we have become in just everything. a field of pot in iowa...........in a town of 500, simply not the same as the meth lab.

we have so little faith in us the people to actually think. we have been so conditioned we cannot make our own choices we give the power to the stupid

i will take gods gift of me being able to take care of me. i will believe i am more capable of making my choices in life, than another for me. i will be at least as reasonable as the next man. most all will make it, some will not. that is life. i do not want my life to be created of such narrow minds.

what if pot is legalize. so the fuck what, is the reality of it

[K-W]

19. Of course. Contrary to popular belief drugs arent a disease.

Most people who want to do drugs are already doing them. There is no reason why it should be illegal. These laws date back to a time when marijuana was a strange drug that the racially inferior mexicans smoked, they made it illegal because they didnt want white people to pick up the habit.

These laws are heinous.

Maybe there is a role for the government in drugs, but before we can ask that question we need to wipe the slate clean and start from the beginning. Nothing constructive can be done as long as we refuse to recognize that the entire war on drugs up until now has been absolute lunacy.

[Pepperbelly]

33. actually ... reefer madness

was a direct result of the prohibition establishment having no reason to exist after prohibition was ended. They churned it all up so they'd have a gig. Selfish motives of a few ruining the lives of millions.

Not a pretty picture.

[K-W]

39. More recently it was a result of a political war on the left.

They found it a very good way to arresst activist and dissidents and shut down progressive organizations.

[SouthernDem2004]

54. Joking right? I have arrested alot of people...

from simple possession to transfer. Never knew or cared about their political beliefs. Ever seen Police at protest looking for marijuana? I bet you have not regardless of the reply.

[frictionlessO]

70. Oh yes and cops never do anything underhanded or wrong?

A most excellent officer and good friend of mine told me many times that being in the police is like being a part of the biggest gang around. Almost everyone in his department carried an extra piece to plant on a shooting victim of theirs, just in case. He warned me constantly to be careful with my long hair and "hippie" lifestyle especially in smaller more rural districts, because they just love to "roll" hippies. Why? Because noone ever believes them...

He was right, I got stomped not once but twice by cops, for nothing more than being in the wrong place and time. I didnt even have a roach on me!!

Oh yes cops would never use their power to help disperse advocacy and progressive groups that could be dangerous to their exceedingly overfunded war on drugs. Maybe if we werent spending so much time and money on this fake war you guys could solve a few murder, rape, or theft cases???

Sorry If I came off as pissed, but the naivete in your statment hurts my head where I took a boot by your compatriots!

[SouthernDem2004]

77. Reply:

Your first paragraph seems to be from an old movie. Sure, at one time Cops were worse then the criminals. Things have changed for the most part. NOPD still makes me nervous though.

What group or protest has been dispersed using drug charges? Serious questio... If has happened I would like to know about it because I have not heard of it.

[Swamp Rat]

101. What gall! WHAT HYPOCRISY!!!!

"NOPD still makes me nervous." - How DARE you criticize the NOPD! The NOPD is one of the BEST police departments in the USA. Can YOUR department handle a Mardi Gras? Nope, didn't think so.

And YOU, arresting minor drug offenders - that is immoral! SHAME ON YOU!!! :spank:

You come on this board spouting your platitudes, then criticize folks if they say "fuck." Then you say you arrest people for minor drug offenses, thus supporting a fundamentally unAmerican plutocracy - THAT'S hypocrisy at its worst. :spank:

Btw, I don't know if you noticed, but a lot of DUers on this thread have given you the red-ass. Had enough? :spank:

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DistressedAmerican]

105. Can I Ask You This? What Is your reply To The Argument

in Post 99. You are creating the very criminals you are fighting through prohibition. It is an endless cycle of:

addict needs fit - Street dealer makes his cut - resupplies from bigger meaner guy - bigger meaner guy gets his cut - uses it to buy weapons to control street level action and fight cops

It is completely counterproductive to jail addicts. Cut the financing chain and use the tax money to fund rehab, and a whole bunch of other things. I deplore any law that makes criminals of those that do not harm others with their actions.

addicts commit street crime to get money to pay a black market dealer for drugs of questionable quality. Drug laws do not stop drug consumption. You have had decades to prove the efficacy of these tactics and they continue to fail miserably to the detriment of the whole society

Again I reiterate:

[Swamp Rat]

110. Oh MAN! Another great pic!

:D

I have one of Osama too... I hope this isn't a repeat for you:

[SouthernDem2004]

111. I do not have an answer.

I do not know how to solve the problem.

If you legalize herion and meth you will create alot of addicts. Will legalizing minor drugs like marijuana curb peoples desire to try harder drugs? Probably not. I see no simple solution.

As for not harming others, drugs like meth can cause serious paranoia and other mental problems. These people are often violent and very dangerous.

I personally would legalize marijuana but that would be it. I would step up enforcement of other drugs. Combine interdiction efforts with increased border control and we can hinder the illegal drug trade. We will never stop it but we can control it to an extent.

[arcos]

129. Legalization of marijuana reduces the use of harder drugs...

It is very simple... right now if a pot head goes to his street dealer to buy an ounce of marijuana it is perfectly possible that the dealer may offer him an assorted variety of other harder drugs. When you separate the two as has been done in the Netherlands, people won't be offered hard drugs at coffee shops.

Also, why do you say that legalizing heroing and meth will create a lot of addicts. Where is the evidence? I don't use heroin because I don't want to, it would be bad for me, not because it is illegal. If I wanted to use it I would probably be able to find it.
Those who want to use drugs already do and legalization will not change that. It will not cause a spike in demand or make it cool either.

[Liberal Veteran]

135. That's a specious argument.

In many ways it reminds me of the one of the arguments that if we make gay marriage legal, then we won't reproduce enough people (the idea being that somehow letting gays legally marry makes straight people gay).

The argument is specious. I certainly wouldn't run out and buy heroin or meth if it were legal. Would you? There might be a small increase in the number of people who try these substances, but I think people overestimate what it would be.

By the same token, REAL and factual education to prevent drug use (instead of the propaganda that passes for drug education programs in the US) and REAL free drug rehabilitation would offset any minor increases in use.

The problem is that we treat drug abuse as a legal issue rather than a health issue.

What we end up with now is overcrowded prisons where violent offenders are released early to make room for non-violent drug users. We drive people underground and afraid to get treatment for addiction for fear of legal run ins. We have a black market and a very large organized crime base that ripples outward throughout the community in murder, theft, and other crimes. Drug prohibition is extremely expensive due to the burden it puts on law enforcement and the judicial system as well as the health system, it creates a class of people that are stigmatized for life, and in the end, the cycle continues.

Thirty plus years later we've been treating drug abuse as criminal issue and the only thing we have to show for it is an extremely high rate of incarceration, drug related violence, and drug abuse in our society.

They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Using that definition, our current policy is insane.

[SouthernDem2004]

143. Reply:

" I certainly wouldn't run out and buy heroin or meth if it were legal. Would you? There might be a small increase in the number of people who try these substances, but I think people overestimate what it would be."

I am not so sure of that. If someone could just walk into a store and buy it I think many would just to see what it is like. Maybe your right but I am not so sure I want to take the chance.

[Liberal Veteran]

158. The problem is that instead of trying to educate and HELP....

...people who have gotten in over their heads with drugs, we have turned them not only into addicts, but criminals who have to do business with other criminals in order to sustain a habit and making it nigh impossible to get out of the cycle without losing everything.

And what's really sad is that usually the only person that gets hurt by the abuse of drugs is the user himself.

Inherently, there is no real difference in being an alcoholic and being a heroin addict when you get down to the core behavior (use, come down, use, rinse, lather, repeat), but somehow we treat alcoholics with a measure of dignity and provide help while simultaneously punishing them for actions like DUI or domestic violence if that is the case.

People with drug problems don't have the same opportunities afforded them. If they get caught with street drugs...instant felon in most cases.

I think we can do better. I don't support drug abuse at all, but I can see that our "war on drugs" is doing more harm than good.

Look at tobacco if you want an example of how to fight it:

1) Don't punish the behavior.
2) Don't make people become criminals to get their fix.
3) Educate people about the dangers.
4) Offer help to break the cycle of addiction.

The only thing we are really getting from the current method is peripheral black-market crime, overcrowding in prisons, major tax burden, a steady stream of non-violent felons, and a overtaxed judicial system and police system.

[SouthernDem2004]

162. Good point.

[Swamp Rat]

106. When someone posts a reply that you don't like, you call them trolls.

You have NO idea what you are talking about concerning the NOPD. You do not live here nor do you work in the department. Save the criticism for your OWN department.

"Why did you bother to post when you had nothing to add to the discussion at hand? I never did understand the attack-troll mentality." - You are calling me, and others through out this thread and forum, trolls. That is against the rules at DU and you know it. More blatant evidence of hypocrisy.

"Drug laws do not meet the definition of immoral." - In your OPINION.

Drug laws are immoral. Neither you nor Merriam-Webster can refute this as it is MY opinion. Maybe they do for you, but dictionaries do not define my personal philosophy and "morality."

The third paragraph is true and you know it, and so do many many DUers.

[SouthernDem2004]

115. LOL

How do you know what area of the country I currently live in or have lived in. Do the search I suggested.

Since you clearly do not have anything to add to the discussion and are just interested in personal attacks I will cease responding. I have noticed some people post just to get replies. Have fun with that.

Peace

[Swamp Rat]

133. You are NOT a member of the NOPD.

Perhaps you visited and learned a thing or two, but you are obviously not one of ours. Again, take a look at your OWN department... look in the mirror. :(

"Since you clearly do not have anything to add to the discussion and are just interested in personal attacks I will cease responding." - You called me a troll. That is against the rules at DU.

"Have fun with that." - Of course I will. You started this thread and now we are responding. :D

[arcos]

116. Would you arrest someone under sodomy laws? nt

[SouthernDem2004]

119. To arrest for a misdemeanor...

the crime must occur in my prescence with the exception of Domestic Violence. If I see sexual activity it would be in public and therefore they would be charged with indecent exposure or similar violation.

[DistressedAmerican]

120. And the anal sex? Additional charge?

[SouthernDem2004]

128. Negative, you can not charge someone twice for one crime.

[DistressedAmerican]

132. Are there other police that WOULD push the harsher of the two offenses

even if oit was the sodomy offense?

If there was another crime you could charge someone in possession with would you avoid the worst of the two options?

[SouthernDem2004]

144. Reply:

I do not know any civilian Police that charge with sodomy. The military is a different story all together.

Possession is possession. There is not another charge related. If you want to smoke do it in your home. We do not go door to door checking for drugs.

[DistressedAmerican]

147. What if you catch me between my home and my dealer?

What the hell then? I have harmed no one but I am still under arrest. Then you are the enforcement arm of a bogus law that makes me a criminal for possessing a harmless substance.

On Edit: Why don't you know any civilian cops that would charge with sodomy? Because it is a bogus law or just because they have another option. What makes the other option the one they choose if they could choose either? My guess you find would find it harder to make the sodomy violation stick.

[SouthernDem2004]

148. You get charged...

While it is still illegal you face risks if you disobey the law. If you choose to break the law then you are personally responsible for the consequences which you know before hand. Until the law is changed your opinion that the law is bogus is not going to help you in anyway. Change the law....

[DistressedAmerican]

153. I Am Working On It. Doing So Would Be Much Easier With Some

Police ON OUR SIDE. Just because you are a cop does not mean that you can not work to change a law you do not agree with even if you feel it is your job to enforce it while on the books.

How about a hand?

[SouthernDem2004]

156. Not that easy...

The majority of Police that I know are for legalizing marijuana. Heck, Alot of them work drug interdiction and they are Republicans. Why do we not speak out? Have you ever heard the saying that sometimes the messenger kills the message? We do not wanted to be associated what has become known as the face of the legalize movement. The legalization movement has made the mistake of making it a Democrat vs Republican issue. A far-left vs right movement.

Lets be honest about a few things. Take some of the posters around here that are for legalizing. They hate religion and are very vocal about it. They are intolerent of any view other then their own. They can not have a discussion without lapsing into profanity and personal attacks. They espouse alot of conspiracy theories without any credible proof. I could go on and on... The point is do I wish to publicly associate myself with that? Answer is no. Heck, do I wish to associate with those types, no. You see a very vocal minority has hijacked the marijuana issue. Police do not wish to be associated with this group. (They are the same group that always accuse us of corruption, lying, beating protesters etc.) Not a big fan base of ours.

Until the movement gets better spokesmen Police will stay quiet.

Remember, this is a personal opinion.

[DistressedAmerican]

168. I See Where You Are Coming From But, If You Believe In Something

You do something about it for yourself, not for the others working the issue. If you keep enforcing an unjust law without trying to change it you are just as guilty of the harm to society as the legislators who wrote it. Period!

[SouthernDem2004]

169. You do have a point. The truth is that...

I am just not that motivated about the issue to get that involved. Do I smoke marijuna? No. Do I have any desire to do so? No. I have no problem with legalizing it but I really just do not care enough to get involved. When you deal with murder, theft, rape and just plain scum all day long this issue just does not seem that important. I do get involved with Domestic Violence legislation and legislation effecting Police but I lack the time or desire to fight for marijuana. That is the honest truth. I will vote for your issue but that is about it.

[SouthernDem2004]

170. You do have a point. The truth is...

I am just not that motivated about the issue to get that involved. Do I smoke marijuna? No. Do I have any desire to do so? No. I have no problem with legalizing it but I really just do not care enough to get involved. When you deal with murder, theft, rape and just plain scum all day long this issue just does not seem that important. I do get involved with Domestic Violence legislation and legislation effecting Police but I lack the time or desire to fight for marijuana. That is the honest truth. I will vote for your issue but that is about it.

[arcos]

121. como siempre, tenés toda la razón!

wtg! :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

136. ¿Qué tal macho?

:hug:

Me recuerda cúando yo viví in Guanacaste, me llamaron "macho," como los gringuitos de Alajuela. ;)

[K-W]

166. When did I say all drug arrests are political?

Oh wait, no, I NEVER said that.

[anarchy1999]

46. You need a little more research. Actually they made "hemp" illegal

in support of William R Hearst and his publishing and timber EMPIRE!

Farmers used to have to grow a certain amount of hemp on their farms for rope and other uses. You need to read some.

[K-W]

165. Apparently alot of people cant understand that there were MULTIPLE causes.

sheesh.

More people than just Hearst wanted it prohibited, and guess what, alot of them thought it was a drug of the ethnically inferior.

[donsu]

24. I'm for decriminalizing drugs

as for cigs, people can smoke them all they want but not around non smokers.

as for pharm. drugs. the pharm corps are so corrupt it's hard to trust them. plus doctors are hand in glove with the pharm corps as getting their patients hooked on a drug is the doctors daily bread and butter and money to send their kids to college.

america is a crime scene.

[H2O Man]

30. Lonnie Anderson's hair.

I have always felt that Lonnie Anderson's hair should be legalized. Many debate the option of decriminalization. Why? How many lives have been ruined? How about the expense of incarceration and rehab? And for what? I think we need to discuss what comes after Lonnie Anderson's hair? Mullets, perhaps? Your opinion is needed today.

[Flammable Materials]

32. Criminalizing Marijuana = Playing God n/t

[burn the bush]

36. Pot should definately be legal. There is some thought that legalization

of other drugs like coke would greatly reduce the crime rates as many crimes are committed in order to get drugs. I think a middle of the road approach on these might be what we need. I can't see out n out makin meth, coke, heroin legal to use but perhaps there is a step in between that could be made.
I believe hemp has many uses. One is for making paper. Hemp is a easily renewable resource. Trees-not so much.
Quit tying up the courts with bullshit pot cases.
so many many reasons to leagalize pot.

[bobthedrummer]

37. I would remove the profit incentive from narcotics and dangerous drugs

free up prison space by releasing many non-violent drug offenders, and get real treatment for addicts-this would result in much less crime. I would legalize the entire hemp industry and destroy the profit incentive by making narcotics/dangerous drugs available to registered addicts.

[SOS]

38. Legalize cannabis

as just another useful herb such as St. John's Wort or echinacea.
For man-made chemicals such as heroin, adopt the European harm reduction model.
All advertising for alcohol and tobacco should be banned. Public service advertising could inform people of the real risks of these drugs.
Psychoactive pharmaceutical drugs, such as Valium and Percodan, have legitimate uses and should be given to those that need them.
Training doctors in addiction and pain management would help too.

[mcscajun]

47. After Marijuana — nothing.

I just want Marijuana legalized. Period.

I have no interest in using or legalizing Heroin, meth, cocaine, etc. I'll be too busy rolling joints in the living room, thanks.
:hippie: :smoke: :hippie:

If we ever GET Marijuana legalized, ask me again. Meanwhile, it's just a barely disguised 'slippery slope' discussion. :eyes:

[SouthernDem2004]

58. You are incorrect. "slippery slope" in no way applies.

[Yosie]

57. Is Vegemite Hallucinogenic?

I tried it once - didn't do anything for me (tried it on a cracker with strawberry jam - I was told that's how the Aussies take it).

[peacefreak]

71. After Marijuana then what?

The munchies, silly. (ok, I'll go away now..)

[mcscajun]

118. Well put!

:hippie: :smoke: :hippie:

[Liberal Veteran]

72. It's a less dangerous drug than the legal drug alcohol.

I've always thought it was ridiculously silly that people make a distinction and say "alcohol or drugs".

Alcohol IS a legal drug.

It's a drug that is that is more harmful than marijuana.

It's much much more addictive than marijuana (which is only moderately psychologically addictive at worst).
It's harder on the body organs than marijuana.
You can OD on alcohol not marijuana.
Alcohol is way more likely to trigger violent behavior and beligerence.
Alcohol is synergistic with a wide variety of medications which can lead to accidental overdose, unlike marijuana.

The bottom line is that logically it makes no sense that marijuana is illegal while another drug is legal which is several times more dangerous and potentially destructive.

There is no slippery slope there.

[SouthernDem2004]

81. I agree whole heartedly.

[merh]

74. After marijuana, I used to have a big mac and fries ...

but that was a long time ago.

Whoops, I just read the rest of your post. I'm not for legalizing mj! I have a brother with a mush brain as a result of smoking it for 35 years plus -- I know from experience what it does to those who abuse it. It is far worse than alcohol abuse. (imho)

Medicallly prescribe mj is fine, but good help us, let's not sell in the 7/11's.

[kittenpants]

198. I was thinking "Cheetos" after I read the topic.

[Wat_Tyler]

86. I'd legalize 'em all, and leave the matter up to the individual.

Of course, if you OD, you'll be in for a long wait at the hospital - it's all personal responsibility.

[Kazak]

87. I went from...

pipe smoking, to joints, then finally graduated to bongs.

:shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

88. That's the usual evolution of drug use.

The whole "gateway drug" thing is bizarre. Most people who smoke pot, never "graduate" to anything else.

[KingoftheJungle]

89. Drugs are an individual choice, not the government's! Legalize ALL drugs!

We'd also:
*Save over 30 billion dollars in drug war expenditures
*Reap the rewards of a 150 billion dollar industry that is currently being outsourced to non tax-paying criminals, narco terrorists and shadowy intelligence units all over the world.
*Renfranchize minorities and youth who have been targeted by these draconian laws

[porphyrian]

90. Drugs are not the problem.

Nobody tries to arrest the drugs when a crime is committed, they arrest the user or the dealer. This is because the drugs themselves can't commit a crime. Only the person using, possessing or dealing the drugs can. While this may seem obvious, prohibitionists like to confuse the issue, even so far as to declare "war" on drugs. So, whether there is a single aspirin, four joints, or twelve kilos of heroin, there is no crime unless there is someone to charge with it. Thus, drug laws are really meant as a way to control peoples' behavior with regards to drugs, not the drugs themselves.

So, really, why not legalize the possession and use of all drugs? Allow me to address the issues as I think of them.

First, there's the matter of danger to one's person. Suicide is illegal, so maybe that would be a good justification to keep, say, cocaine illegal, as we know that many people die in cocaine-related manners annually. However, many people die from alcohol, tobacco and fast food-related incidents annually as well, yet these are all legal. While some would say that we should make those illegal as well, I personally don't think the government is the one who should be responsible for the behavior of individual Americans in their personal lives. Punishing the group for the crimes of a few is completely ineffective on a large scale, and really just creates an adversarial environment.

Second, there is the argument that people on drugs can hurt or kill innocent people. Well, there are already DUI and battery laws in every state. What is the difference between killing someone's child while drunk or tripping on acid and killing someone's child while dialing a cell phone or retrieving a dropped cigarette? This is a matter of personal responsibility, not demonic possession. Again, the drug does not commit the crime, a person does, and there are laws concerning their behavior already in place.

Third, people talk about the criminal element associated with drugs. This one is simple. Criminals are involved with drugs because drugs are illegal, and there is still an enormous market for them. So, if people can't legitimately trade in drugs, the criminals will. And they will do it their way, which makes many law-abiding citizens uncomfortable. However, if all drugs were legal, the profit would fall out of the commodity, and the criminals would have to find something else to do. For this reason, most drug dealers actually support keeping drugs illegal. It seems counter-productive to me that the "war" on drugs actually helps keep criminals well-funded.

[DistressedAmerican]

99. I Am Fundamentally Opposed To ALL Forms Of Prohibition That

Creat a black market. Black markets drive more crime than consumption does. Legalize, regulate and tax it like alcohol and prescription drugs.

In the case of the most addictive, I could see a methodone clinic type scenerio where addicts could get their fix from doctors who try to push them toward cleaning up. We should not be forcing adicts to look on the streets if they are indeed considered ILL in this society! At least they will not be out robbing on the street to meet their medical need as an addict and it does not fund criminals, local or international.

It makes no sense to create a black market then spend billions and countless lives trying to destroy it. Illegal drug profits could disappear as quickly as bootleggers lost booze money. It just takes the political will to sign it into legislation.

[SouthernDem2004]

103. True in regards to the blackmartket but....

I stop short of legalizing all drugs. Take herion for instance. Way to addictive.

[dpt223]

159. What about nicotine?

Nicotine has been shown to be extremely addictive and it is legal.

[Liberal Veteran]

161. Well, I smoked a lot of pot as a teen and young adult...

...even daily for months at a time, but when I quit smoking pot for awhile, it was pretty easy to do.

Tobacco on the other hand it took me 20 years to finally break the habit after so many tries I can't even remember.

[SouthernDem2004]

163. Discussion is about legalizing not banning.

[Tactical Progressive]

107. I wonder if you could legalize harder drugs by prescription

Cannabis should be as legal as alcohol. That's obvious, for any of the myriad of reasons you can find on any discussion board.

As for cocaine, and perhaps opiates too, I think that you could probably regulate them via pharmacy prescription, like the kind of access you would have with pain pills. Nobody is going to write you a scrip for unlimited pain medication. You get X number of pills with Y number of refills. I imagine something similar could be done with, say, cocaine. Two grams per week for instance. You'd have a card you'd have to present to your pharmacist. Might even have to pay for the card, like a license, to cover the costs of regulation and to generate money to fund rehab facilities and such, instead of the general public doing so. Say $100/year per weekly-gram, up to a maximum of say $300/year for 3 grams/week. Aside from the cost of the drugs. Just for instance.

If it were legal in that way it could be controlled. If it were legal and controlled, the price would probably make it harder to sustain a black market. I don't know what cocaine costs, but it used to be like $100 a gram. If it were $20/gram, I'd imagine it would be alot harder to sustain a black market for it. First because the price would be so much less, secondly because probably a majority of black market customers would already be getting it legally, cutting the customer base way down. Lots less customers and lots less per unit would probably signifigantly curtail illegal drug dealing economics. I'm postulating here.

I have no doubt there would be problems with people getting around such a system, but then again those problems are already in full force and not really addressable without draconian measures and prisons full of people. I think a regulatory regimen would have far less problems.

You asked a reasonable question. That is my reasonable solution.

[DistressedAmerican]

127. That is essentially what I am suggesting as well. (n/t)

Eliminate the criminality of the possession, take the money out of it for the dealers and try to get these people some help.

All the while you are taking people out of the prison system that are costing the system huge money and cell space that could be better used for violent felons.

Collect taxes on it to fund any manner of programs rather than giving that money to drug dealers and terrorists.

Make pure sense to me.

[democracyindanger]

108. Lemme ask YOU

If a mild narcotic like marijuana is illegal, why not alcohol and nicotine? Both of those are the cause for thousands of deaths and economic costs in the billions.

[SouthernDem2004]

123. You do realize I am for legalizing marijuana, right? I do not...

I do not wish to ban any of the three.

[DistressedAmerican]

125. Fundamentally do you believe that prohibition IS or CAN BE effective?

Beyond just enforcing the laws on the books. As a person do you believe that the enforcement policy on drugs (other than marijuana) is or can be effective?

[SouthernDem2004]

131. It is not currently effective but yes it can be...

Given enough resources the flow of illegal drugs can be reduced greatly.

[DistressedAmerican]

134. How much more do you think that would take?

HHow many new jails would we have to build?

Families broken up?

[SouthernDem2004]

145. I do not have the exact numbers but as many jails as needed.

We can not fail to enforce a law just because it takes up bed space in a jail.

As to the families, Well the person braking the law should take that into account before they brake it. I am a big fan of personal responsibility. If you get caught for simple possession all your going to get is a small monetary fine and possibly lose your license depending on your state. If it is illegal do not do it until it is legal.

[Liberal Veteran]

150. And would you have said the same thing to homosexuals....

Who lived in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia prior to June 26, 2003?

[SouthernDem2004]

151. I am not sure what you mean....

Do you equate drug use with homosexuality? Has anyone been locked up in those states for being gay? If so, I am unaware of it. Not a good analogy I am afraid, apples and oranges...

[Liberal Veteran]

152. Apparently you never heard of Bowers vs. Hardwick 1986...

which upheld the Georgia sodomy law which I quote:

"(b) A person convicted of the offense of sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. A person convicted of the offense of aggravated sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for life or by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this Code section of the offense of aggravated sodomy shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7."

An arrest started that case.

And Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003 was also the result of an arrest.

Many of the states made sodomy a felony of which a conviction would not only result in a fine or a sentence, but would require the person to register as a sex offender and lose one's rights to vote or own a handgun and required disclosure on applying for a job.


When you make broad statements like "if it's illegal, don't do it", you place the law on a pedestal it doesn't necessarily belong on.

[SouthernDem2004]

154. No I had not.

[DistressedAmerican]

155. Well There You Have It.

You sound mighty freeperish to me. Are you by any chance one of those Zell Miller Democrats?

Again, I ask why you will not work to change a law you seem quite content to enforce despite the fact you disagree with it?

You are enforcing it (and defending its enforcement) while claiming you oppose it. How does that make any sense to you?

How is it that you do not see that YOU are part of the problem?

Just Following Orders?

One for you before you find me! :spank:

[SouthernDem2004]

157. Let me ask you this...

NAMBLA is for molesting children. They see nothing wrong with it. Should they be allowed to do as they please?

Call me names if you wish. It is not the Police's place to make the laws. We only enforce them. If you do not like the law have it changed. My personal opinions should not over ride the law. The law is supposed to be based on facts and evidence, not personal views. You want the law based on YOUR moral judgements. Well guess what, the Republicans are in charge right now. Do you want the law based on their moral judgements???? Hmmm, Homosexuals would be in jail, protesters would be shoot and killed, forest would be in museums, people would be arrested without charges etc...

[DistressedAmerican]

167. Child molestation is not victimless!

Your analong is poorly chosen. NAMBLA adovcates action that harms others. Possession of marijuana harms no one. That is a GIGANTIC differrence! I have not based a single thing I have said on morality other than to note that acting as an enforcer of laws you do not agree with is a hypocritical action that makes you part of the problem.

My point is that your tactic does more harm to society than it does good. It drives the price of drugs up which creates "drug related crime". Worse yet it fuels the very people we are supposed to be fighting. Where is the morality argument in that?

You interdiction efforts do not work. They create crime rather than reduce it.

Now that you mention it, there is a moral dimension to it. Destroying the lives of people who are harming no one because of the existance of an unjust law IS immoral.

[SouthernDem2004]

173. Change the law then. Until then it will be enforced. You consider

the law unjust, others do not. Who is right? Well right now its the ones with the law on the books. You can use words like unjust and immoral all you want. That is your opinion based on your belief system.

[DistressedAmerican]

176. Again You Have Failed To Addres My Argument At All.

The law creates crime! It creates the black market. Until you address those issues, your "just taking orders" response means little ort nothing. Keep harping on the morality thing.

It IS NOT NY POINT AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED!

[SouthernDem2004]

178. I do not see how I failed to address...

the argument. If you read some of my above replies you will see that I have. I addressed the blackmarket issue and yes making it illegal creates the blackmarket. Guess I forgot who I told that, my bad. Gets confusing in large threads.

I did not bring up morality. I will follow legal orders and enforce the laws until they are repealed or declared Unconstitutional. That is the way our government works.

[DistressedAmerican]

185. That's how it worked for German guards in WWII As well.

It following orders sooths you conscience so be it. I just do not see why you feel like you have to come here and bait people.

I would not be so proud of enforcing rules that I did not believe to be good public policy if I were you.

It makes you a hypocrite!

On Edit: You conced my point that it creates a black market anf fuels other crime yet you still defend the policy. Do you not see how messed up that is? As far as I can tell your only solution to the drug problem is to catch more offenders! Give me a break!

You've had your chance for decades to make that work. It doesn't. It is not a matter of money it is a matter of the fact that people will demand the substances no matter what you do to try to stop them. Keep funding the drug lords and street dealers. The appreciate it. They can use some better guns!

[SouthernDem2004]

190. Well if you are going to resort to childish name calling there is no point

in continuing. Comparing US Laws to Nazi Germany is also pointless. I do not see how it is baiting when I sought a different point of view. I was not aware that DU was a "me too!" website. So only threads that everyone shares the same opinion are welcome. How sad. I also do not see the need to attack people and get angry over posts. Also sad. Good luck with that.


Peace

[DistressedAmerican]

187. By The Way, Arrest Any Protesters Lately?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3231022

Just wondering since you do not seem to mind doing The Man's dirty work.

[SouthernDem2004]

191. Pffft. You no longer seem to have a point and are just attacking. I bid

you good day. I will no longer respond or read your post.


Peace

[DistressedAmerican]

193. Choose to ignore the question if you want. But, It Is Legit To Ask

If you arrest people for laws you personally do not think are just, why wouldn't you pull out a peaceful protester (on orders) and arrest them.

Watch the video I provided and tell me if you think the actions you see are legal actions by the police. If you are just following orders type that you portray yourself as, where do you draw the line and refuse the order?

Answer me that and we can talk.

Even cops should understand that they should not be part of the enforcement wing if they do not believe in the laws they are enforcing. If not, you little more than an automaton doing the dirty work of the government.

[SouthernDem2004]

195. Reply:

I never stated it is unjust. It is a just law but I disagree with it. I disagree with some of the posted speed limits in some areas, they are not unjust. I disagree with banning fireworks in the city limits, that is not unjust. I disagree with the drink age being 21 for members of the military, that is not unjust. I could go on and on. I enforce these laws and many others regardless if I agree with them or not. Society and our system of government created these laws. This is how our system works. Laws should not be enforced based on ones personal beliefs.

[DistressedAmerican]

196. Thanks for getting back.

Can you please give me your law enforcement opinion of the protester arrest video? I would like to know how someone in that line of work views the actions taken that day.

Would you have done the same in the place of the cops in the video if given the order?

On what grounds do you disagree with the laws you cite if you do not find them unjust?

[SouthernDem2004]

197. Which video?

"On what grounds do you disagree with the laws you cite if you do not find them unjust?"

Personal opinion. It is not based on a religious text or some belief that I am better then others. I personally feel that people should have a choice. Just because I do not agree with something does not make it unjust.

[DistressedAmerican]

200. Justice has nothing to do with setting yourself above others.

It is about equal treatment under the law and laws that are beneficial to society. As I believe that Marijuana laws do more harm than good to society. I think they are unjust.

This also has nothing to do with religion. As an atheist I can tell you it is quite possible to have morals without them coming from a book of institution.

valuing laws that benefit society more than they harm it. Any law that does not pass that test, in my opinion, is immoral and unjust. Not to mention just plain bad public policy.

Here's the link for the video:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/westfieldvideo/WestfieldArrest.avi

[SouthernDem2004]

204. Reply:

Your website is a little confusing. You do not really mentioned where it occurred. I finally figured out it was in Westerfield, NJ. A suggestion, at the start mention the time, location and event.

There are three sides to every story. Do you have a news link? I tried but could not find any mention of the event. What type of disorderly conduct was she charged with? Your video does not show the Police doing anything wrong and seems to cut in at a convenient time for the protester. I would like to see the video shot before that. What about the medias video mentioned?

[DistressedAmerican]

207. Thanks for the fedback. I still have not seen the whole video myself

She had to edit it down to get the file transfered. I will post it when I get it. I do know from numerous eyewittnesses that the portesters watching the event did not think that either of these two protesters had provoked anything.

The news link did not post the arrest video. Apparently they broadcast it on friday. The story they posted to their site eneded up being about the SS issue not the arrests. I have looked elsewhere and tried to find it. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the media sees fit to spend much time on protests.

That's why I advocate refusing to disperse when threatened with arrest. Let them ignore the first protest where every person sits down and refuses to move. Let them ignore 150 arrests.

[SouthernDem2004]

208. Yea but...

You are taking out your frustrations on the Police. The Police are there to enforce the laws and maintain order. By refusing to obey lawful orders you are forcing the Police to take action which the protesters know ahead of time what the results will be. Protesters are not above the law be they protesting Bush or protesting against abortion. So do not be shocked that if they refuese to move they get gassed and sprayed.

I see no missconduct by the Police in that video. As a matter of fact I think they show remarkable restraint in not arresting the filmer who is so concerned about the children that she starts yelling profanity. Also note that the Police are not hostile or aggressive. There are also some contradictions between the witnesses that are interesting. That being said who can make a judgement with such little info.

Have you noticed all of the protest lately? There are threads containing pics posted on here almost daily. Notice also that they are all peaceful and the protesters and Police get along without incident.

[proud patriot]

109. Prescriptions Should Stay

it's not about Legalizing a harmful substance .

It's about de-criminalizing the abuser/victim.

I see addicts as victims needing medical help .

I do not see the use of the harmful substance as
criminal. I see the criminal action of those who
need money for a harmful substance as a threat , not
the drug itself .

I hope I'm making sense , but de-criminalizing DONE CORRECT
would reduce the number of addicts and the crimes committed
by those addicts thus reducing the $$$$ Tax Dollars $$$$$$
being spent on a futile "war on drugs"..

It's not about condoning a harmful behavior IMHO.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

124. After alcohol, then what?

[pabloseb]

137. I disagree with SouthernDem2004 but

I think we should be more respectful towards him (her?) and other moderate democrats.

On the issue at hand, experience (and common sense) shows legalization and regulation of ALL drugs is beneficial for everyone except the trafickers. This is not theory but the reality observed in countries which have followed this approach.

[Warren Stupidity]

140. sorry but I totally disagree

my experience is that 'southerndemxxxx' is more or less a republican troll, as for example in this thread. I could be wrong, he might actually be a democrat who votes democratic, but so far my best guess is what I just said.

[SouthernDem2004]

146. But of course he has nothing to back up that claim its just a personal

attack because I have different views. No biggie, I have grown accustomed to the hate and intolerence of some around here. It is really a very samll minority. Some members of the far-left have alot more in common with the right then they would like to admit. It is the "If you do not believe exactly what I do you must be a Republican!" philosophy.

[HeeBGBz]

160. "After Marijuana then what?" Cupcakes!

Then Cheesy poofs,
Dr. Pepper,
Marshmellow Bunnies,
Pringles.

Legalize the herb. Or at least let us grow for our own consumption. Who would that hurt? A lot less side effects than any chemical anti-depressant I know of.

[Liberal Veteran]

164. Last time I used pot was actually medicinally...

It was right after I was diagnosed with HIV. I had lost 30 lbs from my normal weight of 140 lbs and just starting the meds. It only took a couple of months, but I put the weight back on and I actually was able to get through the initial side effects of the meds until my body adjusted to it.

It's sad that I had to break the law to do so.

[SouthernDem2004]

177. Got a question:

Did you try marinol and did it work for you?

[Liberal Veteran]

183. Marinol = 500 bucks a month.

Pot = 40 dollars for a bag that lasted 2 months. Plus some insurance companies won't cover it (marinol that is).

The problem with marinol is that taking a pill when you are nauseous generally doesn't work too well.

[SouthernDem2004]

192. Are you for medical or full legalization? Would you accept just medical?

[HeeBGBz]

186. Yes, it is sad

I'm glad it helped you, though.

[Spider Jerusalem]

172. I'm in favour of legalising, regulating, and taxing...

heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, yes. Most drug crime occurs because drugs are illegal. I don't favour pure legalisation...I think these should still be controlled substances, like tobacco and alcohol...but I ALSO think that the social costs are better dealt with through appropriate intervention and treatment than incarceration. Not to mention that elimination of the black market in drugs would, at one fell swoop, reduce petty crime rates, eliminate a major source of revenue for organised crime, AND remove the number one cause of police corruption in this country.

[walldude]

175. Wow.. lotta experts here..

Well let me throw in a few facts of my own. Now these aren't facts from a cop, or a doctor, or a website, or whatever, these are facts from a drug user. 25+ years and still going. This, is first hand experience.
Lets kill a few arguments shall we?
1. Meth kills. Period. Well, thats an out and out lie. How do I know? I've used it myself, a number of times. You want people to stop using meth? Quit lying about it. This tactic is what causes "gateway drugs". Example: Tell a person that smoking Pot will make them trip out and think they can fly then they will jump off a building. Then that person smokes pot. He has a good time, laughs alot, gets a little lazy and a little hungry. Then he wonders, well, if they were lying about Pot I wonder what Mushrooms do for you? This is exactly how I got started using psychedelics, the lies about pot made me wonder.

2. Pot is worse for you than alcohol. Who are you kidding? Your brother has mush brain after 35 years of use? Well maybe his brain was mush to begin with, or maybe he didn't use responsibly. At least you still have him. My father was found dead of alcohol poisoning surrounded by gallon bottles of Vodka. Never heard of anybody dying from Pot poisoning. Unless you count that plumber in the late 70's who died after the government though it would be a good idea to spray Mexican Pot fields with Paraquat. :eyes: I also never heard of anyone smoking too much pot and getting into a fight, shooting someone, beating up their wife, kicking the dog, or driving over to their ex's house to scream their undying love for them at 4 in the morning.

3. You cannot overdose from smoking crack. Uh... WRONG. How do I know? Seen it. Had a friend who just couldn't control himself. Ended up dying of a heart attack at age 22 after a 24 hour crack binder.

4. Legalization will cause more people to become addicted. While I can't totally refute this, there is no evidence whatsoever to state that once drugs are legal people are going to rush out to buy them. Drug users will continue to use, non-users will continue not to use.

The only solution to the "drug" problem is total decriminalization and regulation. The money spent on the drug war can then go to help addicts get treatment. Don't even get me started on the incredible amount of money that could be made taxing and regulating drugs, and doing it while making the end product cheaper for the user.

Now, lets get something straight. Drugs are illegal because someone is making money off them being illegal. Period. How do I know this? Lets look at it logically. Are Cluster Bombs illegal? How about Land Mines? Bio Weapons? Nukes? Machine Guns? RPG's? Tanks? The war machine does nothing but kill. In the name of religion, freedom, money, power or whatever all these things do is kill. Period. Do you see anyone trying to make these things illegal?
Now check out this list. These are some of the things off the top of my head that would not exist without the help of some kind mind altering substances.

The Paintings of Van Gogh
Dali
Picasso
Michaelangelo
Munch

The Writings of Shakespeare
Poe
Verne
Lovecraft
Stoker
Shelley
King
Orwell

The Music of Beethoven
Bach
Paganini
Johnson(Robert)
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
The Who
The Grateful Dead
The Rolling Stones
Phish
Black Sabbath
Queensryche

The Films of Coppola
Kubrick
Russell
Lynch
Cronenberg
Fincher
Stone


This list is right off the top of my head. I could spend a long time listing great works of Art, Music, Film and Literature that have been created with a little help from mind expansion, but I don't have a week to sit here. Granted that there alot of people who shouldn't be taking drugs, they are too easy to abuse. But in the right hands drugs can inspire some of the greatest heights of beauty known to mankind. Now why would anyone, in his right mind, want to stop that.

On the other hand what do I know, I'm just another stoner in his 40's who manages to feed his family, keep his job and sneak in a joint or 2 after the kids are in bed.

[arcos]

179. best post ever...

don't forget Carl Sagan, though!

[Swamp Rat]

184. Estoy de acuerdo

y también no se olvida Noam Chomsky... estoy estudiendo linguísticas ahora. ;)

[walldude]

188. Like I said..

We could sit here for a week making a list :toast:

[K-W]

180. Gee I wonder what kind of people profit from

-a perpetual domestic problem to throw money at without actually improving quality of life

-a large black market cash cow

-a large money laundering establishment including international banks full of drug money

-an excuse to arrest people whove done nothing ethically wrong, but probably have a culture counter that of the establishment

-supressing the ability of people to access easy gratification so they will be more inclined to jump through hoops to get it

[SheepyMcSheepster]

194. Thanks, nice post

thanks for the post, you sum things up nicely.
Pot is harmless to most and some even find it can be beneficial.
this prohibition is rediculous.

"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favour. Go home tonight take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause You know what the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs... The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs." -bill hicks

[rbnyc]

201. Thanks

Wish I could say more, but lunch break is over. Thanks for saying most of it for me.

[walldude]

203. You are very welcome

That Bill Hicks bit was one of the best ever.. he was a great loss. He'd be having a field day these past 4 years

[Ariana Celeste]

206. Very good, and if I may add:

I have known a lot of drug users. I have known a lot of addicts. And there is a difference.

Addiction is addiction- part of the problem in our society is that most people immediately equate addiction to drugs. Addiction is generally a psychological thing, though I won't deny that some addictions are physical. And being that most addiction is psychological, then if it weren't one thing it would be another. People need to look at addiction for what it is- psychological. And then it needs to be treated as such.

Out of all the drug users I have known, very few were the stereotypical type that you learn about in DARE. Yes, I have known a meth addict who stole from his family without hesitation. He was violent, and a criminal. BUT. I have known several meth addicts who were responsible, took vitamins and ate full meals before ingesting the drug, held their jobs, paid their bills on time, and would never hurt or steal from anyone. Same goes for all the other drugs I have known people to use, and have used myself.

I think everything should be legal. Everything should be regulated. Legalization->Regulation->Taxation would not only get dealers off the streets, it would not only keep dirty drugs out of people's hands, but can also lead to bettering our economy. Think of the money the government can make taxing drugs. A good chunk of this money can go towards healthcare for addicts.

Anywho, a lot of better educated people in this thread have made all the points I could make in favour of legalization in better words, with sources and whatnot, so I won't reiterate that further.

I think what I originally wanted to say, is that the majority of drug users are not addicts. They are responsible people who hold their jobs and feed their family. They should never be labeled as criminals. They are not bad people. Old Granny in the apartment downstairs could be a pothead. The lawyer down the street. The local grocer. Most of us are just normal everyday people, who pay our taxes, live our lives, take care of ourselves and our own, and just so happen to prefer a mind altering substance now and again.

Of course there are bad apples. You find those everywhere, no matter what the circumstances. And I think as far as drugs go, it has largely to do with the lack of real education on the matter, and the simple fact that it is criminalized.

[da_chimperor]

210. Awesome post. You should make a new thread for it.

:thumbsup:

[Ignoramus]

182. Prescription drugs maybe

I would speak to your psychiatrist first though. Some sort of tranquilizer maybe. Something to help you reflect. You should definitely stay away from the stimulants.

[killbotfactory]

199. First marijuana, then pcp.

Heck, let's not legalize or regulate drugs based on their effects and sideeffects, let's just ban them all and make up a bunch of BS claims about them. Then anyone who doesn't believe our lies and tries them anyway, we can just arrest them and confiscate their property! Yeah!

[justjones]

202. Correction: If anyone who doesn't believe our lies and tries them anyway..

AND doesn't have the financial or social "resources" to shield themselves from these laws, we can just arrest them and confiscate their property!

We kill many birds with one stone! Yeah!

[Oldenuff]

211. The war on drugs is laughable

The war on drugs is a total bust.Has the war on drugs had any effect on their availability?Countless lives ruined,and not just users.I am curious what the cost is when you factor in the people who have had their identities stolen,homes robbed etc,by tweakers looking for money.The recent attempt to counter the availabilty to purchase cold medication will only escalate the desire to obtain the ingrediant for production.My guess is that they will obtain it somewhere,right?I suppose maybe the Columbian drug cartels might not find it lucrative enough,but I'm willing to bet it can be smuggled in from Mexico(or Canada).Wow!A whole new business just waiting for a business minded individual,as we don't have enough smuggling going on already.

Marijuana is such a small issue,we should get over it already and legalize it for crying out loud.Where is the Dem leadership on this,or is Dennis Kucinich the only one who sees what a joke this is?I'm really tired of having our tax dollars continually being flushed down the toilet "protecting" us from the Horrors of pot.The war on drugs costs us more than the cost of legalizing and providing it free,I'll bet.

[eridani]

213. Kucinich was the only candidate who had it as part of his platform

Didn't talk about it much, though, as the big three were war, health care and outsourcing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

214. Ding Dongs?

:shrug:


:9