Pot in America

[kandrathe]

If there's no tension between the federal government and the state government, what is the use of having states at all?

Ah, the republic. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

[Jester]

The war on drugs is killing US citizens, mostly in law enforcement. While they are not "rich", I don't consider them expendable either.

I'm not happy about any life lost in this ridiculous endeavour. But the numbers of US law enforcement killed are downright trivial compared to the numbers from the third world. And, relative to your Colombian campesino or your Thai rice farmer, they are pretty darn rich.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The war on drugs is killing US citizens, mostly in law enforcement. While they are not "rich", I don't consider them expendable either.

True. How many people, on both sides of the law, died for the foolishness of Prohibition? That brave and honest men are being sacrificed, even if it is a willing sacrifice, in support of poorly rationalized causes does not demean their sacrifice. It does, however, bring into question the basic humanity of those who sacrifice them. Pin bars on those politicians who vote to continue the war on drugs. Dress them up in fatigues, hand them an M-16 and drop them into the mountains of Columbia or the poppy fields of Afghanistan. Send them in to battle the drug runners of Mexico or the dealers in the inner city. And when they've done that for a year, if they survive, ask them if the sacrifice is worth it, if controlling the free choices of others is worth the price paid. Let those that want a war on drugs get into the trenches and fight the damned thing themselves -- put their hides where their political mouths are.

--Pete

[Jester]

Let those that want a war on drugs get into the trenches and fight the damned thing themselves -- put their hides where their political mouths are.

It'd be a dream come true. Wars fought by those who are so eager to fight them, rather than the poor schlubs they can get to do it for them? World peace, here we come.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

It'd be a dream come true. Wars fought by those who are so eager to fight them, rather than the poor schlubs they can get to do it for them? World peace, here we come.

Yep as peaceful as the feudal times, with its warrior kings and military nobles. :lol:

--Pete

[Jester]

Yep as peaceful as the feudal times, with its warrior kings and military nobles. :lol:

Touche. Although something tells me that both society and war have changed enough to make the experiment a little more successful these days.

-Jester

[Zingydex]

Pete, if you want to shoot yourself full of something that sooner or later is going to kill you, that's your problem. And if you're dumb enough to actually do it, the world is better off without you anyway.

If said substance causes you to go on wild rampages in the street, then it becomes the problem of everyone in your path - it's no different than going out with a loaded rifle and firing it randomly.


I'll consider legalizing drugs acceptable when society holds people accountable for their actions under the influence. Right now drugs are a convenient excuse. You get high on [insert random garbage here], you go out, raise hell, and under YOUR system, you haven't even committed a crime; they won't even try to nail you for the three or four murders/rapes/whathaveyou because you can just hide behind drug-induced insanity and the state has no choice but to mollycoddle you into some rehab program or other and then back out onto the streets where you can do it all over again.

I see it happen constantly in the news already; as soon as it comes out the suspect was under the influence of whatever, it's all sympathy and "what can we do to help them" and it's not their fault anymore. Nevermind if the guy killed enough people to fill a morgue, he's the victim now. At least under the current system that guy's gonna spend a token amount of time in the slammer on drug charges - under your model he doesn't even get that.

[Jester]

Pete, if you want to shoot yourself full of something that sooner or later is going to kill you, that's your problem. And if you're dumb enough to actually do it, the world is better off without you anyway.

Right. Because the world would have been so much better without John Coltrane. Without Samuel Coleridge. Without George Washington. Without Florence Nightengale. Without Winston Churchill.

The addict is not their addiction.

-Jester

[eppie]

Pete, if you want to shoot yourself full of something that sooner or later is going to kill you, that's your problem. And if you're dumb enough to actually do it, the world is better off without you anyway.

tututututuh

If said substance causes you to go on wild rampages in the street, then it becomes the problem of everyone in your path - it's no different than going out with a loaded rifle and firing it randomly.

If if if....usually using some drugs is not as dangerous as firing a loaded rifle. At least I think because I didn't try both.

I'll consider legalizing drugs acceptable when society holds people accountable for their actions under the influence. Right now drugs are a convenient excuse. You get high on [insert random garbage here], you go out, raise hell, and under YOUR system, you haven't even committed a crime; they won't even try to nail you for the three or four murders/rapes/whathaveyou because you can just hide behind drug-induced insanity and the state has no choice but to mollycoddle you into some rehab program or other and then back out onto the streets where you can do it all over again.

Hiding behind drug (or alcohol use) is wrong. And also that the legal system does this. But this point is indeed a point against a justice system, and not against drug use. I'd rather be not killed by somebody that uses a lot of drugs than being killed by somebody that is clean.

I see it happen constantly in the news already; as soon as it comes out the suspect was under the influence of whatever, it's all sympathy and "what can we do to help them" and it's not their fault anymore.

I don't get that feeling from the media.

Nevermind if the guy killed enough people to fill a morgue, he's the victim now. At least under the current system that guy's gonna spend a token amount of time in the slammer on drug charges - under your model he doesn't even get that.

Again I have no idea which country you are talking about. Killing people makes you go to prison, also if you have used drugs. Also when drugs are legalized this will be the case.

And again (after my reaction on your previous post) your post would make a little sense if legalizing drugs would lead to more use and more crime, but it doesn't.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete, if you want to shoot yourself full of something that sooner or later is going to kill you, that's your problem.

Hmmm. Does forty years of nicotine, sixty plus of alcohol, and fifty plus of caffeine count? Because it was one year of agent orange that is trying to kill me.

And if you're dumb enough to actually do it, the world is better off without you anyway.

Thanks -- since I have no Ouija board, if stupidity were a cause of death we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Other intelligent people have replied to the rest of your post. In the words of Samuel Johnson, "I have found you an argument: but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." However, you are entitled to your prejudice -- it is not informed enough to be an opinion.

--Pete

[Delc]

Pete, if you want to shoot yourself full of something that sooner or later is going to kill you, that's your problem. And if you're dumb enough to actually do it, the world is better off without you anyway.

Do you smoke tobacco, drink alcohol/caffeine, or eat crappy food? Then the same sentiment could be applied to you.

[kandrathe]

:D Drugs don't kill people. People kill people. Or, maybe people on drugs with guns kill people. Or, maybe people on drugs driving with guns kill people. Or, maybe people on drugs, drinking, smoking, using their cell phones, and texting, without a helmet, with guns kill people.

I know. Ban people. They seem to be the common denominator.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . the world would have been so much better without . . . Samuel Coleridge.

Or the person from Porlock. I still want to know how it ends. <_<

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

I see it happen constantly in the news already; as soon as it comes out the suspect was under the influence of whatever, it's all sympathy and "what can we do to help them" and it's not their fault anymore. Nevermind if the guy killed enough people to fill a morgue, he's the victim now.

I don't know about your jurisdiction, but that ended here a while back. It did take a while; the abhorrent case had to wind its way through the system to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. But legislation followed with alacrity after that.

Why are you still chosing to take the easy route that insists that the drugs are to blame? You just railed against it in your complaint that your legal system allows it.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Its not safe, but its safer than the alternative, which is the illegal drug trade and the war on drugs.

Yes. Let me add to that.

If outlawing drugs actually stopped the use of drugs, then there might be some justification for those laws. Since it does not stop the use of drugs (as witnessed by the large number of drug arrests and convictions and all the indications of a large, international, drug trade) then the question becomes whether there would be more or less problems if drugs were legalized.

Since drugs are routinely and widely used at present, a bit of thought makes it clear that all the problems that will occur with legal drugs are already occurring. On the other hand, many of the present problems (such as theft to buy drugs) will go away. The question seems to come down to whether the improvements will offset any increase in drug use. But that question is a strawman. As our experience with prohibition showed, and as the experience of other nation with relaxing drug laws confirms, the legalization of drugs not only does not lead to an increase in use, it often does the opposite.

So, there is no pragmatic reason not to legalize drugs. The two groups opposing this are at the opposite extremes. On the one hand are those presently vested in the drug trade who stand to lose a lucrative living. On the other hand are those opposed to drug use for moral reasons. While morality is a good and vital means for an individual to determine his actions, it is not a sufficient reason for enacting laws.

One final thought, and it extends beyond just the laws banning drugs. It is, in my opinion, a symptom of a sick society if laws protecting individual choices are necessary. It indicates an intolerance barely held in check by legislation.

--Pete

[Zingydex]

Show me some valid scientific evidence that a substance has some useful medical or industrial application and I'll believe the existence of said substance is justifiable. Until then, those that produce and distribute these drugs are muderers and nothing more. That goes for currently "legal" substances as well. The tobacco companies have the blood of millions on their hands.

And if you want to talk about strawman arguments, how about the one that says the illegal drug trade will magically disappear if legal sources become available? Consider that there are numerous multibillion-dollar corporate entities built around the production and sale of tobacco and alcohol. There's also billions of dollars in illegal trade around smuggled, far cheaper (by virtue of circumventing taxes and regulations) versions of these same products.

[Jester]

Show me some valid scientific evidence that a substance has some useful medical or industrial application and I'll believe the existence of said substance is justifiable. Until then, those that produce and distribute these drugs are muderers and nothing more. That goes for currently "legal" substances as well. The tobacco companies have the blood of millions on their hands.

What's the useful medical or industrial purpose of a TV set? Of a beer? Of a deck of cards? Of World of Warcraft? Recreational drugs are (duh) for recreation, not for industry, and not generally for medicine.

Tobacco companies are guilty of misinforming the public, of selling a product they knew to be hazardous while simultaneously creating propaganda to claim they are safe. That's what they're guilty of, not creating a dangerous product. Lots of products are dangerous. That's not the issue. People are allowed to skydive, and skydiving companies are not guilty of anything - unless they misinform people about the risks.

And if you want to talk about strawman arguments, how about the one that says the illegal drug trade will magically disappear if legal sources become available? Consider that there are numerous multibillion-dollar corporate entities built around the production and sale of tobacco and alcohol. There's also billions of dollars in illegal trade around smuggled, far cheaper (by virtue of circumventing taxes and regulations) versions of these same products.

It's not magic. Smuggling happens on banned or heavily taxed products. Keep the taxes low and revoke the ban, and you eliminate the problem. Want to get rid of cigarette smuggling? Get rid of cigarette taxes. Want to stop rum running? Stop taxing rum. It's a pretty simple solution.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's not magic. Smuggling happens on banned or heavily taxed products. Keep the taxes low and revoke the ban, and you eliminate the problem. Want to get rid of cigarette smuggling? Get rid of cigarette taxes. Want to stop rum running? Stop taxing rum. It's a pretty simple solution.

Yep. Sometimes a problem *does* have a simple, easy to understand, right solution.:)

I lived in Georgia through the '60s and into the '70s. At that time, each of Georgia's 159 counties could determine its own policy on alcohol, ranging from totally 'wet' to completely 'dry'. At the county line between every dry and wet county was a ring of 'package stores', bars, and 'full service restaurants'. While it was the preachers who spoke loudest for maintaining dry counties dry, it was the owners of these establishments (along with the bootleggers) who funded those campaigns. Not sure what it all means, but it's something to think about.

--Pete

[Delc]

And if you want to talk about strawman arguments, how about the one that says the illegal drug trade will magically disappear if legal sources become available? Consider that there are numerous multibillion-dollar corporate entities built around the production and sale of tobacco and alcohol. There's also billions of dollars in illegal trade around smuggled, far cheaper (by virtue of circumventing taxes and regulations) versions of these same products.

You should look up alcohol prohibition in the US. Read about super nice people like Al Capone, and compare him to the CEO of Budweiser. Then look at the people running the drug cartels now and see which one they resemble more.

[kandrathe]

I see it happen constantly in the news already; as soon as it comes out the suspect was under the influence of whatever, it's all sympathy and "what can we do to help them" and it's not their fault anymore. Nevermind if the guy killed enough people to fill a morgue, he's the victim now. At least under the current system that guy's gonna spend a token amount of time in the slammer on drug charges - under your model he doesn't even get that.

Whether or not the courts hold people accountable for their crimes is a much larger problem, which is actually made worse by filling all the jails with people who only harmed themselves.