DREAMer: I respect your argument about not giving benefits to drug users, but, ultimately, that is at the heart of the issue. The problem in this country is that we punish the user/addict. Users are not criminals. They have serious medical problems. Anyone who has suffered withdrawl from any substance (cigarettes, caffeine, etc) knows that. In our country (USA), we punish people for making bad choices. However, legalizing drugs isn't necissarily the answer either. If they are legalized, does that mean dealers must pay taxes? How do we collect? Are drugs subject to import tax? How do we find them? Should major drug manufacturers line up to sell crack like they do Zanax or Prozac? The problem is that, while it is unfair to ask the general populace to pay for the "war on drugs" when it isn't helping, it is also unrealistic to think that legalizing them would solve the problems. The biggest killers in America aren't drugs, they are cigarettes. More drunk drivers kill people because of their use of alcohol than users from drug-related crime. Sure, the streets are more dangerous with pushers and users on them, but would they be that much safer if we gave them the right to smoke crack or shoot up without the threat of jail time? The problem is that people WANT drugs. Drugs, like alcohol, serve only one purpose: escape from reality. I'm not here to skewer drinkers per se, but the only reason people get drunk is to avoid dealing with reality. Same thing goes for drug users. If you give users a reason to want to live with their current reality, the need for drugs will cease to exist. My point is that out and out legalization of drugs would probably not solve the problem because drug use would likely grow and the addictive properties would still exist so people would still beg, borrow and steal to get them. Problem unsolved. However, if instead of placing drug users in prison, you forced them to undergo manditory rehab AND made it an extended rehab (not just six weeks) that led to further rehabilitation - psychological, emotional, financial, etc - it would cut off the desire for drugs on the street and dealers would lose their income. Obviously, it is all speculative and the legalization of drugs is really a mute point because it won't happen under current political and social conditions, but the arguments are strong on both sides and it is definitely and issue our society must contend with if it is to deal with the broader issues of crime and punishment in the future. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
BTW: I read recently that the biggest addictive problem in America is not from illegal drugs. The biggest addictive problems in America stem from prescription pain medication and alcohol. One study said that as many as 40% of Americans could be considered alcoholics under what many consider conservative guidelines. By the same token, hundreds of thousands are addicted to pain medication that is perfectly legal and readily prescribed by physicians. Just something else to think about. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
If drugs become legal, they need FDA approval? Why? Last time I bought a Corona, I didn't see the FDA saying that the lack of vitamins could cause me harm. Or it didn't say that there is a trace of calcium somewhere in it. I believe this. If alcohol is legal, drugs should be too. There is no difference between them Also, why punish someone who uses drugs? They should be treated or left alone. We either outlaw all drugs(including tabacco and alcohol), or we let society be responsible for their own actions. Heres an example of making citizens responsible. In NYC, the mayor a few months ago passed a controversial law stating that if you are caught drinking and driving, you get arrested and not only that, but you lose your car. That means from Mercedes to Yugo, you are drinking and driving, you get arrested and lose your car. Now, this mayor has a big time rep for being a bully. But guess what? Drunk driving has dropped like 60 percent since he did that last summer. You make it aware that yeah, you can get drunk all you want. You can drink all you want. But, if you get caught operating a vehicle, you will be severly punished. They can do the same for drugs. If not, then outlaw alcohol. Tabacco also. And coffee, which has an addictive drug in it. ------------------ Live Rocketball. Breathe Rocketball. Die with Rocketball.
Heres an example of making citizens responsible. In NYC, the mayor a few months ago passed a controversial law stating that if you are caught drinking and driving, you get arrested and not only that, but you lose your car. That means from Mercedes to Yugo, you are drinking and driving, you get arrested and lose your car. I think this is a great law (a bit harsh, maybe) b/c it targets the problem (the driving) rather than the drinking. But I remember when I first heard about it, I thought it was a constitutional violation just waiting to happen. Does anyone know if this thing has been challenged? ------------------
You know, people who are stupid enough to live where blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornados happen shouldn't receive government assistance. For one thing, because I don't want church and state to be together doesn't make me ignorant whining whatever. Jeez, I disagree with you, many do. That doesn't make them ignorant, they just have an opinion. I disagree with BrianKagy on just about everything. But he has come up with his own opinion, has have I. Good for him...he's wrong, but he's not ignorant. I could call you stupid for using "here" instead of "hear". But what would that accomplish? Nothing. Calling people names like that is what has turned many off to the Christian Right in the first place. Second, how will you feel when your kid gets taught the Satanic Bible by his teacher. Because if you're going to allow one religion in, you can't disallow any other religion. I agree, as a Christian, take out swearing on the Bible, and "In God We Trust" on money. It's much better than the alternative. Why do we need a government endorsement of religion? Are we that insecure about what we believe that we feel our beliefs will be legitimized if the Ten Commandments are on the wall, or if we say a prayer before a football game? Wow, off-topic, imagine that! Jeff, I have to disagree with your assumption that people drink to escape reality. I drink because I like the way it tastes. I like the way it makes me feel. Not that I don't like the way I feel when I'm sober, or not drinking (I very rarely get drunk). It's just something I like, like when I go to the movies, or watch the Rockets. Bottom line, drugs will never be legalized. I'm really not sure if they should. Pot-hell yes. Least harmful out of alcohol, tobacco and mar1juana. Crack, I don't know. I do think that we're all in agreement that treatment is a better resolution than punishment. I do believe that it is in the government's best interest to assist those with drinking, drug, and other problems. Instead of having them waste space, and taxpayers money in prisons (since without treatment, chances are they'll return and return), help them to beat the problem instead of delaying it. Plus, I believe that a healthy populace is also in the interest of the government. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited March 23, 2000).]
Almu, A couple of things I disagree on with you. 1. 2 wrongs don't make a right. I tend to enjoy a few beers on the weekends and yeah beer is a drug and it is legal. However if beer was illegal i wouldn't drink it. Facts are beer and nicotine were legal long ago and just because they are legal does not make it OK to legalize other drugs today. 2. I'm sure the FDA does inspect at least the corona plant and the brewing process to ensure what it says in in the beer is in there. So I'm sure if dope were legalized you would have the FDA involved. Imagine the slogan on a canister of dope "This product may make you temporarily happy, may make you addicted, may make you lose your job, and may generally screw up your life. Enjoy -FDA" ------------------
Rman95, "You know, people who are stupid enough to live where blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornados happen shouldn't receive government assistance." I'm assuming you were making an analogy to what I said about the gov't helping addicts. Well, it's a very very poor analogy. First off, addiction happens because of a choice. No one chooses to live in the path of a tornado. Also, people are forced to live some places due to work. And Most houses are not mobile, so most people just can't pick a spot along the highway and say "I want to live there." Also, natural disasters are something that happen to someone, addiction is something that someone brings on themselves. I do respect your opinions and your post, but it started out very weakly. On the ignorant whining .... comment: I was in a bad mood and irritated by recent debates I've heard on similar subjects. I went overboard. One other note: "ignorant" and "stupid" have very different meanings, but feel free to call me whatever you want. Especially, when I was not directing that comment at you, but your belief. On the "seperation of church and state". The Constitution states that the government shall not institute a religion. It doesn't say that all religion must be kept out of politics and the gov't. In fact, wanting to keep religion out of the gov't is an impossibility, because anyone who fills a gov't office or position has their own beliefs and their actions will be, in some way, affected by their religion. I agree that all religion should be taken out of government... only because they are trying to take any and all Christianity out of it. If we're gonna take all religion out of the gov't, then we must do away with the giant Christmas tree at the White House. Not because it endorses the Christian holiday, but because the Christmas tree is a symbol that gets its origin in a Germanic Druid-like religion. So, it is therefore a religious symbol and must be taken out of the gov't. I am a Christian, but I am not saying the gov't should be pro-Christian and anti-all other religions. I am tolerant of other people's beliefs. I don't try to press my beliefs onto anyone, but I will tell people what I believe and leave it up to them if they want to believe it too. According to my belief, God gave us free will, so I don't have a problem with what people think or do as long as it doesn't affect someone else negatively. Quick note: This sorta follows the line of thinking above. Just thought I'd throw it out. My opinion on homosexuality is that it is a sin. Since I am a Christian, I believe in the Bible, and in the Bible it is specifically called a sin. BUT, it is a personal choice, and I respect that. I personally have a gay uncle, a lesbian aunt, and two lesbian cousins. They are all just normal people. I actually am thankful that I've had the opportunity to know them, because when I was young and "stupid", I had a very different view on homosexuality. To continue, although I consider it a sin, I don't condemn gay people. It is not for us to judge, so I have to leave that up to God. Also, lying is a sin too, just like homosexuality. So, anyone who wants to pursecute gays for their lifestyle because it's a sin, should also persecute all sinners: liars, fornicators, adulterators, etc... Don't pick out some sins to crusade against. Also, the Bible even tells us not to judge. Okay, I hope I haven't offended anyone... I'm not for hanging the Ten Commandments in schools. But, I am for prayer, as long as it's silent. ------------------------------- Who really thinks that drug use would increase if it were legalized? Would those of you out there who don't use drugs start to be users? I wouldn't. I don't smoke cigarettes, so why would I smoke a doobie? There may be a slight increase in experimentation, but I just don't believe that someone who wouldn't otherwise try drugs would do so it they were legalized. I'm tired, that's enough for now.
Here are some facts I found on Hemp. I know most of these to be true, but I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the numbers and such. Either way, it is pretty interesting. Anyway, here goes: 1.Cannabis and hemp are the same. mar1juana was the mexican name given to cannabis. 2.Cannabis was first cultibated in China around 4000 B.C.. 3.The original drafts of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution were written on hemp paper. 4.One acre of hemp in a year will produce as much paper as 10-16 acres of trees. 5.Hemp is a source of fiber for cloth and cordage for rope. The hemp fiber is located inside the long stem of the plant. 6.Hemp seed is nature's perfect food. The oil from hemp seeds has the highest percentage of essential fatty acids and the lowest percentage of saturated fats. 7.Cannabis sativa was ruled in court as 'safer than most of the foods we eat'. 8.Cannabis sativa can be used to make over 5000 textile and 25000 cellulose products. 9.Sterilized hemp seed is commonly sold as bird seed. 10.Rolling papers are made from hemp paper. 11.In 1937, the mar1juana Tax Stamp Act prohibited the use, sale, and cultivation of mar1juana in the United States. 12.Five years later, during World War II, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released the film, "Hemp for Victory," which encouraged American farmers to grow hemp for the war effort. 13.Hemp is cultivated all over the world. 14.Hemp is the strongest natural fiber known, having three times the tensile strength of cotton. 15.Heavy-duty Levi's jeans were originally made out of hemp cloth. 16.Highly toxic synthetic petrochemicals could be replaced by hemp seed oil in the production of non-toxic paints, varnishes and sealants, plastics, acetates and rayon. 17.Hemp, when grown for biomass as an energy crop, can replace every type of fossil fuel energy product now used, which currently belch acid-rain-causing sulfur and other poisons into the air we breathe. (Electrical powerplants can operate cleanly and efficiently on biomass fuels) 18.By itself, widespread use of hemp seed food protein could feed millions of children now dying in the Third World of protein starvation. Current U.S. policy, however, dictates that as a prerequisite to receiving U.S. foreign aid, the recipient country must first dismantle its hemp industry. 19.Cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug by the Food & Drug Administration. Designated as a narcotic, it cannot be prescribed by physicians to patients. 20.On September 6, 1988, Admisistrative Law Judge Francis L. Young concluded that "mar1juana is one of the safest, therapeutically active substances known to man." 21.Cannabis can be used as a medicine to treat nausea, pain and muscle spasms. It alleviates symptoms of glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, migraines and other debilitating ailments. 22.Thirty-eight states have passed legislation permitting medical use of mar1juana. 23.Eight Americans receive prescribed mar1juana from the U.S. government. 24.More than 400,000 Americans are arrested each year on mar1juana charges. 25.More than 400,000 Americans die from diseases related to cigarette smoking each year. 26.More than 150,000 Americans die of alchohol abuse each year. 27.In 10,000 years of usage, no one has ever died from mar1juana. ------------------ Proud Cheerleader 'til we move to New Orleans 302 [This message has been edited by Lynus302 (edited March 23, 2000).]
Wow, thanks, I'm not stupid, but my beliefs are. Not that I really care what you think of me, but I value my beliefs, as everyone should. If you call them stupid, you're calling me stupid, ignorant, whatever. I never said you were stupid, nor do I think you are. You don't think your gay relatives are stupid, but do you tell them that the fact that they love people of the same sex is stupid? Since it seems that if someone has a different belief than you, that belief is stupid. As for my natural disaster analogy, my point was that the government has a benefit in helping those in need. They don't want to see people who lost everything they own wondering the streets of wherever, nor should they want the prison system to be a revolving door for those people who have an addiction. No one made the people build the house on the cliff overlookin the ocean in California. I would never do that, you know why? Because there is a chance that an earthquake, mudslide or fire could destroy that house. I'm not saying they don't deserve government assistance, they do. But they have to know the risks of building a house there. My whole point is that the government should want to be sure that the population is healthy financially (and no, I don't mean handouts), physically and mentally. Also, addictions aren't always something you do to yourself, a lot of times, genetics plays a big factor. Both of my grandfathers were alcoholics. Based on research, I know that I have a better chance than some to become an alcoholic. Some people can quit cigarrettes cold turkey. Some can never quit. It's not just what you do, it's how your body reacts to it. But I stand by my opinion that whether or not something disastrous happens to you by chance, or choice, the government has an interest to help you. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that we are the only team mentioned in the national anthem? I didn't think so! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited March 23, 2000).]
DREAMer: I'm assuming you were making an analogy to what I said about the gov't helping addicts. Well, it's a very very poor analogy. First off, addiction happens because of a choice. No one chooses to live in the path of a tornado. Also, people are forced to live some places due to work. I disagree. I assume RM95 was not referring to random disasters, but those that are easily preventable. For example, those people who have rebuilt their house 3 or 4 times in a known mudslide-zone or whatever. Those are entirely preventable with a little common sense. But the government does have a responsibility to help those people as well as drug-addicts. Why? What else are they going to do? Just let them rot from withdrawal if they have no health insurance? In most cases, the cost of rehab is *far* less than the net tax revenues the government with recover from the rehabbed individual. Essentially, if you can *effectively* rehab people, it will pay for itself in the long-run. RM95: ...but I value my beliefs, as everyone should. I don't value your beliefs, RM95. Sorry! ------------------
Lynus: Your point about hemp is well-taken, but a little misleading. Hemp is NOT the same as cannibas. Cannibas is the plant family from which mar1juana and hemp come. The halucinigen (and I use that term very loosley) in hemp (the same in mar1juana or the over-the-counter substance Marinol) occupies only about 1/10th the amount as it does in mar1juana. To borrow a phrase from a well-respected Britsh hemp farmer: "To get high on hemp, you would have to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole." We shouldn't confuse the two plants because hemp is FAR more beneficial (you pointed out just some of the ways) than mar1juana strictly as a plant and a product and doesn't produce the "effect" of mar1juana. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
Would it be logical to conclude that someone who is in favor of legalizing drugs because it would make them 'harder to get' would be opposed to gun control for the same reason? Shouldn't all guns be legal if they're harder to get that way? BTW, DREAMer, another magnificent post. Love the church and state part. ------------------
