Sadly, not everyone has the same experience. Far too often, people are just let off, especially with mar1juana. Even though there are supposedly minimum sentences they are still commuted. And I have been around people that use drugs. My cousin was smoking pot for quite a while. Our laws as written have the potential to have bite, but the way they are inforced, especially with kids, takes away the fear. As for my opinion on our laws currently on the books, I would probably say get rid of 'em. I am socially liberal in many cases (more of a libertarian) and whatever people want to do to themselves is their business. I do think there should be some sort of drug kicker if crimes are drug related (double the sentence or something). I don't want some crackhead mugging me for his next fix. As long as I am left alone, people can use whatever they want, including full blown heroine addiction. re: Your Evidence I have seen stats going both ways on how legalization would affect usage. Mostly I think the forbidden fruit idea is crap but that is because I never really rebelled. I think I buck the trend of most stereotypes though (father was an alchoholic, I drink rarely; father was abusive, I am generally non-violent; single parent home most of my liife, did well in school; etc) The real problem with my analyzing your evidence is that I don't care if usage goes up or down. Sorry.
This statement makes alot of sense to me. Young people ARE let off far too easily for using drugs. This is a primary reason that many young people choose to use drugs. They know that they will get off light if they use as children rather than as adults. Kids should have to do community service if they are caught with drugs, and should also lose their licenses. If they are stupid enough to use drugs, they are too stupid to drive, in my book. If you were a first child, then you are a fairly typical child of an alcoholic. Most first children of alcoholics tend to rebel against their parents by being exceedingly good kids. First children of violent parents tend to be passive or at worst, passive agressive. That is the difference, I desperately care and want usage rates to go down across the board. I just think we need to have a road map and not another "Drug Free America by 20XX" bill from Congress that spends hundreds of billions, butdoes not put a dent in usage rates. My road map is a pretty easy logical progression. 1 - Create a framework for states to form their own drug laws. This will give Cali (and the other 8 states that have passed it) the right to do medical MJ. This will also allow farmers to grow industrial hemp. 2 - Study the effects the new drug laws have on their societies and as we study, enact steering legislation to respond to issues. 3 - Eventually, some state will experiment with a regulated market for mar1juana, prescription heroin, or MDMA for psychotherapy. Again, we study the results and identify the best methods to deal with issues. 4 - The government acts as an information clearinghouse to disseminate data about programs and to help communities replicate programs that work and avoid negative results. Eventually, we will find the best ways to minimize use by both minors and also the population at large. We can reduce demand in adults and choke the supply to kids. Look at gun legislation, like trigger locks, and look at the miniscule numbers of kids who have access to a gun against the percentage of households that have a gun (especially in Texas). We can choke off the supply to kids if we take it seriously enough.
Nevermind the fact that a large % of mj sold in the good ol' USofA is HOMEGROWN. So Flatliner (such an appropriate name) if I buy gas I’m a terrorist?
Added to the fact that the cocaine comes to us through South America, and our heroin comes from South America and southeast Asia. Middle eastern heroin goes to Europe, so they are the ones who are supporting terrorists. Americans support the various mafia organizations. This is why we need to regulate the market, so that the government and legitimate businesses are the ones who profit instead of the criminals. Actually, this is closer to the truth than drugs supporting terrorism. If we reduced our dependance on foreign oil by 25%, we would not have to buy oil from the middle east at all. But that is another thread.
Very well written article. Editorial: No Drug War Exception to Good and Evil http://www.drcnet.org/wol/292.shtml#goodandevil David Borden, Executive Director, borden@drcnet.org, 6/20/03 This week's drug war news as usual includes no shortage of outrages. Despite the mass murder of more than 2,000 Thai drug suspects without trial by police in recent months, the supreme commander of Thailand's Army and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff are meeting to discuss how they can help each other fight drugs. And in Peru, the military, assisted by US forces, will resume shooting down airplanes that they suspect or claim they suspect of carrying drugs -- also without trial. Our government will not reduce our country's drug problem by helping other governments around the world commit murder. Any reductions in coca in Peru will be replaced by increases in other countries. Any reductions in opium in Thailand will be replaced by increased in other countries. This "balloon effect" is well demonstrated, has been happening reliably for decades, and any public official or pseudo-academic who claims otherwise or that it might be different next time is lying to us and/or himself. There is no legitimate moral, intellectual or practical justification for encouraging or assisting drug war murders. Yet the powers and interests driving them have no desire to stop nor even slow down, neither abroad nor at home. Just as the death of Veronica Bowers, the 35-year old missionary shot out of the Peruvian sky in error, stopped the shootdowns only temporarily, the death of Alberta Spruill in New York City from a "no-knock" warrant prompted only temporary discussion -- they're not even talking about ceasing the deadly no-knock drug raids, though the innocent deaths happen again and again. The drug warmongers will concede nothing voluntarily, no matter how terrible or outrageous or execrable. Since policymakers lack the moral clarity or political will in sufficient numbers to perceive and stop drug war atrocities by the agencies under their authority, it is up to people to demand it of them. We must expose the grotesque immoralities of the drug war, we must insist that fundamental ethics and proportion and due process be restored to laws and policies, and we must demand accountability. We must describe failure as failure, injustice as injustice, and murder as murder. And we must regard informed inaction as complicity, and deliberation human rights violations perpetrated or permitted by governments as no less condemnable than acts of violence committed by criminals or terrorists. To do so would be to devalue the fundamental ideals of what is right and what is wrong that have stood the test of millennia. There is no drug war exception to good and evil.
Anyone have any comment on that article, or have all of you prohibitionists decided that you really don't have any intelligent arguments for me?
Well Flat, I've seen lots of people play Devil's Advocate on this board, but you are the first to play Devil's A$$hole.
Well since you've got your head too far up your a$$ to pay attention, I will recap for you. I don't do drugs. Nor do I do anything else illegal, except speed occasionally. So I'm not unAmerican as I am doing my constitutional duty to try and change laws that I disagree with through the system. So maybe you should take your ignorant, inflammatory comments back the other forum you must frequent, bbs.buttholes'r'us.com
Well, if nobody can refute my points or provide even ONE good reason that prohibition is preferable to the alternative, we have to chalk this one up as Regulation - 50, Prohibition - 0.
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the numbers (now the lottery since it is “legal”) as a reference for how legalization can reduce crime. Back in the day, the numbers were a big thing.
DaDakota, Have I changed your mind or are you just upset that the facts don't back your side? I didn't mean to run you off and if you have any other evidence or arguments, I would like to hear them.
Flatbrain hasn't actually used a single argument that I thought was well developed, reasoned, or intelligent. This is why I called out DaDakota, at least he (or she?) seems to have a brain.
