Newsbrief: Heartland Hysteria -- Bag of Dirt Gets First Grader Punished as Doper

I offered to let him choose a judge of his own (I assume he would choose texx), wanted to agree on one judge together (I offered BrianKagy and Jeff as my initial choices), and told him that I would choose MadMax as my judge, stacking the deck in his favor since all of these people are between very moderate and far right. I wanted the contest set up in this way so that there would be no confusion as to the leanings of the judges themselves and t_j would not be able to simply fall back on liberal bashing when I won.

 

Many states are moving to restrict sales of Sudafed, including putting them behind the pharmacist's counter and taking people's names when they buy the stuff. Apparntly, you can make meth out of Sudafed and a bunch of other stuff and as such, Sudafed is being criminalized as well.

The drug war is unbelieveable in its audacity.

 

John Milton (1608-1674)
Men of most renowned virtue have sometimes by transgressing most truly kept the law.

Only as a result of the masses of people disobeying Prohibition (and using the concept of jury nullification) was that misguided, dangerous policy overturned.

By the same token, those that force unjust and counterproductive laws on society impose at least as much of a burden as those who choose to ignore it.

Drains that would not exist if these laws were scrapped. The waste is created by the prohibitionists forcing their ideologically driven wants on the rest of society. The only waste that you mention here that is directly caused by drug usage (as opposed to prohibiting drug usage) is rehab. In a regulated market, all rehab could be funded by taxes on the drugs themselves, assuring that people who choose not to use drugs will never have to see their taxes pay for a drug user.

I totally agree, which is one of the main reasons that I want to see prohibition overturned. In a regulated market, the "poor decision makers" would fund their own treatment through the taxes they pay, the jails, police, and court systems would be free of drug "criminals," further reducing the drain on taxpayers, and this country would no longer give billions upon billions of dollars to interdict and eradicate drugs to other countries, even further reducing the taxpayer burden.

I DO work to change the law and in case you haven't been listening, I don't use drugs. Heck, I drink alcohol maybe three times a year and haven't actually been drunk in about five years.

TIP: Calling factual reports "propaganda" isn't the most effective way to show people that you know how to analyze information.

Drugs do have a negative impact on users' lives, but prohibition has a much larger negative impact on society. Nearly every negative impact that a drug user has to face is directly due to prohibition, not due to the drug itself.

No, not really. This egregious lie is very, very easy to dispute given that millions upon millions of people use drug regularly and still hold down jobs, pay their taxes, raise their kids, and are productive members of society. In Switzerland, they have been doing prescription heroin trials for over a decade, a decade that has shown that even hardcore heroin junkies can lead normal, stable lives as responsible, taxpaying members of society if they are not faced with prohibition.

 

Classic.

Anything to say about that, t_j?