Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

brian bennett wrote: [q

something tells me that legalizing heroin is unlikely to alter its usage patterns much.

I actually agree with you hear heroin is not a great candidate because of the well known quick hook. people have a healthy fear of it. but coke and meth are more gradual. people start out looking like they are "handling" it. these apparently functioning users are perfect conduits to get others to start on the drug.

[lovebush]

[quote="brian bennett"][

Quote: the problem though is that the vast majority of drug users do indeed stay home and cause no harm to any other. but all drug users are treated as though they actually do those things.

i was hoping my brother would join in and speak to this issue as he sees these victims of other peoples use, on a daily basis. They have seen a great increase in people driving while high since the medical pot thing was passed.

Quote: i'm tired of the "it isn't victimless" bullsh!t -- 99.9 percent of drug users are not leaving "victims" in their wakes.

Do you think 99.9% are single and have no children. the spouses and children are often the victims of the user. often is neglect of the children and this is very hard for the authority's to discover and prove.


Quote:
the issue is not "do we have the right to do drugs?" (clearly, we do -- how else can you explain all the drug stores), the issue is this: "how are any us empowered to punish someone for using drugs?" we aren't.

We live in a republic, our elected representatives have passed an act giving them the authority. It (if Im not mistaken) has held up to constitutional scrutiny.

Quote: the users aren't allowed to blame the drugs for what they do -- and neither are we. it isn't the drugs -- it's the people.

Drugs have an altering effect on the people who use them, its not always apparent to the user, but the people who love them almost always see a drastic change for the worse.

Quote: we won't make any real progress until people figure out that none of us possesses a "right" to punish someone over what they choose to do to themselves.

If your 99.9% stat were true, we wouldnt be having this discussion. It was all the problems that were being caused by the users that lead to the laws.


Quote:
we all need to dig down to the truth: and the truth is that the drugs and drug users aren't really causing much of a problem. the problems caused by trying to stop them, however, are limitless.

maybe you know a better class of user than I knew. but the ones I Knew were always causing harm to someone other than themselves.

[Sukoi]

lovebush wrote: Quote:
the issue is not "do we have the right to do drugs?" (clearly, we do -- how else can you explain all the drug stores), the issue is this: "how are any us empowered to punish someone for using drugs?" we aren't.

We live in a republic, our elected representatives have passed an act giving them the authority. It (if Im not mistaken) has held up to constitutional scrutiny.

Quote: we won't make any real progress until people figure out that none of us possesses a "right" to punish someone over what they choose to do to themselves.

If your 99.9% stat were true, we wouldnt be having this discussion. It was all the problems that were being caused by the users that lead to the laws.
You are clearly not very well informed about this. There are two cases that I'm aware of that have been heard in the SCOTUS; those of Timothy Leary and Angel Raich and prohibition itself was not judged in either of those cases, although Leary did succede in getting the "Marijuana Tax Act" struck down.

Also, "drug laws" were not created because of people causing problems, they were created because of bigotry and greed. Take a look. From the link:

Quote: Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:

Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

This is primarily geared toward "marijuana" but it includes how real "drugs" became illegal as well and everything at this site is easily verifiable.

[brian bennett]

perdidochas wrote: brian bennett wrote: perdidochas wrote: yes, but their byproducts can stick around for a while. Why else can pot use be picked up in the hair?

the byproducts are not active -- they are what's left when the drug has been used up. all drugs can be picked up through hair testing -- hair grows, and if you had any drug metabolites in your system when the hair cells were developed, they can be trapped there and subsequently detected.

in no case does that indicate that a person is currently under the influence.

p.s. you are drifting farther and farther away from the topic at hand.

I've lost interest. I really don't care either way. I just don't like any side making outrageous claims about the other. Basically, you're attempting to defend drugs by demonizing alcohol. Your claims about the evils of alcohol are very similar to claims the "Reefer madness" people made about pot. In moderation, neither of them causes much problem.

i have not demonized alcohol at all -- i merely provided the factual data that illustrates quite clearly that if our society is willing to "tolerate" the damaging wake left by alcohol abuse, then it damn well ought to tolerate the much lower costs blamed on abuse of other drugs.

too bad you don't get it.

good day.

[brian bennett]

lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote:

Quote: the problem though is that the vast majority of drug users do indeed stay home and cause no harm to any other. but all drug users are treated as though they actually do those things.

i was hoping my brother would join in and speak to this issue as he sees these victims of other peoples use, on a daily basis. They have seen a great increase in people driving while high since the medical pot thing was passed.

Quote: i'm tired of the "it isn't victimless" bullsh!t -- 99.9 percent of drug users are not leaving "victims" in their wakes.

Do you think 99.9% are single and have no children. the spouses and children are often the victims of the user. often is neglect of the children and this is very hard for the authority's to discover and prove.

i know for a fact that the vast majority of drug users do not cause problems for themselves or others. your brother works with the extremely small fraction of people who have problems in life. pretending that the drugs cause the problems or that all users of any given drug are like the problem people is simply wrong.

lovebush wrote:
Quote:
the issue is not "do we have the right to do drugs?" (clearly, we do -- how else can you explain all the drug stores), the issue is this: "how are any us empowered to punish someone for using drugs?" we aren't.

We live in a republic, our elected representatives have passed an act giving them the authority. It (if Im not mistaken) has held up to constitutional scrutiny.

you don't appear to understand our governmental system very well. explain how these representatives have given themselves an authority to regulate what "we the people" may choose to do to ourselves, and to regulate the flora and fauna of earth. if such a thing existed, it would be among the enumerated powers of congress listed in the constitution -- find it. oops, it isn't there.

and, no it most certainly has not been held up to constitutional scrutiny. but, do you really need some court to declare that you do indeed have the power to do things to yourself free of punishment?

have you no sense of self? whose permission do you seek to be "allowed" to make decisions about what you do to yourself?

lovebush wrote:
Quote: the users aren't allowed to blame the drugs for what they do -- and neither are we. it isn't the drugs -- it's the people.

Drugs have an altering effect on the people who use them, its not always apparent to the user, but the people who love them almost always see a drastic change for the worse.

i see you've swallowed the propaganda without question. "always see a drastic change for the worse" -- that's horsesh!t, and there are literally millions of drug users all around you proving that every day. stop blaming the drugs.

if what you say is true, then pony up the data that proves it.

lovebush wrote:
Quote: we won't make any real progress until people figure out that none of us possesses a "right" to punish someone over what they choose to do to themselves.

If your 99.9% stat were true, we wouldnt be having this discussion. It was all the problems that were being caused by the users that lead to the laws.


that's the mythology -- prove it.

lovebush wrote:
Quote:
we all need to dig down to the truth: and the truth is that the drugs and drug users aren't really causing much of a problem. the problems caused by trying to stop them, however, are limitless.

maybe you know a better class of user than I knew. but the ones I Knew were always causing harm to someone other than themselves.

over the past 3 decades i've known hundreds (at least) of drug using people from every social strata except the extraordinarily wealthy. very, very, few of them became problem drug users. and that, my friend, is the norm -- not the stereotypes you wish to cling to.

do you know any alcohol users? are they all worthless, spouse-abusing, dead-beat drunks in the gutter? the same thing applies to the users of other drugs. it isn't the drugs -- it's the people. we aren't in kindergarten anymore, so there is no need to punish the whole class simply because one kid is a f**k up.

look around on my site and get educated a little about what is actually going on. i've collected all of the government's drug related data so you can see for yourself how minimal the problems of drug abuse actually are.

sorry, but all you are doing is using propaganda and stereotypes to cling to erroroneous beliefs.

and tell me, if drug users were actually causing so much trouble, then why do we have to test their piss to identify them? if they really were such a big problem, we wouldn't have to force everyone to trade piss for pay -- you could tell who they are.

you can't tell though, and all the data clearly shows that they aren't really much of a problem.

ultimately, the issue has nothing at all to do with drug use: it has to do with your blind acceptance of the idea that your right to touch yourself as you see fit has been usurped. you are buying into the idea that you are "owned" by an entity outside yourself.

who do you believe has the legitimate power to hold you accountable to them for the acts you wilfully commit upon yourself? what decisions do you maintain control of if you can't even decide what to do to yourself? are you bereft of "free will?"

you can lead a horse to water ...

[brian bennett]

lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote:

something tells me that legalizing heroin is unlikely to alter its usage patterns much.

I actually agree with you hear heroin is not a great candidate because of the well known quick hook. people have a healthy fear of it. but coke and meth are more gradual. people start out looking like they are "handling" it. these apparently functioning users are perfect conduits to get others to start on the drug.

abuse is the exception, not the norm. and people actually don't want to be drug addicts -- what a shock!

here's the use data from a variety of cross sectional perspectives for cocaine, crack and amphetamines.

even among people who like to do drugs, the truly dangerous ones are largely avoided. humans do have the tendency toward self-preservation.

people are nowhere near as helpless or stupid (nor the drugs so overwhelmingly powerful) as you seem to believe.

[Norrin Radd]

[quote="lovebush"] Norrin Radd wrote: [
Quote: Even if drugs killed 50% of the people who used them, it would still be inconstitutional to ban them. The government's job is to protect people from others. It is NOT the government's job to protect us from ourselves .

Ive been thinking about the fact that there is no constitutional authority to ban drugs. I think if the courts ever did rule in your favor, the Congress would waist no time in passing a by-partisan amendment to the constitution giving themselves that power. the public would overwhelmingly support it and they would have no trouble getting it ratified by the states. I am as certain about that as I am about most anything . So the constitutional issue is really rather a mute point.

Quote: btw, I was hoping you might comment on some of my other points.

Do you agree that the war on drugs has created more victims than the drugs themselves cause?

That would would depend on how you define victim. I dont consider anyone who has been arrested and rightly convicted to be a victim.(that includes myself) I think there are going to be victims whether they are legal or not. I think the most unfortunate of all the victims are the children of the addicts especially the babies born addicted. I think that # would go up without prohibition.

I have tried to consider and comment on each of your points. please remind me if I missed any.

I don't expect you to comment on every point I make, as I will not comment on every point you make. If I have a point I feel needs addressed, I will repeat it, like I did with the victim point.

You don't see someone spending life in prison for growing pot as a victim? How about the person's family, are they victims?

Have youdone any reading on drug war victims? Judging from your reply, the answer is no.

Every innocent person killed during a no-knock drug raid is a victim. How many of these examples have you read about?

Every person who has died from a tainted drug is a victim, as there would be no tainted drugs if they were legal.

Innocent people who have been killed in gang shootings are all victims and many of these innocent deaths are a result of the war on drugs.

Ever hear of Dnonald Scott? He is one of the most important victims, in my opinion, but there are many others.

Donald Scott

Age 62 at the time of his death at his home in Malibu, CA. on October 2, 1992.

Scott and his wife, Frances Plante, were awakened by a pounding at the door. As Plante attempted to open the door, a narcotics task force from the LA County Sheriff's Dept. burst into the home, weapons in hand. Plante was pushed forcefully from the door at gun point. She cried out, "Don't shoot me, don't kill me!" With a gun aimed at her head, she looked to her right and saw Donald charging into the room, waving a revolver above his head. She heard a deputy shout, "Put the gun down! Put the gun down! Put the gun down!" As Scott was doing so, she heard three gun shots ring out, apparently from two sources.

Her husband was killed instantly.

Scott was a millionaire, heir to the Scott Paper fortune. Scott owned 250 acres of breathtakingly beautiful land that was adjacent to federal park lands. Attempts had been made by the feds to buy the property, but Scott was not interested in selling. Claims that there might be pot growing on the land, made by agents who did aerial surveillance, were used to get a search warrant. An official inquiry suggested that agents were hoping this raid would lead to asset forfeiture of the property Scott would not sell. No marijuana was found. Scott did not even smoke it.

http://www.injusticeline.com/victims.html

How about Cory Maye, EVER HEAR OF HIM?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512j.asp


http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

All these victims, but there are more.

How many states have legalized medical marijuana?

Isn't marijuana safer than many prescription drugs and a million times safer than oxycontin?

Every person who was using medical marijauna and was sent to prison is a victim. Of course you do not seem to have a problem with the FEDGOV trampling state's rights.

Here is just one example,

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/11/victims_of_the_.html

Ever hear of Tulia?

http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/columns/column.php?id=107

Every person who has ever had drugs planted on them is a victim.

Do you think this is a rare occurance? The PLanting of evidence and perjury by law enforcement professionals is nothing new, but the war on drugs has made it much more common.

Two cops admit stealing cash, planting evidence, and finger third cop in set-up of ex-wife

by Lawrence Buser, Memphis Commercial Appeal

Dec. 15, 2005

Two Memphis police officers pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to charges they extorted cash and planted drugs on motorists in bogus traffic stops.

http://www.unknownnews.org/0512161215twooutofthree.html



////////

Ever seen this?

June 1996, Washington, D.C.: Sixty percent of police chiefs nationwide admit that police and other law enforcement agencies have been unsuccessful in reducing the drug problem in the United States and an overwhelming majority (85 percent) call for major changes in the way America deals with drug use, according to a joint study conducted by the Police Foundation and Drug Strategies -- a Washington D.C. based organization that advocates a more balanced approach to fighting drugs.
"Police Chiefs want to see a balanced approach," Police Foundation President Hubert Williams recently told the Law Enforcement News in response to the report. "They recognize that a narrow strategy directed down a single corridor will not work." More than 300 police chiefs from around the country participated in the study.
The report's key findings are as follows:
* Only 15 percent of the police chiefs polled say punishment would be more effective than education, interdiction, or treatment in controlling drug problems; only 10 percent of chiefs who have served in a narcotics division choose punishment over the other options.
* Nearly three-fourths say that mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession have been only somewhat effective or not really the answer to drug trafficking in their communities; only 21 percent say mandatory sentences have been very or fairly effective.
* Only 28 percent regard low conviction rates, either for dealers or users, as key limitations in their ability to deal with drugs in their communities.
* By two to one, police chiefs say that putting drug users in court-supervised treatment programs (59 percent) is more effective than prison or jail time (28 percent).
* Only three percent believe that current efforts by law enforcement have been very successful in reducing the drug problem in the United States.
"The findings of the Police Foundation and Drug Strategies demonstrate that the majority of our nation's police chiefs who are on the front lines of the 'War on Drugs' do not favor the 'get-tough' approaches against drug users that are so often heralded by our political leaders and supported by the American public," said NORML Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre.
For more information, please contact Drug Strategies @ (202) 663-6090.

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/norml/weekly/96-06-06.html


I COULD GIVE MORE AND MROE EXAMPLES AND I HAVEN'T EVEN COVERED ASSET FORFEITURE VICTIMS YET.

This is why I get frustrated and call people sheeple.

All this information is easy to find, yet some poeople will allow theri personal experiences to dominate their thinking and they will not get off their fat, lazy asses and do some simple research.

This discussion is becoming a waste of time.

Since you will not even try to educate yourself, preferring instead to allow personal experiences as the sole basis for your opinions, there is really no reason to continue.

Thanks for the civil discussion, but I can no longer be civil as you are simply way too ignorant on this topic and you will not even try to educate yourself, therefore I am done with you.

later

[politicsul]

I was a :spam:, now I am banned.

[kaptinemo]

IMHO, the main problem that anyone has regarding the issue of illicit drugs in this country is not a paucity of information, but an unwillingness on the part of those who believe themselves to be unaffected by the drug laws to perform the voluminous research involved in educating themselves.

The idea seems to be that only researchers of arcane subjects, people 'overly'(?) concerned about the loss of civil liberties, revisionist historians, and of course, the 'druggies' are the only individuals and groups concerned about something that normally doesn't register with the very people it ought to. Yet, ever since Congress twisted the original meaning of the Commerce Clause in a fit of 'activist' legislating during a time of popular sentiment for 'progressive' causes, that one move has opened Pandora's Box regarding the ever increasing Federal power beyond the original boundaries the Founders intended for it to have. Almost all encroachments upon the individual freedoms of Americans today began early in the last century with that legislative move.

As I had posted earlier, obviously Congress felt it had the right to do what it did. But that 'right' was predicated upon twisting the original intent of the law to suit a temporal situation. That the law, and all laws stemming from it, have caused vastly more harm than they were ever expected to should become evident. That the laws should be relegated to history's scrap pile should also be evident...once that research has been performed.

But that requires some folks do a lot of homework, and even when it's laid out as cut-and-dried as it is at Brian's site, far too many just won't look. Because once they do, they face the choice all that make that journey are faced with: act to affect needed change...or not.

And the latter ones have no excuse when the DrugWar comes calling in the form of Ninja-suited, balaclava'd, helmeted and body armored police behaving like an invading army, bashing down doors, waving machine-pistols in their faces, shouting epithets, slamming their victims to the floor, pointing weapons at their children's heads and occasionally (more often than not) shooting family pets...and then laughing merrily as they unapologetically leave the wrong house they just raided. That is, of course, if you and your family are lucky enough to survive this friendly little visit from your 'public servants'. That you may have actually supported such laws will make no difference to your invaders; by doing so, you help feed the beast whose breath you will be lucky to survive smelling in your face.

Such can be the price of ignorance about drug laws...and failing to help change them.

[lovebush]

brian bennett wrote: lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote:

something tells me that legalizing heroin is unlikely to alter its usage patterns much.

I actually agree with you hear heroin is not a great candidate because of the well known quick hook. people have a healthy fear of it. but coke and meth are more gradual. people start out looking like they are "handling" it. these apparently functioning users are perfect conduits to get others to start on the drug.

abuse is the exception, not the norm. and people actually don't want to be drug addicts -- what a shock!

here's the use data from a variety of cross sectional perspectives for cocaine, crack and amphetamines.

even among people who like to do drugs, the truly dangerous ones are largely avoided. humans do have the tendency toward self-preservation.

people are nowhere near as helpless or stupid (nor the drugs so overwhelmingly powerful) as you seem to believe.


I cant say with a great certainty, about all drugs, but I have seen to many people who get totaly messed up by meth. incuding myself, to believe anything else.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote: lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote:

something tells me that legalizing heroin is unlikely to alter its usage patterns much.

I actually agree with you hear heroin is not a great candidate because of the well known quick hook. people have a healthy fear of it. but coke and meth are more gradual. people start out looking like they are "handling" it. these apparently functioning users are perfect conduits to get others to start on the drug.

abuse is the exception, not the norm. and people actually don't want to be drug addicts -- what a shock!

here's the use data from a variety of cross sectional perspectives for cocaine, crack and amphetamines.

even among people who like to do drugs, the truly dangerous ones are largely avoided. humans do have the tendency toward self-preservation.

people are nowhere near as helpless or stupid (nor the drugs so overwhelmingly powerful) as you seem to believe.


I cant say with a great certainty, about all drugs, but I have seen to many people who get totaly messed up by meth. incuding myself, to believe anything else.

So, let's keep drugs illegal which has not helped a single problem associated with drug use all because some people are too weak too be able to keep from getting hooked on drugs.

Name one positve accomplishment of the war ond drugs.

What are we getting for 50 billion a year?

[Jirwin]

Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote: lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote:

something tells me that legalizing heroin is unlikely to alter its usage patterns much.

I actually agree with you hear heroin is not a great candidate because of the well known quick hook. people have a healthy fear of it. but coke and meth are more gradual. people start out looking like they are "handling" it. these apparently functioning users are perfect conduits to get others to start on the drug.

abuse is the exception, not the norm. and people actually don't want to be drug addicts -- what a shock!

here's the use data from a variety of cross sectional perspectives for cocaine, crack and amphetamines.

even among people who like to do drugs, the truly dangerous ones are largely avoided. humans do have the tendency toward self-preservation.

people are nowhere near as helpless or stupid (nor the drugs so overwhelmingly powerful) as you seem to believe.


I cant say with a great certainty, about all drugs, but I have seen to many people who get totaly messed up by meth. incuding myself, to believe anything else.

So, let's keep drugs illegal which has not helped a single problem associated with drug use all because some people are too weak too be able to keep from getting hooked on drugs.

Name one positve accomplishment of the war ond drugs.

What are we getting for 50 billion a year?

Richer politicians?

I do believe that Congress has the right to ban drugs, the commerce clause gives them that right imho, I however believe that to keep certain drugs illegal is far more deterimental than helpful. Marijuana being a prime example, Cocain and Heroin though I feel should be kept illegal as they are far more addictive. Although I still am not sure that we should be putting that much money into policing this issue and maybe just make the sentences for Cocaine and Heroin use life in prison. Those caught selling those two should be put to death for endangering the welfare of the citizens. I think it would be cheaper than to keep lining the pockets of politicians. Of course we know that it will never happen. WHen was the last time you saw a politician take a pay cut?

[lovebush]

[quote="Norrin Radd"][
Quote: Since you will not even try to educate yourself, preferring instead to allow personal experiences as the sole basis for your opinions, there is really no reason to continue.


this is like saying"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
its not just my personal experience either. I was a dealer for many years, first in a big city, then in a small town. Ive watched so many people destroy themselves on meth. did some people try it and I never saw them again because they didn't get hooked? that may be, but most once they entered the seen as first time users or I would meat them and they hadn't been using very long. these people would seem to have it together, often employed, had homes, had cars and worst of all some had kids. first the jobs would go. then the cars. while they still had a home it would become infested with homeless tweekers. and before long (but not soon enough, they would loose their kids) then they get evicted or in some cases foreclosed on. the progression to dysfunction is far more rapid than alcohol, and as I have learned from you, alcohol destroys far more lives. so what does alcohol have that meth doesn't have??? legality!

Quote: Thanks for the civil discussion, but I can no longer be civil as you are simply way too ignorant on this topic and you will not even try to educate yourself, therefore I am done with you.

later

I know it can be frustrating when you are completely convinced you are right about something and yet fail to convince others to your point of view. It can seem as though they are either dumb or they are not willing to hear you out. but I think that intelligent people can very easily look at the same info and draw different conclusions. believe what you want about me , but I have tried to keep an open mind and have considered the info that you have provided. thanks for the discussion.

[lovebush]

[quote="Norrin Radd"][

Quote: Name one positve accomplishment of the war ond drugs.

It has cept meth use down. and helped those who were hooked to get off the drug.

Quote: What are we getting for 50 billion a year?

not as much as we should, I'm inclined to think that pot should be legalized and the money saved by not busting, prosecuting and imprisoning all those pot smokers could be used to put more cops on the streets to bust more meth and crack dealers and more money helping people get off of drugs that want to.. then we would get more for our $$.

[brian bennett]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote:

Quote: Name one positve accomplishment of the war ond drugs.

It has cept meth use down. and helped those who were hooked to get off the drug.

Quote: What are we getting for 50 billion a year?

not as much as we should, I'm inclined to think that pot should be legalized and the money saved by not busting, prosecuting and imprisoning all those pot smokers could be used to put more cops on the streets to bust more meth and crack dealers and more money helping people get off of drugs that want to.. then we would get more for our $$.

how much of your liberty are you willing to throw away in the name of making drug abuse a bigger problem than it actually is? how do you find yourself in possession of a power to hold people accountable to you if you don't like what they choose to do to themselves?

yes, the stuff is nasty and can cause problems -- but most people are well aware of those facts and thus do not use meth. here' s the numbers for how many people used meth for the first time. the highest number for first time use was set in 1979 at a mere 465,000 people.

even people who like drugs are not big fans of amphetamines: http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/big-pic/amphetamine.htm

both the knowledge that amphetamines are crappy drugs, and the un-necessary societal hysteria about them goes back to the 1960's: http://www.briancbennett.com/history/excerpts/speed.htm

abuse and addiction are symptoms of a person who is suffering from some kind of pain. and there is also a smaller contingent of addicts who got that way not through self-medicating, but because they are simply foolhardy and at times push the envelope too far.

lastly, blind punishment and other ill-conceived reactions to this "problem" have not worked to keep people from doing things to themselves of their own freewill. indeed, even the threat of immediate death does not deter some people from using some of the more dangerous drugs. the use of said drugs would be nowhere near as potentially deadly if they were legally avaialble and sold in known dosages and potencies. strangely enough, even most drug addicts aren't trying to die.

meth labs wouldn't be exploding in motel rooms if they were manufactured in pharmaceutical plants, and could be purchased at a -- get this -- drug store.

education -- truthful education -- combined with the principles that we are alleged to hold dear as a nation is the way out of this mess.

but we'll never get there by trying to punish drug use out of humans. we are (like many other animals and even insects) biologically hard-wired to seek novelty and pleasure -- both of which are found in abundance in various intoxicating substances. clearly, 100+ years of drug war have not done anything other than light the constitution on fire and (literally) piss away a tremendous amount of resources and lives.

the end can only come about when people realize that even god couldn't get the silly humans to "just say no."

[Norrin Radd]

[quote="lovebush"] Norrin Radd wrote: [
Quote: Since you will not even try to educate yourself, preferring instead to allow personal experiences as the sole basis for your opinions, there is really no reason to continue.


this is like saying"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
its not just my personal experience either. I was a dealer for many years, first in a big city, then in a small town. Ive watched so many people destroy themselves on meth. did some people try it and I never saw them again because they didn't get hooked? that may be, but most once they entered the seen as first time users or I would meat them and they hadn't been using very long. these people would seem to have it together, often employed, had homes, had cars and worst of all some had kids. first the jobs would go. then the cars. while they still had a home it would become infested with homeless tweekers. and before long (but not soon enough, they would loose their kids) then they get evicted or in some cases foreclosed on. the progression to dysfunction is far more rapid than alcohol, and as I have learned from you, alcohol destroys far more lives. so what does alcohol have that meth doesn't have??? legality!

Quote: Thanks for the civil discussion, but I can no longer be civil as you are simply way too ignorant on this topic and you will not even try to educate yourself, therefore I am done with you.

later

I know it can be frustrating when you are completely convinced you are right about something and yet fail to convince others to your point of view. It can seem as though they are either dumb or they are not willing to hear you out. but I think that intelligent people can very easily look at the same info and draw different conclusions. believe what you want about me , but I have tried to keep an open mind and have considered the info that you have provided. thanks for the discussion.

You are incredibly civil.

Way more so than I deserve.

I have been debating this issue for over 6 years now on the internet and even longer in the real world.

I have read and learned more about drugs than I ever wanted to know.

Does meth destroy lives? Yes. Does Cocaine destroy lives? Yes.

However, is this a good reason to ban a substance?

How many lives does alcohol destroy a year?

I freely admit that alcohol is easier to control than either Meth, or Coke, but it also destroys way more lives than all illegal drugs combined.

Do you believe we should make alcohol illegal again?

If no, then your argument doesn't hold water and is invalid.

If yes, then you learned nothing from history and continuing this discussion would be totally pointless.

Government's job is to protect us from others, not to protect us from oursleves.

People kill themsleves on a regular basis with handguns, should we ban all handguns?

People commit suicide with aspirin and Ibuprofin, should we ban those substances?

You can't prtoect people from themselves.

How many people have died from huffing?

How many overdose deaths are there annually from illegal drugs?

I know Meth and Coke are dangerous and I know they destroy lives, but people who belive in freedom and understand the responsibilites that come with individual liberty do not want, or need a nanny government to protect them from themselves.

You said........"I think that intelligent people can very easily look at the same info and draw different conclusions."

While this is true for some topics, it is not true for all.

I have done hundreds of hours of research on drugs and the war on drugs.

Now, I know that just because I did this amount of research does not make me right, but it does give me a lot of information IN ADDITION TO me personal experiences.


If hard drugs were ever leagalized, then maybe they would destroy many times more lives, whiich in your view would probably prove you were right. In my view, it doesn't matter how many lives they destroy, as long as there are certain regulations in place. I would expect NO ADVERTISING to be allowed fo hard drugs. I would expect education to be improved about the dangers of hard drugs and I would expect treatment to be available for addicts, paid for by the profits from the sales of the drugs.

There are thousands of ways people can destroy their lives. Junk food, unprotected sex, alcohol, tobacco, prescription drug abuse, debt, as wel as a host of ther ways.

Should unprotected sex be illegal? Should junk food? Credit cards?

Thanks again for the discussion and maybe someday I will learn to be as courteous as you.

I do thank you for being so patient and for listening to my opinions.

I also apologise for being such a jerk.

[Norrin Radd]

[quote="lovebush"] Norrin Radd wrote: [

Quote: Name one positve accomplishment of the war ond drugs.

It has cept meth use down. and helped those who were hooked to get off the drug.

Quote: What are we getting for 50 billion a year?

not as much as we should, I'm inclined to think that pot should be legalized and the money saved by not busting, prosecuting and imprisoning all those pot smokers could be used to put more cops on the streets to bust more meth and crack dealers and more money helping people get off of drugs that want to.. then we would get more for our $$.

You said you used to be a dealer.

If you had been busted while you were a dealer, how many years in prison do you think you would have recieved?

You have had the chance to change your life, not true for many people serving long sentences in prison for drugs.

Throwing more people in prison is not the answer.

How many people are executed in China each year for drug trafficking?

Has their drug problem improved?

[lovebush]

[quote="Norrin Radd"][quote="lovebush"] Norrin Radd wrote: [

Quote: Name one positve accomplishment of the war ond drugs.

It has cept meth use down. and helped those who were hooked to get off the drug.

Quote: What are we getting for 50 billion a year?

not as much as we should, I'm inclined to think that pot should be legalized and the money saved by not busting, prosecuting and imprisoning all those pot smokers could be used to put more cops on the streets to bust more meth and crack dealers and more money helping people get off of drugs that want to.. then we would get more for our $$.

Quote: You said you used to be a dealer.

If you had been busted while you were a dealer, how many years in prison do you think you would have recieved?

none, I did get busted but had a good lawyer call the search into question enough to pleabargen a much lighter charge. Ive had several friends who werent so lucky to get good lawyers. they usually only spend a short time in jail 1 to 3 months. then they get out and do it again. the only ones I know that actually went to prison had many arrests and trafficked large amounts.

Quote: You have had the chance to change your life, not true for many people serving long sentences in prison for drugs.

a first offense rarely gets any jail time.



Quote: How many people are executed in China each year for drug trafficking?

Has their drug problem improved?

I dont know anything about Chinas drug problems.

what do we know about other countries that allow drug use?

have any tried to legalize drugs, but then went back to prohibition?

Are there any stats on the # of people who use in countries that allow drug use?

how many countries dont prohibit drug use?

If prohibition doesn't work, why is it that almost all countries do it? or don't they?

[lovebush]

[quote="Norrin Radd"][
You are incredibly civil.


Quote:
Does meth destroy lives? Yes. Does Cocaine destroy lives? Yes.

However, is this a good reason to ban a substance?

if we were only talking about the life of the user, and that those who use were at an age where their brains are fully developed. I might be enough of a libertarian to say no.


Quote: How many lives does alcohol destroy a year?

I freely admit that alcohol is easier to control than either Meth, or Coke, but it also destroys way more lives than all illegal drugs combined.

Do you believe we should make alcohol illegal again?

If no, then your argument doesn't hold water and is invalid.

If yes, then you learned nothing from history and continuing this discussion would be totally pointless.


I think this is the biggest point for me. A great example of how two people can look at the same thing and draw the opposite conclusion. Alcohol causes way more harm and is legal. so you say drugs that cause less harm should also be legal. I see it as, other drugs dont get used as much as alcohol because they are illegal. so the last thing we should do is make them like alcohol.

Quote: Government's job is to protect us from others, not to protect us from oursleves.

People kill themsleves on a regular basis with handguns, should we ban all handguns?

People commit suicide with aspirin and Ibuprofin, should we ban those substances?

You can't prtoect people from themselves.

paternalistic laws are always suspect. seat belts , motorcycle helmets, drugs... most often its the side efects of the personal choices that effect others that justifie these laws.

Quote:
How many people have died from huffing?

How many overdose deaths are there annually from illegal drugs?

don't know



Quote:
If hard drugs were ever leagalized, then maybe they would destroy many times more lives, whiich in your view would probably prove you were right. In my view, it doesn't matter how many lives they destroy, as long as there are certain regulations in place. I would expect NO ADVERTISING to be allowed fo hard drugs. I would expect education to be improved about the dangers of hard drugs and I would expect treatment to be available for addicts, paid for by the profits from the sales of the drugs.

And this may be why we can look at the same info and come to different conclusions. We have different priorities in what we value. We both hold life and liberty to be important. But which is more important? You say "it doesnt matter how many lives they destroy, as long as there are certain regulations in place." You say "no advertising", there are people who have different priorities in what they value, that would say you cant curtail free expression.

Quote: There are thousands of ways people can destroy their lives. Junk food, unprotected sex, alcohol, tobacco, prescription drug abuse, debt, as wel as a host of ther ways.

Should unprotected sex be illegal? Should junk food? Credit cards?

As with many discussions the question is where should we draw the line?


Quote: Thanks again for the discussion and maybe someday I will learn to be as courteous as you.

I do thank you for being so patient and for listening to my opinions.

I also apologise for being such a jerk.

It may not always be possible to win someone to our positions, but at least if we are civil we can understand where we each are coming from. I think your position is more defensible than I previously thought. I think you took me off the fence as far as legalizing pot( I know my brother will try to pull me back to his side).
Your apology was already accepted, I have not a shread of animosity.

I think if your goal is to turn the tide of public opinion. its going to be a slow and arduous task. If you can get Hollywood on your side, you might eventually get some traction. How about producing a documentary. It would be more interesting than Al Gores latest. if you could get Michael More that would turn some heads with the 20 to 30 crowd.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote:


I think this is the biggest point for me. A great example of how two people can look at the same thing and draw the opposite conclusion. Alcohol causes way more harm and is legal. so you say drugs that cause less harm should also be legal. I see it as, other drugs dont get used as much as alcohol because they are illegal. so the last thing we should do is make them like alcohol.



I have to go to work, so I will reply in more deatil later, but I wanted to address this one point.

You said this is how two people can look at the same information and draw different conclusions, but you can't answer any of the questions I asked.

You don't even know how many people die a year from overdose deaths.

We haven't looked at the same information, as you have not done the research.

You are letting personal experiences be the sole basis for forming your opinion, so please stop saying that two people can look at the same information, as I have probably looked at 100 times more informatin than you have.