Quoted: Prohibition laws created Al Capone.

That's a myth. Al Capone was a criminal before he got into the smuggling. If it wasn't alcohol smuggling it would have been something else, or someone else would have taken his place. Please, let's stop blaming "society" for the actions of criminals. Let's blame the criminals themselves.

I am constantly surprised by how many so called "good guys" cover up for the illegal and immoral acts of violent and dangerous men who aren't even on your side. It doesn't matter if booze is legal or not, Al Capone would shoot you ANYWAY!

Quoted: Quoted: Prohibition laws created Al Capone. That's a myth. Al Capone was a criminal before he got into the smuggling. If it wasn't alcohol smuggling it would have been something else, or someone else would have taken his place. Please, let's stop blaming "society" for the actions of criminals. Let's blame the criminals themselves. I am constantly surprised by how many so called "good guys" cover up for the illegal and immoral acts of violent and dangerous men who aren't even on your side. It doesn't matter if booze is legal or not, Al Capone would shoot you ANYWAY!

the gangsters made their money primarily off of prostitution, gambling, rumrunning and extortion.  the first three things should be legal, so that legitimate businesses can  move in.  then all they have left is extortion, which wasn't nearly as lucrative as the other three.

a war on drugs is as silly as a war on terror..

terror is a stratgey used by an enemy.. how bout a war on islamists? how bout we just use some straight talk for once...

war on drugs.. drugs are derived from plants. stop drugs at the source. a war on plants... makes as much sense as a war on terror...

i think everybody is on drugs.. or i'm dreaming.. we're fighting strategies and plants... spending money like drunken sailors on usless things while billions of illegal drug toten savages cross the borders and iran builds real weapons of mass destruction preparing for armageddon, the end of israel as we know it and the 13th imam to come up out of his hole in the ground..

i swear .. you cant make this stuff up..

Quoted: Prohibition laws created Al Capone.

Naw, They just made him richer and more famous.  He was allready a criminal.  Unfortunatly, he had some"good" ties into the gubmint when Prohibition was repealed so he was able to remain a Richer, more famous criminal when the BS laws went away.

Quoted: We understand that you are just covering your butt. That's why you are inviting me into your field.

No, I invited you because you seemed to be saying the WoD could be won, just not by me or those like me.  So, please, take your crack at it.

But you can't.  You bring no answers to the table, no solutions to the problem.  Just drone drivel and pat propaganda cliches.

You declare the WoD a "moral" war...what "moral" does it defend?  Let's hear it.  What moral is worth $30 billion annual tax dollars, destruction of our freedoms, shiny new jack boots for the police and the largest prison population in the world?

I'm dying to hear this....

Quoted: a war on drugs is as silly as a war on terror.. terror is a stratgey used by an enemy.. how bout a war onRadical islamists? how bout we just use some straight talk for once...

Believe in whatever god you want but don't kill in the name of it, that seems fair enough to me

Quoted: Your profile claims you to be from Virigina? But from your post it would appear that you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, and that the war was fought on moral grounds.

You ARE ignorant. The anti-slavery movement was started by religious folk who thought it was an affront to God to keep their fellow man as property in forced bondage.  It was based on moral grounds. The Civil War settled the question for the USA because other factors tied to industrialization and clashing cultures boiled into open conflict. Great Britain banned slavery without a Civil War and the Royal Navy patrolled the high seas interdicting slave traders for little or no economic benefit to the crown.

This Tejano thinks you show your ignorance of history, and that probably explains why you believe what you believe. The war on drugs is an immoral war, it is a war that is fought against the citizens of this country. I do not believe the Vietnam war was wrong (merely it was fought ineffectively), however if I did it would be easy to say that the War on Drugs is a larger failure and costs us far more in ruined lives and lost resources.

Get off it man. Every political party who has supported softening up on drug addicts and drug lords is doomed to failure. But for some reason the pro-gun movement is a path to an election win. So apparently the electorate does not agree with you. You really do sound like a liberal who wants to soften up on measures taken during the War on Terror because it might disrupt the supply of foreign drugs. Your end solution is to get Americans to grow the dangerous substances to harm their fellow citizens even though you know foreigners can do it cheaper. Just look at how well we manage alcohol and tobacco, oh wow.

Quoted: Quoted: a war on drugs is as silly as a war on terror.. terror is a stratgey used by an enemy.. how bout a war onRadical islamists? how bout we just use some straight talk for once... war on drugs.. drugs are derived from plants. stop drugs at the source. a war on plants... makes as much sense as a war on terror... i think everybody is on drugs.. or i'm dreaming.. we're fighting strategies and plants... spending money like drunken sailors on usless things while billions of illegal drug toten savages cross the borders and iran builds real weapons of mass destruction preparing for armageddon, the end of israel as we know it and the 13th imam to come up out of his hole in the ground.. i swear .. you cant make this stuff up.. Believe in whatever god you want but don't kill in the name of it, that seems fair enough to me

hum... by 'islamists' i meant 'violent radical muslims'. thats the definition of have always heard for 'islamists'. i did not say muslims. nor mean to say muslim=islamist..

Quoted: Quoted: What's a narco-terrorist? We used to call them smugglers.

The FARC aint so worried about a Marxist/Leninist dream state anymore, they just want to keep making money in the drug trade.  They still blow up shit, like the 2 buses in Bogota earlier this week, but it aint for the Cause....................................

Quoted: hum... by 'islamists' i meant 'violent radical muslims'. thats the definition of have always heard for 'islamists'. i did not say muslims. nor mean to say muslim=islamist..

Point taken, Sorry bout that.  

Mainstream islamists are non-violent. It's the crazy azzed "off with your head" radicals that we could do with out.  

Quoted: I got nothing against pot and I don't know anything about coke.  I may have a drink every now and again but my family is more important than "gettin high" or whatever...  But I think the Crank, Meth, Ice, etc. situation in this country is way out of hand.

Yep, I don't have a problem with druggies getting high on drugs. Heck, I want 'em to get more drugs and overdose ASAP! But we don't live in vacuum sealed communities and druggies can be in such close proximity that you and I end up bearing the costs of the immoral and illegal behaviour associated with illicit substances. Chlorine in the gene pool is fine, and it's a great tagline, but only if you aren't in the same pool getting poisoned!

It all boils down to this. Some people want drugs. Most people do not. Both sides are willing to resort to violence to enforce their lifestyle. Luckily for us, the side that has more drugs tends to break down first. There isn't a leading society or culture that uses narcotics are a cornerstone because they are poisoning themselves.

Hey, maybe the pro-druggers should take up the liberal challenge and move to a pro-narcotic country and stay the heck out of the USA?!?! Maybe they should start a new nation, the People's Republik of Narcotica and hand out citizenships to anyone who can prove they are on illicit substances. Hehe, let's see how long they last.

Quoted: Quoted: I got nothing against pot and I don't know anything about coke.  I may have a drink every now and again but my family is more important than "gettin high" or whatever...  But I think the Crank, Meth, Ice, etc. situation in this country is way out of hand. Yep, I don't have a problem with druggies getting high on drugs. Heck, I want 'em to get more drugs and overdose ASAP! But we don't live in vacuum sealed communities and druggies can be in such close proximity that you and I end up bearing the costs of the immoral and illegal behaviour associated with illicit substances. Chlorine in the gene pool is fine, and it's a great tagline, but only if you aren't in the same pool getting poisoned! It all boils down to this. Some people want drugs. Most people do not. Both sides are willing to resort to violence to enforce their lifestyle. Luckily for us, the side that has more drugs tends to break down first. There isn't a leading society or culture that uses narcotics are a cornerstone because they are poisoning themselves. Hey, maybe the pro-druggers should take up the liberal challenge and move to a pro-narcotic country and stay the heck out of the USA?!?! Maybe they should start a new nation, the People's Republik of Narcotica and hand out citizenships to anyone who can prove they are on illicit substances. Hehe, let's see how long they last.

i have a better idea.  how about all the neo-prohibitionists bugger off and arrest people for REAL crimes, not what they ingest into their own bodies?  using your logic of "if it's immoral and has a detrimental effect to society, it should be banned", then the first thing that should be banned is junk food, which has a FAR more detrimental effect on our society (especially our healthcare system) than all illegal AND legal drugs combined.

Klubmarcus said That's a myth. Al Capone was a criminal before he got into the smuggling. If it wasn't alcohol smuggling it would have been something else, or someone else would have taken his place. Please, let's stop blaming "society" for the actions of criminals. Let's blame the criminals themselves.

You didnt read my post

Not ashamed at all. Prohibition laws created Al Capone. Well not really created him. More like let him acheive the power he did. Without the money of bootleg liquor Al would of been in prison a lot quicker then he ended up.

Al was a two bit hood. He had some prostitutes. It was the money from bootlegging and his viciousness that made him what he was. Wothout the money he was making from bootlegging (up to a 100 million a year) Al would not of had the protection he did.

Quoted: so? how is that like any other industry?  almost every industry is regulated to some extent.

Almost every industry does not require you to reset your moral compass. The product, the workers, and the customers in most industries aren't problems to begin with. That's why it's different. Do you want your airline pilot to smoke crack or drink alcohol? Logic forces you to abhor both because of the enclosed atmosphere and inherent dangers of airline travel. So if you don't want those substances to be around when your butt is on the line, then why do you tolerate them for those around you affect you. Why are you making excuses for 'gubment regulation, you want more 'gubment regulation? You think legalizing the narcotics trade and placing it under the "wings of 'gubment" is the solution? Are you nuts? You want to give the BATF and the multitude of local/state licensing boards more power and money? There's a whole circus act and a ton of money involved to aquire and keep a legal alcohol and/or tobacco license. But people who don't use either product keep bearing the costs of those who do. So obviously that's a dead end.

no, the idea is that everything would be legalized, so drug dealers would go out of business, just like the rumrunners after the first prohibition ended.

You're just going to trade one organization for another, but the costs and casualties will remain. The rum runners aren't around, but people keep dying from the effects of alcohol. I can argue that it's worse today because people are paying and dying with legal sanction. [qupte] smokers and heavy drinkers should (and in some cases do) pay higher health insurance premiums so that everyone else isn't punished, because they are statistically more likely to need more expensive health care.  the same would apply to legal cocaine users, etc.  But with the way 'gubment works, companies will be restricted in "discriminating" against druggies so you will still be forced to pay extra even if YOU are clean. Why should either of us have to pay more to keep a "legal" abuser on the books? Why should either of us have to pay emergency room costs for abusers legal or otherwise? I don't want to sign up for a "substance welfare program" where the 'gubment or an insurance company takes my money and supports the dregs of society. I pay to protect myself and those that I want to be covered so why would to carry a crackwhore and a crack baby for years and years and years. Let's use the Armed Forces to interdict the evildoers, we pay for them already and they always need practice. Let's not incur ADDITIONAL expenese after the drugs hit the streets.  alcohol would be unsafe to drink while at the gun range also.  does that mean it should be illegal?  Alcohol IS illegal at the gun range. And it's got nothing to do with 'gubment. If you sold alcohol at the gun range and you allowed people to drink on the line, your own customers would sue you or leave you long before the BATF arrives. So gun range management TENDS TO BAN alcohol regardless of 'gubment regulation or legal status of the substance because they aren't stupid. If you know of a gun range where alcohol is legal on the premises, tell me. I'll make sure not to go there.  underage snorting (as well as all snorting) is currently illegal, so i don't see how this would be much different that what we have today.  So since legalizing won't make a concrete change, why go through the process? If you want a change, it has to be "worth it" relative to the status quo. If there's not going to be much diferrence, then why change the status?  if cannabis were legal and sold OTC, minors having access to it would actually be LESS of an issue, because some attempt would be made to card them.  do you think that the average weed dealer cards his customers to make sure none of them are minors?  nope.  for most high-schoolers, it's easier for them to buy weed than to buy alcohol.  If legal outlets for drugs check their customer base, then the druggies will go right back to the "average weed dealer". So your idea results in another dead end. You must really not think these things through, do you? If the shopkeeper loses business to a street dealer, then the shopkeeper is more likely to commit a crime to hold onto his customers. So your idea has the potential to make more criminals than before.  all drugs should be legal.  the government has no right to tell individuals what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.  The anarchy movement died a long time ago. It's been tried, it didn't work. There isn't a singley society out there succeeding on that idea. Let me make a suggestion. If you think that having all drugs legalized is a good thing, point out an existing successful society before we try it here.

That mantra is just like communism. Looks good on paper, sounds good to the ear, fails in the real world. The USA, with all it's money, medical tech, regulation, taxation, etc. still has huge problems handling legalized poisonous substances. Billions of dollars are wasted to fix the damage caused by alcohol and tobacco we have tens of thousands of civilian casualties. In La La Land, 'gubment should just stand idly by and let it's own citizenry poison themselves and accept the consequences to the survivors. But we don't live in La La Land. In the real world people get injured when they trip down and fall while under the influence. In the real world, people contract disease when they get raped while out cold. If you're going to fall or get get victimized in the real world, then we might as well quit acting like "enablers" and fight.

Quoted: I just love how a bullshit "drug war" is prosecuted supposedly to protect us.  Simple question why is their more heroiune coming out of Afghanistan after wei invaded, and how is our government somehow helpless to do something about it.  HINT!  HINT!  The druglords helped us toss out the Taliban.  Short of invading and totally defoliating 10 countries minimum the drug war will always bne a waste of money.  OUR MONEY!!!!

not the mention all the bs we have to put up with over it . Want some sudefed sorry have to ask the pharmacy tech becouse its behind the counter now. what its midnight at you have a massive headcold and the pharmacy is closed and the nearest 24 hour one is  20 minutes away sorry to bad  got to keep the meth heads from cooking it up you know. irradles that using pills is probly one of the crappest ways to make the stuff (so ive read)

Quoted: No, I invited you because you seemed to be saying the WoD could be won, just not by me or those like me.  So, please, take your crack at it.

How many drug barons did you kill? How many metric tons did you seize? How many henchmen did you shoot? NOT ENOUGH.

But you can't.  You bring no answers to the table, no solutions to the problem.  Just drone drivel and pat propaganda cliches.

I do have an answer and it involves more of what we are doing now. My answer is violence. Let's ratchet it up. You know druggies and drug dealers can't keep up the pace forever. So what if more druggies and delears die? They're already poisoning themselves and our military and law enforcement needs real world use.

You declare the WoD a "moral" war...what "moral" does it defend?  Let's hear it.  What moral is worth $30 billion annual tax dollars, destruction of our freedoms, shiny new jack boots for the police and the largest prison population in the world? I'm dying to hear this....

Easy! It's moral because I would rather spend $30 billion pro-actively rather than $30 billion re-actively. If you don't spend it on seizure you spend it on social workers and "treatment". Unfortunately, a social worker arrives too late to the game. We're better off hitting the problem outside our borders.

Drug use destroys your freedom. When you are under the influence, your speech, mobility, capability, performance, etc... is impaired for a temporary neurological effect. When drug users and dealers get in contact with others, it infringes on their freedoms to use their property, time, and effort. That's why we hire JBT's to fight the druggies and dealers so that the general public doesn't have to. Our police and military aren't conscripted, they sign up for the fight. But a civilian meeting a druggie or a dealer is FORCED to change their actions, spending, lifestyle to react to the situation which is in clear violation of their freedoms. A drug dealer might rob you if you refuse to buy his product. A drug user might rob you if you refuse to pay for his next high. I hire JBT's to protect me from such problems. So why would I want to PAY my 'gubment to be an enabler by legalizing the substance that put me in danger in the first place? I would rather pay the 'gubment to attack druggies and dealers so they will have to spend their time, effort, and resources to protect their illicit trade.

The USA has the largest prison population, and very fiew riots. Look around the world. Maybe the reason why we don't  have cars exploding in the streets is because we do a good job locking up the bad guys. Heck, we should crowd more people in jail, jail is too soft in the USA.

There's a whole circus act and a ton of money involved to aquire and keep a legal alcohol and/or tobacco license. But people who don't use either product keep bearing the costs of those who do. So obviously that's a dead end.

Sooo, basically you are saying that Alcohol should be illegal too?
What logic is there to that? You mention you should not be an enabler and Fight? More like try to move the ocean with a bucket!
When you declare war you do it to people, not just evil "narco-terrorists" but some people who just have addiction problems, Must feel real good to fuck people lives up by putting them in jail to save them from themselves! I dont think there  is anyone who belives that ending the drug war will "end all our problems" but it wont make it worse! which is what Neo-prohibitionists do! WE have legal alcohol because we learned that the solution is worse than the disease! The only viable option from your end is to live in a total police state where all people are monitored and regulated.
And also the plain fact is this,  Most First world countries that experiment with decriminalisation are successful! You might not want to hear that and talk about some turd world shithole but there are plenty of drug free societies that ARE STILL shitholes. TO me ending the drug war is inevitable, history has borne that out. The problem arises in how long will it take? How much damage will we do to eachother before we stop the nonsense? As to having cocaine in supermarkets, aint gonna happen. No country i know of does that. They just take the criminal penalities out of the way, and it becomes a highly regulated medicine like Where you have to go to a clinic to get it. They dont advertise. This takes the incentive out of selling it at high prices and "junkies" no longer have to pay a lot of money so they dont commit crimes to feed thier habit, We already do this with Methdone, and the amount of drugs they can get is limited, they cant get a whole closet full! They are now doing this in Europe and it works, In some places the whole Heroin scourge has dipped to 15% of what it once was as dealers can make no more money and no more crime is commited to feed habits or have Gangsters shoot eachother etc etc. And what money the GOv't has to spend on its "clincs" is offset by the reduced need for law enforcement and the cost of incarceration and all those problems.

Quoted: Quoted: so? how is that like any other industry?  almost every industry is regulated to some extent.   Almost every industry does not require you to reset your moral compass.   The product, the workers, and the customers in most industries aren't problems to begin with. That's why it's different.

again you're saying that if something is deemed immoral and possibly detrimental to society, it should be banned.  great, let's ban fast food, TV sitcoms, sex toys, porn mags, etc.

i see nothing immoral with the act of producing and selling drugs, as long as the customers are fully aware of any negative consequences, like they would be if it were legalized.   do you think that tobacco and alcohol companies are immoral?  maybe tobacco companies used to be, because they lied about the effects of their products, but nowadays everyone knows of the dangers of excess tobacco and alcohol use.  the companies that produce these products are not immoral and don't have to adjust their "moral compass", the users are fully aware of the decisions they are making to use these substances.  it would be no different for drugs other than tobacco or alcohol, were they legalized.

Do you want your airline pilot to smoke crack or drink alcohol? Logic forces you to abhor both because of the enclosed atmosphere and inherent dangers of airline travel. So if you don't want those substances to be around when your butt is on the line, then why do you tolerate them for those around you affect you.

i completely fail to see the point with this.  alcohol is legal, crack is not.  i agree that it should be illegal to operate an airplane, or any other vehicle, while under the influence of an intoxicating substance.  we already have laws against DWI.  what's your point here?

Why are you making excuses for 'gubment regulation, you want more 'gubment regulation? You think legalizing the narcotics trade and placing it under the "wings of 'gubment" is the solution? Are you nuts? You want to give the BATF and the multitude of local/state licensing boards more power and money? There's a whole circus act and a ton of money involved to aquire and keep a legal alcohol and/or tobacco license. But people who don't use either product keep bearing the costs of those who do. So obviously that's a dead end.

what the HELL?  you're saying we shouldn't legalize drugs because it would result in more government regulation?  let me tell you something, having drugs completely illegal and throwing their users in jail is regulation TAKEN TO THE EXTREME, and the costs of drug prohibition are far greater than the costs of legalization and reasonable regulation, because then the money would be recouped with taxes.

no, the idea is that everything would be legalized, so drug dealers would go out of business, just like the rumrunners after the first prohibition ended. You're just going to trade one organization for another, but the costs and casualties will remain. The rum runners aren't around, but people keep dying from the effects of alcohol. I can argue that it's worse today because people are paying and dying with legal sanction.

so you're saying that someone dying because of an illegal substance is worse than someone dying of a legal substance?  what sense does that make? dead is dead.   the purpose of legalization isn't to prevent overdose deaths, it's to prevent millions of people who have harmed no one but themselves from being thrown in jail.  it's to prevent the government encroachment on our rights in the name of fighting the drug war.  it's to prevent organized crime and prevent innocent people from getting killed in the crossfire of battles between drug gangs, who would be put out of business when phillip morris starts selling the stuff.

smokers and heavy drinkers should (and in some cases do) pay higher health insurance premiums so that everyone else isn't punished, because they are statistically more likely to need more expensive health care.  the same would apply to legal cocaine users, etc. But with the way 'gubment works, companies will be restricted in "discriminating" against druggies so you will still be forced to pay extra even if YOU are clean. Why should either of us have to pay more to keep a "legal" abuser on the books?

agreed.  smokers, or anyone else who uses a substance which is detrimental to health, should have to pay greater health insurance premiums.  if they don't already, then this will have to be changed.

Why should either of us have to pay emergency room costs for abusers legal or otherwise? I don't want to sign up for a "substance welfare program" where the 'gubment or an insurance company takes my money and supports the dregs of society. I pay to protect myself and those that I want to be covered so why would to carry a crackwhore and a crack baby for years and years and years.

i got news for you: you already are supporting crackwhores and crackbabies.  the solution to this is to end entitlement programs, and has nothing to do with whether drugs are legal or not.

Let's use the Armed Forces to interdict the evildoers, we pay for them already and they always need practice.

so much for posse comitus.  why do you hate liberty so much?

Let's not incur ADDITIONAL expenese after the drugs hit the streets.  alcohol would be unsafe to drink while at the gun range also.  does that mean it should be illegal?  Alcohol IS illegal at the gun range. And it's got nothing to do with 'gubment. If you sold alcohol at the gun range and you allowed people to drink on the line, your own customers would sue you or leave you long before the BATF arrives. So gun range management TENDS TO BAN alcohol regardless of 'gubment regulation or legal status of the substance because they aren't stupid. If you know of a gun range where alcohol is legal on the premises, tell me.

actually, the gun range i go to has a bar in the clubhouse.  shooting is off-limits after you've visited the bar though.  no problems have arisen from this whatsoever.

I'll make sure not to go there.

ok

 

underage snorting (as well as all snorting) is currently illegal, so i don't see how this would be much different that what we have today. So since legalizing won't make a concrete change, why go through the process? If you want a change, it has to be "worth it" relative to the status quo. If there's not going to be much diferrence, then why change the status?

for the reasons i've already outlined.  have you been listening?

if cannabis were legal and sold OTC, minors having access to it would actually be LESS of an issue, because some attempt would be made to card them.  do you think that the average weed dealer cards his customers to make sure none of them are minors?  nope.  for most high-schoolers, it's easier for them to buy weed than to buy alcohol. If legal outlets for drugs check their customer base, then the druggies will go right back to the "average weed dealer". So your idea results in another dead end. You must really not think these things through, do you? If the shopkeeper loses business to a street dealer, then the shopkeeper is more likely to commit a crime to hold onto his customers. So your idea has the potential to make more criminals than before.

you've got to be kidding me.  how many illegal alcohol dealers do you see peddling their wares on the street corner in the ghetto?

all drugs should be legal.  the government has no right to tell individuals what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.  The anarchy movement died a long time ago. It's been tried, it didn't work. There isn't a singley society out there succeeding on that idea. Let me make a suggestion. If you think that having all drugs legalized is a good thing, point out an existing successful society before we try it here.

i would point to OUR OWN SOCIETY, prior to the prohibition craze of the early 20th century.  i've got news for ya bud, throughout most of our history, all drugs have been legal in the US of A.  You used to be able to go to the corner pharmacy and buy opium, cocaine, cannabis, and all sorts of stuff over the counter.  did blood run in the streets?  drug legalization is actually a CONSERVATIVE idea, if you define conservative as wishing to go back to the principles this country was founded on several hundred years ago.

That mantra is just like communism. Looks good on paper, sounds good to the ear, fails in the real world. The USA, with all it's money, medical tech, regulation, taxation, etc. still has huge problems handling legalized poisonous substances. Billions of dollars are wasted to fix the damage caused by alcohol and tobacco we have tens of thousands of civilian casualties. In La La Land, 'gubment should just stand idly by and let it's own citizenry poison themselves and accept the consequences to the survivors. But we don't live in La La Land. In the real world people get injured when they trip down and fall while under the influence. In the real world, people contract disease when they get raped while out cold. If you're going to fall or get get victimized in the real world, then we might as well quit acting like "enablers" and fight.

so, you're saying that the US prior to the early 20th century was a communism in la-la land?

by the way, before your next post, PLEASE learn to quote properly.

Quoted: i have a better idea.  how about all the neo-prohibitionists bugger off and arrest people for REAL crimes, not what they ingest into their own bodies?  using your logic of "if it's immoral and has a detrimental effect to society, it should be banned", then the first thing that should be banned is junk food, which has a FAR more detrimental effect on our society (especially our healthcare system) than all illegal AND legal drugs combined.

I have a better idea, why don't you use logic. Do junk food vendors murder each other, the public, and LEO's to keep up their trade? Do junk food eaters contract disease or get raped while "under the influence" of junk food? Are our emergency rooms full of people who overdosed on junk food? Do people wreck their vehicles because they've had too much junk food? Do we provide counseling people who are willing to sell their bodies to get a junk food high? Are babies born addicted to junk food and get "the shakes"? Does a bag of junk food cause nuerological damage, crime, and the other problems associated? Does the military reject you if they detect junk food in fatbodies?

C'mon man, come up with REAL argument.

Quoted: I have a better idea, why don't you use logic. Do junk food vendors murder each other, the public, and LEO's to keep up their trade?

no, because junk food is LEGAL and its production is controlled by legitimate companies, not gangsters.  alcohol producers don't murder the public and LEO's, do they?  but they used to during prohibition, right?  so since alcohol legalization ended murders committed by alcohol sellers, it stands to reason that drug legalization will end murders committed by drug sellers.

Do junk food eaters contract disease or get raped while "under the influence" of junk food? Are our emergency rooms full of people who overdosed on junk food?

people get heart disease, diabetes, and every number of diseases from junk food.  our hostpials ARE OVERFLOWING with people who are there due to obesity related diseases.  the societal cost of junk food is FAR GREATER than that of all legal and illegal drugs combined.

Do people wreck their vehicles because they've had too much junk food?

nope, but people don't necessarily wreck their vehicles because of drugs, either.  in fact, some drugs, such as amphetamines and cocaine, actually improve reaction time and driving ability, and combat fatigue.  which is why bomber pilots are given amphetamines before long missions....

Do we provide counseling people who are willing to sell their bodies to get a junk food high?

no, but we provide healthcare to tens of millions of people who have RUINED THEIR BODIES by consuming junk food.

Are babies born addicted to junk food and get "the shakes"?

no, but childhood obesity is reaching epidemic proportions.

Does a bag of junk food cause nuerological damage, crime, and the other problems associated?

no, but it causes cardiovascular damage, obesity, and a host of other problems.

Does the military reject you if they detect junk food in fatbodies?

no, but it does reject you if you ARE a fatbody, which is caused by junk food!

Quoted: Sooo, basically you are saying that Alcohol should be illegal too? What logic is there to that?

There isn't any logic in it which is why you said and not me.

You mention you should not be an enabler and Fight? More like try to move the ocean with a bucket!

Actually, the drug dealers and druggies are the bucket. The rest of us are the ocean. That's why our cruisers are intercepting THEIR drug boats, not the other way around.

When you declare war you do it to people, not just evil "narco-terrorists" but some people who just have addiction problems, Must feel real good to fuck people lives up by putting them in jail to save them from themselves! I dont think there  is anyone who belives that ending the drug war will "end all our problems" but it wont make it worse! which is what Neo-prohibitionists do! WE have legal alcohol because we learned that the solution is worse than the disease! The only viable option from your end is to live in a total police state where all people are monitored and regulated.

That's correct, we should be more agressive in pursuing drug dealers and their henchmen.The poor druggies will just have to get by with higher prices and reduced supply. Oh, the poor druggies are suffering... sniff sniff. Some people choose to bear the costs of narcotics in the same way they choose to bear the costs of welfare. Just because we're going to always have druggies and welfare moms does not mean we have to stand idly by and let them push their lifestyle on the rest of us. If a drug dealer is willing to kill to force his product into my neighborhood, then I have to be willing to kill to force it out of my neighborhood.

And also the plain fact is this,  Most First world countries that experiment with decriminalisation are successful! You might not want to hear that and talk about some turd world shithole but there are plenty of drug free societies that ARE STILL shitholes. TO me ending the drug war is inevitable, history has borne that out. The problem arises in how long will it take? How much damage will we do to eachother before we stop the nonsense? As to having cocaine in supermarkets, aint gonna happen. No country i know of does that. They just take the criminal penalities out of the way, and it becomes a highly regulated medicine like Where you have to go to a clinic to get it. They dont advertise. This takes the incentive out of selling it at high prices and "junkies" no longer have to pay a lot of money so they dont commit crimes to feed thier habit, We already do this with Methdone, and the amount of drugs they can get is limited, they cant get a whole closet full! They are now doing this in Europe and it works, In some places the whole Heroin scourge has dipped to 15% of what it once was as dealers can make no more money and no more crime is commited to feed habits or have Gangsters shoot eachother etc etc. And what money the GOv't has to spend on its "clincs" is offset by the reduced need for law enforcement and the cost of incarceration and all those problems.

Then move to Europe! :D Move to those Turd World nations that can't afford to fight a War on Drugs. If you think they have a better system, why not go there? After all, those nations that have those programs have much lower taxes than we do... yeah right.

Quoted: Then move to Europe! :D Move to those Turd World nations that can't afford to fight a War on Drugs. If you think they have a better system, why not go there? After all, those nations that have those programs have much lower taxes than we do... yeah right.

how about, if you want such strict penalties for drug offenses, you move to saudi arabia or indonesia, where the penalty for drug dealing is death?  see how much you like it there.  If you think they have a better system, why not go there? After all, those nations that have those programs have a much better society than we do... yeah right.

Quoted: Not ashamed at all. Prohibition laws created Al Capone.

Al Capone is the only criminal all the pro drug people can cite.  During the Prohibition era the most famous criminals were bank robbers: Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Dillinger, Bugs Moran, Baby Face Nelson.  I guess Prohibition caused them to rob banks too

Quoted: Quoted: Not ashamed at all. Prohibition laws created Al Capone. Al Capone is the only criminal all the pro drug people can cite.  During the Prohibition era the most famous criminals were bank robbers: Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Dillinger, Bugs Moran, Baby Face Nelson.  I guess Prohibition caused them to rob banks too

al capone was just the most famous, but there were many others.  how many specific drug dealers can the average neo-prohibitionist cite, besides maybe Manuel Noriega and 50 cent?

I have a better idea, why don't you use logic. Do junk food vendors murder each other, the public, and LEO's to keep up their trade? Do junk food eaters contract disease or get raped while "under the influence" of junk food? Are our emergency rooms full of people who overdosed on junk food? Do people wreck their vehicles because they've had too much junk food? Do we provide counseling people who are willing to sell their bodies to get a junk food high? Are babies born addicted to junk food and get "the shakes"? Does a bag of junk food cause nuerological damage, crime, and the other problems associated? Does the military reject you if they detect junk food in fatbodies? C'mon man, come up with REAL argument.

Your perception of reality is very clouded
Read this chart of legal and illegal drug deaths in a year
chart

MARIJUANA________________________________0__

ILLICIT_DRUG_OVERDOSE________3,800_to_5,200_
________Deliberate__________________________
________or_accidental._From_________________
________all_illegal_drugs.__________________
LEGAL_DRUG_OVERDOSE._______14,000_to_27,000_
________Deliberate_or_______________________
________accidental._From_legal,_____________
________prescribed_or_patent________________
________medicines_and_or_mixing_____________
________with_alcohol,_e.g.__________________
________Valium_and_alcohol._________________

CAFFEINE._From_stress,_______1000_to_10,000_
________ulcers_and__________________________
________triggering_irregular________________
________heartbeats,_etc.____________________
____________________________________________

ASPIRIN._Including______________180_to_1000+
________deliberate_overdose.________________
____________________________________________

ALCOHOL._Not_including______________150,000+
________50_percent_of_all___________________
________highway_deaths_and__________________
________65_percent_of_all_murders.__________
____________________________________________

TOBACCO__________________340,000_to_450,000_
____________________________________________

Quoted: again you're saying that if something is deemed immoral and possibly detrimental to society, it should be banned.  great, let's ban fast food, TV sitcoms, sex toys, porn mags, etc.

Again, you fail to see the point. When was the last time you saw a someone at the emergency for Sitcom addiction? You're roping in all those other things into the drug discussion because your REACHING. Your connecting the dots alright, the WRONG ones.

i see nothing immoral with the act of producing and selling drugs, as long as the customers are fully aware of any negative consequences, like they would be if it were legalized.   do you think that tobacco and alcohol companies are immoral?  maybe tobacco companies used to be, because they lied about the effects of their products, but nowadays everyone knows of the dangers of excess tobacco and alcohol use.  the companies that produce these products are not immoral and don't have to adjust their "moral compass", the users are fully aware of the decisions they are making to use these substances.  it would be no different for drugs other than tobacco or alcohol, were they legalized.

Then we would still have the additional costs, the minor and major casualties, the large 'gubment bureaucracy, the victims, the profits, the detrimental effects to those who don't even abuse, etc.... But, oh, oh, it's legal so they have protection by law. The situation is actually worse! The ones who don't want to be involved and don't want to change are FORCED to accomodate those few who do. Most of us don't abuse alcohol or tobacco, but we still have to bear the consequences. Since we're going to have to pay the cost in lives and money regardless of the legal status, we might as well start shooting.

i completely fail to see the point with this.  alcohol is legal, crack is not.  i agree that it should be illegal to operate an airplane, or any other vehicle, while under the influence of an intoxicating substance.  we already have laws against DWI.  what's your point here?

If alcohol is legal and you still don't want it in the cockpit, then what's the point of legalizing cocaine? You don't want it in the cockpit either. So changing their legal status makes no difference. It's still a poisonous substance with a lot of stigma. If you were forced to share a plane ride with cocaine using passengers and flight crew, you would attempt to fight your way out. It doesn't matter if you are outnumbered, it doesn't matter there is no chance you will make it to the cockpit or the exterior door. You understand the danger, and you might as well "MAN UP" try go get you and your family off it while you still have a chance. That's why we fight the War on Drugs. We refuse to share our lives with druggies and drug dealers. If they resort to violence, we'll resort to violence.

what the HELL?  you're saying we shouldn't legalize drugs because it would result in more government regulation?  let me tell you something, having drugs completely illegal and throwing their users in jail is regulation TAKEN TO THE EXTREME, and the costs of drug prohibition are far greater than the costs of legalization and reasonable regulation, because then the money would be recouped with taxes.

If the legal drug trade is so lucrative for 'gubment, then why does 'gubment continuously sue to recover the associated costs? Why do individuals sue companies and each other to recover the associated costs? The worse part is that druggies are in the bottom tax brackets, so they don't contribute much (if any). If you can afford drugs, there's an opportunity cost because that money could have been used for something else. It's OK to throw users and dealers in jail because they are CRIMINALS. It's not OK for the general public to put up with users and dealers because THEY AREN"T CRIMINALS. So since we know the general public does not support "softies" on crime, then the 'gubment is simply following the public will to take extreme measures on "undesirables".

so you're saying that someone dying because of an illegal substance is worse than someone dying of a legal substance?  what sense does that make? dead is dead.   the purpose of legalization isn't to prevent overdose deaths, it's to prevent millions of people who have harmed no one but themselves from being thrown in jail.  it's to prevent the government encroachment on our rights in the name of fighting the drug war.  it's to prevent organized crime and prevent innocent people from getting killed in the crossfire of battles between drug gangs, who would be put out of business when phillip morris starts selling the stuff.

That's exactly my point. If it's harmful, then why make it legal? What sense does that make? Why don't you stop equating drug abuse and poison with freedom and democracry. If you don't want the drug gangs, kill them! Phillip Morris is getting sued for selling a legal product. Tax dollars are spent telling citizens not to buy a legal product. So we might as well keep cocaine illegal.

agreed.  smokers, or anyone else who uses a substance which is detrimental to health, should have to pay greater health insurance premiums.  if they don't already, then this will have to be changed.

That creates another problem. If those people are willing to violate the law when drugs are illegal, what makes you think they'll cooperate in the new system? If they are willing to spend money on drugs at risk to their health, what makes you think they will put in their fair share? You might end up paying for their healtchcare anyway, and they'll wave a piece of paper in your face saying, "I did nothing wrong. It was legal in this society so society has to pay for me".

i got news for you: you already are supporting crackwhores and crackbabies.  the solution to this is to end entitlement programs, and has nothing to do with whether drugs are legal or not.

Good, then we should take the money from entitlement programs and use it to kill crack dealers and manufacturers because you can't make a crackwhore and crackbabay w/o crack. If the crackwhore can't support her crackbaby, they die on their own w/o any sanction from the 'gubment or taxpayer funds.

so much for posse comitus.  why do you hate liberty so much?

The topic of this discussion is seizure in INTERNATIONAL waters. Stop reaching man.

actually, the gun range i go to has a bar in the clubhouse.  shooting is off-limits after you've visited the bar though.  no problems have arisen from this whatsoever.

In other words the private company has seen fit to regulate and ban your purpose for being there because you drink. They make money off you while denying you the purpose of being at a gun range. Your gun range is so worried about alcohol that they are willing to prohibit you from using your firearm. What does that say about the poisoning effects of alcohol? You can't talk straight, you can't shoot straight, so they limit YOUR freedom on THEIR premises and you ABIDE by it. So what's the difference with the USA enforces it's local, state, the national regulations and sovereignty? We've decided to do it that way, and they have to abide by it. If they don't then missile cruisers sneak up on you with the intent so search and seize under threat of lethal force.

for the reasons i've already outlined.  have you been listening?

I have and have come to the conclusion that it isn't worth changing.

you've got to be kidding me.  how many illegal alcohol dealers do you see peddling their wares on the street corner in the ghetto?

Plenty! That guy hanging outside is an illegal dealer. Minors pay him more to buy them beer and he makes a tax-free unregulated income. Like I said, there are a lot of criminals out there helping others acquire a legal poison. There are also shopkeepers, bouncers, bartenders who are willing to "look the other way" if you slide a bribe into their hands. They're criminals, too. The kids still wreck their cars, the patry goers still get raped. As I said, the criminal element, the profit element, and the consequences are still there even though alcohol has been legalized. So what are you going to do? Are you going to blame the parents instead of the criminals and the laws enabling the process?

i would point to OUR OWN SOCIETY, prior to the prohibition craze of the early 20th century.  i've got news for ya bud, throughout most of our history, all drugs have been legal in the US of A.  You used to be able to go to the corner pharmacy and buy opium, cocaine, cannabis, and all sorts of stuff over the counter.  did blood run in the streets?  drug legalization is actually a CONSERVATIVE idea, if you define conservative as wishing to go back to the principles this country was founded on several hundred years ago.

Yeah, and we used to have the problems associated with those substances too. Ever wonder why our life expectancy is better? Why we are taller? We don't have those substances in general use hurting liver, kidney, and heart functions! And why would I want to live with bad ideas from the past? Just because it was done that way doesn't mean it was the right way, that's why things changed and fight continues on.

so, you're saying that the US prior to the early 20th century was a communism in la-la land? by the way, before your next post, PLEASE learn to quote properly.

Nope, I said it was like communism in sounding good on paper but not in the real world. Before your next post, PLEASE learn the word "like". In the real world back then, drugs were so bad that changes actually got passed. In the real world of today, softies on the drug war tend to lose in elections. So what does that tell you about the real world?

Quoted: Quoted: What's a narco-terrorist? We used to call them smugglers.

that didn't draw as much funding. terrorist, well you know.

i have a better idea. how about all the neo-prohibitionists bugger off and arrest people for REAL crimes, not what they ingest into their own bodies? using your logic of "if it's immoral and has a detrimental effect to society, it should be banned", then the first thing that should be banned is junk food, which has a FAR more detrimental effect on our society (especially our healthcare system) than all illegal AND legal drugs combined

From Jama
Journal of American Medical Association  report
Results  The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

ETA Link and Highlights for the reading impaired

Then we would still have the additional costs, the minor and major casualties, the large 'gubment bureaucracy, the victims, the profits, the detrimental effects to those who don't even abuse, etc.... But, oh, oh, it's legal so they have protection by law. The situation is actually worse! The ones who don't want to be involved and don't want to change are FORCED to accomodate those few who do. Most of us don't abuse alcohol or tobacco, but we still have to bear the consequences. Since we're going to have to pay the cost in lives and money regardless of the legal status, we might as well start shooting.

Been studied to death by economists

Their conclusions were the war on drugs costs too much and produces negative effects
Business week Excerpt read the rest here
I know that the cost of drug abuse and addiction -- including nicotine and alcohol -- is already substantial, especially measured by increased health-care expenditures and lower worker productivity. And I have no wish to see the numbers of addicts increase. But there's the hope that with a carefully crafted new paradigm of legalization, there could be fewer users. That's positive. There's nothing positive to be derived from staying with the status quo.

UN Did a Study
Seems the netherlands which has a much higher tolerance for drug abuse has lower rates of illicit drug use than the US and The UK
Un study stats

Yea I copied and pasted this
Its so much more eloquent than what I would write

We have been offered the Prohibitionist's central belief, that making something illegal must greatly reduce use, as a statement of Faith. We are simply expected to embrace it as a 'self-evident' truth. Does Prohibition reduce drug use? "Of course, it's obvious that it must!" But when examined in detail, it's anything but obvious. 'Soft on drugs' nations have not been overrun by drug abuse. Fanatically anti-drug governments like the US have some of the most out of control drug abuse problems on earth. We hemorrhage cash to pay for a solution that's been more expensive than the problem, our prisons are crammed, our rights and Constitution are trampled on, and for what? A statement of faith that has never delivered on its claims. I can find no evidence to support the conclusion that American-style Prohibition has had any beneficial impact on drug use or harm to our society from drug use; indeed, prohibition has caused grievous harm. Unquestioning blind faith may be fine for a cult, but it's a wretched basis for public policy.

    Prohibition has already reached its high-water mark; the perennial declarations of various governments that they will 'win the drug war' within a certain number of years are nothing more than ignorant delusions. They cannot win the drug war because a large minority of people want drugs. Any reduction in the supply merely increases the profits, motivating traffickers and producers to escalate to ever-greater extremes of ingenuity and violence to defend and expand their share of the trade.

     An ambitious person could spend a few hundred dollars on an airline ticket to Western Europe, pick up a thousand 'ecstasy' tablets for a dollar or two each, Fed-Ex them to an accomplice in the US (lovingly vacuum-packed and scrubbed down to prevent detection by dogs), and sell them off stateside for as much as $25+ a pill. Many people can't resist that sort of profit potential, and as long as there are buyers, there will be people willing to roll the dice for a chance at easy wealth. Trying to stop the drug trade by attacking users is vicious and unproductive. Trying to stop it by chasing smugglers and dealers (and even labs) is as pointless as trying to piss up a flagpole; reduced supply = increased profits = new recruits to the trade to restore supply. God himself couldn't beat that market dynamic. Even the Communists were eventually bright enough to realize that capitalism is an unstoppable force; why can't the Prohibitionists figure it out?

   It's time to end the lie. The Prohibitionists have perpetuated their crimes against the American people for far too long already.

Quoted: no, because junk food is LEGAL and its production is controlled by legitimate companies, not gangsters.  alcohol producers don't murder the public and LEO's, do they?  but they used to during prohibition, right?  so since alcohol legalization ended murders committed by alcohol sellers, it stands to reason that drug legalization will end murders committed by drug sellers.

Yeah, but now that alcohol is legal, people are murdering others by drinking alcohol to "work themselves up" into doing something they wouldn't normally. Now that alchohol is legal, sexual predators are using it to victimize women... or do men buy drinks for women out of the goodness of their heart? All you are doing is moving the crime from one group to another group. Since alcohol is convenient, and legal, then other criminals step up to the plate. So instead of Al Capone controlling who gets shot around his alcohol distribution point, someone else does. Instead of Al Capone controlling who pays for sex by controlling the environment around the alcohol distribution point, someone else does. Criminals who wold have been "inconvenienced" by Al Capone are taking up the slack in his absence. So legalizing doesn't solve the associated problems and costs. It's still a poison that affects those who don't even use it.

people get heart disease, diabetes, and every number of diseases from junk food.  our hostpials ARE OVERFLOWING with people who are there due to obesity related diseases.  the societal cost of junk food is FAR GREATER than that of all legal and illegal drugs combined.

So you're putting fatbodies and drug lords on the same legal plane? You're reaching again. C'mon man, just quit it. Why should 'gubment harass fatbodies and druggies the same way? You know that will never fly. Quit living in La La Land and stick with reality.

nope, but people don't necessarily wreck their vehicles because of drugs, either.  in fact, some drugs, such as amphetamines and cocaine, actually improve reaction time and driving ability, and combat fatigue.  which is why bomber pilots are given amphetamines before long missions....

If it's such a potent technique, how come cocaine isn't in general usage with the world's many Armed Forces? Oh wait, they don't want to harm pilots that they've poured a lot of time, effort, and money into! What you're hinting on is a potential VA medical disaster, and we don't need any more of those. Stop reaching, quit living in La La Land. The USAF is getting a lot of internal and external pressure because of that practice. That's why they are making combat UAV's, you don't have to drug up a UAV. So apparently, the military's solution to a potential long-term drug problem is to take the drugs product and use out of system completely wether the pilots like it or not.

no, but we provide healthcare to tens of millions of people who have RUINED THEIR BODIES by consuming junk food.

So apparently society thinks it's OK to spend money on that and the War on Drugs simultaenously. Let's not make the problem worse by introducing cocaine and other narcotics into the mix. Imagine what will happen to a fatbody who consumes food and drugs at the same time?!?!? It's going to cost even more to treat them. As usual, you haven't thought through your assertions. If fatties are so weak that they cannot control their food consumption, just wait till the "legal" drug trade gets to them.

no, but childhood obesity is reaching epidemic proportions.

But they aren't born that way. That means they had the choice to eat or overeat. A crackbaby is BORN a crackbaby, a human who was denied their freedom to choose a lifestyle right from the start. Quit reaching man. You're trying to put getting fat and getting high on the same level. What's next, you're going to support murdering babies in order to protect the mother right to do whatever she wants with her own body while she is pregnant? You're going to put an unborn citizen's lives at risk on the altar of freedom? You know what they say, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". So don't expect the citizenry or the 'gubment, the two sides to a Constitution, to stand idly by while drugs flow through the streets. There will be a reaction, a backlash even, and a cruiser intercepting a speedboat in the high seas is a part of that.

no, but it causes cardiovascular damage, obesity, and a host of other problems.

Those problems will worsened by narcotics, they are worsened by alcohol, they are worsened by smoking. So as usual, you argument is a dead end, again.

no, but it does reject you if you ARE a fatbody, which is caused by junk food!

Wrong, they sign up the fatbody after he works out and drops the junk food. If you have drugs that still show up in your system even if you "cleaned up" or if your drug record still haunts you, you're gonna get dropped again and again. Please, quit reaching. The military can make you lose pounds easily, but they have serious trouble rehabbing your body's systems for combat after drugs damaged it.

Quoted: how about, if you want such strict penalties for drug offenses, you move to saudi arabia or indonesia, where the penalty for drug dealing is death?  see how much you like it there.  If you think they have a better system, why not go there? After all, those nations that have those programs have a much better society than we do... yeah right.

Wrong again! The Saudis COME HERE so they can partake in the sinfulness. I don't have to go anywhere to get close to them. So if the Saudis are leaving THEIR country to commit crimes, then would I sign up for it? The people there don't like it. It seems like the Euroweenies are OK with theirs, and you seem to like their ideas. So since the Euroweenies aren't coming here, then it should be YOU who should go there.

See how easy it is to beat your argument when you start reaching. I've got a better idea. The tyranny of the mullahs and the tyranny of the drug lords should both be opposed by force.

Quoted: ] Again, you fail to see the point. When was the last time you saw a someone at the emergency for Sitcom addiction? You're roping in all those other things into the drug discussion because your REACHING. Your connecting the dots alright, the WRONG ones.

again, there are plenty of people in hospitals because of diseases related to their sedentary lifestyle.

Then we would still have the additional costs, the minor and major casualties, the large 'gubment bureaucracy, the victims, the profits, the detrimental effects to those who don't even abuse, etc.... But, oh, oh, it's legal so they have protection by law. The situation is actually worse! The ones who don't want to be involved and don't want to change are FORCED to accomodate those few who do. Most of us don't abuse alcohol or tobacco, but we still have to bear the consequences. Since we're going to have to pay the cost in lives and money regardless of the legal status, we might as well start shooting.

so in your opinion, everything which is unhealthy should be illegal because the rest of society has to pay for it.  this leaves us with two options:

1. end entitlement programs such as medicaid, etc which pay for the consequences of people's unhealthy decisions.
2. ban everything which is unhealthy.  no tobacco, no alcohol, no drugs, no junk food.  government mandated exercise each day, limit the number of hours a person can spend watching TV, etc.

i would vastly perfer choice #1.

If alcohol is legal and you still don't want it in the cockpit, then what's the point of legalizing cocaine?

so then you're saying we should ban alcohol, because it doesn't belong in a cockpit?

You don't want it in the cockpit either.

actually, i wouldn't really care all that much.  cocaine is a stimulant which improves reaction time and wakefulness.  bombers pilots are given amphetamines for long missions, which is a stimulant similiar to cocaine.

So changing their legal status makes no difference. It's still a poisonous substance with a lot of stigma. If you were forced to share a plane ride with cocaine using passengers and flight crew, you would attempt to fight your way out. It doesn't matter if you are outnumbered, it doesn't matter there is no chance you will make it to the cockpit or the exterior door. You understand the danger, and you might as well "MAN UP" try go get you and your family off it while you still have a chance.

WTF are you talking about? if we had a plane where everyone was on coke, people would be talking and bragging a lot, and would probably get into a few more arguments and disputes than normally occurs on a plane.  i would not feel that my life would be in danger or that i had to fight everybody in order to escape.

That's why we fight the War on Drugs. We refuse to share our lives with druggies and drug dealers. If they resort to violence, we'll resort to violence.

and i don't much want to share my life with neo-prohibitionists who resort to violence against people who aren't hurting anybody but themselves.  should we go after the violent dealers and gangmembers?  hell yes.  does it make sense to have a huge militarized police force and the largest prison population in the world and encroachments on our constitutional rights just to "keep crack out of jonny's pipe"?  hell no.

If the legal drug trade is so lucrative for 'gubment, then why does 'gubment continuously sue to recover the associated costs?  Why do individuals sue companies and each other to recover the associated costs?

because they CAN.  if you think that who wins lawsuits is a good indicator of who's right and who's wrong, you need to seriously wake up.

The worse part is that druggies are in the bottom tax brackets, so they don't contribute much (if any).

some of the disgustingly rich coke-snorting frat brothers at the ivy league school i attend would love to disagree with you

If you can afford drugs, there's an opportunity cost because that money could have been used for something else. It's OK to throw users and dealers in jail because they are CRIMINALS. It's not OK for the general public to put up with users and dealers because THEY AREN"T CRIMINALS. So since we know the general public does not support "softies" on crime, then the 'gubment is simply following the public will to take extreme measures on "undesirables".

"the general public" has consistently voted for ever-stricter gun control laws too.  does that make it right?  the opinion of "the general public" is fickle and easily swayed by the media and by lying politicians.  quite a few people i have meet still believe all the "reefer madness" garbage and that cannabis leads to "insanity, murder, and death".  just like much of the public believes that the "assault weapons ban" banned full-auto firearms.  education is the answer.  the general public needs to learn the reality of the issues, and not just believe what the media and the politicians tell them.

] That's exactly my point. If it's harmful, then why make it legal? What sense does that make?

if it's harmful, then why not make it ILLEGAL?  should be ban alcohol, tobacco, and junk food, each of which cause FAR more harm than most illegal drugs?

Why don't you stop equating drug abuse and poison with freedom and democracry.

no, i'm equating the WAR ON DRUGS with an ATTACK on our freedom.  something is seriously wrong with our society when you can get a long sentence in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for growing or consuming a plant or chemical.

Phillip Morris is getting sued for selling a legal product.

because they LIED about it and the negative effects it can have on health.  its not because their product was harmful, its because they LIED about the harm it can cause.

Tax dollars are spent telling citizens not to buy a legal product.

actually, much of that money comes from settlements with the tobacco companies.  the companies are being forced to tell consumers not to buy their own products.

That creates another problem. If those people are willing to violate the law when drugs are illegal, what makes you think they'll cooperate in the new system?

because they won't get health care if they're caught shirking their higher premiums.  same as the way it is today WRT pre-existing conditions and such.

If they are willing to spend money on drugs at risk to their health, what makes you think they will put in their fair share? You might end up paying for their healtchcare anyway, and they'll wave a piece of paper in your face saying, "I did nothing wrong. It was legal in this society so society has to pay for me".

exactly the reason why we need to get rid of entitlement programs.  people ALREADY do that, with regards to illnesses caused by alcohol, tobacco, and junk food/sedentary lifestyles.  

Good, then we should take the money from entitlement programs and use it to kill crack dealers and manufacturers because you can't make a crackwhore and crackbabay w/o crack. If the crackwhore can't support her crackbaby, they die on their own w/o any sanction from the 'gubment or taxpayer funds.

i agree, the government should not provide free health care to crackwhores, or anyone else for that matter, with the EXCEPTION of children.  is it fair that the child is punished for it's mother's actions?

The topic of this discussion is seizure in INTERNATIONAL waters. Stop reaching man.

you didn't specify that in your previous post.  i agree, posse comitatus doesn't apply WRT international waters.

In other words the private company has seen fit to regulate and ban your purpose for being there because you drink. They make money off you while denying you the purpose of being at a gun range. Your gun range is so worried about alcohol that they are willing to prohibit you from using your firearm. What does that say about the poisoning effects of alcohol? You can't talk straight, you can't shoot straight, so they limit YOUR freedom on THEIR premises and you ABIDE by it.

the gun range CAN'T limit my freedom, because it's PRIVATE PROPERTY and i have NO RIGHT to be there.  the bar is there so people can enjoy a drink after shooting, the fact that you're not allowed to shoot again after visiting the bar has NOTHING TO DO with violating my freedom or my rights.

So what's the difference with the USA enforces it's local, state, the national regulations and sovereignty?

i don't have a problem enforcing our borders.  the federal gov't has the power to enforce what comes in and out of the borders.  what i DO have a problem with is JBTs knocking down people's doors and shipping people off to jail who have hurt no one but themselves.  that said, these substances SHOULD be legalized so they wouldn't be imported by smugglers and instead be produced domestically by altria or other companies and regulated and taxed.

Plenty! That guy hanging outside is an illegal dealer. Minors pay him more to buy them beer and he makes a tax-free unregulated income. Like I said, there are a lot of criminals out there helping others acquire a legal poison. There are also shopkeepers, bouncers, bartenders who are willing to "look the other way" if you slide a bribe into their hands. They're criminals, too.

part of this problem is that the drinking age is 21 instead of 18 or 19, which makes it the highest drinking age in the world.  i agree that those who sell alcohol to minors are a problem which needs to be cracked down upon, but we need a sensible drinking age first.  my suggestion would be 19, since that way very few teens who are still in highschool could legally drink.

The kids still wreck their cars, the patry goers still get raped.

which they would still be doing anyway, even if alcohol was illegal.

As I said, the criminal element, the profit element, and the consequences are still there even though alcohol has been legalized. So what are you going to do? Are you going to blame the parents instead of the criminals and the laws enabling the process?

sounds like a decent idea to me.  ineffective parenting is the cause of a large number of society's ills.

Yeah, and we used to have the problems associated with those substances too.

but not nearly as much as we do today.  and since they were legal, we didnt' need a semi-police state to fight the drug war.

Ever wonder why our life expectancy is better? Why we are taller? We don't have those substances in general use hurting liver, kidney, and heart functions!

you have GOT to be kidding me if you think that the reason for the increases in life expectancy over the past hundred years were caused by the banning of drugs in the early 20th century.

Nope, I said it was like communism in sounding good on paper but not in the real world. Before your next post, PLEASE learn the word "like".

i stand corrected.  i erred in not recognizing the analogy.

In the real world back then, drugs were so bad that changes actually got passed. In the real world of today, softies on the drug war tend to lose in elections. So what does that tell you about the real world?

in the real world back then, drugs were banned because of a bunch of corrupt, moralizing politicians who want to increase their power.  in the real world right now, softies on the drug war tend to lose elections because of all the BS propaganda that has been put out by neo-prohibitionists.  that, however, is slowly beginning to change.  for example, roughly 45% of adults favor legalizing cannabis, and this number has increased every year since surveys began in the 1970's.  eventually, drug prohibition will end, just like alcohol prohibition was ended when people realized that it was a total failure.

I own stock in two brazilian banks.... quit fucking with my gains.

That little episode was why I lost a buck a share on each.... dicks.

Quoted: Your perception of reality is very clouded Read this chart of legal and illegal drug deaths in a year chart

So we should ban the legal drugs and legalize the banned ones? You're going to make it easier and cheaper for people to aquire substances that are more damaging to the body? What will happen to the numbers then? Maybe you didn't think this through. Do you really think those deaths will do gown when the narcotics get CHEAPER and PLENTIFUL? Do you think those casualties will go down when people who couldn't restrain themselves when drugs were illegal can somehow be trusted when the floodgates open? Oh please.

You're going to make it easier and cheaper for people to aquire substances that are more damaging to the body? What will happen to the numbers then? Maybe you didn't think this through. Do you really think those deaths will do gown when the narcotics get CHEAPER and PLENTIFUL? Do you think those casualties will go down when people who couldn't restrain themselves when drugs were illegal can somehow be trusted when the floodgates open? Oh please

If they are cheaper why would a drug addict commit a crime. Getting caught would mean jail. You cant do drugs in jail. Lot easier to pan handle. Economys of scale and legal manufacture would reduce a 100,000 dollars worth of coke to about 500 bucks

Do dead people commit crimes?

Are you one of the people who cant control themselves and need a law? Your acting like it.

Quoted: Yeah, but now that alcohol is legal, people are murdering others by drinking alcohol to "work themselves up" into doing something they wouldn't normally. Now that alchohol is legal, sexual predators are using it to victimize women... or do men buy drinks for women out of the goodness of their heart? All you are doing is moving the crime from one group to another group.

yeah, like all that didn't happen during prohibition, when alcohol was illegal?  binge drinking was rampant during prohibition, including all of its side effects, such as victimization of women, etc.  legalizing alcohol again didn't make the problem any better or worse.

Since alcohol is convenient, and legal, then other criminals step up to the plate. So instead of Al Capone controlling who gets shot around his alcohol distribution point, someone else does. Instead of Al Capone controlling who pays for sex by controlling the environment around the alcohol distribution point, someone else does. Criminals who wold have been "inconvenienced" by Al Capone are taking up the slack in his absence. So legalizing doesn't solve the associated problems and costs. It's still a poison that affects those who don't even use it.

i don't understand.  are you saying that budweiser and coors are on the same level as al capone, and are "controlling who gets shot around [their] distribution points?"  wtf?

So you're putting fatbodies and drug lords on the same legal plane? You're reaching again.

i'm saying that fatbodies are drug addicts are on the same plane, because both put a drain on our healthcare system.  the fatbody problem, however, is much worse.  

If it's such a potent technique, how come cocaine isn't in general usage with the world's many Armed Forces?

actually, it was studied for such use by the Germans in WW2, but they (along with the soviets and americans) chose to use amphetamines instead because they are usually longer-lasting.

The USAF is getting a lot of internal and external pressure because of that practice. That's why they are making combat UAV's, you don't have to drug up a UAV. So apparently, the military's solution to a potential long-term drug problem is to take the drugs product and use out of system completely wether the pilots like it or not.

so the reason for the UAV program is to avoid having to give pilots amphetamines?  i'd like to see a link to back up that claim.

So apparently society thinks it's OK to spend money on that and the War on Drugs simultaenously. Let's not make the problem worse by introducing cocaine and other narcotics into the mix. Imagine what will happen to a fatbody who consumes food and drugs at the same time?!?!? It's going to cost even more to treat them. As usual, you haven't thought through your assertions. If fatties are so weak that they cannot control their food consumption, just wait till the "legal" drug trade gets to them.

your post would only make sense if people didn't do drugs because they were illegal, and that legalizing them would increase drug use greatly.  that isn't the case, as has been shown by the studies posted above in the case of the netherlands.

But they aren't born that way. That means they had the choice to eat or overeat. A crackbaby is BORN a crackbaby, a human who was denied their freedom to choose a lifestyle right from the start.

i agree, that mothers shoudl be held accountable if their baby is born as a crackbaby or a methbaby.   you have the freedom to hurt your own body, but not the body of others.  these mothers should go to jail.

What's next, you're going to support murdering babies in order to protect the mother right to do whatever she wants with her own body while she is pregnant? You're going to put an unborn citizen's lives at risk on the altar of freedom?

why bring abortion into this issue?  by the way i am anti-abortion in most cases (abortion should only be allowed very very early in the pregnancy, before 10 weeks which is when higher brain activity begins).

You know what they say, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

HAHAHHAHAHAH!!! THAT EXACT LINE WAS USED BY GUN-GRABBERS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY VIOLATING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY BANNING GUNS! ROFLMAO! JUST MORE PROOF OF MY ALLEGATION THAT GUNBANNERS AND NEO-PROHIBITIONISTS USE THE SAME ARGUMENTS!!!!!!

KLUBMARCUS SAYS Does the military reject you if they detect junk food in fatbodies? C'mon man, come up with REAL argument.

Why yes they do. A large purportion of military discharges Other than honorable are for obesity
Used to be code spn41

here is an excerpt from a military pub

The prevalence of obesity increased from 12% in 1991 to 17.9% in 1998 in all population segments (e.g., sociodemographic groups) and regions.3 Similarly, more than 50% and 54% of U.S. military personnel were found to be overweight or obese (BMI > 25) in 1995 and 1998, respectively.4

Guess the military is having a problem having those fatties shed pounds

You know what they say, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

also, does that imply that you believe and admit that federal drug prohibition is unconstitutional, and that the nation would die if we actually did follow the constitution as written?

Terrorists have and continue to use sales of drugs to finance their activities. Good examples include FARC in Colombia.  I'll let you look it up to see who else's done it.

Some guys down in the Carolinas were running cigarettes (smuggling) to a Northern state to evade sales taxes up there. Proceeds directly supported a large, well-known designated Middle East terrorist group (Hizbollah) responsible for the murder of hundreds of Americans and created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050519-092915-7312r.htm

Are these drug problems, terrorism problems, tax issues? Yes!

Drug smuggling can and does fund terrorism.  Ditto 'conflict diamonds' and a whole bunch of other things, including knockoff merchandise (purses, T-shirts).  Again, google is your friend. So is ProQuest and other ...so are, I guess...other search tools and databases of professional literature.  

Whether or not prohibiting drugs is the best answer is another issue entirely.  Nixon had it right, we need to go to the demand side first.   Were these guys narco-terrorists? Don't know. They were violating U.S. law, though; write your congressman, if you'd rather be able to buy your coke at CVS.  Otherwise Navy, DEA, USCG and others get tasked with enforcing the laws that our representatives, in our republic, make.

What's scary is the sheer volume of established smuggling routes.  Tons. Big objects. Want to move a WMD into the U.S.?  highly trained, nasty people?  There's already an established group of people who do this well and like to get paid.  

Good job Navy~

What's scary is the sheer volume of established smuggling routes. Tons. Big objects. Want to move a WMD into the U.S.? highly trained, nasty people? There's already an established group of people who do this well and like to get paid. Good job Navy~

Agreed on all points. Good post
For you Klub marcus
The newest anti drug campain
new youth anti drug program

Quoted: again, there are plenty of people in hospitals because of diseases related to their sedentary lifestyle.

Again, I'm not the one linking 'gubment food regulation with fatbodies, YOU ARE. You're reaching. You brought in the idea of cracking down on fat people and junk food because "it's for the children". I did not. So now you're defending your linkage instead of defendind the illegal and immoral drug trade. Nice try.

so in your opinion, everything which is unhealthy should be illegal because the rest of society has to pay for it.  this leaves us with two options: 1. end entitlement programs such as medicaid, etc which pay for the consequences of people's unhealthy decisions. 2. ban everything which is unhealthy.  no tobacco, no alcohol, no drugs, no junk food.  government mandated exercise each day, limit the number of hours a person can spend watching TV, etc. i would vastly perfer choice #1.

Wrong! In my opinion druggies and drug dealers are harmful to society and that's why the 'gubment is compelled to crack down on them. You're the one who is reaching and saying that other items that do not involve illicit drugs should be dragged into the mix. That's a technique that people who are losing an argument resort to. It's as if you see us interdicting sugar shipments from foreign countries on moral grounds. Quit living in La La Land.

so then you're saying we should ban alcohol, because it doesn't belong in a cockpit?

Alcohol IS banned in the cockpit already!

actually, i wouldn't really care all that much.  cocaine is a stimulant which improves reaction time and wakefulness.  bombers pilots are given amphetamines for long missions, which is a stimulant similiar to cocaine.

Duly noted, ha ha ha ha! Hey everyone, he doesn't mind flying with a drugged up crew and passengers. That's his choice and he wants the rest of us to acoomodate him. See how selfish and impractical you are? Apparently, most people do not agree with you. If they did, then the situation in question would be in common practice on civilian airlines and profits would not be threatened by negative publicity. This isn't La La Land and you aren't flying on La La Airlines so you will have to put up with the prohibitions just like a drug smuggler who keeps his hands up after getting caught by a huge warship. Think about how silly a situation you put yourself into. You're siding with the criminals on that smuggling boat who are deemed so dangerous that warships are deployed to interdict them before they deliver their poisonous cargo! Hey, if we just legalize things, then they won't be illegal anymore. Bwa ha ha ha ha!

WTF are you talking about? if we had a plane where everyone was on coke, people would be talking and bragging a lot, and would probably get into a few more arguments and disputes than normally occurs on a plane.  i would not feel that my life would be in danger or that i had to fight everybody in order to escape.

I thought you said cocaine improves performance. So if someone is more alert than you, then you are less likely to be able to escape since you are outnumbered to begin with, so you are in GREATER danger. Since there is more bragging and arguing, then fights are more likely which puts you in GREATER danger of getting caught in a situation you don't want to be caught in. Stewardesses and passengers are wrestling with unruly passengers who are on legal alcohol and you're OK with them wrestling with one amped up on legalized cocaine? Are you crazy, dumb, or both? That would be OK, if you and the druggie were the only ones on the plane. But you aren't.

and i don't much want to share my life with neo-prohibitionists who resort to violence against people who aren't hurting anybody but themselves.

That's too bad because you aren't willing to use violence to defend your way of life. So we will win out in the end.

should we go after the violent dealers and gangmembers?  hell yes.  does it make sense to have a huge militarized police force and the largest prison population in the world and encroachments on our constitutional rights just to "keep crack out of jonny's pipe"?  hell no.

Do you know why we keep them in prison? They will be surrounded by people just like them instead of being surrounded by people who aren't. Why should society accomodate people they deem as undesirable criminals? That's why society spends money on prisons so that we can keep them away from us. The problem is when they get out of prison: early release, repeat offenders, etc...  

because they CAN.  if you think that who wins lawsuits is a good indicator of who's right and who's wrong, you need to seriously wake up.

But that's not a reason why we whould legalize. Just because people can sue over legal drugs doesn't mean we should legalize the banned ones! So if legalizing alcohol and tobacco still causes problems afterwards, then why bother adding more to the mix?

some of the disgustingly rich coke-snorting frat brothers at the ivy league school i attend would love to disagree with you

They didn't get rich because they snorted coke. Snorting coke had no bearing on their success. Since you can become wealthy and successful w/o cocaine, then it's not an essential ingredient worth the health, legal, and moral risks. Let's pretend that one of those frat boys snorted coke with a girl that they got pregnant. Who is going to pay for the addicted baby's care? The rich frat boy's family or the taxpayer when the girl is kicked to the curb, pummeled in the court system by expensive lawyers, and has impaired prospects? There are always costs and for some reason you are willing to bear them, but the rest do not want to pay for illegal and immoral behaviour. So we prefer to spend money fighting it. Since murderers are willing to commit multiple crimes so that frat boy can get his cocaine, then let's throw frat boy in jail (or force his family to incur costs) and shoot the drug dealer.

"the general public" has consistently voted for ever-stricter gun control laws too.  does that make it right?  the opinion of "the general public" is fickle and easily swayed by the media and by lying politicians.  quite a few people i have meet still believe all the "reefer madness" garbage and that cannabis leads to "insanity, murder, and death".  just like much of the public believes that the "assault weapons ban" banned full-auto firearms.  education is the answer.  the general public needs to learn the reality of the issues, and not just believe what the media and the politicians tell them.

We live in the real world and that's how the real world works. So it's put up or shut up time. Apparently, pro-gun candidates and legislation are moving up. Legalization is dead at the ballot box. And I'm OK with it and I prefer more anti-drug crackdowns. So it sucks to be you!

if it's harmful, then why not make it ILLEGAL?  should be ban alcohol, tobacco, and junk food, each of which cause FAR more harm than most illegal drugs?

Why? Because we live in the real world. That's why. Quit living in La La Land. You can figure out which ones will pass and which ones won't.

no, i'm equating the WAR ON DRUGS with an ATTACK on our freedom.  something is seriously wrong with our society when you can get a long sentence in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for growing or consuming a plant or chemical.

Actually, there's something wrong with a person who risks a long sentence and prison rape just for a plant or chemical. Face it, entire families can succeed for generations completely devoid of those substances. Their freedoms aren't infringe because of lack of access to a narcotic. The problem happens AFTER someone consumes the plant or chemical. Then criminals, 'gubment, and pissed-off people show up and just ruin things. Sucks to be on drugs or near those who are, huh?

because they LIED about it and the negative effects it can have on health.  its not because their product was harmful, its because they LIED about the harm it can cause.

So in your mind, it's worse to hide the damage instead of the actual damage? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! That's not how things work. The 'gubment sued them for lying because it was an easy point of attack. It's just like taking down drug lords for money laundering or tax evasion. It's not the real reason why they are getting hit, but they sure made themselves open to getting hit that way. That's why interdicting drug smugglers makes sense in terms of narco-terrorism. We know we can get hit that way so prudence demands that we send resources in that direction. Guess what, we successfully intercept the shipments time and time again. So the dealers have to try harder over and over and the poor druggies have to put up with higher prices (sniff sniff cry cry) and our military gets real world practice.

actually, much of that money comes from settlements with the tobacco companies.  the companies are being forced to tell consumers not to buy their own products.

And druggies can tell just how effective those anti-drug ads are! So it's a waste all around. The tobacco companies pass on the costs, the bureaucracy gets fatter, and the addicts spend more money on tobacco instead of others things in the economy that might actually be useful.  Now that would be OK if addicts lived in their own world and their actions had no consequences on the rest of us. If 'gubment wants more construction, they shouldn't go around burning houses down for insurance money. If 'gubment wants more revenue, they shouldn't go around causing more damage to the populace so they can levy taxes on immoral and illegal behaviour.

because they won't get health care if they're caught shirking their higher premiums.  same as the way it is today WRT pre-existing conditions and such.

But that's not how an emergency room works. If those druggies are shirking from paying for coverage because they would rather pay for drugs, then we all pay when they show up w/o coverage! It's just like illegal aliens. They'll just suck off the "free" services to get by. What about the druggie who contracted disease? Do you think (s)he is going to tell the emergency room personnel that they have a AIDS? Druggies are a high risk population, so why should emergency workers put up with more risk and work "for free" to save those losers?

exactly the reason why we need to get rid of entitlement programs.  people ALREADY do that, with regards to illnesses caused by alcohol, tobacco, and junk food/sedentary lifestyles.

Since they already take advantage, then let's not give them another crutch by legalizing narcotics. "I had to go on an entitlement program because I was taking perfectly legal substances yo honor".

i agree, the government should not provide free health care to crackwhores, or anyone else for that matter, with the EXCEPTION of children.  is it fair that the child is punished for it's mother's actions?

Is it fair for the child that the mother could legally acquire the drugs to mess up their lives? Alcohol is legal, but we still have kids born with alcohol poisoining and sending the mom to jail for it. So why would we want to add cocaine to that? Is it fair to the children of responsible parents that resources are diverted to care for the children of irresponsible parents? Is it fair for you to pay for the healthcare of your children and the children of a druggie? Is it fair that a drug lord can afford the medical care for his kids that his victims cannot provide for theirs? Is it OK for children to suffer organ damage as long as their parents can afford the treatment?  

you didn't specify that in your previous post.  i agree, posse comitatus doesn't apply WRT international waters.

Besides, there are plenty of of LEO's who are more than willing to bust the crooks within our borders, but it sure is nice to have the military hit them outside our borders.

the gun range CAN'T limit my freedom, because it's PRIVATE PROPERTY and i have NO RIGHT to be there.  the bar is there so people can enjoy a drink after shooting, the fact that you're not allowed to shoot again after visiting the bar has NOTHING TO DO with violating my freedom or my rights.

It just goes to show you that when it comes to selfish motives, people will act in ways that are contrary. You want to legalize drugs, but abide the ban in exchange for something else. And that's the key, isn't it? If drugs, druggies, and everything else involved all occurred within a private setting and everyone affected agreed to abide by certain norms, then there wouldn't be a problem! But we don't live in La La Land and the drug trade (legal or otherwise) has consequences that negatively affect other private property owners, those who are closely associated, and even random strangers. So prudence demands that citizens and 'gubment step in to interfere with activity they deem as undesirable. It's just like muslim terrorism. What they do affects us, so we're going to go over there and knock their skulls in. What druggies and dealers do affects us, so expect a lot of people to end up in jail or get shot at by men in uniform.

i don't have a problem enforcing our borders.  the federal gov't has the power to enforce what comes in and out of the borders.  what i DO have a problem with is JBTs knocking down people's doors and shipping people off to jail who have hurt no one but themselves.  that said, these substances SHOULD be legalized so they wouldn't be imported by smugglers and instead be produced domestically by altria or other companies and regulated and taxed.

They aren't being pursued by JBT's because they are hurting themselves. They are being pursued by JBT's because others think they are undesirable. Druggies get hassled because they aren't wanted. Since they refuse to abide by the laws that everyone else does, then we lock them up in environment separate from the rest of us. What are you going to do? Take up arms against "the man" to protect druggies and drug dealers? I don't think so. The only thing you can do is try to wrap a turd in "freedom" and "rights" in an attempt to dupe others into turning their cheek when poison peddlers and their willing (and unwilling) victims fall.

part of this problem is that the drinking age is 21 instead of 18 or 19, which makes it the highest drinking age in the world.  i agree that those who sell alcohol to minors are a problem which needs to be cracked down upon, but we need a sensible drinking age first.  my suggestion would be 19, since that way very few teens who are still in highschool could legally drink.

Sorry man, we don't take cues from the "world community" when it comes time to decide how to govern our lives. You're doing the same thing again. You're excusing behaviour you think is a bad idea by changing the law to accomodate the behaviour. What if even younger kids want to drink and are willing to do what it takes to get the drug? Are you going to lower the drinking age again? Are you going to blame the parents or the criminals?

which they would still be doing anyway, even if alcohol was illegal.

Then why bother legalizing? I thought the point of legalizing was to lower the crime rate? If the the crime rate doesn't drop, or if the legalization opens up avenues to more crimes, why legalize at all? Why sanction or enable immoral or illegal behaviour that the public obviously deems to be undesirable to the point of expending resources to combat it? If they're going to do it anyway, might as well keep it illegal.

sounds like a decent idea to me.  ineffective parenting is the cause of a large number of society's ills.

Gee, look at that. You would rather err on the side of criminals who clearly violated the law instead of the parents who may or may not have done anything wrong during their child's upbringing. What's next? Are you going to excuse a druggie's bad choices in life to justify the costs to the rest of us of their presence? Are you going to blame society for a crackwhore's ills? I prefer to blame the druggie and the drug dealer instead. They are directly responsible for the situation so it is they who should to to jail and face violence, they should be the ones to pay, not the rest of us.

but not nearly as much as we do today.  and since they were legal, we didnt' need a semi-police state to fight the drug war.

If it was better back then, why did changes occur? If the drug problem is so bad today, how come softies on drug control keep getting beat over and over again? Could it be that people deem the drugs, the druggies, and the dealers to be undesirable problems they would rather fight with the force of arms rather than be a party to?

you have GOT to be kidding me if you think that the reason for the increases in life expectancy over the past hundred years were caused by the banning of drugs in the early 20th century.

You have got to be kidding me if you think that legalizing drugs in the face of threats to health in the early 20th century will improve the situation? People who cannot cure (or cannot afford the cure) to liver disease should stay the heck away from alcohol. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It wasn't put into effect to protect the ability of druggies to poision themselves and to protect drug lords to keep feeding the addiction as if there were no consequences to the rest of the citizenry.

i stand corrected.  i erred in not recognizing the analogy.

Thank you.

in the real world back then, drugs were banned because of a bunch of corrupt, moralizing politicians who want to increase their power.  in the real world right now, softies on the drug war tend to lose elections because of all the BS propaganda that has been put out by neo-prohibitionists.  that, however, is slowly beginning to change.  for example, roughly 45% of adults favor legalizing cannabis, and this number has increased every year since surveys began in the 1970's.  eventually, drug prohibition will end, just like alcohol prohibition was ended when people realized that it was a total failure.

If those politicians were able to increase their power through those acts, then there must've been a substantial chunk of the population who support them. If enough people favor legalizing marijuana, then it will become legal. If drug prohibition is a good idea, then it will be implemented. But right now society deems it important (and arguably entertaining) for missile cruisers to successfully interdict drug boats. Until then, it's just talk and JBT's keep knocking down the door so that people will be entertained by interesting footage on  the TV show COPS. Who knows? Maybe the pro-druggers will take up arms against the anti-druggers to a greater degree than they do now. Let's see how badly they want to push the issue. Then our forces won't have to fight with one hand tied behind their back and we can drop the "nice doggy" routine with the drug world and turn up the heat.

If those politicians were able to increase their power through those acts, then there must've been a substantial chunk of the population who support them. If enough people favor legalizing marijuana, then it will become legal. If drug prohibition is a good idea, then it will be implemented. But right now society deems it important (and arguably entertaining) for missile cruisers to successfully interdict drug boats. Until then, it's just talk and JBT's keep knocking down the door so that people will be entertained by interesting footage on the TV show COPS. Who knows? Maybe the pro-druggers will take up arms against the anti-druggers to a greater degree than they do now. Let's see how badly they want to push the issue. Then our forces won't have to fight with one hand tied behind their back and we can drop the "nice doggy" routine with the drug world and turn up the heat.

No there were just more ignorant people who trusted there goverment to do the right things. And Drug dealers share your beliefs they dont want legalised drugs either. And for all the success You feel we are having just remember we intercept less than 5% of the drugs flowing into the united states. You dont read the facts presented. You just cling to your demented view that the war on drugs is nessesary and beneficial when all reports point out otherwise.

Sorry your reality is so fragile you need to cling to falsehoods in order to maintain it.

Quoted: Quoted: I know now how to solve the immagration problem.  For every illegal who has been working in the US for 5 years or longer we will offer citizenship in exchange for their country of origin taking one person who thinks like OFFascist.  Its a fair trade to me. Exactly the kind of words I would expect from a terrorist sympathizer. So have you made your pilgramage to Mecca yet hajji?

Don`t want to outlaw drugs but you knock other peoples religion.   I am disappointed in you.

Quoted: Terrorists have and continue to use sales of drugs to finance their activities. Good examples include FARC in Colombia.  I'll let you look it up to see who else's done it. Some guys down in the Carolinas were running cigarettes (smuggling) to a Northern state to evade sales taxes up there. Proceeds directly supported a large, well-known designated Middle East terrorist group (Hizbollah) responsible for the murder of hundreds of Americans and created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050519-092915-7312r.htm Are these drug problems, terrorism problems, tax issues? Yes! Drug smuggling can and does fund terrorism.  Ditto 'conflict diamonds' and a whole bunch of other things, including knockoff merchandise (purses, T-shirts).  Again, google is your friend. So is ProQuest and other ...so are, I guess...other search tools and databases of professional literature.   Whether or not prohibiting drugs is the best answer is another issue entirely.  Nixon had it right, we need to go to the demand side first.   Were these guys narco-terrorists? Don't know. They were violating U.S. law, though; write your congressman, if you'd rather be able to buy your coke at CVS.  Otherwise Navy, DEA, USCG and others get tasked with enforcing the laws that our representatives, in our republic, make. What's scary is the sheer volume of established smuggling routes.  Tons. Big objects. Want to move a WMD into the U.S.?  highly trained, nasty people?  There's already an established group of people who do this well and like to get paid.   Good job Navy~

if/when they want anything, that's right anything . it'll get here. close the border, mine the waters, rip up the constitution and search everyone. it'll still get here.
anyone who thinks the war on drugs is actually working, is using what they do happen to confiscate.

Drug policy issues often enter the national agenda in response to public fears. The focus and potency of the "war on drugs" have shifted with the public's view of the users. For example, Marrone cites several sources to support his statement that "early controls on opium came amid fears of the Chinese immigrants who smoked it" and that "cocaine emerged as a policy issue [early in the 20th century] with another panic — this one centered on African-American men." The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control (D. Musto, Oxford University Press, 1987) reports on "Negro Cocaine madness," which was alleged to be behind "70 percent of all crimes in Atlanta." The investigator also writes: "In the 1930s, amid the economic tensions of the Depression, a panic in the western states focused on Chicanos and marijuana." He quotes from an editorial in a Colorado newspaper that reads: "If I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one of our

Quoted: Whether or not prohibiting drugs is the best answer is another issue entirely.  Nixon had it right, we need to go to the demand side first.

I've got a better idea, let's follow the arfcom way and DO BOTH! Let's hit the users and the dealers, let's hit them inside and outside our borders. Let's crack down on citizens and non-citizens. Druggies will have to put up with higher prices and lack of grovery store convenience, boo hoo sniff sniff for them. Drug dealers have to face more obstacles to their illicit trade, boo hoo sniff sniff for them. I want to see LEO's, and the military to put more pressure on them. Guliani was able to reduce crime in NYC by hassling even "minor" criminals because those lead to clues or people who commit the "major" ones. The same technique will work in the drug war.

A border guard was able to stop a Y2K terrorist attack via a routine check. I'm sure our actions in the War on Drugs is complicating al-Qaeda strike planning. The alternative is not to intercept. If we get hit by an attack funded or aided by the drug trade, then you know a bunch of whiners will blame "Da System" for not connecting the dots. Why should clean Americans risk their health and lives so that a bunch of druggies can get high? Why should clean Americans allow monies to flow to enemies inside and outside the USA from a lifestyle they do not approve? Why cut deals with the criminal, the immoral, or the enemy? We're doing that with alcohol and tobacco and we're still paying the costs in health, lives, and money including those who don't even consume alcohol and tobacco.

Quoted: if/when they want anything, that's right anything . it'll get here. close the border, mine the waters, rip up the constitution and search everyone. it'll still get here. anyone who thinks the war on drugs is actually working, is using what they do happen to confiscate.

If the Constitution is so important to you, then maybe you should go kill a druggie or a dealer? That will reduce the demand for JBT's.

The next great wave of anti-drug legislation began in the late 19th century, and continues to the present day. The United States has been the driving force in the present-day "War on Drugs."

The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise," though there is no evidence to suggest this ever happened. The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The dividing line was usually the manner in which the drug was ingested. Chinese immigrants smoked it, while it was included in various kinds of (generally liquid) medicines for people of European descent. The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it. 1 As a result of this discrepancy, modern commentators believe that these laws were racist in origin and intent.

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression. The law passed quickly and with little debate. The American Medical Association (AMA) protested the law soon after, both on the grounds of actual disagreement with the law and the supporters' lies on the subject; Anslinger and others had claimed the AMA had vocalized support when, in fact, the opposite was true.