[url]www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/argument/myths.html[/url]



[url]www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/victmles/vctmless.html[/url]


--LS

REFER MADNESS!



It's supposed to be a FREE country.

I like Neil Boortz's congealment of the matter: Do you believe that you should have control over your body or not?  By acquiescing power over your body to Uncle Sugar, you are admitting that you do not, in fact, believe in the principle of freedom.  It really is, REALLY IS, as simple as that folks.

Well, hell, Longshot, let's ban alcohol again and tobacco, too while we're at it, since their being legal brings in so much less tax revenue than their "social costs."I'm with them there.  Prohibition [i]established[/i] organized crime in the US, and repeal of prohibition didn't make it go away.  The damage is already done on that front.Really?  Alcohol abuse went [i]up[/i] after Prohibition was repealed?  I'd like to see the stats on that.Possibly, but they increase the [i]tax burden[/i] on everyone because of enforcement and incarceration.  According to [url=www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm]the Bureau of Justice Statistics[/url] [i]20%[/i] of people incarcerated are there on [i]drug charges[/i]. That's got to cost a pretty penny, eh?  And I've heard they have a hard time keeping drugs [i]out of the prisons[/i].

Damn, but those laws are effective, no?THERE IS NO CONSTITUIONALLY GRANTED GOVERNMENT POWER TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES. As someone said, why did it require a Constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but only a federal law to outlaw narcotics?  Asl Llanero said, it's a war [i]on civil liberties[/i], and if you cannot see the evidence of the erosion of the Bill of Rights in the name of the War on (some) Drugs, you're blind.

Legalizing drugs wouldn't be a panacea. It wouldn't make everything peachy-keen. Much damage is already done that cannot be undone, but you cannot honestly argue that it will make drugs [i]easier[/i] to get. It might reduce the number of overdoses and unintentional poisonings due to inconsistent quality and cutting with who knows what. It would put a major dent in the illicit trade, and hopefully the violence associated with it. It should reduce the crime associated with supporting addiction. It might make drug abusers more employable - though that should remain a choice that businesses make for themselves. But it would end an ever-increasing intrusion on our lives and our rights by government. And hey! It might be a new source of revenue, so long as they don't try to regulate useage (as they are now with tobacco) via onerous "sin taxes" that just lead back to a black market.

And it should [i]save[/i] a considerable amount of tax dollars. But of course it wouldn't. After just a few years of Prohibition the Federal agents tasked with that job weren't let go when it was repealed, they were just given a different job - enforcing the new Federal firearms law. You can bet all those DEA agents would be put on something.

How about anti-terrorism?

I'm sure the government can resume destruction of the Bill of Rights using that excuse.

What happened to mom and apple pie?
[marines]

You dopers should be ashamed of yourselves.
[V]

Just to let you know, I've never done an illicit drug in my life, nor do I drink or use tobacco.

Can't have it both ways. It shouldn't be a crime if its out of  the addicts control. Must be considered an illness.

Politicians love a war on this and a war on that. It makes it look like they are doing something even though in most cases its more harm than good. The soccer moms eat it up and, after all, isn't that what America is all about?
Keep those soccer moms happy and buying stuff.

Kbaker,
If drugs were legalized then you would still have people making Meth in their trailer. You know illegal aliens in Riverside can make mmeth at a lower price than Dow Corning. Perhaps you meant decriminalization, like with Alcohol and Tobacco?

I support legalization. I do not support decriminalization becuase it would mean even more buruecracy. Burea of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Narcotics anyone?

1. There is no [i]legitimate[/i] constitutional warrant for federal regulation of drugs. It is one more deformed troll springing from the sewer pipe of congressional and judicial perversion of the power to regulate interstate commerce.

2. During Prohibition, beer and liquor distributors frequently shot it out with each other and with the police. I see beer trucks all over the place. I've never seen one fleeing from the police, never seen anybody shooting a gun from the cab, never heard of a policeman being killed by a beer man or a liquor warehouse being burned down by rivals. All this leads me to wonder how anybody can seriously claim that legalization of drugs would fail to reduce crime.

3. It is true that anybody who wants drugs can get them. Somebody asked "Then why do we need to legalize them?" Because the burdens imposed by (and for that matter, upon)the judicial system are graver than those imposed on the individual by use of the drugs. Go to any big-city courthouse during jail sweeps. There are huge numbers of people coming through the system every day who are there [i]solely[/i] for possessing or selling drugs - not for burglary "to feed a habit" or any other consequential offense, but because they possessed dope, sold some to a cop in a sting, or bought a rock in a reverse. Lots of them have jobs for which they will not appear as a result of the arrest. Given that drugs are readily available, the peoper question is not the fatuous "why do we need to legalize them?" but "Why do we spend money, incarcerate people, and kick in doors in furtherance of a manifestly failed policy?"

4. No one seems to have noticed that until the 1930s (maybe starting in the '20s) [b]all these drugs were legal.[/b] You could buy all the cocaine and morphine you wanted at the local pharmacy or dry-goods store. Marijuana was unregulated. You could buy amphetamines over the counter until the 60s. Hmmm. Can any of you prohibitionists name a similar prohibition/crime trend starting in the 30s and getting a big boost in the 60s? Hmm? We reasonably conclude that since crime was lower when you could buy a BAR at the hardware store, guns do not cause crime. However, you blithely assert that although crime was lower when you could pick up an ounce of cocaine on the way home from the hardware store, drugs do cause crime. 'Splain that.

5. There is  one useful purpose served by drug laws. As one who has in the past vigorously enforced drug laws I can tell you that they are a very handy substitute for the "status offenses" which once served to keep undesirables of various stripes off the streets. People you can catch buying, selling, or using drugs in public are not people you want hanging around anyway. The combined effect of police manpower allocation, officer discretion, and prosecutorial discretion tends to ensure that only certain people are seriously injured by the laws. Of course, arresting people because you don't want them around is constitutionally and ethically suspect, but we do have the cover of a purportedly constitutional drug-prohibition scheme. To clarify, I am grateful that we can run dirtbags off the street. I just don't know how to reconcile the practice with my ethics and the constitution.

6. The bottom line, for me at least, is that the notion that the government can ban chemicals that cannot directly harm anybody who doesn't ingest them is a loony and hateful as suggesting that the government can ban pork or onions.

FYI, There is a book called "Smoke and Mirrors-
the war on drugs and the politics of failure" by Dan Baum. It chronicles the war on drugs from it's inception during the Nixon administration to present. An interesting read.

longshot, if you believe that the .gov knows better that the people about drugs, then shouldn't you also believe the government knows more about guns?

And following tht train(wreck) of thought, why should you be concerned if the .gov bans guns?

After all, THEY are the experts, an came to the conclusion that guns are bad, and should be banned.

[bow]

I don't know about you guys but I for one am not going to go out and buy drugs just cause the guberment says I can and will knock the crap out of my son if he does.

To PSYWAR1-0's comment about the farmer  terror, he's right but it's also economic terror since it drains billions while our farmers go bankrupt daily. Don't have the answer to this one either.

I really like VX's post.  I've often wondered if we spent just half as much of the money we do in fighting the war on crime on drug prevention what the results would be.  Yes, I attribute the decline in respect in our LEO's very much on the war of crime that and their militarization as a direct result of the war.

Still don't have an answer to this problem. I feel anything goes isn't right but what is happening isn't working.

Tj

WTF are you talking about?? The PD's have done such an outstanding job in this area so far... right????

If the drugs are all available now--- how would taking away the artificial price support worsen the situation???

Police do noting but keep the cost of the drugs higher.

And of course- alcohol and tobacco and caffiene are all drugs, you sanctamonious bunch of hypocrites.

Apples and oranges.


I read over all these comments about 'legitimate constitutional warrant,' 'NO CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED GOVERNMENT POWER TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES,' 'acquiescing power over your body to Uncle Sugar' and I think...

Near sighted, simplistic, ill motivated, and false.

Its all true when viewed through those parameters.

Legalization guarantees government responsibility to provide drug rehab programs. EXPENSIVE, and INEFFECTIVE and financed by [red]more taxes.[/red]

Legalization guarantees government responsibility to regulate by enacting even MORE laws at the federal AND state level. Some states having to create entire new agencies to administrate those regulations and distribution. Similar to Virginia's Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Also EXPENSIVE, and INEFFECTIVE and financed by [red]more taxes.[/red]

Its a pandora's box gentlemen.

Fact 6: Legalization of Drugs will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Levels of Addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.

[url]http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm[/url]

--LS

longshot, you are going to believe a website that can't even tell the difference between crack and coke?

[img]http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/fig8.gif[/img]

Yes.

[img]www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/methuse.jpg[/img]

- LS

no it's not



all of this shit was legal 100 years ago

Great.

Jump in your little time machine and go back to 1903 and we'll all be happy.

I bet they didn't have 55mph speed limits back then either. Bonus!

- LS

Hate to tell you this, but I know people who have been using meth for longer than 10 years and they didn't fall apart like that. Bet she was using a lot of other drugs and a hooker to boot.

BUT who are we to tell her what to do with her body? THe courts already said she can have an abortion, which takes another life, so why should we care what she puts into her body?

Exactly my point. [i]'Why should we care?'[/i]

Druggies mantra.

'[blue]I[/blue] don't give a rats ass about anyone other than [blue]myself[/blue] and what [blue]I[/blue] want.'

Good for you.

- LS

Like I said, why should you care if someone wants to smoke a jay?

IF they do it at home, and don't drive, what's the harm?

I don't trust the .gov to tell me what is good for me, just like I don't trust them to tell me hat I don't need guns.

If you think that they know better than you on the drug issue, then they know better than you on the gun issue.

If you want to mess up your life on drugs, go ahead.
If you want to mess up your life with guns, go ahead.

It's supposed to be a FREE country, and as long as their use doesn't affect YOUR rights, then don't worry about it.

IF and WHEN they overstep YOUR rights, then the .gov can step in. But it can ONLY be done on an individual basis, not with a blanket prohibition.

All the arguements that are applied to drugs are being applied to guns, and we are LOSING, on BOTH fronts.

longshot ... would you support a ban on alcohol?


howabout big macs?


twinkies?


tobacco?

cars cabable of speeds that exceed the speed limit.

cell phone use in the car.

eating in the car.

riding a bike without a helmet.

hell, why not require helmets for everyone going outside?


maybe we need a law making exercise three times a week mandatory (violation punishable by death)

Do you know alot of people who are being arrested for smoking MJ in their home?  In 10+ years I've never arrested anyone in their home for any drug. It's the ass clowns that want to smoke it in the city parks, bar parking lots, and school playgrounds that get into trouble with the law.

There is a line. Albeit neither thin nor blue.

You all are just trying to move it over a little.

Am I saying we need more "Nanny-state" laws? No.

Am I saying there is a difference between smoking a joint of who knows what and a big mack. Yes.

As long as we keep equating gun rights with 'drug rights' we, as firearm enthusiasts, will be at the mercy of those who want to legalize drugs AND those who want to illegalize guns.

They are two very different creatures, guns and drugs.

Drugs have no beneficial value. None. Zero. They are purely destructive. (at least the ones in this context, not prescription drugs obviously)

That is why they are illegal. I'm fine with that.

- LS

LS, you're a sheep.  You'll turn in your guns when they come for them.

You dont deserve freedom.



-HS

Whatever.

- LS

OMG I cant believe you said that! Once again here is the metality that is our "POLICE FORCE".
While you may not claim to actually believe what you said, it is VERY clear how you feel about somthing as petty as smoking weed.

My opinion about cops will never change. You people have some SERIOUS issues.

BTW do you think it would actually work?.... I dont!

Yes, I believe that is the only thing that would work. But I dont support it.

Why not? If you be this is the ONLY thing that can work why not support it? Stand up for what YOU believe is right! How can it be wrong if its the only way to save us from .......us?

From another thread;




hmmmmm.....  do you have the ability to apply this reasoning to current prohibition?

Try reading the whole thread. You'll see "what I believe is right" is the full complete legalization of all drugs.

Again, IMHO, it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Gun enthusiasts who equate the Right  to Keep and Bare Arms with rights to do drugs weaken their position on firearms to the extent of 'shooting themselves in the foot.' (pardon the pun)

There are many [b]MANY[/b] reasons for firearm ownership.

There is no G-D reason to do illicit drugs.

Big difference.

- LS

I agree 100%

sure there is:  recreation....just like drinking a beer.

Perhaps. But I reserve the right to do what I want with and to [b]MY[/b] body.

-HS

You mean Scheduled drugs.

Illicit drugs haven't been tested by the FDA.

How about this: legalize all NATURAL drugs. That DON'T need refinement.

But the cavat is that you have to give up alcohol, be cause it's refined.

Dare I?

Oh, what the hell. You called me "a sheep."

...



Spoken like a true feminist.

- LS

longshot, you are playing word games. The arguement against drugs is the same arguement that led to prohibition, and gun control, so why NOT draw paralles?

We can work with the people who want to legalize drugs.
It's all in how you frame the discussion.

Make it about freedom of choice, and you can get them to come to our side.

Remember that the Wo(s)D has given us seizure laws that  violate the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

Also remember the the WO(s)D also gave us the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill, and is part of the reason that people think that it souuld be renewed and/or strengthened.

My bad. I'm no expert.



'twer is only that simple, tempting proposition

- LS

I disagree. They are not the same argument. Similarities? Sure. Different nonetheless.



I neither want nor need their help. Make the arguments for RKBA on its own merits and you will be taken seriously.



Divide and conquer.

Attack these laws based on Constitutional violations that you mention. One at a time. One by one.

- LS

I was addressing what you said here.


Apparently you see a problem and said the [red]ONLY solution[/red] is a bullet to the back of the head. Say what you want about not supporting it but you slipped up.

You scare the shit outta me, because I know there are MANY others (COPS) JUST LIKE YOU who have this warped sense of whats right and wrong and how to go about fixing it.

I think you're hiding something. I bet you are VERY reserved when you post here(as most cops IMO). You cant speak your real feelings about how citizens should be controlled. I don't understand how you can go thru life in such a black and white attitude. There IS/ARE grey areas. Pot smokers should not be shot in the head because they wont conform just as someone who rips a book in half(felony) should not be imprisoned and have their 2nd amendment rights taken away.

Okay! Let's see... Here we go, the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, which every Federal employee has taken an oath to uphold: (for the slow, this section lists exactly what the Federal Government has the power to regulate)



No, I don't see anything about controlling what people put into their own bodies for their own good. Therefore, all drug laws are unconstitutional. (along with a boatload of other stuff, but that's another thread)



Why? There was no underworld before drugs were made illegal.



They're already there. Your war on drugs has had [b]80 years[/b] and it hasn't helped anything. Funny that they should use alcohol as a model, since the evidence shows that alcohol comsumption decreased after it was legalized.



Where did we give the Government the right to decide what is harmful to us and prevent us from doing it? I thought that this was a free country, and that for the Government to stop you from doing something, you need solid proof that what you are doing directly harms another person, not some ambiguous definition of "society".



Bullshit. Name one of those studies. Here are a few that I found:

Danger: All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century.
[img]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/deaths1.gif[/img]

Addictive:
The tables listed below show the rankings given for each of the drugs. Overall, their evaluations for the drugs are very consistent. It is notable that marijuana ranks below caffeine in most addictive criteria, while alcohol and tobacco are near the top of the scale in many areas.
[url]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q5[/url]



Where in the world does this come from? Sounds like a bunch of made-up nonsense. None of this stuff happened in huge numbers as alleged before drugs were banned. There is evidence that Alcohol is the only drug that actually increases agression:


Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown     to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP,     certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting     psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the     brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

[url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GOVPUBS/psycviol.htm]Psychoactive Substances and Violence, by Jeffrey A. Roth[/url], Department of Justice Series: Research in Brief, Published: February 1994

I don't have time to work on the rest right now, but it looks just like stuff from VPC - a bunch of irrational ranting based on blind assumptions with no factual basis.

I'd like to talk about this with an obviously thoughtful opponent reather than wag balls and count coup. Your post leads me to this question: do you really think the value of 2 stiff scotches at the end of a very hard day is zero?

Just to let you know, I have done illicit drugs and I abused the hell out of the legal drug  alcohol. I smoked for quite a few years too.

I can tell you with no uncertainty alcohol was by far the most destructive element in all that misbehavior. It cost me promotions, almost cost me my marriage and my life on several occasions.


I'm glad the light finally came on at age 40 and I don't do any of that shit anymore. But if I were the King of America, and there was only one drug for approved for recreational use, it damn sure wouldn't be alcohol.

I am constantly amazed how many people decry the evils of illegal drugs while pickling their brains and ruining their lives with alcohol.

How many people have you arrested for possession that were on their way home, but didn't make it because they were pulled over for an ass clown with a "burned out tail light".

LOL, how true.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I could not have said it better myself.I guess this makes me pro drugs,anti kop,and a host of other bad shit.Wake up people.If a program harms more that it helps get a new approach.

That one officer would be me,  and I'd appreciate it if you gained a little integrity and honesty and quot me correctly,  instead of lying in order to slam police officers in general.  Then again,  I'm not holding my breath.

veiled victim mentality.  the drugs don't destroy people's lives.  the drugs don't do anything at all.  the individual destroys his or her own life.

never thought i'd hear this kind of crap on a gun site.

this is the most stunning bit of prose in the entire thread.  i refuse to believe that you are this obtuse.  

exactly who are you to make this judgement?  

describe your first-hand experiences with drugs, so that we may understand the depth of your authority on the subject.  

define "pleasure", and do so without any reference to the biochemical processes of the brain.

define "value", and do so using a strictly individual perspective.  

after completing the above, you may explain how you are qualified to define "value" for each and every individual in the nation.  just remember that you may not refer to individual safety, public health, utilitarianism, or morality.  if you were to do that, you would be using precisely the same rhetoric as the gun-control lobby, and in precisely the same way.

you're fine with the illegality of drugs because:
1. you believe that they are destructive.
2. you do not recognize that drugs have any value.

substitute "firearms" for "drugs", and this is EXACTLY the statement i hear from those who would outlaw all guns.  you are exactly like they are, you just have a different issue.

welcome to liberalism.

You can’t see past the nose on your face and yet you call me obtuse.

Consider this:

Mother Teresa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for:
- a) devote her life to working among the poorest of the poor in the slums of Calcutta.
- b) smoking marijuana

Mahatma Gandhi became the sole voice of the downtrodden and the exploited because:
- a) he was adamant idealist, courageous fighter, a deep thinker, and a great leader of men and ideas, it was possible for him to do that because he identified himself with struggles and pains of the common Indians.
- B) he smoked marijuana

Albert Einstein shook the foundations of physics when he:
- a) published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905
- b) smoked marijuana

Smoking marijuana has contributed to:
- a) nothing
- b) well, nothing, but I like it so it has value.

Good luck “Einstein.”

- LS