Quoted: Quoted: There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be. Thats better than your neighbor to the east, where they can sieze for little reason without charging you with any crime, allow you no court appointed attorney, and intentionally drag out the case. Then, once you have spent thousands on lawyers they will offer to "settle" and give you 40% back or threaten to drag it out for a few more years. And the money? It gets split between the judicial fund, DA's office, and the siezing agency. Talk about hands in the cookie jar.

Again, I can only speak for Texas but here there are specific time limits that are NOT appeallable by the State.  The seizing Department MUST have their seizure paperwork filed within 30 days or the property is returned and the DA's office must have the hearing within another 30 or 60 days (I don't remember for sure) or the property is returned.  Additionally any property seized must be maintained by the Agency while it is being stored.  That's why houses aren't a big hit for the seizure guys because of mandatory upkeep.  The only person in the process that can file an extension in these cases is the defendant.

Quoted: Take off the tinfoil hats...all that ruling was about was defining what constitutes "free air". Officers are allowed to run a narcotics K9 around the EXTERIOR of any car that is legally detained (i.e. a traffic stop). If the K9 alerts then the officers can search the interior of the car. All this ruling did was define the fact that there is no expectation of privacy for illicit odors escaping the interior of your car. We still need probable cause to search the interior of the car. It's been that way for years. We still can't just enter your house and look for dope without a warrant.....unless you are stupid enough to leave it in plainview where we can see it through your windows....and given the lack of reading comprehension and penchant for overreaction I have seen on this board, y'all just might be dumb enough to do

Please people, read the case and why it went to court and you will see this is the truth. I dislike the SCOTUS opinion as much as everyone else, but it is not what ya'll are making it out to be

Quoted: Quoted: Take off the tinfoil hats...all that ruling was about was defining what constitutes "free air". Officers are allowed to run a narcotics K9 around the EXTERIOR of any car that is legally detained (i.e. a traffic stop). If the K9 alerts then the officers can search the interior of the car. All this ruling did was define the fact that there is no expectation of privacy for illicit odors escaping the interior of your car. We still need probable cause to search the interior of the car. It's been that way for years. We still can't just enter your house and look for dope without a warrant.....unless you are stupid enough to leave it in plainview where we can see it through your windows....and given the lack of reading comprehension and penchant for overreaction I have seen on this board, y'all just might be dumb enough to do Please people, read the case and why it went to court and you will see this is the truth. I dislike the SCOTUS opinion as much as everyone else, but it is not what ya'll are making it out to be

A BIG +1.  The case is about 'free air' outside of a vehicle while a K9 is walked AROUND it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be. But you still have to prove a negative as I understand it.  Not only that you were not involved in the criminal possesion but that the property was in no way connected at all and therefore "not guilty".  Try to prove a negative sometime lawyer or not. Maybe I'm wrong here but that is what I have come to understand of the process. I can only speak for Texas, here a vehicle (for example) can't be seized for mere possesion of an illegal substance (including cocaine, meth, etc.).  There has to be sufficient quantity or packaging to prove distribution.  It is the D.A.'s Office that actually seizes vehicles/property so that basically there is a review independant of the P.D. to seize.  Now I know that in a minute someone is going to post that this is BS because their cousin's girlfriend's brother's uncle had his vehicle seized for a joint, if so it was either a REALLY, REALLY big joint or bullshit.

Google "Louisiana Aset Forfiture" to see how the worst offender does it. They have been known to sieze a large amount of cash just because it was a large amount of cash.

Quoted: After prohibition ended, did the effects on society of alcohol abuse (DUI, alcoholism, public intoxication, juvenile use, etc.) go up or down?

They went down. Prohibition caused a big spike in all forms of alcohol abuse, especially abuse by children.  Here are some sample quotes from the time, in case you missed them from earlier threads.

The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describes what happened in the opening years of Prohibition:

When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.

Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever.

Testimony of Andrew Furuseth, President of the International Seamen's Union of America, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  

-------------------------

Deaths due to alcohol, Cook County 1910-1926


The figures published by the Department of Commerce in the Statistical Abstract of the United States reflect a different picture. The average annual per capita consumption of hard liquor from 1910-1914, inclusive, was 1.46 proof gallons. "This 5-year period was before the rise of abnormal conditions coincident to the World War and may be taken as fairly indicative of the normal rate of drinking that prevailed in the Pre-Prohibition era" (Rosenbloom, 1935: 51).

The per capita rate for the Prohibition years is computed to be 1.63 proof gallons. This is 11.64% higher than the Pre-Prohibition rate (Tillitt, 1932: 35). Based on these figures one observer concluded: "And so the drinking which was, in theory, to have been decreased to the vanishing point by Prohibition has, in fact, increased" (Tillitt, 1932: 36).

. . . .

Deaths from Alcoholism. In New York City, from 1900 through 1909, there was an average of 526 deaths annually attributable to alcoholism. From 1910 through 1917, the average number was 619. It plummeted to 183 for the years 1918 through 1922. Thereafter, the figure rose, averaging a new high of 639 for the years 1923 through 1927 (Rice, ed., 1930: 122).

Total deaths from alcoholism in the United States show a comparable trend, with the gradual increase resuming somewhat earlier, about 1922 (Brown, 1932: 61, 77; Feldman, 1927: 397; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1924: 55).

Year Deaths from all causes rate per 100,000 Deaths from alcoholism rate per 100,000
1910 1,496.1 5.4
1911 1,418.1 4.9
1912 1,388.8 5.3
1913 1,409.6 5.9
1914 1,364.6 4.9
1915 1,355.0 4.4
1916 1,404.3 5.8
1917 1,425.5 5.2
1918 1,809.1 2.7
1919 1,287.4 1.6
1920 1,306.0 1.0
1921 1,163.9 1.8
1922 1,181.7 2.6
1923 1,230.1 3.2
1924 1,183.5 3.2
1925 1,182.3 3.6
1926 1,222.7 3.9
1927 1,141.9 4.0
1928 1,204.1 4.0
1929 1,192.3 3.7

The highest death rates from alcoholism occurred during the decade prior to Prohibition as did the highest death rates from cirrhosis of the liver. These statistics should be qualified by the observations of Dr. Charles Morris, Chief Medical Examiner for New York City: "In making out death certificates (which are basic to Census Reports) private or family physicians commonly avoid entry of alcoholism as a cause of death whenever possible. This practice was more prevalent under the National Dry Law than it was in preprohibition time" (Tillitt, 1932: 114-115).

. . .

The law could not quell the continuing demand for alcoholic products. Thus, where legal enterprises could no longer supply the demand, an illicit traffic developed, from the point of manufacture to consumption. The institution of the speakeasy replaced the institution of the saloon. Estimates of the number of speakeasies throughout the United States ranged from 200,000 to 500,000 (Lee, 1963: 68).

"The History of Alcohol Prohibition"   from Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I say that the prohibition law, the Volstead Act, is not in effect, simply because you can procure, if you have got the price, almost anything you want to drink at almost any place, in the better, hotels, in the clubs, in saloons––– not so called to-day. Only within a couple of weeks I was in one of the larger cities––– in fact, the largest city of our country––– and I was invited to go to a club with some gentlemen, and I went there, and there was everything that represented the old-time barroom, with its bar, with its rail for your feet and a man mixing drinks, and everything going in first-class shape. I recite this because it may interest some of the old timers.

Not a very long-distance walk from that place was another place where they were not so particular who came in. And as one who has observed things generally, a close student of human affairs, it struck me that the whole thing was a farce––– that something had to be done.

Testimony of James O'Connell, President of the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will find that the workingmen of this country, 90 per cent of them, are either making wines, beer or whisky out of every known vegetable and fruit that exists. Everyone has his own special concoction. They even make wine out of parsnips and such stuff.

Testimony of William J. McSorley, President of the Building Trades Department, American Federation of Labor, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everywhere we, went there was plenty of distilled liquor, but seldom real beer. We found that the homes of the people had been turned into breweries and distilleries which turned out dangerous decoctions that if drunk to any extent would ruin the health of those who drank them. When asked why they drank such stuff they said there was nothing else to be obtained, and they invariably asked when were Members of Congress going to realize that the manufacture and sale of beer would make for true temperance. Women as well as men were, interested in such questioning.

Testimony of William Roberts, Representing the President of the American Federation of Labor,  The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Drinking by Children Increased

Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first few years of Prohibition. The superintendents of eight state mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients during Prohibition (1919-1926) than formerly. One of the hospitals noted: "During the past year (1926), an unusually large group of patients who are of high school age were admitted for alcoholic psychosis" (Brown, 1932:176).

In determining the age at which an alcoholic forms his drinking habit, it was noted: "The 1920-1923 group were younger than the other groups when the drink habit was formed" (Pollock, 1942: 113).

AVERAGE AGE AT FORMATION OF DRINK HABIT

Period Males Females
1914 21.4 27.9
1920-23 20.6 25.8
1936-37 23.9 31.7

"The History of Alcohol Prohibition"   from Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been told that before prohibition we had a saloon at every corner; since prohibition we have a distillery in practically every home, and only lately, in one of the exclusive suburban towns near Newark they have discovered the so-called community distillery, where all of the people living on one block club together and contribute to the making of synthetic gin, which is then distributed pro rata among those that were contributors to that weekly.

I want to say that in my duties as secretary I come in contact with people of classes all walks of life, but particularly among the workers in different sections of the State. Thousands of them that I have been personally acquainted with, that I knew have never touched hard liquor before prohibition, drink it now and make it in their own home, and in consequence they not alone pollute their own home but contaminate their wives and children in that respect.

Testimony of Henry Hilfers, President, New Jersey State Federation of Labor, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Inability of the prohibition law to enforce prohibition is causing an increase in the number of young boys and girls who become intoxicated," declared Judge H. C. Spicer of the juvenile court at Akron, Ohio, a short time ago when two boys, aged 15 and 16 years, respectively, were arraigned before him. "During the past two years," he added " there have been more intoxicated children brought into court than ever before."

"Statement by Hon. William Cabell Bruce,   The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pauline Sabin's concern over prohibition grew slowly. Initially she favored the Eighteenth Amendment, explaining later, "I felt I should approve of it because it would help my two sons. The word-pictures of the agitators carried me away. I thought a world without liquor would be a beautiful world.""

Gradually, however, intertwined motherly and political concerns caused her to change her mind. Her first cautious public criticism of prohibition came in 1926 when she defended Wadsworth's opposition to the law. By 1928 she had become more outspoken. The hypocrisy of politicians who would support resolutions for stricter enforcement and half an hour later be drinking cocktails disturbed her. The ineffectiveness of the law, the apparent decline of temperate drinking, and the growing prestige of bootleggers troubled her even more. Mothers, she explained, had believed that prohibition would eliminate the temptation of drinking from their children's lives, but found instead that "children are growing up with a total lack of respect for the Constitution and for the law.""

In later statements, she elaborated further on her objections to prohibition. With settlement workers reporting increasing drunkenness, she worried, "The young see the law broken at home and upon the street. Can we expect them to be lawful?"" Mrs. Sabin complained to the House Judiciary Committee: "In preprohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children.""

Chapter 7 - Hard Times, Hopeful Times from Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organized labor has ever been engaged in promoting temperate drinking and was making great p rogress until the enactment of the Volstead law. The continuation of such laudable activities now constitute a national crime.

Millions of homes, in the majority of which liquor was never seen, have been turned into breweries and distilleries. The youth of the land is being reared in the atmosphere of disregard for law and lack of confidence in government.

Former law-abiding citizens see nothing wrong in drinking and even in distilling liquor or making home-brew. Men and women who never drank before now seek it openly. The pocket flask may be found in almost every store and is never absent from any meeting, dinner, or dancing party.

Young and old alike do not regard the Volstead law as of sane legislative expression under the eighteenth amendment but as an impression of fanaticism clothed in the form of law . . .

Beer drinking has been forced to give way to whisky and near whisky and other poisonous concoctions.

The observance of the Volstead law is in its breach and its virtue in disregard for law.

Bribery of officials in so far as the enforcement law is concerned is no longer looked upon as a detestable criminal offense.

. . .

Private morals and personal conduct can not he controlled, much less advanced, by fiat of law. Appeal for a higher morality and improved conduct must be directed to the mind and conscience of the people, not to the fear of government.

Testimony of Matthew Woll, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" I have gone into no community in the State, and have gone to very few homes in Ohio where I have not been offered home brew or moonshine or liquor which was said to be properly made and bottled in bond. . . My opinion is, . . . that it has been productive of more intemperance and much more ill health. I think it has resulted in the death of hundreds of men who would be good, valuable citizens to-day if they had not put poisonous hard liquor into their systems."

Testimony of John T. Frey, President of the Ohio State Federation of Labor, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(T)he membership of the New York State Federation of Labor are of opinion that nothing that has ever transpired has so set back true temperance in America as the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act.

I have had occasion to travel quite extensively, not alone in the State of New York but throughout the United States, and I have seen things in that time that, if they had been seen prior to prohibition the people of this country would have been dumbfounded.

In New York City, and in the several cities of the State of New York, I have had occasion to attend parties such as banquets, dinners, and social gatherings. And I have been invited to practically all of them, I might say, and I have never seen one yet that you could call dry.

. . .

But before I come to the unorganized question, I want to state one thing: In the meetings of our local unions, if a man appeared before prohibition, if a man dared to appear under the influence of liquor prior to this legislation, why, he would be ostracized. He would be a man they would not care to associate with. But what is the situation now? He is a hero if he comes in.

It is nothing new now to see them passing the flask around at union meetings, something that was never done before, and something that would never have been tolerated before prohibition. But now the question is asked "Where did you get it?" And they will say "How good is it?" And so forth and so on.

. . .

I have been to places where it was not an unusual occurrence at all to see a young girl take out her pocketbook flask of whisky and hand it around to her chums and associates. I have seen this on more than one occasion. And I belong to an institution in New York that we organized, and we were in a first-class hotel at a gathering, and I had occasion to go to the lavatory, the gentlemen's lavatory and I was astounded to see there three young girls with three men, and they were drinking out of a flask and handing it around.

Testimony of John Sullivan, President, NY Federation of Labor  The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am informed that Mrs. White, who is the manager of the Elizabeth Peabody Settlement House, situated in Boston, can testify as to the injurious effect which has been brought about by prohibition upon the poor people of the district in which the Elizabeth Peabody House is situated. That she has had 15 years' experience in the district---9 years before prohibition and 6 years since. That she will state that neighborhood dances have had to be abandoned on account of the hip-pocket flasks filled with liquor brought by boys to these dances and disseminated by them. She can also testify to the fact that many families previously in very poor circumstances have become fairly well to do as the result of having gone into the bootlegging business on a small scale. That conditions throughout the settlement are worse from the point of view of morals than at any time before prohibition.

. . .

I am informed that she will testify that women who used to suffer from the evils of drinking in pre-Volstead days are now suffering worse evils as the result of prohibition. That liquor formerly sold in saloons is now sold direct from the homes in which it is made. That children who never were curious about alcohol are now familiar with it and the form of moral looseness that its use leads to. That a number of high schools have discontinued holding their dances as they have so much trouble with liquor carried by the boys in hip-pocket flasks that parents and neighbors complain that the well-behaved pupils are being corrupted

And last I request you to subpoena M. B. Wellborn, governor, Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga., requiring his appearance this week before this committee.

I am informed that Mr. Wellborn, in a letter requested by Congressman Upshaw on March 3, states that when he came to Atlanta 11 years ago with the Federal reserve bank that he found there many saloons that sold beer exclusively. That these saloons were well-conducted and that no drunkenness or excessive drinking resulted from them. That he had been in Atlanta for 11 years and is satisfied from his own observations that drinking is now almost universal, not only in Atlanta but in every town in Georgia. That his observations are not confined strictly to the rich and well-to-do, but that nearly every family has whisky in their home.

Further Statement by Walter Edge, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"  

There is more about other topics -- like how police corruption was so bad that they were literally shipping cops off to prison by the trainload -- at Did Alcohol Prohibition Reduce Alcohol Consumption and Crime?

Quoted: The_Macallan, for your theory to be valid one must belive there are hoards of people just waiting to try these drugs once legalized.

Look at the prisons. IIRC, almost 80% have used illegal drugs. That's not necessarily what got them all arrested and convicted but for a good many it is. My point is that THOSE people are the customers who would be now "legal".

IMO, there are indeed a LOT of people who would want to experiment with those drugs if they were legal. Just look at the population wrt tobacco use - the fastest-growing segment of smokers are... teenagers. Why? Because teens are naturally more expermental, more naive and more susceptible to peer pressure.

For those reasons, I would suspect that the fastest growing segment of new hard-drug users would also be teenagers. But heroin is clearly more immediately destructive to kids (and to society) than cigarettes. At least with cigarettes, kids have many years to mature, become more knowledgable and wiser so they can learn to quit.

Quoted: I maintain that anyone stupid enough to use them could care less about if it is legal or not. And the laws have done nothing to stop the distribution or availability....... so how do they affect the rates of users.

Prisons corral many hard-drug users and get them out of society. Without that, those same stupid reckless people who do those drugs WOULD be out on the street in larger numbers and so the rate of "legal" hard-drug use would obviously be higher.

Quoted: Quoted: WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain? once again johninaustin demonstrates his intellectual prowess, or lack thereof. Lets, Johnin austin or volokh....gee, that's a tough choice of who to believe...

Using the same response to different posters really saves time.  Thanks


Having an opinion of things that you are clueless about seems to be your Forte. It's not possible to debate a constantly changing fantasy.
When you guys actually READ and do BACKGROUND on the decisions you post about then I'll take you seriously. Until that (very unlikely) moment, these threads are just strictly entertainment value slightly above old Three stooges films

The_Macallan

I respect your opinion on this but the fact is when I was in school I could get any drug I wanted in about an hours time. I knew who sold weed, who sold acid, who sold coke and who sold hash. What was the hardest thing for me to get? Alcohol, because you needed an ID to get it.

Quoted: Look at the prisons. IIRC, almost 80% have used illegal drugs. That's not necessarily what got them all arrested and convicted but for a good many it is. My point is that THOSE people are the customers who would be now "legal".

From your reading of history surely you know that drug-related crime (except for alcohol) was just about unknown before the drugs were outlawed, don't you?

IMO, there are indeed a LOT of people who would want to experiment with those drugs if they were legal. Just look at the population wrt tobacco use - the fastest-growing segment of smokers are... teenagers. Why? Because teens are naturally more expermental, more naive and more susceptible to peer pressure.

Then why wasn't this a major problem when they were all legal and sold over the counter?

For those reasons, I would suspect that the fastest growing segment of new hard-drug users would also be teenagers.

They tried a different approach in Liverpool. They found they reduced the number of new addicts to one-twelfth previous rates.

But heroin is clearly more immediately destructive to kids (and to society) than cigarettes. At least with cigarettes, kids have many years to mature, become more knowledgable and wiser so they can learn to quit.

So which drug do heroin users typically report is harder to quit?  How many people are killed by each in a typical year?

THE PRESIDENT:

Finally, we're going to work with residents in highcrime areas to permit the full range of searches that the Constitution does allow -- in common areas, in vacant apartments and in circumstances where residents are in immediate danger. We'll encourage more weapons frisks of suspicious persons, and we'll ask tenant associations to put clauses in their leases allowing searches when crime conditions make it necessary.

THIS IS DEPLORABLE!! OUTRAGEOUS! IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, IT VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!

What? What's that you say?

Bill Clinton said this?

Oh, then forget what I just said...............

Quoted: The_Macallan I respect your opinion on this but the fact is when I was in school I could get any drug I wanted in about an hours time. I knew who sold weed, who sold acid, who sold coke and who sold hash. What was the hardest thing for me to get? Alcohol, because you needed an ID to get it.

I often think those with his outlook are not really in touch with just how available the stuff is to anyone, even kids.

On any given night in my home county I could buy anything I want with no problem......except liquor, because the liqour stores close at 9:00pm. In high school I too could get anything I wanted very easily, and then too alcohol was the hardest to get... but they only thing I indulged in.

The theory that laws stop people is based on the false assumption that laws restrict supply. The reason alcohol was hardest to get was because the law would punish an otherwise lawfull seller for selling to a minor, but someone selling drugs doesn't care about age because the laws are all the same. So in that case the more illegal you make it, the less anyone cares about the laws.

Quoted: Quoted: The_Macallan I respect your opinion on this but the fact is when I was in school I could get any drug I wanted in about an hours time. I knew who sold weed, who sold acid, who sold coke and who sold hash. What was the hardest thing for me to get? Alcohol, because you needed an ID to get it. I often think those with his outlook are not really in touch with just how available the stuff is to anyone, even kids. On any given night in my home county I could buy anything I want with no problem......except liquor, because the liqour stores close at 9:00pm. In high school I too could get anything I wanted very easily, and then too alcohol was the hardest to get... but they only thing I indulged in. The theory that laws stop people is based on the false assumption that laws restrict supply. The reason alcohol was hardest to get was because the law would punish an otherwise lawfull seller for selling to a minor, but someone selling drugs doesn't care about age because the laws are all the same. So in that case the more illegal you make it, the less anyone cares about the laws.

The US Government's own surveys of kids show that they consistently report that it is easier to get illegal drugs than the legal ones.  The same thing happened during alcohol prohibition.

Alcohol prohibition was passed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Alcohol". It was repealed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Prohibition."

Quoted: Quoted: The_Macallan, for your theory to be valid one must belive there are hoards of people just waiting to try these drugs once legalized. Look at the prisons. IIRC, almost 80% have used illegal drugs. That's not necessarily what got them all arrested and convicted but for a good many it is. My point is that THOSE people are the customers who would be now "legal". IMO, there are indeed a LOT of people who would want to experiment with those drugs if they were legal. Just look at the population wrt tobacco use - the fastest-growing segment of smokers are... teenagers. Why? Because teens are naturally more expermental, more naive and more susceptible to peer pressure. For those reasons, I would suspect that the fastest growing segment of new hard-drug users would also be teenagers. But heroin is clearly more immediately destructive to kids (and to society) than cigarettes. At least with cigarettes, kids have many years to mature, become more knowledgable and wiser so they can learn to quit.

If you had any idea how available all drugs are to teenagers you would know how flawed your theory is. They can get it now, and choose not to. yet they choose to drink and smoke, both of which are also illegal. The law is obviuosly not what stops them.

Quoted: I maintain that anyone stupid enough to use them could care less about if it is legal or not. And the laws have done nothing to stop the distribution or availability....... so how do they affect the rates of users. Prisons corral many hard-drug users and get them out of society. Without that, those same stupid reckless people who do those drugs WOULD be out on the street in larger numbers and so the rate of "legal" hard-drug use would obviously be higher.

So its ok to lock people up for the sole purpose of keeping them from using drugs? Interesting outlook.

Quoted: Quoted: The development of drug-laws coincided with the development of drugs. Cocaine and heroin were once legal, but not commonly obtained. As the production and use became much more widespread, so did the "downside" of such use. Hence the efforts of the people to reduce those effects which were generalized to the society. When and how exactly was this? Can you give me some more details? The reason I ask is that I have quite a bit of that history online, and the History Channel did a four hour special out of my web site, and that explanation is not consistent with what I have seen.

I'm simply stating the temporal correlation between the increase in drug availablity and the following increase in anti-drug laws.

Quoted: Personal drug use has only limited effects on general society if only very few people engage in it. But as more and more people use it - the negative effects on everyone are magnified. The idea is to find a balance between individual liberty and the effects of many people exercising that liberty on the population as a whole. At one time these drugs were included in at least half the medicines sold over the counter, without restriction. Children could buy them as easily as they could buy aspirin today. What were the addiction rates then compared to today?

They were not produced nor distributed in the amount and potency that is available today. That there was cocaine in coca-cola back then doesn't mean that drinking a coke delivered the same amount of drug as doing a line of high-quality cocaine available today.

Quoted: It is permitted where those effects can be minimized as it should be. But to extrapolate that balance for the sake of deciding legislation to include heroin, meth and crack use is to irrationally equate alcohol to meth, heroin and crack in much the same way anti-gunners try to equate bazookas and nuclear bombs to handguns. If you care to research the comparative effects on society, there is no illegal drug, or combination of illegal drugs, that has ever come close to the toll of alcohol.

That's because the legal availability (and consequetial societal acceptance) of those drugs is nowhere near that of alcohol.

Quoted: The negative effects on society of widespread alcohol legalization (DUI, alcoholism, economic productivity, etc.) are nowhere near the negative effects on society of widespread heroin, crack, meth, etc. legalization. They are just not comparable. Hence, the legislation controlling "hard" drug use and distribution cannot be rationally made to equal that of alcohol or tobacco use. Well, that's simply wrong. Alcohol is associated with about half of all deaths from homicide, auto accidents, drownings, and fires. It is also associated with about half of all domestic violence and about two-thirds of all sexual assaults on children. According to the US DOJ, it is the only drug with any real association with drug-induced violence. No other drug even comes close.

That I gotta see.

Quoted: If you want to make the case that "prohibition of XYZ" will fail because "prohibition of ABC" also failed - then I'm sure you can see the illogic of that argument. No, I am afraid I don't see the illogic of that.

A != B.

Quoted: But you want to make the point that heroin, crack and meth should be legal - then just do that. But don't try comparing heroin and meth to alcohol because you might as well just compare them to milk and cookies too. Let me ask you a couple of simple questions to see how much you know: 1) What is heroin? What is the difference between it and ordinary hospital morphine that is legal and used routinely in medicine every day?

Heroin is a more lipid-soluble opiod than morphine. It crosses the blood-brain barrier faster than morphine, is then converted to morphine where it binds to opioid receptors. But since the lipid-solublity of morphine is less than that of heroin, heroin is essentially "concentrated" in the brain (as compared to just morphine). So heroin, though it binds to the same receptors with the same effect as morphine, its potency is much greater.

Is that sort of what you're asking?

Quoted: 2) How many people are killed by drugs in a typical year? Please include the totals for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and heroin in your list.

Apples & oranges.

Alcohol is widely available and its use is HUGELY promoted. Tobacco is also widely available but a little less promoted. Heroin is illegal, heavily restricted and not at all promoted.

A != B

Quoted: If you had any idea how available all drugs are to teenagers you would know how flawed your theory is. They can get it now, and choose not to. yet they choose to drink and smoke, both of which are also illegal. The law is obviuosly not what stops them.

What's the punishment for an adult giving a kid a beer or a cigarette? What's the punishment for a kid getting caught with a cigarette or a beer?

Now compare that with the punishment for giving kids cocaine or a kid getting caught with heroin.

A lot of kids are dumb, but they're not THAT dumb. Even they can reason the cost/benefit risk of carrying and trying cocaine versus that of cigarettes. For many, it's just not worth the risk to get caught with cocaine.

I'd be curious to see an accurate and valid poll on kids attitude's towards certain drug legalization - whether they'd be more inclined to try drugs if they were legalized.

I will be willing to listen to a poll from kids on the legalization of drugs when kids are granted the rights to vote. Untill then they have nothing to say about it.

Quoted: I'm simply stating the temporal correlation between the increase in drug availablity and the following increase in anti-drug laws.

Pardon me if I point out that I asked for more details -- you know, like years, laws, events, people, -- that sort of thing. Your answer above was less information than you even gave the first time.

As I said, based on what you have said so far, I wouldn't bet that you had read the history.

They were not produced nor distributed in the amount and potency that is available today. That there was cocaine in coca-cola back then doesn't mean that drinking a coke delivered the same amount of drug as doing a line of high-quality cocaine available today.

Baloney. Some of them were fifty percent morphine by volume. You could get the stuff as pure as you pleased.

You continue to convince me that you haven't read the history, as you claimed.

That's because the legal availability (and consequetial societal acceptance) of those drugs is nowhere near that of alcohol.

No, it isn't. It has always been that way, regardless the availability and relative number of users. Even today, the per capita death rates from most illegal drugs is lower than it is for alcohol.

Besides, you surely know from your reading of history that this never was an issue in the passage of the laws, don't you?

According to the US DOJ, it is the only drug with any real association with drug-induced violence. No other drug even comes close.That I gotta see.

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. "

Psychoactive Substances and Violence, by Jeffrey A. Roth, Series: Research in Brief, US Dept. of Justice, Published: February 1994

A != B.

If prohibition doesn't work for one commonly used recreational drug, then why would you presume that it would work for another?

Like I said, you continue to convince me that you couldn't pass a basic history quiz.

Heroin is a more lipid-soluble opiod than morphine. It crosses the blood-brain barrier faster than morphine, is then converted to morphine where it binds to opioid receptors. But since the lipid-solublity of morphine is less than that of heroin, heroin is essentially "concentrated" in the brain (as compared to just morphine). So heroin, though it binds to the same receptors with the same effect as morphine, its potency is much greater. Is that sort of what you're asking?

That was correct. Now explain why one should be completely illegal while the other one is legal, when the only real medical difference is their dosage?

Quoted: 2) How many people are killed by drugs in a typical year? Please include the totals for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and heroin in your list. Apples & oranges. Alcohol is widely available and its use is HUGELY promoted. Tobacco is also widely available but a little less promoted. Heroin is illegal, heavily restricted and not at all promoted. A != B

Whether it is apples and oranges or not, it appears you can't answer the question. If you want something that will address your point then look up the per capita death rates and include those in your totals.

Quoted: Quoted: If you had any idea how available all drugs are to teenagers you would know how flawed your theory is. They can get it now, and choose not to. yet they choose to drink and smoke, both of which are also illegal. The law is obviuosly not what stops them. What's the punishment for an adult giving a kid a beer or a cigarette? What's the punishment for a kid getting caught with a cigarette or a beer? Now compare that with the punishment for giving kids cocaine or a kid getting caught with heroin. A lot of kids are dumb, but they're not THAT dumb. Even they can reason the cost/benefit risk of carrying and trying cocaine versus that of cigarettes. For many, it's just not worth the risk to get caught with cocaine.

Show me any actual evidence that law enforcement reduces rates of drug consumption.

I'd be curious to see an accurate and valid poll on kids attitude's towards certain drug legalization - whether they'd be more inclined to try drugs if they were legalized.

What makes you think that the average kid would know any more about the subject than you do?

bah--never mind.

Ok guys for what its worth, when I was in high school I could buy MJ/whatever else the MJ dealer was selling easier than I could get a beer.  I did not have any friends of legal drinking age, and the dealers didnt exactly card...  Of course I never indulged in any such substances, merely was offered them.  Not ONCE did anyone ever say "hey duuude, you looking to score some beer?  No, how about tequila?"  

I gotta quit with the multiple quotes.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm simply stating the temporal correlation between the increase in drug availablity and the following increase in anti-drug laws. Pardon me if I point out that I asked for more details -- you know, like years, laws, events, people, -- that sort of thing. Your answer above was less information than you even gave the first time. As I said, based on what you have said so far, I wouldn't bet that you had read the history.

Ugh. I'll ablige ya' when I get the time. It's buried in my rolodex.

Quoted: Quoted: They were not produced nor distributed in the amount and potency that is available today. That there was cocaine in coca-cola back then doesn't mean that drinking a coke delivered the same amount of drug as doing a line of high-quality cocaine available today. Baloney. Some of them were fifty percent morphine by volume. You could get the stuff as pure as you pleased. You continue to convince me that you haven't read the history, as you claimed.

There was morphine in coca-cola!???

Quoted: Quoted: That's because the legal availability (and consequetial societal acceptance) of those drugs is nowhere near that of alcohol. No, it isn't.

Oh, you're right. The legal availability and social acceptance of those drugs ARE just like that of alcohol.

Quoted: It has always been that way, regardless the availability and relative number of users. Even today, the per capita death rates from most illegal drugs is lower than it is for alcohol.

Again, stats on the per capita overdose rates of heroin use cannot be logically compared to the per capita DUI rates of alcohol because heroin is illegal and far less available to the "per capita" population than alcohol.

You seem to have quite an affinity for comparing the amount of apples falling off trees in Washington to the amount of oranges growing in Florida.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: According to the US DOJ, it is the only drug with any real association with drug-induced violence. No other drug even comes close. That I gotta see. "Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. " Psychoactive Substances and Violence, by Jeffrey A. Roth, Series: Research in Brief, US Dept. of Justice, Published: February 1994

The quote you stated appears in the beginning of that review article, but is contradicted by statements made later:

* "In the future, medications may reduce violence by reducing cocaine craving and by blocking the aggression-promoting effects of opiate withdrawal..."

* "Criminals who use illegal drugs commit robberies and assaults more frequently than do nonuser criminals, and they commit them especially frequently during periods of heavy drug use."

* "Most males and females who were interviewed after arrest for a violent crime reported drinking alcohol within 72 hours before the crime for which they were arrested. [BUT...] About 60 percent of arrestees booked for violent crimes were confirmed by laboratory test to have used at least one illegal drug in the hours before arrest."

* "If alcohol caused violence only by making individuals behave more aggressively, violence would be equally common in all places where drinking occurs. In fact, however, most drinking places are rarely scenes of violence.... Connections between drinking and violence have been identified by researchers in many countries with predominantly European cultures. But they have not been found in many tribal and folk societies, even where binge drinking is common. For reasons not yet known, expectations that violence follows drinking have failed to develop in those cultures."


Your link does not support your original claim that alcohol "is the only drug with any real association with drug-induced violence".

Quoted: A != B. If prohibition doesn't work for one commonly used recreational drug, then why would you presume that it would work for another?

Do laws against murder "work"? How about laws against illegal immigration or DUI? Fact is no laws "work" really well. So using your "logic" - if a law isn't working well, abolish it.

[wolfman logic]
Well ya' know - DUI laws aren't working because we have so many DUIs and trying to catch DUI drivers just makes them try to run from the cops even more which causes even more accidents so we might as well just abolish all laws against DUI.  
[/wolfman logic]

Quoted: Like I said, you continue to convince me that you couldn't pass a basic history quiz.

And you've convinced me that you must have skipped a whole lot of Logic 101 classes.

Quoted: Heroin is a more lipid-soluble opiod than morphine. It crosses the blood-brain barrier faster than morphine, is then converted to morphine where it binds to opioid receptors. But since the lipid-solublity of morphine is less than that of heroin, heroin is essentially "concentrated" in the brain (as compared to just morphine). So heroin, though it binds to the same receptors with the same effect as morphine, its potency is much greater. Is that sort of what you're asking? That was correct. Now explain why one should be completely illegal while the other one is legal, when the only real medical difference is their dosage?

Oooookay....

Your lack of logical thinking is really become quite a handicap for you here.

So you want me to explain why heroin, which has a FAR greater potency than morphine (and thus far greater potential for overdose) should not be made legal since there already is a "legal" drug like morphine available!??

First of all, morphine is not "legal". You can't just go buy it. It has to be administered/prescribed by a doctor.

Second of all, and most importantly - is THAT the kind of "legalization" for heroin that you're advocating?

Quoted: Quoted: 2) How many people are killed by drugs in a typical year? Please include the totals for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and heroin in your list. Apples & oranges. Alcohol is widely available and its use is HUGELY promoted. Tobacco is also widely available but a little less promoted. Heroin is illegal, heavily restricted and not at all promoted. A != B Whether it is apples and oranges or not, it appears you can't answer the question.

That's because both the question and the answer are IRRELEVANT.

Why would I want to bother answering an utterly irrelevant question!???

Hey, I got an idea - why don't YOU go find out how many left-handed, one-eyed, red-haired people drive late-model, stick-shift, imports... and then compare that to the number of people who die from heroin overdoses. The results will surprise you!

The Constitution = toilet paper to our 'leaders'

Meanwhile, in El Paso, our government is ignoring groups of Mexican soldiers who are bringing in more illegal drugs.  Win-Win for them, I guess, because it gives them something to be looking for in our vehicles.

Quoted: I am firmly of the mind that marijuana should be decriminalized, no argument from me on that. But not heroin, crack and prostitution. Totally different beast there.

I can see your point on heroin and crack, but prostitution?

Is it a moral stance or a public health reason?  Prostitution in Nevada hasn't  led to any problems afaics

just curious on your putting prostitution in with 2 of the most addictive and dangerous drugs out there

Quoted: Quoted: You can start in my neighborhood, its already a haven for drugs. The punks will either become legitimate businessmen or be driven out of the drug business by legitimate businessmen. It happened after prohibition, I think the drug market would be the same. After prohibition ended, did the effects on society of alcohol abuse (DUI, alcoholism, public intoxication, juvenile use, etc.) go up or down? Quoted: also, the sale of legal cigarettes and alcholol are illegal when sold to children.  Why would meth, mj, or pcp be any different?  Why would you think it wouldn't require a license, like every other business involving drugs? Yeah, that's what keeps underage kids from smoking and drinking. It's not the availability of beer and cigs on every corner - its the sign at the cash register saying "21 and under". Why would meth, crack or heroin be any different?

Please tell me you did not just use  the same argument that Feinstein uses to try and ban all guns.    If guns are available they find their way into the hands of children.   Laws to prevent that don't stop it, so we have to get rid of guns completely.

Its not a good argument.  

We have laws to prevent children from getting cigarettes.   If people break those laws by selling cigarettes to kids, they need to be punished.

Why would meth, crack, and heroin be any different?

Quoted: Ugh. I'll ablige ya' when I get the time. It's buried in my rolodex.

OK, then just don't mind if we count you as a bullshitter until then.

There was morphine in coca-cola!???

Once again, you prove you didn't read the history. There was cocaine in Coca-Cola. It's original name was French Wine of Coca.  There were patent medicines on the market, sold everywhere, that were fifty percent morphine.

If you read the history, why didn't you know that?

Oh, you're right. The legal availability and social acceptance of those drugs ARE just like that of alcohol.

Well, I asked you to provide stats that would show a proper comparison. You didn't know what the stats were.

Again, stats on the per capita overdose rates of heroin use cannot be logically compared to the per capita DUI rates of alcohol because heroin is illegal and far less available to the "per capita" population than alcohol.

How would you know if you don't have any clue what the rates are?

You seem to have quite an affinity for comparing the amount of apples falling off trees in Washington to the amount of oranges growing in Florida.

You seem to be prevaricating about your level of knowledge of the subject. So far, you have answered one question, and one alone.

The quote you stated appears in the beginning of that review article, but is contradicted by statements made later: * "In the future, medications may reduce violence by reducing cocaine craving and by blocking the aggression-promoting effects of opiate withdrawal..."

That takes about medicines that may be available in the future. It does not contradict the original statement.

* "Criminals who use illegal drugs commit robberies and assaults more frequently than do nonuser criminals, and they commit them especially frequently during periods of heavy drug use."

Once again, doesn't contradict the statement.

* "Most males and females who were interviewed after arrest for a violent crime reported drinking alcohol within 72 hours before the crime for which they were arrested. [BUT...] About 60 percent of arrestees booked for violent crimes were confirmed by laboratory test to have used at least one illegal drug in the hours before arrest."

As you will note, they concluded that the violent crimes were not drug-induced.

* "If alcohol caused violence only by making individuals behave more aggressively, violence would be equally common in all places where drinking occurs. In fact, however, most drinking places are rarely scenes of violence.... Connections between drinking and violence have been identified by researchers in many countries with predominantly European cultures. But they have not been found in many tribal and folk societies, even where binge drinking is common. For reasons not yet known, expectations that violence follows drinking have failed to develop in those cultures."

They are just saying there that they aren't sure why it happens in the US. But the association is there in the US, whether they are sure why it happens or not.

Your link does not support your original claim that alcohol "is the only drug with any real association with drug-induced violence".

Take a critical reading class so you can understand the difference between what you posted and the orignal statement.

Do laws against murder "work"? How about laws against illegal immigration or DUI? Fact is no laws "work" really well. So using your "logic" - if a law isn't working well, abolish it.

The question wasn't about all laws, or laws on murder. The question was about the clear failure of the drug prohibition laws. My question to you was why you would suppose that one drug prohibition would work when another one (alcohol) was a complete disaster.

Apparently, you are unable to answer the question.

[wolfman logic] Well ya' know - DUI laws aren't working because we have so many DUIs and trying to catch DUI drivers just makes them try to run from the cops even more which causes even more accidents so we might as well just abolish all laws against DUI.   [/wolfman logic]

Well, by the US Government's own estimates, they seize about one percent of the drugs on the market. Furthermore, they estimate that they would have to seize about seventy percent before it had any actual effect on the market. Would you call a one percent seizure rate a "success"?  

And you've convinced me that you must have skipped a whole lot of Logic 101 classes.

I would put more faith in your opinion if you knew enough to answer simple factual questions about the subject.

Oooookay.... Your lack of logical thinking is really become quite a handicap for you here. So you want me to explain why heroin, which has a FAR greater potency than morphine (and thus far greater potential for overdose) should not be made legal since there already is a "legal" drug like morphine available!??

Let's be clear about "FAR greater." That's three times greater, to be exact. One grain of heroin equals three grains of morphine. In truth, there are perfectly legal pain killers that are stronger than both of them.

First of all, morphine is not "legal". You can't just go buy it. It has to be administered/prescribed by a doctor.

That is "legal", in case you missed it. As opposed to heroin, which requires a special license that few, if any doctors, would actually get. Big difference in the laws on those two things.

Second of all, and most importantly - is THAT the kind of "legalization" for heroin that you're advocating?

Ummmmm, I don't think we ever got around to your actual answer to the question, did we?

Let's try again. Explain why morphine is legal in the sense that it can be routinely prescribed by doctors but a directly equivalent drug which -- by your own words -- converts to morphine once it is in the body (so they are both the same drug once they get inside the body) cannot be prescribed at all?

Did you get confused and forget that you were trying to answer a question? Just in case you missed it, you didn't answer the question. I am guessing it is because you can't.

That's because both the question and the answer are IRRELEVANT. Why would I want to bother answering an utterly irrelevant question!???

Uuuuh, yeah, when you are asked a question that you don't know the answer to, your options are to:

1) ignore it, or
2) claim it is irrelevant

In either case, it is apparent that you are plainly bullshitting about your knowledge of the subject.

Hey, I got an idea - why don't YOU go find out how many left-handed, one-eyed, red-haired people drive late-model, stick-shift, imports... and then compare that to the number of people who die from heroin overdoses. The results will surprise you!

Well, that would certainly be as relevant as your answers, anyway.

i was going to post an argument, but LARRYG, wolfman and garand shooter have already done a good job of saying what i was going to post

The war on drugs is a fucking failure and it should be ended. Our tax dollars should not be wasted on a failed attempt to protect people from themselves.

We have a real fucking war on terrorism going on, we should be spending more resources on that and not on this bulshit war against our own citizens.

As for the drugs, the free market should decide. The free market is an amazing thing and it can solve plenty of problems as long as you stop the government front interferring with it. Prohibition does not work, it didnt work back then, and it doesnt work now.

Prohibition puts Americans out of work. With our modern agribusiness our country could be producing the finest marijuana in the world and consumers in other nations would want our product, but because of prohibition right now the most sought after forms of marijuana are being made in Canada. The fucking Canadians are undercutting us.

Lets also look at cocaine, where does that come from, Colombia.

American farmers could be producing the same products and making that money, instead they are not and US dollars are flowing out of this country and into the pockets of undesirable elements.

Quoted: Prohibition puts Americans out of work. With our modern agribusiness our country could be producing the finest marijuana in the world and consumers in other nations would want our product, but because of prohibition right now the most sought after forms of marijuana are being made in Canada. The fucking Canadians are undercutting us. Lets also look at cocaine, where does that come from, Colombia. American farmers could be producing the same products and making that money, instead they are not and US dollars are flowing out of this country and into the pockets of undesirable elements.

nice! libertarian capitalism at it's finest!

Drug War Shrinking Bill of Rights
Thursday, January 27, 2005
By Radley Balko
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Go ahead, legalize the use of all drugs.  But you need to eliminate the safety nets we have enacted to catch those that "fall".  If you don't , the US of A will go down the shithole.

Part of the social contract involves mutual cooperation.   Drugs that are now illegal are proven to cause society to void this social contract. The spread of opium dens in China is but one example where legalization caused great societal harm.

Isn't there a question on the ATF 4473 about illegal drugs??  

Quoted: The war on drugs is a fucking failure and it should be ended. Our tax dollars should not be wasted on a failed attempt to protect people from themselves. We have a real fucking war on terrorism going on, we should be spending more resources on that and not on this bulshit war against our own citizens. As for the drugs, the free market should decide. The free market is an amazing thing and it can solve plenty of problems as long as you stop the government front interferring with it. Prohibition does not work, it didnt work back then, and it doesnt work now. Prohibition puts Americans out of work. With our modern agribusiness our country could be producing the finest marijuana in the world and consumers in other nations would want our product, but because of prohibition right now the most sought after forms of marijuana are being made in Canada. The fucking Canadians are undercutting us. Lets also look at cocaine, where does that come from, Colombia. American farmers could be producing the same products and making that money, instead they are not and US dollars are flowing out of this country and into the pockets of undesirable elements.

Testify!

Government functionaries have made billions off the "War On Drugs" (TM), as have the criminals. If you include .mil involvment in enforcement multiply the official numbers by two or three times. Works out to be a profitable fleecing of the citizens of this great country for both sides.

"When guns are illegal, only criminals will own guns." That was the point of the government. Can't find any work for 5,000 post-prohibition revenue agents? Ban machine guns and create a whole new class of criminals to hunt down. The same works for drug control. Create a special class of civilian to leach and justify taxation of the people.

Quoted: Go ahead, legalize the use of all drugs.  But you need to eliminate the safety nets we have enacted to catch those that "fall".  If you don't , the US of A will go down the shithole.

there should be no safety nets at the federal level.  i don't really care if individual states decide to enact their own state-wide version of medicare or social security.  but i would probably choose to live in a different state.

Isn't there a question on the ATF 4473 about illegal drugs??

yup, that was a provision of the GCA of '68.

Quoted: What worries me more than the searches is the trend towards mandatory minimums for certain types of crimes, usually Alcohol/DWI, drug, and gun crimes.  These are coming as a reaction to lenient liberal judges who refuse to punish serious criminals.  While I understand the desire to correct this problem, I fear we have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.  The simple fact is that there is no substitute for good judges in our society, and if we have bad ones they need to be replaced.  Mandatory minimums are going to create more problems then they solve in the long run.

Agreed.
A judge is there to judge.
If we make mandatory sentences, we take away both the power of the judge, and the power of the jury to hand out punishments that fir the crime.

Quoted: Quoted: What worries me more than the searches is the trend towards mandatory minimums for certain types of crimes, usually Alcohol/DWI, drug, and gun crimes.  These are coming as a reaction to lenient liberal judges who refuse to punish serious criminals.  While I understand the desire to correct this problem, I fear we have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.  The simple fact is that there is no substitute for good judges in our society, and if we have bad ones they need to be replaced.  Mandatory minimums are going to create more problems then they solve in the long run. Agreed. A judge is there to judge. If we make mandatory sentences, we take away both the power of the judge, and the power of the jury to hand out punishments that fir the crime.

And why were these MMS bills sponsored? Because the legislative and executive branch were infuriated about the judicial branch respecting the separation of powers, a.k.a. doing their jobs. The judicial branch is always supposed to be a long-term filter on the heightened passions of the month/day/year. Doesn't work perfectly all the time, but you'll have to shoot me before I agree to a dissolution of the separation of powers.

Quoted: Take off the tinfoil hats...all that ruling was about was defining what constitutes "free air". Officers are allowed to run a narcotics K9 around the EXTERIOR of any car that is legally detained (i.e. a traffic stop). If the K9 alerts then the officers can search the interior of the car. All this ruling did was define the fact that there is no expectation of privacy for illicit odors escaping the interior of your car. We still need probable cause to search the interior of the car. It's been that way for years. We still can't just enter your house and look for dope without a warrant.....unless you are stupid enough to leave it in plainview where we can see it through your windows....and given the lack of reading comprehension and penchant for overreaction I have seen on this board, y'all just might be dumb enough to do

You and your silly facts. There will be none of that here!

Quoted: Go ahead, legalize the use of all drugs.  But you need to eliminate the safety nets we have enacted to catch those that "fall".  If you don't , the US of A will go down the shithole.

According to the Rand Corporation, this is the worst of all possible policies in terms of cost-effectiveness. Almost any other policy would produce better results for fewer tax dollars.

Part of the social contract involves mutual cooperation.   Drugs that are now illegal are proven to cause society to void this social contract.

How is that? Just FYI, at the time these drugs were outlawed, the major complaints about "voiding the social contract" were about alcohol.

The spread of opium dens in China is but one example where legalization caused great societal harm.

I suggest you read up on the history of the US laws. They are far more relevant than a poor understanding of what happened in the Opium Wars. You can start with The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs

Isn't there a question on the ATF 4473 about illegal drugs??

Yep.  Do you have any idea why these drugs were outlawed in the first place?

Quoted: Explain to me the difference between going home after a hard days work and drinking a beer or a jack and coke or smoking a big joint? Nothing. And explain to me how you can outlaw a plant? Weren't all the plants put here on earth by god for our use?

Yes.  God put castor beans here for your personal use. Enjoy.

Quoted: Quoted: Take off the tinfoil hats...all that ruling was about was defining what constitutes "free air". Officers are allowed to run a narcotics K9 around the EXTERIOR of any car that is legally detained (i.e. a traffic stop). If the K9 alerts then the officers can search the interior of the car. All this ruling did was define the fact that there is no expectation of privacy for illicit odors escaping the interior of your car. We still need probable cause to search the interior of the car. It's been that way for years. We still can't just enter your house and look for dope without a warrant.....unless you are stupid enough to leave it in plainview where we can see it through your windows....and given the lack of reading comprehension and penchant for overreaction I have seen on this board, y'all just might be dumb enough to do You and your silly facts. There will be none of that here!

Would you care to give some facts on the national standards for training drug-sniffing dogs and their relative reliability?

Quoted: Quoted: Explain to me the difference between going home after a hard days work and drinking a beer or a jack and coke or smoking a big joint? Nothing. And explain to me how you can outlaw a plant? Weren't all the plants put here on earth by god for our use? Yes.  God put castor beans here for your personal use. Enjoy.

So, whether God put it there or not, that wouldn't make it a good idea to jail them for it, would it?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Explain to me the difference between going home after a hard days work and drinking a beer or a jack and coke or smoking a big joint? Nothing. And explain to me how you can outlaw a plant? Weren't all the plants put here on earth by god for our use? Yes.  God put castor beans here for your personal use. Enjoy. So, whether God put it there or not, that wouldn't make it a good idea to jail them for it, would it?

You are missing the point, Cliff.  What we perceive as pleasure, say the nicotiene in tobacco, is actually a plant toxin, common to most members of the family solanacie (nightshade), there in the plant as a natural chemical defense.  Ditto for the ricin in castor bean.

That out bodies derive pleasure from such poison is due to hormesis.  That is, everything is toxic, the poison in in the dose.  Yes, even water is hormetic.  13.5 liters of purre water will kill 50% of the adult males that consume it in one hour's time.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Explain to me the difference between going home after a hard days work and drinking a beer or a jack and coke or smoking a big joint? Nothing. And explain to me how you can outlaw a plant? Weren't all the plants put here on earth by god for our use? Yes.  God put castor beans here for your personal use. Enjoy. So, whether God put it there or not, that wouldn't make it a good idea to jail them for it, would it? You are missing the point.  What we perceive as pleasure, say the nicotiene in tobacco, is actually a plant toxin, common to most members of the family solanacie (nightshade), there in the plant as a natural chemical defense.  Ditto for the ricin in castor bean. That out bodies derive pleasure from such poison is due to hormesis.  That is, everything is toxic, the poison in in the dose.  Yes, even water is hormetic.  13.5 liters of purre water will kill 50% of the adult males that consume it in one hour's time.

Yeah, I know. There are several overdose deaths from water every year. That's true of damn near anything you could ingest. The relevant point is that this toxicity doesn't justify criminal law to deal with it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Explain to me the difference between going home after a hard days work and drinking a beer or a jack and coke or smoking a big joint? Nothing. And explain to me how you can outlaw a plant? Weren't all the plants put here on earth by god for our use? Yes.  God put castor beans here for your personal use. Enjoy. So, whether God put it there or not, that wouldn't make it a good idea to jail them for it, would it? You are missing the point.  What we perceive as pleasure, say the nicotiene in tobacco, is actually a plant toxin, common to most members of the family solanacie (nightshade), there in the plant as a natural chemical defense.  Ditto for the ricin in castor bean. That out bodies derive pleasure from such poison is due to hormesis.  That is, everything is toxic, the poison in in the dose.  Yes, even water is hormetic.  13.5 liters of purre water will kill 50% of the adult males that consume it in one hour's time. Yeah, I know. There are several overdose deaths from water every year. That's true of damn near anything you could ingest. The relevant point is that this toxicity doesn't justify criminal law to deal with it.

But Cliff, we KNOW what happens when narcotics are unrestricted and available.  Sure, there other, homogenous populations that "seem" to deal with legalization but that is an apples to oranges comparison.  After all, representative constitutional republics don't exactly thirve in South America.

China, mainland, that is, is much like the United States in varied ethnic makeup among Asian countries.  Compare and contrast to Korea or Japan.  It is this "melting pot" of ethnic makeup that creates a wide variety of chemical dependent psychologies.  Also consider the rate of alcoholism in Native American populations.  Why?  Because alcohol never "weeded out" the Native Americans like it did the Europeans...yes, there are MANY accounts of 12 year old drunks dying of acute alcoholism in the Dark Ages...but today?  Do we wish to see all the drug addicts kill themselves on their poisons?  No, for one, we keep them sober until they can breed, making the next generation of drug abusers.

End the safety net.  Then end the drug laws.  And forget about the bums dying in the streets.

Quoted: The_Macallan I respect your opinion on this but the fact is when I was in school I could get any drug I wanted in about an hours time. I knew who sold weed, who sold acid, who sold coke and who sold hash. What was the hardest thing for me to get? Alcohol, because you needed an ID to get it.

Never thought of it in that simple of terms. Excellent point. It mirrors my high school experience.

My parents sent me to school in Fairbanks in part to get me away from the marijuana "epidemic" going on in my smaller town. Within ONE HOUR of getting off the plane, I had been offered coke and acid.

Quoted: But Cliff, we KNOW what happens when narcotics are unrestricted and available.  Sure, there other, homogenous populations that "seem" to deal with legalization but that is an apples to oranges comparison.  After all, representative constitutional republics don't exactly thirve in South America.

I have a whole library of research on that online. Lots of it, including the links I already posted, deal directly with what happened here in the US. There are thousands of documents there detailing the history of what happens when drugs are legal, illegal, and in between. Did you read that history I linked?

China, mainland, that is, is much like the United States in varied ethnic makeup among Asian countries.  Compare and contrast to Korea or Japan.  It is this "melting pot" of ethnic makeup that creates a wide variety of chemical dependent psychologies.  Also consider the rate of alcoholism in Native American populations.  Why?  Because alcohol never "weeded out" the Native Americans like it did the Europeans...yes, there are MANY accounts of 12 year old drunks dying of acute alcoholism in the Dark Ages...but today?  Do we wish to see all the drug addicts kill themselves on their poisons?  No, for one, we keep them sober until they can breed, making the next generation of drug abusers.

Well, that is a shaky understanding of the issues at best. But let's just take that last line. Suppose that we wanted to make sure that you, as just one individual, stayed completely sober. What would we have to do to accomplish that?

End the safety net.  Then end the drug laws.  And forget about the bums dying in the streets.

How about doing the cheapest thing first? Just read. Read the history I linked, so you understand how this problem developed in the US. Here it is again Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs

Quoted: Quoted: The_Macallan I respect your opinion on this but the fact is when I was in school I could get any drug I wanted in about an hours time. I knew who sold weed, who sold acid, who sold coke and who sold hash. What was the hardest thing for me to get? Alcohol, because you needed an ID to get it. Never thought of it in that simple of terms. Excellent point. It mirrors my high school experience.

the guy should have just learned to homebrew and not had to worry about no stinkin ID

I have been saying for years that the "war on drugs" is just a way for them to slowly strip our rights, while they ineffecively fight this "war".

When you can puck up a magazine at the grocery store and they interview people while they get stoned (ie Rolling Stone) - if this was a war, they would stake out people who were in said interview.

But they dont.

Its a joke.

Legalize it- tax it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Take off the tinfoil hats...all that ruling was about was defining what constitutes "free air". Officers are allowed to run a narcotics K9 around the EXTERIOR of any car that is legally detained (i.e. a traffic stop). If the K9 alerts then the officers can search the interior of the car. All this ruling did was define the fact that there is no expectation of privacy for illicit odors escaping the interior of your car. We still need probable cause to search the interior of the car. It's been that way for years. We still can't just enter your house and look for dope without a warrant.....unless you are stupid enough to leave it in plainview where we can see it through your windows....and given the lack of reading comprehension and penchant for overreaction I have seen on this board, y'all just might be dumb enough to do You and your silly facts. There will be none of that here! Would you care to give some facts on the national standards for training drug-sniffing dogs and their relative reliability?

Try the National Narcotic Detector Dog Association for starters.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Take off the tinfoil hats...all that ruling was about was defining what constitutes "free air". Officers are allowed to run a narcotics K9 around the EXTERIOR of any car that is legally detained (i.e. a traffic stop). If the K9 alerts then the officers can search the interior of the car. All this ruling did was define the fact that there is no expectation of privacy for illicit odors escaping the interior of your car. We still need probable cause to search the interior of the car. It's been that way for years. We still can't just enter your house and look for dope without a warrant.....unless you are stupid enough to leave it in plainview where we can see it through your windows....and given the lack of reading comprehension and penchant for overreaction I have seen on this board, y'all just might be dumb enough to do You and your silly facts. There will be none of that here! Would you care to give some facts on the national standards for training drug-sniffing dogs and their relative reliability? Try the National Narcotic Detector Dog Association for starters.

I would be more interested in recent lawsuits that established that many of them have an accuracy rate considerably below half, and that whether they "signalled" is subject to interpretation.