"Yet, I'm alarmed that the above-mentioned poll showing majority support for marijuana legalization also found that fewer than one in 10 people agree that it's time to end the prohibition of other drugs.

This no doubt makes sense to some readers at first glance, since more people are familiar with marijuana than other drugs like cocaine, heroin or meth. However, even a cursory study of our drug war policies will reveal that legalizing pot but not other drugs will leave huge social harms unresolved."

Americans love drugs. Legal or illegal they'll make demon out of it. Legalizing heroin and meth will increase the famous arrogance of the substance abuser, the vast majority of which already never notice how they douse themselves with gasoline.

The problem w/ legalizing everything is the tax payers will be expected to take care of the aflicted. Now it's they have no choices addiction is a disease and if legalized it will be... well it's legal so we have to help them. It's just shit really. Anyone so bothered by drug legalization has a real problem. The majority of them would not be productive citizens whether it was legal or not!

"Americans love drugs."

All kinds of drugs. Television, religion, sport spectacles, etc.

"The late philosopher of consciousness, Terence McKenna, said a drug is anything that causes unexamined, compulsive behavior. A drug, then, is something that consumes our lives. By this definition, a cigarette is a drug, caffeine is a drug and alcohol is a drug. When we look at it from this perspective, television is also a drug. And the average American spends three to seven hours every day getting intimately hooked to the flickering I-V of the cathode ray tube. Yet television eats at our creative faculties like a cancer, alcohol dumbs us down (and helps us mingle), while cigarettes are nothing but dirty syringes for nicotine injection. These substances are socially acceptable and perfectly legal all the while causing serious harm at astronomical social costs."

"The majority of them would not be productive citizens whether it's legal or not..."

You probably don't know how many of your friends and family members you've damned with that statement.

"Television, religion, sports spectacles...."

Are not drugs. At least, I haven't had anyone seriously argue they were since my daughter left thirteen-years-of-age.

"Philospher of consciousness...."

If a thing acquires its nature secondary to human reaction to it, that's a neat bit of solipsism.

For example, I can't think of a single time I'v ever attended church in an unexamined, compulsive way. So, I've destroyed the drug theory in regards to it. That's the beauty of being egocentric, er, philosophical.

Null... that is a bullshit argument. You are better than that?

"that is a bullshit argument."

That's not much of a rebuttal, so I'll just move on.

#5 | Posted by Zed
#6 | Posted by Zed
#7 | Posted by Zed
#8 | Posted by Zed

Just how is one to respond to that? With four separate posts? I'm a big fan of the one or two sentence post myself, but that's silly.

"That's silly...."

There's no accounting for taste.

"There's no accounting for taste."

Well that, plus your serial one-liner style requires a lot of excessive cut-and-pasting that I'm too lazy to do.

"I'm too lazy to do..."

Slothfulness is a sin.

"Slothfulness is a sin."

Well, it's one of the Five Hindrances, at least.

"Television, religion, sports spectacles...."

Are not drugs."

Yeah, sure. Addictive behavior is addictive behavior. It can be found in a pill or at a slot machine or in those who get on their knees 5 times a day, or once a day, in worship of invisible deities.

Addictive behavior is addictive behavior.

And drugs are drugs. TV is not a drug. Grab a dictionary and find out the definition the rest of the English speaking world uses

Addictive behavior is addictive behavior.

"Once a day is addiction...."

Tell me, how many times did you take a piss today?

Your concept of addiction says everything about you, but little about reality.

Slot machines are capable of conditioning someone, not addicting them. Higher order activities, which often includes religous practice, are governed by free will following conscious ratiocination.

But perhaps more to the point, not every practice you personally dislike can be compared with the effects of heroin.

"Tell me, how many times did you take a piss today?"

Well that's just fucking stupid. I'm not wasting on time on idiotic sophistry.

Goat,

TV may not be a drug for you but I have seen people for which it was. Honestly when I do sit down to watch TV there is something of the same mentality that I have when I sit down with a bowl. Drugs can be good or bad just like anything heck even water will kill ya. It's if you use a thing or not.

I had a friend who used meth to paint his house in one weekend. Inside and out. He never used it again and gave away the left over. I can't stand the thought of it personaly but I would say that was a a good use like a couple glasses of water a day. Had he used it to paint every house in the neighborhood that would have been like drinking 8 gallons of water and not peeing.

Well that's just fucking stupid.

And calling TV a drug isn't? LOL

"Well that's fucking stupid..."

Implying repetition equals addiction....Bright?

In regards to the guy using meth just to paint his house, one time only. I recall that, by report, the demon Asomodeus will politely discuss literature with a human being one day and render him into hamburger the next.

Zed,

That is the difference between using intelligently and not. Why don't you drink 8 gallons of water in 6 hours while not peeing? Intelligence, that's why. This is just higher order intelligence, not that I condone or would do it but I consider that an even higher order of intelligence, but hey I'm just vain like that. However I do not condemn him for his choices no matter if I agree with them or not.

Legalizing marijuana makes sense. Legalizing everything does not make sense---it simply makes the government into drug dealers. The only way to stop the spread of addictive drugs from generation to generation for thousands upon thousands of generations, is to take the money out of drugs, and there is only one way to take the money out of drugs.

legalize everything. Let big pharma manufacture whatever, and let people buy what they want.

Don't allow anyone to sue big pharma for what they produce.

You choose to buy coke, your problem. You want to eat a pound of viagra, you go girl.

Not my business to prevent people from being stupid.

Now, you drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you should be publicly flogged.

2nd offense, remove the ability to drive. Start with the fingers and stop when you are sure they will never endanger another person.

The problem w/ legalizing everything is the tax payers will be expected to take care of the aflicted.

THey already do. Only difference is we don't tax the supplier to pay for it.

but saw no positive impact from all the blood, sweat and tears (and money) put into the effort. Let's not stop at marijuana legalization."

That can be said about most of the 'blue laws'.

Don't stop at mary J and other drugs - legalize murder, rape, armed robbery.... I mean, if prohibition is what is causing these crimes, make them legal and they will all go away.

Murder is like a drug to a serial killer. Rape is like a drug to a serial rapist. Cleptos will argue robbery is like a drug to them. Obviously having laws prohibiting these activities only breeds more crime.

elc, you have taken stoopid to a new level that dok can't even top.

The problem w/ legalizing everything is the tax payers will be expected to take care of the aflicted.

Surprise, you're already taking care of the afflicted.

There is no way the govt. will legalize drugs. The war on drugs is way to much of a payday for politicos. The high salary job losses for those in power will stop it from happening.

It would be the revenue loss equivalent to curing cancer- another thing big govt. will never allow to happen.

Taking drugs does not directly harm anyone other than the user. It is the illegality that creates the harm. The social harm is less so when you remove the histeria. You have more social harm, and actual physical harm, from diabetes, vanity, obesity, religion, even simple greed-lust for money.

Murder, rape, robbery, fraud, physical abuse, etc, etc. If you are going to commit these crimes, you will do so whether or not you are stoned, not because you are stoned.
Those acts do cause direct harm to other human beings as a matter of the acts themselves. Without any other contributing fact weighting the argument.

You're trying to penalize a moral code, as opposed to a criminal act.
And, point of fact, protected in your person. Your person isnt violated in any fashion by my smoking pot. My pursuit of happiness is none of your concern at that point.

I've had people tell stories about themselves or their friends sometimes where the cops just let them go when they could have busted them for weed. I wonder if this police chief when he was a patrolman let a few people go a few times. I don't understand how a semi-human individual could even want to be a cop and enforce the marijuana prohibition. The local college has a school of criminal justice. The joke around here is "why does someone major in CJ? - because they have no friends."

I believe in warning labels, but ultimately that your body should be your own property. Not that of the state.

Legalize all drug use; mandatory executation for drug dealers.

A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound.

The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole.

"#35 | Posted by gitmboy "

Nailed it.

Don't stop at mary J and other drugs - legalize murder, rape, armed robbery.... I mean, if prohibition is what is causing these crimes, make them legal and they will all go away.

Murder is like a drug to a serial killer. Rape is like a drug to a serial rapist. Cleptos will argue robbery is like a drug to them. Obviously having laws prohibiting these activities only breeds more crime.

And everything you said here is an example of someone violating the rights of another human being.

Just a subtle difference mind you, but it renders your argument so utterly stoopid as, well I got nuthin.

Think its time for a morning puff.

Legalizing heroin and meth will increase the famous arrogance of the substance abuser, the vast majority of which already never notice how they douse themselves with gasoline.

... or so says a hopeless addict to the opiate of the masses.

I struggle with some of the things the author of the article states, you may be able to control the manufacture and distribution of drugs and that would stop violence related to distribution, or at least diminish it greatly.

But here is my problem, many of the effects of the "higher acting" drugs (Crack, heroin, et.al.), I don't know about you but I do not want to work around anyone who is jacked up on any of this shit, I do not want to pay for their treatment, damage caused, or any of the other costs associated with their lifestyle CHOICE. This is what I would recommend; before anyone can purchase or use any of these products they would have to be licensed (at their own expense) to wit if you are a licensed drug user, by your own choice, employers would be able to exclude you from being hired (or continued employment), you would receive no taxpayer support of any kind (including medical, they could dump you in the street for all I care), and certain privileges (driving e.g.) could be withheld.

So what would that solve you ask, personally it is their choice and I have no cause or desire to control it, but they would no longer be a burden to the rest of us who made different choices, hell, users would probably find a way and create their own micro-economy.

But also to say that this would be victimless is plain stupidity, families would be destroyed, lives of non-users would be ended, and generations would be lost, but people would at least be more inclined to look at the detritus effects and hopefully make better decisions.

#41 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-12-16 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everything I reference is a behavior. So, if you are ok with increased cocaine use - yeah, my argument does not work.

SNIPE- it has to do with behavior - take out criminal and use the word behavior.

How many kids do not use drugs because they are illegal? As so many libtards say about the loss of lives in an illegal war - what if the laws save just one 14 year old from becoming an addict? What if that one 14 year old is your child?

If you could 100% prove that all drug users would only use them in their own homes - the legalization issue would be moot. But you can't. Libtards are all for teaching sex education and birth control in schools because parents are not fulfilling their responsibilities and you want to make drugs legal?

Think about it SNIPE. My over the top comparisons have a certain shock factor but we are talking about a behavior - more so than breaking the law over one joint. Who wants their kid to be a drug addict?

How many kids do not use drugs because they are illegal?

If you have any evidence that legalization would increase rates of drug use, now would be the time to share it. Of course, you probably will want to ignore European countries like Portugal where drugs are legal and rates of use have fallen for all except marijuana.

teaching sex education and birth control in schools because parents are not fulfilling their responsibilities

That's a problem largely of your own making, Cidley. Religious fanatics make poor teachers and even worse parents. It's no surprise that the government has to step in and clean up the mess you people make.

#28 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2009-12-16 04:40 AM | Reply | Flag: Would love Sharia Law

Legalization is not the answer---taking the money out of drugs is the answer. Drug use is spread from generation to generation because of the money. It is that simple. Take the money out of drugs, and it stops in one generation. There is only one way to take the money out of drugs.

Drug Laws are proof that the Government does not want you to be free. You are supposed to work for their Corporate sponsors for peanuts, buy their products, pay your taxes and die. The plan is being fully realized as we blog.

Reaction to this article...

Religious fanatics make poor teachers and even worse parents. It's no surprise that the government has to step in and clean up the mess you people make.

#45 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-12-16 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right. Obviously the public school system must be full of religious fanatics because drop out rates are up and entrance exam scores are down. Your hatred of religion blinds you to reality Zombie. Of course, your religion is liberalism. The worst kind of fanatic. Closet racists and closet homophobes.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency believes that demand for marijuana would skyrocket if legalized:

Legalization proponents claim, absurdly, that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase. They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now. Yet how much misery can already be attributed to alcoholism and smoking? Is the answer to just add more misery and addiction? From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.

El Cid, should we make alcohol and tobacco illegal?

Just be sure to treat a doctor providing health care while stoned the EXACT same way he'd be treated if he did so while drunk, and we're cool.

Oh, and tax the ever living shit out it.

.. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency believes that demand for marijuana would skyrocket if legalized:
Legalization proponents claim, absurdly, that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase. They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now. Yet how much misery can already be attributed to alcoholism and smoking? Is the answer to just add more misery and addiction? From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.
www.justice.gov
Thar ya go Zomby.
#50 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-12-16 04:14 PM

I'm not going to debate your DEA numbers (which I feel are inaccurate) but the very logic of the argument that it shouldn't be legalized due to "popularity". That's the same moronic argument against Universal Health Care - too many people will use it.

I honestly cannot understand how bitter someone has to get to deny something because of it's acceptable and potentially positive use. That goes for marijuana, medicine and all of the other technological innovations that are denied us.

Stop supporting the DEA entirely - they are responsible for setting the policy regarding marijuana and have STILL not demonstrated their intention of abiding by the Presidents decisions to stop busting medical marijuana clinics. Their control over States needs to be ended entirely.

RLR, simple economics takes a back seat to a moral agenda. That's how you get to be a compassionate conservative. By ignoring economics, a.k.a. reality.

I'm not going to debate your DEA numbers (which I feel are inaccurate) but the very logic of the argument that it shouldn't be legalized due to "popularity". That's the same moronic argument against Universal Health Care - too many people will use it.

I respectfully disagree, the difference between the two is if a person chooses to smoke pot (I have no problem with that, I would partake of a spleef or two on occasion if it were legal and my employer permitted it) is it does not cost me anything whereas healthcare for all will cost me a fortune with no accountability.

Wow, a public offical that is using common sense. We could use this person is a much higher office than cheif of police. Maybe comander in cheif!

Legalize them all and tax them. You will never stop the use of them, so make them legal. Our jails will finally be far more vacant, crime will plunge, needless deaths of government officials will be reduced, our government will end the useless yet extemely expensive war on drugs. We will save so much money and earn so many tax dollars that the petty change needed to cover the emergency room visits of the fools that take too many drugs will easily be paid for.

"But we reformers must remember that we're working to legalize drugs not because we think they are safe, but because prohibition is far more dangerous to users and nonusers alike."

He's saying the drug is dangerous, but, instead of working toward enforcing the laws in place and crafting more effective punishment he's bailing on the fact that it is illegal for a reason until the end of the article...because it is dangerous to the human body.

"He's saying the drug is dangerous"

That's a false conclusion. Just because they're "not safe" doesn't therefore mean they're "dangerous".

"He's saying the drug is dangerous"

That's a false conclusion. Just because they're "not safe" doesn't therefore mean they're "dangerous".

#58 | Posted by Danforth

I'm concluding the truth from the article.

Former Stamper's statement that "prohibition is far more dangerous..." offers the question 'prohibition is far more dangerous than what.'

Saying one thing is far more dangerous than another is recognizing that both are dangerous.

"Saying one thing is far more dangerous than another is recognizing that both are dangerous."

No, it's not. Saying a two-story fire is "far more dangerous" than a single wooden match doesn't automatically mean the match is "dangerous" in and of itself.

More to the point, I've known folks who smoke pot for decades. "Dangerous" is about the last descriptor I'd use. I'll take a stoner over a drunk any day.