Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, February 15, 2012

At a pre-Grammy event held at the Beverly Hills Hilton hours after Whitney Houston died in the same hotel, Tony Bennett took the podium and said the tragedy was a reason to legalize drugs. "First it was Michael Jackson, then Amy Winehouse, now the magnificent Whitney Houston," he said. "I'd like every person in this room to campaign to legalize drugs. ... Let's legalize drugs like they did in Amsterdam. No one's hiding or sneaking around corners to get it. They go to a doctor to get it."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

reitze

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Here's the video:
www.youtube.com...Tony Bennett wants Legalization of Drugs following Whitney Houston Death

Another angle.....

www.rollingstone.com

Tony is ok in my book.

Tony's all hopped up on the reefer.

Add Anna Nicole to the list too.
Breaking news Tony.
These were legal drugs.

Er, Anna Nicole had no talent, you moron.

Dr_Dude, if these stars had whatever drug they wanted they woulnd't be pushed onto the opioids by profit motivated Dr pushers.

Letus, that depends on what you consider "talent".

abcnews...What Happened in Hotel Room?

some talent? yes.

blogs.houstonpress.com

That ain't talent, you doofus. That's plastic surgery.

Talented plastic surgeon,I'd say.

How on earth would legal drugs prevent Whitney from taking Xanax with alcohol and dying in the bathtub? (likely reason for her death)

Or Elvis taking legal drugs which ended his life--how is legalizing something that is already legal pervented his tragic end?

MJ was taking stuff prescribed--nothing illegal and he died.

What a boob.

Boob/moob/whatever. If Michael Jackson woulda smoked a fucking joint instead of what Dr Pusher gave him - he'd have been fine. Or if you're more paranoid, maybe the globalists did it like John Winston Lenon (JWL)? After all, his last song was ...www.youtube.com

"Let's legalize drugs like they did in Amsterdam. "

Too bad Tony is clueless. The Dutch have not legalized "drugs." No country has legalized "drugs." Portugal has the most lenient laws concerning possession and use of Herb, but even Portugal has not legalized "drugs."

"While the cause of Houston's death is not yet known, the singer was said to have fought addiction in recent years."

One "fights" addiction by getting clean. Houston did not. Houston probably died because of stupidity in that she mixed alcohol with all the scripts she was taking. And who knows what illicits were also in her system. She killed herself. It is well known that mixing alcohol, already a toxin, with chemicals is a dice throw for suicide, whether intended or not.


I know many people who use illegal drugs. And they know they illegal. They do it anyway.
I know many people who don't use illegal drugs. Not because they're illegal, but because they don't want to use drugs.

I think if drugs were legal, there may very well be some people who would use them that otherwise wouldn't, but very few.

If drugs were legal, costs would go down, and prison populations would drop.

What's the downside? Some people might use drugs that otherwise wouldn't.

Hey let's legalize meth, what could go wrong?

Hey let's legalize meth, what could go wrong?
#14 | Posted by glasshouse | Flag: EXHIBIT "A"

"What's the downside?"

No need for tens of thousands of thugs, I mean cops.

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2012-02-15 10:09 AM | REPLY

You will need cops once these meth heads start breaking into your place to buy their drugs.

"Thugs" what the hell, are you 12 y/o. Fucking child

Make it all legal. Those with addictive personalities will become an addict legal or not. And Danni you idiot Police enforce laws man made. So go out and change the laws you don't like enforced. Until then cheeze it on the dump cop posts.

#14 I'm with Glass on this one.

#16 Danni, there are better uses of time for strong young men than being thugs. Things like local neighborhood farming, cultivation, and construction. If the agenda21 crap didn't try to regulate everything to death. Real-estate values have already crashed.

So start by legalizing all forms of cultivation and who would want deadly meth other than suicidal/terminal/idiots when they could grow MJ or Opium. It appears to me that about 1/3 the USA is on opium anyway. (1/2 on something, opiumiods the most popular of scips)

Oh and BTW, with all those freed political prisoner slaves from WOD prisons there'd be more tax revenue to pay real police and thus take care of any idiots going to far on "chemical holidayz".

Instead, (soma holidazs) are being given to your children.

Make it all legal. Those with addictive personalities will become an addict legal or not. And Danni you idiot Police enforce laws man made. So go out and change the laws you don't like enforced. Until then cheeze it on the dump cop posts.

#18 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED AT 2012-02-15 10:35 AM

And those who would not have tried the drug because it was illegal will now have a chance to become addicts also.

You will need cops once these meth heads start breaking into your place to buy their drugs.

"Thugs" what the hell, are you 12 y/o. Fucking child

#17 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-02-15 10:24 AM


Yeah sure, because they're not breaking into houses now.

And yes Thugs is a pretty accurate description of the police.

Just a few minutes ago, I got a robocall from my daughter's school, saying the local police were doing a lockdown and canine search of the school. That good old fourth amendment sure is being abused.

.

~Libs
We want drugs legalized cuz we promise not to take any more baths.

And yes Thugs is a pretty accurate description of the police.
Just a few minutes ago, I got a robocall from my daughter's school, saying the local police were doing a lockdown and canine search of the school. That good old fourth amendment sure is being abused.
.

#21 | POSTED BY ROY_BATTY AT 2012-02-15 10:45 AM

Ok fair enough, but if you are ever the victim of a crime, please do not call the thugs.

Also, how is the police search a violation of the 4th?

#21 Not sure about your schools but our here come with a notice that cars, lockers, buses and back packs are subject to seach ay anytime. And I for one am fine with that is our schools. If it bothers you so much try home schooling.

Damn typos, sorrry.

Yeah the ONLY thing from keeping people from trying drugs is becuase it's against the law..............Insert eye rolling.

a notice that cars, lockers, buses and back packs are subject to seach ay anytime. And I for one am fine with that is our schools

I'm not. When I went to school, if they wanted to search any of those things, they had to remove me from class and ask me to open my locker, car, backpack etc and tell me why and what they thought they would find.

I grew up understanding the 4th Amendment.

Then came the war on Drugs, Columbine, and 9-11. Kids had random searches and had their possessions subject to search without notice and the concept of privacy was abandoned for the greater good.

Is it any wonder today we actually have Americans saying "if you don't have something to hide you should not mind them looking?"

It disgusts me personally. These kids who are not learning fundamental American rights are going to be the ones leading this nation in the future.

We are fucked.

And I for one am fine with that is our schools. If it bothers you so much try home schooling.

#24 | Posted by gracieamazed

You're a sheep. A conservative, no doubt.

Kanrei different times in schools today. And Nulli always the jerk. Adults have rights IMHO not kids. I take issue with traffic check points and abusive TSA regulations.

Kanrei different times in schools today.

Not really. The news is just 24/7 and profit driven now.

The world is the same; the coverage is better.

And my point stands: these kids today don't know their rights or history; how can we expect them to continue the nation we grew up in?

Freedom is now optional when the case for a threat, no matter how unlikely, is made.

And learning rights? LMFAO Kanrei. They don't teach that in school anymore, it's not on the FCAT. They don't teach Civics either. That has been my job as his Mother. He has a pocket constitution and knows the contents and meanings. But at 15 he only has the rights we as his parents have afforded him.

Think about the 2004 election and what was the most important issue.

For most of the nation, it was terrorism...except the places hit by actual terrorist attacks. New York voted economics over security. Think about that for a moment- the people least likely to be attacked by terrorism had it as their number one issue, but the people actually attacked had something else as number one.

"And I for one am fine with that is our schools."

This sentence is self confirming.

And learning rights? LMFAO Kanrei. They don't teach that in school anymore,

That is my point.

I agree with Tony B., legalize ALL drugs. End the 100% & total failure that is the War on Drugs. Legalize it & get any/all govn't intervantion out of drugs. No more govn't funded prevention programs, no more govn't rehab programs. If people make shitty choices of abusing drugs, that is on them. If they want help, they or their family or their friends can pay for it.

With any luck, the truw dummies will get hooked, abuse the newly legalized drugs & die out. Darwins Law of evolution can finally take hold.

And as a student of the 60's and 70's I remember no Columbine like killings and no 9/11. We had teacher smoking lounges. We had teachers that smoked pot. We were taught Civics and US History. And we got smoked and got high.

The war on drugs, thank goodness, began after I graduated.

"He has a pocket constitution and knows the contents and meanings. But at 15 he only has the rights we as his parents have afforded him."

How that second sentence can follow directly behind the first is astounding to me.


And as a student of the 60's and 70's I remember no Columbine like killings and no 9/11. We had teacher smoking lounges. We had teachers that smoked pot. We were taught Civics and US History. And we got smoked and got high.

The war on drugs, thank goodness, began after I graduated.

#36 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2012-02-15 11:27 AM |

Proves my point.

When you legalize the drugs, it stops being cool to sneak off and do the illegal rebelious thing with drugs. It also removes the money from the gangs. The rich guy on the street is no longer the pusher.

Poor kids will see only people who do not do drugs and who study bringing home money. Guys who stay clean will be the ones getting the sports scholorships.

The thugs who would go into drug dealing will resort to real crime and go to jail because noone puts up with berglers.

It won't be possible to deal drugs just to keep your own supply going.

We can reduce the expense of the war on drugs and spend it on education and treatment.

I could go on.

Because we cant regulate the legal drugs we already have. because america cares more about max profit form everything than human lives.

since going on medical MJ.. i have quit tobacco and booze. thats $400 a month in savings ....( plus all my weed is grown one block from my home and only costs me some time trimming plants every 3 months, another $300 a month in savings)
no wonder why tobacco and alcohol companies lobby against medical MJ

#41

an - apparently working - program like that would cause
head explosions where I live - they just recently
legalized beer sales....

btw has this been posted yet -

www.npr.org

Eliminating the DEA would save American taxpayers $2,364,104,000 a year.

The drug-fighting budget is 15 billion...up from $100 million when Nixon first signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act

Read more: www.foxnews.com

Tax revenues on cannabis would be in the billions.

$20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries...because drugs are not legal.

$33 billion in marketing "Just Say No" messages that do not work.

$49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs.

$121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. (probably mostly in Texas)

$450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone.

And these numbers are fair and balanced!

Read more: www.foxnews.com

No wonder the system is completely broke.

The drug war has cost us at least a trillion dollar and will never be won and is not even based in reality. It's like we are all on drugs or something.

Time to grow up America.

#44 Amerika is drunk on the blood of the saints. Like the political prisoners from the drug war - torture victims disenfranchised from voting and assigned to slave labor.

Thugs" what the hell, are you 12 y/o. Fucking child

#17 | Posted by glasshouse

maybe Danni just got done reading this thread

Legalizing drugs will not end the problem. It will just make the problem legal. There is only one way to end the drug problem. It has been on the DR several times.

www.drudge.com

Right Bob, but meanwhile it would end the crime and slavery problems while reducing torture in the USA. It would be a return toward the constitution which represents the values of the people living in the USA more than the politicians who are in love with corporate money from established big businesses like booze and pharma.

Right Bob, but meanwhile it would end the crime and slavery problems while reducing torture in the USA.

#47 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-15 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Legalization would do none of those things. It might change the pricing structure, but essentially, nothing would change, and in fact, I would say that the problem would only grow worse with government approval.

The only answer is to end the drug trade----kill the business, and the only way to do that is shown here:

www.drudge.com

Boob, like the end of alcohol prohibition ended Al Capone's rule. And sure he was still in business when it went ligit, but didn't use so many Tommy guns after that. Doing the same to recreational drugs would wipe out the criminal activity going on now. Anyone honest and thoughtful about it would admit that's true, unless its in your financial interest not to (Cop, lawyer, military, jailer, politician, ... bought off).

You cannot eliminate supply and demand through any amount of fiat or oppression.

#49 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-15 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Alcohol is still a problem. The problem grows with government approval. The plan shown would eliminate the drug business.

You cannot eliminate supply and demand through any amount of fiat or oppression.

#50 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-02-15 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course you can. The plan shown above proves it. A business---any business---can easily be put OUT of business, if the money is removed from that business.

If you owned a Toyota dealership, and A dealership opened next to you that gave away Toyotas---who would buy from you? How long would you be in business?

Right Boob, you can kill businesses like you can kill people - that doesn't make it right and it doesn't solve the core issues of government over-reach violating inalienable rights.

Genesis|1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Matthew|23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

More such Refs here: Marijuana and The Bible, What Does God Say?

Right Boob, you can kill businesses like you can kill people - that doesn't make it right and it doesn't solve the core issues of government over-reach violating inalienable rights.

You think government stoppong the drug business is a bad thing? We are on opposite sides. Have you done time for selling drugs? Has you family been selling drugs?

Genesis|1:29

Matthew|23:13

Why do you quote the bible---home of the greatest baby killer of all time? Luckily it is a fictional god and your reference to it is as valid as a reference to Mickey Mouse.

More such Refs here: Marijuana and The Bible, What Does God Say?

You think god says "Sell drugs and make women prostitutes so they can feed their addictions."? You worship that god? wow.

#53 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-15 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The point is that the drug problem can be eliminated in one generation. If you want to promote drug use and addiction for all time, then disregard the link.

www.drudge.com

#53 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-15 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Second point. No such thing as inalienable rights.

Third point. No god given rights at all from any god.

Inalienable rights:

1. Eat
2. Drink
3. Breath
4. Sleep & Think
5. Drugs
6. Fuck & Fetus
7. Piss & Shit

#55, 56 - those are "inalienable" in that if you deny those to someone - their family would kill you. If the govt goes on doing it the govt will eventually be brought down, by God or Guillotine - take you pick.

#57 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-15 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

You missed the point. Those rights may all be alienated, as stated in your own post. Putting parenthesis around the word, inalienable, doesn't make something inalienable. Every point you listed can be alienated, and has been alientated from time to time.

I was hoping it was william bennet. lol
How much money would we save or lose if drugs where legalized and treatment socialized?

#59 | Posted by webwrangler at 2012-02-15 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

How much money would we save if the drug business did not exist anymore, and there was no need for treatment?

#60 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-15 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag
In a perfect world bob in a perfect world. Ah drugs cant' live without em.
Did you know in order for a third world country to trade their goods with us they have to let us sell cigarettes? We force these people to get hooked. How about the caffeine in chocolate? we feed tykes mind altering drugs. Then we wonder what "triggered" them. lol

and there was no need for treatment?
POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

There will always be a need for treatment because there will always be a demand for drugs.

Unless you put in place an totalitarian government, you're not going to find adherence to draconian drug laws.

Historical fact.

#61 | Posted by webwrangler at 2012-02-15 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

We aren't really talking about cigarettes and caffeine. The point is that there is a way to stop the drug problem in one generation, and the savings start immediately.

www.drudge.com

85 years wise, singer, painter and pacifist.

There will always be a need for treatment because there will always be a demand for drugs.

No, there won't be a demand if the program were instituted.

www.drudge.com

Unless you put in place an totalitarian government, you're not going to find adherence to draconian drug laws.

Not even a totalitarian government can stop drug sales. The only way to stop drugs is to take the money---ALL the money out of drugs.

Historical fact.

We should learn from history, not accept it as our future. We've tried punishment for drugs for decades. It doesn't work. I didn't work in the past, and it won't work in the future. There is only one way to end the drug problem, and it is in that link.

#62 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-02-15 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

""Not even a totalitarian government can stop drug sales. The only way to stop drugs is to take the money---ALL the money out of drugs.""

Bob, the inherent problem with drugs is that they are being used, not that they are being sold. How are you going to stop drug use by making them freely available?

Bob, the inherent problem with drugs is that they are being used, not that they are being sold. How are you going to stop drug use by making them freely available?

#66 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-15 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag

Read the link. The problem IS that they are being sold. The reason the drug problems spreads is that drugs are being sold. The reason drugs are sold is to make money. If there is no money to be made, the drug problem stops in one generation. Read the link, and if you see a flaw, point it out, but chances are it has been brought up in the link.

www.drudge.com

It looks like a combination of giving the afflicted up for lost and dumping criminals on the streets. I dont think that people should go to jail for possession of a personal quantity of an illegal drug, but use should definetly get you sent in for counseling. Meth, crack, cocaine, and more do horrible things to people. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will result in a drop in crime. Organized crime may go down, but you ignore the degrading lifestyle that addiction leads to. I sympathize with Reitze's libertarian stance, but people do not get into substance abuse (which is just what it is) for any good reason. It saves lives to prevent this crap from getting on the streets. Making access to it convenient doesnt change the fact that using it ruins peoples lives. If it was about money, I think they would have legalized it a long time ago. This is about protecting people.

...and i would like to go on record as saying Tony Bennett should have been kicked in the balls right there on stage for saying some stupid shit like "Lets legalize drugs" at the memorial of someone who died because of addiction. That has to be stupidest statement I've heard in recent memory.

It looks like a combination of giving the afflicted up for lost and dumping criminals on the streets.

Two things---First it IS a war. In a war, there are casualties--yes---this generation is given up as lost. Should we do the same for the next generation> For ALL generations? Second---why should we keep people in prison at 50k a year for selling drugs, when there will no longer be a capability to make money selling drugs?

I dont think that people should go to jail for possession of a personal quantity of an illegal drug, but use should definetly get you sent in for counseling.

Free counseling is part of the program, and will save many people for useful lives.

Meth, crack, cocaine, and more do horrible things to people. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will result in a drop in crime.

You didn't read very well. Drugs sales and giving away drugs is still illegal and punished with prison time. There is a lot of room in the prisons since we let so many go at the beginning of the program. I doubt many would give their drugs away knowing the consequences and options.

Organized crime may go down, but you ignore the degrading lifestyle that addiction leads to.

I ignore nothing. You ignore future generations. This program is the best even for modern addicts. They don't have to rob or sell themselves for their addiction, and free counseling may get them off drugs completley.

I sympathize with Reitze's libertarian stance, but people do not get into substance abuse (which is just what it is) for any good reason.

People get into drugs because of salesmen.

It saves lives to prevent this crap from getting on the streets.

The drugs ARE getting to the streets. This is the only way to keep drugs off the streets.

Making access to it convenient doesnt change the fact that using it ruins peoples lives.

For this generation only. These lives are already ruined. It isn't this program that ruined them. Your point of view perpetuates the problem for all time--for all generations---thousands of years in the future. What about those lives? This program ends it in one generation.

If it was about money, I think they would have legalized it a long time ago. This is about protecting people.

It is ALL about money. Legalizing is MONEY MONEY MONEY. This program gets the money out of drugs. No money to be made--no drug sales--no salesmen---no pipeline--no distribution network---no addicts---after ONE GENERATION.

#68 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-15 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

""You didn't read very well. Drugs sales and giving away drugs is still illegal and punished with prison time. There is a lot of room in the prisons since we let so many go at the beginning of the program. I doubt many would give their drugs away knowing the consequences and options.""

You're still giving away free drugs. Why would you release someone just to lock them up again?

Quick rhetorical question, did the re-legalization of alcohol end alcohol abuse?

No, it didnt. Legalization, or this plan, isnt going to end addiction after any number of generations. People do drugs to get HIGH, and if they're available, they're going to pursue them. Making them free is only going take the money out of the picture. The addiction remains. If people are too busy getting fucked up they arent going to work or take care of their obligations, especially if you take the cost out of the picture.

No need to work+endless supply=the walking dead.

This program would only shift the supplier, and then after that, if you tried to phase it out people would simply go back to buying it on the street. People would show up for their dose and bounce. The problem is that the concept of being high is still there, along with the facilities.

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

""Your point of view perpetuates the problem for all time--for all generations---thousands of years in the future. What about those lives? This program ends it in one generation.""

Drug addiction is a perpetual problem. People have been for thousands of years seeking out that elusive high. Animals do it for Christ's sake. You arent going to end it in one generation by dumping prisoners on the street and shifting the pipeline from street sales to institutions. Drug dealers will temporarily be hurt, but they'll just switch to another enterprise. They certainly wont stop being criminal.

Apparently the Federal gov't views drugs as dangerous to the American people. They must not want an epidemic of drug addiction to hit the country. Stop to think how many people dont fall into drug use because they arent available at Rite-Aid.

**Stop to think how many people dont fall into drug use because they arent available at Rite-Aid.**

Crack, coke, X and the like.

"You didn't read very well. Drugs sales and giving away drugs is still illegal and punished with prison time. There is a lot of room in the prisons since we let so many go at the beginning of the program. I doubt many would give their drugs away knowing the consequences and options."

You're still giving away free drugs. Why would you release someone just to lock them up again?

Why would they be locked up again? They shouldn't have any drugs in their system if they just got out of prison.

Quick rhetorical question, did the re-legalization of alcohol end alcohol abuse?

Entirely different animal. I'm not talking about legalization. However, this program would have worked for alcohol also.

No, it didnt. Legalization, or this plan, isnt going to end addiction after any number of generations.

How do you p[ropose the new addicts will get their drugs? What is their source?

People do drugs to get HIGH, and if they're available, they're going to pursue them.

My point exactly. The drugs will not be available.

Making them free is only going take the money out of the picture. The addiction remains.

For this generation only. How will the next generation get their drugs? Who will want to sell drugs when there is no money to be made and only prison as a reward?

If people are too busy getting fucked up they arent going to work or take care of their obligations, especially if you take the cost out of the picture.

Again, I think you are missing the point. You are worried about the people already on drugs. No. Thay are lost. I am worried about people not on drugs and future generations

No need to work+endless supply=the walking dead.

They still have to eat and pay electric bills etc.

This program would only shift the supplier, and then after that, if you tried to phase it out people would simply go back to buying it on the street.

Why would people risk selling it on the street when no money is to be made?

People would show up for their dose and bounce. The problem is that the concept of being high is still there, along with the facilities.

That's the idea.

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

""Your point of view perpetuates the problem for all time--for all generations---thousands of years in the future. What about those lives? This program ends it in one generation.""

Drug addiction is a perpetual problem. People have been for thousands of years seeking out that elusive high. Animals do it for Christ's sake. You arent going to end it in one generation by dumping prisoners on the street and shifting the pipeline from street sales to institutions. Drug dealers will temporarily be hurt, but they'll just switch to another enterprise. They certainly wont stop being criminal.

Fine. I'm not concerned with other crimes. The point is they won't be selling drugs.

Apparently the Federal gov't views drugs as dangerous to the American people.

Most thinking individuals think the same thing--even addicts.

They must not want an epidemic of drug addiction to hit the country. Stop to think how many people dont fall into drug use because they arent available

Please read the link. See how people get started on the program. If you don't have drugs in your system, you don't get on the program.

""One--Legalize marijuana--it is not addictive, and the tax revenue will go to government resources, and not criminal sources. This will raise billions.""

Sure. Why not.

""Two--Release all prisoners who are in prison for drug only offenses. This will free up a lot of prison space and save billions in costs.""

Amnesty. Ok

Three---Drug sales would still be illegal, as would the illegal possession of drugs. Punishment would be 5 years in prison with no early release or parole. There would be lots of room since the prisons were recently reduced in population.

OK, so release them.

""Four---Set up drug clinics in every city that would give away free drugs to all addicts.""

OK, so instead of them getting it from a street dealer they go to a clinic. They are still doing drugs. They are still illegal, except now the clinic is the dealer.

""Five---If you show up at the clinic and test positive for drugs, all the drugs you get are free. If you test for cocaine, you get as much cocaine as you need.""

OK, so to combat the use of drugs, we are going to give them MORE drugs. Then what?

Bob, why do you think that drugs are illegal in the first place?
I'll answer that. Because they are bad for you. You dont remedy the situation by giving people up for lost.

So in conclusion.

You've granted an amnesty. You've made drugs free. You've made the sale of them illegal, but distribution is OK through a clinic.

In all of this, people are still on drugs. Drugs arent illegal because some asshole politician woke up some day and said, "I dont want people doing cocaine." Drugs are illegal because they ruin peoples lives. You cant eliminate addiction by making them EVEN more readily available. The organized crime has moved on to other endeavors, and people are still getting fucked up, except they now have a steady supply and they are openly doing it, which is going to magnify the problem. Most people never have access to hard drugs, and are therefore not going to do them. Thats the idea behind keeping them illegal.

Good thread. Legalize all drugs but you should have a licence to use.
Pass a test showing you know the pluses and minuses of the drug you are using.Do medical studies to help design less "hurtful" alternatives. Keep developing brains away as much as possible. Push social exercise like team sports and communal exercise. Take the money out of recreational drug use and you take away the crime.

#74 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-16 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

As stated---this generation is lost. Your points are all about this generation The program is for all generations after this generation.

That was the whole point from the beginning.

How to stop the drug problem in one generation.

This is the generation.

Focus on the future, and bring up any flaws that you think of. Do not bring up this generation. Again--this generation is lost. I believe this program would protect the next generation, and all other generations to follow.

I would change #4 so there would be a grace period for possession of illegal drugs for two years after the start of the program. People have to have enough time to sign up, and there would probably be big lines. After two years, it is a five year auromatic prison sentence.

You guys are amazing. You really think that the addicted mind gives a shit about development? They are going to say what they need to say to get high. You try to ween them off, they'll go to another source. You give them a weaker substance, they'll take more.

Crime isnt the overriding concern behind stopping the flow of drugs into the country. If it was, I'm sure that they would have reversed themselves a long time ago. Protecting people is the primary focus. You can't protect the American people by handing them over to drug use. Thats why we are prosecuting the war on drugs. Its a pity they dont extend it to prescription psychotropic drug use in children, but that is a different thread.

#77 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-16 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag

The war on drugs isn't working. It hasn't worked in the last 70 years. It won't work in the next 70 years. It won't work in the next 700 years. It won't work in the next 7,000 years. Why? Because their is money and greed involved in the perpetuation of drug addiction. Take the money and greed out and the problem is gone in one generation.

Bottom line so far.

Your way has been proven mistaken after decades of history. It failed.

This program will end the drug business in one generation, and you can find no flaws in it. At least not so far.

Which path would be best to follow if it were your decision?

""Focus on the future, and bring up any flaws that you think of. Do not bring up this generation. Again--this generation is lost. I believe this program would protect the next generation, and all other generations to follow.""

It isnt going to protect the next generation you meathead. People arent going to stop doing drugs because they are free and plentiful. You've shifted the distribution of drugs from criminals to the institution. People are still going to get fucked up. The only thing you've done is make drug use open and common, which is going to compound the problem. The generation after them is going to do them, and the generation after that.

You dont help people by giving up on them. Every post drips with the typical liberal contempt for people. Where is the humanism in giving up on people?

You try to ween them off, they'll go to another source. You give them a weaker substance, they'll take more.

#77 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-16 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

No weening off---no weaker substances---no forced counseling---no records of addiction. Even if it was a doctor or pilot---no public records.

With no money to be made, there wouldn't be another source.

""This program will end the drug business in one generation, and you can find no flaws in it. At least not so far.""

Except for the fact that the drug business is alive and well, and institutional.

I cant read anymore of your bullshit, I have things to do.

You're a fucking slave Bob. The ready tool of a dictator. Eat a bullet.

It isnt going to protect the next generation you meathead. People arent going to stop doing drugs because they are free and plentiful.

Again, the drugs aren't free and plentiful. You have to test positive to get on the program. If you give your drugs away or sell them, you don't get free drugs and you go to jail. There could easily be a specific tag designed for each user that could be traced back to them if a new addict shows up.

You've shifted the distribution of drugs from criminals to the institution. People are still going to get fucked up.

Again, only this generation. Focus on future generations.

The only thing you've done is make drug use open and common, which is going to compound the problem.

Only for people who are already addicted. There would be no new addicts since there wouldn't be any money to be made.

The generation after them is going to do them, and the generation after that.

How do you propose they will get these drugs when there is no money to be made?

You dont help people by giving up on them. Every post drips with the typical liberal contempt for people. Where is the humanism in giving up on people?

No one is giving up on people except you. You are giving up on the billions of future addicts if you way continues. No one is even giving up on this generation. This program would only help this generation, and stop many people from this generation from becoming addicts by getting it off the streets. Todays addicts would get better care, and have the option of free counseling if they need it. I guess yoou think it would be better if they were beating people over the head and breaking into houses and then ODing in an alley from some poisonous shit sold as heroin. Which choice would you want if you were an addict? Which choice would you make for everyone if it were your decision to make?

#79 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-16 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

It seems the point stands.

There is a way to end the drug problem in one generation.

www.drudge.com

""Again, only this generation. Focus on future generations.""

Future generations are still going to want to get high, Bob.

""How do you propose they will get these drugs when there is no money to be made?""

From the clinics you propose to set up. With hard drug manufacturing already illegal, its available. How do you suppose that future generations wont find access? If they are cut out of the program, they're just going to find it the same way people are now. What are you going to do, radio-tag every pill and vial? Its going to be turned around and resold no matter how you account for it. How do you think people get ahold of Oxy and Valium?

""Only for people who are already addicted. There would be no new addicts since there wouldn't be any money to be made.""

Again, Bob, there will always be a demand for a high. It isnt going to go away because its readily available, or off-limits.

""No one is giving up on people except you.""

No, you already said a few posts back that this generation is lost. The whole premise behind this wonderful idea is that you sacrifice this generation for a result that won't materialize.

I hope the people looking realize this is the mind of a liberal. Everything always devolves into people being dependent upon the government. Hare-brained schemes and deluded thinking. This is why i lose $400 a month to withholding and get virtually finger-banged at the airport.

""It seems the point stands.""

You're point stands about as well as a drunken prom date. This whole thing is another classic ploy for more "dependence". The cute little floating fat people lied, Bob.

I want to apologize for my disrespectful tone, it was misplaced.

#86 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-16 02:00 AM | Reply | Flag

Make a point, or run along. Your personal attacks show you have no rebuttal.

There is a way to stop the drug problem in one generation, but you would rather perpetuate the drug horror for all future generations.

That's reality. You can't look at both sides of an issue and make an intelligent decision. When logic sneaks in, you resort to personal attacks.

How to stop the drug problem in one generation

Future generations are still going to want to get high, Bob.

Fine. But they won't be getting high in heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, or any other addictive drug around today. And in the future if whatever drug they are using gets too much of a problem to society, that drug will get in the program and there will be no more addicts to that drug after that generation.

""How do you propose they will get these drugs when there is no money to be made?""

From the clinics you propose to set up.

Nope---you have to be an addict to get it from the clinic. The people of the future won't get their drugs from the clinic because you already have to be an addict to get the drugs free. Try again---where will the future people get the drugs when there is no money to be made?

With hard drug manufacturing already illegal, its available.

The government would make the hard drugs. The government is not going to hand out drugs on the street. Drugs would not be available to ordinary citizens.

How do you suppose that future generations wont find access?

You seem to be under the delusion thayt people are clamoring to be drug addicts. No. Addicts are sold a program. No salesman, no demand. How about yourself? Would you start doung heroin if it were legal? Meth? Crack? I don't think so, and you aren't any different than anyone else. There weren't many meth addicts in the thirties, because it wasn't around, nobody knew about it, and nobody wanted it. That same thing would happen in the future. Nobody thinks about being a meth addict until they are sold the idea. Alcohol and marijuana would still be available. Not saying it is better, but they are socially acceptable at the moment. How do you propose they would find access. Be specific. Don't just say---they'd do it. Why would they do it? As soon as they got addicted, they would have to do it again.

If they are cut out of the program, they're just going to find it the same way people are now.

No one is cut from the program.

What are you going to do, radio-tag every pill and vial? Its going to be turned around and resold no matter how you account for it.

Who is going to buy it when they can get it for free? Answer that question please.

How do you think people get ahold of Oxy and Valium?

Why would they buy it when they can get it free?

"Only for people who are already addicted. There would be no new addicts since there wouldn't be any money to be made.""

Again, Bob, there will always be a demand for a high. It isnt going to go away because its readily available, or off-limits.

Fine---but it won't be the drugs that are causing problems today, and if future drugs cause too much of a problam they will get in the program too.

""No one is giving up on people except you.""

No, you already said a few posts back that this generation is lost. The whole premise behind this wonderful idea is that you sacrifice this generation for a result that won't materialize.

Why won't the result materialize? You fail to say. This generation is lost. That's reality. I also asked you which way would be best for this generation if the choice were yours to make. Why don't you answer?

I hope the people looking realize this is the mind of a liberal.

I do too, and that they contrast my ideas with your conservative views and decide for themselves who's blueprint for the future would be best for this generation and all following generations.

Everything always devolves into people being dependent upon the government.

The government saves your ass, and you don't realize it. You'd probably have beed dead in your twenties without government protection. If the government can stop the drug problem, I say go for it. You say---stay the course that has been proven a failure for decades of history. That's the mind of a conservative.

Hare-brained schemes and deluded thinking.

Strange you could find no logical flaws. I would say the delusions are yours.

This is why i lose $400 a month to withholding and get virtually finger-banged at the airport.

They just told you it was the airport.

#85 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-16 01:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

You missed the point. Those rights may all be alienated, as stated in your own post. Putting parenthesis around the word, inalienable, doesn't make something inalienable. Every point you listed can be alienated, and has been alientated from time to time.
#58 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-15 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag:
RAPIST

BOOB, I didn't miss the point, you did. Sure if your big and strong enough you can rape someone. That doesn't make it right.

My point of inalienable rights doens't mean they can't be violated. It does mean that if you personally did that to another person you risk your life doing so. That person and any person who loves that person who got violated just might kill you. And if its the govt they just might kill either themselves, you, or as many people as possible. So clearly the WOD creates home-grown-terrorist-motives. Denying that makes the TSA and idiots like you the actual terrorists. Meanwhile the blacks among us deserve praise for surviving against such odds.

So try it this way, If ANYONE denies ANY of these things to someone who's loved - their loved ones may kill you they can on the basis of the 10 commandments, or Jesus words regarding how you treat the least among us. Inalienable rights:

1. Eat
2. Drink
3. Breath & speach
4. Sleep & Think (religion)
5. Drugs
6. Fuck & Fetus
7. Piss & Shit

And yea we have over 1M nigger prison SLAVES in the USA. The civil war paid for their freedom in blood, and their relatives are quite motivated to kill the whitey assholes like Nixon who put them there.

Are you for the WOD? Then you're a RACIST PIG.

I sympathize with Reitze's libertarian stance, but people do not get into substance abuse (which is just what it is) for any good reason. It saves lives to prevent this crap from getting on the streets. Making access to it convenient doesnt change the fact that using it ruins peoples lives. If it was about money, I think they would have legalized it a long time ago. This is about protecting people.
#68 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-02-15 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think the problem is availability as much as lacking information. With illegal status drugs are "cool" and the warning label doesn't even exist. Rather than the dangers of drugs being highlighted in the culture, nearly everyone is "on something", especially if considering Alcolhol, tobacco, and other illegal drugs in addition to the legal perscriptions that 1/2 the USA has.

Boob, I like booze and am glad its legal. And furthermore, there are beneficial aspects of alcholhol. It reduces BP and provides a sense of relaxation and luxury to a RESPONSIBLE individual.

Just because someone can call something a drug and hate it doesn't mean they're right about it. Same with coffee, tea, herbs, and so-on.

Saying booze is bad cause some idiots can't handle it and thus a law that nobody can have it === HIGH SCHOOL MENTALITY. Fucking pathetic.

"It reduces BP"

#93 | Posted by ratshitforbrains at 2012-02-16 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag: liar

"Drinking too much alcohol can raise blood pressure to unhealthy levels. Having more than three drinks in one sitting temporarily increases your blood pressure, but repeated binge drinking can lead to long-term increases. "
www.mayoclinic.com

Lie some more you stupid excuse for a piece of shit.

BOOB, I didn't miss the point, you did. Sure if your big and strong enough you can rape someone. That doesn't make it right.

I agree. If you think I thought that if you are big enough, it is OK to rape, you certainly missed the point.

My point of inalienable rights doens't mean they can't be violated.

UMMM the point of inalienable rights is that they CAN'T be violated. That's why I said there is no such thing as inalienable rights.

It does mean that if you personally did that to another person you risk your life doing so.

That isn't what inalienable rights means. You can't simply make up your own definition for words.

That person and any person who loves that person who got violated just might kill you. And if its the govt they just might kill either themselves, you, or as many people as possible. So clearly the WOD creates home-grown-terrorist-motives. Denying that makes the TSA and idiots like you the actual terrorists. Meanwhile the blacks among us deserve praise for surviving against such odds.

The WOD is what my whole point is against. You miss the point again.

So try it this way, If ANYONE denies ANY of these things to someone who's loved - their loved ones may kill you they can on the basis of the 10 commandments, or Jesus words regarding how you treat the least among us. Inalienable rights:

1. Eat
2. Drink
3. Breath & speach
4. Sleep & Think (religion)
5. Drugs
6. Fuck & Fetus
7. Piss & Shit

Again, rights that can be violated are not inalienable rights. You need anopther word.

And yea we have over 1M nigger prison SLAVES in the USA. The civil war paid for their freedom in blood, and their relatives are quite motivated to kill the whitey assholes like Nixon who put them there.

My program would free most of them. You miss the point as usual.

Are you for the WOD? Then you're a RACIST PIG.

Again, I am against the WOD, and using words like "nigger" and "whitey", shows you to be a racist punk, no matter if you are black, white, or other. That's equality.

#91 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-16 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag

#93 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-16 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

The program under consideration doesn't concern alcohol, and what you say about alcohol is true. However, alcohol does ruin millions of live---that is also true. That you miss my point about alcohol is not news. You don't pay attention very well. Your vociferous defense of acohol under those conditions is an indication that maybe you are an alcoholic. Your racist attitude, your lack of focus on the written word, and unreasonable defense of alcohol leads me to think you are an alcoholic.

oh tony tony tony

shut the fuck up and sing...you dont have many more chorus's left..

just shut the fuck up and sing.......

Because keeping them illegal has been doing a bang up job....

Drinking too much alcohol can raise blood pressure to unhealthy levels. Having more than three drinks in one sitting temporarily increases your blood pressure, but repeated binge drinking can lead to long-term increases. "
www.mayoclinic.com
Lie some more you stupid excuse for a piece of shit.
#94 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-16 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're the liar, not me. You've cast alcohol according to one of its negative aspects while ignoring a positive aspect that many enjoy while insinuating it would be better if it were illegal (prohibition with thugs, jails, cops, lawyers, PIGs again).

Others may want a better less biased link:

Can Moderate Alcohol Consumption Prevent High Blood Pressure? "Regardless of the population studied, moderate alcohol consumption appears to convey a risk reduction of around 30%."

The program under consideration doesn't concern alcohol, and what you say about alcohol is true. However, alcohol does ruin millions of live---that is also true. That you miss my point about alcohol is not news. You don't pay attention very well. Your vociferous defense of acohol under those conditions is an indication that maybe you are an alcoholic. Your racist attitude, your lack of focus on the written word, and unreasonable defense of alcohol leads me to think you are an alcoholic.
#96 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-16 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:
BOOB

I had not previously addressed the issue of people with alcohol or other drug problems. I do agree those 'problems' exist. HOWEVER, I see more 'problems' of people with legally perscribed OPIUM that they'd not bother with if they could smoke something. So I'm suggesting that the rest of prohibition still inflates booze sales and abuse. And THAT's why the alcholhol lobby is so anti-legalization.

As far as the rest of your points and paying attention and the rest of your rant - well nice to see I pissed you off since you'd continue the enslavement of niggers via the WOD. So yea I perceive you as racist, not myself even though I sometimes use racially charged words. That's a different focus on some written words than yours. And IDK if you were trying to imply a bible-basis for things either - but that's also against prohibition as I ref'd above.

That isn't what inalienable rights means. You can't simply make up your own definition for words.
#95 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-16 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

I can and do make up things whenever I want. Tough shit. In this case I've looked up common definitions of "inalianable" rights which are mentioned in the declaration of independence and considered the basis for the the constitution's bill of rights and similar to the magna cart too. But nowhere did I see them spelled out. So considering what makes sense, to me its anything entering or exiting "me" is most inalianable "mine". And to go further that easily expands to a list like this:

1. Eat
2. Drink
3. Breath & speach
4. Sleep & Think (religion)
5. Drugs
6. Fuck & Fetus
7. Piss & Shit

And yea I am curious how well that works for everyone else, especially those most interested IN individuals HAVING "inalienable rights".

Again, I am against the WOD,
#95 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-16 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're only partly against the WOD. Your perscribed solution extends jail time to people who are considered innoscent by many like me according to common sense interpretations and simple POV.

and using words like "nigger" and "whitey", shows you to be a racist punk, no matter if you are black, white, or other. That's equality.
#95 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-16 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's an angry negative charactarization of me based upon my own best efforts to communicate - so that's just mean. You may feel good about it but IMHO it makes you an ass at best and furthers the negative association with the words. The V for Vendetta speech nicely articulates the negative trajectory that represents. So respectfully go fuck yourself.

#95,101 Bob, BTW I do get it on the flip-side. How over-using the N word or the C word or whatever too much for nothing other than colorful language around certain peoples kids can spoil it for others. Like for example at a nice restaraunt. In a setting like that it would make a person "punk"ish or worse. But this is DR, not a setting like that - so its full-on for slang-sling'in-slug.

You're only partly against the WOD. Your perscribed solution extends jail time to people who are considered innoscent by many like me according to common sense interpretations and simple POV.

The program calls for releasing all those that are in prison for drug sales only. What people are you talking about?

and using words like "nigger" and "whitey", shows you to be a racist punk, no matter if you are black, white, or other. That's equality.
#95 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2012-02-16 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's an angry negative charactarization of me based upon my own best efforts to communicate - so that's just mean. You may feel good about it but IMHO it makes you an ass at best and furthers the negative association with the words. The V for Vendetta speech nicely articulates the negative trajectory that represents. So respectfully go fuck yourself.

The point stands---ANYONE who uses those words is a BIGOT---a RACIST---and as far as fucking yourself---go for it. Anyone else who fucks you is fucking a racist.

#101 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-16 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#95,101 Bob, BTW I do get it on the flip-side. How over-using the N word or the C word or whatever too much for nothing other than colorful language around certain peoples kids can spoil it for others. Like for example at a nice restaraunt. In a setting like that it would make a person "punk"ish or worse. But this is DR, not a setting like that - so its full-on for slang-sling'in-slug.

#102 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-16 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one on the DR uses those words except YOU. Not even nut jobs like glasshouse, Jeff J, or any of the other rightwing nuthobs use those words. Only RACISTS use those words. ONLY RACISTS. No other person ever says those words.

Those words are used on MSM TV - I saw it recently. Sure they were all cowardly about it describing what someone else had said - while still conveying whatever message it was.

No there's a difference between using strong words to make a pro-black or pro women point on a topic vs using those same words to directly hurt someone. Obviously you haven't seen the movie V for Vandetta - and you should, it might help you comprehend the concept. BTW, you used those words yourself in your own post. So you're already on the slipery slope of using them bob. Even if you're just quoting me.

So I'd recommend being clear on what you mean to convey - if its contructive. Rather than trying to deconstruct someone else or their POV - unless you really do just wanna fight and noise over the conversation and give up on intillectual dialog about it. Back to the topic...

You're not for full release of all drug-prisoners and reversal of all drug laws - to be replaced with simple tax and age restrictios like booze. I am, and that includes the top-end stuff like Meth.

And no I'm not for making it free either. Rather that the market manufacturing cost (w/o the thug-add-ons) drive the price. We should end the US miltary OPIUM subsity too (Afghanistan - or do ya really think that's for the oil pipeline?).

#105 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-16 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag

It makes no difference. You are a racist. End of story. I have seen V and have it recorded for others to see. I don't see your bigotry coming through in V.

Your proposal to continue drug addiction into the future when there is a viable alternative to end the drug business sickens me, as does your racism.

Cheers Boob I'm having a beer - no thanks to your prohibitionist attitude.

Cheers Boob I'm having a beer - no thanks to your prohibitionist attitude.

#107 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-16 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Beer, alcohol, and marijuana were never part of the program. You really don't pay attention. I'm sure that has been a problem your whole life.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable