I bet some people think that drugs are a modern invention, or at least they don´t give that fact much thought.
I will use Cannabis as the main example, because I think that what society has done to this plant is outrageous.
The Weed has been around for thousands of years, believe it or not, is just a plant for God´s sake!!!
Throughout the ages, marijuana has been extolled as one of man's greatest benefactors - and cursed as one of his greatest scourges.
Marijuana is undoubtedly a herb that has been many things to many people. Armies and navies have used it to make war, men and women to make love. Fashion designers have dresses the most elegant women in its supple knit. Rope has been done with its fiber. Obstetricians have eases the pain of childbirth with its leaves. Farmers have crushed its seeds and used the oil within to light their lamps. Mourners have thrown its seeds into blazing fires and have had their sorrow transformed into blissful ecstasy by the fumes that filled the air.

Besides the fact that it has been used for thousands of years, the Cannabis was banned as illegal in most countries in the Global Criminalization of Drugs.

I believe all drugs should be legal!!!!!

Althought I am against damaging drugs, I strongly believe that the criminalization of drugs is just one of the biggest forms of corruption ever.

You see, by experience, is just stupid, look at the facts:
- ALL drugs were banned illegal in the first criminalization of drugs (including tobacco and alcohol)...
- Huge mafia movement was emerging because of this fact, and they even took control of Chicago, because they controlled illegal alcohol and tobacco.
- USA had to legalize alcohol and tobacco, because they couldn´t control the emerging corruption.
- The illegalization of drugs did nothing to decrease consumption, on the contrary, people are more attracted by illegal stuff
- Drugs other than tobacco and alcohol have less consumer demand, so they didn´t create any visible thread to the government as those 2 main drugs.
- Illegal drug business is a daily multibillionare industry.
- Drugs money currently goes to the most evil and corrupted groups.
- 95% of all World Civil Wars are financed with money from illegal drugs and weapons.
- Imagine if drugs were legal, that makes the drug money, plus the counter-drugs money available for the People!!!!

- All the money that is spend on corruption, could be spent in the publicity war on drugs, now that I agree with.

I´m not a drug supporter, I think some people just get me wrong.

You see, we can´t be ignorant about who is receiving the money for all the drugs, let´s use USA for example, imagine all the money that is being spent by drug addicts, that money is going to someone isn´t it?
How about a corrupted government that just can´t get enought of the precious Benjamins?
I don´t think there is an undercover civilian hidding all that money, almost all Governments have their hands deep in the drug business.
Take a more obvious example, Bolivia, their economy depends on coke export, same as Colombia.
And those are directly related to the US, since US is the biggest importer of the product in the whole World.

My biggest concern on this is that all the money is going to Evil people right now, you know they KILL whoever speak against them?
That wouldn´t happen if drugs were legal, all the money, for social security, and for the REAL war on drugs:
- TV education against drugs.
- Labeling all the hard drugs with prevention texts about what they REALLY do to your organism.
- Money for more school education, specially for those who can´t afford it for themselves.
- Basically: conscience people, conscience, Ignorance like some of you have demonstrated is our enemy.

But currently, all that money is going to corrupted groups, and for Civil wars. How come 95% of the wars World wide are financed by illegal drugs and weapons money?

You will NEVER get rid of all drugs by criminalization; they have been around for thousands of years, but until now they weren´t much of a problem why? because of the ignorance in Ilegalization.

Maybe this will not have an impact on anyone, I don´t care, I just feel horrible with all this bullsh*t and corruption, people just don´t learn from past mistakes.

You will NEVER get rid of all drugs by criminalization; they have been around for thousands of years, but until now they weren´t much of a problem why? because of the ignorance in Ilegalization.

Well, couldn't the same things be said of, say, murder, rape, theft, robbery, vandalism, ...., speeding, illegal parking, ..., geez, a whole bunch of crimes?

Baron Max

because smoking some weed is just as bad as killing people right baron?.


whats so bad about smoking weed its better for your health than cigs with all the chemicals, and the effects are no worse than alcohol.

peace.

because smoking some weed is just as bad as killing people right baron?

No, but it's just one more thing that laws control in one way or another. To say that one law should be voided is to bring into question all laws.

whats so bad about smoking weed its better for your health than cigs with all the chemicals, and the effects are no worse than alcohol.

What's so bad about speeding? Illegal parking? Driving without a permit? Drinking booze while driving (as long as one is NOT drunk)? Throwing litter out on the highway? ....and any of thousands of "illegal" activities?

The people of the society have determined that those laws are useful and, in most cases, they've all been challenged at one time or another .....and the society has decided to keep those laws. And the same is true of illegal drugs.

Baron Max

I am not a user of drugs, not do I have any sympathy for drug users; they deserve whatever problems they bring on themselves.

But I agree with the proposition that using drugs should not be illegal. My libertarian viewpoint leads me to insist that it is NOT a legitimate function of government to protect people against themselves. People should be free to do whatever they please concerning themselves, and should only be stopped from harming others. And I mean a direct sort of harm, not simply the fact that your drug use upsets your family or offends someone's sensibilities. I'm sure someone will come along to point out that a person under drug influence might be imparied enough to kill someone (with a gun, a car, or whatever). Well the same could be said about alcohol, so why is that legal? I believe in strong measures to keep drug-impaired individuals away from guns and vehicles, and strong punishments if they commit a crime while they are high. But if drugs were decriminalized, I don't believe there would be any more adverse affects than we see from alcohol consumption. And there is something to be said for treatment as opposed to prosecution. We could take a fraction of the obscene amount of money spent on the "drug war" and put it into treatment and prevention programs, and still come out ahead in terms of effectiveness AND money saved.

Well, I still think that the people of a society should be permitted to make laws that they think are valid for the entire society. One person, or only a few, should not be permitted to flaunt the laws that society deems valid and in accordance with legal authority in their society.

My guess is that criminals would like to make all applicable crimes legal, too, but should we allow that just because they would like it? Let's make armed robbery legal since robbers would like that! How fuckin' ridiculous is it to let the law-breakers make the laws?

Baron Max

How fuckin' ridiculous is it to let the law-breakers make the laws?

Baron Max


reading that makes my head hurt.so even if there is an unjust,mollycoddling law the people who break that still shouldnt be allowed to have a say in it being overturned?

Drugs laws are distinct from almost all other laws in as much as they cant be correlated with any intuitive sense of morality.
Noone really wants to say it, but drugs are illegal purely due to the belief that they will lead to a less economically stable/productive society.
Which has a sort of rationality to it, but on that basis alone you can never really justify imprisoning someone for selling drugs or taking them . In practice you can only justify confiscating people's drugs, although even that has its own rational pitfalls - is it not just another form of theft?

In any case, id predict this is the way western societies will move in the next 100s - drugs will become uniformly decriminalised (subject to confiscation only) so as not to punish what is in effect isnt even a faux pas, let alone a moral sin.
At the moment drug laws are really a perversion our system of justice, theyre just creating more injustice and imbalance in the world, rather than less. Which sort of defeats the whole point of having a framework thats supposed to promote fairness and altrusim.

reading that makes my head hurt. so even if there is an unjust,mollycoddling law the people who break that still shouldnt be allowed to have a say in it being overturned?

Unjust by whose determination? Those who break the laws, or the majority of citizens of that society?

"Unjust" is a term that's often thrown out in discussions like this, but what does it mean? And who decides what "unjust" or not?

If the majority of citizens want drugs to be illegal to use or to possess, shouldn't they, the citizens, be permitted to decide? ...and not the few drug users?

Baron Max

Unjust by whose determination? Those who break the laws, or the majority of citizens of that society?

"Unjust" is a term that's often thrown out in discussions like this, but what does it mean? And who decides what "unjust" or not?

If the majority of citizens want drugs to be illegal to use or to possess, shouldn't they, the citizens, be permitted to decide? ...and not the few drug users?

Baron Max


if i grow and consume my own cannibis on what basis do you think that should be a crime?

Noone really wants to say it, but drugs are illegal purely due to the belief that they will lead to a less economically stable/productive society. Which has a sort of rationality to it, but on that basis alone you can never really justify imprisoning someone for selling drugs or taking them.

Why not? I think we've "justified" it quite well in this great nation. And there are plenty of drug dealers and users in prison right now who'd agree with me!

Baron Max

if i grow and consume my own cannibis on what basis do you think that should be a crime?

I'm not sure that doing that is against the law, is it?

And that presumes, of course, that you own the place where you grow it and use it. You can't do that in a rental home or property.

Baron Max

Growing your own cannabis is legal?

I'm not sure that doing that is against the law, is it?

And that presumes, of course, that you own the place where you grow it and use it. You can't do that in a rental home or property.

Baron Max

it is definately against the law.

Growing your own cannabis is legal?

Only for your own personal use ...yes, I believe that it's legal in the USA, or at least in most states that I know of. Hmm, now that I think about it, I think that's even illegal in Florida.

Baron Max

it is definately against the law.

Where is it illegal?

Baron Max

So once I have the seeds, and I have (my own) place, I can grow my own weed openly? As long as I am the only one using it?

Where is it illegal?

Baron Max

in the UK and as far as i know the US too.
the sentences are less severe if you are caught in possesion with small amounts but it is still a crime.

So once I have the seeds, and I have (my own) place, I can grow my own weed openly? As long as I am the only one using it?

I'd check with the laws in your locale before I did something stupid! But as far as I know, only a few states make that personal usage illegal ...and even they admit that they can't enforce it without invading the person's rights of privacy. No judge would issue a warrant for such a search.

But check the laws in your locale or you might be in for a rude awakening.

Baron Max

in the UK and as far as i know the US too.
the sentences are less severe if you are caught in possesion with small amounts but it is still a crime.

No, that's possession ...IN PUBLIC!

You should check the laws before you do or say something that's foolish and wrong.

Baron Max

So as long as it never leaves my property, even if the police knew about it, they could do nothing?

Well, I still think that the people of a society should be permitted to make laws that they think are valid for the entire society. One person, or only a few, should not be permitted to flaunt the laws that society deems valid and in accordance with legal authority in their society.


This general statement could be applied so widely that there wouldn't be any individual freedoms at all. What if a community or society decided they want to outlaw ANY type of vulgar language? Does that mean individuals in that society do not have freedom of speech? What if a society decided it's valid to make a law saying everyone had to paint their house white and white only? Is the artistic guy down the street who wants a blue house a "flaunter" of the law?

My guess is that criminals would like to make all applicable crimes legal, too, but should we allow that just because they would like it?


Of course not. This should be obvious from my previous comments. The proper reason for something to be illegal is if your practice of it hurts someone else, or steals or damages their property. So of course there is no reason to legalize armed robbery, or murder, or rape. Those are actions a government may legitimately criminalize.

No, that's possession ...IN PUBLIC!

You should check the laws before you do or say something that's foolish and wrong.

Baron Max

i should have seperated the two sentences,but still i am pretty sure that in the UK it is illegal to grow,even privately.

it has recently also become illegal to posses certain kinds of naturally growing mushrooms if they are dried.

So as long as it never leaves my property, even if the police knew about it, they could do nothing?

Wrong.
It is posession - even on your own property.

They tried to pass that law in California (up to 99 plants for personal use with a doctor's presciption) and it was slapped down by the Feds.

(US only)

Wrong. It is posession - even on your own property.

I agree. But I also know that no judge would give a search warrant to search a home just because the homeowner was growing it for his own use.

They tried to pass that law in California (up to 99 plants for personal use with a doctor's presciption) and it was slapped down by the Feds.

Sure, but that's 'cause they wanted it made into a law. In California, and most states that I know of, one can grow MJ for his personal use without ever having a worry about the police.

Baron Max

but the law still exists.

most states that I know of, one can grow MJ for his personal use without ever having a worry about the police.

Is that because its legal or because the police cant be bothered to kick up a fuss?

I agree. But I also know that no judge would give a search warrant to search a home just because the homeowner was growing it for his own use.



Sure, but that's 'cause they wanted it made into a law. In California, and most states that I know of, one can grow MJ for his personal use without ever having a worry about the police.

Baron Max


so you are saying that its a law that doesnt matter?as long as you dont get caught its fine?

Why not? I think we've "justified" it quite well in this great nation. And there are plenty of drug dealers and users in prison right now who'd agree with me!

Baron Max
Im having abit of trouble trying to get to grip with your logic here to be honest, it all seems abit tautological - drugs should be illegal because theyre illegal seems to be the best i can get from what youve said so far in this thread.
In any case im not from the US myself (im from England) but i do know alot of people over there.
I actually know a guy whos doing a 4 month stretch in texas for taking (gasp perscription drugs).
Now this is a guy who wouldnt hurt a fly - loaths guns, practically a pacifist, i really just dont see on what moral grounds you can put a guy like that in with a bunch of real criminals (i.e. people who cause damage or harm to other people).
Its essentially turning normal people into criminals, im sure all he'll learn inside is how to take a beating and how to dish out the same.
The public and he as an individual would have been much better served morally and financially had he just had his pharms taken off him and put into a drug treatment program (assuming he was addicted to them of course).
From what i understand most other states are beginning to see the logic and over all benefits in this sort of approach, and its only really in the harsher states like texas where they want to nail you to a cross.

Its essentially turning normal people into criminals


Exactly. Drug laws are a big reason why the U.S. has one of the hightest incarceration rates of its citizens among all democratic wealthy nations.

so you are saying that its a law that doesnt matter?as long as you dont get caught its fine?

No, it's still illegal, but it's in the privacy of your home. The cops can't just storm into your home for no good, legal reason. And, yes, if there's a law against having the MJ/drugs in your home, then what you're doing is against the law and you shouldn't do it. You, as a member of the society, should respect the rights and opinions and laws of that society.

Baron Max

No, it's still illegal, but it's in the privacy of your home. The cops can't just storm into your home for no good, legal reason. And, yes, if there's a law against having the MJ/drugs in your home, then what you're doing is against the law and you shouldn't do it. You, as a member of the society, should respect the rights and opinions and laws of that society.

Baron Max

Actually, if you're familiar with the Patriot Act, they CAN storm into your house without good reason.

Where is it illegal?

Baron Max

Baron, posession of any cannabis sativa plant is illegal under federal law. It's illegal to posess, it's illegal to cultivate, it's illegal to sell and it's illegal to buy. In fact, it's so fucking illegal, that the University of Mississippi (which grows the ONLY legal cannabis in the USA under the watchful eye of the DEA and FDA) had to get special federal legislation passed JUST to be allowed to get the seeds (which no one can figure out from where) into the USA and plant them. To this day, the people who work there are nearly strip searched and hosed down every day before entering and leaving.

~String

Im having abit of trouble trying to get to grip with your logic here to be honest, it all seems abit tautological - drugs should be illegal because theyre illegal seems to be the best i can get from what youve said so far in this thread.

No, you've not been paying attention. Laws are created by the members of a society ...it's the members of the society who decide that something should be illegal so long as it's constitutionally legal. If they deem MJ illegal, then ....MJ is illegal. They don't need "justification" or anything else.

Its essentially turning normal people into criminals, ...

"Normal" people? Normal people don't use illegal drugs, nor do they get caught for possession of illegal drugs. Normal people obey the laws of their society. Your friend is a fuckin' criminal and should be in prison for his lawlessness .....and yet you, because you're such a lilly-livered, doo-gooder, liberal, think he's normal! How fuckin' sad.

The public and he as an individual would have been much better served morally and financially had he just had his pharms taken off him and put into a drug treatment program

Well, geez, why don't we take the same approach for all laws of the society? Let's just declare all laws null and void then no one will ever have to serve any time in prison for wrong-doing. Don't like a law, just do whatever you want and no one can touch you. Good, huh? :D

Baron Max

Actually, if you're familiar with the Patriot Act, they CAN storm into your house without good reason.

No, they can't ....and you know it as well as me. Yet you had to post that idiotic rhetorical bullshit, didn't you?

Baron Max

Baron, posession of any cannabis sativa plant is illegal under federal law.

Okay, I wasn't so sure about that ...as noted in my earlier post. Thanks for the info, it helps.

Baron Max

Exactly. Drug laws are a big reason why the U.S. has one of the hightest incarceration rates of its citizens among all democratic wealthy nations.

Agreed. I'm am the LAST person who advocates decriminalizing something because it's too hard to enforce (murder is pretty hard to stop and littering still goes on). But, were there no drug laws governing POSESSION, I'm certain half our prisons would be empty. Moreover, since most violent crimes are committed because of the sub rosa nature of buying and selling drugs, decriminalizing them would in turn reduce that level of violence. Empty the prisons, save us some poorly spent money. This does not mean, however, that we shouldn't test for drug use to be on welfare. Nothing to do with criminal activity... but a person who can afford pot doesn't need to be on the dole.

~String

Moreover, since most violent crimes are committed because of the sub rosa nature of buying and selling drugs, ...

Where did you hear/read that? I don't think that's true. Do you have any substantiating evidence or factual data on that? I think money(theft of) and passion(love and infidelity, etc) are still the number one reasons for violent crime.

This does not mean, however, that we shouldn't test for drug use to be on welfare. Nothing to do with criminal activity... but a person who can afford pot doesn't need to be on the dole.

Well, we certainly agree on that point.

Baron Max

Actually, if you're familiar with the Patriot Act, they CAN storm into your house without good reason.

I beg ANY person who is opposed to the Patriot Act to regurgitate any examples of federal officers bursting in on a college dorm just to bust a kid on the suspicion of having some weed. Honestly. The best liberals can come up with is, "well.... well... it could happen." The Patriot Act very clearly covers terrorist activity and any evidence that is gathered MUST support the claims of such activity.

So, even if they did take your 8-ball and bong... guess what... the most they'd be able to do is destroy it, since neither are proof of terrorist activity. Now, I'd be willing to bet if they found a few Kilos under your La-Z-Boy, you'd forever be under the watchful eye of the DEA, who would be itching to RICO your ass.

~String

Where did you hear/read that? I don't think that's true. Do you have any substantiating evidence or factual data on that? I think money(theft of) and passion(love and infidelity, etc) are still the number one reasons for violent crime.

You got me. I can't. Probably could if I wanted to dig. I'm just quoting a coleague who's a lawyer. Shit... and a liberal too. Either way. From what I've read, MOST innercity violence is tied to drug use and sales. By decriminalizing them, you would significantly reduct the price which reduces the violence as a result of the need for more cash, not to mention, the savings in not having to spend money on the prisons, the law enforcement officers who investigate... and so on... and so on.

~String

You got me. I can't. Probably could if I wanted to dig. I'm just quoting a coleague who's a lawyer. Shit... and a liberal too.

Ahh, that's what I thought!! ...LOL!

Either way. From what I've read, MOST innercity violence is tied to drug use and sales.

Yeah, it's soooo easy to "tie" some acts to some other things, ain't it? All ya' have to do is say it, right? I.e., "Innercity violence is tied to poverty." See? I can "tie" things togehter like that, too, with just the flick a few fingers on a keyboard.

Liberals love to make those kind of statements ...those without any substantiating data or facts, it makes them seem soooo knowledgeable and intelligent and caring and understanding and compassionate ......then they go out to a dinner that costs what the average person earns in a week!!

Baron Max

I still say it's drugs. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

~String

No, you've not been paying attention. Laws are created by the members of a society ...it's the members of the society who decide that something should be illegal so long as it's constitutionally legal.


But.... it may be highly debatable whether a particular law IS constitutionally legal. Which is why people like me who think the government does not have a legitimate right to criminalize drugs can discuss it in threads like this and say things like "I think drugs should be decriminalized."

Normal people obey the laws of their society.


I suspect that there are a lot of civil rights activists from the 60's who'd disagree with you. Or maybe you think black people should have followed laws about sitting in the back of the bus or using a separate water fountain simply because it was the law?

Well, geez, why don't we take the same approach for all laws of the society? Let's just declare all laws null and void then no one will ever have to serve any time in prison for wrong-doing.


You keep persisting in this ridiculous hyperbole. I may have missed it, but I never saw you respond to my point several posts back about how the ONLY "crimes" that should be decriminalized are ones in which the person does not harm another person or their property. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE is calling for ALL laws to be invalidated. Laws against murder, theft, rape, arson, etc are completely legit and everyone agrees on that.

Most laws made have a reason behind them. it cos t a couple of hundred thousand dollars to raise some one to the age of 18. Seat belts dont just save lives they save productive taxpayer and increase the amount of revenue that the government has to interfere in our lives. It cost governments millions if not billions to clean up after these polluting scum. But the illegalization of drugs has just the opposite effect revenue that could be gained by taxing it heavily is going to bandits and terrorist. Even black opps use drug smuggling as a source of funding. While drugs are illegal they are not subjected to FDA standards. This means that three tabs of X drug on three different nights are going to have different sometimes wildly different effects. The war on drugs cost us billions of dollars each year and has detriminal effects not only to our society but to those nations which supply us. The incomes for the largest drug cartels is almost if not more than the entire budgets of the countries that they operate in. We might as well be bombing them for the effect on their governments would probably be less.

whats so bad about smoking weed its better for your health than cigs with all the chemicals, and the effects are no worse than alcohol.

That's bull. Sucking any concentrated smoke into your lungs can't be good for you.

That said, I agree that all drugs should be legal. There should be no victimless crimes.

Sadly, we're on the opposite course now as we pass ever more restrictive laws regarding even smoking and drinking. You can't smoke anywhere anymore, oh it's legal to own cigarettes and sell them. Just illegal to smoke them. There's even a move to ban it in your own house if you have kids. New York has gone so far as to ban transfats!

So good luck on your crusade to legalize drugs.

transfats?

To say that one law should be voided is to bring into question all laws.

But, all laws are always in question by someone, if not a lot of people, no?

What's so bad about speeding? Illegal parking? Driving without a permit? Drinking booze while driving (as long as one is NOT drunk)? Throwing litter out on the highway? ....and any of thousands of "illegal" activities?

Well those are actually valid questions that had to have been answered and will continue to be questioned. The laws regarding all of them vary from place to place. There's a deeper issue as well regarding control, cost benefit and the human animal... but it's just too far at the moment.

The people of the society have determined that those laws are useful and, in most cases, they've all been challenged at one time or another .....and the society has decided to keep those laws. And the same is true of illegal drugs.

So the mob rules and punishment to anyone who would question their authority eh? Laws are static and unquestionable? No...

Lol. Now that I think of it, I wonder what the world would look like had it never been possible to act outside of the law. Seriously.

i oppose whatever baron said, i didnt read it but i know i dont agree with it.


peace.

You guys seem to be ignoring the real issue here, what about the fact that 90% of the World civil wars are financed with the money of illegal drugs and weapons?
I am very sad to live in a society were tobacco and alcohol are legal, but a plant like cannabis is made illegal.
What about the fact that you can make paper from cannabis, and the biomass of the harvest is 10 times more efficient than any other plant in oil production, as well as its medical applications.
What about the fact that the plant is not harmfull to our organisms by its very nature?

Please, if someone is going to say that cannabis is harmfull Im all ears, but please, just write down the source of your so called facts.

Leaving this obvious injustice out of the picture, I dont see how good for society are the monthly billions of dolars going to criminal groups that keep getting stronger and stronger to the point were they have their hands all over the CIA and DEA....
Entire countrys economies like Colombia or Bolivia, depend on illegal drug business and you think the US dont have their hands all over this Benjamins pie?

I dont see how millions of dollars spent to fight a war against this multibillion dollar illegal business is helping at all. Is like trying to put out a house fire with a glass of water and a straw.

I thik all this billions and billions of dollars getting wasted or going to criminal groups should be going to the real war on drugs, that is to educate the people and label the harmfull effects of each drug in its package.

you should start realizing that drugs are illegal because billionares want to keep their billions.

IT IS NOT A WAR ON DRUGS; IS A WAR ON PEOPLE... awareness people

No, you've not been paying attention. Laws are created by the members of a society ...it's the members of the society who decide that something should be illegal so long as it's constitutionally legal. If they deem MJ illegal, then ....MJ is illegal. They don't need "justification" or anything else.
Sounds like you favour a fascist social model then, in the most classic sense of the term.
I think in practically any democractic society it is reasonable for citizens to ask for the logic and rationale behind a piece of legislation.
Those in power should be held to account and made to justify their actions, if they cant then they either A. dont have sufficient reasons based in rational argument or B. Are probably more than likely fascists!



"Normal" people? Normal people don't use illegal drugs, nor do they get caught for possession of illegal drugs.

Sure they do, i know plenty of utterally normal middle class people with very sizable incomes and moderate political views who take drugs for pleasure.
Drugs arnt the sole domain and hippies and subversives anymore, drugs are about as threatening and subversive as a cup of tea these days.
If you wont take my word for ask any sociologist worth their salt - the de-stigmatisation and adoption of casual drug use has been one of the greatest social shifts of the past 20 years.


Normal people obey the laws of their society.
Even if those laws fly in the face of any sense of morality and justice?
You do know civil disobience is one of the staples of a sane and rational person right?
If it wasnt youd still have black people sitting on seperate parts of the bus and using seperate bathrooms in America - ah well at least it would be normal eh.


Your friend is a fuckin' criminal and should be in prison for his lawlessness .....and yet you, because you're such a lilly-livered, doo-gooder, liberal, think he's normal! How fuckin' sad.
Youre quite, quite mad, and clearly out of touch with just about everything it seems.
Pick up a book, look out of the window - the world is changing around you as you throth at the mouth at your computer screen.
and lol@using 'liberal' as an insult, never gets old that one - i must admit adopting an ideology that champions rational discourse free from authoritive and religious supression is quite a nasty stain on my character.




Well, geez, why don't we take the same approach for all laws of the society? Let's just declare all laws null and void then no one will ever have to serve any time in prison for wrong-doing. Don't like a law, just do whatever you want and no one can touch you. Good, huh? :D
No you dont get it, its not about flaunting the law for the sake of it.
Noone is suggesting that we descend into anarchy here, its just social revisionism - laws change, people change, customs changes, society changes as we atempt to balance what is fair with what is lawful.

Sounds like you favour a fascist social model then, in the most classic sense of the term.

Huh?

I think in practically any democractic society it is reasonable for citizens to ask for the logic and rationale behind a piece of legislation.

I agree. And as to the issue of MJ being made legal, California, the most liberal drug state in the whole fuckin' world, took it to a vote of the people several times, and they lost each time. The citizens of California did NOT want to allow MJ to become legal. See? That's what I believe it ...is that fascism?

Drugs arnt the sole domain and hippies and subversives anymore, drugs are about as threatening and subversive as a cup of tea these days.

Apparently the majority of citizens, voters, of the society don't feel that way. So ...the laws against drugs and MJ remain illegal.

Even if those laws fly in the face of any sense of morality and justice? You do know civil disobience is one of the staples of a sane and rational person right?

In a society, any society, morality and justice are decided by the people of that society. Civil disobedience is just that ...disobedience of the law. Murder is also disobedience of the law, ain't it? And rape, too?

Youre quite, quite mad, and clearly out of touch with just about everything it seems.

Now that's the best argument that you've put forth so far. A few more points like that and you're sure to win this argument.

Baron Max

No one is suggesting that we descend into anarchy here, its just social revisionism - laws change, people change, customs changes, society changes as we atempt to balance what is fair with what is lawful.

Anarchy is when each person makes his own rules regardless of others. If the druggies get to select whichever laws they don't want to follow, then that's a nice simple step towards anarchy. How many more steps until it's fully anarchy?

Laws change? Oh, sure. But the members of society decide what to change, not the druggies and lawbreakers of the society.

Baron Max

I have not read much of thread, but long time ago, I suggested doing away with all paper money so that only way to avoid "paper" (actually electronic now days) trail would be to pay with dollar coins for the hard, very profitable, drugs. (I am against making them legal.) If this were done, it would take trucks loads of cash to pay for drugs that fit in a car's trunk. Much easier to catch the money going out that the drugs coming into US. If the money cannot get out (in paper dollars as now it does) then the hard destructive drugs will not come in.

It is as simple as that, but many, especially the politicians, like having payments in cash.

There is also the side tax benefit for the honest people who pay taxes on all their income. Their taxes could be approximately half of what they are today because all income would be taxed. (Some taxpayers may not be honest. They simply cannot think of anyway to hide their salary from the IRS as all the self employed can.)

There is also the side benefit that few would kill you for the few coins you carry to pay for the newspaper etc. I.e. most everything over $20 is put on plastic or paid by check, so why carry even $10 in heavy coins? If robber hits the liquor store, etc. and tries to run away with $500 in heavy coins, he will be slower than even out-of-shape cop.

Like most everyone else, the politicians do not want solutions that solve problems if the solution also make cash kickbacks, bribes, etc. difficult. Unfortunately, this too is "as simple as that."

Forty years ago, I sent this suggestion to several members of congress, posted it on bulletin board at work, etc. - not even much discussion as was case here following my old post. What I say is obviously true, but not popular.

nooooooooooooo

noooooooooooooare you:
(1) politician?
(2) Self employed?
(3) seller of hard drugs?
(4) depdendant ("hooked") on hard drugs?

If yes, to any, I understand. If No to all, why not (no paper money)*?

-----------------------
*My plan phases it out. (All 100 dollar bills, and greater, immediately cease to be printed, then $50s etc. over 5 to 10 years for adjustments to be made.) If problems, certainly can resume printing paper money.

i am 3

nah i dont think that it should be real i have seen my family crash down due to drugs a friend die and i dnt want them that freely distributed. if u can understand

nah i dont think that it should be real i have seen my family crash down due to drugs a friend die and i dnt want them that freely distributed. if u can understand If not paid for, they certainly will not be "freely distributed" Did you not note that I too am against "hard drugs" - read post 54 again - I think my plan might actually stop them. Nothing else has.

i just h8 drugs

Dont get me wrong, I am against drugs, but I´m even more against political corruption that only give trash to the people.

The fact that I am a cannabis supporter, doesn´t make me different than someone who fights for the right of using Aloe, if it was illegal.

And the fact that I want drugs to be legal, its because just by being illegal, the money, the milti-billions of dollars, are going to evil corrupted people that kill others and corrupt entire countries.

I am not saying that drugs should be freely distributed either, the sales posts should be controlled by the Government, and the money should go to the REAL war against drugs.

i just h8 drugs I have never used any but alcohol - too old to be part of the smoke grass movement. If you really feel that way, why not support my plan? - It might work* and is easily reversed if any problems develop.
---------------------
*Nothing else has. Not only have other plans failed, but they also support the terrorist. - Bumper poppy crop in afganstan this year for Taliban funding.

...sales {of "soft drugs"} posts should be controlled by the Government, and the money should go to the REAL war against drugs.I agree - just for the "quality control" if nothing else. If you pay for premium grass you want to get it, not real lawn clipping grass with pepper, rat poison, etc. mixed in. With my plan, the "real war on drugs" is mainly "educational" the DEA, border inspections would be very effective and greatly reduced cost. - Just weigh the trucks leaving the USA.

As just said in my last post - I will not be a customer. I believe cigarettes are bigger adiction / health problem than 'soft drugs." I have no objection to weekend or party use of mild drugs, but as with alcohol, don't hop in car and drive when high.

PS late comers see post 54 to understand my plan.

I agree. And as to the issue of MJ being made legal, California, the most liberal drug state in the whole fuckin' world, took it to a vote of the people several times, and they lost each time. The citizens of California did NOT want to allow MJ to become legal. See? That's what I believe it ...is that fascism?
So youre using California as an absolute barometer of attitudes towards drugs? im not sure that really makes sense, i think you really have to look at the whole of western society to get a clearer view of current opinion.



In a society, any society, morality and justice are decided by the people of that society. Civil disobedience is just that ...disobedience of the law. Murder is also disobedience of the law, ain't it? And rape, too?
Yeah but the point is - civil disobedience doesnt have to be synonymous with immorality as you seem to believe; infact history has shown quite the opposite to be true.
Civil disobedience is very often based in a higher grade of logic and rationalism than the laws that restrict them.
In any case i think its helpful to continually review laws to see if they are still relevant.

The thing about drug laws (as i mentioned before) is that theyre distinct in as much as they dont tally up with anyone being externally injured or harmed as in any other type of crime -i.e. fraud, rape, murder, theft - all these crimes have external victims.
I guess you could argue that by taking drugs you harm yourself, but people harm themselves in lots of other ways too. I know people who destroy their bodies with junk food - should we therefore imprison them too?


Laws change? Oh, sure. But the members of society decide what to change, not the druggies and lawbreakers of the society.

Youve lost me, 'druggies' and 'lawbreaks' are everybit as much members of society as anyone else, im not sure why you seem to think theyre this sub-class that doesnt really belong to society atall.

..., i think you really have to look at the whole of western society to get a clearer view of current opinion.

Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent all over the nation in fighting drug crime. Do you really believe that the taxpayers would allow it if they didn't think it was necessary? In fact, if you look at individual cities around the nation in news reports, you'll see that many of those same citizens are asking for more police to fight the drug crime problems.

...they dont tally up with anyone being externally injured or harmed as in any other type of crime...

You need to study up on drug-related crime a little more. Drug users aren't just the nice guys in your crowd, it's also people who continually OD and are taken to emergency wards all over this nation. And that's not even mentioning the robbery and theft that's used to pay for the drugs they use.

Victimless crime? That's the biggest laugh of the century. In fact, with drug usage, there's probably more victims than with a murder or robbery or rape! With those crimes, there's really only one victim. With drug crimes, there can be and usually are, many, many victims ...if nothing more than the theft needed to pay for the drugs.

Youve lost me, 'druggies' and 'lawbreaks' are everybit as much members of society as anyone else, im not sure why you seem to think theyre this sub-class that doesnt really belong to society atall.

Nope. The very moment that a person willingly and intentionally violates a law or rule, they're automatically put into another category of society ....and it's not just a regular, ol' member!

Baron Max

That's bull. Sucking any concentrated smoke into your lungs can't be good for you.

That said, I agree that all drugs should be legal. There should be no victimless crimes.

Sadly, we're on the opposite course now as we pass ever more restrictive laws regarding even smoking and drinking. You can't smoke anywhere anymore, oh it's legal to own cigarettes and sell them. Just illegal to smoke them. There's even a move to ban it in your own house if you have kids. New York has gone so far as to ban transfats!

So good luck on your crusade to legalize drugs.

i dont take drugs, smoke cigs or drink alcohol, i dont even intake caffeine or pain killers.

in england people can still smoke in public and around there kids,

peace.

Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent all over the nation in fighting drug crime. Do you really believe that the taxpayers would allow it if they didn't think it was necessary?

Well this is the thing, a growing number of people in western societies are beginning to think it is a huge waste of tax-payers money.
Cannabis was decriminalised several years ago in our 'great nation' for that very reason - huge waste of resources, money and time.
I think for previous generations a huge veil of ignorance surrounded drug use, so you could kind of get away with it all under that premise.
But as more and more people become educated and aware of drugs, its getting increasingly harder to justify.


In fact, if you look at individual cities around the nation in news reports, you'll see that many of those same citizens are asking for more police to fight the drug crime problems.

And ive no problem whatsoever we people being punished for drug related crimes, (i.e. stealing, killing robbing to get hold of drugs) but it makes no sense to criminalise the drugs themselves.
People will kill you for a pair of trainers or your car in america, should we ban those also?


You need to study up on drug-related crime a little more. Drug users aren't just the nice guys in your crowd, it's also people who continually OD and are taken to emergency wards all over this nation.

Id be willing to bet (in the states particularly) there's just as many people being hospitalised for heath-related reasons directly related to eating junk food as there is drugs.
Clearly some people cannot eat food in a responsible manner, should we therefore ban junk food out right due to the few who spoil it for the rest of us?


Victimless crime? That's the biggest laugh of the century. In fact, with drug usage, there's probably more victims than with a murder or robbery or rape! With those crimes, there's really only one victim. With drug crimes, there can be and usually are, many, many victims ...if nothing more than the theft needed to pay for the drugs.
Right and as i said, ive no problem with drug-related crimes being punished, but i dont believe the majority should be punished for the few who cant handle their drugs.



Nope. The very moment that a person willingly and intentionally violates a law or rule, they're automatically put into another category of society ....and it's not just a regular, ol' member!

Theyre still autonomous members of society though thats the point, people who use drugs float companies on the stock market, create art, work in factories, market products, write for newspapers, and work in heathcare etc etc.
Sure you can call them druggies or losers or criminals if you want but alot of responsible well-rounded sucessful people use drugs without harming a sole in the process.

People should be free to do whatever they please concerning themselves, and should only be stopped from harming others.


Ahhhh, but that's precisely what the laws are all about!! Harming others. And that's exactly where this entire agument of legalizing all drugs breaks down into sheer nonsense.

Those in favor fail to realize the harm it does to others besides the user himself/herself. And no, it's not about someone getting high, going crazy and shooting someone. It's much more simple and clearer than that.

It's about making drugs available to underage kids who don't yet have the good sense to realize what the long-term effects of hard drug usage is. It's about families in which the parent(s) spend money on their habit when it's actually needed for food, shelter and clothing of their children. It's about the family breadwinner who can't keep a job to support the family because of being strung out on drugs. No one wants to give a dope-head a decent job simply because they can't do the work. You can't even depend on them showing up! (And all that comes from my own personal experience of trying to provide jobs for some of them. I'd NEVER do so again!)

So just simply abolishing the laws is clearly NOT the answer to the problem.

Isn't that a straw-man though, as it's the behavior that is detested, but the cause is not always the same. In other words, not everyone who uses is horrifically irresponsible. The same behavior can result from a myriad of causes.

I'll give you however, that it's not really about "what's right" it's rather "what's practical". Simply, the case is argued that "drugs are bad" since for whatever reason (be it traditionalism, morals, whatever) it's generally agreed upon by the mob... it's more situationally advantageous for authority figures to have extra prosecutorial juice to nail the real trouble makers. And that's what it's really all about. However, that extra juice can of course, backfire... but as it is, it's percieved as "the best thing we've come up with" and as such "the practical solution".

I think in terms of what's "real", people can choose to do whatever the hell they want and must simply deal with the consequences of their choices. It's the responsibility of the government to construct a system of probable outcomes that - as much as possible - incites serious consideration of potentially harmful actions. Of course as with any system of consequences that could be constructed, the manipulaters (a personality type) will find a means of weilding its power to their own ends. It would seem to be natural law.

Ahhhh, but that's precisely what the laws are all about!! Harming others. And that's exactly where this entire agument of legalizing all drugs breaks down into sheer nonsense.

Those in favor fail to realize the harm it does to others besides the user himself/herself. And no, it's not about someone getting high, going crazy and shooting someone. It's much more simple and clearer than that.

It's about making drugs available to underage kids who don't yet have the good sense to realize what the long-term effects of hard drug usage is. It's about families in which the parent(s) spend money on their habit when it's actually needed for food, shelter and clothing of their children. It's about the family breadwinner who can't keep a job to support the family because of being strung out on drugs. No one wants to give a dope-head a decent job simply because they can't do the work. You can't even depend on them showing up! (And all that comes from my own personal experience of trying to provide jobs for some of them. I'd NEVER do so again!)

So just simply abolishing the laws is clearly NOT the answer to the problem.
Is locking up anyone who does drugs with the pedos and rapists really the best solution though?
Turning drug-users into criminals and imprisoning them isnt helping anyone - not taxpayers, not the families and not the employers.
I think there's a compromise to be made here, and i believe decriminalising drugs while still making them subject to confiscation would be a good balance for now.

Is locking up anyone who does drugs with the pedos and rapists really the best solution though?
Turning drug-users into criminals and imprisoning them isnt helping anyone - not taxpayers, not the families and not the employers.
I think there's a compromise to be made here, and i believe decriminalising drugs while still making them subject to confiscation would be a good balance for now.
I totally agree. Decriminalizing drug usage does not say it's okay any more than not-criminalizing fornication says that's okay. All it says is that the government will not get involved in the matter.

~String

Yup! i dunno i could be wrong but i really feel this is the way society will go on this issue, especially in Europe. Time will tell though.

i blame america

i blame america

You blame America when you stub your toe!

Baron Max

yea itsd all there fualt

I totally agree. Decriminalizing drug usage does not say it's okay any more than not-criminalizing fornication says that's okay. All it says is that the government will not get involved in the matter.

~String

What if the majority of the people don't want drugs decriminalized? Don't the people, the members of that society, have any say in the laws or rules of society? Or if they do, you want to take that away from them?

Baron Max

yea ur right man

What if the majority of the people don't want drugs decriminalized? Don't the people, the members of that society, have any say in the laws or rules of society? Or if they do, you want to take that away from them?

Baron Max


what if the majority of people dont want to go to war. should you invade anyway?


peace.

yeA your right man

Anybody that wants all drugs legalized doesn't know what he is talking about or has never taken any drug himself. China faced huge depression when opium and heroine were legal in China, same thing happened in America before the prohibition reforms. Legalize all drugs and it will immidiately destroy the society and decrease productivity. However, humans can usually adapt to some drugs, while other drugs are strongly psychological and deterimental. Just what we need, further intoxication of the human race.

Anybody that wants all drugs legalized doesn't know what he is talking about or has never taken any drug himself.

I am the main supporter of making them legal, and it may be true what you say about China, but you can take a look at current Amsterdam, drug use actually decreased after legalization.

The use of drugs is a personal choice, and the government has nothing to do with it. I grew up in a town were any drugs were easy to get, but I didn´t take them, because I was educated on what drugs do to you, and I didn´t want to do that to myself.

When I was 18, I made a 300 essay paper on "cannabis sativa", were I took all the information from Biology books on drugs and real studies on the subject (both my parents are biologists, and so is my step dad).
I came to the conclusion that cannabis is not bad for you, and I started using it. I don´t care if cannabis is legal or not.

So my point is, the illegalization of drugs did not have an impact on what drugs do I use, even if heroin was legal, I swear I would not take it. I believe if it were legal, like cigarretes, the package would have a warning on what the drug do to your health.

What criminalization does, is that the heavy drug users, like crack, heroin, and so on, are the ones that are forced to sell the drugs, because there is no other option for them, either that, or stealing.
So in this current context, if a kid did not have a proper education on drugs, then these crakheads will come to him, and convince him to take the drugs, and even tell him that they will make you a "real man" and stuff like that. I´ve witnessed this in first person.

As a cannabis user, I used to go to this street were all the crackheads got together, the police was obviously very aware of this.
So all the drug transactions took place in that street, I once watched a police man grab about an ounce of weed, and slip it in one of the crakheads jacket.

So this got my attention, I spoke to one of the crackheads and it turns out, the police were the ones providing the crackheads with the drugs, and the poor drug addicts are just a tool for them. If one of the police men got in trouble, they just had to arrest 1 or 2 of the crackheads they supply drugs to.

Meaning you guys with your "war on drugs" are arresting the drug addicts, the victims of this horrific business, and the real responsables are walking free down the streets, probably with a respectable family and kids.

So this is lame, ignorant and stupid all together, I would say.

I dont understand how can people be so blind about this, and see that the Government have their penis deep inside society now.

Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent all over the nation in fighting drug crime. Do you really believe that the taxpayers would allow it if they didn't think it was necessary? In fact, if you look at individual cities around the nation in news reports, you'll see that many of those same citizens are asking for more police to fight the drug crime problems....Not only is it not working, it is making the drug dealers a fortunes and supplying terrorist, especially in Afganistan (poppy crop setting records), funds for weapons. For simple, much cheaper, way to end all this, read post 54.

PS that plan would of course also reduce the drug related crime you spoke of and cut the taxes honest people pay in half. I have been proposing it for forty years with no serious discussion following. Perhaps I should add this reaction to my thread "How DUMB can American voters be?"

Not only is it not working, it is making the drug dealers a fortunes and supplying terrorist, especially in Afganistan (poppy crop setting records), funds for weapons. For simple, much cheaper, way to end all this, read post 54.

Actually, there's a MUCH simpler, cheaper way. Make drug-dealing a capital offense. In fact, expand that to include ALL crimes including rape, murder, robbery and any other violent crime. And I'm not talking about the so-called "deterrent effect". I'm talking about attrition. Crime in general would be greatly reduced, no more overcrowding in Parisians, reduced costs of incarceration, no more early releases of serious offenders, etc. because the criminal population would be being reduced every day. Attrition can be a wonderful thing! :D

Not only is it not working, it is making the drug dealers a fortunes and supplying terrorist, especially in Afganistan (poppy crop setting records), funds for weapons."

I agree with you on that part, and it is kind of dumb that people are so confident in that is working.

If you would put a number for the illegal drugs industry, you would have billions and billions of dollars on illegal drugs, and you guys are trying to fight it with a few million dollars? That is nonsense.

So not only those billions of dollars are going to corrupted groups, but the money spent on the "war on drugs" is being wasted as well, because it will never work, unless you put ALL of the government money in this "war".

All this is BS, ignorance all over the place.

Do y'all not care about the greater majority of citizens of the USA? Don't you think they should have a say, a vote, in how their nation is run and what laws they want?

And if we make drugs legal because you say so many are using them, why not make speeding legal because every-fuckin-one speeds. And illegal parking in downtown? Let's make that legal, too.

Why should y'all, who are the drug users of the USA, have the final say in what the laws about drugs are? Why should you have the say, and not the greater majority of the society? Why not the vote in accordance with the Contstitution of the USA?

Baron Max

I agree with you on that part, and it is kind of dumb that people are so confident in that is working.


Odd. I've never come across a single person that thought it was working. Where did you manage to find some that did???

Do y'all not care about the greater majority of citizens of the USA? Don't you think they should have a say, a vote, in how their nation is run and what laws they want?

Who is saying any of this? I see a debate regarding the legislation of drugs.

Jeezus-fuckin-christ.

Who is saying any of this? I see a debate regarding the legislation of drugs.

But it's just a debate between druggies ...naturally druggies would want free drugs, for god's sake!

When one is debating, some semblance of reality must be used or it's nothing but pipe dream or a fantasy.

Baron Max

But it's just a debate between druggies ...naturally druggies would want free drugs, for god's sake!

When one is debating, some semblance of reality must be used or it's nothing but pipe dream or a fantasy.

Baron Max

Thats not what you ranted on about. Where did they say they wanted to force their law on anyone against the majority? Mmmmm?

..., (illegal drugs) is making the drug dealers a fortunes and supplying terrorist, especially in Afganistan (poppy crop setting records), funds for weapons.

If we made the drugs legal, wouldn't we still have to buy them from present dealers and suppliers? If not, where would the drugs come from? And wouldn't we still have to have suppliers and dealers?

And wouldn't they make a fortune in sales of drugs just like now? If not, why not?

Baron Max

If we made the drugs legal, wouldn't we still have to buy them from present dealers and suppliers? If not, where would the drugs come from? And wouldn't we still have to have suppliers and dealers?

And wouldn't they make a fortune in sales of drugs just like now? If not, why not?

Baron Max
Do you buy alcohol and cigarettes from street dealers?

Do you buy alcohol and cigarettes from street dealers?

Yeah, actually ....they're called "stores". And there are distributors, dealers, manufacturers, etc. that have a hand in the deal. And unless I'm badly mistaken, each of them makes a profit.

Baron Max

Yeah, actually ....they're called "stores". And there are distributors, dealers, manufacturers, etc. that have a hand in the deal. And unless I'm badly mistaken, each of them makes a profit.

Baron Max
And your problem with stores?

But it's just a debate between druggies

And who are you to decide who is a druggie and who isn´t?

You take aspirin don´t you?

You go to drug stores don´t you?

Most legal prescription drugs have side-effect don´t they?

What is the difference in destroying your liver with alcohol and drying your spinal fluid with ecstasy?

It is better to be addicted to tabacco cigarretes that cause cancer than to consiously decide to consume cannabis (not physically addictive like tobacco), that is not bad for your health?

Then who are the so called druggies?

Its all a matter of perspective, either you can be a government-blinded person, or be aware of your surrounding environment.

If we made the drugs legal, wouldn't we still have to buy them from present dealers and suppliers? If not, where would the drugs come from? And wouldn't we still have to have suppliers and dealers?
And wouldn't they make a fortune in sales of drugs just like now? If not, why not? Baron MaxCan't you read? My plan keeps hard drugs illegal. I oppose legalizing them, but soft drugs, like alcohol, marijuana, which you can produce your self if you want to, etc should be legal to adults and quality (strength) and purity of that sold to the public should be controlled.

All I am trying to do is make it unprofitable to supply hard drugs illegally. Please read post 54 again (or for first time?)

Fact that honest people's taxes would be cut approximately in half and drug related killings and robberies would completely cease are just "side benefits." The funds now spent by DEA and border patrol drug agents would not be needed, so that is also a small (very tiny, only a few million dollars a year saved) benefit of post 54's plan.

And your problem with stores?

there too liberal for him.


peace.

My plan keeps hard drugs illegal. I oppose legalizing them, but soft drugs, like alcohol, marijuana, ... should be legal to adults...

Drug dealers and suppliers don't make any money selling MJ. Their profits are with cocaine and heroin, etc. Hard-core drugs are where the terrorists make money, not MJ, for god's sake!

But it's interesting ....you want to make MJ legal, but you can't seem to understand that others, who aren't as liberal as you, don't want any of the illegal drugs to be legal.

Billy, just like all of the bullshit you disseminate, it's just high-sounding bullshit, but bullshit all the same.

Baron Max

Drug dealers and suppliers don't make any money selling MJ. Their profits are with cocaine and heroin, etc. Hard-core drugs are where the terrorists make money, not MJ, for god's sake!

But it's interesting ....you want to make MJ legal, but you can't seem to understand that others, who aren't as liberal as you, don't want any of the illegal drugs to be legal.

Billy, just like all of the bullshit you disseminate, it's just high-sounding bullshit, but bullshit all the same.

Baron Max

mmmm, I say go smoke it, and we will talk tomorrow.

But it's just a debate between druggies ...naturally druggies would want free drugs, for god's sake!

When one is debating, some semblance of reality must be used or it's nothing but pipe dream or a fantasy.

Baron Max


C'mon Baron! I'm a former drug abuser. I haven't touched in years. But the legality or lack thereof has nothing to do with my quitting using them: I changed and decided to give them up. That's all. I also believe in decriminalizing them. It doesn't pay. Now, do I believe that they should be decriminalized against the wishes of the majority of the people in the democratic republic that I live in? No. I also don't believe in the tyrany of the majority, but this is clearly not an issue where my personal right to privacy is being trampled by the prejudiced and selfish needs of a the majority. But, that having been said, I DO believe that society is wrong and seriously delusional if they think the current war on drugs has worked on any level, and as a proponent of limited government intrusion in people's lives-- I think it's both GOOD sense and business practice to keep outta' people's personal lives.

~String

Do y'all not care about the greater majority of citizens of the USA? Don't you think they should have a say, a vote, in how their nation is run and what laws they want?

And if we make drugs legal because you say so many are using them, why not make speeding legal because every-fuckin-one speeds. And illegal parking in downtown? Let's make that legal, too.

Why should y'all, who are the drug users of the USA, have the final say in what the laws about drugs are? Why should you have the say, and not the greater majority of the society? Why not the vote in accordance with the Contstitution of the USA?

Baron Max

At least half the people in this thread arnt even from America! good lord man, try looking past your own backyard once in a while.

In Baron's defense (and in the defense of, say, someone living in Kreblakistan), the debate is inherently INTERNAL and not international. Though, if that's the direction we need to head in, then let's talk about that.

~String

C'mon Baron! I'm a former drug abuser. I haven't touched in years. But the legality or lack thereof has nothing to do with my quitting using them: I changed and decided to give them up. That's all. I also believe in decriminalizing them. It doesn't pay. Now, do I believe that they should be decriminalized against the wishes of the majority of the people in the democratic republic that I live in? No. I also don't believe in the tyrany of the majority, but this is clearly not an issue where my personal right to privacy is being trampled by the prejudiced and selfish needs of a the majority. But, that having been said, I DO believe that society is wrong and seriously delusional if they think the current war on drugs has worked on any level, and as a proponent of limited government intrusion in people's lives-- I think it's both GOOD sense and business practice to keep outta' people's personal lives.

~String

Well said String, very well said

But, that having been said, I DO believe that society is wrong and seriously delusional if they think the current war on drugs has worked on any level, ...

That's something interesting to say ...especially since I've seen it here that there are gazillions of drug-related criminals in our prison system. So ...if they really are in prison, then ...it seems the laws against illegal drugs IS, in fact, working quite well.

...and as a proponent of limited government intrusion in people's lives-- I think it's both GOOD sense and business practice to keep outta' people's personal lives.

So does that mean that you think people should be permitted to buy child porno and have it on their home computers for their own pleasure? And perhaps some of the BDSM porno filming young women being whipped, beaten and viciously raped?

Baron Max

In Baron's defense (and in the defense of, say, someone living in Kreblakistan), the debate is inherently INTERNAL and not international. Though, if that's the direction we need to head in, then let's talk about that.

~String

But my friend, I am from Costa Rica, why are you taking me out of the picture?

The thing is, I feel here we have been "americanized", like the song "Californication", specially because of TV, news, and entertainment.
Besides, our laws are like a mirror on USA laws, specially on drugs.

Currently, there is no such thing as the "War on Drugs", but there is a big "War on People", and this "War on People" is a worldwide problem.

That's something interesting to say ...especially since I've seen it here that there are gazillions of drug-related criminals in our prison system. So ...if they really are in prison, then ...it seems the laws against illegal drugs IS, in fact, working quite well.

So, from your perspective, putting innocent people in prison is working well?

So, from your perspective, putting innocent people in prison is working well?

Innocent people???

Baron Max

That's something interesting to say ...especially since I've seen it here that there are gazillions of drug-related criminals in our prison system. So ...if they really are in prison, then ...it seems the laws against illegal drugs IS, in fact, working quite well.

Baron. I respect you too much to insult you, but do you really rationalize "winning" and "working" by the numbers of prisoners we have incarcerated? Really? Honestly, I would think that "winning" would be defined as a substantial reduction in drug sales, imports and usage by American people. And the fact is this: I live in a pretty wealthy part of Cleveland in a nice gated community. I have a good job and a nice condo... but I can tell you for certain that the "well to do" people living next door to me use blow and weed on a regular basis, god knows they've offered it to me on several occasions. At the store that I manage there have been no fewer than four drug related terminations since we opened our location last autumn. As a former drug abuser, I can tell you for certain that I NEVER struggled to find blow, e, or k. My little brother, back in his highschool days, never struggled to find weed. My older brother, during his wild years, never struggled to find meth.

If you are measuring the success of this current "drug war" by the number of prisoners... then you are right, we are the undefeated champions. But if you measure it in any rational sense: reduction in the availability and use of drugs, then my friend, you are sorely mistaken.

So does that mean that you think people should be permitted to buy child porno and have it on their home computers for their own pleasure? And perhaps some of the BDSM porno filming young women being whipped, beaten and viciously raped?

Again, with the hyperbole. Child porn by its shere existence is the total exploitation and abuse of a child. "Child" is the key word here. Do drugs reach children? Yes... then lets focus our efforts in executing those who sell drugs to kids. One strike, you're out. I'm okay with that. The same holds true for child molesters and rapists. I believe, totally and emphatically in a "one strike, you are out" policy-- you get caught with child porn and you spend the next 10 years in prison; you rape ANYBODY and you get [gasp] prison for life. You display a "gross" tendancy for rape (multiple or other "grotesque" type activity, like say torture) and I honestly believe that you should be executed.

Currently, there is no such thing as the "War on Drugs", but there is a big "War on People", and this "War on People" is a worldwide problem.

So true. So true.

~String

Baron. I respect you too much to insult you, but do you really rationalize "winning" and "working" by the numbers of prisoners we have incarcerated? Really? Honestly, I would think that "winning" would be defined as a substantial reduction in drug sales, imports and usage by American people.

Interesting point, String. But isn't that the same case for murder and rape and armed robbery ...all of those crimes are increasing daily in the USA. So by your analogy, we should just quit worrying about murder, rape and armed robbery 'cause we're not stopping it or substantially reducing it. Yeah, interesting.

I live in a pretty wealthy part of Cleveland in a nice gated community. I have a good job and a nice condo... but I can tell you for certain that the "well to do" people living next door to me use blow and weed on a regular basis, ...

So, ...if well-to-do people are committing crimes, then those laws should be changed so as to allow them to do it in peace?

If you are measuring the success of this current "drug war" by the number of prisoners... then you are right, we are the undefeated champions. But if you measure it in any rational sense: reduction in the availability and use of drugs, then my friend, you are sorely mistaken.

Go ahead ...use that same analogy on any other crime in the USA. I'd be curious how you see it.

Child porn by its shere existence is the total exploitation and abuse of a child.

With the advances in computer graphics, they can take perfectly innocent pictures of a child, then create almost any form of "child porno" that they want without, WITHOUT, harming that child in any way.

...you get caught with child porn and you spend the next 10 years in prison;...

Just for looking at some pictures on the Internet? Or reading some fictional stories about child porno? Hmm, you're pretty damned tough on "crime", ain't ya'?

Baron Max

"all of those crimes are increasing daily in the USA"

BS alert. Please support, but you can't cuz it's not true. Certainly the rates fluctuate, but "ever increasing" would mean "nobody alive".

In Baron's defense (and in the defense of, say, someone living in Kreblakistan), the debate is inherently INTERNAL and not international. Though, if that's the direction we need to head in, then let's talk about that.

~String
Internal to whom or what though? youre talking as if the internet itself is an American entity. :p

This is the thing - because we're talking about this over the internet by the very nature of the medium its international, and not really internal to anyone.
So its probably no more wise for someone to assume that everyone else in the conversation is American than it is for me to assume that everyone is from the UK (although i do know of a couple of people here who are to my limited knowledge).
Of course people are going to use their own country to make specific points - that's entirely natural, my issue isnt with that as such.
But you cant talk at people as if only America exists or is effected by this problem - as i frequently find Baron doing.

Interesting point, String. But isn't that the same case for murder and rape and armed robbery ...all of those crimes are increasing daily in the USA. So by your analogy, we should just quit worrying about murder, rape and armed robbery 'cause we're not stopping it or substantially reducing it. Yeah, interesting.

Yes and no. In the case of murder and rape, those people are (obviously) committing an egregious act against someone else, therefore the incarceration, in such cases, isn't prevention, but punnishment of the perpetrator and protection of society against such a person. In the case of drugs, really, the only arguement is the "protection of society" thing, and since society isn't noticeably protected from drugs, then said policy can safely be said to have failed.

Does this mean that incarerating rapists and murders fails has failed to reduce rape and murder in society? Yes... absolutely... which is why we may need to refocus our societal efforts on those particular mentalities. But, since these crimes were acts against an innocent individual the "other" reason for incarceration still holds-- to punnish them for their sick deads and to protect society from someone who is obviously a danger to it.

So, ...if well-to-do people are committing crimes, then those laws should be changed so as to allow them to do it in peace?

You missed my point, and perhaps that's my fault. What I intended to say was that the "drug problem" is in every area of society, and hasn't stopped since drugs first became readily available in this country. Since the drug war was started, there hasn't been a measurable depreciation in drug availability and drug use

Go ahead ...use that same analogy on any other crime in the USA. I'd be curious how you see it.

I just did.

With the advances in computer graphics, they can take perfectly innocent pictures of a child, then create almost any form of "child porno" that they want without, WITHOUT, harming that child in any way....

Just for looking at some pictures on the Internet? Or reading some fictional stories about child porno? Hmm, you're pretty damned tough on "crime", ain't ya'?

Yes. You've got it. The desire to observe any person who is not sexually matured in a sexual position is a prime indicator of current and future sexual tendencies. How does this differ from homosexuality? Because of one thing: disparity of power. In the case of rape or child molestation, there is a clear disparity of power between the individual involved, and such a disparity in even "immitation" acts, is a clear indicator of future tendencies. Does this mean that the perpetrator of "immitation" child porn should be executed/imprisoned? No... you bring up a good example. But, it is worthy grounds for monitoring such an individual and requiring them to receive therapy and perhaps register with the police.

~String

"all of those crimes are increasing daily in the USA"

BS alert. Please support, but you can't cuz it's not true. Certainly the rates fluctuate, but "ever increasing" would mean "nobody alive".

Hmm, nope, that ain't true, Wes. If the birth rate increases faster than the murder rate, then ...well, I'll let you figure it out since you're so fuckin' smart n' all.

Baron Max

What's this gibberish? Respond to my points... I DEMAND!

~String

Drug dealers and suppliers don't make any money selling MJ. Their profits are with cocaine and heroin, etc. Hard-core drugs are where the terrorists make money, not MJ, for god's sake! ...
Billy, just like all of the bullshit you disseminate, it's just high-sounding bullshit, but bullshit all the same. Baron Max It is becoming clear that either you can not read with comprehension or don't bother to read as that delays your posts.

I NEVER SAID drug dealers money from MJ finances the terrorists. - I mentioned only poppies as a terrorists funding source (but cocaine and other hard drugs fund terror also.) MJ is "home grown" often by the user. Soft drugs do no fund terror and if legal, would be too cheap to. I am trying to put the hard drug dealers and sources out of business, not interdict the movement of these destructive drug. - That has clearly failed. - I.e. only effect has been to make hard drugs more profitable. Post 54 plan kills that profit. Then, without profit, the sources dry up.

Rather than call plan (what you clearly did not read well enough to understand) "bullshit" please explain what is wrong with idea of making the payments for hard drugs impractical. I.e. basic idea of post 54 is the phased elimination of all paper money, so that it takes truck loads of dollar coins to pay for a suitcase full of hard drugs. I.e. interdict the payments or force payments to leave a "paper trail" for police action.

I again mention that because the "cash economy" is approximately same size as the "salary economy," which sends reports to IRS from employers, a side effect of “coins only” is that honest tax payers would pay about half as much as they presently do! (When all are paying.) My US dentist accepted a cash payments at 20% less than check payment - that save us both money and I did nothing illegal.

I also mention again that no one would be killed or robbed for the $10 or less of coins in their pocket, and because unprofitable hard drugs would not be for available sale, hard drug use in US would cease.

Please tell:
WHAT IS BULLSHIT ABOUT either of these EFFECTS or the PLAN?, which is more fully described in post 54.

Have you no thoughtful comments? Can only say “bullshit.”

Since the drug war was started, there hasn't been a measurable depreciation in drug availability and drug use

That is true.

The thing is, the drug prices are skyrocketing, addicts are struggling to get the money to mantain their habit, for this reason, they steal, and try to get the money by all means necessary.

So we have found that illegalization don´t make addicts do less drugs, but increases drug cost, so we make it harder for this victims to survive. And that is what they are my friend Baron Max, victims, not criminals.

Criminals are the ones that are in the top of the drug chain, the real drug dealers, not the addicts we are arresting everyday on the street. But this real drug dealers shit money already, they go to the bathroom, do a little pushing, and benjamins come out of their buttox. Money makes the world go around my friends.

You don´t see many multi-billionaires going to jail everyday do you? leaves a lot to think about...

If by any chance, one of this Big Fish get caught, the second in command takes charge, and the multi-billions are already there!!!

So what do we have GAIN with illegalization:

- Entire countries corruption (Colombia, Bolivia...).
- Multi-billionaire criminals.
- All drug money going to criminals, and not the people.
- All anti-drug money goin to waste (tax dollars).
- Hundreds of victims (drug addicts) going to prison.

I just don´t see the point you know?

The scientist who discovered the Double Helix of DNA was an avid user of LSD and credited his discovery to the use and expanded consciousness from the drug.

The scientist who discovered the Double Helix of DNA was an avid user of LSD and credited his discovery to the use and expanded consciousness from the drug.

Which is all well and good, but the real point here is the cost/benefit rationality of maintaining the criminal status of drugs.

~String

...
So what do we have GAIN with illegalization:

- Entire countries corruption (Colombia, Bolivia...).
- Multi-billionaire criminals.
- All drug money going to criminals, and not the people.
- All anti-drug money goin to waste (tax dollars).
- Hundreds of victims (drug addicts) going to prison.

I just don´t see the point you know?Neither do I, but making them legal will not end their use, stop the corruption, or the killings / robbing, poppies funding terrorist in Afganistan, etc.

For plan that might (and has much lower cost plus two wonderful side effects) see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396192&postcount=54

PS i have been suggesting this for 40+ years, and it is very frustrating than few will even consider it. People seem to lack the ability to think "outside the box" etc. No one has ever raised a serious reason "why not." None here have even discussed it!

Which is all well and good, but the real point here is the cost/benefit rationality of maintaining the criminal status of drugs.

Hmm, can you relate a cost/benefit rationale to, say, the crime of murder or armed robbery or rape? If so, please do. If not, ....then what does your statement actually mean to anyone?

Baron Max

i have been suggesting this for 40+ years, and it is very frustrating than few will even consider it.

Hmm, if you've been suggesting it for 40+ years and no one has listened, perhaps you should look at your suggestion a little more carefully. Or are you saying that in all of those 40+ years, you've only mentioned it to idiots and fools (like us)?

If I'd been preaching something for 10 years and no one listened, I think I'd quit preaching. Why haven't you?

Baron Max

Criminals are the ones that are in the top of the drug chain, the real drug dealers, not the addicts we are arresting everyday on the street.

If one wants to shut down a store or a business operation, they almost always boycott it ...take away the customers. When there are no customers, the business goes belly-up.

You don't see the parallel with illegal drugs?

Baron Max

Hmm, can you relate a cost/benefit rationale to, say, the crime of murder or armed robbery or rape? If so, please do. If not, ....then what does your statement actually mean to anyone?

Baron Max

Baron, is that all you can do is compare them to rape and murder? Here, I'm telling you it's a total arbitrary deliniation. We criminalize rape and murder because those crimes DIRECTLY harm another person, and we decriminalize drugs because, although SOME people are harmed (as with alcohol), but the price we pay for living in a free society is that sometimes bad things happen and it is NOT the job of the government to prevent all bad things from happening. It is the job of the government to maintain good order by fighting battles it can win while preventing the most harm as possible. If we remove government involvement in individual drug usage, how much worse would the USA be? Probably not much worse. Moreover, I'm sure you'd find a huge benefit in the cost effectiveness of reducing the overall prison population (lower taxes) and re-allocation of government resources to other worthy causes.

Again, this is totally arbitrary and constantly comparing decriminalizing drugs to decriminalizing rape and murder is rubbish. And if that fails, then just accept the fact that we (the people) have the ability to arbitrarily decide what is best for society-- if people believe that keeping drugs criminalized is for the best-- then so be it. It's not like I'm going to start snorting lines of blow (again) in protest. But I will still continue in the belief that it's totally fucked-up to keep fighting a war that's cost billions of dollars with little success, other than locking people up. The true test of success is-- has drug usage and access gone down? No. Drugs are as accessible today as they were in the early 80's when the war began.

~String

All drugs should be legal except those which have shown the potential to precipatate voilent behaviour - like alcohol.

A rather spiffy form of eugenics I say...having all the self-destructive dummies removing themselves from the gene pool through drug use.

We criminalize rape and murder because those crimes DIRECTLY harm another person, and we decriminalize drugs because, although SOME people are harmed (as with alcohol), but the price we pay for living in a free society is that sometimes bad things happen and it is NOT the job of the government to prevent all bad things from happening.

Huh? Say that again, to yourself, slowly and articulately please.

If you think that illegal drugs do not directly harm people, many people, as a matter of fact, then you should take yourself down to your local police station and sit near the front desk where they bring in those they arrest ...and where the arrestee's family and/or friends have to come bail him out. Get out of your mansion on the hill with all of it's gates and guards and patrols and security ...check out the other side of life for a change.

It is the job of the government to maintain good order by fighting battles it can win while preventing the most harm as possible.

Well, we ain't winning the battle of major crimes like murder and rape and armed robbery, are we? So are you suggesting that we have the police quit worrying about those crimes, too? If not, why not? They're losing, ain't they?

If we remove government involvement in individual drug usage, how much worse would the USA be? Probably not much worse.

I think the same could be said of almost any crime, don't you? I mean, speeding, illegal parking, DWI, murder, rape, robbery, theft, shoplifting, spitting on sidewalks, mugging,.... How much worse would the USA be? Probably not much worse, huh?

And if that fails, then just accept the fact that we (the people) have the ability to arbitrarily decide what is best for society-- if people believe that keeping drugs criminalized is for the best-- then so be it.

Oh, I agree!! And every single place in the USA that's brought it up for a vote by the people, it's always, ALWAYS, lost. So ...what does that tell you about what the people of the society want? Huh?

But I will still continue in the belief that it's totally fucked-up to keep fighting a war that's cost billions of dollars with little success, other than locking people up.

Ain't that the way they measure the success of other crime fighting? I mean, how else can one measure it? Number of convictions has been the measure of a successful fight in crime since Christ was a pup.

The true test of success is-- has drug usage and access gone down? No. Drugs are as accessible today as they were in the early 80's when the war began.

Well, every other crime is the same way ...all of it has gone up drastically since the 80s. So, see, you really are now suggesting that we just give up on fighting any crime, no matter what it is. Are you sure you don't want to think about that some more?

Baron Max

Hmm, if you've been suggesting it for 40+ years and no one has listened,...Not often (Years went by and nothing was said.) In first few years there was some serious dicussion, but it was mainly of the nature "not every one had credit card or check book so they need cash." To a large extent that has changed and I replied back then then "instead of checks the poor on welfare could get monthly increment deposited into a debit card" (I did not call them that, as were not invented yet, but explained / invented the idea of what is called a debit card today. - I think I called them "fixed limit credit cards")

Many people here are not dumb, even you, but most, especially you, prefer to provoke, troll, or make quick, relatively thoughtless, replies.

If you think that illegal drugs do not directly harm people, many people, as a matter of fact, then you should take yourself down to your local police station and sit near the front desk where they bring in those they arrest ...and where the arrestee's family and/or friends have to come bail him out.


Are you saying the arestee's family/friends are being harmed because they have to come bail him out? Uh-uh, not a direct enough level of harm. And they don't "have to" bail him out.

Your unending comparisons of drug use to murder and rape don't work, as the more rational people in this discussion keep pointing out. Murder is, by its very nature, an act of harming someone else. Rape is, by its very nature, an act of harming someone. You cannot murder or rape without directly harming someone, by definition.

Usage of drugs does not have that quality. Yes, some people under the influence of some drugs do commit crimes. But this is not an inherent or necessary result of drug use. There are people using drugs every day all over the country who do not commit crimes (other than the technicality of the drug use itself).

And if you think that it's OK to criminalize an activity if only some people who do it also commit crimes, may I assume you are in favor of criminalizing alcohol? For that matter, may I assume you are in favor of criminalizing the operation of motor vehicles, even while sober? Because you know, some people with poor driving skills kill other people that way. Are you in favor of outlawing hunting, because some people die in hunting accidents?

There are numerous activities which some of its practitioners can't handle responsibly and which can result in harm to others. Should we outlaw all such activities?

Your unending comparisons of drug use to murder and rape doesn't work, as the more rational people in this discussion keep pointing out. Murder is, by its very nature, an act of harming someone else.

Every time I see something on the news about drug cases, there's family members grieving the addiction of their kid ...or the death due to OD.

Drugs harm people, many people, and if you don't or can't admit it, then you're doing waht others here are doing ....burying their heads in the sand.

Yes, some people under the influence of some drugs do commit crimes. But this is not an inherent or necessary result of drug use.

If they don't have the money for the drugs, they go steal it or rob someone. It happens all the damned time, and you know it!!

There are numerous activities which some of its practitioners can't handle responsibly and which can result in harm to others. Should we outlaw all such activities?

Then the practioners should be locked up where they can't harm anyone ...prison comes rapidly to mind.

If all druggies were nice guys and never harmed anyone, including themselves, then I have no problem with it. But the sad truth of the matter is that it harms many, many people ...some of whom they don't even know ...like the cops, the er doctors, the nurses, and all other such public facilities.

Drugs suck giant donkey dick!

Baron Max

Every time I see something on the news about drug cases, there's family members grieving the addiction of their kid ...or the death due to OD.


Certainly, this is true. You never hear a headline like "man gets high, minds his own business and harms no one." It happens every day, but it's not a sensational news story. We all know the media prefers the negative to the positive.

Drugs harm people, many people, and if you don't or can't admit it, then you're doing waht others here are doing ....burying their heads in the sand.


Oh I'm not denying it. I'm saying that not ALL people who use drugs harm other people... maybe not even MOST of them. Also, I believe that for the government to get involved, there has to be a certain threshold of how direct the harm is. You can come up with all sorts of ways in which one person's actions indirectly affect others. You can connect anything with anything in some way or other. But as I said, I think the government should only be involved in cases where one person directly does bodily harm to another person, or steals or damages their property. In all other cases, life is tough, deal with it. What ever happened to "rugged individuality"?

If they don't have the money for the drugs, they go steal it or rob someone.


Again, I don't deny that. But there are plenty of rich people who do drugs also. I'm sure they don't rob and steal for it. Which proves that stealing is not an inherent consequence of drug use.

Drugs suck giant donkey dick!


On this we agree. I am not pro-drugs. I am pro-liberty.

True story, there was a rape article in one of the NY papers. Apparently, an immigrant worker in upper New York state raped his master's wife while he was away on business, he killed her in the process. Analysts later found out that the gardener spent almost his entire paycheck on cocaine and alchohol that day. Alchohol alone is bad enough but the effects are simply unpredictable and highly dangerous when mixed with other drugs. legalizing drugs is very "dumb" as long as we still have alchohol in the society. Think of alchohol as a catalyst for all pandemonium and delusion. Then there is the question of Amsterdam, some ass hole has to bring up Amsterdam everytime we talk about drugs, but keep in mind that Mary Jane is the only drugs legal in Amsterdam not inclusing cocaine, Heroine, Morphine, e.t.c, I'm sure even Amsterdam still has prescription only drugs. Mary Jane is a relatively safer drug because it will actually calm you down and put you to sleep. However, the productivity and motivation of such society is questionable. Amsterdam was already a relatively first world country before the reintroduction of Marijuana anyway, I bet you they probably wouldn't be a first class society if they had legalized marijuana at a wronger time, afterall most African states pretty much don't care who smokes what, but look how much contribution that has made, instead it helps brainwash and create child soldiers and rebels, and fosters terrorism. A doctor will tell you that the human body can only take so much psychologicla and physical battering until it gives up, even a herbalist from Africa will tell you that. A lot of people die or nearly die yearly from alchohol, not from driving impaired but from health problems. Just imagine what will happen when we legalize all drugs. Even legitimate pharmacutical companies control certain of their drugs as prescriptions, I am sure they are not stupid. If life is so bad for certain people that they have to escape reality by intoxicating themselves, let them find ways to get their own drugs, why should other people and their children have to join the band wagon?

To Chatha:

You seem like a reasonable intelligent person, at least when it comes to drugs. Like me, you oppose the legalization of hard drugs. Yet you seem content with the current failed expensive effort to interdict their entry into US and the effort to destroy poppy and coca plants in foreign countries. Years of experience have shown that the net effect of this has been just to make these hard drugs more profitable and to help organized crime in it other areas, like prostitution, bank robberies, etc. as they can afford better weapons