What exactly is this war on drugs?

[Karthak]

I'm asking because there are americans on the forum and I honestly don't know much about this. All I've heard so far have been stories of innocent people having SWAT barging into their houses and killing their dogs, and at least one FBI officer saying that the policy is actually helping the cartels. Could someone enlighten me?

[Swede]

Here ya go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs)



The man's just trying to keep the little guy down. Fucking USA, gawd.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

The DEA is a pretty awful organization, really.

[MNJetter]

We're at war against poverty, terrorism, and drugs.

Honestly, I don't think that American politicians today even know what the word "war" actually means. It's become a synonym for "crackdown," because crackdown isn't powerful enough and "crusade" is politically incorrect.

[Swede]

The war on terror is also pretty much the dumbest thing ever. You can't have war on a tactic. Anyone who actually thinks that someday we're ever going to be able to say "Phew, that's the last of em, glad there's no more terrorism" is delusional. At best it's going to continue for different reasons even if we are able to diminish those fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, and more likely we're just going to be making more.

I think MNJetter pretty much said it.

[Jetsetlemming]

The war on terror is also pretty much the dumbest thing ever. You can't have war on a tactic. Anyone who actually thinks that someday we're ever going to be able to say "Phew, that's the last of em, glad there's no more terrorism" is delusional. At best it's going to continue for different reasons even if we are able to diminish those fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, and more likely we're just going to be making more.

I think MNJetter pretty much said it.
That's because it's not a war on terror, it's a war on terrorists.


Also drugs are cheaper and more commonly available now than 30 years ago, and purer, despite the billions spent on the DEA and drug-related law enforcement. American drug policies have made the drug barons filthy fucking rich, while all they accomplish is ruining the lives of already down small time addicts and street corner dealers, and endangering the innocent public from no-knock SWAT raids, gang activity fighting over drugs, and encouraging anti-law enforcement sentiment.

[h2orowe]

Dee mon no say dee 'erb is good.

[Micah the Great]

The War on Drugs is insanity. How can a government make a war on it's own citizens for their choice of personal habits? Well, just look at the USA! Keeping cancer patients from being able to smoke MJ, clogging up the court and prison systems with completely non-violent crimes like drug possession, increasing costs and dangers of the black market... real good idea! But of course too much money is being made on tobacco and alcohol to wage war on them at this point.

Interesting points. Old study, but still relevant. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/policy/policy_writing1.shtml

[Karthak]

Come to think of it, didn't you have a law forbidding the drinking of alcohol around the 20s that also became a fiasco?

[Digital Masta]

Come to think of it, didn't you have a law forbidding the drinking of alcohol around the 20s that also became a fiasco?

Except the difference is that historically alcohol had been a LEGAL part of our culture since the white man came over and killed them indians for his land and then it was taken away in the 1920s...thus resulting in insanity.

Besides...it's all really about the selling and growing (in large quantities) of it. No cop gives to shits if he smells weed in a neighborhood because some guy is smoking it in his backyard.

[Roxie]

There isn't really a difference. All drugs were legal in the U.S. for a time and some were banned due to racist associations (chinese men in opium dens raping white women, or cocaine crazed negros raping white women, etc).

Once upon a time, you could buy your own needle and syringe from the Sears catalog.

Then there was the 1914 Harrison Act, which was a big joke.

[Jetsetlemming]

Weed was associated with crazy mexicans, right?

[archdukezeb]

The War on Drugs is insanity. How can a government make a war on it's own citizens for their choice of personal habits? Well, just look at the USA! Keeping cancer patients from being able to smoke MJ, clogging up the court and prison systems with completely non-violent crimes like drug possession, increasing costs and dangers of the black market... real good idea! But of course too much money is being made on tobacco and alcohol to wage war on them at this point.

Interesting points. Old study, but still relevant. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/policy/policy_writing1.shtml

Not gonna argue for the war on drugs but marijuana as a medical treatment is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Marijuana is very bad for your health so anybody who's sick and wants to get better smoking marijuana would not be a good decision. If you are terminally ill and just want to enjoy your remaining days that's a different matter.

[stsparky]

Explain the war on drugs ...
Cast your mind back to 1833 when the US Yankee Traders won control of the Opium trade from England with better built Clipper ships. They called it the "China Tea trade" as to not offend. But a slew of families became powerful like the Russell, Cabot, Lodges ... (who knew Archie was educational) etc. ... they even had their personal thug enforcers like the Walker clan. Long story shorter boils down to the fact the Bush Crime Clan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contra's_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US) made its' money from drugs. The War on Drugs is these elite criminal's way of keeping the small fry out of their profits (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/25/contra/). And the Walkers became the Bush family.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2307/1682419813_b0d90aee60.jpg
Not gonna argue for the war on drugs but marijuana as a medical treatment is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Marijuana is very bad for your health so anybody who's sick and wants to get better smoking marijuana would not be a good decision. If you are terminally ill and just want to enjoy your remaining days that's a different matter.
THC helps those with cytotoxic treatments retain their appetites, glaucoma patients deal with blind pressure. I doubt smoking anything like pot is good for folks.

[Jetsetlemming]

Marijuana is very bad for your health
Where did you get this idea?
And worse for your health than not eating due to debilitating, extreme nausea from chemotherapy?

[Micah the Great]

Where did you get this idea?Exactly, archdukezeb. Where DID you get this idea? Something you heard, read, or experienced? Please share. Do you know how many deaths have ever been attributed to marijuana smoking? How many people have just went completely out of their skulls forever after smoking marijuana? What makes you think it's so bad for you? Seriously, I'm asking...

And why would it be bad for medical treatment. Are you a doctor? An expert on the chemical composition of marijuana, and have all knowledge of it's effects on everyone in every way? Should cancer patients be allowed to continue to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes... even though the effects of overuse are well documented and obvious?

And also there's this...
THC helps those with cytotoxic treatments retain their appetites, glaucoma patients deal with blind pressure.
And worse for your health than not eating due to debilitating, extreme nausea from chemotherapy?

Your logic is very curious archdukezeb... If you morally have a problem with it that's fine, but what you said is just seemly untrue.

EDIT: Gah, sorry if this sounded like an attack... i may have pulled more out of you statement that you meant, but i've just been thinking a lot lately about this issue.

[archdukezeb]

Exactly, archdukezeb. Where DID you get this idea? Something you heard, read, or experienced? Please share. Do you know how many deaths have ever been attributed to marijuana smoking? How many people have just went completely out of their skulls forever after smoking marijuana? What makes you think it's so bad for you? Seriously, I'm asking...

And why would it be bad for medical treatment. Are you a doctor? An expert on the chemical composition of marijuana, and have all knowledge of it's effects on everyone in every way? Should cancer patients be allowed to continue to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes... even though the effects of overuse are well documented and obvious?

You're arguing a bunch of points I didn't make. Where did I say that Marijuana will make you insane? Also your argument over whether cancer patients should smoke and drink. Obviously smoking and drinking are bad for your health so it would be a good idea to not do those things if you are sick and want to get better. Certainly cigarettes and alcohol are not considered medicine as a type of medicine by anyone which kind of backs up my point that Marijuana should not be taken as a medicine.

I'm not going to get into any battle of medical studies because their are too many on each side ranging from "Marijuana was created by the devil" to "Marijuana is nature's miracle medicine," so I will take a list of commonly accepted health risks from the Brown university site:

* Impaired memory and ability to learn
* Difficulty thinking and problem solving
* Anxiety attacks or feelings of paranoia
* Impaired muscle coordination and judgment
* Increased susceptibility to infections
* Dangerous impairment of driving skills. Studies show that it impairs braking time, attention to traffic signals and other driving behaviors.
* Cardiac problems for people with heart disease or high blood pressure, because marijuana increases the heart rate
I'm sure all of you arguing for marijuana can find a number of studies that find that it does the exact opposite so I'm not gonna argue further. Do your own research.

EDIT: Where did you get this idea?
And worse for your health than not eating due to debilitating, extreme nausea from chemotherapy?
I've smoked pot numerous times and it never increased my appetite although this is probably different for different people.

Also I'm not arguing that Marijuana should be illegal.

[Jetsetlemming]

Pot does not increase appetite. It relieves nausea from a cancer patient's stomach lining dying from radiation and not being replaced. It eases the pain of the ill.
Also not a single one of those listed effects remains after the high goes away. Pot has never been shown to cause ANY permanent effect whatsoever. Sure, a stoned person is going to be slower. He's stoned. A drunk person is the same.

[archdukezeb]

Specifically: * Cardiac problems for people with heart disease or high blood pressure, because marijuana increases the heart rate and
*Increased susceptibility to infections because it fucks with your white blood cells.

Yes it has been proven to half effects on your brain that out last the high. Every drug has a permanent effect on your body. How much that is depends on the drug and the amount taken.

[Micah the Great]

Well, all i know is that doughnuts should be made illegal... shit is BAD for you!

[ミュー]

Marijuana criminalization is bad for my health. In high school I rode the Magic School Bus pretty much every day after school and all it did was make life a little more interesting and a very safe driver out of me.

Now I live in Japan and have replaced bowl hits with booze. My health has deteriorated like a motherfucker. I would love to burn more and drink less, but the legal status and price makes it all but impossible.

What's an addict to do?

[mugen]

Oh wait, so pot has side effects like any other medicine?

[Swede]

There's also this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm), with regards to medical problems associated with it.

The shit isn't healthy for you by any stretch of the imagination, but then again, neither are a lot of other things. Pot shouldn't carry the criminality like it does now where people are getting thrown in jail for it, but saying it's an acceptable thing to do for the culture at large by legalizing it doesn't seem like a good move to me. In serious medical cases for terminal illness easing the pain of the patient it's one thing. People can make all the arguments in the world for how it shouldn't technically be any sort of problem, actually looking at the way most potheads act says differently.

[Kyletherealninja]

War on terror? War on drugs? War on poverty? Ladies and gentlemen, Ron Paul has the solution to all these things. :D

While I have no interest whatsoever in drugs (or even alcohol, really) I seriously question the wisdom in outlawing and expending tons of money "fighting" it. On the other hand, I'm a bit concerned about the societal effects legalizing substances such as cocaine and heroine; if drunk driving kills thousands each year, just imagine what would happen if the same amount of people did things like drive while under the influence of crack.

[stsparky]

War on drugs can be solved easily.

Make drugs legal, treat addiction as an illness.

And if you're worried about the "children" - treat recreational drugs like alcohol.

That ends the black market and destroys the cartels.

[Harrison]

Also drugs are cheaper and more commonly available now than 30 years ago, and purer, despite the billions spent on the DEA and drug-related law enforcement. American drug policies have made the drug barons filthy fucking rich, while all they accomplish is ruining the lives of already down small time addicts and street corner dealers, and endangering the innocent public from no-knock SWAT raids, gang activity fighting over drugs, and encouraging anti-law enforcement sentiment.
You forgot to include "destroying civil liberties".

Besides...it's all really about the selling and growing (in large quantities) of it. No cop gives to shits if he smells weed in a neighborhood because some guy is smoking it in his backyard.
Maybe not in San Francisco or Seattle, but try that damn near anywhere else and they'll put your ass in jail.

[Harrison]

War on drugs can be solved easily.

Make drugs legal, treat addiction as an illness.

And if you're worried about the "children" - treat recreational drugs like alcohol.

That ends the black market and destroys the cartels.
But then the cops wouldn't have an excuse to buy armored vehicles and fly to drug-war conferences in Las Vegas.

Are you trying to destroy the economy or something? What are you, ANTI-AMERICAN?!?

[Fred]

In support of what Sparky is saying, I am more in favor of laws that concern behavior than I am in laws that concern substances. For example, it is legal to drink, but it is not legal to drink and drive. I would support a similar set of laws around pot.

However, I would not take that preference to an extreme. In some cases, possession equates to an unacceptable risk of intention. I can’t think of a good example regarding drugs, but, off the topic of drugs, I have no reservation about making it illegal to own child pornography.

On the other hand, I am not very comfortable with the idea of companies making money off the sale of addictive substances (unless they are substances I am addicted to – say coffee, for example). I think the Tobacco industry is a good example of what happens when companies are allowed to sell addictive products. The pharmaceutical industry often seems to cross the line as well.

As a side note on the "War on Drugs", check out the story of the arrest of Tommy Chong

[qwert]

Scheduling and making drugs illegal is a benefit to the United states as it creates a system for determing drugs that have a legitimate medical use and those that do not and have a destructive effect on the people. Although I wish people embraced a more Confucian thought process, the United States uses coercive laws and thus has a responsibility to protect the health of its citizens by making destructive drugs with no medical benefit illegal and then enforcing it.

I don't have the time to write an essay, but the recent market crash due to greed is an example of why the government must sometimes make decisions for its citizens as not every human at every stage of life knows what is best for them and the government (when it is clear that some drugs are very dangerous and require regulated expert knowledge to use correctly and only when needed) should make a stand.

edit: sorry for long covoluted sentences! I'm on a time schedule (for school), honestly!

[archdukezeb]

I'm for the legalization of marijuana but I can't see how the legalization of things drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroin could be good for the country. The price of the drugs would drop enormously and they would be come so easily available that much more people would try them and then much more people will become addicted. Having a huge number of addicts in the country isn't good for anyone.

[Jetsetlemming]

hey would be come so easily available
These drugs are so cheap and easily available right now that anybody CAN get them if they want them.

[Micah the Great]

If certain drugs became legal, and people wanted to try them or get addicted to them, that's their business. You have no right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't be doing with their own bodies on their own time at their homes. And why would i care if when certain drug became legal, that there became more addicts? At least they could get the drugs they wanted easier and cheaper... not having to use violence and thievery to finance their habits... habits which they are going to try as hard as hell to continue whether the drug is considered legal or not.

Anyway, addiction shouldn't be treated as a crime, but an illness, and should be dealt with as such.

BUT the point so many people miss is that of course these newly legalized drugs would have to be regulated... just like tobacco and alcohol. When using a drug only affects the person using it, that's cool. But laws should be made against use of it that directly and adversely affects others... like smoking in offices and stores, or driving a car under the influence of a drug, or selling it to minors. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Plus when regulated, the drug could actually be made safer and with warning and ingredient labels... you know, so you're not getting some "whatever" that's cut with 50% of some crazy shit more dangerous than the actually drug. Just like pharmaceutical drugs.

Did anyone look at my first link?

[Swede]

And why would i care if when certain drug became legal, that there became more addicts? At least they could get the drugs they wanted easier and cheaper... not having to use violence and thievery to finance their habits... habits which they are going to try as hard as hell to continue whether the drug is considered legal or not.

Seems as though you're kind of taking Mill's approach to the issue, though I think your overlooking that there are repercussions to drug use beyond just the individual. The reason why you would care if there became more addicts is because you live in the same society as those individuals. With a lot of drugs the impact of the resultant behavior is harmful in particular to the individuals family, who may not have done anything to warrant that. In general, I think we should be trying to promote behavior that actually makes the members of society productive, rather than condoning drug use simply because it only affects the individual.



Now, I certainly wouldn't extend this to all drugs. While I have zero interest in it, I think pot should probably be treated like alcohol, and in any case people shouldn't be sent to jail just for possession. Fine the hell out of it sure, but it really doesn't warrant the same kind of punishment that a violent criminal would receive.


Overall though, despite the critical tone of my post, I think I largely agree with what you're saying. I just think that, as some others have said, there is just no way to responsibly partake in some drugs, and deciding where to draw the line is complicated.

[Micah the Great]

Ok, well of course i'm concerned if people become addicted to a hard drug. They should be made known of it's ill effects on them and others... but it has to stop at that type of concern. Of course it's hard to be a useful member of a functioning society while being addicted to heroin, or tripping acid every single day. But i have no right to go into their lives and force or legislate what they do with their time, money and body. The negative effects may be obvious to you, so please try to convince people that's there's nothing good that comes from drug abuse... but treating them as criminals doesn't help anybody in the situation.... you, them, or society.

Plus, black markets, mobs, gangs and cartels rely on drug trade and selling. Are there some dangers in making most drugs legal? Of course, but i'd rather deal with them than the previous, much more dangerous list. The fact that the drugs on the black market are illegal makes society MUCH more dangerous than if they weren't. Not only that, think about how many tax dollars would be saved by paying for fewer prisons, the upkeep of fewer prisoners, the loss of the need to police these drugs, and time and money saved by taking strain off the court system. All that money saved, plus the tax on the drugs themselves, could then be used to help police REAL crime on people and property, like robbery, rape and murder.

But yes, in the end it could still have a negative effects on a family if a member became addicted to a new, and possibly dangerous legal drug. I'm so sorry. Then what? Maybe they should be more responsible, but i can't legislate that for them. And i don't want to, because that's their business. I and others than can responsibly use drugs shouldn't be punished just because someone can't.

Not like this doesn't happen anyway. How many broken homes have been created because of alcohol abuse? Or what about some poor family that had a family member die because they decided it was a good idea to not exercise and eat fast food for the past 20 years and died of a heart problem or cancer. Why did no one lose their shit over situations like these? Because it's legally and socially acceptable to fuck up your life in this manner. Just because people fuck up and misuse their responsibility to correctly drive a vehicle and cause 10,000s of deaths every year, cars aren't made illegal. They are very fucking dangerous things, if that isn't obvious. That's why they're regulated. You have to be old enough, see well enough, have enough money to register one, etc. After all this, some people still fuck it up, and some people still drive anyway despite regulations. This is so obvious... but accepted for whatever reason.

People do drugs. Some out of need, some out of want, some just for the hell of it, and some probably just to spite the fact that the government is trying to legislate their personal habits. The war on drugs is ridiculous, wrong, and un-winnable.

A little personal point off to the side...... it's strange how so many people are morally opposed to drugs, more people than not... but they think if certain drugs became legal that absurd amounts of people would just lose their fucking minds and become addicted to every drug under the sun. If everyone is so morally upright, then what is there to worry about, right? If anyone is living in a country that if drugs became legal, and most citizens decided to become addicted to them to a point that they can't or don't want to be a useful member in society... then you should probably move. Because that would be the largest group of hypocritical, useless, moronic assholes i could imagine.

[Swede]

A little personal point off to the side...... it's strange how so many people are morally opposed to drugs, more people than not... but they think if certain drugs became legal that absurd amounts of people would just lose their fucking minds and become addicted to every drug under the sun. If everyone is so morally upright, then what is there to worry about, right? If anyone is living in a country that if drugs became legal, and most citizens decided to become addicted to them to a point that they can't or don't want to be a useful member in society... then you should probably move. Because that would be the largest group of hypocritical, useless, moronic assholes i could imagine.


Just to play devil's advocate... The reason people are concerned is because, aside from some inherent sense of morality, there is also what could be viewed as the social reality that societal standards play a large role in dictating people's behavior. The idea that more people would start doing drugs if they were legalized comes from the idea that if it were legal, and as such deemed acceptable by society, there would be less people staying away from whatever substance because outside of the fact that there would be no legal repercussions, the societal standard would be changed, and it would no longer carry the kind of stigma it has when it's illegal. While there are some people that don't do drugs or drink out of personal choice, there are also likely a lot of people who don't do it simply because it's against the law. I don't think that anyone particularly feels that everyone is so morally upright, and that's where a lot of the concern comes from.

[qwert]

If certain drugs became legal, and people wanted to try them or get addicted to them, that's their business. You have no right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't be doing with their own bodies on their own time at their homes. And why would i care if when certain drug became legal, that there became more addicts? At least they could get the drugs they wanted easier and cheaper... not having to use violence and thievery to finance their habits... habits which they are going to try as hard as hell to continue whether the drug is considered legal or not.

Anyway, addiction shouldn't be treated as a crime, but an illness, and should be dealt with as such.

BUT the point so many people miss is that of course these newly legalized drugs would have to be regulated... just like tobacco and alcohol. When using a drug only affects the person using it, that's cool. But laws should be made against use of it that directly and adversely affects others... like smoking in offices and stores, or driving a car under the influence of a drug, or selling it to minors. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Plus when regulated, the drug could actually be made safer and with warning and ingredient labels... you know, so you're not getting some "whatever" that's cut with 50% of some crazy shit more dangerous than the actually drug. Just like pharmaceutical drugs.

Did anyone look at my first link?

I think that the average American citizen does not have enough knowledge, decision making ability, responsibility, and integrity (i.e. MD) to understand the full consequences before taking a drug or giving it to others. Thus, you need people like doctors and scheduling of drugs to prevent this.

I understand how people want to do whatever with their bodies, but when something as bad as some drugs are, there has to be people in authority who put their foot down and make decisions for everyone else to protect the nation as a whole.

One example I can think of how drugs are regulated now is the renewal of prescriptions. You cannot renew certain drugs until enough time has passed to use it, if your renewals are at 0 your doctor must be informed before the pharmacy can refill the prescription, and have to have periodic check-ups with your doctor while taking the medicine who can then make adjustments and so on.

If it is not regulated, then people could easily overdose on a very dangerous drug. Also, you cannot regulate the use of an addictive drug that is available OTC as once someone is addicted, they will do whatever to get more.

To me, it is very obvious why we have controlled substances.

[Firefly]

I've exhausted this argument so much it just seems like a moot point anymore.

The fact of the matter is, fat Americans will still be able to get their McDonald's and die of heart disease and continue to fill their bodies with the most incredulous bullshit, but god forbid my friends and I have a few laughs over a bowl. Where's Bill Hicks when you need him?

[Micah the Great]

Swede, you of course are right. People should be concerned... for themselves, others, and society as a whole. A large shift in societal acceptance could also be difficult. But the stopping of billions of dollars being wasted on policing and incarcerating peoples' non-violent drug habits, the stopping of the need for dangerous and destructive black markets to exist, the stopping of misused police forces, prisons and courts system for non-violent crimes... are worth the effort toward the change. Drugs being illegal ruins more lives than if they were legal. More money is uselessly spent when drugs are illegal then if they were legal and regulated.

I think that the average American citizen does not have enough knowledge, decision making ability, responsibility, and integrity (i.e. MD) to understand the full consequences before taking a drug or giving it to others. Thus, you need people like doctors and scheduling of drugs to prevent this.

One example I can think of how drugs are regulated now is the renewal of prescriptions. You cannot renew certain drugs until enough time has passed to use it, if your renewals are at 0 your doctor must be informed before the pharmacy can refill the prescription, and have to have periodic check-ups with your doctor while taking the medicine who can then make adjustments and so on.

If it is not regulated, then people could easily overdose on a very dangerous drug. Also, you cannot regulate the use of an addictive drug that is available OTC as once someone is addicted, they will do whatever to get more.

To me, it is very obvious why we have controlled substances.

I'm confused.... so you agree? This is exactly what i just said. Most drugs, including heroin, crack, coke, meth... and psychoactives like pot, mushrooms, lsd, and dmt, should be treated carefully because they can be dangerous when used or abused. They need to be made legal SO they can be regulated and studied so people better understand the properties and effects of a certain drug. Plus, like i said, they would actually be safer substances... instead of not knowing where X drug was grown, or by whom, or cut with what.

I understand how people want to do whatever with their bodies, but when something as bad as some drugs are, there has to be people in authority who put their foot down and make decisions for everyone else to protect the nation as a whole.
Then you snuck this in. The only reason government or any regulatory agency needs to be involved in drugs, is when it could potential directly harm people other than the user. Such as, maybe being cracked out isn't the best thing to be while in a bar, or at work... and there should probably be a law against driving stoned. And children definitely don't need to be able to go to the grocery store and buy 'shrooms to trip fucking balls. I think almost everyone would agree with this.

But no one has "authority" over what you choose to do to yourself, by yourself. The government gets it's authority from the people it represents. Therefore, you cannot just give out authority to the government to do things that the citizens themselves have no authority to do. You can't tell me if i should or shouldn't eat oreos, even though they're bad for you. If a person has no right to enforce a "no oreo eating" law on me, then a large group of people doesn't either... much less the government or police! No one, including yourself or the government, can tell anyone else when to go to bed, or what color shirt to wear, or what to spend their money on. That is the responsibility of the person, because it is a consensual choice that affects them only, therefore no one else has any say in it. The EXACT same goes for people using whatever drug they want in their own time on their own property... be it tobacco or pot, or alcohol or meth or bathtub crank. The substance itself has no bearing. Like Firefly said, fast food is crazy bad for you... but fatfuck 43,943 can develop heart disease all day, because that's their prerogative. People can have dangerous jobs like construction or kickboxing or whatever, because it's consensual between themselves and their employer. People can skydive or rally race all day for all i care, which is much more dangerous than smoking pot all day, but they wouldn't be unjustly imprisoned or fined because of it.

Do you see what i'm saying? Well, in the end you can't legislate morality anyway, even if you wanted to... so we're still losing.

[qwert]

Swede, you of course are right. People should be concerned... for themselves, others, and society as a whole. A large shift in societal acceptance could also be difficult. But the stopping of billions of dollars being wasting on policing and incarcerating peoples' non-violent drug habits, the stopping of the need for dangerous and destructive black markets to exist, the stopping of misused police forces, prisons and courts system for non-violent crimes... are worth the effort toward the change. Drugs being illegal ruins more lives than if they were legal. More money is uselessly spent when drugs are illegal then if they were legal and regulated.



I'm confused.... so you agree? This is exactly what i just said. Most drugs, including heroin, crack, coke, meth... and psychoactives like pot, mushrooms, lsd, and dmt, should be treated carefully because they can be dangerous when used or abused. They need to be made legal SO they can be regulated and studied so people better understand the properties and effects of a certain drug. Plus, like i said, they would actually be safer substances... instead of not knowing where X drug was grown, or by whom, or cut with what.

Then you snuck this in. The only reason government or any regulatory agency needs to be involved in drugs, is when it could potential directly harm people other than the user. Such as, maybe being cracked out isn't the best thing to be while in a bar, or at work... and there should probably be a law against driving stoned. And children definitely don't need to be able to go to the grocery store and buy 'shrooms to trip fucking balls. I think almost everyone would agree with this.

But no one has "authority" over what you choose to do to yourself, by yourself. The government gets it's authority from the people it represents. Therefore, you cannot just give out authority to the government to do things that the citizens themselves have no authority to do. You can't tell me if i should or shouldn't eat oreos, even though they're bad for you. If a person has no right to enforce a "no oreo eating" law on me, then a large group of people doesn't either... much less the government or police! No one, including yourself or the government, can tell anyone else when to go to bed, or what color shirt to wear, or what to spend their money on. That is the responsibility of the person, because it is a consensual choice that affects them only, therefore no one else has any say in it. The EXACT same goes for people using whatever drug they want in their own time on their own property... be it tobacco or pot, or alcohol or meth or bathtub crank. The substance itself has no bearing. Like Firefly said, fast food is crazy bad for you... but fatfuck 43,943 can develop heart disease all day, because that's their prerogative. People can have dangerous jobs like construction or kickboxing or whatever, because it's consensual between themselves and their employer. People can skydive or rally race all day for all i care, which is much more dangerous than smoking pot all day, but they wouldn't be unjustly imprisoned or fined because of it.

Do you see what i'm saying? Well, in the end you can't legislate morality anyway, even if you wanted to... so we're still losing.

I understand your argument. My argument is not the same as yours. Reread what I wrote before and it should be clear. It's silly to compare selling oreos, fast food, kickboxing, etc. to selling currently illegal drugs.

If you thinking of doctors presribing currently illegal drugs, this cannot occur as it would violate their oath.

edit: put a sentence of mine in his quote.

[Micah the Great]

Hmmm... yeah, we kinda are arguing two different points in general, but mine had plenty to do with yours. I quoted you to start talking about my argument, but just kept going into all kinds of stuff that needed to be said... so my whole post wasn't in regards to yours, but most definitely involved what you said.

No i'm sorry, i'm definitely not sure what doctors should and shouldn't be describing to whom, but that doesn't change any of what i said. And they already prescribe very dangerous and additive drugs as it is.

It's silly to compare selling oreos, fast food, kickboxing, etc. to selling currently illegal drugs.
Still, I think this is very untrue... as i just explained. The exact activity or substance itself wasn't the point of what i was saying.

[qwert]

No, they are completely different. You are going a Ron Paul-like route while I am saying the government should say no.

If you are fighting for your right to smoke weed, then I think the US should change its schedule from II to VIII as Canada does, which is essentially saying all they care about is those who smuggle large quantities of weed.

For comparison, Canada places Sudafed and acetone (finger nail polish remover) as schedule 6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Drugs_and_Substances_Act#Schedule_VI_.2 8Precursors.29

[Charrington]

Plenty of things are bad for your health, the government has no business telling you whether or not you can imbibe any of them.

[archdukezeb]

This is probably applicable to this thread: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090205/lf_nm_life/us_california_marijuana

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Several recent federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California have betrayed President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to halt such busts if elected, medicinal cannabis advocates said on Wednesday.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents served search warrants on four medical marijuana vendors in the Los Angeles area on Tuesday, seizing more than 200 kg (440 pounds) of cannabis, edible marijuana products and about $10,000 in cash, a DEA spokeswoman said.

There were no arrests, according to the spokeswoman, special agent Sarah Pullen.

The busts, following a spate of similar raids in recent years under the Bush administration, drew fire from such groups as the Drug Policy Alliance and Americans for Safe Access, which have advocated legalization and regulation of marijuana for legitimate medical purposes.

They cited comments Obama made during his White House bid last year that he intended to halt raids of medical marijuana facilities operating under state laws.

"If it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else," he said in a March 2008 interview captured on a YouTube video clip.

He added that expanding access to medical marijuana would not be a priority of his administration, but "what I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."

Asked about those comments, Pullen said, "There has been no direction as to a change in how we ... enforce federal law." The DEA is a Justice Department agency.

Stephen Gutwillig, California head of the Drug Policy Alliance, suggested the latest raids stemmed from a lag in new policy directives from the 2-week-old Obama administration.

'SHOULDN'T NEED A MEMO'

"We hope these recent raids don't represent official administration policy and that Obama will order federal agencies in no uncertain terms to stop harassing medical marijuana patients and providers in California," he said.

White House spokesman Nick Shapiro on Wednesday reiterated Obama's stance that "federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws."

"And as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," Shapiro said.

Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance in Washington said, "The DEA shouldn't need a memo from the White House to know that undermining the will of California voters is a waste of taxpayer money."

Twelve states have enacted medical marijuana statutes since California became the first to do so in 1996.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 the federal government may continue to enforce U.S. law barring the cultivation, possession and use of cannabis for any purpose, even where states seek to legalize it for medical reasons.

Medical marijuana vendors have continued to operate despite hundreds of DEA raids on such establishments in recent years, most of them in California, under former President George W. Bush's administration, according to Caren Woodson of Americans for Safe Access.