View Full Version : Are you in favor of the current war on drugs?
Simple question.
My view of drug users is simple, drug users are weak individuals but people should be allowed to consume what they want even if I don't approve of it.
And the current war on drugs has everything to do with profit and nothing to do with public safety.
ETA: I know I made a typo in my poll "believe" I'm a little buzzed right now (that was a joke ;) )
Simple question.
My view of drug users is simple, drug users are weak individuals but people should be allowed to consume what they want even if I don't approve of it.
And the current war on drugs has everything to do with profit and nothing to do with public safety.
Yeah, pretty much.
Be nice if they could come up with regulation like Heroin bars where you have to stay put so long as you are high.
I'll never understand why most people I have encountered believe that their moral position on what is acceptable to use as an intoxicant should be the standard for the whole of society. Typical conversation… "Alcohol & cigarettes are ok and I don't see a problem with marijuana being legal as long as we tax it... but I don't think anything else should be legal". Where does this egoistical, myopic attitude come from? Could it be that they haven't read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Do any of these people open a book, ever? Much less a history book on the good ol' U.S. of A.?
My position has nothing to do with my use of drugs or the lack thereof; it has to do with what is moralistically right in a "free society" and who should determine what you are legally able to ingest into your own body. These immoral laws assert that you do not own your own body and you have no right to control what you ingest whether it is an intoxicant, stimulant, depressant or something else unless it's prescribed by a state certified person who has paid the government to have the right to give you these drugs as they see fit. The audacity of our elected government officials imposing their "morals", where they typically have none, and dictating what you can and can not consume depending on how you feel yourself is reprehensible to say the least.
If these laws and the War on Drugs are supposed to create a drug-free America, then I can honestly say that after hundreds of billions of dollars spent, millions of arrests, and decades of escalating police and military efforts, the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure in my opinion.
This is by far the longest war in American history, one that has hundreds of thousands of innocent people (victimless crimes) locked in cages, many of whom are raped and beaten by convicted violent felons and all at an exorbitant cost in tax dollars and liberty. Please bear in mind that at various times in our country's history, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, ecstasy, and amphetamines were legal. To put someone in a prison cell or to execute someone for engaging in private behavior or mutually voluntary trade, purchasing/selling drugs, is completely unconstitutional. That is one of the corner stones of a constitutional republic, free economy, free trade and ownership of one's self and property.
Admittedly drugs aren't the best thing in the world for you, no shit, that isn't my assertion. Neither is too much TV, fast food, caffeine, sexual partners… and the list goes on and on. But, I don't need the government telling me what should be legal to do with my own body at any time for any reason! A free person in a free country has the right to determine what brings them happiness as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, that part's very important by the way.
The laws of supply & demand will always dictate what happens in our society due to market demands. If someone is willing to purchase something, drugs or otherwise, than the entrepreneur will find a way to supply that demand. Our unconstitutional laws also provide a higher profit margin for the "drug dealers" due to the fact of having a limited supply and the product is hard to come by due to its illegality.
In case I haven't made myself clear enough, I'm not advocating drug use, I'm defending an individual's freedom to own their own bodies and to limit government intrusion, especially when we're talking about victimless crimes.
ICANHITHIMMAN
03-01-11, 20:31
In my opnion there is not such thing as " THE WAR ON DRUGS" its all public perception.
Cagemonkey
03-01-11, 20:42
No, I don't agree with the War on Drugs. In the privacy of ones home, one should do as one pleases as long as their not a danger to others. Many exaggerate the effects of many drugs. In many ways, being under the influence of many illegal drugs is no worst than being under the influence of alcohol. People don't realize, Alcohol is the gateway drug. Once many get a taste of being intoxicated, the sky's the limit if one has no self control or moral inhibition. We'd save money by investing in rehabilitation and education. Gov't would make money on regulation and taxation. Violent drug crimes would be reduced, since most of it is the result of competition in the Black Market. This nation learned nothing from Prohibition in the 1920's and that was just Alcohol. Theirs always going to be that small percent of the population that can't act responsibly and is going to have to be let go. This may not be popular, but this is my opinion.
MarshallDodge
03-01-11, 20:53
Good stuff Irish. I wanted to address this as well-
In case I haven't made myself clear enough, I'm not advocating drug use, I'm defending an individual's freedom to own their own bodies and to limit government intrusion, especially when we're talking about victimless crimes.
They need to do away with all forms of welfare as well because the idiot who sticks a needle in their arm to shoot up needs to know that there is no golden parachute waiting for them when they fry their brain.
Research Prohibition...there was more boozing going on when it was illegal than when it was reversed. Prohibition created capone and the mafia. They moved onto other commodities when it was lifted.
Irish has it nailed!!
My son and I are very close and talk openly about what goes on in his jr. high...he says it is way easier to get any illegal drug than a 6 pack.
I understand the whole having standards crap, but it isn't working...I live & work in this narco crap and want it to stop.
I don't care what any M4 member does in his home as long as he doesn't take it out into public and hurt my family. Is there any real big difference between someone having a heart attack from too much coke or drowning in their own vomit from too much booze.
Sorry, I'm biased and just want my home to be rid of the friggin violence and only see legalization as the logical solution.
I'm sure i'll get hammered but put yourself in my shoes and pretend you have to go into mexico tomorrow to visit a fortune 500 company.
Business_Casual
03-01-11, 21:32
My natural inclination is to disagree with Irish just to do so, but I can't in this instance.
B_C
the last option should have been "I have no idea what's goin' on right now..."
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/Image/weeds/towelie.jpg
the last option should have been "I have no idea what's goin' on right now..."
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/Image/weeds/towelie.jpg
One of the best shows on tv. :D
Whootsinator
03-01-11, 21:44
I am not a user, though I feel I and all others should be able to do whatever you wish to your own body.
Some "drugs" sure as hell don't **** people up like meth, heroin, crack, and PCP does. These so called "drugs" don't **** your brain up by creating an addiction, cause you to ruin your life, and commit crimes to get your fix.
Legalize marijuana and codeine and that's it.
Gimme that weed and lean, that's all we need. That drank and dank, that you can thank.
http://files.sharenator.com/marlboro_weed_cigarettes_Blue_Cheese-s324x450-14477-580.jpg
http://bp0.blogger.com/_wQ_rSruShhk/R6jATbvl86I/AAAAAAAAArM/g6-NpmdEaKQ/s400/PurpleDrank.jpg
Business_Casual
03-01-11, 22:05
So we can trust people with firearms, but we can't trust them with heroin?
No sale. Junkies are junkies, whether dope is legal or not.
B_C
So we can trust people with firearms, but we can't trust them with heroin?
No sale. Junkies are junkies, whether dope is legal or not.
B_C
i dont understand.
---
unless you can make a direct connection between an activity and the necessary result of harm to another, NO activity a person can engage in can be illegal, in any society even pretending to be "free."
My natural inclination is to disagree with Irish just to do so, but I can't in this instance.
B_C
Foghlaí! :D
Drug offenses account for a higher percentage of people in federal prison than weapons, extortion, homicide, robbery and burglary combined. For 2010 51.3% were drug offenders, 15.2% were weapons offenders, 4.3% were robbery offenders, 3.5% were burglary offenders, 5.1% were extortion offenders, and 2.8% were homicide, aggravated assault and kidnapping offenders. (Reference: Federal Bureau of Prisons: Quick Facts 2011) http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#4
I've always had issues with drugs and people who use them. I don't have a word or phrase to describe what I see, it's quite elusive. While I agree that people should have their own choice as long as it isn't harming anyone else, we have to draw the line somewhere. People can make their arguments about how marijuana is non addictive and not harmful, I don't know what the case actually is but it is well known that drugs such as heroin, cocaine, crack, etc. are indeed addictive and harmful, period.
Nothing about marijuana, alcohol, or any other substance in and of itself is immoral or wrong, its the behavior and the attitudes associated with those substances that determine how they are received by society.
The problem I have with drugs is how they pervade adolescent interaction and perpetuate anti-intellectualism. When I was in high school (04-08) drugs were the primary topic of discussion. "We're smoking with so and so after school." "I got so baked at lunch." "Dank nugs." are phrases I heard many times. The majority of jokes consisted of telling stories about procuring, using, and/or distributing marijuana. I can remember several instances when I would try to explain an abstract idea (math, science, whatever) and all I would ever get is "Woah, what are you talking about?" The conversation about drugs would then resume. Granted my exposure is limited but it has, nonetheless shaped how I view the issue.
The problem I have with drugs is how they pervade adolescent interaction and perpetuate anti-intellectualism. When I was in high school (04-08) drugs were the primary topic of discussion. "We're smoking with so and so after school." "I got so baked at lunch." "Dank nugs." are phrases I heard many times. The majority of jokes consisted of telling stories about procuring, using, and/or distributing marijuana. I can remember several instances when I would try to explain an abstract idea (math, science, whatever) and all I would ever get is "Woah, what are you talking about?" The conversation about drugs would then resume. Granted my exposure is limited but it has, nonetheless shaped how I view the issue.
Maybe you should've developed a new set of friends or socialized with another group of kids if you didn't like their extracurricular activities.
variablebinary
03-02-11, 02:26
The current war on drugs? Hell no. It is a failure, but the goal isn't to win now is it.
Make me president for a year, and I'll solve our drug problem. I'd play for keeps and I wouldn't taken prisoners.
It would make Clear and Present Danger look like Sesame Street.
I've always had issues with drugs and people who use them. I don't have a word or phrase to describe what I see, it's quite elusive. While I agree that people should have their own choice as long as it isn't harming anyone else, we have to draw the line somewhere. People can make their arguments about how marijuana is non addictive and not harmful, I don't know what the case actually is but it is well known that drugs such as heroin, cocaine, crack, etc. are indeed addictive and harmful, period.
Nothing about marijuana, alcohol, or any other substance in and of itself is immoral or wrong, its the behavior and the attitudes associated with those substances that determine how they are received by society.
The problem I have with drugs is how they pervade adolescent interaction and perpetuate anti-intellectualism. When I was in high school (04-08) drugs were the primary topic of discussion. "We're smoking with so and so after school." "I got so baked at lunch." "Dank nugs." are phrases I heard many times. The majority of jokes consisted of telling stories about procuring, using, and/or distributing marijuana. I can remember several instances when I would try to explain an abstract idea (math, science, whatever) and all I would ever get is "Woah, what are you talking about?" The conversation about drugs would then resume. Granted my exposure is limited but it has, nonetheless shaped how I view the issue.
You're talking about a culture. One that's particularly popular among youth (although not at all limited to it).
I bet you know (on a first name basis) a handfull of people who you'd be shocked to find out were users of illicit drugs... Many more who you simply come into contact with in the course of day to day life that would surprise you.
The current war on drugs? Hell no. It is a failure, but the goal isn't to win now is it.
Make me president for a year, and I'll solve our drug problem. I'd play for keeps and I wouldn't taken prisoners.
It would make Clear and Present Danger look like Sesame Street.
So the party would be on hold for a year and... 2 days? :p
According to this webpage the Federal Gov spent $500 per second on the drug war in 2010. I don't know accurate the numbers are but this is pretty interesting. http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/13/politics/main6480889.shtml
After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."
What's the definition of insanity???
From the above article...
Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:
• $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico - and the violence along with it.
• $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.
• $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.
• $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.
• $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.
At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse - "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" - cost the United States $215 billion a year.
Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.
"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."
Simple question.
My view of drug users is simple, drug users are weak individuals but people should be allowed to consume what they want even if I don't approve of it.
And the current war on drugs has everything to do with profit and nothing to do with public safety.
ETA: I know I made a typo in my poll "believe" I'm a little buzzed right now (that was a joke ;) )
It's interesting to note a growing number of law enforcement who would agree:
LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition :
LEAP Statement of Principles
"LEAP does not promote the use of drugs and is deeply concerned about the extent of drug abuse worldwide. LEAP is also deeply concerned with the destructive impact of violent drug gangs and cartels everywhere in the world. Neither problem is remedied by the current policy of drug prohibition. Indeed, drug abuse and gang violence flourish in a drug prohibition environment, just as they did during alcohol prohibition."
Web site:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
The war on drugs is crazy. Creating a black market for extremely addictive substances has a frighteningly predictable outcome. While widespread drug use is a concern, the number of people who die every year simply because drugs give gangs a huge source of income and something to fight over is staggering.
It's not just moralizing, which a government should never do; it results in the greater evil.
According to this webpage the Federal Gov spent $500 per second on the drug war in 2010. I don't know accurate the numbers are but this is pretty interesting. http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
that only comes to 31.5 million.... so the only thing that's not believable about that is that it's that low.
that only comes to 31.5 million.... so the only thing that's not believable about that is that it's that low.
Actually it is more like 15.768 billion
60sec/min x 60min/hour x 24hour/dayx365 days/year = 31536000 seconds. Times $500 each!
Actually it is more like 15.768 billion
60sec/min x 60min/hour x 24hour/dayx365 days/year = 31536000 seconds. Times $500 each!
oh snap... i forgot to multiply all by 500. good lookin' out.
and that's more believable.
It would make Clear and Present Danger look like Sesame Street.
Book or movie version?
What's the definition of insanity???
Putting Gil Kerlikowske in charge of anything?
The war on drugs is total and utter BS. A MAJOR waste of money and human lives/resources. Period.
Governments nor Law enforcement can control what people imbibe, never will be able to; ever. Get the **** over it and focus on violent crimes that actually have a negative affect on society.
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." ~Edmund Burke
rickrock305
03-04-11, 08:41
Its complete and utter nonsense at its finest.
rickrock305
03-04-11, 09:04
Actually it is more like 15.768 billion
60sec/min x 60min/hour x 24hour/dayx365 days/year = 31536000 seconds. Times $500 each!
And thats only the Federal expense. State and local governments spend even more than that per year!
Littlelebowski
03-04-11, 09:16
The current war on drugs? Hell no. It is a failure, but the goal isn't to win now is it.
Make me president for a year, and I'll solve our drug problem. I'd play for keeps and I wouldn't taken prisoners.
It would make Clear and Present Danger look like Sesame Street.
You would not win. Remember the Hydra.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 09:36
Granted the current policies aren't being effective, however I feel that we shouldn't just give up on enforcement of the law. I am against legalizing any illicit drug including Marijauna. I don't even respect it as a viable medical option even though it is becoming more prescribed. It is tragic that those with a true legitimate reason for it are being overshadowed by those that get if for "anxiety" and other bullshit reasons.
Other options of enforcement need to be tried.
I am against legalizing any illicit drug including Marijauna
too bad marijuana has no addictive properties and can't OD on it.
It doesn't even deserve to be called a "drug".
It's a harmless substance.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 09:45
That would be "your" opinion. My view is that it is a drug and should be treated as such. You are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am.
Caffeine, nicotine and alchohol are pretty addictive in their own right, and there they are, on every shelf.
I'm not for legalization, but the "war on drugs" is an actual failure. It is worse today than it was when I was in high school, 15+ years ago.
How can that be with 15 years of a WAR going on? At a minimum there should be grave attrition and the numbers of dealers, manufacturers and addicts should subside. It's gotten worse.
Stop pissing the money away, try something else.
That would be "your" opinion. My view is that it is a drug and should be treated as such. You are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am.
but my opinion is better.
http://www.vectorstock.com/assets/preview/49201/man-fishing-at-dusk-vector.jpg
:D just joking.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 10:05
I don't fish!:D
i dont fish, and i don't smoke weed. nor crack, crank, heroin, or even really drink (one, occasionally).
but regardless of people's opinions or approval or lack thereof, how can you possibly think it's the American government's place to chose for you?
How can that be with 15 years of a WAR going on?
I'm not splitting hairs here but it's been going on for 40 YEARS!!! The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 10:21
Personally, if you want to load, smoke, shoot up some illicit substance go for it. Hopefully you die in the process and save the taxpayers some money of incarcerating you. Professionally I support and uphold the laws in which I am sworn to by the governing authority. If you do drugs I have no choice but to arrest and have you charged per the PC. Now some rebut and say MJ isn't really a drug or doesn't hurt anyone. I would challenge you to work narcotics and see the effects of MJ and what it usually leads to, which is more use of other substances and in most cases the abusers are a drain on society utilizing social programs since they don't work and just smoke pot all day. Have also worked many accident scenes where the contributing agent to the impairment was MJ. Am I willing to have the government "tell" me what I should be doing yes. So long as it doesn't infringe on basic rights and is within the legal parameters set forth by current laws.
That would be "your" opinion. My view is that it is a drug and should be treated as such. You are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am.
What does "treated as a drug" mean?
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 10:37
IMO when I say "drug" I am referencing an illicit substance versus a prescribed or OTC medication. But if you prefer I will use illegal substance instead of drug if that clarifies things better for you.
Cheers!
So long as it doesn't infringe on basic rights and is within the legal parameters set forth by current laws.
it's my argument that that's exactly drug laws are doing- infringing on the most basic right to simply be free in peaceful activity.
banning "drugs" because a minority of their users chose to violate the law is absolutely no different than banning guns because a minority of their owners chose to violate the law.
IMO when I say "drug" I am referencing an illicit substance versus a prescribed or OTC medication. But if you prefer I will use illegal substance instead of drug if that clarifies things better for you.
Cheers!
What is illicit or illegal about drugs from an inherent viewpoint?
They are only illegal or illicit due to some politician declaring it so.
we might as well ban bad weather and influenza, for all the effectiveness.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 10:47
Perhaps our interpretation of what "infringement" is differs. I personally don't believe that rights are being trampled just because you aren't allowed to go slam heroin in your vein. Minority of users perhaps ignorant and do stupid shit yes. But until you have dealt first hand daily, rose colored glasses don't fair to well when you find children locked in closets for days because mommy and daddy want to smoke dope without being interrupted. I have and my opinion is and will always be based upon those occurrences regardless of what is or isn't deemed a "peaceful freedom" as you imply.
I'm not splitting hairs here but it's been going on for 40 YEARS!!! The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.
I was giving my frame of reference, high school 15+ years ago to now.
Personally, if you want to load, smoke, shoot up some illicit substance go for it. Hopefully you die in the process and save the taxpayers some money of incarcerating you. Professionally I support and uphold the laws in which I am sworn to by the governing authority. If you do drugs I have no choice but to arrest and have you charged per the PC. Now some rebut and say MJ isn't really a drug or doesn't hurt anyone. I would challenge you to work narcotics and see the effects of MJ and what it usually leads to, which is more use of other substances and in most cases the abusers are a drain on society utilizing social programs since they don't work and just smoke pot all day. Have also worked many accident scenes where the contributing agent to the impairment was MJ. Am I willing to have the government "tell" me what I should be doing yes. So long as it doesn't infringe on basic rights and is within the legal parameters set forth by current laws.
Alcohol led to all those same things once upon a time too, and would have been under the jurisdiciton of the same guys working narc units now.
Never used, don't agree with, and don't support drug use, but we're playing social engineers here, and failing miserably at it.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 10:53
I respect your opinion but lets not split hairs here. We all know laws are enacted based upon what society deems proper or socially acceptable in most cases. Illicit substances have been viewed as illegal and therefore illegal based upon what "We the People" wanted, not some singular politician. We put them in office, they represented the people and this was our result, our doing. Besides which save a few minor viable medical uses, I will concede to the higher medical authority in regards to effects of long term illicit drug use, including MJ. Of course the views do change and MD opinion is swayed to and fro. In any case I abide by the law and enforce it as required...Period!:D
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 10:54
On that I have to agree which is why more viable options are needed. I just don't think legalization is the answer.
I respect your opinion but lets not split hairs here. We all know laws are enacted based upon what society deems proper or socially acceptable in most cases. Illicit substances have been viewed as illegal and therefore illegal based upon what "We the People" wanted, not some singular politician. We put them in office, the represented the people and this was our result, our doing. Besides which save a few minor viable medical uses, I will concede to the higher medical authority in regards to effects of long term illicit drug use, including MJ. Of course the views do change and MD opinion is swayed to and fro. In any case I abide by the law and enforce it as required...Period!:D
I am not asking you to not abide by the law. We are talking about the merits of changing the law.
My point is, that arguing for the illegality of drugs by pointing to their being illegal, does not make much sense.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 10:59
Hey you want to rally to support to change the law go for it. They are illegal, because they "are" illegal. Sometimes things don't make sense, but this is what we have to work with in the interim. I just have strong opinions on the usage of illicit substances having witnessed first hand the effects. I could go on in detail, but we are intelligent here and know all too well the main consequences of abuse.
rickrock305
03-04-11, 11:11
Other options of enforcement need to be tried.
Such as?
Hey you want to rally to support to change the law go for it. They are illegal, because they "are" illegal. Sometimes things don't make sense, but this is what we have to work with in the interim. I just have strong opinions on the usage of illicit substances having witnessed first hand the effects. I could go on in detail, but we are intelligent here and know all too well the main consequences of abuse.
Drug use would probably (over the long haul) go down with legalized drugs. If you are wondering why, it has to do with advertising and marketing. Today, due to the money involved, there are lots and lots of people at the schools and elsewhere marketing drugs to kids and other people. That is why we called them "pushers".
ETA: And I would bet that more people are affected negatively by the WoD than the actual drug use itself.
rickrock305
03-04-11, 11:13
I respect your opinion but lets not split hairs here. We all know laws are enacted based upon what society deems proper or socially acceptable in most cases. Illicit substances have been viewed as illegal and therefore illegal based upon what "We the People" wanted, not some singular politician.
Actually, this is patently false regarding many substances, especially marijuana.
In many cases laws are enacted based on what some small special interest minority group wants. In marijuana's case, it was Dupont. Can't be making all this stuff out of hemp when they're trying to sell nylon!
rickrock305
03-04-11, 11:14
Drug use would probably (over the long haul) go down with legalized drugs. If you are wondering why, it has to do with advertising and marketing. Today, due to the money involved, there are lots and lots of people at the schools and elsewhere marketing drugs to kids and other people. That is why we called them "pushers".
ETA: And I would bet that more people are affected negatively by the WoD than the actual drug use itself.
This is true and has been proven in multiple scenarios. Take the Netherlands for example. They were recently in the news for having to close jails because of the lack of people being arrested.
The_War_Wagon
03-04-11, 11:15
NO - we're LOSING.
We need to get serious, and start NUKING the cocoa fields of Central & South America. :angry:
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:17
Chad perhaps it could be tried on a limited scale in an area already overrun with problems and see if it works before full blown measure was enacted.
Rickrock, why don't you formulate how to fix it and other enforcement methods. I am not a politician I am a LEO and look at things differently. But I will say that the DOSA program we have is working in our area, but usually gets best results with the "casual" user versus addict.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:18
You going to argue just to argue or do you actually believe that trash. Laws are enacted by the "PEOPLE", take off the tinfoil please.
I just have strong opinions on the usage of illicit substances having witnessed first hand the effects. I could go on in detail, but we are intelligent here and know all too well the main consequences of abuse.
I respect your opinion and I know it's based on your profession of dealing with some very lowlife drug addicts. On the other hand I think people may be arguing extremes. I've known very successful people in my life who smoked marijuana and I've also known people who've gone to crack and end up in jail... Extremes can be found on either end but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Time to catch a plane and get home to my honey.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:19
NO - we're LOSING.
We need to get serious, and start NUKING the cocoa fields of Central & South America. :angry:
Works for me!:D
Hey you want to rally to support to change the law go for it. They are illegal, because they "are" illegal. Sometimes things don't make sense, but this is what we have to work with in the interim. I just have strong opinions on the usage of illicit substances having witnessed first hand the effects. I could go on in detail, but we are intelligent here and know all too well the main consequences of abuse.
All the facts point to alcohol being the real monster in the closet JK. Do not alcoholics make mistakes that people lose life and limb over? And doesn't thathappen MCUH more often?
And of course an alcohlic has never in the history of our country locked a child in a closet right? Or done anything that a "Drug Addict" would do. Only "dope" heads do that...:rolleyes:
The statistics prove that alcohol is the most damaging drug known to man. Period.
Fact: Alcohol alone kills more people and ruins more lives than all other illicit/illegal drugs combined; literally, and by a ****ing huge goddamn margin.
Fact: Cigarettes alone kill more people than all othe illicit/illegal drugs combined.
Fact: There is more meth and heroin in our prescription drugs than being sold on the street.
I hear what you are saying, but I think you are focusing on all of the "wrong" sort of details.
Anyone who abuses drugs is shit, be it tylenol, vicadin, MJ, Booze, viagra, nose spray, coalesce, etc.
Let people do as they will; because that is what they will do anyways.
We do more harm to society fighting unwinable wars, when we could put those funds to much better use and have an actual positive affect on society. And a lot less prisoners who just wanted to escape for a moment. I don't condone, but I don't want to continue wasting money and lives on this hopeless and ignorant endeavour.
In a country such as our, built upon freedom, justice, natural born rights, it is abhorent that so many seek to impliment and strengthen laws about what we do in the privacy of our own homes.
FYI. This country was LITERALLY built on the exportation/funds directly from hemp and cannibis. Take the time to research it.
The ****ing constitution is written on hemp, a evil illegal substance by our governments standards; that is ****ing retarded.
The writing is on the wall, but there is a lot of BS to sift through.
Smoke it, shoot it, snort it, drink it, I couldn't care less; what I do care about, is people telling me what I should and shouldn't do with my own effing body; as long as I don't hurt anyone or perpetrate a "real" crime; I'm of no threat to society.
NO - we're LOSING.
We need to get serious, and start NUKING the cocoa fields of Central & South America. :angry:
Obviously you've never spent any time in South America in those areas and especially up around 16k feet. If you had you'd change your mind about the coca plant in about 8 seconds of altitude sickness. There are positive uses and cocaine can be found in most emergency rooms in America.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:21
This is why we have such differing views on things, we try to be objective. But our life experience will always influence our opinion, right or wrong.
PS when you come up north be sure to get some river boat tours and such.
rickrock305
03-04-11, 11:22
Rickrock, why don't you formulate how to fix it and other enforcement methods. I am not a politician I am a LEO and look at things differently. But I will say that the DOSA program we have is working in our area, but usually gets best results with the "casual" user versus addict.
You brought up alternate enforcement methods...I was simply asking what you thought would be appropriate.
I agree that DOSA programs and the like are a much better option than outright incarceration. But how do you define "working"?
NO - we're LOSING.
We need to get serious, and start NUKING the cocoa fields of Central & South America. :angry:
Then you would be okay with them nuking our tabaco fields right? Seeing as how the cigarrettes we export to them kill millions more people per year than their cocoa does?
This is why we have such differing views on things, we try to be objective. But our life experience will always influence our opinion, right or wrong.
PS when you come up north be sure to get some river boat tours and such.
I complete agree. And thanks again for your help, definitely appreciated! :D
Time to scoot... Remember to keep it civil gents. :D
rickrock305
03-04-11, 11:25
You going to argue just to argue or do you actually believe that trash. Laws are enacted by the "PEOPLE", take off the tinfoil please.
Nothing tinfoil about it, its common knowledge. Ever heard of lobbyists? They are an entire industry dedicated to making sure special interest groups get laws passed in their favor.
The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings[20] reports.[21] In 1936 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) noticed an increase of reports of people smoking marijuana, which further increased in 1937. The Bureau drafted a legislative plan for Congress, seeking a new law and the head of the FBN, Harry J. Anslinger, ran a campaign against marijuana.[22] A part of the testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst[citation needed], who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint paper.[23]
Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of marijuana cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp had been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon), and may have hurt DuPont's profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of the Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[24]
thats a quote from Wiki.
here's some more background info...
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:26
All the facts point to alcohol being the real monster in the closet JK. Do not alcoholics make mistakes that people lose life and limb over? And doesn't thathappen MCUH more often?
And of course an alcohlic has never in the history of our country locked a child in a closet right? Or done anything that a "Drug Addict" would do. Only "dope" heads do that...:rolleyes:
The statistics prove that alcohol is the most damaging drug known to man. Period.
Fact: Alcohol alone kills more people and ruins more lives than all other illicit/illegal drugs combined; literally, and by a ****ing huge goddamn margin.
Fact: Cigarettes alone kill more people than all othe illicit/illegal drugs combined.
Fact: There is more meth and heroin in our prescription drugs than being sold on the street.
I hear what you are saying, but I think you are focusing on all of the "wrong" sort of details.
Anyone who abuses drugs is shit, be it tylenol, vicadin, MJ, Booze, viagra, nose spray, coalesce, etc.
Let people do as they will; because that is what they will do anyways.
We do more harm to society fighting unwinable wars, when we could put those funds to much better use and have an actual positive affect on society. And a lot less prisoners who just wanted to escape for a moment. I don't condone, but I don't want to continue wasting money and lives on this hopeless and ignorant endeavour.
In a country such as our, built upon freedom, justice, natural born rights, it is abhorent that so many seek to impliment and strengthen laws about what we do in the privacy of our own homes.
FYI. This country was LITERALLY built on the exportation/funds directly from hemp and cannibis. Take the time to research it.
The ****ing constitution is written on hemp, a evil illegal substance by our governments standards; that is ****ing retarded.
The writing is on the wall, but there is a lot of BS to sift through.
Smoke it, shoot it, snort it, drink it, I couldn't care less; what I do care about, is people telling me what I should and shouldn't do with my own effing body; as long as I don't hurt anyone or perpetrate a "real" crime; I'm of no threat to society.
Sounds more like conjecture and spin than actual truth. But hey we all are allowed to believe what we want. I agree though ETOH is and can be a problem, but the Volstead act was repealed and we can now drink like fish. But this is where moderation and responsibility need to be promoted. With illicit substance there isn't much of a push towards moderation when you are high and want to remain high.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:30
You brought up alternate enforcement methods...I was simply asking what you thought would be appropriate.
I agree that DOSA programs and the like are a much better option than outright incarceration. But how do you define "working"?
If they aren't being incarcerated they aren't using up precious tax dollars and they in most cases contributing by community service and maintaining employment. This is for DOSA type programs. The long term addicts inpatient care or incarceration are the only current things we have that I know of.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:32
Nothing tinfoil about it, its common knowledge. Ever heard of lobbyists? They are an entire industry dedicated to making sure special interest groups get laws passed in their favor.
thats a quote from Wiki.
here's some more background info...
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
Yes lobbyists do influence our Pols, but we put them there. So they inherently represent us whether we like to admit it or not. Just because a Pol does something I don't like doesn't mean he isn't still my Rep. in government.
Sounds more like conjecture and spin than actual truth. But hey we all are allowed to believe what we want. I agree though ETOH is and can be a problem, but the Volstead act was repealed and we can now drink like fish. But this is where moderation and responsibility need to be promoted. With illicit substance there isn't much of a push towards moderation when you are high and want to remain high.
Well I can say, and stats back this point up; alcohol is more damaging on society than all other illegal and illicit substances combined. Just the mere deaths involved alone will lead you to this conclusion.
Oh and I would really love to know how many of those MJ impaired drivers, also had alcohol in there systems along with the MJ. That is a stat most don't look at or aknowledge.
I am for common sense.
Commom sense tells me no matter how hard we push, no matter what the consequences (Look to the volsted act and its subsequent repeal) people will imbibe what they want when they want, and how ever much they want. Period.
Drugs is drugs, from tobaco, to caffiene to viagra, to imodium. I agree moderation is key, be it vitamin C, alcohol, coke, MJ or even water. But to say that group A that smokes cannot moderate but group B that drinks does; is disengenuous. There are all sorts of individuals in between; and on all sides. If someone is drunk and wants to stay drunk, the same hope of moderation will be thrown out the door.
In fact in my personal life I have seen far more drunk people lose control of themselves and make bad decisions; far more than any other substance I have seen people under the influence of.
Just like taking my gun away wont stop me from finding a weapon and using it if I so choose to; an addict will find something to be an addict for; be it murder, MJ, coke, Red Bull, Cigs, tylenol, pain pills, rape, beating up people, coke, heroin, whatever.
Addiction is the real problem. But lets not let addicts control our political atmosphere or our laws.
The last thing I want is a bunch of druggies roaming America; but its not like legalizing illicit drugs would cause this. After Volsted was repealed, things got a lot better in this nation...
Prohibiting the population from choosing what to imbibe is just ludicrous. Saying this drug is okay have fun, but nah not this one, is hypocritical. Especially when statistics show that the acceptable drug is much much more likely to take a life.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 11:55
Well I can say, and stats back this point up; alcohol is more damaging on society than all other illegal and illicit substances combined. Just the mere deaths involved alone will lead you to this conclusion.
Oh and I would really love to know how many of those MJ impaired drivers, also had alcohol in there systems along with the MJ. That is a stat most don't look at or aknowledge.
I am for common sense.
Commom sense tells me no matter how hard we push, no matter what the consequences (Look to the volsted act and its subsequent repeal) people will imbibe what they want when they want, and how ever much they want. Period.
Drugs is drugs, from tobaco, to caffiene to viagra, to imodium. I agree moderation is key, be it vitamin C, alcohol, coke, MJ or even water. But to say that group A that smokes cannot moderate but group B that drinks does; is disengenuous. There are all sorts of individuals in between; and on all sides. If someone is drunk and wants to stay drunk, the same hope of moderation will be thrown out the door.
In fact in my personal life I have seen far more drunk people lose control of themselves and make bad decisions; far more than any other substance I have seen people under the influence of.
Just like taking my gun away wont stop me from finding a weapon and using it if I so choose to; an addict will find something to be an addict for; be it murder, MJ, coke, Red Bull, Cigs, tylenol, pain pills, rape, beating up people, coke, heroin, whatever.
Addiction is the real problem. But lets not let addicts control our political atmosphere or our laws.
The last thing I want is a bunch of druggies roaming America; but its not like legalizing illicit drugs would cause this. After Volsted was repealed, things got a lot better in this nation...
Prohibiting the population from choosing what to imbibe is just ludicrous. Saying this drug is okay have fun, but nah not this one, is hypocritical. Especially when statistics show that the acceptable drug is much much more likely to take a life.
On these points I can agree, ETOH has caused a significant number of deaths far exceeding the use of illicit substances. As far as impaired driving arrests I would say between the ETOH+MJ versus just MJ are about 50/50 in my dealings, although the MJ drivers appeared to have slightly higher cognition about what was occurring. I still can't bring myself to accept the allowing of substances that are illicit to be used. Sure there are many dangerous legal things that when abused can cause impairment, but those that are illegal are illegal. And until such a time when made legal I have to follow the law in accordance with my position and belief system whether it is effective or not.
Cheers!
Chad perhaps it could be tried on a limited scale in an area already overrun with problems and see if it works before full blown measure was enacted.
If you (generic you) can devise a way of doing this in a limited area without the normal effects of outlawing things in all but a limited area has on skewing the results, have at it.
But we already have tried it -- it was called Prohibition and it was a failure. So we got rid of Prohibition and we are not worse off than we were under Prohibition.
Other countries have tried in limited ways with success.
The current way is a total failure. Even if it is a total failure it would not be worse than we have now.
On these points I can agree, ETOH has caused a significant number of deaths far exceeding the use of illicit substances. As far as impaired driving arrests I would say between the ETOH+MJ versus just MJ are about 50/50 in my dealings, although the MJ drivers appeared to have slightly higher cognition about what was occurring. I still can't bring myself to accept the allowing of substances that are illicit to be used. Sure there are many dangerous legal things that when abused can cause impairment, but those that are illegal are illegal. And until such a time when made legal I have to follow the law in accordance with my position and belief system whether it is effective or not.
Cheers!
And thats one of the reasons I respect and admire you so much JK; you stick to your convictions!
I wouldn't have it any other way, by all means enforce the laws that you took an oath to uphold, doing otherwise would be terrible.
I am just ready to see more common sense injected into our society, less nannying, more allowing people to be idiots and fail; instead of allowing them to be idiots and helping them out in doing so whilst spending billions of $$$.
I think we can all agree that we spend way too much money for such a small actual return on our investment with the current laws/wars on teh books. And the ruined lives of those who made mistakes and weren't really addicts or bad people; just needed a temporary escape, and found it in a substance; is just sad really. A moment of weakness that doesn't hurt anyone else shouldn't determine/ruin the rest of anyones life.
Slainte!
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 12:18
And thats one of the reasons I respect and admire you so much JK; you stick to your convictions!
I wouldn't have it any other way, by all means enforce the laws that you took an oath to uphold, doing otherwise would be terrible.
I am just ready to see more common sense injected into our society, less nannying, more allowing people to be idiots and fail; instead of allowing them to be idiots and helping them out in doing so whilst spending billions of $$$.
I think we can all agree that we spend way too much money for such a small actual return on our investment with the current laws/wars on teh books. And the ruined lives of those who made mistakes and weren't really addicts or bad people; just needed a temporary escape, and found it in a substance; is just sad really. A moment of weakness that doesn't hurt anyone else shouldn't determine/ruin the rest of anyones life.
Slainte!
Thanks brother, and I always love the different perspective of my fellow man. Even if at times it causes me to question myself or embarrass myself publicly. And granted while moments of weakness occur in everyone, those moments can lead to an addiction. It is the old adage of "got away with it once, I'll try it again". Eventually you will cause harm to yourself or others. But I would be in favor of allowing Darwin to work his magic and let these addicts OD,problem being though is while on their path they hurt other lives in their search for bliss.
Now for a serious action if we could implement a policy that allowed them to get loaded in a safe area until they became lucid again, like a public "drug" house. That way it was controlled and privacy would be lost. I think if you are going to be a junkie, be proud of it and show it off so we know what you are. Also these people that choose this lifestyle will be barred from any and all economic, medical or social programs. They will in effect be "on their own". Only services provided will be the 40.00 dollar cardboard box that you get cremated in when your body goes unclaimed.
I just don't think legalization is the answer.
Me either, to be honest.
Thanks brother, and I always love the different perspective of my fellow man. Even if at times it causes me to question myself or embarrass myself publicly. And granted while moments of weakness occur in everyone, those moments can lead to an addiction. It is the old adage of "got away with it once, I'll try it again". Eventually you will cause harm to yourself or others. But I would be in favor of allowing Darwin to work his magic and let these addicts OD,problem being though is while on their path they hurt other lives in their search for bliss.
Now for a serious action if we could implement a policy that allowed them to get loaded in a safe area until they became lucid again, like a public "drug" house. That way it was controlled and privacy would be lost. I think if you are going to be a junkie, be proud of it and show it off so we know what you are. Also these people that choose this lifestyle will be barred from any and all economic, medical or social programs. They will in effect be "on their own". Only services provided will be the 40.00 dollar cardboard box that you get cremated in when your body goes unclaimed.
I have mixed feelings about those specific actions; and not the time to get into them right now. Suffice it to sya I agree with you in theory somewhat, but not 100%. We can come back to this later fr further discussion.
I did want to bring up one more VERY important fact; in my opinion.
The drug dealers, gangs, growers, makers and sellers ALL WANT THE WAR ON DRUGS TO CONTINUE! They want teh very substances they sell to be illegal, very much so.
They don't want competition, they don't want dropping prices, they want the shit to continue to be outlawed so they can continue to have it easy, make easy tax free cash, build vast empires because of prohibition, that they would not be able build legitimately.
Those are the people I am most concerned about, as they tend to be the most violent and willing to be violent, and willing to further their criminal resume. Kinda crazy/laughable that the users get arrested and thrown in the clink, and the dealers get lawyers and basically get off with some wrist slapping in comparison...
Cut off those assholes knees, tax the shit out of the stuff, and we have a lot less gangs, and drug lords, and a lot more revenue for us to put towards positive ends.
Don't believe me that the growers/seller/makers/gangs don't want it legalized; do some research. Legalizing illicit substances would put a good portion of the criminal enterprises in this country out of commision (not to mention the outside criminal enterpirses operating here as well), something that is very intrigueing to me, and I wish we would move forward with.
I'll take (200) of your typical non-violent drug users on the streets over (1) of your typical violent asshole drug lords and gang members on the streets any day of the week!
Personally I don't care what people put into their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes so long as we enforce public intoxication laws. I think most people are very unlikely to start pounding 8-balls of coke just because it's legal to do so and those that will were probably going to do it whether it was legal or not.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 13:09
I can agree that if the product wasn't illegal it would help stop the illicit trade and all the problems that are consequences of it. However, criminals and criminal enterprise will continue and they will move on to a different product to peddle. It is simple economics really. Overflow the market with one item, you diversify and change product to get a consumer market share. If the government takes over the role of the "drug dealer", the dealers and suppliers will just move on to something else. Maybe something worse that currently is only reserved for militant extremists like chemical or biological weapons. Or perhaps they will decide that rather use their funds and resources for criminal enterprise they will attempt to make their own ilk into pols and governing authorities and still get their "pie". Personally, if there was no demand or consumer there would be no dealer/supply chain. We need to cut the head off the snake, just need to decide which is the head...the consumer or the supplier!
I totally understand what you're saying, and agree to some extent. The answer is more complicated than any one resolution, but the current situation needs refinement.
I'm all for allowing people to do what they please in their own homes and not allowing them to do the same in public. This is where I agree with you on the whole "Drug houses' idea, again, the idea you stated needs refinement as well IMO; but I agree we could make "Drug spots" okay to be high/drunk/****ed up in, and everywhere else very stiff penalties for doing so.
Would it be so bad to allow people to produce and imbibe what they want in the privacy of their own homes?
As long as public intoxication was still outlawed and sales of these items is still outlawed, people could just produce it for themselves, not have to deal with viloent criminals to procure it, not contribute to criminal enterprises, and be secure in their own homes practicing their freedom.
I think that is more realistic than either of the extremes of total prohibition or total legalization.
There is a middle ground that I believe most would be willing to live by.
That still wouldn't solve the whole problem (And lets be honest nothing truly ever will; human nature is weird to put it nicely) but it would be a step in the right direction IMO...
They already make their own ilk into pols; or just buy them out with the all mighty $$$. Nothing new there.
I can agree that if the product wasn't illegal it would help stop the illicit trade and all the problems that are consequences of it. However, criminals and criminal enterprise will continue and they will move on to a different product to peddle. It is simple economics really. Overflow the market with one item, you diversify and change product to get a consumer market share. If the government takes over the role of the "drug dealer", the dealers and suppliers will just move on to something else. Maybe something worse that currently is only reserved for militant extremists like chemical or biological weapons. Or perhaps they will decide that rather use their funds and resources for criminal enterprise they will attempt to make their own ilk into pols and governing authorities and still get their "pie". Personally, if there was no demand or consumer there would be no dealer/supply chain. We need to cut the head off the snake, just need to decide which is the head...the consumer or the supplier!
Thanks brother, and I always love the different perspective of my fellow man. Even if at times it causes me to question myself or embarrass myself publicly. And granted while moments of weakness occur in everyone, those moments can lead to an addiction. It is the old adage of "got away with it once, I'll try it again". Eventually you will cause harm to yourself or others. But I would be in favor of allowing Darwin to work his magic and let these addicts OD,problem being though is while on their path they hurt other lives in their search for bliss.
Now for a serious action if we could implement a policy that allowed them to get loaded in a safe area until they became lucid again, like a public "drug" house. That way it was controlled and privacy would be lost. I think if you are going to be a junkie, be proud of it and show it off so we know what you are. Also these people that choose this lifestyle will be barred from any and all economic, medical or social programs. They will in effect be "on their own". Only services provided will be the 40.00 dollar cardboard box that you get cremated in when your body goes unclaimed.
Throughout this thread you've been pushing every bit of boogeyman propaganda that exists for your side of the argument (most of which is Complete BS).
As for your firsthand experience with the worst society has to offer... Did you ever stop to think that your experience on the matter is severely skewed? There are many functional and productive members of society who use drugs (as there are those who consume alchohol)... The difference is they don't go to jail, make the news, abuse children, etc, etc... And nobody notices them.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 13:31
"Throughout this thread you've been pushing every bit of boogeyman propaganda that exists for your side of the argument (most of which is Complete BS). " Jerm
I take offense to that. I have not pushed anything anymore than the other "side" pushing for the legalization or less inhibited use of illicit substances. You sir are out of line and need to to retract that statement.
PS you would be suprised what I notice in these so called "productive members" of which you speak of.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 13:33
I totally understand what you're saying, and agree. The answer is more complicated than any one resolution, but the current situation needs refinement.
I'm all for allowing people to do what they please in their own homes and not allowing them to do the same in public. This is where I agree with you on the whole "Drug houses' idea, again, the idea you stated needs refinement as well IMO; but I agree we could make "Drug spots" okay to be high/drunk/****ed up in, and everywhere else very stiff penalties for doing so.
Would it be so bad to allow people to produce and imbibe what they want in the privacy of their own homes?
As long as public intoxication was still outlawed and sales of these items is still outlawed, people could just produce it for themselves, not have to deal with viloent criminals to procure it, not contribute to criminal enterprises, and be secure in their own homes practicing their freedom.
I think that is more realistic than either of the extremes of total prohibition or total legalization.
There is a middle ground that I believe most would be willing to live by.
That still wouldn't solve the whole problem (And lets be honest nothing truly ever will; human nature is weird to put it nicely) but it would be a step in the right direction IMO...
They already make their own ilk into pols; or just buy them out with the all mighty $$$. Nothing new there.
Like all things there will be many facets to the enactment of new policy. And with all things the "rough" draft is merely the starting point towards refinement.
I take offense to that. I have not pushed anything anymore than the other "side" pushing for the legalization or less inhibited use of illicit substances. You sir are out of line and need to to retract that statement.
Please...
You've touched on everything from the "gateway" myth, to the "all drug users do so to get blasted out of their mind" non-sense (and most of the other talking points).
... Both of which are at least as true (probably more so) of alchohol as they are of say MJ.
PS you would be suprised what I notice in these so called "productive members" of which you speak of.
:rolleyes:
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 13:44
Please...
You've touched on everything from the "gateway" myth, to the "all drug users do so to get blasted out of their mind" non-sense (and most of the other talking points).
... Both of which are at least as true (probably more so) of alchohol as they are of say MJ.
This is your opinion, perhaps a popular one of many others but it in no way makes mine any less valuable . This is the reason you are out of line. Respect my opinion as I have respected yours...PERIOD!
Jerm - Please take it down a notch. Whether you agree with JK or not this entire thread has kept a very civil, polite tone and been a very good discussion. Let's keep it that way.
DIA has good wi-fi :)
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 13:48
Thanks, it has been a very good discussion. I do need to look at other opinions versus my black/white world. LOL:D
On a personal note if you make it up this way here is a good outfit to waste the day with.
http://hellscanyontours.com/
Sorry,
I didn't realize this thread had been designated a "pat each other on the ass zone". :p
I'll bow out before I hurt any more feelings.
Sorry,
I didn't realize this thread had been designated a "pat each other on the ass zone". :p
I'll bow out before I hurt any more feelings.
I need to board a plane.
jklaughrey
03-04-11, 13:52
Sorry,
I didn't realize this thread had been designated a "pat each other on the ass zone". :p
I'll bow out before I hurt any more feelings.
This makes zero sense!
Sorry,
I didn't realize this thread had been designated a "pat each other on the ass zone". :p
I'll bow out before I hurt any more feelings.
Actually, we were squarely in the act like grown men "zone". If you can't hack it, it's probably best you moved on.
Civil discussions are quite easy when you aren't actively trying to act like the biggest 14 year old on the planet. Try it some time.
Littlelebowski
03-08-11, 13:46
Look at Mexico before Calderon got elected. Dirty, corrupt but fun and reasonably safe. Calderon gets elected and declares war on drug traffickers.
Now go read the headlines....
arizonaranchman
03-10-11, 13:54
Alcohol destroys more lives, kills more people and ruins more families than all the other drugs combined. I can also say for a fact that the biggest A$$*#*$ I've met in my career were drunks, not drug users.
As long as alcohol is legal the hypocrisy of the "drug war" is a total joke.
It's all politics and corruption...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.