# 10 Reasons to legalise all drugs



## Angel Heart (Jul 27, 2007)

www.transform-drugs.org.uk


> 10 Reasons to legalise all drugs
> comment from Transform: the campaign for effective drug policy
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 27, 2007)

Im not saying i disagree with you, but dont we want to discourage drug use?. Do we really want to say to people, its a great idea to be dependant on drugs for your happiness.

Your article is very worthy of discussion, and Perhaps on some points we agree, but I ask you, dont we want to use economic policy not drugs, to rebuild peoples lives, by giving them opportunities for employment. A.k.a. what magic johnson is doing in the poor community.

Doing the right thing makes us happy, not drugs. Being a kind person makes us happy not drugs.

Your take angel heart?



Angel Heart said:


> www.transform-drugs.org.uk


----------



## Angel Heart (Jul 27, 2007)

All I have to say is:



> In 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offences and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work.



Oh it's really working


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 27, 2007)

Do you believe the government can regulate the drug trade?. They have a hard enough time regulating everything, would that be more kaotic, what would happen.?




Angel Heart said:


> All I have to say is:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it's really working


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 27, 2007)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potRJfgb87o&mode=related&search=[/ame]


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 27, 2007)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHG8cjI5B-w[/ame]


----------



## Angel Heart (Jul 27, 2007)




----------



## Diuretic (Jul 27, 2007)

The reasons humans use drugs is........................they work.

We've been drinking beer for the last 6,000 years and we didn't start because we didn't like the water 

Humans are naturally drawn to consciousness-changing substances.  We're just a bundle of hormones anyway so we may as bung a few others in from time to time to shake things up a bit.

Prohibition is a stupid policy.  The policy of prohibition itself has caused more misery than even the most patent drugs.  Regulate them, educate people about them, try indeed to make sure that people use them responsibly but don't chuck them in the slammer for doing something that's natural to human beings.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2007)

It is natural for Humans to kill also, shall we legalize that too?


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 27, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is natural for Humans to kill also, shall we legalize that too?



Interesting point.  As far as I know when we are children we're trained, first by our parents and then by our educators, in non-violence.  We're not allowed to belt our siblings.  Aggression is natural of course, controlling it is necessary and controlling it is a learned behaviour.  That's why when the military get nicely socialised people delivered to them from society those nice people have to be broken down and re-fashioned so that if they have to kill someone they will do so without compunction (but within the rules of course).

Now, having dealt with that - your homework is to show me the link between that and the issue of drug prohibition


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Interesting point.  As far as I know when we are children we're trained, first by our parents and then by our educators, in non-violence.  We're not allowed to belt our siblings.  Aggression is natural of course, controlling it is necessary and controlling it is a learned behaviour.  That's why when the military get nicely socialised people delivered to them from society those nice people have to be broken down and re-fashioned so that if they have to kill someone they will do so without compunction (but within the rules of course).
> 
> Now, having dealt with that - your homework is to show me the link between that and the issue of drug prohibition



No I do not. The entire argument is that "gee if we legalize it, we will have less crime" That theory is bullshit. People will still become addicted to those drugs that addict and still need to PAY for the drugs. Rich people may be able to afford the addiction, but poor people and those that become unemployed because of the addiction will still turn to crime to get the money to continue the addiction. Well unless now your going to claim the Government should provide for the drugs and the addiction.

Drug related accidents will go up as will problems on the job and else where.

Using the excuse , " we can lessen crime by legalizing" works on a host of problems. Why not legalize assassinations and just get a tax benefit by requiring licenses and permits? Legalize prostitution and we can test them for diseases and tax them as well. The list is just endless.


----------



## Larkinn (Jul 27, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is natural for Humans to kill also, shall we legalize that too?



Any evidence that it is natural for humans to kill other humans?   I can't see this being the case considering how many people come back from war utterly fucked up.   



> No I do not. The entire argument is that "gee if we legalize it, we will have less crime" That theory is bullshit. People will still become addicted to those drugs that addict and still need to PAY for the drugs. Rich people may be able to afford the addiction, but poor people and those that become unemployed because of the addiction will still turn to crime to get the money to continue the addiction. Well unless now your going to claim the Government should provide for the drugs and the addiction.



Do you think there are hosts of people out there who do not do drugs solely because they are illegal?

As far as the original list...extremely misleading because many of those stats are true only because marijuana is used far and wide, and about as harmful as cigs unless you are a heavy heavy user.   Pot should be legalized...but if you look at other drugs such as Cocaine and Heroin, the stats will be much less friendly.   And really those types of drugs are too dangerous to be legalized imo.   I say legalize pot, shrooms, lsd type substances but leave out the speed, X, Heroin, Cocaine stuff.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 27, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No I do not. The entire argument is that "gee if we legalize it, we will have less crime" That theory is bullshit. People will still become addicted to those drugs that addict and still need to PAY for the drugs. Rich people may be able to afford the addiction, but poor people and those that become unemployed because of the addiction will still turn to crime to get the money to continue the addiction. Well unless now your going to claim the Government should provide for the drugs and the addiction.
> 
> Drug related accidents will go up as will problems on the job and else where.
> 
> Using the excuse , " we can lessen crime by legalizing" works on a host of problems. Why not legalize assassinations and just get a tax benefit by requiring licenses and permits? Legalize prostitution and we can test them for diseases and tax them as well. The list is just endless.



Now you mention it, prostitution should be legalised and regulated.  But that's another argument.  

The reasons some - not all - drugs are highly priced are the same as they are for any other good, with a couple of additional aspects.  I have to look at it from my locale.

Marijuana - cheap as.  The reason is because it's extremely easy to grow here.  You can put some seeds down, pee on them twice and week and bingo, Jack and the bloody Beanstalk.  It's called "weed" for a reason.  Very high quality cultivated (as opposed to hydroponic) grass too.  Plenty of it  All those things mean it will be cheap and people don't need to commit crime to get money for it, even someone on unemployment can scrape enough money together to score some.

Cocaine - expensive.  It has to be flown from South America to here.  Just like any other imported good, the costs are passed on to the consumer.  Consequently cocaine is the drug of choice of the wealthy.  Not much crime connected to it because there are other, cheaper options available to people who want that sort of stuff.

Ice.  Cheap.  Getting very easy to make too, with mini clandestine labs about the place that will fit in a suitcase.  It was the mini  iron and steel production facilties in South Korea that did so much damage to the iron and steel industry in the rest of the world.  Just a little analogy there.

Anyway the reason most of these drugs have been expensive in the past and even now (for some) is about the additional cost factor for the producers and marketers.  Risk.  They are facing long prison sentences for, say, importing cocaine or manufacturing ice.  Risk appears in the pricing mechanism.  Stuff would be cheaper if risk was as it is for any other manufactured/cultivated good (eg frost in a crop).

In the past the too-easy policy consideration has been to "make it illegal".  Easy but misguided.  Drugs are chemicals, like ordinary medicines, they should be regulated like ordinary medicines and users shouldn't be labelled as "criminals."  We should save that for those who are more deserving.


----------



## onedomino (Jul 27, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Humans are naturally drawn to consciousness-changing substances. We're just a bundle of hormones anyway so we may as bung a few others in from time to time to shake things up a bit.


Is this a rationalization for injesting consciousness altering substances? If so, it makes no sense. Consciousness is most affected by neurotransmitters in the brain, not hormones. There is no _adaptive advantage _associated with changing the balance of neurotransmitters, unless one is mentally ill or dysfunctional. People throw up when they drink too much. That is because alcohol is a poison and the body it trying to get rid of it. I am not talking about a glass of beer. I am referring to getting drunk or high. It is analogous to to when a kid gets sick when he first smokes. It is the body trying to rid itself of poison and provide negative feedback so the poison is never injested again. As I have mentioned previously, repeatedly taking drugs or drinking alcohol to the point of significantly changing consciousness is a symptom of a psychological problem. No adaptive person would engage in such behavior.


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 27, 2007)

People commit crimes for cigarettes too. They even shoplift for smokes.  People have killed over tennis shoes and jackets. 

There would be good results and bad results in legalizing drugs.  I think that the good would out-weigh the bad.  The bad is more drug use. There might be more bad results but I cant think of any at this time. The good is that there would be more prison space for violent criminals since drug users would be released.  More revenue would be received from taxes if drugs were to be taxed.  Drugs would be cheaper.  There would not be as great a need for vice squads and police to fight drug possession.  It all comes down to where we draw the line.  Illegal items are more expensive than are legal items.  By making drugs legal, it reduces the prices.  Fewer people would have to resort to theft and violence in order to get the drugs.  

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#drugwar

The Issue: The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world.

The Principle:  Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others rights.

Solutions:  Social involvement by individuals is essential to address the problem of substance misuse and abuse.  Popular education and assistance groups are a better approach than prohibition, and we support the activities of private organizations as the best way to move forward on the issue.

Transitional Action:  Repeal all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs.  Repeal laws that infringe upon individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property as protected by the Fourth Amendment.  Stop the use of "anti-crime" measures such as profiling or civil asset forfeiture that reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions.  Stop prosecuting accused non-violent drug offenders, and pardon those previously convicted.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 27, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Is this a rationalization for injesting consciousness altering substances? If so, it makes no sense. Consciousness is most affected by neurotransmitters in the brain, not hormones. There is no _adaptive advantage _associated with changing the balance of neurotransmitters, unless one is mentally ill or dysfunctional. People throw up when they drink too much. That is because alcohol is a poison and the body it trying to get rid of it. I am not talking about a glass of beer. I am referring to getting drunk or high. It is analogous to to when a kid gets sick when he first smokes. It is the body trying to rid itself of poison and provide negative feedback so the poison is never injested again. As I have mentioned previously, repeatedly taking drugs or drinking alcohol to the point of significantly changing consciousness is a symptom of a psychological problem. No adaptive person would engage in such behavior.



All points taken, neurotransmitters is the term I was looking for but didn't get (obviously my synapses weren't in sync).  Now if I can move away from your valid points just a wee bit.  Humans - generally speaking - do seek out substances that alter consciousness, that was the point I was trying to make.  Your aversion point is quite right of course, it's been 35 years since I last drank Jim Beam bourbon and coke.  There's a very good reason for it.  

But my point - generalising of course - was that humans do drugs.  I need two coffees when I wake (shift worker, better make 'em strong too).  I have a probably mild addiction to caffeine (on caffeine, yes, my first paper in Brain and Behaviour was on caffeine, stayed off it for at least two weeks).


----------



## MassageGirl (Aug 7, 2007)

I agree with legalizing drugs for ALL these reasons. Its a damn shame that criminals who commit violent crimes are not doing enough time for their acts, simply because the jails are so full of non violent drug users. And yes, most drug users ARE non violent. They are 9 times out of 10, not harming anyone other than themselves. 

It also gives people something to "blame it on", like blame their bad behavior on, I mean. 

Ok this is an example of alcohol use, so its not "drug" related, but you will get the idea:

Stripper-
"Oh I was so drunk" "The alcohol made me do it"

Me- 
- so what, I mean, you still plowed into my best friend, and tore his whole freaking leg off, my friend and comrade Craig, who was a Sgt,  who was on his bike training for a triathlon. Tore his whole leg off, and YOU get to do only 15 years??? Are you friggin HIGH!!! You should spend the rest of your putrid life in jail.  Damn shame these lawmakers are keeping marijuana users in for 1/3 of the time you got. Those tax dollars would have been better spent on your sorry ass, beeatch. 

(that conversation didnt really happen, as much as I wish it did, but is plays in my mind occassionally)

Legalize drugs and give the police more time to spend busting that guy that was sneaking around your daughters window, or the one neighbor that beats his wife up on a daily basis.. Give the cops the stamina to be able to chase down and catch the bank robbers, instead of having to waste their brain power on whos at the top of the drug chain. 
 

When cops actually start showing up when you need them and being on your side, I will feel like we live in a free country. Til then...


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 7, 2007)

ITA


----------



## Ruby (Aug 8, 2007)

Many great points made so far in this thread.

I just wanted to add that drug addiction/use is a health issue, not a criminal one and should be treated as such.

If we can remove an item from the black market it does solve many more issues that surround the issue and clears the way to use our resources  towards the health side (rehab) and prevention (education). 

The part about it decreasing the crime rate is more about the cessation of treating somthing that is a health issue as a crime. We can make lots of laws that dont make sense and increase the crime rate (which is what we have done with drug laws) and then see a drastic reduction in the crime rate by getting rid of the nonsensical laws...the drug laws shouldnt have been implemented in the first place. 

Its not comparable to murder which is a crime that has a direct victim who is not a willing participant and who pays with the highest price, their life.  Drug use is what someone chooses to do with their own body, just like drinking, smoking, not exercizing enough, eating junk food, eating too much etc.

Just because somthing is legal dosent mean it has a rubber stamp of approval or make a statement that its good FOR YOU, it simply means it should be your CHOICE and you should have the FREEDOM to make it. Many things are legal that are quite bad for you to do, I named many above already and there is a loooong list of plenty more.


----------



## Kagom (Aug 8, 2007)

Personally, I say legalize all drugs except speed, crack, cocaine, heroin, and meth.  Those drugs are the ones that truly hurt people and have proven addictive properties as opposed to marijuana and a few other drugs.  The other drugs people become psychologically dependent, but these have physical dependencies.


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 8, 2007)

The problem won't go away though Kagom.  Yes, put criminal law controls on those substances but go after the producers and distributors and treat the consumers as being in need of medical intervention.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is natural for Humans to kill also, shall we legalize that too?



Bad analogy. With the legalization of drugs, tax revenues generated for their sales could be used for education and treatment programs. And we would likely see an overall decline in their use as the cachet of legality would remove the thrill of using them illicitly. 

We should have learned from the utter failure of prohibition in the 1920's.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Bad analogy. With the legalization of drugs, tax revenues generated for their sales could be used for education and treatment programs. And we would likely see an overall decline in their use as the cachet of legality would remove the thrill of using them illicitly.
> 
> We should have learned from the utter failure of prohibition in the 1920's.



Well if we legalize murder and provide a tax on it, we could then use the money to educate and provide treatment programs, the murder rate would plummet as we applied all this education to the issue. And besides the thrill of murder would be gone if it were legal. No more initiation into gangs and groups by murder if all one need to do is pay a tax and even if they do not, only face a tax charge if caught doing it with out having paid.


----------



## maineman (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well if we legalize murder and provide a tax on it, we could then use the money to educate and provide treatment programs, the murder rate would plummet as we applied all this education to the issue. And besides the thrill of murder would be gone if it were legal. No more initiation into gangs and groups by murder if all one need to do is pay a tax and even if they do not, only face a tax charge if caught doing it with out having paid.



given the somewhat victimless nature of drug use, your analogy would be more accurate if you compared legalizing drugs to legalizing suicide.  

Smoking a joint is really not analogous to violently taking someone else's life.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well if we legalize murder and provide a tax on it, we could then use the money to educate and provide treatment programs, the murder rate would plummet as we applied all this education to the issue. And besides the thrill of murder would be gone if it were legal. No more initiation into gangs and groups by murder if all one need to do is pay a tax and even if they do not, only face a tax charge if caught doing it with out having paid.



That analogy is so bad as numerous posters have already pointed out and even pointed out why. We cant make it legal to VICTIMIZE other people but it should be legal to do as you wish with YOUR OWN body. I agree that suicide is a much better analogy as well as prostituion. Both of those things are all activities that do not have an element of victimizing another human being.

Also what gang initiates members by murdering them? Wouldnt that mean they are an extinct gang since new members are immediately dead and thereby not able to participate as active gang members?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2007)

Ruby said:


> That analogy is so bad as numerous posters have already pointed out and even pointed out why. We cant make it legal to VICTIMIZE other people but it should be legal to do as you wish with YOUR OWN body. I agree that suicide is a much better analogy as well as prostituion. Both of those things are all activities that do not have an element of victimizing another human being.
> 
> Also what gang initiates members by murdering them? Wouldnt that mean they are an extinct gang since new members are immediately dead and thereby not able to participate as active gang members?



You can't really be so dense as to think I meant gangs have new members kill old members, ohh wait, maybe you can, nor can you honestly think I meant new members kill other new members.... well wait, sure you can.

The argument is just as valid. I mean the claim is magically by legalizing drugs that destroy peoples lives, drive them to crime to pay for their habits, cause them to lose families and jobs will all magically go away if we just TAX it is ludicrous.

Once again read the title of the thread. It is about making ALL drugs legal. You think we have problems now , just do that and you will be amazed at the new heights crime shoot to, unless of course your advocating the Government provide cost free all the addictive destructive drugs to all the old and new addicts?


----------



## maineman (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can't really be so dense as to think I meant gangs have new members kill old members, ohh wait, maybe you can, nor can you honestly think I meant new members kill other new members.... well wait, sure you can.
> 
> The argument is just as valid. I mean the claim is magically by legalizing drugs that destroy peoples lives, drive them to crime to pay for their habits, cause them to lose families and jobs will all magically go away if we just TAX it is ludicrous.
> 
> Once again read the title of the thread. It is about making ALL drugs legal. You think we have problems now , just do that and you will be amazed at the new heights crime shoot to, unless of course your advocating the Government provide cost free all the addictive destructive drugs to all the old and new addicts?



still doesn't make your analogy between legalizing drugs and legalizing murder any less ridiculous.


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 8, 2007)

The policy of criminalising certain substances is a failure.  It has made billionaires out of shitbags, it has given organised crime the biggest hand up since prohibition.  It has destroyed lives, corrupted public officials, filled up prisons and wasted precious tax dollars.  

That certain subtances are harmful is a given.  The question is, how to reduce the harm they do.  In my experience the criminalisation of those substances is a policy failure.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> The policy of criminalising certain substances is a failure.  It has made billionaires out of shitbags, it has given organised crime the biggest hand up since prohibition.  It has destroyed lives, corrupted public officials, filled up prisons and wasted precious tax dollars.
> 
> That certain subtances are harmful is a given.  The question is, how to reduce the harm they do.  In my experience the criminalisation of those substances is a policy failure.



The criminalization of assassins has failed. It has destroyed lives, corrupted public officials, filled up prisons and wasted precious tax dollars. It has made billions for organized crime.

The question is, how do we reduce the harm murder does? In my opinion criminalizing murder is a policy failure.


----------



## JeffWartman (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The criminalization of assassins has failed. It has destroyed lives, corrupted public officials, filled up prisons and wasted precious tax dollars. It has made billions for organized crime.
> 
> The question is, how do we reduce the harm murder does? In my opinion criminalizing murder is a policy failure.



Many have already shown your analogy to be completely irrelevant and frankly, dumb.


----------



## maineman (Aug 8, 2007)

JeffWartman said:


> Many have already shown your analogy to be completely irrelevant and frankly, dumb.



those of us who routinely whip his ass with his own idiocy have been put on ignore by RGS as his way of managing the acknowledgement of his own failings.  

therefore, I doubt he is even away of how many people have shown him the stupidity of his analogy.

ME stubbing MY toe is not the same as ME banging YOURS with a hammer!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2007)

JeffWartman said:


> Many have already shown your analogy to be completely irrelevant and frankly, dumb.



I disagree, all that has been shown is that certain people think taxing murderous drugs will somehow magically change things, crime will drop and all will be well with the world.

 Illegal Drugs kill. They kill the users, they kill the friends and neighbors of users. They kill victims of the crimes drug users commit to gain the money to pay for their drugs. They destroy people, they destroy families.

To claim that by TAXING illegal substances and making them legal will make all that go away is patently ignorant. It is exactly the same concept. You just don't want to see it.

The ONLY way legalizing drugs will work to lower crime is if the Government provides said drugs for free. Otherwise people still have to pay for them, people will still be unable to work when addicted to most of them and thus won't have money to pay for said drugs. Thus crime does not go away.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can't really be so dense as to think I meant gangs have new members kill old members, ohh wait, maybe you can, nor can you honestly think I meant new members kill other new members.... well wait, sure you can.
> 
> The argument is just as valid. I mean the claim is magically by legalizing drugs that destroy peoples lives, drive them to crime to pay for their habits, cause them to lose families and jobs will all magically go away if we just TAX it is ludicrous.
> 
> Once again read the title of the thread. It is about making ALL drugs legal. You think we have problems now , just do that and you will be amazed at the new heights crime shoot to, unless of course your advocating the Government provide cost free all the addictive destructive drugs to all the old and new addicts?



I was having a bit of fun with what you said and you did say "No more initiation into gangs and groups by murder if all one need to do is pay a tax and even if they do not, only face a tax charge if caught doing it with out having paid." If you wont laugh at yourself then how I can laugh with you?

I dont think anyone has said that all the problems of drug use/addiction are magically fixed. You are either mis-characterizing or mis-understanding peoples view, not sure which.  

The point many people are making (as well as myself) is that there are better ways to handle it and we can REDUCE the problems and its effects. Prohibition is a failure and we do have a model for a policy that decriminalizes drugs and they are doing just fine.

Here is a link that gives info on the Netherlands.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/



> The extent and nature of the use of soft drugs does not differ from the pattern in other Western countries. As for hard drugs, the number of addicts in the Netherlands is low compared with the rest of Europe and considerably lower than that in France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category.



It can be done better and we see another nation already doing it, why not be smart and learn from that? It also defeats the notion that making them legal and or decrimnialized means the problem gets worse or increases users. We get to see it in action and not simply theorize.


----------



## maineman (Aug 8, 2007)

RGS sez:

_"The *ONLY* way legalizing drugs will work to *lower crime *is if the Government provides said drugs for free. Otherwise people still have to pay for them, people will still be unable to work when addicted to most of them and thus won't have money to pay for said drugs. Thus *crime does not go away. *"_

stupid illogical argument once again:  LOWERING CRIME is not synonymous with making crime GO AWAY.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2007)

Ruby said:


> I was having a bit of fun with what you said and you did say "No more initiation into gangs and groups by murder if all one need to do is pay a tax and even if they do not, only face a tax charge if caught doing it with out having paid." If you wont laugh at yourself then how I can laugh with you?
> 
> I dont think anyone has said that all the problems of drug use/addiction are magically fixed. You are either mis-characterizing or mis-understanding peoples view, not sure which.
> 
> ...



So, your on record as advocating the Government provide drugs to people? That is what happens in that country.


Alcohol is legal ( well if your 21), THATS WORKED OUT REAL WELL AT STOPPING PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 21 FROM DRINKING NOW HASN'T IT?

Legalize all drugs and your gonna have a huge problem remaining with all those unable still to legally get it. You will in fact be encouraging our youth to use it.


----------



## maineman (Aug 8, 2007)

I think Ruby is "on record" as stating that the experiences of other countries do not comport with your unsupportable theories about the continued criminalization of drugs.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I disagree, all that has been shown is that certain people think taxing murderous drugs will somehow magically change things, crime will drop and all will be well with the world.
> 
> Illegal Drugs kill. They kill the users, they kill the friends and neighbors of users. They kill victims of the crimes drug users commit to gain the money to pay for their drugs. They destroy people, they destroy families.
> 
> ...



You know shit about drugs.   These things CAN cause deaths, they don't always.   In fact some very rarely do.   

Anyway I thought you were against the nanny state?   I can do what I want with my own body.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> You know shit about drugs.   These things CAN cause deaths, they don't always.   In fact some very rarely do.
> 
> Anyway I thought you were against the nanny state?   I can do what I want with my own body.



What a moronic come back. You and I and any sane person with any Intelligence know perfectly well you can NOT legally do "anything" you want with your body. If you could we would be living in anarchy.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So, your on record as advocating the Government provide drugs to people? That is what happens in that country.
> 
> 
> Alcohol is legal ( well if your 21), THATS WORKED OUT REAL WELL AT STOPPING PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 21 FROM DRINKING NOW HASN'T IT?
> ...



The only drugs GIVEN to people *by govt and part of their universal health care*  are those prescribed by a doctor for medical reasons. Americans also take drugs prescribed by a doctor and many are controlled substances/narcotics.

They arent passing out free weed, cocaine etc. They will provide methadone or heroin as needed medically and as part of a medical recovery process.

Didnt you read the link, the US is using more drugs than they are in ALL categories. So legalization isnt making use go up is it? We have a live working model thats been doing for at least 4 decades now and we can see their results.

All the claims you make about what it will do are already invalidated because we have already seen this done and it did not result in all you claim it will, in fact they are doing BETTER in this area than the US is so obviously they are doing a better job of it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2007)

Ruby said:


> The only drugs GIVEN to people *by govt and part of their universal health care*  are those prescribed by a doctor for medical reasons. Americans also take drugs prescribed by a doctor and many are controlled substances/narcotics.
> 
> They arent passing out free weed, cocaine etc. They will provide methadone or heroin as needed medically and as part of a medical recovery process.
> 
> ...



Sure thing. That you believe that is an indication of your failure to understand reality.


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing. That you believe that is an indication of your failure to understand reality.



The reality is that the policy has failed.  It's failed here too.  There are other methods of reducing harm but using the criminal law shouldn't be the only response.  The criminal law has a place for sure, but it needs to be finely targeted.


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 8, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> The reality is that the policy has failed.  It's failed here too.  There are other methods of reducing harm but using the criminal law shouldn't be the only response.  The criminal law has a place for sure, but it needs to be finely targeted.



It all comes down to where you want to draw the line.  It is so relative and gray.  At what age should people be allowed to drink alcohol  12, 14, 16, 18, 18.5, 21? At what age should people be allowed to smoke, consent to sex, and gambol? Why is the speed limit 55 and not56, 25 or 95?


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 8, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> It all comes down to where you want to draw the line.  It is so relative and gray.  At what age should people be allowed to drink alcohol  12, 14, 16, 18, 18.5, 21? At what age should people be allowed to smoke, consent to sex, and gambol? Why is the speed limit 55 and not56, 25 or 95?



Yes, good question and good examples.  I don't have the answers.  But if we (society in general, yours and mine) are about harm reduction then we need to address those questions.  As a matter of observation the prohibition of certain substances is a failed policy.  What should replace it is moot.  The problem is that our - yours and mine - legislators have painted themselves into a corner and continually told the public that the criminal law is the only answer to the issue of harmful subtances.  It isn't _and they know it_.  But they have been lying to the public for so long that they feel unable to tell the truth unless they feel the wrath of the deceived.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What a moronic come back. You and I and any sane person with any Intelligence know perfectly well you can NOT legally do "anything" you want with your body. If you could we would be living in anarchy.



Read to, son.   What are you not allowed to do to your own body?   Drugs are about nobody else except the person using them.



> Sure thing. That you believe that is an indication of your failure to understand reality.



And what "reality" do you believe she is failing to understand ?


----------



## Ruby (Aug 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Yes, good question and good examples.  I don't have the answers.  But if we (society in general, yours and mine) are about harm reduction then we need to address those questions.  As a matter of observation the prohibition of certain substances is a failed policy.  What should replace it is moot.  The problem is that our - yours and mine - legislators have painted themselves into a corner and continually told the public that the criminal law is the only answer to the issue of harmful subtances.  It isn't _and they know it_.  But they have been lying to the public for so long that they feel unable to tell the truth unless they feel the wrath of the deceived.



Lets look at some other aspects as well. Does the US govt even WANT to stop the illegal black market of drugs anway? Could they possibly have other interests that involves NOT wanting drug use to be lower and benefitting from the illegal trade itself? There is a plus for even our corrupt govt for keeping it in the black market, they have used this black market to fund operations (as we have seen in Iran/Contra) and have backed groups that use drug money to fund their goals. 

Look at afghanistan. The heroin supplies were pretty non-existant til the US invaded and took over. Now they are UP and the world supply is now flush with heroin once again.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,434523,00.html



> Afghan leader Hamid Karzai is facing increasing criticism in Kabul. Indeed, the talk these days is not of an additional term for the 48-year-old president, but rather who will succeed him. His time in office has been a sobering one: Afghans are deeply disappointed by the slow pace of reconstruction, an abysmal security situation, rampant corruption and a flourishing drug trade. Many chastise Karzai for being too docile in his dealings with corrupt governors and police chiefs and for maintaining ties for the country's former warlords. But Karzai's latest troubles are closer to home in nature: * They center around allegations that one of his brothers is involved in drug trafficking.* His younger brother Ahmed Wali Karzai is influential among the Popalzai, a Pashtun clan, in Karzai's home province of Kandahar and is the chairman of the provincial council. It is believed the Ahmed Wali is also the head of a group involved in opium and heroin trafficking that smuggles drugs to the West through Iran and Turkey. Sources in security circles claim that he provides protection for drug transports in southern Afghanistan.



Its not new that his brother is accused, its been well known for YEARS that his brother was involved in the drug trade. Its one of the reasons the taliban and his family HATE each other, the taliban bastards wouldnt let the drug running bastards have their drugs. Two bastard groups is all they are, neither should have ever recieved a bit of support.

and 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-09-afghan-corruption_N.htm



> KABUL, Afghanistan  When the deal went down in Las Vegas, the seller was introduced only as "Mr. E." In a room at Caesars Palace hotel, Mr. E exchanged a pound-and-a-half bag of heroin for $65,000 cash  unaware that the buyer was an undercover detective. The sting landed him in Nevada state prison for nearly four years.
> Twenty years later and Mr. E, whose real name is Izzatullah Wasifi, has a new job. He is the government of Afghanistan's anti-corruption chief.
> 
> Wasifi leads a staff of 84 people charged with rooting out the endemic graft that is fueled in part by the country's position as the world's largest producer of opium poppy, the raw ingredient of heroin.



http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/09/asia/AS-GEN-Afghan-Convicted-Corruption-Chief.php



> An Associated Press review of criminal records in Nevada and California revealed that the 48-year-old Wasifi was arrested at Caesars Palace on July 15, 1987, for selling 650 grams (23 ounces) of heroin. Prosecutors said the drugs were worth US$2 million on the street.



US tax money is being given and allocated by this guy and he is sopposed to help GET RID OF CORRUPTION! 

and from same article



> Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world's opium. The drop in Farah bucked an alarming nationwide trend that saw poppy cultivation rise 59 percent between 2005 and 2006 to an all-time high  producing enough for about 670 tons of heroin. U.N. officials warn that this year could see a record crop.



The US has been there a few years and now the drug trade is skyrocketing and seeing record level production.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/heroin_harvest_in_afghanistan_soars.htm



> HEROIN production in Afghanistan has soared by up to 1400 per cent since the war on terror and the fall of the Taliban, a drugs conference will hear today.



I submit the US govt hasnt a CLUE on how to handle the drug problems and at worst, HELPS the drug trade.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2007)

Ruby said:


> Lets look at some other aspects as well. Does the US govt even WANT to stop the illegal black market of drugs anway? Could they possibly have other interests that involves NOT wanting drug use to be lower and benefitting from the illegal trade itself? There is a plus for even our corrupt govt for keeping it in the black market, they have used this black market to fund operations (as we have seen in Iran/Contra) and have backed groups that use drug money to fund their goals.
> 
> Look at afghanistan. The heroin supplies were pretty non-existant til the US invaded and took over. Now they are UP and the world supply is now flush with heroin once again.
> 
> ...



Where is Larkinn? Go ahead and tell me this claim is reasonable.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Where is Larkinn? Go ahead and tell me this claim is reasonable.




Go ahead and tell me what isnt FACTUAL. Did we not catch our own govt participating in the drug trade under Iran/Contra?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair



> In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report[38] that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions.



Is it not a fact that since the US has taken over afghanistan Herion production has increased to record levels AND those in the US backed govt are tied to the drug trafficing trade including ONE who has a previous conviction for it. 

Facts are facts.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

For those willing to take some time and learn the history behind the marijuana laws:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7417904870843277177&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

Narrated by: Woody Harrelson


----------



## Ruby (Aug 9, 2007)

That video is great! It was also pretty entertaining and it had me laughing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2007)

Ruby said:


> Go ahead and tell me what isnt FACTUAL. Did we not catch our own govt participating in the drug trade under Iran/Contra?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
> 
> ...



So let me see if I have this right. Supposedly two Government agencies discovered illegal drug trafficing by US Government officials and No charges were ever filed? NO legal action taken against the supposed ring leaders? Sounds more like a " golly we all know it where I live story" followed by " but no court will take it"

I can find Government reports about illegal activity by Bill and Hillary Clinton, remind me what you think of them.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So let me see if I have this right. Supposedly two Government agencies discovered illegal drug trafficing by US Government officials and No charges were ever filed? NO legal action taken against the supposed ring leaders? Sounds more like a " golly we all know it where I live story" followed by " but no court will take it"
> 
> I can find Government reports about illegal activity by Bill and Hillary Clinton, remind me what you think of them.



I have put thousands of Americans away for tens of thousands of years for less evidence for conspiracy with less evidence than is available against Ollie North and CIA people. . . . I personally was involved in a deep-cover case that went to the top of the drug world in three countries. The CIA killed it." 
 Former DEA Agent Michael Levine
CNBC-TV, October 8, 1996

or this DEA agent

"I really take great exception to the fact that 1,000 kilos came in, funded by U.S. taxpayer money."  DEA official Anabelle Grimm, during a 1993 interview on a CBS-TV "60 Minutes" segment entitled "The CIA's Cocaine." The 1991 CIA drug-smuggling event Ms. Grimm described was later found to be much larger. A Florida grand jury and the Wall Street Journal reported it to involve as much as 22 tons. 

Who really paid for the crimes committed in the Iran/Contra scandal...how many pardons were doled out? Thats how we do convictions, we give it a shallow appearance and then let the public move onto the next while we pardon those on the lower rungs who took the fall and we protect the highest up.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html



> Speculation about the involvement of Reagan, Vice President George Bush and the administration at large ran rampant. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh investigated the affair for the next eight years. Fourteen people were charged with either operational or "cover-up" crimes. In the end, North's conviction was overturned on a technicality, and President Bush issued six pardons, including one to McFarlane, who had already been convicted, and one to Weinberger before he stood trial.



Do you really expect a corrupt govt to rid itself of what it lives on? Thats simply far too naive.

Oh I dont like Bill Clinton or Hilary. They are the same corrupt puppets most of the other elected representatives are.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

Ruby said:


> That video is great! It was also pretty entertaining and it had me laughing.



 same here.

I don't know why it was cut off at the end.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Where is Larkinn? Go ahead and tell me this claim is reasonable.



Exactly what claim are you referring too?   The main claim made by Ruby was that "I submit the US govt hasnt a CLUE on how to handle the drug problems and at worst, HELPS the drug trade.", which I fully agree with.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Exactly what claim are you referring too?   The main claim made by Ruby was that "I submit the US govt hasnt a CLUE on how to handle the drug problems and at worst, HELPS the drug trade.", which I fully agree with.



Will you admit that they are wrong about marijuana? 

BTW did you watch the video I put up? Nixon ignored his own research to keep it illegal. 

There is no reason why marijuana is illegal.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> Will you admit that they are wrong about marijuana?
> 
> BTW did you watch the video I put up? Nixon ignored his own research to keep it illegal.
> 
> There is no reason why marijuana is illegal.



They are wrong about most drugs.   Marijuana, E, Pslocibyn, etc, etc.   All of these CAN be harmful, and need to be regulated strongly, but none should be completely illegal except perhaps the crazy addictive ones such as heroin.   

Any particular reason you are asking me to admit things, considering I've been arguing against RGS's asinine position that all drugs are insanely bad ?


----------



## Ruby (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Exactly what claim are you referring too?   The main claim made by Ruby was that "I submit the US govt hasnt a CLUE on how to handle the drug problems and at worst, HELPS the drug trade.", which I fully agree with.



I cant figure out whats so earth shattering about that statement either, its pretty self-evident.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

I picked the wrong one. Sorry. I'm up earlier than normal after staying up late. I haven't had coffee, yet.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

Ruby said:


> I cant figure out whats so earth shattering about that statement either, its pretty self-evident.



I think its that RGS has trouble figuring out the difference between making a claim (I think X is true) and stating the possibility of truth (I think X COULD be true).   You did say that the US might want to fuel a war on drugs, which I think is untrue, but I don't consider that a claim.   Also considering how incompetent the US has been in waging the war on drugs, I think that it could use some looking into, but I think it would be found to be untrue.   

AH-  No sweat.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> I think its that RGS has trouble figuring out the difference between making a claim (I think X is true) and stating the possibility of truth (I think X COULD be true).   You did say that the US might want to fuel a war on drugs, which I think is untrue, but I don't consider that a claim.   Also considering how incompetent the US has been in waging the war on drugs, I think that it could use some looking into, but I think it would be found to be untrue.
> 
> AH-  No sweat.




I dont think its exactly an all or nothing on that particular point. It has been one dept that has been caught actually doing it and one dept who would find it beneficial in certain circumstances, that is of course the CIA. We dont have a cohesive govt that are all working towards the same goal or aware of each others actions. 

My criteria to have strong suspicions (which is what I have here about CIA involvement in drug trafficing and/or supporting drug trafficers) is to have compelling evidence. Many theories can have plausability but that isnt compelling evidence. The compelling evidence that makes me strongly suspect that we have one dept trying to stop the flow of drugs and another dept helping the flow of drugs is ..

1. They have been caught. They have given support and protection to very well known drug trafficers (contras, noriega etc).

2. Overwhelming amount of CIA agents who have admitted so and DEA agents who have reported CIA interferrence in their investigation (and even had to back completely off) and the DEA also claiming that many of their larger international drug investigations lead them directly to the CIA who would then shut the investigation down. Too many eye-witnesses.

3. In those cases the REASONS for the CIA being involved makes sense. I will use an example of where they were caught. The contras were given support, training, weapons etc. from the US. They were horrible and brutal guys who murdered, raped and trafficed in drugs (you probably know this already). This was too well known but the US didnt like the economic plans that the sandanistas had and the sandanistas had the popular backing so we, the US, support the Contras. The CIA was paying people who were under investigation for drug trafficing and supporting a group that was trafficing drugs and the CIA did this because they didnt want the sandanistas to take power, the opposition were the contras so thats who we supported and backed. If the contras drug trafficing was stopped, funds would dry up and so would the opposition to the sandanistas. 

The DEA were given a list of airfields they were not allowed to keep under surveillence for the drug trafficers and later as the scandal breaks we find out that those airfields were being used for the illegal weapons to Iran and drugs coming into the US courtesy of the Contras. 

http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/outline.html#Micheal Levine



> In 1985 and 1986, Ayers surveilled airplanes (parked at Miami International Airport) belonging to two CIA-related airlines ("formerly owned" by the CIA) under contract with the Dept. of Defense to transport materiel for the Contras.
> 
> He repeatedly found traces of cocaine and marijuana inside the planes.
> 
> Ayers' findings became court evidence in a lawsuit by the airlines against a Miami TV station, and was found to be truthful and accepted as evidence.



His affidavit is available right in the link.

There are numerous other DEA agents who provide information, documents, provided court testimony etc. Its a pretty good link if you feel like reading it.

I find it all to be compelling evidence that the US tax payer is paying for one dept to try and stop or slow the flood of drugs into the country and another one who helps groups get drugs INTO the country for geo-political reasons.


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> They are wrong about most drugs.   Marijuana, E, Pslocibyn, etc, etc.   All of these CAN be harmful, and need to be regulated strongly, but none should be completely illegal except perhaps the crazy addictive ones such as heroin.
> 
> Any particular reason you are asking me to admit things, considering I've been arguing against RGS's asinine position that all drugs are insanely bad ?



Heroin's okay, it's crap like Ice that's really scary.  The producers of Ice need twenty-five years prison minimum for a first offence.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Heroin's okay, it's crap like Ice that's really scary.  The producers of Ice need twenty-five years prison minimum for a first offence.



Ice is really fucked up as well.   Everything I've heard about Heroin has been really bad, but I haven't researched it that much because I've never really had an interest in doing it.   The drugs I know a lot about are the more fun, more recreational ones.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

Ruby said:


> I dont think its exactly an all or nothing on that particular point. It has been one dept that has been caught actually doing it and one dept who would find it beneficial in certain circumstances, that is of course the CIA. We dont have a cohesive govt that are all working towards the same goal or aware of each others actions.



True that is is not all or nothing, but I don't see a reason why they would be trying to support illegal drugs.   I can see why they might do things that would support illegal drugs to further other causes, but that as an end seems very strange to me.   

That being said, I haven't researched this that much.   Which is largely why I stayed out of the convo about it, I just don't know that much about it.   

But thank you for taking the time to explain it all.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> True that is is not all or nothing, but I don't see a reason why they would be trying to support illegal drugs.   I can see why they might do things that would support illegal drugs to further other causes, but that as an end seems very strange to me.
> 
> That being said, I haven't researched this that much.   Which is largely why I stayed out of the convo about it, I just don't know that much about it.
> 
> But thank you for taking the time to explain it all.



Well your instincts are correct, its appears that the reasons are about accomplishing OTHER things. Drug trafficing is simply part of the package in many instances (such as with noriega and contra examples).


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Exactly what claim are you referring too?   The main claim made by Ruby was that "I submit the US govt hasnt a CLUE on how to handle the drug problems and at worst, HELPS the drug trade.", which I fully agree with.



And of course the continued posts in this thread where she keeps on making the clam that the Government was most definately involved?

I bet you do not agree with the reports that Gore was meeting with Chinese operatives to get bribe money do you? Yet it to is a "Government" report.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xN8YOPS-Vy8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xN8YOPS-Vy8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

Now on the serious side:

Marijuana for ADD:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yj72e5q61Fs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yj72e5q61Fs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

Bit more history on hemp (this time from outside America):
<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4284666027250613526&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>


----------



## maineman (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I bet you do not agree with the reports that Gore was meeting with Chinese operatives to get bribe money do you? Yet it to is a "Government" report.



link?


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292799,00.html


> California Petitioner Says State Budget Problems Could Be Fixed by Pot
> Thursday , August 09, 2007
> 
> By Greg Simmons
> ...



I hope everyone that lives in California gets on board with this.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 9, 2007)

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/



> *Myth: Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically.* In the 1960s and 1970s, many people believed that marijuana was harmless. Today we know that marijuana is much more dangerous than previously believed.
> 
> Fact: In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> 
> ...


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And of course the continued posts in this thread where she keeps on making the clam that the Government was most definately involved?
> 
> I bet you do not agree with the reports that Gore was meeting with Chinese operatives to get bribe money do you? Yet it to is a "Government" report.



Most definitely involved in what?   That claim is vague.   Make it a bit more concrete and I'll have something to say.   And the only reports about Gore taking bribes from the Chinese has been from you, and considering your track record on what other people say, I don't really have much faith in it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Most definitely involved in what?   That claim is vague.   Make it a bit more concrete and I'll have something to say.   And the only reports about Gore taking bribes from the Chinese has been from you, and considering your track record on what other people say, I don't really have much faith in it.



How old where you in the 90's? Just curious how you have never heard of this is all.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199803/ai_n8791199


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> How old where you in the 90's? Just curious how you have never heard of this is all.
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199803/ai_n8791199



Well the 90's was 10 years.   But when it started I was 6.   Or 5 I guess.  

Besides that...from the article the statement "Gore took bribes from the Chinese" is highly, highly misleading.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Well the 90's was 10 years.   But when it started I was 6.   Or 5 I guess.
> 
> Besides that...from the article the statement "Gore took bribes from the Chinese" is highly, highly misleading.



Sure thing. Just admit your wrong and we will move on.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing. Just admit your wrong and we will move on.



A campaign donation is not a bribe.   Sorry, but no.   Do you honestly believe this bullshit?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> A campaign donation is not a bribe.   Sorry, but no.   Do you honestly believe this bullshit?



Illegal "donations" from a foreign Country are most assuradely "bribes" They meet the criteria of said charge completely. Further they "bribes" worked. Clinton authorized the sale of highly classified information to China afterwards.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Illegal "donations" from a foreign Country are most assuradely "bribes" They meet the criteria of said charge completely. Further they "bribes" worked. Clinton authorized the sale of highly classified information to China afterwards.



No, whether they are given illegally or not as a donation they are still a donation.   A bribe has to do with the intended effect...which I suppose technically most large donations are bribes really.

And correlation does not mean causation.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And of course the continued posts in this thread where she keeps on making the clam that the Government was most definately involved?
> 
> I bet you do not agree with the reports that Gore was meeting with Chinese operatives to get bribe money do you? Yet it to is a "Government" report.




Do you have a problem with facts? Just because you dont like the information dosent discredit the information. This information is coming from our CIA, court testimonies that have been scrutinized and validated as truthful, DEA agents, and senate committee findings after an investigation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2007)

Ruby said:


> Do you have a problem with facts? Just because you dont like the information dosent discredit the information. This information is coming from our CIA, court testimonies that have been scrutinized and validated as truthful, DEA agents, and senate committee findings after an investigation.



So where the reports on Chinese " Donations". Again, remind me, who got prosecuted for these illegal activeties? If we have all this proof it was done, why was no one charged and brought to trial?


----------



## Ruby (Aug 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So where the reports on Chinese " Donations". Again, remind me, who got prosecuted for these illegal activeties? If we have all this proof it was done, why was no one charged and brought to trial?



I dont see any reports on chinese donations and you didnt link to one nor do I think chinese donations are illegal. I didnt see you provide all this "proof" of a crime committed. You submitted somthing saying a person who donated money also had direct ties to the chinese govt, where is the crime exactly?

Israel has numerous public and open ties to american jewish lobby groups who donate like crazy to political campaigns and their mission is clear and they state openly that their agenda and priority is nation other than the US. They have direct ties to the Israeli govt. Those donations result in Israel being the number 1 country we give money to, we give Israel more money that ANY OTHER nation and Egypt is second and  that money  is provided to assure that Egypt keeps good ties and relations with Israel (so its actually money for Israel and is certainly bribe money) but I doubt anyone will go to jail over that either.

Secondly, in the cases I highlight there have been prosecutions but there have also been political pardons, certainly plenty of guilty that werent charged, as well as light sentencing. Its the standard corruption, we catch em, big scandal and then the sentencing or lack therof is the next corrupt step we deal with but by then the apathetic public is hit with the next scandal and stands there drooling in apathy at their television.

You dont even seem to be very aware of the Iran Contra scandal and its been common knowledge since then that the CIA participated in drug trafficing (as well as other illegal activities). There were convictions, about half were pardoned and one had his conviction overturned on a technicality...that info is in the links I provided and are a matter of public record.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2007)

Ruby said:


> I dont see any reports on chinese donations and you didnt link to one nor do I think chinese donations are illegal. I didnt see you provide all this "proof" of a crime committed. You submitted somthing saying a person who donated money also had direct ties to the chinese govt, where is the crime exactly?
> 
> Israel has numerous public and open ties to american jewish lobby groups who donate like crazy to political campaigns and their mission is clear and they state openly that their agenda and priority is nation other than the US. They have direct ties to the Israeli govt. Those donations result in Israel being the number 1 country we give money to, we give Israel more money that ANY OTHER nation and Egypt is second and  that money  is provided to assure that Egypt keeps good ties and relations with Israel (so its actually money for Israel and is certainly bribe money) but I doubt anyone will go to jail over that either.
> 
> ...



No Iran Contra did not lead to Drug charges, the people charged and convicted were on providing money and on providing weapons and in fact one of the convictions, against Oliver North was for none of that, he accepted a security system to protect his family, which is illegal, as a member of the Military and as an employee of the Government he was not allowed to accept that "gift". See as how your claims are well after Bush was out of Office, explain again why Clinton would pardon Republicans?


----------



## Ruby (Aug 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No Iran Contra did not lead to Drug charges, the people charged and convicted were on providing money and on providing weapons and in fact one of the convictions, against Oliver North was for none of that, he accepted a security system to protect his family, which is illegal, as a member of the Military and as an employee of the Government he was not allowed to accept that "gift". See as how your claims are well after Bush was out of Office, explain again why Clinton would pardon Republicans?



Are you honestly so uninformed? The drug trafficing was accepted as fact due to the amount of evidence which is why it was affirmed in the conclusions. No one got the true sentences they deserved, but thats what is to be expected from a corrupt govt in charge of policing itself and an apathetic public who does nothing about it.

You want me to defend Clinton? Why? I already stated he is just as slimy as the rest. I dont hold Clinton in any esteem, I think he is owned by the same puppet masters that own both parties. I am not about to defend Clinton he is as indefensible as the rest.

This partisan game is a sham, its great at keeping the illusion of democracy while the corruption goes on unabated, it seems to me you fall for it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2007)

Ruby said:


> Are you honestly so uninformed? The drug trafficing was accepted as fact due to the amount of evidence which is why it was affirmed in the conclusions. No one got the true sentences they deserved, but thats what is to be expected from a corrupt govt in charge of policing itself and an apathetic public who does nothing about it.
> 
> You want me to defend Clinton? Why? I already stated he is just as slimy as the rest. I dont hold Clinton in any esteem, I think he is owned by the same puppet masters that own both parties. I am not about to defend Clinton he is as indefensible as the rest.
> 
> This partisan game is a sham, its great at keeping the illusion of democracy while the corruption goes on unabated, it seems to me you fall for it hook, line and sinker.



ead the first quote in my signature, it pretty much covers your "conclusions"


----------



## maineman (Aug 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> How old where you in the 90's? Just curious how you have never heard of this is all.
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199803/ai_n8791199



this article mentions nothing about any BRIBES.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ead the first quote in my signature, it pretty much covers your "conclusions"



Not really. You keep bringing up Clinton for some reason and it seems you are under some impression that I will feel a need to defend him and rather than deal with the issues raised in my posts you think it might work if you can put me on the defensive over Clinton. Even after I tell you I am not a fan of Clintons you dont absorb it and come back again about Clinton, which is just plain odd. 

You are like some floundering fish about now just flopping all over.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2007)

Ruby said:


> Not really. You keep bringing up Clinton for some reason and it seems you are under some impression that I will feel a need to defend him and rather than deal with the issues raised in my posts you think it might work if you can put me on the defensive over Clinton. Even after I tell you I am not a fan of Clintons you dont absorb it and come back again about Clinton, which is just plain odd.
> 
> You are like some floundering fish about now just flopping all over.



Wrong, you have made a claim that is not backed up by evidence. There are LOTS of government rep[orts put out. Failing any legal action there is NO legal basis to claim anyone in the Reagan or Bush whitehouse participated in drug running. Or that they knew it was going on.

Now I do believe the CIA would stoop to that. They do a lot of patently illegal things all the time. Its a far cry from the CIA doing it and the White House knowing about it, or members of the White House. 

When you bring me a legal charge and conviction or plea out, THEN you will have facts. Clinton is important because YOUR reports are from the 1990's AFTER 1992. Bush was not President then, Clinton was. You have claimed these people were pardoned for DRUG RUNNING. Clinton would have had to do that. Please provide this fact. Show me where Clinton pardoned any of Bush's staff or employees. Bush Pardoned them for their possible involvement in the weapons charges and the supposedly disobeying Congress thing.

That pardon would NOT cover drug running. A pardon only covers specific things. You can not pardon someone ahead of time. Now if your going to argue that Bush's pardon was for ALL acts involved in Iran-Contra please provide the statement from Bush that it included sanctioned drug running.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong, you have made a claim that is not backed up by evidence. There are LOTS of government rep[orts put out. Failing any legal action there is NO legal basis to claim anyone in the Reagan or Bush whitehouse participated in drug running. Or that they knew it was going on.
> 
> Now I do believe the CIA would stoop to that. They do a lot of patently illegal things all the time. Its a far cry from the CIA doing it and the White House knowing about it, or members of the White House.
> 
> ...



http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm



> After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.



You will see charges that give a generalized "aiding the contras" where they dont have to specific about what help that is. 

Still not even the point. I gave links where DEA agents testified to the CIA connection to drug trafficing and the testimony was verified by the courts to be truthful. The traces of drugs on the CIA planes that were used to help the contras was also in evidence. Just because the corrupt dont actually police themselves as they should dosent change the laws they broke nor the trafficing of drugs they participated in.

The facts are also that during this time there was a BIG BOOM of cocaine to hit the US which was also the drug that the Contras were trafficing in and there is very solid evidence that says our own CIA helped facilitate much of that to gain strides in political goals they were tasked with in another nation.

They werent simple govt reports...we have court testimony, we have DEA and CIA eyewitnesses and informants, we have paper trails (cia paying people who were drug running and even under investigation for drug running WHILE the cia had them on the payroll) and we have the senate comittee findings.

Thats a lot of evidence to overlook at write off as "well they didnt punish themselves for it so the evidence must be bogus".

You will also see the pardons had nothing to do with the slimeball clinton, not that he wouldnt have obliged, I am sure he would have if needed.

When the US govt is caught in a scandal, we get a dog and pony show but no one really gets punished and we have plenty of people like you that will assume it must be ok then and not that serious afterall.

You seem the most against the access of drugs yet fail to deal with the fact that we wont fix the problem with our current criminalization policy nor will we fix it when parts of our govt actually BENEFIT and HELP the trade while we pay yet another dept to STOP it. Its a CIRCUS and we citizens are the suckers PT Barnum talked about.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 10, 2007)

Ruby said:


> http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you have backed off the claim that the Reagan and Bush admins had anything to do with drugs? Good. Already agreed with you that the CIA could have done it.

And I see your not claiming any high level Reagan or Bush person was pardoned for drug running, good again.

The CIA has a history of doing what it wanted with and without proper authority, with and without Admins or Congress knowing about it. And they do things AGAINST Presidents and Admins they do not like also.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you have backed off the claim that the Reagan and Bush admins had anything to do with drugs? Good. Already agreed with you that the CIA could have done it.
> 
> And I see your not claiming any high level Reagan or Bush person was pardoned for drug running, good again.
> 
> The CIA has a history of doing what it wanted with and without proper authority, with and without Admins or Congress knowing about it. And they do things AGAINST Presidents and Admins they do not like also.



I am not sure why you think I want to target a PARTICULAR administration. I think this sort of thing has been going on for decades and the corruption isnt limited to any one particular administration, they ALL are involved.

I dont think any high level reagan or bush person would BE convicted unless the american public got serious about holding a corrupt govt responsible. Just look at how much corruption they all got away with!

I do think that the bush and reagan admin were involved in the drug trafficing since those admins are also responsible for the CIA and the CIA are carrying out political goals of the administrations, its just NOT LIMITED TO THOSE ADMINS. Each admin seems to carry forward with the same political goals in the latin american region and that is going to inevitably include drug trafficing since so many of the groups we side with fund themselves that way.

Reagan compared the contras to the founding fathers...the contras were terrorists who raped, murdered, terrorized and they were drug trafficers. I think the fact that Reagan backed supporting these guys and tasked the CIA with HELPING them does indeed implicate his admininstration directly. 

The CIA and presidential admins cant be separated. The CIA answers to and carries out policy handed down by the presidential admins that are in office. If the president and his admin are unaware of the CIA activities and actually act in good faith (convict all involved) then I might believe the presidential admin had no knowledge and didnt approve, but when the admin just hands out pardons, refuses to declassify the documents etc then I am sure they DID know and they DO approve of the corrupt actions. The Reagan/Bush admins were supportive of the goals the CIA were pursuing and all actions they took during and after the scandal broke showed that clearly. They protected those involved as best they could (pardons are a very clear indicator of agreement with the actions).


----------



## maineman (Aug 10, 2007)

exactly.  the CIA is no more an independent entity that carries out actions without the blessings of the white house any more that the DoD invades countries without telling the president.

and if, by chance, any president gives the CIA the guidance to not tell him about their  more sordid activities, he is tacitly approving them and is as completely responsible for them as he would be for our military if it did something on its own.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 11, 2007)

maineman said:


> exactly.  the CIA is no more an independent entity that carries out actions without the blessings of the white house any more that the DoD invades countries without telling the president.
> 
> and if, by chance, any president gives the CIA the guidance to not tell him about their  more sordid activities, he is tacitly approving them and is as completely responsible for them as he would be for our military if it did something on its own.



You have said that point more succinctly and better than I did for certain.


----------



## maineman (Aug 11, 2007)

Ruby said:


> You have said that point more succinctly and better than I did for certain.



you're too kind.  I was just adding my two cents worth of reinforcement!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 11, 2007)

Ruby said:


> You have said that point more succinctly and better than I did for certain.



The two of you can carry on this love fest all you want. To claim the CIA does not operate without the knowledge of the admin is both a lioe and historically inaccurate. But to pretend otherwise.

I must assume then, using your logic that President Bush WANTED the CIA to create the furor over a non secret agent being "outed" and his Admin embarressed. Yes?


----------



## Ruby (Aug 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The two of you can carry on this love fest all you want. To claim the CIA does not operate without the knowledge of the admin is both a lioe and historically inaccurate. But to pretend otherwise.
> 
> I must assume then, using your logic that President Bush WANTED the CIA to create the furor over a non secret agent being "outed" and his Admin embarressed. Yes?



And the pardons, the refusal to declassify documents, etc are all a show of non-support? 

I think how the executive branch behaves when the wrong doings are brought to light (or to their attention) reveals their stance. The Reagan/Bush admins were clear that they did all they could to help the perpetrators. They gave out pardons, refused to de-classify documents etc. We also have the evidence that even though it was PUBLIC knowledge that the contras were terrorists and drug runners that Reagan continued to task the CIA with assisting them. The CIA was doing what the admins ASKED them to do.

We can play dumb and not notice the obvious connections, but that wouldnt be wise. The Reagan/Bush admins were both firmly set on their goals in nicaragua and with the contras, no matter the boland amendment, no matter the slaughters committed by the contras, no matter the drug trafficing...it was quite clear how committed those admins were and that they were quite willing to break US laws to do it.

The CIA and those particular admins were quite harmonious.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 11, 2007)

Ruby said:


> And the pardons, the refusal to declassify documents, etc are all a show of non-support?
> 
> I think how the executive branch behaves when the wrong doings are brought to light (or to their attention) reveals their stance. The Reagan/Bush admins were clear that they did all they could to help the perpetrators. They gave out pardons, refused to de-classify documents etc. We also have the evidence that even though it was PUBLIC knowledge that the contras were terrorists and drug runners that Reagan continued to task the CIA with assisting them. The CIA was doing what the admins ASKED them to do.
> 
> ...



In other words, other then your claim, you have no evidence that anyone outside the CIA had any knowledge, made any order or task the CIA with running drugs. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words, other then your claim, you have no evidence that anyone outside the CIA had any knowledge, made any order or task the CIA with running drugs. Thanks for playing.



You seem to enjoy playing the game of "lets not see the evidence and avoid using our common sense". 

The CIA were tasked to help a terrorist group of drug trafficers to take power in Nicaragua so the CIA helped them with weapons and training so they could slaughter and kill the population and the CIA helped them traffic drugs for funding as well. When this came to the light of day, the presidential admins of Reagan/Bush did all they could to protect them from consequences and from a full disclosure of the truth coming out. They classified documents, destroyed documents, played the "I dont recall" game, handed out pardons like tic tacs, light sentencing etc.

Your response seems to be that of a defense lawyer who dosent care about the guilt but sees your job as making sure nothing sticks. 

You seem to want to criminalize users but when faced with the fact that a US tax supported dept that carries out the presidential foreign policy has helped bring drugs into the country to help terrorists, you seek to defend. 

I bet it really boils down to the fact that you loved Reagan and cant face what a terrorist supporting bastard he really was.


----------



## maineman (Aug 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The two of you can carry on this love fest all you want. To claim the CIA does not operate without the knowledge of the admin is both a lioe and historically inaccurate. But to pretend otherwise.
> 
> I must assume then, using your logic that President Bush WANTED the CIA to create the furor over a non secret agent being "outed" and his Admin embarressed. Yes?




reacting in an appropriate manner using the existing process of asking the DoJ to investigate the outing of a CIA agent was clearly not anything that the CIA needed to brief the president on prior to doing so...anymore than the DoD has to request permission from the president to court martial a service member.

When the CIA asked for the DoJ to investigate Plame's outing, they clearly had no idea as to the source... maybe if they HAD been briefed in advance by the Vice President that he and his staff were behind it, the CIA would not have made a big deal out of it.... but in fact, they did NOT know where the leak came from - hence their request for the investigation.

Comparing that action to illegal clandestine intelligence operations which would not be done without the - at least tacit - approval of the president is nothing but apologist, rhetorical masturbation.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 12, 2007)

This is also a pretty good link and there were some more declassified documents that were released a few years back that only further implicate the US govt and those in the Reagan/Bush admin.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm

It highlights knowledge of the drug trafficing in the highest levels of the presidential administration as well as the continued protection of known drug dealers and terrorists. We knowingly allowed well established drug trafficers to use planes to transport "humanitarian aid"  and the DEA was blocked from watching those air strips and those planes were not subject to customs or search. It really dosent take a rocket scientist to figure it out. 

Bottomline, US foreign policy in the latin american region has been to wage covert wars and we have utilized terrorist groups to do so, the terrorists groups inevitably fund themselves largely through  black market drug trafficing. 

This leaves the US admins with the following dilemma. They either give a nod and as much help as they can to the drug running or they give up their plans to subvert the unfriendly govts in the region via covert methods. Obviously they feel their need to subvert and control the latin america region much more important than the "war on drugs". 

If our own govt is going to participate (and even when caught just hand out pardons like candy), why should joe-blow citizen have to go to jail for using the drug or participating at a much lower level than our govt has? Why should US tax payers pay for drug enforcment, drug trafficing and imprisoning low level dealers or users? Its a HUGE waste of money.

Of course, if it were decriminalized and the industry were handled in a more straight forward manner then money would have to be accounted for and taxed. Terrorist groups and covert operations could no longer thrive on the black market money. We could invest in rehab and education and might even see lower usage.

We can pretend to be naive staring in the face of such obvious evidence and pretend their corruption is somehow a mitigation to their guilt, but that would be downright stupid and insane and I dont think you are either.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 12, 2007)

Yup no bias there.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup no bias there.



Assertions are made, documentation of evidence to support those assertions are provided and all you can say is "biased"? Thats pretty lame really.


----------



## MassageGirl (Aug 13, 2007)

> You know shit about drugs. These things CAN cause deaths, they don't always. In fact some very rarely do.
> 
> Anyway I thought you were against the nanny state? I can do what I want with my own body.



Yep thats the truth in a nutshell. Well put. 

The government tried to abolish the production and use of ALCOHOL, less than 100 years ago, and within 6 months, found out that that approach was completely wrong, in spite of the fact that every year people die from DUIs, chirrosis of the liver, alcohol related violence (liquor store robberies, etc), and all the rest...

I dont agree with adding another "sin tax" to the long list of taxes we already pay. It certainly hasnt helped me to quit smoking cigarettes, so I doubt that it would help any other person quit getting high or down on whatever their substance of choice is, lol...

My biggest point in this is that people need to be held responsible for THEIR ACTUAL CRIMES, and drug laws act as sort of a veil that covers them from accountability for their wrongdoings. They are held accountable for their drug use instead of the fact that they ran a red light, killed someone, held a store up, beat up their parents, etc, etc... THATS the REAL crime. That is where the victims came into the picture. 
A person can do all those things without being high (or drunk) but in todays extremely anti substance abuse mindset, there is far too much focus on blaming the SOMETHING (the drugs/ or alcohol) instead of blaming the PERSON. 

ANYONE can get as high as a kite on any given substance and maintain some composure, at least enough composure to not commit a violent crime on another person- but the violent criminals do not end up feeling badly about hurting someone else BECAUSE they are charged with drug use and only ordered something ridiculous like forced rehab. What happens is, the drugs get blamed for the crime, instead of the person... the conversations go something like this:

"You know why I pulled you over?"

"Yeah I ran a red light and hit that car, okay."

(cop takes a big whiff)

"Hey man you got any pot in there?"

"Nope"

"Lets take a look, cause I smell it"

"Oh looky what we got here... CANNABIS!!! -Well that explains it! You high?"

"Yeah I guess"

"Well, Im going to charge you NOT with a hit and run, which is what the real problem is, but with possession of marijuana, and give you a ticket for running a red light."

............

He could have just said "Ok high or not, you ran from the scene of an accident, and you could have really hurt someone. Im taking you in for hit and run." -Cop
"Hit and run is a bigger charge than marijuana." - Driver
"Yep"-Cop
............

OMFG. Can you believe this???
THEY are the ones that are high, for NOT doing things the right way, imo....


----------



## eots (Aug 13, 2007)

Dateline report on CIA drug trafficking into the US with follow-up ...Secret Heartbeat of America - The CIA and Drugs Veoh, Secret Heartbeat of America - The CIA and ... iTunes, Alex Jones 12-14-2004 Drug War Google Video ...
www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3031693946.aspx - 86k - Cached - Similar pages


----------



## manu1959 (Aug 13, 2007)

i think all drugs should be legal.....darwin will sort out the amateurs


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 14, 2007)

Here is another "good" reason to legalize all drugs...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070814/hl_afp/ushealthdrug_070814213013


----------



## maineman (Aug 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Here is another "good" reason to legalize all drugs...
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070814/hl_afp/ushealthdrug_070814213013



...and smoking causes cancer, and drinking ruins your liver.... are you suggesting that we make tobacco and alcohol illegal?  And here I thought you were a conservative...


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Here is another "good" reason to legalize all drugs...
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070814/hl_afp/ushealthdrug_070814213013



Why are you so much in favor of a nanny state?


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 15, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Why are you so much in favor of a nanny state?



That was nice use of hype and hyperbole.  There should be moderation in practically everything.  I used to be totally opposed to any nanny state legislation until I did some serious thinking.  Do you think that people should be allowed to drive as fast as they with no speed limits?   Do you think that bestiality and prostitution should be allowed nation wide?  At what age should people be allowed to engage in these activities  16, 18, 21?  Do you think that people should be allowed to consume any chemical that they want?  Do you support removing the FDA and OSAH? Should all governmental agencies involved in oversight be disbanded?  Should there be no SEC.  Think of all of the nanny-state agencies that America has.  There might be too many, but do you really want to remove every single one of them?


----------



## maineman (Aug 15, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> That was nice use of hype and hyperbole.  There should be moderation in practically everything.  I used to be totally opposed to any nanny state legislation until I did some serious thinking.  Do you think that people should be allowed to drive as fast as they with no speed limits?   Do you think that bestiality and prostitution should be allowed nation wide?  At what age should people be allowed to engage in these activities  16, 18, 21?  Do you think that people should be allowed to consume any chemical that they want?  Do you support removing the FDA and OSAH? Should all governmental agencies involved in oversight be disbanded?  Should there be no SEC.  Think of all of the nanny-state agencies that America has.  There might be too many, but do you really want to remove every single one of them?



the point is:  republicans whine about the liberal nanny state all the time, but are quite willing to have the state perform that function as long as it is enforcing the moral issue that THEY endorse.  THAT is the hypocrisy of it all.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Here is another "good" reason to legalize all drugs...
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070814/hl_afp/ushealthdrug_070814213013




You can't legislate morality. If an adult chooses to fry their brain... It's their choice. Bust them when they brake laws that effect others. I have yet to met a tweaker who isn't braking other laws.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> the point is:  republicans whine about the liberal nanny state all the time, but are quite willing to have the state perform that function as long as it is enforcing the moral issue that THEY endorse.  THAT is the hypocrisy of it all.



I'm proud to call myself a Republican. This is one of the subjects I disagree with them on. It's mostly the waste of money we've spent to try and stop something that can not be stopped.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 15, 2007)

Absolute Hogwash. Republicans support "LEGIT" powers and responsibilities of our Government and oppose the ones that have no basis in law or the Constitution. That Maineman would make this ignorant claim is simply laughable. He is the Hypocrite.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 15, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> That was nice use of hype and hyperbole.  There should be moderation in practically everything.  I used to be totally opposed to any nanny state legislation until I did some serious thinking.  Do you think that people should be allowed to drive as fast as they with no speed limits?   Do you think that bestiality and prostitution should be allowed nation wide?  At what age should people be allowed to engage in these activities  16, 18, 21?  Do you think that people should be allowed to consume any chemical that they want?  Do you support removing the FDA and OSAH? Should all governmental agencies involved in oversight be disbanded?  Should there be no SEC.  Think of all of the nanny-state agencies that America has.  There might be too many, but do you really want to remove every single one of them?



Yes, you are right it was hype and hyperbole.   But it was used to point out an obvious inconsistency in RGS's thinking.   I am in favor of some limited state interference.   I agree with some of those rules, but not all.   Generally I favor the state not interfering in sexual or personal actions between consenting adults...but when it comes to society as a whole, I think there needs to be a guiding hand.


----------



## maineman (Aug 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute Hogwash. Republicans support "LEGIT" powers and responsibilities of our Government and oppose the ones that have no basis in law or the Constitution. That Maineman would make this ignorant claim is simply laughable. He is the Hypocrite.



so it is legit to be a nanny state about marijuana but it is utter hogwash to be a nanny state about nicotine?

it is legit to have government be able to intrude into your bedroom, but it is total hogwash to have government be able to intrude into the boardroom?

whatever.


----------



## maineman (Aug 15, 2007)

and I have to make the following observation:

supposedly, RGS has me on "ignore"..... but that doesn't seem to stop him from picking and chosing those comments of mine that he wants to snipe at, and simultaneously ignoring my direct replies to him...

where I come from, we call guys who hide like that....PUSSIES.

Certainly unlike any gunnery sergeant I ever knew!


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute Hogwash. Republicans support "LEGIT" powers and responsibilities of our Government and oppose the ones that have no basis in law or the Constitution. That Maineman would make this ignorant claim is simply laughable. He is the Hypocrite.




You can't legislate private choices. If it's hurting only me, what is it to you. If it's hurting someone outside of the user, then nail them on that. If a woman takes them while pregnant, take the child. Nail her to the wall for endangering a child. If they get behind the wheel while under the influence, nail them on those laws. Quit filling up our jails with drug charges and letting the ones that truly hurt us out. Why do drug offenders spend more time that sexual abuser? Because there's more money in busting the drugs. Why are so many of our prisons full of people who haven't hurt anyone but themselves?


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> You can't legislate private choices. If it's hurting only me, what is it to you. If it's hurting someone outside of the user, then nail them on that. If a woman takes them while pregnant, take the child. Nail her to the wall for endangering a child. If they get behind the wheel while under the influence, nail them on those laws. Quit filling up our jails with drug charges and letting the ones that truly hurt us out. Why do drug offenders spend more time that sexual abuser? Because there's more money in busting the drugs. Why are so many of our prisons full of people who haven't hurt anyone but themselves?



Seriously.   And the result of this stupid policy?   We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.   By far.   Here, read all about it.   http://bostonreview.net/BR32.4/loury.html


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

http://www.november.org/BottomsUp/learn/DrugPolicy.html

Bit more data:



> In 1985, our incarceration rate was 313 per 100,000 population. As of June 30, 2003 it was 715 per 100,000. The largest single factor contributing to this imprisonment wave is a ten-fold rise in drug convictions. In 1980, when illicit drug use was peaking, there were about 50,000 men and women in prison for violating drug laws. In 2002, there were about 500,000 incarcerated. (2)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## manu1959 (Aug 16, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Seriously.   And the result of this stupid policy?   We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.   By far.   Here, read all about it.   http://bostonreview.net/BR32.4/loury.html



yea it is the laws fault......


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

manu1959 said:


> yea it is the laws fault......



I already pointed out this idea of making crimes legal with a "tax" will solve all kind of problems. Of course when it starts happening I wouldn't want to live in this country anymore.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

manu1959 said:


> yea it is the laws fault......



Yes, actually it is.   If we put in jail everyone who had ever smoked pot our economy would come to a screeching halt.   The laws are idiotic.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I already pointed out this idea of making crimes legal with a "tax" will solve all kind of problems. Of course when it starts happening I wouldn't want to live in this country anymore.



Smoking marijuana is a little bit different than most other crimes.   No wait, its a lot different.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Smoking marijuana is a little bit different than most other crimes.   No wait, its a lot different.



You have willfully ignored that this thread is not just about MJ. REREAD the title and then reread the posts made, then get back to me.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have willfully ignored that this thread is not just about MJ. REREAD the title and then reread the posts made, then get back to me.



No, but it includes Marijuana which is a MAJOR contributing factor to those in jail on drug convictions.   

Now I've already said that some harder drugs should stay illegal.   YOU have not, preferring to class all "crimes" together...marijuana with rape and murder.    They are very different things, and if you look at them equally you are making a major mistake.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> No, but it includes Marijuana which is a MAJOR contributing factor to those in jail on drug convictions.
> 
> Now I've already said that some harder drugs should stay illegal.   YOU have not, preferring to class all "crimes" together...marijuana with rape and murder.    They are very different things, and if you look at them equally you are making a major mistake.



The reality is that almost everywhere you only go to jail for MJ if your dealing growing or distributing it. It is now a misdomeaner almost everywhere if all your doing is smoking it. 

THIS thread and your word games do not change the fact that we are TALKING about hard drugs and the fact that the people in favor of legalizing them are wrong.

BUT do continue to pretend I am just talking about pot.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

Ok then... Just marijuana, where do you stand. Even the growers shouldn't be in prisoned. The laws are based on lies and misconceptions. Ones that their own studies have proven wrong.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The reality is that almost everywhere you only go to jail for MJ if your dealing growing or distributing it. It is now a misdomeaner almost everywhere if all your doing is smoking it.



Incorrect.   That is true of some states, but not others.   Texas has 180 days in jail for anything less than 2 oz.   Kansas has 1 year in jail for any amount.  Same for Arkansas.   Wyoming has 3 month jail time for being under the influence of marijuana...not even posessing any.   Nevada if you are under 21 and posess any amount of marijuana it is a class E felony and is 1-4 years in jail.   This is not true of everywhere...but it is hardly the fact that "almost everwhere" smoking MJ does not get you thrown into prison.   



> THIS thread and your word games do not change the fact that we are TALKING about hard drugs and the fact that the people in favor of legalizing them are wrong.



Since when were we only talking about hard drugs?   You seem to have redefined the debate without telling anyone else.   



> BUT do continue to pretend I am just talking about pot.



...be smarter.   Please.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

I believe Oregon is the only state where it's legal to be under the influence of it. Unless you're behind the wheel. It's also only a ticket if found with anything less than an ounce.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Incorrect.   That is true of some states, but not others.   Texas has 180 days in jail for anything less than 2 oz.   Kansas has 1 year in jail for any amount.  Same for Arkansas.   Wyoming has 3 month jail time for being under the influence of marijuana...not even posessing any.   Nevada if you are under 21 and posess any amount of marijuana it is a class E felony and is 1-4 years in jail.   This is not true of everywhere...but it is hardly the fact that "almost everwhere" smoking MJ does not get you thrown into prison.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you actually this dense? READ the TITLE of the THREAD. READ the majority of the posts. You need to BE SMARTER.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you actually this dense? READ the TITLE of the THREAD. READ the majority of the posts. You need to BE SMARTER.



The title of the thread says ALL DRUGS.   Now, anwser me, is Marijuana a drug?   Yes?   Then we are talking about it.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you actually this dense? READ the TITLE of the THREAD. READ the majority of the posts. You need to BE SMARTER.



I'm the one that started this thread. So, let's now talk about just the one drug. Marijuana. The thread doesn't have to be just about all drugs. How about we deal with one at a time. 

Let's tackle the one that is clearly the stupidest to keep illegal... MARIJUANA

Should it be legal? Should we tax it? Should we get it out being the main focus of the DEA? How about the fact that up until the last few years they have ignored the meth issue and remained focused on weed? What about the fact that the issues with weed have been created by the group enforcing the laws around it? Should we do what our own studies have said to do about it? Or should we continue to through the huge amounts we are? How the fact that the amount of users have gone up not down under the laws?

I can go on and on... All questions you seem to want to avoid directly replying to.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

Some data behind the current marijuana arrests:

http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=10670


> According to the most recent figures available from the FBI, police arrested an estimated 786,545 people on marijuana charges in 2005 -- more than twice the number of Americans arrested just 12 years ago. Among those arrested, about 88 percent -- some 696,074 Americans -- were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,471 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.
> 
> 
> These totals are the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and make up 42.6 percent of all drug arrests in the United States. Nevertheless, self-reported pot use by adults, as well as the ready availability of marijuana on the black market, remains virtually unchanged.
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> The title of the thread says ALL DRUGS.   Now, anwser me, is Marijuana a drug?   Yes?   Then we are talking about it.



More word games by the word game expert. YOU have attempt to change the subject and course of the conversation to JUST about pot. Then cried foul when it is pointed out THAT is not all we are talking about. YOU have tried to twist what I have said into JUST about pot, when I have repeatedly reminded you that this thread is NOT just about pot. And then your defense is, " well gee, golly darn, pot is  a drug too"

You do not win debate points here with your tired little games.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

The argument that if only we would change the law less people would be criminals applies to EVERY law. Anti gun nuts have a fit when someone points out that if we make guns illegal only criminals will have guns.

I do NOT think a problem will go away if we just legalize it and tax it for our benefit. Alcohol is legal , has that made it safe? Has it made crimes committed by drunks any less real? Has it prevented teenagers from drinking? Has it prevented what some think is a national disgrace, Teenage alcoholic levels at unheard of levels?

Remind me again how legalizing pot will make it less used? How it will make it less attractive to teenagers? How it will stop illegal sales? How it will become less used because of the lack of a "thrill" at breaking a law?

Shall we make it legal at all ages? Allow it to be grown in anyones backyard? Will that then remove the dangerous of its use? Will it solve any problems it causes? Shall we make it illegal for employers to fire people for using it? Allow military members to use it? The excuses given for legalizing it are foolish at best.

Just like the claim by black groups that the reason a higher percent of black males are in prison can be fixed if we just didn't convict them of the crimes they commit. Why we don't need prisons at all. we can just tax all crime and solve all our problems.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> The title of the thread says ALL DRUGS.   Now, anwser me, is Marijuana a drug?   Yes?   Then we are talking about it.



You lectured me on context in another thread... Now this. Word games may help you win points in a debating society but all they do here is piss people off at your sophomoric attempts to change your ignorant rants to meaning something.

Why bother discussing anything with us if all your gonna do when caught by your own "brilliance" in a mistake you try to redefine words and meanings of sentences? Have you such a fragile ego that you can not just accept your wrong and move on? SO fragile you can not admit you misunderstood something?

Well actually I think it has more to do with your "higher" brain functioning and your belief that we are all retards and rejects and you can just baffle us with bullshit when ever you please.


----------



## jodylee (Aug 16, 2007)

most deaths from drugs are a direct result of them being illegal. for example if I were to buy some heroin it would probably be laced with sand and other unwanted substances. these substances cause most of the symptoms you see in heroin users. there is no evidence that pure heroin is detrimental to the body, if you can afford pure you have no problem.
ecstacy is the same, any deaths come from being inpure, or misinformation.
Then there are the indirect deaths from drugs, which is probably a higher number, from gangs fighting drug barrens and cartels, which aids terrorisum, civil war, genocide. 

just look at prohibition,and all the gangsters i gave power to, and still to this day do. 
This is the same as prohibition times, but global, which means you don't notice the gangsters as they're in different country's. the conservatives need to bite the bullett on this one. i suppose they are far too selfish for that.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> More word games by the word game expert.



Dude, you force me to be specific in my words because you continually misinterpret me.   Words are important, they are the only means on communication we have on here.   So its not "games" its reading critically to attempt to find out what the author means.   Considering you never seem to do that and instead just make up some tired old bullshit about what me and all libs believe, over and over and over again, I guess you just don't have the ability to critically read.   



> YOU have attempt to change the subject and course of the conversation to JUST about pot. Then cried foul when it is pointed out THAT is not all we are talking about.



If you want to mention other drugs, go for it.   I am uninterested in discussing harder drugs, because as I already said * I think they should be illegal *, as do you.   I know you usually have circle jerks of agreements with people, but I am uninterested in that kind of foolishness.   However, you said that we were not talking about Pot...which we obviously are.   You are correct in your new attempt to describe what we are talking about in saying we are not JUST talking about pot.   However, that does not mean in every fucking post I make I have to talk about the entire issue.   I can narrow it down to point out how ridiculous the laws are about marijuana, because they are.



> YOU have tried to twist what I have said into JUST about pot, when I have repeatedly reminded you that this thread is NOT just about pot. And then your defense is, " well gee, golly darn, pot is  a drug too"



Umm no, I've "twisted" what you said about all drugs and applied it to pot...since pot is a drug.   You said a statement about the generalized thing (drugs) and I applied it to the specific (pot)...perfectly valid.   



> You do not win debate points here with your tired little games.



Actually someone repped me for that "tired little game".   But regardless, you are not the one to be telling me about debate points, son.   



> The argument that if only we would change the law less people would be criminals applies to EVERY law. Anti gun nuts have a fit when someone points out that if we make guns illegal only criminals will have guns.



Yes, however, its NOT the case that most laws fill our prisons with nonviolent offendors and cause us to have the highest imprisonment rate in the world.   As I pointed out, laws against pot (and since you insist on being such a douche...othe drugs as well) are very very different than say laws against murder.



> I do NOT think a problem will go away if we just legalize it and tax it for our benefit. Alcohol is legal , has that made it safe? Has it made crimes committed by drunks any less real? Has it prevented teenagers from drinking? Has it prevented what some think is a national disgrace, Teenage alcoholic levels at unheard of levels?



And it was any better when it was illegal?



> Remind me again how legalizing pot will make it less used? How it will make it less attractive to teenagers? How it will stop illegal sales? How it will become less used because of the lack of a "thrill" at breaking a law?



Err...again, people use it, in part, because its illegal.   And it will stop illegal sales if its legal by allowing companies to produce it.   



> Shall we make it legal at all ages? Allow it to be grown in anyones backyard? Will that then remove the dangerous of its use? Will it solve any problems it causes? Shall we make it illegal for employers to fire people for using it? Allow military members to use it? The excuses given for legalizing it are foolish at best.



No, 18+.   Yes, allow it to be grown in anyones backyard.   No it won't remove the dangerous of its use.   No, it won't solve any problems it causes.   The employer question is irrelevant.  Sure allow military to use it.   You haven't addressed the reasons given for legalizing it.   

Again...why are you so much in favor of the government having control over what you do with your body RGS?   



> You lectured me on context in another thread... Now this. Word games may help you win points in a debating society but all they do here is piss people off at your sophomoric attempts to change your ignorant rants to meaning something.



Actually most people understand that its defining the debate.   You and Gunny seem to be the only people who don't understand the power of words.   



> Why bother discussing anything with us if all your gonna do when caught by your own "brilliance" in a mistake you try to redefine words and meanings of sentences? Have you such a fragile ego that you can not just accept your wrong and move on? SO fragile you can not admit you misunderstood something?



Dude...have you ever admitted that you were wrong?   I've caught you in numerous lies/mistruths, and you have NEVER admitted you were wrong.   You lecturing me on this is hilarious.   



> Well actually I think it has more to do with your "higher" brain functioning and your belief that we are all retards and rejects and you can just baffle us with bullshit when ever you please.



No...actually it has to do with me explaining (or attempting to) explain things to you which you are obviously too stupid to understand.   But I guess my eternal optimism just won't let it go.


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 16, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> You can't legislate morality. If an adult chooses to fry their brain... It's their choice. Bust them when they brake laws that effect others. I have yet to met a tweaker who isn't braking other laws.




That we supposedly cant legislate morality is, in itself, a moral statement.  We legislate morality all of the time.  Every law is a statement about what we think that we should allow and what we should not allow.  Laws against murder are moral laws.


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute Hogwash. Republicans support "LEGIT" powers and responsibilities of our Government and oppose the ones that have no basis in law or the Constitution. That Maineman would make this ignorant claim is simply laughable. He is the Hypocrite.



What is legit about outlawing prostitution, drugs, and gamboling?  What are the limited legitimate powers and responsibilities of our government?  Please list them.

On the one hand, you say that Republicans support legitimate powers.  On the other hand, aren&#8217;t Republicans opposed to allowing people to engage in prostitution and gamboling?  How do you synthesize such things?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> What is legit about outlawing prostitution, drugs, and gamboling?  What are the limited legitimate powers and responsibilities of our government?  Please list them.



Read the Constitution, Federal and State. They provide specific powers granted BY the people to the Governments in question.


----------



## maineman (Aug 16, 2007)

the constitution provides clear guidance on prohibiting and criminalizing marijuana while simultaneously promoting and advertising nicotine?

I was unaware of that.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> That we supposedly cant legislate morality is, in itself, a moral statement.  We legislate morality all of the time.  Every law is a statement about what we think that we should allow and what we should not allow.  Laws against murder are moral laws.



You are right. 

OK another angle to look at it... They are victimless crimes. If they are hurting no one but themselves, should we have laws governing it?


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

What will the feds do when the first state legalizes Marijuana? It's going to happen. 

It almost happened in Alaska in 2004:

http://www.regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/measure2/index.html


> Measure 2 falls short, but garners record support
> 
> On November 2, 2004, Alaska voters defeated Measure 2 -- a grassroots initiative that would have taken marijuana off of the criminal market -- *44% to 56%*. While the initiative lost, this was the largest statewide vote to end marijuana prohibition in the nation's history.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

We could get Howie Mandel to host a gameshow where anyone can champion any particular substance and can compete against other champions representing other drugs in a winner takes all half hour of family fun.  Each contestant will be given copius amounts of their chosen drug and be placed in an environment that requires the consumption of said drug including IV drips, smoke filled chambers and all the pariphenalia necessary.  whoever lives while maintaining a reasonable level of health gets their drug decriminalized for a year.


my money is on pot.

everytime.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

I agree pot would win.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

What's so good about pot ? I would hope that if our society decide to make something legal it will be of some benefit to society.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

oh, you mean besides the fact that you cannot overdose on it?

or, perhaps you meant the gazillion industrial uses for its plant components?

which illicit drug do you find more benevolent?
i'm sure legal meth would usher in a new decade of breakthroughs in capitolism and all..


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> oh, you mean besides the fact that you cannot overdose on it?
> 
> or, perhaps you meant the gazillion industrial uses for its plant components?
> 
> ...



No---I didnt mean any of that stuff. I mean what I said.


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Read the Constitution, Federal and State. They provide specific powers granted BY the people to the Governments in question.



What is legit about outlawing prostitution, drugs, and gamboling? What are the limited legitimate powers and responsibilities of our government? Please list them.

On the one hand, you say that Republicans support legitimate powers. On the other hand, arent Republicans opposed to allowing people to engage in prostitution and gamboling? How do you synthesize such things?


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

Reduced taxes. The drug war is costing all of us billions upon billions.

Prisons would be full of people who actually hurt other people.

Those are two that come to mind.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

What's so good about pot ? I would hope that if our society decide to make something legal it will be of some benefit to society.


I answered your question with two examples regarding "what's so good about pot".  Would you care to elaborate on how, exactly, you think pot would lack some benefits to society compared to every other illicit or abused drug?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> Reduced taxes. The drug war is costing all of us billions upon billions.
> 
> Prisons would be full of people who actually hurt other people.
> 
> Those are two that come to mind.



Pot will reduce our taxes ??  Promise ???   

Actually I want to know what is good about the substance--you know, THC ?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

roll yourself a fat hogleg and find out.


then, as you drift off into sleep after pouncing on that bag of cheetos try not to be too suprised when you can't manage to smoke enough to overdose.  Too bad most medicines, from cough syrup to toothpaste, are not similarly benign, eh?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> roll yourself a fat hogleg and find out.
> 
> 
> then, as you drift off into sleep after pouncing on that bag of cheetos try not to be too suprised when you can't manage to smoke enough to overdose.



But we already have millions of things in America that you can't overdose on.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

yea.. for some reason I just don't see purified water on par with marijuana.  Talk about an obvious strawman.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> yea.. for some reason I just don't see purified water on par with marijuana.  Talk about an obvious strawman.



Too hard to just say that you want pot legal because it makes you feel good?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

Cocain makes me feel good too, however, I wouldn't try to place coke on the same level as marijuana because only a fool would pretend that they produce the same effect.  Likewise, only a fool would blindly ignore the potential benefits of legalized pot by using transparent strawman rhetoric.  

Like I said.. I answered your question with two specific examples.  Is there anything interesting you'd like to add or is iit time to dive into the rhetoric pond?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Cocain makes me feel good too, however, I wouldn't try to place coke on the same level as marijuana because only a fool would pretend that they produce the same effect.  Likewise, only a fool would blindly ignore the potential benefits of legalized pot by using transparent strawman rhetoric.
> 
> Like I said.. I answered your question with two specific examples.  Is there anything interesting you'd like to add or is iit time to dive into the rhetoric pond?



Yo pot head--there's nothing rhetorical about my question. Saying pot is good because it will not kill you is somewhat bizarre tho. Doesn't make me wanna run right out and buy some.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

funny, I feel the same way about prothletizing christians yet....



I see that you had to run strait for the name calling since the strawman didn't seem to work for ya.  I guess I didn't really expect anything different though.  Of course, we all know what it means when someone needs to start name calling instead of defending a position...


after all.. there are plenty of things that don't make a person overdose so why _not_ bring up tap water in a thread about drugs?





But we already have millions of things in America that you can't overdose on.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> funny, I feel the same way about prothletizing christians yet....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LMAO--_you_ brought up tap water.
If you want to use a substance that will make you feel good and won't kill you, why don't you jsut admit it.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> LMAO--_you_ brought up tap water.
> If you want to use a substance that will make you feel good and won't kill you, why don't you jsut admit it.



indeed, I mentioned tap water after the following profound statement:


But we already have millions of things in America that you can't overdose on.

Praytell, what exactly does "millions of other things that you can't overdose on" have to do with a thread about drugs?

please be specific.  After all, this hasn't been reduced to wookie-like rhetoric yet, right?

My two specific examples to your original question certainly fall outside the realm of rhetoric so, by all  means, play ball or go back to the dugout, son.


----------



## MassageGirl (Aug 16, 2007)

The thing that some of you arent understanding is this:

We want DRUGS to be legalized, NOT crime. Theres a HUGE difference between the two.

If you are a person who wants to take all the crime away by passing a shitload of laws, then you really *dont* get it!

Lawbreakers = criminals, by the book. 

But what is a crime? Is it a crime that some people take razor blades to their arms stomachs and legs? Those people are called "cutters". Thats not illegal, and its not a CRIME. Its bad for them, sure. Most sane people would agree on that. That doesnt mean that we should just go ahead and outlaw the production and sales of razor blades or glass or anything else capable of cutting ones self with, right?

We arent trying to outlaw the production of spray paint, even though we know that some people will actually inhale the shit! 

You can NOT pass a law and expect criminals to follow it. Criminals are criminals. They think they are above the law. 

Safety- Yeah we get it. Look, its not safe that people are allowed to procreate without the use of condoms and a matrimonial degree, lol... but it still happens, and as a result people get all kinds of nasty STDs and HIV. We arent trying to outlaw sex, are we?

Unsafe does NOT equate to unlawful, nor should it. We are the dictators over our bodies, and we will do with them as we please, whether the govt says we can or not. If caffiene beverages like coffee were unlawful to drink, I WOULD STILL DRINK THEM.  I know that caffiene isnt good for me to drink in excess, but I DO IT, DAMNIT, and aint nobody going to stop me!!!!

Do you get it now?

Just because Im all hopped up on Mt Dew doesnt give me a free pass to commit a crime, and it doesnt mean I am going to commit one. Just because someone made Mt Dew illegal (hypothetically) doesnt mean I cant very easily go out on the street and find a fresh clean bottle of the stuff. I may be risking going to jail over possession of caffiene (ridiculous, but hey caffeine is a drug, like it or not) but again, it IS my body, and I will put into it whatever I please. 

Now, if I drank 10 bottles of the stuff in the AM, and went looking for some more, and the person was in a foul mood, they hit me, and  I ended up defending myself and beating the shit out of someone then THE CRIME that happened was not ME BEING ADDICTED TO CAFFEINE, but the fact that I beat the shit out of someone WHILE being UNDER THE INFLUENCE of that substance, which automatically would make me the guilty party, regardless of how badly I was beaten up, also. The underlying crime, the one that nobody ever looks at, is that there was a LAW preventing me from being able to go to the store and pay $1.25 for a 2 liter, which would have lasted me all day, sometimes 2 days. That, my friends, is the real problem. Making stuff illegal doesnt stop people from using it. It just applies a film over everyones eyes that the reason someone did something was because they were under the influence of a substance, whatever that substance may be.   Thats not true. See, I would NEVER assault someone BECAUSE I am hopped up on Dew. Thats absurd!!! But should the laws continue as they have been, in this war on drugs, then the cops could easily give me a blood test, and see that I had a high level of caffeine in my body, and therefore find their assailant. WRONGO!!! Many times, its the opposite, and the person who happened to be the victim gets tossed in the pokey just because they were under the influence..

The war on drugs should be called the war on PEOPLES FREEDOM.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Pot will reduce our taxes ??  Promise ???
> 
> Actually I want to know what is good about the substance--you know, THC ?



While I will not promise that legalizing marijuana will reduce taxes, I would like to point out that $40-$50 billion of our tax dollars are spent annually in the losing "War on Drugs," money that could be better spent in our schools, restoring our infrastructure, and numerous other projects. If marijuana were to be legalized, it could be taxed the same way they tax cigarettes and city, state, and federal coffers would have one more source of revenue.

The legalization of drugs is one topic where I split from what many would consider the conservatives. I lean toward the legaliztion of all drugs, I don't feel that it is the job of my government to tell me what to do with my body. While it is a rare occasion these days that I partake of the magical herb, I can say that I much prefer it to alcohol.

One of the biggest roadblocks to the legalization of currently illegal drugs, pot in particular, has got to be the &#65279;pharmaceutical companies, they don't want the competition. What would they do with the excess Xanax, Wellbutrin, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Trazodone, Buspar, Celexa, Lexapro, Cymbalta, Luvox, Meridia, Remeron, Effexor, Dutonin, or any of the other SSRI and SSNRI Antidepressants I didn't bother listing.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> indeed, I mentioned tap water after the following profound statement:
> 
> 
> But we already have millions of things in America that you can't overdose on.
> ...



Wake up ,dude
I asked what was good about pot.
You said one good thing about it was that you can't overdose on it.
If I asked you what is good about a zoo are you gonna tell me it keeps elephants from stepping on my toes ?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

MassageGirl said:


> The thing that some of you arent understanding is this:
> 
> We want DRUGS to be legalized, NOT crime. Theres a HUGE difference between the two.
> 
> ...



In other words, You want to use pot legally because it's your right to use what you want to feel good ?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Wake up ,dude
> I asked what was good about pot.
> You said one good thing about it was that you can't overdose on it.
> If I asked you what is good about a zoo are you gonna tell me it keeps elephants from stepping on my toes ?





and you don't call that RHETORIC?  did I say anything about elephants or zoos?  You asked a question and I gave you two answers.  You replied with a strawman and the wookie defense.

now, is there anything relevant you'd like to add or is it time to RSR up the thread??


----------



## hjmick (Aug 16, 2007)

What's good about pot, THC?

It alleviates feelings of nausea.

It helps to stimulate the appetite.

These two things are very helpful to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

hjmick said:


> What would they do with the excess Xanax, Wellbutrin, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Trazodone, Buspar, Celexa, Lexapro, Cymbalta, Luvox, Meridia, Remeron, Effexor, Dutonin, or any of the other SSRI and SSNRI Antidepressants I didn't bother listing.



Are you really implying that pot can pharmaceutically recreate all the effects of these medications ?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

hjmick said:


> What's good about pot, THC?
> It alleviates feelings of nausea.
> It helps to stimulate the appetite.
> These two things are very helpful to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.




Indeed, marijuana could be the new cash crop to aid failing tobacco farmers and a source for new sin taxes.  It's about as natural as a commodity can get.  It would stimulate a brand new market which should give capitolists a raging hardon.  Legalization would relieve crowded prisons and save tax dollars spent on government agencies whose purpose seems to be perpetuating it's own income by ignoring the reality of pot compared to drugs you'll see advertised on TV tonight.  I could go on but it seems we are about to talk about zoos and elephants or something.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

hjmick said:


> What's good about pot, THC?
> 
> It alleviates feelings of nausea.
> 
> ...



Thanks. I think cancer patients outta have access to THC for these reasons.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Are you really implying that pot can pharmaceutically recreate all the effects of these medications ?



looks to me that he was implying that pot is less risky, healthwise, than every one of those drugs that you've seen a commercial for.


it says a lot when you can overdose on toothpaste while braying on about the evil of a plant.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Indeed, marijuana could be the new cash crop to aid failing tobacco farmers and a source for new sin taxes.  It's about as natural as a commodity can get.  It would stimulate a brand new market which should give capitolists a raging hardon.  Legalization would relieve crowded prisons and save tax dollars spent on government agencies whose purpose seems to be perpetuating it's own income by ignoring the reality of pot compared to drugs you'll see advertised on TV tonight.  I could go on but it seems we are about to talk about zoos and elephants or something.



Cool--I'm all for industrial hemp! I'm not sure it's really well thought out use of arable land but what the hell.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> looks to me that he was implying that pot is less risky, healthwise, than every one of those drugs that you've seen a commercial for.
> 
> 
> it says a lot when you can overdose on toothpaste while braying on about the evil of a plant.



Where did I bray about a plant being evil ? I'm getting a kick outta watcha you come up with every reason in the world to legalize pot EXCEPT for the one everyone REALLY wants to use it for. Amazing.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

I guess nuclear reactors and oil refineries are a better use of land?


The tobacco market is waning.  this doesn't just effect philiip morris.  Im sure you can see the economic boost involved with legalizing pot?  surely.  Let the dept of ATF add M to their title and regulate it just like alcohol.  No one advocates abuse just because they see that prohibition hasn't worked any better for pot than it did for alcohol.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> looks to me that he was implying that pot is less risky, healthwise, than every one of those drugs that you've seen a commercial for.
> 
> 
> it says a lot when you can overdose on toothpaste while braying on about the evil of a plant.



Dude--your all hung up on this "less risky" crap. WHO CARES ?? Using NONE OF THE ABOVE is probably the least risk of all.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Where did I bray about a plant being evil ? I'm getting a kick outta watcha you come up with every reason in the world to legalize pot
> 
> 
> you ASSume that people who want pot legal only desire as much because of personal use.  As if there are no other reasons that the prohibition of pot is illogical...  listed for you conveniently by at least three people, no less.
> ...


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Dude--your all hung up on this "less risky" crap. WHO CARES ?? Using NONE OF THE ABOVE is probably the least risk of all.




riiiight.. because Americans sure don't consider RISK when making choices in their everyday life.. sometimes even, GASP, choosing a riskier path than could have otherwise been taken.. Hell, why on EARTH would 60 year old men risk the side effects of viagra when simply saying no to sex is the least risky of all?

Tell you what.. go find any single account of a death caused by an overdose of pot and then i'll humor you with all the elephant fun zoo talk you want to hear.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Where did I bray about a plant being evil ? I'm getting a kick outta watcha you come up with every reason in the world to legalize pot
> ...


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> riiiight.. because Americans sure don't consider RISK when making choices in their everyday life.. sometimes even, GASP, choosing a riskier path than could have otherwise been taken.. Hell, why on EARTH would 60 year old men risk the side effects of viagra when simply saying no to sex is the least risky of all?
> 
> Tell you what.. go find any single account of a death caused by an overdose of pot and then i'll humor you with all the elephant fun zoo talk you want to hear.



Are you sure you didn't light up already? I haven't once said that pot was bad for you. I DONT CARE !!!!!! I wanna know why YOU like it !
Now let's hear about the elephants.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Are you really implying that pot can pharmaceutically recreate all the effects of these medications ?



Not at all. I was merely pointing out that pharmacuetical companies have a very high stake in keeping certain illicit drugs from being legalized. That and, as Shogun said, there are fewer side effects with marijuana than a lot, if not all, psych meds. My limited knowledge of the effects of anti-depressants _(my wife takes 2 or 3 different types)_ compared to my vast knowledge of the effects of pot _(my recreational use and some reading)_ makes me think that very few people who suffer from depression would find it useful.

Just for the record, I would like to see it legalized for the medicinal reasons we've all read and heard about _(doesn't Montel Williams smoke it for the pain he suffers? MS, I think)_ and because I just really enjoy smoking the stuff.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

Again, YOU asked "what is so good about pot".


I assume no responsibility for your inability to cope with the answers provided.  You can try to guess the motivation of people you will never meet to your hearts content.  This is why it might help you to avoid the rhetoric and focus on the facts..

you know..

like how you've never heard of, or will find, a case of marijuana overdose.


too bad the same can't be said for toothpaste, eh?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Are you sure you didn't light up already? I haven't once said that pot was bad for you. I DONT CARE !!!!!! I wanna know why YOU like it !
> Now let's hear about the elephants.




That wasn't at all your original question.  Shall I quote you?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Again, YOU asked "what is so good about pot".
> 
> 
> I assume no responsibility for your inability to cope with the answers provided.  You can try to guess the motivation of people you will never meet to your hearts content.  This is why it might help you to avoid the rhetoric and focus on the facts..
> ...



LMAO--stop--your killing me--I'm gonna have an overdose of someone defending the safety of pot !!!!


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002745.htm
http://www.drugs.com/enc/toothpaste-overdose.html



there you go.. a little something that you can use to compare with all those marijuana overdoses happening all the time.  I'm sure both of those websites will have a plethora of info on what to do after OD'ing on pot too.


It's just like any other thing we allow ourselves to do that may not be as healthy as a rice cake and a bottle of water.  Sure, it would be less risky to ban alcohol too.  look how that turned out.  Tobacco?  Sugar?  Caffiene?


facts.. neat, aren't they?


----------



## hjmick (Aug 16, 2007)

More people have died eating spinach than smoking pot.

More people have died eating lettuce than smoking pot.

More people have died drinking water than smoking pot. _(There was some radio contest recently where a woman died from water poisoning.)_

Just saying. 

Of course I don't know the statistics surrounding auto accidents and pot, I usually smoked and stayed home. Safer that way.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002745.htm
> http://www.drugs.com/enc/toothpaste-overdose.html
> 
> 
> ...



hey --Japanese Warrior Dude---I  NEVER SAID YOU COULD OVERDOSE ON POT. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU ???


----------



## Shogun (Aug 16, 2007)

you asked what was so good about pot and I've been having fun letting you know, exactly, what that is.


Now, what have you learned today?



LMAO--stop--your killing me--I'm gonna have an overdose of someone defending the safety of pot !!!!




Have a good evening, Dilloduck.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> you asked what was so good about pot and I've been having fun letting you know, exactly, what that is.
> 
> 
> Now, what have you learned today?
> ...



That pot smoking causes people to say the same shit --over and over and over.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> What's so good about pot ? I would hope that if our society decide to make something legal it will be of some benefit to society.



What????

The standard of whether something is legal is that it is a benefit to society?   So we make everything illegal unless it benefits society?   This is the crappiest standard ever.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 16, 2007)

The standard in a free society should not be why to make something legal, but why to make something illegal.   Legality should be the default, unless society has a compelling interest in making it illegal.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Indeed, marijuana could be the new cash crop to aid failing tobacco farmers and a source for new sin taxes.  It's about as natural as a commodity can get.  It would stimulate a brand new market which should give capitolists a raging hardon.  Legalization would relieve crowded prisons and save tax dollars spent on government agencies whose purpose seems to be perpetuating it's own income by ignoring the reality of pot compared to drugs you'll see advertised on TV tonight.  I could go on but it seems we are about to talk about zoos and elephants or something.



It's the number one crop in 12. In the top 3 of 30 states.  

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017


> Contrasting government figures for traditional crops -- like corn and wheat -- against the study's projections for marijuana production, the report cites marijuana as the top cash crop in 12 states and among the top three cash crops in 30.



The cost it will save us in taxes:



> A 2005 analysis by Harvard visiting professor Jeffrey Miron estimates that if the United States legalized marijuana, the country would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and could generated as much as $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.



So instead of costing us $7.7  Billion a year it would be putting $6.2 into the tax base. 



If it's the number one cash crop why in the hell is it illegal?


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> In other words, You want to use pot legally because it's your right to use what you want to feel good ?




That's good enough for me. Why shouldn't that be enough?

What good is alcohol for society? What benefits does it provide to our society? With your reasoning, it should be legal. I doesn't provide anything good to society. Oh wait... We already been there done that with drinking.... Prohibition didn't work with drinking and it's not working with marijuana.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

hjmick said:


> Not at all. I was merely pointing out that pharmaceutical companies have a very high stake in keeping certain illicit drugs from being legalized. That and, as Shogun said, there are fewer side effects with marijuana than a lot, if not all, psych meds. My limited knowledge of the effects of anti-depressants _(my wife takes 2 or 3 different types)_ compared to my vast knowledge of the effects of pot _(my recreational use and some reading)_ makes me think that very few people who suffer from depression would find it useful.
> 
> Just for the record, I would like to see it legalized for the medicinal reasons we've all read and heard about _(doesn't Montel Williams smoke it for the pain he suffers? MS, I think)_ and because I just really enjoy smoking the stuff.




They are major sponsor of the drug free movement. Hypocrites.

At one time the alcohol and cigarette makers where sponsoring it as well. The drug free groups cut them out in 1997 due to the hypocrisy of it.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> It's the number one crop in 12. In the top 3 of 30 states.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017
> 
> ...



Don't be an idiot--any "savings" seen by government would be immediately swallowed up by some other silly ass expenditure. Just admit it. You want to use what appears to be a relatively safe substance to alter your state of mind.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Don't be an idiot--any "savings" seen by government would be immediately swallowed up by some other silly ass expenditure. Just admit it. You want to use what appears to be a relatively safe substance to alter your state of mind.



And what costs we save by having liquor legal vs how much it would cost if it was outlawed.

Oh wait... We've already done that. DIDN'T work!!! 

Oh and those numbers are just marijuana not the other drugs figured into them.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> And what costs we save by having liquor legal vs how much it would cost if it was outlawed.
> 
> Oh wait... We've already done that. DIDN'T work!!!
> 
> Oh and those numbers are just marijuana not the other drugs figured into them.



I don't recall saying that I thought alcohol was any better of an idea than pot. I merely asked what was good about pot. I was probably out of line because this thread is about the LAW--not the drug. I mean no one here touches the stuff right?   But if they did they would be safe because you can't overdose on it.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

oh no not me...


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 16, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> oh no not me...



Thank God THC is safe for breast feeding mothers !


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 16, 2007)

I haven't nursed in nearly 2 years.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 17, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> I don't recall saying that I thought alcohol was any better of an idea than pot. I merely asked what was good about pot. I was probably out of line because this thread is about the LAW--not the drug. I mean no one here touches the stuff right?   But if they did they would be safe because you can't overdose on it.




If we only make things legal that are good for you and make everything else illegal then...

No junk food. No soda. No potato chips. No sugar. No processed foods. No couch potato lifestyle (daily required exercise). No staying up past set bed times (good sleep is VERY healthy)..No alcohol, no cigarettes, no cigars, no caffiene....

We have many laws to enact, there are many unhealthy habits that are quite legal and that we view as a persons choice and as part of an ideal of "personal freedom" that we hold dear. According to you however, only things that are GOOD for you should be legal and all else should be ILLEGAL. Forget freedom of personal choice to decide for ourselves right?


----------



## eots (Aug 17, 2007)

uh what was the topic man ?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 17, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> I don't recall saying that I thought alcohol was any better of an idea than pot. I merely asked what was good about pot. I was probably out of line because this thread is about the LAW--not the drug. I mean no one here touches the stuff right?   *But if they did they would be safe because you can't overdose on it*.




Yes, that is exactly the score of the game..  good to see you came around and started playing with facts instead of trying to predict what you think might happen if pot were legalized.  Speaking of LAW... funny how pot has been legal for the easy majority of our time as a nation and we've managed to get this far... WOW.  It's almost as if society wont meltdown because a plant that gets you high is legal.  imagine that.  Regardless of elephants, zoos, strawmen and chewbacca arguements even.


by the way... It might not be so necessary to repeat myself if you could act as if you have the testicular fortitude to acknowledge when someone answers your direct questions instead of trying to run for the RHETORIC at a speed that Plato and Ben Franklin would have been proud of.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 17, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Yes, that is exactly the score of the game..  good to see you came around and started playing with facts instead of trying to predict what you think might happen if pot were legalized.  Speaking of LAW... funny how pot has been legal for the easy majority of our time as a nation and we've managed to get this far... WOW.  It's almost as if society wont meltdown because a plant that gets you high is legal.  imagine that.  Regardless of elephants, zoos, strawmen and chewbacca arguements even.
> 
> 
> by the way... It might not be so necessary to repeat myself if you could act as if you have the testicular fortitude to acknowledge when someone answers your direct questions instead of trying to run for the RHETORIC at a speed that Plato and Ben Franklin would have been proud of.



You already smoke a bowl or something ?  I never predicted what would happen if pot was legalized. Besides--you can't overdose on it.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 17, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> *Don't be an idiot--any "savings" seen by government would be immediately swallowed up by some other silly ass expenditure.* Just admit it. You want to use what appears to be a relatively safe substance to alter your state of mind.





considering which of us seems to have a problem with their short term memory perhaps I should ask you the same question....


and, again, i'm glad to see you sticking to facts instead of silly rhetoric.  See, you learn something every day!


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 17, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> You are right.
> 
> OK another angle to look at it... They are victimless crimes. If they are hurting no one but themselves, should we have laws governing it?



Practically everything should be considered in moderation.  There are very few, if any, absolutes.  It comes down to where we draw the line.  Should people be allowed to smoke cigarettes and drink?  Yeah, at a certain age.  What age do we set?  Okay, how about marijuana - only for medicinal purposes.  Should the very sick be allowed cocaine?   How fast should people be allowed to drive  40 mph, 50, 60, 70, 80?  Should people be allowed to gambol, engage in prostitution, incest, bestiality, etc?  Should people be allowed to skydive in state parks or drive motorcycles without wearing helmets?


----------



## Ruby (Aug 18, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Practically everything should be considered in moderation.  There are very few, if any, absolutes.  It comes down to where we draw the line.  Should people be allowed to smoke cigarettes and drink?  Yeah, at a certain age.  What age do we set?  Okay, how about marijuana - only for medicinal purposes.  Should the very sick be allowed cocaine?   How fast should people be allowed to drive  40 mph, 50, 60, 70, 80?  Should people be allowed to gambol, engage in prostitution, incest, bestiality, etc?  Should people be allowed to skydive in state parks or drive motorcycles without wearing helmets?



At 18 we consider them adults. They can enter into a contract, go pick up a gun, be tried in a court as an adult,  fight for the nation and vote. It seems to me based on this, its a good age to set as "competent to make our own decisions". 

Weed should be legal for recreational uses just as alcohol and cigarettes are. No rationale for those two to be legal but weed to be illegal. The sick should be allowed ANY drug or substance that will HELP their pain or their condition...purely a medical decision and viewpoint.

Prostitution should be legal, consenting adults and all that.

Incest? If they are consenting adults possibly, I think the hitch here comes under the potential baby and the obvious health problems that can create so on that basis, I think they can keep aspects illegal. Most incest is RAPE and forcible, thats not legal nor a personal choice without a victim.

Beastiality should remain illegal because it harms a living creature that is not in a position to give consent...much like a child is not in a position to give consent.

Gambling should be legal, but games should be fair and consumers should be protected from SCAMS.

Driving speeds are not just about the driver, there are other people on the road you endanger. Driving speed limits should be based on safety, which are determined by road conditions, location etc.

Motorcyles without helmets, they should be able to since they arent risking someone elses head nor anyone else on the road over it.

No skydiving where you can land on people and kill them, again this is a safety issue for OTHERS. If people want to engage in dangerous activities, they should be free to do so but they cant do them in a way that endangers unwilling particpants.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 18, 2007)

Interesting...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293586,00.html



> Study: Substance in Marijuana Clears Facial Dermatitis
> Friday , August 17, 2007
> 
> A substance found in the cannabis plant helps the bodys natural protective system clear dry, scaly skin rashes caused by allergic dermatitis, according to researchers from the U.S., Germany, Israel, Italy and Switzerland.
> ...


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 18, 2007)

Ruby said:


> At 18 we consider them adults. They can enter into a contract, go pick up a gun, be tried in a court as an adult,  fight for the nation and vote. It seems to me based on this, its a good age to set as "competent to make our own decisions".



Why 18?  You have to be 21 before you can drink alcohol.  You have to be 35 before you are eligible to be president.  That seems to be too old - don't you think so?  Why not set age of consent at 17 years and 8 months? 



> Weed should be legal for recreational uses just as alcohol and cigarettes are. No rationale for those two to be legal but weed to be illegal. The sick should be allowed ANY drug or substance that will HELP their pain or their condition...purely a medical decision and viewpoint.





> Beastiality should remain illegal because it harms a living creature that is not in a position to give consent...much like a child is not in a position to give consent.



How do you know that the animal is not giving consent?  Also, consider the fact that we experiment with animals all the time  and not just for medical advancements.  What about bull fights and dog races?  Do circus animals give consent?  Do cows give consent to be meat patties? 



> Gambling should be legal, but games should be fair and consumers should be protected from SCAMS.



So, you want government regulation?  What about buyer beware.  Lets have the private sector monitor it through participation in optional oversight and evaluation committees.  Look at Consumer Reports.  What is your opinion on the FDA?  Should pharmacies be free to make and sell whatever they want and leave it up to the free market and fraud lawyers to determine their success?



> Driving speeds are not just about the driver, there are other people on the road you endanger. Driving speed limits should be based on safety, which are determined by road conditions, location etc.



What about the good drivers who are capable of driving fast without causing a wreck?  Do you think that people should be required to have auto insurance?  I've had to buy insurance (state law) but I have not caused a wreck in a great many years. [/QUOTE]

You seem to have a very Libertarian political philosophy but it is not perfect.  Still, my questions were meant to be somewhat rhetorical.   The point is that practically everything should be considered in moderation.  I dont believe in pure Capitalism or pure Socialism.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2007)

Angel Heart said:


> Interesting...
> 
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293586,00.html



Oh please---lets stop the nonsense. You want to use pot as an intoxicant.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 18, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Why 18?  You have to be 21 before you can drink alcohol.  You have to be 35 before you are eligible to be president.  That seems to be too old - don't you think so?  Why not set age of consent at 17 years and 8 months?



As I stated, we see age 18 as the age of adulthood which is why you can vote, fight for your nation (and risk losing your life), sign contracts etc. Its a bit silly that they can make a decision that will cost them their life but cant drink a beer yet. The age 35 for president is because its an extremely powerful position and it wouldnt be wise to put someone who JUST entered adulthood into it...we are seeking wisdom for that position, not merely age of consent.




> How do you know that the animal is not giving consent?  Also, consider the fact that we experiment with animals all the time  and not just for medical advancements.  What about bull fights and dog races?  Do circus animals give consent?  Do cows give consent to be meat patties?



As your first statment recognizes, we CANT determine consent therefore we cant assume it DOES give consent. I am not in agreement with animal testing or bull fights or dog races or circus animals or zoos. I also am a vegetarian so I dont eat meat. BUT, we do have a food chain and we are meat eaters and we dont concern ourselves with consent...feeding yourself is not the same as abusing an animal. I personally choose to not eat meat because I feel animals are abused in the industry and I can survive without it. 



> So, you want government regulation?  What about buyer beware.  Lets have the private sector monitor it through participation in optional oversight and evaluation committees.  Look at Consumer Reports.  What is your opinion on the FDA?  Should pharmacies be free to make and sell whatever they want and leave it up to the free market and fraud lawyers to determine their success?



They have to list ingredients *for foods and drugs* and businesses have to operate under a set of laws and guidelines so as to not perpetrate fraud on the public. That is part of everyones freedom, to make INFORMED decisions and to sell products based on TRUTHFUL basis. Pharmacies should have to be HONEST about what they sell and what its affects are and then I dont mind them selling their products at all. We just need to make sure we have correct and truthful information available so people are free to make informed decisions. If they choose NOT to avail themselves of the information that IS available, that is their problem and choice. TO NOT make it available and to pretend its ok for businesses to LIE or mislead is a very different thing than freedom of choice.




> What about the good drivers who are capable of driving fast without causing a wreck?  Do you think that people should be required to have auto insurance?  I've had to buy insurance (state law) but I have not caused a wreck in a great many years.



You still have to protect others from YOUR potential harm. Many drunk drivers have also driven numerous times without getting into an accident, that dosent mean they wont ever do so. When you are on the road, you are operating a WEAPON really. Its not its primary purpose, but it can easily become a deadly weapon. Many people may feel they are capable of driving really fast safely, it dosent mean they are right nor does it mean they have control over the OUTSIDE factors on the road...the ones out of their control.

We all share the road, therefore it is subject to rules and regulations that make it as safe as we can for all that use it. Its not just YOUR BODY AND HEALTH you jepordize when driving on the road.




> You seem to have a very Libertarian political philosophy but it is not perfect.  Still, my questions were meant to be somewhat rhetorical.   The point is that practically everything should be considered in moderation.  I dont believe in pure Capitalism or pure Socialism.



I am not libertarian at all really.  I just believe that laws should ALWAYS do the best they can to balance personal freedoms against the needs and health of the community. There is no reason to strip away a personal freedom unless it truly causes great harm or potential harm to a community or significantly infringes on the personal freedoms of someone else.


----------



## Ruby (Aug 18, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Oh please---lets stop the nonsense. You want to use pot as an intoxicant.



So? Why shouldnt people have the choice and option to use pot as an intoxicant?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Aug 19, 2007)

and all i have to say is, AFLAC 



Angel Heart said:


> All I have to say is:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it's really working


----------



## MassageGirl (Aug 19, 2007)

> In other words, You want to use pot legally because it's your right to use what you want to feel good ?



Actually, I have gotten high before, and didnt like it. 

ALSO thats not what I said, but thanks so much for putting words into my mouth. 

I think that what a person does with or TO his or her own body is nobodys business but their own. 

Second, I think marijuana could have a major impact on the health crisis we are in, including cancer, MS, glaucoma, ADHD, ADD, etc. 

I already know what youre going to say to the ADD stuff- How is Marijuana supposed to make someone focus!!! Well, have you ever known someone who drives or tests better high than when theyre sober? I have. They sit more still, and they are more focused. Granted, their perception changes, but it only lengthens, instead of shortening. So, they see the intersection ahead, and stop a few feet early. With alcohol, which is legal, people stop LATE. Sometimes, WAY too late. 

In short, WHY should alcohol be legal, and pot not?


----------



## Paulie (Aug 19, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is natural for Humans to kill also, shall we legalize that too?



Natural???

No it's not.  Humans as a whole aren't born with a natural desire to kill another human being.  If you want to argue that we desire to kill other living things besides humans, like insects, than i might give that some credence...but my desire to kill insects stopped when I was probably 11, 12 years old.  It's called maturing.  As you age, you typically stop desiring to kill those insects, and start searching for "yourself"...which may or may not include a different level of consciousness.

But humans have always searched for different levels of consciousness.  That's more of a natural desire than killing.

I will say this, however...the only reason that Alcohol and Tobacco are legal, and street drugs are not, is because of the corporate pressure.

Pharma corps make billions of dollars selling meth to pharmacies so doctors can prescribe it to people as Adderall, Ritalin, etc.

The same can be said for Heroin (Opium), where the pharma corps are making billions by selling it to pharmacies so doctors can prescribe drugs like Percocet, Vicodin, etc, to people with pain.

Same thing with cocaine...pharma corps sell that as Novacaine, Benzocaine, etc...

It's corporate, people.  It's ALWAYS corporate.


----------



## Larkinn (Aug 19, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Oh please---lets stop the nonsense. You want to use pot as an intoxicant.



And because its oh so hard to find marijuana in the United States, we are all trying to legalize it so desperately so we can walk to the corner store and buy some, as opposed to the house on the corner where someone sells pot?

Oh and you never anwsered my statement about the standard.   The standard is not, and should never be, reasons to legalize something.   Rather we need reasons to illegalize it.


----------



## Angel Heart (Aug 22, 2007)

Here's a thought for the right wingers... In Oregon we are not rounding up illegals due to lack of funding and personel. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/editorial/118740036155070.xml&coll=7

Where is all that money and personal going... Mostly the 'War on Drugs'.

Just a thought. If we change the drug laws we can go after the illegals.


----------



## maineman (Aug 22, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> And because its oh so hard to find marijuana in the United States, we are all trying to legalize it so desperately so we can walk to the corner store and buy some, as opposed to the house on the corner where someone sells pot?
> 
> *Oh and you never anwsered my statement about the standard.   The standard is not, and should never be, reasons to legalize something.   Rather we need reasons to illegalize it*.




Bravo!  Well said.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 22, 2007)

William F. Buckley, Jr.

(1925-)



Conservative Scholar, Editor-at-large of The National Review



Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.





William F. Buckley is one thoughtful conservative who became convinced Marijuana Prohibition was a total failure in the early 1970s, and he has maintained that position throughout his illustrious career as an author and television personality. His reasoning was captured in a 1998 filmed discussion with Christopher Hitchens, Contributing Editor at Vanity Fair:



I'm in favor of legalization of marijuana not because I'm in favor of people being allowed to do what they want to do but because I think that the war against marijuana is not worth it, that more people are suffering on account of that war than would suffer without it...



Suppose we started de novo. Shall we not legalize marijuana? First question. Do people want to use it? Answer is: Some people do. So that's one element that goes into your final decision. Second, what happens if we don't? Well, answer is that it will sell anyway, and that it will cause things like a black market, and then it will cause people to profiteer from the black market. They will engage in crime. Now we know there's 750,000 people who were arrested last year for marijuana. That's extraordinary diversion of effort that might have been put into keeping Mrs. So-and-so from being raped, or Mrs. So-and-so from being murdered. You have to wait six years in New York City to have a civil action come up because the calendar's so clogged by marijuana stuff.



It is interesting to note that Buckley is not swayed by the anti-prohibitionist arguments which are based on the philosophy of liberty -- he simply observes that Marijuana Prohibition can never be anything but an expensive failure. And he's been right about that for a very long time...


http://sendtherightmessage.com/scholar/william_f._buckley,_jr.


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No I do not. The entire argument is that "gee if we legalize it, we will have less crime" That theory is bullshit. People will still become addicted to those drugs that addict and still need to PAY for the drugs. Rich people may be able to afford the addiction, but poor people and those that become unemployed because of the addiction will still turn to crime to get the money to continue the addiction. Well unless now your going to claim the Government should provide for the drugs and the addiction.
> 
> Drug related accidents will go up as will problems on the job and else where.
> 
> Using the excuse , " we can lessen crime by legalizing" works on a host of problems. Why not legalize assassinations and just get a tax benefit by requiring licenses and permits? Legalize prostitution and we can test them for diseases and tax them as well. The list is just endless.



People steal alcohol and cigarettes too.  Perhaps such items should be illegal.  It does stand to reason that legal items are cheaper than are illegal items.  I think that legalizing marijuana would end up being a plus.  There would be more room in prison for those who commit violent crimes.  Less money would be needed to track down drug criminals.  There are probably many other reasons too. 

Look at the problems that alcohol causes (poisoning, abuse, drunk driving deaths, etc) It all comes down to where we draw the line.  In general, people should be free to do as they please as long as they do not interfere with the rights and freedoms of others.


----------

