We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

[Skipjack]

I would advise you to try some crack and then get back with me, but I happen to like you and don't want to see you go into the downward spiral i've seen so many others go through.

As someone who has personally experienced morphine (in a clinical environment), I can say that it is incapacitating you almost emmediately.
I still can not see how anybody can function on this. Having witnessed heroin addicts stalk arround like zombies, I cant see how any of them can keep a job.

[Diogenes]

The link showed, very clearly, ALL drug users. All drugs, not just pot.

The link is bogus!
You cant tell me that someone who is drunk can work even half as efficiently as someone who is sober. Since most drugs have at least the same effect on someones cognitive abilities (with some exceptions), this is totally unbelieveable.

A link from the U.S. Government is bogus? You have really odd ideas, skippy.

Yes, we all believe the information put out by our government. You know, like the Social Security Lock box, the unemployment figures which are themselves bogus without even getting into the drug addled subset, and how efficiently our money is being managed by Washington!

If you think information the government puts out can be accepted at face value, then I can understand why you feel the need to smoke some pot. I certainly would like reality to harsh my buzz either.

[Diogenes]

In fact Skipjack, your argumentation style is one of the very best things the legalizers have going for them. Keep up the good work. You rant we present facts.

Keep up the good work.

Every specious argument you present gains us converts.

Ah, but we have a secret weapon! If you get what you want, it will destroy you, and then we win.

[WizWom]

But again, you keep saying "POT" while we Keep saying "METH, CRACK, HEROIN" !

Actually - NO.

I keep saying NONE of it is as much a problem as the enforcement and vilification.

Because I'm sane. And you have shown you are not.

Evidence? "I don't like it, so it must be wrong," you say.

I don't care if you ruined your life, got tossed in jail, crashed a car, watched someone die from a drug, whatever experiences you bring to the table are minuscule compared to the continuing experiences of hundreds of millions of drug users day after day.

Three FACTS are in evidence:
1) many people - about 10% of the US - use illicit drugs yearly. They are, for the most part, employed or otherwise in a situation where they have money coming in.
2) The claims for addict-ability and effects are grossly overstated.
3) The societal damage from prohibition is enormous, and can clearly be shown to be less than a more sane policy of legalization and licensing.

[MSimon]

In countries that have legalized consumption of ALL drugs use is going down.

Perverse isn't it?

I believe it is in Holland where the average age of heroin users is going up.

The average age of heroin users in Holland is 40 and rising. The average age of heroin users in the UK is 25 and falling. Why do you think that this is the case? Do we have anything to learn from Dutch drug policy?

http://www.thehempire.com/index.php/can ... rohibition

from the link:

The global illegal drugs trade makes up 8% of international trade and is valued at £300 billion annually. It one of the top three largest commodity trades on earth (with arms and oil) and by far the largest source of income for organised crime.

[Diogenes]

Do you have ANY clue about the demographics of drug use ANYWHERE?
The vast majority of casual drug users are gainfully employed. The typical casual dealer buys more than they typically need, and shares it out to friends.

You are talking about Marijuana. Crack uses are incredibly stingy with their drug, and will only share it if they think it will get reciprocated later on. Even then, they play little stingy games, like giving someone a crumb, and expecting to get a rock later.

"Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically."

30 million users during 2005. Only 2 million of them unemployed. That's the numbers, you want to argue methodology, argue with the Office of Applied Statistics.

Of those, BTW, only 17 million used drugs in the past month, which kind of puts paid to the addiction figures, too.

Stop trying to argue what you want, stop believing the hype or your anecdotal evidence.

I've known people who killed themselves with booze; who've ruined their life with drugs; who have been driven to suicide by Prozac. It's easy to ruin your life, if you have an addictive gene set.

But most people are NOT addicts, most drug users do FINE.

This is the point I want to address. You say "most" not "all". What percentage of the population do we throw away?

Tell me where the threshold is that we should set the limit? 1% ? 10 %? 20% ? What? Explain why we should tolerate a narcotic that doesn't kill MOST people, but only kills "X" percentage ?

Booze is the drug of choice for many because it is cheap and effective and legal. Legalize marijuana, and fewer people would ruin their lives. Those are the facts.

Legalize it ALL, under regulation depending on the danger, and you'd see a much lower problem to society in total.

If you substituted Marijuana for Alcohol, you would probably be right. However, this is not a substitution, it is an addition. We would end up with the deaths and destruction caused by Alcohol, AND the deaths and destruction caused by Pot. We might even get a synergistic death and destruction effect going for awhile.

[Diogenes]

Apparently so aware you didn't even bother with the link.
The link showed, very clearly, ALL drug users. All drugs, not just pot.

You live in some deranged fantasy land.

The link could tell me that only certain sized reindeer can pull Santa's sled into the sky, and they can have graphs and studies that demonstrate it, and I would still regard it as crap because it violates very obvious and ubiquitous knowledge of the facts of life.

Translation:
"I don't like the statistics the US Government came up with. I won't even talk about their method of coming up with them. They just are WRONG because they don't say what I think they should say."

Amazing. You are a religious zealot, not rational at all.

You are trying to tell me that shit doesn't smell. I've smelled shit. I don't care how many studies you present which demonstrate that shit doesn't smell, I have personal experience with shit smelling, and so therefore i'm not going to buy a theory that contradicts what to my mind is an obvious fact.


Do you KNOW any crack addicts?

[Diogenes]

In actuality though pot is no harder to grow than wheat.

What does a half kilo loaf of bread cost? About $2 to $4 depending on quality and some other things. That is a years supply of pot for most smokers.

For the price of one to three loaves of bread people are going to embark on a life of crime?

Let us say heroin or cocaine came in at 10X that (yearly cost) because of the processing involved and the lower volumes. That would be $120 a year for a very heavy user. About 30 cents a day.

What exactly is the crime potential of a 30 cent a day habit? OK suppose I'm off 10X what is the crime potential of a $3 a day habit?

They are vegetables Skipjack.

I dunno, we don't call it a crime when a 35 year old man is still living with mummy, or his uncle, sponging off of anyone he can, not working, not wanting to work, but still having sex with various bimbos.

If you look at it in terms of cost, it's way past grand larceny, but we don't consider this sort of lecherousness behavior to be criminal, though it ought to be.

What if he fathers children? (May have already happened, but how would anyone know? )

Who pays these costs? Who tells the child that he can't have a daddy because daddy has a right to f*ck up his brain with pot?

This notion is absurd, but fundamental under your stated philosophy.

What do you call it when folks use anecdotes vs population statistics to make their point? A very weak argument.

Oh. I get it. There was a shooting rampage in New York yesterday. Ban guns.

As to who pays the cost? I see you are using socialism (socialized medicine) to argue for more big brother.

As my friend Eric says:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... _free.html

...they want me to pay not only for [other people's] junk food, but for the additional consequences of eating it. The result is communitarianism, and a nation of busybodies and government informants.

Sorry, but I refuse to allow socialized medicine to turn me into a little fascist.

Me either.

Citing Statistics, Studies and expert opinion was exactly the method that the Progressives used to push their agenda during the beginning of the 20th century. They would show up at legislative sessions and harangue the legislatures with their latest data.

Child labor causes This damage, and that damage! Alcohol Causes This number of broken homes, kills THIS many people, results in THAT number of accidents!


How funny it is to read so many times how abhorrent the progressives were, yet you are following their play book in your own arguments!


Their outlawing of Child Labor, seemed like a good thing to do at the time, but they simply didn't understand that the reality of poverty in America at the turn of the Century was such that kicking the children out of the work force made things WORSE for them and their families. The children worked in abject conditions because it was better than STARVING!


And now you come arguing that Legalizing drugs would be a BENEFIT to society, and you are also dragging stats and studies, and expert opinion. It's just another form of progressive social engineering, yet you refuse to see it that way.

So riddle me this. If you are arguing that Drugs should be legalized because it BENEFITS society, How does that make you different from a Social Engineering Progressive?


Oh, and do you know what you call it when you cite knowledge of which you don't have personal first hand experience?

IGNORANCE !

[Diogenes]

You know what? Maybe the US should legalize drugs. I will stay in Europe and watch. And when your economy goes down the drain because of it, I will be among those that benefit. Everybody wins!
Well, I win, good enough for me.

We are already heading for anarchy. Once that happens, Drugs will be just as legal as any other behavior. Once we get to this stage, we can start shooting the junkies and drug dealers, and various other criminals that we are too sissyfied to take care of now, and eventually we'll be able to stabilize better than ever!

As an example of what i'm talking about, i've been looking for an opportunity to post this link.

http://ehowa.com/features/brazilshooting.shtml


I can't wait for people to tell me how much the court appeals cost for the resolution of this case.

[MSimon]

This is the point I want to address. You say "most" not "all". What percentage of the population do we throw away?

Since prohibition doesn't seem to have any effect on drug use (and from what little we know may actually increase it) I propose we throw drug users and their suppliers in jail for really long times (longer than murder sentences mostly). So as to avoid throwing away their lives. That would be the rational thing to do. /sarc

And if that doesn't work we can always try this:

How To Put An End To Drug Users i.e. Kill them all. /more sarc

Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State

[MSimon]

Drugs will be just as legal as any other behavior.

Just as it was before Conservatives joined with Progressives to outlaw drugs and alcohol.

If you remember your history you will recall that before 1914 anarchy reigned. And since then we have had a much more orderly society. Thank goodness. /sarc

[Diogenes]

But again, you keep saying "POT" while we Keep saying "METH, CRACK, HEROIN" !

Actually - NO.

I keep saying NONE of it is as much a problem as the enforcement and vilification.

Because I'm sane. And you have shown you are not.

Evidence? "I don't like it, so it must be wrong," you say.

I would suggest that the vast majority of people who witness it believe it to be wrong, so whether we can argue that it is objectively wrong is beside the point when it can be demonstrated to be consensusly wrong.
The problem with you folk, is you haven't witnessed it, so you can still linger under the illusion that it's not wrong.

I don't care if you ruined your life, got tossed in jail, crashed a car, watched someone die from a drug, whatever experiences you bring to the table are minuscule compared to the continuing experiences of hundreds of millions of drug users day after day.

Three FACTS are in evidence:

They aren't "facts", they are assertions.

1) many people - about 10% of the US - use illicit drugs yearly. They are, for the most part, employed or otherwise in a situation where they have money coming in.

They are employed for a very short time after they start using Crack, Meth, or Heroin. Then they are employed in various illegal schemes like robbing, drug dealing, and prostitution thereafter. The other example you mention I have seen too. Spoiled rich kids who's parents or guardians provide them with a living and they spend all their time and allowance on drugs, hookers and fun.

There are some people who have acquired wealth that go in for drug binges, and orgies. I remember one of my pimp friends told me he had a regular gig having sex with this rich mans wife while the husband watched and they all got stoned. (He was black, and the hubby got off on watching his wife have sex with a black guy.) Some hubbies went further than that, but i'll leave out the gory details.

2) The claims for addict-ability and effects are grossly overstated.

Not my claims. If anything, I haven't stated them grossly enough to give an accurate understanding. Drug fueled debauchery. You simply have no idea about this lifestyle.

3) The societal damage from prohibition is enormous, and can clearly be shown to be less than a more sane policy of legalization and licensing.

No, the social damage from BUCKING prohibition is enormous. HAD this shit never been invented or discovered, much of society's misery would not now be occurring. It's like the Palestinians. They grow up seeped in hatred from the time they are infants until they are grown. They are taught to hate, hate, hate hate hate. They are a sea of festering hate. The only way to fix this, is to get their children away from them, Never let them be taught to hate in this way, and once all the haters are gone, let them take over their homes and land. The result would be Palestinians that didn't hate anybody.

If the same could be done with drugs, Separate people from them long enough that no one knows about them, then the problem would be mostly solved without all the reoccurring expense of interdiction and the reoccurring deaths of addicts.

The only way to troubleshoot a malfunctioning feedback loop is to break the loop long enough to figure out where the defect is and get rid of it.

The defect is the knowledge that stuff is out there that can mimic the bodies natural hormones, and give you pleasure that evolution reserved for the purpose of procreation.

The most dangerous thing about drugs is the meme.

[Diogenes]

In countries that have legalized consumption of ALL drugs use is going down.

Perverse isn't it?

I believe it is in Holland where the average age of heroin users is going up.

The average age of heroin users in Holland is 40 and rising. The average age of heroin users in the UK is 25 and falling. Why do you think that this is the case? Do we have anything to learn from Dutch drug policy?

http://www.thehempire.com/index.php/can ... rohibition

from the link:

The global illegal drugs trade makes up 8% of international trade and is valued at £300 billion annually. It one of the top three largest commodity trades on earth (with arms and oil) and by far the largest source of income for organised crime.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


You are going to have to do better than that to establish a cause and effect relationship. All of Europe is being overrun with Muslims. I'm pretty sure that is going to have a substantial impact on the drug usage in those countries. I do know the dutch have been given several opportunities to legalize pot nationwide, but for some reason, those people most on the scene and with the most firsthand knowledge, can't seem to bring themselves to vote for this?

Odd, huh?

[MSimon]

As pointed out in Drug War History Conservatives are just as addicted to social engineering as Liberals.

So not another word against social engineering my friend. Because you have the disease as bad as any liberal.

I'm against the social engineering of the left AND the right.

I would be more sympathetic to your premise if you promoted equal application of the drug laws. i.e. why are blacks targeted more than whites? Because I truly believe that if the laws were equally enforced the War would be over in a year or less. Whites wouldn't stand for having their neighborhoods turned into war zones.

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

A very nice example of Republican social engineering:

[/url=http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... _free.html]Individual freedom is behind the times, because we all pay![/url]

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

So don't ever again complain about big government or media distortions. Because you buy into both when it comes to prohibition.

The Conservatives are just as much Power and Control freaks as Liberals. The only difference is what they want to control.

[Diogenes]

This is the point I want to address. You say "most" not "all". What percentage of the population do we throw away?

Since prohibition doesn't seem to have any effect on drug use (and from what little we know may actually increase it) I propose we throw drug users and their suppliers in jail for really long times (longer than murder sentences mostly). So as to avoid throwing away their lives. That would be the rational thing to do. /sarc

And if that doesn't work we can always try this:

How To Put An End To Drug Users i.e. Kill them all. /more sarc

Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State

If you are so worried about a police state, why do you support a policy that keeps antagonizing them? The majority wants people to stop using drugs, and you are arguing that the majority should submit to the minority for the purpose of avoiding a police state, where the more sensible advice (if you are really concerned about a police state) is to STOP AGITATING THE POLICE BY DEFYING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE!

Not being able to get high will not kill anyone. Creating a police state will kill lots of people. Why do you people insist on pushing conditions to create a police state just so you can have a pleasurable high which is not as important as other people's right to live?


You are lighting mini Reich stag fires all over the nation, just so you can have fun, yet you refuse to change your behavior to avoid the creation of a police state, yet you want everyone else to put up with your behavior to avoid a police state.

This is not only thwarting the will of the people, it is selfish and stupid.

If you mention any further about interdiction creating a police state, I will point out that you apparently want this or you wouldn't be supporting unnecessary, destructive, and unbeneficial drug usage, which simply fuels the call for more police powers.

The drug addicts are going to get us all killed because they cannot control their behavior, and they have the gall to say it's our fault because they can't be bothered to control their urges.