Who supports the War on Drugs?

undertheice · Apr 23, 2010

RickWhite said:
I am all for individual liberty, but there are certain substances that by their nature make the user a danger to us all.

the problem seems to lie in the fact that you and so many like you are only for individual liberty as long as it falls within the range of your own bias and perspective. your claim that religion is not evil, though so much evil has been done in its name, directly contradicts your belief that these harder drugs are a scourge for precisely the same reason. it isn't drugs that lead to mothers selling their daughters, it is a moral lapse or the complete lack of any ethical standards whatsoever. many of those mothers, under different circumstances, would do exactly the same for material gain or power, it's done all the time. these are only excuses we use to perform sometimes unspeakable acts for our own profit. you fall into the same trap as the rabid atheist who decries christianity because of the crusades. you see only the worst because that is all you are conditioned to see. you don't see any point in the euphoria or the rush, but there are millions who do seek the experience and neither your prejudice nor that of anyone else should force them to abstain.

but then, i'm just the patient anarchist. what the hell do i know. right?

ink the world · Apr 23, 2010

I always find it sad when we don't learn from our own past mistakes. Prohibition doesn't work, we already went this route.

The only thing that prohibition accomplishes is the creation of a black market and the organized criminal element that thrives in that market. If it wasnt for Prohibition the Mafia would have never risen to power in that era and Colombian/Mexican drug cartels wouldnt exist.

CrackerJax · Apr 23, 2010

Imagine if alcohol and weeds roles and status were switched. :lol:

dukeofbaja · Apr 24, 2010

RickWhite said:
I would certainly end the war on drugs as we know it. You can't make things like meth and heroin legal because they kill people, but as soon as a person begins using drugs like these they are in need of medical care. Therefore, I would propose that when a guy is arrested and found in possession of crack, he goes straight to the local hospital psych ward or other facility and is detoxed by doctors.

In fact, if we assume the obvious - that drug addicts are by definition in need of medical care, it is criminal to not produce that care. I'm sure if a diabetic went into insulin shock and crashed into a tree, they would take the guy to the hospital, not to jail. The same is true of a guy hooked on heroin.

The practice of treating addiction as a law enforcement issue rather than a medical one is downright insane.

For once, I 100% agree. Not just 99% or close, but I fully sgree. I'll have to wait for a better connection before reading the rest of this thread

passthedutchfo19 · Apr 24, 2010

redivider said:
these substances aren't needed in modern society. the current method of controlling their supply isn't working. if we're gonna fight these drugs, we gotta get serious.

Obviously some people think that these drugs are needed in modern society or they would not exist. Drugs will always be here, the government cannot stop it. No method of controlling the supply will ever work. If the government starts stopping the supply in one place it will come in from another. No method will ever work. Even ab authoritarian police state would not be able to stop drugs from entering a country. I does not matter how serious the government gets about stopping them. The harder the try, the more death, destruction and incarceration the government will cause, with few results.

redivider said:
mothers will let their kids starve just to get some crack.

This is a tragedy, but this is no reason to make something illegal. Some mother drink to much and neglect there kids, a women in China even killed her kid because she spent some time playing world of warcraft to much. These are no reason to ban substances. We should hold the mother responsible not the drugs. The kids neglect is a tragedy, but would you rather have some innocent kid get gunned down by a stray bullet in a drive by. Its one or the other. Either you have some kids get neglected because their parents are addicted to drugs, or you have a black market where crime is a common occurrence which creates neighborhood where people have to fear for their own lives and a few less kids get neglected. Also, the illegality of drugs makes them more expensive. If drugs were legal they would be cheaper and the mother might have money to fuel her habit and feed her kids.

redivider said:
human trafficers get people hooked on heroin as a guarantee they won't run.

Blame the human traffickers, not the heroin. Would it be any better if it was morphine, a legal drug. This too is a tragedy, but once again blame the abusive people for their actions, not the drug.

redivider said:
the fumes created from producing crystal meth can kill unknowing humans 500 yards away.

If meth was legal people would have no reason to make it in their home. The only reason it is made is because of the high profit potential stemming from its legality.

l

RickWhite · Apr 24, 2010

undertheice said:
the problem seems to lie in the fact that you and so many like you are only for individual liberty as long as it falls within the range of your own bias and perspective. your claim that religion is not evil, though so much evil has been done in its name, directly contradicts your belief that these harder drugs are a scourge for precisely the same reason. it isn't drugs that lead to mothers selling their daughters, it is a moral lapse or the complete lack of any ethical standards whatsoever. many of those mothers, under different circumstances, would do exactly the same for material gain or power, it's done all the time. these are only excuses we use to perform sometimes unspeakable acts for our own profit. you fall into the same trap as the rabid atheist who decries christianity because of the crusades. you see only the worst because that is all you are conditioned to see. you don't see any point in the euphoria or the rush, but there are millions who do seek the experience and neither your prejudice nor that of anyone else should force them to abstain.

but then, i'm just the patient anarchist. what the hell do i know. right?

Except in this case it is the drugs themselves. It all comes down to proximate cause. In this case, the proximate cause is the pharmacological effects of the drugs that causes the abhorrent conduct. When I lived out West, I saw people who got hooked on crystal meth and I saw what happened to them. It was as if they contracted a disease from sci-fi movie that made them into zombies.

This makes sense since the stuff causes immediate and profound withdrawals that cause the user to binge for days at a time with no sleep. There is little chance anyone can use this stuff without addiction and there is virtually no chance an addict can remain functional for long. Will everyone prostitute their nine year old? No, but damn near everyone who uses it will destroy their life and the lives of anyone involved with them. Growing up in the 80s, I saw similar things happen as a result of cocaine use. I saw successful men lose business' and everything they own believing they were doing a recreational drug that they could control.

One myth that needs to be dispelled is that the only answer is law enforcement. If we took the resources we spend on law enforcement and applied them to prevention and treatment we would EASILY stop this kind of drug abuse. People don't realize how powerful our influence industry is in this country. We all think we are free thinkers immune to this sort of thing but we are not. Industry, through advertising and other means control most people as if they were their puppet masters. Read "Influence" by Robert Chialdini in which he covers everything from simple advertising techniques to the Jim Jones massacre. All we would need to do is produce top notch TV commercials against drug use and declare that nobody is doing these anymore. If we combined this with treatment, the demand would plummet.

I know it might sound like a stretch but it isn't. Look at how much advertisers pay for Super Bowl adds. They don't do this because the adds don't work. Look at how much advertising you see every day. Look at how successful Leftists have been in influencing the way our youth thinks. Look at how dictators in the past have used propaganda. Hitler had an entire ministry devoted to spreading propaganda and we know how effective that was.

Really, the way our government has handled the whole issue is quite criminal in light of how they should handle it. At any rate, a proper media campaign could easily do away with our drug problem.

CrackerJax · Apr 24, 2010

I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing ANY drug..... BUT.... not one tax payer dime goes to you if you do. You are on your own. If you end up in an alleyway.... so be it. If you steal to get $$$ for drugs.... jail. Want rehab? pay for it. need medical? Pay for it.

If you want to have the freedom to choose for yourself, it must be all the way. If it is your personal choice, then it is your personal responsibility as well. Don't burden society one dime's worth.

NoDrama · Apr 24, 2010

I couldn't agree more than with UTI's assertions. You can't legislate morality. Making laws against doing with your own body what you will is ridiculous and anathema to life itself. Life is short , its about LIVING and EXPERIENCING all there is to be offered. LSD is said to cure some people of mental illness, Cocaine is still used for eye surgery, Morphine and its derivatives are effective pain killers, Methamphetamines are still to this day prescribed by doctors to people to treat several maladies. I could go on but you get the point. More than twice as many people are addicted to a single LEGAL drug than all other illicit drugs combined....alcohol. Tobacco is responsible for more deaths per year than everything else man has devised to kill another, yet its completely legal and a 5 year old could smoke a cigarette any time of the day if he really wanted. Prescription drugs account for nearly half of all drug overdoses, and are the second most abused drug behind marijuana. But is it really abuse? And if it is abuse, shouldn't the doctors and the Pharmacists be held accountable?

NoDrama · Apr 24, 2010

RickWhite said:
This makes sense since the stuff causes immediate and profound withdrawals that cause the user to binge for days at a time with no sleep. There is little chance anyone can use this stuff without addiction and there is virtually no chance an addict can remain functional for long. Will everyone prostitute their nine year old? No, but damn near everyone who uses it will destroy their life and the lives of anyone involved with them. Growing up in the 80s, I saw similar things happen as a result of cocaine use. I saw successful men lose business' and everything they own believing they were doing a recreational drug that they could control.

I have done Meth 3 times in my life, always with the promise that it would be a great rush, not really my thing though and OF COURSE I am no where near addiction, the last time I did meth was 7 years ago. Its not the drug, its the person. Im all for doing and putting in your body what you will, and like CJ you take responsibility for your actions. Apparently Rick, you believe that ALL drugs are bad, because you can't differentiate, you can't be ok with one, and not with the others. I would call you a hypocrite, but it wouldn't do any good.

I know 20+ people who have all done meth or cocaine and not a single person ever became addcited. I know 1 person who did get addicted to Meth, but he cleaned up his life and hasn't touched it for 10 years now. Shows how much you don't really know.

I see people eating all sorts of bad for you food and destroying their lives to the point that the obesity will not even let them move around much, let alone do any kind of meaningful work. Yet we don't arrest the fat people and throw them in jail for what is obviously a problem for them that is going to kill them later now do we?

Jer La Mota · Apr 24, 2010

RickWhite said:
I would certainly end the war on drugs as we know it. You can't make things like meth and heroin legal because they kill people, but as soon as a person begins using drugs like these they are in need of medical care. Therefore, I would propose that when a guy is arrested and found in possession of crack, he goes straight to the local hospital psych ward or other facility and is detoxed by doctors.

In fact, if we assume the obvious - that drug addicts are by definition in need of medical care, it is criminal to not produce that care. I'm sure if a diabetic went into insulin shock and crashed into a tree, they would take the guy to the hospital, not to jail. The same is true of a guy hooked on heroin.

The practice of treating addiction as a law enforcement issue rather than a medical one is downright insane.

True, tho did those addicts get rejected by society and then loose hope, to then end up on hard drugs ?
I can go to the hospital now and get medicated for depression and what not .. How bad does a situation have to be to push me in a direction that will end up putting me on cocaine ?
I know ppl are driven to hard drugs because of lack of option, bad surrounding\influence, which pushes them into that lifestyle (habit), tho they can still walk into a hospital and try to get help ..

A long time ago, I had a gf that was addicted to coke , and what happened was simple ..
I tried to change that environment (and succeeded), tho that environment (the ppl in it) took her back .. lolz
You cant bond with ppl that have that lifestyle (hard drugs),or at lest not for ever, because you're not part of it .. it wont last

Jer La Mota · Apr 24, 2010

.. and pot can easily replace pain medication, hemp makes better fabric, and paper .. and so on
Where would those industries be if cannabis would have been legal ..

Cannabis is an obvious threat to those industries, with it, the pharmaceutical companies would be nowhere where they are today ..

undertheice · Apr 24, 2010

CrackerJax said:
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing ANY drug..... BUT.... not one tax payer dime goes to you if you do. You are on your own. If you end up in an alleyway.... so be it. If you steal to get $$$ for drugs.... jail. Want rehab? pay for it. need medical? Pay for it.

If you want to have the freedom to choose for yourself, it must be all the way. If it is your personal choice, then it is your personal responsibility as well. Don't burden society one dime's worth.

this is the essence of individual liberty, to be free to do as you please and to be personally responsible for the outcome. we know that not everyone is capable of adhering to this simple concept, but penalizing the vast majority who are in order to protect those few is nonsensical and an abuse of authority.

we can say that drug abuse can lead to crime, but crime has many causes and outlawing them all is an impossibility. hunger leads to crime, so we feed the needy. crime still exists. poverty leads to crime, so we institute government handouts. crime still exists. greed leads to crime, so we regulate every aspect of our lives. crime still exists. being human leads to crime. how do we cure that particular ailment?

we have to stop looking at ourselves as victims and start realizing that 90% of what happens to us is our own damn fault.

redivider · Apr 24, 2010

passthedutchfo19 said:
Obviously some people think that these drugs are needed in modern society or they would not exist. Drugs will always be here, the government cannot stop it. No method of controlling the supply will ever work. If the government starts stopping the supply in one place it will come in from another. No method will ever work. Even ab authoritarian police state would not be able to stop drugs from entering a country. I does not matter how serious the government gets about stopping them. The harder the try, the more death, destruction and incarceration the government will cause, with few results.

This is a tragedy, but this is no reason to make something illegal. Some mother drink to much and neglect there kids, a women in China even killed her kid because she spent some time playing world of warcraft to much. These are no reason to ban substances. We should hold the mother responsible not the drugs. The kids neglect is a tragedy, but would you rather have some innocent kid get gunned down by a stray bullet in a drive by. Its one or the other. Either you have some kids get neglected because their parents are addicted to drugs, or you have a black market where crime is a common occurrence which creates neighborhood where people have to fear for their own lives and a few less kids get neglected. Also, the illegality of drugs makes them more expensive. If drugs were legal they would be cheaper and the mother might have money to fuel her habit and feed her kids.

Blame the human traffickers, not the heroin. Would it be any better if it was morphine, a legal drug. This too is a tragedy, but once again blame the abusive people for their actions, not the drug.

If meth was legal people would have no reason to make it in their home. The only reason it is made is because of the high profit potential stemming from its legality.

l

actually, these drugs AREN'T NEEDED IN SOCIETY. PEOPLE WANT THEM. it's two different things.

and whoever doubts that tough zero-tolerance stance on shit don't work:

you can go to prison for life for possession of a few grams of any drugs in Singapore. guess how many people in singapore use drugs?? almost nobody. that's right. you can go somewhere on earth where nobody fucks with crack, or meth. there's no junkies in the streets neither, almost zero crime, less than one murder per year... that place is no doubt the most economically advanced society in the world, and the rest of the world should use them as an example.

they're the only country in the world to almost completely erradicate drug abuse within it's population.... time to get on the bandwagon.....

it's not because they don't have any personal demons, it's not because they don't have any problems, it's because nobody sells it.

CrackerJax · Apr 24, 2010

undertheice said:
this is the essence of individual liberty, to be free to do as you please and to be personally responsible for the outcome. we know that not everyone is capable of adhering to this simple concept, but penalizing the vast majority who are in order to protect those few is nonsensical and an abuse of authority.

we can say that drug abuse can lead to crime, but crime has many causes and outlawing them all is an impossibility. hunger leads to crime, so we feed the needy. crime still exists. poverty leads to crime, so we institute government handouts. crime still exists. greed leads to crime, so we regulate every aspect of our lives. crime still exists. being human leads to crime. how do we cure that particular ailment?

we have to stop looking at ourselves as victims and start realizing that 90% of what happens to us is our own damn fault.

I agree ... if you want 100% personal freedom....then you must accept 100% personal responsibility for he choices you make. If you can pay your way.... I don't care what you do.

Padawanbater2 · Apr 24, 2010

redivider said:
actually, these drugs AREN'T NEEDED IN SOCIETY. PEOPLE WANT THEM. it's two different things.

and whoever doubts that tough zero-tolerance stance on shit don't work:

you can go to prison for life for possession of a few grams of any drugs in Singapore. guess how many people in singapore use drugs?? almost nobody. that's right. you can go somewhere on earth where nobody fucks with crack, or meth. there's no junkies in the streets neither, almost zero crime, less than one murder per year... that place is no doubt the most economically advanced society in the world, and the rest of the world should use them as an example.

they're the only country in the world to almost completely erradicate drug abuse within it's population.... time to get on the bandwagon.....

it's not because they don't have any personal demons, it's not because they don't have any problems, it's because nobody sells it.

I don't think that's a viable possibility. I think the United States would be a lot different as our population is so accustomed to individual freedom. If any authority made it illegal under the threat of life in prison for any amount of drugs, millions of people wouldn't give a fuck, and would still use, addiction is extremely difficult for some people to overcome, even if it means something that serious as a consequence. Personally my stance is people should be completely free to do with themselves whatever they want without harming another person or infringing on their rights, which would include suicide, prostitution and drug use.

Also, another factor to consider is pharmaceuticals. There are endless different combination people come up with to get high, and that's the largest market in the WORLD. It would also be kind of hypocritical for the government to ban all "drugs" yet have such a business even exist. Count up the campaign contributions, a huge percentage comes from the pharm. industry. I don't think they're going away any time soon...

ink the world · Apr 24, 2010

CrackerJax said:
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing ANY drug..... BUT.... not one tax payer dime goes to you if you do. You are on your own. If you end up in an alleyway.... so be it. If you steal to get $$$ for drugs.... jail. Want rehab? pay for it. need medical? Pay for it.

If you want to have the freedom to choose for yourself, it must be all the way. If it is your personal choice, then it is your personal responsibility as well. Don't burden society one dime's worth.

Agreed, as long as we treat smokers, drinkers, over eaters all the same too.

CrackerJax · Apr 24, 2010

well smokers do py through insurance....and dui's ppl do pay through theirs as well..... but I do agree of course with the principle.

There is already far too much "parenting" by the state. What's next? A program for someone to come into ur bedroom every morning and tie your shoes for you? Wipe your arse properly? :lol:

passthedutchfo19 · Apr 24, 2010

redivider said:
actually, these drugs AREN'T NEEDED IN SOCIETY. PEOPLE WANT THEM. it's two different things.

Its your opinion that these drugs aren't needed in society, obviously plenty of other people disagree. Even if they aren't needed, that is no reason to ban them. McDonald's and cigarette both are harmful and aren't needed in society yet we do not ban them. There are many things in society that probably aren't needed, but both my and your opinion of what are necessary in society are irrelevant. If enough people want these products they will be supplied

redivider said:
and whoever doubts that tough zero-tolerance stance on shit don't work:

you can go to prison for life for possession of a few grams of any drugs in Singapore. guess how many people in singapore use drugs?? almost nobody. that's right. you can go somewhere on earth where nobody fucks with crack, or meth. there's no junkies in the streets neither, almost zero crime, less than one murder per year... that place is no doubt the most economically advanced society in the world, and the rest of the world should use them as an example.

they're the only country in the world to almost completely erradicate drug abuse within it's population.... time to get on the bandwagon.....

it's not because they don't have any personal demons, it's not because they don't have any problems, it's because nobody sells it.

Ok there are several problems with your comparison with Singapore. Singapore is nothing like the United States. A policy like Singapore's could never be successful in the United States, nor would I want it to ever be implemented. But ill give you the benefit of the doubt and say it works in the Untied States. Why would you even want a policy like this? Why should someone who sells a substance to a willing individual ever be executed? You are advocating the killing of human beings for simply selling a substance. The thought is just despicable. These people have harmed no one yet you want them killed or put in prison for life. Why shouldn't people be able to put into their body whatever they want, and be forced to take responsibility for their actions? What gives you or the government the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body?

tnrtinr · Apr 24, 2010

redivider said:
actually, these drugs AREN'T NEEDED IN SOCIETY. PEOPLE WANT THEM. it's two different things.

and whoever doubts that tough zero-tolerance stance on shit don't work:

you can go to prison for life for possession of a few grams of any drugs in Singapore. guess how many people in singapore use drugs?? almost nobody. that's right. you can go somewhere on earth where nobody fucks with crack, or meth. there's no junkies in the streets neither, almost zero crime, less than one murder per year... that place is no doubt the most economically advanced society in the world, and the rest of the world should use them as an example.

they're the only country in the world to almost completely erradicate drug abuse within it's population.... time to get on the bandwagon.....

it's not because they don't have any personal demons, it's not because they don't have any problems, it's because nobody sells it.

You don't understand the equation. The US government is not trying to erradicate drug use. They are the ones that bring the massive quantities of drugs to our soil.

Rob Roy · Apr 27, 2010

redivider said:
i'll tell you who supports the war on drugs:

the white, christian base of the Tea Party Movement.

the war on drugs shouldn't end. it should be modified. most of the DEA's policing powers should be removed, and they should be relegated to walking dogs inside airports and boat yards. they should not have the power to arrest people, only detain them until the local PD shows up, conduct in-depth investigations with wire-taps, or own assault rifles. They should just be men, walking around with dogs to catch bad guys when they can. Their primary purpose should be to actively engage the public on important drug issues through education. not just mind-altering drugs, but ALL DRUGS, prescription and all. enforcement would fall to the state-run drug squads, which would get their budgets allocated depending on the REDUCTION of drug usage in the population. no reduction, budget cuts..... this would cause drug squads to look for methods to curb drug use, not ways to put people in jail, like they do now.

penalties for selling heroin, crack cocaine, and crystal meth should be stiffened. hefty fines (1,500 USD per gram in my opinion), seizure of property, and a naming as a 'drug offender' similar to 'sex offender' for life. I also condone mandatory minimums for the manufacture or possesion with intent to sell of crack cocaine and crystal meth, no questions asked. If they catch you selling, or making crack or meth, mandatory 25 year minimum sentence, no questions asked. Life if you're caught giving it to a minor, or in a school zone. That will make the price and rarity of those drugs such that nobody will want to use it.

this is just for the harder of the hard drugs, stuff like extasy, Ketamine, LSD, mescaline, etc. should not be considered one of these.

get what I'm saying??

Yes I get what you are saying. I'm just not buying it. If a person owns themselves, THEY determine what does and does not go into their body. While I may agree with you that some substances are harmful...what is more harmful is another determining THEY own your body and that you don't.

Prohibition of self ownership is the real crime. When your actions harm you, you bear the consequences of your choice. When your actions directly harm somebody else or their property etc., THEN and ONLY THEN, does another have the natural right to intercede.

Prohibiting self ownership under the guise of "for your own good" leads to tyranny...always.

Who supports the War on Drugs?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member