http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/04/AR2008050402054_pf.html

I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

On the one hand, it's ridiculous to put someone in prison for having a tiny amount of marijuana on them. Shortening that sentence is fine with me.

On the other hand, things like South Carolina doing away with parole seem like very bad ideas.

Let's release all non-violent drug offenders. Please, for Christ's sake.

There is ample scholarly research that shows that the legality or illegality of a substance has no effect on usage rates, except in some cases to actually LOWER it.

People are getting convicted for drugs, put into high security prisons, and given the choice to sit in solitary confinement, kill someone to get respect, or be raped for the duration of their sentence. The fact that we think it's acceptable to house murderers and people who are only exercising their God-given right to their own bodies is one of the most disgusting things about our country.

Sad, sad sad

These folks are criminals, you simply cannot give them free reign.

Start pushing hardcore work release programs. I don't care if they sleep in tents at night with orders to shoot to kill ala chain gangs.

Do not let slip the bounds of society to suit the lesser denominator...please....

If anything start the death penalty for hardcore drug pushers/ child molestors and murderers....

But don't bring down society to suit the those of us with morales of a gutter cat.

One could argue society's MORALE is one of the reason for so many non-violent drug offenses, but I think you meant morals :>

Ainwein's point is amply supported by evidence from basically every other westernized nation. You can't keep people from getting stuff anyone can produce, and outlawing it only creates a blackmarket that funds REAL crime. Non-political organized crime is this country was essentially non-existent before prohibition, because they had no way to make money. As soon as liquor was illegal, the people already breaking laws suddenly had a monopoly on it and went from small time hoods to big-time traffickers. Repeat for pretty much every prohibition on casual recreational substances -- cigarettes between the US and Canda, marijuana, cocaine, opium, ad nauseum. If cocaine was legalized and regulated at a price below blackmarket values, the entirety of the central American criminal cartel system would instantly collapse.

I may think potheads are morons, but I'm even stupider if I'm paying huge amounts of tax money to keep them clogging court systems and jails instead of people that pose actual public safety hazards, like murders and child molesters.

What is a non-violent drug offender?
Where is the line?

I think this is the problem the justice system has been struggling with. It's funny I watch those shows on Spike that shows the crazy police chases and I have caught that show DEA a time or two. Some of these people who are pushing drugs are incrediably dangerous. Personally, I think users are small fries but how many of them are getting horrendously long sentences? Should we smack them on the wrist a few times? Should we just turn the other cheek? At what point do we say ok now what you're doing is too bad you must go jail now k?

It's just not as easy as saying, release all non-violent druggies.

A smidge off topic but did you guys hear the story about the lady who had gotten a max sentence, had escaped from jail and they found her like 30 some years later as a completly reformed person, kids, family, good job, etc? But she was an escaped convict too...

What is a non-violent drug offender?

A guy who has a couple pounds of weed in his house who has never commited a violent crime.

I am with Wein here on this. I completely agree are prisons are loaded with people who got wrapped up in drugs and throwing them in prison only makes it worse. Prisons are for hardcore drug pushers (the meth heads, Herion, Crack) dealers, Violent crimes, Robbery..................

I don't think anything people do in the privacy of their own homes as far as recreational substances should land them in jail.

Now, the crimes it takes to get that substance in their hands should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=747093


"Whites are the majority of drug offenders, but blacks are the majority sent to prison on drug charges," writes Jamie Fellner, senior counsel in the U.S. program at Human Rights Watch and author of that organization's report.
The report cites 2006 surveys by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, which estimates that 49% of whites and 42.9% of blacks ages 12 and older have used illicit drugs in their lifetime and that 8.5% of whites and 9.8% of blacks have used an illicit drug in the past month.
"Because the white population in the United States is slightly more than six times larger than the black, and the rate of drug use is roughly comparable between the two, the number of white drug users is significantly higher than the number who are black," the report states.
"The solution," Fellner suggests, "is not to incarcerate more whites but to end the incarceration of low level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment."


Putting low level drug user in prison isn't helping this country at all.

What is a non-violent drug offender?
Where is the line?

If your only crime is the possession of the drug, you are a non-violent drug offender.

Another huge component of this is race. The 100:1 ratio when determining sentences for cocaine and crack-cocaine users is widely accepted as the most openly racist law we still have on the books.

It means that your penalty for having a fucking KILO of coke is the exact same as me having 10 grams of crack-cocaine. It's a product of the 80s and the completely irrational idea of a 'crack epidemic'. This combined with mandatory minimums mean that people who are found nodding off in derelict buildings smoking crack apparently deserve the same amount of punishment that some killers get. I'm talking 10-15. It's fucked up.

I'd agree some of our penalties, i.e murder/child molestation, aren't punished harshly enough. A user shouldn't do the same time as such imho.

Do you think society would do better if you legalized use?

I just don't think it would, you can throw up all the western cultures that do great and I still think it would be an abysmal failure here in the U.S.

I don't think anything people do in the privacy of their own homes as far as recreational substances should land them in jail.

Now, the crimes it takes to get that substance in their hands should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


This is also what I was trying to convey. I agree that Joe-user isn't as much of a problem but it's the hardcore dealers that are. The ones who cause dangerous police chases and shoot guns at the cops while running. Like I said, I watch too much Spike :p We leave it on while playing and between CSI, the crazy police videos and DEA I am over exposed but love it.

I was also trying to convey that our system is foobared and has made determining non-violent criminals cloudy b/c of stupid things like mandatory min. sentences.

I'd agree some of our penalties, i.e murder/child molestation, aren't punished harshly enough. A user shouldn't do the same time as such imho.

Do you think society would do better if you legalized use?

I just don't think it would, you can throw up all the western cultures that do great and I still think it would be an abysmal failure here in the U.S.


With proper taxation on the controlled substances, yes I think we would be.

Do you think society would do better if you legalized use?

I just don't think it would, you can throw up all the western cultures that do great and I still think it would be an abysmal failure here in the U.S.Yes, I absolutely know that society would be better if you legalized use. It would reduce usage, lower crime rates drastically, remove the burden on the prison system, and provide us with a huge reservoir of workers who were previously being holed up at the cost of 15k a year. (15k x 2 million or so inmates. I wonder why people whine about the pitiful amount of pork barrel spending compared to the absurd amount of money we spend to keep people locked up?)

Even if you discredit all of the research which shows this in other countries (Which really makes zero sense), and even in micro instances within the United States, you simply cannot ignore our experience with alcohol prohibition.

Alcohol is a drug. It was made illegal due to racist politicians and sensational stories detailing mass crimes committed by those under the influence (Think crack epidemic). Once it was made illegal, usage did not drop, you just had black market crime now, inflated prices, unpure brew (People would go blind from some of this shit), speakeasies, and so on. Thankfully, we realized that we were being retarded and got rid of that stuff a couple of years later.

This is the exact same model for drug prohibition. The reasons drugs are illegal are equally as inane as those provided for alcohol prohibition. Usage has not dropped and drugs are readily available as ever.

If there is a reasonable argument for drug prohibition, I have yet to hear it. People who attack them from a puritanical standpoint are just idiots because they can't comprehend that alcohol and other 'drugs' are exactly the same. People who think that we need prohibition to help the government protect us from each other or ourselves can just kindly fuck off.

Do you think society would do better if you legalized use?

I just don't think it would, you can throw up all the western cultures that do great and I still think it would be an abysmal failure here in the U.S.

So your gut feeling trumps multiple corroborating sources of evidence? How long does something not have to be working, with multiple working alternative models available for comparison to change your mind?

I'll preface by saying that I do not use any drugs whatsoever. So, I feel that I'm relatively unbiased toward the drug situation, not having any personal stake in it either way.

That said, our country's "war on drugs" is probably one of the biggest mistakes we've made in recent history. In the face of mountains of evidence and study against it, that we have continued to hammer its round peg into a square hole is just amazing to me.

A tremendous amount of violence, crime, and general suffering is the absolute, direct result of the war on drugs. As someone else mentioned, it's no different than what happened as a result of prohibition.

As our country falls into economic bankruptcy, spending billions to incarcerate a harmless pothead is not something I want to spend my tax dollars on. If it were legalized and taxed, that person could be contributing to our GDP and paying added taxes on their ganja.

Instead of costing us tax dollars, they could be contributing in two aspects! It's a huge net win for everyone.

It all depends on the drug, of course.

You can argue that marijuana is safer than alcohol, and thus should be legal to use. I might even agree with that. But you couldn't make the same argument with, say, heroin or cocaine.

Could we get some links to the studies and multiple corroborating sources of evidence that show legalizing crystal meth and cocaine leads to more productive and beneficial society?

"alcohol and other 'drugs' are exactly the same." Let me get this straight. You're saying alcohol and crystal meth are "exactly the same" and you're the one calling other people idiots?

"It ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport."

What's next -- comparing caffeine and LSD?

/nods Furv I don't get the viewpoints that they're the same ...at all.

I can't help but think that making it legal will only encourage even more use of the more destructive drugs....

The chemical effects of something don't miraculously change it from being a public health issue to a felony crime one. Alcohol causes more net loss in lives, money, and time every year than crystal meth, despite the latter's greater potential for physiological addiction -- address the actual problem, not how nasty it is. If the problem is substance abuse, why is the answer to one voluntary support groups and the other felony convictions?

Nicotine is more physiologically addictive than pretty much anything but heroin, on par with amphetamines, and causes greater health care expenditures than pretty much every other illegal drug combined. I can buy it by the truckload.

I think most people opposing our current debacle of policy are more specifically talking about marijuana and cocaine. That's what I meant, but forgot to specify.

I can see things like meth and heroin being far more dangerous. They really wreck people quickly. The fact is though, that there are legal substances available that are as deadly and as addictive. There has never been a very logical explanation for our hypocrisy on the subject.

Here's some info from Forbes that really puts it in perspective:

According to Forbes Magazine, 25 million Americans currently use marijuana (federal statistics indicate that one in three Americans has used marijuana at some point), which makes it a $113 billion untaxed industry in our country. The FBI reports that about 40 percent of the roughly 1.8 million annual drug arrests in the U.S. are for marijuana—the majority (89 percent) for simple possession. Rather than acting as a deterrent, criminalization of marijuana drains precious resources, clogs our legal system, and distracts law enforcement attention from more pressing safety concerns.

Even if you could somehow mount a logical argument for persecuting these simple possession offenders with prison time, it's impossible to make a solid argument for wasting resources on them at a time then we're having a hard time just affording to keep violent criminals incarcerated.

I would like to hear a solid argument for any of that. I would also like to hear logic about why nicotine should be legal and marijuana shouldn't be, especially in light of this information (http://www.theseminal.com/2008/05/03/evening-open-thread-science-gives-common-sense-a-break-and-punks-the-war-on-drugs/).

I'm a libertarian. I believe that we have a right to drugs as property, just as we have a right to our own bodies - our most sacred property.

I don't differentiate between alcohol, crystal meth, marijuana, or any kind of drug.

Fact - usage rates remain steady or show a marginal downward trend when a substance is legalized or decriminalized.

If crystal meth was legalized, you would not have more users. To say that you would flies in the face of all the evidence we have documenting the prohibition of certain substances. People are going to use or not use it regardless. Is it chemically different? Of course. If everyone who smoked pot smoked crystal it would be a fucking nightmare.

In Switzerland, they have a huge heroin problem. They began giving heroin to addicts for free, or at minimal cost. The catch - they had to do it in their facilities. They cleaned up the parks, people started using less, and crime went down.


All of these sources are peer reviewed:



Miller, Cari. The Potential Health and Economic Impact of Implementing a Medically Prescribed Heroin Program Among Canadian Injection Drug Users. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2004, 15(4) pp. 259-263.

Miron, Jeffrey. The Economics of Drug Prohibition and Legalization. Social Research. 2001, 68(3) pp. 835-855.

Ribeaud, Dennis. Long Term Impact of the Swiss Heroin Prescription Trials on Crime of Heroin Users. Journal of Drug Issues. 2004 34(1) pp. 163-194.

Satel, Sally. The Swiss Heroin Trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1999, 17(4) pp. 331-336.

I'd agree some of our penalties, i.e murder/child molestation, aren't punished harshly enough. A user shouldn't do the same time as such imho.

Do you think society would do better if you legalized use?

I just don't think it would, you can throw up all the western cultures that do great and I still think it would be an abysmal failure here in the U.S.


Look at the numbers now for DUI and alcohol-related traffic accidents and deaths. If we decide tomorrow to make marijuana a legal over the counter drug, can we really not anticipate some negative effects? Other than the stoner holding up rush hour traffic waiting for the stop sign to turn green, provoking some road rage, the reduced reflexes endanger bicyclists, joggers, pedestrians, our kids! I am all for letting folks smoke dope in their homes, but if we have to lock them in until they are no longer stoned, that is a bit pushy.

As for the more serious crimes, many violent crimes are tied to drug use, such as armed robbery. This does not mean the non-violent crimes of burglary, car theft, forgery, shop-lifting may not also be directly tied to the offender's drug use.

The only crime I can view as a hard and fast, no excuses allowed crime, is that of child molestation. I have no problem with advocating capital punishment for these offenders, because they cannot be treated. They will either decide at some point to stop, or they will always be a danger to children. Granted, I have not read any of the research on this in the last 25 years since leaving my job in corrections, but the leading authority who worked in Connecticut's penal system wrote convincingly on the matter. I would much rather have to find a way to sleep at night after pulling the plug on an offender, than have to watch stories like that of the girl in Florida who was buried alive after being raped within sight of her family home, or any of the countless stories that just keep being repeated.

I hate to say it, but one of the most secure jobs these days is that of a prison guard; there will always be people breaking the laws.

San, I happen to think we need to take a harsher look at nicotine and the companies still hawking it.

Ain, I've been to Amsterdamn where you can buy hash in bars. I wasn't swept away with the observations you claim. Infact it seemed dirty and seedy ;(

I have no stats on crime there or such so I'll bow to the studies you linked. Tho it seems to flys in the face of conventional wisdom. You make alcohol easier to obtain and kids abuse it more than when you keep it locked up. The same with cigarettes and other adult fun!

Yes, I absolutely know that society would be better if you legalized use. It would reduce usage, lower crime rates drastically, remove the burden on the prison system



I admire your faith in people, but you are assuming a lot here. Why would usage be lowered? Why would those who steal to get the money for drugs now suddenly stop stealing to get the money if the drugs were legal? Yes, it would be acceptable finally for someone to sit on their deck after a hard day and smoke a joint while watching the sunset, rather than poison their liver with a cocktail; but, those folks are most likely doing that even now. It is those who commit crimes to enable themselves to indulge that are the problem, and they will most likely continue that behavior.

I think what you guys are missing with the crime is that demand side crime is usually much less violent than supply side. However, the supply side crime is only a result of our own policy.

Remember, there was just as much crime surrounding alcohol during prohibition, as there is surrounding large drug suppliers today. It evaporated almost instantly when prohibition ended. A broke meth-head might still steal your plasma TV now and then, but we wouldn't have all out war going on at our borders and in our back alleys (which often ends up involving innocent collateral damage).

The same could happen today with drug related violence, if we'd just stop being so dogmatic about controlling something that cannot reasonably be controlled.

I'm not assuming anything. It does go against conventional wisdom, but it's simply a fact and it has been corroborated in every single instance of prohibition that I am aware of.

Google scholar is fantastic for finding good scholarly articles and books. I use it more often than I do my university databases. If you look up the articles I posted, or simply type in something about drug prohibition, crime, economics, usage rates, etc, you will get tons of hits.

You make alcohol easier to obtain and kids abuse it more than when you keep it locked up. The same with cigarettes and other adult fun!

If Marijuana were to be legalized, it would probably be restricted to people at least 18, possibly 21 years of age. So we're talking adults that are able to make the decision to use on their own, just like they do with cigarettes and alcohol. DWI laws and such do apply to marijuana and other drugs, and would continue to.

If you make alcohol easy to obtain, then yes, it will be easier for the children to abuse it. If I keep my child locked in a closet he cannot drink alcohol, whereas if I gave it to him myself, he could.

The issue isn't the legality though. We know that legal status does not change usage rates. We know that availability is not affected by prohibition, except in instantaneous circumstances (A major bust in a city will render it 'dry' for short periods of time, but no large scale trends exist). That means that whether it is legal or not, the same amount of 'product' is floating around the streets.

In other words, it is the same as alcohol. If you have weed laying out around your kids, they might take it and smoke it. If you leave alcohol around your kids, they might take it and drink it. If you do neither, they can do neither, at least at your fault.

There is a reason they say that pot is easier to get for teenagers than alcohol - it is. My little brother was able to get marijuana in his freshman year of high school. He didn't drink a drop until his sophomore year. You can get pot from your friends - alcohol requires somewhere down the line that fraud is committed, or that someone of age purchases it for you.

Another very detrimental aspect of putting minor possession offenders in prison is that it institutionalizes them and pushes them farther toward the criminal side of the equation. You take a harmless pothead and then actually pay tax dollars to turn him into the criminal you pretended to be incarcerating all along.

It's self fulfilling destiny. If you try hard enough to convince someone that they're a criminal, they'll eventually believe you. In which case, being incarcerated is just a good time to build contacts for when you're released.

To get an idea of the magnitude of this effect, just look at what happened in the Standford prison experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/). I think that experiment is particularly relevant to non-violent, minor possession offenders.

and then when he gets out and finds himself in anymore trouble its back to jail. Its a viscous cycle, three strike laws put him away for life. Some people are just not that smart enough to stay out of trouble, yet they more than likely are not harmful to society in the least bit.

Yes, it would be acceptable finally for someone to sit on their deck after a hard day and smoke a joint while watching the sunset, rather than poison their liver with a cocktail; but, those folks are most likely doing that even now. It is those who commit crimes to enable themselves to indulge that are the problem, and they will most likely continue that behavior.
Do you realize you just proved Ainwein and Sanchek's point here?
If drugs are legalized, habits will more or so stay the same. You could probably argue that if drugs are controlled by state's laws, less drug-related crimes may occur, if like in Switzerland users are known and under control, or prices may even go down (legal concurrence?), involving less robbery.

So now we have the same usage and same users, BUT we removed (most of) all the prison's clogging, arrests and "war of drugs" officers, even some Fil's beloved car chasing! And, most of all, you removed all the black market and criminals using it.

Win-win situation.

If this cuts down on my clips for Cops I'll be pissed.

Nothing brightens my Saturday nights more than a crackhead getting a good tasering!!

The issue isn't the legality though. We know that legal status does not change usage rates. We know that availability is not affected by prohibition, except in instantaneous circumstances (A major bust in a city will render it 'dry' for short periods of time, but no large scale trends exist). That means that whether it is legal or not, the same amount of 'product' is floating around the streets.


This is the key point. Building 20 foot walls only makes the people who manufacture 21 foot ladders rich. There is no force on earth in human history that has ever stopped economies from springing into existence when you had a group of people who wanted something and a group of people who could get it for them.

The issue thus becomes whether it is more cost-effective for a society to treat it as a public health problem or a crime problem. We have mounds of evidence that the public health approach is hugely cheaper in every possible way, and an $30 billion dollar a year price tag for our counter-example that isn't working -- Switzerland pays that for their entire health care system. Yes, I know the populations are hugely different, but just think about that. The Swiss spend about 29 billion total for health care for ~7.6 million people. Do we have 7.6 million drug abusers?

"If drugs are legalized, habits will more or so stay the same."

I still have not seen that shown, particularly with a drug like crystal meth. Ainwen's articles (to the extent I could find and read them) do not bear that out as proof.

"corroborated in every single instance of prohibition that I am aware of."

In a lot of instances, prohibition (particularly societal or religous prohibitions) leads to a lot lower usage rates. Compare, for example, usage rates of alcohol and tobacco between Mormons (which prohibit the use of the substances) and Protestants.

Anyone in the United States who wants crystal meth can currently get it very easily today. In what scenario would you expect that it could possibly get worse? At least if it were a controlled substance, regulated, and taxed, then we could avoid much of the violence and crime it brings.

You can't compare a strict religious guideline with government law. In fact, most of those very strong religions consider "God's law" to supersede "man's law". So, in this case, you're able to opportunistically contrast them. However, if the laws were reversed, you'd have exactly the opposite situation.

There is no correlation or valid logical argument there.

Do you really believe that there is a population of people who really want to try crystal meth, but they aren't doing so because it's illegal? =P


In a lot of instances, prohibition (particularly societal or religous prohibitions) leads to a lot lower usage rates. Compare, for example, usage rates of alcohol and tobacco between Mormons (which prohibit the use of the substances) and Protestants.As Sanchek pointed out, this is entirely different from public policy.

People who join religions and choose to adhere to their tenants, in this case by not using drugs, are making a choice for themselves, of their own free will, that they do not want to use drugs. If drugs were legalized, it would not matter to them because their puritanical religious beliefs do not afford for intoxication.

The entire idea that legalization will breed more drug users operates under the premise that there is a large population of people who want to try drugs, but because of their illegality, chose not to do so. This just simply isn't true, and the 'seriousness' of the drug has no effect on this.

The kind of person who is going to use crystal meth is not the kind of person who is going to give a shit if it is legal or not.

And let's face it, just about anyone with Internet access and a nearby drug store can make themselves some meth. That doesn't particularly help the prohibition argument.

Anyone in the United States who wants crystal meth can currently get it very easily today. In what scenario would you expect that it could possibly get worse? At least if it were a controlled substance, regulated, and taxed, then we could avoid much of the violence and crime it brings.




While I agree with the potential advantages of legalizing and taxing marijuana, I have no such illusion that meth would ever be seriously considered for legalization; the drug is harmful to the user, it's use has been directly related to violent crime, and it's impact on a social and economic scale is totally negative.

I wouldn't be surprised if legal coke would largely supplant meth, for new users.

I wouldn't be surprised if legal coke would largely supplant meth, for new users.


And that could reopen the Columbia trade issue that Bush wants done before he leaves office. :eek:

Meth is coke for poor people. If cocaine was affordable, nobody would use it -- meth problems are nonexistant in areas with plentiful cocaine, ie, Mexico. All the meth in Mexico is shipped up here.

Hmmm you might convince me that drugs should be made legal. But I'd have to see penalties for working/driving and drug related crimes get hell of a lot stiffer....

I don't think that penalties for driving under the influence of drugs should be any more strict than they are now - it is a DWI, just like if you're drinking alcohol. The penalties for DWIs is going up sharply across the states as well.

As far as meth. If there aren't any more users, then there won't be an increase in violent crime due to use. Also, while some users become violent, some do not. It's the same as alcohol in that sense - some people get violent and some do not. If you commit a crime while under the influence of a drug, I believe that is perfectly admissible as an aggravating factor.

Putting these people in jail for the mere possession of the drug, however, is complete bullshit. Think of the kinds of people who use meth. What do you think happens to them in prison? Meth heads are some of the most weak, pathetic people you will ever meet.

Michael Santos (http://www.michaelsantos.net/) is currently an inmate serving 20 or so years for cocaine distribution. He has received his masters degree while in prison, and has written a number of books detailing in graphic detail the kinds of things that occur in these places. One story that particularly stuck with me was the story of two 24 year old meth heads, who couldn't kick the habit and were sent to a federal penitentiary to serve their sentence. He leaves nothing to the imagination when describing how they were raped repeatedly day in and day out. Another meth head got the picture, and killed his roommate with a broken coffee mug. He got respect - and 15 more years.

Is that just? Do you think that anyone should be subjected to this simply because they wanted to get high?

"You can't compare a strict religious guideline with government law."

I wasn't comparing the two. Ainwen stated that every single instance of prohibition fails to affect usage rates. I pointed out at least one prohibition that does, in fact, lower usage rate. I have yet to see the studies that show legalizing crystal meth would not affect usage rates (particularly over a large period of time as the drug becomes an accepted part of the culture). Everyone that has stated with a certainty there would be no affect, post some links. I looked at Ainwen's and it offered no insight.

Here's another issue to consider regarding usage rates. You state "there is a large population of people who want to try drugs, but because of their illegality, chose not to do so." That's not the concern. The concern is there is a large population of companies out there who will do whatever they can to get you addicted to legal drugs early and often. Look what the tobacco companies did. Look at oxycotin (a controlled but legal drug). You think those companies' efforts led to increased use?

"Do you think that anyone should be subjected to this simply because they wanted to get high?"

Ainwen, you're getting good at these strawmen. Few will dispute that conditions in prison should be cleaned up.

Ainwen stated that every single instance of prohibition fails to affect usage rates. I pointed out at least one prohibition that does, in fact, lower usage rate.
It's abundantly clear that he's speaking of unwanted prohibition. Of course people who choose to live a certain religious lifestyle are more likely to abide by those tenets they chose to accept.

By that logic, you should be comparing people who quit using marijuana (which has no withdrawal symptoms) with the Mormons. Both are choosing not to do something, which is clearly different from something like alcohol prohibition or the war on drugs.

Here's the war on drugs for you: http://reason.com/blog/show/126284.html

I don't think that penalties for driving under the influence of drugs should be any more strict than they are now - it is a DWI, just like if you're drinking alcohol. The penalties for DWIs is going up sharply across the states as well.

As far as meth. If there aren't any more users, then there won't be an increase in violent crime due to use. Also, while some users become violent, some do not. It's the same as alcohol in that sense - some people get violent and some do not. If you commit a crime while under the influence of a drug, I believe that is perfectly admissible as an aggravating factor.

Putting these people in jail for the mere possession of the drug, however, is complete bullshit. Think of the kinds of people who use meth. What do you think happens to them in prison? Meth heads are some of the most weak, pathetic people you will ever meet.

Michael Santos (http://www.michaelsantos.net/) is currently an inmate serving 20 or so years for cocaine distribution. He has received his masters degree while in prison, and has written a number of books detailing in graphic detail the kinds of things that occur in these places. One story that particularly stuck with me was the story of two 24 year old meth heads, who couldn't kick the habit and were sent to a federal penitentiary to serve their sentence. He leaves nothing to the imagination when describing how they were raped repeatedly day in and day out. Another meth head got the picture, and killed his roommate with a broken coffee mug. He got respect - and 15 more years.

Is that just? Do you think that anyone should be subjected to this simply because they wanted to get high?

Naive much?? Drinking and doing meth do not produce the same results in the human body. It shouldn't be treated the same and as it seems you've never had a family member suffer from using meth i'd like you to do more research. It's not the same at all...

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Crystal_Meth/

Should we have different DUI laws/punishments for drinking too much beer vs. drinking too much wine vs. drinking too much liquor then?

Naive much?? Drinking and doing meth do not produce the same results in the human body. It shouldn't be treated the same and as it seems you've never had a family member suffer from using meth i'd like you to do more research. It's not the same at all...
]

Nobody's saying they have the same chemical effect on the human body Fanny, they're saying that the net effects of having an abusive and addictive relationship with the chemical substance have similar social impacts and you would EXPECT them to be treated in much the same way (as medical problems) whereas one is treated worse than rape.

Should we have different DUI laws/punishments for drinking too much beer vs. drinking too much wine vs. drinking too much liquor then?

Weak sauce.....It's all Alcohol, just in different forms.

Marajuanna, Cocaine, and Crystal Meth get you high, but use different chemicals to do it.

There are even arguments on the types of high they induce....

They're all drugs, in different forms. Weak sauce!

It seems irrelevant to me anyway. DUI/DWI already covers drug based impairment. If you're judged to be a "less safe" driver, you'll be convicted even if your BAC is 0.

Ahhh what I mean Malse is that the body reacts differently from a Meth high than it does from drinking so should be treated differently if someone is operating a motor vehicle.

I'll never jump on the legalize drugs bandwagon if the punishments aren't severe enough to keep repeat offenders from behind the wheel.

The law is against driving impaired. What and how you're impaired doesn't really matter, does it?

Proof of Impairment does matter, however.

The only way to test for some drugs (LSD comes to mind) is to perform a spinal tap.

Makes a breathalyzer seem like a walk in the park, in compairson.

Impairment does not have to be chemically proven to convict. It's a completely irrelevant issue. Again, you can have 0 BAC and still be convicted of the same crime as someone with a .20 BAC. I can't speak for other states, but in Georgia you would get precisely the same mandatory minimum sentence(s) too.

Fandros, give us a scenario where a meth user convicted of DUI wouldn't be punished well enough. I must be missing your point.

edit: Not to mention... If I get a DUI, I'll handle myself sensibly when arrested, pick up a good lawyer, show up for court in a nice suit, and almost certainly beat it.

Your average meth junkie has a far worse chance in a jury trial. I think you'd find that it would take care of itself, in that regard.

In Utah you won't beat a DUI with a nice suit and a lawyer especially if you tested at twice the legal limit let me tell you from experience ;P

However Meth can and does cause violent urges, being behind the vehicle and suffering road rage on meth leads to higher mortality rate I warrant.

That's why i'd want stiffer penalities, it doesn't really brook debate on my end. I won't budge on that front, I've known too many of your so called recreational drug users to think society would be better off.

I know guys currently who would use if it was legal, they trump up the same studies ya'll do. Funny how they don't use now and would if it was legal makes the studies a bit...impotent doesn't it? The law scares them, keeps them straight so to speak. They simply have too much to lose to use.

Steroids and caffeine can do the same thing. So can plain old testosterone and a bad temper.

I certainly wouldn't want to excuse anyone for committing a crime, but we already have laws that cover those crimes very thoroughly. I just don't see the relevance.

The relevance is too many folks are getting off with light sentances. Don't you understand you'll never get this pushed through if you can't assure that those who violently break our laws, with or without the influence, stay locked up?

It's relevant San...

Good lord, I'm not sure how you do the following...

You can not equate meth and a cop of joe ;P

However Meth can and does cause violent urges, being behind the vehicle and suffering road rage on meth leads to higher mortality rate I warrant.

This point can not be used to generalize everyone that uses the substance though. As has been mentioned before, Alcohol will trigger those same violent tendency's in people that have them. I've done plenty of Meth in my misspent youth, and never once had a violent urge no matter the situation. Likewise, all the guys and girls I hung out with and used with, only one of them became violent. Same can be said about our alcohol use. Some people are violent when they are impaired, no matter what it is that they are using to get there. That is more the nature of the user, not the drug chosen for their high. That guy became violent when he was intoxicated, not because of the drug used, but because of his nature/personality.

However Meth can and does cause violent urges, being behind the vehicle and suffering road rage on meth leads to higher mortality rate I warrant.First off, alcohol does these same things. Also, are you saying that people who use meth and drive have a higher fatality rate than people who drink and drive? I'd like to see something that supports this because I'd imagine that the exact opposite is true.

Second, I don't know how you can simply ignore so much evidence, all of which points to the fact that the legality doesn't matter. There is lot of debate over why this happens, but the fact that it happens simply cannot be disputed.

Drug users are not a homogeneous population. It's possible that there are people such as the friends you have, who fear legal repercussions. There is also evidence that people will stop usage once something becomes legal, because it loses that 'edge' that draws a certain crowd to it.

And the overall horrible nature of our prison system does not excuse what is happening to these drug offenders. It is most definitely different. If you murder someone, you belong in prison and you will have to suffer whatever hardships you face. If your only crime is simply wanting to get high, you absolutely DO NOT deserve to be housed with murderers, rapists, and other dregs of society.

It comes down to this. You can imprison non-violent drug offenders. Then they will not be working. Additionally, the state must pay to house them. Great - now we have a guy who is not working, who we have to pay for, and is probably well entrenched in the cyclical nature of our prison system, ensuring that he will remain a burden on the state for a long, long time.

This judicious use of funds exists solely so we can pat ourselves on the back and say "We fight teh drugs!" We're wasting money, breeding crime, and ruining lives.

On a similar note, fuck Gordon Brown for putting marijuana back as a Class B drug. England was making progress, saving money and police hours. Now, because they are worried about 'skunk' weed, which they retardedly claim is a narcotic, they decided that they wanted to bring back the maximum penalty of 5 years for marijuana possession.

I just don't get it.

The relevance is too many folks are getting off with light sentances. Don't you understand you'll never get this pushed through if you can't assure that those who violently break our laws, with or without the influence, stay locked up?
If people are getting off with light sentences for committing crimes, that's a completely different issue that should be addressed as well. You just said as much in the quoted text.

I don't know about Utah, but no one in Georgia is getting off with a light sentence for DUI. Even first time offenders with no record have a stiff mandatory minimum sentence. Repeat offenders have quickly escalating minimums, including weeks or months of jail time. There is no mercy or light sentence here for that crime.

However, things like that have zero bearing on drug possession laws. Trying to mix it all together into a single topic removes any hope logical thought on the matter.

And again, no one is saying that those who use meth and drive shouldn't be charged with DUI.

What we're saying is that you can't say that being impaired under alcohol is a DUI, and being impaired under meth is a super DUI. That's the same kind of backwards logic that is behind the 100:1 crack/cocaine penalty ratio.

This is one of the few laws we have right in this arena. If you are pulled over under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, meth, shrooms, whatever, you will be charged with driving under the influence, the penalty for which is quite severe. If you repeat, the penalties go up sharply.

This is all entirely irrelevant anyways since we know that people aren't going to begin using more meth if we made it legal. You'd have the same number of meth heads driving around as you do now.

I'll preface that much like Sanchek hate drugs of all types and choose not to use them for many reasons other than the laws. The sheer irony here is many on the argument side of "if we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns" are on the side to keep these substances illegal despite their extremely high and often nonviolent use.
Pot for one is extremely lacking in evidence for it being harmful, especially when compared to the legal vices of smoking and alcohol consumption. On its own I absolutely agree it should be legal.
(that isn't to say if something is illegal ignoring the law is a good way to go and there should be penalties)
Cocaine and Heroin and stuff of that nature have proven to be much more deadly than safe and I am not quite prepared to discuss the legality of these substances.

The relevance is too many folks are getting off with light sentances. Don't you understand you'll never get this pushed through if you can't assure that those who violently break our laws, with or without the influence, stay locked up?


Driving under the influence of alcohol and driving under the influence of meth are both not violently breaking the law. If the person violently breaks the law, does it really matter if they were under the influence? There should be an even and just application of the law (which we don't see now at all). If you want higher penalties for assault, robbery, etc., push for that, but to make it tied to 'drug use' ignores the point to putting violent criminals away. Violent crime is violent crime.

All of your arguments are suppositions of 'I feel' this or 'I'd warrant' that. Just because you 'feel' there's a correlation here or there doesn't make it so.

Well true, but since my "feelings" are supported by law I must not be alone.

Just glad it'll never change, maybe we should change our prison system and take a look at the convictions and conviction rates before we change laws.

Fix what's already there and then take another look to make sure that the professional crimnals behind bars citing reports aren't right/wrong.

edit: from here on out , going to agree to disagree on this subject.

Here's another angle then.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Marines_ignore_Afghan_opium_so_as_0507.html

I could (and probably should) start a whole thread about how complicit we've been in the international drug trade over the years, but this situation probably tells the story as well as any.

Afghanistan is one of the largest, if not the largest, sources of opium/heroin in the world. How can we possibly wage some moral war against drug users, when our military is sitting by watching this be harvested, knowing much of it will eventually end up in the veins of Americans?

Heh, something I remember saying years ago (probably to Fandros) that was eerily echoed by the departing Admiral Fallon -- our successes in the war on terror were not the oil-pipeline protection bases like Bagram and Bondsteel, but the roads we built from small towns to trade centers and schools.

Democracy and stability are not something you "bring" to a country. You bring them education and grow them a middle class, and from the middle class you get the changes you want ... a generation or two later. A larger percentage of Afghans or Iraqis or Iranians or Turks (or Mexicans, Columbians, Costa Ricans ... that are relatively weathier, educated and more secure that their lives are worth building and suddenly there is no tolerance for sons hiding in the mountains and blowing up white devils. This is totally off thread at this point but this was a critical failure in the Iranian revolution of 1979 -- the Iranian middle class, for lack of a better demographic term, overestimated their influence on government because they were so small compared to the poor that got swept up in radical Islam. When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.

There is a reason that Belize has minimal drug cartel problems compared to all its neighbors, and the literacy rate higher than our own can't possibly be involved ...

Well true, but since my "feelings" are supported by law I must not be alone.

Just glad it'll never change, maybe we should change our prison system and take a look at the convictions and conviction rates before we change laws.

You aren't alone in the sense that yes, many government officials also choose to ignore the abundant evidence that demonstrates the complete failure of the US drug war paradigm. This doesn't make your feelings any more valid, or any less incorrect.

Thinking that it will never change is ridiculous. Drugs have been illegal for less than 100 years. African-Americans have been able to vote for a little over 50.

Eventually something will have to change. We simply cannot continue to incarcerate drug offenders at this rate for the next 50 years.

Sorry, don't give much credit to those reports...at all. It flys in the face of all I've seen and lived throughout my life .

Couple of questions for ya Ainwein...

1) If we as a govt decide to make the use of said drugs legal where do we get the drugs from...do we...

a) buy it from countries that have cartels that harvest such crops? i.e. Give the crime cartels even more money from the US???

or

b) Grow it ourselves, oooo great plan there huh? With crop lands already being fought over and over utlized therefore draining the soil we grow drugs on our fields currently being used for food or biofuels?

I actually wouldn't be so opposed to pot being made legal, but I think that's as far as you could ever make a intelligent debate stick.

The rest are an anarchists pipe dream imho.

We drank Russian vodka during the cold war. We currently spend the majority of our trade deficit on communist China's exports. Are those anarchists' pipe dreams as well?

Legalizing pot would have the by-product of getting rid of the silly ban on growing hemp, which would actually be a boon to our food situation. Hemp is everything that soy wishes it could be, and is more renewable as well.

Stick to the subject, those are governments not drug cartels making a killing by well....killing.

See, this is a moot point, the law isn't going to change in my lifetime. I don't have to prove the legitimacy of my point, it's law.

It's incumbent upon those of you who want to change it to do so.

Go push your state/govt reps and make a name for yourself in that arena, after all your points of logic are so solid...errrrr not.

The rest are an anarchists pipe dream imho.

There once was a man named Gorbachev who had an anarchist pipe dream that his country's policies and activities were untenable and counterproductive, and bankrupting his nation to boot.

You may remember the 50 years of Cold War he ended by challenging equally entrenched political machinery. I find it hard to believe we don't have people waiting for their opportunity to do the same.

Go push your state/govt reps and make a name for yourself in that arena, after all your points of logic are so solid...errrrr not.

Yeah. If something is United States law it must be solidly based in logic.

I mean, I don't expect more, but really? :confused:

1) If we as a govt decide to make the use of said drugs legal where do we get the drugs from...do we...

a) buy it from countries that have cartels that harvest such crops? i.e. Give the crime cartels even more money from the US???

or

b) Grow it ourselves, oooo great plan there huh? With crop lands already being fought over and over utlized therefore draining the soil we grow drugs on our fields currently being used for food or biofuels?

If they were legal we would simply import them. The point being that it would largely remove the criminal element from said transaction. When we had alcohol prohibition, bootleggers were 'crime cartels' that spread crime across the country. We legalized the production and consumption of alcohol, and now they do great things like make shitty beer and the best baseball stadium in America. As far as I know, there are no gang wars over alcohol anymore.

Drugs were legal at a time in this country. There wasn't any more drug use, violence, crime, or anything. I'm sure your crystal ball will tell you that this is not correct, but you're wrong.

Fandros, I missed this in your previous post... Are you saying that you don't believe that Associated Press report about our complicity in Afghanistan's opium trade?

No , I don't think the US govt is legally involved in the drug trade in Afgan.

And dammit San, really you seem to justify everything nowdays by saying another wrong was done akin to it so it makes it right. Did the folks on this board really break you down so much? You can't justify one lunacy by equating it to other lunacies. Giving up like that is sad sad sad. I heard/read somewhere recently that the world is Black and White and that any greys seen is confusing wants with needs. Don't know that I believe that fits in all situations , but for me it fits here.

Ainwein, really I know you're dern near as left as one can get....

But who, if you want to remove the criminal element, do we import them from??

Far as I know every major supplier is either a Columbian type drug cartel or something akin to the Taliban.

Ooo we should prop up some third world country to grow drugs for us. Great answer, they don't need food in those fields. Instead of us teaching them how to produce that food we'll show'em how to grow our drugs for us!! /cheer

Yup, that'll endear us to the folks of the world.

Freedom in America...live it, love it , shoot it up rahhhh Freedom!!!

No , I don't think the US govt is legally involved in the drug trade in Afgan.
I'll start another thread about this in the next day or two then. That was not the first time this has been reported on, and it's obviously not the first time we've been caught on the wrong side of the drug war (Iran-Contra anyone?).

I know it's tough to accept, but burying your head in the sand doesn't change it.

I'll start another thread about this in the next day or two then. That was not the first time this has been reported on, and it's obviously not the first time we've been caught on the wrong side of the drug war (Iran-Contra anyone?).

I know it's tough to accept, but burying your head in the sand doesn't change it.

However blaming the US govt for the illegal activities of a few is asanine to the extreme.

Still my point stands, you seem to want to say it's okay to do further bad because we did wrong before.

No post is going to convince me that's the way to find the morale high ground. You fuck up in the past, find a way to fix that and don't make the same mistake again....

But who, if you want to remove the criminal element, do we import them from??

Far as I know every major supplier is either a Columbian type drug cartel or something akin to the Taliban.

Have you not been reading? If it's not a crime to import it, then all the normal, regulated, upfront agricultural businesses can do it a lot cheaper and WILL, completely eliminating all the funding for criminal or other extra-legal organizations.

The guys picking poppies in Afghanistan don't have any way to get opium into the markets that want it EXCEPT criminal organizations currently. Crime is more expensive and higher risk than normal business, which is why virtually no crime exists in markets that can operate normally (when was the last time you saw someone get shot over french fries?). When it costs the same to ship opium and soybeans, the same economies of scale that keep soybeans moving can move opium. And they do things like report information to Customs, and their recipients have things like SEC filings and taxes to report.

The guys picking poppies in Afghanistan don't have any way to get opium into the markets that want it EXCEPT criminal organizations currently. Crime is more expensive and higher risk than normal business, which is why virtually no crime exists in markets that can operate normally (when was the last time you saw someone get shot over french fries?). When it costs the same to ship opium and soybeans, the same economies of scale that keep soybeans moving can move opium. And they do things like report information to Customs, and their recipients have things like SEC filings and taxes to report.
Exactly. The farmers in Afghanistan clearly aren't setting their watches by our laws. They're going to grow it and sell it either way.

Our insisting on this hypocritical war on drugs creates the syndicates and cartels. Supporting our current war on drugs is giving tacit support to their very existence and all the pain and suffering that comes with them.

If we took a sensible stance on the issue, the related organized crime element would vanish virtually overnight. Just like it did after prohibition.

In fact, those farmers would be a lot more likely to grow food in those fields if we didn't support the existence of a criminal element. While prices are artificially high due to criminalization, you can always buy more food with a drug crop than you could grow in the same area.

Have you not been reading? If it's not a crime to import it, then all the normal, regulated, upfront agricultural businesses can do it a lot cheaper and WILL, completely eliminating all the funding for criminal or other extra-legal organizations.

The guys picking poppies in Afghanistan don't have any way to get opium into the markets that want it EXCEPT criminal organizations currently. Crime is more expensive and higher risk than normal business, which is why virtually no crime exists in markets that can operate normally (when was the last time you saw someone get shot over french fries?). When it costs the same to ship opium and soybeans, the same economies of scale that keep soybeans moving can move opium. And they do things like report information to Customs, and their recipients have things like SEC filings and taxes to report.


This seems to be a nice pie in the sky outlook, but how exactly are these nice big agricultural giants going to put the criminals out of business? Are they going to offer to pay them more money than they currently bring in to NOT use their weapons and bombs to intimidate the farmers? If all of the armies and DEA and varied intelligence efforts have not been able to control the criminal element, it is a bit far-fetched to think that simply legalizing something is going to make those criminal cartels or the Taliban or any other terrorist organization hand over their power and say "kewl, it is all yours now".

Illegal drug traffic is controlled by the criminal element, and if you seriously believe they are going to relinquish their source of income because some folks want to legalize those drugs, you need to go to the inner city and talk to a few gang-bangers. I would expect violent crime to increase greatly.

This is not the 1920's, and comparison to the Prohibition era are not realistic.

So why did the exact opposite occur at the end of Prohibition?

Everyone's got opinions, but hard data has a way of being universal. When legal breweries and distributors could run the beer and liquor markets, the organized crime that depended on the black market either evaporated, or in the case of more solid organizations had to find other black markets to make money in.

Crime is expensive. It can't compete with less expensive means of distribution. That's why there is no crime when there are open markets for any given commodity. There are no illegal potato smuggling operations. There are no ghetto gangs running corn. There are no South American cartels making money off Advil.

So why did the exact opposite occur at the end of Prohibition?


This is far from the 1920's era of Prohibition. Saying something worked a century ago is ridiculous when talking about the modern era of street gangs and terrorist organizations, and a population that is, what, at least five-fold now?

If you wish to make that point, please illustrate any ways these organizations operate differently.

Truthfully no one knows what would happen, but Prohibition is the only model we have thus far. And it makes sense, if now all of the back-alley marijuana you used to buy are now sold at every 7-11 and Eckerd in the country - and taxed and regulated - why would people keep buying it illegally on the street corners?
I know I don't head out to the mountains of West Virginia to buy my grain alcohol in some guys basement because I can buy it at my supermarket instead.

Cool (http://reason.com/blog/show/126284.html?redux)

Truthfully no one knows what would happen, but Prohibition is the only model we have thus far. And it makes sense, if now all of the back-alley marijuana you used to buy are now sold at every 7-11 and Eckerd in the country - and taxed and regulated - why would people keep buying it illegally on the street corners?
I know I don't head out to the mountains of West Virginia to buy my grain alcohol in some guys basement because I can buy it at my supermarket instead.


If, for example, your local Bloods and Crips and whatever other "youth organizations" take to shooting at customers, burning down stores, robbing the distributors, etc, how will their competition respond, when we have already seen law enforcement being unable to control these groups? And that is on the local level.

So why don't they do that over alcohol or cigarettes? Last time I checked robbing liquor stores wasn't much of a living and the cops had that problem fairly well under control.

I think it naive to think there will no longer exist a black market org to shortcut the restriction the govt. would put in place.

I also find it funny that the same folks who bitch about gov corruption are the same ones thinking some how it would be cleaner if drugs were legalized.

Oh wait....wait lol

Making it legal here will clean up crime in other countries.....


lol okay

I think it naive to think there will no longer exist a black market org to shortcut the restriction the govt. would put in place
Then explain why there isn't a black market for alcohol. Why isn't there a black market for Japanese car parts? Why isn't there a black market for bananas?

Why is there a black market for something as harmless as a Cuban cigar? Simply because they're illegal (for similarly moronic and hypocritical reasons).

We create these black markets through policy. When you remove criminalization of anything, it becomes cheaper and the criminal element moves on. There is simply no feasible way that the criminal element would continue pushing a legalized, regulated drug after decriminalization.

We could just as easily be talking about alcohol, tobacco, or coffee right now, for exactly the same reasons. We're just habitualized to think "drugs are bad, mmkay?".

Making it legal here will clean up crime in other countries.....
To some extent, undeniably. It would also put an end to what has become a hair away from all out war at our Southern border.

You yourself cited those foreign cartels as a reason why drugs are bad. So, if it's our own policy that give rise to them, your argument would dictate that our policy is bad. It's not the demand side that's giving rise to the criminal element (the demand will be there either way), it's the criminalization.

C'mon San. The street gangs of the U.S. and Mexico, the drug cartels of varied South American countries, the varied "revolutionary armies" and terror organizations, have based their economies on income from the illegal drug trade. Do you really think they will not respond in a violent manner to losing such a lucrative way of life?

The gangsters of the Prohibition era had prostitution and gambling and protection rackets (now known as the insurance industry) to offset losses from legalized alcohol; plus, they also had a lot of money tied up in businesses that directly benefited from the lifting of Prohibition, such as bars and clubs. For $100 lost in illegal sales they could probably make it up with at least twice that in a legal club selling booze. That is a no-brainer. It is doubtful that today's criminal element has heavily invested in drug store chains.

While I have always thought marijuana should be legal, almost any other currently illegal drug has some very valid reason for the criminalization, and I still say that we would see more violent crime were they legalized, which could be directly related to the drugs.

Based on this loony logic we should abolish all laws because that only creates the environment to commit crime.

News flash, we're not in the garden of Eden. You make murder legal, folks will still kill (it's still a bad thing) you make drugs easier to get more will use them (that's a bad thing mmmkay).

Is there a particular reason neither of you can respond to any points raised in contention with your own "loony logic" that every known theorem of economics and every country with more realistic drug control laws contradicts?


The gangsters of the Prohibition era had prostitution and gambling and protection rackets (now known as the insurance industry) to offset losses from legalized alcohol; plus, they also had a lot of money tied up in businesses that directly benefited from the lifting of Prohibition, such as bars and clubs. For $100 lost in illegal sales they could probably make it up with at least twice that in a legal club selling booze. That is a no-brainer. It is doubtful that today's criminal element has heavily invested in drug store chains.

So wait .. you just proved our case? Legalization resulted in organizations previously devoted to violent crime instead focusing on legal institutions that at least had some public oversight? This is not a win HOW?


Based on this loony logic we should abolish all laws because that only creates the environment to commit crime.


Nobody is talking about legalizing murder. That has NOTHING to do with the subject. Interjecting it does nothing to further the discussion. Murder is a clear crime because a victim (who had no choice in the matter) is deprived of his or her life. You can't seriously compare that to smoking pot with a straight face no matter how hard you try -- especially given the title of this thread is about violent offenders being forced out of the prison system because it is overburdened with minor drug offenders.

And News Flash, I can get any damn drugs I want anyway, the system you are defending has inarguably failed and has unintended but well known bad consequences. Even in "Little Beirut" up here, thousands of miles from the Mexican border, we get enough cocaine and meth that the largest bust in Oregon history (several hundred kilos) earlier this year disrupted local availability for all of two months. I could probably find damn near anything I wanted in Salt Lake if I spent more than a week at a time there, and Mormon-ville is certainly one of the lowest demand areas in the country due to cultural issues.

Based on this loony logic we should abolish all laws because that only creates the environment to commit crime.

News flash, we're not in the garden of Eden. You make murder legal, folks will still kill (it's still a bad thing) you make drugs easier to get more will use them (that's a bad thing mmmkay).


Riding a bycicle with training wheels may lead to heroin addiction. An astonishing 92% of heroin addicts have been shown to have at one time or another ridden a bycicle with training wheels...

It is easier for any of our kids to buy a gram of coke than it is for them to buy a beer. Why? Because drug dealers don't ask for ID.

Thats loony Rover!

Its a hard topic to debate about. Your not going to convince anti-drug folks that making them legal would solve anything. Keep those pot heads locked up in prison! Yea nothing like taking up a much needed cell for someone who deserves it. But we could build more prisons and keep them all locked up! Yes we have a never ending supply of money to keep building and running prisons in this country. With over 2 million people locked up, something has to be looked at.

My biggest contention is that you are not removing crime from the cycle merely by letting the idiots of the world ingest meth/crack/coke/etc they purchased from a legal govt outlet.

That alone is enough to say no, don't move our problems onto other countries. The folks arguing such are the same ones that decry our global image as it is. Shocking...

I told you Malse, I've been to some of those countries you claim have it licked because they made it legal.

They're not what you claim them to be from your readings bub, you obviously have never seen their seedier uglier sides huh?

Amsterdam has it's beautiful areas, but that's because they've sectioned off the "legal dens" to areas most tourists don't see.

I refute every one of those reports you keep propping up, particularly by the likes of the con with the degree earned behind bars. Sorry, no cred in my book.

Amsterdam has its seedier side as dose New York City, every place has its beautiful and shitty areas. Have you ever seen Newark NJ? Or Paterson NJ? I assure you Amsterdams seedier side pales in comparison to those places. Actually, I believe one of the biggest tourist dollar producing areas of Amsterdam is its seedier side. There are seedy bars in every city as much as there are crack houses.

The crime doesnt come from the drug use, it comes from the cost of the drugs and from the fact, that as I pointed out above, drug dealers don't ask for proof of age and will sell to anyone.

Crack houses are crack houses because drugs are illegal not because people who smoke crack want to sit in rat infested shit holes.

You want it cleaned up, make it legal, control and tax the distribution just like alcohol and crime rates along with prison populations will drop faster than anvils thrown from the 86th floor of the Empire State Building.

Yeah, the point isn't at all that legalization would make people stop using drugs. It is abundantly clear that they will use them either way. I'm not sure why this keeps coming back up.

The point is that we could avoid most of the crime, not pack our (already overflowing) prisons full of harmless possession offenders, regulate the drugs, and tax the entire industry.

Like you said, there are some seedy areas where drugs are legal, and like Rover said, there are seedy areas here too. If legalization had as dire consequences as you guys seem to think, then Amsterdam should be burning, lined with the rotting corpses of junkies. It's not.

And , once again, I say you can't fix our issues by applying other countries methods.

Their populace is, by comparison to our own, largely vanilla. They don't have the massively diverse or population numbers we have. The can't claim to have the underlying racial tensions etc etc that we have here in America.

You apply more drugs to our rainbow culture and you don't think we'll have greater problems with violence and gangs?

If the govt taxes it and it's still available through the blackmarket you'll have pushers dropping/cutting their prices to keep it below Govt value. They , as mentioned before, won't be checking id's and the junkies will turn to them once they've exceeded their govt mandated doseages. The quality and safety of these street drugs will still cause the same issues you have today.

Everyone of you pushing this spend time on these boards bitching about how corrupt our government is, and yet you say this will make it better.

(yikes, sorry for the long post)

If the govt taxes it and it's still available through the blackmarket you'll have pushers dropping/cutting their prices to keep it below Govt value. They , as mentioned before, won't be checking id's and the junkies will turn to them once they've exceeded their govt mandated doseages. The quality and safety of these street drugs will still cause the same issues you have today.
I think I see the disconnect here. You're envisioning drugs remaining just as expensive as they are now, but regulated and taxed. In that case, there would be room for the criminal element to continue its operations, undercutting the regulated sources.

I see where you're coming from.

It wouldn't happen that way though. When you decriminalize something, the prices drop back toward equilibrium. In a free market, cocaine needn't be any more expensive than coffee, and marijuana needn't be any more expensive than soybeans.

Did you know that beer's price increased 700% during prohibition? Liquor's price increased 270% too. After prohibition, both dropped back to their previous prices (adjusted for inflation).

Just like with alcohol during prohibition, the high price of illegal drugs on the street is a result of a sequence of factors dictated by the criminal supply chain. Everyone in the chain requires more pay to break the law, they have to pay off the local government, they lose loads during import, they have to pay off the DEA/CIA/Border Patrol to get loads in, profits are seized from time to time, etc etc.

If you decriminalize, you remove the criminal element. They operate purely on risk v. reward. No one in organized crime is going to break federal law to make that extra 1% profit margin.

This also has the added benefit of making it less likely that Joe Q. Crackhead will need to steal money from you or I to fund his demise. Imagine if caffeine were outlawed one day and coffee prices soared 700%. You'd probably see my girlfriend in front of Starbucks with a machete. The only difference between Joe Q. Crackhead and her is that he happened to get hooked on something that's arbitrarily illegal, and she didn't.

Everyone of you pushing this spend time on these boards bitching about how corrupt our government is, and yet you say this will make it better.

As an addendum to El Chek's post:

Before I leave town, I'll beg you to ponder the link between blackmarket and greymarket money and where political corruption comes from (hint: free, open markets of legal substances generally do not require cartels OR lobbyists).

As an addendum to El Chek's post:

Before I leave town, I'll beg you to ponder the link between blackmarket and greymarket money and where political corruption comes from (hint: free, open markets of legal substances generally do not require cartels OR lobbyists).


We can't even get gas at a true unfixed rate ;(

But I do appreciate the post San and Malse, I'll ponder a bit over the weekend.

Thanks

Their populace is, by comparison to our own, largely vanilla. They don't have the massively diverse or population numbers we have. The can't claim to have the underlying racial tensions etc etc that we have here in America.Prohibition was pushed through with sensational stories of black men getting intoxicated and raping white women. This was not that long after the Civil War, and well before the Civil Rights Act. Vanilla, indeed.

Keep in mind during this time that every substance was legal. You could order a syringe kit with vials of morphine and heroin from the Sears catalog.

There is ample evidence that shows that the drug usage rates prior to the Harrison Narcotic Act and before it are exactly the same. We also know that there was no criminal enterprise associated with drugs, because you could get them from fuckin Sears. It was too cheap to provide opportunity for gangsters to skim some off the top.

This is American history. If you discredit all of this, it's your own fault for being too entrenched in the idea that drugs are these horrible spawns of Satan, but alcohol is teh cool! As Malse said, drugs follow the same market rules as any other commodity.

If you can show:

One instance of legalization increasing drug usage rates, availability, drug-related crime, etc in any country around the world

That American drug use was more rampant prior to prohibition than before

Then you might have something to work with. Otherwise, you're simply discrediting the last 100 years of research on drugs and prohibition. :rolleyes:

What was the population density like in the roaring 20's Ain?

Don't think there would be increased tensions at this time?

You accuse me of ignoring your so called facts and reports and I accuse you of being naive beyond comprehension.

I already said I'd take the weekend to check out some unbiased reports. (the one you gave from the lil con in jail holds no water /chuckle)

Others might as I havne't had time to check in on them yet.

The one about jail was to show how people get fucked by these policies. It's very easy to ignore 'those damn drug addicts' when you have no idea what they are suffering through and the reasons why they are.

It's hilarious that you call me naive. Do you think you're the only person to consider population density? Do you really think that the hundreds of scholarly articles out there dealing with this debate didn't think about that, but that you did?

So called facts and reports? Unbiased reports?

Jesus Christ man, you might as well read the fucking Bible for your information.

Again, we are saying that drug use will not go up, nor will crime. We have provided you with AMPLE evidence showing this.

You say that drug use will go up. You say there will be more crime. You have provided ZERO evidence showing this.

You are discrediting reports from the top academic journals in the world - all of which are contributed to by the leaders in their fields... and you cannot offer one single reason why except 'In my head, it doesn't seem like that would make sense'.

Why does everyone want to talk about only one side of the argument?

I am going to say it again, and maybe if it is read slower it might make a little bit of sense to someone. You cannot compare Prohibition to this discussion, and have a realistic conversation. Alcohol can be made in anyone's garage or basement from ingredients readily available. Where will the "authorities" be getting their poppies or heroin? Where will they be getting their coca leaves, or cocaine or crack?

Our so-called war on drugs has had minimal impact on who controls the cultivation of these crops. The rebel groups, "revolutionary armies", terrorist organizations, cartels, street gangs, etc, have controlled these crops and the farmers cultivating them. These crops do not grow just anywhere. And, despite our throwing who knows how many billion dollars at the "problem", we have never been able to wrest control from those groups, either in the Afghan area, or the golden triangle in Asia, or the jungles of Columbia, and so on.

Are we going to become the buyers now, paying more than what they currently are receiving just so we can make it legal? Are we going to finance those groups and rebels and gangsters and criminals, so that some folks can say "Well, we won't be locking these folks up anymore for using these drugs."? If not, where are we going to get our drug supply? Are we going to finance the next attacks against us, so people can feel good about decriminalizing drugs?

The people presently involved in the pipeline of the drug trade pretty much have a lock on the product, that we have never had any serious success against.

I am going to say it again, and maybe if it is read slower it might make a little bit of sense to someone. You cannot compare Prohibition to this discussion, and have a realistic conversation. Alcohol can be made in anyone's garage or basement from ingredients readily available. Where will the "authorities" be getting their poppies or heroin? Where will they be getting their coca leaves, or cocaine or crack?

Our so-called war on drugs has had minimal impact on who controls the cultivation of these crops. The rebel groups, "revolutionary armies", terrorist organizations, cartels, street gangs, etc, have controlled these crops and the farmers cultivating them. These crops do not grow just anywhere. And, despite our throwing who knows how many billion dollars at the "problem", we have never been able to wrest control from those groups, either in the Afghan area, or the golden triangle in Asia, or the jungles of Columbia, and so on.
If the drugs were legal, we would have no black market for them. If we had no black market for them, the prices that the criminals charge now would not hold. Drugs are expensive only because they are illegal. Hence, we would not be paying any more, but in fact much less.

You are misunderstanding the problem. Yes, the War on Drugs has failed to wrest control of these drug producers. Why? Because there is a demand for drugs. For every single person that gets busted selling or producing, another will rise to take its place. This will continue to happen until there is no demand for drugs, which isn't about to happen. This argument only supports the idea that the war on drugs needs to end.

You also misunderstand the criminal enterprise portion of the drug trade. If drugs were legal, there would be no need for it. Host countries who are able to produce these substances could set up legitimate enterprise. Again, you are letting your moralistic views on drugs cloud your viewing of them as simply any other commodity.

Are we going to become the buyers now, paying more than what they currently are receiving just so we can make it legal? Are we going to finance those groups and rebels and gangsters and criminals, so that some folks can say "Well, we won't be locking these folks up anymore for using these drugs."? If not, where are we going to get our drug supply? Are we going to finance the next attacks against us, so people can feel good about decriminalizing drugs?First, you need to make the distinction between the people who are producing these drugs and the people who are protecting them/distributing them/etc.

Lets say I make crayons. One day, George Bush comes along and decides that crayons should be illegal. Since there would still be a demand for crayons, people would rise to meet it. They would be labeled criminals. The price on crayons would go up drastically, for no other reason other than that instead of using production and shipping methods at market price, I now have to fund an entire organization of people, all of whom are engaging in illegal activity, to meet the demand.

Criminal organizations only exist in the drug trade because they are able to make enormous amounts of money because they are illegal. If drugs were made legal, the prices would bottom out and they would have absolutely zero incentive to stay engaged in any such activity.

What are they going to do? Rob shipments and sell them for nil profit? Provide escort for UPS shipping trucks? Get into gun battles over something that's worth as much coffee?

You either did not read my post, or are so wrapped up in this little fantasy that you can make everything ok with a law, that you are failing to acknowledge reality.

It does not matter a hill of beans what laws we in America pass regarding drugs. Those that control the cultivation and production, meaning the criminal element, will not be affected by whether what they sell is legal or not. If they have the supply, then your arguments about demand mean nothing. And you are totally unrealistic saying the countries they grow in could set up legitimate enterprises, because they have been unable to do anything. Where do you propose these countries set up their "farms'? The land that is productive is being used already.

Trying to dismiss my argument by a silly snide remark about my "moralistic views on drugs" further weakens your position, since my post said nothing about whatever my views may be, but spoke to the reality of the criminal control of the drug pipeline.

You are living in that far-left illusory fantasy land that you can make everything better by becoming a nanny state, and make laws that will make everything peachy keen for people. But the fact remains, heroin and cocaine, and the plants they are derived from, are now and have been under the control of criminals and terrorists, and passing laws will not change that. If billions of dollars and combat operations and our "war on terror" have failed to take control, it is extremely naive to believe a law legalizing the substances will be successful.

If what you believe is realistic, then let's pass a law making it illegal to have a barrel of oil cost more than $30, and a gallon of gas can not exceed $1. Why not, passing a law solves everything.

You either did not read my post, or are so wrapped up in this little fantasy that you can make everything ok with a law, that you are failing to acknowledge reality.
The irony there is sort of hilarious, since it precisely describes our current policy.

The irony there is sort of hilarious, since it precisely describes our current policy.


True. Sadly.

I am going to say it again, and maybe if it is read slower it might make a little bit of sense to someone. You cannot compare Prohibition to this discussion, and have a realistic conversation. Alcohol can be made in anyone's garage or basement from ingredients readily available. Where will the "authorities" be getting their poppies or heroin? Where will they be getting their coca leaves, or cocaine or crack?


So can Meth, and pot can be grown in anyone's garage. Shrooms can be grown in anyone's garage.

You either did not read my post, or are so wrapped up in this little fantasy that you can make everything ok with a law, that you are failing to acknowledge reality.

It does not matter a hill of beans what laws we in America pass regarding drugs. Those that control the cultivation and production, meaning the criminal element, will not be affected by whether what they sell is legal or not. If they have the supply, then your arguments about demand mean nothing. And you are totally unrealistic saying the countries they grow in could set up legitimate enterprises, because they have been unable to do anything. Where do you propose these countries set up their "farms'? The land that is productive is being used already.

Trying to dismiss my argument by a silly snide remark about my "moralistic views on drugs" further weakens your position, since my post said nothing about whatever my views may be, but spoke to the reality of the criminal control of the drug pipeline.

You are living in that far-left illusory fantasy land that you can make everything better by becoming a nanny state, and make laws that will make everything peachy keen for people. But the fact remains, heroin and cocaine, and the plants they are derived from, are now and have been under the control of criminals and terrorists, and passing laws will not change that. If billions of dollars and combat operations and our "war on terror" have failed to take control, it is extremely naive to believe a law legalizing the substances will be successful.First off, you seem to be operating under the premise that there is a very limited supply of drugs, and that they all come from only one place. This is simply not true. Also, the war on terror doesn't take control, again, because there is still a demand for drugs, so people will simply move in to fill their places.

The shit about criminality... If we legalize drugs, the people who are currently criminals would no longer be considered such. The people who were running alcohol during prohibition would run around with tommy guns killing each other. When it was repealed, they put the guns down and it was over. There was no need for violence, extortion, or any other criminal mischief. THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN.

Do you really think that the two specific crops you keep mentioning (Since they are the only ones that even fall under the realm of region specific. The rest of the drugs, especially the OMG METH have absolutely no place in your argument) are isolated and controlled to the point that a single group of people could set market prices? (Hint: The answer is no)

Second, do you even know what a nanny state is? What is more paternalistic? Letting citizens decide what they want to put into their own bodies, or telling them what they are allowed to ingest, and what they aren't?

Wikipedia!: Nanny state is a derogatory term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies, and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice.

Hmm...

To sensibly argue that coca or poppy farming comes with an intrinsic criminal element, you need to prove why something like coffee or acai berries doesn't. The simple fact is that without criminalization keeping street prices an order of magnitude overpriced, there would no longer be enough reward for these cartels to continue to exist.

Like I said, almost no one is going to risk their life and/or freedom for a marginal incremental profit.

Has no one heard of fencing cigarettes, or selling untaxed liquor?
Those were mob mainstays, back in the day.

Retailers will buy from someone who has stolen the merchandise, and resale it at the taxed price, and split that profit with the criminals.
No black market? How laughable!

Explain then, why are the tobacco and alcohol black markets so minuscule, in comparison to the gigantic volume of the tobacco industry? Why is it that the DEA's budget is double that of the ATF's, yet the ATF is able to easily keep the regulated tobacco and alcohol trades under control, while also handling firearms?

Why is it that we spent $4 million (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/justice.html) specifically on "funding for DEA teams deployed to Afghanistan to stem the supply of heroin entering the global narcotics market from that country.", while our soldiers in Afghanistan protect the people harvesting the poppies (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Marines_ignore_Afghan_opium_so_as_0507.html)?

Why? Because the war on drugs is a joke. It has never been remotely effective. Yet, driven by dogmatic puritanism, we continue throwing boatloads of money at this unrealistic and ineffectual solution, while pointlessly ruining the lives of harmless minor possession offenders in the process.

we continue throwing boatloads of money at this unrealistic and ineffectual solution, while pointlessly ruining the lives of harmless minor possession offenders in the process.


If you want to take responsibility for "ruining" the lives of these offenders, be my guest. Personally, I know I have never provided any of them with drugs, nor have I told them they are required to use them, nor have I given them any indication that I was okay with them breaking the law to indulge in self-destructive behavior.

There is not a single drug offender currently locked up, I will wager, who was not aware at the time he or she MADE THE DECISION to buy or sell or consume drugs that what they were doing was in violation of state and or federal laws. They willingly violated the law.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Whether or not drugs should be legalized, at the moment they are not. It was a personal choice by those that were arrested and convicted to break the law, and there are consequences for that.

There is not a single drug offender currently locked up, I will wager, who was not aware at the time he or she MADE THE DECISION to buy or sell or consume drugs that what they were doing was in violation of state and or federal laws. They willingly violated the law.

If you're finished preaching, what would you like to wager? I'll take that action.

If you're finished preaching, what would you like to wager? I'll take that action.

I could make some arguments on who considers themselves preaching. You are saying the offenders are having their lives ruined by someone other than themselves, yet they chose to break the law.

If you are wanting for some reason to turn this thread into a pissing contest too, we can do that of course, but it detracts from the thread. Instead, why not give me some argument on why those that are jailed for breaking the law willingly should be considered innocent, and why I should feel that someone or something other than themselves is responsible for having their lives ruined.

So, no wager?

So, no wager?

So, no argument on your position? I stand by my opinion that those who were arrested and convicted for buying or selling or consuming drugs KNEW they were breaking the law. You want to play your silly games with the wager comment rather than give some reason why I should not be of that opinion. Like I said, we can turn this into a pissing contest if you want, so you can play the mad-modder and split that off, but that won't contribute to the thread or argument regarding personal responsibility.

Maybe you can offer some rationale why you are against people taking responsibility for themselves and their decisions and their actions.

Go ahead, cut and paste some links of inmates pleading that they did not know the laws; there may still be some who don't know that most inmates use that excuse thinking it will do them some good. But it is bullshit. People know drugs are illegal. If not, they would be able to go to the corner 7-11 like Ain wants and buy them there.

Explain then, why are the tobacco and alcohol black markets so minuscule, in comparison to the gigantic volume of the tobacco industry? Why is it that the DEA's budget is double that of the ATF's, yet the ATF is able to easily keep the regulated tobacco and alcohol trades under control, while also handling firearms?

Actually they're now the ATFE, they also regulate explosives now too. Just to further emphasis your point.

I could make some arguments on who considers themselves preaching. You are saying the offenders are having their lives ruined by someone other than themselves, yet they chose to break the law.

If you are wanting for some reason to turn this thread into a pissing contest too, we can do that of course, but it detracts from the thread. Instead, why not give me some argument on why those that are jailed for breaking the law willingly should be considered innocent, and why I should feel that someone or something other than themselves is responsible for having their lives ruined.


Hmmm...interesting point...How about...when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns?

Remember that many years ago if you possessed an alcoholic beverage at one minute before midnight you were a law abiding citizen...but when the clock struck 12...you became a felon.

Things can be worked in reverse fashion also as they should be.

Hmmm...interesting point...How about...when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns?

Remember that many years ago if you possessed an alcoholic beverage at one minute before midnight you were a law abiding citizen...but when the clock struck 12...you became a felon.

Things can be worked in reverse fashion also as they should be.

Folks keep wanting to throw out all these comparisons to alcohol and what not. Let's either stick to drugs, or open it up to everything.

You want to get real silly with this, let's talk about why the legal age for sex should not be lowered to 12. That would help relieve the incarceration rate. Or, we could return to the euthanasia discussion.


I am asking a serious question regarding personal responsibility. If there is a law prohibiting a specific action, and someone engages in that act willingly, why should we be wringing our hands and pleading for their freedom?

If folks want the laws changed, fine. I agree with some change in the drug laws. But, I do not agree with Sanchek's statement that "we are ruining their lives". I believe in accountability for oneself, and one's actions.

I was just curious whether you were going to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for your statement, or not. So, was that a yes or a no?

You can't compare simple drug use to child molestation or euthanasia.

Drug use (not drug related violence, not drug dealing to children, not driving under the influence) is a victimless crime. There's a big difference in what someone does to his/her own body, or what that person does to affect the well being of another person.

I'm done arguing about this. E-mail the fucking Lancet and tell them about your new theories, I'm sure they'll be interested.

Folks keep wanting to throw out all these comparisons to alcohol and what not. Let's either stick to drugs, or open it up to everything.

You want to get real silly with this, let's talk about why the legal age for sex should not be lowered to 12. That would help relieve the incarceration rate. Or, we could return to the euthanasia discussion.


I am asking a serious question regarding personal responsibility. If there is a law prohibiting a specific action, and someone engages in that act willingly, why should we be wringing our hands and pleading for their freedom?

If folks want the laws changed, fine. I agree with some change in the drug laws. But, I do not agree with Sanchek's statement that "we are ruining their lives". I believe in accountability for oneself, and one's actions.

Drug use is the same as alcohol use the only difference is the legality. I understand where Sanchek and others are coming from and as far as looking at it in a personal responsibilty way, then your view is understandable also...with a big However...

The However is this, and I use myself and old friends as an example. When I was younger, even in the Marine Corp, I smoked weed like it was tobacco, I also used to drink quite alot....never missed a friday night and I enjoyed life. I never got busted for weed, never got a DUI, then along came civilian life and the business world and that being in the mid to late eighties came Cocaine.

I along with many others absolutely loved the stuff, spent many a Friday night doing lines in various clubs and at various parties etc.. I still drank alot and smoked weed to.

Then, one day, I thought to myself...this isn't fun anymore...so in a period of a year, I quit doing lines, quit drinking and quit smoking weed. Why, because it's what I chose to do, I never hurt anyone while I did those things, the fact that two out of three were illegal never had an effect on why I did it, I did it because I chose to.

If I choose to drink I can, I rarely drink anymore, maybe during the Christmas holiday...and then I have only about 3-4 drinks over a period of a week or so. Why, because thats what I choose to do.

Keeping drugs illegal creates crime, creates criminals and virtually removes all regulation of it. There is no mandatory quality control...which as an example is why you see overdoses, quality control will actually prevent alot of that.

If a kid decides he wants to get drunk, they have to either steal from their parents liquor cabinet, which is usually noticed allowing the parents to step in, or they can go stand in front of a liquor store and try to convince someone to buy them booze, which rarely works, so there is an example of regulation that works.

If a kid decides they want to get "high" on weed, coke, meth, heroin etc... they simply find a seller, which isn't to difficult in most cities large or small and they simply "pay the cash and get the stash" no ID required, no quality control, and no real idea of what it is the're ingesting.

If drugs were sold like liquor, there would be much less crap going on...I assure you.

What I said might seem oversimplified, and not well articulated...I'm better in a voice conversation than I am on a message board...but I and others give a compelling argument, while honestly...you argue points that are proven to not work...the war on drugs has lasted since..."1972? Where has a battle been won...and why...in Gods name is there even a war?

I say...try the legalization route, if it proves wrong...we can always go back to this fucked up mess that making it illegal has created.

You can't compare simple drug use to child molestation or euthanasia.

Drug use (not drug related violence, not drug dealing to children, not driving under the influence) is a victimless crime. There's a big difference in what someone does to his/her own body, or what that person does to affect the well being of another person.What a load of crap. There's no victimless crime. If people actually had the maturity and self control to only destroy themselves in private, then maybe you'd have an argument. Reality is that people abuse substances, and there are plenty of victims involved. How about every person hit by a drunk/high driver? Their family? Those involved with crimes? Those who lose a loved one to drugs? The cost to taxpayers for medical bills and property damage? If people actually could keep drug use to themselves, then it would be a victimless crime. But it isn't, and no amount of word twisting by the pro-drug crowd changes that.

In that case, why isn't alcohol illegal to possess, just like recreational drugs? Should we reinstate prohibition?

What a load of crap. There's no victimless crime. If people actually had the maturity and self control to only destroy themselves in private, then maybe you'd have an argument. Reality is that people abuse substances, and there are plenty of victims involved. How about every person hit by a drunk/high driver? Their family? Those involved with crimes? Those who lose a loved one to drugs? The cost to taxpayers for medical bills and property damage? If people actually could keep drug use to themselves, then it would be a victimless crime. But it isn't, and no amount of word twisting by the pro-drug crowd changes that.


Reading comprehension is your friend. Everything you said here, I rebutted in that little part in the ( ). Like I said, users, not the people doing other things while high using the high from whatever substance as the excuse. That includes drinking, smoking pot, doing coke, whatever.

I am a pot smoker. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I do it in the privacy of my own home, and I am not a danger to anyone. I don't do it while my child is around, and I don't do it outside of the home.

People can do things and still remain responsible about it. There's no difference in a person sitting home and having a beer or having a joint. Except the high person is less likely to get violent than the drunk person. Once either one of them get behind the wheel under the influence, they cease to be a simple user. They at that point add potential victims, and it ceases to be a victimless crime. That doesn't matter at that point if they are high or drunk, both at that point endanger someone else. One substance is legal, and one isn't. That doesn't reduce the ramifications of drinking and driving, just because drinking itself is legal

That also doesn't make the person doing other substances in their own home a danger to anyone other than themselves. Even with the decriminalization of recreational drugs, there would still need to be penalties when people endanger others. Those same penalties exist for drinking. People don't want to equate alcohol to drugs, but thats the closest similarity. The biggest difference are simple public stigmas.

I read what was in the parenthesis, I just don't think it's a valid wipe for the argument. From a certain standpoint, it's absurd that alcohol or tobacco are still legal, although I'm certainly not advocating prohibition. I just get tired of hearing 'victimless' crime thrown about, when I have yet to see an actual victimless crime, especially with drugs. A better argument might be whether or not the government should keep us from hurting ourselves.

In that case, why isn't alcohol illegal to possess, just like recreational drugs? Should we reinstate prohibition?

Why are you not pushing that idea, rather than whining about people who willingly break laws?

And if you can climb down from that pedestal of yours for a moment, what is your hang up with the wager issue? Is there a bet you want to make, or are you just using the issue to flaunt some empty sense of importance? I said I stand by the opinion that those who are arrested and convicted of buying or selling or consuming drugs are aware they are doing something illegal, so make your point or share a meaningful argument. Do you have something to prove me wrong? Share it then. Your petty BS gets old fast these days.

And for those that want to talk about drugs being a victim-less crime, so what? It is still a crime!!! Why the fuck have laws if we are going to let folks sit on the sidelines whining that , "Oh no, it is a victim-less crime, unless it affects me."?

Why are you not pushing that idea, rather than whining about people who willingly break laws?
Uh? Re-read the thread. I have.

And if you can climb down from that pedestal of yours for a moment, what is your hang up with the wager issue? Is there a bet you want to make, or are you just using the issue to flaunt some empty sense of importance? I said I stand by the opinion that those who are arrested and convicted of buying or selling or consuming drugs are aware they are doing something illegal, so make your point or share a meaningful argument. Do you have something to prove me wrong? Share it then. Your petty BS gets old fast these days.
Petty? You chose to cherry pick that one, least-topical sentence out of this entire post:

Explain then, why are the tobacco and alcohol black markets so minuscule, in comparison to the gigantic volume of the tobacco industry? Why is it that the DEA's budget is double that of the ATF's, yet the ATF is able to easily keep the regulated tobacco and alcohol trades under control, while also handling firearms?

Why is it that we spent $4 million specifically on "funding for DEA teams deployed to Afghanistan to stem the supply of heroin entering the global narcotics market from that country.", while our soldiers in Afghanistan protect the people harvesting the poppies?

Why? Because the war on drugs is a joke. It has never been remotely effective. Yet, driven by dogmatic puritanism, we continue throwing boatloads of money at this unrealistic and ineffectual solution, while pointlessly ruining the lives of harmless minor possession offenders in the process.

And then completely avoid the meat of my post; instead preaching about personal responsibility (including bold and font size 4, impressive!). However, we can both play that game.

This nugget:

There is not a single drug offender currently locked up, I will wager, who was not aware at the time he or she MADE THE DECISION to buy or sell or consume drugs that what they were doing was in violation of state and or federal laws. They willingly violated the law.

Is flagrantly false. I'm just curious what you'd had in mind to wager.

From a certain standpoint, it's absurd that alcohol or tobacco are still legal, although I'm certainly not advocating prohibition.
Now that's a nice paradoxe.
Now I'm all for treating all "drugs" the same regarding the law, even if it becomes a nightmare of definiting what is a drug and what is not, again, but in any case it's hard to have something illegal and not prohibiting it. ;)

A better argument might be whether or not the government should keep us from hurting ourselves.
Very good question. Regarding drugs issue, should everything be allowed, or at one moment should gov steps in and say "ok this you CAN'T have, mmkay?"?

I read what was in the parenthesis, I just don't think it's a valid wipe for the argument. From a certain standpoint, it's absurd that alcohol or tobacco are still legal, although I'm certainly not advocating prohibition. I just get tired of hearing 'victimless' crime thrown about, when I have yet to see an actual victimless crime, especially with drugs. A better argument might be whether or not the government should keep us from hurting ourselves.


Well, as hard as it is to get across hurting yourself is not a victimless crime. Others are hurt even if they avoid the splatter...

The way our medical insurances are set any injury to yourself also effects those around you.

Well, as hard as it is to get across hurting yourself is not a victimless crime. Others are hurt even if they avoid the splatter...

The way our medical insurances are set any injury to yourself also effects those around you.

More people raise medical insurance rates with drinking and smoking than by doing recreational drugs though. So that as an argument is already faulty by what's allowed and what's not in this country though.

More people die from smoking than from drug overdoses. In 2004 there were 19,838 drug overdoses in the US (http://alcoholism.about.com/od/prescription/a/overdose.htm). To quote the article: "The CDC attributes the 62.5 percent rise in drug overdose deaths between 1999 and 2004 to a higher use of prescription painkillers and increasing numbers of overdoses of cocaine and prescription sedatives. The increase cannot be attributed to heroin, methamphetamines or other illegal drugs, the report said." That number of the overdoses INCLUDES legal prescription drugs (albeit not legal usage I would venture to say). Smoking related deaths number over 400,000 annually (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm).

If the increase to medial insurance is a major argument for you, than the fact that such a substantial amount more people die from cigarette smoking each year would point to that needing to be made illegal (that's obviously not my argument, though I've never smoked tobacco in my life).

I'm one of the few adults my age not to ever smoke anything but a cigar once a year ;P I've been a cig smoke h8ter since I was a kid (both my parents smoked)

While this isn't a major issue I am wondering why we keep saying "hey but but alcohol and smoking" as a valid response.

Far as I know 2 wrongs still don't add up to a good thing ;P

I'm one of the few adults my age not to ever smoke anything but a cigar once a year ;P I've been a cig smoke h8ter since I was a kid (both my parents smoked)

This is exactly what led me to not smoking tobacco, but I guess I'm wrong about saying I've never smoked tobacco because I've had a couple celebratory cigars before. Never a cigarette though.


While this isn't a major issue I am wondering why we keep saying "hey but but alcohol and smoking" as a valid response.

Because it's the closest comparison to any part of this discussion. The difference between the those two and recreational drugs is the legality, which is what the entire point of this thread when it was started. You can't discuss the legality of recreational drugs without discussing legal 'drugs.'

Far as I know 2 wrongs still don't add up to a good thing ;P
Sadly that's one instance, when you compare to prohibition, where cure is worse than disease.

"Is flagrantly false."

Prove it then. I have no doubt with the number of idiots in the U.S. there's at least one that had no idea selling cocaine was illegal, but I would like to see what example you had in mind.

Having never been a smoker, and only an occasional drinker, I can only say the 1 time I tried LSD, it was nothing like being drunk.

Prohibition isn't going to stop people from doing something. Tax it, crack down on the black market (there will be one), and enforce the non-usage when operating a motor vehicle.
Also, insurance companies (whom I'm convinced have no souls) should be allowed to ask the questions about recreational drug use, and jack up premiums accordingly.

Incidentally, I remember reading something a while back about marijuana having 20 times the carcinogens of cigarettes, hence a higher rate of cancers were being associated with it.

Don't remember where I read it, but it seems that if the tobacco industry is under such scrutiny for the dangers of it's products, what would the lobby be like against the marijuana industry?

"Is flagrantly false."

Prove it then. I have no doubt with the number of idiots in the U.S. there's at least one that had no idea selling cocaine was illegal, but I would like to see what example you had in mind.

I'm waiting to see what the wager was.

As an aside, isn't it interesting how quickly a bit of "drugs are bad" habitualization can have us asking guilty until proven innocent themed questions, instead of the other way around?

Haha. Calling for proof.

Not ONE of you guys arguing this dumb bullshit have supplied one link. I half expected a blog post from godh8sdrugs.net, but you can't even bring that to the table.

The potency of the pro-legalization argument is that it is supported by mounds and mounds of empirical evidence.

No one cares what Furvitus, Fandros, or Bylimet thinks. Back up the claims you continue to make with something for Christ's sake.

Incidentally, I remember reading something a while back about marijuana having 20 times the carcinogens of cigarettes, hence a higher rate of cancers were being associated with it.

Don't remember where I read it, but it seems that if the tobacco industry is under such scrutiny for the dangers of it's products, what would the lobby be like against the marijuana industry?
I'm not sure about the actual levels of carcinogens, but:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Incidentally, I remember reading something a while back about marijuana having 20 times the carcinogens of cigarettes, hence a higher rate of cancers were being associated with it.

Don't remember where I read it, but it seems that if the tobacco industry is under such scrutiny for the dangers of it's products, what would the lobby be like against the marijuana industry?

Though where was a study released last week that found absolutely no link to smoking marijuana and cancer. The study even stated there might be some beneficial sides to smoking marijuana and cancer reduction.

Anyone can find a study to attempt to prove anything they want.

Looks like I only had it half-right. I think the rest of my post, still stands.

Want to defeat the pushers and drug kingpins? Then let's buy what they're selling.

The largest single change for the better in U.S. foreign policy, and one that could be accomplished simply by an act of political will, would be the abandonment of the so-called War on Drugs. This last relic of the Nixon era has long been a laughingstock within the borders of the United States itself (where narcotics are freely available to anybody who wants them and where the only guarantee is that all the money goes straight into criminal hands). But the same diminishing returns are now having a deplorable effect on America's international efforts.

Consider the case of Afghanistan. Thirty years ago, it was a vinegrowing country, renowned for its raisins. It is now so deforested that a farmer planting a vine would be an optimist, while a farmer growing poppies is assured of at least some income. We burn and destroy what is in effect the Afghans' only crop, while suffering from a shortage of analgesics in the United States. The beneficiaries of this policy are the Taliban. Why not instead buy the Afghan crop, use it to manufacture painkillers, and burn or throw away the rest (if you insist) while simultaneously offering incentives and aid to vine growers? We already pay the Turks to grow medical opium; they don't need the money. The revenue that now goes to drug lords and terrorists could be applied straight to Afghanistan's reconstruction, while weakening those who benefit from an artificially created monopoly. This might be termed "win-win." And this is to speak only of opiates. The usefulness of marijuana in combating glaucoma and in helping to ease the pain of chemotherapy is now well attested.

Decriminalization of drugs could also mean fewer lethal impurities (the result of gangsters "cutting" the stuff) and a decline in the glamour associated with prohibition. The opportunities for the corruption of officialdom, both overseas and in the United States, would decline also, as would the deadly turf wars that inflate the crime rate. One does not have to be an apostle of Milton Friedman's to realize that any attempt to prohibit a commodity with such huge demand and ease of supply is doomed. It has no place in the policy of a great nation.Christopher Hitchens (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:void%280%29;). Foreign Policy (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=23173&TS=1210689148&clientId=31806&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD). Washington: May/Jun 2007 (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=23173&pcid=35914521&SrchMode=3). , Iss. 160; pg. 41, 2 pgs



Funded by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Haha. Calling for proof.

Not ONE of you guys arguing this dumb bullshit have supplied one link. I half expected a blog post from godh8sdrugs.net, but you can't even bring that to the table.

The potency of the pro-legalization argument is that it is supported by mounds and mounds of empirical evidence.

No one cares what Furvitus, Fandros, or Bylimet thinks. Back up the claims you continue to make with something for Christ's sake.


Yup, struck me right to the core you did with this one. Apparently you care enough to mention us ;P Hmm all 3 of those folks mentioned have contributed to society in one form or another, why are we debased by you ?

Unlike your closed minded self I actually care enough to value what everyone thinks. Even you, as lil as you have to offer in the way of adult experiences I respect enough to value that you have the druggies and self important students interests in mind.

I did some reading this weekend, don't have the links at work but the ill effects of some of the drugs are far reaching. The impact, and I still can't buy that there won't be increased useage, of even more available drugs on the costs of medical insurance alone is daunting.

I could see pot being legal, and hell maybe shrooms. But beyond that you start reaching into areas that cause long lasting damage.

Shouldn't we put more energy into fixing our medical system, social security and borders then ya'll are putting into demanding(crying for)for the right to get high with what you want?

Again, you reach back on vague experiences and still can't produce shit for evidence.

Not one fucking iota.

I care what people think when they aren't simply pulling shit out of their ass... Like you do for every single argument you bring.

Shouldn't we put more energy into fixing our medical system, social security and borders then ya'll are putting into demanding(crying for)for the right to get high with what you want?

Decriminalizing recreational drugs would cost our government no money, and could potentially raise government incomes through taxation. How about all the money spent on the "War on Drugs" that could be spent on more effective programs such as health care, securing the borders, and social security?

Again, you reach back on vague experiences and still can't produce shit for evidence.

Not one fucking iota.

I care what people think when they aren't simply pulling shit out of their ass... Like you do for every single argument you bring.

awee pumpkin I didn't mean to further enrage you.

The burden of proof is upon you, I'm not looking to change laws. As far as I'm concerned I rejoice when I see a meth house taken down after it's supplied some kids in the area. I cheer when a crack den is exposed to the light of day and some addicts are given much needed help to break the chains that bind.

The burden of proof is upon you, I'm not looking to change laws. As far as I'm concerned I rejoice when I see a meth house taken down after it's supplied some kids in the area. I cheer when a crack den is exposed to the light of day and some addicts are given much needed help to break the chains that bind.

I'm dead serious when I ask this.

How many articles do I need to show you? How much scholarly evidence, all pointing in one direction, do you need to be shown before you realize that you have no idea what you're talking about?

Do you honestly believe that you know better than the entire lexicon of human knowledge on prohibition policies?

You are so entrenched in your puritanical beliefs that you cannot see the ridiculousness of refuting ALL of the evidence on the topic in favor of your gut feelings and stories your friends told you.

I don't need to make this argument. People who know much better than I or anyone else on this board have already done it for me.

Why should anyone give credence to your argument? (No, the fact that it is law does not make it right, reasonable, or permanent. What makes us great is our ability to progress past things like lynching people because of their skin, or not affording women equal opportunities because of their sex)

The potency of the pro-legalization argument is that it is supported by mounds and mounds of empirical evidence.

No one cares what Furvitus, Fandros, or Bylimet thinks. Back up the claims you continue to make with something for Christ's sake.


Hmm, I have brought my opinions regarding how the criminal element would respond to our legalizing two of the highly addictive drugs to the discussion only to have those disregarded as unworthy of discussion.

I have brought the issue of personal responsibility to the discussion and the opinion that those who buy or sell or consume drugs are doing so with the knowledge they are breaking the law, and that gets no discussion other then Sanchek taking the one word "wager" out of the post and playing his silly games, rather than addressing the post (and he whines about me cherry-picking).

Now, Ainwein says nobody cares what I or Fandros or Furtivus have to say, because we are not posting links supporting our thoughts or opinions.

So my question is, why was the thread not labeled as being only for those that favor the Ainwein/Sanchek position? Why not have Sanchek start a new section for the forums, "Sanchek Speaks", where you can have Sanchek post his highly educated holier than thou links and sayings and Ainwein can go fawn over them, and none of us who dare to raise an opinion not supporting yours will bother with it?


And while I have no link handy, when you consider legalizing cocaine so you don't have to whimper in agony over the poor souls in jail for selling it, consider the young female college student in San Diego recently who tried cocaine for the first time while partying with friends (fitting in, I guess) and died from the experience. Yes, let's let everyone have that opportunity.


Edit: I had to insert the word "not" in my comment regarding posting links. Changes the context a tad.

Sanchek taking the one word "wager" out of the post and playing his silly games, rather than addressing the post (and he whines about me cherry-picking).
I did precisely what you had just done when responding to my post. If you'd like to back up you hyperbole in that post with the wager you mentioned, I'm game. Otherwise, accept that you overstated your position, got called on it, and move on.

I was trying to rationally discuss the criminal element, but you chose to ignore that.

You are still free to go back and try to sensibly address the substance of that earlier post. Here it is again:

Explain then, why are the tobacco and alcohol black markets so minuscule, in comparison to the gigantic volume of the tobacco industry? Why is it that the DEA's budget is double that of the ATF's, yet the ATF is able to easily keep the regulated tobacco and alcohol trades under control, while also handling firearms?

Why is it that we spent $4 million specifically on "funding for DEA teams deployed to Afghanistan to stem the supply of heroin entering the global narcotics market from that country.", while our soldiers in Afghanistan protect the people harvesting the poppies?

Why? Because the war on drugs is a joke. It has never been remotely effective. Yet, driven by dogmatic puritanism, we continue throwing boatloads of money at this unrealistic and ineffectual solution

I removed the last 13 words this time, so as not to invoke another sermon. Shall we try again?

Why is it that so many other crops/products are imported from the same regions, grown in the same conditions by the same people, but have no cartels or organized crime associated with them?

Why is it that the only difference between something like Colombian coffee and Bolivian cocaine is criminalization, yet you guys argue that somehow it's the cartels and coke itself that is the problem?

And while I have no link handy, when you consider legalizing cocaine so you don't have to whimper in agony over the poor souls in jail for selling it, consider the young female college student in San Diego recently who tried cocaine for the first time while partying with friends (fitting in, I guess) and died from the experience. Yes, let's let everyone have that opportunity.

You really have to look at this in perspective.

For example, a CASA study found that in 2005:


HIV/AIDS killed 11 more people than all illegal drug related deaths combined.
Car accidents killed 55% more people than all illegal drug related deaths combined.
Suicide killed 80% more people than all illegal drug related deaths combined.
Prescription drugs killed 88% more people than all illegal drug related deaths combined.

The image of people running themselves into the ground with illegal drugs has been burned into our brains repetitively, through every arm of the media, yet the reality is that it's a relatively minor problem. Alcohol and tobacco probably cause more deaths in one year than illegal drugs do in decades.

It's a shame that this girl died from drugs, but whose fault is that? As you've nicely illustrated, illegal or not, the drugs are very easy to obtain. Prohibition has only romanticized them (as it does anything), not put them out of reach.

I'll put this here in a post in simple enough terms for Ainwein to follow.

The reason you don't see me posting links to studies supporting my "support" of the current legislation is because it's only the rebels against a postion that generally draft tons of emperical data.

As it's law it's rare to spend the time to have to back up the studies. A position against always generates more info.

Btw Ainwein you childish troll, I haven't gone to church over 20 years. My viewpoint is not based at all upon a puritanical view ;P It's one based on wisdom and common sense.

Btw bud, it might behoove one to realize that just because a viewpoint isn't your own doesn't make it of less value. I have to strive to make an effort to do this myself.

Good luck with that

What makes us great is our ability to progress past things like lynching people because of their skin

Well that certainly changes my weekend plans.

Btw Ainwein you childish troll, I haven't gone to church over 20 years. My viewpoint is not based at all upon a puritanical view ;P It's one based on wisdom and common sense.
I don't think the idea is that actual Bible thumpers are the only ones supporting the war on drugs, but that the motives behind its inception were clearly very puritanical.

The reason you don't see me posting links to studies supporting my "support" of the current legislation is because it's only the rebels against a postion that generally draft tons of emperical data.

As it's law it's rare to spend the time to have to back up the studies. A position against always generates more info.

Haha. Because the United States wouldn't jump at the chance to show the merit of this abortion of a policy. Get fucking real.

Btw bud, it might behoove one to realize that just because a viewpoint isn't your own doesn't make it of less value. I have to strive to make an effort to do this myself.

Your idea has no merit because you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support any of the inane bullshit you spew in this thread.

I'm currently taking an institute that has me drafting a lobbying plan for the National Association of Manufacturers regarding Lieberman-Warner. I have to propose a plan that is going to attempt to block or delay the legislation till the end of the 110th.

Do I agree with this position? Hell no. But I have to do tons of research and formulate a reasonable argument supporting the blockage of its passage.

I don't agree with you. Show me why I should. 'Because I said so' just doesn't cut it.

So my question is, why was the thread not labeled as being only for those that favor the Ainwein/Sanchek position? Why not have Sanchek start a new section for the forums, "Sanchek Speaks", where you can have Sanchek post his highly educated holier than thou links and sayings and Ainwein can go fawn over them, and none of us who dare to raise an opinion not supporting yours will bother with it?

What happened to you?

People ask for supporting links for claims ALL THE TIME. You, Furvitus, and Fandros are putting forth arguments that fly in the face of all the literature out there on the subject. We've asked repeatedly for you to support it, and predictably, you cannot deliver. None of your arguments are even germane to the topic, and you have shown that you lack a complete understanding of the issue.

Why are you not pushing that idea, rather than whining about people who willingly break laws?

Out of curiosity, should personal responsibility be retroactively applied to all the people we know have used illegal substances in past, including yourself, me, Nydia, President Bush, Sanchek, and Ainwein?

If Jimmy Smokespot is in jail for it, then obviously we all should be too.

What you keep missing (deliberately?) is that regardless of whether or not you approve of drug use, and in fact entirely orthagonal to it, is that there is a cost with making it illegal. That cost has been been shouldered by you, me, and everyone you know. That cost has been BILLIONS of dollars, thousands of human lives, the creation of dozens of criminal cartels, and the funding for heinous acts of terror by our known declared enemies.

In any decision you have to consider the cost versus the benefit. So where's the benefit? Give us any benefit, please.

It is known that drug use patterns have not changed since the Harrison act, so that's out. With that being known, what is the possible benefit that makes it worth all this to you?

People ask for supporting links for claims ALL THE TIME. You, Furvitus, and Fandros are putting forth arguments that fly in the face of all the literature out there on the subject. We've asked repeatedly for you to support it, and predictably, you cannot deliver. None of your arguments are even germane to the topic, and you have shown that you lack a complete understanding of the issue.

My two points were with regard to the criminal element that currently controls the coca and poppy producing areas on the planet, and the personal responsibility of those who make decisions to violate the laws currently on the books. How do either of my points fly in the face of the "literature" out there? How are the two points I raised not germane to the topic? Where do you get off with your pompous little ass deciding who can share an opinion?

Sitting in classrooms kissing your professor's asses does not give you the right to act arrogant and all-knowing, little friend.

1. I asked how legalizing drugs will affect those criminal and terrorist organizations currently controlling the supply, and if we would ultimately be legalizing the financing of criminal and/or terrorist acts.

2. I asked why I should feel sorry for someone who knowingly breaks the law, buying or selling or consuming drugs that they know are illegal.


What links do I have to provide to "prove" the current poppy and coca production is controlled by criminal elements, seeing it has been consistently written about and reported on for the last 20-25 years? What kind of link do you need to explain to you that a person making a decision to willingly engage in an act they know is against the current law is accountable for that decision? And what link can you provide to me to show how either of these two issues I raised are not germane to the conversation?

Btw Ain, I did post a link showing the more critical aspects of some of the drugs ( think it was meth, it's in this thread). So your , as usual, venting and frothing of the chops is off base.

You blew it off as usual only venting to the points that get you aroused.

Drugs are bad mmmmkay, a hit of acid can affect you later in life. That's not the same as alcohol, it shouldn't ever be legal and it affects everyone that ever pays medical insurance or might be in the same traffic flow at a "flashback".

You're just too simple and opinionated to give credit or actually stop and listen past the foaming of your self righteous mouth.

Good luck in your chosen career field man. Every dog has it's day!!

I wonder how much differently this topic will be looked at in 15-20 years, when some of those arguing so strongly for legalizing the drugs have kids of their own in high school or college.

Or are paying their own medical bills or auto insurance or have to stand on their own two feet instead of the shoulders of parents and taxpayers....


/nods

Sitting in classrooms kissing your professor's asses does not give you the right to act arrogant and all-knowing, little friend.You just aren't very bright, are you?

Yes, the hundreds of articles that exist out there, and the handful of ones I've posted in this thread were all by my professors. They definitely were not the first of many to pop up with a simple search on an academic database.

1. I asked how legalizing drugs will affect those criminal and terrorist organizations currently controlling the supply, and if we would ultimately be legalizing the financing of criminal and/or terrorist acts.

2. I asked why I should feel sorry for someone who knowingly breaks the law, buying or selling or consuming drugs that they know are illegal.1. Read the last article I posted. Stop being a lazy fuck.

2. I just want to make this abundantly clear. You are telling me that everyone who breaks the law is worthy of zero pity? I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you how historically ignorant that is.

It's not germane because you completely miss the point. The point isn't that drugs don't hurt people - we know that they can. Also, no one is arguing that the drugs aren't controlled by criminal elements. We know that too.

As Malse says, the fact that drugs are illegal comes at a heavy heavy cost, and ZERO benefits.

There would be no more users, and hence no more 'harm' attributed from drugs if they became legal. The criminal element would be removed.

This has been proven. Neither of you seem intelligent enough to grasp this concept.

YES FANDROS, WE KNOW DRUGS ARE BAD. The point is that there won't be an increasage in the number of users. Can you understand that?

Probably not.

There would be no more users, and hence no more 'harm' attributed from drugs if they became legal. The criminal element would be removed.



And your proof for these allegations? You state this has been proven, but if these drugs have not been legalized in this country with these demographics how has it been proven? Because of other events in the past, you are going to use some articles by those who support your position to say without doubt what will occur in the future, and anyone who questions that is to be insulted and dismissed. You are truly a little joke, 'weinie.

Because of other events in the past, you are going to use some articles by those who support your position to say without doubt what will occur in the future, and anyone who questions that is to be insulted and dismissed.
Hahahahahahahaha.

Those damn 'other events in the past'! (We also call that history)

/takes breath

Woo. Haven't actually LOL'd in a while cause of something on here. Thanks!

You're the fucking joke. Keep backtracking. Judging from my rep hits, the only thing you've done here is alienate more people from your 'position' (Whatever that is). Bravo.

If you do not accept scholarly, peer-reviewed articles as proof, then please tell me what would suffice? I guess I was mistakenly under the impression that they were pretty much the most legitimate source of information out there.

Out of curiosity, should personal responsibility be retroactively applied to all the people we know have used illegal substances in past, including yourself, me, Nydia, President Bush, Sanchek, and Ainwein?



Forgot me, my parents, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Clinton, etc, etc.

Drugs are bad mmmmkay, a hit of acid can affect you later in life.

Man I am fucked...

Hahahahahahahaha.

Those damn 'other events in the past'! (We also call that history)

/takes breath

Woo. Haven't actually LOL'd in a while cause of something on here. Thanks!

You're the fucking joke. Keep backtracking. Judging from my rep hits, the only thing you've done here is alienate more people from your 'position' (Whatever that is). Bravo.

If you do not accept scholarly, peer-reviewed articles as proof, then please tell me what would suffice? I guess I was mistakenly under the impression that they were pretty much the most legitimate source of information out there.

As I have not offered a "position", but have instead asked questions regarding the issue, your little sense of victory is paper-thin, 'weinie.

The fact that you accept "scholarly, peer-reviewed articles as proof" is actually scary. They are theory. You cannot "prove" that which has not yet happened. And, until those drugs are legalized and studies undertaken to measure change in user ratios to population groups, and hospitalization frequencies due to overdose, and drug-specific related criminal behavior, then don't come waving your pathetic academic treatises in front of people as being anything more than the wishful thinking they represent.

The fact that you accept "scholarly, peer-reviewed articles as proof" is actually scary. They are theory. You cannot "prove" that which has not yet happened.

Except, whoops, those control conditions have already been met. We have all usage data necessary from pre- and post-ban as well as long-term medical studies on the effects of various substances combined with a plethora of differing legal environments to compare on empirical basis.

It has been proven. If you don't accept the scientific method, in peer review, then you basically don't accept human knowledge period and may as well just make up anything you want.

frequencies due to overdose

As a % of users, this is one area you are definitely wrong.

The purity of drugs would be improved because the criminal element wouldn't have to 'cut' the drugs with other substances to increase their profit. If they were regulated, those deaths wouldn't occur.

I'm not arguing if usage rates would go up or down in this post, just that the purity of the drugs that most people OD from would increase and help reduce OD rates(as a % of users).

As a % of users, this is one area you are definitely wrong.

The purity of drugs would be improved because the criminal element wouldn't have to 'cut' the drugs with other substances to increase their profit. If they were regulated, those deaths wouldn't occur.

I'm not arguing if usage rates would go up or down in this post, just that the purity of the drugs that most people OD from would increase and help reduce OD rates(as a % of users).

So they should not study the potential harm after legalizing? Even with the knowledge that the purer the drugs the more frequent the deaths resulting from them?

Even with the knowledge that the purer the drugs the more frequent the deaths resulting from them?

Proof?

People often OD from the adulterants placed into drugs to increase their weight and thus profits.

Purer in the same sense that alcohol was purer after prohibition. Bootleggers had no regulation, and would brew whatever they fuck they wanted, often leading to people going blind. (http://www.nycmagicgarden.com/Invite_February_2005.htm) (I made sure I found a website instead of an article. I hope you approve)

Except, whoops, those control conditions have already been met. We have all usage data necessary from pre- and post-ban as well as long-term medical studies on the effects of various substances combined with a plethora of differing legal environments to compare on empirical basis.

It has been proven. If you don't accept the scientific method, in peer review, then you basically don't accept human knowledge period and may as well just make up anything you want.


"And your proof for these allegations? You state this has been proven, but if these drugs have not been legalized in this country with these demographics how has it been proven?"

I am sorry Malse, but what data do we have that addresses these demographics? Seriously, I am curious, because heroin and cocaine (the two most deadly of the drugs in my lowly opinion) have not been legal for at least the past 50 years in this country. What data could have been compiled to show whether usage will rise or fall or remain constant? What data is available to show whether there will be a rise in overdoses due to purity of the drugs? What data is available to show what increases we may see in blood born illnesses such as HIV and Hepatitis? What data do we have on what we may experience in terms of an increase or decrease in criminal behavior attributed to drug use and/or addiction?

How can we have data, which implies studies were conducted, on the effect of legalizing these drugs in the U.S., if they have not been legal in the U.S. for at least 50 years? The demographics present now were not present 50 years ago (or however long before that the drugs were made illegal), so how were they studied?


Historically the shuttles worked fine; not sure why the Challenger didn't.

Historically, the Spanish-American War went pretty smooth; why didn't Viet Nam?

Historically, the invasions of Grenada and Panama were a breeze; wonder what happened with Iraq?

Historically we could expect around 800 tornadoes in the country each year; wonder why we are already ahead of that number?

Historically, we have seen that people would not stand for alcohol being prohibited; wonder why there is not a larger portion of the American people clamoring for the lifting of prohibition of illegal drugs?

So they should not study the potential harm after legalizing? Even with the knowledge that the purer the drugs the more frequent the deaths resulting from them?


People are LESS likely to die from a more pure drug, not more. You completely misread my post. It's the impurities and the fact people do more of an impure drug to get high that cause the majority of ODs.

Your post here is counter to all the evidence out there about what leads to overdose.

Proof?

People often OD from the adulterants placed into drugs to increase their weight and thus profits.

Purer in the same sense that alcohol was purer after prohibition. Bootleggers had no regulation, and would brew whatever they fuck they wanted, often leading to people going blind. (http://www.nycmagicgarden.com/Invite_February_2005.htm) (I made sure I found a website instead of an article. I hope you approve)


Again, I will point to the news reporting of epidemic numbers of overdoses in the addict communities whenever there has been a supply of heroin that has not been stepped on, but has reached the end-user in an almost pure state. When an addict is used to getting a product that is 30-40% pure, and "consumes" a like amount of 90% pure drug, the end result is almost always death. Hell, they even do cop show episodes based on the fact.

It is just one more small side issue in the debate regarding legalization; how to deal with addicts and their already established tolerance for "stepped-on" product. I suppose the Methadon programs would be useful in addressing that question, though. Having a medically administered dosage would be a solution.

"
I am sorry Malse, but what data do we have that addresses these demographics? Seriously, I am curious, because heroin and cocaine (the two most deadly of the drugs in my lowly opinion) have not been legal for at least the past 50 years in this country. What data could have been compiled to show whether usage will rise or fall or remain constant?

Heroin and cocaine were both available and legal in the United States for decades prior to the mania over them, including during periods where alcohol was illegal in some states. They were comically enough perceived as smaller problems. Opium has been used for hundreds of years. Usage rates did not go down unless other drugs were available more cheapily (this is the basic meth problem, by the way, the rise in cocaine prices due to blackmarket economics created previously non-existent demand for meth and crack). The exact same pattern repeated with drugs like Valium in the later part of the 20th century.


What data is available to show whether there will be a rise in overdoses due to purity of the drugs?

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but clear and concise labeling has been mandated by the FDA and every similar agency worldwide precisely because people are less likely to OD when they know exactly what they're taking, in what amounts, and what the maximum safe dosages are. That's why you don't get people routinely ODing on tylenol or vicodin, even though acetomenaphin is known to create toxins in your liver at extremely low dosages (2g/day). If drug X is sold in a regulated fashion, it would have to conform to the same laws that keep you safe from excessive expectorants causing lung bleeding.


What data do we have on what we may experience in terms of an increase or decrease in criminal behavior attributed to drug use and/or addiction?


See above. We know what was going on before and after the Harrison Act. We have real life, right now, showing us what happens when you criminalize, and we have records of the US prior to the act and medical (not anecdotal) studies from all over the world where various substances are not illegal.

The only specific case you may have anything resembling a basis for questioning this are LSD and meth usage because both were discovered/invented after the fact, although not specifically criminalized for years.


How can we have data, which implies studies were conducted, on the effect of legalizing these drugs in the U.S., if they have not been legal in the U.S. for at least 50 years? The demographics present now were not present 50 years ago (or however long before that the drugs were made illegal), so how were they studied?


What demographic changes? The US today is not particularly whiter, blacker, or better educated that in it was 100 years ago. It is more urban, but drug use in rural areas has generally followed price-pressures towards pot and meth, just as you would expect with overall lack of affluence. About the only major demographic change in the US since 1890 has been the influx of Mexican immigrants, who mostly conform to their economic demographic drug usage patterns -- poor ones do pot and meth or crack, rich ones do cocaine. They do them in approximately the same percentages as associated with age ranges as white folks, namely, a lot between 15 and 25 and not so much between 40 and 70, etc.




Historically the shuttles worked fine; not sure why the Challenger didn't.

Historically, the Spanish-American War went pretty smooth; why didn't Viet Nam?

Historically, the invasions of Grenada and Panama were a breeze; wonder what happened with Iraq?

Historically we could expect around 800 tornadoes in the country each year; wonder why we are already ahead of that number?


You have just demonstrated that you have no understanding whatsoever of statistics or probability. I'm sorry, you are not qualified to make any statements in this regard, in about the same manner as Ainwein or myself is disqualified from making eye-witness reports on Vietnam or why Sanchek doesn't get to correct Nydia on cellular respiration. Nothing personal, but you have a fundamental lack of understanding that can only be remedied by an education which I can't provide you in 3 paragraphs or less.

Your gut feeling, as we have seen, is that drugs are bad. This is fine. I don't think they're a super idea either. However, we're not talking about whether or not cocaine is a net win. We're talking about whether or not our laws and policies against specific and totally arbitrary ones are working, and the simple answer is that they are not, and anyone who cares knows that.



Historically, we have seen that people would not stand for alcohol being prohibited; wonder why there is not a larger portion of the American people clamoring for the lifting of prohibition of illegal drugs?

Because alcohol and tobacco have large lobbying interests that cocaine does not. Here, anyway. Cocaine has very large lobbying interests in Central America, but that's exactly the problem we're trying to solve.

Is there a reason you're avoiding my questions? Why does your stance on personal responsibility exclude people like you and me?




Or are paying their own medical bills or auto insurance or have to stand on their own two feet instead of the shoulders of parents and taxpayers....


Every person set to jail over 5g of pot is standing on the shoulders of the rest of us anyway, or rather, sitting on them in a 5x8 cell. What part of cost versus benefit isn't sinking in here? Laws do not change reality, this stuff costs money.

I wonder how much differently this topic will be looked at in 15-20 years, when some of those arguing so strongly for legalizing the drugs have kids of their own in high school or college.
I hope as a parent I wouldn't be living in made-up fantasy land, thinking that my kids couldn't easily get ahold of any drug they desired. I hope that I would realize that the war on drugs simply makes it easier for them to get illicit drugs than get a beer.

I get my pot less than a block away from the Department of Homeland Security.

Thinking about it just makes me all warm inside. :o

Or are paying their own medical bills or auto insurance or have to stand on their own two feet instead of the shoulders of parents and taxpayers....
All due respect, but you seem to be talking out of your ass here. If you meant to aim that directly at someone, you should have done that.

You know enough about most of us on the decriminalization side of this argument to know that most of us have been on our own two feet for a long time.

If all you have is the continual "you're too young to know better" statement, then expect "you're too old to be relevant anymore" in return. Since that goes no where worthwhile, let's just stick to facts and reasonable debate?

You have just demonstrated that you have no understanding whatsoever of statistics or probability.


Is there a reason you're avoiding my questions? Why does your stance on personal responsibility exclude people like you and me?



The "Historically" stuff was tongue in cheek, which you obviously missed.

And what are the questions I am avoiding? If you are referring to the issue of personal responsibility, I have not said at any point it does not apply to you and me, so I don't know why you are assuming that.

Historically the war on drugs has been a total failure.

Historically we have been waging all kinds of wars since Nixon was president.

Historically prohibition doesnt work.

Historically government regulation works!

The "War on Drugs" was a rousing success.
An entire industry was built around it.

And I government regulation really doesnt work. Look at the Netherlands. Massive heroin issues and all those people on full government welfare.

Look at the Opium Wars in China.

Look at Laudenum

Nah. the only thing that works is removing its profitability.. on both sides.

The "War on Drugs" was a rousing success.
An entire industry was built around it.

Finally someone hit on the real point of the "War on Drugs"

I hope as a parent I wouldn't be living in made-up fantasy land, thinking that my kids couldn't easily get ahold of any drug they desired. I hope that I would realize that the war on drugs simply makes it easier for them to get illicit drugs than get a beer.

Couldn't have said it any better. Drugs as a Kid are always easier to get than 6 pack of miller.

The "War on Drugs" was a rousing success.
An entire industry was built around it.

And I government regulation really doesnt work. Look at the Netherlands. Massive heroin issues and all those people on full government welfare.

Look at the Opium Wars in China.

Look at Laudenum

Nah. the only thing that works is removing its profitability.. on both sides.I assume you are talking about the corrections industry? If I'm wrong, please explain. Either way, the war on drugs costs us workers, incurs huge costs for incarceration, breeds crime, and these trends will continue until we do something to change the problem. I really don't understand how the war on drugs could possibly be a monetary success by any estimate.

Heroin issues existed in the Netherlands before and after their relaxation of prohibition. The fact that they have people on full government welfare is simply indicative of their political structure. In America, we would not, and I am definitely not advocating that we support addicts who cannot support themselves.

I also do not see how the Opium Wars has any bearing on our current situation. All of the instances we've brought up have to deal with domestic decriminalization policies. China was forced by foreign entities to adopt regulations against their will. The two situations are markedly different.

Okay it's obvious we'll never agree but let me ask those of you on the pro drug side this simple question.

Have you done anything to further the cause? Do you write in, talk to your reps or do anything other than flap yer damn gums while you give us grief to prove you wrong?

You're not ever ever ever going to get that done here. We can't change laws and if you're doing more than mentally masturbating on this subject then let us know.

I have causes I firmly believe in and you can damn well bet I stay in contact (or tbh I email and mail him with few responses) Rep Ron Bishop.

Errrr the cause I believe in, national sales tax ;P Sorry didn't clarify there, tho I suspect I've mentioned it to a few of you in passing over the years.

Ainwein, do more than be a user and bitcher because it's "your right to put what you want in your body". Take up the cause and I'll respect you, till then those of us that respect the rule of law are going to just ponder at why the hell you bother getting so worked up.

I assume you are talking about the corrections industry? If I'm wrong, please explain. Either way, the war on drugs costs us workers, incurs huge costs for incarceration, breeds crime, and these trends will continue until we do something to change the problem. I really don't understand how the war on drugs could possibly be a monetary success by any estimate.

Heroin issues existed in the Netherlands before and after their relaxation of prohibition. The fact that they have people on full government welfare is simply indicative of their political structure. In America, we would not, and I am definitely not advocating that we support addicts who cannot support themselves.

I also do not see how the Opium Wars has any bearing on our current situation. All of the instances we've brought up have to deal with domestic decriminalization policies. China was forced by foreign entities to adopt regulations against their will. The two situations are markedly different.

They broke the law, they cost themselves a job not vice versa. Noone pushed them to use. If, as you continually say, that drugs and alcohol produce the same effects why don't they use legal means to get them off. I suspect you'll find part of the fun of the high is the illegality of it all. Sticking it to the man, showing him you can do as you like (like buy drugs close to Homeland security) and are generally the elements who need risk to get them in their happy spot.

Rule of law man, if you don't like it then suffer the consequences. Or do as I posted above and actually stand up for what believe in. Fight for it instead of kvetch.

Okay it's obvious we'll never agree but let me ask those of you on the pro drug side this simple question.

Have you done anything to further the cause? Do you write in, talk to your reps or do anything other than flap yer damn gums while you give us grief to prove you wrong?

You're not ever ever ever going to get that done here. We can't change laws and if you're doing more than mentally masturbating on this subject then let us know.

I have causes I firmly believe in and you can damn well bet I stay in contact (or tbh I email and mail him with few responses) Rep Ron Bishop.

Errrr the cause I believe in, national sales tax ;P Sorry didn't clarify there, tho I suspect I've mentioned it to a few of you in passing over the years.

Ainwein, do more than be a user and bitcher because it's "your right to put what you want in your body". Take up the cause and I'll respect you, till then those of us that respect the rule of law are going to just ponder at why the hell you bother getting so worked up.

I've been a member of NORML for many years.

I suspected you fought for what you believe in for years Rover. Hence our mad man love!

Have you done anything to further the cause?

A) We're not pro-Drug. Nobody is advocating that we subsidize marijuana production in Tennessee (although it's already the largest cash crop).

B) Yes. I've informed my congressmen of this repeatedly, and we've been trying to educate some other people who shall remain nameless so that when it comes up, they legislative change doesn't get shouted down by "OH MY GOD CRACK BLOOD IN THE STREETS!" :>

C) I'll vote for anyone who knows how to read a peer reviewed study and do basic math over a partisan hack who happens to be on my side any day of the week. Smart people are in short enough supply as is.

Ainwein, do more than be a user and bitcher because it's "your right to put what you want in your body". Take up the cause and I'll respect you, till then those of us that respect the rule of law are going to just ponder at why the hell you bother getting so worked up.

How the fuck do you get off assuming that I've done nothing?

For the last time, you have no idea what I have done or not done in regards to anything. Just stop already.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/e632

So let's hear a rebuttal from those arguing that legalization and commercialization of pot, crystal meth, heroine, cocaine, etc., would not increase drug use among kids.

Several recent studies concerning American adolescents, the Dutch experience with decriminalization (from 1984 to 1992), and the relationship between cheaper marijuana and use by adolescents suggest that decriminalization increases marijuana use by adolescentsThis is a bullshit NIH study. Of course they are going to try to support their failing policy. To say that the Dutch decriminalization increases usage rates is just flat out WRONG.

Availability of marijuana, which might increase if the drug were legalized, clearly has been shown to affect adolescents' use. Adolescents who have been offered marijuana are 7 times more likely to use it than are those who have not been offered marijuana. Similarly, those who report that marijuana is easy to get are approximately 2.5 times more likely to use it than those who consider it hard to get.43 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/e632#R43)Availability would not increase if it were to be legalized, and I've never seen research that shows otherwise. This whole paragraph is all sorts of retarded. It 'might increase'. The 'stat' about being offered marijuana is also stupid. How can you use marijuana if you've never been offered? The entire premise of this is just wrong.


Objectives. We tested the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health.
Methods. We compared representative samples of experienced cannabis users in similar cities with opposing cannabis policies—Amsterdam, the Netherlands (decriminalization), and San Francisco, Calif (criminalization). We compared age at onset, regular and maximum use, frequency and quantity of use over time, intensity and duration of intoxication, career use patterns, and other drug use.
Results. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco
May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health 836-842
© 2004 American Public Health Association (http://www.ajph.org/misc/terms.shtml)


It is argued that the drug abuse problem should not be primarily seen as a problem of police and justice. It is essentially a matter of health. The Dutch acknowledge that the international repressive, prohibitive approach leads to unintentional negative side-effects, both for the individual and for society. They try to avoid a situation in which consumers of cannabis suffer more damage from the criminal proceedings than from the use of the drug itself. They opt rather for a realistic and practical approach to the drug problem than for a moralistic and over-dramatized one. The Dutch alternative is the normalization of the drug problem, as a pragmatic compromise between two extreme options: an intensified war on drugs and legalization. The implications of the normalization approach for the prevention and treatment policies are discussed: AIDS-prevention, harm reduction instead of detoxification and de-mystification. It is suggested that the policy of normalization is rather successful and does not produce an increase of drug use.
Dutch Policy on the Management of Drug-related Problems
E. L. ENGELSMAN (1989) Dutch Policy on the Management of Drug-related Problems, Addiction 84 (2) , 211–218

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/e632

So let's hear a rebuttal from those arguing that legalization and commercialization of pot, crystal meth, heroine, cocaine, etc., would not increase drug use among kids.


Are you nuts? Honestly...are you?

It is just one more small side issue in the debate regarding legalization; how to deal with addicts and their already established tolerance for "stepped-on" product. I suppose the Methadon programs would be useful in addressing that question, though. Having a medically administered dosage would be a solution.

Heroin addiction is a problem that (in most cases) solves itself in a few years. :eek:

I'm betting the total dollar cost of the addicts slowly killing themselves is much, much less than that of maintaining the infrastructure used in the war on drugs (DEA agent salaries, prison salaries and cost, etc.) I don't have any data (that money trail is huge and looks like a pile of spaghetti).

What the hell are you talking about Rover? I was responding to a request for a link with a study with a different finding.

Is this true from the article?

"From 1984 to 1996, the period during which Dutch prosecution of marijuana-related offenses became virtually nonexistent, marijuana use increased consistently and substantially until 1992 while decreasing or remaining stable in other countries."

"Availability would not increase if it were to be legalized, and I've never seen research that shows otherwise."

What about this conclusion (from here http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/123) --

"[T]he removal of the sales prohibition...would generate larger increases in marijuana use as a result of promotion by the legal suppliers."

It doesn't directly address availability, but it does address increases in use.

Two comparison series offer insight: the US Monitoring the Future annual survey of high-school seniors (Bachman et al, 1998 (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/123#REF3)), and an annual survey of Oslo youth, aged 15 to 21 (Norwegian Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, 1997 (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/123#REF21)). The USA and Norway both strictly forbid cannabis sales and possession, and aggressively enforced that ban throughout the period. Note that because the Oslo survey has a broader age range, these estimates are more meaningful for comparing trends over time than absolute differences in prevalence in any given year.

The two comparison series behave very differently from the Dutch series, and from each other until 1992. The US rates increase until 1979 and then fall steadily and substantially until 1992, while the Oslo figures increase sharply only until 1972, and then fluctuate around a flat trend until 1992. Interestingly, during the period 1992 to 1996, all three nations have seen similar large increases, as have Canada (e.g. Adlaf et al, 1995 (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/123#REF2)) and the UK (Table 1 (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/2/123#TBL1)). This weakens the hypothesis that the Dutch increases from 1992 to 1996 are attributable to Dutch policies per se; the fact that comparable increases occurred in nations with such different legal risks highlights the important role of non-policy influences that are only poorly understood. Nevertheless, the increases in Dutch prevalence from 1984 to 1992 provide the strongest evidence that the Dutch regime might have increased cannabis use among the youngStrongest, as in slightly less retarded than just saying that it happens.

So we have heaps of information finding that legal status does not increase usage rates, and a couple of studies that say that it is possible that it does. I'm not sure how the methodology of this study accounts for the increase in use in the United States, Canada, and the UK. Just reading over it, it appears they don't, which should completely disqualify their findings. You have to have controls, otherwise it's not scientific.

Ainwein once again I hear you whining and cursing but not providing said info.

What have you done to further this cause you feel so strongly about?

If nothing, then kindly shut the fuck up and hit that bowl again eh? World already has too many ne'er do wells with too much money and not enough spine to back up what they believe in.

Really, I asked you what you have done and you froth. /chuckle typical

If, as you continually say, that drugs and alcohol produce the same effects why don't they use legal means to get them off. I suspect you'll find part of the fun of the high is the illegality of it all. Sticking it to the man, showing him you can do as you like (like buy drugs close to Homeland security) and are generally the elements who need risk to get them in their happy spot.
So, you're admitting that criminalization does increase usage among some demographics?

It's painful how stupid you are.

You didn't ask me what I've done. You assume that I've done nothing (transposing at all?).

I'm a member of NORML and a member of the Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). I have a minor in justice with an emphasis on drug studies. I have lobbied my congressman many times. Currently, I am working on an independent study which I hope will be published. It involves the ethics of withholding pain medication from people who are suffering. I am in the process of setting up meetings with the PR department of the DEA so I can get information from them first hand.

Just stop. You obviously had no place in this conversation, and after you realized that your stupid anecdotal bullshit wasn't going to fly, you start making inane assumptions, which as usual, were completely wrong. What are you going to say now?

We all realize that you're a joke, Fandros. Your asinine posts reek of the desperation you must be feeling, as you watch your political relevancy slip away with every day that passes.

EDIT: Sanchek, yes, that's exactly what he's saying, although I seriously doubt he understands that he is actually furthering our argument.

with an emphasis on drug studies


WOW...I studied the same thing in college...I also studied Bong architecture in both morning and evening classes.

http://www.knbc.com/news/16082632/detail.html

"She managed to change her identity in a way that she was living her life in a normal way," he said. "It appeared she was living a productive life -- other than her history. There are certainly mixed emotions" in connection with her re-arrest Jurman said.

Lefevre married Alan D. Walsh in Orange County in 1985, when she was 29 and he was 28. The couple moved into brand-new home in the 5000 block of Seagrove Cove in 1999. With work they did on the property, including the installation of a pool, its value has increased to more than $800,000, according to the San Diego County Assessor's Office.

Lefavre was booked into Los Colinas Women's Detention Facility. She will more than likely be returned to Michigan to face conspiracy to violate drug laws, Jurman said.

As recently as March 2007, Walsh worked at Waste Management of California, which is located in Oceanside. According to published reports, he was a district manager for the company.

The couple has been mentioned as donors to the Boys & Girls Club of America in both the San Diego Metropolitan Magazine and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

A mother of three, upstanding member of the community, and district manager at a local company. Would we have all been better off if this woman had been in that prison camp for the full 10-20 years of her sentence, just for having a shady friend and being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Actually Ainwhine I asked quite clearly what have you done. Always frothing at the mouth before you read, jesus you make a case for mandatory military service prior to sucking greedily at the tit of govt funded schooling.

I'm glad to hear you are trying to get your desired change in effect. That's all you had to say and I'd have said well done. So many just bitch instead of work to promote change.

Now, as you doubtlessly are suffering from a case of "IrElite cuz I r in the skuul" syndrome try to calm down and read.

I started out today looking to find a middle ground and you've taken shots all day.

So a hearty fuck off to you and your soft schooling. sheeesshh

Serious tho, grats on taking a stand and actually working for it. I really didn't think you possessed the chutzpah to do more than slide through it all hoping for a free ride.

So, you're admitting that criminalization does increase usage among some demographics?

No Sanchek, as most of the kids his age are under 21 it's going to remain illega so that demographic won't change.

Okay it's obvious we'll never agree but let me ask those of you on the pro drug side this simple question.

Have you done anything to further the cause? Do you write in, talk to your reps or do anything other than flap yer damn gums while you give us grief to prove you wrong?

You're not ever ever ever going to get that done here. We can't change laws and if you're doing more than mentally masturbating on this subject then let us know.

I have causes I firmly believe in and you can damn well bet I stay in contact (or tbh I email and mail him with few responses) Rep Ron Bishop.

Errrr the cause I believe in, national sales tax ;P Sorry didn't clarify there, tho I suspect I've mentioned it to a few of you in passing over the years.

Ainwein, do more than be a user and bitcher because it's "your right to put what you want in your body". Take up the cause and I'll respect you, till then those of us that respect the rule of law are going to just ponder at why the hell you bother getting so worked up.

I did ask quite clearly today, you merely frothed and apparently need to return to the smaller table.

No Sanchek, as most of the kids his age are under 21 it's going to remain illega so that demographic won't change.

In 1972 only 14% of teenagers had ever tried marijuana. By 1997 the number was up to 50%. The number regularly smoking marijuana more than tripled, from 7% to 24%.
In 1972 only 2% of teenagers had ever tried cocaine. By 1997 the number was up to 9%. Regular users increased from 1% to 6%.
In 1972 only 1% of teenagers had ever tried heroin. By 1997 the number was up to 2%.

"Is flagrantly false."

Prove it then. I have no doubt with the number of idiots in the U.S. there's at least one that had no idea selling cocaine was illegal, but I would like to see what example you had in mind.

This is your war on drugs:

One such person was Lonnie Lundy, a businessman. At 32, he had never smoked, drunk alcohol, or used drugs. In 1993 an employee of his was prosecuted for drug-dealing, and the employee succeeded in getting his sentence reduced by naming Lonnie as his drug source.

No drugs, no money, no physical evidence of any kind were produced. His accuser later recanted his testimony, saying "My life may be a mess but I'm not going to live the rest of my life with this on my conscience." And yet Lonnie Lundy languishes in prison, sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. His only hope for freedom is a Libertarian President who will pardon all non-violent drug offenders in federal prisons.

Compare Lonnie Lundy's sentence with that of Jose Tapia, who in 1996 intentionally burned down a house in Rhode Island, killing two adults and four children. Tapia will be eligible for parole in 21 years. But Lonnie Lundy, who wasn't even accused of using violence, will never be free again unless he receives a presidential pardon.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/etc/rankins.html

That could be any one of us, at any time. For what? Increased crime and increased drug use rates among every demographic? Great.

In 1972 only 14% of teenagers had ever tried marijuana. By 1997 the number was up to 50%. The number regularly smoking marijuana more than tripled, from 7% to 24%.
In 1972 only 2% of teenagers had ever tried cocaine. By 1997 the number was up to 9%. Regular users increased from 1% to 6%.
In 1972 only 1% of teenagers had ever tried heroin. By 1997 the number was up to 2%.

Those are interesting stats, wasn't pot illegal even then tho? Couldn't this be due to an aggressive stance by pushers to get the drugs into kids hands? Hmmm why do we call them pushers, news at 11!!

Disclaimer I don't know why they call them pushers, after work out high atm zzzzooomm.

Workouts should be illegal !

Workouts should be illegal !

Well obviously then I wouldn't be out of shape because I'd be compelled to work out more!

haha

At what point do we realize this thread is repeating itself (other than the usual stand-up routine from Furtivus, living proof you don't need drugs to be mentally on another planet)?

Hush Malse. I just made another bag of popcorn, and you're going to spoil my show.

Those are interesting stats, wasn't pot illegal even then tho? Couldn't this be due to an aggressive stance by pushers to get the drugs into kids hands? Hmmm why do we call them pushers, news at 11!!
The drugs were just as readily available before Prohibition II. Where were those pushers before Prohibition II?

Without criminalization of the substances, prices weren't high enough to fuel an intrinsic criminal element. Without a profit motive, your local drug store (where things like laudanum and cocaine were available without prescription) had no reason to push it on you if you didn't already want it.

In 1972 only 14% of teenagers had ever tried marijuana. By 1997 the number was up to 50%. The number regularly smoking marijuana more than tripled, from 7% to 24%.
In 1972 only 2% of teenagers had ever tried cocaine. By 1997 the number was up to 9%. Regular users increased from 1% to 6%.
In 1972 only 1% of teenagers had ever tried heroin. By 1997 the number was up to 2%.

These "stats" are based on what? Self-reporting? Are you saying that between 1972 and 1997 more teenagers were willing to disclose using illegal substances? Do these "stats" show an increase in use or an increase in honesty, or possibly an increase in teenagers who want to pretend to be doing something illicit they know would upset their folks, or maybe an increase in teenagers that want to screw with someone "testing" them with a survey?

The Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey has been administered annually to study the extent of and beliefs about drug use among 12th-graders. The survey was expanded in 1991 to include 8th- and 10th-graders. It is funded by NIDA and is conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.
But, I guess an annual, scientific study for the past decades isn't as good as gut-feeling, right?

But, I guess an annual, scientific study for the past decades isn't as good as gut-feeling, right?


Sorry, San, but I have never considered it to be scientific asking people to fill out surveys. I know all the arguments, having taken the courses and being required to assemble surveys myself in the past; I just don't have that blind trust of folks to answer honestly that many possess.

I can no more prove that those teenagers answered honestly than I can prove that you are not a pirate with a peg leg, using only black and white printed pages and assuming honest answers.

I am just not sure why there is this need to prove anything, in so far as this thread is concerned. Folks have different opinions on the issue, and some seem to believe that not agreeing with their opinion, or asking questions that do not measure up to the academic elitist posturing, makes the other person not-ok.

/shrug As if any of this back and forth means shit in changing anything.

48,025 students in a nationally representative sample of 403 public and private schools were surveyed about lifetime, past year, past month, and daily use of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
Of course no study will ever be perfect, but you'd have to be completely off your rocker to think that clear trends in this large, diverse sample are due to "teenagers that want to screw with someone testing them".

It seems, throughout this entire thread, that you just desperately want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the writing on the wall. Characterizing any data that isn't from your gut or anecdotal as "elitist" is honestly pretty sad.

It's my understanding that you're a father? How can you support the policy that makes meth and heroin more readily available to your child(ren) than a beer? Seriously?

/shrug As if any of this back and forth means shit in changing anything.

I wish this were true.

Unfortunately, the only realistic way to change things is to educate those who haven't taken the time to see past the mainstream hype of the war on drugs. As with anything else, the law won't be changed until a critical mass of people begin to see through this Prohibition II dogma.

While I have always thought marijuana should be legal, almost any other currently illegal drug has some very valid reason for the criminalization, and I still say that we would see more violent crime were they legalized, which could be directly related to the drugs.


Six days ago I posted this. Other than this, I have tossed out some ideas and opinions, and played some devil's advocate with regard to some possible outcomes and repercussions, and questioned some statements to see how the reply would be framed.

With all the comments, links and studies, I still feel the same way. I don't for an instant believe that marijuana is an addictive drug, and it's potential for aiding certain folks suffering from varied medical maladies has been shown and has already resulted in California's legislature rebelling against the feds. I also don't see a problem with Hashish and mushrooms being legalized.

Derivatives from the poppy are all highly addictive; i.e. opium, heroin, and the prescribed ones such as demarol and morphine. The same can be said with cocaine, and it's bastard child "crack". Drugs that are highly addictive being legalized will result IMO in more addicts, which may generate a new wave of treatment programs, providing employment to some of those waiting tables currently with their degrees being put to no use. But, what will the impact be with these new addicts as their health starts to deteriorate, and they lose jobs, and possibly homes and families, and have no source of income to pay for their drugs? These are the questions that keep me from being willing to accept legalizing the class A narcotic drugs which are highly addictive.

If you want to slight me and my opinion, San, simply because it does not agree with yours, that is fine. It will still remain my opinion, and i will viote that way if a referendum ever comes to the ballot in my state.

Weed and hash and 'shrooms, yes. No to the rest.

Drugs that are highly addictive being legalized will result IMO in more addicts, which may generate a new wave of treatment programs, providing employment to some of those waiting tables currently with their degrees being put to no use. But, what will the impact be with these new addicts as their health starts to deteriorate, and they lose jobs, and possibly homes and families, and have no source of income to pay for their drugs? These are the questions that keep me from being willing to accept legalizing the class A narcotic drugs which are highly addictive.


I don't know how many times this has to be said -- have you looked at the cost of the prison systems we put these people into that do not even try to rehabilitate them, because it is not their goal? Every country that treats drugs as a public health issue pays less per abuser than we do to treat them as criminals. This is independent of the drug abused, independent of total population, independent of anything. It simply costs more to keep someone locked up for years that stick them in a medically sound rehab program. It costs more to keep someone in prison for a year even to keep them on welfare for a year. Inmate costs vary by prison, but none of them are cheap. It's an entire net two negative people to the economy. Every inmate is costing a taxpayer her taxes while generating none of his own.

Ever wonder why the privately-owned prison industry lobbies heavily against movements like NORML?

I don't know how many times this has to be said -- have you looked at the cost of the prison systems we put these people into that do not even try to rehabilitate them, because it is not their goal? Every country that treats drugs as a public health issue pays less per abuser than we do to treat them as criminals. This is independent of the drug abused, independent of total population, independent of anything. It simply costs more to keep someone locked up for years that stick them in a medically sound rehab program. It costs more to keep someone in prison for a year even to keep them on welfare for a year. Inmate costs vary by prison, but none of them are cheap. It's an entire net two negative people to the economy. Every inmate is costing a taxpayer her taxes while generating none of his own.

Ever wonder why the privately-owned prison industry lobbies heavily against movements like NORML?


I understand that all of that Malse. But I remain against making addictive drugs legal, meaning the class A narcotics. I am not saying other's opinions are less valid than mine, or that anyone is wrong. We simply will disagree on the matter.

Drugs that are highly addictive being legalized will result IMO in more addicts . . .

That's the point though Byl. The other side of the argument (Malse, Ain, et. al.) are providing evidence that this premise of yours is incorrect.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. The strength of those opinions as fact is what is being argued.

I understand that all of that Malse. But I remain against making addictive drugs legal, meaning the class A narcotics. I am not saying other's opinions are less valid than mine, or that anyone is wrong. We simply will disagree on the matter.

i think alot will be won simply by removing the dogma of drugs in the US, and acting with the responsibility a society has to rehabilitate drug addicts. not that im suggesting making all of it legal on day one, but you have to start somewhere, and holding on to drugs=BAD isnt the going to take you anywhere.

Even if they make the more addictive forms of drugs legal they will still be heavily controlled i.e. creating a black market. Johnny Crackwine will want more than the govt will allocate him and as such he'll seek out more. This means the truly addicted won't be better off, he'll be getting cut down forms from some jackass looking to make 50cents as opposed to 50 bucks. They'll push to sell in volume, that's human nature for ya.

An addict who's brains are slowly melting out of his ears will crave more than is allowed and therefore be a drain on society.

They have to want to be cured, and damn we can't even get the homeless off the street let alone control folks addictions.

Any study from some small tiny country with a vanilla population means nothing and anyone pushing for it to do so is up in the night. I dont' need a study to show me sliding down a razor bannister into a vat of lemon scented rubbing alcohol is going to be painful. It also follows logic that legalizing the harsher forms of drugs would be beyond the pale.

Kids, 20 and below, are already breaking the law to get alcohol (don't buy the bullshit that pot is easier to get, it's not) and will have easier access if they can get the same dumbass that buys them beer to buy them pot outta the store.

Now while I believe , like Byl, that pot isn't the great Satan I will remain firmly convinced that I'll vote and stump to make sure the harsher shit never gets bought on my tax dollar.

Derivatives from the poppy are all highly addictive; i.e. opium, heroin, and the prescribed ones such as demarol and morphine. The same can be said with cocaine, and it's bastard child "crack". Drugs that are highly addictive being legalized will result IMO in more addicts, which may generate a new wave of treatment programs, providing employment to some of those waiting tables currently with their degrees being put to no use. But, what will the impact be with these new addicts as their health starts to deteriorate, and they lose jobs, and possibly homes and families, and have no source of income to pay for their drugs? These are the questions that keep me from being willing to accept legalizing the class A narcotic drugs which are highly addictive.

No one's arguing that those things aren't very addictive.

The point that you're missing is that these things weren't a societal problem until Prohibition II. A century ago, anyone could literally go to a drug store and buy laudanum or cocaine. Where were the masses of addicts then? Usage and addiction skyrocketed after the war on drugs.

Criminalization both jacked prices up through the roof and created a profit motive for criminals to proactively get people addicted. Our policy has simply gone great lengths to enrich criminals and done nothing whatsoever to help our society.

I don't think there should be limitations on the amount of drugs people can buy. They already do as much as they can afford to anyways. The same economic constraint would apply here. There would only be a black market if the government put these restrictions in place (The exact same dynamics that have resulted in the black market from the complete prohibition of 'illicit drugs' as a whole).

(don't buy the bullshit that pot is easier to get, it's not)

This just isn't true. I have never owned a fake ID (I'm 23 now). It wasn't terribly difficult to get alcohol, but every once in a while we'd have problems.

I could walk across the hall and score pot. Down the street you can get any type of pills you want, heroin, coke, whatever. (This is college. In high school it was almost always a problem to get beer, to the point where getting it easily was the quite welcome exception).

I've seen the same thing with all of my friends, my brothers, etc.

My brother calls me to buy him alcohol for him and his friends. They have absolutely no other way to get it (Don't you remember being in the same boat?). Two of these kids, who aren't able to get beer for themselves, sell (admittedly small, an ounce or so) marijuana.

I've honestly never heard someone argue that this isn't the case, so I don't have any empirical evidence on hand but I'll look for some in my free time.

E
Now while I believe , like Byl, that pot isn't the great Satan I will remain firmly convinced that I'll vote and stump to make sure the harsher shit never gets bought on my tax dollar.

How exactly does one vote against the CIA?

Even if they make the more addictive forms of drugs legal they will still be heavily controlled i.e. creating a black market. Johnny Crackwine will want more than the govt will allocate him and as such he'll seek out more. This means the truly addicted won't be better off, he'll be getting cut down forms from some jackass looking to make 50cents as opposed to 50 bucks. They'll push to sell in volume, that's human nature for ya.
How can you support this? Do you buy your scotch in a dark alley to save fifty cents? Of course not. No criminal enterprise will thrive on marginal profits. That just doesn't happen.

Again, I ask, if you think it works this way, then where are the coffee cartels? That's probably the largest market of addicts in this country, by a huge margin. So, where's the crime? Why aren't we buying Columbian coffee on the black market to save 50 cents?

Kids, 20 and below, are already breaking the law to get alcohol (don't buy the bullshit that pot is easier to get, it's not) and will have easier access if they can get the same dumbass that buys them beer to buy them pot outta the store.

There is simply no question that most drugs are easier for kids to obtain right now. In fact, many kids will have the drugs pushed on them (for free, initially) whether they seek it out or not. We know this: DARE, "Just say no", etc.

Even in the rural, bible-belt town that I grew up in, we all knew who to get pot or coke from. The guy who sold weed actually did it out of his Bronco, right in the park in front of everyone. He just paid off a few city cops, and he was never bothered.

That wasn't/isn't my thing, but I could have had it in a few minutes any time I wanted it. Alcohol was much more difficult to come by. You had to go to a college party out of town to get alcohol.

Pain pills/muscle relaxers etc etc are legal and regulated, I don't see why recreational drugs couldn't or wouldn't be treated the same way.

Omg San, do not attack the scotch...for it is song of upon high as the holiest of holies!! /gasp

If Johnny addict can buy all the coke he wants/must have then I guess he'll soon be a dead Johnny addict ;P

Alcohol is and was soo much easier to obtain than drugs when I was young. Older brothers and such would just pick it up with virtually no chance of being caught. A dealer however was always shadier or came with a risk.

/nods yes I got muh booze from a friends older brother any time I needed it for the price of a 40oz.

Alcohol is and was soo much easier to obtain than drugs when I was young. Older brothers and such would just pick it up with virtually no chance of being caught. A dealer however was always shadier or came with a risk.

/nods yes I got muh booze from a friends older brother any time I needed it for the price of a 40oz.
I think this difference between our generations is due to the continual buildup of criminals pushing drugs and making them available. As long as we legislate a huge profit margin for them to do so, it will only continue to get worse.

Are you calling me old and malingering my scotch? wth

I never said anything bad about scotch!

Whew!!!! oh wait!

It's extremely hard to OD on pure cocaine (LD50, a term I'm sure none of you know what it means because you have feelings and not facts, is like over a pound for adult humans, this obviously goes down substantially if its potentiated by other chemicals or you're at high risk of a heart attack, but point being you have to do ridiculous amounts of cocaine to die from it). The other, impure variants, are a different story.

If only there was some way to fix impurities in chemicals ... ;-p

Oh yes, the few links I threw up weren't facts.

Off the horse Malse, the figurative one, not the drug!, if you think it's hard to OD on coke then you no very lil of that world indeed.

Does one always just do coke or is there a goodly amount of mixing with other recreational drugs happen more often than not. Alot of mixing and matching goes on, so yes alot of od's have happened while having coke in their system.

/insert Jeopardy music here, no you don't have answer in the form of a question.

btw, just because I've taken this position does not mean I'm unaware of the fun of the highs.

Hey now, bad assumption, I know what LD50 (lethal dosage for 50% of the population) means.


I wish pot was as easy for me to get as for kids, I've been dry for 2 weeks now and unable to get any.

Let's just say that whatever Malse knows about coke, he didn't learn it in a book or on the Internet.

It is hard to OD on coke, and that "you know nothing of the world junior" attitude is getting really old, gramps :> It's not as hard to OD on what you usually get WITH coke, which is usually crystal meth, or god only knows what they cut crack with now.

I'm just enjoying poking fun at people at this point.


LD50 is the scientific term for Lethal Dose for 50% of a given population. The lethal dosage for benzoylmethyl ecgonine, which is the psychoactive ingredient and the only active ingredient in pure cocaine, is in fact slightly over 1/100th of the body weight of animals with extremely similar drug reactions as people (mice and pigs, in most studies). So yes, you do in fact have to snort ridiculous amounts of pure cocaine to die from it -- the average line is going to be at most half a gram of benzoylmethyl ecgonine, and usually a lot less, I'll leave the math on grams to pounds for you, but let's just say it's going to be 4 to 5 digits.

It is hard to OD on coke, and that "you know nothing of the world junior" attitude is getting really old, gramps :> It's not as hard to OD on what you usually get WITH coke, which is usually crystal meth, or god only knows what they cut crack with now.

I'm just enjoying poking fun at people at this point.


LD50 is the scientific term for Lethal Dose for 50% of a given population. The lethal dosage for benzoylmethyl ecgonine, which is the psychoactive ingredient and the only active ingredient in pure cocaine, is in fact slightly over 1/100th of the body weight of animals with extremely similar drug reactions as people (mice and pigs, in most studies). So yes, you do in fact have to snort ridiculous amounts of pure cocaine to die from it -- the average line is going to be at most half a gram of benzoylmethyl ecgonine, and usually a lot less, I'll leave the math on grams to pounds for you, but let's just say it's going to be 4 to 5 digits.

Oh I'm sure you're weary of my attitude, I use it to get under the skin of those who know the world via books instead of living it.

I'm really quite amiable unless someone dons a pinata' for a hat.

You're lucky I read all those books before I fiddled with your power grid equipment, my employer services all of Utah. I was actually there doing some hardware work a few weeks ago when it went from 80 to 30 to 80 in the course of 3 days, I'm sure you guys wanted the ski lifts working.

Bastard, should've let me know!!!

(no, I don't mean that as a threat!) I owe ya a brew for the good work you and sanchek do on keeping our boards up.

I thought about it but I was on the ground there for less than 60 hours and besides, the hotel we stay at has an open bar after work hours to make up for your weakling 5% beer :)

Speaking of books, I'd highly recommend getting some worldly exercise in critical thinking by reading something like Science and Its Ways of Knowing (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Ways-Knowing-John-Hatton/dp/0132055767), because there's a difference between reading the Encyclopedia Britainica as your basis for understanding the plights of the common Russian prole in 1897 and reading peer-reviewed studies by people who have spent your lifetime invested in their particular real-world activity and are letting you know what they found out. Practical experience generally trumps "book-learnin'" only when you're discussing practical applications of knowledge (ie, how to build a pump, versus fluid dynamics of pressure).

I'll do that, the suggested reading that is.

/nods the local beer is bad, other than the rather great microbrews, but I work on base and have access to better!

Next time around shout!

Living allows you see the world from one perspective. Your own myopic lens.

Reading allows you to see life through a new lens with every book.

Actually living broadens your horizons so you are able to see the world through a larger lens.

Sole book learning forces you to only experience it as the author did....

Btw I'm the last person to eschew that thar book learning. However if it's all you have then it's merely a starting point.

So, what's the excuse for dismissing the "actually living" experience of people who were underage much more recently than you?

Have to raise the roof somehow, since you were broken by the masses it's a lonely row to hoe here.