The Official "War On Drugs" Thread

[timvp]

First of all, despite rumors to the contrary, I've never dealt drugs. I've never even consumed drugs ... well not in the last six years :angel

I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this subject. To start it off, I think these two articles illustrate the hypocracy in fighting this "war".


Jamal Lewis reports to prison

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/scorecard/nflnews.asp?articleID=6936

Pensacola, FL (Sports Network) - Baltimore Ravens running back Jamal Lewis began his jail sentence Friday, reporting to a federal prison camp in Florida. Lewis was ordered to serve a four-month term for using a cell phone to help set up a drug transaction in June of 2000.

The minimum-security facility holds up to 536 inmates, many of whom are drug offenders.

Lewis was sentenced to four months in prison on January 26 in Atlanta. The sentence issued in federal court matched the terms of the agreement reached with prosecutors in October. That month, Lewis pleaded guilty to federal charges of using a cell phone to help arrange a drug deal.

Under the plea agreement, charges of drug conspiracy and cocaine possession were dropped by prosecutors and Lewis agreed to a term of four months in prison, two months in a halfway house and 500 hours of community service.

Had he been convicted of the conspiracy charge, Lewis could have faced at least 10 years in prison, but would have probably received a shorter sentence under federal guidelines.

Lewis was also suspended for two games without pay this past season and fined an additional two weeks' salary by the league for violating the NFL substance abuse policy. The Ravens ended the campaign with a 9-7 record and failed to qualify for the playoffs.

The NFL's leading rusher in the 2003 season had been accused of trying to help a childhood friend buy cocaine in a deal that turned out to be part of an FBI sting operation in the summer of 2000.

According to prosecutors and the FBI, Lewis was contacted on his cell phone by a "seller" who turned out to be a government informant. Lewis then allegedly took his friend, Angelo Jackson, to a restaurant to set up the cocaine buy.

Jackson and the informant then met several more times over the next several weeks, but Lewis was not part of any of those conversations, according to court papers. No drugs exchanged hands.

Lewis wasn't indicted on the federal drug charges until February of 2004. Meanwhile, Jackson has pleaded guilty to attempting to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and was expected to receive five years in jail.

In 2003, Lewis led the NFL with 2,066 rushing yards, the second-highest single-season total in league history, and also broke the NFL's single-game rushing record with a 295-yard effort against Cleveland on September 14.

This past year, he rushed for 1,006 yards and seven touchdowns on 235 carries.

Lewis was suspended four games by the NFL in November of 2001 for a repeat violation of the league's substance-abuse policy. The suspension did not cause him to miss any games that year because the running back was already out for the season with a torn ACL in his left knee. However, it did cost him $232,941 in salary.

The University of Tennessee product was Baltimore's first-round pick in the 2000 draft (fifth overall) and rushed for 1,364 yards and six touchdowns as a rookie when the Ravens won Super Bowl XXXV.


NHL star Dany Heatley gets probation for car crash that killed teammate
Harry R. Weber
Canadian Press

http://www.canada.com/sports/story.html?id=404566b7-f5a5-417e-83b5-92b521db09ce

ATLANTA (AP) - Graham Snyder lost his son after NHL star Dany Heatley crashed his Ferrari while speeding on a winding road. He asked a judge Friday not to compound that loss by putting Heatley in jail.

Judge Rowland Barnes honoured the wishes of the victim's father as he sentenced Heatley to three years of probation after the Atlanta Thrashers forward pleaded guilty to charges arising from the car crash that resulted in the death of teammate Dan Snyder.

If the case had gone to trial and Heatley was convicted on all counts, he would have faced up to 20 years in prison and fines totalling $5,000 US.

"Forgiveness in our hearts has helped us move on," Graham Snyder said. "We forgive because Dany has shown remorse to our family."

Barnes acknowledged the father's support for Heatley in issuing the sentence, though he noted: "I don't know that I could do this if I were you."

Heatley was also ordered to give 150 public speeches about the dangers of speeding. Prosecutor Shondeana Crews had recommended 750 hours of community service, but the judge imposed the speeches instead.

"The mistake I made that night was speeding," Heatley said at his sentencing. "This mistake will stay with me the rest of my life."

Heatley pleaded guilty to second-degree vehicular homicide, driving too fast for conditions, failure to maintain a lane and speeding for the Sept. 29, 2003, crash in Atlanta.

On the four charges he pleaded guilty to, he would have faced a maximum of four years in jail.

In exchange for his plea, the 24-year-old from Calgary saw the only felony charge - first-degree vehicular homicide - dropped along with a charge of reckless driving.

The state and defence did not have a binding agreement regarding what sentence Heatley would receive, leaving that issue up to the judge. Had Heatley not liked the sentence, he would not have been allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas.

Defence lawyers believe the plea allows Heatley, a Canadian citizen, to avoid any threat of deportation, and therefore should not affect his ability to play in the NHL. Prosecutors, however, said there is no guarantee.

Heatley was driving his black Ferrari convertible on a curved road in a residential area when it ran into a brick pillar and iron fence. Authorities said Heatley had consumed some alcohol, but was not intoxicated.

Snyder, a 25-year-old Snyder from Elmira, Ont., who was a passenger in the car, died after six days in a coma.

Crews said police experts found Heatley was driving at 82 m.p.h. (132 km/h). Defence lawyer Ed Garland said one expert thought Heatley was driving only 55 m.p.h. (88.5 km/h). The speed limit was 35 m.p.h. (56 km/h).

Judge Barnes said he noted the discrepancies among speed estimates when agreeing to the plea.

Under the terms of his probation, Heatley must give at least 50 public speeches each year about the dangers of speeding - nearly one speech a week. The speeches must be conducted at schools, colleges and public events where young people will be in attendance.

These are two events that came out at around the same time. You are telling me that a guy who killed someone in a reckless manner gets probation, while a guy who setup a drug transaction that never occured was given four months in jail on the word of a drugged out informant?

No doubt that drugs are evil and they ruin lives, but is the correct way to solve the problem throwing anyone involved in jail? It's not like there is a shortage of poor people who are willing to make money by any means necessary.

And to back it up a little more, is it the governments place to tell us what is and isn't good for our bodies?

Discuss.

[MannyIsGod]

The war on drugs is retarded. If I want to light up a bong, then thank me for not wasting paper, don't throw me in jail.

If drugs ever become legal, I'm coming out with the dorrito/joint value pack. Oh, and I'm hiring mouse as my salesman.

[Clandestino]

The drug war continues to target racial minorities, especially African-Americans. Of all state prisoners serving time for drug offenses in 2001 (latest figures available), over half (57%) were black, 19% were Hispanic and 23% were white (the majority of those in prison on any offense are minorities and the incarceration rates for blacks are about eight times that of whites). This is despite the fact that, according to the latest drug use survey, 72% of all users of illegal drugs are white, with blacks constituting only 15% and Hispanics accounting for 10%. For all offenses, the incarceration rate for African-American males is almost 8 times greater than for white males and an estimated one-third of black males will serve time in prison, compared to about 6% of white males.

http://www.sheldensays.com/com-five.htm

[SPARKY]

Ultimately the anti-drug policy is based on preventing children from being exposed to drugs at a young age and becoming hooked, yet it seems like the top place in any community to find drugs are in the schools.

By making it illegal you raise the price for the substance and you increase its cachet. The potentially high profits and the cost of evading the law are bound to attract a criminal element into the 'business'.

The government then repeatedly tries to raise the cost for both suppliers as well as the consumers in the form of fines and jail time as a deterrent. Prices go up and the process repeats itself.

I'd argue that in addition to the cost of the government enforcement action that directly falls on those involved in supplying and consuming drugs there is also the cost that comes from a significant government effort at all levels to wage that "war". In addition to the taxes that are devoted directly, there is also the cost of less liberty through a variety of expansions of government power.

Alcohol is a substance that when abused leads to substantial financial and emotional costs. When was the last time you heard about anyone who smoked weed getting belligerent and killing someone? Or perhaps turning into oncoming traffic and killing 4 or 5 people?

[SPARKY]

With respect to disparate impacts on groups, think about this: you take a young individual who hasn't committed any violent crime and then you try to deal with their drug use through the criminal system. Eventually you turn an otherwise nonviolent individual into a convict. At some point some of those nonviolent kids turn into violent offenders because you started to limit their options and put them in a position where they are desperate.

With regards to enforcement differences across racial groups I think you are back to the same reasons that you see in general for different imprisonment rates for all crime across racial groups: non-white groups tend to be overly represented at lower income levels, which means a higher exposure to and susceptibility to engaging in criminal activity as well as a greater reliance on a poorer quality of legal representation. I also would find it hard to disagree that there is indeed a little institutional racism at play.

In general, government policy is almost a perfect failure. It attracts more and more users. It increases violent crime. It exposes users to a greater chance of using an unsafe drug. It increases profits for drug dealers. And it costs a hell of a lot more to the taxpayers than if the government just legalized it and taxed and regulated it like any other business.

[timvp]

Ultimately the anti-drug policy is based on preventing children from being exposed to drugs at a young age and becoming hooked, yet it seems like the top place in any community to find drugs are in the schools.

By making it illegal you raise the price for the substance and you increase its cachet. The potentially high profits and the cost of evading the law are bound to attract a criminal element into the 'business'.

The government then repeatedly tries to raise the cost for both suppliers as well as the consumers in the form of fines and jail time as a deterrent. Prices go up and the process repeats itself.

I'd argue that in addition to the cost of the government enforcement action that directly falls on those involved in supplying and consuming drugs there is also the cost that comes from a significant government effort at all levels to wage that "war". In addition to the taxes that are devoted directly, there is also the cost of less liberty through a variety of expansions of government power.

Alcohol is a substance that when abused leads to substantial financial and emotional costs. When was the last time you heard about anyone who smoked weed getting belligerent and killing someone? Or perhaps turning into oncoming traffic and killing 4 or 5 people?

Exactly. You can make a case that alcohol is more dangerous than any other drug out there. Hundreds of times more people die each year from alcohol related events than any other drug. Put cigarettes into the equation, and drugs seem almost harmless.

IMO, the "War" is nothing more than the government trying to outlaw substances that they can't tax. Large companies and the government make billions upon billions each year on alcohol and cigarettes. They also are able find a reason to spend billions of tax dollars on a "war" that doesn't make any sense.

I've personally known people who've been killed or thrown away in jail for trying to support their family the best way they knew how. If the government spent the billions they spend on fighting the war in education, prevention and rehab, eventually I believe drug use would become almost a non-issue.

If someone wants to mess up their life by taking drugs and they are aware of the side effects and all other dangers, that should be their choice.

[Duff McCartney]

I say...smoke what you want, snort what you want, drop what you want, shoot up what you want.

[SPARKY]

If someone wants to mess up their life by taking drugs and they are aware of the side effects and all other dangers, that should be their choice.

Indeed. There are all kinds of substances which are harmful to us. And legal. Abuse of red meat and other such foods can lead to disease and death.

[whottt]

I don't really get the point you are making with the NHL player....That is a case of an accidental death of a man's friend. The defendant is obviously remorseful, and the victim's family is so convinced of his remorse that they asked for the court to be lenient when levying the punishment against him. Seems like a case of the court aquiescing to the wishes of the family. I don't see what the big deal is there. It's not like some grave injustice is being done when the victim's family is interceding on the defendant's behalf.


As for the rest of the debate...Alcohol is far more impairing, addictive, and dangerous than pot. This is absolutely true.


It is not totally true to say that it is less damaging than coke or heroin.

[timvp]

I was trying to relate the two stories. They just happened to both come out on the same day. But to me, it illustrates that somehow we as a society now frown upon an attempted drug deal involving an informant with a long list of priors more than we frown upon death.

Nice.

[Spurminator]

To be fair, it's probable that the reason alcohol causes more driving-related deaths is because it's legal... There are more opportunities because there are far more drunk people driving around on a given night than people high on acid or coke.

I agree with you in premise, though. Ideally, everything would be legal and regulated. But I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with the idea of people buying heroin from a convenience store and driving home.

[Useruser666]

Mouse would lead all salesmen. On a side note he would also be the largest customer. Maybe you should start a pyramid scheme.

Remember the 2 Robocop?

"I just want to make drugs safe and legal."

http://www.dvdrama.com/menus/robocop2z2005.jpg

[whottt]

I was trying to relate the two stories. They just happened to both come out on the same day. But to me, it illustrates that somehow we as a society now frown upon an attempted drug deal involving an informant with a long list of priors more than we frown upon death.

Nice.

The example you listed pits a case of accidental death against a pre meditated criminal act...

There is a stiffer maximum penalty for intentionally causing the death of another person than there is for dealing drugs.

You can't accidentally deal drugs...you can accidentally kill someone...that's the reason I don't feel that comarison is valid.

[SPARKY]

To be fair, it's probable that the reason alcohol causes more driving-related deaths is because it's legal... There are more opportunities because there are far more drunk people driving around on a given night than people high on acid or coke.



No doubt. Yet alcohol is a substance easily available in our society with a high incidence of abuse and mayhem. That would seem to be grounds for making it illegal.

[SPARKY]

The example you listed pits a case of accidental death against a pre meditated criminal act...

There is a stiffer maximum penalty for intentionally causing the death of another person than there is for dealing drugs.

You can't accidentally deal drugs...you can accidentally kill someone...that's the reason I don't feel that comarison is valid.


You can certainly be found to have been criminally negligent for an "accidental death", as in you chose not to have been fully responsible.

[whottt]

You guys are wrong if you don't think dealing and using drugs affects anyone else, presents a danger to society, or is a serious crime.

And as a former drug dealer and reformed drug addict I speak from experience here.

When I was using and dealing(and dealt to support my habit), I carried weapons, I fought with people, I stole from my family and others, and I was a fucking scumbag. And I was damn middle class kid from the suburbs, you can imagine what things someone from a more desperate background would be willing to do to protect himself or support his habit.


And many of the psychological effects of these drugs are still with me to this day...and I haven't done them since I was 19 years old.

Now I realize casual user probably won't go to those lengths...but it's very hard to stay a casual user of coke and speed etc.

When 16 year old Johnny develops a coke habit, working at pizza hut is not going to generate enough income to support his habit. He's going to steal or deal to support it.

I just want to meet the coke head that says he would never steal.

I can understand giving a young kid a break for dealing or using...and I believe the law does give him a break if he is a minor, and if he is a first time offender as an adult he is usually eligible for deferred adjudication.

But after that first time...no one is doing these guys any favors by going soft on them. I wasn't being done any favors all the times I got off.

The favor was my cop brother telling me he was bring me up on felony charges for drug trafficking if I didn't go into rehab.

Traffickers do deserve a stiff penalty if they are mutiple offenders...and these guys don't become big time traffickers just by chance...they usually have years of experience moving up to that level.

[whottt]

Also...on the subject of the amount of minorities in jail for drug trafficking...

I don't know where you guys live...but here in Texas...if you are hard up in the middle of the night and you want to get a dime bag of cheap weed, or a hit of crack, or bad x...etc...

You don't go out to the white suburbs to get it...you go over to the poor side of town, the black side of town, the mexican side of town, and you will invaribly find some poor dumb mother fucker standing on the side of the road selling it to total strangers.

And any of you guys that have ever done drugs know I am telling the truth.


It's not that more minorities deal, it's they way they deal. There are more of them that just deal to total strangers right off the street. Of course they are going to get busted more. It was kind of the same way in highschool also.

I only got busted dealing once and even that was by a family member moreso than law enforcement....but as a kid I got busted about 10 times going over to the poor side of town and scoring from one of these corner of the street dealers...and naturally the guy selling it to me got busted too, and got a lot stiffer punishment.

[Duff McCartney]

I agree with you in premise, though. Ideally, everything would be legal and regulated. But I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with the idea of people buying heroin from a convenience store and driving home.

Are you comfortable with the idea of somebody buying booze at a convenience store and driving home?

[exstatic]

The war on drugs makes as much sense as prohibition, and attracts the same criminal element, utlimately leading to lives being lost in criminal transactions to buy drugs. You should be free to flush your life down the toilet if you want.

As for driving while intoxicated, I would think that weed would impair you, but would argue that cocaine, as a stimulant, would probably improve some people's driving.

I would also argue that the money spent on the war on drugs could provide free drugs to anyone, and counseling/rehab for any who grow tired of it, and probably immediately eliminate 2/3 of the crime in the US.

[whottt]

The war on drugs makes as much sense as prohibition, and attracts the same criminal element, utlimately leading to lives being lost in criminal transactions to buy drugs. You should be free to flush your life down the toilet if you want.

You are free to flush your life down the toilet if you want...you are also free to spend the rest of your life in prison if you want.


As for driving while intoxicated, I would think that weed would impair you, but would argue that cocaine, as a stimulant, would probably improve some people's driving.

You could smoke 20lbs of weed and not be as impaired as someone who drinks 10 beers. And stimulants aren't a substitute for sleep.




I would also argue that the money spent on the war on drugs could provide free drugs to anyone, and counseling/rehab for any who grow tired of it, and probably immediately eliminate 2/3 of the crime in the US.

I agree with this to an extent...Pot probably should be legal(it should be legal before alcohol) and first time offenders should get counseling.

But to just let people continue to deal and use hard addictive drugs and say they are only hurting themselves...that is naive.

[exstatic]

But to just let people continue to deal and use hard addictive drugs and say they are only hurting themselves...that is naive.
If it's free or sold at the convenience store, there ARE no dealers. That would leave the users, who then truly ARE only hurting themselves.

[Guru of Nothing]

You could smoke 20lbs of weed and not be as impaired as someone who drinks 10 beers.

I disagree. I think the effects of drugs on individuals vary widely. I can drink 10 beers and not miss a beat; but, with the right weed, it's a scary proposition to put me behind the steering wheel.

[whottt]

You are right when talking about someone who may not be used to a certain drug.

But alcohol has much more of a cumulative effect, weed doesn't. That doesn't mean weed can't impair you at a dangerous level, but...alcohol's cumulative effect makes it much more dangerous IMO.

I believe that you can only get so stoned...but the more you drink, the drunker(and more dangerous) you will get...on top of that alcohol is physically and psychologically addictive, weed isn't.

[spurster]

I think that you should be free to do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else or their property and as long as I don't have to pay (too much)* for your mistakes.

*We should provide a helping hand to those who need it, but not throw good money after bad.

[desflood]

I think that you should be free to do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else or their property and as long as I don't have to pay (too much)* for your mistakes.

*We should provide a helping hand to those who need it, but not throw good money after bad.
I'll probably come off as abrasive for this, but I don't want to "help" somebody who makes the "mistake" of getting hooked on drugs. It's a choice they made, isn't it?

[SPARKY]

What's funny is that finding someone who will admit to being in favor of the 'war on drugs' nowadays seems to have the same odds as finding a German who would admit to being a Nazi in the aftermath of WW2. At least it seems that way.

Everyone claims to want people to be free to choose, yet we end up with the same policies again and again and again.

Why?

Tradition and Soccer Moms.

Social inertia is a tough nut to crack. Weed's illegal because it's always been illegal. While no one can give you specifics on what weed will do to you, everyone acts like if you smoke it your thing will fall off.

As for Soccer Moms, at some point we all have to come to the realization that our government caters to middle class people in their 40s and 50s living in the suburbs with 2.27 children. Suburban mothers are the easiest to scare about anything. What better than the prospect of random blacks and hispanics down at the middle school turning their Johnny into a weed smoking hippie or their Sue into a smack addicted trick?

I'd say that we could count on a change but please bear in mind that those people turning 60 today are the flower children of yesteryear. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Spurminator]

Are you comfortable with the idea of somebody buying booze at a convenience store and driving home?

The difference is that 99.9% of the time, the person buying the beer is taking it somewhere to drink it. Drug addiction is such that more people would shoot up as soon as they got in the car.

[Guru of Nothing]

I'll probably come off as abrasive for this, but I don't want to "help" somebody who makes the "mistake" of getting hooked on drugs. It's a choice they made, isn't it?

I'm curious .... Why would you not want to help someone hooked on drugs? It costs much more to prosecute and incarcerate individuals than it does to lend a helping hand.

[Duff McCartney]

The difference is that 99.9% of the time, the person buying the beer is taking it somewhere to drink it. Drug addiction is such that more people would shoot up as soon as they got in the car.

So is alcoholism.

[Guru of Nothing]

Tradition and Soccer Moms.



I'd add effeminate Protestant males to your list ... Seriously.


ETA: Kirk Cameron, for example.

[desflood]

You know, I think that mercy definitely has its place. But to choose to become addicted to drugs and then expect me to help you pay for your mistakes... can't say that helps anyone learn personal responsibility. Honestly, I'm just a big advocate of tough love. Now I suppose someone will say, "But nobody CHOOSES to become an addict." I don't buy that. Everyone who tries drugs knows that the risk of becoming addicted is there, and they do it anyway. And I agree it's the same for alcohol and tobacco.

[desflood]

Sorry, reading that back now it seems somewhat garbled and run-on - chalk it up to sleep deprivation.

[Guru of Nothing]

But to choose to become addicted to drugs and then expect me to help you pay for your mistakes... can't say that helps anyone learn personal responsibility.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you don't pay. Right, wrong or indifferent, you pay for someone's drug habits. I prefer the less expensive alternative.

[Spurminator]

So is alcoholism.

What is your argument? Do you think alcohol should be banned?

The only point I'm making is that you can't say that alcohol is more impairing than drugs based on gross statistics... because you have uneven variables. Alcohol is much more readily available than drugs are, and that is an easy explanation for why there are more alcohol-related accidents than drug-related.

Drugs, like alcohol, make people stupid. Stupid people are worse drivers than non-stupid people. It's a simple concept.

[Spurminator]

One thing that I agree with Bill Maher on.... I am comfortable with giving stupid people the right to kill themselves with whatever means they choose.

[desflood]

It is less expensive to send someone to rehab... until they get out and turn back to the stuff. If they get a good stiff punishment, they're less likely to go for it again. I don't know whether it's cheaper to send someone to prison once, or through rehab over and over and over.

[Guru of Nothing]

Speaking of famous comedian quotes, wasn't it Bill Hicks who said, "It's not a war unless two armies are fighting."? Paraphrasing further, the government is fighting a war, and the people who are stoned are winning.

Where is ASF when you need him?

[Spurminator]

It is less expensive to send someone to rehab... until they get out and turn back to the stuff. If they get a good stiff punishment, they're less likely to go for it again.

I'd be curious to see some kind of data to back this up. Do you really think prison is a better deterrent than rehab? What are you accomplishing by putting some kid with a joint in prison? Is it for him, or for you?

[Guru of Nothing]

It is less expensive to send someone to rehab... until they get out and turn back to the stuff. If they get a good stiff punishment, they're less likely to go for it again. I don't know whether it's cheaper to send someone to prison once, or through rehab over and over and over.

You and I make disparate assumptions. Not much I can say that will mean anything to you.

[desflood]

I'd be curious to see some kind of data to back this up. Do you really think prison is a better deterrent than rehab? What are you accomplishing by putting some kid with a joint in prison? Is it for him, or for you?
I guess it'd be for both of us. I'm one of Sparky's paranoid "soccer moms" who doesn't want that kid with a joint to pass it on to my kid. But more so than him, I'm worried about his older brother who's graduated to cocaine or higher (whoops, no pun intended). I'm sure you have also heard the many "scientific reports" that state marijuana leads to harder drugs eventually.

[Spurminator]

The assertion that marijuana ITSELF "leads" to harder drugs is a fallacy. People who smoke marijuana are more likely to also do harder drugs than people who don't smoke marijuana. It's not because of the marijuana. It's because of the person. Blaming it on the drug completely ignores personal responsibility and choice. It's like saying that listening to Alternative Music leads to skateboarding.

I sympathize with your concern for your kids, but speaking as someone who was in high school less than ten years ago, I can tell you that if your kid wants to try marijuana he can and will. The best you can hope to do as a parent is to make sure he doesn't want to try it. But the Law won't stop him. The only thing the Law will do is fine him after the fact or, when he's older, throw him in prison for longer than he needs to be there.

[Guru of Nothing]

I guess it'd be for both of us. I'm one of Sparky's paranoid "soccer moms" who doesn't want that kid with a joint to pass it on to my kid. But more so than him, I'm worried about his older brother who's graduated to cocaine or higher (whoops, no pun intended). I'm sure you have also heard the many "scientific reports" that state marijuana leads to harder drugs eventually.


What if it is YOUR kid passing the joint to another soccer mom's kid? Don't set yourself up for irony.

[SPARKY]

I don't believe kids should be using drugs (incl alcohol for that matter). If you want to get in your kid's face about drug use then by all means I applaud that.

[desflood]

I wasn't in high school that long ago either. Neither my husband nor I have ever tried any kind of drugs (and we're truly the only couple we know who can say that). And being a stay-at-home parent, I'm a lot more involved in my kids' lives than most parents now. Odds are, it won't be my kids. Shit, that sounds holier-than-thou, huh :lol But, you get my idea.

[Spurminator]

I should point out that I would be in favor of the same age limits for drugs that apply to alcohol... So really, "kids" wouldn't come into the equation as much.

[desflood]

And if it is my kid with the joint, a night in the local jail would be a powerful deterrent (?) against ever doing it again.

[Spurminator]

And being a stay-at-home parent, I'm a lot more involved in my kids' lives than most parents now. Odds are, it won't be my kids.

I respect that. My mother also stayed at home.

But... I smoked a fair amount of pot in high school. And she didn't know until about a year ago when I told her.

[Guru of Nothing]

Odds are, it won't be my kids.

nuff said

[Experiment2100]

I should point out that I would be in favor of the same age limits for drugs that apply to alcohol... So really, "kids" wouldn't come into the equation as much.

And it's oh so hard for underage people to get alchohol.

[timvp]

Everyone always talks about how they would legalize drugs, but I hardly ever hear a plan that makes sense. If I was put in charge, I'd do something like this:

1) Setup little shops with a name like "Drugs R Us" or "Drug-Mart" or something corny.

2) The people that come in to buy drugs are searched for any weapons or anything of the sort.

3) The person then goes and signs up and joins and gets there little membership card.

4) If it's the person's first time, they are forced into watching a one-hour movie regarding the dangers of drugs and what it can do to them and their family. They must watch this movie once per year.

5) They are then sold the drugs of their choice at very reasonable prices. They are given the drugs, but they must consume the drugs there. In the back, there can be a tv, popcorn, lava lamps and all the other essentials.

6) Once they sober back up, they are allowed to leave.

7) Next day, repeat if that's what they want to do.

If you take out the monopoly the street has on drugs, you can lower the prices drastically. You can then also avoid too much smuggling onto the streets because I'm not so sure a crack head will spend the extra money buying it from the guy on the corner.

Also, by making it this sterile, you'd take most of the allure of drugs away. IMO, most get into drugs to try to be cool or fit in with a crowd. If you take out the coolness of it, you'd have a lot less users ... especially young users.

Would something like that work? Why or why not?

[Spurminator]

Why does alcohol keep surfacing in the argument?

I'm talking about the legalization of drugs for adults. I've never suggested this would keep drugs out of kids' hands.

[SPARKY]

Yeah, it would definitely have to start off in such a manner. I would also say that any drug legalization would have to start off with the weaker drugs, so weed would go first (this country seems to be on that path, albeit slowly).

[Experiment2100]

Why does alcohol keep surfacing in the argument?

I'm talking about the legalization of drugs for adults. I've never suggested this would keep drugs out of kids' hands.

Simple it's accessibility, alchohol is only legal for adults, yet it continualy finds it's way into younger society. Alchohol keeps popping up because it's the only example of something once illegal turned legal.

[Spurminator]

The kinds of regulations I would impose would target the manufacturers. The FDA would maintain a relatively safe potency level for anything sold commercially. Sure, there would always be some hard shit on the street... but it would be minimal.

Aside from that, drug laws would be basically the same as alcohol laws. No driving, no drugs in the car, age limits, etc.

[SPARKY]

Yeah, it's hard to keep kids from getting access to alcohol but most of the time that's due to parental negligence (or encouragement even).

[Spurminator]

Alchohol keeps popping up because it's the only example of something once illegal turned legal.

So are you advocating prohibition?

[SPARKY]

I brought up alcohol as an example because it is a substance that is addictive, routinely abused by millions of Americans, the use of which results in substantial economic and emotional cost, and is legal for adults but not for kids.

What a weird society we live in. A substance that people can ingest and leads to all kinds of problems is legal yet weed, a substance that tends to turn people into relaxed hungry homebodies has a war waged against it.

[Spurminator]

But then we're back to the effects of alcohol being similar to the effects of drugs... and the question posed earlier as to why one is legal and the other is not.

[Experiment2100]

So are you advocating prohibition?

Of drugs yes. You aksed why Alchohol keeps popping up in this argument. It was once illegal, now it's legal. Can you think of any other substance which was changed from illegal to legal that we can compare this legalize drug argument with?

[timvp]

The only reason alcohol is legal is because big business and the government makes billions off of drunk people. The time weed will be legalized will be when they can figure out how to make money off of it.

[SPARKY]

Ok I just had a glass and a half of Chardonnay now I want to go fuck someone up. Actually I do feel a little more angry.

[timvp]

Indeed.

:smokin

[Spurminator]

You aksed why Alchohol keeps popping up in this argument. It was once illegal, now it's legal. Can you think of any other substance which was changed from illegal to legal that we can compare this legalize drug argument with?

But you're bringing up alcohol as a means to argue AGAINST the legalization of drugs. Why is that?

[timvp]

You guys are wrong if you don't think dealing and using drugs affects anyone else, presents a danger to society, or is a serious crime.

And as a former drug dealer and reformed drug addict I speak from experience here.

When I was using and dealing(and dealt to support my habit), I carried weapons, I fought with people, I stole from my family and others, and I was a fucking scumbag. And I was damn middle class kid from the suburbs, you can imagine what things someone from a more desperate background would be willing to do to protect himself or support his habit.


And many of the psychological effects of these drugs are still with me to this day...and I haven't done them since I was 19 years old.

Now I realize casual user probably won't go to those lengths...but it's very hard to stay a casual user of coke and speed etc.

When 16 year old Johnny develops a coke habit, working at pizza hut is not going to generate enough income to support his habit. He's going to steal or deal to support it.

I just want to meet the coke head that says he would never steal.

I can understand giving a young kid a break for dealing or using...and I believe the law does give him a break if he is a minor, and if he is a first time offender as an adult he is usually eligible for deferred adjudication.

But after that first time...no one is doing these guys any favors by going soft on them. I wasn't being done any favors all the times I got off.

The favor was my cop brother telling me he was bring me up on felony charges for drug trafficking if I didn't go into rehab.

Traffickers do deserve a stiff penalty if they are mutiple offenders...and these guys don't become big time traffickers just by chance...they usually have years of experience moving up to that level.

Interesting.

Do you remember got you into drugs in the first place? Was it trying to be cool, peer pressure, curiousity or what?

[SPARKY]

I think weed is a weak drug that is illegal due to illegitimate concerns. The harder stuff does come with a good argument given what it can do to people.

timvp's on to something. If weed was legalized and regulated and people were free to enjoy a puff at night to take the edge off the day instead of a Bud (in a wonderful Red, White, and Blue themed can no less) or two would the almighty A-B want that?

I mean at least that would be a real way to relax instead of trying to get a stiffy while thinking about Janet's fake boobie.

[Experiment2100]

But you're bringing up alcohol as a means to argue AGAINST the legalization of drugs. Why is that?


I originally brought alchohol up just to show how easily accessible it was to underage people. Legalize drugs it's that much easier.

As for why it isn't legal, especially marijuana, someone else brought it up. Gov. can't regulate it so it doesn't benefit the gov. to legalize it.

[SPARKY]

I will say that the moment weed is legalized, I will start producing joints in red, white, and blue ringed paper with "BUD" stamped right across it. Then I will run ads thanking military people for being military people. I'd give them free access to all the free BUD they want.

[Spurminator]

I originally brought alchohol up just to show how easily accessible it was to underage people. Legalize drugs it's that much easier.

Okay, I see now. I've just never been in favor of banning adult indulgences to protect kids from themselves.


Gov. can't regulate it so it doesn't benefit the gov. to legalize it.

Actually, it would benefit the government to legalize it because then they COULD regulate it. And tax it.

[SPARKY]

I originally brought alchohol up just to show how easily accessible it was to underage people. Legalize drugs it's that much easier.

As for why it isn't legal, especially marijuana, someone else brought it up. Gov. can't regulate it so it doesn't benefit the gov. to legalize it.


If legal, governments can regulate it just like anything else.

[Experiment2100]

Actually, it would benefit the government to legalize it because then they COULD regulate it. And tax it.

You can't grow beer in your backyard.

[Spurminator]

They can regulate whether or not you're allowed to grow it in your back yard.

[Nbadan]

You can't grow beer in your backyard.

You can buy a home distillery kit and all the neccessary ingredients and make your own booze though.

Pot should be decriminalized, but the billions it generates doesn't go to fund just drug barons in South and Central America.

[Experiment2100]

How could they justify making it illegal to produce?

[Spurminator]

Because if you're producing it without a license to sell it, your sales can't be regulated... for example, to make sure you're not selling it to minors.

[Experiment2100]

And if you don't sell it? As Dan pointed out you can buy a distillery and make your own beer. If that's legal why would growing marijuana not be.

[Spurminator]

I was just suggesting that as a way of regulating its production... If it were my choice, I wouldn't make it illegal to produce. But if your standard for successful government regulation is whether or not they can prevent someone from producing marijuana, then it can be said that the government is equally ineffective at regulating alcohol because it can also be produced. Yet alcohol is legal.

[Nbadan]

As for why it isn't legal, especially marijuana, someone else brought it up. Gov. can't regulate it so it doesn't benefit the gov. to legalize it.

Much like with cigars smokers, people who smoke pot regularly appreciated quality. If it was legal to do so, and you had the time, sure you could grow small amounts of kind-bud or whatever to feed your own habit, but by in large part most people, being creatures of habit, are probably gonna tend to buy the name-brands that would pop up if it was sold legally with a adult prescription or under heavy State and Federal regulation (like acohol). Since the cost to produce the product is so inexpensive, most of the cost would be a windfall for the government. Money that can be used to help treat recovering alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally-ill, and those who lack basic health insurance.

[Experiment2100]

I was just suggesting that as a way of regulating its production... If it were my choice, I wouldn't make it illegal to produce. But if that's your standard, then we're back to the question of why it's okay for alcohol but not marijuana?

Simple, one can make his own beer if he wants to devote the time and money to it. However in the long run it's cheaper, more efficient and safer to just buy it. However, if one wants to make marijuana, which is a thing that goes from the ground, you may spend 10 minutes a planting it and 15 minues max a day watering it. If the gov. taxes MJ up the ass ala cigs. Then I may just grow my own. Gov. can't regulate something so easily manufacturable.

[timvp]

Simple, one can make his own beer if he wants to devote the time and money to it. However in the long run it's cheaper, more efficient and safer to just buy it. However, if one wants to make marijuana, which is a thing that goes from the ground, you may spend 10 minutes a planting it and 15 minues max a day watering it. If the gov. taxes MJ up the ass ala cigs. Then I may just grow my own. Gov. can't regulate something so easily manufacturable.

Well in my scenario, it'd be illegal to consume off the designated properties. And I think that'd hold up if you keep the weed prices/quality good. Why grow your own and risk jail time if you can just go get some for cheaper?

Sure it's not a perfect system, but it's main purpose is to cut down on the deaths and numerous jail sentences associated with drugs. If some guy has a pot plant growing in his basement for his own use, it'd be low on the priorities to bust down his door and throw away his plant.

[Experiment2100]

Much like with cigars smokers, people who smoke pot regularly appreciated quality. If it was legal to do so, and you had the time, sure you could grow small amounts of kind-bud or whatever to feed your own habit, but by in large part most people, being creatures of habit, are probably gonna tend to buy the name-brands that would pop up if it was sold legally with a adult prescription or under heavy State and Federal regulation (like acohol). Since the cost to produce the product is so inexpensive, most of the cost would be a windfall for the government. Money that can be used to help treat recovering alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally-ill, and those who lack basic health insurance.


That's a nightmare. There are currently over 300 ingredients added to cigarrettesincrease "flavor". For the love of God they put cyanide in it. If it's legal Lord knows what would be added to it, and how it would react to those changes.

[Experiment2100]

Well in my scenario, it'd be illegal to consume off the designated properties. And I think that'd hold up if you keep the weed prices/quality good. Why grow your own and risk jail time if you can just go get some for cheaper?

Sure it's not a perfect system, but it's main purpose is to cut down on the deaths and numerous jail sentences associated with drugs. If some guy has a pot plant growing in his basement for his own use, it'd be low on the priorities to bust down his door and throw away his plant.

How big of an area are we talking about here?

[timvp]

Hell, you can make dope amusement parks. Have it regulated but not controlled by the government and those in the private sector will fight over making the best weed hut with the lowest prices and the best entertainment.

[Experiment2100]

Then there are many variables to consider. Do you really want people hopped up on drugs so close to each other? Prostitution and rape come to mind immediately. If this place gets full do you really expect the addicts to take a number and wait.

[Nbadan]

That's a nightmare. There are currently over 300 ingredients added to cigarrettesincrease "flavor". For the love of God they put cyanide in it. If it's legal Lord knows what would be added to it, and how it would react to those changes.

Actually, if you think about it a filter on a joint, like those stoogies you always see Rap Stars smoking is probably much safer than a regular joint, and much like with cigar tobacco, scientists today could theoretically genetically manipulate the pot seed to produce exotic tastes like Honey, Vanilla or Cinnimon and also regulate the THC content in the process. I'm surprised growers and smugglers haven't thought of producing odor-less weed, but it's probably just as easy and efficient to smuggle the regular stuff right now anyway.

[Experiment2100]

Actually, if you think about it a filter on a joint, like those stoogies you always see Rap Stars smoking is probably much safer than a regular joint, and much like with cigar tobacco, scientists today could theoretically genetically manipulate the pot seed to produce exotic tastes like Honey, Vanilla or Cinnimon and also regulate the THC content in the process. I'm surprised growers and smugglers haven't thought of producing odor-less weed, but it's probably just as easy and efficient to smuggle the regular stuff right now anyway.

I would have to agree with the last sentence.

[whottt]

Interesting.

Do you remember got you into drugs in the first place? Was it trying to be cool, peer pressure, curiousity or what?

It was environmental...the era, the neighborhood I grew up in, and the friends I had. I had a very glamourized perception of drugs. I thought they would be fun to do, as well as enlightening. I honestly thought the people that had their act together did drugs.

I am all for legalizing pot even though I don't smoke it any more.

But I don't understand how anyone that has ever done the hard drugs can say it'd be fine just to sell these and no one will be hurting anyone but themselves.

Those hard drugs fuck your head up. If you do them there are times when you have no clue what the hell you are doing. They make you mentally and emotionally unstable. Not only that but there is substantial evidence that children of longterm drug abusers have mutated brain development.

These are not something that should just be thrown out there for public consumption.

IMO to begin with...anything that is physically addictive ought to be illegal for anything other than medicinal purposes. It should never be made legal.

What is the point of creating a bunch of addicts?


The fact that we can't control illegal trafficking and selling of these drugs doesn't mean we should make them legal...I mean we aren't ever going to stop spouse abuse, rape and murder either, that doesn't mean we should legalize them.

I know...but drugs don't hurt anyone but the user...well it just isn't true. Not with hard drugs...they are the sort of thing that will destroy the fabric of a society and frankly the person on them isn't always in control of what he is doing.

[MannyIsGod]

Not to be rude, but your posts reek of fear and ignorance Experiment2100.

The policy put into effect right now as it stands with Marijuana is ludicris.

For starters, the legitimate health value it has is never taken into account. There are far more prescription drugs on the market which are more than legal and have far worse side effects than any joint will ever have. However, when you have a powerful industry with companies such as Merck and Pfizer none of that really matters.

Anyhow, almost a year ago there was a study done by the UC of Santa Cruz comparing marijuana use in San Fransisco and Amsterdam. Here is some of what they found:


• The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco

• The mean age at which respondents began using marijuana more than once per month was 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.

• In both cities, users began their periods of maximum use about 2 years after they began regular use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98 years in San Francisco.

• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.

• Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=1164


Your stance also doesn't take into account how poor areas are effected by drug prohibition. Go into a neighborhood on the eastside or westside and tell me what the most profitable job for a 16 year old is. It's not working at McDonalds. It's slinging rock on the corner.

The price we pay for saving the children of the middle class from supposed higher levels of exposure to illegal drugs is paid much by the children of the ghettos.

[Nbadan]

Your stance also doesn't take into account how poor areas are effected by drug prohibition. Go into a neighborhood on the eastside or westside and tell me what the most profitable job for a 16 year old is. It's not working at McDonalds. It's slinging rock on the corner.

The price we pay for saving the children of the middle class from supposed higher levels of exposure to illegal drugs is paid much by the children of the ghettos.

Really hard drugs like coke and meth should remain illegal, but to many valuable resources seem to be wasted arresting druggies with a baggie of pot rather than hard-core drug abusers who lie cheat and steal to support their self-destructive habits.

Maybe a approach like that in Oregon where those caught with up to a ounce of pot are given a simple summons, like a traffic ticket, and later fined would work.

[Nbadan]

Are you a pothead? - Jack Walsh, Meet the Parents (http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-184.htm)

Whoa, remember pot? (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/supercoolpicillusion.html)

[whottt]

I've never thought weed stays illegal because the government can't regulate it...I mean, it if was legal they'd be able to regulate it and make money off of it a hell of a lot better than they can with it being illegal.

I've always thought it has stayed illegal because the alcohol companies don't want anyone taking a bite out of their market share.

[JoeChalupa]

Personally I don't have a problem with the war on drugs although I do think of the punishments are harsh...for pot that is.
I've experimented with drugs but found weed is all I need if I want to kick up my beer buzz a notch.
I think cocaine, smack, exstasy, meth and all that other crap needs to go away. But then again I know many will say that pot leads to cocaine which leads to smack which leads to a life of addiction....and for some that is true.

I don't want my kids doing drugs so that makes me a hypocrite right?

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/mad-science/timothy-leary/Cwithleary3.gif

[spurster]

On marijuana growing:

Where I grew up , it is a weed that grows quite well in tree groves. The natural weed doesn't have much potency (of course that is what I'm told, certainly you wouldn't think I performed my own experiments), but I don't think that would be hard to change.

[bigzak25]

i try to kill as much weed as possible and get it off the streets....so i'm doing my part. :smokin

[ididnotnothat]

Isn't it already dead before you fire it up?

[exstatic]

The price we pay for saving the children of the middle class from supposed higher levels of exposure to illegal drugs is paid much by the children of the ghettos.
Great point, Manny. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to drive, live, or attend school in any part of town without fear?
As for other drugs, keeping them illegal still leaves the underground, the gang monopoly and the violence in place. Make them legal. Offer them at cost. Give people counseling and rehab any time they want it. It's STILL cheaper than the war on drugs, which is accomplishing exactly zero, except setting up entreprenurial opportunities for gangs.

What many (although not all) of you are missing is the allure of the illegal or dangerous to the youth culture. Make it legal, make it so you can go get it with everyone else, and it loses probably 90% of it's appeal. My mother learned these tactics years ago. If she didn't like a BF that one of my sister's brought home, all she had to do was be nice to him, and tell sis that he's a "nice young man". He wasn't seen much after that, if at all.

You have to end the violence if this country has any hope to go forward together as a total nation, and the only way to do that is total legality, albeit regulated and taxed. Shit, if they sold Mary Jane smokes OTC, they could probably elminate the national debt in 20 years.

[timvp]

What many (although not all) of you are missing is the allure of the illegal or dangerous to the youth culture. Make it legal, make it so you can go get it with everyone else, and it loses probably 90% of it's appeal.

Yep.

Most everyone I've ever asked has indicated they started taking drugs to fit in or be "cool". If you regulate it and make it legal, most people would drop it or never try it because it wouldn't be the hip thing to do.

[Spurminator]

Well, I don't know about that...

It would still be a way to rebel against parents. And there would likely be age limits, so they'd still be breaking the law to some degree.

Drug experimentation would almost certainly increase, but I think the problems we currently have outweigh the possibility of kids trying drugs.

[Clandestino]

i don't think legalizing drugs would cause more people not to use them.. it may rid our prisons of a lot petty criminals, but people will use drugs whether they are legal or not..

[Experiment2100]

Not to be rude, but your posts reek of fear and ignorance Experiment2100.




I don't think people are understanding what I'm saying here, I could care less what the hell is made legal. Though I do agree on banning the hard stuff. What I'm saying is the gov. does in no way benefit from legalizing marijuana. People, maybe but the gov. itself doesn't gain monetarily because of how easy it is to make. Also more importantly, Potheads don't vote, when they represent a higher percentage of constituency maybe then, but right now it doesn't benefit the gov.

[SPARKY]

A thing of interest is that despite the overwhelming sentiment expressed by a majority of posters in this thread for some form of drug legalization it still seems highly unlikely that any such legalization will occur anytime soon.

Yes, there are the medicinal marijuana efforts but to me that really doesn't count.

[MannyIsGod]

Alaska's attempt to legalize it outright fell on it's face.

I would argue that the majority of posters in this forum do not present a similar demographic as the general population. Posters in a forum such as this tend to be of a higher education and intellect than the average person off the street.

In otherwords, Average Joe is too damn stupid to realize what it actually going on. It's a condescending view but it's also an honest one.

[SPARKY]

Well, in general it seems that the overriding sentiment among people I know and they represent a wide variety of lifestyles, socioeconomic strata, etc....is for some kind of legalization.

[Spurminator]

I think a lot of people vote for what they want instead of what they think (if they choose to think about it) is right.

Not that some people aren't legitimately against legalization. But I think a lot of people, if they were forced to really discuss the issue, would tell you that (marijuana at least) should probably be legalized. They just don't want it to be, so they vote against it.

[bigzak25]

i've said before i'm against the legalization of maryjane. i think it makes it easier for kids to get a hold of it. anyone who really wants it now can get it anyway, so the only law change that i wouldn't mind seeing is giving a ticket in texas instead of jailtime for under an ounce of weed in the car. that way, mouse won't be so effin paranoid all the gotdam time....

[Spurminator]

I just think there's something fundamentally wrong with throwing an adult in jail for doing something that is only illegal because we don't want kids doing it. You know what I mean? Just make it illegal for the kids. No, it won't keep it out of kids' hands and yes, it would probably make access easier... but I think in the long run it's a fair price to pay for giving adults the right to entertain themselves in a fashion that (itself) is not really harmful to anyone else.

[Experiment2100]

It's illegal, people shouldn't pick which laws to follow. Nobody forces anyone to start smoking, and when they start they know it's illegal.

[MannyIsGod]

Well Jaywalking is illegal too, but people dont' get jailtime for that now do they?

[Spurminator]

It's illegal, people shouldn't pick which laws to follow. Nobody forces anyone to start smoking, and when they start they know it's illegal.

Yes, and I'm talking about making it legal. So then it wouldn't be illegal.

[Bandit2981]

the great quote from the late Libertarian Political Director Ron Crickenberger needs to be dusted off again:
"If the government can't keep drugs away from inmates who are locked in steel cages, surrounded by barbed wire, watched by armed guards, drug-tested, strip-searched, X-rayed, and videotaped -- how can it possibly stop the flow of drugs to an entire nation?"

[NameDropper]

Yep.

Most everyone I've ever asked has indicated they started taking drugs to fit in or be "cool". If you regulate it and make it legal, most people would drop it or never try it because it wouldn't be the hip thing to do.

I didn't try weed to be cool but I did hear rumors that some did.

I guess it's like wearing your pants down below your ass is cool to some so they start wearing their pants that way too and soon everybody is doing it?

I don't buy that peer pressure crap. You and only you are in control unless someone is shoving a crack pipe down your throat.

Many try it and never do it again...same with beer, porn, smoking, oral sex.

[NameDropper]

I think adultery is against the law in about half the States too!!

[SpursWoman]

n/m ...

[exstatic]

OK, I'll amend my statement, SW.

That would leave the users, who then truly ARE only hurting themselves, and possibly their families, much like alcohol abusers.

That still subtracts all of the convenience store operators, liquor store cashiers, pawn brokers, and general passersby who get shot directly for drug money or drug turf wars. Drugs were illegal, SW, and your ex still managed to get them, probably causing a chain of pain that reached FAR beyond your immediate family.

People are going to get drugs, no matter what. We see that. They are going to flush their lives away. What we have to decide is what will be the effect on the rest of society. Are we going continue to foster these inner city DMZs, run and controlled by gangs where people can't live safely and children don't care about an education, because as Manny says, the best job is flingin' rock?

If you have a blob of clay, and you hold it gently in your hand like an egg, you maintain control of the clay. If you squeeze as hard as you can, most of the clay seeps between your fingers, and is lost. We are squeezing the clay.

[SPARKY]

Shouldn't adults have the right to choose to screw up their life?

[whottt]

Shouldn't adults have the right to choose to screw up their life?

They do...they can choose to do drugs and go to jail for it...

I think you are being just a tad shortsighted...I don't think an adult has a right to go around addicted to crack and heroin if they have a child that is dependent upon them.

Since their judgement is impaired I don't think they should have access to the roads that people who don't want to screw up their lives drive on.

[NameDropper]

I wonder how many drivers on the road are loaded up on prescription drugs.

Seems like half the people I know are on some type of pill.

[whottt]

I wonder how many drivers on the road are loaded up on prescription drugs.

Seems like half the people I know are on some type of pill.

Right, and if they get pulled over or cause an accident while driving impaired under the influence of those drugs...it is a crime. It is a dui.

You get pulled over and you are zonked out on vicadin or xanax and you will get popped for it.

But I'd argue that even those drugs don't have the impairing impact on your senses, judgement, and driving ability that say...heroin, X, LSD or Shrooms will have.

I mean you just have to realize that there are certain drugs that you take even at small amounts that render you are no longer capable of making rational or sound decisions.


Although I gotta admit...shrooms were fun, with no lasting side effects and organic! It somehow seems wrong to make them illegal. Maybe if you give up your drivers licence you can do them legally.

[whottt]

Ok, I'm at legalizing Weed and Shrooms(with bigtime restrictions)...this gives the American people a legal form of relaxant and hallucenogenic that are both all natural and organic...And truly shrooms will kick the living crap out of LSD if you eat enough of them.

Now we just have find a legal heavy duty stimulant...maybe we should allow coca plants...

Then make everything else illegal.

All the opiates should remain illegal as they are too addictive and many prescription drugs can give you the same effect with less chance of addiction.

[IcemanCometh]

war on drugs? thats so 90's we already bombed the fuck out of them. We one that war don't you know, I mean its never on the news anymore. Now we got the war on terror being fought by the same policy makers.

[JoeChalupa]

Right, and if they get pulled over or cause an accident while driving impaired under the influence of those drugs...it is a crime. It is a dui.

You get pulled over and you are zonked out on vicadin or xanax and you will get popped for it.

But I'd argue that even those drugs don't have the impairing impact on your senses, judgement, and driving ability that say...heroin, X, LSD or Shrooms will have.

I mean you just have to realize that there are certain drugs that you take even at small amounts that render you are no longer capable of making rational or sound decisions.


Although I gotta admit...shrooms were fun, with no lasting side effects and organic! It somehow seems wrong to make them illegal. Maybe if you give up your drivers licence you can do them legally.

I agree that shrooms were fun.

[MannyIsGod]

Lets be real. There's one reason these things are illegal, and ithas nothing to do with protecting people.

It's all about protecting certain Big Business

[ClintSquint]

http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/josauce/mrweed.jpg

[Winehole23]

When black markets occur for legal commodities - especially ones that don't get you high - it's an indictment of government-sanctioned oligopolies controlling distribution and price. Drug companies on the US side are making a fortune from this over-charging, subsidized by friendly government regulators and now gun wielding law enforcement officers. Don't police have anything better to do than arrest folks for getting legal, prescribed drugs to sick people who need them at a cost they can actually afford?http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2014/02/dallas-buyers-club-concept-metastasizes.html

[boutons_deux]

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2014/02/dallas-buyers-club-concept-metastasizes.html

Just another way Americans are screwed out of $Ts.

Other countries' national health systems buy US/UK/Swiss drugs as "single buyer" and screw down the prices way below what American suckers pay.

btw, there's no stopping the ripoff. Repugs even passed REGULATIONS to force US govt not to negotiate drug, device prices.

[Winehole23]

btw, there's no stopping the ripoff. Repugs even passed REGULATIONS to force US govt not to negotiate drug, device prices.if a law had to be passed to make it so, the reverse can happen.

[boutons_deux]

if a law had to be passed to make it so, the reverse can happen.

the regulation was to transfer taxpayer wealth to the corporations, who paid for the regulation, and who will pay MUCH more to keep the regulation in place.

same is true of Repugs' Medicare Advantage, which costs 10%+ more than Medicare. Repugs screaming, as paid to do, that ACA/Obama cuts Medicare when in fact it cuts only Medicare Advantage.

I read an article yesterday that said lobbying is $3B to $9B annual operation.

"Official pronouncement of the lobbyist’s death came today at the Washington Court Hotel during the annual meeting of the American League of Lobbyists, henceforth known as the Association of Government Relations Professionals."

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/11/21/13799/lobbyist-dead

[Chewbacca]

i try to kill as much weed as possible and get it off the streets....so i'm doing my part. :smokin

:lol

[boutons_deux]

DEA Gets Unchecked Access To Call Records; Taught To Lie About Where They Got Them

from the your-due-process-is-no-match-for-our-Drug-War dept

Shortly after the Snowden leaks began exposing the NSA's massive collection efforts, the New York Times uncovered the DEA's direct access (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130901/23253224379/att-has-employees-embedded-govt-providing-near-realtime-searches-nearly-every-phone-call.shtml) to AT&T telecom switches (via non-government employee "analysts" working for AT&T), from which it and other law enforcement agencies were able to gather phone call and location data.

Unlike the NSA's bulk records programs (which are limited to holding five years worth of data), the Hemisphere database stretches back to 1987 and advertises instant access to "10 years of records." And unlike the NSA's program, there's not even the slightest bit of oversight. All law enforcement needs to run a search of the Hemisphere database is an administrative subpoena -- a piece of paper roughly equivalent to calling up Hemisphere analysts and asking them to run a few numbers. Administrative subpoenas are only subject to the oversight of the agency issuing them.

It's highly unlikely these administrative subpoenas are stored (where they could be accessed as public records) considering the constant emphasis placed on parallel construction in the documents (https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/telecom-cooperation-with-philadelphiacamden-hidta-6608/#1212961-responsive-documents) obtained by Dustin Slaughter (https://www.muckrock.com/accounts/profile/DustinSlaughter/) of MuckRock -- documents it took the DEA ten months to turn over.

Unlike the documents obtained by the New York Times (possibly inadvertently), these do contain a few redactions, including some apparent success stories compiled at the end of the presentation. But like the earlier documents, the documents show that the DEA and law enforcement have unchecked access to a database that agents and officers are never allowed to talk about -- not even inside a courtroom.


It is expected that all Hemisphere requests will be paralleled with a subpoena for CDRs from the official carrier for evidentiary purposes.

It's spelled out more explicitly on a later slide, listed under "Official Reporting."

DO NOT mention Hemisphere in any official reports or court documents.

Judging from the request date, it would appear that this version of the Hemisphere presentation possibly precedes the New York Times' version. However, this one does not name the cooperating telco, although that appears to be a deliberate choice of the person writing the presentation, rather than due to redaction. At one point the document declares Hemisphere can access records "regardless of carrier," but later clarifies that it will only gather info that crosses certain telecom switches -- most likely AT&T's. Additional subpoenas will be needed to gather info from other carriers, as well as to obtain subscriber information linked to searched numbers. This small limitation plays right into the DEA's insistence that Hemisphere be "walled off" from defendants, court systems and the public.

If exigent circumstances make parallel construction difficult, Hemisphere analysts (non-government liaisons within the telco) will "continue to work with the investigator throughout the entire prosecution process in order to ensure the integrity of Hemisphere and the case at hand." Analysts are allowed to advise investigators on report writing, presentations to prosecutors and issues occurring during the trial phase. The word "integrity" seems out of place when it describes non-government employees assisting government agencies in hiding the origin of evidence from other government agencies.

Cross-referencing what's been redacted in this one with the unredacted document published earlier, it appears as though the DEA is trying to (belatedly) hide the fact that its Hemisphere can also search IMSI and IMEI data (for wireless connections). Although this document states (after a long redaction) that Hemisphere does not collect subscriber information, that's only partially true. As of July 2012, subscriber information for AT&T customers can be obtained from the database. This information may have been redacted or it may be that this presentation pre-dates this added ability.

What this shows is that the DEA has access to loads of information and a policy of "parallel construction in all things." Tons of other government agencies, including the NSA, FBI and CIA arefunneling information (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130805/10035024070/dea-not-only-gets-intelligence-data-then-is-instructed-to-cover-up-where-it-gets-info.shtml) to the DEA and instructing it to hide the origin. The DEA then demands law enforcement agencies around the nation to do the same thing. This stacks the deck against defendants, who are "walled off" from the chain of evidence, preventing them from challenging sources, methods or the integrity of the evidence itself.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140708/10063027815/more-hemisphere-documents-show-drug-warriors-getting-unchecked-access-to-call-records-lying-about-where-they-got-them.shtml

If only the cops, FBI, CIA, NSA would go after corporate and personal criminal tax evaders with the same tactics.