Why We Should Legalize Drugs

[Tarlam!]

The lessions of Prohibition.

I am as Anti-Drugs as you can get. In fact, I only start this thread, because of something 007 wrote on the JJ thread...

The free world is at war with drug lords and, it is not really winning. In Afganistan, Poppy is the main source of agricultural income. Same in Thailand. Same in ´much of LATAM. My guess is, Africa will be next.

So, let's legalize it, industrialize it, make it affordanle. Like cigarettes and and alchohol.

The criminal energy will evapourate and we can begin to erradicate it over generations, just like nicotine consuption, and control it, just like alchohol abuse.

Keeping it illegal only reinvents the Al Caponesqe types of this world. It let's our kids shoot up heroin laced with other ingredients, like battery acid.

Let's sell safe ecxtasy (Spe?). Then we can regulate it.

[MJZiggy]

and control it, just like alchohol abuse.


We control alcohol abuse? We're better than I thought.

[BallHawk]

Places like Spain and the Netherlands have basically made Marijuana legal, and even sell it publicly, in small amounts.

However, the problem with legalizing pot, or any drug, is you are allowing any drug. Cocaine, heroin, Meth, pot, etc.

Smoking a cigerette while behind the wheel isn't going to make you a worse driver. Any other drug can. And I know that there are reports about Pot being no more harmful then (insert item here) but it's just too stupid to risk legalizing it.

[Joemailman]

It would take a change of biblical proportions in our politics for drugs to be legalized. Any elected official who suggests it would be ostracized. We can't even get marijuana legalized to help people to deal with chemotherapy. What we should be doing is moving in the direction of decriminalizing it. Too many people with a drug problem are doing time instead of receiving the kind of treatment they need. In many parts of the country however, to suggest even this would get someone labeled as "soft on crime".

[MJZiggy]

I thought Cali and a few other places on the west coast had already decriminalized pot (any other drugs will face a much tougher battle.)

[Tarlam!]

I never suggested pot/crack/coke/x.t.c/smack behind the wheel was any more acceptible than Johnny Walker behind the wheel.

Indeed, my suggestion permits laws against that type of behaviour without making consumption illegal per sé.

Nobody has benefits from the current situation, apart from the bad guys, including corrupt law enforcement representatives.

The good guys are not winning.

[Patler]

Nobody has benefits from the current situation, apart from the bad guys, including corrupt law enforcement representatives.

The good guys are not winning.

You've got that right!

Generally speaking, criminalizing most personal activities doesn't remove the activity from society, it just makes the activity highly profitable for those who supply it.

Its been many years since I was last in Amsterdam, but at the time there was a park that addicts were directed to at night. The worst of the addicts were simply supplied with free drugs by the state so they would not rob and steal to support their habit. Each morning at sunrise they patroled the park to pick up needles and bodies before the general population arose. The government claimed it was a humane way of handling the problem, and maybe it was. They claimed drug based crime was minimal..

[packinpatland]

The pot of yesterday is not the pot of today, the stuff smoked back 20-30 years ago was mild compared to the 'new improved', most often laced versions out there today. How could that be controlled?

[Patler]

The pot of yesterday is not the pot of today, the stuff smoked back 20-30 years ago was mild compared to the 'new improved', most often laced versions out there today. How could that be controlled?

Government controlled drug shops. The legal drugs would be inspected and content regulated. If the legal drugs were cheaper, the market for street drugs would decline. After all, how big is the market for bootleg liquor these days?

[packinpatland]

The biggest argument I can see, while all alcohol is legal now, how would you determine which drugs to make legal?

[falco]

The biggest argument I can see, while all alcohol is legal now, how would you determine which drugs to make legal?

I agree that is one of the difficult questions. I would pose a plan of action where we begin by making those most prevalent legal (obviously cannabis first), and monitoring the effects.

Not only would it have a great effect here, but making street drugs legal could also change entire countries (ie; Colombia, Afghanistan, etc).

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd be for legalizing drugs, but I just don't think it's feasible.

[Tarlam!]

The biggest argument I can see, while all alcohol is legal now, how would you determine which drugs to make legal?

Make them ALL legal.

You need to wipe out the black market. Completely.

To do that you need quantity, quality and price advantages.

Then, you control the market. You can tax at will. Yes you will have moonshine drugs, but heck, the law you inforce for dealing with drugs and vehicles/dependants will still grip.

Take the illegal out of drugs and you can control who enters the market to about 98%. Just look at cigarettes and alchohol fpor verification.

[MadtownPacker]

Anyone else who talks down on weed better not drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or you are a fucking hypocrite!!

When was the last time a stoned driver got arrested for plowing into a families car and killing them all? I have never heard of it but I only have to go back to last week to find a local story about a drunk driver killing a whole family cuz they where driving drunk.

When was the last time a forest fire was started by a joint? Again I only have to go back a few weeks to find one that was started by a cigarettes. Maybe that is because cigs are legal and moron cigarette smokers think it's ok to toss their shitty butts all over the roadway. I can guarantee you weed smokers dont throw their lit roaches away.

As with most subject, people talk out their rear about something they have READ about. Well when you go out and SEE how it really works let me know. Until then continue to victimize bud smokers by putting them in the same category as meth, crack and heroin user.

All while drunk drivers keep killing off people "legally".

[BallHawk]

So, if pot was legalized, it still wouldn't start fires? Is a cigarette more likely to start a fire then a joint? Are cigarettes more of a fire risk? They're both lit by fire. I don't see how there is a difference.

[Joemailman]

Smokers should travel with drinkers. That way if a smoker starts a fire, the drinker can relieve himself by putting it out.

[MadtownPacker]

So, if pot was legalized, it still wouldn't start fires? Is a cigarette more likely to start a fire then a joint? Are cigarettes more of a fire risk? They're both lit by fire. I don't see how there is a difference.As expected you are missing the point. IMO there is no more danger to allowing someone to smoke weed then there is to smoking cigs yet it is illegal. Why is that? $$$ thats why.

FYI - A cig does stay lit much longer then a joint. I think you can even leave a cig lit from the start and it will burn all the way with minimal wind. A joint usually self extinguishes in a matter of seconds so yes a cig would be more of a fire risk. I guess cig smokers are careless with there shit since they dont smoke the butts. You wont catch me throwing anything from my car much less something that is one fire.

[Tarlam!]

What Mad is saying has cred. It only ads to what I am saying!

The only people getting rich by the Goverments of the world banning drugs are the bad guys.

The only people getting hurt are the addicts and their vicitms -whether the victims be robbery vicitms, murder victims, accident victims or hell - squirrels burned by forest fires!

Legalize all drugs and deal with the addicts properly. If cops weren't hunting petty users that rob to pay for their habit, think of what crimes they could be solving!

[packinpatland]

Think of how many crimes there may not be.

[Tarlam!]

Think of how many crimes there may not be.

So, are you for or against the proposal to legalize ALL drugs?

[Mazzin]

Just the sweet sticky greeny greena! :D

[packinpatland]

I do think pot should be legalized.

Not so for the other 'manufactured' drugs.

[BallHawk]

I can understand legalizing pot.

However, no way you can legalize drugs like cocaine and meth. Those drugs ruin peoples live. Have you seen what meth does to people? It destroys their lives and their bodies. There's no way you can justify legalizing that.

[Tarlam!]

People, alchohol and nicotine ruin people's lives.

I am not suggesting we do this for the benefit of the user. I am suggesting this for the detriment of the supplyer!

In no way do I accept or approve of drug taking.

[oregonpackfan]

However, no way you can legalize drugs like cocaine and meth. Those drugs ruin peoples live. Have you seen what meth does to people? It destroys their lives and their bodies. There's no way you can justify legalizing that.[/quote]

Meth also has devastating effects on the community where the user lives. Meth users often have to break into homes and steal goods from others. Then fence the goods for money to buy more meth.

Children of meth users are often neglected to the point of needing removal from home by social service agencies.

I would not want to see meth and other drugs legalized.

[MadtownPacker]

I agree, no legalizing meth or even coke. It is way to crazy and leads to everything you guys mentioned. Especially meth. Some coke abusers can at least maintain themselves for a while but tweakers start not giving a shit about themselves and it gets ugly fast.

The legal system needs a better way to deal with it then throwing addicts in jail. All they do is get worse and get violent from being incarcerated. All this counseling crap doesn't work so maybe a state like Nevada that has a lot of space should have a ton of factories and military style bunker where drug offenders are made to work and work hard until they sweat all that shit out of their brains.

I know it will never happen but it should.

[Tarlam!]

I would not want to see meth and other drugs legalized.

OK. You'd prefer the current non-system, I guess? The same non-system that made Al Capone rich?

I am not pro drugs!

THIS SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING!

People are getting robbed and killed due to this system. Innocent people. Take away the illegality of drugs and what do gangs actually do after that? Guard their "turf"?

Take away the platform for the criminals. Exercise influence over it. Control it. Rule it.

Take out the bad guys, and the good guys will win. Or, equip the good guys with bad guy weapons, and watch them become bad guys.

We need to make some hard choices.

[falco]

I agree, no legalizing meth or even coke. It is way to crazy and leads to everything you guys mentioned. Especially meth. Some coke abusers can at least maintain themselves for a while but tweakers start not giving a shit about themselves and it gets ugly fast.

The legal system needs a better way to deal with it then throwing addicts in jail. All they do is get worse and get violent from being incarcerated. All this counseling crap doesn't work so maybe a state like Nevada that has a lot of space should have a ton of factories and military style bunker where drug offenders are made to work and work hard until they sweat all that shit out of their brains.

I know it will never happen but it should.

I agree with you especially on that point madtown; if we aren't going to legalize drugs, lets start looking at addiction as a sickness rather than a crime, and start working to rehabilitate people.

[Tarlam!]

I agree, no legalizing meth or even coke. It is way to crazy and leads to everything you guys mentioned. Especially meth.

I know what you're trying to say, but the platform remains. It's that bad guys that remain with this strategy. And, it's the poor farmers that will keep planting the crops, because illegal coke brings in more than legal wheat.

The cycle will not break until we take away the platform.

[Tarlam!]

.....lets start looking at addiction as a sickness rather than a crime, and start working to rehabilitate people.

Tht's real nobel, and I admire you for it. But I have another idea that I know won't appeal to you, but is cheap and will solve the problem.

Let's NOT do all of what you said; let's not rehab druggies. Let's give them their stuff till they die of natural causes. Let's not involve really really expensive therapies. Let's accet they are today's lepers, put them into the most comfortable environment they can be in on taxpayers' money and wait for them to expire.

Let's take their children and put them into solid foster homes. Pro-actively. Let's teach the offspring of crack-heads, it's not their fault their parents failed.

Let's look drugs in the eye and remove the platform for growth, once and for all.

[falco]

.....lets start looking at addiction as a sickness rather than a crime, and start working to rehabilitate people.

Tht's real nobel, and I admire you for it. But I have another idea that I know won't appeal to you, but is cheap and will solve the problem.

Let's NOT do all of what you said; let's not rehab druggies. Let's give them their stuff till they die of natural causes. Let's not involve really really expensive therapies. Let's accet they are today's lepers, put them into the most comfortable environment they can be in on taxpayers' money and wait for them to expire.

Let's take their children and put them into solid foster homes. Pro-actively. Let's teach the offspring of crack-heads, it's not their fault their parents failed.

Let's look drugs in the eye and remove the platform for growth, once and for all.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You think once they're all dead, no one will ever do drugs again?

[Tarlam!]

Did I suggest that?

Do people still smoke or abuse alchohol?

[Tarlam!]

But, do people kill people for a pack of cigarettes? Literally??

[falco]

But, do people kill people for a pack of cigarettes? Literally??

Tarlam, I'm not opposed to the model of providing drugs as a disincentive to committing crimes. I'm sure most people are, especially in America, but I think it has merit.

If you are proposing segregating them from society and making no effort to rehabilitate them, then I think your idea is inhumane.

[MJZiggy]

.....lets start looking at addiction as a sickness rather than a crime, and start working to rehabilitate people.

Tht's real nobel, and I admire you for it. But I have another idea that I know won't appeal to you, but is cheap and will solve the problem.

Let's NOT do all of what you said; let's not rehab druggies. Let's give them their stuff till they die of natural causes. Let's not involve really really expensive therapies. Let's accet they are today's lepers, put them into the most comfortable environment they can be in on taxpayers' money and wait for them to expire.

Let's take their children and put them into solid foster homes. Pro-actively. Let's teach the offspring of crack-heads, it's not their fault their parents failed.

Let's look drugs in the eye and remove the platform for growth, once and for all.Sounds a lot like what Mad suggested on the other page.

[Tarlam!]

It is inhumane. It suggests they are on the same level as child molesterers in terms of rehab. I do not believe they can be rehabilitated either, but that's for a different thread.

My overall thought is, cut our losses and dictate how we move on. I am sick of German troops being killed in Afganistan by stinger rockets financed by poppy seeds that make heroin that ultimately makes it to the streets of Frankfurt, London, Paris or Los Angeles. No doubt, so are Americans sick of seeing their troops slaughtered similarly!

I waste a lot of my own money, but I am prudent with other peoples' dough. I would't invest in rehab for a crack head. I would invest in a humane environment to expire.

[falco]

It is inhumane. It suggests they are on the same level as child molesterers in terms of rehab. I do not believe they can be rehabilitated either, but that's for a different thread.

My overall thought is, cut our losses and dictate how we move on. I am sick of German troops being killed in Afganistan by stinger rockets financed by poppy seeds that make heroin that ultimately makes it to the streets of Frankfurt, London, Paris or Los Angeles. No doubt, so are Americans sick of seeing their troops slaughtered similarly!

I waste a lot of my own money, but I am prudent with other peoples' dough. I would't invest in rehab for a crack head. I would invest in a humane environment to expire.

I'm sure you could set up a nice camp for them somewhere...

[Tarlam!]

No need to be condascending.

[BallHawk]

I am sick of German troops being killed in Afganistan by stinger rockets financed by poppy seeds that make heroin that ultimately makes it to the streets of Frankfurt, London, Paris or Los Angeles.

So, what you're saying is, if the drugs are made legal, then even if the gun is funded by herion, it's different because it was done legally? How does that make a difference?

Also, making drugs legal isn't going to stop Meth Addicts from robbing homes. The last thing we need is a free-for-all on drugs.

[falco]

No need to be condascending.

I'm not being condescending. I'm pointing out the irony of your proposal to lock up drug addicts against their will, forcibly separate them from their families, and feed them drugs until they die.

[Tarlam!]

No need to be condascending.

I'm not being condescending. I'm pointing out the irony of your proposal to lock up drug addicts against their will, forcibly separate them from their families, and feed them drugs until they die.


You're implying something I didn't suggest.

I suggested removing their children, which the State does anyway in the necessary case. I furthermore suggested prong their drug and "providing" residence. In no way did I suggest or mean to imply incarceration.

I also suggested not providing rehab, because it is extremely cost intensive and highly unsuccessful.

[Tarlam!]

So, what you're saying is, if the drugs are made legal, then even if the gun is funded by herion, it's different because it was done legally? How does that make a difference?

Also, making drugs legal isn't going to stop Meth Addicts from robbing homes. The last thing we need is a free-for-all on drugs.

No, what I am suggesting is, american farmers plant poppy legally. I am suggesting the pharmaceutical industry produce clean drugs. I am suggesting drug stores carry drugs. I am suggesting you, if over 21 can go and buy drugs oer the counter.

Meth addicts have no place in society today. That's a large reason as to why the act outside of societies laws. Make a place for them within society. See what transpires. I am sure should be shocked.

[falco]

No need to be condascending.

I'm not being condescending. I'm pointing out the irony of your proposal to lock up drug addicts against their will, forcibly separate them from their families, and feed them drugs until they die.


You're implying something I didn't suggest.

I suggested removing their children, which the State does anyway in the necessary case. I furthermore suggested prong their drug and "providing" residence. In no way did I suggest or mean to imply incarceration.

I also suggested not providing rehab, because it is extremely cost intensive and highly unsuccessful.

Then I misunderstood; I agree with your notion, except that I would argue we have an obligation to provide the resources to rehabilitate people.

Your proposal is to legalize drug and provide addicts with free drugs and free residence for the rest of their lives. You don't think this could backfire?

[Tarlam!]

Potentially. But my motives are to remove the platform for which bad people make money off of our weaknesses.

The "War on Drugs" is failing. The way it is currently being waged has no possibility of winning.

I am trying to propose a method of ending and winning a war on drugs.

[BEARMAN]

I have to disagree with you sir, I am on the front line of your so called war on drugs and from where I see it we are winning. I am a Narcotics/K9 Officer and deal with people using, selling, transporting,and buying drugs every day. I see, first hand the effects of drugs on kids, adults and families. I have been fighting the war on drugs for over 18 years, and have seem remarkable changes in people using,selling,transporting narcotics. The laws work. You deal to a minor you get hammered, you deal within 500 feet of a school zone you get hammered, you have in your possesion more then 27.9 grams of anything (narcotic) you get hammered. There are a ton of good people fighting hard in this so called war on drugs, and we do make a differance ! Legallizing any narcotic is a mistake ! My .02

[packinpatland]

We may throw the book at them, but we seem to be letting them out.
No one serves a full sentence. I hear what you're saying Bearman, all your hard work, life on the line, but they're back on the street. Just doing what they did before.

With the amount of $$$ involved in drugs, I just don't see a way to ever stop it.

[Kiwon]

Thanks for your service, BEARMAN. Keep safe.

[packinpatland]

Thanks for your service, BEARMAN. Keep safe.

I should have said the same thing. My bad. :(

[MJZiggy]

Thanks for your service, BEARMAN. Keep safe.

I agree, but I gotta wonder...do you ever let the dog take just a little chunk out of the really nasty dudes? :smk: :mrgreen:

[Patler]

I have to disagree with you sir, I am on the front line of your so called war on drugs and from where I see it we are winning. I am a Narcotics/K9 Officer and deal with people using, selling, transporting,and buying drugs every day. I see, first hand the effects of drugs on kids, adults and families. I have been fighting the war on drugs for over 18 years, and have seem remarkable changes in people using,selling,transporting narcotics. The laws work. You deal to a minor you get hammered, you deal within 500 feet of a school zone you get hammered, you have in your possesion more then 27.9 grams of anything (narcotic) you get hammered. There are a ton of good people fighting hard in this so called war on drugs, and we do make a differance ! Legallizing any narcotic is a mistake ! My .02

Bearman;

I completely respect and appreciate what you do. Please don't take anything I say as a criticism of what you and other dedicated officers do.

It has been my impression, perhaps wrong, that when you catch and incarcerate one drug dealer, there may be a slight delay, but very soon another steps in to take his/her place. I have been told that instead of dealing across the street from schools, dealers now hit up the kids on the way to and from school. In some cases they simply moved a block further down the street.

I know some of the laws have been strengthened, penalties increased, etc. I'm all for that. But has there really been a decrease in the supply of drugs, or have we simply changed the manner in which the transactions occur? Have we really made any headway against the entire drug culture, as opposed to just removing individuals from it?

[Merlin]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.

5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....

[packinpatland]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.
5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....



How is this going to stop the ones who then become the one who sell cheap, black market etc....

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I have to disagree with you sir, I am on the front line of your so called war on drugs and from where I see it we are winning. I am a Narcotics/K9 Officer and deal with people using, selling, transporting,and buying drugs every day. I see, first hand the effects of drugs on kids, adults and families. I have been fighting the war on drugs for over 18 years, and have seem remarkable changes in people using,selling,transporting narcotics. The laws work. You deal to a minor you get hammered, you deal within 500 feet of a school zone you get hammered, you have in your possesion more then 27.9 grams of anything (narcotic) you get hammered. There are a ton of good people fighting hard in this so called war on drugs, and we do make a differance ! Legallizing any narcotic is a mistake ! My .02

No disrespect, but if we have been fighting a war for 18 years then WE HAVE LOST.

I have seen no decrease in the amount of drugs, the price of drugs has only gotten cheaper (thank god...tyrone needs his medicine), and the only people incarcerated are low level dealers.

The war on drugs is futile because people want DRUGS. Has alwasy been that way, will always be that way. Go read some de toqueville and see what was written about this country in the 1800s.

[Tarlam!]

I have to disagree with you sir, I am on the front line of your so called war on drugs and from where I see it we are winning.

Thanks for adding richness and experience to the discussion. I appreciate it, and, even though I am not fortunate to live in your beautiful country, I too, appreciate your efforts.

I want to point out, it is not my socalled WoD. Your Preseident called it that, hence, it is YOUR WoD.

And, you are far from winning.

Ther have been heaps of experiments of addicts registering and receiveing a daily dose of their "medicine" that outright prove legalizing even the hardest drugs is the way to go. Addicts worry only about where to get their next fix. Once you remove that fear, they can actually lead relatively "normal" lives. That was also proven.

Despite the evidence, politicians cannot bring themselves to converting.

It is sad, because the answer is so simple. Take the big money out if it and people will lose interest.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I have to disagree with you sir, I am on the front line of your so called war on drugs and from where I see it we are winning.

Thanks for adding richness and experience to the discussion. I appreciate it, and, even though I am not fortunate to live in your beautiful country, I too, appreciate your efforts.

I want to point out, it is not my socalled WoD. Your Preseident called it that, hence, it is YOUR WoD.

And, you are far from winning.

Ther have been heaps of experiments of addicts registering and receiveing a daily dose of their "medicine" that outright prove legalizing even the hardest drugs is the way to go. Addicts worry only about where to get their next fix. Once you remove that fear, they can actually lead relatively "normal" lives. That was also proven.

Despite the evidence, politicians cannot bring themselves to converting.

It is sad, because the answer is so simple. Take the big money out if it and people will lose interest.

Oh, c'mon. We can't have a serious discussion on drugs with FACTUAL evidence.

We can't use other country's experience because the U.S. is UNIQUE. Our drug addicts are much different than everyone else's.

I can clearly see we are winning the war when I have to show my ID if i wanna buy some cold medicine. :roll:

[Tarlam!]

Thanks for your service, BEARMAN. Keep safe.

I should have said the same thing. My bad. :(

I can't speak for Bearman, but I think what you said wasn't bad.

[Tarlam!]

I know some of the laws have been strengthened, penalties increased, etc. I'm all for that.


You are? I'm not.

If this is a war, then, fight it with bullets, not law. If we are under attack (and I believe we are) then, let's not fight this with justice.

One poster PMed me to say they would want everyone involved just shot.

I could agree to that, but, who is the target?

That's why this "war" has no chance of being won.

[BallHawk]

Can we add some ideas that are actually plausible instead of thinking over ideas that are inhumane and, more or less, impossible to act out. If we're going to stop the drug monopoly then let's do it in a civilized way, not with guns and neglect, because that's not going to get you anywhere.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I know some of the laws have been strengthened, penalties increased, etc. I'm all for that.


You are? I'm not.

If this is a war, then, fight it with bullets, not law. If we are under attack (and I believe we are) then, let's not fight this with justice.

One poster PMed me to say they would want everyone involved just shot.

I could agree to that, but, who is the target?

That's why this "war" has no chance of being won.

I would be in favor of all being shot...that would be so cool. Let's kill all the artists (musicians, actors, visual artists, etc.), wall street types (yep, they are doing plenty of blow), doctors (highest rate of drug abuse of any profession), etc. :roll:

[Patler]

I know some of the laws have been strengthened, penalties increased, etc. I'm all for that.


You are? I'm not.



Of course I am. The problem is not enough of the right people are being subjected to the penalties. Arresting the "retailer" on the street is not enough. The "wholesalers" need to be put out of business along with the "manufacturers". Only then will we make significant headway.

Unlike a conventional war where you can stress or even break your enemy by killing or capturing enough of the troops and supplies, that isn't nearly as feasible in the war on drugs. The "troops" are too easily and quickly replaced, and the supplies are too readily providably to make significant dents in either.

[Zool]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Caffeinated_spiderwebs.jpg


Tell it to the spiders man. That spiders not going to be eating anytime soon.

[Freak Out]

Legalize it.

[Partial]

What the government should do is legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.

It would be much cheaper when produced on a farm rather than smuggled in. Dealers would be out of a job and would be forced to earn an honest living(in a perfect world).

If that were to happen, I support taxing it to the point that the cost is the same as it is now(I have no idea what it costs now). By doing that, it would create some serious revenue while taking away the desire for kids to do it(not illegal, not risky and cool).

I think they should do the same things with cigarettes. 10 dollars a pack will not only bring down health care costs for everyone, make the world cleaner, and improve the quality of our air, but also generate revenue for the country. More people would quit due to the spike in price.

MTP, the reason their is never anyone ever noted for being high off of pot and smashing their car into someone as it is:
A. not illegal to have smoked, only to have posessed
B. no readily available field test

I would think it happens more than you or I would think.

[the_idle_threat]

I could support legalization for marijuana, but not for the "hard" drugs. Legalizing "hard" drugs and supplying them to addicts strikes me as a horrible idea.

The drug problem is unsolvable because it is a result of bad individual choices (trying highly addictive drugs) leading to worse and worse choices (turning to crime/prostitution to fund the habit once it becomes an addiction). You can't force free people to make good choices no matter what you do. All you can do is provide positive and negative incentives.

A system where addicts are given drugs might reduce the incentive to make the "worse and worse" choices which come from feeding the addiction, but it does nothing to decrease the initial bad choice of trying highly addictive drugs in the first place. If anything, it provides further incentive to make that bad choice (as if the promise of a mind-blowing high is not enough), by providing the promise of free and unlimited future supply if you happen to get hooked.

It seems to me that this idea would create an enormous and growing underclass of government-funded addicts if implemented on a nationwide scale.

Meanwhile, the drug kingpins still become rich by providing legal product to consumers and the government (to supply the addicts), and instead of an expensive war on drugs and overcrowded prison system, we have an expensive government supply program and overcrowded "legal" drug ghettos.

I don't see this as an improvement.

[MJZiggy]

I think Tarlam's suggesting putting the drug kingpins out of business by producing the drugs ourselves and eliminating the need for their services...what there also needs to be is more of a disincentive for people to try very addictive drugs in the first place. I'm not sure what that might be, but somehow it has to become incredibly uncool. Maybe they need to start announcing it whenever some geek gets hooked...(that's just a joke, people, don't get your panties all in a bunch.)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I could support legalization for marijuana, but not for the "hard" drugs. Legalizing "hard" drugs and supplying them to addicts strikes me as a horrible idea.

The drug problem is unsolvable because it is a result of bad individual choices (trying highly addictive drugs) leading to worse and worse choices (turning to crime/prostitution to fund the habit once it becomes an addiction). You can't force free people to make good choices no matter what you do. All you can do is provide positive and negative incentives.

A system where addicts are given drugs might reduce the incentive to make the "worse and worse" choices which come from feeding the addiction, but it does nothing to decrease the initial bad choice of trying highly addictive drugs in the first place. If anything, it provides further incentive to make that bad choice (as if the promise of a mind-blowing high is not enough), by providing the promise of free and unlimited future supply if you happen to get hooked.

It seems to me that this idea would create an enormous and growing underclass of government-funded addicts if implemented on a nationwide scale.

Meanwhile, the drug kingpins still become rich by providing legal product to consumers and the government (to supply the addicts), and instead of an expensive war on drugs and overcrowded prison system, we have an expensive government supply program and overcrowded "legal" drug ghettos.

I don't see this as an improvement.

Drug addicts can still be productive members of society. It is possible to have a habit and still work. Plenty of functioning heroin addicts on methadone.

Incentive: That is just a bunch of crap. Same ol bs as saying that sex ed/condoms gives someone the incentive to try sex. People are gonna do it regardless.

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.

Again, I repeat, look at our history. We are a drug loving people...legal or illegal. What do you think all those cure alls were made of in the 1800s? You think it is called Coca cola by accident? Read de toqueville. This country has always and will always have a percentage of people on drugs.

Furthermore, there is probably a reason for drugs on the planet.

[Partial]

Are we in agreeing that marijuana is a gateway drug? From my experience, I have found current users to say that its not, but most people once they give it up agree that it has led to them using other substances.

[BallHawk]

Are we in agreeing that marijuana is a gateway drug? From my experience, I have found current users to say that its not, but most people once they give it up agree that it has led to them using other substances.

I think that it does heighten people's curiosity. "If pot makes me feel this way, how will ecstasy make me feel?"

[Partial]

Are we in agreeing that marijuana is a gateway drug? From my experience, I have found current users to say that its not, but most people once they give it up agree that it has led to them using other substances.

I think that it does heighten people's curiosity. "If pot makes me feel this way, how will ecstasy make me feel?"

When I have done pot that is not at all what I thought, though. I just wanted to sit there. Not eat or any of the stereotypical things. I just wanted to chill out and relax in my chair by myself.

[the_idle_threat]

I could support legalization for marijuana, but not for the "hard" drugs. Legalizing "hard" drugs and supplying them to addicts strikes me as a horrible idea.

The drug problem is unsolvable because it is a result of bad individual choices (trying highly addictive drugs) leading to worse and worse choices (turning to crime/prostitution to fund the habit once it becomes an addiction). You can't force free people to make good choices no matter what you do. All you can do is provide positive and negative incentives.

A system where addicts are given drugs might reduce the incentive to make the "worse and worse" choices which come from feeding the addiction, but it does nothing to decrease the initial bad choice of trying highly addictive drugs in the first place. If anything, it provides further incentive to make that bad choice (as if the promise of a mind-blowing high is not enough), by providing the promise of free and unlimited future supply if you happen to get hooked.

It seems to me that this idea would create an enormous and growing underclass of government-funded addicts if implemented on a nationwide scale.

Meanwhile, the drug kingpins still become rich by providing legal product to consumers and the government (to supply the addicts), and instead of an expensive war on drugs and overcrowded prison system, we have an expensive government supply program and overcrowded "legal" drug ghettos.

I don't see this as an improvement.

Drug addicts can still be productive members of society. It is possible to have a habit and still work. Plenty of functioning heroin addicts on methadone.

Incentive: That is just a bunch of crap. Same ol bs as saying that sex ed/condoms gives someone the incentive to try sex. People are gonna do it regardless.

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.

Again, I repeat, look at our history. We are a drug loving people...legal or illegal. What do you think all those cure alls were made of in the 1800s? You think it is called Coca cola by accident? Read de toqueville. This country has always and will always have a percentage of people on drugs.

Furthermore, there is probably a reason for drugs on the planet.

Not surprised at all that you don't get it. You want to make excuses for addicts, and I'm not buying it.

Sure, there are some people who can function while addicted to hard drugs, but you have to admit that many cannot. And what incentive is there for an addict to "function" when they don't have to do anything except get high all day and the government will take care of their needs? It's reinforcement of bad behavior.

You claim that people don't make decisions based upon incentives? That's a bunch of crap. You are right that some people will do "it" regardless, with no thoughts of consequences. But many others will not do "it" because there are negative consequences. Or is it your position that nobody at all considers consequences when making decisions?

I'd love to get high as a kite, but I don't want to run afoul of the law, nor do I want to become addicted, so that my only thought each moment is how I can get high again. (You seem to think crack cocaine addiction is funny, but in fact it is a tragic, constant and insatiable addiction.)

Take away the negative consequences (make it legal) and replace them with positive consequences (coddle addicts as "victims" and ensure they will always have free unlimited supply), and people will act accordingly. Not everyone, but some.

Why do we want to make it more attractive to become an addict? And why do we as taxpayers want to subsidize it?

[GrnBay007]

MTP, the reason their is never anyone ever noted for being high off of pot and smashing their car into someone as it is:
A. not illegal to have smoked, only to have posessed
B. no readily available field test

I would think it happens more than you or I would think.

There are officers specially trained to conduct field sobriety tests for Driving While Drugged cases. Apparently the specialized officers can tell which drug through this field testing. I believe I've heard certain drugs are easier to determine through these tests and I don't know where weed falls into this range. Bearman would probably know.

[GrnBay007]

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.



Does it really matter if it's treated as a criminal problem vs. a medical one? Everyone knows an addict (drugs or alcohol) won't stop until THEY make the decision to do so.

[the_idle_threat]

I think Tarlam's suggesting putting the drug kingpins out of business by producing the drugs ourselves and eliminating the need for their services...

I don't think that's so easily done as said.

Are we proposing producing all of the drugs that Americans consume, from marijuana to cocaine and opiates? Plus the additional amount that Americans will consume when we make it legal and "ok" to be an addict, and subsidize the activity?

How will we prevent foreign economies from competing for this massive demand, legally or otherwise?

Either the kingpins go "legit" and compete in the marketplace for a piece of this demand, or---if imports are made illegal---they continue to bring it in illegally. In other words, business as usual. They will surely do this if we legalize and tax prohibitively, because a tax that is high enough to be prohibitive calls for an untaxed black market.

Or better yet---the drug kingpins go "legit" & switch to producing food crops, and sell us all our food because we have dedicated all of our cropland to producing drug crops. :?

[Kiwon]

Example of one of those "productive members of society"
.................................................. .........
Friday, 8 June 2007

Man sentenced for driving wheelchair drunk

A Canadian man was sentenced for drunk driving after being pulled over on his way home from the pub in his mother's motorized wheelchair, police said.

Patrick Shanahan, 35, was fined and placed on probation by a Toronto-area court in the impaired driving case.

"I don't need a licence to operate it, I don't need insurance and I don't need licence plates to operate it," Shanahan was quoted by the Torstar News Service.

"So how can I be charged with drunk driving?"

The charge stems back to December 2004, when an officer saw Shanahan driving the wheelchair at around 1:15 a.m. and assessed that he was drunk, a police spokesman said.

The self-described alcoholic, who has a prior impaired driving conviction – though not in a wheelchair – later admitted he shouldn't have been driving the three-wheeler at the time, Torstar reported.

Shanahan was prohibited from driving any motorised vehicle for one year, was fined C$600 (286 pounds), given 18 months probation, and ordered to seek counselling.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.



Does it really matter if it's treated as a criminal problem vs. a medical one? Everyone knows an addict (drugs or alcohol) won't stop until THEY make the decision to do so.

Of course it makes a difference. If you treat it as a medical problem...rehab, therapy, whatever is alot different than incarcerating.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Example of one of those "productive members of society"
.................................................. .........
Friday, 8 June 2007

Man sentenced for driving wheelchair drunk

A Canadian man was sentenced for drunk driving after being pulled over on his way home from the pub in his mother's motorized wheelchair, police said.

Patrick Shanahan, 35, was fined and placed on probation by a Toronto-area court in the impaired driving case.

"I don't need a licence to operate it, I don't need insurance and I don't need licence plates to operate it," Shanahan was quoted by the Torstar News Service.

"So how can I be charged with drunk driving?"

The charge stems back to December 2004, when an officer saw Shanahan driving the wheelchair at around 1:15 a.m. and assessed that he was drunk, a police spokesman said.

The self-described alcoholic, who has a prior impaired driving conviction – though not in a wheelchair – later admitted he shouldn't have been driving the three-wheeler at the time, Torstar reported.

Shanahan was prohibited from driving any motorised vehicle for one year, was fined C$600 (286 pounds), given 18 months probation, and ordered to seek counselling.

Red herring. Does he hold a job? Plenty of alcoholics that do.

Course, that depends on your def of alcoholic. According to AA, if you have 2 drinks or whatever, everyday, then you are an alkie.

That is what i'm referring to when I say functioning.

[GrnBay007]

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.



Does it really matter if it's treated as a criminal problem vs. a medical one? Everyone knows an addict (drugs or alcohol) won't stop until THEY make the decision to do so.

Of course it makes a difference. If you treat it as a medical problem...rehab, therapy, whatever is alot different than incarcerating.

ONLY if they WANT to get better. Most times rehab and therapy are used as a last ditch effort (excuse) to stay out of prison.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I could support legalization for marijuana, but not for the "hard" drugs. Legalizing "hard" drugs and supplying them to addicts strikes me as a horrible idea.

The drug problem is unsolvable because it is a result of bad individual choices (trying highly addictive drugs) leading to worse and worse choices (turning to crime/prostitution to fund the habit once it becomes an addiction). You can't force free people to make good choices no matter what you do. All you can do is provide positive and negative incentives.

A system where addicts are given drugs might reduce the incentive to make the "worse and worse" choices which come from feeding the addiction, but it does nothing to decrease the initial bad choice of trying highly addictive drugs in the first place. If anything, it provides further incentive to make that bad choice (as if the promise of a mind-blowing high is not enough), by providing the promise of free and unlimited future supply if you happen to get hooked.

It seems to me that this idea would create an enormous and growing underclass of government-funded addicts if implemented on a nationwide scale.

Meanwhile, the drug kingpins still become rich by providing legal product to consumers and the government (to supply the addicts), and instead of an expensive war on drugs and overcrowded prison system, we have an expensive government supply program and overcrowded "legal" drug ghettos.

I don't see this as an improvement.

Drug addicts can still be productive members of society. It is possible to have a habit and still work. Plenty of functioning heroin addicts on methadone.

Incentive: That is just a bunch of crap. Same ol bs as saying that sex ed/condoms gives someone the incentive to try sex. People are gonna do it regardless.

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.

Again, I repeat, look at our history. We are a drug loving people...legal or illegal. What do you think all those cure alls were made of in the 1800s? You think it is called Coca cola by accident? Read de toqueville. This country has always and will always have a percentage of people on drugs.

Furthermore, there is probably a reason for drugs on the planet.

Not surprised at all that you don't get it. You want to make excuses for addicts, and I'm not buying it.

Sure, there are some people who can function while addicted to hard drugs, but you have to admit that many cannot. And what incentive is there for an addict to "function" when they don't have to do anything except get high all day and the government will take care of their needs? It's reinforcement of bad behavior.

You claim that people don't make decisions based upon incentives? That's a bunch of crap. You are right that some people will do "it" regardless, with no thoughts of consequences. But many others will not do "it" because there are negative consequences. Or is it your position that nobody at all considers consequences when making decisions?

I'd love to get high as a kite, but I don't want to run afoul of the law, nor do I want to become addicted, so that my only thought each moment is how I can get high again. (You seem to think crack cocaine addiction is funny, but in fact it is a tragic, constant and insatiable addiction.)

Take away the negative consequences (make it legal) and replace them with positive consequences (coddle addicts as "victims" and ensure they will always have free unlimited supply), and people will act accordingly. Not everyone, but some.

Why do we want to make it more attractive to become an addict? And why do we as taxpayers want to subsidize it?

Who is making excuses for them. I just know that you are always going to have non productive (using your standards) citizens. Always been that way, always going to be that way.

This country is one that loves drugs and the quick fix...be it legal or illegal.

Incentives/Consequences: You are flat out wrong. We lock people up, we imprison them..sentences have gotten harsher...yet, we don't see a reduction in drug use. I'm sure you would advocate even more draconian measures..LOL. We tried prohibition and it FAILED..failed miserably.

Attractive: Who is making it such? I'm not advocating glamorizing drugs. I'm advocating treating it as a medical condition.

CracK: Dude, you need to get a sense of humor. Considering that Chappel was widely popular, i'd say that you are in the minority. Furthermore, addiction has a long history of humor...Arthur, Otis the town drunk, etc.

Get a grip.

[GrnBay007]

We lock people up, we imprison them..sentences have gotten harsher...yet, we don't see a reduction in drug use.



Depends on what you are actually measuring. You lock up the meth user/dealer/manufacturer, you are not going to take a big chunk of drugs off the streets....someone is there to take their place. Locking them up may save their life though. Of course drugs are available in prison, but nowhere near the extent they are available on the streets. Time away from daily use can be the best treatment in the world.

Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned something to the affect of a work camp or environment. I'd be all for that. The life of a drug user in prison should be treatment...work....treatment....work. Maybe they would get the hang of it eventually.

[the_idle_threat]

Who is making excuses for them. I just know that you are always going to have non productive (using your standards) citizens. Always been that way, always going to be that way.

This country is one that loves drugs and the quick fix...be it legal or illegal.

Incentives/Consequences: You are flat out wrong. We lock people up, we imprison them..sentences have gotten harsher...yet, we don't see a reduction in drug use. I'm sure you would advocate even more draconian measures..LOL. We tried prohibition and it FAILED..failed miserably.

Attractive: Who is making it such? I'm not advocating glamorizing drugs. I'm advocating treating it as a medical condition.

CracK: Dude, you need to get a sense of humor. Considering that Chappel was widely popular, i'd say that you are in the minority. Furthermore, addiction has a long history of humor...Arthur, Otis the town drunk, etc.

Get a grip.

Do you even believe the crap you post?

Yes, you are right ... I have no sense of humor. That has been obvious ever since I started posting here. :?

My point about crack addiction is not that it is off limits for all jokes, but that the reality of it is very different from the jokes and is very unfunny. Given your apparent position on the issue of addictive drugs, I'm inclined to believe that all you know about crack addiction comes from the Chappelle Show.

I don't support more draconian measures in the "drug war." If you re-read my post above, you might notice that I'm not opposed to legalization in the case of marijuana, which I understand to be no more harmful nor addictive than alcohol or cigs.

However, I don't support legalization of everything, and definitely don't support supplying drugs to addicts as a way of keeping them "under control."

I don't care if you think I'm wrong and you think absolutely no people make decisions based upon incentives and consequences. Your position is too far-fetched and (frankly) stupid to be shared by many others.

[BEARMAN]

I have to disagree with you sir, I am on the front line of your so called war on drugs and from where I see it we are winning. I am a Narcotics/K9 Officer and deal with people using, selling, transporting,and buying drugs every day. I see, first hand the effects of drugs on kids, adults and families. I have been fighting the war on drugs for over 18 years, and have seem remarkable changes in people using,selling,transporting narcotics. The laws work. You deal to a minor you get hammered, you deal within 500 feet of a school zone you get hammered, you have in your possesion more then 27.9 grams of anything (narcotic) you get hammered. There are a ton of good people fighting hard in this so called war on drugs, and we do make a differance ! Legallizing any narcotic is a mistake ! My .02

Bearman;


I completely respect and appreciate what you do. Please don't take anything I say as a criticism of what you and other dedicated officers do.

It has been my impression, perhaps wrong, that when you catch and incarcerate one drug dealer, there may be a slight delay, but very soon another steps in to take his/her place. I have been told that instead of dealing across the street from schools, dealers now hit up the kids on the way to and from school. In some cases they simply moved a block further down the street.

I know some of the laws have been strengthened, penalties increased, etc. I'm all for that. But has there really been a decrease in the supply of drugs, or have we simply changed the manner in which the transactions occur? Have we really made any headway against the entire drug culture, as opposed to just removing individuals from it?

"Winning" maybe that isnt the right word to use, Drug use has been around for hundreds of years, it will be around for hundreds more to come, all I/we do is try and stem the flow, yes I/we take on dealer off the street and 3 more take his place in a week or two. I/we then do our best to take them down and so on and so on and so..... It is a never ending battle. However it is one I think is well woth the fight. Legallizing it is not the answer. Education, understaning and policing can help, maybe not "win" but help. I do not make the laws, I enforce them, Stopping the drug culture starts with the kids. Educate them, show them how harmful drugs are and give them the tools to make good decisions on their own.

TY for your kind words, believe me, I have done it this long because it means somthing to me, it matters, and I make a differance. I am not here to wave anyones flag, I am here to protect the kids !

[the_idle_threat]

007, you hit it right on the head with the point that addicts must WANT to get better in order to do so. This is why it should not be dismissed as just a medical issue. People with actual medical issues usually want to get better right away.

Addicts CHOOSE to pursue an addiction rather than seek help until they hit "bottom," when life as an addict becomes unbearable enough that they finally CHOOSE to fight the addiction.

Choosing to remain an addict rather than seek treatment is a bad choice. and I don't support removing penalties (legalization) while at the same time creating incentives (guarantee of free supply) as a way of dealing with the problem. This approach goes beyond throwing our hands in the air and giving up---it actually rewards the bad behavior.

Tyrone, you are right that there will always be some people who make bad choices regardless of what the penalties and/or incentives are. I made that point earlier. We seem to differ in that you seem to believe ALL people behave this way. I (along with the rest of the world) will have to agree to disagree with you there.

My point all along has been that we don't need to add to the problem by actually removing barriers and creating incentives so that an even larger part of the population crosses the line into addiction.

And with no criminal penalties and an unlimited supply of free drugs, who is going to then choose to fight the addiction? Where is "rock bottom"? It's a one-way street to disaster.

[GrnBay007]

I am here to protect the kids !

If you REALLY cared to protect the kids, you'd help to Win The War of reproducing more Bear fans!!!!!!! :P

:taunt:

[GrnBay007]

And with no criminal penalties and an unlimited supply of free drugs, who is going to then choose to fight the addiction once hooked? Where is "rock bottom"?

Easy answer: Death.

FYI, as I'm posting, I'm referring to drugs like crack, meth, coke, heroin ....and alcohol, though legal. Good ole legal alcohol can be just as bad as the others.

[the_idle_threat]

There are some severe alcoholics out there, but I wouldn't go so far as to say alcohol is generally as bad as crack, coke, meth, etc.

Alcohol can be used in moderation. I don't think those other drugs can---my understanding is that you're either high, coming down, or down and seeking another high.

Furthermore, many people who binge drink and "abuse" alcohol do so because it's social and fun and they want to (i.e. college students), not because it's chemically addictive. Cigarettes are far worse than alcohol in that respect.

And on another note, if we treat addiction by supplying drugs in order to feed and supposedly "control" the addiction, I think you are right ... pretty much the only end point is death.

In terms of incentives, I guess that is an incentive to not start: If you decide to try a "hard" drug and you become addicted, the government will grease the rails toward hardcore addiction and death! :shock:

[BEARMAN]

I am here to protect the kids !

If you REALLY cared to protect the kids, you'd help to Win The War of reproducing more Bear fans!!!!!!! :P

:taunt:

I(personally) am responsable for bringing 3 new BEAR fans into this world ! And am damn proud of it ! And, one of them have a new BEARS fan now ! (damn that makes me old?) :roll:

[GrnBay007]

There are some severe alcoholics out there, but I wouldn't go so far as to say alcohol is generally as bad as crack, coke, meth, etc.

Generally speaking I would say crack and meth are worse than alcohol, but in all honesty I've seen more deaths caused by alcohol abuse/addiction to alcohol then the others.



Alcohol can be used in moderation. I don't think those other drugs can---my understanding is that you're either high, coming down, or down and seeking another high.

Furthermore, many people who binge drink and "abuse" alcohol do so because it's social and fun and they want to (i.e. college students), not because it's chemically addictive. Cigarettes are far worse than alcohol in that respect.



Alcohol can be chemically addictive and it's a strange old bird. Some people can drink daily their whole life and never really be considered an alcoholic...as it's never taken control of their life. They've never "needed" a drink physically. Plus with alcohol there are two different addictions you don't usually find with hard street drugs. You have the mental addiction and the physical addiction. Even though someone is never physically addicted to alcohol...ie shakes when they don't get a drink, ect....they can be mentally addicted to alcohol, drink daily and eventually die from the disease due to either accidentally drinking too much for their body to withstand or their major organs have just had enough and fail.

I think meth is the monster of all monsters right now. We haven't yet seen the complete affects of it. We are just getting a glimpse of what it can do to unborn children when pregnant women are getting high. All those homes where meth is being cooked and innocent unknowing people are purchasing them afterward....we don't know how they will be affected long term. I read something recently ...stats...of the affects of police officers who were going in to these meth labs unprotected before they knew better. It was shocking the affects it had on them....way after the fact.

[GrnBay007]

I(personally) am responsable for bringing 3 new BEAR fans into this world ! And am damn proud of it ! And, one of them have a new BEARS fan now !

If you move quickly now you can still save them!!!!

....follow the Green and Gold....there is light at the end of your dismal tunnel!! :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow:

:P

[Partial]

More deaths from Alcohol than harder drugs because it is more readily available and served in public.

[MadtownPacker]

Most cops I have come into contact with know if you are stoned with a flashlight to the face. From what I understand when someone gets a DUI they get piss or blood test done at the jail. I aint heard pf even one of the homies say he crashed cuz he was stoned, ever.


More deaths from Alcohol than harder drugs because it is more readily available and served in public.Again your lack of information on the subject pains me. You really need to get out more P.

Most or all states have hours where alcohol can't be bought (2am-6am in CA). Not the case with meth, that shit is 24/7 all day every day. The store never closes.

As for being served in public, the last thing a dope fiend wants is for other dope fiends to know he/she has some. :lol:

[Partial]

But to argue that any illegal substance is easier to come across than something that can be purchased in any state for 20 hours a day at every gas station, grocery store, restaurant, etc. is foolish.

If I wanted to go buy pot, i'd have to call someone up, find a spot to meet them, etc.

If I wanted to buy booze, I can walk down the street and purchase some and be back in 5 minutes.

[MadtownPacker]

But to argue that any illegal substance is easier to come across than something that can be purchased in any state for 20 hours a day at every gas station, grocery store, restaurant, etc. is foolish.

If I wanted to go buy pot, i'd have to call someone up, find a spot to meet them, etc.

If I wanted to buy booze, I can walk down the street and purchase some and be back in 5 minutes.Maybe where you live that is the case but I get delivery like fucking Dominoes and it doesn't even take 30 minutes!

We live in different worlds P so I can't expect you to understand.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The problem in this country is we treat addition as a criminal problem instead of a medical one.



Does it really matter if it's treated as a criminal problem vs. a medical one? Everyone knows an addict (drugs or alcohol) won't stop until THEY make the decision to do so.

Of course it makes a difference. If you treat it as a medical problem...rehab, therapy, whatever is alot different than incarcerating.

ONLY if they WANT to get better. Most times rehab and therapy are used as a last ditch effort (excuse) to stay out of prison.

Before you make statements you should have some PROOF.

It is foolish to think that you won't have at least some success putting drug addicted criminals in therapy, rehab, etc over incarceration..which effectively does NOTHING.

Let's take a look at the facts:

AZ

In 1996, Arizonans voted in favor of Proposition 200, the Drug Medicalization Prevention and Control Act of 1996, which sends first and second time non-violent drug offenders to treatment rather than incarceration. According to a recent report conducted by the Supreme Court of Arizona, Proposition 200 saved Arizona taxpayers $6.7 million in 1999. In addition, 62% of probationers successfully completed the drug treatment ordered by the court.

CA

In 2000, the independent Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) predicted that by treating rather than incarcerating low level drug offenders, SACPA would save California taxpayers approximately $1.5 billion over the next five years and prevent the need for a new prison slated for construction, avoiding an expenditure of approximately $500 million. LAO estimated that SACPA would annually divert as many as 36,000 probationers and parolees from incarceration into community-based treatment.

Already, progress reports show that tens of thousands of offenders have been placed in community-based treatment instead of jail thereby improving public health and saving the state hundreds of thousands of dollars. Regulation of treatment facilities has resulted in increased quality and accountability for hundreds of treatment programs, and the overall capacity of these facilities has increased.

Maryland

Maryland's new treatment law immediately diverts several thousand prisoners into drug treatment, saving the state's taxpayers millions of dollars a year in the process. It also provides $3 million in additional funding for treatment and gives judges new discretion in sentencing.

D.C.

In November 2002, an overwhelming 78 percent of DC voters passed the drug treatment initiative, Measure 62. Under Measure 62 the city will provide substance abuse treatment instead of conviction or imprisonment to non-violent defendants charged with illegal possession or use of drugs (except those drugs classified as Schedule I); provide a plan for rehabilitation to individuals accepted for substance abuse treatment; and provide for dismissal of legal proceedings for defendants upon successful completion of the treatment program.

You and the rest can continue down the path we have already trodden..and which has shown NO success. Wow, fighting a drug war since nixon. LOL Yep, kids certainly aren't trying drugs. LOL. Casual users have diminished.. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Who is making excuses for them. I just know that you are always going to have non productive (using your standards) citizens. Always been that way, always going to be that way.

This country is one that loves drugs and the quick fix...be it legal or illegal.

Incentives/Consequences: You are flat out wrong. We lock people up, we imprison them..sentences have gotten harsher...yet, we don't see a reduction in drug use. I'm sure you would advocate even more draconian measures..LOL. We tried prohibition and it FAILED..failed miserably.

Attractive: Who is making it such? I'm not advocating glamorizing drugs. I'm advocating treating it as a medical condition.

CracK: Dude, you need to get a sense of humor. Considering that Chappel was widely popular, i'd say that you are in the minority. Furthermore, addiction has a long history of humor...Arthur, Otis the town drunk, etc.

Get a grip.

Do you even believe the crap you post?

Yes, you are right ... I have no sense of humor. That has been obvious ever since I started posting here. :?

My point about crack addiction is not that it is off limits for all jokes, but that the reality of it is very different from the jokes and is very unfunny. Given your apparent position on the issue of addictive drugs, I'm inclined to believe that all you know about crack addiction comes from the Chappelle Show.

I don't support more draconian measures in the "drug war." If you re-read my post above, you might notice that I'm not opposed to legalization in the case of marijuana, which I understand to be no more harmful nor addictive than alcohol or cigs.

However, I don't support legalization of everything, and definitely don't support supplying drugs to addicts as a way of keeping them "under control."

I don't care if you think I'm wrong and you think absolutely no people make decisions based upon incentives and consequences. Your position is too far-fetched and (frankly) stupid to be shared by many others.

I completely believe what I say. Deterrence by sending people to jail doesn't work. If it did, why are all prisons more crowded than ever?

As for my knowledge of drugs...let's just say that I know more about drugs and that culture than you will ever know.

I believe, like most educated people on the subject of drugs that HARM REDUCTION is the way to go.

Harm reduction is a public health philosophy that seeks to lessen the dangers that drug abuse and our drug policies cause to society. A harm reduction strategy is a comprehensive approach to drug abuse and drug policy.

Harm reduction rests on some basic assumptions:

1. A basic tenet of harm reduction is that there has never been, is not now, and never will be a drug-free society.

2. A harm reduction strategy seeks pragmatic solutions to the harms that drugs and drug policies cause. It has been said that harm reduction is not what's nice, it's what works.

3. A harm reduction approach acknowledges that there is no ultimate solution to the problem of drugs in a free society, and that many different interventions may work. Those interventions should be based on science, compassion, health and human rights.

4. A harm reduction strategy demands new outcome measurements. Whereas the success of current drug policies is primarily measured by the change in use rates, the success of a harm reduction strategy is measured by the change in rates of death, disease, crime and suffering.

5. Because incarceration does little to reduce the harms that ever-present drugs cause to our society, a harm reduction approach favors treatment of drug addiction by health care professionals over incarceration in the penal system.

6. Because some drugs, such as marijuana, have proven medicinal uses, a harm reduction strategy not only seeks to reduce the harm that drugs cause, but also to maximize their potential benefits.

7. A harm reduction strategy recognizes that some drugs, such as marijuana, are less harmful than others, such as cocaine and alcohol. Harm reduction mandates that the emphasis on intervention should be based on the relative harmfulness of the drug to society.

8. A harm reduction approach advocates lessening the harms of drugs through education, prevention, and treatment.

9. Harm reduction seeks to reduce the harms of drug policies dependent on an over-emphasis on interdiction, such as arrest, incarceration, establishment of a felony record, lack of treatment, lack of adequate information about drugs, the expansion of military source control intervention efforts in other countries, and intrusion on personal freedoms.

10. Harm reduction also seeks to reduce the harms caused by an over-emphasis on prohibition, such as increased purity, black market adulterants, black market sale to minors, and black market crime.

11. A harm reduction strategy seeks to protect youth from the dangers of drugs by offering factual, science-based drug education and eliminating youth's black market exposure to drugs.

12. Finally, harm reduction seeks to restore basic human dignity to dealing with the disease of addiction.


Now, who is full of crap.

[BallHawk]

Legalize stuff like this and you'll have a real problem on your hands.

DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- A cheap, highly addictive drug known as "cheese heroin" has killed 21 teenagers in the Dallas area over the past two years, and authorities say they are hoping they can stop the fad before it spreads across the nation.

"Cheese heroin" is a blend of so-called black tar Mexican heroin and crushed over-the-counter medications that contain the antihistamine diphenhydramine, found in products such as Tylenol PM, police say. The sedative effects of the heroin and the nighttime sleep aids make for a deadly brew.

"A double whammy -- you're getting two downers at once," says Dallas police detective Monty Moncibais. "If you take the body and you start slowing everything down, everything inside your body, eventually you're going to slow down the heart until it stops and, when it stops, you're dead."

Steve Robertson, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington, says authorities are closely monitoring the use of "cheese" in Dallas.

Trying to keep the drug from spreading to other cities, the DEA is working with Dallas officials to raise public awareness about the problem. Authorities also are trying to identify the traffickers, Robertson says.

"We are concerned about any drug trend that is new because we want to stop it," he says.

Why should a parent outside Dallas care about what's happening there?

Robertson says it's simple: The ease of communication via the Internet and cell phones allows a drug trend to spread rapidly across the country.

"A parent in New York should be very concerned about a drug trend in Dallas, a drug trend in Kansas City, a drug trend anywhere throughout the United States," he says.

Middle schoolers acknowledge 'cheese'

"Cheese" is not only dangerous. It's cheap. About $2 for a single hit and as little as $10 per gram. The drug can be snorted with a straw or through a ballpoint pen, authorities say. It causes drowsiness and lethargy, as well as euphoria, excessive thirst and disorientation. That is, if the user survives.

Authorities aren't exactly sure how the drug got its name "cheese." It's most likely because the ground-up, tan substance looks like Parmesan cheese. The other theory is it's shorthand for the Spanish word "chiva," which is street slang for heroin.

By using the name "cheese," drug dealers are marketing the low-grade heroin to a younger crowd -- many of them middle schoolers -- unaware of its potential dangers, authorities say.

"These are street dealers, dope dealers," Moncibais recently warned students at Sam Tasby Middle School. "They give you a lethal dose. What do they care?"

Moncibais then asked how many students knew a "cheese" user. Just about everyone in the auditorium raised a hand. At one point, when he mentioned that the United States has the highest rate of drug users in the world, the middle schoolers cheered.

"You know, I know being No. 1 is important, but being the No. 1 dopeheads in the world, I don't know whether [that] bears applause," Moncibais shot back.

Authorities say the number of arrests involving possession of "cheese" in the Dallas area this school year was 146, up from about 90 the year before. School is out for the summer, and authorities fear that the students, with more time on their hands, could turn to the drug.
'Cheese' as common a problem as pot

School officials and police have been holding assemblies, professional lectures, PTA meetings and classroom discussions to get the word out about the drug. A public service announcement made by Dallas students is airing on local TV, and a hotline number has been created for those seeking assistance.

Drug treatment centers in Dallas say teen "cheese" addicts are now as common as those seeking help for a marijuana addiction. "It is the first drug to have even come close in my experience here," says Michelle Hemm, director of Phoenix House in Dallas.

From September 2005 to September 2006, Phoenix House received 69 "cheese" referral calls from parents. Hemm says that in the last eight months alone, that number has nearly doubled to 136. The message from the parents is always, "My kid is using 'cheese,' " she says.

Phoenix House refers them to detoxification units first, but Hemm says at least 62 teens have received additional treatment at her facility since last September.

Fernando Cortez Sr. knows all too well how devastating cheese heroin can be. A reformed drug user who has spent time in prison, Cortez had spoken to his children about the pitfalls of drug use. He thought his 15-year-old son was on the right track.

But on March 31, his boy, Fernando "Nando" Cortez Jr., was found dead after using cheese heroin.

"I should have had a better talk with him," he says. "All it takes is once. You get high once and you die, and that's what happened to my son."

He knows it's too late for his son. Now, he is using his son's story to help others.

"All I can do is try to help people now. Help the kids, help the parents."

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/06/12/cheese.heroin/newt1.cheeseheroin2.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Legalize stuff like this and you'll have a real problem on your hands.

DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- A cheap, highly addictive drug known as "cheese heroin" has killed 21 teenagers in the Dallas area over the past two years, and authorities say they are hoping they can stop the fad before it spreads across the nation.

"Cheese heroin" is a blend of so-called black tar Mexican heroin and crushed over-the-counter medications that contain the antihistamine diphenhydramine, found in products such as Tylenol PM, police say. The sedative effects of the heroin and the nighttime sleep aids make for a deadly brew.

"A double whammy -- you're getting two downers at once," says Dallas police detective Monty Moncibais. "If you take the body and you start slowing everything down, everything inside your body, eventually you're going to slow down the heart until it stops and, when it stops, you're dead."

Steve Robertson, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington, says authorities are closely monitoring the use of "cheese" in Dallas.

Trying to keep the drug from spreading to other cities, the DEA is working with Dallas officials to raise public awareness about the problem. Authorities also are trying to identify the traffickers, Robertson says.

"We are concerned about any drug trend that is new because we want to stop it," he says.

Why should a parent outside Dallas care about what's happening there?

Robertson says it's simple: The ease of communication via the Internet and cell phones allows a drug trend to spread rapidly across the country.

"A parent in New York should be very concerned about a drug trend in Dallas, a drug trend in Kansas City, a drug trend anywhere throughout the United States," he says.

Middle schoolers acknowledge 'cheese'

"Cheese" is not only dangerous. It's cheap. About $2 for a single hit and as little as $10 per gram. The drug can be snorted with a straw or through a ballpoint pen, authorities say. It causes drowsiness and lethargy, as well as euphoria, excessive thirst and disorientation. That is, if the user survives.

Authorities aren't exactly sure how the drug got its name "cheese." It's most likely because the ground-up, tan substance looks like Parmesan cheese. The other theory is it's shorthand for the Spanish word "chiva," which is street slang for heroin.

By using the name "cheese," drug dealers are marketing the low-grade heroin to a younger crowd -- many of them middle schoolers -- unaware of its potential dangers, authorities say.

"These are street dealers, dope dealers," Moncibais recently warned students at Sam Tasby Middle School. "They give you a lethal dose. What do they care?"

Moncibais then asked how many students knew a "cheese" user. Just about everyone in the auditorium raised a hand. At one point, when he mentioned that the United States has the highest rate of drug users in the world, the middle schoolers cheered.

"You know, I know being No. 1 is important, but being the No. 1 dopeheads in the world, I don't know whether [that] bears applause," Moncibais shot back.

Authorities say the number of arrests involving possession of "cheese" in the Dallas area this school year was 146, up from about 90 the year before. School is out for the summer, and authorities fear that the students, with more time on their hands, could turn to the drug.
'Cheese' as common a problem as pot

School officials and police have been holding assemblies, professional lectures, PTA meetings and classroom discussions to get the word out about the drug. A public service announcement made by Dallas students is airing on local TV, and a hotline number has been created for those seeking assistance.

Drug treatment centers in Dallas say teen "cheese" addicts are now as common as those seeking help for a marijuana addiction. "It is the first drug to have even come close in my experience here," says Michelle Hemm, director of Phoenix House in Dallas.

From September 2005 to September 2006, Phoenix House received 69 "cheese" referral calls from parents. Hemm says that in the last eight months alone, that number has nearly doubled to 136. The message from the parents is always, "My kid is using 'cheese,' " she says.

Phoenix House refers them to detoxification units first, but Hemm says at least 62 teens have received additional treatment at her facility since last September.

Fernando Cortez Sr. knows all too well how devastating cheese heroin can be. A reformed drug user who has spent time in prison, Cortez had spoken to his children about the pitfalls of drug use. He thought his 15-year-old son was on the right track.

But on March 31, his boy, Fernando "Nando" Cortez Jr., was found dead after using cheese heroin.

"I should have had a better talk with him," he says. "All it takes is once. You get high once and you die, and that's what happened to my son."

He knows it's too late for his son. Now, he is using his son's story to help others.

"All I can do is try to help people now. Help the kids, help the parents."

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/06/12/cheese.heroin/newt1.cheeseheroin2.jpg

That is point 10 of harm reduction.

This is what happens all the time when you make drugs illegal.

[Tarlam!]

Crack (and all those synthetic things that have entered the market like it) were man made substances designed to addict people on the first few usages.

They were designed to be inexpensive, but to hook you. The dealers introducing this new stuff used the law of supply and demand.

That law still exists today. If the supply exeeds the demand, the prices drop and the markets consolidate.

Let's say a selection of soft to hard drugs were made legal, including some designer drugs like ecstasy. Let's say the F&D introduced specifications for there manufatcure and they were made prescription. Crack is no longer needed, nor is meth. And the pill poppers no longer need to die from a "bad trip"

At that point you have control. Gang war fueled by drugs ceases. Break and entry to finance drugs ceaase. Social workers can actually go to work.

Look at how the use of tobacco has been reduced by a focussed effort of controlling where and when it can be consumed. Stigmatiznig it, but not banning it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Crack (and all those synthetic things that have entered the market like it) were man made substances designed to addict people on the first few usages.

They were designed to be inexpensive, but to hook you. The dealers introducing this new stuff used the law of supply and demand.

That law still exists today. If the supply exeeds the demand, the prices drop and the markets consolidate.

Let's say a selection of soft to hard drugs were made legal, including some designer drugs like ecstasy. Let's say the F&D introduced specifications for there manufatcure and they were made prescription. Crack is no longer needed, nor is meth. And the pill poppers no longer need to die from a "bad trip"

At that point you have control. Gang war fueled by drugs ceases. Break and entry to finance drugs ceaase. Social workers can actually go to work.

Look at how the use of tobacco has been reduced by a focussed effort of controlling where and when it can be consumed. Stigmatiznig it, but not banning it.

I don't disagree, but question your thought process about manufacturing. All drugs are manufactured...cultivated, improved upon (today's pot is much stronger than that of the 60s).

Crack is no different than coke. Coke is manufactured. You just don't grind up Coca leaves and get coke. Crack is just a different delivery system for the drug..prepackaged freebase essentially.

Meth is the same. You can find them in nature (obviously without the potency). Hello Khat, huang, etc.

Amphetamines were originally synthesized in Germany in 1887, but were not put to common use until the 1930's, when it was developed for bronchodilation. Sold as an inhaler it was widely used to treat asthma, hay fever and colds. Not only was the Benzedrine Inhaler enormously successful, its marketing an OTC pill form for epilepsy, narcolepsy, night blindness and mood elevator, brought it into mainstream use in a big way.

During WW II and Vietnam, troops were routinely given "pep" pills to help combat fatigue and stress. Over 7 million of these were distributed to combatants on both sides of the conflict. Adolf Hitler was reportedly heavily addicted to methamphetamine, and this has caused historians to speculate that many of his more atrocious acts were in fact triggered by his usage of meth.

As for crack I don't disagree that dealers and such realized that its super potency lead to more repeat sales in a shorter sales cycle.

To me legalizing drugs takes quite a bit of the glamour from them. Any child or immature person is always drawn to that which they are told they can't have.....couple that with false info (reefer madness, crack babies, etc.) and people don't believe anything authorities tell them.

Most people aren't going to do drugs regardless of the legality, just as most people don't smoke tobacco anymore...because we put out the word and educated them. On that point you are exactly right.

Those who haven't travelled overseas often don't understand that. When you can drink at age 12 or so, it takes away the allure/rite of passage that we have here regarding alcohol. Same thing with pot. Young people in amsterdam for the most part don't smoke alot of pot...why? Cause it is in pot cafes..and it is boring to them. It is passe.

[Tarlam!]

I agree with you TB, but I am not really sure what I should be questioning....

[Scott Campbell]

Crack (and all those synthetic things that have entered the market like it) were man made substances designed to addict people on the first few usages.


Speaking of addictive synthetics, how is Veronica?

[Mazzin]

I personally don't belive that any drug, OTHER THAN the sweet sticky cheeba should be legalized.

After a long day of school, and work there isn't anything in this world more relaxing than kicking back, and blazing one up.


Don't knock it till ya try it!

[the_idle_threat]

I completely believe what I say. Deterrence by sending people to jail doesn't work. If it did, why are all prisons more crowded than ever?

As for my knowledge of drugs...let's just say that I know more about drugs and that culture than you will ever know.

I believe, like most educated people on the subject of drugs that HARM REDUCTION is the way to go.

Harm reduction is ...

*Blah blah blah blah*

:bs2:

:bs2:

:bs2:

:bs2:

etc.

Now, who is full of crap.

You, Tyrone. Definitely you.

I could take your word for it that you "know more about drugs and that culture than [I] will ever know," because from the sound of your arguments, you sound like a druggie yourself who is desperate to make excuses for addiction and advocate "understanding" for your cause.

But I'm inclined to point out that you have absolutely no idea what I know.

Your :bs2: "Harm Reduction" ramblings read like a corporate mission statement, not a coherent plan of action. If you think that explains how to deal with addiction, then I certainly don't believe you are educated on the subject.

Unless you consider cruising druggie websites an "education." :lol:

[GrnBay007]

Before you make statements you should have some PROOF.

It is foolish to think that you won't have at least some success putting drug addicted criminals in therapy, rehab, etc over incarceration..which effectively does NOTHING.

Let's take a look at the facts:



Anyone can google and can find any stats they want to find to support their views. The proof I have in making my statements is what I've witnessed for a long time. Addicts do not benefit from treatment unless they WANT to make changes. And yes, you do have some people that get rehab who didn't necessarily want to go that may benefit....but that number is very small. And....almost always the addict has many, many opportunities to go to treatment before it actually comes time for prison. A 30 day inpatient drug treatment for a meth addict? Sorry, that's not working. And the good news is many prisons do offer drug treatment. The meth/crack addict is off the streets for a year or so and is getting treatment while their at it....what a deal!! As for marijuana...legalize possession of small amounts (recreational use).

[Kiwon]

And the good news is many prisons do offer drug treatment. The meth/crack addict is off the streets for a year or so and is getting treatment while their at it....what a deal!!

That is good news. Both/and, not either/or. Now aren't the U.S. taxpayers generous and forgiving? In China, they'd shoot them and sell their organs.

[GrnBay007]

Now aren't the U.S. taxpayers generous and forgiving? In China, they'd shoot them and sell their organs.

Reduced price depending on the harshness of the drug. :P

[Zool]

And the good news is many prisons do offer drug treatment. The meth/crack addict is off the streets for a year or so and is getting treatment while their at it....what a deal!!

That is good news. Both/and, not either/or. Now aren't the U.S. taxpayers generous and forgiving? In China, they'd shoot them and sell their organs.And send a bill to their family for the bullet.

[BEARMAN]

And the good news is many prisons do offer drug treatment. The meth/crack addict is off the streets for a year or so and is getting treatment while their at it....what a deal!!

That is good news. Both/and, not either/or. Now aren't the U.S. taxpayers generous and forgiving? In China, they'd shoot them and sell their organs.

Hmmmmmmmm, ... what dose a cop make in China ? Benifits? Who gets to shoot them? Just woundering here.... :shock:

[Scott Campbell]

And the good news is many prisons do offer drug treatment. The meth/crack addict is off the streets for a year or so and is getting treatment while their at it....what a deal!!

That is good news. Both/and, not either/or. Now aren't the U.S. taxpayers generous and forgiving? In China, they'd shoot them and sell their organs.

Hmmmmmmmm, ... what dose a cop make in China ? Benifits? Who gets to shoot them? Just woundering here.... :shock:


Who could blame you. I don't think China is nearly as corrupt as Chicago.

[Freak Out]

And the good news is many prisons do offer drug treatment. The meth/crack addict is off the streets for a year or so and is getting treatment while their at it....what a deal!!

That is good news. Both/and, not either/or. Now aren't the U.S. taxpayers generous and forgiving? In China, they'd shoot them and sell their organs.

Hmmmmmmmm, ... what dose a cop make in China ? Benifits? Who gets to shoot them? Just woundering here.... :shock:


Who could blame you. I don't think China is nearly as corrupt as Chicago.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MadtownPacker]

Bearman ain't in Chicago. He is in Washington, giving speeding tickets to the Starbucks crowd and talking about how the bears will win the SB every year.

[Tarlam!]

Speaking of addictive synthetics, how is Veronica?

She got married, I lost interest. Same ol' same ol'.

[Tarlam!]

So, we have a few who agree, pot should be legalized and most, from what I gather that are anti-drug fundamentalists.

I think only TB is close to where I am. But I think the out of wanting to be free to take his medicine without fear of pursecution from the law. I said I think!

Up till now, no one has seriously made a case that is compelling for winning the battles (if not war) society across the globe is fighting to end drug abuse and the disasterous side effects this has on society.

All I hear and read is "Oh, NO! We shouldn't do this, it's plain wrong".

Maybe, as a society, we have come to accept we will not solve the problem. I think, this thread has me believing society has resigned itself to this as being fact.

I am disappointed that no one has a counter suggestion to mine. You all dispute my theory to solve the problem, but haven't offered a better plan. BEARMAN even suggests, despite the realities, that what is being done today is actually effective. That's just naive.

So where are the bright ideas?

[MJZiggy]

Hey, I liked TB's post on harm reduction. It made sense to me. And I am all for legalizing pot. It's way more effective than compazine.

[Freak Out]

In our society I should be able to choose if I want to smoke weed or eat peyote without fear of being fined or locked up. Now I should not be able to operate motor vehicles under the influence, blah blah blah....need to be an adult ...Bystanders/innocents could get in the way. But our Nation is all about freedom of choice.
The drug traffickers/cartels need to be taken out of the equation some way, either through federal control of drugs like alcohol or tobacco and legalized distribution. Can you imagine walking down to the local farmers market on a Saturday morning and picking up a oz of some good local organic? I can.
:D

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I completely believe what I say. Deterrence by sending people to jail doesn't work. If it did, why are all prisons more crowded than ever?

As for my knowledge of drugs...let's just say that I know more about drugs and that culture than you will ever know.

I believe, like most educated people on the subject of drugs that HARM REDUCTION is the way to go.

Harm reduction is ...

*Blah blah blah blah*

:bs2:

:bs2:

:bs2:

:bs2:

etc.

Now, who is full of crap.

You, Tyrone. Definitely you.

I could take your word for it that you "know more about drugs and that culture than [I] will ever know," because from the sound of your arguments, you sound like a druggie yourself who is desperate to make excuses for addiction and advocate "understanding" for your cause.

But I'm inclined to point out that you have absolutely no idea what I know.

Your :bs2: "Harm Reduction" ramblings read like a corporate mission statement, not a coherent plan of action. If you think that explains how to deal with addiction, then I certainly don't believe you are educated on the subject.

Unless you consider cruising druggie websites an "education." :lol:

Your right, the people working for a change in drug policy are idiots. They shold listen to you.

What does elliot spitzer know...he is only a former prosecutor and now governor.

What does Ethan Nadelmann know: received his BA, JD, and PhD from Harvard, and a master’s degree in international relations from the London School of Economics.

Or George Soros, or Daniel Abrahamson, or Marsha Rosenbaum who was the principal investigator on National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded studies of heroin addiction, methadone maintenance treatment, MDMA (Ecstasy), cocaine, and drug use during pregnancy, etc., etc.

Or those other ridiculous countries with progressive drug policies.

These ignorant, uneducated folks just are foolish to actually try and develop a reasonable policy. Nope, better to continue doing exactly what we've been doing for the past 30 years..with NO success. I guess you don't subscribe to the definition of insanity.

As for my arguments, again throw mud, but no factual basis. I have given stats, have asked you to read, but you would just rather believe what you "know" to be true. Hilarious.

Take a look at our society..we LOVE drugs..legal and illegal. Patients demand anti biotics when they aren't needed, are loving the rush of energy drinks, hooked on nicotine, etc.

The fact that you use the term druggie tells me all I need to know.

As for my usage...i never touch drugs and rarely even drink. It has been close to 20 years since I even saw drugs. I'm dealing in the real world, not some fantasy like you. I accept and acknowledge the truth..the truth of life is that there have always been drug users...ayahuasca, coca leaves, etc., always going to be those who commit crimes, always going to be prejudice, etc.

And always going to be those who have an opinion, like yourself, that really know very little about the subject.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Before you make statements you should have some PROOF.

It is foolish to think that you won't have at least some success putting drug addicted criminals in therapy, rehab, etc over incarceration..which effectively does NOTHING.

Let's take a look at the facts:



Anyone can google and can find any stats they want to find to support their views. The proof I have in making my statements is what I've witnessed for a long time. Addicts do not benefit from treatment unless they WANT to make changes. And yes, you do have some people that get rehab who didn't necessarily want to go that may benefit....but that number is very small. And....almost always the addict has many, many opportunities to go to treatment before it actually comes time for prison. A 30 day inpatient drug treatment for a meth addict? Sorry, that's not working. And the good news is many prisons do offer drug treatment. The meth/crack addict is off the streets for a year or so and is getting treatment while their at it....what a deal!! As for marijuana...legalize possession of small amounts (recreational use).

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.

More to the point, find me your stats that work for your position.

As for meth....it is still an improvement. And, if you wanna argue 30 days..PROOF please. And, who said we couldn't hold them longer? Rehab in jail is for the most part a joke. Again, locking people up for a medical problem is foolish.

[MadtownPacker]

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.
Dammit I want some dope fiend's opinions not your cleancut desk jockey ass crap! Truly a sad day to find out youre all talk and no walk.

Just leave it illegal. I'm gonna get what I want anyways. :smk:

[packinpatland]

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.
Dammit I want some dope fiend's opinions not your cleancut desk jockey ass crap! Truly a sad day to find out youre all talk and no walk.

Just leave it illegal. I'm gonna get what I want anyways. :smk:
*********************
That really isn't a burritto you're eating is it? Looks more like the ash-end of a joint. :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.
Dammit I want some dope fiend's opinions not your cleancut desk jockey ass crap! Truly a sad day to find out youre all talk and no walk.

Just leave it illegal. I'm gonna get what I want anyways. :smk:

I think you misinterpreted. What i was saying is my and her anecdotal (spelling?) exerience is quite limited compared to let's say: Those who conduct research, those who work in rehab facilities, those who work in the jails, prosecutors, etc.

MTP, I have seen more than my fair share of drug abusers, but I wouldn't want to have someone make policy decision based on my experiences.

And, I live in a state that is 2-3% higher than the national average. And a state that is in the top 5 in identity theft..which correlates directly to meth usage.

Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa. GO HAWKEYES!!!

[PackerBlues]

Want to see drugs legalized, vote Mike Gravel for president. This guy makes more sense than any of the corrupt career politicians currently running our country.

This guy has great ideas about a lot of important issues. Its too bad that the media isnt giving this guy more coverage and some are painting him to be like "crazy old" Ross Perot.


http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/109235/Gravel_on_the_Drug_War.html

[MadtownPacker]

Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa. GO HAWKEYES!!!What else are they gonna do? Watch the corn grow? :P

But I seriously would like to know the thoughts of a couple of hardcore users. Who knows, maybe they don't want it legalized. Maybe that's why I was disappointed to hear you aren't a tecato. :(

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa. GO HAWKEYES!!!What else are they gonna do? Watch the corn grow? :P

But I seriously would like to know the thoughts of a couple of hardcore users. Who knows, maybe they don't want it legalized. Maybe that's why I was disappointed to hear you aren't a tecato. :(

I'm no tecato, I'm a Tecate. 8-)

[Freak Out]

From our friends to the north, or south east from my perspective:

PUT THE GANGS OUT OF BUSINESS: LEGALIZE DRUGS

Michael C. Chettleburgh
Special to the National Post

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Childhood and adolescence should rightfully be a time of love, learning and life. But for thousands of young Canadians, their journey to adulthood is marred forever by street-gang involvement, which almost always means an active role in the massive business of illicit street drugs, too.

I have seen and heard of too many cases to count demonstrating the connection between gangs, drugs and youth. Consider these: eight-year-old gangsters on BMX bikes dealing crack and crystal meth in North Winnipeg; 14-year-old gangsters on the west coast, driving prepaid rental cars for $100 per eight hour shift, delivering drugs through widespread dial-a-dope operations; 16-year-old First Nations gang members travelling from big cities to remote James Bay communities selling "dime bags" of marijuana cut with oregano for $50, five times the going street price in the south; young Ontario and Quebec ecstasy cooks making colourful $20 pills of uncertain composition for the urban club scene, thus generating massive profits for their street-gang masters; and murder after countless murder of young men in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, a majority associated with street gangs and the drug trade.

Many allocate blame to street gangsters for this sorry state of affairs -- the idea being that if it weren't for these aggressive and money-hungry "pushers," we wouldn't have such a problem. However, this reasoning is incomplete: It fails to consider the demand generated by millions of Canadians of all ages who, at least once this year, will act on their desire and make a back-alley purchase of an illicit drug.

Millions -- that's right: So says Health Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse in their March, 2005 Canadian Addiction Survey. Despite prohibitory laws, societal scorn, unsavoury gangster salesmen, the risk of debilitating addiction and dubiously doctored substances, millions of willing consumers are supporting thousands of willing sellers -- street gangsters, that is -- across the country. And with consumption rates for many illicit drugs having doubled or tripled in the past 15 years, it's clear that the drug problem, and therefore the gang problem, is about to get a lot worse.

This should come as no surprise to anyone concerned about street gangs in the dozens of Canadian communities where they are active. If you're young, poor, marginalized, inadequately supervised, surrounded by violence and neglect in crumbling communities, and consider your economic prospects to be stark or non-existent, the pull of the gang can be quite magnetic. The street gang offers troubled youth a family, a contrived identity, a perverse form of "love," a gritty rite of passage, protection and excitement. Perhaps most compelling, it offers young gangsters the chance, however dangerous, to make money, and quite possibly lots of it, in a giant and growing street tournament called the drug trade, lubricated by demand from everyday Canadians.

The street gang and associated drug trade problem in Canada won't be solved by a get-tough, criminal-justice-system response, nor should we expect young homies to just say no. Look to the United States for proof of this. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has employed the most aggressive and expensive anti-drug and -gang measures ever conceived. In the process, 800,000 street gangsters under the age of 21 have been created. Moreover, more than two million Americans now call prison home, the majority of which are young black and Hispanic men. About half of them are serving time for relatively minor drug offences. Today, things are so bad that the FBI has made street gangs and the underlying drug trade their number one priority, even over domestic terrorism. The failure in this campaign is a testament to the abject failure of the U.S. war on drugs and gangs.

Canada has the opportunity, but perhaps not the courage, to employ a different approach on street gangs. To be sure, we must tackle the underlying socioeconomic causes of the street-gang problem, including poverty, income inequality and persistent discrimination. At the same time, we must equip our police agencies with the resources they need to take out the hardcore 20% or so of all street gangsters who are responsible for the majority of Canadian street violence. We must spend much more money on early prevention and diversion, because this is not a problem that we can arrest our way out of.

Finally, we need to embark upon drug legalization, which will starve gangs of their principal oxygen supply and serve to upset the attractive risk-reward proposition that every new gangster now faces.

Rather than continue to incur only the massive costs of the drug trade -- addictions, policing, corrections and loss of life -- why not also capture the massive financial benefit (over $400-billion in North America alone), which we presently reserve for the exclusive enjoyment of street gangs and other criminal organizations?

Like other drugs we deem socially acceptable -- nicotine delivered in cigarettes and alcohol for instance, which collectively kill about 50,000 Canadians every year -- we ought to control the production and distribution of illicit drugs and tax their consumption.

Let's start with cannabis, Canada's favourite drug by far. This move alone will generate a multi-billion dollar fiscal dividend that can be used to cover the costs we now incur despite prohibition, enforce more stringent laws against sales to minors, and invigorate Canada's meagre prevention and harm-reduction initiatives. This step would also go far to restoring public trust in law enforcement, which has been diminished by their involvement in imposing futile drug laws.

There is no contradiction in being pro-drug-reform yet anti-drug use. In its present form, the war on drugs is both bad public policy and a fight we cannot win. All drug users should have the right to harm themselves if they so choose. Recognizing that we cannot eliminate their demand, I would much prefer that drug users purchase their wares in a controlled setting rather than from young gangsters, who effectively control what gets sold, where it gets sold and to whom it gets sold.

Absent a robust underground trade in drugs, just how are Canada's estimated 14,000 street gangsters going to make sufficient money to offset the dangers inherent in the job of gangster? Sure, they may turn to other criminal enterprise, but there is not another in the world so alluring, so profitable, so vibrant, than the drug trade. Drug reform will not solve the drug problem entirely. But it will go a long way to solving what has been termed the "drug-problem problem," which is the pull of the gang and its associated crime and violence. - Michael C. Chettleburgh is one of Canada's foremost authorities on youth gangs. Since 1991, he has run a consultancy specializing in criminal justice issues. He researched and wrote the 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs for the federal government. He has also developed street-gang awareness training programs for law enforcement agencies and is a keynote speaker at many conferences on youth crime. His new book is Young Thugs: Inside the Dangerous World of Canadian Street Gangs.

mc@astwood.ca

[GrnBay007]

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.

More to the point, find me your stats that work for your position.

As for meth....it is still an improvement. And, if you wanna argue 30 days..PROOF please. And, who said we couldn't hold them longer? Rehab in jail is for the most part a joke. Again, locking people up for a medical problem is foolish.

How do you know my proof as a witness is a very limited experience? I think you see and learn a lot ....real life learning, not stats....in 15+ years of "witnessing".

I don't know of too many treatment facilities that go beyond 30 days. 30 days is not nearly long enough when you are dealing with some hardcore drug addictions. I'm sure there are some rehabs out there longer than 30 days but then you are talking really big bucks....treatment for the elite, not your average jo blow from the streets dealing with an addiction. Those out there dealing with a drug addiction who also have criminal offenses more than likely aren't working jobs (if they are working at all) that offer insurance. So without being on welfare, medicare, disability or the county agrees to pick up the cost these people can't even afford treatment. Maybe the system....the way treatment is not even an option for some should be your argument. If the drug addict stays on the street and continues to commit crimes to support their habit, the only option is to lock them up eventually.


Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa. Yep!! Now you are seeing where I'm getting my "limited" experience from. :shock:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.

More to the point, find me your stats that work for your position.

As for meth....it is still an improvement. And, if you wanna argue 30 days..PROOF please. And, who said we couldn't hold them longer? Rehab in jail is for the most part a joke. Again, locking people up for a medical problem is foolish.

How do you know my proof as a witness is a very limited experience? I think you see and learn a lot ....real life learning, not stats....in 15+ years of "witnessing".

I don't know of too many treatment facilities that go beyond 30 days. 30 days is not nearly long enough when you are dealing with some hardcore drug addictions. I'm sure there are some rehabs out there longer than 30 days but then you are talking really big bucks....treatment for the elite, not your average jo blow from the streets dealing with an addiction. Those out there dealing with a drug addiction who also have criminal offenses more than likely aren't working jobs (if they are working at all) that offer insurance. So without being on welfare, medicare, disability or the county agrees to pick up the cost these people can't even afford treatment. Maybe the system....the way treatment is not even an option for some should be your argument. If the drug addict stays on the street and continues to commit crimes to support their habit, the only option is to lock them up eventually.


Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa. Yep!! Now you are seeing where I'm getting my "limited" experience from. :shock:

You are limited because you are one person. Just as i am. Anecdotally evidence from one person is limited. Sorry, but it is.

Treatment: Again, more of your opinion about length of rehab. Without any facts. Again, you miss the point. 30 is better than jail, and futhermore, no one is saying 30 and done...there still is aftercare,etc.

But, you are right, longer than 30 is expensive, but not as expensive as locking them up and returning them to the streets without solving the problem. Also, most people in prison for drugs aren't hardcore addicts. Check your facts.

You just don't seem to understand the difference tween treating this as a medical issue vs. criminal. I'm sorry that you don't get it. Perhaps if we change the paradigm. If tommorow cigs are illegal, would you advocate locking up those who smoke? Nicotine is addictive, as is meth. If people steal to support their nicotine habit would you suggest we lock them up?

Lastly, plenty of people don't have to hit rock bottom to solve their problems. Some do, some don't. Many addicts are relieved when busted..they know their lives are out of control but are powerless to stop.

The War on drugs, like all the wars the government perpetuates (war on crime, war on poverty, war on X) is designed to take away your liberties, suppress dissenting opinion, and give your money to the government.

What is even funnier is that the war on drugs has most of american duped. Illegal drugs aren't the worst health issue in this country. Tobacco and Alcohol are much worse. And, obesity is the worst. This country has historically always had the same percentage of illegal drug users..be it cocaine, pot, heroin, uppers, downers, or meth.

What I can't understand is your blind adherence to a policy. A policy that has never worked and that isn't supported by bright people across the political spectrum (Milton friedman, William F. Buckley, George Schultz on the conservative side lest you think it is just those hippy, dippy liberals). Drugs have been in this country forever. Again, read De Tocqueville's Democracy in America, written in the 1800's and see what he observed. Go back and research all those opium based medicinal cures of the 1800s. Coca Cola had cocaine in it.

Locking people up, making them felons is a complete unjustice and is designed to disenfranchise voters. The United States is the only "democracy" in which people who have served their sentences can still lose their right to vote.

My mom use to say that if you think the sky is red, but everybody else is telling you the sky is blue, then it is best to believe it is blue. Well, the rest of the world is telling us the sky is blue. But, I guess you will continue to believe it is red.

[GrnBay007]

Treatment: Again, more of your opinion about length of rehab. Without any facts. Again, you miss the point. 30 is better than jail, and futhermore, no one is saying 30 and done...there still is aftercare,etc.

Yes, my opinion (based on a lot of experience)...that's what this is, a discussion board. I already stated my views on stats. Anyone is able to find the stats they need on the net to support their views. I'm just stating my views from lots of experience. And again, your average drug user is not going to prison right from the start. There is court ordered treatment, probation....all kinds of chances to get this problem under control before prison actually becomes an option. If a drug addict has multiple chances for treatment and they choose not to take advantage of it, knowing what the end result could be, then where do you draw the line? Eventually they just need to be locked up to keep them from committing criminal activity in order to support their habit.




You just don't seem to understand the difference tween treating this as a medical issue vs. criminal. I'm sorry that you don't get it. LOL, I'm sorry, but I really don't. A person dealt the hand of receiving the news they have life ending cancer, or any other disease which will end their life or leave them impaired is medical. They never had the choice to say yes or no. People that use drugs have the choice...from day one! That's one area I'm impressed with of the things brought about with this war on drugs....educating people and educating them young. The DARE program has done wonderful things to educate the young. How many people on this site can say that when they were young the whole drug issue was just something you weren't supposed to do, but really didn't know why? Now they are learning that meth and crack are out there and hey, if you try it....maybe even just once, you could ruin your life? I understand some people are more prone to develop problems with alcohol and drugs due to environment and/or genetics....but then again that's where education comes in.



Lastly, plenty of people don't have to hit rock bottom to solve their problems. Some do, some don't. Many addicts are relieved when busted..they know their lives are out of control but are powerless to stop. Completely agree.


The War on drugs, like all the wars the government perpetuates (war on crime, war on poverty, war on X) is designed to take away your liberties, suppress dissenting opinion, and give your money to the government.

What is even funnier is that the war on drugs has most of american duped. Illegal drugs aren't the worst health issue in this country. Tobacco and Alcohol are much worse. And, obesity is the worst. This country has historically always had the same percentage of illegal drug users..be it cocaine, pot, heroin, uppers, downers, or meth.

I don't have a problem with these labels. You can label it a war on tabacco, alcohol, drugs or obesity. My thoughts are if you do these things whether they are legal or not it is your choice.....YOUR CHOICE......but then you should be prepared to suffer whatever consequences there may be and not try to blame society or the government.

And I get the impression you think I'm against treatment for drug addicts ...and I'm NOT. More power to the person that admits they have a problem and wants to get help. But if that same person goes through treatment facility after treatment facility and continues to use drugs and commit crimes, then it begins to look like they are only using rehab as an excuse to keep them from going to prison, and then yes, they need to go to prison in an attempt to keep the streets safer for everyone.

[the_idle_threat]

Tyrone, you can spend all day saying the people who disagree with you don't know anything about this subject, and it won't make it so.

You've made it clear that you have no real experience with the subject.

Obviously you and I are not going to agree, so I guess we're at a stalemate. I'm going to leave it at that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, you can spend all day saying the people who disagree with you don't know anything about this subject, and it won't make it so.

You've made it clear that you have no real experience with the subject.

Obviously you and I are not going to agree, so I guess we're at a stalemate. I'm going to leave it at that.

Where have I made it clear? I said for the past 20 years. Sorry, but i'm not in my 20s.

Furthermore, i live in a state that has way more meth than most.

Stalemate: Sure. It will always be that way when one side refuses to actually try and learn about the subject. Come back when you've actually read some of the literature I suggested. Or when you can counter the percentage of americans on drugs historically doesn't change. But, i'm confident that all i will hear is the rustling of the wind.

[Tarlam!]

Stalemate: Sure. It will always be that way when one side refuses to actually try and learn about the subject. Come back when you've actually read some of the literature I suggested. Or when you can counter the percentage of americans on drugs historically doesn't change. But, i'm confident that all i will hear is the rustling of the wind.

I actually agree so much with this, it hurts.

The conservatives are not willing to concede 2000 years of idiocy, and as such, we will be faced with drug crime until the end of the world.

The problem is SO easy to fix, too.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Treatment: Again, more of your opinion about length of rehab. Without any facts. Again, you miss the point. 30 is better than jail, and futhermore, no one is saying 30 and done...there still is aftercare,etc.

Yes, my opinion (based on a lot of experience)...that's what this is, a discussion board. I already stated my views on stats. Anyone is able to find the stats they need on the net to support their views. I'm just stating my views from lots of experience. And again, your average drug user is not going to prison right from the start. There is court ordered treatment, probation....all kinds of chances to get this problem under control before prison actually becomes an option. If a drug addict has multiple chances for treatment and they choose not to take advantage of it, knowing what the end result could be, then where do you draw the line? Eventually they just need to be locked up to keep them from committing criminal activity in order to support their habit.




You just don't seem to understand the difference tween treating this as a medical issue vs. criminal. I'm sorry that you don't get it. LOL, I'm sorry, but I really don't. A person dealt the hand of receiving the news they have life ending cancer, or any other disease which will end their life or leave them impaired is medical. They never had the choice to say yes or no. People that use drugs have the choice...from day one! That's one area I'm impressed with of the things brought about with this war on drugs....educating people and educating them young. The DARE program has done wonderful things to educate the young. How many people on this site can say that when they were young the whole drug issue was just something you weren't supposed to do, but really didn't know why? Now they are learning that meth and crack are out there and hey, if you try it....maybe even just once, you could ruin your life? I understand some people are more prone to develop problems with alcohol and drugs due to environment and/or genetics....but then again that's where education comes in.



Lastly, plenty of people don't have to hit rock bottom to solve their problems. Some do, some don't. Many addicts are relieved when busted..they know their lives are out of control but are powerless to stop. Completely agree.


The War on drugs, like all the wars the government perpetuates (war on crime, war on poverty, war on X) is designed to take away your liberties, suppress dissenting opinion, and give your money to the government.

What is even funnier is that the war on drugs has most of american duped. Illegal drugs aren't the worst health issue in this country. Tobacco and Alcohol are much worse. And, obesity is the worst. This country has historically always had the same percentage of illegal drug users..be it cocaine, pot, heroin, uppers, downers, or meth.

I don't have a problem with these labels. You can label it a war on tabacco, alcohol, drugs or obesity. My thoughts are if you do these things whether they are legal or not it is your choice.....YOUR CHOICE......but then you should be prepared to suffer whatever consequences there may be and not try to blame society or the government.

And I get the impression you think I'm against treatment for drug addicts ...and I'm NOT. More power to the person that admits they have a problem and wants to get help. But if that same person goes through treatment facility after treatment facility and continues to use drugs and commit crimes, then it begins to look like they are only using rehab as an excuse to keep them from going to prison, and then yes, they need to go to prison in an attempt to keep the streets safer for everyone.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are mandatory minimums. Judges have no discretion when up against those laws.

You are just plain wrong on that. Let's take a look at the facts.

U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions - the only way to reduce a mandatory sentence. Low-level offenders, such as drug mules or street dealers, often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have both concluded that mandatory sentencing fails to deter crime. Furthermore, mandatory minimums have worsened racial and gender disparities and have contributed greatly toward prison overcrowding. Mandatory minimum sentencing is costly and unjust. Mandatory sentencing does not eliminate sentencing disparities; instead it shifts decision-making authority from judges to prosecutors, who operate without accountability. Mandatory minimums fail to punish high-level dealers. Finally, mandatory sentences are responsible for sending record numbers of women and people of color to prison.

More than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 is due to drug convictions.

In 1986, the year Congress enacted federal mandatory drug sentences, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49 percent higher.

Wow. What an amazing coincidence.

Between 1986 and 1996, the number of women in prison for drug law violations increased by 421 percent. This led U.S. Bureau of Prisons Director Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer to testify before Congress, "The reality is, some 70-some percent of our female population are low-level, nonviolent offenders. The fact that they have to come into prison is a question mark for me. I think it has been an unintended consequence of the sentencing guidelines and the mandatory minimums."

An academic study of the Massachusetts prison population published by Harvard in 1997 found that nearly half of the offenders sentenced to long mandatory-minimum terms for drug related offenses had no record of violent crime. The study concluded that jailing nonviolent drug offenders does not cure drug addiction and that the laws were "wasting prison resources on nonviolent, low-level offenders and reducing resources available to lock up violent offenders".

Medical: As I asked, but never answered, if we make tobacco illegal are you in favor of locking those offenders up? Of course not. We wouldn't think of locking up alcoholics. A drug is a drug. And, addiction is a disease.

Education: I agree. That is my whole point. We spend very little on education. Education is a central tenet of harm reduction.

War: If you don't understand how language shapes our views, then i really can't help you. I guess reading animal farm didn't sink in. Language totally shapes perception..and perception is reality.

Safe: Most drug users aren't violent criminals. Furthermore, the sentence should match the crime. There is something wrong when a drug crime has a tougher sentencing then killing someone.

[GrnBay007]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are mandatory minimums. Judges have no discretion when up against those laws.

How can I be wrong when this is the first you've brought up mandatory minimums? Of course I know there's mandatory minimums out there but those aren't used for your average user in possession of drugs. One of the most popular is distributing drugs within 1,000 ft of a school. That buys you a mandatory minimum here of 10 yrs. The use of that phrase is also misleading. Your mandatory minimum sentence is 10 yrs. and they are required to serve 85% of the sentence. Hmmm....how many parents out there are going argue someone selling drugs near a school should do a 30 day rehab stay rather than get some prison time? I bet not many.

You then go on to cite a lot of Federal sentencing stats and that is generally speaking much different than State laws and sentencing. Federal sentencing is historically much harsher than State sentencing.



Medical: As I asked, but never answered, if we make tobacco illegal are you in favor of locking those offenders up? Of course not. We wouldn't think of locking up alcoholics. A drug is a drug. And, addiction is a disease.We do lock up alcoholics if they break the law and drive drunk. That's gotten pretty harsh itself. 2nd OWI a 2 yr. prison sentence. 3rd OWI a 5 yr. prison sentence and a felony on your record.



I think we should just agree to disagree on this matter. You've gone off in so many directions I'm not even sure anymore the drug user/abuser you are referring to when you say rehab works better than prison.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are mandatory minimums. Judges have no discretion when up against those laws.

How can I be wrong when this is the first you've brought up mandatory minimums? Of course I know there's mandatory minimums out there but those aren't used for your average user in possession of drugs. One of the most popular is distributing drugs within 1,000 ft of a school. That buys you a mandatory minimum here of 10 yrs. The use of that phrase is also misleading. Your mandatory minimum sentence is 10 yrs. and they are required to serve 85% of the sentence. Hmmm....how many parents out there are going argue someone selling drugs near a school should do a 30 day rehab stay rather than get some prison time? I bet not many.

You then go on to cite a lot of Federal sentencing stats and that is generally speaking much different than State laws and sentencing. Federal sentencing is historically much harsher than State sentencing.



Medical: As I asked, but never answered, if we make tobacco illegal are you in favor of locking those offenders up? Of course not. We wouldn't think of locking up alcoholics. A drug is a drug. And, addiction is a disease.We do lock up alcoholics if they break the law and drive drunk. That's gotten pretty harsh itself. 2nd OWI a 2 yr. prison sentence. 3rd OWI a 5 yr. prison sentence and a felony on your record.



I think we should just agree to disagree on this matter. You've gone off in so many directions I'm not even sure anymore the drug user/abuser you are referring to when you say rehab works better than prison.

Again, you miss the point. Mandatory minimums are used for simple possession. I live in Arizona. Meth users are eligible for jail or prison for first- or second-offense possession.

Crack cocaine is the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger a federal mandatory minimum sentence. Possession of 5 grams of crack will trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. "Simple possession of any quantity of any other substance by a first-time offender-including powder cocaine-is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year in prison." (21 U.S.C. 844.)

Possession of more than 5 grams of cocaine can trigger an "intent to distribute" penalty of 10 to 16 years in prison. To put that in perspective, many people buy an 8 ball (3.5 grams) or 2 to party with.

In Arizona, possession of nine grams of powder cocaine or 750 milligrams of cocaine base is considered "trafficking", with a sentence of 5 years prison. A judge may sentence an offender to a minimum of 4 years in prison if special mitigating factors are present, or a maximum of 10 years if aggravating factors are present. An offender convicted of trafficking is not eligible for suspension of sentence or release until the offender has served the sentence imposed by the court.

And, let's not even talk about the sentencing disparity tween crack and coke. Basically it is lock up poor black people vs. keeping white people out of jail, “distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while for powder cocaine, distribution of 500 grams – 100 times the amount of crack cocaine – carries the same sentence.”

Schools: No one is advocating selling drugs around children. However, if you were smoking pot or doing blow in your house and you are near a school..you shouldn't have that law applied. Good luck on that. The law is also applied to religious buildings as well.

You can argue all day long about violent, stealing drug offenders should be in prison, but in reality, most people in prison are not that.

Furthermore, locking people up does nothing to change the associated ills of drug usage..aids, hep c, etc. This has been studied for 15 years and has shown that needle exchange doesn't lead to more usage, lowers diseases..and probably most importantly provide an access point for a large disadvantaged group to health and other services. You aren't going to be able to find out what is going on with drug users if you never see them.

US studies have found that needle and syringe provision can decrease HIV-risk injecting behavior by up to 73%.

If you want a safer, better country for your children, the current policy we have isn't going to do it.

[Merlin]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.
5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....



How is this going to stop the ones who then become the one who sell cheap, black market etc....

There is a black market for alcohol and tobacco now. So what's one more? At least the majority will be taxed...

[Merlin]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.

5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....

Although this shouldn't make a difference to anyone who knows me, I don't smoke and I have never done any illegal drugs of any kind. Not even pot. Wasn't sure if I had much creditability because it looked like I was a user and a smoker. I am just furious that the nanny states out there feel the need to tell us how to live our lives.

[packinpatland]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.
5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....



How is this going to stop the ones who then become the one who sell cheap, black market etc....

There is a black market for alcohol and tobacco now. So what's one more? At least the majority will be taxed...



Ok, that's a fair point.

[Freak Out]

Don't tread on me.

[MJZiggy]

http://wtop.com/?nid=106&sid=1178512

By DEBORAH BAKER
Associated Press Writer

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - New Mexico has a new medical marijuana law with a twist: It requires the state to grow its own.

The law, effective Sunday, not only protects medical marijuana users from prosecution _ as 11 other states do _ but requires New Mexico to oversee a production and distribution system for the drug.

"The long-term goal is that the patients will have a safe, secure supply that doesn't mean drug dealers, that doesn't mean growing their own," said Reena Szczepanski, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Mexico.

The state Department of Health must issue rules by Oct. 1 for the licensing of marijuana producers and in-state, secured facilities, and for developing a distribution system.

The law was passed in March and signed by Gov. Bill Richardson, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Other states with medical marijuana laws are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Maryland's law doesn't protect patients from arrest, but it keeps defendants out of jail if they can convince judges they needed marijuana for medical reasons.

Connecticut's governor vetoed a medical marijuana bill recently.

The distribution and use of marijuana are illegal under federal law, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in a California case that medical marijuana users can be prosecuted.

Faced with that dilemma, the health department has asked state Attorney General Gary King whether its employees could be federally prosecuted for running the medical marijuana registry and identification card program, and whether the agency can license marijuana producers and facilities.

"The production part is unprecedented. ... No other state law does that," said Dr. Steve Jenison, who is running the program for the health department. "So we're trying to be very thoughtful in how we proceed."

In the meantime, however, patients must obtain their own supplies.

The state will immediately begin taking applications from patients whose doctors certify they are eligible for the program.

Within weeks, approved patients _ or their approved primary caregivers _ would receive temporary certificates allowing them to possess up to six ounces of marijuana, four mature plants and three immature seedlings. That's enough for three months, the department says.

The law allows the use of marijuana for specified conditions including cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and HIV-AIDS, as well as by some patients in hospice care.

An eight-member advisory board of doctors could recommend that other conditions be added to the list.

Martin Walker was diagnosed four years ago as HIV positive and uses marijuana to combat nausea and depression. He said he looks forward to being able to obtain the drug legally.

"If there's a system in place that's going to allow me to do this treatment without having to break the law ... I'll just be able to sleep better at night," said Walker, who runs HIV prevention and other outdoor-based adult health programs for the Santa Fe Mountain Center.

[Freak Out]

http://wtop.com/?nid=106&sid=1178512

By DEBORAH BAKER
Associated Press Writer

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - New Mexico has a new medical marijuana law with a twist: It requires the state to grow its own.

The law, effective Sunday, not only protects medical marijuana users from prosecution _ as 11 other states do _ but requires New Mexico to oversee a production and distribution system for the drug.

"The long-term goal is that the patients will have a safe, secure supply that doesn't mean drug dealers, that doesn't mean growing their own," said Reena Szczepanski, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Mexico.

The state Department of Health must issue rules by Oct. 1 for the licensing of marijuana producers and in-state, secured facilities, and for developing a distribution system.

The law was passed in March and signed by Gov. Bill Richardson, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Other states with medical marijuana laws are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Maryland's law doesn't protect patients from arrest, but it keeps defendants out of jail if they can convince judges they needed marijuana for medical reasons.

Connecticut's governor vetoed a medical marijuana bill recently.

The distribution and use of marijuana are illegal under federal law, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in a California case that medical marijuana users can be prosecuted.

Faced with that dilemma, the health department has asked state Attorney General Gary King whether its employees could be federally prosecuted for running the medical marijuana registry and identification card program, and whether the agency can license marijuana producers and facilities.

"The production part is unprecedented. ... No other state law does that," said Dr. Steve Jenison, who is running the program for the health department. "So we're trying to be very thoughtful in how we proceed."

In the meantime, however, patients must obtain their own supplies.

The state will immediately begin taking applications from patients whose doctors certify they are eligible for the program.

Within weeks, approved patients _ or their approved primary caregivers _ would receive temporary certificates allowing them to possess up to six ounces of marijuana, four mature plants and three immature seedlings. That's enough for three months, the department says.

The law allows the use of marijuana for specified conditions including cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and HIV-AIDS, as well as by some patients in hospice care.

An eight-member advisory board of doctors could recommend that other conditions be added to the list.

Martin Walker was diagnosed four years ago as HIV positive and uses marijuana to combat nausea and depression. He said he looks forward to being able to obtain the drug legally.

"If there's a system in place that's going to allow me to do this treatment without having to break the law ... I'll just be able to sleep better at night," said Walker, who runs HIV prevention and other outdoor-based adult health programs for the Santa Fe Mountain Center.

We'll see how long it takes for the Feds to challenge this one. Remember who is running the DOJ.

[Freak Out]

Senator, You Used to Be a Pot Head -- Now You're Talking Like a Narc

By Norman Kent, AlterNet
Posted on July 6, 2007, Printed on July 6, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/55830/

Editor's Note: The following is a letter addressed to Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman -- a strong advocate of the brutal federal drug laws on the books -- reminding him that he used to be a happy, safe, fun-loving pot smoker.

My friend Norman,

Years ago, in a lifetime far away, you did not oppose the legalization of marijuana. Years ago, in our dorm rooms at Hofstra University, you, me, Billy, your future brother-in-law, Ivan, Jonathan, Peter, Janet, Nancy and a wealth of other students smoked dope.

Sure, we had to tape the doors shut, burn incense and open the windows, but we got high, and yet we grew up okay, without the help of the Office of National Drug Control Policy's advice.

We grew up to become lawyers. Our other friends, as you go down the list, are doctors, professors, parents, political consultants and professionals. No one ever got cancer from smoking pot or diabetes from using a joint. And the days of our youth we look back fondly upon as years where we stood up, were counted and made a difference, from Earth Day in 1970 to helping bring down a president and end a war in Southeast Asia a few years later. We smoked pot when we took over Weller Hall to protest administrative abuses of students' rights. You smoked pot as you stood on the roof of the University Senate protesting faculty exclusivity. As the President of the Student Senate in 1969, you condemned the raid by Nassau County police on our dormitories, busting scores of students for pot possession.

You never said then that pot was dangerous. What was scary then, and is as frightening now, is when national leaders become voices of hypocrisy, harbingers of the status quo, and protect their own position instead of the public good. Welcome to the crowd of those who have become a likeness of which they despised. Welcome to the mindless myriad of legislators who gather in cocktail lounges to manhandle their martinis while passing laws against drunk driving.

We have seen more people die last year from spinach then pot. We have endured generations of drug addicts overdosing on a multitude of drugs, from heroin to crystal methamphetamine. In your public life, as an attorney general, mayor and United States senator, you have been in the forefront of speaking out against abuses which are harmful. You have been a noble and honorable public servant. How about not being such a dope on dope?

How about admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to Norman Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968, or to me, or to our friends, and fellow students, you, I and others we knew and loved might just be getting out of jail now? How about recognizing that for too long too many have been wrongly arrested, unjustly prosecuted and illegally incarcerated for unconscionable periods of time?

How about recognizing that you have peers who have smoked pot for 25 years or more and they are successful record producers, businessmen and parents?

How about standing up and saying you have heard and witnessed countless stories of persons who have used pot medicinally, as I have, to endure the effects of chemotherapy?

You who have travelled to Africa and seen the face of AIDS so up close and personal would deny medicinal marijuana relief to those souls wasting away from malnutrition, nausea and no access to fundamental medicines?

How about not adopting the sad and sorry archaic path of our office of drug control, which this week suggested pot smokers are more likely to become gang members than others?

How about standing up and saying: "I, Norm Coleman, smoked pot in 1969." That "I am not a gang member, a drug addict or a criminal."

How about saying: "I was able to responsibly integrate my prior pot use into my life, and still succeed on my own merits."

How about standing up not only for who you are, but who you were?

How about it, Norm?

I will always love, admire and cherish what you have achieved and accomplished and the goals you have met. I will always fondly look at the remarkable success of your present.

How about you looking back at your past and saying: "What I did was not so wrong and not so bad and not so hurtful that generations of Americans should still, decades later, be going to jail for smoking pot -- nearly one million arrests for possession last year."

Can't Norm Coleman come out of the closet in 2007 and say "These arrests are wrong -- that there is a better way, and we need to find it."

You might find more integrity and honor in that then adopting the sad and sorry policy of our Office of National Drug Control Policy.

You might find the person you were.

Norm Kent

Norm Kent is an attorney based in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, who specializes in criminal defense and appeals, media law and First Amendment issues. He serves on the Board of Directors for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.