The Fallacy of The War on Drugs and Ideas to End It

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: underwerks

and how many people would never even be prescribed opiates if MJ was a legit, legal option?
even for minor #. get a tooth pulled? no need for a script for 10 percocet. go get some cbd candy

That's very true as well. Everywhere that has legal cannabis has seen a drop in opiate use among all demographics.

a reply to: underwerks

I live in a city that's pretty much meth central.

Meth and opiates are two different animals.

originally posted by: underwerks

The idea of foaming at the mouth drug users who have no control over themselves is a drug war myth, and one anyone with any actual experience can recognize as BS.

people still tend to believe the propaganda like that

i think a lot of people just have no experience with drugs or people that have enjoyed them recreationally.
they know what they hear from the news or they knew a guy who knew a guy who was #ed and in and out of rehab.

the funny think is those types of people probably know a handful of people that are into it for recreation and have no idea.
i bet

a reply to: ketsuko

how does society deal with it now?
there you go

Let me give you all a quick lesson on why drugs should be legalized.
I live in a small market town in England and in 2 months we've had 4 murders. Yes, 4 murders. You would think this would be in the national media but apart from a small inside page bit nothing, nada. This is in a small rural town.
Now these murders did not result from people taking drugs but from the actions of the pushers.
So if drugs were legalized that would have saved 4 peoples lives. As the need and niche for pushers would be gone.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TinySickTears

I am not focused on those who can function.

I am focused on those who won't be able to. They're the ones we need to plan for because like it or not, they *will* exist and quite possibly in greater numbers than you think.

Any plan to legalize has to take that into account along with the unpleasant side effects of the harder drugs. How does society deal with the psychotic meth head, for example? Sure, it was legal for him to use, but now he's on a real bad trip and danger to himself and everyone around him. Is it legal for someone with a firearm to shoot him?

Society should treat the psychotic meth head the way it already does. Drug legalization doesn't mean you stop enforcing other laws that protect the safety of others.

a reply to: underwerks

So he's psychotic and out of control because he's on an illicit substance. Right now, he goes into jail for that.

What happens when the substance is legal? Do we have to throw him in the drunk tank?

What happens to the cops who try to arrest him if something happens on the arrest and he dies?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

I live in a city that's pretty much meth central.

Meth and opiates are two different animals.

Same here, I grew up in the south, amd I can't even count the number of people in that scene I knew, family included.

You realize that meth is actually prescribed to people as well, right? A lot of times it's not the amphetamine that makes the person go sideways but the adulterants that leach into because it's being made illegally in the woods behind a barn somewhere.

Which once again, wouldn't be as big an issue if everyone had a substance made in a clean lab.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

So he's psychotic and out of control because he's on an illicit substance. Right now, he goes into jail for that.

What happens when the substance is legal? Do we have to throw him in the drunk tank?

What happens to the cops who try to arrest him if something happens on the arrest and he dies?

i dont get the point you are trying to make

booze is legal now
is it legal to drink a gallon of vodka and be out in public going all psycotic?
what do they do with those people?

i and others have been saying for a while now to treat it like you would alcohol. it is legal but taxed and regulated.
being under the influence of alcohol does not give you a pass to go break laws.
why do you think being under the influence of drugs would

originally posted by: underwerks
A lot of times it's not the amphetamine that makes the person go sideways but the adulterants that leach into because it's being made illegally in the woods behind a barn somewhere.

Which once again, wouldn't be as big an issue if everyone had a substance made in a clean lab.

this is a huge factor.
there are no standards or consistency with it

the whatever drug you get today might not be the same strength with the same ingredients as you get a week later even if from the same person
that accounts for a lot of accidental overdoses right there

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

So he's psychotic and out of control because he's on an illicit substance. Right now, he goes into jail for that.

What happens when the substance is legal? Do we have to throw him in the drunk tank?

What happens to the cops who try to arrest him if something happens on the arrest and he dies?

If the person is threatening the safety of other people, you treat them the same way as you would now.

If he's just being psychotic and not in danger of hurting anyone else, let them be. If someone wants to go lose their mind for a little bit and not hurt anyone else I fully support that. In a free society people shouldn't project their own morality onto others.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

So he's psychotic and out of control because he's on an illicit substance. Right now, he goes into jail for that.

What happens when the substance is legal? Do we have to throw him in the drunk tank?

What happens to the cops who try to arrest him if something happens on the arrest and he dies?

i dont get the point you are trying to make

booze is legal now
is it legal to drink a gallon of vodka and be out in public going all psycotic?
what do they do with those people?

i and others have been saying for a while now to treat it like you would alcohol. it is legal but taxed and regulated.
being under the influence of alcohol does not give you a pass to go break laws.
why do you think being under the influence of drugs would

Great points.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

the revenue stream on taxes alone from legal MJ should be enough to warrant full legalization.

It will also reduce the need and thus the funding for the ATF, DEA, Border Patrol, Customs. Not to mention in the eyes of those that produce tobacco, alcohol and big pharma...they think it will reduce their profits. And then there's the private prison issue....Prisons are making money based on how many prisoners they have...

all the # we dont have money for now..pick your poison.
schools. roads. the military. etc
well legalize MJ and there is your money for all that #

not only money earned in taxes from it but money saved by not going after people for it

even at a traffic stop. tail light is out. thats PC. search the person. find an 8th
now they call the dogs. the cop sits and waits. the other cops show up. the time goes by.
that is money spent chasing some bull# and time those cops are not out doing something of actual value.

how many times a day does that situation happen in this country?
im sure its a lot

its heads out of asses time
this needs to happen

I totally agree with you TST. I'm not a user, probably won't ever be again BUT I support fully the right to recreational marijuana use. I don't see a downside from my own perspective. I only see upsides. I'm not a CEO, and I'm not dependent on letter agencies for money...but if I were my perspective would be different.

I think the tax revenues themselves would fix the US budget deficit quite fast. And you're right, we might actually be able to get infrastructure money...better roads, sewers, community centers...and the list goes on and on and on.

Without question, the War on Drugs is a farce designed to squash the rights of those who are targeted for oppression, and, of course, to generate ludicrous profits. And I agree, it has probably done more than any other policy to date both at home and abroad. Drugs should be regulated where purity is guaranteed, prices are reasonable, access is controlled, and taxed to pay for the administration of drug law and drug treatments for the 12% who become addicted when they are ready to take back control over their lives.

originally posted by: Willtell
First, the war on crime was started to curtail our rights.

Then the war on drugs was started to curtail more rights, like having as much money in the bank as you want without reporting it.

Then the war on terror to make things a living hell on earth was started to make the world a massive police state.

Right you are!

The only important thing you failed to mention was another reason for the drug prohibition/war. Keeping a prohibition in place allows black market dynamics to flourish, and that allowed our illustrious CIA to participate in that black market.

Gary Webb and others have exposed this and written about it.

originally posted by: wantsome
I've been on both sides of the fence. When I did drugs I was pro legalization. It's been 20 years since I last did drugs. I've seen enough peoples lives damaged from drugs. The last thing we need in society is to condone drug use.

But we already do. There are tons of alcoholics and cigarette smokers in the country.

There never was a war on drugs. There was a war on competition.

Bayer invented heroin. Still sells it. All heroin that doesn't come from Bayer, is the only heroin theres a war against.

Does anyone remember why Eric Garner was killed? Because he wasn't paying a federal sales licensing fee or collecting tax on the cigarettes he sold!

The war on drugs is the corporate government demanding their cut of all sales. Untaxed drugs, like the ones you grow in your back yard, are the target, BECAUSE THEY ARENT TAXED.