Drugs; We Are Losing This One

how would it destroy our country? Cigarettes are legal, I still wouldn't do them as many other wouldn't? My grandmother did them and now shes been a shut in for 10 years with an oxygen tank wherever she goes? Do I suddenly feel we should ban cigarettes to save lives like my grandmother? Hell no, people need to accept responsibility for their actions. If some one does X, well guess what, its their own fault if they get killed or kill somebody. People kill other people drunk driving all the time, its a crime. If the person weren't drunk and just in a rush, I would still want the same punishment. Whether the crime was commited on drug or not is irrelevent, the person commited a crime and will pay for it.

As for self destruction, thats their choice. People do it with cigarettes, I don't see what the difference is.
Thing is we need to stop public healthcare and such. No healthcare for smokers, drug users, etc. Accidents like a railing breaking causing some one to break their arm is one thing, a smoker is another.

Its a persons right to choose if they want to kill themselves. If thats their choice, Im fine with that. People die all the time, thats life. Im not looking to save anybody that chooses to die.

Semper Fortis, please explain why you think legal narcotics would destroy our country.

And then explain why that hasn't already happened. Narcotics (everything from cannabis and opium to heroin) were readily available in small-town drug stores until the late 1930s, and even now they're readily available to anybody that wants them... we just can't go to the store for them any more.



Here is a fact:

if somebody wants to get high, they will.

it doesn't matter if they want pot, heroin, coc aine, ecstasy, '___', or whatever. if they want it, they can and will get ahold of it.

legalizing drugs wouldn't create vast hordes of new drug users; in fact, i doubt it'd create more than a few hundred thousand across the country.

what it would do is allow people to do as they please without worrying about abuse at the hands of police and unethical dealers.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by The Parallelogram]

I can suggest several reason, but Crack is a wonderful example.

The addictive qualities of Crack in particular create a psychological dependence uncontrollable by the user. This often equates into efforts to obtain their narcotic using violence as a method.

Meth, causes extreme paranoia and additional psychological problems that again, translate themselves into violence.

That is a problem. They are not cigarettes.

Semper

Para,

I never alluded to anything indicating that I believed the Legalization of narcotics would destroy the country.

I can not answer your question.

I believe quite the opposite if you would read the posts.

Semper

Sorry Semper, not getting your point. Please help.

Mine is that if soft drugs were legal, you wouldn't be spending BILLIONS on policing, prosecuting and detaining. That money could be used better elsewhere. The decades have shown that the market is going nowhere and the funds put forth to fight another unwinnable war are truely useless. Money down the drain.

Do I use drugs? No. Have I? Yes. Do my kids use drugs? Not illegal ones, I educate them on them. I have 2 on ritilin though.

yes semper all true about the drugs. What does that have to do with legalization?

Originally posted by semperfortis
No, what I am referring to is once decriminalized, there would have to be controls set in place for regulation. Much the same as Alcohol.

Simply "legalizing" narcotics would very simply and effectively destroy our country.

Semper

lol sorry semper I think you did same legaizing would "effectively destroy our country"

Legalization equates to the free and unrestricted flow of any substance.

Alcohol is not Legalized, it is controlled by the government and available to adults only. (Supposedly) Perhaps I am not clearly stating or alluding to what I consider to be the difference in Legalization and decriminalization.

If you are going to compare the effects of alcohol and cigarettes to that of crack and meth, then this discussion is not relevant.

It is simply a matter of the effect on the subject and the actions routinely exhibited by persons addicted to those substances.
Meth especially causes violent tendencies and extreme paranoiac actions.

Semper

Yeah, I worded it wrong

Im trying to keep up with all of you on two different posts...


A little slack would be appreciated....

Semper

It is my understanding that most states in the US already have stamps that growers are required to have for their plants? Of course, at the moment, I doubt many do, because a simple cross reference would have them nailed for growing plants. Point is, the taxation system seems to already have been in place.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one, but I will say that the article was well written, and conveyed your point of view, SemperFortis

My personal belief is that if it is legalized, a lot of the "thrill" of breaking rules will cause less people to do the more harmful drugs, ie. crack, heroin, meth. They will see people OD, they will see what it looks like. It's a horrible process to watch someone die of a heroin addiction, trust me on that. But those people usual hide a lot of the horrific aspects (finding new veins, blown out veins, arms that look like nails have been driven up them). If that was seen in the open, I am sure less people would want to touch them.

Just my opinion.

Money makes the world go round. Drugs are money, big money. So Drugs also make the world go round?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Legalization equates to the free and unrestricted flow of any substance.

Alcohol is not Legalized, it is controlled by the government and available to adults only. (Supposedly) Perhaps I am not clearly stating or alluding to what I consider to be the difference in Legalization and decriminalization.

If you are going to compare the effects of alcohol and cigarettes to that of crack and meth, then this discussion is not relevant.

It is simply a matter of the effect on the subject and the actions routinely exhibited by persons addicted to those substances.
Meth especially causes violent tendencies and extreme paranoiac actions.

Semper

what I am saying is any crime commited on the drug, is still a crime. They should be treated with the same punishment. Taking a drug and killing some one to me is premeditated murder. So long as the drug comes in a package that has a warning saying "this may cause death or other actions, not responsible for criminal actions taken because of this drug" etc etc. then its premeditated for whatever crime they commit. They knew the drug could cause them to kill some one, and if they took it and they did kill some one, thats premeditated murder...you get life for that.
(personally I think it should be death, but thats my personal thing...so we dont have to pay for them in jail.)

Originally posted by semperfortis
Legalization equates to the free and unrestricted flow of any substance.

Alcohol is not Legalized, it is controlled by the government and available to adults only. (Supposedly) Perhaps I am not clearly stating or alluding to what I consider to be the difference in Legalization and decriminalization.

If you are going to compare the effects of alcohol and cigarettes to that of crack and meth, then this discussion is not relevant.

It is simply a matter of the effect on the subject and the actions routinely exhibited by persons addicted to those substances.
Meth especially causes violent tendencies and extreme paranoiac actions.

Semper

That's pretty convoluted Semper. No, legalization means that you can't be prosecuted for having the substance, where legal. It's different, by age, in different states and countries.

Also, are we talking about weed? Are we putting that substance in with crack? If so, this isn't going to play as there are different tendancies for those 2 substances.

Meth on the other hand is NOT the boogyman that you would purport it to be. It is used here in Canada to ween heroin addictics off of the needle.

Originally posted by vicarious
Money makes the world go round. Drugs are money, big money. So Drugs also make the world go round?

BINGO!!!

Now who's making the money? That's the BILLION dollar question.

Goes back to Nam and has best been explained in THE PEGASUS FILE & Part 2, which covers much of what this topic is about. There is a project Zaph is working on, that is deeply connected to this thread.

The linked sources have some good details and is a very good rough outline for other projects related to Zaph's such as the OARP.

If the problem is our own people, "foreign and domestic" takes on a personal meaning.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by ADVISOR]

Niteboy,

I can not disagree with you. That is a very viable possible scenario to decriminalization. One that I could whole-heartedly support.

The problem is, how do we know that is what would happen?

There are masses of people that are very despondent and dissatisfied with their lot in life. Would not the ready availability of narcotics also offer them an escape, thereby increasing the use?
Is it not also possible, that some "would be" users, do not because of a certain sense of right and wrong?

Semper

Intrepid, in reference to the use of meth to wean heroin addicts...that doesn't make sense to me. Meth is more toxic, more addictive, and more widely available than H. Hell, if that's not criteria for being 'worse', I hardly know what is.

Meth IS the boogeyman a lot of people think it is. Don't believe me, believe the statistics. 85% of property crimes in the state of Oregon are meth related. Junkies steal, cheat, kill, whatever to get their next fix, which is why they are in the system to begin with, largely.

Now, the war on pot is an idiotic lost cause. The war on meth? Meth is the stuff of nightmares. Go to Oregon, and they'll tell you what kind of a mistake not fighting is.

Frontline did a really good special on it. I suggest everyone watches it.

DE

Semper:

this is exactly what you said.

Originally posted by semperfortis
No, what I am referring to is once decriminalized, there would have to be controls set in place for regulation. Much the same as Alcohol.

Simply "legalizing" narcotics would very simply and effectively destroy our country.

Semper

I agree that drugs must be regulated (pot available only to those over 21, etc., as it WILL have a detrimental effect on the growing minds of youth).

[edit on 19-8-2006 by The Parallelogram]

Actually, come to think of it the drug trade and such goes back way before Nam. Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, both marijuana and opium were over the counter drugs.

But as an illegal trade, Nam era CIA and such groups are the origins, places earlier maybe even Afghanistan, is deeply tied in. Just making that clarification.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by ADVISOR]

Originally posted by semperfortis
There are masses of people that are very despondent and dissatisfied with their lot in life. Would not the ready availability of narcotics also offer them an escape, thereby increasing the use?
Is it not also possible, that some "would be" users, do not because of a certain sense of right and wrong?

Semper

That's the crux of the matter Semper, ALL narcotics are readily available EVERYWHERE. The market is also there. The only difference is that, if legal, they would be LESS expensive. Regulated.

Sense of "right and wrong" don't come into play with addiction, nor use. See drunk driving.