Are Drug Abusers Criminals?

Originally posted by chissler
Ahh trickery of words.

I never said it caused lung cancer, I said it caused cancerous cells in the esophagus.

However, this thread is not whether or not Marijuana causes cancer. Lets stay on point with whether or not Drug Abusers are criminals.

sorry about that.... not trying to detract the thread.

It is just important to illustrate the complexities involved in determining criminality.
especially since sooo many Americans are in prison for pot possession.
I had to address some of the history and myths that are part of the reason why it remains illegal. As far as the hard drugs goes.. its a whole seperate sub-catagory.

As far as causing cancerous cells in the esophagus; if you could give me a link for that .. that would be great(you can u2u me if you wish)

The problem with the criminality of drug use is that the govt. is capitalizing on both ends of the spectrum here. They make money by bringing in the drugs.. and they make money in the prosocution of drug users and sellers.

Alcohol is legal and is a drug. yet how many abuse it everyday? how many die everyday? you know how many people have died in history from pot? None have ever died!!! Yet alcohol stays legal despite the thousands of deaths every year it causes. B ut hey the govt. is looking out for you...roflmao.

So what arguements does the govt have for keeping pot illegal?
if:

1.)it has no major health risks(actually has benefits)
2.)was proven to be made illegal for the benefit of paper companies like Dupont.
3.)Was proven to have been made illegal through racism and bigotry
4.)Has never been responsible for one death in all of recorded history

How much longer are we going to let hundreds of thousands of our citizens sit in a prison cell while our last two presidents sat in the White House after doing the same thing? Hypocritical states of America.. at its best.

Hey, I agree with you on it.

If your busted for dealing a drug, you should do time. If your busted for possession of a small amount, you should be fined at most. Decriminalization works, because it gives people that second chance. Your fined which works as the deterrant but your not going to suffer for the rest of your life.

Recreational users are rarely considered criminals, most people are able to conceal they are a recreational user. That is unless they disclose the information themselves.

But the homeless who are on the streets, full of track marks up their arm can do little to hide it. It are these people that are looked down upon and considered a criminal due to their addiction.



[edit on 22-9-2006 by chissler]

Originally posted by chissler
They are illegal, and the act of taking them is criminal. But I don't feel it makes the individual a criminal. Is a jaywalker a criminal? Failing to signal when turning?

A criminal is someone who commits a crime.
A crime is defined as an act that is prohibited by law.

Is a jaywalker a criminal? Yes.
Is someone who forgets to hit their blinker a criminal? Yes.
Is someone who purchases a dime bag once a year for a party a criminal? Yes.

Now you can argue that a law is silly or that it shouldn't exist, but you can't really win with the argument that someone who breaks the law is not, by definition, a criminal. (Believe me, I tried when I got a ticket for jaywalking last week. No joke. Yes, I'm a criminal.)

So don't try this in court:

Originally posted by andy1033
remember how many people in uk and usa take drugs at the weekend. most of these do not commit crimes to get there drugs.

Everyone who gets drugs that are not prescribed to them is commiting a crime. And until the courts start differentiating between "real" crimes and "fake" crimes, it's not a productive use of time to argue that rolling a tiny joint in the back alley of a club is not a crime.

Now before everyone piles on and flames me right out of this thread, let me make an important distinction:

An addict is someone who habitually performs a specific act.
Addiction is defined as a compulsive need that is characterized by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.

Is an addict a criminal? No.

The problem is that many people lump together the act of buying drugs (a punishable crime) with the result of addiction (a treatable illness).

It's a difficult combination. The single most important thing to remember, which has already been stated perfectly on this thread is this:

Originally posted by chissler
Every individual has a story, try not to judge before atleast attempting to understand.

Everyone has a story.
We need to listen to it and understand it.

But don't take the venom out of drugs, or out of laws.
The crime may be "fake" in your opinion, but the consequences are real.

Take it from a hard core jaywalking criminal.

Originally posted by chissler
Hey, I agree with you on it.

If your busted for dealing a drug, you should do time. If your busted for possession of a small amount, you should be fined at most. Decriminalization works, because it gives people that second chance. Your fined which works as the deterrant but your not going to suffer for the rest of your life.

Why should the govt. fine you for doing what you want to your own body? especially if you are not doing anything wrong while on the drug. If you are breaking the law it matters not whether the person is on drugs or not. I do not agree with decriminalization in regards to pot; rather full legalization. The other drugs..a whole other ball game.

original quote by: Chissler
Recreational users are rarely considered criminals, most people are not even aware they may be a recreational user.

Not true.. it goes on your record just like any other crime.. follows you and hurts you long after the effects of the drug are worn off.

original quote by: Chissler
But the homeless who are on the streets, full of track marks up their arm can do little to hide it. It are these people that are looked down upon and considered a criminal due to their addiction.

The powers that be are always looking for a reason to call the homeless "criminals" anyway so whats one more reason? The homeless are the ones that take the brunt of the law. The rich always find a way out of it. Look at limbaugh..addicted to pain pills.. is he in prison...no..why? in a word; wealth.

Like I said, Pot needs to be in a whole different catagory. Pot legal... hard drugs..not... thats my bottom line. And when I say legal I mean totally legal pot. free to grow.. free to use.. free to not feel like a god darn criminal for enjoying a plant in the privacy of ones home... remember the fourth amendment....'secure in our personal effects, possessions'.... you know that old mumbo jumbo.

[edit on 9/22/2006 by TONE23]

Originally posted by TONE23
Why should the govt. fine you for doing what you want to your own body? especially if you are not doing anything wrong while on the drug. If you are breaking the law it matters not whether the person is on drugs or not. I do not agree with decriminalization in regards to pot; rather full legalization. The other drugs..a whole other ball game.

Because alot of people do break the law while under the effects of drugs. I don't need to waste my time to gather figures on the amount of crimes commited by individuals impaired on drugs. Its due to this that the government has to consider these substances illegal. View it as you may, but the bad apples will spoil it for the group. The bad apples make up for a large population.

Originally posted by TONE23
Not true.. it goes on your record just like any other crime.. follows you and hurts you long after the effects of the drug are worn off.

Yes it is true. I was speaking of the decriminilization of Marijuana, which would keep it from going on your record if you were found with a small amount.

you definately do not need to post the numbers chissler.
I will not argue that there are many that do some pretty stupid stuff on drugs.... but by the same token there is no shortage of people that do stupid things while not on drugs either. But it is those actions not the drugs that are the problem. Who is to say that people that do stupid things while on drugs..wouldnt probably do those same stupid things while not on them either.

As far as decriminalization goes. Other hard drugs should be decriminalized and the user should get mandatory treatment(if it is warrented; and being that if the person got arrested for breaking another law while on the drug; it will probably be warrented) But clogging up our prisons with sick people is not the way to go.. of that I think we both agree, Chissler.
Pot needs to be taken another step farther in that: it needs to be completely legalized. There needs to be a test developed that can determine if the user is currently "stoned" or if it is merely residual traces. It needs to be handled just like alcohol(which is much more dangerous both physically and emotionally)

What of the scientific proof that shows how drug use shuts down the brain.

If a person drinks a few beer, his judgement is blurred along with many other things.

Now put a person on a hit of '___', what do you think that has done to his brain? His judgements?

I understand you feel it is the actions themselves, but if a substance is making the decision clouded then it should be considered a problem.

Alcohol is a big problem here, but the fact is its legal. Not the question at hand is the legality of the drugs.

Apparently I'm a criminal. I know the original post asked about drug ABUSERS, but that didn't stop the police from arresting me. Here's the story: I was chilling in the park with my girlfriend. We were alone and we were quiet. My friend, who WALKED to the park to meet us, sold me a small amount of pot which I then placed inside my car so as not to have it on my person. We were sitting outside, somewhat close to my car when a detective showed up. Long story short I had a bag with less than a gram of marijuana in my car, but I got pinched and charged with operation of a motor vehicle while in possession of a CDS. Nevermind the fact that I purchased it at the park, and never once put the key in the ignition while in possession, I'm still a criminal and a public-disrupting nuisance. If it weren't for my lawyer (whom I would never have been able to afford had he not been friends with my father) I would have had my license taken away for two years. Maybe I wouldn't be so bitter about it if I had, you know, done something wrong to merit a police investigation.

It's a good thing they take troublemakers like myself off the streets; I'm so dangerous to everyone inside their own homes minding their own business.

Originally posted by chissler
What of the scientific proof that shows how drug use shuts down the brain.

depends on the drug.. and usage.. and time of usage.

original quote by: Chissler
If a person drinks a few beer, his judgement is blurred along with many other things.

Now put a person on a hit of '___', what do you think that has done to his brain? His judgements?

agreed but every drug effects people differently depending on a variety of factors...wieght and height, experience; mood; physical factors such as foods eaten or not eaten prior to usage. etc...

original quote by: Chissler
I understand you feel it is the actions themselves, but if a substance is making the decision clouded then it should be considered a problem.

Agreed. If the substance is being abused and contributes to the deviant behavior then, yes, it should be considered part of the problem.

original quote by: Chissler
Alcohol is a big problem here, but the fact is its legal. Not the question at hand is the legality of the drugs.

Agreed... I will digress on this line of inquiry....lol.

Just to recap.... People that do not hurt anyone or anything; break no other laws(other than the one law broken to obtain the substances) should not be criminals.

There is a world of difference between someone who sells drugs in a cartel.. and a guy who wants to grow a single plant in his home for self consumption. The dealer has guns and kills and steals.. the poor guy who wants to grow his plant .. works all day.. everyday.. pays his taxes..takes care of his family.... meets all his responsibilities and then some... has to be lumped into the same group? because they are both felonies? There needs to be a more humane approach to application of the laws in regards to enforcement.

The guy who kills and steals.. to sell his drugs...criminal
the guy who buys drugs to use on him/herself... not a criminal
pot head.... not a criminal
pot head who steals from a store while stoned(or not stoned).... criminal
coke head... sick needs help; not a criminal
meth lab operator....criminal
pot grower....not criminal

mind you this is my opinion on how it SHOULD be not how it is. I am not delusional as to what the reality of the situation is: I just plain dont like it.





[edit on 9/22/2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 9/22/2006 by TONE23]

Drug laws are like speed limits.

There are people who are perfectly capable of controlling their vehicle safely at a speed of 90 miles an hour. They can do this either because they have a nice car, or because someone taught them to drive well, or because they have a natural dexterity that allows them to keep complete control of a speeding vehicle.

In the same way, there are people who are perfectly capable of using drugs in a recreational fashion. Maybe they can afford the best drugs, maybe someone taught them how to safely control their high, or maybe their body has a natural resistence to addiction and breakdown when introduced to foreign substances.

We could write laws that cater to these crowds. But does that make sense? After all, these are not really the people that put innocent others in danger, are they?

Laws are written and enforced so that all of us can peacefully coexist. Which means, you don't really need to write laws that govern the people who would be perfectly peaceful anyway.

You need to write laws for the uncoordinated idiot weaving his '81 Civic hatchback through rush hour traffic.

You need to write the laws because for every rich, educated, and naturally "gifted" pipe handler there is a person who could only afford tainted shake and was unaware that his natural propensity for smoking ten bowls of it would be to drive his '81 Civic hatchback through the neighborhood playground.

good analogy..Essedarius...

one thing in particular though...

original quote by: Essedarius
We could write laws that cater to these crowds. But does that make sense? After all, these are not really the people that put innocent others in danger, are they?

Laws are written and enforced so that all of us can peacefully coexist. Which means, you don't really need to write laws that govern the people who would be perfectly peaceful anyway.

but 'peaceful' people get caught up in the web waaaaayyyy to often. How many is too often? once, IMO.

No the criminality of users is bogus... It is a money making scheme for our govt. ...and thats the story Im stickin with.

[edit on 9/22/2006 by TONE23]

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by crgintx
Actually very few drugs are illegal but those which are classically abused are strictly regulated.

I'm no FDA perfectionist here, but I am strongly under the impression that Cocaine, '___', Heroin, etc. are all illegal drugs.

Could you elaborate exactly what you were trying to say if I have taken your words out of context.

Cocaine and Heroin both have actual medicinal value as painkillers and are used as the chemical base for other painkillers like morphine. '___' and Ecstcasy were both original used by our govt as mood alterers in psychological warfare experiments. Many of the modern mood altering drugs today sold today at great profit today are refinements of psychotropic drugs that are now considered of limited medical value.

If a shaman gives you a herb for free that makes you see things to find your spirit guide, he's drug pusher but a doctor who gives you a pyschotropic like Z***** and he's medicating you. Most folks who abuse drugs usually have some sort of bad experience from which they want to escape or forget but can't afford a shrink.

Originally posted by TONE23
No the criminality of users is bogus... It is a money making scheme for our govt. ...and thats the story Im stickin with.

[edit on 9/22/2006 by TONE23]

Well if a person is caught with drugs and sentenced to do time, wouldn't that be an expenditure for our government?

You say the government makes alot of money off of illegal drugs today. How much more would they make if they made it legal?

What kind of profits do they turn on Tobacco and Alcohol?

Money making scheme? Possibly, but they are going about it in the wrong way.

ONE THING:

DEATH STATISTICS

Originally posted by chissler
Well if a person is caught with drugs and sentenced to do time, wouldn't that be an expenditure for our government?

yes it is an expenditure... to us the taxpayer.. it also validates reasonings for bigger budgets. And not to mention in the case of dealers.. their property cars and possessions are confiscated and auctioned off. It adds up.. then there is court costs; prison costs(for the convict) and even more expensive is the probation. 1000's of dollars for probation.

original quote by: chissler
You say the government makes alot of money off of illegal drugs today. How much more would they make if they made it legal?

I dont know if they would make more. They would certainly have to account for all of the money though... unlike now where when the CIA selss the drugs and they do not have to account for it... thusly that money is freed up to be used in black ops around the world.

original quote by: chissler
What kind of profits do they turn on Tobacco and Alcohol?

good question....After looking for a while I am unable to give you those figures... But suffice it to say they make ALOT of revenue from the taxation of cigs and alcohol..both state and federal.(If I can find those figures then I will get them to you)

original quote by: chissler
Money making scheme? Possibly, but they are going about it in the wrong way.

they are only going about it the wrong way if you look at it from an ethical standpoint... not from a business standpoint. From a business perspective they are generating their own clientel(criminals) and are content to stay the course.

Look at the Invasion of Afghanistan... the Taliban outlawed poppy with a Fatwha(religious mandate) and we invade and now the poppy(heroin) is bigger than ever in Afghanistan(in every place we have REMOVED the taliban) why? the CIA... they need the heroin trade to be good.. so that they can continue to genereate capitol.... this is the whole crux of the problem... How can we have just laws when those charged with upholding those laws are the ones breaking them? And therefore what right does our govt. have to punish us as individuals when they have such rampant abuse running through their own halls? they are the enablers.. we are the victims.

We know tobacco kills more than any other drug.

Doesn't really provide much to the discussion.

The question is whether or not a Drug Abuser is a criminal?

Originally posted by chissler
We know tobacco kills more than any other drug.

Doesn't really provide much to the discussion.

The question is whether or not a Drug Abuser is a criminal?

yes but it does provide some debunking for one of the main reasons drugs are illegal.. hence it does bare relevence to the topic. In order to decide whether people that use drugs are IN FACT criminals we must understand the govt. logic behind why they made these substances illegal in the first place... does that make sense?

by disproving the govt.s reasoning of "we are doing it for your own good" it shows a flaw in thier overall logic as to who and how they label users criminals. If they can all be disproven then it is the govt. that is criminal not the people.


Ill dare say it.. the govt. is the biggest criminals of them all in regards to the war on drugs... they are the biggest pushers.. and they are the ones responsible for most of the harder drugs getting into this country. I have a few friends in the DEA and they have told me many times about the shady goings on in the department.

and they call us criminals?

Drug users are not criminals... the CIA and DEA... they ARE the true criminals!
(not yelling at you chissler... just adamant about my opinion...thats all....lol)

What about LEGAL DRUG abuse? I could tell you how this can be accomplished but that would be against the T&C. Let's just say that combinations of prescription meds(legal) can be abused. I still maintain that addiction is not criminal. And yes, been there. Bad times.

Using drugs IS a crime.

People that use drugs are commiting a crime.
Drug abusers/users/dealers/have ANYTHING to do with drugs are criminals.

Whether or not they SHOULD be is a totally different thread.

Addiction isn't a crime. It's what theyre addicted to...(drugs) that makes them criminals. Now if they were addicted to say....eating tacos.. then they wouldnt be criminals...as tacos are legal..even though theyre addicts.

Originally posted by YoBrandonRaps
Addiction isn't a crime. It's what theyre addicted to...(drugs) that makes them criminals. Now if they were addicted to say....eating tacos.. then they wouldnt be criminals...as tacos are legal..even though theyre addicts.

You better read my last post. Some drugs, the worst ones imo, are legally obtained from pharmacies.