It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SOCIAL: Your great-grandfather used cocaine, so why cant you?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
When discussing the war on drugs, much speech is made about legalization of marijuana with disregard to those who choose to use other, “harder” drugs. What many afraid to take a more “extremist” stance fail to understand is that you cannot say we should be able to use the drug you think is O.K., but not the “harder” drugs, which is the system we have now in the first place.
 


We must not forget that all those hard drugs were legal up to 1934, when we were the most productive nation on earth. Our society was blazing forward at lightning speed, despite the fact that our children consumed heroin in their cough syrup and great grandpa drank 24 grains of coc aine in his 2-per-lunch Coca-Cola fix. So what is the harm? Did our society come to a screeching halt from these “addicts” irresponsible behavior?

With all this drug use, was there any drug problem before drug prohibition? No, there wasn’t. Where do the problems always stem from when you regulate the substance one may subject their body to? It always comes from the criminal element that will invariably surround any illegal supply and demand chain.

So how do you get rid of the criminal element? You make their activity legal! When was the last time you heard of liquor store owners shooting each other over turf? How about alcohol and tobacco pushers holding knifes to children’s heads, forcing them to use their product and creating a customer base? You will never be rid of the criminal so long as there is an illegal act to profit from.

How do you free up space in our prison system so that we aren’t forced to share our streets with rapists and child molesters? You stop incarcerating non-violent drug related offenders.

How do you free up law enforcement money and personnel to stop violent offenders? You stop forcing them to dedicate half of their funding and almost half of their personnel to harassing people who commit victimless crimes.

Many pro-drug legalization voters say we need to stick with marijuana for now, lest we sound like extremists and shy others away. Nearly all Libertarians (myself included) feel that if you claim to defend liberty, you must defend all liberty, not just the liberty YOU want.

All parties claim to defend freedom and liberty, but only the Libertarian party will defend EVERYONES right to freedom and liberty.




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Amen brother!

Seriously,. though, Both Heroin and coc aine were available over the counter at the turn of the century. Morphine cough syrup and marijuana tincture for epileptics were also there next to the asprin.

At the turn of the century, it was estimated 1/4 of the country was addicted to and using these substances. They still went to work every day. They did not need to kill or steal for thier habits. Many were productive citizens.

When the govornment made them illegal, the newly burgoning mafia suddenly gained a new market. Violence, smuggling and crime jumped. Now that the drugs were no longer available over the counter, the mafia gained control of their trafficking, and prices raised. Suddenly, people had to result to more nefarious means of income to feed thier habits.

Soon after, prohibition came, and again, the gangs had another product on the black market to fight over. When prohibition ended, the mob was denied a product, as booze was once again legal. But they still had drugs and prostituion to make money from. And the saga of the unwinnable drug war continues.

I definitely think they should be legalized, and there are so many reasons for it. Cleaner safer drugs, cheaper, no more gang turf fights, black smuggling ops suddenly out of biz. Money saved prosecuting people for using and possesing, prisons less crowded once drugs only offenders are released.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I also think that legalization is the way to go. A HUGE amout of money is thrown into policing and detaining felons who commit B & E after B & E to pay for their habit. This hurts society in many ways, lack of security in your own home, insurace hikes, etc. Legal, cheap drugs would benifit society, not a "war on drugs" that is unwinnable. The only drawback I can see is that to a great many hardcore users, jail is rehab for them. Without jail they would probably die.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
. The only drawback I can see is that to a great many hardcore users, jail is rehab for them. Without jail they would probably die.


Hardcore drug addicts like hardcore drunks are gonna die anyway.

NOTHING you will do can change that.

You time and effort is pretty much wasted much like trying to rehab childmolesters.

Which leaves those able to work AND play in which why should they be punished for those who will kill themselves drinking aftershave or huffing paint if everything else disappeared tommorow



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Another point being made, the drugs have been changed alot since your grandfather used them.

The chemicals used in them have become more deadly, even more addictive.

These drugs are ALOT more harmful then some of the softcore ones, I think that is why they are getting ALOT of the attention.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacKiller
Another point being made, the drugs have been changed alot since your grandfather used them.

The chemicals used in them have become more deadly, even more addictive.

These drugs are ALOT more harmful then some of the softcore ones, I think that is why they are getting ALOT of the attention.


I don't see this as a problem. I asked my son yesterday how easy it is to get drugs at school, he said pot and crack are readily available. He also pointed out that it was harder to get money than it was drugs. I've already posted that you can get drugs anywhere, so how is the illegality of it doing ANY good whatsoever? It just throws money away in an attempt to stem a flood with toilet paper.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
This is an interesting point. But I think I have the awnser to the question. Most drugs are illegal now because they have be scientifically proven to be harmful. Its a bit like why all of a sudden are there all these anti smoking advirtisements. Nobody new that having Cocaine in Coca-Cola was harmful.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
This is an interesting point. But I think I have the awnser to the question. Most drugs are illegal now because they have be scientifically proven to be harmful.


So next you are gonna put people in prison for 30 years because they eat cheese burgers?

They have been proven to be harmful.

How about booze?

Should you go to prison for that?

Where does it stop?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Most drugs are illegal now because they have be scientifically proven to be harmful.


Good point. Yet not all harmful drugs are illeagal- nicotine, for example.


I think there are some positives to making some of these drugs leagal, but I think that in order to do it we are going to have to put a lot of money into drug prevention and rehab programs. I don't see it saving much money because I think it should be redirected to those efforts. If we suddenly declare coc aine legal, kids are going to get a very confusing message.

I think part of the reason that smoking rates have declined is because of anti-smoking campaigns and banning advertisements. The smoking rate for Europe, where ads are not illeagal, is much higher. If we are going to legalize other drugs we need to take some counteractive measures.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cercey
.I think there are some positives to making some of these drugs leagal, but I think that in order to do it we are going to have to put a lot of money into drug prevention and rehab programs. I don't see it saving much money because I think it should be redirected to those efforts. If we suddenly declare coc aine legal, kids are going to get a very confusing message.

I think part of the reason that smoking rates have declined is because of anti-smoking campaigns and banning advertisements. The smoking rate for Europe, where ads are not illeagal, is much higher. If we are going to legalize other drugs we need to take some counteractive measures.


Oops, wrong button. I have to disagree. In Canada drugs are easier to get than cigarettes. You have to be 19 to buy cig's, drug dealers don't ask for proof of age. Drugs are there for the taking, anyone that wants them can get them. But we're pouring money into a system to police and detain the drug users that get caught. I would put this money into drug education and rehab.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by intrepid]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Bump, because I screwed it up.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk


So next you are gonna put people in prison for 30 years because they eat cheese burgers?
Where does it stop?


Exactly, look up the stats on how many people die per year due to clogged arteries, or blockage to their hearts...
Fast food has been proven to be just addictive as drugs, the salt, the grease... The fat... If you want to do damage to your "own" body by mistreating it whether it be fast food pits or drugs, it's your choice... You can't believe in freedom if your making double standards the whole while...

As aristotle would say... "A is A"


Fast food,sugar as addictive as drugs

Is fast food addictive?

Google Links

Fast-food restaurants told to warn of addiction


Health Statistics

[edit on 5-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cercey
If we suddenly declare coc aine legal, kids are going to get a very confusing message.



So you suggest continue to shred the bill of rights just to send a message to kids?


"If I wanted to send a message, I'd use Western Union." - Jack Warner


[edit on 5-9-2004 by cavscout]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Cercey
If we suddenly declare coc aine legal, kids are going to get a very confusing message.



So you suggest continue to shred the bill of rights just to send a message to kids?


[edit on 5-9-2004 by cavscout]

Point is being missed. We, the parents, NOT the gov't, are the ones to "send a message" to our kids. Drugs are available to my son, but the message he's been sent and the support that he gets is far more valuable than any little thing the gov't could do.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I got to agree here.

If you are depending on the government to get a message to your kids they are doomed.

Step up to bat and get the message to them your self



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I must agree with my fellow Libertarians on this one.
When I was a teenager it was MUCH easier to get my hands on drugs than it was to get alcohol. From what my son tells me nothing has changed.
The one thing that is different is that my wife and I did not try to "hide" the realities of drug abuse from him like my parents did with me.
When he hit the 14-15 age and all of his friends were experimenting with marijuana we were very open and accepting but at the same time did our best to educate him on the concepts of moderation and responsibility.
I'm happy to say that he has not used ANY drugs in the last three years since then.
If we took even 10% of the money being wasted by the Federal government on the "War on Drugs" and used it for better education programs for kids and adults about the dangers of drug abuse we would be in a much better state of affairs.
In the past I was behind decrimilaization of marijuana only. I have to admit that since I spent more time thinking about it I support an across the board legalization. Not that I use any of these substances anymore but from a purely consitutional standpoint.
It's not the governments job to protect me from myself. If I'm too stupid to listen to logic and experience than I deserve what I end up with.
As for this:

The chemicals used in them have become more deadly, even more addictive.

These drugs are ALOT more harmful then some of the softcore ones, I think that is why they are getting ALOT of the attention.

How do you figure this? Heroin is heroin. Cocaine is coc aine. THC is THC. '___' is '___'. The drugs themselves have not changed. I will grant you that delivery methods have changed such as crack and whatever that crap was spraying marijuana with embalming fluid ect..
The actual "drug" is no different but for advancements in refinement (as you would need to do to transport the smallest possible amount of an illegal substance illicitly.)
What exactly is "your" defenition of "softcore" anyway? According to the "Drug Czar" marijuana is now as potent AND addictive as Heroin
.
I don't know personally but I have associates who still smoke the stuff and I don't see them in convulsions and vomiting from it. Maybe I just wasn't looking


[edit on 7-9-2004 by Fry2]



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
My grandfathers also washed their hands in leaded gasoline, but that doesn't make it an intelligent thing to do. Seat belts weren't even installed in cars but now we know that it is much smarter to have them and wear them, right?

Do you think that the use of narcotics was a good thing in the old days? Opiates have been around since the get-go. The Boston "Tea" Party of your younger history books was a misnomer, it wasn't actually tea that was tossed overboard. The patriots were tired of seeing zombified colonists. Later, one of the first things the first congress did was to allow the East India Company the Opiate monopoly, which is still honored today. Ben Franklin's son nearly got his neck stretched by the first Treason and Sedition law created in his honor when he printed for the public what the first congress attempted to do in secret.

If you want a shrunken penis, bleeding gums, destroyed nasal passages and a shorter life span, go forth and obtain it, but don't think it should be legalized, just go and do it as you have been doing it. I, for one, do not want my government to condone something we all know is stupid.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
My grandfathers also washed their hands in leaded gasoline, but that doesn't make it an intelligent thing to do. Seat belts weren't even installed in cars but now we know that it is much smarter to have them and wear them, right?

The fact that something may be harmful does not give the government the right to regulate it. If I did want to wash my hands in gasoline, that would be my hands. If I don’t want to wear a seat belt, that is my life. Nobody would force you to wash your hands in gasoline. What is your problem with people doing the things they want to? Do you think that you need the govnment telling you what to do and what not to, that you cannot make responsible decisions on your own? Or maybe you think that you are smart enough to make good decisions, but that everyone else is not. By the way; it is not illegal to wash your hands in gasoline, at least not to my knowledge.


Do you think that the use of narcotics was a good thing in the old days?

I know that a Coke during a lunch break sure would give the workers of that time a refreshing "second wind," helping them to remain productive through the second half of the day. Drinking a coke during your lunch break was as common as grabbing that morning or lunch Starbucks is now. Lets us not forget that it was the stated purpose of many of the "drug warriors" of the past to deal with the rising problems of Chinese immigrants using opium to "give them superhuman qualities" making them worth much more than the average white worker. These immigrants were considered a huge problem in areas such as San Francisco, and the drug war was one way people of that time tried to compete, by leveling the playing field. These laws, just like gun laws, have their roots in racism, and still have a racist effect today. It is not the drugs that are decimating inner city societies, but the drug war.


Opiates have been around since the get-go.

Exactly.


The Boston "Tea" Party of your younger history books was a misnomer, it wasn't actually tea that was tossed overboard. The patriots were tired of seeing zombified colonists.

Never heard that one before, can you site a source for me?


Later, one of the first things the first congress did was to allow the East India Company the Opiate monopoly, which is still honored today. Ben Franklin's son nearly got his neck stretched by the first Treason and Sedition law created in his honor when he printed for the public what the first congress attempted to do in secret.

So what you are saying is that the government has covertly supported and fostered drug usage all along, while publicly denouncing it? I will give you that. Sort of like spending $20 million on anti-tobacco ads, while also handing out $19 million in tobacco farm subsidies, all the while keeping it legal. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? What is your point?


If you want a shrunken penis, bleeding gums, destroyed nasal passages and a shorter life span, go forth and obtain it, but don't think it should be legalized,

Why is it your, or anyone else’s, job to stop people from damaging their own bodies? Why do you care if someone destroys themselves, how is it any of your business? Do you always advocate meddling in the affairs of strangers? How about we criminalize fast food? More people die every year from heart attacks than drug related health problems. Wouldn’t it make more sense then if we arrested those caught with Big Macs than with drugs? I mean, if we are going to control someone’s life for their own good, why not do something that will actually stop many deaths in our society. Yeah, you are right, let’s stop people from slowly killing themselves. I submit we should replace fast food restaurants with drive-through drug dealers. For the kids sake.


just go and do it as you have been doing it.

I never have, actually. You assume much. I do not take this stance based on any personal want or desire, but rather as a defender of liberty, everyone’s liberty. I have never used any "hard drug." No coke, meth, heroin, '___', nothing "hard". I smoked pot two times as a teenager, and I didn’t like it. It did not "open the gateway" for me. Hell, I don’t even drink. Do you only support those liberties that affect you? Don’t you believe in freedom and liberty for all, weather they be black, white or yellow, man or woman? If you say yes, than you must understand that someone can support the freedom of another without being in the same position as the other person. Pretty narrow minded statement you made there.


I, for one, do not want my government to condone something we all know is stupid.

Me neither. I don’t support the war on drugs, partly because prohibition is the direct cause of the criminal element in place to supply banned drugs. The drug war cost ALOT of money, ALOT of lives, ALOT of prison space, and the problem still gets worse every year. Yet we throw MORE money at the failing drug war. This is stupid. Anyone who is willing to at least acknowledge those FACTS, instead of pretending they are not there, can at least see that this is a very stupid system, and that there must be a better way, and "I, for one, do not want my government to condone something we all know is stupid."

Just remember that rapists and child molesters are walking the streets of your city so that some pot dealer can have a place to sleep tonight at tax payer expense. Some cop right this minute is pulling a joint of someone’s pocket instead of looking for abducted children and catching murderers (of which, I should add, there would be less without the prohibition.) This is the stupidity. This is what you would shred the constitution for?

Maybe I could understand your stance if the war on drugs actually made even a little dent in overall drug usage, instead of creating the majority of the crime in our country.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
It is every persons right to their own life. Every person must make choices, and live with it. Thus damaging ones own body is the right of people as well as pursuing health.
The govornment's job is not to play nanny and make sure we do good things to ourselves. The govornment's job is to keep hostile foreigners out of the country, and keep us from killing one another. It is not the govornment's job to tell us what is good for us. That is the choice we make on our own.
People seem to forget, that if we make drugs legal, we will also make them harder for kids to get. Just like when Prohibition ended, so did bootlegging and the Mob's monopoly over liquor. They had to look elsewhere in the black market for profits. Same with drugs.
For example, if coc aine or meth were made legal, various companies immediately would start manufacturing the stuff under controlled conditions, assuring quality and purity. No more cutting with questionable substances. Drugs would be monitored, and when you go to the store and buy a bag of dope, you know that whats in the bag will be dope.
It will also lower the cost of drugs, making them cheaper. The reason drugs cost what they do is because they are controlled in the black market, who get a 17,000% markup on their product, because of the risks they take. For comparison, see prohibition. A drink which prior to the era cost 15 cents, during the outlaw of liquor, cost 75 cents. It was MUCH cheaper when it was legal.
You can see where I am going. Legalizing drugs would make them cheaper to buy, safer to use. Most people would prefer to buy cheap, pure drugs from a reputable drug store than some shifty back alley dealer whose product is questionable. Legalize drugs, and you rob the black market and organized crime of a huge chunk of their profits. You empty the prisons of non violent offenders. You end alot of street warfare.

And best of all, you save the taxpayers money by ending a most stupid and pointless, unwinnable "war".

The govornment condones stupid behavior everyday, Thomas Crowne. The war on drugs is just one.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
It is every persons right to their own life. Every person must make choices, and live with it. Thus damaging ones own body is the right of people as well as pursuing health.
The govornment's job is not to play nanny and make sure we do good things to ourselves. The govornment's job is to keep hostile foreigners out of the country, and keep us from killing one another. It is not the govornment's job to tell us what is good for us. That is the choice we make on our own.
People seem to forget, that if we make drugs legal, we will also make them harder for kids to get. Just like when Prohibition ended, so did bootlegging and the Mob's monopoly over liquor. They had to look elsewhere in the black market for profits. Same with drugs.
For example, if coc aine or meth were made legal, various companies immediately would start manufacturing the stuff under controlled conditions, assuring quality and purity. No more cutting with questionable substances. Drugs would be monitored, and when you go to the store and buy a bag of dope, you know that whats in the bag will be dope.
It will also lower the cost of drugs, making them cheaper. The reason drugs cost what they do is because they are controlled in the black market, who get a 17,000% markup on their product, because of the risks they take. For comparison, see prohibition. A drink which prior to the era cost 15 cents, during the outlaw of liquor, cost 75 cents. It was MUCH cheaper when it was legal.
You can see where I am going. Legalizing drugs would make them cheaper to buy, safer to use. Most people would prefer to buy cheap, pure drugs from a reputable drug store than some shifty back alley dealer whose product is questionable. Legalize drugs, and you rob the black market and organized crime of a huge chunk of their profits. You empty the prisons of non violent offenders. You end alot of street warfare.

And best of all, you save the taxpayers money by ending a most stupid and pointless, unwinnable "war".

The govornment condones stupid behavior everyday, Thomas Crowne. The war on drugs is just one.


Right on - sorry didnt mean to quote all that this is my first post here took me a while to figure (sort of) out how to do it.....anyways, ket me tell you the REAL reason they make drugs illegal. If you ask them this they will obviously deny it. Drugs open your mind, broaden your perspective and as a result you see a bigger truth. It makes you rebel against an injust system, and overall you just see the governement for what it is. They dont want this coz they need the sheep easy to control - if we are all rebelling the rich would not stay rich and their #ed up ways would not be allowed to carry on as they are. Please to put this into perspective, consider they lied about 9-11, the CIA killed John Lennon (he was an eye opener in every sense), they hide UFO knowledgs and technology, and they oppress our minds with media, money, and tv propenagnda. Also some now suspect they lied about the apollo missions... check out the www.DisclosureProject.org for more about the fight on ufo coverups, and my site www.newRevolution.bravehost.com for a bit more on all of what I've said. their emphasis is "control, control, control" - though they would not admit it - you have to see it - thats what drugs do, thats why they are illegal. If you dont believe me, research the answer before you reply. Go on....



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join