Slashdot Mirror
The Technology of Drug Prohibition
ches_grin writes "Although the GWOT gets all the headlines, technology is proving to be the key factor in the 'war on drugs'. This article and slideshow take a look at the current state-of-the-art for both federal agents and drug traffickers, from greenhouses to Predator drones: 'In the pitched battle surrounding illegal drugs, each side has its advantages. Law enforcement can take advantage of private sector expertise, expensive machines, and, of course, the law. Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand.'"
Legalise them, tax them!
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
That has done nothing save expand and enshrine the prison "industry".
Feh!
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Tech isn't the key factor, the money has always been.
Tech is just a way to spend theit unlimited budget and pretend they are useful.
The Netherlands legalized marijuana usage decades ago and still is together with Germany the smartest country in Europe with 107 IQ points on average.
Shit
Growing rooms use huge amounts of electricity but the people running them usually bypass a building's meter.
Details, please!
Argh.
Is anyone else reminded of that game?
From TFA:
On the other hand, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found in 2004 that about 20% high school seniors had used marijuana in the preceding month.
If 20% of your kids are actively sleeping with the enemy, you've already lost the war. No technology in the world will help you when the enemy has wide spread grass root support in your own country. It'd probably be a good idea to start to negotiate a cease fire.
I'd rather see money be spent on helping those trying to get out of enemy territory than punishing those who want to be there
And before writing an angry rant about how your cousin's roomate was kidnapped by dealers and forced into drug addiction and prostitution, please see my sig.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
You mean legalie meth, coke, heroin, crack? That will never happen. Nor should it... I doubt we want any more crackheads around.
Legalize weed? It may happen in our lifetime, but I'm sure the DEA spends vast amounts more on cocaine interdiction than weed.
Does it fool anyone anymore? Can you honestly say you feel safer because of the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism or the War on (insert political crap here)? We can't just throw money we don't have at these things forever and I would feel much better if I thought there would be any lasting effects to any of these "wars".
I would like to be treated like an adult for a change.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
When they said all power handed over to the government would be used most often for things other than terrorism. So now instead of hunting down terrorists, their protecting the country against drugs? All this money spent on high tech gadgets could have gone towards anti-terrorism, or *gasp* schools, and instead is being used to further a futile "war on drugs," just peachy. Nice to see big brother never fails to disappoint.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
> You mean legalie meth, coke, heroin, crack? That will never happen. Nor should it... I doubt we
> want any more crackheads around.
Yeah, we all know how successful making drugs illegal has been in preventing demand! Look how hard it is to get drugs now! If we didn't have laws against them, why, you could get drugs in just a few minutes from any town on the planet! Thank god we don't live in *that* world!
some drugs?
Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are all "psychotropic" substances.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
Summary execution of anyone in possession of drugs. Anyone tries to push? They're dead. Find a drug house? Bomb it. Even if there are hostages. Anti-aircraft fire? Napalm the block. Wall the borders and interdict all air traffic from nations that are sources of drugs. X-ray the bodies of all entrants. Etc.
The reason no one wants that is that the cure is worse than the disease.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. It is better to measure and treat the problem than to hide it. The problem doesn't just go away because we don't talk about it.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Focus is not necessarily indicative of money spent, but I do remember that when Ashcroft first became attorney general, one of his major goals was to address "improper use of medicinal marijuana." In a lot of people's eyes, marijuana may not be as bad as heroin and crack, but it is playing in the same league. For example see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1656481/p osts . So I'm not sure that the DEA does spend a lot more on cocaine than on weed.
The US experimented with alcohol prohibition many years ago.
I used to smoke pot, often heavily, regularlay for a long time. It took little effort to give it up during the 'dry' times, and suffered no ill health effects.
After being arrested and going thru that ordeal, I gave it up and tried drinking alcohol instead since, hey, that's legal and the other stuff is dangerously illegal. Since taking up alcohol, I've developed hypothyroidism, peripherial neuropathy in the feet and eczema, recently on the hands. All of those health problems are permenant and have no cure. The only conslusion one can rightfully come to is either our lawmakers are hopeless inept or they are trying to kill us. The one that is harmless, safe and effective lands you in deep do-do, but the one that's easily available everywhere can be slow suicide in a bottle.
The problem doesn't go away because we provide an easy way to get cocaine.
I doubt that there would be a significant, lasting rise in hard drug use. Is there anybody you know who would start smoking crack tomorrow if it became legal today? Would you?
As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that uptake and usage of harder drugs would drop in an environment of legality and education - see the statistics on heroin usage in Holland since they began selling pure heroin to addicts and educating the population about the dangers of heroin usage.
People generally come into contact with harder drugs through criminal acquaintences (sp?) and are often inclined to ignore warnings given by the government in the 'War on Drugs' since it takes very little time and experience to realise that it's a FUD campaign. Obviously if they lied about cannabis, they must have been lying about crack, right?
By legalising and lifting the taboo and FUD, drug related problems would diminish drastically. Controversially, that would leave the law enforcement agencies referenced here and TFA without jobs. But that can't have anything to do with why the legislation stays as it is can it? Surely not...
"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Evidence of this today in the article summary:
"Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand."
The war on drugs is a guise to control people and to actively have racial crimes on the books.
What negatively affects me the most about the "war on drugs" is that it essentially makes having mental illness a crime. Many, if not most, people with mental illnesses get addicted to drugs and alcohol because of their mental illness, and trying to quit because of legal reasons with little to no medical attention is next to impossible. Next time you see the wino-street-drunk, odds are he just needs medical attention, but you and the government would prefer him to just be "off the street" and out of our sight. I know one of these guys who happened to get medical help, and he is pretty cool. He used to be a "garden variety street drunk" who would badger people, spit when he talked, and all of that. And today he is better not because of going to jail and being punished, but by being helped.
and thanks to this wondrous technology the war on drugs is over. Thats right, drugs like pot and cocaine are no longer found in the great US of A. Now maybe we could use that money to accomplish something...oh wait, thats not how it works around here.
as if government doesn't have "vast sums of cash!"
Hmm, doesn't look much like a tough call to me...
I guess the high schoolers are better informed than I am. In 35 years of stoning I've not run across any harmful effects, except the threat of jail.
You synthesize meth in a pot greenhouse? Huh?
I think the article's writer was stoned to the gills!
"Hey bud, let's party!" - Osama bin Spicoli
Someone I went to high school with passed away due to a drug addiction. He was in his early 30's. I didn't know him all that well but he was a good friend of a relative of mine. Apparently he had been fighting this addiction for many years.
I already see a lot of posts of people shouting "legalize them!" and I have to disagree. Is it fairly easy to get them even though they are illegal? Yes, I guess but it depends on who you know. I don't associate with anyone who takes illegal drugs so I wouldn't know where to start and it would be fairly difficult for me to attain them. Now, if they were legal and I could walk into a store any time I want to purchase them removes some hoops I'd have to jump through making them even more attainable. So, are they just as attainable now than if they were legal? Not necessarily.
Many people who champion the cause of legalization attribute it to recreational use and people should have dominion over what they put into their own bodies. Yes and no. How many recreation alcohol consumers kill children, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters each year? Did the right to dominion over their own bodies also include a right over someone else's?
The problems go much deeper than whether or not legalize. Drugs are glamourized in a sense and this would be the case whether they were legal or not. Music, movies, television all play a part in it. Same goes for alcohol. However, most people are not hooked on alcohol as quickly as they are with crack and meth. If they were, I'd think it would be reasonable to outlaw alcohol again.
Personally, I don't want to be around these drugs. I made that choice in my life and I feel I am better for it. Legalize them and you shove them in my face and make them even more attainable so kids who might have never done it think hey, its legal maybe I should try it. Has anyone thought that having them outlawed may actually deter some people? I guess that doesn't matter though because if you want them legalized you see no problem with people trying to have fun by distorting their thought processes or covering up problems by blocking them with a "high". And before anyone starts in with "what about alcohol, its a drug!" or "what about cigarettes!" trying to turn my opinions around...ban them all. There are too many adverse effects to using any of them.
I don't know the quality of this website ;-) , but the story as to why marijuana was banned is one I have seen in other places (this was just the first place that google turned up for me)
Why Is Marijuana Illegal
It appears that it was a combination of "think of the children", outright capitalistic greed, and politicians promoting themselves.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Holy shoot, it's a good thing they told me because when I smoke it on my front porch, walking down my street, or in the bars nobody has ever said anything to me...Maybe the feds should worry about the things they should worry about and quit farking around with a battle there is no way they will ever win period...Didn't prohibition teach them anything...
Hopefully technology will give us the ability to turn any plant into a producer of psychoactive substances. Provide it in a simple spray-on delivery system of plasmids or some such. Fuck meth labs and pot greenhouses. Turn every plant and weed into a drug production system. Let it grow in every garden and back yard. Let it pollute the food supply and the groundwater. This is the deserved outcome of a system of tyranny that would deny our republic and the sovereingty of the individual.
or is it eurasia?
:)
Oh well, I guess you will update me when I see you at 2 mins hate.
"Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand."
You mean the people in America's 51.5th state, Afghanistan? Maybe you're referring to their Iran/Contra sponsors, the CIA that also created Osama bin Laden?
Funny how interconnected are these neverending wars that consume endless money and American and foreign lives, all run by the same people centered on the Bush family. Funny if you're stoned, that is.
--
make install -not war
Holy Shoot I am glad someone told me...lucky I haven't been caught in 25 years then although you would think if it were illegal then I would have been caught while smoking on my front porch, walking down the steret, in the bars..Are they sure?? I mean come on our government can't be stupid enough to repeat prohibition with something safer than Cigarettes and Alcohol..can they?? Stoopid farkers we will always win, you will always lose....give it up!!
Whouldn't inversting drugs into producing protitutes imply that there is not enough money to be made from simply selling the drugs?
FRA: STFU GTFO
The problem of cokeheads robbing, beating and killing people to get their cocaine goes away when we provide an easy way to get it. When the crime part goes away, it becomes easier to treat addicts and abusers. That makes most of the problem go away. Treating the problems with police and jail makes the problem worse.
--
make install -not war
Sigh - yet another socalled 'war'. It always makes me shake my head in disbelief when I see it - I mean, how can one fight a war against drugs? It's not as if there is an army on the other side. Plus, a lot of these things are easily found in nature; just think of magic mushrooms - you can probably find them within walking distance from your home if you live outside a big city. Or take cannabis - you can the seeds as bird seeds or in health shops, at least in UK.
Or how about opium poppies: I see them growing in a lot of people's gardens. You can buy the seeds in garden centres or even in supermarkets (for baking bread etc). You can buy morning glory (contains LSA, similar to LSD) legally to grow in your garden. So how can one 'fight a war' against drugs? It's nonsense, simple and pure.
No, legalise it, educate people, tax it. That way we would get rid of two whole classes of crime that only exist because of reactionary legislation: drugs trafficking and drug use.
Why not?
Most of the problems with alcohol went away when we legalized it.
Deaths from bad product went down 80% within the year.
Violence involving disputes between providers disappeared almost overnight.
Organized crime was dealt a major blow, which they were only able to recover from by switching to other illegal drugs. Protection rackets and fixing gambling just never brought in as much money.
Why do you think it will be any different with cocaine?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Among other things, The 2006 World Drug Report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime "explains that 162 million people, or four per cent of the world's adult population, use cannabis annually, and that the number of users worldwide has jumped by 10 per cent since the late 1990s -- a larger increase than for any other drug."
The Report reaches near Reefer Madness levels with:
I'm wondering how the DEA managed to take over writing reports for the UN. Now there's a consiracy theory!
Three Squirrels
Legalizing these drugs (and others) serves two purposes:
1) It allows for the users without self-restraint to remove themselves from the picture, usually through death. It sounds hardhearted, but this really is the only way to convince some people. This has the side effect of showing a generation of would-be users just how awful addiction really is, and during their childhood to top it off!
2) It allows law enforcement to get back to its REAL job - enforcing laws to benefit society. There's nothing beneficial in forcing useless people to stop killing themselves. Allow them to die and enforce the laws that benefit the "greater good". Now, this doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye when someone in their death throes decides to stir trouble for everyone else. If you murder, steal, etc. you should still be held accountable for that.
I don't think drugs are good. Not even marijuana. But I think that people who are stupid enough to harm themselves should be allowed to. It's a long-forgotten concept here in America... "Freedom" they used to call it. Free will and the ability to exercise it are a necessity. Consequences should arise from conflicting interests, not from arbitrary rules.
I think the overarching point is there already is a fantastically easy way to get Cocaine.
1. Drive up to any high school
2. Watch the kids outside for five minutes
3. Identify the drug dealer
4. ????
5. (Profit?!) Score some Cocaine.
There are other effective algorithms for obtaining Cocaine, most involve going to a seedy area and/or speaking with a junkie friend of a friend. Point of course is, if its illegal for kids to have cigarettes and alcohol, never mind 'da crack', why on earth do we believe that prohibition of these substances does anything except cycle the stupider/unluckier ones through the penal system?
Incidentally, the larger social costs of cocaine are threefold: increased crime due to substance's price (which is artifically high to deal with the risk fo being an illicit substance), overdose (usually due to impurity of product, again, because pharmacies aren't making the stuff), and the actual pharmacological effects of the drug in question, that is, how it alters mood, behavior, and health. I personally would rather get past problems 1 and 2 (which claim way more lives and money than the last one) and instead concentrate on the *actual* problem that drugs themselves produce.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Too often I see people generalize the prohibition on narcotics simply as marijuana. I'm rather neutral on the mrijuana argument, though I find the alcohol argument thoroughly unconvincing.
A lot of people do underestimate the subversive (on the person's psyche and ability to function as a productive member of society) effect that "harder" drugs have on people, since they're only really familiar with recreational cannibis. Not to mention the permanent damage that a drug like opium or heroin can do to a person.
Another problem is this: if narcotics were legalized, who would end up being the distributors? Likely the cartels and networks of dealers that have been selling it illegally for years. You know, the people that cut it with strychnine and analogs so they can inflate their volume and therefore profits, at the expense of the health and safety of their users. Or the brutal cartels that, if they were operating in the same sphere as legitimate businesses, would make every single corrupt corporation, combined in some voltron-like fashion, look like the local, friendly mom & pop.
Even if they did play fair and there way governmental oversight, the damage to the user would still be there. Furthermore, testing narcotics for purity, etc is somewhat time-consuming and actually consumes a portion of the drug, which would raise the costs phenomenally (provided the government did not make the distributors eat the costs. That would be a toss-up).
It's just generally a bad idea to open this all up so a few people can legally mess with their own heads.
While this is true, and I mostly agree with you, I would be much more likely to try hard drugs if I knew they were pure. Legalizing them would provide that assurance. I think this argument holds best with things like pot or shrooms which are hard (or pointless) to cut with less desirables.
:x
Yes, a "sane" drug policy would be nice, but that requires a nuanced, intelligent discorse about the relative risks and benefits of ANY drug. Awfully tough to do - even in the privacy of a doctor's office. Some people understand the concept of risk / benefit, other's don't.
Compound that with the complex problem of addictive behaviors, politics and the fact that this country seems hell bent to be based on some "moral" framework based on a bunch of 18th century dyspeptics and you've got.... well, what you see is what you get.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
They are fighting a war against people who are on drugs... and they are losing it...
Actually much of the problem WOULD go away. You know, unconstitutional police power, prison overcrowding, legal system overload, the high cost of keeping officers on the street, the violence by those bringing in illegal drugs, the violence caused by the users trying to get drugs (because since its illegal, they are almost more expensive).
You know, all the problems that prohibition created when it was in effect by giving rise to the mob.
Also, the justice system could focus on more important things, like terrorism (although it would be best if they were a bit more restricted, like before the patiot act).
How is tech used to combat World of Warcrack?
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
I, for one, am so tired of hearing about the 'war on drugs'.
;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks
America has their war on drugs, we have more people in jail for non violent drug related 'crimes' than any other country has in their jail systems. Most of these are just for possession! What about countries like Amsterdam where pot, and schrooms are legal? Do they have streets full of junkies, out of control crime, and full prisons? The answer is No! They view drug addictions as a medical issue, not a criminal one. They have a much better medical system in Europe, and a better way of dealing with drugs and those addicted to them. Maybe because they are way more ahead of the times than America is?
People are scared about drugs, more than likely because they have no clue what they really are about. All we see is the anti drug commericals on tv, (you have to remember the one with the egg and frying pan) the D.A.R.E programs in our schools, (I think kid's should DARE to learn the unbiased truth about drugs instead of listening to a stupid cop who probably does the training because he/she hates their desk job and want to get out for a while), etc.
I personally see no problems with the use of some illegal drugs as long as it's in moderation. I've done drugs, and will continue to do them. Because I'm smart enough to know which ones to stay away from, and when to stop. I think that's the big problem with most people, they don't know when to stop. Look at the overwhelming number of obese people in America. Look at the gambling addicts. They don't know when to stop.
So thank you America, for harnessing my rights, telling me what I can and cannot do to my own body, in my own time, in the privacy of my own home.
I don't think anyone has ever had a better arguement about the war on drugs than the late, and great Bill Hicks. Think about what he says, it really makes sence.
The late, great stand-up comedian Bill Hicks perhaps put it best when he said: "Alcohol's legal. They push alcohol 24 hours a day on TV. They push it down your throat -- drink beer, drink beer, drink beer. Why? Well, cause it makes you stupid, slow, and docile, and that's the way we like you to be... I've actually seen beer commercials during War Against Drugs specials. Cigarettes, legal. Alcohol, legal. Kill more people than all other illegal drugs combined times one thousand. They are illegal. Marijuana, a drug that kills... no one... and let's put it in a time frame... ever... marijuana's against the law."
I could fill up 30 more pages with quotes that fit this subject. If you don't know about Bill Hicks....You have some reading to do
Controversially, that would leave the law enforcement agencies referenced here and TFA without jobs.
No it would not. They could refocus on the many problems that would still exist; terrorism, murder, robbery. Indeed, THAT would likely be benefical, as more police time investigating murder would likely bring about more convictions.
Investingating illegal drug use and prostitution is distracting from other more pressing problems.
> You mean legalie meth, coke, heroin, crack? That will never happen.
> Nor should it... I doubt we want any more crackheads around.
You are stating that legalization would increase these numbers. Could
you provide some evidence, based, for example, on legalization
programs in other countries, where this has actually happened?
> Legalize weed? It may happen in our lifetime, but I'm sure the DEA
> spends vast amounts more on cocaine interdiction than weed.
The old saying goes, "It ain't what you don't know that kills ya.
It's what you know that ain't so." This is a perfect example. Well
over 80% of 'drug war' money is spent on cannabis.
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
"Legalize weed? It may happen in our lifetime, but I'm sure the DEA spends vast amounts more on cocaine interdiction than weed." IIRC the DEA puts more money towards combating weed in (sub)urban areas than they do on combating the meth epidemic in the midwest.
There are people caught in the freedoms that bind.
We lost the war on drugs years ago. Let's be real here: 20% of teens do drugs. You lost the war. Inside of prisons is an ongoing drug trafficking. If we cannot win the war on drugs in prison, which is a 'secure' environment. Howe can we ever win in an open and free society (regardless of political opinions on open and free) Education seems to be a solid deterrent. However, you cannot lie about drugs. "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs." Did not sell because we did not talk about the positive effects of drugs. If we lie on the good effects why would kids believe us on on frying the brain. I live in a small rural community. If I wanted to I know exactly where to go to buy drugs. IF the cops here do not worry about it to much. Why would they worry more in say the burbs. With all the good kids, who are smoking dope. If someone is willing to put into their body what is contained in meth. Do you really think that you are: 1. going to stop them? 2. use any kind of education. Last point. Many of today's 60's parents are unwilling to say no to drugs. Why, because they did drugs and feel they have no moral authority. This is called a logical fallacy. If I have done something, say smoke legal drugs, for 40 years and now I am dying from the effects of the cigs. I can with moral authority say these things are bad. The fallacy that says you can't is called Tu Quoque. With these facts . . . we have lost the war on drugs. I am conservative (no spamming or yelling about that) and I have never used illegal drugs. However, we have lost the war on drugs and have lost it for years. We keep pouring money into the program because of politics (on both sides). Time for the white flag.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
Only if it's free. If it still costs money to buy, the crime doesn't go away.
Finding other idiots on
Netherlands taxation is average for Europe: corporate income tax 29.60%, individual income tax 0-52%, VAT 19%. And the homeless are largely coming from Eastern Europe because begging in the 16th greatest economy in the world (with just 16.3 million people) pays a lot better than it does in Romania.
The experiment with drug politics has turned out to be quite successful. Or at least it showed that controlled sale of marijuana doesn't trigger the end of the world. Other parts of Europe (especially Belgium and Switzerland) have already taken steps into the same direction.
blow your mind already
I agree. However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return. Otherwise, you're very very free to use what drug you want but I shouldn't be asked to subsidize* both your habit and the cure you will need. It's a bit like the law we have in my country, that forces motorbike riders to use a helmet: I am against it, you should be very free to do without a helmet. I also should be very free NOT to pay for your operation when you eventually crack your head open.
Most problems simply disappear in a truly free society.
*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying.
Global warming is a cube.
I'm reminded of Bill Hicks' hilarious tirades against the War on the Drugs - [quote]"George Bush says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side."[/quote]
The only institution that has done more evil than the U.S. government is Christianity. The idea that they could dictate morality to anyone is the apex of hypocrisy. If there is a hell, anyone who supported Reagan, Clinton, or the Bushes will surely burn there.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." - Bill Hicks
what a buzz kill!
Need I say more? No, but I will.
Decriminalizing drugs will decrease violence:
monies spent on enforcement could be spent elsewhere,
and HIV & hepatitis rates would plummet,
BTW the History channel recently had a great series on the origins of the drug laws in the US tonight. Turns out that the original U.S. laws against cocaine, opium and marijuana were all passed without any scientific or medical support whatsoever. It was a political propaganda campaign supported by Southern politicians and was primarily directed at the repression of blacks and Mexican migrant workers.
The first guy arrested for marijuana possession was a farmer who was raising hemp and tried to get a "marijuana stamp" (the law had just been passed). He got 4 years in prison. The trick was that, to get a stamp you had to show some marijuana, but to possess/sell marijuana you had to have a stamp first. So the Feds started prosecuting people via this Catch-22 mechanism.
Amazing all the damage that has been done to U.S. citizens by the drug laws.
-tndal
Have you ever taken a drink of alcohol in your life? Then you are a drug user. Marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. It's about on a par with coffee. Many other illegal drugs are similarly harmless to anyone who isn't completely prone to addiction. Hell, people get addicted to getting high on water. Should we make that illegal? Contrary to your view of drug users, most of them do not and will not end up killing themselves. Propaganda aside most are productive members of society.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh really? Just wander by your local Emergency Room one weekend evening and look who is causing problems.
Deaths from bad product went down 80% within the year.
I have no idea where you pulled your "statistic" from, but I'll go along with a signficant increase in the purity of the drug when it was legalized.
Violence involving disputes between providers disappeared almost overnight.
But the societal problems of alcohol use remained. Druken driving, domestic abuse, chronic alcohol abuse, physical problems stemming from chronic alcohol use, etc.
The problem is that simply legalizing dangerous drugs in a complex society is fraught with lots of other problems. Yes, tiny little countries in Europe have experimented with legalization and government control of some very powerful, addicting drugs - I am not sure that this model would translate well in the US. I am also not sure of what mix of regulation and prohibition of drugs would be appropriate in the US, but I am sure the answers are neither simplistic nor easily attained.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Since this war doesn't seem to have an end in sight. I will be training my daughters to infiltrate the DEA by marrying the highest ranking officials possible and then take them down from the inside.
This message brought to you by the partnership for a DEA free America.
Not to mention legalizing drugs and allowing them to be manufactured domestically would deal a heavy blow to drug cartels in third world countries whose expertise lies in being able to traffic drugs across borders. Since many rebel guerilla groups are funded by cocaine trafficking, getting rid of that source of funding might go a long way in making Latin America more stable. It would also kill opiate sales from places like Afghanistan, where heroin is grown to subsidize terrorist training. So the score for/against legalizing drugs is:
Yay 10
Nay 0
when you account for the fact that most of the arguments against legalization of black market drugs are...flawed, to say the least. At the very least we should legalize marijuana, so that teens and college students who use it aren't automatically corralled into an illicit market where they are also vulnerable to being targeted for use of heavier drugs. Since they are already taking the risk of acquiring marijuana, why not also take the risk of acquiring cocaine?
Over time there has been a large amount of conspiracy "theory" regarding the prohbition of drugs resulting in the CIA direclty benefiting from the huge profit margins. There has been evidence and drug trafficing on several different contintents that has been directly linked to the CIA. I know that there have been several movies that have been made regarding this exact topic some based on fact others based on annocdotal evidence. There has also been a large amount of evidence supporting the CIA traffic drugs through LA at the expense of community housing projects etc. There is more information about the links here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America and http://www.narconews.com/ and http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ There are numerous links from American banks and the laundering of drug money. Especially through branches like banamex and Citi group. As long as drugs are illegal there will always be a government link to the incomes either directly via importing and dealing with the producers or simply by selling off goods that have been bought using 'dirty money' as long as those links remain there is no interest in the government in changing the drug policies even though many of the illegal drugs have no long term health benefits as is claimed in many government booklets/information pages. In fact many illegal drugs are being approved by the FDA for use in specialised treatment. One example of that is the use of MDMA to treat Post Traumatic stress disorder. As many people know different types of amphetamine have long been used for the treatment of common disorders like ADHD.
Wow... Talk about someone who is on drugs! You must be full of the legal prescription kind! People founded this country because their country was trying to control every aspect of their lives and charge them for controlling them. Sound familiar?
Trying out a new troll account, eh?
BTW, what makes us great as a nation are paragraph breaks! If you don't break up your writing into paragraphs, then the terrorists have already won!
I concluded that the biggest reason that marihuana is illegal is to force a certain group of people into the undergraound and away from important decision-making roles. Big Brother does NOT want people to think for themselves, they want drones, servants, slaves.
From my experience most of the people who smoke it are freethinkers who make up their own mind about things, (especially the government!). These rich mother fuckers running the country don't want anyone to get in their way of robbing the planet's resources for their own gain, no sir!
On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Uncle Sam was the world's biggest supplier of weed. Can't force people into the underground if they ain't got any, right?
" Don't you give one piece of crap for your real freedom? Don't you think that allowing this kind of garbage take over society is exactly what the terrorists want us to do? Let us all be so messed up on legal drugs that we don't care anymore! "
That is pretty much already the case-the percentage of adults on prescription medecine for anxiety, depression, etc., is probably higher than the %20 of high school students who have tried marijuana. Why can't all those grown-ups just say no to drugs?
And, exactly what do you mean by "real freedom"? If you're not free to grow and eat whatever plant you like, how can you say you are really free?
That being said, of course I still favor keeping "hard"drugs illegal, but to conflate those substances with marijuana, like TFA does, is absurd and dangerous, both to the lives of our citizens, AND our liberty.
How about the fact that these wonderful Border Patrol agents shot the guy in the back as he was running away. Or, the fact that there fellow Border Patrol agents are not standing up for them? Or the fact that they tried to destroy the evidence of the crime they committed? Being a police officer does not give you a license to shoot people in the back.
I would feel much better if I thought there would be any lasting effects to any of these "wars".
Sure, there is a lasting effect. The Bill of Rights was pretty much gutted in the name of the "War on Drugs" and what little was left of it has been put thru the shredder in the name of the "War on Terror". Those are the lasting effects.
Meanwhile, the US Government actually operates a price-support program to keep producers of one of the most addictive drugs in business.
I heard a story recently about a man from the US who was traveling to South America. As he was visiting different leaders, he asked the question, "Why has the US become such a world leading nation and other countries in America turned out they way they have? Our lands were discovered at about the same time and we have all had similar opportunities." The response, although it is an opinion not to be confused with fact, was very thought-provoking. "Because our ancestors were searching for gold and yours came searching for God."
I realize that Slashdot is not a popular place for religion, so I would like to ask the same question. I know that the U.S. is not perfect and there is much room for improvement. Do you think that the search for God, even if you believe it to be misplaced, is a reason for why we became the way we are?
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
That's why we've got so many people killing each other over $7 packs of cigarettes.
--
make install -not war
And just to toss in another favorite Slashdottery, you have to wonder if Monsanto will be doing something if those coca plants are violating the patent on Round Up resistant plants?
Has anyone noticed that many wars in recent years have not and cannot be won? The War on Terror, the War on Drugs, what will be the next never-ending war we fight? Why fight an enemy that cannot be destroyed?
"However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return." This is where the taxation comes in... The government can make *stacks* of money from legalization through taxation. Through taxes, the end of the multi-billion dollar drug war (the amount of money spent on fighting drugs annually is quite shocking), coupled with the reduction in harm through education, you'd likely end up paying significantly less in tax. So you wouldn't have to pay for anything. "*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying." Heroin addicts, taken out of the criminal environment, can contribute to a workplace and society in just the same manner as anybody else. There is plenty of data from Holland to illustrate this. Believe it or not, junkies are also human beings. Those without jobs and lives often want jobs and lives, but given their situation can obtain neither. Also, not all drugs are as intoxicating as alcohol, and not all addicts are as 'disabled' as alcoholics.
20% of teens do drugs. You lost the war.
Inside of prisons is an ongoing drug trafficking. If we cannot win the war on drugs in prison, which is a 'secure' environment. Howe can we ever win in an open and free society (regardless of political opinions on open and free)
Education seems to be a solid deterrent. However, you cannot lie about drugs. "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs." Did not sell because we did not talk about the positive effects of drugs. If we lie on the good effects why would kids believe us on on frying the brain.
I live in a small rural community. If I wanted to I know exactly where to go to buy drugs. IF the cops here do not worry about it to much. Why would they worry more in say the burbs. With all the good kids, who are smoking dope.
If someone is willing to put into their body what is contained in meth. Do you really think that you are: 1. going to stop them? 2. use any kind of education.
Last point. Many of today's 60's parents are unwilling to say no to drugs. Why, because they did drugs and feel they have no moral authority. This is called a logical fallacy. If I have done something, say smoke legal drugs, for 40 years and now I am dying from the effects of the cigs. I can with moral authority say these things are bad. The fallacy that says you can't is called Tu Quoque.
With these facts . . . we have lost the war on drugs. I am conservative (no spamming or yelling about that) and I have never used illegal drugs. However, we have lost the war on drugs and have lost it for years. We keep pouring money into the program because of politics (on both sides).
Time for the white flag.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
The US War on Drugs is a sham and the politicians know it. But the constant barrage of absolutist demonization has left no feasible opening to seriously suggest the alternative: legalization.
The UK isn't so bad. Atleast they have had the courage to allow medical marijuana research, which has resulted in the legal Sativex. Cannabis is classified as Class C, resulting in warnings & fine for possession. And very recently, A parliamentary committee has lambasted the whole classification system. Even many senior politicians (like David Cameron) and police chiefs have called for considering legalization. The US does have an equivalent movement in LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) with about 5,000 officers, but getting the word out relies on media accomodation, and unlike the UK, the US is not a very tolerant venue.
Opening statement: I've never used any of the currently illegal drugs and don't intend to, yet I am a strong supporter marijuana legalization.
When I popped into this thread, I was expecting to see the usual arguments. I was expecting to spend a little time combatting ignorance. I wasn't expecting any actual progress.
However, what amazed me was that every highly rated comment (I browse at +3) was pro-legalization. Every single one. Sure, they were responding to some of the same tired old arguments, but it seemed that the pro-legalization camp was far more strongly represented by both posters and mods. That surprised me and made me hopeful. I'm a regular financial supporter of The Marijuana Policy Project. There are so many lost causes in the world, improvements I'd love to see that will never happen. But I believe this is one issue that we might actually see resolved in our lifetimes.
I live in the Las Vegas area, and there is a statutory initiative on the ballot this upcoming election. Please, please, please, if you live in the Las Vegas area get out and vote. There are initiatives in other states as well, but I don't know the details there.
I am convinced now there is more than enough support to pass legalization in many states. But people need to get active about it. They need to watch the issue an vote. If this is an issue you care about, please take the time. We're at a possible turning point in the next 10 to 20 years. We can make things better.
Cheers.
I think good drug education (DARE maybe?) that teaches people from an early age that drugs are powerful, must be respected, tend to cause a lot of complications, can lead to serious problems, must be used with moderation if used at all, can impair judgment, and contribute to health problems and traffic accidents---is much better at helping the social problem than simply trying to arrest it away.
You typically can't arrest a problem; you can usually only arrest its symptoms.
Nevada (I think) has legalized prostitution, with certain restrictions and such by the government. From what I've heard, legalized prostitution is less of a problem than illegal prostitution: less disease, less loitering, less time required by law enforcement, and less abuse of sex workers.
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
There are some people who are mature enough to handle drugs. However, many people don't know the first thing about how drugs affect their brain and body...
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
One potential problem is that employers might start screening potential employees against the list of people with licenses; I'm not sure if it would be possible to keep the license list private and unavailable to the public, except perhaps if it's considered part of freedom of religion. (Maybe a better name for the license would be "Ceremonial substance permit.")
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
If I were a bored FBI agent, I'd be taking names. Your email and nicknames reveal a lot about you unless you are extremely careful and have always been so.
I haven't - there is a lot of information about me in my nickname, and if it were a quiet day at the ol' War on Drugs HQ, I might - just for a laugh - pull some people's names off of Slashdot or other news sites and infringe some personal rights based on written confessions using my old pal Google.
I'd be wiping my cookies right now!! Which, actually sounds kind of disturbing.
Oh - War on Drugs - let's declare war on a plant. Good thinking. Wait - we should outlaw it's precursors, sunlight, water and fertilizer!
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
I've read a lot of replies that say we should legalize all drugs. While I haven't made up my mind on this one (seeing the History Channel show on Opium, Morphine and Heroin made me think about this recently) I do have a legitimate question.
If we legalize "hard drugs" why wouldn't we extend this to all drugs. That is to say all prescription drugs such as anti-depression, heart meds, erectile enhancers, and the like? Where do we draw the line. I personally think it is dangerous to have people self-medicating, so I want to konw if there is a legitimate answer to thisi. Maybe it falls back into the category of, "Yes, make them all legal and let the dummies kill themselves but smart folks will still see their doctor for a proper prescription that will tell them how to administer the drugs." That kind of makes sense.
Personally I get some allergy problems in the summer and have taken a prescription drug for years. At this point I know the dose and that one pill should be taken every 24 hours when I'm experiencing problems. I suppose it makes some sense that I should be able to refill as many times as I like right?
So how does this trickle down to kids I wonder? When I was 15, I imagine I would have tried some hard drugs had they been legal. Seeing a rock of crack next to the hard candy would make it seem like trying an atomic fireball or sour gummy. (There's no reason to think they wouldn't be presented like this if all are legal). The fact that they were illegal made me wonder why and that's when I did some research and talked to my parents. Now maybe the "legalize drugs" crowd would say it was my parents fault for not talking to me proactively. In their defense, my parents taught me right and wrong. Doing something illegal was wrong, therefore taking hard drugs was wrong. Maybe legalizing drugs is only for 18 and up?
This is a delicate subject indeed.
Cigarettes don't cause people to become unproductive. Crack and meth certainly do. A crackhead or a meth addict aren't going to have means to buy legal crack or meth. Legalization would reduce crime associated with distribution, but it ain't gonna happen so the whole argument is pointless.
Finding other idiots on
Oops! HTML formatting :-| Reposted with linefeeds here:
"However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return."
This is where the taxation comes in... The government can make *stacks* of money from legalization through taxation. Through taxes, the end of the multi-billion dollar drug war (the amount of money spent on fighting drugs annually is quite shocking), coupled with the reduction in harm through education, you'd likely end up paying significantly less in tax.
So you wouldn't have to pay for anything.
"*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying."
Heroin addicts, taken out of the criminal environment, can contribute to a workplace and society in just the same manner as anybody else. There is plenty of data from Holland to illustrate this. Believe it or not, junkies are also human beings. Those without jobs and lives often want jobs and lives, but given their situation can obtain neither. Also, not all drugs are as intoxicating as alcohol, and not all addicts are as 'disabled' as alcoholics.
Funny that the Taliban were a lot more effective than the USA in their respective "wars against drugs".
When the punishment for essentially anything involves dismemberment or death at the hand of Jihadis (rarely pleasent, to say the least), sure, I'd say they're more "effective".
Are you recommending that the West adopt a similar stance?
I'm amused at the Rube-Goldbergian prospect of using Solar_cells -> electricity -> batteries -> bulbs -> light to grow plants. Maybe we could add a water wheel and some chipmunks in the path too.
... you'd probably get better overall efficiency using reflectors and light pipes. Of course, you can't grow 24-hours a day that way.
... but you're never going to be able to pull "huge amounts of power" from a stairwell lighting circuit. You'll get a modest amount, but it'll be limited.
Seriously, plants already operate off solar
Staircase power is a bad choice. The circuits are designed to be efficient (cost, installation, materials, etc) for the staircase light load. There isn't going to be a ton of margin left on that circuit. Lighting circuits, in general, aren't designed for larger loads. The 220V HVAC connection is a better choice. I understand that the "growers" aren't the sharpest hammers in the drawer, and don't always have access to better sources
As usual, the Black-Man is trying to keep us down...
...the damned drug smugglers figure out that a lot of that technology is available to them as well. Remotely-piloted and UAVs aren't bleeding edge any more and sooner or later those mutts are going to figure out how to use them. God knows they've got the money to buy them.
I can see it now...
The Coca Prize!
$50,000 to the builder of the first UAV that can fly all the way from anywhere in Columbia to anywhere in the
continental U.S. with a payload big enough to pay for a U.S. senatorial campaign. Prize money to be awarded
behind the Kroger at the corner of Buelah and M-22 at 3:00AM the Friday following certification by the DEA
of successful completion the flight and will be in the form non-sequentially numbered, circulated, $100 bills.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
It's a very dangerous way to get high. People die all the time. One dude even had to cut off his own arm. Same goes for riding motercycles. There's no reason for it, and it's dangerous. Eating fatty foods should be outlawed. Not excercising should be outlawed. Staying up too late should be outlawed. People who go to church live longer on average, so not going to church should be outlawed.
/sarcasm
Anything that makes other people happy, but that I don't personally care for should be outlawed. All shortcuts to happiness should be outlawed, happiness should only come from hard work and abstinence.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
My only drug problem is scoring good bud...
I used to grow medical marijuana for the cannabis club where I worked providing computer security. We were completely legit under California law. We provided free counselling for people with HIV, cancer, and Hepatitis, as well as harm-reduction programs for people using marijauna to help come off other drugs. We gave away free food every day. We were contacted by Laguna Honda, a federally funded hospital for people with deadly illness, and asked to provide cannabis to their patients with HIV. We had San Francisco city supervisors visit us and tell us what a great thing we were doing.
Growing cannabis indoors takes a great deal of power. We had a legitimate set up and payed about $800 a month in electricity for four 1000 watt lights. We even had local police inspect our grow room and give us the okay. People growing pot generally do not bypass a building's meter. That is a great way to get yourself busted. There are plenty of legitimate home businesses that use that much juice. Just tell the electric company that you make pottery and have an electric kiln.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Gigantic megacorps that run farms like factories can ride out yearly dips and rises in the commodity price of staple crops, but some peasant trying to grow wheat cant say to his kids "wheat is worthless this year, but we can eat next year"; so the peasant farmers of colombia have to find a crop that has constant demand no matter what the US government is subsidising, embargoing or shipping out as aid, and that crop is coca and cannabis.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
"Cigarettes don't cause people to become unproductive."
The people that become unproductive will only hurt themselves, the very people that deserve to be hurt from doing drugs.
"A crackhead or a meth addict aren't going to have means to buy legal crack or meth"
Oh yeah? My doctor friend says the hospital where he works pays $35 for an ounce of cocaine. Spare-changing will get that in short order.
"it ain't gonna happen so the whole argument is pointless."
And yet you made an argument anyway. Exercising your futility?
Electrical light is "needed" because there are certain optimum numbers of hours of lighting for best growth, and they vary with the maturity of the plants. This is why there are identifiable patterns in the electricity use of growers. A simple fourier transform of the daily power use in a household (all the data is available to the supplier) will produce telltale marks that give away stupid growers with a lamp configuration above, say, 400 watts. For the same reason, you do not need to continuously put load on the stairwell lighting circuit - you will need a few hours at most.
blow your mind already
Exactly. I'm sick of people saying "oh, crime would go away if so-and-so was legalized". I want to yell at them like Kevin Spacey in Superman -- "WRONG!!!". Drugs aren't THAT expensive, so even if legalization lowered prices (it would probably be heavily taxed, so the price could even increase), it's not going to magically make addicts get legitimate means to obtain drugs. If it was the exorbent cost of drugs, wouldn't people be robbing/killing each other for housing, health care, etc? Addicts' minds are in a fucked up place -- so even if they were capable of being functional and productive members of a company (they're not, people who smoke cigs are), they would go for the "quick" way of getting money -- the illegal way -- because that's how bad their addiction is and they need to feed it more than anything else (hunger, shelter, etc).
Drugs are bad, mmm'kay?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Step 2: Declare war on the problem.
What really gets me is that the War on Drugs in fact ends up causing all the problems it's meant to solve. By enforcing prohibition you push control of drugs into the hands of organized crime, who proceed to make a small fortune off the sale of these drugs with, no thought given to who gets them or whether that person uses them properly. At the same time this small fortune finances a myriad of other organized crimes, terrorist groups or even dictatorial governments themselves. Meanwhile the feds keep throwing money at the problem they themselves have created, as if it's somehow going to go away if we imprison that many more people each year.
What's even more astonishing to me is the general public doesn't even begin to realize this, or they just don't care. Actually wait... that's not astonishing at all... the real astonishment comes from the fact that even after 40 years of utter failure and hundreds of billions in wasted money no one has even considered the alternatives.
You don't need tech for this, I remember reading an internal article while in the USCG; basically laying out the financials. It would be cheaper to buy the drugs and burn them then to try and stop them from coming in. Legalization is the only thing that will work. It's harder for kids to get cigarettes and booze then drugs that is the reality of our drug policies.
Don't you have some kind of wellfare system? And even if that's not enough, you need to commit a lot less crimes to buy cheap legal drugs compared to expensive illegal ones.
http://www.piratpartiet.se
You say legalize drugs for taxation, a pragmatic reason.
Someone else said legalize drugs because, "It's my body!" a principled reason.
I have another pragmatic reason:
Legalize drugs because the collateral damage of "crimes of financing" and the "War on Drugs" itself are worse than the drugs themselves. Beyond that it has polarized and destabilized source nations like Columbia, and I have no doubt that we're breeding more US resentment there, so we won't feel lonely if we were to somehow work through our Islamist extremist problems.
Obviously legalization would have problems, and would need to be treated similarly to alcohol. Clearly users while under the influence need to be kept out from behind the wheel.
Which brings us to Richard Nixon, or at least an urban legend about Richard Nixon.
During his campaign for the 1968 election, Nixon part of his platform was good old Law'n'Order. Once elected, he felt he needed to deliver. One of his key advisors told him that more/stronger attempts at interdiction and enforcement have never worked, and never would. According to this advisor the ONLY way to solve the problem was through drug treatment - essentially working the demand side of the problem instead of the supply side. The way I heard the story, this was done, and it worked - crime dropped during Nixon's first term.
Then during the second term, Law'n'Order was no longer an issue and the Vietnam war was all-consuming. Since it was no longer needed, politically speaking, the drug treatment program was dismantled, never to be seen again. Since then it's been more of the same ineffective, counter-productive interdiction and enforcement.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
No they havent, what are you talking about, the government is winning the war on drugs big time! It has turned out to be every thing they have ever dreamed of and more.
They have gotten massive funding for their police state apparatus, and prision facuilities, and for their law enforcment cronies, and for the judges, and have gotten massive abilities to spy and pry into other peoples lives. They have more power and controll over peoples lives than ever before - yes in their eyes they are absolute victors in this drug war. Not to mention all the extra money they get to siphon off to special interests.
They even have massive authority to invade American's financial privacy and deter them from putting their money into tax havens so people can't protect themselves from the massive tax impositions. As a bonus, they even get authority to impose these controls on other countries in other parts of the world. Just think of all that extra taxes they get to collect from people who are too afraid to protect themselves - what a major victory. And if people trying to protect their money get a little to brave, no problem, just go out and shoot a bunch of niggers to set an example and scare them back into line. You see, it even gives the police live firearms practice - it is a win win situation for them.
Right to privacy - they have won that war. Right against unreasonable search and seisure - they have won that war too. WTF are you talking about, this war has been an astounding success for the government. They even get to incarcerate a large number of black people and get them off the voting rolls and influence elections.
Nope, the war on drugs is a stunning success. Things worked out so well, that many have decided that it is time to expand this war. Yes, we now need a war on terrorisim. Three cheers. The war against fair trials, or even having trials at all for that matter is on. The war to get total access to every thing you say and do without even the pretext of permission or checks and balances is on. The war for controll over the internet is on. The war to disarm the people (like in New Orleans) is on. The war to controll all your travel and movement is on. The prospects for victory in this war too are so promising, it is almost salivating.
So I don't know WTF you are talking about. Thes wars are a stunning success for the government by every measure they use.
Au contraire. If one who is addicted to cigarettes does not have a cigarette, they become steadily more ineffectual, frustrated, aggravated, et cetera. If they do have a cigarette, then they must leave their post and go outside (assuming they don't work outside already.) This constitutes a delay and an interruption which derails them from what they were doing.
It would also bring the price down dramatically, which might not eliminate the crime involved with getting the money to buy drugs with, but would at the very least reduce it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm sure they don't, if for no other reason that cocaine busts don't typically involve hundreds-of-dollars-an-hour helicopter overflights, scanning with FLIR.
Here's a "funny" thought for you: They took something like a million marijuana plants out of the federal lands north of this county (Lake, CA) alone. It has put not one tiny dent in at least the local marijuana supply. However, this part of California exports literally thousands of pounds every year (around this time, and a little later) so it might have slowed that down a bit.
Regardless, a million plants hasn't had any effect whatsoever on local availability. (I speak from second-hand knowledge, honest.) :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't know whay you think the price would be so much lower. If they were legalized, the taxes would be enormous. I mean a pack of cigarettes probably costs $1.00 and has $5.00 more tacked on in taxes.
Finding other idiots on
I was going to moderate, but this is more interesting: Why not drop the federal insanity towards currently illegal drugs and leave it as a state matter (as it ought to be)? Vast differences in the attitudes and treatment of drugs would spring forth, and the people would have the opportunity to decide which policies work best. I can easily envision a place like New Hampshire legalizing nearly everything while Mississippi retains most of the draconian laws currently on the federal books.
But why not give it a shot, when the trillions spent already have done nothing to stem the demand?
"But the societal problems of alcohol use remained."
Yes, and they'll remain unless you eradicate every possible way for a human to mess with his brain in a psychologically addictive way. Since that's highly unlikely to ever happen, why not try a more reasonable approach?
The WoD will never be won. Never, ever, ever. If the US Govt can't even keep drugs out of prisons how are going to keep them out of anywhere else? It's all about the money. The money drives the passion to find new ways to maximize profits. The illegal drug industry is incredibly creative. Here's a couple of examples:
- Back in the '80s New Bedford, MA was an entry point for heroin. Larger fishing boats would stuff the drugs in a trash fish (any type of fish with little or no resale valve) out at sea, flash freeze and bury them with their catch. The trash fish and drugs would be quietly put aside while unloading or prepossessing. We're talking a few fish out of hundreds of pounds of catch. Virtually impossible to catch.
- In the Pacific Northwest bails of marijuana are towed behind boats from Canada, sealed and partly weighed down. If they think they're going to get caught they note the position on GPS, cut the line and the bails sink. The weights dragging the bails down are held together with zinc connections that are meant to break in a day or two. The bails re-float and are retrieved.
- Large fishing boats with three fuel tanks. Well, one real and two for the drugs. To conceal the true purpose of these outer tanks they'd seal the sounding tubes and fill partly with fuel. A LEO would check the tank, see it had fuel and assume it was a real fuel tank.
- Submarine found in Colombian Andes. Unreal.
It's a war that can not be won. IMO the solution is to legalize (and tax) marijuana like alcohol and allow MDs to prescribe Schedule I/II/III drugs "for maintenance" of a habit. The latter will greatly help slow the spread of blood born diseases and control dosing (a critical part in helping those addicted in finally stopping their habit).
Prohibition is a total fucking failure. The only proponents are those that make their living off of it: the Police, the rehab industry and those that sell them the tools. Go read Jacob Sullum's landmark book "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" for an eye openner.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Alcohol consumption was the same before and after the prohibition.
http://www.piratpartiet.se
I assume you mean the Netherlands. You imply that the society of the Netherlands is not complex? Which 'very powerful, addicting drugs' did the Netherlands legalize? Cannabis and psychedelics are the only ones I know of that are given a pass for use, despite remaining technically illegal. neither of these are really addicting. And so what if they are powerful? Power, in and of itself, is not a reason for prohibition!
You are guilty of the same mind-set used by those who dismiss evolution because they cannot possibly comprehend how a billion billions of small changes could turn a aquatic animal into a land-based animal.
Blar.
"Yes, tiny little countries in Europe have experimented with legalization and government control of some very powerful, addicting drugs - I am not sure that this model would translate well in the US." You must be referring to The Netherlands. They have the highest population density of any country in Europe. When I lived there in 2000 the Dutch population was around 15 million. Not exactly a tiny little country, at least in terms of population. FYI Germany (I believe) is the largest, population-wise, at ~90 million inhabitants according to my Dutch friends. I witnessed first hand the benefits of their legal system, especially concerning police and violence. In the town of Doetinchem where I was living for 4 months, I learned that they only have 4 policeman cruising - D-chem is in the neighborhood of 100,000 residents! There is minimal violence, especially from guns (practically no one owns firearms). And even though cannabis and some of the more dangerous drugs (like heroin) are legalized, I learned that only about 10% (can someone verify?) of the Dutch population uses cannabis. Hardly a hot bed of druggies, even though people are free to use. I would be very suprised if Americans' TRUE usage stats are lower, especially for cannabis use. I was only there a short time, but in those 4 months I became convinced that a similar system would be wonderful for the US, especially in terms of reducing the cost of maintaining huge police forces and the far more vast cost of keeping drug offenders locked up. Of course, that's assuming we also reduce the number of American firearms considerably if we are going to try and match the Dutch method for keeping the peace. Oh yeah, and the herb was WAY better (and cheaper to boot), too! :-)
it is silly to assume that large drug operators do not have access to much of the same tech.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The War Against Terrorism is too important for that acronym.
Henceforth, please refer to it as "TWAT".
Thank you.
-- a concerned American
Outlaw driving. Even taking alcohol out of the picture, tens to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide - mothers, fathers, children - and millions of innocent animals (can we say road-kill?) die every year because of this very hazardous pursuit to get from point A to point B expediously! More people die in this way than virtually any other way, wars included! Ooh - I can make that left turn! Bam - hubby just died. Kids in back-seat permanantly crippled or brain-damaged. How more dangerous can you get? If you sky-dive, it is just you and the ground, buddy. Just BOUNCE. If you rock-climb, again, it's just you and a very scenic trip to the bottom. If you swim, it's just you and the shark. And - only a relative handful do the above! But, if you drive - it's everyone around you and in front of you and with you! and EVERYONE DRIVES. Millions of people. Many you would classify as morons! Forget the drunk drivers - just the regular sober people. Making dozens of judgement calls every minute! Each call potentially deciding whether someone lives or dies. Once you leave your drive-way - someone or several someones could die because of you - even if you're the best driver.
And, didja know that cellphone and driving cause more accidents now than drinking and driving? You have less control of your vehicle when talking on the phone than after you've boozed it up! Yet - that too is legal in most states! Who doesn't talk on the cellphone while driving? And... now that Texting is in - I can imagine those same people spending more time looking at the message than at the road.
If it were an issue of hazard that determines whether a drug or activity be legal or banned - driving would have been banned a LONG time ago. In fact, illegal drugs and during the prohibition - illegal booze has killed a massive number of innocents and created a vast gang infrastructure that would not have existed otherwise. Thank you, Big Brother. Now I have to duck stray bullets while I hit the road and duck errant drivers...
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if it was legal at an earlier age and people learned how to use it responsibly. Think there is any great mystery to booze in a country where you can legally buy it at 18 and where your parents have been giving it to you at dinnertime since you were 5 years old? Think those countries have a problem with binge drinking?
Only in the United States can I sign away my life to a cell phone company/credit card company/military, vote and be tried as an adult without being able to legally buy booze. And date rape/DUI are completely separate issues and bringing them up seems like FUD.
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
Funny you should mention the Native American use of peyote. Native Americans are the only ones that need "permission" from the Federal Government to practice their religion. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so hard to understand? What you purpose would only create a massive bureaucracy with further control over our lives.
Here's an idea: Legalize all drugs. Prohibit employers from requiring drug tests with an exception for jobs that actually require you to be sober (i.e: truck drivers). Make people take responsibility for their own actions. You may not agree with that extreme of a viewpoint. But you'd have a hard time convincing me that THC should still be illegal.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
> I have never once used drugs. Then you admittedly have a biased frame of reference and are basing many of your "facts" regarding the effects and morality of all drug use. Thanks for letting us know that right at the beginning of your statement. > The problem here is the interpretation of 'freedom.' I think the DEA's and Bush administration's problem with 'freedom' is not the interpretation of the word, but the execution of those rights. > Legalize drugs because we should have dominion over our own bodies? If not ourselves, who then? Who should say that I cannot drink a beer? Who will decide if I can get a tattoo? Who will decide if I have to get surgery or would rather pray the tumor away? > This country is founded on morals and values. And a substantial history of drug use. It might come in alcohol form, as early American brewmeisters Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin were fond of, or the extract of various plants and herbs in tea form. The tobacco of the native tribes became one of our earliest major exports to the world. Don't forget the morals and values that purposely gave horrible, ravaging diseases to the native populations to ease our transition into their lands. Or the wholesale import and trade of humans as work animals. I think what you mean to say was "The country I imagine in my head, that does not really exist in any sort of reality, was founded on morals and values." > Just because you have none, nor the self control to do what is right shouldn't mean we should encourage others to do the same. With that logic we should get rid of all laws besides murder because we shouldn't be constricted. That's a mighty leap from a person believing that they have the right to determine what they put into their own body to definitive knowledge that the person has no morals, values, or self-contol. With that logic, because you note that another has no morals or values, you must know that no one else but yourself has any morals or values in this entire world. > We all know, at one point or another, that there are limits to what should be legal and what should not. We don't all know that. However, I agree. The limits to what should be illegal is when whatever I am doing causes direct harm to you or another person. If Joe wants to sit in his house and get high all day, that should be legal. If he kills someone, that should be illegal, whether he was high or not. > It's not because of the lack of technology or money that we can't keep out these drugs, but lack of a real dedication on the eradication of that which is wrong. Wrong. It has nothing to do with tech or cash or dedication. Throughout the entirety of human history, people have used things to enhance their mood. Eating a big meal makes me drowsy and euphoric. Drinking a cold glass of water after running makes me feel energized and refreshed. Listening to Django Reinhardt makes me want to dance. If eating, drinking, or Django were illegal, you know what? I'd still do every one of them. > Case in point. The two border patrol agents (http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562) that were convicted of crimes because they were doing their job. What kind of message does this send? Border agents are not drug enforcement agents. I read the article, and it definitely sounds like these two agents got a shitty deal, though hardly black-and-white. Their job requires them to not shoot at someone running away from you. Since the guy they were shooting at got away, I suspect that implies he was indeed running away from them. I agree that 20 years is unfair, but the case really has little to do with the drug war and morality points you're trying to make. >And if we can't do that, then we will hopefully catch them when they are distributing those drugs. If we can't do that, we will just the kids in grade school that are taking them. But if we miss that, we will watch them shoot their classmates on prime time television and blame the teachers for not recognizing that they were troubled. Of course, if it were lega
Saying that marijuana will ever be "legalized" is, at the very least, a misnomer. As if Congress will one day say "All these laws we have about weed, lets just throw 'em out!"
No, if it ever does happen, it will be more like this: "Lets throw out this ONE LAW restricting use & sale of weed, and replace it with DOZENS of other restrictions." No smoking and driving, no smoking within x feet of a school/restaurant/shopping mall, no selling without a license, no license without a huge license fee, no growing without a license, no growing license without another huge fee, no using it in public, no transporting over state lines, no importing from another country, no concealed carry of your bong, no water in a bong over 72hours old, no smoking near minors, no sale of papers/pipes/paraphalia without a tax stamp, upper bounds on THC concentration, lower bounds on price ("State Minimum"), on and on and on and on....
A sizable chunk of that is spent on the overflights that look for cannabis from the air. Over 99% of what they destroy is low-THC feral.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
Primarily, it depends on the cost of the drug. Also, on the addictive potential. But a very addictive but cheap drug won't lead to much acquisition crime (see cigarettes).
In the UK, according to a 2003 govt. report, most drug-related crime is committed by crack/heroin users. Notice the costs.
- daksya
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-365311429 6815352489
It's just like prohibition.
BTW: Don't we have enough wars going on?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Alcohol consumption rates were impossible to guage under prohibition just like it is impossible to estimate how many people use drugs. They can only calculate numbers from soft sources of data like 'cannbis mentions in hospital visits' and rates of incarceration and/or forced treatment. People generally do not admit to criminal activity. From what i have read, alcohol use dropped after prohibition was repealed but these kinds of data are unreliable. One thing I found out that it was not uncommon for minors to have alcohol during the prohibition years. For all you 'judgement and punishment' types, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
The US War on Drugs is a sham and the politicians know it. But the constant barrage of absolutist demonization has left no feasible opening to seriously suggest the alternative: legalization.
The UK isn't so bad. Atleast they have had the courage to allow medical marijuana research, which has resulted in the legal Sativex. Cannabis is classified as Class C, resulting in warnings & fine for possession. And very recently, a parliamentary committee lambasted the whole classification system. Even many senior politicians (like David Cameron) and police chiefs have called for considering legalization. The US does have an equivalent movement in LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) with about 5,000 officers, but getting the word out relies on media accomodation, and unlike the UK, the US is not a very tolerant venue.
--posted on behalf of daksya
You think so? I doubt it. Drug lords, though selling an illegal substance, are following pretty good captialist ideals. They charge what they can get. What makes you think a capitalist company would do any different? It's incredibly easy to charge as much as you want when your product is highly addictive...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
An important article on slashdot and I'm too stoned to think of a good reply.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but the primary value of this nation is supposed to be freedom. That invalidates the remainder of your ignorant, unformatted comment. Please go away and do not return, kthx.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think that this is the article you are referring to: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/columbia. html
It also made the final product stronger.
Interesting article, the U.S. government also played a major role during the Clinton Administration.
Hmm, didn't mean to have any FUD... but I think at least DUI is a significant topic when it comes to drug use. It's true that there are plenty of bad drivers, intentionally reckless drivers, and people who are falling asleep, and they can cause accidents, too.. but I still think DUI is a bit different than other impairments (maybe too much exposure to MADD has brainwashed me *grin*)
I think a good goal would be to move toward general legalization; the idea of a license isn't intended to let the DEA keep drugs generally illegal---it's supposed to demonstrate that Americans can be responsible and don't need the DEA to babysit them.. it could be a first step toward more liberties. I don't want more bureaucracy nor control; I want the DEA to become less controlling, and eventually not even be necessary.
I agree that drug testing should be banned for most jobs. It just seems ethically wrong to me. The point about other countries where alcohol is treated differently is also well-made; I'm still not sure how to change the cultural attitudes toward alcohol here in the USA, though.
Good point about the Native American Church needing permission. Catholic churches don't have to get permission to serve communion wine to minors...
THC should have never been illegalized. I've heard theories that suggest that "good white folk" were scared by Mexican immigrants smoking it, or something. It used to be prescribed to treat asthma, and it's probably one of the best anti-nausea substances known to man... It has a lot of potential to be medically helpful (in addition to being recreational) but it's treated like a poison.
Out of curiosity, have you read Aleister Crowley's Diary of a Drug Fiend? If you haven't, you should. It's a really interesting story about a man learning how to use drugs to his benefit, instead of letting an addiction control his life.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
You want to fight drug abuse, eh?
Ban Ritalin.
It's such a load of fucking bullshit that parents can forcefeed their kids Ritalin for years if they don't like the grades they've been getting, but if a college student wants to take a small, one-time dose of speed so he can study for a tust he gets thrown in jail (and if you want to argue that Ritalin isn't speed, simply substitute "Adderall" instead. The former is a pseudo-amphetamine, the latter IS amphetamine and both have practically identical effects to methamphetamine.) I was addicted to speed (aka Ritalin) for four years before I finally refused to take it any more. I was 14 years old, and I somehow managed to overcome "peer pressure"--which directly from my parents and doctors, strongly urging me not to quit.
I went through severe withdraw and lost all self-control for about two weeks. My sense of humor was oddly changed and it took months for the fog to clear from my mind. To this day I'm still not sure if it's affected me permanently, and to this day I despise the feeling evoked by most stimulants (caffeine included.)
ADD (without physical hyperactivity) is a fucking scam. Medical bodies recommend AGAINST any form of physiological diagnosis (e.g. MRI), and the criteria for psychological diagnosis is hopelessly vague--it's a catch-all for ANY otherwise-intelligent kid who has problems in school. Doctors and shrinks will keep a kid on it even though it can have serious, permanent side effects, even if it's obvious that the kid is still having problems, even if the kid has gone into a severe depression as a result. Yes, depression is a known side effect of Ritalin and Adderall--the solution? Stick 'em on an antidepressant. Oh, but watch out 'cause in many cases this can increase depression and/or suicidal tendencies, and even if it doesn't there are plenty of other lovely common side effects such as libido supression.
My point is that we're turning millions of perfectly normal (if somewhat academically challenged) kids into crank addicts, sometimes against their will, while denying the right of informed adults to use this drug (or even a nonaddictive drug like marijuana) on an infrequent, occasional basis. This is severelyfucked up. You talk about drugs being shoved in your face--you have no fucking clue what you're talking about until you have your mom or dad tell you that you must take this pill or you'll be grounded.
And just so you know, I work in the mental health field so no, I am not just basing this on my own experience I've seen hundreds of kids (and dozens of mentally deficient adults) diagnosed with ADHD while in reality only maybe 2 or 3 of them were truly hyperactive/attention-deficient. The rest were just a bit uncooperative or apathetic.
At the ripe old age of 14, I educated myself on drug dependence, addiction, and withdraw, and I successfully quit the drug despite peer pressure in the worst sense of the term. I now occasionally employ alcohol and marijuana, but never in excess and never for more than 2 or 3 consecutive days (or when I otherwise feel like I'm building up a tolerance.) I feel that both drugs have had a positive impact on my life. Alcohol in the quantities I typically has numerous health benefits, and ingested marijuana has virtually no harmful side effects. I will not do either if I plan on driving anywhere.
So tell me, why should I be thrown in jail? Why should the shrinks and the overcontroling parents be allowed to forcefeed children addictive substances against their will on the basis of a nearly completely arbitrary diagnosis?
If *I* were selling a product that was so addictive folks would get physically ill when they stopped using it I would see no reason to make it cheap. 99% margins anybody? Absolutely. And since it's a "luxury" good luck in getting the prices fixed by the government - they'd be too busy taking their 5-10 percent cut.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
The figures where for before and after, not during.
http://www.piratpartiet.se
Yes, the addicts are quite productive huddled in their little plastic shelter for 10 minutes every hour.
Don't change the subject title.
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
Think liquor store or pharmacy for drug distro.
Could someone please point out statistics on how much money the US spends on the "War on Drugs," versus the "profit" gained by specific agencies in waging it?
Revive the Constitution.
But one of the main reasons for outlawing drugs is that they're so dangerous. If they were legal, and more likely to be pure, they wouldn't be as dangerous, which means that the current laws are actually more likely to kill the average drug user than legalization would be. So even looking at this issue purely from a public-safety viewpoint and ignoring individual rights, there's a reason for legalization.
Revive the Constitution.
If the United States were to stop the senseless, wasteful and ineffective war on drugs, then redirect, say, 50% of that money towards drug education, I dare say drug use would decline dramatically. To that, redirect another 25% of the money to research into more effective educational methods, and within ten years the drug problem would be mostly a thing of the past. Don't scoff! Do you have any idea what we're spending? Are you aware that the majority of prison inmates are doing time for drug violations? That cost of keeping all these people in prisons is by itself a staggering sum. If you then add the cost of worldwide enforcement and interdiction efforts, you're talking about some very serious money.
These answers may not be simplistic, but the only reason they can't be easily attained can be attributed to the conundrum our politicians find themselves in. Most know that the WOD is futile, but to openly suggest an end to it is political suicide, and a few have tested that theory. Drug abuse is one of many political subjects in the US that is legislated by way of emotion, not rationale thought. For this I don't blame politicians, because not all of them fall into that trap, but those they represent usually do, and demand that their politicians do likewise.
I think we need to back up and ask ourselves what what we hope to accomplish with the WOD in the first place. To save people from the misery of drug addiction? Then how is it that we throw violators into prisons? Is living in a prison better than being addicted to a drug? If given the choice between the two, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't select prison. You?
"Wait!", you say. "None of that matters because we have to protect our children. We don't want them to be exposed to drugs, or to become people who use drugs!" That's strong motivation, and I'll be the first to agree with the sentiments. But look again. Are we accomplishing anything of the sort? Definitely not. Every child in the US is exposed to drugs in a variety of venues. Neighborhoods, schools, recreation centers. We keep trying to use force to make it stop, but we've never suceeded. We succeed only in turning them into criminals for seeking substances that human beings have craved for as long as recorded history has existed.
You reply, "The WOD may not be a perfect solution, but at least it keeps the associated crime in check. Without such a program our streets would be overrun by addicts, who would steal on a grand scale otherwise." That's another fallacy to which intelligent reasoning has not been applied. Most of the crime reportedly caused by drug abuse is in fact caused by the WOD itself! Look in your newspaper if you need proof. Few drug-related crimes involve addicts attacking people to get money for drugs. Most involve distributors fighting each other over turf, or one group stealing drugs from another. In short, most of the drug related violence is about money, not the drugs themselves, or the use thereof. The WOD perpetuates these crimes by keeping supply short and prices high. End it and drug related crime would all but go away.
Could it be that this last is the real reason the WOD continues? Could it be that the real power in the US is backing those who are raking in enormous sums of money from the drug trade? Ask yourself who benefits by keeping current policies in place. Not our children. Certainly not the majority of drug users. But if not them, who? Someone tell me, please.
How on earth does it become easier to treat addicts and abusers? They are still just as addicted to the drug. Infact, it would probably make it harder to treat addicts. Take for instance, why cigarettes are so hard to quit. A couple of the biggest reasons is that they are everywhere you go and are easy to get, just walk into your local gas station. So what is it about making drugs easy to get and essentially "everywhere" that makes it easier to quit/treat? And unless you charge very little for the drugs, there will still be crime. How is a constant crack addict going to afford the drug at Wal-Mart? Why he will have to steal. Drug legalization is just an excuse for high ons to use legally. It is no better an idea than keeping them illegal. My idea is to just give the drugs away. In as large quantities as the user wants. Free of charge. This way, the real addicts will kill themselves off, doctors will be rich and we all win.
If the goverment were really up to stop this they would outlaw water and air the real gateway drugs. Sure x% of hard drug users smoked dope before moving down the chain, but 100% of them did water and air before they ever tried pot...It's time we strike them at the heart of this.
As soon as someone starts using the word "war" it blurs our perception and judgement of what is really causing the problem we are trying to fight. Why do people take drugs? Why do people blow up stuff? It's because they want or need to change something. By pushing them into being an enemy in a war they are denied access to socially accepted ways of reaching their goals, e.g. by using democratic institutions.
Declaring a "War on stuff" is just so damn fucking stupid, it creates problems instead of solving them.
Once you cross the very distinct line of the law when it comes to doing drugs, other illegal drugs don't seem so bad. Take marijuana for example, most people regard it as harmless, unless you *really* buy into the "Reefer Madness" propoganda. Mary Jane is your average "I get high to party" kind of gal. But in order to enjoy this relatively harmless drug she has to go to a drug dealer on the shady side of town. While at the dealer's home she is knowingly and willingly breaking the law. Laid out next to her bag of dope are much harder and more dangerous drugs but they are just as illegal as the marijuana she enjoys. She's already a criminal, why not try some of these other drugs on the table?
On the other hand, if Mary Jane were allowed to go visit her favorite coffee / tea / marijuana shop on the other side of town she could stop by on the way home. No more trips to the dangerous side of town, no more hanging out with criminals, and no exposure to the harder, probably-should-be-illegal drugs. Smoking pot doesn't make one more likely to try harder drugs, being exposed to harder drugs makes you more likely to try them.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
So, like, is the lab hyper-sophisticated or crude, man? And you can make meth out of pot? Groovy!
Hey, don't Bogart that thing...
What was once true, is no longer so
No one claims legalization will fix all problems, but it's still a better world to fix some of the problems than none of the problems. Legalization might even make some particular problems worse. However, one needs to compare the total effects of both policies to make a logical choice. In particular, many of the undesirable effects of illegal drugs are really a side effect of them being illegal.
Luckily people have already done lots of research. In some ways, it's a cost benefit analysis. Of course, one of the biggest problems is that people don't know and understand the issues well enough to do a logical cost benefit analysis.
After doing research, I've come to the conclusion that legalization is a better solution in terms of liberty, economics, and harm reduction. Of course, legalization doesn't necessarily mean selling drugs out of candy machines. The primary goal is to eliminate the black market and there are many possible legalization strategies...
Chris Mesterharm
As a smoker, I think I have the knowledg and right to say the following:
Can I bum a joint?
Enough said.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Of course the price would come down. It's artificially inflated because it's illegal. This is not rocket science or something. Even if it's 50% taxes (as in, taxed at 100%) unless there's a monopoly on its production, competition will still drop the price down to dramatically below what one pays now. Marijuana is a weed! It will grow without help. It will be no more expensive to produce than any other crop, and less than most because it is resistant to disease, being very hardy.
Marijuana is the crop with the highest value on the planet, solely because it is illegal. Well, okay, also because there is constant demand. Its value can simply not fail to fall if it is legalized.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yeah, and those people in the ER in your town make up _what_ percentage of the population? Have you ever visited a country where street chemicals were 'decriminalized'? Compare their "societal problems of alcohol/drug use ??? " with ours, and then come back and write again.
JoloK
excellent post. Please mod this up.
"I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
"
1: The government is not a person. It doesn't KNOW anything. You are mixing metaphors.
2: Alcohol isn't a huge problem. It is a part of life, get over it. Contrast to the danger it brings, alcohol brings great pleasure and happiness to many many people. think of the parties, think of fun times with friends and loved ones.. enhanced through the use of alcohol.
The biggest problem with alcohol is alcoholism and then basic stupidity and irresponsibility. But stupidity and irresponsibility will ALWAYS cause problems.
Alcohol may be associated with something like 40% of traffic fatalities, but stupidity and recklessness is associated with 90%.
A person didn't start off smart and then get drunk and stupid and drive. A person started off stupid.. went to a venue in a car knowing in advance they would drink and knowing in advance that they would drive.
I dont hear many people saying we should make it illegal not to get an education!
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The comparison to Alchol and tobacco are a good comparison: Alcholic substances such as beer are easy to make, and commonly not home-made. This is also true for Tobacco.
The Beer making process requires: (1) A Stove, (2) a Big Pot to sterilize water, (3) a Big Jug (such as a 5 gallon water bottle from the office cooler), (4) Wheat (and rice in the case of most american beer), (5) Yeast, and (6) Bottles - Most people still buy beer at the goverment taxed store. It's a case of speace effeciency and instanst gratification: To make Beer you have to Boil the water & Grain, Pour them in your office water cooler jug, let it cool, dump in the yeast, and wait a month. Then when the primary fermentation is done: You have to bottle and wait a few more months for the carbot content to go up. (OK, I left out the oxygen trap. If you don't use swing top bottles, you need a capper and caps - add $15)(Side note: Making harder alchol is also simple, take your primary fermentation of *whatever*, and simmer it using a condensing coil to capture & condense the alchol vapors into a bottle.)
In short, Alchol (and Good Beer especially) is extremely easy to make. However, you have to wait months for it, or get a carbon dioxide tank to force carbonization (and still must wait at least a month). You also need to have the space to dedicate to storing beer "in progress", and schedule your consumption to meet your demand. This is why the government taxed beer is so popular.
Making Tobacco (I imagine) is quite a similar process: You need (1) Land, and (2) a place to dry your tobacco. The steps for this are: Grow Tobacco, Harvest; Hang to dry. Then if you want cigarettes, roll them. This is also a process that takes months. I have read statistics that a pack of cigarettes costs less than $1 to make and transport. Since they generally are not found for less than $3 ($5 in DC, $8 in NY) the rest is profit and tax.
Even though making cigarettes costs a fraction of the price of buying them pre-rolled, everyone buys them in packs. (sometimes singles @$.25 ea.) Why, it's the same breakdown of resources (space and time) that get in the way of instant gratification.
As far as Marijuana goes, there is no reason that it could not be taxed at a high rate and still have a largely taxed consumption base. It is perfectly analagous to cigarettes. In addition, marijuanna legalization would free up a lot of resources for other purposes. (Although some resources would have to go for things like improved public transportation.) I suspect that Marijuanna is the most used "illegal" substance around (say 50%). What could be done if those people in jail for having it freed space in the system for harder drug pushers, or violent offenders? Or if the police chasing people for having Marijuana could be redeployed to chase down "minor crimes" - say the person who made my wife late for work Tuesday by stealing her bicycle?
The arguement that Marijuana would not be taxed, because everyone would grow it is a red herring. You can look at either the alchol or tobacco industry for a counter example. Freeing the resources spent on chasing down, prosecuting, and improsing Marijuana offenders would help society at large & help everyone.
Basical principles of economics: supply and demand. We know there is a demand for drugs and that it's a strongly inelastic demand amongst the heavy users. The current problem is with supply, or logistics more accurately. It's easy and very inexpensive to grow/manufacture most drugs and countries with no laws against them produce enormous quantities of them. The "War on Drugs" has artificially reduced the supply and made it so difficult to distribute that the price has to be that high (well, higher than if it were perfectly legal to distribute anyway). It is very likely that legalizing drugs would create a huge surge in supply. While dealers could keep the price where it is now, all it would take is a few people to lower their price to have addicts flock to their wares instead. Follow this and jump forward a few months or years and I'd bet that most drugs would be a cheap, convenience like commodity. People could still grow their own, just like people could bake their own bread, but it's easier and possibly even cheaper to just go down to the market and buy a few ounces.
Anyway, the fallacy has some latin name that basically means "this follows that", or something to that effect. That thinking that event B coming after event A means that event A caused event B. I'd be pretty sure it would be listed in wikipedia's "logical fallacies" page.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
for drug possesion or manufacture, then the prison system could stop letting child molesters and rapist out after only 4-8 years. There shoulc at the very least be no manditory minimums for drugs, but there should be for murder and rape and molestation.
I'm talking, of course, about the CIA.
Shouldn't we be concerned about the CIA's feelings? How are they supposed to assassinate people and overthrow governments without their black ops slushfund? You know, the one mostly composed of illict drug money from the CIA's drug smuggling activities?
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CIA??!!!
Electric Monkey Pants
Start showing up at work drunk and see how long it takes you to get fired. Unproductive employees have a way of becoming ex-employees.
Wich population would be easier to control. Drug free citizens or dopeheads?
In fact since drugs are addicting a goverment that dispenses these drugs freely would at the same time have an awfull lot of control. And just imagine any party trying to change this trying to get elected. Yes in order to outlaw your happy drug we are going to have raise taxes so we can pay for taking your happy drug away.
While the use of drugs is indeed a personal freedom issue the simple obstacle for me is that I would not exactly like a world were the majority of citizens are doped out.
You maybe never had to deal with drug users but I have. They are not free citizens excersing their liberty. They are slaves to a substance and slaves to whoever controls the substance. Now it is the pimps. If drugs are legal they will be slaves of companies or goverments. Neither do I consider an improvement.
This subject has already been examined plenty of times in Science Fiction.
It is the simple experiment were a rat with a wired brain is given the choice of directly stimulating his pleasure centers chooses this direct method rather then feeding, sleeping, mating until he dies.
Human beings are sadly not much better then rats. Some of us too will happily do drugs while we rot away. Yes this is freedom, but society as a whole for now has chosen too put restraints on personal freedom.
It is the simple thing of suicide being a crime. A truly free society would have no such ban. Yet again, do you totally trust a society that does not mind if say population group X killed itself? By making suicide a crime we also make the killing of the old or infirm a crime.
Read some good Sci-Fi, then come back and tell me how free you want to be.
Oh and if you truly believe everyone has the right to be free you should first be willing to grant that freedom to others right? Okay, grant me my freedom of killing you. If you are willing to grant me that freedom, I will grant you yours. But you first. Show through example okay? I promise I will keep my word. Honest.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Are you drunk right now?!! That was exactly my point. Meth addicts and crack heads are unproductive, therefore they don't have jobs. They do have addictions to crack and meth, so they need money to buy more. This leads to meth addicts and crackheads committing crimes to get money.
Finding other idiots on
I dont hear many people saying we should make it illegal not to get an education
That's already illegal.
Crack and meth certainly do. A crackhead or a meth addict aren't going to have means to buy legal crack or meth.
Actually it seems that meth would make people nearly ideal assembly line workers. They can work several shifts in a row, thrive on mindless repetition, can't get organized, and really really need that paycheck.
Make cocaine actually go away and Wall Street will see a "great crash" that makes 1929 look like a minor dip.
We need to criminalize nicotine. Nicotine is the gateway drug. Most druggies start with nicotine. And nicotine addiction is the hardest to cure - getting people off crack is 40% successful, and most heroin addicts "age out" and give it up in their 40s. But only 20% of nicotine addicts are cured, and most continue to smoke right up to the grave.
Technology may provide a way out. A vaccine against nicotine addiction is in development. Current thinking is to use this to get smokers off nicotine, but if the vaccine turns out to be safe enough (which is looking good) it could be used as a preventative measure, with inoculations in schools at age 10 or so.
Can you actually show me that it was the crack and meth that make certain people unproductive? You do realize that US military pilots are given amphetamines in the course of their duty? I have seen people "crack out" on playstation, perfectly sober. I have personally worked long shifts with the help of amphetamines. People will find ways of being unproductive just fine without drugs. The actual cost to produce these drugs is an order of magnitude lower than what they sell for. This is why there is a "drug war". And this is why it will never end, unless the government side decides to call truce.
1 - Okay, I admit I should have been more clear :) Congress, bill writers (lobbyist groups, political parties, etc), decisionmakers in the DEA, city mayors and other officials, people who design training courses for the police.. any place where someone has power over drug use, drug policy, or the spread of knowledge or information about drugs. ...)
2 - I didn't mean to give the impression that I frowned on alcohol use... (on the contrary! there are tons of people who enjoy a few drinks with friends and never have problems). There will always be people who don't think things through, and I feel that, with good education and a change in cultural attitudes, the people who don't think things through won't end up in bad places, because other individuals who do think things through will have helped them wisen up (parents, teachers,
A lot of the people who end up with drug problems got that way because of their personalities or temperament, and not because of drugs. I think our culture doesn't always realize that, and will blame drugs for some people's poor choices, because people don't like to take responsibility for their actions. I read a book once called Unzipping Our Genes that talked about genetic research being able to predict people's personalities or something. It could be helpful to parents---if you know your child is predisposed to anxiety, you could focus on helping him/her be strong; predisposed to violence, teach peaceful conflict resolution; predisposed to reckless behavior or bad habits, offer advice on long-term goals in life and how to achieve them.
Many folk don't need to worry about addiction, but some do. It'd be sort of cool if we could be warned about things we personally should avoid (although I would worry about there being lists collected with the temperaments and predispositions of every child whose genes were analyzed... a la Gattaca)
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
This is a broad topic, for whatever points or pieces of it I miss, I apologize, I'm busy. There are two types of people when it comes to drug use, non-addicts and addicts or, as they're more commonly known, those who can handle drugs and those who can't. I believe what defines an addict is someone who continues to do something in the face of consequences. When a kid gets caught smoking pot by his parents and they take everything out of his room and ground him for two months but he still keeps smoking pot, he's quite on his way to being an addict. Your non-addicts are the people who might drink a beer or two at a barbecue or on the 4th, and I'm not saying that anyone drinks more often than that is an addict, I'm just using myself as an example; having some beers doesn't get me in trouble, if it did I'd stop. Most of the time the people who become addicts are just looking for a way to regulate feelings. Maybe some budget shifting should take place to ease up on putting people in jail and focus a little more on treating them and showing them better ways, be it therapy or pills or both, to regulate what's going on inside their heads. I realize that there're a ton of problems inherent in doing something like that. For instance, these people aren't going to get better unless they want to, which is a real bitch of a problem...but how often does jail cure someone? What's the effect on society and the final cost to the taxpayer when that junkie who spent 4 years in jail (and got high on whatever while he was in there) gets out and still doesn't know how to do anything but try to get fucked up? Either option could seem very grim, but why not opt for the path with a potentially more positive end? Oh and PS, most of this doesn't apply to violent offenders. We shouldn't have to put up with that. If violence is involved in a drug-users crimes, fuck 'em, shoot 'em out of a circus cannon into a brick wall.
Have you ever seen a hardcore meth or crack addict? They are unproductive because all they can focus on is their next fix. That's why I didn't pick cocaine or some other more benign amphetamine drug. Heroin might have been a better example for pure addictiveness.
Finding other idiots on
More likely, the reason the US became more sucessful was not that we came searching for gold rather than god. (Most of the origional 13 colonies were relegous havens: Maryland for Catholics (England had gone Anglican), Pennsylvania was known for Quackers, various Protistant demoninations in New England, and so on.... Although a few were penal colonies (South Carolina))
I think the real reason the US became prosperous relative to Latin countries was a combination of 1) Enough Whiteys showing up from Europe to make a BIG population. (Say, enough to wipe out all the indiginous people.) Said population allready being "up to date" in technology & needing to work in cities. 2) A relatively liberal government (Both the British & the American ones). and 3) Natural Resources.
$.02
There are always "hardcore [insert drug here] addicts". They will be unproductive. Some of the unproductive people will not be on drugs.
I'm not lying to you here: I have tried ^H^H^H^H^H used, cocaine, heroin, oxycontin, meth, benzos, painkillers, etc. Sometimes I have been my most motivated after shooting 20 to 40mg of oxycontin. Believe me, I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm not bragging. I was employed the whole time and I did my job well and good. I blew thru a lot of money. I'm not recommending anyone do what I have done (and honestly will do some again). Hell, I prefer meth to cocaine because I only have to take it once and I can do work for hours and then go to sleep. I have to keep redosing every 15-30 minutes on the coke, and then it becomes a binge. And then I can't get to sleep. Some people like staying up for days, some of us just want to stay awake for a while. It is safer than falling asleep sometimes and caffine doesn't always get the job done. Ask the Air Force.
Making generalizations about any group will result in inaccuracies.
Oh, I am currently clean of all the stuff mentioned above. Because I choose to be.
Druken driving, domestic abuse, chronic alcohol abuse, physical problems stemming from chronic alcohol use, etc.
You just can't legislate dysfunctional people away. Drunk drivers are a problem. So are sleepy drivers and drivers who think they can have breakfast, have a phone conversation, shave/put on make-up, and drive all at the same time. Note that evidence suggests that while not a great idea, driving stoned is less risky than driving drunk.
People suffer physical problems from excessive consumption of alcohol, tobacco, sugar, coffee, red meat, cold remedies, etc. Domestic abusers don't abuse because of alcohol. They have a dysfunction that leads to domestic abuse and alcoholism.
In general, social problems don't just go away because they're outlawed, but outlawing them does often add new problems.
"I agree. However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization.."
kindly perform the following.
1) Ban TV as people sit on their asses instead of exercising, and write into law that the president must come on tv every day to lead the daily exercise programme.
2) Ban all fast food. (except perhaps taco bell)
3) Ban cars as thats a leading cause of death (and i dont have one).
4) Ban swearing and anger, as they cause people to get hurt.
so once all that is done look around. you are now living in the demolition man universe. oh fuck!
"CRABPEOPLE, You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute"
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Other countries actually handle alcohol rather well. It seems that the habit of bingeing on alcohol in the evening and at the weekends for instance is a particularly UK issue, it simply doesn't happen to the same extent on the continent. Those same countries also happen to have far more liberal licensing laws than we do, though we've just changed ours this year.
Those societal problems you mentioned... not caused by alcohol, they're not even prevented by making alcohol illegal. Alcohol related problems are a symptom of other problems within society.
Prohibition on the other hand is a proven failure, 40 years of failure now. I can get hold of pretty much any drug of choice within 20 mins of leaving my house (they deliver btw, no need to leave). It takes only slightly longer than getting the groceries. The best the police can do is change the market price.
Deleted
No argument here. You've done the research :)
Finding other idiots on
Oh, And I'm really not trying to be argumentitive, I am just saying that I have seen the opposite, i.e. responsible persons who do drugs. I'm sure there are doctors and pharmacists (and cops) who are addicts and still manage to do their jobs properly, go home and raise their families. There are good people in the world, some of them are considered addicts. There are bad people in the world, some of them are considered addicts. Both groups consume illegal drugs.
While you're at the self-centered "let's tell people what to do, because I don't want to pay for their problems" (but supposedly still expect them to pay for _yours_), why stop there? Lemme see what else we should make illegal...
- fucking without a condom. Well, hey, if they're going to be assholes about paying for the medical care for smokers (that's just about all the damage that pot smoking does too), then I don't want to pay for their AIDS/syphilish/etc bill when they go fucking around.
- going in the woods for a picknick or camping. They could get bitten by a bear, or poisoned by a snake, or stung by a bee and discover that they're allergic, or break a leg while climbing on god knows what rock. Why should I pay for the subsequent medical care? Shouldn't they take full responsibility when they decided to go camping? Make that illegal, I say.
- ditto for jogging, come to think of it. If they're going to exercise, they can do that in a safe enclosed place. I'm not gonna pay for their medical care if they insist on running outside where they can be run over by a car.
- for that matter going anywhere out of the house without an umbrella and without a backpack full of warm clothes. What if you get caught in a rain? What if it snows? (Yes, it occasionally does even in August.) Why should it be me who pays for the medicine to treat your pneumonia then? If you're going to go out with just a t-shirt and jeans, you should take full responsibility for whatever happens because of it.
- getting old. Have you see how often those old people get sick and need medical care? And don't even get me started about my paying for their pensions. They should just make suicide mandatory at 65 years old or so.
- using any kind of cell phone, walkman, ipod, or any other personal entertainment device. They can sprain an ankle because of paying more attention to that ipod than to where they step! Or even, don't laugh, back problems as stepping wrong can cause shocks in the spine. Ban any electronics lighter than 40 pounds, I say. Let's see them use _those_ while jogging.
- driving any kind of car, especially anything looking like a sports car. Me, I live close enough to work to get there in less than 10 minutes with the bus, so I use the bus. So why should I pay for your medical care when you get in a car accident? Where's the justice in that? If you insist on driving a car, you should take full responsibility for whatever happens as a result. Some drunk redneck in a pickup truck smashed into the side of your car? Too bad, sucker. It wouldn't have happened if you were in a bus, so don't expect sympathy or medical care money from _me_.
- travelling abroad. God knows what exotic diseases they have in those forn places. And then you go do your vacation or business there, get it and expect the rest of us to pay for your medicine. Worse yet, bring that disease back home and cause even more people to need medical care. It should be illegal, that's what I say. If closed city-state economies were good in the middle ages, they're good enough today too.
- parents. Yes, you've read that right. God knows how many shrinks make a living just out of people whose mom didn't buy them a lollypop, or whose dad never had enough time for them. Or worse yet, think of all the children that get molested or beat up by their parents, and then end up needing a decade of therapy for it. If we made parents illegal, think of how much money society as a whole would save. Each city should have one big orphanage (or several, if it's a really big city) where all kids are raised, far from their parents.
Etc.
</sarcasm>
Or you could stop being a self-centered judgmental asshole, and stop pretending that only the things _you_ do should be subsidized by everyone else. Life in society is a give-and-take thing. Yes, you pay for some smoker's medical bills, but then he/she pays for something else you may need. That's how it works.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Pardon my recent cultural illiteracy but I just heard that Tommy Chong was thrown into federal prison for 9 months for selling glass bongs to a DEA-run headshop in Pennsylvania. This use of this technology is a solution in search of a problem.
Tommy just published a book called The I Chong, half of which I read in about an hour and a half. I won't provide a link because most links are to booksellers like Amazon that don't pay authors appropriately.
I believe Mr. Chong is completely justified in sayng that his arrest and prosecution, along with his sentence was a clear-cut example of a police state action.
This technology ought to be used in a defensive manner to defend the US borders and to prevent terrorism being practiced within the US. Instead, it is being mis-used to fight a "war" on substances that were made illegal in order to discriminate against persons of color.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Yes, and mostly it was out of curiosity and trying to understand what all the fuss is about on the whole war on drugs thing. But I won't lie, I did get an appreciation for certain substances, and I have done stuff I won't touch again, because it doesn't suit me. I really don't know what to make of addiction. I have been doing a little studing of Dr. Thomas Szasz, and I think I agree with him. I still feel I'm more addicted to coca-cola than any other drug I have tried, but at least it is legal (for now).
Linked to the DEA's database are operaing in at least 3 locations.
Nebraska: I-80 4 miles west of Fremont, eastbound.
Ohio: I-70 and I-80, both eastbound, bith near the Indiana line.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
> The Beer making process requires:
Patience. Something few people have.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
IF you live in the united stated of amerika you only lease you body, it is given a serial number at birth, that body is expected to pay taxes DUE the government and if that body does not "contribute" to the money pot then it gets put into a holding cell. You are not qualified to due with your body as you would like because its not yours. You are encouraged to amass a certain about of debt so as to encourage you to work and pay taxes. You are a slave to the credit cards in your wallet, your car payment and your house payment. You are discouraged from using cash because it cant be tracked as easily to make sure that your paying your taxes.
Yea, but that would be too much like work. Afterall terrorists, murderers and robbers might actually fight back!(sarc)
Whereas, now, with drugs being illegal, both sides, law enforcement/judicial AND dealers both have easy prey and easy money.(more sarc?)
I've never been foolish enough to believe that drugs are illegal to protect us, but instead to protect the profits of the established industries (alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical, etc.). (not sarc)
Cigarettes don't cause people to become unproductive.
They sure as hell do when you go out for a 10-minute smoke break once an hour.
Looks to me like you misunderstood everything I said. Either that, or you're a troll. Have a good day!
Global warming is a cube.
The expansion of treatment programs was driven by the high percentage of GIs coming back from Vietnam strung out on heroin, a serious politivcal embarassment.
Toward the end of the War, they were being tested before they were allowed to return.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
The Libertarian Party is the only party with a serious, ideological anti-drug war stance. It kills me that slashdotters don't even mention LP.
Could it be LP's ambivalence towards intellectual property?
In many coutries prescription drugs are legal. Meaning that you don't need a prescription to get them. Just ask for what you want any pay for it.
I'm sick of people saying "oh, crime would go away if so-and-so was legalized"
Yes, those roving bands of alcoholics have been so bad we've started a War on Alcholics.
Look, crime isn't going to go away, but outlawing drugs pushes drug users towards the criminal element, provides lots of funds for criminal enterprises, and diverts police resources away from other crimes. And legalizing drugs would end drug dealing-based crime and the violence associated with it, just like ending Prohibition did.
It wouldn't make the world a wonderland, but I claim it would be better. And I hold up Prohibition (and its end) as an example.
*I'm* sick of people being willing to hold a gun to my head and telling me I can't do something -- even if it's something I personally don't want to do.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
"On the other hand, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found in 2004 that about 20% high school seniors had used marijuana in the preceding month. This was down from nearly 34% in 1980, but up from 14% in 1990. The long-term decline probably owes something to high-schoolers knowing more about the potential harmful effects of the drug. And sophisticated border surveillance techniques employed by the Homeland Security Dept.'s Customs and Border Protection Division may have affected the decline."
statistics and correlations - pah!
kids in the 00's are just less likely than kids in the 80's to *admit* to their drug use on a government sponsored survey. no surprise if you consider that mandatory minimums for drugs charges just keep going up.
If there was no demand, there would be no supply. Really... think about that!
Oh really? Just wander by your local Emergency Room one weekend evening and look who is causing problems.
Crackheads and gang members?
One mowed my lawn for $10. He didn't do a very good job though.
Good point. Remember, crack was invented in the U.S. Why? capitalism. I can take this powerder I imported from Columbia and sell it @ $60 a gram. Or I can take that gram, convert it to crack and sell 20 rocks @ $20 each. (an example, the numbers might be off a bit).
This is because of escalation of the War on Drugs. Substance A: you can grow it anywhere, but you can smell it, and it stays in your system for ~30 days. So, lets move to Substance B: it isn't even illegal yet. Oops, the authorities made B illegal. Lets see if we can cook up Substance C. The high isn't as good, but I can buy all the stuff to make it @ Shop-Mart. Now the authorities have to really watch the precursors. So now I have to sign a book and show a license whenever I go and buy cold medicine. So then the people seeking to get their mood altered, move on to some other substance, and on and on.
A large percentage of the population would be happy if marijuana was legal. The weirder and weirder drugs are primarly being produced to get around the prohibition.
Now, there are a few chemists who are doing this out of curiosity, and maybe their own desire to get better "highs" but I feel that crack isn't really a popular thing on the menu if you had a choice of other drugs.
Beer is made from malted barley, not wheat. Even so-called wheat beers contain a sizeable amount of barley (>50% is typical). You also want to include some hops for taste and preservation.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/15/01945/8792
apparently the writer is against the war on drugs, but the readership is mostly confused and incomprehensible there...
Maybe slashdotters should be posting on these liberal and other conservative blogs about war on drugs, instead of or in addition to preaching to the choir here.
where there is an imaginary country called "columbia". (In the real world its called Colombia with no us and with a capital letter just as in any propper name)
In the parents post, somehow its wheat that is Colombias traditional crop, not coffee.
Hmmm... ok I get it, its in columbia that wheat is the main crop, not Colombia.
In this parallel universe its is also true that what causes illegal crops to be grown is some imaginary wheat shipments sent as aid, instead of the heavy coke sniffing done around the world by people will not understand that their money is being used overseas to bomb, kill, kidnap, plant landmines and comit all sorts of unbelievably bloody crimes.
This goes on because several thousand-men gangs fight each other for the drug money. I agree with the opinion that everyone should be free to put whatever they want inside their body, I agree that drugs should be legal, but until then people sniffing coke at a party should be aware that THEIR MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON ACTUAL LANDMINES, BULLETS AND GUNS THAT ARE USED EVERY DAY TO KILL AND KIDNAP KIDS AS WELL AS ADULTS IN A NEVERENDING WAR.
The war will never end as long as drugs are illegall, because the money will keep coming in and there will be an illegall struggle to get it. Not only wil the war never end, it will only get worse. Legallization is a matter of a humanitarian emergency for mankind, too many people are getting killed.
But, for that same reason, next time you are at a party refrain from that tempting dose of whatever you fancy. Think of the bill you paid for it. Where do you think it went? I am pretty sure it hops five hands tops, before arriving in the hands of some of the bloodiest criminals your imagination can create. Real people are getting kill with YOUR money. Think about it.
"...exorbent..."
Exemplatory spelling there dude.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Impressive...
/. article? Been reading for about 2 years. I always laugh at people like me...
> Then you admittedly have a biased frame of reference -- True. I watched by brother become completely overrun and now is locked away in prison for 20 years. I am biased... but you don't have to do drugs just to see the what they can do.
> If not ourselves, who then?
-- I want more than anything for it to be ourselves. But when the choices of others make a negatives impact on my life, should I not do what I can to protect my lifestyle? (This could, of course be and argument for both sides... just setting myself up here.)
> I think what you mean to say...
-- Sadly, yes.
> Wow, I think you've hit all the O'Reilly talking point!
-- Not a big fan of the O'Reilly. I don't know many more people that can spin like he can. I may agree on a few things he says, but the way he gets at them... quite twisted. mainly the -> d) You're all wrong and suck, and it's easy to see how wrong and sucky you all are from up here on my pedestal.
> The Drug War is a failure, and to continue doing the exact same thing
-- Just what I was trying to say. With one emphasis. I really have a hard time with those that hate the fight. It may not be fought the best way, but it still should be fought.
Oh... can you tell this was my first response to a
We said 'legalize', not 'grant a monopoly to Atzanteol'. Competition will lower the prices.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
"Cigarettes don't cause people to become unproductive.
Au contraire. If one who is addicted to cigarettes does not have a cigarette, they become steadily more ineffectual"
There was a study done about this in the late 80s. Bottom line was cigarette smokers were more productive... but not for as long.
Need Mercedes parts ?
GWOT? I think you mean The War Against Terror (TWAT).
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
So, either you can't control your mouth, or you don't know how to use the three shells.
I'm just hoping we don't ban toilet paper. Shells don't sound comfortable.
Here's another interesting idea: in jobs that require concentration and alertness, how about we test for reaction time? I saw a little device, basically a small LCD display with a joystick attached. The screen shows a dot which randomly swerves left or right, and you use the joystick to keep it centered. Such a device tests for actual impairment, so it will also catch the people who (for instance) have sleep issues and shouldn't be driving a truck.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Right now, you are paying over $30,000 per prisoner per year to keep him and his ilk in jail. What exactly are you 'getting' for your money?
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Wow, you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about economics. Let's review: supply and demand. If demand stays the same but supply goes down (due to, let's say, police seizing your product) then price goes up. Plus, illegality is a huge barrier to entry for some business people. If it weren't illegal, more suppliers would exist, competition would increase and the price would go down. I suggest taking econ 101 again, and this time don't smoke so much pot before class.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Office smokers routinely take 3 or 4 15 minute cigarette breaks a day, or 10-12% of their productivity. Not to mention the time they take getting the cigarettes, or the time out sick, or dying early.
I've known several crack and meth abusers over the years who held regular jobs with less downtime than smokers. And were more productive in their stimulated state than most of their coworkers.
Just because you don't get the point of drugs, including cigarettes, the point of work, and the point of life, doesn't remove the point from the argument. You can go ahead and just say no, but that doesn't obligate everyone to your simple existence, where "it ain't gonna happen" is a pointless argument.
--
make install -not war
Did anyone else notice that according to TFSlideshow, "Crystal Methamphetamine Lab" is of the technologies being used in the war against drugs?
In the philosophy of harm reduction there is the idea of the continuum of use. Starting from non-use, there is experimental use (I've tried it to see what it's like), social use (I'll never buy it, but I'll do it if others are), casual use (I like to do it once a month, or special occasions), regular use (I use it on weekends), heavy use (I use it every day, but still manage to keep a job, have relationships, other hobbies, etc.), abuse (I use it to the detriment of other parts of my life) and addiction (I am well on my way to destroying my life with it.)
Most people move partway through the continuum and either reach a stable position somewhere in the middle, or they decide it's not for them and quit. Very few go all the way to full blown addiction, and many who do will still, of their own accord, come partway or all the way back. This is the reality of drug use. The myth that anyone who takes one puff of pot will automatically become a degenerate crackhead is just that, a myth.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your car insurance doesn't pay when you crash your own car. It's not an accident, it's your own stupidity, and they don't pay.
Similarly, if you cause yourself harm with drugs (or food, or poison, or power tools, or...) then you should only be covered for emergency services, not for long-term "repairs" for damage you've caused yourself. This allows your stomach to be pumped if you ingest too much of something, but does not cover treatments for liver/kidney/heart/brain damage from long-term abuse. Then you pay more if you're a druggie idiot. Meanwhile, those of us with some self-control can enjoy a diversion once in a while and not be lawbreakers or socially penalized for a single indiscretion.
As for the others who argue with the reply that "alcohol is a drug too!", well, alcohol is a drug, but it's one that has measurable food value (it contains carbohydrates and such). While it modifies your mood, the effect is much less stressful to the body than that of "illicit" drugs such as marijuana. Alcohol inhibits brain function by masquerading as an "easy" food source to your body's cells, even though it's complex and not ready to be used by those cells. Your liver and pancreas eventually even things out and you return to normal. Marijuana instead has no measurable food value and distributes extremely complex non-food chemicals (not carbs, not proteins) throughout your body, which attach to various types of cells and need to be forcibly removed by the immune system. This can take months and is much more taxing on your body's defenses. The stress relief gained through moderate alcohol use is actually a small net gain, while the same stress relief with marijuana is a huge net loss in terms of allowing your body to rejuvinate itself.
Addicts are easier to treat when they're not "drug criminals" because they're not forced underground. There's no legal penalty for admitting their addiction or abuse. When caught, they can be forced into treatment rather than into jail (where they would become sicker).
Most addicts don't die from the drugs, but rather from what it takes to get the drugs, or from living "underground" where drugs can be obtained.
You clearly don't know much about drugs, drug users, drug abusers, or much else that constitutes the Drug War. "How on Earth" is a question answered comprehensively in many countries on Earth, like Netherlands, UK, Germany, Switzerland. If you're really interested in improving the situation, you should learn from the massive evidence of actual failures and successes in keeping people from damaging themselves and each other with drugs. If you're really just interested in pretending you know how to deal with drugs without any actual competence, there's a huge, profitable, powerful Drug War waiting for you to "help".
--
make install -not war
> When's the last time a 'crackhead' had ANY impact on your life? Yeah, I thought so. Please, think
> before you write.
Whooosh!
Think of it this way: if a drug dealer is robbed, s/he cannot call the police to help without being arrested and spending years in jail - so in order to protect that huge profit margin they must take steps to protect themselves.
Every time I have money to spend on pot and can't find it (withdrawal symptoms? Anxiety, insomnia. That's it. And I'll smoke a gram a day if I have it.) I spend an hour or so writing a letter to a member of congress telling them why they should support legalisation. I recommend this therapy to all the other potheads, it's a great way to occupy your mind.
Another interesting tidbit: from some quick googling it appears that marijuana sells for about 20x the price of silver (in my hometown an ounce of MJ goes for about $250, silver seems to be around $12/oz!) It's a fucking weed!!
I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
Iran-Contra taught people a valuable lesson...selling weapons to raise money for some covert operation doesn't work. Lesson learned, and now use mostly drug money.
Actually, at my job the rules are simple, everyone gets a total of thirty minutes of "break time" and one hour for lunch, what you do with that time is up to you, you're not exactly gettting a bonus for not taking breaks so everyone smokers and non-smokers alike use thirty minutes of their day for smoking, coffee, snacks, reading the paper or just about anything. So I wouldn't say that smokers are necesarilly worse employees than non-smokers. That said, there comes a point in your life when you should stop smoking, personally I believe the "cut-off age" for smoking is about thirty or so, if you're still smoking after thirty you'd better be really addicted or a rockstar..
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
It has been pointed out that Beer is made from Malted barely. Not wheat. The correction is correct, I seem to remember purchasing Tins of Malted Mixture to make beer - only toasting grains, or spooging (Putting fruit in cheese-cloth in the mix) for modifying the taste.
I'm sorry, that's not a bottom line. They're either more productive over the course of the day, or they aren't...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yep, drugs are for kids ;).
--
make install -not war
end of message
I know lots of people who started drinking at a very young age, and by the time they're old enough to buy liquor legally (18 here) they're already alcoholics. Is this your solution?
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
Here's an idea: Legalize all drugs. Prohibit employers from requiring drug tests with an exception for jobs that actually require you to be sober (i.e: truck drivers). Make people take responsibility for their own actions. You may not agree with that extreme of a viewpoint. But you'd have a hard time convincing me that THC should still be illegal.
Here's an idea: Legalize all drugs, and let employers do whatever the hell they want. I see no reason I should be required to hire someone whose addiction is more important to them than my company. If they want to use drugs, they don't have to work for me and are free to go find whatever drug-friendly employer they choose.
Freedom goes both ways.
The protestant ethic says that over-indulgence is bad. Capitalism says over-indulgence is our sacred duty as consumers. We get around this paradox by arbitrarily defining some behaviors (such as sex outside of marriage, or drugs) as automatically over-indulging. Other behaviors that the original protestants might have found objectionable (such as buying too many luxury items) we define as incapable of ever being over-indulgence. So capitalism and protestantism can play nicely together, the only victims being our rights and common sense.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hehehe..I think you need to change insurance companies. I've been in one car accidents before, and my insurance had absolutely no problem paying me.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Growing weed is a lot more work, it needs light and you need to take care of the water levels all the time
Nonsense. Marijuana grows ALL OVER THE US. It grows in the wild very very easily. The tipoff is in the nickname: weed.
Weeds grow well in adverse conditions. And marijuana is NO exception. In fact, in certain parts of the US, it literally grows on the roads. In fact, I hunt in SW Kansas every year and one of the popular Dove spots is right in the middle of a giant marijuana patch. And there are many of them all along the countryside.
No, growing marijuana is not hard. What's hard is the US Government's job of exterminating all of these plants. That is MUCH harder than growing it and it puts the US Govt in the "exterminator/lawn care" business - which is futile. Case in point: In SW Kansas, they hire private pilots in Cessnas's to check the pipelines that run all over. The DEA has also requested the pilots report any "cultivated" MJ patches and they get money for reporting them.
If you think I am kidding, just drive down I-70 in West Kansas. Pick any road and go North or South about 3-5 miles. If you don't see MJ growing on the side of the road (or near fences), I will be very very surprised. It really is that common and is easily seen/identified.
(sidenote: I have not smoked the MJ that is out there but I suspect it is more of the hemp variety than the kind that gets you high)
Studies show that nearly 100% of people who have gone on to DIE from heroin, crack and meth started drinking coke first.
This public service message brought to you by the fine people at Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Like I ever said I want them in jail... way to misunderstand! The ideal situation is one where the junkies use all the drug they want, buying it on a free market, and are *responsible* for what they do as a consequence, as in *I'm not paying for the problems you caused*. Show me where jailtime on the basis of mere drug usage comes into play in the scenario I suggested and you win a cookie.
Besides, we don't jail weed smokers in my country. I never said I'm from the USA.
Global warming is a cube.
I smoke marijuana daily (or almost daily). I own my own company. I pay LOTS of taxes. I make a good living doing what I do.
/.
So yea, I'd say I am a productive member of society. There are lots of people like me. Many millions of people, in fact. Prolly several hundred or thousand here on
I find that most of the smartest people I know have dabbled with marijuana a bit. And many of those go on to try out halleucinagenics and "harder" stuff. Yes, a few fall off the wagon and get themselves messed up. But the vast majority go on to lead productive lives. Just like me.
And it is my personal belief that we are richer for having had these experiences. Otherwise, I would stop. Simple as that.
Who says that the U.S. has to legalize drugs across the entire country? When the ban on alcohol was lifted at a federal level, each state was free to set their own laws. Liquor laws still, to this day, differ from state to state. Why not allow each state to set its own drug laws? Certainly, if a relaxed attitude towards drugs works in a "tiny" country like the Netherlands, the same attitude might work in "tiny" states like California and Massachusettes.
No, I will not work for your startup
I say we outlaw breast milk; it's the source of all corruption in this country!
Druken driving, domestic abuse, chronic alcohol abuse, physical problems stemming from chronic alcohol
Driving under the influence and domestic abuse have nothing to do with alcohol or drugs. If wreckless driving and violence only happened when the offender was intoxicated, I might buy that argument. Irresponsible and violent people are irresponsible and violent with or without drugs. But it's easy to point to drugs as the boogey man who made me do all those bad things.
The physical health problems associated with abuse of alcohol and other drugs could be substituted with hot dogs and Little Debbies. The people who will abuse their bodies to do what makes them feel good will do so using anything they have available to them whether it be drugs, food, dangerous sports, gambling, or unsafe sex.
Criminalizing vices does nothing to treat the problem, it only causes more crime both becuase of the vice itself and the acts that are associated with obtaining those vices.
Nice. Very smug. Next time try for more 'condescending' though. You could use some work in that area.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Here is an interesting take on this subject - http://www.pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1448.h tml
Worth watching.
funnily enough this has been proven few times in a studies conducted in UK & Switzerland. Only the swiss had the guts however to show stink finger to the WOD establishment and follow common sense.
One cannot win war on drugs. War on drugs has won, common sense lost.
This doesn't even make sense: "Law enforcement agencies have found hyper-sophisticated setups of crude labs and hydroponic pot greenhouses, which are used to synthesize crystal meth out of an ingredient found in over-the-counter medicine."
Most people with an opinion on the Drug War don't know any of the facts. I do. And I've got a stinkfinger for all of them :).
--
make install -not war
it is illegal not to attend school when you are under 16. Merely attending is not enough to actually learn. And 16 years old is not enough time to get an education. There is no law requiring an EDUCATION.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
While the use of drugs is indeed a personal freedom issue the simple obstacle for me is that I would not exactly like a world were the majority of citizens are doped out.
Sorry fella, you already live in such a society. Unless you live in an Islamic theocracy, that vast majority of the people around you have easy access to mood enhancing drugs and use said drugs regularly. It is called alcohol. You can call it ethyl alcohol if that name makes it sound more like a "real" drug.
Alcohol is as much of a drug as any other drug. In fact, on the scale of drugs, it is probably one of the worst. It is absolutely lethal if you over dose, it is damaging to your body in low doses, it induces aggression in many people, and it destroys sound judgment. The only thing that keeps alcohol related deaths down compared to some drugs is that alcohol is made in a nice clean factory instead of some sketchy drug dealer's basement. If alcohol was made the same way illegal drugs are made (as it was during prohibition) you would find all the same problems that current illegal drug face in terms of purity and safety.
What would happen if the government legalized all drugs? Crime would plummet, police would have significantly more time to pursue real crimes, the prisons would empty, criminal organization would suddenly find that they are completely incapable of funding criminal activities, a handful of South American nation would become significantly more stable, and the number of drug related deaths would plummet. Drugs would be made in sanitary controlled ways by pharmaceutical companies and they would merrily compete to make the best non-addictive drug possible with the fewest side effects.
As to how society would change, other then a dramatic drop in crime and massive budget surpluses from the resulting savings in law enforcement, nothing much would change. People would still take drugs to recreate, they just might throw in some other drugs into the mix besides alcohol and caffeine. You would still get fired if you went to work, and alcoholics / drug addicts would still find themselves fucked when it comes to holding down a job. In other words, very little would change except a dramatic reduction in crime and government spending.
A genetic assessment would be wrong about 50% of the time based on studies of identical twins and people would put faith into it as if it was 100% accurate.
Moreoever it is an invasion of privacy. (contrary to most I believe even children have human rights).
I doubt anything more profound than merely increasing our support and desire to a generous and high quality public education system funded fairly for all, according to need, would be required to see a marked improvement in virtually all sectors of the economy and society. The problem is that improving society is not the motivation for those who support the war on drugs.
They are merely in it for the purpose of accumulating power. They would be more accurate to call it the war on freedom.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
You're an asshole.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Crack is a product of the drug war. It probably wouldn't exist if cocaine was never made illegal and thus causing suppliers to find smaller, more potent forms of the drug.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I thought the key factor was contempt for liberty.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yeah, we're something like 1/20 genetics, 1/5 random chance, and 3/4 environment (did you know that 83% of statistics are made up on the spot?); but, it might still prove useful. I'm not sure how to solve the privacy problem, though... it'd be unethical to deny someone opportunities based on their genes, I think, but maybe there are still ways for parents to use information like that without being unfair (... or is there?)
Even if they collect taxes on recreational drugs, they will lose all the revenue from prescription drugs. There are no patents on marijuana. Pharmaceutical companies will quickly be put out of business. Prozac cannot compete with heroin.
But you'd have a hard time convincing me that THC should still be illegal.
One of many problems with our current view on drug use is that, today, in 2006, THC is legal in all 50 states of the US.
Another problem, is that if one were to take a drug screen, they would fail the test, and then, _iff they were given the opportunity_, they would have to give the person that gave them the test one of the few things that is still protected, even in a court of law -- one's private medical information.
Yes, marinol (and another drug which I believe was just approved by the FDA) whose active ingredient is synthetic THC, and is legal, yet controlled, in the US. There are two kickers here.
1) Even though its legal, you are still subject to the discrimination of acquiring THC in your system illegally.
2) The drug is VERY strong -- too strong, even by stoner standards.
I'm not convinced that every single drug should be legal, but I am convinced that marijuana and THC should be. The crimes against it simply do not outweigh the cost of enforcing those crimes and the negative effects that come from its being illegal.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if it was legal at an earlier age and people learned how to use it responsibly. Think there is any great mystery to heroin in a country where you can legally buy it at 18 and where your parents have been giving it to you at dinnertime since you were 5 years old? Think those countries have a problem with heroin addiction?
---
Does it still work for you now?
Making Tobacco (I imagine) is quite a similar process: You need (1) Land, and (2) a place to dry your tobacco. The steps for this are: Grow Tobacco, Harvest; Hang to dry.
Wait 3 years while it cures in a cedar barn
Then if you want cigarettes, roll them. This is also a process that takes months. I have read statistics that a pack of cigarettes costs less than $1 to make and transport. Since they generally are not found for less than $3 ($5 in DC, $8 in NY) the rest is profit and tax.
As I said, not months, months to grow, years to cure. Most people aren't this dedicated nor have access to places suitable to curing.
I'm guessing no one will read this, but i'd like to share a story... I was at a friends house and his guy came over with a big brown box and pulled a brick out of it. I just kinda stared, not having seen 5 lb bricks before, and then took another glance to see that he had about 15 bricks in this box total. I talked to the guy a little bit, and found out he got it straight from fed-ex.
ON TIME!!!!
Hows that for Homeland security? Straight over the boarder from mexico.
Half of my paycheck goes to my government, half of my paycheck goes to my dealer. GRRR.
there is no issue with my network
..you have to draw a line somewhere. You all talk about freedom, but then why not be free to simply kill everyone you hate? You are a part of society and law simply has to PROTECT you from drugs, and in a way from your own self. Because drugs make you irresponsible, ill, and most important, in long run they will make you misreable and UNHAPPY. Ask any long-time drug consumer and he'll probably testify.
Besides, we are all connected and HAVE to think about each others health.
IMHO, the best way to fight this war is to somehow persuade people to not try drugs.
Actually, that argument could be a slippery slope. Consider this: there are at least a few religions that demand human sacrifice (Aztec religion comes to mind, though I'm sure there are others, and I'm pretty sure that sacrifice of at least a few types of living creatures is condoned by the Bible). Are you prepared to strike down laws against murder, on the grounds that they prohibit the free exercise of one's religion? It might even become possible to get any law stricken down by inventing a new religion that demands actions prohibited by said law (which should be a lot easier than deliberately misinterpreting an existing religion)!
I know it sounds totally ridiculous, but considering some of the braindead legislation that has been passed by Congress over the last few years, I don't think I'd be too surprised if something like this were to happen.
And just to be clear, I am not trying to say that Native Americans should or should not need government permission to use drugs as part of their religious practices. I'd rather leave that debate to those who understand it better than I do.
"Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand."
The last two words of that sentance pretty well sum up why the War On Drugs will never work.
Funny you should mention the Native American use of peyote. Native Americans are the only ones that need "permission" from the Federal Government to practice their religion. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so hard to understand?
I can invent a religion that involves murder, theft, copyright infringement, or any other crime, and I would then not be legally permitted to practice that religion.
I happen to believe that peyote should probably be legal - but I'm damn sure that it shouldn't be permitted or denied on the basis of what religion you follow. That is making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and that is unconstitutional.
Perhaps you've heard of Sigmund Freud, cocaine user? Carl Sagan, marijuana user? They managed to hold down jobs.
Furthermore, there are a lot of jobs that aren't very "demanding", so to speak. Even a crackhead or meth addict can work in a call center.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Almost everyone love taking drugs, that's why alcohol is so popular. What most people don't understand is that alcohol is deprecated and has been so for some years. This is because of the negative side-effects, that are no longer in proportion with the positive effects compared to other drugs. Some examples: # Alcohol makes it hard to drive and keep the balance. I don't know any drug (besides perhaps ether) where this is such a problem. # Alcohol makes you sick. Again it's very difficult to find any drug worse than alcohol with respect to this. # Alchol is heavy. There is no other drugs taking up so much space and weight as alcohol. Besides these three examples, where alcohol performs worse than almost every other drugs, there is a lot of other side-effects like: addiction, negative influence on health, making some people violent, possibility of overdosing where alcohol compares bad to a lot of drugs, but is perhaps not the absolute worst. Conclusion: People love drugs and should have a legal alternative to alcohol. Prediction: People will continue using alcohol and still believe that it's isn't a drug, and that they don't do drugs.
Specifically why I didn't use cocaine or weed in my example. Heroin would have been a better example.
Finding other idiots on
In that case, see Wikipedia's list of people known to be addicted to opiates. They managed to hold jobs too.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Actually, that argument could be a slippery slope. Consider this: there are at least a few religions that demand human sacrifice (Aztec religion comes to mind, though I'm sure there are others, and I'm pretty sure that sacrifice of at least a few types of living creatures is condoned by the Bible). Are you prepared to strike down laws against murder, on the grounds that they prohibit the free exercise of one's religion? It might even become possible to get any law stricken down by inventing a new religion that demands actions prohibited by said law (which should be a lot easier than deliberately misinterpreting an existing religion)!
How is that a slippery slope? Peyote can't harm anyone but the person who is using it. If they go out and drive under the influence and kill someone then they could be charged under existing laws (much the same way that a Catholic wouldn't get a free pass just because they got drunk at communion).
Human sacrifice by definition harms another. That's why you can't use a freedom of religion argument. And animal sacrifice? I would ask why exactly that should be illegal? If I'm allowed to kill a beef cattle for food then why shouldn't you be allowed to kill it in order to practice your religion?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I know lots of people who started drinking at a very young age, and by the time they're old enough to buy liquor legally (18 here) they're already alcoholics. Is this your solution?
Alcoholism and binge drinking are completely unrelated topics. Binge drinking is done for fun, immaturity, college parties, whatever you want to call it. Alcoholism is a physical dependency that would probably manifest itself regardless of when you started drinking if you are vulnerable to it.
My point was that if booze was legal at 18 and we had a culture that encouraged responsible drinking from a younger age then binge drinking would probably be less of a problem. Alcoholism is a separate issue from that -- and just because somebody else might be vulnerable to alcoholism is no reason to make it harder/illegal for me to enjoy alcohol when I am able to do so without harming anyone or anything besides my own liver.
Besides, how can you justify withholding the right to do something from somebody that is an adult in every other category?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Maybe you should take a look at that list and see how many of those people have suffered drug/alcohol related deaths (John Belushi, Chris Farley, Lane Staley, Kurt Cobain, Elvis Presley) or serious setbacks in their careers (Robert Downey Jr., Members of Aerosmith in the early 80's (luckily they turned it around)etc.). In general, drugs taken for non-medicinal purposes are not good for you. I now imagine you sitting around in your parent's basement shooting up or smoking and trying desperately to justify it, but if that works for you, by all means carry on.
Finding other idiots on
Youth diabetes was basically unheard of in this country before the advent of the food pyramid
That is categorically bullshit. Diabetes is caused in two ways. One of which is overindulgence combined with underexercise. The other is damage to the pancreas. Diabetes has been known of for over 2,000 years, and it is not caused by some sinister fucking food pyramid conspiracy. It may be excaberated by modern living habits. More importantly, SUGAR IS NOT A FUCKING DRUG! You are intentionally misunderstanding the definition of a "drug." "Drugs" are substances not necessary for nutrition which cause chemical changes in the way the human body works. Sugar is a natural nutrient and has been part of the human diet in one form or another since we were human.
Spewing hysterical hyperbole about "sugar" being a "drug" does not advance any anti-sugar argument you may have, and only makes it easier to brand you as little more than a bleating Atkins-diet sheep.
My book, podcast
There just might be a third option somewhere, don't you think?
And where on earth did I say all these things??? Have you been consuming controlled substances or what? Read what I wrote and think again. //
I guess you forgot the point you were originally making. Let me remind you: it wasn't "drugs are bad" or "drugs can kill you" or "drugs will slow down your career". You were saying drug users wouldn't have the means to buy their drugs without turning to crime. I have disproved that claim by providing examples of drug users who managed to do just that - and those are just the famous ones.
With such an overactive imagination, you must be a druggie yourself! FWIW, my parents live across town, my apartment doesn't have a basement, and I am gainfully employed in the IT field.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Think there is any great mystery to booze in a country where you can legally buy it at 18 and where your parents have been giving it to you at dinnertime since you were 5 years old? Think those countries have a problem with binge drinking?
I'd love to agree but I can't. You're describing the UK and we have a massive problem with binge drinking.
As I recall, the First Amendment doesn't say that freedom of religion is restricted to practices that are not harmful to others. I think we'd both agree that it's common sense enough that the distinction shouldn't have to be spelled out, but the last five years has left me with no confidence in the common sense skills of anyone in the Federal government.
I hope my cynicism proves to be unjustified.
Actually, my original point was that there are currently crimes committed by hardcore drug addicts in order to get money to buy more drugs. Are these same people going to suddenly have more money if the drugs were legal? No, so these crimes continue to happen. Therefore, you have disproved nothing.
One other point on the wikipedia list, it was mostly actors, musicians etc. these are people who make a lot of money and have a lot of down time. I'd like to see these people hold down a steady 9-5 job while living the same lifestyle. I'm betting it wouldn't work out too well.
Finding other idiots on
Are you implying that you do not ever drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or cigars, drink caffeine? Because if you do, then you are certainly a hypocrite. I'll type a longer response this weekend.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
If only that were true.
I've heard of people lacing pot with meth to get people addicted to meth and drive demand.
It happens. Regulation would prevent stuff like that.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Another important thing to remember is that with the exception of meth, a lot of our drug supply comes from outside the borders because large illegal crops are hard to grow here. Legalizing those crops (at least those that can grow effectivley within our borders) will reduce our trade deficit somewhat. Not to mention it's a serious poke in the eye to the large scale drug farmers in central America who rely on huge margins to maintain control over their crime empires and destablize local governments. You could hit them really hard by legalizing their crops locally, growing them locally, and putting a huge tarriff on imports. Local prices would drop to where the margins were no longer worth paying smugglers, and the legitimate path to entry would take a chunk out of their bottom line.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
New addicts are a different question.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
The drug war wasn't just for Mexicans and Negroes - it was also about the Yellow Peril of those Chinese immigrants coming over here to work on railroads and gold mines and smoking opium to deal with the harsh living conditions. Banning opium was part of the rest of the bandwagon of banning Asian immigration after the railroads were mostly built, banning Asian land ownership, and similar racist abuses. Friends in Canada tell me that their legislators were just as blatant about it as America's.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Tobacco addicts don't give their allegience to Marlboro or a particular tobacco store just because they need their two-packs-a-day fix, nor did Heroin (trademark of Bayer) users in a free market. Back when most of the amphetamines were legal, you'd get them from the drugstore with a doctor's prescription; you might do what your doctor told you or prefer to use your corner drugstore, but it wasn't an allegience sort of thing. (Now, I do like one of my local liquor stores because they've got good prices and a good selection of single-malts....)
But yes, it's largely about control, whether it's banning opium smoking or pushing Ritalin or keeping blacks in jail. But a lot of it has become a self-sustaining industry, keeping cops and prison guards and the military busy, and leading to lots of real crimes which also keep cops and prison guards busy - here in California, prison populations grew about 10fold during the 1980s-90s, and the prison guards' union is as big a campaign contributor as the teachers' union.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
As the drug warriors will tell you, today's high-priced California Sensemilla is 10-20 times as strong as 1960s cheap ditchweed (and Hashish was always about that strong, and so was the stuff Cheech&Chong used to sing about.) But that means it's much safer, because you're smoking 5-10% as much green leafy stuff when you want to get high. The drug warriors tell you that the same 60s ditchweed has three times the tar as tobacco - so if you smoke two packs of dope a day, every day, you're probably at a higher risk of cancer, as well as at a much higher risk of doing something stupid because you're too stoned. Doesn't mean that a couple of joints at a concert are going to trash you, especially because (as other people have said) it's a bronchodilator.
However, if you're worried about lung cancer, or general lung-burn from hot smoke, you could protect your lungs by using a bong or a waterpipe, if the evil drug warriors hadn't banned the things and made people switch over to those little tiny easily-hidden pipes. Or you can make brownies, or alcohol extracts, though those have somewhat different effects than smoking. And blunts are, needless to say, a really stupid idea.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
One of the early problems with LSD and mental illness was that hospitals would treat badly tripping people the way they would anybody else who was highly disoriented and uncontrollable - dose them up with heavy tranquilizers, which in those days meant Thorazine, a mean nasty drug if ever there was one. Today there's Haldol, which isn't the nicest stuff either, but at least it doesn't cause anywhere near as much long-term damage as Thorazine.
Alcoholism is especially common among the mentally ill - seems to be the popular way to self-medicate manic cycles. A friend of mine who was hypomanic would use marijuana if she could get it, or else lots of rum, but eventually got on some more precise medication.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You didn't say them. Popsmear said them. I replied to Popsmear in that post to which I linked in my reply to you. My reply to you was in agreement with you, pointing at an example of the people who don't know what they're talking about, and of my stinkfinger for them.
Sorry if my message confused you.
--
make install -not war
Why not?
No, don't substitute regulatory interference by the government. Simply enjoin the government from requiring or encouraging such tests. There are a number of large companies that would abandon them at least in part if they were not required to perform them in order to sell to or provide services to government agencies.
Nonsense. Marijuana grows ALL OVER THE US.
Sorry, i was looking from the perspective of someone who lives in a city and wants to grow the good stuff in his flat. I know some of my friends tried, and the plants where very small. Here in Germany I havent seen any hemp growing on the roadside (at least not anymore) - too many people know what it looks like and so does the police.
Of cource, given the right equipment you can always try this
The fat drunkard Ted Kennedy comes to mind. What a worthless heap of dung. If he weren't a member of America's most shitbag family of jumped-up potato diggers, he'd have gotten ten years behind bars for killing Mary Jo Kopechne.