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.
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
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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
Judging by the fact that alchohol prohibition did not reduce alchohol consumption, and the netherlands with its much more permissive legal behaviour regarding drugs does NOT see appreciably higher use of hard drugs than we do, no, I don't think making them illegal deters most people. It does, however, creative a gigantic, violent black market. Lucky you, you don't live in a place where you have to see the repercussions of that side of things, eh?
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.
Um... When was the last time you've seen a movie glamourizing crack, heroine, or meth?
Well, Monster Party kind of, but remember in the end he murdered his drug dealer and went to prison for it so I suppose that isn't glamourizing.
The point is, Pot is no more dangerous and addicting than most forms of alcohol.
Cocaine and X won't kill you outright unless you do stupid things and most people can take them and never get addicted.
Heroine, meth, and crack on the other hand will kill you and make you do things that you never thought you'd ever do in your life to get those drugs.
Personally, I'm all for legalizing Pot and maybe even cocaine if they find some method of controling the amount a person can get, but for FFS no one in their right mind should ever legalize household meth, crack, and heroine.
I live in an city with over 300 murders per year and I will tell you Dave Chapell's immitation of a crack feind is pretty spot on except its not funny when you meet one.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
actually it's worse than that. Due to the laws of supply and demand, By failing to reduce the market for drugs, all the war on drugs has done is increase the financial incentives to be a drug dealer.
it is no suprise therefore that many of your local terrorist organisations.. already very criminal by nature have moved into the drugs trade, because of the vast amount of money to be made
so the war on drugs is in direct conflict the war on terror due to economics
the farce of the taliban and heroin in afghanistan is particularly depressing.
prohibition leads to vast wealth going to criminals... choose the lesser of two evils legalise it and make that wealth go to the state.
mind you from my limited knowledge of american history, i seem to recall that many of your blue blooded super rich political families made money bootlegging whisky during prohibition, the kennedy's in particular.
anyone know what the bushes were doing in prohibition?
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.
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
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'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]
Person buys marijuana legally. Becomes heavy user. Gateways over to a heavier substance. Becomes addicted. Ends up homeless, begs for money to buy drugs from the government.
Nice little logical fallacies you have there. Using pot doesn't mean you will turn to harder drugs, not even that a large majority will. I know people that smoked quite a bit, but they never expressed interest in anything harder (indeed, since they knew the dangers of the harder stuff, they decided it wasn't worth bothering with).
Also, you ignore the fact that should a person end up homeless because they'd rahter just smoke pot, that's their choice. They wanted to keep pushing things further, they choose NOT to get help, they choose to beg. That is within their rights.
So you want to remove a whole group of people's rights because some of that group can't handle freedom? Might as well just rip of the Constitution and install a facsist government right now.
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!
"Not to mention the permanent damage that a drug like opium or heroin can do to a person."
I'm glad you don't mention it, because I suspect you have no idea what that damage would be given a clean supply and good education.
"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."
What makes you think so? Is all alcohol now produced by the folks who supplied the US with alcohol under prohibition? You might be interested to know that many of the so-called bad drugs are available on prescription, at vastly lower prices than the black market.
"Even if they did play fair and there way governmental oversight, the damage to the user would still be there."
I thought you weren't going to mention it? The net damage to users would be reduced massively due to clean supplies and education. Not to mention the reduction of damage incurred by frequenting an unfriendly, criminal environment in order to obtain drugs.
"Furthermore, testing narcotics for purity, etc is somewhat time-consuming and actually consumes a portion of the drug, which would raise the costs phenomenally"
I'm quite certain that the quality control methods used to ensure the standard of pharmaceuticals now is quite effective. Time-consuming? Oh no! Consumes a portion of the drug? Who cares? When it's produced for pennies per kilo, it really makes no difference.
"It's just generally a bad idea to open this all up so a few people can legally mess with their own heads."
It's obviously a better idea to spend billions on keeping those few who want to mess with their heads criminal. Note that the few people who you refer to are messing with their heads today despite the illegality.
That's why we've got so many people killing each other over $7 packs of cigarettes.
--
make install -not war
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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
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
Then, in the 1980s, an actor named Ronald Reagen, ascending to the office of president from his former job as governor of California, where he knocked the state university down a few notches, decided that America needs to spend all the money it gave back in tax cuts on arresting people who use drugs. Furthermore, we would begin saturating our children with anti-drug propaganda, riddled with half-truths and missing information but disguised as legitimate findings. We would adopt the Christian 12-step programs' philosophy of lifetime addictions ("addiction" has no agreed upon medical definition, by the way. Doctors use the terms "abuse" and "dependence" to describe specific behaviors), then tell the parents that if their kids become intoxicated with any illegal substances they will be lying in the gutters and become complete failures in life. Then, we use this theory that if a drug is illegal it is fundamentally bad in order to justify keeping all drugs illegal, until a new generation arises that grew up surrounded by the propaganda who won't even think to question something that they have been told since the age of 5.
Don't believe me? Consider a substance known as Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; street name is ecstasy). MDMA was sometimes used by psychiatrists for its ability to help people open up, and some research indicated that small amounts of the substance (below the threshold for getting high) could help cure cluster headaches. Then, a couple of techno fans discovered that the high from MDMA was kinda cool at their parties, and soon MDMA became the most popular party drug after alcohol and marijuana. The response of the US government? Reschedule MDMA as a "schedule I" substance, which classifies it as having no known medical use, and tell everybody that MDMA is the new plague threatening their kids. Tell all the kids that MDMA is going to get them in a lot of trouble in life, but don't bother to tell them what effects MDMA actually has, and create mass hysteria about the substance. Then, perform an experiment on primates that shows MDMA is as neurotoxic as methamphetamine is, and then hide the face that the research was recalled because instead of using MDMA, the scientists accidentally used methamphetamine. Result? People are taken about at the suggestion of legalization.
The funny thing is that nobody ever needs to present any evidence to support a claim that drugs are a plague to our society. The claims don't even have to make sense: many people believe that crack is a worse substance than cocaine...because nobody informed them that they are the same drug, taken in a different form (crack is smoked and therefore absorbed faster; but cocaine can be injected, and absorbed still faster). What is the difference between morphine and heroine? One is prescribed by a doctor, one is not (pure heroine and pure morphine have similar effects, both physical and mental). Why isn't alcohol demonized the way other drugs are? What about caffeine, don't people become dependent (physically and ment
Palm trees and 8
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
It showed that as long as the rats have good living conditions and aren't cramped in tiny little cages, they have no will to use drugs. Even drugs that are highly addictive like morphine. Rats that were in those tiny cages that showed the behavior you mentioned weened themselves off once introduced to better living conditions.
Bullish Machine Tzar
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
Well, first off...not all drugs are addictive. Second, I think most numbers show that in places where there has been decriminalization, while there might have been an initial spike in users and first time users....these leveled off, and not everyone used drugs.
Think about it now...alcohol, which in some can be addictive..is legal. But, not everyone drinks, and certainly, not everyone is irresponsible with alcohol consumption. Why should it be any different with something say, pot, which hasn't ever been shown to be physically addictive?
"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?"
Well, you know...people can get hooked on anything, there are people out there that gamble too much, I'm sure that there is someone out there that like to knit so much, they let the rest of their life waste away...people will do it with anything. But, why punish those who can handle things in an adult manner just because some people are weak? Ever hear of survival of the fittest? Heck, by saving people from themselves, we may be in fact working against nature, which would have allowed these people to take themselves out of the gene pool.
I think occasionally, the gene pool NEEDS a little chlorine. And as for suicide...what is more personal that your own life? If you are suffering, should you not be allowed to choose what to do with the "1" thing that you truly own in life...your own life? What right do I have to tell you that quantity of life is more important than quality of life?
Go spend some time in the onc ward of your local hospital for awhile...and see if you don't change your mind a little...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.