Posted on 06/06/2006 4:32:38 AM PDT by LowCountryJoe
Really? 2% of the people in your part of the country haven't drunk alcohol?
And if there is an amount of alcohol that is excessive, is there an amount of pot?
I do not believe that hard core drug use is present in enough of the American population to consider it "normal."
It's not surprising that the terms have changed from drugs, to "hard core drugs". That often happens when the point has been lost.
Even if my numbers were tripled, that would still not be enough to be mainstream.
LOL, now it's been redefined to "mainstream". Funny stuff.
When I used the word "drugs" I was unclear in differentiating between illegal substances and medications. That is my error and if you or anyone else was confused about that, then the fault lies with me.
However, I would have thought someone of your capabilities would have realized what I was speaking of instead of poking at the argument with your semantic stick.
Yes, millions and millions of Americans use "drugs" in the form of prescribed medications every single day. Others use tobacco and alcohol--some to excess. However, millions and millions of Americans go through each day without using an illegal substance or tobacco or alcohol.
If you are including alcohol, coffee and cigarettes, then yes, using mood altering substances is normal.
The use of mind altering substances, other than alcohol, is not the norm.
You know I don't comment on personal issues like that. What's the reason for the question?
Why the culling out of alcohol? Inconvenient?
BTW, you didn't answer the question about your drug use.
I bet if you were around during Prohibition you'd say, "Legalize alcohol and the gangs will be gone and we'll finally have peace in the neighborhoods".
54-56 sycophants:
It certainly didn't turn out that way. Once booze was legalized, the gangs turned to drugs, in addition to the ever-popular hookers, gambling, loan-sharking, and other rackets. Legalizing drugs would simply close down one "silo" in a gang's business plan.
Guess what fellas; --- "drugs, hookers, gambling, loan-sharking," etc, were also "prohibited"..
If instead they were all reasonably regulated, organized crime would have had to compete with legitimate business interests. -- And freedom would have won.
Each day? So you want to play the same statistical games as Paulsen while you accuse me of semantics?
How many have used them? Subtract the number who never have and you have the real answer about deviancy. Which is how all this nonsense started.
The truth is that almost every society in history has used mood altering substances. It's not deviant, and you know it.
The problem is that you prefer some drugs to others, and think that the government ought to use violence if necessary to keep people from using the ones you don't approve of.
I just heard on the radio that the tally is now 37 ODs, but I didn't catch how many died and how many were just sick.
I agree with you and do not feel sorry for them. How can a sane person feel sorry for someone who buys and ingests or injects a product labeled "High or die trying"? I think that I got that name right. It's printed on the packet of drugs as a brand.
This stupid war on drugs is as bad or worse than prohibition in the amount of death, crime, and corruption that the vast amounts of money tied to it bring.
When was the last time we saw gang wars over alcohol?
I don't even take prescribed medication or aspirin unless it's (ironically) do it or damn near die. Taking a drug that you buy from a criminal on a street corner has to be about the most stupid thing you can do. I don't advocate doing drugs, but the 'War' hasn't been effective in doing anything other than destroying some lives and making some people -- highly placed and powerful -- rich.
Gee, do you think that might be the real plan?
How convenient for you. Bob,,,it's not a personal question when it's to you, but a general question for everyone else. You want certain mood altering substances outlawed but choose to use others yourself. It's hypocrisy of the first order.
What's the reason for the question?
Honesty, something you constantly harp on when it comes to pot. Somehow it's out of line with you. Sorry, it "don't go that way".
Allow me to make a correction.
That category is 'killed in alcohol related accidents'.
What does that mean? Is there a difference?
If I am a sober cab driver that picks you up at a bar to take you home and I get hit by another sober driver, it gets labeled as 'alcohol related' because you (even though you weren't driving) had consumed some alcohol.
40,000 people a year die in car accidents and even taking the 15,000 as gospel, 25,000 get killed by sober STUPID drivers. Maybe cars and people are the problem, not alcohol. ;-)
Rather than play word games, you would be a stronger debater by focusing on the issue, not personal questions or twisting my use of the word "drug" to mean all types of medications, illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco. The issue is legalization of drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine and whatever else is the drug of the month. Do you support legalizing, controlling, and/or decriminalizing what drugs are now considered illegal?
paulsen plays the word game:
Illegal recreational drug use is not the norm.
I think you're playing word games here, and I don't know why you are doing that. I didn't think that was your style.
Weird comment robbie, seeing that your qualifier "illegal", -- is the issue under contention.
-- You're using it in a word game to establish that government in the USA can prohibit recreational drugs "legally".
Round you go, accusing everyone else of playing the same games you play. -- Fine little bit of agitprop/diversion. .
No word game necessary. The government may legally (ie., constitutionally) prohibit any drug, recreational or not. And they have.
Actually, yes. I didn't want to get into the use/abuse debate.
Nonsense. No matter how many times you folks tell that lie, it's still nonsense. If it were true, alcohol and cigarettes would have the government stamp of approval. What childish BS.
Do you support legalizing, controlling, and/or decriminalizing what drugs are now considered illegal?
I support individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues. Everywhere and always.
That includes RElegalizing all substances.
Which doesn't mean I think that their use is good or recommend it. Unlike most warriors, I have never used the substances you refer to so don't even go there.
Government intervention in substances which people desire has been the most colossal failure in history. It has flopped like the first prohibition. Anyone can get anything they want anytime they want. These substances are found quite readily in maximum security prisons.
Meanwhile, the WOD has ruined more lives, created more demand and debased the respect for the rule of law more than any other legislation. Not to mention, federal involvement is unconstitutional despite the nonsense spouted by many warriors here.
If marijuana didn't exist, the next drug on the list would be labeled as the 'gateway' drug. People do drugs because they want to alter their reality. Some people want to be high, some 'higher', some don't want to be high at all.
It's the person that moves from marijuana to the next high because he wants it. Neither the devil, not the marijuana, made him do it.
They are all "reasonably regulated" -- in that mecca of organized crime, Las Vegas. Any "legitimate business interests" to be found in Las Vegas?
Naturally. You are a dead bang loser on every count.
Now, let's compare the miles driven by drunk drivers to the miles driven by sober drivers. And then ratio the fatalities. I imagine it would be an order of magnitude higher, at least, for the drunks.
And this gets back to my main point - we do have risk threshholds for taking sanction before harm happens. I agree the .08 is too low - it should be back up to .10, and cops should look for actual driving impairment instead of having checkpoints. However, it does not change the nature of the overall risk factor. And since pot has a much lower risk factor than alcohol or hard drugs, it's inane for the feds to criminalize it.
First of all, regarding drug use, unless the dealer ties someone down and injects them against their will, it is the drug USER who destroys their life, not the dealer.
Violent crime associated with drug dealing is a function of it being a black market, not the drug itself. We don't have drive-by shootings in front of liquor stores nowadays, but we did during prohibition.
And third, alcohol causes far more harm than all other drugs combined, except perhaps health problems from cigarettes. But yet you don't seem willing to discuss it here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.