Posted on 03/05/2006 2:49:43 PM PST by freedom44
Cocaine, marijuana, heroin and LSD - all of these drugs are illegal to possess, produce or traffic in the United States of America. Yet, tobacco, alcohol and various other over the counter drugs are legal in the United States. Why, I ask?
I do not understand why certain drugs are illegal in America, and why other drugs that are just as dangerous and addictive are legally and socially accepted. This country currently spends tens of billions of dollars each year trying to prevent drugs from entering the country. At the same time, billions of dollars are spent on advertisements promoting the use of other controlled substances.
Does anybody else see a flaw in the current system? Who are the people who decide what is a "good" drug and what is a "bad" drug? I believe the war on drugs has failed and that we should decriminalize all drugs. I do not understand why adults, in the privacy of their own homes, cannot put whatever substance they want into their bodies.
There are many positive effects that would come about if we legalized the possession and use of narcotics and various other illegal drugs.
First off, the prison populations would decrease greatly. Prisons are currently overcrowded because of the high percentage of inmates that are incarcerated on drug-related offenses. Many of these drug law offenders are in prison because of nonviolent possession offenses. Are these offenders that dangerous to society?
Besides having less people currently in prison, there are many other economic rewards for the legalization of drugs. The federal government would be able to tax and regulate the sale of legalized drugs, increasing tax revenues.
In addition, this would allow police departments around the country to be able to focus on malicious crimes instead of drug-related offenses. This would produce more efficient policing departments, and could perhaps prevent more non-drug related crime. Although the economic advantages of legalizing drugs are important, the social advantages are even greater.
The legalization of drugs would make drug use a health problem instead of a criminal problem. Drug users would be able to freely seek help and rehabilitation, without fearing legal implications.Rehabilitation, instead of imprisonment, would not only help current drug users with their actual drug habit, but also wash some of the stigmate away from drug use. No longer would a drug user be forced to hide his habit from his friends and family. Drug users could use their social networks to help them quit their habits, instead of hiding the problem for fear of rejection.
The poor neighborhoods of the city would also be radically changed if all drugs were legalized. A serious problem with most poor inner-city neighborhoods is drug-related crime and street gangs. Most street gangs are based on the trafficking of illegal drugs. With the legalization of drugs, many street gangs would cease to exist. Without the street gangs and drug dealers littering the neighborhood, the inner-city areas would be a radically different place.
Not only has the illegal-drug trade destroyed inner city areas around the United States, entire countries have been ruined because of it. The United States is by far the biggest market in the illegal-drug trade, and for our market to be supplied, there are various producer countries around the globe.
For example, Columbia's entire economy is based on the drug trade with the United States. Because of this, Columbia has one of the lowest Gross Domestic Products in the world. Columbia is also controlled by drug cartels that we have indirectly created because of the drug laws in the United States.
All of the reasons above are examples of the damage that the criminalization of drugs creates. The problems of our drug laws far outweigh the advantages the criminalization of drugs creates.
It was investigated by a Lincoln scholar at the request of Ollie Steinberg of the Minnesota Grassroots party. Like Mark, he found no record of any speech by Lincoln on the alleged date (Dec 18, 1840).I've been told that according to the Home Book of Quotations (16th edition), it was fabricated in the 1880s - apparently by anti-Prohibitionists in Atlanta courting the Negro vote. Lincoln was well-known for his temperance sympathies. According to Herbert Asbury's "The Great Illusion," he authored a dry law modeled on the Maine law, which was rejected by Illinois voters in a special referendum on June 4, 1855. He was also alleged to have authored and signed a total abstinence pledge in 1846. According to temperance authorities, Lincoln was reluctant to sign the 1862 whiskey tax that helped fund the Civil War, on grounds it would condone the liquor trade. According to a temperance leader who spoke with him on the day of his assassination, Lincoln predicted that the next great question after slavery would be abolition of the traffic in legalized liquor.
Hey, that's not fair. How come you get to pull back the curtain and reveal the Wizzard?
We've got lots of Jumping lions- lacking the courage needed to live with liberty, Tin men- whose commitment to freedom lacks any 'heart', and then those rascally Scarecrows- whose brain-deficit causes them to follow any popular cause.
Me, I stand with Dorothy-who donned the ruby-red pumps, threw water on the Wicked Witch, and liberated Oz from the tyranny that the 'wizzard' (MSM) promulgated in his best Chris Matthews style.
Just make certain guys like me are on the jury. We got your six.
The provider of the fake quote seems to have gone quiet.
Thanks - a lot of us get it, but too many Sheeple still vote for those Big Stupid Republican Government bozos thinking they'll get some changes made. Too many of these are FReepers.
We've seen what Republicans do once they seize the reins of power - who needs more of that crap? Time for the Rs to go the way of the Whigs.
Let's Fleet the Capitol!
And of course, all of this is in glaring contrast to legal alcohol. Alcoholics are the very model of hard workers, devoted spouses and loving parents. And there's no risk to a baby if the pregnant mother drinks booze. Alcohol doesn't cause any dangers to society at all. After all, if it did, we'd be putting drinkers in prison and confiscating their property.
Have I misunderstood your assertions?
-ccm
Really? I defy you to produce evidence of this assertion. You can begin by citing studies that show that the percentage of cocaine users who have subsequently been able to quit is lower than the percentage of former smokers who have quit cigarettes and stayed off them.
-ccm
You must be joking. Almost every case of lung cancer, the vast majority of cases of emphysema, and a very large fraction of heart attacks are caused by smoking. You can ask your state health department what the numbers are in your state, as they tabulate these figures from death certificates, but there is not the slightest question that they are orders of magnitude greater than all deaths from illegal drugs put together.
-ccm
What sucks is: that 'we, the people' should know where the brakes are, but can't seem to find them. The people should be driving something more advanced.(you listening, Congress?)
Many of our ancestors drove thousands of miles staring at horses' butts. We own them that much.
I could little about the WOD and even less about those who fight against it
Whatever you say. You win the booby prize for having the most boring life on Earth. Which explains why you made numerous posts --- most of which are above average in their length on this thread -- to this subject which you could care less and even less about. It doesn't get much more boring than that, right? What was that about your premise? It faultered from the get go.
My premise is that arguing in the manner in which you are will not reverse anything.
Wrong again. "Anything" you say. A person is a thing. Many people that previously supported the WOD have read these threads and reversed their positions on the WOD or modified their positions on the WOD. I suppose you really didn't mean what you said: "My premise is that arguing in the manner in which you are will not reverse anything. That, or it means something that you've yet to define. Perhaps maybe you'll argue that a person can't be a thing or maybe you'll argue that the anti-WOD posts didn't change a thing but that it was the persons that read the posts that they themselves changed their position on the WOD--they changed their minds, not the anti-WOD arguments. There's no telling what explanation you'll fabricate.
So let me share your optimism with you. When all of your hard work pays off and Marijuana and other recreational drugs are legalized, I'll be the first in line to buy you a dime bag.
You're as plastic as the rest of them. You assume something that suits your agenda not the facts. You'd waste your time waiting in line to buy some marijuana that you claim you'd do it so you could gift it to me. Yet I don't want what you think I want. Perhaps what your agenda says I should want. Well, I'm happy to tell you that I don't want your drugs -- I have no use for them.
How did persons from one generation to the next continual increase their prosperity and that of society without the laws of the future? With an average of 3,000 new laws and regulations each year politicians and the MSM say that each of those laws is a must have law to protect people and society, especially to protect the "little guy". Reality check: almost every adult person breaks the law several times each year. Yet with all that lawlessness happening how is it that persons and society have not run themselves and society into destruction? Obviously they laws they broke were not must-have laws.
You want chaos that brings the economy to a screeching halt? If it were physically possible, next week apprehend every person that broke the law within the past 12 months. Almost every adult person including politicians, bureaucrats, judges and LEOs would be apprehended and wasting time in holding jails and courts. Having successfully brought the economy and free market to a screeching halt you can explain to the children home-alone that you did it for them.
The drug prohibition laws are but one category of those 3,000 annual new must-have laws that are in reality bogus laws created to justify politicians and bureaucrats unearned paychecks.
Yep, the above are just more of what you call the same-old-song arguments, right?
You have no idea of the concepts, strategy and tactics that are waiting in the wings.
That is what will be happening with everyone of them. Bit by bit, issue by issue they will all be exposed by the full facts, full context and honesty. Albeit, it will not happen in a linear way. Rather, all will be exposed in unison, near simultaneously.
More whining about the "war on drugs" from the "medicinal Marijuana" pothead crowd. They've been spewing this EXACT same rant for 40 years. Make drugs legal. Tax the drugs and then use the tax dollars to pay the increased medical costs caused by the increase in drug usage. Makes sense to me. Doctors instead of lawyers would be buying the BMWs, Ferraris and Swiss chalets.
I personally have never tried an illegal drug, but the only problem I have with this War on Drugs is that we spend tax money for it. I would rather that money go to fight Iraq or Afganistan or Iran. If we were winning the war on drugs than maybe I could support it. For me it all deals with money.
If marijuana were legal, his neighbor could grow it. Today he could stop his neighbor from growing it.
I bet he favors allowing people to speed or drive drunk. After all, they're not harming anyone either.
Needlesstosay, people with an attitude like that are to be dismissed as the irresponsible children that they are.
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.