Posted on 03/28/2006 10:51:21 PM PST by goldstategop
Getting high can be bad. Putting people in prison for it is worse. And doing the latter doesn't stop the former.
I was once among the majority who believe that drug use must be illegal. But then I noticed that when vice laws conflict with the law of supply and demand, the conflict is ugly, and the law of supply and demand generally wins.
The drug war costs taxpayers about $40 billion. "Up to three quarters of our budget can somehow be traced back to fighting this war on drugs," said Jerry Oliver, then chief of police in Detroit, told me. Yet the drugs are as available as ever.
Oliver was once a big believer in the war. Not anymore. "It's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again," he says. "If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers. That's what we really should be geared up to do. Clearly we're losing the war on drugs in this country."
No, we're "winning," according to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which might get less money if people thought it was losing. Prosecutors hold news conferences announcing the "biggest seizure ever." But what they confiscate makes little difference. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons -- do we really think we can keep them out of all of America?
Even as the drug war fails to reduce the drug supply, many argue that there are still moral reasons to fight the war. "When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans," said President Bush. But the war destroys American souls, too. America locks up a higher percentage of her people than almost any other country. Nearly 4,000 people are arrested every day for mere possession of drugs. That's more people than are arrested for aggravated assault, burglary, vandalism, forcible rape and murder combined.
Authorities say that warns people not to mess with drugs, and that's a critical message to send to America's children. "Protecting the children" has justified many intrusive expansions of government power. Who wants to argue against protecting children?
I have teenage kids. My first instinct is to be glad cocaine and heroin are illegal. It means my kids can't trot down to the local drugstore to buy something that gets them high. Maybe that would deter them.
Or maybe not. The law certainly doesn't prevent them from getting the drugs. Kids say illegal drugs are no harder to get than alcohol.
Perhaps a certain percentage of Americans will use or abuse drugs -- no matter what the law says.
I cannot know. What I do know now, however, are some of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition:
1. More crime. Rarely do people get high and then run out to commit crimes. Most "drug crime" happens because the product is illegal. Since drug sellers can't rely on the police to protect their property, they form gangs and arm themselves. Drug buyers steal to pay the high black market prices. The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.
2. More terrorism. The profits of the drug trade fund terrorists from Afghanistan to Colombia. Our herbicide-spraying planes teach South American farmers to hate America.
3. Richer criminal gangs. Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone. The gangs drug prohibition is creating are even richer, probably rich enough to buy nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden was funded partly by drug money.
Government's declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them. It just creates a black market, where even nastier things happen. That's why I have come to think that although drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
Cult-think is different than group-think?
Generally they're similar. Specifically there are differences. Neo-Tech, and more pointedly neothink are the opposite of group-think and especially cult-think. Champions of the status quo default to cult-think. Whereas go-along-to-get-along default to groupthink.
Besides, there is very little 'natural' growth to pot plants, for example
taht's why legalized and controlled by a governmental institution or like in amsterdam, by third partys, a more natural growth is achievable..."chenically grown plants" is very tasteful, not a desired taste though, so easily recognizable, believe after those year of experiement i went through...i grew my own once also, and the level of it's potency was quite satisfying :D but all organicaly grown...
Mushrooms are powerful hallucinogens; I see nothing 'soft' about them.
soft as they do not create any addiction, and though, you take it only once in a while, also like it's a natural poison, but still no death of a poisonning from psylocibin in the charts... i've known onlyu one person who abused of these and he found out within a week why it was not good to abuse of this substance...
Without a doubt, skillful attorneys representing cocaine cartels, for example, would use 'soft' legalization as a wedge to force the door on their particular product
i meant keeping the soft drug legal and hard drugs illegal...that way cocaine would still remain illegal without a chance to be fully legalized, no matter what people won't vote for this illegal drug to becaome legal...
Legalizing mind-altering drugs weakens a society,
In what sens you wrote Weaken??? I still don't see how amsterdam is so weak? also i admit that not enforcing the laws against illegal drugs is weakening our society...but legalizing taxing regulating legal drugs are totally different than just not enforcing a law...My point is i don't want to see grugs legalised so i can get my hands on, i want to them disapear, but we still don't understand the sub cultur of the drug world, and in order to win a war you must understand your foe, the ennemy in front of you, so legalizing some drugs lil by lil will and regulating and making further studies with people who do not fear repercussion will lead to a world frug free in maybe less than 100 years as we will understand (we as in the "officials") the complete phenomenon...
that seeking chemically induced self-delusion
delusion, isn't that a lil too subjective or speculative...too much of a stereo type. it's fortunately not everyone seeking truth drug, especially when the drug user is well informed about what he is using....i have tried a certain number of drugs and like yoiu i wont make a laundry list out of it... but i have kept myself informed about what i was about to take, speaken with recreational user, abuser of each drug... now i do not take anything not even the legal drugs because with the plants-drug i have found a certain faith again (long story)
of course not every body should find faith through drugs and all that but if we could find a way to responsibilize the users, it would definately be more benificial for a society...
Only one problem. The U.S. Constitution does not protect the Pursuit of Happiness. It does prohibit denying someone due process prior to denying them "life, liberty or property", but that's not really the same thing, now is it?
What is this? Some little tongue-in-cheek, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, let's waste robertpaulsen's time with a stupid technicality?
The amendments are part of the constitution. Unless you deny that, then Life, Liberty, and Property appear twice in the U.S. Constitution.
Guess what's nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution?
Can I deny a homosexual his right to marry without due process?
I rest my case. Pursue your happiness some other way.
You forgot the theme music.
No, they don't.
Could you possible be anymore infantile?
If I joined the "neothinking" cult.
Cult-thinking is maintaining the status quo. Group thinking is going-along-to-get-along. You often demonstrated all three over the years. The third being infantilism.
That's the opposite of the truth.
More of your infantilism. Roscoe, where does it end?
Perhaps you could get help. Good luck.
Let's Call Neo-Tech a Cult
Perhaps the most-obvious, lawyer-like dishonesty archived throughout Internet search engines is the assertion that Neo-Tech is a cult. Neo-Tech is not only the antithesis of cults, but is the tool that vanishes them. ...Neo-Tech is based on wide-scope accountability and fully integrated honesty, while cults are based on narrow-scope restrictions and manipulated deceptions. Consider the following dozen contrasts between Neo-Tech and cults:
Selling cult pamphlets.
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.