A safer society? Legalize drugs

The Boston Globe ^ | June 6, 2006 | Bill Fried

[Know your rights]

Irrelevant, since not everyone who doubts the wisdom of anti-marijuana laws is a "doper."

[Mojave]

Dopers and dope are not "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment". The laws are, in all 50 states.

[Know your rights]

Dopers and dope are not "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment".

Straw man ... nobody said they were.

The laws are

So you keep claiming. Where's your proof?

[Mojave]

Where's your proof?

Where's your repeal?

[Know your rights]

So by "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment" you mean "still on the books." Funny.

[Mojave]

Dopers, their repeal efforts and their dope are not "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment". The laws are, in all 50 states.

You have nothing.

[investigateworld]

I think we're both right. Something about the make up of the druggie mind; Illegal is better. Again,I think laws prohitibitng use could be removed if A. No taxpayer supported bennie for addicts, B. Offering drugs to a relative of a person under the age of oh, let pick a number, say 40?

That would be considered a life threatening issue and it would be legal to shoot said offeree. Cold blooded, but then...... And for the record, I think the state of Nevada has the best approach to the world's oldest 'skilled trade'.

[Know your rights]

Dopers, their repeal efforts and their dope are not "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment".

Still beating that straw man, I see.

The laws are, in all 50 states.

So by "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment" you mean "still on the books." Funny.

[Know your rights]

Something about the make up of the druggie mind; Illegal is better.

The evidence cited so far is against you.

I think the state of Nevada has the best approach to the world's oldest 'skilled trade'.

On that we agree.

[investigateworld]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I know what I saw dealing with the doper crowd, saw the great lenghts they'd go to get illegal drugs ... I dealth with them in their native habitate, not when thye'd pretty up and talk nice to social workers.

[investigateworld]

D'oh ... gotta hit spel-chek first lol.

[Know your rights]

I know what I saw dealing with the doper crowd, saw the great lenghts they'd go to get illegal drugs

If you'd been alive during Prohibition, you'd have seen great lengths many would go to get the illegal drug alcohol. What's your point?

[investigateworld]

***What's your point?****

so solly, thought I made it clear in earlier posts.

I often suspected that some, maybe a whole lot(?)of drug users who are addicted to cocaine, heroin and meth, have basic sociopath minds. They use drugs as an excuse to "let out the inner criminal". Again, a theory based on many years of observations.

I was in the C&R biz long enough to see some men and women hit the skids, then find 'something', usually a deep Faith in God, come back and become valuable members of a community. So I don't give up on anyone.
But the ones who came back always had a basic sense of decency... often giving me tips as to who was cruising for the children of addicts for sexual exploitation. And if it won't bore you I'll share a funny story from that era.

[Mojave]

So by "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment" you mean "still on the books."

Nationally and in every state for the last 75 years, despite all of the failed attempts to legalize by the dopers.

Well, at least you have the Libertarian Party one percenters behind you.

[Know your rights]

I often suspected that some, maybe a whole lot(?)of drug users who are addicted to cocaine, heroin and meth, have basic sociopath minds. They use drugs as an excuse to "let out the inner criminal".

Plausible ... but equally so for the legal drug alcohol. So if banning that drug isn't the answer, then neither is banning the others.

[Know your rights]

So by "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment" you mean "still on the books."

Nationally and in every state for the last 75 years

Yet none the less a laughable interpretation of "supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment."

[investigateworld]

As always, it comes down to money., Right now, even shopping in a up scale market, an adult male, weighing 150 to 200 lbs. can get a nice buzz via 'Night Train, or Mad Dog 20 20'. The Price of these fine products is about $7.00 a gallon.

Should a doper be able to get his fix for $7.00?

I don't care, just don't make me pay for his living/medical expenses. And do make it legal that a family member can 'terminate with prejudice' anyone who offers said product to a relative.
See how easy I am?

[Know your rights]

I don't care, just don't make me pay for his living/medical expenses.

I'm against us having to pay for their living/medical expenses ... as we currently do for users of the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco. If you don't make your continued support for that legality conditional on your not having to pay for the living/medical expenses of those users, it's raw hypocrisy to make your continued support for legality of othre drugs thus conditional.

[investigateworld]

Your losing me in your arguments.

So You do want us to continue the support system for dopers?

Just because some people can 'booze", but not tie off and 'shoot' up?

Or are you trying to ban cigarettes and alcohol?

[Mojave]

[Nationally and in every state for the last 75 years]

Yet none the less a laughable interpretation

No, simple facts that you can't and won't address.

When the facts are against you, pound on the law.

When the law is against you, pound on the facts.

When the law and the facts are against you, pretend to laugh.