Posted on 02/27/2015 6:24:23 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Meth-odists.
Baa,aaaaa,aaaaa - - - humbuig!
As you chose an argument set west of the California Coast, so shall I.
Hawaii, before WW !! was a good example of the benefits of no government policy being the best policy. Pre-WW II Hawaii was where a colleague grew up, and he did go to Iolani.
He said that any and all drugs were available, but that they were “mainly used by the Chinese”. They preferred opium. Student drug use, according to him, was described as follows: “I never saw any.”, and said with comments to the effect that drug usage was generally unknown, period.
Your use of Perfidious Albion's “Opium War” is supportive of my point. Do remember that I have suggested removing the restrictions and accepting the addict deaths which will ensue.
If a citizen wishes to commit suicide, the Constitution does not mandate government attempt to stop said suicide. We are, after all, citizens, not property/subjects of a King.
Better the evils of drugs than the combined evils of
1. Drugs.
and
2. Militarized “Drug Warriors”.
and
3. Law Enforcement with ‘Civil Forfeiture” powers.
and
4. Courts corrupted by the immense amount of “Drug War” money.
and
5. Loss/severe infringement of many Constitution guaranteed rights.
If it comes to allowing the Constitution to die or a bunch of druggies to die, I would choose to protect/preserve the Constitution, not the druggies and their supply chain.
Two different topics:
a) recreational drug use
b) tyrannical police methods
If people are found - through legitimate police work, i.e., foot patrols, etc. - not no-knock raids, etc. - using illegal drugs, they can simply be fined.
Criminals CAN BE arrested and prosecuted without tyrannical police methods.
This happens all the time in the case of other types of crime.
I’m against tyrannical police methods in all cases - and they need to be stopped in order to have a Christian nation that is pleasant to live in and respects Biblically-based freedoms of the people.
Now to the incessant argument that recreational drugs are “fine”, that is patently false.
Drug users are WASTING their life away and DESTROYING their minds.
Those are not good things.
Just because one of my friends can somehow tolerate drugs for a few years and party and have enough control to stop and move on with his life and probably reduce his habit to smoking a little weed now and then...
that does NOT translate to most other people being able to do the same thing.
Quite the opposite, there are millions of people who’s lives are in the toilet because of recreational drug use.
And it has been a nwo operation to PUSH drugs on sheeple, that they see as slaves and worthless and they love killing them occasionally by the millions.
And nwo (financial elites) has been doing this for centuries.
Are you a dope dealer ?
Are you working for new world order (Open Society, et.al.) ?
Or are you just not able to understand yet that nwo-imposed tryannical policing is evil, nwo-induced recreational drug use is evil, but legitimate policing is a good thing ?
And they do so despite anti-drug laws and tyrannical police methods. The only demonstrable effect of those laws is to enrich criminals, with all the ills that have sprung from that. Anyone undeterred by the risk of wasting their life away and destroying their mind is equally undeterred by the much remoter chance of the much lower penalty of imprisonment.
We have chosen through our elected representatives to pick up that check - we should reverse that poor choice, not use it as an excuse for further restrictions of freedom.
In addition our society is becoming more violent
Using pot doesn't make one violent (although sometimes violence-prone people use pot). Pot criminalization does put financial resources in the pockets of violent criminals.
While most everything does affect someone else, some are positive. Drug abuse is nothing but a negative over the long haul.
The only negative effects that are the proper business of government are violations of rights. Drug use is not in general a violation of rights, except when it renders one unable to meet one's responsibilities to one's minor children - and banning drugs for ALL users including childless ones is not the answer to that violation.
Drug abuse is a two sided coin in which both sides leave us with lost freedoms. No matter which side the coin lands on we lose. If we try to force non usage we lose, and if we legalize it we also lose.
The coin analogy fails - we already have both force and drug use. Anyone undeterred by the inherent risks of drug use is equally undeterred by the much remoter chance of the much lower penalty of imprisonment.
I’m not advocating prison sentences for end-users, just fines.
It does not make much sense to put drug users on the public dole - which is what prison is.
The enrichment of “criminals” goes all the way to the top - the financial elites of the world, including the British monarchy and US elites; the elites of the major countries, notably Russia and China, as well as European countries.
Those are the biggest criminals at the top; much of the world’s wealth revolves around drugs, both legal and illegal. The illegal piece requires money-laundering on a scale of billions, ergo elite finance can and does take its cut - the business ONLY can exist at their pleasure.
No doubt since this is becoming more and more public, we see a strong push for legalization from the camp of financial elites. We also see strong pushes to regulate internet speech, which could be used to squash any criticism of governments and financial elites who “back” them.
If internet free speech disappears in the West, the precious “drug legalization” push of the unwitting “libertarians” could be at risk, as the elites may prefer to keep drugs illegal as their profits on illegal businesses are not reported for taxation.
Once world government really takes hold, recreational drugs can then be legalized as a means of killing people on scale of millions through a combination of epidemics of all sorts (mental as well as physical conditions) and government-mandated “cures” of drugs, which, under more global governance, would find ubiquitous forced administration worldwide, especially once Americans are disarmed.
If the elites did not completely control governments, they could not run the recreation drug scheme with tax-evaded profits, so they make sure the scheme is big enough and it includes the political ruling families of major nations, so ensure they will not be held accountable in any meaningful way.
Sounds to me like an argument for legalizing, and turning those fines into taxes.
Once world government really takes hold, recreational drugs can then be legalized as a means of killing people on scale of millions through a combination of epidemics of all sorts (mental as well as physical conditions) and government-mandated “cures” of drugs
Legalization wouldn't much increase those options - as I said, anyone undeterred by the risk of wasting their life away and destroying their mind is equally undeterred by the much remoter chance of the much lower penalty of imprisonment.
Of course, what I am advocating is much broader than drugs; our problems are mostly caused by the elite war criminals at the top of the financial elite, who have for centuries been the masters of governments (notably the major world powers) by embedding their minions within those governments.
Until those elites at the top are purged, we’re still enslaved by them and living in a fantasy world they “manage” for us.
They love it—it’s like vodka was to the Soviet Union.
Marketing sells product.
Recreational drugs, if legalized, would not innocently have “no effect” on society.
They would increasingly screw up more and more people.
Which is a highly profitable business. You know, screwing people up then having them or an insurance provider or the government pay someone to unscrew them up. You know, even if the unscrewing never really happens.
The husband of a women I know was an ex-drug addict then made A LOT of money for years as an addiction counselor.
It’s big business.
I’ve also seen young relatives get sucked into the recreational drug world. Drugs lead to pregnant, party, friends, drugs, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.
Legalizing recreational drugs would not stop the cycle of idiocy.
And, oddly enough, the pharma industry is controlled by the same elites.
To them, it’s just a matter of which of their businesses records the revenue.
And, mind you, there will always be illegal drugs, because legalizing them will NOT be a free-for-all.
It will be FDA control.
So there will be a HOT HOT HOT market for illegal drugs that are “too dazzling” to get FDA approval.
Just go to clubs in the big city, and you’ll be able to score these “underground” drugs.
Meanwhile, in government indoctrination schools, when the kids of druggie parents get all friendly with GOOD KIDS and convince them to try some drugs, the parents of the good kids will be even more powerless to keep their kids lives from going down the toilet. You know, cuz recreational drugs are legal; there’s nothing wrong with it, you know. In fact - IT’S A RIGHT. The good kids have a right to be screwed up by drugs if they decide with the help of their friends that they want to dabble in getting high to “relieve all their stress” from their “too-strict parents”.
Marketing sells product.
I could support tight restrictions on drug advertising.
Danged guns. They walked out there and killed innocent people again.
And so there’s gonna be a rush from certain crowds to put the blame mostly or in some cases solely on the gun and other crowds doing the same thing with the drugs. Maybe it’s just me but I am just truly tired of inanimate objects of any kind being given the blame for people’s actions and conduct and refusal to treat each other in a decent manner.
The violence comes from the suppliers all along the chain. There is user on user violence as well. Particularly when one user has, and another user doesn't, but wants it. User violence upon non-user violence when the user needs the money the non-user has. There have been numerous instances of this documented by law enforcement, not to mention reality TV shows such as The First 48, even for pot.
The costs I was referring to are not the interdiction and incarceration, as I already said I was not in favor of continuing the WOD which I agree is a failure. Instead I was referring to the costs associated with higher healthcare costs. The losses sustained from robberies to support habits. The damages to property incurred by impaired individuals, including alcohol, and not just limited to vehicles. As well as deaths either unintentionally, intentionally, and in a blackout state where the offender does not know what they are doping because of their impairment.
I disagree that imbibing in drugs, alcohol, etc. is a right. Perhaps you can point to where in the Constitution, or even the Bill of Rights where that it is stated that Americans have the right to use drugs recreationally, and that right shall not be infringed. Freedoms require responsibility to ensure those freedoms are not lost. Do you see many acting responsibly? I see very little, especially within each new emerging generation. Instead they think freedom means they have a right to do whatever they want, but that is not what freedom is really about. That is how freedoms are lost.
The coin analogy only fails when one doesn't understand it perhaps, but the coin represents on one side interdiction and incarceration (WOD & the use of force), while the other side represents unfettered drug usage, without fear of force being used to control drug usage. Either side of the coin creates results fraught with many problems within a society plagued by excessive drug usage, and the costs are not limited to just financial ones.
My question wasn't posed in order to support the WOD, but rather discuss what others might think is a solution or even if there is a solution. In addition, which side of the coin, back to my analogy, preserves our freedoms or if we are not just trading some freedoms for other freedoms. In other words, do we lose freedoms in either scenario.
We give up our freedoms, when something affects us adversely, and we naively believe that someone, whether that someone be inside or outside the government, has a good solution. Of course that solution will require it be administered by government at either the state or federal level. We do this because we either do not see the pitfalls they contain, or refuse to believe our government will abuse the powers bestowed upon them. At the same token, if we ignore a problem it very rarely goes away. In fact it usually gets worse. Which have the potential of affecting freedoms.
Do you see the conundrum? Drug usage is a lose-lose activity for all of society, no matter which course we had chosen to take. We now see the freedoms lost taking the WOD approach that most if not all failed to see when it was started. If we now take the opposite approach can we regain those freedoms lost, or will it ultimately result in further loss of freedoms that we presently cannot see? Are we jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or will we regain freedoms lost?
Typing is an auto-pilot activity for a lot of people. If you’re more used to typing -ases rather than -auses, then -ases will come right out of your brain. I continually spell rabbit “rabbie” every time, no matter what, and I’ve been a typist for 40 years. Why it happens, who the heck knows. But news organizations should have more proofreaders instead of relying on spell check. The Breitbart site, I’m afraid, is one of the worst offenders. Every article has typos and grammatical errors.
Also the brain tends to see what you think you wrote, rather than what you did write. I can remember in English class being asked by the teacher to read something from a book, and then instructing me to read it two more times. I read it the same way each time thinking what a kook she is. After the 3rd time she pointed out my error to me. Up until that time I had no idea I was substituting one word for another. So in that case I was seeing what I wanted to see instead of what was actually there. I think the mind tends to lock into certain things at times.
As was true of the alcohol trade when that drug was illegal and is no longer true because that drug is now legal.
User violence upon non-user violence when the user needs the money the non-user has.
Legalization would lower prices and thus motive to rob.
We have chosen through our elected representatives to pick up that check - we should reverse that poor choice, not use it as an excuse for further restrictions of freedom.
I was referring to the costs associated with higher healthcare costs.
So was I.
The losses sustained from robberies to support habits.
Legalization would lower prices and thus motive to rob.
The damages to property incurred by impaired individuals, including alcohol, and not just limited to vehicles. As well as deaths either unintentionally, intentionally, and in a blackout state where the offender does not know what they are doping because of their impairment.
Those go up under legalization only if use goes up; there's little reason to expect that, since anyone undeterred by the inherent risks of drug use is equally undeterred by the much remoter chance of the much lower penalty of imprisonment.
Perhaps you can point to where in the Constitution, or even the Bill of Rights where that it is stated that Americans have the right to use drugs recreationally, and that right shall not be infringed.
Rights are not created by the Constitution but derive from our natures as reasoning free-willed individuals. As Jefferson wrote, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
And the Constitution gives the federal government no authority over drug transactions that occur within the borders of a single state.
the other side represents unfettered drug usage, without fear of force being used to control drug usage. Either side of the coin creates results fraught with many problems
No, the problems of drug use already exist under drug criminalization and will exist under any government policy. To repeat, anyone undeterred by the inherent risks of drug use is equally undeterred by the much remoter chance of the much lower penalty of imprisonment.
When alcohol was re-legalized, the percentage of consumers shot up, and abuse of the substance increased. The abuse magnified dysfunction within the family structure causing greater erosion of families. So while legalization may have stopped one contributor of violence, it opened the door to another. Regular citizens who become dependent upon alcohol, and abuse it to a destructive point. Destructive not only to themselves but others around them. That contributor has taken a far greater toll on our society by creating more people who require assistance. Battered wives need assistance to escape husbands. Abused children grow up to be adults with whom we might fear depending upon the level of physical or mental abuse they endured. I'm sure other examples could be summoned up as well to expand that list
There are always trade-offs, and often times we are unable to identify the negative aspects are until we make a decision and time passes. Perhaps it will take enough time for you to have a more enjoyable life, and the negative results will not be exposed and impacting society until your children are adults or maybe even your grandchildren. Just as the decision to attack drug usage via the WOD proved to be bad, I think we, or our surviving relatives, will learn over time that allowing unfettered access to drugs will be as bad if not worse.
Everything really depends upon whether the drug usage and abuse grows significantly, as it did with alcohol, or stays the same or declines. Initially we won't notice the long term affects. If it declines, then it will be a big success, however, I honestly doubt that is what will happen. Portugal has been experimenting with decriminalization that so far appears to be positive but will it continue to be a reality or just an illusion. Time will tell.
With regards to your statement: We have chosen through our elected representatives to pick up that check - we should reverse that poor choice, not use it as an excuse for further restrictions of freedom.
You make it sound as if that is easy to obtain, and once obtained many problems will be eliminated. Well, I certainly do my part as I am sure you do as well, however, neither you nor I can control the others who thwart our attempts. If they would listen to only you or I then we would be successful. If they even listened to the majority, we might be successful. I helped to oust Mary Landrieu but I know getting rid of just her is not the solution. It helps, but only by a small degree. Collectively we even got the Senate to go Republican majority. So far we haven't noticed any real change, or arguably any change at all. Hopefully we will in time, and the shorter the better. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Let me end by saying that my reason for starting this discussion, was not to promote one idea over another. Rather it was to say that decisions have consequences. The majority of people thought the WOD was the correct approach at the time it was started. Time has shown it to not only be ineffective, but costly even beyond the financial aspect. What should be the replacement? What can we see as the negatives that might arise, especially in the long-term. Will next decision create an even worse problem? This is not something to be taken so lightly as we may be making it even worse. In other words it was purely for discussion purposes only.
That hasn't happened with alcohol, which proves that it's not inevitable.
When alcohol was re-legalized, the percentage of consumers shot up, and abuse of the substance increased.
Not so: "alcohol consumption [...] did not increase substantially immediately following the repeal of Prohibition." - Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition, Jeffrey A. Miron; Jeffrey Zwiebel, The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, (May, 1991), pp. 242-247
And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% while remaining legal.
Just as the decision to attack drug usage via the WOD proved to be bad, I think we, or our surviving relatives, will learn over time that allowing unfettered access to drugs will be as bad if not worse.
Framing the discussion entirely in terms of "negative effects" pushes off the table the question that conservatives must ask: what is the proper authority of government to address those effects?
With regards to your statement: We have chosen through our elected representatives to pick up that check - we should reverse that poor choice, not use it as an excuse for further restrictions of freedom.
You make it sound as if that is easy to obtain
Not at all - but it's the conservative approach.
I share that position, if that is indeed your position.
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.