The drug war vs. the war on terror

Chicago Tribune ^ | December 13, 2001 | Steve Chapman

[CrossCheck]

On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.

[Texaggie79]

I support legalized POT!

[realpatriot71]

Think "proof-read" . . . sheesh :-)

[BJClinton]

I could make you go away by invoking my right to Freep in a low ignorance, nonsense free environment.

Well put. Bravo. *applause* etc.

[Texaggie79]

They are STILL threats, and not actual HARM. So your line of reasoning that no threat can be prevented is off. So it is up to the people of each state to decide when something is TOO much of a threat, and if not protected by the constitution, they can prohibit it.

[Texaggie79]

Only a fool thinks that hard drug users are good responsible people.

[Texaggie79]

GHB is iffy with me. Some studies show that there could be medical benefit, and if proven so, I can see legalizing it for prescription. But the drug itself is far too dangerous to allow all citizens unlimited access to it.

[Texaggie79]

Liberals say the same thing about gun owners.

They have the pesky 2nd to deal with. What Amendment guarantees personal ownership of crack?

[LazarusX]

Texaggie79 has a very definite and effective formula for determining the difference between "hard drugs" and "soft drugs".
Drugs that Texaggie79 has not personally used (opium, LSD, etc.) = "Hard Drugs".
Drugs that Texaggie79 has personally used (alcohol, marijuana, psyllocybin, etc) = "Soft Drugs".

Is this true? If so, you're way off base putting psylocybin and LSD in different categories. The effects are pretty much the same. LSD just lasts a few hours longer.
Maybe you had experience with a moron that used LSD. In my experience it's very useful for a reasonably bright person, but stupid people abuse it to the point they fry themselves, or just do stupid things while on it. I personally know someone who took it and wandered into someones home. This guy was an idiot to begin with and made himself even dumber with the drug. He doesn't even understand he did something wrong. I look forward to the courts dealing with this fool. There isn't a problem with the drug, just stupid people.

[Texaggie79]

They have made themselves into FR's town clowns.

LMAO!!!!!!!! This from the most hated member of FR. Shall I ping you HATE list LMAO you are hilarious.

[BJClinton]

While sober, people are quite capable of driving responsibly.

When was the last time you drove in Austin?

[Polonius]

The decision should be that of the people of each state.

We're in agreement, then. In a sane world, the people of each state would have the right to decide for themselves. Of course, I'm still not convinced that these drugs are really more dangerous than alcohol (as I said, it would take a comparison of all users to all users who commit crimes). Also, I wouldn't qualify any of the hallucinogens as hard drugs, though that's partially out of personal bias. Still, it's nice to see we can actually agree on some things.

[Texaggie79]

I support the legalization of pot. And of course Jesus drank wine that contained alcohol. He never got INTOXICATED! And strictly stated that drinking to INTOXICATION is a sin. But as for simply drinking it, the Bible even TELLS us to drink wine to help our stomachs.

[Texaggie79]

I think he's a Libertarian at heart, and is strugglin' with it.

Funny you say that. I was a Libertarian in my younger days, when I smoked pot. I thought there was nothing wrong with a little coke, smack, lsd, ect. And I couldn't stand that the government was dictating what people did in their own houses. However, after experiencing all the side effects and seeing the destruction, it became absolutely apparent to me the destruction our society would face if CVS pharmacy had these substances on it's shelves. Drugs don't just hurt the user, and if they did, I would have no problem with legalizing them.

[Texaggie79]

Who takes drugs against their will???

Wrong question. Who suffers from drug users? That is the question. Children, family, neighbors, and society at large.

[LazarusX]

GHB is iffy with me. Some studies show that there could be medical benefit, and if proven so, I can see legalizing it for prescription. But the drug itself is far too dangerous to allow all citizens unlimited access to it.

It's not dangerous if used responsibly. Stupid people use way too much or mix it with alcohol and put themselves at risk. I feel it's wrong to allow the government to criminalize responsible Americans, and cause drugs to be of questionable purity and unknown dosage because a few fools try to take themselves out of the gene pool.
Should we ban guns because of the small minority of gun owners who do stupid things? I don't think so. In the case of both non-addictive drugs and guns I think we should allow adults to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. If they hurt someone crack down hard.

[FreeTally]

They are STILL threats, and not actual HARM.

YOU said they were RISKS, which I responded saying that you do not have a right to live your life risk free. I specifically stated that THE THREAT OF FORCE is a crime. Your neighbor pointing a loaded gun at you is a THREAT OF FORCE. Stop misquoting me.

You know, I specifically remember YOU being part of a thread where this SPECIFIC TOPIC was discussed - why do you always act as if you are bringing up new, fresh arguments when you have been thoroughly laughed off dozens of threads on this topic?

So your line of reasoning that no threat can be prevented is off.

I said RISKS can not be prevented. Now you are changing MY argument for me, and I do not take kindly to that.

So it is up to the people of each state to decide when something is TOO much of a threat, and if not protected by the constitution, they can prohibit it.

Nothing that is a threat is protected by the constitution - and no one has ever said it was. A threat is a violation of rights. A threat has to be specific and directed at a specific individual or group of people. To constitute a threat, there must be means, opportunity and direct action. Drug use does not constitute a threat, no matter how much you want to believe it does. It does not pass the test.

[Texaggie79]

Drugs, even if they become legal will never be seen as normal.

Name one product on the shelves at a store that you would be seen as an outcast for buying? Seeing it day after day normalizes it. Why do you think that the homosexuals make all these propaganda movies? You see it over and over again, and soon some people start thinking, what is so bad about it. Now they are trying to do it with pedophilia in movies like L.I.E. Normalizing it is the goal. And legalization ultimately does that for drugs.

[Texaggie79]

many people see a problem with using it.

So you think that if hard drug usage were the same as alcohol currently is, that would be a good thing?!!!!!

[Melinator]

Yes, far too dangerous. Same with alcohol. Why, just 40 oz. of tequila can easily kill a full grown adult, never mind what it might do to some poor unsuspecting toddler. Public access denied!!!

[southern rock]

They have the pesky 2nd to deal with. What Amendment guarantees personal ownership of crack?

The one that says that the BOR is NOT a list of granted rights and that rights are retained by the people. You know, some of the founding fathers were against having a BOR at all because they knew that some small minded people would assume that the enumerated rights were the only rights that existed. Guess they were right.