Posted on 09/22/2003 10:07:00 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:21:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It sounds radical. Even more so when it comes from a former narcotics cop.
But Jack Cole, a retired detective lieutenant with the New Jersey State Police, says the nation's 33-year "war on drugs" is a failure and the only way to really save lives, reduce addiction and lessen crime is to make drugs legal.
(Excerpt) Read more at azcentral.com ...
Not really. Some of our founding fathers were daily opium and laudanum users. They used to sell opium on grocery store shelves before being outlawed in the early 1900's. People weren't walking around in a zombie-like state in the streets of America, however.
The chinese have used opium since recorded history and some have attribute this to their general longevity.
The use of drugs such as opium and coca (cocaine derivitives) is older than literature. Not to mention the various psychedelics that Native Americans, Aborginals, Africans, etc have used for centuries.
"Drugs", of which can be defined as almost everything one eats, smokes or drinks ... is almost as old as the totality of history itself.
A return to "non-use" is perhaps unrealistic, but by no means is the toothpaste out of the tube.
Compare this to alcohol, where 185 million people have tried it, and 110 million have used it in the last month. There's toothpaste.
Accountablility...responsibility... such old fashioned words. I guess they'll soon be removed from Websters. I mean, we can't expect THIS society to hold to such truths... we might hurt someones wittle feelings.
"Today, an addict would sue the local drug store and the drug manufacturer, while at the same time receiving free medical care and a government sponsored drug rehabilitation program."
While I probably already know the answer.. would you support such action? If you were an attorney, would you represent this addict? If he/she were your son or daughter, would you help them carry the banner..go on camera pleading for money for your addicted child? As a member of a jury, would you actually be suckered into this?
Call me crazy... I still believe in We The People. I'm really tired of the dumbing down of America... why must we always cater to the lowest common denominator????? Is it a 'math' thing i just don't get? Ya'll are smart..even you WODies... help me out here!
slumping off my soap box...
People weren't walking around in a zombie-like state in the streets of America, however. That was the point.
The chinese have used opium since recorded history and some have attribute this to their general longevity. This is why I was careful to refer not to mankind but to this culture. It well may be, and I too usually point that out as uou did, the equilibrium in Chinese culture is opposite.
Regardless of that matter, however, this does not apply to this culture.
"Drugs", of which can be defined as almost everything Surely. Bread can be (re)defined as anything as well. We can agree to refer to a particular kind of paper as "bread;" or to tanks; or to buildings.
The question is not of syntax here but of semantics. Drugs are substances used for medical intervention. Only recently was the other meaning added to the dictionaries.
If you want to respond for someone else, fine, be my guest. But answer the question as posed, not some unrelated rant.
That's my only point.
but by no means is the toothpaste out of the tube.
What do you mean by that? I meant no more than that a return to "non-use" is unrealistic.
Non sequitur. Assumes, as liberals do, that government acts solely in the best interest of the citizenry.
And even if it were, so what?
Criminal activity is out of the tube as well. We have tens of millions of people that are either currently in prison or have been there. Should we now abandon laws? This argument is ridiculous prima facie.
What does MrLeRoy think marijuana is, atomic bomb? It can be put into that box whence it came.
You don't suppose the rise in crime has anything to do with a large immigration influx of 3rd worlders during the same period do you?
How many abused it last month? How many of you (we) ignored or even condoned a loved ones abuse, leaving that 'dirty little secret' alone? I'd love to know the unbiased truth... tho I can't imagine how one could possibly come up with the numbers.
I'm going to avoid climbing on my soapbox again... I just wanted to again make my point that there is a huge difference between use and abuse, IMHO of course.
Unlike marijuana laws, laws against murder, theft, etc. punish violations of individual rights.
What does MrLeRoy think marijuana is, atomic bomb?
If you want to know what I think, try asking me.
It can be put into that box whence it came.
Provide evidence for your claim. I'll bet Prohibitionists said the same of alcohol.
Do you think we should use these personal experiences to generalize history?
IIRC, he said users, not abusers. Moot point, since he retracted his claim in post #82.
DennisW has rigorously demonstrated that you committed an error. WHat you said was not true --- and does not become true from mere repetition: the person that wants drugs for the first time will have to expand a considerable effort to find them. It is also more risky in this case, for he may even ask a wrong person.
Perhaps, DennisW has used too strong of a word calling it a lie? It is clear from the context that he did not call you a liar but referred to a myth that you repeated as a lie. When a falsehood is knowingly and deliberately expressed, it is a lie by definition.
No one decides to do heroin on the spur of the moment. Such simplistic treatment is not worthy of a comment.
Your example is moronic, as usual.
Now, there was nothing in DennisW's post that called for this.
Sure they can. Heroin demand increased because of purity. Thus, it can be snorted rather than injected.
How do you explain MDA and MDMA? New drugs, new demand.
With marijuana and cocaine legal, I would expect increased competition for the illegal drugs. Lower price, increased demand.
Sell that "they can't create demand" line of bull$hit to someone else.
The first time I used drugs was from a friend's offer---very little effort. And the first time I bought was from a person I already knew to be a user---also very little effort.
"Hobby"??
Cut it out, nobody has that much time to devote to a "hobby."
No.
...such acts clearly qualify as a calling.
Sure they can. Heroin demand increased because of purity. Thus, it can be snorted rather than injected.
Provide evidence that heroin demand increased. And even if this is true, what else could heroin dealers do to further increase demand---and how can dealers of noninjected drugs increase demand?
How do you explain MDA and MDMA? New drugs, new demand.
So most pot dealers are skilled chemists?
With marijuana and cocaine legal, I would expect increased competition for the illegal drugs. Lower price, increased demand.
With far and away the most popular drug relegalized, there is no reason to believe price-slashing would increase the market for the rest enough to provide work for most marijuana dealers.
This guy came here with an agenda which has nothing to do with the thread. He has an obsessive hatred for freedom and freedom loving people. On every thread on every subject every day. He is nothing if not predictable.
As to the point, if you want to try to nit pick the statement with some (bizarre disctinction without a difference) far out scenerio it shows that you cannot really argue the point.
The truth is, the WOD is a failure and people who want drugs can get them readily, and do.
I'm in downtown Chicago and I'll bet there are hundreds of outlets for illegal drugs within two blocks of me. And I'm in the business section. They are also readily available even the the most upscale suburbs.
Some of the folks here think that most drugs are sold by gangbangers in projects. Nothing could be more absurd.
Just for the record, I have never used an illegal drug in my life.
Not the point, but you know that.
When people like Jack Cole make the claim that we'd be better off legalizing, regulating, controling, and taxing marijuana -- and point to alcohol as a model -- I've got to call them on it.
It's not keeping alcohol away from teens, despite the fact that it's harder for them to obtain than marijuana. Legalizing a drug brings legitimacy to the product, as evidenced by both alcohol and tobacco.
IMO, legalizing marijuana will increase use, especially among teens.
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.