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 ...
Ya think? Gosh, I never knew I was "called" to do it. Maybe it's divine inspiration.
I work in Schaumburg and I don't know anyone who wanted drugs but couldn't find them.
Agreed, but the semantics have been diluted. Are drugs only used for medical invtervention? I'm not sure.
Schedule I drugs are prohibited for such use. And we would have to believe that nicotine is not a drug since it has no approved medical use (other than for nicotine withdrawl).
When a doctor gives a shot of B12 or Iron tablets to an anemeic pateint, has that patient been given a drug? How about a grandparent drinking their evening Chamomile tea? Drug, herb, food?
I think the term is commonly used for "psychoactive drugs" ... but then again,we run into problems. Wheat Gluten has been showed to be a very profound psychoactive susbtance, especially in people with Autism. Sugar and chocolate both have psychoactive properties. How about the neutotoxic effects of Monosodium-Glutamate which is found in just about every snack food ans fast food sold to our children today. How about the demethylization of Asperatame into formaldehyde in a person's body every time they drink a Diet Coke? Are these drugs, foods, both?
So to clarify the above, do we then redefine drugs as susbstances with "debilitating psychoactive properties"?
Well, pretty much anything in sufficent quantities will produce this as well. Caffeinism is well documented in medical literature. Narcotic consumption by tolerant individuals will induce no perceptable difference in the mental state of that individual.
Basically, everyday we all consume drugs. Be it in our coffee, cigarettes, our Big Mac, our soft drinks, our cigarattes, our beer, our herbal teas, pick a food, and you can most likely trace an effect, even a psychoactive one to it. The rise of Attention Deficit Disorder, Autism, and other behavioral disorders in our children can be traced more to what is in our children's lunchtime diets, than what the playground drug dealer is trying to push.
Syntax and semantics of what is an isn't a "drug" is indeed a valid question.
P.S. Please excuse my typos and gramatical errors. I am trying to respond very quickly without proofreading :-)
Sure it is---the teen alcohol-use-to-marijuana-use ratio is 2.5 times less than that for adults.
Hard to imagine that people actually would argue that illegal substances are difficult to find. They live in a different world than the real one.
Easy to notice however that they would break out a scenerio like the fictional one they did to argue the point. It shows what lengths they must go to to oppose the obvious.
Both. When a substance, whether natural or man-made is used for medicinal purposes, it becomes a drug. That is what the word means. Chamomile is a flower --- until you make tea out of it and use not just to satisfy thirst (that would make it food) but to induce sleep, for instance.
There is nothing unique here. A nife is not by itsels a weapon but becomes such when used for the correspondign purpose. The words, such as "drug" and "weapon," refer not only to the substance or object but also their utilization.
Sorry.
I'll make you a deal. Let's fix the socialism problems first, then we can talk about drug legalization. Wouldn't that make sense?
To paraphrase Ann Coulter: "It's not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws. We live in a Nanny State that takes care of us from cradle to grave and steals half our income."
"(We should be working on) eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax."
My definition of an absurd idea is legalizing drugs first, then trying to end the drug-bloated social programs. Good luck with that, but by then, what would you care -- you're high on drugs.
Why stop at that sentence? LOL
Take deep breaths and count to ten.
Let's fix them both instead of setting one right as the enemy of another.
Robert,
What you say may be true (i'm not sure, but it may be). However, based on the medical literature and research available to me, IF marijuana were made legal at any point, I would prefer my child experiment with that more than alcohol. I would rather them abstain from both, but given one or the other, I am afraid that I would have to prefer the lesser intoxicant. One which in all likelihood would make the child lazy and apathetic verses one which instills a state of "liquid courage". I would rather him be in the basement watching re-reuns of Ren and Stimpy while eating a box of twinkies than running around town fueled on alcohol. More crimes of aggression, vandalism, and acts which are more likely to cause bodily harm are made under the influence of the Alcohol.
I am not convinced that children shifting their attention to marijuana instead of alchohol would be such a bad thing.
Of course, we all know that both are currently readily available, and the use of both are on the rise.
I'm not sure if the legalization arguement is even relevant at this point. Most studies show they are both readily (and almost equally) available.
"Unrestricted distribution by physicians and pharmacies created an enormous drug abuse problem; in 1924 federal narcotics officials estimated that there were 200,000 addicts in the United States, and the deputy police commissioner of New York reported that 94 percent of all drug addicts arrested for various crimes were heroin users. The growing dimensions of heroin addiction finally convinced authorities that heroin's liabilities outweighed its medical merits, and in 1924 both houses of Congress unanimously passed legislation outlawing the import or manufacture of heroin."
-- drugtext.org, Heroin: The History of a "Miracle Drug"
Take deep breaths and count to ten. Getting arrogant, aren't we?
Sure do. It's what I'm all about. And so were the founders, that's why we had the form of government we did. (see the ninth amendment)
Shall we go into the "rights" and powers tutorial again? For the 50th time?
Good luck with that, but by then, what would you care -- you're high on drugs.
Ah, the last hiding place for the cowardly liars who have no arguments left. Accuse someone falsely, attack the messenger. Yawn.
BTW, ever use an illegal substance? C'mon don't lie like you just did, tell the truth if you are capable.
Get out of their: they are are garbage. And don't fight the negative in your child that much: instill the positive. The negative becomes only a problem when you leave vacuum in a child. And you will if you continue to look under your feet at a garbage dump.
That ain't all you don't have a clue about. The reference was to your correcting a very few of your errors. The post was rife with them. Just a little humor son.
Your posts get increasingly disconnected from anything previously said.
Directly connected to your partial correction.
Getting arrogant, aren't we?
Arrogance is when a few "annointed" people think they can make society better by using force to violate basic rights for the "common good". It's the epitome of arrogance.
Get out of their: they are are garbage. And don't fight the negative in your child that much: instill the positive. The negative becomes only a problem when you leave vacuum in a child. And you will if you continue to look under your feet at a garbage dump.
Being that Heroin was one of only a few drugs recognized as "addictive" at this point, this comes as no suprise.
It didn't say that 94% of all drug crimes were committed by drug addictions, but that 94% who happened to be "addicts" used Heroin. There is a very large distinction here.
If you dig insto that statistic, you will so how truly misleading it is to the arguement as a whole. This is like saying "94% of all cigratte smokers who committed crimes were addicted to nicotine". While the statement could technically be true, it makes no real correlation to crime in general.
There is no real evidence the the legal and market cost availability of narcotics has had any effect on crime, postitive or negative.
Workers were not killing each other in the fields of China as they chewed opium from sunup to sundown. Now were many of our family fathers and national heroes impaired for engaging in this same practice.
"Reefer Madness" or "Opium Madness" in societies are well known political phenomenons. I'm not sure how much merit they have ... but you can find an abundance of articles to support both sides.
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.