Illegal pot replaced illegal booze and profited Hearst's paper and the lumber industry even though hemp was replaceable in weeks not years like trees.
Posted on 03/26/2011 12:31:16 AM PDT by neverdem
decriminalize drugs?
A line has been drawn. Why can’t alcohol be enough?
Alcohol is the ONLY drug that should be illegal if we are going to have a War on Drugs. Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug ever unleashed onto Mankind. There is no comparison between Alcohol and other Controlled Substances.
Alcohol kills 10 times more people every year than ALL controlled substances combined.
This entire thread is for drug libertarians, got that. For the record, I believe certain drugs were made illegal for a reason, mainly due to destructive effects upon the user.
FWIW I was subject to random urinalysis for thirty plus years active & reserve military. I don’t do the stuff so I came up cold every time.
Question: what effect would across the board legalization-with-taxation have on just one segment of illegal drugs, which is crystal meth? Would the meth labs wither on the vine? Would living skeleton meth users just disappear?
Just curious.
You’d think our coke snorting, pot selling President would agree.
You’d think our coke snorting, pot selling President would agree.
One of the (usually unstated) assumptions of the drug warriors here on FR is that America is just chock full of would be drug users who are only deterred by the law.
That if drugs were decriminalized, everyone up and down your block - and mine - would rush out to stone themselves into a frenzy or a stupor (depending upon the chemical of choice).
I don't buy that argument, and I submit that if this is true, we have a much bigger problem in this country than whether or not some drugs are illegal.
To your point, if we legalized meth, my guess is that over time the percent of Americans who are meth users might go up, or go down, by a statistically insignificant amount.
The so-called "War on Drugs" was never about eliminating the production, sale and use of narcotics. It was about developing an entire goverment-run industry that would employ millions of people in law enforcement, court systems, corrections, etc.
I mean, you didn't really thing the "War on Poverty" was about eliminating poverty, did you?
The problem is not drug USE, or Alcohol USE, it is ABUSE.
Same is true of GUNS.
I once thought that the “war” on drugs was guaranteeing public safety, but the more one looks at it, the more it resembles Prohibition on steroids. The responsibility belongs to the states anyway.
I guess I'm a loser . . . I can't stand that taste of beer, wine gives me a headache and anything harder makes me nauseous.
One where they make their own choices and deal with the consequences.
The fundamental, original reason there IS a "War on Drugs" is that EVERYONE ELSE deals with the consequences. IF you have not recognized that you have never lived where hard drugs are rampant.
This article is total simplistic generalizing garbage. Some drugs ARE legal, e.g. caffeine, codeine, barbiturates, some drugs are not, e.g. many opiates, some only with a physicians prescription.
It is a complicated issue. And to any honest reader this article is just an oversimplified, self rationalization. Yes, marijuana, MAY be improperly targeted in the US, but the Netherlands which in the past had generally taken the permissive approach now has reversed itself.
"Drugs" ARE a social problem. There is NO way "legalizing" some of them (whichever ones this article unilaterally declares as appropriate) is going to reduce government or social financial commitment, any more than "legalizing" alcohol and tobacco has eliminated the ATF or FDA.
If this article wanted to be legitimate it would be very specific about which specific "drugs" it wanted regulations to be altered, and how.
It is this kind of simplistic, self aggrandizing garbage that makes Free Republic a target.
Just because your school has had a loosing basketball team, you don’t do away with basketball. You get a better coach and recruit better players. It is quite easy to win the war if it was fought correctly.
Another visible result of WOD (I assume you are referring to drug testing) is a zero-tolerance military on the matter of illegal drugs. Strike one and you’re out, or it’s supposed to be.
And I’m not a hardliner on urinalysis because I am having to prove my innocence every time I get `selected’ because of the morons who are doing the stuff (well, actually I am) but I did serve as a permanent member of an administrative separation board for several years. The board is conducted like a trial; defense vs prosecution, witnesses. The prosecution consists of positive test results from command directed urinalysis. Defense consists of the biggest collection of phony excuses for popping hot that I have ever heard. Only a unit commander or first sergeant hears more. If it’s a first time, the board might recommend retention over separation. Yes, show up on time in proper uniform, beg forgiveness, promise you’ll never do it again, that actually works most of the time.
I just do not think that legalization will reduce drug abuse because it’s no longer forbidden fruit. As for alcohol, we’ve already tried banning it. Tobacco use is becoming marginalized IMO. Can’t even smoke in your own home if kids are present.
IOW, stupid people do stupid things and the law steps in when their stupidity has an impact upon others.
Would like to know just one thing: why is marijuana smoke less harmful to the lungs than tobacco smoke?
It is all about the money. The prison guards are a union. To them a prisoner is worth way more in jail then on the street free and consuming drugs.
“I’m certainly not a fan of compulsory education in government schools.”
I really meant “drug education,” etc.
The stoners think we should legalize drugs but then don’t want to be taken off the teat so when they screw up their lives they have to pay the price themselves.
I’m a big fan of narco-Darwinism.
Illegal pot replaced illegal booze and profited Hearst's paper and the lumber industry even though hemp was replaceable in weeks not years like trees.
At least you and others do admit that yes, you are a loser.
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.