Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legalize ALL Drugs, Not Just Cannabis (deception)
Lady Bug ^ | 5/12/14 | ennawae McLean

Posted on 05/12/2014 8:12:34 AM PDT by mgist

MAY 12, 2014 Legalize ALL Drugs, Not Just Cannabis

IMAGE: L’Aubade, Pablo Picassso

I was entertaining a customer in our cannabis vapour lounge (420 Session) a couple days ago. We had the usual chit chat and banter about pot–what kind I like, what kind of vaporizers are best, you know, the usual. Then the War on Drugs came up, and after taking a hit from his bong, the customer (who I suppose I assumed was more open-minded, as he was a university student, studying political science hanging out in a vape lounge, consuming cannabis) said “Weed should be decriminalized, but nothing else.”

I told him I disagree. I told him I think ALL substances should be legal, not just decriminalized, and not just the helpful/harmless ones like cannabis, psilocybin, and LSD.

“Even HEROIN?!” he questioned incredulously, whispering the “heroin” part because he didn’t want anyone to overhear the taboo word.

“Especially heroin,” I replied.

That’s when the conversation turned into a one-sided debate, (at least from my perspective it was one-sided; I shoot down prohibitionists as easily as fish in a barrel). He was armed with the typical prohibitionist rhetoric: What about cartel violence and criminal element? Why should I care about a junkie?! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!

First, it’s important to understand and accept that even though most drugs are illegal right now, people still do them. Making something illegal does not make it magically go away. Some users hold down regular jobs, and get up and go to work every morning. They drive on our roads, and stand behind us in line while we are waiting for our coffee. They may even be telling you what to do all day while you are at work, or teaching your children in school. They may be running one of the largest cities in North America.

Drug use is not only reserved for the seedy, underground dealings that after-school specials from the Reagan-era would have you believe. We need to accept that drug users live among us already, and accommodate our reality. Here are 5 good reasons to consider legalizing all drugs:

Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal one. The end users are the easiest targets for police, with most suffering from serious physical and mental health issues. It’s easy to understand that dirty needles spread diseases; well that’s only part of it. Drug users also typically fail to seek out traditional health care for anything, because of the negative stigma attached to their drug use—they are afraid of being reported or turned in, and suffer alone instead. Without places like inSite, the safe-injection facility in Vancouver, users have no means to exchange dirty needles for clean ones, or educate themselves, or reach out for help when they are ready. Instead of providing them the resources they need to help themselves, we brand them criminals and force them to sort out their issues while incarcerated in a tiny cell. How is that rehabilitating them? How is that helping? Why is compassion reserved only for the sick and dying in hospitals? Ending prohibition will help these people get help and lead productive, responsible lives.

Drug use is a victimless crime, but the drug trade isn’t. Cartel and gang violence is on the rise because they have something to fight over. There are many civilian casualties in this war, and the cartels are winning, by getting help from places you wouldn’t expect. Between 2000 and 2012, The Sinaloa cartel had made a special arrangement with the US government that allowed them to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs into the US in exchange for information about rival cartels. Meanwhile, over 77000 people have died since Mexico started its War on Drugs. The authorities have all either been corrupted or intimidated by the cartels. As a result since 2012, vigilante groups made up of civilians are rising up and forming their own militias. So you have cartels fighting each other, the government, the people, and anyone who gets caught in between. This war spills into US and even Canada, because the drugs come from the cartels to our local black markets causing unneeded violence within our communities as well. Ending the prohibition will cut these cartels off at the knees, and will help stem some of the violence.

Drug prohibition gives children easier access to dangerous drugs; the children are more likely to overdose because of it. When was the last time you saw a drug dealer ask someone for their ID? The only thing a drug dealer requires is that their customer has money. Plus, dealers aren’t really concerned with the dosage; they want to sell as much as they can. They aren’t concerned with quality (which will also vary from dose to dose) unless telling you its better will guarantee their sale. Your children are not given a sterilized setting, with single-use needles and nurses available to administer and educate about the medication. Content also may vary from dosage to dosage—one may think they are purchasing a certain drug, when in fact they are purchasing a much cheaper substitute that has been cut with toxic chemicals and made in someone’s bathtub (do some reading on krokodil). In a clinical setting, opiates are rebranded as pain relievers and prescribed as Demerol to help women in labor. Amphetamines are rebranded as stimulants and prescribed as Adderall to help your kids focus. While there is no doubt that prescription pill use can lead to overuse, at least we aren’t concerned about consistency from pill to pill because it is regulated. Ending prohibition will mean there will be restricted access to children and some quality and quantity control. Drug prohibition is the new form of slavery.

Non-whites are disproportionately targeted for drug arrests, even though whites are just as likely to be in possession of, or using drugs. Mandatory minimums are imposed on crack cocaine and methamphetamine offenses, and are designed to target Blacks and Hispanics respectively. Young men and women throughout the US and Canada are locked up for non-violent drug offenses, and are officially entered into the system. The best part about getting into the system is that you are in the system for life, even after you leave prison. In the US, inmates don’t have right to vote, which means while they are incarcerated and disenfranchised, they don’t have a voice. In most states, disenfranchisement doesn’t end until after probation is complete (if it ever does). After leaving, they have to submit to regular monitoring and drug-testing (which is a huge industry in itself), and are given conditions, which for some are impossible to follow. How are these people expected to find a job they always have to say they are a felon on every application? If (and when) they fail (because the system was designed for them to), they have to start the process all over again. Some prisons are even profiting off having bodies in their beds (luckily none here in Canada anymore, but plenty in the US) and throw money at lobbying the government for stiffer sentencing and mandatory minimums to help keep them there. Prison guards make more than school teachers. Ending prohibition will give the disenfranchised a voice, and a better opportunity to lead a productive and independent life.

Drug prohibition inhibits the police from investigating violent crimes. There is no financial incentive for police to investigate murders and rapes—they don’t receive a reward, their department doesn’t get any larger, no extra jobs are created. It infringes on the art of the investigation—the romantic idea of what I think police work is—dusting fingerprints, finding clues, asking questions, getting the bad guy, that sort of thing.

In drug raids, all they need to do is knock down the door with a battering ram, no romance necessary. When crimes happen to people in the drug trade, police dismiss their case as “another drug deal gone wrong” without doing a full investigation. Look at what happened with the Waltham St. Murders in Boston in 2011 —if the police had taken the triple homicide seriously, perhaps the Boston Marathon Bombing could have been prevented. Ending prohibition will help police focus on violent criminals like rapists, pedophiles and murderers.

The drug war has been an expensive experiment costing well over a trillion dollars so far. It’s time to truly concede defeat.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: dryglegalization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
They have their deceptive talking points on display here and don't be deceived. Heroin legalization is what they have wanted all along.

Nothing is what it seems. The "war on drugs" is a farce.

1 posted on 05/12/2014 8:12:34 AM PDT by mgist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mgist

Government complicity is blatant. The US government didn’t just provide the Sinaloa cartel with an arsenal of weapons. They launder money for them, they protect them, and they have agreements for trafficking.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1?tru=K5shs#ixzz2qKIChGE2

“Drug War? American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium. U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin
Production.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-war-american-troops-are-protecting-afghan-opium-u-s-occupation-leads-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053

Obama’s bizarre use of the American military to support the Muslim Brotherhood, has been well documented by famed author Seymour Hersch.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

It isn’t so bizarre when you remember that the Muslim Brotherhood is cartel for the $multi Billion heroin trade.

It is consistent with the Justice Departments support of murderous Sinaloa cartels, providing dangerous criminals with an arsenal of weapons in Fast and Furious, was just of many offenses by the Justice Department.

Wall Street banks are laundering $billions, and are also complicit with the cartels, and they act with impunity.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

They all have blood on their hands. Many children won’t stand a chance. Take care of your families. Semper Vigilus.


2 posted on 05/12/2014 8:13:38 AM PDT by mgist (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist
Legalization of Heron would be a pro muslim pro afghan law. This would not only combine the Obama death panels but also further the muslim jehad to kill Americans.
3 posted on 05/12/2014 8:15:46 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist

The drug culture knows Daddy Weed Bucks, and the cartels he launders for are funding this campaign.

How The One Percent Will Legalize Marijuana
http://www.hightimes.com/read/how-one-percent-will-legalize-marijuana

This report from 2004 was prophetic.
http://www.aim.org/special-report/the-hidden-soros-agenda-drugs-money-the-media-and-political-power/

and if you don’t think the sociopathic megalomaniacs are low enough to go after your children think again.

George Soros’ Shocking ‘Methadone Man’ Comic Book Touts Virtues of Drug
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/08/26/george-soros-shocking-methadone-man-comic-book-touts-virtues-of-drug/


4 posted on 05/12/2014 8:18:15 AM PDT by mgist (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mgist

5 posted on 05/12/2014 8:19:04 AM PDT by mgist (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mgist

I would go so far as decriminalizing marijuana possession but no further. Few people actually go to jail for simple possession and legalization just grows government. Better to pay a $50 fine if caught than a tax every time.

As far as other drugs are concerned no F’n way.


6 posted on 05/12/2014 8:21:02 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

The contraband opium crop would be much less valuable if opium products were decriminalized.

Holland and Austria grow the opium poppy. They extract opium from poppy straw for medical purposes and use the seeds for culinary purposes.

I am so sick of government corruption, our agencies playing with cartels and bandits, and the establishment of a police state in our own country. I am tired of an illegal drug trade that destroys neighborhoods and families. I hate having a violent and de-stabilized country on our southern border.

I am willing to take chances with the addictions and deaths and bad reactions, the psychoses, that legalization would bring.

I don’t believe it would be worse than what we have now.


7 posted on 05/12/2014 8:26:02 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mgist

The WOD also make possible avenues of political corruption not possible without it. From bribes to keep cops and agents away to campaign donations to take pressure off to pure graft and coercion.

However total legalization has some un-thought out and still undiscussed consequences. For example what would this policy do to the economy of legal medicines? If everything is legal, is anything legal? Can I stock up on Oxy for when my back hurts? Can I use experimental drugs to treat my late stage cancer? What becomes of the FDA approval process?

The thing that makes pot different from hard drugs (and alcohol) is that it is probably impossible to take a fatal dose.


8 posted on 05/12/2014 8:27:48 AM PDT by The Free Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist

“Think of it as evolution in action.” — Jerry Pournelle

CC


9 posted on 05/12/2014 8:30:09 AM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist
The goal is to get younger and younger kids on drugs then profit from them as they slide down the slippery slope.

Corruption at it's finest.

10 posted on 05/12/2014 8:31:22 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist
Either we are Free, or we are slaves of the state!

We can't be both!

How dare you justify murdering US Citizens because of what drugs/medicine they choose to take!

Is it, or is it not perfectly legal to be addicted to opiates?

It is if you pay off all the king's men!

Is it, or is it not perfectly legal to be addicted to pharmaceutical amphetamines?

It is if you pay off all the king's men.


Justify again why you gladly promote a Nazi (Yes they kick in doors armed with machine guns and murder people) drug state!

T. Jefferson drafted our Constitution on Cannabis!

How evil was that?

11 posted on 05/12/2014 8:33:03 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:32 "The arrogant one will stumble and fall ; / ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

Anyone caught selling drugs ….shot within a week…..drugs would disappear fast…trying to get a kid straight has been on drugs since the age of 12 now 27 has to beautiful kids…clean two and a half years…but the dam stuff is everywhere..


12 posted on 05/12/2014 8:33:12 AM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mgist

The Federal Government should sunset all drug laws in, say, 5 years. In our system the States are the places to deal with criminal matters.


13 posted on 05/12/2014 8:35:20 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

There are functioning alcoholics and there are alcoholics who destroy their lives.

With illegal drugs part of the destruction is not the drugs themselves but the crimes addicts commit to get the drugs, the anxiety they feel about missing the next fix, the time they spend chasing the drug, the criminal record that makes it hard to find employment.

I’ve taken care of people who were addicted to legal drugs - oxycodone and benzodiazepines - who were messed up, unable to function - but I think they suffered from mental illness to begin with, and they weren’t out on the streets making life difficult for other people. They made life difficult for their parents, sure, but mental illness is going to do that anyway.

Yes, mind-altering drugs, even legal, will make some people’s lives much worse, will trigger latent psychoses in some, will cause the deaths of others.

I still think the harm to society, to our country and to our freedom, from the War on Drugs, is worse than the drugs themselves.


14 posted on 05/12/2014 8:44:45 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mgist

In 1880 there were no drug laws in America and no serious drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out??


15 posted on 05/12/2014 8:49:44 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist
In drug raids, all they need to do is knock down the door with a battering ram, no romance necessary.

The 4th Amendment was sacrificed on the alter of the war on some drugs. Meanwhile, children are drugged in school (Ritalin), and adults complaining of "depression" get doctor prescribed acid trips with daily doses of Ambien.

Tell the doctor your back hurts and they give you "hillbilly heroin" (Oxycontin). Nanny state advocates will be the death of this nation.

16 posted on 05/12/2014 8:53:49 AM PDT by SpeakerToAnimals (I hope to earn a name in battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist

As the GOP becomes more “libertarian”, there will no longer be any major resistance to the left’s culture war.

Already they have managed to switch the argument from drugs, to a “drug war”, yet the issue is legalizing all drugs and their marketing and advertising, and future drugs and drug cocktails that drug labs can develop, not reining in how law enforcement works and operates.

B6. What is the libertarian position on the “drug war”?
“That all drugs should be legalized.”

“”We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.””


17 posted on 05/12/2014 8:56:10 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

There were cases of chronic constipation and there were babies who went to sleep with a dose of soothing syrup and never woke up.

In general, you are correct.

I would also say we were a different people and a different culture then. In 1887 when Nellie Bly faked insanity, rival newspapers covered the tale of an amnesiac, deranged young woman for a week - this after her initial “episode”, before her expose. NYC was a large city even then but mental illness of that kind was rare and sensational.

Now we ethnically and religiously diverse, highly mobile, highly stimulated by the media, far more likely to experience a sense of alienation.


18 posted on 05/12/2014 9:00:13 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

The goal is to get younger and younger kids on drugs then profit from them as they slide down the slippery slope.


It’s easier for kids to buy contraband than is it to buy beer.

Legalizing drugs would make it harder for kids to get.


19 posted on 05/12/2014 9:06:10 AM PDT by Freeping Since 2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Freeping Since 2001

I don’t think it is easier for kids to get Heroin because it is illegal.


20 posted on 05/12/2014 9:12:03 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mgist

I disagree... heroin, which I have never tried (I have actually taken no illegal drug before in my life, thanks, and I live in NC, and have never been to Colorado :)), is a relatively safe drug when administered in a controlled setting, if the product is only cut with safe fillers. It’s the closet and street addicts who have serious problems with the stuff, as in overdosing.

My take on the legalization of all the drugs, is go for it. Let survival of the fittest sort things out. I might would lose family members, even, but in the end, you will refine the gene poll to those who are either unaffected by taking the drugs, or those who can apply their reason and will to resisting the temptations that lead to addiction.

Our society is already leaning so far left due to the need to take care of those in our population who would naturally thinned themselves out in earlier times. A belief in God used to help folks moderate their behaviours, but as Government and the Left have pushed religion out of the public consciousness, the daredevils run free, along with free access to food and medical care whether it be in or out of prison. Given that is cheaper to deal with them out of prison, let’em go.

It’s either this or go all the way other way. Caught with drugs, and convicted, you die, no matter your age. Period.

China virtually eliminated Opium in their own country during the early communist era, by implementing that same policy: you’re caught with Opium, you die, simple as that. Cleared up their drug problem overnight.

But the in the middle prohibitionist stance only keeps drug trafficking, and all the branch underworld elements that stem from it, as workable and manageable problems for cartels and dealers to overcome. It also feeds the public fear necessary to continue the militarization of our civilian police force, further intrusions on our property rights, and lots of dumb people getting free stuff who will never change.


21 posted on 05/12/2014 9:17:20 AM PDT by Aqua225 (Realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freeping Since 2001

I thought it interesting when some kids in Colorado, were caught with MJ in school, it was big news, oh no what a disaster the new law is.

However there was no back story, how many kids where caught with MJ prior to the new law, I suspect there were many.


22 posted on 05/12/2014 9:19:36 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

With illegal drugs part of the destruction is not the drugs themselves but the crimes addicts commit to get the drugs, the anxiety they feel about missing the next fix, the time they spend chasing the drug, the criminal record that makes it hard to find employment.


Why do we hear about people stealing to feed their illegal drug addictions, but not about people stealing to feed their legal alcohol or tobacco addictions?


23 posted on 05/12/2014 9:28:20 AM PDT by Freeping Since 2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I don’t think it is easier for kids to get Heroin because it is illegal.


Those who sell and serve alcohol have a legal livelihood to protect, and don’t want to be punished for a crime, so don’t usually sell to kids.

Those who sell heroin don’t care, and it’s just as illegal to sell to kids and to adults. In fact, the illegality makes it much more likely that a minor is actually doing the selling.


24 posted on 05/12/2014 9:28:20 AM PDT by Freeping Since 2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Aqua225
heroin, which I have never tried (I have actually taken no illegal drug before in my life, thanks, and I live in NC, and have never been to Colorado :)), is a relatively safe drug when administered in a controlled setting, if the product is only cut with safe fillers. It’s the closet and street addicts who have serious problems with the stuff, as in overdosing.

Legalizing Heroin won't change any of that, the junkies will still be doing all the same things.

As far as "survival of the fittest" and thinning the herd, why would that happen, legalization won't be limited to those currently using, as though when these die off, it is over.

25 posted on 05/12/2014 9:31:07 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

“Anyone caught selling drugs ….shot within a week…..drugs would disappear fast”

They have public executions in many Asian countries for dealing. Those countries are still flush with drugs. Why? Because you can make more money in one year than most people will ever make in a lifetime.

Some poor people will always risk death to be rich. When you take a dealer down, there are dozens of people who are already waiting to take their place.

The more you battle it with force, the higher the profit (and corruption) goes. The only thing that changes is how much the dealers make and how much the junkies will have to steal to get their fix.

Eventually the profit goes so high that entire nations become bought by drug cartels. Think of the power gangsters gained during alcohol prohibition and multiply the profits by several thousand.


26 posted on 05/12/2014 9:31:38 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

“T. Jefferson drafted our Constitution on Cannabis!”

Interesting statement - got proof?


27 posted on 05/12/2014 9:32:29 AM PDT by GladesGuru (Islam Delenda Est - because of what Islam is and because of what Muslims do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Freeping Since 2001

That didn’t explain anything, Heroin being legal and advertised and sold openly, won’t make it harder for kids to get Heroin.


28 posted on 05/12/2014 9:33:05 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

“In 1880 there were no drug laws in America and no serious drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out??”

Wherein varmintman got the War On Drugs right between the eyes - good shoootin’!


29 posted on 05/12/2014 9:36:42 AM PDT by GladesGuru (Islam Delenda Est - because of what Islam is and because of what Muslims do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
Jefferson was in Paris at the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He wasn't in Philadelphia.

Madison and Hamilton drafted the Constitution.

30 posted on 05/12/2014 9:36:54 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mgist

Sigh.

The irony is that if we were a moral and religious people, laws governing an individual’s peaceful behavior would not be necessary. But the left seeks to destroy all semblance of the moral guidelines of Christian society while facilitating the vilest of debaucheries The crime that results justifies greater control of the populace by government.


31 posted on 05/12/2014 9:56:11 AM PDT by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgist

they want no age limit either


32 posted on 05/12/2014 9:58:48 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

Drug laws were not created to regulate “individual’s peaceful behavior”.

“”The first modern law for the regulating of drugs was the Pharmacy Act 1868 in the United Kingdom. There had been previous moves to establish the medical and pharmaceutical professions as separate, self-regulating bodies, but the General Medical Council, established in 1863, unsuccessfully attempted to assert control over drug distribution. The Act set controls on the distribution of poisons and drugs. Poisons could only be sold if the purchaser was known to the seller or to an intermediary known to both, and drugs, including opium and all preparations of opium or of poppies, had to be sold in containers with the seller’s name and address. Despite the reservation of opium to professional control, general sales did continue to a limited extent, with mixtures with less than 1 per cent opium being unregulated.
After the legislation passed, the death rate caused by opium immediately fell from 6.4 per million population in 1868 to 4.5 in 1869. Deaths among children under five dropped from 20.5 per million population between 1863 and 1867, to 12.7 per million in 1871, and further declined to between 6 and 7 per million in the 1880s.””


33 posted on 05/12/2014 10:01:54 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Freeping Since 2001
Legalizing drugs would make it harder for kids to get.

Makes them easier to get and sell to a younger and younger crowd; damaging their lives.

34 posted on 05/12/2014 10:08:28 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
The "War on Drugs" and the Prison/Industrial Complex should be ended immediately, along with "No-Knock Raids".

The "war on drugs" leads to

 

It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/

 

The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.

Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.

Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.

"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."

The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

 

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. Once again, 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?

 

35 posted on 05/12/2014 10:10:27 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Freeping Since 2001
Legalizing drugs would make it harder for kids to get.

Just the opposite is happening here in CO since legalization.

MORE underage kids are getting marijuana.

36 posted on 05/12/2014 10:11:08 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Yes, there would be junkies. However, at least the junkies would be getting quality product, and we wouldn’t have to scoop them up off the streets for the morgue nearly as often... instead there could be injection clinics, clean needles and good product for a fair price (instead of a street dealer’s price). This would at least curtail the spread of AIDS through junky circles, and it would be less enticing for dealers to deal directly with children, since their income for the same product would not do nearly as much for them. The simple fact is, they love kids, but their real market is still adults. Probably by orders of magnitude.

Large scale increase in use would still happen, but for a small instance of time. Remember, yes, first time use will grow overnight, but then as people get thinned from herd, it will start to go down to a stable point, where that will just be the accepted portion of society that does that sort of thing, enjoys it, and won’t die from it. Only economic ups and downs or real world calamity would have any noticeable impact on usage from that point on.

Ie., freedom is dangerous. Living in a land of free people is also dangerous, both in terms of dangers from our own freedom, and other people’s freedom as well. But I’d rather live dangerous, than under government oppression of anything. What the constitution was written for, was to regulate the interaction between free people and between their government.

It’s what many people have forgotten... freedom can suck on the local scene at times, but do you love freedom more, or security more. And everyone knows what Ben Franklin said about that particular argument.

People only think of freedom in terms of their niche in life. But taking a person’s right to do something dangerous is not what the constitution was written for. It was written to prevent you from impacting someone else’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness when you do something dangerous or institute policies in government, or face consequences. We’ve gotten away from that over the years, for the children, as it were.

True freedom is letting people kill themselves if they want, like euthanasia. But even the “freedom lovers” among even this small chasm in the internet on this very thread, will readily strip people of their rights in a heart beat for their own good, or for the sake of safety of their own children.

It’s quite an interesting oxymoron to watch in action. I like many of the beliefs of the people of FR, but in a lot of cases, I still sense many of the same whose values I look up too, will take another man’s freedom in a second if he thought he or his own could be harmed.

In the end, America will pay for this attitude with her freedom. Eventually we will be just as socialistic and nanny stated as every one else, complete with jack booted thugs keeping the prison gates. Our only way out is really space travel, where the human population disperses so far and wide, that no one man or government can control all of us.


37 posted on 05/12/2014 11:31:43 AM PDT by Aqua225 (Realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Aqua225

None of that is realistic, legalization doesn’t mean government run “injection clinics”, it just means junkies and pushers won’t have to look over their shoulders, instead it will be legal and marketed and advertised.

Junkies will still be junkies, still using old needles and trading and cutting and selling product to each other.

There also is no fixed number of junkies frozen in place and time, that will “get thinned from herd”, there is an endless supply of future junkies and immigrants, and even future ways for drug labs to alter, create new, and find new ways to use drugs and consume drugs once they are legal.

Free Market forces will create a whole new world of drugs and ways to use them in one’s life.


38 posted on 05/12/2014 12:01:29 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mgist

The drug war is one of the biggest drivers of political corruption in our country. That’s why the bigges opponents of ending the phony ‘war on drugs’ are politicians and drug cartels. I suspect we’ll find plenty of supporters of the drug war on this thread though.


39 posted on 05/12/2014 12:27:52 PM PDT by zeugma (Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss (I'll see you again someday Hope))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Where did I say “government run injection clinics”. I believe in capitalism. You need to pay for that which you use, IMO. As long as someone can do it legitimately for less cost than a dealer, it should be a money making transaction for a business.

The junky culture you are speaking of is a direct result of severe government penalties for being found with it (though not death, but 3 hots and a cot). Everything that is made illegal by the government, establishes a new underground, untaxable, unregulated, unsafe nightmare land where you can get what you want at a high price.

I didn’t say either that the junky population would be fixed, but it would be a lot more fixed than it is now, and most of it would be in the light of law, which will inherently both reduce the users safety and freedom risks. Heck even home clean kits would be better than what we have now.

Sounds like you continue to justify the position that your freedom to do things you like are OK, but another man’s solution to the happiness equation should not be allowed, because no matter how improbable, there is the possibility it could affect you or someone you love, somewhere down the line of time.

Sounds just like the gun grabbers!


40 posted on 05/12/2014 12:28:28 PM PDT by Aqua225 (Realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Aqua225

Why did you create “injection clinics” at all?

Junkie culture exists because of heroin, not because it is illegal, junkie culture won’t disappear just because you tell them they can carry it in their pocket now, and buy it at the 7-11.

I don’t know why you think legalizing all drugs and all future drugs, and drug cocktails, and marketing and advertising them and the new drug combos will result in a more “fixed” in place percentage, that will thin itself out through deaths and overdoses.


41 posted on 05/12/2014 12:35:13 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mgist

We’ve spent billions protecting fools from the Darwinian consequences of their personal choices and lost a good bit of the Constitution in the process. Screw ‘em; put a 55-gallon drum of heroin and/or crack on every street corner and wait six months. Problem solved and society improved.


42 posted on 05/12/2014 5:41:38 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (When I first read it, " Atlas Shrugged" was fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

It’s just the way life works.

The four choices (really three, but for the sake of explaining my thoughts to you...) if heroine is legalized:

(1) Try and at some point, die from it.
(2) Try and not die, remain lifetime addict.
(3) Try, not die, then choose to quit because it is a waste of their life.
(4) Never try it, never die from it, never get addicted to it.

Look at smoking. Many have stopped smoking because it wastes their money, shortens their lives, and makes their life insurance higher. The very same effect will apply to heroine, except heroine is actually less addictive than nicotine.

Plus, if you do your research, even with the illegal use, gigantic police budgets to combat drug use, and all the deaths, in monetary considerations, alcohol is the most expensive drug ever. Opiate users don’t even mildly compare!

Make it legal, and the junky community aspect will fall apart. It won’t be cool any more. It will just be one more thing you can now destroy yourself with legally. Natural social deterrent.

Your nightmare scenario of most of the population of the US becoming heroine users is completely unfounded. Even with the coolness factor among junkies, heroine, while very popular in that community, is nothing as bad as alcohol.


43 posted on 05/12/2014 9:02:33 PM PDT by Aqua225 (Realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Aqua225

We will have more junkies, not fewer.

Also, don’t start making bald faced lies, and phony positions, “Your nightmare scenario of most of the population of the US becoming heroine users is completely unfounded.”

You made that up out of thin air, you showed your true level of intellect trying that stunt.


44 posted on 05/12/2014 9:13:04 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I wouldn’t mind them repealing the 2005 Andro ban. That was grade A idiocy there...


45 posted on 05/12/2014 9:20:40 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems.

Years ago, I'd wager we had a much more moral population. Decades of laws trumping morality have damaged the moral compass of large segments of the population enough that compared to the times when we had no drug laws, no open homosexuality, little birth out of wedlock, and single mothers were known as "widows", I can't honestly say I expect similar behaviour today to what happened then.

46 posted on 05/12/2014 9:25:56 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

We also didn’t have all problems, all at once, like opium dens in 1775 Virginia, instead of 1875 in San Francisco.


47 posted on 05/12/2014 9:45:30 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Bald face lie? You really think every American in the USA is going to become a heroine junky? That’s a bald faced lie. I am not sure why you can’t look at prohibition and see what a disaster it is. Or look at the cartels pulling in Billions in Mexico, all because we as a people like to pretend that human behaviour as regards feel-good chemicals can be regulated.

You are the one attempting to deceive others, but even worse, you have already lied to yourself.

You are so obsessed with taking other people’s freedoms because you are afraid they will make bad decisions, and therefore shouldn’t be able to make such decisions, because that decision may not be yours, that you can’t see you are basically a tyrant in waiting.

Arguing with you is pointless, as you have already decided, without researching the subject. If you will note, heroine is now becoming the go-to drug of choice for older adults, because prescription opiates are being tightly controlled. So case in point: heroine use is really opiate use, and it appears to be a somewhat constant level, it’s just shifting out of the legal pain killers market, and into the illegal heroine market, because illegal stuff turns out to be cheaper and easier to get! But remember the key is SHIFT. There is not much evidence that opiate use is dramatically increasing, the demand is just shifting the cheapest and easiest to get option.

But you are set on your opinion as being the law of the land, so hey, “Imagine” you are the tyrant who would take everyone’s freedoms to control the consumption behaviour of just a few people.

What are you going to do when something better than opiates, cocaine, crack, ice, meth, and every other dramatically powerful drug is supplanted by simple to download code to a neural interface in your brain? Or virtual reality sex through neural interfaces? Will tyrant Ansel12 also outlaw that as well, simple data exchange? It’s coming, get used to it. May as well let the opiates have their last hurrah.


48 posted on 05/12/2014 10:55:43 PM PDT by Aqua225 (Realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Aqua225

If you aren’t lying, then show me the quotes.


49 posted on 05/13/2014 1:03:47 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Aqua225; Smokin' Joe

It is amusing to see such a passionate heroin promoter on FR, and him raging along as though it being against the law is some new, crazy idea from a fringe candidate or something.


50 posted on 05/13/2014 7:38:15 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson