The Death of Common Sense

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: IAMTAT

maybe we can bring our troops back from guarding the heroine poppy fields of Afghanistan, or at least have them guard their own fellow soldiers while over there.

Maybe we should burn the poppy fields to ash.
Heroin has killed exponentially more Americans than the Taliban!

Maybe we should re-invade Afghanistan because of this secret Muslim plan to poison our youth with heroin?

Nah. I'm good with napalming the poppy fields on our way out.

But if drugs are legal how can the shadow government make some extra cash on the side?

And think of all the poor investors in the prison industrial complex losing their fortune.

And it would be so unfair to the cartels who have worked so hard to achieve their success in the world.

a reply to: everyone

Yep, even those of us with the so-called addictive genes can show common sense. My husband has Native American heritage in his genes (full-blooded grandmother), and he can display obsesseive/addictive tendencies with non-addictive things. So, he's smart enough/has enough common sense to know that when he starts to look forward to that bottle of hard cider in the evening, it's time to stop having it for a few months or more until he stops thinking about it.

He believes he's susceptible, so he mostly stays away. So far, it's worked out. He's like me -- an occasional drinker taking the rare drink over dinner and buying the rare six-pack of something to have around. Most of our alcohol budget is for stuff to cook with.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: IAMTAT

I will concede the point that heroin has no benefit.

Common sense should dictate that there is nothing positive with heroin.

Unfortunately, there actually IS a positive with heroin...and it touches on my last point (above).
Opium poppies are the cash crop that keeps the economy of Afghanistan (and several other nations) afloat.

Conversely, in Afghanistan, it also finances the Taliban.

After the ousting of the Taliban from the town of Marja in the southern Afghan province Helmand by Operation Moshtarak, American and NATO commanders were confronted with the dilemma of, on the one hand, the need to "win the hearts and minds" of the local population and, on the other, the need to eradicate poppy fields and destroy the opium economy that allegedly financed the Taliban insurgency.

It has been speculated that US Marines were initially ordered to ignore the crops to avoid trampling the local farmers' livelihood, and that this might have been because there were no significant poppy fields there before the first US forces arrived.

en.wikipedia.org...

Catch22: Protect Afghanistan's economy and help the Taliban...or...Hurt the Taliban and crush Afghanistan's economy.

As an American, common sense tells me to choose the lives of American soldiers and American citizen's over the livelihood of Afghanistan farmers.
THEY can replace their deadly drug crops with something else...WE can't replace our children with anything.


Deadly drugs finance crime, kill our youth, contribute to poverty...and destroy our families.

Common sense says that, for the good of our nation and it's citizens, rather than make deadly drugs acceptable by de-criminalizing them, we should step up the war against them and eradicate deadly drugs, not only at their source...but at each and every level.

Burn the deadly drug industry to the ground. Kill it before it kills us and our nation--It's currently killing a large swath of an entire generation of Americans.

Punish, MORE severely, those who produce, cultivate, transport & distribute them...rather than elevate their legal status to the level of your UPS driver or your pizza delivery guy.

Common sense says the government should not legislate common sense as in whether or not someone uses deadly drugs if they're readily available to everyone (which they currently are)...but, instead, government should USE common sense by declaring all out, take no prisoners, total war on deadly, life and society-destroying drugs such as heroin and crack.


Simply put, government needs to treat deadly drugs as the enemy...not the people weak or foolish enough to use them.

a reply to: IAMTAT

There is also a place in medical use for the painkillers produced from opium poppies too.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: IAMTAT

There is also a place in medical use for the painkillers produced from opium poppies too.

True.
We don't have to make them extinct...just not available for sale in every convenience store or their parking lots across the country.

I remember watching a documentary about a very large hippy commune where they allowed all drugs. It started off as beautiful place full of beautiful people full of art and music and over a few years just descended into utter chaos with everyone on hard drugs and dying all over the place.

I grew up in a town with a large percentage of younger people who were determined to take whatever they wanted for as long as they wanted. 30 years down the line you will be hard pushed to find anyone who wont tell you the reality is far from the dream. I had countless friends who even moved out to Amerdam so they didnt have deal with so many of the legal problems with drug use. I dont know of a single one still out there, not alive anyway.

Ive heard every single pro drug argument mentioned in this thread + a 1000 and while they seem to make perfect sense in reality they fail to address many important points. Tolerance is the number 1 issue in my book. You build up tolerance to a drug until you get to the point where you are having to do so much of the stuff its getting massively expensive or your health starts to suffer. So you either start mixing it with other stuff or just find a new drug.

My town now has one of the highest percentage of drug rehabs in the country, far more than most cities. Everyone seems to be on a constant battle to try to cut down and get their lives together. Im not even anti drug but the reality is far more people cant handle there drugs than can. Ive now watched my friends grown up and have families and the idea that drugs only harm the people taking them is just wrong.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law*

*Unless you violate the rights of another.

You can get whatever you need at the local pharmacy. Thanks Big Pharm! Or at least the synthetic version of it. You can't grow cannabis but you can get a jar full of synthetic H pills at the corner drug store. Only $10 a jar at Wal Mart (provided you have Medi-Cal, etc)

Common sense says a man should be free to sow any seed that exist on Gods Green Earth.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The problem is that common sense often gives us the wrong answer. Try getting beyond the most basic understanding of any science subject using common sense.

Human beings are incredibly bad at assessing risk. Consider the number of people who are afraid of flying but who would happily drive.

On your seat belts example I think if we look back to the days prior it being legally mandated then it is clear that a lot more people wouldnt use them. This would result in more fatalities and serious injuries that would have a cost both to individuals and society.

I think it is a bit simplistic to argue that there should be no legislation where the cost or risk is primarily or even exclusively to the individual. In some cases I think there is a moral and legal justification, on others not so much.

For drugs for example I think a very strong case against legalisation of the more addictive drugs can be made. Far less so for other less addictive drugs.

Interestingly in the UK it was legal requirement to wear seat belts in front seats ( where there is minimal risk to others) far earlier than it was required in rear seats ( where you are a risk to those in front). Evidence I suppose that law makers are also bad at assessing risk.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Simply put, government needs to treat deadly drugs as the enemy...not the people weak or foolish enough to use them.

That makes a whole lot of sense.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: everyone

Interesting point, but we both know that the numbers of alcohol-related deaths are high also.

Yes, and as well with smoking and the millions of deaths each year from smoking related issues, but the government doesn't intervene there either, fortunately. But that is contradiction of the purpose of the war on drugs.

The government operates as a liberal overreach agency. If 50 people don't follow common sense but 100 million do, they enforce rules and laws over ALL the people in an attempt to curb the actions of the few idiots. It's just the way the government works and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

a reply to: DBCowboy

"Herpes rash on your prom date" That was scary.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The drug war is an abysmal failure, just like the prohibition era. If people want to do drugs, they will do drugs. If people want to sell drugs, they will sell drugs. Countries that treat drug abuse as a medical/social issue, instead of a criminal issue, have lower crime rates, and higher success in rehabilitation. Massive amounts of our taxes go toward punishing non-violent offenders. Also, drug usage rates do not increase after legalization.

Check out LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition). I have a great deal of respect for this organization. They have a lot of resources regarding this subject matter, and they make a great case against the war on drugs.

LEAP

I think the same goes for prostitution and other sex work. Why do we allow the government to legislate morality? Why do people continue to scream for big daddy government to come in and fix our problems when they ALWAYS fail?

If I were the dictator of the USA, I would scrap 98% of our current standing laws and start over. Any legislation to be passed would have to fit on one half of a standard piece of paper and be written in clear and plain English. The litmus test would be this:
1. Is the law necessary?
2. Will anyone's rights or freedoms be violated if this law is passed?
3. Will anyone's rights or freedoms be violated if this law is not passed?

Simple common sense fix to our completely bloated law books. Did you know that we cannot even count how many laws we have on the books? It is also said that the average person commits around 3-5 felonies a day. This is purely by design to have more control and profit for the scumbags running the show at the top.

originally posted by: Winstonian

Simple common sense fix to our completely bloated law books. Did you know that we cannot even count how many laws we have on the books? It is also said that the average person commits around 3-5 felonies a day. This is purely by design to have more control and profit for the scumbags running the show at the top.

That's wrong on so many levels.

Really.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Agree with your OP, in that common sense is lacking in these sort of laws. With seat belts and helmets, you have a public health concern that is real I think, but I agree that rights of the individual should supersede that public health concern. Manufacturers should be required to provide that safety equipment (seat belts, etc), and I think OSHA regulations and the like are usually alright. A law requiring me to wear a seat belt or a helmet though? I think it's wrong. It's my body, my risk. A selfish decision you say? Perhaps, but the law should protect it nonetheless. I always wear my seat belt, and when I do ride I wear a helmet. That's just common sense in my opinion.

Drugs...I don't think they are quite the public health risk some of these people see it as. I think that half of the problem with our 'drug problem' here in the US is our government's heavy handed approach to dealing with it. Making felons by the millions, for what is essentially a lifestyle decision. I don't think that's right. Those people probably already had some problems in their life, which might have been why they used said drug in the first place. Go and put them in prison for it, take away all their rights, and see if that doesn't fix it? Now that person has a whole new set of much stiffer life challenges to face. Hell, that might make the guy want to just give up and start using more drugs. It's not right! It doesn't fix the problem either, but small wonder because it is a backward approach to begin with. Backward. It doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.

Not to mention the disenfranchisement from the establishment that these heavy handed tactics wreak. Those millions of felons form the last paragraph? There are millions of people who are less likely to call the authorities when the authorities should be summoned. Less likely to respect authority, due to the permanent damage it has caused to their life and livelihood. Can't say as I blame 'em. I'd be pissed too.

Not to mention that all the things that we say that drug abuse leads to are crimes already. Child abuse, child neglect, grand theft auto, robbery, etc. If a guy is stealing cars to buy crack, bust him for stealing cars. I say leave the responsible crack smoker alone.

Opium dens filling our cities concern me. Our response to this concern as a nation so far concerns me more, however. We should end this horrible war against our own people. I do not believe it follows that drug addiction would increase if it were no longer prohibited. It will still be a bad idea to do heroin or smoke crack. That's just common sense.