Why The USA Must End Drug Prohibition

a reply to: JinMI

I think it's important to point out that those "alienated druggies" that I referred to are not a bunch of homeless, scabby junkies busily drugging themselves to death in an alley somewhere. That's part of the picture, sure, but actually only a very small part.

Most of those "alienated druggies" I referred to are regular, workaday people whose drugs of choice happen to be illegal. That's your neighbor, your son or daughter, your aunt or uncle. This is one of the major reasons why law enforcement is often ineffective in this nation, in my opinion. We have large portions of the population who will not rely on law enforcement when doing so would probably provide the best solution.

Some fear the consequences, of course. In addition, many are alienated because of animosity toward the system, some of which has now become generational. An end to prohibition is the only cure, as far as I can tell.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

There is a vast difference between a rapidly addicting enslaving deadly substance, such as heroin or fentanyl, and bacon.

If you cant see the differences, I cant help you.

a reply to: vonclod

What program..I live here, and I explained whats wrong.

Posted an article on the situation in Oregon a while back, underfunded departments without any social program for the addicted seems to be the running theme on your side of the pond?

At least you have the bacon people, showing up in threads like this, to moralize the war on drugs on corporate time. Different type of social work.

a reply to: Insurrectile

Posted an article on the situation in Oregon a while back, underfunded departments without any social program for the addicted seems to be the running theme on your side of the pond?

Here in Canada, we are importing about a million and a half people a year, between students and immigrants. There is no housing, no healthcare, no infrastructure to support any of it, us, or newcomers. Seems to be the new Canadian way, so what you say is pretty much true..nobody gets anything, what services were available a few years back, are virtually nonexistent now.

At least you have the bacon people, showing up in threads like this, to moralize the war on drugs on corporate time. Different type of social work.

I think most people can recognise the war on drugs is a colossal failure, how to make it all right is the question.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

There is a vast difference between a rapidly addicting enslaving deadly substance, such as heroin or fentanyl, and bacon.

If you cant see the differences, I cant help you.

Hehe. Nah, you're right actually. They are different. I was being an ass. I withdraw the referenced argument.

Nevertheless, I stand by the balance of my arguments with regards to the harmful "food" substances. There's still a good deal of hypocrisy there. Also, some of the strongly prohibited "drugs" are not physically addictive. Some can't even be called habit forming.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

You can certainly make that argument for sugar.

Highly addictive and unregulated.

I simply think the harder the drugs, the more outside of bounds the argument becomes because of the more immediate effects.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Weren't we arguing what ought to be, not what is?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

We all know bacon is way more harmful than heroin from the BAYER pipelines, what's the point?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
My opinion is fk no.

So you are against true freedom and liberty - and yes, responsibility and accountability - at the individual level?

The fact is, the federal government does not have the lawful Constitutionally delegated authority/power to outlaw drugs. My evidence in support?

It took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol, and another one to repeal it. Why should it not take the same thing for each and every drug out there?

Because some people, THANK FKN GOD, haven't lost their collective minds.

Look here William Wallace, before you go flinging strawman's out your cookie crusher, do realize that "true liberty and freedom" requires ones vigilance, determination and commitment to preserving and protecting that.

Why doesn't the military allow drug use? Gee, I wonder.

You actually want critical systems operators coming down ofc of drugs and driving your kids to work? Or operating that crane 300' above your car? Or an anethesiologist goofing your dose for the operation your having?

Should law enforcement be given a pass too?? That's all we need is steroid ridden, meth using "peace" officers...

You guys are retarded.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Our society isn't mature enough to handle legalized drugs. It would only sink us further into the abyss. Alcohol is one thing, but narcotics are a different story.

Legalizing only normalizes societal rot.

My opinion is fk no.

I used to do drugs, I still do but I used to too. Mitch Hedberg

Me too, but before it was completely recreational, somewhere along the way it became medicinal. Still, I'm legal just D8 and it does me just fine, but I'm on board with the medicinal benefits of D9 and shrooms.

No, respectfully alcohol is worse a lot worse, just because it's been packaged and served to you by slick advertisers, in a lot of ways it is worse.

Alcohol is definitely worse than reefer, ganja, or whatever your favorite term is for the wildwood flower. Alcohol is infinitely more physically and psychologically addicting.

I've lived with alcoholics and I've lived with extreme stoners, A stoner doesn't lose their chit, like alcoholics do.

I agree with the hard stuff coc aine, crack, and heroin need to be regulated but hell fentanyl has no place in society and it really should be hospice-type care stuff and it's not. It's prescribed too often and now we have a fentanyl problem where there was none 15-20 years ago.

It took a while but I thought drinking and drug use, in general, was on the decline in teenagers, does it mean it's the boomers getting a buzz?

I was comparing alcohol to narcotics, not alcohol to "jazz cabbage".

Use amongst older folks who never used is actually trending. The "pay now play later crowd" that stayed the path and we're successful are now spreading their wings in their 50's and 60's. I say more power to those folks.

It's a different story for those who haven't and probably never will accomplish anything but spending their miserable lives getting high.

Now I'm all for letting people spend that life as they see fit. However, I'm not for those people and groups bringing down the standards of living and existing for everyone because they gave up.

Just look around, if it looks like this while it's illegal, how do you think it's going to be when it goes mainstream??

We need CLASS and sophistication to return to society, not the freedom to do drugs.

Geezus christ....how about raising the bar instead of making the hole bigger??
🙄SMH.

Give me a break. jeez the Fentanyl epidemic exploded well after the war on drugs campaign reached 30 years old

Legal and regulated fentanyl and oxycodone etc. among a plethora of other prescribed drugs direct from Big Pharma are just as dangerous if not more so. They are easily available, even more than previously

But I believe addiction isn't stopped by temperance either. Some people are just addicts, some people aren't. Addiction very well might be partially genetic, damn sure there is evidence it's genetic as much as availability and environment.

Not to mention some people do crap because it's illegal and it gives them a thrill. Perhaps if some drugs were mainstreamed they would lose that allure.

On top of that, it's possibly generational too, it takes time, Look how long it took for alcohol, and tobacco to be legal and both seem less popular than they used to be.

Again not saying free heroin or coc aine, but in some countries, semi-legalization has knocked down the number of addicts, and consequently, the crime associated within.

Hell, it's not just legalization it's decriminalizing it for the end user, that is enough to curb sending addicts or users to prison that helps nobody and just creates career criminals

Both meth and crack are illegal as hell, and yet cities, towns, suburbia, and countryside are full of meth heads and crack addicts, and we spend billions to stop just these 2 and it isn't working.

There are enough success stories where addicts got help and turned their lives around. Where a more robust rehab program might be successful for those qualified

Look at you go! Running down your pros and cons line items...🙄

They call that "drug seeking behavior" in the recovery game. I know. I still go to meetings. I sit and listen to destruction, horror and utter misery every time I go. Yes, people do recover. I am one of those people. It's been years but I can't remember the last time and I'm glad. Sober anniversaries are not the reminder I need every year.

So...

We already have a welfare state, and you boneheads want to create a "recovery state"?? That's the infrastructure improvements this country needs to make???

Great plan.

a reply to: EternalShadow

We already have a welfare state, and you boneheads want to create a "recovery state"?? That's the infrastructure improvements this country needs to make???

Great plan.

Why try to help people anyway, why not leave them to their devices like society did with you? Right.

Probably not a bad idea to think about the social relations as infrastructure tho, about time we rebuild the burned bridges in this smoldering landscape.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: EternalShadow

We already have a welfare state, and you boneheads want to create a "recovery state"?? That's the infrastructure improvements this country needs to make???

Great plan.

Why try to help people anyway, why not leave them to their devices like society did with you? Right.

Probably not a bad idea to think about the social relations as infrastructure tho, about time we rebuild the burned bridges in this smoldering landscape.

If we are talking sociological framework/landscape then rehab programs are a must for each and every drug, addictive or not (some are habit forming which can still cause issues) and funnel any saved revenue from closing down the war on drugs machine to the rehab programs and let people have their freedom and liberty. But will it work? Will people seek out rehab/help? If not then more money will be needed to deal with the other issues that will crop up, such as more violence across the board?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: quintessentone
I recall reading an old book back in the 70s where the history of why marijuana was made illegal by the government is because they didn't want a bunch of stoned lazy citizens or what they feared society would become, they wanted sober taxable slave workers not self-exploring with drugs.

As for other drugs, the government, very stupid people with power, somehow let the opioid crisis happen and it has never gone away.

I agree with you that possession of small amounts of whatever is you desire should be made legal.

Building on your comment, how many of those same legislators and other various assorted government employees have dabbled in the same substances, thusly compromising themselves through a desire to keep their activities hidden? Ending prohibition might help to clear those muddied waters, give us a little clear spot from which to move forward as a nation.

Drug use should not be a bar to federal or state government employment. Prohibition is a big part of our corruption problem, if you really think about it. I'm not saying it should be permitted for anyone to be drugged on the job. That should be an issue for various agencies and departments to decide. What an individual does on their own time, however, should not be a bar to government employment, nor grounds for dismissal.

I'm in the recreational use mindset with this and not the dangerous lose your mind drugs. Just the weekend high or a trip with the proper training and what to expect and how to come down safely. Like drinking, don't drink and drive - plan ahead complete with warning labels. Alcohol is highly addictive so there is that hypocrisy there.

Addictions to hallucinogens is rare and not in the way you would think, the addiction seems to be in the mental excitement of the trip, not any physical addiction compelling one to keep taking it.

It appears we are very ignorant of many drugs as to which ones affect our reward areas of the brain and which do not, the one's that affect the reward areas our brains are the addictive ones; we should stay away from those.

If the individual insists on the ones that go for the 'reward' then that could lead to problems which if addiction takes hold will ultimately affect their performance at work and their life. So I think these days an employer could send the employee off for treatment and not dismiss them, such as in the case of becoming addicted to alcohol or opioids.

So I don't have the answers to what drugs should be legalized and which shouldn't since alcohol and opioids which are very addictive are still available.

The problem with that is, presumably, you don't have experience with these "harder" drugs, and you believe mistruths like they are terrible.

Take Meth for instance; non-physically addicting, one of the biggest drugs in the game, and the majority of users that use it recreationally, or tactically as a tool or supplement, go undetected.

Look; You would put Meth is that "hard" drug bucket, but you know meth users, you just don't know they are using meth. That's how popular it is.

99.99% of people who use it, go incident free. So... that's my issue with what you said. There are nuclear physicists that use meth. Like.... who are you to decide which ones are "bad, mmmkaay?" Especially when your knowledge doesn't come from a place of truth, and it's based on anti-drug propaganda.

The before and after meth user photos; are abusers, and make up maybe less than 5% of people who use it.

a reply to: SRPrime

What didn't you understand from these words from my post that you replied to?

So I don't have the answers to what drugs should be legalized and which shouldn't since alcohol and opioids which are very addictive are still available.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: tanstaafl
Because some people, THANK FKN GOD, haven't lost their collective minds.

So, you do not believe in Constitutional protections for everyone, regardless of your feelz. Got it.

Look here William Wallace,

You are confused. William Wallace was a rebel. I am simply advocating for an impartial and equal application of the Law of our Land, and there is simply not one single delegation of power or authority in our Constitution to the Congress to legislate morality, and yes, this would equally apply to any attempt to pass a federal ban on abortion.

o realize that "true liberty and freedom" requires ones vigilance, determination and commitment to preserving and protecting that.

Yes, I do, apparently moreso than you. It requires that I protect your individual Right to say and/or believe stupid # that I know are false just as strongly as I do things that I agree with/approve of.

Why doesn't the military allow drug use? Gee, I wonder.

Irrelevant. A military prohibition against drug use is not a federal law criminalizing it for everyone. The military is free to impose their own standards within reasonable bounds, just as private companies are.

You actually want critical systems operators coming down ofc of drugs and driving your kids to work?

Of course not, but that is just an irrelevant strawman (unlike your false accusation against me) you're tossing out in a vain attempt to excuse your irrational fear of drugs and desire to legislate morality for the rest of us.

Or operating that crane 300' above your car? Or an anethesiologist goofing your dose for the operation your having?

Wow, amazing, two more irrelevant strawmen. Wanna go for another dozen or 12?

Should law enforcement be given a pass too?? That's all we need is steroid ridden, meth using "peace" officers...

Just one more is all ya got? Disappointing...

You guys are retarded.

Retarded is as retarded says, and you have removed all doubt in your case.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Exactly why it would/should be on a drug per drug basis.

Show me the Article:Section:Clause in the Constitution that delegates to the federal government the power/authority to legislate in any way with respect to anything even remotely resembling 'controlled substances'.

Otherwise, they have NONE - and agin, this is precisely why Prohibition is an irrefutable example that they simply do not have this power.

Any support whatsoever for any federal law regulating 'controlled substances' is support for an unConstitutional power usurped by the federal government, so you have zero standing to challenge any other unConstitutional Law, including laws violating the 2nd amendment.

Like abortion, this is a power reserved to the States, but should still be limited bye each State's Constitution.

You can't have it both ways.

a reply to: quintessentone

Success doesn't seem to matter when you lack the political will to implement them. We need to stop pretending there's not a single lobby group out there to prevent every tiny bit of progress for mere financial gains.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: quintessentone

Success doesn't seem to matter when you lack the political will to implement them. We need to stop pretending there's not a single lobby group out there to prevent every tiny bit of progress for mere financial gains.

I will never be that cynical. Read some of the advocacy statements and tell me they only care about financial gains. They sent a few letters to people in government that hold the purse strings, that can make things happen/change. Maybe look there?

www.aaap.org...

a reply to: quintessentone

I'm done looking up to people "who can make things happen", this already was a well studied subject decades ago. Hence I'd bet my left arm most advocacy groups will promote decriminalization and social programs if they really care about the communities.

see there's a big reason we dont do that, because it would make the America's rich and destroy our immigration scheme by removing the biggest incentive for migration, poverty. without Hispanic and Latino immigration to the US our population would be shrinking and our economy would also be shrinking, that's the real reason European immigration was restricted in the 60's and why we opened up to the America's during the same time, its why the civil rights act was really passed despite all the racism and bigotry, to attract immigration of non-whites so our economy didn't dry up by the 80's or so.

so either we keep up the war on drugs and keep getting rich or legalize drugs and making the America's rich while we become the poor one. its either us or them unless we find a way to boost our birth rates and restart our economy while we still are rich.