Why The USA Must End Drug Prohibition

originally posted by: Insurrectile
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.

Your choice to be done, I will never be done.

a reply to: quintessentone

Fair enough, all the best to you.

“As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. Immovably, they insist on the very ideology which enslaves them. The misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is done to them is a greater force than the cunning of the authorities.”

― Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments

a reply to: JinMI

That argument doesn't really track though, in my opinion. Whiskey has done just as much damage as all of the other "hard" drugs, perhaps more, and has been around since before the nation's founding. The world has not exploded due to whiskey use, and likely will not explode tomorrow due to whiskey use. The same logical extrapolation applies to "harder" drugs.

What we can be assured of, however, is that renegades to society and its laws will continue to be inspired in legion over time, so long as the hypocrisy of drug prohibition continues. Harsher penalties will only exacerbate this problem. Only an end to drug prohibition will fix it.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Either way...

In a just society that is corruption free, drug prohibition would not exist. If we strive to return to or truly become a just society, and to end corruption, but do not end drug prohibition, we will have lost the plot when we arrive at the conclusion of such a struggle. We will have ensured that a just society remains elusive, and that corruption will persist.

What is...What is does not ensure domestic tranquility, nor does it promote the general welfare though it may claim to, nor does it secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, from unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be infringed...

It actually forcibly denies the blessings of liberty for those so afflicted and their posterity. We make war on them for the whimsical reason that they have chosen to ingest substances of which we disapprove. For this we ruin their lives. That is psychotic. It is evil. Spin it however you like. It will never be right, no matter how many people we trick into believing that it is.

a reply to: namehere

Incorrect. All of these substances could be produced domestically in a post prohibition world. No need to "enrich the Americas", as you say. In fact, continuing prohibition is what is "enriching the Americas". It will likely continue to do so as long as we carry on with this foolish, misbegotten crusade.

Of course, if we did import drugs to a post prohibition USA, the difference would be that we would be paying money to legitimate farmers and producers, instead of paying that money to professional criminal organizations.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

In Nirvana, everyone will be happy, corruption free, no worries, everyone taken care of, no problems.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

- Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

a reply to: Insurrectile

Off topic? Are you sure you posted this in the right thread? I wasn't aware religion was the discussion here.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

And now you think that kind of opiate aint part of the topic, duly noted.

"Hmmm, delicious. Rapp Snitch Knishes".

- MF DOOM

originally posted by: SRPrime


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.

Correct. The same is true with the other "hard" drugs. These functional users will mostly never speak out in the public discourse for fear of the consequences, but many of them exist.

originally posted by: UtIntusSicForis
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Just to provide my unasked for two cents.
You guys are talking past each other...

Practically everyone here seems more interested at attacking political rivals than the topic....

Quite sad to me, to be honest.

Totally agree. This is a constitutional issue, not a political one.

I'll add that I'm saddened to see Trump apparently going the wrong way on this issue. This "not a globalist" candidate and former president. Might actually be able to correct some of the corruption problems and injustices that plague this nation, yet he's getting it completely wrong on this point. It may be politically expedient, but it's not what's right for the nation. He's also handing a huge possible win to the Democrats with this.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

In Nirvana, everyone will be happy, corruption free, no worries, everyone taken care of, no problems.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, from unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be infringed... "
In their persons...in their persons...

a reply to: Insurrectile

You can justify the 'high and wide' all you like.

Try trading 'religion' for a 50 lb sack of pintos. I bet my one or two oxy's get me some.

originally posted by: Freeborn
The majority of people chose to drugs for one very simple reason; they enjoy it.
And the majority of those people can handle their drugs and are functioning and contributing members of society.

Prohibition does not work, as has been evidenced in the past and is clearly evident today.

Those who advocate just carrying on with the 'drugs are bad, lets punish those who use them' mantra are simply burying their heads in the sand and/or are seeking to impose their own personal opinions on others.

I don't profess to have the answers - I have my own thoughts, ideas and beliefs but I'm no expert - yet I do know that something has to change because what 'we' have at present simply isn't working.

Correct, and well said. I completely agree.

I want to echo your thoughts somewhat to emphasize that many who use drugs do not do so to escape from anything really. They do it because it feels good.

Whiskey drinkers. When you have that glass or three of scotch or bourbon in the evening, is it because your mother or father was mean to you when you were a kid? Maybe some of you do. I'm guessing that most of you do it because it feels good. It is a pleasant experience, due to the pleasant physical sensations that it causes.

I suppose I want to emphasize this reality of why people choose to partake of intoxicating substances because shifting from stiff penalties to only treating it as a medical issue isn't really ending prohibition, and it won't solve the problem.

I'm not against rehab for those who want it, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that some people do this stuff just because it feels good. This doesn't make them bad people. They should not be subject to prison time for getting loaded, regardless of their reasons. If we make everyone who gets caught with drugs go to rehab or face prison time if they don't, then we're still doing it wrong.

Let people make their own decisions. Let them be secure in their persons from unreasonable search and seizure. Help them if they desire it, but do not force them to be "helped".

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Insurrectile

You can justify the 'high and wide' all you like.

I'l stick to Karl Marx quotes for now, thanks.

Try trading 'religion' for a 50 lb sack of pintos. I bet my one or two oxy's get me some.

...and then you'll pocket the surplus value. Labour.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

What are you trying to say? Guessing games are stupid, they don't make you look smarter.

Nivana is the goal of the Constitution?

No guessing required. I find it rather odd that you cannot discern my intent. The founders' thoughts on this issue was very clear, as stated in the fourth amendment to the Constitution, the preamble to the Constitution, and The Declaration Of Independence. No ambiguity there.

"The right of the people, to be secure in their persons, papers and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be infringed..."