Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth, cocaine and shoplifting, among others

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You cannot make an argument that innocent people are being locked up due to the fact its against the law to be in possession of certain drugs. Until it is changed, they are criminals as well, guilty by either a judge, jury or their own plea.

It isn't just an argument, it is a fact.

A "Criminal" can still be innocent if the law is immoral.

There are MANY nonviolent and innocent people in prison because of the "War on Drugs"

They ARE put in maximum security prisons with violent people.

reply to post by Jezus


And until society decides the law is immoral and makes a change, it is a law, and the people charged and convicted under it are criminals. Simply stating otherwise is not a valid argument and you know this. It doesn't mean I agree with it, but again Law Enforcement does not make the law, the people elected into office do. If this argument held true, then the bulk of the inmate population could petition for release.

As far as the comment about maximum security please do some research into how the Prison system works. If they are sent to a maximum security prison based off a drug conviction it either has to do with the additional charges aside from the drugs, or they have a previous record of violent behavior.

Even if they do go to a maximum security facility, they have to be categorized and placed appropriately:

Example article about placement / misplacement

The other thing to keep in mind is during a trial, prior bad acts cannot be brought up as an issue. However, during sentencing, they can be taken into account, and often are.

Does it make it right? Good question.. I apply that same question to California's 3 strike policy. If your third offense is trespassing, its possible to be sent to prison for life (which again makes no sense to me yet people support it).

Stats - White House Drug Policy

Stats are from 2000

Table 2.
Percentage of State and Federal prison inmates who reported being under the influence of drugs at time of their offense, 1997 - These stats are from the inmates themselves.

Type of offense Federal prison inmates State prison inmates
Total of all inmates 22.4% 32.6%
Violent offenses 24.5 29.0
Murder 29.4 26.8
Negligent manslaughter * 17.4
Sexual assault 7.9 21.5
Robbery 27.8 39.9
Assault 13.8 24.2
Other 15.9 29.0
Property offenses 10.8 36.6
Burglary * 38.4
Larceny/theft * 38.4
Motor vehicle theft * 39.0
Fraud 6.5 30.5
Other 16.4 30.6
Drug offenses 25.0 41.9
Possession 25.1 42.6
Trafficking 25.9 41.0
Other 17.1 47.1
Public-order offenses 15.6 23.1
Weapons 24.4 22.4
Other 8.1 23.3


2008 Adam II Report - General sample of 10 counties across the US - NON Scientific Study

Above the Influence


Above are Drug Stats put out by the Government, as well as an ORG.

Below are facts from other non government sources with the opposite view points:

From www.Drugwarrant.com: Marijuana
Why is Marijuana Illegal - Talks about the History of Marijuana for the last few hundred years. It goes on to talk about how it was a "must grow" crop during colonial times -1600's, and a person could get in trouble for not growing it. The first law against it came from Utah, influenced by Mormons. States soon followed suite, making it illegal.

Citizens Opposing Prohibition
Reading through this site is interesting. These people have a vision where all drugs are legal, even though they specifically use Pot as a basis for their argument. The funny thing that I found is they don't make the argument its safe to do drugs. They do make the argument that dong drugs will result in less crime, fatalities etc, and allow cops to do real work, namely going after child predators (which is generally Federal because of the communication type involved, DUI etc. This group feels drugs should be legal because the stats would be lower, but not stopped.

Translation - Fewer deaths are better than more deaths.


Cops in the Hood - Cops perspective on the war on drugs

An interesting blog that views the war on drugs from a cops perspective. One of the questions posed was to abolish drunk driving laws. part of a comment:

The .08 BAC is likely motivated more by politics and pressure from advocacy groups than it is by science and concerns over public safety.

An example of politics would be the State of Missouri. In Missouri if you drink and drive, first offense, it is a class B misdemeanor. While driving drunk if you throw your beer can out the window, there by littering, the littering charge is a class A misdemeanor. Meaning its a more sever offense to litter than it is to drive while intoxicated. Why is this people ask - What beer company for the longest time had its headquarters in St. Louis?

The .08 standard is not a political standard, but a fact based standard science has developed. You can actually be impaired under .08 as each person has their own reactions to alcohol (Females are more susceptible due to water content in their system as opposed to men). The advocacy behind this is to change it to more or less a C and I charge, still allowing the cop to tell a person they cannot drive home. The effects of alcohol on the brain are observed at .04 and become more noticeable as the level increases in non alcoholics (who can be at .4 andtalk normally).

Opposing Views

I can continue to go on, but you guys get the idea. The argument I see forming in a lot of these places, covering all type of drugs, is a move / push for decriminalization, with nothing else. People want the ability to do drugs, and not get in trouble for doing drugs.

We all agree the war on drugs is not working. Some of us agree that treatment is needed in place of incarceration. Then there are some who think there should be no laws prohibiting drugs if a person wants to do them.

There is data available from Government and NGO sources, which is generally dismissed as either government propaganda, or as myths, lies, uneducated statements etc. Which the argument can be made that these groups are distorting facts and information in order to make their case as to why it should be legal.

We can go back and forth, so there really is no point. For every report and stats I post, someone can post stats saying something completely opposite, and we both will argue the stats being used are incorrect or biased towards whatever point is being made.

We need a drastic change in the way we approach this issue. We need to decriminalize some drugs, while leaving others as they are. We need to concentrate on treatment to assist people to get off drugs if that's what they choose to do. We need to have something in place on the off chance they don't want to stop doing drugs.

For every argument a person makes in favor of decriminalizing drugs, another person can make the same argument about decriminalizing human sacrifice. After all some religious practices call for it, so it should be allowed right?

Until a time comes where society as a whole changes their views on drugs and whats accepted, we can make all the arguments we want on why a law is illegal, immoral etc, but we cannot escape the fact it is a law, and because its a law, there are consequences for breaking it. People can blame Law Enforcement all they want, but we are not the ones who prosecute these crimes, nor are we the ones who hand out punishment in the end. Hell we aren't even part of the criminal justice system.

Most of these drugs were legal back in the day, until society decided it was a bad idea. Eventually society might come back around and say its ok for these, but not those.

Until that day comes, toke up, head out to the rally, and be heard on election days, and you might be able to get that day here sooner rather than later.

reply to post by Xcathdra




Society does not decide it is a bad idea the people in government with hidden agenda's self motivation for power and money, they saw a way to create fear and control the people, and they took it.


For society to decide to criminalize drugs a poll of the population would had to off been taken, and the results from that would have been a decision by society.

Current polls show that over 50% of the population support legalization in some way or another, but the government isn't willing to do that, because if that where to be the case, and proper drug education took place, people would realize they had nothing to fear in the first place. So the government looses control.


You CANNOT legalize one and not the other, that will not fix the problem as a whole, it might take a little step in the right direction, but it will not fix the problem, the key is full legalization off all drugs.


I spent 8 months deployed in Afghanistan in an infantry section, in those 8 months, our tactics, and procedures changed many times as some tactics no longer became workable due to a smart enemy that is constantly adapting to work around how we opperate.


The government has been ploughing away at this WOD with the same tactics for the last 35 years, with no result, bloodshed is at it's highest, hundreds of people a day are killed, and all the money being wasted by the government is helping no one, but putting back into the pockets of the private prison systems, and the drug cartels/dealers.


Time for a tactic change small steps I'd take legalization of anything as a step in the right direction, but the problem as is will not be solved until full legalization takes place

reply to post by Sacri


Well society does make these determinations. If I remember right, society thought it was a good idea that people could own slaves. Some other people thought it was a good idea they should be free. Yet others said they should not be allowed to vote, should eat in a separate restaurant, have a separate fountain, and separate schools.

Some law makers thought this was a bad idea and passed legislation the people or the south didn't like, specifically Arkansas.

There is debate about gays in the military.

So yes, society does make these changes. You don't get to blame the government for not representing just your desires and wants. Gear up and make some changes in the political arena for changes you want specifically. Or at least make the argument to people who have a sympathetic ear.

The decisions about Marijuana I don't think were based on ignorance about what it does. It was made illegal due to the Mormon faith in Utah, and went from there. That is the argument I see from people who advocate legalization of some drugs.

It should be legal because people are ignorant about what it does. I have never done Meth, but I don't think I am ignorant about what it does to the body, mind, and those around the person hooked on it.

Like I said, some drugs should be decriminalized. I don't think all of them should, and I don't support decriminalization for people to do drugs without penalty.

We all agree the war on drugs doesn't work, and we have a bulk of the people who think there should be treatment to help get off these drugs. If you want to do drugs to do them, that's your choice and no one else's.

To come in here and argue and use Portugal's program, touting how well it works, but changing it to get rid of the treatment portion is a bogus argument, because its backdooring legalization through perceived decriminalization.

If a large number of people want something legl, like marijuana, it will happen, like states in the West.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Well society does make these determinations. If I remember right, society thought it was a good idea that people could own slaves. Some other people thought it was a good idea they should be free. Yet others said they should not be allowed to vote, should eat in a separate restaurant, have a separate fountain, and separate schools.

My brother, what a slippery slope you have found yourself on with this argument. It is hardly truthful to argue that "society" decided it was a good idea to own slaves, unless by "society" you mean an elite class of people who believe they are superior to other classes of people and have the right to enslave people based upon these beliefs.

It is not as if slaves volunteered for the gig. Slavery, is by definition, the state of being in control or bondage by another person. The transatlantic slave trade, for example, which was a part of the slavery of the United States, was an industry where Africans were enslaved and transported from Africa to the United States and Europe. Slave traders did not go to Africa and recruit volunteers, nor did they offer up contracts for this servitude. They used force to enslave Africans and declare them property.

The justification for slavery in the U.S. was that African's were not people in the same way Europeans or people of European decent were. This justification is demonstrated by the woeful "three-fifths" Clause found in the Constitution for the United States of America. However, while the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, a careful reading of the "three fifths" clause reveals that no legal declaration was made as to the actual person hood of people of African decent. It is a purposely vague Clause that simply states "all other persons" will be counted as three fifths of person in terms of apportionment.

My point is that not even the "three fifths" Clause from the Constitution can be used as an example of slavery being held as law. Of all of the State Constitutions that were in force at the time the federal Constitution was adopted, not a single one of them had established or recognized slavery as a legal right, and certainly not as any inalienable right.

"Society" had not decided that slavery was a good idea, and made it some form of law, individuals within society had decided they had the right to enslave others for their own personal gain.

To argue that slavery was okay, (and let's be honest here, this is the effect of your argument), simply because there were people enslaving others, is to argue that all people are not endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that legislatures get to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

Further, by arguing that slavery was an acceptable legal status, you are in effect arguing that law enforcement is not expected to protect the rights of all people, but only the legal rights of a privileged class. Of course, the premise of this argument has pretty much been the effect of how law enforcement tends to function in the United States, and LEO's do not generally step up and protect individuals from abrogation and derogation of a right, unless specifically mandated to do so by Constitution or subsequent legislation, and even then, where LEO's are expressly prohibited from abrogating and derogating certain rights, far too many LEO's abrogate and derogate these rights anyway.

My brother, it is a slippery slope indeed!

So yes, society does make these changes. You don't get to blame the government for not representing just your desires and wants. Gear up and make some changes in the political arena for changes you want specifically. Or at least make the argument to people who have a sympathetic ear.

Actually, individuals make the changes, and those changes are reflected in society. Society never acts as a living breathing entity making its own decisions, individuals within society act towards making changes. In terms of slavery, this was an incremental effort made by numerous individuals, and it was not nearly as cavalier as you imply when you say:

Some law makers thought this was a bad idea and passed legislation the people or the south didn't like, specifically Arkansas.

Even the State Constitutions of the South that you refer to did not in anyway make slaver legal. There was no legal basis to defend slavery, and it was not just as simple as law makers passing legislation to prohibit slavery that brought about the changes you speak of, and a very bloody Civil War was fought over this issue.

Note: There are some people who will argue that the Civil War was not about slavery but was about State Rights, but I reject this argument as having any validity, because if it were true, the Southern States would have ended slavery before succession efforts to make perfectly clear they were fighting the federal government only over issues of States Rights versus Federal control.

Even further, the entire concept of the rule of law in the United States is premised upon the rejection of Divine Right Doctrine which was the established legal basis of Britain's rule over the colonies at the time of the Revolution for Independence. The colonies argued that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights, not granted by governments, but exist at birth, and rejected any notion of Divine Right of Rule as not having any legal basis. It was not as if law makers decided it was a good idea to give people more freedom and suddenly people were freer. Again, a very bloody war was fought in order for the colonies to gain their independence from British rule.

"Society" didn't make these changes, very real living breathing people, many of whom died in defense of freedom, made these changes. The outcome was a change in society.

The decisions about Marijuana I don't think were based on ignorance about what it does. It was made illegal due to the Mormon faith in Utah, and went from there. That is the argument I see from people who advocate legalization of some drugs.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 did not come into play because all the states in the union had all ready outlawed the substance. In 1937 30 of the 48 states in the Union at that time, had outlawed marijuana, which means that 18 states had not. The complex history of marijuana prohibition is not as simple as Mormons decided it was a good idea to prohibit it, so Utah did and from there it was a rush to outlaw the substance. Just as it will take incremental changes in society to undo the ill effects of this imprudent "war on drugs", it was incremental efforts that led to this "war on drugs".

Like I said, some drugs should be decriminalized. I don't think all of them should, and I don't support decriminalization for people to do drugs without penalty.

Your willingness to allow that some drugs should be "decriminalized" is a part of this incremental step we as individuals in society are taking. However, your insistence that people should not be allowed to do drugs without penalty is representative of why we are stuck in this mired process of incrementally moving towards saner policies.

If a large number of people want something legl, like marijuana, it will happen, like states in the West.

While some of the Western States have made strides in decriminalizing marijuana in terms of medical use, it is not as if the drug is legal, and while California is currently attempting to make it legal by ballot, in the form of Proposition 19, even if it passes, and even if it passes by overwhelming support, Gil Kerlikowlske, the current "Drug Czar" for Obama's Administration has made it perfectly clear that this Administration will not tolerate nor condone marijuana's legalization for recreational purposes. This means even if the drug is made legal by states, people will still face prosecution from the federal government, and arguably the states that move towards making it legal will have to face law suits filed by the federal government in an attempt to have the will of the people in those states subverted and subjected to federal legislation. Which only further undermines your arguments that it is "society" that decides what is law and what is not.

If we are to be a free nation, then it is paramount that the unalienable rights of people are respected and protected by the government created by the people. This must be the rule of law, and if it isn't the break down of law, and of society in general is predictable. If those who claim to be makers of law, legislate laws that have little to no regard for the rights of the people, then respect for the law in general wanes. If those who enforce the law, selectively choose legislation that makes criminals of people who have not victimized any person, while ignoring Constitutions that insist that all people have unalienable rights, then respect for law enforcement predictably wanes.

A society where White Hats, and Black Hats are clearly delineated, is a society where the White Hats are those iconic heroic figures who fight for the protection of peoples rights, and the Black Hats are those who abrogate and derogate these rights. A society filled with only Gray Hats, where no one is quite certain what a right even is, is a society that will predictably fall. We live in a society filled with Gray Hats today, and we demonstrably live in a society that is on the brink of falling.

In my heart, I believe you are one of the White Hats, and your motive to be an LEO is to protect the people. I will continue to make my arguments to you and others, that in order to keep your White Hat from Graying, you must necessarily make the choice to protect all people and their rights. Thus far, you have failed to make a cogent argument as to how prohibition of drugs does this. Sadly, you have relied on logical fallacies, relying on emotive language, and adverse consequences appealing to peoples fear in order to justify this prohibition. You have appealed to authority, and too often appealed to false authority. You have used arguments of excluded middles, and selective reasoning, in order to justify the imprisonment of drug users and traffickers.

Logical fallacies are for Gray Hats, not for iconic heroes who wear White Hats and fight for justice, and liberty for all. Law enforcement is not tasked with eliminating crime, and not preventing crime by criminalizing potential criminals, but is tasked with arresting criminals who have victimized another, or others, and with preventing the clear and present danger of crime. Your concerns over "meth" and heroin and PCP are noted, but there is no empirical data what-so-ever to support the notion that these drugs cause the abrogation and derogation of another persons rights. Arguing that they lead to crime is an Orwellian argument.

Wow.. you missed my point. I was pointing out that in our History, things have been legal, then illegal, then legal, depending on the social climate at the time. I don't endorse slavery, nor did I say it, so please please be careful putting words in my mouth.

The crux of my argument is the reason drugs are illegal, is because of how society views them. Heroin used to be legal back in the day, along with coc aine. Times changed, those drugs became illegal, and are no longer available legally.

Eventually enough time might pass where these drugs become legal again.
Just as at one time people thought slavery was a good idea, and later on said no.
Just as at one time people thought blacks should not mingle with whites, and later on said no thats wrong.
Just as now the military says if you are gay, you cant serve openly.

In the history of everything, a decision is made based on the social climate at the time. Just like in the 50's having a child out of wedlock. Then it was taboo, today its acceptable.

If people want the change, they will get it.. It iwll take time though.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Wow.. you missed my point. I was pointing out that in our History, things have been legal, then illegal, then legal, depending on the social climate at the time. I don't endorse slavery, nor did I say it, so please please be careful putting words in my mouth.

I did not miss your point, you are missing mine. At no time in the United States since the adoption of The Constitution for the United States of America was slavery legal. It was not legislated as such, and therefore not legal. It was simply an industry that was tolerated and its legality ignored by certain people. It was clearly a contradiction to the assertion of unalienable rights found in the State Constitutions where the slavery existed.

I did not at all say you endorsed slavery, what I said was that by declaring slavery once legal you have in effect argued that slavery was okay. You are mistaken, as a point of law, that slavery in the United States was ever legal. It was not. It was neither legal, nor expressly illegal, although it most assuredly ignored the Declaration of Rights found in State Constitution, so arguably it was illegal from the get go.

The crux of my argument is the reason drugs are illegal, is because of how society views them. Heroin used to be legal back in the day, along with coc aine. Times changed, those drugs became illegal, and are no longer available legally.

Here is the crux of my argument. Heroin was never legal, as in order to be legal it would have to have had some form of legislation declaring it so. Heroin at one point was outside of the law, and was neither legal nor illegal, it was simply not considered to be within the purview of law. That changed when legislatures began declaring jurisdiction over it.

Further, it is not as if the vast majority of people, which would fairly be "society", were clamoring for legislation prohibiting it when it was prohibited. Indeed, Sears and Roebuck's featured in the 1890's offered in their catalog a syringe and a small amount of coc aine for $1.50. (Cockburn, Alexander; Jeffrey St. Clair (1998). Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press) It was the Harrison Act of 1914 that began the process of prohibiting opiates, and this was not done because "society" demanded it, but was done incrementally, by individuals, including Charles Henry Brent, who lobbied for the Brent Commission for the purposes of examining licensing schemes for opiates. The recommendations made by the Brent Commission were then endorsed by U.S. Department of State, and Teddy Roosevelt, who lobbied for its demonizing by calling for international conventions such as the International Opium Commission, and the International Opium Convention.

These were the first steps made in prohibiting the substance out right, and it took concerted efforts by a handful of individuals to convince the public that such a thing was actually necessary.

Eventually enough time might pass where these drugs become legal again. Just as at one time people thought slavery was a good idea, and later on said no.

You seem to want to waiver back and forth on this slavery issue. As long as you keep insisting that slavery existed because people thought it was a good idea, you are ignoring the multitudes of people who opposed slavery at that time, including those who were held in bondage as slaves. Certainly you don't think the slaves themselves thought it was a good idea do you? You aren't suggesting that the States that expressly prohibited slavery at the inception of our federal government thought it was a good idea, are you? It is just not as simple as "people thought it was a good idea" and so it existed.

f people want the change, they will get it.. It iwll take time though.

This change takes time because of the resistance towards that change. In this regard, repealing drug prohibition laws will take time because there are people like you arguing such a thing is a threat to the fabric of society. It means people like me have to keep arguing with people like you, so that in the court of public opinion, the people are getting a balanced view of what is actually the truth regarding this issue.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
And until society decides the law is immoral and makes a change, it is a law, and the people charged and convicted under it are criminals. Simply stating otherwise is not a valid argument and you know this. It doesn't mean I agree with it, but again Law Enforcement does not make the law, the people elected into office do. If this argument held true, then the bulk of the inmate population could petition for release.

I never said they were not breaking the law.

I said they were innocent because many of them have not done anything immoral.

Using drugs is not inherently immoral.


Hear are some quotes from Harry J. Anslinger.

He started the "War on Drugs" by spreading ignorance because of his greed for power.

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

reply to post by Jezus


The post you replied to was directed at Jean Paul Zodeaux. Sorry bout the confusion.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Until a time comes where society as a whole changes their views on drugs and whats accepted, we can make all the arguments we want on why a law is illegal, immoral etc, but we cannot escape the fact it is a law, and because its a law, there are consequences for breaking it.

This is an extremely disturbing point of view...

Accepting laws that are immoral just because "society as a whole" has not organized and changed them is why the most horrible things happen.

Atrocities happen because of this point of view.

Some things are immoral, this isn't just about different opinions, this is about ignorance and greed.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Until a time comes where society as a whole changes their views on drugs and whats accepted, we can make all the arguments we want on why a law is illegal, immoral etc, but we cannot escape the fact it is a law, and because its a law, there are consequences for breaking it.

This is an extremely disturbing point of view...

Accepting laws that are immoral just because "society as a whole" has not organized and changed them is why the most horrible things happen.

Atrocities happen because of this point of view.

Some things are immoral, this isn't just about different opinions, this is about ignorance and greed.

Let me clarify since this is now the 2nd time words were placed into my mouth...

It is in reference to drugs, and not the wholesale slaughter of people, groups etc. There is a difference between the 2, and this is no longer the 1930-40's.

My argument is, and has been, that at one point weed, heroin, coc aine were legal. Then they weren't, Now weed is a lesser crime. Why is this, because of how society sees the drug, its use, and consequences of its use.

This is what I am referencing.

reply to post by Xcathdra



Your missing the point but, once upon a time technically they where legal, however due to propaganda, scare tactics used by people wishing to gain power they scared then people then used that leverage to gain power with promises to abolish these drugs.

Those comments by Anslinger are a perfect example of how the ignorant population was mislead by bull# scare tactics, to gain power.

Civilization as a whole isn't happy unless there is something to be scared off it was pot in the 60s, crack in the 80s and now its Meth.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Let me clarify since this is now the 2nd time words were placed into my mouth...

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. You decided all on your own to use words such as this:

Well society does make these determinations. If I remember right, society thought it was a good idea that people could own slaves.

It was a mistake to think that you could use the existence of slavery as an analogy for what is acceptable in terms of law. In terms of American jurisprudence there never was any such thing as legal slavery. It had remained outside the purview in those states that had not prohibited it, and within the states that did prohibit it, it was illegal, not legal. Just because the Southern states had not legislated any prohibition regarding slavery, this didn't make it legal.

1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular c : established by law; especially : statutory
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law

www.merriam-webster.com...

There were no formal declarations, as in Constitution, statutes, or ordinances declaring slavery legal, and prior to the prohibition of narcotics there were no formal declarations that ruled that narcotics were legal.

This distinction is important to make regarding this discussion. It is not as if drugs were once legal, now they're not, and maybe in the future they will be again. Narcotics were once considered to be an area outside of the law, and now they're not, and given the unfortunate nature of this, now we have discussions of making drugs "legal", so if in the future they become legal, it will only be because a formal declaration of law has made it so.

Of course, we can simply just repeal the legislation prohibiting narcotics, and not worry about making any formal declarations of legality, and go back to drugs being outside of the purview of law, but this is highly unlikely, and prohibition has opened a Pandora's box of legality, where governments have claimed jurisdiction on the matter, and will remain loathe to let go of this jurisdiction, as is evidenced by your own attitudes regarding the usage. While you are willing to admit that "war on drugs" is not working, you are not willing to admit that jurisdiction over their use is not any business of the government.

Even with slavery, the greatest problem that came with the 13th Amendment and the prohibition of slavery on a federal level was the 14th Amendment that followed, which suddenly made inalienable rights "legal rights" for citizens of the United States of America. Such an act is a direct contradiction in terms since by definition inalienable is that which cannot be transferred by one to another, and yet we have in effect this transference by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Because of this, inalienable rights have largely become moot and the governments, justice system, public school systems, and various legal entities in the form of non profit organizations place emphasis on "civil rights" instead of inalienable rights. A Pandora's box indeed.

Civil rights are legal rights granted by government. Inalienable rights are rights that preexist governments and belong to all people regardless of what governments have to say about them.

I can see no reason to surrender inalienable rights just to have legal rights, and this imprudent drug war is a perfect example as to why legal rights are far less valuable than inalienable rights.

Hell, I can't tell you how many times someone I know has come up with an idea, sometimes a business idea, and at other times just an idea they have for a better world, and they share the idea and then ask me if it is legal. How ridiculous is that? I'd like to make shoes and sell them...is that legal? I would like to get married...is that legal? I would like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, I'd like to buy the world a coke and keep it company...is that legal?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


...and for a third time now, don't put words in my mouth. The statement was not supporting slavery, or justifying it in any way shape or form. Please go back and read the intent behind my words.

The argument we have been having the last few pages revolves around either decriminalization, or legalization of drugs. Part of that argument is the reason these drugs are illegal / criminal is because society sees them that way, and when society is offended by something, society can make the changes based on the heat of the moment.

I was pointing out that in addition to drugs, slavery, civil rights, gay rights etc, all have been legal and then illegal at any given point in time, depending the mood and moral outrage society puts on the issues at these points in history.

Using it as an example in no way makes it right, and I have stated, now 3 times, that I don't endorse it. The argument I am making, and we can use marijuana so there is no more confusion from people seeing what they want in a post, is Marijuana was legal back in the day. Anyone could buy it, sell it, and smoke it. Then, it became illegal, first in Utah due to the Mormons at the time because they were the predominant society in that area, and as such, could make a law that is supported by the bulk of the people there.

Few decades go by, and it is still illegal, but no longer a felony or high court misdemeanor.

A Few more decades go by, and now several communities, and several states, allow the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes only.

Other states / cities (Ann Arbor MI comes ot mind) makes possession of a personal amount an infraction.

Why you ask.. Because the bulk of society in Ann Arbor has a differing view on marijuana, its effects on the body, and how it affects society. So they got together, and changed the law.

This is the argument I've been making, and its an argument you see throughout history. I am using different aspects of History, how those parts were viewed, and how they were changed, which ultimately changed societal views and law changes throughout the US.

Now, please for the love of God, discuss decriminalization / legalization and how to do it or stop it, and quit fixating on the supporting documentation I have posted to support an argument of societal change based on shifting views and belief systems, and spinning it to characterize me as something I am not.

Please and Thank You.

Originally posted by Xcathdra


And until society decides the law is immoral and makes a change, it is a law, and the people charged and convicted under it are criminals. Simply stating otherwise is not a valid argument and you know this. It doesn't mean I agree with it, but again Law Enforcement does not make the law, the people elected into office do. If this argument held true, then the bulk of the inmate population could petition for release.

As far as the comment about maximum security please do some research into how the Prison system works. If they are sent to a maximum security prison based off a drug conviction it either has to do with the additional charges aside from the drugs, or they have a previous record of violent behavior.

So Rosa Parks was a criminal too?

You are wrong about how the prison system works. People are sent maximum security prison drug charges alone. If it wasn't late I'd find link to back up my claim.

You know, I sent you a private message.. Please read it before responding.

The Slavery issue is relevant to this conversation, if for the moment you can move beyond whatever your perceived issue is behind me using it.

At one time, Society allowed it, then it didnt.


This is what im trying to get through to you. If I have to actually declare that slavery is wrong, as I have done, I can do so again here - SLAVERY IS WRONG

Now, with that out of the way, you have to look at what society at that moment in history saw as acceptable. Once you grasp this, then you can see the argument I am making. You have to read the ENTIRE argument for this concept to sink in, which means moving beyond your obsession with slavery and what you think its place is in this argument.

The argument is about Societal change, IE drugs being good, then bad, then good. The other examples I gave, which you ignored except for slavery, are along the same lines.

At one point, society as a whole said sure, coc aine heroin and weed are ok to buy... No wait, they are evil, and illegal. No, some are ok, others are not.

The same argument applies to everything I listed, with the focus on the change in Society and its morals, what is acceptable and what is not.

Drop the damn slavery issue as you are completely interpreting it in your own twisted manner and attempting to attribute your incorrect spin to my train of thought.

Ive clarified 4 times now.. Do we need a 5th? Can you please recognize it as a supporting argument to societal change, and not an endorsement of slavery???

Please, for the love of God, get over it and move on.

reply to post by jrod


Good Lord.. When she did what she did, she was in violation of the Law. Then she and a bunch of other smart people decided to boycott, at which point societal view started to change, and then it was not illegal for her to do what she did.

Any other BS arguments you wanna chuck my way for a cheap thrill?

As far as Prison goes find your documentation and I will give you mine. It varies from state to state. The people who went to jail for drug crimes, please supply their files so we can see what other crimes they have been convicted of prior to the drug charge, as these are taken into account for sentencing.

reply to post by Xcathdra




Slavery was once deemed "ok" then it was made illegal, why was it made illegal ? because it is immoral and wrong.



Drugs where once deemed ok then made illegal, Why where they made illegal? Because a bunch of people saw a way to gain power, and used scare tactics and propaganda to convince the general population of the "evil" of drugs.


Drug use is neither immoral or wrong.



That's the simplest way I think I can explain it to show how your slavery argument is wrong.

reply to post by Sacri


Well, again, there is more than just the Slavery argument. But since we have opened Pandoras box a history lesson.

When we were still colonies under the British, slavery was allowed, because it was legal. The first Virginia colonies used slaves, known as free labor. Add in Chattel Slavery and Indentured servitude, factor in our declaration of Independence, and you still have legal slavery practiced in the South.

The newly minted Federal Government wanted this practice gone, and the Southern states said no. There view is because it was never placed into the Constitution, it was a reserved matter for the States. The 1860's hit, The south cedes from the Union and we have a civil war based on States Rights.

Once the Civil war is over with, the 13th amendment is passed, making slave ownership illegal.

end of history lesson.

Now, today we find slavery immoral and wrong. The argument ive been making is AT THE TIME slavery was used, it was considered by most to be acceptable, until society had enough and said absolutely not.

See the argument. Relate it to drugs now, or civil rights, gay rights, right to bear arms, etc etc. The examples I used that people are finding so offensive need to be looked at from a societal point of view in terms of change. At the time these laws were passed, the people were fine with what was passed. It doesn't make it right, or moral, but taken in context AT THE TIME it was the way it was.

People stood up in all of these areas and made the arguments, railing away to change the mindset to have these moral issues changed.

Drugs were legal, then they weren't based on societal views and morals OF THE TIME. As time went on Societal values began to shift on certain drugs and not others. Today, IN THIS TIME, the moral / societal view on marijuana is changing slowly, just as everything else has when confronted with a societal change and push.

You guys really need to move beyond what your current perceptions are about the past, and look at the examples of how society makes changes, whether moral, immoral, legal, illegal that affect and move society in one direction or another.

This same flux is back into the drug area, bringing debate back to the societal level in the West where its legal, in Canada, where the pill THC is legal, etc etc.

If you guys want to continue to debate the morals of slavery that's all on you. I have clarified and stated my position on 6 different occasions now because people look at the past and ignore the social change aspect that affects us to this day.

Drug use is immoral, and it is wrong in my opinion. You disagree with that, and that's fine to. Until you can convince enough people to your viewpoint, drugs will remain illegal and criminal.

Anyways.. Should drugs be legal, or illegal.

/discuss - People have heard me, and twisted my words enough, so I am stepping out of this debate.

reply to post by Xcathdra

...and for a third time now, don't put words in my mouth. The statement was not supporting slavery, or justifying it in any way shape or form. Please go back and read the intent behind my words.

...and for the second time now, neither I, nor anyone else in this thread has put words in your mouth, and I quoted you verbatim. If you can't take responsibility for your own words, then this is your problem, but disingenuously deflecting what you said, and claiming other I and other people are putting words in your mouth for taking you to task for the words you wrote, doesn't help your case.

The argument we have been having the last few pages revolves around either decriminalization, or legalization of drugs. Part of that argument is the reason these drugs are illegal / criminal is because society sees them that way, and when society is offended by something, society can make the changes based on the heat of the moment.

You brought up the issue of slavery, and used slavery as a justification for the prohibition of drugs by making the argument that these things happen because of the way "society" sees it. It is you making this argument and no one else. I told you from the get go it was a mistake to make the slavery analogy, and either you can own up to that mistake, or keep deflecting by insisting people are putting words in your mouth, but the more you insist on doing the latter, the worse it looks for you.

I was pointing out that in addition to drugs, slavery, civil rights, gay rights etc, all have been legal and then illegal at any given point in time, depending the mood and moral outrage society puts on the issues at these points in history.

I have pointed out that slavery was never, ever legal in the United States, and I made a strong case to support that, and instead of acknowledging that, you are still backpedaling claiming I have put words in your mouth. I have not. I continue to insist that slavery was never legal, and as a point of law, you are in error. Slavery was never condoned by legislation and it is a mistake to insist that it was once legal in the United States. The same goes for drug use and trafficking. Prior to prohibition legislative acts, narcotics was never condoned by legal fiat in the United States. It is an erroneous assertion to claim that narcotics was once legal. Narcotics was, prior to legislation prohibiting it, outside the purview of the law.

Using it as an example in no way makes it right, and I have stated, now 3 times, that I don't endorse it.

You just don't want to admit that it was mistake using it as an example. Slavery was never, as you claim, legal in the United States. Slavery was not seen "as a good idea" by several of the original states in the Union, and as for the Southern states, not a single one had made it legal, and had instead ignored the legal issue, and left it outside the purview of the law.

The argument I am making, and we can use marijuana so there is no more confusion from people seeing what they want in a post, is Marijuana was legal back in the day.

Marijuana has never been legal in the United States, and you will not find one single Act of Legislation to support your claim. Prior to legislation that either prohibited it, or taxed it, there was no legislation declaring it legal. It was outside the purview of the law until legislatures began taxing and prohibiting it. I took great care to provide the definition of legal, and you are ignoring this effort in order to keep making your claims. You are, as a point of law, in error.

Anyone could buy it, sell it, and smoke it.

Because the inalienable right to do so was never questioned.

Then, it became illegal, first in Utah due to the Mormons at the time because they were the predominant society in that area, and as such, could make a law that is supported by the bulk of the people there.

You are ignoring the anti Mexican factor in terms of prohibition of marijuana in Utah in 1915 which had as much to do with the issue as anything else. More importantly, your premise is once again that laws can be made based upon the majority support of the population, which flies directly in the face of the republics established to prevent majorities from trampling over the rights of minorities and individuals. This is a disturbing pattern with you and what I am addressing, not your views on slavery, but your cavalier attitudes about the whimsical nature of legislatures.

This is the argument I've been making, and its an argument you see throughout history. I am using different aspects of History, how those parts were viewed, and how they were changed, which ultimately changed societal views and law changes throughout the US.

Stare decisis is a legal term which means "to stand by that which is decided". The Constitution has remained largely the same today as it was when it was written with only 27 Amendments added to that Constitution since it was written, and the first ten, being the Bill of Rights were added very shortly after it was written to make clear to the federal government that certain rights were not to be messed with. Among those Bill of Rights is the 9th Amendment which makes perfectly clear that rights not enumerated are still rights, and virtually all state Constitutions make the same assertion within their Declaration of Rights.

Judicial Review in American jurisprudence is the legal concept that the courts have jurisdiction in weighing the constitutionality of legislation, and the power to strike down any legislation that does not conform with the Constitution.

Your vague and cavalier language you are using to either state directly or imply that as long as a majority believes it is okay to enact a law this makes it fine and dandy, and there is nothing people can do about it except hope that social mores change in time is not at all an accurate reflection of American jurisprudence.

Further, unless you can provide statistics showing that the majority of Americans supported slavery at the time of its founding, we have only your word to take that slavery was viewed as "a good idea" by "the people". Most people did not own slaves in America when it was founded.

Even further, unless you can provide statistical data that shows that a vast majority of people supported drug prohibition laws when they were legislated, we still only have your word to take for it. Finding such statistical information will be difficult for you, but we can look at the history of the prohibition of alcohol and its subsequent repeal to know that most people did not support that prohibition, and we can further look at all the years of drug prohibition with many statistical reports citing that a huge percentage of the population has tried an illicit drug at least once, to know that prohibition of it is not as popular as you are suggesting it is.

The United States of America was founded on the rejection of tyranny as a valid form of government and the Declaration of Independence written to justify the Revolution, made clear that usurpation's of government by tyrants was not acceptable. You can argue that the people want drug prohibition until the cows come home, more and more evidence is appearing that this is just not true, and the people want to end this drug war, and see a much saner policy in place. I suggest we find some common ground and discuss what that saner policy might be, instead of you defending whimsical legislation as an acceptable form of law.