War On Drugs

[jamus]

According to the State Department's annual drug-trafficking report, a federal law took effect in 1985 authorizing the United States to penalize countries that do not control illicit narcotics production. Today, these same countries are now producing larger quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, Furthermore, three years after installing a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state. Opium poppy is the raw material for heroin. Colombia is the source of more than 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin entering the United States. The report also listed Mexico as a major producer of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana destined for U.S. markets. Source: New York Times and Associated Press.

Some would argue that the only solution would be the legalization of drugs. By removing the criminality of drug sales, possession and usage, the United States government could devote more of its law enforcement resources on other crimes such as murder, rape, assault etc. Furthermore, they argue that regulation of such drugs could create a revenue enhancement for federal, state and local governments. The counter argument suggests that by legalizing drugs, the government grants an implicit consent that drug consumption is morally acceptable. Others argue that the U.S. should focus more on the demand side of the problem by increasing funds for psychiatric and psychological counseling. Their argument is based on the idea that if the individual is properly counseled and medicated, the demand for illegal narcotics would drop significantly. The counter argument is that this solution is cost prohibitive and will only result in replacing one problem with another. Still others offer a more hard-line approach when it comes to dealing with foreign countries such as setting a deadline for the removal of narcotics production. If the deadline passes, the U.S. should utilize various crop-field-burning methods so as to totally obliterate any type of crop production. This would effectively eliminate the central piece of drug production across the planet. The counter argument, however, is that this policy would prevent farmers from switching to other crops in order to earn a legitimate living. I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today. Perhaps a balanced integration of all three of these solutions is our only answer.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

The war on drugs is bullshit. Let's defund the DEA. Those people need to get real jobs.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Today, these same countries are now producing larger quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do they continue to do this? Because it is profitable. Why is drug production and trafficking turn such a huge profit? Because narcotics are illegal, they are sold on the black market at grossly inflated prices. Legalize drugs, and corporations that don't need to rely on murder and gang-warfare will sell them at a reasonable price at local stores.

[ QUOTE ]

Some would argue that the only solution would be the legalization of drugs. By removing the criminality of drug sales, possession and usage, the United States government could devote more of its law enforcement resources on other crimes such as murder, rape, assault etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, empirical evidence seems to suggest that prohibition of substances such as drugs (and back in the day, alcohol) is linked with murder. I imagine a rather large percentage of murders in the U.S. (and an overwhelming percentage of inner-city murders) are related to illicit drug sales. If 7-11, and not the Bloods, sold drugs, do you really think there would be so much incentive for inner-city kids to murder each other or engage in gang warfare? Also, if 7-11 sold heroin at a reasonable price, junkies could probably panhandle their way to getting another hit rather than resorting to robbery and assault.

[ QUOTE ]

The counter argument suggests that by legalizing drugs, the government grants an implicit consent that drug consumption is morally acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a fun game. Pick the more morally reprehensible action:
A) Men with guns dragging someone off to jail for possessing organic compounds that get him high. Note that the person being imprisoned did not harm anyone but himself.
B) Possessing and using psychoactive organic compounds.

Now, the bonus question. To which one does the government grant (not-so-)implicit consent?

[ QUOTE ]
Others argue that the U.S. should focus more on the demand side of the problem by increasing funds for psychiatric and psychological counseling. Their argument is based on the idea that if the individual is properly counseled and medicated, the demand for illegal narcotics would drop significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a stupid idea. Almost all youths in the US are "counseled" and "warned" about the evils of drugs in elemntary school and middle school. We're constantly bombarded by tear-jerking anti-drug commercials, such as the one about the girl who did two hits of ecstacy and died. But hey, drug use still isn't down. Are you suggesting some sort of government-funded anti-drug medication program? Isn't that kind of ironic?

Some people will be drawn to addiction no matter what the government tells them. Also, if drugs are legalized, not everyone will wake up and say, "hey, let's try some smack!" The people who want to do it will just be able to do so for less money (and less of a cost to society), that's all.

[ QUOTE ]
Still others offer a more hard-line approach when it comes to dealing with foreign countries such as setting a deadline for the removal of narcotics production. If the deadline passes, the U.S. should utilize various crop-field-burning methods so as to totally obliterate any type of crop production.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, screw the concept of the sovereignty nations, let's start some more wars so that our kiddies won't get high! Maybe we can sign those same kiddies up to fly the planes and operate the flame-throwers that will burn those evil opium fields. Sure, they'll murder a few peasant farmers (who cares about them, their skin isn't white!) and in turn get shot at by the personal armies of drug lords. But, though some may die, at least they won't be (heaven forbid!) doing drugs!

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Make narcotics legal, however, and you solve the problem.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Agreed...Let the DEA die
There is no war on drugs...Only a war on people who use drugs.....

[Dead]

It only benefits the corrupt prison guard unions and law enforcement in general.

Politicians also.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed...Let the DEA die
There is no war on drugs...Only a war on people who use drugs.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Tupac,

"Instead of of a war on hypocrisy, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me"

[Dead]

The police had other reasons to bother him as well.

Like the rape he committed.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
The police had other reasons to bother him as well.

Like the rape he committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like 99% of all other drug dealers.

[Dead]

Maybe so.

Doesn't make it any less awful.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed...Let the DEA die
There is no war on drugs...Only a war on people who use drugs.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Tupac,

"Instead of of a war on hypocrisy, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he said "poverty" and not "hypocrisy"

[jamus]

some excellent points and analysis...illegal narcotics are a symptom of our country imploding (addiction) as compared to exploding (terrorists)...

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The police had other reasons to bother him as well.

Like the rape he committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like 99% of all other drug dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that 99% of drug dealers are rapists?

Also, are you claiming Tupac was a drug dealer?

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed...Let the DEA die
There is no war on drugs...Only a war on people who use drugs.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored] I gree with you. I didn't think the day would ever come /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

War on Drugs = Facade

[Woolygimp]

I consider any thread even mentioning the legalization of drugs as a hilarious ploy dereft of basic logic, and the poster a person void of all responsibility and sense.

Seriously, I don't want my children to grow up with a neighbor who is a heroine addict.
Heavy drug abusers are among the most dangerous people on the planet, people who will do ANYTHING to fuel their addictions. The last thing we need to do is to make their addictions legal. Marijuana is nothing compared to Cocaine/Heroine, these drugs are truly dangerous. Read the headlines, "Mother suspected of heroine abuse murders her 3 children."

Drugs which impede one's judgement, to that extent, should NEVER be justified.

As for, "it's too difficult to fight the war on drugs." Thousands of car theft's occur each day, lets make Grand Theft Auto legal. Armed Robbery should also be legalized, and hell while we are at it...Why not murder?

Actually i'd say more but this [censored] isn't even worth my time. I just hope you idiots don't actually get elected to a position of power because based on the views you've expressed the only thing you should be in charge of is your own self idiocy.

Edit:

[ QUOTE ]

I agree. Make narcotics legal, however, and you solve the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit. Drug abusers hurt so many more people with their addictions.

Look at alchohol, #1 cause of child & domestic abuse. #1 cause of fatal vehicle accidents.

Now imagine much more potent drugs than alchohol in the hands of people who are morally irresponsible. You are an idiot if you think they ONLY hurt themselves.

[natedogg]

Grand Theft Auto is legal. Who's the idiot again?

natedogg

[Woolygimp]

...i was talking about the crime. Commiting Grand Theft Auto is NOT legal, and can earn your ass 25 years to life in prison. You are either joking, or you were talking about the video game. I think it's the latter, meaning you are an idiot kid who shouldn't be allowed to pass judgement on the more fundamental elements of life, because you can't differentiate between a ****ing game and real life.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Now imagine much more potent drugs than alchohol in the hands of people who are morally irresponsible. You are an idiot if you think they ONLY hurt themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pray for the day that ignorant blowhards like yourself are considered as quaint and embarassing as segregationists. You are wrong on so many levels it's really an embarassment to your upbringing and your teachers and your parents. Didn't anyone every sit you down and teach you how to think critically?

I'll try a little Socratic method on you, maybe it will help.

1. Why was Prohibition repealed?

2. Why isn't the country swamped by out of control alcoholics abusing their families and raping nuns? After all, alcohol is legal isn't it?

3. Do we punish all drinkers because some people choose to drink and drive?

4. Have any modern societies actually tried a different approach to drug prohibition? Hint: YES. Have those societies imploded from an inexorable pressure of self-decay and degeneracy? Hint: No. Now go do you homework and research what I'm referring to. It might help your blood pressure.

natedogg

[Woolygimp]

Prohibition has nothing to do with the current state of illegal narcotics. Do some [censored] research about it, I've written 2 5000+ word essays on the subject.

[natedogg]

The latest wonderful results from Drug Prohibition:

http://www.reason.com/sullum/040105.shtml

natedogg

[Woolygimp]

Your comparison between Alchohol and Cocaine has no grounds. Heres an exaggerated metaphor: Just because guns are legal doesn't mean EVERYONE runs around on shooting sprees. Thats why nuclear warheads should be available to the general public.

[natedogg]

Let's take a more sober look at your argument since you are incapable of understanding puns, the simplest form of humor.

Now I realize you've written two 5000 word essays on the subject but have you actually READ anything about it? It appears you haven't.

You claim that the argument for legalizing drugs is similar to an asinine hypothetical proposal to legalize armed robbery. You make this wholly flawed analogy based on the legalization argument that enforcement is too difficult.

I don't know how egregiously stupid one must be to even entertain this line of reasoning but I imagine it borders on the same level required to vote for Hillary Clinton.

1. Enforcement of armed robbery laws is far, far less problematic than drug prohibition, so no sane person would ever try to propose that we legalize armed robbery "because it's too hard to enforce". It is in fact, not too difficult to enforce. Your reductio ad absurdum, a fallacy in itself, was based on a strawman fallacy to begin with.

2. Armed robbery is in fact a violent crime against someone's person and property. It is the duty of our society to protect its citizens from predators. Drug use is not in and of itself a crime against anyone. If that is too much for you mind to handle, then answer me this. What is the difference between these two "crimes":

A. A man dying of cancer takes a percocet and goes to sleep after watching some tv that night.

B. A man not dying of cancer takes a percocet and goes to sleep after watching some tv that night.

3. Even the most uninformed illiterate monkey-dog can understand that the REASON drug use leads to social crimes is because of the prohibition in the first place. Drug prohibition is the cause of the violent drug trade, and the astronomical prices. To argue, with a straight face, that if we legalize drugs the current atmosphere of crime that comes with drug use will increase is to flat out admit you are a drooling idiot who can't read much less comprehend basic logic.

4. Lastly, your stance requires a complete and total disregard for even a semblance of respect for individual liberty and responsibility.


For a discussion of the issue by some guys who are a lot smarter than both of us, try this:

First becker:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html

Then Posner:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_war_on_drug.html

natedogg

[natedogg]

It's really hard to believe that there are still people who think drug prohibition is a good idea.

My god.... somebody might be high on cocaine! Stop everything people! We have to put him in prison before he does something he'll regret!

natedogg

[Woolygimp]

You know my opinion on this subject not only pertains to knowledge and assumption but on personal experience. I've known this friend for a good 12-14 years, considered him a best friend for a long time. He started drug abuse, became a degenerate twat and ended up stealing a large amount of money from me. (Not really to fuel his addiction) Now he just finished serving 2 months in county for Marijuana, and went back in a few weeks later for breaking his probation by continuing his addictions. His family turned him in.

Everyone noticed a change in him once he started abusing weed, and it is ONLY weed... Its not coke, its not crack, its not [censored] heroine...its weed.

Drugs change personalities, and they ruin lives. Alcohol remains legal because it is an ancient tradition, its a relatively harmless drug which can became fatal when used in the wrong circumstances. Alchohol though is far, and I mean FAR less addictive than the drugs you would like to legalize.

You HAVE to understand this, Illegal Narcotics are some of the most addictive things known to man. Just because people can get them "cheaper" won't change this.
Narcotics have no realistic beneficial effects on society, They don't save lives. They don't encourage better decision making, and they sure as hell aren't a social lubricant like alchohol.

They are used by people who want to escape their problems instead of confronting them, this leads to addiction by repeated use. I'm not even going to waste my time to present a good argument tonight...

[Woolygimp]

You say most crime is committed by people wasted on an illegal substance, and you are ABSOLUTELY right.

You are also wrong though.

Crime is not always some inner city gang members shooting each other, or someone robbing someone to fuel their addictions cause of expensive drugs.
Read the news.

Parents killing their children because of hallucinations.
Men attacking police officers because they are wasted.
People so disassociated with real life they commit crimes for basic money, because they have lost the drive to be a productive human being.

Most crime has to do with drugs, You are right. Honestly that crime has nothing to do with the legality of drugs, its crime commited by people so [censored] up they can't tell right from wrong.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I consider any thread even mentioning the legalization of drugs as a hilarious ploy dereft of basic logic, and the poster a person void of all responsibility and sense."
***********************************************
Of course you are. You are closed-minded and have obviously done ZERO research on the topic. And from your response you have ZERO inclination to investigate both sides of the issue.


"Seriously, I don't want my children to grow up with a neighbor who is a heroine addict."
************************************************** **
Neither do I.
Nor do I want them to grow up next to an alcoholic. So what is your point?


"Heavy drug abusers are among the most dangerous people on the planet, people who will do ANYTHING to fuel their addictions."
************************************************** ***
I think you have been reading too many comic books lately.
90% of violence associated with drug use is because it is ILLEGAL. I will give you a historical example:
During Prohibition, the crime and violence associated with alcohol rose dramatically. The black market supplied the alcohol and since disputes could not be taken to legal courts then VIOLENCE was the primary method of resolving disputes. Also prohibition artificially raised the price of alcohol and some alcholics turned to crime to pay for their addictions.

After Prohibition was lifted, Al Capone, Meyer Lansky, etc... were out-of-business. And when I last checked, the CEO of Budweiser does not send out hit teams to kill the CEO of Coors. Yet this happen in Prohibition....

Legal drugs reduces crime in two ways:
1. Disputes can be taken into courts of law
2. The price of drugs falls and addicts can more easily finance their habit, rather than turning to crime.
The con side of this is cocaine that sells for $100/g now will then sell for $10/g. Will this increase drug abuse? Maybe. If the price of whiskey drops from $10/pint to $1/pint. ***I*** certainly am not going to drink 10 times more whiskey... If the price of chystal meth drops 99%, I still won't try it...


"Read the headlines, "Mother suspected of heroine abuse murders her 3 children."
************************************************** *******
OK, I challenge you to post a link of a mother murdering 3 of her children because of heroine.....
***I*** can post links of a SOBER mother murdering her children because her boyfriend did not like kids.
I think your being OVERLY dramatic...


'As for, "it's too difficult to fight the war on drugs." Thousands of car theft's occur each day, lets make Grand Theft Auto legal. Armed Robbery should also be legalized, and hell while we are at it...Why not murder?
************************************************** ********
Well because true libertarians believe that people should be free to live their lives as they wish AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HURT OTHER PEOPLE.

Grand Theft Auto: Your hurting people by taking their property away from them.
Armed Robbery: Your hurting people by taking their property away and possible their lives.
Murder: That should be self-explanatory.
Drug User: The user may harm their own body but they don't hurt anyone else. But alcoholics harm their own bodies too but we learned it is better to keep it legal...

True story:
I use to be president of a Toastmasters Public Speaking Club in Richardson, TX and once a year we had a debate. The topic was always drug legalization. As moderator of the debate I selected the teams, gave them material, and they prepared. One married woman in her 40's (w/ kids) walked up to me and said she wasn't comfortable with being on the pro-legalization side. I told her that sometimes attourneys have to represent clients they did not like and that this exercise was to improve our public speaking. She half-heartedly aggreed. After the debate was over she walked up to me and said the experience open her eyes and she had changed her views on legalization. What surprised me was she look so SQUARE and she was the last person I would think would take that stance.

I can argue both sides of the legalization issue. There is no easy wonderful solution to the issue. There are advantages and disadvantages to legalizing drugs. But based on my research the advantages OUTWEIGH the disadvantages.

It is simple a choice of choosing the lesser of two evils.
In 1930 we chose to re-legalize alchonol, not because it was a wonderful product that made the USA a better place but because illegal alcohol made the USA a WORSE place...

[Woolygimp]

The legalization of drugs in the United States will never happen. So this argument is pointless.

I'll say it again, Alcohol had tradition on its side. The prohibition of Alcohohol in the 20's is nothing like legalizing heroine in the future.

[renodoc]

natedogg is the man.

natedogg for president/chamberlain/master of the univerise.

bag social security, bag medicare, bag the insane WOD....

you have my vote dude.

[Woolygimp]

The legalization of drugs is somewhat reminiscent to the current issue of firearms. Pistols and rifles are for the most part legal, this is because of their background just the same as alcohol. Rifles are mostly used for recreation, albeit they can kill people they are considered part of our legal foundation. Alchohol is used for mostly social concerns, and it too can kill people.

Supporters of legalizing drugs think that any crime that doesn't harm other people should not be considered a crime.

Owning an assault rifle or sub-machine gun harms noone. Hell why not give everyone a military grade gun, cause the act of owning it itself truly does no harm. Although put into the wrong hands it can be fatal to large numbers of people, and even though it is similiar to the legal guns today it is a much more potent item. Consider it heroine to alchohol.

You may say illegal narcotics are safe, I say you are full of [censored]. Most of my friends have been on coke, and it is not a safe drug... It is not only dangerous to the person who takes it, but the people around him.

Anyway its early and I can't write worth a [censored] atm, I was just poiinting out the similarities in drug legalization and legalizing military grade firearms such as assault rifles, heavy machine guns, and shoulder fired rockets. I don't know how you could support one and not the other.

[Girchuck]

Heroine used to be legal, you know.
It was invented by Bayer in the beginning of last century same year as aspirin. The pharmacies sold it as a cough remedy.
Cocaine used to be legal, part of the original Coca-Cola recipe. Extasy was legal for a long time. Cannabis use has a long tradition as well.
You can't claim tradition as a reason to keep alcohol legal. If alcohol didn't exist and an enterprising chemist invented it today, how long would it take the government to make its use a felony? It is physically addictive, very toxic, and especially in combination with other CNS depressors will kill even in case of small overdoses. People, drunk on alcohol, routinely commit acts of violence.
The problem with prohibition was that alcohol was very cheap to produce and remained legal most everywhere else outside the country. So prohibition just created an opportunity for illegal high profits. One has to be practical and waisting billions of dollars a year to make the price of pot double is not practical. The current War on Drugs does not address the demand, only the supply. However, the best law enfourcement can do is intercept half of the supply. That simply doubles the price, because the demand will still be met by the opportunistic drug traders.
War on Drugs puts too much money into the hands of drug dealers. One can hardly win a war while supplying one's enemy.

[Woolygimp]

The only reason pot is illegal is because it is a gateway drug. I don't recall a single modern country that has legalized coke or heroine, and there is a reason for that. They don't mix with society.

We are losing the war on drugs, but that doesn't mean we should give up. We attack both the supply and demand, last time i checked noone got 15 years for pot unless they were a major supplier.

We should increase the border patrol, over 3 million illegals come through our border every MONTH. It is also a major highway for illegal narcotics, that border should be closed as soon as possible.

[Girchuck]

It'll take millions of border guards and billions in equipment to close the borders. And still, it will be vulnerable to corruption. The economical losses from closing the borders will be astronomical. We do have all these free trade agreements with the neighbors, remember?
Closing the borders is about as realistic as legalizing all the drugs. It is not politically acceptable.
I think pot is a gateway drug, because it is illegal, not the other way round. It introduces the users to illegal drug dealing. If pot were legal, users would buy it cheap from legal dealers, for whom it would be disadvantageous to introduce the user to other, illegal drugs.

[Woolygimp]

Chuck we aren't talking about legalizing pot, we are talking about legalizing heroine and coke.

Put some military on the border in my opinion.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The police had other reasons to bother him as well.

Like the rape he committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like 99% of all other drug dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that 99% of drug dealers are rapists?

Also, are you claiming Tupac was a drug dealer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not neccessarily rapists, but that they commit other serious felonies, ie. burglary, larceny,assualt, murder.

Tupac, a drug dealer? NOOOOO why I would think that!? Puhhhhleaze don't tell me you think othewise. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

I noticed you did not (or could not) dispute any of the advantages I listed for legalized narcotics.....

So do you concede legal narcotics will reduce crime?

[Girchuck]

Our present military is ill-suited for guard duty.
It is a strike force very efficient at dealing destruction and death, but is is not trained for border guard duty.
Some military is actually a lot. Soviet Union had its borders closed air tight. It had a million soldiers assigned specifically to border guard duty. It would take at least as much for US, but we do not have a million strong army, do we? And recruitment is down. I find the comparison to Soviet Union's treatment of borders quite scary, don't you? It seems that the cure that you propose could be worse than the disease.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
Our present military is ill-suited for guard duty.
It is a strike force very efficient at dealing destruction and death, but is is not trained for border guard duty.
Some military is actually a lot. Soviet Union had its borders closed air tight. It had a million soldiers assigned specifically to border guard duty. It would take at least as much for US, but we do not have a million strong army, do we? And recruitment is down. I find the comparison to Soviet Union's treatment of borders quite scary, don't you? It seems that the cure that you propose could be worse than the disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, our military isn't a million + but it wouldn't take that many to further secure our borders. And to say we're not suited to do this is ridiculous. Such a mission would be simple compared to what we're doing in Iraq and Afgahnistan. After 9/11 hundrdreds of thousands of active and reserve Army troops were tasked out to protect numerous borders and secure areas and did it with ease, so this isn't totally incomprehensible. However, with recruitment down and allready being stretched so thin I'd prefer to take care of business elsewhere first.

[Superfluous Man]

You know my opinion on this subject not only pertains to knowledge and assumption but on personal experience. I've known this friend for a good 12-14 years, considered him a best friend for a long time. He started dating a self-centered, albeit attractive, girl, became a degenerate twat and ended up stealing a large amount of money from me (some of which he probably spent on that girl).


Everyone noticed a change in him once he started dating Emma, and it is ONLY a girl... Its not coke, its not crack, its not fucking heroine [sic]...its a girl.

Girls change personalities, and they ruin lives. Clearly the solution is to ban relationships. Who's with me?

[The once and future king]

Wooly who do you think takes coke.

Coke= Expensive.

If coke interfered with the ability of making money it would put itself out of business. 90% of people who take coke especially in the late 80s and 90s (It has become cheaper and more accesible recently) had/have high flying jobs in the media and banking etc etc.

If drugs had the massive negative effect that you attributed to them then our society would break down tommorrow. You are obviously ignorant to the massive extent of drug use in our society.

Most drug users use drugs that same way the most people use Alchohol, recreationaly and as such live perfectly happy and succesfull lives. As with alchohol there are a few isolated individuals who let things get out of controll. Which is a misnomer anyway to disccuss alchohol as a seperate category as last time I checked alchohol was a narcotic substance or DRUG.

[BCPVP]

Woollygimp has been
http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/Owned-Kick.jpg

[natedogg]

I've known this friend for a good 12-14 years, considered him a best friend for a long time. He started drug abuse, became a degenerate twat and ended up stealing a large amount of money from me. (Not really to fuel his addiction) Now he just finished serving 2 months in county for Marijuana, and went back in a few weeks later for breaking his probation by continuing his addictions. His family turned him in.

Let me get this straight. Your support for the absurd drug war stems from a personal experience where a so-called friend stole money from you and happened to be a marijuana user? AND you openly admit his theft had nothing to do with his putative "addiction"?

Honestly, that's the best you can come up with for supporting a policy that has needlessly ruined countless lives and enabled our leaders to trample our civil rights practically at will? (Not to mention the obscene numbers of billions in taxpayer dollars spent on a futility...) Good lord, I despair for the future. Please tell me you're too lazy to vote. Please please please tell me that.

Oh, and then you follow up with this:
You HAVE to understand this, Illegal Narcotics are some of the most addictive things known to man. Just because people can get them "cheaper" won't change this.

I have two qeustions:

1. And making them illegal has changed this?

2. Who gave you the right to tell me what kind of addictions I can choose?

I thought I'd seen it all but then you finish with this:

They are used by people who want to escape their problems instead of confronting them

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA Damn that was too funny. Thanks for the insights. You sound like a real expert.

natedogg

[natedogg]

Your entire support of these laws stems from a common fallacy used in public policy making. It goes like this:

"Since some people will make poor choices when it comes to {x}, we should not allow anyone to make any choices at all when it comes to {x}"

natedogg