Take a look...
http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/jacoby17.htm
It'd be funny if it weren't so scary.
http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/jacoby17.htm
It'd be funny if it weren't so scary.
One rare steak? That'll be $211.94...
- Thread starter Morgan
- Start date
That's nothing. Check this out for scary -
http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/scitech/111398/echelon.sml
http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/scitech/111398/echelon.sml
FWIW,
It's true that poor diet probably kills more Americans than anything else. If our guns are regulated, despite being so much less deadly, why not our food? Not that I agree with any of this BULL**** anyway...
If people want to kill themselves, let them. Let's legalize everything. I mean, chemically, everything (NOT pedophilia!). Give out lots of Darwin Awards...Citizens should be treated as adults. If they can be entrusted with a ton or two of moving metal, surely they should be free to do what they like with anything else. Less government, more freedom. Fewer, enforcable laws...etc.
It's true that poor diet probably kills more Americans than anything else. If our guns are regulated, despite being so much less deadly, why not our food? Not that I agree with any of this BULL**** anyway...
If people want to kill themselves, let them. Let's legalize everything. I mean, chemically, everything (NOT pedophilia!). Give out lots of Darwin Awards...Citizens should be treated as adults. If they can be entrusted with a ton or two of moving metal, surely they should be free to do what they like with anything else. Less government, more freedom. Fewer, enforcable laws...etc.
Mike in VA
New member
Spectre, mon, don't you mean fewer UNenforceable laws? I mean I'm with ya, decriminalize all that stuff, but make everyone fully accountable for their actions. If you want to get loaded on trichloro-methyl-ethyl-wackadoodle, it's your business, but understand we get to hang you if you do anything grossly stupid, and we don't have to pay for your care & maintenance when your liver falls out. OTOH, if you can figure out the error of your ways, we ought to help people clean themselves up (at least the first time or two). A Rand Corp study found that treatment was seven times more effective at reducing end user demand for drugs than interdiction, all this 'war on drugs' has accomlished is creating a massive (corrupt) bureaucracy and deminished our rights as citizens. With 80+% of the crime being drug-related, prisons are full, and the street prices for drugs is steady or down, maybe its time to consider other alternatives, cause the current approach clearly isn't working. Decriminalize it, tax it, use the money to help those who want help, manage those who don't (it's not like they hold jobs or pay taxes anyway) but at least it removes the motive to rob, steal, etc. Donning my nomex suit, M2
Whoa mike!
First, I know someone who is on the Rand "think tank" and have discussed it with him before, and I "think" you left out some details.
Second, it's true, we don't do enough on the education side. The war we're waging is not comprehensive enough, but that doesn't mean we toss it all away. That's poor tactics at best.
There are casual alcohol and tobacco users out there that live a long, happy life without being a burden to family, friends or society, but few casual heroin or hard drug users.
Also, folks who sell such drugs, that are blatantly destructive to the purchaser as well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target practice, as far as I'm concerned. That the pusher's business is legal is irrelavent to the outcome, is it not? While you're on the subject of legalizing everything, maybe we can legalize
the long range hunting of drug pushers that
destroy our children. Sign me up for that right now!
The destructive and addictive qualities of a
given drug do not change with cost or legality. If the user is too messed-up to
hold down a job, does it matter if the drug
is cheap and legal?
If you are proposing that since people are
destroying their lives anyway, that we, as a society might as well benefit from a tax
benefit and hopefully, the federal government
can manage and regulate (HA!) the business end of this ill-conceived plan, then you need
to think through the problem again.
Let's bring this idea closer to home. Since there are illegal activities in the gun world, and innocent people are killed because of it, let's de-crminalize everything having
to do with guns, and have the government control it. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Gimme a break!
I know I must have misunderstood what you wrote...
First, I know someone who is on the Rand "think tank" and have discussed it with him before, and I "think" you left out some details.
Second, it's true, we don't do enough on the education side. The war we're waging is not comprehensive enough, but that doesn't mean we toss it all away. That's poor tactics at best.
There are casual alcohol and tobacco users out there that live a long, happy life without being a burden to family, friends or society, but few casual heroin or hard drug users.
Also, folks who sell such drugs, that are blatantly destructive to the purchaser as well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target practice, as far as I'm concerned. That the pusher's business is legal is irrelavent to the outcome, is it not? While you're on the subject of legalizing everything, maybe we can legalize
the long range hunting of drug pushers that
destroy our children. Sign me up for that right now!
The destructive and addictive qualities of a
given drug do not change with cost or legality. If the user is too messed-up to
hold down a job, does it matter if the drug
is cheap and legal?
If you are proposing that since people are
destroying their lives anyway, that we, as a society might as well benefit from a tax
benefit and hopefully, the federal government
can manage and regulate (HA!) the business end of this ill-conceived plan, then you need
to think through the problem again.
Let's bring this idea closer to home. Since there are illegal activities in the gun world, and innocent people are killed because of it, let's de-crminalize everything having
to do with guns, and have the government control it. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Gimme a break!
I know I must have misunderstood what you wrote...
David, prohibition doesn't solve the problem
either, as well witnessed in the 20's with alcohol. the legalization of at least some of this stuff would cut down on crime on the streets, just like it did at the end of prohibition. i agree education is the main thing that needs to be stressed. but by taking the money off the streets, and bad as i hate to say it, put a government tax on it, would lessen the street crime and the corruption which pervade
the whole system. will there not be addicts? sure, just like there's alcoholic, and smokers. the latter is a group i fall into.
legalize it and spend the money on educating people to stay away from it. there was a saying in the bike world when i was riding & fighting helment laws "EDUCATE, NOT LEGISLATE", i think that stands well to many issues.
------------------
longhair
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited 11-20-98).]
either, as well witnessed in the 20's with alcohol. the legalization of at least some of this stuff would cut down on crime on the streets, just like it did at the end of prohibition. i agree education is the main thing that needs to be stressed. but by taking the money off the streets, and bad as i hate to say it, put a government tax on it, would lessen the street crime and the corruption which pervade
the whole system. will there not be addicts? sure, just like there's alcoholic, and smokers. the latter is a group i fall into.
legalize it and spend the money on educating people to stay away from it. there was a saying in the bike world when i was riding & fighting helment laws "EDUCATE, NOT LEGISLATE", i think that stands well to many issues.
------------------
longhair
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited 11-20-98).]
Bottom Gun
New member
If the government ever legalized anything, they would lose a substantial source of revenue in the form of property seizure. Seems like anyone carrying any amount of cash automatically becomes a drug dealer and of course the cash is seized and in most cases divided up among the “good guys”.
The city of Tucson, Arizona has been trying to pass legislation allowing them to seize vehicles belonging to people arrested for the victimless crime of solicitation, a misdemeanor. Guess the punishment no longer has to fit the crime.
The city of Tucson, Arizona has been trying to pass legislation allowing them to seize vehicles belonging to people arrested for the victimless crime of solicitation, a misdemeanor. Guess the punishment no longer has to fit the crime.
Bottom Gun....
The city of Oakland Calif has that on the books presently.
It followed almost to the letter the column Morgan linked. Under the guise of "cleaning" areas up (for the greater good), draconian and unconstitutional laws are enacted.
The frightening and disheartening thing is that people do not understand how Law is inter-related and built upon even when illegal. Until a law is before the Supreme Court to test constitutionality, they generally stand and are therefore established precedent upon which other laws are enacted.
Tucson can easily cite Oakland precedence to strengthen its position.
The history of 2nd Amendment and gun control laws is the original precedent.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
The city of Oakland Calif has that on the books presently.
It followed almost to the letter the column Morgan linked. Under the guise of "cleaning" areas up (for the greater good), draconian and unconstitutional laws are enacted.
The frightening and disheartening thing is that people do not understand how Law is inter-related and built upon even when illegal. Until a law is before the Supreme Court to test constitutionality, they generally stand and are therefore established precedent upon which other laws are enacted.
Tucson can easily cite Oakland precedence to strengthen its position.
The history of 2nd Amendment and gun control laws is the original precedent.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Longhair, I think a contributing factor to
the failure of prohibition of alcohol might
have been influenced by the dual nature of alcohol. For most folks, it's just another
beverage that they consume, nothing more.
For others, it's something that they should avoid like the plague. A program prohibiting something that the majority of the public doesn't have any trouble handling would have to fail.(guns!)
I guess I have just been around too long and
have gotten jaded. Human nature being what it is, I believe you would just transfer the "crimes on the street" to "crimes in public office". And who, when, what, how is all this
wonderful drug tax money going to be properly disbursed to help and educate drug addicts.
Pragmatically speaking, look at all the tax revenue generated by tobacco and alcohol.
I don't see any reliable evidence at all that
it is making it to the people that really need it.
My older brother is a rehab counselor for the state of Texas, and he has had many, many years of experience with this subject. He has
already seen first hand the failure of any
government controlled program to truly help
those in need. It's a familiar story.
You would probably have the same story with
drug tax money given that the same players
(U.S. government) would be involved. Why should they change their ways now? When you
factor-in the history of human nature, I
can't see how your program would work. (Hi,
I'm from the government and I'm here to help)
On the other hand, I remember the helmet laws while I was a bike rider. They should have dropped it entirely. (except for minors; I saw enough idiot parents drop their bikes with their unprotected children on board often enough to leave a lasting impression)
I rode aggressively enough that I wore one, helmet law or not. Hey, as long as I don't have to pay someone else's medical bills, they can ride naked for all I care.
Oh, and by the way, I've been to Holland and
for some strange reason, the locals tell me
a different story about legalizing and free
needles and whatnot versus the story on "60 Minutes" painting a picture of how well Holland's social experiment is working. Oh,
they have goverment help programs and rehabilitation programs and other programs out the wazoo. Even the "liberals" over there finally admitted, privately, in an honest moment, that they "were not seeing the results that they had hoped for" with their nation's drug policy.
They were so very sure it would work when they started out with their little experiment. Now, there they are with yet another failed social policy on their hands
and looking like they endorse drug abuse in some capacity by legalization. Lessons to learn?
Hmmmm......
To each his own, but the scheme's not for me.
the failure of prohibition of alcohol might
have been influenced by the dual nature of alcohol. For most folks, it's just another
beverage that they consume, nothing more.
For others, it's something that they should avoid like the plague. A program prohibiting something that the majority of the public doesn't have any trouble handling would have to fail.(guns!)
I guess I have just been around too long and
have gotten jaded. Human nature being what it is, I believe you would just transfer the "crimes on the street" to "crimes in public office". And who, when, what, how is all this
wonderful drug tax money going to be properly disbursed to help and educate drug addicts.
Pragmatically speaking, look at all the tax revenue generated by tobacco and alcohol.
I don't see any reliable evidence at all that
it is making it to the people that really need it.
My older brother is a rehab counselor for the state of Texas, and he has had many, many years of experience with this subject. He has
already seen first hand the failure of any
government controlled program to truly help
those in need. It's a familiar story.
You would probably have the same story with
drug tax money given that the same players
(U.S. government) would be involved. Why should they change their ways now? When you
factor-in the history of human nature, I
can't see how your program would work. (Hi,
I'm from the government and I'm here to help)
On the other hand, I remember the helmet laws while I was a bike rider. They should have dropped it entirely. (except for minors; I saw enough idiot parents drop their bikes with their unprotected children on board often enough to leave a lasting impression)
I rode aggressively enough that I wore one, helmet law or not. Hey, as long as I don't have to pay someone else's medical bills, they can ride naked for all I care.
Oh, and by the way, I've been to Holland and
for some strange reason, the locals tell me
a different story about legalizing and free
needles and whatnot versus the story on "60 Minutes" painting a picture of how well Holland's social experiment is working. Oh,
they have goverment help programs and rehabilitation programs and other programs out the wazoo. Even the "liberals" over there finally admitted, privately, in an honest moment, that they "were not seeing the results that they had hoped for" with their nation's drug policy.
They were so very sure it would work when they started out with their little experiment. Now, there they are with yet another failed social policy on their hands
and looking like they endorse drug abuse in some capacity by legalization. Lessons to learn?
Hmmmm......
To each his own, but the scheme's not for me.
It looks like liberalization of the drug laws may be a reality in the next few years. Molly Ivens is a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks she knows how everyone should live, yet: http://www.azstarnet.com/public/dnews/uq3221.html . I note that generally respected dignitary types such as Walter Cronkite, former U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz are on board as saying that the "war on drugs" is currently more damaging than the drugs themselves, unregulated, would be. Personally, I think you should be allowed complete freedom and held completely responsible for your actions. And NO taxation of formerly illicit items/substances. The government has too much control and money already.
Mike,
Look at it this way: fewer (laws), enforcable laws.
As perhaps you can tell from that statement- but to be very clear- I believe in personal responsibility. Legalize all "adult" items: guns, vehicles, poisons, explosives, alcohol and other drugs, etc. If someone behaves in a dangerous manner with anything, let them suffer the consequences. Otherwise, stay the hell out of their life. Adults should be treated as such.
David,
In response to your "There are casual alcohol and tobacco users out there that live a long, happy life...but few casual heroin or hard drug users."
I would beg to differ. I recall that some aboriginals in the Americas and elsewhere have been using mescaline and other psychotropics for hundreds of years. I am not aware of hearing of ANY cases of illegal drug addiction, though many of these people are alcoholics today.
Also, in response to:
"Also, folks who sell such drugs, that are blatantly destructive to the purchaser as
well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target practice."
Well...I have never sold any drugs, and am firmly against the use of most drugs, but just imagine how you would feel if someone else had said this:
"Also, folks who sell such guns, that are blatantly destructive to the purchaser as
well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target practice."
I realize, and am very happy that gun ownership, carry, and usage are Constitutionally protected rights, while drug usage is not. Be aware, however, that there are many who would echo that statement as I have modified it. Food for thought.
Look at it this way: fewer (laws), enforcable laws.
As perhaps you can tell from that statement- but to be very clear- I believe in personal responsibility. Legalize all "adult" items: guns, vehicles, poisons, explosives, alcohol and other drugs, etc. If someone behaves in a dangerous manner with anything, let them suffer the consequences. Otherwise, stay the hell out of their life. Adults should be treated as such.
David,
In response to your "There are casual alcohol and tobacco users out there that live a long, happy life...but few casual heroin or hard drug users."
I would beg to differ. I recall that some aboriginals in the Americas and elsewhere have been using mescaline and other psychotropics for hundreds of years. I am not aware of hearing of ANY cases of illegal drug addiction, though many of these people are alcoholics today.
Also, in response to:
"Also, folks who sell such drugs, that are blatantly destructive to the purchaser as
well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target practice."
Well...I have never sold any drugs, and am firmly against the use of most drugs, but just imagine how you would feel if someone else had said this:
"Also, folks who sell such guns, that are blatantly destructive to the purchaser as
well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target practice."
I realize, and am very happy that gun ownership, carry, and usage are Constitutionally protected rights, while drug usage is not. Be aware, however, that there are many who would echo that statement as I have modified it. Food for thought.
Spectre, as to your statement
"Also, folks who sell such guns, that are blatantly destructive to the
purchaser as
well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target
practice."
they are already using that. that's what hci is all about. and in a round about way the law suits some cities are pursuing against gun manufacturers, another way to keep the citizens away from what is constitutionally a right! the second orginal right!!
David, the crimes in public office is already going on. how else do think all these iileagal substances could be on the streets.
Wake up, it's been going on for years, just as it did in the prohibition days. no difference. just a different commodity.
------------------
longhair
"Also, folks who sell such guns, that are blatantly destructive to the
purchaser as
well as the purchaser's family and friends, should be used for target
practice."
they are already using that. that's what hci is all about. and in a round about way the law suits some cities are pursuing against gun manufacturers, another way to keep the citizens away from what is constitutionally a right! the second orginal right!!
David, the crimes in public office is already going on. how else do think all these iileagal substances could be on the streets.
Wake up, it's been going on for years, just as it did in the prohibition days. no difference. just a different commodity.
------------------
longhair
Mike in VA
New member
Glad I had the nomex, but I guess I didn't need it, a pretty civil discourse so far.
Lots of good points made, pro & con. David, you're right I over simplified the Rand corp.'s study, but the bottom line was that treatment and EDUCATION is more effective that interdiction in the long run. The biggest single point to get across is that drugs are for losers. The bigger damage the war on drugs has done is in the erosion of our rights, the corruption of government and demininshed respect for the law. The analogy to Prohibition is quite approrpiate. Though the masses may be asses, they still know hypocracy when they see it and they will never get behind government policy that is so openly flawed. Booze and tobacco are legal, while other drugs aren't?? Marijuana and hard drugs in the same category??? I don't want to start a big urination competition here, as I'm sure we can all cite horror stories to support our positions (and let me re-iterate I'm very big on personal resposibilty/accountability), but there needs to be a comprehensive re-think of this whole mess.
You cited Holland. Perhaps they didn't get what they hoped for, but I suspect its better than what goes on downtown anywhere in the US. One way or the other, drug related crime is lower, though, right? Ther eis no 'perfect' solution.
Yes, I am put off by the notion of the government administering anything more, but who else is there? I'm more put off by some of the property seizures and other legal perversions that go on in the name of 'law 'n order'. We are going to get anywhere until we put aside the rhetoric and work with the facts, i.e. most would accept the notion that addiction is a medical problem, but as long as the religious right is whining 'it's a sin' and seek retribution (against users), we aren't going to get anywhere.
I'm rambling, but let me say there are no easy answers to this one, either, but there can be if we're willing to re-think, which IMHO has to happen, becasue we ain't winning with the current plan. M2
[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited 11-23-98).]
Lots of good points made, pro & con. David, you're right I over simplified the Rand corp.'s study, but the bottom line was that treatment and EDUCATION is more effective that interdiction in the long run. The biggest single point to get across is that drugs are for losers. The bigger damage the war on drugs has done is in the erosion of our rights, the corruption of government and demininshed respect for the law. The analogy to Prohibition is quite approrpiate. Though the masses may be asses, they still know hypocracy when they see it and they will never get behind government policy that is so openly flawed. Booze and tobacco are legal, while other drugs aren't?? Marijuana and hard drugs in the same category??? I don't want to start a big urination competition here, as I'm sure we can all cite horror stories to support our positions (and let me re-iterate I'm very big on personal resposibilty/accountability), but there needs to be a comprehensive re-think of this whole mess.
You cited Holland. Perhaps they didn't get what they hoped for, but I suspect its better than what goes on downtown anywhere in the US. One way or the other, drug related crime is lower, though, right? Ther eis no 'perfect' solution.
Yes, I am put off by the notion of the government administering anything more, but who else is there? I'm more put off by some of the property seizures and other legal perversions that go on in the name of 'law 'n order'. We are going to get anywhere until we put aside the rhetoric and work with the facts, i.e. most would accept the notion that addiction is a medical problem, but as long as the religious right is whining 'it's a sin' and seek retribution (against users), we aren't going to get anywhere.
I'm rambling, but let me say there are no easy answers to this one, either, but there can be if we're willing to re-think, which IMHO has to happen, becasue we ain't winning with the current plan. M2
[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited 11-23-98).]
That's the very difficult part for me to write anything on anything. It's hard to convey emotion, and, human nature being what it is, it's obvious from the responses that not everybody reads the same thing from the
same sentence. I guess I have seen far too many good people's lives, careers, and family
and friends ruined up close and personal to
jump on the libertarian bandwagon. I simply can't believe, judging from some of the comments, that some of you have ever had an up-close and personal view of the destruction
from drugs. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
My brother (the drug counselor) says that I need to remember where people are coming from, especially regarding this topic. He said that some might be or have been casual dealers, users, or some might have family members or close friends that were involved. I will take his advice. I just personally made a choice many years ago not to hang out with people that do drugs (or beat their wives and children and etc.). It's been my experience that sooner or later, it becomes one long, sad, tired story that you get trapped in with them.
Some of you have been there and seen that, and know what I mean If you haven't, you'll never understand.
The worst argument is a subjective argument,
but, as stupid as it sounds, among other
factual reasons, I just get a gut feeling that this is not the way to go. My gut feeling, has very rarely been wrong. Everybody has something in life that they are really good at. This is what I'm good at,
and the legalizing proposal doesn't "feel"
right.
Morgan, everybody has an opinion, but, if
you follow some of the loopy things that
Walter Cronkite has said in the past 10 or so years, I wouldn't use his opinion to support any argument. The other two are not known to only say the wisest things either. If Walter started supporting gun ownership tomorrow, we'll all be in trouble. Just because a celebrity has a idea doesn't mean it's a good one. (Jane Fonda, Barbara S. for example)
Mike; Education is always better than legislation. As I said, the current war on drugs is not being carried out properly IMHO,
and drastic changes need to be made. I don't believe that we should totally pull the police or military out of the situation.
Spectre, I don't have access to any reliable
data as to drug abuse (besides alcohol) for
indigenous tribes but if you truly do, please
point me in that direction so I can verify your claims. Otherwise, I can only treat your comment as an opinion and nothing more.
As to your comment about target practice, If
someone were KNOWINGLY selling a firearm that
was, for example, dangerously defective, or
selling it to someone that has been bragging that they were going to rob a bank or kill a spouse, then, IMHO, they could also be used for target practice. Not a popular opinion,
but, hey, ain't that America. For example,
if I get bad vibes about someone, I don't give them firearms instruction or concealed
carry classes. I had a call once from someone
that wanted to pay me significant $$$$'s to
teach him and 13 other students how to shoot
moving targets at long range with a scoped rifle, if you know what I mean. Yes, the $7700 for two days of classroom only training would have been nice, but I would have to live with it. I just got bad vibes from the person, and, later found out that was the right decision. (that gut felling again) On the other hand, a drug dealer that
especially has children for his/her customer
base would be an extra nice target, albeit only in a LEGAL scenario when deadly force is fully justified by the courts.(smile)
I think a heroin pusher knows what he is doing to his customers. He can see it every time they show up for a fix, it would seem.
Longhair, I woke up a long time ago. As to
the direct connection between corrupt government and drug sales on the streets,
you'll have to give me specifics. As to the
comment on prohibition, read what I had to
say again, and, objectively think about the
differences between an alcoholic BEVERAGE,
and something that one would only ingest
to get a good buzz.(along with a much higher
probability of addiction) I've been around, and there is a difference.
Mike, I don't believe the religious right
has that much clout to block an effective
drug fighting campaign. The most interesting
thing about all of this is when we look at
cultures/societies that don't seem to have these problems as badly, or not at all. Why is that? As of this writing, I don't know what the current drug problem is addiction -wise in Japan, but I will speculate(there, I admitted it) that it isn't as high as the U.S. However, Japan's suicide rate is roughly three times the U.S. rate. And, then there is
Canada and their serial killers. Go figure.
In summary, I wonder what would really happen
if the U.S. made a first rate effort in education, but somehow kept up the pressure
on the business end of the drug trade. If I
ruffled any liberal feathers out there, I apologize, but free speech swings both ways.
To each his own.
same sentence. I guess I have seen far too many good people's lives, careers, and family
and friends ruined up close and personal to
jump on the libertarian bandwagon. I simply can't believe, judging from some of the comments, that some of you have ever had an up-close and personal view of the destruction
from drugs. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
My brother (the drug counselor) says that I need to remember where people are coming from, especially regarding this topic. He said that some might be or have been casual dealers, users, or some might have family members or close friends that were involved. I will take his advice. I just personally made a choice many years ago not to hang out with people that do drugs (or beat their wives and children and etc.). It's been my experience that sooner or later, it becomes one long, sad, tired story that you get trapped in with them.
Some of you have been there and seen that, and know what I mean If you haven't, you'll never understand.
The worst argument is a subjective argument,
but, as stupid as it sounds, among other
factual reasons, I just get a gut feeling that this is not the way to go. My gut feeling, has very rarely been wrong. Everybody has something in life that they are really good at. This is what I'm good at,
and the legalizing proposal doesn't "feel"
right.
Morgan, everybody has an opinion, but, if
you follow some of the loopy things that
Walter Cronkite has said in the past 10 or so years, I wouldn't use his opinion to support any argument. The other two are not known to only say the wisest things either. If Walter started supporting gun ownership tomorrow, we'll all be in trouble. Just because a celebrity has a idea doesn't mean it's a good one. (Jane Fonda, Barbara S. for example)
Mike; Education is always better than legislation. As I said, the current war on drugs is not being carried out properly IMHO,
and drastic changes need to be made. I don't believe that we should totally pull the police or military out of the situation.
Spectre, I don't have access to any reliable
data as to drug abuse (besides alcohol) for
indigenous tribes but if you truly do, please
point me in that direction so I can verify your claims. Otherwise, I can only treat your comment as an opinion and nothing more.
As to your comment about target practice, If
someone were KNOWINGLY selling a firearm that
was, for example, dangerously defective, or
selling it to someone that has been bragging that they were going to rob a bank or kill a spouse, then, IMHO, they could also be used for target practice. Not a popular opinion,
but, hey, ain't that America. For example,
if I get bad vibes about someone, I don't give them firearms instruction or concealed
carry classes. I had a call once from someone
that wanted to pay me significant $$$$'s to
teach him and 13 other students how to shoot
moving targets at long range with a scoped rifle, if you know what I mean. Yes, the $7700 for two days of classroom only training would have been nice, but I would have to live with it. I just got bad vibes from the person, and, later found out that was the right decision. (that gut felling again) On the other hand, a drug dealer that
especially has children for his/her customer
base would be an extra nice target, albeit only in a LEGAL scenario when deadly force is fully justified by the courts.(smile)
I think a heroin pusher knows what he is doing to his customers. He can see it every time they show up for a fix, it would seem.
Longhair, I woke up a long time ago. As to
the direct connection between corrupt government and drug sales on the streets,
you'll have to give me specifics. As to the
comment on prohibition, read what I had to
say again, and, objectively think about the
differences between an alcoholic BEVERAGE,
and something that one would only ingest
to get a good buzz.(along with a much higher
probability of addiction) I've been around, and there is a difference.
Mike, I don't believe the religious right
has that much clout to block an effective
drug fighting campaign. The most interesting
thing about all of this is when we look at
cultures/societies that don't seem to have these problems as badly, or not at all. Why is that? As of this writing, I don't know what the current drug problem is addiction -wise in Japan, but I will speculate(there, I admitted it) that it isn't as high as the U.S. However, Japan's suicide rate is roughly three times the U.S. rate. And, then there is
Canada and their serial killers. Go figure.
In summary, I wonder what would really happen
if the U.S. made a first rate effort in education, but somehow kept up the pressure
on the business end of the drug trade. If I
ruffled any liberal feathers out there, I apologize, but free speech swings both ways.
To each his own.
Mike in VA
New member
David, no problem with free speech, here, man. You state your opinions, substantiate your position rationally & maturely. Sometimes we must agree to disagree, on other points, I suspect we're in violent agreement (e.g. capping those who push to children).
I don't want to get into a personal litany, but let me say we have alcoholics in the family, I've seen people die of drugs and related health problems. I have a cousin who is a psychologist, her whole practice is working with substance abusers, and we also have an MD and couple of nurse/practicioners in the family. I was in college in the late 60's, Army early 70's, so I still remember how to roll a joint.
If we legalized it all tomorrow, I don't think there would be a massive break-down of society. We've been educating people about the danger of drugs for as long as I can remember, but still a certain percentage of the population has the need to try it out. I guess there would be a initial flurry of activity at the novelty of it all by the mnore gullible, but I think most would figure it out pretty quickly. The majority would never start. I think pot smoking would definitely go up, but like booze, many people handle just fine, 10 -20% won't. Others just leave it alone all together. But OTOH, I don't know anyone who would go do herion just because they could.
I don't know what makes a junkie. Addictive-compulsive behavior to be sure, but what drives it? Looking for a thrill, lack of self-discipline, low self-worth/esteem (stupid liberal phrase), I don't know, but I don't think many set out to be junkies (though there are some truly self-destructive people out there). Trouble is, once hooked there's no easy way out (i.e. legal & safe) to let people recover from their mistake. And most want out after a little while, some only learn by personal experience (some never learn). You're left to deal with some rather scummy people in the mean time in an environment that makes it all but impossible to avoid criminal activity, until you run into 'the System' and the fun really begins. you may get clean, but your life will never be the same.
I'm just saying,there's got to be a better way to treat the problem. I think that taking the profit out of it for both the crimals and the government is a start. Educate all, help those who fall and accept that some will never make it out, but at least keep them from hurting others.
Best regards, M2
I don't want to get into a personal litany, but let me say we have alcoholics in the family, I've seen people die of drugs and related health problems. I have a cousin who is a psychologist, her whole practice is working with substance abusers, and we also have an MD and couple of nurse/practicioners in the family. I was in college in the late 60's, Army early 70's, so I still remember how to roll a joint.
If we legalized it all tomorrow, I don't think there would be a massive break-down of society. We've been educating people about the danger of drugs for as long as I can remember, but still a certain percentage of the population has the need to try it out. I guess there would be a initial flurry of activity at the novelty of it all by the mnore gullible, but I think most would figure it out pretty quickly. The majority would never start. I think pot smoking would definitely go up, but like booze, many people handle just fine, 10 -20% won't. Others just leave it alone all together. But OTOH, I don't know anyone who would go do herion just because they could.
I don't know what makes a junkie. Addictive-compulsive behavior to be sure, but what drives it? Looking for a thrill, lack of self-discipline, low self-worth/esteem (stupid liberal phrase), I don't know, but I don't think many set out to be junkies (though there are some truly self-destructive people out there). Trouble is, once hooked there's no easy way out (i.e. legal & safe) to let people recover from their mistake. And most want out after a little while, some only learn by personal experience (some never learn). You're left to deal with some rather scummy people in the mean time in an environment that makes it all but impossible to avoid criminal activity, until you run into 'the System' and the fun really begins. you may get clean, but your life will never be the same.
I'm just saying,there's got to be a better way to treat the problem. I think that taking the profit out of it for both the crimals and the government is a start. Educate all, help those who fall and accept that some will never make it out, but at least keep them from hurting others.
Best regards, M2
good reply. You've been there, done that.
In the Army, did they teach to roll left-to-right or right-to-left. HA!
The biggest question in any debate, is how to reconcile two fundamentally different kind of people on any given issue, regardless of their belief system. Deep down, there
are basically two kinds of folks. Those that overall move AWAY from something negative and those that move TOWARD something positive.
To get those two types to see eye-to-eye is
a challenge. Bill Clinton is good at it for
short periods of time.
I am addicted to a legal drug. T-BONES!
They will outlaw them someday, you know.
Right after the tobacco lawsuit debacle,
a man actually sued a dairy, claiming that
the 2+ gallons of milk he consumed a DAY, gave him heart disease.
Hey nah nah nah, here we go.................
In the Army, did they teach to roll left-to-right or right-to-left. HA!
The biggest question in any debate, is how to reconcile two fundamentally different kind of people on any given issue, regardless of their belief system. Deep down, there
are basically two kinds of folks. Those that overall move AWAY from something negative and those that move TOWARD something positive.
To get those two types to see eye-to-eye is
a challenge. Bill Clinton is good at it for
short periods of time.
I am addicted to a legal drug. T-BONES!
They will outlaw them someday, you know.
Right after the tobacco lawsuit debacle,
a man actually sued a dairy, claiming that
the 2+ gallons of milk he consumed a DAY, gave him heart disease.
Hey nah nah nah, here we go.................
One thing we tend to forget in these discussions, regardless of the particular object/material (guns,drugs, tobacco, or a nice thick juicy marbled Porterhouse) in question, is: Does the Federal government have the legal jurisdiction to regulate/ban these things where the individual citizen is concerned? Literal interpretation of the Consitution says no. Period!
These concepts were left to the States and local jurisdictions. I personally believe that the Feds have the jurisdiction to interdict drug flow coming into the country and those directly and intimately involved in such traffic. Period.
Regardless of one's position on drugs, abortion or anything....once the Feds are allowed to regulate past the Federal level the precident is set to regulate anything. I'm sorry if I offend but IMHO exceptions for one and screaming for the other is blanket hypocracy.
Arms are explicitly protected by the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people. "
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
These concepts were left to the States and local jurisdictions. I personally believe that the Feds have the jurisdiction to interdict drug flow coming into the country and those directly and intimately involved in such traffic. Period.
Regardless of one's position on drugs, abortion or anything....once the Feds are allowed to regulate past the Federal level the precident is set to regulate anything. I'm sorry if I offend but IMHO exceptions for one and screaming for the other is blanket hypocracy.
Arms are explicitly protected by the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people. "
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
David, what's wrong with ruffling a few feathers.NOTHING! that's what's wrong in this country now, nobody what to rock the boat. hell the boat needs rockin'. Yes, i have to admit that on some things i'm liberal, on
somethings quite conservitive. i too have been around the block a time or two, and yes,
i seen drugs ruin peoples lives. i've also seen people that use recreationally that work hard everyday and have some of the best raised kids i know. just as i've seen people who drink ruin their lives, and some that work hard and raise their kids good too. David, why do people drink? i need a drink to unwind, to settle down, to cop a buzz. they drink for the same reasons that people do drugs. i smoke 'cause i want/need nicotine, i'm a nicotine junkie.people drink for the same reasons people do drugs, to feel good.
what gets me is the war on drugs has badly eroded the rights laid down in the constitution, the seizures of property, money
vehicles, the wanting to search your vechicle when stopped for a traffic violation, and the leo's, let's say some of the leo's, actually like the fact that they have a new car/truck/money to play catch the drug dealer with. I HAVE SEEN THIS PERSONALLY! the traffic stops that are talked about in another thread is another example, and the list grows. the fact that if you get stopped, and happen to have a large sum of money on you, you're automatically considered a dealer. i've seen this happen here, in a small town. a fellow just comes from the bank after getting a loan to build a shop, got cash. got stopped for a traffic deal and because they saw a large sum of money on his seat, they thought they had the drug lord of all the south. David i won't argue with you that drugs are good, they ain't, neither is alcohol, and cigarettes, and as this thread started, eating the wrong kinds of food. that doesn't mean they should be illegal. what a person does to their self is their business. the erosion of freedom, is everyones business. you think there's a difference in alcohol and drugs, i see none.( i hope this makes some kind of sense, i've been interrupted several times and lost my train of thought.) i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I guess my point is, the freedom we're losing because of the war on drugs, ain't worth it. and you're right, free speech runs all different directions, and i'll be one of the first to defend yours.
------------------
longhair
somethings quite conservitive. i too have been around the block a time or two, and yes,
i seen drugs ruin peoples lives. i've also seen people that use recreationally that work hard everyday and have some of the best raised kids i know. just as i've seen people who drink ruin their lives, and some that work hard and raise their kids good too. David, why do people drink? i need a drink to unwind, to settle down, to cop a buzz. they drink for the same reasons that people do drugs. i smoke 'cause i want/need nicotine, i'm a nicotine junkie.people drink for the same reasons people do drugs, to feel good.
what gets me is the war on drugs has badly eroded the rights laid down in the constitution, the seizures of property, money
vehicles, the wanting to search your vechicle when stopped for a traffic violation, and the leo's, let's say some of the leo's, actually like the fact that they have a new car/truck/money to play catch the drug dealer with. I HAVE SEEN THIS PERSONALLY! the traffic stops that are talked about in another thread is another example, and the list grows. the fact that if you get stopped, and happen to have a large sum of money on you, you're automatically considered a dealer. i've seen this happen here, in a small town. a fellow just comes from the bank after getting a loan to build a shop, got cash. got stopped for a traffic deal and because they saw a large sum of money on his seat, they thought they had the drug lord of all the south. David i won't argue with you that drugs are good, they ain't, neither is alcohol, and cigarettes, and as this thread started, eating the wrong kinds of food. that doesn't mean they should be illegal. what a person does to their self is their business. the erosion of freedom, is everyones business. you think there's a difference in alcohol and drugs, i see none.( i hope this makes some kind of sense, i've been interrupted several times and lost my train of thought.) i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I guess my point is, the freedom we're losing because of the war on drugs, ain't worth it. and you're right, free speech runs all different directions, and i'll be one of the first to defend yours.
------------------
longhair