War on Drugs

[rahmota]

okay I know Seshat had a thread a time ago about illegal drugs and such. This is more about the actual useless "War on Drugs" travesty that has destroyed so many lives and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars over the years.

Now the war on drugs sounds like a wonderful thing. Dedicate various law enforcement agencies and organizations to catching, punishing, and stopping the production, distribution and usage of illegal drugs. Wow sound familiar? Replace the word drugs with alchohol and set the wayback machine to the twenties for prohibition and you have why it sounds so familiar. And just like prohibition catapulted Al Capone fom two bit gangster to owner of Chicago and major ganglord it has done the same thing for many of the columbian and other druglords and helped spread the rise of gangs.

I mean it certainly hasnt done anythign to slow down the useage or distribution of drugs. Even before I went in I knew at least 6 people who either dealt or knew someone who dealt with mary or other stuff.

What it has done is line the pockets of corrupt politicians.
Cause officers to trump up charges against either petty small time mary users so they can steal their property under the legalized theft of asset forfeture.
Cause the government itsself to violate the constitution of the united states as the power to regulate drugs is not granted to the federal government (prohibition required an amendment to the constitution).
Causes Due process to be thrown out the window as courts and officers routinely ignore the 5th and 14th amendments.
Causes the medicinal users of mary to be punished and persecuted just like stret users. No distinction is made whatsover for the medicinal or religious purposes of some drugs. (Think Peyote)
Causes lies and falsehoods to be promoted such as mary is a dangerous gateway drug that will instantly addict a person and force them to use harder and more dangerous drugs. Mary is no worse on a person (argueably) than a glass of whiskey. I know as I've tried both. the last hit I toked was almost 4 years ago. Havent had the crave for another hit since then and have most deinately not tried anything harder nor had the desire to.
Severly damaged the environment and populations of several third world natiosn as the United states sprayed poisonous gasses across fields, jungles and villages to try and destroy the cannibis and cocaine crops.
Promotes racisim and racial profiling. (Personally witnessed.)
has resulted in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of innocent bystanders at the hands of overzealous federal and state lawenforcement officers operating on nothign more than heresay. (Remember when the DEA shot down in cold blood a cessna carryign a family of missionaries because they thought they where drug runners?)
The "war on Drugs" helps continue the class divisions and struggles by declaring certain people to be lower class when they are identified as "drug offenders"
Wastes money, prison space and court time persecuting people who have otherwise done no offensive crimes against their neighbors or society.
Removes people's freewill by prohibiting them from doing somethign to themselves that they wish to do to themselves as free willed and consenting adults (but then again that seems to be the general theme of most of the current administration's laws and desires)

So anyhow. Basically the war on drugs is a total waste and travesty that has not done any good in the past 30+ years of its existence. The government would be better off giving up and legalizing the various drugs in a program that controls the sale, distribution and production of the drugs. Also taxing the frak out of the drugs. I mean look at cigarette taxes and still how many people smoke.

Having seen the desctructive effect the war on drugs have had on people, society and communities I have to say stop the madness. End the war.

[Norton]

Hear hear! I concur whole-heartedly!

I'd like to point out the similarities of alcohol Prohibition to the current war on drugs - marijuana specifically.

Prohibition did not stop America from drinking. The war on drugs has not stopped America from using them.

Prohibition increased the rate of amateur moonshiners and rum-runners. When alcohol was once again legal, many of the moonshiners and rum-runners went back to their old lives before prohibition. Likewise, I believe legalizing marijuana will put many dealers out of business. Personally as a smoker, I'd feel more comfortable buying a pack of joints from a gas station than from Dwayne on the corner. I think many other smokers will agree with me.

When Prohibition was in effect, many unscrupulous moonshiners diluted their alcohol with unsavory and even poisonous additives to increase their profit. Again, Prohibtion did not stop people from drinking - it made drinking more dangerous. When Prohibition ended, people could again buy alcohol from reputable sources who didn't need to poison their customers to make money.
I've had friends buy acid off a dealer, only to get very sick from it and find out later that it was laced with several other cheap drugs - same with ecstasy. One girl bought a bag of pot, and just couldn't stop smoking it. After she closely inspected the bag, she found bits of crack rock in it. *shudder*

Government regulation of these substances could prevent instances like the ones above. Most drug users would be happy to buy their drugs from a legal, safe source. No one wants to be robbed by a dishonest dealer (or vice versa - a dealer robbed by customers), or poisoned from a cheap one.

Both alcohol and marijuana have their downsides. Both can harmfully affect a person's mind and body. Both can destroy jobs, ruin friendships, and seperate families. It varies from person to person, situation to situation.

Yet, we have a choice whether or not we want to drink alcohol. If we cannot drink it responsibly, that's when the law gets involved. Underage drinking, drinking and driving, alcohol fuelled crimes and public drunkeness are not allowed.

Why can we not have the same allowances and punishments for marijuana use? If one is caught selling/giving it minors, or caught driving while high, or committing a crime or disturbing the public while high, let them be punished accordingly. To punish those who smoke pot responsibly is asinine.

[rahmota]

Exactly. legalizing mary and some of the other drugs would definately benefit society and the government and the citizens more than the "war on drugs" has ever done so.

1: Many of the people who have smoked Mary have done so for the "thrill" of doing somethign rebellious, illegal or that the "man" doesnt want them to. Remove the prohibition on it and you remove that one aspect of things. Still going to be a few who smoke for the image thing but replace mary with tobacco in that sentence and you have the same reasoning.

2: Legalizing drugs and putting them in the same regulatory category as whiskey/beer would not only give the government another source of revenue but also increase the legal producers ability to have revenue. As well as regulating thigns would decrease the lacing or contamination of the various drugs.

3: There are already laws on the books for certain actions. The same DUI laws (or at least some of them many DUI laws are overzealous excessively draconian already or totally useless) so there is no need for all the "war on drugs laws"

anyhow there is a lot more than just that but those can do for now.

[crazylegs]

As someone who is vehmently against the legalisation of drugs I'll throw my hat into the ring.

Drugs are bad for you, even legal pharmacutical drugs have side effects, we know what they are because of double blind studies, clinical tests and constant supervision. None of this is or has happened with the majority of illegal drugs (exception of cocaine, used as analgesic). We do not know what these chemicals will do to someone in 1, 5, 10 or even 20 years time, nor do we know what they will do if the usage continues.

Have you ever dealt with someone on cocaine?

I have. It was the most terrifying experience of my life. The majority of incidents where CS gas (that I am personally aware of) is used is when somone has been taking that drug, it makes them aggresive, unpredictable and non compliant, now if the drug was legal would you want someone like that driving, or having access to a firearm (as is lawful in the US)

How long did we smoke tobacco before we knew just how dangerous it was for us? 200 years or so I think, only now are we finding out just how bad it is, thats a 'natural' product just like cannabis, what carcinogens does that (cannabis) contain, what levels of tar? Toxic Chemicals? do you know exactly what will be released in your bit of weed?

Heroin is an incredibly addictive substance, it releases dopamine within the brain, this is the 'feel good' high that you experience after exercise, you require more and more each time to achieve the same level of euphoria as your body builds resistance to the chemical, so if it is legalised you will have people who will become addicted and who will require larger and larger amounts of the drug to continue their existance.

Going cold turkey from heroin is like the worst flu you have ever had but times that by 100, you ache, you shiver, every fiber of your being is screaming for your next fix, it is all you can think off, all you are interested in is obtaining just that tiny amount to tide you over until the shakes come again, your brain cannot comprehend anything else.

Ketamine is incredibly powerful, its designed to sedate horses for chists sake, have you tried to converse with someone who has taken it?

Again, I have, its like talking to someone who is coming around from anasthesia, they are not aware of their surroundings, they do not have control of their body, they cannot move themselves from danger nor are they aware of it.

Have you seen the faces of meth campaign, if not I'll be glad to place a link so you can see what that particular drug does to you.

Tell me again, what benefits outweigh the above?

[Boozy]

crazylegs, I don't believe anyone is saying that hard drugs aren't bad for you.

It seems most people here (more so in our other thread on the subject) are taking the libertarian view that the government shouldn't stop someone from harming themselves, as that restricts individual freedom. Basically, they are saying that the government can only make laws to prevent you from causing harm to others. The argument is that most of the damage a drug user does to others is as a result of the drugs being illegal.

Personally, I am not libertarian. Follow libertarian logic to the very end, and you wind up with a society I don't want to live in.

However, I definitely agree that the War on Drugs is an expensive failure. Drug users need treatment, not jail time. I don't think the solution is legalization. Decriminalization would be a better option.

[crazylegs]

Drug users will only ever give up because they want to, not because they have to take part in a detox.

That approach will only help those who want to help themselves.

By jailing addicts we *are* protecting society, a huge chunk of thefts/break ins/aquisitive crime is commited by people who are addicted to their substance of choice, decrimilisation of these substances will not make them any less addictive and so we will still have these thefts occuring to feed the habit.

[rahmota]

Crazy: Everything is bad for you. Hell too much water is bad for you and can kill you. The thing about being a consenting, responsible free-willed intelligent adult is that you have the capability, capacity and responsibility for assessing those risks, figuring out which ones are appropriate and worthwhile and dismissing the ones that are not. I mean everytime you take a shower, get in a car, breathe city air or drink urban water you are taking your life into your own hands. It is not up to the government to tell you what is and is not an appropriate risk for you to take. it is not the right, the power of or one of the duties of government or its enforcers to make people's life choices for them. When a government starts doing that then it has ceased to serve its people and its citizens and has actually become more a threat to freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness and should be disolved.

Have you ever dealt with someone on cocaine?
Yes I have. My former manager at the dealership would take an 8 ball if the day had been good, he'd take 2 if it had been bad. You know what he would do? he would get up and walk aroud the lot he could get up to about 10-15 mph walking in that condition. As long as a person didnt try and fuck with him or try getting in his facelike I'm sure you did trying to arrest him then he was perfectly fine and absolutely unable to be told apart from anyone who wasnt except for the slight sweating and dilated pupils. So basically dont attack them and they are not going to wig out. Hell you spray me with CS gas and I'm gonna go postal on your ass too. Especially if the only thing I did "wrong" was sit and smoke or snort a recreational substance of my choice. And doubly so if the stasi come busting through the door in my private residence when the only person being "harmed" is myself. A person has the right to harm themselves by the mere fact of existing.

How long did we smoke tobacco before we knew just how dangerous it was for us? Actually pure tobacco by itself is not harmful to us. It has been smoked in its pure form for over a thousand years by native americans. I know several peopel who grow and roll it (being in appalachia the anti-smoking lies and propaganda has been rather slow to catch on so tobacco is still king in many places) and are healthier than some of the wheat germ aerobic nutjobs. My uncle lived to be in his ninties and he smoked hand rolled pure tobacco cigars on a daily basis (as well as drinking homemade moonshine) and only died from falling off the roof of his house. A lot of the danger of tobacco is highly over rated.

Heoroin and ketamine (at least off label use of it) usages in my region are so low as to be off scale low. It may be a problem where you are but oh well so what? Belgium doesnt seem to be that worried about it as you can get herion in coffee shops there quite easily. Not that I was planing to try some or anythign (though I was going to smoke some weed just to say I had smoked weed in an amsterdam coffee shop.)

Have you seen the faces of meth campaign Yes I have. I have also known 3 former meth users. 2 who had cleaned their act up and gotten off of it and one who didnt and died. they where all free willed adults and while I do greif for the one who died it was their own choice to do what they did and I cannot fault them for that. I blame the government for the one who died actually as there are no programs to help a person get off drugs in my area other than those available to people who are convicted of criminal drug use. Punishing people, destroyign their lives worse than the drugs themselves and stigmatizing and beating them down (sometimes literally) for the rest of their lives by labelling them as "criminals". Lumping someone who smokes a bit of mary in the same category as the worst butt raping molester.

have you ever looked at how stupid and offensive and overzealously constrictive some of the drug laws are? Especially here in the People's Republic of Amerika? Wher eif the cops find even so much as a gram of mary in your car in some districts they can legally steal your property? where cancer and glaucoma victims are treated like worthless street scum for trying to get a medicine that helps alleviate their suffering? All because the misghuided jerks in power want to flex their muscles and tell people that the government can think and live your life better than you can.

Have you ever even smoked marijuana? I have. I can tell you it is NOT a gateway drug, it is not as dangerously addictive as the antis would have you believe. Its no worse than drinking one beer really. I worked with someone who had been smoking since he was 16 (he was 22) and he was not the typical braindead stoner. He was carrying a 3.5 gpa in the local college and was able to hold deep meanignful poilitical, social and historical debates with me. This is not to say that there are not those people who make the stereotype, that is true for each and every stereotype, however to use a broadstroked brush and paint each and every mary smoker as a braindead no good deadbeat is insulting, degrading and very useful propaganda for those who hate and want to spread ignorance.

i have never said that many of the recreational substances out there are good for you. Everything has risks though. Some risks are worse than others. Whiskey/beer/tobacco and marijuana are all on about the same level of risks. there is utterly no reason other than being narrow minded and uptight to make mary illegal. Cocaine, heroin, and such are worse but still as long as a person does not harm anyone other than themselves so what. Meth would be the only one that I might consider taking direct action against. but that is mainly as it is a totally effed up unnatural substance.

I am not my brother's keeper. I can consul them, I can advise them but I cannot force them to take or not take an action unless it will harm someone else. I know probably a half dozen people who are involved in illegal drugs right now. I would not turn a single one of them into the gestapo as they are all harmless individuals. they are all free willed adults and it would be a gross injustice to criminalize these people for their actions just because "society" has a stick up its ass about drugs. Society needs to get its nose out of people's personal lives before society gets its nose bit off.

It seems most people here are taking the libertarian view that the government shouldn't stop someone from harming themselves, as that restricts individual freedom. You are quite correct. Government does not have the right to interefere in personal freedom when it is directed at the individuals own life choices. My personal freeedom to ingest whatever substances I wish to do so is my right. As long as I am not taking the joint and shoving it in your face or goign out and trying to drive while high the government has no right to tell me I cannot do that. If the government tries to do that they are in the wrong and deserve to be punished or removed.

The argument is that most of the damage a drug user does to others is as a result of the drugs being illegal.
You are more than correct again. Legalize many of the drugs and you will see a REDUCTION in crime. not a higher crime rate. theft will go down as the price of drugs will have to go down in that good old free market economies. I mean a lot of the cost of drugs right now is the illegalality tax. ie the risk the dealer has to take to be able to procure and sell the substance means they have to be able to make more of a profit on it so they have high prices so those who cant afford it have to go rob to find the moeny to do it. remove the illegallity tax and the price comes down and thefts go down. Also gang violecen will go down as a lot of that is gangs trying to stake out good sell zones. tryign to hold onto a captive market as it where.

The War on Drugs is an expensive, tragic failure that has harmed human society more than it has helped. It has helped fuel gangs, helped reward the drug lords and helped line the pockets of corrupt politicians. Hell the War on Drugs could even be linked to the Taliban/Alqueda as poppies and heroin was (and apparently is becomeing once again) one of the main exports of Afghanistan and has been for several hundred years.

basically human nature is such: People will smoke, drink or otherwise ingest something if it makes them feel good laws be damned. Look at one of the first thigns humanity invented right after we discovered agriculture wine, whiskey and beer. Ever hear of the god Baachus? For a government to try and regulate human nature in that manner is wrong and immoral.

[Norton]

the government shouldn't stop someone from harming themselves, as that restricts individual freedom

Yes, that is my belief. For example, I don't agree with seatbelt laws. Of course, minors should be required to wear safety restraints*. However, if an adult doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, why should they be legally required to? The only person in danger is themselves if they get into an accident. Let Darwin's law punish those people rather than government law.

I know marijuana is bad for me. I also know cigarettes are bad for me. I smoke both, but can only be punished for smoking one. Nicotine is a legal recreational drug. Alcohol is a legal recreational drug. What makes marijuana so much worse than either of those two that warrants its illegal status?

Now here comes my hypocritcal side. I don't approve of coke, meth, K, or heroin. I'm simply a marijuana supporter. I still don't believe that users of those drugs should be arrested simply for using them. If they're not hurting anyone else, then let them destroy their own lives.



*In all of my statements regarding people making their own choices, I am always referring to legal adults. The rules should always be tighter for minors.

[Boozy]

By jailing addicts we *are* protecting society, a huge chunk of thefts/break ins/aquisitive crime is commited by people who are addicted to their substance of choice...

If a drug user has actually committed one of those crimes, then they should be in prison for those crimes. Surely you are not saying we should jail addicts just in case they commit a theft? That notion is antithetical to the spirit of our respective justice systems.

If a person's only crime is getting high, then I don't think prison is the right place for them. Prisons are crime school. A minor offender goes in, a hardened criminal comes out.

I understand that many people may not want to get clean, but I know for a fact that there are many who desperately want a shot at sobriety and can't afford the in-patient treatment program they need. Decriminalization would ideally keep these folks out of prison and give them a shot at treatment. Its bloody expensive to send someone to prison. Let's be a little wiser in where our money is spent.

[crazylegs]

Yes I have. My former manager at the dealership would take an 8 ball if the day had been good, he'd take 2 if it had been bad. You know what he would do? he would get up and walk aroud the lot he could get up to about 10-15 mph walking in that condition. As long as a person didnt try and fuck with him or try getting in his facelike I'm sure you did trying to arrest him then he was perfectly fine and absolutely unable to be told apart from anyone who wasnt except for the slight sweating and dilated pupils. So basically dont attack them and they are not going to wig out. Hell you spray me with CS gas and I'm gonna go postal on your ass too.A person has the right to harm themselves by the mere fact of existing.

Ok, the chap I dealt with, I wasn't trying to arrest him. I merely asked him what he was doing, he was in the street, in a car with no window with the door open holding a car stereo in one hand and the stereo cage in the other. THEN he went nuts.

The CS part, (one example of many) two of my collegues were sent to an aggresive male who was kicking (very hard) a door with a terrified woman and her kids indoors, the only way to subdue the male was to use the spray. You mention that you know your boss will react 'oddly' (for want of a better word), how does a random member of the public know this?

Actually pure tobacco by itself is not harmful to us. It has been smoked in its pure form for over a thousand years by native americans. I know several peopel who grow and roll it (being in appalachia the anti-smoking lies and propaganda has been rather slow to catch on so tobacco is still king in many places) and are healthier than some of the wheat germ aerobic nutjobs. My uncle lived to be in his ninties and he smoked hand rolled pure tobacco cigars on a daily basis (as well as drinking homemade moonshine) and only died from falling off the roof of his house. A lot of the danger of tobacco is highly over rated.

Nicotine IS dangerous, it raises both blood pressure and heart rate, the relaxation you feel is from the deep breaths, not from the active ingredients. There are people all over the world who can pump whatever they like into their bodies and will survive, they have excellent genes, the majority of the population don't have that luxury.



have you ever looked at how stupid and offensive and overzealously constrictive some of the drug laws are? Especially here in the People's Republic of Amerika? Wher eif the cops find even so much as a gram of mary in your car in some districts they can legally steal your property? where cancer and glaucoma victims are treated like worthless street scum for trying to get a medicine that helps alleviate their suffering? All because the misghuided jerks in power want to flex their muscles and tell people that the government can think and live your life better than you can.

I am fully aware of the drug laws here, if your found with a joint, hell even a few 8 bags you will probably get an on street caution, you won't be arrested, you won't be hauled into court. As long as its your first time.


Have you ever even smoked marijuana? I have.
No, I have no desire to inhale a mix of chemicals of dubious origin and unknown results.


Legalize many of the drugs and you will see a REDUCTION in crime. not a higher crime rate. theft will go down as the price of drugs will have to go down in that good old free market economies.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that as I can't see how legalising a drug will make it less addictive and therefore less likely to need it...?

[crazylegs]

If a drug user has actually committed one of those crimes, then they should be in prison for those crimes. Surely you are not saying we should jail addicts just in case they commit a theft? That notion is antithetical to the spirit of our respective justice systems.

I would never support jailing someone on a 'jut in case' basis (with the exception of severe mental health issues where the person is not in control of their actions and cannot see why those actions are unnaceptable)


If a person's only crime is getting high, then I don't think prison is the right place for them. Prisons are crime school. A minor offender goes in, a hardened criminal comes out.

If they have been shooting up in an alley next to a college for ten years and leaving their dirty needles lying around, even though there is a needle exchange programme? What is thats a school, a kindergarten, a nursery? How does that affect your opinion (the location I mean)?

I understand that many people may not want to get clean, but I know for a fact that there are many who desperately want a shot at sobriety and can't afford the in-patient treatment program they need. Decriminalization would ideally keep these folks out of prison and give them a shot at treatment. Its bloody expensive to send someone to prison. Let's be a little wiser in where our money is spent.

Druge treatment is, although free here (in the UK), very sparsly funded, I would rather see people get off drugs than go into prison, but when somone has walked out of drug treatment programmes more times than I can count I can't see an alternitive when they still committing offences.

Drug Treatment Orders and being used more and more in the UK to deal with users rather than prison, unless of course they breach the orders. This means that those who want to come off drugs can, but those who don't get punished for it, I see that as fair.

[Norton]

I can't see how legalising a drug will make it less addictive and therefore less likely to need it

No one said legalising drugs would make them less addictive - only less expensive. Addicts are less likely to commit theft to support their habits if the drugs are more affordable.

have no desire to inhale a mix of chemicals of dubious origin and unknown results.

Dubious origin? You mean, the ground? Marijuana is a plant, not something concocted in a laboratory. Sure, people breed marijuana plants to increase their THC content, but it's rather like how a farmer can breed plants to obtain more fruit. Maybe you're worried about a dishonest grower putting chemicals in it? Government regulation of marijuana would prevent that.

I will agree with you on the "unknown results" part, though. Marijuana can exacerbate mental illness in certain people, even if they showed no symptoms of mental illness prior to smoking. Then again, I know some people who have a massive personality overhaul after having one drink. Should alcohol be illegal, then?

If they have been shooting up in an alley next to a college for ten years and leaving their dirty needles lying around.
*snip*
What is thats a school, a kindergarten, a nursery?

Funny, but I've yet to see used syringes laying about in public places in my area. What I do see is plenty of broken glass from beer bottles - yes, near schools. Again, shall we make alcohol illegal because of that?

[DesignFox]

What I do see is plenty of broken glass from beer bottles - yes, near schools. Again, shall we make alcohol illegal because of that?

I think the point is that people who "shoot up" and leave needles lying around leave the potential for innocents to jab themselves and get nasties like HIV.

You aren't as likely to get diseases from broken bottle glass.

It's not right for people to leave broken glass around, but needles pose a much greater health hazard.

[AFPheonix]

The needle thing can vary by community. Apparently the drug users around the yuppy neighborhood where I work are pretty conscientious, because I've only found the needles I've sold them in the parking lot once. It's a whole different story down by the stores off of 82nd in Portland (a little area fondly called Felony Flats). They leave shit everywhere.

I'm on the fence as far as the harder drugs go. Meth is different from the others because it's really easy to restrict one of the key ingredients (pseudoephedrine) so can be controlled that way.
Marijuana I'd like see treated like hard alcohol: sold in government contracted stores and heavily taxed. If legalized it could be better studied for health effects, both good and bad.
I'm not entirely sure what to do about ones like heroin or cocaine. I suspect that if we examined our foreign policy as far as countries where the base ingredients are grown, we could probably have a bigger impact in helping farmers be able to sell a more healthy cash crop that would fuel above-the-table economies instead of lining the pockets of drug lords like they are now. At least as far as Mexico and Columbia goes, that would include reviewing our crop subsidies and how they effect other nations' farmers.

[crazylegs]

With regards to the needle/broken glass conversation, broken glass can be cleared by anyone with a broom and a cardboard box, needles require specialist equipment and disposal, there is also (as has been mentioned) a far greater risk of contracting life changing/threatening diseases from needles.

[Rapscallion]

Legalize many of the drugs and you will see a REDUCTION in crime. not a higher crime rate.

Well, yes. There would be far fewer people prosecuted for taking drugs, for a start.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

By jailing addicts we *are* protecting society
Why does society need protecting? Is it more valuable than the individual? Is it more important than the individual or is it made up of the individual points of view and attitudes. I think society would do just fine if we reduced the importance on blind obedience to a set of laws that remove personal freedom, liberty and independence.

I wasn't trying to arrest him. I merely asked him what he was doing, he was in the street, in a car with no window with the door open holding a car stereo in one hand and the stereo cage in the other. THEN he went nuts.
Okay that is a different ball of wax from an 60 year old cancer patient toking calmly on a joint to help ease the pain from their chemo/radiation/cancer. That guy was already in a position that was not exactly defensible.

The CS part, (one example of many) two of my collegues were sent to an aggresive male who was kicking (very hard) a door with a terrified woman and her kids indoors, the only way to subdue the male was to use the spray. You mention that you know your boss will react 'oddly' (for want of a better word), how does a random member of the public know this?
Okay dude was already violent. Not a good example as someone who is already violent is not going to be suddenly deciding to calm down when the popo show up you know?
Show me the person who was sitting at home doing lines or smoking a joint and then suddenly freaked out and became violent with no provocation. Then we have something to discus. the two examples you used where not good ones to bouy your side IMO.

As for my former boss aside fr his power walks when he was high there was no real way to tell frm his behavior or attitude that he was high. he was not violent (at least not any more so than a new/used car manager under a boatload of stress dealing with sucky customers.) he was not really dangerous and as for his driving he drove like a freaking race car lunatic high or sober. So I was equally freaked by his driving.

how does a random member of the public know this?

How does a random member of the public know the kitten loving old guy next to you on the bus isnt a PTSD shell shocked veteran of combat that is off his meds and will snap your neck at the next car backfiring thinking you're charlie or somethign? How do you know the yuppie coming at the crosswalk hasnt dropped their latte on their lap while chatting on the cell phone and wont run you down. Thing is you dont. So either A: you dont worry about it and go on with your life defensively but not paranoid. or B: You freak out try to get the government to pass nanny state laws enacting nerfworld to protect people from themselves and all the horrible what ifs there are out there. Personally I'll go with A.

Nicotine IS dangerous, Well uh yeah. Duh. But did you know that it only makes up less than 3% chemical composition in most tobacco breeds? That it is also found in chocolate, tomatos and potatos? Smoking one cigarette gives you less than 1 milligram of nicotine. Did you know nicotine can be used to treat ADHD? Did you also know that Nicotine can interfere in certain types of cancers (while helping others yes)
Yes it is a stimulant so is caffiene. So is sugar. A lot of chemical compounds are dangerous. I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that a person who is a consenting adult has the right to endanger their bodies. Regardless of bad genetics or not.

I am fully aware of the drug laws here, if your found with a joint, hell even a few 8 bags you will probably get an on street caution, you won't be arrested, you won't be hauled into court. As long as its your first time.
Hmm really? The guy before me in court was before the judge for the first time and had under a pound of weed. You know what sentencing he got? Asset forfeture. 3 years prison. 2 years suspended. 5 years probation and some other stuff I wasnt payign that close attention to along with some heavy fines that if he didnt pay he goes to jail until he pays (which is really sucky and stupid as how are they going to pay if they are in jail and then he'll have the rent the jail charges inmates for their time in on top of that.) And the judge was yelling at the guy to be happy he let him off so lightly for a first offender. Then again the judge was up for reelection.


No, I have no desire to inhale a mix of chemicals of dubious origin and unknown results.

Ah you mean the herbal plant cannibas sativa. Known since the dawn of time and smoked, chewed or otherwise ingested for the pleasant mind altering or pain numbing affects. Mentioned in several religious texts of the day. In its pure form no more dangerous than wheat, hops, corn or Tobacco. And while there are cases of people lacing or otherwise coating mary legalizing it and imposing strict regulations such as what is required for the purity controls of tobacco would reduce that to nothing.
And you must not breathe in the city much then either eh?

If they have been shooting up in an alley next to a college for ten years and leaving their dirty needles lying around, even though there is a needle exchange programme? What is thats a school, a kindergarten, a nursery? How does that affect your opinion (the location I mean)?
That would get me irritated at them for being litterbugs as I also get bent about people throwing any form of garbage like that around. But you know what in the past 15 years of hking, urban exploration, dumpster diving, working in a detail shop for 3 years I have found a sum total of probably about 5 needles of unknown origin. I know I do not see them "strewn about" or anything. Even when I go to town or the city I dont see that. So either they dont do it or they are conscientious enough to pick up after themselves or do it somewhere away from the public. All not my problem. Mostly what I find are beer bottles and cans. Which promtly get picked up and placed in the recycle bin until i get enough to take in and donate to my personal fun fund. So its a win win for me at least.

I would never support jailing someone on a 'jut in case' basis Well thats good you feel that. Last time I checked thoughtcrime wasnt a real think and predicting the future is still a bit problematic right now.

with the exception of severe mental health issues where the person is not in control of their actions and cannot see why those actions are unnaceptable Well this is kinda of a grey area. Who would get to decide if the person was not in control, if their actions where harmful and what and why those actions are unacceptable. I certainly wouldnt want government or any agents to determine that about me.

Druge treatment is, although free here (in the UK), very sparsly funded, I would rather see people get off drugs than go into prison, but when somone has walked out of drug treatment programmes more times than I can count I can't see an alternitive when they still committing offences.
I can see an alternative. Only arrest them when they actually commit a crime other than drug usage, possession or selling. Hey that makes sense doesnt it? So of course government isnt going to do something that smart.

needles require specialist equipment and disposal I guess the ones we found at the dealership we just pulled out of the car carefully and pitched them in the garbage with the tip wrapped in duct tape or tossed in a pop bottle or something. Since it happened so rarely there was no real procedure to follow (like it would be followed anyhow)

This means that those who want to come off drugs can, but those who don't get punished for it, I see that as fair. yeah but the thing is if the ONLY crime they ever commit is smoking weed or doing a drug then how is it fair? they are not commiting a violent crime, they are not commiting a crime in which there is a victim. As long as they are a consentign free willed adult they should be left alone to smoke, ingest or inject whatever makes them happy.

I suspect that if we examined our foreign policy as far as countries where the base ingredients are grown, we could probably have a bigger impact in helping farmers be able to sell a more healthy cash crop that would fuel above-the-table economies instead of lining the pockets of drug lords like they are nowI am sure that if you looked closely into the flow of govt funds into drug producing nations you would find some very interesting things.

Well, yes. There would be far fewer people prosecuted for taking drugs, for a start.
Well there is that. hehe.

[Seshat]

However, if an adult doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, why should they be legally required to? The only person in danger is themselves if they get into an accident.

Incorrect.

An unrestrained person in an accident is a lethal missile to others in the vehicle with them, and will often cause those others (even if restrained) severe injury. Also, if the unrestrained person is thrown out of the vehicle, anyone in range can be hit by a body, with huge impact forces. And being thrown through the windscreen is not uncommon.

(The force calculation is mass * acceleration - in this case, the change in velocity is speed-of-travel minus zero, so the acceleration is speed-of-travel squared. The mass is, of course, the weight of the person.)

Also, if you get seriously injured, who's going to be upset by it? Everyone you love. Who's going to have to look after you? Again, the people you love. You're not taking risks just for yourself, you're taking risks for your loved ones. It's never just you that you're affecting.


Back on topic: Marijuana

The cannibinoids - tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are available as prescription drugs under the names Sativex and Marinol. Marinol has THC only, Sativex has both. Research pharmacists are still working on marijuana, teasing out the other useful chemicals it has.

The difference between taking THC and/or CBD as a prescription drug and taking it directly from the plant is actually quite profound. As a prescription drug, you know the exact dosage (to within milligrams) you're taking, you know (or can easily find out) the other substances in what you're ingesting, and you know you're not taking more psychoactives than you need.
Taken directly from the plant, you're ingesting CBD even if what you want is only THC. Or vice versa. You're ingesting the various other psychoactives that are being studied by the research pharmacists. You're also ingesting whatever herbicides or insecticides were used on the plant and not sufficiently washed off. You're ingesting assorted bits of plant matter - though most of those don't matter, and if it was a lettuce leaf, you'd call it 'food'. If you're smoking it, you're ingesting lung irritants caused by the burning process.

I feel the same way about alcohol and nicotine, by the way: taken carefully and mindfully, in known dosages and known quality and with known carriers, I'm cool with it. But I'd rather chew a carefully-derived stick of nicotine gum than smoke a tobacco leaf. I know that the tobacco leaf contains substances I don't want to ingest - I'd rather just have the nicotine. As for opiates - give me my nice, safe tramadol and leave the poppy juice in the lab to get refined!

On the other hand, I'd rather eat a nice sandwich made with wholegrain bread and spinach leaves and mature cheese than eat a multivitamin pill. But then, wheat, spinach and cheese don't contain the same sort of psychoactive and physiologically-active substances that tobacco or marijuana - or poppies - do.


All that said, I'm on the fence about regulating access to refined drugs. You can do a hell of a lot of damage with them, but what about people who are genuinely capable of learning enough about them to take them carefully and mindfully?
And what about people who are in so much pain that it doesn't matter if they get addicted to refined opiates: they're disabled from the pain or they're capable-but-addicted. (And yes, in pre-tramadol days, I'd be one of those. Fortunately, tramadol seems so far to be non-addictive. Yay!)

I have no answers to these problems, just questions.

[crazylegs]

Okay dude was already violent. Not a good example as someone who is already violent is not going to be suddenly deciding to calm down when the popo show up you know?
Show me the person who was sitting at home doing lines or smoking a joint and then suddenly freaked out and became violent with no provocation. Then we have something to discus. the two examples you used where not good ones to bouy your side IMO.

I don't think I'm explaining myself well, the chap when not high is ok to deal with, no issues, polite, calm, compliant, no issues. As soon as a line of cocaine goes up his nose you better be somewhere else or have a bigger stick than he has.





Hmm really?

Yes really, I image that the UK and US have different legal systems, especially as our judges are not elected and therefore don't have political interference in their sentencing should it go that far.




And you must not breathe in the city much then either eh?
As the contents of this countries air are publiscised, quality, pollutants that sort of thing I can make informed consent as to whether or not I stay here, and as it is, I do.



But you know what in the past 15 years of hking, urban exploration, dumpster diving, working in a detail shop for 3 years I have found a sum total of probably about 5 needles of unknown origin. I know I do not see them "strewn about" or anything.
Then all I can say is that you're very lucky, in the town next to mine there are real problems with needles, they are everywhere you can reach, post boxes, drains, air conditioning units, on the top of walls, in alleys, in fire exits, randomly left in kids play areas, sports fields. So yes, its a problem.

Well thats good you feel that. Last time I checked thoughtcrime wasnt a real think and predicting the future is still a bit problematic right now.
Well at least we can agree on something! :)

Well this is kinda of a grey area. Who would get to decide if the person was not in control, if their actions where harmful and what and why those actions are unacceptable.
If a psychiatrist is concerned enough that someone is acting out what 'voices' in their head are telling them to do, and each act is getting more violent then I'd rather they were incarcerated to receive treatment, as is permitted under the Mental Health Act.

I can see an alternative. Only arrest them when they actually commit a crime other than drug usage, possession or selling.
The majority of users I see in cells (after being arrested that is) ARE arrested for other offences, such as theft, burglary, car crime etc. Mostl because they are addicted and need to feed their habit. Even if drugs were legal/decriminilised the drugs would still need to be paid for somehow, and addicts would still need to aquire money from whatever source to obtain said drug.

I guess the ones we found at the dealership we just pulled out of the car carefully and pitched them in the garbage with the tip wrapped in duct tape or tossed in a pop bottle or something. Since it happened so rarely there was no real procedure to follow (like it would be followed anyhow)

A security guard in the town I work had a needle stick injury two weeks ago. They now have to undergo 6 months of tests, prevention treatment and worry about if/what they have caught and how it will effect their life. In addition to that there is the strain on his SO and the rest of his family, so please if you do find a needle, if only for you own sake get them into a sharps bin (available from most chemists) and use tongs/grabbers rather than your hands, hell pliers work in a pinch.

Society does need protecting, society is all of us, it also makes financial sense, would you rather your tax money goes into clearing needles/treating related injuries or preventing their flow into society in the first place.

[rahmota]

I don't think I'm explaining myself well, the chap when not high is ok to deal with, no issues, polite, calm, compliant, no issues. As soon as a line of cocaine goes up his nose you better be somewhere else or have a bigger stick than he has.
That was him. I know people that get a few beers in them they turn into a bear. I know a few people that have a freakin bad day and they go off on the slightest thing. I also know people who when high become the biggest fuzzball kitten and you could poke them with a stick and they wouldnt do anythign. It depends on the individual a lot and the circumstances involved in them.

As the contents of this countries air are publiscised, quality, pollutants that sort of thing I can make informed consent as to whether or not I stay here, and as it is, I do.
And if mary or another drug where legal and subject to production regulations and quality control then there would be the informed consent as well for that.

Even if drugs were legal/decriminilised the drugs would still need to be paid for somehow, and addicts would still need to aquire money from whatever source to obtain said drug.
Well if drugs where legal their price would come down. People would be able to use legal funds and sources to obtain said drugs like their cigs. Thefts and other related crimes would go down.

so please if you do find a needle, if only for you own sake get them into a sharps bin (available from most chemists) Well when I worked for them sicne there was no problem with needles the company wouldnt pay for a sharps bin and I sure wasnt payign out of pocket for somethign that would be useless 99.9% of the time. We just didnt have enough of a stray needle problem to warrent that.

Society does need protecting, society is all of us, it also makes financial sense, would you rather your tax money goes into clearing needles/treating related injuries or preventing their flow into society in the first place. Society as a whole does not need protecting at the expensse of individual freedoms. Since society is made up of the collective individual people working in a common or nearly common goal of their own free will then society is better protected by protecting and empowering the individual at the expense of the collective body politic. And I would rather see my tax money being used to help remove poverty, provide unuversal health care and help increase the quality and availability of individuals lives. Not chasing some wasteful overzealous moralist nerf world nanny state borg collective mindcrime like the "war on drugs" If I wa sin charge of fundign the war on drugs would ahve a 0 funding budget for the next 500 centuries and drugs would be legalized and taxed. Then again I'd also get rid of any law that was based only on one narrow religious or other moral principles and make such laws illegal.

[FashionLad]

Without reading the bulk of posts made. Man, you guys have a lot to say... :p

I can say that I do strongly oppose the war on drugs. I think we spend too much money on it, and it's ineffective. Of course on that same token, I'm very much opposed to almost anything that my tax dollars are being used for.

I guess I could go with meth, cocaine, heroin and drugs like that being illegal, but Marijuana. I smoked a lot of pot as a teenager, I got arrested for posession. Not a cool thing.

But, I was honor student. I didn't get into much trouble in high school until after I got busted. (I got busted when I was 16.) The city paid a lot of money to "rehab" me. Was a I threat to anyone? No. I smoked at home or at friends' houses. The pot I bought was home-grown right in the great state of Minnesota, so, I wasn't supporting terroristic activities or large crime. I was just a kid who wanted to get high, often. Marijuana isn't a gateway drug.

Imagine if we just legalized marijuana and taxed it. Not only would our country be saving money, it'd also be making money.

Marijuana also has some great medicinel beneits. Shrinking tumors. Relieving pain. Encouraging appetite.

[CancelMyService]

Personally I think the drug war has been a waste of money, and was probably only started to prop up US sponsored puppet governments in South America.

I know more than one person who was a cancer patient or otherwise dealing with severe pain and the only thing that helped them was smoking a joint. Even if it ends up not being scientifically proven, what's wrong with allowing someone with a terminal disease to smoke up? It's not like they have a lot left.

If weed was legal, then people who smoke wouldn't have to go to dealers that had an economic interest in getting people into higher profit drugs. It's only a gateway when you buy from someone who wants to "upsell".

A funny aside is as a wrestling fan, it gives me an unusual perception of drug use as almost all of the top wrestlers in the 80s were using cocaine (sorry if that ruined any childhood memories). In the grand scheme of things, it turned out blow was probably the least harmful drug they were using. It its kind of funny to watch tapes of shows I watched as a kid and see how many guys were obviously coked out of their freaking minds.