SmartAleq - I actually like the way you think, to a point. People in social services tend to see that money currently spent on law enforcement and hospitals for example, would be far better spent on education in order to change the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff phenomenon.
I used to have this very idealistic view as well. I still think we need to spend more resources on education, but only looking out for number one and educating as many people as possible will not eliminate idiots. We also have to work with what we already have created, we can’t go back to square one with society.
Thing is, MelC, idiots are best eliminated by themselves–it’s actually pretty cool! Idiots tend to wipe themselves out unless well meaning social worker do-gooder types protect them from the consequences of their decisions. Me, I say screw that noise. If you’re an adult you’re responsible for everything you do and if it kills you all the better then–you are demonstrably too stupid to live. The Darwin fish I’d put on my vehicle would probably sport a machine gun (the better to hasten the effects of evolution, don’tcha know) and have a “Go, Lemmings, Go” sticker right next to it.
The other great thing about my plan is that the more idiotic a person is, the less controlled and disciplined, the more s/he will pay for the privilege of chemically assisted suicide! I’d be spending about fifty bucks every two weeks for my drug of choice (at current prices) which wouldn’t be fattening the public coffers much, while also not racking up a lot of health care or other social debts. Joe Gimme Another HeroinMethCocaineCocktail Guy on the other hand will be contributing a large shitload of cash to the education efforts and also paying for his eventual need for an iron lung! If he OD’s without need for heroic measures or life support we can be right good sports and bury him in Potter’s Field on the public arm and then use the fuckpot of resources he left behind to teach some marginally smarter three year old that Drugs Is Icky-Poo.
Sometimes the best way to make things foolproof is to set lethal fool traps all around…
SmartAleq, I know what you’re getting at in theory. The problem is that theories rarely are applicable to real life situations. In a scientific experiment, with controls to study the results, a theory can be proven or disproven. However, you’re bringing into the equation people. 6 billion of them assuming you’re not talking about a certain sub-set. Heroin has the same physiological effect on all humans.
So we need to then take into account the actions of people. This is where your idea of legalizing all chemical ingestion and allowing the state to sponsor it falls apart.
There is a very small number of people that would oppose free use, IF the person holed up in a room away from anyone else.
“But that person should be able to interact with others even if he’s stoned!”
Fine, let him interact with others that are using. When a 6 year old kid is present, though, I tend to have a problem. Do you know any meth addicts? I don’t, but I do know a woman that is married to one. She would prefer he not have any interaction with her when he uses.
Again, if someone wants to use, isolate yourself. That should help in holding personal relationships together. If your use only affects you and it’s your personal choice, make damn sure nobody else is affected by it.
Those AA people are full of shit. Booze is legal and taxed. People everyday drink to excess and avoid jail while enjoying a legal product. They even hold jobs for years and get the bills paid on time. They raise families and hold marriages together long enough to celebrate a diamond anniversay. They don’t get into fights, abuse family members or destroy property.
Often times they have children that resent them for being distant and uninvolved due to choosing booze over obligations, and a spouse that resents them for the same reasons.
For all I drink, my wife and I made a promise to each other that if my drinking ever became a hint of an issue, it would be dealt with immediately. Because of our work schedules we really only get to spend time together on the weekends. Most of my drinking is done during the week when she’s at work. A sign of alcoholism? Yup. But I choose to imbibe when nobody is around. I couldn’t start an argument or get into a fight if I wanted to. I get to work on time without a hangover (and if I am hungover it’s slight and nobody has noticed it in over a year). My job is done well, I’ve been commended a few times, and life keeps ticking along.
I keep my chemical abuse to myself. I do everything I can to avoid causing negative effects on anyone else. If we go out on the weekend, the 3rd drink means we’re taking a cab home. Even if I know I’m under the limit, the risk isn’t worth saving the 10 bucks. I don’t want that one miscalculation to be the reason somebody is maimed or killed.
Now, if you’re talking about legalizing all drugs and can reasonably expect people to be as hyperactively aware of avoiding any harm to others as I am, let’s legalize tomorrow.
Based on posts to this thread and other threads we’ve had on this topic, I’m in a very small minority. Some would say I’m blessed or lucky or the exception to the rule. And I am. I don’t know if it’s luck, or active choices, or the fact I’m a cyborg. (Just making sure you’re still with me) 
The point is after more than a decade I haven’t suffered the typical consequences that just about everyone else that drinks as much as I do suffers. Sometimes I wish I would. Some blood work that shows something wrong or a few stints in jail years ago would have netted me a Lamboghini by now. (Just the thought of what I’ve spent on booze is reason to drink. Let me grab a beer before finishing.) 
The tax aspect is ridiculous for legalizing drugs in reality. I don’t see a meth addict showing up for work 40 hours a week consistantly. They can’t pull it off now, and the shit is tax free! And if they can’t work, who’s going to pay for it? Who’s going to pay the taxes? They’ll have to do what they do now. Negatively affect society through theft, robbery and deceit. Problem solved, huh?
One argument I can entertain is that meth can be made safely if it’s legalized. That would help avoid the labs exploding and killing children of the cookers. On the other hand, if these people are risking the lives of family for the drug, should we expect them to be responsible if they get the drug at a pharmacy?
Is the danger in the drug being illegal? Or is the danger in the effect of the drug? When you honestly remove the simplistic view and think about it, legalization starts to lose it’s luster for many reasons.
But hey, if we can come up with some public funding to allow people to be cut off from society and give them a sufficient amount of drugs to make them a non-factor, I’m all over that. I’ll write a check right now.
Where the hell did I put the stamps?
I disagree. When you decide to ingest a substance that will impair your judgment, you take responsibility in advance for whatever you might do while intoxicated.
Again, it’s his fault for taking the drugs in the first place. Just like if, say, a nuclear power plant operator decides to take a nap in the middle of the day, and while he’s asleep, he’s unable to notice a warning light and press the “prevent core meltdown” button in time. You can’t blame him for not reacting in his sleep, but you can blame him for going to sleep in the first place.
Not quite. The price of illegal drugs is kept artificially high (no pun intended) by their very illegality.
Marijuana is far more expensive per ounce than tobacco, for example. Not because it’s harder to grow–just try growing tobacco in your dorm room closet!–but because there’s risk in growing and distributing it. If it were legalized, a pack of joints could sell for $20 and still (1) be profitable to the growers and distributors, (2) be far cheaper than it is today, and (3) include 75% tax or more.
The same would presumably be true of other drugs like meth. Even if they were taxed heavily, they could still be cheap enough that addicts wouldn’t need to resort to theft, robbery, or deceit to scrounge up the money to buy them.
Assuming the meth addict actually holds a job and can pay his bills, feed himself, any family he has, and spends disposable income on meth? Sure.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t see any reason to think that would last long. Are there any cases of meth addicts that are living well and showing they’re using responsibly? I can clog the board with cites of the opposite, but if you can show me even one cite that meth is benign to someone that uses it for more than 6 moths, I’ll eat my socks.
And don’t tell me you can’t cite because the drug is illegal. There are dozens of stories (current) in any given year about high-profile people getting busted for drugs. Some are downright proud of thier use.
Oh, by the way, the reason we read about them isn’t because they used an illegal drug. It’s because of what they were doing after taking the drug.
Drugs being illegal isn’t the problem. It’s what happens after taking the drugs. If you sit in your house and shoot heroin all day, you’re probably pretty safe. The Narcs aren’t sitting outside your house peeking through the blinds watching you 24/7. When other laws are broken (and that’s impossible because drug use is benign), then you’d risk getting caught.
If the dealer has current tags, car insurance, drives the posted limit and makes a full stop at red lights WHILE NOT CARRYING A LOADED WEAPON, I can’t see a visit to your house by him to be any reason to suspect you. Nothing to worry about there. Just hope his rival isn’t following him and decide to have at it while you’re sealing the deal. And if there is trouble, I hope your neighbors have the good fortune of a junkie firing off a few rounds with good aim. Because we all know the dealers and thier lackeys are crack shots. (Heh.)
And taxes aren’t the be-all-end-all. We tax the shit out of cigarettes and booze. There’s still a healthy black market in smuggling them. Know why? Because the taxes raise the price to a point that it becomes profitable to sell them on the black market. There is a healthy number of people that kill and maim each other over these two commodities.
Legalize drugs and the price comes down. Doesn’t mean there still won’t be people that circumvent the law to sell them. Or make them.
Take a meth cooker. Do you honestly think he’s going to declare moral victory that the drug is legal and sit back while the government produces the drug at a highly taxed rate? Fuck no. His profits bring in the money for him to buy the products to make the stuff. He uses part of the product, and sells the rest to buy more ingredients. To make the drug he needs. Then sells the excess to get ingredients for a new batch. To make the drug he needs, then sells the excess to buy the ingredients for another batch. Shit, this sounds like a pattern. Easily broken by the county providing the drug.
Of course, the meth addict’s income is the sale of the drug. Now that the government is selling it, he lost his income. That should give him plenty of money to buy the drug with.
Your snark is unwarranted here (at least I think it’s snark - you glide as effortlessly between seriousness and sarcasm as Paul Harvey does between news and commercials). No one is suggesting that no drug users ever break other laws. It’s undeniable, however, that most of the crime associated with drugs today is caused by the market situation created by the laws themselves.
Yes. Now think about how that works: people go to a place where taxes are low, buy cigarettes, then cart them across the border to a place where taxes are high. They don’t grow their own tobacco, roll their own cigarettes, or defend their turf against rival gangs of cigarette makers.
What profits? Who’s going to buy it from him when he can’t compete with the price of the legally produced, taxed drug?
Gosh, he might have to get another job, or enter rehab. Are you trying to suggest that the small minority of meth users who make their money by producing meth will cause an equal or greater amount of trouble than the majority who simply buy it at inflated black market prices already do?
Most meth users don’t produce it themselves (cite: the fact that there are still houses in Spokane that haven’t blown up). Some of them resort to crime to get the money to buy their drug, others don’t. Even supposing they all do, it’s hard to imagine how lowering the price could not lead to a drop in such crime - an addict who mugs one old lady per week to support his $X/day meth habit will only need to mug one old lady every ten weeks to support a $0.1X/day habit.
If someone can be a responsible meth addict, they can have at it. If the government takes over production and the cost is cut to a tenth, the addict still needs to produce that lower amount to buy the drug.
Meth addicts aren’t known for their marketable skills and dependability. They need to get the money somewhere.
There are plenty of doctors that state pot, while a risk, is a drug that should probably be decriminalized. I haven’t seen anyone, other than those that suggest the adbsurd notion of full legalization, suggest meth is a drug that can be used with a low risk of seriously fucking up your life.
My ADD med is pretty much a marriage of meth and coke. I take the prescribed amount daily and have never taken more to see what it feels like. There is a medical use for these drugs. But I’d prefer it done under a doctor’s care to treat a specific problem. Not readily available for recreational use in unlimited amounts.
Once again, you’re totally missing the point. Who CARES if the meth freak fucks up his life? What, you think you can STOP him from fucking up his life? No, you can’t, and you shouldn’t. Addictive personalities are called that because they have a drive to be addicted to something, and they by the gods WILL be addicted to something, and no force on earth or off it will change the fundamental nature of the addict. If someone continues to fuck up his life in the face of jail time, social ostracism, family and friends bailing out, ill health, loss of job, home and all other creature comforts in order to support an addiction, what the hell makes you think any stupid artificial barriers you place in his way are going to deflect him from his path by so much as one iota?
Much more sensible and merciful in the long run to just keep the stupid addicts from fucking over OTHER PEOPLE who did not make the choices which lead to addiction and mess up their lives. Let the stupid addicts kill themselves quickly, cleanly, and fairly painlessly in order that they be removed from the gene pool and spare the rest of us from having to deal with them and the sequelae of their stupidity. Better to grieve over the dead than to deal with the long drawn out and completely pointless agony of trying to stop a stupid addict from being a stupid addict.
I’m just sick and tired of having MY freedoms abridged because of Big Daddy protectionist laws aimed at saving the stupid from themselves. Get the government out of our lives and our bladders and let them do the job we actually WANT them to do, which is to keep criminals of the violent type safely locked away from those they want to victimize. That, and maintaining the roads in good order–but they can shove all the rules that keep soveriegn adults from doing what they want “for their own good.” I don’t think anyone but me is entitled or capable of deciding what my own good is, because that’s MY job and I don’t take kindly to anyone else patting me on the head and telling me what to do.
Which you agree would be an improvement over the situation as it exists today, yes?
I’m not going to make any claims about the riskiness of meth or other drugs, but I don’t think full legalization is absurd at all. Most of the problems surrounding all illegal drugs are caused by the black market they’ve been forced into.
Well the difference being that the meth addict isn’t going to sustain employment to earn the money to pay for the drug for any considerable time. He or she will ultimately turn to stealing and harming you and I to get the drug.
When he or she finally has to resort to illegal activity, I’d rather he face charges brought about by an illegal drug than one sanctioned and taxed by the very government that prosecutes.
I’m still waiting for anything, anything at all, that indicates a meth addict can keep his shit together, earn a living, and not destroy everything around him. Don’t worry, I’m patient. I’ll wait.
Why are you calling that a difference? Isn’t that what they do already? They’d simply be doing a lot less of it.
The charges would be brought about by “stealing and harming you and I”, not by the drug.
I take it you’ve never worked in a call center. Even an addict can hold down a job that involves talking on the phone all day… my girlfriend and I have both seen them.
I don’t know why I’m still trying to get through to you, duffer, but here goes one more shot. The way things are right now is this:
A person is addicted to an illegal drug. This drug is very expensive because of the risk involved in making, distributing and possessing this drug. Many, many people go to prison because they make, possess and distribute this drug. The addict has to come up with a sizable chunk of change every day in order to keep himself supplied with the drug he has addicted himself to. The addict is de facto a felon just by reason of his very existence as an addict, commits felonies every time he feeds the monkey. What deterrent is there to refrain from committing more felonies to support the existing felony of being a user of an illegal drug? None, is the answer to this question. Once one accepts that one is outside of society in one way, it becomes ever so much easier to go outside the law in other ways. Add in that the addict has very strong incentive in place to keep the monkey fed and you have a situation that pretty much ensures that more felonies WILL be committed to keep this addict fed. The chances of this felon being caught and punished for these felonies is very small, because the cops (a small group) are very, very busy arresting people who use illegal drugs (a huge group), and the prisons are full of people who were arrested for using drugs. We throw away shitpots of money aimed at enforcing unenforceable morality laws while the real criminals rake in the bucks hand over fist and never get caught or punished. If by some chance one does get put away, another takes his place immediately, because the money is too good to pass up.
Scenario two: All drugs are legal, clean, safe and taxed. At current prices, pot is going for about forty bucks an eighth ounce–about three grand a pound or so with volume discount. A very small personal grow operation can turn out two to five pounds in four months at a price of less than a grand in electricity and supplies. This gives you some idea of the magnitude of the markup that illegality has forced onto a very benign, low risk, easily produced drug. Meth is running around a hundred a gram according to Frontline, but can vary depending on purity and scarcity. Let’s make the reasonable assumption that the price could be brought in at about a quarter of that, even taxed pretty heavily. I’m extrapolating this from the prices of materials for a home cook–the most spendy item is the pseudoephedrine in large amounts, the rest of the chemicals are pretty inexpensive and would be way less so in a factory environment.
We can see that the addict is now much less burdened cost wise using legally manufactured drugs, not to mention he isn’t running the risk of a bad cook poisoning the batch, which happens more often than we’d like to think. Neighborhoods don’t have toxic waste dumps where people’s houses used to be, the dopers aren’t hanging around the drug houses causing trouble–the addicts walk into the Rite-Aid just like citizens and purchase their drug and take it out in a little bag, just like regular people. Less upfront cost means the addict can probably support his habit just by simple means like cadging spare change, cashing in pop bottles or doing plain old manual labor part time. Figure most addicts might just think this is a good trade off from the old way? Especially if they know for a fact that any time they want help to get out from under the monkey all they have to do is walk into a clinic and it’s rehab city, already paid for by the taxes on his drug? Think regular citizens would benefit from less crime in their neighborhoods and increased police presence since the cops are no longer preoccupied busting people for victimless crimes? Think that once the addict is repatriated as a regular citizen and not a de facto criminal he might like to keep it that way, just so’s not have to look over his shoulder and be worried all the time–especially since it’s a bitch keeping the monkey fed while you’re incarcerated.
So, less crime, fewer criminals, huge swaths of current issues swept away in one fell swoop by the simple expedient of removing the profit motive and the danger factor involved in drug use. Fewer deaths from drugs, too, since dosage is absolutely standardized and there’s no OD’ing on unexpectedly pure street dope. No dying from weird substances used to cut drugs to increase the profit margin. Greatly increased tax revenue which is earmarked to teach kids the truth regarding drug use, not the sensationalized bullshit propaganda teachers are forced to tell the kids in order to “scare them straight,” what a fucking crock. Kids who’re taught truth rather than shit are better able to make good judgements regarding whether or not they’ll use drugs at all or if they do to what extent is tolerable and safe.
I’m failing to see the downcheck here, and so far I’ve seen nothing from the other side that makes anywhere near as much sense as my scenario. Actually, with seizure and forfeiture laws in effect the government has a substantial stake in keeping drugs illegal, but I suppose it would be churlish of me to assume this is the major roadblock to a sensible drug policy. So I’ll just continue to chalk it up to the morons who still think they can legislate morality and enforce prohibition of substances that sizable percentages of the population want being in charge. Anything else would brand me a cynic, I suppose.
Jeezus Gawd!:smack:
I go away for a few days and you guys turn my “the kids a dumbass” thread into a “let’s legalize everything” debate?:rolleyes:
He should follow the rules of the household (not partaking in illegal activities) until he is old enough to move out. Then he can do what he wants, take his own chances with the police, have his own rules of his own home, vote for Pols that see things his way on dope, and raise his own kids the way he wants. Then when his kids say fuck you to whatever the rules are in the home he’s paying the mortgage on, the delicousness of the irony will be his to choke on.
(hey, I remember hearing my old man laughing all the way from hell the first time I told one of my kids to cut their hair! )
Sorry for the hijack, but you have to admit it’s THOROUGH!
Drove that baby AAAALLLL the way off the cliff, we did… 
And yes, the emergency brake was on at the time, why do you ask?
So I know this is an OLD thread, but considering I am the topic of the discussion I felt it was appropriate to bump it. I wanted to clear some things up and defend myself a tiny bit.
I was a bit ignorant then, and didn’t know the meaning of “off the record” with papers. I had no idea they would use my full name or location, although I’d bet there are several people with my name in Michigan.
You’ve got to be kidding me if you think this would lead to any type of police response. They have MUCH bigger things to worry about than tracking down some kid that said he occasionally smokes. Needless to say those comments have never caused the slightest bit of negative impact.
Yes, I attended the best of the 3, graduated in 4 years with a high GPA, a glowing resume, and had a perfect job lined up before I graduated.
I also pay my bills on time, every time.
To put it simply, no. She’s glad that things have turned out so well, but at the time she would have been quite upset.
Not happened once, and I’ve worked some rather high profile jobs.
Thank you.
It was not honorable at all. It was an idiotic result of me being a stupid 17 year old.
I wish! Would have been a good idea.
Not trying to toot my own horn but I would certainly fall under that group.
My education was not screwed up one bit, and my parents became okay with it as long as my grades were fine, my health was maintained, and I stayed out of trouble, all of which were accomplished.
I’m not making housing payments or paying for insurance yet, as I’m renting and am covered under my parents insurance (thanks Obama), I’m easily covering rent, utilities, and student loan payments large enough to almost represent the size of a housing payment. Since graduation I’ve worked several high profile jobs, and am extremely happy with the direction my career is going in.
It’s not “supposedly”, it was a fact. It was a top tier university as well.
Not sure if the people that posted are still around, but I’d be glad to answer any questions you may have.
Just to be clear, you’re saying that you’re Matt Muir, the kid quoted in the article in the OP?
Assuming that’s the case and you’re on the level, thanks for dropping by and participating. Glad things have turned out ok for you.
I heard that Zombie Bud is da bomb
Yes I am. I had posted on a forum for a group called Students for Sensible Drug Policy and a reporter emailed me. I was so enamored with the idea of being in the paper that I didn’t think about the fact that they may use my name, or that it would forever be on the internet. Although so far I don’t really regret it. No one has ever mentioned the article to me, and I feel that the comments I made weren’t damning in any way, especially since it was 5 years ago. I stand by my views on marijuana use, and if someone didn’t want to hire me because I believe it can be used in a responsible manner, I would rather not work for them.
Good on you for standing up against the fascist, insane drug laws in this country.
How did you happen upon the thread in question? Assuming you’re telling the truth, I find it fascinating that you found the thread and popped in to offer your experience. So, thanks!