The funny thing is that the drug war isn’t even working to do the one thing you’d think it would do - raise prices. A recent study confirms that drug prices are plumetting. A gram of uncut heroin that cost $1200 in 1981 is only $318 today! A gram of cocaine, which cost $191 when the drug war began, is a mere $44 now!
Like I’ve said a billion times before, trying to get rid of drugs is the most futile thing our government could attempt to do, considering that the entire nation’s supply of heroin for a year could fit on a single jumbo jet!
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety’
One more thing before I get my ass to sleep :
they’re spending $120 billion to lock people up, yet I just read that 57% of people seeking treatment are turned away. How could anyone trust a government that would do this?
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety’
Lex: no harm, no foul. I think I came down on you a little hard too.
Dirty Devil: why must we always compare drugs to slavery and suffrage. Sweet merciful crap. It’s like…it’s like…comparing the United States to the Netherlands, for Pete’s sake. But while we’re on the topic of slavery, why don’t we reflect for a moment about how easily that wrong was righted (since drug reformers often like to talk about how great this nation will be once these things are legalized). First we argued for decades, then we fought the bloodiest war in our nation’s history. But no, the fun didn’t stop there. We destroyed half the country and set off a nearly century-long cycle of hatred and violence. So if you really want to compare the legalization of drugs with emancipation, don’t put on the facade that these things are going to be made legal and everything’s gonna be alright.
Peyote: it’s not a meaningless argument…imagine the things that we’ve mentioned on this thread being placed into two groups: legal (alcohol, cheeseburgers), and illegal (THC, cocaine). It’s very very difficult to move things from the “legal” group to the “illegal” group, bad as they may be, because they are so ingrained in our culture (we tried doing this once and it didn’t work…we’re all familiar with the story). Now, there’s nothing in the “illegal” group that reaches the level of “ingrainededness” of the things in the legal group (don’t pretend that there is), simply because those things are illegal. By moving things (which we know are harmful in some way) from the “illegal” group to the “legal” group, we give those things an opportunity to become more ingrained in our culture, potentially reaching the level of beer and cheeseburgers.
Miss Monica: thank you for your fresh perspective. Because, you know, I really don’t have enough people on this thread calling me ignorant just because I disagree with them.
OK, professor, allow me to lay some of what I “don’t” know on you. When drugs get in the brain and enter the synaptic cleft they do one of three things. Some bind to receptor sites on the postsynaptic membrane, artificially simulating the action of neurotransmitters, causing a neuron to fire sans “natural” stimulus (this is what most hallucinogens do). Others block the reuptake of neurotransmitters by the presynaptic axon, leaving the neurotransmitters in the synaptic cleft so they can stimulate the receptor sites repeatedly (most stimulants do this). Others inhibit the firing of the neuron by binding to the receptor sites while not activating them, therefore preventing the neurotransmitters from “completing their mission” before they are taken back up by the presynaptic axon (depressants).
So, natural as those poisons may be, the actions that they take in your brain are completely artificial. But I have no idea about anything concerning drugs.
I’m not going to dignify that with an answer. You’re becoming quite tedious, neutron star.
Are you out yo’ mind? Are you actually asserting that drugs cause the same problems in Harlem as they do in Amish country, or as they do in the suburbs? Truly, you are displaying the cognitive abilities of a grade schooler.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
The comparison to slavery was only to point out that breaking the law is not always an immoral act. That’s where any comparison ends. There is no analogy between slavery and drugs. It will not require war to legalize drugs, nor will it lead to war, nor hatred nor violence.
How about sodomy. I mean, hell, it happens in the motherfucking Oval Office, how much more ingrained can something get. Sure the laws aren’t always enforced, but often marijuana laws are pretty easy to circumvent.
Which there is no problem with. But just because something is legal, does that mean everyone is going to do it? Cigarettes are legal, and notice how cigarette use has been spiraling wildly out of control? Yeah, some people are always going to do drugs. But if we stop the war on drugs and open the way for honest and widespread study of the effect drugs have on society, it will most likely cancel any rise in the number of people using them.
Let me add my voice there as well: you’re ignorant just because you disagree with me. Happy? Actually, people seem to be saying that they know more about drugs than you do. As I recall, you have admitted that you are rather inexpreienced in that realm. Also, by using the label “poison” to refer to all drugs, you are at least making increibly broad generalizations.
Again, with your talk about poison. You really want to invite those comments don’t you. There are many substances that cause an “artificial” action in your brain, why is it that some should be illegal to use and not others?
OK, I’ll rephrase the question: why is it that the population size difference makes it OK for people in Amsterdam to do drugs but not people in New York? I have never read of any sort of ethical code that declares that the moral correctness of your actions is dependent on the population of the city you live in.
You were probably arguing from a utilitarian perspective, though. Basically, that legalization would not be able to work in New York like it has in Amsterdam. So on to your next statement:
Oh, yeah, I see what you mean. Harlem has <gasp> poor people, and minorities. You know, the type of people that we can’t trust to decide for themselves.
At least that’s what I make of the argument: some people aren’t going to make the right decision, so it’s in their best interest if we don’t let them have the choice.
Well, returning to Amsterdam (I wish), it may not be the closest analogy, but it does show that legalization does not per se lead to the end of society as we know it. That it is possible for a society to exist in realative safety and comfort without spending millions of dollars in a futile effort to keep drugs off the streets and away from people.
Actually, waterj2, when Dirty Devil brought up slavery it was not about opposing an immoral law (as it was when you brought it up, I believe)…it was about our ability to change laws that deal with deeply ingrained parts of our culture.
Perhaps I should have been more clear- I was referring to things mentioned on this thread so far (booze, pot, cheeseburgers, gambling, etc).
BullSHIT they have. I would have no problem if they said “I’ve done blah blah blah research and read blah blah blah books, and so I think I have a sounder base of knowledge when it comes to the nuts and bolts and drugs” (which, incidentally, would not make their opinion on the social ramifications of legalized marijuana any more or less valid than mine). But on these drug threads I get accused every day of knowing nothing and being close-minded, when in fact the very opposite is true. Drug reformers present their opinions, I present my opinions, and then I get called ignorant and close-minded because they (in all their intellectual glory) haven’t convinced me that I’m wrong. Please.
Yes, because it would have been just as easy for me to lie and say that I have studied drugs for half of my life, and I could have challenged other people’s contentions about their drug education, but I really don’t see the point. But I thought that by just trusting the other people here, and admitting that I don’t know as much as they say they do by ways of first-hand experience with drugs (which I have purposely and consciously avoided), we could just get passed that and have an enlightened discussion. But apparently not. I could point out that I know as much about the neurological and psychological effects of drugs as anyone else here, but I really don’t think that’s germane, and you probably wouldn’t believe me anyway. But if you’re (meaning “you” in the general sense, not “you, waterj2”) going to dismiss my opinions because I’ll forsake an educational pissing contest in the interest of time, then take a hard look in the mirror before you call me “close-minded”).
Okay, that’s kind of a argumentative device. I often refer to drugs in the general sense as “poisons” because that’s how I’m trying to present them.
Because some are lethal poison and others aren’t.
I think you know that that’s not what I meant. In fact, you basically admitted right before this that the dynamics of drug use (and legalization) are not the same in areas of different populations and social conditions.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
Like nicotene(used as a pesticide, used as an assassination tool) and alcohol.
Like THC(Mariajuana)
Oh, and on the whole “affects the neurotransmitters” deal? Big whoop. Just about anything affects your neurotransmitters, sugar, for example, increases the production of serotonin(a neurotransmitter). Does that mean that it is a “poison”?
Rousseau,
OK, I concede the point about slavery, I had forgotten about the second time it was brought up. As for you being ignorant, there have been some comments, but they have mostly focused on specific items which you have been mistaken about or have made unrealistic claims about. Either way, I will say that although you disagree with me, I’m not going to claim any general ignorance on your part. Whatever the others say about you, I have no control over.
The last point I made was about my personal reaction to the argument that drugs should be illegal because of what they do to the ghettos. I see it as often being a way of being righteous and condescending at the same time. I’ll let you judge for yourself where you personally stand.
From what I’ve read, the main argument you make in favor of keeping marijuana legal is that if we legalize it, use of hard drugs will go up. It has been pointed out that that’s not what various studies and Holland’s experience would predict. You’ve responded that the US isn’t like Holland. Fine, but I have yet to see anything aside from your own assumptions that would indicate that use of hard drugs goes up after marijuana is legalized. Say what you will about the differences between the two countries, there hasn’t been any evidence presented here that says that there is any real reason to expect the US would have a different experience.
Calling things like LSD and marijuana poisons isn’t accurate. No one’s ever died from an overdose of either of those drugs. People have died from an overdose of alcohol. The “poison” issue isn’t relevant, and it only serves as a stigma.
There have been plenty of laws the made legal things that were previously illegal, even when the illegality was ingrained in our culture. Miscegenation, sodomy laws, and women’s suffrage are good examples. There have also been plenty of laws that made illegal things that were previously legal, and a part of our culture. Slavery, drinking (in some counties), and prayer in schools. So this is all irrelevent to the issue as well.
Smoking pot isn’t healthy. While you’re high, you have an increased risk of a heart attack, and smoking pot almost certainly contributes to lung cancer. That’s not a good enough reason for it to be illegal though. (Plenty of legal activities contribute to heart attacks and cancer as well, and no one wants them to be illegal.)
If drugs were legalized, more people would take them, at least in the short run. There would be an associated cost to society. Right after Prohibition ended, there was a surge in use, and a surge in alcohol related deaths. After a couple of years, things went back down again. The same thing happened in Amsterdam when pot was first decriminalized.
If drugs were legalized, drugs would be safer to take. There are all kinds of reasons for this. I’ll go into it if anyone doubts this.
If drugs were legalized, it would immediately reduce the cost to society of enforcement. This is a lot of money. Seeing as how a large portion of our 2 million prison population is in there for drug crimes, it would decrease the costs still more. If you agree that most gang violence is motivated by drug trafficking, as I do, and that legalized drugs would make this unnecessary, the cost to society would go down in this area as well. Would it offset the increased cost to society in increased drug use? I don’t know. I think it probably would. But many people disagree with me.
Folks, this thread’s run its course. The OP has been forgotten, and nobody cares about it. Why not just debate the actual issues? In GD? And lay off the bathos.
(Some) drugs are addictive, have adverse health effects, and can cause overdose. That’s why drugs are illegal, right? Because of their effects. I know of no research that says the effects of cocaine on person in Harlem are any different than the effects of cocaine on a person in Lancaster. Do you?
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety’
(Some) drugs are addictive, have adverse health effects, and can cause overdose. That’s why drugs are illegal, right? Because of their effects. I know of no research that says the effects of cocaine on person in Harlem are any different than the effects of cocaine on a person in Lancaster. Do you?
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety’
youre welcome rousseau (for my fresh perspective).
since you think youve proved that you do actually know more about drugs than the rest of us, please inform the crowd of the lethal dose of marijuana, since you say that these “poisons” are lethal. now please inform the crowd of the lethal dose of alcohol, or tyelenol, or sleeping pills.
do you know that you can die from drinking too much water? youre never gonna see THAT pulled off the shelves.
if you continue to refer to drugs as poisons, then i will continue to recognize you as ignorant.
“I am so smart, I am so smart, s-m-r-t, i mean s-m-a-r-t”
You talkin’ ‘bout me? ::Tokin’ up::
Damn, how come no one ever tells me when I get an honorable mention in The Pit? You know I don’t frequent this place!
Sweetness, sweetness I was only joking
when I said I’d like to smash every tooth in your head.
Sheesh! And I thought I was paranoid when I smoked up! Hey Rousseau, watch out for the thought police and the aliens ok? Everyone is out to get you! Run while you still can!
Something tells me that neutron star and MissMonica working together couldn’t reason their way out of an empty room with an open door.
Mother of God, you are dense. Drugs (especially hard drugs) have societal effects beyond their health risks. If you’re not going to admit this, than there’s no reason why I should be wasting my time responding to you.
MissMonica, since you obviously can’t read beyond the fifth grade level, and take everything at face value instead of appreciating things like context and devices, I will heretofore deal with you as such.
You are a moron. You have yet to say anything that hasn’t been said before on this thread. Your inability to recognize that my use of the word “poison” is an argumentative device proves to me that in reading for comprehension, you rank somewhere between neutron star and a slow-witted chimp. But hey, since you asked for it:
The Random House Dictionary defines poison as “a substance that can destroy life or impair health by its chemical action inside the body.” (emphasis mine) So, given this definition, all the drugs we talk about are indeed poisons. And so are cheeseburgers. I don’t think water is because I believe there is a tacit understanding that the adverse health effects have to occur when the substance is taken in “normal” doses.
Oh, please be my friend.
Now, then, on to the (more) salient posters.
waterj2, about the Netherlands, I believe there is a point that I mentioned earlier that I didn’t emphasize enough. I don’t think that drug cartels are as big a problem in Europe as they are here in the US. And something tells me that making certain substances legal wouldn’t deter these cartels too much. They’d still control the bulk of the nation’s supply of said substances, and they’d probably continue to behave in a manner not always in accordance with the law. I think that could be one major difference between the United States and Holland in regards to the way the nations react to legalized drugs. Of course, our abundance of densly populated urban centers is another consideration.
quadell:
I agree, but this isn’t entirely relevant to the point that was brought up. I’m not saying that this can’t effectively occur…this whole issue was brought up in response to the predictable cries that if pot is illegal, cigarettes and booze should be made illegal too. I think if you look at the post in which I dealt with this issue, I did say that things can be moved rather easily from the illegal group to the legal group.
Hmmm…no, it’s not. But if you don’t admit that it’s impossible to make this switch, I at least want reformers to admit that it’s not easy, and (at least based on our experience with alcohol) not always possible.
I don’t need for you to go into this, I’ve heard this before, but as a quick counterpoint for you to think about, consider whether or not you believe that the drug cartels would back off of their cash cow just because there’s government-regulated drugs on the market.
I believe that these same ends can be achieved without legalization.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
“argumentative device”? Is that what we’re calling it now?
By the way, I consider you to be a slow-witted, slovenly, reactionary with no ability to actually think for himself or evaluate evidence who cannot form actual arguments but simply repeats long discarded rhetoric and calls it “fact.” Of course, this is simply an argumentative device.
Good definition, of course, it applies to literally everything that acts chemically upon the body. Cheeseburgers, drugs, water, coconuts, etc. Everything can “destroy life or impair health by its chemical action inside the body” is everything that has a chemical action inside the body.
Yup, you think perhaps that the fact that your use of this word renders it so incredibly general that it becomes completely pointless?
Define “normal doses”. I could define that to mean “so little that it has no noticeable negative chemical action upon the body” at which point, say, plutonium ceases to be a poison. Why don’t you just admit that saying “poison” when you mean “illegal drug” is simply a shamelessly manipulative rhetorical tool.
In fact I’m sort of disappointed by your use of this tool, as I’ve gotten the impression that normally you are a quite reasonable and rational person. Was I mistaken here?
That’s just the thing. It wouldn’t be their cash cow anymore, since the insane profits would no longer be there. You really can’t understand this, Rousseau? If legalization didn’t stop the tide of unregulated substances, we’d still have people bootlegging liquor! When was the last time YOU had a pint of bathtub gin ?
Please, Rousseau, in your infinite brilliance, tell me the difference between the societal effects of heroin in NYC and the societal effects of heroin in, say, Plano, TX. (I chose that town because they have a big heroin problem) I’d be interested to hear the different effects heroin has on society in those two towns.
Do Al Capone’s grandchildren control the bulk of our alcohol supply? Honestly, Rousseau, where the fuck do you get this shit?
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety’
