Illicit Narcotics A "Victimless Crime" - NOT

[skipbelt 0]

hmm , the drug term equivalent of moonshine
nuke (robocop)
nicedreams (cheech and chong)
moodzing
proband
gelpap
sirringe
suggestions ?

[winsor 186]

If it is not demonstrably worse (and I do not mean according to hysterical anecdotes) than tobacco and/or alcohol, legalize it. That's LEGALIZE, not decriminalize.

If someone wants to O.D., fine - just throw a mandatory D.N.R. into the mix.

You want to freeze your heart with coke? Your call.

In any case, it's cheaper to give you a good, christian burial than to lock you up. As it is, if I'm starving all I have to do is walk into a police station with a lit joint to get three hots and a cot, with free medical and dental.

I do not particularly approve of the use of drugs (okay, so I drink coffee and take aspirin), but I approve even less of the institutionalized stupidity that is prohibition.

To proscribe a substance is to relinquish all control. Under the Volstead Act, it was exactly as illegal to sell bathtub gin to a six year-old or a sixty year-old. Now, if you serve a 20 year-old, you can lose your liquor license and potentially go out of business.

It is so much easier to simply ban things than it is to take full personal responsibility. Legislating morality is an age-old favorite - regardless of the fact that it has never worked and never will.


BSBD,

Winsor

[tr027 0]

"Vices are not crimes."
from:
Vices Are Not Crimes
A Vindication of Moral Liberty
by Lysander Spooner, 1875

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[Guest]

Quote

If someone wants to O.D., fine - just throw a mandatory D.N.R. into the mix.

You want to freeze your heart with coke? Your call.

In any case, it's cheaper to give you a good, christian burial than to lock you up.

Winsor

Winsor,

This always seems to be part of the legalization rationale; id est, "If you want to kill yourself - go ahead, and let Darwin decide who lives and who dies."

How can a society justify turning its back on those who have gotten suckered into drug abuse, after having facilitated it? Liquor stores have controls, but there are those who will "roll their own" and go blind.

There are those who say that rehab and education are cheaper than prohibition, interdiction and incarceration.

I disagree. It is my belief that legalization will cause far more damage to society, and far more widespread misery than the current regime can presently imagine. I believe that there is no such thing as a "solution"; we merely exchange one set of problems for another (and if human nature is anything to go by, they'll be worse).

There are those who would say "So what?"

Would those who now say "So what?" still sing the same tune if it was a loved one who became hooked on skag? There are those who would say "They're going to do it anyway", but must we make it easier for them? Why?

It is my opinion that narcotics should continue to be difficult and expensive to obtain, irrespective of whether the DEA schedule is eased or not.

When I was a kid, I thought the anti-drug education that was being peddled in my junior high school was laughable. Furthermore, it was easily countered by the celebration of drug abuse in pop culture (which continues to this day).

I like the argument I saw put forth by a leading opponent of the legalization initiative in California. He essentially said, "If we've managed to marginalize cigarette smoking to the point where there are draconian prohibitions against it, fully supported by the citizenry, why can't we do the same with illicit narcotics?"

I think he answered his own question - the fact that they are illicit makes it "naughty" and "rebellious" and "counter-culture". Whereas if they were tightly controlled but legal, all that nose-thumbing would cease.

However, that turns the state into the pusher, at least to an extent, does it not?

It's sort of like sex education: "We know you can't help yourself, so here's a condom and some birth control pills."

Shouldn't we expect better of ourselves, and our government? Let's face it, people are STUPID, and they want to do stupid things. Unfortunately, they end up harming others in addition to themselves; e.g., the breadwinner who is too stoned (or too drunk) to work. Do we turn our collective backs on him, and by extension, his family who are harmed by his actions? Are we really so calloused as a society that we are willing to let people destroy themselves, when we could have intervened by making it exceedingly difficult and expensive to do in the first place?

And then there is the revenue. I can guarantee you that it won't be used to educate and / or rehabilitate those who've fallen. Why should the State do anything to reduce its revenue stream? Furthermore, such monies will be spent elsewhere; e.g., on pork. One need only to look at a state budget to see where the taxes from liquor sales go. You can bet your ass they don't go to alcoholism treatment, save for a token amount, so that the State can show it's "doing something about the problem".

Many liberals are always going on about how "compassionate" they are, but when it comes to this topic, their hearts are stone. Strange, and kind of sad. I don't get it.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 2,400]

>Liquor stores have controls, but there are those who will "roll their own"
>and go blind.

You have just demonstrated why legalizing drugs will help. No one "goes blind" any more because they're making their own gin. They just buy it at a liquor store.

>How can a society justify turning its back on those who have
>gotten suckered into drug abuse, after having facilitated it?

If society were giving free Jack and Cokes to every 21 year old, yes, we would be facilitating alcohol usage.

However, we are not. We are simply allowing people to do what they want. That is not the same as "facilitating." Indeed, we go to some lengths to _outlaw_ drinking in many cases - pilots, drivers, underage drinkers - and spend a great deal of money enforcing that. That is the opposite of facilitating.

>However, that turns the state into the pusher, at least to an extent, does
>it not?

No, no more than the state "pushes" tiddlywinks, body piercing or flame juggling.

>Would those who now say "So what?" still sing the same tune if it was a
>loved one who became hooked on skag?

I've had relatives with drug problems; I have friends today with drug problems. And it's illegal now. So making it illegal doesn't work.

>Let's face it, people are STUPID, and they want to do stupid things.

Like skydiving, and car racing, and rock climbing, and whitewater kayaking. Yes, all those things are stupid; there's no societal use for them (other than having fun and making shows about them) and the injury/death rate is (relatively) high. But I'm glad that they don't outlaw them.

[frequentfaller 0]

Quote

No. I voted for the other guy.

the reason you put (d) on the end means both:

who ever you vote for OR who ever you voted for.

tryin to keep politics out of it

Born ok 1st time.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

If trees were the only potential victim? Then yes. But the sober people want to use the roads too damn it

If someone is driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana (or opiates, or anything likely to affect one's ability to operate a vehicle, for that matter), they should be arrested for it.

------------------------------------------------------------

The thing you need to understand is that drugs affect different people in different ways...for one I used to smoke weed every day for a long time. In fact I drove daily while smoking weed and never caused a wreck or ticket. For me it was like a comfortable paranoia where I was acutely aware of my surroundings and had my head on a swivel. This is not true for everyone, but alcohol for sure affects everyone the same way, and yet people are still getting DWI's as we speak. Something to think about.

[billvon 2,400]

>The thing you need to understand is that drugs affect different people in
>different ways...

Agreed 100%.

>alcohol for sure affects everyone the same way . . .

??? That's not what you just said.

Alcohol DOES affect people in different ways. I know at least one guy who seemed like he'd be unsafe to drive (or skydive!) unless he had a baseline level of alcohol in him; the shakes would get too bad otherwise.

Does that mean it should be legal for him to drive after drinking? No - because it affects _most_ people in a negative way. Just because some people can drive with a BAC of .12% does not mean that it should be legal, since it (usually) puts other people at risk.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I disagree. It is my belief that legalization will cause far more damage to society, and far more widespread misery than the current regime can presently imagine. I believe that there is no such thing as a "solution"; we merely exchange one set of problems for another (and if human nature is anything to go by, they'll be worse).
...

Many liberals are always going on about how "compassionate" they are, but when it comes to this topic, their hearts are stone. Strange, and kind of sad. I don't get it.

I usually associate the "compassionate liberals" with the mentality that government needs to protect us. Go Nanny State!

Yet you prove that when it comes to the possibility people might be enjoying themselves, the Right is just as happy to impose their government upon us, completely destroying their claim that a small government is best.

Legalization will make little difference in the Bay Area. Due to the farce that is 'medical' use, we've been legalized for years. Doesn't seem to have changed society in any measurable way.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The thing you need to understand is that drugs affect different people in different ways...for one I used to smoke weed every day for a long time. In fact I drove daily while smoking weed and never caused a wreck or ticket. For me it was like a comfortable paranoia where I was acutely aware of my surroundings and had my head on a swivel.

A lot of drunks say the same thing about DWI. Until they wreck and kill someone, anyway. Something to think about.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The thing you need to understand is that drugs affect different people in different ways...for one I used to smoke weed every day for a long time. In fact I drove daily while smoking weed and never caused a wreck or ticket. For me it was like a comfortable paranoia where I was acutely aware of my surroundings and had my head on a swivel.

A lot of drunks say the same thing about DWI. Until they wreck and kill someone, anyway. Something to think about.

yes, the fact that regulator hasn't crashed or killed anyone yet is really not the sort of evidence to use to make this point. That's true for many drunks as well.

now if this bill were to pass, I think Mythbusters could legally do a segment on this similar to their tests of driving drunk versus with cell phone. Or any else could for that matter. But in our current state, legitimate testing of that sort is precarious for the tester.

[skipbelt 0]

no one moonshines anymore ?

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The thing you need to understand is that drugs affect different people in different ways...for one I used to smoke weed every day for a long time. In fact I drove daily while smoking weed and never caused a wreck or ticket. For me it was like a comfortable paranoia where I was acutely aware of my surroundings and had my head on a swivel.

A lot of drunks say the same thing about DWI. Until they wreck and kill someone, anyway. Something to think about.

yes, the fact that regulator hasn't crashed or killed anyone yet is really not the sort of evidence to use to make this point. That's true for many drunks as well.

now if this bill were to pass, I think Mythbusters could legally do a segment on this similar to their tests of driving drunk versus with cell phone. Or any else could for that matter. But in our current state, legitimate testing of that sort is precarious for the tester.

---------------------------------------------------------
I agree the mythbusters idea is a good idea but the crteria should change...it shouldnt be a race to see how many joints you smoke so that youre so blown out of your mind that you cant see straight...I never drove in that condition...and No I dont smoke anymore. But what I was referring to is that taking a few hits and then upping the ante like they did with the test subjects and testing the whole way along to determine the criteria of using marijuana in smaller amounts and what factor that plays rather than just getting obliterated and then trying...and furthermore not just some virgin thats never smoked in their entire lives...get someone who has experience with it and TEST THEM. Just a thought.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

no one moonshines anymore ?

Nope! They're making meth and growing weed!


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>no one moonshines anymore ?

Almost no one. Why would they? You can get a gallon of vodka for $10 at Bevmo. It's not even worth your time to try to make it in your backyard.

Some still do purely for the fun of it, of course. But they're not going blind any more because you can talk openly about it and get advice on how to do it properly.

[Southern_Man 0]

Man, I wonder where some of you grew up and are living. There are a lot of places in this country where moonshining is still big business.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,400]

>Man, I wonder where some of you grew up and are living.

I live in San Diego; even make my own beer. But again, I do it for fun, and I'm not going to go blind because I can ask about it openly and learn how to do it.

>There are a lot of places in this country where moonshining is still
>big business.

Yep - in places where it is illegal. Which, again, is my point. Compare it to the business of moonshining (bootlegging, actually) during Prohibition - the two do not compare.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>Man, I wonder where some of you grew up and are living.

I live in San Diego; even make my own beer. But again, I do it for fun, and I'm not going to go blind because I can ask about it openly and learn how to do it.

>There are a lot of places in this country where moonshining is still
>big business.

Yep - in places where it is illegal. Which, again, is my point. Compare it to the business of moonshining (bootlegging, actually) during Prohibition - the two do not compare.

Okay, I guess I read your last response and not necessarily the whole thread. There are places that I have grown up and lived where there are quite a few people doing it. They are not doing it for fun in their backyard. They are doing it for profit and clearly find it worth their time. It's big business still in some places.

I will say that I do not have any knowledge of anybody going blind from moonshine.

I was not necessarily commenting on whether it was a larger or smaller business than during prohibition. I'm for legalization of narcotics. Just like moonshine, I am sure you will still have people trying to avoid government regulation and taxes but the overall illegality and violence may be reduced. There is a lot of cigarette smuggling where I live (transporting them from low-tax Virginia to higher tax northern states) as well.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[skipbelt 0]

thank you for making my point , to wit even though it's "legal" there is still an illegal contingent however big . the same will be true of pot and any other legalised drugs !

[DARK 0]

Quote

Hey dopers,

Hope you're proud of what your spending on weed and blow ends up paying for.

mh
.

so just make it legal

whats the problem?

[DARK 0]

Quote

If enough people want to do it, just make it legal for christs sake huh......

kinda sounds like democracy huh?

[DARK 0]

Quote

I disagree. It is my belief that legalization will cause far more damage to society, and far more widespread misery than the current regime can presently imagine.
.

you can believe whatever you like but the facts show a different outcome

look at the drug habits of the dutch for a perfect example, they ahve some of the lowest drug use in the developed world but some of the most relaxed laws. funny that isnt it?

they have the highest percentage of 'functional addicts' when it comes to heroin because of their system of treatment

what you have is baseless hysteria from close minded individuals who couldnt look at anything impartially

usually when you grow up you start to see that things arent as black and white as you thought they were when you were a teenager this dosnt seem to have happened in your case

[billvon 2,400]

>to wit even though it's "legal" there is still an illegal contingent however
>big . the same will be true of pot and any other legalised drugs !

Of course. But it will be a MUCH smaller problem - just as it was when Prohibition was ended.

I make my own beer. Chances are I'll never have to kill anyone over it - indeed, commit any crimes at all to do so. Can you say the same about someone who grows pot right now?

[DARK 0]

Quote

I like the argument I saw put forth by a leading opponent of the legalization initiative in California. He essentially said, "If we've managed to marginalize cigarette smoking to the point where there are draconian prohibitions against it, fully supported by the citizenry, why can't we do the same with illicit narcotics?"

people are still allowed to choose with cigarettes, as they should be. people dont have that free legal choice with other drugs. the same advertisign and control regulations that are on tobacco and alcohol should of course apply to weed when it is made legal

Quote

I think he answered his own question - the fact that they are illicit makes it "naughty" and "rebellious" and "counter-culture". Whereas if they were tightly controlled but legal, all that nose-thumbing would cease.

and imo that would reduce use not increase it

Quote

However, that turns the state into the pusher, at least to an extent, does it not?

no

a) the only involvement the state should have is regulation and taxation not manufacture or distribution

Quote

It's sort of like sex education: "We know you can't help yourself, so here's a condom and some birth control pills."

are you now suggesting that giving birth control to teenagers is the wrong thing to do? cause if you are i might aswell stop typing right now

Quote

Shouldn't we expect better of ourselves, and our government? Let's face it, people are STUPID, and they want to do stupid things. Unfortunately, they end up harming others in addition to themselves; e.g., the breadwinner who is too stoned (or too drunk) to work. Do we turn our collective backs on him, and by extension, his family who are harmed by his actions? Are we really so calloused as a society that we are willing to let people destroy themselves, when we could have intervened by making it exceedingly difficult and expensive to do in the first place?

.

yes we should expect more of ourselves. we should expect us to make the right decisions after having been educated on the FACTS and the proof is there that shows we do. the vast majority of us wont stay up till 5am on a sunday night pounding beers when we have work the next day. the vast majority of people wont drink if they know it makes them aggresive intolerable drunks.

there will always be the ones who cant control themselves but this number is static it dosnt change just because something is or isnt legal. it changes with regards to education/ what changes due to legality is how those people are treated. i believe they would be treated far far better (like the dutch do) if these things were legalised(i care far far less about the legalisation of other drugs then i do the legalisation of marijuana but i wouldnt be opposed to some other substances being legalised)

[CarrieByTheSea 0]

"Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be." ~ Temple Grandin