Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 209

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    This is the U.S. on drugs
    Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.
    By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
    July 5, 2008

    The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.

    The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.

    The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.

    The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.

    Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.

    Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.

    The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.

    And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.

    Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.

    Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.

    After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.

    So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?

    We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.

    We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.

    The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.

    Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

    David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    ...
    David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.
    I've met Judge Gray and heard him speak. He's a brilliant and brave man. It's really sad that his message has gone largely unheard, for the most part, for the last twenty years.

    I propose that the Failed War on Some Drugs has become the most expensive human endeavor of all time, although it's difficult to compile all the costs because they are so vast and pervert so many budgets. It's clear that about half of all police and prison costs in the United States are dedicated to the Failed War. That is a staggering number. The loss to the economy of removing otherwise productive citizens from gainful employment is not easily calculable. It's also an incalculable cost how many families have been destroyed by all the murders, at the hands of drug lords, street gangs, and police officers. The number of children in foster care because the State has removed them from families where both parents are in prison or on parole is completely disgusting.

    If the State believed in "family values" there would be no Schedule 1 drugs.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #3
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I've met Judge Gray and heard him speak. He's a brilliant and brave man. It's really sad that his message has gone largely unheard, for the most part, for the last twenty years.
    I propose that the Failed War on Some Drugs has become the most expensive human endeavor of all time, although it's difficult to compile all the costs because they are so vast and pervert so many budgets. It's clear that about half of all police and prison costs in the United States are dedicated to the Failed War. That is a staggering number. The loss to the economy of removing otherwise productive citizens from gainful employment is not easily calculable. It's also an incalculable cost how many families have been destroyed by all the murders, at the hands of drug lords, street gangs, and police officers. The number of children in foster care because the State has removed them from families where both parents are in prison or on parole is completely disgusting. If the State believed in "family values" there would be no Schedule 1 drugs.-Jeff
    Hey, Jeff, didn't we have this argument before? What was the outcome?
    You want Schedule 1 drugs legalized? LSD, MDA, DMT, Peyote, Weed, Ecstasy and Synthetic heroin, among others?
    You are out of your mind, yes?
    But before we do the flame war thingy, can you give me a reason to do so (not the flame war, but the legalization) or is your argument based on the failed drug war issue (and you hate Nixon and Republicans)?
    I may assume that it would not be "free market", or would it? Advertising?
    Or under "controlled conditions"? And who sets the control? Adolph & fiends, or tea drinking Mohammed & his psychotherapists? Catholics? or Libertarian-Progressives? Log Cabin Republicans? I mean who? And would you allow someone in YOUR brain at that heightened stage of consciousness? Oh, BTW, yes I am paranoid, but the question still stands for validity's sake.
    If we did have this argument before, what was your retort to my argument regarding the history of China vis a vis British opium period from 1700's to 1904? It took them 200 years to "learn from history".
    Not that I wish to have long diatribes, but hating the history of a failed "war on drugs" is not reason at all to throw the baby out with......
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #4
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Narcotics Sold Online, No Rx Needed

    Narcotics Sold Online, No Rx Needed
    Study Shows Some Web Sites Lack Controls to Keep Kids From Buying Drugs
    By Kelli Miller Stacy
    WebMD Health News
    Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD


    July 9, 2008 -- Scores of web sites do not require a prescription to buy narcotics, stimulants, and other controlled substances -- and none of those sites has controls to prevent children from making such purchases, a study shows.

    A report released today by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reveals that 85% of web sites selling potent prescription drugs such as OxyContin, Valium, and Ritalin do not ask Internet users for a proper prescription from a doctor. Many explicitly state that no prescription is needed.

    "Anyone of any age can obtain dangerous and addictive prescription drugs with the click of a mouse," Joseph A. Califano Jr., chairman and president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse and former U.S. secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, says in a news release. "This problem is not going away."

    The report, titled "'You've Got Drugs!' V: Prescription Drug Pushers on the Internet," details the advertising and selling of controlled substances online. It is the fifth annual report on the subject. The report tracks the availability of prescription opioids such as OxyContin and Vicodin, depressants such as Valium and Xanax, and stimulants such as Ritalin and Adderall.

    The analysis showed that fewer web sites are selling and promoting controlled substances than last year (361 vs. 581); in the new report, 206 sites were found to advertise drugs and 159 offered drugs for sale. However, only two are "legitimate" pharmacy sites, meaning they have received certification by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy as a Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Site (VIPPS). To receive VIPPS accreditation, a pharmacy site must comply with the licensing and inspection requirements of their state and each state that they dispense prescriptions in.

    Califano credits improved state and federal efforts to crack down on Internet drug trafficking for the decline.

    The "most disturbing" finding, the authors write, is that "there are no controls on any of these sites blocking access by children." Most Internet users are adolescents and young adults; 78% of kids 12 to 17 have online access. Nearly all college students do, too.

    Nearly one in five teenagers has abused prescription drugs in their lifetime, according to a 2005 survey. Many think prescription drugs, particularly painkillers, are easier to get than illicit drugs like cocaine or crack.

    Children easily gained access to the online pharmacies by typing in a fake age. Yet in some cases, a child may still buy and receive drugs by providing true information -- even when their answers should raise red flags. A previous report revealed how a supervised 13-year-old ordered and received Ritalin after entering her own age, height, and weight on a site's questionnaire.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #5
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. Regardless how the money has been mismanaged or the effort appearing fruitless (it's not fruitless, btw). Only a complete fool or a drug addict - or someone who is both - would support legalizing drugs in the USA.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I've met Judge Gray and heard him speak. He's a brilliant and brave man. It's really sad that his message has gone largely unheard, for the most part, for the last twenty years.

    I propose that the Failed War on Some Drugs has become the most expensive human endeavor of all time, although it's difficult to compile all the costs because they are so vast and pervert so many budgets. It's clear that about half of all police and prison costs in the United States are dedicated to the Failed War. That is a staggering number. The loss to the economy of removing otherwise productive citizens from gainful employment is not easily calculable. It's also an incalculable cost how many families have been destroyed by all the murders, at the hands of drug lords, street gangs, and police officers. The number of children in foster care because the State has removed them from families where both parents are in prison or on parole is completely disgusting.

    If the State believed in "family values" there would be no Schedule 1 drugs.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. TopTop #6
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.


    Is this that Darwinian thingy I was reading about?
    Let them go and they'll wipe themselves out, hopefully prior to breeding?
    What a woild!

    >Narcotics Sold Online, No Rx Needed
    >Study Shows Some Web Sites Lack Controls to Keep Kids From Buying Drugs
    >By Kelli Miller Stacy
    >WebMD Health News
    >Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

    >July 9, 2008 -- Scores of web sites do not require a prescription to buy >narcotics, stimulants, and other controlled substances -- and none of those >sites has controls to prevent children from making such purchases, a study >shows.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. TopTop #7
    MsTerry
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Don,
    What do you suggest we do about the problem, since current plcy isn't working very well?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by donc1955: View Post
    Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. Regardless how the money has been mismanaged or the effort appearing fruitless (it's not fruitless, btw). Only a complete fool or a drug addict - or someone who is both - would support legalizing drugs in the USA.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. TopTop #8
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by thewholetruth: View Post
    Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. ...
    Well Don, I've been called a fool before and I've admitted I'm an addict. But then, there are a lot of us fairly functional coffee addicts out here. That's my only true addiction.

    I don't think you can call Judge Gray a fool, however. He spent most of his life "in the system" and I dare say he knows it better than you. He's a wise and compassionate man. Kind of like Jesus was, you know? But I suppose if He came around you'd probably call him a fool and an addict too. That's certainly who He'd be hanging around with: us fools and addicts.

    I think you ought to go back and read that article. It's post #1 in this thread.

    There's still time for you to learn something.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. TopTop #9
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Well Don, I've been called a fool before and I've admitted I'm an addict.
    If the shoe fits, Jeff. I was speaking in general terms.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    But then, there are a lot of us fairly functional coffee addicts out here. That's my only true addiction.
    Frankly, I've never known anyone with only one addiction, Jeff. An addict is an addict and addiction has manifested itself in many areas of every addict's life that I've worked with. And again, the only people I've seen who suggest that making illegal drugs legal are drug addicts and fools who haven't seen what access to pharmaceuticals and narcotics can do to otherwise incredible people.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I don't think you can call Judge Gray a fool, however. He spent most of his life "in the system" and I dare say he knows it better than you. He's a wise and compassionate man.
    And I would assume that he is an addict, if not a fool. Like I said, I've only heard those individuals support legalizing heroin, Vicodin, LSD, and the like.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Kind of like Jesus was, you know?
    No, I don't know. No one is like Jesus but Jesus. Is Judge Gray the creator of the Universe? Do we date our calendars based on Judge Gray's life? Did the judge pick up the tab for our naughtiness? Can he heal lepers and raise the dead back to life? Walk on water or be crucified but defeat Hell and death and resurrect himself? I'm not convinced Judge Gray is anything like Jesus, Jeff.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    But I suppose if He came around you'd probably call him a fool and an addict too. That's certainly who He'd be hanging around with: us fools and addicts.
    If I take your word for it that he's not a fool, I would just be calling him an addict, I suppose.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I think you ought to go back and read that article. It's post #1 in this thread.

    There's still time for you to learn something.

    -Jeff
    Well, gosh. If there's still time, I better get to it! I'll let you know what I think...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. TopTop #10
    Dixon's Avatar
    Dixon
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by thewholetruth: View Post
    Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. Regardless how the money has been mismanaged or the effort appearing fruitless (it's not fruitless, btw). Only a complete fool or a drug addict - or someone who is both - would support legalizing drugs in the USA.
    It's against my better judgment to get embroiled in another discussion--heathen knows I don't have time for such frippery--but the drug issue is one of those that always seem to bring out the most bigoted and ignorant attitudes, and I just can't help trying to interject a little reason sometimes.

    "thewholetruth", are you ready to live up to your name and look at both sides of the discussion? So far you're not doing too well, as your post essentially ignores the substantive issues brought up in the initial post of this thread.

    You talk as if drugs aren't legal, but quite a few of them, including the most addictive and dangerous ones, are. For simplicity's sake, I'll leave out legal medicines used legally, as well as addictive things that are only metaphorically drugs, such as TV and religion, and focus here on recreational mind-altering drugs. Which of these drugs do you use, "thewholetruth": Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, chocolate (which contains 3 stimulant drugs--caffeine, theobromine and theophylline)? Do you have a glass of wine with dinner, or a couple of beers while you watch the game? Do you enjoy your cigarettes or chewing tobacco while bitching about those horrible "drug users"? How long has it been since you've gone 24 hours without caffeine?

    Of the ones you use, how many of them are you addicted to? Before you say "None", go cold turkey for a few days, see how you feel, and get back to me on this.

    Let's simplify even further and focus on the 2 worst ones, tobacco and alcohol. Should you go to jail for using them? If you don't use them, should your friends who smoke, or who enhance their dinner with a glass of fine wine (an addictive and poisonous drug that's an essential part of our "Wine Country" culture) be jailed? Or should we only jail the dealers (the friendly cashiers at our local grocery stores) or perhaps just the manufacturers?

    If you're like most folks who consider themselves "anti-drug", you are simply in denial that the substances used by you and/or your friends are drugs just as much as anything else is, and in fact are more addictive and more deadly than most of the ones that happen to be illegal in this particular culture at this particular time. Such hypocrites project their own addictiveness onto outsiders, those people who look and act strange to them, who use different drugs then the ones they use, and scapegoat them for society's problems.

    It's easy to criminalize other people's lifestyles. "Conservative" factions of society have no problem filling our jails with black folks, brown folks, people who have odd haircuts or tattoos and piercings; anyone who looks and acts very differently than the folks at their church is fair game. Now how about putting you and your friends in jail for your use of alcohol and tobacco? I can just see your face when I suggest that--you dropped your cigarette and spluttered wine all over your new shirt, LOL!

    And don't try to tell me that tobacco and alcohol should be legal because they're safer than the illegal drugs. They are, in fact, more addictive and more dangerous than most or all of the illegal ones. Here are some facts excerpted from a recent list entitled "Annual Causes of Death in the United States":

    Drug Annual Deaths in U.S.

    Tobacco 435,000

    Alcohol 85,000 (including its involvement in motor
    vehicle fatalities, but apparently not its
    involvement in other
    accidents, homicides,
    suicides,
    spouse abuse, child abuse, various
    crimes against people and property, etc.)

    Adverse Reactions to
    Prescription Drugs 32,000

    All Illicit Drug Use,
    Direct and Indirect 17,000

    Non-Steroidal
    Anti-Inflammatory
    Drugs Such as
    Aspirin 7,600

    Marijuana 0

    Note that even if there were as many people using the illegal drugs as there are using alcohol and tobacco, they still wouldn't kill as many people as those 2 legal drugs do.

    For more info on the figures above, as well as lots of useful info on the "Drug War" (which is really a war against freedom), check out:
    https://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm#item1

    Here's a radical concept: The proper function of laws is to protect people from being violated by others. Behaviors which don't violate others, including the vast majority of drug use, legal and illegal, would not be illegal in a free society.

    And let me just briefly remind you that our country experimented with illegalization and re-legalization of one of our most dangerous drugs some years ago, during the early 20th Century period known as "Prohibition". Nearly everyone came to agree that, while prohibition did slightly decrease the number of users, the negative impacts (spread and entrenchment of organized crime due to selling a popular illegal product, violence resulting from the associated criminal underground, glamorization of the drug to rebellious youngsters due to its forbidden status, criminalization of numerous harmless citizens, overburdening of the criminal "justice" system, alienation of the police force and legal system from the common citizen, etc.), far outweighed the positive, so Prohibition was repealed. IT DIDN'T WORK.

    Unfortunately, though prohibition of other drugs, most of them less destructive than alcohol, is causing the same problems, (AND others, i.e., accidental overdoses), our government, as well as lots of folks like you, "thewholetruth", haven't learned.

    I'll resist the temptation to go into the psychological, social, economic and political reasons that some drugs are illegalized while much worse ones are subsidized by the government; this post is long enough.

    In closing, "thewholetruth", I'll just ask this: Will you now call for the illegalization of alcohol and tobacco to be consistent with your "illegalize drugs" position, or, better yet, will you call for the legalization of other drugs to achieve such consistency? Or, if your answer is "Neither", will you honestly address the bigotry and irrationality that underlie the double standard in your thinking?

    Dixon

    Last edited by Dixon; 07-12-2008 at 12:16 AM. Reason: Corrected spacing for clarity's sake
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  11. TopTop #11
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Dixon, your summary suggests that: If we make some drugs illegal we should make all drugs illegal. Is that an accurate representation of your position on this issue?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    It's against my better judgment to get embroiled in another discussion--heathen knows I don't have time for such frippery--but the drug issue is one of those that always seem to bring out the most bigoted and ignorant attitudes, and I just can't help trying to interject a little reason sometimes.

    "thewholetruth", are you ready to live up to your name and look at both sides of the discussion?
    Of course I am, brother. I've done substantial research on this. I see up close the damage that drug abuse reaks on people's lives and bodies and minds, every day. I'd love to hear a valid argument for legalizing narcotics, for example, if you have one. I don't see one in this post of yours, so I'll hope that you reply and offer me what you consider justification for legalizing illegal substances.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    So far you're not doing too well, as your post essentially ignores the substantive issues brought up in the initial post of this thread.
    Not true. The initial post appears to be the thoughts of a person completely removed from the devastation of families and personal lives and freedom that results from substance use and abuse today.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    You talk as if drugs aren't legal, but quite a few of them, including the most addictive and dangerous ones, are.
    They are legal, and they are controlled...as they should be. Because people are involved, there will always be those who abuse the system who do not follow legal protocol, but those few individuals do not make a case for legalizing dangerous substances.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    For simplicity's sake, I'll leave out legal medicines used legally, as well as addictive things that are only metaphorically drugs, such as TV and religion, and focus here on recreational mind-altering drugs. Which of these drugs do you use, "thewholetruth": Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, chocolate (which contains 3 stimulant drugs--caffeine, theobromine and theophylline)?
    A little chocolate now and then, a cup of coffee in the morning - neither of which qualify as dangerous substances in anyone's eyes but yours...and the drug addict who is trying to make a case for legalizing cocaine and Ecstasy by pointing to coffee and chocolate? LOL

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Do you have a glass of wine with dinner, or a couple of beers while you watch the game?
    I do not.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Do you enjoy your cigarettes or chewing tobacco while bitching about those horrible "drug users"?
    I do not.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    How long has it been since you've gone 24 hours without caffeine?
    One week. Are you saying caffeine is in the same category, IYO, as heroin or meth? You appear to be making that argument, and frankly, you just look silly right now.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Of the ones you use, how many of them are you addicted to? Before you say "None", go cold turkey for a few days, see how you feel, and get back to me on this.
    I don't have anything to "go cold turkey" with. I'm not addicted to substances of any kind. I used to be a smoker, years ago. I used to use drugs and alcohol, years ago. I don't use anything today, and I don't support legalizing even the drugs that I did years ago because I know that if they would have been legal I would have died years ago.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Let's simplify even further and focus on the 2 worst ones, tobacco and alcohol. Should you go to jail for using them?
    They are "the 2 worst ones" because they are legal, sir. That is why they are the most abused. I think society would benefit if neither were available here. Neither are of any real value when used the way we use them. Alcohol is useful to clean a wound, that's all.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    If you don't use them, should your friends who smoke, or who enhance their dinner with a glass of fine wine (an addictive and poisonous drug that's an essential part of our "Wine Country" culture) be jailed?
    Extreme thinking only serves to make a poster look foolish, sir. You look pretty foolish trying to make your case on such a ridiculous premise.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Or should we only jail the dealers (the friendly cashiers at our local grocery stores) or perhaps just the manufacturers?
    They are legal substances, and you haven't made your case yet. You appear to be either a fool or a drug addict/alcoholic, as the only people I've ever seen make your argument are those kinds of individuals, and they failed to make their case just as you are failing to make yours. Offer me a valid scenario, not some extreme b.s. Been there, done that with the silly b.s. routine. Not interested in responding to it again.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    If you're like most folks who consider themselves "anti-drug", you are simply in denial that the substances used by you and/or your friends are drugs just as much as anything else is, and in fact are more addictive and more deadly than most of the ones that happen to be illegal in this particular culture at this particular time. Such hypocrites project their own addictiveness onto outsiders, those people who look and act strange to them, who use different drugs then the ones they use, and scapegoat them for society's problems.
    And if you're like most folks who consider themselves "drug users", then you are part of the group of people who try to make your argument who are commonly drug addicts, alcoholics and/or fools, 100% of the time, in my experience.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    It's easy to criminalize other people's lifestyles. "Conservative" factions of society have no problem filling our jails with black folks, brown folks, people who have odd haircuts or tattoos and piercings; anyone who looks and acts very differently than the folks at their church is fair game.
    So you've now clarified that you at least fit into the "fool" category, with bigots.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Now how about putting you and your friends in jail for your use of alcohol and tobacco? I can just see your face when I suggest that--you dropped your cigarette and spluttered wine all over your new shirt, LOL!
    And I can see the burn holes in the front of your shirt as you hit "Submit Reply" as the sparks from your bong land on your chest. This post is just silly, sir, and of no value whatsoever. I'm not going to waste my time on such juvenile, sophomoric arguments again, so I hope you can get real if you reply again.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    And don't try to tell me that tobacco and alcohol should be legal because they're safer than the illegal drugs.
    I don't support legalized tobacco or alcohol. Neither have any value to our society whatsoever. Both are albatrosses around our society's neck.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Note that even if there were as many people using the illegal drugs as there are using alcohol and tobacco, they still wouldn't kill as many people as those 2 legal drugs do.


    You don't know that, sir. Your deluded mind tells you that, but you have no way of proving such a ridiculous, random opinion. Pointing to tobacco and alcohol doesn't make a case for legalizing pot, meth, heroin or crack cocaine, sir. Your arguments only serve to remind me how ignorant drug use makes us. Oh, and you've now proven that you are not just in the "fool" category, but that you are most likely a drug abuser yourself.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    For more info on the figures above, as well as lots of useful info on the "Drug War" (which is really a war against freedom), check out:
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    https://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm#item1

    Here's a radical concept: The proper function of laws is to protect people from being violated by others. Behaviors which don't violate others, including the vast majority of drug use, legal and illegal, would not be illegal in a free society.


    You're full of crap and you are as deluded as any drunk lying in the gutter, sir. Children are neglected and abused by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts every day in America. Spouses are abused every day by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts. Families are abandoned every day here in America by those addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. Crimes are committed every day by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts. Family's of 5 are killed every day on America's highways by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts in head on collisions in America. You are blind if you think that drug use doesn't violate others. I counsel people who grew up without parental guidance or love every day, even though they lived in the same house and saw their parents every day because their parents were part of your community, the group of folks who haven't learned how to cope with life without using drugs and alcohol: drug users and abusers. The Baby Boomer generation is full of drug and alcohol addicted parents who have neglected and abused, and continue to neglect and abuse their children emotionally, physically, psychologically and sexually. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you've also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are one of those drug/alcohol users/abusers.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    And let me just briefly remind you that our country experimented with illegalization and re-legalization of one of our most dangerous drugs some years ago, during the early 20th Century period known as "Prohibition". Nearly everyone came to agree that, while prohibition did slightly decrease the number of users, the negative impacts (spread and entrenchment of organized crime due to selling a popular illegal product, violence resulting from the associated criminal underground, glamorization of the drug to rebellious youngsters due to its forbidden status, criminalization of numerous harmless citizens, overburdening of the criminal "justice" system, alienation of the police force and legal system from the common citizen, etc.), far outweighed the positive, so Prohibition was repealed. IT DIDN'T WORK.


    It didn't work because our country was already reliant upon alcohol as a coping tool. It's as simple as that. We were collectively already too sick and alcohol dependent to do life without being medicated with alcohol.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Unfortunately, though prohibition of other drugs, most of them less destructive than alcohol, is causing the same problems, (AND others, i.e., accidental overdoses), our government, as well as lots of folks like you, "thewholetruth", haven't learned.


    I have learned that you likely suffer from dependence on drugs or alcohol, sir, as you make the same arguments that addicts and alcoholics make, 100% of the time.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    I'll resist the temptation to go into the psychological, social, economic and political reasons that some drugs are illegalized while much worse ones are subsidized by the government; this post is long enough.


    Besides, you've already proven you don't know what you're talking about.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    In closing, "thewholetruth", I'll just ask this: Will you now call for the illegalization of alcohol and tobacco to be consistent with your "illegalize drugs" position, or, better yet, will you call for the legalization of other drugs to achieve such consistency?


    Consistency isn't on my priority list. Fighting idiots, fools and drug heads who want to make more illegal drugs legal is on my priority list. Those who are so foolish they want to make a bad situation (legal tobacco/alcohol) worse. That's what this thread is about.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    Or, if your answer is "Neither", will you honestly address the bigotry and irrationality that underlie the double standard in your thinking?

    Dixon
    Ironic, that comment. How ironic. Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir?
    Last edited by thewholetruth; 07-12-2008 at 06:48 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #12
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by thewholetruth: View Post
    Dixon, your summary suggests that: If we make some drugs illegal we should make all drugs illegal. Is that an accurate representation of your position on this issue?
    Upon reflection, I see that your position is actually the polar opposite, that you support ALL drugs being legal. Is that accurate, Dixon?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. TopTop #13
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Below I've pasted in most of the current Drug War Chronicle.

    It's a weekly newsletter posted by people who actually know what's going on in the Failed War on Some Drugs.

    Go to their website to sign up for a free subscription.

    -Jeff

    For public safety or for overtime pay?
    EDITORIAL: DO DRUG LAWS AFFECT DRUG USE RATES? EVIDENTLY NOT
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ffect_drug_use
    Another major study has shown that drug policy doesn't affect drug use rates, and we already know the drug war doesn't affect sales. But we know the harm that prohibition does. So what's the point?

    FEATURE: VESTED INTERESTS OF PROHIBITION I: THE POLICE
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...aw_enforcement
    Who profits from drug prohibition? With this article we begin our occasional series on Vested Interests of Prohibition, and we begin with a law enforcement establishment grown fat off drug war bounty.

    FEATURE: DESPITE HARSH DRUG POLICIES, US LEADS IN CANNABIS, COCAINE USE, GLOBAL SURVEY FINDS
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ates_who_study
    An international survey covering 54,000 people in 17 countries representing all regions of the globe has found that the US leads the world in cannabis and cocaine use rate despite decades of harsh policies aimed at users. That strongly suggests harsh drug policies don't necessarily result in lower use rates, the researchers said.

    STUDENTS: INTERN AT DRCNET AND HELP STOP THE DRUG WAR!
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...p_the_drug_war
    Apply for an internship at DRCNet for this fall (or spring), and you could spend the semester fighting the good fight!

    HELP NEEDED: DRUG WAR CHRONICLE SEEKING CASES OF INFORMANT ABUSE
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...nformant_cases
    Drug War Chronicle is seeking information on serious police misconduct or misjudgments in the treatment of informants. Confidentiality will be protected.

    LAW ENFORCEMENT: THIS WEEK'S CORRUPT COPS STORIES
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...rug_corruption
    Cops in LA and New York get caught lying about drug busts, a couple of Indiana cops get in trouble, an Alabama cop is headed for prison, and, of course, more jail guards get caught.

    MARIJUANA: MASSACHUSETTS DECRIM INITIATIVE APPROVED FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ovember_ballot
    The Massachusetts State Secretary has certified for the November ballot an initiative that would decriminalize marijuana possession in the Bay State.

    MARIJUANA: OREGON INITIATIVE FOR REGULATED SALES STARTS GATHERING SIGNATURES
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ate_initiative
    Oregon already has decriminalization and medical marijuana. Now, some state activists have launched an initiative campaign to allow for taxed and regulated sales to adults. If they can get the required signatures, the measure will be on the 2010 ballot.

    PAIN MEDICINE: PAIN RELIEF NETWORK SUES STATE OF WASHINGTON OVER NARCOTIC PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ing_guidelines
    A pain patients' and doctors' advocacy group has filed a lawsuit challenging opioid prescribing guidelines promulgated by the state of Washington.

    MARIJUANA: GEORGIA GRAND JURY FOREMAN SAYS LEGALIZE IT
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...lize_marijuana
    Grand juries are usually noted for their compliance with prosecutorial desires, but at the end of their terms, they get to issue reports on what they experienced and recommendations for improvements. A Georgia grand jury foreman has used that opportunity to call for marijuana legalization.

    DRUG PROHIBITION: NO CLUE IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...whitmire_drugs
    Over the years, the Texas legislature has developed a reputation for producing some less than bright ideas, among other unsavory qualities. This week, one Texas legislator seemed determined to win this year's crown.

    LATIN AMERICA: ECUADOR ASSEMBLY PARDONS HUNDREDS OF DRUG MULES
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ons_drug_mules
    Last year, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, whose father had done time in US jails as a drug courier, vowed to release hundreds of low-level drug mules serving long sentences. Now, the country's legislative organ has turned that vow into reality.

    MIDDLE EAST: IRAQ BECOMES KEY CONDUIT IN GLOBAL DRUG TRADE
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...bal_drug_trade
    Instability fostered by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has led to the embattled country becoming a key conduit for Afghan opium to Europe and the Middle East. Drug use rates are rising, too.

    WEEKLY: THIS WEEK IN HISTORY
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ug_war_history
    Events and quotes of note from this week's drug policy events of years past.

    WEEKLY: BLOGGING @ THE SPEAKEASY
    https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle..._the_speakeasy
    "If Police Don't Find Anything During a Drug Raid, Should They Have To Fix the Damage?," "'Clearly there's no LSD, and how long does it take to test a chocolate-chip cookie for marijuana?'," "Do Pharmaceutical Companies Support Marijuana Prohibition?," "Police Refuse to Take Responsibility For Botched Drug Raid," "Police Discover World's Most Expensive Marijuana," "Congressional Black Caucus Members Try to Ban Menthol Cigarettes," "Almost Any Drug Offense Can Keep You from Becoming a Citizen or Getting a Green Card."
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #14
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    He's a wise and compassionate man. Kind of like Jesus was, you know? But I suppose if He came around you'd probably call him a fool and an addict too. That's certainly who He'd be hanging around with: us fools and addicts.-Jeff
    Although this is just my opinion but I feel confidant, from what I know about us, if Jesus showed up again, as he did, we'd crucify him every single time. Just for the record
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. TopTop #15
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Below I've pasted in most of the current Drug War Chronicle. It's a weekly newsletter posted by people who actually know what's going on in the Failed War on Some Drugs.Go to their website to sign up for a free subscription.-Jeff
    Jeff, you have every right to castigate me due to my not subscribing to what you offer, furthermore I did not read every, all or most all of the sites you gave to us.
    What I did do, and not spend more than 5 minutes at it, was to look at a couple, three sites. Seems lobbyists, like NORML have some stake in the matter, but many of the "statistics" are based on $.
    Now, as a good American, I find money to be a motivational factor, and the good old American Utilitarian approach to all problems does work for much. But here we part company. As adults we can say to all, "your problem, we don't care" and dismiss all matters without a thought. All too easily done this day and age. And stay focused only on the $. And in our new world order, human beings are only worth their "green" value to Mother Earth, but have no "intrinsic value", so I can understand the "legalize it all" and let them go down that path if they "want" to", and again, we part company. But in the end, that primary means will never justify the ends.
    BTW, you know about China doing that (opium for all) for about 200 years. And you do know their outcome. So did anybody learn from it? I mean, aside from the previously stated moral arguments.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. TopTop #16
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Lenny: View Post
    ... As adults we can say to all, "your problem, we don't care" and dismiss all matters without a thought. All too easily done this day and age. And stay focused only on the $. And in our new world order, human beings are only worth their "green" value to Mother Earth, but have no "intrinsic value", so I can understand the "legalize it all" and let them go down that path if they "want" to" ...
    Lenny, what you lack is a mental model in which drugs can be used safely and to a good end. Have you ever used any drugs that helped you? That's one point to ponder.

    Another: I have to read between your lines because you seldom come right out and say what you mean, but are you suggesting if a person takes any drugs then their life is suddenly worthless? That they will be ... destroyed somehow?

    If all "drugs of abuse" were legalized tomorrow would you immediately start injecting heroin every day because it's legal? Would your family members? Would your friends? Would the people you do business with? How many people do you know personally that would become total waste cases if pot were legal that don't smoke pot now? Are you getting my point here? And what if only opium were legalized? Would everyone you know sell all their belongings and just buy opium and smoke out all day long? Who would? Did the fact the Chinese, many decades ago, got in trouble with opium mean everyone in the US would also, if it were suddenly legal?

    While you're at it, consider that the US has much higher use of most of the substances in question than other countries that have laws that are more lax. Why is that Lenny?

    And one more: why is it that in this country the only substance of abuse that has seen steady decline year after year for decades is a legal one? Why is it that this, arguably, most addictive substance on the planet has fewer users every year in this country? Is it because it's legal? I'm talking tobacco, of course. What do you think about all this?

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #17
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by thewholetruth: View Post
    Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. ...
    Only someone on the payroll of the Failed War on Some Drugs would think that legalizing drugs is a bad idea.

    Oh, that's right. You are on the payroll of the Failed War.

    Now I remember. You input is proportionately discounted.

    It's your income stream talking, not your morals or your brains.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #18
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Lenny: View Post
    Hey, Jeff, didn't we have this argument before? What was the outcome?
    You want Schedule 1 drugs legalized? LSD, MDA, DMT, Peyote, Weed, Ecstasy and Synthetic heroin, among others? ...
    As I recall, I tried to educate you but you were pretty resistant.

    I think as a big first step. let's legalize plants and mushrooms. Few people will get in trouble with these.

    LSD, MDMA, DMT and Ecstasy are all easily handled by the "underground" society right now. These drugs are not addicting and indeed, offer the greatest promise for curing addictions and multiple social ills of all methods known. There is a vast literature supporting that statement. Ibogaine is also in the category. Do a google search on ibogaine and addiction and see what you find. Do a search of ayahuasca and addiction and see what you find.

    Just lifting the legal sanctions on these relatively benign drugs will free up vast crime fighting resources and valuable tax dollars that can be put to better use (like balancing the budget, for instance).

    The Failed War on Some Drugs has given us massive organized crime syndicates, corrupt cops, corrupt government officials and corrupt countries. The vast Prison Industrial Complex threatens the financial stability of entire governments including California's.

    It's time to do something about these problems. Ending the Failed War on Some Drugs is the best place to start.

    -Jeff

    PS. I don't think synthetic heroin, cocaine, meth, or any of the currently scheduled prescription drugs need be made available over the counter. Not yet. We have a lot of drug education to do in this country. The "Just Say No" method has yielded such obviously negative results it will be quite a while before the damage can be undone.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #19
    MsTerry
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by thewholetruth: View Post
    Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir?
    Don C, this is an anonymous forum for you.
    Dixon Wragg is his real name,
    he even lists his job (individual Program Coordinator at Sonoma Developmental Center)
    Can you say the same, Sir, for I can not.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. TopTop #20
    RichT
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    I agree that regulation and control is better than criminalization and incarceration. People are going to pursue their vices anyway and I'd rather received benefit from that in the way of taxation. Placing government oversight over growing and selling of marijuana would remove a major industry from the realm of organized crime. This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.



    Quote Just lifting the legal sanctions on these relatively benign drugs will free up vast crime fighting resources and valuable tax dollars that can be put to better use (like balancing the budget, for instance).

    The Failed War on Some Drugs has given us massive organized crime syndicates, corrupt cops, corrupt government officials and corrupt countries. The vast Prison Industrial Complex threatens the financial stability of entire governments including California's.

    It's time to do something about these problems. Ending the Failed War on Some Drugs is the best place to start.
    I agree that regulation and control is better than criminalization and incarceration. People are going to pursue their vices anyway and I'd rather received benefit from that in the way of taxation (alcohol, tobacco and gambling as well). Placing government oversight over growing and selling of marijuana would remove a major industry from the realm of organized crime. This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.

    Quote PS. I don't think synthetic heroin, cocaine, meth, or any of the currently scheduled prescription drugs need be made available over the counter. Not yet. We have a lot of drug education to do in this country. The "Just Say No" method has yielded such obviously negative results it will be quite a while before the damage can be undone.
    [/QUOTE]

    Even proper education about the effects of some of the more addictive substances will not help. The effects of these can be so destructive to the person that they can become an imminent threat to society. We have a large problem with meth in this area that is not entirely due to illegal usage; long term use lends itself to developing psychotic paranoia.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. TopTop #21
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Lenny, what you lack is a mental model in which drugs can be used safely and to a good end. Have you ever used any drugs that helped you? That's one point to ponder.
    Correct. I think the current medical & psychiatric model is fine; no point in reinventing the roundy axle thingy that moves upon the ground well enough. With that model I've used drugs that helped, like antibiotics, pain killers when applicable, etc. I've let the medical establishment ponder that, as I've not the time.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Another: I have to read between your lines because you seldom come right out and say what you mean, but are you suggesting if a person takes any drugs then their life is suddenly worthless? That they will be ... destroyed somehow?
    In a word, yes. But the evil parts are that it is not "suddenly" but also the delusion, the slowness of the spiral downward, the self-deceptive lie that individual tells their self, their loved ones, destroying their social contract with family, friends, and eventually the authorities: "it's not me, it's the drugs". Or, maybe Don and The Whole Truth have been lying to us? Or their clients been lying to them? And actually it's "all good"? Stupid mice will O.D. rather than stop, science guy!
    Let me try a change up pitch: if it were cheap and legal, is it good to have any stuff that has the capability of having a crack whore sell her baby?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    If all "drugs of abuse" were legalized tomorrow would you immediately start injecting heroin every day because it's legal? Would your family members? Would your friends? Would the people you do business with? How many people do you know personally that would become total waste cases if pot were legal that don't smoke pot now? Are you getting my point here? And what if only opium were legalized? Would everyone you know sell all their belongings and just buy opium and smoke out all day long? Who would? Did the fact the Chinese, many decades ago, got in trouble with opium mean everyone in the US would also, if it were suddenly legal?
    Maybe you missed the memo? It WAS legal. And "everyone" was doing opium and their derivatives such that it became a world wide problem. And once again the USA was leading the world in addictions, at least according to The Source at the time. I think the below is from a site that supports your view.

    https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer...worstfiend.htm

    And your question,"Did the fact the Chinese, many decades ago, got in trouble with opium mean everyone in the US would also, if it were suddenly legal?" threw me. Could you ask it another way, please? Because if I understand it, as written, the answer is YES. What does being Chinese have to do about anything, other than the factual and historical truth?
    Or are you like that Black Congresscritter a while back that wanted heroin legalized for Black folks only? She was sanctioned in a heart beat!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    While you're at it, consider that the US has much higher use of most of the substances in question than other countries that have laws that are more lax. Why is that Lenny?
    And one more: why is it that in this country the only substance of abuse that has seen steady decline year after year for decades is a legal one? Why is it that this, arguably, most addictive substance on the planet has fewer users every year in this country? Is it because it's legal? I'm talking tobacco, of course. What do you think about all this? -Jeff
    Your question, in my opinion, presupposes quick, easy, bumper sticker answers, of which I ain't got none.
    Please refer to the cite that indicates the US had the highest legal junkie rate in the world circa 1911. May have been chauvinism at that time, and maybe the French had more? Or the Dutch? Maybe the Chinese? Oh, wait, the folks over there have (had) some kind of established ethic as well as ethnic pride, and other non-tangibles that stopped their use of trying to get lost from this harsh world.
    Watching the Sopranos on DVD, the one legged Russian women puts it, "You Americans, you got everything, want more, and expect it to get better. We have nothing, want nothing, and expect it to get worse. And you keep on complaining". OK, trite, but an inkling of an outlook that others who've not had it so well in their country (every country outside US) that has had it brutalized for the last thousand years, while we here in our abundance demand heaven on earth, even via drugs.
    PS: pretty sure opium/heroin/morphine etc is "more addictive" than tobacco, both physiologically and (worse yet) psychologically, as tobacco does not numb and "sweeten" reality as does opium et all. And if I am in error, does making two wrongs (legalizing tobacco AND opium) right?
    Last edited by Lenny; 07-13-2008 at 04:00 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. TopTop #22
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Lenny: View Post
    ...
    PS: pretty sure opium/heroin/morphine etc is "more addictive" than tobacco, both physiologically and (worse yet) psychologically, as tobacco does not numb and "sweeten" reality as does opium et all. And if I am in error, does making two wrongs (legalizing tobacco AND opium) right?
    Uh, in a word, no.

    Ask any former junkie who also kicked tobacco and they'll tell you tobacco was the much harder habit to break.

    There's more to addiction than numbing and sweetening. It's worth noting that a lot of "drugs of abuse" do neither.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. TopTop #23
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Don C, this is an anonymous forum for you.
    Ms. Terry, Ms. Terry, Ms. Terry *shakes head, staring at the ground*

    This is an anonymous forum, Ma'am. Not "for you", but for everyone. Whether you choose to abandon your anonymity is up to the individual, but the FORUM facilitates one's anonymity, does not identify one's personal information and so is an ANONYMOUS FORUM.

    P.S. When I say something, Ma'am, I've probably done all of the research about it already. I was making a funny with Dixon (here goes the ordinarily unnecessary explanation), pretending it was a good thing that he could hide behind his anonymity, when, in reality, he had already chosen not to do so. The implication, Ma'am, was intended as comedy. I pray that Dixon got it, seeing how you did not. But thanks for being willing to teach me, Ma'am. That's new.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Dixon Wragg is his real name,
    he even lists his job (individual Program Coordinator at Sonoma Developmental Center)
    Can you say the same, Sir, for I can not.
    Rhetorical question, Ma'am? I know you already know the answer.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. TopTop #24
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Lenny: View Post
    ...
    Maybe you missed the memo? It WAS legal. And "everyone" was doing opium and their derivatives such that it became a world wide problem. And once again the USA was leading the world in addictions, at least according to The Source at the time. I think the below is from a site that supports your view. ...
    Perhaps this could explain why heroin became such a huge problem for an uninformed public (hint: this could never happen again):

    " ... In 1897 the Bayer chemist Felix Hoffmann, acting on Eichengruen's instructions, discovered a new process for modifying salicyclic acid (a remedy for fever and inflammation which unfortunately has excruciating digestive side effects) to produce acetylsalicyclic acid (ASA).

    This compound, later to be named Aspirin, had been isolated before and the healing powers of salicylates (derived from willow bark) had been known for centuries. But Hoffmann had created a reliable process for making it.

    Eichengruen enthusiastically recommended ASA to Dreser in 1898. Dreser, after cursory consideration, rejected it. Ostensibly, his objection was that ASA would have an "enfeebling" action on the heart. "The product has no value," he pronounced confidently. But the real problem was almost certainly that he had another product on his mind whose impending success he was anxious not to jeopardise. This was heroin.

    Like aspirin, the drug that Bayer launched under the trademark Heroin in 1898 was not an original discovery. Diacetylmorphine, a white, odourless, bitter, crystalline powder deriving from morphine, had been invented in 1874 by an English chemist, C R Wright.

    But Dreser was the first to see its commercial potential. Scientists had been looking for some time for a non-addictive substitute for morphine, then widely used as a painkiller and in the treatment of respiratory diseases. If diacetylmorphine could be shown to be such a product, Bayer - and Dreser - would hit the jackpot.

    Diacetylmorphine was first synthesised in the Bayer laboratory in 1897 - by Hoffmann, two weeks after he first synthesised ASA. The work seems to have been initiated by Dreser, who was by then aware of Wright's discovery, even though he subsequently implied that heroin was an original Bayer invention.

    By early 1898 was testing it on sticklebacks, frogs and rabbits. He also tested it on some of Bayer's workers, and on himself. The workers loved it, some saying it made them feel "heroic" (heroisch). This was also the term used by chemists to describe any strong drug (and diacetylmorphine is four times stronger than morphine). Creating a brand name was easy.

    In November 1898, Dreser presented the drug to the Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians, claiming it was 10 times more effective as a cough medicine than codeine, but had only a tenth of its toxic effects. It was also more effective than morphine as a painkiller. It was safe. It wasn't habit-forming. In short, it was a wonder drug - the Viagra of its day.

    "What we don't recognise now," says David Muso, professor of psychiatry and the history of medicine at Yale Medical School, "is that this met what was then a desperate need - not for a painkiller, but for a cough remedy". "
    [end quote]

    https://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

    Go to the website to read more. Fascinating stuff.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. TopTop #25
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Uh, in a word, no.

    Ask any former junkie who also kicked tobacco and they'll tell you tobacco was the much harder habit to break.
    Hmmm...and why do you suppose that is, Jeff? Do you imagine nicotine to be a more addictive drug than heroin? (You can't be that stupid, sir.) Noooo, that's not why. Let me tell you why cigarettes (not cigars or pipe tobacco, btw) are such a hard habit to break. Firstly, it's legal. That's right, that's the primary reason ciggies are one of the hardest - if not the hardest - habit to break. No social stigma, implied social acceptance, no fear of arrest or legal consequences - in short, the delusion that "it's okay to smoke" when, in reality, smoking causes serious health issues which eventually result in death. Secondly, a typical smoker engages in their habit from 12-20 times a day, oftentimes MORE than that, which ingrains the addiction more deeply due to greater repitition. Not so of a heroin addict. Thirdly, there are something like 72 additives in every cigarette, designed to MAKE the tobacco more addictive (not found in cigars or pipe tobacco) as well as to keep the cigarette burning. Cigarette makers INTENTIONALLY INCLUDE DRUGS in each cigarette that makes smoking more addictive. It doesn't make nicotine more addictive. It makes smoking cigarettes more addictive.

    So implying that tobacco is worse than heroin is a lie, Jeff. In and of itself, nicotine is not more addictive than heroin, not by a LONG shot. Pschosocial aspects and pharmaceutical additives, coupled with great repitition are are what make cigarettes APPEAR to be more addictive than heroin, but to say that they are more addictive than heroin is a lie from Hell.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    There's more to addiction than numbing and sweetening. It's worth noting that a lot of "drugs of abuse" do neither.

    -Jeff
    That's right, and it's worth noting that some drugs have no addictive quality about them at all, and yet people get addicted to them. Hmmm. Ever wonder why that is?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. TopTop #26
    MsTerry
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    OK, I get it.
    Your statement " Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir" is meant for you! It gives you the liberty to say what you want.
    You are generously chiding Dixon for being honest and telling the whole truth about himself, while showing him that you hide in anonymity!
    That is some crafty one-upmanship on your part

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by thewholetruth: View Post
    I pray that Dixon got it, seeing how you did not. But thanks for being willing to teach me, Ma'am. That's new.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #27
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    As I recall, I tried to educate you but you were pretty resistant.
    The word 'educate' come from the meaning 'to lead out of the darkness into the light'. Pridefully, in this issue, I find myself standing in th full day noon sunlight, but I know sunset is coming and don't want others looking for the facts with dim bulb flashlights.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I think as a big first step. let's legalize plants and mushrooms. Few people will get in trouble with these.
    Too fast for me, Kimo Sabe. When you say "legalize", I gather you mean "decriminalize", so folks won't be arrested for possession or growing. Is that a base approach?
    Will you advertise? Why stop at 18 years of age as a base? Why not 5 year olds? What if parents "feel" their 7 year old is ready? Any legal problems there? No child abuse? Is the 'use of" a day at the beach? Or bar, psychiatrist office or gurus need apply only? Imagine the insurance industry! No "imparied use" matters while high? or afterwards? up to three years? The legal profession alone would expand exponentially!
    I know GW is harrassed for "unintended consequences" but REALLY NOW!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    LSD, MDMA, DMT and Ecstasy are all easily handled by the "underground" society right now. These drugs are not addicting and indeed, offer the greatest promise for curing addictions and multiple social ills of all methods known.
    ALL of the drugs are "easily handled by the underground" right now. I don't know why you make such a distinction. I know I can go out and get any of that stuff in less than an hour, far less, with little to no hassle, and I know no single soul that uses, so I miss your message, unless "the underground" is not so hidden in Sonoma. And I doubt the "greatest promise for curing addiction". That is a lie. Truly
    I got a cousin from age 14 years until almost 60 was a heroin addict. The San Francisco Mission District had it going on forever; he had all of that stuff which included public and private treatments of all sorts. Nothing worked until HE wanted to quit.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    There is a vast literature supporting that statement. Ibogaine is also in the category. Do a google search on ibogaine and addiction and see what you find. Do a search of ayahuasca and addiction and see what you find.
    Thanks. That ibogaine looks promising. My cousin, above, told me that he and his fiends would "kick" so they could just bring down their resistance and thus the price via quantity. It wasn't the three days of the puking shakes that was SO bad (no fun) it was the fourth day and months and years aftwards that was tough to deal with. So this ibogaine will stop the cramps for a couple o' days. Big whoop. La ti da! I also enjoy the history of the opiates, like morphine, heroin and methadone. Is there a pattern here? BTW, cuz REALLY liked the methadone, as it gave a better high due to USP purity.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Just lifting the legal sanctions on these relatively benign drugs will free up vast crime fighting resources and valuable tax dollars that can be put to better use (like balancing the budget, for instance).The Failed War on Some Drugs has given us massive organized crime syndicates, corrupt cops, corrupt government officials and corrupt countries. The vast Prison Industrial Complex threatens the financial stability of entire governments including California's.
    "Benign drugs"....is there a warp here? Is that like "jumbo shrimp"? and other oxymoronic phrases?
    Couple of minor points: as a good American, you want that Utilitarian approach to the drug issue, and that IS admirable. We should get the most bang for our buck. Hope that comes to pass. You also note that drugs bring corruption, when actually it is love of money on the parts of the officials, and again, I am glad you wish to wipe out corruption, but changing folks' heart for money-love is no mean task. Today drugs, tomorrow, probably some other illegal stuff, no?
    Opinion:1.you don't like this drug war as it was started by a Republican.
    2. I've met some kick butt cops that would love to go after the real deal and make effective changes such that drug folks would not stand well, but to make omlets eggs must be broken. And there are too many that have either been corrupted by the money and thus deem it inappropriate (own best interest) and rule against such, and/or there is lack of real leadership to get a real objective accomlished. The problems that these drugs are causing in Mexico are coming this way North and waving the white flag of legalization will do nothing to stop the behavior of the heavy hitters.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    It's time to do something about these problems. Ending the Failed War on Some Drugs is the best place to start.
    Jeff, I think that you do not see the two contradictory statements these two contradictory sentences pose. Work at it. Unless you mean, and I think not, that we should end the War on Drugs. We might agree on that, but let's go a step further and plan for a stratigic victory and then turn the dogs of war lose. The only thing stopping us is fear.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    PS. I don't think synthetic heroin, cocaine, meth, or any of the currently scheduled prescription drugs need be made available over the counter. Not yet. We have a lot of drug education to do in this country. The "Just Say No" method has yielded such obviously negative results it will be quite a while before the damage can be undone.
    One method of "drug education" would be to string everyone out. Then they would all learn. Really! Remember a while back some legislature wanted to put a little bit of heroin into birth control pills so women would remember to take them daily? That is government education!
    As for the "Just Say No" issue emphasized the "Just" part a lot of folks were lost. I think the successful folks had a lot more going on than the "Just" part, like not "just saying so" and listening, and "just walking away" but running from, "just a little" to absolutely not. Lot of press on the "Just" part and not much else. Ever wonder why?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. TopTop #28
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by RichT: View Post
    I agree that regulation and control is better than criminalization and incarceration. People are going to pursue their vices anyway and I'd rather received benefit from that in the way of taxation.
    Really? And you would prefer that the 2 million folks incarcerated for drug related charges right now would be better off for you personally if they were out driving intoxicated, holding up drug dealers, robbing your house or your neighbors', abusing their spouses and children in drugged stupors, shooting each other from their cars, and everything else that comes with drug use/abuse/addiction?

    If you really imagine a scenario which doesn't include all of what I just described, I would suggest you do more research, and/or take an honest assessment of your own drug use. Pot leaves folks delusional, as does regular narcotic use. I'm not judgin' or implyin', I'm just sayin' that anyone who supports legalized getting loaded is typically ignorant or is already a drug user/abuser/addict.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by RichT: View Post
    Placing government oversight over growing and selling of marijuana would remove a major industry from the realm of organized crime.
    LOL Are you sErIoUs?!? Government IS organized crime, bro!!! Wake up already! What are you thinking!? LOL

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by RichT: View Post
    This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.
    Legalizing pot use will simply give pot the same illusion that surrounds cigarettes and alcohol: that it's alright because it's legal. More slowheads in the fast lane, sitting through green lights, locking their breaks up because they missed a turn, driving 40 in a 55 zone, neglecting their children, abusing their gfs/wives, screwing up at work, living off the Government Tit and more people dependent upon yet ANOTHER drug just to "take the edge off" which really means "I can't cope with my life without drugs". Sounds like a plan, alright. A really, really bad plan.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by RichT: View Post
    This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.
    It's not a waste of time and money for organized crime called "government", brudda. They make a LIFE LONG LIVING from this war.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by RichT: View Post
    Even proper education about the effects of some of the more addictive substances will not help. The effects of these can be so destructive to the person that they can become an imminent threat to society. We have a large problem with meth in this area that is not entirely due to illegal usage; long term use lends itself to developing psychotic paranoia.
    And also causes the rationale of the people to break down, revealed in otherwise normal thinkers starting to believe that letting the government be our dealers and letting all the addicts out of prison will HELP our nation! LOL Wow. I've gotta take a pill.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. TopTop #29
    thewholetruth
    Guest

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    *Cocks head, looks at Ms. Terry, shaking head slowly in disbelief, then says quietly*

    Oh-kaaaaaaay.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    OK, I get it.
    Your statement " Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir" is meant for you! It gives you the liberty to say what you want.
    You are generously chiding Dixon for being honest and telling the whole truth about himself, while showing him that you hide in anonymity!
    That is some crafty one-upmanship on your part
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. TopTop #30
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Lenny: View Post
    Or, maybe Don and The Whole Truth have been lying to us? Or their clients been lying to them? And actually it's "all good"?
    Someone like Don who works in the helping profession mostly meets clients, people with addiction problems. Other people who use drugs but have no addiction problems don't go to Don. So he is not lying, but speaking from his experience. But his experience is one-sided.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Legal Advise NEEDED/ fighting social services
    By Rucira in forum General Community
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-28-2012, 10:46 AM
  2. Disappearing Now: $6 Trillion in Housing Wealth
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-03-2008, 12:08 PM
  3. How Our Tax Dollars Are Being Spent
    By Tars in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 12:43 PM

Bookmarks