Put that in your pipe...

[DaveC]

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/02/us_pot_rxn030502

[Toddy]

WTF is it with the US and these draconian drug laws? We're easing the penalties on pot and the US is bringing up images of "the Four Horsemen"? With half the US population under 30 whacked on Prozac, Ritalin, or whatever the fuck else is being heavily promoted by the pharmaceutical giants this week, it's seems more than a little preposterous that so many Americans get so worked up about a little smoking up.

[Jason McCullough]

It's entirely a culture war at this point. Pot or whatever is almost beside the point; must defeat hippies! Retroactively win Vietnam, ensure Goldwater victory!

[Slothrop]

To understand the drug war, read The Illuminatus! Trilogy. All will become clear.

[Ben Sones]

I love all the veiled threats... "'We would be forced to respond,' said Murray." In my mind, I'm picturing troops massing just south of the Canadian border.

This "war on drugs" nonesense is really out of hand.

[Tyjenks]

This "war on drugs" nonesense is really out of hand.

Agree 100%. Since the U.S. started with this whole "Drug Czar" business drug use has not dropped. Crime has not dropped, but the jails continue to fill to overflowing. Also, the "Just say No" and D.A.R.E. programs in public schools are not making a dent. I do not care to search out links, but if anyone disagrees, I will.

This idiot saying that we do not want to intrude on another country's sovereignty, but....................Fucking stupid...dumbass.....I am at a loss for negative adjectives and nouns. Stupid shit. Yet another contribution to the America as world bully image.

Just looking at Mr. Murray's picture makes me angry.

Damn, I really wanted to bash Canadians some more. Damn Americans, I hate those bastards!

EDIT one more time: Then to say that Canada's relationship with the world would change. Melodramatic nancy boy!!! POT KILLZ>>>POT KILLZ>>>MUST DESTROY>>>ARGH!!!!

[Ben Sones]

We can still bash on the Quebecoise, I think. Even other Canadians do that...

:twisted:

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

It's very sad and even embarassing to me when the administration starts trying to bully the USA's closest friend, especially over such a silly trivia.

[King Lupid]

Yep, I was a heavy drug user throughout my 20s, so got to see all of the terrible shit that happens first hand, and I still think the drug laws are B.S. But, it is never going to change, so I just smile and nod these days 8)

[Desslock]

I love all the veiled threats... "'We would be forced to respond,' said Murray." In my mind, I'm picturing troops massing just south of the Canadian border.

It's particularly nonsensical when several U.S. states have more liberal laws than the ones the minor decriminalization laws proposed by the Canadian government. I doubt these laws will ever pass, in any event.

[Qenan]

The whole thing is embarrassing, but what's new?

[Rywill]

I love all the veiled threats... "'We would be forced to respond,' said Murray." In my mind, I'm picturing troops massing just south of the Canadian border.

It's particularly nonsensical when several U.S. states have more liberal laws than the ones the minor decriminalization laws proposed by the Canadian government. I doubt these laws will ever pass, in any event.

Yeah, but look how well that worked in California. The feds still come down and bust your ass.

This is the most ridiculous story. I am so sick of America's Quixotic fixation on drugs, especially relatively benign drugs like pot. For Christ's sake, people, get a grip. Pot is okay! So is sexuality, while I'm on the subject!

Totally agree with Ty re: the hypocrisy of legalizing certain drugs (alcohol, tobacco, tranqs) but then claiming other, similar drugs herald the fall of the republic. Also with Ben re: the ridiculous veiled threat of a "response" on the US's part if a sovreign neigbor decides to make a minor change to its purely internal laws. The next election CAN'T COME FAST ENOUGH.

[Tyjenks]

Damn, the Guardian knows more about America than we do.

Pot, porn, and illegal labour? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,947880,00.html)

Stole link from ShackNews, BTW.

Seems like he was grasping for this "black market" economy connection, needed a third item, and through in the L-A-B-O-R issue.

[Menzo]

Look, you're talking about the same country that thought it could outlaw LIQUOR! I predict that pot will be legalized in the US within 10 years, but until then we're going to have the same backwards, hypocritical stance because this country is still run by puritans. These people probably smoke dope and surf porn all night, but think that the rest of the country can't handle it.

[Tyjenks]

On another "don't forget" note. Prime time television is perfectly OK for gruesome homicide investigations and gun battles, but show a nipple and its the end of the world. Some with movie ratings. Crazy, crazy world. Offhand, I cannot think another country I would prefer. Everyone has silly shit going on in some form or fashion,

[XPav]

Have you seen the "pot causes car crashes commercial."

It says something like... "33% of the people that tested positive for drugs after a car accident were using marijuana... see, its deadly."

And then you sit around and realize that this tells you nothing about how many car crashes are caused by pot, it just tells you that of the people that were high on something and crashed their cars, 33% of them were smoking pot.

So assuming that the population of people that crash their cars while high is the same as the general high population, 33% of the drug use is pot.

<insert rant about American math skillz, which will serve as a funny point if someone can point out flaws in my logic>

[Tyjenks]

My wife and I roll our eyes every time that commercial comes on. I bitched about another anti-pot commercial several months ago here (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1074&start=0).

The one with the 2 kids smoking pot and one finds a loaded pistol in a desk drawer and shoots the other. Those stupid kids could have blown each others heads off with a loaded weapon high or not. Stupid, misleading garbage.

[Anders Hallin]

"Well, you know what us ultra-liberals say, when it comes to children and drugs, lies are OK."

[voltaic]

By the way, Americans don't generally agree with US drug policies. American politicians do. For what it's worth.

[graller]

I hate to say this with the bias the way it seems to be running but....

I am 37. I am against legalizing pot and I do think Xtasy is some bad shit as well. I am not for the "War on Drugs" but I do think correct education and upbringing can avoid problems here.

My best friend in high school started in on pot and by the time he hit college he could not get out of bed without doing a bong hit. I am not sure he even remembers the 80's today. I really don't think we need to see that in our society. My college roommates wife just got out of rehab after he found her sitting around the house smoking 5 joints a day with a baby being neglected/abused/high next to her.

I have seen enough of the damage that these drugs do. I am not a member of SADD or MADD or anything else but I wish we could do a better job of educating people on the choices. In Europe kids are taught from a very young age to drink responsibly, and guess what, they do. No one I know from Europe would drive drunk. They get a designated driver or they take a cab - very simple. Why can't the war on drugs be fought educating people instead of jailing them?

[Drunkagain]

My best friend in high school started in on pot and by the time he hit college he could not get out of bed without doing a bong hit. I am not sure he even remembers the 80's today. I really don't think we need to see that in our society. My college roommates wife just got out of rehab after he found her sitting around the house smoking 5 joints a day with a baby being neglected/abused/high next to her.

I see where you're coming form Graller, but what I dont see is how it's any different than alcohol? It just seems very hypocritical to me that we are all apparently OK with drinking a couple of beers after a day at work, but if we choose to smoke a joint we risk jail time???

[Toddy]

It's particularly nonsensical when several U.S. states have more liberal laws than the ones the minor decriminalization laws proposed by the Canadian government. I doubt these laws will ever pass, in any event.

Unless you're in with some sort of Canadian lawyerly cabal and getting super seekrit info, I don't know why you'd think this. Chretien's on the way out, so he's got no worries. And the cops and various legal associations here are for the decriminalization. The only people whining are some Americans and the odd addiction counsellor. Right now, the only sticking point is the amount allowed before the penalties get serious. At present, the limit is pretty high. Meaning you'd have to have nearly a garbage bag of the stuff for the cops to haul you to the hoosegow. A few police associations aren't too pleased about that.

[Toddy]

By the way, Americans don't generally agree with US drug policies. American politicians do. For what it's worth.

Then why is it that administration after administration continues with this absurd War on Drugs? It's been a constant under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes. The Republicans always jack up the pressure more and pass the stupider laws, but even lefty regimes like Clinton's and Carter's have kept the pressure going steady. I'm surprised there isn't a prison every second block in the US these days. Anyhow, if the policy was really opposed by the majority of people, it wouldn't still be going on and tokers wouldn't be getting 10 years in federal prison for a couple of minor-league offenses.

[Jason McCullough]

The only Republicans in favor getting rid of it are in the (small) libertarian wing of the party. The Democrats can't get rid of it because they're weak enough already on cultural issues.

[Captain Cookiepants]

My best friend in high school started in on pot and by the time he hit college he could not get out of bed without doing a bong hit. I am not sure he even remembers the 80's today. I really don't think we need to see that in our society. My college roommates wife just got out of rehab after he found her sitting around the house smoking 5 joints a day with a baby being neglected/abused/high next to her.

I see where you're coming form Graller, but what I dont see is how it's any different than alcohol? It just seems very hypocritical to me that we are all apparently OK with drinking a couple of beers after a day at work, but if we choose to smoke a joint we risk jail time???

'Wacky tabbacky' or 'pot' is cumulative yet not potent enough to make you go unconscious. Meaning that after you drink 20 beers you'll fall down, throw up all over yourself, and go to sleep. After 20 'joints' or 'Mary Janes' you'll still be awake but NOT aware enough to do many of the activities you'll most likely try to do.

It's all a matter of trust: do you trust John Q. Public to be able to tell when they're impaired? If they can drink themselves to that careful state where they're drunk yet awake, how can they be trusted not to get extremely 'high' and try to drive their car?
Just imagine how many more drunk driving accidents there would be if Billy Bob didn't pass out after making a pass at his sister.

[Bullhajj]

I'd be much more comfortable if the drunk driver roaring down my block was instead high as a kite. From what I've seen, people are generally better able to cope after over indulging with pot than with booze.

[Jason McCullough]

My best friend in high school started in on pot and by the time he hit college he could not get out of bed without doing a bong hit. I am not sure he even remembers the 80's today. I really don't think we need to see that in our society. My college roommates wife just got out of rehab after he found her sitting around the house smoking 5 joints a day with a baby being neglected/abused/high next to her.

I see where you're coming form Graller, but what I dont see is how it's any different than alcohol? It just seems very hypocritical to me that we are all apparently OK with drinking a couple of beers after a day at work, but if we choose to smoke a joint we risk jail time???

'Wacky tabbacky' or 'pot' is cumulative yet not potent enough to make you go unconscious. Meaning that after you drink 20 beers you'll fall down, throw up all over yourself, and go to sleep. After 20 'joints' or 'Mary Janes' you'll still be awake but NOT aware enough to do many of the activities you'll most likely try to do.

It's all a matter of trust: do you trust John Q. Public to be able to tell when they're impaired? If they can drink themselves to that careful state where they're drunk yet awake, how can they be trusted not to get extremely 'high' and try to drive their car?
Just imagine how many more drunk driving accidents there would be if Billy Bob didn't pass out after making a pass at his sister.

What, like operating bulldozers? Please.

[Desslock]

It's particularly nonsensical when several U.S. states have more liberal laws than the ones the minor decriminalization laws proposed by the Canadian government. I doubt these laws will ever pass, in any event.

I don't know why you'd think this. Chretien's on the way out.

That's why. There's only 11-12 weeks of government until Martin wins the replacement convention in November. Given the fact that this government generally does nothing, and what it does do it doesn't do quickly, I just don't think that's enough time.

[Brian Koontz]

I guess I'll have to inject some intelligence into this thread by giving you a whiff of how the Anti-Drug people see things...

The war is cultural true, but not against hippies precisely.

The general idea is a domino effect, a territorial battle, an encroachment.

On one side of the battleline is No Drug Culture. On the other side is Drug Culture. Pot is qualified as a (bad) Drug. Therefore if pot wins (gains acceptance) the enemy has gained territory, become more powerful.

So its not about Pot really... its about the overall state of the war and not wanting Drug Culture to gain any more power.

So when you guys argue "Pot isn't really so bad" that's not too bad. I nod my head a bit, see some value in the argument. The point there is to qualify Pot as a not-bad drug (or if you are feeling especially bold, a GOOD drug). The point is to take it out of enemy status. You should show an advertisement of a few kids (ages are negotiable) sitting around looking at a joint unsure of whether to touch it or not, and then have a kid say "Get Mikey! Make Mikey try it!" And then Mikey tries it and gets a grin on his face and the other kids say "Mikey likes it!" That's a small battle victory if you win.

But how about finding a solution where both sides are satisfied... where pot is instituted but yet...

"Therefore if pot wins (gains acceptance) the enemy has gained territory, become more powerful."

What about pot winning and NOT having drug culture become more powerful?

Solutions to this are...

Marijuana producers should not be the same ones producing (as yet) illegal drugs. The money from marijuana sales thus has to go into legitimate hands.

Marijuana use should be examined in the same way cigarettes are now, with warnings, health bulletins. The cultural war has been WON (at least temporarily) against cigarettes, and that's a LEGAL substance. How happy would conservatives be if the same thing happened with marijuana?

If something is bad, I like to let it exist... let it PROVE its badness and then stomp it. It not only makes me happy to stomp it but it allows Joe Public to applaud the stomping.

Why not use the "badness" of marijuana *against* conservatives?

[Qenan]

Actually, I am one of those who despises the drug culture, including weed. I don't even drink caffeinated drinks, except incidentally in restaurants. I'm pretty damned square. ;-)

That doesn't mean I like the government's current approach to fighting it. You will never be able to stop all the suppliers so long as demand exists. The way you beat drugs is to kill demand. One key to killing demand is to tell the truth in communications with the public; once you destroy your credibility, you have no hope.

I don't see criminalization as effective. Drug addiction is a public health problem, not a crime in and of itself.

[DaveC]

Actually, I am one of those who despises the drug culture, including weed. I don't even drink caffeinated drinks, except incidentally in restaurants. I'm pretty damned square. ;-)

That doesn't mean I like the government's current approach to fighting it. You will never be able to stop all the suppliers so long as demand exists. The way you beat drugs is to kill demand. One key to killing demand is to tell the truth in communications with the public; once you destroy your credibility, you have no hope.

I don't see criminalization as effective. Drug addiction is a public health problem, not a crime in and of itself.

Well, then we had better get on the path to prohibition as well because education doesn't seem to do all that much. How much education has there been about alcohol and we still have alchoholics, drunk drivers and people that get alchohol poisoning? I know many people that smoke pot casually and have for over 20 years and most of them are quite average and some are quite exceptional. I've also seen lives ruined by alchohol and it's still legal. It's just a bit hypocritical, but then again as someone else said a naked blade is more accetpable than a naked body.

You'll never get the truth on drugs, it would go against all the anti and pro drug propaganda. Neither side wants that. I mean, you can't trust people to look at facts and make value judgements now can you?

[graller]

That doesn't mean I like the government's current approach to fighting it. You will never be able to stop all the suppliers so long as demand exists. The way you beat drugs is to kill demand. One key to killing demand is to tell the truth in communications with the public; once you destroy your credibility, you have no hope.

I don't see criminalization as effective. Drug addiction is a public health problem, not a crime in and of itself.

This was stated in a much clearer way then I could do it. Somehow when I was growing up it was made clear to me that doing drugs was not something I should do - part of that came from the fact that the drugs were not legal but mostly from stories - News, People, and Education. I tried many things - Once. But never had an inclination to go any further because of that awareness. Same thing with drunk driving. I would never have more then 1 glass of wine with a dinner out or at a friends if I know I am getting right back in a car to drive home....different story if the wife is driving but even so it just means 3 glasses instead of one.

Part of me still wonders if some people are more inclined to "addiction" then others...if some part of it is not genetic. What makes someone 40 years old, responsible, kids, job etc want to have 10 drinks before he goes driving home? Same for my roommates wife? Why? What woudl help them? I agree it is not trying to catch every person in the delivery mechanism and throwing them in jail.

[Brad Grenz]

I think there's absolutely a genetic component to chemical addiction. I saw a program once about a study done of an eskimo community that had a pretty devestating huffing epidemic that suggested there was a genetic predisposition, and drew a connection with Native Americans and alcoholism. I don't know how valid any of this was, but my grandfather was an alcoholic and that's one of the reasons I don't drink or smoke or do any drugs.

[Ben Sones]

You should show an advertisement of a few kids (ages are negotiable) sitting around looking at a joint unsure of whether to touch it or not, and then have a kid say "Get Mikey! Make Mikey try it!" And then Mikey tries it and gets a grin on his face and the other kids say "Mikey likes it!" That's a small battle victory if you win.

A small victory that would be a prelude to your crushing defeat in court when the Quaker Oats Company sues you for all you are worth.

Funny idea, though. :)

[voltaic]

By the way, Americans don't generally agree with US drug policies. American politicians do. For what it's worth.
Then why is it that administration after administration continues with this absurd War on Drugs? It's been a constant under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes. The Republicans always jack up the pressure more and pass the stupider laws, but even lefty regimes like Clinton's and Carter's have kept the pressure going steady. I'm surprised there isn't a prison every second block in the US these days.
Thanks for making my point. Politicians, not the public.

Anyhow, if the policy was really opposed by the majority of people, it wouldn't still be going on and tokers wouldn't be getting 10 years in federal prison for a couple of minor-league offenses.
Really? Seems to me they are constantly doing things against the will of the people. In all honestly I don't know where to begin. The original Prohibition I guess is a good and relevant starting example.

[King Lupid]

There is absolutely a genetic disposition to addiction. They have identified the gene which causes it. My father (and 'step' father) are both alcoholics, recovering thankfully, so I have educated myself on the subject. Strangely enough, I can take or leave alcohol. Its the other chemicals that give me a problem! Looking back, I don't think I was ever physically addicted to anything; I was mentally dependent on them, however. And why not? It is often more easy to get blotto than to deal with life's shit sandwich.

But that is not a defense for using drugs. Eventually, you have to deal with it. And you will usually find the problems are much worse after having been shoved in the closet for a few years while you were high.

Legislated morality is a bad idea. It should be shunned under the whole "Seperation of Church and State" thing, but it just doesn't work that way. As a people, we seem intent on forcing our views on others.

[Kalle]

In Europe kids are taught from a very young age to drink responsibly, and guess what, they do. No one I know from Europe would drive drunk. They get a designated driver or they take a cab - very simple. Why can't the war on drugs be fought educating people instead of jailing them?

Umm, no. Sorry, but that's just plainly not true. I don't have a link to the French figures for deaths caused by drunk drivers each year but they are huge. This is one of the countries where kids are taught to drink responsibly.

In countries like Sweden where binge-drinking on the weekends instead of a winer every evening is the norm, drunk driving rates are miniscule in comparison.

I will also add that repressive drug policies, short of all-out banning of drugs, keep a lid on drug abuse. The case in point here is Sweden, where our fierce restriction on alcohol sales from the early 20th century had lowered drinking rates by over 90% in the 1950's from the all-time high in the late 19th century.

Easy access to drugs will mean an increase in drug use. Making them legal provides an outlet for people who want them, and gives society the opportunity to control the flow so that sales can be restricted.

[Ben Sones]

Of course, the other side of the coin is that America's war on drugs costs an absurd amount of money (if you factor in the cost of incarcerating drug offenders, the total makes the entire defense budget look like petty cash) and creates an entire crime industry where none existed before (much in the same way the the Prohibition sparked the growth in organized crime in the 1920s).

Is it worth it? I don't think so.

[voltaic]

Agreed. Take all the money being used on the so-called war on drugs, mostly marijuana. Then let all marijuana criminals go immediately. Empty prisons of nearly one-fifth of their populations of non-violent offenders. Cut the DEA into pieces smaller than bread crumbs. Then take ALL the money saved and give it back to the taxpayers or put it into social programs if you want.

[Captain Cookiepants]

You two knuckleknobs wanna grab a bit of the perspective pie here?

I agree that 'Mary Jane' is the least dangerous drug out there, but it is still dangerous. And I'd like to point out that jail time is a much lighter sentence then some other countries (execution).
However 'pot' isn't the only drug in the 'war against drugs', you REALLY want ectasy (which leads to Parkinson's disease) and acid (which literally dots your brain with tony holes) and all that other good shit to be legal for anyone to possess and easy to get? 'Lunchables' should start putting a tiny baggie of smack in next to the tiny turkey discs? I'd rather raise my kid in a world where he can't say 'If drugs are so bad why aren't they illegal?'.

'It's illegal' keeps many, many people off drugs, don't kid yourself that it doesn't, or even try to argue that people would automatically become more mature and responsible if it wasn't.

I'd be much more comfortable if the drunk driver roaring down my block was instead high as a kite. From what I've seen, people are generally better able to cope after over indulging with pot than with booze.
Not everyone has the same reaction to everything.
My uncle would drive slowly and even further to the right when he'd been drinking.
In fact he was drinking the night he was smashed by another drunk driver who was the speeding and swerving type. His habit of driving slowly and to the right saved his life, but he is still paralyzed from the chest down.

[Toddy]

Thanks for making my point. Politicians, not the public.

And who elects these people? Not to be naive or anything, but somebody votes for these administrations. And of course Reagan was reelected even with the whole Just Say No stuff and the unseemly sight of Mr. T sitting on Nancy's lap in PR campaigns.

Really? Seems to me they are constantly doing things against the will of the people. In all honestly I don't know where to begin. The original Prohibition I guess is a good and relevant starting example.

Prohibition had a huge amount of public support in the lead-up to its imposition. People seem to think that it was just this draconian measure introduced by a small group on the religious fringe, but Prohibition was actually the result of action by grass roots Temperance groups that had wide support at all levels of society. A LOT of Americans thought that liquor was the root of all evil and that crime would pretty much vanish if booze was banned. Whoops. Anyhow, just wanted to say that these things don't happen in a vacuum.

[Toddy]

There's only 11-12 weeks of government until Martin wins the replacement convention in November. Given the fact that this government generally does nothing, and what it does do it doesn't do quickly, I just don't think that's enough time.

Good point, but Crouton's got the reins until February and that should be plenty of time to get this through. He's made enough of a big deal about it lately to make it clear that he considers this part of his legacy, so it's hard to believe that he'd screw this up. Seems like Crouton figures this as one more way to flip the finger at the US, too, judging by the way he's openly referenced the plan in a bunch of recent speeches, knowing that nutcases like Ashcroft and the US drig czar would be paying close attention.

[graller]

Kalle - Have you seen the numbers from the US on drunk driving? They are frightening. I can't speak to France - one European country I have never been to. But I have spent a lot of time in the UK and Germany and can say that my quote is accurate for both of those countries.

[Ben Sones]

However 'pot' isn't the only drug in the 'war against drugs', you REALLY want ectasy (which leads to Parkinson's disease) and acid (which literally dots your brain with tony holes) and all that other good shit to be legal for anyone to possess and easy to get?

Legal for any consenting adult to get and use? Sure.

[Anders Hallin]

Kalle - Have you seen the numbers from the US on drunk driving? They are frightening. I can't speak to France - one European country I have never been to. But I have spent a lot of time in the UK and Germany and can say that my quote is accurate for both of those countries.
I think this is mostly an argument based on the definition of "drunk". From what I understand, there is somewhat a culture in for example France where you drive even if you've had a glass of wine for dinner, while in Sweden very few would consider driving in that condition.
I'm very happy with the 0.2 ‰ allowed alcohol level here.

[voltaic]

I agree that 'Mary Jane' is the least dangerous drug out there, but it is still dangerous.
Name one dangerous side effect of marijuana. Things like "sleepiness" and "the munchies" don't count because while they can lead to dangerous activities, they are not themselves dangerous.

However 'pot' isn't the only drug in the 'war against drugs', you REALLY want ectasy (which leads to Parkinson's disease) and acid (which literally dots your brain with tony holes) and all that other good shit to be legal for anyone to possess and easy to get? 'Lunchables' should start putting a tiny baggie of smack in next to the tiny turkey discs? I'd rather raise my kid in a world where he can't say 'If drugs are so bad why aren't they illegal?'.
Legalizing doesn't mean passing it out... "to the children". Alcohol and tobacco are good analogies. I'd also like to see the research showing ecstasy links to Parkinson's. All I knew up to now was that the only negative side effect of ecstasy is extreme dehydration.

'It's illegal' keeps many, many people off drugs, don't kid yourself that it doesn't, or even try to argue that people would automatically become more mature and responsible if it wasn't.
Where are your numbers? Where is the survey that shows hordes of people who would try drugs if only they were legal?

In fact he was drinking the night he was smashed by another drunk driver who was the speeding and swerving type. His habit of driving slowly and to the right saved his life, but he is still paralyzed from the chest down.
Your uncle is a fuck for driving drunk. My opinion on this crime was stated a few months back on QT3 so no need to go there again.

And who elects these people? Not to be naive or anything, but somebody votes for these administrations. And of course Reagan was reelected even with the whole Just Say No stuff and the unseemly sight of Mr. T sitting on Nancy's lap in PR campaigns.
Except for the religious right, politicians generally get votes on more than one issue. Doesn't mean they represent the will of the whole people on any given issue. Every politician has his party's donations and contributions to think about, after all.

[Captain Cookiepants]

I'm a stupid fag.
Granted. This doesn't change the facts.

Marijuana causes impotence, not sure if you would consider that a harmful side effect or just your regular life but it's still there.
Really how harmful is beer? Well then we can certainly trust them to be responsible then can't we, let's get rid of those Nazi drunk driving laws.
In fact: I trust murderers not to kill again, let's let those poor people out of prison. And I completely trust Captain Hazelwood, let's get him behind the wheel of another tanker. Bah, let's give lovable old Saddam another chance, he swears he can change, he'll keep his promises he swears it. My trust and faith in my fellow man is complete and total, no need for 'laws' to restrain us. Tell you what: as soon as you hand your house and car key to a homeless man and walk away, I'll believe you have that much faith in mankind.

Ectasy: CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/26/health/main523423.shtml) good enough for you? It happens to dogs, mice, rats, monkeys, (if it doesn't kill them within hours) but MAY not happen to humans. It's up in the air because people who want to use ectasy to treat patients, and drug advocates, don't see enough evidence. And neither did France.
But all you knew was dehydration so I guess the scientists can go fuck themselves. Hey, you don't know how a plane stays up in the air, why the fuck are they still flying???
Leave my uncle alone and read a few medical journals before you trot out your degree written in finger paints on the back of a grocery bag.

[Jason McCullough]

I will also add that repressive drug policies, short of all-out banning of drugs, keep a lid on drug abuse. The case in point here is Sweden, where our fierce restriction on alcohol sales from the early 20th century had lowered drinking rates by over 90% in the 1950's from the all-time high in the late 19th century.

Easy access to drugs will mean an increase in drug use. Making them legal provides an outlet for people who want them, and gives society the opportunity to control the flow so that sales can be restricted.

The US had an all-time high in alcohol use in the late 19th century, too; I'm pretty sure it's common to early industrialism. We banned it, changed our minds, and here we are today, where it's not that big of a problem; harm reduction-style legislation has it pretty well under control.

However 'pot' isn't the only drug in the 'war against drugs', you REALLY want ectasy (which leads to Parkinson's disease) and acid (which literally dots your brain with tony holes)

Marijuana causes impotence

Aren't we the MD now. Please, do you believe everything the drug czar tells you?

Do you read your links? A few bits from your "ecstasy causes Parkinson's" one:


"A Johns Hopkins University researcher injected squirrel monkeys and baboons with three shots of Ecstasy, also known as MDMA, three hours apart, mimicking dosages "often used by MDMA users at all-night dance parties." He said the drug caused enduring damage to dopamine-producing neurons in the brains of the animals."

"The damage was still evident two weeks to six weeks later, said Dr. George A. Recaurte, the lead author the study appearing this week in the journal Science. But he said it is not clear if the damaged neurons will repair themselves, a key factor in whether Ecstasy could cause Parkinson's disease."

"But Julie A. Holland, a psychiatrist on the faculty of the New York University School of Medicine, said earlier studies on humans have failed to show that Ecstasy causes permanent damage to dopamine neurons."

[Slothrop]

And one more bit:

"Ricaurte's research has been funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse"

Hmm, do you think they might have an agenda to find Ecstacy harmful?

[Ben Sones]

Marijuana causes impotence, not sure if you would consider that a harmful side effect or just your regular life but it's still there.

Even if this is true, why should the government get to decide whether or not people take this risk? Eating Big Macs makes you fat; would you want Uncle Sam to outlaw hamburgers (for your own good)?

Really how harmful is beer? Well then we can certainly trust them to be responsible then can't we, let's get rid of those Nazi drunk driving laws.
In fact: I trust murderers not to kill again, let's let those poor people out of prison.

These are straw men. Nobody here is advocating an abolition of drunk driving laws or laws against violent crime. In fact, if you wanted to make drunk driving laws analogous to our current drug laws, then you would have to outlaw either alcohol or driving. I would support, on the other hand, laws against driving while high.

Leave my uncle alone and read a few medical journals before you trot out your degree written in finger paints on the back of a grocery bag.

Other people have already pointed out the bits in that article that you missed, so I won't repeat them. I'll add, however, that the US government restricts research on the beneficial uses of drugs, so I tend to be skeptical towards any anti-drug argument that starts with "studies show that..." From the article:

"The NYU psychiatrist said "there is a lot of politics involved" in Ricaurte's study because the government does not want to allow medical research with Ecstasy, even though it has been approved for study by the Food and Drug Administration."

The US government doesn't want to allow research on any Schedule I drugs, probably because that research would show that some of these drugs (like marijuana) are less harmfull than most people think, or that some have potential medical benefits. Can't let the truth cloud the issue, can we?

[Kool Moe Dee]

Can we at least agree on one reason to ban E?





Namely, stupid...fucking...RAVERS!!!!! :evil:

[Captain Cookiepants]

The US government doesn't want to allow research on any Schedule I drugs, probably because that research would show that some of these drugs (like marijuana) are less harmfull than most people think, or that some have potential medical benefits. Can't let the truth cloud the issue, can we?
So random guesses are facts now?

"There hasn't been a single animal that escaped the dopamine (cell) lesions," he said.

Ricaurte said the damage was not enough to cause Parkinson's symptoms, but there is "a clinical concern" that repeated use of Ecstasy will diminish the natural reserve of brain cells and lead to early disease.

EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL. Hell, a year ago ectasy was being hailed as a possible miracle cure to Parkinson's that occasionally caused spastic, uncontrollable muscle movements. If something damages the single most important organ in your body, wouldn't you call that harmful?
Ecstacy deaths have been literally doubling every year since 2000, it's at about 80 a year so far. The only defence is that the ecstacy doesn't kill you: it's a chemical that your body releases as a responce to the drug which speeds your heart up. That's like saying 'Well bullets don't kill people, it's the blood loss and septic release that kills you, therefore guns are harmless.'

[Ben Sones]

So random guesses are facts now?

Not at all. That was speculation. If you can suggest an alternate plausible reason for why the government would do everything in its power to restrict research on these drugs, I'd be happy to discuss it.

If something damages the single most important organ in your body, wouldn't you call that harmful?

Sure. There are two issues here, though. One is what effects these drugs have, both short term and long term. Even the article you linked admits that the full effects are not known (and that the politics of researching the effects of schedule I drugs makes it difficult to gather data), though there is evidence that suggests that the drug may be harmful.

The other issue is whether people should be restricted from using the drug if they choose to do so, harmful or not. On that matter, I think that it should be a matter of personal choice.

That's like saying 'Well bullets don't kill people, it's the blood loss and septic release that kills you, therefore guns are harmless.'

Perhaps. This is an imperfect analogy, however, since drugs cause damage only to the user. If you are implying that people should not be allowed to harm other people by forcing them to take dangerous drugs, then I agree.

[voltaic]

I was going to reply to all of Cookie's points, but I now see that they were so transparent I couldn't jump in quickly enough before a few others pointed out the flaws including the hellacious misrepresentation of the CBS article. And anyone who drives drunk deserves what they get. In closing, I am neither stupid nor a fag, hence I cannot be a stupid fag. Thank you.

[Brian Koontz]

Legal for any consenting adult to get and use? Sure.

I don't want to be in the presence of anyone whose actions are either uncontrolled or will later be disavowed by him by excuse of "I was high at the time".

The point of "drugs only affect the user" is idiotic, unless that user is living on a deserted island.

[Rywill]

How do you feel being around people who are drunk, or angry, or upset, or who have deep religious convictions? Maybe we should outlaw all of thsoe things as well. We certainly wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable.

[voltaic]

I don't want to be in the presence of anyone whose actions are either uncontrolled or will later be disavowed by him by excuse of "I was high at the time".

The point of "drugs only affect the user" is idiotic, unless that user is living on a deserted island.
So you've never been to a bar? How about near an epileptic? Soccer riot at the end of a World Cup victory or in LA after a Lakers three-peat?

[Captain Cookiepants]

I don't want to be in the presence of anyone whose actions are either uncontrolled or will later be disavowed by him by excuse of "I was high at the time".

The point of "drugs only affect the user" is idiotic, unless that user is living on a deserted island.
So you've never been to a bar? How about near an epileptic? Soccer riot at the end of a World Cup victory or in LA after a Lakers three-peat?
So you've never seen a crack baby? How about near an addict who snaps and decides he needs to kill you? Never heard of 'rhoid rage' or a PCP rampage?

[Jason McCullough]

Really dredging the barrel there.

[Don Quixote]

Heh. This thread reminds me of something I read in Warren Ellis' (author of Transmetropolitan etc.) blog (http://www.diepunyhumans.com) last week. This was a letter sent to and printed in the letters column of Marvel Comics' THE PUNISHER back in the 80's.

Dear Editors,

My name is Clifford M.O.A. Mineau. M.O.A. stands for Man of Action — that’s what my friends call me after beating the c**p out of two drug dealers about three years ago. They were giving dope to two 17 year-olds. I’m very Anti-Drug. It was happening in a cemetary in my town. They said, "What the blank do you want"? I said "Your blanken heads you lousy stinken sons of blanked dope dealers." I beat the living c**p out of them. I used Karate and other special skills, and said "get the bleepin’ h**l out of this town — if you come back, you’re dead! As long as I’m living here you’re not going to poison any more kids with your drugs". I also stopped a dope deal in one of your parking lots. You could call me a vigilante but I would just call me someone who cares. I’ve been reading the PUNISHER for about eight years, and I love him. He’s Action Violence, but I wish the writer, Mike Baron, would put more Drug stories in the book. That’s the biggest problem in the U.S.A. but it seems like no one cares anymore. If all our towns would join together to fight we could push out the drug dealers. I’m 23 and never touched drugs. My family is all anti-drug and we lived in a drug infested town (in Massachussettes) for 17 years. I don’t smoke or drink. I collect action-filled comics — Punisher is #1! He’s similar to my favourite action paperback hero the Executioner but you need a little more action. PUNISHER #3 has a car chase — alright — but why did you make those hoods blow up the police? They’re good guys. If you’re going to make a cover, put that part in the book, please.

I’m a sucker for a good explosion. I wrote a book about three times 3 years ago and it still hasn’t been published. It’s called Knife Huntress, Destroyer of Dope Dealers. It’s about five women vigilantes that take on 80,000 dope dealers. All gore and action — I’ve got a copy on tape. If you want to hear it let me know and I’ll send it to you so you can let me know if you want to use it. I heard the PUNISHER might become an action show on TV. I’ve got the perfect actor — Sam Jones, from the HIGHWAYMAN TV series, now cancelled. We need more shows about vigilantes, action heroes etc. to show people how to fight back against drugs and crime. Make the Punisher fight dope dealers for two, maybe three issues and have him shooting the c**p out of a copter and have it crashing into a trailer full of crack sending them both into a deep canyon, turning the drugs into ashes along with the dope dealers and have him saving the kids of that town. You’d be surprised at how many issues you’d sell. Well, thanks for reading my letter.

Clifford M.O.A. Mineau
3 Dora Street
Ware, MA 01802

[Bullhajj]

That's such a riot. Poor bastard is probably on drugs these days.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Really dredging the barrel there.

How so? Please expound. Or shut up. You choice. *thumbs up*

[Rywill]

It’s called Knife Huntress, Destroyer of Dope Dealers. It’s about five women vigilantes that take on 80,000 dope dealers.

That is fucking classic.

Cookie, I guess you missed the point of the earlier posts, so I'll be more blunt (rimshot!)...there are lots of things that make some people act out in bad ways. Some people are mean drunks. Some people commit violence in the name of their religion. Sometimes people get really angry, or get hyped up, at certain kinds of movies, or concerts, or rallies, or whatever. Some people view pornography and then go commit horrible sexual assaults.

That doesn't mean you outlaw those things. You outlaw the bad behavior--no hitting each other, etc.--and you outlaw certain very risky behavior associated with it (no driving drunk). But you don't outlaw drinking, or religion, or music, or pornography, or whatever it is. Because lots of people can use that stuff responsibly and never hurt anyone else because of it. The fact that a few people are irresponsible with it, and might hurt other people because of it, is bad. But not so bad that we should outlaw it for everyone. (Especially since many of those irresponsible people would probably be irresponsible, hurtful people even without the thing you want to outlaw.)

Your best argument, trite as it is, is crack babies. Is that child abuse? I say yes, but I know some people who would argue no. Certainly we let parents do awful, awful things to their children in the name of "let parents raise children however they see fit." So you get kids who are emotionally stunted, mentally twisted, horribly insecure, all kinds of fucked up. That's its own debate.

But if you're going to outlaw drugs because addicts do bad things, or because some drug users get crazy, I don't see why you're okay with stuff like alcohol or gambling or any of the stuff I named above.

[Captain Cookiepants]

But who said I was? Certainly not I.

I'm not for banning things, I'm just against giving people even MORE options as to what to use to hurt people. Yeah, I bet there are plenty of good pot smokers that do it within the confines of their own home and never hurt anyone. But I do not have the capacity to give the benefit of the doubt to humanity.
You really think a cheaper, untaxed, easily available and more effective 'high' is going to help ANYONE? How can it do anything but hurt people? Just answer me that, who will it help? Besides the people in prison for selling it.

Another fundemental difference between alcohol and drugs: most alcohol takes weeks to make. I can whip up a batch of crystal meth in hours. Accidently screw up one ingredient and I have a nice patch of poison ready to sell. Who's gonna buy the taxed and regulated crap when they can whip up their own more effective batch for cheaper and make some money on the side by selling it? All with no potential consequences.
Then there's how much longer the effects last, the possibilities of reacurrance, the many many times larger chance of addiction the permenant side effects blahblahblah.

But you don't want to hear that. All you see is something else 'da man' is keeping away from all the right thinking, intelligent, and down right beautiful people of the United States. Fuck the man and make everything legal. It's our mother fucking RIGHT to kill whomever we want for any reason we want right? God damn murder laws are just another way we are oppressed and kept down, I better go write some more shitty poetry about how my SOUL is like a STORM then check if Hot Topic has my studded collar yet. Legalize it motherfucka'!!!1

[voltaic]

So you've never seen a crack baby? How about near an addict who snaps and decides he needs to kill you? Never heard of 'rhoid rage' or a PCP rampage?
Yes. Hopefully you can explain what any of these have to do with legalizing marijuana, or any drug for that matter. I may as well argue raging alcoholics who beat their families and use medicare to replace their shrivelled livers is a good reason to make alcohol illegal.

You can always pick like the most hardcore eXXXtreme example for anything. Or you can get with the pragmatic program and try to have an intelligent discussion.

I'm not for banning things, I'm just against giving people even MORE options as to what to use to hurt people. Yeah, I bet there are plenty of good pot smokers that do it within the confines of their own home and never hurt anyone. But I do not have the capacity to give the benefit of the doubt to humanity.
But you yourself say there are probably people who do it now that don't hurt anyone. What right or position do you have to legislate the actions of consenting adults in their own home?

You really think a cheaper, untaxed, easily available and more effective 'high' is going to help ANYONE? How can it do anything but hurt people? Just answer me that, who will it help? Besides the people in prison for selling it.
First, the people who would no longer be in prison and convicted felons for using it. Second, who said that instantlya ll drugs would be untaxes and freely available? No drugs today are untaxed and many have requirements to get them, from ID to prescriptions. I'm not saying drugs are good, I'm saying that illegalized drugs are bad.

Another fundemental difference between alcohol and drugs: most alcohol takes weeks to make. I can whip up a batch of crystal meth in hours. Accidently screw up one ingredient and I have a nice patch of poison ready to sell. Who's gonna buy the taxed and regulated crap when they can whip up their own more effective batch for cheaper and make some money on the side by selling it? All with no potential consequences.
Then there's how much longer the effects last, the possibilities of reacurrance, the many many times larger chance of addiction the permenant side effects blahblahblah.
They do it now, what's the change? If none, then there is no harm in making this legal change and reaping all the other benefits. BTW you can "whip up" alcohol at home, there is a large home brewing and moonshining subculture out there. I don't see any relevance for the legalization of drugs just because making crystal is faster.

But you don't want to hear that. All you see is something else 'da man' is keeping away from all the right thinking, intelligent, and down right beautiful people of the United States. Fuck the man and make everything legal. It's our mother fucking RIGHT to kill whomever we want for any reason we want right? God damn murder laws are just another way we are oppressed and kept down, I better go write some more shitty poetry about how my SOUL is like a STORM then check if Hot Topic has my studded collar yet. Legalize it motherfucka'!!!1
Does every single post absolutely shake you to the core of your soul? Why must you take every single FUCKING post on this forum and turn it into a goddamn yelling match? Seriously. Get your emotions under control. Take some fucking vicadin or something.

By the way, the difference is murder generally doesn't occur between consenting adults. But that kind of blows away the hooting and waving and dancing about you were doing just now.

[Captain Cookiepants]

I could 'smoke a joint'!! HAHA! I could 'smoke a joint'!! MY GOD man that was the very ESSENCE of wit! You need to bottle that NOW!! Please, for the sake of the wit of humanity's future you need to save that essense so that future generations can gather around it one day and breathe the air around it in absolute spledor and know that from thgat moment on, their lives can only get worse since the are not breathing the wonderful, and dare I say magical, air around the absolute soul of wit!
Dumbass.

What does a baby born with birth defects due to it's mother's consumption of drugs have to do with the disscussion of drugs? Yeah, you're right, 'my bad' I shouldn't introduce drug talk into the middle of the drug conversation.
Or was it the fact that it was a negative point about drugs you were objecting to?

And if you read my post instead of skimming it lightly while replaying the 'Dave's Not Here Man' sketch inside your head you would have noticed that I in fact pointed out that you CAN make booze in your own house. However, and I'm deeply pissed that I have to repeat myself, I pointed out that drugs, at least synthetic drugs, can be made QUICKER and CHEAPER than alcohol.
This means, and I'm typing slowly for you, that people will NOT pay for the regulated and taxed drugs made by companies. They will make their own; no taxes, no ID or prescription needed, and no consequence of getting caught.
And, because these things are full of several toxic ingredience in careful measurements, the slightest screw up will result in many accidental poisonings. Of course since you have so much faith in humanity I should add that maybe no one will be poisoned at all and we'll all live in a yellow submarine with Lucy in the sky with a fuckload of diamonds and singing fish. La lala la lalalalala.

They do it now, what's the change? If none, then there is no harm in making this legal change and reaping all the other benefits.
WHAT FUCKING BENEFITS????
I'll add 'besides the ones who sold it (OR GOT CAUGHT WITH IT)' Adding those five words just got rid of ALL your 'benefits' from legalizing drugs.
And might I add that only YOU think that a greater number of drug addicts on the street is a good thing? I think I will.

But you yourself say there are probably people who do it now that don't hurt anyone. What right or position do you have to legislate the actions of consenting adults in their own home?
None. But you REALLY trust people to keep it in the home? Would most people even know what their homes looked like during the 15 to 20 hours they high? Yes, we need more people to be so confused and disoirented that they smash every lightbulb in the house because the ghost of an ex girlfriend is haunting their light fixtures. Bravo for that.
You really do trust your fellow man that much hmm? Well next time you go out I want you to hand your keys to a homeless man and ask him to watch your car for you while you're busy. I suggested this to someone else but I don't think they did it.
Or do you admit you wouldn't trust a stranger, YOUR FELLOW MAN, with your expensive property, but you'd trust that same man to have all the drugs he can afford and wander the streets in your neighborhood?

Edit for your edit: I wasn't comparing 'murder' to 'drugs' except in the sense that there are laws against both, meaning that they are both things 'da man' has taken away from us. Though that was obvious to even the slowest tree sloth.

[Rywill]

Correct me if I'm reading it wrong, but your arguments boil down to this:

1) Drugs should be illegal because legalizing them doesn't benefit anyone except users and pushers.

I pretty much agree about who it helps, but I don't see your point. In my view, government shouldn't hurt somebody (such as by putting them in jail) unless they're doing something bad to someone else. Users and pushers aren't, so why put them in jail? For example, legalizing alcohol, caffeine, movies, books, concerts, and religion doesn't help anyone except the practicioners and the suppliers. Should those all be illegal? I'm assuming you would say "no." So what's the difference between those and drugs? It's like, in your world, the only thing you can legally do is work on the cure for cancer.


2) Women who use drugs while pregnant hurt their babies.

Again, I agree. So do women who smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee. Should coffee be illegal to everyone just because pregnant women might drink it and hurt their babies? Should Rogaine be illegal? It causes horrible birth defects if a woman takes it while pregnant. Even touching a broken Rogaine pill can harm a pregnancy.


3) People making drugs might screw it up and poison people.

I'm sure this is technically true, but it's hardly a big problem. Even today, when drugs are illegal and the government doesn't regulate their manufacture at all, and manufacturers are generally forced underground, drug manufacture is nearly flawless. It's fairly rare, statistically, for someone to die or be hurt from bad dope. In other words, I don't think it's any more likely that closet drug-makers will make bad drugs than it is that home beer-brewers make poisonous beer, or home cooks serve poisonous food (e.g., undercooked chicken). You wouldn't outlaw cooking, so why outlaw drugs?


4) People would home-make drugs to avoid taxes.

First off, nobody knows what the taxes would be, so I don't think you can say this. Even if the taxes were high, though, I doubt this is true. Cigarette taxes are high, and untaxed cigarettes, while a problem, are certainly no epidemic. In any case, the black market for drugs couldn't possibly be higher than 100%, which is what it is now, so I don't see how this is an argument to keep them illegal.


5) Drugs can be home-made quicker and cheaper than alcohol.

I don't understand the point of this argument at all. Maybe it's just supposed to be support for #s 3-4 above. But on its own, I think to myself, "So what?"


6) People let their houses get dirty and fucked up while they're high.

So? I let my house get dirty and fucked up because I'm lazy and work a lot. You want to outlaw laziness? Isn't it the person's own business what they want to keep their house like?


7) I don't trust my fellow man.

I'm not asking you to. I don't want you to give your high neighbor the keys to your car and ask him to watch it for you; I just want you to keep your nose out of HIS business.


8 ) Legal drugs give people more ways to do hurtful things.

So do legal guns, legal alcohol, legal movies, legal concerts, legal religion, legal caffeine, legal sports, legal lots of stuff. So? You don't outlaw stuff because it might be misused. You outlaw stuff when its only purpose, or primary purpose, is to hurt others.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Correct me if I'm reading it wrong, but your arguments boil down to this:

1) Drugs should be illegal because legalizing them doesn't benefit anyone except users and pushers.

So why is drunk driving illegal? Why can they arrest people who are just driving while intoxicated? Shouldn't they follow them home and only arrest them if they hurt someone? And why are fully automatic weapons illegal? They haven't used the guns. Wait till AFTER they kill someone to arrest them you fascists.


2) Women who use drugs while pregnant hurt their babies.

Blahblah. Someone said that drugs ONLY hurt the one who uses and I gave some examples of when they hurt others. You focus on this one reason. I gave TWO others, where are those. (I'm putting my hand over my eyes and comically looking left and right)
I didn't even mention that some of these are date rape drugs. Yeah, I want more of those available.

3) People making drugs might screw it up and poison people.

And 'statistically' donkeys kill more people a year then plane crashes, so why can't you buy donkey insurance?
As the number of O.D.'s and poisonings increase every year, doubling in some cases, you're just gonna keep up your argument until it kills enough people? May the rest of your world see your imaginary 'this is enough death' chart? We need to know what things are bad.


4) People would home-make drugs to avoid taxes.

But tobbacco isn't readily available in every store is it? Name me the closest place to buy tobbaco, not in the chewing type, near your house.
Now name the closest book of matches or pharmacy. So which one is closer? Do a quick search on the internet and you can find hundreds of crystal meth and other synthetic drug recieps. Why? Because they are CHEAP, they are EASY and they can be MODIFIED in anyway you like to give you a better high.

5) Drugs can be home-made quicker and cheaper than alcohol.

Meaning that everyone who wants to can whip up a batch, putting whatever they want into it, and then sell it. Even you have to agree that ZERO taxes is less than whatever tax the government would put on it . Meaning you can buy lower quality mild altering substances for cheaper. Which do you think the addict would go for: the advertised lower costing, longer lasting, better high of their neighbors, or the privitized stuff?
And all you have to do is look at beer to tell you the difference in quality; privately made stuff is always stronger than a company's stuff.


6) People let their houses get dirty and fucked up while they're high.

Blahblah. I said NOTHING of the sort, all I said was that you can't trust people to stay in their own house and out of society when high.
One of the arguments was that everyone would be law abiding citizens and gladly stay in their own house at all times so as to not endanger anyone else. I'm pointing out that they don't even know where the hell they are let alone being able to remember that they need to be responsible adults and stay inside.

7) I don't trust my fellow man.

And nevermind that my neighbor is 500 times more likely to set his house on fire to kill the demon birds in his chimney and burn my house down in the process? Or that he'll decide to drive to work at 2am and straight into the house down the block? I don't want to give people the legal option to hurt people.

8 ) Legal drugs give people more ways to do hurtful things.

Legal drugs increase the chance that people will hurt others, if you think it's fine to hand out loaded guns they more power to you.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not for banning things, I'm just against giving people even MORE options as to what to use to hurt people.

I'm not for killing people, I'm just not for letting them live.

[Ben Sones]

I'm not for killing people, I'm just not for letting them live.

Finally, something we can all agree on. ;)

[Rywill]

Super-hilarity: I was sitting here starting to compose a response saying "Look, if people want to be idiots and waste their lives, that's their business," and then it occurred to me that I'm spending hours of my life debating the merits of legalizing drugs. With someone named Captain Cookiepants.

Let's just agree to disagree, huh?

[Brian Koontz]

I don't want to be in the presence of anyone whose actions are either uncontrolled or will later be disavowed by him by excuse of "I was high at the time".

The point of "drugs only affect the user" is idiotic, unless that user is living on a deserted island.
So you've never been to a bar? How about near an epileptic? Soccer riot at the end of a World Cup victory or in LA after a Lakers three-peat?

Bar: Occasionally. I don't drink much though even there and I'm pretty cautious about my surroundings. I prefer to talk to people when they are in a better condition to do the same (thus not in bars). Its unfair for me to talk to someone when they are addled and I'm not, and I have no interest in becoming drunk myself.

Bars as a social outlet are for people who don't have a better one.

Epileptic: I consider the danger level here to be quite low (epileptics are more a danger to themselves).

Soccer riot: I avoid soccer riots.

LA after a Lakers three-peat: Back in my youth I might have been enough of a fan of sports to engage in something like this under the right circumstances, although the occasion never arose. I celebrated sports victories with friends and family. Nowadays I celebrate other things, and I never express that celebration by destroying cars and damaging businesses. Currently any sort of "LA after a Lakers three-peat" would also be avoided.

[voltaic]

No offense to the anti-legalization side here, but I'm with Rywill. The arguments against legalization are so befouled with emotion (and on this forum VOLUME!!11!) that it's pointless to even bring it up.

Some people believe that keeping drugs illegal will eventually work to some good ends, although it hasn't in 60+ years done any good yet. Some people equate legalizing drugs with handing loaded weapons to "the children" while ignoring the host of much better examples currently available (alcohol, tobacco, legal precription drugs, etc). Some people believe that it is better to spend money and time and resources prosecuting the heinous crime of self-debasement rather than spending the money on anything else.

Conservatives want out of your wallet but into your home, liberals want out of your home but into your wallet. Can't we just leave each other a little bit the fuck alone?

By the way Cookie, your last three or so posts in this thread seem to indicate a blown gasket. You should have that checked before your head gets much hotter. I mean I can honestly see you popping blood vessels in your head just because you think that by yelling all of a sudden we shall all agree. It doesn't appear to work so you may bring your blood pressure down a notch by calming the hell down.

And personal attacks got old in junior high school, thanks.

[Bullhajj]

Super-hilarity: I was sitting here starting to compose a response saying "Look, if people want to be idiots and waste their lives, that's their business," and then it occurred to me that I'm spending hours of my life debating the merits of legalizing drugs. With someone named Captain Cookiepants.

Ah, hahahahahahaha

[voltaic]

Ectasy: CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/26/health/main523423.shtml) good enough for you? It happens to dogs, mice, rats, monkeys, (if it doesn't kill them within hours) but MAY not happen to humans. It's up in the air because people who want to use ectasy to treat patients, and drug advocates, don't see enough evidence.
'Killer' Ecstasy claim was false.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3089350.stm

"Research suggesting just one Ecstasy tablet could harm humans was based on a laboratory mistake, it has been revealed. [...] Experts have expressed amazement as to how the flawed research ever managed to get published in such a well-respected publication."

Oops.

[Machfive]

Giving Amphetamines instead of Ecstacy isn't a "mistake," it's a goddamned fuck-up of mammoth proportions. Either this was willful disregard of the scientific method and this reasearcher wanted his results to fit a certain agenda, or he's utterly incompetant and deserves to spend the rest of his life cleaning the shit outta the white mices' cages.

Idiots.

And Captain Cookiepants, you've got some severely messed up priorities.

If you're concerned about babies getting messed up in the womb, and people getting hit by people driving under the influence of a drug, then rally against alcohol. Because prohibition worked once, right, so let's try it again!

Guns, drugs, sex, gambling - Oh my. Legalize it all or make it all illegal. I'm sick of this pansy-ass halfway bullshit.

Either you're a libertarian or an authoritarian. Which are you?

[XPav]

Either you're a libertarian or an authoritarian. Which are you?

He's banned, thats what he is.

[Machfive]

Well, that was addressed primarily at him, but also at anyone else who has bought into the War on Some Drugs.

One can't make an argument against drugs that cannot be applied to alcohol or numerous other legal drugs. So either alcohol should be illegal alongside the drug you're arguing against, or the drug should be legal alongside alcohol.

It's rather simple math. If A = B, and B = C, A = C.

[voltaic]

Yeah Machfive, dude, calm down. Have some dip. The Captain is no longer with us. I was simply following up this thread where that study was mentioned with this new report on it. In fact, you going absolutely APESHIT BALLISTIC in reply like that vaguely rings of his style.

Cool. Calm. Ocean waves. Palm fronds. Gentle breeze. Chill.......

[Machfive]

I dunno, that felt pretty calm to me.

Ah well.

SERENITY NOW!

[bago]

ectasy (which leads to Parkinson's disease) and acid (which literally dots your brain with tony holes)


Yeah, I was going to link the NYT article about the MDMA / d-Methamphetamine mixup, but someone beat me to it. Of course anyone who had read the original data would immediately know it was suspect because 20% of the test subjects died from overheating. If 'E' killed 20% of its users on a single dose, it wouldn't exactly be a drug of choice.

As for the "Tony holes"(assuming he meant tiny), it's another one of those common misperceptions abou the way drugs work. (LSD makes your brain bleed man!). Seeing as how it is a tryptamine (eg similar to tryptaphan, a neurotransmitter), it sets off a chain reaction of "false" neurochemical impulses back and forth by being uptaken as a tryptamine. It's also a water soluble crystal, so you aren't going to have it building up in your spinal fluid.

The greatest danger of tryptamines is possible interruption of somatic neural pathways, meaning the automatic part of the nervous system. (heart, breathing, etc.). However your body is quite good at defending those neural pathways from attack, and this usually requires insane doses of the more popular tryptamines to start.

[quatoria]

Ressurecting this thread and re-reading it makes me realize that I don't miss the good Captain in the slightest.