REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Let's End Drug Prohibition!

POSTED BY: CREVANREAVER
UPDATED: Monday, December 8, 2008 14:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4127
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, December 5, 2008 7:34 AM

CREVANREAVER


Today (December 5, 2008) is the 75th anniversary the 21st Amendment was passed, thereby ending alcohol prohibition.

Ethan Nadelmann over at the Wall Street Journal makes the case that today is a day that the American people should be thinking about ending the socialist drug prohibition.

Quote:

It's already shaping up as a day of celebration, with parties planned, bars prepping for recession-defying rounds of drinks, and newspapers set to publish cocktail recipes concocted especially for the day.

But let's hope it also serves as a day of reflection. We should consider why our forebears rejoiced at the relegalization of a powerful drug long associated with bountiful pleasure and pain, and consider too the lessons for our time.

The Americans who voted in 1933 to repeal prohibition differed greatly in their reasons for overturning the system. But almost all agreed that the evils of failed suppression far outweighed the evils of alcohol consumption.

The change from just 15 years earlier, when most Americans saw alcohol as the root of the problem and voted to ban it, was dramatic. Prohibition's failure to create an Alcohol Free Society sank in quickly. Booze flowed as readily as before, but now it was illicit, filling criminal coffers at taxpayer expense.

Some opponents of prohibition pointed to Al Capone and increasing crime, violence and corruption. Others were troubled by the labeling of tens of millions of Americans as criminals, overflowing prisons, and the consequent broadening of disrespect for the law. Americans were disquieted by dangerous expansions of federal police powers, encroachments on individual liberties, increasing government expenditure devoted to enforcing the prohibition laws, and the billions in forgone tax revenues. And still others were disturbed by the specter of so many citizens blinded, paralyzed and killed by poisonous moonshine and industrial alcohol.

Supporters of prohibition blamed the consumers, and some went so far as to argue that those who violated the laws deserved whatever ills befell them. But by 1933, most Americans blamed prohibition itself.

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.

Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

And look abroad. At Afghanistan, where a third or more of the national economy is both beneficiary and victim of the failed global drug prohibition regime. At Mexico, which makes Chicago under Al Capone look like a day in the park. And elsewhere in Latin America, where prohibition-related crime, violence and corruption undermine civil authority and public safety, and mindless drug eradication campaigns wreak environmental havoc.

All this, and much more, are the consequences not of drugs per se but of prohibitionist policies that have failed for too long and that can never succeed in an open society, given the lessons of history. Perhaps a totalitarian American could do better, but at what cost to our most fundamental values?

Why did our forebears wise up so quickly while Americans today still struggle with sorting out the consequences of drug misuse from those of drug prohibition?

It's not because alcohol is any less dangerous than the drugs that are banned today. Marijuana, by comparison, is relatively harmless: little association with violent behavior, no chance of dying from an overdose, and not nearly as dangerous as alcohol if one misuses it or becomes addicted. Most of heroin's dangers are more a consequence of its prohibition than the drug's distinctive properties. That's why 70% of Swiss voters approved a referendum this past weekend endorsing the government's provision of pharmaceutical heroin to addicts who could not quit their addictions by other means. It is also why a growing number of other countries, including Canada, are doing likewise.

Yes, the speedy drugs -- cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit stimulants -- present more of a problem. But not to the extent that their prohibition is justifiable while alcohol's is not. The real difference is that alcohol is the devil we know, while these others are the devils we don't. Most Americans in 1933 could recall a time before prohibition, which tempered their fears. But few Americans now can recall the decades when the illicit drugs of today were sold and consumed legally. If they could, a post-prohibition future might prove less alarming.

But there's nothing like a depression, or maybe even a full-blown recession, to make taxpayers question the price of their prejudices. That's what ultimately hastened prohibition's repeal, and it's why we're sure to see a more vigorous debate than ever before about ending marijuana prohibition, rolling back other drug war excesses, and even contemplating far-reaching alternatives to drug prohibition.

Perhaps the greatest reassurance for those who quake at the prospect of repealing contemporary drug prohibitions can be found in the era of prohibition outside of America. Other nations, including Britain, Australia and the Netherlands, were equally concerned with the problems of drink and eager for solutions. However, most opted against prohibition and for strict controls that kept alcohol legal but restricted its availability, taxed it heavily, and otherwise discouraged its use. The results included ample revenues for government coffers, criminals frustrated by the lack of easy profits, and declines in the consumption and misuse of alcohol that compared favorably with trends in the United States.

Is President-elect Barack Obama going to commemorate Repeal Day today? I'm not holding my breath. Nor do I expect him to do much to reform the nation's drug laws apart from making good on a few of the commitments he made during the campaign: repealing the harshest drug sentences, removing federal bans on funding needle-exchange programs to reduce AIDS, giving medical marijuana a fair chance to prove itself, and supporting treatment alternatives for low-level drug offenders.

But there's one more thing he can do: Promote vigorous and informed debate in this domain as in all others. The worst prohibition, after all, is a prohibition on thinking.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122843683581681375-email.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 8:11 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


I'd be happy to see a change in drug policy.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 8:26 AM

STORYMARK


Me, too. I don't know that across the board decriminalization is nessesarily the best route, but the current system does not work. There has to be a better middle ground.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:45 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM



Quote:

Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
.......Marijuana, by comparison, is relatively harmless: little association with violent behavior, no chance of dying from an overdose, and not nearly as dangerous as alcohol if one misuses it or becomes addicted.



As a long time member of MPP (Marijuana Policy Project) http://www.mpp.org/ - I agree that we need to re-evaluate the archaic laws pertaining to the prohibition of this harmless plant.. (it is just a plant, you know...)

a video from MPP here:
http://tv.mpp.org/news/prohibition-still-doesnt-work/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:57 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM



...in a related story, medical marijuana is now legal in Michigan.. sorta kind of......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/04/medical-marijuana-now-leg_n_1
48583.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 9:59 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


I only have one thing to say:

REPEAL DRUG LAWS TODAY

The greatest model for drug management is in the netherlands. For drugs like pot or shrooms, head shops abound. It's like Vince said in Pulp Fiction:

"They don't want you to to roll up a joint on the street and start puffing away, you have to do it in certain designated places"

Why does this not happen in the USA, a nation founded on liberty? For gods sake, our own president-elect admitted to doing lines of coke as a teen. Conservative operatives actually found the hot dog stand in Hawaii where he made his purchases. Does he seem craked-out out to you? Answer: No. Did the american people even care? Answer: No.

The best solution is this.
Step 1. Repeal all federal drug laws, this will then allow states to determine for themselves what they want.
Step 2. On the state level, campaign to allow certain processes for certain drugs. Pot and shooms should be available in designated places away from children. An age limit for purchase should be established. Allow citizens to pursue freedom in either these places or in the privacy of their homes.
Step 3. For harder destructive drugs, the netherlands handles things with certain places (like parks) where drug use of hard drugs is legal ONLY there. This keeps addicts coralled. Strict enforcement of prohabition of hard drugs occurs outside these places to protect a society that wants to exist away from it. Hard destructive drugs are heroin, crack, meth, ect.
Step 4. Provide free education to schoolchildren about the dangers of drugs. Also provide free rehab to anyone serious who wants to clean up.

Some states will make drugs legal. Cali, vermont, and flordia come to mind. Others will never do this, like Oklahoma. This is just fine.

Anyone disagree?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 10:07 AM

STORYMARK


Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 11:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Never understood why folk feel the need to misuse the legal system as a venue to try and force their morality on everyone else.

Don't care for that, never have.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 11:48 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Or just treat drugs the same way alchohol is treated. 21 and over...you are responsible for your behavior..

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 12:05 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or just treat drugs the same way alchohol is treated. 21 and over...you are responsible for your behavior..



Yes and you can take it further. Just like getting popped for a DUI, driving high should have consequences. Some people can drive stoned, some can't. If you choose to partake and then go out into society and do something stupid, that's your fault. This already exists today for public intox. If you get picked up drunk, you dry out in a holding cell. Same should hold true for drugs.

Just like bars exist, so should legal head shops. They can operate just like cigar shops, where people:
1. Choose to enter
2. Choose to purchase something
3. Choose to sometimes smoke there if available, or take something home, or both.

And just like a bar, if you can't handle your smoke, get a designated driver.

I also take things further with booze, some people disagree with me. I think the legal age to drink should be 19. I just watched a Dateline about this. College campuses are awash with booze and the 21 age limit is today serving as a quasi-prohibition all by itself...with it's own verson of negative consequences. I drank underage at Purdue and turned out fine. The legal age should be 19 because I don't think it's wise to allow HS kids access. College however is just simply uncontrollable. I also don't have a problem with anyone drinking that has a valid military ID, since its a part of that culture. So the result on booze for me is "19 or valid military ID, or both"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 12:26 PM

STORYMARK


I would resist lowering the drinking age (or a hypothetical "drug age", for lack of a better term) below 21, simply because the brain, in most people, isn't done developing untill that age.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 12:47 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
I would resist lowering the drinking age (or a hypothetical "drug age", for lack of a better term) below 21, simply because the brain, in most people, isn't done developing untill that age.


And indeed that has been a valid arguement debating the converse. I know that within the last 2 years, science has shown that the human brain finishes it's development at 25. Wow 25? It's nevertheless true. The final thing to develop is the human brain's ability to assess risk. And that indeed plays right into the dangers of underage drinking.

So the debate continues on. I see both sides of this one and tenatavely fall to the side of lowering the age limit. I feel this way because of the proven ill's of the quasi-prohibition on campuses coupled with the drinking laws of european countries, like Germany, where kids as young as 14 can get served and society gets along fine. They also get to drive as fast as they want on rural stretches of the autobahn. I lived there for a summer at age 16 and well remember how things were just generally, "cooler" than here in the good-ole USA.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 5, 2008 12:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I saw this becasue of the proven ill's of the quasi-prohibition on campuses coupled with the drinking laws of european countries, like Germany, where kids as young as 14 can get served and society gets along fine."

It's a myth. The US, France and Germany define 'alcoholism' differently. When you look at actual time lost from work, alcohol-induced liver disease and other quantifiable items, indeed, countries with a more 'liberal' attitude to alcohol show more negative affects.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 6, 2008 2:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


This is weird - I would have thought that having legalized prostitution and legally tolerating low-level drug use and sales, there would be no organized crime involved. I wish they had explained it more:

Amsterdam to clamp down on sex shops, brothels, dope cafes

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) -- Amsterdam unveiled plans Saturday to close brothels, sex shops and marijuana cafes in its ancient city center as part of a major effort to drive organized crime out of the tourist haven.

The city is targeting businesses that "generate criminality," including gambling parlors, and the "coffee shops" where marijuana is sold openly. Also targeted are peep shows, massage parlors and souvenir shops used by drug dealers for money-laundering.

"I think that the new reality will be more in line with our image as a tolerant and crazy place, rather than a free zone for criminals," said Lodewijk Asscher, a city council member and one of the main proponents of the plan.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 6, 2008 7:28 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Untill very recently I was a Substance Abuse Counselor at a local SA Rehab facility. We need to legalize all drugs, here is why.

Heroine, the illegal foreign import is dirty as hell, and clean heroine would never kill anyone unless there is an OD. Dirty heroin will cause all manner of lethal and non lethal problems. Plus we should all buy American.

Meth, Nobody knows what Mexican meth is made of. Technically it's usually not meth, but it is always corrosive and toxic to the human body.

Does anyone even do Coke still? Nobody presented to me as a coke addict in 7 years.

Ganj, It's one of the world's most harmless drug and should be part of every Doctor's bag of tricks.

Besides, the drugs arent't the problem. The 10% of the population that are genetically predisposed to addiction are going to find gambling, sex, drugs, internet, porn, or something else to get thier kicks on if we take away drugs completely. That 10% is going to be addictive. So the argument that legalizing will increase drug use based on increased availablity is poopoo. People will still become addicts in about the same amount. People will still spend the family paycheck in the same amount, etc....just fewer people will suffer and die from bad dope and a few nasty drug warlord fuckers who export bad dope will be put out of business.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 6, 2008 7:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


As an added plus, it might just stimulate our economy! A pot plant in every pot, and a meth lab on every block!

I'm only partly joking.




Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 7, 2008 6:30 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


"Good News! I got a job at Dope Depot!"

Just to be devil's advocate for a few...

- Do we really want to be the Netherlands? People coming to this country because we have little or no drug laws?

- Assuming America can handle another temptation seems like pure fantasy, or maybe wishful thinking. We can barely handle SNACKING. We tend to do everything to excess, tvs, cars, meals are biggie-sized, why would drugs/addiciton be any different?

- as to your last post Rue - drug/crime distribution channels are in place now and they aren't going to just go away and give up that revenue stream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 7, 2008 7:26 AM

OZZYSUN


LEGALIZE DRUGS NOW....STOP THE RECESSION.

Really, if you legalized drugs, and then taxed the hell out of them, this country would be debt free in a year.
The drug war would be done, why would you deal with a shady character to score a quarter of pot you hope isn't laced with something when you can go down to walgreens and score some Maryjane and a big ass bag of chips in a one stop shopping moment.
I mean to have alcohal legal and pot illegal is just stupid. Have you ever seen a pissed off stoned person, I sure haven't. Drink too much....you DIE!!!Smoke too much Ganja...you go to sleep. Drink too much..you get 10 ft tall and bulletproof, Smoke too much..well dunken donuts better start the friers now.
I smoked pot for many years and had to quit it due to a job, never once have I been like..Man I have to HAVE a joint now!!
Really its amazing that in the land of the free if a plant grows in your backyard your going to jail.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 7, 2008 7:41 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
I would resist lowering the drinking age (or a hypothetical "drug age", for lack of a better term) below 21, simply because the brain, in most people, isn't done developing untill that age.


The legal drinking/drug age should be whatever the age required to be able to die for your country in wars is, effin' PERIOD.


The final word Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 7, 2008 7:52 AM

OZZYSUN


Your old enough to take a bullet for your country, but god forbid you drink before your 21. The height of hyproscy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 7, 2008 8:02 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Ozzysun:
You're old enough to take a bullet for your country, but god forbid you drink before your 21. The height of hypocrisy.

You will be issued a firearm, and expected to be responsible enough to decide who to shoot, while not getting killed your own self- but no Bud Light for YOU!




The not-laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 7, 2008 9:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I can top that.

I got in on a program, since ended, that allowed me to nail BASIC during my summer vacation at the age of sixteen.

The manager at the Hardees where I worked thought it patently ridiculous that the same kid the US Army trusted to operate the M60 machinegun, Claymore Mines, 40mm Grenade Launchers and M72A2 LAW Antitank rockets, not to mention assault rifles...

Was by virtue of age not trusted or allowed to operate the beef slicer.
"Oh dammit, will *someone* set up a hot ham&cheese, only one back there right now is the kid!"

I did know a couple places that would serve me a beer or two if I flashed my army ID, despite *knowing* I was well underage, cause they felt the same way about the whole idea.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:49 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I did know a couple places that would serve me a beer or two if I flashed my army ID, despite *knowing* I was well underage, cause they felt the same way about the whole idea.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. Great example Frem. "19 or valid military ID." Keep it out of the high schools, don't limit the Colleges, and let the soldiers do as they please. Also, Frem could perhaps add something here, on most bases I've been on enlisted clubs will serve any soldier, no ID requested. But only on base.

Beyond that, I do not know why in the freaking world ganj is illegal in the USA. It's so GD stupid. I watched the history channel do a piece about it and the depression era reasons for making it criminal are so retarded, you actually laugh to hear them. Propagandists in the south convinced white people that if ganj was left accessable then minorities would rape their white women. HUH? And then feds of the day got ahold of the issue and turned out a slew of propengda films, the most famous of which is the 1936 film 'Reefer Madness'. Users are shown as going crazy, jumping out windows, violently attacking each other and generally acting like lunitics. They make the Joker from Dark Knight look sane.

Looking back at it now, everyone sees the obvious ldiocy of it, but nothing changes because nobody living remembers a day when these things were legal. So we keep living under the same stupid system where prisons fill with minor drug offenders and states spends gobs of $$$ flying around looking for pot fields.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"LEGALIZE DRUGS NOW....STOP THE RECESSION.
Really, if you legalized drugs, and then taxed the hell out of them, this country would be debt free in a year."

You DO know about people going to reservations to stock up on tax-free cigarettes --- right ? Unless you are SO addicted you really don't care (there are levels of drug dependence) most people will try to find the cheapest source. That would lead to a division between the legal taxed-to-hell versions and the illegal tax-free versions. And you would once again end up with illegal drugs, and the illegal drug trade; just like with cigarettes and reservations.

As for military service V legal drinking/ tobacco/ porn/ simulated violence age - I don't recommend combat duty for people under 21 (optimally) as well. Youth is considered one of the prime risk factors for doing combat duty and coming back ... not normal. I wouldn't recommend several other jobs for those under 21 either: police duty, EMT work, or other jobs where you routinely deal with people in severe pain and the dying, with threat and/ or violence. It changes you. Of course, some people can do that kind of thing and come out normal, after all, look at me. (he he he he he)

This is not to say I think drugs should be illegal. I just don't think they should be a for-profit business. Because when you remove the 'illegal' aspect of drugs all you are doing is changing vendors. (Or in the case of the Netherlands, not.) There is STILL just as much incentive to advertise, glamorize and otherwise 'push' the use of drugs, knowing that you will have a guaranteed addicted client base --- if you can just get them addicted to your brand of poison first.

I think drugs should be prescribed by doctors and those prescriptions filled with non-descript products out of non-descript dispensaries.


Anyway, this is what I have time for today.

Later, all !



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:34 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Not saying one is worse than the other but with such a descision there would definately need to be some very, VERY astringent laws set up just like the ones in place for alcohol and bigger penalties for committing crimes while under the influence.

I hope everyone considers the underage factor to be more than just a legal age for a person to be capable of using drugs. With the underage drinking rate (of people below the age of 18) how can anyone consider legalizing any illicit drug.

Pot is a drug. It alters a persons mind, body, or emotion. I do like the argument that many people with addictive personalities use different drugs. But after working with teens for almost a decade it is second nature to be able to point out the kids who use, what they use, and how often. Even the kids that use a "less dangerous" substance like marijuanna. I can't completely accept it as an acceptable legal substance for the US. I will say that I've never seen a healthy person under the influence of pot intentionally hurt someone (unless they were drinking while smoking). But I have seen them more agitated and near violence when they had nothing to smoke (moreso than a tobacco smoker). I have seen motivation and physical/mental conditiong go to shit after long term useage in many people. And I have seen people incapable of holding jobs after long term usage. It is not mom and dads pot anymore. It is no longer natural (yeah, I've seen a growth operation or two). And lastly, the US is already outsourcing jobs like a bitch. Not to say that we'd become lazier and less motivated as a culture. But with more users (just like non-working alcoholics) comes more people less willing to work. Is anyone ready to take that chance?

Good points to legalization: People involved in the illicit drug trade will be subject to prosecution for tax evasion and defrauding the government. Posession penatlies will drop through the floor freeing up federal money for other prevention and juvenile funds. And tax revenue from sales would help states with a little more change in their pocket (look up the tax revunue for tobacco sales).

Meh, It really couldn't be that bad. But the risk seems to big for the US at this point. Maybe another twenty years and we might mature enough to accept some other form of legalized drug.

ADD: Energy drinks. Has anyone brought them up yet. I see kids walking around with them. Some of them get insanely agitated without them. They can purchase energy drinks but not the energy pills behind the counter or at the gas station. I think we need to look at that before any other drug.

ADD 2: Thanks Rue for the Reservation thing. Gonna be asking questions about the tax mine charges and where it goes. They all still have the tax stamp on the bottom of the pack. So what is my government doing with NV State government money?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 12:59 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ozzysun:
You're old enough to take a bullet for your country, but god forbid you drink before your 21. The height of hypocrisy.

You will be issued a firearm, and expected to be responsible enough to decide who to shoot, while not getting killed your own self- but no Bud Light for YOU!




The not-laughing Chrisisall



I'll still stick with the 21 drinking age. I just don't think you should be mussin with the brain untill it's done cooking.

If you want to bump the enrollment age back to 21, I'd be cool with that.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:02 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:


You DO know about people going to reservations to stock up on tax-free cigarettes --- right ? Unless you are SO addicted you really don't care (there are levels of drug dependence) most people will try to find the cheapest source. That would lead to a division between the legal taxed-to-hell versions and the illegal tax-free versions. And you would once again end up with illegal drugs, and the illegal drug trade; just like with cigarettes and reservations.



There might be some of that, but I hardly think it'd be a widespread phenomenon.

Hell, I smoke, and I live right next to a huge reservation. I am not going to bother driving out to the rez when I can skip around the corner to the 7/11, even if it would save me a bit of money.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:04 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by nvghostrider:


I hope everyone considers the underage factor to be more than just a legal age for a person to be capable of using drugs. With the underage drinking rate (of people below the age of 18) how can anyone consider legalizing any illicit drug.



It's generally easier for kids to gets drugs than alcohol. Legalizing it may well drop the availablity of it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:06 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

If you want to bump the enrollment age back to 21, I'd be cool with that.


That's where I was going with that one, yeah.


The D'Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 1:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"There might be some of that, but I hardly think it'd be a widespread phenomenon."

Bloomberg sues to curb Indian reservation tax-free cigarette sales
by The Star-Ledger Continuous News Desk Tuesday September 30, 2008, 5:24 AM

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg filed suit Monday against eight Indian reservation shops for selling tax-free cigarette to outsiders, according to a report in the New York Daily News.

The report said he plans to ask a Manhattan federal judge this week to halt all cigarette sales at the stores on Long Island's Poospatuck Indian Reservation until the illegal sales stop. Under state and federal laws, only tribe members connected to the Poospatuck reservation can buy tax-free cigarettes there, but bootleggers are buying millions of the $31 cartons to sell to smokers who would otherwise pay $70 for a legally taxed carton in the city.



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 8, 2008 2:31 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Generally. But as I have said in other threads, that is the rule with some places. There are bigger social issues other than the actual use of the substance.

Besides, everyone seems so bent on comparing us to "civilized" European nations, do we really want to completely fulfill the stereotype of all Americans being alcoholic drug addicts more interested in poppin' caps and slappin' bitches than being productive members of the world trying to stop the natural progression of global warming while bowing down to those who would decapitate us rather than live in harmony with their neighbor?

What a run on huh?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL