Legalize drugs?
- Thread starter Betty
- Start date
Less crime with booze than with drugs
I still say that there is less crime with ;egal booze than with illegal drugs. Yes some people made moonshine and blinded people, people dumb enough to buy moonshine when there is safe legal booze to drink. No it will not make a perfect world, but the war on drugs is harder on society than the drug users. Why should we suffer trying to protect them from themselvses? THEN they get it anyway. So it doesn't even work!
Our cops are out there risking their lives trying to stop the flow of drugs and getting killed left and right in gang wars and organized crime wars. AND they don't have time to enforce OTHER laws, they are too busy trying to stop drugs. Meanwhile we have terrorists killing us, CPA's lying to the public and politicians doing us dirty (more so than usual) While we are busy worrying about drugs, all of these people are having a heyday robbing us, passing unconstitutional laws and ramming airplanes into our buildings.
SECONDLY- the government has no constitutional authority to tell you what you can do with your own body. IF you choose to destroy it, it is your business not the government's. That is the main point, the GOVERNMENT is acting illegally in attempting to control the behavior of it's citizens. This is something that we can easily forget. Soon they will be telling you what to eat. We already are told what we can say or think!
I still say that there is less crime with ;egal booze than with illegal drugs. Yes some people made moonshine and blinded people, people dumb enough to buy moonshine when there is safe legal booze to drink. No it will not make a perfect world, but the war on drugs is harder on society than the drug users. Why should we suffer trying to protect them from themselvses? THEN they get it anyway. So it doesn't even work!
Our cops are out there risking their lives trying to stop the flow of drugs and getting killed left and right in gang wars and organized crime wars. AND they don't have time to enforce OTHER laws, they are too busy trying to stop drugs. Meanwhile we have terrorists killing us, CPA's lying to the public and politicians doing us dirty (more so than usual) While we are busy worrying about drugs, all of these people are having a heyday robbing us, passing unconstitutional laws and ramming airplanes into our buildings.
SECONDLY- the government has no constitutional authority to tell you what you can do with your own body. IF you choose to destroy it, it is your business not the government's. That is the main point, the GOVERNMENT is acting illegally in attempting to control the behavior of it's citizens. This is something that we can easily forget. Soon they will be telling you what to eat. We already are told what we can say or think!
Re: Less crime with booze than with drugs
So you think suicide should be legal, after all, it is something you are doing with your own body. I guess that partial birth abortion is okay too for the same reason.
You claim the government is acting illegally and I say it is operating under the framework of promoting the general welfare. Doesn't a government body have the right to establish reasonable laws of conduct for the citizens of its society? Or are you seeking the truest form of libertarianism, aka anarchy?
So you think suicide should be legal, after all, it is something you are doing with your own body. I guess that partial birth abortion is okay too for the same reason.
You claim the government is acting illegally and I say it is operating under the framework of promoting the general welfare. Doesn't a government body have the right to establish reasonable laws of conduct for the citizens of its society? Or are you seeking the truest form of libertarianism, aka anarchy?
SmallTown
Football season!
off topic with cariblue, but I always had a problem with suicide being illegal.. I mean, they have enough mental stress to take their own life.. If they fail, they are only going to feel like MORE of a failure and be even more distrubed if they have to go through a trial and lose that too.
Suicide is murder
Suicide is murder as is abortion, so they are covered under the general law of the land and of all civilized societies (of course we kill our innocent babies and all we can worry about is protecting idiots from hurting themselvses, hmmm)
There are no laws on how well you take care of yourself and if there are, they should not exist as they are unconstitutional. Suicide and abortion do not fit into this parameter.
Yes, the government should promote the general welfare, but it can't legislate it. To try to do so only causes chaos. Then the war on drugs has created more problems than the drugs themselves and the people who choose to NOT do drugs must still suffer from the drug users.
I say the goverment should put their efforts into a good PR campaign. The one the have now is poor. just as we have changed people's ideas on seatbelts and drinking and driving and smoking and the environment, a good advertising campaign can change people's ideas on drug use. As for the addicts. I have never known a crack addict yet that has stayed clean. I have heard about them, but I don't know any. We need prevention and treatment for those desiring treatment. This is where the money should go.
Take away the illegal drug trade and you strip the funding of organized crime, street gangs and terrorist gangs. WOW that is killing 3 birds with one stone. Yes they will still exist, but they will loose the majority of their funding and that will take away their power over others.
Suicide is murder as is abortion, so they are covered under the general law of the land and of all civilized societies (of course we kill our innocent babies and all we can worry about is protecting idiots from hurting themselvses, hmmm)
There are no laws on how well you take care of yourself and if there are, they should not exist as they are unconstitutional. Suicide and abortion do not fit into this parameter.
Yes, the government should promote the general welfare, but it can't legislate it. To try to do so only causes chaos. Then the war on drugs has created more problems than the drugs themselves and the people who choose to NOT do drugs must still suffer from the drug users.
I say the goverment should put their efforts into a good PR campaign. The one the have now is poor. just as we have changed people's ideas on seatbelts and drinking and driving and smoking and the environment, a good advertising campaign can change people's ideas on drug use. As for the addicts. I have never known a crack addict yet that has stayed clean. I have heard about them, but I don't know any. We need prevention and treatment for those desiring treatment. This is where the money should go.
Take away the illegal drug trade and you strip the funding of organized crime, street gangs and terrorist gangs. WOW that is killing 3 birds with one stone. Yes they will still exist, but they will loose the majority of their funding and that will take away their power over others.
SmallTown
Football season!
Re: Re: Suicide is murder
Well, in this day in time with people not taking responsibility for their own actions, the following information would probably be found in a suicide note:
"... and on my behalf, sue the EMT who arrived at the scene and was unable to revive me. sue the ambulance manufacturer for not having a vehicle fast enough to get to me before I died. sue Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota for having their vehicles on the road which impeded the ambulance driver from making it to me in a reasonable time. sue my wife for leaving me because I was cheating on her. she took $1.2 million from me in the divorce hearings, so sue her for that much. sue the manufacturer of this 9mm gun I am holding in my hand (or has dropped next to me) for creating such a violent weapon. sue the bullet manufacturer because without their bullets I would still be alive. sue the drug dealer on the corner for selling me this gun. sue the columbians for getting the drug dealer his dope and keeping him in business. sue the makers of private jets which were used to transport the drugs to said drug dealer. Sue the US government. If they had a better on handle on drug trafficing and private airplanes, the drug dealer would not have been around, he would not have been able to sell me this gun, I would have no need to buy these bullets and I therefore would have nothing to put to the side of my head. I am not crazy. I only use what the government puts before me. It is there fault, not mine."
Well, in this day in time with people not taking responsibility for their own actions, the following information would probably be found in a suicide note:
"... and on my behalf, sue the EMT who arrived at the scene and was unable to revive me. sue the ambulance manufacturer for not having a vehicle fast enough to get to me before I died. sue Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota for having their vehicles on the road which impeded the ambulance driver from making it to me in a reasonable time. sue my wife for leaving me because I was cheating on her. she took $1.2 million from me in the divorce hearings, so sue her for that much. sue the manufacturer of this 9mm gun I am holding in my hand (or has dropped next to me) for creating such a violent weapon. sue the bullet manufacturer because without their bullets I would still be alive. sue the drug dealer on the corner for selling me this gun. sue the columbians for getting the drug dealer his dope and keeping him in business. sue the makers of private jets which were used to transport the drugs to said drug dealer. Sue the US government. If they had a better on handle on drug trafficing and private airplanes, the drug dealer would not have been around, he would not have been able to sell me this gun, I would have no need to buy these bullets and I therefore would have nothing to put to the side of my head. I am not crazy. I only use what the government puts before me. It is there fault, not mine."
SxyPrincess
New Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suicide is murder
This is where Cryo comes into play! We will freeze your body for say um, 300 years, bring you back to life and then charge you for murdering yourself. The case will go to court, and depending on the verdict, you (1) sit in a pretty cubicle for the rest of your life; (2) wound up being murdered by someone through lethal injection, (or maybe something different in 300 years); or (3) you get to join society again.
Sounds like fun, huh!
This is where Cryo comes into play! We will freeze your body for say um, 300 years, bring you back to life and then charge you for murdering yourself. The case will go to court, and depending on the verdict, you (1) sit in a pretty cubicle for the rest of your life; (2) wound up being murdered by someone through lethal injection, (or maybe something different in 300 years); or (3) you get to join society again.
Sounds like fun, huh!
Re: Suicide is murder
Originally posted by Betty
Suicide is murder as is abortion, so they are covered under the general law of the land and of all civilized societies (of course we kill our innocent babies and all we can worry about is protecting idiots from hurting themselvses, hmmm)
There are no laws on how well you take care of yourself and if there are, they should not exist as they are unconstitutional. Suicide and abortion do not fit into this parameter.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but as of today abortion is a legal medical procedure, right or wrong doesn't matter as it currently has been determined legal, so it isn't murder. Attempted suicide is a crime in Maryland, suicide itself, if successful, leaves no one to charge or punish so the only impact is in the civil arena like not paying off on an insurance policy.
Yes, the government should promote the general welfare, but it can't legislate it. To try to do so only causes chaos. Then the war on drugs has created more problems than the drugs themselves and the people who choose to NOT do drugs must still suffer from the drug users.
Well they have, alcohol was banned (but later overturned by legislative action and not a judicial challenge of Constitutionality), in some counties of select states there are still bans against intoxicants, unchallenged by judicial review. Also not all things are allowed, barred, or banned on the Federal level. The states do a lot of it on there own, as some have with the decriminalization of marijuana where it is no more then a citation (if even that) if possession does not exceed their guidelines.
I say the goverment should put their efforts into a good PR campaign. The one the have now is poor. just as we have changed people's ideas on seatbelts and drinking and driving and smoking and the environment, a good advertising campaign can change people's ideas on drug use.
Yeah, no one drinks and drives anymore and everyone uses a seat belt all the time (right Vraiblonde), NOT. That is why there have been 2 alcohol related fatalities in St. Mary’s and at last count 310 DUI/DWI arrests. Don’t have the numbers on seat belt citations but I seem to hear about one every other day or so. Seems to be working perfectly, don’t you think.
Originally posted by Betty
Suicide is murder as is abortion, so they are covered under the general law of the land and of all civilized societies (of course we kill our innocent babies and all we can worry about is protecting idiots from hurting themselvses, hmmm)
There are no laws on how well you take care of yourself and if there are, they should not exist as they are unconstitutional. Suicide and abortion do not fit into this parameter.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but as of today abortion is a legal medical procedure, right or wrong doesn't matter as it currently has been determined legal, so it isn't murder. Attempted suicide is a crime in Maryland, suicide itself, if successful, leaves no one to charge or punish so the only impact is in the civil arena like not paying off on an insurance policy.
Yes, the government should promote the general welfare, but it can't legislate it. To try to do so only causes chaos. Then the war on drugs has created more problems than the drugs themselves and the people who choose to NOT do drugs must still suffer from the drug users.
Well they have, alcohol was banned (but later overturned by legislative action and not a judicial challenge of Constitutionality), in some counties of select states there are still bans against intoxicants, unchallenged by judicial review. Also not all things are allowed, barred, or banned on the Federal level. The states do a lot of it on there own, as some have with the decriminalization of marijuana where it is no more then a citation (if even that) if possession does not exceed their guidelines.
I say the goverment should put their efforts into a good PR campaign. The one the have now is poor. just as we have changed people's ideas on seatbelts and drinking and driving and smoking and the environment, a good advertising campaign can change people's ideas on drug use.
Yeah, no one drinks and drives anymore and everyone uses a seat belt all the time (right Vraiblonde), NOT. That is why there have been 2 alcohol related fatalities in St. Mary’s and at last count 310 DUI/DWI arrests. Don’t have the numbers on seat belt citations but I seem to hear about one every other day or so. Seems to be working perfectly, don’t you think.
SxyPrincess
New Member
Here's one fella who's all for legalization
:bandit:
:bandit:
No, there will never be a perfect world
Well, is there anyone who will deny that deaths from drunk driving have decreased? That more people wear their seatbelts these days and fewer people smoke cigarettes. Why is this? Because of some very good public service announcments over the years! We can do this with drugs. We use to do it and drug use went down, then we thought just say NO was a dumb idea and now drug use is up again. A kid only has one childhood, what a shame to waste it stoned out of their mind, not to mention the lifelong side effects of drug use INCLUDING THE "HARMLESS" marijuana (loss of memory, deminished brain activity and lung cancer). We should do all we can to convince kids NOT to do drugs because most drug users started when they were kids.
But as we can see LAWS do not stop drug use.
Well, is there anyone who will deny that deaths from drunk driving have decreased? That more people wear their seatbelts these days and fewer people smoke cigarettes. Why is this? Because of some very good public service announcments over the years! We can do this with drugs. We use to do it and drug use went down, then we thought just say NO was a dumb idea and now drug use is up again. A kid only has one childhood, what a shame to waste it stoned out of their mind, not to mention the lifelong side effects of drug use INCLUDING THE "HARMLESS" marijuana (loss of memory, deminished brain activity and lung cancer). We should do all we can to convince kids NOT to do drugs because most drug users started when they were kids.
But as we can see LAWS do not stop drug use.
Wake Up, Betty!
People wear their seatbelts because IT'S THE LAW, not because of some PSA. Sheesh!
Laws do indeed curtail drug use - ask the people over in Thailand and the Netherlands if you don't believe me.
Not only DOES the government legislate the general welfare - it's their JOB!
And off-topic
People wear their seatbelts because IT'S THE LAW, not because of some PSA. Sheesh!
Laws do indeed curtail drug use - ask the people over in Thailand and the Netherlands if you don't believe me.
Honey, if you want to see some non-drug users suffering, just legalize the crap. Then you won't be able to go out of your house without tripping over someone on the nod. And PS, hard drug users are notoriously violent so have fun trying to enjoy your life with all these unbalanced and volatile people hanging around.
Not only DOES the government legislate the general welfare - it's their JOB!
And off-topic
Suicide does indeed fit into this parameter - in that instance, you truly ARE only hurting yourself.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Sxy,
Point for you!
You're starting to think like us crusty old farts! You get along, girl! Or is it "you move woman"? Er...Go? That's it! You go along, girl!
Betty,
...just exactly what do you think the government does?
Also,
By definition, what you are advocating is a legal drug trade with all the issues a legal business entails. Advertising, promotion, production, quality standards, liability issues, insurance, distribution etc, etc, etc.
Who's gonna do it? Enron? Nobody is gonna sell legal crack. If the society "legalizes" it then it is saying it is OK and is liable for the consequences. I can't just start selling flowers on main street because I want to.
I am concerned about the corruption and I used to think that simple legalization was the answer but there are some things that leave being a personal choice issue and enter clearly, to me, into a general welfare issue.
We are not talking about somebody smoking a fat one on their deck Saturday night.
Not trying to pile on, so, whaddya think 'bout dat?
Point for you!
You're starting to think like us crusty old farts! You get along, girl! Or is it "you move woman"? Er...Go? That's it! You go along, girl!
Betty,
...just exactly what do you think the government does?
Also,
By definition, what you are advocating is a legal drug trade with all the issues a legal business entails. Advertising, promotion, production, quality standards, liability issues, insurance, distribution etc, etc, etc.
Who's gonna do it? Enron? Nobody is gonna sell legal crack. If the society "legalizes" it then it is saying it is OK and is liable for the consequences. I can't just start selling flowers on main street because I want to.
I am concerned about the corruption and I used to think that simple legalization was the answer but there are some things that leave being a personal choice issue and enter clearly, to me, into a general welfare issue.
We are not talking about somebody smoking a fat one on their deck Saturday night.
Not trying to pile on, so, whaddya think 'bout dat?
Huh?
There are plenty of people who DON'T wear their seatbelts just becasue it is the law. People wear them because they have come to beleive that it will make them safer in their cars.
As for drug users everywhere... and the difference would be?
Initially, there would be a slight increase in drug use, but then as people adjusted to the new way of thinking and society was convinced by a GOOD PR campaign about the dangers of using drugs and users who wanted treatment took advantage of treatment faciilites, drug use would drop dramatically.
Then the remaining addicts could have somewhat normal lives and not have to rob, embezzel or sell their bodies to get their drugs. Once their minds are not tied up with their biggest problem, "where am I gonna get the money to get my next hit?" they will hopefully have the time to think that there could be a better way to live.
Then there are those who suffer from chronic pain who could get pain medication, REAL pain medication such as morphine instead of Darvocets that have so many dangerous side effects. We are making these people suffer so some addict doesn't get the medication. So to protect someone who is TRYING to hurt themselves, we are causing untold suffering to innocent sick people forced to live in constant pain that is only dulled by Darvocets and Percocets which destroy their body.
Then once drug related crime goes down, we can quit using massive amounts of resources trying to stop these people who are taking drugs anyway.
PLUS the real issue is that the government has no right to interfere in your life in this manner. It is a privacy issue. Everyone wants to tell other people how to live because they think they know better than everyone else. Eventually that leads down a slippery slope. Talking about the food, the first FAT lawsuit has been filed. These lawsuits are ruining companies who are doing a legal business (including tobacco companies). Anyone who says they didn't know cigarettes are dangerous or eating at McDonalds can make you fat is not ignorant, they are LIARS! They chose to do these things and have to suffer the consequences, NOT ME. They want ME to suffer for what they chose to do. It is the same in the drug world.
I am quite willing to suffer for my mistakes, but do not want to pay for the mistakes of others.
There are plenty of people who DON'T wear their seatbelts just becasue it is the law. People wear them because they have come to beleive that it will make them safer in their cars.
As for drug users everywhere... and the difference would be?
Initially, there would be a slight increase in drug use, but then as people adjusted to the new way of thinking and society was convinced by a GOOD PR campaign about the dangers of using drugs and users who wanted treatment took advantage of treatment faciilites, drug use would drop dramatically.
Then the remaining addicts could have somewhat normal lives and not have to rob, embezzel or sell their bodies to get their drugs. Once their minds are not tied up with their biggest problem, "where am I gonna get the money to get my next hit?" they will hopefully have the time to think that there could be a better way to live.
Then there are those who suffer from chronic pain who could get pain medication, REAL pain medication such as morphine instead of Darvocets that have so many dangerous side effects. We are making these people suffer so some addict doesn't get the medication. So to protect someone who is TRYING to hurt themselves, we are causing untold suffering to innocent sick people forced to live in constant pain that is only dulled by Darvocets and Percocets which destroy their body.
Then once drug related crime goes down, we can quit using massive amounts of resources trying to stop these people who are taking drugs anyway.
PLUS the real issue is that the government has no right to interfere in your life in this manner. It is a privacy issue. Everyone wants to tell other people how to live because they think they know better than everyone else. Eventually that leads down a slippery slope. Talking about the food, the first FAT lawsuit has been filed. These lawsuits are ruining companies who are doing a legal business (including tobacco companies). Anyone who says they didn't know cigarettes are dangerous or eating at McDonalds can make you fat is not ignorant, they are LIARS! They chose to do these things and have to suffer the consequences, NOT ME. They want ME to suffer for what they chose to do. It is the same in the drug world.
I am quite willing to suffer for my mistakes, but do not want to pay for the mistakes of others.
H
Heretic
Guest
I don't think drugs should be legalized because some are so mind altering that the person using them can become very dangerous. IF this person was in this reality all of the time they would be put in an insane asylum.
Not all drug crime is caused by being poor and needing drugs. A couple months ago some professional baseball players brother was wacked out and some kid came to his door (was it Halloween?) and he thought the kid was a giant bug trying to get him so he killed the kid.
So what should be legal?
MJ? maybe
Crack probably not
Cocaine probably not
Peyote probably not
Shrooms probably not
LSD no way in hell
Speed no way in hell
PCP no way in hell
How many of these drugs would have never passed FDA regulations? I guess if they didnt we would have people claiming to be discriminated against. Would you need to get a perscription or could you go to the corner drug store and buy some?
In college I never took one illegal drug, drank alot but that was it. I seen so many people wasting away their life (and parents money) stoned but yet they claimed that it didn't harm them in any way (so I guess they were just stupid or loosers even without the drugs?) The thought never crossed my mind to take anything because.....duh it was illegal. I just think legalizing drugs sends a bad message to kids that want to act grown-up. I know alot of people that smoke and know its really bad for them. I knew alot of kids in highschool that smoked and knew it was bad but had the invincible mentality that most kids have.
I think legalizing drugs will be better for the dirtbags of society, but will harm people that would otherwise never take any illegal drug or kid that is good in general but wants to act grown up. Then we have the old arguement of age, as with alcohol "I'm old enough to die for my country, pay 1/3 of what I earn to taxes yet can't drink"
Things aren't black and white as the "legalize crowd" paints it out to be, often when you solve one problem another is created by the solution to the first. So far all of the arguements that I have seen for legalization are very short sighted in this respect.
Not all drug crime is caused by being poor and needing drugs. A couple months ago some professional baseball players brother was wacked out and some kid came to his door (was it Halloween?) and he thought the kid was a giant bug trying to get him so he killed the kid.
So what should be legal?
MJ? maybe
Crack probably not
Cocaine probably not
Peyote probably not
Shrooms probably not
LSD no way in hell
Speed no way in hell
PCP no way in hell
How many of these drugs would have never passed FDA regulations? I guess if they didnt we would have people claiming to be discriminated against. Would you need to get a perscription or could you go to the corner drug store and buy some?
In college I never took one illegal drug, drank alot but that was it. I seen so many people wasting away their life (and parents money) stoned but yet they claimed that it didn't harm them in any way (so I guess they were just stupid or loosers even without the drugs?) The thought never crossed my mind to take anything because.....duh it was illegal. I just think legalizing drugs sends a bad message to kids that want to act grown-up. I know alot of people that smoke and know its really bad for them. I knew alot of kids in highschool that smoked and knew it was bad but had the invincible mentality that most kids have.
I think legalizing drugs will be better for the dirtbags of society, but will harm people that would otherwise never take any illegal drug or kid that is good in general but wants to act grown up. Then we have the old arguement of age, as with alcohol "I'm old enough to die for my country, pay 1/3 of what I earn to taxes yet can't drink"
Things aren't black and white as the "legalize crowd" paints it out to be, often when you solve one problem another is created by the solution to the first. So far all of the arguements that I have seen for legalization are very short sighted in this respect.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Heretic,
Great point, getting into the actual "what should be legal" "what shouldn't".
Let us not forget that a bunch of states and municipalities are suing gun manufacterers because their product...works.
How long do you suppose it would be before some hardcore stoner sues for his NOW constitutional right to harder drugs because the legal ones are for sissies?
Great point, getting into the actual "what should be legal" "what shouldn't".
Let us not forget that a bunch of states and municipalities are suing gun manufacterers because their product...works.
How long do you suppose it would be before some hardcore stoner sues for his NOW constitutional right to harder drugs because the legal ones are for sissies?