View Full Version : War on Drugs: Great Failure or Greatest Failure?
Nice to see the AP pumping out a comprehensive, well-reported piece like this (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/v-fullstory/1627796/ap-impact-us-drug-war-has-met.html).
After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified." [...]
His predecessor, John P. Walters, takes issue with that.
Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.
"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcement, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."
Um, yes, their work has been misguided. The trillions spent on arresting, prosecuting and housing/feeding millions of non-violent drug users have been wasted. Economically it's like a war that doesn't end, complete with a POW population which we must feed, clothe and house indefinitely.
Are there any politicians talking sensibly about this, or are they all too scared of being called soft on crime?
KukriKhan
05-15-2010, 15:46
The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year...$320 billion annual global drug industry...
Just think of the potential tax revenue if "National Drug Control Policy" was about actual drug control. OTOH, what about the careers of and billions "earned" by druggie-catchers and druggie-treaters. Those guys would have to get jobs at WalMart.
rory_20_uk
05-15-2010, 16:36
Preaching to the choir. Of course it's a waste of money, and of course it should be legalised (doesn't mean that one gets penalties for actions on drugs). And of course those bankrolled on either side of the dug issue are going to ve in favour of the status quo.
~:smoking:
Ibn-Khaldun
05-15-2010, 17:48
Meh.. Drugs are useless. Only stupid ignorant people will use them and looks like the number of them is still very high. And I agree that the way governments currently fight against it will not solve anything. It will stay big problem even in 2050. Perhaps it might get even worse.
Crazed Rabbit
05-15-2010, 18:40
Are there any politicians talking sensibly about this, or are they all too scared of being called soft on crime?
There's Republican Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, to the rescue! (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/309253/may-10-2010/gary-johnson)
He came out for pot legalization while in office.
CR
Kadagar_AV
05-15-2010, 20:36
Meh.. Drugs are useless. Only stupid ignorant people will use them and looks like the number of them is still very high. And I agree that the way governments currently fight against it will not solve anything. It will stay big problem even in 2050. Perhaps it might get even worse.
What do you base that on?
I can give you a huge list of people on this forum who do drugs. Are they all stupid or ignorant?
What about all the famous people who have done great stuff, aswell as drugs. They are all stupid and ignorant?
I would very much like you to explain your view on those who use drugs, enlighten me. I mean, you obviosly have some info, not just PC propaganda, aight?
Drugs are useless. Only stupid ignorant people will use them [...]
I'd like to quote a great deal of Bill Hicks at you for this statement, but he works pretty blue, lots of bad language. Tell you what, I'll include a "best of" clip under an EX tag at the end of this post, so that if you want to you can dig into it.
Cleaned up quotes:
“No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my *** off, and went about my day.”
"If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were real ******** high on drugs. The Beatles were so ******** high they let Ringo sing a few tunes."
Warning: Contains foul language, multiple f-bombs, NSFW. Do not click at work, next to your mom, in front of your child, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUvEZ-4lmr8
PanzerJaeger
05-15-2010, 22:45
Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.
Well, from that it doesn't sound like a failure at all. If people are turning more toward marijuana than the hard stuff, I'd call that a victory. I think there is a fundamental misconception based on terminology. Wars are won or lost. They have a definite beginning and end. The war on drugs should never end. The current tactics should change, but we should never stop educating children about the dangers of drug use or trying to stop the importation of "hard" drugs into the country. Marijuana legalization is of course debatable.
Meh.. Drugs are useless. Only stupid ignorant people will use them and looks like the number of them is still very high. And I agree that the way governments currently fight against it will not solve anything. It will stay big problem even in 2050. Perhaps it might get even worse.
Get ready for the onlslaught. I will give you a little bit of back up, though. In my personal experience, drug users have deep social and/or emotional problems they're trying to mask, and IMO, there is nothing more pathetic than that stoned girl at a party who thinks shes hot. The whole lifestyle carries with it a whole lot of unnecessary baggage. The Beatles were heavy drug users as were many other artists like Jim Morrison who died of a heroine overdose, but in reality most are incredibly boring losers. No offense, just my personal observations.
rotorgun
05-15-2010, 22:48
I say we should legalize drugs. Then the industry could be heavily regulated, and taxed. There should be severe penalties for their sale to the under aged, or for their use operating a vehicle or machinery, or for using them on the job. The main opponents to such a proposal would likely be the law enforcement industry, which would stand to lose millions, and the drug manufacturers, because the price would drop like a millstone. The alcohol industry is regulated so, and it works fairly well. If enforced properly, the drug use should decline to reasonable levels in time.
Rhyfelwyr
05-16-2010, 00:10
A few pop stars (I don't know about music genres, so don't flame me) do not give a very useful insight into how drug use affects the average person. They might get away with it in their very unique line of work, but I would guess you can't really hold down a typical job while stoned out your face.
That is not to say that the War of Drugs was the right approach, but I think it is going to far to say that drugs aren't really that bad. The fact is they cause a devastating cycle of deprivation in the poorest communities, ruin lives, and cost the taxpayer a fair bit as well.
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2010, 02:29
A few pop stars (I don't know about music genres, so don't flame me) do not give a very useful insight into how drug use affects the average person. They might get away with it in their very unique line of work, but I would guess you can't really hold down a typical job while stoned out your face.
That is not to say that the War of Drugs was the right approach, but I think it is going to far to say that drugs aren't really that bad. The fact is they cause a devastating cycle of deprivation in the poorest communities, ruin lives, and cost the taxpayer a fair bit as well.
...
...
...
Sometimes I seriosly wonder if we are even from the same planet, mate.
Just from the people I personaly KNOW in this very small TOWN, I could without an effort mention, say, 50 people who do drugs AND do their jobs perfectly. Some I would claim do their job better with it.
I wont flame you cause of the pop-star comment as you asked not to (guess you even understood you are wrong on your own).
There is SO many people who have done great things, AND drugs.
There is SO many people who have done great things, while ON drugs.
There is so many people, who have done great things, BECAUSE of drugs.
Don't get me wrong though... "drugs" are a bit too large a word. The difference between, say, marijuana and heroine is breath taking, to say the least.
But no matter if we talk about even marijuana as a "drug", there are risks. Just like smoking, alcohol, skiing, hockey, bungey jumping, mountain climbing, walking out of bed... Are we here to be perfectly safe, or to, you know, live?
aimlesswanderer
05-16-2010, 02:42
From what I remember about the stats, the "tough" approach has basically ignored the root of the problem - the demand. While there is demand, there will be supply. AFAIK the amount of money spent on interdiction and such dwarfs the amount spent on rehabilitation and prevention, even in Australia. Rehab isn't "tough" and doesn't make for dramatic press conferences, but it has, from memory, been proven to be much more effective.
I think that the drug problem should be treated as a health issue rather than a law and order issue. The priority should be helping people minimise its harmful effects, not throw them into jail.
I remember hearing something about how Portugal decriminalised drugs (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization), and that seems to have worked well. The usual suspects thought Lisbon would become the drug capital of Europe and that everyone would be doing drugs, but that hasn't happened.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-16-2010, 03:24
Well, from that it doesn't sound like a failure at all. If people are turning more toward marijuana than the hard stuff, I'd call that a victory. I think there is a fundamental misconception based on terminology. Wars are won or lost. They have a definite beginning and end. The war on drugs should never end. The current tactics should change, but we should never stop educating children about the dangers of drug use or trying to stop the importation of "hard" drugs into the country. Marijuana legalization is of course debatable.
Drug use is subject to cultural trends that usually have little to do with government efforts. When one hard drug becomes trendy, the others are used much less.
Get ready for the onlslaught. I will give you a little bit of back up, though. In my personal experience, drug users have deep social and/or emotional problems they're trying to mask, and IMO, there is nothing more pathetic than that stoned girl at a party who thinks shes hot. The whole lifestyle carries with it a whole lot of unnecessary baggage. The Beatles were heavy drug users as were many other artists like Jim Morrison who died of a heroine overdose, but in reality most are incredibly boring losers. No offense, just my personal observations.
No, I think the bill hicks quote had it right: "laughed my *** off, and went about my day.” Most drug users are indistinguishable from non-drug users aside from a few hours a week.
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2010, 03:56
Get ready for the onlslaught. I will give you a little bit of back up, though. In my personal experience, drug users have deep social and/or emotional problems they're trying to mask, and IMO, there is nothing more pathetic than that stoned girl at a party who thinks shes hot. The whole lifestyle carries with it a whole lot of unnecessary baggage. The Beatles were heavy drug users as were many other artists like Jim Morrison who died of a heroine overdose, but in reality most are incredibly boring losers. No offense, just my personal observations.
Drug users have social and / or emotional problems... Could you back that up? Can you SHOW in numbers that drug users have social/emotional problems?
Hey, let's have a deal... I'll even do the work FOR you and say that yes, drug users are more liable to having social / emotional problems...
So you just won? Think again. Have you seen the statistics of PEOPLE WITH SOCIAL / EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS DOING DRUGS?!
Sorry for the caps lock, but it is important to highlight. It is kind of natural that people with these problems seek an escape, and find it in drugs. Only the really stupid ones must not. So before you go on a rant about drug abusers having problems, first really look into how many people that have problems do drugs.
Not as black and white anymore, is it?
To further ado, if you took the misfits (who would be missfits anyway) out of the equation... How many perfectly normal people are you left with who just want to enhance their stimulational receptors once in a while?
Banquo's Ghost
05-16-2010, 08:29
I have this overwhelming desire to hand out spliffs to everyone in this thread in the hope that we'll all calm down.
Chill, man. :beatnik2:
There is SO many people who have done great things, while ON drugs.
There is so many people, who have done great things, BECAUSE of drugs.
Doubt that.
I think the prohibitionists are losing ground, but the problem remains that politicians would rather there were 100,000 deaths that they could blame on drugs, than there were 10,000 deaths that could be attributed to their policies.
By which I mean that there is little doubt that we could drastically reduce drug related deaths and drug related crime - but only by accepting that people like to get high, and making it easier (in certain circumstances) for them to do so.
I think it's odd that the natural political response to any new drug is to ban it - regardless of whether it is particularly dangerous. It's the act of getting high which seems to alarm people. This is most strange when you contrast this with the act of getting high on alcohol - which is so culturally acceptable, and indeed celebrated.
There was a famous chef who died in the UK the other year, Keith Floyd. He was famous for always drinking wine during his cookery programmes, and generally 'liking a drink' (he was an alcoholic essentially). Alcohol played a large part in his death. The report from his funeral had the presenter mourning his loss and saying "we'll all raise a glass to him tonight". Can you imagine if someone died of a heroin overdose, the news presenter declaring that we would all be cooking up in their honour later?
PanzerJaeger
05-16-2010, 12:42
Drug use is subject to cultural trends that usually have little to do with government efforts. When one hard drug becomes trendy, the others are used much less.
Fair enough. I'm no expert on drugs.
No, I think the bill hicks quote had it right: "laughed my *** off, and went about my day.” Most drug users are indistinguishable from non-drug users aside from a few hours a week.
Again, I can only speak from personal experience. I have hung out with drug users on occasion and found each time to be more tedious than the last. Everything is about the stuff. When are we going to get the stuff? Where are we going to get the stuff? How much is the stuff? How are we going to come up with the money for the stuff? Stephen, can I borrow some money for the stuff? Who has the best stuff? Not to mention the uncomfortable encounters with dealers and the constant fear of getting pulled over. And this is all before the actual use. As I said, from my own personal experience, drug use carries with it a lot of uneseccary baggage. After having to watch some girl's kid while she was on the floor in the other room, the whole lifestyle kind of lost its luster for me. Your experiences may be completely different. Maybe I haven't come across the right group of stoners.
To further ado, if you took the misfits (who would be missfits anyway) out of the equation... How many perfectly normal people are you left with who just want to enhance their stimulational receptors once in a while?
And more power to them. All I'm saying is that I have found that drug users are most often either looking for an escape from their emotional issues or are trying enhance their boring personalities/lives.
Rhyfelwyr
05-16-2010, 13:45
Don't get me wrong though... "drugs" are a bit too large a word. The difference between, say, marijuana and heroine is breath taking, to say the least.
I think the fact that I didn't make such a distinction is why you think there is such a distance between us on the issue (why do I sound so formal these days... writing too many essays gah).
Anyway, I'm sure people can get through life on pot (well I think so, don't have any personal experience). Or it can even help people in some lines of work. I don't even think there's much wrong with people doing harder drugs if they want to go out on a Friday night or whatever.
But besides the above situations, there's a whole different world to drugs, where addiction completely ruins lives, forces people into crime, and all other sorts of problems. I don't know about Sweden, but if you travelled round some of the areas round here you would quickly see how serious a problem drug abuse is.
You are right Lemur, it is a failure. What we have to do now is start using capital punishment for drug possession, manufacturing, and trafficking. That would have results! In fact, it would rid the world of a lot of scum, so we would be doing a double good. ~;) Think of all those dangerous drug lords who would never do anyone any harm again?
No, I think the bill hicks quote had it right: "laughed my *** off, and went about my day.” Most drug users are indistinguishable from non-drug users aside from a few hours a week.
:yes:
Hi, I'm moros and I do drugs. I've done: alcohol, pot, mdma, mephedrone (designer/yuppie drugs perhaps better known as meow), coke and various kinds of shrooms. I also did take relatine during exams as I have ADHD, though I'm not using on a regular basis, so I guess I could say I've done speed as well. Though of course with rather different effects than other people.
I do not consider myself to (that) stupid thank you very much. Of course I could be way of and perhaps I am, but I doubt everyone doing drugs is stupid.
Do I think drugs or just pot should be legal? Well it may surprise you but, while I always used to think legilisation would be best, I'm actually not too sure, I'm rather undecided. Taxes wise it'd be a good income and it wouldn't hurt drug quality and hence it'd be safer to use. Information to the custumors would be better and legally enforced. The price of drugs would not neccesarily go down, pot in the Netherlands (where pot is not legal, but personal use not illegal either) often is more expensive to buy than it is in Belgium (where it's illegal). Many drugs are far from dangerous for a person to use and are far from a hazard to other people or society in my eyes. However it's the person that uses it that can be. It's not unusual that people use it because of personal problems, misuse it or abuse it. The person is where the danger's at. If I and some freind eat shrooms for example there always thrustable friends who are sober babysitting us and we never eat more than one portion each. If I do drugs that change my perception of reality, which is something I often consider as wanted effect, I don't go about driving a bike or car or something, no I'm at my place or some quite place in nature. If I do some party drug kind of thing, I know I have to drink enough water, I know I have to know how strong the pills are and I let it test at a lab for it's quality and dosis - there are places in the Netherlands and I believe in belgium as well, where you can let your drugs be tested anonymously, not sure if those exist in the US but they should -,... I do drugs but in a sensible manner and I'm having a good time with it. I've never caused problems. Well there's one drug that made me cause problems: alcohol. Now I don't want it banned, please no. But it's the only drugs that I've had bad experiences with, it's the only drugs that caused me to endanger myself and others. No I didn't get violent or something but it did put me danger when being drunk and trying to find my way home for example. (I always get there in the end, but I could have gotten run over or robbed,...).
Now of course being sensible and with drugs also mean there are drugs you just don't do. Heroin, floories and especially crack for example are drugs I'd never take or do. They are way to addictive and destructive. Heroin is way way better than sex they say, that maybe so but that makes me only not wanting to use it. I mean how many time does a man want to have sex? Well if we had our way we'd be having sex whole day! Imagine how addcitive heroin must be. That and of course the many dangers that go with them.
What I think would be best is not to legalize drugs. But focus the war against drugs against those that are a menace to society. Drugsbarons, dealers and the dangerous drugs like crack. Of course one needs to be strict on drug use during participation in traffic and the likes, but leave the simple undangerous stoner alone. We don't have to fight those that use drugs, lets help them use it an undangerous (for them and society) way. Educate children on the dangers of drugs but not in just a don't do it way. (like some think sex-education should be all about) No in a way that if they do it, they at least would be informed enough not to get themselves hooked or dead. Tell them they can test it for quality and dosis, as we learn or children if you do have sex at least put on a condom in the correct way. Perhaps legal government inspected shops for soft drugs and softer harddrugs might not be a bad idea too as that would put an end to drugsgangs. But with stricts conditions, regulations, quality checks,... I'm not sure. Either way the most important thing that the government should do is inform and making sure people who do use, can do it in a safe way.
Strike For The South
05-16-2010, 16:55
Doubt that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_Ellis
DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO THROW A NO HITTER?
As an aside I will readily admit my using drugs is a direct correlation with my stern German mother and crippiling social akwardness.
The only perscription is wheat hops and barley
Hosakawa Tito
05-16-2010, 17:00
I stopped voting when I stopped taking drugs. I believe both of those acts are closely related to delusional behavior. - George Carlin
I have hung out with drug users on occasion and found each time to be more tedious than the last. Everything is about the stuff. When are we going to get the stuff? Where are we going to get the stuff? How much is the stuff? How are we going to come up with the money for the stuff? Stephen, can I borrow some money for the stuff? Who has the best stuff? Not to mention the uncomfortable encounters with dealers and the constant fear of getting pulled over. And this is all before the actual use. As I said, from my own personal experience, drug use carries with it a lot of uneseccary baggage. After having to watch some girl's kid while she was on the floor in the other room, the whole lifestyle kind of lost its luster for me. Your experiences may be completely different. Maybe I haven't come across the right group of stoners.
The pre-use tedium goes away with legalization. The price would drop, the quality and safety of the product would improve, the acquisition would be safer.
That being said, it's usually pretty annoying than being sober around drunk/high people. Designated drivers have a huge cross to bear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_Ellis
DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO THROW A NO HITTER?
one dude and counting, keep up the pace.
Ibn-Khaldun
05-16-2010, 18:21
What do you base that on?
I can give you a huge list of people on this forum who do drugs. Are they all stupid or ignorant?
What about all the famous people who have done great stuff, aswell as drugs. They are all stupid and ignorant?
I would very much like you to explain your view on those who use drugs, enlighten me. I mean, you obviosly have some info, not just PC propaganda, aight?
I will not go into details but if someone in your family is attacked by a drug user you might have the same opinion.
Crazed Rabbit
05-16-2010, 18:24
You are right Lemur, it is a failure. What we have to do now is start using capital punishment for drug possession, manufacturing, and trafficking. That would have results! In fact, it would rid the world of a lot of scum, so we would be doing a double good. ~;) Think of all those dangerous drug lords who would never do anyone any harm again?
So you want to kill Michael Phelps?
CR
So you want to kill Michael Phelps?
CR
lol, do you think that Phelps would take drugs if he knew that being caught would mean the death penalty? I garuntee you that 99.999% of everyone in America who takes drugs would stop, and only the most dangerous criminals would continue.
LittleGrizzly
05-16-2010, 21:46
Honestly If i had to be stuck with a group of people on any drug whilst i was sober Alcohol would probably be my last choice, other drugs may mess people up more in different ways but no drug makes people more childish and annoying than alcohol. It is a huge damn failure a waste of money, lives and resources. I actually remember watching a youtube interview with that Republican guy, I think he should have kept quiet an tried to slowly work towards legalisation/decriminalisation, coming out and stating facts generally isn't a good idea in a democracy, although Im not sure what happened to him, did he quit, not run or was he voted out of office ?
When are we going to get the stuff? Where are we going to get the stuff? How much is the stuff? How are we going to come up with the money for the stuff? Stephen, can I borrow some money for the stuff? Who has the best stuff? Not to mention the uncomfortable encounters with dealers and the constant fear of getting pulled over.
lol, this all sounds familiar, as drone said though, with legalisation most of these dissappear. Even when it comes to drink you can end up shopping around for the best deal...
The pre-use tedium goes away with legalization. The price would drop, the quality and safety of the product would improve, the acquisition would be safer.
That being said, it's usually pretty annoying than being sober around drunk/high people. Designated drivers have a huge cross to bear.
On the contrary pot prices would increase, thc quantity would be higher, but the stuff would indeed be of higher quality (so no glass and stuff anymore). Coke prize might go down tough, but that has to do with it's incredible high prize really.
LittleGrizzly
05-16-2010, 22:56
I can imagine pot prices going down, even with an incease in qaulity. Think of it this way, in UK I can buy 50 grams of rollig tobacco for about £13, a good protion of that price is made up from tax as tobacco prices are a lot cheaper on the continent...
So even with a big tax burden and then the growing harvesting and selling at a profit 50 grams costs only £13, don't get me wrong I imagine cannabis being a little bit more expensive to grow but then even if we imagine a similarly sized tax burden surely 28 grams would be cheaper than £140-£160 ?
lol, do you think that Phelps would take drugs if he knew that being caught would mean the death penalty? I garuntee you that 99.999% of everyone in America who takes drugs would stop, and only the most dangerous criminals would continue.
Dependence on recreational drugs is comparable to mental illness, and that would effectively be putting an axe over the neck of millions of people (many of whom are otherwise law-abiding [And then if weed use demands an execution, what do we do with the rapist murderer mail frauding war criminal etc.'s?])
It appears that America is making more progress to ridding itself of the curse of the WoD than the UK, where any attempt to even start a debate about drug policy is met with rabid screeches by the media, and the subsequent ostracisation and sacking of even politically-neutral scientists.
LittleGrizzly
05-16-2010, 23:56
If your worry is about you or a family member being attacked by a user of drugs then inside of the most common ones alcohol is your biggest enemy, I have tried a few of the legal and illegal drugs and no drug causes more aggression than alcohol. I am a hugely non aggressive person but when drunk I would often quite like a fight (I don't lose much control like some people off alcohol so i control myself) I would never start a fight but when drunk I would happily be somewhere where one is starting so i can throw a few punches myself. Users of a fair few of the recreational drugs are much less of a risk to meet in the street than alcohol, infact by encouraging some drugs remain illegal you push people towards the only legal (well known) mind altering drug... which also happens to be the one that causes huge amounts of aggression...
Alcohol... one of the worst of all the recreational drugs....
I can imagine pot prices going down, even with an incease in qaulity. Think of it this way, in UK I can buy 50 grams of rollig tobacco for about £13, a good protion of that price is made up from tax as tobacco prices are a lot cheaper on the continent...
So even with a big tax burden and then the growing harvesting and selling at a profit 50 grams costs only £13, don't get me wrong I imagine cannabis being a little bit more expensive to grow but then even if we imagine a similarly sized tax burden surely 28 grams would be cheaper than £140-£160 ?
Strangely I ncan buy weed in Belgium, Germany and France for cheaper prices than in the Netherlands... believe me though it doesn't change much to eithers arguments pot will get more expensive.
Centurion1
05-17-2010, 02:49
I have hung out with drug users on occasion and found each time to be more tedious than the last. Everything is about the stuff. When are we going to get the stuff? Where are we going to get the stuff? How much is the stuff? How are we going to come up with the money for the stuff? Stephen, can I borrow some money for the stuff? Who has the best stuff? Not to mention the uncomfortable encounters with dealers and the constant fear of getting pulled over. And this is all before the actual use. As I said, from my own personal experience, drug use carries with it a lot of uneseccary baggage. After having to watch some girl's kid while she was on the floor in the other room, the whole lifestyle kind of lost its luster for me. Your experiences may be completely different. Maybe I haven't come across the right group of stoners.
im sorry but your all wrong this is completely true. so freaking annoying i cant stand it. they are annoying before and after they take it, heavy users.
Kadagar, people who take heroin at work cannot function. people who drink at work cannot function, people who snort crack at work cannot function, you can probably function dipping or smoking tobbacco but thats about it. rhy is completely right musicians can function at work and shoot up heroin but not a normal person with a job that isnt based off entertainment.
your heavy machinery operators can take lsd if you want ill take mine sober please.
oh and you all ask singapore dealers how their drug income is doing??????
oh right they are all dead arent they. or at least their customers are.
(thats for you vuk :thumbsup:)
Kadagar, people who take heroin at work cannot function. people who drink at work cannot function, people who snort crack at work cannot function, you can probably function dipping or smoking tobbacco but thats about it. rhy is completely right musicians can function at work and shoot up heroin but not a normal person with a job that isnt based off entertainment.
I notice you don't mention weed.
Besides, no-one is suggesting that people should go about their work whilst intoxicated. It's just that if taken outside of work, certain drugs can have no impact on their performance on the work place.
And when did we start deciding that something was morally wrong because of the impact on our careers?
oh and you all ask singapore dealers how their drug income is doing??????
oh right they are all dead arent they. or at least their customers are.
In Japan, there is very little drug abuse, despite it not being rewarded with the death penalty. This is because it is a societal thing that doesn't exist in our individualistic culture.
rory_20_uk
05-17-2010, 10:07
Pot would be cheaper. As a plant it is easily grown, even in the UK. Easily harvested. Easily processed. Where does the cost come in?
Merely that something is legal does not preclude it not being taken all the time. As has been said above, drunk surgeons aren't welcomed any more. Nor are ones on Weed, nor having snorted coke (although this last lot might in some cases do better).
So, if one is afraid that common sense is not enough, legislate that you're not allowed to take certain things in certain jobs. After all, diabetics on insulin can not drive trains / ambulances or HGVs.
Everything is a poison, it merely depends on the amount. Thus a glass of red wine a night is supposed to be on average beneficial, but two bottles of vodka aren't. A small line of coke probably isn't going to kill most people, but several every day isn't a good idea. .
~:smoking:
Hosakawa Tito
05-17-2010, 10:57
Beer workers on strike over cut in the daily ration. (http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2802216) Wait till the lads at the pot factory hear about this.
Strangely I ncan buy weed in Belgium, Germany and France for cheaper prices than in the Netherlands... believe me though it doesn't change much to eithers arguments pot will get more expensive.
What's so strange about it, they have a place to run. In a crowded country like the Netherlands rent ain't cheap.
Louis VI the Fat
05-17-2010, 12:21
I will not go into details but if someone in your family is attacked by a drug user you might have the same opinion.I've been mugged by a drug addict once. He looked way gone, I think I could easily have had him, but he had this injection needle with which he threatened me.
He only needed to get one little stab in, and I was not going to risk aids over a tenner. I wish I would've had fifty on me, so he could've scored an overdosis.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
The dangers of drugs can never be overestimated. The social damage drugs inflict are eneormous. From alcohol related violence and traffick kills, to wasted lives and people left a social and psychological wreck. I've seen good people reduced to screaming 'Gollums' - among the most unpleasants sights there are.
Grudgingly, I want drugs decriminalised to rid society of at least the criminal damages of drugs. From the mugger in the street to the criminal profits of such staggering proportion that it undermines legal order. Not all drugs money is spend on pimpy diamond-studded guns. At some point, illegal money is returned to legal society. An enormous amount of drug money is swallowed by the world financial system. Vast segments of real estate are bought with drugs money. It destroys weak states and undermines developed ones.
Legalise all of it, says I.
All your efforts to fight it have proven to be fruitless, so legalise and at least get tax revenues from it.
rory_20_uk
05-17-2010, 13:27
He only needed to get one little stab in, and I was not going to risk aids over a tenner. I wish I would've had fifty on me, so he could've scored an overdosis.
Although a stab can theoretically transmit HIV (and I agree I'd not accept £10 for the risk) being infected is highly unlikely. Far greater risk is Hep B (roughly 1,000 times as infectious) and Hep C.
~:smoking:
Strike For The South
05-17-2010, 13:59
lol, do you think that Phelps would take drugs if he knew that being caught would mean the death penalty? I garuntee you that 99.999% of everyone in America who takes drugs would stop, and only the most dangerous criminals would continue.
you advocate the state sanctonied murder of citzens because they take part in act that hurts no one else and doesnt destroy property?
CommieNazi!
you advocate the state sanctonied murder of citzens because they take part in act that hurts no one else and doesnt destroy property?
CommieNazi!
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists. You are funding terrorists or organized crime when you buy drugs, and therefor you are working against your country with an enemy of your country and are committing treason against your country. When you purchase drugs, you are becoming responsible for your share of innocent deaths and you are aiding terrorists, whether you thought of it that way when you bought them or not. Consider that. If you made it death penalty, I guarantee you that you would not be murdering anyone, because no one would be stupid enough to keep taking drugs (except the most desperate and dangerous).
PS Surely you can make your point without invoking Godwin. You (with Lemur) are the one who always bitches at me for mentioning the name Hitler.
Although a stab can theoretically transmit HIV (and I agree I'd not accept £10 for the risk) being infected is highly unlikely. Far greater risk is Hep B (roughly 1,000 times as infectious) and Hep C.
~:smoking:
They can get anything from me that's terrifying, knives don't scare me you have to be very unlucky to die from a few stabs. And Ibn-Khaldun I am on Kadahar's list, I smoke and use coke and so do most of my friends. I wouldn't even think of robbing anyone. Don't have to, and not because I can afford it but geez . The ones that slide will always slide, they have emotional problems or are prone to mental illness. Drugs are disastrous for them, but don't put recreational users on the same line. You would be surprised how common it is.
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists. You are funding terrorists or organized crime when you buy drugs, and therefor you are working against your country with an enemy of your country and are committing treason against your country. When you purchase drugs, you are becoming responsible for your share of innocent deaths and you are aiding terrorists, whether you thought of it that way when you bought them or not. Consider that. If you made it death penalty, I guarantee you that you would not be murdering anyone, because no one would be stupid enough to keep taking drugs (except the most desperate and dangerous).
So if we introduced the death penalty for otherwise law abiding users of drugs, what would we do to the terrorists and traitors you say are supported by weed should we capture them?
Btw, by that logic, we should stop wearing cotton shirts, as cotton was the primary source of income for the greatest traitors the USA has ever known.
(This is of course discounting the argument that should drugs be legalised then people wouldn't have to to turn to criminals for their addiction, and thus solving a great social problem AND spitting in the eyes of America's enemies.)
Thanks for the insightful post Moros. :bow:
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists. You are funding terrorists or organized crime when you buy drugs, and therefor you are working against your country with an enemy of your country and are committing treason against your country. When you purchase drugs, you are becoming responsible for your share of innocent deaths and you are aiding terrorists, whether you thought of it that way when you bought them or not. Consider that. If you made it death penalty, I guarantee you that you would not be murdering anyone, because no one would be stupid enough to keep taking drugs (except the most desperate and dangerous).
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
If this isn't a trolling attempt then I am concerned that you actually think like that.
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists. You are funding terrorists or organized crime when you buy drugs, and therefor you are working against your country with an enemy of your country and are committing treason against your country. When you purchase drugs, you are becoming responsible for your share of innocent deaths and you are aiding terrorists, whether you thought of it that way when you bought them or not. Consider that. If you made it death penalty, I guarantee you that you would not be murdering anyone, because no one would be stupid enough to keep taking drugs (except the most desperate and dangerous).
PS Surely you can make your point without invoking Godwin. You (with Lemur) are the one who always bitches at me for mentioning the name Hitler.
Oh please. It's crystal clear that criminalising drug use and traffic and trying to punish it harsh doesn't work and your solution is to become even harsher? :rolleyes:
It doesn't work. Won't work, never will. People are human. They want their stuff. Some drink, others smoke, some drink coffee. Why are those drugs allowed and others not? It makes no sense, really.
Take the drug trade and use out of the criminal sphere; legalise it, tax it, make money out of it. If it's legal, companies will have to pay taxes and the money streams will become more visible. Hurt the shady organisations/companies that insist on staying shady, support the companies that are willing to sell drugs like others sell cars or furniture (or alcoholic beverages, coffee and cigarettes). People will buy from the legal companies and the shady ones will go bankrupt: less criminal money that can be spent on shady activities, more tax income for the states. Regulate here and there (no selling to minors, obviously). Use the extra revenue to help the addicts.
Addicts will become people with a problem instead of criminals; "normal" users will just be people having fun, just like all people who like to have a few drinks. State will get more income. The money streams will be more visible. Organise your market so that shady organisations don't have a chance.
You tried the other way (forbid drugs and declare "war" on it); why not trying a different approach?
Oh, and it will also just push the costs of drugs higher, thus increasing criminal gangs revenues, thereby making cops easier to bribe.
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists. You are funding terrorists or organized crime when you buy drugs, and therefor you are working against your country with an enemy of your country and are committing treason against your country. When you purchase drugs, you are becoming responsible for your share of innocent deaths and you are aiding terrorists, whether you thought of it that way when you bought them or not. Consider that. If you made it death penalty, I guarantee you that you would not be murdering anyone, because no one would be stupid enough to keep taking drugs (except the most desperate and dangerous).
What if someone produces their own drugs? For example, they brew their own beer, grow their own tobbacco, opium, cannabis? They aren't funding organised crime. They aren't funding terrorists.
So to be clear. You think that if someone sits on their own property, taking a substance they have produced themselves, minding their own business - you think they should be killed by the state?
There are plenty of respectable tax paying beer companies, why wouldn't it be possible to have respecatble tax paying marijuana and coke companies?
Help the legal drug selling companies at the start, so that the criminals suddenly don't get a chance to get their overpriced stock sold; once the criminals are out of business because of lack of revenue, let free market do its' work.
I also don't see any moral objections: alcohol is a legal harddrug; if alcohol goes, anything should go :shrug:
that hurts no one else and doesnt destroy property?
I'm in favour of legalisation, but what you just said clearly isn't true. Drunk people often cause property damage and get into fights.
I'm in favour of legalisation, but what you just said clearly isn't true. Drunk people often cause property damage and get into fights.
Drinking alcohol is legal...
And then they ban marijuana and make lots of bruhahaha about people smoking a single joint. Absurd, isn't it?
It is perfectly legal to celebrate a succes of the "war on drugs" by getting completely wasted drinking massive amounts of alcohol :wall:
What if someone produces their own drugs? For example, they brew their own beer, grow their own tobbacco, opium, cannabis? They aren't funding organised crime. They aren't funding terrorists.
So to be clear. You think that if someone sits on their own property, taking a substance they have produced themselves, minding their own business - you think they should be killed by the state?
oh ouch. Vukkie wtvuk hehe it's a good thing the earth isn't flat because if you would get any more rightwing you would fall off. Love you anyway
Louis VI the Fat
05-17-2010, 18:00
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists. You are funding terrorists or organized crime when you buy drugs, and therefor you are working against your country with an enemy of your country and are committing treason against your country. When you purchase drugs, you are becoming responsible for your share of innocent deaths and you are aiding terrorists, whether you thought of it that way when you bought them or not. Consider that. If you made it death penalty, I guarantee you that you would not be murdering anyone, because no one would be stupid enough to keep taking drugs (except the most desperate and dangerous).
PS Surely you can make your point without invoking Godwin. You (with Lemur) are the one who always bitches at me for mentioning the name Hitler.Surprisingly, I agree.
I also agree that Americans who use petrol fund terrorism, therefore commit treason, and should be shot forthwith. :yes:
Strike For The South
05-17-2010, 18:01
I'm in favour of legalisation, but what you just said clearly isn't true. Drunk people often cause property damage and get into fights.
The act of drinkning booze does not do these things. Self control should not be legislated.
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists. You are funding terrorists or organized crime when you buy drugs, and therefor you are working against your country with an enemy of your country and are committing treason against your country. When you purchase drugs, you are becoming responsible for your share of innocent deaths and you are aiding terrorists, whether you thought of it that way when you bought them or not. Consider that. If you made it death penalty, I guarantee you that you would not be murdering anyone, because no one would be stupid enough to keep taking drugs (except the most desperate and dangerous).
LOL, . The only reason these drugs are illegal is because brown people go there hands on them first. If we had a state that cared about its people we would be legalizing and taxing but we don't. We have a state that cares about its donors and thats it.
One only needs to look to the 20s to see how phrohibition worked out.
And people would still use if punishable by death, Clearly you have no understanding how powerful addiction is.
PS Surely you can make your point without invoking Godwin. You (with Lemur) are the one who always bitches at me for mentioning the name Hitler.
Facist.
Surprisingly, I agree.
I also agree that Americans who use petrol fund terrorism, therefore commit treason, and should be shot forthwith
:love:
And people would still use if punishable by death, Clearly you have no understanding how powerful addiction is.
I think the death penalty, if enforced, would pretty much stop most people touching the outlawed drugs.
However I would imagine that the use of alcohol, prescription drugs, solvents, and other substances that weren't on the list would increase massively. And would probably cause more problems than all the illegal drugs ever would.
People like narcosis of various sorts. We just have to accept that not everyone wants just the alcohol effect.
PanzerJaeger
05-17-2010, 19:18
stuff
Your signature is larger and more obnoxious than mine.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Respect-1.jpg
Banquo's Ghost
05-17-2010, 19:43
Facist.
Are you accusing Vuk of having an unnatural love for physiognomy, or did you forget a smiley?
:book:
Crazed Rabbit
05-17-2010, 19:46
lol, do you think that Phelps would take drugs if he knew that being caught would mean the death penalty? I garuntee you that 99.999% of everyone in America who takes drugs would stop, and only the most dangerous criminals would continue.
That's not the question. Michael Phelps has taken pot. Your way would see him executed. Is that what you want?
And I know you're wrong about how many would stop taking drugs.
Murder? No, execution if they choose to break the law knowing the consequences. Doesn't hurt anyone but themselves? Sorry, but the sale and trafficking of drugs is responsible for all kinds of harm, all the way from small time murders to funding muslim terrorists.
A law must be based on justice and morality; it cannot and should not be a morality unto itself.
And taking drugs doesn't harm anyone but the user. All the ills you mention are a direct and preventable result of drugs being outlawed. Legalizing drugs would remove the criminal elements, just as with alcohol prohibition.
I also agree that Americans who use petrol fund terrorism, therefore commit treason, and should be shot forthwith.
I wasn't aware Alaska was funding terrorists. :inquisitive:
CR
Louis VI the Fat
05-17-2010, 20:10
I wasn't aware Alaska was funding terrorists. :inquisitive:
CRWell, my post wasn't really meant to be read this way, or analysed much.
Still, apart from killing a polar bear cub every time you start a car, America imports a million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia alone (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html). That's $70 million going their direction. Every day...
About a billion dollars every forthnight.
Chavez, Algeria, Putin, they're all right up there too.
PanzerJaeger
05-17-2010, 20:17
And taking drugs doesn't harm anyone but the user. All the ills you mention are a direct and preventable result of drugs being outlawed. Legalizing drugs would remove the criminal elements, just as with alcohol prohibition.
Let's not overstate the benefits of legalization. Drug use can devastate families and personal relationships far beyond the immediate user, and that wouldn't change.
Let's leaven the rhetoric with a little empiricism (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/back_to_the_drug_war_the_street_price_of_cocaine?):
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6a00d83451c45669e20133edb93719970b-.png
Now, my point is quite simple: we are spending billions of dollars a year to try and stop cocaine production and the trafficking of said substance into the United States. We are not getting what we are paying for. The numbers above clearly demonstrate that even with increased crop eradication and constant “record seizures” of the drug by land and at sea are not accomplishing the stated goals of the policies and therefore calls into serious question whether they are worth the expenditures in question. Indeed, it is quite clear that the ability of coca famers to produce enough coca leaf to overtake whatever successes that are accomplished in crop eradication and cocaine seizures is quite clear. Such overproduction is simply the cost of doing business. This is a lesson, by the way, that we need to keep in mind in Afghanistan, where the policy direction it towards crop eradication of opium poppies. I predict now that even if thousands upon thousands of hectares or opium poppies are eradicated, that the poppy farmers will be able to out produce the eradicators.
Recognizing fully that these are complex issues, it seems to me that one of the first things that have to be made clear to the public (and it is highly unpopular message) is the simply fact that we are not getting what we are paying for in the drug war. People think that we are getting security and success from the process, but in point of fact the policies are utter failures.
We need a radical reassessment of what we are doing here instead of pretending like the policies are worth the billions spent annually on this failed policy.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-17-2010, 21:20
That seems like the fundamental disconnect of the drug war people.
--Drugs destroy families by creating inhuman addicts who will do anything for a fix
+
--If we destroy part of the supply, problem solved! Because the crazed addicts won't pay a higher price or seek out some other substance.
Rhyfelwyr
05-17-2010, 22:14
Nobody here has really argued for the War on Drugs, only maybe defended against some of the harsher criticisms.
I think the main issue here was with the fact that some people were arguing that hard drugs won't damage your ability to function in the workplace, or that they might even help!
Plus, I think people imagine that legalisation would do more good than it would in reality. We always hear the argument about how prohibition didn't work for alcohol, but then it's not like alcohol stopped devastating entire communities once it was legalised.
LittleGrizzly
05-17-2010, 23:15
Firstly on pot prices, they would go down if legalised, in some semi decriminalised system like the Netherlands where you can't open a big pot producing factory the price isn't going to shift much. If growing cannabis was fully legalised in the UK for example all you would need (once you bought your original land, lights, possibly timers and plant pots ect.) is to pay your taxes, buy more feed and pay bills such as water and electricity.
I have no doubt that the electricity bill would be quite high, I also now that my friends growing setups are inefficient little things that save them shedloads of money, so if it was done properly by a commercial company on an industrial scale it would be incredibly cheap.
Ill be honest im very stubborn the death penalty wouldn't deter me, it would however mean I would be prepared to use deadly force to get away, its not always a good idea to ramp up the violence on one side, you will get a response.
If your so worried about funding terrorism your best bet is to stop all direct and indirect use of petrol, even with all the money i have spent on drugs due to my non car ownership (I also don't mind walking miles sometimes) theres probably plenty of law abiding people who have done more to fund terrorism. Besides even if all drug taking stopped tomorrow terrorism would not cease or even lose much of its funding (at least islamic terrorism if maybe were talking about FARC or whatever the columbian rebels are called)
We always hear the argument about how prohibition didn't work for alcohol, but then it's not like alcohol stopped devastating entire communities once it was legalised.
Alcohol is far far worse for causing problems for people other than the user, than at least some of the lighter drugs such as weed, ecstasy, amphetamines, coke and ketamine (mushrooms and salvia also but they are legal anyway) infact i have always thought society would be advantaged by people moving away from alcohol to some of these softer drugs...
Drug use can devastate families and personal relationships far beyond the immediate user, and that wouldn't change.
Of course it can, I know people whose lives have been ruined by their own drinking and by the drinking of a family member. The constantly deteriorating mental and physical health, wasting every spare cent, and even a few that weren't spare, the worry when they pop down to shops and turn up drunk on the doorstep days or weeks later, all the petty lies and excuses told to get just one more drink, and possibly worst of all, the fact that they seem to care about the drink more than their friends and family.
But imagine how much worse it would be if on top of all that, they were consorting with dangerous drug dealers, labelled as criminals and given lengthy prison sentences.
Should being a bloody idiot be a crime?
lol, in case you all didn't realize, I was hardly being serious. :P
Strike For The South
05-18-2010, 03:59
lol, in case you all didn't realize, I was hardly being serious. :P
Edited: I disagree heartily with your propostion, old fruit.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-18-2010, 04:20
Vuk's joshing troll and Sasaki's comment DO point up the key flaw in the "war" on drugs -- capitalism works. Unless and until efforts are made that dramatically minimize the market, someone or something will always arise to fill that market niche.
Going after the small time user has always been ridiculed as a strategy -- "what are you going to do, jail half my high school class?" -- and it has quite a few practical difficulties. However, until the market is curbed -- and yes that means you do have to jail about half the high school and college students in the USA and impose multi-year sentences on them to make it too painful -- you will never seriously curtail the market. If you aren't willing to do that, then you may as well decriminalize/legalize and stop wasting time and treasure.
rory_20_uk
05-18-2010, 09:54
Look at the Triads. They moved to another level as soon as they opium was prohibited in Hong Kong from bulk imports with low margins and avoiding import tarrifs - to having the whole market to themselves!
~:smoking:
Vuk's joshing troll...
lol, joke, not troll. I just wanted to see the hippies squirm. ~;)
lol, joke, not troll. I just wanted to see the hippies squirm. ~;)
sigh...
Kadagar_AV
05-19-2010, 03:19
Rhyfelwyr, I do not think anyone here advocate that taking heroin before work is a great idea.
However, take me as an example back when I did weed on a regular basis.
* I got it from a friend who grew his own. Thus no money to terrorism or whatever, and besides, if you dont want drugs to fund criminal activity than to legalize it would be the very BEST idea, no?
* When I got high, I usually played frisbeegolf with that very same friend, alternatively if I was alone I would watch TV or play World of Warcraft. That is, when I did it for recreation. Sometimes I used it to meditate, as I have never been able to reach that state of mind without drugs.
* During this time, I went to university and finished as no. 1 from my year.
Would you explain what was so bad? I did not hurt anyone, I minded my own business, I gave way more to society than I took. Why would I be a criminal as in your eyes, or worthy of death as per VUK?
Rhyfelwyr
05-19-2010, 16:45
Would you explain what was so bad? I did not hurt anyone, I minded my own business, I gave way more to society than I took. Why would I be a criminal as in your eyes, or worthy of death as per VUK?
Not sure about Swedish laws, but I suppose technically you would probably be a criminal. But who isn't, even technically I have done criminal stuff, eg underage drinking, petty vandalism or whatever. And that's just technically, because I am the most boring law-abiding citizen you can imagine, always have been.
It's a petty law, I am increasingly libertarian it seems, so I wouldn't say there is anything bad with what you are doing. If it doesn't affect anyone, then legally it should be your own business. Morally speaking... hmm I might say it is a bit decadent, but that's just my inner Puritan speaking...
Kadagar_AV
05-19-2010, 17:29
Rhyfelwyr, mark this as a first where I have swayed your opinion? ;)
And yes, technicly I was/am a criminal... Havent smoked weed for ages now but that doesn't mean I have stopped, just that it doesnt fit in my current life. I am glad you dont at once rule me out as a "bad drugie that should be sent to jail" though.
If it's decadent, c'mon, it's me we are talking about. What else would you expect? I can also have beer for breakfast, can be in the nude till dinner and I do not mind drinking red wine from my girlfriends finer bodily parts.
I am a big fan of Nero.
Kadagar_AV
05-19-2010, 17:35
Double post...
Have never before made double posts, but since i switched to chrome yesterday I have made two... worth mentioning to site admin or is it only chromes fault?
*or am I just clumsy?*
LittleGrizzly
05-19-2010, 22:54
Double post...
Have never before made double posts, but since i switched to chrome yesterday I have made two... worth mentioning to site admin or is it only chromes fault?
*or am I just clumsy?*
I blame drugs...
I blame drugs...
:laugh4:
rory_20_uk
05-20-2010, 13:58
In the UK, all adult men are required to do a certain number of hours practice with a Longbow a week. Hands up whose been doing that? Anyone??
So, we're all criminals...
~:smoking:
In the UK, all adult men are required to do a certain number of hours practice with a Longbow a week. Hands up whose been doing that? Anyone??
So, we're all criminals...
In a surprising number of U.S. states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States), applying your mouth to a lady's tender bits is classified as sodomy, and therefore a criminal offense. Likewise if your lady friend puts her mouth on your staff of the magi. Anytime you get your knob polished or go diving for pearls, you're a criminal.
Here's the dishonor roll:
Alabama — All sodomy acts illegal - affects only unmarried couples. Penalty = (1 year/$1,000)
Florida — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (60 days/$500)
Idaho — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years to life)
Kansas — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Louisiana — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$2,000)
Michigan — all sexes; felony punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, repeat offenders get life
Mississippi — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)
Missouri — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1 year/$1,000), then repealed through legislative action in 2006
North Carolina — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years/discretionary fine)
Oklahoma — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)
South Carolina — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$500)
Texas — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = ($500)
Utah — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Virginia — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1–5 years)
Skullheadhq
05-20-2010, 16:01
Woah, that´s just...medieval! Why should things like this be punishable by law, What´s the big deal about getting your horn blown=
Idaho — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years to life)
Is that 5 years per time Your Honour? Looks like I'm going to serve out the rest of my life in the chokey.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-20-2010, 20:42
In a surprising number of U.S. states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States), applying your mouth to a lady's tender bits is classified as sodomy, and therefore a criminal offense. Likewise if your lady friend puts her mouth on your staff of the magi. Anytime you get your knob polished or go diving for pearls, you're a criminal.
Here's the dishonor roll:
Alabama — All sodomy acts illegal - affects only unmarried couples. Penalty = (1 year/$1,000)
Florida — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (60 days/$500)
Idaho — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years to life)
Kansas — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Louisiana — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$2,000)
Michigan — all sexes; felony punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, repeat offenders get life
Mississippi — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)
Missouri — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1 year/$1,000), then repealed through legislative action in 2006
North Carolina — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years/discretionary fine)
Oklahoma — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)
South Carolina — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$500)
Texas — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = ($500)
Utah — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)
Virginia — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1–5 years)
This has always been wonderfully ironic given Virginia's advertising slogan which is, I kid you not, "Virginia is for Lovers."
Seamus Fermanagh
05-20-2010, 20:47
Is that 5 years per time Your Honour? Looks like I'm going to serve out the rest of my life in the chokey.
Yes, though these laws are seldom enforced (and in many places were only enforced against homosexuals as a means of criminalizing them), the penalty can be applied for each instance and, in many jurisdictions it is the judges decision to let the sentences run concurrently or consecutively. You could be in "the yard" for quite some time.
This has always been wonderfully ironic given Virginia's advertising slogan which is, I kid you not, "Virginia is for Lovers."
Well, Virginia is for lovers, but only the boring ones. ~;)
Generally, sodomy charges are tacked on to rape/sexual assault cases. Georgia's sodomy law was overturned by the state Supreme Court in Powell v. Georgia, and I believe consensual sodomy (of any gender combination) is essentially legal nationwide by SCOTUS with Lawrence v. Texas. I think sodomy charges can still be applied in statutory rape (consensual) cases though, so all you kids need to keep it vanilla.
Veho Nex
05-20-2010, 21:33
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agT2GVNQjao&feature=related
Listen to Peewee kids
Generally, sodomy charges are tacked on to rape/sexual assault cases.
Generally, but not always. There was a semi-famous case in 1990 (http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/georgia/ganews23.htm)where a particularly vicious wife managed to get her husband jailed for repeatedly going down on her. "Ungrateful" doesn't begin to cover it.
According to newspaper clips sent by Moseley, his wife, Better Roberts, believed that all’s fair in divorce: She accused her husband of two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated oral sodomy and two counts of aggravated anal sodomy for allegedly violating her on two separate occasions in February 1988. The jury did not buy her story (in part because her own sister testified in Moseley’s defense that she had an ulterior motive in asking to be tied up: She had learned that he had spoken with an attorney and wanted to stage a pre-emptive strike).
Moseley’s second letter continued: "The prosecutor [a woman] made it seem like I had committed a capital crime--’Your mouth touched her vagina!’ she screamed. I didn’t even know what was going on. And I still can’t believe all this. It was presented to the jury as though I were the lowest, most degraded piece of scum on earth because my mouth touched her vagina. I felt like some sort of human sacrifice to appease Georgia’s tribal gods. What hypocrisy! As though the prosecutor’s mouth had never touched a sexual organ!"
The jury of nine women and three men found Moseley innocent, but Judge William H. Ison, "a self-described country boy," instructed them to find him guilty of the lesser charge because on the stand he had admitted having oral sex with his wife.
"It’s on the law books," Ison said. "It’s a criminal offense. I’m sworn to upheld the laws of the state of Georgia."
Moseley was sentenced to five years; the Board of Pardons and Paroles later ruled that he had to serve 30 months. At the same time it was releasing 3000 felons--including robbers and murderers--because of jail overcrowding, the state found a place for Moseley.
Generally, but not always. There was a semi-famous case in 1990 (http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/georgia/ganews23.htm)where a particularly vicious wife managed to get her husband jailed for repeatedly going down on her. "Ungrateful" doesn't begin to cover it.
Well, Powell v. Georgia was decided in 1998, and it overturned the state law previously upheld by SCOTUS in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which got big headlines at the time for being enforced with an anti-gay bias. It was fun listening to the Atlanta local news when Bowers v. Hardwick was going on. The ATL was the San Fran of the south for gays, except hemmed in with Southern Baptists and rednecks and the AIDS hysteria. Good times (as a teenager) parsing the code words and tiptoeing from the news anchors.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) got the cops and courts out of the bedroom, so the US is now multi-orifice friendly.
Kadagar_AV
05-20-2010, 23:11
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) got the cops and courts out of the bedroom, so the US is now multi-orifice friendly.
That is some siggie material right there :)
rotorgun
05-21-2010, 03:36
It is a fact at drug use in my country began a sharp increase with its prohibition, beginning in 1937. Just as Eve was enticed by the serpent to partake of the forbidden fruit of the tree of life, so have the youth of my country been enticed by the dealers of the new forbidden fruit. The more that drugs are made illegal, the more that law enforcement cracks down upon them, it seems that the use of them increases exponentially. The price rises, enticing more to traffic in their sale, especially from poverty ridden areas such as Mexico; such people are even considered as some sort of heroes in such cultures. The poppy manufacturers of Afghanistan, despite what the hypocrites might believe, are funding much of the Taliban and Al Queida efforts; the money the Saudis are pouring in is another subject entirely...the duplicitous dogs.
I still say legalize them, regulate the sale and safety factors, tax the F-Bomb out of their sale, let the Surgeon General put his warning on the packages, and let the lawsuits begin!
* When I got high, I usually played frisbeegolf with that very same friend, alternatively if I was alone I would watch TV or play World of Warcraft. That is, when I did it for recreation. Sometimes I used it to meditate, as I have never been able to reach that state of mind without drugs.
Exactly.
I usually smoke, etc with friends, in the same way anyone has a few drinks with friends. Except instead of getting drunk and possibly hurting ourselves (which I and others have come very close to) or embarrassing ourselves or others. We instead get high, have some laughs, discuss some hilarious stuff, watch some movies or TV and generally go about our socialising as we would anyway.
And some drugs take you to a place that can never be replicated by any other means (except perhaps to an extent though sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation or intensive meditation). The come-down from an LSD trip is one of the most amazingly introspective times imaginable. You can realise and unlock subconscious thoughts that have been in remission, you can articulate thoughts that at any other time defy articulation. As McKenna said:
“Somehow, it felt like I was finding out that thing that you cheerfully assume you can't find out.....but it felt like I was finding out.”
But, none break through this "conscious-membrane" more-so than DMT. The "hyperspace" it transcends you through is amazing. From personal experience a strong dose (3 tokes) will create patterns and geometry that are unimaginable, and you will ponder that if they are unimaginable how they got into your conscious. And if you are lucky the "elves" will promise you secrets and knowledge, They will smile, and turn to you and say "Don't you see now how we are all connected. We are all part of the same whole." Or take you places that you could not otherwise go, they will dissolve the walls and geometry encapsulating you and let you live freely in space and time, unhindered and unburdened exploring the depths of the unfathomable. I lived for a thousand years and spoke a hundred languages, and I came back refreshed, renewed, reinvigorated. :balloon2:
Again, McKenna states it best:
"Under the influence of DMT, the world becomes an Arabian labyrinth, a palace, a more than possible Martian jewel, vast with motifs that flood the gaping mind with complex and wordless awe. Color and the sense of a reality-unlocking secret nearby pervade the experience. There is a sense of other times, and of one's own infancy, and of wonder, wonder and more wonder. It is an audience with the alien nuncio. In the midst of this experience, apparently at the end of human history, guarding gates that seem surely to open on the howling maelstrom of the unspeakable emptiness between the stars, is the Aeon.
The Aeon, as Heraclitus presciently observed, is a child at play with colored balls. Many diminutive beings are present there--the tykes, the self-transforming machine elves of hyperspace. Are they the children destined to be father to the man? One has the impression of entering into an ecology of souls that lies beyond the portals of what we naively call death. I do not know. Are they the synesthetic embodiment of ourselves as the Other, or of the Other as ourselves? Are they the elves lost to us since the fading of the magic light of childhood? Here is a tremendum barely to be told, an epiphany beyond our wildest dreams. Here is the realm of that which is stranger than we can suppose. here is the mystery, alive, unscathed, still as new for us as when our ancestors lived it fifteen thousand summers ago. The tryptamine entities offer the gift of new language, they sing in pearly voices that rain down as colored petals and flow through the air like hot metal to become toys and such gifts as gods would give their children. The sense of emotional connection is terrifying and intense. The Mysteries revealed are real and if ever fully told will leave no stone upon another in the small world we have gone so ill in."
Louis VI the Fat
05-25-2010, 13:56
Generally, but not always. There was a semi-famous case in 1990 (http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/georgia/ganews23.htm)where a particularly vicious wife managed to get her husband jailed for repeatedly going down on her. "Ungrateful" doesn't begin to cover it.
According to newspaper clips sent by Moseley, his wife, Better Roberts, believed that all’s fair in divorce: She accused her husband of two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated oral sodomy and two counts of aggravated anal sodomy for allegedly violating her on two separate occasions in February 1988. The jury did not buy her story (in part because her own sister testified in Moseley’s defense that she had an ulterior motive in asking to be tied up: She had learned that he had spoken with an attorney and wanted to stage a pre-emptive strike).
Moseley’s second letter continued: "The prosecutor [a woman] made it seem like I had committed a capital crime--’Your mouth touched her vagina!’ she screamed. I didn’t even know what was going on. And I still can’t believe all this. It was presented to the jury as though I were the lowest, most degraded piece of scum on earth because my mouth touched her vagina. I felt like some sort of human sacrifice to appease Georgia’s tribal gods. What hypocrisy! As though the prosecutor’s mouth had never touched a sexual organ!"
The jury of nine women and three men found Moseley innocent, but Judge William H. Ison, "a self-described country boy," instructed them to find him guilty of the lesser charge because on the stand he had admitted having oral sex with his wife.
"It’s on the law books," Ison said. "It’s a criminal offense. I’m sworn to upheld the laws of the state of Georgia."
Moseley was sentenced to five years; the Board of Pardons and Paroles later ruled that he had to serve 30 months. At the same time it was releasing 3000 felons--including robbers and murderers--because of jail overcrowding, the state found a place for Moseley. Breathtaking.
But if it was established that only consensual acts were performed, then why wasn't the wife prosecuted too?
And if that is so because only the 'active' party is prosecuted, does that mean that in homosexual sodomy / oral sex the receiving partner walks free?
rory_20_uk
05-25-2010, 14:17
Get some law interns to review all the state / federal laws to find the really daft ones with an aim to getting rid of them.
Same is true of most countries of course. Some are so inane that it shouldn't take long to repeal them if collected together.
Louis, she claimed it was against her will, and never admitted having it done willingly. Proving that she did would be impossible, hence she is innocent - strictly in the bounds of the court though.
~:smoking:
Louis VI the Fat
05-25-2010, 14:24
Louis, she claimed it was against her will, and never admitted having it done willingly. Proving that she did would be impossible, hence she is innocent - strictly in the bounds of the court though.
~:smoking:But the man was convicted of consensual sodomy: I was convicted under the Georgia sodomy statute for simple consensual sodomy--a law that penalizes non-aggravated, nonviolent sodomy between consenting adults with a sentence of up to 20 years.
rory_20_uk
05-25-2010, 15:28
Oh... I missed that. In which case as you point out for a conviction it is highly likely to convict two at the same time with equal sentences. I imagine that it would be sexist to do that though. Locking the man up and letting the woman go free helps make up for years of female oppression... Isn't that the usual drivel Feminists spout?
~:smoking:
Louis VI the Fat
05-25-2010, 16:34
Locking the man up and letting the woman go free helps make up for years of female oppression... Isn't that the usual drivel Feminists spout?
~:smoking:Quite.
Although I would argue that one of the main benefits of 1968 / women's lib / feminism is that women are now given proper ****. Old skool feminists might take offense, but the newer generation of women will, at least unspoken, know I'm right. The verdict is distinctly anti-women.
The upside of it all, is that this Saudi....erm...Southern morality police thing is twenty years old, such a long period of time that we need have no qualms in declaring certain foreign societies mediaeval and completely alien to us.
(Cynicism aside, I can call Georgia culture backwards and insist I want none of that religio-conservatism here, and be cheered by the Euro-left. When I say the same thing about other cultures, I'm Hitler.)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.