Definitely another drug thread.

[Diogenes]

Yep. Total legalization of all drugs. i.e. a return to a condition the nation prospered under for nearly a hundred and fifty years.

If the standard is that we prospered, how long did we prosper under slavery?

Why? Because outlawing the substances puts control of the nation in the hands of criminals. At least that is what happened with alcohol prohibition. But of course this time it is different.

You say that, but you don't expound on how it's different. You don't even expound upon how it is similar in manners that don't fit your narrative. (Like 75,000 deaths per year.)

Yes, it is both different AND similar. Yet you insist on making things appear foolishly simplistic.

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

So were the Soviets. We should have regarded the Cartels in the same manner, but without fearing retaliation.

For those of you following along here is how it works.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

There is a difference between making Criminals out of Innocents, and making Innocents out of Criminals. You propose to do the later.

Ayn Rand - Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum - refugee from the Soviet System

Yes, she was very perceptive. I was reading her book "Anthem" just last night.

The only way to beat such a system - until it destroys itself - is to have no guilt. Dangerous to be sure. It leads to this if you are not careful.

When you make vice a crime, crime becomes merely a vice.

Except innocent people die from this "vice." I would suggest a "vice" is something which harms no one else.

Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It won't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.

Franklin P. Adams, 1931

Oh! You've got a poem, so you win!

[Diogenes]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you who are continually arguing for repeal of drug prohibition, are drug users?

TDPerk, williatw, Skippy, randomencounter, AcesHigh and of course Simon and anyone else who wants to be included on that list: please tell us all:

a) are you a user?
b) have you ever been to "skid row" where you can expect to find the people who's lives have been the most drastically affected by drugs?
c) have you ever been close friends or family with a drug user and if so, what can you note about their behavior?

Two things:
1. If you check my post history, you will see that I used to be very much against drug legalization (with lots of arguments and banging of heads between us), but have recently changed my mind towards a limited and _very_ controled legalization of marijuana as I described in an earlier post. It could be done and could possibly answer a lot of questions about the issue, if it is done right.

a) I am NOT a user. Even if I wanted to, I would be insane to use. It would kill me very quickly due to my health issues.
b) I have seen many people, even people I personally knew get ruined by drugs (mostly heroin), which is why I am generally against legalization. Marijuana is a bit different. I still think that prolonged frequent use makes people "soft in the pear", but it is not addictive so one could always more or less easily reverse a legalization, should we find that it is indeed harmful.
c) Marijuana users become a little indifferent towards... well pretty much everything. Too mellow for my taste. Some got slightly paranoid though.
They got careless, handling their pot use as if it was legal, just because they thought it should be. I found that highly disturbing.
I also noticed some of these people getting into the whole esoteric thing...
Now heroin users are much worse. Most of them are basically zombies. They get slow, getting shakies. All of those that did not successfully manage withdrawal would eventually die of an overdose.

If Simon stopped at pot, he probably wouldn't get so much crap flung back his way, but he suffers from an obsession for consistency of principle and insists on applying it across the spectrum of available drugs. That's just a bridge too far.

I have known people who smoke pot, and I have known people who smoked crack and meth, shot heroin, etc. Pot is pretty harmless by the standards of most intoxicants, but a lot of people are just not satisfied with pot.

Marijuana, for many people (not all) is like getting your shirt caught in the spinning gears of a machine. It won't hurt you initially, but it will eventually pull you into the machine.

If they get all the pot they want, many of them will want to try a bigger or stronger high, and the next thing you know they are smoking spiked blunts. Finally, (for all too many people) the machine mangles you.


I've suggested the idea of a license. Abuse something, lose the license. It allows for a market system which rewards legit businesses for playing by the rules, and it therefore gives them incentives to keep abusers out of the system.

[Diogenes]

I know that it is true to say there are no honest users. They're all liars, cheaters, thieves, disloyal, untrustworthy, pathetic. That's what addiction does to people.

Funny. My experience is different. But I tend to attract the honest in any case. The dishonest find me difficult to deal with.

In any case what you see is the result of persecution.

It mirrors what too many used to think of Jews and many still do.

Just look at what you have said and now compare it to the slurs against Jews. Interesting no?

You have only studied the surface of these matters. I have gone deep.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 39.9713351

Government’s Greatest Trick - Making you a slave to your fears.

All very theoretical. How much practical experience do you have?

Experiment beats theory in my opinion.

[Diogenes]

I have had to assist in the removal of addicts from the home of a family member before. I am no fan of drugs. I favor legalization despite my personal experience.

What's your story?

I'm curious - was the problem with the addicts their behavior - i.e. lassitude. Or was it an economic problem - stealing to support their habits. If both which was the most bothersome?

Behavior was the big problem. We were quite concerned for my relative's safety, and that something might happen that would force police involvement.

Getting the police involved is almost never a good idea if a situation can be handled without them.

So just one person? Two perhaps? You ain't seen nuthin.

One girl I knew stole a car and crashed it. She burned to death in the flaming wreckage early in the morning before anyone could get there to put the fire out. She left behind a baby less than one year old.

Another girl I knew was found laying in a ditch along a country road. She left behind a child under two. Others went to prison, some leaving children behind, some not. One I know, cleaned up, quit messing with the stuff, and currently works for the school system. Another moved to North Carolina, found a new woman, got a job, and just had a child last year.

Some eventually get away, others just crack. (pun intended.)

I saw a former queen of the streets last week. She looks rough. At least she was going to the liquor store.

[randomencounter]

I'm curious - was the problem with the addicts their behavior - i.e. lassitude. Or was it an economic problem - stealing to support their habits. If both which was the most bothersome?

Behavior was the big problem. We were quite concerned for my relative's safety, and that something might happen that would force police involvement.

Getting the police involved is almost never a good idea if a situation can be handled without them.

So just one person? Two perhaps? You ain't seen nuthin.

One girl I knew stole a car and crashed it. She burned to death in the flaming wreckage early in the morning before anyone could get there to put the fire out. She left behind a baby less than one year old.

Another girl I knew was found laying in a ditch along a country road. She left behind a child under two. Others went to prison, some leaving children behind, some not. One I know, cleaned up, quit messing with the stuff, and currently works for the school system. Another moved to North Carolina, found a new woman, got a job, and just had a child last year.

Some eventually get away, others just crack. (pun intended.)

I saw a former queen of the streets last week. She looks rough. At least she was going to the liquor store.

Yep, people self destruct, and whether there are drugs involved or not, sometimes you just can't help them. There are thousands, maybe millions of stories like that where there are illegal drugs, legal drugs, or no drugs at all involved.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/couples-on ... th-6127866

But getting the police involved when they don't need to be is almost always worse than dealing with a situation yourself. Getting the police involved gives the police power over you even if you are the wronged party.

Making drugs illegal gives the police an excuse to get involved in situations that shouldn't concern them, where there isn't a compelling public safety issue or any crime at all other than the presence/use of drugs.

Bad people happen, but until they actually do something that harms others or has a significant chance of doing so it isn't any business of the police.

[hanelyp]

I've known a few "recovering" drug addicts. They are uniform in expressing their life as greatly improved since kicking the habit.

Drug abuse is a disease, and apparently a communicable one. There is ample precedence for government involvement to prevent spread of communicable diseases.

Drug pushers are taking deliberate advantage of incompetent persons, very much in the spirit of criminality.

[GIThruster]

Drug pushers are taking deliberate advantage of incompetent persons, very much in the spirit of criminality.

I can't help but think of all these teenage kids in the area I know from the local convenience stores and such. The girls I see regularly I have fun and flirt with. They almost all claim they intend to go to college. One made it though 2 years, but bailed on her original intention to become a high school gym teacher. She's working in Wawa for 6 years now. Always broke. Driving one $200 car after the next until it dies. And she's high most of the time.

Think about this substance that she's willing to screw up her life over. We're not here talking about respecting the legitimate choices of an adult. We're talking about pandering to addiction. You can say pot isn't addictive, but when life is so full of people willing to flush theirs down the toilet in order to get high regularly, it's pretty hard to indulge that definition of addictive.

[MSimon]

OK Friends. I see you are still not getting it.

Read this and tell me what you think.

From: http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/07/1 ... necessary/

Here is a teaser to get you started:

WSI: And this plan…the globalization of the American military…it’s been planned, slowly implemented…for a long time. It’s been happening right under our noses.

UM: It began with Agenda 21 – during the Clinton era?

MI: Incorrect.

UM: What?

MI: Agenda 21 did not begin during the Clinton era. It was developed long before that. In fact, it culminated under President Bush. HW.

WSI: But it goes back much farther than that. I only learned of this more recently myself.

MI: Yes sir – much farther. Decades of planning. A multiple series of five year plans.

UM: Five year plans?

WSI: Just like Stalin. A slow progression…a creeping monster that comes in five year increments. Cutting away at freedom and liberty and individuality.

=======

OK. Agenda 21.

And this is a NWO organization.

http://www.unodc.org/

========

Then this:

For all the evidence of how the War on Drugs has failed society, there's equally as much evidence of how it is a great success to those who continue to support it. The drug war has many advantages if you wish to control society and expand your empire. It also enriches several industries that would otherwise have a very difficult time staying solvent without it.

Here are ten ways the War on Drugs is a wild success:

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/10- ... ccess.html

Do a search on - "Agenda 21" Drug Prohibition - for more.

You are letting yourselves be used to accomplish something that you really do not want - at least if I judge by your statements on the matter.

They are using your fears to collectivize you. Everything the government does to get you to beg for their protection is an assault on your liberties. OK. You fear drugs. Fair enough. You should fear government 10,000X more. Because they will use your fear against you. The danger of drugs is nothing compared to the danger of government running your lives.

They will tell you what you can eat and how much. Because you have accepted the principle that such telling is a legitimate government power. And much else besides. They will tell you how much energy you are allotted. Because the Greens are afraid of CO2. Are you getting the picture yet?

You get it when the "left" does it to you. You are not seeing it when you do it to yourself. There is no left right divide. There is only the Power and Control party. If liberty is too scary for you then accept your chains.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" Samuel Adams

First they came for....

[MSimon]

Maybe you will get this:

Drug Violence Justifies Tough Gun Laws: The violence generated from the prohibition of drugs is reminiscent of the extreme mob violence during the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition of anything will always create black markets which require firearms to protect banned products. Recently, the U.S. government itself was caught red-handed supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels in their "Fast and Furious" scandal. It's now proven that the ATF plotted to use Fast and Furious to push for new gun control regulations. Indeed, most street violence is due to turf wars over the drug trade, and tougher gun laws are proposed as the war escalates. It's wonderful for those who blame violence on guns and wish to restrict them from law-abiding citizens.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/10- ... ccess.html

====

Fast and Furious ring a bell? Or do you have to be knocked upside the head harder?

====

From the above link:

Allows Proxy Armies: If you want to create an empire by force, but it's politically disadvantageous to base your army in certain countries, then the global war on drugs is your ticket to supplying troops or creating proxy armies. One of the most recent examples is Costa Rica, a peaceful country in Central America without an army, where the U.S. bribed the government to allow the Navy and Marines to be stationed off the Caribbean coast to fight the war on drugs. In other nations where even this won't be allowed, the CIA funds and arms one of the drug cartels who then act as their hired enforcers, or they're used as an excuse for governments to accept U.S. help to combat the enemy they created. In either case, the U.S. sells more arms and trains soldiers to be used upon command.

====

From: Google executives say technology can be harnessed to fight drug cartels in Mexico.

If you Google Carlos Salinas, former PRI President, and Billionaires Banquet and NPR, then Google Raul Salinas, Nuevo Leon and Donaldo Collosi, you will realize that the Zeta and Gulf Cartels are the PRI. Google Chapo Guzman and PAN and you will see that they are the Sinaloa Cartel.

Each cartel faction has its own political party. I wonder who the cartels own in America?

“The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It’s possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government.” – William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/over ... -comments/

Links at CV.

=====

Getting it yet? Stop being dupes of the NWO. OK. Maybe I have you guys pegged wrong. Maybe you are agents of the NWO.

In that case - should you win and I live through it I will be available. At least I will have more liberty than the serfs.

[MSimon]

Funds CIA Black Ops: Do you ever wonder where the U.S. government gets all that money for their secret "Black Ops" like underground bases, secret wars, corporate takeovers and seed money, etc? It's been proven over and over that the CIA (and Pentagon) controls a large majority of the illicit drug trade either directly or indirectly through proxies mentioned above. They've been caught in the act of shipping in massive amounts of cocaine, while the CIA now openly admits to protecting and facilitating the opium trade in Afghanistan. If it wasn't for this tremendous profit, the CIA would not be able to build their secret shadow government.

So, as you can see, there are great benefits to the War on Drugs depending what side of the coin you're on. If you're a poor pot smoker, well, you're out of luck. But if you're the biggest heroin and cocaine dealer in the world and desire a monopoly . . . well, you've got the world right where you want it.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/10- ... ccess.html

Links at the above link.

=====

Get it yet? You can't stop drugs because your government is playing both ends against the middle. And the middle is YOU.

[MSimon]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46516

followed by

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47420



“Before we get into the grit, I want to make sure you’re clear about what we talked about before, especially about the economy. You know there’s talk at the highest levels about a coming financial meltdown. When I say the highest levels, I mean the highest. But certain information is being compartmentalized, and almost no information is being sent to out-of-the-loop law enforcement agencies about why things are about to get ugly. They’re getting bigger and better equipment and loving it - not questioning it beyond what they’re told. But here’s what you need to make sure everyone understands when you write about our talks: Despite the fact our economy is on life support, DHS will be budgeting another trillion dollars in surveillance measures and equipment for police state tactics for two reasons.The first is to protect the politicians and the elite who are concerned about their physical safety, and rightfully so. This is why you hear no meaningful objections from either party, because both sides are benefiting, at different levels, from the controlled economic meltdown. They are all in the pockets of the big banks, along with the regulators, and so on. They are paranoid. Even the few who aren’t neck deep in graft - just knee deep. When everything starts to unravel, they will be exposed as complicit, so they have been reminded not to object to the increase in police state tactics,” said my source.

“Secondly, everything is preemptive. The power elite are enabling the looting process by oppressing the truth, so they need to monitor everything. If they top can’t stop the details from getting out, and I’m not talking about news from [expletive deleted] MSNBC or the MSM news, but real news, they figure it’s going to get real ugly. DHS is not just being used as the controlling mechanism to stop people from seeking revenge against the people in power who caused the financial ruin or simply allowed it to happen, but to control information through surveillance, intimidation, and force if necessary,” stated my source.

[GIThruster]

It appears from the posts Simon thinks people like me are reading his rants. Just so you know, we're not.

Go out on the boardwalk, or down toward the tracks, or anywhere that losers hang, and you can find some brilliant bastard ready to suck up your time telling you for hours he has unlocked the secrets of the universe. He knows what others don't. He has found the ANSWER, to all life's questions except why he is such a loser.

Just like Simon.

[Skipjack]

It appears from the posts Simon thinks people like me are reading his rants. Just so you know, we're not.

Go out on the boardwalk, or down toward the tracks, or anywhere that losers hang, and you can find some brilliant bastard ready to suck up your time telling you for hours he has unlocked the secrets of the universe. He knows what others don't. He has found the ANSWER, to all life's questions except why he is such a loser.

Just like Simon.

You know, Simon may be going on ranting about things and he may not always be right. But he has never been anything but nice to people here.
In the beginning when I came here I had lots of flame wars with him and we still butt heads every now and then. Back then - and that is the problem with the internet- I never quite realized that despite the often heated discussions we had, he always was doing it in good sport. I realized that when once said that he "considered people on this board his friends". I really liked that. And I cant remember him ever abusing you verbally, like you do him here. Maybe you should think about this for a bit... I sure have...

[GIThruster]

You know, Simon may be going on ranting about things and he may not always be right. But he has never been anything but nice to people here.

Oh please don't act like a moron. Simon has threatened me multiple times. He's not the person you pretend, nor he pretends.

He's a druggie.

[Betruger]

It appears from the posts Simon thinks people like me

People like you?