We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

[Diogenes]

Drugs will be just as legal as any other behavior.

Just as it was before Conservatives joined with Progressives to outlaw drugs and alcohol.

If you remember your history you will recall that before 1914 anarchy reigned. And since then we have had a much more orderly society. Thank goodness. /sarc

Cocaine was outlawed AFTER people became aware of the bad consequences resulting from using it. You are equating a lack of knowledge about a drug's destructiveness to Full knowledge acquiescence.

They are not the same.

As it stands, it is those people who are urging changes to existing law citing stats and studies, expert testimony, who most closely resemble the social engineers of the early 20th century progressive movement. It's funny how you can't see the resemblance.

[WizWom]

I would suggest that the vast majority of people who witness it believe it to be wrong, so whether we can argue that it is objectively wrong is beside the point when it can be demonstrated to be consensusly wrong.
The problem with you folk, is you haven't witnessed it, so you can still linger under the illusion that it's not wrong.

Dude, why should I believe anything you say?

You don't back up your BS with anything.

I HAVE witnessed it, for 30 years. Yes, drug use affects judgement and performance. But not to the extent the propaganda says.

I've been in the inner city, I've dealt with people whacked out on more drugs than you can imagine. I've been exposed to plenty of drugs.

But EVEN if I had never ever seen anything bad happen because of drugs, I wouldn't support legalization just on that basis: I would look at actual research and decide if it was good or bad on the face of broad facts, not my personal experience. But, then, You've shown yourself to be insane, so really, go ahead and talk yourself blue.

[MSimon]

If you are so worried about a police state, why do you support a policy that keeps antagonizing them? The majority wants people to stop using drugs, and you are arguing that the majority should submit to the minority for the purpose of avoiding a police state, where the more sensible advice (if you are really concerned about a police state) is to STOP AGITATING THE POLICE BY DEFYING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE!

I intend to keep antagonizing. I love seeing people in pain. And I love moving the numbers. When I started my crusade about 20% were in favor of total legalization and about 30% favored pot legalization. Now the numbers for total legalization are above 40% and for pot it is near 50%. California has legalization of pot on the ballot this year (the numbers indicate that the proposition will win with about 51% to 56% favorable) and there are at least two organizations of police officers in favor of legalization. The NAACP has come out in favor of legalization. I've come a long way, baby.

I do find it novel that you advise not antagonizing the police state to avoid a police state. F* that. They know where I live. Molon labe.

You know why I don't fear them? Because I have friends who would make such an issue of it that it would hurt the POWERS more than it will hurt me.

My goal is to so demoralize the opposition that war - if it comes - will go against them. Nothing like a little civil war to straighten things out. If you don't want a civil war YOU give up. Because I sure as hell will not.

And I don't give a durn what the majority wants. They can be duped and scammed. I know how the MSM in collusion with the government works. The way to change that is with information. And the anti-prohibitionists are winning the information war despite coming from far behind. Why should I quit when I'm gaining ground and you are losing it?

[Diogenes]

As pointed out in Drug War History Conservatives are just as addicted to social engineering as Liberals.

So not another word against social engineering my friend. Because you have the disease as bad as any liberal.

Preventing changes to law and society that make things worse than they already are is not social engineering. We are not attempting to CHANGE anything, we are attempting to prevent change for the worse.

I'm against the social engineering of the left AND the right.

I would be more sympathetic to your premise if you promoted equal application of the drug laws. i.e. why are blacks targeted more than whites? Because I truly believe that if the laws were equally enforced the War would be over in a year or less. Whites wouldn't stand for having their neighborhoods turned into war zones.

Several reasons. Black subculture is very different from the predominantly white culture. In the black subculture, the police are already the enemy, and breaking laws has no moral component. Many are raised by single mothers often with children from multiple daddies, (THANK YOU Lyndon Johnson and Liberal Social engineers.) and so many of them grow up out of control without normally accepted morals.

Add that to the fact that Crack is ten times more addictive (and powerful) than ordinary powder cocaine, (favored by whites for some reason) and it becomes obvious why there is a huge disparity in law enforcement.

There might be some racism involved, but it is not the major component in the issue. Here in this town, years ago, a local young black man joined the police force, ratted out all his former drug dealing buddies, and got promoted to lieutenant PDQ. The white cops simply could not have done this. Most of the drug dealing in this town is done through the black underclass. Period.

The drugs follow the welfare moms, mostly. Again, thank you government for your social engineering screw up, paid for by our social security funds during your war on poverty. I have repeatedly seen drug addicted welfare moms hand their Access Oklahoma (welfare) cards to a drug dealer, and give him the pin number so they could get drugs from him. This is routine. Where is your animosity against the government for paying for other people's drugs?

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

A very nice example of Republican social engineering:

[/url=http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... _free.html]Individual freedom is behind the times, because we all pay![/url]

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

So don't ever again complain about big government or media distortions. Because you buy into both when it comes to prohibition.

The Conservatives are just as much Power and Control freaks as Liberals. The only difference is what they want to control.

The racism card has been overplayed. At this point I don't even give a crap when people say "Racism!" Likewise, Libertarianism is a philosophy that prefers a simpleminded dogma over a complicated truth.

[Skipjack]

In countries that have legalized consumption of ALL drugs use is going down

Who told you that heroin is legalized in the Netherlands? Only pot is pseudo legalized. I explained that to you before.
I think you are referring to Portugal, where they have a non prosecution policy for the users of all drugs. And those users have to go to rehab and do all sorts of things.
I told you that before and I am saying it again: This is something very different to a legalization. In fact I dont know of any country that has completely legalized all drugs.

[MSimon]

Preventing changes to law and society that make things worse than they already are is not social engineering.

The original social engineering was done in 1914 by Progressives and Conservatives. You favor it. Thus you favor social engineering.

All your double think and new speak doesn't change the facts. The fact that the social engineering was not done on your watch does not negate the fact of social engineering.

I claim that the social engineering done by Conservatives and Progressives has made things worse. Evidence from Holland points in that same direction. So tell me how your social engineering makes things better when legal beer is harder for kids to get than illegal drugs? More than 90 years of opiate prohibition has not changed use rates at all (in so far as we can tell - the stats are not reliable due to the illegality of the behavior - so it is quite possible that the use rates are actually up under the prohibition regime. Stats from the UK vs Holland point in that direction.).

Note: kids using illegal alcohol was a BIG problem. As one mother said: saloons selling to children lose their licenses. Criminals selling to children face no such restrictions. See Holland vs UK re: opiate use.

Mrs. Sabin complained to the House Judiciary Committee: "In preprohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children.""

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionr ... ildren.htm

So actual experience with prohibition points in the same direction as evidence from Holland vs. UK.

Prohibition gives children easier access to drugs. If you think that is a bad idea: legalize.

[MSimon]

I think you are referring to Portugal, where they have a non prosecution policy for the users of all drugs.

It is a start. It seems to be working well. Maybe we should try it in the USA.

Then we can go on to the next step.

[Skipjack]

Again Heroin is not legal in the Netherlands. Far from it!
I dont know where you get your information from!
Even pot is not really legal. Its use is just not prosecuted. The selling and import, etc is still technically illegal.
So GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!

[Skipjack]

It is a start. It seems to be working well.

We do have a basis for talk there.
I am against criminalization of victims. To me addicts are victims of a crime. They need treatment (which is still mandatory in Portugal) and not prison time.
However, the dealers, no mercy for them!

[MSimon]

Let me note also that under alcohol prohibition use was not illegal. Only sales and manufacture. The criminality did not end until use and distribution was made legal.

[MSimon]

Again Heroin is not legal in the Netherlands. Far from it!
I dont know where you get your information from!
Even pot is not really legal. Its use is just not prosecuted. The selling and import, etc is still technically illegal.
So GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!

So true. And yet making use defacto legal has reduced use. Not a total solution. But a start.

We are doing an experiment in California. If the law passes we will see what happens after a few years and can refine from there.

One thing I predict: if the taxes are not too high (see cigarettes, smuggling) the cartels will go out of the pot business.

A proposal to put the legalization of marijuana in California to a vote this November is causing some growers of the plant in the state to worry about a sharp drop in the value of their crop if the measure succeeds.

As The Los Angeles Times explained in January, when supporters of the proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 turned in more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, the initiative “would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to permit marijuana to be grown and sold, and to impose taxes on marijuana production and sales.”

On Monday, The Times-Standard newspaper in Humboldt County, a part of Northern California known as the “Emerald Triangle” for the density of its marijuana crop, reported:

[L]ocal business people, officials and those involved in the marijuana industry are planning to meet Tuesday night and break a long-standing silence to talk about what supposedly is the backbone of Humboldt County’s economy — pot. More specifically, the meeting will focus on the potential economic effects of the legalization of marijuana.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... in-prices/

[MSimon]

Another prediction: if California legalizes I predict they will reap a bonanza from other states that have not legalized. The other states will be forced to legalize in self defense (i.e. to reap some of the tax money and reduce law enforcement and prison costs).

In 5 years pot will be legal in America.

That experience will make it easier to legalize other drugs. You see I have a plan (in cahoots with other anti-prohibitionists).

BTW we know how opium ruined Thomas Jefferson. Don't let that ruination affect you.

Jefferson had planted opium poppies in his medicinal garden, and opium poppies are now deemed illegal. Now, the trouble was the folks at the Monticello Foundation, which preserves and maintains the historic site, were discovered flagrantly continuing Jefferson's crimes. The agents were blunt: The poppies had to be immediately uprooted and destroyed or else they were going to start making arrests, and Monticello Foundation personnel would perhaps face lengthy stretches in prison.

The story sounds stupid now, but it scared the hell out of the people at Monticello, who immediately started yanking the forbidden plants. A DEA man noticed the store was selling packets of "Thomas Jefferson's Monticello Poppies." The seeds had to go, too. While poppy seeds might be legal, it is never legal to plant them. Not for any reason.

Employees even gathered the store's souvenir T-shirts -- with silkscreened photos of Monticello poppies on the chest -- and burned them. Nobody told them to do this, but, under the circumstances, no one dared risk the threat.

Jefferson's poppies are gone without a trace now. Nobody said much at the time, nor are they saying much now. Visitors to Monticello don't learn how the Founding Father cultivated poppies for their opium. His personal opium use and poppy cultivation may as well never have happened.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/145872/ho ... lic_memory

[MSimon]

I lived for a year (when I was five) just down the hill from Monticello. Luckily I never visited the place or else I might have been ruined like Jefferson.

[Diogenes]

I would suggest that the vast majority of people who witness it believe it to be wrong, so whether we can argue that it is objectively wrong is beside the point when it can be demonstrated to be consensusly wrong.
The problem with you folk, is you haven't witnessed it, so you can still linger under the illusion that it's not wrong.

Dude, why should I believe anything you say?

You don't back up your BS with anything.

I HAVE witnessed it, for 30 years. Yes, drug use affects judgement and performance. But not to the extent the propaganda says.

I've been in the inner city, I've dealt with people whacked out on more drugs than you can imagine. I've been exposed to plenty of drugs.

But EVEN if I had never ever seen anything bad happen because of drugs, I wouldn't support legalization just on that basis: I would look at actual research and decide if it was good or bad on the face of broad facts, not my personal experience. But, then, You've shown yourself to be insane, so really, go ahead and talk yourself blue.

I do not believe you. You may have touched upon the periphery of drug usage, but you cannot possibly have any deep experience in it. You may been skirting the periphery for 30 years, (probably involving pot, which is a different crowd and different animal) but if you had gotten into it deep enough to see what the traffic looks like inside a crack house, or talked to the people who hang out there, you wouldn't think what is being said is propaganda.

I will tell you something similar to what I used to tell the junkies who were constantly asking me if I was a cop. (The question alone shows how stupid they were. ) I would tell them, "If you think I'm a cop, then stay the F*ck away from me? Okay? "

For you, the advice is a little different. "If you think I'm full of Shit regarding this stuff, then go hang out around a crack house for a few weeks." A lot of crack houses are motel rooms, because they can hide in the motel traffic, (a crack house has a LOT of traffic.) and because the property can't be seized when they get caught by the police. ( Which they always do if they stay in one motel too long. Again, it's the traffic to and from the crack house that everyone notices all through the night.)

Have you ever been to a crack house?

[Diogenes]

If you are so worried about a police state, why do you support a policy that keeps antagonizing them? The majority wants people to stop using drugs, and you are arguing that the majority should submit to the minority for the purpose of avoiding a police state, where the more sensible advice (if you are really concerned about a police state) is to STOP AGITATING THE POLICE BY DEFYING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE!

I intend to keep antagonizing. I love seeing people in pain. And I love moving the numbers. When I started my crusade about 20% were in favor of total legalization and about 30% favored pot legalization. Now the numbers for total legalization are above 40% and for pot it is near 50%. California has legalization of pot on the ballot this year (the numbers indicate that the proposition will win with about 51% to 56% favorable) and there are at least two organizations of police officers in favor of legalization. The NAACP has come out in favor of legalization. I've come a long way, baby.

I do find it novel that you advise not antagonizing the police state to avoid a police state. F* that. They know where I live. Molon labe.

You know why I don't fear them? Because I have friends who would make such an issue of it that it would hurt the POWERS more than it will hurt me.

My goal is to so demoralize the opposition that war - if it comes - will go against them. Nothing like a little civil war to straighten things out. If you don't want a civil war YOU give up. Because I sure as hell will not.

And I don't give a durn what the majority wants. They can be duped and scammed. I know how the MSM in collusion with the government works. The way to change that is with information. And the anti-prohibitionists are winning the information war despite coming from far behind. Why should I quit when I'm gaining ground and you are losing it?

You miss my point. My point is that your concern over a "Police State" is contrived for the purpose of pushing your agenda. You have seemingly admitted that having a Police state (regardless of the cause) is the lesser of the two evils.