Using drugs makes you stupid.

[Diogenes]

You say people aren't rats? HA! When the ship starts sinking, the rats that CAUSED this mess, will come swimming my way. I only hope I have enough ammunition.

Please arm yourself sufficiently.

Worry not my good friend, I am heavily invested in the lead market.

[Diogenes]

Ah, you take the salient point of one conversation, substitute it for the salient point of a different conversation, proclaim them equal, and then chide me for saying such a thing. Brilliant! (Cough-Strawman-Cough Cough)

You have an interesting method of "winning" an argument. Make a general but preposterous statement like "all jews kill christian babies" then backpetal and say "but I was only talking about the ones that do, and you would know that if you read everything I ever wrote, so I am right!"

You're doing it again! Doesn't that straw man get tired?

[Diogenes]

Not proven, but even if so it just means that a true democracy (especially the statistical form this country was started with but which has been subverted by the awyers) is better than the mobocracy you seem to be so in love with.

I would point out that the fact the law has been that such substances are illegal, and have been for a long time, ought to be sufficient proof to demonstrate to any person capable of comprehension, that the point is proven.

It certainly doesn't prove the converse.

Missed the point dude!

At this point in the conversation, I think i'm better off.

[KitemanSA]

The offenders are those people who make the substances available, and spread the contagion to people who would not otherwise be cursed with it.

Then why in the world would you want to darn the very people who could best help you put those "offenders" out of business, the users? Make it legal, control how it can be legally sold to minimize the "pushing" and prosecute those that sell illegally. With the acceptance by society and a secure clean source, the user will almost assuredly identify their "pusher".

Death, Disease, and Destruction are not entertainment.

Really? You watched TV lately?

News flash for you buddy, that stuff is fake. Real death isn't entertaining to anyone but a psychopath. Go watch "faces of death", or Daniel Pearl getting murdered, and tell us how many times you laughed.

You watched the NEWS lately? Is that "fake" too? Sensational, sure, but real "Death, Disease, and Destruction" none-the-less. And to a great degree watched for entertainment. And the topic is entertainment, not comedic entertainment. There are other type ya know! And you should know that the topic was "entertainment" if you read...

[KitemanSA]

The INJURY is inducing others to try this deadening poison.

Again, YOU deciding for others what constitutes an injury. You just seem intent on playing God. If you are induced and you decide you are injured, sue, or charge with fraud. But you hve no right to decide for anyone except your children.

[KitemanSA]

These misdeeds of the majority in the past were the result of prejudice and ignorance.

And in this case, they still are.

[KitemanSA]

You might as well try to protect them from air pollution. The only corrective actions are to move them far away where the poison has not reached, or eliminate the source of the poison.

So why do you insist on supporting policies that not only don't do what you want, but cause the problem to be worse?

[KitemanSA]

Great! It's called the United States of America. Now obey the rules!

Gee, how'd I know you would haul that out?
If we actually lived per the constitution, I'd be happy to concede. We would then live in that statistical democracy I mentioned earlier, i.e., we would have real juries (with jury nullification) rather than the perversions we now have. And drug users would be freed on a regular basis. But we don't live in a constitutional United States. We live in a pervesion created by lawyers for lawyers benefit. As a result, we have idiocies like the drug war, for their benefit, and a hundred other ridiculous "lawyer full employment" acts passed by a Congress dominated by lawyers.

[KitemanSA]

If you want to change the rules, follow the rules for changing the rules. Don't just pretend they don't apply to you, or that they mean something different. That is the tactics of Liberals, who recognize no authority but the state when they rule it.

I would be happy to, but the lawyers have made it almost impossible to change those "rules". They have perverted the one mechanism by which this type of hateful rule was voided in the past; jury nullification. And when the Constitution was perverted by non-constitutional means, the rules that followed have NO legitimacy. They may be "legal" but not legitimate.

[KitemanSA]

You're doing it again! Doesn't that straw man get tired?

Don't know. Ask yourself. You are the one who keeps proping him up!

[KitemanSA]

At this point in the conversation, I think i'm better off.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

[Diogenes]

The offenders are those people who make the substances available, and spread the contagion to people who would not otherwise be cursed with it.

Then why in the world would you want to darn the very people who could best help you put those "offenders" out of business, the users? Make it legal, control how it can be legally sold to minimize the "pushing" and prosecute those that sell illegally. With the acceptance by society and a secure clean source, the user will almost assuredly identify their "pusher".

For someone who is such a stickler for accuracy in words and meaning, you are notably vague in what exactly you mean when you say "Make it legal."

The Usual meaning of "Makeg it legal" means to stop enforcing laws against it. This idea is a non-starter for me. I suggest the possibility of a different methodology that might achieve a result that everybody could live with.

License drugs, with requirements that vary in difficulty in direct proportion to how dangerous the drugs have demonstrated themselves to be.

For Pot, perhaps something like a food handlers permit type class. For LSD, Mushrooms, Acid, A more in depth class requiring an understanding of what you may or may not do under the influence. For cocaine, means testing, and more extensive training regards to law and safety, and for heroin, possibly a requirement that it can only be used under medical supervision. For Crack, and Meth? I cannot comprehend any possible circumstance where such a thing should be tolerated.

Licenses revocable upon violation, just as I suggested with alcohol licenses. This concept would "make it legal" and ought to deflect the worst effects of abuse. I simply cannot see how unfettered access to dangerous narcotics does not represent an every present danger to innocent people. The same is true for current medically prescribed drugs, and so any other drugs should be handled with at least that degree of caution.

Really? You watched TV lately?

News flash for you buddy, that stuff is fake. Real death isn't entertaining to anyone but a psychopath. Go watch "faces of death", or Daniel Pearl getting murdered, and tell us how many times you laughed.

You watched the NEWS lately? Is that "fake" too? Sensational, sure, but real "Death, Disease, and Destruction" none-the-less. And to a great degree watched for entertainment. And the topic is entertainment, not comedic entertainment. There are other type ya know! And you should know that the topic was "entertainment" if you read...

Look, my response was just a pretty good emotional volley in this game we are playing during which we pretend to debate. It was intended to provoke strong reactions on the part of readers, and to run up your negatives, and my positives. Everyone loves to "Wax eloquently in righteous indignation" and if it's done properly, it can move opinions. Clever comments share the characteristics with magic of being able to enchant people to an idea. (Music can do this as well, as can a good speech.)

That is just the mechanics of attempting to sway public opinion. "Politicking", if you will.


That being said, i'm just not in the mood to say some smart assed thing back at you. I think i've made my point, I think you've made yours, and beating the dead horse is just going to make a stinking mess. Therefore, I'm going to suspend the snark for awhile. It was fun, but at some point even *I* have to grow up.

[AcesHigh]

There's one very simple reason why Marijuana will not be legalized on any large scale, and that reason is, like it's pseudonym, it smells like s**t, and not just any s**t either, but the worst of the worst, with skunk thrown in on the side.
The majority of people just flat out can't stand the stink, it's so bad people are more than happy to report neighbours that use to the cops. They cheer them on when the neighbourhood stoner gets hauled off to jail, cause the improvement in air quality is such a relief.
The stoner clique are so arrogant, rationalizing and self righteous they flat out don't realize just how badly they smell or the effect it has on non-users. They won't even use inhalalators, they can't contain their enthusiasm to share the stink.
In those areas that legalize, don't be surprised if the non-users start to organize in protest.

I smoke neither, but regular cigarretes and cigars in my opinion stink 50 times more than marijuana.

We could go on and on, but truth is it's all futile. The reasons we've allowed certain drugs like nicotine and alcohol, and not others; is that the others screw people's lives up on such a regular basis, that they prove they are not acceptable to general, human society.

in my opinion, nicotine and alcohol screw people´s lives more than marijuana. Nicotine in the long term, true. But alcohol... I have several friends that smoke marijuana and they dont have any problems in their lives, unlike a few friends I have who are alcoholics.

not mentioning that a large portion of murders and car crashes are caused by alcohol... nothing of the sort regarding marijuana.

[KitemanSA]

The offenders are those people who make the substances available, and spread the contagion to people who would not otherwise be cursed with it.

Then why in the world would you want to darn the very people who could best help you put those "offenders" out of business, the users? Make it legal, control how it can be legally sold to minimize the "pushing" and prosecute those that sell illegally. With the acceptance by society and a secure clean source, the user will almost assuredly identify their "pusher".

For someone who is such a stickler for accuracy in words and meaning, you are notably vague in what exactly you mean when you say "Make it legal."

The Usual meaning of "Makeg it legal" means to stop enforcing laws against it. This idea is a non-starter for me. I suggest the possibility of a different methodology that might achieve a result that everybody could live with.

I mean remove the laws that prohibit it. Alcohol was prohibited. It was illegal. The prohibition was removed. It was made legal again. Some locales maintained varying degrees of control on it and still do. In no place is it legal to sell to those who are considered minors. People that do sell to minors are punished.

License drugs, with requirements that vary in difficulty in direct proportion to how dangerous the drugs have demonstrated themselves to be.

Licence "drugs"... Buyers? Users? Sellers? Advertisers? I may or may not agree with this concept depending on the voluntary nature of it. Make it default social contract and I can get behind something like this system. And in each case it would have to be limited (like drivers licences) to applicability when off their own property.

For Pot, perhaps something like a food handlers permit type class.

Something like... :If you wish to leave your property any time withing XX hours of having used this drug, you must have taken, understood, and accepted the restrictions attendant with being in public while recently under the influence. And I would add alcohol to this list, if not the more significant ones.

For LSD, Mushrooms, Acid, A more in depth class requiring an understanding of what you may or may not do under the influence.

IBID but a difrferent time for each substance and a different set of knowledge.

For cocaine, means testing, and more extensive training regards to law and safety, and for heroin, possibly a requirement that it can only be used under medical supervision.

More of the same.

For Crack, and Meth? I cannot comprehend any possible circumstance where such a thing should be tolerated.

In which case the use of these drugs will explode and the drug "war" will continue. To solve this issue, the issue MUST be brought under the responsible control of society. When society rejects responsibility, the irresponsible take over.

Licenses revocable upon violation, just as I suggested with alcohol licenses. This concept would "make it legal" and ought to deflect the worst effects of abuse. I simply cannot see how unfettered access to dangerous narcotics does not represent an every present danger to innocent people. The same is true for current medically prescribed drugs, and so any other drugs should be handled with at least that degree of caution.

We actually may be working toward an agreement. I suspect the sole distinction of substance is the "off own property" applicability vs what may be your statement of universal applicability.

[MSimon]

So what about prescribed Oxycontin? Does a doctor's signature change things? Or how about stimulants as strong as the banned ones prescribed to children? What makes the doctor's signature equivalent to a pass?

And how about all the "do not use while operating heavy machinery" drugs? Do people really follow those injunctions? Not much.

What we really have is class warfare. If you can afford to buy in to the medical cartel you get a pass. If not you get jail - if they catch you - which is not often.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... s-war.html

and this is also good:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... drugs.html

You will note that the illegal drugs are the ones off patent. Another price support mechanism. This time for the medical cartel. But it also supports the illegal drug cartels.

In any case no law can give people good judgment. Otherwise we would not still be arresting so many alcohol intoxicated drivers.

Life is messy. I have surrendered to that essential and universal fact.