I don't post here often, but...

[scamper]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom
As for pot, we agree. You won't find a pot head causing much harm to anyone. Violent crime and weed don't mix well, though I wouldn't call pot or any other drug totally harmless.

You can legalize all of it, but the problem would still exist. Users would still become addicts. It would still cost money. Addicts would still beg, borrow, and steal to get it. You may divert the profits from dealers, etc. to the government and legitimate businesses, but that is about the only "good" that will come of it.

It is complete backward thinking to say one bad drug (alcohol) is legal so we should make the entire lot legal as well. Its ill effects are already well documented yet is continually used as a scapegoat for why we should make every other drug legal. It's a good example of why other drugs should remain illicit. We all hear that we should drink responsibly. A lot of the time it catches up in one way or another to those who don't, and by that point it usually infringes on others. And besides, who ever heard of a responsible crackhead?


What about people who have children? I know, I know, people who use drugs don't care a lot about whether they are using in the presence of kids, but making them legal would in essence make it "okay" to do so. So theoretically, some of those kids wouldn't even be able to pass a drug test.




So let me get this straight.



Legalize it.



Help people become addicted.




Punish them for becoming addicted.




Then, help them become un-addicted.

Nick, if you want to live next door to some people with smack vouchers, more power to you. I'll steer clear of your neighborhood.

A voice of reason in this gay thread.

[SparkieD]

Originally posted by MERRYKISSMASS2U
I feel as if I have no freedom because of this fight.

You have no freedom because you can't legally smoke a bowl? Geez

[binnie]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom


It is complete backward thinking to say one bad drug (alcohol) is legal so we should make the entire lot legal as well. Its ill effects are already well documented yet is continually used as a scapegoat for why we should make every other drug legal. It's a good example of why other drugs should remain illicit. We all hear that we should drink responsibly. A lot of the time it catches up in one way or another to those who don't, and by that point it usually infringes on others. And besides, who ever heard of a responsible crackhead?

Tiki, I respect your view but I disagree. I hope you realize that I'm not getting at ya as your one of my favourite posters. What follows is an attempt at an intelligent reply (it's been a LONG week and this might not make sense )

To me, it's completely hypocritical to say that two highly addictive drugs - alcohol and nicotine - are socially acceptable but all others aren't: what makes those two different? To me it's a simple decision: they are either all illegal, or all legal. I'll bet that alcohol kills more people each year than crack, heroin, crystal meth or anything else combined. Anyone who's been in the presence of a hopeless alcoholic knows how dangerous and addictive that drug is.

Maybe I come at this from a different cultural angle than you US guys. As a nation, the British drink way, way, way more than just about anyone else on the planet (except the Irish maybe.) It is a real social problem here, and I would say that most people drink heavily, getting regualry hammered two or three nights and week, between the ages of 16-30 and beyond. This inevitably leads to a lot of violence.

I'll give you an example: I live in the centre of a big city, and when I'm walking home from the office every Friday and Saturday night at around 10PM (I'm a workaholic) I have to walk though the pub zone of town and almost on a weekly basis I will be challenged by an angry drunk. Now I'm a failry big guy: 6', 190lbs with a skinhead, but some drunk asshole and his friends will decide to try and pick a fight with me. Several times in the last few years, it has come to blows, purely from defence in my case.

Now, to me that is socially unnacceptable. No-one however is calling for a crackdown or banning of alcohol, despite thousands of assaults and violent crimes being committed by drunks in the UK every week the blame is always on the individual, who hasn't acted responsibly. But if a crackhead was to do the same thing, people would blame it on drugs and call for harsher measures - it would be crack's fault, not the individuals. Thats a double standard.

Legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. There will always be hopeless drug addicts, no matter how harsh or how lenient the measures are. But for my money, legalizing and regulating drugs would lessen the knock-on problems. If say, your daily heroin habit dropped from $50 per day (whilst illegal) to the price of a pack of cigarettes( whilst legal), then you wouldn't have to steal or mug to fund it. To me, that would mean lower crime.

Well, that's my view. I suppose I should add that for the last 2.5 years I have been completely sober (almost) and gave up any other recreational drugs a long, long time ago.

Nice talking to you Tiki.

[SparkieD]

I think you've missed Tiki's point entirely, Bin. He never said alcohol was more acceptable than the others. What he did say is that is it a prime example of why the others should remain illegal due to the fact that when it becomes a problem, it is usually the problem of more people than the ones abusing it. So the entire argument of having the freedom to do whatever one wants with his own body without hurting others is null and void. The entire population cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with mind-altering substances. It's been proven with alcohol.

[binnie]

Ahhhh, thanks Sparkie (and sorry for misunderstanding you Tiki.)

Having re-read the post, I see my error now.

My rejoinder would be that that's a pretty strong case to ban alcohol, no? It seems hypocritical to allow one but not all.

Also, for me the person should be punished, not the drug. You get to drunk and assault someone, you get arrested. You take crack and assault someone, you get arrested. You drink-drive and kill someone, you go to jail, and the same for crack users.

Does it follow that ALL drug users would commit crimes if their drugs were readily available and affordable? I think not. I would say that most heroin addicts steal and mug to fund their habit. It's an act of desperation - "I need my drug and I'm going to get it any way I can" - not an increased propensity to violence. I think that legalizing and regulating would make drugs more affordalble, therefore reducing that desperation and consequnelty lower drug related crime.

But I completely understand the view of folks who aren't prepared to take that chance. When I've had this discussion with my dad, he tells me that I'm still young enough to believe that most people are inhernetly good, lol!

Once again, sorry for the earlier mis-reading on my part.

[kwame k]

There’s no doubt that drugs and alcohol have ruined people. Chronically addicted people have torn apart families, harmed innocent bystanders, robbed, killed, prostituted themselves or their children out, and Ruined Van Halen! (Couldn’t resist) There is no denying that drugs and alcohol are dangerous to our society.

This may be splitting hairs but totally legalizing and decriminalizing drug use are two different things. Mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines replace the common sense and individual circumstances that are unique to every case brought before a judge. No extenuating circumstances. A drug addict should not be sentenced to the same penalties as a drug dealer. A recreational user should not be sentenced the same as every other type of offense. It’s not a one size fits all scenario. Absolutism takes away a judge or DA’s ability to allow the crime to fit the punishment. Rehabilitation and treatment has for some time been an alternative to jail but it’s not a standard. Non-violent offenders and chronically addicted drug/alcohol abusers do pose a danger to themselves and to society. I agree with that but to lump everyone and every type of drug into one category doesn’t work either.

Has alcohol and drug abuse gone down since the stricter guidelines have been in place? You just get more people in jail and more people in our court system. Frank Zappa said if you want to get people off of drugs give them a better reality. If I lived in a project or a socially/economically depressed environment with no hope of ever having a better life I would want to escape too.

Fuck, wait a second…………I do, I live in Michigan! God a need a drink!

Anyhow, given the prospect of no future and a short life of poverty I would want to change my situation. I don’t condone the whine ass I’m a victim mentality but I can understand the temptation to make 1000’s of dollars a week as opposed to a minimum wage, dead end can‘t even feed my family job. To send a 17 year old to jail for 20 years just guarantees that that person will never be more than an institutionalized individual for the rest of their life.

There has to be a middle ground and some common sense applied to our failed War on Drugs. I don’t believe you should be able to buy crack over the counter at the local 7/11 or that all drugs should be legal. I do believe that people who get addicted or get caught using drugs should have a better alternative than the harsh penalties and mandatory minimums. The system we have now hasn't worked nor will it ever work. The war on drugs has failed.

[MERRYKISSMASS2U]

Originally posted by SparkieD
You have no freedom because you can't legally smoke a bowl? Geez

It means more than that. To me, the drug war says that the government has more control over my body than I do. And that should bother you.

[SparkieD]

Originally posted by MERRYKISSMASS2U
It means more than that. To me, the drug war says that the government has more control over my body than I do. And that should bother you.

Although I don't smoke now, I never felt like the government had control over my body when I did. And trust me, when I was doing it-which was quite often I could've given a shit that it wasn't legal. Hell, in hindsight, I probably would've liked it a lot less if it had been legal

Bother me? I live in one of the freest countries in the entire world and for that I am grateful. Since you live in the same country as I do, perhaps you should stop taking your freedom for granted.

[thome]

5000 plus post but," You Don't Post Here Often"


FUKK OFF PUSSY!

and your candy assed thread too.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by binnie
....
As for heroin addicts receiving small doses in the UK, I'm not sure....

This is something I saw as a kid in the 1980s (on 60 Minutes or something). They may have in fact ended the program because methadone is available...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom
As for pot, we agree. You won't find a pot head causing much harm to anyone. Violent crime and weed don't mix well, though I wouldn't call pot or any other drug totally harmless.

Actually, that depends. In Canada in the 80s and early 90s, there was a wave of dealer turf war violence between pot gangs...

Hell, there were turf wars over the smuggling in of cheaper American CIGARETTES in the 1990s in parts of Ontario Canada!!

You can legalize all of it, but the problem would still exist. Users would still become addicts. It would still cost money. Addicts would still beg, borrow, and steal to get it.

Like alcoholics? Actually, there'd be far more restrictions on addicts and drug use than there is of alcohol users in my imaginary system...

You may divert the profits from dealers, etc. to the government and legitimate businesses, but that is about the only "good" that will come of it.

The dealers exist because of the profit motive. Take that away, and 75% of the related crime goes away. People no longer have to steal to get their fix. But they CAN get help, no questions asked, if they want to get unaddicted...

And so do the numbers of addicts rotting away in prisons on our dime --to the tune of billion$ a year...

It is complete backward thinking to say one bad drug (alcohol) is legal so we should make the entire lot legal as well. Its ill effects are already well documented yet is continually used as a scapegoat for why we should make every other drug legal.

And as the border wars in Ontario Canada showed, even mundane cigarettes can cause violence if there is a suppressed market, underground and run by the mob, for it!

It's a good example of why other drugs should remain illicit.

I say the thousands in prison for nonviolent drug crimes, the failed "War on Drugs," and the utter failure of prohibition and its helping to establish organized crime in America are reasons to differ...

We all hear that we should drink responsibly. A lot of the time it catches up in one way or another to those who don't, and by that point it usually infringes on others. And besides, who ever heard of a responsible crackhead?

Crack and meph would be illegal as impure, synthetic lab drugs. And with cheap coke --indeed-- safe, gov't regulated coke, who'd want 'em?

Crack is the po' man's drug, which is why it mostly ravages African American communities in addition to more than a few white ones...

What about people who have children? I know, I know, people who use drugs don't care a lot about whether they are using in the presence of kids, but making them legal would in essence make it "okay" to do so. So theoretically, some of those kids wouldn't even be able to pass a drug test.

People don't often care whether they drink and smoke in front of their children either, sadly. And drug tests would become no more relevant than an 'alcohol test'..

In any case, the big draw to drugs is the taboo of them being illegal and "bad"...

Just like European rates of alcoholism are lower, despite the fact that people can legally drink much earlier. Coincidence? I think NOT! There is no taboo of the rebellious, corporate-constructed image of the ironic nonconformist...

So let me get this straight.

Legalize it.

Partially. In a very controlled circumstance under omnipresent gov't observation...

Help people become addicted.

No more than the alcohol industry contributes to teen drinking and alcoholism in the US via advertising glorifying its "coolness."

In fact, all drug related advertising other than gov't PSAs would be banned...

Punish them for becoming addicted.

NO! Punish people for violating laws regarding narcotics distribution in an attempt to undermine their legal distribution...

It's not a crime to DO drugs, just to sell them unless working in the socialist Gov't distribution network...

Then, help them become un-addicted.

As opposed to what? The current system that sends them to prison while not attacking the current root of the problem?

Isn't that what we do now? Actually, we don't!

Nick, if you want to live next door to some people with smack vouchers, more power to you. I'll steer clear of your neighborhood.

You probably already live next to drug users. If you don't believe that, than your naive and just fooling yourself...

[Little Texan]

Originally posted by thome
5000 plus post but," You Don't Post Here Often"


FUKK OFF PUSSY!

and your candy assed thread too.

He was referring to posting in the Front Line, fucktard. And you're the one to be calling someone else a pussy...pot-kettle-black, anyone? What's wrong, the subject of drug use in this thread hit just a little too close to home for you? After all, most of your posts read like you're strung out on crack or meth while you're typing them!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by thome
5000 plus post but," You Don't Post Here Often"


FUKK OFF PUSSY!

and your candy assed thread too.

Have another Schlitz you drunken, hypocrite assclown...

Don't forget to pray to Jesus and the school of hard cocks...

[thome]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Have another Schlitz you drunken, hypocrite assclown...

I'm gonna knock you out.... cause momma said so.... you asshat pretentious candy ass.

Name one instance that states -I lied- to you or anyone else here on this board .

then you can call me a HYPOCRITE!

assclown drunk fool douchebag whoremonger i'll take all that and say you are correct but LIER ? HYPOCRITE?

Sorry wrong guy!

Eat Me!

*in the nicest most politically correct my son is a a student at dipshit middle school way possible*

[MERRYKISSMASS2U]

Originally posted by thome
5000 plus post but," You Don't Post Here Often"


FUKK OFF PUSSY!

and your candy assed thread too.

Inbred.

I meant "The Front Line."