Friday, October 5, 2012

Hear Me Out Please - Drugs

Subject:  All drugs should be legal. 

Preface points.

  • Recreational Drugs are not a good thing. They can be life destroyers.  I've seen some destroyed lives.
  • People who are apt to do drugs are going to do them regardless if they're legal or illegal.
  • There is evidence more people will do more drugs if they're illegal.
  • All drugs were legal pre-1920's America and the country did not explode.  It found many ways to prosper. 
  •  Portugal decriminalized all drugs in the 1990's and drug use and number of addicts has Declined considerably.
  • People who I know who have worked the 'war on drugs' have stated that we could assign every addict a chaperone and save a lot of money. 
  • The goal of the war on drugs  has been to reduce drug use especially with children.
  • The longer the war of drugs has existed the worse the problem has gotten.
  • We can no more eliminate drug use than we can eliminate:
    •  alcohol use
    • prosttution
    • abortion
    • a wide variety of extremely dangerous (and legal) activities performed by people on a continual bass.
My additional thoughts:

The fact that illegal drug cartels are supplying people in America with drugs means that the people doing the drugs are getting product of questionable quality all the way to product that will kill them instantly.

Having drugs manufactured by government sponsored and monitored companies would improve that greaty.

Having drugs available at state sponsored distribution/purchase points would:
  1. improve the quality of the drugs on the street
  2. remove the Drug Pushers
  3. by removing the drug pushers - FAR FEWER YOUNG KIDS WOULD BE DOING DRUGS
    1. This is the most important point. You know that if dealers were selling alcohol on the street a lot more young kids would be doing alcohol.  This is not a major problem.  Young kid drug use IS a major problem. Remove the street dealers and it is Much Harder for young kids to get or be motivated to drugs.
  4. drugs could be handled, in all aspects of society, just like alcohol. There are people who have problems with it and people who don't. Once American manufacturers are the main suppliers of product, all sorts of positive things could evolve:
      1. designer drugs could be manufactured to provide the same or better effect with less damage to the individual
      2. they could be made less addictive (maybe not)
      3. they'd be cheap enough, all of the related drug cartel crime would disappear in America
      4. chemical markers could be included to allow identification of drivers on the highway
      5. tons of law enforcement money would be saved and tons of money would be created as tax revenue - an unintended positive consequence.
  5.  The war on drugs is counter-productive and getting more so by the minute
  6. I Don't Care About Drug Users.  People destroy their lives (many drug users Actually Don't destroy their lives)  in many ways that are not only legal, but that as a society - We Celebrate !
    1.  Boxing. Race Driving. Football. Skiing. etc,etc, 'to infinity and beyond' etc.
    2. Come on folks.  Do you care about drug users to the point you want to save them form themselves ?  How about people who jump off the tops of mountains in flying squirrel suits then - why aren't you passionate about saving Them.  Far more of those people, by percentage per capita get killed than do drug users.

Main point: With street dealers eliminated through cheap supply to adults, the number of kids getting and using drugs will go down Massively. And that's what we're after right?

  1. I'll appreciate your thoughts and won't give you a hard time if you disagree.  I expect everyone to disagree.
  2. Nothing like this will Ever happen.  So it's all academic anyway.
  3. obama is such a dweeb.


  1. Careful, you are bucking the Prison Industrial Complex, The Judges, The Law Enforcement/Legislature-The Excuse for the latent Police State. The Dems will not retreat their foothold on the endruns around the Constitution with such, War on this and that.

    1. They Say, I'd say you've summed it up perfectly. Thanks.
      I'm sure it's a money maker for the government, local, state and fed.

  2. I agree w/ TSWS-+++it would create a new -legitimate-"industrial" group that then would be taxed so our taxes would be less--and -maybe- that group would be strong advocates to rid ourselves of the IRS and over-taxation-
    What do you think--

    as to muslims maintaining our aircraft-(post below) --I know that is true and have often wondered about 'accidents'-

  3. I'm just going to point out that this area is one in which government imposition of morality has failed, absolutely and without exception.

    I recall reading (and have never been able to find it again) that if the Los Angeles Police Department stopped buying drugs, the price and thus the trade would collapse.

    1. Hi Larry, Now there' s point (LA Police) I never heard before. I'm not sure what to say about it. Interesting though.

  4. Carol-CS, Hmmm, don't know what the effect would be on the IRS, but I'm thinking it would be minimal. I do think not spending the money on law enforcement/prison system/etc and getting tax revenue instead would be a net positive on that basis.

  5. Kid, you sound positively *Libertarian*.

    I don't dispute the facts of what you said. As a mother, though, I like being able to say to my kids that drugs are illegal. I feel that gives some sort of societal stamp of disapproval on the whole thing. Legalizing it takes one weapon out of the parent's arsenal.

    1. Hi Opus, Well, when I take one of those 'political view' surveys on the net, I always come out Realist.

      I Hear You. I'd like to think it would just fall into any of the other life choices categories that parents have to deal with. I still think far fewer kids would be exposed if the dealers are off the street. So a net gain.

  6. They don't call it Dope for nothing.....

    Labelling something illegal is exactly what Opus #6 describes as a "societal stamp" of disproval. Guns are legal and it does not stop criminals from traffic and use for illicit purposes -- same for drugs.

    If more people were on legal drugs as you put it, would they need a prescription from an ailment, if not then what about people who are ailing and prescribed drugs? What would that do?

    We can respectfully agree to disagree. I think we should have more positive alternatives for young and old alike as a "drug" alternative that expands the mind instead of suppress it through chemicals. Society would be better for it.

    1. Rosey, to answer the question - No, I say treat drugs just like alcohol.

      More people on legal drugs? My point is, and the evidence from Portugal's experiment says, less people do drugs.

      I appreciate the agree to disagree. :)

  7. If the LAPD would stop buying WHAT DRUGS? I don't get that..
    I'm curious.
    I see many of your points, Kid, but the thought of our tax dollars making better drugs for people makes my skin crawl.

    1. Z, I have an open mind on the LAPD thing but I'm having trouble getting a handle on it myself.

      There is not much I can add. I appreciate your comments.

      I'll just add, ask actually, when was the last time we read a news article stating that a car accident was caused by someone who had smoked marijuana ? Compared to alcohol.

  8. Ah, therein lies the wrinkle in your argument Kid:

    "I'll just add, ask actually, when was the last time we read a news article stating that a car accident was caused by someone who had smoked marijuana ? Compared to alcohol."

    By your reasoning, alcohol is legal yet you cite the example that marijuana was safe because it doesn't cause car accidents, but legalized alcohol does. Though alcohol is legal it is one of the causes of death as it relates to alcohol use.

    Though you cite marijuana as safe and by extension should be legalized you also advocate legalizing stronger ilicit narcotics that aren't. It could be said some of these drugs that are stronger than alcohol even.

    1. Rosey, Well, what can I say, I shouldn't have brought up the weed. My main point is I think that we are paying, in more ways than $, for a whole lot more crime with all the stuff illegal than if it was legal. All my arguments are above.

      I respect your opinion. I have yet to meet anyone who agrees with me.

  9. Kid - I don't buy the LAPD analogy a bit. An incredible amount of product is pushed in LA and the LAPD's Buy/Bust Ops would truly have to be on an astronomical level. That being said, I believe we have a narcotics problem because so many of our government officials and elected representatives are using them. Hypocritical laws never work. Making the possession and use of drugs legal may defuse the violence but it is just too lucrative a trade for the thugs to give it up. Just as the moonshiners continue their operations, the narcotics traffickers will also not give up their profitable networks. They'll just cut their prices. And of course the sale of narcotics will remain illegal in order to protect the government drug outlets. So there will never be completely legitimized drugs - same thing for booze - you must be licensed by the State in order to sell alcohol.

    Our popular culture is corrupt - it worships sex and drugs. The black culture is even worse. This isn't going away anytime soon I'm afraid. This social chaos is a reflection of entering God's retribution for ignoring His laws.

    1. Sig, PS, the idea is to do whatever is necessary to put the dealers out of business. Cutting prices is not a problem, if you remove the cost of what we're doing now. We'd still be net positive selling the stuff at a loss if need be.

  10. Sig, Thank you. Yes, it is never going to go away. Heck, it would be a positive if people just understood more on a realistic level.

    People running around banging their head on the wall and paying more to do it.

  11. Follow the money.

    The War on Drugs is a huge money maker.
    You really think the private prison system is going to surrender one of the few growth industries in America? Please stop.

    1. Duck, I agree on the money. The prison system is a minor point. Fed, state and local governments make huge amounts of money while they let our children be prey to street drug vendor vermin.

      On the prison system, and all local government employee, cops, prison workers, they make sure they keep their jobs and massively profitable benefits. Exceptions for individuals within these groups but of course.

  12. Kid,

    It's tough to advocate an unpopular position. I admire your stamina. I believe that most people, here and myself included, who disagree with your assessment is because they have all had their lives impacted negatively because of drugs.

    It's not that your argument in favor of decriminalising all drugs is a bad one (because it has not happed here to get a guage on success/failure of such a program) it's just one of those "hot topic" issues that people are adamantly opposed to.

  13. Nothing interesting to add, just wanted to register my agreement! So now you can't say you've yet to meet anyone who does. :)

    1. Jez, it is nice to know there is at least one. Thx.

  14. My attitude is remarkably different from most other people. Whether we are talking about drugs or booze, I have no objection if people drink themselves to death, or snort twenty pounds of coke every day. In fact, I think our longer term problems would be satisfactorily resolved if the taxpayers paid for drugs and booze, delivered truckloads of that stuff to all the major cities, and tell everyone “go for it.”

    1. Robert, I agree with that angle too. I don't care about suicidal victims anywhere near how I care about their daily innocent victims. But I get the other point to. Probably the majority of them are democrat voters.

      Thx for the input. :)

  15. Somehow I do not think you would have this attitude if one of those who snort 20lbs of cocaine everyday and drink themselves to death were driving in your neighborhood and mowed down your family members in a drug induced or booze related stupor. The collateral damage that ensues when people alter their awareness chemically is proven and splashed across the daily newspapers.

    I see the cynasism is RS's post but think his underlying anger or theme is more directed towards major cities than with the war on drugs. Perhaps the anger is even political in nature as US cities as liberal bastions?

    I think kid touched on this with his reply, but a little more deftly. Don't get me wrong, I am not being disrespectful to your remarks, I just wish that in the forum of open ideas and exchanges of thought that you let your anger out with a little more specificity because it would be much more useful and probably entertaining to get to this undercurrent of yours. I think I share your undercurrent views, if I am reading you right, about disdain for major cities like NY, Detroit, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, etc., and their inner city socialist issues that fuel the need to be stoned, or stupid just to live and survive there as long as you can.

  16. Drugs. I am not really an anti-drug Nazi like many of my conservative bretheren, nor am I scrambling to join NORMAL, either. I did more than my share of bogarting doobies during my misspent youth, and I can agree with most every point above, Kid. This is now just an issue that is so far down under the radar with me (the deficit, entitlements, the economy, Iran, terrorism, liberals running amok all much more important to deal with immediately), I can live with whatever the Zeitgeist dictates regarding drugs.

    How's that for my 'independent' point of view?

    1. Hear Hear Fredd, Thought I'd take a break from the political Din of rational conservatives trying to converse with sociopathic, immature, rude, irrational libtards. As I like to do.

      Just say No to Libtardness ! Maybe we should have a war on socipathic, immature, rude, and irrational people, since they're doing far more damage to America than drugs ;-)

      A little cross connection there for ya..

    2. Kid: dirty little secret, just between you and me. That war between libtards and you and me has begun. It's just a matter of time before there is blood in the streets. And it technically has already started with liberals and the Occupy Wall Street violence. It is us vs them. And always remember: they don't like guns. We cling to them. Right? You tell me who will win that struggle, go ahead, take your time.... ;-)

    3. Fredd, I agree. Here's my prediction. obama loses big time. The Losers go all riot - and not just for a little while. I Will defend.

  17. Kid, do they check for pot after a car accident? And how?

    1. Z, If they have some reason to look for it. Smell being #1, very distinct, they'll look for physical evidence - 'roaches' in the ash tray, or reefer in the vehicle somewhere.

      Just to keep it simple, too much alcohol is the main cause of vehicle accidents. To my knowledge, most drugs don't much contribute to road accidents, exceptions for PCP and too much crack or things that put people to sleep. Can't drive when you're sleeping.

      I dunno, someone point me to an article mentioning heroine, coke, LSD, amphetamines, and other similar drugs as the cause for accidents. I don't think I've ever read such an article.
      This is not a recommendation to do drugs and drive but statistically, alcohol is by far the number one bad boy as far as driving.

  18. I think you're on to something Kid! Making it legal would take the criminal element out of it.

    If people want to kill themselves, booze also is very bad, and that's legal.
    The gov't should make it and sell it, the deficit would disappear!

    1. Thank you Bunni !

      I don't think people have a real sense of how much crime is being perpetrated that affects us in very negative ways outside of just the direct obvious ones.

      I don't think people realize How Many More Kids would NOT be doing drugs if the street dealers were off the streets And how many more kids would not evolve into adult drug users.

      What is going on is the Poster Boy for Libtard "solutions", Spend massive amounts of money and make the problem worse. Then further dick with law abiding citizens by for example, having them show picture ID to buy a Feeakin Sudafed pill ! You don't have to show ID to Voteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..


      It's broken. FUBAR.

    2. .. And how much crime is happening in general

  19. This country was founded in defiance of the Law Makers gone amuck.
    Every time Law Makers try to outlaw human nature the people rebel.
    The only good laws are the ones like Driving While Under the Influence.
    There has to be a deterrence for acting up in public.
    But to enact a law for the sole purpose of controlling the peoples behavior
    is like telling the people they can not pray in public - there will be an uprising.
    This we see in the number of non violent drug crimes relating to the prison population.
    It is an easy way to brainwash the people and make a lot of money for their cronies in
    the political,and Judicial System. Prohibition of alcohol was the prime example of brainwashing.
    And the People just would not stand for it.

    1. They Say, Excellent analysis. I couldn't agree more.

  20. Thanks, Kid. It breaks my heart to see so many Americans willing to surrender "OUR Rights" for some emotional knee jerk issue, usually planned and executed by some Dictator - Want - A - Be,
    either State Law Makers or Federal Law makers;
    I even see it in the Local City Council Groups.
    And the (want a be) Dictators know and use psychology (reverse and or philosophical) tactics to pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

    A Politician had the guts to say -'You can fool some of the People some of the time, But, You Cannot Fool All Of The People All Of The Time'.
    - Or something close to that.

    1. They Say, Knee jerk reactions. Exactly. The emotional response is almost Always wrong, but it is what has gotten us to this point.
      Imagine - 2 democrat presidents since 1963 have totally destroyed the country. If it doesn't get turned back and soon, and it hasn't yet, then say G'bye..
      This is the eventuality I'm betting on.

  21. Kid,
    My father (1911-1998) used to say much the same thing. At the time, I thought that he was crazy. But time has proven Dad correct. The war on drugs is a failure -- and is costing us the taxpayers too damn much.

  22. Besides, now addiction is classified as an illness with a built-in relapse clause.

    Now, I've known a lot of people who have defeated their addiction and have stayed clean. But the treatment programs didn't really get these folks cleaned up. Their own determination did!

    There are more active addicts in the treatment programs than addicts trying to change their lives. Really. These active addicts are working the system: staying out of jail, keeping their jobs, etc., by dint of simply being in a treatment program. They often show up high!

    The addicts who have reformed -- at least the ones I know -- hated the treatment programs. Why? Because all that went on there was talking about drugs. Constant talk about drugs makes an addict yearn for drugs -- or so I've been told.

  23. AOW, great points about the treatment programs. I can see it as an illness for sure. Some people can do drugs and it's temporary and drugs simply fade from their lives. Fairly serious sounding drugs.

    Some people can't drink 2 beers and stay out of trouble. I remember a guy I worked with years ago getting a DWI and having to go to classes. That was the first thing they told him. Some people can drink like fish and not have a problem with the outside world, some people can't have 2 beers. He was one of the guys that couldn't have 2 beers.

  24. That great libertarian, PK O'Rourke in his book "Parliament of Whores" quoted an emergency room doctor in NYC who stated that the drug problem will end when all the addicts are dead. If we would just stop all the trouble and expense in keeping these people alive and let nature take it's invariably correct course...

    1. Sig I'm with you. "We" can't save people from themselves from thousands of different activities they might get involved with. WHY is drug use singled out?

      Money for government is the answer of course in reality. As I said, I care more about the innocent victims of drug users than I do about drug users.

  25. I agree with you at least as far as marijuana. Harder drugs--not so much. Pot should be legalized 100%, not just for medicinal use and the taxation proceeds should be used to REALLY have a "War on drugs", not the bullshit half-assed attempts at it that we have now.

  26. Average American, Thanks for the input. I'd just ask you to consider how many kids would not be doing any drugs without the street dealers. And if they don't do them as kids, far fewer would be doing them as adults...

    Weed should definitely be legal. Period. No more dangerous than cigarettes. Free up a Lot of current crime realted activity across the board.

    Personally, I don't believe we've ever had or will have a war on drugs. It's fake, a revenue generator and a jobs program. Respectfully.