The Partnership For a Freedom-Free America Strikes Again...

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-06-01 03:32pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: That game is a drug

Your point?

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-06-01 04:18pm

RedImperator wrote:How could I forget?

Sanctimony: The Anti-Drug

lol, priceless!

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-06-01 05:02pm

This whole anti-drug campaign is bullshit. The only thing they should do is inform High School students of how drugs work in the biological sense, and let them sort it out. That's the reason I don't even drink except occasionally and in moderation. I remember swabbing lab equipment with ethanol, thinking about how it was killing the bacteria, and wondering why the fuck so many of my classmates were going to go and ingest the stuff later that day.

If someone wants to dose up on crack, that's his business, I think. The reason it spawns violent crime is because it's illegal in the first place. Can you imagine if narcotics were legal, and the current crop of gun-slinging drug dealers was forced to compete with Merck or Pfizer? How long would they last?

The efforts against Ecstasy and Marijauna are especially laughable. They're no more harmful to the user than cigarettes, far too easy to get to be prevented, and are a minimal source of violent crime.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-01 05:52pm

Fuck anti-drug education. Just show every high school kid Requiem for a Dream, unedited. That should be enough.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2003-06-01 06:45pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:The efforts against Ecstasy and Marijauna are especially laughable. They're no more harmful to the user than cigarettes, far too easy to get to be prevented, and are a minimal source of violent crime.

In a recent TV feature here about some police unit in Cal fighting Marijuana plantings one of the cops interviewed said something about a new cultivated strain 20 times stronger and as addictive as Crack ... "Marijuana is not harmless anymore"

Okay, I don't know how much they're bullshitting, so it's just another bit of semi-useless trivia...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-01 07:06pm

Jawawithagun wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:The efforts against Ecstasy and Marijauna are especially laughable. They're no more harmful to the user than cigarettes, far too easy to get to be prevented, and are a minimal source of violent crime.
In a recent TV feature here about some police unit in Cal fighting Marijuana plantings one of the cops interviewed said something about a new cultivated strain 20 times stronger and as addictive as Crack ... "Marijuana is not harmless anymore"

Okay, I don't know how much they're bullshitting, so it's just another bit of semi-useless trivia...

Steaming bullshit to frighten middle class suburbanites into voting for bigger anti-drug police budgets. I don't see them using that same argument against tobacco.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-06-01 07:07pm

Jawawithagun wrote:In a recent TV feature here about some police unit in Cal fighting Marijuana plantings...

Minor nitpick; if you're talking about the state of California, it's spelled (and pronounced) c-a-l-i-f-o-r-n-i-a. "Cal" is generally short for "University of California", esp. UC Berkeley.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-06-01 08:12pm

RedImperator wrote:
Jawawithagun wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:The efforts against Ecstasy and Marijauna are especially laughable. They're no more harmful to the user than cigarettes, far too easy to get to be prevented, and are a minimal source of violent crime.
In a recent TV feature here about some police unit in Cal fighting Marijuana plantings one of the cops interviewed said something about a new cultivated strain 20 times stronger and as addictive as Crack ... "Marijuana is not harmless anymore"

Okay, I don't know how much they're bullshitting, so it's just another bit of semi-useless trivia...
Steaming bullshit to frighten middle class suburbanites into voting for bigger anti-drug police budgets. I don't see them using that same argument against tobacco.

How did that commercial end, anyway? With "The cop said so, therefore, without any supporting evidence, we can jump to the conclusion that all marijuana comes from a few hydroponic farms in California.", and then goes to a screen that says "Bullshit: The anti-drug"?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-01 09:25pm

RedImperator wrote:
Jawawithagun wrote:In a recent TV feature here about some police unit in Cal fighting Marijuana plantings one of the cops interviewed said something about a new cultivated strain 20 times stronger and as addictive as Crack ... "Marijuana is not harmless anymore"

Okay, I don't know how much they're bullshitting, so it's just another bit of semi-useless trivia...
Steaming bullshit to frighten middle class suburbanites into voting for bigger anti-drug police budgets. I don't see them using that same argument against tobacco.

And the shitstorm over the manipulation of nicotine and other chemical levels in cigarettes isn't the same? But the fact remains that relatively ordinary marijuana is no more harmful than cigarettes. It'll fuck you up in the long term and if you abuse it, it'll work much quicker.

Some of that manipulated stuff is dangerous thought. There has been some of that stuff from Canada that's flat out killed people.

Drugs are dangerous and lethal, legal or not.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-01 09:27pm

If someone wants to dose up on crack, that's his business, I think. The reason it spawns violent crime is because it's illegal in the first place. Can you imagine if narcotics were legal, and the current crop of gun-slinging drug dealers was forced to compete with Merck or Pfizer? How long would they last?

It'd put dealer out of business. But what of the massive crop of junkies it'd create? It'd be as destructive as the present system, if not worse.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-01 09:34pm

Steaming bullshit to frighten middle class suburbanites into voting for bigger anti-drug police budgets. I don't see them using that same argument against tobacco.

They don't need to. We already have a war on tobacco that is much more subtle (and effective, for that matter) than the war on drugs.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-01 10:37pm

Stormbringer wrote:
If someone wants to dose up on crack, that's his business, I think. The reason it spawns violent crime is because it's illegal in the first place. Can you imagine if narcotics were legal, and the current crop of gun-slinging drug dealers was forced to compete with Merck or Pfizer? How long would they last?
It'd put dealer out of business. But what of the massive crop of junkies it'd create? It'd be as destructive as the present system, if not worse.

I challenge you to say that in any one of Philadelphia's world class open-air drug markets. Even assuming the massive crop of junkies, the situation in the cities could hardly get any worse. At the very least, legalization would push drug sales out to where the majority of drug users live--in the suburbs.

All most drug addicts care about is getting their fix, not causing problems for other people. Between the price drop that legalization would bring, the ability for doctors to prescribe controlled doses of the drug to keep cravings under control, and more users seeking treatment because there's no chance they can be hauled off to jail by admitting they're users, legalization would reduce drug crime across the board even if the number of users went up, AND would of course eliminate the unconscionable injustice of putting people in jail for harming nobody but themselves.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-06-01 11:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:Not wanting to fuck my life up: My Anti-drug

That one I like.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-01 11:10pm

legalization would reduce drug crime across the board even if the number of users went up,

Drug warriors aren't honest, but we should be. Legalizing drugs will definitely increase the amount of drug users, you can count on it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-01 11:16pm

All most drug addicts care about is getting their fix

Which is a problem when your plan would cause use of hard core drugs to sky rocket. Desperate, fucked up drug addicts desperate for a fix would be a major problem.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-01 11:17pm

Stormbringer wrote:
All most drug addicts care about is getting their fix
Which is a problem when your plan would cause use of hard core drugs to sky rocket. Desperate, fucked up drug addicts desperate for a fix would be a major problem.

Not really, with the price of the drugs deflated beyond recognition.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-01 11:39pm

Durran Korr wrote:Not really, with the price of the drugs deflated beyond recognition.

But given that most hard core drug users aren't going to be holding jobs anyway the relative price isn't going to matter too much. It'd matter for lighter drugs though. Let's face it, a crackhead's always going to be worthless and unemployable, legal or not.

And replacing dealers with addicts isn't going to do much to reduce crime. Just change the criminal and the target.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-01 11:49pm

It'll damn well reduce the kind of crime which has made parts of the cities uninhabitable. And if addicts always turn to crime to support their habit, why don't we hear of people getting mugged for booze money? Anyway, I addressed that--the price would fall to the point an addict could support his habit by panhandling, turning in soda cans, and however else winos get their booze, doctors could perscribe controlled doses so addicts could function (they did that in the 19th century, before people got the bright idea of throwing people in jail for their bad habits instead), and those who sought treatment would be more likely to do so if they weren't afraid of being tossed in jail instead of rehab.

For the record, I've known crack addicts. You're right, they can't function for more than a few weeks at a time. But they could still afford cigarettes and alcohol legally, using cash they earned during the weeks when they held down some shit minimum wage job--they only turned to crime to support their crack habits. Just in case you're wondering, two of them are clean now and the third is in jail.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-02 12:08am

RedImperator wrote:It'll damn well reduce the kind of crime which has made parts of the cities uninhabitable. And if addicts always turn to crime to support their habit, why don't we hear of people getting mugged for booze money?

Because the rate for Alcoholism is lower. Plus alcoholics tend to function better than say a crack or heroin addict. And there are still those that do. I know of several convinience stores that have been robbed for booze and booze money.

All legalizing does change the criminals some and the targets.

RedImperator wrote:Anyway, I addressed that--the price would fall to the point an addict could support his habit by panhandling, turning in soda cans, and however else winos get their booze, doctors could perscribe controlled doses so addicts could function (they did that in the 19th century, before people got the bright idea of throwing people in jail for their bad habits instead), and those who sought treatment would be more likely to do so if they weren't afraid of being tossed in jail instead of rehab.

Possible though by no means garuanteed. After all, most crackheads are going unemployable. So that's going to produce dangerous addicts and lots of them. The problem is what do you do about all them?

And subsidised drug program is a terrible idea. That'd lead to ruin fast. The best way is not to send them to prison but to mandatory rehab/detention centers untill they get clean and then have them do a term of community service.

RedImperator wrote:For the record, I've known crack addicts. You're right, they can't function for more than a few weeks at a time. But they could still afford cigarettes and alcohol legally, using cash they earned during the weeks when they held down some shit minimum wage job--they only turned to crime to support their crack habits. Just in case you're wondering, two of them are clean now and the third is in jail.

And that means what? What you describe is the Catch-22. They can't function while they're messed up and plentiful drugs will make sure they stay messed up.

I'm glad they cleaned up. Two less crackheads.