Indiana considers making Sudafed a controlled substance....

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-03-29 08:00pm

Dalton wrote:Ein and Bryan...please take it elsewhere. PLEASE!

LOL

Bryan, PLEASE get AIM or Yahoo. (Preferably Yahoo)

Sorry about that, Dalton

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-29 08:49pm

MKSheppard wrote:Medical Pot is going to become legal in MD. Our Republican governor
has said that he's gonna sign that bill

He'd better be willing to stand up to the DEA's goons (California and Arizona, IIRC, refuse to cooperate with any Federal marijuana investigations), because the feds won't honor any state laws legalizing marijuana for any purpose whatsoever. Still, it's nice to see a state that isn't on the fringe politically (Vermont, California) legalizing marijuana in any form.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-03-29 09:38pm

I'm surprised they haven't moved to ban Coracedin Cough and Cold tablets. Surely they understand the more...apparent...danger in those. Dumb F*cks.

P.S. The State Department doesn't consider hemp as a controlled substance, but the DEA does. WTF?!?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-29 10:13pm

Vorlon1701 wrote:I'm surprised they haven't moved to ban Coracedin Cough and Cold tablets. Surely they understand the more...apparent...danger in those. Dumb F*cks.

The Drug War is rife with inconsistency and stupidity. You see all these different commercials on television showcasing how smoking marijuana impares your judgment (a girl getting pregnant and the parents not considering an abortion) and slows your reflexes (some guy running over a kid on a bike, when that kid didn't stop and look both ways before riding across the stress).

They want everyoe to understand that these kinds of effects are only restricted to illegal substances like marijuana. No one's ever killed anyone else by driving drunk or gotten pregnant as a result of having sex when under the influence of alcohol, after all.

It's relatively simple. Just appeal to the inherent fears of parents with some slippery slopes (i.e. "If your child ever tries weed, ever, he will become a stoner with no future in life who goes on to harder drugs like crack and heroine"). Encourage parents to talk to their kids about drugs, not talk with their kids rationally about drugs, makig sure that the child's input is irrelevant. Make sure that parents understand that the only way to keep their children safe in a world full of drugs is to ban them entirely, that way they'll support ludicrous laws which give harsher sentences for drug possession, a victimless crime, than something like breaking and entering.

It all comes down to the children. If you can show that something can harm children in any conceivable way, then you'll get uptight, anal, yuppie parents to support banning it because they're too stupid to have an intelligent discussion with their child or teach him critical reasoning skills so they don't have to worry so much about him making the wrong decision.

Always count on people being lazy and wanting the government to protect them from anything they see as harmful. Always.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-03-30 11:07am

Vorlon1701 wrote: P.S. The State Department doesn't consider hemp as a controlled substance, but the DEA does. WTF?!?

That's really bright. Hemp is growing wild all over the midwest. They grew a crap load of that stuff during WWII to make rope for the Navy and the stuff is wild in a lot of rural areas. Just check the ditches on the sides of roads. A certain Boy Scout camp I know.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-03-30 11:11am

Durandal wrote: The Drug War is rife with inconsistency and stupidity. You see all these different commercials on television showcasing how smoking marijuana impares your judgment (a girl getting pregnant and the parents not considering an abortion) and slows your reflexes (some guy running over a kid on a bike, when that kid didn't stop and look both ways before riding across the stress).

They want everyoe to understand that these kinds of effects are only restricted to illegal substances like marijuana. No one's ever killed anyone else by driving drunk or gotten pregnant as a result of having sex when under the influence of alcohol, after all.

It's relatively simple. Just appeal to the inherent fears of parents with some slippery slopes (i.e. "If your child ever tries weed, ever, he will become a stoner with no future in life who goes on to harder drugs like crack and heroine"). Encourage parents to talk to their kids about drugs, not talk with their kids rationally about drugs, makig sure that the child's input is irrelevant. Make sure that parents understand that the only way to keep their children safe in a world full of drugs is to ban them entirely, that way they'll support ludicrous laws which give harsher sentences for drug possession, a victimless crime, than something like breaking and entering.

It all comes down to the children. If you can show that something can harm children in any conceivable way, then you'll get uptight, anal, yuppie parents to support banning it because they're too stupid to have an intelligent discussion with their child or teach him critical reasoning skills so they don't have to worry so much about him making the wrong decision.

Always count on people being lazy and wanting the government to protect them from anything they see as harmful. Always.

I think they finally wised up a little on these anti-drug adds. The most recent one I saw with just two guys talking pretty much told the truth no drug buyers, means no drug dealers, which means no drug lords ...etc.... It still simplifies things a bit and doesn't allow for any consideration of harmless drug use or production but it isn't in your face insulting like the previous idiotic spots.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-31 01:42am

Durandal wrote:
Vorlon1701 wrote:I'm surprised they haven't moved to ban Coracedin Cough and Cold tablets. Surely they understand the more...apparent...danger in those. Dumb F*cks.
The Drug War is rife with inconsistency and stupidity. You see all these different commercials on television showcasing how smoking marijuana impares your judgment (a girl getting pregnant and the parents not considering an abortion) and slows your reflexes (some guy running over a kid on a bike, when that kid didn't stop and look both ways before riding across the stress).

They want everyoe to understand that these kinds of effects are only restricted to illegal substances like marijuana. No one's ever killed anyone else by driving drunk or gotten pregnant as a result of having sex when under the influence of alcohol, after all.

It's relatively simple. Just appeal to the inherent fears of parents with some slippery slopes (i.e. "If your child ever tries weed, ever, he will become a stoner with no future in life who goes on to harder drugs like crack and heroine"). Encourage parents to talk to their kids about drugs, not talk with their kids rationally about drugs, makig sure that the child's input is irrelevant. Make sure that parents understand that the only way to keep their children safe in a world full of drugs is to ban them entirely, that way they'll support ludicrous laws which give harsher sentences for drug possession, a victimless crime, than something like breaking and entering.

It all comes down to the children. If you can show that something can harm children in any conceivable way, then you'll get uptight, anal, yuppie parents to support banning it because they're too stupid to have an intelligent discussion with their child or teach him critical reasoning skills so they don't have to worry so much about him making the wrong decision.

Always count on people being lazy and wanting the government to protect them from anything they see as harmful. Always.

Beautiful Durandal. Simply...beautiful.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-31 02:20am

The Drug war is disgusting and unconstitutional. We should legalize every banned substance on the books. The idea that some drugs are "entry" drugs is ridiculous - Most drugs have exceptionally different actions on the bodily functions, and the worst they do is cause you to crave more of that drug. One concern, of course, is that unlike in the 19th century (when drug use was rife in America and we also did not have total societal collapse as has been predicted for the legalization of drugs), are that some drugs are stronger now - Which is true. But they're also not highly refined, that is to say, of poor quality. One wonders if the difference between low quality drugs of today and higher quality legal drugs of an earlier era is as extensive as it sounds.

People have free will and can exercise it. One problem today is that the drug lords have a vested interest in getting as many clients as possible, and often times drugs are foisted off on people, being forcibly or secretly addicted. Likewise, those who wish to get off their habit face the fact that they are are on an illegal substance.

If drugs were legal, they could be controlled by the government. Taxed, regulated in their quality, and advertising limitations duly set. Likewise, programs to help those addicts off of drugs who wished to break their addictions, could be run without the danger of jail time or criminal records for those who signed up to them. What we would see is a massive decline in people dying from poor quality drugs, and also at least a partial decline in those dying from overdoses - at least of the unintentional sort anyway, with better prepared drugs.

Instead of the government losing massive amounts of money fighting a losing war - give someone with basic knowledge of how the world works thirty minutes and they can pick up drugs in most urban areas or even suburban ones, which largely disproves the idea that the drug war is suppressing massive availability - the government would be bringing in a large amount of sin tax revenue. This money could be used to fund anti-smuggling efforts which could prevent any outside drug producers from undercutting prices in the USA with illicit products (a process much more effective than the current drug war, as the supply would already be met - How much bootleg liquor gets smuggled these days?), and to handle the treatment programs.

Altogether the legalization of illicit substances could only be of total benefit. There would be no flood of drug addicts - indeed, the number might drop slightly - and huge sections of the federal bureaucracy could be eliminated. The sooner this is done the better.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-31 02:50am

*appaludes* Thank you Duchess and Durandel!

I agree whole heartedly, as Ive mentioned before my father works as a Mechanical Supervisor for the Indiana Dept. of Corrections. He whole heartedly supports the legalization of drugs as a means to end the over crowding of our prisions. Currently over 70% of the inmates at Westville Corrections are in for dealing drugs, often time small amounts, but thanks the the massive wisdom of mandatory sentencing even first time offenders are getting 3 and 5 year terms over what , because they tried to make some fast cash selling some weed? Its stupid, criminal and a massive waste of our taxpayer dollars, in the mean time were runining the lives of thousands of people who are not voilent offenders, but just poor folks often trying to make a buck without slaveing for McDonalds or Wal-Mart....

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-31 02:55am

Also regulation and quality control would actually cut down on the negative health impacts of drug use. Street drugs are often cut with god only knows what in order to improve the profit margin. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a rich , movie star coke head getting that sallow skin complexion and poisioned looking eyes common to a street addicts? you don't , why , because they can often afford to buy the pure product, which in the short term is far less damaging than street drugs.......

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-31 08:24am

You wanna get drugs legalized? Start enforcing drug laws where drugs are consumed: in middle-class suburbs. Because let's be honest: John and Jane Q. Suburbia are all for tossing people into the hoosgow forever for possessing a dimebag, as long as it's poor kids from the city with an overabundance of melanin. THEIR kids get probation, reduced sentences, and treatment instead of jail. Start filling prisons with white middle class kids for using drugs, and you'll see America change its attitude REAL quick.

(I usually don't play the race card in political arguments such as this, but in this case, it's hard to ignore: out of the hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders in prison, the majority of them are minorities in a country that's 73% white).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-31 08:28am

Tsyroc wrote:I think they finally wised up a little on these anti-drug adds. The most recent one I saw with just two guys talking pretty much told the truth no drug buyers, means no drug dealers, which means no drug lords ...etc.... It still simplifies things a bit and doesn't allow for any consideration of harmless drug use or production but it isn't in your face insulting like the previous idiotic spots.

Now let's try it the logical way: no drug prohibition, means drug dealers are legitimate businessmen, means drug profits go to farmers and pahrmaceutical companies instead of drug lords. It's not as catchy, but it's a hell of a lot more realistic than "no drug users". Incedentily, if phamaceutical companies started manufacturing recreational drugs (or were allowed to sell certain prescription drugs recreationally), how much extra profit would they have to spend on research into medical drugs?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-03-31 08:56am

RedImperator wrote: Now let's try it the logical way: no drug prohibition, means drug dealers are legitimate businessmen, means drug profits go to farmers and pahrmaceutical companies instead of drug lords. It's not as catchy, but it's a hell of a lot more realistic than "no drug users". Incedentily, if phamaceutical companies started manufacturing recreational drugs (or were allowed to sell certain prescription drugs recreationally), how much extra profit would they have to spend on research into medical drugs?

Now that would be a good commercial.