A Reminder For The Coming New Year

[Darth Omar]

You didn’t answer the question, “do people NOT use it because it’s illegal?” “Can you prove more people will use it if it’s legal?” “Will you use it if it’s legal?”

People don't use it because it's not available on the street, yet. No, I can't prove they will use it any more than you can prove they won't. Of course, anyone with a lick of sense knows some people will try anything. And hell no, I won't use it because I won't trash my life to get high on it.

And the difference in the “consequences” from illegal to legal would be what?

Another class of addicts that we can add to a growing list of them. Btw, what's your solution for that?

It will never happen because what? Because there’s way more idiots that think the Drug War is the governments right of passage and BIG government needs to own the average citizen’s body because nobody is as smart as you and biased partisan BIG government authoritarian people like you are? Because in your world it’s better for criminals and terrorist to realize massive tax-free profits than it is for government to tax it? Because it’s better to have drug cartel violence along our borders and among gangbangers in our streets than it is to take the huge profits out of some drugs for dealers? Because it’s better to keep supporting BIG government wasting taxpayer’s money by the billions on a totally failed unconstitutional institution than use that loot to pay down the national debt? Because it’s better to corrupt cops and politicians with illegal drug money than it is for them to not have such temptations?

And you call yourself smart? YEAH RIGHT!!!!!

Deliver me from the constitutionalist Utopians, they're nearly as bad as the socialist version.

 

[Darth Omar]

the bullshit part is that you imply a difference between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition simply because one is deadlier or not. the constitution makes no such distinction in regards to government power over things.

I take it your an across the board drug legalization advocate. It's never going to happen, for several reasons. But has it been tried anywhere and if so, how did it work?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Your rejoinder is bullshit lol. I'm advocating a less government approach, since keeping addicts out of jail and housing them in private rehab settings takes the government out of the equation.

What does that even have to do with the constitution, much less the founders. Feel free to explain.

The problem is; is that a lot of addicts have no desire to go to rehab, unless they're being arrested and then they'll agree to it.
The reason I say this, is because there are organizations that will accept an addict into they're rehab and charge nothing; so they can't say it's to expensive, as a reason.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't know of anything that was once prohibited by government or is still prohibited by government that ever went away, do you? If you contend that moonshine is as available and being used as when alcohol was prohibited by the government you're either severely uninformed or you're a serial liar.

But wasn't the idea that the black-market would go away, if and when there was legalization, and they you tried to use bootlegging as proof; but bootlegging hasn't gone away.

 

[Phantasmal]

I take it your an across the board drug legalization advocate. It's never going to happen, for several reasons. But has it been tried anywhere and if so, how did it work?

http://www.alternet.org/story/15163...gal_legalized_all_drugs_--_what_happened_next

 

[Darth Omar]

The problem is; is that a lot of addicts have no desire to go to rehab, unless they're being arrested and then they'll agree to it.
The reason I say this, is because there are organizations that will accept an addict into they're rehab and charge nothing; so they can't say it's to expensive, as a reason.

I agree. I'm not advocating changing the laws so much as the penalty for addicts. They go to jail, take up space that ought to be filled by dealers or violent criminals and cost tax payers money. They get clean, they get out and go right back to the drugs. What they need is an intervention.

Mandatory rehab with ankle braclets should be the penalty for hard drug use.

 

[Darth Omar]

http://www.alternet.org/story/15163...gal_legalized_all_drugs_--_what_happened_next

"By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts." Under the perfect system, treatment would also be voluntary, but as an alternative to jail, mandatory treatment save money. But for now, "the majority of EU states have rates that are double and triple the rate for post-decriminalization Portugal," Greenwald says." [from link]

That's basically my idea. No jail for addicts. It effectively legalizes drugs [since jail is out of the equation] but it gives the government an instrument to force addicts into rehab. An interesting question is whether the Portugal model is successful because drugs were made legal or whether addicts were able to avail themselves of treatment without being threatened with jail time.

Also, some of our more radical posters think anesthesia drugs should be made legal according to their constitutionalism.

That's another can of worms.

 

[kaz]

I take it your an across the board drug legalization advocate. It's never going to happen, for several reasons. But has it been tried anywhere and if so, how did it work?

I like how conservatives love to say how Democrats ignore the Constitution. They do. But you turn around and ignore it when you want your way. There is zero mention of drugs in the Constitution, which means the Federal government has no say. But that's not a problem, just ignore it.

The reality is that drug usage doesn't go up with legalization, but the funding of organized crime and destabilization of governments does drop dramatically as it's legal. I'd have thought you'd have learned from illegal alcohol. I guess not.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I agree. I'm not advocating changing the laws so much as the penalty for addicts. They go to jail, take up space that ought to be filled by dealers or violent criminals and cost tax payers money. They get clean, they get out and go right back to the drugs. What they need is an intervention.

Mandatory rehab with ankle braclets should be the penalty for hard drug use.

And what you've stated, is exactly what happens.
They get "clean", while incarcerated; but I believe that interventions have just as many relapses.

The adage that an addict doesn't want to change, until they hit rock bottom, seems to be true.
So maybe steps should be taken to insure they hit rock bottom sooner, rather then later.

 

[kaz]

But wasn't the idea that the black-market would go away, if and when there was legalization, and they you tried to use bootlegging as proof; but bootlegging hasn't gone away.

Bootlegging is a tiny fraction of what it was during prohibition. But that's the standard now? It has to be zero? Where'd you learn that trick. Let's see, the Democrats? You ever point that out to them? The ridiculousness of ignoring proportion and saying they get their way unless there is perfection while they offer a completely imperfect solution?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

"By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts." Under the perfect system, treatment would also be voluntary, but as an alternative to jail, mandatory treatment save money. But for now, "the majority of EU states have rates that are double and triple the rate for post-decriminalization Portugal," Greenwald says." [from link]

That's basically my idea. No jail for addicts. It effectively legalizes drugs [since jail is out of the equation] but it gives the government an instrument to force addicts into rehab. An interesting question is whether the Portugal model is successful because drugs were made legal or whether addicts were able to avail themselves of treatment without being threatened with jail time.

Also, some of our more radical posters think anesthesia drugs should be made legal according to their constitutionalism.

That's another can of worms.

But it's more then likely that the ACLU will then step in and sue over any forced rehabs; because that is exactly what they did with the mentally ill and their medications and we can see how well that's worked.

 

[kaz]

But it's more then likely that the ACLU will then step in and sue over any forced rehabs; because that is exactly what they did with the mentally ill and their medications and we can see how well that's worked.

"Forced rehabs" are pointless. No one stops using unless they want to. But let's keep pretending that since it's illegal they can't get it now...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

"Forced rehabs" are pointless. No one stops using unless they want to. But let's keep pretending that since it's illegal they can't get it now...

That was my point.

Hell, we can't even get the mentally ill to take their medication.

 

[Darth Omar]

I like how conservatives love to say how Democrats ignore the Constitution. They do. But you turn around and ignore it when you want your way. There is zero mention of drugs in the Constitution, which means the Federal government has no say. But that's not a problem, just ignore it.

The reality is that drug usage doesn't go up with legalization, but the funding of organized crime and destabilization of governments does drop dramatically as it's legal. I'd have thought you'd have learned from illegal alcohol. I guess not.

As pointed out, the hard drugs/alcohol comparison is a facile and misleading analogy. And I'm actually okay with the states experimenting with legalization. Though I get the idea it's your *opinion* that the states aren't allowed make drugs illegal under the constitution.

If that's the case, I'll pass on that pointless argument.

 

[kaz]

As pointed out, the hard drugs/alcohol comparison is a facile and misleading analogy.

When you "pointed out" that, did you give a reason for it? You know, they both fund organized crime, they both don't work, no one respects government's right to tell you what you can put in your body.... No wait, those are reasons they are the same...

And I'm actually okay with the states experimenting with legalization. Though I get the idea it's your *opinion* that the states aren't allowed make drugs illegal under the constitution.

If that's the case, I'll pass on that pointless argument.

So why the hell would you think when I said "There is zero mention of drugs in the Constitution, which means the Federal government has no say" that means I think the STATES have no say? Here's a clue how you know I was referring to the Federal government. I said the "Federal government."

Stop being an ass wipe. I obviously think the States should legalize drugs, but they totally DO have a say and Constitutionally they have every right to make them illegal. I just oppose them doing that. Just like abortion. The Feds have no say, it's not in the Constitution, but I think the States should make it legal. I am far more afraid of the Federal government ignoring State rights than I am of what States do with that.

I'm not big on people making up my positions and putting those words in my mouth. And now that we know that you absolutely suck at doing that, let's just go ahead and not do it next time, does that work?

 

[Darth Omar]

When you "pointed out" that, did you give a reason for it? You know, they both fund organized crime, they both don't work, no one respects government's right to tell you what you can put in your body.... No wait, those are reasons they are the same...

The reason the analogy doesn't work is because alcohol is one drug and hard drugs are a category of drugs ranging from Heroin and meth to pharmaceuticals. A glass of beer isn't the same as a dose of heroin or a bolus of Diprovan injected in your cephalic vein.

Before I put words in your mouth lol, are you going to be logically consistent and do away with federal regulations regarding anesthesia drugs and opiate based pain meds?

So why the hell would you think when I said "There is zero mention of drugs in the Constitution, which means the Federal government has no say" that means I think the STATES have no say? Here's a clue how you know I was referring to the Federal government. I said the "Federal government."

Stop being an ass wipe. I obviously think the States should legalize drugs, but they totally DO have a say and Constitutionally they have every right to make them illegal. I just oppose them doing that. Just like abortion. The Feds have no say, it's not in the Constitution, but I think the States should make it legal. I am far more afraid of the Federal government ignoring State rights than I am of what States do with that.

I'm not big on people making up my positions and putting those words in my mouth. And now that we know that you absolutely suck at doing that, let's just go ahead and not do it next time, does that work?

You're a different animal than I thought. Shit happens.

 

[kaz]

The reason the analogy doesn't work is because alcohol is one drug and hard drugs are a category of drugs ranging from Heroin and meth to pharmaceuticals. A glass of beer isn't the same as a dose of heroin or a bolus of Diprovan injected in your cephalic vein.

So you're still going with the assumption that your stupid drug laws work are you? Once you accept they don't, then you are left with funding organized crime, destabilizing governments, enabling government to pry into your personal affairs without warrants, shootouts in the streets and all the other consequences of your failed war on drugs in exchange for what you are in reality getting for it. Nothing. We still have the drugs.

Before I put words in your mouth lol, are you going to be logically consistent and do away with federal regulations regarding anesthesia drugs and opiate based pain meds?

Yes, the drugs should be legal. As for anesthesia drugs, again, we have them now, your laws aren't working. If you're implying some sort of that it's OK to use them for things like date rape in a libertarian system, you may want to rethink that. The victims would have a lot more power to extract a whole hell of a lot more punishment for the crime.

You're a different animal than I thought. Shit happens.

There's a simple solution to that. Ask my view, don't tell me my view. As you see, I have no hesitance to provide it

 

[Darth Omar]

So you're still going with the assumption that your stupid drug laws work are you? Once you accept they don't, then you are left with funding organized crime, destabilizing governments, enabling government to pry into your personal affairs without warrants, shootouts in the streets and all the other consequences of your failed war on drugs in exchange for what you are in reality getting for it. Nothing. We still have the drugs.

No, my 'assumption' is that pretending there's no difference between alcohol and hard drugs is ludicrous.

Yes, the drugs should be legal. As for anesthesia drugs, again, we have them now, your laws aren't working. If you're implying some sort of that it's OK to use them for things like date rape in a libertarian system, you may want to rethink that. The victims would have a lot more power to extract a whole hell of a lot more punishment for the crime.

I'm basically advocating sanity at this point lol. So, I guess docs can finally get away from writing all those prescriptions. I'm sure it gets to be a pain in the ass. And no, you or nobody else can get anesthesia drugs because it takes a license just to get access to them. It's all but impossible to steal them for street use. But if you want to be consistent, pharmaceutical companies would be free to put these products on the open market for recreational use. And we all know they would.

One dose, and instant addict. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Licensed medical professionals lose their careers and in one instance their life. And you advocate opening it up to the general public for the sake of constitutional purity.

No thanks.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I take it your an across the board drug legalization advocate. It's never going to happen, for several reasons. But has it been tried anywhere and if so, how did it work?

darwins law would work wonders for legalization. the idiots and losers will die off by killing themselves with it, while the rest of us lead more productive and prosperous lives. it's a win/win situation. i'm on the fence about 'across the board' legalization, but if I go with the founders intent, they would have never given the government any power over what we put in to our own bodies.

 

[Darth Omar]

darwins law would work wonders for legalization. the idiots and losers will die off by killing themselves with it, while the rest of us lead more productive and prosperous lives. it's a win/win situation. i'm on the fence about 'across the board' legalization, but if I go with the founders intent, they would have never given the government any power over what we put in to our own bodies.

It may have worked in the founders day, but our society has lost its moral compass.