You need to attack the demand side...you'll never control the supply side. You need to take the profit element out of drugs..otherwise new crooks will immediately move in as you haul the old ones off to jail. I feel sorry for all the narcotics law enforcement officers...they must really feel like they're pissing in the wind.
P.S. Maybe Captain Cut'n Paste (Phaedrus)
can find a proposal from one of his whack job websites that addresses the issue
P.S. Maybe Captain Cut'n Paste (Phaedrus)
posted by SENDITIN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Maybe Captain Cut'n Paste (Phaedrus) can find a proposal from one of his whack job websites that addresses the issue
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey ... that's not nice.
Out of curiosity I decided to see if there was any merit to his idea. Using my 2,296 posts as a frame of reference I went back over the most recent 23 posts of mine (1% of total posts) that were original topics in the Politics forum. While not exactly scientific, the results from looking at these posts determines that a) I am most certainly deserving of the nickname "Cap'n Cut'n Paste (although really, "Copy & Paste") would be more appropriate) as of the twenty-three topics, twelve of them were direct copy-and-paste with little or no meaningful addition or commentary by myself. (Eight were news summaries with links to full stories; three were actual original posts.)
But on the other hand, as far as "whack job websites" go, you must be revising your image of me into an even farther out-there person than I really am. In the twenty-three posts analysed, there are thirty-four different sources cited (some numerous times) and of these, only five could be considered even remotely "whack job:" The Christian Science Monitor, Newsday, the We the People Foundation, Liberty Solutions (the magazine of the Libertarian Party) and LewRockwell.com ... hardly a rogues' gallery of questionable veracity.
The other sources cited were:
The Albany Times-Union
Amazon.com
The Asia Times
Associated Press (x3)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The BBC
The Chicago Sun-Times
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times
The home page of Ken Crossman
The Department of Defence press release page
The Department of Justice press release page
The Gold Economy
The Guardian (x2)
The Official Website of the Hutton Inquiry
The Independent (x2)
The International Herald-Tribune
The London Telegraph (x3)
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
MSNBC (x3)
MSN Money
The New York Times
The Register
The Rx (other threads with ref. or relevant info)
The Village Voice
The Violence Policy Center
The Washington Post
Wired
Yahoo! News
ZDNet
So yeah, I appear to have a copy & pase issue, but seriously, which of the above cited sources do you characterise as "whack job?"
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Maybe Captain Cut'n Paste (Phaedrus) can find a proposal from one of his whack job websites that addresses the issue
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey ... that's not nice.
Out of curiosity I decided to see if there was any merit to his idea. Using my 2,296 posts as a frame of reference I went back over the most recent 23 posts of mine (1% of total posts) that were original topics in the Politics forum. While not exactly scientific, the results from looking at these posts determines that a) I am most certainly deserving of the nickname "Cap'n Cut'n Paste (although really, "Copy & Paste") would be more appropriate) as of the twenty-three topics, twelve of them were direct copy-and-paste with little or no meaningful addition or commentary by myself. (Eight were news summaries with links to full stories; three were actual original posts.)
But on the other hand, as far as "whack job websites" go, you must be revising your image of me into an even farther out-there person than I really am. In the twenty-three posts analysed, there are thirty-four different sources cited (some numerous times) and of these, only five could be considered even remotely "whack job:" The Christian Science Monitor, Newsday, the We the People Foundation, Liberty Solutions (the magazine of the Libertarian Party) and LewRockwell.com ... hardly a rogues' gallery of questionable veracity.
The other sources cited were:
The Albany Times-Union
Amazon.com
The Asia Times
Associated Press (x3)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The BBC
The Chicago Sun-Times
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times
The home page of Ken Crossman
The Department of Defence press release page
The Department of Justice press release page
The Gold Economy
The Guardian (x2)
The Official Website of the Hutton Inquiry
The Independent (x2)
The International Herald-Tribune
The London Telegraph (x3)
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
MSNBC (x3)
MSN Money
The New York Times
The Register
The Rx (other threads with ref. or relevant info)
The Village Voice
The Violence Policy Center
The Washington Post
Wired
Yahoo! News
ZDNet
So yeah, I appear to have a copy & pase issue, but seriously, which of the above cited sources do you characterise as "whack job?"
Phaedrus
I've never done any illegal drugs because I'm frankly not interested in them. If someone else wants to do them and it doesn't affect me, then go for it...I really couldn't care less. But the problem is it does affect me...and here's how:
- If someone smokes themselves silly on grass, suddenly gets a case of the munchies, and decides to drive around for late night Taco Bell run while they're still stoned...and I happen to be on the road at the same time, that could lead to some real problems. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that drug related car accidents are quickly catching up with drunk driving...
- I really wouldn't relish the thought of flying in a plane where the pilot snorted a few lines of coke shortly before takeoff, or being operated on by a doctor who is tripping from acid. Would you?
- My tax dollars are going towards rehab efforts. Regardless of your stance on drugs, I think we can all agree that they are harmful to one's body. Whatever someone wants to put into their own body is their own choice, but is it really fair that I might end up paying for someone else's rehab to help clean up their mistakes?
That's why it isn't as simple as "it's my body and I can do what I want."
- If someone smokes themselves silly on grass, suddenly gets a case of the munchies, and decides to drive around for late night Taco Bell run while they're still stoned...and I happen to be on the road at the same time, that could lead to some real problems. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that drug related car accidents are quickly catching up with drunk driving...
- I really wouldn't relish the thought of flying in a plane where the pilot snorted a few lines of coke shortly before takeoff, or being operated on by a doctor who is tripping from acid. Would you?
- My tax dollars are going towards rehab efforts. Regardless of your stance on drugs, I think we can all agree that they are harmful to one's body. Whatever someone wants to put into their own body is their own choice, but is it really fair that I might end up paying for someone else's rehab to help clean up their mistakes?
That's why it isn't as simple as "it's my body and I can do what I want."
Your tax dollars are currently being pissed away by trying to combat a black market. Thinking you can police the most lucrative trade in the world is asinine.
And as a side bar, Why are there so many conservatives out there who believe social welfare is a waste of money, but believe the war on drugs is a justified social benefit to society?
And as a side bar, Why are there so many conservatives out there who believe social welfare is a waste of money, but believe the war on drugs is a justified social benefit to society?
Yes guy!!! A waste of time!!! And IMO morally suspect to try to tell a responsible pot smoker or cocaine user that they are not allowed to use their drug of choice when some dude clogging his arteries with McDonalds every day is probably a bigger long term drain on health care dollars....
D2,
No, I don't support prohibition...lets look at the points 1 by one:
- Drunk driving is already obviously illegal. The same possibility exists if someone gets drunk at home and decides to go out and drive. I don't think the penalties are strong enough against it, but thats another issue. The difference between that and drugs though is smoking a joint will seemingly get you more 'effed up' than drinking a glass of beer; in other words, your state will be more altered under drugs. That's why drug related traffic accidents are on the rise. I'll find you a link if you like.
Besides, some alcohol is actually good for you. One glass of red wine per day has been proven to help clear arteries, which is why most europeans can get away with grease filled diets. They drink wine with their meals. The same can't really be said about recreational drugs...
- Most companies also have a policy of no drinking on the job...certainly pilots and doctors are included in that category. I wouldn't want to have one of them doing their job on me either drunk or high...and you never answered my question of whether you would.
- I don't like my tax dollars going towards alcohol rehab either. Like I said...people can do whatever they want to themselves as long as they ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. That's the part a lot of liberals don't like to hear; they'd rather have everyone collectively pay for it than say "I did this to myself, so I'll take responsibility for it." Mass...if your definition of "social welfare" is doing whatever you like because you know someone else will pick up the tab later on, then why don't you re-emburse me for a rough weekend betting NFL this past week?
No, I don't support prohibition...lets look at the points 1 by one:
- Drunk driving is already obviously illegal. The same possibility exists if someone gets drunk at home and decides to go out and drive. I don't think the penalties are strong enough against it, but thats another issue. The difference between that and drugs though is smoking a joint will seemingly get you more 'effed up' than drinking a glass of beer; in other words, your state will be more altered under drugs. That's why drug related traffic accidents are on the rise. I'll find you a link if you like.
Besides, some alcohol is actually good for you. One glass of red wine per day has been proven to help clear arteries, which is why most europeans can get away with grease filled diets. They drink wine with their meals. The same can't really be said about recreational drugs...
- Most companies also have a policy of no drinking on the job...certainly pilots and doctors are included in that category. I wouldn't want to have one of them doing their job on me either drunk or high...and you never answered my question of whether you would.
- I don't like my tax dollars going towards alcohol rehab either. Like I said...people can do whatever they want to themselves as long as they ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. That's the part a lot of liberals don't like to hear; they'd rather have everyone collectively pay for it than say "I did this to myself, so I'll take responsibility for it." Mass...if your definition of "social welfare" is doing whatever you like because you know someone else will pick up the tab later on, then why don't you re-emburse me for a rough weekend betting NFL this past week?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Like I said...people can do whatever they want to themselves as long as they ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then legalize it all, collect taxes, and stop spreading salt on the lands of Columbia.
Then legalize it all, collect taxes, and stop spreading salt on the lands of Columbia.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JDeuce:
D2,
No, I don't support prohibition...lets look at the points 1 by one:
- Drunk driving is already obviously illegal. The same possibility exists if someone gets drunk at home and decides to go out and drive. I don't think the penalties are strong enough against it, but thats another issue. The difference between that and drugs though is smoking a joint will seemingly get you more 'effed up' than drinking a glass of beer; in other words, your state will be more altered under drugs. That's why drug related traffic accidents are on the rise. I'll find you a link if you like.
-- You simply don't know what you're talking about if you think smoking a joint impairs driving ability more than getting drunk. I'll confess to having done both on numerous ocassions...I know of what I speak. I take it you've smoked pot in order to have this opinion?
-Besides, some alcohol is actually good for you. One glass of red wine per day has been proven to help clear arteries, which is why most europeans can get away with grease filled diets. They drink wine with their meals. The same can't really be said about recreational drugs...
-- I thought your issue wasn't with what someone else does to themselves...you know, the "I really couldn't care less" statement. This point just doesn't fit into your argument.
- Most companies also have a policy of no drinking on the job...certainly pilots and doctors are included in that category. I wouldn't want to have one of them doing their job on me either drunk or high...and you never answered my question of whether you would.
-- I agree with you here, I would not. But again, alcohol and marijuana should be treated the same here. I don't see the distinction.
- I don't like my tax dollars going towards alcohol rehab either. Like I said...people can do whatever they want to themselves as long as they ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. That's the part a lot of liberals don't like to hear; they'd rather have everyone collectively pay for it than say "I did this to myself, so I'll take responsibility for it." Mass...if your definition of "social welfare" is doing whatever you like because you know someone else will pick up the tab later on, then why don't you re-emburse me for a rough weekend betting NFL this past week?
-- OK, this rant really confuses me. But back to your original point that you don't want to pay for rehab costs. Fine, but again what evidence do you have that marijuana causes more rehab costs than alcohol. I sincerely doubt that. Firewater is far far more addictive for most people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again here, you've simply failed to distinguish why alcohol should be legal and marijuana should not be. You explain the dangers and problems of pot just fine, but again those dangers and problems apply equally, if not more so, to alcohol.
Try again.
If you give up on the distinction I can supply a couple for you.
D2,
No, I don't support prohibition...lets look at the points 1 by one:
- Drunk driving is already obviously illegal. The same possibility exists if someone gets drunk at home and decides to go out and drive. I don't think the penalties are strong enough against it, but thats another issue. The difference between that and drugs though is smoking a joint will seemingly get you more 'effed up' than drinking a glass of beer; in other words, your state will be more altered under drugs. That's why drug related traffic accidents are on the rise. I'll find you a link if you like.
-- You simply don't know what you're talking about if you think smoking a joint impairs driving ability more than getting drunk. I'll confess to having done both on numerous ocassions...I know of what I speak. I take it you've smoked pot in order to have this opinion?
-Besides, some alcohol is actually good for you. One glass of red wine per day has been proven to help clear arteries, which is why most europeans can get away with grease filled diets. They drink wine with their meals. The same can't really be said about recreational drugs...
-- I thought your issue wasn't with what someone else does to themselves...you know, the "I really couldn't care less" statement. This point just doesn't fit into your argument.
- Most companies also have a policy of no drinking on the job...certainly pilots and doctors are included in that category. I wouldn't want to have one of them doing their job on me either drunk or high...and you never answered my question of whether you would.
-- I agree with you here, I would not. But again, alcohol and marijuana should be treated the same here. I don't see the distinction.
- I don't like my tax dollars going towards alcohol rehab either. Like I said...people can do whatever they want to themselves as long as they ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. That's the part a lot of liberals don't like to hear; they'd rather have everyone collectively pay for it than say "I did this to myself, so I'll take responsibility for it." Mass...if your definition of "social welfare" is doing whatever you like because you know someone else will pick up the tab later on, then why don't you re-emburse me for a rough weekend betting NFL this past week?
-- OK, this rant really confuses me. But back to your original point that you don't want to pay for rehab costs. Fine, but again what evidence do you have that marijuana causes more rehab costs than alcohol. I sincerely doubt that. Firewater is far far more addictive for most people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again here, you've simply failed to distinguish why alcohol should be legal and marijuana should not be. You explain the dangers and problems of pot just fine, but again those dangers and problems apply equally, if not more so, to alcohol.
Try again.
If you give up on the distinction I can supply a couple for you.
No...like I said, I never have smoked marijuana (nor done any illegal drugs) in my life. That's why I said 'seemingly'. Every time I watched other people smoke weed though, the reason seemed to be so they could get high and laugh at everything. Neither state is a good one for driving a car...
As far as rehab, I don't want to pay anyone else's costs...be it alcohol or marijuana. I'd much rather see people check into a rehab center and pay for it themselves than have tax dollars paying for it. After all, wasn't it their choice to do whatever they did?
The reason I said alcohol has certain health benefits is because you were asking for a distinction between that and marijuana. One glass of red wine per day has been proven to be good for you...but one joint per day or line of coke per day has not (barring the infrequent terminally ill patient case). I realize our government allows alcohol to be legal because they make bucketloads of cash off of taxing it, but I think unless someone is predisposed to being dependent on alcohol...I'd bet it takes a lot longer to get into that habit than it does into a habit of smoking marijuana. Other drugs (like cocaine) are far more addictive than alcohol. But go ahead and give me your alcohol versus marijuana distinctions...
As far as rehab, I don't want to pay anyone else's costs...be it alcohol or marijuana. I'd much rather see people check into a rehab center and pay for it themselves than have tax dollars paying for it. After all, wasn't it their choice to do whatever they did?
The reason I said alcohol has certain health benefits is because you were asking for a distinction between that and marijuana. One glass of red wine per day has been proven to be good for you...but one joint per day or line of coke per day has not (barring the infrequent terminally ill patient case). I realize our government allows alcohol to be legal because they make bucketloads of cash off of taxing it, but I think unless someone is predisposed to being dependent on alcohol...I'd bet it takes a lot longer to get into that habit than it does into a habit of smoking marijuana. Other drugs (like cocaine) are far more addictive than alcohol. But go ahead and give me your alcohol versus marijuana distinctions...
Angus Ontario - You're asking a bunch of gamblers if drugs should be legalized. Sounds like rhetorical question to me.
You see the problem that alcohol is casusing (drunk driving deaths) could you imagine if more people than there are now were driving around on pot/marijauna....
I guess that would be one way to stop the overpopulation of the earth. Just take some pot and run over everyone.
KMAN
You see the problem that alcohol is casusing (drunk driving deaths) could you imagine if more people than there are now were driving around on pot/marijauna....
I guess that would be one way to stop the overpopulation of the earth. Just take some pot and run over everyone.
KMAN
