PDA

View Full Version : Legalizing drugs....


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


feck
08-27-2005, 01:47 PM
Hi people,

I was talking to a drug counselor the other day, not mine i might add, and he was talking about the impact his idea and some others, might have upon the world.
His idea, is that to truly combat the drug problem most western society's have, is to legalise all drugs and make them freely available. The first thing this would do, would be to reduce all drug related crime to almost zero, thereby the billions spent already on trying and failing to combat the problem , could be better spent somewhere else.

does anyone else have any views on this?

Steven
08-27-2005, 04:14 PM
Sounds to me as if this "Drug Counselor" has a drug problem and is looking for ways to do drugs.

That's all we need in this world. A society of legally wasted people operating motor vehicles, aircraft and other such things that puts the rest of us at risk of being killed by a drug impaired person.

feck
08-27-2005, 06:04 PM
Hi Steven,

So what your suggesting is that the only thing stopping every person on the planet from becoming messed up addicts is that drugs are illegal.
Sorry i don't mean to be critical, but is that the only reason you, yourself do not take drugs because your afraid of going to jail?

Also i should have added in my post that, the counselor, is also a reformed addict that swears he would never be stupid enough to get involved again.

Steven
08-27-2005, 07:24 PM
You asked if anyone else had any views. I gave mine. Everything else you posted are YOUR words, not mine. Read it anyway you want. However I note that you yourself have not given YOUR views on the matter. Just attack mine. Interesting.... Makes one wonder the motivation behind the post. Then again, I'm probably just reading into it, right?

I have no more further to say.

Neil Mick
08-27-2005, 09:01 PM
Sounds to me as if this "Drug Counselor" has a drug problem and is looking for ways to do drugs.

That's all we need in this world. A society of legally wasted people operating motor vehicles, aircraft and other such things that puts the rest of us at risk of being killed by a drug impaired person.

I hate to tell you, but we already have a society of wasted people operating motor vehicles (on uppers, cigarettes and alcohol), that put pedestrians and others at risk of being killed.

Automobile accidents in the US alone have killed more ppl than both world wars. This society already has a drug problem: the discrepancy occurs btw "legal" and "illegal" drugs.

Now, class: which drug has absolutely NO proven fatalities from overdose, is known to help with chemotherapy and glaucoma, and yet is rigorously prosecuted by this Administration, even if the state in which this "crime" occurs might make its medicinal use, legal?

OK, you know which drug I'm talking about.

The Rockefeller laws, which criminalize the user instead of treating drugs as an illness, have done squat in reducing the usage of drugs today.

Yes, I think that drugs should be legalized, and then regulated: just as alcohol is regulated. You should get busted for driving while stoned, just as you would for DUI, but this idea of extra punitive measures for the brand of drug you use is mercenary (catering to certain interests, while punishing others), and ultimately ineffective, in creating a better society.

mj
08-28-2005, 09:20 AM
I agree that all drugs should be legalised. Thorny ground though.

To be exact...all drugs should be legislated for and controlled by the national drug authorities in each country.

If anyone can tell me why it is a good thing that we are better of with criminal (and tax free) gangs controlling quality and availabilty of drugs I'd be interested to hear the arguments.

Adam Alexander
08-28-2005, 03:12 PM
I think the Chinese handled the opium epidemic (pandemic?) in the mid-20th century effectively.


Not practical, I know...but what the h***? Neither's the possibility of legalization.

Hogan
08-29-2005, 07:00 AM
Yes, let's make legal what we can't control to get some of the pot (money, I mean).

You know... murder is big in DC, let's just make that legal, too. I think traffic stops / searches for drunk driving really doesn't stop the consumption, so let's just make that legal, too.

Do you folks REALLY want to put your life in the hands of people whose minds have been effected by drugs, if they were free to use them legally ? Drugs do much worse to a person's brain that a beer....

feck
08-29-2005, 10:09 AM
Hi john,

I was just wondering how many of those murders in DC are drug related.

In my country and america, alcohol is prohibited to under age people and rightly so, and yet in most inner cities, children of all ages usually know where they can buy hard drugs with no trouble.

Would most people, if heroin was regulated, go out and start injecting tommorow, i mean, whats stopping those people now from doing the same right now under present law.

How many people, right now are user's and in jobs where other people's lives depend upon them. Would every airline pilot in the world become heroin junkies, just because the law had changed, I dont think so. How many doctors and surgeons, are actually working and saving lives right now while drunk or stoned, the statistics would not change in my oppion, and maybe even get lower

Hogan
08-29-2005, 11:09 AM
Hi john, ....
Would most people, if heroin was regulated, go out and start injecting tommorow, i mean, whats stopping those people now from doing the same right now under present law....

Drugs would be cheaper under legalization, and easier to get. Maybe more people would be inclined to try them.

How many people, right now are user's and in jobs where other people's lives depend upon them. Would every airline pilot in the world become heroin junkies, just because the law had changed, I dont think so. How many doctors and surgeons, are actually working and saving lives right now while drunk or stoned, the statistics would not change in my oppion, and maybe even get lower

Drugs have many long term, irreversable damage / consequences on behavior and the brain, many of which do not happen with the occasional drink. How many people you know seem wasted from a life time of abuse, but are 'fine' now because they gave it up long ago ? The damage is done.

No, not everyone will become a junky, but do you want to take that chance ? You take public transportation ? Maybe your bus driver would be a prolific user, with his reactions dulled by use, even though he may not be 'high' right then....

makuchg
08-29-2005, 02:55 PM
John,

Doesn't alcohol also have these risks on health and also impared motor vehicle operation? Don't you encounter the same risks with a drunk driver on public transportation? What about the affect of prescription as well as OTC medicine (Nyquill, etc) that also impair motor skills.

Just becuase you legalize something does not make people use it. Prohibition showed that legalizing alcohol did not increase the number of drunks. Although specific numbers are not available, the Department of Commerce has documented that alcohol related deaths actually decreased following prohibition.

Hogan
08-29-2005, 03:47 PM
John,

Doesn't alcohol also have these risks on health and also impared motor vehicle operation? Don't you encounter the same risks with a drunk driver on public transportation? What about the affect of prescription as well as OTC medicine (Nyquill, etc) that also impair motor skills.

Just becuase you legalize something does not make people use it. Prohibition showed that legalizing alcohol did not increase the number of drunks. Although specific numbers are not available, the Department of Commerce has documented that alcohol related deaths actually decreased following prohibition.

No, you folks miss the point. If someone is 'drunk', it is obvious. However, if someone has been smoking pot for some time, their control is somewhat inhibited, i.e., their reaction time, their thought, etc.... BUT they appear normal. Know what I mean ? I personally know someone who, although she is in her 50's, still does the occasional pot.... and I would not trust her with any vehicle as I can see how her mind is. The pot smoking has done them long term damage but they appear OK. Non-public transport drivers on the road are a concern, of course, but nyquil and other drugs say you shouldn't operate motor vehicles. Does that stop people ? Noooooooooo. However, PUBLIC transport drivers, since they are responsible for their cargo, are even more of a concern.

Note I never said making it legal will MAKE people use it. I said that legalization will increase usage, at least temporarily because it will be (i) cheaper and (ii) more plentiful and (iii) people who didn't try it because of illegalities will be tempted to 'try it out' to see what all the hubub is about. Maybe it'll become the 'in thing' to do.... imagine..... pot cafe's..... "needles r' us" stores on every corner.....back alley abortions... (oops, sorry, I was channeling Ted Kennedy...)


And maybe the alcohol deaths decreased following prohibition simply because of all the drunk moonshiners stopped speeding away from the coppers....

My point is that you don't legalize something that inhibits and damages a body / mind because you think it'll save money (from less crime enforcement), provide more money to the gov (from the goc taking it's cut), or cut down on traffic deaths... or because it would just 'be easier'.

makuchg
08-29-2005, 05:53 PM
I still disagree with your logic John. I know several alcoholics that can drink a fifth of Jack Daniels in an evening and "look" sober. Many people pass field sobriety tests (which measure nothing other than ability to follow direction and motor coordination) and fail breathalizers. You rationale about not being able to tell is ill-informed.

As for increased usage, there is no reliable information to support that claim. In fact, I would argue legalized drugs would be more expensive after government taxation, not to mention the boost to farmers with a new cash crop.

xuzen
08-30-2005, 12:05 AM
Hi people,
I was talking to a drug counselor the other day, not mine i might add, and he was talking about the impact his idea and some others, might have upon the world.
His idea, is that to truly combat the drug problem most western society's have, is to legalise all drugs and make them freely available. The first thing this would do, would be to reduce all drug related crime to almost zero, thereby the billions spent already on trying and failing to combat the problem , could be better spent somewhere else.does anyone else have any views on this?

Legalizing all drugs are dangerous. Heroin, Ectacy, Ice, Speed, K are all poison. These substances have no medical use or too dangerous to for medical use or where its potential to harm is greater than its potential to cure; or where better/safer alternative exist. Why then legalize something which has no beneficiaLrole to play in our society?

Boon.

Hogan
08-30-2005, 07:28 AM
I still disagree with your logic John. I know several alcoholics that can drink a fifth of Jack Daniels in an evening and "look" sober. Many people pass field sobriety tests (which measure nothing other than ability to follow direction and motor coordination) and fail breathalizers. You rationale about not being able to tell is ill-informed.
You fail to grasp what I am saying. I will say one more time and then leave it - drugs have many long term unrecoverable effects on the body and brain that liquor does not. If you don't believe me, then goody for you.

As for increased usage, there is no reliable information to support that claim. In fact, I would argue legalized drugs would be more expensive after government taxation, not to mention the boost to farmers with a new cash crop.
Well, then more power to your belief, as ill-informed they are.

Taliesin
08-30-2005, 08:47 AM
The problem with legalizing drugs is that it legitimizes their use.

I'm fairly certain that the number of alcoholics in the USA drastically increased after Prohibition was repealed. Indeed I find it hard to think of an activity that has been reduced by legalization.

As far as the argument that - your bus driver may be an addict - that's true now (as has been pointed out)

The problem of comparisons is that it is based on the premise that you can swop the problems of alcohol for those of drugs - when in fact you simply add them on top.

As far as risk is concerned - the UK is a country where suicide is legal - so any argument about harm becomes absurd.

The problem with drugs is addiction - if you are physically addicted to something then you have no free choice about taking it or not.

As far as the cost argument is concerned and the suggestion that people would not turn to crime to pay for it - look at your alcoholics on the street and ask yourself even if these drugs were legal how long could someone function properly in employment whilst addicted, and what would happen if they lost their job? Where is your reduction in crime then?

Just a few random thoughts for you to consider.

feck
08-30-2005, 10:07 AM
Hi everyone,

Just another question to add into the mix, does anyone here actually believe the war on drugs is ever going to be successful?

If satellites can now tell what plant species are growing in areas, wouldn't the right thing to do, be to eradicate all illegal drug species and create a war with all those countries that create the drugs if they denied military involvement in accomplishing this?

Anyway thanks for all the responses so far, and please keep them coming.

Hogan
08-30-2005, 10:48 AM
... does anyone here actually believe the war on drugs is ever going to be successful?....

Not as long as there are people who see nothing wrong with drugs, who believe use has no effect on the body, or believe that it is useless to fight drugs anymore because it's just 'too hard' to fight.

But what is success ? Decreasing use ? Decreasing supply ? Successful rehab ? Total destruction of the worldwide supply ? Turning people's views against use ?

James Davis
08-30-2005, 11:36 AM
The better law enforcement does in the war on drugs, the more rare drugs become in small areas. The "drier" a town becomes, the more people are willing to pay to get them. The better the money gets in trafficking or dealing drugs, the more new criminals we find trying to make some quick bucks...

Doesn't it all just suck? :(

One horrible thing about drugs is how hard they are to quit. More money should probably go into treatment, IMHO. I hope we find the solution, 'cause the money's too good for some to pass up and living next to dealers sucks. :(

Jim ashby
08-30-2005, 12:30 PM
I've been trying very hard not to get sucked into this one but there are a few points that need to be addressed. Heroin does have medicinal use, they just call it Diamorphine sulphate in the medical profession and it is an extremely powerful painkiller (less addictive than nicotine according to the AMA). MDMA (ecstasy) is an appetite suppressant, first used in the first world war but dropped because of its tendency to reduce and even negate aggression. I would suggest looking up the "therapeutic indices" of various drugs, both taxed and untaxed, and you might get a different view. As an aside, THC (the main active ingredient in Cannabis is less poisonous to the human body than chocolate). The long-term effects of cannabis smoking have not been researched in large-scale studies to date, the only studies have all been small-scale and the results have been sensationalised by the press to their own ends when the results have been ambiguous. This doesn't mean I want to be flown by a stoned pilot or driven by an alcoholic chauffeur, but the history of repression of drugs by interested parties gives me no confidence in the fairness or even-handedness of any government. YMMV

Adam Alexander
08-30-2005, 05:53 PM
You folks should spend some time in a crack-house selling rocks to "crack-whores" who'll come in shaking with a few dollars-in-hand saying "Please. I'll do anything."

Or, have friends whose mothers are away for a week at a time on coke-binges.


The Fed is there for protection from outside invaders. That's what drug-cartels are.

Let the community deal with what gets there.

Maybe you should run down to your local inner-city to see what it's all about.

makuchg
08-30-2005, 08:35 PM
Funny Jean, I thought the Fed was here to represent the people, not think for them. Almost all the arguments I have heard are related to the inherent risks of drugs on the users, here's a novel idea don't use them.

As long as we let the government regulate morality they will. Since the argument was raised against crack-whores and coke mothers, I'm assuming (I know, I know) Jean is arguing drugs should be outlawed because they make these people unfit parents. Very noble idea, but while we're at it why don't we have an IQ test to prevent mentally retarded people from having children since the majority are unable to care for the baby adaquately. When you start down this road it leads directly away from FREEDOM (Note my Mel Gibson battle cry).

As for John, <quote>You fail to grasp what I am saying. I will say one more time and then leave it - drugs have many long term unrecoverable effects on the body and brain that liquor does not. If you don't believe me, then goody for you.</quote> Once again you demonstrate you ability to discuss controversial issues in a mature, articulate manner. Rather than provide facts or references to strengthen you argument, you demonstrate you propensity for immaturity-well done.

James, excellent comments and insightful information.

xuzen
08-31-2005, 12:03 AM
Hi everyone,

Just another question to add into the mix, does anyone here actually believe the war on drugs is ever going to be successful?

If satellites can now tell what plant species are growing in areas, wouldn't the right thing to do, be to eradicate all illegal drug species and create a war with all those countries that create the drugs if they denied military involvement in accomplishing this?

Anyway thanks for all the responses so far, and please keep them coming.

I don't know Darren, we may never win this war, but at least we hope to send a message to the masses that it is not OK to be dependent on illicit substances. By not doing anything, we indirectly imply to the masses that abuse of illicit substance is OK. Just my logical way of interpreting stuff.

Heroin no doubt is a powerful painkiller, but its potential to be abuse (addictiveness) far outweighs its potential to treat. Like I said earlier, it no longer has any role to play in the modern medical treatment because there are safer alternatives. I cannot think if any country in the world still legitimize the use of heroin (diamorphine sulphate) for medical purpose; certainly not mine.

Ecstasy (MDMA) role as an appetite suppressant has been superseded by safer alternative such as phentermine or silbutramine.

Although such drug as you mention may once upon a time had some medical use, their risk of harm outweighs their ability to do good, and with the emergence of better alternative, it is only natural that their use in the medical treatment is stopped.

Boon.

Jim ashby
08-31-2005, 01:52 AM
I live in the UK where the opiates ( Heroin, Morphine and Codeine) are still in use regularly in medicine, as are the Cocaine derivatives. As to a "better" alternative painkiller than the opiates, if you've found any for severe pain, bring 'em on, you'll make a fortune.

Hogan
08-31-2005, 07:08 AM
....As for John, <quote>You fail to grasp what I am saying. I will say one more time and then leave it - drugs have many long term unrecoverable effects on the body and brain that liquor does not. If you don't believe me, then goody for you.</quote> Once again you demonstrate you ability to discuss controversial issues in a mature, articulate manner. Rather than provide facts or references to strengthen you argument, you demonstrate you propensity for immaturity-well done......

I wasn't the one that called someone 'ill-informed' when they couldn't grasp what a person was saying, of because they disagreed with someone, or called someone 'immature' in this thread. You sink rather low very quickly. But if you still want to ignore the fact that you still fail to grasp what I was saying, that's OK. Should I have said "Bully for you" instead ? Or how about, "more power to you" ?

Ron Tisdale
08-31-2005, 10:52 AM
By not doing anything, we indirectly imply to the masses that abuse of illicit substance is OK.

Well:

il·lic·it ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lst)
adj.
Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful.

So I assume if we 'do nothing', these drugs are no longer 'illicit', since there would be no law against them.

As for Morphine and similar classes of drugs, some people do not tolerate the alternatives, so there are quite a few opiates still in use world wide. Isn't Oxycodone in use in almost every major industrialized country? It's a prescription drug, and widely abused.

As for achohol vs pot vs meth vs H...I believe the treatment programs for each of these differs. So wouldn't it make sense for the laws to recognize the difference? Perhaps one class for achohol, pot, things like that, another for 'harder' drugs....

Anyhoo....prohibition or not, people will always find ways to produce altered states. Personally, I say lock people up for robbery, rape, murder...you know, hard crimes like that. If some idiot wants to put stuff in their body...that's their business. Look at me and tobacco...wish I'd never started. But it's really no one esle's problem but mine (yeah, I know, health care costs etc.).

Best,
Ron

Hogan
08-31-2005, 11:27 AM
Well:

So I assume if we 'do nothing', these drugs are no longer 'illicit', since there would be no law against them.


ahem...
If we do nothing, then the current laws stay on the books and the drugs remain illegal - we'd have to do 'something' the take those laws off....



Look at me and tobacco...wish I'd never started. But it's really no one esle's problem but mine (yeah, I know, health care costs etc.).

Best,
Ron

Remind me never to stand next to you while smoking.

Ron Tisdale
08-31-2005, 02:16 PM
Hey, I don't even like to stand next to *myself* while smoking.... ;)

Best,
Ron

Hogan
08-31-2005, 03:06 PM
Hey, I don't even like to stand next to *myself* while smoking.... ;)

Best,
Ron

:D

Adam Alexander
08-31-2005, 06:10 PM
Funny Jean, I thought the Fed was here to represent the people, not think for them. Almost all the arguments I have heard are related to the inherent risks of drugs on the users, here's a novel idea don't use them.

As long as we let the government regulate morality they will. Since the argument was raised against crack-whores and coke mothers, I'm assuming (I know, I know) Jean is arguing drugs should be outlawed because they make these people unfit parents.

My experience is that I was a total idiot and I'm slowly developing into figuring what things are all about. However, I think if I'd of continued into this stage of adult-hood using drugs (heavy or light), then I would not of been able to rise any higher than when I first began them.

Should the gov. get involved in the life of citizens: no. However, special case. The nation depends on it's citizens. If, as youngsters, they get caught up in drugs, the escapist mentality of the drug user causes them to never really mature. What's that mean? We end up with a nation of liberals who think the government owes them something because they haven't opened their eyes wide enough to see what it's all about.

Sound familiar? It's already here: A nation of peoples with a sense of entitlement.

It's bad news and something must be done. A nation must restrict some liberties for it's preservation.

Unfortunately, much has already been lost. Destroying the drug trade will only help return us to a better culture--a sustainable culture which allows the best to rise and the worst to sink.

Although the drug user is one of the worst and should sink, the nation still depends on them--unfortunately, the tendency to take the easy way is contagious. Otherwise, we could say "go ahead and waste yourself."

Myself, I don't care if a few crack heads kill themselves in the back room of a rock house. However, it's that it's contagious.


As far as the "bad mother" thing goes. Nah. I wasn't so much talking about bad mothers as much as just trying to illustrate the escapism.

I think letting those people use drugs allows them to run from their obligation to the country.

That's what I was going for.


I don't know what's right or wrong. HOwever, being an American, I'm obligated to have a view...Educated guess, in this case, I suppose.

But, experience is the best teacher, and that's what I base my opinions on (personal experience--not an "experts" with questionable motives).

makuchg
08-31-2005, 06:40 PM
Jean, I liked your answer. While I disagree with the solution, I think you make some very good points. I will never however agree that the government should interfere with individuals rights. We continually move in a direction of increased government involvement and that scares me. I believe in our freedoms and I believe they are worth fighting and dying for. It bothers me that we are willing to set them aside so freely for society. Socialist societies don't happen overnight, they begin with a slow erosion of freedom's and personal liberties. We see this every year and I hope (and vote) to get politicians who also see the error in this path.

Jean you are also right that as an American you get an opinion and it is nice to have a forum to express them. When we give up one personal freedom the rest will follow, how long until your opinion is no longer allowed?

Ron Tisdale
09-01-2005, 08:01 AM
I personally know many people who used drugs of one kind or another in their youth who are now usefull members of society, holding down good jobs, raising families, some going to church, etc. Just because someone made a choice to use drugs at some point in their life doesn't make them a drag on society or a pariah. One of these people was given a choice...go to the military, or go to jail. They chose the military, and their life has never been the same since...for the better.

I don't think we should throw away the youth of this country for a questionable choice. When you take someone who smoked pot, incarcerate them with rapists, thieves, and murderers, you are basically throwing them away, in my opinion. If the laws were equal (cocaine vs crack), if the laws were evenly applied (minority populations get harsher sentances), if the people made to pay were those bringing this crap in (not the users), I would have no problems locking them up. But way too often we see the problems I just mentioned.

The fact is, people will do all sorts of things to their bodies at certain times in their lives. But I just can't see locking people up for that. Especially with the imbalances I mentioned. Interdiction makes sense, if it's not half-hearted. Treatment options are not the easy way, in my opinion. It's hard to encourage change. But I think the results, when positive, are worth it. There is a difference between throwing up your hands, and choosing a different path because you think it is the right path.

People would be surprised at just who made what choices in their past, and where they are now. And it was just luck that they didn't get caught up in this net we call a "war on drugs". Just one conviction could have prevented at least two of our presidents from holding office. One from the 'left', one from the 'right'. Think about it.

Best,
Ron

Michael Neal
09-02-2005, 12:08 PM
I knew that Neil Mick was a pothead, explains alot :)

Michael Neal
09-02-2005, 12:13 PM
Anyway, marijuana should remain illegal but abuse should be a fine and/ or community service not prison time.

I can't believe anyone would advocate legalizing dangerous drugs like PCP, Crack, Heroin, Meth etc.. Are you Nuts? By doing so you would be basically taking away yet another barrier for people getting into these kinds of things.

"If its legal, what the heck why not try it." This is what some kids will say who would ottherwise have stayed away since they were taught to respect the law.

Adam Alexander
09-02-2005, 01:54 PM
I believe in our freedoms and I believe they are worth fighting and dying for. It bothers me that we are willing to set them aside so freely for society. Socialist societies don't happen overnight, they begin with a slow erosion of freedom's and personal liberties. We see this every year and I hope (and vote) to get politicians who also see the error in this path.

Jean you are also right that as an American you get an opinion and it is nice to have a forum to express them. When we give up one personal freedom the rest will follow, how long until your opinion is no longer allowed?

On the first paragraph. I think it's a nice sentiment to be dying for freedom and all that. So's "home of the brave." Both of them are BS. If that was true, we'd be a free nation because everyone who's willing to die for freedom would be reading books and educating their fellows...try making less money, playing less and watching less TV in order to read intelligent stuff to form intelligent opinions so that it's not about "dying for freedom". I think the reality is that our government is set up so that we don't have to worry about dying for it (barring invaders). By the time enough people get PO'd enough to go to violence, we can all just vote the third party in...rather than Dem's who bribe the poor for support and rob the middle-class (in many ways) or the Rep's whose marriage to the church (Rich+Church)simply is a reunion that's been coming and going for centuries.

As an American, I think you're more than allowed: You're obligated. However, what people fail to see...You're also obligated to be informed.

Regarding giving up rights: Sure, if people keep their eyes closed. However, I don't think insuring that the labor force and poor stay in line enough so that we have property rights is a necessary trade: It's either we give up the right to do drugs, or we give up the right to property because the nation loses stability.

Just my thoughts.

makuchg
09-02-2005, 02:38 PM
On the first paragraph. I think it's a nice sentiment to be dying for freedom and all that. So's "home of the brave." Both of them are BS. If that was true, we'd be a free nation because everyone who's willing to die for freedom would be reading books and educating their fellows...try making less money, playing less and watching less TV in order to read intelligent stuff to form intelligent opinions so that it's not about "dying for freedom". I think the reality is that our government is set up so that we don't have to worry about dying for it (barring invaders). By the time enough people get PO'd enough to go to violence, we can all just vote the third party in...rather than Dem's who bribe the poor for support and rob the middle-class (in many ways) or the Rep's whose marriage to the church (Rich+Church)simply is a reunion that's been coming and going for centuries.

As an American, I think you're more than allowed: You're obligated. However, what people fail to see...You're also obligated to be informed.

Regarding giving up rights: Sure, if people keep their eyes closed. However, I don't think insuring that the labor force and poor stay in line enough so that we have property rights is a necessary trade: It's either we give up the right to do drugs, or we give up the right to property because the nation loses stability.

Just my thoughts.

Jean,

Those are not sentiments, they are beliefs. They are the reason many serve this country. There are people who believe in the ideas and ideals this country was founded on. The fact you believe these beliefs as BS scares me. However I don't think you are alone as many people are willing to lay their liberties aside, look at the Patriot Act.

As for the work less, play less part, I'm not really sure what you mean. I don't know if you are generalizing about Americans (in which case I agree with you), or if you were referring to me personally (which I don't think you were, but please clarify).

As for your rights, I don't remember seeing your right to be informed as one of them. Should we be informed? Yes!! However we are not obligated to be informed. If we wish to change the root of our ignorance it begins with our system of education and the value we place on it.

Your comment about keeping the labor force and poor "in line" couldn't have been more socialist. Wasn't this country founded by those who were tired of being kept "in line" by an oppressive British government?

Finally, how do you equate drug use with loss of stability and property rights? The Netherlands have stability and they allow drug use (http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/), how can that be? Here is the U.S. State Departments assessment of the Netherlands (http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/2005/42094.htm). Keep in mind they've done this in a society with a minimum drinking age of 16 and a very liberal drug policy.

feck
09-02-2005, 03:03 PM
Hi Gregory,

Thanks for your responses so far, but your last post links do not seem to work.

Adam Alexander
09-02-2005, 03:23 PM
Jean,

1)Those are not sentiments, they are beliefs. They are the reason many serve this country. There are people who believe in the ideas and ideals this country was founded on. The fact you believe these beliefs as BS scares me. However I don't think you are alone as many people are willing to lay their liberties aside, look at the Patriot Act.

2)As for the work less, play less part, I'm not really sure what you mean. I don't know if you are generalizing about Americans (in which case I agree with you), or if you were referring to me personally (which I don't think you were, but please clarify).

3)As for your rights, I don't remember seeing your right to be informed as one of them. Should we be informed? Yes!! However we are not obligated to be informed. If we wish to change the root of our ignorance it begins with our system of education and the value we place on it.

4)Your comment about keeping the labor force and poor "in line" couldn't have been more socialist. Wasn't this country founded by those who were tired of being kept "in line" by an oppressive British government?

5)Finally, how do you equate drug use with loss of stability and property rights? The Netherlands have stability and they allow drug use (http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/), how can that be? Here is the U.S. State Departments assessment of the Netherlands (http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/2005/42094.htm). Keep in mind they've done this in a society with a minimum drinking age of 16 and a very liberal drug policy.

1)The law allows a simple way for us to stop the government without dying: That's why I say it's nonsense to talk about dying for liberty. That kind of thinking keeps your eyes off the prize...talking about physically or violently "taking back the country."

What you don't see when you think like that it that the people who are suppose to "take it back" are the ones who have it...lazy Americans.

As far as "home of the brave" goes: I spend a lot of time with the average person. If the brave live in the U.S., they're not in my area...Nor do I hear them chiming in too frequently on the couple forums I visit.

2)Generally speaking. I got on a rant and lost track of keeping the phrasing dead-on:)

3)Agreed. Change the root of education: People need to take their heads out of their a**es and realize that the government--always run by the rich...even after a revolution--will not educate you...no matter how much you pay them.

How stupid is this: My government was set up to help protect me from it...and then we go and ask the government to educate us?

Hmmm, doesn't sound to smart to me.

Even more beautiful: Now, we've empowered a new group (teachers) to skim off our taxes.

Do you really think 13yrs.!!!! of school is necessary? Of course not.

But what is necessary is promising poor people that you're going to do something for them...becasue that gets you elected. So, offer them more daycare...call it school, whatever.

Let the government teach the public to read and do basic math. Beyond that, it's private.

Further, isn't it a contradiction to say you don't want the gov. in your business and then say that they should educate?

4)Not in the same sense. Freedom of property with a sales pitch that folks could move through the economic strata on their own merit.

Unfortunately, this has gotten confused with the ability to do any crappy thing you want and with the idea that people are owed something more than the relatively unrestricted opportunity to make something of themselves...by themselves. Drugs undermine the ability of non-drug-users to move through the strata.

5)Just what I've seen: Druggies aren't exactly stable, nor are they very respectful of the law...which is supposed to protect property rights and our opportunity to rise or fall within this world.

Ron Tisdale
09-03-2005, 06:54 AM
Drugs undermine the ability of non-drug-users to move through the strata.

?? How so?

Best,
Ron

Adam Alexander
09-03-2005, 02:53 PM
I think that's been answered in my last couple posts.