fred wrote:

Kind of like the law that says I have to rent my house to a darkie becuase he should have the freedom to live where he wants, but I don't have the freedom to rent to whoever I want?

like i said, "they use what they cynically call "freedom" as a tool to deny actual freedom to other people".
ps-i liked the drugs better than i do your racist nonesense.

"According to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, police arrested an estimated 829,625 persons for cannabis violations in 2006, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, . Of those charged with cannabis violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. An American is now arrested for violating cannabis laws every 38 seconds."

jc wrote:

ps-i liked the drugs

That answers a lot of questions.

Re: urine test at work

Mike Floorsinger wrote:

stoney wrote: I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck,I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon MAKES MORE THAN ENOUGH SENSE TO ME. JC? FRED? A1? I am going to respectfully disagree for two reasons. 1. What if it is a single mother with a kid. The single mom doesn't want to give up her kid, nor does she want to give up her drugs. She doesn't get her check and then the kid goes hungry. She has a choice, THE KID DOES NOT!

1. that single mom and KID would be a hell of alot better if she (the mom cleaned up her act and lost her kid for a period of time to allow this to happen). The mother sits there spreading her legs and pawning everything to get more drugs doesn't much care about kid anyways and the lifestyle she is putting that said child in.

Last 13 years have seen this hundreds of times. State gives temporary custody to the single womans es husband or another family member while they go into a 30 day or more treatment facility. They get out work the program of NA or AA show the courts they are maintaining sobriety and get kid back who is healthy and unscaved by the effects drugs and alsohol can play in a home.

strike 2 mike

2.

Quote:

2. Most people in recovery say that they couldn't quit until they hit bottom. I say let people hit bottom then get them into treatment or AA. Taking away their check is only going to slow down the process.

you are partially right here but still fail. True everyone who is addicted to either drugs or alcohol (which by the way is a drug--just a legal one) sooner or later will hit their personal bottom. Everyone's is different and what might be devastating to one might be nothing to someone else who has done and experienced worse. Jails, hospitals, institutions, and death can be the end result with lots of suffering and misery inbetween.

Quote:

I say let people hit bottom then get them into treatment or AA.

this is so retarded can't help but laugh.......broken down:

A TREATMENT

For the unknowing and uneducated.....TREATMENT ISN'T THE BOTTOM LINE ANSWER OR THE CURE ALL. You think If spend a few thousands dollars (picked up by insurance or out of pocket) that after a 30 day inpatient treatment program, a person is "CURED"?

I can't begin to count the hundreds of folks I have seen in the last 13 years who have been to treatment multiple times (4 or more) who went right back to digging that hole with drugs/alcohol by their side.

You have any idea what the success rate is out of 10 people who go to treatment maintaining sobriety? about 1.25 make it the other 8.75 either drink or use immediately when they get out or within the first 30 days!

bottom line is: IN ORDER FOR THEM TO SOBER UP AND ACHIEVE SOBRIETY AND FREEDOM FROM DRUGS/ALCOHOL THEY HAVE TO WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES!!...PERIOD . Try doing it for someone else (kids/spouse/work etc.) already destined to relapse.

though you made a feeble attempt to post what you think is true bottom line is you ain't even in the park. Nice try though but still:

STRIKE THREE

In case you haven't been keeping up, STRIKE ONE IS YOUR STORY TELLING!

(glad to see some debate taking place on something that got in one of those korny emails we always seem to get!)

nimosh wrote:

jc wrote: ps-i liked the drugs That answers a lot of questions.

you never used drugs. that explains a lot.

Omniscient , eh?

nimosh wrote:

Omniscient , eh?

just a guess. was i wrong.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: I was asking... because you gave 5for and myself hell at one time for wanting to legalize marijuana... calling us potheads for wanting it. you and 5for being potheads is an entirely seperate issue from legalizing drugs. more fun to talk about, but still not the same thing. actually, we both said we think marijuana should be legalized... and we are not potheads, but you said because we wanted to legalize it, we *had* to be... i'm trying to recall, had you called me any unflattering names prior to me saying you two were potheads? I hadn't, I can't speak for 5...

Oh, I'm sure I had. But I'm generally pretty accurate in my assessment of jc. However, I merely mentioned my support of the legalization of marijuana and he automatically called me a pothead over and over... Until he happened to mention that he supports legalization as well.

As regards the rest of this thread, I really haven't made up my mind fully. I support the legalization of marijuana, ecstacy, and possibly lsd. Marijuana is far less harmful to alcohol, and has a lot of benefits to outweigh the negative. In addition, by legalizing it, you can better control where and how it's distributed. This helps take out the "gateway drug" effect by making it possible to buy and use marijuana without going to a so-called "drug house" where one may be exposed to harder drugs. With ecstacy, it's been proven that almost all of the negative effects that the government warns everyone about are false. The same is largely true with LSD. However, especially with LSD, I think there should probably be certain restrictions regarding how and where it's used.

As regards the harder drugs, jc does have a very valid point: What business is it of the governments what drugs a person wants to use? Provided they aren't using drug use as a defense for other criminal acts which infringe on the rights of others (i.e. robbery, violence, etc.), then why should people not be able to do what they want? Again, this will actually make it easier to control how and where it's distributed. Additionally, it would actually put most of the "street corner pharmacists" and "garage manufacturers" out of business, in the same way that moonshining has become somewhat rare with the repeal of prohibition. Plus, people aren't dying because some bootlegger decided to cut his booze with turpentine to boost profits. With legalization, the FDA can set controls and standards for drugs. The government could also use the money that's being thrown away in the war on drugs to educate people about the dangers of drug use, the same way they do with tobacco and, to a lesser extent, alcohol.

The problem I have with the legalization of harder drugs though is addiction. I've known a lot of people over the years that have lost everything and thrown their lives away due to addiction. They aren't even the same people anymore. The scary part is that it can happen to anyone. My concern is with whether or not it will allow greater access to narcotics, and thereby increase addiction and therefore crime.

There is one glaring issue I need to take up with you though jc. How can you say that the government shouldn't be involved in people's lives, and that they should be able to do whatever they want regarding drugs, even knowing that there is a very real possibility of it increasing crime against innocents, yet say that no one should be able to legally own a firearm, because of the possibility of them using it in a crime?

5forfighting wrote:

As regards the rest of this thread, I really haven't made up my mind fully. I support the legalization of marijuana, ecstacy, and possibly lsd. Marijuana is far less harmful to alcohol, and has a lot of benefits to outweigh the negative. In addition, by legalizing it, you can better control where and how it's distributed. This helps take out the "gateway drug" effect by making it possible to buy and use marijuana without going to a so-called "drug house" where one may be exposed to harder drugs. With ecstacy, it's been proven that almost all of the negative effects that the government warns everyone about are false. The same is largely true with LSD. However, especially with LSD, I think there should probably be certain restrictions regarding how and where it's used. =============================================== I don't want to even think about someone walking around my neighborhood high on either ecstacy or LSD. You do realize that both cause hallucinations. I've seen people on LSD and it isn't a pretty sight. I had a buddy in Viet Nam that killed three others buddies because he thought they were demons coming to take him to hell. How in the world are you going to enforce any kind of restrictions. ================================================ As regards the harder drugs, jc does have a very valid point: What business is it of the governments what drugs a person wants to use? Provided they aren't using drug use as a defense for other criminal acts which infringe on the rights of others (i.e. robbery, violence, etc.), then why should people not be able to do what they want? Again, this will actually make it easier to control how and where it's distributed. Additionally, it would actually put most of the "street corner pharmacists" and "garage manufacturers" out of business, in the same way that moonshining has become somewhat rare with the repeal of prohibition. Plus, people aren't dying because some bootlegger decided to cut his booze with turpentine to boost profits. With legalization, the FDA can set controls and standards for drugs. The government could also use the money that's being thrown away in the war on drugs to educate people about the dangers of drug use, the same way they do with tobacco and, to a lesser extent, alcohol. ============================================= People already know the dangers of drugs, or so I thought. Apparently not though. For instance underaged kids know smoking is bad for them and addictive, yet hundreads of thousands of underaged kids start smoking every year, even though it's illegal for someone under the age of 18 to even posses cigarettes. They think it's cool to smoke. Just like they do and would with drugs. I can't wait to see those commercials for Ecstacy and LSD on TV. Yes, you will put the "street corner pharmacists" and the "garage manufactures" out of business if you can go to the local store and buy some. It will just make the Big Pharmacutical Companies even bigger profits because that's who will take over the drug market but it would be made to Government standards. WOW, this should be a good slogan "FDA APPROVED". I can't wait to see this sign "DRUGS FOR LESS" instead of "SMOKES FOR LESS". Will the "SMOKES FOR LESS" stores be able to sell Marijuana? How about the Quick Marts or 7-11's or the Kwik Shops will they be able to sell the drugs or would you have to go to a pharmacy to buy them? Remember they would be legal, so anyone should be able to sell them, right?. What is to stop someone from buying drugs for kids though? They will do it the same way they always have for cigarettes and liqour. When a friend turns legal age they buy for everyone that isn't or they will take some from their parents stash. What would be the "legal age" to be able to purchase drugs 18, 21? ========================================= The problem I have with the legalization of harder drugs though is addiction. I've known a lot of people over the years that have lost everything and thrown their lives away due to addiction. They aren't even the same people anymore. The scary part is that it can happen to anyone. My concern is with whether or not it will allow greater access to narcotics, and thereby increase addiction and therefore crime. =============================================== This paragraph speaks for itself and should have ended the discussion. If you legalize drugs it WILL allow for greater access and WILL increase addiction and in turn increase crime. They will have to pay for the legal drugs somehow. They won't be able to pass drug screens at work and get fired. Is the Government going to pay for treatment for everyone that's addicted? ===============================================

jc wrote:

nimosh wrote: Omniscient , eh? just a guess. was i wrong.

If only you knew.

mctopeka wrote:

The problem I have with the legalization of harder drugs though is addiction. I've known a lot of people over the years that have lost everything and thrown their lives away due to addiction. They aren't even the same people anymore. The scary part is that it can happen to anyone. My concern is with whether or not it will allow greater access to narcotics, and thereby increase addiction and therefore crime. =============================================== This paragraph speaks for itself and should have ended the discussion. If you legalize drugs it WILL allow for greater access and WILL increase addiction and in turn increase crime. They will have to pay for the legal drugs somehow. They won't be able to pass drug screens at work and get fired. Is the Government going to pay for treatment for everyone that's addicted? ===============================================

in order to believe this, a person has to believe that the "war on drugs" is working and actually making some significant difference in the availability of drugs in america. you would also have to believe that the two most dangerous and costly drugs in america, alcohol and tobacco, should be outlawed. the "war on drugs" isn't working and it isn't stopping people who want drugs from getting them. i have two addicts who work for me and i know for a fact that they have no difficulty obtaining crack whever they want it. what they do have difficulty in doing is making enough $ to pay the vastly inflated prices that it being illegal encourages. and, as i've said, if you want dangerous and addictive drugs outlawed, you MUST include all of the dangerous and addictive drugs in that ban. yet, i do not hear the call to outlaw alcohol and tobacco included in the moralizing about "drugs".

I actually have to agree with jc here... the "War on Drugs" is not working. It's making criminals rich, and leading to increased gang violence. People are still getting drugs, although many times, they end up with one drug being sold as another, which is incredibly dangerous.

As I stated earlier, I don't think being under the influence of any drug should be able to be used as a defense for a crime. People commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol as well as other drugs. People also throw their lives away for alcohol, just as others do with narcotics. The question is: Should they be allowed to do that to themselves, or should the government prevent them from doing so?

Regarding the comment about making pharmaceutical companies rich... so what? Perhaps if they can make large profits off of recreational drugs, they'll be able to lower the costs for life-saving drugs. It's something to consider.

Mc... I'm not going to get into a drawn out discussion about the benefits/risks of LSD. However, you may want to do some research on the subject, as you are apparently misinformed. I'm not taking a shot at you, but this is something that I do know about, and I can't tell you the number of myths that circulate regarding them that are perpetuated by the government as well as inaccurate anecdotal evidence.

jc wrote:

in order to believe this, a person has to believe that the "war on drugs" is working and actually making some significant difference in the availability of drugs in america. you would also have to believe that the two most dangerous and costly drugs in america, alcohol and tobacco, should be outlawed. the "war on drugs" isn't working and it isn't stopping people who want drugs from getting them. i have two addicts who work for me and i know for a fact that they have no difficulty obtaining crack whever they want it. what they do have difficulty in doing is making enough $ to pay the vastly inflated prices that it being illegal encourages. and, as i've said, if you want dangerous and addictive drugs outlawed, you MUST include all of the dangerous and addictive drugs in that ban. yet, i do not hear the call to outlaw alcohol and tobacco included in the moralizing about "drugs".

I've never said the war on drugs was a success. If you remember Alchohol was illegal at one time but the vast majority of Americans didn't like it and they repealed that law. If you believe that any good could come from making all drugs legal then you're fooling yourself. Tell me just one good thing that would come from the legalization of crack, meth, heroin, ecstacy or any recreational drugs.

5forfighting wrote:

Mc... I'm not going to get into a drawn out discussion about the benefits/risks of LSD. However, you may want to do some research on the subject, as you are apparently misinformed. I'm not taking a shot at you, but this is something that I do know about, and I can't tell you the number of myths that circulate regarding them that are perpetuated by the government as well as inaccurate anecdotal evidence.

Misinformed? I lived through the 60's and 70's when LSD was a very popular drug. I used it on more than one occasion and saw first hand what it does. I know it alters your mind and my friend any drug that would do that isn't good and absolutely no benifit could come from using it, that also includes alchohol.
I cannot for the life of me believe you or anyone else would want to subject our children to the temptations of "Legal Drugs". It's bad enough that temptation is there with them being illegal. 5 would you want your children using these type of drugs or to be able to easily get those drugs. I wouldn't.

mctopeka wrote:

5forfighting wrote: Mc... I'm not going to get into a drawn out discussion about the benefits/risks of LSD. However, you may want to do some research on the subject, as you are apparently misinformed. I'm not taking a shot at you, but this is something that I do know about, and I can't tell you the number of myths that circulate regarding them that are perpetuated by the government as well as inaccurate anecdotal evidence. Misinformed? I lived through the 60's and 70's when LSD was a very popular drug. I used it on more than one occasion and saw first hand what it does. I know it alters your mind and my friend any drug that would do that isn't good and absolutely no benifit could come from using it, that also includes alchohol. I cannot for the life of me believe you or anyone else would want to subject our children to the temptations of "Legal Drugs". It's bad enough that temptation is there with them being illegal. 5 would you want your children using these type of drugs or to be able to easily get those drugs. I wouldn't.

I've had a great deal of first hand experience as well, as well as researching the studies that have been done and I'll tell you this: The vast majority of the information being passed around by the anti-drug crowd is deliberately false. I also know that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the use of LSD as well as ecstacy in psychological therapy.

As far as recreational use (of ecstacy) goes:

Quote:

The chief executive of the UK Medical Research Council stated that MDMA is "on the bottom of the scale of harm," and was rated to be of lesser concern than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, as well as several classes of prescription medications, when examining the harmfulness of twenty popular recreational drugs.

per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylenedioxymethamphetamine#cite_note-58

The fact is that people are still getting drugs, only there are absolutely no controls in place to help prevent mislabeling, dosage, etc. And I can also tell you that when I was a kid, it was FAR easier to get my hands on illegal drugs than it was alcohol.

Whether you consider the altering of one's perception to be good or bad, what's primarily at issue here is whether or not it's your choice to make.

About all I can say is WOW, and stop saying anything else. I can't believe you two would want to do this to the children of this country. It's going to be one fucked up Nation if the legalization of those drugs ever happens. Thank God I would have my guns, I would be in need of them to protect my family. I honestly think I would have to move to another country just to feel safe again and probably would.

mctopeka wrote:

jc wrote: in order to believe this, a person has to believe that the "war on drugs" is working and actually making some significant difference in the availability of drugs in america. you would also have to believe that the two most dangerous and costly drugs in america, alcohol and tobacco, should be outlawed. the "war on drugs" isn't working and it isn't stopping people who want drugs from getting them. i have two addicts who work for me and i know for a fact that they have no difficulty obtaining crack whever they want it. what they do have difficulty in doing is making enough $ to pay the vastly inflated prices that it being illegal encourages. and, as i've said, if you want dangerous and addictive drugs outlawed, you MUST include all of the dangerous and addictive drugs in that ban. yet, i do not hear the call to outlaw alcohol and tobacco included in the moralizing about "drugs". I've never said the war on drugs was a success. If you remember Alchohol was illegal at one time but the vast majority of Americans didn't like it and they repealed that law. If you believe that any good could come from making all drugs legal then you're fooling yourself. Tell me just one good thing that would come from the legalization of crack, meth, heroin, ecstacy or any recreational drugs.

and if you think that wasting billions upon billions of dollars in the "war on drugs" is doing any good, you are worse than fooling yourself.
"In 2000, the National Drug Control budget exceeds $18 billion and the states will spend upwards of $20 billion more." btw-it costs way more today.
"According to a 1999 survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, drugs continue to be widely available to America's high school students."
"Law enforcement agencies seize less than 20 percent of the cocaine and heroin produced annually. they would have to seize 60 to 80 percent to make the industry unprofitable for the traffickers.
"A study by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center found that treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine in the United States. The same study found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7 in societal costs, and that additional domestic law enforcement costs 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs."
"Drug testing is a lucrative industry. It is estimated that the United States spends $1 billion annually to drug test about 20 million of our workers in spite of research demonstrating the high cost and low effectiveness of this assault on American privacy"
"several studies and investigations of drug-related police corruption found on-duty police officers engaged in serious criminal activities such as (1) conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures; (2) stealing money and/or drugs from drug dealers; (3) selling stolen drugs; (4) protecting drug operations; (5) providing false testimony; and (6) submitting false crime reports."
"From the Taliban to the FARC in Colombia, US-designated "terrorist" groups make money from the US drug trade. If cocaine and heroin cost no more than aspirin, all these moochers would have to get real jobs."

mctopeka wrote:

About all I can say is WOW, and stop saying anything else. I can't believe you two would want to do this to the children of this country. It's going to be one fucked up Nation if the legalization of those drugs ever happens. Thank God I would have my guns, I would be in need of them to protect my family. I honestly think I would have to move to another country just to feel safe again and probably would.

ah, the old "let's do it to save the children" dodge. what crap. and, just so's you know, the kids already have drugs and can get any of them and as much of them as they desire.
ps-i'm still waiting for you to advocate outlawing the 2 drugs that are the biggest cost and health risk to our children - alcohol and tobacco.

"According to a 1999 survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, drugs continue to be widely available to America's high school students."
"Law enforcement agencies seize less than 20 percent of the cocaine and heroin produced annually. they would have to seize 60 to 80 percent to make the industry unprofitable for the traffickers."

wow this has turned into quite the debate.....good job guys!!

everyone who doesn't live in a cave or under a rock knows the government's 'WAR ON DRUGS" doesn't work or amount to shit. I have no problem with pot being used for medicinal purposes but anything else needs to be kept illegal and the penalties kept in place.

Those that think just smoking pot is ok and doesn't hurt you....you are sadly wrong. I see a guy a couple of times a week that would greatly differ with that opinion.

stoney wrote:

wow this has turned into quite the debate.....good job guys!! everyone who doesn't live in a cave or under a rock knows the government's 'WAR ON DRUGS" doesn't work or amount to shit. I have no problem with pot being used for medicinal purposes but anything else needs to be kept illegal and the penalties kept in place. Those that think just smoking pot is ok and doesn't hurt you....you are sadly wrong. I see a guy a couple of times a week that would greatly differ with that opinion.

so, you acknowledge that the current drug laws don't work and that the current drug policy costs us tens of billions of dollars a year, yet you want to keep right on with that policy. incredible.
ps-i know lots of people who have smoked weed and do not have any significant problems from that at all. same with coke, lsd, uppers, downers and so on. i also know people who have srious problems from too many cheesburgers. if you want everytthing that is potentially bad for people outlawed, let's do that. otherwise, quite trying to make everyone use your choice of drugs by outlawing theirs.