America's War on Drugs

[kılıç_mehmet]

My reply to the Summer Queen.

This doesn’t follow: having a government GET money from drugs does not produce the same results as a government trying to destroy drugs. China sought to destroy opium, creating a black market niche that Britain filled. In a (hopefully) more enlightened age, decriminalizing the use of such drugs but instead taxing those who sell it and buy it, as well as demanding standards of purity.

You lack vision, friend.
The reason why Chinea sought to destroy opium was due to the widespread usage of opium, and the ever increasing users of opium.
Before that, opium used to be legal in Qing China, whereas the taxation thereof made the English suppliers smuggle opium into China through various means, while taking the profits.

Even if the Chinese government would have taxed opium, what can you do with a country full of opium addicts?
Likewise, you can tax the legal sale of drugs as much as you want.
You cannot tax them beyond a certain level, however, which will increase the prices, and people who cannot buy drugs will eventually resort to buying from illegal salesmen or resort to crime and other means to supply themselves with their drug of choice.
Like, cigarettes, for example.
Here, the tax on the sale of cigarettes is very high, and people still buy them, even if they have to spend a portion of their hard earned money. It's making money off of addicts. However, cigarettes do not cause the same social damage as illicit, psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs do.
As you can see, alcohol wasn't banned in China, whereas opium was. I wonder why.

1) People are already willingly poisoning themselves. Prescription drugs are an excellent example. So is glue. People want to get to altered states of being. Or poison themselves by getting morbidly obese with fatty foods. It hits the pleasure center of the brain. Criminalizing ANY of those things isn’t going to solve the problem: educating people on how the brain works and what the substances do WILL.
2) Rich people being or not being taxed enough doesn’t have anything to do with additional revenue from controlled substances. Personal income tax is not the same as tax on trade.
3) The drug barons are already emperors because they know people want their hooch/blow/etc and thus can charge whatever they want. Legalizing drugs merely legalizes the supply for a demand, and competition to provide the best quality vs price value helps, not hurts.
4) I have no idea how you jumped to us forcing other countries to legalize anything. Keep your shit illegal – I’m sure we have better things to worry about at the moment. Until you can back up your western conspiracy mongering, quit boring us all with it.
5) Death? Really?

1-The government exists there to protect the people from harm.
Education is of course a good thing, but this should not mean that the government should make the said substances easily accessible to the public.
2-Is it? Personal income comes from the income of your business. Why do you think that many people commit tax frauds? Besides, I'm sure that if legalized, drugs will be international, multi-trillion dollar businesses which will control politicians.
Besides, you can only tax things like drugs to a certain degree. If you tax them enough to raise the prices, illegal trade will boom.
But taxing them too low will make them accessible to every strata of society. Drugs are a lose-lose game, both legal and illegal.
3-Meaning that you're okay with illicit drugs being sold at stores and markets. This will eliminate the losses that drug barons have to keep up with during the current drug laws, and turn into better profits for them, while they will probably get into advertising and other things to make poison more desirable and of course, used more extensively by others.
I think that legalizing drugs is just another step to a worldwide social collapse.
4-Who are you to worry? Besides, it's not you who is going to do anything. You'll probably be too fucked by drugs to care, whereas other countries who do not want poison to be legal will be forced by other countries to make it legal. Just like they were forced to make it illegal.

For example, my country used to produce opium. After united pressure from the US and other countries, we halted the production of opium. Now we only produce very small amounts that are used in the production of painkillers such as morphine.
And you tell me that countries who host large companies who are involved in the sale and production of drugs won't pressure you to pressure us to allow their drugs in?
If the US legalizes production and sale of drugs, it'll be done the same in every other other country.

5-Yes, death.

Your opinions of morality are subjective. I’m not sure how enjoying a joint together rips apart the fabric of society – but don’t bother to explain…I’m quite certain it will be much like all your other explanations of society’s ills.

Enjoy your joint. I'm not really concerned with a small amount of individuals using drugs.
This still does not change the fact that illicit drugs have a great potential to be the greatest of social ills if they were to be legal for sale and production.
My moral standards are bent on keeping society clean in general, cherishing what is good and useful, while ousting what is harmful and useless.

Here’s the crux: no one who has read the literature on marijuana, a plant with both medicinal AND practical applications (it’s not just a hallucinogen, you know – hemp is extraordinarily useful as a fiber), would say something so pathetically stupid. You, as I’ve already stated, are going based solely on your own biases, not on actual science. You think prescription drugs are always the safest things? They’re prescribed and always have instructions on them because if used in ways OTHER than their instructions state, they are at best ineffective and at worse life-threatening. Marijuana has proved time and again to be extremely beneficial for a variety of medical uses.

I am not stating that marijuana, and other illicit drugs lack any medicinal properties. As a matter of fact, most illicit drugs of today were actually produced by pharmacists, or were part of traditional medicines around the world.
However when people began to use them to fill gaps in their leisure time, or when these drugs forced leisure time to take over parts of a person's work, study and social life, they were deemed to be dangerous, and were illegalized.
IF they have medicinal properties, and are ought to be treated as medicine, they should be at the hands of doctors, not ordinary people.

Hahahaha, maybe you don’t. Maybe you’ve never seen others do it. I highly doubt your whole country consists of such squares. Humans are humans, despite your implications otherwise depending on nation of origin.

Well, it's not about being a square. It's about self control and respect.
Only a person that lacks these qualities would make a fool out of himself in front of his family with a drunken state of being.

Humans are humans alright, but not every human is the same as the other. Some are above others with the way they behave, and are treated accordingly by others.

LMAO. I can’t take this statement seriously: I’m pretty sure if they tell you not to use the bad things, it’s so there’s more for them.

Joke all you want. My statement still stands.

Taking a hit off a joint doesn’t have anything to do with being well-mannered, well-behaved and well-educated with a stellar reputation. Since you’re basing everything off your own experience and not off anything objectively viewed by science and psychology, let me give you another personal anecdote: my boyfriend, the first official boyfriend I’ve had in 5 years because my standards demand I don’t link myself to someone who is less than the excellent individual he is, makes good cash, drives a very nice car, is saving great sums of money to buy a house hopefully before the year is out, has a high IQ level, dresses like a guy out of the swank 50’s with manners and behavior even YOU would approve of, manages his own photography studio AND guess what? He LOVES taking a hit off a joint now and then. I’m not ashamed of him in the slightest – nor is his mother, who is deservedly proud of how he turned out.

I belive you haven't read what I've written.
This is not about him. He can use a marijuana cigarette now and then, he's not married, has no children, lives alone, or has no girlfriend who objects that he is using marijuana.
I'm talking about the family, in which certain things ought not to be allowed. I did say this in reply to the guy who smoked marijuana in front of an elder family member.
Does your boyfriend smoke marijuana in front of his parents or family members? Or does he constantly mention how much he loves to smoke marijuana in front of them?
I guess not.

“Rightful”? What EXACTLY does marijuana do to deserve its reputation? Here in the prudish US, its only problem is that conservatives would rather you be lazy in a church pew rather than lazing around watching cartoons.

It is a hallucinogenic drug. It's more than enough, I believe.
Why would I advocate it's use? Why should anyone advocate it's use?
Besides, you don't need to be in church. You can always do something more productive with your time, although most of us are not fit to do this. We rather be lazy anywhere, church, home, watching cartoons.
But church and cartoons do not give you the same amount of pleasure as a psychedelic and hallucinogenic drug.

Some people need artificial means to create a dopamine release, and also “happiness” is not the only reason for drugs – although you seem to waffle back and forth on whether or not it’s okay for marijuana to exist at all because of its medical benefits.

If it has medicinal benefits, it should not be dispensed to people who are in need of these benefits in a cigarette, but in pills, tablets and other means of methods, like other forms of medicine.
As I said, many other illicit drugs have some sort of medicinal significance.

Values change over time. “Drug use” was not “shameful” at one point.

Was it not? Which point in time was that I wonder.
Drunkenness and the state of mind of the drugged man, both were considered to be shameful in most civilized societies.
That was the reason why drug use was mostly confined to enclosed spaces, like dens, coffee houses and etc. too keep them out of the rest of the society, and people would go there because they felt shame in doing this in front of normal society.

How? Because of the wars fought because of its legality? What makes it destructive when legal?

Social collapse. If such drugs were to be too popular with the public, they would cause people to neglect real life in favor of the artifical induced happiness. Is it not what most addicts do? They form their lives around the drug.

We lacked the science and facilities needed to care for people who wished to indulge. Hang-gliding’s pretty dangerous too – want to outlaw it? No, of course not – it’s not “mind-altering”.

An accident that happens through hang-gliding kills you. Your family are devastated, and mourn your death.
People who are addicts are in a state worse than death. They have really nothing else to live for than the drug. The drug is their life.
What if they never had started to use the poison? They would have never wished for it. It's very much like a smoker, not really remembering how it was before he began smoking. I sometimes wonder how did I get through the day before I began inhaling smoke into my lungs? I can't really figure it out, therefore I keep smoking.
If I had never started it, I would have never thought of smoking.

I happen to think your attitude is what keeps these drugs dangerous.

Really? Explain.

No, they should smoke along with them for the same reason my dad and I sit down and have beers together.

Then go and smoke marijuana with your father and mother.
If they refuse, bicker at them for being such squares and how beer and marijuana is on the same level.

Boyfriend takes a break from difficult studio issues to light one up and gain fresh perspective. Friend of mine was just named Division Manager for the homebuilder he works for – he lights one up before he writes all his reports, reviews and many other things. And those song writers? Even Penn & Teller, who hate the Grateful Dead and don’t do drugs, admitted that they were some of the hardest working “song-writers” – incredibly successful. Bill Maher – active advocate for pot, also has his fingers in many media outlets and works hard every day. I know artists who smoke up and produce their art. What do you do sober that sets you apart from the successful people who smoke up?

I've given the songwriting example due to the fact that it's the most given example when it comes to how marijuana affects "productivity".

I am always sober when I am doing something that is related to my studies, line of work and etc. Even while doing casual things like gamig, I'm not really sure how partaking in drugs is going to positively affect your performance. Besides, I've said this in response to the post that stated that marijuana supposedly increases productivity in someone. I'm fairly curious how many of my professors have done their theses while being under the influence of any drug.
These things only serve to glorify something beyond what it really is.
It's really pathetic, I think.

Marijuana IS medicine, you waffling child.

As much as heroin and cocaine.

Alcohol is a drug. It is not the same as marijuana. Not all drugs were “created” equal. Alcohol happens to be worse. Get a grip.

I think we're going nowhere with this. I can't get you people to understand, that marijuana does not have the same accessibility and popularity as alcohol, for good reason. If it did, people would stop using alcohol, and alcohol would be considered less dangerous.

Heh – so you’re completely ignorant of what you’re talking about: we DO have different ways of distributing THC into the body, you moog, and it doesn’t put it on par with cocaine.

What other ways but smoking does the generic stoner have?
Yes, you can put into cakes and etc. What else?

Oh, so alcohol IS the same as marijuana, but it’s NOT a drug? It’s a mind-altering substance, you know.

Mind-altering. Just like when I relax, after I take a sip of my coffee.
You know what I mean when I mean mind altering.
Alcohol is not the same. It alters the mind, however not in the same way that illicit drugs do.
If they were the same thing, one would not be illegal, while the other is legal.
And right after I say this, I'm sure this is going to get under the skin of people who think that the legality status of marijuana is tied to some conspiracy-it's not. It's illegal for good reasons.
The only reason why you think that it ought to be legal for sale is becuase you don't really care about it's outcomes. It's always about you, you want to have better access to cheaper and better quality drugs to get high. Anything else is not really a concern for you.
You trample underfoot society, order, family and etc.

Several “personals” make up a society. I don’t understand how personal legalization doesn’t link up with societal legalization. I can personally enjoy alcohol – so can the rest of society. Where on earth did you learn to lay out an argument?

Personal legalisation does not put a legal responsibility not to use the drug on the person who uses it. Meaning, the user is not punished for simply using the drug. The people who sell and produce it are the perpetrators, whereas the user is the victim.

No, actually, I want regulation from government agencies because despite cries from some of our other members, government regulation IS better than private regulation – therein lies the difference between public and personal gain. Don’t turn this into a government conspiracy now.

I guess this regulation you speak about is related to the quality and price tag of the drug. Well, it's all the same. The government helps to better poison his people.
Or were you talking about regulating drugs for individuals? Like you ought to have a license and a certain amount of marijuana you can use per month or week? I guess that beer is not the same as marijuana after all, for you do not need to be regulated by the state for the consumption of alcohol.

Right – legalize them.

For sale and production? No.

Who on earth have you been hanging around? My boyfriend has no problem having a steady stash on hand for whenever he feels like using it, and yet he takes the time to worry about not just himself and his girlfriend (granted, I make a great incentive) but his family AND an extended network of friends. Same with the last guy I dated. Same with a lot of my friends. If those people you’ve seen get caught up in themselves, my friend they are ridiculously selfish people PERIOD – the drug merely enhanced what was already there.

I believe that has more to do with your social standing than how well your friend controls himself. He controls himself due to his responsibiities to outside. People of higher social standings have higher social responsibilities. I think your friend doesn't use marijuana every day, or every weekend, or more than once every day. He can't afford to do so. Many others can afford that, when they cannot afford other things.

I know plenty of people also who gamble but don’t have a problem holding back. That’s a personal problem – not a “societal” problem. You can’t seem to decide whether you like government intervention or not.

It becomes a social problem when the number of constant gamblers begin to increase. But that doesn't happen due to the fact that today, most ways of gambling are regulated by the government as not to draw a lot people into it.

Advil and morphine are both pain relievers, but one is controlled and the other isn’t because of the strengths and effects. They’re still both drugs. When I’m ‘high’ on caffeine, I have decreased coordination, increased agitation and many other symptoms. When I’m on alcohol I have much worse symptoms that are actually dangerous. What we’re trying to say is that of the drugs still listed as illicit, marijuana is like the coffee portion – if there’s symptoms, they’re certainly not dangerous. As for public acceptance, this has nothing to do with its validity as a ‘dangerous’ substance or not – public opinion does not equate to science. In fact, public opinion is dangerously changeable.

I'm not really concerned with your symptoms. I still stand where I am. The danger of alcohol and marijuana are not so much related to their "negative" symptoms are you call them, but more so to their positive symptoms. This is why people who use marijuana regularly tend to diss alcohol in such ways. They see that marijuana is a lot superior to alcohol in many ways, and takes less to archive a similar or even greater effect, which is why they get drawn to it.
Their danger is not in whether they cause you to act in dangerous ways or not. It's in that they do not cause you to act in any ways.
Both drunk and stoned people are lazy people, but it looks like that while drunkards lament of their condition, stoners glorify it beyond comprehension.

What does that have to do with anything beyond a prejudice against poor people? Do you think people who can afford more drugs don’t do other drugs that cost more instead? Get a grip – Lindsey Lohan has enough money to make most of those people blush for shame at her bank account and she continues to fall back into rehab.

I think we have a communication problem here.
I'm was stating why the number of drug users were higher amongst the poor people. Most obviously do not do drugs that cost more, as most of those are also addictive physically, so they cannot get off it when they have to do so.
Those who earn little or nothing, but use drugs like cocaine and heroin usually get involved in crimes. That's about it.

Wrong, as I’ve already stated. I strongly expect, if it were legalized, that you would find it was pretty evenly distributed amongst the economic strata.

After legalisation, the drug will be easily accessible to people of any class. For now, drugs in general see regular use within lower classes.
It's the same for any country I've been to so far.