Archive for Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Legalized drugs may do less harm

April 1, 2009

Advertisement

Maybe we should legalize drugs.

I come neither eagerly nor easily to that maybe. Rather, I come by way of spiraling drug violence in Mexico that recently forced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to acknowledge the role America’s insatiable appetite for narcotics plays in the carnage. I come by way of watching Olympian Michael Phelps do the usual public relations song and dance after being outed smoking weed, and knowing the whole thing was a ritualized farce. Most of all, I come by way of personal antipathy: I don’t like and have never used illegal drugs.

But yeah, I’m thinking maybe we should legalize them. Or at the very least, begin the discussion.

I find myself in august — and unexpected — company. Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, George Schultz, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman and the late conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. have all said much the same thing.

And then, there is Jack A. Cole, who spent 26 years with the New Jersey State Police, 12 of them as an undercover narcotics officer. In 2002, he founded LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc), which now claims 12,000 members — FBI, DEA, cops, prosecutors and judges united in the belief that the War on Drugs has failed and that the solution to the drug problem is legalization, regulation and taxation.

“So we want to end drug prohibition just like we ended alcohol prohibition in 1933,” he says. “Because as law enforcers we understand that the day after we ended that terrible law, Al Capone and all his smuggling buddies were out of business. They were no longer killing each other, they were no longer killing us cops fighting that useless war, and they were no longer killing our children caught in the crossfire.”

The War on Drugs came into being under President Nixon, whose chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, once quoted the president as saying, “You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to.” Small wonder blacks account for 13 percent of the nation’s regular drug users, but over 70 percent of all those jailed for drug use.

Then there’s the collateral damage. “When somebody gets arrested,” says Cole, “it’s not only that person whose life is crippled. It drags down their whole family.” This, because the conviction makes it nearly impossible to get a job, go to college, even rent an apartment.

And for what? This “War” has been an exercise in futility. In 1970, says Cole, about 2 percent of the population over the age of 12 had at some point or another used an illegal drug. As of 2003, he says, that number stood at 46, an increase of “2,300 percent” — yet we’ve spent over a trillion dollars and imprisoned more people per capita than any country in the world in order to “reduce” drug use?

So yeah, maybe we should legalize them.

By the way, I use that weasel word “maybe” only to cover myself in the event somebody raises an objection I had not considered. But I doubt anyone will: Cole makes a compelling case. He’s agreed to take a few of your e-mailed questions and comments, so we’ll continue this discussion on my blog (http://blogs. herald.com/leonardpitts/) and, if warranted, in this space.

In the meantime, I leave you one last statistic. Cole says that in 1914, when the first federal drug law was enacted, the government estimated 1.3 percent of us were addicted to illegal drugs. In 1970, when the War on Drugs began, the government estimated 1.3 percent of us were addicted to illegal drugs. Thirty-nine million arrests later, he says, the government says 1.3 percent of us are addicted to illegal drugs.

“That,” says Cole, “is the only statistic that’s never changed at all.”

— Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald. He chats with readers from noon to 1 p.m. CDT each Wednesday on www.MiamiHerald.com.

Comments

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

Have a hard time agreeing with most of those stats, but I definitely agree with the article. In Atlanta, the gang presence has increased exponentially in the last decade; black, vietnamese, cambodian, and hispanic gangs have large 'turfs' cut out of the city, all or mostly fighting for pieces of the drug trade. They've gotten so big and bold that slave/prostitution rings are common as well. Kidnappings, torture, assassination, intimidation --daily news. Legalizing it might not be the answer. But after 3 decades of this sham of a 'war' I definitely think it's worth a try.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Maybe we should legalize diamonds to stop all the violence over them in Africa. Then we could legalize oil and stop the fighting in Iraq over which faction gets the oil revenue. Or maybe anytime you have a precious commodity, a culture of violence, and minimal law enforcement, there are going to be potential problems.

The gangs likely wouldn't go away since if drugs are legalized they would likely be regulated. So there would still be a market for unregulated drugs at cheaper prices.

Pitts also talks about the collateral damage to a family when someone in that family is arrested for drug use/possession. However, he fails to take into account the collateral damage done to families if drugs are legalized.

grammaddy 6 years, 4 months ago

My folks told me that ending prohibition and the money made off liquor taxes are what brought the nation back to its feet during the Great Depression. If that's true, why couldn't the legalization of pot and the tax revenues from it save our economy these days. There's a lot that can be done with the hemp plant than just smoking it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"Or maybe anytime you have a precious commodity, a culture of violence, and minimal law enforcement, there are going to be potential problems."

The only thing that makes illegal drugs "precious" is the fact that they are illegal.

"The gangs likely wouldn't go away since if drugs are legalized they would likely be regulated. So there would still be a market for unregulated drugs at cheaper prices."

Yea, look at all the gang wars over tobacco and alcohol. (sarcasm)

Ryan Neuhofel 6 years, 4 months ago

Satirical, you have unknowingly made a brilliant observation - The very reason that "diamonds" and "oil" are associated with violence is because they are perhaps the most "unfree" commodity markets in the world - primarily because of the locations where they're found in abundance, although we certainly have agitated the problem. Illegal "drugs" especially marijuana are in "shortage" causing high prices because of market forces (black market in this case), not because of "scarcity" (an absolute limited item). Marijuana is one of the most hearty, cheapest crops we can grow!

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

Decriminalize pot and allow home grown.

Legalize narcotics to be distributed with prescriptions which might move treatment to the forefront.

Decriminalize/legalize removes the big bucks from the streets which is the romance with drugs . Frees up law enforcement to focus more energy on rape,white collar crimes and domestic abuse. Will definitely reduce congestion in the court system.

fu7il3 6 years, 4 months ago

Legalizing narcotics with a prescription wouldn't do anything for their abuse. One of the fastest growing trends is the abuse of prescription drugs. The romance with drugs for users isn't the money. It's the high. As long as there are users, there will always be dealers. It's supply and demand.

You can regulate, tax, and make some money, but there will always be a black market for untaxed stuff.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

Making it easier for people to become addicted to drugs is not going to make our society a better place to live. Drug addicts create havoc on our communities and families. It is not just the drug dealers in which crime and violence are associated with. The drug addicts will still be around even if the illegal dealers are put out of business by drug legalization. And, likely, there will be an increase in drug addicts, for surely the illegality of drugs has been a detterrent to many people, especially impressionalble kids. I for one am against this.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 4 months ago

I find myself in the amazing position of agreeing with Tom. Drug cartels are only powerful because of their unlimited funding. They operate on the old supply & demand principles in their purest form, because they have unlimited demand. Legilization is the only way to hit them where it hurts. You can hunt/imprison/kill them too, but there will be another, more brutal, cartel next week to take it's place.

And to the people who think that a black market will still exist for untaxed narcotics: when is the last time you went through the black market to get a markdown on a bottle of grey goose, or a pack of Camels?

katjok 6 years, 4 months ago

I was looking at the website, and it looks like LEAP will be doing a presentation at KU today @ 6:00pm.

Topic: An Alternative Approach to Drug Control

318 Bailey Hall

Open to students and faculty of KU and general public.

http://www.ku.edu

Bossa_Nova 6 years, 4 months ago

i dont use it, but legalizing pot makes a lot of sense for all the aforemetioned reasons. the crack, coke, meth, etc. is bad news so keep it illegal and crackdown on the people using and dealing.

Vitruvian 6 years, 4 months ago

All drugs, not just marijuana, should be legalized immediately. There is no right more fundamental than ownership of one's body. To deny someone that right is to make him your slave.

seriouscat 6 years, 4 months ago

Practicality says:

"Making it easier for people to become addicted to drugs is not going to make our society a better place to live. Drug addicts create havoc on our communities and families. It is not just the drug dealers in which crime and violence are associated with. The drug addicts will still be around even if the illegal dealers are put out of business by drug legalization. And, likely, there will be an increase in drug addicts, for surely the illegality of drugs has been a detterrent to many people, especially impressionalble kids. I for one am against this."

Because Practicality obviously knows better than.

Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, George Schultz, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, and the late conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr.

not to mention:

And then, there is Jack A. Cole, who spent 26 years with the New Jersey State Police, 12 of them as an undercover narcotics officer. In 2002, he founded LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc), which now claims 12,000 members — FBI, DEA, cops, prosecutors and judges united in the belief that the War on Drugs has failed and that the solution to the drug problem is legalization, regulation and taxation.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

Drug Use and Crime In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for state prisoners (19% in 1997). In 2002 about a quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs, compared to 5% of violent and public order offenders. Among state prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) and drug offenders (26%) more likely to commit their crimes for drug money than violent (10%) and public-order offenders (7%). In federal prisons property offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders (25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses.

Percent of Prison and Jail inmates who commited their offense to get money for drugs.

                         Local Jail Inmates         State Inmates         Federal Inmates

Offense 2002 2004 2004 Total: 16.4% 16.6% 18.4% Violent 8.0 9.8 14.8 Property 26.9 30.3 10.6 Drugs 24.8 26.4 25.3 Public-Order 5.2 6.9 6.8

College student victims Overall 41% of violent crimes committed against college students and 38% of nonstudents were committed by an offender perceived to be using drugs, 1995-2000. About 2 in 5 of all rape/sexual assaults and about a quarter of all robberies against a college student were committed by an offender perceived to be using drugs.

Jail inmates Of inmates held in jail, only convicted offenders were asked if they had used drugs at the time of the offense. In 2002, 29% of convicted inmates reported they had used illegal drugs at the time of the offense, down from 35% in 1996. Marijuana and cocaine or crack were the most common drugs convicted inmates said they had used at the time of the offense -- • 14% had used marijuana in 2002, down from 18% in 1996. • 11% had used cocaine or crack, down from 14% in 1996.

These facts were taken from the US Department of Justice at their website. There are many other good ones and I encourage people to look at them. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

It is reasonable to believe that the legalization of Drugs could have an increase in Drug Use. It is reasonable to believe that an increase in Drug Use will add an increase in Drug Addicts. It is reasonable to believe that an Increase in Drug Addicts will add to the above statistics. It is therefore reasonable to keep drugs illegal.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

P.S. I apologize for the confusion concerning the spacing on the graph. I have tried twice to fix it by putting proper spacing in it, but it keeps returning like it is. It is on the USDJ website if someone wants to look at it in it's less confusing and proper format.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

The facts on prohibition are clear. It doesn't work. So it really doesn't matter what you believe or feel. The war on drugs is a colossal failure, waste of money, and it breeds far more violence than the drugs themselves.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

Vitruvian (Anonymous) says…

“All drugs, not just marijuana, should be legalized immediately. There is no right more fundamental than ownership of one's body. To deny someone that right is to make him your slave.”

I understand the Libertarian point of view on this and if we lived in a strictily libertarian society, then this point would be valid. But we do not. I and many others are held accountable and responsible for the actions of others. When it is also allowed to kill anyone whose drug use over steps the bounds of "ownership of one's body" in defense of one's property and/or personal rights, and when we as a nation are not held accountable for the offspring and destruction of individuals lives by their choice to use drugs, then I will follow along with the Libertarian point of view that people can use drugs.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

seriouscat (Anonymous) says. . .

"Because Practicality obviously knows better than.

Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, George Schultz, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, and the late conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr.

not to mention:

And then, there is Jack A. Cole, who spent 26 years with the New Jersey State Police, 12 of them as an undercover narcotics officer. In 2002, he founded LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc), which now claims 12,000 members — FBI, DEA, cops, prosecutors and judges united in the belief that the War on Drugs has failed and that the solution to the drug problem is legalization, regulation and taxation."

Is it really necessary for me to start naming everyone else, in Law Enforcement and elsewhere who oppose this view seriouscat? Do you really believe that I am in the minority on this?

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

Who cares who opposes this. What matters is whether or not the war on drugs is worth it to the people of this country. The answer is no. The cost is certainly not worth the piss poor results. They can't even keep drugs out of maximum security prisons.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

gogoplata,

How do you know what the results would be if drugs were legal? It could definitely be a lot worse.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

Because they were legal from the founding of this nation until the early 20th century. It wasn't worse.

BrianR 6 years, 4 months ago

I don't know anyone who would start using drugs just because they became legal. If people are going to use, prohibition isn't going to stop them. Drugs are incredibly easy to get, perhaps with some regulation someone sould get carded from time to time. Prohibition doesn't work and will never work, we've proven that over and over. When are we going to wake up to that fact?

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

The nation didn't have access to the type of drugs that they do today. And, when they did start having access to them, that is when they banned them. Just look at the historical evidence of the problems with opium in the mid to late 19th century that occured in our nation. And, that was when the nation started becoming inundated with the drug. See a correlation?

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

BrianR (Anonymous) says. . .

"I don't know anyone who would start using drugs just because they became legal."

This statement would imply that nobody obeys laws from fear of the repercussion. This statement is just not factual. Many people choose not to use drugs for fear of getting into trouble.

BrianR 6 years, 4 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says… "This statement would imply that nobody obeys laws from fear of the repercussion. This statement is just not factual. Many people choose not to use drugs for fear of getting into trouble."

You can't be serious. That is hilarious and certainly not very practical.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

"You can't be serious. That is hilarious and certainly not very practical."

Yes BrianR, I was serious. How many murders would occur if people were not worried about the repercussion of going to jail for murdering? (Just one of many examples.) Still think there would be the same amount as if it were illegal? Hardly. Oh, I am also glad I could amuse you as well.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

logrithmic,

Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana

                 Marijuana: The Facts

Q: Does marijuana pose health risks to users?

• Marijuana is an addictive drug1 with significant health consequences to its users and others. Many harmful short-term and long-term problems have been documented with its use: • The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety2. • In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled. • There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day. • Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette. • Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.3 • Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system4 and raises the risk of lung infections.5 A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.6 • Users can become dependent on marijuana to the point they must seek treatment to stop abusing it. In 1999, more than 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependence. • More teens are in treatment for marijuana use than for any other drug or for alcohol. Adolescent admissions to substance abuse facilities for marijuana grew from 43 percent of all adolescent admissions in 1994 to 60 percent in 1999. • Marijuana is much stronger now than it was decades ago. According to data from the Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of commercial-grade marijuana rose from an average of 3.71 percent in 1985 to an average of 5.57 percent in 1998. The average THC content of U.S. produced sinsemilla increased from 3.2 percent in 1977 to 12.8 percent in 1997.7

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana Marijuana: The Facts

Q. Does marijuana have any medical value?

• Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.8 • Advocates have promoted the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions such as glaucoma. However, this is a good example of more effective medicines already available. According to the Institute of Medicine, there are six classes of drugs and multiple surgical techniques that are available to treat glaucoma that effectively slow the progression of this disease by reducing high intraocular pressure. • In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate. Furthermore, marijuana can affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems.9 • In addition, in a recent study by the Mayo Clinic, THC was shown to be less effective than standard treatments in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.10 • The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance. • The DEA supports research into the safety and efficacy of THC (the major psychoactive component of marijuana), and such studies are ongoing, supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. • As a result of such research, a synthetic THC drug, Marinol, has been available to the public since 1985. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that Marinol is safe, effective, and has therapeutic benefits for use as a treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and as a treatment of weight loss in patients with AIDS. However, it does not produce the harmful health effects associated with smoking marijuana. • Furthermore, the DEA recently approved the University of California San Diego to undertake rigorous scientific studies to assess the safety and efficacy of cannabis compounds for treating certain debilitating medical conditions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana Marijuana: The Facts

Q. Does marijuana have any medical value? (Continued)

• It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases. The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelman, Director of the Lindesmith Center, in January 2000. Responding to criticism from former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking-horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelman did not contradict General McCaffrey. "Will it help lead toward marijuana legaization?" Mr. Nadelman said: "I hope so."

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana Marijuana: The Facts

Q. Does marijuana harm anyone besides the individual who smokes it?

• Consider the public safety of others when confronted with intoxicated drug users: • Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and signs on the road.11 • In a 1990 report, the National Transportation Safety Board studied 182 fatal truck accidents. It found that just as many of the accidents were caused by drivers using marijuana as were caused by alcohol -- 12.5 percent in each case. • Consider also that drug use, including marijuana, contributes to crime. A large percentage of those arrested for crimes test positive for marijuana. Nationwide, 40 percent of adult males tested positive for marijuana at the time of their arrest.

Q. Is marijuana a gateway drug?

• Yes. Among marijuana's most harmful consequences is its role in leading to the use of other illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine. Long-term studies of students who use drugs show that very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana. While not all people who use marijuana go on to use other drugs, using marijuana sometimes lowers inhibitions about drug use and exposes users to a culture that encourages use of other drugs. • The risk of using cocaine has been estimated to be more than 104 times greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it.12

In Summary:

• Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that poses significant health threats to users. • Marijuana has no medical value that can't be met more effectively by legal drugs. • Marijuana users are far more likely to use other drugs like cocaine and heroin than non-marijuana users. • Drug legalizers use "medical marijuana" as red herring in effort to advocate broader legalization of drug use.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

logrithmic, May my God bless Your God to put the bong down

BrianR 6 years, 4 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says… "Yes BrianR, I was serious. How many murders would occur if people were not worried about the repercussion of going to jail for murdering? (Just one of many examples.) Still think there would be the same amount as if it were illegal? Hardly. Oh, I am also glad I could amuse you as well."

WOW! you have repeated every myth surrounding drug use that has merged in the last century and a half. The oppressive DoJ is not a good source from which to make your argument, such as it is. The more you talk the more it is evident that you are clueless and you misinterpret my intrent if you think you amuse me. You are not worthy of my time so we're done here.

denak 6 years, 4 months ago

Legalizing drugs would be nothing more than dumbing down our society. The logic behind the legalization of drugs is the argument that since it has been difficult to fight the scourge of drugs,lets just give up and legalize it.

People who think that legalizing these drugs are living in a pollyanna world. The drugs are criminalized because they are dangerous. Legalizing drugs give them a legitimacy that would be hard to explain to our children. Try telling a child that they shouldn't do drugs when they are legal. By legalizing them, our society is saying by de facto that they are safe and they are not.

Moreover, the government does not even want to pay for treatement for a child with Type One diabetes or health care cost for the millions of uninsured we currently have, do you really believe that the government is going to pay for treatment for the potentially thousands of individuals who are or will become addicted to drugs as a result of legalization.

Or have you thought of the cost to our social service agencies who deal with those with addiction or deal with children who are in foste care as a result of parental addiction. How are these agencies going to protect these children when mom and dad are doing something that is "legal." When a child is born addicted to crack, what recourse is SRS going to have? If drugs are legal, the child, addicted to drugs, will go home with their druggie mom? What kind of life do you think that child (or that mom) is going to have?

The answer to this problem is not to legalize drugs but to find better avenues in which to keep individuals off drugs, better border enforcement (worry about the semis not the illegals) and to offer better treatment options.

Dena

Ryan Neuhofel 6 years, 4 months ago

Practical, do you support the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco?

I fully understand your frustration with the "socialization of risk" (fiscally) that has been created in America. Supporting "drug laws" to protect people from themselves (and possible harm to others) because of that fiscal socialization makes rational sense, but you are using the same premise that has increased the socialization of finances.

Also, if you support criminalizing marijuana based on that premise, you must also support the criminalization (or regulation) of anything that may increase the burden of support provided by the "taxpayer" - tobacco, alcohol, Twinkies, sedentary lifestyle, etc. etc. All of which undoubtedly cause a greater strain on "public finances" than marijuana.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

"The oppressive DoJ is not a good source from which to make your argument, such as it is."

Lol, how is it oppressive. I don't feel oppressed by the DOJ. Maybe you feel oppressed because it is trying to stop you from doing what you want. USING DRUGS! Which is illegal. Which is part of the governments job.

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

" . . . . .you misinterpret my intrent if you think you amuse me."

I was using sarcasm, sorry if you were unable to pick that up.

I should have done this "sorry (sarcasm intended) if you were unable to pick that up."

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

"You are not worthy of my time so we're done here."

Feeling is mutual.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"By the way, citing the US Department of Justice regarding drug statistics and “facts” is pretty much worthless. That department has perpetrated the War on Drugs to no effect for the last 30+ years, so I think it's safe to say that they are unable to view the issue objectively."

A) The "facts" are not worthless just because you want them to be.

B) Objectivity went out the window when the majority of logrithmics sources all come from some website that ends in the http://www. . . . . . . . . . . ./ legalize marijuana.com

Further note:

logicsound says. . . . (Referring to me)

"He is of the opinion that drugs are bad and incredibly damaging (which I am not refuting), but he is unable to step outside of that viewpoint and put it in the context of real events and situations."

I have already, on multiple occasions placed my "viewpoint" in real life events and situations. You are the one who continues to use supposed "analogous" hypotheticals which usually appear anything but true analogies.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 4 months ago

Regardless of the wildly exaggerated "risks" of legalizing pot, I would not doubt that this might become more and more of an option due to economic pressures more than anything else.

And I wish that pro-drug war folks on here had access to unbiased scientific data regarding the effects of drug use. We have to look out for this scourge that is the "new pot," right? After all, the potency has sky-rocketed since the 1960's when it really was harmless, right? Taking such claims at face value is, well, pure idiocy.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 4 months ago

I'll add that if taking such claims at face value does not represent the "dumbing down of society," then I don't know what does.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

Redwood,

The article had to do with the legalization of drugs. Not Marijuana in particular. Logrithmic tried to turn it into a discussion about Marijuana, which is what he tries to do with most things.

But. . . . . .

Many people on here want to legalize drugs because they like to, want to, and DO smoke marijuana. It brings their objectivity and judgement into question.

Rainfalls 6 years, 4 months ago

This is the dumbest sh!t I've ever heard. Let's just legalize drugs so all of or teens can get excited and go out and start doing drugs. Let's see what the high school dropout rate increase too. Let's see how many kids get hit by cars with high people behind the wheel or how many more jobs get outsourced because American's are too busy getting high to show up for work!

werekoala 6 years, 4 months ago

Practicality -

I'm disappointed. Not in you, but in the DOJ. That list you copy-pasted has to be one of the saddest examples of twisting facts and figures to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

About half of it can be refuted simply by noting that correlation is not causation. Please tell me you understand that concept. If not, I will be happy to explain it in smaller words.

Kisses,

WK

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"How is it my responsibility to answer for logrithmic's sources?"

It is not your responsibility to answer for logrithmic's sources. But, the thread was to refute his argument and to show that there are alternate viewpoints.


"Furthermore, you are admitting that a source can be declared worthless on the basis of being subjective if the source has a vested interest in one side of the issue."

I did not admit any such thing. That is your twisted logic exposing itself once again. Most everything worthwhile is argued by people who have a vested interest in the outcome.


"Unfortunately, you still can't grasp my point—that the issue here isn't whether drugs are harmful or not. The issue is whether prohibition is an effective tool to reduce drug usage, yet you continue to yammer on about the harmful effects of drugs. I can't really make it any clearer and less “hypothetical” for you."

Here we go again with your narcissitic ideologies coming to the forefront. Do we need to go and find the astronomy book again? No one needs you to tell us what the issue is for each individual on here. Everyone can have their OWN issues. I only "yammered" about the harmfull effect of drugs to refute the people who claim there are none. If that doesn't concern you, then overlook it. I think it is on page 1 of that astronomy book. "LOGICSOUND, the universe does not revolve around you" (pg. 1, opening paragraph in astronomy book on logicsounds bookshelf).

And, you haven't made anything any "clearer". All you do is try and justify why the government shouldn't go after drug use by "yammering" about the ineffectiveness of the laws or the constitutionality of the laws or morality of the laws. Basically, your argument in a nutshell is that all laws should be abolished because they either "target" someone or ineffective in their totality therefore they shoud be abolished. Seems pretty absurd to me. What law accomplishes it's purported purpose 100%?


"You may resume sticking your head in the sand now, thanks."

For this I am guilty. I am looking for you but you are buried entirely too deep for me to rescue you.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"How is it my responsibility to answer for logrithmic's sources?"

It is not your responsibility to answer for logrithmic's sources. But, the thread was to refute his argument and to show that there are alternate viewpoints.


"Furthermore, you are admitting that a source can be declared worthless on the basis of being subjective if the source has a vested interest in one side of the issue."

I did not admit any such thing. That is your twisted logic exposing itself once again. Most everything worthwhile is argued by people who have a vested interest in the outcome.


"Unfortunately, you still can't grasp my point—that the issue here isn't whether drugs are harmful or not. The issue is whether prohibition is an effective tool to reduce drug usage, yet you continue to yammer on about the harmful effects of drugs. I can't really make it any clearer and less “hypothetical” for you."

Here we go again with your narcissitic ideologies coming to the forefront. Do we need to go and find the astronomy book again? No one needs you to tell us what the issue is for each individual on here. Everyone can have their OWN issues. I only "yammered" about the harmfull effect of drugs to refute the people who claim there are none. If that doesn't concern you, then overlook it. I think it is on page 1 of that astronomy book. "LOGICSOUND, the universe does not revolve around you" (pg. 1, opening paragraph in astronomy book on logicsounds bookshelf).

And, you haven't made anything any "clearer". All you do is try and justify why the government shouldn't go after drug use by "yammering" about the ineffectiveness of the laws or the constitutionality of the laws or morality of the laws. Basically, your argument in a nutshell is that all laws should be abolished because they either "target" someone or ineffective in their totality therefore they shoud be abolished. Seems pretty absurd to me. What law accomplishes it's purported purpose 100%?


"You may resume sticking your head in the sand now, thanks."

For this I am guilty. I am looking for you, but you are buried entirely too deep for me to rescue you.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

Practicality the facts don't back what you are saying. Prohibition did not work for alcohol and it is not working for drugs. I would even say that a better case could be made for making alcohol illegal than illegal drugs, with all the negatives that surround alcohol abuse.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

End the War on Drugs - Ron Paul

We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.

Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check ID’s and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

"If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. "

So you are saying that the Constitution allows Drug Use?

"All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices"

Please show me the drug addict that that takes care of their responsibilities, I would like to meet that one individual in a million.

"Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom."

This again I cannot agree with. We, as American Citizens are required to deal with the after affect of Drug Use. I have shown statistic's relating solely to the Use of Drugs. Those statistics do not incorporate the crime or violence associated with Drug Dealing. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's. I agree with that. Due to corruption of officials, demand by the populace, ineffective law enforcement, the list goes on and on. That doesn't mean Prohibition isn't effective now. There were plenty of things that did work in that time that wouldn't work now, such as segregation among others. The point is, comparing something’s effectiveness to events that occurred over 80 years ago is not a valid argument. I never advocated for Alcohol or cigarrettes either for that matter, (two wrongs do not make a right), even though that isn't what we are talking about. I have stated my views on that as well. If I could outlaw Alcohol, I would.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

There IS crime and violence associated with Drug Dealing. This might cease if it legalized. But, if the tax and cost of these drugs is higher than the cost of them right now, a black market will still exist and the subsequent crime and violence that we see today. So the income derived from the legal sale of drugs probably won't be as high as people think.

There is a cost associated with Drug Use that will not change if drugs are legalized and likely increase with increased use if the legal deterrent is no longer applicable. People commit crimes against individuals for the express purpose of acquiring funds to purchase drugs. For these people, Getting and consuming drugs is their number 1 priority. Nothing else matters. Not their kids, not their job, not their extended families, nothing. Society is often left to deal with this aftermath. Attempting to inhibit this is not unconstitutional. If we as a society are no longer required to deal with these consequences, then maybe your argument is valid, but that isn't the case. There is also an increase in crime and violence associated with the inhibitions that are lowered with drug use. This will not change if drugs are legal. I could go on and on.

The point is,

Do you as an individual in the United States of America believe Drugs cause a severe enough problem for our society to make sure they are illegal? I do. I am not the only one who thinks this. We do not give child molesters the right to have consensual sex with underage people either. That is a violation of one's freedom as well. There are many examples of denying one's personal freedom for the good of society. Keeping drugs illegal is just another one of those. Where would be right now if our parents and grandparents would have given up WWII in 1943 and negotiated with Hitler? Just because something is hard and difficult does not mean it should be abandoned.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"Be forewarned, this is the last time I'm wasting my time replying to you Impractical."

Best thing I have read all day. Your arguments don't make sense. The war on drugs is hardly 100% ineffective, which is your assumption used to legalize drugs. But I don't expect you to understand. You obviously do not think drugs are a problem in "your" little universe.

blakus 6 years, 4 months ago

I say screw the war on drugs and the federal government's attempt to curtail state rights. Legalization or decriminalization should be left up to the states and the states only. Lawrence, among thousands of other municipalities and a few states, has taken the step to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana to a misdemeanor (fine) for a first time offense. This makes the city money while saving the city money (no incarceration, etc.). And if you look at the history of marijuana in this country, you will find that the reasons for making weed illegal were ridiculous and propagated by the elite for financial gain.

JoRight 6 years, 4 months ago

Practicality,

I'm not all for legalization, but some of your logic is backwards & posting stuff you read off the internet isn't really much of value. . .especially when those facts could be skewed for certain agendas.

I didn't read through all of your train wrecks of posts, but the one that stuck out was marijuana being a gateway drug. People neglect that there is a natural progression of drug use. People just don't turn one day from being completely sober to a meth addict, usually there are steps (tobacco use, alcohol use, prescriptions meds, pot etc etc).

Just because robberies & ice cream sales go up at the same time doesn't mean we should ban ice cream to resolve the burglaries. There's usually other factors involved; in the ice cream & robbers for example, it'd be climate.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

JoRight,

I understand what you are saying but I do not entirely agree. Most of the stuff I posted was to refute the people who:

A) Make ridiculous claims and then post some nonsense to support that claim.

B) I am often accused of not providing any evidence to support my claim as an excuse to overlook what I am saying. This was to appease them.

If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation concerning the merits of this article, instead of cutting and pasting off of the internet or cutting and pasting one sentence in the middle of an idea and attacking that one sentence as if it was the idea itself, I am all for it. I understand how confusing it would look to someone who doesn't understand the history of the banter between myself and some other posters.

Danimal 6 years, 4 months ago

I have no problem with legalizing pot, because guess what? It's a weed, that stuff grows in ditches along county roads, it will grow anywhere. Making it a schedule 1 narcotic makes a fairly pedestrian narcotic rare and sought after. I think that heroine, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines and others should remain illegal though. By legalizing pot we could overnight eliminate 85% of the drug trade and probably generate at least $30 billion dollars in new taxes for prevention education and rehabilitation services as well as fighting the import or manufacture of more dangerous drugs. This all goes back to pot being a "black" drug in the 1930's (although less polite language was used back then).

standuporget 6 years, 4 months ago

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/31/cities-states-plan-strange-new-taxes-pretty/ CASH CROP Billions of dollars in the hole, California's legislature is considering a blunt proposal from a San Francisco assemblyman: taxing legalized marijuana sales at $50 an ounce, a move its sponsor thinks could net the state about $1 billion a year. Oregon is considering a similar measure, taxing medical marijuana at nearly $100 an ounce. The taxes could really help excite the states' economies, even if everything else gets sluggish for a while. I think people will still buy from the local dealer.

Liberty275 6 years, 4 months ago

If you are going to legalize drugs, do it for the right reason. The government should have no control over what people put into their bodies.

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

The Constitution allows drug use.

Saying you are responsible for your choices is not saying that you take care of your responsiblities. It is saying that you are to blame for your choices. Not someone else.

--“Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom.”

--This again I cannot agree with. We, as American Citizens are required to deal with the after affect of Drug Use. I have shown statistic's relating solely to the Use of Drugs. Those statistics do not incorporate the crime or violence associated with Drug Dealing. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's. I agree with that. Due to corruption of officials, demand by the populace, ineffective law enforcement, the list goes on and on. That doesn't mean Prohibition isn't effective now. There were plenty of things that did work in that time that wouldn't work now, such as segregation among others. The point is, comparing something’s effectiveness to events that occurred over 80 years ago is not a valid argument. I never advocated for Alcohol or cigarrettes either for that matter, (two wrongs do not make a right), even though that isn't what we are talking about. I have stated my views on that as well. If I could outlaw Alcohol, I would.

I have no idea how you feel that response dealt with the statement above it.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

How do you feel about Drugs?

These questions are intended to be Yes or No questions only. The questions are asked in the hope of understanding differing points of view concerning drugs and drug use. If anyone is concerned about self-incrimination, please do not publicly answer any question you feel may do so. Please resist the urge to not answer questions in anything but a Yes or No format. If anyone feels that more questions are warranted, please feel free to add them. I have posted my answers as a means to help clarify my position and in hopes others will do the same to avoid assumptions. Those answers will appear next to the questions being asked in parenthesis and they are solely the opinion of the author. Thank You.

Practicality 6 years, 4 months ago

1) Do you believe that illegal drugs pose a significant problem to our society? (Yes)

2) Do you believe that illegal drugs are medically harmful to the user? (Yes)

3) Do you believe that the current drug laws prevent drug use? (Yes)

4) Do you believe that the current drug laws could be more effective? (Yes)

5) Do you believe that illegal drug use is harmful to the children of drug users? (Yes)

6) Do you believe that the constitution protects an individual’s right to use illegal drugs? (No)

7) Do you believe that illegal drug use creates a huge financial burden on our country? (Yes)

8) Do you believe that society has a moral obligation to help illegal drug users? (No)

9) Do you believe that society has a moral obligation to help the children of illegal drug users? (Yes)

10) Do you believe that society has a financial obligation to help illegal drug users? (No)

11) Do you believe that society has a financial obligation to help children of illegal drug users? (Yes)

12) Do you believe that Marijuana should be legalized? (No)

13) Do you believe that Cocaine should be legalized? (No)

14) Do you believe that Heroin should be legalized? (No)

15) Do you believe that Crystal Methamphetamine should be legalized? (No)

16) Do you believe that Crack should be legalized? (No)

17) Do you believe that LSD should be legalized? (No)

18) Do you believe that PCP should be legalized? (No)

19) Do you believe that all the above drugs except Marijuana should remain illegal? (No)

20) Do you believe that Ecstasy should be legalized? (No)

21) Do you believe that Marijuana will be legalized in the next 20 years? (Yes)

22) Do you believe that there is a difference between prescription drugs and illegal drugs? (Yes)

23) Would you want your children to use any current illegal drugs? (No)

24) Would you want your children to use any current illegal drug when they reach adulthood? (No)

25) Have you used any current illegal drug in the last 3 months? (No)

26) Do you believe that individuals have a right to use drugs regardless of the law? (No)

27) Do you believe that there is a significant increase in crime associated with drug use besides “possession of a controlled substance”? (Yes)

28) Do you believe that there is a significant increase in crime associated with drug dealing besides “possession of a controlled substance”? (Yes)

29) Do you believe that drug testing is unconstitutional? (No)

30) Do you believe the current cost of the “War on Drugs” is not worth the amount in relation to the current results? (No)

Polly_Gomer 6 years, 3 months ago

Practicality,

Most of the people here wioll argue for the sake of arguing. Nevertheless, I think it's cute that you actually think anyone gives a s.t what you think.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

wrong logicsound,

I am actually curious to see how you would answer these questions directly. I was hoping to gain insight into our differing opinons to better understand where you guys are coming from.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Oh, and yes, I would like to see an end to drug use in America. You have said repeatedly that you are not taking a pro-drug stance but have ridiculed me repeatedly for my belief that "drugs are bad Mmmkay" stance. Just trying to figure out where the differences lie. That is why the Yes and No format and "laundry list" of questions. To avoid the mincing of words game that usually gets played.

P.S. I knew I would be ridiculed for the post, but I never thought you, logicsound, would be afraid to state your position on direct questions. It takes a little more guts to put your own views out there than it does to just attack peoples views while keeping your own nicely veiled.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Practicality,

I'd like to summarize my views for you:

I believe drug use is generally bad for people. I beieve that drug use has effects on others. I believe that the same is true of alcohol and cigarette use.

The reasons to legalize drugs are to minimize the negative effects of drug use and associated problems.

Do you think we were better off during Prohibition than now regarding alcohol use?

Drugs would probably become less expensive if legalized, thus reducing associated crime rates, for example.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

"Do you think we were better off during Prohibition than now regarding alcohol use?"

Fair enough question. No I do not.

"The reasons to legalize drugs are to minimize the negative effects of drug use and associated problems."

I do not believe it will have this outcome.

"Drugs would probably become less expensive if legalized, thus reducing associated crime rates, for example."

This is an unknown to me as well. It is possible, it is also possible that the heavy tax that would be required to get the American people to legalize it would make it more expensive than it already is. Therefore, the system that is already in place, (purchasing drugs from the local, illegal dealer) seems to be the one most people would still choose. It is an unknown though. Thanks for your response jafs.

Do you think that drug use would increase or decrease with drug legalization?

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Practicality,

If you don't believe Prohibition was better, how can you be in favor of prohibiting drug use?

We could legalize drugs without such a heavy tax as you mention. When we legalized alcohol, we taxed it, but not that heavily. You don't hear much about illegal bootlegging of alcohol anymore.

It's much more likely that the illegal drug groups would disappear if drugs were legal.

I don't know about increased or decreased use - what happened after Prohibition with alcohol?

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

prospector.

You are only thinking of Marijuana. I know the Kansas soil is fertile, but I didn't know that you could grow poppies in it. The "heavy tax" is for the American public to justify legalizing drugs to off set finacial burdens. Whether drugs are legal or not, people will still grow Marijuana in their gardens and not report it on their W-2s.

" Just look at it as a teaching moment when you have to explain the evils of it to the kids when they see it for sale at the farmer's market."

I am less concerned about elpaining the evils of it to the kids at the farmers market, than the ease at which some kid could walk up and purchasing it at the farmers market just for something to do. Or, have their older brother go into the Kwik Trip and purchase them some crack on a Friday night just because they are trying to impress somebody that they think is cool.

gogoplata 6 years, 3 months ago

There would be more drug use if it was legalized. No doubt. There is no way that the price of drugs would go up. The laws of economics are clear that when the supply goes up the prices go down. The supply would go up because you eliminate a huge risk on encountering law enforcement. So unless you are talking about some kind of tax far far more than the tax on cigarettes the prices are going down. When prices go down the gangs, cartels, and organized crime find another way to do business. There goes the biggest problem. You have less violence that is caused by greed, not drug use. You also have less government spending by filling up courtrooms, jails, and prisons with non violent offenders. Sure you are going to drug addicts who steal or kill to get thier fix. But we have that already. The increase in those type of crimes are far outweighed by the decrease in gang violence etc.

All you have to do is look at prohibition. Alcohol is more dangerous than illicit drugs. If you want to go after a drug alcohol is the one to go after. Its negative effects on society are far worse than illegal drugs. It is just a matter of time before we admit that the war on drugs is more trouble than it is worth.

gogoplata 6 years, 3 months ago

That is a good point. A person who favors small government should stand against the War on Drugs. At a minimum this is an issue that should be left to the states to decide.

pinkcadillac 6 years, 3 months ago

I would expect some of the ridiculous comments from this article, especially from a college town. I have worked in the schools and see how all the "rules" have changed, everything is so relaxed. Even the police officers cannot approach a student because of dress code or behavior because Mom and Dad come back with "why are you singling out my child?" I think we need rules and regulations over some things, here we go again if we legalize drugs....where do we stop, we may as well legalize everything and then we can do away with our police officers (who put their lives on the line every day and then we read some of the above comments!!) and we can do away with our school board, well, the list can go on and on. Legalizing marajuana for health reasons only would be strictly from a doctor...that's it, no other drugs. Our country is beginning to look like a joke as it is, what if all the CEO's and teachers/principals/ parents were stoned all the time...that would be something to be proud of. We need to start respecting police officers, teachers and parents once again...I think this country is already headed in a downward spiral.

gogoplata 6 years, 3 months ago

Police officers, teachers, and parents don't deserve any more respect than any other individuals. A respect for each individual and thier right to govern thier own life is what is needed.

gogoplata 6 years, 3 months ago

Sorry, their. Wow I wonder how long I've been doing that.

gogoplata 6 years, 3 months ago

But Logic, Drugs are bad.

Drugs are bad Drugs are bad Drugs are bad Drugs are bad Drugs are bad bad bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now do you understand?

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 3 months ago

The "slippery slope" fallacy:

Vegetarian says: "But if I start eating meat again, where does it stop? I'll invariably find myself eating people!" (please, no Soylent Green jokes)

Obviously, this is ridiculous.

Misinformed citizen says: "But if we legalize marijuana, where does it stop? We'll end up with vending machines selling the evil herb being sold as "value meals," bundled with crack and PCP! I might as well start putting sheets of LSD in my kids' Christmas stockings!"

Equally ridiculous.

phoggyjay 6 years, 3 months ago

legalize marijuana already!!!

there seems to be a lot of informed comments from people who so openly oppose drugs.

where does this knowledge come from?

skeletons in the closet...

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Just got back in from volunteering and have just read everyone’s post. The hoped for purpose of the questionnaire was to alleviate the assumptions that were being made on every post with very definitive answers. That was all I was trying to accomplish with it. It also appears that some people are having a hard time distinguishing that the article was about all drugs and not just about Marijuana, but that is solely my presumed opinion and not reflective of everyone’s posts in entirety.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Now, to address the issue of Prohibition. I readily agree that the Prohibition of alcohol did not appear to work. And, I also agree, that the simple act of making drugs illegal has not stopped drug use in the United States. But, the flaws I see in the Prohibition argument are thus. Corruption within the law enforcement agencies was much more rampant in 1920’s America than it is today. That is not to imply that I don’t believe corruption doesn’t exist today, just not in the same, widespread extent as before. We also haven’t any statistics that can tell us if alcohol use increased or decreased with prohibition and if alcohol use increased or decreased with the repeal of prohibition. This is where people start to state their personal assumptions, (including me) about what they believe transpired. What I do believe is undeniable though, is that with the repeal of prohibition, alcohol use in this country has not disappeared. Instead, it is of such a constant presence in our society that people just take it for granted in their daily lives. From billboards, to television ads, to bars that we walk by when were out shopping, to people ordering alcohol when they go out for dinner, they all send a subtle message to children that this is o.k. behavior and that this behavior is associated with being an adult. I know many of you have said that it is up to the parent to educate their children otherwise, so that they can make informed decisions. But that is assuming that all parents know and/or care about what is best for their child. For a lot of children, all they know is what they see, and they see that P-Diddy is cool and that he drinks Vodka. So they want to be like P-Diddy and be cool so they want to drink Vodka as well. Besides, their own father or mother or brother or sister or grandma drinks alcohol and it is legal, so it must be o.k. This is how a lot of these kids think. It is that simple. I know that this does not apply to all families but it does apply to enough that I believe it warrants some careful attention. I could go on but I will not. Prohibition did not stop alcohol use or abuse in this country, nor did repealing prohibition. I shudder to think about what our society would look like in 30 years if drugs were legal. Would anybody in their right mind go to downtown Lawrence if next to every alcohol bar that currently exists there was a crack bar? Or a crystal meth bar? Or a Heroin bar? Or a PCP bar? Because that is what happened when prohibition was repealed. Alcohol became a prevalent fixture in our society that is hardly regulated, hardly not abused, and because it is legal, harder to eradicate and harder to dissuade impressionable minds from abusing.

Oh, and by the way, they did try to restrict places where alcohol could be sold and used after prohibition and the majority of those restrictions have all disappeared through the years. As seen by our present society.

Reuben Turner 6 years, 3 months ago

Y'all know a lot of the people that are in charge of kids secretly smoke a little. so just think about picking your child up from a learning facility and smelling that aroma. i don't think they should legalize nada nothing. just remember legal means legal everywhere it's legal. don't get mad all u supporters when the babbies coming up are doing it. it's legal.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Prospector says,

“And I addressed all drugs and asked you directly: Are the “finacial burdens” of keeping millions of US citizens in prison more than the ill's that will be placed on the public with legalization?”

To answer your question directly, YES, I do believe it is worth it. As I stated in the previous post, I explained what I believed would occur, in due time, with Drug legalization and I believe that the cost is worth the prevention. But, your belief on the numbers concerning the prison population of drug offenders, in which you make your assertion, is far from accurate.

On June 30, 2008 — (Most current Data concerning Prison Population)

– 2,310,984 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails – an increase of 0.8% from yearend 2007, less than the average annual growth of 2.4% from 2000-2007.

– 1,540,805 sentenced prisoners were under state or federal jurisdiction.

In 2005 there were 1,448,344 sentenced prisoners in 2005 (roughly 90,000 less than 2008)

In 2005, there were an estimated 687,700 state prisoners (the vast majority of incarcerated prisoners are in state prisons) serving time for a violent offense. State prisons also held an estimated 248,900 property offenders, 253,300 drug offenders and 98,700 property offenders. (Most Current Data Concerning Your Argument)

Violent offenses: include murder, negligent and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, extortion, intimidation, criminal endangerment, and other violent offenses.

Property offenses: include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, possession and selling of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, vandalism, criminal tampering, and other property offenses.

Drug offenses: include possession, manufacturing, trafficking, and other drug offenses.

Public-order offenses include weapons, drunk driving, escape/flight to avoid prosecution, court offenses, obstruction, commercialized vice, morals and decency charges, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

cont.

As you can see, there are hardly “millions” of incarcerated inmates stemming from drug offenses. Plus, when you take into account that “Drug offenses include possession, manufacturing, trafficking, and other drug offenses” the numbers of inmates incarcerated for simple possession charges drop dramatically. The implied belief that you have made that a guy with simple possession is rotting away in prison is hardly accurate. These possession charges are usually considered misdemeanor charges unless in combination with another crime, or the individual has multiple ones on their record, or they fall under the “possession with intent to distribute” category. In the case of Marijuana, diversions have been given out for first time, small possession charges, and if the individual with the possession charge does not receive a diversion, they usually receive probation and/or drug counseling and/or a fine and/or a short jail term.

As for your other claim that I might have a financial reason for pursuing this as vigorously as I have, that is simply not true.

“These are my observations and not a question of what you do Practicality, besides volunteer. But something about you just makes me go Hmmm”

I was in LE back in the 90’s for about 5 years, but that time has passed and my living does not derive in any way, shape, or form, from drugs, drug use, or any type of legal ramifications concerning drugs. I have witnessed the devastation first hand of others drug use, but other than that you are wrong. And, I am most definitely not a Pastor/preacher or any other religious member or leader.

And for this comment

“The only person that took the DARE program hook, line and sinker in America.”

I must have missed the lecture topic about the good drugs create in our society. I wonder if you would be so kind as to enlighten me of them?

Have a nice day as well Prospector.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

logrithmic,

I fail to see your link between the statistics concerning prison statistics in the United States that I presented and

"The wacko would have us believe that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that warrantless wiretapping and torture were necessary to win the war on terror, that the Twin Towers fell at free fall speed after being on fire for one hour, and that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed from fires even though no plane hit it"

Almost every news source quotes their prison statistics from the DOJ statistics. Probably even your http://www. . . . . .legalize marijuana.com sources. But, your giant leaps of faith aside, in all seriousness, can you answer this question.

What are the positve influences that drugs create for the individual who uses them or the society at large?

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

25 March 2009 at 3:46 p.m

Logrithmic wrote. . .

“It sounds like you didn't read the article.”

(This is in reference to a news article in which you were using to prove your point)

“In 2005, Miron published a study titled, 'The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition' (PDF link), funded by the Marijuana Policy Project. Over 500 professional economists, including Milton Friedman, signed on to the report, which was sent to then-President George W. Bush.”

The Marijuana Policy Project’s Mission Statement is:

MPP's Vision Statement

MPP and MPP Foundation envision a nation where marijuana is legally regulated similarly to alcohol, marijuana education is honest and realistic, and treatment for problem marijuana users is non-coercive and geared toward reducing harm.

MPP's Mission Statement (as approved by the board on December 1, 2008)

  1. Increase public support for non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.

  2. Identify and activate supporters of non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.

  3. Change state laws to reduce or eliminate penalties for the medical and non-medical use of marijuana.

  4. Gain influence in Congress. http://www.mpp.org/about/mission-statement.html

This is close enough. Besides, the response was in jest to your disclaimer that the DOJ was not objective enough to count as a source. Which is laughable considering what I posted was from their department of statistics. And yes, I know statistics can be played with, but does that mean we are not going to allow statistics anymore? Which, if that is the case, quit demanding proof all the time and just have an open dialogue. But, I really just think you are trying to find a reason to avoid the question by trying to steer the argument on a different course.

Here it is again,

What are the positive influences that drugs create for the individual who uses them or for the society at large?

Calliope877 6 years, 3 months ago

I think Practicality should start doing drugs. This would have a very positive influence because he/she would be too busy eating cupcakes or staring into the eye of the universe to keep posting lengthy posts filled with rehashed statistics and the alleged dangers the legalization of drugs would have on our society.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

I think Calliope877 should go and spend about one week living in Kansas City, Kansas, between 3rd street and 18th street. Maybe even go for evening strolls down Quindaro Boulevard. Then let your kids walk to and from school on their own. Then maybe you can come back and post to me about the "alleged" dangers from an environment which is about as close as one can get to legalized drugs, and open drug use, in the State of Kansas.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

16 February 2009 at 6:28 p.m.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

"It's also permitted in some states for recreational purposes. Marijuana is decriminalized and results in fines if caught with it on your person. Clearly law enforcement in these states are not searching homes for marijuana."

"Let's look at one of these states, Alaska:"

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/n

Extremely sensible in my opinion.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/faqs/faq_drugpolicy.htm

1) Is the CCLE a drug policy reform group?

The CCLE is opposed to laws that make otherwise law-abiding people criminals simply for using psychoactive drugs.

12 February 2009 at 10:23 p.m.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

"Sorry uncool mom - don't believe you. On the other hand, marijuana offers benefits and you cannot die of any overdose of marijuana."

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/

From link:

“And unlike marijuana, alcohol tends to make users reckless, aggressive and violent. A review in the journal Addictive Behaviors explained, “Alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship. … Cannabis reduces the likelihood of violence during intoxication…”“

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/%E2%80%A6

Here is another real objective, balanced, give ‘em both sides, fair and balanced site. I encourage all Journalism students up at KU to learn objectivity from this site as well.

Logrithmic,

You have twice called me a liar. I did not realize that you were so sensitive. As far as the http://www. . . . . . /Legalize Marijuana.com? I admit I made that up. I didn’t even know there was such a website. Again, it was in response to your claim as to the legitimacy of the DOJ source. I never intended to make the readers believe that such a website existed or actually you referenced it if it did. Lord, of all the outlandish claims you make you are really acting like a baby on this.

But,

some of the references behind your posts are far from Objective. As I have just shown, it is hard for a news source to be taken seriously when they have a publicly stated agenda to legalize drugs. There were a few others that were definitely questionable, but they were at least smart enough not to publicly state their agenda on drug legalization. As far as this goes, it doesn’t really matter. Just own up to the fact that not all your news sources are unbiased and that a Majority of them push a Liberal Progressive agenda. I am done researching your questionable news sources now. You appear to be really just trying to avoid answering the question with all your name calling. I have already played your little game too long.

Here it is again,

What are the positive influences that drugs create for the individual who uses them or for the society at large?

Maybe you can find it in NORML or something.

sustainabilitysister 6 years, 3 months ago

Let's stop creating a black market. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from prohibition?

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

On,

4 April 2009 at 7:36 p.m. logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“God, these DOJ statistics are nauseating and filled with lies. The wacko would have us believe that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that warrantless wiretapping and torture were necessary to win the war on terror, that the Twin Towers fell at free fall speed after being on fire for one hour, and that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed from fires even though no plane hit it.”

Just to show the readers what I was talking about with the statement “www. . . . . /legalize marijuana.com” (which I admitted making up by the way). It was made in the same loose manner as the above post by logrithmic. For I challenge him/her to show the readers anywhere in my post where I talked about Iraq, the Twin Towers, the WTC or wiretapping. Now, I could act like logrithmic and publicly proclaim my innocence and cry out how much of a liar logrithmic is or I could act like a rational adult and take the post with the true intent as it was made. I will choose the latter.

Again logrithmic,

What are the positive influences that drugs create for the individual who uses them or for the society at large?

Quit Stalling. You have made something like 3500 posts, many about drugs, surely you can devote one more to the question.

tom_bodett 6 years, 3 months ago

Log is a moron....hows that for debate!

God Bless!

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

“Practicality wrote on April 5 at 12:36 a.m.: Just to show the readers what I was talking about with the statement “www… . . /legalize marijuana.com” (which I admitted making up by the way). *******8 So readers - there you have it. He/she admits to lying (or “making (it) up”).” (Logrithmic, on April 5, at 10:11 a.m.)

This is actually what I (Practicality) said in detail.

“Just to show the readers what I was talking about with the statement “www… . . /legalize marijuana.com” (which I admitted making up by the way). It was made in the same loose manner as the above post by logrithmic. For I challenge him/her to show the readers anywhere in my post where I talked about Iraq, the Twin Towers, the WTC or wiretapping. Now, I could act like logrithmic and publicly proclaim my innocence and cry out how much of a liar logrithmic is or I could act like a rational adult and take the post with the true intent as it was made. I will choose the latter.” (Practicality, on 5 April 2009, 12:36 a.m.)

The quote that I (Practicality) was referring to was this one

“God, these DOJ statistics are nauseating and filled with lies. The wacko would have us believe that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that warrantless wiretapping and torture were necessary to win the war on terror, that the Twin Towers fell at free fall speed after being on fire for one hour, and that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed from fires even though no plane hit it.” (Logrithmic, on 4 april 2009, 7:36 p.m.)

Now, let me clarify just to appease logrithmic. I admit to making up the website “www… . . /legalize marijuana.com. I haven’t any idea if such a website even exists. It was made in the same manner as logrithmic explains in his defense of his statement on April 4 2009, at 7:36 p.m.)

This is how he explains it.

“I am merely making a rhetorical point. The government has been known to lie and cherry pick data, just like Practicality” (logrithmic, on 5 April, at 10:11 a.m.)

My statement concerning the website was a rhetorical point as well. The website itself might not exist, but it was used to encompass some of the websites logrithmic has used to cite his evidence and to prove his point. Which, as I have already shown, some of the websites have publically stated mission statements claiming their agenda is to legalize drugs.

So as you can see, www… . . /legalize marijuana.com, was never intended to be taken as a literal website, but as a generalization and I have never stated otherwise. Hardly a lie as logrithmic claims.

But, it is apparent that all of this is just a deflective maneuver to the real question which logrithmic is trying to avoid.

What are the positive influences that drugs create for the individual who uses them or for the society at large?

You have attempted Marijuana; now let us see if you can explain the benefits of Cocaine? Or Meth maybe?

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

On April 5, 2009 logrithmic writes,

“Other points I have not made on this forum is that law enforcement often violates civil rights and has been known to commit murder in pursuing marijuana offenses. The prosecution of marijuana users costs the U.S.$8 billion or more a year. The U.S. locks up nearly 1 million non-violent drug users every year.”

Logrithmic, it is common knowledge that figures and stats need to be cited. Otherwise you need to state that it is your own personal estimation and nothing more. Maybe you didn’t know that. Or maybe you did and you just do not want to post the website.

HermioneElliott 6 years, 3 months ago

I have no sympathy for those who break the law, for drug addicts or alcoholics. If someone gets arrested for robbing a bank, it affects their family. Want to make taking money by force legal? Maybe if there were no laws, no one would commit a crime because it would take all the fun out of it? Up to now I have read Pitts column and enjoyed it. But, the last three have been bad. I have deleted him from my bookmarks. I just think he has gotten stupid and wrong. I don't know, maybe he is just desperate for ideas.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Prosepector,

I appreciate your views about the argument concerning drug legalization. The accuracy of the numbers was solely to try and show that maybe your views, if formed on the numbers concerning incarceration rates of drug offenders, was not quite as dire as you made seem. I am of the belief that your principal concern was to focus on the individual rights of people to make their own decisions in pursuit of happiness and to do with their bodies as they so choose. As that is what I believe to be the case of your argument, I will overlook the facts and figures that I believe are misrepresented (such as the $100,000 per incarcerated inmate) and just have a conversation with you.

I will start with this,

“Many property crimes are a result of the support of an expensive personal problem (your DOJ Stats blames most of this on illegal drug). Right?.” (Prospector quote from 12:07 on April 5th)

In agreement on the above statement.

“Crimes on person as a result of the support of an expensive personal problem. People rob because of illegal drugs. Right?” (Prosp. Quote)

Agreed as well with the above statement.

“So, who cares how many are in for not just possession right NOW? You don't want legal distribution, so somebody has got to do it.” (Prosp.)

Do not agree with the above statement. The actual reason someone is incarcerated is not because they used drugs, but because they committed a crime against someone. This is important because a lot of people on these posts want to believe that prisons are stocked full of people for simply using drugs, which is not the actual reason the majority of them are incarcerated. Therefore, the justification for the expenditures on the judicial system is a valid expense. Considering that the majority of prisoners were prosecuted and incarcerated for crimes that would still be crimes whether drugs are legalized or not, the great expense of the judicial system would stay about the same. Not much of a savings to the taxpayer even if the rates of drug users stays the same, (Which I think is what you believe) and I believe that they will increase when the deterrent of their illegality is take away. (But, both of those arguments are unproven until or unless drugs are ever legalized.) And, I fail to see why anyone has to distribute the drugs, but I agree someone will until they are caught and then someone else will. But, and this is an important but because I think that this is the point you were trying to make, I do agree that it is because of drug use why a lot of people do commit the crimes that they do.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Cont.

Now, all that aside for a moment, the rationale behind the illegalization of drugs has many reasons. One of the reasons concerning its justification in relation to personal freedom and the right to do what one wants with their own bodies is this. When these drug addicts get caught committing a crime for other than simple possession, they all to a tee blame the drug use as the reason they, snatched a purse, robbed a store, burglarized a dwelling, killed someone, etc. etc. In essence, they all say, I was unable to control myself because of my addiction and if it hadn’t been for drugs, I wouldn’t have done this terrible thing. And, if you take into account that with the exception of murder, many of these crimes were not isolated instances when they finally got caught, but each individual drug addict had committed hundreds upon hundreds of crimes against individuals before they were finally caught with one. So even the primary users of drugs, in essence, validate the negative consequences associated with drug use and their subsequent harm that it does on society. So the government intervenes and basically says that this is justifiable reason to restrict ones personal freedom in relation to the harm it causes society and the individual user.

Now, I know that you are going to say,” there are plenty of people who use drugs and do not commit any crime because of it, they just use the drugs occasionally for recreational purposes. These users, are having their personal freedom in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, restricted because of this without having done anything wrong to anybody else.” I understand that, and I believe that in the purest form of individual rights, it is a legitimate argument. But, our laws have plenty of examples of restricting personal freedoms when it is deemed appropriate in relation to public safety and potential societal harm. I believe that this is one of these examples as well. But, I realize that this is a personal opinion and does have holes in it.

I would like to say Prospector,

I appreciate your view on this subject even if I do not agree with it. I do not believe I am going to change your mind, nor will you change mine. I appreciate your honest assessment of the particulars as it helps me understand the “other” point of view Thank you for having the courage to post your opinion.

By the way,

“Show me where I said drugs are good, then I will answer the question.” (Prosp.)

I never said you thought drugs were good, that statement was made in response to the other thing you said, “The only person that took the DARE program hook, line and sinker in America.” (Prosp.)

Which I interpreted to mean that you believed I was naïve to think that drugs were harmful, which is what DARE tries to teach kids.

P.S. I am also glad you are “volunteering” to help the single mothers pay their bills. Maybe you could also find a constructive methods as well.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Prospector,

I agree with this.

“You see the crack baby, blame crack, and take the kid because mom is unfit. No problem here.” You are right, that is what I see. But what is the preventive measure put in place to prevent this if drugs are legal. Explain to me please how this is fair to society or the kids born with an addiction and with an impairment in your eyes. I have seen cases personally where a woman has given birth to three kids who were addicted to cocaine. All of them were taken from her, but society is still left to deal with these impaired kids for their entire life. The mother sure isn’t going to do it. This is already a huge problem in our society. I believe that the WOD prevents this from being worse.

Here is a site, not the DOJ either, that shows this.

“Cocaine: Babies born to mothers who abuse cocaine during pregnancy can be born prematurely and have low birth weights. There may be as many as 45,000 cocaine-exposed babies per year."

“Child Abuse: Approximately 50% to 80% of all child abuse and neglect cases substantiated by child protective services involve some degree of substance abuse by the child’s parents. “

This was taken from http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/magnitude/

Your other scenario,

“I see a young man with a good job that enjoys illegal drugs on occasion. Because he knows “the Dude”, sure, he will pick up some extra for a friend. Some little old lady that can't see over the steering wheel rear ends him. Cop smells something. Gets that ” I don't write the laws, I just enforce them” grin and with distribution, trafficking etal the guy goes from paying $25K in income tax to costing $100K to jail him for a year. Is this good for society?” (Prospector quote)

This scenario, which is definitely not as severe as the first, also has problems. If the individual, who has the good job, does not have enough self control or dicsipline to resist the temptation for the momentary thrill of being high, even at the cost of livelihood, I would say the drug has control over his actions and that is the primary focus of his life. It would appear he is well on the way to being an addict if not already there. If someone is willing to risk their job, house, car, etc. for a drug, they will also be willing to steal, rob, and hurt someone to get it when they no longer have any money. So, as I see it, the illegalization tries to address these issues before they arrive. But, that is only my opinion.

chasebald 6 years, 3 months ago

There is no way you guys are actually reading my post. It must feel good to waste energy in this fashion. If you want to do something productive, put yourself out there with youtube, article sites, or mpp.org norml.com or leap.cc and donate to help them.

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Prospector,

Yes or no questions for you Practicality:

Would legal drugs stop most of the actions, effectiveness, and income of gangs/cartels/makers of poisons/ corrupt LE, etc.? Yes ----if prices were below what these cartels can make them.

Would legal drugs stop most of the killings, turf wars, rip offs, payoffs, poisons marketed as drugs from ever happening? No on Killings, yes on rest if below prices of cartels/gangs

Can a cop think, “I'm going over to east Lawrence. I got a boat payment to make.”, today? No, but I am not sure what you mean here.

Will people still prey on each other? Yes

Do illegal drugs cause people to prey on each other? Yes, but I think drugs, legal or not, cause people to prey

Will less people prey on others for drugs if drugs are legal? No

Will there be less people in the court system if drugs are legal? No, but I believe there will be more people using drugs if legal. If the numbers stay the same like you believe then yes.

Do the current drug policies prey on the American citizens? NO

Are most drug problems really mental illness being exacerbates? No

Are more resources needed to help those with expensive personal problems? No

Do some people come out of prison and do another crime? Yes

With legal drugs, would less people go to prison cam I assume that less would be coming out doing other crimes? No

Prospector,

I understand what you are getting at, but again it is based on the assumption that the drug use will stay the same whether legal or not. You know I believe it will rise, you believe it will stay the same. So my belief that it will rise, means more addicts, which means more crimes against persons, which means more people in prison. This would off set the people not in prison for possession charges or distribution charges. Addicts will still commit violent acts for money for drugs or just because they are bonkers over the drugs. I do believe that it is possible for the violence concerning the distribution of drugs to decrease though, with legalization, if the price is the same as the cartels can make it. And, I do think the cartels are going to lower their price if necessary. Gang members are going to commit crimes, for money or fun, even if they are not dealing drugs. So they will still eventually enter the penal system.

Maybe you will be kind enough to answer my survey as well?

Practicality 6 years, 3 months ago

Alas tumbilweed,

trying to enlighten the people of Lawrence concerning their permissive attitude towards drugs and drug use is a worthwhile goal, and one that I will not abandon as easily as a drug addict does their kids.

tonymontana 6 years, 3 months ago

As a smoker toker, I like the system just fine the way it is now and I wouldn't change a thing. Get your taxes out of here.

HermioneElliott 6 years, 3 months ago

God, I love Twitter! Pitts is burned out. Bummed out. This is your brain on drugs.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 3 months ago

Funny, I'll bet that many anti-drug folks on here have no credible idea what they're talking about, lest they appeal to authority--who I do not trust under any current circumstances. We could make a bigger dent in the market for harmful drugs if we just free up cannabis prohibition funds. But hippies suck, right? Why pander to them?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.