Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
The utter immorality of the War on (some) Drugs >

The utter immorality of the War on (some) Drugs

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

The utter immorality of the War on (some) Drugs

Old 04-07-2013, 08:03 PM
  #61  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,493
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
I was just reading an article in todayís local paper on how the VT legislature is looking at decimalizing small amounts of MJ and making possession of less than an ounce similar to a traffic ticket. It would still be illegal to have a small amount but the penalty would go from a criminal court to a judicial court. I canít say I agree with this method of controlling drugs. Taking the criminal penalty away will just make it far easier for people to get it and use it. I know the argument comparing it to alcohol but there are laws concerning possession of alcohol by a minor and they are there to protect them and society just like current marijuana laws. Softening the penalties doesnít make it more right to violate the law.
California did this a while back--less than 1 oz is an infraction for which you get a traffic ticket and a $100 fine in traffic court. California also has medical marijuana which has pros and cons and is somewhat of a quagmire.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 04-07-2013, 10:37 PM
  #62  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,291
Default

Originally Posted by homers brother View Post
Careful now. You might make someone conclude that there's enough danger in drug abuse that it might NOT be such a fabulous idea to legalize their recreational use? After all, look at the problems in Russia?!
How did you come to that conclusion? Russia has a million+ people with HIV and other problems as a result of their policies.

"Until 2008, Sarang said, 80 percent of HIV infections were connected to intravenous drug use. “Now the main route is heterosexual transmission among drug users and their partners,” she said."

It's not costly to get them to use clean needles, you know.

Additionally, because they don’t legalize and give methadone to these addicts, and they suppress heroin supplies, they also have to deal with people using worse, homemade stuff like krokodil. One of the foremost fruits of prohibition is the substitution of inferior goods. Certainly no one would try to get high with what are basically poisons from bad drug sythesis like this "krokodil".

Actually, your response is precisely why I wouldn't support legalization. You and your like-minded thinkers would let someone choose to do something that might cause them and the rest of society serious problems, and then clamor for government to come in and rescue them. That old "forced charity" think, eh? How noble.
Do you drink alcoholic beverages?

“Russians consume about 18 liters of pure alcohol per person a year, more than twice the internationally recommended limit, a rate that President Dmitri A. Medvedev has called a “natural disaster.”

A male in Russia only has a 60 year life expectancy partly because one fifth of male deaths are related to alcohol from alcohol poisoning and car accidents. They also have to deal with all those babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome disorders.

That actually isn't how it is right now or a number of states wouldn't be seeing the introduction of legislation this session requiring drug testing to qualify for unemployment benefits, now would they?
While your state may require it now, it's not yet universal everywhere else.
You act as if the drug testing is free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...ests.html?_r=0

We had a similar issue with fingerprinting for food stamps not being worthwhile.

Last edited by BigBuck22; 04-07-2013 at 10:40 PM.
BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 04-08-2013, 04:03 AM
  #63  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,053
Default

Originally Posted by BigBuck22 View Post
We had a similar issue with fingerprinting for food stamps not being worthwhile.
That's right, just give up. More loans from China will clear all those problems.

How you use dirty needles from drugs causing epidemic HIV in Russia to back up your argument that we should legalize drugs here is just absolutely astounding. Where one approach is not to let it get started, yours is apparently let it go and deal with the mess later. The latter is hopelessly shortsighted, but I don't think that's going to sink in on you, based on what I've seen you post over the years.

Let's just tax the bejeezus out of everyone so that we can pay for every "choice" that someone might one day "abuse."

Or, let's apply some liberal logic from elsewhere in contemporary legislative genesis. So, "let's legalize pot". However, you must purchase "drug insurance" in the event you do something under the influence that harms someone else. You must store it securely or face confiscation and fine. And, we're going to add a nickel tax for each sheet of paper you roll into a fat one. After all - those are all "sane" ideas from the liberals when it comes to firearms ownership. And, let's do it for alcohol, too! It's not like we're actually "banning" it, right?

But, rest assured, you're staying absolutely true to your liberal roots. Create a problem, then spend someone else's money to not quite fix it so that you can come back later and justify spending more of someone else's money.

Last edited by homers brother; 04-08-2013 at 04:06 AM.
homers brother is offline  
Old 04-08-2013, 07:17 AM
  #64  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,493
Default

Bigbuck22, why don't you simply state WHY you think marijuana should legalized? And if it were legalized, how would you propose to deal with the inevitable problems that result?
CalHunter is offline  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:05 AM
  #65  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,493
Default

Originally Posted by homers brother View Post
In a libertarian utopia, legalization of recreational pharmaceuticals might certainly be practical. However, most ideologically-pure libertarians I know are fervently opposed to what, in the end, amounts to the governmental assumption of the consequences of one's behaviors.
It's hard to disagree with this logic. I think this exact issue is why a lot of people (conservatives included) oppose legalizing drugs. Yes, many of us don't like the idea of a person damaging themselves but in the end, we can't honestly control that self-destructive behavior (just look at how many people do risk jail or prison for it). Bigbuck and just about every other person advocating legalization of drugs never seem to answer this crucial question of who pays for the financial consequences.


http://www.lp.org/platform

On the other hand, you have the liberals and the conservatives. Neither seem to be very consistent in how they view the concepts of "liberty" or "choice." Both are about control - just in different directions. Conservatives want to save the babies but kill the adults if they grow up to be mass murderers. Liberals want to kill the babies but save the adults even if they grow up to be mass murderers.
"Control" may have some application in these competing beliefs but I don't think it's the most precise way of describing the opposing viewpoints. Besides, not all liberals or conservatives fall neatly within these parameters. It's more helpful to look at the basic reasoning employed in the positions at each end of life.

Proponents of the death penalty for "mass murderers" believe that such murderers are not likely to change their hideous ways, have committed the most egregious of crimes and should be held accountable for these crimes. In short, people supporting the death penalty believe the person should be punished with death.

Opponents of the death penalty obviously oppose the death penalty but oft times have differing viewpoints on what is a suitable punishment for murder.
Some are willing to support life without parole sentences but most are not. Some are willing to support life with the possibility of parole but many still are not. Some are willing to support a lengthy prison sentence (20-25 years or so) but there are still quite a few people who don't.

Some favor even more lenient sentences and many states have laws that do just that.
Between juvenile laws that limit the length of a sentence (even for murder) and adult laws that water down murders with plea bargains and other circumstances that change the crime to manslaughter, etc., many people who kill another human being end up serving less than 10 years and sometimes even less than 5 years.

I'm sure it happens (somewhere possibly) but it's pretty rare to hear a death penalty opponent decry such short sentences.

Liberals want to ban guns but legalize pot. Conservatives want to ban pot but are against further restrictions on firearms ownership. A difficult place to find one's position within, and it's not uncommon that liberals and conservatives cross over. Some liberals believe that firearms ownership cannot be infringed. Some conservatives believe that abortion is a woman's choice. It's difficult to be entirely true to a "party platform."
True.

It's going to be difficult for the "legalize pot" crowd to ever overcome the stigma that they're "slackers." Even if they're "successful" in a career, that they couldn't have become even moreso. I've seen example brain activity scans of MJ, meth, cocaine, alcohol, and non-users. There IS a difference, although the impacts vary in severity and duration. All this chatter about veterans, PTSD and TBI? Similiarities exist in terms of brain effect. Stress and shock "light up" the brain, which in turn "dulls", during which time veterans do nutty things, drive too fast on motorcycles, think they're invincible, make bad choices, commit suicide, etc.
Thank you. Pot smokers always claim there's no effect but that really isn't correct.

Does that mean that pot users should be entitled to disability should they have problems at work? All of this stuff seems to start small and then snowballs into something we hadn't even imagined.
Disability is a program that is often abused (no pun intended).

While the first-order effect of pot use is probably infinitissimally small, and its legalization might somewhat mitigate the second-order effect of "drug dealers", and be most seen in the third-order effect and impact on the "drug economy" that exists in Mexico and in other countries, we're not considering in this discussion anything beyond that. We have to consider eventualities beyond what's immediately apparent, and assume that (unless we can achieve that libertarian utopia) the foundation exists for "legalization" to bring with it bills that our children's taxes may not be able to afford.
Something the pro-drug people never bring up and dismiss or deride whenever anybody broaches the topic.

Aside from the "Pot Libertarians", who are really just Democrats pandering for the Libertarian vote, I can't say that I don't see some merit in Libertarian ideals. Practically speaking, though - I couldn't support legalization of pot UNLESS the consequences of its use (and I'd like the same for alcohol and others) be ISOLATED to the user and no longer any of the rest of our financial responsibilities.
Agreed.

Today's reality doesn't quite measure up to that possibility. .
Agreed. Your post is an incredibly lucid statement of the problem and resulting issues. Kudos!!!
CalHunter is offline  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:58 AM
  #66  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,291
Default

That's right, just give up. More loans from China will clear all those problems.
What? If it costs too much, get rid of it until a solution is found that's worthwhile. It's like the death penalty. There's no point trying to get vengeance if the taxpayers are going to be hooked paying a lot of extra legal expenses.

How you use dirty needles from drugs causing epidemic HIV in Russia to back up your argument that we should legalize drugs here is just absolutely astounding. Where one approach is not to let it get started, yours is apparently let it go and deal with the mess later. The latter is hopelessly shortsighted, but I don't think that's going to sink in on you, based on what I've seen you post over the years.
So you would want to pay for the needle exchange programs without taxing the drug?

I like how you completely dodge the rest like the substitution of inferior goods (read: laced drugs, meth here in comparison to krokodil in Russia) or the problems of alcohol.

Let's just tax the bejeezus out of everyone so that we can pay for every "choice" that someone might one day "abuse."
It would cost less. You don't have to pay for as much law enforcement. You don't have to pay as much because they're not in jail for drug offenses etc, and the drug would be taxable and cut off revenue from drug gangs.

Or, let's apply some liberal logic from elsewhere in contemporary legislative genesis. So, "let's legalize pot". However, you must purchase "drug insurance" in the event you do something under the influence that harms someone else. You must store it securely or face confiscation and fine. And, we're going to add a nickel tax for each sheet of paper you roll into a fat one. After all - those are all "sane" ideas from the liberals when it comes to firearms ownership. And, let's do it for alcohol, too! It's not like we're actually "banning" it, right?
No one was arguing for drug insurance.

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
Bigbuck22, why don't you simply state WHY you think marijuana should legalized? And if it were legalized, how would you propose to deal with the inevitable problems that result?
You act as if everyone would turn into potheads. Do we have Russia's alcohol rate here with alcohol legalized in both places? No.

They want a high. You probably want a buzz. I've already mentioned various other things that you didn't want to reply to, so you could look at that post.

Thank you. Pot smokers always claim there's no effect but that really isn't correct.
So does alcohol. And alcohol has clear-cut syndrome for babies in the womb that have to put up with their mom drinking. Maybe even spontaneous abortion!

Moderate alcohol intake in pregnancy and the risk of spontaneous abortion.

"We conclude that women consuming > or =5 drinks/week are at increased risk of first trimester spontaneous abortion."
BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:00 AM
  #67  
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Catus Magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 501
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
Bigbuck22, why don't you simply state WHY you think marijuana should legalized? ?
I'll do it: it's none of the gubmint's damned business what a free man eats, drinks, smokes, or grows in his garden. that, and the War on (some) Drugs is a freakin' disaster. From weekly SWAT to forfeiture booty, it's a bad deal for free men. It's a fine boondoggle for lots of gov't fiefdoms & LE.

The problem with weed, in particular, is the war is so out of proportion to any 'harm', and the difficulty in overcoming it is... waaaay too many people make bank (see the boondoggle list above, and cartels in Mexico)

Last edited by Catus Magnus; 04-08-2013 at 09:02 AM.
Catus Magnus is offline  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:10 AM
  #68  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,291
Default

Originally Posted by Catus Magnus View Post
I'll do it: it's none of the gubmint's damned business what a free man eats, drinks, smokes, or grows in his garden. that, and the War on (some) Drugs is a freakin' disaster. From weekly SWAT to forfeiture booty, it's a bad deal for free men. It's a fine boondoggle for lots of gov't fiefdoms & LE.

The problem with weed, in particular, is the war is so out of proportion to any 'harm', and the difficulty in overcoming it is... waaaay too many people make bank (see the boondoggle list above, and cartels in Mexico)
I'd also like to add that I think it's unconstitutional anyways. The alcohol prohibition required an amendment. We also have to consider that the 14th Amendment applied the due process clause to the states, so I also don't think the states have a legitimate interest in banning it.
BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:46 AM
  #69  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,493
Default

Originally Posted by Catus Magnus View Post
I'll do it: it's none of the gubmint's damned business what a free man eats, drinks, smokes, or grows in his garden. that, and the War on (some) Drugs is a freakin' disaster. From weekly SWAT to forfeiture booty, it's a bad deal for free men. It's a fine boondoggle for lots of gov't fiefdoms & LE.

The problem with weed, in particular, is the war is so out of proportion to any 'harm', and the difficulty in overcoming it is... waaaay too many people make bank (see the boondoggle list above, and cartels in Mexico)
Well, that explains your opinion on the subject but doesn't give BigBuck22's. I asked BigBuck22 because he has been arguing this topic for the last several pages and it's sometimes simpler to ask why somebody thinks their opinion is right than to debate a 100 or so examples that have varying degrees of pertinence to the subject.

I noticed in your above quoted post that you mention the war on "some drugs." This would seem to beg the question of whether you think the government should restrict at least some "other" drugs or not. You obviously don't think marijuana should be restricted but are there other drugs you do think should be restricted?
CalHunter is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.