Why do you all hate drugs / drug dealers?

[ApocalypseKurtz]

I have seen numerous accounts of people in this forum, mostly conservatives, who rant on and on about how they hate drug dealers, want extremely harsh sentences for drug dealers and users, and will not even consider legalization.

Let me make some points; I do not ask that you all agree with me, because I have learned that the vast majority of people are too stubborn to change their political beliefs so quickly. I just want you all to hear what I have to say; I myself am a criminal justice major in college right now, so I have done extensive research on criminal activity in the U.S.

-Right now about 70% of people serving time in our prisons for drug charges were convicted of only marijuana possession.

-Our prison population has recently passed the 2 million mark, the majority of them in for drug offenses.

-The Netherlands has a lower rate of drug use than the U.S., and their current drug policy is full decriminalization.

-Politicians claim that Marijuana is a gateway drug; in other words, use of marijuana leads to other, more deadly drug usage such as cocaine and heroin. This is completely untrue. Since marijuana is more readily available and cheaper to obtain than other drugs, it makes sense that adolescents will be primarily marijuana users, and later in life when things such as more money, a car, etc. are obtained, an individual may use other drugs. I myself have used pot but no other illegal drugs, and most of my friends are the same.

-Legalization of marijuana may cause an initial increase in usage, but this will only be among people who have not used it in the past only because it is illegal, a very small percentage of the population. Most people will continue to use it or not use for their own personal reasons. Legalization will actually cause a decrease, in that many teenagers try it precisely BECAUSE it is illegal and they want to rebel against authotity.

-Think about how many people die each yeah from lung cancer, lung disease, drunk driving accidents and alcohol-related homicide. Alot. Now consider how many people have EVER died from smoking pot: 0. Yet in our nation cigarettes and alcohol are legal, yet marijuana is not.

-Locking up heroin and cocaine users will not help them overcome their disease. These people are ADDICTED to a SUBSTANCE; they are not criminals. The only way to help them would be treatment programs instead of prison. If you do not want to help them, then at least decrimnalize these drugs because these people are only hurting themselves. If they choose to use these drugs, who is the government to deprive them of their freedom?

-Legalizing and taxing marijuana would bring money into the federal government, and put most pot dealers out of business overnight. It would become a legitimte industry, run by intelligent business people instead of your local dealer.

-If you don't like drug dealers, legalizing the drugs they sell would be the most effective attack on them because the competition from competent business people would skyrocket. Harsh prison sentences are ineffective because they will not consider these sentences before making a deal. Most of them have no idea what the sentences are, and even if they do they don't expect to get caught, and usually don't.

Just my two cents.
I expect plenty of hate posts comnig my way...

 

[allan]

Well, expect some positive posts too, that agree with you. There are more people who agree with you than you might think.

And I am one of them!

Too bad we are still being held back by superstition or paranoia, or whatever is behind the foolishness of our current drug policy.

 

[SunTzu]

You obviously don't live in a town full of junkies.
Marijuana is a gateway drug, i know 3 friends that started off potheads and are now doing cocaine.
Drugs are for ****ing losers.
Theres no point in doing it.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Hey, if Tobacco was just coming on to the market now, it too would probably be illegal.
While I question the morality of pot being illegal, I support the law as is, if for no other reason than to attempt to save people a few brain cells. Look, I know many pot users are otherwise intelligent people, but I also know a lot more who are about as productive as a chia pet. They sit on welfare and don't really do much of anything. Not that they aren't nice people, or that they deserve to go to prison for it.

I also find it hard to swallow that the Netherlands has a lower drug-use rate than the States, although I'm certainly willing to surrender that point if any proper statistics are posted.

The pot available today is so jam-packed with THC (er, I think this is the proper abbrev.) that it can hardly be called "natural".

To take another point to an illogical extreme, one could simply legalize extortion ( hey, it's a free market, dog-eat-dog world out there...), and you would also have less criminals in jail. Drug use is a crime because it is against the law. I didn't make it that way, but I'd prefer that this one stands.

As for the harsher drugs, when some junkie breaks into home to scrounge up money to feed his addiction, then why should I consider him/her, and not the home owner, a "victim"? All criminals are sick to some degree or another.

But more than anything I hate dealers because of what they represent. Many, not all, would certainly be willing to sell to children, and actively seek out their market among insecure kids.

AHEM. That is why I hate drugs/ dealers, anyway.

 

[allan]

"You obviously don't live in a town full of junkies.
Marijuana is a gateway drug, i know 3 friends that started off potheads and are now doing cocaine.
Drugs are for ****ing losers.
Theres no point in doing it."

Hate to burst your bubble, bro, but I smoke pot fairly regularly, and yet have no want or need to do coke, heroin, or anything "harder" for that matter. And I don't.

I also have a steady job, pay my bills and extortion money--cough!--taxes, and even give to charity. I wouldn't call myself a "loser", just an average guy making his way through life and giving as much as he gets, and maybe sometimes a little more....

Of course, in a climate where everything MUST have its label, and everyone MUST fit into a conveniently labeled box--to minimize the thought processes involved in actually having to judge each individual based on their merits--I guess I must be put in the same box as the supposed "majority" (does it really matter if even THIS is true) of pot users. Or, "I know these people, therefore you must be like them." Can you see how silly this all is?

Besides, government should not be our babysitter. Whatever beds people make for themselves, they should be allowed to lie in them. *I* do.... So no, I don't believe welfare should be used to prop people's habits, either. I ain't no liberal....

 

[allan]

"Hey, if Tobacco was just coming on to the market now, it too would probably be illegal.
While I question the morality of pot being illegal, I support the law as is, if for no other reason than to attempt to save people a few brain cells."

You would have supported Prohibition then--that brilliant piece of legislation that made Al Capone rich and did little else. It probably destroyed MORE brain cells than it supposedly tried to save, through non-standardized "moonshine" and other homemade hooch. Made some folks blind too.

Besides, it is not the government's role to save people's brain cells. Name one place in the Constitution where this role is mentioned.

"Look, I know many pot users are otherwise intelligent people, but I also know a lot more who are about as productive as a chia pet. They sit on welfare and don't really do much of anything. Not that they aren't nice people, or that they deserve to go to prison for it."

Who you know and don't know is irrelevant. I AM a productive pot smoker. Why should I be boxed in with others who are not so productive? I could say that *I* know many more nonproductive alcoholics than nonproductive pot smokers. But I do not wish to label ALL alcoholics as nonproductive, because some are indeed productive.

"I also find it hard to swallow that the Netherlands has a lower drug-use rate than the States, although I'm certainly willing to surrender that point if any proper statistics are posted."

I didn't supply this, but I'll look for statistics just the same. Whatever they are though, you'd have to agree that we DO have pretty high rates of drug addiction, and that decades of drug prohibition have not decreased them--in fact, they have INCREASED. So again, how many brain cells have been saved?

So much for your blind faith in what your government can do, huh....

"The pot available today is so jam-packed with THC (er, I think this is the proper abbrev.) that it can hardly be called "natural"."

Selectively breeding a plant to increase a certain quality is still as natural as breeding dogs for hunting abilities. That's all that's been done here. Not that that has any relevance to our argument here though.

"To take another point to an illogical extreme, one could simply legalize extortion ( hey, it's a free market, dog-eat-dog world out there...), and you would also have less criminals in jail."

You're right, this is an ILLOGICAL extention of the argument. In fact, it is NOT an extention at all.... For you see, extortion involves use of force on other people, whereas pot smoking does not. Governments MUST protect people from unwarranted force against them (hence extortion laws, among other things), not exert unwarranted force upon people who have a peaceful habit and aren't a threat to anyone but (maybe) themselves....

Some laws are, self-evidently, necessary, and some are not. And some are just plain flat-out WRONG. Human beings make them after all....

"Drug use is a crime because it is against the law."

Law does not make right. There used to be a law that punished people who aided escaped slaves, too. Also laws against teaching black people how to read and write, or blacks drinking from "white" drinking fountains. Would you call these actions "crimes" in any sense but the most basic, technically "legal" sense in those days?

"I didn't make it that way, but I'd prefer that this one stands."

I don't see why--can you honestly say this law is even DOING anything, other than putting people in jail? Is it helping anyone? Is it reducing addiction? Is it saving lives?

"As for the harsher drugs, when some junkie breaks into home to scrounge up money to feed his addiction, then why should I consider him/her, and not the home owner, a "victim"? All criminals are sick to some degree or another."

The drug laws are driving the prices of drugs up to the point where people have to rob people to afford them. Notice that you don't hear of too many winos robbing people to pay for their next bottle of Night Train, because it is legal and thus, relatively cheap. I DID get robbed by a crackhead when I drove a cab in Baltimore--and besides blaming the individual who did it, did I blame crack itself? No, I blamed the drug laws which raised the price of the stuff to ungodly levels, making the DEALERS rich at my expense. Make it legal, and those dealers will have to find another way to get rich--and it won't be as easy either, probably....

"But more than anything I hate dealers because of what they represent. Many, not all, would certainly be willing to sell to children, and actively seek out their market among insecure kids."

Compare that to legal and regulated liquor sales. The VAST majority of liquor store owners "card" their customers, and most emphatically support drinking age laws. If you put other drugs in their stores, with the same age restrictions (which I would support), would you expect their behavior to change?

"AHEM. That is why I hate drugs/ dealers, anyway."

There's a difference between HATING something, and making or supporting a law against it. First thing you should ask is, what is the net result of such a law? Second is, can crimes sometimes associated with drug use (robbery, murder, etc.) be covered by existing laws, leaving those users that DON'T do crimes that hurt others alone? And third, how can these substances best be regulated so that children are less likely to get them--have them sold by store owners who have something to lose by breaking the regulations, or by people who are ALREADY illegal by simply having them, and hence have nothing further to lose if they seek out juvenile clientele?

I find that most people who support drug laws are relying on EMOTIONS regarding the substances, rather than critical, practical thinking. If you want to solve the "drug problem", surely you can look around you now and see that the present "solution" isn't working. Maybe it's time to look at other approaches....

And leave people like me, who lead productive lives in spite of a little pot-smoking now and then, alone to continue being productive for our society....

 

[damunzy]

I have a problem with the gov't sticking it big noise in the whole drug area. They say that pot is bad for you but I see more proof that it does nothing to you than I see that it does mess you up. I choose not to do drugs b/c I like to have all of my mental facilities but I too get drunk once in a while (once every 2 months or so). How is Pot worse than drinking?
I have heard lots of stories about coke being bad though. I am all for keeping drugs like that illegal.
I also cannot understand the drinking age limit. If You can vote or die for your country you better be able to ****ing drink! ****, making babies is more important but are they making that illegal to do until a certain age? No!

edited: sorry had some words swapped. and added a no!

 

[allan]

"I also cannot understand the drinking age limit. If You can vote or die for your country you better be able to ****ing drink!"

I don't like that states were all "forced" (well, bribed if you will, with the continuation of highway funding) by the federal government to go to a 21 drinking age, I think 18 is fine enough.... Like you said, that is the age you can be asked to serve your country (register for the draft). When I was in the navy, the age was 18 on all bases, if you were in fact in the military. However that changed before I left, reverting to whatever the local age was (in Japan, where I served, it was 20). No "grandfathering" for 19-year-olds either. I thought that was a little sh*tty, but I was 28 then so it didn't affect me.

I generally have no trouble with age limits per se, in that people below a certain age are considered not competent to make certain decisions. However the age of adulthood is considered 18, so drinking laws should at least be consistent with this standard. After that, you are an adult, and fully accountable for your actions under the law.

" ****, making babies is more important but they are making that illegal to do until a certain age."

LOL, never heard of THIS one. How will that be enforced? Forced abortions for all minors? I don't like the sound of this one bit....

Unless you are talking about age of consent for sex--which looking back on edit I suppose you were--in which case I support those laws too. Just the way you worded it sounded funny.... I.e. the ACT of sex is what is illegal and prosecutable--if no one says anything, and a 14-year-old has a baby, then she is not prosecuted for having the baby.

But usually the consent age is something like 16 (depending on the state, it could go from 14 to 18), i.e. it CAN be before full adulthood. And yes, babies which may result are MUCH more responsibility than regulating one's drinking--often far more difficult a task, too.

 

[damunzy]

allan, in my anger of the subjects I was typing too fast and didn't proof read my post. I have modified it and I might make more sense now.
I do feel that for the most part these discussions are pointless but they are a good way to get your frustrations out.

 

[Apollo]

Well, since this thread is about hating drugs and dealers, and not users, then I'll just stick to that topic. I do hate drugs and those who deal them illegally. I hate alcohol and would support Prohibition (if done correctly, unlike the last time when the government was torn over the issue), I would support making tobacco illegal, and I support the current status of illegal drugs. Why? Well:

Drugs can destroy people, and you never know who it will destroy until they try it. Some never become addicted to marijuana and can go through life just like all other productive members of society. Others do become addicted, and as their addiction worsens the marijuana no longer satisfies their addiction, and they have to move on to more powerful drugs such as cocaine to get their fix. These drugs they move on to seriously mess them up and eventually lead to death if nothing is done about it. Even if some are able to take marijuana without any horrible affects such as what I just mentioned, it should be banned, to save those that are susceptible to its potency. Its all the more dangerous that some are able to use it without any serious consequences, because then people are more likely to try it if they think nothing bad will happen, and after trying it they may become addicted.

Alcohol is the same way. Some people can drink in moderation daily and have no problems. Others become alcoholics, and it ruins their lives. Different people are just that, different, and drugs have varying degrees of affects on them. As long as it is possible to have a drug take over a person's life and possibly kill them then that drug should be banned in my opinion, to save those that would otherwise succumb to it, at the expense of a little fun by the rest of society who will get along fine without it.

Drug dealers are about the lowest form of life our race is capable of becoming. They sell drugs to people, often targeting the young and insecure because of a higher likelihood of a sale, knowing that what they are selling kills. I'm sure there are some who only sell marijuana because they support it becoming legal and don't think they are doing any harm with it. These people I don't hate nearly as much, but I still do some because of what I already said about marijuana. The rest who sell all sorts of things to people are simply monsters, knowingly ruining and ending other peoples' lives purely for monetary gain. They definitely should be subject to stiff prison sentences, preferably where they perform forced labor to give back to society, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

As far as those who are addicted to drugs, I think they should forcibly be put into drug-treatment programs, basically a not-so-bad prison where their problem is fixed. When they are released, they will be on a parole of sorts where they are checked on to make sure they stay away from drugs and start a productive life. This is because if allowed to continue living under their addiction they might turn to crime to support their habit and/or they will probably die from an overdose if they don't end their drug use on their own accord, so this system would work to prevent crime and death (like how suicide is against the law).

For those who are addicted to drugs and are caught after committing crimes related to their addiction, they should serve a prison sentence along with being forced into drug treatment. Just a day or two ago I read about how a Washington State congresswoman was proposing legislation to change the current state of prison sentencing for drug-related crimes. They would shorten the prison sentence, and use the money gained from not having to keep these people locked up for as long to support drug-treatment programs. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I think this is a good idea. People who commit a crime for their drug habit have broken the law, but they have a bit of an excuse so they shouldn't have to serve as long a sentence as others. They should be put in the forced drug-treatment program I mentioned earlier, and upon completion serve their (shortened) prison term. This would provide them with time to live outside of drug addiction before returning to the real world where drugs once again (unfortunately) become available. Then they too would be watched to make sure they don't go back to a drug-dependent life.

I personally have seen marijuana and alcohol reveal their bad side in the lives of people I knew, so that may have an impact on my hatred for these substances.

 

[allan]

Gotcha. I edited too (apparently at the same time you were), thinking that perhaps you were talking about age of consent laws for sex.

BTW, if we MUST compromise, I wouldn't mind just making pot legal and keeping the other ones illegal. That may be the furthest extent of what the public, with its current inexplicable faith in the effectiveness of government in this area, will swallow.

Still, though, as bad as coke is (and it IS bad), it won't go away with a law--because as you can see, it hasn't--and instead, the laws make unscrupulous dealers richer than they should be. If cocaine were sold in a highly-regulated fashion, as liquor is, by store owners who either obey the law or lose their business, I would say that there would be much less likelihood of schoolkids starting the habit. Not an elimination, but a significant decrease. Also, it would become less of a cash crop in places like Colombia, and the drug lords who terrorize the peasants in these countries would lose their power base. Finally, there would be no violent shootings over sales territory, no robberies by addicts who must pay the ungodly high prices, and therefore more peace in our cities. Surely these are good things.

People will destroy themselves whether it is legal or illegal--it's just a question of whether we want those decisions to affect EVERYONE, as the laws make them do, or just those people who make the foolish decisions. I say, just the people who make those decisions--I don't want to pay for them with my safety anymore. Do you?

 

[allan]

"Drugs can destroy people, and you never know who it will destroy until they try it. Some never become addicted to marijuana and can go through life just like all other productive members of society. Others do become addicted, and as their addiction worsens the marijuana no longer satisfies their addiction, and they have to move on to more powerful drugs such as cocaine to get their fix. These drugs they move on to seriously mess them up and eventually lead to death if nothing is done about it. Even if some are able to take marijuana without any horrible affects such as what I just mentioned, it should be banned, to save those that are susceptible to its potency."

Some people can't handle driving a car--we don't take that freedom from EVERYONE just because a few would be better off not driving.

Same with owning a gun, operating power saws, taking certain medicines, climbing mountains, etc. It is up to INDIVIDUALS to decide what actions are right for them. It is not up to the government to make those decisions for them. Do you really want that kind of a nanny state?

And yes, sometimes people "decide" what is right or wrong for them by trial and error. Sometimes they make mistakes. Such is life. At least with drug use, that mistake is THEIRS to live with--unlike some dumbass who can't drive well, and ends up injuring me on the roadway.

Just because SOME people can't handle something doesn't mean we must put everyone into that lowest common denominator. I smoke pot, I enjoy it, I'm productive, I pay my taxes, and I pose no danger to you or anyone, so keep your government's guns AWAY from me. You haven't provided me a good enough reason not to....

"Its all the more dangerous that some are able to use it without any serious consequences, because then people are more likely to try it if they think nothing bad will happen, and after trying it they may become addicted."

And in spite of your cherished laws, those who WOULD use, still DO use. So even if this convoluted reasoning of yours held water, you must face the fact that your cherished laws do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate this danger you speak of. So what use are they?

Besides, should responsibility for one's actions be in the hands of the people, or should government further find ways to supposedly protect people from themselves, and continue inserting their force into more and more facets of our lives? This is emphatically NOT the role of our constitutional government.

[further pontificating deleted]

"I personally have seen marijuana and alcohol reveal their bad side in the lives of people I knew, so that may have an impact on my hatred for these substances."

Again, an "I know so and so" argument. They are irrelevant. You do NOT know me. Yes, some drugs are problematic (definitely NOT pot however, at least not for me and the people *I* know), but again ask yourself--does making a law cause MORE problems than it solves? I say most definitely YES. And my reasoning is contained in my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself. Read those, and think about it.

The last thing our society needs is more laws, more force, and the usurping of responsibility from the people (where it belongs) to a supposedly all-knowing nanny state....

 

[Groovin']

Well, to a certain extent, i agree with decriminalizing ie, growing a small amount for personal possession and use, etc.

However, i still despise most (but not all, there are always exceptions in every dodgy subject) drug dealers.... most of all the hard (crack etc) dealers.

No-one can say pot is totally harmless, because differing people have differing reactions, but i agree that this doesnt mean it should be illegal... just like tobacco and alcohol. From my own experience of smoking pot, the stuff didnt adversely affect me in any way i know of...and u were right, it was mostly because of it being the 'rebellious' thing to do at the time, i did enjoy it for a while but then i just couldnt be bothered and gave it up, plus i much preferred a nice cold can (or, normally, cans) of NZ Beer!

But the harder drugs...say heroin and crack...in the majority of cases the results to the user are always bad and adversely affect the users life physically and emotionally horrendously. Ive never known a case where it hasn't damamged someone in some way.

But the laws really do need to be changed to focus more on dealers and not every addicted user they find with a few, (whaddaya call it in the states?ounces?) ounces of the stuff (any stuff) on them that they use personally.

Sorry, i'm really speaking from my countrys (New Zealand) laws so cant really comment on the constitution and some laws regarding users might be different there, but i think it's basically the same system.

 

[CornMaster]

As some of you know....I'm against all drugs. Anything that modifies behaviour or damages the body.

Since Drugs, and Drug Dealers are the conduit for these things, I'm obviously against them.

It's a simple as that for me.

However....I can care less what **** someone gets themself into. If they are going to be that stupid...that's their fault. However...I think that we the non-users should be protected from the "users" or I should say the "abusers".

 

[allan]

"However....I can care less what **** someone gets themself into. If they are going to be that stupid...that's their fault."

Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

"However...I think that we the non-users should be protected from the "users" or I should say the "abusers"."

I'm curious what you mean by this though. Protected from WHAT exactly?

Robbery to feed their habits? There are laws against robbery already. Also, legalization would reduce the price of the drugs, leading to less robberies.

Catching a bullet from a drive-by shooting in a war over sales turf? There are laws against assault with a firearm/murder already. Also, legalization would eliminate the "sales turf" issue, and make the business far less lucrative, therefore eliminating these acts of desperate greed.

Getting hit by a driver who is high and impaired? There are laws against driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs already. Nothing that legalization would do to decrease the possibility of these occurences though, except that like the other two laws I mentioned, it would make cops able to concentrate more on enforcing these laws.

So what other protections are needed? If I overlooked any, let me know. I'm curious....

Otherwise, drug users that DON'T disobey these other laws pose no danger to you. I, sitting here in my apartment, puffing on a spliff, certainly pose no threat to you, or to anyone.... Not saying that you've said otherwise, but I'm just curious about what you mean by "protection".

 

[Zwelgje]

I'm from the Netherlands and here smoking of marijuana is legal but I really dislike that. Not because I dislike people who smoke it or because I think it's really bad for ones health (IMO alcohol is just as damaging as marijuana) but the legalization of marijuana has really given my country a bad reputation all over the world. The USA thinks we're not treating the whole drug-issue hard enough and the french president called our country a narco-state, and so on and so further. In the mean time when you walk through Amsterdam and Rotterdam almost all the drug users are foreign: Americans, French, German, Belgian....

 

[Astral]

I live in Denmark, just a little to the north of Holland. We do not have legalized marijuana, though it is not looked apon as hard as in the USA. And we do have a free-town, a little hippie community in our capital where hash and pot are sold without secrecy. We do have an age limit on alcohol now, which is 15 I think, and I also think it is illegal (if someone complains) to have sex with people under 14 (unless both are under 14).
This works great. Ofcause we have alcoholics and people addicted to drugs, but that can never be stopped even with laws. I my self smoke hash a couple of times every month, and some of my friends do the same. Noone without being addicted or developing bad behavior. Actually I have experienced that hash is less likely to get the smoker violent than alcohol. So why does our system work great? Information. Information is the key word. In the US pot (and hash) are banned, and you don't recieve any proper information about it. We do. It is a much more open subject, that everyone knows about, and talks about. We even get teached in school about drugs, in a not: "JUST DON' TAKE IT!" manner. The same with sex. I have never understood why the US have such a hard time learning their youth about protection, and the general issues with sex. We are told to do what we want, when we want,and learned how to protect our selves. And even though we are told that much about sex, the majority of people do not have sex before the reach an age of 17.
Ofcause I believe that drugdealers should be punished hard, when selling hard drugs, expecially when selling to kids. <but as a few others in here I believe that some of the problems would be solved by legalizing hash, making it cheaper and easier to get hold of, which will stop some crime realated to insufficient funds, for purchasing.
I've read a article about how Schwizerland almost got a law through, that would suplly addicts with their drugs, in order to be able to regulate drugs more, and keep addicts from ´doing crime. Ofcause it would only be on a temporary basis, where the addict was treated, and slowly made drug free.
I actually liked that proposal, though it didn't get through...

Well, that was my...eahm, many cents...

 

[allan]

"I'm from the Netherlands and here smoking of marijuana is legal but I really dislike that. Not because I dislike people who smoke it or because I think it's really bad for ones health (IMO alcohol is just as damaging as marijuana) but the legalization of marijuana has really given my country a bad reputation all over the world. The USA thinks we're not treating the whole drug-issue hard enough and the french president called our country a narco-state, and so on and so further."

That's all just TALK though, by people who can't see past their taboos. You shouldn't take it seriously as such....

Certainly that isn't a reason to use force against a certain segment of the population that isn't using force on others.

Besides, once everyone else comes to their senses and does what your country has done with regards to drugs, you will no longer be singled out. You are "ahead of your time" in this regard, and naturally being ahead of one's time can draw some caustic criticism from some quarters. But so what? I'd LOVE it if the U.S. had that "problem".... (Well, in some other areas, we do in fact--and it doesn't bother me either. )

"In the mean time when you walk through Amsterdam and Rotterdam almost all the drug users are foreign: Americans, French, German, Belgian...."

Such as it is with tourism everywhere--they bring money, but they can also be somewhat annoying sometimes, I suppose....

 

[Apollo]

Umm, ok Allan. You insist on making personal attacks, and taking anybody stating they don't like drugs as an attack against you, which I specifically said at the beginning of my last post I was not doing. You aren't helping your arguement at all by doing this. Please, try to cool down a little.

Some people can't handle driving a car--we don't take that freedom from EVERYONE just because a few would be better off not driving.

Same with owning a gun, operating power saws, taking certain medicines, climbing mountains, etc. It is up to INDIVIDUALS to decide what actions are right for them. It is not up to the government to make those decisions for them. Do you really want that kind of a nanny state?

Your examples here can't be related to drugs and drug use. If you can't pass your driving test, then you don't get a license, and if you impare your driving by drinking, then you are arrested. Owning a gun requires a license which involves background checks in order to get, and there are severe restrictions on what types of guns you can have and where you can use them. Medications are also severely regulated, and medications of any potency requires a doctor writing a prescription to get. When you buy power saws you get a safety manual with it, and in order to know how to operate it you either were taught or read instructions that most likely involved safety precautions. Many people climb mountains, and in order to get the equipment and training needed to do it you learn about how to remain safe, and often times you have a knowledgeable guide go with you. None of these things are nearly as dangerous as drugs, unless of course they are combined with drugs, the results of which provide just another reason to hate drugs.

It is up to individuals to decide what actions are right for them. However, certain actions are always wrong for them and that is where the government steps in, such as with suicide, robbery, murder, etc.

And yes, sometimes people "decide" what is right or wrong for them by trial and error. Sometimes they make mistakes. Such is life. At least with drug use, that mistake is THEIRS to live with--unlike some dumbass who can't drive well, and ends up injuring me on the roadway.

Drugs often don't allow you to use the trial and error method, which is the basis for part of my previous post. If you are one of those that becomes easily addicted to marijuana, then that first try is all you need to be lost. Also if they go straight to the more powerful drugs then they are even more likely to become addicted. If not helped then they usually turn to a life of crime, in which case it very well can affect you. In fact, in a previous post you mentioned how it did affect you while you were a cab driver in Baltimore.

Just because SOME people can't handle something doesn't mean we must put everyone into that lowest common denominator. I smoke pot, I enjoy it, I'm productive, I pay my taxes, and I pose no danger to you or anyone, so keep your government's guns AWAY from me. You haven't provided me a good enough reason not to....

Don't take people not liking drugs as a personal attack, because it's not. This isn't an issue of whether or not somebody can handle something, this is an issue of addiction, which is a bit beyond choice once it has set in. If banning alcohol, marijuana, and all those other addictive drugs will help those people that would otherwise try them and become addicted, then I am all for it, and the only bad that it would do to the rest of the population is take away a source of pleasure. So its a trade, the ruining and eventual death of a lot of people, or the loss of something that can be given up without any bad effects.

And in spite of your cherished laws, those who WOULD use, still DO use. So even if this convoluted reasoning of yours held water, you must face the fact that your cherished laws do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate this danger you speak of. So what use are they?

Actually, no, many of those who would use it if it were legal do not use it now. Many people look to the laws to tell us what is right and wrong. Murder is against the law, and our laws were decided on by the people, so obviously if the hundreds of millions of people of this democracy agree on that then it must be wrong. If we legalize marijuana, then the above type of reasoning will be used by many of our naive youth and they will try it, some becoming addicted like I've said before. The laws demonstrate what is right and wrong, so by legalizing marijuana it is saying it is ok and telling kids there is nothing wrong in trying it, while knowing that for some there is deffinitely something wrong with it.

Besides, should responsibility for one's actions be in the hands of the people, or should government further find ways to supposedly protect people from themselves, and continue inserting their force into more and more facets of our lives? This is emphatically NOT the role of our constitutional government.

This is a political issue and not for this thread. Pretty much everybody agrees that we need some laws so that people who murder, steal, beat their wife, etc. are punished. I am putting drugs in that category because they are proven to destroy both those who use them and the victims of crimes committed by those who use them.

Again, an "I know so and so" argument. They are irrelevant. You do NOT know me. Yes, some drugs are problematic (definitely NOT pot however, at least not for me and the people *I* know),

The last sentence of my previous post was not an arguement but an explanation of where I am coming from on this issue. It was definitely in no way a personal attack on you, as I said at the beginning of that post.

but again ask yourself--does making a law cause MORE problems than it solves? I say most definitely YES. And my reasoning is contained in my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself. Read those, and think about it.

I have read your previous posts, and then I wrote mine, and that is what this thread is about.

The last thing our society needs is more laws, more force, and the usurping of responsibility from the people (where it belongs) to a supposedly all-knowing nanny state....

This is not what this thread is about. It's about why people hate drugs and drug dealers, which I have already stated my views on.

This is not a bash-pot-users thread and nobody has been treating it as such, but you continue to act like it is. I did not appreciate much of your language in countering my statements, and I ask you to cool off a bit.

 

[Morgasshk]

Drugs suck scrotums and thats all ye have to know...

People who start on them bring it on themselves... Everyone that
has half a brain cell knows they fark you up... don't give me this sad, sob bs story about people benig addicted and it aint their fault... I have a brother and a sister, both junkie, both in prison for drug related crime and I don't feel any pity for them...

Yeah drug dealers are worse, and woe betide any muthaphukka that i find ever trying to sell anyhting... I would go to jail a happy man...


Morgasshk