Ending the War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is purely political. There are better and cheaper ways to fight drug abuse.

Cops can bust me for possesion as much as they want.. i am still going to use drugs.

Cops *should* be nailing the suppliers, and i wont be able to get them, and i probably will go insane, but i wont be able to use drugs.

BAM!!! lets kick it up a notch...

I think cops should actually sponsor my drug purchases, so i can 'inadvertantly' lead them up the supply chain.

BAM!!!

Good article! Another example of needing a new approach, that this isn't working
and we don't approve of the way money is being spent.

Actually trying to nail the suppliers doesn't work. The problem is that there is a market for the drugs. Decrease the market, decrease the suppliers. Drugs don't just harm the individual drug user but all of the countries which supply the drug and are on the trail from manufacturer to market.

"Cops *should* be nailing the suppliers, and i wont be able to get them, and i probably will go insane, but i wont be able to use drugs."

Supply/demand. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply, that is what prohibition taught. By attacking the demand, you starve the supply. If you attack supply, you just increase demand, and someone steps up to sell at a higher price. Economics.

"Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s..."

Bad comparison, and one that spotlights the attitude of those who abuse drugs. They just assume that everyone drinks alcohol for its intoxicating effects. I can't remember the last time I drank beer and wine to an excess that caused me to become intoxicated, and I drink them all the time. They are beverages as old as human culture, and their use in excess is looked down upon, but their use in general isn't wrong.

The sole purpose for recreational drugs, though, is intoxication. The need to supplement reality with chemicals is a display of weakness, imho, a lack of imagination.

The "War on Drugs" and going to Mars again to see more red dirt....2 really big wastes of my money!

"The only way you can truly fight the war on drugs is by ceasing to make life chronically painful for the masses."

Sherye - Do ALL drugs harm the users? I mean, come on - sure there are abusers, just as there are people who abuse alcohol, who are chronic gamblers, who are addicted to sex or risky behavior (such as riding bulls). It seems to me the approach in the last couple decades is a lot like making all those potentially abusive activities illegal.

Wouldn't we be better off educating people to the "true risks" (instead of the phony hype) and gradually phase out the laws which have pointlessly made benign substances such as marijuana illegal? So what if grandpa wants to grow some weed and smoke a few blunts with his buddies and reminisce about the good old days?

BakerStreet - Getting high is as old as human culture, by a variety of means. I'm sure opium use in China pre-dates Christ. Everyone doesn't drink alcohol SOLELY for it's intoxicating effects, but it is certainly one of the primary desirable affects - if you are serious about that argument you hang out with some unusual people (IMO). And you must not have paid attention to driver's ed - one drink can affect your judgement! There are a great deal of similarities - the social aspect, the ritual (sniffing the your glass, swishing it around), etc. Intoxication as you say is one aspect.

Some of our great artists were avid recreational drug users. Familiar with Absinthe ? Cool stuff! I have a different view - that supplementing one's reality with anything is the pinnacle in creativity. It requires getting out of your box, finding something outside the box that you use on the box itself, which in effect modifies the box, changing your perception of what is inside and outside. It's a very natural desire. Some would say - it is what humans were designed for. Geez, are we going to next outlaw action movies because it causes a chemical reaction of heightened endorphin release?? (not to mention skydiving, etc, etc)

deidoll - I think you have the right idea - too bad it's not as easy to implement as typing the words, eh? And what do we do about the horrific drugs like heroin?

My favorite example of a "harmless" drug is extasy. An interesting little pill that makes you feel good, and, which it's supporters have none of the harmful side effects of "hard" drugs. Now, here's why X is bad for you. X triggers the Seratonin emitters in your brain causing them to release all their Seratonin, that causes the "good" feeling you get. This has the unfortunate consequence of causing your now depleted Seratonin emitters to work over time to create more Seratonin. Over time, and it doesn't have to be a very long time, your Seratonin Emitters stop functioning. The more that stop functioning, the harder the remaining ones have to work, causing them to break down even faster, now your Neurotransmitter emitters don't get rebuilt, ever, so when they're all broken, that's it, no more Seratonin being manufactured in your brain. So you ask, what's the big deal? Without Seratonin, you can NEVER feel good again. So, next time someone says, oh this drug is harmless, think about X.

Cheers

Jeb,

I know exactly what you are saying - and so do most extasy users that i consort with. The substance is not addictive or dangerous per se - its the feeling, and as long as the users are aware of what the seratonin depletion can do in later life, they will never over do it... i suppose i can only speak for myself, but thats how i feel.

I still classify it as harmless - in moderation. You cant put MDMA into the same boat as smack or coke... those substances are physically detrimental if consumed every other weekend, not that exstasy isn't, just a damn site less... MDMA also doesn't have the stigma of shady deals surrounding it... its usually just some chem student making the pills, but you have coke coming from militias is Ecuador or whatever...

PoetPhilosopher: You compared alcoholic beverages to drugs, and it isn't an apt comparison, because there is a non-intoxicating use for beverages.

I find it weak to need to prop up reality with a substance. I really don't care about the history behind abusing chemicals, nor do I care if artists or anyone else does it. The previous statement:

"The only way you can truly fight the war on drugs is by ceasing to make life chronically painful for the masses."

is a perfect example of the problem with drugs. If life is "chronically painful" then you have a problem. At best you are a wuss, and at worst you need a psychiatrist to give you your drugs. People need to get a handle on reality instead of just paying some sleaze so that they can escape it.

If you compare weed to "alcoholic beverages", booze, which is also physically addictive, can kill u.......never heard of anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana.......and btw Bakerstreet....it's about the fun...getting stoned from time to time is FUN, and what's wrong with a little escape now and then? Loosen up! Then again, nevermind.

Hey Baker,

It may come as a surprise to you, but personally, i dont use drugs because i am a wuss, or need to escape reality - my reality is just fine... Debidoll hit the nail on the head with the fun remark...

I will never be able to relay to you how good techno music and dancing is with a little extra seratonin at your disposal.

It may also interest you to know that there is a non intoxicating use for drugs as well.

debidoll: I never said alcohol couldn't be abused. I can abuse Big Macs and die, too. What's your point? At least there is a use for wine and Big Macs other than a prop for the unmotivated or unimaginative.

What kind of statement would it make to legalize drugs, basically saying "Instead of getting up off your ass and doing something to improve your life or your outlook on it, just stay home and roll a fatty." Bread and circuses. Do we need more?

Then add to that what advertising agencies, tax-hungry bureaucrats, and corporate agenda would do to promote use. You have to be blind not to see what would happen if even borderline drugs like marijuana became a government-sanctioned commodity like tobacco or alcohol. In twenty years we would have millions of Americans whining that the "Big Marijuana Companies" owe them millions because they didn't tell them staying high all the time would ruin their life. .

I don't need the government to sanction something that I can grow next to my tomato plants (hence forgoing the "sleazy dealer" as you call it). Decriminalization would be nice, though, as throwing me in jail for growing a fucking plant in my garden is pretty stupid, wouldn't u agree?

Oy BakerStreet - you sound really silly... "prop up reality with a substance"... is that a line out of Reefer Madness?

Whose reality? What is being in a state of normal? Ever been head-over-heels in love? Ever been depressed about a friend's death? Ever been exhilerated and in a heightened state of awareness from reality?

It's all chemical reactions man. It's just synapses firing. To be opposed IN PRINCIPLE to drugs because they modify reality is fundamentally misguided. You artificially compartmentalize.

Another mindless citizen stuck in a box who doesn't even recognize the box, and probably would not even acknowledge said box.

sigh.

(rolls another fatty)

Strictly speaking, chemical modification seems a bit of a sledge-hammer approach. I look forward to the day when we can simply wear a device, say a necklace. Turn it on, turn it off. And no hangover.

And yeah... I will still grow tomatoes, but only because I'm into horticulture.

Whats from the Earth is of the greatest worth, before you knock it, try it first - Lyrics to Ben Harpers song 'Burn One Down'

Whose reality? What is being in a state of normal? Ever been head-over-heels in love? Ever been depressed about a friend's death? Ever been exhilerated and in a heightened state of awareness from reality? It's all chemical reactions man. It's just synapses firing. To be opposed IN PRINCIPLE to drugs because they modify reality is fundamentally misguided. You artificially compartmentalize.

Most people differentiate between emotions and popping pills, smoking a joint, etc. One wouldn't be fined for driving while depressed, exhilarated, in love, but they will be fined for driving while under the influence of a mind-altering drug.

I don't need the government to sanction something that I can grow next to my tomato plants (hence forgoing the "sleazy dealer" as you call it). Decriminalization would be nice, though, as throwing me in jail for growing a fucking plant in my garden is pretty stupid, wouldn't u agree?

Well, it'd definitely be regulated. I'm not sure about this, but isn't it illegal for individuals to make their own beer without a license? If so, I imagine that such a law would be made for pot plants. As with any other drug, it's going to be regulated to prevent misuse.

debidoll: IF you think for a second that you'll be allowed to grow your own pot if it is legalized, you're nuts. It will be controlled like distilled spirits and you'll be paying the same guys that make cigarettes now. They'll probably play with it genetically and chemically until it is as bad or worse for you than cigarettes.

Anyway, the only people I have known that grew it between their tomato plants sold it to supplement their welfare checks. To each his/her own. Still gotta explain to your kids/parents why you needed something so bad it was worth going to jail for.

PoetPhilosopher & Muggaz:

"Another mindless citizen stuck in a box who doesn't even recognize the box, and probably would not even acknowledge said box."
"Whats from the Earth is of the greatest worth, before you knock it, try it first "

OMG, I love the hippy talk. Do you guys realize that that is the SAME logic that fundamentalist Christians/cultists use? "No one can understand unless they are one of us."

You both just basically said that in order to understand drugs you have to try them, and then you understand them. Now, who the hell sounds like a line from reefer madness? Me? pffft. I would swear that WAS a line from reefer madness. That kind of A Priori logic is so far below you guys, it surprises me to hear it come from you.

There is no box, PP, not unless your mind makes it for you. Emotional states brought on by reality ARE reality. That is life. Drugs are what you use when you don't have enough stimulus to make those states, I suppose. Anyway, you're talking brain, not mind, not intellect. Screwing with your brain chemistry just further dissociates the two.

You go ahead and pretend that your willingness to prop up your reality with pot makes you somehow more well rounded. It doesn't. It is just one more consumable product that you need that I don't. Some people use botox, others max their credit cards, or spend hours sliding cash in stripper's thongs, others use drugs. They are all little props to make ya feel complete.

You want to masturbate with your body chemistry, cool, but it doesn't make you in any way superior.

Messy Buu: Beer you can make. Distilled spirits like whisky you can't.

There is no box, PP

Let it be known I predicted this reply!! (smiles smugly)

Some people use botox, others max their credit cards, or spend hours sliding cash in stripper's thongs

Ride motorcycles, perform on stage, drive SUVs, hunt game. Ya - it's all about experiencing life right... feeling complete.

You want to masturbate with your body chemistry, cool, but it doesn't make you in any way superior.

Heheh. Cool analogy. I like it a lot. But I come to a different conclusion in regards to the value - let's just say "you don't believe it makes me superior", but.. I don't really recognize your yardstick. So there ya go.

So we are in agreement it should be legalized and regulated beyond certain quantities?

What about drugs like heroin? What about addiction?

You both just basically said that in order to understand drugs you have to try them - thats a negative Baker, we never said that.

We just implied that you wont understand why we take them unless you have tried them yourself.

Which is true, because you can only read about the mind altering experiences, and you thoughts on drugs will be created based on the authors perspective, rather than your own.

We both understand that drugs are essentially bad, but i think i speak for both of us when i say that we are on top of our habits, and we dont hold anything against you at all for not using...

Don't lump ME in with the potheads!!!

"Ride motorcycles, perform on stage, drive SUVs, hunt game. "

No, again, those are real life experiences that enhance your mood *because* they are experiences. Smoking pot is an artificial change, not a byproduct of life. Keep banging that drum all you want, but with drugs you by-pass the cause and go straight to the effect. Why? If it is just a natural, equatable effect like the highs and lows of life, why do you need pot to get it? If it isn't equitable, then it is artificially enhancing life, and we are back to the prop.

The SUV part might apply if you drive one just to *feel* successful. Kind of pathetic, huh? Again, not unlike botox/plastic surgery junkies, etc. Life is okay, but if you have a hard day/year you just need that little umph... I find it sad.

"We just implied that you wont understand why we take them unless you have tried them yourself."

Fine, then you have to agree with people who are in cults. Unless you are a believing member of a cult, willing to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid, then you really don't know that it is bullshit, and you can't condemn them. LOL, I know it is bullshit without drinking the Kool-aid. I don't need to take drugs to understand that I don't need them. I simply don't need them in the first place. If I need them after I have tried them, well, that is pretty damning for drugs.

Like the 'techno' excuse above. If it is so much better when you don't have that extra seratonin, what happens next week when you can't get it? The normal act is just that much suckier because you can't prop it up. What was fun, now isn't as fun. The non-X experience has been devalued.

"So we are in agreement it should be legalized and regulated beyond certain quantities?"

Um, no. It shouldn't be legalized, nor should anything specifically used to become intoxicated. I'm not saying the world would come to an end if people grew their own between their tomato plants. I'm not saying I hold anything against you guys for using. When you promote the use, though, you are influencing people to use that might not be as "on top of our habits", and who could end up in jail.

Roland K. Siegel wrote a great book on drugs, with the thesis wether it is a natural phenomenon that animals and humans use drugs.

DO NOT NAIL THE SUPPLIERS! Legalize it, and make sure the mafia doesnt earn a dollar.

Most of the former US presidents were the biggest tobacco/alhohol producers in the US. First ofr all
George Washington! They used to roll kegs of booze into the chamber before the voting.


I am not for leagalization of cocaine trade for example, but it should be legal for one to grow his own coca plants,
just like we can buy coffee at the supermarket ( exploiting the 3rd world)

www.overgrow.com ...plant a seed, and fukk the war on drugs.

How many of US congress use or have used weed, coke, prozac, speed, alc., tobacco, viagra, ...prostitutes...,
mafia-style connections..... hippocrite is an american word, IMO it was hardly ever used before 1865.

It´s a fukked up world where u have the religious freedom to worship almost any kind of bullshit u can come up with, but
you get jailed with rapists, murderes and hardcore criminals for just smoking a lil herb.

oh well, who am i telling this anyway. it´s 2004, we all use the internet, ...everyone should know better.

- Weltregierung

-->Booz<-- was a presidential candidate btw, he campaigned with so much liquor that we all use
"Booze" as a synonym for alcoholic beverages