PoetPhilosopher PoetPhilosopher

Ending the War on Drugs

Ending the War on Drugs

Costs of persuing a failed strategy

http://www.csdp.org/edcs/
This is your brain on drugs.

Seems quaint now doesn't it? Humorous.

In 2003 the US spent $19 billion in the war on drugs, a stunning $600 a second. And for what?

1.6 million arrests, someone arrested every 20 seconds - 40% of which are for marijuana possesion. Not selling drugs, not traffiking, but POSSESION.

$600 a second to arrest 650,000 people for smoking pot.

What are we thinking???

Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s and it has not worked in the 30 years that we have waged the war on drugs. When will we learn a new approach is needed ?
51,142 views 107 replies
Reply #76 Top

It's a good thing we don't legalize drugs then. All that smoke would be bad for the environment, and all those potheads blazing it while watching television in their houses with A/C would kill Mother Nature. Thanks for the other reason why drugs should remain illegal! They (or compel people to) harm the environment!

Reply #77 Top
Once again Messy, I think this is probably the only thing we agree on, but I'm glad for it.

Cheers
Reply #78 Top
I was providing an example of how even if drugs were legal, people would not "know" how to use them responsibly.


People do abuse legal drugs, even when told the proper dosage, but it's not for lack of knowing the proper dosage. It's because they outright ignore it and take whatever the hell they want. It's like Jerry Seinfeld once said: "dry clean only" is the only warning that people actually follow.
Reply #79 Top
My point was that your point was wrong.

Arrogance does not make you right nor does it help you in this.

"Drugs are not bad when used responsibly...and if they were legal, people would know how to use them responsibly instead of guestimating like they do now."

I was providing an example of how even if drugs were legal, people would not "know" how to use them responsibly.


People "know" how to use alcohol responsibly, simply because there are many ways of finding out how much will induce what effect, and what is too much, plus what the warnings are.

You are wrong, people WOULD know how to use them responsibly...it would be their choice not to use them responsibly, but once again, that's no reason to justify them being illegal. You never use the worst case scenario as the only possibility when deciding what to do with something. That is wrong.

"Just because drugs can be abused is no reason to outlaw them...that's like outlawing anal sex because it COULD cause damage, or outlawing loud music because it COULD cause damage...if we outlawed everything that COULD possibly cause damage, there wouldn't be one thing left that would be legal...including eating food and drinking water."

There are many differences between drugs and anal sex / loud music, such as that music and anal sex, at least to my knowledge, don't have such bad side effects when abused (although I'm sure both would be painful). Also, the world seems to value loud music and anal sex far more than they do drugs.


Actually, anal sex and loud music can have worse side effects when done irresponsibly than drugs when used responsibly. Anal sex (even once) when done improperly can cause permanent anal damage which will result in a loose anal cavity for life...and loud music can damage the inner ear mechanisms that allow us to hear, making everything seem muffled and make you hard of hearing...and it doesn't take that long of listening to super-loud music either. Once again, this is taking the worst case scenario of all of them and showing how bad (and worse) they can be...but is no reason to outlaw RESPONSIBLE use of either of them.

The difference you have to realize is the difference between abuse and responsible use...any just because something CAN be abused irresponsibly does not mean it is justifiable to outlaw it.
Reply #80 Top
The problem is not that they could be abused, but the harmful side effects that all drugs, eventually have.

All drugs save cannabis have truly harmful side effects, but getting to the point, if you say that eventual harmful side-effects are a reason to illegalize them, once again you will be banning everything under the sun (and the sun itself since it can cause skin cancer, sunburns, and leathery skin).
Reply #81 Top
All drugs save cannabis have truly harmful side effects


I'm almost certain that marijuana use involves inhaling smoke.
Reply #82 Top
Holy crap is this blog still going on. I gotta shoot this horse.

oh well more points for me, me, me!!
Reply #83 Top
jeblackstar:
yeah, loud music and anal sex have very little chance for death and/or serious brain damage when abused...

No, but anal sex can damage a very sensitive area that has similar importance of the brain, and loud music can damage the ears, something which most humans would agree is vital and necessary to live a normal life. As far as actual brain damage/death goes for drugs though, responsible use almost NEVER causes either of those...only drug ABUSE causes things like that, and once again, there are many more people that use drugs responsibly than irresponsibly, despite what the media and the government wants you to believe.


Messy:
It's a good thing we don't legalize drugs then. All that smoke would be bad for the environment, and all those potheads blazing it while watching television in their houses with A/C would kill Mother Nature. Thanks for the other reason why drugs should remain illegal! They (or compel people to) harm the environment!

lol, nice try, poor argument.

And what's sad is, you probably think you're really being taken seriously when you say things like this. It must be painful being on the weakest side in the WoD issue.
Reply #84 Top
I'm almost certain that marijuana use involves inhaling smoke.

Yes, but does it cause serious damage or death? No, it doesn't, despite the lies and propaganda the government has put out on it.

Cannabis is one of the few substances, legal or illegal, natural or unnatural, that has hardly any effect on overall health.

Remember, just because something is smoked does not mean it is outright damaging. That is a fallacious line of thinking that is used by prohibitionists and ignorant peoples to justify cannabis being illegal (yet cigarettes are legal, something which actually kills people...in massive amounts. hmm).
Reply #85 Top

Actually, anal sex and loud music can have worse side effects when done irresponsibly than drugs when used responsibly. Anal sex (even once) when done improperly can cause permanent anal damage which will result in a loose anal cavity for life...and loud music can damage the inner ear mechanisms that allow us to hear, making everything seem muffled and make you hard of hearing...and it doesn't take that long of listening to super-loud music either. Once again, this is taking the worst case scenario of all of them and showing how bad (and worse) they can be...but is no reason to outlaw RESPONSIBLE use of either of them.


Funny how you compare irresponsible anal sex and loud music to responsible drug use, and not to irresponsible drug use. I guess we don't want to admit that when both are done irresponsibly, the effects of drug use are worse (and also affect society much more than damage to one's ears or ass).


You are wrong, people WOULD know how to use them responsibly...it would be their choice not to use them responsibly, but once again, that's no reason to justify them being illegal. You never use the worst case scenario as the only possibility when deciding what to do with something. That is wrong.


So they'd still be abused as they are now, in which case the point of knowing the exact dosage is utterly pointless.


All drugs save cannabis have truly harmful side effects, but getting to the point, if you say that eventual harmful side-effects are a reason to illegalize them, once again you will be banning everything under the sun (and the sun itself since it can cause skin cancer, sunburns, and leathery skin).


Huge difference. The Sun actually serves a decent purpose to society. Drugs don't.


And what's sad is, you probably think you're really being taken seriously when you say things like this. It must be painful being on the weakest side in the WoD issue.


You mean that argument about the environment which had nothing whatsoever to do with drugs is a strong argument against the WoD?

Reply #86 Top
That is a fallacious line of thinking that is used by prohibitionists and ignorant peoples to justify cannabis being illegal (yet cigarettes are legal, something which actually kills people...in massive amounts. hmm).


I didn't say marijuana should be illegal, but it's ludicrous to imply that inhaling smoke is A-OK by your lungs.
Reply #87 Top
Yes, but does it cause serious damage or death? No, it doesn't, despite the lies and propaganda the government has put out on it.


Marijuana actually does kill brain cells, the one cells in your body, by the way, which don't grow back.
Reply #88 Top
Funny how you compare irresponsible anal sex and loud music to responsible drug use, and not to irresponsible drug use. I guess we don't want to admit that when both are done irresponsibly, the effects of drug use are worse (and also affect society much more than damage to one's ears or ass).

Actually, if you had the slightest bit of mental wherewithall, you would know that I was comparing them because they are majorly different, not because I didn't "want to admit" (poor usage of words btw) that either can be used irresponsibly. Of course drugs can be used irresponsibly, but they can be used responsibly, and more often than not, drugs are used in a responsible fashion.

The point is that anal sex (even while responsible) and loud music (even while responsible) can do just as much and more damage than responsible drug use, and therefore to say one damaging thing must be banned while others are tolerated is hypocritical and is more indicative of the fact that we humans tolerate things which we know about and show utter disdain and intolerance of the things which we don't. It's pretty sad.

So they'd still be abused as they are now, in which case the point of knowing the exact dosage is utterly pointless.

You've never used drugs in your entire life, of course you're going to say there is no point in knowing the dosage. The point is that the USERS need to know about the drugs they do, and they need to know the proper dosages and how much could be dangerous to them. This is not some exercize in pointlessness...this is letting the users know about the drugs they use, and how to use them properly so they don't fuck themselves up unnecessarily.

Trust me, if all drug users knew that a certain amount would most likely equate to instant death, 99% of the users wouldn't use that much...they would only use enough to get high...unlike now where hardly any drug users know the proper amounts and instead use more and more and more like idiots that are ignorant to how much they should use.

Duh.

Huge difference. The Sun actually serves a decent purpose to society. Drugs don't.

It is your opinion that drugs don't. Drugs actually serve a great good because of the fact that they allow people to get intoxicated and relieve their stresses, enjoy themselves, and live happier lives. Drugs and society have been inexorably connected to eachother for as long as humanity has existed...ever since the earliest recorded historical entries, people have been trying to attain different states of consciousness, by way of religion, sex, drugs, music, whatever, and to say that one is wrong and should be banned when all others are allowed as ways to alter your consciousness is just simply absurd.

Humans need to enjoy themselves in whatever way they want to, as long as they don't overdo it. If they don't enjoy themselves every now and then and only live a life of constant work and no play, they are going to be very empty human beings.


Your last point doesn't even make any sense. Restate or give.
Reply #89 Top
I didn't say marijuana should be illegal, but it's ludicrous to imply that inhaling smoke is A-OK by your lungs.

I didn't mean to say cannabis smoke was perfectly fine for your lungs, just that it has yet to cause one single death or case of lung cancer in humans. And like I said, not ALL smoke is truly horrible for your lungs...only smoke which has large concentrations of poisons in it, which cannabis doesn't, and tobacco does.


Marijuana actually does kill brain cells, the one cells in your body, by the way, which don't grow back.

This was an old argument that was debunked multiple times after it was found out that holding your cannabis "hits" in for long periods of time is what kills the braincells, not cannabis itself.

Cannabis itself actually helps the brain function because cannabinoids lock into cannabinoid receptors inherent in our brains and makes brain function more flowing and quick (explains why many stoners have racing thoughts, incredible music abilities, fast computer skills, etc etc etc). I don't know where the fallacy that all potheads are braindead comes from...I think that was just a result of the hippie generation and their "fuck everything, do nothing" attitude...that image stuck into people's minds and even though most potheads nowadays aren't anywhere near the stereotype (actually quite the opposite), people still think they're like that. It's pretty sad. =/
Reply #90 Top
wtf, it's just showing my IP, not my name. the above replies were by freak in case you're wondering.
Reply #91 Top
Cannabis itself actually helps the brain function because cannabinoids lock into cannabinoid receptors inherent in our brains and makes brain function more flowing and quick (explains why many stoners have racing thoughts, incredible music abilities, fast computer skills, etc etc etc). I don't know where the fallacy that all potheads are braindead comes from...I think that was just a result of the hippie generation and their "fuck everything, do nothing" attitude...that image stuck into people's minds and even though most potheads nowadays aren't anywhere near the stereotype (actually quite the opposite), people still think they're like that. It's pretty sad. =/


Niccotine does the same thing by the way.

Cheers
Reply #92 Top
With all this talk about how drugs are great, can I assume that the drug advocates would allow children to use drugs? After all, marijuana apparently has no side effects.
Reply #93 Top
I'm telling you it does, it limits judgement and distorts perspective. What happens when you drive with marijuana? Well, in Eugene, in the last few years, four people have been killed in automobile related accidents where at least one of the drivers was using marijuana. But, as a plus for the marijuana users, none of the killed were using marijuana.

Cheers
Reply #94 Top
Oh yeah, in addition to a DUI, the drivers were put away for manslaughter and murder.

Cheers
Reply #95 Top
Response to Super Baby: Cannabis has no harmful side effects...I didn't say it didn't have any side effects at all, just not harmful ones, contrary to popular belief. As far as "children" using drugs though...if you're talking about kids under the ages of 13, then no they shouldn't...any older than that though, you really have to go by a case-by-case basis, figuring out whether the teen has enough maturity and responsibility to be allowed to use drugs. If the kid is able to do all the work school (and possibly also a job) piles on, he/she should be allowed to enjoy him/herself on their free time. To say they don't is highly hypocritical of the alcohol addicts known as adults who drink themselves into happiness after work and yet deny their kids to enjoy themselves in a similar way with a substance far less dangerous.

Response to jeblackstar: It depends on the user. Once again, we are getting into the different elements of society...the intelligent sector and the average sector (both of which are rarely heard about as far as being related to drugs), and the moron sector (the type you see on judge judy getting nuked when they try and wiggle their way out of blame). The drivers were stoners, drove, and killed people (and thusly got put away) were going to end up doing that eventually no matter if they were stoners or not. Plus trying to pin it on cannabis is a very hard thing to do in actuality, because cannabis wears off fairly quickly for most users, and not only that but cannabis can stay in your system for up to 30 days after ONE SINGLE USE. That means that one person in each of those accidents may have tested positive for cannabis, but that means nothing when you're talking about if they were actually high on the substance while they got into the accidents and caused the killings.

If you still don't think that driving stoned is a good idea, you might want to look at this for a bit: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1775.html

p.s.: jeblackstar, nicotine does not do the same thing as cannabis. Cannabis causes a much different effect than tobacco could ever possibly hope to deliver to the user...tobacco will never come close to cannabis as far as its positive effects on the psyche and the amount of magical mental clarity for the creative mind which can be achieved from using cannabis. There's simply no comparison there, just wanted to clear that up for you.
Reply #96 Top

Response to Super Baby: Cannabis has no harmful side effects...I didn't say it didn't have any side effects at all, just not harmful ones, contrary to popular belief. As far as "children" using drugs though...if you're talking about kids under the ages of 13, then no they shouldn't...any older than that though, you really have to go by a case-by-case basis, figuring out whether the teen has enough maturity and responsibility to be allowed to use drugs.


If it has no bad side effects, then why can't kids use it?

Reply #97 Top
Ummm, actually they know they were using marijuana because the joints were lit and in the car with them. One of the men was a thirty year old exec. Two were kids of wealthy families, and the last one was a hippy. So far, three fourths of the people arrested a charged with murder didn't fit your rule of loser stoner types.

Cheers
Reply #98 Top
Joints don't stay lit, but hey, either way, no one should be driving while stoned, drunk, talking on a cell phone, or eating a big Mac.
Reply #99 Top
Super Baby: You don't give pot to kids for the same reason you don't give alcohol or coffee or anything like that to kids...they are too young to understand what it's about...most kids have never even heard of the word "responsible" at those ages, much less understand the concept of it, and therefore you can't trust them with any substance, harmful or not. The reason I differentiate between children and teens is because teens are a much different species, if you will, than smaller kids, and you must adjust the way you deal with each accordingly.

Remember, just because something doesn't have bad side-effects doesn't mean it SHOULD be used. It simply means that if someone chooses to use, it will not hurt them.


jeblackstar: Sounds like reefer madness. Do you have proof?
Reply #100 Top
Super Baby: You don't give pot to kids for the same reason you don't give alcohol or coffee or anything like that to kids...they are too young to understand what it's about...most kids have never even heard of the word "responsible" at those ages, much less understand the concept of it, and therefore you can't trust them with any substance, harmful or not. The reason I differentiate between children and teens is because teens are a much different species, if you will, than smaller kids, and you must adjust the way you deal with each accordingly.


You're comparing marijuana, a supposedly harmless drug, to alcohol? Are you implying that alcohol is harmless as well? As for coffee, what's wrong with giving children coffee? Last time I saw, it wasn't against the law.