PoetPhilosopher PoetPhilosopher

Ending the War on Drugs

▼

Ending the War on Drugs

Costs of persuing a failed strategy

http://www.csdp.org/edcs/
from JoeUser Forums
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 ?
politics
51,139 views 107 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
jeblackstar: Sounds like reefer madness. Do you have proof?


I'll try and find the newspaper articles. They're old and I don't save my newspapers. That combined with the fact that the local paper doesn't have internet archives.

Cheers
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
Coincidentally enough, I just got finished opening up a blog here devoted to this very topic: it's called:
The Ones Who Said Yes

http://drugs.joeuser.com

SuperBaby: Your conclusion about people giving drugs to children is unfounded. Just because some of us find spiritual solace in recreational chemistry does not mean we would also believe that this would be appropriate for children. I strongly believe people who choose to become parents (or who become parents without choosing to) should forego drugs completely as their children should come first. I chose myself to get an operation to prevent pregnancy from ever happening because I know what my tendencies are. (I also do not own or drive any motor vehicles, EVER.)

What America lacks is a good system of role models for the people who DO choose to use drugs. What we have now is a good/sober bad/unsober behaviour dichotomy that causes people who get high to be more likely to give up on learning to become well-rounded, functioning people in society. People quickly blame the drugs, but what if we're helping make drug users learn to be jerks by never allowing a positive image of a drug user in a TV show or movie. If we had more responsible user models perhaps we'd have more responsible users. Just a thought.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem I have is potheads can't decide whether or not pot is a safe drug. Some say it is harmful, but not as harmful as other drugs, while others say it's not harmful at all, and some actually believe pot makes people better.


What America lacks is a good system of role models for the people who DO choose to use drugs. What we have now is a good/sober bad/unsober behaviour dichotomy that causes people who get high to be more likely to give up on learning to become well-rounded, functioning people in society. People quickly blame the drugs, but what if we're helping make drug users learn to be jerks by never allowing a positive image of a drug user in a TV show or movie. If we had more responsible user models perhaps we'd have more responsible users. Just a thought.


So if television never showed drunken winos, one can assume that there'd be less drunken winos in the country?

Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, THC can't kill. Just remember my friend who was bathing her baby after smoking a joint. She fixed her eyes on the wall in front of her and drifted off into her thoughts, as one will do on marijuana, and did not realize the baby's head was under water. You fill in the rest..............
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
IF we were to release non-violent marijuana offenders alone, think of the money and space that would clear up in the legal system.
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #8 By: jeblackstar - 2/16/2004 5:24:45 PM
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


Then *X* isn't harmless now is it??? You CAN'T compare x to marijuana. Maraijuana is a natural substance and *x* is a manmade chemical. And maraijuana is considered *harmless* by most people.
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #52 By: Messy Buu - 2/18/2004 6:31:42 PM
My posts are funny and outlandish because I notice the huge differences between religion and drugs, and because I acknowledge that if drugs are as great as you and others say, that surely children should have them as well. After all, it's not as if the side effects are that bad, right? At least not bad enough to mention. Besides, society lets children practice religion and watch action movies, and that supposedly has the same effect as drugs (at least according to drug advocates), so why not?


Alcohol is as *great* (bad) a deal as smoking maraijuana. But you don't give kids alcohol now do you? Treat it like cigarettes, let it be grown, tax it (so the government gets its share) and make it law that you can't sell it to minors! Do that and watch the demand for it go in the tank!