Time To Legalise Recreational Drugs

[domroger]

After nearly a 100 years of the War on Drugs is it time to make them legal again ?
They are more widespread and cheaper than ever ,and the cost of enforcing them is growing ,so the laws are a failure .

To anyone who accuses me of being a druggie my drug of choice is alcohol .

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well, remember how women got the vote in this country -- i.e., not all at once. It seemed like a radical idea at the time, no republic in history had ever let women vote, it went against centuries of cultural assumptions about proper sex roles: public sphere for men, domestic sphere for women. But a few states out West tried women's suffrage, and society there did not collapse, and eventually it didn't seem like such a radical idea any more, and it became politically possible to pass the 19th Amendment.

Well, now Colorado has legalized marijuana. If in five years drug-related problems there have not gotten perceptibly worse, then maybe other states will follow suit -- and, start looking at legalizing other drugs.

 

[domroger]

Just look at Holland ,there does not appear to be a problem with marijuana there ,although they do complain about drug tourists .The other drugs seem to on a par with the rest of the world .

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just look at Holland ,there does not appear to be a problem with marijuana there ,although they do complain about drug tourists .The other drugs seem to on a par with the rest of the world .

Unfortunately, I think you'll find far too many Americans -- and, far too many Litsters -- have an irrational prejudice against learning any lessons from foreign countries. American exceptionalism and all that.

 

[Que]

Agreed.

The same government that cannot tell a woman not to have an abortion not on grounds of whether it is or is not a human being growing, but on grounds that it interferes with the doctor-patient privilege, cannot in good conscience use your blood to convict you of anything. What you put in our body is your affair entirely.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, now Colorado has legalized marijuana. If in five years drug-related problems there have not gotten perceptibly worse, then maybe other states will follow suit -- and, start looking at legalizing other drugs.

That has fuck all to do with it bro....money. IF CO/WA/AK/OR make money? It's going legal...even in the south states are starting to de-criminalize and cash in.

It's about the money, nothing else.

Just look at Holland ,there does not appear to be a problem with marijuana there ,although they do complain about drug tourists .The other drugs seem to on a par with the rest of the world .

It's not about a problem...it's about booze having to compete with something that doesn't make people sick. It's about cotton, petroleum and forestry industries taking out competition back in 37'

Public safety has had fuck all to do with it. They have been trying to demonize it for the better part of a century and you know what? Peanuts, high fructose corn syrup and vending machines...all considerably larger public health/safety threats.

It's about the money.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Agreed.

The same government that cannot tell a woman not to have an abortion not on grounds of whether it is or is not a human being growing, but on grounds that it interferes with the doctor-patient privilege, cannot in good conscience use your blood to convict you of anything. What you put in our body is your affair entirely.

Not entirely.....when you enter the public sphere, like get behind the wheel on a public road, it becomes a public affair.

 

[Que]

Not entirely.....when you enter the public sphere, like get behind the wheel on a public road, it becomes a public affair.

Because the law says so. The law is wrong. If you are impaired, your driving and your behavior and demeanor when questioned reflect that. How it is that you got to be impaired is none of their business. Convict on erratic driving, not an illegal search of your blood stream for a substance the gov't has no moral authority to ban.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because the law says so. The law is wrong. If you are impaired, your driving and your behavior and demeanor when questioned reflect that. How it is that you got to be impaired is none of their business. Convict on erratic driving, not an illegal search of your blood stream for a substance the gov't has no moral authority to ban.

Or you could just not drive impaired.....

Congress has no moral authority to ban anyhow, prohibition and problems caused by the contraband are largely unrelated. They just sell their "programs" and "solutions" like mandatory minimum sentencing on the backs of them. It's really about the money.

They do have the moral authority to nail DUI's to the wall, and if they need proof that you were impaired by making you blow into a breathalyzer or drawing blood. If that's what society in that jurisdiction decided was good to go then so be it..don't get trashed and get behind the wheel. Besides those are all local regs...not feds.

 

[KUJACK]

At Least

After nearly a 100 years of the War on Drugs is it time to make them legal again ?
They are more widespread and cheaper than ever ,and the cost of enforcing them is growing ,so the laws are a failure .

To anyone who accuses me of being a druggie my drug of choice is alcohol .

As a retired pharmacist, I support drug decriminalization. Lets make drug use a health problem, not a crime. Haven't we learned from prohibition that drug laws create more crime? I think the sugar and flour cause more deaths and disease then any drug, yet these foods are government subsidized. Do I want sugar and flour banned? NO!. We all have choices. Lets choose health.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm ok summarily executing drug users, including drunks.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm ok summarily executing drug users, including drunks.

You mean, if a cop sees a drunk on the street, he should shoot him?

That would make for quite a body count on certain holidays.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You mean, if a cop sees a drunk on the street, he should shoot him?

That would make for quite a body count on certain holidays.

Sure. Good idea.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

I'm ok summarily executing drug users, including drunks.

and shitbird trailer trash kings like you.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Because the law says so. The law is wrong. If you are impaired, your driving and your behavior and demeanor when questioned reflect that. How it is that you got to be impaired is none of their business. Convict on erratic driving, not an illegal search of your blood stream for a substance the gov't has no moral authority to ban.

You can decline the test but, if you do, you lose your driving privilege for a prescribed length of time.

Personally, I believe nothing should be illegal unless it actually harms or endangers somebody or impairs somebody else's rights, and that includes using alcohol and other drugs, prostitution, gambling and even indecent exposure. At the same time, I believe some restrictions should be placed on some of those activities.

 

[Disgustipated]

Because the law says so. The law is wrong. If you are impaired, your driving and your behavior and demeanor when questioned reflect that. How it is that you got to be impaired is none of their business. Convict on erratic driving, not an illegal search of your blood stream for a substance the gov't has no moral authority to ban.

Most drug addicts agree with you.

 

[Que]

Most drug addicts agree with you.

You would know, druggie.

I support your right to OD while you are not "abusing" the recreational drugs you take.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You can decline the test but, if you do, you lose your driving privilege for a prescribed length of time.

That's the thing. It's a privilege. Operating a motor vehicle on a public road is not a constitutional or moral or natural right, and the potentially dangerous nature of it makes it something the state has clear business in regulating. You can't drive a vehicle that isn't street-legal, you can't drive a vehicle that isn't registered and tagged, you can't drive without a license, you can't drive recklessly or too fast, and you can't drive drunk; all perfectly reasonable. It has nothing to do with whether the state has any moral authority to control what you put in your body, that's a different discussion.

 

[someoneyouknow]

If we're going to legalize we also have to make it so the people using them are responsible for their own actions. That means if they want to get off they have to pay for their own treatment.

That also means the taxpayer is not responsible for any of their medical bills or anything else related. If you can pay for drugs, you can pay for your own medical bills.

As Penn Jillette once said (paraphrasing), "If you want to do drugs, go for it. But when you're lying in the gutter, don't expect anyone to give you a hand up."

 

[Disgustipated]

You would know, druggie.

I support our right to OD while you are not "abusing" the recreational drugs you take.

Who is this *our* you're supporting?

 

[KingOrfeo]

If we're going to legalize we also have to make it so the people using them are responsible for their own actions. That means if they want to get off they have to pay for their own treatment.

That also means the taxpayer is not responsible for any of their medical bills or anything else related. If you can pay for drugs, you can pay for your own medical bills.

As Penn Jillette once said (paraphrasing), "If you want to do drugs, go for it. But when you're lying in the gutter, don't expect anyone to give you a hand up."

The Dutch approach has been to treat drug abuse as a public health problem rather than as a criminal problem. Treating it as a health problem means the state/society does give addicts a hand up with tax-funded treatment. If you have a problem with that, you are the problem. Mean-minded "begrudger" thinking is most of what's wrong with America.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think that the national consensus is moving toward legalization and decriminalization. Even Pat Robertson supports it, which is a sign of the times. When you're to the right of Pat Robertson, buddy, you're in the ditch.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You would know, druggie.

I support your right to OD while you are not "abusing" the recreational drugs you take.

Apparently the right to DUI too

You can decline the test but, if you do, you lose your driving privilege for a prescribed length of time.

Once again that's local...try that shit in Williamson co. TX and see if they don't strap your bitch ass to a gurney and draw blood so they can crucify you in court with 10 grand worth of fines and penalties.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Agreed.

The same government that cannot tell a woman not to have an abortion not on grounds of whether it is or is not a human being growing, but on grounds that it interferes with the doctor-patient privilege, cannot in good conscience use your blood to convict you of anything. What you put in our body is your affair entirely.

I don't really think these two statements actually line up. I very well can be punished with a DUI and with damn good reason.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't really think these two statements actually line up. I very well can be punished with a DUI and with damn good reason.

BUTT BUTT REPUBLICAN FREEDUMB SAYS I CAN TOTALLY GET WASTED AND DRIVE!! JUST ASK QUERY!!!



Oh and totally ending the government, boxing it up and letting complete anarchy ensue...that's the RW game plan!!