Noan Finley says, "Legalize Drugs"

**Sstashmoo** · April-15-09, 12:07 PM

Quote: "Drugs started becoming illegal because of racism, in that most users were black, Mexican, etc., so it was a way to get them easily locked up."

Are you serious?

cheddar bob · April-15-09, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Start enforcing the laws. Ever wonder why people rarely rob post offices? Stiff penalties.

What about laws that require service to the military? Should draft laws be enforced, sstashmoo?

**Sstashmoo** · April-15-09, 01:23 PM

You must be busy, I figured you'd pick up on that 3 days ago.

Apples and Oranges, has already been explained.

cheddar bob · April-15-09, 03:18 PM

So laws about apples need to be strictly enforced, but with laws about oranges you can pick and choose?

Your hypocrisy continues...

**Sstashmoo** · April-15-09, 04:07 PM

Quote: "Your hypocrisy continues..."

So does your tendency to over-simplify things. I understand.

Blarf · April-15-09, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

DetroitDad,

I enjoyed the way you responded to the arguments I put forth, but I have to strongly disagree on one thing. I guess I know too many people who had mad skills in their various disciplines, who don't care about anything anymore except getting high.

Crack is relatively cheap. But, a crack addict is only going to work long enough to get the money to buy the next hit. I have personally had to fire a couple of crack addicts who could never seem to find their way back to work after lunch on a payday.

Also, there are many people who started out with enough money to buy the drugs they wanted. Problem is, they spent it all chasing that first high, which they would never have again. I know people who had good jobs who ended up selling expensive items for peanuts in order to keep getting high. They might have started with their paycheck on a Friday. By Monday they were broke, still wanted to get high, and didn't have money left to pay their bills.

Some drugs are cheap even though they are illegal. It's not that people can't afford them, it's that there is not enough money to keep them high as long as they want to be high. Of course, this is more prevalent with the harder drugs.

If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so. If they can't hold down a job, then they should be fired.

You don't seem to see the difference between use and abuse. Just because someone uses a drug, doesn't mean they abuse the drug. There is a huge difference between a casual user and an addict. a

**Locke09** · April-15-09, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Blarf

If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so. If they can't hold down a job, then they should be fired.

You don't seem to see the difference between use and abuse. Just because someone uses a drug, doesn't mean they abuse the drug. There is a huge difference between a casual user and an addict. a

I am well aware of the difference between use and abuse. If we were just discussing marijuana, I might not even respond. But I have known many drug users over the years, and they are all "abusers". The drugs control them, they do not control the drugs. I know crack addicts. None of them are casual users and I don't think the medical profession would claim any of them "can" be casual users. Same with meth and other hard drugs.

When I talk about them not being able to hold down a job, it is in response to a claim that they make good employees. They do not.

Bearinabox · April-15-09, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

I am well aware of the difference between use and abuse. If we were just discussing marijuana, I might not even respond. But I have known many drug users over the years, and they are all "abusers". The drugs control them, they do not control the drugs. I know crack addicts. None of them are casual users and I don't think the medical profession would claim any of them "can" be casual users. Same with meth and other hard drugs.

When I talk about them not being able to hold down a job, it is in response to a claim that they make good employees. They do not.

Sounds like you, like most reasonable and intelligent people, understand the distinction between hard drugs, and drugs which it is possible to use casually. It would be nice if the US government were capable of making that distinction, and legislating accordingly.

9mile&seneca · April-15-09, 05:32 PM

Let's continue to fight the war on drugs as if drugs were animated beings to make war on. No matter the cost. It seems to be working doesn't it? I always thought it was funny when our president tells South and Central American leaders to basically stop sending your drugs to my weak, depraved, degenerate constituants. We all know Americans can't be trusted to not snort up anything Mexico sends us, right? We need to be told what to ingest and when to ingest it. And forget the constitution, drugs trump that tired old document.The cops can now stop people based on this hysterical fear that there may be drugs in a vehicle. If drugs were legalized, they would be about as expensive and dangerous as a shaker full of salt.Except for a relatively small group of idiots that would get smaller each year, drugs would become totally irrelevant in 20 years or so.

**Locke09** · April-15-09, 05:54 PM

Who says drugs will be so inexpensive if legalized? Alcohol is legal and yet a good bottle of wine costs more than a rock of crack and more than a bag of weed. It is taxed and legalized drugs would be taxed as well. Tobacco is legal and look at what just happened with the taxes on tobacco.

And the police cannot just stop your car because they "fear" you are carrying drugs. They have to have cause and they need a search warrant to search your vehicle.

But you know, I do think the seatbelt law is stupid. If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that? Repeal the mandatory seatbelt law, and mandatory no-fault insurance while you're at it.

**Bigb23** · April-15-09, 06:17 PM

But you know, I do think the seatbelt law is stupid. If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that? Repeal the mandatory seatbelt law, and mandatory no-fault insurance while you're at it.

No, maybe not stupid, but that is the slippery slope of revenue enhancement by the government. They have more laws on the books than even a lawyer could even keep up with. How can we even keep up on it ?

Example : The law reformed by the Michigan State Police on dirt road speed limits. It was for all of the state of Michigan as reported - EXCEPT - Oakland County, who got an exemption. But that was not widely reported at all, and I found out I had been breaking the law for the past year or two, [[35 in a 25, no tickets -

)

So, if they want revenue enhancement, do it legally through the drug stores. Not something like your word, against the authority.

9mile&seneca · April-15-09, 06:18 PM

Yeah, when I'm going 35 mph on a city street, I really get scared. I seize up, and just pull over because I just know any second I'm going to go flying through the windshield. And I can't sleep at night because I just know that I'm not strapped into my bed. I could go flying through the ceiling. Or worse, I could become addicted to coke! I could become a drug crazed zombie! God help us! God help us all! There. is that hysterical enough for ya?

**Sstashmoo** · April-15-09, 06:33 PM

Quote: "If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so."

Quote: 'If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that?"

Nobody's, as long as you have medical insurance and can find an insurance company that is willing to pay for your carelessness. Otherwise, we taxpayers have to pay for your "free spirit". Then it IS our business.

In some states the helmet laws are that way, you can ride without, but you must have medical insurance. No medical insurance? Must wear helmet. The way laws should be written.

**Sstashmoo** · April-15-09, 06:38 PM

QUote: "Yeah, when I'm going 35 mph on a city street, I really get scared."

And you really should. People have been killed going slower. Hit an immovable object like a tree going that fast and see what happens. If you aren't wearing a seatbelt, you'll be eating steering wheel.

9mile&seneca · April-15-09, 06:43 PM

yeah, I know. that's why I don't drive into trees. I also drive my car with the wheels down. I also look both ways before I cross the street. I do that on my own. No law yet...

**Bigb23** · April-15-09, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by 9mile&seneca

Yeah, when I'm going 35 mph on a city street, I really get scared. I seize up, and just pull over because I just know any second I'm going to go flying through the windshield. And I can't sleep at night because I just know that I'm not strapped into my bed. I could go flying through the ceiling. Or worse, I could become addicted to coke! I could become a drug crazed zombie! God help us! God help us all! There. is that hysterical enough for ya?

Well, when it comes down to a $150 ticket and higher insurance rates, it's not so funny. No - I'm not scared, just watching the wallet.

Blarf · April-15-09, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

I am well aware of the difference between use and abuse. If we were just discussing marijuana, I might not even respond. But I have known many drug users over the years, and they are all "abusers". The drugs control them, they do not control the drugs. I know crack addicts. None of them are casual users and I don't think the medical profession would claim any of them "can" be casual users. Same with meth and other hard drugs.

When I talk about them not being able to hold down a job, it is in response to a claim that they make good employees. They do not.

You must not know that many people because I know casual users of every drug imaginable that hold down well paying jobs.

Blarf · April-15-09, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so."

Quote: 'If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that?"

Nobody's, as long as you have medical insurance and can find an insurance company that is willing to pay for your carelessness. Otherwise, we taxpayers have to pay for your "free spirit". Then it IS our business.

In some states the helmet laws are that way, you can ride without, but you must have medical insurance. No medical insurance? Must wear helmet. The way laws should be written.

So personal freedoms only go as far as how insurance companies play into it all? What a country!

**Gannon** · April-15-09, 08:10 PM

Welcome to corporate capitalist reality...you are only worth what they'll pay to keep you tickin', grinnin', and paying the fucking bills!

9mile&seneca · April-15-09, 08:56 PM

Thank you for making my point!!! We cannot safeguard each and every pinhead against every probability!!!

DetroitDad · April-15-09, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

DetroitDad,

I enjoyed the way you responded to the arguments I put forth, but I have to strongly disagree on one thing. I guess I know too many people who had mad skills in their various disciplines, who don't care about anything anymore except getting high.

Crack is relatively cheap. But, a crack addict is only going to work long enough to get the money to buy the next hit. I have personally had to fire a couple of crack addicts who could never seem to find their way back to work after lunch on a payday.

Also, there are many people who started out with enough money to buy the drugs they wanted. Problem is, they spent it all chasing that first high, which they would never have again. I know people who had good jobs who ended up selling expensive items for peanuts in order to keep getting high. They might have started with their paycheck on a Friday. By Monday they were broke, still wanted to get high, and didn't have money left to pay their bills.

Some drugs are cheap even though they are illegal. It's not that people can't afford them, it's that there is not enough money to keep them high as long as they want to be high. Of course, this is more prevalent with the harder drugs.

I know a lot of these people too. I find that these people are lazy and just passing time. This has nothing to do with drugs, because there are plenty of 30 year old adults still living in their parents basements playing video games or watching television all day, who don't do drugs. There are also plenty of people chasing old feelings, waiting for lost loves, or good times with friends. Living in the past is nothing new, but it has nothing to do with the pass times those people chose to waste their life on.

Is it wasting your life? Aren't most people on some pursuit of happiness? Is it really any one's choice to decide what is okay to chase?

I understand what you are saying about abuse, and I'm not saying there would be no problems, but to say every drug controls all it's user's life's is extreme. Some of my family uses a certain drug one week a year for a religious practice. Are you saying we are controlled by drugs? What about one of my friends who only uses them during a concert tour for a month in the Summer? Do drugs control him? How about the users over the age of 70? Do we care that a 102 year old is using LSD?

DetroitDad · April-15-09, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "If an adult chooses to waste their life away getting high, they should have the right to do so."

Quote: 'If I want to take the chance on flying through the windshield, whose business is that?"

Nobody's, as long as you have medical insurance and can find an insurance company that is willing to pay for your carelessness. Otherwise, we taxpayers have to pay for your "free spirit". Then it IS our business.

In some states the helmet laws are that way, you can ride without, but you must have medical insurance. No medical insurance? Must wear helmet. The way laws should be written.

Drugs would and should be taxed to make up for the medical and other problems it would have on society. Right now, you are paying for their rehab, prison time, and affects on community. You wouldn't pay a dime under legalization, let the screwed up users pay for it themselves. It might even be possible to lower your taxes based on the tax revenue that drugs would create out of nowhere.

This is really a win-win-win, and I still am not clear why so many are so against even looking into this as a possible solution to one of our biggest problems.

**Locke09** · April-15-09, 10:23 PM

People are opposed to it when they have witnessed first-hand the negative effect of hard drugs on the lives not only of users, but their children, their spouses, their employers, etc. Drug users are not an island unto themselves, their actions affect others.

Maybe we can "decriminalize" some drugs without actually saying they're now "okay". 'Cause I'm having a hard time with that, being one of those who has suffered in the past, as a result of the addiction of others.

**Crumbled_pavement** · April-15-09, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

Maybe we can "decriminalize" some drugs without actually saying they're now "okay".

I don't understand why marijuana can't stay illegal but just be treated like driving 5 miles over the speed limit. Currently most officers wouldn't even pull a person over for that. I routinely drive 10 miles over the speed limit down I-96. A police officer told me it was okay and that I wouldn't be pulled over for it. Guess what, he's right. I've been doing it the last couple of years and even drive past police officers and not get pulled over. Even if I did, it's a small ticket for going 10 over. The current problem is the way we deal with marijuana. It's treated like a felony. It doesn't need to be. But we also don't need to put up billboards saying, "hey it's okay to get high - come have a smoke with me," either.

DetroitDad · April-16-09, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Locke09

People are opposed to it when they have witnessed first-hand the negative effect of hard drugs on the lives not only of users, but their children, their spouses, their employers, etc. Drug users are not an island unto themselves, their actions affect others.

Maybe we can "decriminalize" some drugs without actually saying they're now "okay". 'Cause I'm having a hard time with that, being one of those who has suffered in the past, as a result of the addiction of others.

The stealing, the lying, the constant rehab, the absence, I know where you are coming from. Current drug users aren't going to stop. The question is more about minimizing damage and casualties, rather than saying it's okay. These people are already doing drugs.

Legalization does not mean you are approving of drug use. The government intervention is not working, and legalizing them should not have the stigma of public approval. The view that drugs are dangerous needs to stay, but the effort needs to go into encouraging parents to be responsible and warn their children about the dangers of the world and drugs at an early enough age to be saved.

Is there a difference between drugs?

I personally think that the drugs that are the real problems are the ones made for sheer profits, IE; crack, meth, hybrid heroins, and addictive designer drugs. These things were made to be ultra-addictive to make someone rich, because of that, there is a clear line between non addictive natural drugs like mushrooms and marijuana, and engineered for addiction drugs like crack and meth.

Allowing more research by the F.D.A., D.E.A., and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and decriminalizing drugs that prove not addictive would allow for resources to be reassigned to fighting the engineered for addiction drugs. A further study would be done on the health and criminal costs associated with these substances, and seen if taxes would be able to make up the cost.

The entire process would be time consuming, but if it saves us money, freedoms, resources against the real problems, and even one life of a law enforcement officer, it's worth the time and effort to at least explore, so I really agree with the stance of the original article. Why not fly a white flag in some areas?