Mark this day down...

[mirage1988]

But wouldn't that be taking away freedom as you stated earlier cabin?

[MGMorden]

IG...

....maybe now you're starting to get the idea how there are forces at work willing to fracture and degrade society, or mankind for that matter, all based on logic as you see. And this drug use question is just one example.

So, if I'm understanding this right, an informed person is supposed to take your side because of a few grim words used as scar tactics ("fracture and degrade society, or mankind for that matter" - ooh, scary) as opposed to logic (aka an argument that actually makes sense)? 

It doesn't work when the anti-gunners call something a "military style anti-personnel assault weapon" and it's not going to work now.  If you can't backup your scary words with logic, then your argument carries no weight.

Whether you want to increase penalties for people who commit crimes when high is another matter - I don't particularly have a problem with it.  The simple fact though is that we have laws ALREADY banning just about anything bad you can do while under the influence.  If you kill someone, are you going to jail?  Yep.  If you go rob the local gas station are you going to jail?  Yep.  It makes no sense to further complicate it with laws the restrict a victimless "crime". 

Whether there are "uber drugs" in the pipeline is irrelevant.  People either have the right to decide what they put into their bodies or they don't.  People either have a right own a gun or they don't.  People either have a right to live their lives without interference or they don't.  As soon as you start tempering a right it's no longer a right at all, but rather the scraps you're being allowed to keep by your government masters.

[Beers]

But wouldn't that be taking away freedom as you stated earlier cabin?

No, not at all. Employers (State or otherwise) should have the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to hire a drug user, no matter how wrong headed their views on the subject.

[Cabin4]

But wouldn't that be taking away freedom as you stated earlier cabin?

In this case I don't think so. Drug testing already exsists for certain jobs. In this case its kinds like a qualification. As an example, pilots need to be retrained on new cockpit technolgy prior to deployment. This is like that. If you are not in a similar job then I don't think testing is warranted. The other point is you always have the choice of a new career if you dont want to be subject to testing.

C4

[45-70.gov]

Some positions of responsibility today require drug testing. Mybe this needs to expand.

and  the one issueing  the check  can  make that call....its  their  money  they decide who gets it
you can work there or  not .... your call
at  least is should be a requirement for a welfare check....till we stop welfare

[Dixie Dude]

I work in the natural gas industry.  We are mandated by the feds to randomly check for drugs and alcohol at least everyone once yearly.  We use a computer to random check.  I was checked twice within two weeks one time.  This mandate includes all persons working in the transportation of dangerous fuels or chemicals, and airline pilots, truck drivers, utility people nationwide, etc.  other industries also check.  Small business people do not check because of the costs.  If you fail a test you have to go to mandated drug or alcohol rehab.  Second time you are fired. 

[SHOOTALL]

when you consider that most construction sites have someone who has a drug or drinking problem there is little wonder testing is becoming more standard . Some say OSHA will set a standard for it soon .

[MGMorden]

MGMorden...my comment, the one you quoted is meant for IG...I'm quite sure he gets my meaning. And yes, believe me I can back up that assertion...this discussion being just one example of what IG knows I'm talking about. But that is a discussion for another day and many threads...likely not something you can't idenify with, like the context of this thread.

Of course, the "you wouldn't understand" defense.

Your analogy of putting drugs in one's system compared to one having the right to own firearms responsibily is a bit flawed. First, if you own guns and use them legally you don't infringe on my rights as a citize...you do your thing I do my thing. However, if you use drugs, get blasted, depending what job or capacity you operate in society, than you may be infringing on my personal rights due to piss poor performance, judgement errors, mistakes, faulty or defective quality control and several other criteria. If you are OKay with your dentist toking up before a root canal, or your airline pilot binging the night before flying trans-continental then okay. Here in the Vampire state we had a subway engineer have a head-on rail accident while stoned, alot of casualties resulting.

Of course I don't want a high dentist or airline pilot at work - but I ALSO don't want a drunk one either.  However, the fact that I don't want a drunk dentist or a drunk airline pilot doesn't mean though that alchohol should be illegal, and as you can see, even with it being legal, there hasn't been some mass outbreak of hysteria with drunk dentists and pilots running amok.  Alcohol IS a drug.

Yes,,,there are uber drugs out there that have moral implications and psycho active properties that we just might not want loose in society. If for example, a positive correlation was established that those shooters involved with school and other massacres were taking prescribed psychotropic drugs and these drugs directly contributed to tripping out these individuals to perform mass executions, would you continue to say it is these people's right to take these drugs? BTW..this correlation does exist. If a drug comes along that is so personally destructive and insipidly destructive to our society as well, yet gives an ideal soma euphoria, would you allow it to flow thru our society?

In the same light, if a positive correlation is established between kids with parents who own guns and kids who go to school and start shooting, should we then also take away the guns too?  Because essentially what you're saying is that any factor that MIGHT increase a person's ability or inclination to commit a crime must be eliminated.  It's been statistically shown that mandatory curfews also result in less crime.  You up for being told to be home or else at 10:30?  It's for your own good afterall.  As to "moral implications" - sorry, but that's not for the government to decide.  Keep your morals to yourself and I'll do the same, because nobody agrees on whats "moral".  Indeed in most cases what most people consider "moral" to me is about 50% good idea, and 50% absolute lunacy.

I'm on board with the libertarian concept of freedom ringing true, but if you think mind alteration is simply done independently in one's own brain than you are ignoring the interconnectedness of many things. I'm also aware that the human species is desirous of divinatory experiences in a transcendant mode...and in fact this is a driving force in our species via chemical tools or spiritual religious practices. Either way an identity crisis of soul is ultimately had.

Sorry, but the first amendment stands just as true as the 2nd, and as such the government is not to include ANY legislation with respect to religion, so claiming that it causes an "identity crisis of the soul" is something that you're free to discuss in Sunday school, but the minute you try to start legislating that stuff against me or anyone else, you're overstepping your constitutional bounds.

If perchance the government decides to allow consumption of various substances by individual choice, they should never ever consider them revenue or tax profit centers. I don't think the government/powers will ever allow deregulation along a libertarian approach to substance consumption as this is contrary to their existence in that street drugs de-program people ( all drugs being re-programming agents of body, mind, and soul), and they believe this leads to a sociopathy...which is exactly what governments don't want.

What a government wants is irrelevant to me.  People should not fear their government - a government should fear it's people.  I refuse to give up any rights because the government, or anyone within it, tells me that they know what's best for me, my soul, my mind, my body, or anything else, because in the end it's MY mind.  MY body.  MY soul.  Do what you wish with yours and leave me to mine.

[MGMorden]

Well, if you did understand then there would be no need for such smart arse judgemental comments, but instead a comment on the issue I'm talking about forthcoming. As I said the comment was for IG, not your consumption.

You posted in the public space, which means it's for all to read, and all to respond to. If you truly only intended it for a single user, then there are private messages. 

Once again, owning or responsible use of guns does not necessarily impinge on my own personal rights or cost me money. People doing drugs will often infringe on my rights and cost me money by way of induced poor judgements, poor decisions and behavior, poor actions, unemployment, abandonment of responsibility, and a few dozen other things. 

Poor decisions, poor behaviour, or poor actions are not anyone else's to control though.  People have a right to make poor decisions.  They have a right to make poor judgements.  To suggest otherwise is to say that everyone should simply toe the party line and go with the flow.

Of course alcohol is a drug like tobacco... however these drugs do not have the psychotropic qualites of the drugs and uber drugs you would unleash on society. That is why they are government sanctioned and taxed...i.e there are no far reaching endemic sociopathic de-programming qualties to them....in fact quite the opposite...they help keep everybody anatheitized and in line.

To be frank - BS.  Many drugs out there have LESS consequences of alchohol when it comes to behaviour or addictive properties, or when compared to tobacco when it comes to addictiveness and long term health risks.  That argument doesn't work as a whole, but in the end it's unncessary - because ultimately you either take the side that a person should be free to make decisions affecting his own body, or that the government should be able to step in and play nanny.  In that respect the effects are irrelevant.

The correlation of mass executioners with prescribed psychoactive drugs is about 100% positve...the correlation of the same shooters with gun owning families is not anymore positve than a correlation to the demographic of society at large. The curfew example impinges on all of society as a whole and has everything to do with freedom to move around. Freedom for people to move around in itself does not impinge on my rights much if any. A society of frequent drug users will impinge on my rights and maybe even my freedom to move around at night if data and animal lab studies are any indication.

Not in an of itself.  If they commit a crime while you're out at night then there are already laws for that.  And while the correlation may be true, that doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.  The correlation between gun ownership and school shootings is well above the percentage among the general population.  There's also tons of other correlating factors that correspond to negative behaviors.  Poor people tend to commit more violent crime than rich people.  Teenagers tend to have more traffic accidents than older people.  People who eat at McDonalds tend to have more heart attacks than people who don't.  The simple fact is that freedom opens up doors and options.  You have to accept the good and the bad with that.  Being free do make a choice means that you're free to make the right, but also the wrong choice.  If you try to legally require the right choice everytime then the choice itself becomes non-existent, and there is no actual freedom in the situation.

For some people morality is not the big debateable confused unkown it is for you apparently. Moral principles are as simple as knowing right from wrong, good from evil, truth from lies, proper action from wrong action, hate from love, and so on. If you don't think drug use wears down such idealistic principles that mankind developed over 2000 years than toke down some more bongs, get dusted, and IVee some LS-25,,,,perhaps in your case under use is abuse. [/color]

Please - "morality" is something different to everyone, and completely outside of anything that should be in the legal framework.  Some people see sex before marriage as "immoral".  Many others don't.  Some people see interracial marriage is "immoral". Other's don't.  Some see working on Sunday as "immoral".  Others don't.  Some see wearing makeup as "immoral". Others don't.  Some see wearing shorts as "immoral".  Others don't.  Some see wearing colors or zippers on clothes as "immoral".  Others don't.  Some see profanity as "immoral".  Others don't. 

This doesn't fit into some objective "right vs wrong" situation except in the mind a particular subject.  You don't legislate any of this without infringing the freedom of many, many others.  Your version of morality won't match mine.  Neither is correct or incorrect, anymore than a person's favorite color is the right one.

Here again you didn't get it, or want to get it, this has nothing to do with government at all. Let's put it this way: I have never met a person experimenting with drugs in quantities (not your weekend toker mind you), that has never had an identity crisis.  I have never met a spirtual traveler that if studying the spirit world in earnest has never had an awakening.

Spiritual traveler, awakening, identity crisis - all religious or spiritual references that we'll agree has nothing to do with government.  If it has nothing to do with government, then it certainly should have nothing to do with laws. 

If your search for the meaning to your life is summed up by separating yourself from the rest of humanity in some exalted fashion and enforcing a libertine code, then by all means have your mind, have your body, and have your soul all to yourself. Many others are fullfilled by a greater sense of community and congregation, and other pursuits of life.

That's just it - there are many groups that get plenty of community and congregation separate from each other and with incompatible ideas and values. What they choose to believe, enjoy, do, or whatever should be up to the individuals.  What we SHOULDN'T have is one community/congregation legally enforcing on it's moral code on others because they think it's the "right" way.

[WylieKy]

I usually copy and paste, but this is a very long article.  Very nice though with a lot of information.

www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-re-legalization-of-drugs/


http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html      <post below This one wasn't so long.
• The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco.
• The mean age at which respondents began using marijuana more than once per month was 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.
• In both cities, users began their periods of maximum use about two years after they began regular use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98 years in San Francisco.
• About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.
• Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods.

The Netherlands effectively decriminalized marijuana use in 1976, and it is available for purchase in small quantities by adults in licensed coffee shops; in the United States, marijuana use carries stiff criminal penalties, and more than 720,000 people were arrested for marijuana offenses in 2001.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Dutch Ministry of Health.

In identical questionnaires administered in Amsterdam and San Francisco (cities chosen for their similarities as politically liberal northern port cities with universities and populations of roughly 700,000 people), nearly 500 respondents who had used marijuana at least 25 times were asked detailed questions about their marijuana use. The questionnaire explored such issues as age at first use, regular and maximum use, frequency and quantity of use over time, intensity and duration of intoxication, career use patterns, and use of other illicit drugs.

“In the United States, marijuana policy is based on the assertion that strict penalties are the best way to inhibit use,” said Reinarman.

The study’s findings cast doubt on that scenario, he said. Despite widespread lawful availability of cannabis in Amsterdam, there were no differences between the two cities in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use.

The study found no evidence that lawfully regulated cannabis provides a “gateway” to other illicit drug use. In fact, marijuana users in San Francisco were far more likely to have used other illicit drugs--cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ecstasy, and opiates--than users in Amsterdam, said Reinarman.

“The results of this study shift the burden of proof now to those who would arrest hundreds of thousands of Americans each year on the grounds that it deters use,” said Reinarman.


Here is a response I posted in another thread here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

USA: 5.7 murders per 100,000, Netherlands: .97 murders per 100,000.

Poor decision, poor actions, and poor behavior that infringes on my rights as an individual, as indicative of the effect on The People overall definitely falls within the domain of my activities...not to mention public duty. People can do what ever they want to themselves, but when they profess or advocate for a culture and activities that may infringe on my personal rights, wherein I can realize private and public coast, physical damages, and cultural damages; then I have a right to prevent it.

I agree with you, here TM7, but I think you are still in the "reefer madness" phase.  The problem is that there IS no threat to the greater good from legalization of drug use.  I don't think that I should have access to nuclear or biological weapons, I have no need of a tank or crusie missle.  I acknowledge that there are certain "freedoms" that must be sacrificed for the greater good.  I just don't think that a joint is one of them.  As far as the "designer drugs" you are talking about I am only aware of 4; crack, heroine, PCP, and meth.  The 1st link discusses the correlation between drugs being forced into the criminal underground and the production of the superdrugs.  I relates to "more bang for your buck." 

[MGMorden]

You see McMorden,,the lense you view the world thru is a singular Me-and-legality looking glass, and not a 'us' concept for you. You are holding the separate individual supreme in this discussion relative to your concept of legalities and the Constitution..this you have personally attested....when perhaps there are rights of The People in jeopardy overall. And general consensus, studies, and experience would tend to agree that willy nilly uninhibited multi drug use leads to degradation of society and its individual components and postitive motivations. If you don't believe me visit a country where drug use is normalized more or less; or visit some ex-drug users to see if they share your lenticular views.

You know, as often as the term gets misused, it's great to be able to actually appropriately brand an ideal communism.  Democracy by it's nature places the rights and freedoms of the individual above those of society.  Communism on the other hand places society before the individual. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.".  Up to you if you want to preserve freedom or make sure that the law simply ensures the health of the motherland.

Poor decision, poor actions, and poor behavior that infringes on my rights as an individual, as indicative of the effect on The People overall definitely falls within the domain of my activities...not to mention public duty. People can do what ever they want to themselves, but when they profess or advocate for a culture and activities that may infringe on my personal rights, wherein I can realize private and public coast, physical damages, and cultural damages; then I have a right to prevent it.

Great - then don't be surprised when a new group comes into power with a whole different idea of what is doing the "cultural damages" and harming "The People".  I'm going to give you a hint: the Democrats view guns in that light.  When you give the government that power don't be surprised when it's used in a way you don't like.

You selectively cognitated over my comments on why tobacco and alcohol are legal....partial reason why my comment to IG is also not understood.  What I said was alcohol and tobacco are permitted and taxed because they do not offer any challenges to the status quo of government, in fact enhance this status quo. Other drugs, many drugs, re-wire the brain rsulting in what the government and their psychoanalysts call sociopathy. I don't know what you experience
with drug use is personally, or vicariously thru aquaintances or thru work, but it appears limited and cloistered...sort of a backbeat nouveau govermental futurism view.

And most of your view of what drugs do is based on some paranoid delusion.  The simple fact is that there are plenty of illegal drugs that are either less addictive, have less long term health effects, or induce less alteration of consciousness then alcohol or tobacco.  As said though, that fact becomes irrelevant because it doesn't really matter if it makes a man think he's a fish - that's his own business, not yours. 

If  so-called 'moral' discussions as they related to one's personal conduct and discovery, and our Culture at large, are glibly dismissed in some legalist jargon then I will not waste my time discussing further.

Discussing it is not required.  You're free to keep your morals in your own way - just don't think you're going to require the rest of us to.

You have already acknowledged that general release of psychotropic substances on the American public may require evermore numerous  invasive rules and regs to protect individuals,the people, and the workplace from impaired performances of various employees using drugs.

Um, no I didn't.  Virtually any position that needs a drug test already has one (because as has been noted many times, drugs being illegal has not, nor will it ever, stop people from taking them), and they test for excessive alcohol and many other legal drugs (such as pain killers) as well.  So what we've essentially seen historically is that the legality of a drug has done little to affect the state of drug tests.

These include pee test, blood test, afadavits, loyalty oaths,etc.  BTW, in NY state if you are convicted of misdemeanor pot possession you are not permitted to own or buy firearms (Public Law 296, I believe if you are caught in the web). This double edge sword you wield cuts both ways...to get your drugs legalized the American people will likely be subjected to evermore big brother rules and invasions of privacy further dwarfing the Constitution and personal rights. as never seen before. For this reason alone you should re-consider your proposal carefully, because eventually you may actually get what you ask for!!

They'll only have the power to start taking things like that if you give it to them.  Keep their powers limited (rather than giving them more so you can rest assure that some random guy down the street is morally behaving) and you won't have to worry about them abusing them.

[MGMorden]

Oh--Oh!! out comes the dreaded 'communism' epithet. Lets look  alittle closer because democracy is not so clear cut as you impune, in fact you can have theoretical democratic communistic economic states.
  Democracy: 1..Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2...A political or social unit that has such a government.
3....The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
4...The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
By this definition, the people AND individuals have rights... in fact very collectively at times, which is the basis for culture and communties. Now do we need to look into the etiology , or root word of communisn and communtity?

I'm not sure where you get that "the people" have a collective right from that definition, and legally speaking the ONLY case where that becomes true (which I don't like either) is in the case of a corporation.  Other than that specific case, individuals have rights, not groups.

And indeed community IS the root word of communism, but at it's core it discards the rights of the individual IN FAVOR of the community.  It is the anti-thesis of freedom - you do as you are told for the betterment of the group/community.  I see this as wrong - if you do not then we have little common ground from which to establish an understanding.

I view my position as taking power away from the government. You say they  should 'legalize', screen, tests, and tax drugs and new drugs coming down the pike....as in a laison with big Pharma corps.. alikely direction this would go in...like vitamins and nutrient supplements are going.

Maybe in opposite world that's taking power away from the government, but not back in reality, and BTW not once have I advocated any additional testing, nor taxes.  As I stated earlier, an EMPLOYER (generally not the government) already does drug tests for both legal and illegal drugs.  Again the LEGALITY has not had any effect on a drug tests.  Given that they're already established independed of that criteria, expecting a change in that base don a change in legality is unfounded.

Also, the most common drugs are LONG out of the patentability stage where "big pharma" would have ANYTHING to do with it. 

There are plenty of drugs much more psyhcotropic then you care to admit, and affects singular of synergistically on various people or types of people have never been documented. Your above statement is not medically or pharmacologically correct or accurate, but is a vaque generaklization.

Some DO have quite an effect - others not so much.  As I've said countless times though, you either have the right to control what goes into your own body or not.  The level of effect is irrelevant unless you what to bring in the "That ain't raht." version of legislation (ie, anything that you deem to be outside of the approval of your personal belief system should be illegal). 

Actually, I think discussion of values, truth, beliefs, right action, karma, or whatever is more important than ever. Likely, you do too but won't admit it, because this is your own 'moral rational scheme' of things which is being expressed here.

Labeling it "morals" doesn't make it so.  I DO have my own set of morals which I don't care to enforce on anyone.  I, like many others, simply expect the same courtesy.  Not based on right vs wrong, karma, or anything else, but based on the simple fact that doing it any other way will come around to bite EVERYONE (including me) in the ass eventually.

Big example: I think that racism is a bane upon this world.  It's one of the worst expressions of human nature that has ever occurred. I have a black aunt (and two mixed-race cousins from that marriage) and dated a Mexican girl in the past.   

That aid, I'm against affirmative action laws, or any laws against "hate speech". While I feel that discrimination and racist speech is IMMORAL, I don't look to legally enforce that on anyone else, because I don't have a problem keeping my morals separate from the law books.

Drug test will become more and more common, likely psyche evaluations too, as a result of monitoring a society increasing numbers of self-medicated citizens...and for many things like buying firearms for example...that is what 'normalization' inferrs. Monitor dropouts too so I don't get billed for their welfare as well.

As said earlier, drug testing has virtually zilch to do with the legality of drugs - they've been increasing for a long time while tons of drugs remain illegal.  If it becomes more common (which it likely will) then it will do so regardless of that factor. 

Like I mentioned though, without agreeing on the importance of freedom compared to societal benefit, we have little common grounds on which to build any sort of understanding.

[PeculiarSatyr]

This is getting way too convoluted.

Its pretty simple.  You either think that the government should protect you from yourself.  May as well hand in all your guns, alcohol and switch over to the low cholesterol low fat low sodium diet.  Have fun with that.

Or you think you're intelligent to make your own choices and deal with the consequences yourself.

There really isn't much room to hide in the middle without gross amounts of hypocracy.

You choose.

[magooch]

I don't know about all of that, but I wouldn't hold my breath until any serious politicians go on record as supporting the legalization of the hard stuff.  That is--enough of them to have any chance of changing anything.

[JimFromTN]

Think the analogy of comparing gun laws to drug laws is a good one because the people who want to outlaw guns use the same reasoning that people who want to keep drugs illegal use to keep them illegal.

Your analogy of putting drugs in one's system compared to one having the right to own firearms responsibily is a bit flawed. First, if you own guns and use them legally you don't infringe on my rights as a citize...you do your thing I do my thing. However, if you use drugs, get blasted, depending what job or capacity you operate in society, than you may be infringing on my personal rights due to piss poor performance, judgement errors, mistakes, faulty or defective quality control and several other criteria. If you are OKay with your dentist toking up before a root canal, or your airline pilot binging the night before flying trans-continental then okay. Here in the Vampire state we had a subway engineer have a head-on rail accident while stoned, alot of casualties resulting.

Lets turn this around a little

Your analogy of putting drugs in one's system compared to one having the right to own firearms is a bit flawed. First, if you use drugs you don't infringe on my rights as a citizen...you do your thing I do my thing. However, if you own a gun, your child finds it and shoots a friend accidentaly, you shoot somebody in anger, you rob a bank, the gun blows up at the range and hurts a bystander, then you may be infringing on my personal rights and my life due to piss poor performance, judgement errors, mistakes, faulty or defective quality control and several other criteria. If you are OKay with your dentist owning a gun and hurting someone before a root canal, or your airline pilot shooting himself in the foot the night before flying trans-continental then okay. Here in the Vampire state we had some youths rob an old lady by gun point on a subway.

See how simlar they are.

Here is another interesting non-gun analogy

From my point of view,,,people having the same concerns and concept of infringement on their rights form a de facto collective group that have rights and belief systems...which is the root basis of community and laws; i.e. society. For example we don't tolerate toxic smoke plumes from factories to emnate thru the environment, should we allow toxic drugs plumes to flow thru society?  That word 'society' again...connotes a collective of individuals you know.

"we don't tolerate toxic smoke plumes from factories to emnate thru the environment" ... What country are you living in?  I live in the United States and you ain't talking about here.  We are trying to get to that point but we are so far from it.  Apparently, cleaning up the toxic smoke that factories release affects the bottom dollar and thats not aloud.  We also allow paper mills to release toxins into our waters as well so don't go after alcohol with that one either.

[SHOOTALL]

OK allow any drug want . If you wish to have a job and the job requires a non drug affected mind and body then the requirements for the job shall include testing . Same as riding on an airliner , you want to fly then follow the rules . Want to carry a gun where you go OK drive or walk your freedom to do so .

[JimFromTN]

Jim fromTenn...  I said a 'bit flawed' in the sense that MCG is using it....eg...we don't allow every weapon on earth to be sold here. We don't allow every drug to be sold here, distributed, and consumed....both are restricted.

Surely you are not comparing say a nuclear weapon to a joint.  That analogy is a bit flawed.  The analogy was guns to drugs, not drugs to any kind of weapon.

Factories do spew waste, but ostensiblely we are 'protected' and only allowable waste are spewed. Frankly, I wish no waste were spewed, similarly I don't think it a good idea that all manner of drug ingestion be left up to just anybody for reasons I stated, and my reasons are mainly other than legal or Constitutional arguements...but the Constituion does support my arguement.

Allowable waste is a relative term.  Allowable and safe are not the same thing.  Why is it legal for companies to introduce toxic chemicals into my body without my ok but I can't introduce chemicals into my body of my own free will toxic or otherwise.

Guns in themselves are inanimate objects and are not ingested, are actually tools and not deliberately designed to alter the conscience and faculties; (and it is my judgement, as well as many individuals collectively) that the good outweighs the evil that guns may have in the hands of confused individuals. And also my judgement and others that drugs are in another category altogether, and are designed to alter the conscience and faculties deliberatetly; and that in the course of doing this negative results far outweigh any positive results.

Some guns are tools strictly for killing other human beings.  Perhaps we should outlaw them and only allow people to own tools which they actualy have a use for.  Isn't that what Obama wants?  Sounds like a good idea if you ask me.  Perhaps I should join the anti gun collective and we can get those things outlawed because in our judgement the evil outways the good.  Also, our morality says that abortion is ok.  Our morality says that your kid can't pray in our schools.  We are in charge so the laws will reflect our morality and you will assimilate.

By the way, why do you care that people go into their homes, alter their concience by smoking a joint and eat chips and watch bad cartoons?  How is that hurting you or anyone else?  The laws were never based on any studies.  They were based on fictitious fear mongering back in the 1930's.  Teenagers were smoking dope and killing thier families kind of garbage.  There was no judement based on reality or factual information done at the time.  What positive results have to do with anything?  What positive results come from you drinking a beer, smoking tobacco, eating a cheeseburger, or shooting a gun.  None other than maybe it makes you feel better or differently and isn't that what smoking a joint is all about?  You get high your way and let everyone else get high their way.  As long as they aren't doing the reefer madness thing and smoking a joint and breaking into your home and hacking you up with an ax, I don't see how it is any of your business.

[jcn59]

Divide and conquer!   That's how I would end the "war"  (any war).

And you all have such a nice start on the divide part.

My favorite is the suggestion about letting the "government" regulate it.  Like they have ever done anything right..........not.

[45-70.gov]

I work in the natural gas industry.  We are mandated by the feds to randomly check for drugs and alcohol at least everyone once yearly.  We use a computer to random check.  I was checked twice within two weeks one time.  This mandate includes all persons working in the transportation of dangerous fuels or chemicals, and airline pilots, truck drivers, utility people nationwide, etc.  other industries also check.  Small business people do not check because of the costs.  If you fail a test you have to go to mandated drug or alcohol rehab.  Second time you are fired. 

why  not  fired and prosecuted  the  FIRST TIME
you  know  the rules going  in

Divide and conquer!   That's how I would end the "war"  (any war).

And you all have such a nice start on the divide part.

My favorite is the suggestion about letting the "government" regulate it.  Like they have ever done anything right..........not.

you  either beleive  in freedom.....or  you DON'T


looks  like this thread  is splitting  us  up  pretty  good
how  well  will  a 3rd  party get  us together

[mirage1988]

45-70,
I can't believe they haven't legalized drugs yet with such an articulate spokesman as you! You really have a way with words! (too bad you are the only one that understands what you are saying )

[PeculiarSatyr]

It's just funny to watch conservatives talk about drugs in the same exact tone that liberals talk about guns.  Both sides love using hyperbole.  Both sides love to tell you how it is and why they're right.  Fun stuff.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

This is probably the best reads I have had on here!!! 

Jim

[JimFromTN]

Jim fromTenn...  I said a 'bit flawed' in the sense that MCG is using it....eg...we don't allow every weapon on earth to be sold here. We don't allow every drug to be sold here, distributed, and consumed....both are restricted.

Surely you are not comparing say a nuclear weapon to a joint.  That analogy is a bit flawed.  The analogy was guns to drugs, not drugs to any kind of weapon.
I got the impression from MCMorgden that any and all, and future 'uber' drug use would be at the discretion of the individual in his world. That's what he said. When they legalize 'all' drugs I'm going to call mine 'suitcase kaboom'. Are you saying that some drugs are OKay and others are NOT..?  Because that's what I'm saying.


Yes, all drugs might as well be legal.  You are not keeping anyone from doing drugs by making them illegal.  I can go to any local club and pick up any designer drug I want.  There is nothing you can do or the government can do to change this.  I choose not to.  Not because they are illegal but because they are dangerous.  Making them legal isn't going to make people go out and do these drugs.  Being honest and teaching children the truth about drugs will go allot farther than making them illegal.  Alcohol is legal and people are able to drink and not be come alcoholics.  The same thing will happen if all drugs are made legal.  Just like alcohol, there are alcoholics and there will be addicts.  Its all part of that personal responsibility thing.  Some can handle it and some can't just like gun ownership and what happenned in New York.

Factories do spew waste, but ostensiblely we are 'protected' and only allowable waste are spewed. Frankly, I wish no waste were spewed, similarly I don't think it a good idea that all manner of drug ingestion be left up to just anybody for reasons I stated, and my reasons are mainly other than legal or Constitutional arguements...but the Constituion does support my arguement.

Allowable waste is a relative term.  Allowable and safe are not the same thing.  Why is it legal for companies to introduce toxic chemicals into my body without my ok but I can't introduce chemicals into my body of my own free will toxic or otherwise.
Exactly, it shouldn't be legal, nor should it be legal to introduce any and all drugs to the 'body' of We the People, because individual rights are not insulated or isolated from everbody else's rights. You got to find the sweet spot in this discourse.

Sounds like you are talking about gun control.

Guns in themselves are inanimate objects and are not ingested, are actually tools and not deliberately designed to alter the conscience and faculties; (and it is my judgement, as well as many individuals collectively) that the good outweighs the evil that guns may have in the hands of confused individuals. And also my judgement and others that drugs are in another category altogether, and are designed to alter the conscience and faculties deliberatetly; and that in the course of doing this negative results far outweigh any positive results.

Some guns are tools strictly for killing other human beings.  Perhaps we should outlaw them and only allow people to own tools which they actualy have a use for.  Isn't that what Obama wants?  Sounds like a good idea if you ask me.  Perhaps I should join the anti gun collective and we can get those things outlawed because in our judgement the evil outways the good.  Also, our morality says that abortion is ok.  Our morality says that your kid can't pray in our schools.  We are in charge so the laws will reflect our morality and you will assimilate.
The right to protect yourself and family is God given,,not optional one reason there are guns for us.  Even so some guns are regulated and some restricted and some banned. Do you think all and every gun and any weapon; and every drug, should be permitted in our society..? What's your point?
Its not a God given right becuase if it were then it would be allowed in all countries.  Its a right given to us in the constitution which was written by politicians.  My piont being that whoever is in charge makes the rules.  One day drugs are bad and the next they are ok.  By the way, you can pretty much get any gun you want in this country if you got the money and can pull the right strings.

By the way, why do you care that people go into their homes, alter their concience by smoking a joint and eat chips and watch bad cartoons?  How is that hurting you or anyone else?  The laws were never based on any studies.  They were based on fictitious fear mongering back in the 1930's.  Teenagers were smoking dope and killing thier families kind of garbage.  There was no judement based on reality or factual information done at the time.  What positive results have to do with anything?  What positive results come from you drinking a beer, smoking tobacco, eating a cheeseburger, or shooting a gun.  None other than maybe it makes you feel better or differently and isn't that what smoking a joint is all about?  You get high your way and let everyone else get high their way.  As long as they aren't doing the reefer madness thing and smoking a joint and breaking into your home and hacking you up with an ax, I don't see how it is any of your business.
Umm...yeah sure...what's your point?  You want pot legalized..fine. There are consquences some of which I discussed. McMorgden says all drugs should be unrestricted and left up to an individual's discretion to take under some Darwinian model of society. He compares this freedom to RTBA; and so logically the extension is that all and every weapon should be unrestricted, too.  In essence we are ALL talking about what should be restricted and what should be allowed.

...........TM7

  Again, you are comparing nuclear weapons to drugs.  I OD on heroine and my family gets hurt but they will survive.  You set off a nuclear weapon in your basement accidentally and you take out a city.  There is a little difference there.  McMorgden is right.  Your not stopping anyone from doing them right now.  Why do you think legallizing them will actually send the entire country down the drain?  It has not happenned ,yet?  Unless you count all the drug related violence becuase it is illegal and there are power struggles beteween gangs that run drugs which would go away if you legallized it much like what happenned when they lifted prohabition.

[SHOOTALL]

PeculiarSatyr , really can't see it . If you think that way then do away with traffic laws , etc.

[PeculiarSatyr]

PeculiarSatyr , really can't see it . If you think that way then do away with traffic laws , etc.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say?

[beerbelly]

PeculiarSatyr the differance is that I have never saw anyone's 14 year old daughter out turning tricks in order to buy a gun. You see them all the time to buy dope!
                             Beerbelly

[Beers]

PeculiarSatyr the differance is that I have never saw anyone's 14 year old daughter out turning tricks in order to buy a gun. You see them all the time to buy dope!
                             Beerbelly

Really!? Where the heck do you see that "all the time"? Do you report them to the authorities or tell their parents? Maybe I'm just not paying attention... But maybe you're just taking the one time you heard about something like this and from there assumed it must happen all the time..

How about something that really does happen all the time - People getting killed by drunk drivers. 13,500 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2006. It's clearly high time we abolished alcohol - since that worked so well last time....

Freedom comes with responsibilities. Why do you advocate taking freedom away from all just because some are irresponsible?

TM7 - None of your high horse/drug apocalypse ravings address the problem of how the heck making drugs illegal stops people from getting and using them. You go on and on about "uber-drugs" and the subversion of America by foreign drug companies/governments... I got news for you - if there were a market for them they'd be available now. If there ever is a market for them they will be available then, legal or illegal. No amount of legislation or "zero tolerance" crap is going to stop the drug trade. The only choice we have in the matter is to whom we give control over distribution.

[SHOOTALL]

Beers i have seen such at the the center for children . 12 year old and older girls and boys for that matter  turned out by their parents for money to buy drugs .
When we talk about freedom , drugs and kids it get real hard to remember who has freedoms and when their freedom stops . Some say allow drug use , then how do the non drug users keep their freedom ? You forget many drug users don't have a job , can't work and shoot up . So they rob , break and enter and cause many other problems for the non users . We have seat belt laws because insurance had to pay for injury . not because they wanted to save people . Everyone complained about what insurance cost were . I see it as somewhat the same . we pay LE , the court etc. now . we will still pay if it is legal. The ? is will more try drugs and become a larger burden on the rest of us ? Thus costing us loss of freedom and $$$$$$  ?
We have to admit if something is legal then it is acceptable to many . Abortion is a good example .
Each issue like this could be considered a block in America's moral footing . Remove to many and the wall of freedom will fall over .

[WylieKy]

Beers i have seen such at the the center for children . 12 year old and older girls and boys for that matter  turned out by their parents for money to buy drugs .

Again, you see this now and it is illegal.  Being illegal isn't stopping it.  Do you know what country has a significantly lower rate of vilent crime? (Armed robbery, murder, rape, etc...) The Netherlands.  Do you know what has been decriminalized in the Netherlands?  Drugs...(and prostitution.)  (Admittedly, the instances of bicycle theft has been way up in the last few months...)  Do you know what other countries have much lower rates of drug use and crime?  China, N. Korea, and Iran.  Seems like the two viable choices are legalization or brutal suppression.  Which do you think is more American?

Here is what I propose.
1. Legalize drugs and prostitution.
2. Death penalty for all cases of violent rape, child rape, and premeditated murder.
3. Life in prison for any premeditated violent crime.

I think we should stop prosecuting "moral" crime and step up the penalty for violent crime, especially things that are premeditated or predatory.  Anyone can lose their temper and let a fist fight go too far, but when you set out to rob, murder, assault, or rape another you need to suffer serious consequences.

[SHOOTALL]

that's my point ensure the rest of us don't have to deal with the users more than we do now !