The utter immorality of the 'Drug War'

[SHOOTALL]

don't remember but that is scary .

[guzzijohn]

It appeared to me that when drug testing became more common at jobs weed use dropped but cocaine and meth use started to rise as you could do those drugs on Friday night and test clean Monday morning. IMHO, in general man was born to get a buzz, always have through history and always will, just the drug and delivery systems change.
GuzziJohn

[45-70.gov]

Anybody remember back in the late 80's when there were several crashes of jets trying to land on carriers? It was right after the Navy started routine random drug testing. The sailors on the flight deck were too paranoid to smoke weed. But, some of them found out that LSD was nearly impossible to test for. Guess what happened? (How would you like trying to land on a deck while the guy with the signal flags was still getting traces from the acid he dropped the night before?) There's always a way around any test.

how about  no  dopers   flying  our tax payed for jets


i drinker  or cigarette smoker  is at risk for  any addiction

[ironglow]

    I must admit, I cannot understand all this talk about extreme weakness..such as "everyone needs a buzz".  I would expect most MEN would rather be a MAN..than to be a SLAVE to some kind of addictive substance.
 
  I remain amazed that some even seem to believe that if someone can't get pot, then they will; turn to LSD or some other hallucinogen.  Can they not understand that a man with character does not need and can easily pass up weed, alcohol, LSD etc?
  How so!.. a slave you ask?  Well, any of these drugs are expensive, and surely any MAN would rather have the money in his pocket or saved for his kids, than to have some pusher walk away with his cash, while that same SLAVE just burns up the value of the cash!          ...Poof....up in smoke !!
 
     http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918

[mcwoodduck]

McWoodDuck,
Marbury vs Madison (1800) has nothing to do with it except it established the principle that SCOTUS could declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.
The 18th Amendment was passed in 1920 because Congress wanted to prohibit alcoholic beverages nationwide and did not have the authority. The courts required a constitutional amendment to give that authority to Congress. In 1933 Prohibition was repealed by repealing the 18th Amendment thereby demonstrating that our grandparents had more common sense than we do. If the feds want to abolish drugs let them do it constitutionally by amending the US Constitution. If they want to ban guns let them amend the Constitution. Or do you think both should be subject to a simple majority of bi-partison *** *****?
I did learn something in the course in Constitutional law I took in grad school so it wasn't a total waste.

I am not arguing about the constitutionality of the law.  I am simply saying that Marbury V Madison set the over site of the constitutionality of the laws written and passed by congress.  Clearly if you put something in the constitution then it becomes constitutional and makes it easier for the supreme court to rule.  Clearly if it is not in the constitution then you can bring suit that congress does not have the autority to make such a law to ban certain drugs.  I think that would be abe to do if the Federal government tried to enforce Pot laws against the States that have semi legalized pot. 

[ChungDoQuan]

IG--- WANTING to get a buzz and HAVING to get stoned are two different things.

[yellowtail3]

Anybody remember back in the late 80's when there were several crashes of jets trying to land on carriers? It was right after the Navy started routine random drug testing.

Close, but not quite. It was the early 80s - it was night of 5/26/81, I was in the navy and paying close attention, and well remember the crash in question. An EA-6B was coming aboard the Nimitz, very low on fuel (he'd just boltered, and so probably felt some pressure) and crashed... fire on flight deck... fourteen guys killed. Later, tests on corpses showed several flight deck crew had THC in their systems. Of course, that doesn't mean they were stoned, but follow me on this. Press got hold of it, and the word was the navy was high, crash... that's why. Pure BS. The pilot was on antihistamines he'd taken (violation of policy there) and crash was due to pilot error, which may or may not have had to do with his cold medicines. The guys on the flight deck that were killed by the crashing jet and who fought the fire - the ones found to have THC in their systems? - they performed quite well, and were not at fault in any way; marijuana WAS IN NO DISCERNIBLE WAY CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACCIDENT, or hindered DC efforts afterwards. But it did start the 'not on my watch, not on my ship, not in my navy' drug testing.

[Oldshooter]

'not on my watch, not on my ship, not in my navy' drug testing.

Seems reasonable to me, since so many lives and America's freedom is at stake.
 
That was a terrible loss of life. Any amount of THC is unacceptable. The USCG adopted the no tolerance policy years ago and that means NO tolerance as far as drugs are concerned. I was at The Exxon Dock in Baton Rouge a few years ago and a syringe showed up on the deck of one of the Exxon riverboats. Probably washed up since freeboard on those vessels is inches. but the whole fleet(about six vessels) were locked down.  About fifty men/women. were all drug tested and vessels searched with dogs. 

[yellowtail3]

IG--- WANTING to get a buzz and HAVING to get stoned are two different things.

of course they are (Modified) Keep it civil.!

[ironglow]

IG--- WANTING to get a buzz and HAVING to get stoned are two different things.

of course they are (Modified) Keep it civil.!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  Not as I see it..'m just not that weak I guess..

[yellowtail3]

IG--- WANTING to get a buzz and HAVING to get stoned are two different things.

of course they are (Modified) Keep it civil.!

Oh - do I need to keep it civil? Alright, I'll try again:

Most adults with just a little bit of experience and brains know there is a big diff between wanting to catch a buzz, and being 'enslaved' or 'having to' - that's common knowledge. Ironglow pretends otherwise, so as to cast some stink on those he disagrees with, and paint them as enslaved druggies or somesuch, and so disregard them. This is spinning the truth to fit his prejudices, and it's just plain false.

How's that? Civil?

[ironglow]

IG--- WANTING to get a buzz and HAVING to get stoned are two different things.

of course they are (Modified) Keep it civil.!

Oh - do I need to keep it civil? Alright, I'll try again:

Most adults with just a little bit of experience and brains know there is a big diff between wanting to catch a buzz, and being 'enslaved' or 'having to' - that's common knowledge. Ironglow pretends otherwise, so as to cast some stink on those he disagrees with, and paint them as enslaved druggies or somesuch, and so disregard them. This is spinning the truth to fit his prejudices, and it's just plain false.

How's that? Civil?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
  Civil?  Yes... but it is STILL non-sensical, who should take pride in needing a "crutch"?  Couldn't your children or grandchildren use that money..just as well as a drug-pusher?

[Empty Quiver]

Buzzards gotta eat same as worms Ironglow. It is nobodys business what I do to myself. Not yours not the police not my mother nor my kids. As long as I do them no harm. When they are injured everything changes.


Moderation in all things. From religion to meth use all can be harmful at some concentration. Warfarin kills rats daily as it also treats people all over this nation. The dose makes the poison. The user determines the effect the drug has on society.


 I can trust you with a firearm. Why? How can society be so sure you won't turn into the next Laughner? I'm serious IG, this business of being the arbitror  of what is and isn't good for people, can quickly bite you in the ass. Big glass of Pop, cheeseburger, fried cheesecurds, ham sandwich, salted peanuts, diving boards at the pool, dodgeball, tackle football, scoreboards at the little league game, the list is growing every day. You alone are able to make decisions for everyone? Hell maybe Bloomberg is more qualified, who's to know?  You haven't been chosen as God's mouth piece you have appointed yourself as such on this subject and quotes from the bible have little sway with non believers.


I've reread and what I have written might be coming off a bit harsher than I intend but I'm not the best at conveying everything in print. This is a slippery slope we are treading on I can't in good conscience make other peoples decisions

[ironglow]

EQ;
       Just because I disapprove of the use af any and all substances for other than honest medicinal use, doesn't mean it will affect you or anyone else on this board.
  So such activity goes on ...what I as one single individual likes or likes not, won't affect national law or practice.  The fact that I am a strict tee-totaler and think illict drug use is a major problem, will not likely change any congressman's vote.  That's not saying I won't try, anymore than the united pot smokers won't try.
  I don't make any laws..I only take this opportunity to point out the fruitlessness of indulging in the expensive and addicting habits.
  I can do no more, but if it puts a spotlight on a foolish practice of some, I can see where their upset feelings may come from.
 
   Just try taking a "security blanket" away from a frightened and insecure 2 year old child!! 

[45-70.gov]

IG--- WANTING to get a buzz and HAVING to get stoned are two different things.

of course they are (Modified) Keep it civil.!

yes  2 different things
one is bad  the other is worse


what difference does it make if  you you beleive in free choice
if not  it might matter

[SHOOTALL]

Ask your self , could the funds spent on the war against pot be spent elsewhere and have a more positive effect for America ?

[yellowtail3]

Ask your self , could the funds spent on the war against pot be spent elsewhere and have a more positive effect for America ?

They could, prolly, but they wouldn't benefit the gov't people making bank on the War on (some) Drugs as it is!

[mcwoodduck]

Ask your self , could the funds spent on the war against pot be spent elsewhere and have a more positive effect for America ?

Yes it could and the question is not if we should spend the money else where, it is about upholding the laws of the land. 
Clearly you can not have a population that ignores laws - that makes the enforcement impossible
You can not have a a congress that does not enforce its own laws. - Again not enforcing the laws of the land makes all laws irrelevant and that makes Congress irrelevant. 
The only way to stop the drug war is either to win it, make the punishment far out weigh any benefits.   
Would you smoke a joint if you knew you would get a year in Jail, no parole?  Would you grow a pot plant in your yard is you knew it would get you 10 years for distribution of illegal drugs?   Would you buy Cocane if you knew that you would land in prison for 2 years for having any amount? 
With the war on drugs we need to either fight to win or we need ot surender and make it legal.  Either way we can not simply ignore the law.  The ignoring of the laws is what problems we have with the illegal aliens that are draining our economy and not contributing to it, they are not wanting to be part of our coulture but want us to bend to theirs.  They do not understand why we can simply not speak spanish and make it easier for them. 

[SHOOTALL]

Or to realize it was a bad law and do away with it.
As a nation we are to the point where tax income for the govt. is either got to grow , take more from the tax payers or use what is taken in better.
 

[guzzijohn]

Quote from mcwoodduck:
" Would you buy Cocane if you knew that you would land in prison for 2 years for having any amount?"


Apparently not since there are thousands in prison with two year or longer sentences for small amounts of cocaine.
GuzziJohn

[mcwoodduck]

Quote from mcwoodduck:
" Would you buy Cocane if you knew that you would land in prison for 2 years for having any amount?"


Apparently not since there are thousands in prison with two year or longer sentences for small amounts of cocaine.
GuzziJohn

But how many thousands were pleaded down to time served or probation.  I mena if you knew you were caught with any amount you were going to do two years, the police were not going to ask for your supplier, they were not going to deal they were just going to arrest you and try you and when convicted you were going to do two years.  There are no teeth in the laws everything is pleaded down and most walk willing to commit the same offense again. 

[guzzijohn]

I am sure many have been pleaded down, especially if you are white and can afford a real defense lawyer. However there are many others that got hard time. Much worse if it is crack cocaine.
GuzziJohn

[Empty Quiver]

Ask your self , could the funds spent on the war against pot be spent elsewhere and have a more positive effect for America ?

They could, prolly, but they wouldn't benefit the gov't people making bank on the War on (some) Drugs as it is!

Gov't people are not the biggest benefactors. The money changers those are the ones crying loudest and most urgently ( in the quiet halls of government ).


Do you think the drug profits are sent home in rail cars like wheat? Trucks and limo's showing up at airport terminals with bundles of twenties? Hell's no, someone in a suit with an office richly appointed is taking care of shipping cash by wire and by hook or crook whatever is giving the best return.


Do you think it strange that a money shipment is rarely interdicted? The volume of cash compared to the volume of drugs should be just about equal should it not? I don't care how you crumple a twenty it is bigger than a gram of coke.


Worried about empowering druggies  . The financial industry is whom you are empowering. If there were but one place in society to follow the money this is it.

[Dixie Dude]

I've read somewhere that you must have a certain chemical to make I think cocaine.  There are only 3 companies in the entire world that make this particular chemical.  Two are in the US and one is in Germany and 90% of their product is shipped to Colombian companies.  Well, if you wanted to shut it down, we can easily get with Germany and have these three companies shut down the shipments to Columbia of these chemicals.  Cocaine would get so high no one would be able to buy it.  However, one can break addiction to cocaine. 
 
Marijuana on the other hand can be grown almost anywhere.  It is impossible to stop it.  It is like alcohol, not stopping the consumption.  Legalise it and tax it.  Same people would still use it.  One can break addiction to MJ.
 
Heroin is made from poppies.  Poppie fields can be found and sprayed with Round up or agent orange.  Heroin dries up.  Also, if you find a heroin addict, lock them in a padded cell like they did or do in Japan, and make them get off of it cold turkey.  No more heroin addict.  Also, one can break addiction to this drug also.
 
Methamphedimenes, are the most dangerous, and once addicted, can never get off the addiction.  This should always be illegal. 
 
So, legalise some, tax it, but not others.