Funny Thing About Rush Limbaugh - Page 13

Berry · 03-22-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's crazy!! but... at least they didn't waste trillions of dollars like us... they fix the problem by letting the problems kill them all

.

The drug problem in China was crazy -- And the reasons for it were even worse. Nor can America be called innocent. France and England were making a huge profit shipping opium to China and bringing back expensive silks, jade, etc to trade to the west. When the emperor attempted to stop the trade Europe declared it an act of war -- Going so far as to force him to make opium legal in China.

While the U.S., so far as I know, did not directly participate in or directly profit from, the coercion they acted as "observers" and so far as I can tell never actively condemned the actions either.

When the communists took over they felt something drastic had to be done: and they did it.

Babyblue · 03-22-2009, 05:30 PM

Interesting article I came across on my local news site.

Weak Laws Make State A 'Pill Mill'

Quote:

By MIKE SALINERO

msalinero@tampatrib.com

Published: March 22, 2009

Related Links

* TBO Politics

TALLAHASSEE - State Sen. Dave Aronberg said he felt embarrassed when Kentucky's lieutenant governor called, urging him to help stop the flow of prescription narcotics out of Florida.

Unlike Kentucky and 37 other states, Florida has no statewide tracking system for habit-forming prescription drugs. Police say organized criminal gangs are exploiting that systemic weakness, "doctor shopping" for multiple prescriptions and then selling the pills in states where they are harder to obtain.

"To me it's an embarrassment and a tragedy because Florida has become the 'pill mill' for the rest of the country," said Aronberg, a Democrat from Greenacres in Palm Beach County.

Aronberg sponsored a bill several years ago to set up a pharmaceutical tracking system, but the legislation died in the state House.

This year, Aronberg and eight other lawmakers are sponsoring bills to monitor prescription drugs. State Sen. Mike Fasano, a New Port Richey Republican with a drug-monitoring bill pending this session, said he thinks it will pass because of a growing sense of outrage among the public and law enforcement.

"Last year more people died in Florida of legal drugs than illegal drugs," Fasano said. "When you get to a point like that, something has to be done."

Police and health authorities have watched with alarm as legal pharmaceuticals have supplanted cocaine and heroin as the most-abused drugs. An interim report last year by the state medical examiners found that 73 percent of the drugs found in people who died of drug-related deaths from January through June were prescription pharmaceuticals.

During that same period, the painkiller oxycodone, sold as OxyContin, killed more people (423) than any other drug. The second-highest killing drug group was benzodiazepines, which includes prescription sedatives such as Xanax, Centrax and Valium.

Florida's lack of monitoring has created a profitable export business for organized gangs in the state, police say. Gangs use runners who "doctor shop" for prescriptions, then fill them at multiple pharmacies. Couriers often transport as many as 3,000 pills to states with monitoring systems like Kentucky.

The profits are enormous. Runners pay as little as 77 cents for a 30 milligram Roxicodone pill, a painkiller known as Roxys on the street. The same pill can be sold in Tennessee or Kentucky for $30, said Tampa police Detective Jim Menendez.

Eighty milligram Roxys cost from $12 to $14 a pill in a Florida pharmacy, Menendez said, but are sold for $80 to $100 in another state.

"It's an epidemic because of the dollars that can be made off these pills," Menendez said.

Fasano and Aronberg said they are addressing privacy concerns that ultimately killed similar bills in the House.

Florida drug czar Bill Janes said he thinks the legislation has its best chance this year.

The main opposition is from House members with privacy or security concerns. Janes said he has called officials in Kentucky and other states with tracking systems to see whether the concerns are real.

"I am aware of no breaches in security," he said.

Reporter Mike Salinero can be reached at (813) 259-8303.

Berry · 03-22-2009, 06:55 PM

Do we need to build a wall around Florida?

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 07:00 PM

and what does it tell you, Babyblue?

Babyblue · 03-22-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

and what does it tell you, Babyblue?

It doesn't change my mind, Jiro..

It tells me that legal drugs more dangerous than the illegal drugs. So if cocaine and heroin is thrown into the legal category.

The same will be happening with those drugs, that is happening with the prescription pill.(posted in the above article I pasted) Illicit "unregulated" Drug dealers will still find ways to distribute it..

Legal drugs can still be purchased and distributed Illegally.

Nice as legalizing, may sound to you to save tax money! It is not as easy and cheap as you may think it is.

Babyblue · 03-22-2009, 07:51 PM

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization

Babyblue · 03-22-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Drug Watch International
Position Statement

AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION OR DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS

The legalization or decriminalization of drugs would make harmful, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable. It would expand the use of drugs. It would remove the social stigma attached to illicit drug use, and would send a message of tolerance for drug use, especially to youth.

Background:

Drug legalization or decriminalization is opposed by a vast majority of Americans and people around the world. Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose it, as do many political leaders. However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the permissive use of illicit drugs, although small in number, are making headlines. They are influencing legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate in the United States and in other countries. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the oldest drug user lobby in the U.S. It has strong ties to the Libertarian party, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union. These groups use a variety of strategies which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of "medicalization," "harm reduction," crime reduction, hem/marijuana for the environment, free needle distribution to addicts, marijuana cigarettes as medicine, and controlled legalization through taxation.

Rationale:

The use of illicit drugs is illegal because of their intoxicating effects on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and potential for abuse. Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and non-users alike.

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability. Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use. Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction. As a public health measure, statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of drugs. Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services. Increased violent crime and increased numbers of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.

Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug trade. A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.

Drug laws deter people from using drugs. Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs. Fear of the American legal system is a major concern of foreign drug lords. Drug laws have turned drug users to a drug-free lifestyle through mandatory treatment. 40% - 50% are in treatment as a result of the criminal justice system.

A study of international drug policy and its effects on countries has shown that countries with lax drug law enforcement have had an increase in drug addiction and crime. Conversely, those with strong drug policies have reduced drug use and enjoy low crime rates.

The United States and many countries would be in violation of international treaty if they created a legal market in cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs. The U.S. is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and has agreed with other members of the United Nations to control and penalize drug manufacturing, trafficking, and use. 112 nations recently reaffirmed their commitment to strong drug laws.

COPYRIGHT: Permission is granted to reproduce this article,
provided credit is given to Drug Watch International.

Against Legalization of Drugs

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

It doesn't change my mind, Jiro..

It tells me that legal drugs more dangerous than the illegal drugs. So if cocaine and heroin is thrown into the legal category.

The same will be happening with those drugs, that is happening with the prescription pill.(posted in the above article I pasted) Illicit "unregulated" Drug dealers will still find ways to distribute it..

Legal drugs can still be purchased and distributed Illegally.

Nice as legalizing, may sound to you to save tax money! It is not as easy and cheap as you may think it is.

oh boy......... looks like I have to spell it out for you..... read the article carefully and think. What's being smuggled out? prescription NARCOTIC. There are illegal narcotic drugs out there such as.... HEROIN! Because of this drug war with drug ban on heroin.... heroin is a very very lucrative business for drug dealers.

So how do you exploit the system by not having to smuggle heroin out of South America? Simple... take advantage of Florida's pharmacies - steal the prescription drugs that contain narcotic component which then can be converted to heroin.

If you reduce/eliminate drug ban on heroin - then there's a very little profit for drug dealer to smuggle prescription narcotics. get it? However - I don't support legalization of heroin. But your article pretty much shows you the how EPIC FAIL! this Drug War is.

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization

EPIC FAIL! source!!! OF COURSE the Drug Enforcement agency will speak out against drug legalization. How about... giving us an independent source? You have NOT provided me any single iota of proof/support that backs your Drug War belief. I have given you source & testimonies from former police officers, doctors, sociologists, families of drug addicts, and many more.... and 99% of source you have given me strengthened my arguments.

TRY AGAIN!

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

Against Legalization of Drugs

here's a cute rebuttal - Why we should legalize drugs

Quote:

Benson Roe is Professor Emeritus and former Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of California at San Francisco.

And "poison" is also a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!

More than 20 years ago when I was removing destroyed heart valves from infected intravenous drug abusers I assumed that these seriously ill patients represented just the tip of the iceberg of narcotic abuse. In an effort to ascertain what proportion of serious or fatal drug-related disease this group represented, I sought information from the San Francisco Coroner. To my surprise he reported that infections from contaminated intravenous injections were the only cause of drug-related deaths he saw except for occasional deaths from overdoses. He confirmed the inference that clean, reasonable dosages of heroin, cocaine and marijuana are pathologically harmless. He asserted he had never seen a heroin user over the age of 50. My obvious conclusion was that they had died from their. habit but he was confident that they had simply tired of the drug and just quit. When asked if the same were basically true of marijuana and cocaine, he responded affirmatively. That caused me to wonder why these substances had been made illegal.

It is frequently stated that illicit drugs are "bad, dangerous, destructive" or "addictive," and that society has an obligation to keep them from the public. But nowhere can be found reliable, objective scientific evidence that they are any more harmful than other substances and activities that are legal. In view of the enormous expense, the carnage and the obvious futility of the "drug war," resulting in massive criminalization of society, it is high time to examine the supposed justification for keeping certain substances illegal. Those who initiated those prohibitions and those who now so vigorously seek to enforce them have not made their objectives clear. Are they to protect us from evil, from addiction, or from poison?

The concept of evil is derived from subjective values and is difficult to define. just why certain (illegal) substances are singularly more evil than legal substances like alcohol has not been explained. This complex subject of "right" and "wrong" has never been successfully addressed by legislation and is best left to the pulpit.

Addiction is also a relative and ubiquitous phenomenon. It certainly cannot be applied only to a short arbitrary list of addictive substances while ignoring. a plethora of human cravings - from chocolate to coffee, from gum to gambling, from tea, to tobacco, from snuggling to sex. Compulsive urges to fulfill a perceived need are ubiquitous. Some people are more susceptible to addiction than others and some "needs" are more addictive than others. Probably the most addictive substance in our civilization is tobacco - yet no one has suggested making it illegal.

As for prohibition, it has been clearly demonstrated that when an addictive desire becomes inaccessible it provokes irresponsible behavior to fulfill that desire. Education and support at least have a chance of controlling addiction. Deprivation only sharpens the craving and never works. Even in prison addicts are able to get their `fix.'

And "poison" is also a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!

Media focus on the "junkie" has generated a mistaken impression that all uses of illegal drugs are devastated by their habit. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that the small population of visible addicts must constitute only a fraction of the $150 billion per year illegal drug market. This industry is so huge that it necessarily encompasses a very large portion of the ordinary population who are typically employed, productive, responsible and not significantly impaired from leading conventional lives. These drug users are not "addicts" just as the vast majority of alcohol users are not "alcoholics."

Is it not a ridiculous paradox to have laws to protect us from relatively harmless substances and not from the devastating effects of other substances that happen to be legal? It is well known that tobacco causes nearly a million deaths annually (in the US alone) from cancer, cardiovascular disease and emphysema; more than 350,000 die from alcohol-related cirrhosis and its complications and caffeine is the cause of cardiac and nervous system disturbances. These facts suggest that the public is being fraudulently misled into fearing the wrong substances and into complacency about hazardous substances by allowing their sale and even subsidization.

Our environment contains a plethora of hazards, of which recreational substances are much less important than many others. Recognizing the reality of consumer demand and the perspective of relative harm should make a strong case for alternatives to prohibition. Should we not have teamed from the failure of the Volstead Act of the 1920s and the current ubiquitous availability of illegal drugs that prohibition is the height of futility?

Is it not time to recognize that the " problem" is not the drugs but the enormous amounts of untaxed money diverted from the economy to criminals? The economic incentive for drug dealers to merchandise their product aggressively is a multi-billion dollar return which has a far more powerful effect to increase substance abuse than any enforcement program can possibly do to, constrain that usage. The hopeless challenge of drug crime is compounded by the parallel expansion of theft, crime, which is the principal economic resource to finance the drug industry. How can this be anything but a lose-lose situation for society?

We should look at the fact that a relatively low budget public education campaign has resulted in a significant decline in US consumption of both alcohol and tobacco during a period when a costly and intensive campaign to curtail illegal drugs only resulted in their increased usage. Is there a lesson to be heeded?

Of course there is. Scrap the nonsense of trying to obliterate drugs and acknowledge their presence in our society as we have with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization would result in:

1. purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
3. obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
4. obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
5. savings in expensive enforcement and
6. significant tax revenues.

Effort and funds can then be directed to educating the public about the hazards of all drugs.

Can such a change of attitude happen? Probably not, because the huge illegal drug industry has mountains of money for a media blitz and for buying politicians to sing the songs of "evil" and "danger" which is certain to kill any legislative attempt at legalization. Perhaps it will take some time before reality can prevail, but meanwhile we should at least do more to expose deception and to disseminate the truth.

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 08:27 PM

**Daredevel7** · 03-22-2009, 08:55 PM

Why haven't you addressed what is wrong with system of our already legal drugs? Or do you think nothing is wrong with people dying of legal drugs? "It's their fault"?

Those who are speaking out for legalization of drugs only talk about how bad tobacco and alcohol is (like your article above) so that we can "see" that our legal drugs are just as bad as the illegal ones, therefore we should legalize them all. WEAK ARGUMENT. It also talks about saving $$$, of course. Then an out of the blue list claiming "It will obliterate ALL THE DRUG DEALERS, avoid overdoses (yea like how it stops people from overdosing on legal drugs), then a magical purity value (which will be HEAVILY debated even among drug users/doctors) assured by the FDA.

Even just determining the purity value of cocaine, heroin, or whatever is something that will be a HUGE issue on SO many levels and you don't even see it.

Berry · 03-22-2009, 08:58 PM

If this thread proves anything it proves that conclusions are not based on facts. It proves the same set of facts can lead to two diametrically opposed conclusions.

It also shows that personal standards, philosophies, etc. are more important than facts in reaching a conclusion.

Another thing it demonstrates is that no matter how far one delves into a subject as complex as this there are still more questions to be asked and more issues to be covered than any normal person has time or energy to cover.

Both the Drug Watch International and the Professor Emeritus papers lead to far reaching questions that this entire forum does not have the resources to cover. The minute you start asking "What is meant by...." you are stepping into a quagmire of definitions.

I believe we should stick within the context of the constitution as much as possible in this as in all other aspects of our society.

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Why haven't you addressed what is wrong with system of our already legal drugs? Or do you think nothing is wrong with people dying of legal drugs? "It's their fault"?

Those who are speaking out for legalization of drugs only talk about how bad tobacco and alcohol is (like your article above) so that we can "see" that our legal drugs are just as bad as the illegal ones, therefore we should legalize them all. WEAK ARGUMENT. It also talks about saving $$$, of course. Then an out of the blue list claiming "It will obliterate ALL THE DRUG DEALERS, avoid overdoses (yea like how it stops people from overdosing on legal drugs), then a magical purity value (which will be HEAVILY debated even among drug users/doctors) assured by the FDA.

Even just determining the purity value of cocaine, heroin, or whatever is something that will be a HUGE issue on SO many levels and you don't even see it.

again - your view is already skewered by extreme bias on illegal drugs... which is why you keep coming up with ludicrous assumptions that drug uses will skyrocket and people would demand for pure stuff? You failed to remember that our tobacco, prescription drugs, products, etc. are regulated by FDA. What makes you think we would produce PURE stuff that would kill you? oh wait... people can OD just by taking many pills!!! or too many drinks!!! or too many etc.!!!

sorry but when we produce the stuff - it's within the regulation but it's solely on people's judgment to take any amount he/she wants. If he/she wants to OD - go ahead. I only pray that there is somebody around to render a medical assistance for him/her and to get him/her into treatment program... and then he/she will come out as a better person. Who are we to tell them what to do? Are you a Moral/Ethic Cop? You a supporter of Fascism aka Police State?

In case you're not able to follow the debate - I'll spell it out for you - my argument is SOLELY BASED on FAILED prohibition/ban policy in the past. Drug's going to join the club too along with alcohol, tobacco, abortion, abstinence, etc! It's just matter of time till you people WAKE UP!

Obama is demanding a change in our prescription system... by modernizing the computer database system so that we can better keep record of everything. now - about people dying on prescription drugs... it pretty much showed you that drug war makes no sense. They will OD on anything - even water!! so why waste money on drug bans? How about transfer the fund to effective treatment programs?

about your last statement - please support your argument with any finding. It's not making any sense at all. it's a very weak argument for your stance on drug ban.

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 09:46 PM

I can agree to disagree with you on some issues but I cannot agree to disagree with your reasonings because it's fallacious and illogical. It's merely emotional, rhetoric hyperbole. That I cannot agree to disagree... Please come up with something better..... something that I can agree to disagree.

**Jiro** · 03-22-2009, 09:53 PM

darkage's post from other thread relating to Mexican drug war -

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkage

Yes, they have some pictures and video online. I can't post with pictures or video here. They may ban me from this board.

Spring 2007
YouTube chops Mexican beheading vid â€¢ The Register

Last summer - near Maya (far from Mexico City - should be south east)
Mexico: 11 beheaded bodies found

Last winter - see picture (not too graphic).
VIDEO: Mexico To Press Drug Fight; Troops Beheaded - World - Javno

The reason why Mexico's being terrorized and corrupted by drug cartels is because we American buyers made them RICHER and POWERFUL as the result of our Drug War & drug policy!

Quote:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon vowed on Monday not to back down from the fight against powerful drug cartels who decapitated eight soldiers in the most serious blow to the army in a 2-year-old offensive.

Police found the beheaded and tortured bodies tied up in the city of Chilpancingo, about an hour north of Acapulco, during the weekend.

The heads were stuffed in a black plastic bag and tossed outside a shopping center with a note saying, "For every one of us you kill, we are going to kill 10," Mexican media reported.

An ex-police commander, also without a head, was found with the soldiers.

The gruesome attack was the worst against the army since Calderon deployed some 45,000 troops to take on drug gangs after coming to office in 2006.

"We are committed to this fight with all of its consequences," Calderon said at an event honoring a military hero. "We will not stand down and there will be no truce with enemies of the state," he said.

Calderon's assault against drug gangs has netted several major smugglers wanted in the United States, but violence in Mexico has worsened. More than 5,300 people have died this year, over twice as many as in 2007, as traffickers fight each other and the government over drug smuggling routes.

Washington, which has promised Mexico hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to buy equipment and provide security training, now sees Mexican cartels as its No. 1 drug threat.

It was not clear which faction was behind the beheadings. The main drug gangs are the Gulf cartel from northeastern Mexico and a federation of smugglers run out of the northwestern state of Sinaloa by Mexico's most wanted man, Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman.

The violence threatens to scare away investors and hit Mexico's economy, already shaky from the global financial crisis.

Mexican cartels are increasingly taking the place of the Colombian organizations who once ruled the international cocaine trade. Colombians have ceded many traditional trafficking routes to the United States to the Mexican gangs, preferring lower profile roles or focusing on Europe.

"There are no drug trafficking organizations left in Colombia that think they can go toe-to-toe with the nation-state; the cartels up in Mexico actually think that they can," a senior Drug Enforcement Administration official based in Colombia told Reuters.

Calderon deployed the soldiers to fight organized crime in part because they are seen as less corrupt than police.

But military men from generals to foot soldiers have said they too are being offered thousands of dollars to turn a blind eye to shipments or call off anti-drugs operations.

WOW!!!!! 45,000 troops and millions of dollars of assistance from American government to combat against drug cartels???? WOW!!! They're POWERFUL enough to even combat against military???? now what does this tell you?

Are we winning this Drug War?

**Daredevel7** · 03-22-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

In case you're not able to follow the debate - I'll spell it out for you - my argument is SOLELY BASED on FAILED prohibition/ban policy in the past.

That's it?

Quote:

I can agree to disagree with you on some issues but I cannot agree to disagree with your reasonings because it's fallacious and illogical. It's merely emotional, rhetoric hyperbole. That I cannot agree to disagree... Please come up with something better..... something that I can agree to disagree.

mmm.. kay! Swell guy....

I'll come back to this with ammo.

Doug5 · 03-22-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

Legalizing all drugs certainly won't keep drugs out of the hands of children either.

why is that? Dealers currently target children because theyre less likely to be narcs.

Berry · 03-23-2009, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

why is that? Dealers currently target children because theyre less likely to be narcs

.

I knew some people who were teetotalers. They would not allow liquor in the house. Yet their daughter became a teenage alcoholic. How did she get her booze? Easy. She chose her friends by the size of their parents liquor cabinet.

They found out when one of her friends who did not drink got tired of her stealing from the father's bar.

What is in your medicine chest?

**Jiro** · 03-23-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

I knew some people who were teetotalers. They would not allow liquor in the house. Yet their daughter became a teenage alcoholic. How did she get her booze? Easy. She chose her friends by the size of their parents liquor cabinet.

They found out when one of her friends who did not drink got tired of her stealing from the father's bar.

What is in your medicine chest?

and who are your child's friends?

Berry · 03-23-2009, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

and who are your child's friends?

,

This is a serious problem in a society that believes BIGGER is always better. In schools the size of small towns it is impossible to know. It is impossible for all of the teachers to know all of the kids in the school, or if any particular kid even belongs there.

And even if your child's friends are good kids how much do you know about their parents?

And even if their parents are good people it doesn't mean their grandmother doesn't have a bottle of something in her medicine closet you don't want your kids around.

It also points out the myths of our society. People who have never been to a little one room school house buy into the belief of the "Little house on the Prairie" idea that the big kids always went around picking on the littler kids and making their life miserable. People who have actually attended one remember the older kids more as protectors and teachers helpers.

I think one way to help keep kids off drugs is to have small neighborhood schools where parents, teachers, and children all know each other and can keep track of what is going on.

BradB08 · 03-23-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

again - your view is already skewered by extreme bias on illegal drugs... which is why you keep coming up with ludicrous assumptions that drug uses will skyrocket and people would demand for pure stuff? You failed to remember that our tobacco, prescription drugs, products, etc. are regulated by FDA. What makes you think we would produce PURE stuff that would kill you? oh wait... people can OD just by taking many pills!!! or too many drinks!!! or too many etc.!!!

sorry but when we produce the stuff - it's within the regulation but it's solely on people's judgment to take any amount he/she wants. If he/she wants to OD - go ahead. I only pray that there is somebody around to render a medical assistance for him/her and to get him/her into treatment program... and then he/she will come out as a better person. Who are we to tell them what to do? Are you a Moral/Ethic Cop? You a supporter of Fascism aka Police State?

In case you're not able to follow the debate - I'll spell it out for you - my argument is SOLELY BASED on FAILED prohibition/ban policy in the past. Drug's going to join the club too along with alcohol, tobacco, abortion, abstinence, etc! It's just matter of time till you people WAKE UP!

Obama is demanding a change in our prescription system... by modernizing the computer database system so that we can better keep record of everything. now - about people dying on prescription drugs... it pretty much showed you that drug war makes no sense. They will OD on anything - even water!! so why waste money on drug bans? How about transfer the fund to effective treatment programs?

about your last statement - please support your argument with any finding. It's not making any sense at all. it's a very weak argument for your stance on drug ban.

I have to agree with you and I think that if we just legalized drugs and taxed/regulated the hell out of them, we wouldn't need a drug war. We wouldn't need to spend billions on law enforcement either. Jails would be less crowded.

There will always be people who abuse tobacco and alcohol but the point is that they are both legal, taxed and regulated. There are NO people in jail for using alcohol or tobacco. If we follow the same model for all drugs, the results would be the same. The State of California could rake in a shitload of money if they legalized marijuana. Other states could benefit too.

Prohibition never works and never will. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to the mafia and crime. There's simply no room for the Carrie Nation types in today's society because you will not succeed in prohibiting anything.

Babyblue · 03-23-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

EPIC FAIL! source!!! OF COURSE the Drug Enforcement agency will speak out against drug legalization. How about... giving us an independent source? You have NOT provided me any single iota of proof/support that backs your Drug War belief. I have given you source & testimonies from former police officers, doctors, sociologists, families of drug addicts, and many more.... and 99% of source you have given me strengthened my arguments.

TRY AGAIN!

That is all you can do.

But, it will not change my mind. I have provided enough.

Just because you do not agree with my sources does not mean it is inaccurate.

Actually if you sit back and read the whole link, and sub links in what I provided.

It may not be what you believe in, but it does have accurate sources and Statistics on the Drug War. They would know more than what your sources provides.

Evidence is all over, on the effects of drugs.

So we can agree to disagree.

**Jiro** · 03-23-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

That is all you can do.

But, it will not change my mind. I have provided enough.

Just because you do not agree with my sources does not mean it is inaccurate.

Actually if you sit back and read the whole link, and sub links in what I provided.

It may not be what you believe in, but it does have accurate sources and Statistics on the Drug War. They would know more than what your sources provides.

Evidence is all over, on the effects of drugs.

So we can agree to disagree.

sorry nope. it's sad that you can't even see the other side of the statistic and the source you provided for me. oh well... It's ok. I don't need to convince you because there are more and more people becoming convinced that this drug law is a failed policy and it's just a matter of time till the Drug Law gets repealed/lessened down.

Like I said - I've shown you abundant of cost breakdown, alarming statistic, historical events of failed prohibition/ban policies, and testimonies by LEO, families of OD victims, news, etc. You have shown me NOTHING. ZIP!

and why are you telling me about the effect of drugs? we all know about it. the point is - YOUR ATTITUDE toward to this issue is a WRONG APPROACH. Who ever said drug is safe? Treating drug users as criminals is a WRONG APPROACH. Enforcing the drug law to criminalize people who got caught with just a joint or 2 is a WRONG APPROACH. WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Re-read my post #375 - "Please come up with something better..... something that I can agree to disagree."

Babyblue · 03-23-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

sorry nope. it's sad that you can't even see the other side of the statistic and the source you provided for me. oh well... It's ok. I don't need to convince you because there are more and more people becoming convinced that this drug law is a failed policy and it's just a matter of time till the Drug Law gets repealed/lessened down.

Like I said - I've shown you abundant of cost breakdown, alarming statistic, historical events of failed prohibition/ban policies, and testimonies by LEO, families of OD victims, news, etc. You have shown me NOTHING. ZIP!

and why are you telling me about the effect of drugs? we all know about it. the point is - YOUR ATTITUDE toward to this issue is a WRONG APPROACH. Who ever said drug is safe? Treating drug users as criminals is a WRONG APPROACH. Enforcing the drug law to criminalize people who got caught with just a joint or 2 is a WRONG APPROACH. WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Re-read my post #375 - "Please come up with something better..... something that I can agree to disagree."

I can not change your mind nor you can change mine.

But it is only fair to post my views. And to provide the sources.

I highly doubt drugs will be legalized.

So you keep preaching your beliefs.

***Calvin*** · 03-23-2009, 05:50 PM

Mod's note:

This thread has no point in any direction. Time to close this thread.

03-22-2009, 06:55 PM	#363 (permalink)
Berry Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oroville, Ca. Posts: 2,024	Do we need to build a wall around Florida? __________________ Free Jillio! Living life in the sandbox.

03-22-2009, 07:00 PM	#364 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,540	and what does it tell you, Babyblue? __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

03-22-2009, 08:27 PM	#371 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,540	__________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

03-22-2009, 08:58 PM	#373 (permalink)
Berry Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oroville, Ca. Posts: 2,024	If this thread proves anything it proves that conclusions are not based on facts. It proves the same set of facts can lead to two diametrically opposed conclusions. It also shows that personal standards, philosophies, etc. are more important than facts in reaching a conclusion. Another thing it demonstrates is that no matter how far one delves into a subject as complex as this there are still more questions to be asked and more issues to be covered than any normal person has time or energy to cover. Both the Drug Watch International and the Professor Emeritus papers lead to far reaching questions that this entire forum does not have the resources to cover. The minute you start asking "What is meant by...." you are stepping into a quagmire of definitions. I believe we should stick within the context of the constitution as much as possible in this as in all other aspects of our society. __________________ Free Jillio! Living life in the sandbox.

03-22-2009, 09:46 PM	#375 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,540	I can agree to disagree with you on some issues but I cannot agree to disagree with your reasonings because it's fallacious and illogical. It's merely emotional, rhetoric hyperbole. That I cannot agree to disagree... Please come up with something better..... something that I can agree to disagree. __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

03-22-2009, 07:51 PM	#366 (permalink)
Babyblue Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 12,001	Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization

03-22-2009, 08:55 PM	#372 (permalink)
Daredevel7 Adrenaline Junky Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 4,341	Why haven't you addressed what is wrong with system of our already legal drugs? Or do you think nothing is wrong with people dying of legal drugs? "It's their fault"? Those who are speaking out for legalization of drugs only talk about how bad tobacco and alcohol is (like your article above) so that we can "see" that our legal drugs are just as bad as the illegal ones, therefore we should legalize them all. WEAK ARGUMENT. It also talks about saving $$$, of course. Then an out of the blue list claiming "It will obliterate ALL THE DRUG DEALERS, avoid overdoses (yea like how it stops people from overdosing on legal drugs), then a magical purity value (which will be HEAVILY debated even among drug users/doctors) assured by the FDA. Even just determining the purity value of cocaine, heroin, or whatever is something that will be a HUGE issue on SO many levels and you don't even see it.

03-23-2009, 05:50 PM	#386 (permalink)
*Calvin* Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,921	Mod's note: This thread has no point in any direction. Time to close this thread.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode