Marijuana

[Firethorn]

I don't know about all that other stuff you said, J, but hoping people die from their drug habit is literally hateful.  I don't think the Doc really meant it, but you should expect some people to disapprove of such a sentiment.

I took it to mean 'Let people do what they want, even if it kills them, rather than tread on all of our freedoms to try to stop them'.  It's not like he said 'I hope the junkies darwin themselves'.

Face it, people Darwin themselves regularly, and most of that type will end up doing it to themselves one way or another.

[Perd Hapley]

Hadn't thought of it that way, Thorn.

I'm also reacting to the Darwinist notion that the inferior should die for the sake of the more advanced.  Just hit me the wrong way, I suppose.

[Firethorn]

I'm also reacting to the Darwinist notion that the inferior should die for the sake of the more advanced.  Just hit me the wrong way, I suppose.

Then you misunderstand the true Darwinist notion, which is that the inferior will tend to eliminate themsevles, leaving the superier(not necessarily more advanced) to reproduce.  To be darwined doesn't require death, simply removal of the reproductive capability.  To win the award, it has to be self-inflicted in such a fashion to make people think that it's a good thing that the winner isn't going to procreate any more.

So 'Let the junkies Darwin themselves'
A: Objects to the treading on freedom (limits on cold medicine, identification requirements, etc...)
B: Implies that the making and usage of meth(identified by objections about cold medicine requirements) is stupidly dangerous.

[Perd Hapley]

I understand all that, but Darwinism sees the death of the "inferior" as a positive good necessary for progress.  According to my view, death is...bad.

[Strings]

>I understand all that, but Darwinism sees the death of the "inferior" as a positive good necessary for progress.  According to my view, death is...bad.<

It's nothing more than a part of life, man: NOBODY gets out alive. What bothers most people isn't death itself, but what comes after: the unknown, basically. Even with your staunch faith, the ONLY thing you have saying Heaven is waiting on the other side of the veil is that faith... which sometimes, regardless of how strong your faith is, isn't enough to keep just a touch of doubt from your mind. This slight doubt is what makes death (the transition) something fearful...

 I wouldn't say I'm afraid of death. It's more something i don't want on my resume at the moment (you're suddenly over-qualified for everything)...

[Perd Hapley]

That's not quite what I meant.  As I understand evolution/Darwinism, death is a primary mechanism for improvement of the species, and in fact it would be good if "junkies" removed themselves from the gene pool.  

My Biblical point of view would be that such people can be reformed, and that death is absolutely not a part a life.  The body was not designed for death.  

I think the second point of view, besides being more compassionate, is more realistic, as it recognizes that such people have always reproduced and will continue to do so.

None of which is an argument for drug prohibition.

[tyme]

That's not quite what I meant.  As I understand evolution/Darwinism, death is a primary mechanism for improvement of the species, and in fact it would be good if "junkies" removed themselves from the gene pool.

It's not good that people die for stupid reasons.  However, it's also not good to intervene in people's lives to prevent them from dying through idiocy, because that intervention restricts freedoms of intelligent people.

My Biblical point of view...

It seems to me that religion dictates you should do what you can to educate your neighbors to reduce their chances of being darwined.  If they still manage it due to the existence/availability of sharp objects, cliffs, guns, drugs, or a desire to climb mount everest, the consequences are between them and God.

Therefore, while early death itself is not desireable, in the case of darwination, it's the best of all possible outcomes.

[cosine]

I don't do this often, but +1 to tyme.

I'm all for showing stupid people their idiocy, and trying to educate them to keep them from being "darwined," but if they don't want to listen and/or change their ways the consquences are their own matter to deal with.

At least to me, that seems compassionate, because you tried to help the individual in question. If they don't want to accept your help, however, further interference into their lives is not compassionate but instead shows a lack of respect for their individuality and free will.

[Ron]

It seems to me that religion dictates you should do what you can to educate people so they reduce their own chances of being darwined.  If they still manage to do so because of the existence/availability of sharp objects, cliffs, guns, drugs, or a desire to climb mount everest, the consequences are between them and God.

Well said. the power of the government to protect us from ourselves should be limited. Booze and dope while not life enriching have proved themselves to be relatively innocuous when used by responsible adults.

The drugs with high addiction rates present a different problem. A high percentage of regular crack, meth and heroin users get addicted bad. Why shouldn't  dangerous substances like that be regulated?

[grampster]

Such a quirky thing freedom.  Freedom is, in the end, all about the ability to make choices.  That ability does not come without risk.  Risk is like putting sugar in in a sour thing.  One does not always know how much sugar it takes.  The exileration of life is in trying to find that balance.  Some push too far and some never push at all.  

I have never been one to agree to the notion that we should reduce eveything to its lowest common denomenator.  That has always been the fatal flaw in Communism/Socialism that the faint of heart are lothe to grasp.

I think that is why I believe one of the most powerful statements made by our founders was the one made by, I believe,  Mr. Franklin and I paraphrase:  'A man that would give up a little freedom for a little security, deserves neither'.

[tyme]

Why shouldn't dangerous substances like that be regulated?

Such regulations can't be enforced without completely destroying any notion of privacy.

The war on drugs has gotten us satellite and plane IR surveillance (constitutional, don't you know), routine checking of electricity usage to figure out where there might be grow ops (nevermind that the person might have simply gotten a bunch of new computer equipment), not to mention a nearly absolute evisceration of the notion that some searches and seizures are unreasonable.  Just about any search and seizure is reasonable today, because drugs can be hidden just about anywhere at any time, and the chance is too great that they'll be disposed of if police are required to get a warrant.

Laws that can't be enforced make a mockery of the legal system, and that has much more serious consequences than the continued existence of some junkies.

[Firethorn]

Why shouldn't dangerous substances like that be regulated?

Such regulations can't be enforced without completely destroying any notion of privacy.

I'd argue that the old saying 'the tighter you hold it, the more it slips through your fingers'.  Banning something is holding it very tight.  You'd be able to enforce some regulations(such as not selling to minors, and safety/purity standards) far better if it was legal than keeping it illegal.

The war on drugs has gotten us satellite and plane IR surveillance (constitutional, don't you know), routine checking of electricity usage to figure out where there might be grow ops (nevermind that the person might have simply gotten a bunch of new computer equipment), not to mention a nearly absolute evisceration of the notion that some searches and seizures are unreasonable.  Just about any search and seizure is reasonable today, because drugs can be hidden just about anywhere at any time, and the chance is too great that they'll be disposed of if police are required to get a warrant.

Laws that can't be enforced make a mockery of the legal system, and that has much more serious consequences than the continued existence of some junkies.

+1

Without the drug war, government agencies wouldn't have their biggest excuse for seizing assets.

[Perd Hapley]

Like I said:

None of which is an argument for drug prohibition.

[Bogie]

The way I look at it, drugs are illegal...

...because.
 
Back around the turn of the century, people started to get disturbed by asian "opium dens," and they finally figured out that opioids were addictive... Bam!

In the 20s and 30s, they started worrying about their children consorting with negroes to smoke hemp.

BAM!

In the sixties, darn near everything but pennicillin came under fire.

Whammo!

Today, we've got a couple of major industries. Illicit unregulated importation and distribution, and the law enforcement side that is supposed to stop it. The black marked has ALWAYS won in the long run. Crime DOES pay.
 
Legalize it, all of it, and put it either in liquor stores or pharmacies. Take the hollywod and bling-bling out of it. The black market is essentially gone, since the opportunity for massive profits are gone. Sure, there's still _some_ bootlegging between high-tax and low-tax states, but you'll always see that - you don't have people doing drive-bys on competing bars or liquor stores...

Law enforcement is VERY worried about legalization. Not because of an anticipated increase in crime. Because of an anticipated DECREASE in need for law enforcement. There's always going to be petty theft by people addicted to one thing or another. But I'm guessing that'll even drop somewhat.

[The Rabbi]

The way I look at it, drugs are illegal...

...because.
 
Back around the turn of the century, people started to get disturbed by asian "opium dens," and they finally figured out that opioids were addictive... Bam!

In the 20s and 30s, they started worrying about their children consorting with negroes to smoke hemp.

BAM!

In the sixties, darn near everything but pennicillin came under fire.

Well, you are leaving out that in the 1960s crime rates started skyrocketing in areas that also had large increases in drug use.

[Justin]

You must frequent torrent sites, since Spun just popped up on them in the last few days.    Watched it yesterday.  I wasn't impressed.  A bunch of people doing drugs, over-the-top portrayal of police, and a generic philosophical cop-out at the end.

Oddly enough, my brother has it on DVD.  I haven't gotten into the whole Torrent scene.  Damn kids and their file sharing.  Back in my day we used Napster!

[Bogie]

The drug use wasn't the reason that crime went up - Money was. A black market costs more to maintain. Besides, even if no "illegal" drugs were involved, I'd wager that crime would have gone up in those areas... There was a lot of anger and change going on at that time.

[publius]

122 posts about pot?

It's not THAT interesting.. is it?

122 posts do not seem like many compared to the government's level of interest in the stuff.  In 2004, there were 771,605 marijuana arrests in the US, out of total drug arrests  of 1,745,712.

That's over 2,000 arrests per day, and about 44% of all drug war arrests. Must be pretty darn important to be spending that kind of time and money, don't you think?

 And yet, we've only seen 122 posts in about ten days on this subject, during which time more than 20,000 more marijuana arrests were made. I wonder how much it cost to arrest all those potheads, and if there might just be a better use for that money?

[HForrest]

You'd be able to enforce some regulations(such as not selling to minors, and safety/purity standards) far better if it was legal than keeping it illegal.

You're right. Alcohol is legal and regulated, but marijuana is DEA Schedule I. However, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it is easier to obtain marijuana than alcohol in the high school I attend.