Post: #276

(01-08-2017 04:17 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:14 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:11 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Who said this?:

Quote:It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.

you can follow that WHILE CARING!

But if I deny the dogs bread, the SJW's will accuse me of not caring. The counter-attack to such accusations is... not caring about the accusations. Savvy?

Do you KNOW who said it?

1. *NOW* I KNOW (i am NOT big on SCRIPTURE-READING - only on "NEED TO KNOW" basis). NOTE that HE did HELP the WOMAN.

2. SJW: I still care about them, their sins and their "salvation". Wouldn't you say HE was a Social Justice Warrior (but not an SJW) in some way as well?

Post: #277

(01-08-2017 04:18 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:17 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:14 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:11 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Who said this?:

Quote:It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.

you can follow that WHILE CARING!

But if I deny the dogs bread, the SJW's will accuse me of not caring. The counter-attack to such accusations is... not caring about the accusations. Savvy?

Do you KNOW who said it?

1. *NOW* I KNOW (i am NOT big on SCRIPTURE-READING - only on "NEED TO KNOW" basis). NOTE that HE did HELP the WOMAN.

2. SJW: I still care about them, their sins and their "salvation". Wouldn't you say HE was a Social Justice Warrior (but not an SJW) in some way as well?

Yes he did help her, but only after he spoke the truth to her and she accepted it as the truth and confirmed her faith. Do you understand?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Savvy?

No, He was not a Social Justice Warrior. A SJW would never have had the courage to throw the thieves out of the temple or endure crucifixion. He would have told the SJW's, "Go and sin no more."

Post: #278

(01-08-2017 04:57 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Yes he did help her, but only after he spoke the truth to her and she accepted it as the truth and confirmed her faith. Do you understand?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Savvy?

Yes and no. I see your point but I fail to see how it related to mine. Break it down a bit further for me.

Quote: No, He was not a Social Justice Warrior. A SJW would never have had the courage to throw the thieves out of the temple or endure crucifixion. He would have told the SJW's, "Go and sin no more."

Did you not catch a difference between a Social Justice Warrior and an SJW? I'm surprised.

Post: #279

(01-08-2017 05:38 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:57 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Yes he did help her, but only after he spoke the truth to her and she accepted it as the truth and confirmed her faith. Do you understand?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Savvy?

Yes and no. I see your point but I fail to see how it related to mine. Break it down a bit further for me.

The woman said, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

First of all note that she called Him Lord, which means she has accepted Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior. This is important and you should contemplate this further.

Next, she humbled herself and used Jesus' own analogy to:

a) describe herself as a dog

b) identify Jesus as her master

c) beg for "the crumbs" from His table

In other words, this woman is NOT a whiny, entitled, narcissistic SJW. She makes it clear that she accepts her role as a "dog" and will be satisfied with whatever "crumbs" that might fall from the "table" of the "children". Jesus is so moved by her humility and faith, that He deems the healing of her daughter to be such a "crumb" and grants it to her.

The point is... I don't owe the SJW's or the drug addicts or the migrants anything. They are dogs. My caring is bread reserved for the children of my family, my tribe, and my nation. If, one fine day, the SJW's miraculously demonstrate a 180 degree shift in their shitty narcissistic attitudes and show humility and faith in Christ, then MAYBE I'll start caring. But I'm not promising anything. I am but a humble follower of Christ. I can only strive to follow His example, and I will inevitably do so imperfectly. And besides, the chances of them making such a 180 degree shift are absolutely zero, so the point is moot.

(01-08-2017 05:38 PM)A.S Wrote:  

Quote: No, He was not a Social Justice Warrior. A SJW would never have had the courage to throw the thieves out of the temple or endure crucifixion. He would have told the SJW's, "Go and sin no more."

Did you not catch a difference between a Social Justice Warrior and an SJW? I'm surprised.

Your turn kemosahbee... enlighten me on the difference. Or are you just trolling here?

Post: #280

(01-08-2017 07:47 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 05:38 PM)A.S Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:57 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Yes he did help her, but only after he spoke the truth to her and she accepted it as the truth and confirmed her faith. Do you understand?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Savvy?

Yes and no. I see your point but I fail to see how it related to mine. Break it down a bit further for me.

The woman said, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

First of all note that she called Him Lord, which means she has accepted Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior. This is important and you should contemplate this further.

Next, she humbled herself and used Jesus' own analogy to:

a) describe herself as a dog

b) identify Jesus as her master

c) beg for "the crumbs" from His table

In other words, this woman is NOT a whiny, entitled, narcissistic SJW. She makes it clear that she accepts her role as a "dog" and will be satisfied with whatever "crumbs" that might fall from the "table" of the "children". Jesus is so moved by her humility and faith, that He deems the healing of her daughter to be such a "crumb" and grants it to her.

The point is... I don't owe the SJW's or the drug addicts or the migrants anything. They are dogs. My caring is bread reserved for the children of my family, my tribe, and my nation. If, one fine day, the SJW's miraculously demonstrate a 180 degree shift in their shitty narcissistic attitudes and show humility and faith in Christ, then MAYBE I'll start caring. But I'm not promising anything. I am but a humble follower of Christ. I can only strive to follow His example, and I will inevitably do so imperfectly. And besides, the chances of them making such a 180 degree shift are absolutely zero, so the point is moot.

(01-08-2017 05:38 PM)A.S Wrote:  

Quote: No, He was not a Social Justice Warrior. A SJW would never have had the courage to throw the thieves out of the temple or endure crucifixion. He would have told the SJW's, "Go and sin no more."

Did you not catch a difference between a Social Justice Warrior and an SJW? I'm surprised.

Your turn kemosahbee... enlighten me on the difference. Or are you just trolling here?

thank you for breaking it down for me. it's a GREAT reminder for me as to why I don't read scripture unless absolutely necessary.

As for SJW and Social Justice Warriors - the former perverted the latter. If you actually look at the terms, there is nothing wrong with being a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR and Jesus brought a lot of Social Justice into this world. I was pointing to the fact that SJW in their misguided zeal of following "false" ideals and ignoring natural law go in the direction opposite of Social Justice. Savvy? ;-)

Post: #281

(01-09-2017 01:07 AM)A.S Wrote:  thank you for breaking it down for me. it's a GREAT reminder for me as to why I don't read scripture unless absolutely necessary.

As for SJW and Social Justice Warriors - the former perverted the latter. If you actually look at the terms, there is nothing wrong with being a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR and Jesus brought a lot of Social Justice into this world. I was pointing to the fact that SJW in their misguided zeal of following "false" ideals and ignoring natural law go in the direction opposite of Social Justice. Savvy? ;-)

Social justice is an intellectually seductive false pagan god worshiped by BOTH communists like Vladimir Lenin and libertarians like John Stuart Mill.

Vox Day Wrote:This is why we need to establish non-converged cultural institutions and ruthlessly work to keep the SJWs out of them. SJWs will always stack the deck and do their very best to use whatever power they can obtain, be it petty or significant, in the interest of forcing social justice on society. And anyone who challenges their Narrative will not only be attacked, but silenced, and stripped of their ability to defend themselves or respond in kind, to the extent that the SJWs are able to do that.

“Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge.”

—John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861

There is nothing noble or righteous about seeking Mill's concept of social justice "convergence". This fact is proven in Vox Day's excellent book "SJWs Always Lie". So your distinction between SJW and Social Justice Warrior is irrelevant and Jesus Christ was not one of these horrible creatures. He never lied. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Post: #282

(01-06-2017 06:37 AM)honu___ Wrote:  I need reasons more than some cop catching you and locking you up in jail to talk to my child about how they relate to various temptations in life.
No effect of a drug such as marijuana is as harmful as doing jail time for it. If your aim is to really help a drug abuser, then make the necessary information available and let adults make their own choices. You don't need laws that send the person to jail for doing it - counterproductive.

This, 1000 times over.

If you're going to claim you want to "help" drug users, then putting them in jail and giving them a record is not the answer. I would actually argue that a lifelong criminal record is far more harmful to a person than spending a short time in jail. (If you are sent to mandatory rehab and records are kept, this is just as bad as having a criminal record. In a lot of countries, you lose certain rights, such as firearm ownership and being able to serve in the military, for life if you've ever received substance abuse treatment).

If you want to punish drug users by locking them up (in rehab or jail) and giving them lifelong records, then don't claim you're trying to "help" them.

At least people like Duterte, and some US conservatives who support prohibition, are consistent in their actions (not that I agree with them). They believe in punishment for drug users, and never claim that they're trying to help drug users. The liberals, on the other hand, claim they want to help users "get their lives back together" while continuing to support prohibition.

Post: #283

Agreed. Prison for using drugs reminds me of debtor's prison, in that it only exacerbates the problem. If we're going to waste tax dollars on these guys, let's waste it on rehab, not jail. They are both similarly ineffective, anyway.

Post: #284

(01-09-2017 01:20 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 06:37 AM)honu___ Wrote:  I need reasons more than some cop catching you and locking you up in jail to talk to my child about how they relate to various temptations in life.
No effect of a drug such as marijuana is as harmful as doing jail time for it. If your aim is to really help a drug abuser, then make the necessary information available and let adults make their own choices. You don't need laws that send the person to jail for doing it - counterproductive.

This, 1000 times over.

If you're going to claim you want to "help" drug users, then putting them in jail and giving them a record is not the answer. I would actually argue that a lifelong criminal record is far more harmful to a person than spending a short time in jail. (If you are sent to mandatory rehab and records are kept, this is just as bad as having a criminal record. In a lot of countries, you lose certain rights, such as firearm ownership and being able to serve in the military, for life if you've ever received substance abuse treatment).

If you want to punish drug users by locking them up (in rehab or jail) and giving them lifelong records, then don't claim you're trying to "help" them.

At least people like Duterte, and some US conservatives who support prohibition, are consistent in their actions (not that I agree with them). They believe in punishment for drug users, and never claim that they're trying to help drug users. The liberals, on the other hand, claim they want to help users "get their lives back together" while continuing to support prohibition.

Lock up drug users. Make the men, the protectors of society, feel better.

Votes.

Say you're doing it to HELP the drug users. Make the women, the coddlers of society, feel better.

Votes.

The men are on the level. They only care about protecting their loved ones and they are right to want that. The women on the other hand get their feelz catered for and don't give even half the shits required to look at the matter more deeply.

If you want to complain about two-faced "help the drug user" policies then complain to women.

Post: #285

Personally I could care less what people put into their bodies. Not my problem.

Post: #286

(01-09-2017 01:20 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  If you are sent to mandatory rehab and records are kept, this is just as bad as having a criminal record. In a lot of countries, you lose certain rights, such as firearm ownership and being able to serve in the military, for life if you've ever received substance abuse treatment).

If you have such poor self control that the state has to help you back onto your feet via rehab, then you're damn right I don't want you around weapons.

Post: #287

(01-06-2017 06:37 AM)honu___ Wrote:  I need reasons more than some cop catching you and locking you up in jail to talk to my child about how they relate to various temptations in life.

I empathize with parents of teenage kids - kids who can get lost. Kids sitting in school stoned? You can't accept that. You can't accept a position that says: "oh that's fine, that's not a problem". That IS a problem, but the question is whether it is a criminal kind of problem or whether it is a growing-up kind of problem. I wonder.

Quote:If your aim is to really help a drug abuser, then make the necessary information available and let adults make their own choices. You don't need laws that send the person to jail for doing it - counterproductive.

The United States is held up as a model around the world when it comes to dealing with cigarette smoking. Its use has been brought down, way down. How? By educating people. It doesn't make sense to incarcerate a cigarette smoker if what you're really worried about is their welfare. The rationale of protecting people from themselves always seem valid. But the only people who are really responsible for protecting us, is ourselves. If there is a real harm in a drug, and your real objective is to persuade people that they shouldn't harm themselves in that way, then what you need is good information that they'll believe. Just disseminate that information and free, independent, sovereign adults will make their own choices about that information - either to continue or not to continue using that drug. Its working with cigarette smoking, its working with obesity, and nobody had to go to jail.

Post: #288

This debate inspired me to start a thread revolving around a larger issue linked to this one.

/thread-60526.html

Post: #289

(01-08-2017 10:25 AM)britchard Wrote:  Another part of the reason why legalising cannabis would be another stage in the decline in the West (although nowhere near as damaging as feminism etc..) is because cannabis in itself is anti red pill.

Life is not meant to be easy, painless and full of idleness. Cannabis encourages life to be all 3 of those, that is not how He intended humans to be. Cannabis is a form of escapism for those that cannot face these truths of life.

You seem to have a prejudiced perception of what cannabis actually does to a human being, and I'll let that slide. But even if your assertion is true, what exactly makes it a criminal offense?

For a lot of people, the impact of life itself is overwhelming, so they seek out something to distract them - cough syrup, cannabis, alcohol, naps, jerking off, gambling, bath salts, over-eating, cigarettes, video games - there are a lot of things people do to distract them from the angst of being alive, escapism as you put it. Sure, you might be able to face these "truths of life" head on, but what right do you have putting someone in jail for being unable to? What right do you have putting someone in jail for having a different lifestyle?

Jail is for people who hit us over the head when we're walking down the street. Jail is for people who break into our homes and loot the place. Jail is for people who do genuine harm. Hell, jail is for corporations such as HNBC that actually laundered over billions of dollars to Mexican drug cartels (not a single person went to jail for this).

And yet what you see is an unjust war on 2 sets of people:
1. The occasional marijuana user. Generally suffers no negative consequences (except incarceration and its effects of course), suffers no health implications (according to CDC reports), doesn't endanger their lives, doesn't impair their personal relationships with others in society.

2. The marijuana addict, who is just like any other addict if you truly understand the psychology of addiction. And just like any other addict, there is enough punishment from the negative consequences of the addiction itself.

What they have made illegal isn't the problem. The problem is the policy itself.

Post: #290

Perhaps we should have a hands up of anyone arguing for criminalisation to protect the addict.

As far as I can tell that's not an argument many people here seem to be making.

Most criminalisation advocates here seem to be debating that drug users typically ugly up the place, leech off the system and sometimes become thieves, muggers and killers. The argument is that the liberties of those that don't offend are too high a price to pay for the suffering caused to others by the fate of those drug users who cannot control or legally support their addictions.

So is anyone here actually arguing for criminalisation to help the addict? Because if not then that's a dead horse the decriminalisation advocates should really stop flogging.

Post: #291

(01-08-2017 02:07 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 05:58 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 11:31 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 09:11 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  ...troll?

No, dude.

Did you even read the article? You posted the article without commenting on what you think is great about it.

What I think is great about the article is that, in his essay he uses an evidence-based approach to assess the results of law enforcement, which legislators seem to regard much less than the passage of the law itself. Although I didn't think I needed to spell it out, my bad.

Though not an official rule on RVF, members are encouraged to provide a short summary of any article they post.

Duly noted, thank you.

Quote:Your article is crap for three reasons.

(1) It didn't even get the title correct. It's called Why We Should End The War On Drugs - but it only provides evidence that ending the war on marijuana wouldn't be a bad idea. If the article never mentioned any other drug, it would be more coherent.

Kofi Annan wasn't that far off. The "war on drugs" is basically a war on marijuana use, especially in the US where approximately 85% of everyone who uses any form of illicit drug whatsoever uses only marijuana. If you were to remove those people from the criminal justice system, the sheer number of everyone else in the country using every other illegal drug combined would not justify the colossal bureaucracy we have to fight this war on drugs. It would totally fall apart. If the government loses marijuana prohibition, they lose drug prohibition, and they know this. They don't want to give that up because of the sheer money involved. The Nixon administration (who first declared the war on drugs) also knew this. They knew that treatment works, and incarceration does not, but chose the incarceration route anyway because of the enormous positive political benefits they received for doing that.

Quote:Your article is crap for three reasons.

(2) Roughly sixty percent of its evidence lists horrible things happening in Mexico and Africa, like I'm supposed to give a fuck.

It would be strange for a US citizen not to give a fuck about what is happening right under his nose - on his southern border. Hmm. Although Kofi Annan makes just one statement about Mexico, let me lay down the facts and hopefully I can appeal to the empathetic side of yours.

What the drug war has done to Mexico is horrific. The death toll alone in the Mexican drug war under the Calderon administration is more than the number of Americans that were lost in Vietnam. Now we're up to over seventy thousand dead. It is the United States that sends the guns across the borders to Mexico. It is the United States, that in return in return for the guns, imports the drugs. Now a lot of people think that those seventy thousand dead are all gangsters shooting it out with each other. Nope. There are police officers, there are children, there are mothers and fathers, there are entire families, getting caught in the crossfire.

Beyond the death toll, horrific acts of violence, the decapitations, the body mutilations, and bodies hanging from bridges, is the deterioration in the infrastructure of their society. Virtually every municipal police force in much of Mexico is corrupted by one cartel or another. What this means is that if you're a lower to middle class Mexican and your house gets broken into, who do you call? You have nobody to go to, and if you do call the police, they're just as likely to tell the cartel you're ratting on them, as they are to help you and take a report and bring somebody to jail. And so if you murder someone in Mexico, you have less than a 5% chance of ever spending a day in jail. And this is almost entirely a product of what the war on drugs has done to law enforcement, the judiciary, and the corrections system in Mexico. The last thing a Mexican drug-trafficking cartel would want would be for drugs to be legalized in the US because that would take their primary source of income. According to the National Drug Control Policy, 60% of Mexican drug cartel profits are from marijuana.

Sure, you still might not give a fuck. But it is also noteworthy that each year, 370 billion dollars goes into the underworld's pockets. And bad people with that kind of money can do horrendous things, and we usually don't give a fuck until such horrendous things happen to people we care about.

Quote:Your article is crap for three reasons.


(3) Most importantly, it reminds me of Roosh's appearance on the Doctor Oz show. The most memorable moment is when Doctor Oz slammed a stack of papers onto the table and said, "I've over sixty studies in my hand that all conclude that fat shaming doesn't work!"

Fat shaming always works! It works in the same way that ordering beer from a waitress always works. I say what I feel, and that feeling is understood by the waitress.

The presumption that I'm fat shaming in order to help the fat chick lose weight is just as offensive as the article's presumption that the drug war exists in order to help drug addicts stop using illegal drugs. Who the fuck annointed a fat chick's needs, and a drug addict's needs, above the needs of myself and the people I love?

What is the point of fat-shaming? What is the point of the War on Drugs?

Post: #292

(01-08-2017 08:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Huh.

(01-07-2017 08:29 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  Kofi Annan makes an excellent argument in his essay:

Why I’m Calling to End the War on Drugs

Annan's argument is not his own. It is reheated from other sources, none of which are apparent from his essay. It doesn't come from his own experience. Using him in particular is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad auctoritatem, or resort to authority, trying to convince us that the guy's argument is good just because he happened to be black and got elected to a high-profile position ... one without any actual, accountable responsibility in achieving any of the goals he sought out, one might add.

What I did was to read the essay, and to come to a conclusion of my own that it is quite excellent, objectively. The fact that the author was Kofi Annan had nothing to do with it. I am quite surprised as to how you are able to make this assertion so readily.

You on the other hand, seem to regard the man with intense disdain, which clearly affects how you approach his arguments. I even wondered, at one point, whether the thread had switched from one concerning Drug Policy, to one discussing Kofi Annan's failures.

Quote:First question: who the fuck is Kofi Annan and why should we give a fuck about what he has to say on global drug policies?

Argumentum ad odium. I should have just stopped reading your post at this point because in my experience it only gets sentimental from here. I did continue anyway, hoping you'd surprise me. But not a single factual, or logical counter-argument is made throughout. Nor do you suggest any reasonable, well-thought out solution to the near zero progress that the war on drugs has made, given how long it has gone on.

I suggest you somehow approach the essay as though it was written by somebody other than Kofi Annan, critically analyze the current evidence, and come up with a more objective counter-argument.

Post: #293

(01-10-2017 10:47 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  The fact that the author was Kofi Annan had nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. You're either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant.

Post: #294

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/how-did-m...irst-place

The cost of the war on drugs seems inordinately high, especially for the casual / non-violent marijuana user. That it's so demonized, yet so profitable, smacks of corruption. The link above suggested racial components to ban 'marihuana' brought in by Mexican immigrants although it was in common use already:

Quote:Mexican immigrants referred to this plant as “marihuana”. While Americans were very familiar with “cannabis” because it was present in almost all tinctures and medicines available at the time, the word “marihuana” was a foreign term. So, when the media began to play on the fears that the public had about these new citizens by falsely spreading claims about the “disruptive Mexicans” with their dangerous native behaviors including marihuana use, the rest of the nation did not know that this “marihuana” was a plant they already had in their medicine cabinets.

The demonization of the cannabis plant was an extension of the demonization of the Mexican immigrants. In an effort to control and keep tabs on these new citizens, El Paso, TX borrowed a play from San Francisco’s playbook, which had outlawed opium decades earlier in an effort to control Chinese immigrants. The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants.

That excuse became marijuana.

This method of controlling people by controlling their customs was quite successful, so much so that it became a national strategy for keeping certain populations under the watch and control of the government.

During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales.

and this quote re: the possibility to take marijuana off Schedule I although Tricky Dicky decided against it (I wonder why?!):

Quote:While the Act was ruled unconstitutional years later, it was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970’s which established Schedules for ranking substances according to their dangerousness and potential for addiction. Cannabis was placed in the most restrictive category, Schedule I, supposedly as a place holder while then President Nixon commissioned a report to give a final recommendation.

The Schafer Commission, as it was called, declared that marijuana should not be in Schedule I and even doubted its designation as an illicit substance. However, Nixon discounted the recommendations of the commission, and marijuana remains a Schedule I substance.

In 1996, California became the first state to approve the use of marijuana for medical purposes, ending its 59 year reign as an illicit substance with no medical value. Prior to 1937, cannabis had enjoyed a 5000 year history as a therapeutic agent across many cultures. In this context, its blip as an illicit and dangerous drug was dwarfed by its role as a medicine.

Opponents of medical marijuana regulations claim that there is not enough research to warrant medicinal use, but supporters of medical marijuana point to the 5000 years of history where cannabis was widely used as evidence for its medical efficacy.

Now that 23 states, plus Washington, DC, have passed medical marijuana laws, the public is questioning the utility of keeping marijuana under lock and key, especially in light of the racist and propagandized basis for making it illegal in the first place.

Post: #295

The movies that portray the 'war on drugs' seem to suggest it's all cocaine and heroin, although those seem to be the smaller share of the market if these statistics posted by Marshall D.T. are accurate. The war on drugs, as he said, is a war primarily on cannabis. They need to be separated, and enough states are doing this already based on history and evidence.

In the context of cocaine and heroin use, it is purely recreational / escapist. Anyone I know who has done cocaine has used it in the past (during 'wild party' days, when they or someone they were close to was rolling in money or willing to go into debt to fund their addiction). Same with heroin, and only snorted - I don't know anyone who's admitting to shooting heroin. The only recent cocaine user I've heard of is a deadbeat divorced dad who had a well-paying job at the height of his habit. The indications are that cocaine and heroin are drugs of fame / affluence / status, not available to 'loser stoner high school drop-out' types. They're also more expensive than marijuana which, like bottle service, puts them out of reach of most people.

It seems the real issue cycles around the import and control of drug supply (often related to arm sales / influence in foreign governments) rather than curtailing domestic production. I think it makes sense to separate the idea of a war on drugs to who benefits or suffers from production / consumption / regulation, and how lives are affected.

In the case of marijuana, it's definitely not a cut and dry issue, for a few simple reasons. Cannabis and products related to hemp are found in nature and have proven themselves useful in many contexts (from medicinal / shamanic / paper / food ). They were used in medicine under a century ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if a growing pharma-industry decided to put pressure on gov't via their lobbyist to keep cannabis out of medicines (also hard to patent a natural substance). The totally disingenuous action of Nixon keeping marijuana on the Schedule I - despite reasonable recommendations and historical precedence - was the fundamental crime that allowed the subsequent 'war on cannabis' to occur, under the false auspices of a 'war on drugs.'

Aha! Check this out (taken from here: http://druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/mj_outlawed.htm ):

Quote:When and why was marijuana outlawed?

California, 1913

The first state marijuana prohibition law was passed in California in 1913. The law received no public notice in the press. It was passed as an obscure technical amendment by the State Board of Pharmacy, which was then leading one of the nation's earliest and most aggressive anti-narcotics campaigns. Prior to the passage of the law, there was no indication that cannabis was a problem in California. The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California from California NORML

"It was passed as an obscure technical amendment by the STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY..." Smoking gun, anyone?

In terms of personal responsibility, one can substitute 'processed foods/sugar/oils' or 'alcohol' for 'drugs' in any statement about the social impact. Taken in excess, all can have a cost to society but there are minimal if any real preventative measures to excess sugar/carbohydrate/industrial oil consumption leading becoming fat/diabetic/a burden on the medical and welfare system along with self-worth issues. For excess alcohol, there is only reactive / situational punishment of drunk driving/crashing into someone/hurting them - where's the social shame of having one or two or three beers? You're UNSAFE to be in society at that point! You're a DRUG addict, bro!

Alcohol is KNOWN to destroy brain cells, impair function, harm the liver, and promote aggression much more quickly and readily than cannabis. Hell, there are treatments using cannabanoid compounds that have cured cancer. There needs to be more a war on alcohol and processed foods than on cannabis, but the PTB have done a good job demonizing a natural compound that has great value when used mindfully. The problem is, the government is more interested in prosecuting than educating.


Again, 'qui bono?' - who benefits? - from having an illegal cannabis trade, vs. legal / regulated / supervised production and clear standards on consumption / public intoxication? It worked for alcohol, which is demonstrably more debilitating and destructive (to self and others) than cannabis.

The lack of a moral upbringing, disintegrating family cohesiveness, lack of community support / feedback, and being either pampered or ignored adolescence leads to 'adults' who aren't capable of regulating their use of any substances which may have demonstrated merits. Alcohol is far more dangerous and destructive than cannabis use. Prohibition was a failure. The war on cannabis is also a failure to public welfare but a private success for government agencies who are designed to control the behaviors of citizens, funnel money into black budgets and influence sovereign governments. Thankfully, the pushback against this evil campaign is succeeding.

This is an excellent talk by Graham Hancock about the 'War on Consciousness' which is a bigger context of why demonizing cannabis is so hateful - it denies our right to explore our own consciousness in the privacy of our own homes. Talk about enforcing a control system! He also points out that use of ayahuasca has helped cure people of heroin and cocaine addiction (and, in his case, from compulsive marijuana usage). Wouldn't it be wonderful if the US government made ayahuasca part of their drug rehabilitation program? One can hope...


Again, the crux of my post is to look at who benefits and who suffers under existing drug policies, and why cannabis even made it to Schedule I status against recommendation. It was entirely political. Cannabis is NOT cocaine or heroin in origin, usefulness, or affect.

http://druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/mj_outlawed.htm

Post: #296

(01-10-2017 07:09 AM)roberto Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:20 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  If you are sent to mandatory rehab and records are kept, this is just as bad as having a criminal record. In a lot of countries, you lose certain rights, such as firearm ownership and being able to serve in the military, for life if you've ever received substance abuse treatment).

If you have such poor self control that the state has to help you back onto your feet via rehab, then you're damn right I don't want you around weapons.

You don't believe in redemption or second chances?

Just because someone made a few mistakes when they were young -- and were unlucky (or stupid) enough to get caught -- doesn't mean they should be forever banned from protecting themselves and their families with firearms.

In America, the Constitution grants all citizens the right to bear arms for self defense. If you permanently take this right away from somebody, you are essentially revoking their citizenship. They might still have a U.S. passport, but they no longer have the full rights of a citizen.

If you want to talk about temporarily suspending someone's right to bear arms, I'd be willing to have that conversation. I understand why you wouldn't want some strung-out junkie walking around the streets with a gun. But there's a big difference between temporarily suspending somebody's rights to self-defense, and taking them away for life.

Not to mention, a lot of these people who, in your words, "have such poor self control that the state has to help you back onto your feet via rehab," are really just regular people (non-addicts) who just happened to get caught with drugs. If you're caught with drugs, the state will oftentimes force you to go to rehab whether you're an addict or not.

I don't support taking away a right as fundamental as the right to self-defense for the rest of somebody's life simply because they were caught with a substance that has been declared illegal.

I would rather not have drunken alcoholics walking around the street with guns, either, but that does not mean I would support a law that forbids gun ownership for anyone who has ever spent a night in the drunk tank.

Post: #297

(01-07-2017 08:37 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 03:08 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  ...
And to Leonard's point about "decriminalize drug use without first decriminalizing self defence"... I agree. It makes sense to secure unrestricted self defence first.

So why can't we advocate and hope for both, in that order? You guys just find it totally untenable, or there is some other ideological reason?

No. It's simply the case that the vast majority of governments, liberal and conservative alike, are hostile to anything that puts power in the hands of citizens and positive toward anything that puts power in the hands of the state, even if that power is the power to "fix" shit (with the generous application of your tax money of course).

So if we're dumb enough to fight for the decriminalisation of drugs AND self defence then the government will shake our hand on drugs, fuck us on self defence and tell us "well you got 50% of what you wanted, and that's reasonable, right?

Of course the reality is that you're now fucked worse than ever.

So, no. It's not tenable to argue for both, because it's all the in the domain of the "fantasy land societal do-over".

p.s. I recognise you used the term "in that order" but that would imply that nobody is even going to bring up drug decriminalisation prior to securing self defence by any means, as the government uses what "grass roots support" it can, wherever it finds it.

Gathering consensus on an issue is by definition granting a license to politicians.

Also the idea that the only two issues in play are drug and self defence laws ignores my previous post. There's also medicine, welfare and even public decency in play. How do you propose to fix all of those competing issues BEFORE you let the genie of drug decriminalisation out of the bottle?

I'm assuming your argument is that if drugs were decriminalized, you would have more junkies roaming the streets looking to rob ordinary citizens in order to get their fix (which is why you're saying we need total decriminalization of self-defense before we can legalize drugs).

The problem with your argument is that if drugs were legalized, you would have less violent junkies looking to rob ordinary citizens, not more. One of the main reasons junkies need to steal to support their habits is because prohibition drives drug prices so high that junkies can no longer afford their fixes without resorting to robbery.

When was the last time you heard about an alcoholic mugging someone on the street in order to get money for booze? A cheap bottle of vodka (big enough to keep you drunk all day) costs under $10. A heroin addict, on the other hand, has to spend $50-$100 per day to support his habit. The reason for this is that prohibition artificially drives up prices. When you buy illegal drugs, you are not only paying for the drug itself, but also for the risk involved in selling it to you. A drug dealer is literally risking his life every time he sells a bag, so obviously he needs to be compensated for that risk.

Additionally, under drug prohibition (and the artificially inflated drug prices that go along with it), it is highly profitable to be a black market dealer. This makes neighborhoods less safe, not more.

If anything, we should be demanding the government decriminalize all forms of self-defense if they want to keep drugs illegal. If drugs were legalized, there would be less violent crime to worry about, not more.

(01-10-2017 08:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Perhaps we should have a hands up of anyone arguing for criminalisation to protect the addict.

As far as I can tell that's not an argument many people here seem to be making.

Most criminalisation advocates here seem to be debating that drug users typically ugly up the place, leech off the system and sometimes become thieves, muggers and killers. The argument is that the liberties of those that don't offend are too high a price to pay for the suffering caused to others by the fate of those drug users who cannot control or legally support their addictions.

So is anyone here actually arguing for criminalisation to help the addict? Because if not then that's a dead horse the decriminalisation advocates should really stop flogging.

There were some people arguing that we should "forcefully send drug users to rehab, not jail." To me, that sounds like they are advocating the continuation of prohibition in order to help the addict.

If you're against sending drug users to jail, then why support forcefully sending them to rehab?

I'd be happy to have deeper arguments and go into detail about why I think prohibition in general is bad (not just for addicts, bur for society as a whole), but first I wanted to address some of the more ridiculous arguments, namely that prohibition, mandatory rehab, etc., is actually helpful to addicts.

Now that we all seem to be on the same page that prohibition is not helpful to addicts and users, I'd be happy to discuss why I don't think prohibition is helpful to non-users, either.

Post: #298

(01-10-2017 07:57 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  2. The marijuana addict, who is just like any other addict if you truly understand the psychology of addiction. And just like any other addict, there is enough punishment from the negative consequences of the addiction itself.

Not true. The ultimate punishment is being unable to reproduce. So if you don't stigmatize drug use, then more drug users will reproduce.

Post: #299

(01-10-2017 02:16 PM)Truth Tiger Wrote:  Again, the crux of my post is to look at who benefits and who suffers under existing drug policies, and why cannabis even made it to Schedule I status against recommendation. It was entirely political. Cannabis is NOT cocaine or heroin in origin, usefulness, or affect.

I'm glad you framed the issue in these terms.

Alcohol is a white drug. Marijuana is a brown drug. We're a white nation, so we tolerate white drugs. We're not a brown nation, so we don't tolerate brown drugs.

Moreover, we held a major election, a chief issue of which was whether the massive presence (or over-presence) of brown people in America was beneficial, neutral, or harmful - and the harmful side won.

Therefore, legalizing brown drugs is tantamount to preferring brown people over white people, just as Marshall's argument reduces to, "Oh, sure the brown people fucked over their country, but you white people have to save it!" Naturally, Marshall himself won't personally sacrifice any of his time nor effort to fix Brown Nation; he'll just cheerlead.

Post: #300

(01-10-2017 08:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Most criminalisation advocates here seem to be debating that drug users typically ugly up the place, leech off the system and sometimes become thieves, muggers and killers. The argument is that the liberties of those that don't offend are too high a price to pay for the suffering caused to others by the fate of those drug users who cannot control or legally support their addictions.

But where are the facts that support this argument? Where are the bodies? Where are the numbers?

Currently illegal drugs such as marijuana, opium, psychedelics, and coca have been used for thousands of years for both medical, spiritual, and recreational purposes. Its criminalization (just about around 1971, and booming through the 1980s) is not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs on the user, or the people they interact with. Its purely political. In fact, there's actual documentation that shows the US government under Nixon was actively writing to Universities and telling them pull all information on cannabis out of their libraries. That's an idea which would never have crossed the minds of the founding fathers - if anyone had stood up at a constitutional convention and said "hey, let's ban alcohol!", that idea wouldn't have gotten very far. It wouldn't have gotten very far not because they were a bunch of drunks, but because the idea that a federal government had that degree of power over sovereign individuals was anathema to what they were trying to create in forming a new country. Criminalization advocates do not seem to realize this, nor do they realize that whenever Nixon or Reagan used the term "war on drugs", it was a rhetorical frame in which the sacrifice of individual liberty seemed necessary, nor do they realize how this tears society apart.

And now what you have is every fourth person in the world in jail, being a citizen of the land of the free.