new thread
More on that Christiania-inspired thread, buried way down the postings here now. Yes, I'm so far Left I'm nearly fascistic in my leanings. Jason, not only AM I a Straight-Edger, I'm ironically a believer that all drugs OUGHTA be legalised. Now I'm mark'd for assassination, jus' like Rastafarian reggae great, Peter Tosh was, whose Lp "Legalize It!", cost him his life, as that's the end of truly astronomical profits for drug lords.
I hear whatcher sayin' abt "They Man" just as much wanting to take our hair from us as much as our rights. Who here knows the (fortunately!) thwart'd bill that would've literally instituted arrest for perceived "though crimes"? Anyone?
You're right, Scott, ain't nobody's business but my own, OUR own, jus' like the melody. As a matter of fact, Matt, you raised a heap of salent points in YOUR excellent article quality observations, too.
Here. Hopefully the following URL will put the new prohibition into perspective. Thirty-eight years ago I got an A PLUS in high school (that's right, I'm old, LOL!) on a thesis done on this very topic. So, I may not be a user OF this, to some, miracle herb and bless'ed sacrament, but I AM an activist for industrial hemp, decrim, and medical marijuana.
http://world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.html
So, there's that. Doug Yurchey, another fellow proponent of legal reform in this arena, author'd the piece. It includes a link at the end for its sequel, too. Amazing, innit? We're run by a gov't full of thugs! A thugocracy ...
TIMOR OMNIS ABESTO,
Quenyan
Since I'm anti-drugs (not anti all drugs, i understand some are necessary, but by legalising marijuana you leave lots of potential for exploitation), I thought i'd explain my point of view. Oh and by the way, this also counts as me revising for my Economics exams :P
The main, and only viable argument FOR drug legalization is that it would destroy the criminal drug trade. Now I’m going to put it into perspective with a quote, and a little wisdom. "Don't steal, the government hates competition." That's right, it's the governments that are the biggest criminals. It's the government that takes (in the case of Belgium, where I live) more than 65% of your money through the income tax, social security, and VAT, and how much do they give back? 10%? So far the only parts of the welfare system I appreciate are the roads, the lights, the police, and the ambulance (which WILL charge you!). I still have to pay 50 euros (80+ dollars) for a decent doctor if I'm ill, and the huge unemployment benefits mean that people who are unemployed earn more than those working as a cleaner, for example. 12% unemployment is what that policy has caused.
The American 2006 budget had 27% of the money going towards military spending, and 19% towards interest payment on their huge debt. The former could have easily been avoided if the US didn't have 700 bases in 130 countries, and didn't go to war every couple of years. The latter could have been avoided if the US government hasn't, for the last 65 years, not had one year of surplus (the years under Clinton don't count, because the US government doesn't fully count future liabilities on pensions and healthcare).
It's the GOVERNMENT, that prints money (Fed increased dollars in circulation by 24.3%, more than 1.5 trillion, in 2006) and kills its currency (dollar). It's the BANKS that use Fractional Reserve Banking to create 7000 virtual dollars out of 1000 (in the US, with the reserve ratio of 10%. In the UK there is none anymore, and estimates say that reserves are at less than 3%). Do you think the amount of money the banks STEAL from you even comes close to what the drug trade brings in? And yes, they do steal, because when you take out a mortgage for a house and the bank transfers you virtual money that they don't have, then they can't possibly sell this money to you at an interest, since they don't have it. There was a court case in the 1960s I think whereby a lawyer (who defended himself) proved that the bank that gave him the mortgage never had the money in the first place, and stopped them from confiscating his home. Unfortunately, Fractional Reserve Banking is now so widespread and common in ALL western banks, that letting a court case like that repeat itself today could lead to a huge precedent. Bu the way, the whole sub prime mortgage crisis would have never occurred if the banks didn't lend money they didn't have. Hence interest rates would be higher and people wouldn't be able to take out sub-primes.
Anyway, I've completely derailed myself here. Back to drugs. My initial point was that governments, and banks, and the military industrial complex, and oil companies, and most of the other multinationals gain FAR more money through crimes that have now been legalized, or simply ignored, than any drug trade. And they do this because WE let them, because term after term we elect politicians that don't even touch on these issues. How many US presidents over the last few decades have talked about how the Federal Reserve is never supervised or audited (do they still have that gold?), or how many of them talk about the inflationary policies the Fed pursues, or how to reduce the deficit? Exactly, none. Or if they did talk about these things, they obviously did nothing. And yet we (I should say you, I’m not eligible yet) the voters, seem to learn nothing.
Now the second part. After all, even if drug trading isn't even close to being the most profitable criminal business, that doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with it. So I’ll explain why legalizing drugs will inevitably lead to implosion of....everything, ranging from the economy, to society as a whole.
You see, what welfare governments do nowadays is they tax the PRODUCTIVE members of society, and give this money to the unproductive ones. Now this is fine if you are ill, or disabled, or maybe you just between jobs (but are looking for one). These are all legitimate reasons. In most of these cases, these problems are not of our doing. Moreover, such a system will work as long as the ratio of productive members of society to unproductive ones stays economically feasible. Now imagine that a large portion of the population that is productive suddenly starts taking drugs due to legalization. There's absolutely no doubt that this would lead to lower productivity. People already phone in sick when they have hang-overs, now imagine the equivalent for drugs, but ten times worse! Now think of the memory and brain functions impaired through drug use. How are people supposed to concentrate for an 8 hour work day if they have brain related problems? I have a friend who took drugs at the age of 16, just Marijuana I think, and he keeps telling me just how much of a bad effect on his concentration, his memory, and his mood this has had since then (depressions and suicides would rise too). Sure you can quote cases when adverse effects were not as serious, but they're few and far between.
Now my final point. Unlike say, watching TV, which only wastes your time, smoking cigarettes actually has a negative consequence on those around you, who have to breath that passive smoke. In Economics these are called negative externalities. So Quenyan my friend, when you say that there should be freedom of choice in this respect, I can't agree, because you're not just harming yourself, you're harming others too. How do drugs harm others? Well, people get addicted to drugs and often steal, or even kill for money to buy them. Secondly, as I've already discussed, drugs would lower productivity, and the welfare system wouldn't be able to continue at its present rate, seriously hurting those who are disabled or ill for GOOD reasons. Thirdly, hospitals would have huge pressures placed upon them to deal with an influx of patients due to drug problems, again limiting doctors and equipment for those that need it for better reasons. Fourfly, those who take drugs are far more prone to have a dysfunctional family. This means that any children born into such a family would likely grow up to be criminals, and in turn have bad, or no families. I really could continue for a while but I seriously doubt anyone has bothered to read thus far, so I might as well stop :P
Sincerely yours,
derf26
Yes, I mean that in all sincerity, derf26, ENCORE! Yet anothr brilliant longhair'd guy fills our ranks. Excellent. Economics, economics, hmmm ... you're gonna do what w/ your degree/
Yeah, oops! I meant "thirty-three years ago", "salient", and "thought", NOT thirty-eight (I would've been 12 in senior high, not THAT smart, LOL!), and I gotta say, Monsieur Derf26, your well-thought-out rationale astounds me.
Ya see, I'm an ex-pot addict. And a dry drunk. Have't used drugs since 1989, when, do to a cocaine overdose, I miss'd one of the most important family functions that year, my cousin's wedding. Dried our "cold turkey" from then on.
Your citation of the welfare state, society imploding in on itself IF all drugs were available legally, and the "negative externals" are [points well taken.
Like many in my generation, I have a thread of alcoholsm wafting through and back to the Old Country. Both grandfathers were heavy drinkers. Both most probably succomb'd to medical ailments from their indulgences. Whatever anyone says, it IS a genetic compoent, this alcoholism.
So. what, I beseech you my future Professor friend, do we do? I'm all for living well, assisting the impoverished, the handicapped, the unemploy'd, the destitute, but within reason. After reading your brainstorming piece, truly leaving no stone unturn'd, I jus' don't know WHAT the solution is. Your i.e. of secondhand smoke was well accept'd. I'm flummoxed. It's a genuine conundrum.
Thank you for offering your views!
Best wishes for the future,
Quenyan
Thanks Quenyan *blushes*.
Seriously though, I don't know the solution. That's why I'm learning as much as possible from economics, history, politics, sociology, etc. The point is that no one has found a solution, nor do I think any solution is really possible. Perhaps a lesser of two evils scenario, but that's probably the best we can get. Who knows, maybe eventually I'll come up with something new, that's my aim :)
I must disagree, Derf. So much of what you say sounds like the typical, anti-drug rhetoric, that I can only assume you aren't speaking from experience. I'm too short on time to address your statements point-for-point, so for now, I'll just ask:
Do you believe alcohol should be illegal? If yes, why? If not, why not?
--Val
P.S.--Nothing personal. You seem a decent fellow. I'm just surprised to find this kind of closed-mindedness on a forum such as this.
I agree with your disagreeing with me...if that makes any sense. The reason is that this is, like many other issues, one where people take strong opinions. There are arguments for drug legalization, just like there are those against it. It's not that I don't consider both sides of the argument, I always do. But this is an issue I came to a decision about some time ago now, and since I am of only one opinion on this (That drugs except for medicinal purposes should be illegal, UNLESS they have NO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for anyone other than the one consuming, which is quite rare), then I only bothered to outline my sides of the argument. That doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the others, nor that I am close-minded.
And, as I DID mention, I am speaking from experience. Not of myself using drugs, but of my friends doing so, and themselves admitting to the negative consequences.
No I do not think alcohol should be illegal. I think acting like an irresponsible and self-centered fool should be illegal(not in terms of the law, but in terms of realization of one's consequences on others: hence why I'm a Humanist), but the government is full of them, so that's not happening anytime soon :)
I do think that the negative consequences of alcohol abuse should be illegal. For example, DUI is a crime, and should be. Moreover, drunk behaviour can to an extent be avoided by not going to bars, for example, or by choosing your friends carefully. But what happens if a child is born into a dysfunctional family of alcoholics and is abused, or at the very least grows up with the wrong example of behaviour to emulate? This is what various parental associations (not sure what they are called) are for. They make sure such families have to fix themselves, or give up parenting of their child. Do these associations work properly? I don't think so. Do they restrict our freedom? Yes. If they were to work properly, would the children gain benefits, and the parents maybe wake up to what is wrong with their lives? Probably.
Now I will explain what I see as the difference between drugs and alcohol: Drugs (again, not for medicinal purposes), simply put, have far worse consequences for both the individual taking them, and those who have to live with him.
But more important is this: Alcohol has been a part of western society for millenia. It is about as natural for people to get drunk from an early age (16 is the drinking age in Belgium, and trust me, many guys in my school started earlier). This is a problem that is so ingrained in society, that to get rid of it by outlawing, rather than "growing up", simply won't happen. Drugs however, are generally seen as bad, perhaps worse than they are (movies about drug overdoses resulting in death are very common). To legalize drugs would mean that in just one or two generations, drugs would be as habitual within society as alcohol. It wouldn't be something people would be ashamed of, or try to avoid. They would jump off the cliff with their friends, because most people are inherently sheep.
Ditto for slavery, but at some point in time we decided it was not a good idea.
I could go on and on with more examples, but the traffic from this thread is starting to contribute to global warming.
Bill
I would have to agree as well, but instead of Global Warming, more like Global Melt-Down to myself.
Justin~
Full legalization. Be best for the country. Even those who don't partake. It is our RELIGIOUS right acknowledged in the constitution. It is a right that is god given. It is indisputable.
And what happens to those that AREN'T religious, to those that DON'T believe in any gods? Does that mean they don't deserve the right?
Thank God or whoever or whatever you may or may not believe in that they are not! WE have enough troubles as it is without adding more to the list and let peoples lives be destroyed. Medical use would be the only exception where these drugs may possibly be used to help another human being that suffers from illness.
"Sufficent unto the day
is the evil thereof."
Aaah yes, Justin, "To every season, turn, turn ...", an' all that jazz. I love you, man, and I love what you've done w/ starting this board going for all of us longhairs, or at the very least, runnin' with the torch as it twas handed to ya.
What I meant in decrim, my young son, was not, not, NOT havin' spurred a society of chemically-addled inebriates runnin' amok like kids in a candy store. I was thinkin' of all the dudes rotting away i prison, twenty-five-to-life, for bein' busted 3X for pot, stiffer sentences for "ready rocks" over "powder", ten years for a sheet of "blotter".
The laws, bro, the laws make me sick. I want them to decriminalize, not demonize. Believe me, as a longtime longhair'd freak I've seen my share of damage done BY drugs. Heck, a grandmother in my neighbourhood deals pharmaceuticals (Oxycontin bein' the most popular, I've heard) right out of her home.
I'm no snitch, so, she continues to exploit people's weaknesses for profit. I personally think it's reprehensible. I don't condone the abusement for amusement OF chemical compounds, be they mass-produced in industrial chemical factories (Big Pharma) or grown in fields or jungles for distribution elsewhere. But, the crime syndicate, the law-makers, the gov't, you can see how they each support one another's pyramidal power structure by keeping it all illegal, don't you? The last of my two cents on this topic, I promise.
Keepin' it green,
Quenyan