Just found this vid you posted, bloody hilarious!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:

^ Auger8

In 2009, Portugal's Decriminalized drugs which Showed a Positive Result 5 years after for deaths from overdoses and the rate of HIV cases. The theory however was to start focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users which would decrease the number of deaths and infections. (& i have not heard Paul make this his standpoint). "Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald said.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. there is a difference between the two & legalisation of all drugs was not what was done here.

@Grimm, I think the right legislation to focus on is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which appears to be the genesis of federal funding for education.

Now, I confess I have no direct knowledge of the Department of Education beyond what I can google, but according to their website, their mandate is:

• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
  
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
  
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
  
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.
  

Now I'm not sure how many of those things Ron Paul is really against, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend he's only opposed to that first bullet.

But why is he opposed to that? I'm guessing the whole idea here is the money comes with strings attached. Well, that's fine, if states want to forgo that funding and ignore those strings, they can. What's his objection?

If he doesn't want the money to have strings attached, I'm open to that idea, but I would like him to put a little effort into explaining what "strings" are currently being attached, and why he thinks they're so onerous.

If he's just opposed to some specific policy the Department of Education has put in place, then he should just say that. But then it's not the Department of Education that's the problem, it's that policy that's the problem -- the Department of Education as an institution is fine, he just wants it to be run differently.

But just outright discarding the Department of Education means getting rid of popular, reasonable things like federal funding for education, collecting statistics about educational outcomes, enforcement of federal anti-discrimination law, or even basic curriculum standards (like you can't teach religious doctrine as science).

And this in a nutshell is why I never really have anything nice to say about Ron Paul anymore. Either he's a fucking clueless idiot who doesn't know anything about what the Department he supposedly wants to eliminate is responsible for, or he does know all the things the Department he wants to eliminate is responsible for, and he's just hoping normal people don't realize that eliminating it would mean cutting education funding and decriminalizing racial segregation of schools until it's too late.

One can certainly complain about the policies the Department of Education is setting -- and I see liberals doing so all the time, BTW -- but this call for the abolition of the Department in its entire is mindless, heartless insanity, and it's gotta fucking stop.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^gorillaman:
LOL

?


gorillaman believes all cops should be executed for complicity in marijuana prohibition.

http://drugs.videosift.com/talk/Decriminalizing-marijuana-what-say-you?loadcomm=1#comment-476756
http://videosift.com/video/Cop-Shooter-is-Attacked-Before-Court-Appearance?loadcomm=1#comment-489848
http://videosift.com/video/Two-guys-try-to-kill-a-cop?loadcomm=1#comment-213884
http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Deal-with-the-Police?loadcomm=1#comment-1020594
http://videosift.com/video/Naked-man-tasered-multiple-times-at-Coachella-festival?loadcomm=1#comment-741977
http://videosift.com/video/Louisiana-Police-Choke-Man-to-Death-for-Drugs-in-His-Mouth?loadcomm=1#comment-810007
http://videosift.com/video/Police-Officer-Shoots-Motorcyclist-In-The-Back?loadcomm=1#comment-998287
http://videosift.com/video/Former-Drug-Czar-Owned-Legalization-Debate?loadcomm=1#comment-754673
http://videosift.com/video/The-Largest-Street-Gang-in-America?loadcomm=1#comment-837609
http://videosift.com/video/Marijuana-It-s-Time-for-a-Conversation?loadcomm=1#comment-620405

Also, it seems "niggers", "kikes" and "spics" are unacceptable to him, as well.

>> ^marbles:

With AA, being any minority is a significant advantage.
No it is not. If we lived in some egalitarian society where race had not been a massive limiting factor for centuries, and where decisions like going to college took place in a fairy land where money, the schools you went to, the opportunities you had earlier and familial obligations play no part, then you might have a point. We don't live in that world.
>> ^marbles:

Opportunity isn't distributed.
Yes it is. If its more than twice as hard to get a job because your skin is dark (it is), if your family doesn't have money to allow you the freedom, to have a safe environment in which to grow up, to allow you to get a good education or to start your own business because they too have suffered financially and socially from the legal and social forces that distribute the power to choose, then you are being denied opportunity for non-meritocratic reasons, and those opportunities are being given to others, for non-meritocratic reasons.
>> ^marbles:

Just like every other social problem in the past century, the government's solution has done more harm than help.
Sure, property rights and national defense are terrible impositions on personal sovereignty, and if we dispensed with both of them then AA would probably not be needed, but I don't really care about fairyland politics, I'm only concerned with reality and how to realistically address problems within it
>> ^marbles:

Anyway it's not the role of government to be distributing anything.
Um... except that they distribute EVERYTHING. Property is a government system that codifies the distribution of resources. They set land boundaries, they arbitrate disputes, what the hell are you talking about?
>> ^marbles:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Social Convention is not reason or eloquence either, it is force just the same. I would rather the bullies fight each other, then just let the less accountable one loose to beat the shit out of us.
>> ^marbles:

Better solution? Stop subsidizing poverty and end drug prohibition would be a good start.
"subsidizing poverty" I presume is a reference to social programs that allow poor families to have a stable enough environment that their kids can have some opportunities. How exactly does trapping future generations in poverty solve the disproportionate racial distribution of class privilege?

drug prohibition is only tangentially related, consider:

1) All classes do drugs at similar rates
2) poor people get caught more often
3) non-white people get convicted more often

The double whammy of historical poverty and racist jurisprudence are the problem. The insane "war on drugs" certainly has racist consequences, but they are symptomatic of a larger problem that decriminalization will not solve.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^rychan:
<em>>> <It just seems like a useless exercise to me to try to give people the freedom to use a drug like heroin when it will only cause terrible repercussions.

insert alcohol for heroin in that statement and you get the mindset that gave us prohibition. go the fuck away


I don't think "go the fuck away" is an attitude that's welcome on the sift.

As far as your statement about prohibition, yes, you're right. My attitude is the same that prompted alcohol prohibition, which clear didn't work out. But that doesn't mean that all types of prohibition are folly. We have assault weapon prohibitions, as well, which inhibit your personal freedom to buy a bazooka.

Also, I'd say that alcohol is used responsibly* about 95% of the the time, and heroin about 5% of the time. Unfortunately, alcohol, by virtue of being legal and relatively inexpensive, is used vastly more than heroin so that 5% of irresponsible alcohol use is extremely damaging.

*responsible usage means that your safety and the safety of those around you, your financial well-being, and your social relationships are not negatively influenced.

Prohibition has all sorts of nasty side-effects, as BansheeX points out. We could try to be stricter, like Singapore or China, and that seems to make the drug prohibition much more effective. Or we could decriminalize consumption of drugs, but still require mandatory treatment, like Portugal. Regardless, no country seems to have found the silver bullet to deal with hard drugs.

I think these drugs are well-engineered human poisons, which damage your brain, sometimes permanently, and damage a society enormously. Others disagree, or say that even if this is the case, it should be legal.

What if there were a drug specifically engineered to send a user into a murderous rampage? They might not actually go on a killing spree every time they use it, but it is a common and expected side effect. Should it still be legal to use such a drug?

@shinyblurry

jesus you still dont get it do you?
no one, i say again, FUCKING NO ONE is goddamn fucking promoting an anything goes, all is permissable attitude. the proponents of decriminalization and the lifting of prohibition on drugs, prostitution, etc want regulation and control not anarchy for fuck sake so come off that fucking horse. is this just an entirely foreign concept to you? because it fucking shouldnt goddamn be.
you dont think there is any such thing as a responsible use of heroin? ya, youre right, im gonna have to fucking heartily disagree.

im curious, in what ways would the decriminalization, regulation, and control of these things make society quantifiably worse? i'd love to hear that one.

many people would fall into addiction and die that otherwise wouldnt you say? cigarettes and the nicotine and other chemicals found within are one of, if not the most addictive substances known to man. They kill over 400,000 people a year in the US alone. all other illicit drugs both direct and indirect? 17,000. what was your point again? oh you dont fucking have one? didnt think so.

we really don't seem to know much about human nature? i'd say you sure as hell dont know a goddamn thing about human history. hows that? keep on with your blanket prohibition of this shit. create more capones and create entire illegal industries. you dont have a fucking clue

fuck i wish i had a joint to smoke

>> ^nanrod:
I almost don't even know where to start, this thread has got me so riled up over so many points. So I'll restrict myself to this. Your statement, sir, is neither a fact nor is it incontrovertible. It is, however, likely true that there are some people who under a legalization regime would die who otherwise wouldn't. It is also most likely that a much greater number of people would live who would otherwise die. The most common cause of heroin related death is the use of heroin that is contaminated or of uncertain concentration. Where I live there is currently a public health warning out due to rash of OD's caused by higher than normal quality of heroin available. In the US alone how many law enforcement personnel have died in the last 50 years in drug related activities. How many innocent Mexican citizens have died at the hands of drug cartels supplying the insatiable American demand for illicit drugs. It may not be an incontrovertible fact but to my mind the decriminalization of all drugs would save far more lives than it would cost. (and remember any lives that it would cost would be the result of personal choice)
PS: You personally know many people who would become heroin addicts if it were easily available??? Really??? You're personal circle of acquaintances, friends and relatives must be either a particularly weak minded bunch or a particularly scummy bunch. >> ^shinyblurry:
An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise.



The people I know aren't weak-minded scum, but thanks for the vote of confidence. I just happen to know a lot of people, from all walks of life. And quite a few come to mind that could fall into that trap if presented the legal opportunity. You seem to be under this illusion that everyone is capable of making informed choices about their lives, but I think the darwin awards alone proves you wrong. Some people do need to be supervized, and for their own good.

I'll be the first one to disagree with the war on drugs. I think it is stupid, ineffective, and harmful. However, just opening the floodgates with this anything goes, all is permissible attitude is really just anarchy behind a thin veil. We, as a society, have to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps you think the ideal society is funhouse of prostitution and drugs and gambling, but personally, I wouldn't want to live there. If you want that move to Las Vegas. The whole point of my message was that there has to be compromise somewhere. I don't think we should allow everything, but certainly a lot more than we do. There are certain drugs, like heroin, that I think are so harmful that they should never be legal. I don't think there is any such thing as a responsible use of heroin. I'm sure you'll disagree.

I think it comes down to a moral issue, that just having these things legal makes society quantifiably worse, but also just a reality check. It won't be all smooth sailing if it were to happen, which of course we know it never will. Many people will fall into addiction and even die who wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, many people are dying now..you think these people, who knowing the risks and are still engaging in high risk behavior for a cheap thrill or quick cash..you think these people would be saved if heroin is legal? LOL to that my friend. They would most likely just find some other stupid way to kill themselves. What they need is intensive therapy and counseling, not legal access to heroin. You really don't seem to know much about human nature.

I almost don't even know where to start, this thread has got me so riled up over so many points. So I'll restrict myself to this. Your statement, sir, is neither a fact nor is it incontrovertible. It is, however, likely true that there are some people who under a legalization regime would die who otherwise wouldn't. It is also most likely that a much greater number of people would live who would otherwise die. The most common cause of heroin related death is the use of heroin that is contaminated or of uncertain concentration. Where I live there is currently a public health warning out due to rash of OD's caused by higher than normal quality of heroin available. In the US alone how many law enforcement personnel have died in the last 50 years in drug related activities. How many innocent Mexican citizens have died at the hands of drug cartels supplying the insatiable American demand for illicit drugs. It may not be an incontrovertible fact but to my mind the decriminalization of all drugs would save far more lives than it would cost. (and remember any lives that it would cost would be the result of personal choice)

PS: You personally know many people who would become heroin addicts if it were easily available??? Really??? You're personal circle of acquaintances, friends and relatives must be either a particularly weak minded bunch or a particularly scummy bunch. >> ^shinyblurry:

An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise.

for those who can't get behind a full blown legalization of hard drugs like heroin or meth, how about simply decriminalizing them? so, they won't be for sale at your local 7/11 but we don't waste anymore money prosecuting and jailing non-violent junkies either?

i won't call addiction a victimless crime. loving/living with/caring for/being the child of/having the children of/being the parent of an addict is one of the most destructive, life wrenching things ever. as an adult its your choice and you can just leave, but as a kid you can't and as the parent, you can't. and drugs fuck up little kids lives. its not at all victimless. but locking those family members up in jail or in rehab against their will never fixed anything. the family is still broken. the addict is still broken. and legal substances can have the same consequences.


bbbuuttt.....here are some things states could do to 1. alleviate the budget shortfalls without fucking the poor and 2. create jobs while expanding civil liberties and boosting moral

1. legalize marijuana and tax it... new source of revenue plus a new industry creates new jobs
2. legalize gambling and tax the casinos .... again, new source of revenue plus a new industry creates jobs
3. decriminalize possession of other drugs, quit spending the $$ arresting and prosecuting addicts and just write up a ticket with a fine attached (say $500) .... save money plus new source of revenue
4. legalize gay marriage ...... extra revenue collected from the sale of marriage licenses, a boom in the wedding industry


i would say legalize prostitution, but i have mixed feelings about it. if it's done wrong, you get a trafficking disaster. done right and highly regulated, great. i wont say decriminalize prostitution because that doesnt make anyone safer and kind of neuters our ability to break up exploitation rings.

If a "feminist" isn't for decriminalizing prostitution it's all a silly act.

>> ^Fusionaut:

How to end the drug war and take power away from organized crime: decriminalize drugs.


No. Decriminalization of drugs will have very little affect on organized crime.

Decriminalization is simply moving the common citizen's punishment from being caught using illegal drugs from criminal to civil - it does nothing about the supply chain for these drugs. In many cases, criminal punishment will still exist for anyone falling under the growing/producing, selling, or transporting category.

But decriminalization isn't completely ineffectual; it will dramatically raise the quality of life of users and provide an official avenue for addicts to get help before hitting rock bottom (although it may just open up the avenue for people/organizations to step into rather than actively providing.)

To disrupt the organized crimes' profit from illegal drugs, you have to provide other sources of these drugs. Pure and simply, this is supply and demand. There will always be some demand.

How to end the drug war and take power away from organized crime: decriminalize drugs.

>> ^Xaielao:

Whether it would be a good thing or not is besides the point really. The amount of marijuana use would actually drop, and quite significantly. It's because using the drug is illegal (though decriminalized in a number of states, including mine thankfully) that makes its use popular.

I'm not so sure marijuana use would drop if it became legal. I can't think of anyone I know who smokes it because it's illegal, and I seriously doubt they would quit because the legal penalties go away. I do, however, know multiple people who currently avoid it because of its legal status. Maybe I'm wrong, but the people I know who smoke do so because they enjoy it and it isn't negatively impacting their lives.

On the other hand, I do think legalization would reduce the use of other drugs. Weed is what brings many to the black market, therefore providing access to more addictive drugs that they may otherwise not have been looking for. If they can grow cannabis themselves, or know someone who does, there's less chance of them experimenting with harder drugs.

>> ^shagen454:

Yeah, but if they legalize marijuana more people will do it, but that doesn't matter, that's a GOOOD thing!!


Sorry to double post but I wanted to reply to this statement hehe.

Whether it would be a good thing or not is besides the point really. The amount of marijuana use would actually drop, and quite significantly. It's because using the drug is illegal (though decriminalized in a number of states, including mine thankfully) that makes its use popular.

It's the same with alcohol. In the 20's when prohibition came into effect alcohol use spiked dramatically after a year or two. It suddenly became cool to drink because it was illegal and use spiked, especially amongst women and even children. The simple fact that it was illegal made it more popular. And for that reason if just pot was made fully legal, we would actually see use go down.