Leave it to Fox to play *gotcha

And he was swept under the nomination rug.

*drugs

Adding video to channels (Drugs) - requested by kulpims.

I have access to heroin every single day. I sniffed it once or twice (in dust form) in a controlled environment (band practice): I'm sure it's a whole other ballgame to inject it but I'm not really into the whole I can't concentrate, nodding thing. No thanks. Therefore I am proof that if you use it once or twice you won't become addicted to it and that if it is readily available that I'd even use it. I was more interested in the Velvet Underground aspect of it - but I was more than happy to going back to drinking bourbon, wine and every once or twice a year shrooms after that shit.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-First-GOP-Primary-Debate-05-05-2011

Here's apparently his entire appearance.

pretty easy to get an opiate. your local md or pain clinic. biggest addiction problem in the states right now.
i really don't want the gov telling me what i can and can't put into my body. that's part of my definition of "big governement" over-reaching. funding education or regulating banks...umm ...different story.

He speaks sense here. As long as it's under the same laws as say alcohol, "don't smoke and drive" etc. then it should be perfectly legal.

Sell it at pharmacies.

It's the classic hypocrisy of the tea-party. On one hand, they cry about people not following the Constitution and on the other, they want the gubment to regulate drugs, wombs, and nuptials.

I'm surprised Ron Paul can claim membership in the Tea Party with a straight face.

>> ^KnivesOut:

It's the classic hypocrisy of the tea-party. On one hand, they cry about people not following the Constitution and on the other, they want the gubment to regulate drugs, wombs, and nuptials.
I'm surprised Ron Paul can claim membership in the Tea Party with a straight face.


As a non-american I thought he was an independent?

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

I don't believe the government should regulate our personal lives. It's a fine line. Take the heroin example. Heroin is so dangerous, and so deadly. Overdosing is not hard, at all..and I personally know a lot of people who would probably become heroin addicts rather quickly if it was easy as picking it up in the convenience store.

An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise. Is it worth lives to make a dangerous and deadly drug available to masses under the pretense of liberty? Why can't we be rational, and reasonable instead..and say, well the cause of liberty should outweigh the harm..but we will collectively decide that some of these are just so dangerous that it is worth impringing on our liberty to keep them illegal.

The bible says that everything is permisable(besides what is explicitly forbidden) but not everything is beneficial. Likewise, though liberty is valuable it is not always beneficial to the whole. Remember, when liberty is taken to the extreme you have anarchy.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't believe the government should regulate our personal lives. It's a fine line. Take the heroin example. Heroin is so dangerous, and so deadly. Overdosing is not hard, at all..and I personally know a lot of people who would probably become heroin addicts rather quickly if it was easy as picking it up in the convenience store.
An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise. Is it worth lives to make a dangerous and deadly drug available to masses under the pretense of liberty? Why can't we be rational, and reasonable instead..and say, well the cause of liberty should outweigh the harm..but we will collectively decide that some of these are just so dangerous that it is worth impringing on our liberty to keep them illegal.
The bible says that everything is permisable(besides what is explicitly forbidden) but not everything is beneficial. Likewise, though liberty is valuable it is not always beneficial to the whole. Remember, when liberty is taken to the extreme you have anarchy.


Know what else is dangerous? Sky diving, bungee jumping, base jumping, some parkour, motorcycle racing, f1, trick motorcycle jumps, you fucking name it, we do it.

In my own personal opinion, it is not the place of a government to act as my mummy, taking dangerous toys off me, reprimanding me for doing something hazardous to my health. Human kind has lived for many long long years without that kind of omnipresent babysitter.

It is not government's job to say what you can and can't do with or to your own body as long as you are not directly harming anyone else in the act of doing it. Part of being free is having the responsibility for the effects of your actions on yourself and on the people you love.

(inb4 drugs harm others) The only reason drugs harm others right now is because they are illegal.

Edit:
Whoops i forgot to add - ron paul continues to say things that make absolute perfect undeniable sense! Can he come over here and run a political party please? I want to see/know more.

If people were reasonable and acting in their own self-interests and the interests of their community, then yes, Ron Paul is correct, we would have never needed to make Heroin illegal.

Ron Paul could make the same argument about child abuse. "How many of you are going to go beat your children unless the government tells you not to? See! We don't need those laws".

He's Uber-conservative. Old School GOP. Devout Constitutionalist.

@rychan"Ron Paul could make the same argument about child abuse. "How many of you are going to go beat your children unless the government tells you not to? See! We don't need those laws"."

Equating child abuse and self-destructive behaviour is a reach, don't you think? A junkie getting his fix is hardly violence against a child. Granted, it might be a cause and effect, but until the person raises their hand to the child, they are only hurting themselves. To equate a violent act against a child with a substance addiction diminshes the violence.

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan"Ron Paul could make the same argument about child abuse. "How many of you are going to go beat your children unless the government tells you not to? See! We don't need those laws"."
Equating child abuse and self-destructive behaviour is a reach, don't you think? A junkie getting his fix is hardly violence against a child. Granted, it might be a cause and effect, but until the person raises their hand to the child, they are only hurting themselves. To equate a violent act against a child with a substance addiction diminshes the violence.


I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.

Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year according to this article: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-21/world/un.heroin.trade_1_afghan-opium-heroin-fund-attacks?_s=PM:WORLD

I happen to have an opinion, unpopular on sites like VideoSift or Reddit, that it is not possible to responsibly use certain drugs and that it is in society's clear interest to suppress their usage. If you want to go off to a remote island and get high as a kite then obviously that doesn't impact me. But if you're in my community, trying to raise children, using my roads and public spaces, creating problems for my police department, why should I acquiesce to your horribly destructive addiction? I think drugs like heroin should be illegal and mandatory treatment should be required of those who use them.

@rychan

What about government mandated health routines, as heart attacks are the number one killer in the USA (Heart disease: 616,067)? Not all people are alike. I just asked on vent right now how many people have used smack, and 2 people had. They haven't ruined their communities. The aren't jacking cars or beating children. I can't support the notion that a few bad apples, or many bad apples spoil it for everyone. Deal with what is spoiled. But that is moot when considering unhealthy diets kill more people than all the drugs combined.

I suspect you just find drug use more distasteful than its actual burden on communities as it pails in comparison to many other health issues but gets monumental amounts more funding. 100k per year in the entire world dead from heroin, pehh. People falling kills 4x more people in the US than drugs. Drugs are a minor problem in the US compared to other forms of death. Perspective is important. Percents don't matter to the family member who has a drug problem..trust me, I know 1st hand. But the fact that they are more likely to die in a car crash, or trip and break their neck to get the drugs is the kind of strange statistical occurrence that happens in life. Adjusting to views that fit with evidence instead of emotion is hard, perhaps impossibly hard for some. Don't get me wrong, drugs are dangerous, but your legs and mobility are statistically more dangerous.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@rychan
What about government mandated health routines, as heart attacks are the number one killer in the USA (Heart disease: 616,067)? Not all people are alike. I just asked on vent right now how many people have used smack, and 2 people had. They haven't ruined their communities. The aren't jacking cars or beating children. I can't support the notion that a few bad apples, or many bad apples spoil it for everyone. Deal with what is spoiled. But that is moot when considering unhealthy diets kill more people than all the drugs combined.
I suspect you just find drug use more distasteful than its actual burden on communities as it pails in comparison to many other health issues but gets monumental amounts more funding. 100k per year in the entire world dead from heroin, pehh. People falling kills 4x more people in the US than drugs. Drugs are a minor problem in the US compared to other forms of death. Perspective is important. Percents don't matter to the family member who has a drug problem..trust me, I know 1st hand. But the fact that they are more likely to die in a car crash, or trip and break their neck to get the drugs is the kind of strange statistical occurrence that happens in life. Adjusting to views that fit with evidence instead of emotion is hard, perhaps impossibly hard for some. Don't get me wrong, drugs are dangerous, but your legs and mobility are statistically more dangerous.


Obesity is a real problem, but mainly for the obese person. I'm not afraid that they'll kill my daughter so that they can get their next Twinkie fix. That happens with drugs, though:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20006444-504083.html

You are breaking your brain when you use these drugs.

I'm skeptical about that falling statistic, as well.

I like Obama, but damn I love this man! Libertarians assemble!

I love listening to this guy.
I found certain things i disagreed with him on.

But in general i agree with alot of his "butt out of it" attitude.

The people that are a burden to society because of their destructive nature...they will always be there
and they always have...whether it is legal or not.
and the legality of these drugs have always been moving.

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.

>> ^rychan:


Obesity is a real problem, but mainly for the obese person. I'm not afraid that they'll kill my daughter so that they can get their next Twinkie fix. That happens with drugs, though:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20006444-504083.html
You are breaking your brain when you use these drugs.
I'm skeptical about that falling statistic, as well.


Not everyone who uses heroin kills someone's daughter to do it. Casual causality at it's worst.

Much like alcohol, if you commit an offence under the influence, you are responsible for that offence. If you commit an offence trying to get a fix, you're responsible. If you're shooting up in your house and not harming anyone, why should you be charged with a crime?

prohibition will never work as well as regulation and control.

i know its now redundant to bring up prohibition.....but it is still, and will very much continue to be, an extremely valid point: we tried it. it was fucking stupid. we reversed it. problem solved. how is marijuana and other drugs or prostitution for that matter any different? speaking of prostitution, the Bunny Ranch in Nevada, for whatever scant few of you that dont know, is a legal, privately funded, government controlled brothel. can you guess how many acts of violence or abuse have occured there? none. can you guess how many STD's the girls or patrons have? none. can you guess how many cases of HIV or AIDS come out of their establishment? ya, none. seeing a trend here?

back to my point tho, regulation and control. You say drugs are harmful not only to the users but to others and the community as a whole? alcohol and tobacco arent? no ones calling for their prohibition are they (well i guess a remote few are but i digress)? you know why? cuz we tried it with both and both were such monumental failures on the grandest scale that we conceded and said "ya, we fucked up, that was dumb, beer and cigs are back on!"


theres this overwhelming idea that those who are against prohibition of whatever just want that shit on every street corner and in your babies hands. if this is you, youre fucking stupid, go away. regulation and control. let the government regulate its production, potency, etc. then let them control it through law. feels like im beating a dead horse, but, this is what we did with alcohol and tobacco. if you cant see that, then there really isnt any hope for your dumbass

if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. doom youself, dont fucking drag me with you

that comment was a bit distressed now that i think about it. that frustration and angst wasnt directed at any one in particular on here (yet) just on the issue in general. my apologies if anyone felt the snide remarks were directed at them =)

if it was legal, i'd use heroin.

I think quite a lot of us have had the experience of finding we like alcohol or pot, then overdoing it a bit, and learning the lesson that it's best not to overdo it. That's almost to be expected when you're young. Heroin doesn't afford that opportunity. If you ever go far enough to overdo it, it will likely be a struggle taken at huge personal cost. If you win, it will only cost you all of your money and a few years of your life. If you lose, you die.

Unlike pot and alcohol, I have never known anyone who could use heroin on a regular basis and keep their life together. But I have seen it slowly destroy a few lives, and cause their families tremendous anguish in the process. Like Ron Paul, you might think none of us would choose to go down to the drugstore and try some heroin, because we're not idiots. But the thing is, almost all of us were idiots at one point in our lives.

Of course, imprisoning people for use or possession alone is still a terrible idea. It seems like the most compassionate response is rehabilitation, with methadone clinics as a last resort for those who are hopelessly addicted.

I disagree with Paul on his interpretation of the 1st ammendment, particularly the establishment clause, and probably some other things that I can't think of right now.

However, that said I still think that Paul & Kucinich or Kucinich & Paul would make an excellent presidential run.

That is, if voting actually mattered and Obama's liquidation of Bin Laden didn't clinch his, most assured, victory in the 2012 elections.

>> ^pigeon:

if it was legal, i'd use heroin.


Stop using heroin. You are a pigeon.

Don't get me wrong - heroin is a terrible, terrible drug. I know a lot of people who are on methadone now because of heroin. Though, I've lost more people to methadone than heroin itself. Which is an entire long-winded conversation about drugs and our government. That being said if you choose to tangle with heroin that is your own fault. I've never injected it out of pure fear that I'd become addicted to it and snorting even just a little bit will fuck you up heavily for an hour or two. If you're gonna do it just snort a line 1/4 of a coke line and see how you like it. You'll probably hate the nodding as well as I did. There are many drugs out there that are amazing that are non-addictive, that make you think about everything and see the beauty that is your world and our universe. I'm looking at you LSD and mushrooms! I love you guys!



>> ^entr0py:

I think quite a lot of us have had the experience of finding we like alcohol or pot, then overdoing it a bit, and learning the lesson that it's best not to overdo it. That's almost to be expected when you're young. Heroin doesn't afford that opportunity. If you ever go far enough to overdo it, it will likely be a struggle taken at huge personal cost. If you win, it will only cost you all of your money and a few years of your life. If you lose, you die.
Unlike pot and alcohol, I have never known anyone who could use heroin on a regular basis and keep their life together. But I have seen it slowly destroy a few lives, and cause their families tremendous anguish in the process. Like Ron Paul, you might think none of us would choose to go down to the drugstore and try some heroin, because we're not idiots. But the thing is, almost all of us were idiots at one point in our lives.
Of course, imprisoning people for use or possession alone is still a terrible idea. It seems like the most compassionate response is rehabilitation, with methadone clinics as a last resort for those who are hopelessly addicted.

This man is fantastic.

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.

@rychan
I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.
Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year...


The point I was trying to make is, he wasn't saying there should be no laws. He even mentioned that even the 1st amendment has rules, that you can't injure or defame others. He believes that your personal choices should be your own.

If someone injures another, like your child abuse analogy, then he believes there SHOULD be consequences and laws. If your heroin junkie breaks into someone's home to steal money, then he should go to jail for burglary, not being an addict. If he holds a knife to your kid's throat to get their lunch money, he should be jailed for assault with deadly weapon, not because he has a used needle in his back pocket.

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan
I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.
Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year...
The point I was trying to make is, he wasn't saying there should be no laws. He even mentioned that even the 1st amendment has rules, that you can't injure or defame others. He believes that your personal choices should be your own.
If someone injures another, like your child abuse analogy, then he believes there SHOULD be consequences and laws. If your heroin junkie breaks into someone's home to steal money, then he should go to jail for burglary, not being an addict. If he holds a knife to your kid's throat to get their lunch money, he should be jailed for assault with deadly weapon, not because he has a used needle in his back pocket.


How is polling the audience supporting that argument? He was making two arguments (at least), one of which was the "reasonable person" argument which I think is baloney. You could apply the same argument to a horrible crime like child abuse.

His _other_ argument which you highlight -- the right to personal freedom -- is much more persuasive. I agree it is THE fundamental argument on this topic, and nobody should believe that it's a slam dunk argument either way.

I think entr0py's argument is compelling. Drugs like heroin are an overly tempting way to ruin your life. It's not a matter of intelligence or education -- one of the most interesting anti-smoking studies found that teenagers actually OVERestimate the danger of smoking. But they still do it, anyway. Virtually everyone who smokes started as a teenager. People simply do stupid things which are against their self interests and society's interest. So I don't want to see heroin regulated the way cigarettes are. That's not sufficient. Anyway, this is the "should government protect you from yourself" argument which some people find repugnant. I take it you are one of them. You don't care if 15% of every high school class dies from heroin abuse because on their 18th birthday they get access to plentiful, cheap heroin. I'm not saying that would be the case, I'm just saying that a strict believer in personal freedom would be fine with this.

Also I think we should worry about preventing crime, not punishing it. Yes, we could offer a young mother lots of heroin and wait until her child neglect becomes actionable by the state, but why let a family be ruined? You're right, her actions would snowball to the point of being illegal without making the drug itself illegal. That doesn't really reassure me much.

Maybe such problems wouldn't be widespread if all drugs were legalized. But they're already fairly common, and I don't see how legalizing everything would make them rarer.

Are you really OK with living next door to a house full of heroin addicts? having them offer your children heroin? Watching them spiral in to filth while they lose self control? Seeing their children show up at the bus stop unwashed and starving? And having the police tell you "Well, they haven't done anything illegal yet. Clearly this situation will crash and burn shortly, but we should definitely stand at the sidelines and watch. We wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms". Or maybe child services is more on the ball and the children end up in state custody sooner rather than later, so it's a happy ending? So maybe children and parents aren't allowed to use these drugs but other people can? And maybe nobody who operates heavy machinery? And certainly not schoolteachers.

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.

>> ^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.

If you think heroin laws are there to protect the heroin from humans, then that's a great analogy.>> ^rychan:

If people were reasonable and acting in their own self-interests and the interests of their community, then yes, Ron Paul is correct, we would have never needed to make Heroin illegal.
Ron Paul could make the same argument about child abuse. "How many of you are going to go beat your children unless the government tells you not to? See! We don't need those laws".

Making hard drugs illegal solves nothing. It makes drug usage harder, but in doing so creates a problem much worse: a black market and the lives and resources that are destroyed trying to dominate or prevent it. It truly is no different from alcohol prohibition. Instead of dying of drugs because of parental neglect, now your children will have an opportunity to die:

1. in a gang from a cop or other gang members
2. from a gang as a cop
3. from a gang as a citizen who gets caught in the crossfire
4. from a gang as a citizen who was going to testify against a gang member
5. as a citizen who otherwise might have had a cop in the area to help them if not for their being busy with anti-drug enforcement

It also increases the chance of corruption within the police force because the confiscated substance are of such high market value from the artificial scarcity. Of course, we saw all of this from the 30s with alcohol prohibition, yet don't apply the same logic to all drugs. People are dumb when it comes to weighing cost/benefit ratios. Look at marijuana, marijuana is 1% as dangerous as even alcohol, and people still cling to its prohibition as being worth the costs incurred.

Then there's the philosophical part, which is that you should have the right to do to your body as you wish because you own your body from the day you're born. All rights derive from property. If you can be incarcerated against your will for doing something to yourself, then you are a slave of the state.

@shinyblurry I just happen to know a lot of people, from all walks of life. And none come to mind that could fall into that trap if presented the legal opportunity, who haven't already fallen into that trap when presented with an illegal opportunity

@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

who is we? i wasnt talking to you..are you legion?

I'd like to advise my fellow sifters to try to not get too emotionally heated, this is a great discussion.

I remember travelling way up North just a few years back, a little town called Pangnirtung, one of seven dry communities in Nunavut. Alcohol is not sold in town and guests and tourists are prohibited from bringing any of it into the hotel. The community took a vote not too long ago and with roughly 70% of the small community in favor, the town stayed dry. Alcoholism, ofcourse is still a problem. Suicide rates among the youth are very high, and most serious crimes that are committed are still alcohol-related.

Bootlegging presents a very worthwhile enterprise for many kids up there, it's obviously very easy to find outside the community, it's only a matter of hiding it. What's more, it's a hell of a lot easier to smuggle a mickey of rum than a six pack of beer, obviously any booze you find there is going to be the strong stuff.

Now under any normal circumstance at all I would say alcohol prohibition is a terrible idea, the same goes for the war on drugs. It's just that, Pangnirtung is so isolated and detached from the rest of mainstream Canada. So much so that it can be very hard for the local boozehounds to get their fix. If alcohol was suddenly made readily available I have no doubt in my mind that alot of kids would end up dead.

During our trip we had a chance to tour through the local elementary school and as I walked through the halls I started to look at the arts and crafts posted along the walls. Most were just typical little kid sketches or small little art projects. Then I noticed something that made my stomach churn..

One of the projects included a picture and then a list of the child's goals and his likes and dislikes. Nearly all of them mentioned alcohol and drugs in some way or another. It was kinda upsetting, alcohol shouldn't be on a list of concerns of a twelve year old.

In terms of drug regulation I really don't know, I've been on both sides of the issue and I'm still left with alot of questions, just my two cents.

>> ^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

>> ^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?

oh you mean the federal assault weapons ban that expired in '04? so i can buy an ak or a bazooka if i want to now, whats your point? do you know what banning certain or all firearms does? keeps em out of law abiding citizens hands. do you sincerely think that Joe Bank Robber has no means to get a gun or even an assault rifle to commit his crimes with?

i hear that 60% of the time it works every time right? care to cite your 95%/5% findings or were you just pulling em straight out of your ass, confirming my suspicions?

by "these drugs" i can only presume you are talking about heroin eh? but what about cigarettes? are they not carefully engineered poisons? so whats your point again?

you conveniently left out amsterdam, while it may not be the fabled silver bullet, its pretty goddamn close. what was your point again?

what if there was a specific human brain synapse that caused one to violently rape ponies and shit on babies? should we still allow humans to function normally?
I can make absurd scenarios that serve absolutely no purpose other than to incite absurdity. isnt it fun?

im still anxiously awaiting you to present something original and valid to this table.

No, I don't mean the assault weapons ban. Firearm regulation has a long history in the United States, and Bazookas are still heavily regulated federally and often banned locally. They are "Destructive Devices" under Title 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

By heavily regulating or banning these weapons it has made it harder for bank robbers to acquire them.

The 95% and 5% numbers were hypothetical, as should have been clear. I imagine those numbers are approximately right, though. Huge amounts of Americans drink alcohol occasionally and never run in to a problem with it. I'm skeptical that there are many active, long term heroin users who are maintaining healthy lives. If you have contrary statistics on that I'm curious to see them.

Amsterdam has similar laws to Portugal. I actually don't know why you'd bring that up as it is contrary to what you've been arguing and supportive of what I've been saying. While the Netherlands has a "non-enforcement" policy for illegal drugs such as marijuana, they come down hard against hard drugs like the ones I am arguing should be illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Drug usage and imprisonment in the Netherlands is not really exceptional compared to the rest of Europe. "The rate of imprisonment for drug crimes is about the same as in Sweden, which has a zero tolerance policy for drug crimes."

Anyway, I agree with you that drug law in the Netherlands is quite reasonable, and I'm glad that you agree that it is "pretty goddamn close" to being a silver bullet. They emphasize treating addicts rather than putting them in prison, but still put drug traffickers in prison for a long time. None-the-less, any drug use in unambiguously illegal.

I take it by your rejection of my hypothetical situation that you believe that any drug use, even if clearly expected to be harmful to other people, should be legal. You are very strongly libertarian. But I believe that personal freedom ends where harm to others begins.

Also, you come across as very hostile for some reason. What are you trying to get out of this dialogue, exactly? I personally am pleased to see contrary opinions and re-evaluate the beliefs I hold.

anger is something i am quick to as a result of my PTSD unfortunately, particularly on subjects i am passionate about. Therapy is a long ongoin process =)
apologies all around for my curt manner.

now, to the dialogue at hand.

well firstly those statistics, since you've conceded them to be mere presuppositions, are exactly that: presuppositions. There arent any real statistics that i could produce to rebut it, however, if we use alcohol consumption and prohibition as a model, one could expect as much as a 30% increase in heroin use with its legalization, which is to say, not much at all. the idea of everyone and their mom suddenly hopping on the heroin train is a ridiculous fantasy at best.

while you may be right about the lifelong heroin user, i dont have to speculate about long term alcohol abusers maintaining healthy lives. that being said, this defense (if youre using it as one) is a moot point unless you support alcohol prohibition as well.

putting away traffickers in the netherlands would be the same in the states were drugs regulated and controlled. again, alcohol is the model for this. You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal? nope, you'll still get canned for that. follow the model. sticking with heroin, were it to be made legal its not something you'd pick up at your local grocery store. if the government regulates and controls it, firstly you will have fewer overdoses because the potency will be precisely known and consistent (the same as alcohol). Overdoses from heroin (among other things) is largely due to unexpected higher than "normal" street potency's. The same thing occurred during prohibition with alcohol poisoning. Potency would be known in the same way alcohol content (proofs) and tar and nicotine content in cigarettes (labeled right on the packs and cartons).

Now, not anyone can purchase cigarettes or alcohol or a gun for that matter. precisely because of regulation and control. in the same way, not everyone should be able to purchase marijuana, heroin, or whatever your poison is. regulated and controlled.

now i flatly rejected your hypothetical position because it was absurd (much like my brain synapse one was). you and i could draw up all sorts of imaginative what-ifs but theyre not gonna serve any purpose other than drawing up a good laugh.

you know, i also believe personal freedoms end where harm to others begin. but this certainly doesnt support your prohibition stance at all. Looking at it another way, you have the right to drink as little or as much alcohol as you want. but if you get too drunk and drive (and get caught) you'll get arrested. so while you still have that freedom to drink alcohol, that same freedom does not infringe on my freedom to press charges should you become too intoxicated and harm me. i know that sounds a bit convoluted, im not as articulate as i'd like to be right now but you catch my drift ya?

in closing, every piece of your defense doesnt hold an ounce of water when held up to the model of prohibition of the 20's, it's "side effects", and it's eventual outcome.

sorry again for being so curt earlier. therapy for my condition takes a good while =)

You can't support the Netherlands approach to hard drugs while decrying the US Prohibition of alcohol. The US prohibition of alcohol was LESS STRICT than Dutch drug laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

In the Netherlands, drug use is illegal. Hard drugs are actively prohibited. As far as I can tell, alcohol consumption was never criminalized in the US, only the manufacture, trafficking, and sale. In practice, the level of enforcement is about the same. They're both "prohibition", not "regulation".

"You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal?" It certainly is for some people, or else you wouldn't find it in grocery stores and gas stations. It's certainly not comparable to the Dutch treatment of hard drugs, where _nobody_ can traffic it.

Any adult can purchase cigarettes. To purchase controlled firearms you need a background check and fingerprints, etc. Which of those models would be used for Heroin?

hard drugs really arent "actively prohibited" in the netherlands as you keep suggesting. My brother recently spent a month there and based on his experiences, i'll remain entirely skeptical of your insistence of "actively prohibited". Additionally, i recently watched a documentary called The American Drug War and one of the segments was on amsterdam where they filmed this complete junkie smoking crack...........about 20 feet from a cop. Again, i'll remain skeptical.

you really should read up on prohibition in the states because alcohol certainly was criminalized. it wasnt just the sale and distribution that was outlawed, you so much as had a beer in your hand, here comes the law.

now the alcohol trafficking i was talking about was just any old joe, which i thought wouldve been obvious given the nature of the converstaion. Of course you can manufacture, distribute, and sell alcohol......if you have the proper licenses, convenient how you left that out. If i were to brew my own beer (and get caught) and/or distribute it or sell it, then i can be fined or worse because i do not have a liquor license or a license to manufacture or distribute. I had hoped that this was understood but guess i'll put in play doh terms so as to not confuse you.

as far as a heroin model is concerned, i dunno because im not a doctor. But i'd say a start is an age limit, say 21, purchasable through pharmaceuticals, probably require a prescription (what would warrant a prescription i dunno cuz im not a doctor), maybe have a background check as part of the prescription (ie no sale to violent offenders, same as guns, something like that) and have the same laws attached to it that everything else does. by which i mean buying alcohol for minors, public intox, etc