while I know some reasons why qualm disagrees with Ron Paul, I'd like to hear his views on why he specifically downvoted this clip.
for the specifics of their discussion or just because it's Ron Paul or what ?

I personally think he's right on the money with the specifics regarding marijuana (and i don't smoke). why make criminals out of people who aren't ?

You're missing the point. I don't care what Ron Paul thinks or says about marijuana decriminalization. My positition towards a politician will always go beyond a single issue or class of issues.

I haven't missed the point at all. I'm not asking you to vote for him, I'm asking specifically why you downvoted this video about Ron Pauls views on medical marijuana and the criminalization of people who smoke marijuana.

I can appreciate that you look at a politician beyond a single issue or class of issues. I think we should also recognize when others, whom with we might not ordinarily agree with speak truth to power, which is what I believe Ron Paul is doing in this video on the subject at hand.

If you wanna state that you downvoted if only cause it is ron paul then that of course your right and perogative. I also know that you have deeply held, well thought out positions and I thought that there might be something more to your disagreement.

Qruel, don't think I was being snarky in my previous post, prerogatives or no prerogatives. But yes, I'll downvote any Austrian School nitwit, even if he personally comes to my door with one of those big TV cheques.

so Qualm, you state that your disdain for Ron Paul isn't superficial and goes beyond any one issue yet you just called him a "Austrian School nitwit" which kind of nullifies your claim for the depth of your opinion towards him.

Not so at all. If you know something of Austrian School economics then you'll realize it's the very opposite of a superficial concern. His right-wing libertarian ideology if implemented would affect a very wide range of issues indeed.

Well I agree his ideology would affect a lot of things. Of course, that's what many people (me included) think we need. Furthermore, if we have somebody in office that feels like adhering to the constitution and not bending it over and raping it, we will maintain a good level of checks and balances that will keep some of his "stranger" ideas from affecting the people.

I will look into your theories, as I am interested in what exactly you mean by "Austrian School Economics"

listen, I'll make you an offer:

You have Ron Paul shipped to Norway and we'll send you a perfectly adequate king in return

I think one thing Ron forgot to mention is that a lot of those murders and rapists are in there because of drugs in some way. I'd go so far as to say 80% of the people in prison are in there for something related to drugs, whether it's robbery, assault, rape or whatever you're likely to find drugs at the root.

While I agree that the war on drugs appears pretty ineffective, I don't see how legalizing drugs = everything is better! Alcohol is legal, you see that causing plenty of problems (I see alcohol as a drug myself, a flavored and often delicious drug, but still a drug).

I'll completely agree that treatment of addicts as criminals is just stupid. Drug addiction (yes alcohol too) is an extremely powerful force. I've known many people, some close, who have been or are addicts and they know their habit is destroying their life, but they can't stop. If anything is going to be done to these people help them, don't throw them in jail. Prison only makes things harder on these people and I'd say more likely for them to go right back to the very thing that put them there in the first place.

If marijuana really has a medical application (other than I'm sick so I deserve to get high, which appears to be what a lot of pain medication turns into) it really should be legalized. The government standing in the way of what could be effective medical treatment.

As far as Ron Paul in general is concerned I think most of his policies would be disastrous for the US and it's people. I've said as much in other comments.

marijuana is not addictive.

if you are addicted, talk to this guy

Rape has nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with the culture of masculinity.

Never said marijuana was addictive. There's probably a psychological addiction but I'd wager most things can have psychological addictions.

I'm sure nobody has ever gotten high on something then raped someone, nope never, certainly not a common occurrence.

Sarcasm noted, but evidently you're not bright enough to bother with.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ pot smokers would find the idea of getting stoned and raping someone pretty silly.

Not to say that it couldn't happen - but I doubt that pot would have anything to do with it.

When you look at the full spectrum of drugs around - caffeine, booze and prescriptions - pot falls way over on the "non-violent, watch TV, eat something yummy" end.

Pot smoking night is Friday night, rape night is Saturday night. Jesus people, get your schedules in order!

The most common addictions are to alcohol, caffeine and nicotine. Thus we should make drinking, smoking and drinking coffee illegal activities.

*rolls eyes*

What exactly do people think will happen if you legalize marijuana? Anarchy in the streets? Netherlands has had it for some time I don't see their society collapsing into itself.

There is a reason crime and drugs are tied into together both are illegal activities, the prohibition saw the raise of the mafia because they would risk the transportation of alcohol for profit. Once that was legalized (again) the large benefits of importing exporting that once 'illegal' substance was lost. That is the same case in all illegal drugs, especially high profit ones like heroine and cocaine which is 3 by 3 on the dependence and physical harm scale, yet pound for pound produces higher profit and more 'dependable' consumers.

Marijuana on the other hand is not a high profit drug, due to the sheer bulk needed for profitable sale and that it's not psychically addictive (if you don't believe that ask your Dad who probably partook in the hey days of the 60s era of free sex and drug consumption).

The war on drugs is stupid beyond all measure because its tax payers money being sunk away for problem that tries to attack the suppliers and not the large demand that exists. If demand is there, suppliers will always exist in turn no matter how many drug barons get put away. And while crystal meth is spreading through out America the anti-Drug establishment keeps going after the small fish that constitute the marijuana growers in California and other states for the medical marijuana consumption.

Meanwhile arresting marijuana users who are usually first time offenders, sending them through a court and jail system that is already over stretched only increases the problem. So what you have is a few pot heads in a prison with hardline criminal thieves, murders and rapists. Jail only creates more criminals then reforms them, due to the nature of the prison system as it is (reformation is not the guiding principle it is punishment). Thus we have a Colditz castle scenario of secondary criminal education.

I find the whole situation just perverse since drug consumption is the abuse of your own body, your body doesn't belong to the state. It leads to the laughable situations where substances like DMT which are produced naturally in the brain and have been used for thousands of years in South American Shaman rituals are Schedule 1 drugs in the US, which is the same level as heroine, cocaine and PCP. Ridiculous.

Well since I've already been declared 'not bright' I suppose I have nothing to lose by going on.

My comments about rape, robbery, assault etc., weren't aimed at marijuana but drugs in general. I'm not sure how my previous statements got interpreted as 'marijuana is addictive and it makes you rape people'. The only time I specifically mentioned marijuana was when I was talking about its legalization for medical use.

What I was referring to was Ron Paul's discussion about addicts, prisons, and the war on drugs. My point being a large portion of crime in America is being perpetrated by people with drug addiction problems. These people's addiction is part of the reason they committed their crimes. Robbery (trying to get money for their drugs), assault and murder(either part of the robbery or the result of an altered mood/consciousness brought on by the drug) or rape (result of altered mood/consciousness). If you can treat drug addiction, instead of just throwing addicts in jail, as currently happens in the system, I'm suggesting a lot of the violent crimes could be avoided before they occur. I am not suggesting it would end crime as we know it. Some people just snap, and some others are just anti-social and there isn't a whole lot you can do with an anti-social.

As far as rape and drugs go I'd suggest alcohol or other inhibition lowering drugs are a major factor. Now serial rapists are something different. I'd say those people generally get off (either sexually or mentally) on the power. And those people probably have an anti-social personality disorder.

Upvote for civil liberties... again!

Come for the common sense. Stay for the civil liberties!
I <3 Ron Paul.

I don't see how legalizing drugs = everything is better!
I'm not sure if I really need to argue against you here since you go on to explain one of the major reasons the world would be a better place without prohibition. Other ones are safer supplies for users (tainted products and unhygenic use are one of the major causes of death for drug users), reduced incomes for organised crimes, less crime syndicate warfare (fewer drivebys), less corruption of the police force etc.. Also a very big thing - A lot of money is saved in not investigating these "crimes" and not incarcerating these "criminals." This money can all be used in preventing actual violent crimes instead. Overall you are going to end up with a much safer and happier world without prohibition.

Btw, Austrian School economics rules. I recommend Mark Skousen's Making of Modern Economics for an overview.

My argument is if you legalize all drugs you're still going to have the addicts (possibly more)and that drug addiction is the root cause of a lot of violent crimes. I'm suggesting addicts be treated rather than thrown in jail.

As far as organized crime goes, if drugs ever were legalized they'd be in the best place to start selling legally as they already have a lot of the infrastructure in place. I don't see drugs getting much cheaper since those selling them would have a lot to gain by keeping prices high. Maybe an initial flood of cheap drugs to get more costumers then the prices slowly go up as demand increases. I don't know hard to say, but I think we'd be better off readjusting our current strategy, by using all that money to treat rather than to throw people into jail. Probably a bigger up front cost, but if the number of addicts can be decreased so will costs of having to deal with them.

Hell, if anything is to be outlawed, make it tobacco. No one ever got cancer from weed. No one ever needed new lungs because of shrooms. No one ever needed a hole in their throat because they dropped acid. No one ever lost their lower jaw because they shot up. No one ever got sick from second hand ecstasy. (hears voice to side)....Oh, what's that?....Tobacco generates too much money?.....For the government?.....and they get rich from peoples' misery?

Well, I guess that takes care of that one. Smoke away!

For some reason I'm just now seeing Farhad's comment.

I agree with most of what you said, especially regarding how marijuana is treated on the same level as harder drugs. Sending someone to jail over smoking pot is ridiculous, especially when you consider there are a few states that don't segregate their prisons by crime. 'Hey you smoked pot, welcome to prison your roommate is Johnny Rapesalot. That'll teach you hippy!'

As far as the effects of marijuana (I'd say the change in mood/behavior is more profound than caffeine or nicotine) are probably lesser than alcohol, though there are a lot of factors to consider when dealing with how good or bad alcohol is. It's probably a lot safer than most drugs, I've seen varying opinions on whether or not its possible to OD on marijuana, but general consensus seems to say if it is you probably need a whole lot of it. Unfortunately the government limits a lot of the research done on marijuana so there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Okay back to the War on Drugs. First of all calling it a war is just stupid. What I've been trying to say, and maybe not doing a good job of it, is that it should be refocused towards treating the addicts and not throwing them in jail. In an ideal world everyone would use drugs responsibly or at least in a manner that doesn't effect others. I'm not so upset by people who die from ODs or who's lives are destroyed by their drug habits (Though these things are very sad and unfortunate), as I am over when their use effects other people, and I'd say it frequently does. It's a complex problem I don't think can be solved by just legalizing everything, or as we currently do now, throw anyone associated with drugs in jail.

As far as tobacco goes personally you wouldn't see me shedding any tears if it were outlawed, but then you'd run into the same problem you have with other drugs. And while it's true tobacco causes a lot health problems (an understatement I know) I don't think I've ever heard of someone who stripped naked and attacked a police officer because they were on a nicotine high.

He'll make one concise and succinct point, then forgo cohesive sentence structure for minutes on end, and instead scrambles around interrupting his points with the beginnings of other points.

And the tone of his voice always sounds like he's about to say, "can you believe this? isn't this unbelievable?!"

I grew up in Northern California, and I knew a couple guys that had prescriptions for medical marijuana. I can say from experience that they abused it. They were both addicts before they got prescriptions and they even started to deal it after they got them.

I acknowledge that it has lesser immediate physical consequences than cigarettes and alcohol. It does, however, alter your mind - and that's not a good thing. That alteration increases with frequency of use and prolonged exposure. I don't think it's morally right to use anything that causes us to lose our control over it; caffeine, alcohol, marijuana, and even pornography. All those things cause addictions in their own way, and we don't need them. I don't think we should make anything that could be harmful legal that's already illegal. But I think we need to keep our standards higher than the rest of the world.

I know a lot of guys that used marijuana in school, and they didn't do as well (in school or in life) as those that kept themselves free of chemicals. Our nation needs to stand up and exercise some restraint. We should be proud of our standard of health and mental cleanliness. Tolerance of anything, everything, and anyone is not something to be proud of. Higher standards are a good thing. That's what makes this nation great. As soon as we lower our expectations of ourselves, we start to degrade our society.

That's my opinion of medical marijuana.

It will not be legal in the U.S.
Profit has come to the powerful few who control drug trade, and governments have a vested interest in keeping it tight. The 3 legal drugs mentioned above, are also controlled by a few-and the govt. has their hands innit up to their shoulders and necks.
Drugs legalized would cripple the economy in America-the low-end wage earners would be that much more unmotivated to change your oil or tires, make your burgers, etc. hence, casualties on the highways and in stomachs-
The prison system depends on drugs, a first arrest for possession of pot, for example, gets the new cash-cow into the system, when finally inside, they are groomed and recruited for more badness that will feed that hydra head-

Basically, the system is set up like this for a reason-to keep the profits in the hands of a few-Don't look to anything more than increased control, surveillance, and prohibitions, this is the global agenda.

Ron Paul has not a chance in hell, of slowing the program that these people have been working on feverishly for the past 40 years-short of another revolution or coop, which is unlikely, this current paradigm will play itself out according to plan.

Live to the fullest within any paradigm, use the prohibition of freedoms as a license to benifit from the same, otherwise, waste your time as an activist, conspiracy theorist, junkie, or ....voter.

Basic level summary: Whatever harm different drugs may have on the individual or on society prohibition only adds to those harms. However, as long as the profitability of the current system is not attacked prohibition will not go away.

Thoughts: It would be easiest to influence politicians to change the laws since they need to be re-elected in order to make their money (corrupt or not). Most voters just don't realize what a major issue prohibition really is.

Because of prohibition: everyone pays higher taxes, everyone is less safe from violent crime, everyone is exposed to more dangerous prescription drugs, everyone is more likely to choose the wrong drug, everyone is more isolated from eachother, everyone's risk of mental instability is higher, everyone's freedom is compromised, everyone misses out on inventions and culture that come about from altered states of mind, etc.
-Karl

if your main argument is that it isn't "morally right" and/or it's "bad for you" then let me say this:

Who the hell are YOU to decide that I shoudl abide by YOUR morals? I think it's morally wrong for people to drive a car that has more passenger space than passengers, but I'm not making LAWS about it and I'm not sending anyone to JAIL over it. Get over yourself. Your morals are not a basis for which to make laws that send people to jail over. We make laws to protect society from individual acts that hurt SOCIETY. You wanna sit and kill yourself by slow degrees by eating fast food hamburgers or smoking or letting your arteries clog while you watch TV every night or whatever - that's YOUR business, not mine.

You knew some people who did drugs and did badly in school or seemed to be apathetic? Big deal, I know plenty people who are like that who don't do drugs at all. Maybe we should take all those lazy SOBs and make do yard work? straighten them out? WTFever. Keep your morals for yourself. Don't force me to abide by your morals.

Elect this man dammit!

I think the world would be a better place with Ron Paul as US president.

oh it would be a real trip that's for sure....ain't gonna happen, and if it does, look to the roaches to scramble to fix what America thinks they want-a race to create new problems and provide the solutions...Plan C3
hey and feddy, while marijuana is not as you say in the sense of many other substances, addictive, staying in the circuit as a way of life, with daily use, always stimulating those receptors that gives one the familiar analgesic, psychoactive, and physiological pancreatic effects, it can become a debilitating problem for some-the first few steps are the hardest.....bong-boy!

I can think of a simple formula for problems with chronic pot use:

Bong-hits >= fixed budget + availability of a nutritious repast + munchies satisfied with fats, sugars, and sodium =possible need for radical and expensive surgeries

other scenarios in enlightened society include drug tests at work, relationships damaged or not reaching their fullest potential, and cotton mouth.

Bong-hits >= fixed budget + availability of a nutritious repast + munchies satisfied with fats, sugars, and sodium =possible need for radical and expensive surgeries


"Next on the O'Reilly Factor, Marijuana: Responsible for America's obesity problem?"

smibbo:
...LAW itself has a moral base. I don't want the Government to take away my rights and liberties, but I don't want EVERYTHING to be legal. It's a tough question: Where do we draw the line?

...and it's only illegal if you get caught. Maybe all the potheads could form their own state. Oh, wait. They already have a country. It's called the Netherlands.

I've just come up with a great solution: Why don't all the whiny drug users move to Europe where they'd be welcome?

Did some fucker just compare choggie with O'Reilly??? Didn't think so.....

No, America's obesity problem comes from self-hate and stupidity, addiction to inactivity....the result of the stress of obedience to herders...

It couldn't have anything to do with all that garbage food and beverages that are marketed to people in such mercenary fashion. There's no real reason - it's more akin to coincidence - that virtually every square inch of space is now covered in advertising.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Century-of-The-Self-Part-1-of-4

got to agree with smibbo... I'm strongly against drug use, but if someone else wants to poison themselves, that's all them. I'd really like to see far less of these laws that exist to protect people from their own stupidity: seatbelt and helmet laws, drug laws, etc.

I can normally spit out a more impressive list, but it's just too early in the morning right now.

Guys, guys, guys. We have to uphold standards in this country. It sounds really cool when you say "let them hurt themselves." You're really cool and liberal when you say that. But we can't let everyone destroy themselves because then we'd live in a country of losers. I am who I am because I've got accountability to 1)my family 2)my friends 3)my job and 4)my community and society. They have expectations and encourage me to do my best. If we keep setting the bar lower and lower, what do you think is going to happen?

I understand that my neighbor may want to get high all the time and contribute nothing to society, but I don't want my neighbor to be a loser.

I'm with deedub on this. To have a 'free-for-all' with laws means that people have LESS freedoms. Greater freedom comes from adhering to laws enacted to keep civil liberties and individual freedoms secured. Without law we degenerate as a society. You want to smoke pot, kill some of those brain cells, if you think the advantage is worth the risk, fine. But I sure as hell do not want my kids to inhale deadly chemicals just because you think you have some entitlement to retard yourself.

standards and morals are both subjective things. You have no right to impose them on society at large without a compelling reason for societal improvement vs detriment. Believe it or not, laws that stand the test of time are based on societal improvement, not personal standards or morals. My morals are not much different than everyone elses but the differences (in detail and degree) can be crucial enough that to impose my morals upon someone else - to the extent of punishing them would be immoral and not conducive to the furtherance of society. Laws exist to protect society, not individuals. Murder is detrimental to society. Injured/abused/neglected/uneducated children are detrimental to society. starving people are a detriment to society. etc. Any socially responsible reason you can come up with to punish drug users can be covered by other laws or methods. Afraid drug users will screw up their jobs? Thats why employers are allowed the freedom to have drug testing and screening. Think drug use is causally connected to criminal activity? We have laws against criminal activity already. All the "war on drugs" has done has been to criminalize a sector of people who are NOT criminals otherwise, do not hurt anyone else and some of whom have had their lives improved by drugs. Frankly I hate how this "war" has made doctors and pharmacists feel paranoid - get a prescription for painkillers after surgery, watch that scrip run dry in a couple of days while you are left in agonizing pain, try to talk your doctor into giving you a refill and see what I'm talking about. I had surgery 6 times over the course of a year and let me tell you, this "war" has had a direct effect upon MY comfort because of the pressure on doctors to avoid prosecution. Not to mention how much MONEY its costing us all as taxpayers. I'm constantly astounded that conservatives bleat about "personal responsibility" and getting government out of the "nanny state" until, you know, it comes to Teh Evil Drugs!! Then it's "nanny us please!"
Conservatives don't want the government taking our money in order to feed poor people, but its okay to take our money to keep a pot-smoker in prison. Where is the conservative logic in that?

and Gorgonheap, I'd really like to understand how you get from "laws prohibiting personal action" to "freedom" - seems to me that the former takes away from the latter. Seriously, explain how the former enables the latter becuase I really dont' see that at all. Asking the government to spend time, money and manpower enforcing laws that merely serve to make a personal activity more appealing to young people as well as divert said monies and manpower away from other, more socially deterimental crimes seems like asking the government to babysit our more "loser" citizens. Well I'm not seeing that. You call them losers but you want everyone to pay for punishing them for being losers? I can't understand how that is appealing. If someone's a loser, I say leave them to it. Being a "loser" is not a matter of doing or not doing an action; it's an attitude and you're not going to cure it by taking away their "fun".

* long

when does this come out as paperback?

and I am quite annoyed by this tactic of turning "get rid of the war on drugs/drug laws" into "have no laws" NO ONE has said "lets get rid of laws"

We are not talking about having NO laws (well the rest of us weren't) we're talking about getting rid of specific laws. You know, like in the civil rights days? When there were laws about where one could sit, where one could eat etc? Yeah well people actually argued about THOSE laws too; saying we need those laws because they keep everyone polite and nice to each other by keeping everyone "in their place"

So don't give me that "they are laws so we must keep them, if you get rid of those laws we'll lose all our laws" - that's so simplistic it's insulting.

and Gorgonheap, I'd really like to understand how you get from "laws prohibiting personal action" to "freedom" - seems to me that the former takes away from the latter.
-smibbo

I'll give an example. Lets take a dramatic example i.e. homicide. If there is no law against it some psycho could freely knock off whomever they wanted. That grants them a lot of personal freedom, at least one would think that. But then again what about the family of the victims? They would want retribution for the murders but would have no through the law, because there isn't any.

So their protection is taken way, security of doing what they want to do is restricted by a man who's willing to kill at a moments notice. If they take matters in their own hands and go after the killer then the killer has nothing to protect him. So everyone lives in fear and there is no insurance against violations of human rights.

Ask a felon. They have freedoms restricted. Why? Because they chose not to obey laws enacted to provide people with protection and safety. it's the safety that gives people freedom to do what they want. It works like this Obedience to laws = more freedom to act within those tolerances. Disobedience to laws = restriction of former liberties.

Gorgon, I do believe anyone who has an interest in the second amendment - right to bear arms - would disagree that the erasing of laws has much to do with personal security. If there's no law against murder, psycho would generally last about ONE murder - cuz retribution for many would be "personal" and that psycho wouldn't live long enough to enact another murder. Now, think about that in a societal aspect; laws against murder enable a stable and functional society because we aren't all running around getting revenge on each other we can commit ourselves to higher functions. The argument you put forth is one against non-utopian anarchy and it's a decent one but the actual evolution of the argument is that without restriction, humankind will eventually settle down and have a society built upon mutual fear/respect. That's actually the base argument that gun enthusiasts have: if everyone has guns and is allowed to carry and use them, criminals won't be so quick to use theirs. Mutual fear/respect is also the base of the argument for the Cold War and nuclear stand-off.
But your last statment is about obediance to law, not enactment of law or restrictions. "Obediance" is not the same thing as law.

and I still fail to see why criminalizing drugs somehow make ME more free?

and I fail to see why legalizing alcohol has made the roads a safer place to drive.

Drugs impair judgement, slow reaction times, harm vial organs and damage brain cells. Ever seen a guy on PCP? It's scary as hell and I can tell you right now when someone high on the stuff comes into Wendy's and starts masturbating next to my table I'm glad that there are laws against the use and possession of it.

Besides the fact that being independent of the drug itself makes you less of a slave to it.

what makes roads safer is laws about roads, not laws about what you do when you're not even on the damned roads.

and yes, I've seen a guy on PCP, among other things. He twirled around a lot. Most amusing. He seemed happy enough. Of course, he was a friend of mine and he's not a wacked out loser at all - finished college, got a job as computer whiz and made his first million within a year of graduation. Too bad he wans't arrested for the drug crazed fiend he was, huh.

and everyone agrees: drug laws have done NOTHING to reduce drug use. Nobody quits drugs because it's illegal - they quit drugs because they wake up and realize they don't want their life to go down the toilet anymore.

I would think that laws against drugs reduce their use. Supposedly they are a hell of a lot of fun. But I don't use them because it's illegal. And stupid.

I bet you'd find out that there are a lot of people who refused drugs in the first place because they were illegal. ...and I think that's a good thing.

I really believe that drug use hurts our society. I don't think it's good in any way, shape, or form. I think the medical marijuana argument is ridiculous. There are plenty of alternatives.

The idea that drug users are only hurting themselves is preposterous. That's pure selfishness. Their actions effect everyone around them. We should not allow all self destructive behaviors under the law. How many former drug addicts believe that drug use should be legalized? How many people that survived motorcycle accidents are grateful that they were "forced" to wear helmets? What about seatbelt laws? How come we don't protest those? I know why: Because seatbelts don't get you high!

...and you don't care about justice and fairness and rights. You just want to be able to get toasted whenever and wherever you want!

That's right. I can read your hippie mind.



I'm kidding.


...but seriously, stop acting like hippies.

my parents were hippies... and i don't smoke pot or "get toasted" on anything stronger than ice cream.

i just don't want new parents; not you, not anybody

"I brought with me some words from George Washington, the first inaugural address of 1789. This is what he said, he hoped "that the foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world." That's a great statement. Is it asking too much of our public servants to not only make of this nation the greatest nation on earth politically, militarily, but also to give moral leadership to the world?

-Gordon B. Hinkley on Larry King Live

^Depends on what your mean by morals. The colloquial sense of the word has come to mean religious morality, but scientists have already shown an altruistic gene to be present in humans, and further studies are showing our species to feel elation from doing good for others. I think we can all lead by doing good for others, but that's has nothing to do with stopping someone else from putting drugs into their system. That just smacks of fascism.

all these arguments for and against have been tryed out allready in Holland and Switzerland (where registered junkies can get smack for free - and i mean heroin, not some synthetic shit like methadon) and they mostly proved the fact that prohibition sucks and can only make things worse

"I'll give an example. Lets take a dramatic example i.e. homicide."

It figures that Gorgonheap would compare smoking marijuana with homocide.

It's so in keeping with his usual load of big-mouthed horse shit.

kulpims, apologies for the downvote, mistaken. Feel free to kick me once in return if you'd like

Marijuana regular use today in the Netherlands is half of what it is here in the US, although they do have some problems with drug *tourists* the locals seem to have adapted pretty well and have a lower regular use rate than we do. Outsiders who are used to prohibition however don't know how to act with that and some other drugs and yeah, they can get in trouble.

Same as they do here, it's the ignorance and feast/famine nature of drug use under prohibition along with unknown potency which seems to cause the greater problems. Death rates for cocaine and heroin for instance have CLIMBED and by several times since the late 70's when we started the war on drugs in its current form, and that right here in the US. Prohibition kills several times more than we used to lose, we haven't saved any lives. That sourced with cocaine and heroin in the thread I point you to later.

In Switzerland the number of *new* users has dropped by just over 80% since the program started, from about 850 new users a year to about 150 today, and the number of current problematic users is dropping at about 4% a year, that according to the Lancet Medical Journal and a recent report they did on it. You can read the article yourself at the following.

http://www.sharemation.com/Rubin/H/swiss.heroin.summary_lancet.367.1830-4_2006.html

Others handled the rest of the thread fine so I'll skip weeks old stuff but that was both newer and worth answering. If you want to read an old thread on the subject with the death rates and such sourced check http://www.videosift.com/video/Cops-say-legalize-drugs-ask-them-why

*drugs

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

*length=00:03:40

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:40 - length declared by critical_d.