digg

Join DiggAbout

Penn and Teller: *****! War on Drugs watch!

video.google.com — Penn and Teller make the argument that the war on drugs is plain and simple worthless *****. Very interesting to see the arguments from both sides. I totally agree that at the very least marijuana should be made legal, considering it's actually less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Heck, even George Washington grew cannabis crops and smoked it!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26it's not worthless... it got the government money and power.
    • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Dugg because this video is great, not because I particularly agree with the opinion stated by the poster in the description.

      The "War on Drugs" is a joke.
    • TwoWayMonologue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+52Actually the war on drugs has cost the US government $46,077,060,626*, as of 1:14 PM central time, this year alone.

      I might be willing to concede the power part.

      *http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
    • sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/12/2007, -14/+14war on drugs 2.0 - the war on terror

      @ twoway: you really think they spent $46B ALL on the war on drugs?
    • clclark33, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@TwoWay:

      The government gets at least that much by forcing the money out of our hands at the goverment equivalent of a loaded gun. So, yes, the drug war gains money and power for the feds.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -9/+85I'm very pro-marijuana, pro-drug reform and some would call me a hippie because I give out my LSD for free, but -- George Washington did not smoke weed, at least we have no proof of that. He did grow hemp, and he MIGHT have smoked pot, but it's only speculative.

      Richard Feynman - brilliant physicist - smokes pot, though.
      http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/
      http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/site/NOTES.htm#feynman

      I would say more than half of all drug users are the intellect. People like Aldous Huxley were open about it, but most high ranking people will not come out of the closet about their drug use simply because of the negative stigma drugs have in our society.

      People associate drugs as being bad because rappers talk about smoking weed and killing people, but these rappers are afraid of drugs like LSD, mescaline, etc. These drugs don't make you feel good, but they tear open your brain.

      If you wanna experiment with a psychedelic, but can't get hold of LSD, check out shrooms. You can easily grow them at home:
      http://www.fungifun.org/English/Pftek
      http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ubbthreads.php
      http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/psychoactives.shtml

      Lots of drug reform links I submitted:
      http://www.digg.com/users/asdfasdf/submitted
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27@asdfasdf

      Respect to you. Thank you for providing Diggers with knowledge and choices.
    • rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@TwoWay

      Wrong. The WoD has cost US TAXPAYERS 46 Bil+ this year.
    • ryno35, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@Twoway

      Explain to me how the gov makes money on prohibtion. It doesn't. It costs billions and I think 46 billion is probably low when you consider all the resources it consumes on the local, state, and federal levels.

      I prefer the word "prohibition" over "war on drugs" since many people don't really think of it that way. The same problems we had with prohibtion in the 30's are the same problems we have today only many times greater.

    • bludo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6@asdfasdf

      Richard Feynman died in 1988

      and that's not an argument
    • Railer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I wonder if Penn & Tellers takes on Environmentalism would make it to the front page?
    • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@Railer

      Why not? Their take on Animal Rights has already been front-paged.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"Heck, even George Washington grew cannabis crops and smoked it!"

      I wonder if the submitter wants to bring back slavery. Heck, even George Washington owned slaves!

      "He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate."

      I'm, not saying I don't think that weed shouldn't be decriminalized, just pointing out that the argument that Washington did it doesn't make for a very good argument.
    • Kloser331, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9George Washington also shot a lot of British people. We should legalize that while we're at it.

      Maybe he beat his wife, too since we're making random accusations about him smoking pot.

      In fact, I just heard that he was a necrophiliac. All these should be legalized.

      By the way, I told a black person that slavery is back in. He isn't as excited about it as the marijuana users about their legalization campaign.
    • ComAge, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0Ummm, why is what Penn & Teller say all so important to the subject? George Washington's opinion, now THAT might be worth digging!
    • phaedrusnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@asdfasdf

      It may not be proven that George Washington smoked pot, but he did write about the importance of separating male and female plants... and we know there's only one good reason to do that :)
    • treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Good responses guys. Yeah it's not certain whether George Washington smoked marijuana or not, but it's a good little fact very few people know.

      If you haven't already checked out the Erowid FAQ, then I would suggest you read it: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml (edit, eh.. you better copy-paste that)

      ... it goes through all the history of why marijuana was made illegal and tells the facts and myths, each with scientific studies to back them up.

      There is no logical reason marijuana should be illegal. I'm not sure about making all illicit drugs legal, but I'd say it would be very successful in reducing crime. If they made these drugs available via prescription, and couple that with factual education... then the government will be making a tonne of cash, the drug-lords will have a difficult time making a profit, and overall drug-use will most likely remain stable (though there's lots of debate about that)
    • dboylon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4OK dummies...where did the government get that 46 billions...to pay the officers...to pay the judges...the pay the guards...to pay the swat teams...to pay the grandstanding politicians who are going to be tough on drugs? They got it from the taxpayers and borrowing against the future earnings of the taxpayers. The government gets money and power from the people by conjuring up as many bogeymen as they can. You have to pay your taxes or otherwise the streets will be overrun with drug dealers and terrorists. The only bigger scam than the war on drugs...is the war on terrorism. We pay the government 200-300 billion dollars a year to protect the population (supposedly) and what do we get for it? A smoldering pentagon and two collapse trade center towers. What does the stupid American people do...gives the government 400-600 billion dollars a year to "protect the people". The same thing with the war on drugs....after housing the most criminals in the world(mostly for drug dealing)...is the drug war almost over now? No...of course not. There are still just as many dealers and users. The drug trade is more profitable because of the prohibition and the drugs more dangerous and addictive...because of the prohibition. It is a never ending war that American taxpayers will have to continue to fund. Just Like the government wants it to be. The officers get their overtime, the judges and DAs get raises, The congressmen get elected. They get to steal people's property and what the government workers don't steal for themselves they sell back at auction to the people to get more money. It is an incredibly smart racket. Don't ever believe that the parasites in government are dumb...they no exactly what they are doing and they know exactly how to con the american public
    • treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sounds about right dboylon... but remember to use that Enter key on the keyboard next time :)
    • PSPon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1asdfasdf = Diggs Marc Emery
  • socket, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Penn and Teller tell it like it is. No pun intended.
    • Phr00t, on 10/12/2007, -28/+4As much as I enjoy watching this, *****! is just as biased to the liberals as FOX News is to conservatism...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*****!#Criticism
    • socket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26I don't buy everything on their show hook, line, and sinker. But I do find they do more research then most.
    • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10They might be bias towards liberals, but this just gives people both sides of the story, which is exactly what we need. Everyone is bias towards their own values and opinions, and the viewer should keep that in mind when watching _anything_.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33"Biased to liberals?"

      You might need to re evaluate your own drug habits, son, with or without the governments intervention. Penn Gillette is a member of the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute. He is hard core right wing, and outspokenly so.

    • SadBeef, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"As much as I enjoy watching this, *****! is just as biased to the liberals as FOX News is to conservatism..."

      most of the shows ive seen have gone more in the favor of right-wingers. i think they even say something to that effect at the beginning of this episode.
    • kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22actually on the first episode of *****! P&T admit that they are biased in a libertarian point of view. so they don't tell it as it is, but they certainly call it as they see it
    • jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Since when has Libertarianism been right-wing?
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25This whole "fair and balanced" crap is just that: crap.

      Penn has said many times that their bias is plain for anyone to see. No lies, no hiding. Anyone who questions that should listen to his radio show. Pennradio.com

      At the same time, they welcome their interviewees to be just as biased, just as open about what they believe. Again, no lies, no hiding.

      When the bias is openly admitted, even espoused, then the viewer can take that into account. Newspapers used to be like this. Some of their names still reflect this honesty, such as "Sun City Democrat"

      It is the news sources who _hide_ their bias, pretending not to have personal opinions, who suggest you accept what they present as the _whole_ story, who cannot be trusted.

    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Since when has Libertarianism been right-wing?"

      I run into that all the time. Some college professor who styles himself as "far to the left" called me a "right winger" merely because I disagree with him.

      Unfortunately, "left" and "right" have become defined not by any actual principles, but solely by their special interest groups.

      Gun control: For, left. Against, right.

      Drug prohibition: For, right. Against, left.

      Corporate welfare: For, both. Against, both. Depends on the corporation and how much they made in campaign contributions.

      What the "left" and "right" ignore is when Bulls-Hit comes out against the pet prohibitions of both right and left. They only see opposition to their pet prohibition as "a conspiracy of the" other side, while pretending that the show they agree with is just common sense.

    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10biased maybe, but only to their own opinions, not the "left" or the "right"

      they take fairly "right wing" attitudes towards:
      gun-control, recycling, global warming, 9/11

      and fairly "left wing" attitudes towards:
      drugs, corporations, religion, marriage

      so overall I don't think they can really be claimed to side with a particular party
    • schack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Check to see if you're Right or Left.

      http://politicalcompass.org/
    • fufubag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4jsd8cc,

      Libertarians (like me!) are conservative in terms of fiscal or economic policies (such as believing in the open market) and having a small federal government and are liberal in terms of personal freedoms and responsibilities, such as believing in the right to smoke marijuana.
  • fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8The war on drugs was Reagan's response to the various civil rights movements during his administration!
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Reagan gave it a label, but the 'war' existed looooong before his Presidency happened.
    • fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11You're totally right, I was wrong to state it that way.

      I just can't get why people love Ronald Reagan so much. Here is a little quote from his wife:
      "Just say no."

      Here is a little quote from Reagan himself:
      "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. That's dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow to go through higher education.
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Hey, don't forget that he was the man who gave America the trillion dollar deficit.

      Spend like there's no one watching...
    • fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm sorry I misquoted, that wasn't Reagan himself, it was Roger Freeman. Roger Freeman worked on his reelection campaign for governor.

      I need to shut up!!!!!!
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Hey, don't forget that he was the man who gave America the trillion dollar deficit.

      Spend like there's no one watching..."

      You do know that it's congress that controls all government spending right? Now, tell the class who controlled congress when Reagan was President...
  • vanadium77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Even if this is an episode from some time ago, it's well worth watching.
  • ts8lemonade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Side with the hippies!
  • grevvvvvv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"We were also hoping someone who runs the country would look out their ***** window and learn something!"
  • diggumjonez, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Penn and Teller are also notorious teetotallers who don't touch alcohol or drugs. Fortunately, they tend to reserve any holier-than-thou attitudes (if atheists can ever feel "holier-than-thou") for folks who try to drive while intoxicated.
  • mightme, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11If Beer and Cigarettes kill people like the illegal drugs do, why aren't they banned? IT makes me wonder why things as lethal, if not more lethal then some of the illegals are still able to be sold in local stores. Why ban somethings and not others? Could you imagine how much money the government would make if they made and regulated the illegal drugs and let the people of this country live the way they want to live? Put in regulation laws such as doing the drugs in your home and not at the workplace, and not doing them around minors. Forget the reformation of the "criminals" who are just trying to make money and enjoy their life as they want to. Let us live God damn it!
    • mightme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Also, so there is no confusion about my post, I am saying that the government should either ban it all or legalize it all. It all has the same possible outcome. Just because they make oodles of money off of one doesn't mean it should be legal.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30@"If Beer and Cigarettes kill people like the illegal drugs do, why aren't they banned?"

      Mostly because of race and lobbying from competing industries...

      Marijuana was outlawed because of competing cotton industries and it was the choice of drug for migrant mexican laborors. Opium was banned because it was the drug of choice for Chinese immigrants.

      Absinthe was outlawed because of pressure from wine makers.

      The list goes on and on... I suppose the only reason alcohol isn't illegal is because they tried to ban it and it turned out that was impossible to do.

      And I suppose they'll never ban tobacco because of the industry.

      But yeah... Most of the drugs that are banned were not banned because they were considered "bad for you" but rather industrial or racial concerns.

      Of course due to the banning of said drugs... We have seen a rise in worse types like meth and crack which are really bad for you. Had the ban on the lesser drugs been removed, then the need for such hardcore drugs would have never brought about such things.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If the government cares about health over money, why do they allow coal power powerplants?
    • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Regulation is a much more sane policy than total criminalization. If you want to make something worse, declare war on it.

    • republick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I already live the way I want to live. Im still pissed that they put me in a cage if i dont give them 17% of every penny I earn.
    • Spacejack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0republick - They don't. We don't have debtor's prison here in the United States. They will lock you up for lying to them about how much you have, though.
  • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12George Washington also held slaves and raped black women. Your point?
    • DeathJux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Obviously the point is that George Washington ruled.
    • zttrx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12He raped black women? You wouldn't be opposed to offering some hard evidence of this assertion, would you?
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33And who says you can't do what you want with your body? The very definition of ownership is the right to do with something what you will. Obviously, you are the property of the government, i.e., a slave.

    In practice, the war on drugs is an excuse for state terrorism against the poor. No argument in support of criminalizing victimless acts holds ethical water.
    • Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -29/+5It's not just about your body ... it's also about the possible harm you cause to others.
      And the very foundation of a government is that it should protect its citizens.
    • dimension128, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@Uruviel
      Then by your statement we should conclude that alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal to.
      Not that I would be against this, but as long as people want to say that it is ok to disregard other peoples safety (cancer, physical violence, etc.), then I do not think that endangering ones Cheetos supply should be somehow considered a large enough threat to even think about, let alone have the law get involved.
    • elShaggy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Uruveil-
      By smoking a joint how am I going to hurt anyone else, besides maybe some second hand smoke. But in all reality people typically dont smoke marijuana around non-smokers, because you don't know if they are cool with the idea. And if you think it will cause aggression and rage, or reefer madness, you buy into too much propaganda.

      In a Hard drug users case, it probably wouldn't be the drug causing the aggression but the lack of a drug, or funding for their fixes. Opiates and Anphetamines shouldn't be openly legal. Those are addictive, harmful drugs that should be controlled.
    • ryno35, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Uruviel

      Your right in that the governments main purpose is to protect us but this should be limited to direct acts of harm.

      There are many things we do to ourselves that cause harm to others. How many people spend to much time at work when they should be tending to their families? What harm are they causing their children because their jobs are more important to them? Should the gov regulate that? Should there be laws against adultery and divorce?

      You may argue that legal drugs would cause more direct acts of harm, violence, robbery, etc... But the efforts put into prosecuting these crimes would pale in comparison to the efforts put into stopping people from harming themselves. And all the other crimes caused by prohibition would simply disappear.


    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@ Uruviel,

      "It's not just about your body ... it's also about the possible harm you cause to others."

      Straw-man. There is nothing I can do that does not impact others. My use of oxygen while breathing deprives the world of that much oxygen that might be breathed by someone else.

      "Possible harm" is so broad as to include everything. It is so broad that it supports government power to do anything, to anyone, at any time. Why were Americans of Japanese ancestry locked up in concentration camps during WW2? "Possible harm."

      Libertarians can oppose prohibition of all kinds by the simple principle that an individual is free to choose, so long as their choice does not infringe upon the free choice of others. Harm someone, then and only then is there a crime to be punished.

      Yes, locking everyone up in rubber rooms might stop some crimes from being committed, might prevent some "possible harm". But doing so ignores the vast crime, the terrible harm done, by the imprisoning itself.

      That is the essence of the "War On Some Drugs". The violence, death, destruction, vast wealth of the most violent and ruthless criminals in their persuit of "supply and demand", all because what used to be peaceful choice is now prohibited.

      And what was life like before the prohibition? Some small percentage of people, just like now, were addicted to some few substances. A much larger number, just like now, used those same substances for recreation.

      It was _prohibition_ which created the opportunities for the most violent, the most blood-thirsty, to make fortunes and corrupt saints. Whether it is John Hancock running black-market tea and raw brass, Al Capone and alcohol, Vito Corleone with gambling and prostitution, or the Medein cartel with cocain, it's all the same thing: There is a demand, government makes it illegal, people pay more and the only winners are the police and the criminals.


      "And the very foundation of a government is that it should protect its citizens."

      Ah, "should". A subjective judgement on your part. Tell me: are you going to stand up like a man and hold a gun to your neighbors head, taking personal responsibility for the policies you advocate? Or are you going to take the coward's way out, insulating yourself behind your voting booth, letting someone else do your dirty work for you?

      No matter how altruistic you may think you are being, what you advocate is the violent prevention of a peaceful act. You are telling others what they may or may not own based solely on your opinion of what "possibly" happen. That is what _insurance_ is for, not law.
    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Opiates and Amphetamines shouldn't be openly legal. Those are addictive, harmful drugs that should be controlled."

      Sure they are dangerous and addictive, but under current policy, use & distribution of those drugs is NOT controlled - the entire market has been ceded to the criminal sector! Do street deales check IDs? Do ther refer clients to treatment options? Do they pay taxes? Do they guarantee that their drugs are free of contaminants?

      I'm not saying that opiates and amphetamines should be available at convenience stores, but a system in which their distribution is actually controlled by accountable entities would seem to be preferable to one where they are available on the street, anytime, to anybody with the cash.
    • Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Oh boy ... i've probalby smoked more weed then most of you combined. I'm from the Netherlands ;) . The goal of my initial comment was merely to point out that we cannot simply speak of our body as "my property and I should do all I want with it" , first of all claiming that we should is outright morally wrong, people should be concerned with the welfare of others like many philosophers argued with me.
      Derived from that is that we should take responsibility for our actions.
      Now there are people whose ethical standards are far from good and to protect 'us' (the general population) from those people we created the governmental system and with that the laws and law enforcement. I specifically said 'we created' since it remotely implies a form of democracy. From that point we might argue that the laws there are right now are the once we chose, now I know this is far from the truth and a totally different issue ... but fun to point out anyway.

      Now to come back to the drug issue: indeed I'm with you all that weed is a mostly harmless drug. And should therefore be legal (here in the Netherlands we enforce a 'gedoogbeleid' which boils down to be agnostic about it). And I never stated that it should be illegal (in fact, that hurts economics pretty bad and causes a large drug underground scene which is prone to violence). So please digg ... don't assume so much when you click 'submit comment'.

    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It ISN'T about POSSIBLE harm.

      "Possible harm" is an invitation to infinite intervention.

      It's supposed to be about maximum freedom.
    • fufubag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You realize that oxygen you are breathing is breaking down your cells and killing you as you type right?
  • rmxz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4George Washington also had a pirate ship http://www.answers.com/topic/privateer) and slaves - so just because George did it doesn't mean that should be legal. (though iirc FSM believers do acknowledge the need for more pirates to combat global warming)
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Privateers are not pirates. Just ask one. :^)

  • clownguyx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3If they don't legalize it, they should at least consider a national sales tax so people profiting off of the black market must contribute to taxes as well.
  • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12We need take all the money, time, and effort that's funneled into search&seizure and (drug) law enforcement and redirect it towards addiction research, education, and counseling.

    The problem is not drugs (caffiene, alchohol, zoloft, penicillin, aspirin are all drugs) , the problem is addiction (be it to drugs, or gambling, or sex, or anything else). Tossing someone in jail or slapping a fine on them does not help cure their addiction; counseling and prior eduction does. And not just scare tactics, but TRUE education about researched and documented effects, both positive and negative.
  • OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's a link to all the other episodes of Penn & Teller: *****

    http://*****.blogspot.com/

    Yes, it was dug before.
  • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here's a couple great chunks of info using basic common sense and a few facts telling why relegalization is better than a drug war:

    http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/303a.htm

    http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/402.htm

    In fact, take some time to read the whole book. It's in my top 3 of best books ever read.


  • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4government hypocrisy

    http://digg.com/videos_educational/Hemp_for_Victory_pro_cannabis_gov_t_propaganda


    I fully understand the difference between psychoactive marijuana and industrial hemp; but it still seems a bit hypocritical....
    • Spacejack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you understand that difference, you're doing better than our government has since right around the time that film was made. Because to our government, they're the same.

      Another thing they don't seem to realize is the difference between a seed and a plant. Everyone out there with a seedy bag of shwag is a kingpin grower according to the federal law.
  • HalfBurntToast, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I think legalizing drugs would be a pretty good idea. I mean think about it... What if it was sold like beer and cigarettes? You'd have an age limit like alchohol and tobacco, but it would be sold in stores behind the counter. Say goodbye to most organized crime and drug runs. And it would earn the country more money.

    However I do not think meth, LSD, etc... should be legalized. These just turn your brain into swiss cheese, literally.
    • jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm all for at least legalizing pot if not almost all drugs (meth is where I make one exception). But before even pot became legal, someone would have to figure out a way to detect if you're currently high or not. Marijuana tests only show if it's in your system. So I could smoke one weekend, get pulled over 2 weeks later, and test positive. I could be completely sober at the time, but because I failed the drug test, I'd get a DUI. There needs to be a way to test if a subject is currently high. Unfortunately, no research can really be done on this because the drugs are illegal and are thus illegal to research as well.
    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Swiss cheese, literally?
    • ApeInago, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jaredvolk1

      brethalizer type tests for marijuana work while you are "highly intoxicated"... by the time it isn't on your breath, you aren't high enough for it to matter.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I agree that meth is dangerous, but LSD actually quite safe from a physical standpoint.

      most psychedelics such as LSD, psylocybin (mushrooms), and mescaline (peyote) actually have a very low abuse potential. There are little to no withdrawal symptoms and LSD actually has a fairly low toxicity (almost all deaths and hospitalizations occur from the user "wigging out" and not an actual overdose). In general there is not the same kind of euphoric "high" that reinforces the reward circuitry in the brain, and the experience is (for most) too intense to be a regular phenomenon; most users (secondary psychological issues aside) will limit usage of their own accord.

      I am against the outright prohibition of any psychoactive substance, as any chemical with such a profound effect is bound to have some (possibly very narrow) medicinal and theraputic uses. We should restrict and monitor usage and distribution, but no more.
    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There are tests to determine if you are under the influence of pot - I seem to recall reading about a saliva test for marijuana that is used in Australia. There are also cheap swab tests that can be used to determine if marijuana has been smoked in a location, like a car, for example.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Meth is the new crack. Remember when the trend was that every black person would become a raging crackhead in 3 years.

      Never happened. Was it the "thin blue line" that saved us? Yeah, right.

      Deadly habits burn themselves out. Enforcement barely dents the numbers.
    • StevethePirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Selling drugs as if they were alcohol could actually reduce the availability. Behind meth and LSD, alcohol is the hardest drug for someone my age to obtain.
  • somebitches, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18In a nutshell, reasons for legalising drugs:

    - The government can tax them like tobacco and alcohol

    - Health and safety and potency standards can be adhered to

    - Drugs can be sold in shops (dealing without a license will still be illegal)

    - Drug dealers will go out of business because:
    -+ shops are more convenient
    -+ shops are not in back alleys
    -+ shops can sell at lower prices
    -+ shops dont try and shoot you if they think you're wired
    -+ shops take cards
    -+ shops dont run off with your money
    -+ shops are regulated
    -+ things bought from shops are rarely mixed with rat poison or some other crap
    -+ shops dont hang around schools selling to kids

    - Drug prices will drop to that of tobacco and alcohol because they will no longer be difficult (i.e illegal) to manufacture and sell.

    - A drop in prices will lead to less people needing to steal to afford their habit

    - Low potency laws will lead to less harmful effects, unless you buy from an unlicensed dealer which is unlikely (see above)

    - Research into these drugs can be drastically increased leading to:
    -+ Safer drugs with less damaging side-effects
    -+ Legitimate medical uses for drugs once thought to be only recreational

    - Drugs will have less appeal to the rebellious because they are legal

    - Many police chases are due to people scared of being found with drugs

    - Gang crime will be reduced as most of it is the result of drug trafficking, gun crime will be reduced as a follow-on effect. Criminal organisations will find a large revenue stream disappearing. Terrorist organisations that use drugs for funding will loose this revenue too.

    - Hours of police and court time will be freed and many jail cells will be saved. People who were sent to jail for simple possession will no longer be mingling with hardened criminals and invited into a life of crime, kids who have their lives ruined by drug charges will be given a chance rather than a pent-up resentment for the law for being unfairly treated.

    • ApeInago, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6and they will stop spending billions on the fruitless "war on drugs"... which can be further placed into education system or such.
    • HalfBurntToast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exactly my point. It wouldn't make sense NOT to legalize them.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Oh get real. Since when does _government_ have anything to do with sense?
    • MrTea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Some of these reasons why I believe that prostitution should be legalized. It can be regulated so that the dirty hookers stay the ***** out of legitimate brothels, it would be taxed (a big advantage for the govt. especially if it's in demand and competitive).

      Like I said during the summer when we were discussing marijuana, I would rather see Marlboro selling cartons of joints than drug cartels selling the weed itself pound for pound to fund their gang wars, assassinations, etc.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2as long as you can still grow your own (at least as far as the organic pharmas go (cannabis, mushrooms, peyote, etc.); meth labs notwithstanding). Hopefully it would fall under the same jurisdiction as somebody brewing their own beer.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes? *****.
  • ztraut, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Before everyone gets on these guys' dicks. Consider that these guys think global warming (an all-time Digg fave) is just a bunch of *****.
    • ryno35, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7>Consider that these guys think global warming... is just a bunch of *****.

      Because it is. At least the idea that humans are causing it.
  • HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0I have far too much to say and discuss about on these topics, so I will say nothing. Anybody who NEEDS to discuss can contact me via ICQ: 196004. And yes, that also works on AIM, and any other IM proggy that recognizes UIN #'s.
    • JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Is this like one of those "Call 196004 for a good time" things?

      "so I will say nothing"
      Ok say nothing. In fact, why did you comment at all in the first place? Pompous ass.
  • JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Heck, even George Washington grew cannabis crops and smoked it!"

    And he was a Deist, as was Franklin and Jefferson among others. God-wads today say that America was founded on Christian principles and that the Ten Commandments should be posted where ever there's a wall to post them. They don't know that some of the most well-known of the founding fathers were *not* Christians, including the author of the Declaration of Independence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_America

    Marijuana and religion. Two reasons (among many) the founding fathers would not recognize this country today.
  • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Although I agree that prohibition of drugs is futile and counterproductive, any real legalization alternative would have to include regulation appropriate and specific to each of the various drugs.

    One of the biggest problems with the "War on Drugs" approach to regulation is that it is a one-size-fits-all policy, that fails to take into recognition the various physiological, psychological, economic and social factors characteristic of the use of each substance, and what real efforts might be effective in controlling the undesirable associated externalities specific to each.

    An appropriate legal and economic framework for tobacco use might not be appropriate for alchohol or marijuana, for example, while drugs such as heroin and cocaine are different from psychedelics, etc.

    Sadly, however, I think it will be a very long time, indeed, before American society is ready to REALLY address it's drug problems.


    • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I understand your point about the various and differing effects of each
      and every recreational drug. The problem is that people disagree
      about each iota. Doctors and scientists disagree. Government is
      too intertwined with political trends. What is needed is scientific
      studies, free of government regulations, and dissemination of the product
      of these studies, along with reports from the medical community on the
      effects of drug usage, to prevent abuse. And it's imperative to legalize drugs
      and use the fortune now squandered in the drug war, to fund Betty Ford-type
      clinics to help addicts, for the entire spectrum of the population.

      One thing's for certain, the present approach is not only
      inappropriate and hopelessly ineffective, it makes a bad problem
      worse. By making recreational drugs illegal, it promotes the
      underground economy. That economy is highly motivated to push the
      product onto the public, much of which are young people eager to experiment.
      Paradoxically, making drugs contraband is to empower the pusher, and
      guarantee a high profit in it's manufacture, and wholesale & retail distribution.
      The last people who want drugs legalized is the pusher and the drug cartels.

      And since the drug war promotes the underground economy, it then promotes
      the high degree of violence we experience in our society. If people wanted
      the murder rate to fall dramatically, they'd legalize drugs. Society needs to
      have the scientists and medical sector deal with the problem, rather than to
      continue having the law enforcement make the problem tragically much worse.
      If you want to reduce the upward trends of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine
      abuse, you do it by eduction (true education...not propaganda).

      -Muggins
      http://linksandopinion.blog-city.com/

  • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I'm not necessarily for legalizing marijuana since I think there's still a lot of issues with enforcement and control that still need to be resolved. However, instead of jailing smokers and putting a burden on taxpayers, they should be heavily fined or made to do community service. More emphasis on the dealers rather than the users.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It seems to me like most of these issues of enforcement and control have already been worked out by the alchohol, tobacco, and prescription pharmaceutical corporations, and their associated gov't offices.

      The machinery for regulation is already in place, we just need to implement it.


      Fines and community service is no different from what is already happening. It is still unnecessary punishment for something that is not inherently wrong, and does nothing to fix the problems that it is (misguidedly) trying to address; in many cases it actually *increases* the potential for abuse.
    • republick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Just as many issues as alcohol or tobacco, my friend.

      ITS ABOUT CONTROL............PERIOD
    • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually I don't agree as there isn't a foolproof way to test marijuana levels on the spot for a DUI as opposed to alcohol where you have a BAC level. And if I am going into a bar where there is heavy marijuana smoking, will I be effected by all the smoke in the air. This is a completely different case because alcohol is a substance in a bottle that is easily controlled not the case with marijuana smoke.
  • tysonkad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did anyone else have a sudden urge to get really stoned?
  • NevinW11, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0I just want to point out hippies do not equal democrats since that has been mentioned in this discussion and if you were to make pot legal, what is next? It seems people love pushing the button and if we did make marajuana legal, people will want LSD and other drugs. To refute prior comments, marajuana is a DRUG and it's a DRUG for a reason. Drugs should be taken in small amounts because they are dangerous when you take too much of them and I doubt you hear someone saying, "I'm just taking a couple hits." People abuse marajuana and that is why they will not make the drug legal.
    • republick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You obiously dont know *****. People abuse alcohol and tobacco to, and they kill more people together that anything. Smoking pot will not kill you or harm you, unless you consider eating three bags of skittles harmfull.
      Im sure your one of those ***** jackasses who denounce marijuana use as you down your bottle of beer or liquor, and then proceed to vomit and/or get behind the wheel of a car.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4aspirin is a DRUG and should be taken in small amounts
      nicotine is a DRUG and should be taken in small amounts
      caffiene is a DRUG and should be taken in small amounts

      all of these drugs have higher toxicity levels than cannabis, more prevalent withdrawal symptoms, and a potential for addiction and abuse (yes, even aspirin). "drug" has become a dirty word in today's society, people use it without realizing that almost every single person around them has used some kind of drug within the last 24 hours. Any drug has potential for abuse (as do many other addictive habits, like sex, or gambling, eating junk food, or even browsing the internet) but this does *not* make the habit inherently bad; it is the abuse pattern itself which is destructive and requires counseling and education to overcome, not outright illegalization.

      And yes, I know many many people who can take "just a couple of hits" and refrain from doing more over the next week, month, or even year. I know of much fewer people who can just "take one drag" on a ciggarette, or even have "just one potato chip" to the same affect.
  • postal21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I saw a history channel episode on drugs and they talked about how marijuana was demonized during the early 1900s by just a small number of people mainly one man who wanted to get it banned.

    Lots of misinformation about the drug was put out that still seem to be "true" today. I remember it said something about congress originally passing a bill requiring you to obtain a liscense to grow marijuana, but in order to obtain that liscense you had to have marijuana in hand to prove that you were growing it... but if you had marijuana in hand without the liscense you were commiting a crime, so nobody could obtain a liscense.

    funky, if they just taxed marijuana like they do alcohol and cigarettes, it wouldnt really hurt anyone to just do it in their home. Im not a big smoker of anything, I cant stand cigarettes and pot is just too much for me, but I dont really care if someone else wants to do it and isnt harming another person in the process. More people are probably hurt from the dealings of the drug illegally then the drug itself, seems like a waste of time and money.
  • saltatory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The war on drugs is failing because drug addiction is a disease. Numerous well-respected scientific studies have shown that animals such as mice, rats, horses, elephants, dogs and monkeys will perform work in order to receive infusions of cocaine, heroin, THC, nicotine, ethanol and other drugs abused by humans. If an animal can become dependent on drugs, should we say that they grew up in a bad family? Are they trying to escape their dull lives? Did their peers pressure them to try it to be cool? Do they have weak minds or wills? No. Addiction is merely an exploitation of basic biology. Granted, there is a choice involved in the initiation of drug taking, but there is also a choice inherent in spending too much time in the sun. Do we fight a war against skin cancer by imprisoning patients and impeding access to treatment and necessary research? Of course not. But why are doing the same thing to drug dependence? Just like the "war on terror", a war on neurochemical physiology is bound to fail.

    Maybe this was too much of a rant and a little tl;dr, but I think the fundamental misunderstanding occurs when you classify a basic biological principle, evident across species, as a crime.
    • baugles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The war on drugs is failing because they assume everyone who does it has an addiction.

      There's a huge difference between use and abuse.

      Hell, most of us here have consumed alcohol at one point or another. Maybe we do it weekly. Maybe we do it monthly. But in any case, we have enough sense to not do it every single night even though we have the freedom to.

      Others.. aren't so fortunate. However, that doesn't mean we should punish the rest of because of the mistakes of a few.
  • Mimmiroo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+130 minutes!? ***** that *****. I'll catch it on TV some day.

    I think that if they legalize drugs at least it will be controlled as in there will not be so many different types of one drug.
  • baugles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They hit it right on the head right away: no one has any authority to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body if you live in a free country.

    Plain and simple. You can't really beat that argument no matter how hard you try. You might not agree with it, but hey, that's the beauty of being in a free nation! But alas, we are not.

    I don't smoke weed, but if I wanted to in the privacy of my own home, I feel I should. Just like I could smoke and drink if i wanted! I do what I please, and if it doesn't harm you or affect you in any way, move along and mind your own business.
  • kragg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Maybe he beat his wife, too since we're making random accusations about him smoking pot."

    It's really too bad all you can do is digg down the replies of the truly stupid. They are not random accusations. It is well known that both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington cultivated hemp. There is some suggestion that they grew it for medicinal purposes based on some diary entries referring to the removal of the male plants something not done in marijuana grown purely for fiber.

  • Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7We were on the road to decriminalizing marijuana in Canada before a conservative government got elected. Even conservative supporters I spoke with supported it. The time has really come on this one. We are funding criminals and crime by continuing this prohibition. Every single person that I know well enough to ask has at least tried it.

    I haven't toked up in years and probably won't again, but it really irks me how this funds a whole criminal subculture.

    I want full legalization, and sales through controlled outlets, the same as for liquor. Stop making this criminal and making it so lucrative to be a criminal. Maybe scoop some other soft drugs into the mix like ecstasy.

    Harm reduction, crime reduction and a revenue stream. Win-Win-Win.
  • asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@bludo

    Um, what's not an argument? I'm just saying, that we have no proof Washington smoked pot. He probably did, but why not use better examples?

    Huxley, for example, was one of the most intelligent people of his time and he was very open about his drug use. Alexander Shulgin is brilliant, and so are the thousands of doctors, chemists, physicists, lawyers and businessmen who smoke pot and do other drugs on a regular basis.

    I'm not saying "since the most intelligent man in the world uses LSD, you should too", but people have a stereotype in their head that smoking pot means you WILL sit on a couch 24/7 and not do *****, or LSD will make you go crazy and you'll run around naked in public. This is ignorance.

    The psychedelic drugs - I'm not talking about *****-me-up drugs like coke, alcohol, heroin - aren't something you 'need.' They are something everybody should experience at least once in their life. Love, the death of somebody close to you, a marriage, a near-death experience, all these things change you (for the better or worse is another debate all together), and a hit of Acid (LSD) will change you just as much - if not more - than those events.

    If you're looking for a good time, LSD is probably not what you're looking for. If you're having some problems in your life and you DO NOT want to face and deal with them, LSD isn't what you're looking for. These drugs need to be treated with respect, otherwise they'll put you in the hell you create in your mind for what seems like eternity (which of course in reality would be 5-10 hours). Bad trips are fascinating in and of themselves, but if you're weak minded, stick to the dumbing drugs like alcohol and coke.

    Recent study on Magic Mushrooms:
    http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004231551
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3huzzah for Alexander Shulgin; brilliant organic chemis. Pihkal is an amazing book.

      I would be careful though about saying "LSD is something everybody should experience at least once in their life" however. A persons decision to partake in *any* mind altering experience should be 100% completely their own very very personal decision; no encouragement in either direction should be used, only objective education on the experience. Any psychedelic substance should be treated with the utmost of respect.
  • dhollidator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I can't express in words exactly how much I agree with Penn on this.
  • z1freeride, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Just because George Washington did something does mean you should do it too. appeal to authority fallacy...
  • Parasocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ok so it's settled, public opinion is that the government are self-serving puppets who want nothing more than to protect us from ourselves. We all know alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous than marijuana. We all know how many lives alcohol costs a year, but on the same grounds, weed is illegal.

    Soooooo, what are we going to do about it?
  • Adamande, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That drugwar-strategist was a total moron. His entire reasoning was flawed. There is absolutely no logic in selling alcohol as a legal drug if the government intention is to protect citizens from harm. Alcohol is extremely lethal compared to many other drugs:

    http://www.americanscientist.org/content/AMSCI/AMSCI/Image/FullImage_2006330104938_847.jpg
  • halosniper7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i loved this but i hated the interview editing
  • tqup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27000-8000 B.C.
    First woven fabric believed to be from hemp.

    1619
    Jamestown Colony, Virginia passes law requiring farmers to grow hemp.

    1700s
    Hemp was the primary crop grown by George Washington at Mount Vernon, and a secondary crop grown by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello.

    1884
    Maine is the first state to outlaw alcohol.

    1906
    Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration. First time that drugs have any government oversight.

    1914
    Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and cocaine (taxing scheme)

    1915
    Utah passes first state anti-marijuana law.

    1919
    18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol prohibition) is ratified.

    1930
    Harry J. Anslinger given control of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics (he remains in the position until 1962)

    1933
    21st Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, repealing alcohol prohibition.

    1937
    Marijuana Tax Act

    1938
    Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

    1951
    Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act (mandatory sentences)

    1956
    Narcotics Control Act adds more severe penalties

    1970
    Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Empasis on law enforcement. Includes the Controlled Substances Act, where marijuana is classified a Schedule 1 drug (reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use).

    1972
    Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act. Establishes federally funded programs for prevention and treatment

    1973
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Changes Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the DEA

    1974 and 1978
    Drug Abuse Treatment and Control Amendments. Extends 1972 act

    1988
    Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Establishes oversight office: National Office of Drug Control Policy and the Drug Czar

    1992
    ADAMHA Reorganization. Transfers NIDA, NIMH, and NIAAA to NIH and incorporates ADAMHA's programs into the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2you forgot:

      1787
      The US constitution was written....on hemp paper.
  • kag9000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What makes me laugh about prohibition is the CIA, with the knowledge of three Presidents, were smuggling coccaine into the United States. It was covered up by Reagan/Bush and continued under Clinton.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

    Google it as well.

    Apparently if you are a Drug Dealer and/or addict you are an American Patriot, but if you squeal watch out, you might end up with a double tap to the head.
  • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We should legalize drugs and tax them sky high, no pun intended. Part of the tax could fund rehab centers (to avoid financial burdon on everyone else, etc), part of the tax could help pay for educational funding (which is sadly coming mostly from private corporations these days), part could pay for a big fenced off area where the libertarians could live happily without any taxes or social programs.

    As it is, rather than profitting from drugs we're wasting money on repressing them.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You seem to be over-optimistic that the tax revenue would be spent wisely.

      Are taxes on alcohol spent wisely? Are any taxes spent wisely?

      Laws against what you put in your own body are bad laws, no matter what tax policy goes along with them.
  • jumanous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Less harmful than tobacco my arse.
    Pot has 3 times the tar of tobacco, frequently causes schizophrenia, paranoia, and ... well.. if America is worried about getting fat, imagine what they would be like if they had the munchies all the time.
    • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A person smokes a lot less pot in a typical evening than a cigarette
      smoker smokes. A lot less. Frequently causes schizophrenia?
      I smoked pot virtually every evening from 1967 to 1991, and I witnessed
      no schizophrenia due to pot smoking. Paranoia? Yes. That happens,
      but as W.C. Fields said to a pain-in-the-ass puritanical busy-body,
      "I'm drunk and you're crazy. I'll be sober tomorrow, and you'll
      still be crazy." Pot isn't a perfect drug, but it's safer and more
      reliable and less addicting than booze. I don't recommend any
      drug, but if I did, it would be marijuana. I smoked it heavily for most
      of my adult life, and quitting was like falling off a log. Seldom are
      people able to quit tobacco or long-term boozing, and especially
      crack cocaine, heroin and meth that easily. No way, Jose.
      And contrary to Clinton's drug Czar, nobody is dying from pot
      smoking.
    • Havoc414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jumanous, you're wrong.

      Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes, yes, that is true. But cigarette tar contains more non-organic and non-natural chemicals than marijuana due to the refinement process that the tobacco corporations put their tobacco through before it hits the shelves. How many chemichals? Oh, about 600. Yes, six-hundred. Not only that, but those chemicals actually stay in your lungs and cauce lung cancer, tumors, etc...

      Contrary to popular belief, tar doesn't stay in your lungs. Your body's white blood cells take the tar and deposit in sweat glands throughout your body so it can be sweated out. With tobacco's insane toxicity, that is cancer floating throughout your body and it can occur anywhere. Marijuana on the other hand has shown to have anti-cancer properties that kills aging cells that would otherwise go super nova and cause cancer, and that is just one of it's health benefits.

      But hey, go on and believe what you want, the facts are out there.
  • kag9000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Mu99ins, most of what you say I can agree with, the problem is that you gave up weed in 1991, the THC content has increased a hell of a lot over the last 10 years.

    Psychotic disorder is on the increase with regular marijuana users purely because of these new potent strains.
  • coacethylene, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iv seen every chap of penn and teller, they are great. Marihuana or marijuana should be legal at least less than 100gr or so, tabacco and alcohol kill people MJ does not kill 1 in years. but nos here and not in the us is gonna happen in next future.
    many people smoke or/and grows marijuana, its poliiticalincorrect not to be legal
  • joe573, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow...this is the second time this story has been dugg. Penn and Teller seem to have a habit of just saying what everyone else is already thinking. They make a ton of good points but the sheer stuborness of the "old boys club" in power wont allow drugs to become legal anytime soon.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.