foxnews.com — When former police officers, prosecutors, and judges speak out against the war on drugs people are more likely to listen. It isn't just liberals and libertarians either, even died in the wool law and order conservatives are coming around to see that bad laws don't solve problems they just make a bigger mess.
Jan 16, 2007 View in Crawl 4
tsuyoiJan 16, 2007
@MateFrioHaving a hard time understanding what your little post means. On that little list of things are apply to both sides of the political spectrum (in the two-sided politics of the US). I suspect that you are trying to slam people with progressive values. If so, you are completely off base. Striving to keep our liberties and be free from opressive laws based on other peoples moralities and religion is a just cause. Striving to have working solutions to society's ills that aren't draconian and don't make even worse problems is also just.Seeing conspiracies everywhere, though, is a sign of a diseased mind.
mutatronJan 16, 2007
I've written letters promoting drug legalization many times, and never gotten a visit. They've got "better" things to do with their time.
mutatronJan 16, 2007
Yes, you're missing the part where tens of millions of people in the US enjoy alcohol everyday without incident. You're missing the part where organized crime flourished because tens of millions of people didn't agree that alcohol should be illegal. You're missing the part where the illegality of drugs increases the harm to society while costing tens of billions of dollars, not only in enforcement costs but also in productivity losses of the victims of the Drug War. That's just a little bit of what you're missing.
chesspiecefaceJan 16, 2007
@3d3mAre you saying that when one becomes a parent they lose the ability to reason?
miseseanJan 17, 2007
"If you don't hold people accountable for their own criminal actions you are doing them no good, especially if they are addicted to the drugs with which their criminal activities are derived."Nobody's talking about not holding people accountable for their criminal actions, properly defined (i.e., arbitrary legislative definition of acts such as smoking particular plants as "criminal" excluded). If someone robs you, arrest him the robbery: it's got nothing to do with whether or not he smokes one particular plant over another, etc.There's no such thing as "addiction" - drug abusers use drugs because they want to, not because they "can't help it" due to some magical chemical reaction that removes their will :)
swin101Jan 17, 2007
I've never smoked a single joint, drank an ounce of alcohol, or used an illegal drug and I AGREE with the idea of decriminalizing "soft" drug use for many of the reasons stated in the article and links provided above. I realize it is somewhat hypocritical to decriminalize only some drugs, but the damage caused by a single use of some drugs is so bad that it doesn't make sense for a logical, health-minded government to permit the sale of these drugs for recreational use. Medical use is a different story.
outsidethinkboxJan 17, 2007
@swin101While I commend you for never having used harmful substances, and the fact that you still agree with the majority decision, I'll have to disagree with a few of your stances. One of the first things that came to my mind when I read your comment was your 'health-minded government' viewpoint. I for one do not want MY government telling me what is right and wrong for me to do. That is, more or less, the very foundation of this argument, the government thinks it has the right to put rules and regulations on a substance that I choose to put into my body. That should be my own personal choice. Not anyone else's. This is where education comes into play. The more information you have about a given subject, the better judgment you are able to make. My solution? Educate the people, and let them make their own choices. (Which is what is supposed to be happening now) Another point was your suggestion to decriminalize some drugs and not others. However, based on your limited experience with drugs, I would say that I would definitely not leave that decision up to you (please do not be offended). Obviously people with more experience with drugs could better make the decisions on which drugs are more harmful, while people with less experience are left up to a wild guess, or rumor, or what they had heard on the grapevine. I see this as a major problem with our law-making system today. We entrust powers to a few to make laws on certain subjects, and they haven't the slightest clue of what pertains to that subject. Like all things, drugs should be taken in moderation, took much of anything isn't good for you (except maybe sex :-), oh, and there are numerous articles stating the benefits of sex, so I'm not just being a perv). Anywho, I'm not advocating that we get a board of junkies and let them decide the laws for the country, however, their input would be valuable in determining what course of action we are to take with the heavier drugs. My bottom line is you simply cannot stop someone from ultimately doing what they want to do. (short of firing buckshot at their knee-caps) If they really really want something, they are going to get it at any cost. This concludes my long-winded paragraph. Any additions and/or revisions and comments are more than welcome. No substitutions, extensions, or refunds. Supplies are limited, call now to RSVP. (/joke)
Closed AccountJan 18, 2007
@H3LLSL33T The primary reason most organizations do random drug screens is because it reduces their insurance rates.
ferre1Oct 8, 2007
Politicians should read this: <a class="user" href="http://www.thc-ministry.net/biology-of-democracy.html">http://www.thc-ministry.net/biology-of-democracy.h ...</a>