The War on College Students
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, June 28, 2026 20:30
VIEWED: 8520
PAGE 4 of 12
Sarge,
I watched the video. Penn and Teller are very skillful. I remember an episode where they set out to prove that the EPA study on second hand smoke was spurrious and were very covincing. They problably could convince the general public that black was white if they set their minds to it. So while watching their show I think you have to understand that they have a goal in mind and are very good at making their point seem like it's the complete truth.
That said, they bring up a few good points. The most important is that the current state of drug use and abuse in the United States has been created entirely by the Government. They blame Nixon, I believe it started earlier than that but certainly Nixon gave the Government position its current spin.
The question is does the government have the right to do this (wage a "war on drugs")? One answer is yes. Because it's implied in the preamble of the constitution in the phrase... "to promote the general welfare"... as one of the reasons for forming the government. Certainly regulating dangerous substances from explosives and hazardous wastes to toxic chemicals and drugs is promoting the general welfare.
Some drugs can be harmful, even deadly, and using this argument, limiting their use is pretty clear cut. Besides the affects on the individual user there are other aspects to drugs and how they hurt people. In the case of marijuanna, you have to ask yourself, "How many people were beat up, displaced, or even killed so I could buy a nickel bag from this polite mild mannered University of San Diego student?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
So while watching their show I think you have to understand that they have a goal in mind and are very good at making their point seem like it's the complete truth.
Indeed. It's very one-sided, though it's a side that rarely gets 'airplay'. But you're right, they're clearly editorializing and not doing balanced journalism.
Quote:
The question is does the government have the right to do this (wage a "war on drug's")? One answer is yes. Because it's implied in the preamble of the constitution in the phrase... "to promote the general welfare"... as one of the reasons for forming the government. Certainly regulating dangerous substances from explosives and hazardous wastes to toxic chemicals and drugs is promoting the general welfare.
I'm not even really pursuing this point. Not because I think it's a valid one - toxic waste directly harms others, personal drug use doesn't - but because it's too fundamental of an issue to find much common ground. Heinlein said something to the extent that the most important political divide is between those who want to see people controlled, and those who have no such desire. Even though I believe the government doesn't have any business making such personal decisions for people, I know I'm not going to convince those of you who think it does.
Instead, the issue I'd like to see addressed by the prohibition advocates is the complete and total failure of the policy. Even if we accept that controlling drug use is a proper government function, how is that working out?
We're spending billions of dollars on futile enforcement, yet drugs are cheaper, stronger, and more readily available than ever. We're propping up violent criminal cartels and street gangs with a highly profitable, and ultimately un regulated underground drug trade. We push the distribution of drugs outside the auspices of legitimate legal protections, causing it to be far more violent and dangerous than it needs to be. Pushing into that dark realm also makes it MORE available to children.
Regardless of the legitimacy of the intent, the whole effort is upside down and worse than pointless.
Quote:
In the case of marijuanna, you have to ask yourself, "How many people were beat up, displaced, or even killed so I could buy a nickel bag from this polite mild mannered University of San Diego student?
Honestly, that's exactly my point. I'm not exactly sure if it was the point you were making, but prohibition causes these kinds of consequences rather than prevents them. If it was legal, we'd just be bitching about the taxes, not shooting each other up.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Would you want your air traffic controller on drugs, or your pilot, or your surgeon or your pediatrician?
I'm just wondering because whenever these personal liberty questions come up there always seems to be an overdose of rose coloured spectacles and very little thought as to the ongoing consequences.
What do you do when legal outlets for legal drugs start turning a blind eye to sales to minors -- which already happens with cigarettes and alcohol? Do you blame the parents for not manning up and taking responsibility for policing their children? Do you fine the retailer? Do you send him to jail?
I'm interested. Convince me that just this one time vast numbers of people wont suffer just to give you an arbitrary sense of freedom?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You don’t want to discuss anything. What you want is to accuse me of baseless accusations. You make a lot of claims, but so far you have no substance behind them. So stop telling me that I’m ignoring your imaginary evidence.
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:Jesus Finn, did you even read my post? Did you understand it? Do I need to type slower? I said I wasn't going to waste time arguing the points with you when you preface your posts with claims that you won't even consider the arguments anyway, that you think they're unreasonable before you even read them. Why should I bother? If you change your mind on that, I'd love to discuss it.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’ve not provided any such evidence. You’ve simply used baseless accusations to avoid providing that evidence. Thanks for proving my point.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you have a link for this video?
Originally posted by Veteran:
Sarge,
I watched the video. Penn and Teller are very skillful. I remember an episode where they set out to prove that the EPA study on second hand smoke was spurrious and were very covincing. They problably could convince the general public that black was white if they set their minds to it. So while watching their show I think you have to understand that they have a goal in mind and are very good at making their point seem like it's the complete truth.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Would you want your air traffic controller on drugs, or your pilot, or your surgeon or your pediatrician?
Nope. Wouldn't want them drunk either. But we deal with that.
Quote:
What do you do when legal outlets for legal drugs start turning a blind eye to sales to minors -- which already happens with cigarettes and alcohol? Do you blame the parents for not manning up and taking responsibility for policing their children? Do you fine the retailer? Do you send him to jail?
Some of each, I suppose. But the thing is, in that situation we'd at least have have a shot at controlling the distribution. A legitimately retailer has a vested interest in keeping his business on the right side of the law. An illegal dealer, on the other hand, has already crossed that bridge. They have very little incentive (outside their own moral misgivings) to limit sales to adults.
What we're doing now is turning a blind eye to the fact that drugs are out there. We pretend that because we've made them illegal, we've made them go away.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love how they say the girl died of "cocaine and ethanol intoxication". WTF? Don't try and tell me that the Cocaine made her trip balls so hard she thought she was E85 compliant, cause I've done coke before, on more than one occasion in my youth, and that shit just don't happen. That bitch died because they ran out of beer at the party and somebody thought it would be a good idea to syphon the gastank of one of them rich uppity prick kids green vehicles.
Beer before liquor, you've never been sicker. Beer before ethanol, they'll blame your dumbass death on the 8-ball.
I for one am quite pleased that there are ways to acquire this stuff in suburbia and college campuses. They're going to get the stuff one way or another, and likely having this stuff readily available on campus, and sold by people who attended the school, the goods weren't tainted or cut with dangerous chemicals that they oftentimes are in the ghettos. Not to mention, that having to drive to the ghettos as a teenager, or even worse, the trailer parks with only one way out is pretty scary and reckless.
If it were legalized there would be millions of government employees out of jobs as the cheif reason for the existance of those jobs and the funding necessary to keep them afloat would be up in smoke. Don't be too hard on Hero there. He's only thinking about his own self preservation, because if the wacky tobaccy were legalized as it should be, he'd have a much lighter workload.
Plus... Pfizer might have a hard time selling all those happy pills if in an America where people are paying over $4.00 per gallon We, the People decide that we'll just go the cheaper route and grow our own happy drugs for nothing more then the cost of sunlight, a bottle of Miracle Grow and a little TLC...
They'd still sell plenty of the blue pill though... 
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Some drugs can be harmful, even deadly, and using this argument, limiting their use is pretty clear cut. Besides the affects on the individual user there are other aspects to drugs and how they hurt people. In the case of marijuanna, you have to ask yourself, "How many people were beat up, displaced, or even killed so I could buy a nickel bag from this polite mild mannered University of San Diego student?
Take that line of questioning one step further and ask yourself, why am I even buying these nickel bags from thugs and cop-killers when I could just grow it in my back yard right next to the tomatoes?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why? Because drug dealers never use guns?
In my experiance drug dealers often have guns around. Turns out there was money involved to...these poor heroes serving a lifestyle choice of their fellow students (and making a nice profit).
I note for the record that NEVER have I come across a drug dealer that sold his product for cost. Never.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
A legitimately retailer has a vested interest in keeping his business on the right side of the law. An illegal dealer, on the other hand, has already crossed that bridge. They have very little incentive (outside their own moral misgivings) to limit sales to adults.
You make a good point. Although I would point out that your comment would include these frat fellas (who fall into that "illegal dealer" catagory).
And guys like this are not the least bit dangerous: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/07/tulane.hazing/?iref=hpmostpop
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME