The War on College Students
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, June 28, 2026 20:30
VIEWED: 8520
PAGE 7 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
No.... I think we did it exactly right.
no, no, no... you failed to confirm Hero's simplistic, preconceived stereotypes. That's the very definition of 'wrong'!
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
Quote:Legalisation of Alcohol after prohibition more or less pushed the Mafia out of the market. It's pretty likely that legalising at least some drugs will do the same thing.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m a libertarian on drugs as well, but why does that have to mean I have to accept drug dealers without restriction? Since when does legalization of drugs mean drugs are allowed on campuses? Or allowed to be sold by armed street dealers? Just because drugs are legal won’t make them good. And this is really the biggest problem with the legalization issue.
Quote:I see no evidence for that assertion, where ever I see legalisation arguments, I nearly always see caveats about how drugs can then be 'regulated'.
Legalization proponents want to legalize drugs, but they want to ignore the danger of these drugs. I’m a proponent of legalization, but in my mind, the legalization argument cannot be decoupled from the regulation argument.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you’re solution to drug dealing on college campuses is to legalize drugs. There it is. The legalization argument being used to avoid the regulation issue.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Legalisation of Alcohol after prohibition more or less pushed the Mafia out of the market. It's pretty likely that legalising at least some drugs will do the same thing.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m a libertarian on drugs as well, but why does that have to mean I have to accept drug dealers without restriction? Since when does legalization of drugs mean drugs are allowed on campuses? Or allowed to be sold by armed street dealers? Just because drugs are legal won’t make them good. And this is really the biggest problem with the legalization issue.
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
And there it is.... the regulation argument being used to avoid the legalization issue.
I'm getting dizzy..... 
I can't believe that I'm even doing this, but I gotta come in here and try to clarify Citizen's position because he and I actually agree on something for once.... I think.
Citizen Said:
Quote:
Legalisation of Alcohol after prohibition more or less pushed the Mafia out of the market. It's pretty likely that legalising at least some drugs will do the same thing.
Finn Said:
Quote:
So you’re solution to drug dealing on college campuses is to legalize drugs. There it is. The legalization argument being used to avoid the regulation issue.
He didn't even propose a solution here, so I don't really even have a clue as to where that came from. He merely made an intelligent statement comparing the lift of the constitutionally ammended ban on alcohol resulting in the virtual elimination of a major crime element in America overnight to what is potentially a very similar situation we face today. Where you took that from there is wherever your own biases and predispositions wanted to go with it, I suppose.
Now, what I'm adding personally is that the only reason the drug problem has gotten so bad in this country and all of the schemers, "bad guys", felons, etc. are prospering in this country today is because the outright ban on these products has for decades propped up an ever expanding market in which they all thrive. Without the distributors, it is somewhere between hard and impossible for normal folk who want it to get it, short of risking their own property and freedom growing their own, so the price goes up.... And when the price goes up the aformentioned bad guys are willing to take greater risks to bring the product to those willing to pay the asking price. Risks including, but certainly not limited to manufacturing the goods, transporting the goods, housing the goods, distributing the goods, getting busted with the goods, getting busted distributing the goods, 3 strikes your out, bullet to the head by rival gang members, bullet to the head by police, bullet to the head by feinin' junkie, etc. etc. etc.....
Now legalize pot. Take away the incentives, and make it more readily available to people, say... over the age of 18, and right there you've eliminated I'd guesstimate somewhere in the area of 70-90% of the black market for the drug within weeks. Sure, there are always going to be those who are trying to buy outside the legal guidelines, like those who are underage, or those willing to buy a possibly tainted product to get a better price, but eventually the bad guys say "What's making this worth my while, why am I risking my life for peanuts?"
Regulations on the drug are another issue altogether and a valid one at that. Personally, I'd rather be surrounded by an entire city full of potheads than the one I live in where I don't know who's on prozac or ritalin, or anti-depressants/anti-psychotics, etc., but I understand that there are many who do not share this opinion. While there is still fear of pot and it's effects because of the decades upon decades of wonderful propoganda campaigns against it (originally funded by William Randolph Hearst and likely funded by Pfizer, the US gov, and the drug cartels in South America today), I'm sure a compromise can be met and there can be reasonable regulations regarding its use.
I just don't see how an intelligent people in this country on either side of the issue haven't been able to come together and make reasonable compromises which would all but eliminate the major source of crime in this country today. Though I'll be the first to admit that pot can be abused, who could argue that the same can be said about cigarettes, booze and pills made in every color of the rainbow every day. That, in my mind, is no reason to ban the substance which for decades has propped up organized crime, currently funds terrorism against our country and all over the world, and has cost theUS taxpayers billions of dollars every year
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The solution was the legalization. By legalizing drugs the use is no longer a crime, but this does not address the issue in the article about drugs on campuses or my issue. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Perhaps you believe drugs should be permitted on College Campuses or sold to High School students, but I do not. Regulation is still required. In other words, by legalizing drugs, you DO NOT get rid of the crime. In fact, legalization will only make it worse. When drugs can be purchased at the corner package store, the effort to keep them out of the hands of children and off college campuses will become an even larger one then it is today.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
He didn't even propose a solution here, so I don't really even have a clue as to where that came from. He merely made an intelligent statement comparing the lift of the constitutionally ammended ban on alcohol resulting in the virtual elimination of a major crime element in America overnight to what is potentially a very similar situation we face today. Where you took that from there is wherever your own biases and predispositions wanted to go with it, I suppose.
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
Like that argument holds any water when so many kids in school these days are on speed (ritalin), SSRIs (prozac) and Clonidine to counter the nasty side effects of the first two, and off-label with no proper research of effects on their age group and longterm effects in general.
Not all the dope dealers in this world hang out on street corners, many hide behind a lab coat and were you to ask me, the difference between them isn't very damn much.
A lot of these kids might be BETTER served by smokin a phattie than the dangerous and untested cocktail mixes they're being fed by Big Pharma.
Which, of course, doesn't like street level dealers themselves because of the competition, and that's a fact, they're just another, albeit official, mafia cartel when it comes to that aspect.
I find it ironic nobody mentioned that aspect, but really what better way to sink your competition than have it outlawed, yes ?
If we ever do legalise, the dumbest and most self-destructive thing we could ever do is let the supply chain wind up in the hands of Big Pharma, it would be a dire mistake and cost us dearly, so be aware of that.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, well, I’m not sure I would call them dope dealers, but it is true that prescription narcotics are among the most heavily abused drugs. This only serves to make my point even more water tight. Even when we try to control these kinds of drugs, we can’t. It’s one thing to say that an adult has the right to fry his brain and destroy his life for a fix, it’s another thing entirely to create a atmosphere in which college kids and children are exposed to these kinds of drugs without protection. One thing is certain, no legalization argument that has any interest in protecting children and our colleges could possibly argue that legalization will eliminate the crime - in fact, from this point of view it is likely to make it worse.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not all the dope dealers in this world hang out on street corners, many hide behind a lab coat and were you to ask me, the difference between them isn't very damn much.
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
I know Frem had something to say too, and I'm going to read this right after I respond to you, but I just had to say something to you right now Finn.
Did you read my entire post, or did you just skim and see a lot of stuff that you don't like and respond to that?
I agree with you that there should be regulation. I agree with a lot of the laws out there, although I don't appreciate them coming from a Federal level most of the time. I don't want 16 year olds with licenses getting drunk and slamming into buildings and houses and people. I'm not an idiot and I'm not proposing armegeddon to you here.
Ya know... I'm not going to explain my position again here. I did it in there already. It might be in the middle of a whole lot of stuff you don't want to read, but it's there. I think we're far more closer on this issue than apart and if you'd get past the mindless instinct to defend your position at all costs, maybe you'd see just how much common ground we have.
I'm not proposing an overnight solution here. Concessions need to be made here so your 12 year old daughter can't get a hold of the stuff when you're not around 24/7 to watch her, but at the same time I think that some 17 year old kid ignorant enough to get caught with a 30 sack and then cop a plea because he can't afford a lawyer smart enough to tell him not to that shouldn't be barred from getting a decent college education or acquiring a livable wage in their future. I'm not talking about hand-outs. I'm talking about the kids that really deserve it and worked hard for it and either they were just experimental a few times and really had bad luck and got busted or they are full time smokers by `20 and still get the good grades.
I belive there should be some restraints here. Look around you.... as pissed off about it as I am, they've managed to corall the smokers so much that we're no more than bovine that can cause you cancer if you stand to close and let us fart our poisonous nicotene methane clouds in your general direction. That isn't hard to do with pot. In fact, given the tendanceies of your sterotypical pot-head, it would likely make their job easier and now that I think of it, I should probably be on the other side of this argument just for the sake of that fact.
I'll just say, as a continuation of one of my other posts on a thread a few weeks ago, I believe that you and I agree on about 70 to 80% of this issue.... there are just things in the middle which need to be compromised on from both sides.
Certainly proposing that pot should be legalized, with regulation like any other drug, can't be any worse than big Pharm being allowed by the government to push their drugs to the masses all day and all night long during commercial breaks.... can it?
"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 chrisisall:
violent offenders need longer jail time, non-violent, compliant ones none at all- just MAD community service
Thats racist (or elitist).
Guy pulls a gun and takes your wallet you want in jail. Guy defrauds old folks of life savings you want out on community service.
Guy breaks into a house you want in jail. Guy steals you ID cleanig out accounts and ruining credit you want out on community service.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I find it ironic nobody mentioned that aspect, but really what better way to sink your competition than have it outlawed, yes ?
Oh.... come on now Frem.... you know I mentioned it.
While there is still fear of pot and it's effects because of the decades upon decades of wonderful propoganda campaigns against it (originally funded by William Randolph Hearst and likely funded by Pfizer, the US gov, and the drug cartels in South America today), I'm sure a compromise can be met and there can be reasonable regulations regarding its use.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME