Drug war

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 23:52
VIEWED: 6976
PAGE 2 of 8

Drug war -

My drugs are better than your drugs.

OOOOOoooooohhhhhhh YEAH !

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Geezer,

That was awesome.

The only problem is that it's a disease which infects the young, and it does so very well. The disease, as such, fights for its own survival.

Quote:

---

Sgt X:
As usual with a 'War on ...", the war on drugs is a misplaced political campaign that's band-aid at best, and a deeply damaging campaign at worst.

---

really not arguing. War on drugs, to channel pirate news, was run by the drug lords. After all, why wouldn't they? It was a logical place for them to position themselves.

Quote:

---

Western society pushes people into very unnatural places and they break

---

Again, I agree. The society of "no sex" for example. Teens have a choice, drugs+sex+music or no_drugs+no_sex+no_music, then it's obvious what they pick. But that doesn't mean they'd all pick drugs over no_drugs if all other things were equal.

Quote:

---

The fact of the matter is, a large majority of people who use recreational drugs don't have a problem.

---

This is pure fantasy. The recreational user without a problem is very rare, and the idea that society needs to endure the problems to protect this right is absurd. True, I would be opposed to a strict control over what people can ingest, on an absolute scale, because such a system is open to some horrible abuses. But at the moment, this situation has hit a critical level.

What I want to do is remove them from my society. They not only have no potential for forwarding the advancement of society, they drag it back by spreading their counterproductive behavior, and that's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact. A society with a drug problem does not perform as well as one without a problem. The majority of our youth are engaged in some sort of substance abuse that permanently alters their psyche as a long term side effect.


Frem,

Sure, this is why we shouldn't have armed police.

Legalization, at least by itself, is a proven non-answer. Societies which are dominating the world today are east asian cut your head off on a first offense style societies. So, in order to work, a solution has to have advantages over the zero tolerance, not just in livability, but also in effectiveness.


Rue,

Really not in a laughing mood about this.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:

---

The fact of the matter is, a large majority of people who use recreational drugs don't have a problem.

---

This is pure fantasy. The recreational user without a problem is very rare, and the idea that society needs to endure the problems to protect this right is absurd....

---

Actually it's not. We're told incessantly by the anti-drug zealots that any use of recreational drugs is an abuse problem, but that's just not the case. You tend to hear about the addicts, but most people who use alcohol or marijuana lead happy productive lives. Numerous studies back this up. Even most people who have tried heroin don't become addicted.

That said, drugs are addictive and I'm not denying that it happens nor that it's a problem when it does. But equating use with abuse is unfair and unwarranted.

Quote:

---

But at the moment, this situation has hit a critical level.

What I want to do is remove them from my society. They not only have no potential for forwarding the advancement of society, they drag it back by spreading their counterproductive behavior, and that's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact.

---

Who are you talking about here? I'd agree if you're talking about those mired in serious, destructive drug addiction, (and even then, doesn't rounding up undesirables and removing them from your society seem just a tad fascist?) but, as I've pointed out, that's a minority of drug users - just as alcoholics are a minority of drinkers. It's not a fantasy. The fantasy is the notion that wiping out drug use is going to eradicate bad behavior in society, or that people who use drugs are nothing but a drag on society.

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:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The recreational user without a problem is very rare, and the idea that society needs to endure the problems to protect this right is absurd.

---

Beg to differ.

I like to have a drink on the weekend. Or two. Or six. That qualifies me as a recreational drug user.

I hold a steady job. Pay my taxes, more or less on time. Have never abused my wife or children. My recreational drug use does not interfere with my life. In fact, I think it rather enhances it, by encouraging me to relax and socialize. And the vast majority of American drinkers do not ruin their lives with drink.

Oh, you could argue that alcohol is different. But alcohol is a drug. A particularly powerful and addictive one, in fact. Unlike some others, it is a metabolic poison, one whose inebriating effect is entirely dependent upon its poisonous nature.

A hundred years ago, one could enter a pharmacy and purchase tincture of cannabis, cocaine, and opium derivatives, including heroin, as legal as church on Sunday. Most users held steady jobs (or social equivalents, such as home maintenance), paid their taxes on time, and had family lives no better or worse than the vast majority. And the damage to society was, by modern standards, at rock bottom.

Since the drugs were legal, they were relatively inexpensive, so the users were not forced into illegal acts to sustain their usage. And, since they could count on a steady supply, they could choose to moderate their usage, and generally did, limiting themselves to levels that allowed them to continue to function in society.

I'm not saying the use was without some social cost. Just because alcohol hasn't ruined my own life, doesn't mean alcoholism isn't a real problem. And their were certainly enough addicts that moralists and do-gooders were able to convince people that the answer was to outlaw these substances. That'd end the problem, once and for all!

Well, that sure worked out didn't it?

They managed to make the ban apply to Alcohol as well, for thirteen years. Thirteen years that entrenched organized crime in this country to a degree previously inconceivable. I thank whatever Gods may be that we had the sense to toss that law aside.

In my opinion, the only difference between alcohol and other recreational drugs is legality. And in the end analysis, it is that factor that causes 95% of the social problems associated with recreational drug use, without in any way reducing the original 5%.

So yes, society does need to endure the problems associated with the right to alter one's consciousness--because the alternative, as demonstrated by history, is to make the problem much, much worse.

I don't give a damn about the moral high ground. I want damage control. And that means legalization. IMHO.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The majority of our youth are engaged in some sort of substance abuse that permanently alters their psyche as a long term side effect.

---

This is big, huge can of worms with me, and in the interest of brevity (cause I could go on for pages, believe it!) I'll just point out that maybe instead of attacking the symptoms (drug use) would should attack the problem, that being the fact that our whole so-called society is incredibly malicious to our own humanity in general and youth are struck by that adjustment the hardest.
Pages and pages worth, on that topic, if you want em... even editorials, some of them published, cause this is a massive peeve of mine.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

But legalization is not the answer. This problem is pretty bad in places where it's been tried. I'm not looking for the lesser of two evils, I'm looking for a solution.

---

No it isn't. Holland is doing just fine, I suppose abandoning prohibition was a bad idea?

---

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:

---

Auraptor,

You do realize that the number of deaths involving drugs is going to far outway that involving anti-drug crusaders.

---

Try as a I might, I don't know what you're trying to say. Deaths involving drugs. Is that suppose to mean deaths from those who over dose? Deaths from deals gone bad between buyers / sellers ? Deaths from shoot outs between law enforcement and drug pushers? Deaths from shoot outs between law enforcement and inocent bystanders ?

It was reported that one of the shots fired by the 88 yr old lady hit an officer square in the chest. He was wearing a vest, which likely saved his life. That time. How many officers have died in vain trying to fight this unwinable war ? Decriminalize drugs, and you remove the incentive for violent gangs , the robberies go down, and thousands of lives will be saved. Rather, spend that money for rehab services, instead of legions of law enforcement and court cost, and we all come out way ahead.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ideas, anyone?

---

Poison.

Rather then intercept and destroying illegal drugs. Intercept them, poison them, and then reintroduce them to the pipeline at local, regional, and national levels.

That will very quickly eliminate the problem by eliminating a large number of users and forcing most of the rest to go cold turkey. Those who succeed...good. Those who don't, die.

Problem solved.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Sgt x:

Actually it's not. We're told incessantly by the anti-drug zealots that any use of recreational drugs is an abuse problem

---

I'm not making this stuff up, or getting it from anti-drug zealots, whoever they are. I just look at the situation on the ground, and calling it as I see it.

About 1/2 the people I know stopped using drugs by college graduation age, and went on to lead happy productive lives. Of the other half, one mj-only user, leads a happy productive life (after quitting, decades of no one, not even his own kids talking to him, he was so down,) and none of the other users are leading happy productive lives, all the way down to holed up in a cabin with an AK47, and of course, a good number who are dead.

I admit, a casual user isn't as bad as an addict, but I think to say use is not a problem is short-sighted. Users create more users through peer pressure, which i think follows two types of logic: 1) if five of us go to rob a bank, and one of us stays home, he's not a bank robber, he might rat us out; and 2) dealers creating customers. Not all dealers are addicts themselves.

But also, there's the future situation, that many of todays users will become addicts in time, or burnouts, or dead. Very very few will go on to continue to use at a casual level and go on to lead happy productive lives. Long term users of even things like prozac develop long term chemical effects. Illicit drugs tend to be more dangerous, because they tend to be, though not exclusively, things which didn't pass the FDA.

Many of these users who will become productive citizens will stop being users before they do.

Alcohol is really not on the same level unless its taken in high doses. Daily use will only lead to a long history of military defeats, and some cheese eating habits. But seriously, if used in lesser amounts, it's more on a level with caffeine or nicotine, but alcoholism is still a problem.

Quote:

---

I'd agree if you're talking about those mired in serious, destructive drug addiction

---

Sorry, I wasn't clear. that's who I meant. The others are redeemable.

Quote:

---

(and even then, doesn't rounding up undesirables and removing them from your society seem just a tad fascist?)

---

Not at all. Just about anyone would remove terrorists and criminals from their society. It's just a matter of protecting your own.

Fascists, btw, were very pro-drug. This problem is very much in large part do to them. I think communist would have been a better accusation. More historically accurate.

Quote:

---

The fantasy is the notion that wiping out drug use is going to eradicate bad behavior in society, or that people who use drugs are nothing but a drag on society.

---

No one claimed it would. But these folks are a drain, there's no question about that. They're worse than a drain, they're a disease. They get worse, like a disease, and they infect others, like a disease. Frequently, they also bring disease.


Rocket jock,

Alcohol isn't really a drug problem more than smoking or coffee. Alcoholism may be, sure. I think that there are a whole bunch of people myself included, who know the chemistry involved. Lots of things we take have drug-like nature to them, but they're not devastating.

Quote:

---

Since the drugs were legal, they were relatively inexpensive, so the users were not forced into illegal acts to sustain their usage.

---

This is a point I would concede, but legalization would have to be *part* of a solution, not the entire solution.

Quote:

---

So yes, society does need to endure the problems associated with the right to alter one's consciousness--because the alternative, as demonstrated by history, is to make the problem much, much worse.

---

This is really a strawman. Because one alternative didn't work, no alternatives are possible.

Also, calling the opposition moralism is really a cop out. The opposition is trying to survive as a functioning society.

Quote:

---

Frem: our whole so-called society is incredibly malicious to our own humanity in general and y

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME