Contact Your Senator - Stop New Drug Czar From Being Confirmed

[Pekka]

Actually, there just was a report claiming that fast food IS addictive.

[DanielXY]

We're trying to do it because it could completely destroy our society. If we legalise all drugs like you say then within a generation 90% of middle-aged Americans will be drug addicts (hyperbole, yes, but not much).

Just compare the Netherlands with a rather liberal drug policy to the US. Check the statistic:

http://www.cedro-uva.org/stats/national.nlusa.html

Note that marijuana use in the US is double than that in Holland! Despite you can buy it legal there.
Or have a look on the harder drugs. Cocaine as well as Heroin is triple in the US compared to the Netherlands!

Now look on all the billions wasted in WoD and explain that

[GePap]

Originally posted by Fez
As a hardline Machiavellian, I see no problem with taking a firm stance on anything.

The fact that you invoke Machievelli here shows you now **** about Machiavelli.

But yuou are Fez, so, no kidding you are ignorant.

[David Floyd]

They have a lower toxicity level and a higher usage level. And they aren't addictive, unless you consider food an addictive drug

So you are saying that we should ban anything that is addictive, heavily used, and has a high toxicity level, but we should only ban things that meet EACH of those requirements, right? So, then, why not ban alcohol?

Yes, because you can prevent that murder. If you couldn't prevent it anyway, why try?

Excellent. So, again, then why not support laws against alcohol?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, saying the WoD can be successful is sort of like saying that Prohibition could have been successful. That's utterly false - the WoD can't be successful because too many people want to do drugs. The demand is too high, and no amount of government programs are going to change that.

Mortality from alcoholic liver disease did in fact decline during Prohibition, so in fact Prohibition was most likely successful.

You're probably going to rebut my statement with some chart or alleged governmental statistic you're going to get from some pro-NORML website showing that homicide rates increased during the 1920s and declined during the 1930s. I'll just pre-empt you by asking that you find a referrence that breaks these crimes down by cause, and show me that the increase in the homicide rate during the roaring twenties had anything to do with Prohibition. The problem is that the roaring twenties were a era typified by a number of dramatic social changes, any one of which might have been part of the cause of the rate of murder.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


So you are saying that we should ban anything that is addictive, heavily used, and has a high toxicity level, but we should only ban things that meet EACH of those requirements, right? So, then, why not ban alcohol?



Excellent. So, again, then why not support laws against alcohol?

Excellent. Great minds DO think alike.

[David Floyd]

No, I'm not gonna make that argument at all. I'm simply going to say that Prohibition did not stop people from drinking, if they really wanted to drink. However, the relative unenforceability of a law should not translate to the law being repealed, on that basis alone, if you are basing the law on right and wrong.

That is, if drinking is in fact wrong, then repealing the law because you can't stop everyone from doing it (or refusing to pass a law for the same reason), is no different from repealing laws against murder because all murders are not stopped.

However, if drinking is not wrong, then it becomes the job of those in favor of Prohibition to state why drinking should be banned.

So pick one. Either we should have laws against drinking, or drinking isn't wrong. If the former, then you're gonna have to tell me either why drinking is wrong, or why it is OK to ban something that isn't wrong.

[David Floyd]

Excellent. Great minds DO think alike.

So, it is your belief that drinking is wrong. Correct?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jack_www
THis guy sounds like he will crack down on drugs so its a good choice. As for those of you who approve of drug use you only hate the person because he wants to take your pot away.

Oh? Thanks for telling us what we think.

I don't "approve" or misusing drugs any more than I "approve" of abusing alcohol. I am not a drug user, so it has nothing to do with selfish motives--except to see my tax dollars stop being wasted on a failed drug war.

Drugs are harmfull to society and cause a lot of problems. They are harmfull to your health, and cause harmfull addictions. Why do you want to say to people its all right to use this crap??

Is alcohol being legal saying to people it's okay to abuse it? I hardly think so. Plenty of things cause harm that are legal--we usually leave it up to the individual to decide if they want to do it to themselves or not. It's their right to decide. Telling adults they can't use a drug is no different than telling them they can't drink or can't smoke or can't slide down the bannisters of their own stairs.

Decriminalizing drug use is no more saying "it's alright to use this" than not having laws against lying are saying it's okay to lie. It's simply not the government's business to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. What's to stop the government from banning tattoos? Piercings? Sex acts?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DanielXY


Just compare the Netherlands with a rather liberal drug policy to the US. Check the statistic:

http://www.cedro-uva.org/stats/national.nlusa.html

Note that marijuana use in the US is double than that in Holland! Despite you can buy it legal there.
Or have a look on the harder drugs. Cocaine as well as Heroin is triple in the US compared to the Netherlands!

Now look on all the billions wasted in WoD and explain that

Take a look at inhalants! They're available everywhere, and are utterly impossible to eliminate. It shows that the US is not the Netherlands, the sociology of the two countries is different, and Dutch people seem to be simply less likely to seek out a form of high different from that of traditional alcohol.

OTOH Interpol claims that in recent years the Netherlands has become the world's largest exporter of synthetic recreational drugs like Ecstacy, LSD and PCP, so the traditional social structure that inhibits the use of drugs by the people doesn't apply to exploiting foreigners.

[David Floyd]

Exploiting foreigners? A voluntary, non-coercive act is NOT exploitive. Giving foreigners what they want? Sure. And why not? It's not hurting anyone.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


So, it is your belief that drinking is wrong. Correct?

Yup.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Excellent. Great minds DO think alike.

Y'all will take my Jack Daniel's single barrel reserve the moment after y'all take my gun.

[David Floyd]

On what do you base that belief? You are saying that if I have a beer in my house, that I committed an immoral act. From where do you derive this belief?

[DanielXY]

Since the Netherlands are also a large Exporter of Weed for obvious reasons (although swiss is getting bigger everyday ), its reasonable that the same drug dealers who smuggle the weed dont mind to smuggle some Ectacy, LSD or whatever, as well.