Anti-drug war advert

[DinoDoc]

If you're going to legalize the stuff, you're going to run into this problem

Has anyone asked about how we'd prevent another round of annoying tobacco lawsuits? Would we have to grant the companies that produce them immunity from such suits?

[mactbone]

Would the FDA still test chemicals and drugs? Would the FDA run alll of these drugs through testing again to fully identify their effects?

Would there be an age limit? Should there be any age limits (liberty, pursuit of happiness)?

Who can sell the stuff? Anyone (liberty, pursuit of happiness)?

Will prices be regulated, they are addictive you know... (liberty, pursuit of happiness)?

Would the government repeal laws concerning drugs in the workplace (liberty, pursuit of happiness)?

[Berzerker]

JohnT -

Berzerker, even a cursory reading of my post makes it clear that I'm pissed about the LP once again making political waves on an issue that WILL NOT AND NEVER WILL garner them anywhere near enough votes to make them an effective and viable third party.

I did read your posts, are you suggesting otherwise? Then offer an example of me mis-quoting your posts. What is the LP supposed to do? Tell voters they support the drug war? Or tell voters they oppose it after the election? The fact demagogues can create strawmen to make you look bad doesn't mean you join the crowd and put millions in cages so you can appear to be in touch with the masses.

*JohnT waits for the list (or maybe just a tally) of local LPers who've won elections.*

They've won more than any other 3rd parties.

They're still losing in case you haven't noticed. Hell, any half-baked third party (Reform, Green) gets far more notice than the "true" third party, and that is just a fact.

And you think this is because of the drug war? Try the leftist media and government opposition to allowing non-Republicrats access to the voters. As long as so many people want "government" taking care of them, we'll be stuck with statist policies. The LP has gotten more libertarians into office than all other 3rd parties combined.

Dinodoc -

Has anyone asked about how we'd prevent another round of annoying tobacco lawsuits? Would we have to grant the companies that produce them immunity from such suits?

The tobacco lawsuits were driven by the deception of tobacco companies over the last few decades. This is why we haven't seen a flurry of alcohol suits, plaintiffs can't go into court and accuse alcohol companies of lying about their product.

MacTBone -

Oh, BTW, the US government already protects us in many ways, include the FDA. Are you suggesting that since we have an established body, that covers all drug issues, and safety concerns, that they don't know what they're talking about when they ban the drugs that are considered illegal?

The FDA is a political body that depends on the approval of politicians. The FDA has already approved a synthetic based on marijuana called "Marinol", that is an admission that marijuana has medicinal properties. It wasn't the FDA that made pot or cocaine illegal, it was legislation by politicians. And in the case of marijuana, this legislation was passed inspite of the AMA's opposition. You think the FDA knows more than the AMA? And if you want government protecting you from your own decisions, then don't complain when other people use the monster you helped create to run your life.

I guess I don't understand how the FDA could help keep drugs safe to use, if we took all their power away. Every pharmaceutical company in the world would have a field day.

Are there any safe drugs? Even aspirin kills people! If the FDA was limited to being an advisory committee, they would "protect" you from yourself by offering knowledge, not the point of a gun. People who fear pharmaceuticals, not an irrational fear, can wait for the FDA to give it's seal of safety while letting the rest of us who don't or can't afford to wait free to make our own decisions. It is immoral for you, me, or the FDA to stop dying people from taking a medicine that might help them. When we do that, we become murderers.

Ramo -

Drug legalization is about justice, not some inconsequential philosophical nit-picking.

Political expedience seems to be more important than justice.

The public doesn't like it? So what? That's why the LP is putting so much energy into the pro-legalization campaign. Hopefully these campaigns are changing minds.

The moment that the LP forsakes its committment to political liberty for the sake of votes and campaign contributions is the moment that the LP loses all the support it has from me.

When this happens, the LP is no different than the Republicrats.

Drake -

Alright....everyone keeps saying petroleum is used as a source for terrorist incomes.....I'm not saying it isn't. Does anyone have some good evidence to back up this claim or is just an assumption?

Just because oil comes from the middle east doesnt automatically mean the money is going to terrorism. There are legitimate middle easter companies aren't there(or are they all terrorists over there)?

The Saudis funded OBL and the Taliban. Where do you think they got the money?

Society lives with rules....it has to to function....now it's all good and well to have your own (I'm a unique snowflake!) ideas. One should. But until the day comes when the majority agrees with you, you're going to have to abide by the rules society sets

The US was never meant to be a democracy. We were meant to have a small government limited to helping us protect our freedom, not rule over us.

How do drugs that do nothing but destroy peoples minds and lives factor into the pursuit of happiness and liberty?

Since when do drugs destroy minds? The abuse of some can have detrimental effects, but that isn't the same as the recreational use of a drug. As for your scenario, what would you do in the absence of government? Would you put your brother in a cage for a few years until you've decided he's learned to take better care of himself?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The tobacco lawsuits were driven by the deception of tobacco companies over the last few decades. This is why we haven't seen a flurry of alcohol suits, plaintiffs can't go into court and accuse alcohol companies of lying about their product.

What deception? They've had a warning label on thier products for decades calling the stuff poison.

[mactbone]

It is immoral for you, me, or the FDA to stop dying people from taking a medicine that might help them. When we do that, we become murderers.

Well, know that's odd, I've never heard of marijuana saving someone's life... come to think of it, I don't think that ecstacy, heroin, or cocaine have ever literally saved someone's life. I know that they may have soothed a patient, but that's not a direct link.

I also have to question your continuing thinking that drugs that are illegal are all "recreational". There are many drugs that the FDA won't approve because of harmful side effects. Not only that, those "recreational" drugs, in almost all cases have a direct link to harming people. What you're effectively saying, is that we should all be given loaded guns, and if we fail to read the warnings, and instructions, it's our responsibility when we shoot ourselves. Well, how do we decide if a warning is strong enough? Or if instructions are clear enough? What if we think they work, but then find out that many people end up killing themselves, do we just ignore them?

Prevention. That is why drugs are illegal. Not because some senator was a stick-in-the-mud.

[Wraith]

--".but since it is one of the most irresponsible in the history of the world, I fail to see the good in enabling society to **** itself up even more than it already is."

Things like the War on Drugs have played a very large part in making US society so irresponsible. By promising to protect and coddle its citizens like little babies, it has been turning them into the spoiled brats you'd expect.

Let people take responsibility for their own actions for a change.

--"Has anyone asked about how we'd prevent another round of annoying tobacco lawsuits?"

Tort reform. Desperately needed, but it'll put a lot of lawyers out of work...

--"Would the FDA still test chemicals and drugs?"

As long as they limit themselves to testing and advising. When they get into banning I have a problem.

--"Would there be an age limit?"

I don't see why it would be treated any different than alcohol. I really don't think there should be age limits, however. Alcoholism isn't a major problem in the countries that aren't as strict about this as the US is.
This is the point I made up above.

--"Who can sell the stuff?"

Why shouldn't it be anyone? You can still buy cigarettes from vending machines. There are a lot more harmful things sold in supermarkets and department stores.

--"Will prices be regulated"

No, but I'd be surprised if they didn't get heavily taxed really quickly. Government is like that. If I had my preferences, though, there wouldn't be any of that either.

--"Would the government repeal laws concerning drugs in the workplace"

Ideally, yes. That sort of stuff belongs in the work contracts. No employer is going to want his employees high on the job, so it's not like crack-heads at work is ever going to be any more of an issue than it is now.

Edit: (added response)
--"What you're effectively saying, is that we should all be given loaded guns"

No, we're saying you should be allowed to buy loaded guns if you want to. It's not your body they're damaging, so what's your problem? Some people like to do marathons, and running is really bad for your knees. Guess we better ban them too, right?
Look, government's job is not to attempt to protect people from themselves. If you want to hammer your hand to the wall, it's not the government's job to stop you, or to pry out the nail when you figure out it hurts.

Wraith
Reality Sector Visitor Badge #9572

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Well, know that's odd, I've never heard of marijuana saving someone's life...

That's odd. My school grows medicinal marijuana that the US government provides to patients under a doctors care.

Edit: It just hit me. If the federal government is providing marijuana to patient, under what basis then is the stuff considered illegal and dangerous?

[mactbone]

Does it literally SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE!?!?!?!?

NO!

That's the point I was trying to make.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Does it literally SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE!?!?!?!?

NO!

Where does saving thier sight rate for you?

[mactbone]

Oh, you mean Glaucoma, which AFAIK, there are other ways to treat.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Oh, you mean Glaucoma, which AFAIK, there are other ways to treat.

Marijuana is the cheapest way though.

Here's some other uses for the stuff:

Cancer. Marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment.

Multiple Sclerosis. Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults in the United States.)

Epilepsy. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients.

Chronic Pain. Marijuana can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by myriad disorders and injuries.

Here's a link for you to look at: http://bob.nap.edu/books/0309071550/html/

[Anodyne]

...and the ironic thing is that most of the people who oppose drugs because they "hurt people" have nothing against handguns being sold to almost everyone in America...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ade
...and the ironic thing is that most of the people who oppose drugs because they "hurt people" have nothing against handguns being sold to almost everyone in America...

Let's not try to jack the thread with moronic ramblings, shall we?

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's not try to jack the thread with moronic ramblings, shall we?

I wasn't going to change the subject, just expressing my views on the hypocrisy of the anti-drug people.

[mactbone]

Handguns are not sold to "almost everyone". You must be 21, not have a criminal record, and register the gun. The last one promotes responsibilty.

Dino - I'll admit that it has good effects, but there's a reason why it isn't prescribed to anyone who wants it. There are side effects, and they are harmful.