War on Drugs

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Apache
Could it be maybe that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act has a more legitimate reason for it's existence than filling the coffers of law enforcement agencies as some of you think?

 You would be surprised if you look up the history of how cocain that was freely sold and put in carbonated drinks became outlawed substance.

 A lot of it has to do with the desegregation - when proponents of it tried to present blacks as sub-human who are barelly controlled and much more likely to revert to the animal state once under influence of drugs of alcohol.
 Stories of "cocain-crazed" negroes killing and raping innocent white girls abounded...

 The bigots did not succeed in stopping desegregation but the teetotalers who lost war on alcohol picked up the fight and got the drugs.

 miko

[popeye]

"There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol."

Sure do read some funny stuff on this BBS....

[AKSWulfe]

Apache, this Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Act?

The only thing that bit of legislation does is make it possible to use public airwaves as a means to propogate their drug prevention programs that are aired all day, every day.

I see no problem with that, they could use, perhaps, some education on the matter.

For example, I saw a commercial the other day for Ecstasy... some awful toejame right there, I'll freely admit to that, but they show a girl dancing in a club, she then falls to the ground and next scene is her being rushed to the hospital.

Not only do they NOT tell you how to keep someone from dying in that situation, but they don't tell you what the cause is or how to prevent someone from getting into that situation. hey, drugs are here- educate people on how to prevent them from dying, atleast then you'll have one more person alive after a horrifying drug experience that can assist in talking about how bad drugs are.

I could go into how to keep someone from dying from ecstasy(the drug itself won't kill you, right then and there- maybe after doing it a hundred times or so... it's actually dehydration that kills the user), but I won't unless someone wants to know.

So basically, the only thing the Drug Prevention Act does is give free air time to let kids know of what drugs are out there with a little scene that depicts the worse case scenario. (which is also the rare one) They SHOULD be educating the kids on these drugs and what they do... not this "I did ecstasy, now I'm dead" stuff they pull.

It ain't a war on drugs, it's a war on american people. It stopped being the war on drugs when drug users were placed on the same level as murderers and other very hardened criminals.
-SW

[miko2d]

Originally posted by popeye
"There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol."
Sure do read some funny stuff on this BBS....

 Please explain what's so funny about it?

 miko

[hblair]

I say lets send all the stoners over to that weird country in Indonesia and give 'em a good canin' !

That'll learn the sorry slackers! They'll think twicet 'fore they go lightin up a left handed tobaccy stick!

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d


 Please explain what's so funny about it?

 miko

The fact that the tobacco industry spends billions of dollars each year trying to get more kids to start smoking.

[Apache]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Apache, this Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Act?

The only thing that bit of legislation does is make it possible to use public airwaves as a means to propogate their drug prevention programs that are aired all day, every day.

I see no problem with that, they could use, perhaps, some education on the matter.

For example, I saw a commercial the other day for Ecstasy... some awful toejame right there, I'll freely admit to that, but they show a girl dancing in a club, she then falls to the ground and next scene is her being rushed to the hospital.

Not only do they NOT tell you how to keep someone from dying in that situation, but they don't tell you what the cause is or how to prevent someone from getting into that situation. hey, drugs are here- educate people on how to prevent them from dying, atleast then you'll have one more person alive after a horrifying drug experience that can assist in talking about how bad drugs are.

I could go into how to keep someone from dying from ecstasy(the drug itself won't kill you, right then and there- maybe after doing it a hundred times or so... it's actually dehydration that kills the user), but I won't unless someone wants to know.

So basically, the only thing the Drug Prevention Act does is give free air time to let kids know of what drugs are out there with a little scene that depicts the worse case scenario. (which is also the rare one) They SHOULD be educating the kids on these drugs and what they do... not this "I did ecstasy, now I'm dead" stuff they pull.

It ain't a war on drugs, it's a war on american people. It stopped being the war on drugs when drug users were placed on the same level as murderers and other very hardened criminals.
-SW

No Wulfe, Title 21 Chapter 13. Specifically Subchapter I, Section 801.

[AKSWulfe]

Wow- now that is a whole helluva lot to read.

Think I'll save that for a rainy day.

However, it's still rediculous to punish (ie: jail) a drug user/abuser. I'd rather pay(through taxes) for their rehab than for their space in jail which should be reserved for the REAL criminals.

And the current War on Drugs is a failure simply sucking up our hard earned money (taxes), and I personally do not like the fact that I am paying for a "war" that I do not want to fight.
-SW

[popeye]

miko,

The tobacco and liquor industries are motivated exclusively by profit, and they would be offended by characterizing their advertising as "unprofessional".

[Apache]

I see your point concerning the user and agree somewhat. However, as for the pushers, manufacturers, etc., off to jail I say.

I am one willing to fight the war and have no problem paying for it.

[AKSWulfe]

However, as for the pushers, manufacturers, etc., off to jail I say.

Agree.

I am one willing to fight the war and have no problem paying for it.

That's your choice and something you do everyday as part of your job. I wouldn't mind paying for this so-called war, if it was indeed going to prove successful and not a waste of money and resources. In other words- change the policy, I don't want all drugs legalized, marijuana, however, there isn't a single reason to keep it illegal that I've seen presented.

I just don't like the idea of paying for a war that ultimately fights the people it's supposed to be protecting and saving. The next person picked up by this "war" and thrown into jail for merely doing a drug (any) could just as easily be a very friendly neighbor you like, a close relative, a war vet, etc... I personally don't see the point of fighting a "war" like that.
-SW

[miko2d]

miko: Please explain what's so funny about it?
Hortlund: The fact that the tobacco industry spends billions of dollars each year trying to get more kids to start smoking.

 You are wrong here, Hortlund - for two reasons.
 First, for a while now advertizing tobacco products is illegal - no more TV commercials, billboards, posters, etc. I think any place where you can see tobacco ads are magazines that are not targeted to teenagers. In fact tobacco companies spend a lot of money every year financing anti-smoking campaigns.
 I am sure the narcotics advertising would be even more restricted - probably outlawed altogether.
 If you cared to compare the percentage of smokers in US vs your country or Europe in general, you will see a huge difference in our favor.

 Second, you are ridiculing a strawman of your own creation - not even close to what I said. I will repeat it here with accents and then expound:
 "There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol."
 I can explain to my kid a commercial or someone else smoking pot.
 I will have much harder time when some one pretending to be his friend knowingly entices him into drugs because he will make enourmous profits from it - personally.
 A generic ad campaign targeted on people with average IQ of <100 or a highly personalised one targeted on my kid by a dedicated professional agent who - unlike a faceless corporation - has his confidence, knows his buttons? I know which one will be more successfull.
 I know that some regular friend will offer him pot as well as alcohol and a cigarette some day. But that friend will take "no" for an answer. If the same "friend" has thousands of dollars at stake - he will not give up easily.
 So what is so funny about that?

 miko

[miko2d]

Originally posted by popeye
miko,
The tobacco and liquor industries are motivated exclusively by profit, and they would be offended by characterizing their advertising as "unprofessional".

As you can see from the previous post, not "professional" but "personal" is what I am concerned with. How much more likely are you to do/buy something on the advice/insistence of someone you know than just from seeing an ad?

 miko

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Eagler


and legalizin pot would stop that?  LOL

Why not? Have any evidence to the contrary? The current policy certainly isn't doing it.

u think the $$ of the drug trade are made on reefer or maybe sumpin just alittle harder...

The drugs are expensive because their illegal.

or should we legalize everything to prevent this corruption [/B]

I think all consensual crimes shoulb be "legal." Drug use is not a morality issue no matter how much the government wants to pitch it as one.

[midnight Target]

As a former user, I think there is another question unanswered.

First of all, I think drugs are bad for me. So I don't use them anymore.

The question is "Why are drugs illegal?"

Anyone have a good answer for that one? I mean, what benefit is gained by making them illegal?