Op-ed: Drug Policy Part 1
Op-ed By Peter Lagios -
My advocacy for decriminalizing drugs is not because I don’t realize that certain chemicals when ingested, inhaled, and injected can be dangerous and unhealthy for human beings-they can, it’s because I feel that fundamentally, in accordance with true ideals of liberty and freedom, governments shouldn’t be telling people what they can put into their bodies.
It’s ultimately a freedom of commerce and consumption issue.
Human beings throughout the ages have come to know what substances are good for them, and what substances are bad for them. Their evolved senses help them to distinguish between bitters, sweets, rancids, tarts, sours etc, through their olfactory and taste senses. Sometimes a substance can be good for them, while at first tasting bad, as in the case of certain medicinal substances. If you chew up an ibuprofen or acetaminophen for example, it doesn’t taste all that good does it? Yet once it courses thru your veins, it can bring down the inflammation and fever as intended. So in some cases, bitters and tarts, can be deceiving, yet still prove beneficial. Governments, in efforts to advise their citizens require labeling of substances with warnings if the substances can deliver adverse effects. Like a good and trusted friend, governments in their ideal form act as advisors to help humans navigate the often dangerous and uncertain waters of all the earthly substances, chemicals, foodstuffs, and poisons out there. Some governments, like the state of California, maximize their advisory role and inform the public on the potential for any carcinogenic property a substance may exhibit.
Let me repeat what I’ve written: Governments, in their ideal form act as advisors.
A free citizenry armed with trusted information, makes educated decisions as to what products they will consume into their bodies. The government and trusted advisory groups provide people with knowledge as to what the effects of a substance likely will be, and the citizens make an informed decision if that substance will be used by them, or not.
This is the true definition of freedom and a free people.
At present, does a government explicitly prohibit sodium hypochlorite aka Bleach?
There are warnings on the back to call poison control centers and seek medical help if the substance is ingested, as well as some preliminary basic instructions on whether or not to ingest water, milk, induce vomiting or not induce vomiting until medical help can be sought–but the substance itself remains legal to purchase and use, regardless that wrong use of it, can kill other creatures (pouring it into a fish tank) or kill human beings, were it to be ingested, deliberately inhaled, or injected into one’s veins. There are hundreds of thousands of such chemicals and agents out there in the world that can cause injury or death to humans and animals, yet remain legal.
The reason people have honed in on some substances to outlaw, is because certain segments of the population have found that some substances in the myriad millions of available agents, produce altered states of being, often in a pleasurable or psychedelic way, without being overtly or patently toxic. Some of these substances are required neither to sustain life, nor repair life if broken. It is disdain at this extracurricular “recreational” use of a substance that has utilitarian humans angry and ready to imprison those who have found a non-medical, non-nourishment purpose for an ingestible substance.
Like a good German who efficiently finds use for every moment of the day and takes in only the most necessary of food items to sustain their ability to work producing munitions and goods, sunup to sunset–time allotted to explore consciousness or reality through the use of drugs, or to experience pleasure of a euphoric nature, is thought to be detrimental to the utilitarian purpose the German Workers Party assigned human beings. Oracles of Delphi are not allowed in Hitlerland.
End of Part 1
93 Responses to Op-ed: Drug Policy Part 1
Leave a Reply
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
More Stories
- Suprme Court rules federal agency can sue drug companies for alleged payoffs to competitors
- Supreme Court: Jury must approve fact extending sentence
- Corridor’s Willett: “Ticket sales” will cover cost of ISU coach’s speech; could cost $20,000 or more
- Obama interview to air Monday night, discussing NSA and war in Syria
- Former Iowa teacher sentenced to prison for sexual contact with minors
- Home builders are confident for a change
- Montreal mayor arrested on 14 criminal charges, including fraud
- Fed policy hinges on questionable projections
- Supreme Court narrows right to remain silent
- Iowa man who sold herion resulting in overdose pleads guilty
- Police remove children from potentialy dangerous situation
- Max Weaver: “I’m on top of the issues” (VIDEO)
- Illegal immigration flow moves from AZ to TX
- Palin: Allah should sort out Syrian war
- Outside View: Banks cooking up another financial crisis
- Proposed bills would limit NSA’ s surveillance programs
- Police: Man held baby while selling heroin
- U.S., Arkansas take on Exxon over oil spill
- Iowa Senate Dem’s lay out their accomplishments in 2013
- Pilot admits flying drunk during cargo flight
Anonymous
June 26, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Anyone notice that this wonderful Peter is now posting on the story about paintballs? Of course HE thinks that shooting paintballs is ok. In his eyes, drugs are okay, chewing someone’s face off is okay, firearms are okay, it seems anything that is breaking the law is okay. Seriously Peter……shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere?
Peter L
June 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm
MAN ON A LEDGE with Sam Worthington. I was thinking about renting that movie the other day at the grocery store. Is it good? This may be an omen. I think I’ll rent it now. Thanks.
Not a PIG(Professional Interset Group) member
June 26, 2012 at 7:20 am
Peter,
The people you argue against have skin in the game. Their income is based on locking people up. So, they are totally biased in their opinions. They see this as a threat to their livelihood and their friends and families income as well. They regurgitate the mantra of a failed policy ad nauseum. Just look at DEA Michelle Loenhart being questioned last week by Rep. Jared Polis. She couldn’t differentiate between weed and heroin. That is what we are up against. People who only care about earning their paycheck. It doesn’t matter how many families they ruin by locking up the mom or dad because they possessed a plant . In my opinion, they are just as bad as the drug dealers. They both profit from prohibition. All of the reasoning, science, rational thought; that doesn’t matter to them. They need a paycheck to pay off their cars/boats/motorcycles/houses/campers.
Politicians aren’t any better. They don’t care that cannabis has cancer curing properties. As long as they get their donations from Pfizer, the status quo remains.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/25/war-on-drugs-hiv-aids_n_1626011.html
Peter L
June 26, 2012 at 8:38 am
Great commentary! Thanks so much for chiming in. I was feeling pretty ganged up on, as the same characters try to discredit me by insulting me…not debating the facts or offering anything scientific or reasonable. Your explanation of the situation seems pretty spot on. I hope to hear more from you on this matter, and hope to hear from more people with reasoning abilities like yours.
Thanks again!
RWB
June 26, 2012 at 11:55 am
And this is the sum of all truths Not a PIG.
Drugs will never be legalized in this country because the majority of the people won’t stand for it. And the poloticians will commit career suicide if they backed legalization.
That being said, I believe marijuana is a different debate. I believe the future will hold this as a legal drug. How long? Could be years from now. A recent study showed that California could wipe out it’s debt by legalizing marijuana; collecting tax on product sold.
The problem is the democrats and republicans create way to much GOV control. In my opinion, the legalization of marijuana is a state issue, not federal. It has already been in use for many years in many states for medical purpose, such as cancer, seizures, nausea, etc.
Should it be allowed for recreational purposes? I think that is for each state to decide, not the federal GOV. Prop vote for the people. Until the current parties of democrats and republicans get challenged; and true libertarin politicians emerge (most say they are now, but that’s BS), the GOV will continue to grow and pass more useless legislation while ignoring the real problems in this country.
We need a leader; not a politician to run this country. We haven’t had one in some time.
There’s an very good book out now called Cowards, by Glenn Beck. I don’t follow him or share his views, but he has written a good book on politics. Check it out.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:59 pm
No thanks to a few knuckleheads who show up here to badger me, while offering nothing to the discussion. It’s depressing to say the least. I log back on here after awhile hoping someone will give me spirited debate such as RWB and Observer, and instead I hear people calling for everyone to ignore me and disregard my writings. What a bunch of rude, inconsiderate jerks. Can you just not comment at all on my stories rather than try to hurt me? That would be appreciated. Thanks, and GOODBYE.
Anonymous
June 25, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Here’s my suggestion. Next time Peter posts something stupid on here like this, let’s just boycott and don’t give him any comments. That’s all he wants is the attention.
Uptown
June 25, 2012 at 5:34 pm
I agree 100%.
gtsys
June 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Yes!!
Buzz Crumcutter
June 25, 2012 at 8:08 pm
How about ANY TIME he posts anything on here????
He is only posting these screeds in hopes someone will respond so he can validate his self worth.
I like it when he responds to his own statements again and again and again and……..
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:33 pm
The only person who has remotely come close to providing a reasonable argument as to why drugs are prohibited is Observer. The rest of you insult, and badger me, while not proving or disproving anything. As students in a class, I would fail all of you. You couldn’t just tell me that I’m stupid and irrelevant as an instructor, and find anything but an F. As soon as you prove to me why drugs should be made illegal with reasonable arguments, I’ll be there to respond. Observer came close to convincing me, but I was able to skillfully navigate his reasoning.
Batter up.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:36 pm
You have to prove to me that my statements are “stupid”. None of us are going to take your word for it. If I’m stupid to you, then let’s hear WHY you think so. Maybe you will be right, maybe you won’t. Are you brave enough to try?
RWB
June 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm
I’ve know Peter for a very long time, although I’ve not had contact with him personally in quite sometime.
He’s always been, shall I say eccentric. Never had a problem speaking his mind, and yes, one could argue that he is an “attention getter”.
However “crazy” and “off the wall” his views may be, and whether or not you agree with him, give him the same repect you would anyone else on this platform. If you don’t like his views, don’t respond to them.
Now Peter,
“As soon as you prove to me why drugs should be made illegal”
I don’t have to prove to you, becasue they already are made illegal. And although you do not agree with it, I suggest you contact your congressmen or women, and or Senator. I’m sure C. Grassly will give you the time of day. Or, you could move to Amsterdam and enjoy the leagalization of drugs in certain forms at certain places.
Peter L
June 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I wish you hadn’t said that, because now I’m wondering your identity. At some point, we are going to need to require politicians and laws to be logical, consistent and fair. Once that occurs, thru the training of the citizenry in critical thinking skills (I’m one of the educators), I believe sometime in the future, we could see a scenario where at the very minimal drugs are decriminalized and the issue treated as a health problem, and those who are truly addicted and out of control would be court committed to treatment centers…not prisons.
gtsys
June 25, 2012 at 9:44 am
People you are debating a child. Pete never grew up, and lived a life. If drugs were legal he would be debating why they shouldn’t be. You have all been fooled into playing his game of write a hot collared topic and ignite a debate so I can look busy on my laptop responding like a professional. Why dont you grt a pacifier and some diapers town fool.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:59 am
I saw that on the Dr. Phil show a couple weeks back: A man who insisted on acting like a baby and being treated like one. He was looking for a family who would adopt him, because his girlfriend made the decision she wasn’t going to take care of him anymore. That was a very far-out and interesting show for Dr. Phil. The baby could only use one word phrases. If you read through this article and my comments, you’ll see that I’m FAR from a child in my intellectual and debating skills. But, hey, I sympathize with that guy who wanted to be treated like a baby. he probably never had love and nurturing in his life, and was trying to get it as an adult. Nothing wrong with being taken care of and loved unconditionally. I find it hilarious to think of some adult man sitting in a crib, shitting his diapers and his girlfriend caregiver changing him, while he utters out “goo goo”. LOL. Go on Dr. Phil’s website and watch the past episode.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 10:15 am
Here’s the link to the show on Dr. Phil. Unusual Syndromes. Enjoy!
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:43 pm
“never grew up and lived a life”. Hmmm. So questioning the legitimacy of drug policy in this country constitutes adolescence? You’re all “grown up” because you follow rules without question. I’d rather stay young, thank you very much.
Anonymous
June 25, 2012 at 1:22 am
There is a reason why Peter Lagios is not logical or rational.
Peter Lagios has been smoking his socks to long.
I would not even try to to discuss anything with this airhead. He can’t hear!
the real anonymous
June 25, 2012 at 7:10 am
No Kidding! Pete! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!
It took me 15 minutes to read through all your warped, or should I say drug induced views on society…..I’m mad at myself, there’s 15 minutes of my life I can’t get back. I undestand this site is for open comments, but trust me, I will Never waste my time on your crap again.
voice over
June 25, 2012 at 8:42 am
Just read the article in your head as some 10 year old kid, or some other entertaining naive character you have encountered in your life. I read Peter Children articles as the voice of Archie Bunker. They at least have entertainment value that way.
LVS
June 25, 2012 at 8:47 am
Peter-Peter-what you don’t seem to understand is that it is the insurance company’s that drive all this stuff to increase their profits by reducing their costs. They buy the legislator’s off to get what what they want. Why do you think there is a attack on tobacco, obese people and alcohol. It is just like the seat belt law that I fought for years because I thought it should be a personal choice. Now look at the child seats, riser seats for short people and all the other crap they have forced on us. Government doesn’t care, it’s the insurance company’s.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:19 am
All those examples you provided are distinct and need their own attention. I’m of course for child seats, and I would not equate them with laws forcing adults to wear safety belts. Children are innocent and need to be protected. They cannot make decisions for themselves as they are in a helpless state. Adults, and subsequently the government must look out for them. Adults on the other hand, those without underage children I should add, should be free to make the personal choice of whether or not they want to wear safety belts. I feel health insurance companies should be able to write in clauses that state if an insurance holder IS NOT wearing their seat belt and they are involved in an accident…that the liability the insurance is required to pay could be reduced, forcing more from the non-seat belt wearer, because science has confirmed that seat belts do minimize damage…however it still should be a personal choice. With that comes the uninsured and what the health care system would be liable to fix were you brought in by ambulance unconscious and bleeding. You cannot expect hospitals to fix your body if you do not wear safety belts and are involved in an accident…or you need to pay higher insurance. It’s a complicated situation, as long as you don’t expect hospitals to fix you if you are involved in an accident and have no insurance…I say you should be able to not wear your seatbelt.
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 10:13 am
A man not wearing a seat belt was propelled into another car killing an entire family 3 years ago.
Was it his right to kill that family?
Since you suggest it should be his right on whether or not he wears a seatbelt.
The law to wear seatbelts doesn’t just protect the driver, as in this case, rare as it may be, it should have protected that family if the man was wearing his seatbelt as required by law.
Not all laws are meant for individual preference.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 10:29 am
No doubt in this world many uncontrolled and erratic things can occur when large projectile objects collide on highways. As the case of a body flying out and hitting another vehicle, there are countless examples of debris from vehicles flying out as well and causing the same damage. Accidents are terrible situations. If I could design the highway system,I would scrap the oncoming traffic situation and make only one-way highways and roadways. The thought of a large Semi tractor trailer loaded with 40,000 pounds coming down the highway at you 60 plus mph separated only by 5 feet is quite an absurd thought really. When opposing traffic was created, it was when vehicles were in their infantile state, and they traveled at far less speeds. It was a continuation of the two horses and buggy passing each other on the roadway scenario. With the advent of higher speeds and greater weights on vehicles, they should have required all roadways to be like highway 122 separated by a medium. But this is another case where cost trumps safety and common sense. Think about it for a moment. You are trusting your life and your families life to some stranger who is driving directly at you minus 5-8 feet at 55-65 mph. ABSURD and DANGEROUS.
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 10:38 am
I would make note of the history of vehicle safety. The vast majority of vehicles today are completly safer than those of years ago. Not even close.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 11:28 am
Regardless of vehicle safety, the inherent design of our highways is flawed. The safest vehicle in the world, if the oncoming driver is intoxicated, suicidal, or distracted can render safety equipment moot, slamming into your vehicle head on at 75 mph. Many people drive that fast…55mph is supposed to be the legal speed oncoming traffic is confined to drive at…but many people speed. My main point is that vehicle safety cannot always prevent driver error.
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 1:21 pm
55 mph is not the legal confined speed everywhere. It’s 70 mph on Interstates, some are at 75 and AZ has a stretch at 80 mph.
“if the oncoming driver is intoxicated, suicidal, or distracted can render safety equipment moot”
Are you playing the What If game again?
The same could be said about trains, aircraft, ships/boats, etc.
Nothing wrong with the highway system other than some roads need repairs for all the pot holes. It’s the operator that is the problem.
Peter L
June 26, 2012 at 1:49 pm
On highways with opposing traffic, the speed limits are still 55 mph. Only on the interstates or highways with 2 lanes and a medium between opposing cars is the speed eligible to raise higher than 55.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 2:56 pm
I tend not to hear fascism, dictators, and blindly obedient ignorant human beings…that is correct.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 12:07 am
Okay Observer, now you’ve finally given me a challenging situation. I had to move over to the laptop from the phone to respond to this for unlimited character entry.
Very good angle of attack I might add on your foodstuff analogy.
So to answer such a question we obviously have to move beyond the question of whether drugs are legal or not, assume they are and try to envision a post legalization scenario.
With your baby formula example, you are suggesting that manufacturing processes must be regulated in order to ensure (pun intended) humans are getting safe products, that are labelled correctly, and are assumemedly non-toxic. With the latter we already have a point of contention, as many products presently sold as legal on supermarket shelves are in fact bad for you and toxic. It is assumed that the sodium hypochlorite will be used for cleaning and laundry…not adding to your oatmeal. this is why the product is in the cleaning section and not with the canned goods.
The same would go for legalized drugs. Let’s take methamphetamine for example. It’s a white powdery substance that is similar to crushed tylenol or ibuprofen. The drug would be manufactured legally and sold in the drug section of supermarkets and humans would be required to show Identification to acquire it legally at the age of 21, alongside liquor. marijuana could be sold in health food stores as it is basically a natural plant. Labelling could be required to specify THC content is present in spinoff products made from marijuana.
Basically, you’re delving into a commercial production aspect of the argument, once the prohibition phase ends…but you erroneously assumed that a legalized drug world would somehow allow humans to be putting in toxic substances into food products and selling them, making people sick or leading them astray.
This is not what I’m selling or promoting AT ALL. If a substance makes a person sick, then I would require it to be labelled as such, and the consumer made aware that it will make you sick. In the case of drugs,,, all the warning labels that are found on tobacco and alcohol as well as over the counter medications would obviously be found on legalized drugs…plus some. most humans would stay away from them , because obviously they could make you very sick or kill you…but if some humans wanted to do it anyway…that’s their prerogative…and ultimately they should not be subjected to being put in jail for having made a consumption choice.
The idea behind legalized drugs is that the product could now be regulated, and manufacturing processes monitored…insuring the product was what it said it was, and lab standards maintained. At least people would be getting a pure product and not rat poison or some other filler used to cut it up to maximize the products of the dealers.
Plus, alongside with providing a legal outlet to get the drugs, you could also offer all sorts of rehabilitation and drug treatment, to get them off the products. It would be easier to conduct this in a legalized atmosphere. Alcohol is legal, and treatment centers exist for those who abuse it. same would go for cocaine, meth, marijuana, psilocybn, lsd etc.
so to recap…if you try to slip methamphetamine into cheerios and call it food, then by all means, you should be arrested. but if you distinctly package the methamphetamine as methamphetamine, and it is what you say it is, and it is sold in the appropriate section, along with other drugs, then it should be able to be sold.
My freedom and liberty scenarios were more focused on the consumer than the manufacturer. In this world if you manufacture a product for other people, then you should be held liable to certain regulations. If you are a consumer, you ultimately should be able to ingest whatever anything you want, and the government would have no say in this choice.
So there is a difference between manufacturers, and consumers. don’t confuse the two.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:50 am
Ultimately this protects the private citizen consumer from unwarranted prosecution and intrusion by the government. If someone wants to make methamphetamine for themselves in their bathroom or kitchen, and they are not trying to sell it to the general public, I see no reason why the government should be arresting and imprisoning them for doing so. As always, if your drug use causes you to break other laws, then enhancement penalties could be exacted as well as forced drug treatment added to your sentences. But if you are making and using your own product and not breaking other laws because of your use…let freedom ring baby…and you accept the consequences for your actions. I will also add that if you have children under the legal age, I feel the school and health systems should be able to randomly test them to make sure you are not giving your own children the product you consume or make. In fact school drug testing should be conducted on a regular basis anyway. In a legalized drug world…I would recommend that the testing be increased…and stiff penalties instilled on parents whose children test positive for drugs.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:53 am
Also need to add, that if you are receiving public assistance such as food stamps or general relief welfare, you should absolutely be required to submit to weekly or monthly drug testing, and random drug testing, and your benefits cut off if you test positive. Society should not have to fund someone’s degenerate drug use, despite whether the substance is legal. Certain compromises must be expected for the legalization of drugs to occur, and this one makes sense. Welfare recipient=steady drug testing.
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 10:33 am
“you should absolutely be required to submit to weekly or monthly drug testing, and random drug testing”
“Society should not have to fund someone’s degenerate drug use, despite whether the substance is legal”
And whom do you think will pay for this drug test?
The user? Highly doubtful. Society will and you know it. The taxpayer will pay for it.
I wonder how you would feel if your wife (if you were married), or girlfriend or maybe your child were raped by a unsavory person because they were intoxicated on PCP, LSD, Heroin, or some other “hardcore drug”?
Would you still be for legalizing these drugs?
As far as marijuna, I think it is inevitable before it becomes legal. Already, it is being used in many states for all kinds of medical reasons. Some legit, some not. Responsibility falls on the Doctor writting the script in this area. For recreational uses? Let the people decide if it’s time. However, a certain type or similar type of law/s need to be addressed as they reflect to being under the influence of alcohol.
To legalize drugs? Mass chaos would engulf society within months. The majority of people can not help themselves.
Would you want your emergency response folks (police, fire, medical, etc.), political leaders, religious clergy, etc. using Heroin legally?
Not I.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 10:59 am
No, and just like now, employers can set restrictions as to whom could be employed. Employers would be able to have the right to forbid employment to users of drugs. Government officials such as police, fire, as well as health care providers like ambulances, hospitals would obviously require clean and sober workers…however if someone did use in the past but agrees not to while employed, it COULD NOT be held against you. In today’s world, people are forbidden from being police officers and military because of past drug convictions. As far as mass chaos goes…nah. I don’t believe that hysteria. The same type of propaganda is used by controlling dictator states and fascist regimes like china to say that freedom for the people would cause chaos.
The reality is there would be some increases in medical calls for overdoses, but the majority of society would keep chugging along like it does.
Remember, just because drugs are legalized, does not mean other criminal actions are tolerated. If your intoxicated on substances, you cannot drive, just like you cannot drive now with alcohol. And if your use causes you to rape or hurt someone, or burglarize, you will face tough sentences. I am for increasing the level of punishment on crimes that cause other people harm. In today’s world, perpetrators of violence and crime are let off with slaps on the wrist. I would shift the attention of our prisons and police force to catch people that truly are causing other people harm…not just personal users of substances. It will take victims for my police force to be used. Most of personal drug use constitutes victimless crime, which is a waste of state resources and violation of personal liberties.
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 11:47 am
I could never advocate for legal drugs; because in the end, all hell would break loose and the taxpayer would foot the bill. What does an addict do now when they can’t get that drug?
Do you not think it would be amplified 1K fold if they were legal? That’s why it would be mass chaos.
The exception possibly being marijuana.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 2:32 pm
But if you break down the users who would be problematic and causing problems you will find that the drug use itself is not what is criminal…it’s subsequent actions such as assault, burglary. IN a legalized drug world, you would no longer have the excuse that the illegal drugs caused me to do it. You would be held prima fascia responsible for your actions…drugs or no drugs. That would be the caveat and the deterrent. If people knew they could get hefty prison sentences as a result of getting all screwed up on drugs and causing crimes, they wouldn’t do it. Again, people that are prone to violence are the ones who will be committing violence anyway…drugs or no drugs. Look at most of the murders that are committed. Most of them people are sober when doing so. A lot of assaults get committed while drunk…which is a legal drug. A lot of burglaries, rapes and murders get committed while on alcohol as well.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Your argument is similar to the gun control argument. If so many guns weren’t available, there would be less gun crime. This is fundamentally true, but gun advocates insist it is their right to possess a firearm, regardless that some people abuse those firearms and cause death and destruction to others. the same goes for drugs. There will be people who abuse the drugs and cause death and destruction, but it should not trump my legal right to possess and use drugs, just because of the actions of a few.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Just as not all people who own firearms use them in a criminal way…not all people who use drugs commit subsequent crimes as a result of their use. You are erroneously and stereotypically lumping in all drug users as deranged crime committing lunatics. Take people at Grateful Dead concerts for examples. That was the perfect example that in the right environment, people who are on drugs can exist in harmony and often bliss and euphoria…with next to no violence at all. Any bad vibes which could lead to violence were curbed by the group atmosphere of love, respect and peace. Instances of violence at Grateful Dead shows were very low. In all those years, they constantly toured, there were millions of people high as a kite on drugs. Sure there were a few instances of overdoses, but for the most part, while on LSD and marijuana and mushrooms…not many people died. Contrast that with the culture of guns and violence surrounding crack and meth and cocaine, which has emerged as a direct result of the Jewish promotion of Gangster rap in mass media during the eighties. You can call me anti-semitic until the cows come home, but you can look up the story and evolution of Gangster Rap, and trace the money…you’ll find it was rich Jewish executives in large media conglomerates which pushed it on the American public. It was direct antithesis to the love and peace drug use of the sixties and seventies.
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 3:11 pm
“IN a legalized drug world, you would no longer have the excuse that the illegal drugs caused me to do it”
Exactly, they would say the legal drugs made me do it.
“If people knew they could get hefty prison sentences as a result of getting all screwed up on drugs and causing crimes, they wouldn’t do it”
Peter, news flash; they do it now! What would be the difference? The excuse that it was legal?
“A lot of assaults get committed while drunk…which is a legal drug. A lot of burglaries, rapes and murders get committed while on alcohol as well”
My point; limit the amount of drugs to eliminate the problem. Why would we increase the potential for crimes by legalizing drugs? Alcohol already does that. You make my point.
It is their right to possess a firearm, the constitution so states. I don’t recall it giving you the right to shoot up Heroin?
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 3:29 pm
“You are erroneously and stereotypically lumping in all drug users as deranged crime committing lunatics”
Never said that.
“you’ll find it was rich Jewish executives in large media conglomerates which pushed it on the American public”
I would assume your talking about Rick Rubin?
“you’ll find it was rich Jewish executives in large media conglomerates which pushed it on the American public. It was direct antithesis to the love and peace drug use of the sixties and seventies”
Look at those that bought it or buy it yet today. Pushed or not pushed, they didn’t make the public buy it.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Okay, then let’s be consistent. Alcohol causes society problems…it should be banned immediately. I’ll bet you don’t favor that do you? As long as alcohol continues to be legal, but say cocaine, and marijuana are not legal, I’m going to have no choice but to call bullshit, and do what I can to make the situation consistent and even. You cannot have one substance over the others. It’s just not fair. But let me guess, your willing to live with the way things are, because as long as you can remember people have been drinking. As long as many Americans could remember women never had the right to vote, and slaves were kept by their masters…so that doesn’t really give you right to sit back and do nothing.
RWB
June 25, 2012 at 4:41 pm
You can have one substance over the other becasue one is already legal; the others are not. So call BS all you want, but understand the facts.
There is way to much money involved in alchohol, and the people that would have to legalize your drugs would never do so; but yes, they will take the alcohol money everyday of the week. Why? Becasue it isn’t considered “dirty money”.
And who said anything about being fair? Is that some kind of myth you heard about; fair?
I do have the right to sit back and do nothing and choose what cause I deem I want to support. Why? Becasue I’m a taxpaying citizen of the US, that’s why.
And lumping women’s voting rights and slavery into this debate is very shallow, even from you. But, you do like the What If game.
And for your own satisfaction, I don’t drink. So outlaw it all you want. Prohibition all over again, spawn some more Al Capone’s. Didn’t work to good the first time, so I doubt it would work in 2012 and beyond.
If you want to sit in your home and do drugs, I got no problem with that. If you think you should be able to go to Hy-Vee and get an ounce of Heroin, I do have a problem with that. You don’t have to like, it’s reality.
Mitt Romney
June 25, 2012 at 5:15 pm
RWB, I like the fact that you said, “TAX PAYING CITIZEN”. Very nice. You sir, therefore have an opinion to state, others do not.
Observer
June 24, 2012 at 10:59 pm
” Geez, it’s frustrating trying to get a decent debate with any of you people.”
You cannot debate Peter. You obfuscate, and change subjects so much, that it is impossible to carry on true debate.
You also refuse to understand what constituted reality, and what is untested and unqualified theory.
For example. ” In my world, people are free to put anything they want into their bodies, but they must live with the consequences.” It’s easy to say that, however there are a whole lot of problems involved with that.
First comes common law, liability, and the Constitution. Behind it is hundreds of years of case law. You cannot escape that just because it is “your world”. You cannot simply say, you can ingest lye, and if you die, too bad, it’s your problem. Real life does not work that way!
In “your world” your head will be the first thing on the chopping block because you tacitly accept liability for your edict.
Remember the baby formula that came over from China with Melamine? Parents all over the U.S. were grateful that an FDA was around to regulate and set standards for food, that would have otherwise killed their babies. Bad as it was that six babies died. But in “Your World” you would feel content if hundreds of babies died, so you could have your self centered, asinine concept of freedom. The hell with other people and their children, Peter gets his way.
I am so sorry to inform you Peter, the world ain’t like that! Society, again, if your little mind can conceptualize this, is about the whole, and not one person’s perverted concept of what it should be, just so he can do as he please.
You bring this upon yourself, so don’t blame everyone else, or label them as idiots, lame brains, or Nazi’s!
Peter L
June 24, 2012 at 11:31 pm
i said governments have no right to prohibit ingestion of a substance…i made no mention of poisoning food or false labels.
Peter L
June 24, 2012 at 11:39 pm
any product should be clearly labeled and the effects explained. drugs are not foodstuffs so your example is null.
Observer
June 25, 2012 at 12:06 am
Fine then Peter. Walk up to the Pharmacist at Walgreen’s, and demand he gives you 90 doses of Zocor 40mg. Guess what, without a prescription, you cannot ingest it, or possess it.
You cannot ingest Pig’s Blood Cake in the U.S. Or Sassafras oil. You cannot eat human flesh.
There is an endless list of restrictions in life. They are there for the good of the whole of society.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 12:10 am
If the human flesh was willed accordingly and legally for the purpose of being eaten by the owner of the body while they were alive and of sound mind…then I would reject that law, stating human flesh was not allowed to be eaten.
You’ve at least got me thinking…so your examples are good exercises to help us design the post legalization world.
Observer
June 25, 2012 at 12:18 am
“drugs are not foodstuffs so your example is null.”
Foodstuffs is only one area covered by the FDA. Federal officials inspected international packages of pharmaceuticals a few years ago. They found recalled or withdrawn drugs being sold to U.S. citizens in large numbers. A few are known to cause death or long term health problems. Or counterfeit drugs.
All of the above have been found to be dangerous to humans, and so are banned in the U.S.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 12:18 am
Now as far as your Zocor/pharmacist example, I’ve thought about this before, and it is of my opinion that medicinal agents, should be allowed to be purchased by humans in all cases except those of the antibacterial type, because the collective misuse of those types of drugs affects bacterial loads worldwide. But in the case of a non-live agent medicine, such as a blood pressure medication, if a human wanted to pay the price for the medication, and it was not deemed in limited supply, then I see no reason why it should not be sold to them. Caveat Emptor…buyer beware. If a person were to try and diagnose themselves and they were wrong…they would suffer the consequences. But in the case they were right…they could eliminate the often unreliable, often erroneous medical doctor. This is admittedly dangerous waters….since medicine is complicated…but ultimately, a human should be able to acquire the agents used by doctors. At the very least, I’ll say that any acquisition should not subject a person to prison for having done so.
You’ve got some tough examples, but I think they can be worked thru.
Ultimately, an informed and educated citizenry is the desired outcome…but also a free citizenry.
I believe that most reasonable people would not attempt to acquire or use medical agents without doctors prescriptions. Unreasonable people? They are the ones that will be doing unreasonable things anyway…so you cannot use them as a gauge to fashion law around.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 12:27 am
and Observer, what I really want is an educated and informed nation, not a punished, and prohibited one. I believe that education and information are keys to this, and with the right information, and yes, sometimes trial and error, humans will naturally evolve out of drug use, or if they do it, it will be safer because people will know exactly what they are getting, at what doses, and what the effects are.
Would you rather a group of people stay away from the gun because you are pointing a gun at them? Or would you rather they stay away from the gun because they know deep within them that the gun is dangerous, and can cause harm to themselves and others?
I would rather we have freewill, and choose not to use drugs, than to have the freewill taken away from us.
Buzz Crumcutter
June 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Oh goodie, another drug induced screed.
Peter L
June 24, 2012 at 12:01 am
Buzz, word on the street is you want to go the entire duration-cradle to the grave, under blind obedience.
Buzz Crumcutter
June 24, 2012 at 8:45 am
You failed to mention clean and sober too. You might try that path yourself as it does work.
Peter L
June 24, 2012 at 10:42 am
Yes it does work…that’s not what’s at stake here Sherlock. It’s whether or not the government has the right to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body. Geez, it’s frustrating trying to get a decent debate with any of you people. The smart ones that agree with me mostly concur or keep silent out of fear of retaliation. The unjust ones keep silent, because politics is already in their favor…for the moment. So that leaves only the really ignorant ones to chime on here against me. Some life I’m cursed with. Being born in North Iowa, and barely a philosopher amongst you.
the real anonymous
June 24, 2012 at 7:05 am
Agreed, REALLY tired of Pete and his drug induced nonsense. Do everyone a favor P.L. get some help.
Peter L
June 24, 2012 at 10:45 am
And you know what I’m tired of? The stupid cow herded masses, that don’t have an independent thought amongst them, being led from one pasture to the next by charlatan ministers, and phony government officials who don’t know the first thing about truth, justice, freedom nor liberty. that’s what I’m really tired of. Thanks for remaining anonymous…I’d prefer not to know who you are.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Here’s the bottom line: In my world, people are free to put anything they want into their bodies, but they must live with the consequences. Reliance on education and upbringing to deter and curb drug use is the standard. Punishment as a means of control is not used. We are free people, and if we choose to ingest a chemical substance, it is our choice, no one else’s. If I want to drink water from a lake, or drink motor oil, the government won’t have any say in it. It is my choice, and my consequence. No longer will citizens be put in prisons and cages for choosing to use drugs or substances. Human beings are going to be thought of as free and independent creatures….and not slaves to society or any system. We have the right to take our own lives, or better them. The government is removed from any decision involving one singular human being’s decision of consumption. If a human is pregnant…the equation changes…but if the human is not pregnant…the decision is theirs and theirs alone.
Anonymous
June 23, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Pete, can’t wait to see your face on Mugshots.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Why’s that? Because government is a bully? Because you enjoy cheerleading the bullies? You love to watch Cops episodes don’t you? You like seeing the thrill of the takedown. It gives you an adrenaline rush.
I openly write and speak as if I’m a user…but I’m not a user. I do this to give voice to the issue, while protecting myself from government intrusion. I feel people should begin rising up and acting and speaking as though they use in order to challenge the deep seated fear that has been instilled on people over the decades. We must not fear bullies in the government any more. We must act and speak as though marijuana were legal, in order to begin reversing the adverse conditioning that has taken place…while protecting ourselves by not actually using drugs or possessing them.
NothingFace76
June 23, 2012 at 10:39 am
Observer, Anonymous & Peter L three people who think they have it all figured out but when I read what they post I’m left thinking wtf? Some peoples Kids shouldn’t have access to a computer.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 11:32 am
All figured out? Hardly. But I know this…your comment offered nothing towards the subject at hand.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
You must be out of your mind to think for one moment that anybody with an active brain cell would accept this: ” A person on “drugs”, has the potential to use their minds in specialized and creative ways….”.
Lincoln was not a drughead, yet had an extraordinary mind.
Louis Pasteur was not a drughead, yet his discoveries in science benefited humanity since the 1860′s.
George Handel (oh horrors, a German) was not a drughead, yet he is considered one of the greatest composers of all time.
Emily Bronte was not a drughead, yet produced classics in English Literature.
W. Edwards Deming was not a drughead, yet his work in Statistical Process Control remains the standard of innovation.
How is it, those people, and so many others, have used their minds to solve great problems, improve life, and given us enjoyment, without the use of drugs to “create”?????
Had the addled their minds the lives of countless millions would have ended needlessly. We would have never known the joys of The Messiah. Indeed, so many innovations and creations would not exist today due to the drug addled mind.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 11:30 am
Actually Observer, it is suggested that the Founding fathers put hemp into their pipes and smoked it. Also for every example of yours there are hundreds of creative types that did use some substance to alter their consciousness or provide them insight. It’s not required but it can offer a new perspective on matters of creative importance. I know that sometimes I’ll listen to music I’ve made while stoned, and I realize it’s not as good as I thought it was while sober. I would prefer to have the option to smoke cannabis it from time to time to “check” my work and make sure that it’s at the level I want it to be. I don’t want the government calling me a criminal for wanting to do so. And I don’t want you to call me a “druggie” for doing so either…although I’ll live with your accusations over the governments anyday.
Observer
June 24, 2012 at 7:16 am
I choose those people because their contributions to the general good of society far overshadowing most others. And thankfully, we still have that spirit within us in the U.S. Far more Peter than the drugheads you mention.
What part of the human condition have the contributed towards Peter? What diseases have they conquered? Look around you at life today, everthing you see is due to work of minds put forth to solve problems, create beauty, and entertain us. No drug addled mind has done that to such an extent, and with such greatness as those I have mentioned and more.
Peter L
June 25, 2012 at 9:27 am
I would disagree with you. I’d say millions of people have been entertained by the work of Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead, Perry Farrell of the music group Jane’s Addiction (all known heroin, cocaine, LSD, marijuana users). You keep grouping down and out loser dregs of society with drug use. It’s unfortunate that criminal, loser types have hijacked these miraculous substances and abused them. I used substances in small doses, to expand my intellectual and creative horizons, and they worked to that purposes. To this day, I still loathe the way marijuana and drugs were being abused amongst the circle of people I ran around with in Mason City during my teenage years. It’s precisely because drugs were driven underground that grouped all these people together, who had very little in common other than troubled backgrounds or finding drugs illegally and keeping low of the law. People kept passing joints around, and sitting around doing nothing. I always wanted to do something creative with my time, and explore the world…but in a repressed society with drugs made illegal…people invariably become forced into the underground opium dens of latter history.
Imagine if drugs were legalized. You wouldn’t get those underground drug parlors…and people would use substances at a pace that felt comfortable to them…if at all. Social pressure is great because the product is taboo and kids are always going to seek out that which is forbidden.
Howie
June 23, 2012 at 9:22 am
I have come full circle on legalizing drugs. I have never used drugs recreationally and don’t quite understand why people use them given the consequences. That being said, I am a realist, no matter how illegal we make drugs…users will still use. Making drugs illegal has resulted in huge profits for criminals and those profits have fueled crime on a wide scale. Using prohibition as an example, history has taught us that government can create massive crime networks to secure profits from activities the government makes illegal. Americal is fighting a war on drugs…the cost is huge…jailed users, killings, thefts, mexico and yet drugs are still everywhere. Making drugs legal would take the profits away from criminals…resources would be freed up for prevention and education. Crime could be reduced dramatically. Alternatively, we can continuing throwing dollars and lives away on a drug war we cant win. I guess as a society we need to make up our mind which devil we will live with.
Reggie
June 23, 2012 at 9:33 am
Well said.
LVS
June 23, 2012 at 9:42 am
On this subject I must agree with Howie. I too have not used illegal drugs but that is a personal thing with me. I agree we have spent far to many resources on the so called drug war and still people continue to use them. Legalize the drugs, tax it and control it and those resources can be put to a better use. We have way to many people in jail for smoking a little pot which I am told by experts is not as harmful as tobacco. These people can not find decent jobs or even housing with the stigma on them. Therefore, they don’t pay taxes and are a drain on society as a whole. It just makes sense to say this prohibition is not working and we should do something different.
ralph
June 23, 2012 at 7:57 am
In more ways than one your parents need to share the blame of helping to destroy your life. It is well known that you suffer mental maladies and that it is gentic on your mother’ side. But there was and is no reason that your life was left unatended as a child to the point that you decended into the depths of a drug riddled life. You are now at an age where the blame needs to be shifted to yourself. You are obsessed with dope of one sort or another to the point that nothing you might offer can be judged to have any dgree of merit.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 8:39 am
Thank you Mr. Children…I mean “Ralph” for sharing your opinions. Can I help you on some spelling while I have you?
genetic, unattended, descended, degree,
Glad I could help fix your mental maladies sir. Have a nice day.
Reggie
June 23, 2012 at 9:30 am
Now that’s funny.Peter Children posting under an anonymous name.You can tell it’s him by the misspellings and the creepy personal attacks.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 7:46 am
“You’re assuming that people who use cannabis or illegal drugs exhibit anti-social behaviors.”
It is not an assumption, but fact. Our society is based on Law. A requirement of being a U.S. citizen is to obey laws. To knowingly disobey a law, is anti-social. Simple and factual as that.
Where would we be as a society, if we all decided what laws we wanted to follow, and which ones we wanted to ignore? It would be chaos.
It has nothing to do with Authoritarian thinking, but a method for protecting society from itself.
I have all along in this debate, believed there are ways to remove bad laws from the books. So long as the impact of that action, does not hurt society or it’s members. And the impact upon society today of illegal use of controlled substance, is the same as it has been throughout history. Any competent sociologist or psychologist will point that out.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 8:46 am
Observer you are such a tire to debate with, as you seem incapable of following logical thought. It’s the quality of laws that we follow. We are entitled to scrutinize those laws that we follow. We are not mindless and obedient. We should be thinking, logical and rational human beings. I have found an inconsistency in our roadmap, and I wish to have it fixed. And when marijuana is legalized down the road, will you still be calling on everyone to obediently follow the law? Or will you because of personal reasons, call on people to disobey the law because you find it unjust and distasteful in your world view and opinion?
I’ve been through this “blind allegiance” to the law bit with you before. I’ve told you, that when the laws are incorrect or unjust, hypocritical or unfair, they need to be disobeyed and changed. I’m doing my best to obey the law while working to change it, because I myself don’t like to break laws. But what I dislike more, is to follow corrupt or illogical ones. marijuana prohibition is illogical and corrupt.
I think you’re envious of me, because of my ability to see-through authoritarianism to find a more true and fair reality. You’ve been taught to follow the leader, and rulers, and laws as they’ve been handed down…and I’ve worked hard at exercising my own discrimination, and critical thinking skills to weigh what seems truly right, beyond the decrees and edicts.
It may not be too late for you Observer. You may yet be able to differentiate between what is good and true and what is false and corrupt. Keep working at it. I’ll be here as a guide if you wish.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 9:27 am
“I think you’re envious of me, because of my ability to see-through authoritarianism to find a more true and fair reality. You’ve been taught to follow the leader, and rulers, and laws as they’ve been handed down…and I’ve worked hard at exercising my own discrimination, and critical thinking skills to weigh what seems truly right, beyond the decrees and edicts.”
Envious? Hardly! My adult life has been spent on observing others, examining society, indeed what works, and what does not. Examining what illegal drug use has had on society, through Mothers work in several Youth Commissions and church groups.
For example. Dr. Rosenburg of the University of Chicago, over the past five decades has examined this part of society, and it’s impact with other notable experts in the field. He has shared this over the years with listeners to his program, and offered insights from a pure behavioral standpoint.
Of these conversations, none struck me more than the observation that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. That every action in society, has some sort of reaction. That our laws are a balance of freedom and protections, and result from a need in society.
Ever law I have ever read, has been based in logic. Most every court decision I have read, extended the logic and meaning of the law, and proved their effect upon society to limit anti-social behavior.
I find much logic in law, far away from personal desires. I remind myself in all cases, what is good for not myself, but the whole, with all the associated dynamics involved. And it is based upon the good of the whole, that the observation of law be upheld.
Again, our founders provided us with the means to make laws through Legislature, and quash inconsistent laws through our Judicial. It is a concept that has stood the test of time and trial.
the real anonymous
June 23, 2012 at 7:14 am
P.L. I don’t give a hoot if someone smokes a joint. But I have a problem with substances that alter the mind so badly that a man would eat another man’s face. I also have a huge problem with crack and cocaine that people are killing other people for. When you support drugs and think drugs are okay, you are just contributing the moral decay of our society. Meth is North Iowa is a huge problem, and NO it’s not okay for people to use it, manufacture it, or sell it. You appear to be a very disturbed person. If you don’t have anything worthy to contribute except your own warped logic for why you use drugs, then maybe you should keep your comments to yourself.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 8:53 am
Here’s my strategy and approach for this. It differs sharply with what is being done now. First, I would completely legalize all drugs and allow for their sale and manufacture through regulated legitimate channels. Second, I would increase public awareness about these substances and what they truly do to the body and at what doses. Third, I would increase testing capabilities for law enforcement to know accurately and quickly who was on what substance in the field. Fourth, I would increase legal penalties for having committed crimes while under the influence of substances…including tobacco and alcohol, and caffeine, and stimulants found in such products as Red Bull and Clone…as well as sugar…since all of these substances alter the behavior and mood of humans. Fifth, I would increase treatment centers for people to get off of these substances.
My approach would render the drug issue inconsequential in about 10 years. Conversely, their approach is not working and never will work, other than to continue the cycle of cops and druggies, and increased money for law enforcement and prisons, which feeds the prison industrial movement. They have no real interest in solving the drug issue, because frankly, they make too much money for it, and they are granted too much intrusion into people’s lives which law enforcement is loathe to relinquish.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 7:06 am
“Like a good German who efficiently finds use for every moment of the day …..the use of drugs, or to experience pleasure of a euphoric nature, is thought to be detrimental to the utilitarian purpose the German Workers Party assigned human beings.”
I find your constant use of Nazi Germany to issues and conflicts today, quite prejudicial. What happened in Nazi Germany in the 1940′s, is a mere blip in the history of German peoples. Such pandering has become with you, almost obsession.
While growing up, I saw no Nazi types in the German neighborhood. I saw hard working people who came to this country to make better of themselves. Proud of their traditions, and heritage, yet willing to become Americans at all costs. Hundreds, nay thousands of families in those neighborhoods. There were no death camps there. And they did not hate Jews. And when the call went out to protect our country, their country, they stepped forward and served this country with valor and bravery.
Aunt Leora was one of those thousands of German’s who lived in America that gave their life for the good of the U.S. against those whould stifle freedom. To lump all Germans into the Nazi regime “Like a good German who…..” is a form of racism.
I get the distinct feeling that you would hold Senator Douglas in high praise for limiting self government of all people because of race. And you call yourself freedom loving?
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 8:57 am
Nazi Germany existed not too long ago, and is key to understanding fascist and dictatorial thought as well as crowd and mind control. Germans were known for their uber efficiency and work ethic, to the point that non useful behaviors were persecuted via work camps and often death. It is still the most useful gauge we have to measure behavior with, and has shaped much of our thinking and government, still to this day. It was hardly a blip on the radar. It had serious and millenia long consequences.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 9:38 am
This is your exact words Peter: “Like a good German who efficiently finds use for every moment of the day…….”.
You did not discern anything about that “good German” being a Nazi, you just said, “good German”, meaning all Germans. In that, you are wrong. It implies all Germans throughout history, as I clearly pointed out. The Nazi regime existed in a minuscule period of the total timeline of the history of Germany.
What you wrote, and how you wrote it in the article is racisim, pure and simple.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 11:19 am
Prejudice towards a Nation of people perhaps…but race implies the entire caucasian whole…which undoubtedly the Germanic peoples are included along with the French, British, Scandinavian…of which they were enemies during the War 2.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 6:41 am
“I feel that fundamentally, in accordance with true ideals of liberty and freedom, governments shouldn’t be telling people what they can put into their bodies.
It’s ultimately a freedom of commerce and consumption issue.”
Our Government has been doing it for close to a century. It does regulate what we put in our bodies, to protect society as a whole. From Opium and Hashish Parlours in New York, to snake oil salesmen selling poisonous patent medicines. That was in the form of the pure food and drug act of 1906. Later, International treaties would give further impetus towards regulation of harmful substances.
The founders knew, as well as others throughout the several centuries, that freedom had to come at a price. That price in part, was limitations of anti-social behavior. It was pointed out that those limitations were good for the growing country, and it’s groups of people.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 6:51 am
Here you go again with your typecasting. “Anti-social behavior”? You’re assuming that people who use cannabis or illegal drugs exhibit anti-social behaviors. many times, its quite the opposite. one loses inhibitions, much like in a bar drinking alcohol, but in a more controlled manner. That also pisses off the powers that be…that people would have the audacity to behave in a manner that was altered, yet controlled. They would prefer you to be a sloppy drunk so you can pass out and get up the next morning, make bad spending decisions with your money, and be forced to show back up to your crappy job. A person on “drugs”, has the potential to use their minds in specialized and creative ways…to choose and make their own destinies beyond the power authoritarian structure that seeks to enslave and control them. It’s all about control in this game Observer, and you know it. The last thing a slavemaster wants, is for the slaves to wake up and realize they possess freewill…freewill, OUTSIDE, of the narrow parameters the hegemonical masters have outlined for them.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 5:46 am
“The reason people have honed in on some substances to outlaw, is because certain segments of the population have found that some substances in the myriad millions of available agents, produce altered states of being, often in a pleasurable or psychedelic way, without being overtly or patently toxic.”
This is the very essence of our disagreement. That drug, was thought of as a poison and narcotic. When one examines the person or persons who use it, you will find a proclivity to break the law for their own pleasure, despite societal norms. This is anti-social behavior.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 6:40 am
Proclivity to break the law? If the law is stupid and makes no sense, or is unfair…then yes, I’m sure a drug user will disregard it. After all, who wants to follow an untrue doctrine or decree? But mostly I believe you are referring to crimes of economic nature…such as burglary, and theft…some of which addicts are sadly pre-disposed to…not all…but some. However, this only applies to the most depraved and down and out persons. Many people use marijuana and maintain jobs and go about their day in society and you would never know of their use…because they are not the depraved, addict criminal lunatic you paint them to be. I’m not going to entirely candy coat drugs…they can put you into extremely pinpointed poignant states of being, where every moment appears to be of monumental importance. For some, who have troubled circumstances, this can lead to explosions and loss of inhibition. The normal check valves of fear basically, are dissolved, and that’s where trouble can begin.
My remedy for this is to encourage honesty from the beginning, and to dissolve all unclean relationships, as well as increase harmony of environmental circumstances. If you live in a cruddy industrial zone, where noise and air pollution abounds…the drugs will only intensify what you already know…and the horror of your reality will magnify.
In my opinion, some drug use, can actually improve the overall nature of reality, by heightening the senses of humans, enough so they will get off their duffs and actually make changes to their realities in a positive way. For me, my olfactory and visual senses are heightened during marijuana use, and its natural that I would want a clean and aesthetically pure environment. Noises from the road and vehicles are most obnoxious and problematic. But for dumbed down ignorant beer swilling, unsensitive creeps…loud vehicles amplify their disdain and hatred for the world and their own lives. They use their loud tailpipes to exact revenge for terrible home and work lives.
Abuse screws a lot of things up. Sometimes getting someone stoned is the only option to reverse their ways.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 7:53 am
“Proclivity to break the law? If the law is stupid and makes no sense, or is unfair…then yes, I’m sure a drug user will disregard it.”
And any psychotic who thinks the laws against murder is unfair or makes no sense, will disregard it. Right? But, that does not provide any justification for the action of murder, or in this case, illegal drug use.
In both cases, they are behaviors of a narcissistic person, who cares not for the rest of the people around them.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 5:26 am
“Let me repeat what I’ve written: Governments, in their ideal form act as advisors.”
Given real human nature Peter, there must be limitations. Without those limitations, society can not, and will not function! That is a fact of life Peter, like it or not. And it is a conclusion great thinkers have come to, when it comes to American society. Not some make-believe land, nor some utopia, but real societies that function and prosper.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 6:16 am
I disagree. We are either a free people or we are not a free people. We cannot have our lives micro-managed from the cradle to the grave, and call ourselves free. Furthermore, if limitations are to be imposed, then they should be imposed in a fair and un-hypocritical way. Alcohol tolerated but marijuana not? Psyche drugs pushed, but marijuana criminalized. You have to maintain consistency if you are going to start with the Big Brother bit, otherwise people like me are going to call bullshit. Authoritarians don’t think of such things do they? No, to an authoritarian, it doesn’t matter if their argument is logical, fair, or sound…they simply assume that you MUST be following their every order, law and decree. I insist on living under a fair and logical system…and you should to, if you cherish freedom and rationale thinking to prevail over hypocrisy, and tyranny.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 8:48 am
You have no idea how society works Peter. Society is about the whole, all members. It examines what works for the whole, and what does not. And yes, I will admit, it is a constant evolution. Yet, basic foundations in a thriving and successful society, will not change.
Every founder admitted that without virtue, honesty, and morals, no society could, or would survive. These are the basis for limitations on behaviors in society.
anonymous
June 23, 2012 at 9:44 am
What great morals those slave owning founders had.If you weren’t a male white land owner you had no rights. The massacre of native Americans and stealing of their land even after the supreme court ruled in their favor. Passing laws in the south that discriminate against people of color. This country has a history of passing laws not for the good of society but the good of the powerful and the wealthy.
Observer
June 23, 2012 at 10:25 am
Did it pass your notice, that laws were passed, or found unconstitutional because of the system of government those Founders laid out? They even admitted their imperfections. Yet it is their model, their making that led us to correcting wrongs in society.
There were many corrections made that men had the courage to stand for. Emancipation Proclamation, The Sherman Antitrust Act, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia are but a few.
Why after the Constitution was passed, did they feel a need to add the Bill of Rights and other Amendments? They did the right things, and continue to do so as history points out.
Peter L
June 23, 2012 at 11:12 am
Observer this is why it’s important to continue with a long line of corrections, and reverse the incorrect drug policy which has been proven to not work over the decades. You’re actually confirming your own statements.