View Poll Results: Pick one!

Voters
139. You may not vote on this poll
  • Continue drug war

    11 7.91%
  • Legalize marijuana

    91 65.47%
  • Legalize it all!

    42 30.22%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 91

Thread: War on drugs.

  1. #21
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    583

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    I disagree. We've all known plenty of alcoholics who held down good jobs for years. Heavy pot users though are generally useless. This isn't just my prejudice. Alcohol is water soluble and a healthy person generally metabolizes it fairly quickly. THC is fat soluble and takes much longer to be filtered out of a healthy body. Heavy pot users often tend to be constantly impaired, while most alcoholics can be quite functional, even successful for much of their day.

    People rarely seem to consider the great desirability to the ruling class of an electorate that is largely mentally impaired, and what that means to the electorate itself.
    I'm sorry but you just have no idea of what you are talking about. No idea what so ever.

    You should watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta's special on CNN. He is a person that was just as ignorant on the subject as you are but then he decided to truly investigate.
    Everyone that either knows a heavy pot smoker or has been one, all will tell you that the impairing effect for them is essentially zero.
    The driving test on Dr. Gupta's investigative show also proved this.
    Heavy smokers driving ability was hardly affected. Whereas the moderate or light smoker's driving ability was clearly affected.
    He reached the conclusion that heavy medical marijuana users might should be exempted for laws concerning operating a vehicle while under the effects of marijuana.

    I can tell you for an absolute fact, that I would hire a heavy smoker over a drinker any day. And I would not hesitate to send them up a 40 foot ladder.
    If I even so much as suspect they have had 1 drink, I will send them home or keep them on the ground.
    The pot smokers come to work and stay at work. They stay focused.
    The alcoholics miss work, want to leave early, and wander off.
    When I find a painter hiding in a closet taking a nap, it is almost always a drinker.

    The impairment effect on someone that is a casual smoker is noticeable though. And could be a really big problem on dangerous job sites.
    This is also why people such as you, that have tried it once or twice, end up thinking it is an impairing drug. Logic would indicate that the more you smoke, the more impaired the person would be. And so your mind becomes set and hardened and you think you are right.
    But you are not right. You are very wrong.
    Finally a respectable Dr. such as Gupta has proven this as a fact.

  2. #22
    Guru
    sbrettt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Prospect park, PA
    Last Seen
    08-09-15 @ 07:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,724

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    I kind of agree with that and I kind of don't. Methadone programs get abused quite a bit.
    Well there's always going to be those people who abuse government programs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Should I be free to buy anthrax and a rocket launcher?
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    Is there a reason you shouldnt be free to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    Obamacare wants to put a chip inside people. There is a video of it on youtube.

  3. #23
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Painter View Post
    I'm sorry but you just have no idea of what you are talking about. No idea what so ever.

    You should watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta's special on CNN. He is a person that was just as ignorant on the subject as you are but then he decided to truly investigate.
    Everyone that either knows a heavy pot smoker or has been one, all will tell you that the impairing effect for them is essentially zero.
    The driving test on Dr. Gupta's investigative show also proved this.
    Heavy smokers driving ability was hardly affected. Whereas the moderate or light smoker's driving ability was clearly affected.
    He reached the conclusion that heavy medical marijuana users might should be exempted for laws concerning operating a vehicle while under the effects of marijuana.

    I can tell you for an absolute fact, that I would hire a heavy smoker over a drinker any day. And I would not hesitate to send them up a 40 foot ladder.
    If I even so much as suspect they have had 1 drink, I will send them home or keep them on the ground.
    The pot smokers come to work and stay at work. They stay focused.
    The alcoholics miss work, want to leave early, and wander off.
    When I find a painter hiding in a closet taking a nap, it is almost always a drinker.

    The impairment effect on someone that is a casual smoker is noticeable though. And could be a really big problem on dangerous job sites.
    This is also why people such as you, that have tried it once or twice, end up thinking it is an impairing drug. Logic would indicate that the more you smoke, the more impaired the person would be. And so your mind becomes set and hardened and you think you are right.
    But you are not right. You are very wrong.
    Finally a respectable Dr. such as Gupta has proven this as a fact.
    When I want to know about the latest advances in the war on toenail fungus, I'll see if Dr. Gupta has something to say, that is, after I've exhausted legitimate sources.

    I've been an EMT for decades now, and I'm quite confident that I know whereof I speak.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  4. #24
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Alcohol is one of the very few drugs in which death is a symptom of withdraw. And alcoholism is exceptionally destructive to both the victim and to his family. It leads to violence, abuse, betrayal, heart-break, prison, insanity and death. I still wouldn't want to outlaw it, because that would only create even more gang crime, but claiming that alcoholism is less destructive than a pot habit is greatly underestimating the destructive effects of alcoholism.

    I didn't claim that alcoholism is less destructive than pot use. But I do believe that were heavy pot use as common as heavy alcohol use, the cost would be greater to society as a whole than alcohol use.

    There are many reasons for this. One of the most important as I've said, is that constant heavy users tend to be constantly impaired. They also vote.

    I've seen way too many people who I knew spent most evenings and weekends drunk but held down high skill jobs for years and provided for their families, and too many pot head mothers that forget to feed, wash or dress the kids and who lived on Public Assistance to think otherwise.

    I ask you to reconsider, but this time, consider the effect not so much on the user, but the larger community he operates in.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  5. #25
    Guru
    sbrettt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Prospect park, PA
    Last Seen
    08-09-15 @ 07:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,724

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    I didn't claim that alcoholism is less destructive than pot use. But I do believe that were heavy pot use as common as heavy alcohol use, the cost would be greater to society as a whole than alcohol use.

    There are many reasons for this. One of the most important as I've said, is that constant heavy users tend to be constantly impaired. They also vote.

    I've seen way too many people who I knew spent most evenings and weekends drunk but held down high skill jobs for years and provided for their families, and too many pot head mothers that forget to feed, wash or dress the kids and who lived on Public Assistance to think otherwise.

    I ask you to reconsider, but this time, consider the effect not so much on the user, but the larger community he operates in.
    Do you have facts backing your claims up or are you basing your claims on personal experience?
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Should I be free to buy anthrax and a rocket launcher?
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    Is there a reason you shouldnt be free to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tothian View Post
    Obamacare wants to put a chip inside people. There is a video of it on youtube.

  6. #26
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,553
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: War on drugs.

    As another member has already stated, and I have in other related threads, the War on Drugs has only one winner: the criminal justice-prison industrial complex. There are many losers, not only among our citizens but our civil rights.

    The war has done almost nothing when it comes to reducing imports/home production, sales, use, and addiction. What it has done is generate billions in enforcement costs, and clogged up both the courts and prisons with people who should be in treatment programs or hospitals. It has also increased the number of citizens with criminal records which reduces their chances of employment, and also denies them educational advancement opportunities (ex. no access to government grants or loans; college applications denied).

    Meanwhile, citizens are forced to deal with more and more levels of all types of crime thanks to the growing black market value of illicit drugs. In addition, users face the dangers caused by impure dosages, which can lead to disability or death.

    All of this would be alleviated by legalization of all drugs. Yes, there would be an initial increase in use, just like after the end of Prohibition. This will inevitably level off over time due to honest education, advertising, treatment, and counseling programs; not to mention FDA monitoring of doses for legal sale.

    One other problem people seem to forget? Many of our precious civil and Constitutional rights have been curtailed as a direct result of the War on Drugs. We have asset forfeiture, roadblocks, stop & frisk, drug dog probable cause searches, drone overflights, and all sorts of other Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. Legalization will stop these and maybe allow us to roll some back as no longer necessary law enforcement tools.

    So I voted legalize all. The benefits outweight the costs.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 08-25-13 at 12:22 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  7. #27
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,858

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    Portugal and Spain have proven that decriminalizing small amounts of all drugs and implementing a harm reduction model not only restores lives, it saves the government major money and increases over all freedom of the people.

    Even with addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine, the crime rate is the result of withdrawls and lack of access. If many addicts had easier access to their drug of choice, they would be better able to seek rehab with a rational mind. And if they don't want rehab, then that's their choice, but they will still be held accountable for their actions by the law, their communities and their families.

    The DEA has too many over-reaching powers. They are the trojan horse that permits government to trample on our rights. There is no evidence that Reagan's war on drugs has meaningfully impacted drug use. All it has done is increased our prison population to the worst in the western world, and given the government too many opportunities to abuse power.
    Care to post any links to your claims? I'm finding a mixed bag including what NPR reported a year and a half ago. Certainly not a bastion of right winged agenda.

    When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse.
    Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment : NPR

  8. #28
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbrettt View Post
    Do you have facts backing your claims up or are you basing your claims on personal experience?
    Are you suggesting that personal experiences can't be factual?
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  9. #29
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,858

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Not so much "legalize it all", but at least "decriminalize it all". Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a law enforcement issue. There should be legal and safe means of acquiring hard narcotic drugs, even if they're tied to treatment.

    The "War on Drugs" is highly profitable, so that's not going to happen, but it's what ought to happen.
    Did it ever cross your mind how profitable it would be to the federal government and big business to decriminalize all drugs while addicting them to the substances knowing that they would certainly be return customers?

  10. #30
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,858

    Re: War on drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Painter View Post
    I'm sorry but you just have no idea of what you are talking about. No idea what so ever.

    You should watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta's special on CNN. He is a person that was just as ignorant on the subject as you are but then he decided to truly investigate.
    Everyone that either knows a heavy pot smoker or has been one, all will tell you that the impairing effect for them is essentially zero.
    The driving test on Dr. Gupta's investigative show also proved this.
    Heavy smokers driving ability was hardly affected. Whereas the moderate or light smoker's driving ability was clearly affected.
    He reached the conclusion that heavy medical marijuana users might should be exempted for laws concerning operating a vehicle while under the effects of marijuana.

    I can tell you for an absolute fact, that I would hire a heavy smoker over a drinker any day. And I would not hesitate to send them up a 40 foot ladder.
    If I even so much as suspect they have had 1 drink, I will send them home or keep them on the ground.
    The pot smokers come to work and stay at work. They stay focused.
    The alcoholics miss work, want to leave early, and wander off.
    When I find a painter hiding in a closet taking a nap, it is almost always a drinker.

    The impairment effect on someone that is a casual smoker is noticeable though. And could be a really big problem on dangerous job sites.
    This is also why people such as you, that have tried it once or twice, end up thinking it is an impairing drug. Logic would indicate that the more you smoke, the more impaired the person would be. And so your mind becomes set and hardened and you think you are right.
    But you are not right. You are very wrong.
    Finally a respectable Dr. such as Gupta has proven this as a fact.
    Actually Oftencold in more spot on then you are on this issue. He/she has made a valid attempt to show the adverse affects of marijuana and other drugs on society as a whole.

    In another thread on drugs I posted the following information

    Now about this whole argument about medical marijuana look no further than Ed Rosenthal and Richard Cowan to see how disingenuous arguments are used to advance a broader agenda.

    Rosenthal (former editor of High Times Magazine) and Cowan (former Director of NORML — the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) realized a long time ago that in order to achieve full legalization of marijuana throughout the United States, they would have to invent a “scam” (their words not mine) to get people to see marijuana in a whole new light. That “scam” was the passage of “medical marijuana” laws in as many states as possible. Don’t believe me? Then watch this video where they say exactly that.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ccjLM4-4U2k

    Yep the whole medical marijuana scenario is a scam just like the people pushing its legalization proclaim. And boy people sure hate it when they find out they've been lied to.
    The kitty is out of the bag. People are learning the truth about the whole medical marijuana "scam" is just that a scam. So while those who have been working tirelessly to shove legalization of 'medical marijuana' through a few states. It ain't going to be so easy the rest of the way because once people find out they have been used and lied to , it ain't going to fly.

    Oh and another thing, those who have passed laws for medical marijuana are finding an increase in the number of teenagers using the drug due to the dispersment stations close to schools. In their studies they also have found those kids who use it regularly are piss poor students. In just another couple of years, I'm sure we will start to see the adverse affects when the dropout rates rise in states like Colorado and Washington. Cheers!

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •