or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Milton Friedman: Legalize It!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Milton Friedman: Legalize It! - Page 9

post #321 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
None of your arguments are compelling. The war on drugs is a failure, and you say "pour in more money, maybe then it will start working".

If the drug czar was a CEO, he would be sacked by the board. The business plan for the war on drugs is a bad one, they are guarenteed to fail, no matter how much you spend.

How about we compare the current admin with the previous.

I've been in Congress over two decades, and I have never, never, never found any administration thats been so silent on this great challenge (illegal drugs) to the American people." - Charles Range, Democrat

Clinton made seven addresses, not one mentioned drugs. Of 1,628 presidential statements drugs were mentioned 13 times.

When he took office he cut White House Office of Drug Control Policy by 80% and cut DEA agents and training.

His National Security Council dropped the war on drugs from THIRD priority to last - 29th out of 29.

Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, criticized minimum mandatory jail sentences for drug crimes.

Clinton's Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, called for studying the legalization of drugs.

Under Clinton between 1993 and 1994, the number of aircraft and ships devoted to drug interdiction was cut in half.

Perhaps the war on drugs is failing because if this steller effort... perhaps? No of course not.
post #322 of 368
And there it is. "But, Bill Clinton!"
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #323 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
And there it is. "But, Bill Clinton!"

More like "and Bill Clinton"...

But the war on drugs has been going for a while now over many administrations, it is only fair to compare performance. After all, criticizing our government when it fails and speaking out is the true sense of patriotism. Isn't that the premise behind most threads here?

So Bill C. is off limits to such patriotic criticism?

Say it aint so, Johnny, say it aint so...
post #324 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You will never hear me fight against smaller less intrusive government.

This strikes me as absurd. If it was true, you would not fight against total legalization of drugs and related business.
post #325 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
This strikes me as absurd. If it was true, you would not fight against total legalization of drugs and related business.

Indeed. I pointed out in another thread that NaplesX only thinks he's a libertarian-ish conservative. His political leanings are really very much toward something else.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #326 of 368
OK Naples, I'll bite:

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
How about we compare the current admin with the previous.

where, precisely in all of this is your comparison of the current admin?

Quote:
I've been in Congress over two decades, and I have never, never, never found any administration thats been so silent on this great challenge (illegal drugs) to the American people." - Charles Range, Democrat

I think you mean Charles Rangel, the Democratic congressman from NY. And, um, OK. Clinton didn't talk about drugs in his addresses. Maybe that's because the War on Drugs, which of course his administration inherited from Those Administrations Which Shall Not Be Named, is a total crock of shit and has been an abysmal failure.

Quote:
Clinton made seven addresses, not one mentioned drugs. Of 1,628 presidential statements drugs were mentioned 13 times.

So Clinton talked a lot and didn't talk about drugs in his national addresses. OK. Here's what's fun. Compare, for instance, the number of times Clinton talked about terrorism in his second term to the number of times the Bush admin did in his first. I think you'll be surprised.

Quote:
When he took office he cut White House Office of Drug Control Policy by 80% and cut DEA agents and training.

So you're against balanced budgets and smaller gummit. I get it.

Quote:
His National Security Council dropped the war on drugs from THIRD priority to last - 29th out of 29.

I'm astonished that the NSC has the war on drugs that high. In a world with global terrorism, you want the efforts of our NSC focusing on kids smoking a doobie?

Quote:
Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, criticized minimum mandatory jail sentences for drug crimes.

There is nothing wrong with Reno doing something that was right.

Quote:
Clinton's Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, called for studying the legalization of drugs.


OK. Elders, of course, didn't last long after that.

Quote:
Under Clinton between 1993 and 1994, the number of aircraft and ships devoted to drug interdiction was cut in half.

Great! Smaller gummit!

Why do you keep wanting a big, intrusive, expansive gummit, Naples?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #327 of 368
Quote:
But the war on drugs has been going for a while now over many administrations

Exactly - the Clinton administration expanded the war on drugs, according an article I read in reason magazine.

That should not surprise you. The democrats suck - they are just as bad as the republicans with this kind of stuff. Just because both parties support something does not make it a good thing to support.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #328 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. I pointed out in another thread that NaplesX only thinks he's a libertarian-ish conservative. His political leanings are really very much toward something else.

The libertarian party is in favor of drug legalisation:

http://www.lp.org/issues/relegalize.shtml

Naples - I don't think that you are a libertarian (on this and most other issues)
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #329 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Exactly - the Clinton administration expanded the war on drugs, according an article I read in reason magazine.

That should not surprise you. The democrats suck - they are just as bad as the republicans with this kind of stuff. Just because both parties support something does not make it a good thing to support.

Quote the article. He did nothing on the war on drugs, nada.
post #330 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
OK Naples, I'll bite:

where, precisely in all of this is your comparison of the current admin?

This whole thread is supposedly about the action by this admin. But if you must:

EDIT: Forgot to put the link in.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Drugs.htm

There's 25 quotes - do the math. There's more if you still feel the need to further this.



Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I think you mean Charles Rangel, the Democratic congressman from NY. And, um, OK. Clinton didn't talk about drugs in his addresses. Maybe that's because the War on Drugs, which of course his administration inherited from Those Administrations Which Shall Not Be Named, is a total crock of shit and has been an abysmal failure.

Sure that could be the reason, just as much as the reason the WoD is failing is because of Clinton's actions.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
So Clinton talked a lot and didn't talk about drugs in his national addresses. OK. Here's what's fun. Compare, for instance, the number of times Clinton talked about terrorism in his second term to the number of times the Bush admin did in his first. I think you'll be surprised.

You are attempting to derail. Let's just stick with drugs for now. You are welcome to open another thread on that, I will be happy do discuss that.



Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
So you're against balanced budgets and smaller gummit. I get it.

I'm astonished that the NSC has the war on drugs that high. In a world with global terrorism, you want the efforts of our NSC focusing on kids smoking a doobie?

There is nothing wrong with Reno doing something that was right.

OK. Elders, of course, didn't last long after that.

Great! Smaller gummit!

Why do you keep wanting a big, intrusive, expansive gummit, Naples?

Here is why legalizing won't make smaller "gummit":

1. Legalizing drugs is not going to magically get the government out of our lives. It will be yet another avenue for taxes and regulation.

2. Campaign Corruption. Many politicians are owned by Big tobacco, Just extrapolate that for with Big Pot. Perhaps you will say it is happening now, well just think how bad it will be if MJ is legal

3 There will have to be new laws for minors. Cigarettes and alcohol cannot be sold to minors, and can anyone realistically say that drugs will not be restricted from minors? Thusly, new laws regulating the selling to minors for each and every drug that is legalized will be needed.

4. Lawsuits. Just look at the tobacco industry - Notice all the laws and regulation involved in selling tobacco. Legalizing drugs means MORE REGULATION, MORE ENFORCEMENT, MORE "GUMMIT", higher taxes, more bureaucracy, and higher insurance rates.

5. Rehab programs. The government will be forced to pay for rehab facilities, even more so than now. More "Gummit"
post #331 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Here is why legalizing won't make smaller "gummit":

1. Legalizing drugs is not going to magically get the government out of our lives. It will be yet another avenue for taxes and regulation.

2. Campaign Corruption. Many politicians are owned by Big tobacco, Just extrapolate that for with Big Pot. Perhaps you will say it is happening now, well just think how bad it will be if MJ is legal

3 There will have to be new laws for minors. Cigarettes and alcohol cannot be sold to minors, and can anyone realistically say that drugs will not be restricted from minors? Thusly, new laws regulating the selling to minors for each and every drug that is legalized will be needed.

4. Lawsuits. Just look at the tobacco industry - Notice all the laws and regulation involved in selling tobacco. Legalizing drugs means MORE REGULATION, MORE ENFORCEMENT, MORE "GUMMIT", higher taxes, more bureaucracy, and higher insurance rates.

5. Rehab programs. The government will be forced to pay for rehab facilities, even more so than now. More "Gummit"

1. Full deregulation would cause unequivocally smaller government. You are obviously not supporting that, even if you previously claimed to.
If drugs are subject to normal sales taxes and nothing else, that adds no more complexity and expense to the system than a new kind of lemonade on the store shelf.
2. Politicians are "owned" by every sort of business now. You could use the exact same argument against *any* new business, whether brought about by deregulation, advancement of technology, or social change. Biotechnology can potentially grow to be a big business? That would be bad, since they can then start lobbying... horseshit. If there is a problem I suggest looking at the voting system and why it is so expensive to just get in the race.
3. Worst case, take every law that says "tobacco products" and replace with "tobacco and marihuana products". Done.
Better yet, remove a bunch of those laws instead of rewriting.
4. You say that like it's a given. No. There is only as much legislation and regulation as the lawmakers are allowed to write. If there have been a lot of civil suits around tobacco lately, so what? Those are between people, the government does not factor in that.
5. Are rehab programs for smokers a big money sink right now? Well, the War on Drugs certainly is, with the zillion people sitting in jail. Have you any idea how expensive that is? Somehow, most other countries on earth manage with a lot smaller part of population in jail.
post #332 of 368
"conservatives" like Naples are very much against government interference and regulation.

Oh - except when they want the government to force their morality on everyone else.

NaplesX and Carrie Nation - what a pair they'd make!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #333 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
That should not surprise you. The democrats suck - they are just as bad as the republicans with this kind of stuff. Just because both parties support something does not make it a good thing to support.

Ultimately, it's the voters who suck. Most voters, frankly, are too stucking fupid to separate the idea "Drugs are bad!" from the actual consequences of trying to enforce drug laws. It's more important for the law to reflect their moral stance than it is for the law to be effective.

You simply cannot win elections in this country by running on a drug decriminalization or legalization platform. So far the scope of the failure of the war on drugs and all of the damage it has caused still hasn't risen to the level where it outweighs the gloriously smug feeling of patting yourself on the back and saying, "Yep, we're tough on drugs, and we're tough on crime!".
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #334 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
"conservatives" like Naples are very much against government interference and regulation.

Oh - except when they want the government to force their morality on everyone else.

NaplesX and Carrie Nation - what a pair they'd make!

NaplesX is not a conservative. At all.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #335 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have smoked [pot] before

have you been to jail for it? i'd genuinely like to know, particularly any reason you may have if you haven't gone.

Quote:
\tVisits to emergency rooms by drug

1. Cocaine was involved in 125,921 ED visits, or 20 percent of all drug-related ED visits.
2. Marijuana was involved in 79,663, or nearly 13 percent, of all drug-related ED visits.
3. Heroin was involved in 47,604, or nearly 8 percent, of all drug-related ED visits.
4. Stimulants, including amphetamines and methamphetamine, were involved in 42,538, or nearly 7 percent of all drug-related ED visits.
5. Stimulants, including amphetamines and methamphetamine, were involved in 42,538, or nearly 7 percent of all drug-related ED visits.

That makes pot #2 on this most dangerous drugs list.

looks specious. (as a matter of curiousity, whats 'ED' stand for?) i'm also curious how this list was compiled. is this a list of drugs that people had traces of when they visited, or were they the major cause of the incident relating to the emergency room visit? if pot is merely a drug people tested positive for when going to the ER, then its not really a measure of the drug's danger, is it?

i'd be interested to hear how many people smoke pot and never go to the hospital. i know that stastic isn't known, but it certainly would be interesting, wouldn't it? with that we could say something like of X people using pot, 79k ended up in the hospital for it. if it was truly a significant portion of pot smokers, that'd prove to me that pot was strongly related to going to the hospital (and then maybe i'd consider it dangerous).

as for the nyt/nypd bit: i find it hard to believe that dealers who only sell marijuana own submachine guns. so, is it the pot that's making them so damned violent? how come you didn't buy a machine guy and kill people when you smoked pot, Naples? How come I haven't? Pot isn't the danger factor there, the trading of illegal goods is. (Hint: When its not illegal, the people trading the goods can be governed.)
post #336 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
have you been to jail for it? i'd genuinely like to know, particularly any reason you may have if you haven't gone.

I am not sure what exactly you mean... I will attempt to answer though.

I was arrested once for steeling a shirt from Sears, my sophomore year of HS. I don't know why I did it. I bought a few joints from my cousin, and smoked one right before I went to school. During lunch I went to the nearby mall, as a lot of kids did, but found myself wandering throughout the mall. I saw a shirt that I liked and took it, despite having $50 bucks in my wallet. The shirt cast $15 or something. I was charged with steeling and possession of MJ. I had to go to a rehab, since it was my first offense. I learned my lesson and didn't touch another drug till I was out of HS.

Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
looks specious. (as a matter of curiousity, whats 'ED' stand for?) i'm also curious how this list was compiled. is this a list of drugs that people had traces of when they visited, or were they the major cause of the incident relating to the emergency room visit? if pot is merely a drug people tested positive for when going to the ER, then its not really a measure of the drug's danger, is it?

i'd be interested to hear how many people smoke pot and never go to the hospital. i know that stastic isn't known, but it certainly would be interesting, wouldn't it? with that we could say something like of X people using pot, 79k ended up in the hospital for it. if it was truly a significant portion of pot smokers, that'd prove to me that pot was strongly related to going to the hospital (and then maybe i'd consider it dangerous).

as for the nyt/nypd bit: i find it hard to believe that dealers who only sell marijuana own submachine guns. so, is it the pot that's making them so damned violent? how come you didn't buy a machine guy and kill people when you smoked pot, Naples? How come I haven't? Pot isn't the danger factor there, the trading of illegal goods is. (Hint: When its not illegal, the people trading the goods can be governed.)

ED i think stands for Emergency Department. I don't know all the details, but you are free to perform some research, if you dare.

I provided the link, NIDA has tons of info.
post #337 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
But it will not stop the current problem. You know it. That's the real issue here, how to best protect our youth.

Does anyone care about kids anymore, or are we all just concerned with getting our buzz on?

I am disgusted with humanity after this thread.

do you drink? Pot is no worse than liquor. In fact, liquor's worse. and legal.
post #338 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
do you drink? Pot is no worse than liquor. In fact, liquor's worse. and legal.

So what? Kids need not be exposed to either. You are trying to tell me just because liquor is legal, that pot should also be?

That is a week argument. It would make more sense if you said "they should make liquor illegal because pot is", don't ya think?
post #339 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
So what? Kids need not be exposed to either. You are trying to tell me just because liquor is legal, that pot should also be?

That is a week argument. It would make more sense if you said "they should make liquor illegal because pot is", don't ya think?

nope. making liquor illegal was a disaster. Pot should be legalized and let law enforcement concentrate on the real problems.

In NY, I think pot should be mandatory. Might calm some of the obnoxious fuckers down a little.
post #340 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am not sure what exactly you mean... I will attempt to answer though...

well, quite honestly, i didn't expect that you had been caught. its pretty rare to get caught your first time. i was trying to set you up as a hypocrite, where clearly i'm mistaken.

its pretty surprising, to me, that you have tried marijuana, presumably have been under its effects, and are still so opposed. or that you would infer that its dangerous.

Quote:
So what? Kids need not be exposed to either. You are trying to tell me just because liquor is legal, that pot should also be?

That is a week argument. It would make more sense if you said "they should make liquor illegal because pot is", don't ya think?

they way i think of it is: alcohol is legal, pot is not. most people would agree that alcohol should be legal for {insert reasons here}. i think pot should be legal, for the same reasons i think alcohol should remain legal. because although it can be dangerous, and infact is at times, the danger isn't that great. reasonable adults (and i like to think most adults are reasonable people) can drink alcohol and be in control, not cause crime, continue to support their families and advance in their jobs. pot smokers can too. and i believe that alcohol is more dangerous to america in general than marijuana, and the lesser danger of the two should be legal if only one must be.

also, the comparison to alcohol inevitably brings up prohibition. the pro pot camp attempts to compare the failed prohibition on alcohol with the continuing prohibition on marijuana. we feel the marijuana prohibition should fail for similar reasons (well, pot smokers aren't the vast majority of the country like drinkers are. its not quite in our culture like that. but we are a pretty large number). if we could make that comparison stick, it'd be easier for our cause.
post #341 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
well, quite honestly, i didn't expect that you had been caught. its pretty rare to get caught your first time. i was trying to set you up as a hypocrite, where clearly i'm mistaken.

its pretty surprising, to me, that you have tried marijuana, presumably have been under its effects, and are still so opposed. or that you would infer that its dangerous.

In my case, the Pot had a direct effect on my mental ability. I stole a shirt I could have easily paid for! There is no other explanation for it. I didn't have a history of thievery before that or since. If you think the pot had no effect on that, I would love to hear an explanation.

After HS I became known locally for some of the HotRods I built and my overall ability in that area. I became involved in a meth dealer friend that had a ton of cars, another friend got involved deeply and me somewhat so. Anyway, we used to go to party's and either drink or smoke pot or both until we were wasted, I mean wasted. We would then do a couple lines of meth and start over.

I can tell you first hand the effects of Pot, alcohol and meth, coke, and an accidental rendezvous with acid, since I have experienced them all. Each one is dangerous. Sufficed to say I have observed a wide variety of drug users of all levels of use.

I will tell you this, drug users need others to justify what they do. I have observed countless times when a pot user or users will seek out those that are merely alcohol users to introduce them to pot. Likewise right up the chain. I've seen it any number of parties and casual drug use situations.

Even though I got sucked into that world I quickly observed that it would lead nowhere good and cat all ties to it. Thus my stance now.
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
they way i think of it is: alcohol is legal, pot is not. most people would agree that alcohol should be legal for {insert reasons here}. i think pot should be legal, for the same reasons i think alcohol should remain legal. because although it can be dangerous, and infact is at times, the danger isn't that great. reasonable adults (and i like to think most adults are reasonable people) can drink alcohol and be in control, not cause crime, continue to support their families and advance in their jobs. pot smokers can too. and i believe that alcohol is more dangerous to america in general than marijuana, and the lesser danger of the two should be legal if only one must be.

also, the comparison to alcohol inevitably brings up prohibition. the pro pot camp attempts to compare the failed prohibition on alcohol with the continuing prohibition on marijuana. we feel the marijuana prohibition should fail for similar reasons (well, pot smokers aren't the vast majority of the country like drinkers are. its not quite in our culture like that. but we are a pretty large number). if we could make that comparison stick, it'd be easier for our cause.

Alcohol is illegal in a number of ways:

1. No-one under 21 can drink it. Some states it's 18.

2. You cannot drink and then operate a vehicle or heavy equipment. You face legal and civil court action if you do.

3. You cannot sell or give Alcohol to those who are underage.

I for one feel alcohol is the gateway drug and should be further restricted.
post #342 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
In my case, the Pot had a direct effect on my mental ability. I stole a shirt I could have easily paid for! There is no other explanation for it. I didn't have a history of thievery before that or since. If you think the pot had no effect on that, I would love to hear an explanation.

i'm only speculating, but well, perhaps it was a coincidence. based on my experience, and that communicated by my friends, pot doesn't seem to encourage theft. i imagine it made you dopey, and you didn't think out your actions. i don't know the whole story; maybe you were holding the shirt nonchalantly, and hadn't noticed you were holding it until a security gaurd stopped you? i wasn't there, i'm only guessing what the situation was fully like. but i don't think your shirt grabbing is indicative of a trend or pattern among pot smokers.

Quote:
After HS I became known locally for some of the HotRods I built and my overall ability in that area. I became involved in a meth dealer friend that had a ton of cars, another friend got involved deeply and me somewhat so. Anyway, we used to go to party's and either drink or smoke pot or both until we were wasted, I mean wasted. We would then do a couple lines of meth and start over.

sounds like a ton of fun

Quote:
I can tell you first hand the effects of Pot, alcohol and meth, coke, and an accidental rendezvous with acid, since I have experienced them all. Each one is dangerous. Sufficed to say I have observed a wide variety of drug users of all levels of use.

well, just as you've witnessed or experienced some of those drugs dangers, i've managed to try them (well, not meth: haven't encountered it, nor had any inclination; and i haven't actually dropped acid, but i'm told its quite similar to mushrooms and other hallucinogens i've tried) without bad experiences. our ancedotal evidence seems to contradict, and thus we need better statistics.

Quote:
I will tell you this, drug users need others to justify what they do. I have observed countless times when a pot user or users will seek out those that are merely alcohol users to introduce them to pot. Likewise right up the chain. I've seen it any number of parties and casual drug use situations.

i don't think this is indicative of somethign intrinsic in marijuana; i think its in certain people's personality. i find i tend to be forceful at times when talking about computers (or Apple) in general with my friends. Do Apple users have a need to justify what they use? perhaps some of us do. Is this caused by the computers, or some innate trait? I'm inclined to believe its the latter.

Are non-smokers in general so weak willed that they cannot resist? Perhaps this is the real problem. We need everyone to start smoking so their minds won't be so easily overcome.

Quote:
Even though I got sucked into that world I quickly observed that it would lead nowhere good and cat all ties to it. Thus my stance now.

hmm. you'll be tougher to crack then if you're mind is already closed on the issue. Do you agree that some people may, from time to time, enjoy a drug without ill effect? Should these people, in a free society, be restricted from use?

Quote:
Alcohol is illegal in a number of ways:

1. No-one under 21 can drink it. Some states it's 18.

2. You cannot drink and then operate a vehicle or heavy equipment. You face legal and civil court action if you do.

3. You cannot sell or give Alcohol to those who are underage.

I for one feel alcohol is the gateway drug and should be further restricted.

these, i think, are all reasonable restrictions. well, i dont quite understand why the drinking age is 21 instead of 18; that bugged me for a long 3 years. and i'm fairly certain that every state in the union currently sets the age at 21, since that highway bill some years ago. and to #3, its legal in some circumstances (like at church receiving the sacrement of communion wine; or pop icons feeding it to little boys, but thats another issue altogether). perhaps it should be further restricted. i'm not sure exactly in what way, but it is pretty dangerous and causes lots of problems. If pot were legal to the point you could buy it over 21, at a licensed pot shop, and you were not allowed to drive home or operate heavy machinery until sober, would you still have a problem with it? How much restriction on pot do you think there should be?
post #343 of 368
meth is far worse than pot. Doing them both is just dumb.
I know many pot smokers and they are all nice, well adjusted people who do nothing else except for pot and social drinking.

Face it, people who have addictive personalities are going to do lots of different drugs, whether they ever try pot or not.
post #344 of 368
I will add this:

I would much rather be around someone who smokes pot than someone who drinks.
post #345 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
I will add this:

I would much rather be around someone who smokes pot than someone who drinks.

No Doubt about it.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #346 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Quote the article. He did nothing on the war on drugs, nada.

http://www.mapinc.org/newscfdp/v01/n087/a05.html?6793

Clinton was the most agressive drug-war president - so your hypothesis that the drug war was a failure because of him does not wash.

The drug war is a failure period, regardless of the president who persecuted it.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #347 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
http://www.mapinc.org/newscfdp/v01/n087/a05.html?6793

Clinton was the most agressive drug-war president - so your hypothesis that the drug war was a failure because of him does not wash.

The drug war is a failure period, regardless of the president who persecuted it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1030/

"To the extent that a president can and should keep the drug issue at a roiling boil in society at large, President Clinton has not done so."

Not exactly a stellar effort.

and also...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG989.cfm
post #348 of 368




From these figures it looks like Clinton got people to use Ecstasy and kids under 18 to use marijuana.

I heard he also got the country way more into blowjobs than it had previously ever been, but I couldn't find any statistics on that. I can say that for myself, I saw a 17000% increase in the number of blowjobs I got during the 1990s compared to the 1980s. So you take the good with the bad.
post #349 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell




From these figures it looks like Clinton got people to use Ecstasy and kids under 18 to use marijuana.

I heard he also got the country way more into blowjobs than it had previously ever been, but I couldn't find any statistics on that. I can say that for myself, I saw a 17000% increase in the number of blowjobs I got during the 1990s compared to the 1980s. So you take the good with the bad.

That first graph roughly follows population - there was a dip in childbirth inbetween two baby booms ("generation X" is the low-birth-rate generation).

NapleX - your article states that Clinton grew the drug war budget. The article makes a weak case for Clinton as "soft on drugs".
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #350 of 368
Look we can argue all day long about this, but common sense will tell us that making pot legal does not magically make all problem disappear. I think we all know that.

I don't really hang out with alcoholics or pat users. So I can't tell you which is better to be around. I don't really care. I have 3 kids that I need to protect from all dangerous substances, so if I were to make excuses for my "so-called" friends, I wouldn't be doing my job and setting a good example. After all, we teach most effectively by example.
post #351 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://slate.msn.com/id/1030/

"To the extent that a president can and should keep the drug issue at a roiling boil in society at large, President Clinton has not done so."

Not exactly a stellar effort.

and also...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG989.cfm

No - this is completely wrong. Please try to stifle your normal partisan reflex of blaming anything (everything?) "wrong" in today's world, on Clinton.

Clinton was anything BUT soft on drugs. You simply couldn't BE more wrong about this.

Quote:
The Drug War legacy of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush included property forfeiture, expanded police powers and a zero- tolerance policy, along with an expanded prison system to accommodate all those who bucked the law. President Bill Clinton inherited these. But when he first took office, many in the drug-policy-reform movement were optimistic that the man demonized by his right-wing opponents as an ex-hippie draft dodger would reverse this legacy.

Instead, doomed by his politically disastrous "I did not inhale" campaign line, he has cravenly allowed federal, state and local law enforcement to expand all the tools left to him. His record might be worse than those of Reagan or Bush.

In the Clinton years, police overreach in the name of the Drug War shredded much of what remained of the Bill of Rights. And those most frequently caught in its web were not the "drug kingpins" legislators claimed to be going after. Mothers, fathers, small-time dealers, medical-marijuana users and even children were caught in a criminal- justice system so overgrown no one is immune to the new powers Johnny Law uses to protect us from ourselves. And while much of the horror heaped on the American public has occurred at the state and local levels, the tenor of the times begins at the top-which places the responsibility squarely at Bill Clinton's feet.

When Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, the violent crack epidemic of the late 1980s was already subsiding. Nonetheless, the galloping expansion of police powers and the prison system didn't skip a beat, and law enforcement shifted to a new emphasis on marijuana. When Clinton entered office, the prison population-local, state and federal-was about 1.3 million. As he leaves, that number has ballooned to over 2 million, the highest rate of incarceration-as well as the highest total number behind bars-in a democratic state in the history of the world.

Nearly 60% of federal and 25% of state prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. Hundreds of new prisons have been built to accommodate them, giving rise to a prison-industrial complex that defies imagination. New drug courts and judges have been added to state and federal rosters; 100,000 new police, with their attendant paraphernalia-guns, cruisers, station houses and adjunct non- uniformed personnel-have been hired to search out small-time drug users; tens of thousands of jail and prison guards have been added to state and federal payrolls. There has not been such a boon to public construction since the Works Progress Administration of the 1930s. Our military and Drug Enforcement Administration forces overseas have exponentially expanded as well, particularly in Latin America. All of this has been an enormous help to booming Clinton's economy. The strategy was brilliantly devised: Increase incarceration by three- quarters of a million, add a couple of million workers to create and maintain the prison infrastructure, and voila! Lower unemployment and a healthier economy. And to help pay for it all, the Feds and states used a tool that became available only a few years before Clinton's inauguration: forfeiture.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #352 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look we can argue all day long about this, but common sense will tell us that making pot legal does not magically make all problem disappear. I think we all know that.

Well, by the same token, common sense, AND 25 years of a failed track record tell us that continuing the War On Drugs (especially the Marijuana Prohibition portion of it) is not going to "magically make all problems disappear" either.

What is it, that repeating something over and over and over again and expecting different results, is demonstrative of, again?

Prohibition of alcohol was a massive failure. Prohibition of marijuana is no different. A large percentage of the public smokes pot anyway, despite the legal risks, and despite the efforts to "educate" (read: "bamboozle with propaganda") our youth.

The war on drugs hasn't left us with less pot smokers. It's only left us with more "criminals".
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #353 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
So what? Kids need not be exposed to either [pot or liquor]. You are trying to tell me just because liquor is legal, that pot should also be?

Simple question for you: when you were a soph. in HS and bought some pot for the first time, would it have been easier, or harder, for you to purchase some alcohol instead?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #354 of 368
Quote:
Look we can argue all day long about this, but common sense will tell us that making pot legal does not magically make all problem disappear. I think we all know that.

It does not make ALL the problems disappear, but it does not make anything worse (as we saw from the alcohol prohibition in the 20s). Also, it DOES make the following problems disappear:

1. Massive profits for organised crime (and now terrorists).
2. Massive government expense for law enforcement
3. Massive government expense for prision space
4. Re-direction of law enforcement from violent crime to drug crime
5. Gang violence, for the most part
6. Addict crime (because they no longer need to get money, because the price of drugs drops dramatically)
7. Teens associating with criminals, because that is where they get their drugs

If you legalise drugs, you still have the following problems (unchanged in number and scope from now):

8. Teenagers getting access to drugs
9. Impared driving

Naples - you whole argument is based on these last two things getting worse after legalisation. I don't see how you can think that either would get worse, because anyone who wants MJ can get it now (at legal risk). I also don't see how you can ignore 1-7.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #355 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Boyoboy . . . the Stalinist analogy is fitting like a shirt today: it is well known that the 'triumph' of Stalinist Totalitarianism was that it managed to get Parents to turn in their kids, and kids to turn n their parents as 'enemies of the state'

hmmm?!?!

This is America's problem at the moment, Control freaks not knowing what they are doing. It doesnt matter if we are a talking about the Iraq War,Drugs,or Immigration. Everyone of the Govts policys on these issues are a Freaking F mess but the Neocons(Naplesx) shout for more! They arent interested in real results just more of their control being imposed on others and the "Appearence" of doing the right thing. And the Police State grows,grows and grows and we get the bill.
(edit) It is so past time to Fix all of these things for "Real" and we arent going to do it by holding onto Old Laws written 50-100 years ago. Time for new and innovative thinking.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #356 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
(unchanged in number and scope from now)

This little parenthetical statement is really the rub. Here are the current leading causes of death in the US:

tobacco: 435,000
obesity: 400,000
alcohol: 85,000
germs: 75,000
toxic agents: 55,000
cars: 43,000
guns: 29,000
STDs: 20,000
illegal drugs: 17,000

Legal drugs are the 1st and 3rd leading causes of death. Illegal drug use is barely on the radar. Legal drugs cause 30 times as many deaths as illegal ones. And that doesn't include all the social problems associated with alcohol use - it's well established that alcohol consumption is involved in many crimes and domestic violence and sexual assaults and all kinds of bad stuff that don't involve deaths.

In short, the drug war works: the effects of drugs that are illegal are much less harmful than the ones we are not at war with.

With that in mind, it's hard to see how making more drugs legal would be a good idea. And pot has the worst of both alcohol and tobacco: psychoactive effects like alcohol in addition to the respiratory effects of smoking.
post #357 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
This little parenthetical statement is really the rub. Here are the current leading causes of death in the US:

tobacco: 435,000
obesity: 400,000
alcohol: 85,000
germs: 75,000
toxic agents: 55,000
cars: 43,000
guns: 29,000
STDs: 20,000
illegal drugs: 17,000

Legal drugs are the 1st and 3rd leading causes of death. Illegal drug use is barely on the radar. Legal drugs cause 30 times as many deaths as illegal ones. And that doesn't include all the social problems associated with alcohol use - it's well established that alcohol consumption is involved in many crimes and domestic violence and sexual assaults and all kinds of bad stuff that don't involve deaths.

In short, the drug war works: the effects of drugs that are illegal are much less harmful than the ones we are not at war with.

With that in mind, it's hard to see how making more drugs legal would be a good idea. And pot has the worst of both alcohol and tobacco: psychoactive effects like alcohol in addition to the respiratory effects of smoking.

You are making a bunch of logical leaps here - in order to demonstrate that you are right, you need to prove the following (which you assumed to be true in your argument).

- MJ is a significant percentage of those 17K deaths
- MJ popularity would change with legalisation (alcohol did not change in popularity with legalisation)
- Even if popularity went up, deaths would probably go down due to corporate manufacture and quality controll.

Also, heroin has the addictiveness of Tobacco without the resporitory effects... maybe we should legalise it?

MJ is not addictive, unlike tobacco, and it is used much less frequently (heavy user = 1 pack MJ cigerettes per week, 28 packs of tobacco cigerettes per week), so the lung damange argument is bogus.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #358 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
(alcohol did not change in popularity with legalisation)

Again you pack a lot in your parentheses! Do some research on this. I think you'll find that alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related diseases, plummeted due to prohibition, and then rose back up again when prohibition was repealed.
post #359 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Again you pack a lot in your parentheses! Do some research on this. I think you'll find that alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related diseases, plummeted due to prohibition, and then rose back up again when prohibition was repealed.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4399/

The results of the experiment [prohibition] are clear: ...organized crime grew into an empire; ...disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance -- alcohol -- increased dramatically (McWilliams).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #360 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4399/

The results of the experiment [prohibition] are clear: ...organized crime grew into an empire; ...disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance -- alcohol -- increased dramatically (McWilliams).

Someone said that on the internet. But every serious historical or economic analysis of prohibition acknowledges the drop in use and health problems during that period. They usually try to explain it away somehow, but they at least acknowledge it.

Here's one by Miron, the same guy who published the study that Friedman endorsed in trumptman's first post in this thread. Here are two figures from that paper:




Miron then goes on to argue that prohibition didn't cause as big of a drop as it looks, or it was due to state rather than national laws, etc. etc. But at least he acknowledges the basic fact.

It's just basic economics: making something illegal provides disincentives to buy the product. There are penalties for getting caught. The price goes up. The quality goes down. To argue that making something illegal has no effect on consumption is just silly. Even the Miron report on marijuana that started this thread acknowledges that usage would probably go up under legalization, but they argue that would make the government even more money!

Quote:
This report assumes there would be no change in the demand for marijuana.[22] This assumption likely errs in the direction of understating the tax revenue from legalized marijuana, since the penalties for possession potentially deter some persons from consuming. But any increase in demand from legalization would plausibly come from casual users, whose marijuana use would likely be modest. Any increase in use might also come from decreased consumption of alcohol, tobacco or other goods, so increased tax revenue from legal marijuana would be partially offset by decreased tax revenue from other goods. And there might be a forbidden fruit effect from prohibition that tends to offset the demand decreasing effects of penalties for possession. Thus, the assumption of no change in demand is plausible, and it likely biases the estimated tax revenue downward.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Milton Friedman: Legalize It!