Wow. Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper has a guest column in The Seattle Times (originally published in the LA Times.) And… well… wow.
Sometimes people in law enforcement will hear it whispered that I’m a former cop who favors decriminalization of marijuana laws, and they’ll approach me the way they might a traitor or snitch. So let me set the record straight.
Yes, I was a cop for 34 years, the last six of which I spent as chief of Seattle’s police department.
But no, I don’t favor decriminalization. I favor legalization, and not just of pot but of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD.
This is an issue that has troubled me a lot recently… one on which my personal views have nearly travelled a full 360 degrees over the past twenty-five years.
I started from a quasi-libertarian position grounded in my personal experience of the relatively harmless recreational drug use that surrounded me in college (I myself smoked a little pot, but quickly outgrew the vice.) While a strong streak of uptight prudishness kept me clean, I had close friends who did a lot of illicit drugs. I didn’t approve — and I let them know it — but I understood at the time that a drug conviction would cause far more harm than the drugs themselves, resulting in expulsion if not imprisonment, and costing them all the privilege and opportunity that our Ivy League education afforded us.
Over time though, my stance hardened, perhaps out of concern over the destructive scourge of crack cocaine, maybe just out of a need for consistency with my strong views on restricting access to tobacco. I was never a huge supporter of the so-called “War on Drugs” and its focus on interdiction — and I’ve never understood our nation’s irrational demonization of marijuana — but I also didn’t favor outright legalization. That, it seemed to me, would be giving up on a very real public health crisis. While my college friends were lucky enough to dodge a life of addiction, many other drug users are not.
But… in recent years I’ve come back around to my original position, not out of any shift in my view on drugs, but out of sheer utilitarianism… as Stamper points out, prohibition simply does not work, and in fact causes more societal harm than it seeks to prevent.
It’s not a stretch to conclude that our Draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle on the construction of new facilities? Open the doors, let the nonviolent drug offenders go. The huge increases in federal and state prison populations during the 1980s and ’90s (from 139 per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 482 per 100,000 in 2003) were mainly for drug convictions. In 1980, 580,900 Americans were arrested on drug charges. By 2003, that figure had ballooned to 1,678,200. We’re making more arrests for drug offenses than for murder, manslaughter, forcible rape and aggravated assault combined. Feel safer?
I’ve witnessed the devastating effects of open-air drug markets in residential neighborhoods: children recruited as runners, mules and lookouts; drug dealers and innocent citizens shot dead in firefights between rival traffickers bent on protecting or expanding their markets; dedicated narcotics officers tortured and killed in the line of duty; prisons filled with nonviolent drug offenders; and drug-related foreign policies that foster political instability, wreak health and environmental disasters, and make life even tougher for indigenous subsistence farmers in places such as Latin America and Afghanistan. All because we like our drugs
If drugs were legal, all the cops, court workers and judges would be out of a job. No way they’d let that happen.
He is wrong.
Stamper makes a brave case, one that has been dismissed as “unserious” for decades (see any parallels here, Goldy?). Add to your list of costs the burden of the costs of prosecution and incarceration. Available evidence indicates there would be no “explosion” of drug use if they were legalized. The “war on drugs” is an abysmal failure as a social policy.
For you wingnuts: All those currently incarcerated at taxpayer expense would be freed (lowered taxes) to join the labor force, increasing the downward pressure on wages. How can you “just say no”?
If we poisoned the “crack” supply in 2005, how many less votes would the Democrats receive in 2006 or 2008? [Can died Democrats still vote in King County?]
Would the number of addicts double? Insurance liability? cost of healthcare? FDA approved for purity or an unregulated supplement?
Would taxing “illegal drugs” be considered “regressive” because Democrats would pay the majority of the tax?? [hehe]
Health care funds for dopers: zero. Piss on them. If they can afford the drugs, why should taxpayers have to pay for their “self inflicted” desease??
Hey Democrats: If YOU want to pay for “health care” for dopers, get your own checkbook out, and leave the taxpayers alone!!!!
I think Mayor Marion “Crackpipe” Berry of WASH D.C. should be on the Democrat ticket in 2008 with Hillary!! Two fine Democrats!!!!
@4: Commander,
The number of addicts would most likely not double.
Liability and healthcare–$69 billion goes a long way, wouldn’t you agree?
The products would undoubtedly be regulated for purity.
Plus think of the marvelous stuffed that would be dreamed up by the drug marketeers (aka big pharma): cialis-coke supplements anyone?
Democrat “Breakfast Of Champions”: crack, pot, Marlboros, and Black Velvet washed down with King Cobra. [George Bush made them junkies!!]
Commander,
A short reply to your queries:
No.
We spend $69 billion a year now on this.
FDA regulation would me an obvious part of this proposal.
With “global warming” [Bush’s fault], maybe the welfare Democrats can be bused to Alaska to farm “weed”!! No work……….no welfare check!! [ I’m sure the A. C. L. Jew would love that!!!!!]
Stamper is right. The cure is worse than the disease. Treat drugs as the public health they are, and let’s stop forcing the problem into the black market. People who are addicted to drugs are human beings, and simply putting more of them in prison (where drugs are even more available) isn’t the right direction. Eventually, Americans will realize that the “war on drugs” is as futile as the criminalization of alcohol in the 20’s. If folks are concerned with drug use increasing after legalization, they should just look to the successful efforts to drive down the use of tobacco.
Goldy, are you a Democrat doper like Lucy??? Do the taxpayers need to “rehabilitate” you???
If only more people realized that the money spent enforcing drug laws actually constitutes a governmental price-support program, just like the Dept. of Agriculture uses to prop up the prices of milk, corn, tobacco, etc.
The would-be enforcers can’t possibly catch more than a fraction of the drugs, but they can certainly increase the prices of the drugs they don’t catch. All that benefit accrues to the people they don’t catch.
It is not that I am against legalization, the devil is in the details (pardon the cliché). I myself have stop watching Cops on TV because I was tired of seeing some poor bastard (usually a minority) being humiliated for a couple of pieces of a “controled substance” (what a word) no bigger then a kernal of corn. What a waste.
But the down side is a nation of people constantly stoned. On the other hand, the majority of people do not go around drunk or the time, so who knows?
As long as a 16 year old kid can make 400 dollars in an afternoon selling drugs, as opposed to 7 bucks an hour flipping burgers, drugs will be everywhere. everywhere
@ 8
It is likely that someone you know gets high on a regular basis, but you can’t “tell”, because they act “normal”.
Would you permit an employer to enforce a no drug policy, with teating, even if drugs were legal?
Sorry, I am a poor typest. Testing, not teating.
I’m pretty libertarian on drug use myself. Let big pharma manufacture safe recreational drugs so the prices of more useful substances can drop! I draw the line when abuse of freedoms hurts others like driving intoxicated or work situations. Social approbation can be pretty effective at keeping abuse in check.
However the DLC wing of the Democratic party still clings to a Republican stance on drugs. Pork barrel spending on illicit drug enforcement is yet another addiction that’s hard to break.
@ 11
Ofcourse! Just like alcohol, if you drunk “high”, you’re busted. Employers have a right to regulate the private lives of their employees, to an extent, which includes drugs.
ProudAss-@5 sez:
“FDA regulation would me an obvious part of this proposal.
Comment by Proud to be an Ass— 12/4/05 @ 2:10 pm”
Are you going to line up for the Meth franchise?
How about crack?
Perhaps date-rape drugs???
It will be difficult to compete with Wal-Mart, won’t it?
How about on-line Drug purchases?
How large of a tax will Gregoire impose????
The more “legal drugs” she sells, the more roads she can build….right?
You guys are displaying a rare break from “top down” ordered talking points. Bravo.
I’m torn; I don’t see how allowing these things is good for anyone (yipes, you think cigarettes are bad), but then part of me is “gov’t has no role and/or cure is worse than the disease.
all that said, drunks and druggies should be discriminated against, denied jobs, pushed out, until they get their act together. You wanna take a flight on a plane stoner built, or eat dinner when a meth addict was in the kitchen
Back to the big gov’t angle, what about the high correlation to sex diseases w/ meth users, crack, etc. Do you care about encouraging an explosion (the sex stuff has nothing to do w/ prostituion for expenseive drugs, but comes from the whacko highs that are induced)
I guess I lean more towards the Saudi approach (harsh) than the Dutch approach (overly liberal).
Of course as soon as i wrote that i realize even a right winger would object to sharia, nonsense those guys employ.
Anybody who thinks drugs are a “victimless crime” listen up:
My ex had custody of my daughter. Ex discovered dope, and then coke and finally meth. One day she took all of them, plus some anti-depressants and did the world a favor.
That evil bitch and her drugs damn near killed my daugher in the process. She spent over $200k IN ONE YEAR including all the child support I sent her on drugs. She didn’t even buy food for my daugher. Bought rags for clothes for her at value village. Didn’t give a rats ass about her school work. Paid zero attention to her. The apartment was a fucking pig pen. At one point, she threatened to drive both of them off the ferry dock. All because she was so doped out. And in case you’re wondeing…of course the Feminist Utopia defended her the whole fucking time and refused to give me custody.
So anybody who thinks it’s OK to legalize drugs has their head up their ass. They don’t understand the dangers, and they obviously don’t give a fuck about its innocent victims.
Okay CY, you have made it pretty clear your against legalization. Woukd you prefer the Singapore penal code instead?
Mark The Redneck, how is your daughter doing now?
Ogg – Thanks for asking. She’s thriving ! She’s healthy and happy. She’s getting (almost) straight As at school. She has friends now. She has lots of hobbies and is interested in everything. She’s still in counseling and will be for a while. But she’s going to be OK.
Goldy,
Interesting post. While I tend to have a strong libertarian reaction on the part of those people to partake in their poisons of choice, I am not sure blanket legalization for all drugs whatsoever is the way to do it, particularly the one you bring up:
The only thing that has kept me from fully embracing legalization is the current epidemic of crystal meth, an unusually addictive and destructive substance.
I say that mainly because of my sister, who has been in and out of rehab since the early ’90s due to her addiction. It is probably just a matter of time before she relapses again, given the availability of the drug.
With that said, I am not averse to legalization of marijua-na, if it is done correctly. The right way to do it is to have the same restrictions currently held on tobacco, but the legal age upped to 21.
Further, DUI laws would also apply on operation of motor vehicles and heavy machinery. On this point, there is a problem regarding burden of proof, as thc is detectable for up to 30 days in the human body, and longer in hair samples. A detection method for current use (within hours) would need to be developed.
In reality, we might not need these laws if there were a program on drug use similar to the anti-smoking campaign conducted in schools. Children nowadays see somebody smoking tobacco (whether wacky or otherwise) and believe death is imminent for the individual. I was at a football game a few weeks ago with a friend and his family. Before the game my friend and I each had a cigar, and the kids reacted as if we had just stabbed each other. Talk about effective brainwashing!
MTR… I’m glad your daughter is thriving now, and you won’t get an arguments from me about the dangers of addiction. But the point is that the War on Drugs did nothing to stop your ex’s self-destruction.
Nobody is denying the problem. What I’m hoping to debate here is what the best solution might be. I don’t see our current policy working, and I see no evidence that getting even tougher on drugs will work either. What Stamper is suggesting is that interdiction doesn’t work, and brings with it other problems. (Prohibition is the great historical example.) We could spend less money, and be more effective by focusing on treatment and prevention, paid for through the revenues of taking the drug trade out of the black market.
Addiction is a terrible, destructive affliction, that is not victimless… it destroys families, as you have pointed out. The question is, how do we best deal with it?
marks, good one
only trouble w/ tarring drug use like we have tobacco is my sense that liberals have combo of personal guilt over their own use and then antipathy for the conservative hatred of drugs. so they don’t want to be hypocrites, and also don’t want to do the very thing republicans want..
sad. I agree, smoking is seen as for losers, criminals, the stupid.
Good. Addiction is a nasty business. My nieces father (my sister’s first boy friend) could not handle the demons of alcohol, and at the age of 33 put a rope around his neck and jumped off his truck. It happened while J was very young, and my sister married, so J thinks of her stepfather as her father. Still sad though.
In These Times has a really interesting interview with ex-Seattle police cheif Norm Stamper, who presided over the disastrous breakdown of law and order during the 1999 WTO protests, retired to a cabin in the San Juans, and wrote a book, entitled Break…
Evergreen Politics @ 34, you have a link?
click on her handle…
@ 32
Conservatives don’t hate drugs, infact, a conservative was the highest level public official to call for repeal of prohibition.
I’m not sure what the answer is… but if Stamper is proposing the Holland model or the Canada model, I think it’s clear that they are demonstrable failures that only make the problem worse. Still, the WOD here hasn’t put an end to the problem, and as Goldy points out Prohibition didn’t work either. So maybe the best answer is where we are now where we continue to fight it and make it as uncomfortable as possible for everyone involved.
One thing is for sure… any parent who does drugs… legal or not… should not be a parent anymore. Period.
“if Stamper is proposing the Holland model or the Canada model, I think it’s clear that they are demonstrable failures”
Huh?
“So maybe the best answer is where we are now”
Wha?
Mark The Redneck @ 29
“She’s thriving!”
That is great to hear. Let’s hope her father learns to do the honorable thing and pay up on his gambling debts.
It is a terrible thing for a child to live with a father lacking in integrety!
Ogg – Thanks for asking. She’s thriving ! She’s healthy and happy. She’s getting (almost) straight As at school. She has friends now. She has lots of hobbies and is interested in everything. She’s still in counseling and will be for a while. But she’s going to be OK.
Comment by Mark The Redneck — 12/4/05 @ 3:24 pm [Mark, damn fine job. With respect, JCH]
“Stamper resigns as Seattle Police Chief on December 6, 1999, in wake of WTO unrest.
On December 6, 1999, Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper announces that he will resign and that he takes full responsibility for the unrest which closed the Central Business District and disrupted World Trade Organization (WTO) talks that took place in Seattle from November 29 to December 3, 1999.”
So Norm Stamper moves to “LILY-WHITE” San Juan Islands which has the largest gap in affordability of any of our 39 Counties. Stamper has basically isolated himself from the “real world”, particularly drug-related issues with his HUGE government pension and now, like the Bagwhan Sri Rajneesh spews his pearls of wisdom from RICH WHITE MAN’S UTOPIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cute!!
Stamper, like most Progressive CLOWNS, isolate themselves behind Ivory Gates and tell us how to solve our problems. Kind of like the Barbara Streisand of ex-cops who resigned in shame!
Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, advocated pretty much the same thing for pretty much the same reasons. He was a maverick Republican and had really good arguments about the cost of the “War on Drugs” in money and lost lives. Very interesting. Of course, no one, Republican or Democrat, would even acknowledge his existence after he took his stand.
JCH 4-14 (I refuse to read any more)
Your comments are stupid and juvenile at best and racist (as usual) at best. What a bore.
@ 44
I disagree! JCH is a welcome addition to the Horse’s Ass Troll Retard Parade. In fact, I think I see him now… He’s blowing spit bubbles and twirling his baton.
Part of the answer is for government to stop enabling drug addicts. In my ex’s case, she used the $1000 child support payment for drugs. According to my cop friends, that money probably lasted 3-4 days for meth hits, and then it was gone. Custodial parents should be REQUIRED to show where the money went to support the child.
She also managed to scam a fed gummint organization that gave her money for school. She somehow managed to convince them that she was a student. They’d write a check to her, she’d cash it, and go see the dealer. She never did go to school, and there was apparently never any accountability.
She also managed to get credit card companies to issue credit cards to her, even though she was a deadbeat. She’d get card, max it out on cash withdrawls, and then move on to the next.
So certainly, there’s something government can do to stop enabling druggies.
But in the end it comes down to character. Like most vices, drug addiction is at its root a character problem, and there are no laws that can fix character.
One irony with the current cultural attitude on drugs is how much the big drug companies are pushing legal mood altering substances. ADHD drugs for kids, anti-anxiety drugs for adults, and the ever popular erectiule disfunction drugs. Better living through chemistry, as long as there are corporate profits to be made.
any parent who does drugs… legal or not… should not be a parent anymore. Period.
Beer, wine, valium, prozac, nicotine.. The foster parent system will be busy indeed.
JCH 4-14 (I refuse to read any more)
Your comments are stupid and juvenile at best and racist (as usual) at best. What a bore.
Comment by K — 12/4/05 @ 5:31 pm [K, If the shoe fits,………….Democrat doper!!]
I disagree! JCH is a welcome addition to the Horse’s Ass Troll Retard Parade. In fact, I think I see him now… He’s blowing spit bubbles and twirling his baton.
Comment by Belltowner — 12/4/05 @ 5:35 pm [If all the dope was tainted with pioson, and 10,000 Democrat dopers died, would the dead Democrats still vote in 2008?]
I have long believed that our marijuana penalties are what they are in part to to Nelson Rockefeller’s divorce. What, you say? Back in the 70’s Rockefeller was a liberal Republican (there used to be such a thing!). He wanted to run for president, but back then, a divorce was a social black mark. He sought to recast his image with “the toughest drug laws in the nation”. Didn’t work for him, but it was the end of the 60’s move toward marijauna tolerance. And the race to be tough on drugs began.
If welfare and food stamps and Section 8 Housing are free, shouldn’t Democrats ger free dope, Marlboros, Black Velvet, and King Cobra?? Maybe when Democrats register to vote they could get a couple cases og “King” and a few cartons of Marlboros?? [hehe. Democrats: social parasites]
@ 47
Here Here! There are people now who use drugs (of all sorts) recreationally from time to time, and to say that they ALL are unfit is not realistic. There ARE people who do drugs and then fuck up their children (just read the newspaper).
Clearly the war on drugs is a failure. However, the drug with the largest use and abuse, alcohol, is legal and I expect a similar scenario would eventually unfold for other drugs.
I am amused by the usual idiot contention above that only democrats love drugs. I wonder if they heard that on the Rush Limbaugh program? Oh, wait…
OMG! Rush Limbaugh! I totally forgot! Didn’t/Doesn’t he use high powered opiate-type pain killers? While I would love to see Rush go to jail (with Duke) and get sodomized every night after lights-out, his drug problem doesn’t effect me at all.
…Well, his show was better when he was using…
K, Are you a big fan of Democrat Barney Fag………er,……..Frank?? He likes a little snow when he’s “doing” the young, hard Democrat Pages in his Washington DC Democrat “love pad”. Happy AIDs Day to you, K!!!!!!
Hey, Pedro? Are you legal? Would you like to mow my yard???
IF THEY LEGALIZE DRUGS WHAT WILL THE RABBIT AND LUCY DO FOR WORK?
51
Hey Bell it could be worse. You could be force to listen to liberal drivel all day from Web or Mary whats her name. Of course to listen to that it would require the listener to take drugs.
I find you all to be a big bunch of hypocrits. How many of you just voted to ban all smoking in public places?
I am betting that you all want to make tabacco illegal. But bring on the other stuff!
I don’t know what the answer is. But consistent arguments would sure be a relief.
BTW, Norm Stamper is an embarrassment as a law enforcement official. He basically stepped aside while thugs destroyed downtown Seattle during the WTO. I guess his new drug policy is just more of the same. Maybe we all should just move to the islands and have a magical mystery tour.
“I’ve never understood our nation’s irrational demonization of marijuana”
I’ve been around enough fundies to know a good many of them are former addicts, to whom ANY drugs are anathema. One whiff of pot and they’ll fall off the wagon. So they want to make pot illegal for everyone.
@ 54
“How many of you just voted to ban all smoking in public places?”
Yeah, but we didn’t vote to make tobacco illegal. That’s the difference. Make it legal, regulate its use, reduce the crime related to it.
I want whatever drugs Rush has. A Big Mac loaded with horse tranquilizers.
The best result of the current tough drug laws is deterring otherwise good kids and young adults or at least to keep them from overdoing it and getting themselves addicted. (No, I have no statistics to back that up.) The net result of legalizing drugs would be positive for the current users and those who eventually will become users under the current system, because they can bankrupt themselves and ruin their health without fear of prosecution. It will be negative for the teenagers and young adults who are deterred by today’s tough laws because they will not be deterred any more. A portion of today’s “good” group will go over to the dark side, it’s inevitable if drugs are legalized.
In comparison to where we are today, legalization would be bad for our society because it rewards destructive behavior (drug use) and does not reward productive behavior (abstaining or at least being scared enough to not get in too deep). I think the fallout would also include a huge jump in property crime as all the current prisoners are out on the streets trying to support their “legal” addictions. And legalization would just be one more change of society’s rules, where good, morally upright behavior would no longer be encouraged or rewarded.
If you are safe in your island home like Stamper, maybe you can support legalization. But for the rest of us, especially parents of teenagers, no way Norm.
Belltowner 56
You forgot the part about tax the hell out of the low income people who use it and can least afford the tax. Same thing would happen with drug legalization.
@ 58
I know you meant that as a sort of “gotcha”, but I agree that it should be taxed. Don’t be so sure that poor folks are the biggest users. Any college campus probably does its fair share regarding the demand of illicit drugs.
Certainly, legal drugs taxed would be better than the total waste of resources we have committed ourselves to with our current policy.
Even heavily taxed, legal drugs would cost a lot less than illegal drugs.
I am of two minds about this. I don’t think full legalization of all drugs is the answer. I agree that the cure is worse than the problem, but I believe certain hard drugs should not be available at all, except to already existing registered addicts. I am not much of an expert on drugs, being rather puritan in this regard myself. But I have read and heard enough meth and cocaine horror stories to last me my whole life.
Oh, and I have no sympathy for people who are poor and decide to spend their money on drugs, but I think it is better and more cost efficient to put those folks (or of any income level) into drug treatment instead of paying shitloads of money on jails, cops, trials, and all that money we’re sending to Columbia which ends up in the hands of leftist terrorist rebels (and a few rightwing death squads too, I bet)
Belltowner
The only “gotcha” intended was to all the “progressives” out there who blindly cry for a less regressive tax structure without thinking about taxes like these. Once drugs are legalized and all the convicts are back on the streets, poor folks will be the biggest users (and most heavily taxed) by far. Unless a black market still thrives to serve them, how could it not?
Another “hidden tax” will be all the property crime against the “haves” perpetrated by the “have nots” to feed their legal habits. The money will flow from the crime victim (a “have”) to the tax man and the drug supplier. All the user will gain from it will be a high.
Let’s not forget that if the markets dry up for illegal drugs it will throw the whole illegal machinery in drug producing countries into disarray
Why do Democrats love smoking dope but hate tobacco products?? The truth is: they love both. Dems love tobacco companies because they can sue [Goldstein, Loeb, Goodman, and Swartz] and collect billions in revenue to buy Democrat votes. Never will Dems come down on drugies because the drugies vote Democrat. Other People’s money and votes…..That is the Democrat way!!!
I realize that smoking is now just highly restricted, not banned. But the logic behind it was that tabacco presents a high health risk to others, and is just annoying.
So if drugs are legalized, what restrictions would go with it? Obviously, no driving while under the influence. No use by minors. No pot in public places, because of the smoke. So, we can have coke rooms? Meth clubs?
I’m not against legalizing/decriminilizing. The problem is the details. Just how far do we want to go? Will this effort finally bring to light that a high percentage of the homeless are drunks or addicts? Will we finally start institutionalizing them?
@22
I can’t see Big Pharma being interested in developing or selling recreational drugs. They get their butts sued off now, can you imagine all of the lawsuits over recreationals that caused accidents, murder, and burglaries on a hourly basis?
Do you really think that gangs are going to stop selling drugs or that South America is going to stop flooding our streets with cocaine. Americans don’t need legal crack, it’s all over Washington State out in the woods and it’s cheap and easy to make.
@2 IN WHAT WAY?
@ 62
I’m sure you’ll hire a private militia to protect you and yours from the hordes of blacks and such that will attack your gates.
Also, how can the market be “black” if the product is legal? I don’t know how much property crime the coke-head weekend warriors at Microsoft cause, but I don’t think its much.
“You wanna take a flight on a plane stoner built”
If you have ever ridden on a plane, train, or automoblile
you have ridden on a … a “stoner, drunk, wingnut kool aid drinker” has built.
You always will.
sgmmac “I can’t see Big Pharma being interested in developing or selling recreational drugs.”
I agree, it would be sold like “herbal supplements” are today.
Buyer beware.
@ 65
“I can’t see Big Pharma being interested in developing or selling recreational drugs.”
say it with me… VIAGRA
re drugs hurting rest of us…
Yeah, we let gov’t go nuts on the tobacco guys cuz there was money there, and its i guess costly for our socialized med system, and also maybe harmful to others in a smokey room
Hard to use same logic and not wanna make drugs illegal too…
@ 65
“I can’t see Big Pharma being interested in developing or selling recreational drugs.”
say it with me… V-I-A-G-R-A
mark @26……..i am glad that your daughter is doing so well now.
but i have to agree with stamper on this one, although i would not legalize ALL drugs.
people that are going to waste themselves in the way your ex did will do it anyway they can. if it wasn’t “drugs”[and alcohol is one…let’s not forget that] then it would be something else. gambling you name it…..
prohibition never works and it often [as we can all see now] creates more problems than it supposedly cures.
imagine if many drugs were legalized. not only would they be regulated and taxed they would lose the cache they have now as an illicit substance. that alone would save alot of teenagers from a ruined life.
would i legalize them all? no way. and i would make the penalty for using drugs like meth so severe that you would get caught once and be very very old by the time you got out.
drugs, that when used in moderation DO NOT do permanent harm to the brain, nervous system etc. should be legalized. did you know that heroin is one of the least damaging[physically] to the body? well, it is. would i recommend it to anyone? no. but it goes back to personal choice.
the so called “designer” drugs should be banned. most of them cause such severe problems even in small amounts that they are a poison not a drug. yes…it is a fine line.
but marijauna for instance? legalize it.
it amazes me that every year about this time [insert any holiday here] we hear story after story about some boozed up idiot that either ruins everything for his family just with excesses or kills someone driving drunk. we have ludicrous commercials that say “just tell your daughter you forgot to pick her up” ad nauseum. and sometimes in a real twist of irony they are followed directly by a commercial for alcohol.
we count the alcohol related deaths every year and say “oh well” while demonizing other drugs. they are ALL DRUGS.
it’s hypocritical and counter productive. you cannot legislate morality.
legalize them….and spend the money we totally waste now on other things.
you know who really doesn’t want drugs legalized? and i can talk about this ,i live in humboldt county….it’s the DRUG DEALERS. they would be taxed and then think about the effects of that. give the IRS the balls and teeth they need to go after the ‘homey’ that is buying a mercedes ..even though he has no job.it would strip the gangs of the power base they have now.
the streets would be safer.
just before prohibition ended on alcohol, many people said “oh everyone will be an alcoholic now!”
they were wrong.
it all works out in the end. the self destructive people are always going to be that way…they will find something.
so why punish everyone because there are always going to be a certain percentage of the population that is too stupid to show any self control.
look at the people you see that are eating themselves to death. should we ban food next?
Great point Belltowner, given the Republican Congress’ recent “decriminaliation” of pharmaceutical maleficence they might find recreational drugs a highly proffital new market.
Hell, they could sell poorly cooked crack and face nothing but a slap on the wrist!
“proffital” should be “proffitable”
Or however it is spelled. I am to high on Jesus to care.
I don’t have any truck with big pharma (besides the usual shit), but making drugs to give guys’ erections is most definatly a recreational drug.
@71
Thanks for the laugh! Viagra doesn’t really inspire 50 year old men to run out and knock off a 7-11 to get the cash for the drug high or should I say drug hard? Damn, people can’t afford their health insurance now, so I really have a hard time believing your health insurance will cover your addictions.
Belltowner,
My answer is caught up in the filter – thanks for the laugh! Do you think your health care insurance will pay for your recreational addictions?
@68
Boeing workers are all on drugs?
I don’t think the gangs, the mafia, and the Columbians are going to put up with legalization.
@ 75
The V-word gets caught everytime…
I don’t think nat’l health insurance covers weed in ANY country ANYWHERE. Besides, in the future, anyone who wants it will just grow it. Who’s dumb enough to buy their weed from Bartell’s?
@78
I could go along with legalizing weed. The only people I know who are against that have never smoked it.
@ 77
I know, its weird. By making something legal, we actually put criminals out of business, and save billions in the process.
and to think.. I don’t even smoke weed…
I know folks get squeemish when it comes to hard drugs, but I think it just kicks the can down the road. People who are addicted to meth/smack/crack with commit crimes to get $$$ to feed their addiction. Something other than prohibition might do the trick with regards to such late-stage junkies. (I’m going to get Stamper’s book tommorrow, and read his plans regarding hard drugs)
belltowner
You really wanna make Meth legal? Get real.
Not an easy question. I do believe our marijuana policies represent misplaced priorities. Long ago, I grew some pretty weak stuff in my back room. No mony to the drug cartels, no smugglers, and no profit to others.
THat was then. Now I work hard to keep it away from my teens. And I do believe that would be easier with a controlled, regulated market, than it is now with easy schoolyard availability.
You gotta laugh at Norm “Screwed up WTO” Stamper up there in Lily-White San Juan County….where druggies are escorted off the island and can’t afford to get there because of massive real estate inflation and the largest affordability gap of ALL 39 County’s.
Norm hibernated almost 6 years and now wants to legalize drugs! Nice coming from Stamper with a huge Government Pension living in Lily White ELITIST San Juan County.
San Juan County has addressed their drug problem by sending all the druggies packing to somewhere else!!
The arrogant, LEFTIST PINHEAD a$$holes of Seattle, aka “Progressive CLOWNS” certainly aren’t a majority. There are a lot of swing voters out there. The CLOWNS are loud and the MSM never challenges their stupidity and never holds them accountable. “Progressives” are what the Communists of the 1950’s called themselves. It is “trendy” to be a “Progressive”. It will change when more and more of the lazy-a$$ “Progressives” find they can no longer afford to live in Seattle and tire of the perpetual logjam of high density.
Perhaps more “Progressives” can go live in the San Juan Islands with other wealthy, arrogant LEFTIST PINHEADS like Norm “Screwed up WTO” Stamper!! Goldy can be the Barbara Streisand of the San Juan Islands!
Mr. C @ 84-
Well, no content in that post.
@ 82
“You really wanna make Meth legal? Get real.”
I don’t know if you’re being real here, but I certainly am. People who are addicted ought to recieve treatment, and if locking drug USERS in prison could solve our drug problem, then it would ALREADY be solved. So I dare to entertain other ideas. Sue me.
I wondered how long it would take to get off topic and attack Stamper.
@ 85
Get used to it. It’s kind of his thing. Or something. I think its funny. The effort it takes to spend so much time to make his posts so lyrical in their bullshit, its astounding. I toast to the gentleman.
Let us observe a moment of silence for Mr. Cynical
@80
That’s the sticky point, legalizing it won’t put the criminals out of work. It won’t save billions either. If his book says that, he’s wacked. All of the billions will go to treatment and the drug companies. He advocates releasing all non-violent prisoners, what will they do? Where are their jobs? That is why the poor become drug dealers, so they can have Mercedes and lots of Bling. They aren’t suddenly going to get jobs and become citizens. They are just going to find a new “sin.”
Belltowner, I had a half-sister on heroin. She got it from her husband, who got it from his sister, who got it from a hooker, and they were all infested with it. I didn’t know it until my other half sister told me.
“Mr. C @ 84-
Well, no content in that post.
Comment by K— 12/4/05 @ 8:52 pm”
There is plenty of content in this post:
“You gotta laugh at Norm “Screwed up WTO” Stamper up there in Lily-White San Juan County….where druggies are escorted off the island and can’t afford to get there because of massive real estate inflation and the largest affordability gap of ALL 39 County’s.
Norm hibernated almost 6 years and now wants to legalize drugs! Nice coming from Stamper with a huge Government Pension living in Lily White ELITIST San Juan County.
San Juan County has addressed their drug problem by sending all the druggies packing to somewhere else!!”
It’s just not what you want to hear.
I’m calling BS on some big government pension screw-up living in Lily-white San Juan Islands solving drug problems.
There is content here too K you Pinhead:
“The arrogant, LEFTIST PINHEAD a$$holes of Seattle, aka “Progressive CLOWNS” certainly aren’t a majority. There are a lot of swing voters out there. The CLOWNS are loud and the MSM never challenges their stupidity and never holds them accountable. “Progressives” are what the Communists of the 1950’s called themselves. It is “trendy” to be a “Progressive”. It will change when more and more of the lazy-a$$ “Progressives” find they can no longer afford to live in Seattle and tire of the perpetual logjam of high density.
Perhaps more “Progressives” can go live in the San Juan Islands with other wealthy, arrogant LEFTIST PINHEADS like Norm “Screwed up WTO” Stamper!! Goldy can be the Barbara Streisand of the San Juan Islands!
Comment by Mr. Cynical— 12/4/05 @ 8:49 pm
Self-proclaimed Progressives who live in Lily-White Elitist Communities are not the best spokespeople…..especially after their incompetence caused taxpayers multi-millions of dollars!!!
@ 91
I have a step-sib on smack, too. I don’t know what that proves. So, prohibition has helped them? Seems like treatment for everyone involved would be a good idea.
If doing coke is a felony, then half of Hollywood Democrats are felons and can’t vote!! This is great!!
Belltowner…. meth ain’t heroin….
I’m a TV informed expert, so not that savvy on this. But watching some decent shows on meth is my basis for attacking you on meth..
Certainly even if we legalized, we might know of some drugs you flat out couldn’t allow, cuz they are too dangerous to users and people…
My understanding of meth is
a) addictive from first use
b) screws up your brain forever
c) no morals once on it..like the worlds worst narcissist
d) treatment seldom/never works…
@94
No, I wasn’t trying to make any grand point, other than to say that it is pervasive. It took over their lives, everything they did was criminal – just to get the drug. If the treatment and the drugs are free for life, it might appease them, but then they are still homeless, jobless and can’t be trusted not to steal their family members blind. It is a way of life for millions, I’m sure I don’t know what the answers are, but I have a hard time believing that more is better.
Belltowner,
My impression of Stamp’s article is that he wants drugs legalized so they don’t hurt police officers who are morally challenged. He doesn’t want any police officers hurt chasing drugs or stopping crimes related to drugs. I’m not sure that fixing the crimes will fix the police officers. A police officer who is murdering people and using and selling drugs, doesn’t really seem like the kind of officer that I want on the streets. If you do away with the drug crimes, the officer could quite easily start taking bribes for tickets, etc. The fix for the morally challenged police officers is values training and a “living wage” as we call it in Washington. If we can pay 25 bucks an hour for a construction worker to twirl a stop/yield sign, I think we can adequately pay police officers.
@ 95
I won’t belabor the facts, but… Ending prohibition can’t be worse than the way things are now. Some farmers are being given hundreds of dollars for a 10 dollar bottle of the ingredient for making meth. If we could make the street price of meth so low that no one makes money making it, many of our rural communites could reduce the number of meth labs by a huge number. I don’t think meth is any less dangerous for the user; I am most interested in the crime that goes along with drug use, ie junkies commiting property crime, crime against individuals, etc.
Is that what Stamper said? I haven’t read the article yet (busy cooking meth)
@97
I agree with that. They commit the crimes to get the drugs, you give them the drugs, how do they eat, how do they live, and when you cutoff the income of everyone in poverty areas, slums, ghettos, barrios, or whatever word is PC these days, the crime will explode. The drugs arn’t the only problem and simply passing them out free won’t fix the problem. In Stamper’s article he said he wanted fees, taxes, and fines. By the time Big Pharma, the Feds, and Washington State get their mitts on the taxes, you think it will be cheap? I confess, I smoke, do you know what the taxes are on ONE carton of cigarettes?
My gut is that treatment is a scam…makes money for the rehab industry, gives jobs, is a feel good remedy for those unwilling to advocate jail..(and can’t very well alternatively suggest making it legal)….
Some experience, w/ dead stepbrother who pissed away a fortune on the drugs, and his mom pissed away a bunch for his rehab…(he died of od, broke, covered in poop, etc)
@98
Be careful, you might blow up!
@ 99
So, you are a drug user, and you are able to function? Come on… Lots of people use drugs and have jobs. As for folks with limited means, I’d rather have them in treatment than in prison (prison, being a VERY expensive way to attend to our social ills). I don’t mean to go all Euro on everybody, but in Bern, Switerland they found that when cronic, end stage smack user are supplied with herion in doctor’s offices, crime in the surrounding neighborhoods went down. Certainly, this is a good sign.
uh oh, got filtered…
…I don’t want to take the Stamper side of the arguement TOO far, because he’s a long time cop, and I’m a short time person, but, moral of the story is, people ought to try to accept some alternative ideas regarding drugs… Think how much we could cut taxes by if we could reduce the amount of money we spent chasing after users…
@98
He didnt’ say it word for word, those are my words, his article in the Times talks about morally challenged officers, talks about them being tortured, killed, being corrupt, etc. I think he even says committing murder for drugs. If I’m not mistaken, I think I read a article in the Times or PI a few months back talking about the Washington State Bar Association wanting drugs legalized….. I could be wrong about the organization though, it’s been awhile.
They won’t cut taxes, they will just find another way to spend, because as much as it might be a good idea, there’s another sin right around the corner. This is also the ‘nanny’ state. There will be a push this year in the legislature to ban driving and talking on a cell phone. Our crazy city just banned fireworks by ballot counts anyways. Not than anyone was hurt with fireworks last year or any fires, but they scare dogs and cats and aggravate people. So next year our police can go crazy trying to enforce it.
Naw, you’re right. The KC Bar is doing just that. Its gotta make you think… If all the pros who deal with these issues on a regular basis are so conviced we oughta change course… hmm
I don’t do drugs, never have, never will.
I don’t smoke and I barely drink, so except for the cost to society of all those, I have no rooster in this fight.
However, have any of you actually been to Amsterdam? The last time I was there, and it’s been a few years, it was a disgusting cesspool. Their famous canalboats, the big tourist draw… well as a tourist we weren’t seeing the sights, we were seeing guys on the stairs leading down to the canals with tourniquets around their arms shooting up and giving us thumbs up. Is that what we want for our cities?
The Dutch found a 250% increase adolescent use and a 30% increase in registered addicts after they legalized marijuana. Is that what we want for out kids?
In 1987 the Swiss opened a drug bazaar, called “Needle Park,” for a few hundred addicts. By 1992, 20,000 addicts had swarmed to Switzerland, and that nation’s heroin death rate had become Europe’s highest. That same year, in the face of public outrage, the Swiss police closed Needle Park. Is this what we want?
Health and productivity costs would increase dramatically, and the net costs to society would rise substantially. Worse, the human costs from drug use would rise over time as more people who tried the drugs used them and became addicted. And the highest costs of legalization would be paid by those most vulnerable to addiction: the young and the disadvantaged. Is this what we want?
Do we want to encourage our citizens to be more, to be better or do we just want more of them addicted? I do beleive that legalizing will tempt those who would never do it illegally to just give it a try and a certain percentage of those will indeed become addicted. Do we want to encourage/tempt those that otherwise would never consider it?
Would legalization, when compared to prohibition, increase both the number of drug users and the social harm produced by the use of these substances? The answer is yes. Is that what we want?
@ 103
Just joking on that one…
Wait a sec. If you’re for more hardline drug enforcement, then really, you’re for more Nanny State gov’t.
Even if Washington State passed it, it couldn’t be put into law because of Federal Drug laws. ATF agents still bust people in California for doing weed for medicinal purposes and it is legal in California.
Because when I want a good, in-depth analysis on the issues of the day, I go to HorsesAss’ resident nut-job troll:
ProudAss
@103
“There will be a push this year in the legislature to ban driving and talking on a cell phone.”
I certainly hope so! Some Republican bastard trying to drive an SUV while talking on a cell phone ran over my mother! My MOTHER for crying out loud! Do you people have any IDEA how many cute, fluffy bunnies are squashed on Green Lake Way every year by inattentive drivers talking on cell phones? And they’re all my children! Every last one!
No problem, though, I can make more bunnies faster than you humans can squash ’em!
107
Thats right! I’m glad my tax dollars are used to chase down college kids and their doobies. Brilliant.
Why can’t my tax dollars be used to provide free abortions? The nerve!
I don’t know that I’m for MORE hardline enforcement. I don’t know how much harder you can get. I think we aren’t doing homeland security correctly. How does Heroin get in the US? Borders! How does most weed get here? Borders! How does all of the coke get here? Borders! What is wrong with that picture?
As for the jobs – there are multi-generations, up to 4 or 5 generations of welfare families. Somehow the job programs never get to the people who need the jobs.
@108
You knwo I have never seen a wild rabbit down here in Lacey/Olympia, you must slacking, Roger.
@ 110
ps, thats a joke
@110
Are you sure they’re not?
You always want the best for your country, don’t you belltowner… free baby killing, legal drugs…. yep I’m sure proud to have fellow citizens that care so much.
111
I can’t be everywhere! Besides, why would I want to leave Green Lake Park? There’s lots of grass all year round, and Stefan’s yummy garden is just a short hop up the hill!
102
“I think I read a article in the Times or PI a few months back talking about the Washington State Bar Association”
King County Bar Association, not Washington State Bar Association. (P.S., membership in the former is voluntary, in the latter mandatory)
Well, our tax dollars paid for three men in Washington to have sex changes so that they could cope with society better. One of them was sent to Florida and cost over 10 grand. Thanks, Roger, at least I got the lawyer part right!
I don’t see the sense of a federal policy that prohibits the medicinal use of marijuana for pain relief by cancer patients if the medical profession determines that mj is efficacious and there is no suitable substitute. It seems like the feds are prohibiting marijuana in any and all cases, just to be prohibiting marijuana. Shouldn’t this be a medical decision? Shouldn’t it be up to states to decide whether to authorize medical use of mj? It’s cruel to make patients suffer just because some politicians have a hangup about marijuana.
But then, Republicans specialize in cruelty, don’t they?
Well. it just hit me, they want it legalized for the lawsuits against Big Pharma! They aren’t being paid now, because it’s illegal, if it’s legal, it’s Paytime for all of the ruined lives.
#119
Yes, just ask my EX!
But then, Republicans specialize in cruelty, don’t they?
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 12/4/05 @ 10:20 pm
Hear hear wabbit. I am all for letting invalids smoke marijuana while starving to death after you donks pull the feeding tubes. How could somebody be so cruel?
Mr. Cynical and HowCanYouBePROUDtobeAnASS, do you favor the Singapore method of dealing with drug crimes?
Rufus same question?
I don’t know how Singapore deals with drugs, but they beat you with a cane for damaging cars. Drugs might get the death penalty!
@144
Islamic justice is tough stuff. Eye for eye, tooth for a tooth, steal – lose your hand, cheat on your husband – stoned to death, any number of small petty crimes – chop off your head,
if you are raped – your family will kill you to save their honor!
@140
“Hear hear wabbit. I am all for letting invalids smoke marijuana while starving to death after you donks pull the feeding tubes. How could somebody be so cruel?”
Bullshit! The autopsy proved what the doctors said all along — this woman did not have a brain. She was no more aware of her existence, or capable of feeling pain, than a blade of grass.
That being the case, Terri Schiavo was indifferent to whether her body was alive or dead, and this had nothing to do with ending her suffering, because an insensate biological organism isn’t suffering. This whole fight was solely over the comfort and suffering of her relatives — the parents and the husband. It comforted the parents to keep her brain-dead body (and their futile hopes) alive; it comforted the husband to let it die (in the mistaken belief that this was more merciful). One wonders if it wasn’t merely a spite fight of the kind in-laws are wont to engage in.
@145
HUMPH!
@146
DOUBLE HUMPH!
@145 & 146
Lies, misconceptions, high crimes & misdemeanors!
The Teresa Schiavo case is full of fraud, corruption, lies, political favors, judicial misconduct, spouse abuse, unfaithfulness, malpractice, police malfeasance and just about every other crime and felony that you can think of!
@146
The fight with the lying cheating husband and the in-laws was all about the money…… follow the money and you will find the criminal!
Goldstein,
Wow. You got this one right. Kudos. I would have to disagree with drug companies making cheap and available crystal meth because the stuff is so nasty. But in general, drugs should be legal. If people want to kill themselves doing drugs, fine. And it is a huge waste of jail space. It would be also be a great source of tax revenue so that normal people would not have to pay such high taxes to fund all of the other junk that you progressives dream up. Heck, while we are at it, we ought to have a tax for progressives. Since you want to burn so much of our public money on making government bigger, and funding lavish projects like a tunnel to replace the viaduct, you should have to pay more in to the system.
But it’s interesting that you are against casinos, and have said so in your blog many times. Gambling and drugs are pretty similar behaviors.
Stamper says “treat drug abuse as a public-health problem”. So what does that mean if it comes to pass? for one, it means more property crime as the users (who now are not in prison but are in the “public health system”) steal from the productive part of society (us) to feed their “legal” addiction. It also means that every teen ager is fed the message that drug use is no longer a big risk of felony conviction, ruined life etc. and is now a “public-health problem”. How does that deter them? It does not. Stamper has been on the island too long, he’s lost touc with reality.
Goldy
Your filter sucks. Get with the 90’s and upgrade.
I agree with Stamper, qualifedly.
In a previous incarnation, I got to hang out with people who did a lot of drugs, a lot of the time. Most of them got through it OK, cleaned up, and went on to have happy productive lives.
A few didn’t.
The support of prohibition seems to be a combination of access and the dreaded “mixed message”. If we legalize drugs, we’ll have Crack ‘R Us on every corner, and people will show up to work high as a kite.
I’ve got news for you guys, we DO have Crack ‘R Us on every corner. Anyone who doesn’t believe me is welcome to take a walking tour of Seattle with me some time. Whatever your little heart desires can be purchased inside of an hour. I say this as someone who has no phone numbers or connections at this point in my life. I’m street smart and see things. That’s all.
Those who want drugs get drugs, in spite of prohibition. It provides nothing more than the slimmest of speed bumps on the way to messing up your life.
As for mixed messages, etc. it’s pretty simple. There’s up time and down time. If I show up to work drunk, I will be fired as surely as if I showed up with a head full of mushrooms. My boss doesn’t care if I’m impaired legally or illegally. He cares that I’m not getting work done. If I am an unfit parent due to abuse of legally prescribed drugs or meth, I am still an unfit parent.
The real point to this is that most people who do use drugs use them the same way as most people use alchol. Responsibly, with some degree of moderation, and at appropriate times. Some folks have control issues. Keeping their drug of choice away from them only makes them get more inventive looking for alternatives. It doesn’t turn them back into balanced people, because they’re not balanced in the first place.
I don’t want to see hard drugs sold in convenience stores to all comers. I want them controlled, regulated, sold in the pharmacy or liquor store to people of an appropriate age. I want to see that food stamps can’t be used directly to buy them (just like alcohol! Surprise!), and I want to see vendors using judgement, just like they do with alcohol sales. I want driving under the influence to be illegal. Just like it is now.
Yes, a few people will get messed up and die along the way. Well, those people are getting messed up and dying now.
As a p.s. to righton, my experience with meth was exactly the opposite to this “instant addiction” theory that is so popular on TV. I tried it once and had no inclination whatsoever to try it again. It’s just not that much fun. Perhaps I should switch dealers.
jsa
“most people who do use drugs use them the same way as most people use alchol. Responsibly, with some degree of moderation, and at appropriate times. ” ?? Then why are there so many car prowls in Seattle and Vancouver? You think the prowlers are using drugs “responsibly and with moderation” but just happen to be low on cash ?? You’re in a cocoon jsa, recreational use might be “most users” but it’s not “most use”.
The yuppies like you who get high socially are irrelevant. The people most affected by legalization are the crack heads who break into cars and houses to buy more drugs. The question is whether they will be better off and whether more people will become irresponsible crack heads if drugs are legalized as suggested by Stamper.
I wonder if Stefan is gonna share the proceeds from his lawsuit against Dean Logan and KCE with the generous donors to his “legal action fund” who paid for the lawsuit, or keep all the money for himself — like the selfish prick most Republicans are?
He sure doesn’t share his garden! I have to sneak in here in the middle of the night if I want any lettuce! yum! yum! (munch) (munch)
roger;
glad you are for states rights w/ respect to drug laws.
But selectively you don’t want states to make their own abortion laws…
what gives?
Milton Freidman, the doyen of free-market economists, advocates drug legalization. Think about it.
The yuppies like you who get high socially are irrelevant.
When it comes to drug consumption, this is demonstrably false. Those yuppies account for the biggest part of drug consumption in this country. Their demand for recreational drugs is what drives this “war”. Do you really believe that the poor are purchasing all those billions of dollars in drug sales?
So Zip, I guess one can conclude from your remarks (@153 abv.) that if we gave crack to the poor for free, there would be no need for them to “break into cars and homes”. Or were you trying to express some tender concern for their plight? It is not clear in your post.
@156
Even if Roe V Wade is overturned by the SCOTUS, abortions will still be legal in some fashion in almost all states, because there isn’t a Federal law that allows abortions. For abortions to return to the back alleys, every State would have to pass a law outlawing abortions. It is NOT going to happen, no matter how much conservatives want it to.
States passing legalization drug laws will and do in the states that have passed such laws conflict with Federal Drug laws. Denver just passed a law legalizing some drug use, it means Denver police are going to ignore it. However; Federal ATF agents can swoop in Denver anytime and make all the arrests they want and that was upheld by SCOTUS that Federal Drug laws trump State laws on Drugs.
Conservatives have been fighting the wrong demons over abortion for years and will probably continue in that mode. They are going to be disappointed when Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t vote to overturn Roe v Wade, then they will be further disappointed when Justice Alito doesn’t vote to overturn Roe V Wade. If conservatives want to win the abortion war, they have to target their state legislatures, PERIOD.
Still waiting for word on “what drugs would you still make illegal”
I’m no drug expert, but guessing its gotta be Meth..
I’ve always felt that the prohibition of pot was a bit much. Someone told me recently that it was Dupont Corp. that really spearheaded that witch hunt. They were getting into artificial fibers and lobbied the government to get rid of hemp. Even George Washington grew hemp!
This question comes up every ten years or so. The question of legalization usually appears to have its basis in (1) people are gonna do what they’re gonna do (2) you can’t police morality; (3) the free market would make drugs cheap and people wouldn’t have to steal; (4) and the law enforcementment community is “losing” the war against drugs,
I don’t think legalization would change the face of the drug community at all. Unfortunately, it would validate it – and I refuse to accept that as a standard of civlized society. I’ve been to countries where drug use is more open and unfettered than it is here. Those places have become unpleasant and even danagerious for everyone else, except the drug user. I don’t want and shouldn’t have to share in their little private nirvana.
Ho can it be assumed assumed that legal drug use impacts society less than illegal drug use? Drug use alters behaviour, negatively – whether it is legal or illegal – and that impacts everyone in a negative way. Legalization makes it more open, and frankly, I don’t really care if a drug user has to “hide” their addiction. It’s the only parameter of civilized behaviour they seem willing to accommodate.
And..I don’t think legalizing drugs would make them cheaper (thus eliminating the need to steal?) People will still steal. The illegal market has already established what individuals are willing to pay for drugs, and that is where the bottom price will be – oh, it might rock back and forth a little, but over the long term, prices will rise (just like gas), with drugs, it will be the individual purchaser who pays the highest priced based on the strength of their addiction. There will be no free market forces here. Besides which, if the free market forces don’t work that well in the pharmaceutical industry, why would you expect them to work in the “consumer” market. It’s desperation pricing that rules the drug market whether it is legal or illegal.
I do agree that addiction should be aggressively treated as a public health problem, and I think addicts should be treated with encouragement and compassion and treatment should be conspicuously available. However, I don’t think the enabling model of legalziation is going to work, in spite of the law enforecemnt headaches it might relieve. I don’t believe drug users care whether it’s legal or illegal – what they care about is if it’s available.
zip @ 153:
I live in a cocoon? Check my tagline dude, I’m in one of those inner-city neighborhoods. Cars in my neighborhood are the ones getting jacked.
It is very hard to do, but you need to do this mental excercise of separating the criminal activity that surrounds the drug trade from the drugs themselves.
Auto theft is a crime. People who steal cars should go to jail. Burglary is a crime. People who break into houses should go to jail.
You are criminalizing behavior for a lot of people because a very small percentage of them break the law in other ways.
Check the NIDA statistics on drug use in the United States. Even non-fun drugs that I don’t suggest anybody ever take up as a hobby (i.e. heroin, crack cocaine, meth) have usage numbers well above the crime rate for car and auto theft, which leads one to believe that someone manages to have a heroin habit that does not involve stealing things.
You made a dismissive comment about “yuppies like me getting high”. Alas, I personally don’t get much high these days, but we’ll play let’s pretend and say I did.
Is there a point to threatening someone who holds down a steady job, pays a boatload of taxes, raises kids, etc. etc. with incarceration and massive legal bills because I prefer the occasional pot or line of blow to a glass of scotch? Call it self-serving, but I fail to see a lot of social benefit in throwing me or my peers in jail.
but does treatment work? Any non-anecdtotal info would be welcomed…
a bunch of people have said it, but if you actually research the issue, alot of the tales about meth are well… Mythical.
I’m not a drug consumer myself, but I know quite a few tweakers and ex-tweakers… And even those still addicted just aren’t like the media portrayal of a ‘meth addict’.
As far as the question at hand, I tend to think that there can’t be more damage done with them legal than with ’em illegal. Save our police and our prisons a LOT of trouble, and give it a try.
Anybody who thinks there is a way to use meth “responsibly”, is detached from reality. I know the Kool-Aid drinkers would like all drugs to be legal so that “The Man” would leave them alone, but I’m sure the tune will change when they watch one of their own children lose their lives from this evil drug.
@160
I hope you’re not aiming that question at me, they are all illegal, the only drug I would vote to make legal would be Marijuana and that has a lot of problems with making it legal, such as how much can you smoke and still drive – legally. I don’t see it being made legal anytime soon. States have legalized it for pain relief. O’Reilly did some undercover checks in California and the clinics that sell it for medical purposes sell it everyone. The ATF has shut down some of those clinics. The social war continues on drugs, abortions, dehydrating people to death, anything and everything with the word God or Christ in it, the death penalty vs bringing cookies and milk to killers, flag burning, the ACLU, Islam, and let’s not forget Gay Rights!
@160
should read ” sell it to everyone. I also forgot gun rights, private property rights, torture, the War in Iraq and the worst of all child molesters.
hey rick, I know this is asking alot, but do you have any knowledge or experience of your own in this subject?
Drug abuse is harmful. Meth is really bad for you. But we need to get away from the hyperbolic myths and deal with the problem rationally.
Going crazy ’cause you saw something on the 5’oclock news doesn’t help anyone.
roger@136……. i have a really good friend who is dying right now from cancer…..started out as ovarian cancer and then spread all through her body. she can’t keep food down because of chemo and she won’t use any “illicit” drugs i.e. marijauna to help her. and it would help her. for all of you on here that want to ban all drugs i suggest you step away from your starbucks cup right now. that’s right hands in the air…STEP AWAY FROM THE CAFFEINE.
see how silly that sounds?
you could also forget about cigarettes, chocolate, nutmeg, and definitely ALCOHOL.
they are all classified [because of what’s in them ] as drugs….scientifically.
meth on the other hand is just a poison.
you could easily separate the drugs from the poisons by only legalizing what grows naturally. for example…tobacco, marijauna, alcohol.
meth ,and other drugs like it, are made from chemicals you wouldn’t handle without gloves on…..
our “war” on drugs is something the taliban would have thought up….oh, wait….THEY DID.
jsa@152 sez about meth:
“my experience with meth was exactly the opposite to this “instant addiction” theory that is so popular on TV. I tried it once…”
That explains those memory loss episode and plethora of incoherent posts!
Meth is a killer. One of the worst drugs ever.
Wal-mart would love to get into the real “Drug” business!
And Dems like Gregoire would love to have another sin to TAX and pretend to put money into EDUCATION….just like the Tobacco Settlement money. What a joke.
meth is a poison.
there is no safe way to use it. people who make and sell meth should be locked up at work farms for a long long time.i’m thinking about 100 years……..
anyone on here who thinks meth is “just another drug” is sadly mistaken. the damage it does is irreversable to the brain and nervous system [and teeth…it’s called ‘meth mouth’]…it turns people into zombies. it’s no different than ‘huffing’ paint for cripes sake. can’t you understand the difference between a POISON and a DRUG?
for the record: Strychnine is a poison. Methamphetamine is a drug with many harmful effects, that in the past has been prescribed widely as a therapeutic agent.
I really hate to be hammering the point, or to be appearing to promote a harmful illegal drug, but I really feel that the Meth hysteria of today is the same as the Marijuana hysteria of the ’50 or the LSD hysteria of the late ’60s and ’70s.
We need to calmly and rationally consider the effects of these drugs, especially the harms they cause vs. the harms their illegality causes.
When I do the math, it becomes quite clear that almost all drugs should be legalized and strongly regulated. Anyone who thinks the current system works is lying to themselves.
@171
Ghosty, you’re just wrong. I have a post to that effect coming through, but you have to calm down. It isn’t Strychnine, it isn’t Cyanide, it isn’t Hydrochloric acid.
Amphetamines are drugs, and has problems and negative effects just like any other drug. Paranoia-fuelled dramatics dont’ help us come to the right situation at all.
This hysteria only clouds the issue. So let me ask you. How many meth users do you know? How much personal experience do you have with people effected by this drug?
Windie @173
I lost someone in my family to meth – I don’t appreciate your assumption that my opinions came from the 5 o’clock news. Meth is poison, whether you want to admit it or not.
I guess I have a lot of trouble with this issue. On the one hand, you can find justification in the Constitution to say that it appears that the fed is not authorized to make a blanket ban on anything without an amendment, so making drugs illegal is not something they were ever allowed to do.
On the other hand, just look at China at the turn of the 20th century for the effects of some drugs freely available. Further, look at the rise of the mafia during prohibition and compare and contrast with the rise of the LA gangs during the 80 with the sale of crack, the similarities are striking.
Still legalization will probably not put that genie back into that bottle, the mafia stayed after prohibition ended, I doubt that legalizing drugs will put an end to the LA gangs.
And while MJ and opiates probably are something that are victemless, I have a lot of trouble with portraying PCP or amphetamines as victimless. Both tend to make the users behave in a way that would be best described as psycotic, and frequently dangerous to bystanders.
Still the same is true of alcohol frequently, so I am just not sure if that is an automatic disqualification.
As I said, I am not sure about this particular issue.
rick@180
I feel for your loss, but your reponse, altho’ justified, is just not convincing. People die to drugs licit or illicit all the time. Its a sad thing, but we need to keep things into focus.
I have a cousin who used to take and deal meth. He’s been clean for several years, it wasn’t that hard for him to break the habit, and he’s simply not permantently broken as the urban legends would have you believe. Is my experience with my cousin any less valid than the person you ‘lost to meth’?
If we can’t deal with these problems with rational thought instead of emotion, we’re never going to get actual solutions.
Aren’t most of the people posting quasi yupies, and thus unfamiliar with “hillbilly heroin”?
Windie @182
I guess I’m mistaken – meth is no worse than smoking a joint or having a beer. If it’s no real big problem to break the habit, why don’t you smoke a little rock so you can talk from experience?
JCH @ 13: “I’m sure the A. C. L. Jew would love that!!!!!”
JCH, you are the leader of the right-wing trolls. A fine representative. (cf. 45, 46)
Racist prick.
windie@177 & 178: I know you didn’t ask me but in regard to “the harms they(drugs)cause vs. the harm their illegality causes” I can only say that the drug users I have known have caused irreparable harm to every life they touched, and not a one of them ever considered themselves anything but a “recreational” users. The concept of “recreational” use is just bullshit. No, they didn’t all steal, most of them were working, but EVERYONE in their personal life suffered, be it a parent, a child, a lover, a friend, or even, just an acquaintance. The garbage drugs leaves behind carried over into their non-recreational life, in a big way. Many of them thought noone knew, that it was just their little secret. As for the the illegality of drugs, who does the illegality harm? People do that to themselves. Restricting drug use by making illegal, I think, somewhat protects people from the drug environment.
Your question @178: “how much personal experience do you have with people affected by this drug?” None at the moment, but have been around people who used in the past and I won’t deal with anyone on drugs again – I will not deal with it. It doesn’t matter who it is, family, someone I love, or whatever, they are out of my life at the first inkling…and I don’t look for evidence. Drug use shows up in a person’s behaviour long before that individual realizes how revealing they are. It impacts others’ lives in a negative way whether or not they intend it to.
@184
You first. I’m not a big fan of recreational drugs, myself.
The point is, anecdotes are anecdotes. If we go on raw emotion and without really examining things theres’ nothing to be gained.
If people like you were writing the novel, Tom Robinson would have been lynched before page 20 of To Kill a Mockingbird.
for the record:
(effects of methamphetamines)
Severe: (with chronic use)
amphetamine psychosis
clinical depression
kidney damage
liver damage
hypertension
elevated body temperature
dilated pupils
diarrhea
nausea
vomiting
altered brain chemistry
euphoria
rash
anorexia
insomnia
restlessness
weight loss
(effects of heroin)
Lowered heart rate
Infection of heart lining and valves (chronic use)
Dry mouth
Pupil constriction
Nausea
Constipation
Liver disease (chronic use)
Analgesia
Confusion
Euphoria
Sedation
Slow respiration
Shallow respiration
Pneumonia (chronic use)
Respiratory arrest
Itchiness
Flushing
Abscesses
Spontaneous abortion
Heavy extremities
(Sorry for the slightly different formats of the two lists, They’re pulled directly from sources)
Do both of these drugs have harmful side-effects? Yes
Is one worse than the other? (just a hint, even with amphetamine psychosis, heroin is worse)
hardovertoport@186
I’ve only ever had serious interaction with ex-users of anything heavier than pot. But I”ve had alot of ‘casual’ experience with people who are on various things (my roommate is a sound engineer, so you end up seeing the backsides of alot of clubs and bars, et cetera).
It would be HORRIBLE to have a drug addict be someone you needed to rely on… Like say a parent. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. But the users (and especially the ex-users like my cousin) I’ve interacted with… I really can’t say they made my life substantially worse via their presence. Then again (with the exception of some underlings when I was in healthcare), I never had to rely on them for anything. That’d be alot less fun.
I’m not saying that drugs aren’t bad for you, I”m not advocating the use of illicit substances… I’m just saying we need more thought, and less emotional reaction.
@181
I’m not an attorney, but the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. They have upheld Federal Drug laws repeatedly. Not too long ago they ruled that the Federal laws still applied in States like California who authorized mj for medicinal purposes. You can debate this issue until you turn purple, it will never pass on the Federal level or any of the fly-over, blood red, bible belt states. Washington State pays drug users thousands upon thousands of dollars monthly now to transport them to drug centers. There are people taking 2 hour taxi rides to treatment centers and the State gladly reimburses them. If you want to stop drug use, you have to fix the problems that make people turn to drugs as a escape from their ugly reality of life.
hardovertoport @ 186: “Drug use shows up in a person’s behaviour long before that individual realizes how revealing they are. It impacts others’ lives in a negative way whether or not they intend it to.”
True. Have any of you seen the Johnny Cash movie (still in theaters), Walk the Line? Great film, and I think an excellent portrayal of how addiction can mess you up and affect those around you.
So we agree that drug abuse is bad. No shit. The question is, how should we deter drug abuse and respond to addiction? Threatening to throw everyone involved into jail (and there are no drugs there, right?) doesn’t seem to be the most effective, let alone cost-effective, solution. Yes, making various drugs illegal makes us feel good about “sending the right message” (‘certain drugs are BAD’) but how much is that worth?
I’d like to see more rigorous economic and sociological analyses of specific policy proposals (see, e.g., Andrew E Clark, The Economics of Drug Legalization (PDF, 38 pp.), May 2003).
161
“But selectively you don’t want states to make their own abortion laws…”
I suppose, righton, the main difference between us is that I’m a pragmatist while you’re an ideologue. I’m interested in what works, what doesn’t work. I say, if something doesn’t work, shitcan it!
There are two things wrong with having 50 different abortion rules in this country:
1) Our 50 state legislatures will spend all their time wrangling over what the 50 sets of rules will be, with the result that nothing else will get done; and
2) Allowing the states to have different rules (some permissive, some restrictive) will encourage interstate trafficking in abortion services.
As I’ve said before, righton, I personally oppose abortion on personal moral and religious grounds; however, I do not seek to impose my personal religious and moral beliefs on others. It is true, however, that I care more about preserving the portion of Roe v. Wade that says we have a constitutional right to privacy, than the portion that established a constitutional right to abortion-on-demand. It would be consistent with my political and legal thinking to support the notion of state legislatures, instead of SCOTUS, regulating abortion (in this context, the term “regulation” also includes prohibition); I just think it would create a godawful mess in state legislatures like we had before Roe v. Wade, that’s all.
sgmmac @ 112: “The fix for the morally challenged police officers is values training and a “living wage” as we call it in Washington. If we can pay 25 bucks an hour for a construction worker to twirl a stop/yield sign, I think we can adequately pay police officers.”
and @ 189: “If you want to stop drug use, you have to fix the problems that make people turn to drugs as a escape from their ugly reality of life.”
Wow, sgmmac, you are a progressive thinker! (careful, some say “liberal.”)
[Thanks for your good contributions in this drug-legalization debate.]
roger,
all you logic above works equally well for drug laws and drug treatment.
so why not be consistent
You are right, but their justification in that recent upholding leave a lot to be desired. They didn’t say that the constitution allows those laws, rather they said that the uneven enforcement of the law would cause confusion. I think this may be a case where they let their own emotions come into play and ruled according to that rather than the constitution.
Congress is authorized to regulate trade, and in my opinion, the word regulate does not include bans. Further, they have zero authority over trade that is entirely within a state. Since all non specified rights are reserved to the states or to the people, bans are not included.
You’ve got to realize that the first drug bans, the ones on MJ were not actually bans, but a stamp tax, noone was allowed to purchase the stamps. That is regulation and I think allowable.
164
“Conservatives have been fighting the wrong demons over abortion for years and will probably continue in that mode.”
Actually, winning the fight to outlaw abortions is the worst thing that could happen to the GOP, because it would deprive them of their most unifying issue; but I digress.
Conservatives are also fighting the wrong demon when they use federal law to override states’ decisions to permit medical use of marijuana. We’re not talking about legalizing recreational use of mj here; we’re talking about its use as a pain palliative for terminal cancer patients. Morphine, a far more powerful and addictive narcotic, is already routinely used on the elderly in hospitals and hospices to relieve pain associated with dying. If doctors say marijuana is a useful medical drug in certain circumstances, I’m can’t argue with them, as I lack the medical training and experience to gainsay them. If the medical profession as a whole took the position there is no medically justifiable use of mj, I would go with that.
@191
Roger, I don’t know what conversation you are replying to, but 50 individual states legislate abortion every year. Every state has different laws. SCOTUS gets involved via appeals and then rules on them based on the right to privacy. I do hope you know that a school librarian can put one of your minor daughters from Green Lake in her car, haul to an abortion clinic, even across state lines and return her or her dead body to you if she dies during the abortion and you can’t do anything about it here in Washington State.
@195
“Dana stands up and cheers for the Rabbit!”
You know you’re right!
windie@178 sez:
“I really hate to be hammering the point, or to be appearing to promote a harmful illegal drug, but I really feel that the Meth hysteria of today is the same as the Marijuana hysteria of the ‘50 or the LSD hysteria of the late ’60s and ’70s.”
windie once again shows his complete ignorance of the magnitude and seriousness of meth. Perhaps windie realizes the only people that will support his lame-brained “Progressive LEFTIST PINHEADED” Agenda are folks that are drugged nearly into a coma with all brain cells shut down.
You are an ignorant fool windie!!!
christmasghost @ 82, Dan Griffith @145, jsa on beacon hill @ 157, 168:
Nice posts. Good analysis. Kudos.
Looking at the effects of decriminalizing or legalizing (here’s the difference) marijuana in particular—which seems like an obvious first step (because it’s so pervasive, domestically grown, considered relatively harmless, and has a persistent stoner lobbying campaign)—what do people think about the situation in Vancouver, B.C.? How has societal tolerance of pot affected things there?
167
“And..I don’t think legalizing drugs would make them cheaper …. The illegal market has already established … where the bottom price will be ….”
The quick-and-dirty answer is that our country had a very costly experience with its failed attempt to prohibit alcohol, from which we should learn something.
The immediate effects of making alcohol illegal were to restrict supply, driving up prices, and to give criminals an opportunity to take over a large industry from legal businesses, which resulted in the rise of rich and powerful criminal organizations who used their money to corrupt the law enforcement and judicial systems.
There is no reason to believe the same thing isn’t happening in the drug trade. The argument for legalizing recreational drug use is that prohibition doesn’t stop people from using drugs, and only creates a lucrative criminal trade in drugs. It also diverts a huge amount of law enforcement resources from other crime problems. About a third of our prison population is in for drug offenses. Proponents of legalization argue that drug prices would drop dramatically from illicit street prices, reducing the need of drug users to resort to property crimes to support their drug habits, and legalization would enable states to regulate a drug trade that currently is wide open. They point to the experience of European countries that have legalized or decriminalized recreational drugs as evidence of how legalization would work in our country.
Notwithstanding all of the above, I think anybody who puts drugs in their body without the advice of a physician for the purpose of getting a “high” is a goddam fool.
irr@198
I suspect strongly that I know far more about it than you do, buddy.
From my exposure to abusers
From my experience in the healthcare field, looking at people on psychoactive meds
From my own research
If you’re going to call me ignorant, back it up… if you’re capable.
either way, David said it far better than I did anyways (@190).
@195
Conservatives are not going to win that battle. I certainly don’t agree with abortion on demand as it is today in some states. Women do die from abortions, it’s a lot less now than in our back alley days, but deaths do occur. I also don’t like the fact that someone can take my child to get an abortion without my knowledge or permission.
The prisons here in Washington State are handing out drugs like candy to those people who are in prison for drug offenses and worse. They are creating drug addicts. It is easier for prison officials to deal with “medicated” prisoner who are docile and off in their own world.
My Dad broke his hip a couple of years ago, I went home to Las Vegas to take care of him. I got called one night to come calm him down. When I got there, he was talking totally crazy, ripping out his IV’s trying to undo the restraints that they had to put on him to keep him in the bed. They had given his Adavan and Oxycontin. He stayed in the hospital over a month and still barely remembers one day of it. Doctors are prescribing Oxycontin to prisoners for up to a year at a time.
@199
David,
Didn’t they just vote that guy out in Canada?
windie@188: Thanks for your comments. I agree emotionalism doesn’t inform the debate. However, I don’t think it is emotionalism to point out that drug use impacts the lives of everyone around the user whether or not the user intends it to. When I was much younger, I wasn’t as attuned to that – I didn’t care as much, basically was just not that aware, and more into my own life – couldn’t have cared less if someone wanted to do drugs, even if I noticed. Now, I care. I’m a bigger human being now, I have a bigger heart, and the down side of that is I can’t take the pain of watching it or knowing it, even if it is a relative stranger. Keeping it illegal at least presents some barriers.
@190: I agree throwing all users in jail isn’t the solution. I would like to see a much heavier effort at treatment and education, even enforced treatment, and expand our treatment centers. I do have to say though, when they threw a loved in jail for using, I didn’t have to worry if they were safe, injured, lying in a ditch somewhere -it was the best sleep I had in YEARS!
And…this much I’ve learned: Yes, some of the ones I knew who were using when they were young, eventually stopped. BUT…recovery is a relative term – people don’t always get back what they lost.
Drugs should be legalized, but Norm Stamper has no credibility whatever to lend to the effort. The closet-case was an embarassment as Chief both to the city and the gay community for his weak-sister response to WTO. He can do nothing but bring further embarassment to himself and the pro-legalization movement by speaking out.
Former NM Governor Gary Johnson on the other hand deserves credit for being a real policy-maker with ral credibility and the courage to speak our in favor of legalization.
Jacko
PS. Yes Goldy, Johnson is an R so you can rest easy, you don’t have to stretch your mind and see if you might admire him because you agree with him on the merits of this issue.
@192
There is usually a reason behind behaviors. The trick is to find the reason. The fast solution rarely fixes the problem.
sgmmac @204: I don’t know; it’s irrelevant.
JCH @ 13: “I?m sure the A. C. L. Jew would love that!!!!!â€
JCH, you are the leader of the right-wing trolls. A fine representative. (cf. 45, 46)
Racist prick.
Comment by David — 12/5/05 @ 11:29 am
[Er, David…………Every lawyer at the ACLU is Democrat and Jewish. It’s where young Jewish kids go instead of joining the military. [US militray, that is]]
172
Mac — Great job of regurgitating all the right-wing bumper-sticker slogans, but are you capable of thinking for yourself? At all? Who the hell is advocating “bringing milk and cookies” to killers? And who gets hurt by a protestor burning a flag?
Let’s talk about these two issues for a moment, plus a third — the ACLU, a favorite right-wing hate object.
1. Law and order isn’t a political issue anymore, Mac. If you think it is, you’ve been asleep since 1968. Everybody — I mean everyone — is on board for getting tough on crime and criminals, including liberals! It’s true some (not all) liberals want to outlaw the death penalty in favor of a lock-em-up-forever approach. How is life-without-parole “milk and cookies?” Have you ever done time in a maximum security lockup? Do you really think that’s some kind of picnic? Why do you think some killers beg juries to execute them, and order their attorneys to drop death sentence appeals? Because they see life-without as a harsher penalty than death, that’s why. If you want a death penalty, fine. But let’s cut the bullshit. Executing people doesn’t deter crime. It doesn’t prevent recidivism, either, because there is no recidivism when you lock people up for life without chance of parole. The main arguments against the death penalty are that innocent people may be executed, and that it is unfairly and unevenly applied; e.g., Gary Ridgeway who killed at least 48 people got off with life-without, while people who committed 1 or 2 murders get executed. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it’s a fact the death penalty is applied almost exclusively to poor people in America; rich killers who can afford fancy attorneys simply don’t get executed, no matter how heinous their crimes.
2. Obviously, the flag is an emotion-laden symbol to some (especially veterans), and burning it as a form of protest is highly insulting to some people. We have free speech in this country. (More or less; not all speech is constitutionally protected, for example crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not.)
You don’t need constitutional protections for speech that offends no one. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech is useful only for protecting controversial speech. Some people get upset by flag burning; others very clearly get upset with those who question Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Where do you draw the line?
The flag is a piece of cloth. If you burn someone else’s flag, it’s prosecutable vandalism; if you buy or make a flag, then destroy it to make a “statement,” the only thing you hurt is someone else’s feelings. The First Amendment protects speech, not feelings that may be hurt by someone else’s speech; you either agree with the principle behind the First Amendment — that free and open discourse of public issues is a more important value than preventing hurt feelings — or you don’t. There’s really not much to debate here. If you’re against freedom of political speech, fine, but I disagree with you. Burning the flag is political speech, period. I don’t believe in restricting political speech, even though I wouldn’t burn the flag I served under in Vietnam, as I have too much respect for the flag to ever use that means of protest. As far as I’m concerned, people who wrap themselves in the flag and patriotism as cover for warmongering and corruption desecrate it as much or more than any flag burner ever did.
3. Right wingers routinely misrepresent what the ACLU is, and does. They love to equate the ACLU with the positions of the unpopular groups it often represents. That’s like saying Gary Ridgeway’s lawyers are criminals because they defended a criminal. It’s bullshit, Mac! Have you ever read the ACLU’s mission statement? Have you ever looked beyond the rightwing sound bites to find out what the ACLU actually stands for and does?
The ACLU is nothing more or less than a legal services organization that defends the First Amendment against government-imposed restrictions on free speech; they also get involved in separation of church and state issues. That’s it, in a nutshell — they’re FOR free speech; they’re AGAINST government intrusion into religion.
Now let’s take a favorite right-wing talking point, NAMBLA — the North American Man/Boy Love Association. NAMBLA is a legal organization that engages in political advocacy, to wit, the legalization of consensual sex between men and boys. Although NAMBLA stands for an activity that is currently illegal, the organization exists to lobby for legalization of this activity, not to practice it illegally. (Do you really think p[racticing pedophiles are so stupid as to join a formal organization so the police can find them more easily?) The ACLU has defended NAMBLA’s free speech rights in legal proceedings because these rights have implications for the free speech rights of all of us. The ACLU has never endorsed, and in fact does not support, NAMBLA’s stated objective of legalizing consensual sex between men and boys. The ONLY thing ACLU has defended is NAMBLA’s right of free speech. The ACLU has also defended the free speech rights of Nazis and other unpopular groups. Where First Amendment rights are concerned, unpopular speech is where the rubber meets the road. That’s where the legal cases are, and that’s where law gets made. That’s why the ACLU goes there.
If you’re against allowing speech that’s unpopular or offends someone, fine. We disagree. But if your side succeeds in undermining our First Amendment rights and passing laws against certain forms of speech, then I say, let’s outlaw public discussion of the entire right-wing political agenda and make it illegal to advocate voting for Republican office seekers, because I find the right-wing political agenda and the speech of Republican candidates personally offensive. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
196
Mac — you are rapidly establishing yourself as a master of the disingenuous statement. Do you even know what the Roe v. Wade case is? It says state laws outlawing abortion are unconstitutional. If that ruling is overturned, state legislatures will become preoccupied with partisan fighting over choice vs. right to life. That hasn’t happened since 1970 precisely because SCOTUS took away the prerogative of state legislatures to outlaw abortion. Oh sure, some legislatures have tried it anyway, and others have experimented with attempts to restrict abortions on the edges of Roe v. Wade, but the big fight — the fight over whether to allow or prohibit abortions — hasn’t occurred in state legislatures because Roe v. Wade took that option away from states. If that ruling is reversed, state legislative sessions will become wide open brawls between the choice and right-to-life factions. That’s what I’m talking about, and for you to suggest otherwise is, as I said, disingenuous.
203
“The prisons here in Washington State are handing out drugs like candy to those people who are in prison for drug offenses and worse. They are creating drug addicts. It is easier for prison officials to deal with ‘medicated’ prisoner who are docile and off in their own world.”
What’s your basis for this statement? Do you have some source of information to back this up, or are you spewing right-wing mythology? It would be news to me if our prison officials are “handing out drugs” to inmates. Unless I’m mistaken, DOC is strictly enforced policies to the contrary.
205
“And…this much I’ve learned: Yes, some of the ones I knew who were using when they were young, eventually stopped. BUT…recovery is a relative term – people don’t always get back what they lost.”
Gee, who does this comment bring to me? Ex-cocaine user George W. Bush? Although one wonders if he really had very much upstairs to begin with …
errata
should read “who does this comment bring to mind”
Actually that should say “erratum”
Errata = plural
Erratum = singular
My bad!
I’d hate to contribute to the already considerable linguistic delinquency of our trolls …
Notwithstanding all of the above, I think anybody who puts drugs in their body without the advice of a physician for the purpose of getting a “high” is a goddam fool.
I’ll drink to that.
For those who like stats and know that the comment numbers of this blog are inflated, here is the latest breakdown:
Out of 214 comments thus far on this post:
Bellwtowner 37 – 17.2%
sgmmac 37 – 17.2%
Roger Rabbit 20 – 9.3%
windie 8 – 3.7%
Total 102 – 47.6%
Almost half of the comments, as in almost every post, come from the same few people. That’s why it is funny that Goldstein is making fun of Mike Siegel, when his own audience barely registers on the obscurity meter.
roger@200……”Notwithstanding all of the above, I think anybody who puts drugs in their body without the advice of a physician for the purpose of getting a “high” is a goddam fool.”
okay…that’s your opinion. but until they make you king, that’s all it is. don’t you go and have a beer with goldy? what do you think that is anyway?
david@199…….thanks. i wish people would start to realize that making something illegal does not wash society’s hands of it…it often makes it worse.and creates dynasties that can make huge and often unpleasant changes in our society.[and yes…i am thinking kennedy clan]
windie@178……..
Strychnine was sometimes used as a drug. so was arsenic. it was a fairly common ingredient in some patent cures. frightening huh?
meth is NOT a drug. spin it however you want but it is not a drug and not a true amphetamine. especially the way it is ‘manufactured’ today.there are very distinct and serious chemical differences in it. the facts are that meth is extremely addictive [as is crack cocaine] to anyone who uses it and often the first time it is used. your cousin was lucky. hey, occasionally someone jumps off the golden gate bridge and survives…..it’s the same thing here. LUCKY is the operative word. ‘X’ is another. check out the brain scans of those who have used it ONCE. it’s frightening.
and where do you draw the line? i find alcohol repulsive. i always did…even before i couldn’t drink due to epilepsy. it does alot more damage to the population as a whole than any of the illicit drugs yet it’s use is condoned and considered “cool”.shoot…i can’t keep up with all the hip martinis they are coming up with…much less the others.and there is no medical use for alcohol other than using it [injected] to kill your thyroid gland when it goes nuts.
so the whole this is beneficial this is not is specious to say the least.
at the very least i think they should legalize weed. good grief. because of the really stupid drug laws hemp cannot even be grown in the US anymore. and hemp is a fantastic plant for cloth…better than linen. lasts forever. we have to import the hemp fibre.
now here’s a funny one for you. my best friend who lives in santa cruz has a beautiful garden in which she grows opium poppies [as do i]. beautiful flowers and they are sold in nurseries and are legal to grow as a flower.they are great garden plants. anyhoo….one day my nosy neighbor in washington [ happy kerry supporter] called the cops because i was growing [stop the presses] OPIUM POPPIES.the cops showed up and asked me to remove them and i said [come on you guys know me.lol] “MAKE ME”. they went away and didn’t come back. they are legal.my friend wasn’t so lucky however….hers were stolen leaving a trail of leaves up the street because i guess people figured out you can harvest the “sap” and smoke it.
xmasghost@216
A description of the mechanism of Methamphetamine:
“Methamphetamine is a potent central nervous system stimulant that affects the brain by acting on the mechanisms responsible for regulating a class of neurotransmitters known as the biogenic amines or monoamine neurotransmitters. This broad class of neurotransmitters is generally responsible for regulating heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure, appetite, attention, mood and responses associated with alertness or alarm conditions”
By any reasonable definition its a damn drug. You’re just being silly.
Talk about how harmful it is (potential side effects: death) talk about how its tearing our country apart…. But don’t use silly hyperbole. Its a drug.
God, whats wrong with you? Are you totally incapable of debating things based on actual facts, that you have to resort to this crap?
Its funny, I agree that meth is a terrible drug. Its having widespread negative impacts in our society. But I”m not gonna use melodramatic terror words or try to sow panic.
I always used to assume that you were posting on here out of bad faith… but, y’know? I don’t think so now. You actually think this way… now that’s scary.
You seem to be on the right track on this drug thing… But your silly hysteria on a few of the more dangerous drugs doesn’t help anything. Get a grip.
me@220
whups, make that xmasgost@219
windie…so now we have established that you can cut and paste. but do you actually know what the definition of a drug is?
obviously not.
a poison is a substance with no beneficial psychological /physical effects [ insert meth here] a drug is a poison with beneficial pyschological/physical effects.
that’s the fine line.
without trying to point fingers it’s uninformed people like you that, though well meaning, are fueling the currant drug war. you say ‘legalize meth because my stupid cousin got lucky’ and everyone who hears that wants to make everything illegal.
are you going to tell me next that paint is also a drug? because you are seriously barking up the wrong tree with the whole ‘ghost doesn’t know what she’s talking about’.not only can i also use a computer for research but my whole family is just riddled with Ph.D chemists and doctors specializing in the manufacturing of …guess what?…equipment to make DRUGS.
and other “chemicals”………
that’s what our company does……..
so i hardly think that i suffer from silly hysteria on this subject. more like a real dose of FACTS…something you could use.
your cousin just got LUCKY…that’s all. it probably wouldn’t happen again.
google this on new yorker; much else in article worse than this clip
Tina is crystal methamphetamine, a chemical stimulant that affects the central nervous system. It is hardly a new drug, and it has many other names: biker’s coffee, crank, speed. It has also been called redneck cocaine, because it is available on the street, in bars, and on the Internet for less than the price of a good bottle of wine. Methamphetamine is a mood elevator, and is known to induce bursts of euphoria, increase alertness, and reduce fatigue. In slightly less concentrated forms, the drug has been used by truckers trying to drive through the night, by laborers struggling to finish an extra shift, and by many people seeking simply to lose weight. Crystal first gained popularity in the gay community of San Francisco in the nineteen-nineties, where it became the preferred fuel for all-night parties and a necessity for sexual marathons. Its reputation quickly spread. Crystal methamphetamine is highly addictive, but its allure is not hard to understand; the drug removes inhibitions, bolsters confidence, supercharges the libido, and heightens the intensity of sex. “The difference between sex with crystal and sex without it is like the difference between Technicolor and black-and-white,” one man told me at Tina’s Café. “Once you have sex with crystal, it’s hard to imagine having it any other way.” The first thing people on methamphetamine lose is their common sense; suddenly, anything goes, including unprotected anal sex with many different partners in a single night—which is among the most efficient ways to spread H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In recent surveys, more than ten per cent of gay men in San Francisco and Los Angeles report having used the drug in the past six months; in New York, the figure is even higher.
from CBC canada http://www.cbc.ca/news/backgro.....lmeth.html
Can an addict recover?
Experts say that crystal meth is one of the most addictive street drugs and one of the hardest to treat. Addiction counsellors say the relapse rate of 92 per cent is worse than cocaine.
The withdrawal symptoms, especially the depression and physical agony, are reported by addiction counsellors to be worse than heroin or cocaine, and often addicts will drop out of recovery programs.
This situation is worse in the United States than in Canada because patients in the U.S. usually have inadequate health insurance or none at all. Those American patients in managed care programs are often cut off before treatment is complete. In Canada, however, provincial health insurance and government recovery programs can help the addict recover.
With increasing use of the drug, there are strong indications that users suffer brain damage, including memory impairment and an increasing inability to grasp abstract thoughts. Those who do manage to recover from addiction and retain memory and the ability to function in society are usually subject to some memory gaps and extreme mood swings.
I’m not saying legitimize meth, you stupid bitch.
I’m saying use the proper terms, and discuss things RATIONALLY!
Quit building strawmen and adress my actual argument not the fake one you like fighting against.
as to your crazy assertion… (By the way I cut and paste because its better than taking my word for it… don’t you agree its better to hear it from a real source?)
“Positive effects of Methamphetamine”
Increased awareness and alertness
Greater motivation
Euphoria in high doses
Increased thinking and brain activity (short-term)
Weight loss (may also be an adverse effect, depending upon circumstances)
Heightened sexual stimulation
Ghost, I don’t care what your supposed family background is. You clearly don’t know what the hell you’re talking about here. At the VERY least its a drug because its commonly accepted as a drug. It has all the hallmarks of a drug, and in just about any media or medical source you look up, it *is* called a drug. YOu going on about ‘its not a drug, its a poison!’ is sensationalistic, melodramatic, and stupid.
What I said before is true. If you really really think like this (and it seems you do) thats a scary damn thing.
(calms down some)
Oh, and another thing: The fact that my cousin got lucky is enough to shoot your whole premise anwyays. I guess it isn’t always totally addictive, and doesn’t always destroy your moral sense…
I know I’ve said all this before, but I guess I’ll summarize for the thicker-skulled amongst us. “I think dangerous drugs are a serious problem, but also that our current methods aren’t working. We need to rethink our drug enforcement policy, and refine it so its more effective at the actual goal…”
Righton@223,224
Thank you those are informative, and relatively non-sensationalistic.
On another point I just realized the evil little trick I’ve been letting christmasghost play on me.
With her ludicrous ‘its not a drug’ blather, she’s been getting me to say good things about methamphetamines, so then she (or others) can turn around and say, “See? Stupid liberals think meth is a good thing!” Well thats what I think is going on… Maybe she’s just really that dumb too… only time will tell.
If they try that trick, you read it here first!
Windie
I’m only trying to find some drug we might all agree is beyond the pale, and/or call baloney if someone is unable to do that. While none of us know the point to call OK vs Bad, certainly we could find something that is so harmful, bad, destructive that no matter how bad prohibition might be, we just cannot tolerate allowing it.
I don’t know meth, but when i heard a brain surgeon (ok a clinical psych) outline the permanent damage it causes (meth) i figure perm brain damage is bad. If we ban Cyclamates and tobacco cuz of permanent damage, heck we should also ban this.
here:
I think heroin is beyond the pale.
Meth is close, if not over the line. I kinda got on an aside because the ‘meth hysteria’ sweeping the country right now strikes me as kinda odd, and makes me question some of the ‘facts’ floating around. Its certainly a nasty drug, I admit.
I’d say that pot and hallucinogens should be legal (with VERY STRICT intoxication rules)
Amphetamines and cocaine are borderline issues, I’m not quite sure…
Something like heroin should probably stay illegal.
of course thats just *my* line, not anyone elses’. Hows that compare to you Righton?
windie
ok, i’m rightwing and never touched any of it. Libertarian enuf to give in on marijuana…hallucinogens i don’t know, guess i thought LSD caused brain damage, though that might just be a freudian flashback of sorts…
I don’t think agreeing on marijuana is what stamper had in mind, nor what goldy is proposing.
Off topic slightly, i sure wish i could get some Ambien without trudging into my doctors office… it gives me no buzz other than a decent nights sleep.
windie……..number one, i have not been playing some “evil trick” on you. however, after that “total bitch” comment i must add that meth also causes paranoia and are you sure we are really talking about your “cousin” here” ;)
i would never suggest that you wanted to legalize meth because you are a liberal. a loudmouthed, rude, illiterate jackass is what i was really thinking after your last tirade.
what i was saying is don’t call something a drug when it isn’t a drug. period. huffing paint gives you a similar high to meth…does that make it a drug? no it does not.
the “high” that people experience is caused by the body’s reaction to a toxic substance.
for instance the clinical definition of a food is something that provides sustenance with the least possible toxicity.
did you know that if you ate 10 pounds of onions it would probably kill you? yup…they are toxic.
i will say it again…your cousin got very very lucky. and for that i am glad. however the reality is he isn’t old yet. don’t be so sure he won’t relapse. meth changes the brain’s chemistry and people often lose the ability to feel [normally] good. so self medication may be just around the corner.
as for you and your little tirades…have you thought of taking xanax for that?
windie…..do you even know what the oldest drug using population is?
heroin addicts…..
if a heroin addict has clean needles and shelter the only things that are going to kill him related to heroin are OD’s, infections, and other people.
in moderation it does absolutely no harm to the body [permanent that is]…other than addiction. which i think we all agree is not good.
but hallucinogens? like LSD?
they change your brain chemistry.they cannot be used by the general public safely.
ghosty:
support your allegations.
re:heroin, thats a pretty big if. The main problem with heroin addiction is the heroin lifestyle which is the absolute opposite of healthy. Well that and the insane addictiveness… by all accounts I’ve seen Meth has nothing on Smack.
So, just for the record: In your bizarre desire for me to be wrong no matter what, you’re now arguing that while meth is a terrible poison with no positive effects whatsoever, heroin is the most benign of the illegal drugs? Do you know how crazy (or patently dishonest) that sounds? Geeze!
PS: name an illegal drug that doesn’t effect your brain chemistry… if you can.
windie sez:
Its funny, I agree that meth is a terrible drug. Its having widespread negative impacts in our society. But I”m not gonna use melodramatic terror words or try to sow panic.
Windie–
All LEFTIST PINHEADS know is “melodramatic terror words” and “to sow panic”! Your posts have repeatedly attempted to marginalize and minimize meth. Meth is being pipelined up here now from Mexico. One of the local news stations showed how it is transported up thru Highway 101. This meth is even MORE destructive and insidious than the local cookers crap.
There should be ZERO TOLERANCE on meth. The Singapore penal code would be appropriate for the cookers and those who transport the high-potency crap across the border. Anyone, like windie, who attempts to marginalize or minimize Meth is either stupid or evil….neither one is good.
County Law Enforcement and Prosecutors seem content to bust a few small-timne sellers of meth rather than bust the Mexico Pipeline or local COOKERS.
You cannot sell or use who cannot be produced locally or important.
Death Penalty for cookers and border runners!
Mr. Irrelevant!
Thank you!
I called that respons at #226!
I appreciate your great predictability and consistancy.
mr cynical
be careful calling for death penalty. Between horse sex deaths and executions, Enumclaw would run out of male citizens pretty fast
Stamper, ineffective asst COP San Diego, and incompetent former COP Seattle says legalize it all. Interesting.
Think we’d get a break in taxes with the change in law enforcement needs? Think we’d see a reduction in the force? Think the average citizen would be any safer? Think interactions with the remaining force of officers would interact with the public with less or more suspicion and confrontation?
My suspicion is no to each of those.
Of course, any idiot putting ANY creedence into Stamper’s words is truly grasping for any validation of their point. Sad, really. Hell, if Bush himself, came out with the same statement, the same crowd would fall all over themselves with love for the guy.
Listen, drug crimes would go down if drugs were legalized, I admit that. But hey, murders would go down if you legalized that too! Before the “conspiracy comparators” jump all over the supposed comparison, let me point out that abstractly, anything against the law suddenly made completely legal will result in the drop of reported statistics of violators.
Doesn’t make it right though. Norm wants you to go to 7/11 and be able to purchase PCP. Heroin. Meth. Pot. I think that’s a wrong way to go. But hey, if you can get enough people to change the law, so be it. Just know that I have zero intention on suffering any fool that crosses my path under the influence of anything.
By the way? WHat debate? What is even remotely debateable about this? Besides the constant parrotting of one side’s rhetoric vs the other
windie……..says “In your bizarre desire for me to be wrong no matter what,”
windie…no matter how self involved you yourself are, i hardly entered this converstaion with any idea of doing anything to you.
WOW….now that’s scary indeed. i’ll bet you think the lights at the intersection change just because YOU want them too huh? LOL.
until you learn to read the info you google and comprehend it….conversation with you is pretty useless.
i should have phrased the ‘brain chemistry’ part differently. but then i thought that everyone here would understand the point. i forgot completely about you.
meth permanently alters your brain chemistry. unlike winning the lotto [which also does BTW] or smoking weed, or drinking a glass of wine.
the mere fact that you seem to be meth’s biggest fan does make me wonder though.i mean….how stupid can one family be? didn’t your experience with your ‘cousin’ teach you anything?
or are you just trying to whistle past the graveyard here?
i forgot to answer your question about heroin users….sorry…i have the flu.
anyway…….heroin is a pretty hard drug to become addicted to. you really really have to work at it and the job isn’t a pleasant one in the beginning.everytime the user uses he throws up…alot. after a few weeks, depending on the person and use, that goes away and with it comes it’s nasty friend addiction.
meth and crack on the other hand have no visible ‘downside’ to the first time user …other than the fact they just can’t seem to get enough of it. time or newsweek said it best years ago when they quoted a guy that said “coke makes you feel like a new man…the only problem is the first thing the ‘new man’ wants is MORE COKE”
but truthfully….heroin has very few long term effects on the human body and organs. addiction…and the fact that people will ‘dream’ their lives away is the big downside.
you don’t believe me? look at keith richards…….yeah he’s creepy looking…but he’s alive.
you let me know when you see a 20 year meth or coke user, okay?
christmas ghost
hate to defend him/her, but windie isn’t defending meth…
righton……really? because it seems to me he is. but i am keeping an open mind here….so enlighten away. :)
righton–
windie is minimizing and marginalizing the impact of Meth.
That’s about as close as you can come to defending it.
It’s an insidious, horrible, addictive nightmare!
Have you ever seem what meth does to a person????
I wish I could post some pictures.
I’ll find some links later so you can take a look for yourself.
It will eat your face and eat your soul. It will take a straight A student and turn him/her into a dropout almost immediately.
Minimizing and marginalizing like windie is grotesque…as we have grown to expect.
Perhaps windie’s cousin was on some “pretend” meth….not the real stuff. There are some cheap imitations floating around.
cynical
read his #228. i think he treats it ok, being good lib fears some “right wing backlash” if you will. I too fear left wing anti smoking backlash, so i guess i understand.
remember even a stuck clock is right 2x a day, so give him a break.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa – A man who allowed his home to be used to store crack cocaine that was shipped by mail was sentenced to 14 years in prison, federal officials said. Michael Washington, 32, pleaded guilty last January to making his home available for the storage of crack cocaine /break/ Washington, who weighs 574 pounds, argued during sentencing that he was too obese and in too poor of health to be adequately cared for in prison, and requested home confinement. [Another young Democrat felon ready to vote “progressive” in 2008!! Jesse will make sure this young Democrat POS is not “disenfranshied”. [sp]
windie is a douchebag.
Here is his post #170–
“a bunch of people have said it, but if you actually research the issue, alot of the tales about meth are well… Mythical.
I’m not a drug consumer myself, but I know quite a few tweakers and ex-tweakers… And even those still addicted just aren’t like the media portrayal of a ‘meth addict’.”
Like I said before, marginalizing or minimizing the impact of Meth hardly helps. The meth being run up the pipeline from Mexico is incredibly potent & destructive.
windie is a douchebag!
Chartreuse Alert @ 236: “Listen, drug crimes would go down if drugs were legalized, I admit that. But hey, murders would go down if you legalized that too! Before the “conspiracy comparators” jump all over the supposed comparison, let me point out that abstractly, anything against the law suddenly made completely legal will result in the drop of reported statistics of violators.”
True, but the claim that “drug crimes would go down” is broader than “drug possession won’t be a crime any more.” It also encompasses the argument that drug-related crime would fall, e.g. because prices would drop (giving users less incentive to steal, and reducing the profits of drug lords and dealers who have no respect for the law).
In any case, though, I think the point of that claim is that the police (and prisons, and criminal justice system) would then be freed to focus on other offenders.
@212, Roger,
I saw it on TV, I think it was Kiro, they did a year long investigation or so they said. Doctors were prescribing the drugs for up to a year long. Oxycontin is a great pain killer, it is very addictive (ask Rush), whoops I didn’t say that. I have 3 or 4 full bottles of this stuff prescribed from dentists that I took one pill and said, nah…. Anyways, my point was, simply throwing someone in jail for drug offenses and giving them some counseling doesn’t solve the drug problem. As I said in other post you have to fix the problem that made them turn to drugs as a escape, and then you have to ensure that you are not feeding their habit.
@195
I agree, mj for medical purposes to help cancer patients eat and relive pain is better than most pain killers. Most pain killers have a nasty habit of tearing your stomach up and that’s hard on people who are doing chemo.
@210
Whoa, Roger, you went on a roll. All I said was “The social war continues on drugs, abortions, dehydrating people to death, anything and everything with the word God or Christ in it, the death penalty vs bringing cookies and milk to killers, flag burning, the ACLU, Islam, and let’s not forget Gay Rights!”
I did NOT say I supported either liberal or conservative position on any of these above items…….. As for my milk and cookies crack that was about the SCOTUS decision that the death penalty does not apply to anyone under 18. I’m not advocating killing teenages, but some of them damn sure don’t have a problem with horrific mass murders.
@211
Roger, I am NOT being disingenuous about Roe V Wade. We are actually saying the same things and in agreement. You just want to nitpick! The pro-life conservatives have targeted the SCOTUS for years to sway it to the right for an overturn of Roe. That is why they threw such a hissy fit over Harriet Myers. Bush did just what he said he would do with Myers – No litmus test. Myers was recommended by Harry Reid and then there were some papers that indicated she supported Roe and they went nuts and “ran her out of town on a rail.” Chief Justice Roberts isn’t going to overturn Roe and neither is Justice Alito……. not gonna happen! They are going to be deeply disappointed.
sgmmac….. a dentist gave you Oxycontin?????
now see…there’s part of the problem right there. that drug is a time release narcotic pain killer. it was designed for people [cancer patients etc.] that are in chronic long term pain. not dental patients.
and as for windie not being a fan of meth….i call BS on that.
how many of you know ” quite a few tweakers and ex-tweakers”[windie]….Hmmmmmm?
that’s right…no one that isn’t involved with meth would ever hang out with meth addicts. hell…meth addicts don’t want to hang out with meth addicts….they just get stuck together.
this explains ALOT about windie……….
Sgmmac@248: At 248 you said… “I have 3 or 4 bottles of this stuff prescribed from dentists?”
Get rid of it. Do not make yourself a target of malevolent interest. Take it back to the pharmacy, tell them you want them to dispose of it (a military pharmacy will take it back) or give it back to your dentist. (you could flush it down the toilet I suppose, but you aren’t supposed to flush toxic chemicals down the toilet) Do not mention to people that you have a sought-after drug prescription, or that you have it in your house. Please do not do that.
hardovertoport…i couldn’t agree with you more. pharmacies have signs in them announcing that they do not carry the stuff for a reason. they don’t want to be held up.
…