Gee. Decriminalize cocaine?

That's going to stop all crime, is it?

Where are addicts - people allowed to START using drugs because, after all, it's not inhibited by laws - going to get the MONEY to BUY DRUGS?

Honesty is still not anywhere near the drug issue. The truth is that some people simply want to get high, and they will shout "Fuck You!" at assorted volumes to anyone and everyone who implies they shouldn't be doing that.

And hide their use from their spouses, parents, friends and employers until they can't any more.

The documented failures of people to control their addictions are legion. If you think that subsidizing single motherhood increases the number of single mothers, then be consistent: allowing more drug use increases that.

I think that there might be a few people who'd be inclined to start using if things are decriminalized, but it would be a very small number. The main benefits would be 1) that people who really need help would be less afraid to get it, and 2) casual users who don't have a problem won't get saddled with criminal records. As P.J. O'Rourke said, "Jail will screw your life up a lot worse than a whole Hefty bag full of daffy dust."

Not only that, but maybe we can start ratcheting back on the civil liberties infringements that have been put in in the name of the war on drugs.

Addiction, and addictive behavior gravitate to whatever drugs are most available and the easiest to get.

Addicts who are denied access to illegal drugs, dont stop being addicts, they transfer their addiction to legal or more available drugs.

I watched my mother in law, do herself in through a combined booze, nicotine addiction. A cocaine addiction would have probably been less hard on her health.

>Stealthy as a socialist, it slithers up our shores
Turning all our children into hooligans and whores!
This smoking bowl of evil bears the choking stench of sin!
It burrows like a weevil under tender Christian skin!

From Reefer Madness, the Musical. It's hilarious.

All this stuff used to be legal here, guys. Look it up. Opium, cocaine, heroin, all sold in your local pharmacy. And it didn't lead to madness in the streets or damage the country at all.

From the video, the researcher makes some good points about the myths and stigma associated with methamphetamine, marijuana, etc.

Adderall and methamphetamine have very similar chemical properties and they produce very similar effects. Yet we're accustomed to reading about the ugly side of methamphetamine use in the news and advice columns; whereas, Adderall helps college students complete projects on deadline. Very curious.

Unfortunately, it DID damage a lot of infants, who, up until World War I or so, were given narcotics whenever they coughed, cried - or when their parents wanted to go the theatre and couldn't get a babysitter, so they took them along and drugged them unconscious instead!

In his 2005 book "Mommy Knows Worst," James Lileks told in one chapter of how DOCTORS, in the 19th century, were partly to blame for pushing alcohol and narcotics! (But most of the blame goes to mothers and their family "traditions.") He included an excerpt from the 1904 book "Physical Culture for Babies," by McFadden.

Lileks said: "....(McFadden) reserves her most potent ire for the dimwits who give their children laudanum, Chinese opium, and other 'hell broths' the patent medicine industry cheerfully bottled for your stuporific enjoyment.

"It's unfair sometimes to tut-tut at the past for not knowing what we know now, but this is different. How stupid were they? THIS stupid."

On the lighter side, when "Reefer Madness" became a musical in 1999, the opening night(?) was made even better, I heard, by the arrival in the audience of actress Thelma White (1910-2005), who had played the drug dealer in the movie. (She came with her wheelchair and oxygen tank.)

More on that:

http://www.reefermadness.org/critics/hightimes.html

She saw it twice, I heard, and loved it. (But she wasn't fond of the original movie!)

we're accustomed to reading about the ugly side of methamphetamine use in the news and advice columns; whereas, Adderall helps college students complete projects on deadline. Very curious.

Not really. College student's aren't for the most part smoking adderall. Oh, there's probably a few that have tried it. I suspect that if they did it long enough, they'd come down with meth mouth just like meth heads.

As usual, it comes down to usage, dosage, and habitualness.

I'd be all ok with people ingesting/smoking/snorting/whatevering they want with whomever they like, except for the niggling voice in the back of my mind reminding me that if they end up in permanently fucked up state, they and their advocates will ask for, no, demand that the rest of us take care of them for the rest of their days.

>>Where are addicts - people allowed to START using drugs because, after all, it's not inhibited by laws - going to get the MONEY to BUY DRUGS?

First off, you need to differentiate between "addicts," who are a small percentage of the population and who are not deterred by the law in any case, and normal human beings who want a head change or temporary escape.

Second, most people who use drugs work for a living and earn their money just like everyone else.

Third, drugs would be cheaper if they were legal. Meaning theft and other crime would not be necessary to support a habit.

>>All this stuff used to be legal here, guys. Look it up. Opium, cocaine, heroin, all sold in your local pharmacy. And it didn't lead to madness in the streets or damage the country at all.

Absolutely correct. So Radwaste, are you suddenly going to start using cocaine because it is legal? Are you personally going to turn into a raving, thieving, addict because the law was changed to allow some drug to be sold legally? If your answer isn't "Yes" you need to fully explain your absolute contempt for the rest of us, in thinking that our answer will be yes.

As usual, it comes down to usage, dosage, and habitualness.

Sounds right.

And to be fair, there have been stories in the news about the downside of Adderall use in college

I'd be all ok with people ingesting/smoking/snorting/whatevering they want with whomever they like, except for the niggling voice in the back of my mind reminding me that if they end up in permanently fucked up state

How many people are on disability because of alcohol abuse?

Only one way to find out. Anyway, we're already caring for them, in prison, where they can also still get drugs and end up in a permanently fucked-up state.

Like Florida, or Ohio.

Harry Anslinger, folks.

Just sayin'.

From Judge James Gray:

"Our laws are telling people 'if you're concerned about getting caught, don't use marijuana, use cocaine'. Well that is not necessarily what people want to do."

You know what is interesting, Cocaine (in plant form), weed & all other kinds of drugs have existed in the indigenous population of Latin America for like forever. They don't have a drug problem though, they have paint sniffing problems.

I've read that whites are most likely to buy & sell drugs yet its black males who disproportionally make up the drug arrests. Everyone knew Charlie Sheen had a briefcase full of cocaine delivered yet nobody gave two shits (because he has money).

The war on drugs is a war on the poor. If you are upper middle class to wealthy you are rarely targeted. I understand the violence that comes with the poor & drugs, but all drug use is illegal right? Why do people with money get off so easily?

Remember too that the CIA has been caught giving tons of weapons to drug cartels. The founder of the Zeta drug cartel was probably at one point trained by American special forces. They own fucking submarines.

Why is it that Mexicans would rather sell than use said drugs like Americans? If they are so addictive and irresistible?

Again like Amy has said the war on drugs has stopped nothing, I can go buy them anytime I want.

Like Florida, or Ohio.

Ohio is a permanently fucked-up state. It's almost as bad as Canada.

Unfortunately, it DID damage a lot of infants, who, up until World War I or so, were given narcotics whenever they coughed, cried - or when their parents wanted to go the theatre and couldn't get a babysitter, so they took them along and drugged them unconscious instead! -- lenona at July 19, 2013 8:53 AM

Of course nowadays no one would suggest drugging a young child into unconsciousness, right?

Garren kept saying, "Bye bye, plane," Penland recalled. And she said the stewardess objected.

"At the end of her speech, she leaned over the gentleman beside me and said, 'It's not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up,"' Penland told WSB-TV in Atlanta.

When Penland asked the woman if she was kidding, she said the stewardess replied, "You know, it's called baby Benadryl."

Radwaste:
Where are addicts ... going to get the MONEY to BUY DRUGS?

They would buy cheap, high quality Bolivian cocaine off the internet, kind of like they do now, except higher quality and less fuss.

This addict = violent dangerous criminal bit traces back to their need for money to pay for artificially expensive drugs. If five dollars would get them through the week, they could spend their time collecting pop bottles, instead of robbing people.

The documented failures of people to control their addictions are legion.

True, but right now it is a staggeringly expensive social problem that is gnawing away at my civil rights. I'd rather it was their personal problem instead of mine.

Prohibition was bad for the country last time, and it is bad for it now.

" If five dollars would get them through the week, they could spend their time collecting pop bottles, instead of robbing people."

Precisely. And if we spent the money we throw down the toilet on putting these users in jail, on rehab centres instead that actually focus on helping people recover from their problems in a healthy and constructive way (that tackles the root causes of addiction), they'd probably, statistically, be less likely to become addicted in a problematic way.

Also, decriminalization is the only ETHICAL approach. We must decriminalize *regardless* of whether it's 'better' or not, just because it's extremely unethical to jail someone for doing/possessing drugs.

Yeah, but what would all those prison guards do? The entire DEA? Those poor municipalities with no assets seized under forfeiture laws? SWAT teams wouldn't have any doors to break down, and no excuse for shooting dogs and the odd civilian. Have you no concern for them?

Isn't victory just around the corner? If I live long enough, surely I'll see it.

Isn't victory just around the corner? If I live long enough, surely I'll see it. -- MarkD at July 20, 2013 5:02 AM

I'm sure you're right. The war on alcohol was so successful that we should repeal the 21st amendment.

"People are not inhibited by laws from using drugs,..."

Bullshit, wiped everywhere.

Drug users LIE CONSTANTLY because of laws and the remaining social stigma. You have also completely disregarded for-cause testing for critical jobs. By YOUR assertion, no one says "no, thanks" because of drug testing at work. Detection of such use, while it may be a company policy, exposes the user as a lawbreaker. That's the second-best reason not to have that employee.

Let's talk about alcohol - that's an easy one. Are you honestly trying to tell me that alcohol use was greater, per capita, during Prohibition? Sure, Prohibition was badly applied law - but LYING ABOUT DRUGS lets us pretend that ~17 thousand direct alcohol deaths is justified by our desire for alcohol. It even lets us pretend that alcohol marketing is great example to follow for the "legalization" of other drugs - which, I must point out, is somehow never defined to include {name of drug here} because THAT would illustrate the absurdity.

(Matt is offended because he thinks I included him. Nope. Poor rigor on your part, fellow.)

Right now, I can show you crack dealers three hundred feet from the Aiken County Sheriff's offices.

Tell me you want them to talk to your kids.

Choose drugs. Then, you'll never, ever have to be trustworthy again.

Of course nowadays no one would suggest drugging a young child into unconsciousness, right?

Posted by: Jim P. at July 19, 2013 2:04 PM
______________________________

When it's NOT a narcotic, AND the kid is prone to violent tantrums, AND it's about, not a luxury like a theatre outing, but something as important as simply getting home without holding up the plane and causing other passengers to miss their connections (something one pair of whiny parents didn't seem to consider when they got thrown off of AirTran because their daughter refused to be buckled up), no, I have no objections. (That pair DID use Benadryl, on a later trip, I heard, and all went well.)

That 2007 case can be read about here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=airtran+Kulesza&gbv=2&oq=airtran+Kulesza&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...1443.1443.0.1693.1.1.0.0.0.0.20.20.1.1.0....0...1ac.1.20.heirloom-hp.FiQJiImcgG8

(I found one comment I especially liked):

"I am donning my flame retardant suit now, but if my child hit me, there would be spankings happening right in front of God and everybody. Any child who hits the parents is ruling the roost and not the other way around. They could have talked to her until they were blue in the face and she wasn't going to sit down until she was good and ready."

When it's NOT a narcotic, AND the kid is prone to violent tantrums, AND it's about, not a luxury like a theatre outing, but something as important as simply getting home without holding up the plane … lenona at July 20, 2013 9:51 AM

From Wiki:

Benadryl (diphenhydramine) is a brand name antihistamine (allergy medicine) marketed over-the-counter by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil Consumer Healthcare. Prior to 2007, Benadryl was marketed by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare. Benadryl was invented by George Rieveschl and first made publicly available through prescription in 1946. -- Emphasis added.

So it is a non-narcotic drug that is available off the shelf, now.

So you want to fly instead of just going to the theater. It is still drugging the child for your convenience no matter what excuse you want to give. No one is forcing you to fly with your under-parented child. You made that decision by yourself.

Drug users LIE CONSTANTLY because of laws and the remaining social stigma. You have also completely disregarded for-cause testing for critical jobs. By YOUR assertion, no one says "no, thanks" because of drug testing at work. Detection of such use, while it may be a company policy, exposes the user as a lawbreaker. That's the second-best reason not to have that employee.

You are conflating two issues. There is no reason that a company can't drug test for critical positions. That is a separate issue from whether drugs are illegal or not.

I work for a software company. We were bought out by another SW company. One of the first things they did was terminate the contract with the drug testing company before they hired us on as "new" employees. They realize that your performance is important, not whether smoked a bowl at the Lenny Kravitz concert over the weekend.

Do you really care if I smoked a bowl at the Lenny Kravitz concert over the weekend? So you want to make me a criminal for it?

I can see jobs that drug usage should be monitored: pilots, truck drivers, train engineers, nuke operators.

Oh and another side note: As part of the immigration amnesty, illegals that qualify with three misdemeanor convictions or less will have those records expunged. Meanwhile the American who was popped for minor possession will have it still on their record.

illegals that qualify with three misdemeanor convictions or less will have those records expunged

Wow, really? Expunged? That's weird.

illegals that qualify with three misdemeanor convictions or less will have those records expunged

Wow, really? Expunged? That's weird.

Posted by: Jason S. at July 20, 2013 2:04 PM

Baptism by Green Card? :-)

"Baptism by Green Card?"

Yeah, really. What happened to separation of church and state? Lol.

Ironically, according to this article, the amount of marijuana seized in six years (2005-2011) would be enough to build an eleven foot high wall of joints along the entire US-Mexico border:

http://cironline.org/reports/video-all-your-pot-are-belong-us-4771#cir

As Ronald Reagan once famously said: "Let's build that wall."
I think?

"Do you really care if I smoked a bowl at the Lenny Kravitz concert over the weekend? So you want to make me a criminal for it?"

Only if you were wearing tight plether pants.

>>Drug users LIE CONSTANTLY

So do hypocrites.

So you want to fly instead of just going to the theater. It is still drugging the child for your convenience no matter what excuse you want to give. No one is forcing you to fly with your under-parented child. You made that decision by yourself.

Posted by: Jim P. at July 20, 2013 12:42 PM
____________________________________

The Kuleszas made that decision, yes, which is why they had to resort to Benadryl for the next flight.

My point is that parents need to be more considerate of innocent bystanders, whether by using short-term solutions or long-term ones. Long-term, of course, means making your child (preferably in advance) AFRAID to hit you or disobey you - with or without a public spanking. (Given how everyone was in a hurry, I doubt the crew or passengers would have minded witnessing a spanking so long as it worked and the girl sat down and shut up. But we'll never know.)

And some flights with small children are not optional, especially when you're talking about maintaining relationships with the child's grandparents, who might not be around for long.

But again, of COURSE it's better to teach children self-discipline, firmly but kindly, rather than drug them. Anyone who's alarmed about the overuse of Ritalin in schools would agree. Too many parents are confused about how to do that - especially since many think, foolishly, "if it makes me, the parent, uncomfortable, it must be wrong." (Such as turning off the TV only to hear the child start crying.)

Whatever happened to taking pride in saying "this hurts me more than it hurts you"? (Not that it makes any sense to say that out loud.)

My point is that parents need to be more considerate of innocent bystanders, whether by using short-term solutions or long-term ones. -- lenona at July 22, 2013 11:56 AM

I apologize if I misread that you supported drugging the child over disciplining the child to go out in public places in modern day. You were saying it was done in the '20s but not currently.