If You Want Cookies With A Little Extra Punch, Why Should That Be The Government's Business?
We so often just accept that the government gets to seize drugs and cage people for selling them and we act as if the government has a right to tell people what substances they can and can't put in their bodies.
These practices are antithetical to a free society. On a related note, I haven't read Matt Kibbe's book, Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto, but that about says the way I wish our society actually worked. And by that, I mean, I wish these were the parameters of our government, laws, and governing in this country.
Back to the topic of this post, in a recent news story, these particular cookies had cocaine baked into them, and the U.S. Customs and and Border Protection agency is crowing about seizing them at Newark Airport.
From NBCLosAngeles the cookies were said to have a "street value of more than $50,000" because there were 118 pellets of cocaine baked into them:
A spokesman for the agency said Thursday that customs officers made the discovery June 5 during an examination of luggage from passengers arriving on a flight from Guatemala City.Customs officials said Guatemalan citizen Mauricio Isidro Rivera Hernandez was arrested after officers allegedly discovered the cookies in his three checked bags.
He was handed over to the police department of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and faces state charges of narcotics smuggling.
You know who consumes a fuck ton of drugs? Upper middle class people.
They start out with the legal stuff, including Aderrall. Usually it's white women using it to stay thin.
Then they move to the heavier shit, and then you get trends like what we are seeing now.
Which is that heroin users are now the middle class.
But we don't give out the same sentences across the board.
I guess the people selling them are monsters but the ones consuming them are victims. Well they're only victims if they are white women because everyone else doesn't get the same kindness. They get to go to rehab if they are in possession, good luck though if you are a man, and a poor one at that.
You see if the rich/middle class do drugs they're only doing it because they need our help but if poor people sell drugs to make a buck fuck 'em.
Ppen at June 20, 2014 10:10 AM
Our mistake in this country is we only fight the drug war on the supply side. We bust the dealers and manufacturers and ignore the users.
The joke in Colombia goes, "the US is willing to fight the Drug War to the last Colombian."
Violent gangs and cartels get rich because Americans keep willfully smoking, snorting, and shooting products known to be dangerous and illegal.
As Ppen notes, users get rehab and are "victims." They "have a disease."
If we really wanted to fight the drug war, the users would be going to jail along with their dealers. And that means parents would have to face their precious snowflakes going to prison instead of country club rehab.
Instead, Border Patrol agents, DEA agents, police, and innocent bystanders die because we as a society cannot face doing what needs to be done if we were at all serious about fighting our 40+ year "War on Drugs."
The toll this "War on Drugs" has taken on society, both monetarily and otherwise, has been much higher and more insidious than the very real toll that widespread drug use takes - and since the "War on Drugs" hasn't stopped widespread drug use, that toll is also being taken on society.
Since we're not serious about fighting drugs, let's find a less expensive way to deal with drug use and its consequences.
Conan the Grammarian at June 20, 2014 1:42 PM
I have no idea why you're complaining about this. These laws were put in place by popular demand. That the public is two-faced about it is just part of the problem, not the reason the drug war is a failure.
Oh wait – it is. Want to learn how to do a simple check for this?
Ask somebody if violence in the pursuit of drug smuggling is horrible – then pass them a joint. They won't get it. It is too important to too many people that they be able to get high whenever they want, screw the consequences, to ever be serious about stopping illegal drugs.
Or even the legal ones. Someone dies because of alcohol or tobacco? Too bad. Hit me again.
Radwaste at June 20, 2014 4:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/20/if_you_want_coo.html#comment-4781909">comment from RadwasteIt is too important to too many people that they be able to get high whenever they want, screw the consequences, to ever be serious about stopping illegal drugs.
This is ridiculous.
Actions have tradeoffs, including, say going to the drugstore rather than staying home and going without cold medication.
Why shouldn't you be able to get high? And there are appropriate times and places for getting high or having a poo.
Yes, there are drug addicts who will not consider consequences -- same as there are drunks who won't. We don't keep Amy Alkon from drinking wine because some lady down the block gets DUIs. Nor should we. And the same goes for any other substance you want to ingest.
Yes, we appropriately have laws against driving while impaired. Because you could hurt somebody else. See the Matt Kibbe title. If you are simply getting high in your living room, why is that anybody's business but yours?
Amy Alkon at June 20, 2014 4:34 PM
'cause other people pay the taxes that support the agencies that are responsible for stopping the illegal distribution of the substances you are using. And as the distribution and use of those substances grows, the agencies expand their reach and power; and all of our civil liberties shrink.
'cause there are people dying in both the distribution and the interdiction of those substances. You aren't pulling the trigger, but you are helping to buy the bullets.
'cause the groups that are manufacturing and illegally distributing those substances are using the profits from selling those substances to fund the expansion of their business into other illegal and society-destroying activities; and using violence to establish and defend those new or expanded business ventures.
'cause the continued flouting of the law by the use of illegal substances erodes support for all law and order, which eventually erodes the foundations of our society - the justification usually goes "it's nobody's business if I do" or "I'm not hurting anybody."
[Mind you, the people that pass laws they know no one will ever obey are as bad as the ones who flout those laws ... probably worse.]
If you want to sit in your living room and get high, then go ahead. However, the use of illegal substances has consequences beyond your altered consciousness. To pretend otherwise is to delude yourself.
As long as these substances remain illegal, those consequences will have to be paid by someone ... usually by all of us.
Conan the Grammarian at June 20, 2014 5:23 PM
"Ask somebody if violence in the pursuit of drug smuggling is horrible – then pass them a joint. They won't get it."
"cause there are people dying in both the distribution and the interdiction of those substances. You aren't pulling the trigger, but you are helping to buy the bullets."
Sorry guys, my smoke is locally grown. I'm funding some nice old guy's retirement and that's about it.
So tell me again why I shouldn't be allowed to smoke my local grown weed in the privacy of my own home?
" These laws were put in place by popular demand."
Popular Demand? WTF? I though it was because Nixon hated the hippies.
SmilinBob at June 20, 2014 6:06 PM
I've been working for companies that until recently had drug testing. And they would "randomly" select people to be tested.
So I haven't had anything illegal for years.
But the war on drugs is a failure, but the politicians won't admit it.
Jim P. at June 20, 2014 6:56 PM
You used to be able to order heroin out of the Sears catalog. No one cared
Coca Cola used to have active cocaine in it. No one cared
The only reason weed was outlawed is because the white voting pubic was told niggers were gonna rape their daughters, and their daughters were going to fucking love darkie cocks. Cant have black people fucking whites, gotta outlaw that shit tut suite.
Prohibition never works.
lujlp at June 20, 2014 9:04 PM
Okay, guys: where are the impairment standards?
Legalization advocates are forever ready with personal anecdotes about this and that genius who does recreational drugs and still excels at their job.
But you still cannot get the hint. Fatal accidents involving dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people are possible in a heavily industrialized society. This one.
And no number of claims of "personal responsibility" will get anyone a "do over". Not one accident will be undone, not one injury or fatality will "unhappen".
Hey, I know you want to get high. I just wish you would look at the ROI.
Radwaste at June 21, 2014 3:16 AM
"If you are simply getting high in your living room, why is that anybody's business but yours?"
Because it is pretty obvious that you are not going to STAY in your damn living room.
Alcoholics don't – and neither will any other kind of addict.
Isn't it hilarious that when it comes to welfare, the claim here is that when you subsidize something, you get more of it – but somehow responsible behavior results from loosening the restrictions on drug availability?
Radwaste at June 21, 2014 3:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/20/if_you_want_coo.html#comment-4784029">comment from RadwasteAlcoholics don't – and neither will any other kind of addict
So are you advocating banning alcohol, too?
Amy Alkon at June 21, 2014 7:01 AM
And NyQuil, we'll have to ban NyQuil, and Lunesta, and Percoset, and aspirin. Aspirin thins out the blood leading to lower oxygen levels which in some people lowers cognitive fuction
lujlp at June 21, 2014 7:05 AM
>>Okay, guys: where are the impairment standards?
What's wrong with the ones we currently have? If you look impaired and act impaired, you are impaired.
>>Because it is pretty obvious that you are not going to STAY in your damn living room.
Well the high does wear off. I tend to stay put when "impaired."
Another thing, while in theory pot should impair your driving, in reality it doesn't.
http://www.asylum.com/2010/06/02/university-of-iowa-marijuana-pot-herb-doesnt-impair-driving-ability/
SmilinBob at June 21, 2014 8:21 AM
Aren't you also against companies having to put the ingredients on the labels though? I feel like there was a post a while back. I'd be ok with stuff being legal if I could get a guarantee it'd be on a label where I could see it.
NicoleK at June 21, 2014 9:40 AM
Take a gander at the other things I mentioned about the impact of your use of homegrown.
The rest of us are still being taxed to pay for cops and government agencies to combat homegrown.
The rest of us are still having our civil liberties eroded as cops and government agencies bust into houses (sometimes even the right ones) and seize assets to combat homegrown.
Does your "nice old guy" pay taxes on the income from his homegrown? Chances are he's not. If not, then he's likely also not paying into Social Security, Medicaid, and the other programs he's sure to call upon when he reaches an age at which he can collect the benefits. So, the rest of us are paying for that as well.
Conan the Grammarian at June 21, 2014 9:53 AM
"The rest of us are still being taxed to pay for cops and government agencies to combat homegrown.
The rest of us are still having our civil liberties eroded as cops and government agencies bust into houses (sometimes even the right ones) and seize assets to combat homegrown."
Seems like you have cause and effect mixed up here.
SmilinBob at June 21, 2014 1:57 PM
Nope. While I support ending the current War on Drugs, it's going on right now. The government is spending money to fight the distribution and use of drugs. The gangs are using violence to defend and expand their territories.
Until they are legalized, however, even the casual use of illegal drugs supports the culture of drug use and helps to drive the over-reaction of the government as it finds the very people demanding it make drugs illegal happily using them; and insisting that users not be arrested for their illegal activities.
As a result, the casual user is not innocent.
Conan the Grammarian at June 21, 2014 8:16 PM
"Which is that heroin users are now the middle class. "
I have to admit I don't get that. I know Ppen is telling the truth because I've read the stats myself. But I still don't get it.
Cousin Dave at June 21, 2014 10:07 PM
I'd hazard a guess that when your life is fairly comfortable you have the time and resources to let emotional trauma fuck up your life. Which is where opiods come in.
When its a struggle every day to eat you dont have the time or the luxury to medicate emotional pain
lujlp at June 21, 2014 10:24 PM
Come on Rad, how do you measure the level of aspirin in someone blood stream? Or Sudifed? Or coffee? How do we make sure people arent operating under the influence of OTC drugs?
lujlp at June 22, 2014 1:43 AM
"I have to admit I don't get that."
From what I understand, the maker of the oxycontin pill changed the formula so that users could no longer crush or dissolve the pill as easily, therefore taking away the ability to snort or shoot up and get a stronger effect of the drug.
Now pill users are turning to heroin.That could be one reason, too.
Jason S at June 22, 2014 6:32 AM
You make an interesting point about direct-democracy, Radwaste.
States' initiative process is why medical marijuana has been legal in CA since the '90s. It's also why full
legalization didn't pass in '10. So complaints about gov't should be aimed at voters.
Would an initiative to decriminalize cocaine get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Maybe. I would doubt that it would pass at the voting booth, though.
But citizens of Colorado and Washington did vote to legalize pot. How has that been working out?
Jason S at June 22, 2014 6:52 AM
Leave a comment