Drug Policy... past present and future.

[Paregoric Kid]

but you have to think about why it became illegal in the first place. Its not because the Gov't wanted to make it illegal so they could make money off of it, its because people were OD'ing and lots and lots of poeple were getting strung out.

drugs were first made illegal because of outrageous unscientific lies about the effects of drugs. they were implemented because of racism. lies about cocaine turning all blacks into unstoppable savages that rape and kill any white woman in sight. lies about the chinese who smoked opium. church leaders campaigned for an international opium ban to stop chinese from smoking it. it was all racist bullshit. all drug laws were and are unconstitutional and immoral. people read outrageous stories in magazines published by Hearst. ever watch reefer madness or the cocaine fiends? government swine like Anslinger attempted to wipe out species of PLANTS. it was not harm reduction, you cannot justify criminalization of drugs and the federal control of medicine. what the fuck were these people thinking?

[HistoryofMadness]

drugs were first made illegal because of outrageous unscientific lies about the effects of drugs. they were implemented because of racism. lies about cocaine turning all blacks into unstoppable savages that rape and kill any white woman in sight. lies about the chinese who smoked opium. church leaders campaigned for an international opium ban to stop chinese from smoking it. it was all racist bullshit. all drug laws were and are unconstitutional and immoral. people read outrageous stories in magazines published by Hearst. ever watch reefer madness or the cocaine fiends? government swine like Anslinger attempted to wipe out species of PLANTS. it was not harm reduction, you cannot justify criminalization of drugs and the federal control of medicine. what the fuck were these people thinking?
This isn't why they were made illegal, this is how they got the populace to follow...

[Paregoric Kid]

no that's actually why they were made illegal. local and state laws were the first drug laws. in congress' people testified unscientific and unobjective crap to help get many of the drug laws in place. to the Harrison Narcotics Act was implemented because the US entered an international treaty on narcotics that obligated the US to implement such infringments. this treaty was brought about because of the Women's Christian Temperance Union petitioned for the government for an international opium ban.

[HistoryofMadness]

Dude, man you're killing me... everytime I respond you edit ... killin' me :)

Fuck it, I'm rewriting it...

no that's actually why they were made illegal. in congress people testified the most exaggerated bullshit stories about the effects of drugs. it was hardly scientific evidence presented in an objective manner. they just told them the worst possible things they could say to cause an appeal to emotion. they made a very half-assed attempt to make it look like a legit law by not just banning it outright they made tax stamps. just like they banned fully automatic weapons, you needed a tax stamp to own and sell it and they wouldn't sell any tax stamps so anyone that had one was considered a tax evader. they didn't need that tax money, providing revenue wasn't the reason for the law, it was a way they could try and control the market and society.

So you are saying prohibition started because of fear? That just doesn't make sense. You are talking about tactics... they used fear and religion to move the laws.

The strategy was to control money and the power it brings. This started with an international treaty to stop shipping opium into China from India by Britain... we wanted Britain's share.

The Harrison Act was passed in the US, to stop the few opium shipping outfits here from sending opium there. Once that was done, money began to flow in the way it was engineered to flow... here.

I only saw 2 local / state laws; one that was before harrison, but didn't prohibit a substance, and one that prohibited a substance but it was after harrison.

My claim still stands, money is at the root of the treaty, the harrison act was in line with the treaty, and the treaty was to help the rich get richer... show me some better state and local laws, and in the meantime I'll put together a timeline that shows the money trail all the way to the war on terror (which is an overhaul of the war on drugs) and how money's being controlled, and where the power from that money is being held...

And fear is still the best tactic for this strategy, I give you that.

[Paregoric Kid]

sorry for editing I was fixing some errors. that's ridiculous, it would be economically good for American pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs OTC. outlawing drugs causes the profits to go to terrorists and gangsters. just like alcohol prohibition. the "rich" aren't getting richer, the gangsters and terrorists at the top of the chain are. controlling the market doesn't work, that's communism.
the first federal control of drugs and medicine began with the passing of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. then there is the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909. San Francisco passed opium bans in 1875. I think it may have only applied to the chinese, that is clearly racist. Shanghai Commission (The International Opium Commission), 1909. etc. etc.

[HistoryofMadness]

sorry for editing I was fixing some errors. that's ridiculous, it would be economically good for American pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs OTC. outlawing drugs causes the profits to go to terrorists and gangsters. just like alcohol prohibition. the "rich" aren't getting richer, the gangsters and terrorists at the top of the chain are. controlling the market doesn't work, that's communism.
the first federal control of drugs and medicine began with the passing of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. then there is the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909. San Francisco passed opium bans in 1875. I think it may have only applied to the chinese, that is clearly racist. Shanghai Commission (The International Opium Commission), 1909. etc. etc.
Nah I was kidding about the editing...

It wasn't domestic sales that american companies were trying to make money from.. it was the money the Chinese were spending on opium that American business people wanted to stop flowing to England and start flowing to America. Ever heard of the Opium Wars? This was a chapter towards the end of that story.

As for who's getting richer, of course its the gangsters... that's why it was outlawed; to give the American gov't the power to attack. And controlling the market does work, re: Halliburton. That's not communism; that's the result of capitalism and democracy working together.

I'm telling you a bunch of nuns did not change the direction of the international drug trade. They were the moral cover for the business men to reroute international business... All the acts you mentioned before Harrison had NO TEETH...

And the opium bans weren't racist; they only prohibited smoking it... it was still distributed freely until Harrison. The only thing early drug policy approached that was remotely racist was American Nationalism...

Seriously, nuns?

--edit-- I'm going to start a new thread in Law Abiding Citizen if someone doesn't beat me to it... this is an interesting and important discussion, but it is a hijack of the most extreme nature. . .

[HistoryofMadness]

Just wanted to start this thread to move the discussion over from here (http://forum.opiophile.org/showthread.php?t=150)... starting from post #16... (maybe someone can help merge or transplant those?)...

All I'm saying is that based on what I know, drug policy started because of an effort to control a portion of international business. The drug trade has always been and will always be an international affair; no one country's policy is an island. The US drug policy, especially, has always been about international power and money.

I think the judicial system discriminates against the poor, which often looks like racism at first glance, but how many white folks just in this community have been screwed by the system that is supposedly bent towards whites and against minorities?

I have. I think racism is a cop out argument that is used to divide the poor (and when I say poor I mean you don't own a fucking multi-national corporation...) and prohibits us from getting down to the real problems of drug policy.

Thoughts?

[Set]

In my opinion it vents upon creating "scapegoats", but the REASON is so the US Government can try to force control politically over Central & South American Nations... THAT is what the War on Drugs is REALLY all about...It's the SAME as using the War on Terror to vent control over Middle-eastern oil bearing nations...

It's never as it seems to be...Mexico is relaxing its drug laws because THEY are going to have ENOUGH trouble stopping the "human traffick" from chewing holes in the fence they are building...besides "drugs" have multiple entry points mostly from the sea...it is MUCH more difficult for the Coast Guard to patrol the coastline than it is for the Border Patrol to stop "mules" or dig up tunnels...

And it was just an "unofficial" answer from Vincente Fox as to how Mexico feels about us putting up barbed wire reminiscent of the Berlin Wall...Why not dig a trench and put up a barrier with Canada? After all they just FOUND 17 potential terrorists in Toronto....

It's all MONEY dude...All MONEY!!!:mad:

And the FACT whenever the GOP is in control of the USA then they simply MUST have a War on Something...and a "scapegoat" to blame things on..."drug addicts"...."gays" ....anyone but themselves....

[skeletontea]

I definitely think that's part of the equation, but I don't think it's the whole picture. I know a lot of early (and some not so early) drug laws were steeped in race relation. Many viewed these laws as banning drugs associated with certain people as a means of oppressing them (i.e., early opium laws applied only to the Chinese [along with non-drug laws aimed at Chinese immigrants], the government referred to cannabis as marijuana [a Mexican slang] in their propaganda films, the police claimed cocaine made black men 100 times stronger than normal, and caused them to rape women [the same story was later applied to PCP]).

Then again, these are only surface issues. Who's to say there isn't a less obvious reason for the illegality of certain substances? I suppose it is entirely possible that these explanations were given as a means to control not certain people, but money and power under the guise of race based policies. Policies which would seem more reasonable to the largely intolerant white American populous at the times of these laws' inceptions. However, I do personally feel that they were largely based on race, on xenophobia, a fear of what is "other."

A lot of people claim medical cannabis and poppies are so strongly opposed simply because the government wants you to line their pockets when you take medicine rather than getting it for free, or purchasing without giving them a cut. But if that were really the case, there wouldn't be such a crackdown on the perceived overprescribing and diversion of pharmaceutical narcotics.

I feel that the real reason for these laws is that despite the supposed separation between church and state, this is a Christian country. Our laws are not based on, but largely influenced by religious doctrine. And one of the keys to religion is the suppression of personal pleasure (which is very much about power). Why does the church declare premarital sex, and drug use to be a sin? When you control the person's pleasure, you control the person, and by extension their money.

So while I believe that the church is largely instated to control the minds and pocketbooks of society (as well as the fear of death, and a yearning to explain existence), I also believe that the real origins of our drug laws are these religion based moral codes which are so deeply ingrained within our society. We don't treat drugs as a health issue in this country, but an issue of morality.

[HistoryofMadness]

I definitely think that's part of the equation, but I don't think it's the whole picture. I know a lot of early (and some not so early) drug laws were steeped in race relation. Many viewed these laws as banning drugs associated with certain people as a means of oppressing them (i.e., early opium laws applied only to the Chinese [along with non-drug laws aimed at Chinese immigrants], the government referred to cannabis as marijuana [a Mexican slang] in their propaganda films, the police claimed cocaine made black men 100 times stronger than normal, and caused them to rape women [the same story was later applied to PCP]).

Then again, these are only surface issues. Who's to say there isn't a less obvious reason for the illegality of certain substances? I suppose it is entirely possible that these explanations were given as a means to control not certain people, but money and power under the guise of race based policies. Policies which would seem more reasonable to the largely intolerant white American populous at the times of these laws' inceptions. However, I do personally feel that they were largely based on race, on xenophobia, a fear of what is "other."

A lot of people claim medical cannabis and poppies are so strongly opposed simply because the government wants you to line their pockets when you take medicine rather than getting it for free, or purchasing without giving them a cut. But if that were really the case, there wouldn't be such a crackdown on the perceived overprescribing and diversion of pharmaceutical narcotics.

I feel that the real reason for these laws is that despite the supposed separation between church and state, this is a Christian country. Our laws are not based on, but largely influenced by religious doctrine. And one of the keys to religion is the suppression of personal pleasure (which is very much about power). Why does the church declare premarital sex, and drug use to be a sin? When you control the person's pleasure, you control the person, and by extension their money.

So while I believe that the church is largely instated to control the minds and pocketbooks of society (as well as the fear of death, and a yearning to explain existence), I also believe that the real origins of our drug laws are these religion based moral codes which are so deeply ingrained within our society. We don't treat drugs as a health issue in this country, but an issue of morality.

See here we are in agreement almost completely... what I've learned is that there are always coalitions for the purpose of legislating morality... for example, slavery was the moral issue of the civil war, but not the primary one... the primary issue of the civil war was to resolve the economic conflict between the north and the south (with the west as a swing group)...

After all, if the civil war was for racism and slavery, why did the south continue to discriminate (and they did it against poor whites too for the record)? Citizenship without a vote is second class citizenship, which is only one-half step up from slavery.

The great compromise at the end of the 19th century was that the south could continue apartheid and the north could practice colonialism with Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and others...

Yes, they link... most normal day to day working poor and middle class know a lot more about what's going on with the social issues of the day than the economic ones..... therefore you ALWAYS have to have a moralistic movement to mobilize people.

BUT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY these people couldn't have done it ever, the nuns and harrison, the abolitionists and the civil war, etc etc... without a strong push from the government for MONEY...

The difference is between Strategy and Tactics:

Strategy of the early drug policy (I'm talking 19th and early 20th cent) -- to change the flow of international funds regarding the trade and sale of opium between china and england...

Tactics set strategy on a successful path -- Fund and amplify prohibitionist voices such as the nuns and others to move the common people. Some of that was done by racism, which was a moral issue at the time, but it was not the PURPOSE of the effort.

Does that make sense? The purpose was money, and one of the tactics was morality and another was race relations...

I am almost ready to build a timeline, a dictionary, and a set of axioms of political science, and just start a history class... this stuff is important. If we don't know where we came from we don't know where we're going....

And its good to be able to look behind calls of racism, and morality, and see the strategy, or even better the Grand Objective...

[Set]

A lot of people claim medical cannabis and poppies are so strongly opposed simply because the government wants you to line their pockets when you take medicine rather than getting it for free, or purchasing without giving them a cut. But if that were really the case, there wouldn't be such a crackdown on the perceived overprescribing and diversion of pharmaceutical narcotics.


I definitely agree with this...but morality is a "cover issue"...for Hitler it was Jews...for Nixon it was "drug addicts"...for BU$H it is "illegals"...it is always something for a "facist" regime...Scapegoating is used to take the pressure off of the powers that be...Hitler claimed to be protecting Christianity (his form) by killing Jews...but the pressure was economic...not religious...Jews were killed to get their assets under the guise of getting rid of impurity in Nazi Society...But it was not ONLY MONEY but ALSO POWER!...Threaten and kill the "scapegoats" and it keeps the rest in line from fear....:violent3:

[HistoryofMadness]

Jews were killed to get their assets under the guise of getting rid of impurity in Nazi Society...But it was not ONLY MONEY but ALSO POWER!...

This is a good example, Set, Jews were killed under the guise of being impure, and many will tell you that was the purpose of WWII, but it wasn't... not even for the bastard Hitler himself.

Hitler and the modern western culture believed communism was a philosophy being promoted by Russian Jews (which it was, heard of the bolsheviks?)... So the REAL fear was that Germany (hell the whole world ) was going to be overtaken by the bolshevik revolution ... communism killed hundreds of millions, hitler's atrocities paled in comparison.

Power, money, and land to grow an empire out of a civilization.

Just like most people think the civil war was over slavery or that the civil rights movement was over equality in the system... these are all the jingo ... the moral covers... the skin that covers the guts of politics...

We have the people and the money (not here, the whole opiophile community) to make the docs, insurance agencies, pharmacists, etc have equal respect... no different than cancer. We just aren't organized with this in mind, yet.

Anyway the point is, the stigma we suffer from as a community, that leads to the mistreatment and disrespect is ONLY that: Power, money, and land to grow an empire out of a civilization.

Hey, its worth discussion, right?

[Coddfish]

The chicken or the egg, my friends. mutual causes, rumors, opportunity, and many other things. In any case, we can surely all agree that it will be virtually impossible to turn these laws over, at least in my lifetime, and that's all that counts.

[george123]

I disagree with the idea that the Western world and Germany were both fearing that communism would overtake Germany or the world, and that's the real reson for WWII. Ever hear of the Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt conference?

[HistoryofMadness]

I disagree with the idea that the Western world and Germany were both fearing that communism would overtake Germany or the world, and that's the real reson for WWII. Ever hear of the Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt conference?
Why did it take so long for England to get into the war? Roosevelt? You are talking about after Germany starting spilling outside of its borders... and killing en masse. Then England and the US had no choice.

When the shit first hit the fan in and around Germany nobody did anything, because communism was spreading and so was the fear of it.

That's why it got out of hand. That's why Germany was allowed to go so far. And that's why it was a world war instead of a local war.

The 'final solution' was never about Jews, regardless of what revisionist history read... it was about the elimination of Bolshevism.

And Stalin? He rose to power in the Communist Party, practiced marxism-leninism, and starved hundreds of millions of his own countrymen to death.

Hitler wanted nothing of Bolshevism, Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism... that's what the his war was about. The only reason we jumped in was because he allied with Japan and they attacked us. Before given a reason, we didn't want to have to choose between the two monsters.... stalin or hitler? What a choice.

Anyway the point is that you can always recognize propoganda by the 'good v. evil' -- and just like our history is boiled down to these jingoistic fairly tales of defeating hitler the boogeyman and the local drug dealer that sells to 12 year olds in schools... we are on the losing side, right?

Didn't mean to drift off like that...

[Paregoric Kid]

halliburton gets government contracts but they have to have the lowest bid. that's not government controlling the market. controlling the market is when the government places regulations on bussinesses and industries. a laisezz-faire capitalist system doesn't need the government.

[Paregoric Kid]

government control of the market is the opposite of true capitalism. you cannot stop the market. it doesn't matter what bullshit laws they pass, the product is going to be sold. you can call it communism, socialism, fascism, any philosophy that advocates control of the market is the same, it's evil.

the US didn't get their forces into WW2 until after Pearl Harbor. the US declared war on the Japanese and Germany then declared war on the US. the soviet union and nazi germany were in league with each other, in their similar philosophies and with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. germany wanted more land for it's people (lebensraum, living space) so they broke the pact and invaded the soviet union. another excuse is they feared the red army was preparing an invasion, so it was also a preemptive strike, sound familiar?
nazism is communsim. national SOCIALISTS. they were the same damn philosophy with superficial differences.

[HistoryofMadness]

halliburton gets government contracts but they have to have the lowest bid. that's not government controlling the market. controlling the market is when the government places regulations on bussinesses and industries. a laisezz-faire capitalist system doesn't need the government.

not true... the largest percentage of halliburon's recent govt earnings were from no-bid contracts... that is not hands-off... check your facts... in the laisezz-faire system, the system doesn't only need the gov't, it has to have the govt to function... in fact in this type of system, the ONLY function of the govt is to 'protect and lubricate' the market... hands-off to them only means no redistribution of wealth... check the tax structure today and see if its not the worst case of corporate welfare that's ever existed in a so-called capitalist state... you are speaking in the language created to keep the rich on top... and I don't mean lexus-drivers, I mean corporation owners and policy setters...

[Paregoric Kid]

we're not in a laisezz-faire capitalist economy, we're in a mixed socialist-capitalist economy. in a laisezz-faire capitalist economy the government places no restrictions on the market and does not regulate or control it. you could have a laisezz-faire capitalist system under no government at all, ie anarchy. there should be no redistribution of wealth by the government.
I wasn't talking about no bid contracts, that's welfare for the rich. corporate welfare is just as bad as social welfare.

[HistoryofMadness]

government control of the market is the opposite of true capitalism. you cannot stop the market. it doesn't matter what bullshit laws they pass, the product is going to be sold. you can call it communism, socialism, fascism, any philosophy that advocates control of the market is the same, it's evil.

the US didn't get their forces into WW2 until after Pearl Harbor. the US declared war on the Japanese and Germany then declared war on the US. the soviet union and nazi germany were in league with each other, in their similar philosophies and with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. germany wanted more land for it's people (lebensraum, living space) so they broke the pact and invaded the soviet union. another excuse is they feared the red army was preparing an invasion, so it was also a preemptive strike, sound familiar?
nazism is communsim. national SOCIALISTS. they were the same damn philosophy with superficial differences.

HA! The ONLY socialism in NAZI Germany was for the 'volks' or german indo-europeans... the national socialist philosophy was a mechanism to get the working class behind the ruling class, just like "laisse-fairre" is today... NAZI was absolutely not the same philosophy as leninism/marxism.. in fact the very function of nazism was to defeat communism... just as people say about capitalism today...

If you think the government isn't having any effect on the market, you aren't keeping up with economic policy.... 'the market' isn't 'the market' without the government... the only hands that are being kept off are the hands of the under-class...

If the market is so powerful why does the US government find it necessary to involve itself in a regulatory fashion in international business... you are talking as if you've never heard of the world bank...

The 'conservative' neo-cons are some of the most socialistic rulers this country has seen in a long long time.. it is no coincidence that the majority of the policy-makers in power right now, especially the ones involved with middle eastern affairs, used to be not only democrats but socialists...

Short attention spans and lack of knowledge of history get us into the BS situations we are in right now... and just because your government says it doesn't have its hands in the market doesn't mean that it really doesn't...

The big problem I see is that people simply accept what they are told... this causes the lack of interest in change...

[HistoryofMadness]

we're not in a laisezz-faire capitalist economy, we're in a mixed socialist-capitalist economy. in a laisezz-faire capitalist economy the government places no restrictions on the market and does not regulate or control it. you could have a laisezz-faire capitalist system under no government at all, ie anarchy. there should be no redistribution of wealth by the government.
I wasn't talking about no bid contracts, that's welfare for the rich. corporate welfare is just as bad as social welfare.

anarchy is a weak man's dream... society can only exist with organization, and leaders have always naturally drifted to the top... it is the frustration of the beta-male that leads to the desire to lead by committee...

I only said that about halliburton because you used them as an example of the perfection of the market. The govt protects its own by offering up the bulk of the national treasury to the well-connected few...

And a free-market without an organized government would be overrun in a second by the strong demagogues of the system, and wealth would be redistributed... the hardest workers will always be exploited without protection...

[Frontier Psychiatrist]

anarchy would work in a society of like minded individuals. But think about it, you'd just have rednecks playing King of the neighborhood.

[Paregoric Kid]

I wasn't advocating anarchy. I was giving you an example that a capitalist economy doesn't need the government to work.

[HistoryofMadness]

anarchy would work in a society of like minded individuals. But think about it, you'd just have rednecks playing King of the neighborhood.

Where are you going to find that group?

I wasn't advocating anarchy. I was giving you an example that a capitalist economy doesn't need the government to work.

I understand that. But anarchy would fall apart under, well, anarchy, and in the meantime what about those agressive assholes (we all know one) that would just come in and take your shit... you know, the ones that are locked up that actually should be... sociopaths, I think they are...

[Paregoric Kid]

you aren't listening. we're in a socialist-capitalist economy. we are not in a laisezz-faire capitalist economy, I think we should be.

[HistoryofMadness]

^^ No I'm listening, I just misunderstood... I just don't think it'll ever happen... Honestly for a second I thought you were pitching republican party line... wow.

So we agree to disagree here? You believe in a highly organized market and a weak government because you don't trust government... I believe in a highly organized government and a weak market because I don't trust the market...

I will say one thing.. I would accept laisse-faire if there were consequences for the most extreme cases, such as Worldcom, Enron, Healthsouth, etc.. because the market doens't weed out crooks... in fact it rewards them sometimes which is where plutocracy begins, and leads to a strange sort of mob-rule democracy... which is where we're headed by the way.

But in all other cases, maybe...

All right, well, let's go back to what we agree on... first we know that political conversation can veer wildly, as I am proof of that...

Second we agree that whether racism or money was involved, drug policy is what it is today more for money and population control than for 'protecting us' or helping us, right?

All I'm trying to point out is that often in policy, politics is buried so deep it takes historical reference and a little inside knowledge to sift through it...

The recent salvia laws for example: That is a vote-getter if I've ever seen one... hell, cars are more dangerous than salvia but that's not the point...

So education, is that the key? Is it just because most people don't understand, and so they just see what they see (fighting the system makes you poor, then you look like a bum) and what the govt tells them and accept it?

[poppy]

I don't pretend to know what you guys are talking about but this thread has given me and my boyfriend a great laugh tonight.
Skeleton mentioned a few posts something called 'the harrison act' which I'd never heard of. My boyfriend's surname is 'harrison' so I thought I'd look on wikipedia and see what it was all about, anyway it turns out (as you lot of course already know) that the harrison act is not exactly favourable to addicts:
(sorry I don't know how to do one of those link things! but here's the general gist of it for those who don't know about it)
QUOTE (wikidpedia):
The Harrison Act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates....... However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution "in the course of his professional practice only." This clause was interpreted after 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917) to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease. A number of doctors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The medical profession quickly learned not to supply opiates to addicts.
This is just so funny (at least to us, maybe its our British sense of humour) when you bear in mind the fact that my boyfriend has been a heroin addict for 25+ years, which of course has hardly had a positive impact on his life, losing his children, time in prison etc etc..His views are of course totally the opposite to the harrison act. Anyway We've come to the conclusion that he was reincarnated as a heroin addict to redeem himself for his lack of sympathy for drug addicts in a previous life, and by way of compensation be forced to carry the stigma of the harrison name.
Sorry if you lot don't find it funny, also I don't mean to detract from the serious nature of the thread.

[Frontier Psychiatrist]

The only way to control a substance is by legalizing it. Drug prohibition is a fairly new idea, and our government should learn first hand from the prohibition era that more problems are raised and more people die when such substances are illegalized. This isn't the argument of "drugs are bad", but that the gangs and cartels manufacturing them are. These are the real criminals, not the addicts.

[karmacoma]

it's hard for me to even read this thread. it is so obvious that US drug policy is completely retarded. but in the end i don't think it is really about the drugs. it is part of a larger, cultural war, started by right-wing religious fanatics. the problem is that the "discussion" is controlled by these people - people who know what's best, not only for themselves, but for me too!

and the truly frustrating catch-22 to this political absurdity is that, when anyone gets up and argues for a sensible drug policy, they are automatically marked as pro-drug, as well as well as [I]soft on crime.[I] and that's the reason supposedly liberal, supposedly educated liberal politicians won't touch the subject.

but i cannot understand why (as many of you pointed out) a democrat, or any sensible politician, can't point out the lesson learned from the prohibition. when the prohibition was knocked down it meant the virtual end of organized crime. a legalized and regulated drug market would diminish crime.

wtf?

[Paregoric Kid]

yes, agree to disagree.
also to the person that said you can only control drugs when they are legal, that's a lie. if you legalize drugs and then place bullshit restrictions or taxes on them there will just be a new black market that will undermine the regulations and control. you cannot control the market. this is a lesson of prohibition. no one should have the right to tell a person or organization what they can or cannot sell, and no one should have the right to tell a person what they can or cannot buy. let individuals decide what is best for themselves. the government does not know what's best for us. liberal doctrine is more government regulation, more government control, to put more power in the hands of idiots that can't balance a budget.
legalize drugs, do not regulate drugs.

[HistoryofMadness]

Well, good to see a little more expression of opinion here... thought surely I'd gotten a few more of ya'... oh well some have always opted out of these I guess.

Anyway I think there's a critical misunderstanding about government and political processes that I kinda see in the comments and other discussion threads here (and on other boards) about drug policy (or policy in general).

But our democratic government operates like a marketplace, and I have seen this from a personal perspective. The ONLY reason morality is taken into consideration in policy is when (a) the morality voting block is needed in an upcoming election and (b) when the block can raise and spend millions of dollars on campaigns. This is all domestic politics for elections...

But there are wars, and DEA agents, and gangs, etc... Afghanistan has been known to fund warlords with poppy money, right? During Vietnam the warlords were funded with heroin. Columbia? ETC ok you got the point. This is NOT politics. This is actually the policy.

Drug policy is huge business in the US and around the world. The problem is defeatism... lack of organization. The only reason we can't do anything about certain things is because we think we can't. Its not chicken and egg... there's a definite thread.

I'm not saying we can overturn shit, or make any major changes. No one really can on any policy unless its right after a major attack. Our system is one of incremental change.

In other words, its gotta start somewhere. There are ways to negotiate reality and rationalism back into the POLICY (screw the politics, that's nothing in this battle).... trust me there are ways.

Anyone have any suggestions?

[george123]

I admire your optimism, but there's just too many assholes in office in the United States to make any significant change in drug policy on a federal level...for now.

[HistoryofMadness]

I admire your optimism, but there's just too many assholes in office in the United States to make any significant change in drug policy on a federal level...for now.

Ahh, but unlike many coutries, we can kick them out. Yes, its a long drawn-out process, but why throw in the towel?

Sometimes the worst thing you can do is nothing, right?

Of course, I doubt the real problem is just complacency with drug policy... we as a citizenry have gotten pretty lazy and easily manipulated. Oh well. At least everyone hasn't given up on everything.

[Paregoric Kid]

this isn't a democracy it's a constitutional republic, too bad they don't follow the constitution anymore.
vote for libertarians. write op-ed pieces and letters to the editor. share your pro-drug philosophy with other people. join the libertarian party. join the free state project. join norml. send a bomb to the DEA. donate to the CATO institute. donate to the libertarian party. get arrested and fight the laws up to the supreme court. when they don't knock to kick your door down with a warrant shoot them and fight it because they didn't knock so you thought it was a burglar. shoot the cops even if they do knock. if your state allows resolutions to be voted on from petitions get signatures for pro-drug laws (Denver locally legalized weed). there's a lot you can do. change people's minds to a pro-free market, pro-personal freedom philosophy and you can change the laws.

[HistoryofMadness]

this isn't a democracy it's a constitutional republic, too bad they don't follow the constitution anymore.
vote for libertarians. write op-ed pieces and letters to the editor. share your pro-drug philosophy with other people. join the libertarian party. join the free state project. join norml. send a bomb to the DEA. donate to the CATO institute. donate to the libertarian party. get arrested and fight the laws up to the supreme court. when they don't knock to kick your door down with a warrant shoot them and fight it because they didn't knock so you thought it was a burglar. shoot the cops even if they do knock. if your state allows resolutions to be voted on from petitions get signatures for pro-drug laws (Denver locally legalized weed). there's a lot you can do. change people's minds to a pro-free market, pro-personal freedom philosophy and you can change the laws.

Yes, we are a consitutional republic with democratic ideals written into the consitution and democratically-elected officials... and I agree that the constitution is being trampled, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

And even though most of what you said is adversarial and may be counterproductive, I think its a good start. I think even more incremental attitudes would work. If we are too aggressive we play right into their hands.

If we are thoughtful about it, and appear for the most part normal (or present the normal looking among us as spokespeople) the policy makers won't really have much of the ammo they have now.

It also doesn't hurt to agree that there are behaviors that should be discouraged. Many people think that too much freedom for too many people begins to give us the problems we have today with political correctness, etc. Instead, the correct definition of freedom should be promoted.

Also proving that virtue does exist, even within the 'junky' community, would help a lot.

I have been wondering lately, how many normal junkies would have to stand up at once before the chance of being stigmatized and ostracized goes down? I think our group here at opiophile would be a good place for people to start if they couldn't get the 'junkies all live under bridges' idea out of their mind.

Oh, and I don't think the libertarians are the answer. But that's just my opinion.

[Paregoric Kid]

those are valid ways to bring about change. sure some of it was in fun, but I was being serious. the libertarians are the largest 3rd party in the US. they are one of the only parties that advocates the repeal of all drug laws, legalizing all of them. the democrats and the republicans don't give a fuck they'll just keep funding the drug war. the greens will only decriminalize weed at best, with mucho taxation. our bodies belong to us not the government. the feds need to go back to following the constitution they do not have the authority to do half the shit they do. the libertarian party is the only party that is compatible with the constitution. freedom means being able to do anything you want as long as you don't violate other peoples right to life, liberty, and property.

[Coddfish]

Not even sure why am am posting this, but......I agree with most of what the libertarian party is about, but like the academic eggheads promoting socialist utopias (utopias that can't exist in reality or imagination) there are limits to the practical application of that discourse. My guess is that if much of the libertarian platform were put into practice, the party would start to tweak itself to fit what really works.
And, although I might seem to be contradicting myself, there will never be any significant change to drug policy over a reasonable time frame until money is out of campaigning. Never ever ever. It has to go, by constitutional amendment if need be.

[Paregoric Kid]

it's not an experiment, it did work. before the 20th century america was without the restrictions and regulations and it worked. it seems impossible and radical, but it isn't. the fda, dea, irs, fcc, they are all less than 100 years old. the country is much older than these evil regulation agencies.
it's not some utopian dream, it's something that's already happened. a free market where you could buy heroin, opium, cocaine, etc. they were all sold OTC before without any interference from the government.
don't fall for campaign finance reform. it's welfare for politicians. you think they are really going to give a shit about third parties? they are only going to finance the republicans and democrats and fuck over anyone that isn't with them.