The paralells to drug-prohibition are overwhelming in this great documentary. Yet somehow I fear that most people will turn a blind eye to them. Maybe Ken Burns can make a documentary about the folly of current mainstream thinking in 20 years. ;)
share I don't see the comparison. The country for the most part thought the Volstead Act was absurd.
I don't think the case can be made that acceptance of widespread drug use would have the support of the people. At minimum there would have to be some regulation.
"No Jews, or Negroes and very few Catholics and that's because I'm Catholic."
Does anyone feel that the current problems of drug use are somehow worse than alcohol abuse? I get the feeling that heroin or crystal meth are somehow more devastating than alcohol abuse and that is why drugs will (most likely) always be illegal although there are people out there that believe that drugs should be legalized. You've gotta check out the Requiem for a Dream board for that.
GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."
[deleted]
I'm one that leans toward legalizing pot also. I just don't see pot as being very destructive and it's useful medicinally (sp?). It's probably being used about as much as alcohol too. Whenever I hear about someone being busted for marijuana, I think "So what?" and I don't get how some people are so against pot like it were as bad as heroin. I'm 46 and have only smoked it twice. It wasn't that big a deal to me. Just a nice mellow feeling. Actually, it gives a more pleasant high than alcohol does.
GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."
All drugs should be legal. See, the problem is that many of the negative effects of drug abuse/use are caused by the illegality. Addicts don't seek treatment and turn to crime to support their artificially expensive habit. Criminals get involved and use violence because of the extreme money involved. Make it legal and that all goes away. Also, hard drugs are pushed for the profit. If you took away that pusher element you would likely reduce consumption, not increase it. The hard drug trade actually tends to be self regulating. Really bad drugs do die out. Look at PCP. It was all the crazy in the 60s and 70s but it has virtually disappeared. Why? Because it is really bad for you, to the extend that even junkies don't want the stuff. As for stuff like heroin, I say let nature take its course. Some people will experiment and back off, others will let their habit destroy their life. So be it. Is it any different than people who eat themselves to death?
share[deleted]
Ok, normally, I would not waste my time speaking about this subject, even though it is very important to me, because I could go on and on about it and (most) people just won't listen even if you shove facts right in their faces, but I feel like speaking up now, as I saw a lot of misinformation in the previous posters. Only one person above did I see with the same mindset as me.
Drug prohibition is no different than alcohol prohibition, it really isn't. When alcohol became illegal, crime skyrocketed, just like crime associated with illegal drugs nowadays is huge. What most people either don't know or don't care to know is that most, not all, but most of this is actually caused by the illegality of the drugs themselves. Illegal drugs will NEVER go away, the demand for them will NEVER stop, drug prohibition does absolutely no good as stopping illegal drugs, essentially it stops about 'maybe' 1/3 of drugs coming in the U.S. for example. When you make drugs illegal and put the drugs into the hands of criminals, OF COURSE crime is going to happen. When you make a drug illegal, and drug traffickers can charge whatever the hell price they want for their product, it produces an artificial price mark-up, like 1000x what it really cost to produce the product, so drug addicts have to pay out the ass to support their habits, and eventually, end up resorting to crime unfortunately, this is a direct result of drug prohibition at work! You take away the illegality of these drugs, you take the drugs out of these criminals hands, you take away people having to risk their lives going to bad parts of town and scoring off the street for example, where they can get robbed or killed. These drugs should be sold in their pure form, so the user knows EXACTLY what he is taking and how much.
Here's a little knowledge for most of you out there. Alcohol & Tobacco are worst than nearly ALL illegal drugs there are out there. The only drug I would say is worst, for your body & mind, physically & mentally, is crystal methamphetamine, and to some extent, cocaine(including crack cocaine in this). Alcohol is a poorly refined solvent, it is a DRUG called ethanol in liquid form, it is a drug itself, only it is HORRIBLE on one's body and mind. It is neurotoxic, habit-forming, has great overdose potential, damages just about every organ in the human body I can think of, eats away your esophagus over time, and that is just the start, it is a horrible drug, BUT, it should be legal like it is, just like heroin and cocaine and crystal meth and PCP should all be legal as well. I know HEROIN has a horrible stigma, but why don't some of you look it up, read the true facts about it for once, learn something about drugs. Heroin is definitely NOT a safe drug, I am not pro-heroin, but it is nowhere near as bad as the other 'hard' drugs and especially alcohol and tobacco. Heroin(diacetylmorphine) is actually benign to the body & mind. The only real dangers with the pure form of the drug is overdose potential, tolerance issues, and dependence if abused. Those are bad things, but look at alcohol, it has all 3 of those PLUS ALL that other stuff I just mentioned above, so tell me, which is really worse? Maybe now one might reply with the whole injecting aspect of heroin usage. Yes, most heroin users intravenously inject the drug into their veins, the reason for this is because the drug, heroin(diacetylmorphine) has a very low oral bioavailability and only a fair insufflated(snorted) bio. But if taken IV, it has a 100% bioavailability, that is just the way the drug is. It is an opioid drug, like many others, including codeine, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, hydrocodone, demerol, opium, etc...which all have varying bioavailibilities if taken certain ways, like hydrocodone for example, which I'm sure most of you know about, has a great oral bio, but has a horrible IV bio, and should NEVER be attempted to be injected, the drug itself AND because they mix hydrocodone with acetominophen/APAP, a.k.a. TYLENOL to as to deter abuse of the drug, which doesn't do anything except destroy people's livers, as tylenol is almost as damaging to the liver as alcohol.
Anyways, I am ranting, the point I am trying to make it that, if these drugs in their pure forms were sold in a fashion like alcohol and tobacco, I guarantee crime would go WAYYYY down, it would end most problems associated with drugs. The worst case scenario being maybe some extra people using the drug, just because it is now legal, but in the big scheme of things, is that really so bad? Cause they are going to use the drug regardless, or any other drug they want, if they really put their mind to it.
This is my standpoint on this matter. Now I am no naive, I realize drug prohibition is not going away anytime soon. The people in charge will NEVER admit they are wrong and are making sooo much money from the illegal drug trade that they will never see it legalized, which is very unfortunate, but people's eyes need to be open to the TRUTH about these drugs, so they can form opinions based on fact, and not hearsay or rumors, etc...
People, I implore you, learn the truth about these drugs, what they do when ingested, look at that VS. alcohol/tobacco, and tell me these drugs, if sold in a manner like alcohol or tobacco would really cause that much damage.
That is all, like I said, I feel very strongly about this and could write pages of *beep* about it but I will stop now.
christopherhaze, You're right in saying that alchohol and tobacco are destructive. I'm not gonna disagree with you on that. I would like to ask you though, would violent crimes still decrease if drugs were illegal? I mean, for instance, it's still going to be drug gangs and organized crime that would be supplying it all wouldn't it? These people commit violent acts all the time as a matter of course. Many of the crimes involve conflicts with each other. How would that stop if drugs were legal? Maybe some of it would but these people are criminals in all kinds of areas of their lives. Also, would violent crimes of users stop? It's the addiction and use of the drugs that causes thefts, robberies, assaults, etc. How would that stop if it were legal? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here. I really want your opinion. I could see that the police and the goverment might have less to deal with though.
Also, do you know of any countries wherein these drugs are legal that could provide some example of such things improved? I mean, something other than Amsterdam with the legal pot. I think they only have pot legalized there.
GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."
"It's the addiction and use of the drugs that causes thefts, robberies, assaults, etc."
You don't see anyone robbing kiosks to get enough money to support a tobacco smoking habit, do you? Cigarettes are too cheap for it to be necessary. However, it is not enough to have a low paying job to support a heroin habit.
"it's still going to be drug gangs and organized crime that would be supplying it all wouldn't it?"
If it were completely legal, not just decriminalized, then not at all. It isn't gangs and organized crime that supply the legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, or the various painkillers available on prescription. If, say, cocaine were legal, then it would be LEGAL coca farms producing the stuff. No more crime than on a tobacco farm.
"Many of the crimes involve conflicts with each other."
Drug dealers and users must resolve their conflicts themselves because they cannot go to the police with their problems.
Another thing: Imagine the US spening huge amounts of money to reduce the supply of drugs into the country. Imagine they succeed and arrest 95% of the smugglers. This would be a good thing, right? NO! This is because the DEMAND has gone nowhere! People still want their drugs. It is just harder to get them, so people will try harder! The 5% who manage to get their stuff over the borders, can charge ridiculus prices for their produce. And when the money is THAT GOOD in the drug business, then more creative and innovative people will try to make a buck (many bucks) by joining the buisness of fooling the DEA and the police.
So not much in the way of violent crime would change? Crimes that are caused by the use of drugs (whether it be drugs or alcohol) would continue. Crimes done by people in organized crime would still be there. You're point about alternative legal sources to get the drugs sounds about right. There'd probably be totally new businesses out there to supply them. I just don't know if legalizing drugs would make things better or worse of it it would create a situation that's just trading in one set of problems for another. I think the biggest problem that legalizing might create is that more people would start doing them. People who previously may have never started a drug habit might start one. People who normally use alcohol might segue into a drug habit that they wouldn't have previously considered because it would be readily and legally available.
GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."
"I just don't know if legalizing drugs would make things better or worse of it it would create a situation that's just trading in one set of problems for another."
Crime rose during the prohibition era and declined after alcohol was made legal again. The same would be true for the still ongoing prohibition of drugs. The parallells between the two prohibitions are painfully obvious, at least in my opinion.
"Crimes that are caused by the use of drugs (whether it be drugs or alcohol) would continue."
Yes - a drunken man who beats his wife does it regardless of whether alcohol is legal or not. But at least he doesn't have to mug someone to afford the booze, and the liquor store owner wouldn't have to shoot and kill people to protect his business. The same is true for all other drugs. If cocaine were sold cheaper and with higher quality at the local drug store, then the illegal cocaine dealers would lose their customers. When they have no customers, they cannot make money and must find something else to do - maybe start working in the drug store.
"I think the biggest problem that legalizing might create is that more people would start doing them."
I agree. As I understand it the biggest disadvantage of drug legalization is that there would probably be an increase in the number of users and therefore drug addicts.
But to get a better perspective on this, imagine what would happen if, say, circumcisions were criminalized. I would expect the number of circumcisions to go down because many law abiding parents wouldn't want to go through the hassle of finding a doctor who was willing to do it illegally. But all those parents who insist on circumcising their baby boys, for whatever reason, would now have to go to the black market to do it. Maybe the "doctor" who performed the surgery did a bad job and the wound got infected - the parents couldn't sue the person responsible, just like you cannot sue a drug dealer for selling you bad drugs. So yes, prohibition does reduce the use of whatever it is you prohibit, but to prohibit something for which there is a demand only creates black markets, and black markets are bad for everyone except a few special interests who make big money.
Thank you jukkdjukk, your opinion is similar to mine.
People, you are not looking at the big picture here.
There will ALWAYS be people who use drugs or alcohol and become violent, that will never change. The reason MOST drug users are associated with violence nowadays is because of the artificially created drug market caused by drug prohibition? You say you don't see people robbing tobacco stores for tobacco? Of course not, when it's as cheap as it is. A whole $5-10 for 20 cigarettes(doses), whereas a dose of heroin for example is $10-20 for a non-addict! Illegal drugs are very very expensive, and when a user continues to use these drugs, they will inevitably run into financial problems, and this is where the crime starts. Are you starting to see how drug prohibition itself caused this? If drugs were legal, there would be no artificial mark-up of 1000X the cost to produce it. Sure, there would be some tax/markup but nothing like it is today, and users would have the pure drug and know the exact dosages they are taking, which would result in less overdoses and hotshots that are cut with rat poison or who knows what, and syringes could be given out like they should be already, but everywhere, which would reduce the spread of HIV & hepatitis for example.
How would legalizing drugs take the drugs out of the cartel's hands? Are you serious? If drugs were legalized, the government would control and tax it in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco and why would users go to a street corner to pay $20 for a bag of some drug from a criminal when they could go to a store and buy the pure form for much less? Tell me please.
Sure, it wouldn't weed out the cartels 100%, but it would DRASTICALLY reduce this.
The only real problem I see that you all keep bringing up is drug use increase. Tell me what is worse, innocent bystanders dying on the corners because of drive-by's, people getting HIV because they shared a syringe because they couldn't buy it easy, all the non-violent drug offenders in our prisons today because of our *beep* criminal justice system, kids overdosing on heavily cut drugs, etc...I could go on and on what drug prohibition causes. Now take all that way, or at least reduce it, and compare it to some extra people getting high, which sounds worse? I'd much rather more people get high than people die over a *beep* war, that we will NEVER EVER win.
I believe someone said to show an example of how legalizing drugs has helped a country. I won't even mention Amsterdam, where BTW, cannabis is NOT legal, it is just tolerated, and even with this drug being everywhere there, guess what the number one drug of abuse is in the Netherlands? ALCOHOL. Let's look at Portugal, they recently decriminalized small personal amounts of even hard drugs, and the crime has dropped by a good number. Read about that. In some European counties and even in Vancouver, Canada, there are special clinics where heroin addicts can go and get their 'dose' of heroin, the pure drug, with clean, sterile everything, and when they have this, they do not have to worry their whole lives about scoring money to get the drugs, waiting to meet the dealer, then using the drugs (which takes A LOT of time out of your life). Being dependent on drugs is a full-time job trust me I know, I used to be a heroin addict myself and I don't regret it. It was a life experience, but I truly know how these people feel, so I think my opinion matters. I've even done the other 'hard' drugs and can see how addicting they are, but they are just not my cup of tea so to speak. So even with having done most of these illegal drugs and seeing how destructive they 'can' be, I STILL belive every single drug should be legalized, even the ones I personally do not like, like datura and other nasty drugs, you can't discriminate, people are going to do what theya re going to do, NO ONE will ever stop this trust me. Anyways, in these heroin clinics, these 'addicts' have drastically improved their lives and since they don't have to focus on all the *beep* caused by drug prohibition, they actually get jobs and the like, believe it or not! These clinics are doing great things and I believe they should be in every city, at least until drugs are legalized, but that is just my opinion. I KNOW the government is never going to admit they are wrong, and they make sooo much money off illegal drugs, the prison systems, the drugs themselves, etc....they won't ever legalize drugs. We'll be lucky to see cannabis legalized in this lifetime. The government is SO corrupt it disgusts me.
My point is just as with alcohol prohibition, you make alcohol illegal, it goes into the criminals hands, violence increases greatly. You make alcohol legal again, and it takes it out of the criminal's hands, plain & simple. If you think this is any different with drug prohibition, you are very mistaken. The only difference is that this and other governments have let this go on for so long that these criminal now have the power to do whatever the *beep* it is they want, we are helping the cartels by keeping drugs illegal!
I've never used anything but alcohol and tobacco, but I agree with you totally. Legalize everything to take the trade away from the criminals. I don't believe use will go up among those that would not have used it anyway. Just like with Prohibition, users use more when the trade is illegal.
Dr. Carl Hart has some interesting evidence-based information on this topic. I hope we can end prohibition in the U.S. in my lifetime. It is the humane thing to do.
[deleted]
Cocaine, heroin, and meth are far more insidious substances than a beer.
share^lol, is that all you can bring to the table here? That is your opinion clearly, but please tell me how you KNOW these are more 'insidious' chemicals than alcohol. Tell me what they do to the brain that causes the effects of each of the drugs, the side effects, the negative effects, etc...tell me something, otherwise you statement is nothing other than a piece of *beep* NOTHING.
shareI saw some documentaries on crystal meth. That drug alone changes the brain chemistry of a normally sane person to that of a schziophrenic in a relatively short period of time. Once that has happened, it cannot be fixed. There is a difference between the affects of hard drugs over the use of alcohol. Many people can drink occasionally or even get totally drunk occasionally without becoming an alcoholic. It takes much repeated frequent use of alcohol to become an alcoholic. Drugs like cocaine, heroin and crystal meth can turn a person into an addict with a handful of uses.
I think the idea of legalizing such drugs is more complicated that you think. So if it's sold at drug stores, will there be prescriptions required to get it? Do you think in this country where prescription medications are available, if street drugs are legalized there won't be a prescription required? How much is the addict allowed to get in a prescription? Do you think that the way people who own and operate pharmacies that these people would be willing to take on the dispensing of hard drugs?
With the having to take on the responsibility of dealing with the addicts coming and going from their store? No offense but they are often a total mess and sometimes not safe to be around. I picture most pharmacies protesting having that responsibility put on them even if it were legal. If pharmacies did agree to supply them, if pharmaceutical companies made them, the cost of such drugs wouldn't drop! The legal medications cost in the hundreds and sometimes thousands for a monthly supply. Legal drugs are expensive. I don't see how the illegal ones would suddenly become cheap especially if made by pharmaceutical companies. If that happened, people would end up needing medical insurance to pay for it and I doubt that that would ever happen. Insurance companies would fight it if they were expected to pay for it.
I watched a program on Current last night about Oxycotin. It illustrated the never-ending need these people have for the drug. It was about a guy who lives in Florida. Florida has no data-base set up to monitor how much of a drug individuals are getting. So they focused on this one guy who spends all his time going from doctor to doctor all month getting thousands of these pills. He said he sees about five different doctors each month to get a bunch of prescriptions. It's common in Florida apparently. The addict does not need a set amount of medications to get by. The addiction causes them to spend every waking moment thinking about and working at getting more and more and more. They are never satisfied with the immediate fix and as soon as they get it, they are off looking at how to get the next one and the next one, etc. It's not like a legitimate medication that a person only needs to take once a day. The nature of the addiction makes it impossible to manage in any reasonable fashion. It was very sad watching this guy who looked totally screwed up through the whole episode and lost his wife to the drug through an overdose.
Maybe you don't care that many people would start using and our country could turn into a nation of drug addicts (even more so than now) but I do. I think legalizing is a very bad idea. The only reason I think that marijuana would be okay to legalize is because it's the only street drug I can think of wherein it's the most on equal footing to alcohol and since alcohol is legal, why not?
I know that many people see Prohibition as an abject failure and yeah, it ultimately was but much good came out of it. Prior to Prohibition, the alcoholic had nowhere to turn. This period changed the way that alcoholism and alcoholics were perceived. The serious issues of the disease weren't investigated. They were looked upon as drunkards, lunatics and losers because people didn't know anything about the addiction and didn't really bother to find out about it. There was no compassion for the alcoholic and they were looked down upon as losers who had no strong will or character. This was the first time in our history that the issues of alcoholism were focused on so strongly. After Prohibition, organizations came about like AA that attempted to look at the situation with more intelligence and insight. In that respect, Prohibition caused a positive change.
Sorry my post is so long.
GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."
First of all, it is a documentary. Yes, you are correct, crystal meth CAN change the brain's chemistry and it CAN change it into a schizophrenic, this all has to do with underlying causes of each person using the drug.
I already said I believe crystal meth to be worse overall than alcohol, and cocaine being close, but alcohol being slightly more destructive, and remember, I'm talking about the pure chemicals themselves people.
Yes, people can go out and have a drink or get super drunk and be fine, while others can love it and become alcoholics in no time, this is the exact same with these so-called 'hard' drugs. Some people love them so much they become addicts right away, others over time, and lots of people, a lot more than the media would like you to know, some people can try it a few times and walk away because they do not like it, I am an example of this myself!
As for how the policy of drug legalization would occur, I am not sure on that, I believe it should be taxed and sold like alcohol & tobacco, or that a person should have to pass a course on these drugs and maybe get some kind of license before buying them so they know what the hell it is they are ingesting. And yes, most drug addicts are not 'normal looking' so to speak, that is because drug prohibition has eaten away all their money and they are usually living on the streets OR they don't take care of their hygiene, etc..just like alcoholics.
Now on the Oxycontin, yes, once you become dependent or love the drug, OF COURSE you are going to think about it A LOT, just like alcoholics spend all their times thinking about alcohol, some can hold down jobs some can't, just like there are people as high as corporate executives/lawyers/etc...that have hard drug habits that you wouldn't even know because they can control it to an extent.
You are SO naive if you think everyone is suddenly going to start using hard drugs if they were legalized. Take someone who just drinks alcohol now, you think they are going to just start using heroin just because it is legal, really? Sure, some will. A nation of drug addicts as a result of this, do you read what you write? EVEN if that was the case, the negatives of drug prohibition outweighs this tenfold.
At the end you say, people were not 'educated' enough on the subject of alcohol. Really? Alcohol has been around since Ancient Times man, sure they didn't know as much as today, but they knew about it. And the reason people are so ignorant about illegal drugs today is because most of these drugs are outright illegal, Schedule 1 according to the LAW, which supposedly means they have NO medical value (laugh), which means they cannot be researched anymore than they were when they were illegal, which all currently illegal drugs were legal back in the early 1900s by the way. Scientists can't research these drugs, and the government wants this, because they want people to remain ignorant about illegal drugs. When you watch the news, do you believe everything you hear? I hope not, cause a huge majority of it is fabricated, but when the news talks about a drug situation, people listen and believe it like it is the absolute truth, why is this? I don't know, you think they would lie about other stuff but tell the truth about drugs? Please don't tell me you are that ignorant.
Tobacco is arguably the greatest killer of all drugs.
Can someone please explain to me why tobacco is legal and other drugs are not? If one is against legalization of drugs on the basis that they are dangerous and potentially lethal, why not call for the prohibition of tobacco smoking at the same time as calling for keeping up the drug war? When there already is a DEA, why not include tobacco on their list?
I suspect that any argument used for keeping tobacco legal can also be used to argue for the legalization of other drugs.
"I know that many people see Prohibition as an abject failure and yeah, it ultimately was but much good came out of it."
I know that many people see the Third Reich as a bad thing and yeah, it ultimately was, but much good came out of it. We learned not to try and eradicate an entire people, for one thing.
I know many people see the spanish inquisition and witch burning as a bad thing and yeah, it ultimately was, but much good came out of it. Yes, we learned the importance of a fair trial and the potentional dangers of religion, for one thing.
I know many people see the Vietnam War as an abject failure and yea, it ultimately was, but much good came out of it. We got so many good war movies, for one thing!
There's a big difference in drinking a glass of beer and shooting up heroin.
shareNo *beep* sherlock, does ANYONE have any real information to share, besides these 'drugs are worse, cause I say so!" responses.
Alcohol, even is small amounts, though less so, is neurotoxic, damages the liver when the liver filters it, same with the pancreas, and your esophagus is slowly eaten away, for alcoholics as well. What's gonna happen if you drink a glass of beer? Nothing, besides losing some brain cells and becoming more stupid and ignorant.
Of course there is a big difference between DRINKING (orally) taking ethanol(the drug in alcohol that gives the effects) AND intravenously injecting diacetylmorphine(heroin).
You should read up on BIO-AVAILABILITIES and how they work. Every drug has varying bio's in terms of oral use, snorting, smoking, plugging, or injecting.
When you inject heroin, you are injecting 100% of the drug into your bloodstream immediately, produces a 'rush' and peak effects immediately, which obviously is more addictive, right away, then alcohol. The reason heroin is commonly injected is because it has such a low oral bio (like 30%). That means if you took pure heroin orally, only 1/3 of it would actually make it to the brain to cause the effects. Snorting heroin has a bio of around 50-60% IIRC, smoking is a little higher, but the fact is, OF COURSE, when you inject ANY drug straight into your bloodstream, it will become more powerful and addictive and habit-forming at a much faster rate.
You could inject the pure form of ethanol and do the same thing. Alcohol is just the drug ethanol in liquid form in varying amounts. It is a poorly refined solvent, it is essentially a poison.
Heroin is NOT a poison, BUT that doesn't make it a good or safe drug, because it is NOT. It has it's own problems, the main 3 with the pure drug itself is tolerance issues, overdose potential, & dependence/addiction. Alcohol has all 3 of those, PLUS all this other stuff. Heroin, pure heroin I say, is actually fairly benign on the body & mind. Yes, being dependent on heroin causes changes to the brain, but those changes are not permanent, they come back to normal, over time, but that all depends on how much and how long you were using.
Anyways, enough with the rant, LEARN something will you people, take your ignorance away. A great drug education site is WWW.EROWID.ORG. I recommend you ignorant people check it out.
When I say ignorant people, I am not talking about everyone in this thread, just people like the one I just responded to who says a blanket statement like it's fact, even though it's his opinion and has nothing more to say, why is that? Maybe it has to do with the fact that you haven't studied these things you are talking about like I have. These drugs & alcohol fascinate me, I study them, so that is why I believe I know a fair amount about them, thought I know a lot of people that blow me out of the water heh.
So, above poster, NO *beep* *beep* We should all know this by now and I feel very sorry for the people, people like you, who do not!
Don't you realize that when you make personal attacks on those who disagree, it just negatges any point, meritorious or not, you're making?
sharePersonal attacks? Where am I doing this? I do feel very strongly about my opinion on this subject and when I am sure of something, I will say it so, but personal attacks? I don't think so. If we were taking about another subject, people might take the time to read what I am saying and read up/learn something about this and form an opinion based on facts, not propaganda and misinformation which like 90% of the populations view's on illegal drugs are based on nowadays. As someone else said once, ''you can't just tap someone on the shoulder anymore to get their attention, you have to hit them with a sledgehammer''. Did you ever think me being a little blunt/harsh is to get them to try to prove me wrong, which in turn will get them actually 'learning' about these chemicals, which is my goal in all of this, drug education. I don't care if someone is for or against drug prohibition, it is THEIR choice, I just think they should know what the hell it is they are talking about before forming this opinion, like I would on any subject. Don't you think that is a good strategy?
BTW, www.erowid.org is a great site for learning about just the facts of chemicals/drugs, nothing for or against about it, just true facts. I hope people check it out.
Beginning a message "no blink Sherlock" and referring to those who don't agree with you as "ignorant" is exactly what I mean. It's sad you don't realize this.
shareI would add:
The proliferation of dangerous street alcohol that had serious side-effects because of the toxic materials used to cut it. When there is no government regulation or standards, dealers can feel free to increase the amount of product they have by adding other substances. These substances caused the blindness and other health issues mentioned in the film. Drug dealers cut their products with chemicals which leads to ODing- for example MDMA, the pure form of ecstasy is safer and more potent than ecstasy you buy on the street because the street stuff contains all kinds of wonky chemicals that can have unwanted side effects.
Also the attempts of people to work around the law by designing alcohol substitutes. I especially liked the "just add water" instant wine and beer mixes. You see this today with synthetic marijuana and all kinds of prescription drugs- in college I had friends who used adderall when they couldn't get coke. The government is always one step behind trying to ban whatever workaround they use. For example, for a long time people used runners to buy up Sudafed and other over the counter drugs to use to cook meth. Now they have restrictions on how much of these drugs you can buy and people are talking about making them prescription drugs. This seems ridiculously inconvenient for the vast majority of people who buy Sudafed just for a cold. The fact that meth probably would not have been born if not for the enterprising criminals looking to score off inventing new drugs (just like crack and X) is more frustrating. When does it end?
Politically, the documentary mentioned that the drys won because the wets had no real lobby and no politician dared to come out in favor of alcohol because to do so was to be in favor of wife-beating, joblessness, hunger, and all the evils associated with drink. The same is true today. What does a politician gain by supporting drugs? Nothing. Nobody will support a politician they wouldn't support before just because they agree to legalize drugs. What do they lose? The people who are tough on crime, because they open themselves up to attacks that they support all the attendant evils of drugs.
And of course, the demonization of minorities and immigrants was central to drug prohibition. Weed was seen as a "jazz" drug that made white women want to have sex with black men. It was also seen as the drug of choice for Mexican immigrants.
There are some important differences though:
The documentary points out that the government never really funded Prohibition enforcement and that states and local governments refused to do so- in fact a lot of officers and agents were on the take. That isn't true with drugs. The federal government pours money into stopping drugs. Police departments and agencies are allowed to keep any items they seize from drug criminals- houses, cars, boats, jewels, and cash, meaning that their budgets swell when they focus on busting drug offenders. Tens or hundreds of thousands of police, prosecutors, prison guards, bureaucrats, and federal agents depend on drug prohibition to drive up crime and keep them employed. These people are powerful enemies of drug legalization, especially because they are unionized. If you want to run for state or local office, you'd better not piss off the police or prison guard unions.
There are also industries like Big Pharma and ironically the beer, wine, and spirit industries that benefit from keeping drugs illegal. The Drys were a group of individual moral crusaders. They are the ancestors of the modern anti-abortion movement.
Second, drinking is just more culturally acceptable than hard drug use (I'm not sure about marijuana). It's at every celebration, every family dinner. Bars are everywhere. It was even more pronounced when Prohibition was enacted which really makes it amazing that the amendment was even ratified.
What was disapointing was the lack of direct comparisons between contemporary drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition, although perhaps that was done intentionally so that people would draw their own obvious conclusion.
However, it'd be interesting to see someone investigate the links between drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition; they both happened initially about the same time (the Harrison Narcotics Act was passed in 1914).
It'd be interesting to know if the same kinds of people supporting alcohol prohibition were also drug prohibition supporters, politically, socially or philosophically, and also to know what really drove the greater crackdown on drugs after alcohol was re-legalized.
In a way, all the talk about how dangerous a drug is is irrelevant. People do dangerous stuff all the time, unnecesary stuff that is potentially extremely deadly. Rock climbing, skydiving, base jumping, really any number of extreme sports can kill you quite fast if you bump your head too hard. And why do people still do it? For the kick, the excitement, the experience, because they have friends who are into it. Sound familiar?
Many people are worried what will happen if everyone runs around drugged all the time, thinking people who use drugs do the craziest things. For alcohol, this is in many cases true. It is by far the aggressive drug, making husbonds hit wives and children, friends start fights and since it graduallty impairs the part of the brain that makes smart deciosions, your decisions become dumber and dumber. This is unique to alcohol. You just don't become that stupid or aggressive on other drugs whther it be LSD or Ampehtamine. Sure people go crazy from amphetamines too, but that's with extreme use like staying up for 10 days and not eating or drinking right and often mixing things that shouldn't be mixed, even then there is a much higher chance the person will become confused or in the worst case psychotic, but aggression or violence isn't especially likely. On alchol however, just a few hours of drinking can make seemingly calm people very aggressive and make them seek fights. But no matter if you have taken a drug you are still responsible for your actions and harming others, stealing etc. will never be ok, it 's irrelevant if the drug is legal or not. We all have to behave and are bound by the same laws.
Some of us are not the physical type, but thinking types and would never consider skydiving or the like, it's too dangerous. Others can love to spend 24 hours hyperfocusing with amphetamine writing, cleaning, talking intensely with friends or whatever else they want to focus on. Others like to drift out with a joint and let associations fly. It's various degrees of mental sport for many people and they really enjoy it and feel it's an important part of their life. Sure we hear a lot about the junkies and people who screwed up their life, but we never hear about all the moderate users who manage their drug use and the rest of their life just fine. There's lot's of casual drug users like that, but since it's illegal you will of course not heart much about them, they have lives to protect from the authorities.
Now my question is, is it right to arrest and jail, that is to actually take away all of a persons freedoms and lock him in a little cell, Remove him from his family and friends and strip him of any security he might have felt. To do that to a person is in my mind extremely serious, after all, it's the same act as kidnapping and holding someone against their will. Serious, serious stuff that can cause mental trauma. if that person is a person without any criminal intentions, history or indications. A person who in the privacy of their own home has educated himself about the drug he is taking and makes sure to use it responsibly.. Who is doing the violent thing in this scenario? Who is doing what is ethically correct? Who is hurting someone? There can be no doubt, arresting, jailing, possibly ruining a persons possibility to get a job, gving them social problems because of the stigma, possibly using force under the arrest is not even comparable to a peaceful person exploring his mind and body in the privacy of his own home. It's nothing less than a monstrous overreaction by the government and their henchmen.
Yet people who think they are morally upstanding compared to a drug user, condone and support this, even pushes on for harder punishments in some cases. Who are the bad guys here and who is the innocent victim? It's an outrage that the current drug laws have existed for as long as they have. It's inhumane, unethical, immoral and just plain mean to take away an innocent persons freedom because you don't approve of what he puts into his body. A free man decides for himself. He is the master of his own body. This freedom has been taken away from us all under the threat of incarcaration.
Also, there is nothing innately evil about taking a drug. Everyone, from christian to atheist, understands that killing, rapning and stealing is wrong. Why? Because those crimes have victims. In drug enforcement, the drug user is the victim.. A victim of state persecution with all the mental trauma that can cause first and then if an arrest takes place he is victimized again, this time personally by the very people who are supposed to protect us. It's a very sick system.that by law creates victims where there before were none.
Drug policy is a political question. Rape and murder are not. The victims of the brutal drug laws are victims beacuse they refuse to let politicians decide over their mind and bodies. Isn't America the land of the free? If any country should legalize and regualte drugs it should be America. Right now there isn't a country in the western world that is truly free. The minority who insists that drugs are an important part of their life and stands up to the government through civil disobediance and are opposed to the current mainstream politics of prohibition and punishment are living in fear of the authorities and many years in jail for practising their way of life. I'm not saying all drug users have this all thought out in their heads, but that is what they're doing in practice and there certainly are a lot who do have this thought out and are in active opposition to the current extreme laws.
Can we call ourselves free nations when a minority is still being hunted by police, spied upon, tricked, jailed and stigmatized by their political opposition, much of the media and the state?
Or doesn't this minority, have the right to be free because you don't condone their actions? What gives you that right to put peaceful people in prison I wonder?
There is only one way forward and that is through humane, common sense, middle ground, legalization, regulation and legislation that is based on fact and knowledge rather than fear and ignorance.
There's one case (IMO) where the "my drug is worse than your drug"-argument is valid. If I smoke a pack or even a carton of cigarettes, I'll still be the same person. If I drink a bottle of Jack Daniel's I won't be the same person.
So while Tobacco surely is an addictive drug, it's on a different level when it comes to its disruptive effects on society. When's the last time anyone heard of a man beating his wife because he had smoked one too many cigarettes?
But anyway: I'm completely with the legalization-crowd. People have always had a need to get high. We've been making/using alcohol (and other drugs) for thousands and thousands of years. It just seems to be a part of human nature. And it's such a strong need that a lot of people won't mind if their drug of choice is currently legal or not.
And yes: People who say "a glass of beer ain't like shootin up heroin": Check out some statistics and see how many more people die of alcoholism each year than of heroin-addiction (plus most heroin deaths are due to factors which wouldn't be factors if heroin was legal).
Alcohol IMO currently is the worst drug on the planet, because it's just as addictive and destructive as any of the other "hard" drugs, but on top of that it is also legal, readily available and doesn't have the same stigma attached to it as, say, heroin or meth. Unless you're a complete mess of an alcoholic, people will tolerate your habit, ignore it or not even realize you have a problem. So it's incredibly easy to slide into an alcohol-addiction over time simply due to its acceptance in society and it can also be very hard to quit that addiction for the same reason.
Does that mean we should outlaw alcohol? Hell, no ... because then you'd be back to the whole black-market-situation and both the "war on drugs" and prohibition have shown how that plays out. But I think we need to do more to educate people especially on alcohol and how it is in no way "safer" than any other behaviour-altering drug.
S.