ACLU against Drug Prohibition

[Rick W]

http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPoli ... 12401&c=19

The ACLU believes that unless they do harm to others, people should not be punished -- even if they do harm to themselves.

Cited is the prohibition of alcohol. That was over 80 years ago. A lot has changed since then. Decriminalize drugs in today's world? Think about it.

 

[cubedbee]

Decriminalize drugs in today's world? Think about it.

It would be wonderful. Why in the world should the government be able to punish me for ingesting something into my own body? The government wastes literally tens of billions of dollars annually in it's "War on Drugs", yet by any objective standard this war has been a complete failure. The supply of drugs on the street is cheaper, purer, and more easily available than when the war first started. Surveys on drug use show that people are using just as many illegal drugs now as they were when the war started. And, most significantly, illegal drug cartels are earning billions of dollars in tax-free illegal money every year.

If instead, the country became sensible and legalized drugs, they could both regulate the quality and charge high "sin taxes" like on cigarettes, bringing in literally billions of dollars in extra tax revenue. Couple this with the savings in fighting an ineffective War on Drugs, and your talking about a move that could drastically reduce the federal deficit. Drug prices would drastically fall, because all the illegal middlemen who demand high profit margins to engage in the risky business of drug dealing will be eliminated, and with cheaper drugs you would have less violent crimes committed to obtain said drugs. Any violent drug-related crimes that continued to take place could be harshly punished.

 

[Quath]

I am kind of neutral on the drug issue. The addictiveness is a tough issue for me. I tend to agree with Cubedbee that the war on drugs has been a failure.

I would probably support the idea that the government get out of the drug issue and let companies define their own drug policy.

Quath

 

[Soma-Sight]

I agree with the ACLU on this 100 percent!

The government has no right to sanction religious sacraments such as Dimethyltryptamine or Peyote because it doesnt fit there little agenda.

Cultures have used entheogens since the dawn of time for specific religious and spiritual purposes and it is AntiChrist to enforce this law of supposed Godliness!

Tylenol kills more people than these compounds!

 

[Vic C.]

... Tylenol kills more people than these compounds.

:o

There's cyanide in the Tylenol again?

:

 

[antitox]

Well this goes to further underline the lawlessness of the ACLU.

Anyone who has considered the destructive path of society that would occur having no restrictions on drug use would realize why laws were put on the books in the first place.

What people have adopted over the years in their thinking is that personal "rights" now somehow take precedence over the destruction of society and its moral code (which has sharply eroded already).
The restrictions on personal use were put there to prevent the weakening or collapse of society from within. Once moral standards are lost, a country can fall. It will fall even faster with widespread drug tolerance. This is what the liberals do not understand.

Now some will argue that that does not cause a country to collapse. But the problem is you don't see that because it doesn't collapse in a short period to get your attention (frog in boiling pot). It happens over a longer period of time. But when a country loses it's integrity and morals, it does not have the strength to fend off outside influences; it eventually concedes to everyone else; this has already begun happening.
Some may try to use communist countries as an example on the moral issue, but they don't fit the argument since they are forcibly "controlled (and they don't let drugs rule either).

This is a sad thing to see on a Christian message board where liberals seek to tout their support of lawlessness in the community.

 

[Quath]

If you are against recreational drugs, at what level do you draw the line and how do you justify it?

cocaine
speed
marijuana
tobacco
alcohol
caffine

Quath

 

[antitox]

If you are against recreational drugs, at what level do you draw the line and how do you justify it?

cocaine
speed
marijuana
tobacco
alcohol
caffine

Quath

I think you know what I was talking about. Surely you aren't that dense ar you? Cocaine, speed, PCP, meth, and the list goes on. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[Quath]

I think you know what I was talking about. Surely you aren't that dense ar you? Cocaine, speed, PCP, meth, and the list goes on. Stop being ridiculous.

I have no idea why you came up with that list (other than you are just repeating what others have told you). So why are some recreational drugs bad and some are ok? You should be able to answer this unless you are just parroting someone else's beliefs.

Quath

 

[antitox]

I have no idea why you came up with that list (other than you are just repeating what others have told you). So why are some recreational drugs bad and some are ok? You should be able to answer this unless you are just parroting someone else's beliefs.

Quath

I did, but you are trying to use things already a part of society (caffeine, alcohol, etc) to justify the most damaging and addicting of drugs out there. You're just utilizing relativism wherever it can be used to allow widespread usgage of some of the most destructive elements in the country.
You atheists pride yourselves in having the most intelligent brain in comparison to Christians; so when are you going to start utilizing it?

 

[cubedbee]

Well this goes to further underline the lawlessness of the ACLU.

Opposing unfair and unconstitutional laws is not "lawlessness"

Anyone who has considered the destructive path of society that would occur having no restrictions on drug use would realize why laws were put on the books in the first place.

I think a better question is when were the laws put on the book in the first place? You make it sound as if our country had always restricted drug use. In reality, the first time the federal government criminalized any drug use whatsoever was the Harrison Act of 1914. So, somehow, our great country survived, and I would say flourish, in the first 138 years of its existence, having no restrictions on drugs. It seems like your claim of a “destructive path†is in your own mind, and not actually what has happened when we look at history.

What people have adopted over the years in their thinking is that personal "rights" now somehow take precedence over the destruction of society and its moral code (which has sharply eroded already).
The restrictions on personal use were put there to prevent the weakening or collapse of society from within. Once moral standards are lost, a country can fall. It will fall even faster with widespread drug tolerance. This is what the liberals do not understand.

Once again, our history proves you wrong. We had no restrictions on drug use for the first 138 years. Even then, we only restricted the hardest drugs---cocaine, opium, and morphine. Drug use is not a moral standard to be lost--there is nothing immoral about ingesting something into your body---and our country thrived before a single drug was ever made illegal.

Now some will argue that that does not cause a country to collapse. But the problem is you don't see that because it doesn't collapse in a short period to get your attention (frog in boiling pot). It happens over a longer period of time.

How long? All drugs were legal for 138 years in this country. Marijuana was legal for the first 161 years. Nicotine has always been legal. How does drug tolerance cause a country to collapse and why has our country been able to survive?

But when a country loses it's integrity and morals, it does not have the strength to fend off outside influences; it eventually concedes to everyone else; this has already begun happening.

Throwing people in jail because of what they choose to ingest has nothing to do with integrity or morals. It is not immoral for a society to tolerate drug use. Every society tolerates some drug use---the question is where to draw the line. You need to look no further than our own country to see that no line even needs to be drawn for a prosperous and moral nation to exist.

 

[Soma-Sight]

If you are against recreational drugs, at what level do you draw the line and how do you justify it?

cocaine
speed
marijuana
tobacco
alcohol
caffine

Quath

Excellent point.....

Speed and caffiene are two peas in the same pod..... Chemically that is!

In fact while we are at it we should make Robo cough syrup illegal because it contains enough DXM to get a rhino stoned........

The war on drugs is rediculous and just feeds criminals that make money on the unregulated chemicals that are supposedly "evil".

If they were legal than at least you would know what you are buying and it would make things way safer......

Just because it is illegal will not stop Bob from smoking pot, it will just make it more dangerous for everyone involved. (this is a hypothetical statement)

 

[antitox]

I think a better question is when were the laws put on the book in the first place? You make it sound as if our country had always restricted drug use.

Why do you think the laws were made? Because we thought the drugs were ok for everybody to have? Think about it.

In reality, the first time the federal government criminalized any drug use whatsoever was the Harrison Act of 1914. So, somehow, our great country survived, and I would say flourish, in the first 138 years of its existence, having no restrictions on drugs. It seems like your claim of a “destructive path†is in your own mind, and not actually what has happened when we look at history.

Well you're just not taking anything into consideration. Thought you were smarter than that. Now if you want to go back into history, you have to remember that the knowledge and accessibility in drugs and medicine were not even a fraction of the widespread use in medicine, availablity, and the everyday person that is in modern society today. Somewhere the restrictions had to imposed.
As always, we have to argue with liberal attempts at comparing apples to oranges.

Once again, our history proves you wrong. We had no restrictions on drug use for the first 138 years. Even then, we only restricted the hardest drugs---cocaine, opium, and morphine. Drug use is not a moral standard to be lost--there is nothing immoral about ingesting something into your body---and our country thrived before a single drug was ever made illegal.

See above.

How long? All drugs were legal for 138 years in this country. Marijuana was legal for the first 161 years. Nicotine has always been legal. How does drug tolerance cause a country to collapse and why has our country been able to survive?

Again, see above.

Throwing people in jail because of what they choose to ingest has nothing to do with integrity or morals. It is not immoral for a society to tolerate drug use. Every society tolerates some drug use---the question is where to draw the line. You need to look no further than our own country to see that no line even needs to be drawn for a prosperous and moral nation to exist.

You didn't read what I said, did you? So according to your logic, it has no destructive effect. I guess you don't work in a jail like I do. I see crazy people on PCP, Coke, Ice, Meth, you name it. My son got addicted to Morphine, then started hocking my property to support the habit. You don't know anything of what you say. :o

 

[Soma-Sight]

antitox,

Did you know that if you broke into your body and tested it you would be in prison for a million years!

You have enough "illegal" chemicals in your brain, spinal cord, and blood to get a rhino stoned for at least 3 weeks........

DMT, morphine, opiate derivatives are all found in the human bodty NATURALLY!

 

[antitox]

antitox,

Did you know that if you broke into your body and tested it you would be in prison for a million years!

You have enough "illegal" chemicals in your brain, spinal cord, and blood to get a rhino stoned for at least 3 weeks........

DMT, morphine, opiate derivatives are all found in the human bodty NATURALLY!

What a weak and insane excuse. Even the uneducated person knows that the body does not do to itself what a drug abuser does. Are you capable of looking at anything objectively?

 

[Quath]

I did, but you are trying to use things already a part of society (caffeine, alcohol, etc) to justify the most damaging and addicting of drugs out there. You're just utilizing relativism wherever it can be used to allow widespread usgage of some of the most destructive elements in the country.
You atheists pride yourselves in having the most intelligent brain in comparison to Christians; so when are you going to start utilizing it?

I am not trying to justify them. I can see reasons for making them illegal such as "public safety" in which we force people to wear seat belts.

However, more and more drugs appear, so we need a system to say what is acceptable and what is not.

Tobacco is a highly damaging and addictive drug. Should it be made illegal?

Pain medication can be very addictive. Should people using it when they are not under a lot of pain be considered doing something illegal?

I don't really have many answers for this, I am just curious as how people justify their drug beliefs.

Quath

 

[Vic C.]

...You didn't read what I said, did you? So according to your logic, it has no destructive effect. I guess you don't work in a jail like I do. I see crazy people on PCP, Coke, Ice, Meth, you name it. My son got addicted to Morphine, then started hocking my property to support the habit. You don't know anything of what you say. :o

Similiar situation here. Friends and family. My brother has an ongoing "love affair' with cocaine. It's been going on for years now. He steals to support his habit and shows little remorse. It didn't matter if it was a stranger or a family member. He has stolen from myself, my dad... his daughter and her mom.

So, somehow, our great country survived, and I would say flourish, in the first 138 years of its existence, having no restrictions on drugs.

We got sex and drugs exposed on TV and radio like it's a Blue Light special at K-Mart. Children doing all kinds of drugs; during school, on our street corners, etc. How much longer do we desensitize ourselves until we finally realize we have a serious problem on our hands? I don't think they had this problem in the "Little House on the Prairie" days.

We can't just rest assured the government is the cure-all for this issue. They are far from innocent themselves. If it isn't illicit drugs, it's perscription drugs or preservatives in our our food. :o

Yes, the frog in the slowly heated pot of water is what many people have become. Easy pickins' for the Adversary.

 

[antitox]

I am not trying to justify them. I can see reasons for making them illegal such as "public safety" in which we force people to wear seat belts.

Of course. :roll: You have the beaureaucratic answer for everything. Sure your middle name isn't "Carter?" You would love to create a nice political albatross of dependency and red tape and pour governement funds into a public pharmacy that perpetuates addiction. That's the liberal way.

However, more and more drugs appear, so we need a system to say what is acceptable and what is not.

None that are illegal are acceptable. Any that possess addictive properties and/or those that affect motor/judgment/euphoric should not be legal over the counter. How is it that you can't see it as simple as that? A little common sense goes a long way.

Tobacco is a highly damaging and addictive drug. Should it be made illegal?

It does not possess the properties listed. It may be harmful over time; it may be habitually addictive over time, but it does not fit what I stated above. We have inmates all the time in jail and they don't go thru the withdrawals of addiction from tobacco. They do just fine for a week without a cigarette. You need to start getting a clue about this. You're not thinking it all the way through.

Pain medication can be very addictive. Should people using it when they are not under a lot of pain be considered doing something illegal?

Prescription is the answer. PRESCRIPTION from doctor.

I don't really have many answers for this, I am just curious as how people justify their drug beliefs.

Quath

Very simple. Humans have trouble not stepping over the line. They always push the envelope. They take chances; they throw the candle to the wind. They have problems controlling themselves and when you have something as volatile as an addictive drug readily available to them, they can easily destroy themselves. Remember Rick James? He died recently from health problems incurred from his years of drug use.
Some things must be regulated and kept under strict controls to preserve society. Everybody wants a permissive society that says "whatever you want." Most of the time, they don't know what's good for them.

 

[Quath]

None that are illegal are acceptable. Any that possess addictive properties and/or those that affect motor/judgment/euphoric should not be legal over the counter. How is it that you can't see it as simple as that? A little common sense goes a long way.

So if I read this right, you would want alcohol to be illegal, right?

Quath

 

[antitox]

None that are illegal are acceptable. Any that possess addictive properties and/or those that affect motor/judgment/euphoric should not be legal over the counter. How is it that you can't see it as simple as that? A little common sense goes a long way.

So if I read this right, you would want alcohol to be illegal, right?

Quath

Made no such inference.