|
Post by aubrey on Sept 15, 2010 19:32:11 GMT
My concern with drugs is the highly addictive hard stuff -- heroin, crack cocaine, & meth. Those are the dealers I want to snuff. Still, my method of buying hash is how harder drugs are often bought as well. And, are you really going to use entrapment? (And why don't Govts think that Meth and Crack and Heroin are worse than Cannabis? You'll never get a Govt minister to say that cannabis is safer than those drugs; so, if your idea is used (however unconstitutional it is) the police will just try to entrap young lads, who tell some pretty girl that they can get some grass: it is always easier to catch pot-heads than anyone else: partly because there are so many of them, and partly because they're not at all criminally minded. So, your method would just catch - entrap - and probably kill, a load of hash and grass users.)
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Sept 16, 2010 0:21:26 GMT
Aubrey - You are a self admitted druggie. How can we expect a druggie like you to take a position other than pro drugs?
I'm not in favor of shooting drug users like you. I'm very much in favor of shooting their suppliers.
Do us all a favor and shoot your supplier(s).
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 16, 2010 10:59:01 GMT
I told you - I don't know him!!! And I also told you - I was a drug dealer, and hope to be again. So, you would shoot me, wouldn't you?
And how can we expect a self-admitted republican to be anything by ignorant about drugs?
Actually, I would like to say: I am not pro drugs. That is a wilfull misrepresentation of my position.
(My signature is - in part - from Heroin by Lou Reed
When I put a spike into my vein Then I tell you things aren't quite the same
When I'm rushing on my run And I feel just like Jesus' son And I guess I just don't know And I guess that I just don't know That is also not pro drugs: just realistic.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Sept 16, 2010 11:48:29 GMT
I told you - I don't know him!!! And I also told you - I was a drug dealer, and hope to be again. So, you would shoot me, wouldn't you? And how can we expect a self-admitted republican to be anything by ignorant about drugs? Actually, I would like to say: I am not pro drugs. That is a wilfull misrepresentation of my position. (My signature is - in part - from Heroin by Lou Reed When I put a spike into my vein Then I tell you things aren't quite the same
When I'm rushing on my run And I feel just like Jesus' son And I guess I just don't know And I guess that I just don't know That is also not pro drugs: just realistic. 1 Republican who isn't willfully ignorant about drugs AND the US drug war is Congressman Ron Paul: www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-30/ron-paul-end-the-war-on-drugs/End the War on Drugs by Ron Paul We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes. Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check IDs and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves! If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices. My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Sept 16, 2010 11:49:37 GMT
hey! Pumpkinette!! I'm not in denial about anything. (I drink very little - less than the Govt recommended amounts. And I smoke cannabis only every 6 weeks or so. And I hardly ever smoke cigarettes.) BA. The last time I did any drug dealing was 6 or 7 years ago, wne I bought a lump of resin and split it with my brother. That time I was given a lift to a house, then to a pub, where we waited for half an hour. Then the bloke came in, gave me the dope, took the money and buggered off. I wouldn't have known him again 10 minutes later, let alone now. I don't even know where the pub was (somewhere in Leeds); I can vaguely remember what it looked like. I think there was a bus shelter nearby. So, with that to go on, how would the police put your plan into action? (An awful lot of drug deals are like this: a bloke in a pub.) What about what the smoking does to your lungs and other organs?
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 16, 2010 17:56:17 GMT
I know smoking isn't good, but I smoke very little. The last cigarette I had was 2 weeks back (oh - one very thin roll-up that I didn't finish on Saturday night, sorry), the last spliff maybe 6 weeks ago. I'll have a few spliffs this weekend because I'm on my own: after that, probably nothing until Jan or Feb. I get more crap in my lungs from standing beside roads waiting for buses than I do from cigarettes. I'm not in denial about the damage that smoking can do, I just disregard it.
(I have to throw packets of tobacco away because I can't get through them before they get too dry to smoke.)
|
|
|
Post by june on Sept 16, 2010 18:21:00 GMT
Freez dry baccy, defrost and bingo! Moist baccy.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 16, 2010 19:03:21 GMT
Thank you!!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Sept 16, 2010 20:13:10 GMT
Ron Paul is a total and complete moron. He calls himself a Republican but that's a joke.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 16, 2010 21:14:49 GMT
Does thsat mean a moron can't be a republican. Hopw about the younger Bush, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin? There's hundreds more, but I'm a bit pissed and it's past time for my bed.
But your definition of "sensible" is "Conservative," and only an utter idiot would think that prohibition of drugs - however you do it - it the best way of making people stop taking them. And why should you anyway? What the fuck has it got to do with you what I do with my body? If you think drugs are bad dont take them. It is fucking arrogant of anyone to say - backed up by guns - what anyone else should put into their body.
The prohibition of drugs has bugger all to do with public health. It is a power thing by govts - a what I say goes, or else thing. Sod all else.
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Sept 16, 2010 23:46:13 GMT
You're talking about addicts. And even then, it would have been better - for you, and themselves - if they could have got it on prescription. At the place I worked, we had an accountant who we used to keep finding in the toilet with a bottle of something in a brown paper bag. He was always going out to get paperclips. I never saw any of the paperclips, but he was always going out to get some. (He was an ex-army Major. Very right-wing. I never asked him, but he probably hated the idea of drugs.) Prescription drugs are abused quite often. To each their own with the drugs crap. That stuff isn't for me. I'll explain my feelings in a future post.
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Sept 16, 2010 23:49:31 GMT
Drug testing is just a power thing. You might not have caught the coke-heads, because coke leaves the body pretty quickly, but you would have got someone who had had a joint, or had been in a room where a joint was smoked, up to a month before. (Sorry - but they're unreliable druggies as well, aren't they?) I don't think it is a power thing. It is about reliability and responsibility. As an employer, why should I waste my time with someone who'd worry more about getting their next hit than being at their job to work or being there for friends and family?
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Sept 17, 2010 1:00:08 GMT
I don't abuse drugs. I take the prescriptions I need and I don't mess with the illegal substances. I'd rather not take a risk and kill myself by accident. I also don't see a point in doing heroin or any other drug like that for "fun". There are plenty of fun things to do that are more productive and better for everyone. I value my life somewhat more since I had problems the first few months of life. My mom is a nurse and she's seen people admitted for drug abuse. Even people her age in the nice, rich part of town.
If you want to snort lines of cocaine, that is your business. If you hurt or kill yourself, you have no one else to blame but yourself. You also end up hurting your friends and family by abusing.
I do agree that this "war on drugs" is crazy. I also think that legalizing everything is crazy. I guess it is one of those "damned if you do; damned if you don't" situations.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 17, 2010 16:55:43 GMT
Drug testing is just a power thing. You might not have caught the coke-heads, because coke leaves the body pretty quickly, but you would have got someone who had had a joint, or had been in a room where a joint was smoked, up to a month before. (Sorry - but they're unreliable druggies as well, aren't they?) I don't think it is a power thing. It is about reliability and responsibility. As an employer, why should I waste my time with someone who'd worry more about getting their next hit than being at their job to work or being there for friends and family? Most people who fail drugs tests get caught with cannabis in their system. This doesn't mean they're stoned: it means that they have had cannabis, or been in the vicinity of someone else smoking it, sometime during the past 3 or 4 weeks: neither of which could stop someone doing any job. (I once saw a thing about someone saying that they had been at a party where people were smoking dope: and the bloke doing the test said, "We don't want to employ anyone who hangs about with people like that." Power.)
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Sept 17, 2010 23:53:15 GMT
Aubrey - please stop insulting my heroes. The younger Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin are all A+++ in my book. The losers have names like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the pathetic Democrats.
You keep trying to justify being a druggie by dragging in Marijuana and alcohol. Please stop it with the nonsense. That's not even a part of the issue. Nor are prescription drugs. It is just the highly addictive illegal hard drugs (heroin, cocaine (especially crack cocaine), and meth) that we're talking about. Please limit your druggie defenses to those drugs and those drug dealers. Those are the ones we need to exterminate.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 18, 2010 9:52:51 GMT
Marijuana is a big part of it, since most people in prison for drugs are in for marijuana. And dealing is what I have done, since getting drugs and sharing them with your friends is dealing - even passing on a joint is dealing. And Govts will still not say that marijuana is safer than any other drug.
Didn't Bush make a virtue out of being a bit simple, with his weird pronunciations and pronouncements? Even if he is highly intelligent, he took good care not to show it. Palin does the same thing (though even her best friend would say that she over does it). It's an old trick - the Emperor Claudius used it (2000 years ago - needn't concern USians). Reagan was the same. Republicans think that showing intelligence scares voters off.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 18, 2010 10:19:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 18, 2010 11:34:47 GMT
This is why Marijuana is important: Richard Nixon's Vengeful War on Marijuana President Nixon saw it as a way to hit back against pot-smoking Vietnam protesters, and presidents since have feared being smeared as "soft on drugs." Nixon set up a commission on Marijuana, which did not come up with the results he wanted. So he ignored it. Wanting to be strong, "like the Russians," and to "scare" marijuana users, Nixon ordered his administration to come down hard on users and to target them as enemies in his "war on drugs."
The war on marijuana and the false myths associated with its usage have been continued by every president since Nixon. Since 1973, 15 million people, mostly young people who were committing no other crime, have been arrested for marijuana.
In just the last ten years, 6.5 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges. Of the 829,625 people who were arrested in 2006, 738,915 of them were in simple possession.marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half (approximately 52 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States. A decade ago, marijuana arrests comprised just 44 percent of all drug arrests.758,593 people were charged with possession only. This is not a small thing. By the way, BA - do you think that Bush should have had the full force of the law come down on him for taking cocaine? A prison sentence would have made it hard to get even nominated for the presidency, wouldn't it? I know cocaine has a different effect on rich white boys than poor black ones; but still. (I know the cocaine use is only a liberal plot: but Bush's denials have been very carefully worded: not "I have never taken cocaine," which would have been the thing to say if he really had never taken cocaine; but then, drunken rich frat boys are not the kind of people who take cocaine, are they?) (This is one big difference between Bush and me: I have never taken cocaine. Another difference is that I think that cocaine users ought to be treated more like Bush was, whereas he thought they should all (apart from himself) go to prison.)
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 18, 2010 15:10:34 GMT
Aubrey - please stop insulting my heroes. The younger Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin are all A+++ in my book. The losers have names like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the pathetic Democrats. You keep trying to justify being a druggie by dragging in Marijuana and alcohol. Please stop it with the nonsense. That's not even a part of the issue. Nor are prescription drugs. It is just the highly addictive illegal hard drugs (heroin, cocaine (especially crack cocaine), and meth) that we're talking about. Please limit your druggie defenses to those drugs and those drug dealers. Those are the ones we need to exterminate. Three points, BA. Are you in FAVOUR of legalising marijuana? Secondly, do you realise that there is a HUGE difference between crack and other variations of cocaine? Thirdly, do you realise there is a HUGE difference between skunk and other variations of marijuana?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Sept 18, 2010 19:26:07 GMT
Aubrey - please stop insulting my heroes. The younger Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin are all A+++ in my book. The losers have names like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the pathetic Democrats. You keep trying to justify being a druggie by dragging in Marijuana and alcohol. Please stop it with the nonsense. That's not even a part of the issue. Nor are prescription drugs. It is just the highly addictive illegal hard drugs (heroin, cocaine (especially crack cocaine), and meth) that we're talking about. Please limit your druggie defenses to those drugs and those drug dealers. Those are the ones we need to exterminate. Alcohol isn't an issue? Really? Please take it from this recovering alcoholic (will be sober 11 years in October) that alcohol abuse is a HUGE ISSUE! Please realize that it doesn't matter if it's alcohol, pot, heroin, prescription tranquilizers, etc., ANY of these can be abused and people get addicted to them. That's how it is! You're wanting to put certain drugs in a more "innocent" category in regards to addiction and real life isn't that way.
|
|