What Political Party are you?

[PKRWUD]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
What I would like to see is Roe v Wade overthrown and the issue put before each state's voters to decide. Some states will vote for abortion to be legal and some won't but that will be the will of the people, not the will of nine men. This is how it was until 1973. Abortion law - pro or con - was decided by the individual states (10th amendment in action), enacted by legistators who were elected by the citizens of that state. Representative democracy in action, all nullified by one probably unconstitutional Supreme Court decision.

That's how I feel about drug laws. You would be amazed by the history of how and when pot became illegal. Completely criminal. My reference to Reefer Madness wasn't to say that most people believe such propaganda, but there are some who do. Pot was very acceptable until Nancy Reagan opted for Just Say No as her crusade. By the end of the 1980's, there were mandatory minimum laws in effect that made the sentences for minor drug offenses harsher than those for rape.

I agree that one more mind altering substance is not a good thing, but new ones are introduced, legally, all the time. Many are currently available, and are legal, with no restictions at all, including caffene, and with minor restrictions, including tobacco and alcohol.

Marijuana is non-toxic. There hasn't been a single reported death due to an overdose of pot, ever. Caffene kills between 1000 and 10,000 in this country every year. I won't dig out the numbers, but they go on and on. I just don't understand why pot has such a bad rap. I understand your gateway drug philosophy, but I feel alcohol is much more of a gateway drug than pot is. Most people relax when they're high. Most people that I've met, anyway, become more adventurous and daring when drinking. It's like a bottle of courage. A person is more apt to try anything when drinking as opposed to when high. Again, that's been my experience.

The last subject I disagree with you about is whether or not being legal would increase usage. Would you get high if it became legal? Do you know very many people who would? I don't believe there are very many people who would actually decide that they wanted to get stoned just because it was no longer a crime. Everyone I have ever met that wanted to get high, got high. It's easier for high school kids to buy pot than beer. I don't believe that legalization/decriminalization would really make an honest, measurable difference in the amount of users. I know that alot of the kids I grew up with were drawn to it in part because of it's "outlaw" image. Take that away, and you remove some of the appeal. In other countries that have decriminalized drug use, the number of users and the number of crimes that were "drug related" both went down.

Just a little more food for thought.

Take care,
-Chris

[KG88GT]

GOP. dyed in the wool, GOP


KG88GT

[Mr 5 0]

Chris:

Your defense of marijuana as a benign substance is somewhat debatable, especially when compared to caffeine (which is toxic only in massive amounts or when mixed with other substances/drugs) but lets's face it; everything is toxic in large enough doses or when ingested with some other drug. Playing 'my drug is safer than your drug' loses the point, which is that mind-altering substances are not good for us and need some sort of control, just as we have speed limits on our highways and we license bars and liquor stores, etc.

Yes, I do believe that fully legalized marijuana could be a gateway drug, as it's been in the past. We can trade personal observations back and forth - and I have mine; teenaged friends who started with 'just doing a little pot on weekends' and ended up hopelessly addicted to crack two years later, as well as some friends who lived on pot but are now married, parents and productive citizens who never touch drugs. Anecdotes are interesting but not conclusive.

Beer is legal, sometimes leads to stronger stuff, and eventually alcoholism for some. Although the fact that drugs are illegal may be an attraction (the 'forbidden fruit' sydrome) the claim that making them legal and easily accessible by government fiat will deter anyone is not credible and I firmly believe it would lead to greater use.

All these arguments and claims would be rendered moot if we went back to a constitutional government and permitted the states to vote on the legalization of drugs or even just marijuana with no interference from the federal government (that pesky Tenth Amendment again). By the way, although marijuana may have been 'more acceptable' in the '60's and '70's, I think you give Nancy Reagan way too much credit for making it a felony in some cases. Those laws were proposed by Congressmen and Senators who ursurped the states rights to make their own laws regarding drug use and layered on federal statutes that often override the state laws. State politicians were reacting to the spread of drugs and made the laws tougher to look like they were 'doing something' about drugs and by linkage, crime. Typical political posturing that often makes for bad law.

Frankly, if the vast majority of citizens really, truly wanted easy, legal access to marijuana I believe we would have it. NORML and a host of other pro-drug legalization groups spend millions and never stop promoting this cause and yet we still don't see a groundswell of public opinion that demands legal drugs. It isn't there because many people simply don't see the need for more legal drugs. Parents - especially - are generally scared to death of little Susie or Johnny 'getting into' drug use and wrecking their lives. Ask a parent if we need easy access to drugs. Ask a drug treatment director. Ask a cop who patrols around the crack houses every night and see's the human misery drugs bring. Yeah, gimme more of that. Sorry for the sarcasm but the pro-drug arguments pale when you see the devestation they can cause, as does alcohol and prescription drugs, granted, but why make access even easier? I just cannot accept the argument when balanced with the sometimes tragic results.

That said, as you suggest, I'm quite willing to see the marijuana legalization issue go to a public referendum on a state-by-state basis. Democracy in action. I love it!
I know a lot of states would say 'no' but some, like California would probably say 'yes'. Works for me. At least it's a decision made by citizens, not judges or some special-interest group buying votes from Congressmen with campaign contributions. I accept the fact that everyone does not agree on this issue (like us) but I respect democracy enough that I'm willing to see a law that I may possibly disapprove of put into effect when the majority of voters agree to it. That's democracy. We may disagree, but I respect our mutual right and duty to vote our conscience on sensitive issues. I just wish we each had that right on both abortion and drug legalization. We should.

[PKRWUD]

Jim-

Have I told you recently what a great guy I think you are? It occurred to me this afternoon, while I was reviewing some ALLDATA flowcharts, that throughout this thread, you were being extremely cordial, and were in fact taking what I was saying into consideration. Repeatedly. I think we know each other pretty well, and I can't say that you would have lent as much respect to just anyone. Especially regarding such a subject (I did pretty much beat that horse to death, didn't I). I appreciate that, Jim. It brings back memories of a few years ago, and a certain Lick Bush thread . You're a good Man. You and I are alot more alike politically than you may realize. Thanks for being patient and opinionated.

Take care,
-Chris

P.S. You're right, Nancy didn't do it all by herself, but she definately got the ball rolling.

[Mr 5 0]

Chris:

Thanks for the compliments. Of course civil discussion takes two people who are willing to listen (read) and post a cognitive response instead of name-calling, character assassination and slogans they picked up somewhere. That's not a discussion - that's a pointless flame war - and goes nowhere. I hate that.

You've posted intelligently and with valid points of contention giving us the opportunity to bring out the various arguments - pro and con - on two sensitive and important issues. I appreciate that and return the thanks for your thoughtful participation on the thread, as you do on the other threads you participate in.

As the Messageboard Administrator I feel that I have a duty to our members to set the tone for the boards as well as to try and generate some useful discussions; whether that's in Tech or here, on the 'open' Blue Oval Lounge forum. I value all of our members and appreciate the contributions they make.

I also noted that in the week this thread has been up, it's had over 350 views - 50 per day. Not bad, and exactly what I seek on these non-auto/political-social issue threads; some interesting discussion and some food for thought that people can read, maybe learn something from and enjoy the debate. It's all good but it takes people like you who are willing to organize their thoughts, take the time to write them out and not be offended when someone disagrees or sees an issue differently. No one is 100% right all the time; not even me.

Again Chris, I appreciate your passion for the issues and your willingness to discuss them in a public forum, even when it may be difficult.

Now, lay off Nancy Reagan or she'll have her astrologer predict a cracked block for you.