The War On Drugs

Canada is not the United States.

 

You obviously can't provide sources for ANYTHING you say.

 

Yes, and three is not seven. Your point....?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you don't have one, and never will.

 

Why not? If not Portugal, then what country could one compare the US to?

 

No you haven't.

 

Just ask for a source about a particular issue

 

I've pointed out that the prohibition on alcohol in the U.S. had so many carve outs and exceptions that it made prohibition of the production and sale of alcohol largely irrelevant.

 

So its not populated by human beings?

 

Not by American citizens

 

So?

 

No, you did not point that out. You merely falsely claimed it. Alcohol Prohibition was relevant enough to effectively create organized crime in the USA, and to convince enough of the American people that it had been a disaster that it was repealed.

 

m
Alcohol prohibition was never broadly popular among the American people especially among Catholics and Irish which saw it aimed at them.

1) People were allowed to obtain prescriptions for a certain amount of alcohol monthly. So many prescriptions were written for alcohol that it enabled Walgreens to grow from an obscure hole in the wall pharmacy to the mega chain it is today.

2) People could obtain alcohol aboard ships off the coast of the U.S. So called "booze cruises". This alone served to jump start the cruise ship industry.

 

No, that's merely another in the long and rapidly growing list of your objectively false claims. It was popular enough to pass as a Constitutional amendment, and was even more popular in the first few years it was in effect, as it was working like a charm: crime, domestic abuse and divorce rates plummeted, the prison population fell off a cliff, and it seemed to be achieving the kind of goals you erroneously believe drug prohibition can achieve.

Those two microscopic exemptions merely prove that your claim that Prohibition had so many exemptions as to be irrelevant was merely another in the long and rapidly growing list of your objectively false claims.

 

How were these exceptions "microscopic.

And how can you say that prohibition didn't work when the early part of this post you listed how prohibition of alcohol DID WORK.

 

That doesn't mean much.

 

They had very little effect on the availability of alcohol to ordinary people.

It worked AT FIRST, like treating a toothache with opiates. You are merely unable to understand that working AT FIRST is not the same as WORKING.

 

It means your claim was another in the long and rapidly growing list of your baldly false ones.

 

Drugs are illegal primarily and originally because of racism? How? This sounds like something the far left would say, and you do not strike me as someone who is in that group.

Who else?

How the hell does person A getting high on a prohibited substance, cause person B to overdose? I do not see the connection.

How exactly would legalisation mean that end-users are assured of this?

Are you actually talking about ALL drugs? You have only mentioned "weed." I assume that you make a distinction between weed and meth.

 

i did twice

 

return our drug laws and RX drugs to pre1970 era..the entire history of anti-drug hysteria comes from rascism of one sort or another be it anti chines, mexican or black, pick one if one is going to pontificate on drug abuse one should be aware of this easily researchable fact, otherwise keep quite till you learn

 

What's the evidence that it "comes from racism?"

 

please do some reading for yourself...californias anti-opium laws were against chinese, anti-mariuana laws directed against mexicans and all thia was before out internet and even TV read actual books please souther anti cocaine where to protect white women from black men..if you intend to spout opinions on drug laws you need an informed opinion, without one you are just dismissed except by your other uniformed people
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-...shows-the-need-for-comprehensive-drug-reform/

 

All I did was simply ask you to support your claim.

 

my "claim" is i have read dozens of books pre-internet, and if you have never heard any such :claim" before i suggest you are unqualified to comment on any drug laws at all, what i claim is not hidden except on RW media

 

Do a little research and get back to me.

I am not a member of the far left. For that matter, I am hard to pin a label on because I vary so widely from one position to another. I am primarily libertarian, but with some conservative and some liberal issues resonating with me, as well.

If a skydiving attempt goes horribly askew, the potential for them landing on a person on the ground, or causing a fatal accident, or otherwise causing harm up to and including death to someone aside from themselves is greater than zero. Small, but greater than zero. Yet, it is still, properly, a legal activity. Which leads us to:

They can't. The lack of connection was entirely my point, and it goes to the harm principal. If I am consuming 'illicit' drugs, regardless of the negative health benefits to me, if any, the chance of you overdosing as a result is nil. The chance of you being harmed as a result is nil. Ergo, you lack standing to object. Which means, by extension, that so does society as a whole. As I've said many times, the war on some drugs is worse for society than the drugs themselves.

It's a business concept known as 'quality control'. All reputable businesses have it, and it would in 99.9% of cases insure that if I went into a legit business to buy some 50% pure cocaine, I would be 99.9% sure that I was getting cocaine, eliminating the risk of injesting something I did not intend or want to, and 99.9% sure that it would be 50% pure, thus eliminating the risk of an accidental overdose if it is stronger than what I normally buy but I take what my normal dosage is. A normal dosage that is perfectly safe at 50% purity (note- that is a SAMPLE figure only, I do not know what a standard purity level would be) might be fatal at say, 75% or higher.

Not legally, though weed is certainly the low hanging fruit. I am a legal user of the substance, due to my disability, and it eliminates pain better than the fistfuls of opioids that I am also prescribed. But meth is a really good example, because once it is legalized, the risk of your neighbor blowing up their house, and maybe taking you out in the process, is greatly reduced because meth would be produced commercially, in labs built by professionals and run by professionals. Very similar to the fentanyl I was given on my last hospital visit... It didn't kill me because it was made by a company with quality control, the dosage was measured, fixed, and known, and I was not taking it thinking it was Xanax or something more benign. All that said, because of the tolerance I've built up to opioids over the years, even the fentanyl didn't eliminate my pain. But even doctors are scared to death to give patients in genuine need what they genuinely need because nanny state government has decided it knows best, and it's already put one company out of business for making and selling a legal pain medication that does work, despite being inferior to weed in it's ability to kill pain. It does not, however, come with the side effect of being high, which is sometimes desirable, and sometimes not.